Pangloss

Ah, so it's okay to attack another country if you were provoked into doing it. But not the US, they're not allowed to do that. Anybody else, that's okay. Bombus have you ever heard of the phrase "two wrongs don't make a right"? Just curious. On the contrary, I told you I don't approve of the US's position on this issue. But you're saying it's okay for Russia to take military action instead of continuing diplomacy. That's what you're advocating here. Are you sure that's the position you want to take? Wow. Guys I hate to say it, but I'm starting to get to the point where I think stuff like this may need to be pushed to Pseudoscience and Speculations instead of Politics. I really see this board as an avenue for serious political discussion, not wacky illuminati stuff. Wow again. You just gave your support for Russia dropping atomic bombs. Just... wow.

Earlier today the Russian President directly threatened the US with military action. http://ap.google.com/article/ALeqM5gAa5fmFrSvKn0--5w11Uz2FRMpJAD92Q53VO0 They did the same thing a week ago. I happen to not agree with US policy here, but there's a huge difference between aiming a gun and pulling a trigger. The US is arguably aiming a gun (though it is ONLY a defensive weapon and cannot be used in offensive attack in any way). Russia is talking about actually pulling a trigger in response. Yes that's right, the actual president of Russia just said that he would respond to increasing tension with a military assault. That's what he actually said.

Indeed, unfortunately both candidates have participated in misleading statements regarding the lowering of gasoline prices. I also think that McCain has been the "worse" of the two in general, but then somebody brings up nuclear power and tapping the oil reserve and Obama gets iffy again. But speaking as an Obama supporter at the moment, just to throw in my two cents, I think we just need to give it time. His bipartisan, well-reasoned nature will surely rise over a good man who's just unfortunately been living in Washington too long. I believe this will be clear by November, and I believe the Obama administration will build 90 nuclear power plants and convince nearly everyone of their value, whereas the McCain administration would have thrown in the towel at the first sign of difficulty and a chance to compromise on some assault weapons bill.

Yeah there was a case like this just last week here in South Florida, which I guess was just on local news. Guy made threats against Obama and the Secret Service came down and arrested him, and they found a bunch of guns in his place, etc. No idea if they had a search warrant.

Let's move on from the personal invectives if we can. Thanks.

I'm not trying to "pin" anything on anybody. I think these concerns -- your concerns -- are valid. I just don't think it's as easy a question to answer as you imply. And the partisan aspect of this, the fact that the primary source of motivational activity on this the far left and based solely on its opposition to the far right, shouldn't just be bugging me, it should be of DEEP concern to you. You should be wondering about House and Senate Democrats who continue to vote for bills you oppose, and why these measures will continue to struggle to pass a year from now. The lack of a veto-overriding majority means nothing if the President has already signed the bill. Wanna make a little wager on what we'll be discussing on this issue a year from now? Could be fun.

No he doesn't. He talks about how we need to start drilling now, but he realizes the benefits are not short-term. Here's a video of him saying the following quote: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=LoJ5UBxuRxk (That video was posted by the Obama campaign. That's irony.) He's absolutely right about the psychological impact on the trading market, as you yourself were talking about just last week. Two wrongs don't make a right. Not every single point made by the partisan right has to be countered by something equally obtuse and sophomoric from the partisan left. Here's a thought: Let's step above that sort of thing and rely on facts and figures instead of obfuscation and distraction.

Well that point (from the signing Senators) was countered by the FBI: Probable cause is an important legal concept with a clear definition. So we need an objective assessment about whether this would be a valid example of probable cause or not. Congress needs to hash this out, and it needs to do so in an unbiased atmosphere, with clear information and no emotional, exaggerated appeal.

Well, that was why I made the suggestion of having the government take actions to balance the scales, as it were. For example, the government could hire a doctor to come into a community and provide abortion services, if the local providers won't do so. (This already being an actual problem, mind you, and arguably not even an "optional" service -- clearly a very important one.) I don't think that even pushes it into the domain of "separate but equal", either, because you'd do it as incentive and benefit rather than actual government pharmacies, etc.

Interesting comments on that page as well. It doesn't really sound conclusive but I think you have to take what he's saying seriously. The NTSB and AMA were hitting a lot of other issues as well, but that core argument might bear closer study. The AMA has a summary of their points (in favor of 21) here: http://www.ama-assn.org/ama/pub/category/13246.html That page makes a good resource for comparison with the points in the link in the post above.

Prove it. I have seen no evidence of a pending US attack on Russia in any story on the situation in Georgia. If you think that's the case, what is your evidence? Prove it. Why is that?

As I said earlier in the thread, there's a clear moral difference between emergency medical care and optional medical services.

I could say, "That's what I love about the values on which our nation's legal system was founded. You can't even investigate when the criminal is standing over the victim with the knife in his hand because it would infringe his rights. Erm... wait. That's not it at all." Popular memes aren't going to get us past the need for specific definitions here. How 'bout tackling the problem at hand? Tell us how investigation, without even accusation, equates to judgment and condemnation.

