Support NeoGAF

[ClovingWestbrook]

The CIA would never do such a thing! NEVER!

Again, apparently you didn't read what I wrote above you. I don't have a problem with the accusation but rather the method in which it was made; publicly.

 

[besada]

In 2008 I voted McCain even though I didn't really agree with him on most issues because I disagreed with Obama on more.

So, there were no independents candidates on the ballot? You don't vote in non-Presidential elections? If you've never voted for an independent candidate, you aren't an independent. It's really that simple.

Jaydub propped in trying to help you out, but Jaydub's a real independent who had to register Republican to vote for Ron Paul (who should frankly leave the party he shares little in common with, but whom lacks the courage of his convictions), but I can pretty much guarantee Jaydub's voted for other independents and libertarians.

Hell, I've voted for more independents than you have.

You can call yourself whatever you want, but when you start acting hurt and shocked when we call you vy your actual record, it just makes you look ridiculous and dishonest.

 

[ClovingWestbrook]

So, there were no independents candidates on the ballot? You don't vote in non-Presidential elections? If you've never voted for an independent candidate, you aren't an independent. It's really that simple.

Jaydub propped in trying to help you out, but Jaydub's a real independent who had to register Republican to vote for Ron Paul (who should frankly leave the party he shares little in common with, but whom lacks the courage of his convictions), but I can pretty much guarantee Jaydub's voted for other independents and libertarians.

Hell, I've voted for more independents than you have.

You can call yourself whatever you want, but when you start acting hurt and shocked when we call you vy your actual record, it just makes you look ridiculous and dishonest.

I am not shocked nor hurt. Believe me, nothing in this thread surprises me anymore, especially those who post. I have answered accusations regarding my political beliefs and doing so just creates more of the same. I am not even sure why I responded in the first place to someone who is pushing me to make a defense of why I voted for person A/B and not C/D, or why I don't consider myself label A/B but do consider myself C/D.

 

[NewLib]

So, there were no independents candidates on the ballot? You don't vote in non-Presidential elections? If you've never voted for an independent candidate, you aren't an independent. It's really that simple.

Jaydub propped in trying to help you out, but Jaydub's a real independent who had to register Republican to vote for Ron Paul (who should frankly leave the party he shares little in common with, but whom lacks the courage of his convictions), but I can pretty much guarantee Jaydub's voted for other independents and libertarians.

Hell, I've voted for more independents than you have.

You can call yourself whatever you want, but when you start acting hurt and shocked when we call you vy your actual record, it just makes you look ridiculous and dishonest.

So what if you are someone like me who has voted for his fair share of both Republicans and Democrats, but never a third party because its pointless.

Do I just take which one I voted for more?

 

[ClovingWestbrook]

So what if you are someone like me who has voted for his fair share of both Republicans and Democrats, but never a third party because its pointless.

Do I just take which one I voted for more?

And this is why I voted for McCain. But apparently that negates my right to call myself a Lib/Independent on GAF.

 

[Zabka]

Again, apparently you didn't read what I wrote above you. I don't have a problem with the accusation but rather the method in which it was made; publicly.

Don't wet yourself over it.

It's just a joke.

 

[scorcho]

No, I just disagree with you. But hey, I shouldn't be surprised that you have made this personal since that is what you have been doing since my first post on this topic. Make it personal, throwing accusations at me, name calling, etc... It would be nice if you could stick to the issue instead of making it personal but obviously that isn't something that can take place here. And before you accuse me of not being able to handle it, know that I prefer to speak about the issue rather than personalize it. If I have done that to you or anyone here, I apologize as it wasn't my intention.

More tangents to get past some seriously tenuous logic? I never threw accusations at you (except in a sarcastic nonsensical stream to highlight your continuous red herrings), haven't name called you, and definitely, DEFINITELY haven't 'etc' you.

It also would be nice for you to stick to the issue, instead of glossing over this -

When Republicans are using the CIA's briefing timeline against Pelosi for their political gain, she has every right to publicly attack the CIA's credibility on the issue, especially if there's good evidence for the charge.

