Surely the ability to string a legible sentence together should be pretty high for someone who's key role is influencing others?

If she just took a few seconds to think about what she saying - take a deep breath. But it sounds like she is trying to ream off what she has crammed into her head without undertsanding any of it. From what I have seen she is out of her depth and McCian has made a huge error of judgement in choosing her.

clearly, mccain and judgement are two words that do not go together well

This would be the case if the union came into existence as it is right now. Direct election of Senators (I believe) was added to the Constitution by amendment. The people used to have MUCH less influence on the federal government, and instead elected state officials who elected federal officials. The states were supposed to be little sovereigns (sort of) and jealously guard their power against federal infringement. If the state officials were electing federal officials, they'd do their best to keep the federal government weak, which they did for a while.

The states were supposed to take care of everything not listed in A1S8, that's why the only powers given to the federal government were specifically listed out, and then it was put in writing that all other powers belonged to the states and to the people.

But if it's the will of the constituents that the Constitution be violated, those are the powers they're willing to delegate to the federal government...or so your argument seems to go. Look, you can't pick and choose which parts have meaning and which don't. Either it's all ironclad until amended, or there are no limits. You can't just say "well, the people delegate the right to violate the Constitution and Bill Of Rights, but if they do really nasty stuff it's illegal." Doesn't work like that. If the citizens can delegate the power to overrule A1S8, the 2nd Amendment, the 4th Amendment, whatever, then they can overrule any part of the Constitution they want. That's why they can't.

Adrian

Yes, and when it comes to law making and voting, elected officials "are" the people.


Violating the Consitution would be to go against what is written in it. That means going against what is written black on white in Sections 8 & 9 of Article 1. For all that is not written in there and therefore reserved to the States and the people, the Constitution defines the frame for the laws States and People can come up with.

That's not what I said either, read again. Though the Constitution being by the people, for the people, I guess citizens could, in theory, ask to have it revised and re-define the frame.

What happens I think, is that you see violation where I see regulation. All laws that created some controversy around the 2nd amendment are a good example. On that matter passing a law that would forbid all arms, though I admit I'd support the idea, would be anti-constitutional. But I see no violation of the Constitution when laws define which arms people can or can't bear.



Ponrauil

Sarah Palin has nice ( o )( o )s. and those glasses are a turn on.

holy ****ing shit palin doesn't know any other federal acts other than roe versus wade:

http://www.cbsnews.com/stories/2008/...n4493062.shtml

Couric: What other Supreme Court decisions do you disagree with?

Palin: Well, let's see. There's, of course in the great history of America there have been rulings, that's never going to be absolute consensus by every American. And there are those issues, again, like Roe v. Wade, where I believe are best held on a state level and addressed there. So you know, going through the history of America, there would be others but …

Couric: Can you think of any?

Palin: Well, I could think of … any again, that could be best dealt with on a more local level. Maybe I would take issue with. But, you know, as mayor, and then as governor and even as a vice president, if I'm so privileged to serve, wouldn't be in a position of changing those things but in supporting the law of the land as it reads today.



this woman is an absolute cretin. it would be funny if the stakes weren't so high. at least the conservatives can't moan about obama's lack of experience when they have this clown up there with them.

Couric likes microscopes up her ass.

Except that "the people" were intended to have very little interaction with the federal government, and very much interaction with their states. The federal government (hereafter refered to as .gov) was supposed to be sort of an administrator over the states, and was supposed to handle matters of national urgency, not things that were the states business. Elected officials aren't "the people," they are officials of the .gov with a set of rules that they are sworn to uphold whether their constituents like it or not.

Violating also means acting outside the listed powers. S8 is all and everything that the .gov can spend money on. S9 is a further list of restrictions, not carte blanche to do whatever they want outside S8. If S8 isn't a restricted list of powers, then why doesn't S8 just say "Have at it!" Also, nowhere does the Constitution provide for the federal government to receive powers that the people/states decide to delegate back to it, except through amendment.

This is the amending process. If you (as a federal official) alter the Constitution or exceed the powers granted to you by it without first getting an amendment, you have committed a crime.

Ok, let's try this then. Would onerous regulation on the freedom of speech or religion (or any other right), stopping just short of prohibition be constitutional? No political speech within 90 days of an election, as written by that bastard McCain, was struck down as unconstitutional. Should that be reinstated? What about all mosques have to get a permit to operate and submit membership lists? Not forbidding anything, so it must be constitutional. All jurors must belong to a race other than that of the defendant? Again, not forbidding jury trials...

