Hey Folks only three and a half years left until the US can rebound from its ALL TIME LOW......that is the Obama Administration running 233 years into the ground in a matter of months!!!

Jimmy Carter is one huge fan of Obama's because Obama makes him look like a good president!

Obama sucks........what did you expect from the choice of a bunch of college kids?

Obama wants to be a rockstar, then get his ass out of the White House and on tour with the liberal douchebags.....U2!

As long as I am breathing, I will remind those Obama haters of Geroge W. Bush and the GOP, who lost young peole with their homophobic, bible thumping fool who spend billions on an unneccesry war.  Save the self righteous crap, because if the economy improves in 2 years, you got 7 and half more years

Thank God for term limits, I did when Bush could not run again.  

You might want to check out the economic news...  They are not calling for this depression to end until 2012 with unemployment projected to reach 16% nationally.  And by that time the new projection is 24 Trillion in debt!!!  Yet you want to blame Bush for the national debt????

Yes I'm delighted that 'W' is gone!!!  But now...so is my "hope".

That would practically guarantee that President Obama will get 2 terms...

Sarah Palin cannot win a general election (unless she was up against Paris Hilton)...


"In the first bit of good news for the Republican Party in months, an independent investigator has found evidence that soon-to-be-former governor Sarah Palin (R-AK) may have violated state ethics laws in the way she raised money to pay for her defense in previous ethics cases. Palin says that the previous charges were false but that she had to spend $500,000 of her own money on lawyers. She also says the new charge is also baseless. The heart of the complaint is that Alaska law requires public officials to report gifts they have received and the donations Palin received to help her pay her lawyers may qualify as gifts under Alaska law, even though she set up a trust to funnel them through. Palin has not reported these donations as gifts.

So why is this good news for the Republican Party. Because although Palin remains immensely popular with a large fraction of the base of the party, she is viewed as a lightweight by most of the rest of the country. If she became the Republican nominee in 2012, President Obama would likely be reelected in a Lyndon Johnson-class landslide, bringing in many representatives and senators in his wake. It could be an unmitigated disaster for the Republicans".

That Obama continued.  Reminds me of Kerry's line. How does Obama ask someone to be the last man to die for a mistake?

The W in George W Bush stands for Win in Iraq!  Let's see the liberal media say that!  I'm sure 30 years from now they'll say the US won in Iraq after many Americans will have forgotten about it.

Of course liberals and democrooks will say all wars are unnecessary because they feel the best way to work things out are to sit on the floor legs folded Indian style drinking international coffees and talk about their feelings.

Too many people think war is like a video game hit the rest button and start over....its not. That's reality.  The US won in Iraq and liberals/democrooks won't admit it.

We'll see in 2010 when the GOP wins seats in Congress and then on January 19 2013 when the Obama's moving van is packing up their shit I will celebrate for a week!

Millions came to DC for Obama's inaguration.....but only 15 people missed work!

As much as I hate to say this, President Obama is still a lock for a second term. He's way too slick and smart to not get re-elected.  

He'll let Congress and the Senate take the hit for his mistakes.  And it will be a huge hit.  By 2012 and certainly by 2014, Washington will be full of Republicans, with the exception of Pennsylvania Avenue.

Hopefully by 2016, the Republicans will have a candidate that they can agree on and the country will be back on its way to better things.

And it won't be Sarah Palin.  But Paul Ryan from Wisconsin is a name to remember.

Until the dems lose control of Congress, and some normalcy returns to politics.

Dems will not lose Congress....few Democratic seats in the Senate is up for reelection, while the GOP have to defend more seats from incumbents and retirees.

The House can gain control but they need ideas that the middle class will buy Other than tax cuts for the rich - that dog won't hunt anymore.

I'm not understanding what you're implying here.  One cannot simply pull out of a clusterfuck that was 6 years in the making without causing an even bigger clusterfuck.  Conducting the war in the manner in which it's being conducted *now* doesn't suggest that it was the right thing to get into back in 03.  It was a huge mistake and it's one that we're still paying for.  

-- Modified on 7/22/2009 10:58:54 AM

U really thing that Senate seat in I'll will remain democrook?  I highly doubt it!  People in I'll are fed up with the democrooks.

With Kit Bond retiring (R-MO), & Democrats have a couple strong candiates there, Missouri has good chance to go blue....

And with Voinvich retiring, (R-OH), Ohio could is a realistic pick-up as well..

so that malarkey about how only the rich got tax cuts is a huge lie.

