McCain Chooses Palin as Running Mate

GregBurch said:
It's hard to get people interested in the subject, because the subject matter of the cases isn't sexy...

True, although I was astounded at the way the crowd went wild the other night at the Ron Paul counter-convention whenever somebody brought up Austrian economics and monetary theory. Wonders never cease...
 
You know, I've been thinking about the absolutely unbridled revulsion that the left has felt for Bush and the utter lack of restraint they exercised in expressing it for eight years.


:rofl: Would that be anything like the unbridled revulsion that the right felt for Clinton (correction - both Clintons)? The right's revulsion was so unbridled they impeached Clinton because he lied about getting a BJ from a completely willing skank. (I wonder if Palin's kid engaged in revolting oral sex? Should a grand jury ask her? Should she be under oath when they ask? I wonder what the age of consent is in Alaska? Was her liason statutory rape? A real crime could have [technically] taken place. But I digress.)

If the left has such a revulsion for Bush why not impeach him? Sucessful or not, the charges would at least be much more serious than those faced by Clinton. Could it be the hateful left is exercising more restraint in their treatment of Bush than the hateful right did with Clinton? Going way out on a limb - maybe Pelosi told the truth in 2006 when she said it wouldn't be worth the turmoil with only 2 Bushy years left. Sounds like restraint to me.
 
Could it be the hateful left is exercising more restraint in their treatment of Bush than the hateful right did with Clinton?

No, it's because they don't have the political support for it, number one, and number two, they actually like what Bush is doing for them. The next Democrat president will have a field day with all these new executive powers and spying tools Bush is giving them.

more restraint

Seriously? Are you joking? The number of politicians in both parties who know how to restrain themselves from grabbing as much power to rule and make war can be counted on one hand.
 
You are one dark son of a *****, Andy! Now I know why it's always raining on you in your icon (should have been voted best ever, IMHO).

I think there is a better chance that Obama will turn back the "unitary executive" power grab of the Bush/Chaney years - I certainly wouldn't expect McSame to do it. I also expect Obama will be more willing to nominate Supreme Court justices willing to push back on the Executive branch.

But I know, you have low expectations for both. Let it pour all over you.

EDIT - I just perviewed this... the word - b i t c h - gets auto-bleeped on this forum??? Jesus H. Christ!
 
...

I think there is a better chance that Obama will turn back the "unitary executive" power grab of the Bush/Chaney years - I certainly wouldn't expect McSame to do it. I also expect Obama will be more willing to nominate Supreme Court justices willing to push back on the Executive branch.

...


Somehow I really doubt that a man with a tax-increase plan as ambitious as his is going to be willing to give up any power ... if anything, I see the power grab being greater than anything that the Left has accused Bush of doing.

Giving up power is just not the way of the Socialist/Leftist crowd. Not when they believe that ALL power should be in the hands of the government ... that the people are incapable of making decisions for themselves ... when their goal is a total nanny state.

Because we all know that the Democrat leadership is smarter than the rest of us, and they only have our best interests at heart. :sick:
 
Giving up power is just not the way of the Socialist/Leftist crowd. Not when they believe that ALL power should be in the hands of the government ... that the people are incapable of making decisions for themselves ... when their goal is a total nanny state.

Isn't it strange, that the last three Republican governments both did exactly what you accuse the Democrats of? From Reagan on, the federal government turned more and more meddlesome. I don't yet know how to rate the Clinton years.

Because we all know that the Democrat leadership is smarter than the rest of us, and they only have our best interests at heart. :sick:

Again, don't you think a republican leadership, which reserves itself the right to tell right from wrong and criminal from innocent, isn't actually worse than what you accuse the democrats of?

Honestly: The Republicans SHOULD be for deregulation. Not only deregulation of big companies (which they support), but also deregulation of small companies and the private life. But the neo-con mindset is not republican. It is only conservative. And conservatives think, that their status quo has to be conserved at all costs. Their perceived economy, their perceived security, their perceived society.

The problem is just, that you don't have a third party around which embraces ordoliberal ideals. You can vote Democatic Party and get the ballast of 1968 hippies and socialists. You can vote Republican Party and get the neocons and the christian fundamentalists as "bonus".

Actually, the USA already have enough political diversity among it's two parties to create four to five parties from them. McCain is for example a good example of an ordoliberal in many aspects. Palin is more a neocon than a christian fundamentalist. Obama is pretty much a right-wing socialdemocrat (Which in US terms is far out to the left, as the commies are not allowed to take part at all). Biden would count as liberal-democrat, without a clear social component.
 
