If you’ve got something to say about Super Tuesday in the United States, this would be the place to do it.
-
English Books on Korea... and More!
-
Visit My Brother's Film Review Site
Super Tuesday Talk
This entry was written by Robert Koehler, posted on February 6, 2008 at 8:55 pm, filed under Completely Random Crap. Bookmark the permalink. Follow any comments here with the RSS feed for this post.
Post a comment or leave a trackback: Trackback URL.
51 Comments
Clinton took the big states (New York, California), but Obama is still in the race.
Obama ‘08
Bloomberg ‘08
Obama seems to do better where the voters get a chance to know him. The more relaxed primary schedule from here on should be to his advantage. Many remaining states are also in the midwest and mid-Atlantic, where Obama has done well. Also interesting to note his large victory margins over Clinton (60 to 70% of the vote) in the midwest and mountain regions - must be some strong dislike of the Clintons in that part of the country.
The funny thing is, even about a year ago, I was looking forward to getting rid of Lil Bush. Now, I’m scared of what Obama/Clinton will do to this country.
How do they plan on paying for all this crap they’re proposing when we’re still at war? Did the U.S. win a lottery or something?
With the democrats, I am pulling for Obama, but the more I hear him, the more I’d like to hear specifics–something other than ‘change’. He’s got a big uphill battle. Clinton has the ’superdelegates locked up because of the machine politics. She also has the white woman vote, which among democrats is huge. I was just surprised how much she won in California–latino vote or not. Apparently, and oddly enough, Obama has to appeal more to the low income voter more too.
McCain is sitting pretty because Huckabee and Romney are just going to be splitting each other’s votes and neither is going to be able to pull away in time to threaten McCain.
If I were Clinton, I would try to drop Obama’s FULL name at every opportunity:
“Voting for Barack HUSSEIN Obama would mean…”
“Mr. Barack HUSSEIN Obama, how would you propose…”
“Barack HUSSEIN Obama says he stands for change, and yet…”
It’s cheap, but people I think there’s some people that would think twice about voting for a guy named Hussein.
I think both would end the war effort in Iraq and divert that fund to their respective programs… or at least I’m assuming so.
Problem is, the next president is going to have to deal with 8 years of Bush’s oil money policy (that is, policy of pouring oil over piles of money and burning them), so in all probability, none of the candidates would be able to fulfill their promise about [any new programs].
Huckabee wins the South, McCain wins the big states, and Romney gets the rest. Looks like McCain is getting the nomination… most likely… almost positive…
Meanwhile, pretty funny stuff happening at Daily Show, Colbert Report, and Conan O’Brien show.
http://www.usatoday.com/life/t.....bert_N.htm
youtube has all three segments.
I just love Huckabee having the last word…
“So vote for me. God bless America and forget these three idiots.”
NY Tom> I agree with the ‘paying for all this.’ Unfortunately for the past 25 years the Republican party has lost the trust with the people in regards to balancing the budget. In the polls this year too, fiscal responsibility has been more of a factor among Democrats choosing for their candidate than Republicans. I do think McCain and Romney would be responsible towards the budget but that vote won’t just be given as it was before. Cheney: deficits don’t matter.
Seth> I used to think such a strategy of mentioning the ‘Hussein’ whenever possible was stupid until I talked to a relative today. Ridiculous stuff like that actually affects people. And the Clintons are masters at using that stuff.
Once the Democrats took over Congress, they did NOTHING. All this talk about withdrawing from Iraq was all BS. What makes you think a Democrat president will get our troops out of there and divert the funds to some other meaningful program? I’m not holding my breath.
Commanders-in-chief have a bit more power to say what troops go where than do the squabbling little bitches in Congress. Personally, I’m more concerned over Hillary’s health care plan, though… Force Americans to buy health insurance? I thought welfare for rich people was a Republican thing.
BTW, a true story. I was in court a couple of months ago and a juror roll call was done where the law clerk shouted, “Mr. Saddam Hussein, is Mr. Saddam Hussein here?” Of course all heads turn to this Middle Eastern dude that should have shaven his goddam mustache if he has the name “Saddam Hussein”. A very awkward moment indeed. I’m so glad my pops didnt name me Kim Il Sung or Kim Jong Il.
@ NewYork Tom
LOL! Reminds me of my OChem lab where the TA’s name was Osama, and my lab partner’s name was Hamas.
^^; Well, I think that if Obama or Hilary gets elected and doesn’t pull troops from Iraq, their approval rating will be skydiving (since half their campaign is about that issue). Only Ron Paul’s talking about actual immediate pullout from Iraq (and no, I’m not one of those college-age Ron Paul Revolutionaries… I’m actually with McCain on Iraq anyway)
I imagine there’s got to be a kyopo with the name Kim Jong Il, somewhere. Possible English name: “Harry.”
