CONCORD, NH (The Borowitz Report) - The mystery surrounding Col. Muammar Gaddafi's whereabouts was resolved today as the dictator announced his candidacy for the Republican presidential nomination in a town hall meeting in Concord, New Hampshire.
In announcing his candidacy, the Libyan madman joins a Republican field which is believed to number in excess of seven hundred candidates.
While some New Hampshire Republicans seemed surprised to see Col. Gaddafi shaking hands and kissing babies at the Concord town hall, an aide to the Libyan strongman said his transformation to GOP candidate made perfect sense.
"In those final days in Tripoli he was becoming increasingly disconnected from reality," said the aide. "So I think he'll fit right in."
Mr. Gaddafi, dressed in his trademark yellow turban and matching robe, got mixed reviews in his first appearance on the campaign trail, with some New Hampshire citizens saying that his six-hour stump speech was badly in need of pruning.
Additionally, some felt that his rhetoric needed to be toned down, especially his closing line about fighting for the Republican nomination "until the last drop of blood."
But others gave him high marks for his grasp of history and geography, which most agreed was stronger than Michele Bachmann's.
Perhaps underscoring the challenges that lie ahead for Mr. Gaddafi in his quest for the GOP nod, current polls show him in the back of the pack, leading former Senator Rick Santorum but trailing the pizza guy.
"Unfortunately for Muammar Gaddafi, he might be out of step with the current crop of Republican candidates," one pollster said. "There's a perception that he's too moderate."
Pat wrote: > CONCORD, NH (The Borowitz Report) - The mystery surrounding Col. > Muammar Gaddafi's whereabouts was resolved today as the dictator > announced his candidacy for the Republican presidential nomination in > a town hall meeting in Concord, New Hampshire.
> In announcing his candidacy, the Libyan madman joins a Republican > field which is believed to number in excess of seven hundred > candidates.
> While some New Hampshire Republicans seemed surprised to see Col. > Gaddafi shaking hands and kissing babies at the Concord town hall, an > aide to the Libyan strongman said his transformation to GOP candidate > made perfect sense.
> "In those final days in Tripoli he was becoming increasingly > disconnected from reality," said the aide. "So I think he'll fit > right in."
> Mr. Gaddafi, dressed in his trademark yellow turban and matching robe, > got mixed reviews in his first appearance on the campaign trail, with > some New Hampshire citizens saying that his six-hour stump speech was > badly in need of pruning.
> Additionally, some felt that his rhetoric needed to be toned down, > especially his closing line about fighting for the Republican > nomination "until the last drop of blood."
> But others gave him high marks for his grasp of history and geography, > which most agreed was stronger than Michele Bachmann's.
> Perhaps underscoring the challenges that lie ahead for Mr. Gaddafi in > his quest for the GOP nod, current polls show him in the back of the > pack, leading former Senator Rick Santorum but trailing the pizza guy.
> "Unfortunately for Muammar Gaddafi, he might be out of step with the > current crop of Republican candidates," one pollster said. "There's a > perception that he's too moderate."
> CONCORD, NH (The Borowitz Report) - The mystery surrounding Col. > Muammar Gaddafi's whereabouts was resolved today as the dictator > announced his candidacy for the Republican presidential nomination in > a town hall meeting in Concord, New Hampshire.
> In announcing his candidacy, the Libyan madman joins a Republican > field which is believed to number in excess of seven hundred > candidates.
> While some New Hampshire Republicans seemed surprised to see Col. > Gaddafi shaking hands and kissing babies at the Concord town hall, an > aide to the Libyan strongman said his transformation to GOP candidate > made perfect sense.
> "In those final days in Tripoli he was becoming increasingly > disconnected from reality," said the aide. "So I think he'll fit > right in."
> Mr. Gaddafi, dressed in his trademark yellow turban and matching robe, > got mixed reviews in his first appearance on the campaign trail, with > some New Hampshire citizens saying that his six-hour stump speech was > badly in need of pruning.
> Additionally, some felt that his rhetoric needed to be toned down, > especially his closing line about fighting for the Republican > nomination "until the last drop of blood."
> But others gave him high marks for his grasp of history and geography, > which most agreed was stronger than Michele Bachmann's.
> Perhaps underscoring the challenges that lie ahead for Mr. Gaddafi in > his quest for the GOP nod, current polls show him in the back of the > pack, leading former Senator Rick Santorum but trailing the pizza guy.
> "Unfortunately for Muammar Gaddafi, he might be out of step with the > current crop of Republican candidates," one pollster said. "There's a > perception that he's too moderate."
It would be very strange to see him win the nomination, although it would be an interesting first to have two Muslims opposing each other in the race for President.
> On Aug 22, 12:32 pm, Pat <pfin...@fenceonline.com> wrote:
> > CONCORD, NH (The Borowitz Report) - The mystery surrounding Col. > > Muammar Gaddafi's whereabouts was resolved today as the dictator > > announced his candidacy for the Republican presidential nomination in > > a town hall meeting in Concord, New Hampshire.
> > In announcing his candidacy, the Libyan madman joins a Republican > > field which is believed to number in excess of seven hundred > > candidates.
> > While some New Hampshire Republicans seemed surprised to see Col. > > Gaddafi shaking hands and kissing babies at the Concord town hall, an > > aide to the Libyan strongman said his transformation to GOP candidate > > made perfect sense.
> > "In those final days in Tripoli he was becoming increasingly > > disconnected from reality," said the aide. "So I think he'll fit > > right in."
> > Mr. Gaddafi, dressed in his trademark yellow turban and matching robe, > > got mixed reviews in his first appearance on the campaign trail, with > > some New Hampshire citizens saying that his six-hour stump speech was > > badly in need of pruning.
> > Additionally, some felt that his rhetoric needed to be toned down, > > especially his closing line about fighting for the Republican > > nomination "until the last drop of blood."
> > But others gave him high marks for his grasp of history and geography, > > which most agreed was stronger than Michele Bachmann's.
> > Perhaps underscoring the challenges that lie ahead for Mr. Gaddafi in > > his quest for the GOP nod, current polls show him in the back of the > > pack, leading former Senator Rick Santorum but trailing the pizza guy.
> > "Unfortunately for Muammar Gaddafi, he might be out of step with the > > current crop of Republican candidates," one pollster said. "There's a > > perception that he's too moderate."
> It would be very strange to see him win the nomination, although it > would be an interesting first to have two Muslims opposing each other > in the race for President.
> On Aug 22, 9:40 pm, "richer...@hotnail.com" <richer...@gmail.com> > wrote:
> > On Aug 22, 12:32 pm, Pat <pfin...@fenceonline.com> wrote:
> > > CONCORD, NH (The Borowitz Report) - The mystery surrounding Col. > > > Muammar Gaddafi's whereabouts was resolved today as the dictator > > > announced his candidacy for the Republican presidential nomination in > > > a town hall meeting in Concord, New Hampshire.
> > > In announcing his candidacy, the Libyan madman joins a Republican > > > field which is believed to number in excess of seven hundred > > > candidates.
> > > While some New Hampshire Republicans seemed surprised to see Col. > > > Gaddafi shaking hands and kissing babies at the Concord town hall, an > > > aide to the Libyan strongman said his transformation to GOP candidate > > > made perfect sense.
