Yes, if that were true then that would follow. But what is discussed is not "every working citizen must have insurance" (for then you couldn't offer proof of insurance to gain employment since your employment will be providing the insurance) but rather that every citizen must have insurance and without it they can't get a job.

The very sentence "you might provide proof that you're insured as part of a job interview" says this is not employee provided or funded insurance. That's why that sentence in combination with her NPR interview yesterday makes little sense since that does have employers being the dominant provider and you can proof you have what you'll be given after getting the job.

And I still stand by saying that if it is universal governmentally mandated health insurance then making the employers the gatekeepers makes absolutely no sense. Because then you are doing nothing to monitor compliance by the unemployed. Unlike governmentally mandated health insurance (presumably) possession of a social security number is really only relevant if you're working.

Yes, I can think of proposals where employer involvement in health care is necessary. Just not any that should come up in the job interview. Heck, even your social security information doesn't come up at that point in the process.

There are a couple factors to consider there. First off, employer-provided health coverage tends to be at a level that is much higher than most people would choose for themselves if they were paying for it themselves. I use only a tiny fraction of the services available to me under the rather comprehensive plan my company provides and when I was unemployed, I didn't bother with Cobra and just picked a cheaper plan that covered what I needed. The main thrust of Cobra coverage is to guarantee that you have uninterupted coverage, which is an issue if you have any factors that might otherwise make you uninsurable until you get your next job (i.e., pre-existing health conditions, age, etc.). Once you are employed at a company that provides insurance, you cannot be rejected from their group policy. But if you've been laid off, are healthy and insurable, Cobra is rarely a good option as it tends to be overkill.

The other consideration is that theoretically any change that would start to require coverage for all citizens/residents would coincide with major changes in pricing structure in the industry, as well as supplements from the government. Looking at Massachusetts as an example, they not only required residents to carry insurance, but if I'm remembering the details correctly they required insurers to offer a low-cost minimal plan as an option and introduced funding for low-income families to get them on that plan.

You are right with that. We didn't have any pre-existing conditions, but, we had two boys. We have used our insurance for different things and just felt we needed to keep up the coverage that we had. Emergency room visits, all medications, testing, etc.

Well, also, we thought he'd be right back at the same position way more quickly than four months.....and when he did get back to work it was a different insurance. Now, they don't cover our oldest {they will in March, they say...} and cover half of the costs. Which is over $1,000.

That is why I wonder about the costs of what they are going to supposedly offer. Will our costs be the same anyways? And, if we are unemployed, will we still be stuck at that rate {red tape and all}.

Right now my daughter has no insurance and I am trying to find a local doctor for her for basic checkups.

So government intrusion and requirements are OK if the majority of the people agree with it. I am often amused by how many people are against government intrusion unless it is for something they think is a good idea. I admit to falling into that myself at times.

Social security was poorly planned and is doomed without major overhauls and increased taxes. When it started, life expectancy was around 66 years. Now that life expectancy is 10 years beyond that, retirement age (or better said the age at one which can begin taking benefits) will keep increasing.

I'm not sure who thinks social security is one of the best things ever done by government unless everything the governmnet has done has been more poorly planned than it, which is certainly possible. I was under the impression that most people my age don't believe they will ever see a cent of social security money, but I don't have exact polling numbers on that.

Um, unless such intrusions or requirements were unconstitutional, isn't that EXACTLY THE POINT of government of the people, by the people and for the people? You've totally lost me, scaeagles.

As for those intrusions which are completely unconstitutional, let's start with the federal income tax in general, and the withholding of estimated federal income tax by employers in particular. Those are intrusions I object to, and have a right to object to.

I'm not sure that social security is unconstitutional, but I'm willing to take a look at that if you can provide any information to that end.


Otherwise, it's precisely the kind of thing that the populace might want to set up for itself via its elected government. Ya know, so that we don't end up starving in the streets or surving on dogfood while living in a cardboard box. The kind of thing that was, ahem, quite common worldwide and in the U.S. before social security. Yeah, not brilliantly planned out. Still ... The.Best.Thing.Ever.Done.By.The.US.Government.

I would argue, though I don't know why it would be necessary, that the government requiring anyone to have health insurance is an intrusion and unconstitutional. How could that not be considered an intrusion into my personal freedoms?

I would argue that I have a right not to have my money stolen. Social security can be viewed as legalized theft. The government says "I will take your money, give it to someone else, and there is no guarantee (regardless to the ridiculous concept of the lock box) that you will ever get it back". So if the people decide they can take my money like this it is OK? So, yes, I regard legalized theft as unconstitutional.

I'm with you on the income tax. That is simply a tax on the accumulation of wealth.

Government for the people and by the people must be limited to the constraints of the Constitution. The Constitution is not an enumeration of rights for the people, it is a limitation of the powers of the federal government, so the federal government cannot do something just because most people think it is a good idea.

I would love to just see a health plan that doesn't involve being linked to an employer. How is my company any better at picking health care options than my government?

I see your points, scaeagles. It's just that once I've accepted (not quietly, but accepted) the fact that the government takes 12.5% of my money for a retirement plan that may go bust, and another 32% of my money to fund, well, mostly war and violence to which I object with all my heart and soul ... I guess I'm just not going to blink an eye about another 14% taken for health insurance.

And before getting too outraged at the Constitutional envelope pushing/shattering of the above items ... I've no better idea how to prevent most senior citizens from starving or how to fund the expenses of the federal government.

(To EM: ) They probably aren't. One difference is that companies frequently (at least this is the case with both the school my wife teaches at and the very large corporation I work for) shop the market for better deals among the health insurance companies. I can also opt out if I choose.

I do not claim that this is a perfect system. I don't think there is a perfect system. Knowing the propensity for government to mess things up and have cost overruns in the hundreds of billions of dollars even on the comparitively small prescription drug program, I hesitate to want them to have an opportunity to control my health care costs.

(To ISM: )
How does one fund the expenses of the federal government? Not an easy task. I realize it is a necessary evil, but the spending is so horribly out of control on things that the federal government was never designed to handle or manage that I cannot help but think that the simple answer is that the feds should spend less. I'm sure you are familiar with baseline budgeting, which allows an increase of 5% on a budget item to be construed as a cut because there is a mandate from the Carter years that budget items go up 10% every year regardless of if the money is needed there. I wish I could have some form of mandate to increase my budget every year by 10%. Don't think it's going to happen. I have to be responsible and make tough choices with my spending, as does everyone....except the federal government.

It was bouncing about in the back of my head and it popped out today, but the question on employers being the gatekeeper for enforcement of mandatory universal health converage has been addressed in Massachusetts.

As of July 1, 2007, Massachusetts requires all residents to carry health insurance (I disagree with their logic that being uninsured necessarily unfairly passes your health expenses to society at large, but so be it).

The method of reporting is as I suggested above. When residents file their state tax returns they'll also have to include their insurance policy numbers. I'm not sure how this guarantees enforcement among the poor and dependent where it most likely to be an issue but that is how they do it. And there are civil penalties for failure to have health insurance. The first year it is loss of the personal tax exemption and then gets much more expensive in subsequent years.

While I wouldn't really support the Massachusetts law, if such is going to exist, that is the enforcement model I'd support. Between the person and the state, not the state putting a private bureaucracy in place as a private police force. The state also has requirements for employers related to health care, but in meeting those that is also a direct relationship between the state and the business (the state doesn't tell the electric company that they have to get proof of compliance before they can turn the power on in the offices).


By the way, it was Mitt Romney that signed this into law.

Good reason not to vote for him. Thanks for the research, Alex.

Ya know, now that I see it passed as an actual law, I gotta admit it smacks of facism to me.

Maybe it's just the way it's framed. If perhaps the state took your taxes and enrolled you in a government healthcare plan, I might find it slightly less creepy.

After all, the federal government is essentially telling me I have to pay to kill Iraqi civilians, but I am saved the step of ordering that off the menu at the war cafe and taking the money out of my wallet for it. So much easier when my employer does not even give me my money, and instead sends it directly to George Bush to kill Iraqi civilians on my behalf.


Still, the Massachusetts law strikes me as vaguely unAmerican.

If you are interested in more detail, here's a pretty good rundown of the law. According to it, Romney not only signed it into law but proposed it in the first place. I haven't been paying enough attention yet to know what he's been saying about universal programs in his president-seeking activities.

But essentially it says, we've subsidized health insurance enough through various programs that "affordability" isn't an excuse for anybody not to have coverage (price goes down to fully subsidized for certain people) so it is their responsibility to go get it at certain minimal levels.

One thing I don't like about it is that catastrophic coverage would not be sufficient. That's the kind of coverage I prefer since it makes economic sense for a pretty healthy, well off, family of two. I go years without seeing a doctor and when I do I can afford to pay hundreds of dollars out of pocket if necessary and in a mini emergency many thousands would not be too strenuous on us. But if one of us gets cancer or hit by a car I would want coverage for medical expenses over, say, $40,000 or something. That I want insurance for, but I don't want insurance to pay for the $150 office visit if I get the flu or want a weird rash looked at.

So I find it a bit of a stretch to say to Bill Gates, "look you have to have insurance because if you don't and you get sick you'll be a financial burden on society."

So Iran doesn't have any gays. Well, there's another reason not to go vacationing in Iran.

:D

On a more serious note, I am disturbed about the whole visit of the Iranian President. They are a state sponsor of terror. Yet Columbia University welcomes him with open arms.

I will admit that I was completely against this, yet I will also admit that from what I've read he was not given an open forum to speak only of what he wanted and was confronted on his human rights abuses, though I would have liked there to have been more of it.

Did you see how he was introduced by the University President? Not exactly what I'd call welcoming him with open arms.

I'm with Mo Rocca on this one. Free Speech is still an ideal in this country, no?

I say let him speak. How much evil goes unchallenged in the world because it's easy to ignore? Because it's happening somewhere else, to people different than us, all filtered through a media lens that may or may not reflect an accurate picture. After all, we're fairly accustomed to alleging that preposterous remarks were taken out of context, blown out of proportion, spoken by a mere figurehead.

I say invite him to speak and shine a bright light on what he says so that all can see clearly what rubbish it is.

Right on, Pru. He is an evil little man, and his lies were exposed and addressed. Wasn't he one of the bastards that took over the Embassy and held hostages for so long? Was anything said about that?

I don't believe his past as one of the hostage takers was brought up.

I suppose the one aspect of this that angers me, while what JW said is completely true, is that it becomes a propaganda piece for him. He can pick and choose which parts he wants to use in his own country and in the middle east. Just look at how it was portrayed in the IRanian press. Something tells me his comments about gays and the introductionhe received aren't going to be widely played there, but the parts where the students were clapping for him will be.

Do we not know evil from what he has already said and done, though? What I don't understand is why this man was allowed to speak, but Larry Summers, former president of Harvard who dared suggest that genetic differences between men and women may come in to play regarding the higher number of men successful in the fields of math and science (rather than the politically correct educational bias angle), had a speaking engagement cancelled at UC Davis when the female faculty went nuts about it.

Freedom of speech does not in any way mean freedom to be heard or the right to be provided a forum in which to speak. So I do not see it in any way as a freedom of speech issue.

I'm of the opinion that if Columbia (or some segment thereof) would like to hear him speak and he's willing, that is fine.

What I find interesting, though, is a certain contrast. Last week, Lawrence Summers, former Harvard president and former Secretary of Treasury, was scheduled to give a speech to the University of California board of regents.

An invitation that was rescinded in response to a petition by women's groups offended by a single comment the man once made (that genetic predispositions might play a role in achievement differential at the highest ends of math, science, and engineering).

Obviously, these are different institutions and it can't be a direct comparison of hypocrisy. But my problem with the general claim of "academic freedom," or "exposure to all ideas" is that as a composite community, it is an idea to intermittently held to by academia.

So, yes, Columbia did the right thing. I even think the president's introduction was inappropriate (in timing, not in content). But I'm bothered that when controversies of this sort arise that universities and colleges so rarely seem to do the right thing, especially if the controversial speaker is from the right end of the political spectrum.

Universities are not government agencies. They don't need to be consistent or even fair in their decision on speakers. What they need to be is free to decided for themselves who/what should be heard on their campus. If we the people do not agree with their choices then we get to vent about it, withhold our alumni checks, not send our kids there, etc....

I don't suggest that anyone who attempted to prevent him from speaking did anything unconstitutional. But I disagree with the spirit of their protest none-the-less. I understand that a private entity is perfectly entitled to block whomever they feel from using their forum to speak, however as an educational institution I fell universities should hold (not be held to, hold) a higher standard of freedom of expression.

The fact that the prevailing sentiment not just in and around the university, but in the press coverage, is that he shouldn't have been heard bugs me. I see it as yet another symptom of the current fear-driven morality. I'm of the opinion that the message of the first amendment is that words shouldn't be feared, that allowing anyone their voice is of prime importance to freedom. And I find it the height of irony that people were decrying him for his human rights violations while trying to deny him an opportunity to exercise one of his own basic rights. Again, I know it's not unconstitutional, and everyone involved would have been within their rights to deny him. But "allowed to" and "should" are two different things, and trying to silence him sends,in my opinion, the wrong message about who we are as a country.

Akin to my feelings on the "preemptive strike" doctrine. While we're under no obligation to extend our constitutional ideals of "innocent until proven guilty" to the world, when our message is that those ideals are the best way to promote freedom, we should do everything we can to uphold those ideals in everything we do, whether we're obligated to or not.

