The Democrat Thread

[lostfan]

BTW in the comments section on Slate there are a bunch of random conservatives defending O'Donnell/trolls saying that she is right because the phrase "separation of church and state" is not in the Constitution. Well no s*** the PHRASE "separation of church and state" is not in the Constitution but the general idea is there in the First Amendment, the phrase itself came from Thomas Jefferson (who conveniently happens to be one of the founding fathers). This is irrelevant and to cling to this as some kind of validation is only to validate one's own willful ignorance. There are a lot of PHRASES that aren't in the Constitution. Find me "states' rights," "gun rights," "civil rights," "separation of powers," "checks and balances." For extra credit find me "capitalism" or "corporation." If you tell me about anything in the Constitution I'm sure I can come up with a phrase that's not there and I can pretend something is or is not in the Constitution. Using this silly non-logic, I could argue that because the word "capitalist" is not in the Constitution, America is a socialist country.

 

The other thing I saw that kept getting brought up is how "the media" "ignores" the fact that Coons didn't/couldn't name all 5 freedoms in the 1st Amendment. The author put it right in the middle of the god damn article. So much whining about bias, it's convenient when you can just say it's there whether it actually is or not.

[StrangeSox]

The establishment clause as it is written is stronger than "Separation of church and state" anyway.

 

The biggest issue, to me anyway, was that she didn't even appear to know the establishment clause was in the first amendment.

[StrangeSox]

Ugh, that was f***ing grim. There are days were I want to turn in my membership to the human race. Become an honorary rhesus monkey or something.

 

I believe Uganda is also the country that turns down aid from the Episcopal Church USA because of the gay issue--and a lot of the very conservative episcopal churches are flocking to for leadership. At least the American "religious" leaders that sparked the worst of this fatwa/jihad/crusade/whatever are a little contrite. Just shows the continued problem of religious/cultural imperialism and going in and saying s*** like that when you don't know a damn thing about the culture. They make me absolutely sick.

 

Here's a sad map:

yellow-minimal penalties

orange-large penalties

red-life in prison

dark red-death

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/LGBT_rights_b...ry_or_territory

[lostfan]

The establishment clause as it is written is stronger than "Separation of church and state" anyway.

 

The biggest issue, to me anyway, was that she didn't even appear to know the establishment clause was in the first amendment.

Coons couldn't answer a trivia question on the spot (granted, everyone should know speech, press, religion, assembly, and petition but still).

 

O'Donnell actively denied something that exists actually existed when someone said it did in front of her.

 

Now, now I get it, I know she actually believes herself when she says that, I've heard Ron Paul talk about how the founding fathers never intended for government to actively be hostile to religion, how the nation was founded on Christian values etc. But it doesn't take too much digging through case law to know there is in fact a separation of church and state even if it's not specifically spelled out that way. And I tend to give Thomas Jefferson's opinion a little more weight than Ron Paul's (although this textbook I just bought from Texas tells me that Thomas Jefferson was a nobody and that we are in a better position to know these things than he was).

[StrangeSox]

Yeah, pulling out that "where's the separation of church and state?" question out at a law school (where the debate was) is about as dunning-kruger as it would be to say "if evolution is true why are there still monkeys" at a conference of biologists.

 

Of course, you get blogs like American Thinker (LOL) saying "yeah but technically she is right! those words aren't there and the evil librul media is just wrong, unlike these 'constitutional scholars' who agree with me!!!!11!!"

 

Ron Paul gets a lot of credit for his libertarian economic views but his theocratic side rarely gets mentioned. For all the "Christian Nation" s*** that gets tossed out, there's a rather glaring lack of religion in the founding documents and arguments.

[lostfan]

The funny part is she was sitting there looking like she thought the audience was laughing at Coons.

[StrangeSox]

The funny part is she was sitting there looking like she thought the audience was laughing at Coons.

Yeah, that was fantastic. Her ignorance knows no bounds.

 

She was bleating on about the same evolution crap in the 90's on Bill Maher's show. You think she could have spent at least a few hours in the last decade to review relevant case law and all the hoopla surrounding the Dover trial.

[StrangeSox]

Wasn't sure if I should toss this in the environment thread or in here:

 

Climate Change Denial is Tea Party Article of Faith

“It’s [anthropogenic climate change is] a flat-out lie,” Mr. Dennison said in an interview after the debate, adding that he had based his view on the preaching of Rush Limbaugh and the teaching of Scripture. “I read my Bible,” Mr. Dennison said. “He made this earth for us to utilize.”

Skepticism and outright denial of global warming are among the articles of faith of the Tea Party movement, here in Indiana and across the country. For some, it is a matter of religious conviction; for others, it is driven by distrust of those they call the elites. And for others still, efforts to address climate change are seen as a conspiracy to impose world government and a sweeping redistribution of wealth. ...