> > > "In those final days in Tripoli he was becoming increasingly > > > disconnected from reality," said the aide. "So I think he'll fit > > > right in."
> > > Mr. Gaddafi, dressed in his trademark yellow turban and matching robe, > > > got mixed reviews in his first appearance on the campaign trail, with > > > some New Hampshire citizens saying that his six-hour stump speech was > > > badly in need of pruning.
> > > Additionally, some felt that his rhetoric needed to be toned down, > > > especially his closing line about fighting for the Republican > > > nomination "until the last drop of blood."
> > > But others gave him high marks for his grasp of history and geography, > > > which most agreed was stronger than Michele Bachmann's.
> > > Perhaps underscoring the challenges that lie ahead for Mr. Gaddafi in > > > his quest for the GOP nod, current polls show him in the back of the > > > pack, leading former Senator Rick Santorum but trailing the pizza guy.
> > > "Unfortunately for Muammar Gaddafi, he might be out of step with the > > > current crop of Republican candidates," one pollster said. "There's a > > > perception that he's too moderate."
> > It would be very strange to see him win the nomination, although it > > would be an interesting first to have two Muslims opposing each other > > in the race for President.
> And both born in Hawaii!>
Sorry to rain on the parade but according to D. Trump Hawaii wasn't a U.S. state in 1942 when Gaddafi was born. A21
> On Aug 22, 9:43 pm, "richer...@hotnail.com" <richer...@gmail.com> > wrote:
> > On Aug 22, 9:40 pm, "richer...@hotnail.com" <richer...@gmail.com> > > wrote:
> > > On Aug 22, 12:32 pm, Pat <pfin...@fenceonline.com> wrote:
> > > > CONCORD, NH (The Borowitz Report) - The mystery surrounding Col. > > > > Muammar Gaddafi's whereabouts was resolved today as the dictator > > > > announced his candidacy for the Republican presidential nomination in > > > > a town hall meeting in Concord, New Hampshire.
> > > > In announcing his candidacy, the Libyan madman joins a Republican > > > > field which is believed to number in excess of seven hundred > > > > candidates.
> > > > While some New Hampshire Republicans seemed surprised to see Col. > > > > Gaddafi shaking hands and kissing babies at the Concord town hall, an > > > > aide to the Libyan strongman said his transformation to GOP candidate > > > > made perfect sense.
> > > > "In those final days in Tripoli he was becoming increasingly > > > > disconnected from reality," said the aide. "So I think he'll fit > > > > right in."
> > > > Mr. Gaddafi, dressed in his trademark yellow turban and matching robe, > > > > got mixed reviews in his first appearance on the campaign trail, with > > > > some New Hampshire citizens saying that his six-hour stump speech was > > > > badly in need of pruning.
> > > > Additionally, some felt that his rhetoric needed to be toned down, > > > > especially his closing line about fighting for the Republican > > > > nomination "until the last drop of blood."
> > > > But others gave him high marks for his grasp of history and geography, > > > > which most agreed was stronger than Michele Bachmann's.
> > > > Perhaps underscoring the challenges that lie ahead for Mr. Gaddafi in > > > > his quest for the GOP nod, current polls show him in the back of the > > > > pack, leading former Senator Rick Santorum but trailing the pizza guy.
> > > > "Unfortunately for Muammar Gaddafi, he might be out of step with the > > > > current crop of Republican candidates," one pollster said. "There's a > > > > perception that he's too moderate."
> > > It would be very strange to see him win the nomination, although it > > > would be an interesting first to have two Muslims opposing each other > > > in the race for President.
> > And both born in Hawaii!>
> Sorry to rain on the parade but according to D. Trump Hawaii wasn't a > U.S. state in 1942 when Gaddafi was born. > A21- Hide quoted text -
> - Show quoted text -
Not sure it needs to have been a state.
Right now I'm more focused on who the Gadaffi running mate will be. It can't be another Hawaiin, which lets out the possibliity of a fusion ticket with Obama, since they would forfeit those three Electoral College votes. As it stands, a Gadaffil candidacy will really pull the rug out from under the group of Americans who support Obama the most - the Muslim population - but it's hard to know who would be best at balancing the ticket and winning the election.
Richard> As it stands, a Gadaffil candidacy will really pull the rug out from under the group of Americans who support Obama the most - the Muslim population - but it's hard to know who would be best at balancing the ticket and winning the election. ----------------------- according to recent polls 80% of Muslim-Americans support Obama, whereas 88% of African-Americans support him for re-election.
He needs to introduce and educate Americans as to the beauty of Sharia law. Would win him a lot of red-neck votes, actually.
On Aug 23, 10:47 am, espon...@webtv.net (F R) wrote:
> Richard> > As it stands, a Gadaffil candidacy will really pull the rug out from > under the group of Americans who support Obama the most - the Muslim > population - but it's hard to know who would be best at balancing the > ticket and winning the election. > ----------------------- > according to recent polls 80% of Muslim-Americans support Obama, whereas > 88% of African-Americans support him for re-election.
> He needs to introduce and educate Americans as to the beauty of Sharia > law. Would win him a lot of red-neck votes, actually.
> Frank
Well, Frank, it stands to reason that a truly progressive President would have the vast bulk of the support of the Muslim community in this country.
> On Aug 22, 10:28 pm, A21² <ancon...@gmail.com> wrote:
> > On Aug 22, 9:43 pm, "richer...@hotnail.com" <richer...@gmail.com> > > wrote:
> > > On Aug 22, 9:40 pm, "richer...@hotnail.com" <richer...@gmail.com> > > > wrote:
> > > > On Aug 22, 12:32 pm, Pat <pfin...@fenceonline.com> wrote:
> > > > > CONCORD, NH (The Borowitz Report) - The mystery surrounding Col. > > > > > Muammar Gaddafi's whereabouts was resolved today as the dictator > > > > > announced his candidacy for the Republican presidential nomination in > > > > > a town hall meeting in Concord, New Hampshire.
> > > > > In announcing his candidacy, the Libyan madman joins a Republican > > > > > field which is believed to number in excess of seven hundred > > > > > candidates.
> > > > > While some New Hampshire Republicans seemed surprised to see Col. > > > > > Gaddafi shaking hands and kissing babies at the Concord town hall, an > > > > > aide to the Libyan strongman said his transformation to GOP candidate > > > > > made perfect sense.
> > > > > "In those final days in Tripoli he was becoming increasingly > > > > > disconnected from reality," said the aide. "So I think he'll fit > > > > > right in."
> > > > > Mr. Gaddafi, dressed in his trademark yellow turban and matching robe, > > > > > got mixed reviews in his first appearance on the campaign trail, with > > > > > some New Hampshire citizens saying that his six-hour stump speech was > > > > > badly in need of pruning.
> > > > > Additionally, some felt that his rhetoric needed to be toned down, > > > > > especially his closing line about fighting for the Republican > > > > > nomination "until the last drop of blood."
> > > > > But others gave him high marks for his grasp of history and geography, > > > > > which most agreed was stronger than Michele Bachmann's.
> > > > > Perhaps underscoring the challenges that lie ahead for Mr. Gaddafi in > > > > > his quest for the GOP nod, current polls show him in the back of the > > > > > pack, leading former Senator Rick Santorum but trailing the pizza guy.
> > > > > "Unfortunately for Muammar Gaddafi, he might be out of step with the > > > > > current crop of Republican candidates," one pollster said. "There's a > > > > > perception that he's too moderate."
