To: Uncle Mxy, WTF Political Analyst


Mxy.

How in the world can Bush and the Republicans foul up the past eight years in nearly every arena of policymaking, yet many polls show McCain well ahead of both Obama and Clinton? Yes, they're bashing each other right now, but shouldn't recent history be just as unkind to any Republican nominee?

This is actually a really good idea for a thread. I hope Mxy is game.

I've learned a lot from his posts (not just in the politics forum).

Nice work, Denny. The title is a nice touch, too.

This is actually a really good idea for a thread. I hope Mxy is game.

I've learned a lot from his posts (not just in the politics forum).

Nice work, Denny. The title is a nice touch, too.

Hoping Mola doesn't PM me. I'll be watching.

are there more democrats than republicans on this website?

are there more democrats than republicans on this website?


The internet as a whole.

are there more democrats than republicans on this website?

10% Democrat, 10% republican, 80% who wear their "independence" on their sleeve then consistently vote the same party anyway.

Actually the country is divided into rich republicans, democrats and middle class conservatives that are duped into thinking the republicans care about them.

I am only half kidding. I've never understood why middle class americans can consistantly overlook the rich republicans screwing them over. Either they buy into the fear mongering and feel their party is actually keeping them safer, or they actually think their party will throw them a bone (like the small tax refund people are getting).

Most repubs I know are really just anti liberal. They don't want to help out their fellow americans. They like the idea of helping, but only when they want to. They feel like they shouldn't have to pay for people who can't earn a living like they should. While I agree from an income standpoint, I think many basic things should be universal (like healthcare, school, etc).

What people don't realize is that many things are already universal, many things they hold dear. Fire, Police, Post Office, etc. If things like that were not universal, only the rich would get protection in a fire or robbery. It would cost you 3 bucks to send a letter across the country and 2 cents to send it within town. That 41 cents is an average price of mailing a letter in america. There are a lot of universal things we don't think about on a day to day basis.

anyway, this is mxy's thread, let him explain it better.

I heard an interesting analogy on conservatives vs liberals. It's a race analogy. We'll call the finish line the promise land (where your family makes enough and basically has whatever it is they want in life).

Liberals want the race to the promise land to start at the same point on a level playing field. If you don't have what it takes to start the race like shoes or shorts (an education and healthcare), then we'll all chip in a little to at least get you to the starting line together. If you don't finish the race, at least you had a fair chance.

Conservatives want to start the race with whatever advantages they have, fair or not. If you can't keep up, you're not trying hard enough to overcome your disadvantages.

Neither way is wrong, it's just a point of view. In America we have the right to that point of view.

The internet as a whole.

The media too. ;)

Mxy.

How in the world can Bush and the Republicans foul up the past eight years in nearly every arena of policymaking, yet many polls show McCain well ahead of both Obama and Clinton? Yes, they're bashing each other right now, but shouldn't recent history be just as unkind to any Republican nominee?
I already answered most of this. At this stage of the campaign, it's pretty typical fro McCain to have a bump. McCain just won and doesn't get beaten up on a daily basis, so he comes off positively relative to two candidates who are at each other's throat's. A few isolated dumbass statements half a world away won't change the dynamic much. Folks look kindly on the nice low-key person in the back, even if they are kind of dim sometimes, over those two uppity people fighting with each other in center square all of the time. It's human nature.

Why that puts McCain in striking range despite Republican dumbassery:

1) Because a lot of folks still think of him as someone who's not Bush-friendly, despite much evidence in words, symbols, and deeds to the contrary:

http://graphics7.nytimes.com/images/2004/08/10/politics/mills650.jpg

2) He's done a fairly good job of wooing the national media:

http://www.cnn.com/2008/POLITICS/03/03/mccain.bbq/

Compare and contrast with Hillary:

http://www.time-blog.com/swampland/2008/03/luxury_living_on_the_campaign.html

3) He is a sympathetic figure, owing to his extended stay at the Hanoi Hilton.

are there more democrats than republicans on this website?
If this is a question for me, the answer is that the site is 50% Demonican and 50% Republicrat, and 50% none-of-anyone's-goddamn-business. :)

I love that Bush/McCain picture.

For some reason, McCain reminds me of Doctor Evil in that one.

Uncle Mxy:

Who will win the 2008 general election, so MoTown knows for whom to vote?

Uncle Mxy:

Who will win the 2008 general election, so MoTown knows for whom to vote?
The American people will win. Vote for Americans. This thread has brought out "Evil Mxy" for some reason.

Got it.

Mxy,

Is there a multiple answer option when I vote for president?

-Mo

MoTown's political intuitiveness is tenuous, at best.

Mxy.

Do you think Hillary and Bill are behind the Michigan and Floriduh debacles?

Mxy,

Is there a multiple answer option when I vote for president?

-Mo
It depends on where you live. In Florida, that's certainly true, as we all saw in 2000. In some areas like Chicago and New Orleans, you can leave your ballot blank and some politician will kindly fill it for you.

But seriously, yes, you typically select a President and Vice President are on the ballot, so you're voting for two people.

Mxy.

Do you think Hillary and Bill are behind the Michigan and Floriduh debacles?
If, by debacle, you mean the initial primary dates -- no. Carl Levin's had a big woody to stick it to Iowa and NH long before Hillary was in the picture. The same bullshit happened in Michigan's 2000 primary. Florida Democrats are just fucking morons, as anyone glued to the TV in late 2000 watching them dimple their chads can attest.