 

[besada]

So what if you are someone like me who has voted for his fair share of both Republicans and Democrats, but never a third party because its pointless.

Do I just take which one I voted for more?

If you've voted both sides of the line, I don't think it would be reasonable to call you either one, would it?

But let's say I've never voted for anyone but a Democrat in my entire political history, at all levels. Then let's say you called me a Democrat, and I said "I'm no Democrat!"

You wouldn't find that the tiniest bit dishonest?

 

[ClovingWestbrook]

If you've voted both sides of the line, I don't think it would be reasonable to call you either one, would it?

But let's say I've never voted for anyone but a Democrat in my entire political history, at all levels. Then let's say you called me a Democrat, and I said "I'm no Democrat!"

You wouldn't find that the tiniest bit dishonest?

Yes, a political life of 4 years =/ If I had been voting for 10-20 years on many elections and only voted Repub, I can see your point. I voted on 2 national elections and on my local elections when I was in So. Cali, I voted for Arnold because I thought stupidly that he would be better than his predecessor (regret big time) and I voted on amendments. I moved to Washington State in 2007 and didn't register until the national election.

With that being said I am going to eat dinner. Thanks for the discussion from all of you.

 

[NewLib]

If you've voted both sides of the line, I don't think it would be reasonable to call you either one, would it?

But let's say I've never voted for anyone but a Democrat in my entire political history, at all levels. Then let's say you called me a Democrat, and I said "I'm no Democrat!"

You wouldn't find that the tiniest bit dishonest?

Eh. Its a matter of semantics. I dont think Democrat/Republican should be seen as the equivalent of liberal/conservative.

 

[platypotamus]

Good one however I choose not to. After all, if I did, who would you have to make the butt of all jokes?

We'd still have JayDubya

I had to be registered Republican to support the best libertarian candidate. There's an unneccessary word there - I had to be registered Republican to support the best candidate.

See? He's adorable!

 

[besada]

Eh. Its a matter of semantics. I dont think Democrat/Republican should be seen as the equivalent of liberal/conservative.

I don't necessarily, either, but LovingSteam a few pages back got all snippy that someone was throwing accusations of Republicanism. I just found it very curious that he's never voted for any party other than the Republicans but felt the need to complain about it.

Hell, I've voted for libertarians, socialists, green party candidates, and Jerry Brown, but I don't get hinky when someone calls me a Democrat because that makes up the majority of my votes.

 

[scorcho]

Good write up on Slate that puts the fictitious impartial, objective, unemotional judge archetype into perspective - http://www.slate.com/id/2218393/pagenum/all/#p2

Every time Justice Antonin Scalia writes a habeas opinion that begins with the depiction of a gruesome murder, he is evincing empathy toward the victim. When Chief Justice John Roberts battled for the rights of white schoolchildren facing arduous bus trips and educational hardship due to school integration programs in Seattle and Kentucky, he was evincing empathy for the white "victims" of affirmative action. It's a patent falsehood that liberal judges weep and bleed for their plaintiffs while conservative jurists treat plaintiffs with stony indifference. And smart advocates on either side, knowing that, seek out "sympathetic plaintiffs" for litigation precisely because they are attempting to appeal to some part of the court's lizard brain; the part that does more than mechanically apply the law to the case.

 

[gcubed]

if this is the way the media is going to portray Obama's pick, the GOP has already lost.

 

[JayDubya]

And this is why I voted for McCain.

Hell, if I'd been in a closely contested state, I'd probably have voted for McCain.

 

[Mandark]

Report Questions Conventional Wisdom About Iranian Regime

WashPost story about this study from the RAND Corporation about Iran (pay only; anyone want to buy Mandark an early Xmas present?).

Despite the title of the article, a lot of the findings sound old hat: Iran practices realpolitik, suffers from factionalism, isn't anywhere near regional hegemony, and doesn't exert total control over Hamas and Hezbollah. I guess by "conventional wisdom" Pincus means the idea of a great Persian bogeyman that the neocons have been selling for years.

Maybe it'll help, though. People might listen to RAND where they'd dismiss more lefty sources as being hopeless naifs.

