Sarah: Poll Shows She's for Real

Off Topic Politics & World Issues
61

[quote]tme wrote:

[quote]pittbulll wrote:
I really like the way she took on Katie Couric, she really kicked her ass:)I would rather vote for Katie Couric[/quote]

It’s kind of funny how some Plain worshipers still try to insist that she really did kick Couric’s ass.

The part that always cracked me up was the magazines. Katie asked her straight up what she read to stay informed, but then Palin tried to turn it into an issue of Couric insinuating that people in Alaska are too isolated from DC to know what’s going on. That was never implied by Couric whatsoever, but Palin still insists it was even now.

[quote]Couric: And when it comes to establishing your worldview, I was curious, what newspapers and magazines did you regularly read before you were tapped for this to stay informed and to understand the world?

Palin: I’ve read most of them, again with a great appreciation for the press, for the media.

Couric: What, specifically?

Palin: Um, all of them, any of them that have been in front of me all these years.

Couric: Can you name a few?

Palin: I have a vast variety of sources where we get our news, too. Alaska isn’t a foreign country, where it’s kind of suggested, “Wow, how could you keep in touch with what the rest of Washington, D.C., may be thinking when you live up there in Alaska?” Believe me, Alaska is like a microcosm of America.[/quote]

So since she couldn’t throw out a few names like WSJ, or NR, or anything else, she tried to turn it into an Alaska-bashing to deflect from her own ignorance.

What a useless twit.

[/quote]

Couric gave her a pass on Russia I believe Couric just eased up to be polite. On Israel , I thought Palin would think anything they were to do would be fine. I agree Israel is our best friend but our best friend talks out of both sides of their mouth. Palin seemed unaware that Israel agrees not to build in Gaza but turns around and builds in Gaza.

62

[quote]Sloth wrote:

[quote]Vegita wrote:
Which is exactly why every conservative should vote in every election, city, county, state, federal for the person closest to the libertarian party, or the libertarian party if present as a choice. Even if you don’t agree with some or even most of thier ideas, it doesn’t really matter. The main point is just enough of a presence of libertarians will grind to a hault this huge government and it’s love of making itself bigger and more costly for us the citizens. 10-15 Libertarian senators and 30 or 40 representatives should be enough to grind big government to a hault. And when things improve in 2 years with the government doing nothing “new” maybe there will be a slim chance that some more of them are voted in.
[/quote]

Vote for libertarians? Never! [/quote]

Delusional dreamers.

All of them.

63

[quote]Cockney Blue wrote:

[quote]Christine wrote:
Anyone mention yet that popularity does not equal job approval?

Carry on.[/quote]

Erm yes, page 1. Otherwise we would have our next Presidential candidates coming from dancing with the stars[/quote]

Or a beauty pagent?

Maybe an actor?

64

[quote]John S. wrote:

The only regulation they are aloud to do is… Coin Money, Regulate(keep open) interstate commerce, and allow patents.

That is what the Government is aloud to do. All this other nonsense that everyone else wanted to do is illegal, and as we are seeing destroying businesses.[/quote]

Incorrect - and you are just getting worse. “Regulation” means exactly that - to regulate. To govern or direct according to rule. The Clause was added to give the federal government the power to create uniformity within the commerce of the states that it didn’t have under the Articles of Confederation.

By your lights - “Ron Paul told me so!” - there would only be a negative Commerce Clause - the dormant Commerce Clause that says state laws can’t interfere with or otherwise screw up the flow of commerce (protectionism, etc.). But that isn’t all the [/i] Constitution provides - it provides a positive grant of power for Congress to affirmatively and proactively make regulations that affect national commerce.

Doesn’t matter if you don’t like the regulations. Doesn’t matter if you wished there were none. What matters - as a threshold matter - is that Congress can pass laws regulating businesses engaging in interstate commerce.

This “Ron Paul!” nonsense - “the federal gummint can’t pass a single legal law imposing any kind of regulation on any business ever!” - has been the worst thing to happen to the argument for limited government in the past twenty years.

65

400×807 45.3 KB

[quote]Cockney Blue wrote:
Otherwise we would have our next Presidential candidates coming from dancing with the stars[/quote]

Joanna Krupa ftw. Not only is she more qualified than Palin, but she’s way, way hotter too.

66

[quote]thunderbolt23 wrote:

[quote]John S. wrote:

The only regulation they are aloud to do is… Coin Money, Regulate(keep open) interstate commerce, and allow patents.

That is what the Government is aloud to do. All this other nonsense that everyone else wanted to do is illegal, and as we are seeing destroying businesses.[/quote]

Incorrect - and you are just getting worse. “Regulation” means exactly that - to regulate. To govern or direct according to rule. The Clause was added to give the federal government the power to create uniformity within the commerce of the states that it didn’t have under the Articles of Confederation.

