pacino wrote:

jerseyhoya wrote:

RichmondPhilsFan wrote:

jerseyhoya wrote:

RichmondPhilsFan wrote:I think you ignored the second and third numbers in that except.

The 'we'd rather you focus on jobs and the economy instead of issue X' is processy and empty. It's also a #$!&@ terrible poll question: "A special session of the legislature should focus on issues like education, jobs, and the economy, instead of bringing up social issues like abortion that were already addressed in the regular session of the legislature." Jesus christ.

There is a question in there about the bill, basically using the Dem messaging on the legislation and support is only 42-51% for the legislation. "This proposal would put in place new restrictions and regulations on abortion providers that would likely result in the closure of all but five abortion clinics in the state of Texas, all of which are located along the I-35 corridor, and would ban most abortions starting at 20 weeks of pregnancy." I'd bet good money that if the wording tracked GOP messaging "This proposal would require doctors with privileges at nearby hospitals monitor all abortions, abortions be performed in certified surgery centers, and would ban most abortions starting at 20 weeks of pregnancy allowing for exceptions in cases when the life of the mother is threatened." it would be more lopsided in the other direction.

I don't see how this turns into a winning issue in Texas of all places or a jumping off point for Davis to run statewide successfully.

That's still not process over substance, but whatever. I forgot that I'm talking to someone who believes that politics is about your team winning instead of fighting for what you believe is right.

I was arguing that the Dem advantages are on process issues, while the Republicans had the edge on the poll question that actually asked about the substance of the bill. In general process type stuff loses relevance more quickly and isn't really something you're going to win over undecided voters with. I didn't click on the link and see there was a (flawed) question that actually addressed the contents of the bill.

And I'm not sure what the hell that ad hominem has to do with anything.

when the substance of the bill comes from a completely false idea, what use is the poll about it positing the incorrect idea as an option? uninformed people have been told lies as to 'pain' and the necessity for admitting privilages, so you think this will continue? or perhaps educating people will sway them.

kimbatiste wrote:The majority opinion in the DOMA case is actually pretty weak. While I clearly agree with the result, the reasoning in the opinion is pretty sparse by Supreme Court standards. It's pretty repetitive and reads more like an expression of opinion as opposed to a result compelled by the Constitution.

kimbatiste wrote:

kimbatiste wrote:The majority opinion in the DOMA case is actually pretty weak. While I clearly agree with the result, the reasoning in the opinion is pretty sparse by Supreme Court standards. It's pretty repetitive and reads more like an expression of opinion as opposed to a result compelled by the Constitution.

I tried to read Scalia's dissent but gave up. Everytime he writes a dissent, he can never just disagree. Instead, the majority has just committed the biggest violation in the history of American jurisprudence, is idiotic, or incomprehensible. He is never not only wrong but all who disagree with him are morons. Frankly, his constant outrage is tiresome.

FTN wrote:also, wendy davis is pretty hot i think

kimbatiste wrote:

kimbatiste wrote:The majority opinion in the DOMA case is actually pretty weak. While I clearly agree with the result, the reasoning in the opinion is pretty sparse by Supreme Court standards. It's pretty repetitive and reads more like an expression of opinion as opposed to a result compelled by the Constitution.

I tried to read Scalia's dissent but gave up. Everytime he writes a dissent, he can never just disagree. Instead, the majority has just committed the biggest violation in the history of American jurisprudence, is idiotic, or incomprehensible. He is never not only wrong but all who disagree with him are morons. Frankly, his constant outrage is tiresome.

td11 wrote:

kimbatiste wrote:

kimbatiste wrote:The majority opinion in the DOMA case is actually pretty weak. While I clearly agree with the result, the reasoning in the opinion is pretty sparse by Supreme Court standards. It's pretty repetitive and reads more like an expression of opinion as opposed to a result compelled by the Constitution.

I tried to read Scalia's dissent but gave up. Everytime he writes a dissent, he can never just disagree. Instead, the majority has just committed the biggest violation in the history of American jurisprudence, is idiotic, or incomprehensible. He is never not only wrong but all who disagree with him are morons. Frankly, his constant outrage is tiresome.

enjoy
http://tpmdc.talkingpointsmemo.com/2013 ... issent.php

laf837 wrote:

FTN wrote:also, wendy davis is pretty hot i think

she's single, brah

slugsrbad wrote:

After the U.S. Supreme Court repealed the Defense of Marriage Act earlier today, Michele Bachmann released a statement reiterating the same ol' anti-gay marriage talking points.

"Marriage was created by the hand of God. No man, not even a Supreme Court, can undo what a holy God has instituted," Bachmann, who isn't seeking another term in Congress and narrowly won reelection last year, wrote.

"For thousands of years of recorded human history, no society has defended the legal standard of marriage as anything other than between man and woman. Only since 2000 have we seen a redefinition of this foundational unit of society in various nations," she continued. "Today, the U.S. Supreme Court decided to join the trend, despite the clear will of the people's representatives through DOMA."

"What the Court has done will undermine the best interest of children and the best interests of the United States," she concluded.

A short time later, House Minority Leader Nancy Pelosi, D-California, was asked what she thought about Bachmann's statement.

"Who cares?" she replied.

http://blogs.citypages.com/blotter/2013 ... t_ever.php

That's the full article, no need to click.

Doll Is Mine wrote:Rachel Maddow is encouraging married gay couples in NY, CA, and other states where gay marriage is legal to move to Utah and other states that don't recognize gay marriage and sue those states. She claims that they will win.

We're doing it!

td11 wrote:because it supresses minority and low-income votes who overwhelmingly vote D

jerseyhoya wrote:

Tammy Duckworth #$!&@ eviscerates this witness. More congressional hearings should have stuff like this.

TenuredVulture wrote:

td11 wrote:because it supresses minority and low-income votes who overwhelmingly vote D

Well, that's the hope, I guess. I'm just not sure it's going to work that way--and no one else does either. I believe Obama won the states where voter ID was in place by 2012. Our local NAACP chair thinks it's quite possible that voter ID will in fact motivate black people to vote at higher rates than they have in the past. And again, given that the real decline in turnout is in white voters, there's reason to suspect these efforts may backfire.

At a conference, I asked someone who looked closely at Oklahoma how often people who lacked IDs really voted, given his findings that such people tend to be very socially disconnected. He said, obviously, they vote at very low rates, but no one really knows.