OT: Election/Politics thread, Part 6

[XXXIV]

You went to an all-male Catholic school PK? That explains EVERYTHING.

....It does at that.

[Macca00]

Late to the thread here...

I got one for you. Battlecreek Middle School in St Paul. Carol and I pulled Dominic out of the school yesterday for his own safety. He got into his third fight since September on Monday. He will be homeschooled online for the rest of his eighth grade year. It all stems from two things. Race and Politics............

Jack,

Reading your post makes me intensely frustrated and quite frankly angry for you, Dom and Carol for having to go through all that sh!t. It's just f@cking shameful and while I'm glad Dom beat the sh!t out of those kids I'm sorry he had to fight out of the ring and got injured himself.

Quick update: Dominic was accepted to Saint Thomas Academy yesterday. http://www.cadets.com/ He was given an academic scholarship 2 hours after receiving his transcripts. That saves us tuition fees of $15,225 a year. So much for homeschool. PK,you were right. It's an all male school.

I guess the one 'good' thing for being late to this thread is reading the resolution - and my blood pressure has definitely decreased! Congrats to you guys and Dom who sounds like a very smart young man who has a bright future ahead of him.

[pk500]

You went to an all-male Catholic school PK? That explains EVERYTHING.

Yes, sir. Loved it, too! Great camaraderie, as Doug said, excellent discipline (physical when needed), great education, great athletics, and you didn't need to worry about looking good for chicks.

Plus there were plenty of places you could get chicks outside of school. Really enjoyed my four years at CBA Syracuse.

Take care,
PK

[matthewk]

Can someone explain why Obama is appointing so many Cilnton era people (and maybe a Clinton herself) after complaining about the "same old politcs" throughout his campaign? Seems like he's already reversing course on some of that "change" he promised so often.

[RobVarak]

Can someone explain why Obama is appointing so many Cilnton era people (and maybe a Clinton herself) after complaining about the "same old politcs" throughout his campaign? Seems like he's already reversing course on some of that "change" he promised so often.

Hasn't been a politician in American history that didnt promise something different from the same old politics.

To paraphrase O Brother Where Art Thou, they all want to get some of that there "reform."

A large percentage of governing expertise in the Democratic party is emobdied by Clinton Administration vets. It's only natural that he'd utilize some of that talent.

I'm more concerned that he seems to be continuing the trend of having campaign experts and advisors in White House policy positions. That's a relatively new trend over the last several administrations and almost always results in a sub-optimal choice when it comes to constructing a policy team.

[XXXIV]

Im glad he seems to be going with the experienced centrists and avoiding the pelosi loons.

Edit: Though Im sure at some point he will have to throw the mental midgets a bone.

[wco81]

Hmm, The Economist outlines some claims which contradict the assumptions of many about Detroit:

http://www.economist.com/business/displ ... d=12601839

In many ways, Chapter 11 was designed for just such a contingency. For all their present agonies, both Ford and GM have good long-term prospects. They have relatively healthy businesses in Europe and have been doing well in emerging markets, such as China, where there is vast potential.

They are also nearing the final stage of a lengthy and painful restructuring of their North American operations. Two million units of capacity have been stripped out; factories are being converted to produce more fuel-efficient cars; and a landmark deal with the United Auto Workers union in 2007 paved the way to cutting $1,000 of costs on every car they make from next year.

A further reason why Chapter 11 might not work for the carmakers, says Mark Oline, an analyst at Fitch Ratings, is that they have very little scope for further cost-cutting. “They’re not being crushed by wage and benefit costs—it’s about revenue and products now,” he says. Bankruptcy would do nothing to speed up the introduction of vital new models.

Mr Cole’s firm has modelled a scenario in which Detroit’s production falls by 50%. He estimates that in the first year that would cost 2.5m jobs: 240,000 from the carmakers themselves; 795,000 from suppliers and 1.4m from other firms indirectly affected. The cost in transfer payments and lost taxes would exceed $100 billion over three years. Some of Mr Cole’s assumptions are likely to be too pessimistic, but his blood-curdling forecast and others like it have helped to convince legislators that the $50 billion of help that the carmakers are asking for would be cheap at the price.

Paulson declined to bail out Lehman Brothers and the market panicked (and probably killed McCain's prospects).