 

[Tamanon]

I know Bob Baer has been saying the same stuff about Iran for a while now. It's just so much easier to paint someone as evil if you're the one who translates what they say constantly.

Not to mention being opposed to Israeli policies paints you immediately as a bad guy.

 

[JayDubya]

And yes, Mandark, hopefully.

Although really, I'm sick to death of hearing about, in no particular order, Israel, Iran, and North Korea.

 

[scorcho]

Full PDF version is free and available at RAND's website. Surprised you didn't see the link.

Will read this in the AM, but it doesn't seem all that revelatory. Will this lessen pressure to isolate the regime and bomb away? Hell no.

 

[Door2Dawn]

Why are you guys still posting? GO TO BED.

 

[Mandark]

I was playing with words to make a point in my own particular...

Idiom, sir?

Yes, exactly.

 

[Mandark]

I know Bob Baer has been saying the same stuff about Iran for a while now. It's just so much easier to paint someone as evil if you're the one who translates what they say constantly.

Hell, pretty much everyone in the IR business has been saying this stuff, outside the usual crazies. The problem is there's such a disconnect between the academic/expert discourse and the public discourse.

Full PDF version is free and available at RAND's website. Surprised you didn't see the link.

Will read this in the AM, but it doesn't seem all that revelatory. Will this lessen pressure to isolate the regime and bomb away? Hell no.

What do I look like, someone with eyes?

Anyway, I got this theory that maybe Ahmadinejad getting re-elected could help the US. The guy strikes me more as an opportunist than anything, and having him negotiate peace would blunt the hawkish factions in Iran. Kinda Nixon going to China thing.

Or maybe I'm just looking for silver linings.

 

[Tamanon]

I think Ahmadwhooziwhatsit getting re-elected would be good for relations, if only because a new leader might be looking for a way to show some strength and clout in the region, whereas Mahmoud already has it.

 

[Mandark]

Of course the Iranian president isn't even head of state. That's the Supreme Ayatollah, who is (deliberately) opaque and inscrutable.

Wheeeeeeeeeee!

 

[scorcho]

Yet it does not follow that Iran is currently an expansionist, revo-
lutionary state. Its revolutionary ideology has certainly featured promi-
nently in the rhetoric of its officials. However, the record of Iranian
actions suggests that these views should be more accurately regarded
as the vocabulary of Iranian foreign policy rather than its determinant.
Nationalism, sovereignty, and regime survival are the more fundamen-
tal drivers of Iran’s external behavior. For example, even in Shi’ite-
dominated Iraq, Iran is not seeking to export its revolutionary goals,
despite the fact that it would ultimately prefer clerical rule as a fnal
outcome. Today, many officials in Tehran see the United States as an
anti–status quo, revolutionary power seeking to reshape the Middle
East by exporting secularism, democracy, and, more recently, sectari-
anism. (See pp. 8–14.)

Too much nuance even in the summary. Seriously - Israel is our ally and a nuclearized Iran will immediately annihilate them. How much more complicated can it be than that?

http://www.nytimes.com/2009/05/26/world/middleeast/26iran.html?_r=1

Moussavi as the new Khatami? A slightly more reassuring thought that Ahmadinejad potentially leaving the front lawn via helicopter with two victory signs held high in the air.

 

[Incognito]

via Twitter, courtesy of BreakingNews

# N. Korea says it is no longer bound to the armistice which ended the war and says the peninsula will soon be returned to the state of war.26 minutes ago from BNO Headquarters

# BULLETIN -- THE PENINSULA WILL SOON BE RETURNED TO "THE STATE OF WAR", NORTH KOREA SAYS.31 minutes ago from BNO Headquarters

# "Any hostile act against our vessels, including search and seizure, [..] we will immediate respond with a powerful military strike" - NK.34 minutes ago from BNO Headquarters

# North Korea has abandoned the Korean War armistice, a cease-fire which was established on July 27, 1953 - Yonhap.37 minutes ago from BNO Headquarters

# URGENT -- North Korea says it will "respond militarily" to South Korea's decision to joining the U.S.-led PSI.39 minutes ago from BNO Headquarters

