Source: (consider it)
|
Thread: Purgatory: The political junkie POTUS prediction thread
|
Choirboy
Shipmate
# 9659
|
Posted
quote: Originally posted by OliviaG: quote: Originally posted by Rossweisse: VP debate: October 2, 8 p.m. Central Time, Washington University in St. Louis. ...
<Samantha Bee impersonation> Excuse me, sorry to bother you. Hey, everybody, the leaders of the parties in the Canadian federal election will also be debating on October 2. Gosh, if you folks popped over for just a few minutes during the VP debate, that would be so sweet.
If only they'd televise it here. As inane as Canadian politics may be, it would be a refreshingly huge step in the direction of elevating public discourse in the U.S. if large numbers of USA-ans ( ) were to watch such a debate.
Posts: 2994 | From: Minneapolis, Minnesota USA | Registered: Jun 2005
| IP: Logged
|
|
Zorro
Shipmate
# 9156
|
Posted
quote: Zorro: quote: -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- It does however beg the question "What in God's name was he doing when he went to Kinnock for inspiration!?" --------------------------------------------------------------------------------
I like the chap already! Anyone who is inspired by Kinnock is all right by me.
I've nothing against the man-he's by all accounts a top guy and a decent politician. That said, he's not quite the person I'd go looking for if I was interested in pursuing a successful political campaign
Zorro
-------------------- It is so hard to believe, because it is so hard to obey. Soren Kierkegaard Well, churches really should be like sluts; take everyone no matter who they are or whether they can pay. Spiffy da wondersheep
Posts: 2568 | From: Baja California (actually the UK but that's where my fans know me from) | Registered: Mar 2005
| IP: Logged
|
|
moron
Shipmate
# 206
|
Posted
quote: Originally posted by Choirboy: As inane as Canadian politics may be, it would be a refreshingly huge step in the direction of elevating public discourse in the U.S. if large numbers of USA-ans ( ) were to watch such a debate.
You mean the way your last two posts here have elevated discourse?
BTW, read that article yet? Talk about straight lines.
Posts: 4236 | From: Bentonville | Registered: May 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
Zwingli
Shipmate
# 4438
|
Posted
quote: Originally posted by CorgiGreta: With minor alterations, Mr. Zwingli has posted a perfect description of Sen. McCain:
Two points: 1 McCain has actual military, including combat experience. That means he should have at least some basic idea of how to use military force - possibly the most important aspect of the job of POTUS - and he has experience of leading people under his command. My central issue with Biden is he is running for an executive position with practically no executive experience, ever, in any walk of life.
2 I'm not that sure McCain is qualified to be POTUS either, partly for the reasons your post gave. All in all, it's hard to find anyone in this election worth voting for (that includes Obama, as well).
Posts: 4283 | Registered: Apr 2003
| IP: Logged
|
|
Alogon
Cabin boy emeritus
# 5513
|
Posted
quote: Originally posted by Rossweisse: There's also the horrible way he treated Robert Bork, but I admit that's a side issue
Can you refresh our memory about that? I breathed a heavy sigh of relief when he the vote went against him for the Supreme Court. Bork was smart all right, but the smarts would weigh in on the dark side. He was no friend of the working man, or especially woman. He denied the existence of a constitutional right to privacy. I have to put that down to sheer pig-headedness. Now, I might not be a woman, but I am a private citizen and intend to stay that way. I remain thankful to Senator Specter (Republican) to this day for his part in putting the kabosh on that candicacy.
-------------------- Patriarchy (n.): A belief in original sin unaccompanied by a belief in God.
Posts: 7808 | From: West Chester PA | Registered: Feb 2004
| IP: Logged
|
|
Zorro
Shipmate
# 9156
|
Posted
Zwingli quote: 1 McCain has actual military, including combat experience. That means he should have at least some basic idea of how to use military force - possibly the most important aspect of the job of POTUS - and he has experience of leading people under his command. My central issue with Biden is he is running for an executive position with practically no executive experience, ever, in any walk of life.
As regards the combat experience, one word; Rumsfeld. Experience in the military at any level is in no way an indicator of someone's ability to judge when military force is necessary-a number of people would tell you the exact opposite is true.
