Hard News: The Debate and Onwards
242 Responses
First ←Older Page 1 … 5 6 7 8 9 10 Newer→ Last
-
a flaming Maoist
Now THAT sounds like a delicious cocktail...
Palin couldn't name anything but Roe v. Wade.
Asked what other Supreme Court decisions she disagreed with, Alaska's governor couldn't name any.
"Well, let's see. There's, of course, in the great history of America rulings there have been rulings, that's never going to be absolute consensus by every American," Palin said. "And there are, those issues, again, like Roe v. Wade where I believe are best held on a state level and addressed there. So you know, going through the history of America, there would be others but ...."
Asked again to name a decision she disagreed with, Palin replied: "Well, I could think of, of any again, that could be best dealt with on a more local level. Maybe I would take issue with. But you know, as mayor, and then as governor and even as a vice president, if I'm so privileged to serve, wouldn't be in a position of changing those things but in supporting the law of the land as it reads today."
=|
-
Correction. She couldn't name any other ruling she 'disagreed ' with... but then got rather confused.
In response to a question, Ms. Palin also said that she believed there is an inherent right of privacy in the Constitution. She did not explain how she could believe in a right of privacy and still oppose Roe v. Wade, the 1973 ruling that established a Constitutional right to abortion. The decision rests on the belief in a right to privacy.
Ms. Couric explained that the right to privacy is “the cornerstone” of the decision.
After Ms. Palin said she did believe in the privacy right, she added:
“I do. And I believe that — individual states can handle what the people within the different constituencies in the 50 states would like to see their will ushered in in an issue like that.”
http://thecaucus.blogs.nytimes.com/2008/10/01/the-palin-interviews-the-supreme-court-question/
-
useful flow-chart
Everything I need to know about the American lawmaking process is handily on YouTube, in song form, via the wonderful Schoolhouse Rock:
Palin, c'mon. Brown v. Board of Education? Plessy v. Ferguson? Bueller v. Principal Ed Rooney? (OK, I made that one up.)
-
oh and this!
I'm, in that sense, a federalist, where I believe that states should have more say in the laws of their lands and individual areas.Isn't that the EXACT OPPOSITE of federalism?
-
3410,
oh and this!
Here's one that slipped by yesterday:
Couric: Is [climate change] man-made, in your opinion?
Palin: You know there are - there are man's activities that can be contributed to the issues that we're dealing with now, these impacts. I'm not going to solely blame all of man's activities on the changes in climate. Because the world's weather patterns are … cyclical. And over history we have seen change there. But kind of doesn't matter at this point, as we debate what caused it. The point is the real need to do something about it.
So Palin supports efforts to counteract the Earth's natural climate changes?
-
So Palin supports efforts to counteract the Earth's natural climate changes?
Well why not, if it turns out that change poses a threat to us. I've long thouight that the only relevant questions about climate change are:
Is it happening?
Is it bad?
Can we do anything about it?Apportioning blame seems counter productive to me, the answer to question 3 would address that anyway.
-
CBS has the 'Supreme Court' question to both candidates up on their site now and it does Look like Palin couldn't name anything but Roe v. Wade.
http://www.cbsnews.com/stories/2008/10/01/eveningnews/main4493062.shtml
The thing about Palin is that, despite having some principled and predictable positions, her range is so narrow. She'd struggle to fill up her morning with the issues she's concerned about. The VP role mightn't be large, but surely it involves more than reviewing library purchase orders and hunting season schedules?
-
3410,
Question 3?
-
3410,
Oh, I see; your question 3.
-
3410,
Well why not, if it turns out that change poses a threat to us
Hmm. Perhaps you're right. I'll think on that.
-
Oh, I see; your question 3.
That I didn't actually number... :)
-
I gotta say, I'm starting to feel really sorry for Sarah Palin, she is obviously so far out of her depth and it now just appears bloody mean spirited of the McCain campaign for having picked her.
No person deserves to be held up to this sort of ridicule.
The sooner this election is over the better...
-
__I'm, in that sense, a federalist, where I believe that states should have more say in the laws of their lands and individual areas.__
Isn't that the EXACT OPPOSITE of federalism?
Well er, yup. One presumes she means 'state-ist'.
I mean really, if you're running for VP, how important can it be to know what federal means? It's not like she'll be 2nd in charge of one or anything.
-
This tendency to malaprop (?) worked for Dubya.
-
Hang on a minute mates. The mighty Wikipedia notes that there is this newish conception of 'federalism' in the US, and to new federalists this means that the federal government gives grants to different states to do with as they will, so they're more powerful and separatist. Or something. Up is down, black is white, the sky is green. I am confused.
-
No person deserves to be held up to this sort of ridicule.
