- Bruce Leroy
- Jun 10, 2010
-
|
RC and Moon Pie posted:
There was a letter in a later edition against this notion, but here's a beaut from the Gainesville (GA) Times, printed on May 13:
quote:
It is impossible to distinguish between Muslims who are anti-American and just waiting for a chance to do us harm, and those who are merely pursuing their religious beliefs in this country. The only way to be sure and safe is to exclude them all. Such action would not constitute bias or racism against a particular nationality just because they may be different from us, or the condemnation of a specific religion because it differs from our beliefs but the action is necessary to create conditions in which it is safe to live without a constant fear of terrorism.
Honestly, is the person who wrote this mentally ill and living in some kind of institutional facility, because that kind of reasoning is just insane and illogical as hell?
downout posted:
You should write a letter back with plenty of quality quotes of what is actually posted in conservapedia. As soon as anyone with two neurons to rub together reads that link, their eyes should immediately roll back into their head as they move on to the next editorial.
Just point people towards this VVVVVVV thread.
The Best (Worst) Of Conservapedia
|
#
?
Jun 4, 2011 00:52
|
|
- Adbot
-
ADBOT LOVES YOU
|
|
|
#
?
Apr 16, 2024 17:51
|
|
- 30.5 Days
- Nov 19, 2006
-
|
CaptBushido posted:
I have no clue what story/letter he's referring to originally, but I want to find it.
Some native americans were pissed because osama bin laden's codename was Geronimo.
|
|
#
?
Jun 4, 2011 01:01
|
|
- Punished Chuck
- Dec 27, 2010
-
|
Bruce Leroy posted:
I totally agree with you, but isn't it kind of a "chicken and the egg" thing with these conflicts over what their true "bases" are?
E.g. how do we determine whether it was ethnic tensions or religious conflict that came first in engendering the hatred that led to violence in the Balkans? We know that both are important causes for the conflict, but how do we know which came first and which is more influential and fundamental to the hatred and conflict?
Was the sentiment among the Serbians that committed genocide against Muslim Bosnians (A) "We hate those filthy Bosnians and they're evil Muslims, too" or (B) "We hate those loving Muslims and they're even worse because they're Bosnian, too"?
Although I think everyone can agree that D'Souza's point on this issue lost all credibility when he made a bunch of poo poo up about Hitler 
|
|
#
?
Jun 4, 2011 02:00
|
|
- Maarak
- May 23, 2007
-
"Go for it!"
|
I think this takes the cake, at least for this week:
http://online.wsj.com/article/SB10001424052702303657404576357901392726150.html?mod=WSJ_Opinion_LEADTop
quote:A Texas Roundhouse for the Trial Lawyers
By making litigants pay for filing frivolous lawsuits, the Lone Star State will protect jobs and spur growth.
By CHUCK NORRIS AND STEPHEN DEMAURA
Two women get into a fight in the ladies' restroom at a restaurant. Afterward, they sue the restaurant owner, claiming someone should have been in there to break up the fight. It costs the small-business owner $2,000 to pay each plaintiff to drop the complaint, which was cheaper than fighting the lawsuit would have been.
This completely ridiculous story is true, and the restaurant owner was one of us, Mr. Norris. Fortunately, the lawsuit didn't cripple the family restaurant, Woody's Wharf in Newport Beach, Calif. But nationwide, groundless lawsuits strain businesses' bottom lines and threaten their very survival.
This week, Texas Gov. Rick Perry signed a law that will help free Lone Star State businesses from the threat of frivolous lawsuits by enacting "loser-pays" tort reform. Prior to the legislation, litigants faced a no-lose situation, while defendants stood to lose everything—even for the most outrageous, bizarre and wrongful accusations.
Even when defendants won, the legal fees associated with protecting themselves could add up to tens of thousands of dollars. As a result, many pre-emptively settled out of court, as the settlement payment would be less than the legal fees. Under Texas's new legislation, however, litigants will be forced to pay for the defendant's attorney fees if the case is determined groundless. This will compel would-be litigants to consider the practicality of their complaint before taking legal action, and it will protect defendants from the dire financial impact of frivolous cases.
The Texas legislation should serve as a national model, especially as we recover from the Great Recession. America has the most expensive civil-justice system in the world, costing $255 billion in 2008, or nearly 2% of gross domestic product, according to a 2009 study by the firm Towers Perrin (now Towers Watson). That's more than twice as much as any other industrialized nation as a percent of the GDP.
Small businesses—the engines of our economy and the creators of 64% of American jobs—are usually the target of frivolous lawsuits. In fact, small businesses paid 81% of business tort liability costs in 2008. On average, a small business earning $1 million must spend $20,000 annually on lawsuits—money they could have otherwise spent on product development or new job creation.
Softening the threat of frivolous lawsuits sparks economic activity. In 2003, for example, Texas put limits on non-economic damages in medical malpractice cases. Since then, the number of doctors applying to practice in the Lone Star State has jumped by 60%. The same can be expected of businesses that no longer have to fear the financial impacts of civil-lawsuit abuse.
Frivolous lawsuits also clog the legal system, making courts more difficult to navigate for those who have legitimate claims. Approximately 1 in 10 civil lawsuits in America is groundless. In states that have instituted "loser-pays" provisions, that proportion is reduced. For instance, in Alaska—which has a more restricted version of "loser-pay" than Texas now does—tort suits account for just 5% of civil legal matters.
Lawsuit abuse—and the serial litigants who often drive it—costs every American $838 a year, according to Towers Perrin. Tort reform is a matter of fairness, of leveling the playing field between litigants and defendants. If a legitimate case is brought before a court, the victim should not bear the financial responsibility of bringing justice. But if a frivolous, get-rich-quick case is built against an individual or business, the defendant should not be financially liable for a wrongful accusation.
