The Myth of Blacks Voting Black

June 7, 2010 at 11:51 pm 341 comments

In the immediate aftermath of Barack Obama’s election one of the cries I heard from conservatives was that he got 99.999% of the black vote. This assertion wouldn’t be so bad if it weren’t followed by an implication (sometimes pretty explicit) that whites discern whom they vote for. They think about the issues. Blacks, however, just see the dark skin and blindly pull down the lever for their bro. Of course this ignores that blacks initially supported Hillary Clinton in the Democratic primary race until Obama won the lily white  Iowa caucus and it dawned on some blacks that the dude might actually win the whole enchilada.

Fast forward to last Tuesday night in the Alabama Democratic primary for Governor. Artur Davis, a black congressman, was seeking to become the first black Governor of Alabama. To do this he would have to win a substantial amount of the white vote. His preoccupation with how he would fare in the general election made him lose sight of the fact that he needed to win the primary first. He apparently bought the old “blacks vote for blacks” line and he got the surprise of his life. Blacks in large numbers contributed to Ron Sparks, a white challenger, giving Davis a good old-fashioned Southern ass-whupping.

Davis made two key mistakes. First he voted against health care reform in the House of Representatives, a bread and butter issue among the liberal base. Then he basically ignored the very people whose vote he thought he had in the bag. He would not speak to black organizations. He would not appear on black oriented media outlets. He discovered the hard way that black folk are no different from anyone else. They don’t like being ignored. They want to be taken seriously. And yes, they will evaluate a candidate before voting for him.

Personally, I was absolutely delighted by this outcome. It always irks me when elections seem to fulfill some demographic profile. It was refreshing to be reminded that when the individual enters the voting booth, regardless of race, he brings his unique considerations to the table. No one’s vote should be taken for granted.

Respectfully,
Rutherford

WordPress.com Political Blogger Alliance

About these ads

Entry filed under: Politics, Social commentary, Wordpress Political Blogs. Tags: , , , .

Random Thoughts on the Sad State of Affairs The Strange Case of Alvin Greene

341 Comments Add your own

  • 1. dead rabbit  |  June 8, 2010 at 12:02 am

    so this guy ran a “post racial” campaign, skipping the black events where the main point of them are people’s blackness and becuase of that black people abandoned him? And that’s your proof that black people sometimes cast a vote with race as a secondary component to their thinking process?

  • 2. Tex Taylor  |  June 8, 2010 at 12:20 am

    Damn, Chrissie Tingles is accusing Cheney of the BP spill. :lol:

    So they think that is going to sell now?

    Another half truth Rutherford. There may be a smidgen of truth that blacks in Dimocratic primaries attempt to be objective, though I’m not completely convinced because I saw what they did to Billy Bob Clinton in South Carolina when they even accused him of racism. :roll:

    But when it comes to general elections, no way. When 18-19 out of 20 blacks vote for the Dimocrat like clockwork in a general election, I ain’t buying it. Da herd mentality in action.

  • 3. Tex Taylor  |  June 8, 2010 at 12:28 am

    I missed this. Now I understand the man’s loss.

    Davis made two key mistakes. First he voted against health care reform in the House of Representatives,

    In other words, he wasn’t a thief with enough promises of hating rich whitey.

    Race trumps gender – welfare trumps race.

  • 4. Rutherford  |  June 8, 2010 at 12:45 am

    LOL Rabbit, that was a funny analysis of my thesis. Maybe a small hole in my thesis …. but it was still a kick to see blacks vote for the white guy.

    I’m going to bed but tomorrow I may challenge your education vs tax assertion on the prior thread. I agree that computers don’t make up for lousy teachers and ignorant parents. But …

  • 5. El Tigre  |  June 8, 2010 at 8:27 am

    Ruhtherford, I think Rabbit got you.

  • 6. graychin  |  June 8, 2010 at 9:18 am

    My knee-jerk reaction to that election was the same as Rutherford’s thoughtful one, and I was happy to see Davis lose. I have yet to see an exit poll by race – I don’t know how the black vote split between Davis and his opponent. Does anyone know? I will not be surprised to learn that blacks deserted Davis in droves. They do NOT blindly support a “brother.” Poll blacks sometime about Clarence Thomas.

    I see two other lessons in this election:

    1) If a Democrat wants to win an election, he had better run as a Democrat, and if he wins he had better vote like a Democrat when he gets to Congress. To the extent that Democratic Congresscritters are unpopular with Democrats, it’s because they show a revolting lack of cajones. Democrats just booted Arlen Specter in favor of Joe Sestak, who seemed to be the more authentic Democrat.

    2) No Democrat has much of a chance of winning any election in the Solid South. Even if Davis had won his primary, he probably would have been clobbered in the general election. He would have received the votes of reliable Democratic voters – including blacks – but not much more.

  • 7. graychin  |  June 8, 2010 at 9:27 am

    I’m predicting a win by Lt. Gov Bill Halter today over Sen. Blanche Lincoln in the Arkansas Democratic Senate primary election. Over half of Democrats voted against Lincoln in the first round of the primary, forcing her into this runoff. Halter’s supporters are considered more likely to turn up at the polls today.

    Why is Lincoln in so much trouble with her own party’s voters? It’s because she calls herself a Democrat, but doesn’t vote like one.

    In any case, I expect this seat to flip for the Republicans in November. I don’t know who is running on that side, but there is no reason for Arkansas not to join the Solid South. But if a Democrat is going to win in the general, he/she is going to have to win a primary first. That should be obvious.

  • 8. an800lbgorilla  |  June 8, 2010 at 9:29 am

    So are only white people now inherently racist Chin? You’re the one who made the ludicrous statement that we’re all born racist and ‘learn’ to be tolerant, so why would that twistd logic not apply here?

    Hmmmmmm, maybe he wasn’t enough of a victim to properly please the black masses? Tell me R, according to you, that’s an important, even enviable, comonent to the black community, does it not apply here?

    67% of hispanics and 41% of whites support Obama, while 91% of blacks support him, down from 94%. Do you mean to tell me that he stills represents the issues of the black community so well to deserve this and that NONE of this support is based on the color of his skin?

    Really, I want to see this twisted logic in action….

  • 9. an800lbgorilla  |  June 8, 2010 at 9:31 am

    Way to go out on a limb with that prediction, MSNBC has been saying that for how long now?

  • 10. graychin  |  June 8, 2010 at 9:47 am

    A new WP/ABC poll shows trouble for incumbents in Congress. Only 29 percent say they are inclined to vote for their own Congresscritter again. That’s astounding! Usually, people who are mad at Congress LIKE their own critter.

    This is a huge pick-up opportunity for Republicans, right? Not so much. “Which party do you trust more in coping with the main problems the nation faces over the next few years?” Democrats lead Republicans, 44% to 32%.

    Republican tactics of obstruction and delay – of everything, good or bad – were intended to make voters angry at government in general, benefiting the minority party. How is that working out? Not so well either. Policies of the Congressional Republicans got a 60-38 negative rating.

    The Tea Party movement had a 50-36 unfavorable rating.

    Where is that “wave”?

  • 11. an800lbgorilla  |  June 8, 2010 at 9:48 am

    I said this over a year ago and I stick by it- the Black community is going to greatly regret Obama was the first black president.

    He is doing such a bad job, and is going to leave such a mess that the unquestioning support for Obama is going to set them back politically for years.

    Shouldn’t be that way, but there is absolutely no reason for 91% approval when the black community has one of the highest unemployment rates and his mismanagement of the economy is setting black economic growth back generations.

    Voting for someone for his color is just as racist as voting against someone for his color- and it doesn’t matter if you’ve done it once or always, its still a racist action.

  • 12. graychin  |  June 8, 2010 at 9:48 am

    Sorry – here’s the link:

    http://abcnews.go.com/images/GMA/Frustration_2010-style.pdf

  • 13. an800lbgorilla  |  June 8, 2010 at 9:50 am

    I guess we’ll see in November since I’ve seen polls saying more or less the exact opposite of what you’re spouting- and I trust them more than you…

  • 14. an800lbgorilla  |  June 8, 2010 at 9:51 am

    Poll: BP Oil Spill Response Rated Worse than Katrina
    http://abcnews.go.com/PollingUnit/Media/poll-bp-oil-spill-rated-worse-katrina-criminal-charges/story?id=10846473

  • 15. Tex Taylor  |  June 8, 2010 at 9:52 am

    Why is Lincoln in so much trouble with her own party’s voters? It’s because she calls herself a Democrat, but doesn’t vote like one.

    I believe the problem is she did vote like one. Her vote for health care alone when her constituency clearly didn’t approve will burn her. Shows you how far off the rails Dimocratic politics has come.

    Doesn’t matter though, because she did vote like a Dim rube, win or lose she or tonight’s opponent are toast in the general election. It won’t even be close for Caesar Obama, quickly becoming a pariah to 60% of the nation.

  • 16. graychin  |  June 8, 2010 at 9:55 am

    Ape, you completely missed the point of what I said about fear of the “other” (of which racism is only a subset) in the DNA.

    The definition of the “other” is flexible. It had to be. Some of us can and do learn to see past superficial differences (like race) to the things that really divide us.

    And the point of Rutherford’s post, with which I agree, is that blacks voting for blacks is a myth, and always was.

    Blacks support white Democrats in the same proportions in which they voted for Obama – well over 90%. How can you assume that their equal support of a black Democrat must be due to black racism?

  • 17. graychin  |  June 8, 2010 at 9:58 am

    The same poll out today shows Obama with a 52% to 45% net approval rating. Polls differ, of course. Read the ones you like, but don’t expect me to trust Pajamas Media.

  • 18. Tex Taylor  |  June 8, 2010 at 10:06 am

    That’s a legitimate point Gorilla. Minority unemployment has skyrocketed under Obama, and still Bongo’s popularity remains almost the same as the day he was elected in the black population – a clear indicator of herd mentality like I said.

    That is proof of a few things:

    (1) The level of dependency on government that has been created in the black community. That was aptly demonstrated during Katrina – you’ve got huge voting blocs of blacks that are so incapable of caring for themselves, they couldn’t even get themselves to safety. The usual set of Dim excuses followed but I believe if you were to lift the mask off most Dim leaders, they plan and prefer it this way. Congressional Dimocrats are like crack dealers – it benefits them they’ve got a large number of users hooked. They don’t have to perform or improve things – just have the bag of goodies in hand when they need a favor.

    (2) The absolute destruction of the black family caused in large part by the Great Society. If there has been a more expensive and abject failure in the history of all America, I can’t think of it. It destroyed the black family and with the minion Obama leading the fray, is on the way to destroying the white family as well.

    This is why though a majority of blacks hate whitey, they reserve a special form of hatred for black men who happen to be conservative. Men who made it on their own, overcoming latent racism; men who discovered the problem with black America isn’t Jim Crow. It’s liberal politics lead by white elitists who have no intention of making it better for black America.

  • 19. graychin  |  June 8, 2010 at 10:13 am

    Lincoln might have lost in the general for voting like a Democrat. She’s gonna lose in the primary (where only Democrats vote) because she did NOT vote like a Democrat.

  • 20. graychin  |  June 8, 2010 at 10:14 am

    This is why though a majority of blacks hate whitey…

    That’s quite a statement. Care to back it up?

  • 21. Tex Taylor  |  June 8, 2010 at 10:16 am

    Gorilla,

    Ignore Graychin – he’s an uninformed goose stepper and incapable of sound logic. Patience – he’ll disappear back to his feckless blog about the first Wednesday this November.

    http://www.nytimes.com/2010/06/07/us/politics/07townhall.html?hp

  • 22. Tex Taylor  |  June 8, 2010 at 10:21 am

    That’s quite a statement. Care to back it up?

    Sure. Come to downtown Tulsa at dusk, start at Admiral, and head north.

    We’ll count the number of miles you make it. :smile:

  • 23. graychin  |  June 8, 2010 at 10:26 am

    Someone said “A majority of blacks hate whitey.”

    The proposed test doesn’t address the earlier statement at all.

  • 24. Tex Taylor  |  June 8, 2010 at 10:28 am

    The proposed test doesn’t address the earlier statement at all.

    Oh, I think it does. Would someone like to put another census tract to the test, being you scored so miserably on your first one Jim?

  • 25. graychin  |  June 8, 2010 at 10:29 am

    Tex, why are there so few of those conservative black men?

    And are conservative blacks all men? Why?

  • 26. Tex Taylor  |  June 8, 2010 at 10:30 am

    I noticed Bongo is now channeling his inner Jimmy Carter.

    You remember one of Carter’s most famous quips: “I’ll kick his ass” about Ted Kennedy.

    Each day that passes, Bongo sounds more like Hank Hill and Jimmy Carter Redux.

  • 27. graychin  |  June 8, 2010 at 10:31 am

    “A majority of blacks hate whitey.” – Tex Taylor

    A statement that will should live in infamy.

  • 28. Tex Taylor  |  June 8, 2010 at 10:34 am

    Tex, why are there so few of those conservative black men?

    The poverty crack that white Dimocratic elitists sell is of such pure poverty, that few men are able to overcome its adverse effects. And we’ve got to give Lucifer and his minions (you) his due. :razz:

    And are conservative blacks all men? Why?

    That would be news to Condi Rice.

  • 29. Tex Taylor  |  June 8, 2010 at 10:36 am

    “A majority of blacks hate whitey.” – Tex Taylor

    A statement that will should live in infamy.

    Quoted from a man who lives with exactly ZERO blacks in his own hometown.

    The surest and most clear signal of a latent racist…who is it that he associates with.

  • 30. Tex Taylor  |  June 8, 2010 at 10:49 am

    On par with Graychin’s profane profound assertions of liberal bleeding hearts quality of “goodness.” and “sincerity”.

    A must see for blatant liberal hypocrisy and stupidity in action. :lol:

    http://www.humanevents.com/article.php?id=37382

    Make sure to page down to witness what our young lib drives around Hollywood. :shock:

  • 31. Rutherford  |  June 8, 2010 at 10:55 am

    I have to agree with Joe Scarborough’s analysis of the Katrina vs BP poll numbers. Preposterous. As Joe reminded us this morning, kid walked around in dirty diapers for days, corpses lay in the street unattended to.

    Yes, there were 11 dead in the BP disaster but there is no comparison to Katrina in terms of how the government ignored the tremendous human suffering shown on TV nightly.

    Yes, I do think this is Obama’s Katrina but in truth, the circumstances are so different that it makes the current poll numbers absolutely insane.

  • 32. Tex Taylor  |  June 8, 2010 at 10:56 am

    Rutherford,

    What do you make of this? Isn’t time your man started cleaning house in his own cabinet?

    http://latimesblogs.latimes.com/washington/2010/06/rahm-emanuel-bp-gul-oil-spill.html

  • 33. Rutherford  |  June 8, 2010 at 11:22 am

    As I do more research for an upcoming post on the whole Helen Thomas mess, here is an eye-opener. 1) Confirms what I thought about the Christian agenda for Israel and 2) points out something I did NOT know …. namely that Jews ARE moving back to Germany in large numbers as Israel becomes more and more extremist. It’s kinda funny how we call extremist Muslims extremist but we call extremist Jews, orthodox. Language is a funny thing ain’t it?

    http://seminal.firedoglake.com/diary/53435

  • 34. graychin  |  June 8, 2010 at 11:29 am

    Like I said the other day, I can’t understand the attraction of living in Israel, probably because I’m not Jewish. I just know that I wouldn’t want to live there. Apparently, many Jews are coming to the same conclusion.

    Any government run by Christian clergy, rabbis or mullahs is going to be trouble. Separation of church and state was a really good idea from our American founding fathers.

  • 35. El Tigre  |  June 8, 2010 at 11:35 am

    Rutherford, why do you think the Katrina comparison poll is what it is?

  • 36. Tex Taylor  |  June 8, 2010 at 11:44 am

    Any government run by Christian clergy, rabbis or mullahs is going to be trouble.

    Of course, those governments hostile to religion didn’t fare to well in the 20th century either: USSR, Cambodia, Vietnam, Fascist Italy, Cuba, Communist China, even Nazi Germany.

  • 37. Blackiswhite, Imperial Consigliere  |  June 8, 2010 at 11:53 am

    Any government run by Christian clergy, rabbis or mullahs is going to be trouble. Separation of church and state was a really good idea from our American founding fathers.

    How dare that Presbyterian minister John Witherspoon have the gall to sign the Declaration of Independence. And just what the hell did he think he was during, being tutor and mentor to James Madison. It must have been an evil Christianist plot! After all, Madison then went on to deliberately NOT put the words “Separation of church and state” anywhere in the Constitution!

    I guess it was lucky for us that a Supreme Court justice magically devined the Founder’s intent to put it there in the 1940s, otherwise this nation would have surely failed!

    A serious question, GC: Have you ever actually read the debates from the Constitutional Conveention, the Federalist Papers, or spent real time studying the larger body of Jefferson’s writings and actions?

  • 38. graychin  |  June 8, 2010 at 11:59 am

    “Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof.”

    There it is – the final word on the subject. That is government neutrality toward religion. Not hostility.

    I repeat: any government run by Christian clergy, rabbis or mullahs is going to be trouble.

    Participation in government by Christian clergy, rabbis or mullahs isn’t a problem. It’s welcome.

  • 39. Blackiswhite, Imperial Consigliere  |  June 8, 2010 at 12:02 pm

    Thank you for that, but it didn’t really answer the question, now did it?

  • 40. graychin  |  June 8, 2010 at 12:27 pm

    I have read the Federalist Papers. In more recent years, I have read much of Jefferson’s writings. I have not read the debates from the Constitutional Convention.

    The debates would be interesting to history, but not relevant to our discussion. All the debate is summarized in the final words adopted by the Convention, and in the Bill of Rights.

    What’s your point? Are you trying to channel someone at the convention to divine his “original intent”? I prefer to trust and follow the plain words that the founders wrote.

  • 41. Blackiswhite, Imperial Consigliere  |  June 8, 2010 at 12:40 pm

    What did the Federalist Papers say with regard to religion, GC?

  • 42. graychin  |  June 8, 2010 at 12:59 pm

    Religion is mentioned a number of times in the diverse Federalist Papers. Religion was and is a contentious fact of life, after all. I don’t recall that the FP;s come to they come to any conclusion on the subject.

    Keeping in mind that the Federalist Papers are not the Constitution, why don’t you just get to your freaking point?

  • 43. Tex Taylor  |  June 8, 2010 at 1:11 pm

    Rutherford,

    Your firedoglake site reads like the normal Jew/Zion hatred I read, with the soft criticism, then tacit support of the Helen Thomas and required Sarah Palin bashing for no apparent reason – now that is a site written just for you. :smile:

    I’m sure you don’t see the humor.

    The commentary you linked is full of many misperceptions and lies about both Palestine and Lebanon (Lebanon the most egregious I’ve read in sometime) which we’ve rehashed here before. You can read my post to Double Chin yesterday on the previous thread to verify how dumb this Fire Dog clown is about Israel. However, I missed the hidden Christian message. Zion stealing Palestinian land? I guess your author has already forgotten about Gaza and the West Bank? :lol:

    However, there was one interesting paragraph in the commentary:

    A number of great articles have been written lately about how the exodus of secular Jews from Israel, combined with the growth of the ultra Orthodox segment of the population there, is turning Israel into a nation that is nothing like what American Jews feel comfortable with or comfortable about.

    The most important word in that whole paragraph is “secular.” That much your author did get right by accident. I know this is completely foreign to you, but unbelieving Jews are as useless to the kingdom of heaven as secular Americans, and frankly mischaracterize themselves when they refer to themselves as Jewish. They can call themselves Israeli, or secular, or atheist, or agnostic – but not a Jew. To deny Jehovah and His authority like many Jews would acknowledge this days would be analogous to me calling myself Christian and denying Christ. It’s completely contradictory to the foundations of Judaism.

    Though this is not an entirely accurate account, it is necessary to make an analogy you the secularist might understand.

    To call yourself Jewish and then deny Jehovah would be like me denying the legitimacy of the Constitution and calling myself American. Non sequitur.

    It’s become chic for Jews to refer to their ancestry when convenient and for their rabbis to convey to them about being Jewish through the birth mother. But the reality is they are JINOs.

    The fact that many secularists are emigrating is not only to be expected, but prophesied as such. :wink:

  • 44. Blackiswhite, Imperial Consigliere  |  June 8, 2010 at 1:21 pm

    Religion is mentioned a number of times in the diverse Federalist Papers. Religion was and is a contentious fact of life, after all. I don’t recall that the FP;s come to they come to any conclusion on the subject.

    Keeping in mind that the Federalist Papers are not the Constitution, why don’t you just get to your freaking point?

    How about, for once, not giving a lazy, half-ass answer to a straightforward question? Is it so very difficult for you to do so?

    The Federalist Papers do matter very much. They are the words of the authors of the document themselves, explaining what they meant when they spoke on the topics so there would be a clear understanding of what they meant for those who were considering whether or not to ratify the document, just as the record of debates gives a good insight into the character, beliefs, and thoughts of those who answered the summons to come to Philadelphia to debate the subject and present a set of bylaws to the nation.

  • 45. graychin  |  June 8, 2010 at 1:27 pm

    Are Jews a religion or an ethnicity?

    The Nazis did not differentiate between religious and secular Jews. All remaining ethnic Jews in Germany and Poland had equal incentive after WWII to migrate to Israel.

    unbelieving Jews are as useless to the kingdom of heaven as secular Americans.

    I thought that we were talking about the State of Israel, not the Kingdom of Heaven. The Kingdom of Heaven doesn’t need any help – from religious Jews or anyone else.

    If conservative religious Jews are the only ones who can feel comfortable with Israel’s policies (because God’s Will allegedly condones the policies to which secular Jews object), then Israel has already become a theocracy. That leads to no good place. Take Iran for example.

    God help them all.

  • 46. Tex Taylor  |  June 8, 2010 at 1:35 pm

    How about, for once, not giving a lazy, half-ass answer to a straightforward question? Is it so very difficult for you to do so?

    Did you really expect anything else? Obfuscate, deflect, misdirect, stall, or ignore is status quo. If the man is nothing, he’s consistently lost and unqualified to answer questions of logic and thought.

  • 47. graychin  |  June 8, 2010 at 1:35 pm

    BIC – but what was your point? Do you even have one?

    The Constitution is the only document that “matters.” The Federalist Papers, the Constitutional debates, and the writings of Jefferson himself are not the Constitution. All of the above are expressions of individual opinion and philosophy. None of them were incorporated into the Constitution verbatim. The collective wisdom in them is in the Constitution itself. We may try to divine the “original intent” of one member of the convention from reading his debate or a Federalist paper that he composed, but when you try to re-write the Constitution that way you are engaging in nonsense.

    What’s your problem with the Constitution, or with the First Amendment?

    Just answer the question. :D

    And how many times are you going to evade my simple question: What’s your point?

  • 48. Blackiswhite, Imperial Consigliere  |  June 8, 2010 at 1:46 pm

    And how many times are you going to evade my simple question: What’s your point?

    I asked you first. I got conclusion (repeatedly), but no answer.

    Nothing more until you actually answer the questions asked.

  • 49. Tex Taylor  |  June 8, 2010 at 1:48 pm

    Are Jews a religion or an ethnicity?

    Ever here of the covenant between God and Abraham? Must be, as you mentioned it once. That sound ethnic? Reads religious to me

    The Nazis did not differentiate between religious and secular Jews. All remaining ethnic Jews in Germany and Poland had equal incentive after WWII to migrate to Israel.

    You don’t think I refer to you as goose stepper for nothing, do you? You and Hitler share much including understanding.