> > > > It would be very strange to see him win the nomination, although it > > > > would be an interesting first to have two Muslims opposing each other > > > > in the race for President.
> > > And both born in Hawaii!>
> > Sorry to rain on the parade but according to D. Trump Hawaii wasn't a > > U.S. state in 1942 when Gaddafi was born. > > A21- Hide quoted text -
> > - Show quoted text -
> Not sure it needs to have been a state.
Oh please . . and then there's the requirement that a candidate must have been been to U.S. citizens. I feel so empowered writing this stuff that I'm considering going to NYU law school . . maybe just for lunch at first. Ancona21
> Right now I'm more focused on who the Gadaffi running mate will be. It > can't be another Hawaiin, which lets out the possibliity of a fusion > ticket with Obama, since they would forfeit those three Electoral > College votes. As it stands, a Gadaffil candidacy will really pull the > rug out from under the group of Americans who support Obama the most - > the Muslim population - but it's hard to know who would be best at > balancing the ticket and winning the election.
> On Aug 22, 11:35 pm, "richer...@hotnail.com" <richer...@gmail.com> > wrote:
> > On Aug 22, 10:28 pm, A21² <ancon...@gmail.com> wrote:
> > > On Aug 22, 9:43 pm, "richer...@hotnail.com" <richer...@gmail.com> > > > wrote:
> > > > On Aug 22, 9:40 pm, "richer...@hotnail.com" <richer...@gmail.com> > > > > wrote:
> > > > > On Aug 22, 12:32 pm, Pat <pfin...@fenceonline.com> wrote:
> > > > > > CONCORD, NH (The Borowitz Report) - The mystery surrounding Col. > > > > > > Muammar Gaddafi's whereabouts was resolved today as the dictator > > > > > > announced his candidacy for the Republican presidential nomination in > > > > > > a town hall meeting in Concord, New Hampshire.
> > > > > > In announcing his candidacy, the Libyan madman joins a Republican > > > > > > field which is believed to number in excess of seven hundred > > > > > > candidates.
> > > > > > While some New Hampshire Republicans seemed surprised to see Col. > > > > > > Gaddafi shaking hands and kissing babies at the Concord town hall, an > > > > > > aide to the Libyan strongman said his transformation to GOP candidate > > > > > > made perfect sense.
> > > > > > "In those final days in Tripoli he was becoming increasingly > > > > > > disconnected from reality," said the aide. "So I think he'll fit > > > > > > right in."
> > > > > > Mr. Gaddafi, dressed in his trademark yellow turban and matching robe, > > > > > > got mixed reviews in his first appearance on the campaign trail, with > > > > > > some New Hampshire citizens saying that his six-hour stump speech was > > > > > > badly in need of pruning.
> > > > > > Additionally, some felt that his rhetoric needed to be toned down, > > > > > > especially his closing line about fighting for the Republican > > > > > > nomination "until the last drop of blood."
> > > > > > But others gave him high marks for his grasp of history and geography, > > > > > > which most agreed was stronger than Michele Bachmann's.
> > > > > > Perhaps underscoring the challenges that lie ahead for Mr. Gaddafi in > > > > > > his quest for the GOP nod, current polls show him in the back of the > > > > > > pack, leading former Senator Rick Santorum but trailing the pizza guy.
> > > > > > "Unfortunately for Muammar Gaddafi, he might be out of step with the > > > > > > current crop of Republican candidates," one pollster said. "There's a > > > > > > perception that he's too moderate."
> > > > > It would be very strange to see him win the nomination, although it > > > > > would be an interesting first to have two Muslims opposing each other > > > > > in the race for President.
> > > > And both born in Hawaii!>
> > > Sorry to rain on the parade but according to D. Trump Hawaii wasn't a > > > U.S. state in 1942 when Gaddafi was born. > > > A21- Hide quoted text -
> > > - Show quoted text -
> > Not sure it needs to have been a state.
> Oh please . . and then there's the requirement that a candidate must > have been been to U.S. citizens. I feel so empowered writing this > stuff that I'm considering going to NYU law school . . maybe just for > lunch at first. > Ancona21
> > Right now I'm more focused on who the Gadaffi running mate will be. It > > can't be another Hawaiin, which lets out the possibliity of a fusion > > ticket with Obama, since they would forfeit those three Electoral > > College votes. As it stands, a Gadaffil candidacy will really pull the > > rug out from under the group of Americans who support Obama the most - > > the Muslim population - but it's hard to know who would be best at > > balancing the ticket and winning the election.- Hide quoted text -
> - Show quoted text -- Hide quoted text -
> - Show quoted text -
Actually, if you recall, McCain, who had the election stolen from him, was born in the Canal Zone, so there is no requirement that you be born in a 'state'.
The issue you raised, obviously without thinknig about it, was whether someone born in a territory (before it became a state) were eligible to be President. We know that if you are born in the US proper, of any nationality, you are a US citizen; I suspect the same is true for territories.
Am not sure what "and then there's the requirement that a candidate must have been been to U.S. citizens" exactly means, but you might be happier, all together, at New York Law School if there's an essay question on the admissions test.
richer...@hotnail.com wrote: > On Aug 22, 12:32 pm, Pat <pfin...@fenceonline.com> wrote: >> CONCORD, NH (The Borowitz Report) - The mystery surrounding Col. >> Muammar Gaddafi's whereabouts was resolved today as the dictator >> announced his candidacy for the Republican presidential nomination in >> a town hall meeting in Concord, New Hampshire.
>> In announcing his candidacy, the Libyan madman joins a Republican >> field which is believed to number in excess of seven hundred >> candidates.
>> While some New Hampshire Republicans seemed surprised to see Col. >> Gaddafi shaking hands and kissing babies at the Concord town hall, an >> aide to the Libyan strongman said his transformation to GOP candidate >> made perfect sense.
>> "In those final days in Tripoli he was becoming increasingly >> disconnected from reality," said the aide. "So I think he'll fit >> right in."
>> Mr. Gaddafi, dressed in his trademark yellow turban and matching robe, >> got mixed reviews in his first appearance on the campaign trail, with >> some New Hampshire citizens saying that his six-hour stump speech was >> badly in need of pruning.
>> Additionally, some felt that his rhetoric needed to be toned down, >> especially his closing line about fighting for the Republican >> nomination "until the last drop of blood."
>> But others gave him high marks for his grasp of history and geography, >> which most agreed was stronger than Michele Bachmann's.
>> Perhaps underscoring the challenges that lie ahead for Mr. Gaddafi in >> his quest for the GOP nod, current polls show him in the back of the >> pack, leading former Senator Rick Santorum but trailing the pizza guy.
>> "Unfortunately for Muammar Gaddafi, he might be out of step with the >> current crop of Republican candidates," one pollster said. "There's a >> perception that he's too moderate."
> It would be very strange to see him win the nomination, although it > would be an interesting first to have two Muslims opposing each other > in the race for President.
"Two Muslims"???? Are you one of the idiots who ignore the fact that Obama attends an Evangelical Christian church? (In fact, the militant pro-black preacher of his church created quite a furor during the presidential election.)
