Please wait, your request is processed...

legalclubs

Recent comments by this user

The Audacity of 'Nope'

There aren't comments regarding HRC because HRC isn't relevant any more -- only McCain v. Obama. posted 05/20/2008 at 20:46:39

There are two primary differences between civil unions and marriage. The first is legal and the second is social.

The legal difference is that civil unions don't come with the complete package of legal benefits that have been established for marriages. Take California as an example. California has passed a law which allows for "registered domestic partnerships", which is essentially a civil union. For the most part California's domestic partership rules fully replicate the rights one has under marriage, including rights concerning inheritence, hospital visitation, etc. However, California law can't trump federal law, so any rights extended to a married couple under federal law (surviving spouse benefits, tax breaks for married couples, etc.) are not available. In theory, however, this could be fixed by passing a federal law to treat a registered domestic partners or individuals in civil unions as married for purposes to all federal laws. The we are only dealing with the social difference, which is to say that not permiting gays to marry (this isn't just a religious term like some people have claimed, marriages are granted by the state and come with a whole host of rights and obligations) is effectively telling them they are inherintly unequal. posted 05/20/2008 at 20:35:03

I think the point AnotherTry is making is that just supporting civil unions for gays instead of marriage for gays is, by defnition, not supporting equality under the law. True equality would involve supporting marriage for gays. posted 05/20/2008 at 20:14:38

Hillary Will Drop Out by June 15

Now that it's over maybe it's time to start the healing process and courting the Hillary supporters over to Obama. Now it's clear given the hostility and negative attacks between Obama and Hillary that she cannot be his VP. We can't have McCain in a debate with Obama and pointing out that his very own VP candidate said that McCain was qualified to be C&C, but Obama was not. However, if the goal is to pick up the Hillary supporters, especially those die hard women who are voting for her primarily because they wanted to see a women in the White House, wouldn't it be a good idea for Obama to choose and female VP? I'm thinking Diane Fienstein of California would be an excellent choice given that she has an excellent record, is strong on foreign policy, is excellent in a debate, and has a long Senate history to offset McCain's experience. The only problem is that she is from California and we already have a lock on the state, however, it is still a good trade off. posted 05/07/2008 at 21:29:58

Key Voting Blocs Boost Obama in Indiana

The only question is will Hillary finally drop out now? posted 05/07/2008 at 01:37:39

Exit Polls: Limbaugh Effect Seems To Rear Its Head

This is truely a case of what goes around comes around. Rupublicans were mad that Democrats were purposely crossing over to vote in the most liberal Rupublican, then after that Republican (McCain) took the strong lead, our sides talking heads, such as Daily Kos, encouraged Democrats to vote in the Rupublican primaries for Romney to extend out the Rupublican fight. In other words, this was another idea that was utilizied by the left against the right (with the tacit approval of party leaders), which the right then turned around and used on the left (think Willie Horton). You can't real.y complain when the left established the rules of the game. Now if you want to fix this problem then we'll have to change some rules, such as having closed primaries and having to register for the Democratic party at least 6 months (with exceptions for new citizens and 18 year olds) prior to the election. By the way, I hear some of this Rush listeners who attended a Democratic Caucus were elected as local delegates and may even make it as national delegates. Wouldn't it be amazing if it came down to one delegate vote to decide who we nominate and that delegate is taking his/her marching orders from Rush? I hope the Democratic Party is looking into each delegate to make sure they have a long long history of voting Dem. posted 05/07/2008 at 12:50:32

How to Lose an Election 101

(continued from above) This is why hatred is so damming, because it blinds us to reason. Remember, both Clinton and Obama support 99.9% of the same policies - this is why the debates often focus on the mundane (like flag pins or dodging snipper fire stories) -- because how interesting would a debate be where both sides consistently agree. Whatever happens in the end we must all pull together, because it the end it matters less who is sitting in the oval office and more about which policies are put forward. posted 05/06/2008 at 20:41:07

I've often wondered how we came to this point. When this campaign first started a Democrat in the White House was simply inevitable. Now that the Bush economy has faltered even further, the housing market continues to collapse, gas and oil are at all time highs, and the war continues with no end it sight, it would objectively seem that the Democrat nominee would be unstoppable. However, even given every external advantage I fear that we will lose this race because large portions of Democrats who back Clinton hate Obama and vice versa. I just heard a poll that said only 55% of Indiana Democrats who back Clinton will vote for Obama if he gets the nomination. We might as well hand the state to the Republicans. Remember when we all thought we had two great candidates and how lucky we were to be so blessed by political talent? I think the reason so many of us are so mad at the opposition, is that we are used to being mad. We are used to hating George Bush. Not disagreeing with his policies or even disliking him. We hate him and have done so for a long time. Is it possible that we have grown so used to hating the oposition that we have simply now transferred this hatred to the individual Democrat we don't support? posted 05/06/2008 at 20:35:56