Most large universities (such as the University of California) are government agencies. But you're still right.

However, that also means that they can't honestly claim that letting one controversial speaker speak is a matter of intellectual or academic freedom, or offered in the spirit of exposing people to different ideas while denying others the venue because of similar controversy. They should just say "we find these ideas more acceptable to us so we give them more of a platform" if that is the case. Or "Berkeley feminist groups are politically more powerful in the UC system than Jewish groups at Columbia" or whatever the various real reasons are.

The shame I feel for universities is that they ever cave to blocking speakers (and they do it all the time) because some group doesn't like what the speaker will say. Or, even worse, has said some time in the past.

Interestingly, this is how it will play out. No one stopped him from speaking or tried to use some legal means to prevent him from being heard.

I've heard it theorized that the reason for the rather scathing introduciton was because of repurcussions from wealthy alumni who said they were going to withhold further contributions should he be allowed a forum from which to speak at Columbia.

I'm still mixed on the whole thing. The man proved himself to be an idiot (for example, about the holocaust, he wanted to know where the dead bodies were, and the more publicized gay comments), but he also gained a huge deal of stature in the Middle East because he dared to go into the "lion's den", as I've read.

Yet in another series of verbal gaffes, I felt the need to post it here, though minor, still humerous.

A few random thoughts -

Situations like Burma make it more and more evident to me that it probably isn't possible for populations that want freedom and/or democracy to get it. Dictators are too brutal and the technological differences in combat capabilities and weaponry make forcable revolution impossible. It is no longer like it was in the mid to late 1700s, when farmers were almost as well armed as the British military.

I find it humorous that in the MSNBC debate none of the candidates (or at least front running candidates) would commit to having all troops out of iraq even in 5 years. "We don't know what the situation will be", yet some, such as Obama, are campaigning on bring the troops home now and how we shouldn't be there and how it is completely hopeless to try. Is this not inconsistent? Hillary and Kucinich (sp?) seem to be the only consistent ones on the issues, though completely opposite.

Representative Dingle wants to add a 50 cent gas tax to combat global warming. I still don't get the whole carbon scare, when only 3.4% or carbon in the atmosphere is produced by man, and carbon represents only about 6% of the overall greenhouse gas. 3.4% of 6% is only .2% of greenhouse gas.

First, the base numbers in final sentence appear to be made up but have taken root among the popular press for those opposed to the idea of man made global warming. The correct number is not 3.4% but between 9% and 30%.

Also, the underlying assumption that all greenhouse gasses are the same is patently false. Not mentioned by you, but the claim that generally goes along with the 3.4% number is that water vapor comprises 95% of greenhouse gasses and since 99.9999% of that is natural no other cause can be seen as significant.

However, adding 1 million tons of water vapor to the air and 1 million tons of carbon do not have the same effect. Because water vapor does not cause global warming, it maintains it. Carbon dioxide, however, causes it. The amount of water vapor in the air is primarily a result of average global temperature and if too much gets in for a given temperature it will precipitate out and if too little more will evaporate and by this mechanism helps maintain the status quo.

But when something else forces an increase in warming the water vapor will adjust and help maintain that new equilibrium.

So, put a million tons more water in the air and you get a short term rise, some extra rain and then things settle back down. Put a million more tons of carbon (obviously these numbers are just made up for demonstration) and you get an increase in temperature, more evaporation, and a new equilibrium temperature.

I won't assume that you took your numbers directly from the Fox News Junk Science column that sprouted this easily debunked idea across the internets but rather hopefully from a more reputable source that simply repeated it.

This is kind of like a claim that turning down the gas flame under your water heater won't make your bath cooler because 99% of the heat in the system at any given time is contained within tank water.

Also implicit in your post is that a large gas tax would only fight carbon emissions. It would do that directly by presumably reducing demand for gasoline (though I bet it wouldn't really) but ignores the fact that the government then has billions of dollars it can direct to fighting other pressures producing global climate change.

I'm skeptical of many of the grander claims made in the global warming argument, but both sides need to base claims on something demonstrably legitimate and I think the moderate voices of doom do a much better job of that on this particular issue.

OK - let's split the 9% and 30% and go with 19.5%.

6% of 19.5% is still only just over 1% of all greenhouse gases. Looking at carbon only, if we cut that by half to 10%, which would be an incredibly huge (and likely impossbile) undertaking, we still hardly touch the amount of carbon in the atmosphere.

I find the whole concept of fighting global warming to be ridiculous, as I see global warming as not man caused and therefore not able to be remedied by man. Historically there have been major warming periods far before man burned his first fossil fuel.

Another random thought....

El Presidente of Mexico met with the Govs. of AZ and CA, and basically said because immigration (he didn't say illegal immigration, but that is what he was referring to) is inevitable that we in the US need to allow for it by modifying our policies.

I have a better idea. Why doesn't El Presidente of Mexico fix the rampant corruption in his own country that assists in depressing the economic conditions there so that there isn't a need for his citizens to invade our country?

We wouldn't have won without the help of the French, period. Things aren't that much different. Rarely has a suppressed population on its own with no outside help risen to win its freedom. However, equally rarely, has providing outside help to a population that has not instigated its own revolution resulted in freedom. Whatever those odds, a successful revolution depends on there being a critical mass of people willing to, of their own accord, put their life on the line despite the risks and odds.

True indeed. Who will help? While the exportation of democracy has typically been unsuccessful, should the US or perhaps, being much closer, Japan or South Korea?

We're too busy wasting our resources elsewhere to help where we might actually do some good.

You're missing the point. Not all greenhouse gasses cause warming if the amount present in the atmosphere increases. Water vapor, for example, does not cause long term warming. So when talking about factors changing the global temperature, if you can ignore water vapor then then remaining X percent of gasses are what you need to reduce if you want to try and prevent additional increases. And carbon is a very large percentage of the change causing gasses.

The source of your numbers is being willfully ignorant of the actual processes involved (and also using made up numbers).

Another analogy: a bacterial infection is causing a fever of 102 degrees. That is only a 3% contribution to the overall body temperature. Do you not fight the infection because the digestive system is responsible for 97% of the body's temperature?

Of course not, because even though it is small that 3% has huge repercussions. You're smart enough to know that increases in input do not necessarily produce linear increases in output and that closed systems can show large changes from minor perturbations.

So, why do you find it so hard to believe in this situation?

Does this mean you think there would be/should be support for an invasion of Burma, or for money and arms to fund the prodemocracy crowd?

Being the devil's advocate, that would be portrayed as contributing to and starting a civil war.

Politics being what they are today, there is no way we could do anything like this.

First of all, it is portray as scientific consensus when it is far from it. There are plenty of brilliant minds that dispute the whole man caused theory.

There have been warming periods in the planets existance at regular intervals that have been far more intense than this, long before we burned one spec of fossil fuel.

I find it not coincidental that there is dramatic warming on Mars during this same time period. This would seem to logically point to solar activity as the main factor.

That's the basic gist of it.

Honestly, I don't know enough specifics to advocate or oppose giving aid (in whatever form that might be). But in my mind they've met what I believe should be requirement #1 for considering that aid, namely a self-motivate populace that is willing to take action themselves but face an insurmountable gulf in armament, and it bugs the hell out of me that helping them isn't an option at all, whether it's the right thing to do or not.

Believe it or not, despite my opposition of the Iraq war, I don't hate freedom and am not adverse to aiding the push for freedom in countries that are ready for it.

Well now you're changing you're argument. Whether scientific consensus exists is a completely different issue than how reasonable the idea is that small changes in carbon can produce larger changes in climate.

You're also mistaken about the "dramatic" warming on Mars. The southern polar ice cap has decreased in size in recent years but that is a local phenomenon and there is no global evidence of increased temperature. Also, if you're going to put it on the sun, can you point to any increased energy output by the sun? No, you can not.

I know the Mars things has received a big boost recently because of an article that the "anti-consensus" side is eager to trumpet recently published in National Geographic. Here is how you will find such sources quoting the opening paragraph of that article:

That assumes they are even honest enough to use an ellipses. The full paragraph, with my bolding is:

If you're going to blame the sun for warming on Earth and Mars, then where is the warming on all of the other planets (particularly Mercury which is much closer and has no atmosphere to moderate temperature changes? Why isn't the moon warming if the sun in which it basks is emitting more energy?

And there really is a pretty strong consensus among scientists. That isn't to say there aren't detractors. Nor does it mean that the consensus is correct. That said, for the most part detractors are not scientists and have no actual evidence beyond appeals to "common sense" (which is frequently wrong) to support them. And lacking evidence all a person is doing is picking the answer they like best and then going out and finding people who agree that it is the most preferable answer.

For the most part the pro-anthropogenic global warming side has evidence. The anti-anthropogenic global warming side just doesn't like the answer.

It is also interesting that the people now saying "yes it is warming but it isn't caused by man" are generally the people who a decade ago were saying "no, it isn't warming."

I expect as evidence continues to come in that the next step will be "yes, we're contributing to warming but it is a very small amount" followed by "yes we're causing global warming but that actually makes things better."

Heard an interesting theory on NPR based on the observation from ice core samples that CO2 and Methane levels seem to have been steadily increasing outside their normal cyclical rates for ~8000 years and ~5000 years respectively. Those happen to correspond to the points in human social evolution when agriculture (and thus deforestation) started to take hold (~8000 years ago), and the appearance of flooded rice patties (~5000 years ago).

face it folks, scaeagles is pwned.

I find the people who now say "we are definately experiencing global warming" but used to say "we need to stop polluting the planet lest we bring on another Ice Age" far more interesting.

C'mon, you and Scaeagles both left Vantucky for warmer climes for a reason.

Yes, because a Newsweek article overstating early theorizing of some scientists with interesting ideas is the same thing as the overwhelming consensus that the earth is warming and the very strong evidence that humanity is playing a role.

Wrong theories are proposed all of the time, and they generally eventually get superceded as new evidence comes in. But this one in particular is a case of trying to have it both ways. A small minority of scientists today holding putting forward theories out of odds with general acceptable theory and with minimal supporting evidence are held up as evidence of debate and somehow accepted as more solid that then mainstream stuff. Simultaneously you exaggerate the general acceptance of fringe theories from 30 years ago and hold it up as proof of what goofs scientists can be.

Now that we've covered "global warming denial canards" for 100, 200, and 300, would anybody like to try for a Daily Double?

And I left Vancouver because there isn't a good university there. If I could have that local climate back I would in a heartbeat.

I left Vancouver after 4th grade. I still hate rain.

No daily double, but I find this and all of the links therein very interesting, and I have more and more and more of similar type links with reasonable dissent to the entire man made global warming thing.

Do you do any looking into your sources, or is it just good enough that someone wrote it down? And if that is the approach, how do you decide which ones to believe if not simply on the basis of agreeing with what you've already decided.

Let's see what a little bit of research turns up.

Denier #1: Edward Wegman. This man is a statistician with no particular expertize in atmospheric sciences. He enters into the debate because a congressional committee (chaired by a congressman already on record as denying that global warming of any type is happening, and quite fond of reminding testifiers that he represented a coal state) requested an independent review of the statistical methods of a single article that attempted to reconstruct the global climate over the last millennium. Wegman's panel did find significant methodological flaws.

His panel was never asked, and so never said, whether, when corrected the ultimate conclusions of the original article would change. However, another committee asked for a broader review by the National Research Council (here's the report; I recommend at least page 2 and 3) and it found that while the methodological criticisms by Wegman were accurate then when those tests were removed or corrected the final conclusions were still reasonable and independent non-flawed studies had reached similar conclusions. So, this guy may be a denier but all he has ever said in his official capacity is that one article isn't properly founded and that federal granting agencies should make sure statisticians are involved in peer review.

Denier #2: Richard S.J. Tol. You'll see this pattern repeated in the following entries but Tol doesn't actually deny anthropogenic global warming. His research is entirely based on the notion that it is actually happening. But you might notice the realm of his research: economics. Yes, he is more than adequately qualified in atmospheric science but where he diverges from the "consensus" view is not in whether global warming is happening but how bad the impact will be. Particularly in the short term, he thinks the positives may outweigh the negatives. In other words, it isn't a scientific disagreement but rather a policy disagreement. And that is an entirely different debate. I didn't even have to research this one, it is all in the article you link to; apparently the author isn't so clear on what "denier" means. Also, he has really bad hair.



Denier #3: Christopher Landsea. Sadly, though he's on this list of "deniers" he isn't actually a denier. He believes that global warming is happening that that anthropogenic impacts are at least partly to blame. Here he is in October 2005 on PBS's NewsHour:

So, he isn't questioning the reality of anthropogenic global warming, just weather it is causing any significant impact on the level of hurricane activity. He also has bad hair:



Denier #4: Duncan Wingham. Yet another "denier" who doesn't actually deny global warming. Or even doubt it. Why, here he is in The Register saying "I am not denying global warming. For instance, Greenland, in the northern hemisphere, does seem to be going. But Greenland's ice cap - Greeland is quite far south - is a last survivor from the ice age and only its height protects it. The more that cap melts, the more it will continue to melt as it gets lower and warmer."

The only thing he doubts is whether ice thinning in Antarctica is an effect of global warming and then only because it is so far south that so far it is outside the realm of major impact.

====

So that is the first four "deniers." And only one of them can even reasonably be said to actually doubt the reality of anthropogenic global warming. Two of them question very narrow specific questions about it while the fourth agrees completely (though not with the worst case scenarios) and diverges on policy issues.

