Giving away the farm to the 47ers hasn't been a priority in Georgia even back to the days of Roy Barnes.

Or Jefferson Davis for that matter. Good to see you know your roots.

Reading about the social state of the bottom half of the SES pile in Georgia makes for depressing reading. All the female teenagers seem to get pregnant, and the educational level is horrifically low.

Sarah Palin's America.

This is what happens when spoiled little rich girls grow up and become Republican policymakers.

  Get well, Mr. President.

Carter singlehandedly let him fall.

This is patently false. What would you have us do, invade Persia to prop up the Shah?

Washington DC does not merit having two Senators.

What's so great about Kerry as SoS?  I guess he has some diplomatic experience, but does he have the necessary leadership and organization skills?

He has at least as much as Hillary did in 2009, honestly.

Am I the only one who thinks maybe John Kerry really wanted to be SOS and placed a phone call to his good buddy John McCain (remember he wanted him as VEEP in 2004)? Who in turn summoned his ally Graham and proceeded to use Benghazi to block Susan Rice? Think about it; Kerry gets SOS, Graham gets to beef up his anti-Obama chops ahead of 2014, and the GOP gets to run for the Senate seat in Mass.

Everybody wins. At least insofar as the players involved.

I've always asserted that anyone who thinks the current President (not just Obama, but any current POTUS) is the best or worst President ever is a partisan hack.

Insult, though he was quite left-wing compared to many at the time, and that's never good.

That still doesn't make him a "communist". Words have definitions, you shouldn't just use them as blanket-terms for anything vaguely leftist.

In America today "middle class" is a code word for whoever is using the phrase talking about himself. Everybody thinks of himself as middle class because whether one earns 30k or 150k, we are always contrasting ourselves those poor people over there and those rich people over there.

This.

So he's in keeping with the quite literally homophobic tradition of the Cuban and Bolivarian Revolutions.

As opposed to the saintly tolerance of the right. :rolleyes:

[the media narrative has established israel as the bad guy]

as a general rule, it's a bad idea to pull a gun and threaten a guard or officer, whether it's fake or not. this gets coverage because the media narrative has established israel as the bad guy, and so it's acceptable to pin all the blame on them.

Quite the opposite actually. At least in America.

I can't believe she was voted back into office. Do the people that live in her district know that she makes them look bad?

It was very close IIRC.

The soldiers obviously thought it was a real gun. It wouldn't be the first time their enemies have used these kind of tactics.

[I like to think it isn't arbitrary, since it is derived from deep personal reflections]

I like to think it isn't arbitrary, since it is derived from deep personal reflections, as well as scientific findings in domains such as psychology and sociology, which it's not worth detailing now.

The same can be said for literally any moral judgment ever. Also, cite your claims about  "psychology and sociology". Because they are worth going into if they are going to be a part of your argument.

But anyways, this is exactly what politics is about. Politics is about determinating, as a society, what we judge as good and what we judge as bad, and what is the best way to favor the good and combat the evil. You cannot found any public policy without basing yourself on some form of morality.

I base my political policy prescriptions on what is materially best for the society. Also, there is no such thing as good and evil. Life is grey.

I think that cracking down on pimps and brothel owners, to the contrary, has the purpose to emancipate their "employees". As I said, ideally the State should take charge of offering prostitutes opportunities to insert themselves in a normal professional career, but I understand that this is a much broader problem. Nonetheless, while legalizing prostitution might improve the conditions of prostitutes, it does not change the fundamentally degrading nature of prostitution.

The government has been enforcing anti-prostitution laws and has not had your desired effect. As for the bold, if by "might improve the conditions of prostitutes" you mean "it will utterly and massively improve the lot of sex workers" then yes. Every first world nation with legalized prostitution has improved the lot of sex workers dramatically. Legalizing and regulating prostitution has the facts to back it up.

Again your opinion on the matter ultimately boils down to the fact that you just don't like prostitution as a concept personally.

I think in all likelihood we are already sending the Syrian rebels weapons and other supplies in secret. Probably via Saudi and other Gulf middle men.

I do think that the fundamental consequences of legalizing prostitution (ie, spreading a merchandised conception of sexuality) would ultimately outweigh its potential advantages. I just think it is fundamentally necessary for a society to cultivate the idea that one's body is not and cannot be for sale.

Like I said before; this argument amounts to "It's just bad". You are enforcing your arbitrary value judgment upon the entire population.

Because it is indisputable that, in 90% of cases, prostitutes are the victims of merchandised sex rather than their beneficiaries. Of course they get paid for that, so what? Most of them do this job because they feel this is their only opportunity to maintain economic security, and, as Politicus pointed out, this activity physically and psychologically degrades them.

So why are you against the single most reliable say to improve the lot of said sex workers? Taking your "moral stand" does nothing to adjust the situation.

[nd take action against the "customers"]

But why don't you accept that there might be a legitimate moral concern about accepting sex as a commodity? Is it so weird to think that sex is a particularly meaningful aspect of human life and must not be degraded in a merchandised relationship? I don't want you to agree with me, but you can't just dismiss these concerns only because they are grounded on morality.

The issue is that you would be using a moral concern to make laws that would apply to all of the people. Also, the society would be taking a "moral stand" at the expense of more rational laws that would actually improve the lot of sex workers (and their clients, for that matter).

However, when sex is turned into a full employment, organized in activities that amount to corporations, I think the State can and must step up and take action against the "customers" and against the "capitalists", while leaving the "workers" alone (ideally, helping them).

Why is it inherently wrong in your view to pay for sex but not a big deal to sell it? This seems like an obvious double-standard.

Many of the opposition to legal and regulated prostitution I hear comes from this idea that sex is somehow "special" in an quasi-spiritual sense and thusly not based in fact.

"I don't think selling sex is right."

"I just don't think sex should be a commodity."

Ect, ect.

It's similar to people who oppose legalization of Marijuana. "It's just bad."

If the sex trade is regulated properly sex trafficking can be cut down. Similar to drug legalization cutting down on drug trafficking. What John in their right mind would choose some dirty street walker over the clean and safe alternative? Don't get me wrong there will always be broke people who have to get their fix but legalization and regulation actually have a notable affect in making sex workers safer. Which is infinitely more then you can say for the high-horsed moralistic stands of some people, which accomplish nothing.

Opposing legalization of marijuana is probably one of the single dumbest mainstream political opinions in modern America. I have never in my life heard a serious argument against it.

The thing that pisses me off the most is that that smug douchebag implies that going "back to church" is a natural sign of maturity.

It always should have been Hillary.

I don't think Warner would be an auto turnoff to the base as a whole. I remember in the 2008 cycle like yesterday when people were talking up Warner.

That being said I don't think he will run. He can't challenge Cuomo from the left, which is were the base will be looking for the 'anti-Cuomo'. And of course if Hillary runs Warner would do best to stay out.

I just don't think he is what the base will be looking for in 2016. I think the party is going to move to the left overall which is why I don't discount O'Malley.

HP's.