Govenor Sarah Palin, Mormonism, Post-Mormonism, Politics

[_Droopy]

This is quite humorous as Alan Keys, a truly brilliant intellect with a deep knowledge of the constitution and American political and cultural history, makes Obama, when a direct comparison is possible, look like the empty suit he actually is.

I'm comparing Alan Keyes to you. Let's both just agree to be happy about this.

Then thanks for the compliment.

[_harmony]

Or, Obama is just as ignorant of the Constitution as he appears to be and as the brilliant Dr. Keys made him appear. There are plenty of recent examples (check Youtube frequently) of what happens to Obama when the Teleprompter quits.

Obama is a classic product of the now traditional PC university; he does very well regurgitating various standardized platitudes and shibboleths but doesn't think very well on his feet and doesn't really have a sound educational grounding in first principles, historical facts, or critical thinking.

Bush isn't exactly an intellectual giant, Droop. It's been a while since we had one of those for president.

[_harmony]

In essence, Barak was involved in the politicization and radicalization of poor, inner city residents for the purpose of advancing both an ideological agenda and the diversion and concentration taxpayer funds and state power into those inner city neighborhoods in the form of government services, economic protectionism (the steel industry),and the theory of personal success and empowerment through political agitation and activity (as opposed to hard work, sacrifice, and sound values).

As if government services, economic protection, and political agitation and activity are bad things? Well, maybe if the English were still in charge. Arguments over economic protection caused the original political agitation and action back in 1776, remember? They are time-honored ways of making change. But I guess you only think they're good, if it's your side that's doing the agitating?

[_Droopy]

Bush isn't exactly an intellectual giant, Droop. It's been a while since we had one of those for president.

Yes. The only things in my lifetime are really JFK and Reagan.

[_Droopy]

As if government services, economic protection, and political agitation and activity are bad things?

1. Depends upon what you mean by "government services".

2. Economic protectionism is almost always a bad thing, without equivocation.

3. Depends on the nature of the ideology and purpose behind the agitation (in the post sixties sense, political agitation has become, at least for the Left, a alternative to serious participation in the political arena, as well as an alternative to productive citizenship).

Arguments over economic protection caused the original political agitation and action back in 1776, remember?

That was about taxation without representation (very much what we have now).

[_dartagnan]

Sarah Palin once said:

“I always looked at Senator McCain just as a Joe Blow public member, looking from the outside in,” she said. “He’s been buttin’ heads with Republicans for years, and that’s a healthy place to be.” Then again, on McCain’s signature issue—the prosecution of the war in Iraq—she did not sound so gung-ho. Her son is a soldier, and she said, “I’m a mom, and my son is going to get deployed in September, and we better have a real clear plan for this war. And it better not have to do with oil and dependence on foreign energy.”
http://www.parapundit.com/archives/005495.html

Sounds like a woman after beastie's heart.

[_antishock8]

http://dailykos.com/story/2008/8/30/121 ... 486/580223

These guys are as vile as any "Repugnican" or "Droopyite" I've ever seen. The tribe loyalty that Beastie mentioned earlier seems to be exerting itself, at least, on the Left side of the aisle.

This is why I don't mind being someone who doesn't feel tied to a political spectrum or a party. I have too many Leftist and Rightist tendencies that make me ill at ease with either side of the American political system.

That being said, what I'm seeing coming from the Left reference Governor Palin is beyond pale. Sexism is alive and well, and no amount of veneer has been able to hide it... The Rightists are extremely sexist toward Senator Clinton and other Democrat females, and the Leftists... Well, their words speak for themselves.

Hrm. Looks like women are still wearing the burqa, so to speak, here in America...

[_richardMdBorn]

OBAMA: Listen, I love my colleagues in the state legislature, but I think you should be voting for your United States Senator, not my colleagues. You know, I have a little understanding of the Constitution, since I teach constitutional law at the University of Chicago, and I understand that, in fact, that was the original way that the Constitution was framed.

It also prohibited anybody other than white, male property owners from voting. That's why we had amendments, so that black people and Asians and women could vote. It strikes me a funny way to empower people, to take their vote away.