A21² wrote: > On Aug 22, 9:43 pm, "richer...@hotnail.com" <richer...@gmail.com> > wrote: >> On Aug 22, 9:40 pm, "richer...@hotnail.com" <richer...@gmail.com> >> wrote:
>>> On Aug 22, 12:32 pm, Pat <pfin...@fenceonline.com> wrote: >>>> CONCORD, NH (The Borowitz Report) - The mystery surrounding Col. >>>> Muammar Gaddafi's whereabouts was resolved today as the dictator >>>> announced his candidacy for the Republican presidential nomination in >>>> a town hall meeting in Concord, New Hampshire. >>>> In announcing his candidacy, the Libyan madman joins a Republican >>>> field which is believed to number in excess of seven hundred >>>> candidates. >>>> While some New Hampshire Republicans seemed surprised to see Col. >>>> Gaddafi shaking hands and kissing babies at the Concord town hall, an >>>> aide to the Libyan strongman said his transformation to GOP candidate >>>> made perfect sense. >>>> "In those final days in Tripoli he was becoming increasingly >>>> disconnected from reality," said the aide. "So I think he'll fit >>>> right in." >>>> Mr. Gaddafi, dressed in his trademark yellow turban and matching robe, >>>> got mixed reviews in his first appearance on the campaign trail, with >>>> some New Hampshire citizens saying that his six-hour stump speech was >>>> badly in need of pruning. >>>> Additionally, some felt that his rhetoric needed to be toned down, >>>> especially his closing line about fighting for the Republican >>>> nomination "until the last drop of blood." >>>> But others gave him high marks for his grasp of history and geography, >>>> which most agreed was stronger than Michele Bachmann's. >>>> Perhaps underscoring the challenges that lie ahead for Mr. Gaddafi in >>>> his quest for the GOP nod, current polls show him in the back of the >>>> pack, leading former Senator Rick Santorum but trailing the pizza guy. >>>> "Unfortunately for Muammar Gaddafi, he might be out of step with the >>>> current crop of Republican candidates," one pollster said. "There's a >>>> perception that he's too moderate." >>> It would be very strange to see him win the nomination, although it >>> would be an interesting first to have two Muslims opposing each other >>> in the race for President. >> And both born in Hawaii!>
> Sorry to rain on the parade but according to D. Trump Hawaii wasn't a > U.S. state in 1942 when Gaddafi was born. > A21
However, it WAS a U.S. "Possession", which also conferred U.S. Citizenship to those born there. (Although of course Gaddafi was not.)
<evgm...@earthlink.net> wrote: > richer...@hotnail.com wrote: > > On Aug 22, 12:32 pm, Pat <pfin...@fenceonline.com> wrote: > >> CONCORD, NH (The Borowitz Report) - The mystery surrounding Col. > >> Muammar Gaddafi's whereabouts was resolved today as the dictator > >> announced his candidacy for the Republican presidential nomination in > >> a town hall meeting in Concord, New Hampshire.
> >> In announcing his candidacy, the Libyan madman joins a Republican > >> field which is believed to number in excess of seven hundred > >> candidates.
> >> While some New Hampshire Republicans seemed surprised to see Col. > >> Gaddafi shaking hands and kissing babies at the Concord town hall, an > >> aide to the Libyan strongman said his transformation to GOP candidate > >> made perfect sense.
> >> "In those final days in Tripoli he was becoming increasingly > >> disconnected from reality," said the aide. "So I think he'll fit > >> right in."
> >> Mr. Gaddafi, dressed in his trademark yellow turban and matching robe, > >> got mixed reviews in his first appearance on the campaign trail, with > >> some New Hampshire citizens saying that his six-hour stump speech was > >> badly in need of pruning.
> >> Additionally, some felt that his rhetoric needed to be toned down, > >> especially his closing line about fighting for the Republican > >> nomination "until the last drop of blood."
> >> But others gave him high marks for his grasp of history and geography, > >> which most agreed was stronger than Michele Bachmann's.
> >> Perhaps underscoring the challenges that lie ahead for Mr. Gaddafi in > >> his quest for the GOP nod, current polls show him in the back of the > >> pack, leading former Senator Rick Santorum but trailing the pizza guy.
> >> "Unfortunately for Muammar Gaddafi, he might be out of step with the > >> current crop of Republican candidates," one pollster said. "There's a > >> perception that he's too moderate."
> > It would be very strange to see him win the nomination, although it > > would be an interesting first to have two Muslims opposing each other > > in the race for President.
> "Two Muslims"???? Are you one of the idiots who ignore the fact that > Obama attends an Evangelical Christian church? (In fact, the militant > pro-black preacher of his church created quite a furor during the > presidential election.)- Hide quoted text -
> - Show quoted text -
That's not Obama. That's a double who's hired to go. The real Obama actually has plans now to put the speakers for a mosque at the top of the Lincoln Memorial. That was the real 'agenda' when they were trying to identify him with Abraham Lincoln..And it's not that he's taking a lot of vacation; it's the repeat trips to Mecca that take up so much of the time.
> "Two Muslims"???? Are you one of the idiots who ignore the fact that > Obama attends an Evangelical Christian church?
__________
Please don't give Richard a bad time about his politics.
Clearly the Republicans in Congress have mathematics, good sense, and moral uprightness on their side when they argue that reducing the disposable income of a wealthy person -- check that, I meant to say a job-creator -- by $1,000 would deal a crushing blow to the economy, while reducing the disposable income of twenty poor and middle-class people by $50 each (by reducing entitlement spending) would surely redound to the economic advantage of all.
The wealthy, after all, know what to do with money. They buy securities, hedge against economic uncertainty, and diversify their holdings by making investments in the economies of many countries. All proven job-creation techniques, especially in third-world economies. The unsophisticated poor and the middle class, on the other hand, would only blow the money on food, clothing, shelter, health care and other such fripperies.
How is the economy ever going to recover if we continue to indulge the baser instincts of the working classes?
> > "Two Muslims"???? Are you one of the idiots who ignore the fact that > > Obama attends an Evangelical Christian church?
> __________
> Please don't give Richard a bad time about his politics.
> Clearly the Republicans in Congress have mathematics, good sense, and > moral uprightness on their side when they argue that reducing the > disposable income of a wealthy person -- check that, I meant to say a > job-creator -- by $1,000 would deal a crushing blow to the economy, > while reducing the disposable income of twenty poor and middle-class > people by $50 each (by reducing entitlement spending) would surely > redound to the economic advantage of all.
> The wealthy, after all, know what to do with money. They buy > securities, hedge against economic uncertainty, and diversify their > holdings by making investments in the economies of many countries. > All proven job-creation techniques, especially in third-world > economies. The unsophisticated poor and the middle class, on the > other hand, would only blow the money on food, clothing, shelter, > health care and other such fripperies.
> How is the economy ever going to recover if we continue to indulge the > baser instincts of the working classes?
> Pat
But Pat, if the working classes really were given the benefits of taxes from the rich, they wouldn't be working any more, and where would we all be?
> > > "Two Muslims"???? Are you one of the idiots who ignore the fact that > > > Obama attends an Evangelical Christian church?
> > __________
> > Please don't give Richard a bad time about his politics.
> > Clearly the Republicans in Congress have mathematics, good sense, and > > moral uprightness on their side when they argue that reducing the > > disposable income of a wealthy person -- check that, I meant to say a > > job-creator -- by $1,000 would deal a crushing blow to the economy, > > while reducing the disposable income of twenty poor and middle-class > > people by $50 each (by reducing entitlement spending) would surely > > redound to the economic advantage of all.
