:smack:
Shodan, shut up. You’re not helping.
Sampiro, I had no idea an enlightened such as yourself watched ‘The View’.
I have seen Joy Behar exactly once on some other political show. She is pretty much in the tank for O and won’t listen to anyone else’s view. I have never seen her do stand up comedy. On the show I saw (CNN) she was sitting down, so maybe she was off her game because of that.
Whoppi Goldberg is a cool actress. Saw her in a few movies and really liked her. She does good comedy, but pitiful politics.
If Baba Wawa is on, I pretty much don’t listen. I think she is older than McCain, talking about age. I don’t know her politics, but I assume looney left. She is waaaay past her prime and just needs to retire.
Elizabeth Hasselback claim to fame is she’s married to someone, she’s kind of a republican, and she’s hot.
I don’t think McCain hurt himself going on the view. It’s exposure both for McCain and the immaturity of his questioners.
That’s just my opinion.
Not as bad as some others. You should have seen Roseanne on Bill Maher last night. http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=wlQgeWrGnjM
Jeanene Garaofolo (sp?) was pretty good though. Actually, the whole show was pretty good (except for Rushdie). Things got uncomfortably hot at times.
Sorry, you still have to denounce. Then renounce. Pronounce, announce, you can let go for now.
I don’t actually, but I do read the Huffington Post where there were blips. (Huffington is marginal for the enlightened viewing diet, but I had some bonus calories.)
I loved how- long before the footage of his return from Vietnam but when the audience was seeming to turn against him a little- he went iton a mawkish work-in about how faith in God helped him as a prisoner. Keen shootin’, sar! Two pandering birdies with one shot!
I wonder if his first wife was off-the-table since she’s very relevant to his first return which they discussed and none of the women brought her up.
I can’t believe he defended the lipstick-pig thing even when BW brought up that he himself had said it (numerous times), the first person I’ve known to confront him about that on camera.
You do get to see the temper he was famous for back when he was alive start to flare. And Cindy McCain gets flat out snappy when asked how many houses they own (“uh-ginn”). Good thing they didn’t ask her about stealing prescription pills from her charity.
I agree that Whoopi’s Constitution question/comment was reactionary and simplistic. In this opinion I differ from McCain, who said of the same comment “that’s an excellent point” (6:00 mark on this one).
The black-standards-Republican comment is… informative to say the least. I’d say more but I don’t feel like starting a Pit Thread. (Admittedly I started to agree with it, but then I realized you didn’t mean it as a compliment.)
McCain said he’d be willing to come on THE VIEW with Obama. He’s the one who brought it up, in fact: all of his negative ads are Obama’s fault for not agreeing to town halls you know. Do you think Obama should go?
Wow! Being a dick and racist at the same time? A Shodan twofer!
That would be the 13th Amendment to the Constitution.
The point she was making is that when the Constitution was adopted in 1787, it allowed slavery! So regardless of how incredible a document it may have been (and is), it was (and is) a work in progress.
Conservatives talk about the Founding Fathers as if they were 18th century Apostles hand-picked and annointed by God, and their every thought and intention should be used to establish and evaluate current standards. McCain wants to put in Supreme Court justices who share the values of the Founding Fathers. Why shouldn’t the descendant of slaves–or anyone else who were excluded from “all men are created equal”–raise the point that the Founding Fathers believed in some crazy, immoral, wacked-out shit, and that they had a very different concept of the United States than we have now.
Why do conservatives pretend that the Founding Fathers have anything to do with the social issues of today? If Thomas Jefferson had expressed favorable views towards abortion (especially for the temptress mulattas on the plantation), I sincerely doubt that the conservatives would feel differently about when life begins. So all the talk about Founding Fathers is a smoke screen. Just say you want justices who share your values and quit with the history lesson.
I’m not a Whoopie fan, but she got a Amen from me on the slavery remark. McCain walked right into that one and he deserved the embarrassment.
Shodan is right dudes. She doesn’t know what she was talking about. McCain said he favored a strict interpretation of the Constitution. Had the Constitution been strictly interpreted or interpreted as a working progress, Whoopi’s slave status would have never changed.
Judges never overturned slavery. If Whoopi had argued about a right to privacy or segregation, then I think she would have had a better point.
