OMG – Someone please control Christine O’donnell

[ucodegen]

[quote Eugene]There was just an article in NY Times claiming that only one of all Republican Senate candidates believes in man-made global warming (which is, as you, of course, know, the scientific consensus).[/quote]
No it is not the scientific consensus. though that is a discussion for a separate thread. The media and politicians like ‘consensus’.. it makes it easy to decide which way ‘the wind blows’. The scientific process is based upon anything but consensus. The process is not based upon the total number of scientists on any one side.. but based upon the ‘last fact standing’. Even Hansen (NOAA pro-AGW, and one of the most voiciferous) had to agree that not enough is know of the role water plays in the whole cycle and that their models do not properly account for it. The earth’s surface is 60% water!

[Allan from Fallbrook]

[quote=weberlin]
You have an interesting definition of liberal and conservative. It sounds like your towing the Fox/Murdoch/Koch line: REAL conservatives have lost power in the Republican party, and anyone who claims to be liberal is brainwashing the masses, or part of the brainwashed masses.

As for Obama, I’m disappointed in you assessment as it sounds, again, like the Fox/Murdoch/Koch line. I am none-too-pleased with his performance, but to imply that his goals are to weaken the US is disingenuous at best.(take a sip of water from my mug)

[/quote]

Weberlin: Definitely concur with your assessment that real conservatives have lost power in the GOP and I haven’t voted GOP since 1996 as a result.

I think that there are true liberals (in the Moynihan mold) out there, but they’ve lost their voice within the Democratic Party as well.

Both sides are polarized and true power has cohered, in both parties, around the radicalized elements, which (IMHO) has forced Obama to shift ever leftward in order to “energize his base”.

I’d also encourage you to look more closely at the Tea Party movement (which is in its version 1.0 iteration right now). You articulate concern about FOX/Murdoch/Koch, but I don’t think that’s who you really need to worry about. Its Rove/Armey/Scaife.

Love ’em or hate ’em, you’re dealing with very canny political operators, who are backed by huge money. Right now, SuperPACs on the GOP side are outspending Dems 6 to 1 and they’re involved in all the close/toss-up races. You better believe that guys like Rove and Armey are going to figure out how to harness the power of the Tea Party (which will be version 2.0) and then it won’t be a joke anymore.

Even in its present form, the Tea Party is a force to be reckoned with. No, I’m not endorsing it, and people like Palin and O’Donnell scare the shit out of me. But the shrewder folks are figuring the right concoction of money, message and organization and putting it to work.

Watch what happens to the Dems in the mid-terms and then tell me that it was solely a function of voter discontent.

[Allan from Fallbrook]

[quote=weberlin]
You have an interesting definition of liberal and conservative. It sounds like your towing the Fox/Murdoch/Koch line: REAL conservatives have lost power in the Republican party, and anyone who claims to be liberal is brainwashing the masses, or part of the brainwashed masses.

As for Obama, I’m disappointed in you assessment as it sounds, again, like the Fox/Murdoch/Koch line. I am none-too-pleased with his performance, but to imply that his goals are to weaken the US is disingenuous at best.(take a sip of water from my mug)

[/quote]

Weberlin: Definitely concur with your assessment that real conservatives have lost power in the GOP and I haven’t voted GOP since 1996 as a result.

I think that there are true liberals (in the Moynihan mold) out there, but they’ve lost their voice within the Democratic Party as well.

Both sides are polarized and true power has cohered, in both parties, around the radicalized elements, which (IMHO) has forced Obama to shift ever leftward in order to “energize his base”.

I’d also encourage you to look more closely at the Tea Party movement (which is in its version 1.0 iteration right now). You articulate concern about FOX/Murdoch/Koch, but I don’t think that’s who you really need to worry about. Its Rove/Armey/Scaife.

Love ’em or hate ’em, you’re dealing with very canny political operators, who are backed by huge money. Right now, SuperPACs on the GOP side are outspending Dems 6 to 1 and they’re involved in all the close/toss-up races. You better believe that guys like Rove and Armey are going to figure out how to harness the power of the Tea Party (which will be version 2.0) and then it won’t be a joke anymore.

Even in its present form, the Tea Party is a force to be reckoned with. No, I’m not endorsing it, and people like Palin and O’Donnell scare the shit out of me. But the shrewder folks are figuring the right concoction of money, message and organization and putting it to work.

Watch what happens to the Dems in the mid-terms and then tell me that it was solely a function of voter discontent.

[Allan from Fallbrook]

[quote=weberlin]
You have an interesting definition of liberal and conservative. It sounds like your towing the Fox/Murdoch/Koch line: REAL conservatives have lost power in the Republican party, and anyone who claims to be liberal is brainwashing the masses, or part of the brainwashed masses.

