Terrorist Fist Bumps All Around (politics) Thread

by **Laexile** » Thu Jun 26, 2008 02:35:17

McCain's "flip flop" on the Bush tax cuts is one I can understand. He opposed them in 2002. It's 2008. If he believes they've worked he should flip flop. McCain never opposed tax cuts. He opposed these tax cuts without spending cuts. What's less understanding is him saying in May that he'd consider a windfall profits tax and then when dismissing the idea when Obama says he'd consider it a month later. Nothing's changed in the last month.

Obama's retroactive immunity explanation is confusing. If he's saying that he now realizes that we'd lose actionable intelligence without it, then I have no problem with the flip flop. Only George Bush is never wrong.

I don't like him saying "with a firm pledge that as president, I will carefully monitor the program." We don't give one President more of a right to spy because we think he's a better guy. It's a slippery slope if we give a President more power based on that criteria.

by **Wizlah** » Thu Jun 26, 2008 08:30:06

Laexile wrote:
Monkeyboy wrote:The enhanced interrogation techniques were listed in an earlier post. I think any common sense look at them would say they were torture, certainly by any stretch of the geneva convention.

I've seen people speculating on what these techniques are but have never seen anything from anyone, CIA, Republican, Democrat, on what they actually are.

I can't find explicit listing, becuase the proposed interrogation techniques were classified, but as I understand it, and as Philippe Sands (a human rights lawyer who has investigated the original techniques of interrogation authorised in Guantanamo) outlines here, the techniques employed are the same ones that were outlined in the Phifer Memo (pages 3+4, sections B and C outlining catergories II and III of interrogation techniques)which Rumsfield signed off originally in 2002. These techniques go further than what is listed as recommended for Interrogation in the Army Field Manual (Page 97, Section 5-75).

The bill which McCain voted against of (HR.2802) attempted to restrict the CIA to the AFM's approved techniques:

(a) Limitation- No individual in the custody or under the effective control of an element of the intelligence community or instrumentality thereof, regardless of nationality or physical location, shall be subject to any treatment or technique of interrogation not authorized by the United States Army Field Manual on Human Intelligence Collector Operations.

by **Wizlah** » Thu Jun 26, 2008 08:34:12

Having searched through all that army field manual stuff, I should note that I have newfound respect for Smitty. Who knew the army involved so much reading?

by **jerseyhoya** » Thu Jun 26, 2008 10:21:46

The Supreme Court says Americans have a right to own guns for self-defense and hunting, the justices' first major pronouncement on gun rights in U.S. history.

The court's 5-4 ruling strikes down the District of Columbia's 32-year-old ban on handguns as incompatible with gun rights under the Second Amendment. The decision goes further than even the Bush administration wanted, but probably leaves most firearms laws intact.

The court had not conclusively interpreted the Second Amendment since its ratification in 1791. The amendment reads: "A well regulated militia, being necessary to the security of a free state, the right of the people to keep and bear arms, shall not be infringed."

The basic issue for the justices was whether the amendment protects an individual's right to own guns no matter what, or whether that right is somehow tied to service in a state militia.

Supreme Court Rules That Individuals Have Gun Rights

Sort of surprising to me that the Supreme Court took over 200 years to weigh in on this one.

They struck down the millionaire's amendment too. That makes me happy.

by **drsmooth** » Thu Jun 26, 2008 10:57:32

jerseyhoya wrote:
Sort of surprising to me that the Supreme Court took over 200 years to weigh in on this one.

The pertinent qualifier is "had not conclusively interpreted"

SC has "weighed in" plenty.

5-4 call probably signals little will change other than defense methods in DC area residences.

by **jerseyhoya** » Thu Jun 26, 2008 11:01:31

the justices' first major pronouncement on gun rights in U.S. history.

by **drsmooth** » Thu Jun 26, 2008 11:09:45

jerseyhoya wrote:the justices' first major pronouncement on gun rights in U.S. history.

quite a citation. what is that, fox "news"?

this isn't a lot better, but it's something

by **jerseyhoya** » Thu Jun 26, 2008 11:12:00

It's from the Associated Press link in my post.

by **dajafi** » Thu Jun 26, 2008 12:18:08

Interesting fivethirtyeight.com postabout the candidates and their "base problems":

Obama would be thrilled, of course, if he could actually get his defection rate down to 8 percent: John Kerry lost 11 percent of Democrats to George W. Bush; Al Gore lost 11 percent to Bush and 2 to Nader; Bill Clinton lost 10 percent to Bob Dole and 5 percent to Ross Perot. In reality, Obama will probably lose almost all of the "very unfavorables" and perhaps half of the "somewhat unfavorables", which would produce a defection rate of 12-13 percent (not all of those necessarily to McCain). McCain's defection rate, by that calculus, would be 9-10 percent (not all of those necessarily to Obama).

But look, by contrast, at the enthusiasm gap between the two candidates. 56 percent of Democrats have a very favorable view of Barack Obama, while just 34 percent of Republicans have a very favorable view of John McCain. The thing that's a little bit scary for McCain is that this is after a likely voter screen has been applied, and so even after you get done filtering out those Republicans around the margins who weren't planning to vote in the first place, many of the remaining ones are still doing so for McCain somewhat grudgingly.