Paulson expressed opposition in the last day to bailing out car makers with TARP funds.

Question is, would the failure of one or all of the Big 3 cause further shocks to the economy and markets?[/quote]

[fsquid]

I also went to an all-male high school. It was what I needed at the time to turn my life around. Proud alumni of Christian Brothers of Memphis Class of 98 bitches

[Jackdog]

I also went to an all-male high school. It was what I needed at the time to turn my life around. Proud alumni of Christian Brothers of Memphis Class of 98 bitches

Macca00 thanks for the support brother.

[Brando70]

Quick update: Dominic was accepted to Saint Thomas Academy yesterday. http://www.cadets.com/ He was given an academic scholarship 2 hours after receiving his transcripts. That saves us tuition fees of $15,225 a year. So much for homeschool. PK,you were right. It's an all male school.

Thanks again to all of you.

Hey JD,

I've been away from this thread because I needed break, but I just read about Dom's travails. I am glad the ridiculous conduct at his former school at least led to a happy ending at Saint Thomas. Although, as an all-male Catholic school graduate myself, his sense of smell is in for a beating The fart quotient will be up at least 400%.

The race stuff is just infuriating. My father-in-law taught for 31 years at Waukegan High School in Illinois, a predominantly black high school. He sadly saw much of the same "acting white" BS from underachieving black kids. The minute someone showed promise, the others ganged up to say they were acting white. That attitude just plays into racist stereotypes and ensures that the cycle of black poverty will continue. You have to better yourself if you want to better your station in life.

It is also quite sad that we are so hung up on race. The fact that Obama is considered "black" because he has a black father is a perfect example. I read Mark Twain's Pudd'nhead Wilson when I was in college, and the novel really tweaks the notion that people in America are defined as black if they have any black ancestors--the old "one-drop" rule. The concept was used as a tool to support the "superiority" of the white race, and yet, more than 100 years since that novel was published, it still defines someones race. It's even more depressing to see black Americans turn around and use the same twisted logic against those who have white ancestors. You would think they would know better.

Well, I hope things go well for Dom at his new school and that you guys make some headway against the old one.

[Teal]

Y'know, I get that not everyone agrees with the Prop 8 vote in Cali, but the Cali Supreme Court has no right to override the will of the people.

http://apnews.myway.com/article/20081119/D94I8U1G3.html

There is no case. The people of California spoke via their right to vote. Not only that, but they have the right to have that vote be paramount, and not looked at as simply 'one opinion'.

The court system is overreaching their authority here. It'd be one thing if the legislature passed a law based upon legislative criteria. This was a popular vote of the people, and the courts have no right to even let this be a case. A good judge would say, 'If you want this overturned, then get more people to vote next time.'

[XXXIV]

The people voted but it seems people are stupid if a certain class of "intellectualy superior people" disagrees with them.

Long live the will of those that know better than you. Those that know whats best for all.

Fascism lives...In these United States.

[GTHobbes]

Y'know, I get that not everyone agrees with the Prop 8 vote in Cali, but the Cali Supreme Court has no right to override the will of the people.

Y'mean, kind've like when the US Supreme Court (arguably) overrode the will of the people back in 2000?

[XXXIV]

Y'mean, kind've like when the US Supreme Court (arguably) overrode the will of the people back in 2000?

Read your own sentence.

[Teal]

Y'know, I get that not everyone agrees with the Prop 8 vote in Cali, but the Cali Supreme Court has no right to override the will of the people.

Y'mean, kind've like when the US Supreme Court (arguably) overrode the will of the people back in 2000?

VERY arguably. All they did then was stop the three ring circus down in Florida. That's a very different horse you're talking about there.

[Jared]

Y'know, I get that not everyone agrees with the Prop 8 vote in Cali, but the Cali Supreme Court has no right to override the will of the people.

http://apnews.myway.com/article/20081119/D94I8U1G3.html

There is no case. The people of California spoke via their right to vote. Not only that, but they have the right to have that vote be paramount, and not looked at as simply 'one opinion'.

Then a question. Let's say that California (or any state) voted on a Proposition to make all guns completely illegal. Would the courts be overriding the will of the people by hearing a case on the constitutionality of that law?

[RobVarak]

With all due respect to believers in outright direct democracy, the very job of the courts is to periodically and systematically override the will of the people.