McCain's Justice

No, the US Supreme Court hasn't made things up since 1780s. The U.S. Constitution can and has changed over time through the process of amending the document as put forth in the Constitution. This is the proper way and only legal way to change the document, whereas, many decisions coming from the left wing of the court "interpreted" the Constitution in such a bizare way that their interpretation couldn't possibly be squared with the actual text of the document. posted 05/06/2008 at 20:47:38

"Justices like Rehnquist, Scalia, and Thomas, and more recently Roberts and Alito, have consistently voted to invalidate laws...most notably holding unconstitutional...commercial advertising, limiting corporate campaign expenditures, and authorizing affirmative action programs to enhance educational diversity...this is not strict construction and it is not judicial restraint. It is conservative activism gone wild -- in judicial robes."

When the Supreme Court strikes down laws, such as those laws supporting "campaign finance reform", certain "affirmative action" programs, or regulating certain commerical advertising, it isn't judicial activism, it is defending the constitution. Any state or the federal government can pass any law they like, however, none of these laws can abridge the Constitution as this is the highest law of the land. So, as the 1st Amendment guarantees free speech, certain campaign finance reform which restricts such speech is unconstitutional. This is also the case with commerical speech which receives similiar, but to a lessor degree, protection under the 1st Amendment. Certain affirmative action programs, like those that grant racial preferences in favor of one race to the detriment of another, are de facto government discrimination based on race, which is also unconstitutional. In other words, the laws the author cites don't support the contention of an activist Supreme Court. On the other hand, if you make up things that don't exist in the Constitution, such as many on the left do, that is judicial activism. posted 05/06/2008 at 17:34:19

Howard Dean On Fox News Sunday: Your Coverage Is "Shockingly Biased" (VIDEO)

"There's a lot of difference between the Republicans and the Democrats on issues, but the biggest issue of all is we don't use this kind of stuff (speaking about using Rev. Wright in politics). We never have used this kind of stuff, and we're not going to start now," said the DNC chairman. "

I'm sorry, Mr. Dean have you been watching the Hillary Clinton camp and specifically Hillary Clinton talk about Rev. Wright in attacks against Obama? Don't be a hypocrit as you come off as another sleeze ball politician. posted 05/07/2008 at 12:56:05

Senator: Obama Has Dozens Of Secret Superdelegates Lined Up

Let's do the math. Currently Obama is credited with 1737 delegates (pledged and super) and Clinton is credited with 1598 delegates. Of the 795 Super Delegates only 272 haven't indicated for whom they intend to vote.

As such, assuming the remaining pledged delegates break 50/50 -- which given our system of proportional allocation is nearly certain to be at least roughly accurate -- then Clinton would need to win 206 of the remaining 272 Super Delegates to win. In other words, she would need to convince 75.7% of the remaining undecided Super Delegates. This would require her to gain more than 3 of the undecided for every one that Obama picks up. This is essentially impossible and this is why the race is really over. The only think Hillary Clinton can do at this point is continue to damage Obama by (1) attacking his qualifications to serve ("he's not ready" "he's not fit to be Comander and Chief"), (2) providing opposition research to the Republicans (see today's article in HuffPost), (3) making Obama waste campaign cash fighting Clinton instead of McCain, and (4) spliting the Dem and dragging the race out where her followers won't be willing to vote for Obama. posted 05/01/2008 at 22:14:08

America: #1 in Bibles. #37 in Infant Mortality

Without commenting on your other points, the Laffer Curve isn't a right or left issue, it is simply a description of an obvious fact of human nature. The Laffer Curve might be sighted by the right for the concept that cutting taxes actually results in additional tax collection due to additional economic activity, however, the L.C. also posits that the opposite can happen in conformity with the left view of taxes. It just depends where you are on the curve. I think you meant to say "trickle down economics" instead of Laffer Curve. posted 04/30/2008 at 19:34:03

Probing a Political Paradox: Why the Discredited Right Still Sets the Agenda and Dominates the Debate

But just what is you "magic wand" to lower oil prices? I didn't see your solution. The difference between all the things you mentioned that government accomplished (inventing the computer and space satellite communications) is that you can't "invent" lower oil prices.