Exceeding the scope of what is defined in the Constitution IS a violation. Regulation on a right IS a violation. In the oft-echoed words of 2A proponents (who I will admit, have a tendency to over simplify matters):What part of shall not be infringed is hard to understand?

Adrian

I think you're mixing executive (gov.) and legislative (congress) powers here. Section 8 & 9 define the scope & limitations of the legislative branch, not of the government. Again, legislative power is one way for the people to use the powers reserved to it by the Constitution.

And for all that does not appear in Article 1, section 8 & 9, there is Amendment X:

"The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the states, are reserved to the states respectively, or to the people."


Freedom of speech is regulated. That's why you can trial someone for orally threatening your life or traducing your person or professional reputation.

Two ideas behind this:

1 - A right never goes without a responsibility.

2 - Any right that has no law giving it a frame to be enjoyed is impossible.


Well again, if you consider infringed = broken or violated, I don't see how that has happened. Americans always had the right to bear arms, haven't they?


Ponrauil

Don't vote

Anyone saw the VP debate?

I like how all the media say Palin did well, and some even say she won, simply because she wasn't as bad as in the Couric interviews. :)

Yet she had here eyes glued to her pre-written answers during the whole debate (can't think for herself?), went off-topic even faster than Biden, and showed all her populism ("I'm talking to Joe Six-pack"... wtf? :/). She wasn't trashed by Biden though, except maybe on the foreign issues, but she still clearly is not qualified for the job.

Biden, imo, without being exceptional was good and solid enough. He played it very safe which was probably the right thing to do.


It says a lot about the level of national politics when all some politicians need to do to "win" a debate is not make blunders...


Ponrauil

3 cheers for mediocracy.

on another board someone pointed out that biden had the hardest job to do since he needed to appear as strong as possible whereas palin only had to not make herself look like a moron.

If the legislative branch is not limited to the items in A1S8, and people are allowed to give their reserved powers back to Congress, then either A1S8, Amendment 10, or both don't make any sense. The powers aren't "reserved" to the people or states if they can give them up at a moments notice, and it further makes no sense to list out what the government can do if their powers far exceed that which is listed.

I don't know if the word "reserved" has changed from a far more permissive meaning in the past 250 years, but my dictionary defines reserved as "kept or set apart for some particular use or purpose," followed by a whole bunch of definitions as applied to people and relationships. The word specifically means separated or kept from, and to think that the founders would use the word "reserved" when they really meant for the people to then share those powers freely with government is looking for a big government meaning in a small government document.

The Constitution only makes sense when you read it as it was intended to be read, establishing a small, limited government with a very defined set of powers, and a whole host of regulations placed upon it.

Granted. Your right to swing your fists stops at my nose, that's correct. Your right to own a knife stops at your leaving it my chest. I come back to the point though, if restriction does not equal violation, how far may restriction be taken? Is only outright prohibition a violation?

In theory. By that logic though, one could restrict anything down to flintlock muskets and claim that the 2A had not been violated, and we KNOW that would be incorrect.

Adrian

Again, you're mixing Government and Legislative Power.

And electing official reps and senators is not giving up your powers, it's using them.


I'd say as far as every citizen's (not just gun owners) fundamental rights will require and allow it to be taken. But that's my view. Yours is different. Nothing in the Constitution says where regulation can start or end (as long as it's not prohibition). It's the people's decision. That's why reps and senators discuss and vote when it gets to that point on such issues.


Well that's beyond theory but one could claim so yes. He'd come across as an idiot though and would obviously never have such a law passed, if only for user safety issues.


Ponrauil

Omg Joe Biden was phenomenal, he was so solid with every answer he gave. Now Palin did a good job, but she didn't do enough to help Mccain. I watched the debate again and she helped herself more than she helped Mccain as if she was running for president. At first I thought Palin was fairly solid, but not as solid as Biden and then the second time I watched it I thought Palin wasn't as good as I thought the first time around.


Middle class need relief!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

Too bad Biden lied on 14 points. That has been proven on the news. Being inaccurate doesn't count.:rolleyes::rolleyes:

I don't see 14 points proven anywhere. If you go here to factcheck.org:

http://www.factcheck.org/elections-2...in_debate.html

You will see that both of them had many innaccuracies.

Could you clarify where I'm mixing up powers? A1S8 is everything Congress can spend money on. I've never said different. A1S9 is further limitations on Congress.

Never said electing officials was giving up powers, but giving them the powers denied to them by the Constitution is.

You have more of a hands-on approach when it comes to the enumerated rights, I have more of a hands-off. Reading the founder's works, it becomes clear that the rights listed in the BoR are as much as possible to be left alone.