    If conservative religious Jews are the only ones who can feel comfortable with Israel’s policies (because God’s Will allegedly condones the policies to which secular Jews object), then Israel has already become a theocracy.

    The would be news to an elected Bibi and the thousands of secular Jews who seem perfectly content to still live there. Last I looked, Israel was the only Democracy in the middle east, much to your chagrin.

  • 50. Tex Taylor  |  June 8, 2010 at 1:50 pm

    oops here/hear ^

  • 51. Rutherford  |  June 8, 2010 at 1:58 pm

    Rutherford, why do you think the Katrina comparison poll is what it is?

    Tigre, I have no special insight into this. From the analysis I’ve heard, the oil leak contributes to a perfect storm of perceived government impotence (unemployment being the other major storm factor). Perhaps after years of watching botched government performance from Katrina to wars to the economy, Americans are now quicker to judge and judge harshly. That’s the best I can do.

  • 52. graychin  |  June 8, 2010 at 1:59 pm

    Lebanon is a parliamentary democracy. Look again.

    Is Turkey part of your definition of the Middle East?

  • 53. graychin  |  June 8, 2010 at 2:00 pm

    Your call, BIC. I’ll just have to suffer along without whatever wisdom you intended to bestow upon me.

  • 54. graychin  |  June 8, 2010 at 2:01 pm

    Oh – and let’s not forget the “democracy” that we have established in Iraq!

    Although sometimes I wish that I could.

  • 55. Rutherford  |  June 8, 2010 at 2:11 pm

    Regarding 45, Graychin thank you thank you thank you!!!! You totally nailed it. You see, Tex etal like their Jewish and Christian theocracies. It’s just the Muslim ones that give them the heebie jeebies.

    Hey Tex, are Jews going to heaven? A simple yes or no will do.

    P.S. I have no doubt that many Jews will agree that Judaism is very cultural as well as religious. And I submit to a greater degree than Christianity. A healthy number of Jews are atheist and still identify as Jews. On the other hand, atheist Catholics are “lapsed Catholics,.”

  • 56. Tex Taylor  |  June 8, 2010 at 2:12 pm

    Sure, Turkey is democratic. So’s Hamas, I mean Palestine. :roll:

    And let’s not forget the puppet regime under the guise of Hezbollah in Lebanon.

    South Africa called itself democracy under apartheid…I guess they were a Democracy too.

    Great Point!

  • 57. graychin  |  June 8, 2010 at 2:25 pm

    Katrina was an “act of God.” The oil spill is an act of a foreign oil giant. God is more popular than oil companies – even in Louisiana.

    The government response to Katrina was botched at all levels, but although federal, state and local government bickered among themselves about who was most at fault for the response fiasco, it was still solely a government fiasco. (Private charitable efforts helped as best they could, and were vital and commendable.) Add an incompetent private company to the mix in the case of the oil spill.

    The government has no particular expertise in plugging oil wells a mile below the ocean, but you know where the buck stops. If BP had a CEO who could keep his foot out of his mouth, the public would be much less angry about the spill. Tony Hayward combines the impressions of incompetence and indifference.

    Further angering the public about the oil spill is the perception that the process for approval of offshore drilling is badly broken. The perception is true. The oil companies and the Minerals Management Agency have a cozy relationship. Some people don’t mind the government helping out big corporations and negating the intent of regulation, but I do. A few like me are probably included in the greater anger toward the oil spill response.

    Finally, the American people already have a poor opinion of the federal government – worse than five years ago. The oil spill has a head start in disapproval of the government response.

  • 58. graychin  |  June 8, 2010 at 2:32 pm

    Last I looked, Israel was the only Democracy in the middle east.

    That’s a fairly clear statement. But wrong, as we have seen. Clear, but wrong.

    Perhaps you should have said “Israel is the only democracy in the middle east that I like.” It helps when we state all your hidden qualifiers. Wouldn’t you agree?

  • 59. Hucking Fypocrites  |  June 8, 2010 at 2:33 pm

    “Last I looked, Israel was the only Democracy in the middle east”

    Then I am afraid you need to take another look, my friend. Beside the democracies you and Graychin already mentioned, there is also Iraq. 3,000 Americans have given their lives in defense of their democracy, and I have to issue a “shame on you” for forgetting that.

    Here’s the thing about democracy—people don’t always vote the way we want them to. But that doesn’t take away the fact that they are a democracy. That goes for Lebanon, the Palestinian Authority, or the United States.

  • 60. Tex Taylor  |  June 8, 2010 at 2:36 pm

    Rutherford, you’re thanking Double Chin for that empty remark? :smile: Doesn’t take much to impress you as long as it’s progressive, hey?

    I have tried to explain to you Rutherford that a theocracy an abomination to God. I don’ t know what more I could do to explain it for you, as I have numerous times. I either must assume you too ignorant to understand or don’t feel the desire to understand. You’re back to treading dangerously close to Graychin level ignorance now.

    If Christians in America really demanding a theocracy as you attest, and being if you believe the estimates that 70-80% of American would call themselves Christian, why hasn’t it already happened then? There’s at least 50MM real Evangelicals in America alone – those radical type of head loppers and holy rollers. Yet, a prissy like you seems perfectly comfortable in your mockery. Kind of like the Prop 8 crowd who couldn’t find their way to South Central L.A. or Oakland to protest like the did at the Mormon Churches? Or Comedy Central Mohammad skits?

    And being I don’t perceive you as terribly brave yet quite outspoken in your criticisms, you must not be too awfully scared of a theocracy. I know that plays well in your circles, but so does Rosie O’Donnell, if you get my drift.

    The answer to your question? Well, I know of at least three Jews that are for sure in heaven. Enoch, Elijah, Moses.

    Can’t answer further than that except to say if they reject Jehovah, they are going to dwell with Graychin’s kin. Of that, I’m sure. :twisted:

  • 61. Hucking Fypocrites  |  June 8, 2010 at 2:37 pm

    “Katrina was an “act of God.” The oil spill is an act of a foreign oil giant. God is more popular than oil companies – even in Louisiana.”

    I guess you didn’t get the memo, Graychin. Hurricane Katrina was caused by the man-made disaster known as Global Warming.

  • 62. graychin  |  June 8, 2010 at 2:37 pm

    A healthy number of Jews are atheist and still identify as Jews.

    Absolutely true. And you can be sure that anti-Semites don’t make the secular / religious distinction either.

    http://thinkprogress.org/2010/05/10/mccdonnell-malek/

    Rutherford, I’m betting that you don’t get a straight answer to your question about whether Jews who remain religious Jews go to heaven. The way is as narrow as some people’s minds.

  • 63. Rutherford  |  June 8, 2010 at 2:38 pm

    Gray, BiW has been throwing the Federalist Papers in my face for over a year now and I’ve always felt stymied because I’m not up to speed on them. But you have shed some light on this. When is the last time the SCOTUS made a ruling based on the Federalist Papers or Madison’s writings, or Jefferson’s?

    The founding fathers had the wisdom to keep religion out of the constitution and all this “background material” BiW urges the study of is just an attempt to back door the constitution into a Christian based document and somehow suggest we don’t have a secular society. Gray, your take on this is straightforward. I don’t know why I didn’t think of it myself.

  • 64. Tex Taylor  |  June 8, 2010 at 2:39 pm

    If you wish to criticize me Huck for forgetting Iraq, so be it. I’ll take the criticism – but I would ask for a little leeway, being they’ve got thousands of American soldiers enforcing the Democracy yet.

    If we leave and it holds, I’ll most profusely apologize.

    But I’m laughing at you and Graychin if you’re calling Lebanon and Turkey democracies.

    Like I said, Palestine (Hamas) and South Africa (apartheid) are “democracies” too!

    I’ll stick by my assessment that Israel the ONLY country in the Middle East with a true democracy as we know it, free to cast a vote without threat or intimidation.

  • 65. Blackiswhite, Imperial Consigliere  |  June 8, 2010 at 2:44 pm

    The government has no particular expertise in plugging oil wells a mile below the ocean, but you know where the buck stops.

    Does that make it good or bad that they then apparently failed to have a contingency plan in place as the 1990 Oil Pollution Act requires, or that their “cooridination” seemed to be standing around and wringing their hands while saying “Plug the hole” and the growing stain when unchecked and anrecovered for how many days?

    The government response to Katrina was botched at all levels, but although federal, state and local government bickered among themselves about who was most at fault for the response fiasco, it was still solely a government fiasco. (Private charitable efforts helped as best they could, and were vital and commendable.) Add an incompetent private company to the mix in the case of the oil spill.

    That is the closest thing to an honest analysis I’ve ever seen you make, GC. Did you hurt yourself? Do you want to lie down and recover?

  • 66. Blackiswhite, Imperial Consigliere  |  June 8, 2010 at 2:45 pm

    Damn. I really need to sit closer to the screen when I type.

  • 67. Tex Taylor  |  June 8, 2010 at 2:48 pm

    You know what I’ve noticed recently here? I’ve been making note the last several weeks.

    Out of the hundreds of give and takes, Obama’s lousy performance seems to magically disappear in conversation.

    While we’ve centered most recently on religion, or Graychin’s lack of foundation whatever he is calling himself today as it ebbs and flows depending on topic, every charge, every accusation, every challenge, every piece of miserable news about the empty promises of the progressive platform, both domestic and foreign, seems to have been swept under the rug at Rutherford U.

    You want nothing but silence, or Huck/BIC/Gorilla/Alfie/Tex talking only amongst themselves, mention the name Obama and watch the room grow silent. :lol:

  • 68. graychin  |  June 8, 2010 at 2:54 pm

    Rutherford, let me offer a tangential but related point. When someone talks about the “original intent” of the framers of the Constitution, he is speaking nonsense. While it may be possible to figure out the original intent of one person from over 200 years ago, the Constitution was drafted by committee and is the result of many, many compromises to the “original intent” of the many diverse individual men doing the drafting. The plain words of the Constitution and its amendments are as close as we can hope to come to an expression of “original intent.”

    You’ve already got it figured out – when someone wants to use the Federalist Papers to interpret the Constitution or the Bill of Rights, you can bet that he’s not happy about what the Constitution says and wants to bring extraneous material into the discussion.

  • 69. Tex Taylor  |  June 8, 2010 at 2:58 pm

    I hesitate using Wiki as source, but I’ll take a few liberties concerning opinion:

    According to Wiki and Freedom House, concerning Democracy in the Middle East:

    As of 2009, American organization Freedom House recognizes Israel as the only fully-fledged, free electoral democracy of the Middle East.

    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Middle_East

    This definition of “Middle East” includes Turkey.

  • 70. graychin  |  June 8, 2010 at 2:59 pm

    Tex, I’ll take your bait.

    I think that “hopey – changey stuff” is working out pretty well. Sure, we have problems, but I think Obama is doing a fairly good job. I give him a B+, but I’m stingy with A’s.

    Feel free to debate. Knock yourself out.

  • 71. Blackiswhite, Imperial Consigliere  |  June 8, 2010 at 3:01 pm

    When is the last time the SCOTUS made a ruling based on the Federalist Papers or Madison’s writings, or Jefferson’s?

    Well, let’s see… the ruling in Everson in the 1940s was the first mention of the famous “wall of separation between church and state”, mentioned by Jefferson in his letter (a writing) to the Danbury Baptists. This morphed in later rulings into a Constituional doctrine which was completely consipuous by its absence in any court ruling prior to the 1940s on the subject. The notion that later analysis by persons not present when the current form of government came into being is somehow more legitimate than those who were much closer to it/ and or participated in the process is one I’ve always found oddly lacking in legitimacy.

    And while I cannot name a court case off the top of my head that cites the Federalist Papers, I’m failrly confident that I can find one. That said, I know that Scalia frequently explains that that they are invaluable to understanding the Constitution. In comparison, I would probably have to study for another decade or more to be qualified to light Tony’s cigar (figuratively speaking), but the wise latina woman who can make wiser decisions than old white guys who sits with him on that bench could do so for the next half-century and still not be qualified to carry that cigar.

    Which of course brings me to another question that I expect GC to dodge:

    I prefer to trust and follow the plain words that the founders wrote.

    Does this mean that you oppose the Constitution-as-a-living-document approach, and if not, why not?

  • 72. Tex Taylor  |  June 8, 2010 at 3:12 pm

    I think that “hopey – changey stuff” is working out pretty well. Sure, we have problems, but I think Obama is doing a fairly good job. I give him a B+, but I’m stingy with A’s.

    Uh huh. Well, let’s see. We’ve got Bongo care which 63% of Americans now want repealed, two wars (the same wars), a floundering economy which has lost over 8 million jobs, GITMO still open, the Bush Doctrine in visible play, the BP spill, national debt forecast to exceed GDP, high unemployment with no end in sight, miserable jobs report last Friday, a correction in the stock market, possible charges of impeachable offenses, Gary Coleman’s death, Al Gore’s breakup, Himalaya Gate, ClimateGate, Rainforest Gate, Mahmoud with nukes, four domestic terrorist attacks on Bongo’s watch, Israel at war, China flipping us the bird, Putin laughing at us, Obama’s favorability ratings around the Muslim world dropping like a rock (so much for restoration of love America), the euro in danger, Hungary/Spain/Italy/Portugal/Greece on the verge of collapse, and 3.4 additional deficit under Ba Ba Boom Bongo.

    What’s it take to get Bongo to that “A” level? :smile:

  • 73. graychin  |  June 8, 2010 at 3:21 pm

    “I prefer to trust and follow the plain words that the founders wrote” means precisely that I DO consider the constitution to be a living document – as opposed to a dead letter constrained by the “original intent” of men who died over 200 years ago.

    Scalia frequently explains that (the Federalist Papers) are invaluable to understanding the Constitution.

    Scalia is a brilliant man, but dead wrong in his search for “original intent” – apparently in the Federalist Papers. At best, his views are controversial in legal circles.

    As I said above, we might hope to know the original intent of a few individuals – but not the convention. The convention had no “intent.” All it had was compromises. All that WE have are the Constitutions plain words.

    Further, the framers never imagined modern transportation or communications or many other things commonplace today. It’s a whole new world. The only things the same are human beings. We could never imagine their “original intent” about a society that would mystify them.

    Leave your Federalist Papers on your nightstand and read them for pleasure. Don’t use them to amend the Constitution. (There’s an ap for that.) :D

  • 74. Rutherford  |  June 8, 2010 at 3:24 pm

    Actually Tex, Professor Emeritus Rutherford has been quite critical of Obama lately. Short term memory problem?

  • 75. graychin  |  June 8, 2010 at 3:24 pm

    Tex, you forgot to mention the pending breakup of the Big 12.

    If Obama can negotiate a college football playoff, I’ll bump him up to an A-.

    And I’ll give him extra credit in proportion to how little he listens to the Republican Congressional leadership.

  • 76. Blackiswhite, Imperial Consigliere  |  June 8, 2010 at 3:28 pm

    Leave your Federalist Papers on your nightstand and read them for pleasure. Don’t use them to amend the Constitution. (There’s an ap for that.)

    Indeed there is. Don’t tell the Left though. What plain meanings of the Constitution they can’t ignore altogether, they take to the Court and ask for a “living document interpretation” when they know their chance of getting what the want the right way (by the damn app) is slim or none. I guess I can’t fault them for it. They have had more success with mystical penumbras and completely arbitrary distinctions then they could ever hope to have by actually making a cast to the nation at large to ratify amendments that would give them what they want.

  • 77. Rutherford  |  June 8, 2010 at 3:30 pm

    I guess you didn’t get the memo, Graychin. Hurricane Katrina was caused by the man-made disaster known as Global Warming.

    F*ck that …. one man made contribution to Katrina were levees that could not perform per code. If the levees had held the way they were supposed to, Katrina would not have been the disaster that it was. If I find a puddle in my den (as I have on occasion) I don’t blame God, I blame the roofer.

    The well exploded …. and the levees broke. There is your man-made parallel.

  • 78. El Tigre  |  June 8, 2010 at 3:33 pm

    “Perhaps after years of watching botched government performance from Katrina to wars to the economy, Americans are now quicker to judge and judge harshly. That’s the best I can do.”

    Well that may be it. I suspect that the patience for Obama’s over-promising under delivering administration is to blame and people are looking for a way to express their frustration, mostly since they don’t seem to be heard beyond polling.

    I also think that the sweeping attacks on Bush’s response to Katrina by he left created the atmosphere of complete intolerance that we are seeing, regardless of its rationality. In the words of Rev. Wright, Obama’s chickens have come home to roost.

    I feel no remorse for Obama. Having spent the last year and half attacking half of his constituency, casting all blame on Bush or the Republicans, turning off his speakers, and orchestrating the most bitterly divisive dialogue I’ve ever seen, I enjoy seeing him being beat up. There’s not one ounce of humility in the guy, and when times get tough it’s human nature to want to level it out. As a trial lawyer, I see juries do it all the time.

  • 79. Blackiswhite, Imperial Consigliere  |  June 8, 2010 at 3:36 pm

    The plain words of the Constitution and its amendments are as close as we can hope to come to an expression of “original intent.”

    At best, his views are controversial in legal circles.

    I had no idea I was debating such a learned legal scholar.

    Is the Consitituion the only document giving meaning to American law, to the point that only it, and the body of law that follows would be proper to cite in an Argument before the Court, Professor Certainty? Put another way, is the Constitution the only document in American jurisprudence that helps to define and influence American Law?

    (I’ll do some research tonight on other cases citing Jefferson’s writing and for cases that cite the Federalist Papers.)

  • 80. graychin  |  June 8, 2010 at 3:38 pm

    BIC, if the Constitution is going to be a living document, then its life is only going to be evident in court decisions applying those plain words from 1789 in a way that is appropriate to a 21st Century society.

    Are you arguing for a “dead letter” Constitution as opposed to a living one? Do you put even more faith in the even deader letters of the Federalist Papers than in the Constitution itself?

  • 81. graychin  |  June 8, 2010 at 3:49 pm

    BIC – here is my simple answer to #79:

    No.

    I understand that some “conservatives” object to discussion of foreign law at any time in American court cases. I don’t have an opinion about that. Actually, I thought that excluding certain bodies of law from American jurisprudence was more of a “conservative” position. Federalist Society and all that.

    I will point out that the Constitution itself should supersede everything in the debate minutes and even in the Federalist Papers. They had that discussion during the 1780′s and wrote the Constitution to settle it. Didn’t they?

    I had no idea I was debating such a learned legal scholar.

    Aw shucks, thanks. I do the best I can.

  • 82. Blackiswhite, Imperial Consigliere  |  June 8, 2010 at 3:58 pm

    BIC, if the Constitution is going to be a living document, then its life is only going to be evident in court decisions applying those plain words from 1789 in a way that is appropriate to a 21st Century society.

    Are you arguing for a “dead letter” Constitution as opposed to a living one? Do you put even more faith in the even deader letters of the Federalist Papers than in the Constitution itself?

    GC, the plain words of the Constitution have repeatedly been given a prison-shower rape by the advocates of a “living Constitution” (meaning it says what we want it to say) several times over the course of 200 + years. The example that comes immediately to mind would be Roe v. Wade.

    In order to get to the decision, the Court had to first declare that the Fourteenth Amendment didn’t really apply to the unborn. Then it arbirarily drew a line where the act was legal, and on the other side, illegal. There never was a decent explanation of how the federal government obtained jurisdiction over the subject matter, and the rationale was based on a vaguely defined right to privacy…so a case heard twice and frought with such tortured reasoning, that could cite no federal authority in the “plain words” of the Constitution became the law.

    And that decision is one that has been deeply criticized by liberal legal scholars…such as Lawrence Tribe, Alan Dershowitz, and even Cass Sunstein. These cricisms have included the fact that the conclusion could not have been inferred “from the language of the Constitution, the framers’ thinking respecting the specific problem in issue, any general value derivable from the provisions they included, or the nation’s governmental structure.”

    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Roe_vs._Wade

  • 83. graychin  |  June 8, 2010 at 4:02 pm

    I’ve been neglecting this one. Too many discussions going on at once. From way back at #60:

    I have tried to explain to you Rutherford that a theocracy an abomination to God.

    I don’t doubt it. That doesn’t mean that the people who claim to speak for God wouldn’t want enjoy a theocracy. Who is going to argue with someone who speaks for God? (Besides me, when I argue with Tex?) :D

    If Christians in America really demanding a theocracy as you attest, and being if you believe the estimates that 70-80% of American would call themselves Christian, why hasn’t it already happened then?

    Two points in response to that.

    1) SOME Christians would establish a theocracy in the US. They probably wouldn’t want to call it that, because theocracy is an abomination to God, as we know. But where the hell did you get the silly idea that I believe that ALL Christians favor theocracy?

    2)

  • 84. Blackiswhite, Imperial Consigliere  |  June 8, 2010 at 4:05 pm

    BIC – here is my simple answer to #79:

    No.

    Well, the Court disagrees with you.

    The Declaration of Independence was cited, more than once, by John Quincy Adams (who personally knew many of the “Founders”) to great effect in the Amistad case.

    http://www.historycentral.com/amistad/amistad.html

    Now, how could this be, if the Constitution was the only source of law under which we live? And how is that such a source of law cites the grant of rights from a higher authority?

    I’ve given you a hint a few times today in my comments.

  • 85. Blackiswhite, Imperial Consigliere  |  June 8, 2010 at 4:06 pm

    Aw shucks, thanks. I do the best I can.

    Ok. Just don’t give up your day job.

  • 86. graychin  |  June 8, 2010 at 4:07 pm

    I’ve been neglecting this one. Too many discussions going on at once. From way back at #60:

    I have tried to explain to you Rutherford that a theocracy an abomination to God.

    I don’t doubt it. That doesn’t mean that the people who claim to speak for God wouldn’t want enjoy a theocracy anyway. Who is going to argue with someone who speaks for God? (Besides me, when I argue with Tex?) :D

    If Christians in America really demanding a theocracy as you attest, and being if you believe the estimates that 70-80% of American would call themselves Christian, why hasn’t it already happened then?

    Two points in response to that.

    1) SOME Christians would establish a theocracy in the US. They probably wouldn’t want to call it that, because theocracy is an abomination to God, as we know. But where in the hell did you get the silly idea that I believe that ALL Christians favor theocracy?

    2) It hasn’t already happened because even most Christians probably wouldn’t stand for it, and also (but perhaps most important) because of the First Amendment to the Constitution, and good people who defend it from encroaching Christianism.

    Who would have thought – the godless ACLU is doing God’s work in helping prevent creeping theocracy in America and defending the First Amendment!

  • 87. graychin  |  June 8, 2010 at 4:09 pm

    Aw shucks, thanks. I do the best I can.

    Ok. Just don’t give up your day job.

    I don’t have a day job! :D

  • 88. Tex Taylor  |  June 8, 2010 at 4:11 pm

    Actually Tex, Professor Emeritus Rutherford has been quite critical of Obama lately. Short term memory problem?

    Yeah, that scathing bit of rhetoric would have graded out Bomba at about a “B-” – a real hatchet job. :smile:

  • 89. graychin  |  June 8, 2010 at 4:16 pm

    BIC – here is my simple answer to #79:

    No.

    Well, the Court disagrees with you.

    Do you remember the question: “Is the Constitution the only document in American jurisprudence that helps to define and influence American Law?”

    And now you say “The Declaration of Independence was cited, more than once, by John Quincy Adams (who personally knew many of the “Founders”) to great effect in the Amistad case.”

    Actually, don’t the court and Mr. Adams agree with ME?

    Don’t forget – you’re debating a learned legal scholar here. :D

  • 90. Rutherford  |  June 8, 2010 at 4:17 pm

    Gray what you say about the founding fathers being befuddled by modern day America is absolutely true. Again, I think I see an interesting logical path on the part of BiW and other folks who don’t believe the Constitution is a living document.