As I'm sure you're away prices are set where demand meets supply. The higher the demand, the higher the price. The lower the supply, the higher the price, and vice versa. The price of oil is set on the world market and as we are not an exporting country (we consume all that we produce and more) we have absolutely no control of the supply, thereby, no control to impact price in this area. We could conceivably reduce demand through technological advances, however, as our population keeps increasing (mostly due to immigration) we likely will offset any such technological demand reduction. In addition, countries like India and China are rapidly increasing their demand for oil driving up prices even further -- this creates a situation that a short-term technological fix can't solve. posted 04/29/2008 at 13:37:10

Second, given that the philosophical makeup of the population is relatively constant, you can't just stiffle the conservative view point on news programs in favor of the liberal view point. Without at least some semblance of fairness in presentation of viewpoints everyone who is conservative or leaning conservating -- which judging by previous elections is almost exactly 50% of the entire nation -- will simply find some other media outlet to obtain their news. In fact, this perception by many on the right is why talk radio and Fox News became such successes, they already believed the mass television media, like the networks and CNN, were not fairly portraying their viewpoint and simply changed the channel. As such, your idea would sink and news outlets, such as television stations, which need a mass audience to fund operations through advertising.

However, if the point is to simply sell books to a rabid left audience by telling them that their ideas are the only correct ideas and all conservative thought is wrong, then I applaud you for you capitalistic spirit, but question your moral compass for failing to acknowledge that good ideas can come from both sides. posted 04/29/2008 at 13:22:33

You seem to be suggesting that the media should no longer focus on the "right" position and simply declare that the "left" is correct in all things. Here is why you are wrong.

First, you have confused the American peoples' dislike of G.W. Bush and his high disapproval ratings with some form of shift to the left by conservatives. More than half the people I work with are conservative and I simply don't see this change in their attitudes. Conservatives disapprove of Bush because they think he has betrayed their conservative values and is hurting their chances to win future elections because he has appeared to the mass population to have bungled mutliple issues, such as the war and the economy. In other words, conservatives are still just as conservative as ever and their philsophical positions haven't changed. You are essentially confusing support for one Rupublican, it being easy to lose faith with one individual, with support for a overall political philosophy, which generally only change in small increments, if at all. posted 04/29/2008 at 12:49:53

MoveOn: Obama Got Outfoxed

I also thought he did quite well and the questions were remarkably fair and the conversation was very civil. I got a lot more out of this interview then the last couple debates sponsored by some of the networks. Also, keep in mind that this is an excellent target audience for him to reach as he has a shot at capturing many of these viewers who are dissatisfied with McCain.

It seems to me that boycotting a newsnetwork is not only childish but counterproductive and will likely lead to more polarization. What's next - Rupublicans refusing to go on CNN and the networks because of perceived bias? We'd end up with news shows and debates where the right or the left always refused to participate. No thank you. I'd rather have more options then less. If you don't like Fox, then don't watch, but don't hurt the free flow of political information and thereby hurt or democracy. posted 04/29/2008 at 13:48:59

No Laughing Matter: Obama Has Real Problems With Voters He Needs in November

I guess you do have a point that Hillary's "win", really wasn't. In fact, it always struck me as silly that such a big deal was made about Obama or Clinton winning one state or another state by a couple percentage points when the apportioned delegates coming away from the election was only a difference or 1 or 2, an absolute tie, or in at least one case (Nevada) was contrary to the so-called "win".

So the only thing that matters at this point is that Clinton needs to "win" each state by a significant enough margin to overcome Barak's previously won delegates. Anything else, even a win, is still a loss. A good analogy would be that if Clinton and Obama were playing 18 holes of golf and they just played the 17th hole. She got a birdie and he shot par on the 17th, so she "won" the 17th hole. However, if she's 5 stokes back going into the 18th hole her so-called "win" on the 17th was of insignificant magniture to make any difference in the match. posted 04/26/2008 at 15:07:55

The Undeniable Virtue of Jeremiah Wright's Pro-Blackness (and the Problem with Pro-Whiteness)

But aren't you proving the opposite of what you are trying to prove? You mentioned the churches promoting Polish Culture, Italian Culture, and Mexican Culture and all the wonderful things they do within their community and compared that to Trinity. But isn't the real controvery at Trinity not about the Church supporting African Culture, but the perceived hatred spewed by a leader of the church and permited and accepted by remaining church leadership and followers? If ministers at the Polish Church were trashing America and other Americans they would be just as bad, but they aren't, which is why Trinity, Rev. Wright, and any follower of the church who claims to want to represent "all Americans", not just African Americans and American American culture, is going to have a problem with this in the general election. posted 04/25/2008 at 17:42:50

CNN Sued For $1.3 Billion Over Cafferty Remarks

Notice that the individuals suing are a beautician and "school instructor". I'm sure neither one has a cent to their name and hence they are judgment proof as there is no way for CNN to collect their attorney's fees and costs when they prevail against these two for filing such a frivilous suit. The more interesting question would be to find out who is backing these two...the Chinese Government perhaps?? Closing down dissent in their own country apparently isn't enough anymore, do they now want to stiffle their oppositions' free speach rights in the United States by making it known to all that any critism will result in expensive litigation? Also, the U.S. government (maybe the next administration) needs to step in here regarding any suit in China against CNN where China will simply seize CNN's assets in China to pay the judgement. Make it clear that any such action would result in a seizure of Chinse held assets in the United States to offset CNN's loss. If China wants to play hardball, the U.S. should respond accordingly. posted 04/25/2008 at 18:02:19