 

Those who support the Tea Party movement are considerably more dubious about the existence and effects of global warming than the American public at large, according to a New York Times/CBS News Poll conducted this month. The survey found that only 14 percent of Tea Party supporters said that global warming is an environmental problem that is having an effect now, while 49 percent of the rest of the public believes that it is. More than half of Tea Party supporters said that global warming would have no serious effect at any time in the future, while only 15 percent of other Americans share that view, the poll found.

 

“Being a strong Christian,” [Tea Party activist Lisa Deaton] added, “I cannot help but believe the Lord placed a lot of minerals in our country and it’s not there to destroy us.”

 

There are no words to describe my reaction to this "thinking", only

 

edit:

“Carbon regulation, cap and trade, it’s all just a money-control avenue,” Ms. Khuri added. “Some people say I’m extreme, but they said the John Birch Society was extreme, too.”

 

Edited October 22, 2010 by StrangeSox

[GoSox05]

The John Birch Society is the tea party.

[StrangeSox]

Newest GOP boogeyman: NPR

 

For having the audacity to fire Juan Williams for revealing some pretty bigoted thoughts about Muslims.

[Balta1701]

The major media don't seem to be running with it just yet, but a suspicious white powder package was received by the offices of Congressman Raul Grivjala's office. It was tested and the leaks to people in the know suggest it is a legitimately toxic chemical. The Congressman is the chair of the Congressional Progressive Caucus.

[Cknolls]

Newest GOP boogeyman: NPR

 

For having the audacity to fire Juan Williams for revealing some pretty bigoted thoughts about Muslims.

 

 

LOL. And yet they still employ a woman who wished AIDS and death on a Congressman.

[Balta1701]

LOL. And yet they still employ a woman who wished AIDS and death on a Congressman.

who?

[Balta1701]

Peter Orszag had a really good op-ed piece in the NYT on malpractice reform. Gives a 3rd option.

 

Basically the debate goes like this...side 1: "Malpractice rates are going up, we should limit malpractice payouts in court (and conveniently hurt malpractice lawyers)."

Side 2: "But if you limit malpractice payouts, you hurt the victims and you make malpractice less costly (and conveniently you hurt the lawyers who are funding my campaign).

 

The thing lost in this back and forth is that this country has way too much malpractice as it is. People get hurt in our facilities at much higher rates than elsewhere. So, Orszag's suggestion is that rather than reforming the punishment side, we look at the incentive side. Empower a panel, he suggests through the AMA, to come up with evidence-based guidelines for treatments. Following checklists, having up to date records, stuff like that. Once those are established...offer doctors indemnity against some level of malpractice suit if they follow the guidelines. Physicians therefore only get in trouble when they get careless or go around the rules.

 

Overall I think I like it and it's a novel way around the current back and forth.

[lostfan]

The major media don't seem to be running with it just yet, but a suspicious white powder package was received by the offices of Congressman Raul Grivjala's office. It was tested and the leaks to people in the know suggest it is a legitimately toxic chemical. The Congressman is the chair of the Congressional Progressive Caucus.

The vast vast vast vast VAST majority of white powder incidents are bulls*** so I was surprised there was actually a chemical in it.

[Cknolls]

who?

 

 

Nina Totenberg. Not only Helms but his grandchildren too. Very classy. NPR guidelines for a statement like that are what exactly?

 

[StrangeSox]

Nina Totenberg. Not only Helms but his grandchildren too. Very classy. NPR guidelines for a statement like that are what exactly?

 

FWIW this occurred about 15 years ago. It was in response to Jesse Helms' consistently fighting AIDS funding and more or less saying it is a disease that gays deserve. If that's the only defense of Juan, well...

 

It's amazing how much the right wing media is melting down over Juan Williams being fired. Not to mention the general ignorance of what NPR is and how it's funded, what editorial standards are (ha!) and how firing something for saying something stupid isn't violating their free speech rights.

 

Juan's comment and fears are ridiculous given the reality of various attacks and attempts:

 

but NPR's reaction does seem a bit knee-jerk. Oh well, Juan can go on to be the next token 'liberal' at Fox News and conservative talk radio and TV now has something to rant about and get the base ANGRY!

[Balta1701]

It's amazing how much the right wing media is melting down over Juan Williams being fired. Not to mention the general ignorance of what NPR is and how it's funded, what editorial standards are (ha!) and how firing something for saying something stupid isn't violating their free speech rights.

Oh come on, it's not amazing at all.

 

It hits 3 points they love to hit on.

 

1. It's offensive to tell them they can't be afraid of Muslims

2. The media is liberal and oppressive and unfair

3. NPR is socialist and should be shut down.

[Balta1701]

but NPR's reaction does seem a bit knee-jerk. Oh well, Juan can go on to be the next token 'liberal' at Fox News and conservative talk radio and TV now has something to rant about and get the base ANGRY!

Yes, NPR's reaction was somewhat knee-jerk, but they're actively taking efforts to make sure they appear non-partisan. An example from a week ago is them sending out a sternly worded memo that they don't want their staff showing up at the Stewart/Colbert rally, under similar penalties. They've had issues with Williams appearing on Fox for years, and they jumped when he finally went for the part-racist point of view.

