Election 2005

[Admiral]

Originally posted by lord of the mark
So does this position Warner nicely for 2008, or what?

I hope this gives Warner the image he needs to be a serious candidate in the primary. It's been obvious ever since he declined to run against Allen that he was aiming at the presidency, but until now, he did not have any name recognition. I really hope that he'll be a match for Clinton.

[Ramo]

Practically, the in state / out of state thing won't make a difference, as almost all of the illegal students who would be admitted would receive large amounts of needs based financial aid.

Of course it makes a difference. Illegal students are illegible for federal financial aid. Illegal students have far fewer opportunities for jobs to help them through school, and the ones they do get would be at lower wages than legal students. The idea that this doesn't matter is totally absurd.

[q]They wouldn't be paying either way. The arguments used to support the proposition are what bother me. The fact is that illegal families don't meet the requirements for in state tuition any more than I do. The rationale behind the instate/ out of state split is the idea that Virginia citizens that fulfill their civic obligations by paying their taxes and funding the schools entitles their children to go to the schools for a discount price. Illegals don't do and aren't expected to do what Virginian residents do, thus they're not Virginia residents.[/quote]

Dude, I've already addressed that. That's simply wrong. Once again, their parents contributed plenty of taxes to Virginia for the previous three years.

I oppose this bill (which would have little practical effect) because of what it represents. This is the state taking another step to legitimize the ****ed up situation that we have in this country: an illegal quasi slavery system that encourages crime, severly injures the American working class, prevents many other desperate people from legally immigrating to the states, and doesn't come close to benefitting the illegals as much as it could and should. I don't have much faith that the law will be followed as written, because I see it more as a strategic law or a trojan horse more than a law designed for its own merits. The current illegal system benefits many powerful people, and anything that can be used to legitimize and entrench this unpopular and unethical system will be used by those people.

I agree with you in that this system is ****ed up. But the solution isn't denying kids unluckier than both of us an opportunity for a decent education. That doesn't fix the problem of workers being faced with deportation from the DHS if they try to unionize and ask for better working conditions. That doesn't fix the problem of this lack of worker protection for the poor bringing down wages for other working class people. That doesn't fix the problem of people being forced into black markets to get by. The idea that the freedom of trade is valued more highly than the freedom of people, that we can call people "illegal" merely for wanting a better life is absolutely unacceptable. And that is the origin of all these problems.

[Ramo]

So does this position Warner nicely for 2008, or what?

It certainly does. But I'm no fan. Besides the fiscal responsibility which I applaud, all I can tell about the guy is that he seems to be a law and order authoritarian type.

Mah boy in '08 is still Russ. Warner would be near bottom of the list. I'd definitely pick Hillary over him.

[DRoseDARs]

Oh my, this is amusing...

Did Texas Just Ban Marriage?

HJR No. 6 passed in Texas yesterday, supposedly to ban gay marriage. But read the text closely.

Sec. 32
(a) Marriage in this state shall consist only of the union of one man and one woman.
(b) This state or a political subdivision of this state may not create or recognize any legal status identical or similar to marriage.

Is it egg-heady coastal elitism to point out that Texas just defined marriage and then made it illegal for everybody, even heteros? I wonder if “family values” include literacy.

Posted by Jonathan Stein on 11/09/05 at 10:54 AM

http://www.motherjones.com/mojoblog/index.html#859

[Imran Siddiqui]

I think Mr. Stein is reading the law incorrectly, though it is amusing to read it the way he has. A legal status 'identical or similar' to marriage doesn't include marriage itself.

[Zkribbler]

Originally posted by lord of the mark
So does this position Warner nicely for 2008, or what?

I saw him on Hardball last night giving a list of his accomplishments. Very impressive.

[Kuciwalker]

Originally posted by Imran Siddiqui
I think Mr. Stein is reading the law incorrectly, though it is amusing to read it the way he has. A legal status 'identical or similar' to marriage doesn't include marriage itself.

Marriage is not identical to itself?

[Imran Siddiqui]

Originally posted by Kuciwalker
Marriage is not identical to itself?

If you ban something identical to X, it's quite obvious that that means that X isn't banned. It is just other things that are identical to it.

[lord of the mark]

Originally posted by Ramo


It certainly does. But I'm no fan. Besides the fiscal responsibility which I applaud, all I can tell about the guy is that he seems to be a law and order authoritarian type.

Mah boy in '08 is still Russ. Warner would be near bottom of the list. I'd definitely pick Hillary over him.

Ive been here for the 4 years of his term and have noticed nothing authoritarian.

[mrmitchell]

Oh yeah. The 1/4 cent sales tax failed by about 950-750, IIRC.

This is definitely a blow to the existing leaders of Camden, but it's been over a decade and there hasn't been an end, so I'm hesitant to say it's a fatal blow. It just means they'll have to cut something or scramble up some other way to put money into job development.

[Kuciwalker]

Originally posted by Imran Siddiqui
If you ban something identical to X, it's quite obvious that that means that X isn't banned.

Not so obvious, actually. You could intend that X be banned as well, and be trying to make sure that nothing that's the same but has a different name slips through.

[DinoDoc]

Originally posted by lord of the mark


Ive been here for the 4 years of his term and have noticed nothing authoritarian.

Ramo is an anarchist. You're an authoritarian from his POV.

[Ramo]

Ive been here for the 4 years of his term and have noticed nothing authoritarian.

I noticed that he supports three strikes laws, supports the death penalty, supports harsher drug penalties, etc., etc. And according to ontheissues.com, he supports the abolition of parole.

The more I learn about Warner, the less I like him.

If you want a super-popular red-state governor, Brian Schweitzer seems a lot more palatable.

[Ramo]

Since this thread is now basically about VA politics, I thought I'd ask what you think of James Webb, lotm. He's thinking of challenging George Allen (as a Democrat) next year. Think he can win?

[Imran Siddiqui]

Originally posted by Kuciwalker
Not so obvious, actually. You could intend that X be banned as well, and be trying to make sure that nothing that's the same but has a different name slips through.

Um.. yeah.. try to convince a judge of that... before you get laughed out of court .