Somehow I suspect that if I continued down the list I'd find a similar proportion of real doubters to mechanical disagreements (but it is almost midnight and I've grown bored for now). Why? Because I've seen the same tactics in the evolution debate.

Creationists find 20 scientists arguing about narrow mechanical issues related to evolution (all of which rely on the basic assumption on the reality of evolution), add one real evolution denier and they trumpet this as evidence of serious scientific debate on the fact of evolution.

Well, Alex, you win. I am now convinced that global warming is in fact man caused and we are all going to perish.

Sarcasm aside, your research is valid and admittedly far more than I have the time to do.

I will offer that I consider the term "denier" to be those who disagree with major cataclysmic events related to global warming as well, as in "denying" that the world will come to an end because of it.

It's one thing to narrow your definition of "denier," scaeagles ... but that doesn't change your professed belief there's no such thing as anthropogenic global warming. You seem to have a different definition of "denier" when it comes to yourself.


Have I read you wrong? Do you deny man has a hand in the warming of the planet? If so, do you have any scientific basis for that belief, or is it just want you want to believe?


I don't blame you for not having time for research. Life is busy and full of better stuff. I half admire Alex for having the time to do it, and half pity him for having the time to do it.


Nevertheless, it's been done ... and, absent anything from you to the contrary ... all your assertions have been thoroughly debunked.


Are you going to man up ... or stay stubborn? :p

Ok, but three of those four can't really be said to do that. And you didn't offer them up as examples of people who deny the cataclysmic nature of global warming but rather "and I have more and more and more of similar type links with reasonable dissent to the entire man made global warming thing."

Since you've repeatedly said there is significant scientific disagreement on whether anthropogenic global warming is happening I'm interested in seeing some evidence of that.

There are at least three levels where people can fall from the common schools of thought.

1. Whether anthropogenic global warming is occurring. I honestly don't think, despite claims to the contrary from certain non-science groups, that there is a significant dissension on this among scientists with the actual qualifications to have an opinion. Denier #1 can vaguely be said to be in this camp.

2. Whether certain features and impacts claimed by some to be a result of global warming actually are. Oversimplification exists on both sides, particularly among the laity and scientists theorizing outside their area of expertise. Just as some point out every snowy day as a rebuke of global warming, there are others who will read every change from the status quo ante as a result of global warming. "If all you have is a hammer..." and so on. But it is possible to put yourself in opposition to specific instances of this without in any way rejecting the consensus in #1 about the reality and enormity of anthropogenic global warming. This is where Deniers 2 and 3 are, and to the extent that he has offered evidence on only one very narrow topic, Denier 1 could be put in here too.

3. Policy debate. You can agree entirely that global warming is happening and that it is partially or entirely man caused but still disagree what should be done about it. A lot of people are in this camp (including Denier #2 and myself). Some think the damages won't be as bad as claimed. Or that the mix of positives and negatives may weigh out on the good side (Richard Tol above or Gregg Easterbrook earlier this year in The Atlantic. Or that the speed at which it is happening is slow enough that we'll be able to adjust as it happens. Or that it is simply so big and expensive to control that it is better to just hunker down and weather the storm (so to speak). Or that the world as we know it is coming to an end and unless we treat its control as a global Manhattan Project we face a near extinction event.



But types 2 and 3 are fundamentally different from type 1 and you can't just bundle all three of them up into a single package and offer them as evidence of type 1 as you did.

I know I am once again coming off as harping on minutiae and semantics (though I don't think I am). But there are myriad interesting and useful realms of debate related to global warming. Because, it is a difficult PR position to say "yes, we're heating the planet but I don't think that is a problem because..." I think many of the pundits who are really in that position cop out and take the much more easily defensed, though intellectually dishonest, approach of "we don't have to consider doing anything because some very smart people say it isn't happening and acting before unanimity is silly." An approach that then trickles down to the "rank and file" (a phrase much in the news lately, does anybody ever use this phrase other than reporters reporting on union negotiations?) level and fits in nicely with certain conservative fiscal views and the fact that the average person doesn't have the time or knowledge with which to sort out the competing claims in the editorial columns of the newspapers.

===

But, three months ago I decided to stop talking politics and science here so that I will stop coming off as a prick (though apparently still sociopathic and without values) and I think it best that I go back to that. So I will now play Bioshock for 48 hours until the urge wears off.

Scaeagles just wants this warming trend to continue so he can eventually own some beachfront property.;)

Well, that's a silly question.

I man up when I've made changes in my school of thought. For example, this place has changed my attitude about two specific things - one, marijuana (if you want to do it in the privacy of your home I can see no reason to disallow it and it is certainly less harmful to the body than alcohol....I'm somewhat less inclined to the same point of view with other drugs), and the other is gay marriage (rather than supporting the issue of gay marriage, though, I'm now more of a the-government-shouldn't-be-involved-in-marriage-at-all kind of guy).

I'm still not convinced. There are solar scientists who point to cycles of the sun. There is that one good sized Pinatubo like volcanic eruption pump more green house type gasses into the atmosphere at one time than man ever has. There are cries of the apocalypse in everything from SARS to global cooling back to global warming and throw in an ebola. Science changes it's mind so frequently about what is good and bad it is very tough to take claims seriously when what I see as common sense arguments (and perhaps I need to do more research into these things, as Alex has pointed out) are so much simpler. There's the whole issue of more severe periods of warming and cooling (regardless of what the CO2 level were based on arctic ice) throughout the history of the earth which could not have possibly been caused by man. And there's the whole "Animal Farm" mentality. The pigs certainlt could jusitfy their higher lifestyles, and I see this whole environmetal warming overkill as moving us toward just that. Only the important people can do certain things, because, well, they're important, damn it!

So many of the doom sayers don't seem to wish to change their lifestyle. Al Gore riding in his private jets. Edwards living in his 50K sq ft mansion. Hollywood types promoting doom and gloow (such as DeCaprio) who say "my schedule doesn't allow me to always use the most energy efficient form of transportation" (or something to that effect) when questioned as to why he's flying on private charter jets to his film locations. Well perhaps my schedule doesn't allow me to frickin' stop driving my damn car!

I do not begrudge them what they do. But don't tell me I can't. Don't tell me you're more important than me and what you're doing is more important so you have the right to burn more fuel in one private jet flight than I will during the entire life of my car (meant for dramatic effect, not as a statement that I have done the research and have proven that the type of jet Gore flies on will, in fact, burn more fuel than my car will for the entire time I own it).

So they say "well, we buy carbon offsets so we can continue to live this way". What they are saying is that since have the money they are allowed to do it, not uncommon and certainly acceptable, but I find this to be a bit different. Want to talk about inequality of opportunity and poverty? I can see a day when the cost of energy is so high because of anti-warming hysteria that only the wealthy can afford to consume electricity or fossil fuels, while the people on the poverty line lose even more of their standard of living and the middle class can't ever find a way to get ahead.

I don't know what it will take to convince me. The first step might just be those who are preaching from the mountain tops about the dangers of warming start showing me by example that they believe in their message enough to make sacrifices that they are expecting us to make. I'm not talking little things. I'm talking get rid of the damn jets. Get rid of your energy and natural resource consuming mansions. Don't protest the wind farms that are going to be built of the coast of Martha's Vineyard because it's going to destroy your pristine view. Show me how important it is. And the politicians can make the process of building nuclear power plants easier and faster (because that's really the answer for long term energy without pumping anything - relatively speaking - into the air).

Well....that was longer than I expected it to be.

Sometimes I have so little willpower.

In my defense I am, by education, an academic reference librarian. Looking up information, and quickly, is pretty much part of my DNA. It really doesn't take that long to do some minimal research into things, the longer part is the writing of what I found.

scaeagles, in your criticisms of Al Gore and Edwards I don't necessarily disagree with you. But there you aren't arguing with science you are arguing with politicians. I don't know many paleoclimatologists flying around in private jets or atmospheric scientists living in 50K square foot homes. You have no idea what life changes the people actually generating the science have made in response to what they feel is happening.

How many paleobotanists who do the actual research and have shifted their lives to use less energy with fewer emissions would it take to counter one hypocritical politician? Why is their demonstration of sincere acceptance counteracted by a few outliers?

The hard sciences really don't do this very often. In fact, hard science rarely has any opinion on "good" or "bad" in the first place. It just tries to describe what is. It is when attempts are made to convert science findings into policy that it can seem that things are blowing in the wind. Generally because policy is set with minimal input from the actual scientists and findings get distorted, misinterpreted, maladroitly applied, and hyped.

But yes, sometimes "science" gets it all wrong. And if so, it will generally eventually correct itself. Though that doesn't mean that politicians, journalists, and activists will sway with it.


This is a bit of a logical fallacy. That if there is any other cause of climate change then increases in greenhouse emissions can't be a cause. This is like saying that because exercise increases body temperature that bacterial infection can't.

No scientist will deny that there are other causes of global climate change and that there have been many periods of variability more severe than what we may currently be experiencing. But just because the Milankovitch Cycles may cause global climate change doesn't mean that other things don't as well.

Another one for you to research as this is another common claim that simply isn't true. The 1991 eruption of Mt. Pinatubo released at least 42 million tons of CO2, and perhaps twice that (report from the British Geological Survey, see page 17). By comparison Mt. St. Helens released between 5 and 20 million tons.

The really damning sentence, though, is right up front in that report. On page 7 (bolding mine):

On the next page it mentions that fossil fuel burning releases about 23,000 million tons of CO2 per year. So a Pinatubo-like eruption does not release more greenhouse gasses than "man every has" it barely releases more than man does in a single day (and maybe not even that depending on which end of the certainty range is more right).

I'm holding a pity party for Clarence Thomas. Anyone interested in attending?

Can have an "Uncle Tom" costume contest? :evil:

Or "Long Dong Silver"

I get all my news from the LoT nowadays. What's up with Judge Thomas? Is he dead yet? Or is that too much to hope for?

You got me:confused:

Ok...I did a little looking around. I guess Thomas has a book coming out this weekend about his life.

Yes, his book. Poor Judge Thomas.

I say a prayer for him nearly every night.

I think it has more to do with his whining about the bad reviews and criticisms the book is getting.

Which way?

I wish Hillary were dead and Obama got hit by a car so he was in a deep coma.

Oh - wait. Is it wrong to hope for that?

You're making baby Jesus cry.

GC's granny is gonna be all over you.

I really don't wish for that, Scrooge, and baby Jesus knows. I don't think it's really necessary to explain why I posted that.

So Hillary wants to buy votes at 5000 per baby, and Edwards thinks that soon all young African-American men will be dead or in prison. As noted in the link, there are more African-American men in college than in prison, and of the typical college ages of 18-24, the number of African-American men in college vs. those in prison is 4 to 1. Can you say race baiting trash?

Well with the population crisis hitting Western Europe and Japan right now(Canada and the US are not too far behind either) I can see how this idea might gain some traction(the idealist in me is opposed to this but the realist in me can see some positives) as it does sorta reward making babies(although the reward is to the baby not the baby maker).

Oh, isn't that a grand idea. What about the issue of people dropping babies inside the U.S. so that they can be citizens and then collect monies for them? {border town resident speaking here} Won't this only make it that much worse? Not only the $5,000 to kick things off but then also the social services provided for them? And, I don't know if it would work if the parents would claim it as they file their income tax, some how making sure their parents actually are citizens or something to that effect.

What a mess and you can't really blame those who take advantage of the situation; the loopholes need to be fixed and certain actions not tolerated {like the woman who hid in the church and then said the U.S. was unkind or something....even after it was revealed that she was in the country illegally, worked with a fake social security number, basically disrespecting our laws and then she wants respect?}

Sorry if that is off topic, I only read the last couple of posts....

No.

Better data.

Even assuming that the ratio in the National Review article is correct, the ratio of white men in college to white men in prison would be about 32 to one. Common sense suggests that it's far higher.

In the data you site, there are 3.1% of the African American male population is in prison. This is a far, far cry from all being dead or in prison. It is race baiting, completely and totally.

True, but it's still not a good statistic, and the sevenfold disparity between whites and blacks is not de minimis. Plus, although I don't have the statistic at my fingertips, I believe the more alarming--if one is disposed to be alarmed--statistic is the number/percentage of black men under supervision, i.e., in prison, on probation or on parole.

In thinking about this whole Hillary 5000 per baby thing, it really, really angers me. The reason? It costs nothing during her Presidency.

I admit I am no expert in the bond market or how they work, so it is possible I'm missing something.

Issuing a 5000 bond costs nothing. When it matures and comes due 18 years later when she is long gone, each of those bonds will probably be worth something like 12000 (that assumes a rate of around 5% compounding annually). I find it morally repugnant to promose a new entitlement program that will have no impact in terms of cost or the books (again, figuring it will be kept off the books like social security is) during her administration (should she be elected).

I don't think that's right. Someone has to purchase the original bond. Typically it's the individual who pays the base price of the bond. Under the Hillary plan the initial $5,000 still has to be paid, it's just the cash is coming from the Government not you (Which of course really means from you.)

It's Nanny government at it's best. Now the all caring Government will watch after you directly from birth all the way through retirement. How sweet.


Oh and don't forget to translate the propsal from Hillary speak...

"I like the idea" = "I'm just saying I like it, I'm not promising anything"

"A $5,000 bond" = "Of course I'm not saying where the $5,000 would come from, perhaps the babies parents?"

