White house chastises media !

[Stealth Hunter]

Originally Posted by CaptainHaplo

Could it be because, unlike the current President - she isn't yet another Lawyer turned politician?

That... or she could just be an idiot. Given that this isn't one of the only majorly stupid things she's said (let alone done), I'm going with the latter. I mean seriously, not even Brown v. The Board of Education? One of the more recent and most famous Supreme Court issues that is addressed in every school across the United States from junior high as far on as mandatory history in college? I don't expect her to know every single one. But she wasn't even able to come up with a name or basic summary of one, which is disturbing given her ambitions to become vice president (and possibly president).

Originally Posted by CaptainHaplo

Obama has his Law Degree from Harvard. I would say that to earn that he had to study a bit of law.....

Agreed, but see above.

Originally Posted by CaptainHaplo

As a governor, do you think you would have time to follow all the various legal proceedings going on, or in the past?

Not all, just some. At least some of the mandatory ones needed for a high school education.

Originally Posted by CaptainHaplo

Did it occur to you that Mrs. Palin's education may not have been focused on social history, which is where such topics come up?

Yep, as far as a college education is concerned. But we're talking national cirriculum level stuff. Schools have been required for something like 40 years have been required to teach about Brown and the Board of Education, let alone Marbury v. Madison, or for that matter Roe v. Wade.

Originally Posted by CaptainHaplo

Is it possible that in the day to day duties of a governor, a specific understanding of needs of the people would outweigh the need to know what the latest item is on Court TV?

Well to begin with, this was an interview that she was supposed to have been prepared for to begin with- not at all related to the "day to day duties of a governor".

Originally Posted by CaptainHaplo

It's ok to dislike the person, or their politics. But judge them because they don't know something you do? That opens you up to alot of judgements - because we all have things we don't know.

You're ignoring, however, the other things she said- like her statement about Russia, God elects presidents- not the people, and my personal favorite: the vice president is in charge of the Senate. Among other things. The very simple matter of it is she's not intelligent enough to succeed at her own game. She can woo a crowd with a nice speech, but she lacks the intelligence and rational thought process to become what is the very substance of a great leader.

Originally Posted by CaptainHaplo

That's why its important for any governmental leader to have good advisors - people who ROUND out their knowledge base.

Which would be a bar-none for her. At least McCain would have been in charge if they'd won. If he died though... then god have mercy on us all...

Originally Posted by CaptainHaplo

Unfortunately, the current president has surrounded himself with communists, socialists and other activists instead of a varied group that can offer him ideas from a broad spectrum.

Before I go any further, what knowledge do you have on Socialism and Communism? Because from the looks of it, you don't understand one of the most basic things between the two SEPARATE ideologies: Communists are not Socialists, and vice versa.

[August]

Originally Posted by Stealth Hunter

Which would be a bar-none for her. At least McCain would have been in charge if they'd won. If he died though... then god have mercy on us all...

That's not half as scary as the thought of Joe Biden in the Oval Office. Do you Democrats ever practice what you preach?

[Platapus]

Originally Posted by August

That's not half as scary as the thought of Joe Biden in the Oval Office. Do you Democrats ever practice what you preach?

Come on August, I expect better than that from you.

That is the sort of statement I would expect from subman1.

[August]

Originally Posted by Platapus

Come on August, I expect better than that from you.

That is the sort of statement I would expect from subman1.

Well think about it for a second. During the election major political hay was made over McCain possibly dying in office and Palin taking over like that was something to be feared, but then the Dems install a known dumbass like Joe Biden as Veep?

Doesn't that strike you as the least bit hypocritical?

[Stealth Hunter]

Originally Posted by August

Well think about it for a second. During the election major political hay was made over McCain possibly dying in office and Palin taking over like that was something to be feared, but then the Dems install a known dumbass like Joe Biden as Veep?

Doesn't that strike you as the least bit hypocritical?

"Known dumbass"? Sorry, but I don't recall a speech Biden made where he said that as VP he'd have total control over the Senate, that he was able to comment expertly on diplomatic affairs with Russia just because it's possible to see it from the island chain tip in Alaska, nor do I remember an interview (or general question, for that matter) where he could not name a single Supreme Court case.

