Where the heck is the New POLITICS Thread?

by **pacino** » Wed Mar 10, 2010 21:07:15

BECK: Why were they asking the race question, you said when, in 1790? … Right, they want to know, do you count as three-fifths? Do you count at all? So, you have to know how many slaves did you have? People find that offensive today because the idea was, if we’re going to count, we want to know how many are here for services etc. etc. and slaves would get less. Well that’s not right. One. One. ‘I’m not three-fifths, I’m one. Whites are not worth than me.’ Now reverse it, why are they asking this question today?

CO-HOST: Because minorities are worth more than whites.

BECK: Exactly right. So you will get more dollars if you are a minority. So you are worth more as a monitory. Well there is no difference. The reason you don’t answer the race question is because one, everyone counts as one. All men are created equal. If you were offended back in 1790 about slavery and that everyone should count the same, do not answer the race question. How dare you. How dare you. At least in 1790, they were doing it to slow the South down on slavery. To try to stop it as much as they can. Today they are asking the race question to try to increase slavery. Your dependence on the master in Washington. No way, don’t answer that question.

by **dajafi** » Wed Mar 10, 2010 21:42:03

If the Supreme Court is going to act in as brazenly political a manner as it did in the CU case--handing down a far broader decision than the particulars of the case required, and doing so by the narrowest of margins--they should be prepared not just for some rhetorical blowback but to see their own legitimacy question. While I see how it could be read as "bad form," I didn't have a huge problem with either Obama talking about the decision in the SotU or Roberts saying what he said in response to (IIRC) an audience question at a recent forum... or for that matter Alito's response at the SotU.

This recent New Republic article gives some of the back story for those who might not be aware: Roberts took his seat pledging to uphold restraint, convincing (among others) Jeffrey Rosen, who wrote this piece and definitely gives the tone of someone who realizes he's been had, and isn't thrilled about it. That he so clearly gave one set of signals five years ago and has pursued a different course of action since, I think helps explain some of the vehemence of the response.

by **drsmooth** » Wed Mar 10, 2010 21:56:12

pacino wrote:
BECK: Why were they asking the race question, you said when, in 1790? … Right, they want to know, do you count as three-fifths? Do you count at all? So, you have to know how many slaves did you have? People find that offensive today because the idea was, if we’re going to count, we want to know how many are here for services etc. etc. and slaves would get less. Well that’s not right. One. One. ‘I’m not three-fifths, I’m one. Whites are not worth than me.’ Now reverse it, why are they asking this question today?

CO-HOST: Because minorities are worth more than whites.

BECK: Exactly right. So you will get more dollars if you are a minority. So you are worth more as a monitory. Well there is no difference. The reason you don’t answer the race question is because one, everyone counts as one. All men are created equal. If you were offended back in 1790 about slavery and that everyone should count the same, do not answer the race question. How dare you. How dare you. At least in 1790, they were doing it to slow the South down on slavery. To try to stop it as much as they can. Today they are asking the race question to try to increase slavery. Your dependence on the master in Washington. No way, don’t answer that question.

well...when the riots start, they won't have to torture me too long to get Glenn Beck's street address outta me.

by **Woody** » Thu Mar 11, 2010 10:29:00

MCCAIN DONE WENT AND GOT OBAMAFIED

by **Bakestar** » Thu Mar 11, 2010 10:40:20

I've got it now.

My biggest problem about the Obama/Alito dust-up at the SOTU was that it became the big morning-after story. No, not discussions of the relative merits and drawbacks of Obama's proposals, etc. It's just raw gossip. Our mainstream Washington press is utterly worthless.

by **Harpua** » Thu Mar 11, 2010 11:21:37

Bakestar wrote:I've got it now.

My biggest problem about the Obama/Alito dust-up at the SOTU was that it became the big morning-after story. No, not discussions of the relative merits and drawbacks of Obama's proposals, etc. It's just raw gossip. Our mainstream Washington press is utterly worthless.

Mainstream TV press, sure, but I wouldn't lump all of them together.

by **traderdave** » Thu Mar 11, 2010 11:30:22

Just saw this story from Mississippi about a gay student trying to bring her girlfriend (also a student) to the prom:

"Instead, the school board met and issued a statement announcing it wouldn't host the event at Itawamba County Agricultural High School in Fulton, "due to the distractions to the educational process caused by recent events."

"It is our hope that private citizens will organize an event for the juniors and seniors," district officials said in the statement. "However, at this time, we feel that it is in the best interest of the Itawamba County School District, after taking into consideration the education, safety and well being of our students."

First of all, what does prom have to do with the "educational process"? Second, their expanded statement probably should have said that they reached their decision taking into consideration the education, safety and well being of their STRAIGHT students.

What a shame for the other juniors and seniors that the School Board is stuck in the 1940s. I mean, at least have the balls to say you are cancelling the prom because you don't want same-sex couples attending since it is obvious to everyone anyway.

http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/us_lesbian_prom_date

by **VoxOrion** » Thu Mar 11, 2010 11:40:50

dajafi wrote:If the Supreme Court is going to act in as brazenly political a manner as it did in the CU case--handing down a far broader decision than the particulars of the case required, and doing so by the narrowest of margins--they should be prepared not just for some rhetorical blowback but to see their own legitimacy question. While I see how it could be read as "bad form," I didn't have a huge problem with either Obama talking about the decision in the SotU or Roberts saying what he said in response to (IIRC) an audience question at a recent forum... or for that matter Alito's response at the SotU.