Influencing Our Analysts: A Crisis in Trust and Credibility

Well said. posted 04/25/2008 at 14:45:29

Jenna Bush On Larry King: I "Don't Know" If I'll Vote For A Republican... Laura Bush: I Don't Like The "Pounding" George Gets (VIDEO)

We're out of time to impeach Bush now even if the majority of Democrats in the House and Senate wanted to do so, whch they clearly don't based upon their statemets and actions. Also, you can't impeach someone after they leave office as an impeachment is part of the process of removing someone from office. If the Democrats wanted hearings and investigtions regarding the past 8 years they can do that now as they control both houses. A criminal investigation after the Bush leaves office without impeachment would likely be impossible due to immunity issues and entirely impractical as it would set a precedent which no sitting president would want to set. No, Bush will go off and make his $100 million dollars for speaches just like Bill Clinton. posted 04/24/2008 at 20:08:34

I wouldn't want to see her in politics, however, she clearly has done some very good work which is beyond criticism. Nobody can spend that much time helping others in third world countries on a one-to-one basis and be a bad person. posted 04/24/2008 at 19:35:25

The "law" that was broken by targeting aircraft and firing on aircraft is supported by UN Security Council Resolution 688.

Also, you are technically correct (and only technically) that Iraq didn't pay any suicide bombers - how do you pay a dead person - but here is a link from CNN regarding Iraq's self-proclaimed $25,000.00 bounty payments to the families of suicide bombers.

http://archives.cnn.com/2002/US/09/12/iraq.report/ posted 04/24/2008 at 19:28:21

Help Us Write "The Gender Speech"

Additionally, I'm a 35 year old professional and the level of gender discrimination against women appears to be matched by the gender discrimination against men and both appear to be relatively rare at this time. The fact that Hillary Clinton was the preemptive next president of the United States as indicated in the press and opinion polls until she mangeled her campaign is evidence of this. But what about the pay differential or the fact that so many more men then women are in certain positions of power? These statistics are bunk. You can only compare a women versus a man if they are in the exact same field, same company, work the same hours, and have taken similar time off. The simple fact of it is that many women elect to take years off work (or not work at all) in order to raise families. Additionally, many women elect to work at jobs with known lower salaries in trade for additional time these jobs allow them to be with their families (think public school teachers). This is there choice, just as men could make the same choice, but most often don't. In fact, who really is being discriminated against in that men don't feel free to make the same choice? Women who step up and make their career their main focus, just as most men, succeed just as well and often more so then men. posted 04/24/2008 at 21:42:41

The lopsided gender ratio in China may actually lead to a different result then expected. When all those little boys grow up and find there are insufficient women the "worth" (not monetary) of a women should sharply rise and those families with daughters and the women themselves should find themselves in true positions of powers and ready to dictate society terms. It's all supply and demand. Either that or China will start a war to kill off a large portion of their male population. Either way, not good for the boys. posted 04/24/2008 at 20:59:35

Race and gender discrimination are not on the same playing field, not even on the same planet. Discrimination regarding race is based upon seeing someone as one of "them" and if you are someone of such thinking you probably don't interact with "them" at all and may go out of your way to do so. On the other hand, at least 90% of the population activily attempts to associate on the most personal level with the opposite gender. So any such discrimination in this area is not based on pure hatred of "them", but on something less, something more like a superiority complex and a level of comfort. Yes both are bad, but they are not the same. posted 04/24/2008 at 20:51:05

End It Now

She could still win if the Superdelegates swing her way by an overwelming majority and in direct opposition to the elected delegates as determined by the actual elections. In theory, we could find out something so damaging about Obama that he couldn't possibly win and the superdelegates could "save" us from our bad decision. This appears unlikely because Hillary's "opposition research" would have uncovered this long ago, but she could always hope for some Obama disasator. On the other hand, she could promise to buy off enough of those superdelegates with "campaign contributions" (unbelievably this is legal) from some of the $100 million she pulled in over the last 8 years. Good to see somebody did well during the Bush administration. posted 04/24/2008 at 22:08:45

I was ininitially for Hillary Clinton, but assuming Obama takes down more states, more popular vote, and more elected delegates is would be a riduculas betrayal of the democratic process if the Democratic party bigwigs refused his nomination by superdelegate votes. Why did we even vote? Now, I can't possibly see Obama willingly agreeing to accept Hillary Clinton as his VP when she has either directly or indirectly attacked him as unqualified, unpatriotic, and has her surragates race-batting. Even if we remove the fact that she is probably personally unlikable to Obama, how would it work in debates with McCain when Obama is asked about the fact that the bottom of his ticket said just a few months prior that McCain was qualified to serve as Commander-in-Chief but Obama was not? A better payoff for Clinton would be a secret deal to place her in the Supreme Court when the first slot opens under an Obama Administration. Besides, how much would that piss off the right to see Obama as President and Hillary on the Supreme Court for life. posted 04/24/2008 at 22:01:11