We can't roundhouse kick every groundless lawsuit out of this country, but we can work to reform a broken system. States such as Florida, South Carolina and Georgia are already looking to imitate Texas's new loser-pay legislation.
It is our responsibility as business owners, consumers and citizens to ensure that trial lawyers don't dictate the speed of our economic recovery or the fairness of our legal system. Texas—a trailblazer in pro-growth policies and, as a result, home to one of the nation's lowest unemployment rates and strongest business climates—has developed a model for reform, and its example should be replicated.
Mr. Norris, an actor, is the founder of kickstartkids.org. Mr. DeMaura is president of Americans for Job Security.
Way to go Rupert Murdoch, you've printed an editorial by Chuck Norris.
|
|
#
?
Jun 4, 2011 02:17
|
|
- Bruce Leroy
- Jun 10, 2010
-
|
WeaponGradeSadness posted:
Right, it does get murky, but--correct me if I'm wrong, somebody--my impression from Balkan goons in the Mladic GBS thread is that it all originated after WWII, with the Serbian belief that Bosnian Muslims were Nazi collaborators. The Kashmir conflict is over control of Kashmir with some religious overtones. The Tamil conflict didn't have anything at all to do with religion, it was on ethnic lines--although the Tamil Tigers did try to push Muslims out of the north, it was because they thought the Muslims, as a group, supported the Sri Lankan government, not specifically because they were a different religion. The Middle East conflict can be laid more at the feet of European colonialism than Islam. Same goes for the other conflicts Dawkins mentions: religion is a component, and saying it isn't would be dishonest, but so would calling the conflicts religious in nature when it's only partly so.
Although I think everyone can agree that D'Souza's point on this issue lost all credibility when he made a bunch of poo poo up about Hitler
Yeah, that's basically what I was thinking but I still sort of wonder if there weren't always some lingering tensions in the 20th century before these conflicts arose simply due to the historical antagonism between religions.
Anyway, the Hitler thing was far more egregious than the stuff about Northern Ireland or the Tamil Tigers. The stuff about Mao and Stalin is almost a bad. I bet D'Souza has written other editorials where he's blamed Mao's and Stalin's crimes on communism, completely neglecting his argument here that atheism is the cause of their crimes. Logical consistency and historical accuracy don't seem to be priorities for him.
|
|
#
?
Jun 4, 2011 02:36
|
|
- lonelywurm
- Aug 10, 2009
-
|
Broken Knees Club posted:
No, that's just the gunchart.pdf of the legal system.
quote:An action or motion may be disposed of without costs when the question involved is a new one, not previously decided by the courts on the theory that there is a public benefit in having the court give a decision; or where it involves the interpretation of a new or ambiguous statute; or a new or uncertain or unsettled point of practice; or where there were no previous authoritative rulings by courts; or decided cases on point; or where the application concerned a matter of public interest and both parties acted in complete good faith ... or where the action was a test case; or where it was desirable to resolve a conflict in the case law.
|
|
#
?
Jun 4, 2011 17:17
|
|
- Metamucil
- May 10, 2011
-
|
This may be a little bit off-topic, but it never ceases to amaze me how prolific pro-Israeli lobbyists and activists are in writing letters. The NYT has printed at least one pro-Israeli Letter to the Editor almost every day for the past 5 years I've been reading it.
Here's yesterday's: http://www.nytimes.com/2011/06/04/opinion/l04israel.html?_r=1&ref=letters
|
|
#
?
Jun 4, 2011 17:44
|
|
- Bruce Leroy
- Jun 10, 2010
-
|
lonelywurm posted:
To be fair, most places in the world follow the English rule, which provides that the loser in a civil suit be liable for the legal costs of the winner. In Canada, this is generally only waived in certain cases as described here:
In fact, I didn't realize the U.S. didn't have a system like this until I looked it up. Such a system really isn't the end of the world, since America's about the only country that differs from it.
The idea behind being against tort reform, besides enriching trial lawyers, is that those kinds of systems to which you refer where the loser pays the legal costs of the winner potentially disenfranchise poor litigants.
If there is always the threat that you will be forced to pay the exorbitant legal costs of the person you are suing if/when your case is deemed frivolous, then poor people may be less likely to bring suits or even be able to find lawyers to take their cases unless they are slam-dunks, as they will not be able to pay the other party's legal costs if they lose.
Conversely, the rich generally already have the means to not only pay for their own legal teams but also enough to pay for the opposing legal counsels' bills if/when they lose their "frivolous" cases. Thus, the legal restrictions of tort reform would likely not discourage any litigants that are already wealthy from filing their lawsuits, no matter how "frivolous" they may seem, unlike that which would likely occur for the poor and middle class.
Personally, I think the real answer to problems with the tort system can be at least partially solved by incorporating technical experts into proceedings, such as mandating that medical experts (e.g. physicians, medical ethicists, medical and science academics, etc.) be included as part of the jury or some kind of panel in any medical malpractice lawsuits so that the verdicts and judgments are based off of medical and scientific facts and not just pathos appeals to laymen juries.
|
|
#
?
Jun 4, 2011 21:55
|
|
- Nathilus
- Apr 4, 2002
-
I alone can see through the media bias.
I'm also stupid on a scale that can only be measured in Reddits.
|
LOL. That read like a masterful troll. I don't understand why he chose Xanadu though. I understand it has connotations of a strange and far away land given its orientalist beginnings in the western consciousness but doesn't it also carry connotations of bucolic yet highly ordered bliss? It doesn't fit the metaphor.
|
|
#
?
Jun 5, 2011 05:03
|
|
- 30.5 Days
- Nov 19, 2006
-
|
Bruce Leroy posted:
The idea behind being against tort reform, besides enriching trial lawyers, is that those kinds of systems to which you refer where the loser pays the legal costs of the winner potentially disenfranchise poor litigants.