And for the 1001th time, I'm not a Democrat, I'm a Social Democrat. When will your lot understand the difference? Sorry for the excessive use of emoticons, but he is right: this sounds exactly like something SUBMAN would say.

[CaptainHaplo]

why you're seeing more people take the Separation of Church & State clause more seriously

What "clause" would that be?

There is no constitutional basis for such a seperation. People THINK their is because they are ill informed. Its ideal originates in a Supreme Court decision that used a personal letter from Jefferson to the Danville Baptists that had the phrase. The decision referenced that phrase in an attempt to ramrod such a seperation into being.

The phrase as used by Jefferson was simply a reference to the fact that government should not mandate a religion, not that religious views (or people) should be excluded from recognition or acceptance in governance of the country.

[Stealth Hunter]

Originally Posted by CaptainHaplo

What "clause" would that be?

Well to name one, the "No Religious Test Clause".

Originally Posted by CaptainHaplo

There is no constitutional basis for such a seperation.

Article 6, Section 3 of the United States Constitution:

The Senators and Representatives before mentioned, and the Members of the several State Legislatures, and all executive and judicial Officers, both of the United States and of the several States, shall be bound by Oath or Affirmation, to support this Constitution; but no religious test shall ever be required as a qualification to any office or public trust under the United States.

That is a form of Separation of Church & State, and it is within the Constitution. Argue about it all you want, but the simple fact of the matter is although the specific phrase isn't in there, the principles/ideas of the phrase are. Similarly, nowhere in the Constitution will you find phrases "right to privacy" or even "right to a fair trial." Does that mean no citizen has a right to privacy or a fair trial? Or that no judge should ever invoke these rights when reaching a decision? Of course not. The absence of these specific words does not mean that there is also an absence of these ideas. To put it bluntly, the right to a fair trial is necessitated by what is in the text because what we do find simply makes no moral or legal sense otherwise (and I only consider the moral aspect here because you seem so hell-bent on always talking about them, even though they are really quite useless in a debate or in real life because you will always have people with different moral opinions and beliefs around you).

Furthermore, this is what the Sixth Amendment of the Constitution actually says:
In all criminal prosecutions, the accused shall enjoy the right to a speedy and public trial, by an impartial jury of the State and district wherein the crime shall have been committed, which district shall have been previously ascertained by law, and to be informed of the nature and cause of the accusation; to be confronted with the witnesses against him; to have compulsory process for obtaining witnesses in his favor, and to have the Assistance of Counsel for his defence.


Nothing is mentioned in there about a "fair trial"- but what should be clear is that this Amendment is setting up the conditions for fair trials, that being public, speedy, impartial juries, information about the crimes and laws, etc. The Constitution does not specifically say that you have a right to a fair trial, but the rights created only make sense on the premise that a right to a fair trial exists. Thusly so, if the government found a way to fulfill all of the above obligations while also making a trial unfair the courts would hold those actions to be unconstitutional. It's a simple matter of law and logic.


Additionally, the courts have found that the principles of a "religious liberty" exists behind in the First Amendment, even if those words are not actually there:

Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof...

Again, separating religious beliefs from state affairs. Try and spin it how you want, but the words and ideas of the Framers are spelled out quite clearly there.

To cite something outside of the Constitution that further signifies that the United States holds true these beliefs, I also call to your attention the Treaty of Tripoli's statement that:

{Article 11} As the Government of the United States of America is not, in any sense, founded upon the Christian religion; as it has in itself no character of enmity against the laws, religion, or tranquility, of Mussulmen; and, as the said States never entered into any war, or act of hostility against any Mahometan nation, it is declared by the parties, that no pretext arising from religious opinions, shall ever produce an interruption of the harmony existing between the two countries.

Originally Posted by CaptainHaplo

People THINK their is because they are ill informed.

Oh the irony runs as thick as a vein of curd here.

