U.S. Politics - Netanyahu and Boehner OTP

[Shryke]

It must be really fucking boring living with such manichean certainty, Shryke. Everyone who isn't with you is either a hypocritical liar or a delusional moron, right? So why even show up?

There is such a thing as good-faith disagreement, you know. Plenty of wonderful people are pro-life for reasons that have nothing to do with hating women. Plenty of them are women, in fact!

And seriously, an Obamabot denouncing political hucksters? :lol: It's hard to think of a better example of head-up-your-ass syndrome than that

*BTW, that graph is useless without an explanation of how they judge a statement/action to be "conservative."

Look man, I know it's painful, but your Saint Paul is a bullshit artist. It's true. He's pushing more defence spending and anti-gay and anti-abortion stuff. He ain't anything but a bog-standard republican. (actually, he's an exceptionally conservative one)

You can hold a position that is pro-life, but you can't then claim to give a shit about personal liberties. Same with being anti-gay-marriage.

PS - I have no idea why you think Obama would qualify as a huckster. Obama has been pretty much exactly the politician he campaigned on being. Often to his detriment (see - his years of attempts at bipartisanship)

[Seli]

Again, there is more to liberty and small government than the freedom to kill your fetus. I disagree with Paul on abortion, but viewing the unborn as human beings with rights does not make him some big-government fraud (though other things, like his new Defense Budget, might).

Contrary to popular belief, abortion is a not a "settled" issue among libertarians. But that's a topic for the libertarianism thread

I was talking about same sex marriage. But of course local governments in the US are well known for historically butting in on things like race interactions, alcohol sales, education, and probably more. In many cases it has been the federal system that had to intervene to protect people's rights against the big government of states and local governments. It of course isn't without its own flaws, but people losing track of the balancing power isn't good news for the individuals in the United States.

[Galactus]

You can hold a position that is pro-life, but you can't then claim to give a shit about personal liberties. Same with being anti-gay-marriage.

Eh, I think you can. It makes you look stupid, but it's not actually inconsistent. (in both cases it would require you to hold supporting positions though)

[Galactus]

https://espnfivethirtyeight.files.wordpress.com/2014/12/silver-datalab-jeb-1.png?w=610&h=916

Fairly interesting graph. Kind of pointless without more context, Rand's record is very *interesting* though (regardless of what it is they're actually measuring) Considering the stuff he's obviously not just voting the party line (everyone else is to the left of him in that regard) but isn't talking it in the opposite direction.

Nixon having to deal with a democratic congress explains his dots, but it's interesting how Santorum's bark is so much worse than his bite.

EDIT: Also how Walker appears to be pretty much exactly what he says he is, for good or ill :p

[BloodRider]

I don't see the logic there. Presidential year, GOP has to defend the purple seats they picked up in 2010, and I don't think there are many more seats that can go to the GOP in the house. Unless something drastic happens between now and 2016 in favor of the GOP on par with the Tea Party in 2010, I just don't see how that conclusion could possibly be made.

Heres hoping you are right. I am not going to worry too much until thier model kicks in.

[Commodore]

You can hold a position that is pro-life, but you can't then claim to give a shit about personal liberties.

life is the most important personal liberty

[OnionAhaiReborn]

life is the most important personal liberty*

Conservative fine print:

*not applicable to women's lives, minorities' lives, poor people's lives, foreigners' lives

[Commodore]

Lawyers on the board, I know the laws don't apply to Hillary, but humor us for a moment. What happens to normal people that destroy evidence under congressional subpoena?

[lokisnow]

Fairly interesting graph. Kind of pointless without more context, Rand's record is very *interesting* though (regardless of what it is they're actually measuring) Considering the stuff he's obviously not just voting the party line (everyone else is to the left of him in that regard) but isn't talking it in the opposite direction.

Nixon having to deal with a democratic congress explains his dots, but it's interesting how Santorum's bark is so much worse than his bite.

EDIT: Also how Walker appears to be pretty much exactly what he says he is, for good or ill :p

The graph is part of a massive article, btw, which makes excuses for rand.

My interpretation is that Basically rand issues statements that claim he's libertarian moderate and then he votes as a rightaliban extremist. But it is totes okay because what he says is his true self, not what he actually does.