#10
Your lab was bugged for sure! LOL. Oy vey, I remember taking org. Good luck with that bud.
Some more interesting names I came across over the years:
Ryu, Suk Bum and Mo, Keun Ho (of course always read as Keun Homo by me), and Eum, Dong Suk. Cant make this shit up.
#11
Hmmmm… 3-2 odds that a child of one of the members of DLP is named Kim Il Sung or Kim Jong Il.
“It’s cheap, but people I think there’s some people that would think twice about voting for a guy named Hussein.”
Ann Coulter has long been referring to him as ‘B. Hussein Obama’:
http://www.wnd.com/news/articl.....E_ID=54262
I want Obama to win but feel it’s inevitable that Hillary will get it….ALL of it.
I love Anne Coulter bc she is a certifiably crazy bitch. Is it just me or does she look like a coked up tranny on 42nd Street?
I’m just curious as to who will be Hillary and McCain’s running mates now. Obviously, McCain will have to get himself a neo-con and/or an Evangelical Christian. As for Hillary….any ideas?
I would not be surprised if McCain goes with Fred Thompson as his running mate. Their good buddies, he would bolster McCain’s conservative credentials, and Thompson seems like the type of personality that would like to be a VP.
I think John Edwards has been triangulating to be the VP choice for either Clinton of Obama. He hasn’t burned any bridges with either of them and would be a safe pick.
“I think John Edwards has been triangulating to be the VP choice for either Clinton of Obama. He hasn’t burned any bridges with either of them and would be a safe pick.”
Edwards is now a three-time loser (lost two primaries and one general election). Fourth time’s the charm? Probably not.
McCain will pick Huckabee.
http://www.nj.com/njvoices/ind.....nt_to.html
http://www.lifenews.com/nat3704.html
Huckabee would give McCain more boost in conservatives than Fred Thompson… but I don’t think that’ll help him win over the neocons (i.e. the bat$hit insane crews over at Fox Media)…
Meh, he should go with Huckabee. Or even Giuliani (though that’s not going to help him win over any conservative votes).
I normally would never pay attention to guys like Huckabee bc I loathe people who Bible bang. But for some reason, he’s a very likable person and I am drawn to him. He’s definitely got charisma. I guess it’s a Hope, Arkansas thing…
It almost makes me forget that he thinks Earth is only 9000 years old.
Huckabee wants to turn the world’s most powerful (and one of the most culturally diverse) nation into a Christian theocracy ala Iran. He’s been quite blatant about it.
He shouldn’t be allowed in the White House, even as a tourist.
How is forcing everyone to buy health insurance welfare for rich people? The rich already have health insurance. Clinton’s mandatory program is actually more financially sound than Obama’s as it would cover twice as many people at a slightly higher cost. There are an estimated 11 million people living in the US illegally. Will they be forced to buy health insurance, too?
I would call taking money from the middle class in order to give it to insurance companies (rich people) the very definition of ‘welfare for rich people’.
Do I hear noises backstage … could it be the next President of the United States … Al Gore?
As opposed to the middle class paying for the health care of the uninsured who use the emergency rooms or can’t pay their bills.
#24 - Not saying the system we have is perfect, but this “rob from the middle class to give to the rich” proposal of Hillary’s is just pure ridiculousness, not to mention most likely unconstitutional.
Again, how is mandatory health insurance robbing from the middle class? Car owners are forced to buy car insurance in most states, and more than 60% already carry health insurance. Consumers are free to choose their own health insurance company under Clinton’s plan, so price gouging is unlikely.
Well, first off, it’s unconstitutional to require people to carry health insurance, so let’s just get that out of the way first… Hillary’s plan will never make it through the first court challenges, as deeply-flawed as it is.
Secondly, mandatory health insurance would be robbing from the middle class, since they’re being coerced/forced into buying something that they may not want, with no option to opt out. I would call that robbery, myself.
Which article does mandatory health care insurance violate?
It is not only the middle class who would be required to buy health insurance. Everyone would be required, so why is the middle class being robbed? If forcing people to buy insurance is robbery, then most states are robbing people by forcing them to buy auto insurance. We are already coerced into paying for education, police and fire protection, road maintenance, and a huge military, among other government expenditures. Taxes are exactly that - the government takes our money and spends it on whatever it wants. The only difference with mandatory health insurance is that consumers can at least pick their own insurer.
How about the article prohibiting government taking of ‘life liberty or property without due process of law’?
