ParanoiA

Firstly, I'm not seeing a very logical judgement of Palin here. I think alot of the shallow nature we saw has more to do with being a marginalized VP cheerleader. She was definitely far more in lockstep with her running mate than Biden was. She was far more controlled, and restricted from view, so every moment of camera time was hyper-focused and analyzed. She didn't have a ton of interviews to recover with. Biden, at least from my perspective, never really came off as a VP, but rather as a tried and true wise older gentleman appeasing the youngster like how you might stand behind your 10 year old in the convenience store when he handles his first transaction. No, you don't achieve what she achieved in Alaska by being a ditz. You don't haggle with OIL COMPANIES, for crying outloud, and successfully walk away from the table with multi-thousand dollar paychecks going out to your constituency by being a dumbass. You don't infiltrate and fry corrupted republicans in their own club by being stupid. No, the woman is definitely intelligent, and probably moreso in the area of business or domestic issues. She's not very worldly, that's for sure, and I look for her to remedy that over the next few years, hopefully with some travel and study. But if you all continue to underestimate her intelligence, you're going to get burned. And it's going to hurt. Remember what our parents taught us...actions speak louder than words. Look at her actions. Her actions don't match the low assessment. And most of the "stupidity" comes from this evangelical approach to legislating morality, definitely her achillies heel. My two cents anyway.

Thanks. Yeah, see I did the google thing. But I was hoping for something a bit more detailed, or technical. Also, how could there be zero activity in the brain? How do they breath?

Why does the state have a right to deny union, or recognition of union between brother and sister? Mom and son? As long as both are of legal age of consent, it's none of their business. I'm reading these pages and pages of excuses and moral conclusions that the government has no business legislating in the least. This is why I rail against subjective governing so much. Here you have a clear situation where everyone thinks differently, most have a valid point of some kind, yet they are in conflict. Just like slavery, the government of california has passed a subjective law that passes moral judgement to deny rights from an american citizen. No objective harm can be realized. It requires inference to find fault. I don't care if it's outlawing bigotry or gay marriage - subjective governing centralizes, sanctifies, and prosecutes - and petrifies - moral codes, based solely on the majority's chosen code set. And this is the egregious result. More people don't accept gay marriage than do - so no one gets to. Written into law, static and frozen. Way to go...

Taking our property is theft. Forcing us to work is slavery. At the very least it is involuntary servitude, abolished in the 13th amendment. United States vs. Ingalls concluded: How exactly does Obama circumvent the law with this insult? This is a travesty of freedom. Anything less than wholesale rejection of this filth is a sell out of individual liberty, the likes of which no true liberal would ever accept, much less endorse or promote. Absolutely disgusting.

Ok, so I was wondering what makes a coma different from being brain dead. I always thought brain death was just a poetic way to describe the condition of no brain activity - although I'm sure something is going on. And I thought a coma was the same thing, neurologically, except for the implication that the individual will eventually come out of it. So what is exactly going on? How come we don't consider a coma to be temporary brain death?

Yeah sounds more dictorial.

I think he's making the case that the reason why marriage has always garnered government privileges is due to the social engineering intent of "promoting" family. I think he's right there, at least that it was about promoting the family unit. However, I think that promotion is somewhat insulting at this point, and arguably beyond the scope of government responsibility - and definitely exercised by subjective means. It's another example of moral legislation. Why does it HAVE to imply procreation? That's an arbitrary conclusion, actually. A baby may or may not happen with Man + Woman. And Man + Woman doesn't have to be married to have a baby either. It's an incidence, not a consequence. And, IF you are advocating the promotion of the family unit, then I'd have to ask the advantage to that. If the government is going to "promote" anything, at this point, it ought to be the lack of procreation. We are threatened with overpopulation, and with no remedy in sight. If anything, gay couples should have more privilege than heterosexual ones, at least to be sensible when using coersive engineering techniques. Once we have a resolution, then it would be sensible to promote family.