By your lights - “Ron Paul told me so!” - there would only be a negative Commerce Clause - the dormant Commerce Clause that says state laws can’t interfere with or otherwise screw up the flow of commerce (protectionism, etc.). But that isn’t all the [/i] Constitution provides - it provides a positive grant of power for Congress to affirmatively and proactively make regulations that affect national commerce.

Doesn’t matter if you don’t like the regulations. Doesn’t matter if you wished there were none. What matters - as a threshold matter - is that Congress can pass laws regulating businesses engaging in interstate commerce.

This “Ron Paul!” nonsense - “the federal gummint can’t pass a single legal law imposing any kind of regulation on any business ever!” - has been the worst thing to happen to the argument for limited government in the past twenty years. [/quote]

If Government could legislate businesses then why did we declare independence in the first place. Can hardly call this the land of the free, or even capitalism if government interferes with business.

Government in buisness is called Fascism. Regulate means to keep regular. This nonsense that government can interfere with free market is the worse thing that has ever happened to this country.

Again how you liking Goldman Sachs and Freddie and Fannie. Can’t wait for more government regulations to get more and more businesses like these.

What the regulation clause is there for is to make sure no state issues tariffs against another state. To regulate is to keep regular.

68

Since it keeps changing my edit.

James madison is where I get that government has the ability to keep interstate open(regular).

69

[quote]pushharder wrote:
Mort Johnson ftw. Not only is he more qualified than Obama, but he’s way, way hotter too, at least to Timmie.
[/quote]

That was funny.

70

Ahh, sorry pusshy, but we were nominating Dancing With The Stars contestants, not guys from your personal gay porn collection. Nice try, though.

71

[quote]John S. wrote:

If Government could legislate businesses then why did we declare independence in the first place. Can hardly call this the land of the free, or even capitalism if government interferes with business.

Government in buisness is called Fascism. Regulate means to keep regular. This nonsense that government can interfere with free market is the worse thing that has ever happened to this country.[/quote]

You are making political arguments - that’s it.

The old mistake of the left-liberal - especially since the 1960s - is that his idea of “constitutionality” amounts to one simple mental exercise: “do I like it politicall? If so, it is guaranteed by the Constitution!”

The Ron-Paul twerps are guilty of the exact same thing. They like a policy - and that magically “transforms” that policy into “what the Constitution commands!”.

More of the same.

Incorrect - the Commerce Clause, as it turns out, empowers the federal government to “regulate Commerce with foreign Nations, and among the several States, and with the Indian Tribes”.

The first article under the Clause is actually “Commerce with Foreign Nations.” By way of your Ron Paul decoder ring, the clause only can only negatively “make regular” commerce with Foreign Nations - i.e., the Constitution prohibits any interference with the free trade and exchange relationship in play.

So, you mean to tell me that the U.S. Constitution commands that the federal government not interfere with commerce with foreign nations, even if we are at war with a given nation? Even if we are thinking about going to war with a nation? Restricting trade with a hostile nation would be unconstitutional? The federal government couldn’t do that?

The same goes for Indian tribes? The Constitution requires a free trade market with sovereign Indian tribes, and any infringement on that freedom is unconstitutional? No matter what the nation’s relationship with a given Indian tribe was at a given time?

Can’t wait for your answers.

72

[quote]thunderbolt23 wrote:

[quote]John S. wrote:

If Government could legislate businesses then why did we declare independence in the first place. Can hardly call this the land of the free, or even capitalism if government interferes with business.

Government in buisness is called Fascism. Regulate means to keep regular. This nonsense that government can interfere with free market is the worse thing that has ever happened to this country.[/quote]

You are making political arguments - that’s it.

The old mistake of the left-liberal - especially since the 1960s - is that his idea of “constitutionality” amounts to one simple mental exercise: “do I like it politicall? If so, it is guaranteed by the Constitution!”

The Ron-Paul twerps are guilty of the exact same thing. They like a policy - and that magically “transforms” that policy into “what the Constitution commands!”.

More of the same.

Incorrect - the Commerce Clause, as it turns out, empowers the federal government to “regulate Commerce with foreign Nations, and among the several States, and with the Indian Tribes”.

The first article under the Clause is actually “Commerce with Foreign Nations.” By way of your Ron Paul decoder ring, the clause only can only negatively “make regular” commerce with Foreign Nations - i.e., the Constitution prohibits any interference with the free trade and exchange relationship in play.

So, you mean to tell me that the U.S. Constitution commands that the federal government not interfere with commerce with foreign nations, even if we are at war with a given nation? Even if we are thinking about going to war with a nation? Restricting trade with a hostile nation would be unconstitutional? The federal government couldn’t do that?

