OT: Elections/Politics thread, part 4

[Jared]

she has been criticized for using these accounts for state business, possibly in order to circumvent rules via archiving stuff for evidence.

That's conjecture, pure and simple, Jared. And assigning motive when there's no clear way to do that is a little irresponsible, given the nature of the allegation.

It's not conjecture....from the NYT article linked previously:

While Ms. Palin took office promising a more open government, her administration has battled to keep information secret. Her inner circle discussed the benefit of using private e-mail addresses. An assistant told her it appeared that such e-mail messages sent to a private address on a “personal device” like a BlackBerry “would be confidential and not subject to subpoena.”

Ms. Palin and aides use their private e-mail addresses for state business. A campaign spokesman said the governor copied e-mail messages to her state account “when there was significant state business.”

On Feb. 7, Frank Bailey, a high-level aide, wrote to Ms. Palin’s state e-mail address to discuss appointments. Another aide fired back: “Frank, this is not the governor’s personal account.”

Mr. Bailey responded: “Whoops~!”

[RobVarak]

On a different front:
http://www.bloomberg.com/apps/news?pid= ... PBaUbYV_qQ

In my opinion, the best thing Congress can do is get the hell out of the way. They greatly helped cause this mess in the first place.

How exactly did Congress help cause this mess?

Do they control the SEC or any of the other regulatory bodies?

Did they deregulate the use of the CDS and other derivatives?

Did they sit on their hands while lenders pushed mortgages without income documentation through the system?

Did they drop the interest rates to cause the real estate bubble?

There is enough blame to go around for this mess. At least 3 Presidential administrations have some dirt on their hands. I don't see how you can suggest that Congress is blameless either. Their have been several attempts to reform the ovesight of the GSE's, but none since 1989 have succeeded in great part due to the money that Fannie and Freddie have tossed around Congress. The investment banks have also lined more than enough pockets (usually on the other side of the aisle) to render any move toward additional oversight stillborn.

[GTHobbes]

I hope they nail these little bastard hackers to the wall:
http://www.breitbart.com/article.php?id ... _article=1

That's not just stupid; it's criminal.

I just read about this. They are now looking into possible charges against Palin that she conducted official state business on her personal email account
and also for deleting these email accounts, which may be viewed as destroying evidence since she is currently being investigated for the trooper-gate thing.

I don't agree with this hacking behavior at all and those hackers should go to jail, but it will be interesting to see how all this plays out.

Speaking of trooper-gate, I guess it's a safe bet that none of the Repubs here are bothered by the fact that none of Palin's aides are going to comply with the subpoenas that have been issued. Pretty ballsy position for them to take, IMO. If they didn't have anything to hide, why not show up with their attorneys and testify?

[MACTEPsporta]

A whole slew of state polling released yesterday:

http://www.fivethirtyeight.com/2008/09/ ... l#comments

Something for everyone pretty much.

This jumps out. PA is not on the list. And Obama is only up by six points in IL?! Almost the same margin as FL, which is a consensus battleground state leaning GOP... Hmm...

[RobVarak]

Speaking of trooper-gate, I guess it's a safe bet that none of the Repubs here are bothered by the fact that none of Palin's aides are going to comply with the subpoenas that have been issued. Pretty ballsy position for them to take, IMO. If they didn't have anything to hide, why not show up with their attorneys and testify?

Attorneys advise clients to ignore subpoenas and risk a contempt warrant all the time. There are many reasons for doing so, even in cases without a political component. More reasons for doing so when there is.

[GTHobbes]

Speaking of trooper-gate, I guess it's a safe bet that none of the Repubs here are bothered by the fact that none of Palin's aides are going to comply with the subpoenas that have been issued. Pretty ballsy position for them to take, IMO. If they didn't have anything to hide, why not show up with their attorneys and testify?

Attorneys advise clients to ignore subpoenas and risk a contempt warrant all the time.

They do? Not at the BigLaw firm where I practice. Guess we'll see how good that advice turns out to be in this case. I'm never above learning a thing or two.

[Jared]

The commercial made a number of mistakes, but technically he does. He supported a bill to update the curriculum for sex ed. to lower the age of instruction to K in an "age appropriate" fashion using "medically accurate" instruction. The commercial should not have said "comprehensive" sex ed., and really was gilding the lily by doing so.

