The brain, the dick, the asshole ... and a little pussy - Republican debates

[Liberal]

@John Mace

You’re right, Hannity is the pussy and RG is the asshole. Have you ever noticed that Sean Hannity’s initials are the same as… Saddam Hussein!!!

The Democrats should run with that. (No, really.)

[Marley23]

@Liberal

The Democrats should run with that. (No, really.)

Hmm… Ann Coulter = Anti-Christ. Could work.

[Fear_Itself]

@John Mace

He’s no more a “true Republican” than a southern segregationist is a “true Democrat”.

What is funny is, the way guys like Chris Wallace question him, the voters will never learn this. The right wing agenda seems to be to ask Paul only about pulling out of Iraq, as if this will certainly sink him with the Base. I think it would be hysterical if they miscalculated about the depth of support for staying the course among the Base, and this crank ends up with a lot more votes than they expected.

[John_Mace]

@Fear Itself

What is funny is, the way guys like Chris Wallace question him, the voters will never learn this. The right wing agenda seems to be to ask Paul only about pulling out of Iraq, as if this will certainly sink him with the Base. I think it would be hysterical if they miscalculated about the depth of support for staying the course among the Base, and this crank ends up with a lot more votes than they expected.

Unlikely. It would be like Nader running as a Democrat-- he’ll have a vocal minority supporting him, but people want someone who is electable. I know that sounds corny, especially after the Kerry fiasco, but Pual and Nader really are not electable. Kerry was eminently electable, he just mismanaged his campaign.

Still, it’s an interesting thought. I do find it mind boggling that people can cling to the notion that our long term presence is Iraq is a good thing.

[Little_Nemo]

In short, he may have personal beliefs on these issues, but he wants the federal government OUT of deciding for us. IMHO, I’d call that drastically different from most GOPers…

I think you missed the point of Paul’s bill. He isn’t taking the federal government out of these issues - he just wants the courts out of the way. He wants to make it possible for Congress to outlaw any of these things while forbidding the courts the power to rule it unconstitutional.

[pantheon]

@Little Nemo

I think you missed the point of Paul’s bill. He isn’t taking the federal government out of these issues - he just wants the courts out of the way. He wants to make it possible for Congress to outlaw any of these things while forbidding the courts the power to rule it unconstitutional.

Well, I have admittedly been a disaffected political dropout since the late 80s, so I do appreciate the help in fighting my ignorance. I confess I have a lot to learn before I should enter the waters of political debate here on the dope. Thanks for conveying your point without personal snarkiness, nemo.

whole bean, thanks for conveying your point.

[Liberal]

Wow. It really is lucky for rulers that men do not think.

[pantheon]

@Liberal

Wow. It really is lucky for rulers that men do not think.

Indeed. You’ll notice that I’m not defending nor rationalizing my lack of political involvement. I’m merely seeking to remedy it, whether you think I should or not.

Approximately 44% of eligible voters didn’t even cast a ballot in the presidential elections in '04. Among the 56% who did, how many do you qualify as “thinking men”, Lib, considering the results we got?

I don’t think it’s your intent to discourage a first-time voter, is it?

[BrainGlutton]

Say, if Hannity’s the pussy, what is Colmes?

[Liberal]

@pantheon

Indeed. You’ll notice that I’m not defending nor rationalizing my lack of political involvement. I’m merely seeking to remedy it, whether you think I should or not.

Approximately 44% of eligible voters didn’t even cast a ballot in the presidential elections in '04. Among the 56% who did, how many do you qualify as “thinking men”, Lib, considering the results we got?

I don’t think it’s your intent to discourage a first-time voter, is it?

No, not really. I was responding to Little Nemo’s bizarre take on Paul, actually. Sorry I didn’t notice your post edging in there.

[whole_bean]

@pantheon

Well, I have admittedly been a disaffected political dropout since the late 80s, so I do appreciate the help in fighting my ignorance. I confess I have a lot to learn before I should enter the waters of political debate here on the dope. Thanks for conveying your point without personal snarkiness, nemo.

whole bean, thanks for conveying your point.

Sorry for the “snark.” I honestly thought you were being disengenuous as opposed to uniformed. Please, read, learn and vote.

[pantheon]

ah, geesh. <warning- kumbaya moment>

Sorry, Lib, and whole bean.

