The commenter archive features may be temporarily disabled at times.
Search
TEN SECOND BUZZ
- The FTC has banned (nearly all) non-compete agreementsApril 23, 202418 Comments
- More Campus Palestine Protests, More Arrests, More Viral VideoApril 23, 202417 Comments
- Open Mic for the week of 4/22/2024April 22, 202440 Comments
- Open Mic for the week of 4/15/2024April 15, 2024232 Comments
- OJ Simpson: Football Great, Murder Suspect, and Convicted Felon, Dead at 76April 11, 2024115 Comments
Features
Hot Posts
A Message From Devcat
We have been experiencing some system resource issues. We believe the problem may be resolved, but if it is not please bear with us.
Recent Comments
- Dark Matter in reply to Kazzy on Free Speech, But No Freedom to HarassDefine "right to return". If it means "right to return to a Palestinian state somewhere in that area…
- Kazzy in reply to LeeEsq on Free Speech, But No Freedom to HarassTo be clear... your objection to the "right of return" is that it would lead to too many Palestinian…
- Kazzy in reply to Saul Degraw on Free Speech, But No Freedom to Harass"There are protestors on and off campuses across the United States who are either letting their ange…
- LeeEsq on Free Speech, But No Freedom to HarassOne of the things that I don't understand from Pro-Palestinian Westerners is how they keep on insist…
- Dark Matter in reply to LeeEsq on Free Speech, But No Freedom to HarassThink of all the bricks that get thrown at BLM. The theory of building a minority organization is di…
- Dark Matter in reply to DavidTC on Free Speech, But No Freedom to HarassWhen I read the wiki on the alleged sex crimes during the attack we seem to have a large volume of c…
- Dark Matter in reply to DavidTC on Free Speech, But No Freedom to HarassOne of the issues with "subtract the situation" is "everything we know could be wrong". So for examp…
- LeeEsq in reply to Jaybird on Free Speech, But No Freedom to HarassThe time frame is more complicated. Even after the Six Day War, it was seen as a larger Israel-Arab…
- Jaybird in reply to LeeEsq on Free Speech, But No Freedom to HarassIf you haven't seen this, you should. It's only a few seconds and it's really a treat. (Note: You sh…
- Jaybird in reply to LeeEsq on Free Speech, But No Freedom to HarassThe underdog status ended after the Six Day War over there. It's wobbly over here but there are stil…
Comics
-
April 24, 2024
-
April 23, 2024
-
Friend Husband At The Ballpark
April 22, 2024
-
Good Morning! Are You An Amateur?
April 21, 2024
More Comments
- LeeEsq in reply to Jaybird on Free Speech, But No Freedom to Harass
- Michael Cain in reply to North on The Shifting Politics of Abortion
- LeeEsq in reply to Chip Daniels on Free Speech, But No Freedom to Harass
- LeeEsq in reply to Jaybird on Free Speech, But No Freedom to Harass
- North in reply to Michael Cain on The Shifting Politics of Abortion
- Dark Matter in reply to DavidTC on Free Speech, But No Freedom to Harass
- Jaybird in reply to LeeEsq on Free Speech, But No Freedom to Harass
- Chip Daniels in reply to LeeEsq on Free Speech, But No Freedom to Harass
- LeeEsq in reply to Chip Daniels on Free Speech, But No Freedom to Harass
- Michael Cain in reply to North on The Shifting Politics of Abortion
- Chip Daniels in reply to LeeEsq on Free Speech, But No Freedom to Harass
- Dark Matter in reply to DavidTC on Free Speech, But No Freedom to Harass
- North in reply to Michael Cain on The Shifting Politics of Abortion
- Dark Matter in reply to LeeEsq on Free Speech, But No Freedom to Harass
- Michael Cain in reply to Chip Daniels on The Shifting Politics of Abortion
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"
On “Liberaltarian Q & A session”
@Mike Farmer, not responsive to my question.
"
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
"
@Jason Kuznicki, thanks. I take your point.
*Comment archive for non-registered commenters assembled by email address as provided.