|
24 Jul 08 - 11:04 PM (#2397278) Subject: BS: Tasteless and offensive? From: GUEST,Jack the Sailor Vanity Fair trues to cash in on the kerfuffle! McCain Cover |
|
24 Jul 08 - 11:25 PM (#2397294) Subject: RE: BS: Tasteless and offensive? From: John on the Sunset Coast Well! I for one will never read Vanity Fair! Come to think of it, I don't think I ever have...well maybe in a doctor's office. It's a good counterpoint to the New Yorker cover (though I don't think it an actual cover since there is generally a long lead time in preparing monthly magazines). Do we agree or disagree? I didn't see an opinion. |
|
24 Jul 08 - 11:28 PM (#2397297) Subject: RE: BS: Tasteless and offensive? From: Little Hawk Fairly comparable...though it doesn't link McCain with Muslim terrorists or anything foreign and UnAmerican like that, so I don't think it packs quite as nasty a wallop as the Obama one. |
|
24 Jul 08 - 11:37 PM (#2397303) Subject: RE: BS: Tasteless and offensive? From: CarolC He's burning the US Constitution in the fireplace. |
|
24 Jul 08 - 11:40 PM (#2397305) Subject: RE: BS: Tasteless and offensive? From: Ebbie Comparable? Not at all. The Vanity Fair cover begins on a factual basis, ie, McCain is old (I am older) and Ms. McCain did/does? have a problem with pill addiction. Not to mention that it appears that McCain is willing to go along with the selective destruction of the Constitution. The fist bump has no relevance to them, however. Did I miss anything? :) The Obamas were blindsided; just about the only factual thing on the New Yorker cover was that the Obamas are Black. |
|
24 Jul 08 - 11:41 PM (#2397307) Subject: RE: BS: Tasteless and offensive? From: GUEST,Jack the Sailor It says more about Bush than about McCain's Bush's picture is where Bin Laden's was. Magazine covers are often quite timely John. On weekly News magazines they often have news from that week. Vanity fair has had plenty of time. |
|
24 Jul 08 - 11:43 PM (#2397308) Subject: RE: BS: Tasteless and offensive? From: pdq The Kelo Decision, done by Ruth Baader-Meinhoff Ginsburg and the other Lefties on the Supreme Court, was the greatest assault on our Constitional rights in history. More to come if Obama were elected. Glad there is no chance of that happening. |
|
24 Jul 08 - 11:48 PM (#2397311) Subject: RE: BS: Tasteless and offensive? From: CarolC Expanding existing eminent domain practices is a greater assault on our Constitutional rights than eliminating habeas corpus? |
|
24 Jul 08 - 11:49 PM (#2397312) Subject: RE: BS: Tasteless and offensive? From: GUEST,Jack the Sailor pdq, I would thing that Roberts and Alito would support such decisions. Aren't they very pro-business? |
|
24 Jul 08 - 11:50 PM (#2397313) Subject: RE: BS: Tasteless and offensive? From: Little Hawk Yeah, I did see the Constition burning, Carol. It's not a foreign threat, but it's fairly comparable. Ebbie's point, however, is right on. ***** Now, why is Obama said to be "Black", anyway? Obama isn't exactly Black as far as I can see. He's only half-Black. Why does being half-Black translate in America as: Black, but not White? What's the line of reasoning on that, anyway? What percentage of another race makes you stop being "White"? Does it take only a few deadly drops of Black, Yellow or Red blood to irremediably destroy a person's "Whiteness" for all time? How come Blacks are not calling Obama "White" when he's half White already? Tweetie Bird - "I t'ought I taw a double standard! OOOOO! I did! I did taw a double standard!" |
|
24 Jul 08 - 11:54 PM (#2397315) Subject: RE: BS: Tasteless and offensive? From: John on the Sunset Coast "there is generally a long lead time in preparing MONTHLY magazines" Caps added for emphasis. There is, certainly used to be, a different set of mechanics and deadlines as between weekly and monthly periodicals. Is it the actual cover for the August issue as shown? Usually the issue comes out early in the month preceding. But I'll check the local newsstand manyana. --I forgot how to make a tilde and I'm too lazy to look for my notes. |
|