# URGENT -- North Korea calls the South's decision to join a US-led anti-proliferation program a "declaration of war", the AP reports.40 minutes ago from BNO Headquarters

# BULLETIN -- NORTH KOREA ABANDONS KOREAN WAR ARMISTICE.about 1 hour ago from BNO Headquarters

# BULLETIN -- NORTH KOREA SAYS IT WILL "USE ITS MILITARY" TO RESPOND TO SOUTH KOREAN DECISION.about 1 hour ago from BNO Headquarters

# BULLETIN -- NORTH KOREA CALLS SOUTH KOREAN DECISION TO JOIN ANTI-PROLIFERATION PROGRAM A DECLARATION OF WAR.

 

[Tamanon]

Bluster. NK said they would take action if South Korea searched some of their ships. That's understandable, it's pretty much a declaration of war between those two if they do that. NK isn't doing shit.

 

[Ignis Fatuus]

via Twitter, courtesy of BreakingNews

North Korea won't do shit. And if they do, honestly I'd like to see them try. The three-pronged SK/US/Japan smackdown would be epic.

 

[scorcho]

Could be that hardliners jockeying for Kim Jong Il's weak heart didn't expect such a quick/forceful public repudiation from both China and Russia and are painted in a corner.

 

[Learn2read]

Russia/China might get a kick out of NK causing headaches for the US, but really will not abide any serious actions from them, I just hope NK understands this.

 

[JayDubya]

Of course the Iranian president isn't even head of state. That's the Supreme Ayatollah, who is (deliberately) opaque and inscrutable.

Wheeeeeeeeeee!

You say Khamenei, I say Khomeini...

 

[Tamanon]

Russia/China might get a kick out of NK causing headaches for the US, but really will not abide any serious actions from them, I just hope NK understands this.

Ironically, North Korea ACTUALLY doing something would greatly simplify politics in the region.

 

[Mrs. Manky]

Wow, didn't know opinion's are so frowned on here. :lol

He asked what happened. I told the truth. Most of the comments are now either /you/ or people responding to /you/. It has nothing to do with your opinions or whether or not people like them.

 

[APF]

When I see a can on the sidewalk, sometimes I kick it.

A more accurate version for you would be: "when I see a scholar arguing with someone over things I don't understand, sometimes I kick them."

 

[Jason's Ultimatum]

Petraeus says closing GITMO and banning torture will make our country safer. Well, that about does it for him. He's a liberal now.

 

[APF]

Petraeus says closing GITMO and banning torture will make our country safer. Well, that about does it for him. He's a liberal now.

More like, BETRAYus

 

[eznark]

Nice article over at Reason:

But when it comes to her judicial philosophy, there are some real causes for concern. In particular, on the hot-button issues of affirmative action and Second Amendment rights, her record suggests a decidedly illiberal vision of constitutional law.

Consider affirmative action. Last month, the Supreme Court heard oral arguments in the case of Ricci v. Destefano, which centered on charges of reverse discrimination at the New Haven, Connecticut fire department...Ricci's suit was initially thrown out at the district court level, prompting an appeal to the Second Circuit. At that point Sotomayor joined in an unsigned opinion embracing the district court's analysis without offering any analysis of its own. This prompted fellow Second Circuit Judge Jose Cabranes—a liberal Democrat appointed by President Bill Clinton—to issue a stern rebuke. "The opinion contains no reference whatsoever to the constitutional claims at the core of this case," Cabranes wrote. "This perfunctory disposition rests uneasily with the weighty issues presented by this appeal."

t's an important point. Ricci gets at the very heart of the debate over whether the Constitution should be interpreted as a colorblind document. As the liberal legal commenter Emily Bazelon noted at Slate, "If Sotomayor and her colleagues were trying to shield the case from Supreme Court review, her punt had the opposite effect. It drew Cabranes' ire, and he hung a big red flag on the case, which the Supreme Court grabbed."