    You see, if the Constitution is a Christian document, and Christianity is full of never-changing absolutes, then indeed the Constitution cannot be a living document. No provision in there to specifically protect the rights of gays so let’s ignore them. Gays violate a Christian absolute moral code so clearly their protection is unconstitutional.

    I’m starting to finally see how this game is played. ;-)

  • 91. graychin  |  June 8, 2010 at 4:19 pm

    Oops, my post at #83 happened by accident while I was writing #86.

    Sorry about that.

  • 92. Tex Taylor  |  June 8, 2010 at 4:22 pm

    1) SOME Christians would establish a theocracy in the US. They probably wouldn’t want to call it that, because theocracy is an abomination to God, as we know. But where in the hell did you get the silly idea that I believe that ALL Christians favor theocracy?

    That particular comment was directed at Rutherford. Read it again. The idea of a theocracy is one of many wild Professor Emeritus’ predispositions commonly kicked around in his wild delusions of paranoia.

    If you had your druthers Jim, I’m convinced you’d demand reparations for the Crusades or Salem witch trials, or something. Anything to enlarge the bloated government so you could get your FICA adjustment.

  • 93. graychin  |  June 8, 2010 at 4:23 pm

    I hadn’t seen that facet of it, Rutherford. But of course you’re exactly right.

    Abortion? Not in the bill of rights. Neither is birth control, which is only legal because of heroic efforts of Christians to stifle it in America. Privacy? The list could go on endlessly.

    That is how the game is played. It’s clever.

    And very dishonest.

  • 94. graychin  |  June 8, 2010 at 4:24 pm

    …only legal in America IN SPITE OF heroic efforts of Christians…

  • 95. Tex Taylor  |  June 8, 2010 at 4:25 pm

    Sorry, make that COLA adjustment. I’m having a difficult time watching TV and typing anymore. Multitasking doesn’t seem to work about time your reach your 40s.

  • 96. Tex Taylor  |  June 8, 2010 at 4:27 pm

    Oh yes, I read specifically that abortion is contained in the “Living Constitution.” Funny you should mention that as we “encroach” on the Constitution.

    Kind of like homosexuality being allowed in the Gospels. Christ doesn’t mention it by name in Matthew – John, it’s cool. Rip the baby to shreds…

    In the antiseptic name of “choice”, of course.

  • 97. graychin  |  June 8, 2010 at 4:27 pm

    Tex, if you weren’t having that short-term memory problem you might recall that I argued against reparations yesterday.

    No reparations for Indians, descendants of slaves, Jews or Arabs. No status quo ante. Play the hand you are dealt.

    Every time you try to read my mind (“if you had your druthers”) you get it wrong. What does that tell you?

    I kinda doubt that Rutherford said (or thinks) that all Christians want theocracy. You are misstating his position too. You do that lot, don’t you?

  • 98. Tex Taylor  |  June 8, 2010 at 4:36 pm

    Jim, I’ve become so numb to your inanity and repetition (like your attempts at humor), I skip by most of your posts unless they are directed specifically to me. Surely you didn’t think I was teasing when I called you an absolute bore yesterday, did you? The reparation comment above was called parody – you don’t get that either like those “objective” George Soros sources you use.

    To the best of my knowledge, since your old, wrinkled ass hit the Professor Emeritus blog, you’ve been consistently proven wrong-headed, or uninformed, or clueless, or most commonly downright moronic always accompanied with predictable flippancy to mask the stupidity. You’ve been one upped so many times, there is no need to rehash.

    But you give Rutherford company which pleases me. He’d been whining about not having any backup :smile:

    You’re the Elder “Yellow Dawg.”

    But you keep telling yourself that you’re brilliant.

  • 99. Hucking Fypocrites  |  June 8, 2010 at 4:37 pm

    “As of 2009, American organization Freedom House recognizes Israel as the only fully-fledged, free electoral democracy of the Middle East.”

    Tex, I looked at your Wiki link and it seems we are interpretting the information within it in different ways.

    Under the section Territories and Regions, there is a big chart. That chart includes the government type of each country listed. In it, both Turkey and Israel are called Pariamentary Democracies. So how on earth you think this link supports your claim that Israel is a democacy but Turkey isn’t is beyond me. Is there something you are seeing there that I am not (That isn’t meant as sarcasm, but a genuine question)

    Also, many of the other countries listed are counted as republics. That does not mean they do not employ democratic principles in their system of voting. The United States would be a prime example. Another would be Iraq, which you have already admitted to being a democracy, and only discount it as such based on the continued effort to preserve it.

    You can try and qualify your remark with unsupported claims of voter intimidation and whatnot. But the fact of the matter is—you are wrong. Israel is not the only democracy in the Middle East. And unless you are seeing something I am not, your own link supports that.

  • 100. Tex Taylor  |  June 8, 2010 at 4:40 pm

    I kinda doubt that Rutherford said (or thinks) that all Christians want theocracy.

    You kinda doubt wrong. Numerous times.

  • 101. Tex Taylor  |  June 8, 2010 at 4:46 pm

    Huck,

    Nah, that was my mistake. I found the information so interesting, I started popping around to other links. I directed you to the wrong link.

    Sorry about that. Try this…

    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Democracy_in_the_Middle_East

  • 102. Blackiswhite, Imperial Consigliere  |  June 8, 2010 at 4:49 pm

    Abortion? Not in the bill of rights.

    Not anywhere in the Constitution, and troubling to even liberal legal scholars.

    Neither is birth control, which is only legal because of heroic efforts of Christians to stifle it in America.

    You mean like Maggie “Eugenics” Sanger, or the collusion between the prosecutor and defendant in the original case in order to provide a justiciable controversy (That’s called a “freindly suit”, and they are frowned upon)

    Privacy?

    Actually, privacy is explicitly provided for in the 4th Amendment. I’m surprised that a legal scholar such as yourself missed it.

    The list could go on endlessly.

    Climb on board GC’s rhetorical tilt-a-whirl, ladies and gentlemen…step right this way!

    That is how the game is played. It’s clever.

    No, that’s how cases should be decided, rather than making shit up, because the more you make shit up, the less predictable the law becomes.

    And very dishonest.

    I agree. You are. But still you persist.

  • 103. Tex Taylor  |  June 8, 2010 at 4:49 pm

    Huck,

    I’m surprised old Jim “Graychin” Crow didn’t catch that. He’s been trying to hard to get a gotcha recently for having his nose tweaked numerous, that he missed a golden opportunity to point fingers and beat his chest. :smile:

  • 104. Tex Taylor  |  June 8, 2010 at 5:00 pm

    Geez Tex, what was that? Ebonics?

    Huck,

    I’m surprised old Jim “Graychin” Crow didn’t catch that. He’s been trying to so hard to get a gotcha recently for having his nose tweaked numerous ^times, that he missed a golden opportunity to point fingers and beat his chest.

    I think I should take a vacation from Professor Emeritus E pluribus unum’s blog for a while.

  • 105. graychin  |  June 8, 2010 at 5:13 pm

    I think I should take a vacation from Professor Emeritus E pluribus unum’s blog for a while.

    Enjoy!

  • 106. graychin  |  June 8, 2010 at 5:14 pm

    BIC – before you run off, did the Court and Mr. Adams agree with me or not?

  • 107. graychin  |  June 8, 2010 at 5:23 pm

    Rutherford, I assume you noticed that Tex dodged your question about whether Jews go to heaven, as I predicted. I would have won my bet – if anyone had been willing to take it.

    But everyone here has known Tex longer than I have.

  • 108. Blackiswhite, Imperial Consigliere  |  June 8, 2010 at 5:55 pm

    BIC – before you run off, did the Court and Mr. Adams agree with me or not?

    It isn’t running off. Its called “work”.

    And yes. I allowed your comment on international law to distract me.

  • 109. Blackiswhite, Imperial Consigliere  |  June 8, 2010 at 5:59 pm

    Rutherford, I assume you noticed that Tex dodged your question about whether Jews go to heaven, as I predicted. I would have won my bet – if anyone had been willing to take it.

    But everyone here has known Tex longer than I have

    That demonstrates extraordinary cheek. Especially for someone who has proven to be shall we say…”selective” about the questions he chooses to answer (few) and the way in which he answers them (which is frequently resembles no answer at all). You don’t really have room to gloat about this, GC.

  • 110. Tex Taylor  |  June 8, 2010 at 6:09 pm

    Rutherford, I assume you noticed that Tex dodged your question about whether Jews go to heaven, as I predicted. I would have won my bet – if anyone had been willing to take it.

    But everyone here has known Tex longer than I have.

    You sure do get brave Jim when you think I’ve left the room. Predictable for a chicken shit coward like you.

    Wake the fuck up moron. I answered Rutherford’s question to the best of my ability without getting too heavy in #60 – it includes you and your worthless ilk by name.

    As usual, you’re wrong and would have lost the bet. You’ve got to be one of the dumbest and most cowardly people I’ve ever read.

  • 111. graychin  |  June 8, 2010 at 6:43 pm

    Tex, I saw your “answer” to Rutherford, but it was still a dodge – no answer at all.

    And I never thought that you had “left the room.” You appear to be here 24/7. I don’t think you could stay away if you tried.

    And it beats working. :D

  • 112. Blackiswhite, Imperial Consigliere  |  June 8, 2010 at 6:48 pm

    Tex, I saw your “answer” to Rutherford, but it was still a dodge – no answer at all.

    *jiggles mote in GC’s eye*

  • 113. Hucking Fypocrites  |  June 8, 2010 at 7:04 pm

    Tex, fair enough. But I maintain my position based on my own research of the topic of government and electoral systems of the Middle East, which I recently researched for a university-level textbook currently being written.

    Part of the problem with debating this is the vocabulary. The Wiki/Freedom House says that Israel is the only “electoral democracy.” But electoral democracy is not the only type of democracy there is.

    Israel uses a Parliamentary system. Its head of state is its president, who is indirectly elected by the Knesset (Israeli parliament). Its head of government is appointed by the majority party of the Knesset. The Israeli electorate have no direct influence in electing the Israeli head of state or the head of government, and even less than in our own electoral democracy (electoral college).

    Similarly, Iraq (whether its democracy is being protected or not, that shouldn’t matter) uses an indirect parliamentary system, where the legislature elects the head of state and the leader of the majority party is the head of government.

    Lebanon uses a system similar to that of Iraq.

    By contrast, Turkey elects its head of state by direct democracy, where the people of Turkey vote directly for a name on their ballot, and their vote counts directly in that election. Their Prime Minister is then appointed by the President.

    Likewise, Yemen elects its head of state through direct democracy, with the PM being appointed by the Pres.

    So as you see, while Israel may be the only democracy of that specific type in the Middle East, it is in no way the only democracy in the Middle East. Nor is it the most direct form of democracy in the Middle East.

    And this isn’t even including any of the ‘Stans (Afghanistan, etc), most of which use some form of direct democracy in electing their head of states, who then appoint a PM.

    I hope I have been able to shed some light on this complicated topic and I do appreciate the civil discourse. Thank you for the discussion.

  • 114. Hucking Fypocrites  |  June 8, 2010 at 7:07 pm

    Tex, I just posted a comment that goes into detail regarding political and electoral systems of some of the countries of the Middle East. It looks to be #113 when Rutherford approves it.

    I encourage you to give it a look. Not so that I can play a round of gottcha, but so that you will be better informed about the topic in the future.

  • 115. Tex Taylor  |  June 8, 2010 at 7:08 pm

    Tex, I saw your “answer” to Rutherford, but it was still a dodge – no answer at all.

    No you didn’t liar. As usual, you missed the target, and now your trying to cover your worthless ass. :roll:

    You’re not fooling anybody numb nuts.

    I don’t know how specific Rutherford wants me to get, but we’ve already determined you’re a Jew hater phony.

    Damn right it beats working. Of course, like BiC says, you’ve got no room to talk. If you’re not here, you’re bouncing around you own unvisited blog talking to Graychin Jr.

  • 116. Tex Taylor  |  June 8, 2010 at 7:24 pm

    Debt to reach $19.6 Trillion by 2015. And Jim ‘Graychin’ Crow thinks Bongo deserves a “B+”. :lol:

    Sounds to me like a perfect candidate for a large mortgage during the housing bust.

    http://www.reuters.com/article/idUSN088462520100608

  • 117. Tex Taylor  |  June 8, 2010 at 7:26 pm

    Did I mention we’ve got Spike Lee for President now too? :lol:

    http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20100608/ap_on_go_pr_wh/us_obama_getting_tough

    Complete phony. No wonder Graychin loves him so. Birds of a feather…

  • 118. Blackiswhite, Imperial Consigliere  |  June 8, 2010 at 7:44 pm

    When is the last time the SCOTUS made a ruling based on the Federalist Papers or Madison’s writings

    Apparently, it isn’t so uncommon as you would like us to believe, R. Keep in mind this was only a look at one narrow era in the Court’s history, and it wasn’t so long ago. I see that it also cites the Hamdi case as one such recent example. I also see that “liberal” justices have cited them in cases as well, so it isn’t just the evilllll Christianist Conservatives, and their damned absolutist ideas that keep standing in the way of the Left and their desire to cast the Constitution as meaning whatever they want it to say today in its “plain language”.

    http://works.bepress.com/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?article=1002&context=matthew_festa

  • 119. Blackiswhite, Imperial Consigliere  |  June 8, 2010 at 7:51 pm

    When is the last time the SCOTUS made a ruling based on …Jefferson’s writings?

    Here’s one from 2003. Granted, it is a diseent and not a majority, but Justice Breyer was certainly influenced by what he read that was authored by Jefferson and Madison in this matter.

    Starting on page 5.

    http://www.copyright.gov/docs/eldredd1.pdf

  • 120. Tex Taylor  |  June 8, 2010 at 8:44 pm

    Do you sycophants, lackeys, toadies, mooches, and bed wetters for Obama have any idea how weak and pitiful you look right now?

    I’m watching the news tonight and everything this flaccid Prick for President touches turns to shit. The former community agitater couldn’t manage to install a roll of toilet paper. Bongo is down to following Spike Lee’s advice and acting like some thug. This is pathetic. The world is laughing at him and laughing at you toads that sold your soul to elect this fake. Fainting, singing his praises, inane platitudes, peeing in your pants when Bomba speaks in front of a teleprompter. You bunch of sad sacks and losers. You ought to get together and sing Barack Hussein Obama Um Um Um. :lol:

    This worse than Jimmy Carter. Barry is in so far over his head, he’s now turned his back to the world and moved to basketball, “going off” like an aroused whore, eighteen holes of golf, walks on the beach with paid BP help, and music concerts.

    History will record this sick joke as a stain on American history. Bozo the Clown in the Oval office.

    Obama, his corrupt cabinet including Hillary Rotten and Rhambo, and his fascist czars are a sick joke too. The only thing affiliated with Obama that isn’t a complete piece of shit is Robert Gates. How Gates has held out this long associated with an embarrassment of this magnitude is beyond me.

    You better hope somebody else more capable wins in November. Your future existence is going to depend on it. You ought to be ashamed that you goose stepping louts are so gullible.

    Put on your helmets kamikazes, getting out the maxed credit cards, and bow at your Emperor’s throne – you’re going to be asked to bail Obama’s worthless ass out some day and take one for the team.

    And I predict you loons will run off the cliff together.

  • 121. an800lbgorilla  |  June 8, 2010 at 8:59 pm

    And the point of Rutherford’s post, with which I agree, is that blacks voting for blacks is a myth, and always was.

    Blacks support white Democrats in the same proportions in which they voted for Obama – well over 90%. How can you assume that their equal support of a black Democrat must be due to black racism?” — Chin

    Bull shit flag is thrown.

    Back up your work and prove it.

    Show me in head to head runs between blacks and whites- in dem primaries or not- that show 90% of whites beating blacks.

    You’re full of shit.

  • 122. an800lbgorilla  |  June 8, 2010 at 9:07 pm

    I’ve been following this non discussion between Chin and BiW, where Chin is essentially dodging all of BiW’s questions, yet is complaining of non answers himself. Pot, meet kettle.

    Let me see if I can sum this up, Chin believes that we can only look to the Constitution and whatever our interpretation of the words are, based on the context we want to apply, is what the Constitution means.

    BiW says that you must understand the premise of the founders to appreciate and understand the language of the Constitution, and apply it as such.

    I find it interesting that the left convienently interprets the Constitution different ways depending on whatever they want. 1st Ammendment, literal translation, but the 2nd Ammendment, well, that’s not what they meant…

    Besides, Chin has admitted that he’s not qualified to discuss the law, so I question how he can inteligently converse on Constitutional law. Even Barry fails at that…

  • 123. an800lbgorilla  |  June 8, 2010 at 9:12 pm

    Gallup 6/5 – 6/7 1547 A 45 46 -1
    Rasmussen Reports 6/5 – 6/7 1500 LV 49 50 -1

    No Pajamas media here…

  • 124. dead rabbit  |  June 8, 2010 at 10:09 pm

    So, the bar none most hyped up rookie in baseball history took the mound today. They had a count down to Strasburg’s first pitch clock. How did he do?

    14 K’s in 7 innings.

  • 125. dead rabbit  |  June 8, 2010 at 10:37 pm

    I would love to be a fly on the wall at the round table where they crunched a ton of poll numbers and in a cold, calculating fashion decided that it’s time for Obama to “make a cuss word” on TV.

    That was the oddest and most unnatural thing I’ve seen in a long time.

    These politicians kill me.

    Everyone is saying your a pussy, so act like a real bad ass on so and so’s show.

    I don’t care if it’s the guy working at the garage or the President of the United States….there is nothing more comical then seeing someone try to feign being tough..

    Middle America can see that shit from a mile away. What are they thinking?

    I’m hearing that Obama has never even talked to the CEO of BP and that Home Land Security took 7 days to even qualify the leak as something very fucked up.

    Obama needs to call the Wolf.

  • 126. an800lbgorilla  |  June 8, 2010 at 11:00 pm

    Lincoln wins primary…

    Boo hoo…

  • 127. an800lbgorilla  |  June 8, 2010 at 11:03 pm

    Chin, are you weeping right now?

  • 128. an800lbgorilla  |  June 8, 2010 at 11:06 pm

    Joe Wilson wins his primary at 84%…no lie…

  • 129. Rutherford  |  June 8, 2010 at 11:20 pm

    Am I the only one who noticed Tex’s about-face with respect to Iraq in order to support his current argument?

    I seem to recall in threads long ago, that Tex counted among Bush’s achievements the establishment of a great democracy in Iraq. Now suddenly, it’s a democracy hanging on by a string with only the American military propping it up.

    So Tex, which is it? Did W deliver Iraq from the shackles of tyranny or is the current “democracy” a farce? ;-)

  • 130. Rutherford  |  June 8, 2010 at 11:23 pm

    You kinda doubt wrong. Numerous times.

    Oh Tex, puhleeeeze. I never say ALL anything want anything. So to lead Gray to believe that I think all Christians want a theocracy is way off the mark. Nutjob proselytizers want a theocracy … yes, ALL of them do. ;-)

  • 131. graychin  |  June 8, 2010 at 11:35 pm

    Ape, I’m not going to do your research for you. If you want to call BS on my assertion that blacks vote 90%+ Democratic, you have as much data as I do. My statement is falsifiable. Prove me wrong.

    In #122 you have mis-characterized my position. Why, oh why, won’t you guys argue with what I really say instead of making stuff up?

  • 132. Rutherford  |  June 8, 2010 at 11:36 pm

    I find it interesting that the left convienently interprets the Constitution different ways depending on whatever they want. 1st Ammendment, literal translation, but the 2nd Ammendment, well, that’s not what they meant…

    Surely G, libs are not alone in that practice.My assertion is that you folks look outside the constitution for its “real” meaning when the words on the page don’t literally say what you want them to.

    And yes, I will admit that libs take literally what pleases them. Kinda like the Bible. Damn! Maybe it is a Christian document after all? ;-)

  • 133. graychin  |  June 8, 2010 at 11:37 pm

    So Tex, which is it? Did W deliver Iraq from the shackles of tyranny or is the current “democracy” a farce?

    It isn’t unusual for Tex to talk out of both sides of his ass. :D

  • 134. an800lbgorilla  |  June 8, 2010 at 11:38 pm

    Screw you, then let all know that Chin pulls multiple shit out of his ass. Wasn’t it you who called on Tex to source his stuff, you not the good to have the same standard apply?

    Bullshit, you’re making shit up and we all know it…

  • 135. Rutherford  |  June 8, 2010 at 11:40 pm

    Tex, I must admit I wasn’t 100% satisfied with your answer about Jews going to heaven. I let you off the hook because I took your answer to say “I really don’t want to say the bottom line on this.”

    Let me make sure I understand this and in correcting me, you can then perhaps explain your interpretation.

    Jews do not, as a rule, believe in the resurrection. Is that not so? Hence they do not believe Christ is their savior. So far so good? Since only those who have accepted Christ can enter the kingdom of the Lord, that rules out Jews.

    Where have I messed up?

  • 136. an800lbgorilla  |  June 8, 2010 at 11:42 pm

    Maybe not alone R, but the examples surely grossly out weigh Conservatives. The whole premise of COnservatism kindof relies on what the document says, based on the intent of the framers.

  • 137. Blackiswhite, Imperial Consigliere  |  June 8, 2010 at 11:44 pm

    Why, oh why, won’t you guys argue with what I really say instead of making stuff up?

    Hey, GC. You should uh, really have someone tend to the plank in your eye. It is starting to look infected.

    Am I the only one who noticed Tex’s about-face with respect to Iraq in order to support his current argument?

    Nahh. I wasn’t paying attention. I was too busy trying to shake off the silliness in your suggestion phrased as a question that the Court had never cited the Federalist Papers or writings of Madison or Jefferson in a ruling.

    But congratulations…maybe. Or not.

  • 138. graychin  |  June 8, 2010 at 11:50 pm

    I’m sorry to see Lincoln win in AR, but this one was always a pretty sure pickup for the R’s in November. Bye bye Blanche.

    I’m glad to see Joe Wilson win big in SC. He enhances the R’s reputation for crazy. And it IS South Carolina after all.

    And more good news from SC – Nikki Haley pulled under 50% and is in a runoff! The saga continues! Dang, I’m old enough to remember when Republicans were all boring, frumpy old white guys like Mitch McConnell. How times have changed! :D

    Right now Angle is ahead in NV, with a narrow lead over Chicken Sue Lowden. I do believe that Harry Reid can win there against either one. Six months ago I wouldn’t have given him the slightest chance. One of the most important factors that keeps Democrats in office is… Republicans! :D

  • 139. Rutherford  |  June 8, 2010 at 11:50 pm

    Rabbit, about the only good thing about your comment was the excerpt from one of my all time fav movies.

    You need to do more research plus LISTEN to Obama before you jump down his throat.

    The full interview segment has Matt Lauer asking Obama why he isn’t “kicking butt”. Obama responds that he needs to talk to experts, not as an academic exercise but so that he knows “whose ass to kick”. His response was set up completely by Matt Lauer. The worst you can accuse him of is upping the rhetoric from “butt” to “ass”. AND, again if you take in he full response, his answer was really a “f*ck you Matt Lauer, I’ve been on this thing before you and your talking heads gave a damn about it.”

    When you watch poorly edited clips, you end up jumping to wrong conclusions.

    Second, about the listening part. What did Obama say about calling the BP CEO? He said it was basically a waste of his time because all Hayward was gonna do is blow smoke up his ass. His time could be spent doing more productive things. I don’t see the problem with that. In fact, that seems to be the EXACT tactic that President Rabbit would have taken.