Not Just Any Woman

I always believed (and still do believe) that the first female president will have to come from the Republican party. All the built in biases appear to require it. First, it is generally perceived that Rupublicans are stronger on the military then the Democrats, while at the same time that men are tougher then women on this same issue. As such, a women Rupublican versus a male Democrat, especially a women Rupublican who takes some seemingly strong pro-military position effectively diminshes the male Democrat by making him look "weaker than a girl". Additionally, there are some women out there of either party who will simply vote for "the women" regardless of party, you see this blind allegence by many Hillary supporters on the Democratic side now. Yeah, this is all based on things that shouldn't exist, but they do, which is why you should expect the first female president to have a R after their name. posted 04/17/2008 at 08:59:01

Let Them Wear Scarves

This is crazy. I've never heard of any such attempt to ban headscarfs in U.S. schools and even if it is occuring in some school somewhere, it certainly is a widespread problem. On the other hand, when people attempt to claim they can use headscarfs which conceal their face when taking a driver's license photo (thereby defeating the point of the photograph), they need to either drop the headscrarf or skip the license. posted 04/10/2008 at 18:27:37

Where does such a ban exist? Is this some isolated problem in some backwater town somewhere in America or is it occuring overseas? I'm a ferocious consumer of media content and the only thing I've heard that resembles this is some legislation in France. posted 04/10/2008 at 18:22:29

McCain Does The View, Faces Behar Railing Against Bush

I'll at least give him credit for showing up on a show that was clearly going to be hostile to his position. posted 04/10/2008 at 17:54:02

"Idol Gives Back" Cuts The Presidential Candidates, Gives Miley Cyrus Two Spots And Gordon Brown One

How is building someone a home for free not charity? It's not the federal governments job to buy you insurance, it's yours. posted 04/10/2008 at 18:54:27

Inside Clinton's Elton John Fundraiser: Singer Amazed By "Misogynistic Attitudes" Of Some In USA

Elton John favors Hillary over Obama because he is a racist!

Oh, what...he's not? You mean some people might like Hillary over Obama for some other reason? Really? Hmmm...maybe this might also be trust for people who like Obama over Hillary? Something for Elton to ponder.

So, no I don't think Elton John is a racist, I just think he's stupid. posted 04/10/2008 at 18:33:54

Chelsea Clinton Asked About Monica Lewinsky Yet Again

I noticed you didn't attack what was written, you only made personal attacks about the writer. This generally occurs because you can't argue against the logic of what was written and have nothing left but to make your emotional outburst. Good job. posted 04/10/2008 at 18:01:45

I think these questions are highly relevant to assist people in making their voting decision. The first question goes to Hillary's integretity and willingness to be transparent in her actions. it's fair game to ask Chelsea about this because she is acting as a surrogate for her mother. The second question is extremely relevant given that most Americans want their president focused on the duties of president and not worried and focused on their spouses current affair. The first part of the third question is relevant because we have a right to know how the unelected spouse will be used in Hillary administration, the second part was just for fun. posted 04/09/2008 at 18:11:05

I wish the article would have stated the exact question asked, instead of just stating the Chelsea was "asked about Monica". Chelsea is acting as an advoctate for a presidential contender and, as such, she should be prepared for and answer any questions as long as the question in itself isn't demeaning. For example, if someone asked Chelsea "Did Bill Clinton have sex with Monica because your mother is fridged", Chelsea should decline to answer because it isn't relevent to running for president. However, any of the following would be fair game because they directly impact on what a Hillary Clinton White House would look like:

1. Does Hillary Clinton believe it is acceptable to lie under oath under any circumstances or does she believe that people can justify certain lies, like Bill Clinton attempted with respect to his affair with Monica Lewinsky?

2. The sex scandal between Bill Clinton and Monica Lewinsky appears to have resulted in a loss of focus by the Bill Clinton Administration which resulted in certain Democratic legislative failures and possibly a lack of focus on terrorism -- what guarantees do we have that similar scandals created by Bill Clinton won't distract a Hillary Clinton Administration?

3. What role will Bill Clinton have in a Hillary Clinton Administration? Will he be hiring any interns? [OK - the follow up is borderline, but if Chelsea had a sense of humor she would simply laugh]. posted 04/09/2008 at 16:59:50

To Get Elected, Obama Must Cater To White Racists. Really?