I’m outside my comfort zone and was being overly defensive as a result. I do appreciate the feedback- whether it’s critical or in agreement, I can learn from both.

[wonky]

@Little Nemo

I think you missed the point of Paul’s bill. He isn’t taking the federal government out of these issues - he just wants the courts out of the way. He wants to make it possible for Congress to outlaw any of these things while forbidding the courts the power to rule it unconstitutional.

Exactly. It does nothing to rein in the power of Congress over these issues. In fact, since it removes one of the checks on Congressional power, it increases the ability of the Federal government to interfere with the everyday lives and Constitutional rights of the populace.

It’s a very blatant attempt to counter so-called “activist judges” despite those judges being an important balance to the power of the legislature. That balance goes both ways. Why don’t people see that?
ETA: Here’s a link to a site extolling the proposed Act. Notice the judgments that they want this Act to make impossible:

http://www.traditionalvalues.org/modules.php?sid=2673

Here’s why this legislation is so important:

* The Supreme Court has ruled that sodomy is unconstitutional in all 50 states.
* The 9th Circuit Court in San Francisco ruled that the Pledge of Allegiance was unconstitutional because it contained the words “under God” in it.
* A federal judge in Nebraska ruled that the marriage amendment to the state constitution was unconstitutional. (States aren’t even permitted to amend their own constitutions without federal interference.)
* Federal judges in California and New York have ruled that the Partial-Birth Abortion Ban is unconstitutional.
* The 9th Circuit Court recently ruled that parents have no right to protest explicit sex education being taught to their children in public schools.

[Liberal]

@jsgoddess

It’s a very blatant attempt to counter so-called “activist judges” despite those judges being an important balance to the power of the legislature. That balance goes both ways. Why don’t people see that?

Paul does. As he said, “The best solution, of course, is not now available to us. That would be a Supreme Court that recognizes that for all criminal laws, the several states retain jurisdiction.” If you want to abolish federalism, then you have to be prepared to accept the consequences. Rather than a bench sympathetic to your causes, you might find a bench that will overturn every precious right you hold dear. The gorilla who can soothe you is the same gorilla who can crush you.

[No_Way_Jose]

@woodstockbirdybird

They’re ignoring a large audience who’ve already made up their minds that Dems are evil…

Not evil… Just Socialist.

[whole_bean]

@jsgoddess

Exactly. It does nothing to rein in the power of Congress over these issues. In fact, since it removes one of the checks on Congressional power, it increases the ability of the Federal government to interfere with the everyday lives and Constitutional rights of the populace.

It’s a very blatant attempt to counter so-called “activist judges” despite those judges being an important balance to the power of the legislature. That balance goes both ways. Why don’t people see that?
ETA: Here’s a link to a site extolling the proposed Act. Notice the judgments that they want this Act to make impossible:

http://www.traditionalvalues.org/modules.php?sid=2673

My guess, is he’d rather return power to the states not Congress, which would have even more horrifying results.

[wonky]

@Liberal

Paul does. As he said, “The best solution, of course, is not now available to us. That would be a Supreme Court that recognizes that for all criminal laws, the several states retain jurisdiction.” If you want to abolish federalism, then you have to be prepared to accept the consequences. Rather than a bench sympathetic to your causes, you might find a bench that will overturn every precious right you hold dear. The gorilla who can soothe you is the same gorilla who can crush you.

The judiciary is a brake on the legislature. He wants to cut the brake lines, and you support that.

[wonky]

@whole bean

My guess, is he’d rather return power to the states not Congress, which would have even more horrifying results.

They probably do want that (which is horrifying enough, since I’m from Ohio), but unless I’m missing it, I don’t think the Act says anything about what Congress can do. So Congress has one fewer check on its power.

And the libertarians think that’s a good idea.

Hilarious.

[The_Hamster_King]

@John Mace

Still, it’s an interesting thought. I do find it mind boggling that people can cling to the notion that our long term presence is Iraq is a good thing.

I think at this point the remaining support for the Iraq War consists of little more than a stubborn refusal to admit error.

[mhendo]

From jsgoddess’s Traditional Values Coalition link:

The Supreme Court has ruled that sodomy is unconstitutional in all 50 states.

It has? I must have missed that ruling!