If you're talking about the failed do-overs, hard to say. I think it's clear that Hillary wanted them to happen and they didn't, and she's part of the reason why in Michigan with her "surprise I'm gonna buy the primary" visit. So, yeah, you could blame her a little. But most of the blame can be attributed to the Team Hillary people proposing legislation that was guaranteed not to pass. I love that vote-by-mail proposal in Florida that violated <drum roll please> Florida's "no vote-by-mail" law. Florida Democrats -- DUH!! And Michigan fucking up the May school elections on the same legislation -- DOUBLE DUH!!

Was David Stern behind the September 11th attacks?

Was David Stern behind the September 11th attacks?
No, it appears he was northeast relative to the September 11th attacks in NY:

http://maps.google.com/maps?num=20&hl=en&safe=off&client=firefox-a&ie=UTF-8&dq=%221+world+trade+center%22+loc:+New+York,+NY+10 281&daddr=1+World+Trade+Center,+New+York,+NY+10048&geocode=7512233995700011998,40.711274,-74.014386&ll=40.711274,-74.014386&iwstate1=dir:to&iwloc=A&f=d

Seriously, I don't think of 9/11 itself as simply "political", though certainly our reaction to it has many political components. And somehow, I doubt that David Stern wanted the news of Michael Jordan's comeback to be overshadowed by terrorist nutjobs.

Mxy...

What current politician could best shoulder the burden of carrying a "legitimate" third party if the situation presented itself?

(I do not consider Ralph Nader an answer)

Moxy:
If I walk around with penis hanging out, will that ensure that in the next presidential primary my Uncle Wilhelm will turn gay?

Mxy...

What current politician could best shoulder the burden of carrying a "legitimate" third party if the situation presented itself?

(I do not consider Ralph Nader an answer)
My theory is that the only way a "valid" third party comes into being is if it starts near the bottom, takes over some key area's political machinery, and spreads from there. The failure of Perot and the Reform Party convinced me of that, as have the evolution of Canadian national/provincial third parties such as the NDP and Bloc/Parti Quebecois. Ralph Nader's approach is everything that's wrong with third party building, and why the Green Party rejected him. One person being strongly identified with a party shooting for the moon is not the way to sustain.

Certainly, folks like Obama and Ron Paul have demonstrated great grassroots wherewithal, but they are homed in big states where I doubt they could wrest the machinery. I think the most fertile ground for such a thing are clusters of small states in New England, where you can accumulate a lot of power in a relatively concentrated area. And so, it's perhaps not surprising that the two highest elected politicians in the land that aren't Dems or Reps are Senators Joe Lieberman and Bernie Sanders from New England.

Joe rushed into the Connecticut for Lieberman party because he couldn't win the Democratic primary, and took advantage of his name and donations from when he was still a Democrat to maintain his Senate seat. Pissed-off people took advantage of Lieberman's lack of planning to co-opt his Connecticut for Lieberman party just to fuck with him. So, that's NOT a good example.

Bernie Sanders, by contrast, always was an independent socialist sort and rose through the ranks of government as such. Like Lieberman, he wasn't much interested in the mechanics of setting up a third party. Like Lieberman, a third party, the Progressive Party of Vermont, was formed around him by others. UNLIKE Lieberman, it was formed around him not to fuck with him, but to spread his ideals. Vermont Progressives now run Vermont's largest city, and it's only Republicans vs. Progressives in their 2008 governor's race at this point (Democrats are too chickenshit to run a candidate who will likely lose owing to the Progressives). If Bernie Sanders wanted to spend time party building, I bet they'd lock up Vermont and seep into places like Maine and Connecticut.

So yeah, Bernie Sanders could shoulder the burden, with the caveat that any real third party shouldn't be all about one person.

Hope that makes sense.

Moxy:
If I walk around with penis hanging out, will that ensure that in the next presidential primary my Uncle Wilhelm will turn gay?
Only if someone tattoos an elephant on your penis.

It makes perfect sense. Basically, gain then maintain control of your backyard, and build power. Then, hop the fence to your neighbor's yard (minimal distance traveled) and control THAT yard. Keep hopping fences on your side of the street until you've gained enough sustainable power to venture across the street and go for those yards.

Once you've controlled the "block" (say, New England), make a push for a large neighboring state (New York), probably upstate, and work your way down to the heavier populated areas. Even if you fail in New York, you never ventured too far from your neighborhood, so you can continue applying pressure until the next election.

damn mxy is kicking ass on this thread like a lil' buddha.

Mxy, how long do you think it will be before a viable third party emerges? Not necessarily in the presidential election, but just a general third party that may gain some states, some senate or house seats, and have a legitimate chance to push for the presidency at some point. None of the current "big" third parties seem to have that capability.

Mxy, how long do you think it will be before a viable third party emerges? Not necessarily in the presidential election, but just a general third party that may gain some states, some senate or house seats, and have a legitimate chance to push for the presidency at some point. None of the current "big" third parties seem to have that capability.
As long as the Presidency and Vice Presidency are voted on a winner-take-all ticket, I don't think it's possible for a third-party to sustain the presidency. I think we'd need a parliamentary system, or something that's otherwise less polarizing, in order to sustain a real third-party presidency. One thing that both parties can agree on is that a third party should not exist. If a Ralph Nader became President, especially with <50% of the vote, he'd find that out like Jesse Ventura ultimately did in Minnesota once the star allure faded.