I'm a huge Obama supporter (check my history if you like) and I've attempted to recruit many family and friends into his camp and have come across at least two friends that are unconfortable voting for Obama partly over concerns that he will favor blacks. No, they don't think he is going to make whites slaves, as you pointed out this is ludicrous, however, the U.S. government is powerful and there are multiple ways in which the government can actively promote certain groups over others. One of my friends, who is hispanic (this is the group most likely to not favor Obama) and who's parents are originally from Mexico, fears that hispanics are finally coming into their own as a political power and the new largest minority group. He's worried that his interests will be subordinate to those of blacks in an Obama administration primarily because he knows that many blacks believe affirmative action should only exist for blacks and my friend works in the government contracting business where AA gains an advantage for his firm. He's also wants those people who immigrated here illegally to be made legal and gain citizenship, but knows that this would make his group far more powerful then blacks so believes Obama will stop this from occuring. There is absolutely no evidence that Obama would make any changes in these areas, however, he projects what he knows from the blacks he knows to Obama. posted 04/09/2008 at 20:48:23

When Cohen says that Obama "did not confront white fears", I believe what Cohen is actually saying is that Obama didn't overcome Cohen's own sterotypes and internal bigotry towards others. On the contrary, Obama has gone out of his way to be a candidate for all Americans. In fact, if Cohen would actually listen to an Obama speach Obama focuses on foreign policy, healthcare, the environment, poverty (of all races), and creating oppurtunities for all. This is why he is doing so well. This is dramatically different then the presidential runs by Sharpton and Jackson, as these men had a long history of supporting what were perceived by many whites as "black issues" and often turned a blind eye to justice if required to uphold the so-called "black position". Many whites would perceive those two as black racists. Obama, on the other hand, acts and is perceived as evenhanded and fights for things that benefit everyone. This is why, absent some underhanded dealing in the convention, Obama will win the nomination and will certainly beat old man McCain. posted 04/09/2008 at 20:18:34

Tuesday Polls On Clinton's Do-Or-Die Contests

Moffle - You tell RedBirdy "thanks" and then you proceed to do exactly the opposite of what he suggested in his post by ripping on the opposing side. Your hypocracy is shinning today. posted 04/10/2008 at 19:08:13

You can't exactly say Real Politics is "hardly a Clinton friend", which unfairly implies it is biased against her. This site primarily just reports other polls and mathmatically averages the numbers. Well, maybe you can imply the site is biased against her, all the math is against her. posted 04/10/2008 at 19:05:47

Historian Sean Wilentz And The Latest Nutty Scenario From Clinton Supporters

This does seem to be there new fallback position. Most of the superdelegates appear to be indicating that they will back the person with the most elected delegates, however, Clinton at least could argue that they should pick her if she had more popular vote. Now it appears she won't be able to catch him in popular vote so they have to shift to another argument.

I'm actually quite surprised she is pursing this at this point. She can only win if the undecided Superdelegates back her about 3-1 and back her despite her losing the elected delegate count and popular vote. Her prestige in the party would be so much higher if she dropped out and campaigned heavily on Obama's behalf. Maybe she could pick up a cabinent position like Sec of State which would help with her resume in a future run in 8 or 12 or 16 years from now. posted 04/08/2008 at 13:58:08

Buried Lede Department: Why No Presidential Candidate Says Anything of Substance About the Disaster in New Orleans

Doesn't Obama mention Katrina quite often?
HARRY RESPONDS: The only time I've heard him devote any time to the subject was, surprise, when he spoke at Tulane. Even then, his approach, like those of the other candidates, was tentative and trivial. posted 03/27/2008 at 22:21:40

John McCain, Iraq, and the Eyewitness Fallacy

"Occupations are not won. They are ended."

You should tell that to the American Indians. posted 03/27/2008 at 22:15:56

"Pimped Out" Resurfaces On MSNBC

Hurrah! Let's ban everyone from news outlets that don't share our opinion. Hurrah! This is the new "progressive" way, let's shut down the oppostion and bury our heads in the sand! posted 03/27/2008 at 11:08:06

Hillary's Approval Rating Plummets In NBC/WSJ Poll

I'm an Obama supporter (read my history is you don't believe me), however, the article states that:
"In addition, we oversampled African-Americans in order to get a more reliable cross-tab on many of the questions we asked in this poll regarding Sen. Barack Obama's speech on race and overall response to last week's Rev. Jeremiah Wright dustup. "
OK, the fact that this poll purposely "oversampled" one particular group, a group which is 80 to 90% in opposition to Hillary Clinton, is by definition a dishonest poll. You might as well "oversample" Rupublicans and I'd bet we could get a Hillary approval rating around 5%. The whole poll and article are dishonest and should be disregarded. posted 03/27/2008 at 14:33:46

Clinton Donors Object to Pelosi Comment

There they go again. I guess these big money Democrats don't believe in free speech. posted 03/26/2008 at 22:11:49