No, the Senate will need more time to turn over. But the House will see some significant Republican gains in 2010.  But that is not just because of current events.  It always happens in non-Presidential election years.  It will just be history repeating itself.

All things go in cycles.  Especially in politics.

They could have stopped things in 06, If they tighten down on banks , AND STOPPED Fanny and Freddie from letting people who should have never owned a home to begin with!

They were so desperated to take control of the White House , Maxine Waters,Frank and Reed did nothing.. leading us into this mess.

I don;t like either party, But I do laugh when they say bad things about McCain and heart beat away Palin ( Do not like her) But Obama has NO knowledge on how to run anything, And we now have more Czar's then Russia does. who have more power then the CIA (being Dems like to bitch about that)

-- Modified on 7/22/2009 2:18:09 PM

Fannie and Freddie only had 2% of the subprime loans...It was Countrywide, Wells Fargo, Wacovia, Bank of America etc that sold these loans to investment bankers rather than take the risks themselve.  So I agree, about the mortgage loan giant but since its not a bank it could not cause the "banking crisis" the underlying cause of the recession.

The last part is just crazy talk after Cheney ran this country like a dictator.  IMO that Obama unwillingless to give up Bush/Cheney power is disingenious.

And anybody who thinks that VP Cheney ran this country is flat out wrong.  Like most VPs, his role was very contained.

Most of that Cheney hate is from people who just flat out didn't like him to begin with.  But that is no surprise. Most people don't like strong people with strong opinions that don't kowtow to others to make friends.  

If only Joe Biden had one ounce of the balls that Cheney had, then President Obama would actually have some help in trying to do the toughest job in the world.

It isn't what I was implying.

This is what Kerry used to say.

In the days of pre-Bush, there were many, many people who argued exactly for an immediate pull out just on that basis.  

They used to have protests every week a few blocks from where I lived.  "Get out now."  "Immediate Peace." they had dozens of signs exactly with that message.

The argument was that it was a mistake and we should get out and let the chips fall where they may.

The argument that Kerry made (implied) was that if it was a mistake, you acknowledge it and get out. You don't ask someone else to die for the mistake.

Again, THIS IS NOT MY LINE.  I love it how every other Dem forgets what the MANY OF (not all) the Dems were arguing 8 months ago.

(Do you remember Kerry?)

Does that make it clear?

Now, again my question was, "if it was wrong, how do you ask someone to be the last man to die for the mistake?"

(Of course, your answer was in effect, stay the course. Can't get out now. Wow. How Bushie.

(Funny how Obama used the time table set before he became president and didn't really modify it. Could someone have been right?)

have never met.

"continued"

1. lasting or enduring without interruption: continued good health.
2. going on after an interruption; resuming: a continued TV series.

      The Iraq war was long over when Mr. Obama became president and he has taken no steps to resume it.  All that remains is withdrawing the troops left tp provide internal security for the semi-corrupt government that Bush set up and that will probably collpase within a year of when we leave.

     But I am greatly pleased to see that you agree the war was unnecessary. Now, if you will just "illegal" to the string of qualifiers, we will be in complete agreement.

The capital gains rax rate but most middle class families did not get a releif on the marginal tax rate. Most middle class families do not invest other than 401K.  I am not disageeing with the Bush tax cut in general, as long they are paid for.  In all counts, this did not happen

Your intellectual dishonesty continues to amaze.

If I said anything that implied the war was "unnecessary" it was obviously in the ocntext of the discussion.

You would have people have a disclaimer for every thing.

This is such a classic "GOTCHA, GOTCHA, GOTCHA." it really is astounding.

do that.

...weak and ridiculous retort. The OP started with a statement that we're at an all-time low in this country due to an Obama presidency,  Wiz replies with Bush era fuck-ups (namely an unnecessary war) to refute that characterization of the current presidency, and your response is a reminder of some shit KERRY said about a war??  Uhhhhh, wtf??  High again?

You are allowed to.  Free country.  People are allowed to do all sorts of stupid things.

If your goal in discussions is tricky little gotchas because you can twist someone's meaning, that is good and you get mini-points.  

Of course, if your goal is serious discussion of issues, then parsing words and taking things out of context is kind of silly.

Wizard posted that Bush spent billions on an "unnecessary war."

You posted the following:

Re: Unneccesary war
Posted by dncphil   , 7/22/2009 8:18:26 AM   [dncphil has 15 reviews]

that Obama continued.  Reminds me of Kerry's line. How does Obama ask someone to be the last man to die for a mistake?

I read your post and replied that, aside from the undisputed fact Obama did not continue the war, that I was pleased you agreed it was "unnecessary."

