Support NeoGAF

[Deus Ex Machina]

Lol people actually visit the HuffingtonPost website and expect accurate news to be reported?

Network News use HuffingtonPost as a source for its stories.

 

[reilo]

HuffPo is just as reliable as a Politico or DrudgeReport. They all report the same shit, it's just excreted by different types of bulls.

 

[theviolenthero]

People are actually believe Huffington Post news article? Man, that site makes Fox News look tame. They latch onto every anti-McCain/pro-Obama and spin it so much that it Fox News' head spin.

So i go over to huffingtonpost and what do i see as the 3 biggest stories of the week?

Obama Undercuts His Brand
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2008/06/28/obama-undercuts-his-brand_n_109758.html


Serenity Lost: Obama And The Netroots
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2008/06/25/serenity-lost-obama-and-t_n_109098.html


Tension In Unity: Clinton Donors Give Obama Cold Shoulder
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2008/06/27/tension-in-unity-clinton_n_109569.html



I'm sure Obama appreciates all the love he's getting over at the Huffingtonpost. :lol

 

[Chrono]

I'm sure Obama appreciates all the love he's getting over at the Huffingtonpost. :lol

No dude, they make fox look tame. And that olbermann!? Wow, I thought o'reilly was bad!


:lol

 

[maximum360]

WICKSOL: When was the last time you pumped your own gas and how much did it cost?

MCCAIN: Oh, I don’t remember. Now there’s Secret Service protection. But I’ve done it for many, many years. I don’t recall and frankly, I don’t see how it matters.

I’ve had hundreds and hundreds of town hall meetings, many as short a time ago as yesterday. I communicate with the people and they communicate with me very effectively.

I hope McCain keeps this up. Next time, please with audio.

 

[User 10639]

Only because the drugs they administer in executions are so expensive and uncommon (precisely because of their rarity and use).

There really isn't anything at all about lethal injection that can be described as "precise," particularly not the drugs in use (which are rare because, y'know, it's illegal to euthanize animals with them.)

I know I'm about 10 pages late with this, so carry on, dudes.

edit: damn, you guys really think Ginsburg and Breyer are liberals? :lol I wonder how you'd categorize actual libs like Brennan and Marshall, seriously, who btw held the position that the death penalty was unconstitutional and a bad idea in all cases - which is most certainly the liberal position, considering that it's the one held by eeeevil socialist places like Europe and Australia. Oddly enough, conservatives seem to drift that way more often than liberals go opposite - Blackmun is the most famous switch, but Stevens (who also affirmed the DP in the 70s when it first came up) is also going towards it, and I remember Powell having misgivings about it's racially biased application in his later years. Also, White was only conservative on law-and-order shit (and abortion, I guess); look up his record on school busing and affirmative action, for example.

Anyway, economically, Kennedy is nowhere near the center, and socially, he strays there just often enough to give people the appearance of being a moderate (which he ain't). Just about the only centrist (or liberal, if you guys prefer) positions he seems to hold are on gay rights, the death penalty, and Gitmo. All of which I happen to agree with him on, at least partially. Yay!

 

[electricpirate]

http://www.newsweek.com/id/143775/

Huffpo story is confirmed true, McCain has payed most of the taxes on it now.

 

[Cheebs]

I hope McCain keeps this up. Next time, please with audio.

Obama drove himself in his own car to campaign events in the 2004 senate race but I don't think he has been "allowed" to drive himself anymore since then.

 

[JayDubya]

edit: damn, you guys really think Ginsburg and Breyer are liberals? :lol

Uh. Fucking YES. And in the bad, modern sense of that word.

I wonder how you'd categorize actual libs like Brennan and Marshall, seriously, who btw held the position that the death penalty was unconstitutional

Anyone holding that position hasn't read the constitution. ;P

 

[User 10639]

Fucking YES.

So the court from the 30s through the 60s was...?

Anyone holding that position hasn't read the constitution. ;P

Right, right, you know best.

 

[JayDubya]

Right, right, you know best.

a) Treason is outlined as a capital offense in Article III.

b) 5th Amendment; "nor be deprived of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law"

So what about with due process of law?