The factcheck link you had said the ad was "A Factual Failure". Technically, the law was enacted to teach children how to say no to sexual abuse. That is in NO WAY "comprehensive sex education", and it's much more than gilding the lily when you stretch education against child abuse into teaching children about sex. It's smearing and lying. This is the sex-ed part of the ad:

Obama's one accomplishment?
Legislation to teach "comprehensive sex education" to kindergartners.
Learning about sex before learning to read?
Barack Obama.

That's nasty, dishonest, and indefensible.

[GTHobbes]

Donald Trump and Lynn Forester de Rothschild

One candidate says that he'll raise the taxes for people making more than $250,000/year, and the other says he won't. Where's the mystery? I would've been more shocked to learn Trump was voting Democrat (and am wondering how many times THAT'S ever happened).

[RobVarak]

Speaking of trooper-gate, I guess it's a safe bet that none of the Repubs here are bothered by the fact that none of Palin's aides are going to comply with the subpoenas that have been issued. Pretty ballsy position for them to take, IMO. If they didn't have anything to hide, why not show up with their attorneys and testify?

Attorneys advise clients to ignore subpoenas and risk a contempt warrant all the time.

They do? Not at the BigLaw firm where I practice. Guess we'll see how good that advice turns out to be in this case. I'm never above learning a thing or two.

Ignore was a poor choice of words. I should say attorneys often advise their clients to refuse to comply with subpoenas...often with technical challenges or logistical foot-dragging. I'd be shocked if your firm didn't do so...regularly in fact.

[GTHobbes]

Attorneys advise clients to ignore subpoenas and risk a contempt warrant all the time.

They do? Not at the BigLaw firm where I practice. Guess we'll see how good that advice turns out to be in this case. I'm never above learning a thing or two.

Ignore was a poor choice of words. I should say attorneys often advise their clients to refuse to comply with subpoenas...often with technical challenges or logistical foot-dragging. I'd be shocked if your firm didn't do so...regularly in fact.

Technical challenges and logistical foot-dragging...of course. Announcing to the world that they'll be ignored...never, as far as I'm aware.

[Teal]

I hope they nail these little bastard hackers to the wall:
http://www.breitbart.com/article.php?id ... _article=1

That's not just stupid; it's criminal.

I just read about this. They are now looking into possible charges against Palin that she conducted official state business on her personal email account
and also for deleting these email accounts, which may be viewed as destroying evidence since she is currently being investigated for the trooper-gate thing.

I don't agree with this hacking behavior at all and those hackers should go to jail, but it will be interesting to see how all this plays out.

Speaking of trooper-gate, I guess it's a safe bet that none of the Repubs here are bothered by the fact that none of Palin's aides are going to comply with the subpoenas that have been issued. Pretty ballsy position for them to take, IMO. If they didn't have anything to hide, why not show up with their attorneys and testify?

I respect it, because it's politically motivated, period. The whole 'if they didn't have anything to hide' argument is very, very convenient.

[wco81]

Congress may not be blameless but I want to know how they're at fault here.

They don't have to pass bad legislation or not pass necessary legislation to have a bad effect. If they put their hands around GSE execs., that probably gets regulators to back off -- not so different from a Keating Five situation.

And Congress certainly screwed up deregulating these markets back in '99 or 2000 passing the Commodity Futures Modernization Act, with the infamous Enron loophole.

Phil Gramm authored it and Clinton signed it and many current members of Congress voted for it.

They also confirmed current SEC chairman Christopher Cox, whom McCain just said today should be fired.

But the SEC and all the other regulatory bodies are under the purview of the Executive Branch. All four candidates have been giving speeches in the last 4 days about how the regulatory agencies have failed.

Of course, McCain has been a strong proponent of deregulation most of his career. Would he be in favor of govt. intervention, whether in the form of increased regulatory activity or as he read from a script yesterday, would he be in favor of $25 billion in loans to the auto makers, if he weren't running for office? (Or how on Monday, he was against the bailout of AIG but on Tuesday, he was for it?)

Obviously Bush has been against govt. intervention most of his administration. What's happening now is that Paulson and Bernanke are performing triage, to try to save or stabilize the patient.

Once things are calmer, do the laissez-faire proponents advocate and practice preventive medicine? Or do they return to the hands-off, do-nothing unless there's a disaster approach?

