Desperately need a drink of politics thread

by **pacino** » Tue Mar 26, 2013 11:24:33

People (and the press) dont care about ethics investigations; they care about sex. And that was all set up and false. if they cared about ethics, we wouldnt have our system run by money the way we do. the headlines are all about sex.

by **Barry Jive** » Tue Mar 26, 2013 11:36:02

this is awesome:

by **swishnicholson** » Tue Mar 26, 2013 11:38:44

pacino wrote:there was popular sentiment FOR NAFTA?

I would say yes. It was presented as a free trade issue, and everybody likes to be free.

Unions and other groups were agin' it, but it was pretty easy to paint them with a protectionist brush.

That's not to say that it was in fact good for the majority. Just that it wasn't necessary to buck massive amounts of sentiment against it. Significant amounts certainly, but most people had such little understanding of it that they were willing to go with the tide whichever way it was pulling.

edit: Good article on polling history of Nafta (pdf)

http://www.aei.org/files/2008/06/26/20031203_nafta2.pdf

At the time of the signing there was a plurality in support. Large blocks of people though, felt like they didn't have enough information to have an opinion, before, at and after the signing. Not surprising as I don't think enough we can measure the effects.

by **Werthless** » Tue Mar 26, 2013 12:05:23

Barry Jive wrote:this is awesome:

Did they basically add 6% for every 4 years? That seems... simple.

by **Doll Is Mine** » Tue Mar 26, 2013 12:06:06

NBC's Pete Williams: 'It's quite obvious the Supreme Court is not prepared to issue any kind of sweeping ruling about gay rights.'

by **kimbatiste** » Tue Mar 26, 2013 12:11:32

Apparently, Alito, Scalito, and (sadly) Roberts were asking a lot of questions about whether the issue is premature and that states (the laboratories of democracy) should be given time to study and experience how gay marriage could impact child-rearing by gay couples. Talk about a red herring. I think this was even noted by the District Court (if I'm thinking of the right decision) but gay marriage has nothing to do with parenting by gay couples. Putting aside the completely unsupported proposition that being raised by two parents of the same sex negatively impacts a child, if that is your concern then the answer is to ban gay adoption not gay marriage.

by **td11** » Tue Mar 26, 2013 12:11:32

yeah sorry gays, better luck next time

@SCOTUSblog 16m
Breaking: key vote Kennedy VERY uncomfortable striking down #prop8. Suggests dismissing case. Would leave in place 9th Cir pro-#ssm ruling.

“We have five years of information to pose against 2,000 years of history or more,” he said, speaking of the long history of traditional marriage and the brief experience allowing gay men and lesbians to marry in some states.

so kennedy gets to just dismiss it?

by **td11** » Tue Mar 26, 2013 12:12:55

AdamSerwer ‏@AdamSerwer 8m
Alito said there could be terrible consequences: Same sex marriage is younger than cell phones and the Internet...we can't see the future

wow

by **Doll Is Mine** » Tue Mar 26, 2013 12:19:51

I guess John Roberts doesn't want to be the guy who saved Obamacare and Gay Marriage.

by **phatj** » Tue Mar 26, 2013 12:31:45

Doll Is Mine wrote:I guess John Roberts doesn't want to be the guy who saved Obamacare and Gay Marriage.

What do you do for an encore?

by **Werthless** » Tue Mar 26, 2013 12:32:15

jerseyhoya wrote:
pacino wrote:so, Menendez did nothing in the Dominican Republic. just a FYI for anyone who didn't see anything after the initial accusations.

This is totally false. just an FYI for anyone who gets their political news from pacino summaries on BSG.

LOL.