I think you have a valid point regarding Biden's lack of exec experience but in all honesty I think we have to take a bit of a gamble on people when they get to this level of responsibility, in some areas. You're never going to find someone who has experience of military, economic, political, social, and more functions, and even if you did they might well make a shocking president-POTUS or VPOTUS is one of these jobs that there will always be an element of doubt regarding.
-------------------- It is so hard to believe, because it is so hard to obey. Soren Kierkegaard Well, churches really should be like sluts; take everyone no matter who they are or whether they can pay. Spiffy da wondersheep
Posts: 2568 | From: Baja California (actually the UK but that's where my fans know me from) | Registered: Mar 2005
| IP: Logged
|
|
New Yorker
Shipmate
# 9898
|
Posted
quote: Originally posted by Alogon: ... He denied the existence of a constitutional right to privacy. I have to put that down to sheer pig-headedness. Now, I might not be a woman, but I am a private citizen and intend to stay that way.
Can you help me out? I just scanned through the Constitution and I cannot for the life of me find anything about a right to privacy? Which article or amendment is that in?
Posts: 3193 | From: New York City | Registered: Jul 2005
| IP: Logged
|
|
Choirboy
Shipmate
# 9659
|
Posted
quote: Originally posted by mjg: You mean the way your last two posts here have elevated discourse?
BTW, read that article yet? Talk about straight lines.
What have they put in your Ovaltine?
Posts: 2994 | From: Minneapolis, Minnesota USA | Registered: Jun 2005
| IP: Logged
|
|
moron
Shipmate
# 206
|
Posted
quote: Originally posted by Choirboy: What have they put in your Ovaltine?
I'm largely at their mercy but whatever it is I still keep visualizing little yapping dogs nipping at my ankles.
My best guess is some kind of hallucinogen.
Posts: 4236 | From: Bentonville | Registered: May 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
sharkshooter
Not your average shark
# 1589
|
Posted
quote: Originally posted by OliviaG: . Hey, everybody, the leaders of the parties in the Canadian federal election will also be debating on October 2. ... You know, we'll have five leaders debating for the chance to be Prime Minister. ...
Thanks for the warning. I see this shaping up as 4-one trick ponies vs Harper. I'd rather spend the evening on the phone with my mother-in-law. But then, I will be in Vancouver, so I will likely be out having dinner.
-------------------- Let the words of my mouth, and the meditation of my heart, be acceptable in thy sight, O LORD, my strength, and my redeemer. [Psalm 19:14]
Posts: 7772 | From: Canada; Washington DC; Phoenix; it's complicated | Registered: Oct 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
tclune
Shipmate
# 7959
|
Posted
quote: Originally posted by Zwingli: I'm not that sure McCain is qualified to be POTUS either, partly for the reasons your post gave. All in all, it's hard to find anyone in this election worth voting for (that includes Obama, as well).
I've begun to see this sentiment a lot. I think that maybe we are just a stiff-necked people... ISTM that our choices this year are unusually good. The two main candidates are genuinely good men, even if the campaigns are less elevating than one would wish.
How far back would you have to go to find a comparable quality in both candidates? And the choices are real -- can anyone really say that they think that there is no difference between these two?
And, for those who are attracted to shiny objects, there are history-making aspects to both tickets. Even if you can't follow the issues, you can certainly decide whether you want to help elect the first man of color or the first woman to the executive branch. What's not to like?
--Tom Clune
-------------------- This space left blank intentionally.
Posts: 8013 | From: Western MA | Registered: Jul 2004
| IP: Logged
|
|
Josephine
Orthodox Belle
# 3899
|
Posted
quote: Originally posted by New Yorker: quote: Originally posted by Alogon: ... He denied the existence of a constitutional right to privacy. I have to put that down to sheer pig-headedness. Now, I might not be a woman, but I am a private citizen and intend to stay that way.
Can you help me out? I just scanned through the Constitution and I cannot for the life of me find anything about a right to privacy? Which article or amendment is that in?
The ninth. quote: The enumeration in the Constitution, of certain rights, shall not be construed to deny or disparage others retained by the people.
-------------------- I've written a book! Catherine's Pascha: A celebration of Easter in the Orthodox Church. It's a lovely book for children. Take a look!
Posts: 10273 | From: Pacific Northwest, USA | Registered: Jan 2003
| IP: Logged
|
|
Og: Thread Killer
Ship's token CN Mennonite
# 3200
|
Posted
quote: Originally posted by mousethief: quote: Originally posted by RuthW: Any particular reason you're taking potshots at us?