Makes sense, but if the government issues a government bond to someone, do they have to put up the 5000 upfront into some account, or is it just a promissary note to give out the money to the bearer once it matures?

Why would anyone give a fig about anything any candidate proposes while campaigning for any office? I mean, sure you can use it as a guide to gauge that person's principles ... but taking it as an indication of what that person will do, or even propose to do if elected is simply not based remotely in the real world of what happens.

If you are talking normal Government bonds you purchase them and are guaranteed a specific rate when they mature. You get the security of a safe investment and the Gov get's the cash now. (Note with 'I' type bonds that rate is adjusted for inflation over the life of the bond)

If you are talking Hillary's then it appears you purchase them with hot air.

I'm terrified of Hillary getting the nomination. If she does, it all but guarantees a Republican win in the general election.

It would sure make a true republican out of me in a Jiffy.

I'm going against my Contrary to Oprah* campaign and going with Obama. I just can't stand Hillary, although it would be amusing to see the First Husband and all it's resultant complications. (Such as how would he be addressed? Mr. President is the norm for retired presidents, but ....? Would he bake cookies?)



*I automatically reject anything recommended by Oprah, unless I discovered it first or didn't know she had already applied the Oprah stamp of approval.

I'm right there with you, WB. Everything Hillary does is entirely reactionary for the sake of furthering her political career, can't stand her and think she'd be a terrible President. Obama, thus far, has struck me as the most straight forward and genuine (as politicians go) candidate in the whole field and I think he'd make a great President.

What's really pissing me off is that most Democrats seem to be once again falling into, "But which one's more electable in the general election" debate. Yeah, 'cause that strategy worked out great in '00 and '04 :rolleyes:

Just be patient. It'll be Richardson v. Huckabee.

No way...Sun Belt Governors almost never win the Whitehouse;)

You have to be a US Senator or you have no chance:rolleyes:

;)

You are definitely standing fast with your prediction, JW. I could live with Richardson vs Huckabee.

GD, I oft struggle with the electable vs principled. It's almost like playing political "Deal or no deal". You get an offer that's OK and a sure thing, but you can get greedy and get burned, getting almost nothing.

I see nothing wrong with picking someone bases on how electable they are... But you first need to have a firm grasp of what makes a candidate electable, and pick the right one. IMO, this is what the DNG failed to do in the last 2 elections.

The Dems went with Gore on '00 because he was the incumbent VP. Kerry? Well... I think they were trying to go with who they thought was more electable, but ended up with the blandest candidate.

I'd be in Heaven!

As I see it, all the talk of "most electable candidate" does is result in the blandest candidate. It's the only logical conclusion to that thinking, which has the ironic twist of making them eminently unelectable.

My philosohpy is, vote for who I think is going to make the best President, let the rest sort itself out.

I disagree. Someone can be charismatic, an effective leader, and be very much electable.

And yet the last two primaries where the Democrats focused on "who's the most electable," we got Al Gore and John Kerry.

The most electable candidate is going to be the one that has the qualities to be the best President. "Electability" is a byproduct of other attributes ("charisma" and "effective leadership" being just two in a long list), NOT an innate quality that one can select for. I think it's party-suicide to keep "electability" at the forefront of reasons to vote for someone in a primary because, as has been shown, that causes the electorate to lean towards the blandest, "least offensive" candidate, rather than the best.

Talk of "electability" never has anything to do with a candidate's actual quality as a candidate, but how people are guessing they are going to be received by moderate voters. I say stop guessing and start voting for who is actually a charismatic, effective leader with good ideas and a plan to put some of them into action. Hillary is not that person, she's a politician whose goal is to be elected, not to lead.

Very true. That's why I feel she is extremely un-electable.

You appear to be the exception. Ask around and you'll find that one of the main reasons she's winning is that she's perceived as "electable." over Obama. I happen to disagree, but more importantly I happen to think that Obama would be a better President.

Hillary against any republican scares the crap out of me.

I think Obama would be better than Hillary. I don't think his lack of experience will be a bad thing - I think he will think outside the box on a lot of issues rather than doing what is already done for the sake of that's just how it is.

Unfortunately I don't think most of this country is ready for a woman or an African American man to be president - and another Republican will be elected. Just hope that whoever that is doesn't destroy the country any more than it already is.

This countries stength lies with those who don't look to Washington for the answers;)

I agree with BTD, but I would change the wording from 'not ready' to 'not willing'- I find it absurd that a country that claims to promote civil and gender rights is so damned reluctant to actually vote for anyone but a white, upper class male to the Presidency. I mean- just look at India, Pakistan, Britain and all the other countries that have had a female PM or President. Sure, you run the risk of the occasional Thatcher, but not every woman is perfect.;)

I would vote for Condoleeza Rice for President. If I thought about it I could name any number of minorities or women I would vote for.

I (and I suspect there are more like me than you would believe, but probably less than I think) base my vote on the policies of the candidate or the lesser of two evils. Hillary and Obama scare me (and Obama more so than Hillary, believe it or not) because of what they would do in office. I would vote for any Republican rather than either of them regardless of who the Republican is.

Do you (anyone being you) think Hillary wouldn't get votes because she's a woman or that she wouldn't get votes because of her history and policies? I have no doubt it is because of her history and policies.

I've no doubt it's both, Scaeagles. I think it's a safe bet that her politics plays into most people's decisions, but you're kidding yourself if you think there aren't a whole lot of people that would vote against her simply because of her gender.

I agree with it, but what I don't want to have happen - however, I guarantee it will happen - is that if she loses in a general it will be deemed as a defeat for women and declare that we are a society of neanderthals because obviously, no matter how brilliant she is, we just weren't ready because of our backwards thinking.

If she is in the general and she is defeated, it won't be because she is a woman. I dare say many women may vote for her just because she is a woman. Her defeat will be because of her policies and history, and it will be sickening (should it happen) to listen to the spin about how it wasn't that.

Luckily, nobody else would. ;)

As do I.

But I still prefer Richardson over either of them.

Me too....:)

Great. The universe should be imploding any second now.

Sleepyjeff on March 3rd, 2005(first mention of Richardson as a Presidential possibility on the LOT)

:D

I would never vote for someone based on their gender or ethnicity alone and I'd like to think the same of most others. I doubt the world will think that America is comprised of Neanderthals if Hillary loses- they'll just continue on thinking about what hypocrites we are, like always. I promise, should it come to what you say, that I will be vocal about why I didn't vote for her. I've no patience with hypocrisy myself, and I can't stand it when someone plays the race or ethnic card when it is not always applicable. (Oprah lost me with the Hermes bull**** she pulled, not that I liked her much anyway).

Since I've never paid attention to one thing Oprah has said, I don't know what you are referring to.

Pulled out the race card when it really didn't apply. I've never been a fan, but now I can't stand to even hear her name. Kind like how you feel about Hillary, Scaeagles.;)

I'm still in a total quandry, nobody really appeals to me, not that appeal is a reson to vote for a presidential candidate. I can't get past the fear that no matter who follows Bush as president they're going to be totally screwed with so much mess on their hands. The worry that if the next president is independent or democratic, they will be seen as a failure and we'll go through another 2 year republican term after that.

That brings up an interesting point, Snow. If a dem is elected, I wonder how much their own difficulties will be blamed - whether by them or their supporters - on the Bush Presidency. The President doesn't exist in his (her) own Presidential bubble, but is obviously affected by the policies of the predecessor.

That being said, I have rarely (if ever) been permitted on this board to get away with saying "Bush has problem B because of how Clinton dealt with situation A". Rather, there has been a "happens/happened on his watch" sort of mentality, and i wonder if I'll get away with a "happens/happened on the dem's watch" attitude, or if anyone that doesn't let me get away with it will try it with a dem President.

In other words time began in January of 2001 but will not actually end in January of 2009;)

Not that my position will hold sway, but I see it as a sliding scale. At this point, even if the problem was initially inherited from Clinton then I'd generally argue that Bush has had more than enough time to make it uniquely his responsibility. And similarly, Clinton/Obama/Thomspon/et al. won't get much blame from me in March 2009 but that will start to increase as time goes by.

I think you hit the nail on the head Alex. If the problem in question is inherited and not owned as time goes by, the blame grows, no matter which party, I guess.

I realize my opinion of Bush is what it is, I may be overstating, but I do hold him responsible for a heck of a lot that is wrong, going wrong or has been blown up. I know, I could not do the job, I'm not political at all (not even in my line of work, I steer clear of office politics), I don't envy anyone who steps into Bush's doo-doo covered shoes.

I will await the nominations by both parties with interest, but I am certainly in no position to decide, I'm mired in quandry.

I disagree... Hillary against any Republican scares me because I think the Democrats WILL win the White House this year. But I would prefer it to be Obama. Obama would appeal more to fed-up Republicans than Hillary, who they pretty much hate. Nothing to do with her being a woman, and everything to do with her being... well, herself.

You know, even here in the sheltered world of Southern California, I encounter a ridiculous amount of sexism in the work place. Overt sexism. No one's dumb enough to base hiring or salary practices off of it, but the talk that goes on about female coworkers is shameful (and not just in a "sexual jokes" way, in a "they're not as important as us men" kinda way). I see it even more than I see racism. A lot more.

So I don't think I'm prepared to agree with it being "nothing to do with her being a woman." Oh, I'm sure lots of people who don't like her can put together some list of personality or political traits about Hillary to justify it, but I'm also sure many of those people would overlook many of those same traits in a man.

Sexism is alive and well in this country and if you don't think it enters into the equation, you're kidding yourself.

I've said it before and I'll say it again.

I won't vote for Hillary...for reasons related to her being a woman.

It is completely unfair to her but I will not support for president any person married to a former president. I think it is a very bad idea to bring presidents, even in such a capacity as Bill will have, back to the White House.

This is horribly unfair to her, but that is simply the way I feel about the principal of it. As for her actual policies, I find myself surprisingly amenable to the idea of her presidency. But the "former president back at the White House" thing is a deal breaker for me.

That's related to being a woman, but not unfairly so, in that you would presumably have the same policy were the roles reversed.

Yes, but at the moment (and for at least 11 more years) it is a bias that that can only impact women.

By generally accepted usage, a policy that specifically harms the poor (in this country) is seen as racist so I'd say my personal eligibility requirement is sexist.

Oh, and see, that's the clincher for me.


And I'm sure for a great many others who, at this point in time, look back wistfully on the Clinton presidency as a comparative paradise of bliss.

I don't see this as sexist, it's merely unfortunate in your opinion that Hillary is married to Bill. If, let's hypothesize, she divorced him after the whole Monica thing, (1) would she likely be in the Senate today and (2) gunning for the democratic nomination, would you vote for her then?

I most certainly do.

and since this is my forth post in this thread, I need to get outta here! :blush:

This is why I've never voted for Steve Ford, Chip Carter or any other son of a former president.

You sexist, Strangler. You didn't even mention Amy Carter. Would you vote for a daughter of a former President or are they not even worthy of mention?;)

Yes, Clinton was a much better president than George Bush. But it is still a horrible idea, in my opinion, to put a former president that close to the office again.

There were a lot of people 8 years ago who derided the idea of a hereditary presidency but they seem to be quiet this time around. I was uncomfortable with it but viewed it as a historical curiosity, but doing it two times in a row begins to feel more like a trend and at least with the Bushes the former president wasn't wandering the halls (and there were 25 years between the Adams administrations and the first was dead for most of the second's; and 48 between the Harrisons and the first could barely be said to have been president).

Snowflake: Yes, I'd be more likely to vote for her then. But I'm not saying it is directly sexist any more than a policy of sterilizing any person sent to prison would be directly racist. It is, however, a discriminatory viewpoint that at this point in time can impact only women. In 9 years (not 11 like I said the first time) maybe the first man will be on that list.

That said, it is not a piece of sexism that particularly bothers me.

I miss Newt too;)

I would love to watch Amy Carter debate Chelsea Clinton.

And by "debate" I mean . . .

Never mind.

This is a harsh, but excellent, article. Very thought provoking.

Interestingly, saw it referenced on a blog about non-custodial parents' rights (where he related the 10 steps to the ways the "system" works against fathers)

http://www.guardian.co.uk/usa/story/0,,2064157,00.html

I could related the 10 things to a few other things, but for now, I'll let the article stand for itself.

OK I get it. The Democrats have failed to stop the Iraq war so now they are going to make it hard to pursue the war by cutting off supply routes.

Huh. Somehow I always thought that was more or less the enemy's job.

Yep...it's amazing what they do in "support" of our troops. One has to wonder why many of these legislators didn't support this same resolution 12 years ago when Clinton opposed it.

Don't like the war....show some backbone and end it straight up; don't undercut those fighting it:mad:

Oh, so we should support rank hypocricy and, by extension, GENOCIDE ... just because it was our allies whom we depend on militarily who commited the GENOCIDE?!?


That's pretty fu<king disgusting. Bad enough that we declare it genocide 60 years later, and do nothing about Darfour's genocide in the here and now. But to say we should hide our heads in the sand over such atrocities because it suits our military purposes is frelling NAZISM.

Yes, I godwined this thread. Sue Me.

And how would you characterize using Genocide as a tool of political expediency? That's what the democrats are doing in this case. A vote on this amendment now is not a vote of conscience, it is an end-run to try and reverse an unpopular political situation.

So it wasn't Genocide 12 years ago when Dole was pushing for this resolution but now it is?

As for Darfur....The State Department has called it genocide(something the UN refuses to do).

Don't worry....