If there is always the threat that you will be forced to pay the exorbitant legal costs of the person you are suing if/when your case is deemed frivolous, then poor people may be less likely to bring suits or even be able to find lawyers to take their cases unless they are slam-dunks, as they will not be able to pay the other party's legal costs if they lose.
The measure being discussed wouldn't require the loser to pay if their case were deemed frivolous, only if they lose. As a point of reference, tobacco companies were exonerated hundreds of times before a court finally determined what was already well-known: that they had continued marketing cigarettes long after they had known of their effects.
This measure will compound the effect of the wealthy's advantage, money, in a court, and discourage legitimate claimants from seeking justice, because it's more than common enough in the american court system that the right party isn't the victorious party.
|
|
#
?
Jun 5, 2011 05:12
|
|
- Ned
- May 23, 2002
-
by Hand Knit
|
More Cal Thomas!
Cal Thomas posted:
If the big media in 2008 had dedicated the resources they are now squandering on Sarah Palin's emails from when she was governor of Alaska and probed Barack Obama's background and associations, she might now be vice president of the United States and Obama might still be a junior Illinois senator.
Regardless of what you think of Palin, the vultures attacking her 24,000 pages of emails may represent the most flagrant example of bias since, well, since their attacks on any other Republican.
"It could be fun," said Ken Schwenke of the Los Angeles Times about the email probe.
Three TV camera crews and 30 journalists waited for the release of the emails at a state administrative building in Juneau.
What has the public learned so far from this investment of media time and money? We have these great revelations from The Washington Post: "Palin felt passionately about issues of importance to her state, the documents show, and she waged battle with foes large and small"; and she showed "concern about alcohol in Alaska governor's mansion" because of the presence of young children.
This is news?
With so many far more important issues to be covered, why have these media outlets spent time, money and energy examining Palin's emails? What were they expecting to find? A message from Rep. Anthony Weiner? Clearly they are not looking for anything that would reflect positively on Palin.
London's liberal Guardian newspaper promised "live coverage" as the emails were released. The New York Times and Washington Post asked for volunteers to help sort through the documents, offering "credit" to any they used in news stories. How pathetic is that? Since most readers of those newspapers might be considered left of center, does anyone think this exercise in voyeurism will produce anything but their intended goal, which is the political destruction of Sarah Palin?
Yes, I know, some people think she daily commits political suicide.
ABC News, which, in partnership with The Daily Beast website, offered breathless updates of the email dump, lumped Palin in with Donald Trump as a "sideshow." If she's a sideshow, why are they paying her the kind of attention normally reserved for a main attraction?
The answer is that Palin, along with Rep. Michelle Bachmann, R-Minn., who is considering a presidential run, represent everything the liberal media hate: They are attractive women who are married to the same men they started with. They think big government is the problem, not the solution to our problems. They are pro-life and - gasp - believe in God.
In Palin's case, she and her husband have a Down syndrome child, which she refused to abort. Right there you have enough to offend pro-choice feminists, who treat abortion as a sacrament and appear to have no problem with eliminating the "defective," as was the case with their patron "saint," Planned Parenthood founder Margaret Sanger.
The big media, rather than being honest brokers in the process of selecting the next president, see themselves as players. Many regard themselves as kingmakers, or in Palin's case, "queen destroyers." Increasing numbers of the public regard their arrogance with disdain. It is a major reason why broadcast news ratings have been falling, along with subscriptions to the Times and Post. Rather than correct their ways, they keep on doing what is harming their publications and pretend the problem lies with the readers and viewers (now non-readers and non-viewers), rather than with themselves.
Sarah Palin's negatives are high enough and her support low enough to recommend against her running for president. But no one deserves this kind of treatment. Let her rise or fall on her ideas (or lack of them) and not on old emails.
Have they no shame? Obviously not.
Michelle Bachmann is attractive?
|
|
#
?
Jun 15, 2011 06:14
|
|
- pangstrom
- Jan 25, 2003
-
-
Wedge Regret
|
Ned posted:More Cal Thomas!
Michelle Bachmann is attractive?
|
|
#
?
Jun 15, 2011 15:07
|
|
- seal it with a kiss
- Sep 14, 2007
-
:3
|
lovely College Paper posted:There is also the problem of increasing taxes every time we need money. As a population grows, more tax money is needed to take care of the population. It seems logical then that raising taxes is the best route. Well, let us look at this from a purely logical and common sense approach. As an example, let us take a country of 20 people. The government needs 1 percent of the total income to support two people so the current tax would be set at 10 percent. Say this population grows to 40 and the government needs to account for the growth so they raise their taxes to 20 percent. Soon the population hits 100 and has a tax of 50 percent. Eventually, there are 200 people in this country, and the government raises taxes to 100 percent. Does this make any sense? But how can the government account for the extra money needed if not through tax increases?
|
|
#
?
Jun 15, 2011 15:15
|
|
- Saint Sputnik
- Apr 1, 2007
-
Tyrannosaurs in P-51 Volkswagens!
|
Some guy wrote into my town's paper with a proposed constitutional amendment.
quote:Proposed Constitutional Amendment – (Working Rough Draft)
Congress shall have the sole authority through the means of a declaration of war approved by a two-thirds majority of its membership to authorize the armed forces of the United States to wage offensive military operations such as full-scale war or major acts of war against any alliance(s), empire(s), nation(s) or armed faction(s) who have attacked the United States and its territories, or who pose a credible catastrophic threat to the continued independence of the United States as a sovereign nation and its American way of life, or who have infringed upon the lives, liberties and property of American citizens, or who have attacked an ally of the United States who we have a mutual defense treaty with, or who have the will, the means, and are in the process of attempting to enslave the entire planet under the rule of an authoritarian or totalitarian dictatorship.
The end of hostilities shall occur under the following conditions: victory on the battlefield, negotiated peace settlement, an executive order issued by the president ordering the armed forces of the United States to end hostilities and begin an orderly withdraw from the combat zone, a Congressional recall order passed by a two-thirds majority of the membership of Congress ordering the armed forces of the United States to cease hostilities and to withdraw from the combat zone in orderly fashion.