  • 140. Rutherford  |  June 8, 2010 at 11:52 pm

    Crap, I didn’t know Joe Wilson was in a primary tonight. That one is getting zero attention on MSNBC. :-(

  • 141. Hucking Fypocrites  |  June 8, 2010 at 11:52 pm

    “Ape, I’m not going to do your research for you.”

    Evidently you aren’t going to do your own, either.

  • 142. graychin  |  June 8, 2010 at 11:54 pm

    Rutherford @ #135:

    I think you pretty much nailed it. When / if he responds, don’t let him off the hook with a lame answer like “It’s up to God – none of us is qualified to judge where someone else will spend eternity.”

    How many times has he expressed his certainty that I am headed for Hell? :D

  • 143. Hucking Fypocrites  |  June 8, 2010 at 11:54 pm

    “He said it was basically a waste of his time because all Hayward was gonna do is blow smoke up his ass. ”

    That’s pretty much the way I feel any time Obama is talking to us.

  • 144. Rutherford  |  June 8, 2010 at 11:55 pm

    The whole premise of COnservatism kind of relies on what the document says, based on the interpreted intent of the framers.

    I’ve corrected your statement for you. ;-)

  • 145. graychin  |  June 8, 2010 at 11:57 pm

    Rutherford, may I make a request?

    Today was such a fun day on this thread, would you mind putting up a fresh thread for tomorrow? If you don’t have a topic in mind maybe you could just post one sentence, like “How about those primaries last night?”

    Or whatever strikes your mood.

    Thanks.

  • 146. an800lbgorilla  |  June 8, 2010 at 11:58 pm

    No, you didn’t. The framers told us what they were thinking when the wrote the Constitution, all we have to do is listen, which is why you on the left are terrified of the Federalist Papers and other such documents.

    Nice try though…

  • 147. Rutherford  |  June 9, 2010 at 12:01 am

    BiW, I readily acknowledge that your legal background better equips you for this argument but I do have one question for you. Would you not agree that any reference to Jefferson, Fed Papers, etc. by the Justices is rhetorical flourish? Don’t the main arguments center around the words found in the Constitution itself?

    Put another way, it is the job of the SCOTUS to interpret the Constitution. To do so, they may look to ancillary documents which also must be interpreted. Are abortion and gay marriage addressed in the Fed Papers? If so, I’d be very surprised.

  • 148. dead rabbit  |  June 9, 2010 at 12:02 am

    Rutherford…you may be right on the snippet I caught. Although, something seemed very forced about it, i only did see that 5 second bit.

    However, you take it a bit far when you start to defend Obama’s response to this unmitigated disaster. I doubt the Democrats down in LA are making things up. The Feds didn’t even allow the coast to defend itself for a while.

  • 149. graychin  |  June 9, 2010 at 12:03 am

    The whole premise of COnservatism kind of relies on what the document says, based on the intent of the framers as divined by “conservative” activist judges.

    Just wanted to throw my own correction into the hat. :D

  • 150. Rutherford  |  June 9, 2010 at 12:03 am

    I think the Obama response to this disaster is not what it should be and I’ve said so many times.It’s a case of too little too late, although we must also acknowledge there is not a whole lot the gov can do to fix this. They have failed at optics … that is for sure.

  • 151. graychin  |  June 9, 2010 at 12:05 am

    The framers told us what they were thinking when the wrote the Constitution, all we have to do is listen.

    I couldn’t agree more. It’s all right there in the Constitution that the framers wrote.

  • 152. an800lbgorilla  |  June 9, 2010 at 12:08 am

    Oh fucking please…9th Circus- the most liberal AND overturned Circuit court in the US.

    Nuff said about ‘activist’ judges…

  • 153. Rutherford  |  June 9, 2010 at 12:08 am

    One of the most important factors that keeps Democrats in office is… Republicans! :D

    ROTFL … or at least bat-sh*t crazy Republicans like Lowden and Angle. ;-)

    P.S. Maybe I’m crazy but I don’t have the animosity toward Blanche that my fellow libs do. I’m not a big fan of litmus tests and I think it’s just as important (and productive) to be a moderate Democrat as it is to be a moderate Republican. I’ve said this many times. … it’s the extremism that is killing our country.

  • 154. an800lbgorilla  |  June 9, 2010 at 12:09 am

    Optics, resources, management, leadership- have I forgotten anything?

  • 155. an800lbgorilla  |  June 9, 2010 at 12:11 am

    Here’s a thought:

    Obama is the political kiss of death, where essentially anyone he touches loses.

    Palin is racking up a pretty long list of victories when it comes to endorsements.

    How does that make you feel R?

  • 156. graychin  |  June 9, 2010 at 12:12 am

    Ape, I felt sorry for you – so here it is.

    Read the first sentence:

    http://pajamasmedia.com/blog/why-is-the-black-vote-in-the-democratic-pocket/

    (The source is unimpeachable – Tex’s favorite!)

  • 157. an800lbgorilla  |  June 9, 2010 at 12:16 am

    No, that is not what you said. You said that 90% of the time, blacks will vote for the ehite dem over the black dem. I said bullshit, prove it, so prove it.

    Don’t try to come up with some tangential article that talks to black brainwashing, show your work and show how blacks vote for whites over other blacks 90% of the time.

    Simple enough…

  • 158. an800lbgorilla  |  June 9, 2010 at 12:18 am

    Why do 90% of eligible black Americans vote Democrat and call themselves liberal?

    This has nothing to do with what you said…

  • 159. Rutherford  |  June 9, 2010 at 12:18 am

    Two closing comments before I hit the bed:

    Gray, I sometimes get requests when these threads get long to PLEASE start a new thread, The reason I don’t open new threads with one-liners is that my articles get cross-posted on other sites and I really strive for quality over quantity. The result is that the discussion threads can get long. Of course, if you have a topic you’d like covered, by all means suggest one and if I have it in me, I’ll pursue it.

    Second …. I obviously must not be myself lately because I did not know until tonight that certified loony tune Orly Taitz was running for office in California!!! Holy friggin sh*t! This tops the chicken lady and the “let’s bring prohibition back” lady big time! Fortunately, Orly is only running for CA Secretary of State, but seeing as she should be committed to an insane asylum, even that is a bit disturbing.

    I swear if Taitz wins the primary tonight, I may have nightmares. :shock:

  • 160. graychin  |  June 9, 2010 at 12:18 am

    Palin is racking up a pretty long list of victories when it comes to endorsements.

    I’m calling BS on you, Ape. And doing my own research.

    http://www.politicsdaily.com/2010/06/03/sarah-palins-endorsement-curse-or-blessing/

    She could do as well by rolling dice and keeping her mouth shut.

  • 161. graychin  |  June 9, 2010 at 12:19 am

    Ape, that isn’t what I said at all. Find my comment and read it again.

  • 162. graychin  |  June 9, 2010 at 12:21 am

    Rutherford, I understand. Thanks anyhow.

    I only learned to day that Birther Lady was running for something in California. I hope she wins. She will just add to the Republicans’ “crazy factor.” :D

  • 163. graychin  |  June 9, 2010 at 12:23 am

    I’m hitting the bed. Sweet dreams, everyone.

    I’ll be dreaming of California Republicans trying to run on the same ticket with Orly Taitz. :D

  • 164. an800lbgorilla  |  June 9, 2010 at 12:23 am

    Blacks support white Democrats in the same proportions in which they voted for Obama – well over 90%. How can you assume that their equal support of a black Democrat must be due to black racism? — Chin

    Yes you did…

  • 165. an800lbgorilla  |  June 9, 2010 at 12:26 am

    “Palin is 3-3 in congressional endorsements and 2-0 in gubernatorial endorsements this year”

    Haley and it looks like Fiorina will win. That’s 5-3.

    What’s O’s record? 0-4? He would dream of those kind of numbers…

  • 166. an800lbgorilla  |  June 9, 2010 at 12:33 am

    Not Fiorina, but Angle…

  • 167. Hucking Fypocrites  |  June 9, 2010 at 12:45 am

    “What’s O’s record? 0-4?”

    I don’t think Obama has successfully picked anyone to win anything since the Steelers won the Super Bowl.

  • 168. Blackiswhite, Imperial Consigliere  |  June 9, 2010 at 12:50 am

    Would you not agree that any reference to Jefferson, Fed Papers, etc. by the Justices is rhetorical flourish?

    No, I wouldn’t. Example? Read the decision in District of Columbia vs. Heller: http://caselaw.lp.findlaw.com/scripts/getcase.pl?court=us&vol=000&invol=07-290

    There in that case, two very diferent interpretations of the Second Amendment (your favorite!) were set before the Court. What should be clear as you read the majority decision is the considerable time and effort put into discerning the meaning of the phrases in the Amendment at the time it was written. That was no “rhetorical flourish”…those are usually reserved for explaining why racial and injudicious remarks are made by wise latina judges nominated to the high Court shouldn’t actually be interpreted in the racial and injudicious manner in which they were intended when spoken.

    Don’t the main arguments center around the words found in the Constitution itself?

    Yes, but Heller is only one example of the parties before the Court frequently having diametrically opposed takes on the meaning of those “plain words”. It isn’t up to the Justices to simply impose an interpretation which suits them; the idea is to understand what was meant by the people who wrote them. “Militia” would be such a word. To many people, the word might conjure images of the Michigan Militia, or the Huttaree. But in the post-Revolutionary era, the word had a very different connotation, and it is important to review these sources to understand who they were talking about when they used the word in order to properly determine how the law applies today.

    Put another way, it is the job of the SCOTUS to interpret the Constitution. To do so, they may look to ancillary documents which also must be interpreted. Are abortion and gay marriage addressed in the Fed Papers? If so, I’d be very surprised.

    Abortion really isn’t a good example, if only because the basis for federal jurisdiction over the issue was never adequately established, even to the satisifaction of liberal legal scholars. The general rule of thumb lies in the plain words themselves…if the power is not specifically ennumerated to the federal government, then it is reserved to the states or the people. Every state had its own laws on abortion on the books when Roe came before the court. Those laws at least had the imprimatur of legitimacy because they were arrived at by the legislative processes of those individual states, and as a result, reflected the decisions of the citizens of those states.

    In two hearings and a shuffle of justices, the Court declared that a right of privacy trumped all other rights, including the right to life, without even establishing why or how it was properly a federal matter, and despite the fact that at the time the case was finally decided it was moot and no longer a ripe controversy.

    In many ways, the same jurisdictional concerns could be raised about “gay rights”, as marriage is an issue largely reserved to the states now, and if one state choses to make gay marriage legal on a the foundation of a dubious legal argument, it may do so, just as the voters in another state may vote to allow it in all but name only.

    And no, the Federalist Papers do not have all the answers…if only because their purpose was to explain the main body of the Constitution to the citizens of the states that were being asked to ratify it. That’s why the papers are relevant…they are the explaination why the document is written the way it it is.

    Finally, the Federalist Papers wouldn’t necessarliy address the issues that arise under the Amendments because the Amendments hadn’t been proposed at the time the Federalist Papers were written, which is why the Justices spent a considerable amount of time scrutinizing other sources.

  • 169. Tex Taylor  |  June 9, 2010 at 1:29 am

    Rutherford, you fucking moron. You of all people know this.

    I seem to recall in threads long ago, that Tex counted among Bush’s achievements the establishment of a great democracy in Iraq. Now suddenly, it’s a democracy hanging on by a string with only the American military propping it up.

    So Tex, which is it? Did W deliver Iraq from the shackles of tyranny or is the current “democracy” a farce?

    Easy – Obama. :wink:

  • 170. Tex Taylor  |  June 9, 2010 at 1:43 am

    Tex, I must admit I wasn’t 100% satisfied with your answer about Jews going to heaven. I let you off the hook because I took your answer to say “I really don’t want to say the bottom line on this.”

    Contrary to Graychin’s theological assertions, which so far have proven clueless, and you as usual showing your theological ignorance, I just gave you three Jews that preceded Jesus to heaven. Therefore, it is obvious Jews are in attendance with Christians. If you think you’re bothering me with these gotcha questions, think again. Like I’ve said before, it’s not your fanny I have to cover. :wink:

    However, I have no idea after the resurrection. Christ is clear that no one enter heaven without Him. I do know that Revelation speaks of the conversion of many Jews to Christianity during the Tribulaton.

    Contrary to Satan’s son and his lame accusation from above, I can’t play God, nor will I attempt to speak for Him any further than what is written in His Word. Even with Jim Crow from Eucha. The only heart I know is my own.

    You think that’s a cop out, so be it. I answer with what I know as fact.

    Speaking of letting off the hook, did you see Graychin lives with Zero “African Americans” in his beloved hometown Rutherford? I do hope you remember that fact – a place where you wouldn’t be welcome, is where Graychin calls home.

    Try to set that to memory when Satchin blathers about his “love” of fellow man, and when you hear the lilly white, progressive sanctimony from the Left. You’re being played, but not where you think. :wink:

  • 171. Tex Taylor  |  June 9, 2010 at 1:46 am

    Everyone set Graychin’s showmanship and bravado to memory. This is the same blowhard that told me on the T-World board Conservativism had been rejected and was now as good as dead. :smile:

    We’ll see what excuses Double Chin comes up with in November.

    Should make him the further butt of jokes.

  • 172. Tex Taylor  |  June 9, 2010 at 1:57 am

    You think Obama’s record is bad concerning elections, MarKKKos Zuniga is far worse.

    Check out this dickhead’s screen captured earlier today about Halter. You’ll need to magnify to get the gist.

    Buwahahahahhaha.

    Yeah Double Chin. Your progressive party is swinging large now. :lol:

  • 173. Tex Taylor  |  June 9, 2010 at 1:58 am

    Oh, but we do need a link. 3.6M progressive dollars down the dink!

    http://tweetphoto.com/26300808

  • 174. an800lbgorilla  |  June 9, 2010 at 2:00 am

    Tex, Chin has shown us all a lot about what to expect from the left… not much.

  • 175. graychin  |  June 9, 2010 at 9:37 am

    WAKE UP! :D

    Well, sometimes dreams just don’t come true. Orly Taitz, the birther queen, lost her race for CA Sec of State. But it was closer than you might expect – 74% to 26%.

    I guess that means that “only” 26% of CA Republicans are as crazy as she is. :D

  • 176. graychin  |  June 9, 2010 at 9:52 am

    What do you guys think of Carly Fiorina, the Repub nominee for Senate in California?

    I sold my HP stock the day she got her disastrous merger with Compaq approved. She got fired about a year later – with a golden parachute, of course. She was a spokesperson for McCain / Palin for a time, but as I recall they had to tell her to put a sock in it. And I keep reading that Democrats were pulling for her to win, since she is their preferred candidate to run against.

  • 177. Rutherford  |  June 9, 2010 at 10:49 am

    Palin is racking up a pretty long list of victories when it comes to endorsements.

    Hey Gorilla, care to substantiate that? I’ve heard Palin called the kiss of death. I won’t argue about Obama … he backs Dem incumbents and incumbents are in trouble.

    Palin, on the other hand backs far right candidates. She’s had a few wins lately but I think she’s batting 50% at best right now.

  • 178. Rutherford  |  June 9, 2010 at 10:51 am

    You said that 90% of the time, blacks will vote for the ehite dem over the black dem.

    G, I don’t recall Gray saying that. I thought he said 90% of the black vote goes to Dems vs GOP. I’ll look back through the thread later but that’s not my recollection.

  • 179. Rutherford  |  June 9, 2010 at 10:58 am

    Blacks support white Democrats in the same proportions in which they voted for Obama – well over 90%. How can you assume that their equal support of a black Democrat must be due to black racism? — Chin

    Yes you did…

    Ehhh, no he didn’t. How the hell did you get your interpretation of that Gorilla? Let’s parse the bad boy.

    Blacks support Dem’s over 90%, the same proportion that they supported Barack Obama. Since not all Dem candidates are black, that implies that Blacks support white Dem candidates just as much as they support black ones. Party is the factor, not race.

    No where does he say that they would vote for a white dem candidate over a black one 90% of the time.

    G, you’ve really lost me on how you read between the lines of Gray’s comment. Please elaborate.

  • 180. Rutherford  |  June 9, 2010 at 11:02 am

    Oh, G …. LOL So Palin picked the right wacko in Nevada! She picked the Scientologist who wants to bring back Prohibition over the trade chickens for medical care lady! Yeah, Sarah knows how to pick em alright. Harry Reid who is vulnerable as hell, will clean the floor with Angle. It would be tragic if it weren’t so damn funny.

  • 181. Tex Taylor  |  June 9, 2010 at 11:11 am

    I am absolutely certain that generations from now, we will be able to look back and tell our children that this was the moment when we began to provide care for the sick and good jobs to the jobless; this was the moment when the rise of the oceans began to slow and our planet began to heal; this was the moment when we ended a war and secured our nation and restored our image as the last, best hope on Earth.

    Where arrogance and narcissism meets reality…how’s that restoration of last, best hope on earth balancing for you now Rutherford?

    Obama’s antagonism to BP is rooted in desperation and prejudice

    http://www.spectator.co.uk/coffeehouse/6066673/obamas-antagonism-to-bp-is-rooted-in-desperation-and-prejudice.thtml#

  • 182. graychin  |  June 9, 2010 at 11:12 am

    I keep complaining about people arguing with me about stuff I didn’t say, but the Ape has taken it to the next level! :D

    I went to Sharron Angle’s website this morning because I had read that it contained some real howlers. But they must have taken most of it down. All that was there is a single “contribute” page.

    Angle’s support of a return to Prohibition is going to be really popular around Vegas. :D

  • 183. Rutherford  |  June 9, 2010 at 11:13 am

    I loathe Carly quite frankly. I give her a minimum of sympathy because she is a cancer survivor and that is no easy road to travel. In case everyone here thinks I am the extremist, on Sunday’s radio show, Sandi basically said the cancer doesn’t impress her because even with cancer, Fiorina ignores the health care issues of those less financially fortunate. LOL …. sometimes when I finish a show with Sandi I feel like a friggin’ conservative.

    What irks me about Carly more than anything is how she is always touted as the former CEO of HP and not the former failed CEO of HP. I’ve witnessed up close and personal what incompetent management can do to a company. The woman makes my skin crawl.

  • 184. graychin  |  June 9, 2010 at 11:14 am

    Tex, welcome back. How was your vacation?

  • 185. Rutherford  |  June 9, 2010 at 11:16 am

    [Begin full disclosure]
    Speaking of Sandi, I need to correct a mistaken impression I left with Tex. Sandi did not say anything about Jews vs the second coming of Christ. She simply stated that the Christian interest in Israel was a selfish one, centered around their own religious beliefs. She was not particularly specific. The second coming conjecture was mine.
    [End full disclosure]

  • 186. Rutherford  |  June 9, 2010 at 11:22 am

    Hey Tex …. yeah I heard this morning the Brit’s noses are out of joint about the White House response to BP.

    So do I take it, you’re a big Tony Hayward fan? ;-)

  • 187. graychin  |  June 9, 2010 at 11:29 am

    Carly Fiorina’s career path demonstrates that her greatest talent was not in business management, but in marketing herself. At long last, the HP board figured out that she was an empty suit.

    We’ll see how successful she is in marketing herself between now and November. Her greatest campaign asset so far has been all the money that she has burned through.

    Boxer was vulnerable to a good opponent like the one that lost to Carly. This looks like a safe Dem seat now.

  • 188. graychin  |  June 9, 2010 at 11:42 am

    McCain launches ads casting Hayworth as Washington insider

    http://politicalticker.blogs.cnn.com/2010/06/08/mccain-launches-ads-casting-hayworth-as-washington-insider/?fbid=c7s53FJf8zY

    Now THAT’s funny! :D

    It’s actually kind of sad to watch the disintegration of John McCain. But you can watch more of it here:

    http://politicalcorrection.org/factcheck/201005100006

    The AZ primary isn’t until August 24. McCain’s poll numbers are dropping. I think he might actually lose to Hayworth.

  • 189. Hucking Fypocrites  |  June 9, 2010 at 1:17 pm

    “What do you guys think of Carly Fiorina, the Repub nominee for Senate in California?”

    I am a CA native, and I would be so glad to be rid of Babs “Don’t call me ma’am” Boxer, that I would vote for literally just about anyone over her.

    I have no opinion on Fiorina, other than she is not Boxer. For that alone, she will be getting my vote in Nov.

  • 190. graychin  |  June 9, 2010 at 1:43 pm

    Well, I see that Huck is enthusiastic about Carly! :D

  • 191. Hucking Fypocrites  |  June 9, 2010 at 1:53 pm

    Like I said, I am a CA native. There is no need for me to get excited about any Republican candidate in any election.

    And since I wish to become a professor in this state some day, I am registered as Decline to State (so my political affiliation can’t be used against me). So I don’t even get to get excited about primaries.

  • 192. Blackiswhite, Imperial Consigliere  |  June 9, 2010 at 2:06 pm

    And since I wish to become a professor in this state some day, I am registered as Decline to State (so my political affiliation can’t be used against me). So I don’t even get to get excited about primaries.

    I’d chastize you for your lack of courage and willingness to submit to a system where the Left is encourage to be in the open, but any other perspectives are treated as pariahs, but I also understand about having mouths to feed, which is why I blog with an alias.

  • 193. graychin  |  June 9, 2010 at 2:27 pm

    It’s the same here in Oklahoma, but the ideology is reversed. We had a neighbor who stopped speaking to us over our “Kerry for President” sign, in opposition to her Bush sign.

    I’m a lot more outspoken about my politics now that I’m retired. I pretty much kept my mouth shut at work, but I did pizz off and lose a couple of nutjob clients who ranted a lot about their right-wing politics. Which was no great loss, because one way or the other I had decided I wasn’t going to listen to their crap any more.

    One of the privileges of owning the business!

  • 194. Hucking Fypocrites  |  June 9, 2010 at 2:37 pm

    I quit blogging because my material was getting too close to research I wish to eventually publish, and I didn’t want some late night Googler to expose my identity.

    I find it an unfortunate reality of where I live and the field I wish to enter.

  • 195. Rutherford  |  June 9, 2010 at 3:12 pm

    Huck, I’m curious about something.

    I once had a friend who taught at Rutgers Univ and the impression I got from her is that post-secondary academia is pretty cutthroat. You seem to confirm that with your cyber-name change, the dissolution of your blog and even your non-party membership.

    Are you just super-paranoid or is the academic game in CA just that tough that your political views can really endanger your career?

  • 196. Rutherford  |  June 9, 2010 at 3:24 pm

    Honestly, the only reason I started with an alias almost 3 years ago was concern for my family. I was just very paranoid that they might get some backlash from stuff I wrote.

    A handful of people know my real name and I’m not quite as obsessed with maintaining the firewall as I used to be. After almost 3 years, the blogging part of me has become Rutherford, odd as that may sound. Still anyone real curious can find a path to the “real me” from this very site, so like I said I’m not as obsessed with anonymity as I used to be.

    The only topic I won’t touch is naming my former company when I dis them because my wife still works there. If my wife ever leaves there, I may devote an entire blog to burying their sorry asses.

  • 197. Tex Taylor  |  June 9, 2010 at 3:25 pm

    Rutherford,

    Yeah, I like Tony a hell of a lot better than say Rahm Emanuel, Keith Olbermann, or Bongo (or Graychin :smile:). Tony is infinitely smarter than any of them, and frankly I found his comment about “wanting my own life back” somewhat humorous – a very unenviable position to be in. I don’t abide in the game of class warfare or jealousy like the Left.

    While the gulf spill tragic, it is not the end of the world. Haley Barbour made note that the biggest damage his state is receiving is the coverage of news – the perceived outlook is oily beaches where there are none. You would have been tickled at him taking FOX News to task the other night. This is what I’ve suspected all along. This faux outrage from the Left is status quo and completely phony. This tragedy too shall pass.