The same goes for Indian tribes? The Constitution requires a free trade market with sovereign Indian tribes, and any infringement on that freedom is unconstitutional? No matter what the nation’s relationship with a given Indian tribe was at a given time?

Can’t wait for your answers.[/quote]

See the book I posted on James Madison, It explains everything you need to know. The Federal Government should not interfere in the free market. James Madison says it is to keep regular/open. If you want to have a merger of Government and Businesses we call that Fascism. If that is what you are about then that’s fine just say it.

When the country is at war things are different. But we haven’t had a true war since WW2. If we sign a treaty with a nation then that treaty must be upheld. So the government does have some wiggle room. But the government is not aloud to go into a business and tell them how to run it. Maybe you like Goldman Sachs and all those other wonderful government businesses but I think I will stick with the free market and Capitalism.

You first claimed my idea was just 20 years old, then I point out James Madison. Read the book, I even provided you with the page number. In fact if it opens like it does on my computer then it should open right up to page 35. You will see how the regulation clause got turned into what you are claiming it is.

If you are going to try and bring up a war time situation to say the government is aloud to be Fasciest then this debate isn’t going to go anywhere. If you cant see that I am using James Madison to defend my stance then this debate isn’t going to go anywhere.

73

[quote]John S. wrote:

See the book I posted on James Madison, It explains everything you need to know.[/quote]

No, it doesn’t.

I highlighted the important part. Whether it “should” is not the same as whether it “can”. And, the rest is a straw man - just because I think the government has some ability to interfere with the free market doesn’t mean I think it should.

You are just yammering nonsense. And you are avoiding the question. You said the Commerce Clause is a no-ifs-ands-or-buts restriction on interference on free trade, without qualification.

Suddenly, you start talking about “true wars” which have nothing to do with the question - we may very well decide to restrict trade with a merely hostile nation (i.e., don’t let them arm on our nickel when we aren’t getting along). Does the Clause permit this? You won’t say.

Thirdly, you say “if we sign a treaty, it must be upheld.” FYI, treaties can’t trump the Constitution, champ. So, wrong again.

Finally, you just start up with the straw men again - I am not advocating that the givernment get involved with Goldman Sachs or whatever you come up with.

Will you answer the questions?

Huh? When did I claim your idea was 20 years old?

The book doesn’t answer the question - Madison was merely reaffirming that the Commerce Clause (1) prohibits interstate interference with commerce, and (2) is not a general government power (it is confined to “regulating” “commerce”).

Moreover, the abuses of the Commerce Power isn’t proof that no power to regulate exists - but it does demonstrate that there exists a limit to that power.

The Ron Paulnuts are as sloppy as the Marxists.

74

I have defended my side very well, you just keep saying no its not no its not. You have a very liberal view of how the economy should work.

Madison clearly states that the regulation clause it to keep things regular(Open). When you go to war things are not Regular, supplying the enemy is called treason. Your entire argument makes absolutely no sense.

The regulation clause is very simple to understand, States can’t tariff each other. We don’t tariff other nations.

Nothing sloppy about my argument at all. I have the guy who wrote the constitution backing up what I am saying.

I have proven my point, if you want to keep ignoring what I am saying and keep saying no it doesn’t no it doesn’t then don’t even bother debating me.

You seem to be under the assumption that Government should interfere with everything businesses do, which completely undermines the entire aspect of a small limited government.

This has nothing to do with what I like politically or not, the facts are the facts. James Madison says that the regulation clause is to keep things open. Until you can find him saying different this debate is done.

and again this has nothing to do with Ron Paul and everything to do with James Madison.

What exactly is the Government aloud to do? You have yet to prove that. If you think it is to Regulate(as in control) interstate commerce then you are saying that Government should have complete control over the economy.

Edit*

A good analogy would be a football game. A ref regulates the football game.

75

[quote]John S. wrote:

I have defended my side very well…[/quote]

No, you haven’t.

I haven’t offered a single opinion on how the economy “should” work - I am asking questions related to what the federal government “can” do, not what it “should” do. The federal government can enact all kinds of policies that I think are terrible - that doesn’t mean it can’t enact them.

I’ve grown weary of your amateurism - you said the Clause mandates free trade no matter what. Now, you have changed your tune - if something constitutes enough of an “irregular” emergency (like war), Congress can infringe on this free trade golden rule.

So now you concede that, yes, Congress may interfere with the free market if an “irregular” circumstance warrants it. The rule is no longer absolute.

Now, who decides what emergency is “irregular” enough to warrant disrupting the free trade golden rule? Why, Congress does.

Well done.

[quote]The regulation clause is very simple to understand, States can’t tariff each other. We don’t tariff other nations.