For what it's worth I never had the kind of visceral revulsion for Bill Clinton that many on the right did. I suppose a scoundrel who's lucky not to have been shot by a man with more personal integrity and self restraint than he has can't be too judgmental about another kindred spirit. I used to have a personal distaste for Hillary based on ideology, but something changed about that a few years ago. Maybe I've mellowed with age. Or I just recognized both of them for what they now seem to me to be -- pretty well completely motivated by pure personal appetite. This is something I can understand.

The truth is that Clinton was pretty much a do-nothing president -- something he had little choice about, since he didn't have a majority in Congress. In hindsight, I'm happy about that, except for his passivity on foreign policy. I think now that Obama has the presidency within his grasp, most on the right will pine for the days of Clinton and the politics of personal appetite. I hope this gives Bubba some comfort in his last days.

the neo-con mindset is not republican. It is only conservative. And conservatives think, that their status quo has to be conserved at all costs. Their perceived economy, their perceived security, their perceived society.

Re "neo-con:" from the Princess Bride: "You keep using that word. I do not think it means what you think it means."
 
Actually, the USA already have enough political diversity among it's two parties to create four to five parties from them.

The problem there is that our system has been pretty well geared for two parties. If I recall my junior high school civics classes correctly, a Presidential canidate must have 50% of the Electoral College votes to win. A three-way split runs the risk of no one reaching 50%. We have no system for putting together a coalition of minorities to create a government, as in parlimentary systems, so a three, or four, or five-way split would be decided by the House of Representatives. I think Greg Burch would take up arms (or at least burst a blood vessel) if the current Democratic-controlled House made the final decision - and I wouldn't blame him. That's no way to pick a President

The last time we had a major four-way split Abraham Lincoln won a majority of votes in the Electoral College, but he fell well short of 50% of the popular vote. Then we had a civil war. Not exacty optimal.

I think we should stump along with two parties, until we do a major Constitutional overhaul. (Jefferson recommended doing so about every ten years, but then, he thought the French Revolution was just peachy.)
 
The last time we had a major four-way split Abraham Lincoln won a majority of votes in the Electoral College, but he fell well short of 50% of the popular vote. Then we had a civil war. Not exacty optimal.

I'm not sure you're correct about needing 50% of electoral votes. And not getting a majority of the elctoral vote isn't what caused the Late Unpleasantness.
 
Because of the issues in the elections up to 1800, the 12th Ammendment was passed, which includes this nice, lawyerly text:

The person having the greatest Number of votes for President, shall be the President, if such number be a majority of the whole number of Electors appointed; and if no person have such majority, then from the persons having the highest numbers not exceeding three on the list of those voted for as President, the House of Representatives shall choose immediately, by ballot, the President. But in choosing the President, the votes shall be taken by states, the representation from each state having one vote; a quorum for this purpose shall consist of a member or members from two-thirds of the states, and a majority of all the states shall be necessary to a choice. And if the House of Representatives shall not choose a President whenever the right of choice shall devolve upon them, before the fourth day of March next following, then the Vice-President shall act as President, as in the case of the death or other constitutional disability of the President.
 
Well, there you have it... whatever it is. Thanks, Greg, I think....

The 2nd (A well regulated malita being necessary blah, blah, blah) is perfectly straight forward compared to this. We should really be fighting over the 12th.
***

Andy,
I was just going for rhetorical effect. The War of Northern Aggression (as the folks 'round here say) was not caused by Lincoln's election, although that was the final straw.

As an unrepentant Yankee living in the South I get called names all the time - I tell folks to just call me "Victor" or just plain "winner" on informal occasions.
 
To stop this wrong image (which I believed myself for a while): Hitler was not democratically elected into power. He became installed in a parliament plot when politicians got tired of the lack of a stable parliament. Before that, Hitler already lost two million votes in his last election. He was not the choice of the people, but the choice of three conservative parties in the German parliament. People should remember that Germany was already no true democracy at that point - the current chancellors had already been ruling the country over emergency laws, bypassing parliament.

I really must thank you for this, you have made my case better than I could have dreamed. Hitler was in fact an anomaly that got power despite how the majority felt.

The choice of three "conservative" parties. DELIGHTFUL :) I doubt anyone here would call Hitler or those who put him in power, "conservative"


-----Posted Added-----


Emergency laws?

Patriot Act
Military Commissions Act

again, delightful.



By the way Andy44, I love your quote. I have been fortunate enough to see it carved in the marble of the monument. It seems we both like Jefferson.

That quote I like because Jefferson alludes to his love of God while at the same time denouncing any form of tyranny. I am firmly convinced he also means religious tyranny.
 
Jefferson is among my favorite historical figures. He had his personal faults but his thinking on philosophy is mostly sound, which to me reinforces the fact that the founders were just men, not saints. And yes, you are right, he is on record as opposing religious tyranny, and was responsible for trying to eliminate state-sponsered religion in the Commonwealth of Virginia. I wish religious folks would understand that seperating church and state is the best protection for the church, since contact with the state leads to compromise of principles within the church. Off-topic, though, so I'll stop...
 