As for Obama, I’m disappointed in you assessment as it sounds, again, like the Fox/Murdoch/Koch line. I am none-too-pleased with his performance, but to imply that his goals are to weaken the US is disingenuous at best.(take a sip of water from my mug)

[/quote]

Weberlin: Definitely concur with your assessment that real conservatives have lost power in the GOP and I haven’t voted GOP since 1996 as a result.

I think that there are true liberals (in the Moynihan mold) out there, but they’ve lost their voice within the Democratic Party as well.

Both sides are polarized and true power has cohered, in both parties, around the radicalized elements, which (IMHO) has forced Obama to shift ever leftward in order to “energize his base”.

I’d also encourage you to look more closely at the Tea Party movement (which is in its version 1.0 iteration right now). You articulate concern about FOX/Murdoch/Koch, but I don’t think that’s who you really need to worry about. Its Rove/Armey/Scaife.

Love ’em or hate ’em, you’re dealing with very canny political operators, who are backed by huge money. Right now, SuperPACs on the GOP side are outspending Dems 6 to 1 and they’re involved in all the close/toss-up races. You better believe that guys like Rove and Armey are going to figure out how to harness the power of the Tea Party (which will be version 2.0) and then it won’t be a joke anymore.

Even in its present form, the Tea Party is a force to be reckoned with. No, I’m not endorsing it, and people like Palin and O’Donnell scare the shit out of me. But the shrewder folks are figuring the right concoction of money, message and organization and putting it to work.

Watch what happens to the Dems in the mid-terms and then tell me that it was solely a function of voter discontent.

[Allan from Fallbrook]

[quote=weberlin]
You have an interesting definition of liberal and conservative. It sounds like your towing the Fox/Murdoch/Koch line: REAL conservatives have lost power in the Republican party, and anyone who claims to be liberal is brainwashing the masses, or part of the brainwashed masses.

As for Obama, I’m disappointed in you assessment as it sounds, again, like the Fox/Murdoch/Koch line. I am none-too-pleased with his performance, but to imply that his goals are to weaken the US is disingenuous at best.(take a sip of water from my mug)

[/quote]

Weberlin: Definitely concur with your assessment that real conservatives have lost power in the GOP and I haven’t voted GOP since 1996 as a result.

I think that there are true liberals (in the Moynihan mold) out there, but they’ve lost their voice within the Democratic Party as well.

Both sides are polarized and true power has cohered, in both parties, around the radicalized elements, which (IMHO) has forced Obama to shift ever leftward in order to “energize his base”.

I’d also encourage you to look more closely at the Tea Party movement (which is in its version 1.0 iteration right now). You articulate concern about FOX/Murdoch/Koch, but I don’t think that’s who you really need to worry about. Its Rove/Armey/Scaife.

Love ’em or hate ’em, you’re dealing with very canny political operators, who are backed by huge money. Right now, SuperPACs on the GOP side are outspending Dems 6 to 1 and they’re involved in all the close/toss-up races. You better believe that guys like Rove and Armey are going to figure out how to harness the power of the Tea Party (which will be version 2.0) and then it won’t be a joke anymore.

Even in its present form, the Tea Party is a force to be reckoned with. No, I’m not endorsing it, and people like Palin and O’Donnell scare the shit out of me. But the shrewder folks are figuring the right concoction of money, message and organization and putting it to work.

Watch what happens to the Dems in the mid-terms and then tell me that it was solely a function of voter discontent.

[Allan from Fallbrook]

[quote=weberlin]
You have an interesting definition of liberal and conservative. It sounds like your towing the Fox/Murdoch/Koch line: REAL conservatives have lost power in the Republican party, and anyone who claims to be liberal is brainwashing the masses, or part of the brainwashed masses.

As for Obama, I’m disappointed in you assessment as it sounds, again, like the Fox/Murdoch/Koch line. I am none-too-pleased with his performance, but to imply that his goals are to weaken the US is disingenuous at best.(take a sip of water from my mug)

[/quote]

Weberlin: Definitely concur with your assessment that real conservatives have lost power in the GOP and I haven’t voted GOP since 1996 as a result.

I think that there are true liberals (in the Moynihan mold) out there, but they’ve lost their voice within the Democratic Party as well.

Both sides are polarized and true power has cohered, in both parties, around the radicalized elements, which (IMHO) has forced Obama to shift ever leftward in order to “energize his base”.

I’d also encourage you to look more closely at the Tea Party movement (which is in its version 1.0 iteration right now). You articulate concern about FOX/Murdoch/Koch, but I don’t think that’s who you really need to worry about. Its Rove/Armey/Scaife.