Holding that the DP is unconstitutional is a simply unreasonable and untenable claim. Simply stating "it is is my opinion that it is bad and I want the practice to end," is fair, (and I mostly agree with that notion) but the former is not.

 

[Cheebs]

I hope Obama learns a lesson from Bush. APPOINT YOUNG JUSTICES. Ginsberg was pretty damn old already. Do like Bush and appoint justices in their 50's.

 

[User 10639]

a) Treason is outlined as a capital offense in Article III.

b) 5th Amendment; "nor be deprived of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law"

So what about with due process of law?

With due process of the law it can still contradict certain other parts of the BoR (you know which one) but of course the more ambiguous passages were frozen in time at the time of their writing even though women are now a protected class and segregation is illegal.

edit: also, Jay, you're totally wrong about the Supremacy clause, which was never used to apply the BoR to the states.

 

[JayDubya]

With due process of the law it can still contradict certain other parts of the BoR (you know which one) but of course the more ambiguous passages were frozen in time at the time of their writing even though women are now a protected class and segregation is illegal.

What ambiguous passages? And damn right they're frozen, because that was how the piece of paper was ratified. The states didn't agree to or sign some other version of the piece of paper or the version you want to go back in a time machine and get them to sign.

 

[User 10639]

What ambiguous passages? And damn right they're frozen, because that was how the piece of paper was ratified. The states didn't agree to or sign some other version of the piece of paper or the version you want to go back in a time machine and get them to sign.

"Cruel and unusual" is ambiguous, I'd think.

So you'd agree that the 14th amendment does not protect women or prohibit segregation, right? Because that certainly wasn't what it was intended for.

edit: Agree with your conservative brothers, Jay!

I realize that it is an unpopular and unhumanitarian position, for which I have been excoriated by 'liberal' colleagues but I think Plessy v. Ferguson was right and should be reaffirmed.

 

[Cheebs]

What ambiguous passages? And damn right they're frozen, because that was how the piece of paper was ratified. The states didn't agree to or sign some other version of the piece of paper or the version you want to go back in a time machine and get them to sign.

You know more about the consitution than George Washington? Because our founding father claimed there are ambiguous passages open for interpretation and that the constitution should be viewed loosely and not bind down the country as the times change. A man who knows a bit more about the constitution than you was a loose constructionist and a federalist which by definition of that time was:

"Loose Constructionism, which favors judicial discretion to adapt, interpolate or reinterpret the document in order to give greater effect to its abstract ends and reconsile it to modern circumstances"

"Federalists called for a stronger national government, a loose construction of the Constitution"

So who is right, you or George?

Ol' George Washington for that time would be what today you would call a Big Government Liberal.



And my point? YOU AREN'T CORRECT ABOUT THE FOUNDING FATHERS INTENTIONS! No one is! Many people who helped craft the consitution wanted to stick by it, many saw it as a document to interpret loosely and be a guideline only.

And these were the people who WROTE it. There is no correct way to determine the founding fathers intentions when the founding fathers never agreed on how to view the consitution. Washington, Adams, and Hamilton were on one side. Jefferson, Madison, and so forth on another. From day one!

I (and as do most of the modern democratic party) skew towards the Federalist interpretation of the consitution while you (and most modern libertarian leaning conservatives) go with the Jeffersonian belief.

But the issue is, you strict constructionists like to act like you are going with what the founding fathers intended. But its plainly obvious you aren't. No one is. They were evenly split from DAY ONE, just like today.

 

[JayDubya]

"Cruel and unusual" is ambiguous, I'd think.

While that is a bit of a judgment call, certainly the methods commonly employed to execute criminals before and after the ratification of that document were not considered cruel, nor unusual, nor unconstitutional, nor would any method of execution be unconstitutional by virtue of it being execution, when the crime of treason, as outlined in that same document, is punishable by death.

edit: Agree with your conservative brothers, Jay!

Well, Rehnquist is pretty awesome.