    I note that BP is gettiing hammered again today, though they are now gathering most of the oil. I predict this incident will not prove anywhere near as big an environmental disaster as even the Exxon Valdez when through for the sole reason it is much further out to sea, and it now obvious the Valdez was overblown with frivolous charges and the damages temporary.

    It seems it was announced today that our Congress is attempting to retroactively remove all caps and damages, in essence to push BP out of existence per Graychin’s wishes.

    Now I know as a bleeding heart, you’re in love with this idea and it may seem wonderfully just on face. This is straight out of fascism 101 with government rule by Democrats which you and others believe sound. There’s only one problem. Why would any company selling a fungible product operate in an environment where laws can be changed after the fact? I’m sure China and India would be glad to have BP on board. Probably save millions of bucks in wages and salaries to boot.

    I think what BP needs to do in response is get the hole plugged, in good conscience pay all legitimate claims to small business owners and the state of Louisiana (I would demand this as fair minded shareholder), divest their American held assets, and then refuse participating in further business with America, including eliminating the 34,000 BP employees of Louisiana in one fell swoop while sending Bongo’s gift of unplayable DVDs of his speeches by mail COD. All is fair in love and war.

    Simply sit on their west coasts reserves until some late future date, even if America goes under. The value of their holding is going nowhere but up. I figure as a shareholder, since the damage has already been done to our own holdings, why not go one step further and join the game even if BP goes insolvent.

    It was recently discovered that Michael Bloomberg moved his considerable holdings overseas. Perhaps the rest of little guys should be smart and follow suit.

    Government wants to pick and choose who it will serve and play hatchet man and Big Brother, we will pick and choose who we wish to support. Stop domestic production, freeze wages, invoke massive layoffs where necessary.

    You and your cronies seem hell bent on turning America into a 3rd world banana Republic. Maybe we shareholders can help expedite your wishes. :wink:

    It was patriotic to dissent against George Bush and the American military during the Iraq War, I will now find it patriotic to dissent against the American economy. Even better, this time Graychin won’t be able to make charges I paid no price. I did.

    Yes We Can!!!

  • 198. Tex Taylor  |  June 9, 2010 at 3:31 pm

    I know that Jim Crow is in love with naming names of sexual peccadilloes of all Republicans. I’ve always wondered what’s worse? Adultery, or just simply being a perv under felony charges? Being the father of two beautiful daughters, I think I’ll pick the first.

    I see these little trysts a shared malady? Hey Gray? :smile:

    http://m.apnews.com/ap/db_8545/contentdetail.htm?contentguid=7sAFDYPI

  • 199. graychin  |  June 9, 2010 at 3:36 pm

    When BP divests itself of its American assets, will those assets just sit idle? Or will the 34,000 employees in Louisiana be needed by the assets’ new owners to operate them?

    BP pulling out of America might not be such a bad thing.

  • 200. Blackiswhite, Imperial Consigliere  |  June 9, 2010 at 3:57 pm

    It seems it was announced today that our Congress is attempting to retroactively remove all caps and damages, in essence to push BP out of existence per Graychin’s wishes.

    cough Ex Post Facto Clause cough

    When BP divests itself of its American assets, will those assets just sit idle? Or will the 34,000 employees in Louisiana be needed by the assets’ new owners to operate them?

    Nahhh. I’m sure that there are plenty of investors with milliions to put into a business with an unlimited liability. Maybe you can think about that as you shiver in the cold and dark of winter in your brave new America?

    Oh, that’s right, thanks to Lord Hopenchange, you’ll have a solar panel on your roof and a windmill, too. That should be good for a 30 wt bulb in the daylight hours in January.

  • 201. graychin  |  June 9, 2010 at 3:58 pm

    What’s worse? The perv under felony charges, of course.

    You had to ask?

    Here’s hoping that the perv withdraws from the race, so the party has to pick someone else to lose to DeMint. I guess the guy that the perv defeated wasn’t very popular.

    Strange days in South Carolina.

  • 202. graychin  |  June 9, 2010 at 4:02 pm

    The only two businesses that I know of that don’t have unlimited liability are nuclear power and offshore oil drilling. Yet people enter businesses with unlimited liability every day.

    It’s called capitalism.

    What do you call privatized profit and socialized risk?

  • 203. Hucking Fypocrites  |  June 9, 2010 at 4:09 pm

    “Are you just super-paranoid or is the academic game in CA just that tough that your political views can really endanger your career?”

    I am willing to admit there may be a certain amount of paranoia involved. But academia in CA has little tolerance for right-leaning opinion being made public.

    Put it this way, I took the measures I took on the advice of more than 1 CA secondary educator.

  • 204. Rutherford  |  June 9, 2010 at 4:13 pm

    What do you call privatized profit and socialized risk?

    LOL Gray, isn’t if tunny how they are selectively socialist? ;-)

    Tex, I don’t dislike Tony Hayward as much as you might think. The “get my life back” was a huge blunder that surely you can admit to.

    As for the other stuff …. sadly his job is not to make nice on the folks in Louisiana. His job is to protect value for his shareholders. Bottom line.

    I should’ve known you’d like Haley Barbour’s dingdong attitude. He abandoned his usual fairly smart approach and played the selfish card. Who gives a damn if Mississippi is doing just dandy? That’s not the point. The point is other states aren’t doing so great. Maybe Haley would like to lend some man power to helping his neighbor states?

    BTW, you don’t believe in climate change and you don’t believe the oil spill is a big deal environmentally. Coincidence? I think not. It is so hard for me to reconcile your attitudes with the fact that you are basically a man of science.

    You, Sir, are a riddle wrapped in a puzzle wrapped in an enigma!

  • 205. Tex Taylor  |  June 9, 2010 at 4:15 pm

    Graychin, I think your understanding of the petroleum industry is shall we say, “elementary.” I think you’re woefully misunderstanding where the book value of petroleum companies resides.

    But assuming you are correct for the moment and your wishes granted, I say good. It will minimize the economic impact of those Louisiana BP employees and government officials who are pissing in their pants this minute. I’ll pass your note along as shareholder. May the employees of BP Louisiana simply switch names during the divesture. However, we tried this game once in the early 80s and it didn’t turn out so well for those divested.

    My suggestion to big oil would be don’t sweat a moratorium on off shore drilling around the coastal U.S.. Let it ride and simply let the reserves sit. Becoming further beholden to the Sauds should provide warm fuzzies for everyone, being that the Mexican oil fields are drying up. I feel reasonably confident that the barrel of crude will be worth more tomorrow than today.

    But isn’t it you that has on occasion been a proponent of putting most of our emphasis on alternative fuels? Well, all I’ve got to say is good luck with that in this economy – venture capital at the moment seems to be a little tight and rare metals are indeed rare. Perhaps government can finance the bulk of it too. We may get that chance to put you and the Yellow Dawg’s theory to the test about the price of petroleum not having a big impact. Strange how we’ve gone to war over that very commodity.

    But if by chance you’re wrong, can we find somebody else to blame this time besides George Bush. It gets so tedious to laugh at the same stupidity over and over and over…

  • 206. Rutherford  |  June 9, 2010 at 4:16 pm

    Well Huck, all I can say is that is down right un-American! What is this country if a man can’t express his viewpoint, even if it is the wrong viewpoint? ;-)

    I say you quit the academic game and become a political blogger! F*ck ‘em!

  • 207. graychin  |  June 9, 2010 at 4:22 pm

    Tex, what DO you call privatized profit and socialized risk?

    If you want BP to divest its American assets, but then say that no one will want to go into the oil business, then who is BP going to sell the assets to?

    I doubt that BP’s board will go for a plan to simply abandon its American assets, even if they have to be responsible for their own liability. There’s still money to be made.

    Have you really thought this through?

    By the way – if you knew anything about the oil business you would know that oil leases expire if they are not developed.

  • 208. graychin  |  June 9, 2010 at 4:24 pm

    I was thinking that maybe Huck should move somewhere besides California, where his views wouldn’t seem so “alien.”

    Kansas?

  • 209. Blackiswhite, Imperial Consigliere  |  June 9, 2010 at 4:29 pm

    And yet I haven’t heard any outrage at the idea of spending taxpayer money to develop “green” jobs and technologies…funny that, especially when the return, dollar for dollar, is markedly less.

  • 210. Tex Taylor  |  June 9, 2010 at 4:34 pm

    As usual Rutherford, you didn’t get the gist of Barbour’s statements. Surprise, surprise.

    Who gives a damn if Mississippi is doing just dandy? That’s not the point. The point is other states aren’t doing so great. Maybe Haley would like to lend some man power to helping his neighbor states?

    How shall I explain where even you might understand it? Hmmm.

    Tar balls on any beach on any Gulf Coast state are a natural phenomenon. Approximately half a million barrels of crude seeps naturally in the Gulf each year. Now I know the environmental nutjobs, anarchists and Chicken Littles of the Left believe Obama government capable of healing continental drift too, but that is for another day. Yes we can!

    The point Barbour made is that this spill has had negligible effect on virtually all beaches along the coast and the media is misconstruing the “catastrophe” as a ratings bonanza. Tourism, a big part of the economy is being destroyed when it need not be. The worst of the bunch is the insufferable Shepard Smith of Na Or lens fame. He runs around each night like a hen without its head. The perception of the public TV and the reality don’t match. Shepard like Racial, has many weaknesses – the lack of critical thought being a biggie.

    See Rutherford, unlike the “living” Constitution you and Double Chin invoke often, the earth is not an inanimate object. :smile: The earth has this really fascinating way of healing itself, without man’s intervention.

    Physics and chemistry are not part of progressive politic; Steven Chu, NOBEL PRIZE WINNER OF STANFORD, had no idea how a blow out preventer and valve worked day before yesterday :roll:; and there are real people who do real jobs on rigs and collection that have forgotten more about E&P than the entire collective of Bongo minions will ever know in thousands of lifetimes. As much as this may surprise you, Rachel Maddow is not an expert at hydrocarbon exploration – in fact, she knows next to nothing. Shocking isn’t it?

  • 211. Tex Taylor  |  June 9, 2010 at 4:49 pm

    By the way – if you knew anything about the oil business you would know that oil leases expire if they are not developed.

    Yes Graychin. On many occasions I’ve witness your wide array of expertise in the petroleum industry. It made for great fodder on a previous board. Good politics – really bad economics. Let’s see. Here’s one example I found from 2009.

    More than 3,400 parcels, encompassing 18.4 million acres in the western Gulf of Mexico, were up for grabs Wednesday. In the end, the auction attracted $115 million in high bids for 162 tracts in an area located offshore Texas.

    How far do you think that $115M will carry the economy genius? Obama can spend less than a day on interest. By all means – have at it. Why stop with BP? I’d run all of the drillers over to Africa. :smile:

    But why should I argue with an expert? Let somebody from Louisiana explain it to you who will be affected besides big, bad oil.

    http://www.nola.com/news/gulf-oil-spill/index.ssf/2010/05/offshore_drilling_ban_would_be.html

  • 212. Blackiswhite, Imperial Consigliere  |  June 9, 2010 at 4:57 pm

    The president and Interior Secretary Ken Salazar’s announcement late last week to halt all deepwater drilling in the Gulf of Mexico “at the first safe stopping point” while the Interior Department figures out what regulatory changes are necessary for offshore oil prospecting seemed designed to reassure the nation that drilling would only proceed in a safe and environmentally sensitive manner.

    Was that a snub to have the President’s title published in lowercase? It must be RACIST!!!!

    Seriously, I wonder if the regulatory changes will include the official adoption of standing around while a spill grows and badmouthing the party trying to fix it as the required federal contingency plan under the 1990 Oil Pollution Act?

  • 213. Tex Taylor  |  June 9, 2010 at 5:03 pm

    Hey Doublechin and Warren “Rutherford” Buffet?

    Being our last jobs report showed that your stimulus plan facilitated by B+ Obama created a whopping jobs total last time made up of 95% census workers, with 41,000 private sector jobs created (that doesn’t even sustain employment necessary for private expansion), I have a few questions for our resident Nobel economic winners and the one scholar of petroleum industry.

    I was just wondering what your suggestions are now for economic recovery in the private sector to expand Obama’s definition of middle class?

    Drilling moratoriums, expiration of the Bush tax cuts, second stimulus plan, higher corporate taxes, increasing FICA allowances for business and individual, higher personal taxes, wage decreases, cash for clunkers, higher premiums for health care on small business, or increased capital gains taxes?

    Anyone else want to bet me you’ll hear the answer “Tax Credits” or “Research Allowances” next? :smile:

  • 214. Tex Taylor  |  June 9, 2010 at 5:13 pm

    Excuse me Mr. Rutherford Buffett – how could I spell your name wrong.

  • 215. Hucking Fypocrites  |  June 9, 2010 at 5:14 pm

    “I was thinking that maybe Huck should move somewhere besides California, where his views wouldn’t seem so “alien.””

    I am not a social conservative. You only know as much about my views as I allow you to know. I pick my battles, and I never show my entire hand.

  • 216. Blackiswhite, Imperial Consigliere  |  June 9, 2010 at 5:26 pm

    I am not a social conservative. You only know as much about my views as I allow you to know. I pick my battles, and I never show my entire hand.

    I had already surmised that.

  • 217. Tex Taylor  |  June 9, 2010 at 5:41 pm

    Huck, you have to remember as worldly as Graychin believes he is, he’s lived a very sheltered life. He’s still living right beside mommy. Where is lives, and you can tak this is on good word because my kin still lives near him, you won’t find a more backwards part of the country.

    Oklahoma is the reddest of the red states, yet there is a small part of Oklahoma near the Arkansas and Texas border that is still stuck in 1963 – it’s overwhelmingly Democratic, poor and destitute. This is what Graychin calls home. And even they didn’t vote for Obama. If there’s a place in America that votes “color”, this is it.

    Graychin believes California is solely progressive, probably not recognizing you move 40 miles off the coast, and California is a pretty conservative environment.

  • 218. Tex Taylor  |  June 9, 2010 at 6:12 pm

    Huck, speaking of California, did you see this? From the state of the Great Ronald Reagan, it does appear that things have taken a swing to the dark side recently.

    Big state, weak candidates.

    In California’s primary races for the state’s two top positions — governor and senator — four cringe-worthy candidates won the party nominations.

    http://pajamasmedia.com/zombie/2010/06/09/dinosaurs-vs-zillionaires/

  • 219. Hucking Fypocrites  |  June 9, 2010 at 8:31 pm

    Tex, that article pretty much nails it.

  • 220. Tex Taylor  |  June 9, 2010 at 8:43 pm

    “I hate to see Helen Thomas go – I consider her the ‘face’ of modern liberal politics…” ~ Dennis Miller
    :lol: :lol: :lol: :lol: :lol: :lol:

  • 221. Tex Taylor  |  June 9, 2010 at 8:45 pm

    “I’ll say one thing in Helen Thomas’ favor – I’m reasonably sure she didn’t sleep her way to the top.” ~ Dennis Miller
    :lol: :lol: :lol: :lol: :lol: :lol:

  • 222. Tex Taylor  |  June 9, 2010 at 9:11 pm

    Want to read objectivity on display from the Left? Ever wondered like I have if being a progressive Dimocrat means your mentally unstable like I do?

    Never minding an avowed atheist Sally Quinn is the WaPo’s “Faith” correspondent, read this smarmy article of “The Gift of the Gores.”

    If you don’t find this revolting and wretching, you’ve got to be a lib.

    http://newsweek.washingtonpost.com/onfaith/panelists/sally_quinn/2010/06/the_gift_of_the_gores.html?hpid=talkbox1

  • 223. an800lbgorilla  |  June 9, 2010 at 11:38 pm

    Really R, let us consider.

    Palin endorsed:
    ~~ Haley (SC Gov)
    ~~ Whitman (CA Gov)
    ~~ Florina (CA Sen)
    ~~ Angle (NV Sen)
    ~~ Martinez (NM Gov)
    ~~ Paul (KY Sen)

  • 224. an800lbgorilla  |  June 9, 2010 at 11:39 pm

    Success of Sarah Palin picks shows lasting power of former contender

    http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/news/world/world_agenda/article7146741.ece

  • 225. an800lbgorilla  |  June 9, 2010 at 11:51 pm

    Its good to see libs sticking together. Obama wishes that extended a little higher, namely to him right now, but your covering for Chin is admmirable if not delusional.

    We were discussing race. We were discussing unquestioning faith in Obama, a faith that would appear to be based solely on the color of his skin considering the FACT that under Obama’s tenure, the quality of life for the average black person is going backwards.

    Chin said:

    Blacks support white Democrats in the same proportions in which they voted for Obama – well over 90%. How can you assume that their equal support of a black Democrat must be due to black racism?

    Now, considering the context of the discussion, no, I wasn’t dreaming. I still expect Chin to back up his comment in the context of the conversation. If he refuses to do that, then this is once again some tangential strawman put out by him distracting from the overall point of the conversation, that point being that blacks are supporting Obama because he’s black, not because he’s a dem.

  • 226. Rutherford  |  June 9, 2010 at 11:54 pm

    If you don’t find this revolting and wretching, you’ve got to be a lib.

    Sorry to disappoint you Tex but I’m a lib and I found Quinn’s column a pile of horse manure. I’m supposed to grieve for Tipper because she had to deal with a depressed Al Gore post-2000 election? Bullsheeeet. That is what marriage is about, helping each other through tough times.

    I’m sorry but where I sit, couples divorce after 40 years for one of only two reasons: 1) Genitals were in places they should not have been or 2) somebody finally got tired of getting hit upside the head.

    Any other excuse signals to me two very selfish and superficial people. I get splitting up after a few years, especially with young folks who don’t really know what they’re doing. But after 40 years? Divorce at that point is just plain stupid.

  • 227. Rutherford  |  June 10, 2010 at 12:01 am

    LOL … Gorilla, I still think you’re missing something. By your own estimation, blacks continue to support Democratic candidates despite the fact that liberalism as a whole has let the black community down (your assessment if I’m not mistaken). So their “blind” following of Obama despite his doing them no good can be just as much a result of his being a Democrat as of his being black.

    But more to the point, you accused Gray of saying that 90% of blacks would choose a white Democrat over a black one …. and he NEVER said that. He said they would choose a Democrat, white or black, over a Republican.

  • 229. Rutherford  |  June 10, 2010 at 12:05 am

    BTW, side note …. I need to pop over to Curator’s blog and see what he’s been up to. We haven’t seen him in weeks. I’m beginning to think this blog has a 1 liberal at a time quota not including the blog owner. Gray steps in, and Sensico and Curator step out.

    Hippie Prof has started blogging again. He’s tackling Helen Thomas and Israel, Brave man indeed! :-)

  • 230. an800lbgorilla  |  June 10, 2010 at 12:16 am

    Oooooooooooo, this doesn’t look good at all. Please, one of you knuckleheads explain this to us…

    Steffy: U.S. and BP slow to accept Dutch expertise

    Three days after the explosion of the Deepwater Horizon in the Gulf of Mexico, the Dutch government offered to help.

    It was willing to provide ships outfitted with oil-skimming booms, and it proposed a plan for building sand barriers to protect sensitive marshlands.

    The response from the Obama administration and BP, which are coordinating the cleanup: “The embassy got a nice letter from the administration that said, ‘Thanks, but no thanks,’” said Geert Visser, consul general for the Netherlands in Houston.
    http://www.chron.com/disp/story.mpl/business/steffy/7043272.html

  • 231. an800lbgorilla  |  June 10, 2010 at 12:28 am

    Here is a great example of what the fed COULD have done vis a vis the oil spill in the gulf, rather than just lay blame on others.

    Federal law has also hampered the assistance. The Jones Act, the maritime law that requires all goods be carried in U.S. waters by U.S.-flagged ships, has prevented Dutch ships with spill-fighting equipment from entering U.S. coastal areas.

    Now, I think we could have easily gotten bypartisan support to, at the very least, temporarily suspend the law so that the Dutch ships could have come in and help with the oil spill.

    I guess Obama was a little too focused on keeping the boot on the neck of one of his greater political supporters:

    Once a government pet, BP now a capitalist tool

    As BP’s Deepwater Horizon oil rig was sinking on April 22, Sen. John Kerry, D-Mass., was on the phone with allies in his push for climate legislation, telling them he would soon roll out the Senate climate bill with the support of the utility industry and three oil companies — including BP, according to the Washington Post.

    Kerry never got to have his photo op with BP chief executive Tony Hayward and other regulation-friendly corporate chieftains. Within days, Republican co-sponsor Lindsey Graham, R-S.C., repudiated the bill following a spat about immigration, and Democrats went back to the drawing board.

    But the Kerry-BP alliance for an energy bill that included a cap-and-trade scheme for greenhouse gases pokes a hole in a favorite claim of President Obama and his allies in the media — that BP’s lobbyists have fought fiercely to be left alone. Lobbying records show that BP is no free-market crusader, but instead a close friend of big government whenever it serves the company’s bottom line.

    While BP has resisted some government interventions, it has lobbied for tax hikes, greenhouse gas restraints, the stimulus bill, the Wall Street bailout, and subsidies for oil pipelines, solar panels, natural gas and biofuels.

    Read more at the Washington Examiner: http://www.washingtonexaminer.com/politics/Once-a-government-pet-BP-now-a-capitalist-tool-95942659.html#ixzz0qQAD8srv

  • 232. an800lbgorilla  |  June 10, 2010 at 12:37 am

    This might be a first for you R, a conservative assessment of what he said in light of what we were discussing.

    Doesn’t change my opinion, he’s still a fraud.

  • 233. Tex Taylor  |  June 10, 2010 at 12:50 am

    Hippie Prof may make the attempt to be nice guy, but he is equally as disingenuous and intellectually dishonest a propagandist as Graychin.

    I broke my promise tonight not to visit Hippie’s blog again out of curiosity. To give one brief example of HIppie’s intellectual dishonesty, to read his article one would think Thomas just slipped in a moment of intellectual fog. She didn’t deserve to go out this way. Hippie apparently believes that it is only recently that Thomas has made disparaging remarks of Israeli Jews and that she an objective Washington reporter.

    For at least forty years, Thomas has made one anti-Semitic remark after another about Israel. This is no recent phenomenon. Either Hippie is lying, or his knowledge of this gawd awful woman completely superficial.

    Last week the taped episode happened to be so vile, even the Jew haters couldn’t hide her. Pull the mask off of liberalism, and you would Thomas’ beliefs a common sickness.

    My first memory of Thomas was during Watergate. She was biased then and she’s still biased now.

    Good riddance…

  • 234. an800lbgorilla  |  June 10, 2010 at 1:04 am

    Ahhhhh, oops….

    It’s not mentioned much now, but in the late summer of 2008, a major hurricane, Gustav, was in the Gulf of Mexico and headed toward New Orleans, threatening a replay of the disastrous Katrina experience. On September 1, 2008, Barack Obama, fresh from his Roman-colonnade speech on the final night of the Democratic convention in Denver, talked to CNN’s Anderson Cooper about Gustav and the Gulf. The question: As president, could he handle an emergency like that? Obama pointed to the size of his campaign and its multi-million dollar budget as evidence of his executive abilities. “Our ability to manage large systems and to execute, I think, has been made clear over the last couple of years,” Obama said. That executive ability, he added, “indicates the degree to which we can provide the kinds of support and good service that the American people expect.”
    http://www.theatlantic.com/politics/archive/2010/06/things-obama-probably-wishes-he-hadnt-said/57752/

  • 235. an800lbgorilla  |  June 10, 2010 at 1:08 am

    An extremely important article that all- regardless of political persuasion- should read.

