Making Baby Jesus Cry

[Secret_Agent_Man]

Originally posted by bilmore
So, you stand in opposition to Dean?

Just wondering . . .

Dean is a lunatic, but he should be good at raising cash and at mobilizing and sustaining our base -- hopefully even expanding it amongst the young and naive and/or apolitical. That is the role of the Party Chairman.

It remains to be seen if he will be successful. Initial returns should be in by November of next year. Also, after this gig, and his mouth, Dean can't be a candidate anymore - not a bad thing.

S_A_M

Originally posted by Replaced_Texan
Holy shit. I never thought I'd hear these words out of this administration before a jury came back with a verdict: 'I take responsibility' for U.S. failures

That's nice. Now that we know who's to blame, when is he resigning? Brown at least did the right thing.

[Replaced_Texan]

Interesting thoughts by Marshall Wittmann, aka the Bull Moose, on the second Supreme Court nominee:

Karl Rove, the Director of the Federal Emergency Image Management Agency (FEIMA), has a critical decision to make in the recovery of the POTUS' image - SCOTUS replacements. So far so good - Roberts is a smart and safe choice for Chief - he is a Rehnquist clone and will probably generate relatively little controversy.

The next choice is far dicer. Now, we enter the territory of actually changing the ideological composition of the Court. Which way to go? It would seem that the prudent thing to do would be to reach out to the middle. After all, that might actually seem like a Presidential gesture at a time of national distress. However, the FEIMA Director has other considerations on his mind.

The President's numbers are plummeting. The only factor that keeps him in the 40 percentile, however, is support from the conservative base. If they abandon W - hello to the most unpopular President in U.S. history. And the right is signaling that a moderate such as Gonzales is unacceptable.

Marshall used to be McCain's press secretary, though he's turned Democratic in the last year or so.

[Secret_Agent_Man]

Originally posted by bilmore
It's the MEME model of politics.

They used it on Bush with the "he lied" crap.

You posit a theme, and then, no matter how well the facts shut you down, you just keep repeating it.

It's all based on the idea that voters are idiots, and will simply remember the last thing they read from the press.

Yeah, but Lee Atwater and GHWB started it on a national level in the 1988 campaign. They had an easy target, but geez.

S_A_M

[Secret_Agent_Man]

Originally posted by sebastian_dangerfield
BTW, I am not a liberal, Penske. I'm a life long GOP registered voter (recently switched to libertarian) who's split his vote all over the place. I'm part of the thinking portion of this country - the socially liberal fiscal conservatives. We're the sleeping giant, and you nuts on the fringes are pushing your luck. We will get a Chuck Hagel of Rudy Guiliani elected, and it will be soon. And that will be curtains for the Jesus Nazis and the Berkeley know it all pseudo-intellectuals.

Rather wish it were true, but that's not bloody likely, because your ilk are all too smug, self-satisfied and lazy to actually do anything about it. Fanatics are motivated.

S_A_M

[Sexual Harassment Panda]

Originally posted by Hank Chinaski
Are Dems ready to take the blame they deserve?

http://www.opinionjournal.com/column.../?id=110007250

Maybe, but not unless you can find a source than the WSJ editorial page. That's like Daily Kos for the right wing.

[Gattigap]

Originally posted by bilmore
I completely agree that, in the natural rights of man, privacy is there.

Show me where it's in that limited document called our Constitution.

You're like a religious nut. You want it to be, and so therefore it is there.

Umm, no.

FWIW, I drove in to the office this morning listening to part of Roberts' nomination hearings on the radio.

In response to (I think it was) Senator Biden, Roberts agreed that a right of privacy exists in the Constitution, and that it resides in the liberty clause of the 14th Amendment. Notably, he caveated this by noting that different justices have different interpretations of its breadth and depth, but he does believe that it exists.

Is Roberts among those stoopid peoples?

[Mmmm, Burger (C.J.)]

Originally posted by Gattigap
FWIW, I drove in to the office this morning listening to part of Roberts' nomination hearings on the radio.

In response to (I think it was) Senator Biden, Roberts agreed that a right of privacy exists in the Constitution, and that it resides in the liberty clause of the 14th Amendment. Notably, he caveated this by noting that different justices have different interpretations of its breadth and depth, but he does believe that it exists.

Is Roberts among those stoopid peoples?

That's a nice place to find it, if you're him, because then when the states ban abortion you can say, while, yes, the 14th amendment liberty clause includes privacy, passing legislation that limits it is constitutional, so long as due process is guaranteed. See Slaughterhouse cases.

BTW, if it's in that clause of the 14th, why not in the 5th as well, which has the same clause?

[SlaveNoMore]

Mmmm, Burger (C.J.)
That's a nice place to find it, if you're him, because then when the states ban abortion you can say, while, yes, the 14th amendment liberty clause includes privacy, passing legislation that limits it is constitutional, so long as due process is guaranteed. See Slaughterhouse cases.

BTW, if it's in that clause of the 14th, why not in the 5th as well, which has the same clause?

I thought it was derived by the "penumbras" of the 1st, 3rd, 4th and 5th - and applied to the states via the 14th.

Or was that in a concurrence?

[Mmmm, Burger (C.J.)]

Originally posted by SlaveNoMore
I thought it was derived by the "penumbras" of the 1st, 3rd, 4th and 5th - and applied to the states via the 14th.

Or was that in a concurrence?

I thought it got seven votes. nttawwt.

[Replaced_Texan]

Originally posted by SlaveNoMore
I thought it was derived by the "penumbras" of the 1st, 3rd, 4th and 5th - and applied to the states via the 14th.

Or was that in a concurrence?

Ya'll really, really don't like that pesky 9th amendment, do you?

[baltassoc]

Originally posted by Hank Chinaski
Are Dems ready to take the blame they deserve?

http://www.opinionjournal.com/column.../?id=110007250

Tell you what: I won't vote for Democrats for mayor of NO or governor of LA if you won't vote for a Republican for President.

Deal?

[Hank Chinaski]

Originally posted by Replaced_Texan
Ya'll really, really don't like that pesky 9th amendment, do you?

Am i on wide spread ignore?

majority 4 votes- prenumbra 1 and 4 and 5 and everywhere in the bill or rights
concurences 3 votes -mostly 9th amendment.
dissent 2 votes -What the fuck you guys talkin about?

edit- there were actually 3 concurences

My memory was horrible. you were all wise to ignore me

[Hank Chinaski]

Originally posted by baltassoc
Tell you what: I won't vote for Democrats for mayor of NO or governor of LA if you won't vote for a Republican for President.

Deal?

in any election where my vote for President matters- ie my state is in play- then the election will be lopsided for the Republican. So I'm willing to barter my vote.

[Replaced_Texan]

Originally posted by Hank Chinaski
Am i on wide spread ignore?

majority 4 votes- prenumbra 1 and 4 and 5 and everywhere in the bill or rights
concurences 3 votes -mostly 9th amendment.
dissent 2 votes -What the fuck you guys talkin about?

For the sake of my sanity, this entire board is on ignore. I can't help but click the damned link every now and then, though. Have your people pray for me.