25 Jul 08 - 12:05 AM (#2397320) Subject: RE: BS: Tasteless and offensive? From: pdq Habeus corpus was not damaged at all. The President of the United States has always had the power to order anyone, citizen or not, to be held as long as necessary, it the man presnts a threat to this country. Can either of you name anyone who has been held without visitation rights or without access to an attorney? Robets, Scalia and Alito are men of extremely high morals as well as intellectual acumen. No, none would support the assault on property rights seen in the Kelo Decision. It essentially gave the gevernment the right to seize private property if it was in the best interset of the majority of citizens. A subjective decision like this cannot be left to third level faceless bureaucrats with a political agenda. The Kel Decision ecision paves the way for massive confiscation of property (and wealth) and allows the US government to re-distribute it. Socialisn is on it's way and this is its conerstone. |
|
25 Jul 08 - 12:06 AM (#2397321) Subject: RE: BS: Tasteless and offensive? From: Alice When I saw that Vanity Fair illo a couple days ago, I thought it said it was only on their web site, not that it would be an actual printed cover. Obama is a person of melanin, as Overton Loyd calls himself. ;-) |
|
25 Jul 08 - 12:39 AM (#2397336) Subject: RE: BS: Tasteless and offensive? From: CarolC Conversely, the Ginsburg decision didn't really change much either. Private properties had been confiscated through eminent domain so that private businesses could build on them for decades before that decision. The only difference was that previously, only properties belonging to poor and lower middle class people were being taken. So that wasn't really an assault on our Constitutional rights (that assault had happened decades before). It was just a leveling of the playing field. |
|
25 Jul 08 - 01:05 AM (#2397345) Subject: RE: BS: Tasteless and offensive? From: Little Hawk You don't necessarily need "socialism" to destroy freedom or democracy in a society, pdq. All you need is a corrupt government that serves a wealthy, powerful, and small elite and that has little respect for equality under the law. That can all be achieved quite effectively under either socialism or capitalism, and it already has been achieved under both socialism and capitalism...many times...in many different societies. It has nothing to do essentially with either socialism or capitalism, it has to do with powerful, untouchable elites. Your "socialist" bogeyman is a myth that you had planted in your head a long time ago, and your wealthy elites planted it there for their own purposes. They'd rather you look at a myth than at them. We already have a lot more socialism in Canada than you do, and we're freer than you. Hell, half the people in Europe are freer than you. You live in a dream world. |
|
25 Jul 08 - 06:54 AM (#2397472) Subject: RE: BS: Tasteless and offensive? From: Richard Bridge "The President of the United States has always had the power to order anyone, citizen or not, to be held as long as necessary, it the man presnts a threat to this country". Jesus Christ in that case I'm glad I live in a democracy. |
|
25 Jul 08 - 07:26 AM (#2397479) Subject: RE: BS: Tasteless and offensive? From: Dead Horse Aint yer never heard of "at the Queens pleasure" Richard? |
|
25 Jul 08 - 09:56 AM (#2397580) Subject: RE: BS: Tasteless and offensive? From: pdq "Private properties had been confiscated through eminent domain so that private businesses could build on them for decades before that decision" Bunk. Give one example. People are making things up to support your prejudices again. Also, about presidential power, look at the absolute power kings have had over the span of time. At least the president of the United States has limits on his power as deliniated in the US Constitution. |
|
25 Jul 08 - 10:14 AM (#2397590) Subject: RE: BS: Tasteless and offensive? From: CarolC I can give numerous examples. All of the "urban renewal" projects of the 1950s, '60s, '70s,'80s, etc, for instance. The World Trade Center was built on land that was confiscated from private owners by the government using eminent domain. In the Kelo case, the Supreme Court ruled that what applies to poor people also applies to people who are not poor. |
|
25 Jul 08 - 10:22 AM (#2397600) Subject: RE: BS: Tasteless and offensive? From: SINSULL The most shocking thing on that cover is the price. Who in their right mind would pay $4.50 for the privilege of reading a magazine that is 80% ads? |
|
25 Jul 08 - 11:05 AM (#2397635) Subject: RE: BS: Tasteless and offensive? From: Donuel It is totally out of bounds to go after the candidate's spouse by exposing her dependency on Rush Limbaugh's drugs of choice. Besides she has long ago switched prescriptions and providers. |
|
