Polls reveal logic of likely Bush voters
From the satirical news site IronicTimes.com:
One of the choices apparently wasn't "Bush TV ads portray Kerry negatively", which actually
does seem to be driving the numbers Bush's way most recently.
How heartening.
I'm starting to like IronicTimes.com :wink:
joefromchicago wrote:Scrat wrote:Why? The fact that we are free to do something does not obligate us to do it. We are not "bound" at all by simply retaining eighteenth-century liberties.
Indeed. Nor is a child "obligated" to pick up a loaded gun that is left within its reach. Still, all other things being equal, you'd prefer it if the gun wasn't there.
I wasn't aware that the freedom to leave loaded guns laying about in front of children was atop the list of liberties to which you were referring. Had you mentioned that specific liberty, I might have chosen to point out that the fact that the Constitution does not restrict that liberty does not mean that we can't take reasonable action at the local or state level to put those guns up on a high shelf.
Or, if we can leave aside the rather silly guns-in-the-reach-of-kids issue and return to the one-man, one-vote issue of which you were writing, my point was that if the Constitution does not mandate a one-man, one-vote standard, that does not bar any or all states from establishing such a standard if that is their preference.
(Just because the Constitution doesn't guarantee you X, does not automatically mean you cannot, will not have X.)
My final answer:
Not acknowledging Bush's faults/failures bothers me much more.
Americans have a duty to do this when it becomes necessary.
They're who's really getting bashed.
.
Three Texas surgeons were playing golf together and discussing surgeries they had performed.
One of them said, "I'm the best surgeon in Texas. A concert pianist lost fingers in an accident, I reattached them, and eight months later he performed a private concert for the Queen of England."
One of the others said, "That's nothing. A young man lost both arms and legs in an accident, I reattached them, and two years later he won a gold medal in field events in the Olympics."
The third surgeon said, "You guys are amateurs. Several years ago a cowboy who was high on cocaine and alcohol rode a horse head-on into a train traveling 80 miles an hour. All I had left to work with was the horse's ass and a cowboy hat. Now he's president of the United States."
(Well, this thread was originally about Bush-bashing, wasn't it ?"
.
Setanta wrote:I referred to the first clause of the second amendment--A well regulated militia being necessary to the security of a free state--precisely because is appears to be referential to Article I, Section 8, (and i believe this is the fourteenth paragraph) Congress shall have the power to provide for organizing, arming, and disciplining, the militia, and for governing such part of them as may be employed in the service of the United States, reserving to the states respectively, the appointment of the officers, and the authority of training the militia according to the discipline prescribed by Congress. It also seems that the Supremes consider it referential to that paragraph as well, as i have read that in the late 1930's they turned down an appeal of a firearms conviction on the grounds that they had no knowledge that Congress had designated shotguns as the weapon with which the militia are to be armed. I can't be arsed to go look up the opinion, but i note the caution with which the gun lobby avoids bringing Congressional arms control legislation before federal benches.
The case you are referring to is US v. Miller (1939) and the direct quote is
"In the absence of any evidence tending to show that possession or use of a "shotgun having a barrel of less than eighteen inches in length" at this time has some reasonable relationship to the preservation or efficiency of a well regulated militia, we cannot say that the Second Amendment guarantees the right to keep and bear such an instrument. Certainly it is not within judicial notice that this weapon is any part of the ordinary military equipment, or that its use could contribute to the common defense."
They made no mention of the Congress having anything to do with any recoginition of any sort of firearm at all. It was the Courts opinion that a sawed off shotgun wasn't suitable as a militia weapon - not the opinion of the Congress. (Which they probably would have had a harder time stating post-Vietnam since sawed off shotguns
were used there.)
I find it interesting that some people seem to believe certain courts and certain justices to be infallible, holding up their decisions as the last word on an issue, yet then turn around and decry decisions with which they disagree such as Bush V. Gore. Either the court is fallible and all it's decisions subject to suspicion or it is not, but please pick a standard.
You can't simply point to a USSC decision as
proof of your position unless you are claiming that all USSC decisions are correct.
Absent that, the best you can claim is that the court
supported your position in the ruling you cite.