Yeah, I guess that's fair. I will say though, that supporting McCain was quite a 180. I remember watching him, listening to him, in disbelief that I'm really witnessing Joe Leiberman prop up a republican. One could also make an argument about character, in that he could so easily flip and be believable.

I feel sorry for Joe because the democratic party left him first, namely on the principled position he held on the war and his approach to supporting it and the troops. He didn't play the party politics game in the face of thousands and thousands of dead human beings, so they shit on him. He shit back.

Ok, fine let's play semantics. They are denying the creation of a right that they never had. That's even more absurd. So, next, let's pass an amendment saying that no one can drive a flying car except red heads.

Right, but I'm taking issue with this: Presidential responsibilities are outlined in Article II. He is in command of the military. He is responsible for intitiating treaties. He is to appoint judges, ambassadors, and etc. He is to address the state of the union and make recommendations to congress. He is to "take care that the laws be faithfully executed". I do appreciate the vague nature of the articles, but I don't think it so vague that one can actually determine, on their own, that only the military is his responsibility, or that he's supposed to pursue environmental change. Within his outlined responsibilities, there are dynamics and flexibile interpretation to be had, but outside of them there are not. I believe the public views the president as a more powerful representative. Representation is part of his job (the nature of treaties, receiving foreign leaders), but it's more about the kinetic exercise of congess. He executes their laws. They have 435 representatives in the house. I think this definitely hurts the office. We have a twisted notion of his job, and I believe it comes from lack of understanding it in the first place, and then remedying that by daydreaming and self discovery rather than reading and learning. That said, I don't profess to be an expert by any stretch, but I do believe it's my responsibility to learn it rather than make it up, or believe "X" without having actually read a damn thing. I think most americans fall in that category.

That's a valid point, but are you sure though? I'm thinking if the party members are elected by the people, then that may be enough of a check to be sure they don't engage in blatant cronyism. Maybe you disagree. I'm not wholly sure myself actually.

Hell yeah! (see, I told ya') Yeah, a re-read of your post would indicate a benign point. No one ever suggested homosexuals couldn't marry a member of the opposite sex. And that wouldn't be a gay marriage. I think I get what you're trying to say, but you're choosing to ignore the specific rights they are being denied and instead trying to pretend they aren't denied anything since they have every right to marry heterosexually. That's basically an argument for eugenics. Why stop at homosexuality? Why not examine all possible characteristics and determine which are truly an advantage and which are truly a disadvantage and then breed the "perfect" human? What if we could "cure" brunettes? Or ugliness? Or "conservatism"? Oh yeah, that's nature's job. Natural selection, sorry I forgot...

What about polygamy? Shouldn't that be a valid union as well? Why does it have to be just two people?

Well, this may be arguable I guess, but per the US Electoral College website "The Electoral College was established by the founding fathers as a compromise between election of the president by Congress and election by popular vote." To me that does imply some capacity to represent the people. If this reasoning is to be believed, the founders must of seen the value in a measure of the people's popular choice. And, just as obviously must of seen the disadvantage of this popularity contest. This, if for no other reason, makes the case to keep the Electoral College, and I guess some reform and corrective public education. http://www.archives.gov/federal-register/electoral-college/procedural_guide.html I think that's a terrific point. Really, all of the things I bitch about, the disgusting nature of these candidates and their despicable behavior can be traced back to the low bar the populus sets for these opportunists. I keep indicting us, the citizenry, and it seems the electoral college was an attempt to remedy just that. My question though, is how does this really reconcile the popular vote with the electoral imperative to be "appointed to the specific task of deliberating, investigating and analyzing the very requisite qualifications that we the people should expect"? I think I remember reading that only twice has an electorate NOT voted for the candidate they were elected to. Also, the electors have little alternatives. How do they really achieve a higher standard of selection, when they are still left with a limited shitty lot to choose from? It would seem more effective if they were involved in the front end of the nomination process. I would almost rather see a slate of candidates selected by them, and then a popular vote, for one of that lot, by the people. That would ensure a quality pool, while retaining popular election. That would also satisfy the intent of the founders to compromise between congressional and popular selection.