I don't disagree with you at all, I think the venue is the question, or to a larger degree - what is the SotU for? That doesn't seem to be a very interesting question and it sounds like there really is no answer, so there's no point in discussing it.

As for the politics of a decision, this seems like a chicken and egg "which comes first" kind of situation. I can't think of a single scenario where the courts decision won't be percieved as political, or where one side (or both) don't have a rhetorical "the end is nigh/judicial activism/partisan decision" response won't be high. Not a single one of us is innocent of percieving a decision that goes "our way" as the fair and just one, and the decisions that go against our prism as partisan. I mean, we're so politicized as a people (at least the margin at the top that talks about politics) that it's impossible not to see partisanship in any decision - the dishonesty of picking and choosing when to call a decision partisan is beyond that.

With that said, I'm not for an instant claiming that this absolves the Court of partisanship before the reaction can even begin. It's a symbiosis of total entropy.

by **jerseyhoya** » Thu Mar 11, 2010 11:43:48

Vox busting out the $10 words

by **drsmooth** » Thu Mar 11, 2010 12:21:30

jerseyhoya wrote:Vox busting out the $10 words

it's karn o vale all over again

by **drsmooth** » Thu Mar 11, 2010 12:26:43

VoxOrion wrote:
dajafi wrote:If the Supreme Court is going to act in as brazenly political a manner as it did in the CU case--handing down a far broader decision than the particulars of the case required, and doing so by the narrowest of margins--they should be prepared not just for some rhetorical blowback but to see their own legitimacy question. While I see how it could be read as "bad form," I didn't have a huge problem with either Obama talking about the decision in the SotU or Roberts saying what he said in response to (IIRC) an audience question at a recent forum... or for that matter Alito's response at the SotU.

I don't disagree with you at all, I think the venue is the question, or to a larger degree - what is the SotU for? That doesn't seem to be a very interesting question and it sounds like there really is no answer, so there's no point in discussing it.

As for the politics of a decision, this seems like a chicken and egg "which comes first" kind of situation. I can't think of a single scenario where the courts decision won't be percieved as political, or where one side (or both) don't have a rhetorical "the end is nigh/judicial activism/partisan decision" response won't be high. Not a single one of us is innocent of percieving a decision that goes "our way" as the fair and just one, and the decisions that go against our prism as partisan. I mean, we're so politicized as a people (at least the margin at the top that talks about politics) that it's impossible not to see partisanship in any decision - the dishonesty of picking and choosing when to call a decision partisan is beyond that.

With that said, I'm not for an instant claiming that this absolves the Court of partisanship before the reaction can even begin. It's a symbiosis of total entropy.

I feel dajafi captured the nub of it - whatever opinion you form of the content of the decision, viewed in terms of scope, particularly in light of Roberts own assertions about the principles he insisted he would apply to cases, it's harder to give Roberts much benefit of the doubt.

by **drsmooth** » Thu Mar 11, 2010 12:33:51

jerseyhoya wrote:Vox busting out the $10 words

speaking of $10, saw someone who looked like J Thompson III in the company of a $10 hooker near Katz's Deli around 3am. Thought you'd want to know

by **Werthless** » Thu Mar 11, 2010 13:06:32

This 5 second video might make you feel dumber.

[youtube]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=KoE1R-xH5To&feature=youtu.be&a[/youtube]

by **VoxOrion** » Thu Mar 11, 2010 13:39:25

drsmooth wrote:I feel dajafi captured the nub of it - whatever opinion you form of the content of the decision, viewed in terms of scope, particularly in light of Roberts own assertions about the principles he insisted he would apply to cases, it's harder to give Roberts much benefit of the doubt.

Well, that's why I started by agreeing with him.

by **Phan In Phlorida** » Thu Mar 11, 2010 14:15:48

traderdave wrote:First of all, what does prom have to do with the "educational process"?

Obviously, it teaches that a guy will spend a small fortune and be willing to make a fool of himself just for the hope of getting some.

by **traderdave** » Thu Mar 11, 2010 17:05:23

Phan In Phlorida wrote:
traderdave wrote:First of all, what does prom have to do with the "educational process"?

Obviously, it teaches that a guy will spend a small fortune and be willing to make a fool of himself just for the hope of getting some.

You would think that I would've remembered that lesson.

by **traderdave** » Fri Mar 12, 2010 11:40:57

Between Obama, Pelosi, Kucinich, Stupak and all the Republicans I don't know whether to be happy about health care reform or to feel like we all are getting Zapped!

by **The Nightman Cometh** » Fri Mar 12, 2010 18:17:33

So Christie wants to privitize thousands of state jobs now?

Do not want.

by **dajafi** » Sun Mar 14, 2010 18:16:20

Jon Chait asks a valid question: just how friggin' awful was the Democrats' 2004 presidential election field?

At the time, I was disappointed that Kerry prevailed. And it's certainly true that Kerry lacked the communications skills to be a presidential nominee. But compared to that field, he was a giant. He's the only candidate you can imagine actually serving as president without bringing about some enormous disaster.

by **VoxOrion** » Sun Mar 14, 2010 20:15:45

It was a preview of the 2008 Republican field!

Archived

Where the heck is the New POLITICS Thread?