POTUS envy.
We up here don't envy your POTUS approach one bit, thank you very much.
If we wanted a republic like yours, we'd have it by now.
-------------------- I wish I was seeking justice loving mercy and walking humbly but... "Cease to lament for that thou canst not help, And study help for that which thou lament'st."
Posts: 5025 | From: Toronto | Registered: Aug 2002
| IP: Logged
|
|
mousethief
Ship's Thieving Rodent
# 953
|
Posted
Can I interest you in a case of Lighten-Up(tm)?
-------------------- This is the last sig I'll ever write for you...
Posts: 63536 | From: Washington | Registered: Jul 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
Rossweisse
High Church Valkyrie
# 2349
|
Posted
quote: Originally posted by mousethief: POTUS envy.
quote: Originally posted by Alogon: Can you refresh our memory about that? I breathed a heavy sigh of relief when he the vote went against him for the Supreme Court. Bork was smart all right, but the smarts would weigh in on the dark side. He was no friend of the working man...
Well, actually, he does seem to have been a friend of the consumer, which is often the same thing.
I don't agree with him on a number of things, but the way in which he was treated was shameful, and lowered the level of public discourse generally. Bork and borking. quote: Perhaps the best known use of the verb to bork occurred in July 1991 at a conference of the National Organization for Women in New York City. Feminist Florynce Kennedy addressed the conference on the importance of defeating the nomination of Clarence Thomas to the U.S. Supreme Court. She said, "We're going to bork him. We're going to kill him politically. . . . This little creep, where did he come from?"
Ross
-------------------- I'm not dead yet.
Posts: 15117 | From: Valhalla | Registered: Feb 2002
| IP: Logged
|
|
comet
Snowball in Hell
# 10353
|
Posted
quote: Originally posted by Josephine: quote: Originally posted by New Yorker: quote: Originally posted by Alogon: ... He denied the existence of a constitutional right to privacy. I have to put that down to sheer pig-headedness. Now, I might not be a woman, but I am a private citizen and intend to stay that way.
Can you help me out? I just scanned through the Constitution and I cannot for the life of me find anything about a right to privacy? Which article or amendment is that in?
The ninth. quote: The enumeration in the Constitution, of certain rights, shall not be construed to deny or disparage others retained by the people.
or the fourth, really. quote: The right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures, shall not be violated, and no Warrants shall issue, but upon probable cause, supported by Oath or affirmation, and particularly describing the place to be searched, and the persons or things to be seized.
at least that's how most people interpret it. while I'm hesitant to encourage too big of a tangent, I'm just dying to know how New Yorker interprets this amendment, if not a right to privacy?
-------------------- Evil Dragon Lady, Breaker of Men's Constitutions
"It's hard to be religious when certain people are never incinerated by bolts of lightning.” -Calvin
Posts: 17024 | From: halfway between Seduction and Peril | Registered: Sep 2005
| IP: Logged
|
|
Doublethink.
Ship's Foolwise Unperson
# 1984
|
Posted
Was Kennedy's speech inaccurate ? (And what role did Biden have, he's not mentioned on the wiki page ?)
-------------------- All political thinking for years past has been vitiated in the same way. People can foresee the future only when it coincides with their own wishes, and the most grossly obvious facts can be ignored when they are unwelcome. George Orwell
Posts: 19219 | From: Erehwon | Registered: Aug 2005
| IP: Logged
|
|
Rossweisse
High Church Valkyrie
# 2349
|
Posted
I think it was, yes, Doublethink. Libelous, even. I strongly disagree with Bork on some things (Second Amendment, jury nullification, to name just two), but Kennedy & Co. cast him as the Antichrist. Biden was a part of Kennedy's posse on that one.
Ross
-------------------- I'm not dead yet.
Posts: 15117 | From: Valhalla | Registered: Feb 2002
| IP: Logged
|
|
Zwingli
Shipmate
# 4438
|
Posted
quote: Originally posted by tclune:
How far back would you have to go to find a comparable quality in both candidates? And the choices are real -- can anyone really say that they think that there is no difference between these two?
