Commenter Archive

Comments by Bob*

On “Anthony Weiner, Dominique Strauss-Kahn, and the Circus

Weiner voted against reauthorizing the Patriot Act.

http://www.thepoliticalguide.com/rep_bios.php?rep_id=16366225&category=views&id=20100506102832

On “On conservatism and such

@MNPundit, Yes to everything you said. For me federalism easily morphs into states rights and the code behind that usage is easy to discern.

There seems a tendency toward balkanize in much of the right wing, certainly a tendency toward sectionalism. I'm much more in favor of the commonweal concept.

"

I have very little knowledge of Tim Kowal but the piece you link seems to provide more evidence of why you find the right distasteful. Kowal defines the left as pushing for hip organic snakes and equates the poor to some couple living in a motel in OC California for the princely sum of $800 per month. He says, but I doubt, those same dollars could get them an apartment. So what? Does the fact that their rent money goes to a motel or some landlord really make any difference? Kowal does not even bother to link the Youtube clip that bothers him. We know nothing of the couple but the supposed fact they pay $800 for rent.

If this represents the caliber of Kowal's thinking I haven't missed a lot.

On “Russell Moore on Glenn Beck

"...eloquent warning...."

That's a joke, right"

"

Frank Rich,writing in today's NYT, has this to say regarding the Libertarian vice presidential candidate David Koch positions in 1980:

"When David Koch ran to the right of Reagan as vice president on the 1980 Libertarian ticket (it polled 1 percent), his campaign called for the abolition not just of Social Security, federal regulatory agencies and welfare but also of the F.B.I., the C.I.A., and public schools — in other words, any government enterprise that would either inhibit his business profits or increase his taxes. He hasn’t changed."

My question, is that an accurate description of Libertarian positions c.1980, and if so, to what extant do libertarians still advocate for those positions?

http://www.nytimes.com/2010/08/29/opinion/29rich.html?_r=1&hp

On “Same-Sex Marriage and Discrimination

@Jaybird, in other words, free trade is largely a fiction? The guy down the street selling his home grown tomatoes comes close. The tomatoes from the Safeway not close.

On ““To Mosque or Not to Mosque”

@Scott, no one is saying they "can't leave." They could put the building on the market, sell and pack-up. The question is governmental interference. You know, like the pope telling the nuns to get out.

"

@Jaybird, I was thinking of calling it Mohamed Atta Boy, or maybe just Atta Boy.

On “On free markets

@E.D. Kain, neither suggestion goes to my point. Free markets, just as free lunches, don't exist. What we have, and always have had, at minimum, are state supported markets.

Does anyone really believe that no governmental action, either in support or regulation of markets, is desirable? Would free market types like to see the end of governmental interference in the granting patents or copyright protections?

On “The stimulus effect

Bruce Bartlett provides links on this entire stimulus thing.

But, jeez, we're still debating FDR and what worked then.

http://capitalgainsandgames.com/blog/bruce-bartlett/1782/fiscal-stimulus

On “On free markets

@ThatPirateGuy, correct.

I see absolutely no point in using such an empty term, free markets, today and probably since the first states provided roads and military power to promote and protect trade.

"

Free markets, both a sanitized and totally anonymous term, seems to have replaced capitalism and capitalist as the preferred term to hoodwink the public. Some PR firm is earning their pay.

On “Morning Joe Scarborough gets it wrong on gay marriage

@Mike Schilling, continuing, I see what might be confusing you, a little thing known as the commutative property, second grade stuff. The proof for addition is subtraction. The proof for subtraction is addition.

So to, the proof for multiplication is division and the proof for division is multiplication.

So, I sticking with my construction.

"

@Mike Schilling, no, multiply. Any number times zero equals zero.

http://www.multiplication.com/basics/teach3.htm

On “Friday Night Jukebox

Fun and some nice James Brown moves, particularly the foot shuffles at around 1:55.

On “Morning Joe Scarborough gets it wrong on gay marriage

@Rick Ungar, I'll happily admit my intolerance towards all flavors of oogedy-boogedy, just as Katherine is willing to embrace the Biblical flavor.

"

@Rick Ungar, I could not label the above "enlightened," in any respect, seeing that her starting point is homosexuality is "contrary to the Bible." Just, wow!

Perhaps labeling her position as a "tolerant understanding" might be more appropriate.

"

@Rick Ungar, think of his comments as multiplying by zero.

On “First Reactions on Perry

@Dave, I'm lost.

"The doctrine of incorporation has its roots in the debates that took place during the drafting and ratification process." Ratification of what? The Constitution? Bill of Rights?

"It’s no secret that people knew of the Barron ruling and were looking to remedy that." Who are these "people," (post 1833) and what are they attempting to "remedy?"

"

@Dave, is it accurate to say that Barron, 1833, still determines court thinking? I'm under the impression that this Wiki statement on incorporation is accurate:

"However, beginning in the early 20th century, the Supreme Court has used the Due Process Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment to apply most of the Bill of Rights to the states through the process and doctrine of selective incorporation. Therefore, as to most, but not all, provisions of the Bill of Rights, Barron and its progeny have been circumvented, if not actually overruled."

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Barron_v._Baltimore

Just asking.

"

@Katherine, only worry about libertarian tendencies if you start to believe "free markets solve everything."

On “Further Thoughts on Perry

@Dan Miller, another question that occurs to me, if separate but equal had been scrupulously enforced and funded would that have been okay? Without going back and looking at the Brown v Board decision the Court found "separate" inherently unequal.

"

@Bob, I'd only point out that civil unions could be structured as to provide the same rights and obligations as civil marriage, as in the United Kingdom. I understand, however, that the term marriage carries more clout.

"Civil partnerships in the United Kingdom, granted under the Civil Partnership Act 2004, give same-sex couples rights and responsibilities comparable to civil marriage.[1] Civil partners are entitled to the same property rights as married opposite-sex couples, the same exemption as married couples on inheritance tax, social security and pension benefits, and also the ability to get parental responsibility for a partner's children,[2] as well as responsibility for reasonable maintenance of one's partner and their children, tenancy rights, full life insurance recognition, next-of-kin rights in hospitals, and others. There is a formal process for dissolving partnerships akin to divorce."

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

*Comment archive for non-registered commenters assembled by email address as provided.

The commenter archive features may be temporarily disabled at times.