That doesn’t change the fact that “strict constructionist” is code word for conservative when Republicans use it.
And when it was amended in 1865, it disallowed slavery.
Note, however, that the process for changing the Constitution was followed properly, and not thru adumbrations and penumbrae and all that. Therefore Whoopi’s notion that if we appoint Justices who will interpret the Constitution rather than project their own notions into it puts her at risk for being re-enslaved is rather stupid. Amendments are just as much a part of the Constitution as what was ratified in 1787
Now either Whoopi doesn’t know that, in which case she is too dumb to be commenting on the Constitution (much more than, for instance, Sarah Palin making sure she understands a question before answering it), or she does know it, in which she is a troll. In neither case is it appropriate for her to be wasting valuable time blowing smoke.
Regards,
Shodan
Like the “fact” that he will appoint strict constitutionists who will ignore the 13th Amendment and send Caryn Johnson (oops. I meant Whoopi) down on to the plantations?
And to say that they raise concerns about McCain completely dismisses the reality that he never got a chance to answer many of the questions before they leapt to a new one.
Those of you that don’t think The View has a Democratic agenda, watch the episode with Obama and the one with McCain and calculate the average response time they were allowed. I think you’ll find Obama’s time to be much much higher.
Agreed. Also, maybe she is unaware that the constitution was a compromise. Without the allowance for slaves it would not have been signed. A question I’d like to ask her, and others, is: should that compromise have been made. Are we, and blacks specifically, better off today with that compromise having been made? Or would it have been better to have stood firm against slavery back then? I think that it is better that it was made. The importance of the Declaration of Independence, and it’s proximity in years to the Constitution guaranteed that the two document would always be compared and contrasted for synchronicity. And the “all men are created equal” a foundational tenet for the argument for the U.S. guaranteed that it was only a matter of time before slavery was outlawed.
The very simplistic answer is that it’s because that our form of government.
You see, we could have a system where one, three, or nine people could write laws to do whatever they wanted to to keep up with modern times with absolutely no framework to control them whatsoever. In fact, I would argue that that’s EXACTLY what we’ve had since FDR’s court-packing scheme resulted in a SCOTUS that is seen as an arm of whatever party has appointed 5 or more of the Justices.
A strict constitutionalist does not interpret the constitution using the mindset of someone from 1789. They will take the meaning the Constitution OR AMENDMENT was meant to have at the time it was written. Thus a strict constitutionalist would overrule Wong Kim Ark applying to illegal immigrants’ anchor babies because it is clear from the Congressional debates that “not subject to the jurisdiction thereof” was meant to apply to Indians and specifically not to illegal immigrants.
Now I can explain exactly why you’re wrong. They’re called amendments. The Founding Fathers knew they could never account for everything so they allowed the amendment procedure. If a constitutional amendment were to allow for gay marriage or abortion on demand or legalizing drugs, then irregardless of political views a strict constitutionalist would interpret as today’s society intended.
Perhaps this is a better question for GQ, but how was the 13th Amendment ratified? What restrictions were in place regarding holding political office in the former Confederacy. Was this, indeed, something that 2/3s of the states quickly ratified - as it appears to be from the ratification dates - or was the immediate reconstruction period a little like elections in Cuba - everyone gets to vote for Castro?
Not that I’m implying the 13th Amendment wasn’t a good thing - but I wonder how much of the Constitution was followed properly in the immediate aftermath of Civil War. Perhaps it was - that isn’t a part of History I know.
oooooh god damn
Troll! *That’s *the word I’ve been searching for to describe McCain and Palin! They’re “people who say controversial, irrelevant and off-topic things with the intention of provoking other users into an emotional response, or to generally disrupt normal on-topic discussion.”
Y’know, I can’t even view this as being caught up in the passion of the debate by squinting so hard my forehead hurts.
Your post is out out of bounds and you know it and my post is an Official Warning to refrain from any further direct personal insults in Great Debates.
[ /Moderating ]
Cyndi McCain on her THE VIEW appearance:
Poor woman… to be picked clean like that and yet unable to yell sexism. But she can at least still call critics un-American.
It’s the No True Scotsperson fallacy.