--Tom Clune
I don't expect you to agree with my opinions, but, as far as recent elections go, the number of candidates who were better than both Obama and McCain: 2004: neither. Bush by then revealed as incompetent. 2000: both. Bush was a hopeless President, but in 2000 he looked reasonable. I'm not much of a fan of Gore, but I can't doubt his qualifications. 1996: Clinton. 1992: Clinton, Bush and Perot.
Posts: 4283 | Registered: Apr 2003
| IP: Logged
|
|
New Yorker
Shipmate
# 9898
|
Posted
Sorry. I still don't see an explicitly stated right to privacy.
Posts: 3193 | From: New York City | Registered: Jul 2005
| IP: Logged
|
|
Zorro
Shipmate
# 9156
|
Posted
The 2 amendments I've seen quoted would seem to cover privacy, more specifically the fourth. Obviously there isn't an amendment saying "Every citizen has the right to privacy," because if it did there'd be a justifiable legal debate as to the meaning of "Privacy."
Zorro.
-------------------- It is so hard to believe, because it is so hard to obey. Soren Kierkegaard Well, churches really should be like sluts; take everyone no matter who they are or whether they can pay. Spiffy da wondersheep
Posts: 2568 | From: Baja California (actually the UK but that's where my fans know me from) | Registered: Mar 2005
| IP: Logged
|
|
comet
Snowball in Hell
# 10353
|
Posted
quote: Originally posted by comet: quote: Originally posted by New Yorker: Can you help me out? I just scanned through the Constitution and I cannot for the life of me find anything about a right to privacy? Which article or amendment is that in?
quote: The right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures, shall not be violated, and no Warrants shall issue, but upon probable cause, supported by Oath or affirmation, and particularly describing the place to be searched, and the persons or things to be seized.
now you're just splitting hairs, NY. you asked which amendment has "anything about a right to privacy".
you say "explicitly" stated now, but you didn't then. There's no "explicitly" stated right to free speech, either. the terms are used as shorthand. I would hope you managed to figure this out by yourself.
so the question stands - how is the fourth amendment not about the right to personal privacy? don't go changing the rules mid-game, sweetheart.
-------------------- Evil Dragon Lady, Breaker of Men's Constitutions
"It's hard to be religious when certain people are never incinerated by bolts of lightning.” -Calvin
Posts: 17024 | From: halfway between Seduction and Peril | Registered: Sep 2005
| IP: Logged
|
|
New Yorker
Shipmate
# 9898
|
Posted
Comet, you called me sweetheart. I'm really and truly touched. Seriously. I'm melting like butter.
There's nothing in the constitution that refers to the right of privacy. The ninth amendment referring to other rights is so open ended it could mean anything. One things of the line from the musical 1776: "there's nothing in here about deep sea fishing rights!"
Posts: 3193 | From: New York City | Registered: Jul 2005
| IP: Logged
|
|
Myrrh
Shipmate
# 11483
|
Posted
This isn't a document from a government giving rights to citizens, it's a document limiting the rights of government over them from the free citizens, for the government to obey.
Myrrh
-------------------- and thanks for all the fish
Posts: 4467 | Registered: Jun 2006
| IP: Logged
|
|
mousethief
Ship's Thieving Rodent
# 953
|
Posted
Full points to Myrrh. We have a right to privacy because there is nothing in the Constitution taking it away nor allowing it to be so taken. Various outworkings of such a right are explicitly mentioned throughout the BoR. In essence all our rights are privacy rights -- our rights as private citizens to be left alone by the government except as per a greater need as allowed by the Constitution.
-------------------- This is the last sig I'll ever write for you...
Posts: 63536 | From: Washington | Registered: Jul 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
Choirboy
Shipmate
# 9659
|
Posted
Quite so. The ninth amendment is not so hard to understand - it says precisely that the constitution does not fully enumerate the rights that we do, in fact, possess.
To ask whether privacy is an explicitly enumerated right in the constitution is to miss the entire point of the ninth amendment.
Posts: 2994 | From: Minneapolis, Minnesota USA | Registered: Jun 2005
| IP: Logged
|
|
Callan
Shipmate
# 525
|
Posted
Originally posted by Rossweisse:
quote: There's also the horrible way he treated Robert Bork, but I admit that's a side issue to being a thief. I find such theft purely contemptible.
All I knew about Biden was his being the first Kinnock in a thousand generations of Kinnocks to go to university and the howling Croat nationalism.