The government has always had the power to tax, and then to spend those taxes. It would be a completely legitimate exercise of government power were Hillary to fund health care through a government entitlement, just like it’s completely legitimate for the government to tax people and spend it on schools, police, fire, and a grossly excessive military. If the government wants to force people to give up their money to pay for something, it has the power to do so through taxes.
The comparison to car insurance is completely inapposite. The government is able to place conditions upon granted privileges - i.e. the ability to drive - in order to drive, you have to pass a driving test and carry enough liability insurance. If you don’t want to carry insurance, you can walk, ride the bus, or hire a chauffeur. Where is the government privilege being granted here, which is conditioned upon carrying health insurance? There is none. It’s a clumsy and inappropriate analogy to compare the requirement to carry car liability insurance with a requirement to carry health insurance.
Okay, so maybe this isn’t Hillary robbing the middle class… maybe it’s her robbing everyone.
No doubt there will be constitutional challenges, which would stall, if not stop Clinton’s program. An unfunded mandate could be unconstitutional but it’s not robbery. Robbery is taking something by force. It is not compelling someone to buy something. Coercion, yes. Unconstitutional, maybe. Robbery, no. Tax-funded universal health care would be a constitutional alternative, but somehow I have the feeling you would like that even less. For the record, I am against forcing people to buy health insurance. However, the status quo is completely unacceptable.
Hey, I’m all for subsidized, universal health insurance, and the government could do a lot (like tax credits, directly funding insurance for the uninsured, government insurance plans, etc…) without impinging upon basic civil liberties. What bothers me about the Clinton Plan is that it’s completely unsupported by the Constitution, as far as I can see, and flies in the face of at least a couple fundamental civil rights.
Zonath, thank you for pointing out the Takings Clause of the Fifth Amendment. Sometimes I have to do things like take my kids to McDonald’s.
In Texas, people can buy liability insurance for one month at $39 to renew their paperwork and plates, and then they can drive without insurance for the next 11 months. Why isn’t the government doing something about this? Well…that giant lobby of insurers are against it, and money talks more than voters.
The system gets even better, as Mexico requires people who take their cars over to have insurance while Texas does not. I’ve seen Mexicans cross the border in their jalopies, cause a hit-and-run accident in Texas (I used to work at an international bridge), and high-tail it back to the bridge to escape while their victims are left to fend for themselves and deal with the aftermath.
In Texas, one in five are uninsured, but that rises to one in three along the border without counting all the uninsured Mexicann vehicles on the roads. However, it seems that the Corpus Christi Police Department will start impounding the cars of uninsured drivers. They’ve had enough of this nonsense it seems. I just wonder if these impounds will be of a bilateral nature or will they only be imposed on Texans?
Well, not quite. The government’s power to tax commerce, land, etc. and impose various other excise taxes and imposts on things and transactions has pretty much been a given per Article 1§8, cl. 1§ 2, cl. 3 and Article 1,§ 2, cl. 3. But the government hasn’t always had the power to tax personal incomes on a straightforward per capita basis, especially on the basis of a graduated “progressive” tax rate. Lincoln managed to push through such a(n)(ungraduated)income tax, on a temporary basis, to fund the War Bewtween the States, but it was hotly contested on constitutional grounds and even it’s federal legislative proponents only acceded to it as an expedient. It expired before a constitutional challenge was mounted in the Supreme Court.
The next attempt to impose a personal income tax did not fare so well. In 1894, the Wilson-Gorman Tariff Act imposed a federal tax of 2% on
mes over $4,000, including income derived from the ownership of property. The Supreme Court demurred. In the case of Pollock v. Farmers’ Loan & Trust Co. the Court declared taxes on income from property under the 1894 Act to be unconstitutionally unapportioned direct taxes. The Court reasoned that a tax on income from property should be treated as a tax on “property by reason of its ownership,” and should therefore be required to be apportioned. The reasoning was that taxes on the rents from land, the dividends from stocks and so on burdened the property generating the income in the same way that a tax on “property by reason of its ownership” burdened that property.
Excepting such income from taxation while collecting income tax from wage earners - which while also constituitonally suspect wasn’t an issue mooted by the Pollock case - wasn’t politically feasible; so the income tax as a whole fell.
It took the 16th Amendment, ratified only in 1913, to constitutionally legitimize the imposition of a federal tax in incomes regardless of source and thereby complete the economic underpinning for the second American revolution effected by the Civil War and the subsequent geometric expansion in the breadth and power of the federal state in the American polity
Re: #16
Thanks for the link, user-81. Time for Hillary to start dropping the H-bomb too
“This current presidential race shows that voters aren’t interested in the candidate’s color, race, gender so much as in what they can expect the candidate to deliver to them in the way of benefits that government extracts from Peter and hands over to Paul.