Also, "Shall make no law," "shall not be infringed," and a bunch of other commanding-sounding phrases leave little doubt as to how much regulation is permissable.

So if restricting Americans to colonial-era muzzleloaders is as much of a violation of the Constitution as restricting us to colonial-era printing presses, how much restriction is acceptable before it becomes a violation?

Adrian

ha i've been banned from a politics forum i post on for calling someone that likened a bunch of kids on youtube singing about obama to the hitler youth an ignorant part of the female reproductive system.

they must not like the 1st ammendment

If it was an American forum I wouldn't be surprised. I wouldn't worry about it though Jim - it's one of the reasons I still post here. There is very little censorship.

mainly american forum.

i don't even know why i post there actually it really is full of dumb**** rednecks like the guy in question.

it's quite funny to see these idiots (who literally think hitler and co were socialists because y know, nazi's = national socialists :-S) try to belittle people like me that actually have degrees in the stuff we're discussing because we actually have a bit of learning behind us :-D

it's a shame the music forums on there are good and i trade alot of music toys with the folks over there or i wouldn't bother my arse going back.

2nd debate was a good one. I think both candidates did a good job to defend their respective positions, though I do think Obama did a better job at getting the facts straight, or at least at appearing as the one who gets the facts straight. Even on defense and military issues outside the US, supposedly McCain's strong side, I thought Obama made more sense than McCain who didn't call for anything else than what we've seen in the past 8 years.



Ponrauil

I watched maybe six questions worth. I wanted to hit both of them, and spent the whole time making sarcastic and deragatory comments. Eventually left and watched Jericho. A much better use of my time, and not nearly so infuriating.

Adrian

Both of them dodged questions which is no shock. McCain did crappy when it came to the economy and Obama did crappy when it came to foreign policy. No real surprises there. We should be allowed to have a "none of the above" option. If the majority agrees, then they should have to find two new candidates. Both are pretty bad this time around.

What? How?


Ponrauil

Russia? Need I say more. He flubbed his way through that entire question.

If I remember well both candidates actually agreed on the Russian issue...

On Iraq, Iran or Al Quaeda however, McCain seems 15 years late imo.


Ponrauil

did mccain repeat his yappy dog's stance about the threat of cuba? :D

No, he just tried to appear as the experienced and cold blooded one which Obama replied brilliantly by recalling McCain supporting the war in Iraq, singing "BombombIran" and calling for wiping North Korea off the map.


Ponrauil

I have to say I completely agree, for the first time I wouldnt vote for either of them... very poor...

Should have been Hilary , if nothing else Bill would have kept us very entertained !

Dawn

Ok so Biden got the number wrong on how many times Mccain voted against a bill, he voted 14 times against it instead of 20 like biden said big freakin deal, the point is he voted against the bill. I seen that Palin was more inaccurate more and that it was bigger mistakes than Biden, but Biden had some too. Also at least the lies wern't written all over Biden's face like they were on Palin's face.

I want to see all the McCain supporters get behind this,

http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20081010/...n_angry_crowds

While I respect McCain trying to calm them down, note Palin's comment about halfway down the page.

I can't wait to see how this is twisted around to be a positive thing on this board. I don't support the neagtivity from either side but it seems all they have left is to play on people's fear of the unknown.

Ridiculous.

The part about palling around with terrorists? Wasn't Bill Ayers a terrorist? If he was, and if he is as the Obamination describes, one of his best friends, then palling around with terrorists is a perfectly acceptable description.

It certainly freaks me out that Obama counts as his closest friends a guy who built bombs to blow up Americans and a "minister" who preaches "Godd*mn America."

But hey, maybe those kind of friendships are normal for you.

Adrian

Adrian please check your facts instead of repeating everthing that you hear.

One of the statements from factcheck.org says:

Despite the newly released records, there's still no evidence of a deep or strong "friendship" with Ayers, a former radical anti-war protester whose actions in the 1960s and '70s Obama has called "detestable" and "despicable."

The first to begin using the new line of attack against Obama was McCain's running mate, Gov. Sarah Palin, after a lengthy article appeared Oct. 3 in the New York Times about Obama and Ayers:

Palin, Oct. 5: Our opponents see America as imperfect enough to pal around with terrorists who would bomb their own country.

Please read the entire story (and analysis and quotes) here:

http://www.factcheck.org/elections-2...ill_ayers.html

Thank you Kathleen for saving me the effort.