[GTHobbes]

The whole 'if they didn't have anything to hide' argument is very, very convenient.

And the whole, "because it's politically motivated" argument isn't?

[Teal]

The whole 'if they didn't have anything to hide' argument is very, very convenient.

And the whole, "because it's politically motivated" argument isn't?

Please...are you serious? Obama campaign sends 30 some-odd lawyers up to Alaska to dig up whatever they can, and calling the results of some of that 'politically motivated' is convenient?

[GTHobbes]

The whole 'if they didn't have anything to hide' argument is very, very convenient.

And the whole, "because it's politically motivated" argument isn't?

Please...are you serious? Obama campaign sends 30 some-odd lawyers up to Alaska to dig up whatever they can, and calling the results of some of that 'politically motivated' is convenient?

Excuse me, but isn't the whole point of an investigation to "dig things up"? Personally, I'd like to see 'em testify...whether they have anything to hide or not, and whether it's politically motivated or not. Otherwise, it smells like more Bush/Cheney/Rove tactics (as opposed to Clinton's, "what do you mean by the word 'is'"...)

[RobVarak]

The factcheck link you had said the ad was "A Factual Failure". Technically, the law was enacted to teach children how to say no to sexual abuse. That is in NO WAY "comprehensive sex education...That's nasty, dishonest, and indefensible.

Factcheck is wrong.

http://www.ilga.gov/legislation/fulltex ... =&Session=

No pupil shall be required to take or participate in
any class or course in comprehensive sex education if the
pupil's his parent or guardian submits written objection
thereto, and refusal to take or participate in such course or
program shall not be reason for suspension or expulsion of
such pupil. Each class or course in comprehensive sex
education offered in any of grades K through 12 shall
include instruction on the prevention of sexually transmitted
infections, including the prevention, transmission and spread
HIV AIDS. Nothing in this Section prohibits instruction in
sanitation, hygiene or traditional courses in biology.

That's more than just teaching kids how to say no to inappropriate behavior. Indeed, that topic is just 1 of 15 specific areas of instruction which are mandated by the law with no distinction whatsoever made for the level of instruction.

All sex education courses that discuss sexual activity or
8 behavior intercourse shall satisfy the following criteria:
9 (1) Factual information presented in course
10 material and instruction shall be medically accurate and
11 objective.
12 (2) All (1) course material and instruction shall
13 be age and developmentally appropriate.
14 (3) Course material and instruction shall include a
15 discussion of sexual abstinence as a method to prevent
16 unintended pregnancy and sexually transmitted infections,
17 including HIV.
18 (4) Course material and instruction shall present
19 the latest medically factual information regarding both
20 the possible side effects and health benefits of all
21 forms of contraception, including the success and failure
22 rates for the prevention of pregnancy and sexually
23 transmitted infections, including HIV.
24 (5) Course material and instruction shall include a
25 discussion of the possible consequences of unintended
26 pregnancy and sexually transmitted infections, including
27 HIV.

4 (6) Course material and instruction shall
5 stress that sexually transmitted infections diseases are
6 serious possible hazards of sexual activity or behavior
7 intercourse. Pupils shall be provided with statistics
8 based on the latest medical information citing the
9 failure and success rates of all contraceptive methods
10 condoms in preventing unintended pregnancies and HIV AIDS
11 and other sexually transmitted infections diseases.
12 (7) (6) Course material and instruction shall
13 advise pupils of the laws pertaining to their financial
14 responsibility to children born in and out of wedlock.
15 (8) (7) Course material and instruction shall
16 advise pupils that it is unlawful for males or females of
17 any age to engage in sexual conduct or have sexual
18 relations with a minor as specified in of the
19 circumstances under which it is unlawful for males to
20 have sexual relations with females under the age of 18 to
21 whom they are not married pursuant to Article 12 of the
22 Criminal Code of 1961, as now or hereafter amended.
23 (9) Course material and instruction shall discuss
24 and provide for the development of positive communication
25 skills to maintain healthy relationships and avoid
26 unwanted sexual activity.
27 (10) Course material and instruction shall
28 emphasize that the pupil has the power to control
29 personal behavior. Pupils shall be encouraged to base
30 their actions on reasoning, self-discipline, sense of
31 responsibility, self-control, and ethical considerations,
32 such as respect for oneself and others.
33 (11) (8) Course material and instruction shall
34 teach pupils to not make unwanted physical and verbal

