Andy9o8

Meh. I have a degree in political science and government, and have taught and practiced constitutional law for 30 years, and it doesn't bother me. And I often use the term "democracy" the same way The fact that it's technically imprecise is usually irrelevant to the context of common parlance. "Democracy" is a popularly-accepted generic term which encompasses not just "pure democracy" but also the (more or less) "democratically-elected" governments found in North America, the UK, Western Europe, etc. The fact that technically they're actually republics with citizen-elected governments of executives and legislatures, or citizen-elected parliamentary governments, or constitutional monarchies where the real power resides with the citizen-elected civil government is irrelevant to the vernacular usage. You live in the US, the UK, France, Canada, Australia, Germany, Italy, Japan? Your government is elected by and answerable to The People, who are free to openly dissent and speak their minds? Then, usually, it really is ok to say that you live in a democracy.

It's bullshit. While I agree with the premise that "democracy" (as a generic term, even if in the form of a republic, etc.) works principally because citizens, for the most part, obey the law by choice, the speaker promotes the fallacious premise that presumes that the only (or at least the best) valid dynamic that drives voluntarily ethical behavior in the social compact must be taught and driven by religious belief. For an alternate perspective, people should educate themselves on, for one example, Secular Humanism.

How can we say these terrorists threaten the American way of life when they like big guns and drive pickups from Texas? Seems to me we have a lot in common. WE? Yeah, man. God, guns, pickups n' huntin'. Oh - and keepin' the womenfolk in line, too.

How can we say these terrorists threaten the American way of life when they like big guns and drive pickups from Texas? Seems to me we have a lot in common.

I've said the same about most organized religions. I've also said the same about the DFL, the RNC, a lot of environmental groups, quite a few major businesses, leadership of most countries, CrW dogs, Angle flyers, lobbying groups, and unions I have a 1-liner about crew dogs and base jumpers, but it just might violate this site's TOS, so never mind.

Just so people understand what the Court is and is not ruling here, I think the key part to understanding the rationale for the Court's ruling is in this part of the article (esp. the parts I've highlighted): So it appears, in large part, to be an issue of due process (in this case, a lack thereof). This seems to at least suggest that had Michigan had such a “relief from disabilities program" set up, the ruling might have gone the other way.

Personally, I refer to it as "a Racketeer Influenced and Corrupt Organization which engages in fraud, money laundering, sexual abuse of children, obstruction of justice and perjury." Eh, but what's in a name? I suppose "church" is easier to type.

This is the point I've been making while talking to people about it: I think the President should exercise the leadership to publicly shame them: "I acknowledge that these production and theater companies are within their prerogatives, but I want to state clearly that I am very disappointed in their decision." Let's see how much their shareholders would like that to happen. Oh well, at least he's a commie moozlim, so I'll live with half a loaf.

I've no doubt. But that's not really really the point; it never really was. The US embargo was imposed on Cuba as a tantrum, and - domestic politics and international hypocrisy aside - it's been maintained for the same reason a petulant child sits on the floor and refuses to budge: because his pride won't let him do otherwise. Enough of that already.

Well, that answers the question I asked you in the other thread: yes, you must be a ballerina, for your love of spinning. Pass.

Well, of course they say that - they HAVE to say it, to justify (i.e., rationalize) the uncompromising ideological fervency that has guided the better part of most of their lives - otherwise, it's all been a waste. What else CAN they say, to rebut rational, objective analysis suggesting that Cubans' lives will improve, other than to steadfastly maintain that they will not? As one commentary I read succintly put it: there seems to be no room for middle ground in this dialogue. To illustrate by rough analogy: To devout Catholics, there can be no middle ground on abortion. To African Americans, there can be no compromising on racial issues. To many Jews, there can be no wavering on intermarriage or Israel. The older Catholics of Ireland will never truly trust the English; they might forgive, but they will never forget, or let their children do so. The list goes on. Thus it is with the Cuban exile population, particularly in Florida, where the social reinforcement is intense, and 24/7. To them, compromise is dealing with the devil, and there can be no dealing with the devil; full stop; end of discussion.

Stars and others react to 'Interview' cancellation

I generally agree with Attorney Shahiri's analysis as quoted in the article. (The point where I disagree with her is that, to my legal analysis, mere advocacy of violence, without more, is also constitutionally protected speech; I disagree with her analogizing it to yelling "fire!" in a crowded theater.)

World's policeman? War on terror?

Internal terrorists? wow Let me clarify it for you; how about Jessie Jackson or Al Sharpton, EPA, IRS, OSHA, GreenPeace? You don't think these entities have been intimidating and extorting money and actions? It's no different. So you're clarifying that the US government is a terrorist organisation? How in the hell did we get here in just four posts?!??!?!? Not sure...ask rush and airdvr and Hitler.

You know, I had thought about including Dukakis, but decided against it because I don't think he acted like an Anointed One who arrogantly presumed his election was a foregone conclusion. IMO, Dukakis lost because his incompetent campaign was even more incompetent than Bush Sr.'s incompetent campaign. American democracy: government by the least worst of the bad. Hopefully.

Up to now, this had been an excellent and instructive thread. But, I was wondering how many posts it would take before someone said something really dumb. 7 posts.

Let's talk about McCain. Individually qualified? Very probably so. BUT. One of the hallmarks of a capable manager is capable personnel decisions, especially when it comes to hiring key personnel. More on this in a sec. Lincoln's death gave us Andrew Johnson. McKinley's death gave us Teddy Roosevelt. So as you can see, sometimes sudden mid-term succession works out pretty well, while other times the result is pretty awful. Brings me back to the first part. Had McCain become president he would have been age 72 yrs 5 mos upon inauguration. Plus 4 to 8 years after that. Plus, his body has probably been prematurely aged by the ravages of incarceration and torture; Plus he was, by then, already a cancer survivor. Doesn't take an actuary to see where I'm going with this. I like the guy, and I'm glad he's still alive and ornery. But I have my doubts that he'd have survived 2 full terms of the stress of the presidency. And we know what that woulda meant. Remember what I said about capable managers and hiring key personnel? You tell me how warm and fuzzy a feeling the prospect of Sarah Palin as President of the United States gave most fence-sitters in the US. Try horrified. That was a really incompetent key personnel decision McCain made. Lost him a huge number of votes that would otherwise gone for him (like my fairly conservative Marine vet Dad's vote, for example), and he has to own it. As for Romney? Yeah, equally bright as Obama, maybe better credentialed than him, good track record as a manager and a governor. BUT. He came across like a Big Fat Douche. And he sat on his hands too much during the campaign, presuming he was The Anointed One to unseat the incumbent. Well... that's how Tom Dewey lost his election, that's how John Kerry lost his election, and that's how Mitt lost his. And deservedly so. There will be a 10-point quiz on Friday.

http://vovatia.files.wordpress.com/2013/06/eabc7-flinstone.jpg?w=640

We shouldn't even know about this. What happens on the Brooklyn Bridge stays on the Brooklyn Bridge.

The implied premise of your OP is bollocks. China is a worse executioner than the US, so the US isn't really all that bad an executioner? Hardly the moral high ground.

Seriously??? Men have written about female inferiority/neurosis/stupidity for so long and you are annoyed that doing so now has become politically incorrect??? He was taking quite a risk posting that. What an idiot.

Are you a ballerina? Your dancing is all spin!

Indeed there is.

I've no doubt.