    Jobs report a nightmare for Obama progressivism
    http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2010/06/09/AR2010060904786.html

  • 236. an800lbgorilla  |  June 10, 2010 at 3:12 am

    In case you hadn’t seen this…

    Cited: ‘Prima facie’ evidence of White House violations
    Congressman: Administration details of Sestak-Romanoff confirm illegal activity

    http://www.wnd.com/index.php?fa=PAGE.view&pageId=164665

  • 237. Rutherford  |  June 10, 2010 at 9:44 am

    Gorilla, regarding our rejection of Dutch assistance, you’ll get no argument from me. Why you single out Obama for this I’m not quite sure but I agree that he could show some leadership to change the situation.

    My gut feel is we have a stupid proud tradition of not asking for help from other nations when we need it. This is all caught up in our obsession with being a super-power. We are no longer a super-power and we need to face it. We have enough issues on our plate to make us pretty damn mortal and average. There are countries who can help us. We need to accept the help.

    One thing that came to my attention weeks ago, was that none of the deep sea submersibles in the world are owned by the USA. So if we wanted to send a sub down to the bottom to get a good look at things we couldn’t. So do we ask any of the countries who have deep sea subs to help us? No.

    For such a Christian country, one might wonder why we always forget “pride goeth before the fall” (Proverbs 16: 18-19) :-)

  • 238. Rutherford  |  June 10, 2010 at 9:49 am

    Gorilla, do you miss Elric so much that you need to start quoting WorldNetDaily? Good heavens!

  • 239. graychin  |  June 10, 2010 at 10:01 am

    …you accused Gray of saying that 90% of blacks would choose a white Democrat over a black one …. and he NEVER said that.

    Yes, I never said that. And I WOULDN’T have said that – because I don’t believe it and never did. I do think that blacks are happy to vote for whites (or blacks) who represent their interests. That’s almost always a Democrat, and rarely a Republican. In 2010, it’s rarer than ever for Republicans to attract black voters. And getting rarer all the time.

    If “a majority of blacks hate whitey,” as someone around here actually believes, that would change the whole dynamic. A white person would rarely get many black votes.

    Blacks voting black is a myth. Blacks voting white is a myth. Blacks “hating whitey” is a myth. But blacks voting Democratic, regardless of the candidate’s race? That’s a fact!

    Clear enough for you, Ape?

  • 240. graychin  |  June 10, 2010 at 10:04 am

    Ape, I wouldn’t stick my neck out on a story broken by the Wing Nut Daily if I were you. They have been known to make sh*t up.

    Often.

  • 241. Rutherford  |  June 10, 2010 at 10:12 am

    This link is for everyone but for BiW in particular. David Souter gave the commencement address at my alma mater two weeks ago. If I read this article correctly, he supports my claim that the Constitution is a living breathing document … not something carved in stone 220 years ago offering easy objective resolution to all our legal questions.

    http://www.slate.com/id/2256458/pagenum/all/#p2

  • 242. Rutherford  |  June 10, 2010 at 10:27 am

    Great article about my “hero” Blago and how he is trying to pull Obama into his mess. Politics, the Chicago way. Gotta love it!

    http://www.slate.com/id/2256494/pagenum/all/#p2

  • 243. Rutherford  |  June 10, 2010 at 10:29 am

    LOL, Gray, WND was one of Elric’s favorite sources. I will say this for Gorilla, he hasn’t lowered himself to quote from JihadWatch yet. :lol:

  • 244. graychin  |  June 10, 2010 at 11:51 am

    Rutherford –

    Blago and Obama are both from Chicago! And they’re both DEMOCRATS!

    How much more freaking evidence do you NEED to prove that Obama is just as guilty as Blago? :D

  • 245. graychin  |  June 10, 2010 at 12:01 pm

    That’s a good, thoughtful article about Souter’s address and the issues he raises.

    Some will only see the name “Souter” and dismiss him as a hopeless liberal. Too bad for them.

    You mean that judging is HARD? That the Constitution isn’t always clear? That the illiterate moron with teabags hanging from her hat might not understand the real meaning of the Tenth Amendment? That’s all pretty hard to swallow if you’re of a certain frame of mind – and a regular reader of Wing Nut Daily.

    What Souter asked Americans to do in his Harvard speech is to live with ambiguity. To, in his words, acknowledge that there is a “basic human hunger for the certainty and control that the fair-reading model seems to promise,” while recognizing, in Justice Oliver Wendell Holmes’ formulation, that “certainty generally is illusion and repose is not our destiny.” He is telling us to stop dreaming of oracular judges with perfect answers to simple constitutional questions. He is telling us, in other words, to grow up.

    You mean that the certainty and control that I seek may not be possible? That I have to live with ambiguity?

    If I’m a biblical literalist and a “conservative” ideologue, talk like that is likely to make my head explode.

    Antonin? Antonin? We need you! They’re attacking Originalism!

  • 246. graychin  |  June 10, 2010 at 1:06 pm

    Interesting factoid from Tuesday’s primary elections:

    Out of 84 incumbents running in primaries, 82 of them won.

    Bob Inglis (R-SC) was forced into a runoff, and will probably lose his congressional seat. Very strange political doings in SC.

    But the Biggest Loser has to be Gov. Jim Gibbons (R-NV). Accusations of plagiarism, employing an illegal immigrant housekeeper/nanny, undeclared campaign donations, interfering with an ongoing investigation, sexual assault and bribery might have had something to to with his loss. Maybe the fact that he is an incumbent was a factor too, but it doesn’t seem like it.

    Would someone please tell me more about that “anti-incumbent fever” that is sweeping the nation?

  • 247. Hucking Fypocrites  |  June 10, 2010 at 1:14 pm

    How about if Rutherford and Graychin point out the inaccuracies in Gorilla’s WND article?

  • 248. Tex Taylor  |  June 10, 2010 at 1:31 pm

    Huck,

    How about if Rutherford and Graychin point out the inaccuracies in Gorilla’s WND article?

    They can’t and they won’t. If you can’t attack the message, attack the messenger. Most common liberal ploy.

    You’ll note neither of them have any problem dictating PuffHO, KKKos, or any George Soros funded hound complete and researched fact, though each as has been caught in so many fabrications of truth to be laughed at.

    And I’m not sure why Rutherford would find it so terribly interesting and surprising that Souter would find the “Constitution” a living, breathing document subject to change to fit the flavor of the day. This is some huge shock?

    Three other activist SCOTUS judges would be in complete agreement with Souter – hence the legal battle that has ensued at least since 1948 when Hugo Black ran the “wall of separation” up the flagpole to test the progressive winds.

  • 249. graychin  |  June 10, 2010 at 1:49 pm

    How about if Rutherford and Graychin point out the inaccuracies in Gorilla’s WND article?

    It’s not so much that the article is inaccurate. It’s that it’s ridiculous. The inflammatory headline merely refers to the opinion of Rep. Darrell Issa. The story doesn’t contain any actual news. This is a fairly standard tactic for the Wing Nut Daily.

    And not even WND thinks that the Ape’s story is particularly important. It’s biggest headline right now is Hawaii elections clerk: Obama not born here.

    Followed by Michael Savage: Obama may be foreign ‘usurper’

    And then by Is Obama constitutionally eligible to serve?

    And then by New strategy unveiled to force Obama on eligibility

    And then by Obama’s real ID: Undocumented worker

    You can’t find a left-leaning “news” source as batshit crazy as the Wing Nut Daily. Not even close. WND makes even Tex’s Pajamas Media seem respectable.

  • 250. Hucking Fypocrites  |  June 10, 2010 at 2:21 pm

    “White House Chief of Staff Rahm Emanuel and one of his top aides, Jim Messina, have been referred to the government’s Office of Special Counsel for an investigation into whether they violated the Hatch Act by offering administration jobs to two political candidates in exchange for dropping out of their races.”

    That’s news to me.

    Seems to be news to a lot of people.

  • 251. graychin  |  June 10, 2010 at 2:49 pm

    Why does the story use the passive voice “have been referred”? The person doing the referring was (you guessed it) our old friend Darrell Issa!

    Nutty press releases from deranged partisans like Issa announcing what Issa just did are not headline-grabbers to reputable news organizations. But they are what WND does.

    WND isn’t as good as inaccurate. It’s hearsay. :D

  • 252. Hucking Fypocrites  |  June 10, 2010 at 3:04 pm

    “Why does the story use the passive voice “have been referred”? The person doing the referring was (you guessed it) our old friend Darrell Issa!”

    That might be why the next paragraph says…

    “Rep. Darrell Issa, R-Calif., the ranking member of the House Oversight Committee, wrote in letters to William Reukauf, the acting U.S. special counsel, that the statements by the White House and the two candidates involved – Rep. Joe Sestak, D-Pa., and former Colorado House Speaker Andrew Romanoff – are “prima facie” evidence of violations.”

    What exactly is the problem?

    Take a good look at the list generated by my Google search. Please point out the source covering this piece of news that you would find reputable.

    Does that mean this story is a lie? Did Issa NOT refer Emanuel and Messina to the OSC? Why is this going ignored? (Of course, that is a rhetorical question, but you are free to give us your spin.)

  • 253. Hucking Fypocrites  |  June 10, 2010 at 3:06 pm

    “WND isn’t as good as inaccurate. It’s hearsay”

    OMG!!!! You mean they take what people actually say and report on it? The fucking horror!!!!

    And here I thought they just made shit up.

  • 254. Hucking Fypocrites  |  June 10, 2010 at 3:12 pm

    And for the record, I am well aware of the reputation of WND, and I don’t neccessarilly disagree. I am defending them right now because neither Rutherford nor Graychin have sufficiently given a reason why this particular piece of news from them should be discounted.

  • 255. graychin  |  June 10, 2010 at 3:13 pm

    “And here I thought they just made shit up.”

    They do that too.

    Let’s just get back to basics. All that I said to begin with was this:

    Ape, I wouldn’t stick my neck out on a story broken by the Wing Nut Daily if I were you. They have been known to make sh*t up.

    Often.

    WND has broken the story about the shocking fact that DARRELL ISSA

  • 256. graychin  |  June 10, 2010 at 3:18 pm

    “And here I thought they just made shit up.”

    They do that too.

    Let’s just get back to basics. All that I said to begin with was this:

    Ape, I wouldn’t stick my neck out on a story broken by the Wing Nut Daily if I were you. They have been known to make sh*t up.

    Often.

    WND has broken the story about the shocking fact that DARRELL ISSA thinks Rahm did something wrong. I told Ape to be careful about running with it.

    I still think that was good advice.

    Speaking of horribly biased news sources, did you see what Chris Wallace said today about his own network? Fox News getting Helen Thomas’ front row seat in the White House press room would be “payment for Helen Thomas,” because “obviously, she was very far to the left wing. If her seat were to be taken by Fox News, it would just be kind of poetic justice.”

    Odd – I thought that Faux was “fair and balanced.” Or is that just an inside joke?

  • 257. Rutherford  |  June 10, 2010 at 3:18 pm

    Well Huck … here’s the problem. Darrel Issa has had this bug up his ass for a few weeks now, so the idea that he wrote a letter to the special counsel really isn’t all that big a shocker. It also doesn’t really advance the story all that much either.

    “Darrell Issa writes letter to special counsel saying that Martians are holed up in the White House basement.”

    Yeah, if Darrell did that, and WND reported it, it would be accurate but not really news … it would be silly.

    You know what will be news?

    “Special counsel recommends investigation into violation of Hatch Act”.

    THAT would be news! At this point all we can surmise is the special counsel is laughing his ass off wishing Issa wouldn’t waste his time. ;-)

  • 258. graychin  |  June 10, 2010 at 3:45 pm

    Rutherford, well said. But let’s do that headline WND-Style: :D

    Report: Martians are holed up in the White House basement!

  • 259. Tex Taylor  |  June 10, 2010 at 4:28 pm

    You can’t find a left-leaning “news” source as batshit crazy as the Wing Nut Daily. Not even close. WND makes even Tex’s Pajamas Media seem respectable.

    I guess our worldly resident from Eucha, OK, hasn’t noted that Pajamas Media, the information resource that has now exposed numerous “progressive” lies, including Dan Rather and Mary Mapes and several of Bongo’s more questionable czars (if there is one that isn’t questionable), has several authors that also pen for WSJ.

    Graychin ask for one failing Leftist rag that is as “batshit crazy” was World Net Daily. A much easier question to answer is to name one more Leftist rag that isn’t bat shit crazy, full of lies, and propaganda. Virtually all print media from the Left are losing circulation by leaps and bounds. Any poorly read bohunk would know this if they didn’t suffer from a chronic case of BDS.

    Off the top of my head, as close as I can come is the Washington Post – and it’s got an avowed atheistic adulteress penning their “faith” commentary. That speaks volumes in and of itself. :roll:

  • 260. Tex Taylor  |  June 10, 2010 at 4:33 pm

    Speaking of bat shit crazy, I asked some very legitimate questions when Doublechin was showing his ignorance about the petroleum industry in #213 and never received an answer.

    You’ll note with respect the the economy, private sector jobs, taxes, and the grandiose Obama plan of stimulus, the Left becomes strangely silent in their defense and constant barrage of criticism.

    I would say that I get about one in five of my questions addressed anymore. But remember, it is the right who dodges questions. :wink:

  • 261. Tex Taylor  |  June 10, 2010 at 4:47 pm

    I’m wondering if by Nov 2012, there will be any private taxpayer working that Obama has not stepped on or offended? :smile:

    Getting religion about cutting the deficit. And for once, Obama won’t be hitting me up more. Thank God for the 15 year loan. :smile:

    http://thehill.com/homenews/administration/101883-axe-may-fall-on-tax-break-for-mortgages

  • 262. graychin  |  June 10, 2010 at 4:49 pm

    You can’t find a left-leaning “news” source as batshit crazy as the Wing Nut Daily.

    And you didn’t. Nice try at a dodge, though.

    Were there “questions” in 213? Looking back, I see ONE question asking our opinion about how to stimulate the economy – which seemed more rhetorical than serious, sandwiched as it was in the middle of your smart-assed nonsense.

    No suggestions here – other than to listen to what Republicans want and do the opposite. We already know that their ideas don’t work. That’s how we got in this hole. Remember?

    (Actually, Tex, I skim over most of your posts. They are long on dismissive mockery and ideological ranting, and short on insight or facts. At least the Ape is funny.)

  • 263. graychin  |  June 10, 2010 at 4:52 pm

    Five years ago, a bipartisan tax reform commission created by President George W. Bush proposed ending the mortgage tax break.

    It’s been talked about for years. It won’t happen.

    But it’s a bipartisan idea. Why are you blaming Obama?

    Never mind. I think I know.

  • 264. Tex Taylor  |  June 10, 2010 at 5:03 pm

    Uh huh Graychin, speaking of another exceptionally poor example of dodging. It’s like your feet are stuck in the shit of Grand Lake.

    I was pointing out your party’s failures in “stimulating” the economy – which you have no answer for again. What you call rhetoric was fact – a litany of failures was listed. You must have skimmed that part too. The fact that you’re not intelligent enough to note of that is none of my concern.

    That’s how we got in this hole. Remember?

    No Barney Frank and a Democratic Congress since Nov 2006, I don’t remember it that way. In fact, the financial industry is notably in the pocket of the Dimocrats, or have you not learned that fact? AIG, Lehman, Fannie, Freddie, GE just to name a few.

    So I have two other questions for you and I’ll keep this brief as difficult questions lull you back to the fraidy hole of thought.

    Why has no Indian-American liberal risen as high in the Democratic ranks as Jindal and Haley have done in the GOP?

    Aren’t you the “big tent” party?

    Do you call 800lbs. Gorilla ‘Ape’ because you find him funny? I call you everything but Michael Graychin on account of I find you a complete bore with repetitious lib speak for humor. Or do you have your tin foil hat on too tight? Hardy har har….hey Dawg, good one.

  • 265. Tex Taylor  |  June 10, 2010 at 5:14 pm

    More love shown by the party of Zion Haters tolerance:

    Rabbi Who Taped Helen Thomas Is Inundated With Hate Mail and Death Threats

    http://saberpoint.blogspot.com/2010/06/rabbi-who-taped-helen-thomas-is.html

    This is getting too easy…

  • 266. Tex Taylor  |  June 10, 2010 at 5:18 pm

    B+ Obama falls headfirst into the hypocrisy trap

    Obama says he’s sick and tired of the Washington blame game, but still can’t resist doling out piles of blame himself.

    His compulsive, reflexive finger-pointing at Republicans, George W. Bush and vague villains on the right is not only unbecoming, it also reinforces the gathering public verdict that Obama is a weakling.

    Victims do not make good leaders.

    http://www.washingtonexaminer.com/politics/Obama-falls-head-first-into-the-hypocrisy-trap-95980699.html

    Way too easy…

  • 267. graychin  |  June 10, 2010 at 5:28 pm

    I’m trying to think of some Indian-American liberals in politics. I guess I can’t answer your question, because I can’t think of any. If we Democrats are keeping our jackboots on the necks of our Indian-American candidates, I’m not aware of it. Do you have any examples?

    I hope that Haley becomes a big Republican star just like Jindal has.

    I call him Ape because it’s only three letters to type. Why – do you think it’s less dignified than “gorilla”?

    I’m trying to think of a nickname for Rutherford, but a good one hasn’t come to mind yet. RL is the best one so far, but simple initials are kind of boring.

  • 268. Tex Taylor  |  June 10, 2010 at 5:37 pm

    I call him Ape because it’s only three letters to type. Why – do you think it’s less dignified than “gorilla”?

    That’s why I call you Jim – it’s shorter and more dignified than Graychin. :roll:

  • 269. Tex Taylor  |  June 10, 2010 at 5:54 pm

    Here’s an issue to continues to fly under the radar, being leftist papers and periodicals are on their way of the horse and carriage. Too bad…

    74% Oppose Taxing Internet News Sites To Help Newspapers

    I got a better idea for lefty newspapers like the T-World, whose circulation has dropped dramatically due to try to publish libbie trash in a Conservative town.

    They’ve never seen a tax hike they don’t approve, so my suggestion would be to slap a 10% surcharge on each paper – being a good environmentalists and global warming advocates, I would think they could lead by example.

    We can expedite the process of moving them to the shit can of history.

  • 270. graychin  |  June 10, 2010 at 6:07 pm

    I never complained about your silly nicknames, Tex. Nicknames are YOUR problem.

  • 271. an800lbgorilla  |  June 10, 2010 at 8:23 pm

    Yes, I never said that. And I WOULDN’T have said that – because I don’t believe it and never did. I do think that blacks are happy to vote for whites (or blacks) who represent their interests. That’s almost always a Democrat, and rarely a Republican. In 2010, it’s rarer than ever for Republicans to attract black voters. And getting rarer all the time.

    If “a majority of blacks hate whitey,” as someone around here actually believes, that would change the whole dynamic. A white person would rarely get many black votes.

    Blacks voting black is a myth. Blacks voting white is a myth. Blacks “hating whitey” is a myth. But blacks voting Democratic, regardless of the candidate’s race? That’s a fact!

    Clear enough for you, Ape?“– Chin

    Let’s investigate this a bit, explain to me how the dems have ever had the black communities interests at heart? Show us where the dems have improved the lives of blacks.

  • 272. Hucking Fypocrites  |  June 10, 2010 at 9:53 pm

    Yeah, Darrell Issa has had a bug up his ass because the law has been broken and the only defense being given is that it is the status quo. That puts a bug up my ass, too. It even puts a bug up Rutherford’s ass when his guts are churning and he is being honest with himself.

    Regarding the WND piece, you guys still haven’t sufficiently laid out why that particular article should be discounted, other than that you don’t feel it covers a newsworthy issue.

    Being as the issue being reported is a call to investigate whether or not this administration has violated the law—an investigation that you 2 have already stated you don’t support—I guess I can understand why you would want to sweep this whole thing under the rug and forget about it.

    But that’s not going to happen.

  • 273. Blackiswhite, Imperial Consigliere  |  June 10, 2010 at 10:28 pm

    Show us where the dems have improved the lives of blacks.

    They instituted welfare programs that broke up the family and created a vicious cycle of dependency while telling their victims how much they cared.

  • 274. Hucking Fypocrites  |  June 10, 2010 at 11:11 pm

    Sometimes the campaign commercials just write themselves….

    On a party-line vote, the Senate Judiciary Committee has approved President Obama’s promotion of a federal judge who tried to block the execution of a serial killer and rapist known as the Roadside Strangler based on the unbelievable ground that this serial killer’s “sexual sadism” was a mitigating factor. The judge did so even though this serial killer admitted his sentence was appropriate and did not seek to challenge it. Obama nominated this judge to serve on a federal appeals court known as the 2nd Circuit.

    “The Senate Judiciary Committee approved the nomination of Judge Robert Chatigny to the 2nd U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals Thursday on a largely party-line vote despite stiff GOP opposition over his handling of child pornography and rape cases as a district court judge. With Sen. Dianne Feinstein (Calif.) abstaining on the vote, the committee’s other 11 Democrats approved the nomination Thursday morning, while the committee’s entire seven-member contingent of Republicans voted ‘no.’ In a series of cases involving defendants found guilty of child pornography, rape and sexual assault cases, Chatigny used the process of downward departure to reduce their sentences….

  • 275. Tex Taylor  |  June 10, 2010 at 11:32 pm

    BIC,

    I predict our Leftists here will not accept or engage your rational argumentation that disputes their dogma. Instead, they will either try to redirect whatever issue is at hand, or they will simply go mute and wait for the smarter conservative guy to leave the room for a period of time until forgotten.
    :smile:

  • 276. graychin  |  June 10, 2010 at 11:59 pm

    Show us where the dems have improved the lives of blacks.

    Not my job. I’m happy to let blacks decide for themselves which candidates to vote for. They know better than I do. They know better than you do, too.

    What – don’t you think they’re smart enough to know who to vote for?

  • 277. Tex Taylor  |  June 11, 2010 at 12:08 am

    BIC,

    I was prophetic. :smile:

  • 278. graychin  |  June 11, 2010 at 12:10 am

    Sometimes the campaign commercials just write themselves…

    They’re already written. Just dig out the scripts for the old Willie Horton ads.

    This kind of stuff makes great raw meat to throw out for bloodthirsty morons who salivate over executions, even when the person being executed is a child, someone with an IQ below 80, or a raving lunatic.

    Thanks for the heads-up on what kind of campaign the “Party of Ideas” will be conducting this year.

  • 279. graychin  |  June 11, 2010 at 12:13 am

    Regarding the WND piece, you guys still haven’t sufficiently laid out why that particular article should be discounted…

    Rutherford said it very well. Quoting Darrel Issa in no way advances the story. Nothing new happened. The story is empty. Everyone already knows what Darrell Issa thinks.

    Except WND readers who, like the ducks, wake up in a new world every day. Ape thought the story was so significant that he saw fit to call it to our attention this morning. What did you find new in the story, Ape?

  • 280. Rutherford  |  June 11, 2010 at 12:20 am

    I’m trying to think of a nickname for Rutherford, but a good one hasn’t come to mind yet. RL is the best one so far, but simple initials are kind of boring.

    As you might have noticed lots call me “R”. When I first “met” Tex on another blog (the famous ChenZhen’s Chamber), he called me Rutherturd, among other things. :-D

    (He also wished me dead in one comment …. those were the good old days! Right Tex? :lol: )

  • 281. Rutherford  |  June 11, 2010 at 12:23 am

    Oh, speaking of nicknames, it hasn’t escaped me that most folks call BlackIsWhiteImperialConsigliere, BIC but I’ve always favored just taking his “first name” and abbreviating it BiW (for Black is White). :-)

  • 282. graychin  |  June 11, 2010 at 12:24 am

    Tex, would you please direct me to the “rational argumentation” from BIC to which you referred?