Hillary Clinton: Truth or Consequences

Probably because Bush and Cheney are irrelevant as they aren't running for president. Hillary clearly has a problem "embelishing" her accomplishments to the point that most independents will take his as an untrustworthy lier. Remember Al Gore's line about how he took the initiative to "create...the internet". OK, that was some minor resume padding by Gore, especially taken in context. That is nothing compared to Hillary's claim about keeping her head down and running through sniper fire -- that's an intentional lie that she clearly was going to stick with after disputed by Sinbaid and only gave in when confronted with video tape. Apparently Clintons only back off their lies when confronted with video tape or DNA evidence. posted 03/26/2008 at 22:34:45

Players, Not Cheerleaders

DazedandConfused,

You have a fitting name. Bush's biggest problem is that he does things without thinking about and planning for the consequences. You are just like George Bush. Are you really OK with an immediate complete pullout if it results in millions dead in a civil war which could spread across the region, a global economic crisis due to out of control oil prices that cause gas prices to soar to tripple what they are today, and the resulting global recession ripping through economies that are already shaky. What's YOUR plan to keep this from happening? Nothing. Your plan is to pull out and damn the consequences. Why don't you think this through and come up with an alternative instead of your knee-jerk demand to get out now. Think! posted 03/26/2008 at 22:22:40

Also, just so you know I'm a dedicated Democrat that just happens to be realistic. You can't look at the world without facing facts. Just because your against the war, you have to acknowledge that if the policy you wished to enact, such as an immediate withdraw, were enacted there would be negative consequences. The only relevant question is how are we going to come up with a policy to balance saving our troops lives, prevent a global economic crisis, and not cause indirect death and harm to the people of Iraq we leave behind (keep in mind we've left them relatively defenseless in the most dangerous region on the planet). I don't hear you or anyone else critical of my response offering any realistic solutions to this problem, only fantasies that all will be well with the world if we just picked up tomorrow and went home. posted 03/26/2008 at 16:51:15

Let's face facts, unless you have a time machine there is no returning to 2003. The UN is nothing more than the nations that participate. Which nations do you believe will consist of the "peace keeping" force if we completely pull out? None. The world follows the U.S. in these types of things and the political pressure in every European country is even more in favor of not putting in troops then here in the U.S. Your best case scenario would be Iran invades Iraq, commits genocide on the opposition, like the Kurds, and stabilizes the rest of the populace by extreme violence and the threat of extreme violence. posted 03/26/2008 at 15:52:17

You're wrong and you missed my point. As I stated I believe going into Iraq was a mistake. However, you can't correct this mistake by simply pulling out as you'd be inviting more death and destruction on the people or Iraq then has already occured and you would throw the middle east into choas causing oil prices to surge and economies to tank. My solution, a pullout of the dangerous cities to fully defensible stations around key oil fields would is designed to protect the lives of our soldiers while still allowing us to keep the oil fields falling into the hands of fringe terrorist groups or Iran. Thereby, we protect Americans at home from losing their jobs and we protect our soldier's by allowing them to stay in safe zones, instead of walking through cities where bombs can be planted or they can be shot by snipers. posted 03/26/2008 at 15:46:45

The oil fields are easier to protect then attempting to bring peace to people who don't want peace. It's the difference between holding essentially empty land (which the miliary is good out) and attempting to keeping people within the cities from blowing each other up (which is nearly impossible to prevent). I agree with your points about conservation. We should be moving as fast as we can away from oil dependence on this region, however, we aren't there now and won't be there in the next few years. We need a short term fix that doesn't destroy the world economy. Mark my words, if either Hillary or Obama prevails in November the war won't end over night and you'd be naive to think otherwise. We in this for the long term, the only question is how many of our people should be lose in the process. Pulling back out of the cities to the oil fields is far safer for our people. posted 03/26/2008 at 15:41:01

We have three choices, (a) leave now, (b) leave over some extended time period like 6 months or a year, or (c) stay for the long term. Choice "a" will be dangerous and plung the country into a real civil war (with thousands of deaths per day) leading to immediate rise in oil prices and dropping the world deeper into recession. Choice (b) is safer for our troops, but with the same result of leaving the country in a true civil war, souring oil prices (any want $9 per gallon gas), and collapsing economies. So I think we're stuck with choice (c). No we shouldn't of gone in, but we're stuck now. The only other choice would be take the Iraq oil fields and set up a protective no-mans-land zone around the fields and blow up anything that enters the space. Then we can produce the oil (with a fee to offset or costs) and divide the revenues between the three major players in Iraq. At least oil prices should stabilzie. Tell me I'm wrong. posted 03/26/2008 at 13:35:42