Honestly, if there were going to be a third party, I think it'd be a geographic alignment as I described above. Given that TV and the Internet renders us more culturally homogeneous, and no one has seen fit to really "hack" New England as I described before, I think that the biggest thing that might forge a third party would be some geographically-tied resource constraint. The most pressing 21st century geographic need that *might* lead to a third party would be fresh water and the Great Lakes, where both Dems and Reps can be shitty at times. It was a geographically-tied resource constraint, the South and slavery, that paved the way for the two party system.

Everyone's like "oh we don't like what China's government is up to but we can't turn the Olympics into a protest moment." Why exactly is that? What the hell is so wrong with actually telling China that they suck?

Everyone's like "oh we don't like what China's government is up to but we can't turn the Olympics into a protest moment." Why exactly is that? What the hell is so wrong with actually telling China that they suck?
I think it's because we've seen in 1980 and 1984 that superpowers playing political pissing matches with the Olympics only served to spoil things for the athletes. Some of the political protests have been deadly. Others haven't worked out at all for the athletes.

http://content.answers.com/main/content/wp/en/thumb/e/e7/220px-Carlos-Smith.jpg

The best Olympic protest we ever did was kicking Aryan butt in Germany in 1936 -- the 'shut up and win' strategy. Win gold in China's best sports.

Win gold in China's best sports.
They have "child-regulation" in the Olympics?

They have "child-regulation" in the Olympics?
It's not really a political question, but the answer should be obvious to anyone who's watched Olympic gymnastics.

I think it's because we've seen in 1980 and 1984 that superpowers playing political pissing matches with the Olympics only served to spoil things for the athletes. Some of the political protests have been deadly. Others haven't worked out at all for the athletes.

http://content.answers.com/main/content/wp/en/thumb/e/e7/220px-Carlos-Smith.jpg

The best Olympic protest we ever did was kicking Aryan butt in Germany in 1936 -- the 'shut up and win' strategy. Win gold in China's best sports.You are aware that the Nazis beat us in both points and medals, right? All I ask is that my enlightenment come with a side of truth, too.

Everyone's like "oh we don't like what China's government is up to but we can't turn the Olympics into a protest moment." Why exactly is that? What the hell is so wrong with actually telling China that they suck?
It's like those cock-suckers in England who tried to extinguish the Olympic relay torch -- less they forget that merry ol' England ruled the world in human rights violations for much of the 18th and 19th century.

Every country (even Canada) "sucks" in one way or the other in terms of some kind of "rights" violations (though Canada-Major's hatred for Quebec is well justified). Sure, China deserves every barb thrown at them, very much like how the U.S. South deserved the all that hit them regarding flagrant racism up until the 1960's. Of course, I'm not certain the rest of the world differentiated between the "U.S. South" and the U.S.A. So, to have a country who's fresh off lynching and cross-burning blast China isn't exactly the smoothest approach.

I'm looking for the moment when members of Congress from the Mississippi stand up and condemn the Chinese for their human rights violations. I'll roll on the ground with ironic laughter.

Of course, who am I to speak, considering Cali's contribution to this mess:

http://www.foxnews.com/images/354598/1_21_pel450.jpg

Mxy

Regardless of Bill O'Reilly's political slant, do you find him (and his graphics department) wildly entertaining?

http://img528.imageshack.us/img528/7016/hahaohmandb1.png

http://digg.com/television/Bill_O_Reilly_got_Goatse_d_last_night

You are aware that the Nazis beat us in both points and medals, right? All I ask is that my enlightenment come with a side of truth, too.
From everything I've read, the Germans were using performance enhancing drugs before it became fashionable for other sportsmen. That started with amphetamines and testosterone in the 1936 Olympics. They likely fielded the most professional team as well. Hitler wanted to make an impression on the world, and he did.

Still. the biggest hero was Jesse Owens, who showed Hitler where he could shove his Aryan races. Rather than boycott, we competed and sent a statement to the world by winning, and that's what I was thinking when I spoke of kicking Olympic bootius maximus.

Regardless of Bill O'Reilly's political slant, do you find him (and his graphics department) wildly entertaining?
Honestly, I don't have much of an Orally fixation.
Anal, on the other hand...

There's nobody left to send a statement to in the olympics any more since the soviet union broke up. It really is lonely at the top.

It's not really a political question, but the answer should be obvious to anyone who's watched Olympic gymnastics.

Aren't they also good at diving too? I thought I remembered that as a young teen when I actually watched the Olympics.

BTW, China only had 4 less golds than us at the last Summer Games.

It's not really a political question, but the answer should be obvious to anyone who's watched Olympic gymnastics.
Mxy, I meant this more as regulating the number of children you're allowed to have, saying that's what the Chinese are best at.

Mxy, I meant this more as regulating the number of children you're allowed to have, saying that's what the Chinese are best at.
Ahhh. For some reason, thinking "Olympics" and "child regulation" gave me a vision of pre-pubescent girls fucking up their menstrual cycles to do quadruple loop-d'loos in so-called "women's" gymnastics.

As for China's birth policies, there's lots of pros and cons. It's clear we wouldn't even be talking about China as a great economic power if not for their whacking down their replacement rate during the 70s.

Is it possible to reform 'conservatism' or 'liberalism'?

You know, when a particular party seems to languishing, some seem to think reforming the core message is the way to go.

I don't see the core conservative message in Republicans much at all anymore, but can you 'update' these ideals(not sure ideals is the correct way to put it).

Is it possible to reform 'conservatism' or 'liberalism'?