 

[User 10639]

Well, Rehnquist is pretty awesome.

Right, and you haven't answered my questions. Was Plessy v. Ferguson (aka "separate but equal is constitutional") rightly decided, and Brown v. Board of Education of Topeka therefore wrong, since segregation did occur at the time of the 14th amendment and afterward? Are women a protected class under the Equal Protection clause, even though they were certainly not meant to be considered such by the framers of said amendment?

 

[Cheebs]

Honestly, I don't care if you are a strict constructionist thats your view. But the cockiness of strict constructionists to fool themselves into thinking they are taking the side of the founding fathers pisses me off to no end.

 

[JayDubya]

Cheebs, the classic Federalists are well in the middle between the modern Democratic party and that same party at the time of its founding, Jefferson and Madison's Anti-Federalist Democratic-Republican Party. Honestly, most the G.O.P.'s dominant sentiment is more Federalist than not, and even a classic Federalist, even Hamilton himself, wouldn't agree with how far things have gone beyond the pale of Anti-Federalism vs. Federalism in the name of "progressivism."

At this point, advocating for "Federalism" is an appeal to having some basic state authority or recognizing that the 10th amendment even exists, which is a bit of a taboo, I think.

 

[User 10639]

'Kay, so you're a "faint-hearted" originalist, who doesn't want to acknowledge that discrimination towards women and segregation of races is perfectly Constitutional based on your ideology. That's cool.

edit: in case we need clarification here, I'm talking about legally segregating people - blacks go to different schools, women are prohibited from this or that, etc. as I know your feelings on private discrimination

 

[Cheebs]

Cheebs, the classic Federalists are well in the middle between the modern Democratic party and that same party at the time of its founding, Jefferson and Madison's Anti-Federalist Democratic-Republican Party. Honestly, most the G.O.P.'s dominant sentiment is more Federalist than not, and even a classic Federalist, even Hamilton himself, wouldn't agree with how far things have gone beyond the pale of Anti-Federalism vs. Federalism.

At this point, advocating for "Federalism" is an appeal to having some basic state authority or recognizing that the 10th amendment even existed, which is a bit of a taboo, I think.

My point wasnt focused on modern party connections. It was just a simple little example, not at all the point I was focusing on.

My point was that at the time the founding fathers were split between loose constructionists and strict.

Just like today, which is why when strict constructionists claim they want to go with how the founding fathers meant for us to see the consitution they are just spewing nonsense.

 

[Azih]

I think the most interesting part of the Cheebs post was this one:

And my point? YOU AREN'T CORRECT ABOUT THE FOUNDING FATHERS INTENTIONS! No one is! Many people who helped craft the consitution wanted to stick by it, many saw it as a document to interpret loosely and be a guideline only.

Edit: oh well continue.

 

[JayDubya]

'Kay, so you're a "faint-hearted" originalist, who doesn't want to acknowledge that discrimination towards women and segregation of races is perfectly Constitutional based on your ideology. That's cool.

In general, the way the 14th has been applied by the federal government and stretched beyond all reason is nothing short of repugnant and disgusting.

However, the text of the first section is fairly plain and with the 19th in place as well to modify section 2 (males and voting), with women certainly not being non-citizens or non-persons (and that distinction being used to obnoxious effect in certain other horrible cases), I'm left wondering what you're arguing about.

What assumptions are you making?

 

[JayDubya]

Just like today, which is why when strict constructionists claim they want to go with how the founding fathers meant for us to see the consitution they are just spewing nonsense.

Funny, I don't seem to recall making appeals to Hamilton very often, do I? But federalist and anti-federalist alike signed the document, mostly written by Madison, and while I'm aware that some federalists (Adams, perhaps?) were interested in subverting it pretty much from day one, it still stands as the law of the land.

 

[Branduil]

The main reason people want liberal judges appointed to the supreme court is that it's so much easier to "interpret" the constitution that way than it is to go through the lengthy amendment process where people actually have to agree to change it. Meanwhile a Supreme can just go "PENUMBRA! ABORTION FOR EVERYONE!" and we can't do a thing.