 

Just like Rick Sanchez...it's a firing that they've been wanting to do for a while.

[lostfan]

People kill me with their not having a single solitary clue what free speech rights actually are. Unless your state has specific laws stating otherwise or you have a contract with your employer speficially stating terms to the contrary, you do not have a Constitutional right to keep your job, and 1A doesn't apply to your employment. They can fire you for any reason, and that includes "not liking something you said." This kind of thing should be common knowledge and to me it's kind of embarrassing to see it actually debated. (Granted, they can't fire you for "ANY" reason, i.e. because you're black, or female, or a naturalized citizen, etc. but almost anything, yeah.)

 

Still, I don't think NPR was ever really comfortable with him recently and if you listen to everything he said in context, it seems like they just needed a reason to fire him and this was it. Kind of like when ESPN fired Rush Limbaugh for saying the media wants to see black quarterbacks do well. Not so much because he said that, but because they had been thinking "why the hell did we hire Rush Limbaugh?" and that was a convenient way to undo that.

[StrangeSox]

Oh come on, it's not amazing at all.

 

It hits 3 points they love to hit on.

 

1. It's offensive to tell them they can't be afraid of Muslims

2. The media is liberal and oppressive and unfair

3. NPR is socialist and should be shut down.

 

The extent of the meltdown is surprising to me since the election is so close and I don't really see this having an impact one way or another.

 

 

Yes, NPR's reaction was somewhat knee-jerk, but they're actively taking efforts to make sure they appear non-partisan. An example from a week ago is them sending out a sternly worded memo that they don't want their staff showing up at the Stewart/Colbert rally, under similar penalties. They've had issues with Williams appearing on Fox for years, and they jumped when he finally went for the part-racist point of view.

 

Just like Rick Sanchez...it's a firing that they've been wanting to do for a while.

 

 

People kill me with their not having a single solitary clue what free speech rights actually are. Unless your state has specific laws stating otherwise or you have a contract with your employer speficially stating terms to the contrary, you do not have a Constitutional right to keep your job, and 1A doesn't apply to your employment. They can fire you for any reason, and that includes "not liking something you said." This kind of thing should be common knowledge and to me it's kind of embarrassing to see it actually debated. (Granted, they can't fire you for "ANY" reason, i.e. because you're black, or female, or a naturalized citizen, etc. but almost anything, yeah.)

 

Still, I don't think NPR was ever really comfortable with him recently and if you listen to everything he said in context, it seems like they just needed a reason to fire him and this was it. Kind of like when ESPN fired Rush Limbaugh for saying the media wants to see black quarterbacks do well. Not so much because he said that, but because they had been thinking "why the hell did we hire Rush Limbaugh?" and that was a convenient way to undo that.

 

Yeah, that is what it looks like.

 

[Rex Kickass]

All this outrage - manufactured again. http://www.nytimes.com/2010/10/23/business...mp;ref=business

 

Of the thousands of complaints that have saturated NPR in the wake of Juan Williams’s firing earlier this week, some of the most telling have been from callers describing themselves as long-time “viewers” of NPR who warn that they are going to “stop watching.”

 

NPR, of course, does not have viewers, it has listeners.

[StrangeSox]

It is just a right wing pseudo-problem.

 

So, those private security guards for Joe Miller who arrested that reporter? Active-duty military.

 

From the link, video showing them intimidating and threatening other reporters.

Edited October 24, 2010 by StrangeSox

[Balta1701]

The real tragedy here, though, is not whatever happens in midterm elections. It’s the long-term prognosis for America. The obscene income inequality bequeathed by the three-decade rise of the financial industry has societal consequences graver than even the fundamental economic unfairness. When we reward financial engineers infinitely more than actual engineers, we “lure our most talented graduates to the largely unproductive chase” for Wall Street riches, as the economist Robert H. Frank wrote in The Times last weekend. Worse, Frank added, the continued squeeze on the middle class leads to a wholesale decline in the quality of American life — from more bankruptcy filings and divorces to a collapse in public services, whether road repair or education, that taxpayers will no longer support.

 

Even as the G.O.P. benefits from unlimited corporate campaign money, it’s pulling off the remarkable feat of persuading a large swath of anxious voters that it will lead a populist charge against the rulers of our economic pyramid — the banks, energy companies, insurance giants and other special interests underwriting its own candidates. Should those forces prevail, an America that still hasn’t remotely recovered from the worst hard times in 70 years will end up handing over even more power to those who greased the skids.

 

We can blame much of this turn of events on the deep pockets of oil billionaires like the Koch brothers and on the Supreme Court’s Citizens United decision, which freed corporations to try to buy any election they choose. But the Obama White House is hardly innocent. Its failure to hold the bust’s malefactors accountable has helped turn what should have been a clear-cut choice on Nov. 2 into a blurry contest between the party of big corporations and the party of business as usual.

Best dozen -word description of this season I've read anywhere.

[StrangeSox]

What's the difference?

 

 

BTW it's a clear-cut choice between Marxism and freedom.