    All that I see is an unsupported and silly assertion of “conservative” dogma at #273. Where is the reason? Where is the argumentation?

  • 283. graychin  |  June 11, 2010 at 12:30 am

    Tex loves making up his belittling nicknames, doesn’t he?

    It’s another thing that he has in common with George W. Bush. Sort of a fratboy thing, I think.

  • 284. graychin  |  June 11, 2010 at 12:32 am

    Rutherford, I’m going to start referring to you as RL.

    So it’s RL, Huck, Ape, BIC, and Tex.

    Have I covered all the regulars?

  • 285. Rutherford  |  June 11, 2010 at 12:34 am

    You know Gray, one thing I like about having you around is that you manage to come up with some profound sh*t.

    How’s this for irony, or perhaps just hypocrisy? Conservatives like Tex, BiW, and G say that liberals have not given blacks what is ultimately good for them. But that implies that conservatives know what is good for blacks. How do they not see that this makes them at least as condescending as the liberals they accuse of condescension?

    You are ultimately right. It is for the black community to decide what it needs and make those needs known at the ballot box. If the GOP really knew what ailed the black community and how to fix it, they’d do a better job of getting the black vote.

    Perhaps the liberal promise is empty? Certainly the GOP promise is no better.

  • 286. Rutherford  |  June 11, 2010 at 12:36 am

    Regarding 284 you left out Alfie but I have never seen him referred to as Alf :LOL:

  • 287. Tex Taylor  |  June 11, 2010 at 12:48 am

    Certainly the GOP promise is no better.

    I wonder how they would know?

    You know Gray, one thing I like about having you around is that you manage to come up with some profound sh*t.
    :lol: :lol: :lol:

    Ever the proverbial blind squirrel, Rutherford comes up with a ‘profound’ classic.

    Profound ” s h i t ” is exactly what I think of when I think of Jim. :lol:

  • 288. dead rabbit  |  June 11, 2010 at 1:02 am

    Black people, en masse, do all kinds of irrational dumb shit. As a group, they are like rebellious junior high kids who “act out”. This defiance gives black people the illusion of enpoweremnt in a society that has historically made them second class citizens.

    OJ was deemed innocent, remember.

    Marion Berry gets reelected after getting caught smoking crack with a whore, Mayor Kwame gets reelected despite flagrantly ripping the city off and I can’t go to a movie theater within a 5 mile radius of a black neighborhood.

    You mix in the promise of entitlements that forgo any future for food stamps that will be exchanged for 40s to be quaffed on the stoop for brunch, and badda bing! Welcome to my world.

  • 289. graychin  |  June 11, 2010 at 1:11 am

    White people don’t do dumb shit en masse?

    White people re-elected Richard Nixon and George W. Bush. And neither of those men got very many black votes. :D

    Rabbit, if I didn’t know you better I would say that #288 was the most overtly racist thing I’ve read in quite a while. You just called a whole race of people stupid, criminal, and lazy to the point that they would rather sit on the stoop and drink than do anything useful. You oughta be ashamed.

    Your world sucks. Don’t you know that?

  • 290. dead rabbit  |  June 11, 2010 at 1:24 am

    Isn’t it great? The internet. I can say exactly what I believe to be true.

    What do I have to be ashamed of?

    I don’t care if I come off as racist.

    That’s how I see things.

    Perhaps one day we can swap stories. Your life on the Lilly white lake, and my life on the border of Detroit.

    What do you want me to do? Lie?

  • 291. an800lbgorilla  |  June 11, 2010 at 1:38 am

    If the GOP really knew what ailed the black community and how to fix it, they’d do a better job of getting the black vote.” — R

    Well, since we look to helping AMERICANS as opposed to any particular race or group, I guess we’ll never be successful in bartering for the race vote.

    But you’re right R, the black community is by far the best at deciding what is best for them, so the 75% single parent households, an incarceration rate going through the roof and the collapse of inner city black communities- which are overwhelmingly ran by dems- say a lot about the choices they’ve made thus far.

  • 292. Tex Taylor  |  June 11, 2010 at 1:40 am

    Bull Connor preaching about racism. :lol:

    But Rabbit, Bull knows far more about blacks than you do. He thought so much of them, he moved to a city where there are none. :razz:

    Rutherford, is this some more profound shit?

  • 293. an800lbgorilla  |  June 11, 2010 at 1:42 am

    “Perhaps the liberal promise is empty? Certainly the GOP promise is no better.” — R

    I missed this earlier. So, if blacks vote 90% of the time with dems and the left, then how can you make the assertion that the GOP’s position is no better?

    According to you, they’ve never tried it.

  • 294. dead rabbit  |  June 11, 2010 at 1:47 am

    By the way, I think any group eventually becomes debased when they are marginalized on some urban reservation, their family structure destroyed as fatherhood is intentionally blotted out by the teat of an uncaring government with shiny trinkets.

    If I had the money I would fly you out and show you the damage of your government programs.

    Black culture is diseased in my parts. Diseased.

    Do you know I saw the city light up orange every year for my entire childhood as Devil’s Night arsonists in the thousands burned their own neighborhoods? 300, 400, 600 fires in one night!

    Have you ever see a Detroit City Council meeting? Do you have any idea of the depravity that goes on right in front of the cameras year in and year out?

    Do you realize the war that is being fought by child soldiers just 300 yards from my childhood home? Did these children gun one another down post President Johnson, despite even worse poverty?

    Do you understand the level of corruption in a place like Detroit?

    You would probably weep on just the short tour I could give you.

    I don’t throw the word around much. But, your liberal policies are the closest thing to genocide since slavery and the trail of tears.

    But…I bet you think I’m exaggerating.

    Come to my world, my post-apocalyptic nightmare that is now slowly churning the suburbs, rotting even them in a bowels of acidic liberal policy.

    You are right…white people can go down the same road.

    You can call me racist all you want.

    Just don’t think for one moment I close my eyes to the reality that my fellow Americans are enduring, some who I love like my own brother.

    Racist. I can live with that.

    Apathetic, I can not.

  • 295. an800lbgorilla  |  June 11, 2010 at 1:49 am

    Obama falls headfirst into the hypocrisy trap

    President Obama is caught in the wickedest of political binds: the hypocrisy trap.

    Obama says he’s sick and tired of the Washington blame game, but still can’t resist doling out piles of blame himself.

    His compulsive, reflexive finger-pointing at Republicans, George W. Bush and vague villains on the right is not only unbecoming, it also reinforces the gathering public verdict that Obama is a weakling.

    Victims do not make good leaders.

    Read more at the Washington Examiner: http://www.washingtonexaminer.com/politics/Obama-falls-head-first-into-the-hypocrisy-trap-95980699.html#ixzz0qWLUxXc8

    Ooooo, oooo, oooo, I wonder, when he wrote that last part, was he thinking of you R?

  • 296. dead rabbit  |  June 11, 2010 at 1:59 am

    Did these children gun one another down pre President Johnson, despite even worse poverty?

    Dramatic Rabbit is too tired to make sense.

    Time to go to sleep and wake up to my last day of work for 3 months.

    the three reasons I do this job….(and try my best at it I should probably point out)

    June…July…August

    Cadillac Cars
    Barbecue Ribs
    Dead Rabbit isn’t as dumb as you think he is

  • 297. an800lbgorilla  |  June 11, 2010 at 4:13 am

    So, the Jones Act is a 1920s protectionist law that prevents foreign vessels from operating in US coastal waters. Some of the most advanced oil skimming vessels available in the world are sitting idly by because they are foreign vessels and are prohibited by the law.

    Coast Guard Adm. Allen has said that no one has requested a Jones Act waiver and Robert Gibbs went so far as to say it isn’t necessary at this time. Really? At what time would it be necessary, after all the oil has washed onto shore?

    The greatest proponents of the law are…unions. I’m not saying they’re involved in this right now, but the fact that Andy Stern has a WH key should cause some concern.

    There is precedence in waiving the Jones Act. George W. Bush did for Katrina.

    Don’t you just love the leadership and action from Obama’s WH!!!

  • 298. graychin  |  June 11, 2010 at 9:38 am

    Ape asked: So, if blacks vote 90% of the time with dems and the left, then how can you make the assertion that the GOP’s position is no better?

    According to you, they’ve never tried it.

    Actually, blacks they HAVE tried Republicanism, on numerous occasions – most recently during the Bush Administration. It wasn’t voluntary, but they “tried” it along with the rest of us.

    I guess they didn’t like it – along with a clear majority of all Americans.

  • 299. graychin  |  June 11, 2010 at 9:44 am

    Rabbit, do I understand that you are a TEACHER?

    Do you fill your students with hope and ambition? Or are you one of those soul-destroying cynics that we all encountered along the way, and hopefully overcame?

    Do you fight the good fight because you believe in something worth fighting for? Or do you just put in your time every year until summer rolls around again?

    I hope you’re in a better mood this morning.

  • 300. graychin  |  June 11, 2010 at 9:55 am

    By the way, I think any group eventually becomes debased when they are marginalized on some urban reservation, their family structure destroyed as fatherhood is intentionally blotted out by the teat of an uncaring government with shiny trinkets.

    Actually, you have something of a point here.

    Whether the reservations are rural or urban, removing people from their native lands and marginalizing them with respect to mainstream “white” culture destroys the native culture and leaves those people with – nothing. Culture is built over many generations, and can’t be restored overnight once it is destroyed.

    Lyndon Johnson didn’t destroy the black family. Slavery and Jim Crow did.

    So come to my “lily white” neighborhood sometime and check out what the original Trail of Tears did to their Cherokee descendants.

    That Rebel flag hung on the shack pictured on my website isn’t about “Southern Pride,” and it isn’t about hating blacks. My county was originally an Indian reservation. That flag is about Indians.

  • 301. Tex Taylor  |  June 11, 2010 at 11:38 am

    Lyndon Johnson didn’t destroy the black family. Slavery and Jim Crow did.

    WRONG, as always.

    In the United States in 1970, 10.7 percent of all live births were to non-married women. The percent rose throughout the 1980s, leveling out at about 32 to 33 percent in the mid-1990s, and going up to 34.6 percent in 2003. The biggest increase was among white women for whom rates rose from 5.5 percent in 1970 to 29.4 percent in 2003. For black women, the percent of out-of-wedlock births doubled from 37.5 percent in 1970 to 68.2 percent in 2003. Among Hispanic women, the rate increased from 23.6 percent in 1980 to 45 percent in 2003.

    The ties to the Great Society and out of wedlock births for “all races” are indisputable.

    Excerpt:

    Back on Uncle Sam’s plantation

    Or how about the Economic Opportunity Act of 1964 — The War on Poverty — which President Johnson said “…does not merely expand old programs or improve what is already being done. It charts a new course. It strikes at the causes, not just the consequences of poverty.”

    Trillions of dollars later, black poverty is the same. But black families are not, with triple the incidence of single-parent homes and out-of-wedlock births.

    It’s not complicated. Americans can accept Barack Obama’s invitation to move onto the plantation. Or they can choose personal responsibility and freedom.

    http://www.onenewsnow.com/Perspectives/Default.aspx?id=414214

  • 302. graychin  |  June 11, 2010 at 11:58 am

    Tex, you quote statistics demonstrating that out-of-wedlock births doubled for both blacks and whites from 1970 to about 2003. That much is true.

    Then you state this, in your usual dogmatic way: “The ties to the Great Society and out of wedlock births for “all races” are indisputable.”

    Can you back up that statement for us? Close the gap a bit?

    Might the “women’s movement” have something to do with it? Giving women more choices? Opening jobs previously closed to women? Allowing women to support both themselves and their babies?

    What about the so-called “sexual revolution” – and society becoming more tolerant of cohabitation by unmarried couples? Did the Great Society cause that?

    Were those all those factors – and all the other social changes since Eisenhower – the sole and direct result of the Lyndon Johnson’s “Great Society”? That’s just plain silly.

    (There was a lot more going on in the period 1970-2003 than Lyndon Johnson. There were also eight (twelve?) years of Reaganism and the truncated reign of King Richard the Nixon to dilute the Great Society. Hadn’t you heard?)

    You also have argued against your own point. If out-of-wedlock births (your yardstick for destruction of the family – not mine) doubled for BOTH blacks and whites, how can you argue that the Great Society destroyed the BLACK family. Did it destroy the WHITE family as well?

  • 303. Blackiswhite, Imperial Consigliere  |  June 11, 2010 at 12:10 pm

    OK,

    I’m putting together my response to the “Living Constitution” argument, and I just would like to clarify which positions I am being asked to answer.

    1. The “living Constitution” v. the “Originalist” approach;

    2. The use of the Federalist Papers, and the other writings of Madison and Hamilton in the determination of matters before the Court; and

    3. Jefferson. (This is perhaps the most difficult, because on the one hand, it would appear that the proponents of the LIving Constitution here also support the interpretation of the “wall of separation between church and state” set forth in Everson and expanded on in later cases, and yet there was some criticism upthread of using Jefferson in the decisions of the Court….could we clarify what, precisely, I am expected to answer?)

    4. The SLATE article was weak tea, especially for you, R. It was short on the Justice’s comments and long on the author’s interpretation. It didn’t take too much of a web search to find articles that specifically addressed the things he actually said in the address and to reveal the intellectually shallow water he was wading in.

    Clarify these points for me please, R, so I know exactly what I need to address.

  • 304. Tex Taylor  |  June 11, 2010 at 12:37 pm

    I should find it the height of irony that a man living in a city with exactly zero blacks somehow would now be asking me for proof to tie the out of wedlock birthrate and the break up of the black family unit. But I don’t – in fact expected. Hence my link to Star Parker who was a product of the Great Society consequences. You can draw points from A, to B, to C including commentary straight from the horse’s mouth and the man still will deny it if it doesn’t correlate with his dogma. Stuck on stupid.

    Not only is this shyster intellectually dishonest as his retort identifies (again), but indisputable evidence is still not enough when it doesn’t match the party line.

    Graychin then goes further to accuse me arguing against my own point. Really? Exactly how so? No, what the results clearly show is that more government intervention, more on the welfare rolls, more single parent homes which is the most glaring statistic by all measures leading to poverty, has damaged all races. Divert, deflect, delay, or deny when you’ve been proven wrong, hey Gray?

    Graychin then attempts on to try and blame Republican Presidents for the correlation, as if somehow Watergate, or Reagan (always) or G.W. Bush would be responsible for the phenomenon. This has been a consistent trend the last 40 years, no matter who the President. There is no relation. :roll:

    I purposely provided that the Great Society has damaged all families; common knowledge for most, but not if your a proponent of progressive politic. Like the failure of public education, these libs will go to their grave demanding more outlays for further failure when the evidence of destruction of plans gone awry is as plain as day.

    Like I said last night Graychin, and you epitomize the worst of the worst of the Left. You will not accept or engage rational argumentation that disputes your dogma. Instead, you will redirect whatever issue is at hand.

    You’re an incredibly weak, contrary to what you would like us to believe.

  • 305. Blackiswhite, Imperial Consigliere  |  June 11, 2010 at 12:39 pm

    Don’t call GC a “shyster”. It is an insult to shysters.

  • 306. graychin  |  June 11, 2010 at 12:40 pm

    BIC, may I chime in?

    1) It would be helpful if you would define your terms, but I don’t particularly care if you discuss this philosophical divide. It has already been covered extensively in readily available articles for anyone who is interested.

    2) 3) Since the Constitution was drafted through numerous compromises from the competing ideas of the 55 men who were delegates to the Philadelphia convention, perhaps you could explain why the opinions of Jefferson (who was in France at the time) and the few (admittedly brilliant) men who wrote the Federalist Papers should be taken more seriously than the relative silence of the other delegates.

    Perhaps we can hope to find the “originalist” views of a handful of men who left their extensive writings on the subject. But how can we hope to know the “originalist view” of the whole convention? How can we even know that such an “originalist” view ever existed, since the final document undoubtedly meant different things to different men who had a hand in drafting it. No doubt some parts were left vague in order to satisfy different points of view. Where is the original intent in a case like that?

    4) In my view, the Slate article was partly editorializing about the originalist / living document discussion, but more specifically it refuted the kind of Tea Party “constitutionalism” that has become so popular in the past couple of years. The kind that says that the Constitution is crystal clear if we would only read it, and that anyone can be a capable Supreme Court Justice by just “calling balls and strikes,” in John Roberts’ terms. More specifically, it tells those phony “constitutionalists” to “grow up.”

    Comment on the “balls and strikes” point of view if you wish.

  • 307. graychin  |  June 11, 2010 at 12:46 pm

    Tex, at 304 you wrote 344 words but didn’t address my question. Most of your rant, once again, is all about me. Why your fascination with little old me?

    “The ties to the Great Society and out of wedlock births for “all races” are indisputable.”

    No they aren’t. Show us otherwise. I don’t think you can. Star Parker’s editorial is not evidence. It’s one anecdote.

  • 308. Rutherford  |  June 11, 2010 at 1:04 pm

    Tex, I think you’ve actually ignored Gray’s point. Put your scientific hat on again for a moment. You remember what a controlled experiment is? It’s when you can isolate causal factors to make a proper conclusion. When you tie the Great Society to unwed births you are engaging in an uncontrolled experiment. You are (through no fault of your own) unable to isolate causal factors.

    Do you notice the number of celebrities who shack up and have a kid and no one bats an eye anymore? Social mores have changed. Couple cohabitating and having children outside of marriage is not the mark of shame it once was.

    Now I won’t sit here and claim there aren’t a lot of unwed mothers whose baby-daddy took a hike. But until you break down your generalization into some segmented statistics, you’re just spewing conservative propaganda and not making any academically rigorous case.

  • 309. Blackiswhite, Imperial Consigliere  |  June 11, 2010 at 1:51 pm

    How about you, R? Nothing to add to GC’s remarks on my question?

  • 310. Tex Taylor  |  June 11, 2010 at 1:56 pm

    “R”,

    Are you blind as well as dumb? How rigorous do I need to get? A dissertation? The partial statistics are in my very first post. Wake up sport. There are at least 100 detailed studies you can google alone. No less that the smartest lib of the last 40 years said the same thing I’m saying – Daniel Patrick Moynihan and that was 1970.

    In the United States in 1970, 10.7 percent of all live births were to non-married women. The percent rose throughout the 1980s, leveling out at about 32 to 33 percent in the mid-1990s, and going up to 34.6 percent in 2003. The biggest increase was among white women for whom rates rose from 5.5 percent in 1970 to 29.4 percent in 2003. For black women, the percent of out-of-wedlock births doubled from 37.5 percent in 1970 to 68.2 percent in 2003. Among Hispanic women, the rate increased from 23.6 percent in 1980 to 45 percent in 2003.

    Here’s more if you need it;

    According to the Census Bureau, a single-parent family is six times more likely to be poor — and thus a recipient of welfare — than a two-parent family. Women heading families are particularly vulnerable.

    In 1980, there were 6.2 million families headed by single women, making up 19.4% of all families with children. By1990, that number had risen to 8.4 million families, or 24.2% of the total.

    Blacks have been especially hard hit.

    The percentage of black households headed by women grew from 28% to 40% between 1970 and 1980.

    At the beginning of World War II, the illegitimate birth rate among black Americans was slightly less than 19%. Between 1955 and 1965 — the year of the Watts riots and also the start of the War on Poverty — it rose slowly, from 22% to 28%.

    But beginning in the late 1960s the slow trend rapidly accelerated, reaching 49% in 1975 and 65% in 1989.

    Empirical studies have borne out the theory that welfare is behind much of this disintegration.

    For example, a study at the University of Washington showed that an increase of roughly $200 a month in welfare benefits per family correlated with a 150% increase in the illegitimate birth rate among teens.

    According to the House Ways and Means Committee “Green Book” for 1990, about 40% of parents collecting AFDC were black, 38% white and 17% Hispanic. Blacks make up about 12% of the population, while Hispanics make up about 9% of the population.

    The Green Book took its data from the Congressional Budget Office and the Office of Family Assistance of the Family Support Administration.

    The concept of welfare dependency was also bolstered recently by a study by David Elwood of Harvard University. He found that of the 3.8 million families currently on AFDC, well over half will remain dependent for more than 10 years, many others for 15 years or longer.

    Studies also show a correlation between crime and broken homes. It isn’t so much the crime committed by the members of the broken home itself, says Robert Sampson, a sociologist at the University of Chicago, as it is the impact of broken homes on the community.

    “A high threshold of single-parent families in a community means a low capacity for social control of kids,” he said. A child is “more likely to find peers in that community who are not supervised.” </i?

    No wonder you guys are invariably wrong concerning anything of importance. I'm beginning to think, it was a mistake of inviting Graychin over here. I accomplished what I need to 72 hours after his arrival. He's a buffoon. But the cost of that invite has been where you were beginning to wake up and reevaluate, now that we've got another pea in the pod, you're reverting back to that typical herd mentality of Leftist think that you often displayed before the election of Obama.

    I'm beginning to question why I bother to try and engage you anymore. You apparently are so demented in some alternative form of reality, I am not convinced anymore that you really seek the truth, but to qualify want you want to be true. I'm sure I add to that dilemma by agitating you. I must say, I'm disappointed – I used to think better of you than that. You're capable of being a "thinking" lib in the form of Moynihan, but you're too weak of character when you are "in party" and cheat yourself.

    Why do you insist on always ignoring the most obvious reasons? The predictable results couldn't be more clear in your own community.

    http://www.lewrockwell.com/orig8/owen1.html

  • 311. graychin  |  June 11, 2010 at 2:25 pm

    Tex, that’s another 761 words without addressing the question. The last 200 words are about your perception of Rutherford’s shortcomings.

    You were asked to support your assertion that “The ties to the Great Society and out of wedlock births for “all races” are indisputable.”

    You haven’t done that. You haven’t even tried. All you have done is preach to us about the evils of out-of-wedlock births and single-parent families.

    But that wasn’t the question. Why is the Great Society responsible for out-of-wedlock births? Please enlighten us.

  • 312. Tex Taylor  |  June 11, 2010 at 2:49 pm

    Tex, that’s another 761 words without addressing the question. The last 200 words are about your perception of Rutherford’s shortcomings.

    Amazing. I can provide 491 words out of 761 (I’ll take his word) that address Rutherford’s requests for causal facts, and the idiot known as Graychin still doesn’t get it, even denying anything relevant. I even provided a link with detailed response. There are some people too stupid to ever understand.

    Graychin, what are you doing? Pasting into your Word that you use as spellchecker so you don’t look the dumb ass when you post? Letting a word processor count the words? :smile: I know you’re not smart enough to count that high successfully.

    I’ve decided you may be dumber than the Dawg, only some place you grabbed Word to make you appear one step brighter than you buddy. I wouldn’t have said that five weeks ago.

    This can’t be the same Graychin I used to debate on the T-World board. It’s got to be a bad substitute, or something.

  • 313. Tex Taylor  |  June 11, 2010 at 2:52 pm

    Let’s simplify this Graychin before I have to go.

    Why don’t you attempt to tell us what has created the mutli fold increase in out of wedlock births since 1965 – pick a race.

    Can you provide something more substantive than Richard Nixon and Ronald Reagan? :roll:

    Because if you can’t, I hope I’ve proven to any fair minded individual that you are indeed a sham and buffoon.

  • 314. graychin  |  June 11, 2010 at 3:02 pm

    That would be 591 words of alleged “causal facts.” (Do the math.) But nothing about these social problems being rooted in the Great Society.

    Nothing!