       Please tell me where I twisted your meaning. Please tell me where I parsed anything - I quoted you. Please tell be where I took you out of context.

         If you were simply using "unnecessary war" as a caption without implying agreement, then what was the "mistake" that led you to John Kerry's line.


        You really are going to have be very careful when you write your autobiography Phil to be sure you are not misquoted by anyone who reads it.

And be careful when you file that next brief with the judge. He may not be as forgiving as I am and may hold you to the plain meaning of your words.

Your recounting is accurate.

Here is the problem. Obviously, I was responding to the context of Wizard's post.

My point was if it was true, then how does one reconcile it with Kerry's famous line (shouted from the roof tops) of how do you ask...

Yes, I did not say, "Assuming argumendo and for the sake of this discussion only, without conceeding this issue as to future arguments..."

But I think it is kind of obvious that the gist of the argument was directed to the idea being presented - asking someone to die for a mistake, and this was in the context of a post of 23 words, fifteen of which are the quote itself, and five of which are related to the attribution, with the remaining 3 relating it to Obama.

That is why I say it was a GOTCH GOTCH GOTCHA moment.  

In normal life, talking to people, posting on forums, etc, I don't try to draft every word and cover every potential meaning the same way that one would do in filing court documents.  People generally think attorneys are ass holes because the jump on little unintended phrases that are not key to the discussion.  

I was more interested in how people respond to Obama's continuing the war vis a vis Kerry's comments.  If you accept Kerry's view, and many of Obama's supporters do, then my question was addressed to them.  NO ONE EVER ADDRESSED WHETHER OBAMA IS ASKING PEOPLE TO DIE FOR A MISTAKE.  Rather, it's "so you concede it's a mistake."  GOTCHA. GOTCHA. GOTCHA.

Yeah. That's exactly how lawyers parse statements. And I am not the first to find this habit silly.

Some time ago, there was a post where the subject of reasonable doubt arose.  I had a post where I paraphrased the reasonable doubt concept, comparing it to preponderance and clear and convincing.

It was obvious that I was just paraphrasing the concept for the purposes of discussion.

You immediately responded that no judge would instruct in that manner, and you quoted the CALJIC instruction.  (I think is it 2.90.)

In any event, from the context it was obvious that I wasn't writing in a technical legal context, but was just discussing the concept in informal language.

Yep. you got me.  No judge would instruct like that. GOTCHA. ME SMART.  

The problem is that my post was obviously not intending to quote 2.90, but was just a description of what the concept meant in lay terms.

But by jumping on the miniscule you got me.

you have rewritten your post:

"My point was if it was true, then how does one reconcile it with Kerry's famous line (shouted from the roof tops) of how do you ask..."

      If your post had only used the word "if" -"If the war was unnecessary then Obama continued it" - I would not have assumed agreement. But you are a bit tough on me today to hammer me for "distortion" for failing to infer a word that totally changed the meaning of your sentence.

      As to the reasonable doubt post, I did indeed recognize that you were paraphrasing. But you used one word which immediately invalidated your paraphrase as reflecting the instruction - you said the jury had to be "positive." That one word sank your paraphrase, as we both recognize.

    No matter how you reformulated your paraphrase, the concept of requiring the jury to be "positive" invalidated the instruction. So I do feel that I made a legitimate critique of your paraphrased instruction.

But once again I think I will turn the debate over to you and Charlie - he obviously understands your posts much better than I do.

The other funny thing is you feign agreement.
"Now that you agree...." "I am glad to see that you argee...."

I rarely have. For example, in your last you say, "That one word sank your paraphrase, as we both recognize." No.  We don't both recognize.  When did I say that was right? But GOTCHA. "We both recognize." Huh.

I have dealt with reasonable doubt for over 25 years.  I know it pretty well.  If I am describing the concept to a lay person, I don't think using the word "positive" is inaccurate.  I think it is pretty close to abiding conviction.  

In fact, it is very hard to come up with an exact definition of reasonable doubt which is why that very issue danced around the Supreme Court for several years. (I think it was Cage and Sandoval. Ah, the good old days.)

When I am in civie life, someone may say their house was robbed.  Since I don't want to be a jerk, I say, "What was stolen."  

Now, if I want to be a jerk I would say, "I am sure you mean burglarized, since that is what happens to houses. If you weren't there, you were not robbed."

In other words, when I am talking law in not legal arenas, I will be lax, as you recognized.

As I say, defining reasonable doubt with precision is very hard. They even changed the jury instruction recently.