Originally Posted by CaptainHaplo

Its ideal originates in a Supreme Court decision that used a personal letter from Jefferson to the Danville Baptists that had the phrase. The decision referenced that phrase in an attempt to ramrod such a seperation into being.

Well as you can see above, that's not the case. But persist if you wish. It's your right to, no matter how wrong it may be. It was also the DanBURY Bapists, BTW.

Originally Posted by CaptainHaplo

The phrase as used by Jefferson was simply a reference to the fact that government should not mandate a religion, not that religious views (or people) should be excluded from recognition or acceptance in governance of the country.

This is somewhat incorrect (but not totally). As far as law interpretation is concerned, it is incorrect however. Jefferson's writings have been used as, for the last two centuries, a means for making legal rulings, by courts in all jurisdictions. In the 1879 decision of Reynolds v. the United States, for example, the court observed that Jefferson's writings "may be accepted as an authoritative declaration of the scope and effect of the First Amendment."

The man himself didn't see the letter as an unimportant one. He had Levi Lincoln, the attorney general under him at the time, review it to him before he sent it. Jefferson even told Lincoln that he considered this letter to be a means of "sowing useful truths and principles among the people, which might germinate and become rooted among their political tenets."


The letter itself has a clear connection to the First Amendment. Even the phrase "wall of separation" stands as a direct testament and reference to it (does the specific quote from the Constitution ring any bells up there for you?). He meant it to have a larger political meaning. This is not a matter of opinion, but one of historical fact and logic. And an excellent example of why would be his efforts to eliminate the compulsory funding of established churches in his native Virginia. The final 1786 Act for Establishing Religious Freedom read in part that:


...no man shall be compelled to frequent or support any religious worship, place or ministry whatsoever, nor shall be enforced, restrained, molested, or burdened in his body or goods, nor shall otherwise suffer on account of his religious opinions of belief...


But don't confuse me on this, I know full and well that he was not an Atheist, just as you k now full and well that he was not a Christian. He was a self-professed Deist.

Originally Posted by August

And when did she claim to be able to "comment expertly". Is your real name Tina Fey?

COURIC: You've cited Alaska's proximity to Russia as part of your professional foreign policy experience. What did you mean by that?
PALIN: That Alaska has a very narrow maritime border between a foreign country, Russia, and on our other side, the land-- boundary that we have with-- Canada. It-- it's funny that a comment like that was-- kind of made to-- cari-- I don't know, you know? Reporters--

COURIC: Mock?

PALIN: Yeah, mocked, I guess that's the word, yeah.

COURIC: Explain to me why that enhances your foreign policy credentials.

PALIN: Well, it certainly does because our-- our next door neighbors are foreign countries. They're in the state that I am the executive of.


There was also her interview with Charlie Gibson where she discussed Russia, but that yielded fewer lulz. The SNL skit certainly delivered however.

Originally Posted by August

Tomato "tohmato". You're all leftists and center-leftists.

Actually, there is such a thing as Conservative Democrats, which are on the right side of the spectrum. But you just forgot about them... right?

Originally Posted by nikimcbee

*random pictures of ducks*

Do you ever contribute anything more than just image macros to a debate, or is it that you in fact have nothing to contribute? I'm guessing it's that you have nothing to contribute, yet you feel the need to get your political beliefs in there somehow- be it in a rational manner or not.

Anyway, you would be wise to note that National Socialism is generally a right-wing political system (as in there are more right-wing ideas it incorporates than left-wing ones), though it denotes its beliefs from both sides of the spectrum. But don't take my word for it. Try our beloved Wikipedia:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nazism

Nazism is often considered by scholars to be a form of fascism. While it incorporated elements from both left and right-wing politics, the Nazis formed most of their alliances on the right.[9] The Nazis were one of several historical groups that used the term National Socialism to describe themselves, and in the 1920s they became the largest such group. The Nazi Party presented its program in the 25 point National Socialist Program in 1920. Among the key elements of Nazism were anti-parliamentarism, Pan-Germanism, racism, collectivism,[10][11] eugenics, antisemitism, anti-communism, totalitarianism and opposition to economic liberalism and political liberalism.