I will ALWAYS be aganist any hard-core Christians being in office. My father and step-mother are stanch, conservative Christians and having been around them for the past 13 years of my life has turned me off to ANY kind of hard core religion. My stepmother is the kind of person that spends her time reading an anti-Obama book rather then a book about the positive aspects of McCain. Because I have personal experience with right-wing Christianity in my own family, I am very offended with what Bush/McCain/Palin have been pushing and under no circumstance, will I ever support that.

It is unbelievable to me that there are people out there that actually believe that a person running for President could be as anti-american like some people here and on Fox News like to paint Obama. I believe both canidates running for office want the best for this country. They both just come at it from different angles. They are both GOOD people, as I see it.

Maybe I'm just an idealist. If that's a naive way to be, I say screw it. I'm so tired of all this negativity. I went to an Obama rally last week with Bill Clinton and they were protesters there of course. One of them stopped me and said "You must hate this country if you're voting for Obama" I replied " No, I love my country very much. That's why I choose to spend my time supporting a canidate then speaking out aganist the other."

I have no time for anyone that would rather focus on the negative.

And here is the latest story about the whispering campaign against Obama (it's long).

The Man Behind the Whispers About Obama

By JIM RUTENBERG
Published: October 12, 2008
The most persistent falsehood about Senator Barack Obama’s background first hit in 2004 just two weeks after the Democratic convention speech that arguably set him on the path to his presidential candidacy: “Obama is a Muslim who has concealed his religion.”

That statement was contained in a press release and it spun a complex tale about the alleged ancestry of Mr. Obama, who is Christian.

The press release was picked up by the conservative FreeRepublic.com Web site and spread virally and steadily as others elaborated on its claims over the years in e-mail messages, Web sites and, ultimately, books. It continues to be an engine that drives other false rumors about Mr. Obama’s background to this day, with one finding national, public voice on Friday, when a woman told Senator John McCain at a town-hall-style meeting, “I have read about him,” and “he’s an Arab.” Mr. McCain corrected her.

Until this month, the man who is widely credited with starting the cyber-whisper campaign that still dogs Mr. Obama was a secondary character in news reports, with deep explorations of his background largely confined to liberal blogs where he is a bête noir.

But an appearance in a documentary-style program on the Fox News Channel watched by three million people last week thrust the man, Andy Martin, and his past into the foreground. The Fox program allowed Mr. Martin to assert falsely and without challenge that Mr. Obama had once trained to overthrow the government.

An examination of legal documents and election filings, and interviews with those from Mr. Martin’s past, revealed a man with a history of scintillating if not always factual claims, who has left a trail of animosity – including anti-Jewish comments -- among political leaders, lawyers and judges in three states over the course of more than 30 years.

A law school graduate, his admission to the Illinois state bar was blocked in the 1970s after a psychiatric finding of “moderately severe character defect manifested by well-documented ideation with a paranoid flavor and a grandiose character.” Though he is not a licensed lawyer, Mr. Martin went on to become a prodigious filer of lawsuits, and he also made various unsuccessful attempts to run for public office in three states, as well as for president at least twice, in 1988 and 2000. Based in Chicago, he now identifies himself as an author and writer who focuses on his anti-Obama Web site and press releases.

Mr. Martin, in a series of interviews, did not dispute his influence in Obama rumors.

“Everybody uses my research as a take off point,” Mr. Martin said, adding, however, that some take his writings “and exaggerate them to suit their own fantasies.”

As to his background, he said, “I’m a colorful person, there’s always somebody who has a legitimate cause in their mind to be angry with me.”

When questions were raised last week about Mr. Martin’s appearance and claims on “Hannity’s America” on Fox News, the program’s producer said his views were expressed as his opinion and not necessarily fact, and, as such, were not unwarranted.

It was not his first turn on national television.

The CBS News program “48 Hours” devoted an hour-long program to his legal prowess in 1993 entitled, “See You in Court; Civil War, Anthony Martin Clogs Legal System with Frivolous Lawsuits.” He has filed so many lawsuits – and paperwork containing anti-Semitic slurs – a judge barred him from doing so in any federal court house without preliminary approval.

He prepared a run for Congress in Connecticut – where paperwork for one of his campaign committees listed as one purpose “to exterminate Jew Power.” He ran for the Florida State Senate and the United States Senate in Illinois. When running for president in 1999, he showed a television advertisement in New Hampshire that accused George W. Bush of cocaine use.

In the mid-1990s he was jailed in relation to an assault case in Florida.

His newfound prominence, and the persistence of his line of political attack -- updated regularly on his Web site and through press releases -- amazes those from his past.

