Politics

[AaronB]

The key word there being 'should'. That's an ideal and I don't disagree with it but it's simply not part of the constitution or law because there's no way of quantifying it. Therefore it's not part of the constitutional separation of church and state.


You're probably right but whatever influence he has, it's not only temporary but moderated by the way the workings of government are set up. Any mandates that official might make can be overturned by his successor.

Perhaps a good example of what I mean about fads not overrunning the givernment is the Terry Sciavo case from a few years back. Her family tried *everything* to keep the drastic measures taken to keep her alive connected. Leaving aside any feelings any of us might have about the case itself, there was a positive frenzy of court challenges and legislation passed then overturned on both a state and federal level. Emotions ran high on all sides of the issue and attempts were made to legislate based on those emotions. The system worked, though, so that no lasting damage was caused.

Jan

Exactly. It's perfectly ok to say that you feel X is wrong (or even a poor judgement in a case) but you will uphold the law of the land and base things on the evidence that is presented to you. The supreme court can not just go ahead and decide that something should change with out a case being presented and argued on how (un)constitutional the previous rulings were.

[Karachi Vyce]

So someone clued me in to this:

Re: JMS supports Ron Paul?

The entry is accurate. I donated $2K to his campaign, in order to
encourage a more moderate voice on the Iraq war.

Typical out of touch Hollywood liberal horseshit.

Two things. One: Ron Paul is absolutely batshit insane, especially with regards to his foreign policy, but he's crazy on a lot of other issues as well. Two - again, typical liberal nonsense, as Ron Paul has NOTHING of a "moderate" voice on Iraq. "Pull the troops out immediately" is one of the two extremes of Iraq policy (the other being "leave the troops there forever, permanent military bases").

Someone inform JMS that the war in Iraq is going rather well these days.....that little surge that everyone was shitting on? Actually worked. Almost miraculously so. I actually CAN believe he doesn't know this, because as soon as the Iraq War DID start going exceedingly well, the media stopped reporting on it. I'm sure that's all a coincidence, though.

[Jan]

Did they happen to 'clue you in' to the rest of the post, Vyce? If you had read the entire thing, you'd've known that it's a moot point now anyway.

Jan

[Lunan]

to be fair jan. while we all know kyrce to be a blunt instrament he/she has a point here in that liberals in general see a "moderate" voice as being someone who shares their views on 1 or 2 subjects that are important to them.
its a fairly large problem for the real moderate voices in political situations. john edwards for example loses a lot of ground because he doesn't agree with every lib he meets while clinton and obama are true politicos who espouse whatever view they think will get them elected (not they don't actually hold some of those views legitimately). now conservatives actully seem to hold a more "moderate" attitude on alot of things just not on the big hot issues (iraq)

in case anyone is wondering i consider myself a libertarian in the heinlein model of live and let live stay the f*** out of my business and i'll stay out of yours, and if i see something that needs doing, i'll do it and take the consequences (yes this is an extremely dumbed down version of my political views but i don't feel like typing 2 or 3 hundred thousand words, that and i'm not the best at explaining my thoughts)

as to the upcoming political cycle i happen to fall on the "anything is better then the current republican regime" side or in other words the democrats as there is NO middle of the road party for me to vote for (i happen to share a good portion of true republican political values, but i also share alot of the democratic views too)

ok this post has rambled on too long as it is

[Jan]

to be fair jan. while we all know kyrce to be a blunt instrament he/she has a point here in that liberals in general see a "moderate" voice as being someone who shares their views on 1 or 2 subjects that are important to them.

]

Sorry, I simply don't agree that any label pasted on any viewpoint can be said to have anything 'in general' said about them except that that's what the labeler wishes to see.

"We see what we look for and we look for what we think we will see." --JMS

Jan

[AaronB]

to be fair jan. while we all know kyrce to be a blunt instrament he/she has a point here in that liberals in general see a "moderate" voice as being someone who shares their views on 1 or 2 subjects that are important to them.

Not to mention that when Democrats go off the reservation they are no longer considered Democrats, nor are they classified as "moderate". See Leiberman, Joe as an example of this.

[Doom Shepherd]

Hi, I'm new.

Anyway, I'm a "one issue" voter, in that I'll gladly switch sides and support whoever most closely supports my position on that issue, even if I loathe them otherwise.

All I care about is getting our people into space and doing good things with it.

That said... Candidate's Positions on Space.

My preliminary analysis:

Ron Paul, Tom Tancredo, and Barack Obama MUST NOT WIN. Paul and Tancredo are against Space Exp. entirely, and Obama wants to pay for his social programs by GUTTING the Constellation programs, leaving the International Space Station entirely dependent on the Soyuz, and thusly on the pocketbook and whims of the Russian government.

Also, Richardson must have a different definition of "failing" than most people, since the last dozen or so anti-ballistic missile tests have been pretty successful, from what I've heard.

Frustratingly, Clinton *gags* (Excuse me) Has the strongest stated space position I can see, - though it lacks any "new" vision, with Huckabee being the closest Republican. Guliani and Romney are a distant third.

(At least Huckabee and Guliani demonstrate they know the value of the many many technological spinoffs that our work in space has generated.)

IMO, a candidate's view on this issue is highly indicative of how they think in general: are they forward-thinking, "big picture" people, or are they focused only as far as an inch beyond their noses?

Still, these results are not what one could hope for. NONE of these people have caught on yet that if we could harness solar power from space, (and we could, if we were only willing to put forth the kind of effort we did during the Apollo Era) we could kill global warming, pollution, and put big dents in our other problems, with one big push. This disturbs me.

Oh well, guess I'll have to run for Benevolent Tyrant -- Heinlein did say that was the best form of government...