> > The wealthy, after all, know what to do with money. They buy > > securities, hedge against economic uncertainty, and diversify their > > holdings by making investments in the economies of many countries. > > All proven job-creation techniques, especially in third-world > > economies. The unsophisticated poor and the middle class, on the > > other hand, would only blow the money on food, clothing, shelter, > > health care and other such fripperies.
> > How is the economy ever going to recover if we continue to indulge the > > baser instincts of the working classes?
> > Pat
> But Pat, if the working classes really were given the benefits of > taxes from the rich, they wouldn't be working any more, and where > would we all be?- Hide quoted text -
> - Show quoted text -
Incidentally, Pat, as a serious note to you, see if you can find the new New Yorker article on Justice Thomas this week. It actually is a low-tech lynching. I don't much like Thomas' jurisprudence (for various reasons), but this article is one step away from calling him shiftless. They concede his intelligence (although my own view is that he doesn't actually write such great opinions), but the whole thing dredges up everthing except the kitchen sink to essentially pillory him and try to push on his recusing himself on the Obama health care issue. It's disgraceful as an article for the New Yorker. I think on the merits of the health care legal issue, it is right on the line; I think you can in good faith make either decision abourt whether it is constitutional, although I think that the much better argument is that the mandate IS unconstitutional, and exceeded the Congress' authority, but the author of the article will obviously stop at nothing to try to characterize Thomas as the pre-decided vote on this. It is some of the most prejudiced writing (not as a matter of color, but in the literal meaning of the term) that I have seen for a long time from a serious publication....you posts excepted, of course, as always.
On Aug 23, 2:48 pm, "richer...@hotnail.com" <richer...@gmail.com> wrote:
> Actually, if you recall, McCain, who had the election stolen from him>
I thought I read that Sarah Palin apologized for that. };>)) ,
> was born in the Canal Zone, so there is no requirement that you be > born in a 'state'.
> The issue you raised, obviously without thinknig about it, was > whether someone born in a territory (before it became a state) were > eligible to be President. We know that if you are born in the US > proper, of any nationality, you are a US citizen; I suspect the same > is true for territories.
> Am not sure what "and then there's the requirement that a candidate > must have been been to U.S. citizens" exactly means, but you might be > happier, all together, at New York Law School if there's an essay > question on the admissions test.>
Sorry about that - I mistyped. Shd hv rd: 'must have been born to U.S. citizens'.
> > > > "Two Muslims"???? Are you one of the idiots who ignore the fact that > > > > Obama attends an Evangelical Christian church?
> > > __________
> > > Please don't give Richard a bad time about his politics.
> > > Clearly the Republicans in Congress have mathematics, good sense, and > > > moral uprightness on their side when they argue that reducing the > > > disposable income of a wealthy person -- check that, I meant to say a > > > job-creator -- by $1,000 would deal a crushing blow to the economy, > > > while reducing the disposable income of twenty poor and middle-class > > > people by $50 each (by reducing entitlement spending) would surely > > > redound to the economic advantage of all.
> > > The wealthy, after all, know what to do with money. They buy > > > securities, hedge against economic uncertainty, and diversify their > > > holdings by making investments in the economies of many countries. > > > All proven job-creation techniques, especially in third-world > > > economies. The unsophisticated poor and the middle class, on the > > > other hand, would only blow the money on food, clothing, shelter, > > > health care and other such fripperies.
> > > How is the economy ever going to recover if we continue to indulge the > > > baser instincts of the working classes?
> > > Pat
> > But Pat, if the working classes really were given the benefits of > > taxes from the rich, they wouldn't be working any more, and where > > would we all be?- Hide quoted text -
> > - Show quoted text -
> Incidentally, Pat, as a serious note to you, see if you can find the > new New Yorker article on Justice Thomas this week. It actually is a > low-tech lynching. I don't much like Thomas' jurisprudence (for > various reasons), but this article is one step away from calling him > shiftless. They concede his intelligence (although my own view is that > he doesn't actually write such great opinions), but the whole thing > dredges up everthing except the kitchen sink to essentially pillory > him and try to push on his recusing himself on the Obama health care > issue. It's disgraceful as an article for the New Yorker. I think on > the merits of the health care legal issue, it is right on the line; I > think you can in good faith make either decision abourt whether it is > constitutional, although I think that the much better argument is that > the mandate IS unconstitutional, and exceeded the Congress' authority, > but the author of the article will obviously stop at nothing to try to > characterize Thomas as the pre-decided vote on this. It is some of the > most prejudiced writing (not as a matter of color, but in the literal > meaning of the term) that I have seen for a long time from a serious > publication....you posts excepted, of course, as always.>
> On Aug 23, 2:48 pm, "richer...@hotnail.com" <richer...@gmail.com> > wrote:
> > Actually, if you recall, McCain, who had the election stolen from him>
> I thought I read that Sarah Palin apologized for that. };>)) > ,
> > was born in the Canal Zone, so there is no requirement that you be > > born in a 'state'.
> > The issue you raised, obviously without thinknig about it, was > > whether someone born in a territory (before it became a state) were > > eligible to be President. We know that if you are born in the US > > proper, of any nationality, you are a US citizen; I suspect the same > > is true for territories.
> > Am not sure what "and then there's the requirement that a candidate > > must have been been to U.S. citizens" exactly means, but you might be > > happier, all together, at New York Law School if there's an essay > > question on the admissions test.>
> Sorry about that - I mistyped. Shd hv rd: 'must have been born to U.S. > citizens'.
> A21
I had a training session in public relations for Sarah just when she was considering leaving the governorship, and I told her that she should never apologize, and never explain. So far, she had certainly kept a steady course.
> Incidentally, Pat, as a serious note to you, see if you can find the > new New Yorker article on Justice Thomas this week. It actually is a > low-tech lynching. I don't much like Thomas' jurisprudence (for > various reasons), but this article is one step away from calling him > shiftless. They concede his intelligence (although my own view is that > he doesn't actually write such great opinions), but the whole thing > dredges up everthing except the kitchen sink to essentially pillory > him and try to push on his recusing himself on the Obama health care > issue. It's disgraceful as an article for the New Yorker. I think on > the merits of the health care legal issue, it is right on the line; I > think you can in good faith make either decision abourt whether it is > constitutional, although I think that the much better argument is that > the mandate IS unconstitutional, and exceeded the Congress' authority, > but the author of the article will obviously stop at nothing to try to > characterize Thomas as the pre-decided vote on this. It is some of the > most prejudiced writing (not as a matter of color, but in the literal > meaning of the term) that I have seen for a long time from a serious > publication....you posts excepted, of course, as always.- Hide quoted text -
> - Show quoted text -
================ Assuming that the article Ancona linked to below is the one you're talking about, I think that Mr Toobin (who is a frequent commentator on court and legal issues on CNN) is very fair to Justice Thomas in the first half of the article, which is all I've had time to read. As you know many of the left have vilified Thomas from day one, but Toobin goes out of his way to explain, respectfully, Thomas' approach to the constitution, which is, as he says, even more conservative that Justice Scalia's, in that Scalia, like most justices, is respectful of legal precedent, the notion of 'stare decisis' - let the decision stand. Whereas Thomas believes - as many on the left do, that if something wrong, it's wrong, no matter how long we've been doing things another way. A bit unusual, perhaps, but certainly an intellectually defensible position.