You know, when a particular party seems to languishing, some seem to think reforming the core message is the way to go.

I don't see the core conservative message in Republicans much at all anymore, but can you 'update' these ideals(not sure ideals is the correct way to put it).
It's certainly been done before. The classical flavors of conservatism were on their last leg -- the borrow-and-spend 80s was pretty much the death blow. Then, neoconservatism came into prominence. I'm expecting a neoliberal eventually... perhaps we already have that in Obama, but too soon to tell.

I think it's hard to sell true conservatism to folks who, when given a lot of personal credit, will overextend and fuck themselves and the world around them. I think it's hard to sell true liberalism to a culture whose progressive institutions will willingly sacrifice their young for themselves. Television has altered consciousness, and the Internet is starting to do the same. People don't read. Attention spans are lower. None of the "old guard" ideals play particularly well with newer forms of communication', and I keep thinking of Marshall McLuhan and 'the media is the message'.

Mxy,

Are you aware of any polls that include new registered voters or do all of them only include those that have voted in previous elections?

I'm a new registered voter, how do I get involved in a poll?

I'm a new registered voter, how do I get involved in a poll?
Do you have a landline with a listed number?

Beyond that, if you're talking in terms of contributing feedback to a legitimate political pollster, you'll want to check out Zogby Interactive:

http://interactive.zogby.com/index.cfm

Mxy,

Are you aware of any polls that include new registered voters or do all of them only include those that have voted in previous elections?
There are professional pollsters and other services that gather/purchase voter registration information from the counties in as much of a real-time manner as is available. I suspect that newly-registered never-voted folks weigh low on the "likely voter" scale. There are polls that ask "are you a registered voter", as well.

Conservatism or liberalism is a set of ideals with a name. Any of those ideals can be swapped out if need be, I think.

For instance: "conservatism" as an ideology that's having a bit of a rough time lately because three of the most cherished ideals of conservatism are conflicting with one another:

1) Business should be far more important to the economy of the country than government should.
2) Products and companies should succeed or fail on their own in the marketplace with no intervention from the government.
3) America America fuck yeah #1.
Basically, business is our king and lord, and should be the prime mover of our lives. But also, if businesses fail, we should let them fail. Well OK, but if one of those really important businesses fails, what do we do then? Just let our economy go in the shitter as the marketplace determines? We can't! And why? Because America America fuck yeah #1!

Conservatism or liberalism is a set of ideals with a name. Any of those ideals can be swapped out if need be, I think.

For instance: "conservatism" as an ideology that's having a bit of a rough time lately because three of the most cherished ideals of conservatism are conflicting with one another:

1) Business should be far more important to the economy of the country than government should.
2) Products and companies should succeed or fail on their own in the marketplace with no intervention from the government.
3) America America fuck yeah #1.
Basically, business is our king and lord, and should be the prime mover of our lives. But also, if businesses fail, we should let them fail. Well OK, but if one of those really important businesses fails, what do we do then? Just let our economy go in the shitter as the marketplace determines? We can't! And why? Because America America fuck yeah #1!
I'm not sure if this is a question for me or not, so I'll just answer 'yes and no, because America America fuck yeah #1' and leave it at that.

Mxy do you believe Sarah Palin is a worthy presidential candidate.

No. She is a vice-presidential candidate. :)

I think selecting her, especiall the way it happened, reflects poorly on the presidential candidate.

Mxy,

When I argue with my Republican friends and I bring up Palin, how come they always change the subject or say something to the effect of "Well Palin isn't running for President." Are Republicans just that hard headed or do they actually believe that Palin would be okay as a VP?

Mxy,

When I argue with my Republican friends and I bring up Palin, how come they always change the subject or say something to the effect of "Well Palin isn't running for President." Are Republicans just that hard headed or do they actually believe that Palin would be okay as a VP?

I suppose it depends on the Republican friend. There's plenty of time to have developed blinders for all kinds of crazy reasons. And I won't ask if any of your Republican friends have a Sarah Palin blow-up doll (unless their name happens to be Denny Crane).

One reason that's NOT so crazy is -- historically, VPs haven't been critical for much of anything. We survived 4 years with Dan Quayle as VP, after all. We haven't had a VP take over for a President in a critical or long-term context in decades. McCain's health doesn't look much worse than a roll of the dice (but he hasn't really released his medical records). So, it's easy for a younger Republican to persuade themselves that Palin is no big deal.

^ Dang, I thought I get a shout out by Mxy for saying she's green. :(

Just kidding ^

Yeah, well, Quayle was the VP for a President who was the equivalent of like 25 Dick Cheneys. Bush Sr. had his game locked down pretty tight - it was the touchy-feely stuff that sunk him.

But now on to my question:
Uncle Mxy, why do politicians even bother arguing about statistics or historical data at a debate, when there is no fact-checking and no contextualization?

Uncle Mxy-

If Palin winked at you would you hit it?

Can I answer that question?

It's not my thread so I can't grant you that authority. Answer at your own risk.

I'm not sure that's exactly a political question.

Nonetheless, my response is here:

http://www.urbandictionary.com/define.php?term=pussy%20wink

It's not my thread so I can't grant you that authority. Answer at your own risk.


No thanks. Uncle Mxy is the only person on this board that can murder you with rhetoric.

Mxy, this is a half political/half religious question that if you're not comfortable with, you do not have to answer.

