Dr. Tyler; Captain America

I mean, the Republicans wanted Arnold as their governor because of the ® next to his name... now, they're getting Arnold, the man, who may be a fiscal conservative, but is realizing that it's hard to balance a budget on the back of cutting programs he supports. Yeesh, yeah, it looks like you're fucked either way.

Damn liberal media.

I remember reading on another board that New Me was *scratches head and leaves*, which may explain the bannage.

Hahahahha. Okay, you win.

Has there been an election with true "duelling"? If so, SOURCE PLEASE.

It's pretty certain... Both sides will have enough money to attack the shit out of each other, and they will.

Probably, but you still can't really fault him THAT much for it. Like I said, I just found it slightly amusing.

This actually absolutely can't be seen as a logical slam against Bush considering the cultural differences, but it's amusing nonetheless. http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/artic...-2003Nov19.html

Delete this one, board error screwed me up.

http://www.rnc.org/Newsroom/Releases/nov03/IowaAds.htm Since he's running these ads in Iowa -- a state which will either be taken by Gephardt (voted for the war) or Dean (vehemently against it, obviously) -- it's clear who these ads are aimed at. Dean's already ready to respond, though. http://blog.deanforamerica.com/archives/002349.html I guess it's already starting, a little less than a year before the general election begins.

Yeah, I'm aware of the implied powers stuff, blah blah, and I'm also aware that the right to privacy was more of a stretch than, say, chartering the national banks. However, to say that there's no basis for having a "right to privacy" at all is kinda silly, IMO. I haven't read Roe to the extent that I should in order to make a real argument for it, though, so I won't. As for the spending, I think the difference is that Soros is the current "ARGH YOU SUCK FOR SPENDING MONEY!!!11!!!!1!" guy right now, and Scaife spent most of his money to try to oust Clinton from office. I had a better, less biased website than that probably three months ago, but I just clicked the first "Scaife" link I found. Whatever. I assume you're not going to make an argument of the fact that Scaife is to the Republicans what Soros is to the Democrats, because if you denied that, it'd just be silly. Scaife is the reason why most conservative magazines and foundations exist. Ditto Soros with liberal foundations and magazines. Both sides have their assholes, because it's politics. It's a fucking ugly system that is full of utter corruption on both sides of the aisle, and if either you or I could fix it, I'm sure we would. But we can't, so we sit on this message board and bitch about the other side and ignore our own side's problems. Oh well, I was kinda enjoying the argument from a law perspective, so let's do that again~

I'm sorry, I didn't realize John McCain was a democrat. He's less of a Republican than Zell Miller is a Democrat. -=Mike I doubt that. McCain votes with his own party more than Zell Miller does.

Bullshit. "Oh? We do?" You know full well that if one person doesn't abide by it, the rest absolutely can't if they want any shot at winning the election under the current system. That's McCain-Feingold's flaw, and it's unavoidable as long as they allow people to opt out of the system. FYI, I hate the fact that Dean had to opt out of Public Financing, because quite frankly, the system should be what every candidate is forced to abide by. However, you can't win an election when the other side outspends you by $165 million. It's a physical impossibility. No, money should be taken out of politics, period. It's an incredibly weak argument that "free speech" encompasses flooding the elections with special interest money.

The right to have national banks isn't expressed in the Constitution, either. Do you suggest that Congress doesn't have the power to charter a bank? Do you suggest Congress doesn't have the power to charter such things as the FCC, etc.? That wasn't in the constitution, either.

I'm sorry, I didn't realize John McCain was a democrat.

Richard Mellon Scaife. Sure he did, and so is Dean right now. I'm not sure where your argument is here.

Yes, I do. However, YOUR candidate necessitated any other candidate who wants to have any shot at a fair election to pass up campaign finance reform and public financing.

Bullshit. So, you're saying that state courts have no right to judicial review? The state constitution defined marriage as a union between two people. It can be argued (quite successfully, I might add) that laws against incest and etc. are in the interest of public health. Two people = no polygamy.

Mike makes himself more and more irrelevant by the minute. Congratulations! Don't you have a Bill Kristol book to read?

Marbury is judicial review, not federalism. It applies to all levels.

Not even close, Mike. Gay people are clearly being discriminated against with the law that was shot down. The law was contrary to the Mass. state constitution. The Mass. Supreme Court was well within their bounds in striking down the law, given Marbury v. Madison et al. Unless you're arguing against Marbury, you've got no grounds on this one.

It usually means you're running the file somewhere else. If not, try rebooting. If that doesn't work... Try cancelling a lot of processes.

Chave is Prince Paul!

The court is also supposed to be there as a check on legislative power and to protect our rights as citizens. Since Marbury v. Madison, they've had the legal right to interpret the Constitution (which they're CLEARLY doing in this case) and to overturn any statutory law (i.e. the gay marriage ban) that contradicts their state (or federal obviously for the SCOTUS) constitution. I'm sorry, what, exactly, were they doing wrong?

See: Bush v. Gore 531 U.S. 98 (2000)