With all that lee way in describing it, I don't think telling the jury they have to be positive is inaccurate.  That is not mutually exclusive of "beyond all doubt."

Finally, in a post as brief as my Kerry one, I don't think it asks the reader too much to just focus on the question in its context.

The context was the question of Obama asking people to die for what the prior post called a mistake.  I was not addressing the merits of Bush, but the merits of Obama in light of that thread.  Yes, an "If" may have been better.  

But you jump on the lack of "IF," and dance away from the issue.  Yup. You sure got me.

if you can show me

a.  one pattern jury instruction from anyone of
the 50 states or federal

b. or any court decision

c. or any law review commentator

that uses the word "positive" to define "reasonable doubt."
I'd be happy you show you 50 pattern instructions that do not you the word "positive."

You might say I am "positive" about this one.

Go get him Charlie.

I was wrong.  Some people are more dense than judges and justices.

My point was NOT that "positive" is in any jury instructions. I did not say that it was. My point was that I was not talking (or writing) legalese when I made the statement.

My point was that when I am not writing legal arguments but am communicating with an audience made up mostly of non-lawyers I DO NOT USE LEGALESE IN A TECHNICAL SENSE.  I may say, "How much was taken when you were robbed," when I know it is "burglarized."

And I would be wrong, but in context it would be okay.

The word "positive" may not be in any pattern instruction, although pattern instructions are not cast is stone. In fact, the Supreme Court danced around with what reasonable doubt means for  years and never said their version was the only one.  In fact, California's version was not what they had approved a few years before.

Therefore, it is clear that there are several possible good meanings of reasonable doubt, and the fact that one uses different words does not mean it is "defective."

The fact that I phrase it differently for casual purposes does not mean it is "wrong," even if the Supreme Court never picked on that exact word.

The fact is that I was summarizing and paraphrasing in a very casual way, which should have been obvious if you look at the post.  The fact that a casual, summary does not use the technical words does not mean it is "Wrong" unless the aim is GOTCHA GOTCHA GOTCHA. (In which case, you sure did.)

Positive may or may not be in any of the instructions. If it is not, I am underwhelmed with its unimportance.  However, the point of the discussion, if I recall, was that a guilty person may be acquitted because of the burden of proof of beyond a reasonable doubt, which means that the jury has to be "positive" that he did it.

Yeah, if it were an issue in an appellate court as to whether that was technically correct, you might have an argument.  I say might, since although the California version has been approved, no court ever said it is the only one.  Therefore, unless you can show me authority that says "positive" is wrong, it is just another way of saying it.


The fact that jury instructions approve one version does not mean that another phrasing of it is wrong. (AGAIN, ESPECIALLY IN A CASUAL CONTEXT.)


I would meet you for a drink, and compare resumes when it comes to expertise on reasonable doubt.  (I just finished a 30 page argument on reasonable doubt. Do you know if it is possible to attach it to a PM and send it to you.)

And as to Charlie, is Billy Barty adding to the debate. Wow, you are really pulling out the heavy back up. You little running dog you. Bark, bark, bark.

“Positive may or may not be in any of the instructions.”

     I can’t think of any way whatsoever to contest your statement now. You have completely closed to door to any contrary opinion.


     And the beauty of this approach is that you can apply it to all of your posts.

Unnecessary war that may or may not be continued by Obama.

Communism may or may not kill thousands of people.

Bush may or may not have tortured those terrorists when he waterboarded them 183 times in a month.

That bottle of champagne is yours. Just go to the TER Cafe at your convenience. Tell them to put it on my tab.  



      You are always one step ahead of me Buddy. In fact, I may or may not shift to this posting style myself.


-- Modified on 7/24/2009 7:34:47 AM

The gist of my argument was that none of the courts have ever said that any words are cast in stone, and therefore using one particular word, "positive," is not necessarily wrong.

You manage to completely ignore that reasoning, without saying why it is wrong, and then have a sarcastic comment that I am not sure what it means.

What does "Communism may or may not kill thousands of people" have to do with it? Did I ever say anything close to that?  I have been incredibly consistent in that area.

Again, you dance around the issue in a manner that sparks great admiration.

And all this started with my question of how do Obama supporters justify Obama's continuing the war in light of Kerry's rhetorical question.

And no one has come close to anything answering the question, and you have skated further and further away.

Okay. I will ask in a clearer way.  "If the war was originally wrong, how do you ask some else to die for it?"  If you are able to justify asking someone to die for a possible mistake, were all the Kerry people wrong?