[Teal]

Y'know, I get that not everyone agrees with the Prop 8 vote in Cali, but the Cali Supreme Court has no right to override the will of the people.

http://apnews.myway.com/article/20081119/D94I8U1G3.html

There is no case. The people of California spoke via their right to vote. Not only that, but they have the right to have that vote be paramount, and not looked at as simply 'one opinion'.

Then a question. Let's say that California (or any state) voted on a Proposition to make all guns completely illegal. Would the courts be overriding the will of the people by hearing a case on the constitutionality of that law?

The second amendment is open and shut. It's worded in the constitution. Gay marriage is not. In any way, shape, form or fashion.

[XXXIV]

Just so there is no misunderstanding Im all for gay marriage.

I just dont like bullshit. bullshit hypocrasy...and this protest reeks of it.

The irony of the higher voter turnout amongst democrats in California leading to that result is quite amusing.

[Jared]

The second amendment is open and shut. It's worded in the constitution. Gay marriage is not. In any way, shape, form or fashion.

Well, that's your opinion. Some believe the 2nd amendment isn't open and shut (as they believe it refers only to a well-regulated militia). Some believe that any gay marriage ban in California is unconstitutional (and the California Supreme Court ruled as such in May). It's the job of the courts, not public opinion, to make decisions on the constitutionality of laws and amendments.

[XXXIV]

Lets all pick the amendments we disagree with and see if we can axe the suckers.

[Rodster]

What I find amusing about the militant pro gay marriage protesters is that they pick on churches which they know won't get physical or fight back. I would love to see them try that s*** at a mosque where i'm sure they'd find death threats or a cap up their ass if they pulled that stunt.

[Teal]

The second amendment is open and shut. It's worded in the constitution. Gay marriage is not. In any way, shape, form or fashion.

Well, that's your opinion. Some believe the 2nd amendment isn't open and shut (as they believe it refers only to a well-regulated militia). Some believe that any gay marriage ban in California is unconstitutional (and the California Supreme Court ruled as such in May). It's the job of the courts, not public opinion, to make decisions on the constitutionality of laws and amendments.

Oh, horseshit. The California Supreme Court legislates more than the US Senate. And all this system is set up to do is give credence to the losers by nulling the vote of the winners. What's the f***in point of a vote then?

And I can nearly assure you of this: If the damned thing went the other way, no court would touch it.

[matthewk]

What I find amusing about the militant pro gay marriage protesters is that they pick on churches which they know won't get physical or fight back. I would love to see them try that s*** at a mosque where i'm sure they'd find death threats or a cap up their ass if they pulled that stunt.

Of course if anyone did fight back, then they'd be screaming "hate crime".

[Brando70]

Y'know, I get that not everyone agrees with the Prop 8 vote in Cali, but the Cali Supreme Court has no right to override the will of the people.

http://apnews.myway.com/article/20081119/D94I8U1G3.html

There is no case. The people of California spoke via their right to vote. Not only that, but they have the right to have that vote be paramount, and not looked at as simply 'one opinion'.

The court system is overreaching their authority here. It'd be one thing if the legislature passed a law based upon legislative criteria. This was a popular vote of the people, and the courts have no right to even let this be a case. A good judge would say, 'If you want this overturned, then get more people to vote next time.'

So if "the people" decided to keep the races separated, the courts should have no ability to stop them? Like Rob said, direct democracy is not always a good thing. It's not about elitism, it's about protecting the minority from the tyranny of the majority -- a very American tradition.

Look, if people believe homosexuality is a sin, that's their right. However, since the government has long been in the marriage business, and married couples receive distinct benefits from the government and from many employers, there is discrimination here. The argument from religious people about respecting their beliefs is moot. No one is preventing them from getting married or forcing them to enter a gay marriage. No one is forcing a church to marry a gay couple. It's simply seeking government recognition for two people who want to be recognized as married.

I really don't get how that devalues marriage any more than it's already been devalued, especially considering that a great number of the people protesting gay marriage have likely been divorced, had affairs, had sex outside of marriage, etc. Gay people marrying isn't going to change anything about anyone's current marriage. If anything, gay marriage promotes more social stability among homosexual couples.

If it is a sin, then that's between that couple and God, and none of my f***in business.