But if he was horrid to Robert Bork he's OK by me.
-------------------- How easy it would be to live in England, if only one did not love her. - G.K. Chesterton
Posts: 9757 | From: Citizen of the World | Registered: Jun 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
Callan
Shipmate
# 525
|
Posted
quote: Originally posted by Myrrh: This isn't a document from a government giving rights to citizens, it's a document limiting the rights of government over them from the free citizens, for the government to obey.
Myrrh
I don't often get the chance to say this, but cracking point Myrrh.
-------------------- How easy it would be to live in England, if only one did not love her. - G.K. Chesterton
Posts: 9757 | From: Citizen of the World | Registered: Jun 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
TomOfTarsus
Shipmate
# 3053
|
Posted
Attempting to add some "color" to what Myrrh said, it comes from the mindset expressed in the Declaration of Independence: That we are endowed by our Creator with certain inalienable rights...
Other than that, I have nothing to add. I'll get my coat.
Blessings,
Tom
-------------------- By grace are ye saved through faith... not of yourselves; it is the gift of God; not of works, lest any man should boast. For we are His workmanship, created in Christ Jesus unto good works, which God hath ... ordained that we should walk in them.
Posts: 1570 | From: Pittsburgh, PA USA | Registered: Jul 2002
| IP: Logged
|
|
New Yorker
Shipmate
# 9898
|
Posted
quote: Originally posted by TomOfTarsus: Attempting to add some "color" to what Myrrh said, it comes from the mindset expressed in the Declaration of Independence: That we are endowed by our Creator with certain inalienable rights...
Other than that, I have nothing to add. I'll get my coat.
Blessings,
Tom
"And among these are life, ...."
Oops. The Democrats are already in trouble.
Posts: 3193 | From: New York City | Registered: Jul 2005
| IP: Logged
|
|
SeraphimSarov
Shipmate
# 4335
|
Posted
quote: Originally posted by New Yorker: quote: Originally posted by TomOfTarsus: Attempting to add some "color" to what Myrrh said, it comes from the mindset expressed in the Declaration of Independence: That we are endowed by our Creator with certain inalienable rights...
Other than that, I have nothing to add. I'll get my coat.
Blessings,
Tom
"And among these are life, ...."
Oops. The Democrats are already in trouble.
I would say the other side is even more in trouble
-------------------- "For those who like that sort of thing, that is the sort of thing they like"
Posts: 2247 | From: Sacramento, California | Registered: Apr 2003
| IP: Logged
|
|
Laura
General nuisance
# 10
|
Posted
lawyer hat /on
Ten years ago tomorrow, I held up my hand in the highest court of my state and and swore to uphold the Constitution of the US and my state and other things that amount to not being a jerk and embarrassing the profession.
Anyway, the Right to Privacy is not enumerated by name in the Constitution, but has been found to emanate from the penumbras of certain of the Amendments, among them, the Fourth, Seventh, Ninth, Tenth, and Fourteenth. For example, in Griswold v. Connecticut (1965), the Supreme Court found that Connecticut's law prohibiting the sale or purchase of any contraceptives was a violation of a right to marital privacy that emanated from the Ninth and Fourteenth Amendments.
To take another example, the Fourth Amendment, prohibits unreasonable searches and seizures by governments and that gov't-sanctioned search and/or arrest warrants must be supported by probable cause and be limited in scope according to information supplied under oath by an officer of the law. This applies also to the states through the due process clause of the Fourteenth Amendment. (Mapp v. Ohio, 367 U.S. 643 (1961)).
Additionally, privacy is regulated in the U.S. by the Privacy Act of 1974, a few other acts, and by state laws setting forth restrictions on government intrusion.
Aren't you glad you asked?
lawyer hat /off
-------------------- Love is the only sane and satisfactory answer to the problem of human existence. - Erich Fromm
Posts: 16883 | From: East Coast, USA | Registered: Apr 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
New Yorker
Shipmate
# 9898
|
Posted
Laura -
First, congratulations on your upcoming anniversary. What type of law do you practice?
Second, you, of course, stated the situation correctly. The Right to Privacy is not stated explicitly in the United States Constitution. It was found in the "penumbra." In other words it was invented by the Supreme Court. The Supreme Court has been wrong before. It was wrong then.