    Tex – a related point: There is no one-to-one relationship between out-of-wedlock births and single-parent families. Some couples raise their kids together without calling their relationship “marriage.” Some unmarried mothers marry later. Sometimes it is to the baby’s father, sometimes to another man. (Sometimes to another woman! :D ) Sometimes even married mothers become single mothers and heads of single-parent families. (This doesn’t sound very “rigorous” to me.)

    Again, what does all this have to do with the Great Society?

  • 315. graychin  |  June 11, 2010 at 3:08 pm

    I already suggested two possible causes: 1) women’s greater access to jobs, and thereby to income to support her kids alone, and 2) the “sexual revolution” which made extramarital sex and cohabitation more socially acceptable. A third reason for more single parent households – divorce has become more acceptable instead of the social stigma it once was.

    But Tex – now you’re dodging by trying to turn the question back on me. :D

    You made the statement in the first place:

    “The ties to the Great Society and out of wedlock births for “all races” are indisputable.”

    Are you going to back it up or not?

  • 316. Tex Taylor  |  June 11, 2010 at 3:28 pm

    That would be 591 words of alleged “causal facts.” (Do the math.) But nothing about these social problems being rooted in the Great Society.

    Care to place a bet? :smile:

    There is no one-to-one relationship between out-of-wedlock births and single-parent families. Some couples raise their kids together without calling their relationship “marriage.” Some unmarried mothers marry later. Sometimes it is to the baby’s father, sometimes to another man. (Sometimes to another woman! :D ) Sometimes even married mothers become single mothers and heads of single-parent families. (This doesn’t sound very “rigorous” to me.)

    Really? You’re kidding me? That’s amazing…I didn’t know. :roll:

    ——————————–

    The entire damn Lew Rockwell article is based on the war on welfare operating under the euphemism Great Society and the man still doesn’t understand. I’ve now provided the facts of out of wedlock birth, the disintegration of the family, the correlation, the empirical evidence, and the sociological and empirical reasons for such and idiot still contends I haven’t provided a reason. :roll:

    Do you have any this idea of yours was refuted without question fourteen years ago, and you’re still arguing it? Even Slick Willy finally became convinced.

    I give up. You’re obviously unteachable, perhaps explaining why you find yourself all alone in Eucha, OK.

    That’s almost as good as you explaining the black dilemma to a man that grew up in Detroit and witnessed it firsthand, while you live in a zipcode with no blacks present.

  • 317. graychin  |  June 11, 2010 at 3:30 pm

    I’ll take that as a “no.”

  • 318. Tex Taylor  |  June 11, 2010 at 5:02 pm

    Let’s remember back to what started this entire argument.

    Lyndon Johnson didn’t destroy the black family. Slavery and Jim Crow did.

    You Graychin contended the causal factors of the disintegration of the black family was based on the history of Jim Crow and slavery. I said no way, the implementation of the Great Society was far more the reason. The out of wedlock birth rate to single black mothers since 1964 supports my contention, not yours. That was the original argument.

    Let’s remember that prior to 1964, about the approximate time of the Civil Rights Laws being passed, the black family with chldren born to two married parents was far more common than today. Are you leading me to believe that you are now stating from your own theory more freedom, real or perceived, led to instability of the black family and more frequent out of wedlock births? You must be for your original argument to remain valid.

    Now, out of my disgust with your ignorance, I complicated the matter by asking you to pick a race. I should not have allowed you the opportunity to flip the script. My mistake. I should have stuck with my original contention of staying strictly with blacks – the original argument. In doing so, I complicated the entire argument and there is some validity to your and Rutherford’s claims once all races are included in the mix. Note, I said some, and none of these support your contention that the break up of the traditional black family unit was due to slavery. The premise of you argument has readily changed over the course of this debate.

    1) women’s greater access to jobs, and thereby to income to support her kids alone,

    Professional jobs with women entering the workforce in large numbers is a far more recent phenomenon than initiation of the Great Society – and though now common today helping to explain the escalation of the disintegration of the traditional family unit (mom, dad), in no way the norm for blacks and Hispanic women even in 2010. When I was a kid, well after 1964 and the initiation of the Great Society, few white mothers with young children worked full time – especially in professional positions. That surge of large numbers of working professional women with single incomes capable of supporting families above the poverty line, started some fifteen to twenty years after the implementation of the Great Society. Long before that, the number of out of wedlock births was becoming far more frequent. Which leads to your 2nd contention.

    the “sexual revolution” which made extramarital sex and cohabitation more socially acceptable.

    Legitimate point. No doubt there is a large measure of truth to this contention, especially if whites are included. When making my original argument supporting my point, I should have stipulated the Great Society not the only reason. No doubt there have been other mitigating factors – though few of them can explain multi-generational welfare and ignore the obvious safety net Uncle Sam provides. However, I can make an equally plausible explanation that the Great Society, War on Welfare, whatever you would like to call it, has made it more readily available for men to shuck their responsibilities as father, including the fiscal irresponsibility of providing no support for child. The chicken or the egg?

    A third reason for more single parent households – divorce has become more acceptable instead of the social stigma it once was.

    This is along the lines of Rutherford’s “social mores have changed and couples cohabitating bit, and having children outside of marriage is not the mark of shame it once was.”

    The acceptance of shacking up, cohabiting, having children out of wedlock certainly hasn’t been an accepted societal norm until recently – perhaps the last ten to fifteen years. No fault divorce was a product of 1970. Now you could contend that the acceptance of divorce has led to the breakup of the family and you would be right. I would contend that the position of the government providing a “safety net” led to the acceptance of easy divorce. Either would be hard to disprove.

    However, divorce doesn’t explain your contention that slavery and Jim Crow has led to the break down of the black American family. Most of these children never had a mother and father married to begin with to contend with a divorce.

    So the bottom line is that although you have made valid points about the breakdown of the marriage and having children out of wedlock, none of them support your original contention that slavery the cause of the disintegration of the black family.

    In fact, none of them in any way support your original claim.

  • 319. Tex Taylor  |  June 11, 2010 at 5:11 pm

    I’ll take that as a “no.”

    Unlike you and your contentions, I don’t hover over the board waiting for your response, assuming that is all you do. In addition, when asked to provide an answer, I try not to follow your lead an respond with little but cute quip.

    You have often lately thrown in my face my availability on the Rutherford Lawson board. No doubt, I spend way too much time here – it is wasteful, and if I weren’t so lazy, I have far more productive things I should and could be doing – even around the house. That hopefully will change soon.

    But one question I have never asked you in return. You spend an inordinate amount of time here too. In addition, you apparently spend a consider amount of time at Alfie’s board. In addition, you have your own blog. Your responses have been morning, noon, and night.

    I readily admit M-F when my wife is gone, I sometimes find little else to do but dick around on the internet. Like when I had an exam in medical school, my house never cleaner while I fretted about studying when I didn’t want to, I am here because I am not doing something I should be doing. But not everyday.

    As much time as you also spend here, I have a question. I have told you my reasons – about now living alone M-F, sometimes even part of a Saturday morning. My wife works elsewhere. Since you are retired and don’t have that excuse each day, I must then assume either you have abandoned your significant other, or live alone?

    Because at the very least, your charges are definitely pot, meet kettle.

  • 320. Blackiswhite, Imperial Consigliere  |  June 11, 2010 at 6:19 pm

    Since the Constitution was drafted through numerous compromises from the competing ideas of the 55 men who were delegates to the Philadelphia convention, perhaps you could explain why the opinions of Jefferson (who was in France at the time) and the few (admittedly brilliant) men who wrote the Federalist Papers should be taken more seriously than the relative silence of the other delegates.

    1) Because the compromises lead to a finished product.

    2) Because the Federalist Papers were an explanation of the why? and what does it mean? of the finished product for states considering ratifying the finished product, written largely by the two men most responsible for the existence of the finsihed product and who actually wrote most of it.

    3) Not all 55 signed the finshed product. Only 39 did. Of those that did not, some had departed early for various reasons, and more than a few objected to it because it did not contain the guarantees contained in the Bill of Rights.

    4) Why does Jefferson matter? I find this to be a fascinating question, and not just because of my own wrestling with it.

    The short answer for me is that if the “living constitutionalists” have pinned their intrerpretation of the establshment clause on the quote from his letter to the Danbury baptists as cited in the Everson case, and the way it has been construed going forward, then there are also comments from him directly concerning the interpretation of the Constitution that then become difficult to discount. And although he was in France at the time, he was in correspondence with Madison, before, during, and after. He considered Madison something of a protege, and he and Madison had discussed much of the substance of the document.

    Perhaps we can hope to find the “originalist” views of a handful of men who left their extensive writings on the subject.

    I don’t “hope” to find them. They left them behind for anyone to read…in places like The Federalist Papers and their private papers.

    But how can we hope to know the “originalist view” of the whole convention?

    Aside from the notes on the convention that Madison left, and the The Federalist Papers? You have your answer in the ratification of the document. However, if you are raising the possibility that not everyone bought into what the Constitution proposed, you will find those arguments made in the Anti-Federalist Papers. Many of those objections were answered with the ratification of the Bill of Rights, but dissenting opinions are like the poor. However, the existence of opposition does not necessarily mean that those opposed did not agree to the meaning as much as they objected to perceived deficiencies and conclusions which they shared with those making the proposal.

    How can we even know that such an “originalist” view ever existed, since the final document undoubtedly meant different things to different men who had a hand in drafting it.

    Now you’re just being obtuse. I don’t suppose you subscribe to a post-modern world view, do you?

    No doubt some parts were left vague in order to satisfy different points of view. Where is the original intent in a case like that?

    Again, I suspect that you’re wedded to the characterization of certain parts of the Constitution as “vague”, rather than “general”. This is not surprising as “vague” is typically a negative connotation that allows a court or tribunal to void statutes or clauses that they might find vague, and in some cases substitute their own judgment, where as a general clause might be interepreted as guidance, if understood in the context made, which is one of the ways an originalist would attempt to interpret and apply it.

  • 321. graychin  |  June 11, 2010 at 7:14 pm

    BIC, thank you for a thoughtful and intelligent response.

    Of course we are going to have to agree to disagree. I refuse to honor any document that has been declared dead, whether it’s a corporate policy manual gathering dust on a shelf or the American Constitution. Many legal minds greater than my own :d dispute the Scalia view of “originalism.” America in 2010 isn’t America in 1789.

    When Jefferson wrote the letter to the Danbury letter, he was not a Constitutional delegate. He was the President of the US, sworn to uphold the Constitution. The letter discloses his understanding of the Constitution’s meaning on religion. It is entirely fair to call Madison the protege of Jefferson. Perhaps no one left as bright a mark on the Constitution as Madison.

    How can we even know that such an “originalist” view ever existed, since the final document undoubtedly meant different things to different men who had a hand in drafting it.

    Call it “obtuse” if you will, but the Constitution was the work of a group. I’m going to stand by that statement.

  • 322. graychin  |  June 11, 2010 at 7:22 pm

    Tex, thank you for at long last addressing the question.

    I’d like to spend more time right now addressing your responses, but the wife and I are on our way out to dinner. Friday night is Mexican Food night.

    Yes, you guessed wrong again, as you always do about me when you make it personal. My bride and I are happily married and together after 28 years. I would be lost without her, and (so she tells me) she without me. The computer is my hobby – quilting is hers. I don’t have any interest in quilting, and she doesn’t have any interest in bickering with the likes of you.

    Smart girl! :D

  • 323. Tex Taylor  |  June 11, 2010 at 7:41 pm

    My bride and I are happily married and together after 28 years. I would be lost without her, and (so she tells me) she without me. The computer is my hobby – quilting is hers.

    So happily married, you spend every waking moment at the keyboard. Sounds wonderfully fulfilling… Eucha, quilting and blogging. :smile:

    To each their own.

  • 324. an800lbgorilla  |  June 11, 2010 at 8:50 pm

    Actually, blacks they HAVE tried Republicanism, on numerous occasions – most recently during the Bush Administration. It wasn’t voluntary, but they “tried” it along with the rest of us.

    I guess they didn’t like it – along with a clear majority of all Americans.” — Chin

    Really, was Bush running the inner city too?

  • 326. graychin  |  June 11, 2010 at 11:32 pm

    BIC, I don’t think at all that we have “pinned the interpretation of the establishment clause on the quote from Jefferson’s letter to the Danbury baptists as cited in the Everson case.” I think that the Establishment Clause is perfectly clear on its face. It calls for government neutrality toward religion. Yes, some of the drafters of the Constitution were religious men who spoke in the idiom of their time. But they wrote the First Amendment, and there it is.

    Vague? General? Whatever. My point was that the Constitution’s wording may have meant different things to different people who both voted to ratify. The wording may not have been what either man preferred. We are left with the wording that they settled on, and a 21st Century world to which to apply it. Reading tea leaves in the private papers of one diminishes the views of the others who were there.

    Good discussion.

  • 327. graychin  |  June 11, 2010 at 11:34 pm

    So happily married, you spend every waking moment at the keyboard. Sounds wonderfully fulfilling… Eucha, quilting and blogging.

    To each their own

    Always the taunting clown.

    We enjoy our life, and really don’t give a rat’s ass what you think of us.

  • 328. Tex Taylor  |  June 12, 2010 at 12:19 am

    We enjoy our life, and really don’t give a rat’s ass what you think of us.

    :lol: You weren’t under the assumption that I thought differently were you?

    Mind if I ask how long you been at or near Grand Lake? I grew up on that lake – don’t miss it as the growth of the 80s and 90s ruined it and the water shed, but I do have some fond memories around Sail Boat bridge and Bartlett’s Island as a kid. Had something to do with naked girls. :oops:

    Of all the fancy vacations we took with kids from cruises (suck) to Disneyworld (a few times – highly overrated), beaches (best family vacation in my book), or my in-laws place in Colorado, my most memorable family vacation did happen at Grand Lake in 2001. Take a late August trip, smooth water, one inboard/outboard, one Mastercraft ski boat,,one pontoon, two labs and a couple of jet skis and we damn near had that huge lake all to ourselves before the weekend hit. Now that was fun.

    One jet ski was tricked out and I went from the Pensacola Dam to Shangri La in about 15 minutes. Now that is balls out, hauling ass on water. Think I averaged about 67 mph if I remember right. You wouldn’t do that on a weekend on that lake if you wanted to live.

    A couple of weeks right before 9/11. Only went back a few times after that.

  • 329. graychin  |  June 12, 2010 at 8:59 am

    Tex, in all your discussion of the causes of single-parent families, I don’t see any mention of cause-and-effect with respect to the Great Society. When one thing happens after another, it does not prove that the first thing caused the second. Believing so is often referred to as “superstition.” In the case of this particular superstition, it has become so enshrined in right-wing dogma that its believers consider it “indisputable.” It’s not only disputable – it’s wrong! :D

    …although you have made valid points about the breakdown of the marriage and having children out of wedlock, none of them support your original contention that slavery the cause of the disintegration of the black family.

    There is some revisionist history that claims that black families remained strong throughout slavery and afterward. That the effect of the fathering of slave children by their white masters had little or no effect. That the sale of family members had little effect as well. (Knowledge of kinship lines is not the same as strong family bonds.) And that the disproportionate poverty imposed by Jim Crow had no effect on the black family either. But do you have a better explanation for the difference between blacks and whites in the rates of single-parent families BEFORE the Great Society? If so, what is it?

    One more factor should be mentioned before we move on from this subject: In the 1950′s a man could support his stay-at home wife and his 2.5 children on his earnings. That isn’t the norm any longer. Many families would prefer that norm but can’t find a way to make it happen for themselves economically. Middle-class wages have been stagnant during recent economic booms. I doubt that both parents working full-time to keep their heads above water is a factor that strengthens families, whether black or white.

  • 330. Tex Taylor  |  June 12, 2010 at 10:13 am

    Graychin,

    You’re simply wrong and there is no sense arguing further with you. The Great Society has been a failure of mind boggling proportions including one facet assisting in the destruction of the black family unit. Like every failure you hide, you will deny that for eternity. Your blogging isn’t a pursuit for honesty, but support of failed policy your type established.

    First you create the problems in society, then ride in like hero to solve the very problems you helped create with more of the same. It’s close to destroying America.

    Because you’ve missed several correlations I’ve given, I’m not going to argue further. You’ll muddy the waters some more with meaningless rhetoric not relevant to the debate at hand. It will remain one of many issues you and I are diametrically opposed and I will allow history to judge your policy – it already has, but you don’t know it.

    Deceitful people like you pissed and moaned about Personal Responsibility and Work Opportunity Reconciliation Act would starve people in the streets – never happened. And you’ll note the name signed by a Democratic President.

    While parroting Liberal dogma, you are also wrong about middle-class wages having remained stagnant during recent economic booms. What you should have said is wages which have continued to rise, but not at the rate of taxes and costs. Take home pay has been squeezed. Further, your Leftist Dogma never mentions why costs are greater, of which health care is only one.

    Your party has been a failure for a great many years. What’s ironic is the one successful thing signed by a Democratic that did work the last 50 years – belay good intentions gone astray- you were adamantly against I’m sure. One can look across the country and see what Liberal politics has brought us. Every urban city but NYC a war zone, blue states in serious economic trouble with the largest on the verge of collapse, public schools once a beacon, now a cesspool, STDs epidemic, families destroyed – a wave of immoral destruction.

    Your party is a plague of locusts and nothing more.

    Your time is up because you’ve run out of other people’s money. My time is up because momma is coming home.

    Enjoy you’re time on the lake quilting and blogging.

  • 331. Alfie  |  June 12, 2010 at 3:28 pm

    gray Moynihan has a lot on the subject. The Great Society had a negative impact on the black community,of this there is little honest doubt.
    The GS wasn’t the whole thing though. There is a marked decline of black stability after 64. The decade of 54-64 in particular shows something else was at play.

  • 332. Alfie  |  June 12, 2010 at 3:34 pm

    A long but interesting article that provides the titles of reports,books ,authors and a mix of actions on the issue.
    http://www.city-journal.org/html/15_3_black_family.html

  • 334. Alfie  |  June 12, 2010 at 3:47 pm

    The table on page 3 is quick and easy

  • 335. graychin  |  June 12, 2010 at 8:45 pm

    At 329, I asked Tex for just one thing: his explanation for the the disparity between black and white single-family households BEFORE the Great Society wrecked the black family. He had alleged that slavery and Jim Crow had nothing to do with it.

    At 330, he said “You’re simply wrong and there is no sense arguing further with you.” Plus 366 words that were irrelevant to the discussion.

    Another dodge, still clearly visible from behind the smoke screen.

  • 336. Rutherford  |  June 13, 2010 at 1:23 am

    I suppose that the only thing that puzzles me about the notion of slavery and Jim Crow destroying the black American family is that the very institution of slavery interfered with the normal development of the black American family. As far as I know, African families were not sold “together” once they arrived here. Then compounding the confusion were masters having children by their slave females.

    So I would take Graychin’s supposition and go one step further to say the “black American family” never stood a chance in the first place.

  • 337. Tex Taylor  |  June 13, 2010 at 3:23 am

    Thank you Alfie – your link provided all I needed to prove Graychin wrong and a liar – sheer propaganda of which he has been nailed. The only smoke screen throughout this conversation his been inability to say, “You’re right Tex.”

    Let us review. Graychin says, “Lyndon Johnson didn’t destroy the black family. Slavery and Jim Crow did.”

    But as the tables clearly demonstrate, from 1880-1960, the percentage of single parent households of black children were fairly stable (quoted from the article), about 2 1/2 times greater than whites since as far back as 1880. If it were true that slavery had destroyed the black family as Graychin stated, then it would follow that with the respect of comparing percentages of black to white single parent homes should have diverged someplace along the time line, no matter the starting base ratio. There is no deviation.

    To further cover his ass, Graychin started with the “smoke screen” accusation and provided a laundry list of other reasons to confuse the issue: sexual revolution, higher divorce rates, women with greater access to jobs, etc…

    The lying propagandist from Eucha fails to note a problem with his hypothesis: All of these are a phenomenon of the second half of the 20th century – and almost immediately after the implementation of The Great Society. The best Graychin would be left with is simply disagreeing why starting in 1960, single parent homes increased dramatically for all races. No matter which supposition you pick, The Great Society, or the changing of social mores, Graychin’s contention slavery ruined the black family as he originally contended does not hold.

    No matter the base ratio, two parent black homes remained stable from for at least a period of 80 years during Jim Crow and slavery no matter how Graychin would like to spin it.

    I rest my case.

  • 338. graychin  |  June 13, 2010 at 2:03 pm

    …from 1880-1960, the percentage of single parent households of black children were… about 2 1/2 times greater than whites since as far back as 1880.

    Why was that, Tex? The Great Society?

  • 339. Hucking Fypocrites  |  June 13, 2010 at 2:34 pm

    Irresponsible black parents are what has destroyed the black family. Embracing terms like “babby-daddy” and “baby-momma” has not done them, or the country, any favors.

    Bill Cosby is spot on concerning this issue. If black people want to blame someone for the condition of black families in America—the very first step needs to be to look in the mirror. Until they can put some blame onto themselves, no amount of blaming others will effectively address the entire problem.

    I don’t know if that has already been alluded to in this discussion. But it should be.

  • 340. Tex Taylor  |  June 13, 2010 at 3:12 pm

    Jim,

    Why was that, Tex? The Great Society?

    Still dodging and dancing. Making accusations of smokescreens, while the only fire burning in the one under your rotund ass.

    The article Alfie links to said impossible to determine the differences as base point. Local culture would need to be studied and was beyond the scope of the study. Reasons I believe could have included younger mortality rates, more accepted cultural norms from African heritage, and two hundred years of “slavery.” But that is still not lending support to your original statement.

    Nobody here has argued that slavery didn’t contribute in the 1880s to black struggle.

    The big elephant in the room you keep trying to reflect is though 2 1/2 times higher for blacks than whites with a single parent house in 1880, the rate was about 17.5% in 1880, dipped a bit until 1940, rose only to about 20.0% in 1960 (no statistical significance), and then almost doubled from 1960 to 1980.

    Again, let us remember your statement Mr. know-it-all. Jim Crowe, which wasn’t even enacted until 1876, and slavery ruined the black family. That is what you said. For 80 years it didn’t, with 1 out of 5 black children not living in a two parent household remaining basically stable. Where’s the destruction of the black family from slavery from 1880-1960 Graychin? That is what you announced to the room.

    Then in one generation of twenty years from 1960-1980, the rate doubled vis-a-vis single parent black households. Jim Crow was revoked in 1965 and still the rate has continued to increase exponentially since. You are now clearly mistaken in your assertions Big Shot. Give it up…

    While slavery may have contributed to the higher incidence of single family homes starting at the base point, even that remains uncertain and unprovable.

    Clearly you are either misinformed, historically shallow, or a liar and propagandist. More damning of your inanity is Alfie’s excellent first article which I didn’t even reference. Read it so you don’t continue to make dumb comments.

  • 341. Tex Taylor  |  June 13, 2010 at 3:32 pm

    reflect should have read deflect ^

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out / Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out / Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out / Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out / Change )

Connecting to %s

Trackback this post  |  Subscribe to the comments via RSS Feed


June 2010
M T W T F S S
« May   Jul »
 123456
78910111213
14151617181920
21222324252627
282930  
Bookmark and Share

Categories

Rutherford on Twitter

The Rutherford Lawson Blog is a member of

WordPress Political Blogger

My Sister Site

Town Called Dobson Daily Preview
AddThis Feed Button
http://www.blog4mobile.com/

Recent BlogCatalog Readers

View My Profile View My Profile View My Profile

Archives


Follow

Get every new post delivered to your Inbox.

Join 713 other followers

%d bloggers like this: