Sulaco

Again - you ignore Bush's hand in promoting the same approach to lending. You can point to McCain as a lone voice bucking the trend but that doesn't change the fact that the trend, initiated by Clinton, was ideologically and philosophically supported by the Bush administration.

This is my favorite part about Russians. a. They will threaten your nation with invasion. b. They will point out its not in your national interest to be invaded. c. When you act to find allies to forestall Russian invasion, the Russians will tell you again that such actions will result in invasion. Therefore they are not in your national interest. d. What is in your national interest - why, it's submission to mother Russia. A surprising outcome eh? Now, I understand that the backward Russians cannot see a way of ordering the world beyond the way they order their own lives - brutish vodka-swilling-infused paranoid violence. And so their view of their own national interest is rigid and somewhat barbaric. But at least be honest and tell us that it is in Russia's self interest to subjugate Georgia, not that the Goargian's self interest will best be served by kowtowing to benevolent mother Russia.

And he was talking to whom? A Democratic Senate - but with a Republican House right there, and a Republican president. Look, isofar as any party can be said to be complicit with "exuberent" investors - both parties are obviously complicit.

Neither does Russia really. The Crimea belongs to the Tatars - who still survive out in the hinterland of Russia, after terrible and violent Russification. My solution for the crimea - give it back to the Tatars, after appropriate reparations are paid by Russia.

As I pointed out elsewhere, an arbitration court is only useful if there is an enforcement mechanism to back it - and a system for appeals. The only way to have either, unless you plan to have a separate muslim constabulary and a separate msulim government, is to involve the secular government at some point in the process. As a result you cannot avoid governmental entanglement with arbitration courts. Mediation is a different matter - a very different matter - and might the best place for religious solutions.

It wouldn't matter whether they are directly founded by the government. Even if such courts are purely arbitration courts in civil cases, sooner or later you need the ability to enforce their rulings to make those courts worthwhile. Any such enforcement would have to be ultimately funded by the government. Thus no matter what, sooner or later iun the process, your government will be enforcing sharia law. WHich is why religious arbitration would run into some grave constittuional issues in the US. But I don't think CA and GB have anywhere near the prohibition on state/religion entanglements. I assume then that there is nothing wrong per se with permitting arbitration based on the contracting parties choice of law even if such law is religious. Once you take away legal impediments one's only worries are then pragmatic, ideological and philosophical.

Let's not forget, however, that Bush stronlgy supported this kind of "financial outreach". Prior to 9/11, Bush's vision was at times referred to as seeking an "ownership society". The idea was that as more minorities and others in the lower strata become owners, neighbouthoods will be lfted out of misery. This theory involves some sociological alchemy but is not the stupidest idea in the wortld given some worthwhile studies. Until Bush was elected linerrals were enthusiastic. Once Busah won in '00 liberals started undermining the idea as naive - but by then they already hated Bush. Point is that to put this on the dems is ridiculous. the responsibility is shared. Heck I thought the idea was cool beans and I identify as a conservative. I was - erm - wrong in expecting the application to be worthwhile.

Yes yes... 49 mil is a number pulled out of a hat. It exists to make canucks feel better about themselves. Amazingly the same number has been used for years.

Citation?

Obama, the Jesus-machine: http://elections.foxnews.com/2008/09/10/te...alin-is-pilate/ Or maybe Obama, merely a messiah: http://www.telegraph.co.uk/arts/main.jhtml.../bmobama106.xml

Too bad it wasn't Obama asking the man to stand. Then he may have been healed.

Given that the judge also probably attended law school prior to entering his vocation chances are when he referred to constitutional law he also called it con law. But your concern with my professional advancement is welcome. If you tell me what you do I too can begin advising you on how you should carry on with your business. Why would I go to the dean? I just took the mandatory minimum of constitutional law classes I could.

Again with the concern about misspent sperm. Masturbation, circle jerks - you seem to have a real problem with jizz that doesn't end up where you want it. Where do you want it by the way?

Let's go through this in more detail. Culturally conservative democrats are democrats because they share democratic views on many issues, including many social issues. But they also are just that, culturally conservative. When the Republicans didn't have a culturally conservative ticket (prior to Palin) these dems would gain nothing by voting Repub. While they could gain something by voting Obama with whome they share societal values. Now that Palin has come on board the McCain ticket is more attractive (in the cultural conservative sense). These dems are now more likely to shift their votes. This is all very clear to anyone not engaged in partisan wishful thinking. It's the same reason Clinton drew Republican votes in 96. To simplify, welfare reform, among other things, made him a viable candidate for republicans who were conservative on societal issues but note all that wedded to cultural conservativism. He provided a viable alternative to a Repub ticket ran by Dole who was seen as a Rockefeller-like republican and thus not that much different from Clinton.

I am having a very surreal moment here. I just clarified that "con law" means constitutional law. Are you posting from some alternative reality?

Pardon me - constitutional law - I would have thought the context would make that clear. Given that I was responding to Blubbersomething regarding constitutional law professors. The spelling errors were intentional.

Why are you so concerned with how Republican men spend their seed?

I don't teach - I do. Also, LERAN TO RAED!!! I called con law professors leftover hippies. Never made reference to other fields of law.

Addendum: A great example is Catholic Democrats who, while not helping Bush much in the EC probably assisted in pushing him over 50% in '04. I would also add of all Repub pres candidates the Huck probably spoke most closely the outlook of culturally conservative dems. Which is why he could enver win. The republicans too have a varied electorate and the Huck could never win over western style conservativism or the conservative intellectual elite in the northeast. Yes American Woman - neither party is monolithic, in fact they are quite varied internally.

Except that social conservative, whatever the party affiliation, never felt McCain was a good conservative social values warrior. Most viewed him as somewhat derisive of social conservatives as a cultural/political group. The intorduction of Palin is what energized socially conservative republicans - that's why the enthusiasm now in places like Colorado Springs. Why is it so hard to beleive that until Palin was added to the ticket democratic social conservatives were also uninspired by McCain. Now they feel far more reason to switch votes. By the way, your belief that the Dems are bereft of social conservatives is exactly the attitude that causes those dems to so often switch to Repubs for presidential elections (they vote dem at the local leves more often than not but consistently vote Repub at the presidential levels.) You might be surprised but some percentage of Americans are culturally conservative but when it comes to government involvement in societal issues and programs they prefer the Dems. But hey - keep driving them our way!

Having finished lawschool and having taken several terribly boring con law classes with fumbling leftover hippie professors I can tell you that no comment in this thread has cracked me up more.

Rush is obviously repeating me. Check above.

http://edge.org/3rd_culture/haidt08/haidt08_index.html Though I always question attempts to pigeon hole political groups psychologically. Smacks of communist approaches to "political health". Still, an entertaining read.

There is no twist on the question. You really believe that Hillary was being asked how in her heart of hearts, as a woman and a mother, she feels about such an attack? No. She was asked about her judgment as to whether such an attack would be justified in the context of international relations, in which she would be engaged, as a president. Oy vey.

Umm no. You misunderstand. The word "justified" has a meaning in international relations. Hillary was not asked how she would personally "feel" about such an attack. It wasn't an Oprah interview. She was asked whether Israel would be justified in the context of international relations - and that would colour the US position on any such attack. Again, it was the same question.