When the actual subject is genocide I think exceptions should be made.

This resolution, as sleepyjeff pointed out, has been in the works for years. If the democrats have, only since the last election, come into enough of a majority to pass it ... that can only most cynically be called politically expedient timing to damage the opposing party.

A resolution about a 60-year-old genocide could hardly be expected to be at the top of the Dems legislative agenda, and it could - mind you, could be an innocent matter of timing.

That said, I'll concede that nothing in politics is an innocent matter of timing. It could be timed with electoral politics in mind. But to suggest that the timing is treasonous, and designed specifically to cut off supply lines to our own troops in wartime, is a scurolous accusation of dispicable political intent.

The only reason it is politically timed now is because it is widely believed in both parties that the surge is working very well. The dems need to make the surge not work. What possible other explanation could there be? The best way to damage the republicans politically is to make the war go as poorly as possible without making it look like they want the war to go as poorly as possible. Perhaps it is more that their own opposition to the surge and continuous rhetoric about failure and how it is unwinnable makes them look for ways to have the war go more poorly.

But make no mistake. If the dems win the Presidency, nothihng is going to change except they will find a way to support doing whatever is necessary to win in Iraq. Troops will not be withdrawn (in any less than a small symbolic way).

As one pundit I heard on NPR asked - "so when are we going to get around to apologizing for what we did to the Indians?"

I'd be happier if this actually had some action behind it

I have yet to hear of one Democrat who thinks the surge is working. Can you kindly name your sources?

And are you, too, scaeagles, suggesting that Democratic elected officials to the House of Representatives and the United States Senate are seeking to deliberately cut off supply lines to our troops in wartime as a political tactic? In other words, accusing them of outright treason?

I have no idea what the intent is, but this bill has been going on so long (we discussed a version of it in one of my poli sci classes back in 1993) that I've no doubt that its presence is independent of any issues in Iraq.

But if introducing it for the goal of indirectly creating logistical problems in Iraq would be treason (and I wouldn't say that necessarily is since I have no doubt we'd get whatever supplies were needed into Iraq), then what is it if it came up without considering that possibility, were warned about the potential realpolitik repercussions and then decided anyway that a non-binding essentially meaningless declaration was worth that risk?

Personally, I think the word genocide is overused and doesn't really have the power it should have because of it. And both sides have valid points in the Turkey/Armenia case (though I tend to come down on the side of Armenia). In an era of total war (kicked off a decade earlier in South Africa and perfected by Hitler and the United States in WWII) how does one distinguish genocide from a straightforward war between two ethnically homogenous sides?

Everybody would go nuts if Congress passed a non-binding resolution calling Taiwan and independent country. Not because it is untrue but because of the inflammatory effect it would have on international relations. And I would say that the real world importance of officially recognizing the independence of the ROC is a lot more relevant and important than officially calling the Armenian slaughter from 90 ago genocide as opposed to unofficially calling it genocide.

Yes, I think this is a deliberate act to cut off supply lines. Since these are the lawmakers themselves I don't know if you can make a case for treason.

However if a private citizen or member of the armed services pursued an action like this independently then I don't know what other word you could use.

It's also possible there is already a back room deal with Turkey to avoid a ban on US troops even in the event of passage of the resolution.

wow, Moonliner, WTF. That's far more out there than any of tinfoil hat stuff I've spouted on these and other boards.

I'm frelling astounded.

Look back over my postings, I'm not one that's given to Tinfoil'ery. Truth be told I generally just dip into these political discussions with a quick pithy quote (like the one that started this thread) and then duck back out.

It's fairly rare that I really get pissed of by the actions of politics but in this case I just cannot rationalize any other explanation for this resolution taking place NOW.

Yeah, the idea of the "back room deal" is perhaps Tinfoil at it's best but really I'm just expressing my frustration at what I see as an truly insane action on the part of our elected officials. Why? Why would they do this? I'm just grasping at straws hoping there is a logical explanation because I sure can't see it from here.

What you mean "NOW", Moonliner? Our invasion and occupation of The Iraq has been going on for almost half a decade with no end in sight. How long should the politicos wait to pass their worthless resolution?

Are we at the stage of our empire where anything that pisses off our allies before our endless war on terror ends is treason?


Stop the bus, I want off.

It's the troops. You don't send them to war and then **** with their supply lines. This war is one of the worst political disasters this country has faced and I lay that directly on the shoulders of Bush/Cheney but as long as we have troops in country you have to properly support them.

There is no pressing reason to dredge this issue up now other than to put pressure on Bush to end the war. The cause is just but the ends do not justify the means.

There's a fine line between stupidity coupled with trying to gain political advantage and treason.

Would I call it treason? No. Would I call it reprehensible? Without a doubt. There is simply no other reason right now for the Foreign Affairs committee to take this up right now. Either it is intentional or the dem majority on this committee are complete imbiciles - a definite possibility.

Who cares when it was started? There is a point of common sense that says "it isn't a good time to deal with this" unless you want to the obvious reaction to take place. So either they are stupid or are attempting to harm the war effort.

Type in a google search with the words hillary clinton dick durbin admit surge is working.

You'll get scores of sources:)

Let's see...there's Levin, D - Mich....

There's Durbin D - Ill and Casey D - Penn
There are others, and there are various democrat advisors who acknowledge it is working as well. You'll note the link above are from August. I have no doubt there is a strategy party wide for the dems since then that says they are not allowed to publically acknowledge progress.

Yeah, I'll post this juicy one from Clinton, too (note it is from August as well)-

Good news!

Pelosi has apparently come to her senses and figured out that putting troops in danger is not the way to go about troop withdrawals. She has tabled her Turkish genocide resolution.


Not so good news.

Of course Turkey has already taken advantage of the rift in relations to approve action against the Kurds in northern Iraq. So we can look forward to more war in that part of the world soon.

I won't laugh, at least not out loud. I don't want to get Kung-Fu'ed.

I've already said it, so I won't laugh.

This doesn't mean he should win or deserves to win. But I think he will win.

Richardson v. Huckabee.

Yep:)

President Huckabee... just doesn't sound right somehow...

:D

"I Heart President Huckabee"



Is that any better??

I guess it's better than President Gravel....

"The Huckabee Administration" kinda makes me wanna giggle...

He did seem to be the most poised, well spoken individual in yesterdays debate....well, except for Paul(but he doesn't count;) )


I loved the part where a panalist pretty much asked Huckabee to trash Rudy and Mike refused to do it...whereupon Rudy led a round of applause for Huckabee(that was kinda sureal).

It does...and he'd be laughing right with us. Speaking of the administration Mike discussed the Chuck Norris endorsement during a bloggers conference call tonight and he was not expecting it. Mike doesn't know him personally but is a big fan. Mike's wife is even a bigger fan and is ecstatic. Of course the rumors are already out there about Chuck getting a position in the administration but Mike hadn't give it a thought yet. Though I think he might consider it.

***Disclaimer:
I haven't been paying attention to the elections at all. I'm on a news diet at the moment. I'm merely commenting on the way the names sound. I have no idea where these candidates stand on anything.
:)

I heard yesterday that the Republican candidate who has received the most donations from military personnel is ... Ron Paul. I found that interesting.

I saw that too. Very interesting and I admit I am surprised.

Just saw that Stephen Colbert is higher in the polls than either Richardson or Biden. :)

Which shows one of two things, possibly both:

1. Just how meaningless early polling numbers are (that people feel free to just toss around their "vote" on whim).

2. Just how retarded the average person is.

Vote Ron Paul...enough said.

It could also show two of two things, or even #3.

3. Contrary to most reporting, the average person does have a sense of humor.

The joke won't last long. Election laws prevent having Doritos as a sponsor of your campaign and using your national television show to promote your campaign. So unless comedy central is planning to give all the candidates their own show........

That would be covered by #1.

Yes, but Huckabee thinks that most of the signers of the Declaration of Independence were ministers. If you know so little about it, you should just shut up about it.

Not that it is the worst gaffe ever (not even close) but I don't see how anybody with even a basic knowledge of the Founding Fathers would think that.

I don't think any were actually athiests but there were many "diests".

As for most being ministers...well, only one was an active minister at the time of signing but several studied to be ministers(Sam Adams, John Adams, Robert Sherman, and William Williams to name just a few).

On a side note durring my little investigation into our founding fathers I discovered that Josia Bartlett was married to his first counsin........so the famed President Bartlett was a product of inbreeding;)

There are many, many quotes attributed to the founders that would seem to allude to many of them leaning toward a Christian faith of their own, or at least adherence to a Christian philosophy - far too many to list, but a couple of them.....

John Adams - "I have examined all religions, as well as my narrow sphere, my straightened means, and my busy life, would allow; and the result is that the Bible is the best Book in the world. It contains more philosophy than all the libraries I have seen."

Alexander Hamilton (On July 12, 1804 at his death) “I have a tender reliance on the mercy of the Almighty, through the merits of the Lord Jesus Christ. I am a sinner. I look to Him for mercy; pray for me.”

John Jay - “ Providence has given to our people the choice of their rulers, and it is the duty, as well as the privilege and interest of our Christian nation to select and prefer Christians for their rulers.”

Thomas Jefferson - "I am a real Christian, that is to say, a disciple of the doctrines of Jesus."

James Madison - “ We’ve staked our future on our ability to follow the Ten Commandments with all of our heart.”

The list of such quotes is virtually endless. I would believe that from such quotes it is not unreasonable to assert that Christianity was the faith of a large portion of the founding fathers and that it came into play in the documents they were creating (though some of the quotes are indeed dated after the Constitution was written).

"Leaning toward a Christian faith" is a far cry from "most of them are clergymen".

I love the quote from Alexander Hamilton on his death bed. If only I had a dollar for every lapsed Christian that returned to the flock at that final point of life, for the religion that promises absolution of all sins if you ask pretty please with your final breath.

There is no doubt that the framing of the Declaration of Independence and the Constitution were informed by their Christian beliefs. However there is equally small doubt that they went through great pains to diminish the presence of actual religious language and doctrine in the final document. It's precisely the preponderance of personal religious rhetoric from the framers in contrast to the complete dearth of it in the Constitution that indicates a very conscious effort to keep religious belief as a personal guide to upholding law, rather than an in-built component of the law.

And of course let us not forget Article 11 of the Treaty of Tripoli which, in part, states, "As the Government of the United States of America is not, in any sense, founded on the Christian religion;", read before congress, ratified unanimously, signed by President John Adams.

I agree, certainly, GC, ISM, and GD. I don't know why Huckabee would say that (I didn't hear it), GC. I agree ISM, about the death bed comment, it was just one I happened to grab of many from Hamilton.

The Treaty of Tripoli of 1797, however, is a different matter and context is everything.


As I understand it, Barbary priates had a tnedency to attack ships and enslave sailors from "Christian Nations". In this particular version of the treaty, it was deemed necessary to specifically include the wording to appease an Islamic nation.

However, after the treaty, there was no reduction in the activity of the piracy and enslavement, and Tripoli itself was demanding increased tribute from naval vessels. When this was refused by Jefferson (in 1801), Tripoli declared war on the US, and the US Navy set up a blockade of Tripoli. After Tripoli was taken by US Marines and some local rebels, the leaders there signed the new 1805 Treaty of Tripoli, which did not contain the wording. The weakened Tripoli no longer needed to be appeased.

So, yeah, the wording was in there, but it was there for a specific reason.

Sorry for the boring history.

So that leaves us where?

Non christian?

or

so-called Christian nation lying about our origins


You know... there really is nothing new under the sun.

I think the founders clearly applied their faiths in the founding documents of the country, including that concept of free will (and the freedom to worship or not worship as we so choose). We are not a "Christian nation" because we do not have a state established religion.

We are not a Christian nation because we do not have a national religion. Because the First Amendment, as written, bound only Congress, the founders arguably contemplated the establishment of state churches since they knew how to limit state power when they wanted to but chose not to do so in this instance.

Not that's a good thing.

When I said state run church, I was referring to a religion established by the government of the nation. Yes, states can establish their own "official" religion, and in fact, historically it has happened a few times in various state constitutions....can't think of which off the top of my head.

Holy freakin' cow I can not wait until Tuesday! I'm so sick of the damn R67 ads here.

Meanwhile, speaking of WA state politics: Wendybeth, are all Spokane politicians secretly gay? I'm just wondering...

Hey, that guy is from Vantucky! (I think). Not from here, but he picked a swanky hotel for his little rendezvous! (The Davenport). I think West was the only one busted over here- are you thinking of Larry Craig? He's from Spudsville.

Didn't your mayor get busted for something similar? Maybe it's just that Spokane has some great underground scene there.

Yeah, our gay-bashing conservative mayor was caught grooming young guys online for sexual relationships, and I guess he'd been doing it for years. When he got outed, he tried to claim that people were going after him because he was gay, something he had vehemently denied for ages. (The area gay organizations did not support him, and rightly so).Truth was he liked very young boys, and also got off on passing legislation against gay people, etc. He was just a creep, and now he's a dead creep.

I think it must be something in the water over there!

I blame Canada.

Have you seen the way they drive? I cringe any time I see a BC plate.

Blame Canada... with all their hockey hullabaloo and that b!tch Ann Murray, too...

:D

And Celine Dion, too. Blech.

Well, in all fairness- we gave the world Micheal Jackson.



No wonder they hate us.