The president shall have the authority to authorize the armed forces of the United States to repeal invasions and sneak attacks upon the United States and its territories and to suppress rebellions, insurrections, and mutinies within the United States and its territories.
He also noted he's very proud of the research he put into it (to wit, reading as much legalese as he could find and barfing it out with a typewriter)
|
|
#
?
Jun 15, 2011 18:04
|
|
- Dr. Tough
- Oct 22, 2007
-
|
This appeared in the local right-wing newspaper:
quote:
The feds cook the books with Greece
Most Americans are aware of some, but not all, of the striking similarities between Greece and the United States. To wit: Both countries have a national debt that can’t be paid off without resorting to theft and serfdom, both countries have a dominant culture in which mooching and loafing have supplanted self-reliance and working, both countries have parasitical public-sector unions that are sucking the lifeblood out of the private sector, and both countries have a large number of leftist losers who blame market competition and corporate greed for their dim prospects, when, in fact, the fault lies with themselves – with their strangulation of market competition through the regulatory state and their addiction to credit and the fruits of other people’s labor.
Both countries also share the Keynesian notion that economic growth comes from taking money out of the private sector for mammoth public works projects. In addition to spending money it didn’t have on hosting the Olympics, Greece spent even more money it didn’t have on building light rail lines, thus enabling unemployed neo-Marxist intellectuals to ride a subsidized train to their favorite cafe, where they could sit all day ranting about capitalism while drinking Retsina wine, which tastes like turpentine and apparently has the same deleterious effect as paint thinner on industriousness and mental capacity. Similarly, the USA is planning to spend money it doesn’t have on high-speed rail, which will be built by unions, operated by unions, subsidized by taxpayers, and ridden by green Americans who say they care about global warming but don’t care enough about it to pay the full cost of their train ride without being subsidized by non-riders.
Unbeknownst to most Americans, Greece and the USA have something else in common: both nations cook their national accounting books. Greece cooked its books to dupe Europeans into allowing it to join the European Union. The USA cooks its books to dupe the American public into believing that their government isn’t as bankrupt as it really is.
If you don’t believe that the USA cooks the books, then read The 2010 Financial Report of the United States Government, which is the official accounts of the national government. It’s not until page 221 of the 250-page report that the truth comes out. There, an audit summary begins, written by the auditor for the Government Accountability Office. The auditor warns readers that the government’s accounting systems have so many material weaknesses and such a lack of internal controls that their reliability cannot be established. Then the auditor makes this astonishing statement:
These material weaknesses continued to (1) hamper the federal government’s ability to reliably report a significant portion of its assets, liabilities, costs, and other related information; (2) affect the federal government’s ability to reliably measure the full cost as well as the financial and nonfinancial performance of certain programs and activities; (3) impair the federal government’s ability to adequately safeguard significant assets and properly record various transactions; and (4) hinder the federal government from having reliable financial information to operate in an efficient and effective manner.
(Note: It’s not just Democrat administrations that cook the books. In February, 2009, I published a commentary on The 2008 Financial Report of the United States, showing that the Bush Administration had cooked the books.)
The 2010 report includes a cover letter from Treasury Secretary Timothy Geithner, the flimflam artist who is responsible for keeping the country’s books. The letter and the report should be used as evidence to prosecute Geithner for accounting fraud and sentence him to a federal penitentiary to share a cell with Bernie Madoff, whose Ponzi scheme was infinitesimal compared to the Ponzi schemes of the national government, especially Social Security, Medicare, and public-sector pensions. Alternatively, Geithner could share a cell with one of the convicted Enron executives, whose accounting fraud harmed thousands of people, versus the 310 million people harmed by the government’s fraud.
To be fair, neither Geithner nor anyone else in the current government is responsible for the nation following Greece into the cemetery of Western civilization. The nation was set on that course the first time that the government took money from some people for the benefit of other people, instead of taking a limited amount of money from all people for the protection of the lives, liberty and property of all people. From that point on, it was inevitable that government would become a corrupt Leviathan, citizens would pillage and plunder their neighbors, courts would concoct convoluted legal theories to justify the theft, and leftist professors and K-12 unionized teachers would expound Marxian gibberish to make stealing sound like social justice as they took their cut of the loot.
The Greek philosopher Plato believed that the masses were too shortsighted, too uneducated, and too moved by passions for democracy to work. His solution of putting philosopher kings over the people was an awful idea, but, as Greece and the USA have shown, he was right about the masses.
“Mencken’s Ghost” is the nom de plume of an Arizona writer who can be reached at ghost@menckensghost.com
http://www.sonorannews.com/archives/2011/110608/guesteditorial.html
|
|
#
?
Jun 15, 2011 18:34
|
|
- RC and Moon Pie
- May 5, 2011
-
|
At least this one isn't upfront racist like the ones I usually find in my neck of the woods.
From the Tifton Gazette:
quote:TIFTON — In an era of mistrust by many Americans in the federal government, Congress must pass a constitutional amendment requiring a non-partisan primary election for the local, state and federal governments. The candidates with the most votes — Republican, Democrat, Independent, and Libertarian — would run against each other in the general election. The winner candidate must be elected with 50 percent of the popular vote.
The recommended amendment will weaken the Democratic and Republican parties, but in doing it, the foundation of the American democracy will be strengthened. After all, for over 60 years Republicans and Democrats have controlled Congress and the presidency and provided a very weak government.
Today's national debt is a perfect example. The amendment would result in more Independents and Libertarians elected to the local, state and federal governments. Independents and Libertarians would surely place allegiance to America first and loyalty to the principles of a political party second.
|
|
#
?
Jun 15, 2011 20:21
|
|
- i say swears online
- Mar 4, 2005
-
|
His analysis is hilarious. "A SOCIALIST was elected?! This wasn't supposed to happen!"
|
|
#
?
Jun 15, 2011 20:40
|
|
- Uncle Wemus
- Mar 4, 2004
-
|
MaxxBot posted:
I live in Minnesota which is a pretty blue state but we still have our fair share of complete nutcases which have all come out of the woodwork with the debate over the marriage amendment that's going to be on the ballot here in 2012. A local newspaper actually decided to publish the following letter which looks like a copy/paste from Freep. Luckily I have the number of the person who put this in the paper and I'm going to make sure that she gets an earful from hordes of militant homofascists.
What about the Star Tribunes leading subhuman shitstain Katherine Kersten
http://www.startribune.com/bios/10645201.html
Kersten posted:
In recent weeks, the issue of who gets to define marriage -- Minnesota citizens or a handful of judges or legislators -- has been on the front burner.
The debate has generated lots of heat but not much light. Now that the Legislature has endeavored to let the people vote on a constitutional amendment defining marriage, I suggest a few ground rules to ensure a fair and open exchange of views.
First, we must reject the name-calling that has marred the debate to this point. Same-sex-marriage supporters' constant mantra has been that Minnesotans who support one man-one woman marriage are motivated by bigotry. Gay-marriage proponents make this claim even about people who merely support letting Minnesotans vote on the issue.
The Star Tribune's recent editorial on the marriage amendment was typical. "Don't put bigotry on the ballot," its headline ran.
But people who support one man-one woman marriage are not bigots. They argue, very reasonably, that marriage is rooted in nature -- in male/female sexual complementarity -- and that children need both a mother and a father. They say that's why it has been the bedrock institution of procreation and social order in virtually all times and places.
Same-sex-marriage supporters' attempt to tar this view as "bigotry" seems designed to shield them from tough questions as they campaign to redefine the world's fundamental social institution. Labeling your opponent a "bigot" is the ultimate rhetorical mudball--a classic slur intended to silence and intimidate rather than to facilitate an exchange of ideas.
My second recommendation: We know the precise constitutional amendment language the people will be voting on, so don't distort it.
Marriage has won in every state where the people have had an opportunity to vote on it. To date, citizens in 31 states have voted to enshrine one man-one woman marriage in their constitutions, including, most recently, the deep-blue states of California and Maine.
Yet very often, preelection polls in these states have predicted that marriage would lose. In California, an Oct. 30, 2008, poll showed the pro-gay marriage vote leading by 5 points. In Maine in 2009, the story was similar. Yet on Election Day, Californians voted 52 to 48 percent to preserve traditional marriage; in Maine the vote was 53 to 47 percent.
Why do polls consistently fail to predict voters' behavior? There are several reasons. First, many polls use misleading language. They ask people if they want to "ban" same-sex marriage instead of using the amendment language that voters will actually encounter in the polling booth. (In our state, that language is: "Only a union of one man and one woman shall be valid or recognized as a marriage in Minnesota.")
"For years, the 'ban same-sex marriage' language in polls has produced about a 6 to 10 percentage point undercount on support for traditional marriage," says Maggie Gallagher of the National Organization for Marriage. "If you want to get the least favorable result on marriage, this is the language you choose for your poll."
One reason for the undercount is that some people interpret the "ban" language as implying that same-sex marriage or homosexual relationships will somehow be criminalized or made illegal, according to Gallagher. The "ban" language also casts traditional marriage supporters in a negative light. It compels them to say they are against something, rather than allowing them to articulate what they are for.
Most important, people often hesitate to tell a pollster their true beliefs about marriage when traditional marriage supporters are routinely demonized as bigots and haters.
The Star Tribune poll released on May 13 is a case in point. The poll asked people if they "would favor or oppose ... amending the Minnesota Constitution to ban same-sex marriage." Fifty-five percent answered "oppose."
Yet, the final day that pollsters were asking this question -- May 5 -- a Star Tribune editorial was denouncing Minnesotans who support traditional marriage as bigots. Who's surprised at the poll's result?
One last point: In the coming debate, we must have zero tolerance for intimidation tactics. Bullying has become standard operating procedure for many same-sex marriage activists. Their attack last year on Target Corp. is now held up as a national model by those attempting to silence same-sex marriage opponents.
In California, support for Prop 8 has cost some people their jobs. The latest casualty is Olympic gold medal winner Peter Vidmar, who resigned as chief of mission for the 2012 U.S. Olympic team on May 6, after his support for Prop 8 became public. McCarthyism of this kind threatens to undermine Americans' cherished freedom to engage politically without fear of personal reprisals.
Here in Minnesota, we can expect a vigorous debate over marriage in coming months. But personal slurs, distorted push-polling, and intimidation tactics have no place in the civil discourse of a democracy.
|
|
#
?
Jun 15, 2011 21:02
|
|
- Ned
- May 23, 2002
-
by Hand Knit
|
Stossel loves Canada and Puerto Rico!
John Stossel posted:
America is falling deeper into debt. We're long past the point where drastic action is needed. We're near Greek levels of debt. What's going to happen? Maybe riots - like we've seen in Greece?
We need to make cuts now.
Some governors have shown the way. You know about Chris Christie, Scott Walker, Rick Scott, John Kasich, etc. But you probably don't know about Luis Fortuno.
Fortuno is governor of Puerto Rico. Two years ago, he fired 17,000 government workers. No state governor did anything like that. He cut spending much more than Walker did in Wisconsin. In return, thousands of union members demonstrated against Fortuno for days. They clashed with police. They called him a fascist
Fortuno said he had to make the cuts because Puerto Rico's economy was a mess.
"Not just a mess. We didn't have enough money to meet our first payroll."
Fortuno's predecessors had grown Puerto Rico's government to the point that the state employed one out of every three workers. By the time he was elected, Puerto Rico was broke. So the new conservative majority, the first in Puerto Rico in 40 years, shrank the government.
What was cut?
"Everything. I started with my own salary."
The protesters said he should raise taxes instead of cutting spending.
"Our taxes were as high as they could be, actually much higher than most of the country. So what we've done is the opposite." Fortuno reduced corporate taxes from 35 percent to 25 percent. He reduced individual income taxes. He privatized entire government agencies.
"Bring in the private sector," Fortuno said. "They will do a better job. They will do it cheaper."
Fortuno's advice for leaders who want to shrink the state: "Do what you need to do quickly, swiftly, like when you take off a Band-Aid. Just do it. And move on to better things."
Canada did that years ago.
When I think Canada, I think big government. I'm embarrassed that I didn't know that in the mid-'90s, Canada shrank its government.
It had to. Its debt level was as bad as ours is today, almost 70 percent of the economy. Canada's finance minister said: "We are in debt up to our eyeballs. That can't be sustained."
Economist David Henderson, a Canadian who left Canada for the United States, remembers when The Wall Street Journal called the Canadian dollar "the peso of the north." It was worth just 72 American cents. "Moody's put the Canadian federal debt on a credit watch," Henderson said.
The problem, he added, was that Canada had a government safety net that was more like a hammock.
"When I was growing up in Canada, people who went on unemployment insurance were said to go in the 'pogie.' You could work as little as eight weeks, taking the rest of the year off."
So in 1995, Canadian leaders cut unemployment benefits and other programs. It happened quietly because it was a liberal government, and liberals didn't want to criticize their own. The result was that Canada's debt stopped increasing. As the government ran budget surpluses, the debt went down.
"The economy boomed," Henderson said. "Think about what government does. Government wastes most of what it spends, and so just cutting government and having that money in the hands of people means it's going to be used more valuably."
Canada fired government workers, but unemployment didn't increase. In fact, it fell from 12 percent to 6 percent.
Canadian unemployment is still well below ours. And the Canadian dollar rose from just 72 American cents to $1.02 today.
Canada also raised some taxes. But the spending cuts were much bigger, 6-to-1: agriculture was cut 22 percent; fisheries, 27 percent, natural resources almost 50 percent.
"We should learn from Canada's experience that you can cut government substantially," Henderson said.
"It is so wasteful. There's so much to cut, without causing much real pain - not causing pain, but helping your economy grow, helping people become better off."
Henderson added, "We need to move more quickly than the Canadians did. Unfortunately, we're moving more slowly than the Canadians did."
If we're moving at all.
While Canada thrives, we pour more money down the hole.
Canada thrives because they have a massive amount of natural resources they can sell in a time where the price for those resources is really high. Canada pulls 33% of it's GDP in taxes. Stossel don't like facts he don't agree with.
|
|
#
?
Jun 16, 2011 07:58
|
|
- Bruce Leroy
- Jun 10, 2010
-
|
Uncle Wemus posted:
What about the Star Tribunes leading subhuman shitstain Katherine Kersten
http://www.startribune.com/bios/10645201.html
Katherine Kersten posted:
One last point: In the coming debate, we must have zero tolerance for intimidation tactics. Bullying has become standard operating procedure for many same-sex marriage activists. Their attack last year on Target Corp. is now held up as a national model by those attempting to silence same-sex marriage opponents.
In California, support for Prop 8 has cost some people their jobs. The latest casualty is Olympic gold medal winner Peter Vidmar, who resigned as chief of mission for the 2012 U.S. Olympic team on May 6, after his support for Prop 8 became public. McCarthyism of this kind threatens to undermine Americans' cherished freedom to engage politically without fear of personal reprisals.
Right, so when "traditional marriage supporters" voice their opinions against marriage equality for gays and lesbians, it's a righteous expression of their 1st Amendment rights, but when gay marriage supporters do the same of their positions/opinions it's "bullying."
She must really hate all those people that "bullied" the Montgomery, Alabama bus companies back in the 1950s, right?
Katherine Kersten posted:
The Star Tribune's recent editorial on the marriage amendment was typical. "Don't put bigotry on the ballot," its headline ran.
But people who support one man-one woman marriage are not bigots. They argue, very reasonably, that marriage is rooted in nature -- in male/female sexual complementarity -- and that children need both a mother and a father. They say that's why it has been the bedrock institution of procreation and social order in virtually all times and places.
How dare they call us "bigots" for saying that homosexuals are "unnatural" and that two gay men or two lesbians are inferior to a man and woman?!?!
|
|
#
?
Jun 16, 2011 11:11
|
|
- Borneo Jimmy
- Feb 27, 2007
-
by Smythe
|
Nathilus posted:
LOL. That read like a masterful troll. I don't understand why he chose Xanadu though. I understand it has connotations of a strange and far away land given its orientalist beginnings in the western consciousness but doesn't it also carry connotations of bucolic yet highly ordered bliss? It doesn't fit the metaphor.
Being an overpaid hack it was probably the most foreign sounding name he could think of "Gee don't we live in some strange country with all this twittering and sexting, It's almost like we're in some sort of uhhh, Xanadu!"
|
|
#
?
Jun 18, 2011 01:02
|
|
- Borneo Jimmy
- Feb 27, 2007
-
by Smythe
|
And here's a goodie
http://www.startribune.com/opinion/letters/123663169.html
quote:
The headline on a June 10 commentary by Jack Schneider says that "History bends in the hands of ideologues," meaning conservatives like Sarah Palin. But why should I believe anything a college historian tells me when more than 90 percent of them are far-left liberals and have their own agendas when it comes to history?
I can read the same history books that Schneider does, but it doesn't mean I believe everything I read. The only way we can really know what took place is to own a time machine. Does Schneider have one?
Any event that happened in history always has a bias. After a battle or other historical event, even those who were involved will look at the situation differently than others who shared the experience. So whom do you want to believe?