I can't say that I know for sure, but I think it may very well be the case, yes. They respond to all sorts of things. Would we let someone who said that exact same phrase pass by if they were white? Maybe, but I can think of plenty of phrases a white American could say in the general vicinity of an airport security screener that would get him investigated in a big hurry too. ("Golly gee, Joe-Bob, that Montana shack of yours sure blew up real good when we put all that fertilizer in it. By the way, did you pack the white powder or did I?") A response (or an investigation) is not an execution. It's not even an accusation. Surely society retains the right of investigating potential crimes. I do agree with limits on things like statistical racial profiling, where there's just random stop-and-search based solely on superficial appearances. But if there's an actual link between a specific type of crime and a specific race-religion-nationality combination and a specific statement on record that could be related, surely you have to investigate that.

Well I didn't think it was funny or "light-shedding". Commenting on his age in no way refutes his position on whether we need to start drilling for more oil at the present time. The oil won't be more or less useful when it does come out just because John McCain is dead (if he is). And it certainly wouldn't come out of the ground faster if he were 62 instead of 72. It struck me as a stealth comment about his age, but it isn't even relevant in that regard, because by the time that oil comes out he will have already smacked into his constitutionally-mandated eight-year term limit -- a time period which, as I understand it, he has a very high statistical probability to complete (not to mention having to get re-elected after only four).

Sure, that's a concern, but remember, we're not talking about instant execution here. We're talking about investigation. What would YOU do if a person of the same ethnicity, nationality and religion as Osama bin Laden, whom you did not know and, so far as you could tell, was being serious, walked up to you and said "America should burn for its transgressions against Islam"? Would you (a) shoot them, (b) walk away, or © ask someone in a position of authority to look into it further? Surely we agree that A is wrong, but isn't B wrong as well? By the way, watch when Obama walks into the White House and we suddenly stop having this national conversation about executive abuse of civil liberties, especially if he just empties out Guantanamo and calls it a day. That's when you'll see the partisans separate from the people who actually care about this issue, and that's, conversely, when the real work will need to be done, laying out the correct, balanced guidelines and then ensuring that they're carried out. This is where I'm really hoping Obama will shine, motivating us to resolve issues that aren't as popular because of shifting focus.

What in the world does that have to do with it?

I think that's a fair point. Perhaps one way to look at it would be to say that sometimes when we're prodded by certain specifics it makes us think about larger issues. But I also think it's valuable to sometimes step back a bit and ponder a bigger picture we might have left behind in our zeal after being prodded. I'm not sure if that applies here, really, I'm just keeping an open mind about it. One thing that occurred to me after entering my post above is that it may be different at the federal level versus local law enforcement. Specific guidelines for FBI investigations may be more necessary than they are for, say, a local murder investigation because even though the crime in question may be even more heinous, there is awesome power in federal authority to, well, basically make people's lives miserable if they happen to be innocent. (Richard Jewel comes to mind.)

I would love to see Joe Biden versus Charlie Crist in a debate. He has a funny, laid-back style that's totally opposite of Biden, and he'll look like he's getting pounded, but then he'll sneak up on you and knock you out while you're looking the other way. It would be awesome. But I like my governor right where he is, so "no can has", John McCain!

It was nicely made. It constantly amazes me how good the general public is getting at video production. You both have a good point about the "need" for attack mode. The story all last week was dropping poll numbers. Nothing, but neither the story nor the attack ad prove that that's the case. That's what irks me about negative ads, they don't prove squat. We don't know these people from Adam -- we get a 10-second sound bite and then we get distorted, biased reactions on top of that. But I know I'm preaching to the choir here. I can't help but wonder if both of their attack ads are working, and THAT'S why their poll numbers aren't as high as they could be. I like to think people aren't that stupid, but who knows, maybe you're right. The way the moderate left has mysteriously discarded "the only Republican they'd ever vote for", and the way the moderate right has descended into blogging about Obama's bastard half-brother living in a slum in Kenya (or wtf ever it is), or how he really is a Muslim because that's what he was born as, I guess it wouldn't surprise me after all. Attack ads uber alles.

The thing I don't understand is why there would be any restrictions on the act of "opening an investigation", or any kind of blanket rules on investigations as a whole. Normally we restrict specific investigatory tools (e.g. search warrants). We don't take all of them away and then hand them back piecemeal. But ever since 9/11 it seems like we look at it the other way around.

If by "okay" you mean "descending into attack mode again, focused on trivialities and giving the left wing blogosphere something to jaw about instead of a substantive discussion of the issues", I completely agree.

It's interesting that he got over Biden's "clean & articulate" comments, and that suggests to me that his problem with Clinton wasn't personal in the end (i.e. he got over their campaign differences too, he just didn't see her as the best choice for VP). I may be reading too much between-the-lines, but it seems to speak well of his character.

Well this Washington Post piece says I'm wrong. Oh well. http://voices.washingtonpost.com/thefix/2008/08/veepstakes_process_of_eliminat.html?hpid=topnews They're saying it won't be Bayh, Kaine, or Clinton (who was apparently never even vetted by Obama's staff). They're focusing on Joe Biden and (Rhode Island Senator) Jack Reed, with Biden being the favorite. It's amusing reading a newspaper of the Post's caliber talking about "waiting to get the text message". And ABC News is reporting that the Secret Service has been dispatched to protect Biden. http://blogs.abcnews.com/politicalpunch/2008/08/us-secret-servi.html

Hah, I beat the text messages. http://www.kmbc.com/politics/17267009/detail.html#