I do not understand that Catholics infatuation with Pro-Life campaigns. Many Catholics feel that is the only variable when choosing who to vote for: Which candidate is pro-life? In fact, when arguing with them, they state "I want a President who won't kill babies."

My question is a two-part question.
1) If Roe vs. Wade hasn't been overturned yet, what makes them think that it will be overturned at some point in their lifetime. And if it does happen, why do they think the President of the United States will be the person that kick starts the campaign?

2) Are all Catholics bat-shit crazy?

Q. "I don't do it because it's against the law" and "I don't do it because it's against my religion" are not examples of moral decisions, they are examples of cowardice. Why do people believe that some political or religious organization can make something wrong or right just because they issued a new rule about it? Do people simply not want to make their own decisions about what's right or wrong?

Q. "I don't do it because it's against the law" and "I don't do it because it's against my religion" are not examples of moral decisions, they are examples of cowardice. Why do people believe that some political or religious organization can make something wrong or right just because they issued a new rule about it? Do people simply not want to make their own decisions about what's right or wrong?

This is why I asked question 2. Yes, religion can do this to people, but Catholics seem to be the biggest offenders.

Good post, btw.

Q. "I don't do it because it's against the law" and "I don't do it because it's against my religion" are not examples of moral decisions.
That is incorrect.

Deciding to follow the law or a religious moral code are very elementary examples of moral decisions. They are moral decisions regardless of whether the particular law or religious moral code one decides to follow is moral or immoral.

That is incorrect.

Deciding to follow the law or a religious moral code are very elementary examples of moral decisions. They are moral decisions regardless of whether the particular law or religious moral code one decides to follow is moral or immoral.

Are there any decisions of consequence that aren't moral decisions?

My question is a two-part question.
1) If Roe vs. Wade hasn't been overturned yet, what makes them think that it will be overturned at some point in their lifetime. And if it does happen, why do they think the President of the United States will be the person that kick starts the campaign?
"1)" is really two questions.

1a) The judicial reasoning behind Roe vs. Wade is iffy. A number of prominent legal minds who agree with the resolution disagree with SCOTUS' arguments over how they got there. But, I don't think most Catholics (or most people) think in terms of strict judicial merits, of stare decisis, the privacy issues, etc. They have faith that a practice that they see as so fundamentally wrong will be banned by reasonable people eventually. They also believe, even more sketchily, that such a ban would actually work without leading to other bad consequences.

1b) The President leads the way on judicial appointments. If you want the judges to see things your way, get the right President to appoint the likes of Scalia and Alito -- good Catholic judges. Moreso than most citizens, the religious see the presidency through that lens.


2) Are all Catholics bat-shit crazy?

2) This isn't a political question, but I'll give my $0.02 anyway.

My answer is no, they're not all bat-shit crazy (though reasonable folks may quibble based on how they define "Catholic" vs. how I might define it).

Remember, church law against abortion dates back 2000 years. In their view, it's pro-choice people acting bat-shit crazy by accepting what's heretofore been unacceptable. Science, for all the good that it can do, hasn't told us much about their key article of faith known as the human soul.

Mxy, this is a half political/half religious question that if you're not comfortable with, you do not have to answer.

I do not understand that Catholics infatuation with Pro-Life campaigns. Many Catholics feel that is the only variable when choosing who to vote for: Which candidate is pro-life? In fact, when arguing with them, they state "I want a President who won't kill babies."

My question is a two-part question.
1) If Roe vs. Wade hasn't been overturned yet, what makes them think that it will be overturned at some point in their lifetime. And if it does happen, why do they think the President of the United States will be the person that kick starts the campaign?

2) Are all Catholics bat-shit crazy?

I think Nanci Pelosi considers herself to be Catholic, and she sure as hell is.

I'm catholic and I don't consider myself bat shit crazy. However, my wife and I have been to a few non denominational masses because we're sick of the catholic diocese telling us how to think. Sometimes your faith guides your choices. Other times they are overruled by more important things. I can't see myself ever aborting a baby (there would be a few cases), but I'm not going to vote republican for that reason. I think sending thousands of people to their death in an illegal war, people losing their homes every day, ruining the earth because we won't develop clean energy like we should...all these things are more important to me than forcing my choice not to abort onto other people. Just because I believe something doesn't mean everyone else should.

Just so it doesn't get put out of context, I was just joking. I know not all Catholics are crazy. I know every religion has their crazy people. I'm Lutheran and know a bunch of crazy Lutherans.

I think Organized Religion is an excuse in a lot of political situations, and I hate the negative reaction that brings religion as a whole.

Machiavelli said it well -- " if our religion claims of us fortitude of soul, it is more to enable us to suffer than to achieve great deeds."

As someone who bashes Catholics fairly often, I will point out a few things in their defense from my own experiences:

1. The Pope and most bishops staunchly opposed the Iraq War, deemed it immoral, and stated the need for diplomacy. The church is also strongly supportive of the UN and has taken a much less combative stance against those who practice other religions. However, John Paul II was much better at this than Benedict. Anyways, at a 2007 interfaith conference, Benedict said:

“In a world wounded by conflicts, where violence is justified in God’s name, it’s important to repeat that religion can never become a vehicle of hatred. Religion can never be used in God’s name to justify violence. On the contrary religions can and must offer precious resources to build a peaceful humanity because they speak about peace in the heart of man.”

The Pope is not a repub, no matter what repubs say.

2. Catholics are strongly opposed to the death penalty and to the torture regime, which is at least consistent with their pro-life stance.