Thank you for posting that Fishin', as i didn't have a citation from which to make my own judgment. I am gratified to note that the Supremes referred to "well-regulated militia," as that is the more significant matter to me, and it is as conclusive as the contention which i had read about the reference to Article I, Section 8. I continue to consider significant the absence of litigation against Congressional lfirearms legislation, or, if there is such litigation, its apparent lack of success.
"...as long as you're comfortable, it feels like freedom."
- North Sea Bubble, Billy Bragg
nimh wrote:Funny or not funny?
I must admit I hadnt expected Bush to mock himself and his admin's single-minded obsession with the matter as light-moodedly as this ... think it's (gasp) rather sympathetic. But apparently, lots of others were not amused ...
I thought it was in the same vein as other President's self-deprecating humor at these events. I thought the conservatives were the ones who were deemed humourless... I've seen similar footage on late night and I think Maher, with the same type of comments used by Bush. If it's funny when they say it; it's funny when Bush says it.
IMO, the 'outrage' was down partisan lines.
Scrat just quoted Billy Bragg !!
Well that must be the ultimate proof that conservatives
do have a sense of humour!
I would think it would be evidence of my musical taste, but at least you seem to see it as positive.
Yeah, I've loved Billy Bragg's music since way back in the early days. Haven't heard anything since the Mermaid Avenue stuff he did with Wilco, though.
Mermaid Avenue was a wonderful album ... strue. Woody Guthrie penned some beautiful songs.
Its cause of Billy's early stuff, actually, that i was lol about you quoting him ... I mean, even to me, at the time, he was a bit ... err ... strident. <grin>
I once saw this BBC comedy sketch, it was brilliant ... I dunno what they used anymore - say, they used a fairytale. Snow White and the Seven Dwarves, say. And then they had a parody of how different musicians would sing about the story.
Like, they did Morrissey, who would have went something like, "Oh, I am snow white / I feel so miserable / crash down my kingdom, crash / lay me on a bed, with white roses / for I can't live, possibly / in this misery" - something like that, right? And then they did Billy Bragg, and that went more like: "Unfold our proud banners for the seven dwarves / for the dwarves, they were miners / strike, miners, strike! / because snowwhite, what about the workers? / What about the workers !?!"
<giggles>
Snow White, that evil captalist slut!
nimh wrote:Mermaid Avenue was a wonderful album ... strue. Woody Guthrie penned some beautiful songs.
Its cause of Billy's early stuff, actually, that i was lol about you quoting him ... I mean, even to me, at the time, he was a bit ... err ... strident. <grin>
I once saw this BBC comedy sketch, it was brilliant ... I dunno what they used anymore - say, they used a fairytale. Snow White and the Seven Dwarves, say. And then they had a parody of how different musicians would sing about the story.
Like, they did Morrissey, who would have went something like, "Oh, I am snow white / I feel so miserable / crash down my kingdom, crash / lay me on a bed, with white roses / for I can't live, possibly / in this misery" - something like that, right? And then they did Billy Bragg, and that went more like: "Unfold our proud banners for the seven dwarves / for the dwarves, they were miners / strike, miners, strike! / because snowwhite, what about the workers? / What about the workers !?!"
<giggles>
LOL! I would love to have seen that. And I also loved the Smiths, too! (Not too big on Morrissey's solo stuff... at least the little that I heard.
An interesting point that brings this back around to politics, is that I find that many of my favorite musicians and favorite songs are found at the opposite end of the political spectrum from me. Jackson Browne, Elvis Costello... they write these great songs with wonderful lyrics that reach inside me and ring true... until I remember the way the world actually is. Great songs, still.
Quote: (Not too big on Morrissey's solo stuff... at least the little that I heard.
He really needed the input of the other band members to keep him from becoming a charicature.
Bush Bashers of the World: Unite!
Bush Bashers of the World: Unite!
http://www.able2know.com/forums/viewtopic.php?t=22033&highlight=
BBB
yes it does because Clinton was so much worse. My brothers hate him and while he has made piss poor decisions, he was the lesser of evils in 2000.
How do you figure Clinton was worse?
You know, as a person Clinton was an embarassment to the country. As a president he wasn't half bad mostly because the man had no convictions of any kind. Therefore he was willing to go along to get along on virtually any issue and let a Republican led congress do its thing which made him look damn good. (Can I say damn without violating TOS? If not, sorry.)