Take note of the latter, if you'd kindly.

[August]

Originally Posted by Stealth Hunter

able to comment expertly on diplomatic affairs with Russia just because it's possible to see it from the island chain tip in Alaska,

And when did she claim to be able to "comment expertly". Is your real name Tina Fey?

And for the 1001th time, I'm not a Democrat, I'm a Social Democrat

Tomato "tohmato". You're all leftists and center-leftists.

[SS107.9MHz]

Originally Posted by August

And when did she claim to be able to "comment expertly". Is your real name Tina Fey?



Tomato "tohmato". You're all leftists and center-leftists.

Lol, Social democrats in my country are the right wing party. There's no left left in the states , only center right (democrats) and far right (GOP).

[nikimcbee]

Originally Posted by August

And when did she claim to be able to "comment expertly". Is your real name Tina Fey?



Tomato "tohmato". You're all leftists and center-leftists.

Here August I'll explain:

Democrat:


social democrat:


national socialist


socialist


hope~change

Originally Posted by August

Well think about it for a second. During the election major political hay was made over McCain possibly dying in office and Palin taking over like that was something to be feared, but then the Dems install a known dumbass like Joe Biden as Veep?

Doesn't that strike you as the least bit hypocritical?

If Joe Biden is a "known dumbass" then how would you characterize George W. Bush?

[nikimcbee]

Originally Posted by OneToughHerring

If Joe Biden is a "known dumbass" then how would you characterize George W. Bush?

Checkmate:

Yea but Obama is not hugging the rabbit? Bush is. The mark of a clear fool.

[CaptainHaplo]

my personal favorite: the vice president is in charge of the Senate.

Actually - this is factual. The VP is the "President of the Senate" by constitutional law. The fact that they have not, for the last 50 years or so, presided regularly over the Senate Chamber does not make the statement false. In fact, on certain occasions, the VP will still preside.

I did a quick google search on the other two comments. The "God elects presidents" came up blank, so I could only comment if I see the context. As for a Russian comment, not sure which one your referencing. Not that its important, but we can always discuss it.

As for "Communists" and "Socialists" - let me put it this way.

"Green Energy Czar" - Van Jones - self identified COMMUNIST.

"Energy Czar" Carol Browner - formerly listed as a member of SOCIALISTS INTERNATIONAL (though in all fairness, she "highly regards" Mao, a Communist)

*Do a quick google search on her name - you will find the data.*

As for the differences, socialism is focused purely on the economy, where communism is concerned with both the economy and political structure. Its also often missed that socialism can tolerate a level of capitalism, provided its controlled centrally, where communism cannot abide the free market in any form.

So yes, I am familiar with the differences. And its also obvious my statement was correct about the president , and those he chooses to advise him, are in fact either Communists, or Communists and Socialists, depending on the person.

[Stealth Hunter]

Originally Posted by CaptainHaplo

Actually - this is factual. The VP is the "President of the Senate" by constitutional law. The fact that they have not, for the last 50 years or so, presided regularly over the Senate Chamber does not make the statement false. In fact, on certain occasions, the VP will still preside.

In the context which she states it, however, it's not. The Vice President is not able to totally control everything the members of the Chamber do or say. While they act as a presiding officer and can cast tie-breaking votes (only in the case that there is in fact a tie on an issue, that is), address specific members' appeals, and call to order the Chamber (among some other things), they really are quite limited in what they can do, which is why most don't even bother anymore (for better or worse).

Originally Posted by CaptainHaplo

I did a quick google search on the other two comments. The "God elects presidents" came up blank, so I could only comment if I see the context.

There's several different quotes from her about it floating the round, but the specific one I was referring to was the one where she said "God will help me decide what to do in 2012," word for word. It reminded me to a startling extent of Bush's statement that god had told him to invade Iraq.

Originally Posted by CaptainHaplo

As for a Russian comment, not sure which one your referencing. Not that its important, but we can always discuss it.

The one where she was discussing diplomacy with the Russian Federation and other "enemies of the United States" and said, "You can see Russia from Alaska"?

