Welcome, Guest. Please login or register.
Did you miss your activation email?
March 28, 2015, 11:24:41 pm
HomePredMockPollEVCalcAFEWIKIHelpLogin Register
News: Don't forget to get your 2013 Gubernatorial Endorsements and Predictions in!

  Show Posts
Pages: 1 ... 1028 1029 1030 1031 1032 [1033] 1034 1035 1036 1037 1038 ... 1275
25801  General Politics / U.S. General Discussion / Re: Santorum publishes Extremist Views in his New Book on: July 07, 2005, 06:04:17 pm
Personally, I'm a lucky bastard. At this rate, I probably won't ever have too many problems finding a job. Next?

If being liberal means caring about others, I would fit the stereotype of a Democrat than a Republican. Nope, sorry, point not taken.

If by being a lucky bastard means that you have a lot of inside connections to getting a job, I suppose that the party of meritocracy can't do much for you.
25802  General Politics / U.S. General Discussion / Re: Santorum publishes Extremist Views in his New Book on: July 07, 2005, 06:02:34 pm
Tell me. What can liberalism do for me that conservatism or centrism (don't know if that's an actual word) cannot?

It all depends on what you want done. The Democratic party has a much better record of creating jobs when they're in power.
Oh? What kinds of jobs? Roll Eyes
Pretty much any kind. There was a net creation of 22.7 million jobs under the Clinton adminstration, and about 21-22 million of those were private sector.

You are under the impression that Presidents or policies create jobs.  Many of those jobs under Clinton were due to the tech rush and then the eventual tech bubble collapse.  All that the Presidents and politics do is attempt to guide the economic conditions in the nation to make it more favorable for businesses to grow . . . however, the markets (both domestic and global) determine if jobs are created, and not the policies.

OK, to be fair, 20 million jobs, plus another 2.7 million or so that were just because of the tech bubble.
25803  General Politics / U.S. General Discussion / Re: Thomas most activist, Breyer least activist on: July 07, 2005, 06:01:39 pm
I disagree. The basis for it was laid by Hamilton in the Federalist Papers. This was understood when the document was ratified.
It's not in the wiki article.
With all due respect, jfern, that is possibly the worst argument I've ever heard.

It wasn't an argument, I pointed out that he could add information to it. Or alternatively, he could just link to it here. Obviously the lack of information in a wiki article doesn't prove that he's wrong. You seem to be assuming that I was arguing something that I wasn't.
25804  General Politics / International General Discussion / Re: jfern on London Terrorist Attacks on: July 07, 2005, 05:57:39 pm

If the media can praise Bush and never criticize Bush for a year, I can damn well criticize Bush whenever I want. You got a problem with that?

I have a severe problems with the accuracy of your claims, as do an increasing number of the posters here.  By the logic of your position, we were losing World War II because the Nazis launched an offesive in December of 1944.

You will also note that I have not been one of the numerous people on this thread that has said you should not be critical.  I critize your ideas, not your expression of them.

Then what were we arguing about? I wasn't making any claims, except that the media was rather un-critical of Bush for a while after 9/11.
25805  General Politics / U.S. General Discussion / Re: Santorum publishes Extremist Views in his New Book on: July 07, 2005, 05:54:05 pm
Tell me. What can liberalism do for me that conservatism or centrism (don't know if that's an actual word) cannot?

It all depends on what you want done. The Democratic party has a much better record of creating jobs when they're in power.
Oh? What kinds of jobs? Roll Eyes
Pretty much any kind. There was a net creation of 22.7 million jobs under the Clinton adminstration, and about 21-22 million of those were private sector.
25806  General Politics / U.S. General Discussion / Re: Thomas most activist, Breyer least activist on: July 07, 2005, 05:52:57 pm
I disagree. The basis for it was laid by Hamilton in the Federalist Papers. This was understood when the document was ratified.

It's not in the wiki article. If you're so sure, why don't you find a source and add it to the article?
25807  General Politics / U.S. General Discussion / Re: Is the war on terror worth it? on: July 07, 2005, 05:50:30 pm
Of course it's worth it.