Man, you nailed it. I've always thought it was funny that the left even try to infiltrate such an old fashioned market. The fact that conservatives dominate it sort of validates their non-progressive nature. It would be akin to perceiving a threat from communist dominated ham radio. (not to insult ham radio hobbyists). I listen to talk radio in my truck, because I don't have satellite radio yet, and only when I don't have a good CD to listen to instead. It has its value, but its really, ultimately on the way out.

Yeah, I realize that and I'm questioning it. I'm not sure how comfortable I am with the president not being a representative of the people. I'm on board with the concept of an appointed Senate over popular vote, but I'm just not entirely sold on the presidency being so insulated from the populus.

It's interesting because I was actually battling this out with some buddies here at work. I suggested we shouldn't even be effectively polled by our state governments in the form of popular vote because that circumvents the insulation from pandering to the public; that we might get better quality executives. Kind of torn though, because that would also appear to undermine answering directly to the people, which is arguably the basis of a republic.

Ok, so how does that work with a divided electorate? It's not exactly in the interests of the victors of the popular vote to vet thoroughly. It would seem the majority party would simply overlook such things and elect the candidate in the face of disqualified attributes. Unless I'm still not understanding the mechanism of the electoral college...

1) Absolutely wrong. Terrible exercise of legislating interpersonal relationships by refusing to recognize a particular combination. I would say the same about polygamy as well. I would think the preferred solution would be to replace the concept of "marriage" with "civil union" for all combinations of unions. Sex is irrelevant. Only that they are american humans should matter. Let society bat the word "marriage" around however they want. 2) Kind of an insult, but it ultimately falls into that category Pangloss was talking about, that these things need to be played out anyway regardless of who initiates it. 3) I'm torn at the moment. Leaning toward unconstitutionality. I like state's rights, but this is one of those things that I would expect to be considered basic human rights that no state has a right to refuse. I agree with bascule's sentiment on the disgust. I would like to see no recognition of unions by government at all, since I don't think anyone earns any more or less rights or consideration just because they have an intimate relationship with another human being. However, I do concede that there are certain practical scenarios that require it, and for those we should not discriminate.

Well, to even things out a little, I will admit that I'm happy we have a black president finally. It's too bad it couldn't have been a more libertarian-ish kinda guy, but I do accept him as our president and hope for the best. I've accepted my minority position in politics and have no real hope that my ideals will be exercised by anyone in my lifetime, maybe not in our future. But I can live with that as it's what I believe in my heart and mind. I think most of us liberty fanatics can relate with that. It's frustrating to be marginalized, but it's also gratifying to be true to our beliefs. No man is equal to his rhetoric, but we certainly try. Also, people like iNow can be gratifying as well. He may not be in lock-step with us, or even on the same end of the political spectrum as us, but he listens, takes it in, and respects our views when their laid out fairly. I appreciate that.

Yeah, that's one of things I used to bring up alot. Bush campaigned on Iraq and dealing with Saddam. In this, there was a logical reason to suspect he would antagonize which would further imply a potential invasion.

Yeah, that's exactly it. I would like to see an obvious 14 year old run for president as a 35 year old man, just to see what mechanism executes to stop him, if any.

That's funny, because that's the crossroad I had to deal with years ago and so I did that iNow. I rejected the false representation, the dishonor, the disrespect to our republic perpetrated by politicians to get in office. I rejected the notion that they didn't have to conduct themselves as honorable as I did to get MY job. I became the change I wish to see. So, when are you going to be the change you wish to see? Or is the likes of Obama as high as you're willing to set the bar? I've been trying to keep quiet; to let the Obamans enjoy their victory. But I feel similar to ecoli. His anger isn't what you think, if I can be so presumptuous, I think it's more of a sigh and a refusal to give in to what we perceive as emotional facades. But hey, don't take my comments too harsh, I just wanted to take up for ecoli. You have to remember, from our perspective we voted for the republic yesterday, and was thrown away since 99% of the rest of the country did not.

If I was him I'd hang out in the oval office naked and pee on all the furniture. Seriously, you've got be crazy not to "hit it" in the office ya know?