I am repeatedly amazed by the Democratic Party's continuing inability to get out of its own f'ing way.

I agree (as a registered Democrat). The previous discussion regarding how the US settled into a 2-party system was interesting. I frankly think the Democrats have the wrong end of the stick on ~45% of the issues I am concerned about, with the 5% being the only real tipping point issue for me: foreign policy (how the US presents itself to the rest of the world). A Republican who actually gave a damn about world opinion of the US and improving international relations would probably have my vote.

There is definitely a broad enough spectrum of political opinion to maintain several different parties with different distinguishing features, but the electoral system means it ultimately must boil down to two 'big dogs' and other 'fringe' parties. I haven't looked hard to find the party that most closely matches my stand on the issues (possibly because my pet issues are not 'mainstream'), but it doesn't seem to matter as the choices always come down to a 45%/55% split between two major parties.
 
I really must thank you for this, you have made my case better than I could have dreamed. Hitler was in fact an anomaly that got power despite how the majority felt.

The choice of three "conservative" parties. DELIGHTFUL :) I doubt anyone here would call Hitler or those who put him in power, "conservative"

You should be aware, he was powerful. he did not have a clear majority, so he could become chancellor of his own, but he was already one of the major players in the parliament. Mostly because there was a strong streetfighting between Nazis and communists at that time (especially the bloody sunday of Altona, which led to the end of the SPD government of that time in a conservative coup), polarizing the nation. How he got rid of the communists, is history...All it needed was a act of terrorism.

The parties which had been involved had been the national-conservative DNVP and the catholic-conservative center party, which also contained the Bavarian party (today active as political flow inside the CSU). Important is also general von Schleicher, who had no party himself, when he became appointed chancellor, but cooperated with the SPD on forming a minority government, which should be backed up by the military to fight the massive street fighting between Nazis and Communists. What Schleicher did not know: von Papen of the DNVP and Hitler had been secretly meeting the president of the Weimar Republic for instead of the next dissolition of parliament, install Hitler as chancellor as replacement of von Schleicher. Which he did, when von Schleicher asked for more emergency powers and support of the military. The most important reason for that: President Hindenburg hated the SPD and feared a communist Germany, when SPD and KPD form a coalition.

No elections. At the peak of his public support, Hitler had 37% of the votes (enough today for becoming chancellor), while this dropped to 33% in the final elections.

The composition of the parliament should make pretty clear what was the problem:

National socialists (NSDAP): 33.6%
Social Democratic Party (SPD): 20.7%
Communists (KPD): 17,1%
Center Party : 12.0%
National-conservative party (DNVP): 8.9%
Bavarian Party (BVP): 3.4%
German national party: 1.9%

All together, the left-wing parties had 37.8% of the votes and the conservatives (without the more extreme Nazis) only 28.1%. There was a tiny ordoliberal party around... a single seat. The only way to get a majority in the parliament at that time would have been either an alliance of the conservatives with the Nazis or with the communists. And the communists had been no option for the conservatives. And the SPD leadership was also against an alliance with the in their eyes "social-fascist" communist party.

You can say, the end of the Weimar republic was not the vote of the people, but the believe of the political leadership of all parties at that time, that their fundamental believes are more important as the decisions of the voters.

After Hitler was chancellor, he forcefully absorbed the national conservative party into his own, used the Reichstagsbrand for crushing the communists and finally banned all other political parties, after he got outfitted with massive legislative powers with the "Ermächtigungsgesetz" - which came into power with only the SPD voting against it (The communists had already been removed). Thus, they are also today the only party which can claim to be the oldest democratic party in Germany. All other parties (except the KPD) needed a new name and a new agenda after WW2 - especially the many conservative parties which gave Hitler his powers.
 
Bill Anderson on the Lew Rockwell blog:

http://www.lewrockwell.com/blog/lewrw/archives/022715.html

It looks like the Democrats are possibly going to shoot themselves in the foot...

Sigh....

When will the Democrats ever learn the art of political judo, so well mastered by the Republicans? Go after your opponent's strengths. The Evangelicals are the only energized, true-believers (in the political sense) that the Republicans have in this election - witness the 13 pages of this thread generated by their evangelical pick for VP. Now the Evans, so long a monolithic block, are showing signs of fracture along generational lines. Rather than tapping descreet wedges into those cracks, most ham-handed Dems can be relied upon to hit the whole group with a fat sledge hammer.

That's one of the things I like about Obama - he actually appears deft. But then, who wouldn't look politically deft standing next to Bill Maher?

Again, sigh....
 
Back
Top