However, the question should be... Is the War On Terror being carried out effectively?

Seconded
25808  General Politics / U.S. General Discussion / Re: Santorum publishes Extremist Views in his New Book on: July 07, 2005, 05:49:51 pm
Tell me. What can liberalism do for me that conservatism or centrism (don't know if that's an actual word) cannot?

It all depends on what you want done. The Democratic party has a much better record of creating jobs when they're in power.
25809  General Politics / International General Discussion / Re: jfern on London Terrorist Attacks on: July 07, 2005, 05:47:56 pm
In all seriousness, when may we resume to criticize Bush and Blair's foriegn policy? There is understandably a period of mourning after an attack like this, but how long does it last for? Jfern has a valid point, but when can it be discussed?

If we look to the American media after 9/11, it appears that we have to wait over a year.

Even a mortally wounded aminal can attack.  Your attack was not on foreign policy, but on military policy.  It is unreasonable to assume, that attacks can not occur, even when we are winning.

The US media never criticized Bush for about a year after 9/11. My attack was on the war on terror, which has been neglected in favor of the war in Iraq.

We are not discussing the media; we are discussing your comments.

If the media can praise Bush and never criticize Bush for a year, I can damn well criticize Bush whenever I want. You got a problem with that?
25810  General Politics / U.S. General Discussion / Re: Thomas most activist, Breyer least activist on: July 07, 2005, 05:46:53 pm
Judicial review is not activist. You know, like I already said earlier in this topic. It's just that state nullification would be more ideal.

Well, according to the article this was the first time it was done, and it wasn't done against until the activist Dred Scott ruling in 1857. What I'm arguing is that judicial review, which is standard practice now as opposed to 200 years ago, is basically judicial activism.
25811  General Politics / U.S. General Discussion / Re: Santorum publishes Extremist Views in his New Book on: July 07, 2005, 05:45:32 pm
Exactly why the extreme-right is to be feared. 

An ultra-liberal America: gay marriage and marijuana

An ultra-conservative America: totalitarianism based on the moral views of it's leaders
You forgot no guns, rampant crime, socialism, communism, possibly even fascism.

Much of the left doesn't favor new national gun laws.
Much of the right doesn't favour totalitarianism.
Yeah, they're just freedom lovers with totalitarian leanings.
25812  General Politics / U.S. General Discussion / Re: Thomas most activist, Breyer least activist on: July 07, 2005, 05:43:48 pm
I don't think Marbury v. Madison was an activist ruling. Marbury v. Madison comes right out of Hamilton in the Federalist Papers.

So you're arguing that judicial review isn't activist?

Also, if you read here, there was some strange reasoning behind the ruling. If the judges had ruled how they felt like, Jefferson may have ignored the law.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Marbury_v._Madison

25813  General Politics / U.S. General Discussion / Re: Santorum publishes Extremist Views in his New Book on: July 07, 2005, 05:40:16 pm
Exactly why the extreme-right is to be feared. 

An ultra-liberal America: gay marriage and marijuana

An ultra-conservative America: totalitarianism based on the moral views of it's leaders
You forgot no guns, rampant crime, socialism, communism, possibly even fascism.

Much of the left doesn't favor new national gun laws.
25814  Other Elections - Analysis and Discussion / Congressional Elections / Re: The Dems' Turn to Win Ohio? on: July 07, 2005, 05:39:06 pm
Ohio governor race looks good for Democrats.

http://www.dailykos.com/storyonly/2005/7/7/18324/85595
25815  General Politics / International General Discussion / Re: Terrorist attack on London underground on: July 07, 2005, 05:38:06 pm
A question: what do you think the political ramifications will be? Will British public opinion become more hawkish and pro-American, or more pacifist and isolationist?
I'm not sure. Not-so-surprisingly, George Galloway has something to add:

"We argued, as did the security services in this country, that the attacks on Afghanistan and Iraq would increase the threat of terrorist attack in Britain. Tragically Londoners have now paid the price of the Government ignoring such warnings."