Never mind that this war of all against all can have but a small percentage of winners.”
This excerpt is from a larger article which was run in my local newspaper editorial page and can be read at the following link:
http://tibikem.spaces.live.com/blog/cns!B2FD693F4B9A5746!147.entry
It seems that there are a few here at the hole looking for their share of handouts already.
yeap would really like to hear some substance and facts behind hussien’s
inspiration bullshit
do you think the democratic party who is also completely run with lobbyists will let some junior senator come in a overhaul the system and take out of their deep pockets
i am sure kerry and kennedy will like it!!
washington is the way washington is period
obama wont change anything
he wont pull the troops out of iraq
(not that i want him to anyway)
he wont sit down with the enemies of the coutnry
(not that i want him to anyway)
all talk no action
jimmy carter jr.
i cant wait for him to actually have to debate issues during the national election when talk is cheap and direction and courses of action for specific issues and programs will be at the forefront
The current state of health care cannot go unchanged, and yet Clinton’s plan has way too many issues to make it attractive.
Among them is NOT the fact that it would be unconstitutional. The argument that that auto insurance is inapposite is weak at best. You’re right- the driver does have the right to walk if he doesn’t want to buy insurance. And yet the gov. requires him to buy clothes- thankfully, we’re allowed to choose our clothes- if he wants the priv. of walking around in America. Is that unconstitutional? Personal liberties are only protected to the extent to which they do not impede on the rights of others. Why am I required to pay- through taxes- for the health care of those unable to pay? Why am I not free to spend that money as I wish? Because the same gov. you bitch about ensures that everyone gets treated. I know the treatment many get is substandard, and that’s why I think we’re due a change, but the idea of ensuring that everyone contributes is anything but unconstitutional, and a plan that offers more choices is much more attractive than a tax hike.
mandatory auto insurance is a tag-along to the privilege of driving, which is a dispensation granted and licensed by the state, not an primoridal, inalienable right. Unless Billary can figure out a way to hitch mandatory self-financed health insurance to some other state provided and controlled benefit, no one is going to salute when she tries to run the idea up the constitutional flagpole, even if the it gets off the Hudson line in Mamaroneck.
Actually, the theory (very imprecisely stated)is that personal liberites may only be constrained to the extent to which they infring on the rights of others. It’s a very significant difference - individual rights come first. Hence the constituionality of Billery’s proposal is very much an issue. The most apposite precedent, though, would probably be found in the area of mandatory vaccinations and inoculations - which nevertheless are easily distibguishable.
That would be state government, using its general police power to ‘protect public morality’ by ensuring we don’t have to see his ugly naked body in public… Far as I know, nudity isn’t (and couldn’t be) a federal crime, unless you’re going to be on broadcast TV during certain hours. Anyhow, you still aren’t forced to buy anything there… You can get clothes lots of places for free.
Because the government does have the power to tax you, and then spend that money on programs it feels is worthwhile. Again, as far as I know, there is no federal power to force people to buy stuff they don’t necessarily want, and quite a few constitutional prohibitions against this sort of thing.
Depends on the manner. Would it be constitutional for the federal government to insist that everyone contribute to national security by buying and carrying a gun? And yet we all pay for an army and police through taxes.
Lots of unconstitutional things are attractive…. doesn’t mean they’re still outside of the power of the government to do. Somehow, I don’t see why we need to go around eroding peoples’ civil liberties to get stuff done. Isn’t that what everyone’s complaining about concerning the current administration?
“Somehow, I don’t see why we need to go around eroding peoples’ civil liberties to get stuff done. Isn’t that what everyone’s complaining about concerning the current administration?”
Waterboarding on a mass scale could eliminate a lot of unhealthy people who would die expensively later on.
Gov. Romney suspends his campaign (aka, quitting). http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/23050678?GT1=10856
Yay.
So The Mormon is gone, leaving The Bible-Thumper, The African-American Gentleman, The Geezer, and Mr. McCain… I can hardly wait for next week’s exciting episode.
Lol, is Hilary Clinton the Geezer?
If Clinton gets the nomination, I think there’s enough anti-Clinton democrats to ensure that she won’t win. If the dems want to win, then Obama is the clear choice.
Go Ron Paul!
OT- If the 2nd amendment guarantees everyone’s right to firearms, and the intention of that right is so that the people can overthrow their government, forcefully, if necessary, then under the recent administrations would that coup be considered a crime when it’s really a necessity?
“The Geezer, and Mr. McCain”? Isn’t that redundant? At 71 years old, McCain is a decade older than Clinton and looks it.
Sesame– I presume you are of Korean extraction? If so, that might explain your tendency to view a governmental coup as a necessity (as they are more characteristic of ROK history).