Our politically correct college professors are constantly coming up with "new" evidence (that dang time machine again) concerning our country's history, trying to shed a more liberal light onto it. Where are they finding all this new information that makes our old history books so obsolete?
And speaking of history, our president once said we had 57 states, and that his uncle freed a concentration camp in Poland after World War II, when it was actually freed by Soviet troops. But naturally, our intelligent professors and the news media conveniently glossed over this.
Conservative politicians are not the only ones trying to manipulate history, there is a lot of that going around in the halls of ivy, too.
Kind of explains why Americans seem to score so poorly on basic knowledge of History
|
|
#
?
Jun 18, 2011 01:11
|
|
- Uncle Wemus
- Mar 4, 2004
-
|
Hey man those books were perfect in every way.
|
|
#
?
Jun 18, 2011 06:58
|
|
- Bruce Leroy
- Jun 10, 2010
-
|
It's not just a poor understanding of specific historical facts that's the problem, it's a lack of understanding proper historiography. That's what allows for crazy-rear end, mendacious assholes like David Barton to get away with his complete fabrications of history in conservative circles.
There's also a much more fundamental problem that the history taught in US schools and popularized by conservatives isn't actually faithful and accurate to what actually happened in US history. This causes people to have such warped perceptions of historical events that when they learn the real history (which has been known all along), it looks like "new evidence" or revisionist history to them.
Seriously, any time you hear or read of someone talking about what "the Founders" believed or said as if they were in unanimous agreement, you can pretty much ignore what they have to say and reason that they are severely ignorant of history.
|
|
#
?
Jun 18, 2011 09:37
|
|
- Lets Pickle
- Jul 9, 2007
-
|
Bruce Leroy posted:
I totally agree with you, but isn't it kind of a "chicken and the egg" thing with these conflicts over what their true "bases" are?
E.g. how do we determine whether it was ethnic tensions or religious conflict that came first in engendering the hatred that led to violence in the Balkans? We know that both are important causes for the conflict, but how do we know which came first and which is more influential and fundamental to the hatred and conflict?
Was the sentiment among the Serbians that committed genocide against Muslim Bosnians (A) "We hate those filthy Bosnians and they're evil Muslims, too" or (B) "We hate those loving Muslims and they're even worse because they're Bosnian, too"?
Yeah this article is terrible but it raises an interesting point that with or without religion people find reasons to otherize and kill each other.
|
|
#
?
Jun 19, 2011 06:14
|
|
- Taerkar
- Dec 7, 2002
-
kind of into it, really
|
WeaponGradeSadness posted:
Right, it does get murky, but--correct me if I'm wrong, somebody--my impression from Balkan goons in the Mladic GBS thread is that it all originated after WWII, with the Serbian belief that Bosnian Muslims were Nazi collaborators. The Kashmir conflict is over control of Kashmir with some religious overtones. The Tamil conflict didn't have anything at all to do with religion, it was on ethnic lines--although the Tamil Tigers did try to push Muslims out of the north, it was because they thought the Muslims, as a group, supported the Sri Lankan government, not specifically because they were a different religion. The Middle East conflict can be laid more at the feet of European colonialism than Islam. Same goes for the other conflicts Dawkins mentions: religion is a component, and saying it isn't would be dishonest, but so would calling the conflicts religious in nature when it's only partly so.
Although I think everyone can agree that D'Souza's point on this issue lost all credibility when he made a bunch of poo poo up about Hitler
It shouldn't have any credibility from the get-go. He's seeking to imply that a conflict can only be because of atheism or religion. Therefore if the conflict isn't due to religious differences it must obviously be because of atheists.
|
|
#
?
Jun 19, 2011 06:24
|
|
- Bruce Leroy
- Jun 10, 2010
-
|
Taerkar posted:
It shouldn't have any credibility from the get-go. He's seeking to imply that a conflict can only be because of atheism or religion. Therefore if the conflict isn't due to religious differences it must obviously be because of atheists.
I already kind of mentioned this, but it's even worse than that. He's perpetuating a gigantic double standard in order to excuse religions(especially Christianity and Judaism) of violence committed by their adherents while at the same time blaming all of atheism and atheists for any crimes committed by atheists.
He's saying "not all crimes committed by Christians, Jews, Muslims, etc. are necessarily crimes of Christianity, Judaism, Islam, etc., but all crimes committed by atheists must not only be motivated by atheism, they also reflect the inherently violent nature of atheism and atheists as a whole."
I'm actually not entirely disagreeing with the first part of that argument, but the second part about atheists is incredibly frustrating as it doesn't accurately reflect history or reality at all. If that weren't bad enough, D'Souza isn't some kind of marginalized right-wing hack, he's very prominent within the conservative movement, which just laps up his horrendous, demonstrably false, character assassination of pretty much any group that doesn't agree with him or the conservative party line.
|
|
#
?
Jun 19, 2011 08:07
|
|
- Bruce Leroy
- Jun 10, 2010
-
|
Lets Pickle posted:
Yeah this article is terrible but it raises an interesting point that with or without religion people find reasons to otherize and kill each other.
You mean like authoring a book titled, "The Enemy At Home: The Cultural Left and Its Responsibility for 9/11"?
|
|
#
?
Jun 19, 2011 08:10
|
|
- Saint Sputnik
- Apr 1, 2007
-
Tyrannosaurs in P-51 Volkswagens!
|
Clifford May is loving insane. Without providing any context whatsoever he just launched into this imaginary letter from Ayman al-Zawahiri the other day:
quote:Now the duty is entrusted to me. Now I am the amir of al-Qaeda't al-Jihad, better known — indeed, known everywhere on earth — as al-Qaeda. This comes at the right time. This month, I complete my 60th year — still young enough to think clearly and strategically, but old enough to fully comprehend that I will not live forever and that it is truly blessed to die a martyr's death as did my friend and leader, Sheikh Osama bin Laden, may he rest in peace.