I was just in Vantucky today.....had to see a guy about a mattress(really):D

Don't worry.....his name wasn't Curtis(although there was a Curtis fellow there:eek: )

In the world of online betting here are the odds against each candidte winning the general election:

Clinton............2 to 1.
Rudy...............6 to 1.
Romney..........10 to 1.
Obama...........17 to 1.
Gore..............20 to 1.
Thompson......30 to 1.
Paul..............30 to 1.
McCain..........30 to 1.
Edwards........40 to 1.
Huckabee......40 to 1.
Biden...........300 to 1.
Richardson....400 to 1.

Other...........200 to 1.

http://www.intrade.com//?request_ope...kHomePage=true

This makes me sad. He's (IMO) the best qualified candidate out there. :(

I agree. I can't believe that "other" has better odds than him.

Oh pulease, there weren't even any odds on Kuchinich, the far and away best candidate to my way of enlightened thinking.

He, along with people like Dodd, Ford, and Hunter are going off at 1000 to 1 against winning their own parties nomination.....I imagine that would mean that their odds are about 2000 to 1 against winning the general.

If you're feeling good about his chances put down $10.00.....you never know:)

Oh, he has zero chance in the United States. Further proof of him being the most enlightened candidate.

Tom Tancredo also has zero chance. They are equally enlightened.

I happened to stumble onto these pictures. The pics absolutely broke my heart.
:(

God damn war.

Some of those injuries are horrific.

OK....I don't have much time to post lately, but these things are hysterical....political spoof ads from Swift kids for truth.

Big Brother wont let me watch. Until tonight then.

You might prefer that he not win.

Considering both the Democratic and Republican caucuses since this stupid thing began, Iowa has picked 17 candidates. 10 of those selections were not people already president of the United States and only once did one of those 10 go on to win the presidency (George Bush in 2000).

Of the six times they had it easy and picked the guy already president, they still only have three wins.

Consider my intelligence officially insulted: http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/21818657/

My only question is... what's he trying to cover up with this random act?

Ok, I gotta ask. 17? I am sure there is an interesting reason the number is not even.

The Democratic caucus was established one presidential election cycle earlier (1972 vs. 1976 for the Republican nomination). However, in 17 caucuses they only picked a person 16 times. In the 1976 Democratic caucus Jimmy Carter lost to "None of the above."

[Seething with Anger]

Sickening.

? I'm thinking maybe the story behind your link change. What's got you angry about trying to decrease air traffic problems?

I wish people would stop posting links with zero comment about their concerns. I think this has been addressed before as a netiquette problem.


Oh, and I wish Gemini Cricket would continue with his news blackout. That link was unbearably depressing. I thought that was the reason for his news blackout in the first place.

I am on a news blackout. That was sent to me by a friend. It made me mad.

Oh, and I posted the above link because I think America's women need burkas...
:rolleyes:

I posted it cause it made me mad.


I posted it without comment because I didn't think it needed one...
;)

But the Saudis are our friends! We would never disapprove of anything they do. (And because they're such swell people, not because we need any fossil fuels or anything.)

Actually, that was the article I pointed to. I think his "addressing" air traffic problems right around Thanksgiving (hello, the worst travel time) is an attempt to get attention and not really based in a genuine recognition of air travel issues. I'm suggesting that either there are other, much less popular provisions hidden in that same act, or that he's hoping to distract us from something worse he's doing that he hopes we won't notice.

I don't really see it. He's not really disguising this as anything. It's a stop-gap solution at the time when it's most needed. As you point out, it's the busiest travel day of the year, it makes perfect sense to me that, since it's not like they can solve the massive systemic problems in less than a week that would cause, with no measures, cause guaranteed delays, to at least try SOMETHING that will relieve it for the day it needs it most.

And you're right of course. Just like it would be correct to say that there are people who would be glad to see Bush addressing putting a stop to gay marriage. It's a card he brings out when he needs to distract the populace. (Although one is decidedly more beneficial than the other)

It's true that adding a few thousand feet makes a difference. Aircraft are staggered at different altitudes based on what direction they're flying, so he's effectively added lanes to the highway, if you will.

But given his history, it still makes me suspicious.

It's all part of his master scheme to eliminate Amtrak;)

You mean something like this?

I don't know that recess appointments are really something that needs to be covered up. It has a storied history (our second Chief Justice of the Supreme Court was a recess appointment not trusted by the senate, was widely considered insane and then attempted suicide before resigning from the court after the senate again refused to confirm him) and Clinton and Bush have, over the last 16 years made it pretty much standard practice, doing it 300 times or so.

But if Reid can keep a quorum in Washington over the Thanksgiving break, then good for him.

That was pretty good......I like this one:


http://youtube.com/watch?v=tjOuL5qwNIc

Found this buried near the bottom of the news at the Fox site: McClellan claims White House actually lied to him!.


What a surprise.:rolleyes:

How much do I hate "No Child Left Behind"? Let me count the ways....


I was lucky enough to be part of a "gifted education" program in grades 1-6. (although by grade 6 it was beginning to be watered down, as parents started insisting that their tax dollars paid for it and little Johnny was definitely a genius, even if testing proved him dumb as a post, and therefore little Johnny has to be let into the gifted class - and if he can't keep up with the pace of the other students then they just need to slow down for him.)

So, today's paper brings the following article: Has "No Child" law cheated gifted students?

I hate mainstreaming, I really do. I think kids should be socialized across ability barriers of all kinds. But when it comes down to the brass tacks of learning, children should be taught based on their abilities.

I can't even imagine where I would be today if I hadn't had the opportunity to learn in those environments. Kids already face enough pressure from their peers to not appear to be smart. Do they really need adults pressuring them to stay with the rest of the group and not leap on ahead?

This is the part of the article where I lost it:

Yup, we should all be as homogeneous as possible, otherwise we're undemocratic traitors.

More forced dumbing-down of America. Thanks George. :rolleyes:

I'm not a fan of mainstreaming either. I was in gifted programs as well but ours were more of the enrichment variety than seperate classes for each subject. Nothing made me battier than waiting for the teacher to explain, yet again, a simple concept that the rest of the class already got an hour ago for the one person who just couldn't keep up. I don't think it helps anyone really. The kids who get it instantly are bored and the kids who need extra help get ridiculed for holding up the whole class.

Maddy's school is obsessed with test scores. That's it - not learing but what you get on the tests. And not the end of the chapter test the state tests. It makes me wonky.

My sister was a gifted student that never made it into the gifted system. It was ridiculous to witness her be absolutely frustrated to the point of tears, on a consistent basis, by the mainstream world. For a split second, despite having seen my sister go through it, I was planning on opting out of the gifted/magnet for high school in favor of going to my local high school (traveling 40 minutes to get to school, and longer to see friends was wearing thin). I am forever indebted to the teaching staff at North Hollywood Hgih magnet, not only for the education, but for that recruitment night where they successfully made their case for why I should attend. Best decision of my life.

Fvck test scores. Test scores demonstrate nothing more than an ability to take a test. The fanatical focus on test scores has crippled education. Teachers who actually want to teach are bailing by the dozen. My parents are both 30+ year teaching veterans. Teaching is their life and passion. My mom gave up, retired early, because she was no longer allowed to teach. She was being forced to become nothing more than a testing-coach. It was sad to see her so unhappy with teaching.

I'll stop being annoyed with the "one class for everybody" concept as soon as schools let everyone play on varsity sports teams regardless of talent.

Perfect way to put it.

(although my High School was small and mostly everyone who tried out made the team. How else could I have lettered in Field Hockey and Track?)

I'm pretty sure the mainlining movement predates and has little specifically to do with No Child Left Behind. It was a hot topic of conversation in the education pedagogy classes I took back in college (1992-1993) before I decided there was nothing I less wanted to do than spend every day with children.

Having all the kids of a similar age in the same classroom does not necessarily mean they need be doing exactly the same thing (anymore than in old one-room schools sixth graders did second grade work). And putting "gifted" student into a separate program also makes the assumption that being gifted puts you in an advanced functioning category in all areas. Advanced reading comprehension does not necessarily imply advanced logical abilities does not necessarily imply advanced mathematical skills.

My personal anecdote (which gives it a weight of exactly zero) is that my sister was put into an advanced program in second grade and made it to the seventh grade unable to read a non-digital clock.

Quite true. In middle and high school I was put in with the advance classes for history, social/global studies and English/language arts but never spent one day in an advanced math or science class.

In the very least it widened my circle of friends.

Good thing I'm still not in school. I'd drag the entire class down. Give me subject matter - have a conversation with me and you will know I know what I am talking about. Give me a paper, multiple choice questions and a time limit and I'm fvcked. What's 2+2 again?

Not to sound mean or anything... I really don't mean to be mean...
But seeing a full blown picture of Youssif and his scarred up face is really, really jarring to see on CNN.com's homepage. (They just recently took it off.)
I mean, I'm rooting for him and everything. But it's like... click on CNN.com...BAM! Oy!
:eek:

I didnt' see the picture you are speaking of, GC. Glad, too.

But you are right, they over emphasis these test scores. A young girl worked so hard in her class but would fail the tests. I was angry with her mother because she didn't stand up for her, she was angry with her for failing the tests!!! Obviously, either she had an issue with taking tests or else the tests were stupid.

It is a sad day when teachers can't teach. And that they can't take time to have fun with the students. I don't know if they do it now but when my kids were in school, I did help with the testing while the teachers were able to continue teaching. How else were they supposed to test the students and also teach the class? I never understood that.

And speaking of CNN, I love the way John McCain really dusted the floor with Romney on the waterboarding thing at last night's CNN-sponsored debate.

CNN is a joke.

"How were we supposed to know that the person we selected the youtube question from and flew out from California to the debate to ask a question in person is working on Hillary Clinton's campaign?"

That was the first I'd heard of him. Jeebus, what a story. That poor kid.

That question aside I thought Romney did quite well last night...unfortunately for him the one person he needed to clearly beat(Huckabee) also came off pretty well too.




I am getting a little sick of these "Town Hall" type debates.....they're about as real as reality TV and take away the focus from the candidates. I want real journalists(I don't even care if they are liberals or not) asking these questions....at least you know where they are coming from and most of them don't try to be the show.

Now that he is starting to get some real attention I finally went and looked into Huckabee. All I can say is "oh my god, please no!" Fortunately he probably won't do anything outside of the easily swayed by fundamentalist Iowa caucus crowds and maybe a couple southern states.

So long as there are 63 candidates on stage needing something approximating equal time no debate can actually be one.

Obviously, you don't know me well. Feel free to offer rebuttal, I'm not afraid of the discussion.

There are various reasons, but fundamentally it'll come down to the fact that Huckabee was one of the three men who raised his hand in this video. Quite simply, if you are willing to say in front of a national audience that you do not believe in evolution, I do not think you are qualified to be president of the United States. To me, this is worthy of the same reaction we'd have if one of the candidates raised his hand if asked "who believes the sun revolves around the earth."

His later demurrals that it isn't important whether he believes in evolution because he isn't asking to write high school textbooks just makes it worse since it would appear he has no understanding of the role the president plays in fostering policy in the executive branch. His later comments that he believes god created the universe "but he doesn't know how long it took or how it happened" is a better answer but then suggests he answered the question in the video without understanding it since believing in God does not necessarily require not believing in evolution (just ask the last pope and the vast majority of scientists).

So, right there, I am completely off the bandwagon.

Then there's the fact that it appears he is a social conservative but a fiscal progressive (both Republicans and Democrats tend to be fiscally progressive they just disagree on which problems need progression) which is, in my opinion, the worst combination of stereotypically Republican traits (this part, admittedly, is mostly from an NPR profile but based on the disqualification above I don't feel the need to poke into details too much more.

Then he had to go and invoke Godwin's Law. :)

I kinda liked how he used Paul as a sorta heavy bag to show how he would go after a potential Dem rival.

I was actually surprised that, in front of that audience, Ron Paul was getting quite a few cheers and McCain was getting booed when he said that we were winning in Iraq. And imagine how much louder that booing would have been in a mixed crowd. So yeah, he came out swinging, but I don't thing America is buying what he is selling.

I do agree with him on the waterboarding subject however.

Each candidate had between 30 - 40 hard core supporters in the audience....Pauls were pretty loud.

Fox news(for what it's worth) had 34 registered Republicans wired. They were to hit one button every time they heard something they liked and another everytime they heard somethig they disliked. At that point in time when McCain was being booed by the "audience" his favorable rating spiked at nearly 80%. In other words the audience noise was not a good measure of how people generally felt about what was being said.

Of course these same 34 people, when polled at the end of debate gave the win to Thompson.......(at best, I think Thompson came in 5th) so who knows if Fox's Republicans were all that random or not.

I really hate these town hall debates.....I think they diminish the office these guys are seeking.

No, no, no. It's your turn to say why what Huckabee said about evolution is not a fatal black mark either because 1) what he said was a good thing; 2) it doesn't matter what the president believes about evolution; 3) he was simply pandering and doesn't believe it any more than Reagan and Bush Sr. believed what they said about abortion; or 4) some other reason.

And . . . there's the bell.

Huckabee defends his position quite articulatly in this clip

All he was saying was that if you believe in evolution then you are godless.

I'm glad we cleared that one up.

Yeah, I had seen that clip. It is quite nonsensical.

Someone who says they have a bomb is taking hostages at a Clinton campaign office.
New Hampshire.
Yikes.

I should say it is nonsensical in relation to the question he was asked.