The Latest Clinton Canard

The Democratic infighting has already turned off a number of my friends who lean Democratic or lean independent. Whereas two months ago they thought that the Democratic party had put forth two excellent canidates: Hillary Clinton with her experience to correct the errors of the past 7 years and Obama with his charisma and ability to lead us back to greatness. A win-win no matter who prevailed and a super win-win if they teamed up for a Clinton-Obama or Obama-Clinton ticket. We were unstoppable and the Republicans didn't have a snowballs chance. Now, Clinton is quickly becoming known as a "congenital lier" (that "sniper story" is not going away in a general election given that McCain really did face down fire) and Obama is becoming known as unqualified and the "black candidate" who will represent blacks first, then everyone else second (Rev. White story). We can't win this way. How is it going to look when McCain attacks Obama using a line from Hillary Clinton? It can't be countered as right-wing propoganda if the source was Hillary. This is what destroyed Dukakis -- Al Gore's campaign use the Willie Horton attack in the primary and the Republicans just picked it up in the General Election. Also, could Clinton and Obama ride the same ticket now? Could you imagine VP Clinton in a debate where she is asked to explain comments she made about Obama not being experienced enough or explain Bill Clinton's comments about Obama's patriotism? posted 03/27/2008 at 11:29:17

Those Hidden Costs

Did you ever stop to think that teh "white teacher" who told you that "I came to this schoo to teach at-risk kids" says that to allot of the parents, whatever their race, and the same thing with the principal story. Are you sure you're not seeing racism everywhere when in reality it's only your own negative perception of whites? With respect to your employer, if what you are saying is true you can sue the pants off of the guy and because it's a civil rights discrimination case you're even entitled to attorney's fees so if won't cost you a dime. I've seen numerous of these cases brought to law firms over the years, however, the vast vast majority turn out to be bogus claims based on the individuals distorted world view. I'm not saying there isn't discrimination, but you sound like a person who harbor ill will towards all white people. posted 03/26/2008 at 13:22:07

Chelsea Clinton Has Quick Response For Lewinsky Question

The answer she should of gave was simply "no", full stop. She wasn't required to elaborate and I'm sure her opinion is that her mother's credibility wasn't damaged. It's always better to answer the question with a simple by accurate answer, even without explanation, then it is to avoid the question and even worse, attack the questioner. That position seems to say that we as the people who are electing you (remember they work for us, they are our employees) don't have a right to respect or even obtain answers to questions. This is especially true with respect to the Clintons who appear to have problems telling the truth ("I didn't have sexual relations with that women", the Hillary dodging sniper fire story, and all the others), as such a quesion about credibility is especially relevant to Hillary's possible election. posted 03/26/2008 at 13:49:08

Wonder Woman

What he actually said was "I took the initiative in creating the internet." This was stated on March 9, 1999 on on Wolf Blitzer's Late Edition. This was still an incredibly clumsey and self-serving statement, especially if you know any of the people who really were involved in "creating the internet". I think this could safely be characterized as misspeaking as it conceivably could have been mean to mean that he took the leading in passing legislation that assisted with the development of the internet. This, however, is nothing compared to Hillary's claim about dodging sniper fire and running with her head down when in reality she was greeted by children and traveled with Sinbad. This was just an outright lie. posted 03/25/2008 at 21:19:51

I think the author was helping with a solution, you just have to read between the lines. Hillary cannot be trusted and shouldn't be elected. The solution is vote for somebody else. posted 03/25/2008 at 21:09:35

I knew Bill Clinton; Bill Clinton was a friend of mine. Hillary is no Bill Clinton. posted 03/25/2008 at 21:06:10

A Mosaic: 4,000 Americans Dead

So exactly what is our exit strategy? I really can't figure this out after listening to Obama or Clinton on this subject. The options presented by the presidential candidates appear to be (a) withdrawal immediately, (b) withdrawal over a longer set period, such as 6 months to 1 year, or (c) stay indefinitely. posted 03/24/2008 at 21:29:23

She isn't. posted 03/24/2008 at 21:09:47

I'm very much against keeping our troops in harms way in Iraq and think the money, lives, and time spent over there could be put to better use here in the U.S. posted 03/24/2008 at 20:56:30

Shouldn't we add Hillary to the picture then? posted 03/24/2008 at 20:40:25

Blacks 'Injected' With Syphilis? Never Happened

There have been some fairly horrific things done in the name of medicine and medical studies. There were also studies where doctors injected babies with radioactive material without obtain parental consent or even informing the parents of what they were doing. These experiments were focused on poor individuals, some of who were black, but some were also white. The point is, there have also been experiments where the medical community found it perfectly acceptable to due the first harm, the actual injection of harmful material into someones body. posted 03/24/2008 at 20:37:20

Fans of this user

midtown

Log in to become a fan of this user.

Fan of

This user isn't a fan of anybody yet!

Bloggers I Like