The good news for McCain is that if the election is close, the vast majority of these people should still wind up voting for him. That's what turnout operations are all about, and the GOP generally runs a pretty good one. Besides, 52 percent of Republicans have a very unfavorable view of Obama, as compared to 33 percent of Democrats who feel that way about McCain.

But if the election doesn't look like it's going to be close, there could be a snowball effect in which Republican turnout is quite low.

I'm really starting to think that the whole question of whether this turns out to be close or an easy win for Obama will have to do with how low a profile Bush keeps after Labor Day. Disgust with Bush is what's motivating Democrats and de-motivating Republicans; it's going to drive not only the presidential race but how many Senate seats the Democrats pick up.

by **TenuredVulture** » Thu Jun 26, 2008 12:25:25

jerseyhoya wrote:the justices' first major pronouncement on gun rights in U.S. history.

Smith and Wesson, or Beretta?

by **TenuredVulture** » Thu Jun 26, 2008 12:37:48

Brief article on Obama's Ipod.

No huge surprises here. I'd advise him to highlight Aretha Franklin in order to pick up some of the Hillary people out there though. Hillary people love Aretha Franklin.

by **TenuredVulture** » Thu Jun 26, 2008 12:50:43

Hoya, did you get your hand gun yet?

by **drsmooth** » Thu Jun 26, 2008 12:51:43

jerseyhoya wrote:It's from the Associated Press link in my post.

so now you know - you didn't know? - AP writers' editorializing doesn't always hold up to even cursory scrutiny.

just FYI, that was an AP article all right, but your link was courtesy NYTimes.

by **jerseyhoya** » Thu Jun 26, 2008 12:53:22

TenuredVulture wrote:Hoya, did you get your hand gun yet?

No, but two people at work have said they're going after work. I'm not sure if they were joking. The people who work in my office who worked for Romney are a lot more serious about this whole 'being rabid conservatives' thing than everyone else is.

by **TenuredVulture** » Thu Jun 26, 2008 12:55:27

jerseyhoya wrote:
TenuredVulture wrote:Hoya, did you get your hand gun yet?

No, but two people at work have said they're going after work. I'm not sure if they're serious. The people who work in my office who worked for Romney are a lot more serious about this whole 'being rabid conservatives' thing than everyone else is.

Wait, so rabid conservatives supported a guy who as governor of Massachusetts supported gay marriage and socialized medicine? I'm so confused.

by **jerseyhoya** » Thu Jun 26, 2008 13:01:43

TenuredVulture wrote:
jerseyhoya wrote:
TenuredVulture wrote:Hoya, did you get your hand gun yet?

No, but two people at work have said they're going after work. I'm not sure if they're serious. The people who work in my office who worked for Romney are a lot more serious about this whole 'being rabid conservatives' thing than everyone else is.

Wait, so rabid conservatives supported a guy who as governor of Massachusetts supported gay marriage and socialized medicine? I'm so confused.

Romney was always against the gay marriage thing. But yeah, I never got the Romney thing.

Can we make fun of him for flip flopping?

by **TenuredVulture** » Thu Jun 26, 2008 13:02:48

jerseyhoya wrote:
TenuredVulture wrote:
jerseyhoya wrote:
TenuredVulture wrote:Hoya, did you get your hand gun yet?

No, but two people at work have said they're going after work. I'm not sure if they're serious. The people who work in my office who worked for Romney are a lot more serious about this whole 'being rabid conservatives' thing than everyone else is.

Wait, so rabid conservatives supported a guy who as governor of Massachusetts supported gay marriage and socialized medicine? I'm so confused.

Romney was always against the gay marriage thing. But yeah, I never got the Romney thing.

Can we make fun of him for flip flopping?

No, because I'm hoping McCain chooses him for his running mate.

by **The Red Tornado** » Thu Jun 26, 2008 13:04:41

honestly, why do people even care about gay marriage or anything else that doesnt effect them?

by **dajafi** » Thu Jun 26, 2008 13:40:18

jerseyhoya wrote:
TenuredVulture wrote:
jerseyhoya wrote:
TenuredVulture wrote:Hoya, did you get your hand gun yet?

No, but two people at work have said they're going after work. I'm not sure if they're serious. The people who work in my office who worked for Romney are a lot more serious about this whole 'being rabid conservatives' thing than everyone else is.

Wait, so rabid conservatives supported a guy who as governor of Massachusetts supported gay marriage and socialized medicine? I'm so confused.

Romney was always against the gay marriage thing. But yeah, I never got the Romney thing.

Can we make fun of him for flip flopping?

Your note suggests he was more convincing in doing it than I'd always thought.

There's a theory, voiced by Andrew Sullivan among others, that an alternate-universe Romney--the nonideological, very smart, managerial type--would have made a good candidate and potentially a really good president. I'm not sure I totally buy it, but the fact that he had to turn into this flip-flopping caricature (McCain calling him "the candidate of change"... great line) seems to me a sad reflection on the culture of the Republican Party post-Bush/Rove.

by **VoxOrion** » Thu Jun 26, 2008 13:44:04

A guy I work with was saying yesterday that if the Supreme Court ruled against gun rights, it would have meant a slam dunk for a McCain presidency. I guess we won't find out if there was any merit to his prediction.

Archived

Terrorist Fist Bumps All Around (politics) Thread