I got to see several minutes of Giuliani speaking last night on C-Span. Granted, I was already somewhat pulling for him, but I was VERY encouraged by what he had to say, and at this point I'd say I probably WILL give him my vote. He seems to "get it". Very articulate, very good at demonstrating that he understands the grey areas of issues.

For example, one reporter, hoping to trap him in an inconsistency asked him about his stance on illegal immigration, asked him if he thought his statement that we need to stop illegal immigration was inconsistent with his policies as mayor of NYC when he supported giving access to education and medical care to illegals. Rather than try to backpedal his way out, he took it head on and said no, he didn't think it was inconsistent at all, because as mayor of NYC he had a job to do - protect the best interests of the city. He talked a bit about how he reduced crime by 70% (blah blah blah) and then said, you have hundreds of thousands of illegals in the city, and they have kids. What are you going to do, leave them home? No, sending them to school keeps them out of trouble and decreases the chance that they'll turn to crime in the future as well. And with medical care, what is the alternative - turn them away at the hospital door to die in the streets or infect a citizen? Excellent points. He really defended his position well. In other words: dude's got brains.

GC: omg... I thought you were joking about the hostage thing :eek:

Forwarded to me by my mother:

There will be no Nativity Scene in the United States Congress this year!



The Supreme Court has ruled that there cannot be a Nativity Scene in the United States capitol building this Christmas season.



This isn't for any religious reason; they simply have not been able to find three wise men and a virgin in the Nation's capital.



There was no problem, however, finding enough asses to fill the stable.

That was pretty good, actually. :snap:

No shortage of Marys, however.

I find this whole Obama drug thing very interesting. I honestly do not know why the Hillary campaign is taking heat for this. Seriously. I can recall the whole GW Bush DUI thing released immediately before the election and that was fine.

I'm no fan of either, obviously....but isn't all fair in politics? Why shouldn't illegal drug usage (regardless of whether one feels drug usage should be illegal) be an issue? And if it isn't a big deal, why is the Obama campaign raising such a stink about it being discussed?

"It's a deliberate attempt to sabotage the campaign" are the the quotes I read from Obama staffers. Well, duh! It's freakin' primary time! Get over it and quit your whining.

Just like making a big stink about something your opponent did that you actually don't care about is part of the game, being all offended that your opponent is doing so, even though you probably expected it, is as well.

Of course, it is amusing because Hillary Clinton was part of one of the all time stupid drug dodges in political history with "I didn't inhale." (Since she is claiming the entirety of Bill Clinton's administration as personal experience I see no reason not to give her credit for the Bill Clinton stupidities as well.)

I can't say I know a damned thing about Mike Gravel, but I'm guessing he won't be elected president being all honest and stuff.

On teaching creationism in schools:

I wish people would stop with the "descended from monkeys" crap! Humans and monkeys have a common ancestor. It's like saying I'm a descendant of my cousin! <grumble, grumble, grumble>

<rabble rabble rabble>

I didn't get a 'harumph' out of you!

"Descended from monkeys" is an imprecision that doesn't generally bother me too much since while it is wrong scientifically, in common usage "monkey" is just a catchall word for primates and our common ancestor was certainly some time of primate (and technically, far enough back probably much more monkey-like than ape-like).

Speaking of evolution vs. creationism...

Updated text on evolution released.

Some comments from the other side that are just too easy to poke at...

Great understanding of what science is there, bub.

Are you effing kidding me. "That's why they go to school and shoot people"?! Yeesh, this guy is charged with giving people advice on how to live?

Have I never mentioned mentioned all of the schools I've shot up?

With apologies to Tom

Did you ever see Obama win Iowa? Oh the drama! 'Bama drama tastes of llama. Llama, Obama won!


In case y'all missed the news. I is happy.

Oh, and Huckabee won too, but he doesn't rhyme with llama.

I'm happy about one result. Not so much with the other. Of course, other than the fact that everybody has gathered and decided today is important, I don't really think it is important.

Biggest surprise to me (probably because I haven't really been paying attention to polls) was Thompson's third place.

Harumph!

For those who are counting Hillary out already I offer this chilling reality: The last time a Clinton finished 3rd in Iowa he went on to become POTUS:eek:

I think there is great "modern major general" rhyming potential for "Huckabee".

True, however Mr. Bill was in the cellar before Iowa, 3rd was a bit of a coup for him. Whereas for Hills, this is a major slip.

Very interesting. One thing is clear - the people of IA want change - someone outside the greenbelt (to quote someone on Today). Let's see if the rest of the country follows suit.

I don't know enough about Huckabee to know if I'll be upset if he wins the general. I am so happy Obama won!

I'm still not sure why IA and NH have such a big impact on the results - but I am super happy that our Primary has been pushed up so CA can get an actual choice before people start dropping out.

I think it will be interesting to see the Republican results in NH....Guiliani and Thompson really didn't campaign hard there. I think this hurts Romney a bit, but Romney should do well in the NH. I don't see Huckabee plaing above 4th in NH. I figure Guiliani, McCain, and Romeny will all beat him fairly soundly.

The dems....tough call. NH is typically independent minded, so I see them going for Obama as well. An Iowa and NH win would really, really hurt Hillary.

As much as I dislike Hillary, I'd rather have her than Obama. Hillary lies through her teeth and is going to play politics to keep her poll numbers up if elected. Obama doesn't seem to care and will do things that I think will hurt the country because he thinks they'll be the right thing to do.

I am really not liking anyone this "political season," but I am happy that Obama won. I like how he used to talk, even if he's now moved to the stupid Jesse Jackson emphasizing-first-and-last-words style of speech. There's something about it that turns my stomach... not so much that his speeches come off that way, but that they didn't used to. Alas, doing stuff like that is what politics are all about.

Hmm, since I get the vast majority of my news by reading, I haven't heard him in quite a while.

I still like what he's saying, even if I don't know how he's saying it.

That, and no one campaigned on the Democrat side in Iowa that year due to the favorite son factor:D

I'm glad Obama won. I hate Hillary. Also, I have to admit being very impressed with the speech he gave last night. I know it's the usual political speechwriter stuff, but I admit to being somewhat swayed by how "presidential" he managed to appear last night. If we must have a democrat for president, I supposed I'd prefer him.

Very disappointed with Giuliani's failure to show. I'm not sure his campaign can really afford to focus on the large states at the expense of the small. Especially with the very first primary. He runs the risk of not being taken seriously by the media.

Giuliani took a pass on both Iowa and NH. If South Carolina and Florida don't go his way then you can start to worry.

I know that's his strategy, but I think it will backfire. SC and FL don't exist in a bubble... those people are likely to be affected by his failure to show in the previous states.

Can you elaborate?

Because right now I'm thinking of Bush, Iraq v2.0, the housing market, oil prices, impending recession.... because he thought it was the right thing to do.

I'm glad I'm not the only one who thought he sounded "blacker" last night. Much as I like him, and inflections aside, I thought it was a horrible, incoherent speech from an intelligent man.

I'm not sure if I should go about defending Bush on these things or not....there is only one thing that is really attributable to Bush in your list

First of all, the surge is working. The mistake is that we didn't surge immediately upon invasion.

Secondly, Bush has nothing to do with the housing market. This was a private banking practice of sub prime loans that irresponsible people used to purchase a house and when the rates went up they couldn't pay.

Oil prices? How is that his fault? Is there something he should be doing to influence OPEC nations to increase production? Or for India and China to reduce their increasing demand? The best thing he could have done is blanketly opposed by dems - drill for domestic oil. But that's not his call either.

Impending recession? What should Bush do to influence the economy? How? Raise taxes? That never spurs economic growth.

Honestly, the only thing there that should be laid at the feet of Bush is Iraq. Disagreement on that point is valid, but on the other points, they are outside his scope of control, and they should be. The problem is that whenever there is a problem everyone expects the government to impose policies and pass laws to solve the problem, and more problems are created by the solution more often than not. It is not the job of the government to fix everything. It is the job of government to stay out of the way. Obama does not share this philosophy, and this is why I don't like him.

I don't currently like most Republicans for the same reason - it isn't just Obama.

I was really looking for an elaboration about things that you think Obama will do "because he thinks they are right" that you will take issue with. I don't want to get into a debate about Bush, because we both know we can beat that issue until it's dead and then beat it some more.

Obama believes it is right to raise income taxes on "the rich". Problem is that income taxes are a tax on the accumulation of wealth.

Obama wants a universal health care program.

Obama will pull our troops out of Iraq.

I don't trust Obama on foregin policy at all, but can only base my opinion on what he has said about Iran earlier in the campaign. I fear similar mistakes will be made with Iran that Clinton made with North Korea - giving away tech for a false promise of no weapons built, and even beyond that damage, again similar to Clinton with helping the Chinese development missile technology.

Actually, after seeing what happened to Hillary(who was advised by some of her former handlers to skip Iowa altogether), Rudy might be congratulating himself right about now.

So in short, when it comes to Presidential elections one should not listen to promises regarding domestic issues since Presidents really don't have the ability to deliver....Universal Health Care, immigration reform, even tax cuts are really the domain of congress. We've had 19 years of Republican Presidents(to 12 of Dems) since Roe v Wade and no change there either. Where Presidents have immense power is foreign policy and therefore that is where we should be looking to when choosing a President.

Strip away all the flowery talk and Promises of domestic Nirvana from all of these candidates and one is left with only a couple of gentlemen who are really qualified to be President.....neither of which finished above 4th place last night.

I do not give the government one-third of everything I earn so they can "stay out of the way."

For the sake of argument, anyone who needs to see the Obama speech can view it here:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=cNZaq-YKCnE

Is it just me, or are all the "red" and "blue" politicians starting to wear ties that match their affiliation?

Thank you for the point-by-point list of some of the reasons I support Obama!

I may have missed it, but did anyone post that long political beliefs meme that's been sluicing around LiveJournal lately?

We shouldn't be giving the government one third of everything we earn.

Yeah, that's all well and good .... perhaps "give" was not the right word.


I'm sure you're quite aware that they take it.




And maybe they shouldn't. I very much agree. But since they are, I rather prefer they do something with it to improve the situation of other Americans whose money they take, and not use it to our disadvantage or worse.

Take it? Isn't the tax code voluntary? (hahahahahahaha)

This is why I am for tax cuts in any and every form (income taxes particularly), and I think they could be lowered IMMENSELY. Tax cuts historically raise tax revenues becuase of increased economic activity, but I don't really want the government to have more money. This means we could cut them a whole lot.

Bought into that lie, have you?

Whether it is the Demand-side cuts of JFK or the Supply-side cuts of RWR I think a case can be made that tax cuts do create more revenue.....at least in the short term. The last three Presidents to try it all had success(JFK, RWR, and yes, GWB)

As for me....I'd rather see the source of the problem addressed first......spending.

It is true if you cut taxes to the middle class and small businesses. But Republicans never seem to want to do that. They'd rather give tax breaks to big corporations and the very wealthy, which doesn't help at all.

But if they are the ones paying 80+ percent of the taxes it's gonna be kinda hard to cut taxes at all without cutting theirs wouldn't you agree?

Yes, but the problem is when they cut the taxes for the rich and the big corporations only.

Pure correlation, no cause/effect relationship can be proven.

I guess it all depends on how you define rich. My taxes have gone down, and I'm not rich at all.

Rather than copying the information, here's some good info, particularly about myth #10 - that the tax cuts benefit only the "rich". And they are certainly not the only ones who have gotten tax cuts, but again the problem is that the tax burden is so top heavy already tax cuts will naturally affect those that pay the greatest amount of taxes.

Again, I'm not rich, and my taxes have gone down.

The corporate tax is a myth. Raise corporate taxes, corporations raise prices, passing the so called corporate soaking taxes on to the consumer.

Easy solution? Eliminate the income tax and go to property and sales taxes only. But that takes too much power away from power hungry politicians that want to use the tax code as a source of power.

Perhaps....but it has also been done on the State level too......Bill Richardson, the current 4th place contender for the Democratic nomination lowered taxes in his state and viola.....revenue increased.

Correlation? Maybe.....but can you find an equal number of recent correlations showing that lowering taxes produces less revenue?

btw: Is "proven" a word? My spell check didn't like it???

1. Ron Paul appeared to be missing some marbles during the NH Republican debate.

2. Some of the others - particularly Mitt Romney and John McCain - seemed to be smirking at Ron Paul's simplicity.

3. What combination of factors would lead a person to be as big a donkey's rear as Fred Thompson appears to be?

Can you please define "rich" for me? In rural Arkansas most of the people here on LoT might be concidered "rich". In suburban DC where I live the housing prices, food prices and just cost of everything prices set the bar a hell of a lot higher.

So precisely how do you define that term? Do you take into account geographic disparity?

I didn't watch the debate last night, but I don't find Thompson to be that way at all. But you probably aren't sickened by the very sound of Edward's voice like I am.

Is it the accent or the words?

Count me in on the "please define rich" standpoint. After all, here in California, you need a 6-figure income just to buy a house. Are those people "rich"? Couldn't they use a tax cut too?

The condesending tone he speaks with.

I don't think either of them come off well. Call it regional bias, but I don't think Edwards has a very winning appearance. He looks and sounds like someone doing a bad impression of Dan Aykroyd's Jimmy Carter impersonation.

This is what Thompson's candidacy reminds me of as it's all about appearance. I half keep expecting him to drop trou a la LBJ and demonstrate his qualifications to run the country.

From your link -

Okay, it's regional bias.