Iraq was a mistake, but why is he complaining about Afganistan?
25816  General Politics / U.S. General Discussion / Re: Rumors on the Internets say Rehnquist to retire on: July 07, 2005, 05:30:07 pm
Ah. Dailykos.

...k.

I don't see how that changes the chances of these rumors being true. DailyKos has a lot of factual stuff, this just happens to clearly be a rumor.
25817  General Politics / International General Discussion / Re: jfern on London Terrorist Attacks on: July 07, 2005, 05:26:50 pm
In all seriousness, when may we resume to criticize Bush and Blair's foriegn policy? There is understandably a period of mourning after an attack like this, but how long does it last for? Jfern has a valid point, but when can it be discussed?

If we look to the American media after 9/11, it appears that we have to wait over a year.

Even a mortally wounded aminal can attack.  Your attack was not on foreign policy, but on military policy.  It is unreasonable to assume, that attacks can not occur, even when we are winning.

The US media never criticized Bush for about a year after 9/11. My attack was on the war on terror, which has been neglected in favor of the war in Iraq.
25818  Presidential Elections - Analysis and Discussion / Election What-ifs? / Re: Kevin For President on: July 07, 2005, 05:25:04 pm
why

Farm subsidies.
25819  General Politics / U.S. General Discussion / Re: Rumors on the Internets say Rehnquist to retire on: July 07, 2005, 05:22:03 pm
Key word: rumors

http://www.dailykos.com/story/2005/7/7/175924/5942
25820  General Politics / U.S. General Discussion / Rumors on the Internets say Rehnquist to retire on: July 07, 2005, 05:18:28 pm
Rumors say he'll announce tommorrow morning.
That'd be crazy, 2 SCOTUS openings at the same time after 0 for 11 years.
25821  General Politics / International General Discussion / Re: jfern on London Terrorist Attacks on: July 07, 2005, 05:16:53 pm
In all seriousness, when may we resume to criticize Bush and Blair's foriegn policy? There is understandably a period of mourning after an attack like this, but how long does it last for? Jfern has a valid point, but when can it be discussed?

If we look to the American media after 9/11, it appears that we have to wait over a year.
25822  General Politics / International General Discussion / Re: jfern on London Terrorist Attacks on: July 07, 2005, 05:15:39 pm
Can you idiots please stop acting like I condone the acts?


 You don't condone it but you certainly jumped on it fast enough as one of your anti-Bush talking points.  It was rather unseemly and in bad taste to play politics while the blood hadn't even dried. 

I suppose I shouldn't have. But I'm sure I wasn't the first person to politicize it.
25823  General Politics / International General Discussion / Re: Terrorist attack on London underground on: July 07, 2005, 05:14:01 pm
Lots of information here.  Over 40 dead.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/7_July_2005_London_bombings
25824  General Discussion / History / Re: What should George H. W. Bush have done...? on: July 07, 2005, 05:11:57 pm
Made the Gulf War overlap with the 1992 election. Only thing is the media wasn't as right-wing back then, so they might have gotten upset.
25825  General Politics / U.S. General Discussion / Re: Thomas most activist, Breyer least activist on: July 07, 2005, 05:09:22 pm
Judicial activists are judges who use the power of judicial review to overturn laws for the purpose of shaping government policy, rather than upholding the Constitution. It isn't just about striking down laws.

I'd be more interested in looking at state laws, anyway.

"Upholding the Constitution"? What do you mean by that? Do you support Marbury vs. Madison?

Oh, well, since you won't answer, I'll just lay down my arguments for either answer.

YES: So you support judicial activism?
NO: So you don't support judges being able to declare a law UnConstitutional?
Pages: 1 ... 1028 1029 1030 1031 1032 [1033] 1034 1035 1036 1037 1038 ... 1275


Login with username, password and session length

Logout

Powered by SMF 1.1.20 | SMF © 2013, Simple Machines