[Seli]

Lawyers on the board, I know the laws don't apply to Hillary, but humor us for a moment. What happens to normal people that destroy evidence under congressional subpoena?

Depends, did they destroy it far before the subpoena, afterwards or when one became inevitable?

[The Fallen]

I'm no lawyer, but I did stay at a Holiday Inn.

I think the whole email thing is bad business. Even if there's nothing incriminating, why get rid of them? I'm not as upset about the personal server. What I find harder to believe is that no one knew about her private email and server. I think people knew and it just wasn't that big of a deal.

[Shryke]

I'm no lawyer, but I did stay at a Holiday Inn.

I think the whole email thing is bad business. Even if there's nothing incriminating, why get rid of them? I'm not as upset about the personal server. What I find harder to believe is that no one knew about her private email and server. I think people knew and it just wasn't that big of a deal.

What else are you gonna do with it? Keep paying to have a mail server sit around doing nothing forever?

[The Fallen]

What else are you gonna do with it? Keep paying to have a mail server sit around doing nothing forever?

If she handed them over, delete.

If she knew she had to hand them over, then hand them over and then delete.

If she hasn't handed them over, then hold on to them for a specific period of time; long enough so that if you're asked for them, you have them.

All in all, this is clearly nowhere near the top of my 'worry' list.

[TrackerNeil]

Lawyers on the board, I know the laws don't apply to Hillary, but humor us for a moment. What happens to normal people that destroy evidence under congressional subpoena?

Commodore, if one of the board lawyers responds that in this situation the law is not 100% clear, and that there is reason to believe what Clinton did was not illegal, will you concede anything? Or is this another one of you I'm-just-posing-the-question things?

[Commodore]

Commodore, if one of the board lawyers responds that in this situation the law is not 100% clear, and that there is reason to believe what Clinton did was not illegal, will you concede anything? Or is this another one of you I'm-just-posing-the-question things?

I'd be happy to concede the legal point, but it certainly disqualifies her from higher office. Remember Sandy Berger stealing documents from the National Archives? This is habitual behavior.

Also, continuing to write "BENGHAZI!!!" as if such inquiries are ridiculous is starting to lose its punch given Hillary's recent actions.

[TrackerNeil]

I'd be happy to concede the legal point, but it certainly disqualifies her from higher office. Remember Sandy Berger stealing documents from the National Archives? This is habitual behavior.

In other words, even if the legal scholars come down on Hillary's side, you still think what she did makes her unsuitable for the presidency. So you'll concede a technical legal point but not reconsider your opinion? How very open-minded of you!

[Reny of Storms End]

I'd be happy to concede the legal point, but it certainly disqualifies her from higher office. Remember Sandy Berger stealing documents from the National Archives? This is habitual behavior.

Also, continuing to write "BENGHAZI!!!" as if such inquiries are ridiculous is starting to lose its punch given Hillary's recent actions.

I would have thought the same after the umpteenth Congressional committee found no wrong doing, but that won't stop conservatives. So why would it stop Hilary supporters?

[Guest]

Commodore - I think there's something to this Clinton email stuff as I touched on before, and I think some of my liberal compadres are being weirdly dismissive of it.

But switching gears, I have another question for you. Do you like Mark Levin? This Mark Levin?

It's a great article overall on Sonny v. Michael Corleone conservatives. But my. Mark Levin is a remarkably disgusting piece of shit of a human being. A creature so loathsome that he makes Papa Bear seem like a Teddy Bear.

[Shryke]

Commodore - I think there's something to this Clinton email stuff as I touched on before, and I think some of my liberal compadres are being weirdly dismissive of it.

Why weirdly? Why would anyone with any memory at all trust a republican witchhunt against the Clintons after the last dozen?

We been down this road before. I'll believe it when there's something concrete.

[Dr. Pepper]

I feel like I need some serious explaining, grade school style. No joke, can some break this down in simple terms because I'm missing the point even after plenty of reading relevant articles and regulations. I've tried to consider how my own personal biases might be clouding the issue, but it's not easy to find someone to compare this with. Beyond it just being technically against the rules for Clinton to have used personal email rather than the antiquated terrible government email system, why should I be angry or even mildly upset about this? Is the assumption that she's hiding something so much greater than the typical things we expect politicians to hide? What am I missing?