Originally Posted by CaptainHaplo

As for "Communists" and "Socialists" - let me put it this way.

"Green Energy Czar" - Van Jones - self identified COMMUNIST.

Van Jones is not a "self-identified Communist". You're thinking of his institution supporting the rights of the pro-Marxist group STORM, from the 1990s (by the way, Marxism is not modern Communism; it was the foundation for Leninism which gave rise to the theory of modern Communism with the inclusion of Stalinism).

Originally Posted by CaptainHaplo

"Energy Czar" Carol Browner - formerly listed as a member of SOCIALISTS INTERNATIONAL (though in all fairness, she "highly regards" Mao, a Communist)

You're thinking of her membership in the CSWS. The Commission for a Sustainable World Society is there to create diplomatic ties and international, fair governance with nations the world over; it hasn't been a part of Socialists International for nearly 35 years.

I typed in "Carol Browner, Mao, highly regards" into Google, AskJeeves, and Yahoo! and got no results back. Though this doesn't surprise me, because contrary to the idiocy and half-mindedness that has gone in to creating this myth, Communists do not like Socialists, Socialists do not like Communists. So assuming she was in fact a member of Socialist International, she would not even bother commenting on Mao Zedong and the Chinese Communist revolution.

The theory of modern Socialism (let alone the theory of a Social Democracy, which I identify myself with) is over a hundred years older than the writings of Marx and Engels, just so everyone here knows.

Originally Posted by CaptainHaplo

*Do a quick google search on her name - you will find the data.*

Did. Just found her membership to the CSWS, nothing about her being a member of Socialists International- nor did I find her quote about Mao Zedong. Though if she did say that she "highly regards" Mao, can't really say I could blame her. I mean, he successfully took over one of the planet's most populous nations and then turned it into a military, industrial, and economic giant that still exists as such now. Whether people want to admit to it or not, that's an impressive feat.

Originally Posted by CaptainHaplo

As for the differences, socialism is focused purely on the economy, where communism is concerned with both the economy and political structure. Its also often missed that socialism can tolerate a level of capitalism, provided its controlled centrally, where communism cannot abide the free market in any form.

These would depend on the type of Socialism you're discussing. Utopian Socialism is not the same as Social Libertarianism (Utopian Socialism is what you're thinking of when describing the "differences" here, where the state of the nation and society of a whole are focused on entirely by improving elements of the economy, market, trade, etc.- basically anything related to finances; it does not, however, bother to comment on how such a society would be sustained, whereas Social Libertarianism focuses almost entirely on the same tired old things like freedom, justice, you know the drill), just as Democratic Socialism is not the same as Market Socialism. They all believe in the means of production and equality, that much is true. But otherwise, they are all very, very different. This is what sets us apart from Communists. Communism has very few differences (if any) between its many theories: Trotskyism, Leninism, Maoism, Stalinism, etc. all hold the ideas of means of production, equality, a classless and stateless society, common ownership, anti-Capitalism, and freedom-from-oppression.

I ascribe myself to the Social Democracy theory, which actually fully accepts and endorses Capitalism; it just states that the corporations and businesses are what need to be regulated, not the actual marketeering system itself. It's because of the work of Social Democrats that we have things today like the national parks system (which Theodore Roosevelt almost immediately supported), labor rights, elements of fair trade, consumer rights and protections, guidelines for modern-day civil rights, enforced secularism within the state (the reason why you're seeing more people take the Separation of Church & State clause more seriously), social security, and funding for alternative fuel sources.

Originally Posted by CaptainHaplo

So yes, I am familiar with the differences.

You are somewhat informed of the differences, but not as much as you seem to think.

Originally Posted by CaptainHaplo

And its also obvious my statement was correct about the president , and those he chooses to advise him, are in fact either Communists, or Communists and Socialists, depending on the person.

Ignoring the contradictions between what you've said and what the reality of the matter is, why is it exactly that you seem to think Socialism (or Communism, for that matter) is "bad" and Capitalism is "good"? While I would be inclined to agree with you about Communism because it has essentially no differences between its theories, Socialism has a wide variety of theories to select from.