Silicon Investor (SI) -- The First Internet Community

STOCKTALK

We've detected that you're using an ad content blocking browser plug-in or feature. Ads provide a critical source of revenue to the continued operation of Silicon Investor. We ask that you disable ad blocking while on Silicon Investor in the best interests of our community. If you are not using an ad blocker but are still receiving this message, make sure your browser's tracking protection is set to the 'standard' level.

Politics : GOPwinger Lies/Distortions/Omissions/Perversions of Truth -- Ignore unavailable to you. Want to Upgrade?

To: Kevin Rose who wrote (139753)	10/2/2008 9:13:07 AM
From: jlallen	2 Recommendations Respond to of 173976

It is that she apparently has NO position or opinion on SC rulings, because she can't name any except Roe v Wade. Poor assumption and faulty logic. The fact that she chose not to answer in detail does not equate to your conclusion....

To: Kevin Rose who wrote (139753)	10/2/2008 12:38:30 PM
From: Brumar89	1 Recommendation Respond to of 173976

The premise that Bush is out of touch with the electorate because he doesn't read newspapers enough assumes the major newspapers reflect the electorate. In fact, the old media is dying and its out of touch with the electorate. The themes one sees on the banner of the NYT etc don't reflect the views of a majority of Americans. No candidates running are constitutional scholars - Obama has explicitly said he wants justices who'll decide cases based on empathy for the would select justices on the basis of their empathy for society's downtrodden: "We need somebody who’s got the empathy to recognize what it’s like to be a young teenage mom. ... The empathy to understand what it's like to be poor, or African-American, or gay, or disabled, or old. And that's the criteria by which I'm going to be selecting my judges." He's also explicitly said SC justices shouldn't just be objective umpires judging constitutional issues. He wants judges to be social workers. althouse.blogspot.com Habeus corpus suspension was struck down by the SC when it rejected that portion of the Military Commissions Act: The Court struck down that section of the MCA because it purported to abolish the writ of habeas corpus -- the means by which a detainee challenges his detention in a court -- despite the fact that the Constitution permits suspension of that writ only "in Cases of Rebellion or Invasion." And since that decision, the Bush administration has followed the Court hasn't it? Why should they have anticipated a new ruling by the Court? BTW, I think AQ's attack on the US makes our fight with AQ an issue of invasion anyway even if we pursue them overseas. Spying was not limited to 'foreign enemies' - it included people that were citizens who had Middle Eastern ties and whom the government wanted to investigate. And the calls spied on were ones to foreign suspects. If all the people who's calls were monitored were indeed 'foreign enemies', then we have literally tens of thousands of terrorists in the US. We almost certainly have tens of thousands of terrorist sympathizers in the US. No reason we shouldn't spy on their calls to foreign terror suspects. Did you see that John McCain admitted that the government tortured prisoners in the last debate? Between Gitmo, secret prisons in 'torture friendly' allies, and Abu Ghraib, there has been a lot more torture than 3 water boarded prisoners. Yes, the US has waterboarded 3 top AQ figures. That is the extent of US authorized 'torture'. Gitmo isn't a torture camp. Detainees are treated humanely but are subject to administrative punishment like shackling, denial of privileges, solitary confinement, etc. for violence against guards just like any prison. US personnel have been tried and convicted of mistreatment - a euphamism for torture. And they are just the scapegoats. No, people found guilty of mistreatment at places like Abu Ghraib are not scapegoats, they're guilty on the face of their actions. The Army found that problem (Abu Ghraib), investigated it, and punished the guilty on its own long before any liberals heard of it. Liberals seem to think they can make up any fantasy and pass it off as truth in order to destroy the character of their political opponents. Joe Biden was cleared of any wrongdoing by the Delaware Court's Board of Professional Responsibility with regards to the so-called 'plagurism' in law school. Nevertheless, he plagiarized both in law school and again later in life. Getting caught in law school should have taught him a lesson. It didn't. Many Democrats had a lot of respect for McCain before ... he got the Republican nomination. Their attacking of his character now is just standard liberal behavior and reflects on their own character i/o his. I remember when McCain first came out with the campaign ad showing various Democrats lauding McCain. Right after that, the DNC came out with a counter ad that had the SAME people saying that they don't recognize the new John McCain, Thanks for illustrating the hypocrisy of liberal Democrats.