I can find you examples where lowering taxes lead to lower revenue, examples where raising taxes lead to lower revenue, examples where raising taxes lead to higher revenue, and examples where lowering taxes lead to higher revenue. What would be the point? There are but a small handful of examples, none of which are more than circumstantial correlations that were caused by such immense factors that 1) have shown no consistent pattern and 2) can't possibly be pinned to being affected solely by the act of changing taxation.

"Proved" is technically the correct form, though "proven" is an accepted alternative. I personally prefer "proven" and have added to my Firefox dictionary. Incidentally, "Firefox" is not in the Firefox dictionary.

Fair enough.

lol:)

I wish presidents could only serve a single 4-year term. I can't think of a single one who hasn't screwed up in their second term.

Everyone gets a little burned out in their jobs and sometimes start making mistakes - so do presidents. So, I think we should prevent it from happening as much as possible.

But what if the reason they screw up the second term is that they are not worrying about re-election and thus are not answerable to the voters anymore?

If that's the case allowing only single 4-year terms would have the exact opposite effect you are desiring.

Perhaps a better solution would be to allow Presidents to keep running as long as they like.

Impeachment, thought don't look to this bunch in DC for a lesson in how that's supposed to work.

Not everyone agrees.

Why, Sleepyjeff- I do believe you and Chavez have more in common than you might think.;)

That's where I am (though for no reasons connected to the burnout issue). I'm pretty much universally opposed to term limits at any level. Obviously, this one is built into the constitution and isn't such a high priority to me that I'd campaign to change it but if given the opportunity I would vote to repeal the 22nd Amendment.

I feel pretty much the same way about all other "protect the electorate from themselves" eligibility rules for office. So I'd get rid of the age limit and citizenship as well. And for lesser office, residency requirements would also go away.

If the people of Wyoming collectively decide they want their senator to be a 15-year-old who lives in Vermont then why not let them live with their choice?

If a 29-year-old Brazilian can win election to President of the United States, then why not?

If the majority of the people (for the most part) decide that after Bush II, another nine terms of Bill Clinton would be appropriate, then I'm ok with that.

Which is why I'm as angry at the current Democrat led Congress for doing nothing to stop the madness, as I was at the previous Republican Congress for rubber stamping the madness.

In this one narrow area I suppose.......but then again, I also believe the US should drop its' restrictions on sugar imports(now I have something in common with Castro)

;)

Hah!

Actually we have that in common. I want to see them remove the tariffs on imported sugar and encourage soft drink and other food makers to move away from high fructose corn syrup in favor of the real thing.

Found this amusing. From this article,

Wow, pancakes AND Chuck Norris. I don't know where to even begin, but there is at least one good joke there.

I hear Gulliani is recruiting Jim Nabors...

I would love to see that too. I really don't care how it's done but it is getting harder and harder to find products that aren't full of HFCS (other than shopping at TJs, which I do on a regular basis).

I wouldn't mind that, as long as there was an annual or bi-annual election to determine whether or not they should continue serving. That would keep 'em on their toes.

But then they would spend all their time campaigning and we'd be barraged with political ads ALL the time, instead of 2 years out of every 4.

Too many elections leads to an elected body whose job is to please the electorate rather than make policy. I know that might sound like a good thing, but the Constitution was written to avoid a direct democracy for a reason. In the short term, the will of the people is a confused mess of immediate gratification. Elected officials need time in office to do their job and make long term plans, they don't need to be riding the fickle whims of the masses.

There is a line of thinking that a lot of the California budget problems have to do with the implementation of term limits and that legislators (and governors) have no strong incentive for considering consequences more than a decade in the future.

Huckabee has the support of both Chuck Norris and Ric Flair. Whom will he nominate to be the Secretary of Cartoon Violence?

I'm not sure I disagree with term limits for the President, but I'm definitely against limits for legislators for that very reason. Short term mentality, no thanks.

Me too. I remember drinking Bubble Up and Dr. Pepper out of glass bottles when I was a kid.....and on the label the words "Pure Cane Sugar"

:)

Now I drink an all natural diet cola called "Zevia"......it's no Coke Zero but it sure beats diet Pepsi and it contains absolutely no artificial sweeteners:)

We've been drinking Jones soda as it's the only one I can find with real sugar.

Only Obama and McCain have crossover potential. This is why they'll be the nominees.

There are lots of sodas that use real sugar. Just ask anyone who came by our house on Saturday night.

...or check out Galco's Soda Pop Stop.

Mmmm. Moxie Cherry (droool)

Oooh! Birch beer!

I think Guiliani and Romney have to have some cross over appeal simply because of offices they've previously held. A republican mayor or New York (though I'm not sure of NY mayoral elections are based on party affiliation) and a republican governor of Massachusetts have to have appealed to some liberals.

Richardson has cross over appeal, at least to me. He's about the only one of the dems that this republican would ever consider voting for.

OMG! There's a candidate we agree on?!?! I think the universe is going to implode now! :eek:

(Seriously though... This is why I like him. He's a moderate who appeals to both sides. And, he's competent and experienced. All of which of course means he hasn’t a snowball’s chance.)

it would, of course, depend on who he was running against. I'm certain I'd pick him over Huckabee or Ron Paul, but definitely not over Guiliani, Thompson, or Romney.

I don't like any of the Republican candidates this time around. I don’t think I could bring myself to vote for any of them.

During Passover Coke puts a Kosher for Passover Coke with real sugar.

Doesn't happen for me very often with Dems. I would have been able to vote for Lieberman, depending on whom he was running against, but that's about the extent of the dem candidates I can recall that I would have voted for.

Duly noted. I will have to look for that. Coke with real sugar is awesome.

The best news of all is that Bush II can never, ever be president again. Never ever.
:D

:cheers:

:snap:

This made me finally delve into whether Bill Clinton could Constitutionally be VP.

The answer is...slightly cloudy. It all depends on a semantic interpretation.

There are 3 rules in the Constitution that it all hinges on.

Article II says, "No Person except a natural born Citizen, or a Citizen of the United States, at the time of the Adoption of this Constitution, shall be eligible to the Office of President; neither shall any person be eligible to that Office who shall not have attained to the Age of thirty five Years, and been fourteen Years a Resident within the United States."

12th Amendment says "But no person constitutionally ineligible to the office of President shall be eligible to that of Vice-President of the United States."

22nd Amendment says "No person shall be elected to the office of the President more than twice, and no person who has held the office of President, or acted as President, for more than two years of a term to which some other person was elected President shall be elected to the office of the President more than once."

So the answer depends on whether "shall not be elected" is equivalent to "is eligible". One interpretation says that it's not. That only Article II deals with eligibility, so as long as he meets those requirements and is not elected to the Presidency, he (or Dubya) can be VP and thus potentially President.

However if you take a less semantically literate view that the 22nd Amendment does constitute a condition for ineligibility, then clearly he would not be allowed to be VP.

While part of me would be amused at the acceptance of the pedantic, semantic reading, I can't imagine any Supreme Court buying it.

You can also sometimes find it with the Hispanic food products. I think I'll start a new thread.

We can all hold out hope for Jeb, though.

(I'm joking, OK? Don't throw things at me.)

It may be worse: Imagine if you will:

1988---George Bush elected President
1992---Bill Clinton elected President
2000--George Bush elected President
2008--Hillary Clinton elected President
2016--Marvin Bush elected President:evil:
2024--Lauren Bush elected President:D
2032--Chelsea Clinton elected President:eek:

2037--Republican and Democratic parties dissolved......now everyone is either a Bushie or a Clintonite;)

I'll say it once again. I'm not a fan of bush. I mean... Bush!



:D

I have a friend from Australia (not Lashie) who suggested that, once Dubya is out of office, we Americans hold a public Bush burning.....

I'm wondering how history will remember Bush II?
As the hero with his arm around a fireman after 9/11?
or
As some sort of dufus in a flight suit underneath a Mission Accomplished banner?

I guess we'll know after he dies, like Reagan.
:shrug:

Both.

I'm suddenly inclined to hate Che Guevara a little less...

He died the year I was born:D

Oh I won't throw them at you. I'll chuck them at you. High speed.

I love how, according to G.D.'s analysis, the question of whether Bill Clinton, of all people, can be U.S. vice-president hinges upon a semantic interpretation.


Heheh, akin to what the word "is" is.

Based on the previous 43 examples odds are most of history will remember bush this way:

"who?"

The average person probably can't name more than 4 or 5 presidents from before they were born. And the biggest scandals, liars, cheats, and general morons have largely been forgotten.

Quick, who started the Mexican-American War? What were the arguments in favor and against. Ultimately was it a good thing or not? What were the significant repercussions?

That was probably the most despicable, overtly imperialist war we've ever been in. It was a huge deal. And outside of a relatively small circle of people with a particular interest in history, completely forgotten.

"Important people" and "important thinkers" put way too much thought into how events and people will be regarded by "history." The answer, with very few exceptions, is: not at all.

Here, by the way, from the wiki page is a quote about that war, that may sound familiar:

Looks like JWBear will not have his prediction come true, and also that there isn't a chance in hell I'll vote for a dem for President.

Richardson drops out of the race

This makes me so sad. I've been a registered Libertarian for years, and yesterday, when I sent in my new voter registration (because I moved), I changed my party affiliation to Democratic specifically so I could cast a vote for Richardson in the CA primary.

Blah.

You still might be able to. Ballots have to be printed up in advance, so Richardson's name still might be on it when we get to the polling place. As long as you don't mind voting for someone who has already dropped out of the race.

Let's see if Mike Huckabee has said anything recently (here, with video) to change my mind about him.

Nope, I guess not.

If even Joe Scarborough thinks you're reaching a bit far, that's not a good sign.

UGH!

Yikes.

If that vision does come to pass, where religious language starts being amended to the Constitution...Paris is nice.

Oui.

To be fair that was specifically in response to the issue of amendments on abortion and gay marriage. There are perfectly good reasons for supporting such things (not that I agree with them) that don't rely on references to biblical authority. I'd much rather he used them instead.

Don't get me started, Alex.

I hear Toronto is nice.

I will again state that I am not a fan of Huckabee. This is only part of the reasons.

The more I hear from Romney, though, the more I like him. I'm thinking I'm starting to move more into the Romney camp rather than being undecided about which Republican I'd be voting for in the primary. It will either be him or Thompson, and it really depends on what Thompson decided to do.

I'm not sure that there are non-religious arguments to be made unless it's that for purposes of social stability, all healthy, fertile adults should be required to marry AND reproduce. In which case you, Pat Buchanan, Elizabeth Dole and Condi Rice better run from the soylent green trucks.

I want to emphasize that while there are non-religious reasons for supporting an amendment banning gay marriage and abortion, I don't agree with them.

I'm just saying that if a politician is going to support policies I disagree with that they at least provide support for their positions that aren't based on "because this ancient book tells me so."

If the economy needs an economic stimulus package that involves tax rebates, why would we not also make the tax cuts permanent that are due to expire soon? Would it not follow that a tax rebate is basically the same thing as a tax cut? The rebate, from what I've read, would go to dual incomes as high as 110K, and those people are affected by the tax cuts.

Not meant to be rhetorical, really. I really don't understand the difference and I'm wondering if someone can offer an explanation.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=mbaszmcpesc

Out of context or not....truer words were never spoken:)

Thomson is now out, apparently, Leo. Out of the race kind of out, BTW.

Apologies to Strangler Lewis, I just saw your post. Sorry for the double nonsense from me.

Yeah, I heard. Romney is my guy for now. Guiliani is in second.

I'm very quickly getting locked into the Democrat camp for president.

In making my compromises on how I think it should all work I've long felt the excesses of the Republicans to be more palatable, particularly because I though the structure of our government was more suited to resisting them than the excesses of the left end of the spectrum.

At this point it is hard for me to imagine voting for any of the Republican front runners.

Obama's association with the Kennedy Klan and the inevitable comparisons being made to JFK is really going to help his numbers.

Something about Obama just rubs me the wrong way. Despite the fact that she kinda bugs me, I'm going to vote for Hillary. I just want the woman-president thing, and I love the thought of Bill as First Fella.


Yeah, piss-poor reasons for picking a president ... that's IF I thought the president was EVER going to be someone who wouldn't take this country straight to hell ... like nearly every president I've lived through. At this point, I just don't care that much. Hillary could sprout horns and I'd still vote for her if she retained her womanhood.

Regardless if it is Obama or Hillary history will be made with the first Black or first female candidate running for POTUS.

I've been thinking about this a lot - I think that what bothers me about Obama is his message of change. Now, granted, I'm not happy with the status quo - but now it seems like his primary selling point is that he's an unknown. I don't know that I want an unknown. I don't trust the office holder period, and at this point, after the W Presidency, I'd rather at least feel like I know what I'm getting into, rather than rolling the dice and hoping I like what I get.

I know Hillary talks out of both sides of her mouth, will say whatever it takes to get what she wants, and is totally in it for herself. I might not be thrilled with it, but at least it won't be a surprise.

The recent use of Bill Clinton as attack dog has reinforced my disqualification of Hillary Clinton simply because I think it is a bad idea to put a former president back in the White House, even if -- and perhaps especially if -- it is in an informal capacity.

it is interesting for me especially because i'am in your country to follow closely the Presidentials .

Democrats VS Republicans

i only have to say that i have ifferents thoughs about america especially coming from another country to share with you if you'd like to hear it .

I already know what my Swiss relatives think about American Politics - and it's ain't terribly nice. I'd love to hear it, but be prepared for the patriotic to be insulted.