Even those who believe they have the ability and right to rule over the masses?
-
I meant,
Not even those who etc...?
She didn't have to accept the nomination after all.
-
The mighty Wikipedia notes that there is this newish conception of 'federalism' in the US, and to new federalists this means that the federal government gives grants to different states to do with as they will, so they're more powerful and separatist.
Similar confusion is occuring in Australia too - federalist are usually understood to be advocates of more central government compared with the states-rights mob who want federal government to butt-out. That's all confused now by Rudd's new federalism, which is different from Howard's new federalism which was really just nationalism, he says:
Create a new federalism, with Commonwealth–state relationships on a new footing. There needs to be a set of co-commitments between and across government, including with state and territory governments, to give certainty and clarity.
There you go, sorted, right?
-
to new federalists this means that the federal government gives grants to different states to do with as they will, so they're more powerful and separatist.
Yes, but that's all just code for Neo-cons/Religious Right. Because they know they can't win by overt means they try to win by stealth. 'Intelligent Design' has only succeeded because they've taken over the School Boards one by one. And so they try the same tactic/strategy with 'Federalism' - get control of the State legislature and then push for more 'self determination' for each state. And once that's through you overturn Roe Vs Wade state by state. It will be easy to get thru because there will always be that wink and nod: "we're not banning abortion per se, just banning it in our state - if you want one you can always go to California".
Until of course ... -
This is interesting.
A PAC called Human Rights Campaign went up to Wasilla to ask the town's gay folk (the ones who weren't too scared to appear on camera) about Sarah Palin. It's just under six minutes long:
It appears that one of the books she wanted to ban from the library was called Pastor, I Am Gay. And, indeed, copies of it mysteriously disappeared from the shelves ...
-
I know all you guys think that only the U.S and A are having that little foible of democracy called an election but I would just like to remind you of the fact that we have a similar thing happening here, although with less entertainment factor, on the 8th of Nowonder.
I did mention, a few months back, that the only thing National were offering was "Better".
Now the campaign is in it's last, lame, stage I would like to say that the new slogan is less better than the last meaningless catch-phrase.
"A Brighter Future" Can someone PLEASE ask the only person that National is using to front this banal campaign, John Key (for those that haven't noticed) what that actually means?Does it mean an end to the energy saving light bulbs?
Do we get sunglasses with that?
Do we get more ultra violet?
Will our houses get painted bright blue?
will my underwear, somehow, come out of the washing machine whiter?
Will we see a more intelligent front bench in the house. (Tui Add Break)
Everything will make our eyes hurt?
Everybody will become more astute?
Better?
Brighter?
BollocksI just noticed that the first letters of each line spell Dweeb (ignoring some repetition)
:-) -
Yes, but that's all just code for Neo-cons/Religious Right. Because they know they can't win by overt means they try to win by stealth.
John: What exactly is "covert" about standing for elections to school boards, running campaigns on issues, and actually bloody organising to get ballot initiatives passed? Sorry for quoting The West Wing, but in a democracy decisions get made by the people who bother to show up.
And on the subject of same-sex marriage, I may not like the outcomes but I'd infinitely prefer the decisions to be made by the states than an over-reaching federal government that decides marriage should be federalised. To be honest, I think there are plenty of people on both the left and the right who only believe in the separation of powers when it is ideologically convenient. Always have been, and probably always will. Doesn't mean it's a worthless concept.
-
A PAC called Human Rights Campaign went up to Wasilla to ask the town's gay folk (the ones who weren't too scared to appear on camera) about Sarah Palin. It's just under six minutes long:
Oh, Jesus, Mary and Joseph... couldn't someone at the HRC find some banjo-free hick-hop music?
-
"banjo-free hick-hop" - classic :)
-
WH,
And there are actually legitimate concerns, that are no less legitimate because the born-again fiscal conservatives raising them aren't exactly free of electoral self-interest.
I think you're right to say that there are legitimate concerns about the bill, but you might agree they are not being articulated by the people in the article I was quoting from. Newt Gingrich has called the Bush Administration's TARP "socialism", so what is the authentic conservative's solution to the problem?
Boehner's letter to Pelosi includes the following:
"Instead of injecting taxpayer funds into the market to produce liquidity, private capital can be drawn into the market by removing burdensome regulatory and tax barriers that are currently blocking private capital formation. In short, too much private capital is sitting on the sidelines during this crisis, and it is well past time to unleash it."
Yeah, lets unleash all that sidelined private capital. The power of the market and "fiscal conservatism", yay. Cow patty, boo.
More seriously, there is an interesting discussion going on about mark to market accounting. Where is that guy when you really need him?
Post your response…
This topic is closed.