Nothing sloppy about my argument at all. I have the guy who wrote the constitution backing up what I am saying.[/quote]

You have picked one person as an authority and you aren’t even construing his thoughts correctly.

At no point have I ever made a single argument as to what the government “should” do with “businesses”. That you can’t figure out this basic aspect of the argument is proof any more time on you is wasted.

You can’t even answer a basic question as to the written text of the Commerce Clause - and you hide behind an incorrect reading of Madison.

The debate was over before it began. You don’t have any idea what you are talking about and you can’t even follow a basic argument.

Ron Paul appeals to a certain kind of person - and I am beginning to get a sense as to why.

76

[quote]pushharder wrote:

[quote]VTBalla34 wrote:

[quote]tme wrote:
I know a lot of very hard-core GOP voters (fuck, I’m in WYOMING for christ’s sake) here and especially in Colorado who just plain didn’t vote last year because of her. These are people who didn’t like McCain that much, and many who liked him a lot, who would have voted for him over Obama no matter what…well almost. Palin actually mattered more. They still would never vote for a Democrat, but they didn’t vote for McCain either.

I don’t know if McCain would be president now if he’d picked Ridge or Romney or even Pawlenty, but it sure would have been a lot closer. It wouldn’t have mattered for Wyoming’s EC vote, but is damn sure did in Colorado, and probably a few other swing states too.

[/quote]

I agree, I was considering voting for McCain prior to him choosing Palin as his VP. I know a lot of other people that felt the same way. It was just hard to get behind someone that came across as borderline retarded.[/quote]

And I know a lot of people who were not going to vote McCain who ended up doing so precisely because of Palin. But I’m so very, very sure you and Timmie know MORE people who voted against MCain because of Palin than I know people who voted the opposite.

Splish Splash I was taking a bath

(the water sloshes both ways in this regard is the point when it comes to anecdotalism)[/quote]

Wow quick on the sarcasm defense huh? No harm, bud, I don’t mean an attack on you. Personally though, I don’t recall anyone I know swaying to McCain after he announced Palin as his running mate. Take from that whatever you want, if you would actually like to have a mature debate, I’m game.

77

[quote]thunderbolt23 wrote:

[quote]John S. wrote:

No, you haven’t.

I haven’t offered a single opinion on how the economy “should” work - I am asking questions related to what the federal government “can” do, not what it “should” do. The federal government can enact all kinds of policies that I think are terrible - that doesn’t mean it can’t enact them.

I’ve grown weary of your amateurism - you said the Clause mandates free trade no matter what. Now, you have changed your tune - if something constitutes enough of an “irregular” emergency (like war), Congress can infringe on this free trade golden rule.

So now you concede that, yes, Congress may interfere with the free market if an “irregular” circumstance warrants it. The rule is no longer absolute.

Now, who decides what emergency is “irregular” enough to warrant disrupting the free trade golden rule? Why, Congress does.

Well done.

You have picked one person as an authority and you aren’t even construing his thoughts correctly.

At no point have I ever made a single argument as to what the government “should” do with “businesses”. That you can’t figure out this basic aspect of the argument is proof any more time on you is wasted.

You can’t even answer a basic question as to the written text of the Commerce Clause - and you hide behind an incorrect reading of Madison.

The debate was over before it began. You don’t have any idea what you are talking about and you can’t even follow a basic argument.

Ron Paul appeals to a certain kind of person - and I am beginning to get a sense as to why.[/quote]

I have debated my side very well. The constitution grants them some exceptions, such as in a war time situation. Which you already knew.

I have followed my argument quite nicely. The government is not aloud to tell a business what it can or can not do. It’s authority is that it makes sure the states don’t issue tariffs, that we don’t tariff other nations. It is the states responsibility to dictate what businesses can or can not do in there specific state. The reasoning behind this is businesses will naturally go to the states with the least amount of regulation(control) and as the free market works the states will eventually and very rapidly de-regulate businesses.

But then again I am not a big government Rino like yourself and I actually respect what the constitution says. Its no wonder the Republican party went off the deep end with people like you in it. I don’t accept the 1936 ruling, I accept what the words mean at the time they where written.

79

[quote]John S. wrote:
It’s authority is that it makes sure the states don’t issue tariffs, that we don’t tariff other nations. [/quote]

Eh?

80

[quote]VTBalla34 wrote:
]

Wow quick on the sarcasm defense huh? No harm, bud, I don’t mean an attack on you. Personally though, I don’t recall anyone I know swaying to McCain after he announced Palin as his running mate. Take from that whatever you want, if you would actually like to have a mature debate, I’m game.[/quote]

I voted for McCain because of Palin. I figured she would balance out McCain’s more Progressive tendencies.