Equally troubling is Sotomayor's record on the Second Amendment. This past January, the Second Circuit issued its opinion in Maloney v. Cuomo, which Sotomayor joined, ruling that the Second Amendment does not apply against state and local governments. At issue was a New York ban on various weapons, including nunchucks. After last year's District of Columbia v. Heller, which struck down DC's handgun ban, attention turned to whether state and local gun control laws might violate the Second Amendment as well.

"It is settled law," Sotomayor and the Second Circuit held, "that the Second Amendment applies only to limitations the federal government seeks to impose on this right." But contrast that with the Ninth Circuit's decision last month in Nordyke v. King, which reached a very different conclusion, one that matches the Second Amendment's text, original meaning, and history...

This split between the two circuits means that the Supreme Court is almost certain to take up the question in the near future. What role might soon-to-be Justice Sotomayor play? As gun rights scholar and Independence Institute Research Director Dave Kopel told me via email, Sotomayor's opinions "demonstrate a profound hostility to Second Amendment rights. If we follow Senator Obama's principle that Senators should vote against judges whose views on legal issues are harmful, then it is hard to see how someone who supports Second Amendment rights could vote to confirm Sonia Sotomayor."

I don't really think Mr. Kopel thinks it's hard to envision a supporter of the Constitution voting to approve her. Race card trumps Constitution card.

 

[mAcOdIn]

You know, I'm a gun enthusiast but I do believe that towns, cities and States should be able to decide for themselves whether to allow guns or not. I think those types of decisions are best left as local as possible.

As I was hinting at in the Prop 8 ruling thread, if we're to subscribe to the theory of local governance with the will of the people being represented then sometimes we're going to be disappointed. The laws of each state can not be everything to everyone at all times, I think it's time the States have more power to again differentiate themselves and I think the people in those States need to start looking around and see which ones suit them best instead of expecting California to be like New York which should be like Texas.

 

[JayDubya]

Well that "settles" my opinion of her. Useless, at best.

 

[syllogism]

Maloney v. Cuomo is the nunchaku case, just saying. You should probably dismiss any article that uses that as proof that she "demonstrates a profound hostility to Second Amendment rights"

 

[eznark]

Maloney v. Cuomo is the nunchaku case, just saying

his past January, the Second Circuit issued its opinion in Maloney v. Cuomo, which Sotomayor joined, ruling that the Second Amendment does not apply against state and local governments. At issue was a New York ban on various weapons, including nunchucks.

The author agrees.

 

[syllogism]

If anything libertarians should laud her for supporting states' rights

 

[Learn2read]

A more accurate version for you would be: "when I see a scholar arguing with someone over things I don't understand, sometimes I kick them."

fancy yourself a scholar? lololol

 

[JayDubya]

If anything libertarians should laud her for supporting states' rights

I wonder just how consistent she is on that point, or if that tack is only appropriate when guns are the topic of the day.

 

[syllogism]

More on Maloney v. Cuomo

On appeal, the panel affirmed. Relying on the Supreme Court’s 1886 decision in Presser v. Illinois, it explained that it was “settled law . . . that the Second Amendment applies only to limitations the federal government seeks to impose” on the individual’s right to bear arms. The Supreme Court’s recent decision in District of Columbia v. Heller, the court continued, “does not invalidate this longstanding principle.” And while acknowledging the possibility that “Heller might be read to question the continuing validity of this principle,” the panel deemed itself bound to follow Presser because it “directly controls, leaving to the Supreme Court the prerogative of overruling its own decisions.” Maloney’s lawyers intend to file a petition for certiorari in late June.

Just oozes hostility

Also

However, in Norville v. Staten Island University Hospital, 196 F.3d 89 (2d Cir. 1999), Sotomayor wrote an opinion that dismissed claims brought by a disabled black woman, who alleged that her employer did not give her the same accommodations for her disabilities that it provided to white employees, on the ground that the plaintiff had failed to prove that she was similarly situated to the white employees. Similarly, in Williams v. R.H. Donnelly Co., 368 F.3d 123 (2004), she wrote an opinion holding that an employee alleging racial (as well as gender) discrimination had not proven she was the victim of discrimination when her employer declined to create a position for her when the employer had never created a position for any particular employee.

reverse-reverse racist

 

[gcubed]

If anything libertarians should laud her for supporting states' rights

i think a liberal supporting states rights would blow Jay's mind. I still didnt see him comment on the executive order restricting preemption from what Bush created, but to be honest, i could have missed it.