 

[Cheebs]

Funny, I don't seem to recall making appeals to Hamilton very often, do I? But federalist and anti-federalist alike signed the document, mostly written by Madison, and while I'm aware that some federalists (Adams, perhaps?) were interested in subverting it pretty much from day one, it still stands as the law of the land.

They didnt want to subvert it. That is quite a loaded term to throw around. Washington held the same view of it as the traditional federalist. Your bias is making you see it that way. It isn't as clear cut as you want it to be, many leaders saw it as something you don't take literally. Others see it as something you follow to the letter. There is no right or wrong, both views are correct because the people who signed it never agreed to which interpretation was the correct one. And from DAY ONE when it was signed they started arguing about how to read it.

You can hold your view but when you make remarks about the other side at the time wanting to subvert it like they were doing something against what was right is just being blindsided.

 

[JayDubya]

The main reason people want liberal judges appointed to the supreme court is that it's so much easier to "interpret" the constitution that way than it is to go through the lengthy amendment process where people actually have to agree to change it. Meanwhile a Supreme can just go "PENUMBRA! ABORTION FOR EVERYONE!" and we can't do a thing.

<3 Branduil. *tags out for breakfast*

 

[scorcho]

So i go over to huffingtonpost and what do i see as the 3 biggest stories of the week?

Obama Undercuts His Brand
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2008/06/28/obama-undercuts-his-brand_n_109758.html

Serenity Lost: Obama And The Netroots
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2008/06/25/serenity-lost-obama-and-t_n_109098.html

Tension In Unity: Clinton Donors Give Obama Cold Shoulder
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2008/06/27/tension-in-unity-clinton_n_109569.html

I'm sure Obama appreciates all the love he's getting over at the Huffingtonpost. :lol

he deserves it after his actions over the last few weeks.

 

[User 10639]

However, the text of the first section is fairly plain and with the 19th in place as well to modify section 2, with women certainly not being non-citizens or non-persons (and that distinction being used to obnoxious effect in certain other horrible cases), I'm left wondering what you're arguing about.

Separate but equal was established as a constitutional legal principle by the case Plessy v. Ferguson, which upheld a LA law requiring separate railcars for blacks and whites. Honest originalists would have to admit that, since segregation was legal and an accepted social principle at the time of the 14th and afterwards, Brown v. Board of Education was wrong and Plessy v. Ferguson was right (which was the original opinion of Rehnquist when he was an obscure law clerk, before he started backpedaling when he was nominated for CJ 'cause that opinion had thankfully become unpopular and absurd). One would also have to accept that the practice of states discriminating against women in the laws (outside of voting discrimination being expressly prohibited by 19A) was, again, perfectly legal, because the framers of the 14th would have (and did) accept it.

edit: honestly dude, this is basic basic shit, dunno how you coulda missed it

 

[Cheebs]

<3 Branduil. *tags out for breakfast*

Yes because branding the other side as subverting the consitution when your side has no claim over what you should do with the consitution is just plain WONDERFUL.


Guess what. I am not right but neither are you. This is not a right or wrong argument.

 

[JayDubya]

You can hold your view but when you make remarks about the other side at the time wanting to subvert it like they were doing something against what was right is just being blindsided.

If you look into Adams more closely, I think you'll find that my remark ("some," with a specific citing of a name) was not inaccurate.

 

[Cheebs]

If you look into Adams more closely, I think you'll find that my remark ("some," with a specific citing of a name) was not inaccurate.

What about Washington? He was a loose constructionist as well and not a fan of states rights.

My reason for not liking leaving things up to the states is not out of some consitutional theory or view. It is because the states fuck everything up when they have different sides on big issues. We need consistency in laws or it ends up in chaos. Look at how messed up gay marriage is. It's a big mess in figuring out which states can have it, the states supreme courts stepping in. It's a mess. Either ban it outright, or allow it outright.

And slavery as well. Having certain states free and certain slave caused so much tension it eventually lead to war (yes I know slavery wasnt the cause of the war, but the divide between the states was initially created by the separation and I know the fed. government is to blame as well in this separation.)