Posts: 3193 | From: New York City | Registered: Jul 2005
| IP: Logged
|
|
TomOfTarsus
Shipmate
# 3053
|
Posted
Congratulations, Laura!
And to add to the little tangential snipefest above, I've felt no effects whatsover on my liberty lo these many years, but the "life" business - well, 44 million + dead in the US alone... it's a complicated issue that rightly resides in the repose of the equally dead equines on these boards (not because it's not important, but because that's what we do with such threads).
But as that particular issue affects this race, I thought it particularly "squirmy" on Obama's part that he said the determination of when life begins is "above his pay grade." So my buddies and I are out hunting. "Hey, Bubba, is that a deer, or a man?" my buddy asks. "Ah hain't shore, that question is above my pay grade. Go ahead and shoot!"
I'm sure equally smarmy McCain quotes will be posted in response to this. But that's just it. I'm disgusted with the whole process, disgusted with the Republicans and repulsed by the Democrats, not willing to waste my vote on a splinter candidate (they're mostly wackjobs anyway... oh, wait a minute... ).
<Sigh> It's a long way to November...
in closing:
poli-tics (n) 1: from Greek, poli , "many", + tics, "ugly, blood-sucking parasites"
Blessings,
Tom
-------------------- By grace are ye saved through faith... not of yourselves; it is the gift of God; not of works, lest any man should boast. For we are His workmanship, created in Christ Jesus unto good works, which God hath ... ordained that we should walk in them.
Posts: 1570 | From: Pittsburgh, PA USA | Registered: Jul 2002
| IP: Logged
|
|
mousethief
Ship's Thieving Rodent
# 953
|
Posted
Ah so I only have rights explicitly spelled out in the constitution? So the government could tell me what to eat for dinner tonight, and because the constitution doesn't explicitly give me the right to decide my own dining choices, I have no recourse.
What a strange world yours is.
-------------------- This is the last sig I'll ever write for you...
Posts: 63536 | From: Washington | Registered: Jul 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
New Yorker
Shipmate
# 9898
|
Posted
quote: Originally posted by mousethief: Ah so I only have rights explicitly spelled out in the constitution? So the government could tell me what to eat for dinner tonight, and because the constitution doesn't explicitly give me the right to decide my own dining choices, I have no recourse.
What a strange world yours is.
And it is getting stranger daily what with all the turmoil!
Actually, I don't really object to a right to privacy. I object to claiming that such a right can be an excuse for murder. But we digress into dead horses.............
Posts: 3193 | From: New York City | Registered: Jul 2005
| IP: Logged
|
|
TomOfTarsus
Shipmate
# 3053
|
Posted
MT,
Hope that thought didn't come from me. My view is as Myrrh said, that the purpose of the Constitution is to define and LIMIT the government's power over people who are endowed by their Creator with inalienable rights - freedom. It is the people granting certian restricted powers to the government, not the other way around.
I think the power of the Federal government, and the things people expect from it, are 'way out of hand.
Blessings,
Tom
-------------------- By grace are ye saved through faith... not of yourselves; it is the gift of God; not of works, lest any man should boast. For we are His workmanship, created in Christ Jesus unto good works, which God hath ... ordained that we should walk in them.
Posts: 1570 | From: Pittsburgh, PA USA | Registered: Jul 2002
| IP: Logged
|
|
Og: Thread Killer
Ship's token CN Mennonite
# 3200
|
Posted
So, John MCCain created the Blackberry?
Funny, I thought that was a bunch of mostly guys up in Waterloo.
I guess when the library is burning, holding up the telephone wires and saying you helped create that is a useful thing.
-------------------- I wish I was seeking justice loving mercy and walking humbly but... "Cease to lament for that thou canst not help, And study help for that which thou lament'st."
Posts: 5025 | From: Toronto | Registered: Aug 2002
| IP: Logged
|
|
mousethief
Ship's Thieving Rodent
# 953
|
Posted
No, sorry, Tom, that was to New Yorker; you got caught in the crossfire. I agree with you. Good to see you again, by the way; I don't believe I've seen you in a while.
-------------------- This is the last sig I'll ever write for you...
Posts: 63536 | From: Washington | Registered: Jul 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
TomOfTarsus
Shipmate
# 3053
|
Posted
Thanks, MT. I don't get to post very often, I'm afraid, and then I'm usually so rushed it comes out poorly.