3. I can't stand William Donohue. he constantly attempts to usurp power that he doesn't have. He is an egomaniac, who has never studied theology in a serious way or practiced as a priest. His usurped power has generally been made possible via the funding of rich conservatives. he is essentially the rush limbaugh of catholocism and should be ignored.

4. The Catholic church has done some good things. The most affordable alternative to poor-quality public schools is still enrollment in Catholic schools. Some have gotten fairly expensive (U of D Jesuit), but the church still attempts to subsidize educational opportunities for the underpriveleged far more than other private school ventures. In addition, the Franciscan monastary in Detroit has done a lot for the community and my experiences as a volunteer there sustained my Catholic faith until 2004. In general, I tend to find that Catholic charities are among the best at improving the lives of the most unfortunate.

5. There is no single voice in the Catholic church. I have heard priests say that voting for a pro-choice candidate is a sin. I have also heard priests say that Catholics should consider all policies, such as war, the death penalty, treatment of the poor, etc. In general, if you live in a diverse area, you should be able to find a church where the priests are not dogmatic. (Remeber Father Pflegler is a Catholic). However, I find it shocking that the most public statements implicate pro-choice as the singular issue, especially considering the repubs never do anything about abortion anyways.

6. On the other hand, the Church has taken some absurd stands on moral issues, including divorce, birth control, abortion, homosexuality, out of wedlock pregnancy. In general, the church inspires too much shame and guilt and too often impedes the agency of individuals to make their own decisions.

This is one thing that always baffled me. Why are so many Catholics republicans in the first place? Basically, the only issue they agree with the church on is abortion. Everything else is closer to liberal views than conservative. The Catholic Church teaches loving your neighbor, giving to the poor, everyone is equal and so on. This is the total opposite of the republican view which is whatever you earn is yours to keep.

Abortion is a big issue, but why ignore all those other values which are also important?

There are many Catholic democrats. JFK and Biden just to name two. People are split on the issue of abortion among all denominations of Christianity. I get forwards all the time from a protestant friend who is a full-bore pro-life single issue voter.

Of course there are catholic democrats. The point is that why is that base always behind the republicans to a large degree when they are really voting against everything they stand for, except abortion?

I don't know enough about the evangelical base as a whole, but I have to think that most of those religions preach helping those in need as well, yet they always trump other issues with abortion. why?

If you considered it legal murder, would you not deem it important?

If it was legal to kill say a two year old, would you think some other issue like ... better roads (infrastructure) was anywhere near as important an issue?

True, but my problem is the people that are gung ho against abortion but fine with sending our kids to Iraq. I understand there are a select few who think we're doing the world a favor by being in Iraq, but those people are usually delerious.

Don't kill babies. Kill teenagers.

If you considered it legal murder, would you not deem it important?

If it was legal to kill say a two year old, would you think some other issue like ... better roads (infrastructure) was anywhere near as important an issue?
Yes, I suppose that is a good point. But as MoTown pointed out...isn't sending kids to die in an illegal war just as bad? What about no-bid contracts that supply them with crappy body armor? What about all the wildlife lost to people who don't care about the environment? What about the poor people starving? What about people dying from treatable illnesses or injuries because they don't have health insurance?

My point is that all those things have to be factored in. Not just the obvious one. So why aren't the churches championing all those cases?

Just so it doesn't get put out of context, I was just joking. I know not all Catholics are crazy. I know every religion has their crazy people. I'm Lutheran and know a bunch of crazy Lutherans.

I think Organized Religion is an excuse in a lot of political situations, and I hate the negative reaction that brings religion as a whole.

Its a sad, sad day on WTF when if we have to start clarifying every statement. :(

A lil poke here, or a jab there, never hurt anyone. :)

Don't worry, I'm not offended at all. As I said I'm a Catholic and I don't understand some of the things people do in my faith. I can't figure out why a priest can't be married either, but that's another topic.

I was just trying to put my words into context (establishing that I don't believe everything they say).

Saw JFK the movie for the first time Mxy a week ago(I am not a fan of wild conspiracies), and was surprised after reading up on Jim Garrison and the conspiracy itself how plausible and maybe even close to likely it is along with it's similarities to Right Wing Iraq War profiteering. What is your opinion on the Domestic Coup D'etat, the facts of the crime(shitty rifle, impossible shot, inconsistent autopsy testimony, head flying back on the last shot suggesting that it came from the front, etc.), and it's politics?

head flying back on the last shot suggesting that it came from the front

I saw something on this question on tv once. They did a demonstration with melons showing how they fell in the opposite direction of the shot. The reason for this was while the entry impact pushed them in the direction of the shot, the bullet creates a buildup of pressure as it passes though and makes an explosive exit leaving a huge hole and pushing the melon in the opposite direction of the shot.

Replace "melon" with "jfk's head" and you get an explanation for the head moving what appears to be the wrong way.

I saw something on this question on tv once. They did a demonstration with melons showing how they fell in the opposite direction of the shot. The reason for this was while the entry impact pushed them in the direction of the shot, the bullet creates a buildup of pressure as it passes though and makes an explosive exit leaving a huge hole and pushing the melon in the opposite direction of the shot.

Replace "melon" with "jfk's head" and you get an explanation for the head moving what appears to be the wrong way.
I'm sure there's some realm of possibility in this occurrence, but odds are more likely that it came from the front and that his skull is different than a bullet. And doesn't explain the traveling "pristine bullet" from a piece of shit rifle at a shitty angle span that most Sharpshooters in could not pull off(Oswald was no sharpshooter) from a guy trained as a spy possibly ONI. Also if Jim Garrison was off in his assessment, why so much effort to discredit him(having tv specials to discredit by producers reporting to the CIA).