 

[Mumei]

The main reason people want liberal judges appointed to the supreme court is that it's so much easier to "interpret" the constitution that way than it is to go through the lengthy amendment process where people actually have to agree to change it. Meanwhile a Supreme can just go "PENUMBRA! ABORTION FOR EVERYONE!" and we can't do a thing.

That's a bit low. Sort of like, "The main reason people want conservative judges appointed to the Supreme Court is that it is so much more difficult to force them to treat minorities as anything better than shit when things must go through a lengthy amendment process," is a bit low.

 

[Cheebs]

That's a bit low. Sort of like, "The main reason people want conservative judges appointed to the Supreme Court is that it is so much more difficult to force them to treat minorities as anything better than shit when things must go through a lengthy amendment process," is a bit low.

Branduil sees liberals as disgusting vile human beings based on his post history, it is no shock.

 

[User 10639]

Okay, I'll put it in easier terms: the states that ratified the 14th amendment fully understood that a) women were not a protected class (and therefore wouldn't fall under the equal protection clause) and b) segregation of the races was tolerated. Some might not have signed it otherwise. So by an originalist reading of that amendment, BvB was wrong, because the people who wrote and signed the 14th would not have opposed segregation (or "separate but equal," if you will.) And as a side note, since I seem to have to remind people of this all the time: the fact that educational facilities in question in Brown v. Board of Education were unequal did not matter; what mattered is that they were separate in the first place.

Of course, social mores have progressed since then to accept Brown as being fundamentally correct and one of the high watermarks of Supreme Court decisions, even by smelly racist Chief Justices, and women as a protected class equal to men (well above and beyond anything in the meager suffrage terms of 19A), but if we shouldn't allow social shifts to affect other passages, why the Equal Protection clause, eh?

However, the text of the first section is fairly plain and with the 19th in place as well to modify section 2 (males and voting), with women certainly not being non-citizens or non-persons (and that distinction being used to obnoxious effect in certain other horrible cases), I'm left wondering what you're arguing about.

So in other words, dude: "The states didn't agree to or sign some other version of the piece of paper or the version you want to go back in a time machine and get them to sign."

 

[Tamanon]

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2008/06/29/tv-soundoff-sunday-talkin_n_109802.html

This Week With George Stephanopoulos

Battle of the proxies today is Tim Pawlenty versus Rahm Emmanuel. I feel bad for Pawlenty because Emmanuel is TERRIFYING. If Bill Kristol had said DC need guns to protect themselves against Rahm Emmanuel, I would have been, like: PREACH ON BROTHER. Emmanuel immediately calls McCain an Olympic gold medalist flip-flopper and cuts off GS with a sharp gesture. Rahm is all up on Pawlenty, staring him down and grabbing his arm. He's a personal space invader!

Stephanopoulos brings up the Fortune magazine article on Obama and NAFTA where Nina Easton did a lot of prevaricating, pretending that some of Obama's positions on the matter were sudden, post-primary shifts. GS has bought into Easton's take on the matter. Disappointing but not surprising.

Emmanuel is all but performing Alec Baldwin's "always be closing" monologue from Glengarry Glen Ross, waging a war of interruptions and constantly bringing conversations to rhetorical conclusions, forcing Pawlenty to have to rebroach the topic, which makes him look weak. He rattles off a litany of statistics, and I'm watching Pawlenty gulp air, listening to it. GS finally has to intercede, and get Emmanuel to let Pawlenty speak. Rahm agrees, but keeps on interrupting. The conversation finally ends, and Emmanuel gives Pawlenty the sort of "attaboy" pat on the back that says, "Yeah, I just feasted on your testicles, so, you're going to feel some sharp pains while sitting down for the next couple of days."

Next up is Ralph Nader. And really. Will he ever live down that "talks white" remark? GS has got Nader dead to rights on this host of issues, noting that Obama has discussed and acted on the specific issues that Nader brought up. GS is right to do so: Here's Obama on lead-abatement. Here's Obama on predatory lending. Here's Obama on asbestos. That leaves Nader to quote from a pair of public advocates that no one's ever heard of and bring up a different set of issues than he did before.