I have waged jihad against the nonbelievers for a very long time. I joined the Muslim Brotherhood when I was just 14. A child of wealth and privilege, I could have led an easy life. My skills as a surgeon could have been put to use healing the elite of Cairo. I chose, instead, to be a knight under the Prophet's banner. I have never regretted that decision, al-Hamdu Lillah.
In 1981, when I was half the age I am now, I brought justice to Anwar al-Sadat. He had betrayed the nation of Islam by making peace with the accursed Jews. Death to any swine who considers following his example!
Exactly 20 years after that, surrounded by the good people of the Islamic Emirate of Afghanistan, Sheikh bin Laden and I brought justice to thousands of Crusaders and Zionists, arrogant Americans who thought they were safe in their steel towers — safe to plot and steal from the Muslims. Those in the Pentagon — that vipers' den! — thought they were safe, too. But they learned: All the guards and guns and metal detectors in the world cannot protect them from our mujahideen!
The Americans are accustomed to soft beds and decadent pleasures. But their economy is crumbling — as is their will to fight. With the passing of bin Laden they will be eager to declare their mission in Afghanistan accomplished and fly away.
The woodworm has begun to eat the idol, though Americans do not yet yearn for the sweet relief of surrender as the Europeans do. The Europeans, in a time of war, are disarming. When in history has that happened before? They can't even defeat that mad jackal, Qaddafi! In this we can see the hand of Allah, may peace be upon Him.
|
|
#
?
Jun 25, 2011 04:47
|
|
- Bruce Leroy
- Jun 10, 2010
-
|
Saint Sputnik posted:
Clifford May is loving insane. Without providing any context whatsoever he just launched into this imaginary letter from Ayman al-Zawahiri the other day:
And on and on and on. When I read it before deadline that day I had to double check with my editor that it was even real and he actually wanted to run it (he's not a crazy guy himself he just knows what the folks around here will eat up).
So, is the point of the editorial to assert May's views about the various people and topics contained (e.g. Iran's government, the Muslim Brotherhood in Egypt and its role in post-Jasmine Revolution Egypt, etc.), but to do so in the voice of Ayman al-Zawahiri so there is a caricature affirming and justifying his neo-con perspective?
It's one of the most stilted, awkward editorials I've ever read, which is truly saying something in a world of absolutely horrible editorializing.
|
|
#
?
Jun 25, 2011 11:11
|
|
- Quetzadilla
- Jun 6, 2005
-
A PARTICULARLY GHOULISH SHITPOSTER FOR NEOLIBERLISM AND THE DEMOCRATIC PARTY
|
Fortunately there is already a site that collects the worst op-eds for you and conveniently puts them in one place. Unfortunately, many very influential people take them seriously. A choice selection from random clickings:
http://online.wsj.com/article/SB10001424052702303936704576398462932810874.html?mod=WSJ_Opinion_LEADTop posted:
• Fracking releases toxic or radioactive chemicals. The reality is that 99.5% of the fluid injected into fracture rock is water and sand. The chemicals range from the benign, such as citric acid (found in soda pop), to benzene.
http://online.wsj.com/article/SB10001424052702303339904576405600610275810.html?mod=WSJ_Opinion_LEFTTopOpinion posted:
What the Greeks are Teaching
BUSINESS WORLD
By Holman W. Jenkins, Jr.
Despite the hysteria, the real story of the debt crisis is that the euro, finally, is working.
|
|
#
?
Jun 26, 2011 08:29
|
|
- Bruce Leroy
- Jun 10, 2010
-
|
Quetzadilla posted:
http://online.wsj.com/article posted:
• Fracking releases toxic or radioactive chemicals. The reality is that 99.5% of the fluid injected into fracture rock is water and sand. The chemicals range from the benign, such as citric acid (found in soda pop), to benzene.
Hey Socrates, drink this, it's only .5% hemlock. It'll help you forget how much water is wasted to release natural gases that will cause the rest of our water to catch fire.
|
|
#
?
Jun 27, 2011 04:56
|
|
- 30.5 Days
- Nov 19, 2006
-
|
I love the way it's worded- you know, sand, water, a variety of fruit flavors, and oh yeah, BENZENE.
|
|
#
?
Jun 27, 2011 08:56
|
|
- Bruce Leroy
- Jun 10, 2010
-
|
30.5 Days posted:
I love the way it's worded- you know, sand, water, a variety of fruit flavors, and oh yeah, BENZENE.
Another hilarious thing is how the author claims that there is little to no danger because of regulations in place to protect the environment, water supply, and other potential sources of chemical contamination, but they fail to mention that the Bush Administration exempted these fracking companies from many federal regulations including the Clean Water Act.
|
|
#
?
Jun 27, 2011 10:48
|
|
- Quetzadilla
- Jun 6, 2005
-
A PARTICULARLY GHOULISH SHITPOSTER FOR NEOLIBERLISM AND THE DEMOCRATIC PARTY
|
CaptBushido posted:
I thought the point of opposition to fracking wasn't that they're pumping harmful materials into the ground, but that by pumping water they loosen up petroleum, heavy metals, etc. that are ALREADY in the ground which then flows into the water supply.
if that's the case, then isn't "Don't worry they mostly just use water  " an astonishingly ignorant response to controversy? wait, don't answer that...
I highly recommend checking out Gasland if you haven't already or aren't that well-versed in fracking but want to know more about its effects. The documentary isn't loaded with a lot of info, and pretty much everything in the film is just anecdotal experiences because the director set out to document a personal journey rather than make an expose` about natural gas, but it's still pretty compelling.
|
|
#
?
Jun 27, 2011 19:35
|
|
- Adbot
-
ADBOT LOVES YOU
|
|
|
#
?
Apr 16, 2024 17:51
|
|
#
?
Jun 4, 2011 00:52
. How could WSJ publish it?? It is an outrage.