You just made me howl over on the Hell thread about gas prices, though. I'd just seen the skit somewhere about needing more cowbell!
Maybe I can arrange it so my 666th post is on election day!
Blessings,
Tom
-------------------- By grace are ye saved through faith... not of yourselves; it is the gift of God; not of works, lest any man should boast. For we are His workmanship, created in Christ Jesus unto good works, which God hath ... ordained that we should walk in them.
Posts: 1570 | From: Pittsburgh, PA USA | Registered: Jul 2002
| IP: Logged
|
|
IconiumBound
Shipmate
# 754
|
Posted
Since the economy has finally forced itself into both campaigns why don't they see that neither one can affect any long term change of governmental economic policies until at least January 20th.
In the immediate need for change/reform/regulation why don't both candidates get back to their Senat positions and try to get something done now. We just might learn which is the real leader.
Posts: 1318 | From: Philadelphia, PA, USA | Registered: Jul 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
romanlion
editorial comment
# 10325
|
Posted
quote: Originally posted by IconiumBound:
In the immediate need for change/reform/regulation why don't both candidates get back to their Senat positions and try to get something done now. We just might learn which is the real leader.
Well...one of the candidates has been running for POTUS for as long as he's been a Senator, and based on 100+ "present" votes in that body the likelihood of any real leadership revealing itself over the next 7 weeks seems nil at best.
-------------------- "You can't get rich in politics unless you're a crook" - Harry S. Truman
Posts: 1486 | From: White Rose City | Registered: Sep 2005
| IP: Logged
|
|
RuthW
liberal "peace first" hankie squeezer
# 13
|
Posted
There is no "present" vote in the US Senate. It's either yes or no. [ 17. September 2008, 23:32: Message edited by: RuthW ]
Posts: 24453 | From: La La Land | Registered: Apr 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
Golden Key
Shipmate
# 1468
|
Posted
I would think that privacy would arguably fit under "life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness".
-------------------- Blessed Gator, pray for us! --"Oh bat bladders, do you have to bring common sense into this?" (Dragon, "Jane & the Dragon") --"Oh, Peace Train, save this country!" (Yusuf/Cat Stevens, "Peace Train")
Posts: 18601 | From: Chilling out in an undisclosed, sincere pumpkin patch. | Registered: Oct 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
Myrrh
Shipmate
# 11483
|
Posted
Yes surely, it's default position. I think this is such an extraordinary document and I'm really sorry to see how even lawyers think they have to look within it to determine what rights you have, and if the US exported this instead of what it does masquerading as being this..
..I'd be cheering you on.
Myrrh
Posts: 4467 | Registered: Jun 2006
| IP: Logged
|
|
romanlion
editorial comment
# 10325
|
Posted
quote: Originally posted by RuthW: There is no "present" vote in the US Senate. It's either yes or no.
Indeed.
Considering the relative brevity of his tenure there I suppose it makes sense that Hillary would have criticized him based on his votes in the Ill. State Senate.
-------------------- "You can't get rich in politics unless you're a crook" - Harry S. Truman
Posts: 1486 | From: White Rose City | Registered: Sep 2005
| IP: Logged
|
|
Laura
General nuisance
# 10
|
Posted
quote: Originally posted by Golden Key: I would think that privacy would arguably fit under "life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness".
That's not in the Constitution. That's part of the Declaration of Independence.
-------------------- Love is the only sane and satisfactory answer to the problem of human existence. - Erich Fromm
Posts: 16883 | From: East Coast, USA | Registered: Apr 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
mousethief
Ship's Thieving Rodent
# 953
|
Posted
quote: Originally posted by Laura: quote: Originally posted by Golden Key: I would think that privacy would arguably fit under "life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness".
That's not in the Constitution. That's part of the Declaration of Independence.
It's all in argon under glass in the same building isn't it? Sheesh next you'll be telling me the Gettysburg Address isn't in the Constitution.
-------------------- This is the last sig I'll ever write for you...
Posts: 63536 | From: Washington | Registered: Jul 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
Jason™
Host emeritus
# 9037
|
Posted
Cheap shots, snide remarks, and point scoring. How did we get this way? I blame the 24 hour news channels because, well, it's easy.
Posts: 4123 | From: Land of Mary | Registered: Feb 2005
| IP: Logged
|
|
|
|