I left off about halfway through, when Toobin turned to the subject of Thomas's wife's involvement in the Tea Party and contempt for Obama's health care plan and so on. Can you point me to that part of the article that you found contentious? Because what I've read so far is just about the most flattering characterization of Justice Thomas that I've ever read.
As to the general point about whether the health care mandate is constitutional or not, we have any number of societal mandates that are not authorized by the constitution, but which we accept more or less grudgingly. Drivers' licenses, hunting licenses, pet licenses, business licenses, building codes, zoning regulations, food service licenses, alcohol licenses and a hundred other governmental regulations all restrict our liberties and dip into our pocketbooks in an attempt to achieve a greater good. If providing health care to all citizens is not a greater social good orders of magnitude more important than whatever is accomplished by requiring people to buy fishing licenses, I'm the Duke of Marlborough.
Perhaps the argument is that the health care insurance purchase mandates should be instituted, if they are instituted at all, at the state level. But having starkly different rules for health care coverage in Maryland, Virginia, and the District of Columbia, for example, seems to me to be a recipe for chaos -- just as having starkly different rules governing what constitutes a 'marriage' or a 'civil union' in various states is an invitation to legal and fiduciary confusion in our highly mobile society. Good for lawyers, perhaps, but not for anyone else.
The mobility factor is a hugely important question, I think, when discussing constitutional principles. I suspect that many of the delegates to the Constitutional Convention had never left their states, except perhaps to attend continental congresses and such like. Nowadays travel is a luxury; in those days travel was an ordeal. I suspect that a good percentage of early Americans lived and died in the county in which they were born. A great many migrated westward, of course, over the generations, but I'll bet that many of them stayed put, pretty much, once they found a place to settle down.
The social and geographical mobility we have today would have been inconceivable to the men who wrote our founding documents, and any sensible interpretation of the constitution, it seems to me, needs to be cognizant of that fact.
> On Aug 23, 3:13 pm, "richer...@hotnail.com" <richer...@gmail.com> > wrote:
> > Incidentally, Pat, as a serious note to you, see if you can find the > > new New Yorker article on Justice Thomas this week. It actually is a > > low-tech lynching. I don't much like Thomas' jurisprudence (for > > various reasons), but this article is one step away from calling him > > shiftless. They concede his intelligence (although my own view is that > > he doesn't actually write such great opinions), but the whole thing > > dredges up everthing except the kitchen sink to essentially pillory > > him and try to push on his recusing himself on the Obama health care > > issue. It's disgraceful as an article for the New Yorker. I think on > > the merits of the health care legal issue, it is right on the line; I > > think you can in good faith make either decision abourt whether it is > > constitutional, although I think that the much better argument is that > > the mandate IS unconstitutional, and exceeded the Congress' authority, > > but the author of the article will obviously stop at nothing to try to > > characterize Thomas as the pre-decided vote on this. It is some of the > > most prejudiced writing (not as a matter of color, but in the literal > > meaning of the term) that I have seen for a long time from a serious > > publication....you posts excepted, of course, as always.- Hide quoted text -
> > - Show quoted text -
> ================ > Assuming that the article Ancona linked to below is the one you're > talking about, I think that Mr Toobin (who is a frequent commentator > on court and legal issues on CNN) is very fair to Justice Thomas in > the first half of the article, which is all I've had time to read. As > you know many of the left have vilified Thomas from day one, but > Toobin goes out of his way to explain, respectfully, Thomas' approach > to the constitution, which is, as he says, even more conservative that > Justice Scalia's, in that Scalia, like most justices, is respectful of > legal precedent, the notion of 'stare decisis' - let the decision > stand. Whereas Thomas believes - as many on the left do, that if > something wrong, it's wrong, no matter how long we've been doing > things another way. A bit unusual, perhaps, but certainly an > intellectually defensible position.
> I left off about halfway through, when Toobin turned to the subject > of Thomas's wife's involvement in the Tea Party and contempt for > Obama's health care plan and so on. Can you point me to that part of > the article that you found contentious? Because what I've read so > far is just about the most flattering characterization of Justice > Thomas that I've ever read.
> As to the general point about whether the health care mandate is > constitutional or not, we have any number of societal mandates that > are not authorized by the constitution, but which we accept more or > less grudgingly. Drivers' licenses, hunting licenses, pet licenses, > business licenses, building codes, zoning regulations, food service > licenses, alcohol licenses and a hundred other governmental > regulations all restrict our liberties and dip into our pocketbooks in > an attempt to achieve a greater good. If providing health care to all > citizens is not a greater social good orders of magnitude more > important than whatever is accomplished by requiring people to buy > fishing licenses, I'm the Duke of Marlborough.
> Perhaps the argument is that the health care insurance purchase > mandates should be instituted, if they are instituted at all, at the > state level. But having starkly different rules for health care > coverage in Maryland, Virginia, and the District of Columbia, for > example, seems to me to be a recipe for chaos -- just as having > starkly different rules governing what constitutes a 'marriage' or a > 'civil union' in various states is an invitation to legal and > fiduciary confusion in our highly mobile society. Good for lawyers, > perhaps, but not for anyone else.
> The mobility factor is a hugely important question, I think, when > discussing constitutional principles. I suspect that many of the > delegates to the Constitutional Convention had never left their > states, except perhaps to attend continental congresses and such > like. Nowadays travel is a luxury; in those days travel was an > ordeal. I suspect that a good percentage of early Americans lived and > died in the county in which they were born. A great many migrated > westward, of course, over the generations, but I'll bet that many of > them stayed put, pretty much, once they found a place to settle down.
> The social and geographical mobility we have today would have been > inconceivable to the men who wrote our founding documents, and any > sensible interpretation of the constitution, it seems to me, needs to > be cognizant of that fact.
> Pat- Hide quoted text -
> - Show quoted text -
Well, Pat, if this is the most flattering article on the Justice that you have ever read, I may not be preaching to the choir after all........The article (and I don't have the time right at the moment to go through it chapter and verse) goes through the whole Hill debacle with the Received Wisdom of the Feminist Left as to his guilt, throwning in 'testimony' in the form of books for profit decades later, and without for a moment looking at the broader picture - that is was, simply, an office romance between two people that went sour. It was Anita Hill, not Saint Joan, up there. This has NO revlevance in any case for anything - he was confirmed - and is just used as character assasination. The purpose of the assasination is that the writer knows that the mandate is questionable under the current composition of the Court, and wants to find a way to knock out Thomas, a likely vote against. So all kinds of issues are raised....he wife (which is of no relevance), issues of how he participates in the hearings (again, odd indeed, but of no relevance), and matters of his personal psychology (assumed) and grievances which are supposed to play into the decision (which has not been made, and is up to all 9 Justices). The article ends with someone saying "I know what his vote will be. " What is the relevance of that?? I think a lot of people know what My Favoite Latina's vote is going to be, and in MOST cases you can guess most of the Justices. SO WHAT? The article is meant to hammer him, and that's all. It gives the devil is due, as my mother would have said, or, in other words, it damns with faint praise.
If there is a Justice who SHOULD recuse herself, it is Kagan, who was part and parcel of the Obama administration. So why not an article on her?