“Well, that’s just a bookend for me,” said Tom Slade, a former chairman of the Florida Republican Party who says the party spent hundreds of thousands of dollars defending against lawsuits Mr. Martin brought for Mr. Slade’s refusal to support his bid for state office. “He’s crazy as a run-over dog. But he’s fearless.”

Given Mr. Obama’s unique background, which was the focus of his first book, it was perhaps bound to become fodder for some opposed to his candidacy.

Mr. Obama was raised mostly by his white mother, an atheist, and his grandparents, who were Protestant, in Hawaii. He hardly knew his father, a Kenyan from a Muslim family who variously considered himself atheist or agnostic, Mr. Obama wrote. For a few childhood years Mr. Obama lived in Indonesia with a stepfather he described as a nonpracticing Muslim.

Theories about Mr. Obama’s background have taken on a life of their own. But every independent analyst seeking the origins of the cyberspace attack winds up back at Mr. Martin’s first press release, posted on the Free Republic Web site in August 2004.

Its general outlines have turned up in a host of works that have expounded falsely on Mr. Obama’s heritage or supposed attempts to conceal it, including “Obama Nation,” the widely discredited best-seller about Mr. Obama by Jerome S. Corsi. Mr. Corsi, who has made anti-Muslim and anti-Catholic slurs for which he later apologized, opens with a quote from Mr. Martin.

“Martin gets credit for the idea of, call it ‘the sound bite narrative mien,”’ said Danielle Allen, a professor at the Institute for Advanced Study at Princeton University who has investigated the e-mail campaign’s circulation and origins. “What he’s generating gets picked up in other places, and it’s an example of how the Internet has given power to sources we would have never taken seriously at another point in time.”

Ms. Allen said that Mr. Martin’s original work found amplification in 2006, when a man named Ted Sampley wrote an article painting Mr. Obama as a secret practitioner of Islam. Quoting liberally from Mr. Martin, the article circulated on the Internet, and its contents eventually found their way into various e-mail messages, particularly an added claim that Mr. Obama had attended “Jakarta’s Muslim Wahabbi schools. Wahabbism is the radical teaching that created the Muslim terrorists who are now waging jihad on the rest of the world.”

Mr. Obama for two years attended a Catholic school in Indonesia, where he was taught about the Bible, he wrote in “Dreams of My Father,” and for two years went to an Indonesian public school open to all religions where he was taught about the Koran.

Mr. Sampley, coincidentally, is a Vietnam veteran and longtime opponent of Senator John McCain and Senator John Kerry, both of whom he accused of ignoring his claims that American prisoners were left behind in Vietnam. He previously portrayed Mr. McCain as a “Manchurian candidate” and again opposed him this year in a primary-season campaign that was roundly denounced as a smear.

Speaking of Mr. Martin’s influence on his Obama writings, Mr. Sampley said, “I keyed off of his work.”

It is perhaps ironic that Mr. Martin’s depictions of Mr. Obama as a secret Muslim have found resonance among some Jewish voters who have received e-mail messages containing various versions of his initial theory, often by new authors and with new twists.

In his original press release Mr. Martin wrote that he was personally “a strong supporter of the Muslim community.” But, he wrote of Mr. Obama, “It may well be that his concealment is meant to endanger Israel,” and, “His Muslim religion would obviously raise serious questions in many Jewish circles.”

Yet in various court cases, Mr. Martin had impugned Jews.

A motion he filed in a 1983 bankruptcy case called the overseeing judge “a crooked, slimy Jew who has a history of lying and thieving common to members of his race.”

In another motion, filed in 1983, Mr. Martin wrote, “I am able to understand how the Holocaust took place, and with every passing day feel less and less sorry that it did.”

During an interview, Mr. Martin denied some statements against Jews attributed to him in court papers, blaming malicious judges for inserting them.

But in his “48 Hours” interview in 1993 he affirmed a different anti-Semitic portion of the affidavit that included the line about the Holocaust, saying, “The record speaks for itself.”

On Friday, when asked about an assertion in his court papers that “Jews, historically and in daily living, act through clans and in wolf pack syndrome,” he said, “That one sort of rings a bell.”

He said he was not anti-Semitic. “I was trying to show that everybody in the bankruptcy court was Jewish and I was not Jewish,” he said, “and I was being victimized by religious bias.”

In discussing his denied admission to the Illinois bar, Mr. Martin said the psychiatric exam listing him as having a “moderately severe personality defect” was spitefully written by an evaluator he clashed with.

Why does that not suprise me?

http://townhall.com/columnists/HughH...&comments=true

Different websites say different things.

Adrian