The O.D. in the O.C. (Trees And Things)

kenmoellman: Re: Barr None

Thu, 21 Aug 2008 20:30:59 EST

Racism and the End of a Candidacy

We did investigate his record. He was accused of being a racist by the Southern Poverty Law Center, but they call anyone who isn't for complete redistribution of wealth a racist, so that didn't play a rol

skeptic: Re: McCain vs. Obama

Thu, 21 Aug 2008 09:18:20 EST

Of course, it is entirely possible that even if John McCain is elected President and he then uses every means at his disposal to outlaw abortion in the US, he might still find it impossible to do so, because of obstacles in either the Congress or the Supre

skeptic: Re: Abortion & crime

Thu, 21 Aug 2008 09:10:30 EST

I have been clear from the beginning that I am discussing statistical results. Obviously, not all the children who might hypothetically be born as a result of preventing their mothers from obtaining abortions would grow up to be unproductive citizens

Lou: Re: Barr None

Thu, 21 Aug 2008 07:42:53 EST

Republicans have their share of poor candidates as well.

No understatement here, eh?

profwhat: Re: Barr None

Wed, 20 Aug 2008 18:56:45 EST

OK, you get credit for withdrawing the nomination, but serious parties don't nominate genocidal racists to the U.S. Senate. It's hard to see how his racism came out in a single press interview (his first press interview, right?) but didn't com

profwhat: Abortion & crime

Wed, 20 Aug 2008 18:39:07 EST

And how does your utilitarian calculus account for unwanted children who are born and grow up to make extraordinary contributions to society? Not everyone with a horrible childhood becomes a horrible adult; some rise above and give us wonderful thing

kenmoellman: Re: Barr None

Wed, 20 Aug 2008 15:57:30 EST

Sonny Landham nomination

Landham had the nomination before making those comments.

Landham was stripped of the nomination after making those comments. The "outcry" didn't force squat. The "outcry" was about 30 people i

Jackkeefe: Re: McCain vs. Obama

Wed, 20 Aug 2008 14:41:32 EST

federal legislation would bring an end to abortion in all states.

I don't think a Democratic House and Senate would outlaw abortion. Even if the Democrats committed political suicide and did so, the Supreme Court would find the

skeptic: Re: McCain vs. Obama

Wed, 20 Aug 2008 10:09:01 EST

The closest equivalent of the male birth-control pill is the vasectomy. In any event, while birth control helps a lot, there would still seem to be a need for abortions.

wetkarma: Re: McCain vs. Obama

Wed, 20 Aug 2008 09:59:20 EST

Come up with a male version of the pill and watch the abortion rates fall some more (and STD's rise).

skeptic: Re: McCain vs. Obama

Wed, 20 Aug 2008 09:53:50 EST

It is perfectly true that there are people who are both poor and yet still honest. As well as people are affluent yet dishonest (or even, people who are affluent because they have been so successful at being dishonest). That is really not the i

skeptic: Re: McCain vs. Obama

Wed, 20 Aug 2008 09:43:04 EST

One would think so. But despite birth control, "day after" pills, latex condoms, decades of "safe sex" messages, and generous welfare programs for unwed mothers, there are still lots of abortions being done. Apparently there are still people wh

skeptic: Re: McCain vs. Obama

Wed, 20 Aug 2008 09:34:59 EST

Given the aggressively anti-abortion policies that would exist in a McCain administration, I am sure that in the absence of the protection offered by Roe vs. Wade, federal legislation would bring an end to abortion in all states.

Adoption has always bee

wetkarma: Re: reactions

Wed, 20 Aug 2008 06:23:45 EST

Not being in the USA, I just now managed to see this last night. My perspective is that McCain blew Obama away - especially in his answer re: evil. Maybe Obama was having an off-night or maybe my focus on national security creates a McCain bias - but this

profwhat: Re: McCain vs. Obama

Tue, 19 Aug 2008 22:55:17 EST

Children who have an upbringing of inferior quality will, statistically, be more likely to grow up to be unemployed, or criminals, or drug addicts, or otherwise unproductive members of society....

Where are the statistics you refer to?

We've s

Lou: Black babies

Tue, 19 Aug 2008 16:46:21 EST

By only aborting all black babies we could certainly obtain all the benefits you list for our country.

Bill Bennett Speaks

Jackkeefe: Re: McCain vs. Obama

Tue, 19 Aug 2008 16:30:06 EST

bringing back the ban on abortion which existed prior to Roe vs. Wade.