Confession: I never could get into the cult of JFK, Camelot, the murder, mob, and other conspiracies, Jackie's fashion, etc. The only JFK-related stuff that intrigues me is "did he bang Marilyn", which is more about her mystique than his. (In fact, when I first heard about the JFK movie, my first question was "who's playing Marilyn?") I used to think that it was a generational thing, but I went to Dublin a few years back and was floored at the Kennedy woody the Irish STILL have. I was a few feet from one of the minor Kennedy politicians in Boston about 15 years back, and never shook his hand. I'm a heretic to the pivotal American experience of the Kennedys. I expect to be fed to the great god Chappaquiddick as punishment for my sins, here.

As for the public political impact of the JFK conspiracies: Arlen Specter still has a job. Ford became President. Folks who got cast on the crackpot side fared less well. The real impact was the decay of trust, which Watergate cemented... an incursion of grim reality into happy fantasy. Now we have grown to expect the trainwrecks and gawk at them, to keep hope buried inside... yadda yadda yadda.

Shit, I can't get into this JFK stuff. Maybe I'm having a bad day.

I'm sure there's some realm of possibility in this occurrence, but odds are more likely that it came from the front

It's just what bullets do when they hit something dense. They penetrate through in a relatively small entry wound and if they have enough force to go all they way through, they exit explosively. You say "realm of possibility" like it's a longshot occurrence, it's the norm.


and that his skull is different than a bullet.

Indeed, skulls are very different than bullets.



And doesn't explain the traveling "pristine bullet" from a piece of shit rifle at a shitty angle span that most Sharpshooters in could not pull off(Oswald was no sharpshooter) from a guy trained as a spy possibly ONI. Also if Jim Garrison was off in his assessment, why so much effort to discredit him(having tv specials to discredit by producers reporting to the CIA).

I'm not taking a side on the long list of questions surrounding it, just saying that one particular detail has a rational, demonstrable explanation.

Indeed, skulls are very different than bullets.
.
I meant to say melon. Otherwise i i get the "explainable" element. Just dont buy it as probable especially coupled with everything else. Overall though I dont have a severe opinion on the subject, just found the elements(factual ones) interesting.

There's nothing like google and dubious search terms to end up with things that make you go ewwwwww. this link (http://books.google.com/books?id=JpwNhdcT6xAC&pg=PA56&lpg=PA56&dq=head+shot+exit+wound&source=bl&ots=tnzQ_rhbkp&sig=-c8M8Xdf4COeLrZyiUBkwiy4-2M&hl=en&ei=3pLRSarmEcjgnQeS4PHoBQ&sa=X&oi=book_result&resnum=2&ct=result#PPA56,M1) takes you to a ballistics textbook that discusses headshot entry/exit wounds in fascinating, graphic detail. With pictures. Color pictures. Don't say you weren't warned. No, it's not a rick roll. You might end up wishing it had been.

That is some fucked up shit

Oh God. I lose.

Someone make one of those and av and it'll be all over the net in days.

Hey Mxy that was a bunch of shit that Stevens lost his elections days after being convicted on charges by our gov't when the prosecutors did some serious wrong doings in that case? No?

Our Gov't = Fuckheads

And yes, I know Bush was President for the last 8 years.

Hey Mxy that was a bunch of shit that Stevens lost his elections days after being convicted on charges by our gov't when the prosecutors did some serious wrong doings in that case? No?
Yeah, there was a lot of bad shit happening there.

My understanding here is that Stevens received gifts that he did not disclose as required by law. He did significant political favors specifically for the folks who gave him the gifts. His defense of "I'd have paid the bills if only they had billed me, and then they wouldn't have been gifts" doesn't pass the laugh test given the breadth of the gifts involved. Tahoe, you do this sort of thing for a living. How often do you add a wing to someone's house and not discuss the costs or send them a bill?

By all rights, the prosecution should have been able to win this case handily. Instead, they attempted to hide evidence which could support his feeble argument, and we end up with a fucked up mess instead of a baked Alaskan. In Stevens case, the right sort of punishment ultimately happened. Voters had the key facts of his unethical behavior and voted him out. It seems like Holder did the right thing as far as re-prosecuting. Let's see if there's any followup in sanctioning the bullshit prosecutors.

To: Uncle Mxy, WTF Political Analyst


Mxy.

Outside of direct government spending, what sectors are going to create jobs in a couple years when the huddled survivors emerge from their caves to survey the aftermath of the ragnarokonomy?

To: geerussell, the demanding list writer

gee,

Invest in funeral homes and other death-related services. And, the world's oldest profession will always endure and lure.

Hi Mxy,

So this past weekend my Dad commented to me about how that crazy Obama was going to let Al Quida(sp?) prisoners from Gitmo into the U.S. to live....oh and he'll give them money.

PLEASE destroy this.

This is about the Uighurs/ETIM prisoners, which are being called "inmates" and "Al Qaeda" by the press to obscure what's going on.

Uighurs are Muslim Turks within China (and other countries') borders. Their status within China is roughly analogous to the Kurds' in Saddam's Iraq and in Turkey. ETIM is a separatist movement of Uighurs. The Chinese don't want the Uighurs to be their own distinct nation for much the same reasons that the Iraqis and Turks don't wanted the Kurds to be their own nation - they're in oil-rich terrain and no country wants a hostile state AT its border.