25 Jul 08 - 11:18 AM (#2397644) Subject: RE: BS: Tasteless and offensive? From: TIA "Habeus corpus was not damaged at all. The President of the United States has always had the power to order anyone, citizen or not, to be held as long as necessary, it the man presnts a threat to this country. Can either of you name anyone who has been held without visitation rights or without access to an attorney?" Without Habeus Corpus, how would we know? ** The prospect alone is antithetical to the founding principles of the USA. ** It is exactly this type of question that makes me chuckle at airline check-in -- "Has anyone placed anything in your bags without your knowledge?" |
|
25 Jul 08 - 11:55 AM (#2397671) Subject: RE: BS: Tasteless and offensive? From: Ebbie 'Eminent domain' has been successfully claimed for years. In the '70s, a friend of mine lost some of his land alongside a highway because the state wanted to create a bigger buffer at the intersection. He, as is usual, got paid for it but the land grab was against his wishes. What really irritated him is that the state never got around to creating the road change. |
|
25 Jul 08 - 12:01 PM (#2397674) Subject: RE: BS: Tasteless and offensive? From: pdq Ebbie, The difference is between "public use", the old standard, and "public good", the post-Kelo standard. The fact that the government never finished the project goes to "government incompetence" rather than "eminent domain" problems. Fact is, that highway improvement was "public use" and a correct use of "eminent domain". |
|
25 Jul 08 - 12:06 PM (#2397678) Subject: RE: BS: Tasteless and offensive? From: CarolC All of the urban renewal confiscations were for the "public good" and were given over to private business to use after they were confiscated. The only thing Kelo changed was to say that eliminating "urban blight" is no longer the only definition of "public good". |
|
25 Jul 08 - 12:35 PM (#2397694) Subject: RE: BS: Tasteless and offensive? From: pdq CarolC, Are you claiming that abusive "urban renewal" projects were ever put before the US Supreme Court to see if they were constitutional? Please site when. As to when abusive "urban renewal" started, you have to go clear back to Franklin D. Rooseveldt. What, FDR policies unconstitutional? "Say it ain't so, Joe". |
|
25 Jul 08 - 12:40 PM (#2397700) Subject: RE: BS: Tasteless and offensive? From: GUEST,Jack the Sailor pdq, The difference isn't that apparent. What difference does it matter what the government takes your land for? Its like being a little bit pregnant. What do you think about the farm bill? They take your money and give it to ADM and Monsanto to grow corn so that you get fewer, less healthy choices at the grocery store. |
|
25 Jul 08 - 12:45 PM (#2397703) Subject: RE: BS: Tasteless and offensive? From: GUEST,Jack the Sailor >>Robets, Scalia and Alito are men of extremely high morals as well as intellectual acumen. I guess we know where you stand on the "litmus test" issues. The way I see it, a vote for McCain is a vote for big government in our bedrooms. Your milage may differ. |
|
25 Jul 08 - 12:49 PM (#2397710) Subject: RE: BS: Tasteless and offensive? From: gnu SINS... "Who in their right mind would pay $4.50 for the privilege of reading a magazine that is 80% ads?" Fairly vain people? |
|
25 Jul 08 - 12:57 PM (#2397723) Subject: RE: BS: Tasteless and offensive? From: pdq JtS, Most people can see a difference between an eminent domain seisure to build a public school or freeway, and one for the sole purpose of selling the land to private developers. The latter can now be done by simply pointing to the fact that the new developement will produce more tax revenue. As to farm bills and business subsidies in general: we always have subsidized anything that will bring "cheap water", "cheap food" and "cheap energy". That is why we have an economy that thrives. It is also why we, 4.6% of the world's population, control over 40% of the world's wealth. Who do you think paid for the California water system and the dams (I'm going to guess there are 30 or more) that send most of their water for agricultural use? We the tax payers, of course. |
|
25 Jul 08 - 12:58 PM (#2397724) Subject: RE: BS: Tasteless and offensive? From: CarolC There were previous cases relating to urban renewal that went before the Supreme Court. Here is the landmark case that was heard in 1954... http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Berman_v._Parker Berman was reexamined in the 2005 Supreme Court decision Kelo v. City of New London, in which the court merely reaffirmed existing precedent about the definition of public use for local governments to take private property by eminent domain. |