The entire thing is shameful. Hell hath no fury like a liberal who feels that a minority owes him something for having patronized the minority.
As to the mandate, I will only say that your examples are all related to matters which are not, in fact, mandatory. There is no 'right' to a drivers license or a hunting license (although after the article, I kind of wished for the later), and no obligation for anyone to get one. The mandate will apply to everyone for their entire lives, whether they want to or not. The fact that some see a legitimate social need in universal health care (which already doesn't apply to corporations which Obama likes), doesn't preempt the Constitution.
If the health care mandate is constitutional, so would be a mandate that every citizen, whether they wanted it or not, should pay money monthly to an internet source so that they could be on the web, because the government thought that it was 'important', or because govenrmental 'emergencies' could be transmitted over the internet and everyone 'needs' to have access.
The fact that something is 'important' doesn't mean it's part of the Constitution, much less that it preempts what is already there. The question is whether the Commerce Clause extends this far...that is the technical question. My personal belief, on a much broader scale than the Mandate, is that it does not. We will see what the Court, with Thomas voting, will say. I would hope that the Court will do with the expansive Commerce Clause what they should have done with Roe twenty or more years ago.
> Well, Pat, if this is the most flattering article on the Justice that > you have ever read, I may not be preaching to the choir after > all........The article (and I don't have the time right at the moment > to go through it chapter and verse) goes through the whole Hill > debacle with the Received Wisdom of the Feminist Left as to his guilt, > throwning in 'testimony' in the form of books for profit decades > later, and without for a moment looking at the broader picture - that > is was, simply, an office romance between two people that went sour. > It was Anita Hill, not Saint Joan, up there. This has NO revlevance in > any case for anything - he was confirmed - and is just used as > character assasination. The purpose of the assasination is that the > writer knows that the mandate is questionable under the current > composition of the Court, and wants to find a way to knock out Thomas, > a likely vote against. So all kinds of issues are raised....he wife > (which is of no relevance), issues of how he participates in the > hearings (again, odd indeed, but of no relevance), and matters of his > personal psychology (assumed) and grievances which are supposed to > play into the decision (which has not been made, and is up to all 9 > Justices). The article ends with someone saying "I know what his vote > will be. " What is the relevance of that?? I think a lot of people > know what My Favoite Latina's vote is going to be, and in MOST cases > you can guess most of the Justices. SO WHAT? The article is meant to > hammer him, and that's all. It gives the devil is due, as my mother > would have said, or, in other words, it damns with faint praise.
I'll read the rest of the article later. But I saw nothing in the first half of it that struck me as being unfair to Thomas. To the contrary.
> As to the mandate, I will only say that your examples are all related > to matters which are not, in fact, mandatory. There is no 'right' to a > drivers license or a hunting license (although after the article, I > kind of wished for the later), and no obligation for anyone to get > one. The mandate will apply to everyone for their entire lives, > whether they want to or not. The fact that some see a legitimate > social need in universal health care (which already doesn't apply to > corporations which Obama likes), doesn't preempt the Constitution.
> If the health care mandate is constitutional, so would be a mandate > that every citizen, whether they wanted it or not, should pay money > monthly to an internet source so that they could be on the web, > because the government thought that it was 'important', or because > govenrmental 'emergencies' could be transmitted over the internet and > everyone 'needs' to have access.
The case would be clearer to define if we had a single-payer system, which would be my first choice. In that case, people would probably be "compelled" to pay somewhat higher taxes, rather than being "compelled" to buy basic health insurance.
If one frames the mandated 'purchase' as a 'tax' the situation becomes much clearer. I'm not allowed to opt out of paying property taxes because my children are all grown up and out of school. Public education is viewed as a good thing, which benefits society whether or not one has school-age children of one's own. The national defense is viewed as a good thing which benefits society regardless of how an individual might feel about a certain military action. ** Decent health care should be viewed in much the same way. Sensible people should be willing to pay - and most *are* willing to pay - for some basic level of universal health care. Whether we should spend billions keeping one-pound preemies, comatose adults and fatally ill nonagenarians alive indefinitely is a separate but very important argument.
** Speaking of military actions, Obama's direction of the 'war' against Qadaffi looks pretty good compared to George W Bush's prosecution of the war against Saddam Hussein. Let's check the scorecard:
American military deaths in Iraq -- approx 4,500 American military deaths in Libya approx 0
American serious military injuries in Iraq approx 25,000 (est) American serious military injuries in Libya approx 0
American cost of war in Iraq -- variously estimated at $700 billion to $3,000 billion
American cost of war in Libya -- approx $900 million through July 31, according to the Pentagon - i.e. about one-tenth of one per cent of the cost of the War in Iraq.
And the Republicans blame the Democrats for excessive spending...
Seems like a pretty good scorecard to me, so far. It's true that a lot could still go wrong, but I think there's a respectable chance that Libya could become a stable, respected member of the community of nations, and perhaps even an ally in a dangerous and difficult part of the world. I don't think that the odds of Iraq achieving those same objectives are substantially lower, despite the vast amounts of blood and treasure we invested there.
More importantly, the Europeans did most of the heavy lifting (after the first week) in a conflict in which they had much more at stake than we did.
Maybe 'leading from behind' isn't such a bad idea after all ...
> On Aug 24, 12:00 pm, "richer...@hotnail.com" <richer...@gmail.com> > wrote:
> > Well, Pat, if this is the most flattering article on the Justice that > > you have ever read, I may not be preaching to the choir after > > all........The article (and I don't have the time right at the moment > > to go through it chapter and verse) goes through the whole Hill > > debacle with the Received Wisdom of the Feminist Left as to his guilt, > > throwning in 'testimony' in the form of books for profit decades > > later, and without for a moment looking at the broader picture - that > > is was, simply, an office romance between two people that went sour. > > It was Anita Hill, not Saint Joan, up there. This has NO revlevance in > > any case for anything - he was confirmed - and is just used as > > character assasination. The purpose of the assasination is that the > > writer knows that the mandate is questionable under the current > > composition of the Court, and wants to find a way to knock out Thomas, > > a likely vote against. So all kinds of issues are raised....he wife > > (which is of no relevance), issues of how he participates in the > > hearings (again, odd indeed, but of no relevance), and matters of his > > personal psychology (assumed) and grievances which are supposed to > > play into the decision (which has not been made, and is up to all 9 > > Justices). The article ends with someone saying "I know what his vote > > will be. " What is the relevance of that?? I think a lot of people > > know what My Favoite Latina's vote is going to be, and in MOST cases > > you can guess most of the Justices. SO WHAT? The article is meant to > > hammer him, and that's all. It gives the devil is due, as my mother > > would have said, or, in other words, it damns with faint praise.
> I'll read the rest of the article later. But I saw nothing in the > first half of it that struck me as being unfair to Thomas. To the > contrary.
> > As to the mandate, I will only say that your examples are all related > > to matters which are not, in fact, mandatory. There is no 'right' to a > > drivers license or a hunting license (although after the article, I > > kind of wished for the later), and no obligation for anyone to get > > one. The mandate will apply to everyone for their entire lives, > > whether they want to or not. The fact that some see a legitimate > > social need in universal health care (which already doesn't apply to > > corporations which Obama likes), doesn't preempt the Constitution.