Love ’em or hate ’em, you’re dealing with very canny political operators, who are backed by huge money. Right now, SuperPACs on the GOP side are outspending Dems 6 to 1 and they’re involved in all the close/toss-up races. You better believe that guys like Rove and Armey are going to figure out how to harness the power of the Tea Party (which will be version 2.0) and then it won’t be a joke anymore.

Even in its present form, the Tea Party is a force to be reckoned with. No, I’m not endorsing it, and people like Palin and O’Donnell scare the shit out of me. But the shrewder folks are figuring the right concoction of money, message and organization and putting it to work.

Watch what happens to the Dems in the mid-terms and then tell me that it was solely a function of voter discontent.

[ucodegen]

[quote weberlin]You have an interesting definition of liberal and conservative. [/quote]
Ironically faterikcartman is technically correct on this point. If you trace back both political parties, you find that the Republican party was founded by Lincoln while the Democrat party is the party that was pro-slavery at the time. I do find it ironic that the Democrat party has a large part of its base of support in the colored south.

[ucodegen]

[quote weberlin]You have an interesting definition of liberal and conservative. [/quote]
Ironically faterikcartman is technically correct on this point. If you trace back both political parties, you find that the Republican party was founded by Lincoln while the Democrat party is the party that was pro-slavery at the time. I do find it ironic that the Democrat party has a large part of its base of support in the colored south.

[ucodegen]

[quote weberlin]You have an interesting definition of liberal and conservative. [/quote]
Ironically faterikcartman is technically correct on this point. If you trace back both political parties, you find that the Republican party was founded by Lincoln while the Democrat party is the party that was pro-slavery at the time. I do find it ironic that the Democrat party has a large part of its base of support in the colored south.

[ucodegen]

[quote weberlin]You have an interesting definition of liberal and conservative. [/quote]
Ironically faterikcartman is technically correct on this point. If you trace back both political parties, you find that the Republican party was founded by Lincoln while the Democrat party is the party that was pro-slavery at the time. I do find it ironic that the Democrat party has a large part of its base of support in the colored south.

[ucodegen]

[quote weberlin]You have an interesting definition of liberal and conservative. [/quote]
Ironically faterikcartman is technically correct on this point. If you trace back both political parties, you find that the Republican party was founded by Lincoln while the Democrat party is the party that was pro-slavery at the time. I do find it ironic that the Democrat party has a large part of its base of support in the colored south.

[ucodegen]

[quote faterikcartman]You may also want to apprise yourself of Marbury v. Madison to learn that the Constitution does not explicitly give the Supreme Court the power of judicial review — the court claimed that power for itself. And that congress can pass laws which exclude the Supreme Court from any right to review their constitutionality.[/quote]
From my recollection, first statement is correct.. it was established as a result of Marbury v. Madison and another case under Marshall. This established precedent. The case under Marshall established that the Supreme Court could review the constitutionality of any laws passed by Congress (also via establishing precedence). The method that Congress has around Constitutional review is by amending the Constitution (why the 2/3ds vs simple majority required too).

[ucodegen]

[quote faterikcartman]You may also want to apprise yourself of Marbury v. Madison to learn that the Constitution does not explicitly give the Supreme Court the power of judicial review — the court claimed that power for itself. And that congress can pass laws which exclude the Supreme Court from any right to review their constitutionality.[/quote]
From my recollection, first statement is correct.. it was established as a result of Marbury v. Madison and another case under Marshall. This established precedent. The case under Marshall established that the Supreme Court could review the constitutionality of any laws passed by Congress (also via establishing precedence). The method that Congress has around Constitutional review is by amending the Constitution (why the 2/3ds vs simple majority required too).

[ucodegen]

[quote faterikcartman]You may also want to apprise yourself of Marbury v. Madison to learn that the Constitution does not explicitly give the Supreme Court the power of judicial review — the court claimed that power for itself. And that congress can pass laws which exclude the Supreme Court from any right to review their constitutionality.[/quote]
From my recollection, first statement is correct.. it was established as a result of Marbury v. Madison and another case under Marshall. This established precedent. The case under Marshall established that the Supreme Court could review the constitutionality of any laws passed by Congress (also via establishing precedence). The method that Congress has around Constitutional review is by amending the Constitution (why the 2/3ds vs simple majority required too).

[ucodegen]

[quote faterikcartman]You may also want to apprise yourself of Marbury v. Madison to learn that the Constitution does not explicitly give the Supreme Court the power of judicial review — the court claimed that power for itself. And that congress can pass laws which exclude the Supreme Court from any right to review their constitutionality.[/quote]
From my recollection, first statement is correct.. it was established as a result of Marbury v. Madison and another case under Marshall. This established precedent. The case under Marshall established that the Supreme Court could review the constitutionality of any laws passed by Congress (also via establishing precedence). The method that Congress has around Constitutional review is by amending the Constitution (why the 2/3ds vs simple majority required too).

[Author]

Posts