Now that the sex scandal evidence has evaporated, they can focus on his ethics violations.

by **BDawk** » Tue Mar 26, 2013 12:52:12

Triumph of bigotry, way to go Supreme Court, fantastic legacy you morons are building for yourselves.

by **kruker** » Tue Mar 26, 2013 12:59:21

td11 wrote:AdamSerwer ‏@AdamSerwer 8m
Alito said there could be terrible consequences: Same sex marriage is younger than cell phones and the Internet...we can't see the future

wow

I guess it was too much to hope that they wouldn't be ruling on morality. I thought their job was to interpret the constitution.

by **kimbatiste** » Tue Mar 26, 2013 13:07:03

td11 wrote:yeah sorry gays, better luck next time

@SCOTUSblog 16m
Breaking: key vote Kennedy VERY uncomfortable striking down #prop8. Suggests dismissing case. Would leave in place 9th Cir pro-#ssm ruling.

“We have five years of information to pose against 2,000 years of history or more,” he said, speaking of the long history of traditional marriage and the brief experience allowing gay men and lesbians to marry in some states.

so kennedy gets to just dismiss it?

That would be a good thing for marriage equality proponents. It would leave in place the 9th Circuit ruling striking down Prop 8 as unconstitutional. It would be a middle ground of allowing gay marriage without creating ramifications for our friends in Alabama, Mississippi, etc.

by **kimbatiste** » Tue Mar 26, 2013 13:09:06

Of course, everyone was saying after oral argument on Obamacare that the questions made it seem inevitable that the law would be struck down. I still think the most likely outcome is to uphold gay marriage on the narrowest grounds (which would be finding that the California proponents of Prop 8 do not have standing to argue on behalf of the bill).

by **TomatoPie** » Tue Mar 26, 2013 13:18:55

simple fix (but not up to the court) -- get gummint outta the marriage bidnit. Marriage can be whatever your church says. CIVIL unions can be recognized by the government just like any other contract. And why not any two people? Why not spinster sisters who can be a "family" just as much as 2 people in romantic love?

Too logical for this lifetime, I guess.

by **Barry Jive** » Tue Mar 26, 2013 13:22:08

simple is one word for it, i guess

by **pacino** » Tue Mar 26, 2013 13:38:41

kruker wrote:
td11 wrote:AdamSerwer ‏@AdamSerwer 8m
Alito said there could be terrible consequences: Same sex marriage is younger than cell phones and the Internet...we can't see the future

wow

I guess it was too much to hope that they wouldn't be ruling on morality. I thought their job was to interpret the constitution.

but, these are queers we're dealing with here.

by **pacino** » Tue Mar 26, 2013 14:18:11

Justice Antonin Scalia challenged lawyer Theodore B. Olson, who was arguing to overturn Prop 8 and have the court rule that there is a constitutional right to marriage that must include same-sex couples.

Scalia and other conservatives wondered how the Constitution could mandate a position on same-sex marriage, which, as Justice Samuel A. Alito Jr. noted, did not exist before the year 2000.
“When did it become unconstitutional to prohibit gays from marrying?” Scalia asked

by **joe table** » Tue Mar 26, 2013 14:22:15

http://kissingsuzykolber.uproxx.com/201 ... insky.html

Archived

Desperately need a drink of politics thread

Re: Desperately need a drink of politics thread

Re: Desperately need a drink of politics thread

Re: Desperately need a drink of politics thread

Re: Desperately need a drink of politics thread

Re: Desperately need a drink of politics thread

Re: Desperately need a drink of politics thread

Re: Desperately need a drink of politics thread

Re: Desperately need a drink of politics thread

Re: Desperately need a drink of politics thread

Re: Desperately need a drink of politics thread

Re: Desperately need a drink of politics thread

Re: Desperately need a drink of politics thread

Re: Desperately need a drink of politics thread

Re: Desperately need a drink of politics thread

Re: Desperately need a drink of politics thread

Re: Desperately need a drink of politics thread

Re: Desperately need a drink of politics thread

Re: Desperately need a drink of politics thread

Re: Desperately need a drink of politics thread

Re: Desperately need a drink of politics thread