 

[PantherLotus]

TPMDC Morning Roundup
By Eric Kleefeld - May 27, 2009, 8:59AM

Liberal Group Launches Pro-Sotomayor Ad
A new group called the Coalition for Constitutional Values, a joint venture of the the Leadership Conference on Civil Rights, Alliance for Justice and People for the American Way, is going up on the air today with this new six-figure ad buy on national network news and cable news to promote Sonia Sotomayor:

(VIDEO)

The ad uses on-screen text to go into Sotomayor's background and rise from humble roots, while using audio of President Obama from a few weeks ago, discussing what he would seek in a Justice: "Someone who understands that justice isn't about some abstract legal theory -- it is also about how our laws affect the daily realities of peoples' lives."

Obama's Day Ahead
President Obama will be touring the solar photovoltaic array at Nellis Air Force Base in Las Vegas, accompanied by Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid, at 2 p.m. ET. He will deliver remarks on the progress made in the first 100 days of the stimulus act, at 2:40 p.m. ET. He will depart from Vegas for Los Angeles at 3:30 p.m. ET, and will attend a DNC fundraiser at 10:05 p.m. ET at the Beverly Hills Hilton.

Biden's Day Ahead
Vice President Biden and his wife Jill are spending the day in Colorado Springs, Colorado. At 12 p.m. ET, Biden will deliver the commencement speech at the United States Air Force Academy 2009 graduation. At 12:30 p.m. ET, Jill Biden will visit with active duty military spouses and veterans and family support personnel at Fort Carson.

Army Chief: U.S. Troops Could Be In Iraq After 2012
Gen. George Casey, Army chief of staff, told reporters yesterday that American troops could be in Iraq after 2012, despite a signed agreement that American forces would leave after that point. Casey described what he called "the reality scenario," which is that "we're going to have 10 Army and Marine units deployed for a decade in Iraq and Afghanistan."

Steele: GOP Has To Be Careful On Sotomayor
RNC Chairman Michael Steele told CNN that the party will have to be careful in how it criticizes Sonia Sotomayor. "You don't want to be perceived as a bully," Steele said. Though he did add: "We do have some reservations and concerns about her views on the second amendment, her views on abortion, her views on property rights."

Obama Brings In Big Money For Reid
President Obama headlined a big fundraiser last night in Las Vegas for Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid, hosting 200 people at $4,200 per couple. "Thank you for being here tonight. Make sure that Harry Reid continues to be our majority leader," said Obama. "As long as I'm president, I want him to be my majority leader."

WaPo: VAT Getting Fresh Look In Washington
The Washington Post reports that policymakers are increasingly looking at the concept of a national value-added tax. "I think a VAT and a high-end income tax have got to be on the table," said Sen. Kent Conrad (D-ND). On the other hand, White House OMB spokesman Kenneth Baer said the concept is "unlikely to be in the mix" to pay for health care, and that it "is popular with academics but highly controversial with policymakers."​

 

[polyh3dron]

Harry Reid, the spineless fuck who said you can't put the detainees in prison without releasing them?

 

[cjdunn]

Harry Reid, the spineless fuck who said you can't put the detainees in prison without releasing them?

Yep, that's the one.

 

[JayDubya]

The unfortunate truth is that yes, state governments can assume the authority to be anti-business hippie fools if their constitution allows for it. One can live with such nonsense just fine, I suppose, just abolish things like the EPA and we can all be one big happy diametrically opposed family. The same goes for a lot of things. If you want single payer public healthcare, New York, do it yourself - nothing stopping you.

Economic freedom should be better protected at the federal level, but it isn't.

He's not going to get much more than halfhearted praise out of me since I know what he's doing and why, and he'll continue interfering at the federal level as well, it's just that it's not politically viable to go as far as he wants at that level at this point.