Abortion was not banned prior to Roe and was legal in some states. A reversal of Roe would not entail a ban on abortions and I'll a large number of states would immediatelly

gerrymander: Re: McCain vs. Obama

Tue, 19 Aug 2008 14:19:01 EST

We have seen that when women are not allowed legal abortions they will seek illegal abortions, often with terrible consequences for both mother and fetus. The coat-hanger abortions prevalent prior to Roe vs. Wade were notorious, and a national dis

skeptic: McCain vs. Obama

Tue, 19 Aug 2008 11:48:46 EST
The two candidates have many similarities. Both want America to be secure and prosperous. Both are Christians. They would like to protect the environment and make America independent of foreign oil imports. The clearest difference h

profwhat: Re: Barr None

Tue, 19 Aug 2008 10:33:35 EST
I doubt that 55% of Americans know who Bob Barr is; they answer "yes" to the poll question because we're an open minded people, and, hey, why not hear all sides? You could put almost any name into that question and get a similarly high response. &nbs

profwhat: Thomas

Tue, 19 Aug 2008 09:57:16 EST
Attacks on Thomas frequently result in embarrassment for liberal critics, and this is just the latest example. People desperately want to continue to believe the script that was written in 1991: that Thomas is an unqualified lawyer who was appointed

tomc: Re: The O.D. in the O.C.

Mon, 18 Aug 2008 22:12:33 EST
The way it was reported was not that McCain got special treatment, but that he had the opportunity to hear some of the questions, unbeknownst to Warren. I think the comment shows McCain did get information before he appeared for his segment.

pO157: Oyez!

Mon, 18 Aug 2008 16:35:43 EST
It's possible the next president could have a major impact on the court. Stevens is over 85, Scalia and Kennedy are in their 70s.

Lou: McCain was in the cone of silence...

Mon, 18 Aug 2008 15:41:16 EST
or, maybe not

gerrymander: Re: The O.D. in the O.C.

Mon, 18 Aug 2008 15:27:10 EST
Warren is on record as having mentioned some of the questions to each of the candidates, so they wouldn't feel ill at ease. Neither McCain no

Lou: Re: Devil's advocate

Mon, 18 Aug 2008 15:17:33 EST
I mean, wouldn't it be logical to expect a question on Iraq or something?
I guess that would depend on if any of the SCJ were planning to retire soon. I dunno since I haven't been following that.

pO157: Devil's advocate

Mon, 18 Aug 2008 15:15:49 EST
Isn't it possible that since the Supreme Court is such a hot topic during a presidential election (moreso now with some of the recent controversial decisions) McCain anticipated the general terms of a few questions?
I mean, wouldn't it be logical to exp

tomc: Re: The O.D. in the O.C.

Mon, 18 Aug 2008 14:14:51 EST
I watched the program and noticed that McCain commented about a question on the Supreme Court that he knew was coming up. He knew the question was video of the segment.

pO157: Barr probably won't be there.

Mon, 18 Aug 2008 11:09:06 EST
He has two (constitutional eligibility, ballot access on enough states) of three criteria, but probably will not hit the third (15% in the national polls after Labor Day) without a

skeptic: Re: Barr None

Mon, 18 Aug 2008 10:53:30 EST
It can be argued that the winner of the 2008 Presidential election will be either McCain or Obama, not Barr, therefore it would be a waste of time to even bother hearing what Barr may have to say. The problem with that reasoning is that it becomes a

pO157: Re: Barr None

Mon, 18 Aug 2008 09:42:08 EST
They are 72.5% agog with a +/- 1.7% margin of error.

pO157: Re: Barr None

Mon, 18 Aug 2008 09:41:36 EST
I'm not shocked that people think that Barr should be allowed to debate. I felt that the steps the Green and Libertarian parties took to be taken seriously and be heard has worked out pretty well.
I believe a large segment of the US would be re

zyxwvutsr: Re: Barr None

Mon, 18 Aug 2008 08:41:42 EST
Is Zogby agog, too?

delete me: Re: Barr None

Mon, 18 Aug 2008 01:49:06 EST
I'm a bit shocked that a throw-away joke in the Q got Barr's name on the poll for this story. :)
I'm not shocked that people think that Barr should be allowed to debate. I felt that the steps the Green and Libertarian parties took to be taken seriously

pO157: Barr None

Sun, 17 Aug 2008 22:09:44 EST
To stimulate discussion:
Is anybody else completely shocked that over half of the electorate thinks Barr should be in the debates? I am simply agog. I'd like to believe that the results are significant because of the 10%+ difference between Nader and Ba

pO157: Re: reactions

Sun, 17 Aug 2008 22:04:54 EST
Couple comments:
1. Having each candidate give answers uncontested and unheard by his opponent worked well.
I agree. This was a good idea. The open discourse between the Reverend and each candidate allowed it to take on more of

gerrymander: reactions

Sun, 17 Aug 2008 13:05:13 EST
Saw the -- forum? -- so I have a few thoughts:

Having each candidate give answers uncontested and unheard by his opponent worked well.

Obama came within a split-second of giving Republicans commercial fodder for the