GS asks why Nader trains all his fire on Obama when McCain is even less amenable to issues that matter to Nader (if there truly are issues anymore that matter to Nader beyond Nader himself). Nader says he's ready to badmouth McCain if someone wants to ask him to do so. My. He certainly makes this whole "third-party" thing look like a monument to courage.

I kinda want to watch the Emanuel/Pawlenty interview after reading that.:lol

 

[Gaborn]

What about Washington? He was a loose constructionist as well and not a fan of states rights.

My reason for not liking leaving things up to the states is not out of some consitutional theory or view. It is because the states fuck everything up when they have different sides on big issues. We need consistency in laws or it ends up in chaos. Look at how messed up gay marriage is. It's a big mess in figuring out which states can have it, the states supreme courts stepping in. It's a mess. Either ban it outright, or allow it outright.

And slavery as well. Having certain states free and certain slave caused so much tension it eventually lead to war (yes I know slavery wasnt the cause of the war, but the divide between the states was initially created by the separation and I know the fed. government is to blame as well in this separation.)

I find the notion of Massachusetts and California giving gays the right to marry being called "messed up" a bit offensive actually, particularly when your preferred solution would seem to be (by inference) either Bush's support to ban gay marriage at a federal level (since he's president now) or Obama's second class status for gays (since you hope he'll become president). Personally I don't mind the way things are.

 

[thekad]

That post made absolutely no sense, Gaborn.

 

[Gaborn]

That post made absolutely no sense, Gaborn.

I agree! Cheebs should apologize.

Edit - On second read exactly what was unclear? Cheebs stated that you should either ban gay marriage or allow it, he's an Obama supporter, Bush is currently President. It seems he'd prefer that either Bush's solution (his reference to "ban it") or Obama's solution (No gay marriage but civil unions for gays!) be enacted nationally. Personally I find that offensive at the state level because federalism is WORKING for marriage equality at the state level. I'd rather avoid Obama's push for second class relationships as previously discussed.

 

[Thunder Monkey]

That post made absolutely no sense, Gaborn.

I didn't think so either.

But I like Gaborn so I give him a free pass.

 

[User 10639]

Personally I don't mind the way things are.

Yeah, it's great that 48 states deny gays the right to marriage, isn't it?

 

[Gaborn]

Yeah, it's great that 48 states deny gays the right to marriage, isn't it?

It's better that there's a chance to move forward on states to marriage equality rather than second hand relationships, yes. Why should California and Massachusetts throw away equality just because Cheebs doesn't like federalism? As it currently stands gay marriage would not survive a national approach to the issue.

 

[avatar299]

Yeah, it's great that 48 states deny gays the right to marriage, isn't it?

It's called a domino effect. The Gay marriage movement is gaining momentum, and while the chances of all states accepting gay marriage is very slim, I agree with Gaborn that pushing State marriage at a state level while waiting for someone who isn't homophobic to be president and do the right thing.

DeJa Vu

 

[Gaborn]

It's called a domino effect. The Gay marriage movement is gaining momentum, and while the chances of all states accepting gay marriage is very slim, I agree with Gaborn that pushing State marriage at a state level while waiting for someone who isn't homophobic to be president and do the right thing.

DeJa Vu

Yep, I mean, at some point in the future, say when 20, 30 states accept gay marriage it might make more sense to make it a national issue, but right now calling to nationalize the gay marriage debate is calling to ban it.

 

[GhaleonEB]

 

[Cheebs]

I notice they randomly take days off now, its odd.

 

[scorcho]

if these polls are actually legit, it's worth considering that Obama's forays to the center hasn't helped his overall numbers at all.

 

[GhaleonEB]

I notice they randomly take days off now, its odd.

They have a call center in Iowa. The day off in early June was due to that. Iowa had massive flash flooding two days ago, might have hit their center again.

 

[The Librarian]

At least his remaining consistently above McCain.