[Karachi Vyce]

Did they happen to 'clue you in' to the rest of the post, Vyce? If you had read the entire thing, you'd've known that it's a moot point now anyway.

Jan

I read the entire post, but didn't quote it, because the rest is irrelevant. It's immaterial that he decided to abandon his support for Paul because of Paul's stance on social issues - he initially supported Paul because he, in JMS' words, brought a "moderate" view on Iraq.

Which is horseshit.

"Pull the troops out NOW" is not moderate. Paul actually goes way further than that, that lunatic actually wants to instigate an isolationist foreign policy that is absolutely terrifying in its insanity. But I digress - people who think Paul is a moderate on anything, ESPECIALLY Iraq, are deluding themselves.

But further on the subject of moderates:

to be fair jan. while we all know kyrce to be a blunt instrament he/she has a point here in that liberals in general see a "moderate" voice as being someone who shares their views on 1 or 2 subjects that are important to them.
its a fairly large problem for the real moderate voices in political situations. john edwards for example loses a lot of ground because he doesn't agree with every lib he meets while clinton and obama are true politicos who espouse whatever view they think will get them elected (not they don't actually hold some of those views legitimately). now conservatives actully seem to hold a more "moderate" attitude on alot of things just not on the big hot issues (iraq)

Edwards isn't a moderate either. No one who panders so shamelessly to the nutroots as he does deserves the "moderate" label. Obama panders to them too, just not quite as shamelessly. I'm not sure where Obama got this label where he's supposed to represent "change", but that's some laughable nonsense if I ever saw it.

[Night Marshal]

to be fair jan. while we all know kyrce to be a blunt instrament he/she has a point here in that liberals in general see a "moderate" voice as being someone who shares their views on 1 or 2 subjects that are important to them.
its a fairly large problem for the real moderate voices in political situations. john edwards for example loses a lot of ground because he doesn't agree with every lib he meets while clinton and obama are true politicos who espouse whatever view they think will get them elected (not they don't actually hold some of those views legitimately). now conservatives actully seem to hold a more "moderate" attitude on alot of things just not on the big hot issues (iraq)

Obama has views on things I thought he was just a good speaker. I mean if you listen to him he is a great Speaker and he for Change. But what change? He said the other days he talks not money from corporate lobbyist but he is happy to take money for Hollywood and Lawyers and Unions which are just as bad. He has no record on things because he's been running on the president so long he has missed more votes of the senate than any other Senator in last 3 years. I makes statements about this is how I would have voted if I had been there but thats not that same. I think Obama is a great speaker but we have to be honest if he is elected President how much more than that are you getting.

As for space thats some good info Doom Shepherd I had no idea Obama has so little vision when it come to space I would hate to set out space program back to 50's if he does what you say and I really don't want that

here's a nice summery of where most the Republicans and Democrats stand on space

http://www.space.com/news/071231-candidate-positions.html

[Jan]

Hi, Doom Shepherd, welcome.

Pulling this somewhat off topic, I have to disagree with the view that the government should finance space exploration, or at least not exclusively. Virtually all space related endeavors have turned out incredibly profitable and it really should be turned over to private industry.

There are some programs that are luxury items that the government really doesn't need to be financing unless there's a surplus, imo. Some forms of research, lots of funding for humanities and arts...that sort of thing.

Jan

[JoeD80]

Ron Paul has NOTHING of a "moderate" voice on Iraq. "Pull the troops out immediately" is one of the two extremes of Iraq policy (the other being "leave the troops there forever, permanent military bases").

"Pull the troops out NOW" is not moderate.

What is the definition of moderate in this case? Pulling the troops out or establishing permanent bases are the 2 eventual possible outcomes. I don't see how either qualify as "extreme". The US still has permanent military bases in South Korea and Japan; they pulled out of Vietnam. How is it extreme to pull out in 2008 vs 2020 or deciding on permanent bases in 2008 vs 2020?

[SmileOfTheShadow]

I read the entire post, but didn't quote it, because the rest is irrelevant. It's immaterial that he decided to abandon his support for Paul because of Paul's stance on social issues - he initially supported Paul because he, in JMS' words, brought a "moderate" view on Iraq.

"Pull the troops out NOW" is not moderate.

His original quote was actually the only relevant part to what he was talking about Jan. Gotta back him up on that.

I like Ron Paul. I don't like his stance on Iraq because that's short-sighted, like you said Karachi, but he's for a lot of good changes that are all about how corrupt the current government is. I'll stand behind that as a protest if anything else. And in this primary, I'm hard pressed to find ANYONE that I completely agree with. Ron Paul seems to be the only person in the campaign that supports small government in a party that's supposed to be about small government. It's a very sad state of affairs, really.

[AaronB]

His original quote was actually the only relevant part to what he was talking about Jan. Gotta back him up on that.

I like Ron Paul. I don't like his stance on Iraq because that's short-sighted, like you said Karachi, but he's for a lot of good changes that are all about how corrupt the current government is. I'll stand behind that as a protest if anything else. And in this primary, I'm hard pressed to find ANYONE that I completely agree with. Ron Paul seems to be the only person in the campaign that supports small government in a party that's supposed to be about small government. It's a very sad state of affairs, really.

I would disagree with you and add Thompson in as well, although he isn't as extreme as Paul on how limited government should be.

It also looks like Paul may have a bit more colorful past than we thought

[SmileOfTheShadow]

I would disagree with you and add Thompson in as well, although he isn't as extreme as Paul on how limited government should be.

It also looks like Paul may have a bit more colorful past than we thought

Thompson? Who's that? Is he running?

And I just love pull quotes that have no context.

[luvB5]

Iraq. Gonna be another (to quote Charlie Wilson) "We f***ed up the end game" -- just like Afghanistan.