|
25 Jul 08 - 01:16 PM (#2397736) Subject: RE: BS: Tasteless and offensive? From: DougR Ebbie: Mrs.McCain is no longer dependent upon prescription drugs. Your and Donuel's suggestion that she may still be hooked is ...well, tasteless. DougR |
|
25 Jul 08 - 01:29 PM (#2397750) Subject: RE: BS: Tasteless and offensive? From: GUEST,Jack the Sailor pdq You are making my point. It seems that you are very selective in your outrage. |
|
25 Jul 08 - 01:33 PM (#2397756) Subject: RE: BS: Tasteless and offensive? From: Wesley S "Mrs.McCain is no longer dependent upon prescription drugs" I would suggest that no one other than Mrs McCain knows if she is still dependent or not. But either way it's none of our business. |
|
25 Jul 08 - 01:40 PM (#2397760) Subject: RE: BS: Tasteless and offensive? From: pdq Where the f*** is this outrage supposed to be? We are all calmly discussing an interesting part of history concerning the constitutionality of eminent domain. It was prompted by the cartoon showing McCain burning the Constitution. A cheap shot at the very least. |
|
25 Jul 08 - 01:55 PM (#2397772) Subject: RE: BS: Tasteless and offensive? From: Little Hawk "It seems that you are very selective in your outrage." I've noticed that that is the case with 99% of people, Jack. ;-) It's exactly what renders most political arguments futile. No common ground or objectivity can be found, because people are very selective in their outrage. They reserve it only for those whom they are already opposed to for some reason of prior prejudice. This is why the people on both sides of any issue seem quite irrational in the eyes of their opponents. pdq - What you have to fear in this world is not socialism, it is authoritarianism, police states, corrupt judges, bought politicians, torture chambers, incarceration, kangaroo courts, false "evidence", trumped-up charges, character assassination, war, invasion, lies, trickery, etc... All of the above can and have been accomplished most thoroughly by means of BOTH socialist and capitalist systems. All that needs to be done is for corrupt and ammoral people to attain the highest positions of power, and then they can do all those things. All it requires is the will to do it on the part of the most powerful. Most (virtually all) countries have a constitution now, often one quite similar to the American Constitution, and most of those constitutions say all kinds of wonderful stuff about running a society in a fair and just manner and following the rules of law and civil rights set out in the Constitution. All it takes, however, is a corrupt bunch of politicians, judiciary, generals, and captains of industry to betray a Constitution...and if they do, the ordinary citizen can do nothing about it, because they have police and military people who WILL virtually always follow the orders they are given. Constitutional law is complex. The ordinary citizen usually doesn't know much about it. If some police or soldiers come and arrest him and if the judges and courts don't protect him, the Constitution won't save him. Authoritarianism is what you should fear, pdq. Not socialism. Your constitution is being betrayed many times every day somewhere in the USA, and not because of socialism...but because of authoritarianism. You now incarcerate more of your citizens per capita than any other nation in the world. More than China. China is communist. |
|
25 Jul 08 - 04:06 PM (#2397868) Subject: RE: BS: Tasteless and offensive? From: Stringsinger It's all a matter of perspective. What is tasteless and offensive to some reveal a kind of truth to others. I think what George W. Bush, Dick Cheney and Karl Rove have done to this country is far more tasteless and offensive than any silly cartoon. This goes for the rest of the erstwhile justice department as well. One of these days people will wake up and find out that democracy has been stolen from the US by Neocons. |
|
25 Jul 08 - 05:41 PM (#2397940) Subject: RE: BS: Tasteless and offensive? From: Ebbie "Ebbie: Mrs.McCain is no longer dependent upon prescription drugs. Your and Donuel's suggestion that she may still be hooked is ...well, tasteless. "DougR And you know that how, Doug? Addiction, by its very nature, is not easy to overcome. The fact that she was addicted enough to falsify prescriptions and to actually steal drugs from the medicine cabinets of a company she herself started would indicate that her addiction was severe. And I don't agree that it's "none of our business" - as long as we must accept that such information on either side would/will be used against the other side. Can you imagine what would come into play if Michele Obama were on record as having done the same thing? |