The connection between the Uighurs/ETIM and Al Qaeda is tenuous. They're clearly connected in the sense that the Taliban allowed both to operate in Afghanistan. But the ETIM folks ar focused on "terrorism" against China and its lovely human rights record, and aren't part of general attacks against the western world. The Chechens have ties to Al Qaeda through the Taliban and some other channels, but they aren't Al Qaeda, and their principal target is Russia.

Shortly after 9/11, the Chinese said "the Uighurs are Al Qaeda". We captured the ones in Gitmo and stated that based off our interrogations, "yes, they're part of Al Qaeda". Between the U.S. and China, the U.N. said "yes, they're part of Al Qaeda". You'd think that if China and the U.S. could agree on something, it must be true. If only the facts didn't get in the way...

The Chinese are known to lie about such things, and their announcement seemed timed to get us to attack their enemies for them once we committed to attacking Afghanistan. The paper trail of our investigations with them concluded that they weren't much of a threat, especially not to us. They never attacked us, and there wasn't indication that they would attack us (as distinct from China, who isn't exactly pleasant to the Uighurs -- they rank right up there with Tibetans).

So, what do we do? Well, if we're the Bush administration, we keep them cooped up (often in solitary confinement) with a kangaroo court and turn their brains to mush while giving the world a reason to hate us. Obama is trying to do something different, keeping in mind that they haven't wronged us in any real way, they've done hard time for whatever crime they may have committed against us, and the world would hate us if we deported them to China to be executed.

Remember, the Chinese have said that Tibetan dissidents have ties to Al Qaeda. Why do we let the Dalai Lama into our country and make money being in ads and such? Why is your grandpa falling for Chinese propaganda? Too much Fox News and Weekly Standard? Hell, even the Bush administration figured out that these guys were a bunch of nobodies as far as our overall interests were concerned, but just didn't know what the fuck to do so they kept 'em in jail.

Hi Mxy,

So this past weekend my Dad commented to me about how that crazy Obama was going to let Al Quida(sp?) prisoners from Gitmo into the U.S. to live....oh and he'll give them money.

PLEASE destroy this.



Tahoe's translation of what Mxy wrote and I know you didn't ask for it....Its basically true.



This is about the Uighurs/ETIM prisoners, which are being called "inmates" and "Al Qaeda" by the press to obscure what's going on.

Uighurs are Muslim Turks within China (and other countries') borders. Their status within China is roughly analogous to the Kurds' in Saddam's Iraq and in Turkey. ETIM is a separatist movement of Uighurs. The Chinese don't want the Uighurs to be their own distinct nation for much the same reasons that the Iraqis and Turks don't wanted the Kurds to be their own nation - they're in oil-rich terrain and no country wants a hostile state AT its border.

The connection between the Uighurs/ETIM and Al Qaeda is tenuous. They're clearly connected in the sense that the Taliban allowed both to operate in Afghanistan. But the ETIM folks ar focused on "terrorism" against China and its lovely human rights record, and aren't part of general attacks against the western world. The Chechens have ties to Al Qaeda through the Taliban and some other channels, but they aren't Al Qaeda, and their principal target is Russia.

Shortly after 9/11, the Chinese said "the Uighurs are Al Qaeda". We captured the ones in Gitmo and stated that based off our interrogations, "yes, they're part of Al Qaeda". Between the U.S. and China, the U.N. said "yes, they're part of Al Qaeda". You'd think that if China and the U.S. could agree on something, it must be true. If only the facts didn't get in the way...

The Chinese are known to lie about such things, and their announcement seemed timed to get us to attack their enemies for them once we committed to attacking Afghanistan. The paper trail of our investigations with them concluded that they weren't much of a threat, especially not to us. They never attacked us, and there wasn't indication that they would attack us (as distinct from China, who isn't exactly pleasant to the Uighurs -- they rank right up there with Tibetans).

So, what do we do? Well, if we're the Bush administration, we keep them cooped up (often in solitary confinement) with a kangaroo court and turn their brains to mush while giving the world a reason to hate us. Obama is trying to do something different, keeping in mind that they haven't wronged us in any real way, they've done hard time for whatever crime they may have committed against us, and the world would hate us if we deported them to China to be executed.

Remember, the Chinese have said that Tibetan dissidents have ties to Al Qaeda. Why do we let the Dalai Lama into our country and make money being in ads and such? Why is your grandpa falling for Chinese propaganda? Too much Fox News and Weekly Standard? Hell, even the Bush administration figured out that these guys were a bunch of nobodies as far as our overall interests were concerned, but just didn't know what the fuck to do so they kept 'em in jail.

Tahoe's translation of what Mxy wrote and I know you didn't ask for it....Its basically true.
<laughs> Man, do I ramble when I'm tired.

The short answer is: The Chinese trumped up these guys connections to Al Qaeda so we'd take down people they didn't like without their lifting a finger. These prisoners aren't exactly nice people, but they're not terrorists against anyone but China. They didn't do anything bad to us, but we put 'em in Gitmo anyway. The world thinks we're shitheads because of this, and we want to play kissie-face with the world, so we are playing nice. Letting them go on U.S. soil doesn't really hurt us, and sticks it to China.

You gonna pick up the new Ethan Davidson album?

You gonna pick up the new Ethan Davidson album?
Unlikely. Hipster music isn't real if it's not on Spotify. Does Gores play on this one like he did the last?