> > If the health care mandate is constitutional, so would be a mandate > > that every citizen, whether they wanted it or not, should pay money > > monthly to an internet source so that they could be on the web, > > because the government thought that it was 'important', or because > > govenrmental 'emergencies' could be transmitted over the internet and > > everyone 'needs' to have access.
> The case would be clearer to define if we had a single-payer system, > which would be my first choice. In that case, people would probably > be "compelled" to pay somewhat higher taxes, rather than being > "compelled" to buy basic health insurance.
> If one frames the mandated 'purchase' as a 'tax' the situation > becomes much clearer. I'm not allowed to opt out of paying property > taxes because my children are all grown up and out of school. Public > education is viewed as a good thing, which benefits society whether or > not one has school-age children of one's own. The national defense is > viewed as a good thing which benefits society regardless of how an > individual might feel about a certain military action. ** Decent > health care should be viewed in much the same way. Sensible people > should be willing to pay - and most *are* willing to pay - for some > basic level of universal health care. Whether we should spend > billions keeping one-pound preemies, comatose adults and fatally ill > nonagenarians alive indefinitely is a separate but very important > argument.
> ** Speaking of military actions, Obama's direction of the 'war' > against Qadaffi looks pretty good compared to George W Bush's > prosecution of the war against Saddam Hussein. Let's check the > scorecard:
> American military deaths in Iraq -- approx 4,500 > American military deaths in Libya approx 0
> American serious military injuries in Iraq approx 25,000 (est) > American serious military injuries in Libya approx 0
> American cost of war in Iraq -- variously estimated at $700 billion to > $3,000 billion
> American cost of war in Libya -- approx $900 million through July 31, > according to the Pentagon - i.e. about one-tenth of one per cent of > the cost of the War in Iraq.
> And the Republicans blame the Democrats for excessive spending...
> Seems like a pretty good scorecard to me, so far. It's true that a > lot could still go wrong, but I think there's a respectable chance > that Libya could become a stable, respected member of the community of > nations, and perhaps even an ally in a dangerous and difficult part of > the world. I don't think that the odds of Iraq achieving those same > objectives are substantially lower, despite the vast amounts of blood > and treasure we invested there.
> More importantly, the Europeans did most of the heavy lifting (after > the first week) in a conflict in which they had much more at stake > than we did.
> Maybe 'leading from behind' isn't such a bad idea after all ...
> Pat- Hide quoted text -
> - Show quoted text -- Hide quoted text -
> - Show quoted text -
Not entirely sure how you segued from the Mandate to the War against Libya, except that you realize that both are unconstitutional, but, like the good Republican you are at heart, they both make economic sense to you, so damn the Consitution.
Very sorry to hear about Herbert Hoover, by the way.
I have no personal problem with the mandate - I think people should pay their costs, and not be 'free riders'. But I don't believe that this trumps the Constitution; it's certainly not a 'tax', because it's not paid to any taxing authority that I am aware of.
This is not even a Republican or conservative issue. Twenty five Attorneys General have brought a suit, and they're not just from red states, Pat. They're from states that are red, white and blue..
As to the war in Libya, I'm glad you see things in terms of dollar and cents, and not the lives of human beings. You're coming along, Pat, You're coming along. A shame that the Libyan constitution is going to be based on Sharia, but, what the hell, give them a hand.
On Aug 24, 2:14 pm, "richer...@hotnail.com" <richer...@gmail.com> wrote:
> As to the war in Libya, I'm glad you see things in terms of dollar and > cents, and not the lives of human beings. You're coming along, Pat, > You're coming along. A shame that the Libyan constitution is going to > be based on Sharia,
=================
Richard, I'm sure that you have inside contacts on the Libyan Transitional National Council that the rest of us lack, but their published founding documents certainly don't suggest any such thing:
The "Declaration of the founding of the Transitional National Council" states the main aims of the council are as follows:
Ensure the safety of the national territory and citizens
Coordination of national efforts to liberate the rest of Libya
Support the efforts of local councils to work for the restoration of normal civilian life
Supervise of the Military Council to ensure the achievement of the new doctrine of the Libyan People's Army in the defense of the people and protect the borders of Libya
Facilitate the election of a constituent assembly to draft a new constitution for the country; be put to a popular referendum
Form a transitional government to pave the way for the holding of free elections
Guide the conduct of foreign policy, and the regulation of relations with other countries and international and regional organizations, and the representation of the Libyan people
In another statement clarifying the goals for a post-Gaddafi Libya, the council has committed itself to an eight-point plan to hold free and fair elections, draft a national constitution, form political and civil institutions, uphold intellectual and political pluralism, and guarantee citizens' inalienable human rights and the ability of free expression of their aspirations. The council also emphasized its rejection of racism, intolerance, discrimination, and terrorism
Obviously, those statements of principle are no more law than the Declaration of Independence, the Preamble to the Constitution or the Gettysburg Address, but I can't find a lot to complain about there.
Can you provide a source for your claim that the LTNC or any other likely political leader in the new regime is intent on imposing sharia law? I'm no expert, but so far this has seemed like a fairly secular movement. Yes, most of the leaders and fighters are Muslims, but most of our leaders are Christians, and we're still thankfully some distance from a theocratic state.
And are likely to remain so until the Perry-Bachmann-Palin crowd takes over and imposes their dominionist view of things.
> On Aug 24, 2:14 pm, "richer...@hotnail.com" <richer...@gmail.com> > wrote:
> > As to the war in Libya, I'm glad you see things in terms of dollar and > > cents, and not the lives of human beings. You're coming along, Pat, > > You're coming along. A shame that the Libyan constitution is going to > > be based on Sharia,
> =================
> Richard, I'm sure that you have inside contacts on the Libyan > Transitional National Council that the rest of us lack, but their > published founding documents certainly don't suggest any such thing:
> The "Declaration of the founding of the Transitional National Council" > states the main aims of the council are as follows:
> Ensure the safety of the national territory and citizens
> Coordination of national efforts to liberate the rest of Libya
> Support the efforts of local councils to work for the restoration of > normal civilian life
> Supervise of the Military Council to ensure the achievement of the new > doctrine of the Libyan People's Army in the defense of the people and > protect the borders of Libya
> Facilitate the election of a constituent assembly to draft a new > constitution for the country; be put to a popular referendum
> Form a transitional government to pave the way for the holding of free > elections
> Guide the conduct of foreign policy, and the regulation of relations > with other countries and international and regional organizations, and > the representation of the Libyan people
> In another statement clarifying the goals for a post-Gaddafi Libya, > the council has committed itself to an eight-point plan to hold free > and fair elections, draft a national constitution, form political and > civil institutions, uphold intellectual and political pluralism, and > guarantee citizens' inalienable human rights and the ability of free > expression of their aspirations. The council also emphasized its > rejection of racism, intolerance, discrimination, and terrorism
> Obviously, those statements of principle are no more law than the > Declaration of Independence, the Preamble to the Constitution or the > Gettysburg Address, but I can't find a lot to complain about there.
> Can you provide a source for your claim that the LTNC or any other > likely political leader in the new regime is intent on imposing sharia > law? I'm no expert, but so far this has seemed like a fairly secular > movement. Yes, most of the leaders and fighters are Muslims, but most > of our leaders are Christians, and we're still thankfully some > distance from a theocratic state.
> And are likely to remain so until the Perry-Bachmann-Palin crowd takes > over and imposes their dominionist view of things.
