Bush appointee Christie rips off Monty Python in NJ gov race

[Ben Kenobi]

So basically you want to purge the Republican Party of moderates? Have fun being a regional, always minority, party.

Better than being roadkill like Dede.

Snowe and Collins know which side their bread is buttered on.

Let's see, pander to the 5 percent of 'hardcore lefties'.

Or go with the 45 percent solid conservative base.

[Imran Siddiqui]

Lets go over this again

2008: McHugh (R) 65%
2009: Hoffman (C) 45%

Where exactly do "things have changed" come from?

I assumed the point was to, you know, WIN elections rather than be ideologically pure and keep losing them...

[GePap]

Oh. My. God.

You seriously don't believe later amendments to the Constitution don't supersede earlier ones?

Pray tell, how do you explain the 18th and 21st amendments?

Seriously, you can't be this dumb. This is zakudl level dumb.

Kuci, a perfect example of Lori's point in the other thread.

A constitution is viewed as a whole document. No one part of it is more important than another. Does the 19th amendment "supersede" the 18th because it came after? No, because the 18th and 19th amendments dealt with different and unrelated matters. That the 21st amendment supersedes the 18th is true only because the 21st specificly revokes the 18th. that we keep tabs on the number of changes to the constitution in chronological order doesn't mean that one or another is more valid. The 11th amendment does not "supersede" the first ten changes. Nor does the first amendment supersede any part or clause of the constitution as it stood - this is specifically true because the first ten amendments of the constitution did not reference or revoke ANY of the original text of the constitution - they were all additions.

Please explain how the second hypothetical differs from the first in that regard

Because the State's interest in promoting intellectual development is on a different level from the State's interest in making any one member of society feel nice.

As for the first little example you gave: if we define spreading malicious lies about someone as 'saying something mean", then we do have laws in this country that allow one private party to sue another for "saying something mean": its called Slander.

The existance of laws against slander, libel, against obscenity and the incitement to violence all point to the very simple and clearly obvious fact that no right is absolute. All have limits, and those limits come at the point in which one individual's carrying out of one right might intrude upon someone elses other rights.

If you want to be a test case, let me give you a nice experiment to carry out, since you claim to be right, even though you have provided no real arguments (assertions are not arguments) and obviously no evidence (as you have cited no case law).

Go to some farm that uses round-up ready corn, and pay the farmer to buy some of the left over seed they have. Then plow a field so that the corn will grow to form the message "**** Monsanto," if viewed from the sky. Then sit back and wait to take the case all the way to the Supreme Court when Monsanto sues you ass (as they have many, many farmers) for violating their copyright by using their genetically engineered seed without having signed a contract with them, and you argue that their copyright law does not apply to you because you used it to make a statement based on your first amendment rights. Just make sure your parents have plenty of cash on hand to help you, cause it ain't going to be cheap, and the settlement you will likely have to sign will be hefty.

[Drake Tungsten]

Who expected Bloomberg to have a close race?

All the New Yorkers who were pissed off about his end-around on term limits?

edit: Imran

[Drake Tungsten]

NY-23, and there a pro-public option Democrat won a seat that has been Republican for 120 years.

I didn't know 1993 was 120 years ago.

edit: Imran

He handed a seat that had been Republican for over a 100 years to the Democratic opponent!!

[Ben Kenobi]

I assumed the point was to, you know, WIN elections rather than be ideologically pure and keep losing them...

Better to lose and remain true to your principles then win and abandon them.

[Drake Tungsten]

WH today vs. Rahm in '05

On MSNBC's "Andrea Mitchell Reports," White House adviser David Axelrod today argued that it would be wrong to read too much into last night's GOP gubernatorial wins in New Jersey and Virginia -- and what they might mean for next year's midterm elections.

And if you read us earlier this morning, Axelrod does seem to have a point.

But looking back at First Read's coverage the day after the 2005 New Jersey and Virginia contests, we had forgotten that Rahm Emanuel -- then chair of the Democratic Congressional Campaign Committee and now White House chief of staff -- had called us to argue the very point Republicans are now making: that the two gubernatorial contests say something about the upcoming midterms.