|
25 Jul 08 - 06:25 PM (#2397969) Subject: RE: BS: Tasteless and offensive? From: GUEST,Jack the Sailor >>The Kelo Decision, done by Ruth Baader-Meinhoff Ginsburg and the other Lefties on the Supreme Court, was the greatest assault on our Constitional rights in history.<< Note the part I have bolded. That is hyperbole. Perhaps you didn't recognize it because it is the way that your sources of information always talk? I don't think I was too far off base in equating hyperbole with outrage. If it was not outrage then please pardon me. I will say that your complaint is highly selective. But lets put that aside for the moment. According to you. Taking for roads, is OK. Taking tax money to favor big industry is OK Taking water, appropriating land, flooding land for private power companies and for farmers, hundreds of miles of miles away. OK OK OK OK. That's what makes America great! Taking some tenements from some slumlords and paying them market value rather than hitting the lotto on someone else's plan to revitalize downtown was the greatest assault on our Constitional rights in history. Not Dredd Scott, Not Guantanamo, Not "separate but equal", not lynching, none of that. Its a decision not to reward slumlords and speculators for someone else's work. By the way, in Kelo, the land was not taken by private developers, it was taken by the New London Development Corporation, a private entity under the control of the city government. It was the city taking the land for the good of the city. You are drawing a very fine line to say that BUYING land for economic development is moral different than buying it and flooding it for hydro power. |
|
25 Jul 08 - 06:37 PM (#2397978) Subject: RE: BS: Tasteless and offensive? From: John on the Sunset Coast "By the way, in Kelo, the land was not taken by private developers, it was taken by the New London Development Corporation, a private entity under the control of the city government. It was the city taking the land for the good of the city." To transfer to another private entity in the hope of getting more TAXES. "You are drawing a very fine line to say that BUYING land for economic development is moral [sic] different than buying it and flooding it for hydro power." Bingo! I think he's finally got it. |
|
25 Jul 08 - 06:54 PM (#2397986) Subject: RE: BS: Tasteless and offensive? From: GUEST,Jack the Sailor Yes. Its a very fine line, ie. one is very similar to the other. I will point out that those dams are often transferred to private entities and the water is used by private farmers. If you are going to stand up for one group in our society vis a vis property rights, you could probably find someone more worthy than land speculators. |
|
25 Jul 08 - 07:05 PM (#2397992) Subject: RE: BS: Tasteless and offensive? From: pdq JtS: I am quite capable of telling people what I believe. I don't need you telling anybody what I believe, especially since you have no clue, but thanks anyway. |
|
25 Jul 08 - 07:14 PM (#2397994) Subject: RE: BS: Tasteless and offensive? From: GUEST,Jack the Sailor pdq. >>I am quite capable of telling people what I believe. I don't need you telling anybody what I believe, especially since you have no clue, but thanks anyway<< Here are some clues for you. Just try to stay consistent and you will be OK! Don't act outraged then pretend that you are not. I have a very good clue what you believe. It isn't as if you are subtle. Just try not to be so petulant the next time you lose and argument. |
|
25 Jul 08 - 07:15 PM (#2397996) Subject: RE: BS: Tasteless and offensive? From: John on the Sunset Coast JtS--No matter the size, to quote an old-timey song title, "The Farmer is the One Who Feeds Us All" Also, there is a dam(n) site(sight) of difference between a hotel or shopping center on the one hand, and a water project on the other. |
|
25 Jul 08 - 07:25 PM (#2398006) Subject: RE: BS: Tasteless and offensive? From: pdq Jack: Do yourself a favor and take a break. |
|
25 Jul 08 - 08:24 PM (#2398051) Subject: RE: BS: Tasteless and offensive? From: Little Hawk That's exactly what I keep saying to Chongo. But does he listen? Naw... |