EA The Constitution didn't prohibit non-white, male property owners from voting, but the governments of the time did and it wasn't proscribed by the understood meaning of the constitution until amendments were passed. But Obama clearly understands that. He was speaking off the cuff.

And, of course, the point he was making in response to Alan Keyes argument is right on the money. It's like he somehow found himself in a debate with Droopy for a senate position.

Richard This is the reference. Thanks for finding it. Obama states that the Constitution "prohibited anybody other than white, male property owners from voting". That is false. It left it up to the states and some states allowed freed blacks and women to vote at the time. Obama is wrong.

I am cautious about using Wikipedia but I've read more reliable sources about voting in New Jersey.

New Jersey granted women the vote (with the same property qualifications as for men, although, since married women did not own property in their own right, only unmarried women and widows qualified) under the state constitution of 1776, where the word "inhabitants" was used without qualification of sex or race. New Jersey women, along with "aliens...persons of color, or negroes," lost the vote in 1807, when the franchise was restricted to white males, partly in order, ostensibly at least, to combat electoral fraud by simplifying the conditions for eligibility.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Women%27s_suffrage

Free blacks could vote in Massachusetts.

As discussed in the section of this website entitled John Adams and the Massachusetts Constitution, the Constitution of 1780 was preceded by a constitution drafted by the legislature and rejected by the voters in 1778. The constitution proposed in 1778 would have recognized slavery as a legal institution, and excluded free African Americans from voting. The Constitution of 1780, in contrast, contained a declaration that "all men are born free and equal, and have . . . the right of enjoying and defending their lives and liberties."

http://www.mass.gov/courts/sjc/constitution-slavery-b.html

Obama is wrong and I knew it at the time. He's not much of a constitutional scholar. When he gets huffy he's generally wrong (see the recent discussion about tire pressure).

[_EAllusion]

Richard This is the reference. Thanks for finding it. Obama states that the Constitution "prohibited anybody other than white, male property owners from voting". That is false. It left it up to the states and some states allowed freed blacks and women to vote at the time. Obama is wrong.

Duh. Obama was speaking off the cuff obviously to get at the point that the Constitutional framers were cool with highly restricted voting rights and the Constitution permitting it. At least somewhere all over the early US voting rights were restricted on the basis of race, property-status, and gender. He's wrong about this like he is wrong about there being 57 states. This is most reasonably read as a quick and dirty misspeak to get at an essentially correct point. If you think a highly educated J.D. who once held one of the most prestigious scholastic positions in his entire field and later taught constitutional law at the University of Chicago doesn't have a basic grasp of the text of the Constitution expected of most High School students, well, someone is showing a lack of sense.

[_dartagnan]

Duh. Obama was speaking off the cuff obviously to get at the point that the Constitutional framers were cool with highly restricted voting rights and the Constitution permitting it. At least somewhere all over the early US voting rights were restricted on the basis of race, property-status, and gender. He's wrong about this like he is wrong about there being 57 states. This is most reasonably read as a quick and dirty misspeak to get at an essentially correct point. If you think a highly educated J.D. who once held one of the most prestigious scholastic positions in his entire field and later taught constitutional law at the University of Chicago doesn't have a basic grasp of the text of the Constitution expected of most High School students, well, someone is showing a lack of sense.

Oh give it up EA, you're not one to apologize for others. Your boy screwed up and he is without excuses, so stop making them for him. If he were a theist who misspoke in a debate you'd be all over him, calling him an idiot or what not. If you think everyone who teaches at the university level is guaranteed to know what they're talking about, then that shows your own lack of sense. Obama has been getting by on his skin color and slid in under teh radar the same way this guy did:

Gee, only credible journalists could get a job at the NYT, right? Not if you're black. You can even get away with plagiarism. Likewise, Obama can get away with mediocre intelligence while being passed through as the "first black this" and the "first black that," giving publicity to Harvard and everyone else who put him in the positions he has acquired. Similarly, his presidential campaign seems more like a circus than anything serious.

In any event, Obama lost my vote because he is a complete moron for making the comments he did about drilling and inflated tires. Given half the chance, he will prove he is an idiot just by speaking. At least with Bush you knew he was an idiot from the start, but Obama learned to speak well in an effective manner. Too bad knowledge rarely accompanies his rants.