Here's what we wrote then:

Democratic House campaign committee chair Rahm Emanuel, calling First Read immediately after Kaine's and Corzine's victories were announced, argued that it's clear Democratic voters were already energized earlier in the year when Democrat Paul Hackett nearly won a traditionally GOP-leaning Ohio House district. "I think that's even more true today." He also pointed out that the mayors of Detroit, Cleveland, and St. Paul, MN were all losing. "A lot of incumbents are losing to change," he said (although he neglected to mention that these three mayors are Democrats, though the one from St. Paul endorsed Bush last year).

http://firstread.msnbc.msn.com/archive/2009/11/04/2119573.aspx

[Ramo]

http://www.fivethirtyeight.com/2009/...d-and-why.html

Voters in the exit poll approved of Bloomberg's performance 70-29, but a quarter of those who approved of Bloomberg voted against him anyway. Why? Because 58 percent of voters said that Bloomberg's decision to change the city's term limits law to enable him to seek a third term was a significant factor in their vote, and those voters broke against him 2:1.

(emphasis by Nate)

So voters approved of Bloomberg, but were pissed at his power grabbing ways.

That may be true, but the polls are rarely this far off:

[Boris Godunov]

NY-23, and there a pro-public option Democrat won a seat that has been Republican for 120 years.

I didn't know 1993 was 120 years ago.

edit: Imran

He handed a seat that had been Republican for over a 100 years to the Democratic opponent!!

It's not the same district it was in 1993. Then, NY-23 comprised Albany, Schenectady, and parts of Montgomery and Rensselaer counties. These do not comprise the district today.

The core of the current NY-23 are: Franklin, Jefferson, and St. Lawrence counties, which were last represented by a Democrat in the 1850s; Clinton and Essex counties, last represented by a Democrat in the 1870s; and Lewis County, last represented by a Democrat in 1890. There are small portions of other counties in the current district that saw Democratic representation as late as 1978, but for the vast majority, it hasn't been since the 19th century.

Oh I see, you just went by district number and ignored the issue of redistricting. How silly.

[Drake Tungsten]

Wow, that's an even stupider argument than Ben's anti-evolution ones.

[Boris Godunov]

No, Drake, what's stupid is to assert that the district was represented in 1993 by a Democrat when not a single scrap of land that was part of the district in 1993 is a part of the current district.

[Drake Tungsten]

If you really meant that certain counties in upstate New York hadn't had a Democratic representative in the House in 120 years, then you should have said that. What you said, however, is that New York's 23rd Congressional District hadn't had a Democratic representative in 120 years, which is demonstrably false. I'm guessing you read that "fact" on some liberal blog, repeated it without question and are now trying to cover your ass through some obfuscation.

[Boris Godunov]

I suppose some people like you might be retarded enough to think that only the district number matters, even though to anyone with half a brain they would know that the salient point is the voters. Congresspersons represent people, not district numbers, after all. My guess is you went to Wikipedia and saw it saying that a Democrat represented NY-23 last in 1993 and didn't bother to check to see if it was even the same area being represented, but just raced back here to be a contrarian idjit.

[Drake Tungsten]

I have a duty to this forum to serve as its protector of truth and enemy of spin.

[DinoDoc]

And what is going on in Florida (Crist/Rubio)

It remains to be seen thus far how strong a challenge the Tea Party movement will indeed pose to Crist but his strong and full throated support for the failed stimulus package is sure to attract some sort of challenge. However, I would caution against leaping to conclusions of ideaological pogroms of Moderate Republicans (The right still seems to like Rudy after all) based on the fate of Scozzafava who had alot of baggage sure to attract the ire of such people. First and foremost would be her fiscal liberalism (voting for tax increases, freewheeling spending, and her support of the stimulus package). Secondly, the support she garnered from ACORN and her support of what they saw as an anti-democratic move on the part of the unions (ie card check). Unless, I'm severely mistaken none of these issues are not present in the other moderates you are worried about. You also needn't worry about Snowe or Collins as they are largely untouchable.

The Inquisitor Lord Palin of the Ordo Hereticus won't be looking to put you to task for ideaological crimes against the Reagan anytime soon.