-4- LRB093 05269 NHT 05359 b
1 sexual advances and how to say no to unwanted sexual
2 advances and shall include information about verbal,
3 physical, and visual sexual harassment, including without
4 limitation nonconsensual sexual advances, nonconsensual
5 physical sexual contact, and rape by an acquaintance. The
6 course material and instruction shall contain methods of
7 preventing sexual assault by an acquaintance, including
8 exercising good judgment and avoiding behavior that
9 impairs one's judgment. The course material and
10 instruction shall emphasize personal accountability and
11 respect for others and Pupils shall be taught that it is
12 wrong to take advantage of or to exploit another person.
13 The material and instruction shall also encourage youth
14 to resist negative peer pressure. The course material and
15 instruction shall inform pupils of the potential legal
16 consequences of sexual assault by an acquaintance.
17 Specifically, pupils shall be advised that it is unlawful
18 to touch an intimate part of another person as specified
19 in the Criminal Code of 1961.
20 (12) Course material and instruction shall teach
21 male pupils about male accountability for sexual violence
22 and shall teach female students about reducing
23 vulnerability for sexual violence.
24 (13) Course material and instruction shall teach
25 pupils about counseling, medical, and legal resources
26 available to survivors of sexual abuse and sexual
27 assault, including resources for escaping violent
28 relationships.
29 (14) Course material and instruction shall teach
30 pupils that it is wrong to take advantage of or to
31 exploit another person.
32 (15) Course material and instruction shall be free
33 of racial, ethnic, gender, religious, or sexual
34 orientation biases.

There are some strikethroughs on some of the language that don't copy and paste, but you can see the original revisions via the link. The structure of the law is obvious, however.

I don't blame you for being mistaken though, as Obama has characterized the law that way since his Senate campaign.

Look, it's a typically shitty Illinois law. You shouldn't draft legislation that says on one hand all instruction shall be age appropriate but still mandate that all instruction include coverage of STD's, statutory rape etc. Unfortunately it is relfective of the level of drafting that we get out of our legislature. Those are obviously contradictory instructions. Obama can argue that he believed that it limited K-level instruction to such topics, but that is not the way that law is drafted. Nowhere does it expressly limit the instruction for Kindergartner's to inappropriate touching and it expressly refers to comprehensive education for K-12.

[Jared]

The law says that all course material should be age appropriate, so my guess is that that point trumps the later 15 point list (or that a later revision, considering that this law died in the Senate) would have taken care of it. Regardless, McCain is pushing something that is highly dishonest, as Obama has been clearly for age-appropriate sex ed, and not teaching kids sex before they can read.

[MACTEPsporta]

I believe you are all taking it a step too far. The ad isfactually false for its attempt to lead the public to believe Obama introduced that legislation, and for cherry picking quotes that make McCain sound like a champion of education, whereas in the same article they were quoting he is being hit pretty hard on education.

Incidently I have the state of California Supreme Court judge in front of me. Anyone has any questions I can ask him?

[Teal]

Speaking of trooper-gate

The correct terminology is 'Tazer-gate'.

[Teal]

Incidently I have the state of California Supreme Court judge in front of me. Anyone has any questions I can ask him?

Not any that I'd trust an unbiased answer for.

[XXXIV]

Incidently I have the state of California Supreme Court judge in front of me. Anyone has any questions I can ask him?

Boxers or briefs?

[Teal]

http://www.breitbart.com/article.php?id ... _article=1

Well, she's either a liar or a narcissist...maybe both.

[matthewk]

Incidently I have the state of California Supreme Court judge in front of me. Anyone has any questions I can ask him?

Are you aware that I (MACTEPsporta) am currently surfing a video gaming website right in front of you?

[matthewk]

http://www.breitbart.com/article.php?id ... _article=1

Well, she's either a liar or a narcissist...maybe both.

"And I'm talking about me". The cute part or the guy part?

[Teal]

You gotta be f'ing kidding me...
http://www.breitbart.com/article.php?id ... _article=1

This asshole isn't legitimate enough to 'debate' with either of these two guys, but I'd bet Obama might entertain the idea...