2012 U.S. Presidential Election

[mattbcl]

I rarely visit this thread because it's usually dominated by Roy and Dark Sage, but I've been keeping up on the last few posts, and although I'm several replies behind the curve (for which I apologize), there's something I've been meaning to ask. Roy, perhaps you can enlighten me on the difference between "rape" and "forcible rape"?

I ask this because you've made a point of highlighting the term in bold text (twice). I have difficulty recognizing a difference. Rape is, by definition, "the unlawful compelling of a person through physical force or duress to have sexual intercourse." I don't understand the need for a modifier in front of the word. It leads me to think there are people out there who believe it's possible for rape to be a consensual act, which I personally believe is preposterous.

I wouldn't ask, except I've seen the term here and there, and it seems those introducing it in conversation (and Congress) are reluctant to expand on its definition.

[Heald]

I think the guy was saying that forcible rape was when someone forced their way into a person who was physically resisting, whereas non-forcible rape was when the person being raped had not consented but otherwise did not put up any resistance, even though she did not want to engage in a sexual activity.

[Roy Karrde]

I rarely visit this thread because it's usually dominated by Roy and Dark Sage, but I've been keeping up on the last few posts, and although I'm several replies behind the curve (for which I apologize), there's something I've been meaning to ask. Roy, perhaps you can enlighten me on the difference between "rape" and "forcible rape"?

I ask this because you've made a point of highlighting the term in bold text (twice). I have difficulty recognizing a difference. Rape is, by definition, "the unlawful compelling of a person through physical force or duress to have sexual intercourse." I don't understand the need for a modifier in front of the word. It leads me to think there are people out there who believe it's possible for rape to be a consensual act, which I personally believe is preposterous.

I wouldn't ask, except I've seen the term here and there, and it seems those introducing it in conversation (and Congress) are reluctant to expand on its definition.

Forced Rape is merely a legal term to differentiate itself with Statutory Rape, which can be concentual but still considered rape by law because they are underage.

[mattbcl]

Forced Rape is merely a legal term to differentiate itself with Statutory Rape, which can be concentual but still considered rape by law because they are underage.

Ah. Then litigators are attempting to carve out an exception specifically for non-consentual sex. I wish they would make it as clear as you just did!

[kurai]

policy with regard to "rape" is not a simple matter

a focus on developing a "forcible rape" exemption in abortion policy is less a serious proposal than it is a conservative dogwhistle. but to arrive at this point, we must first engage in an examination of the historical, legal and political factors defining the category of rape, as our engagement with the issue is incomplete thus far...

begin with the notion that the criminalization of "rape" falls under the dual sovereignty doctrine. in federal law, you can find rape specifically defined in 10 USC § 920 (but this section exists in reference to the uniform code of military justice), with a general set of relevant laws in 18 USC § 2241 (title 18 outlines the federal criminal process. interestingly, the word rape isn't actually used, outside of the context of war crimes, instead being called "aggravated sexual abuse"). the word itself reappears in the code in title 42, which outlines various state-coordination efforts, preventative social programs, and national research initiatives.

an attempt to provide a unified federal definition of rape was undertaken in the Violence Against Women Act of 1994, as in 42 USC § 13981: "it is the purpose of this part to protect the civil rights of victims of gender motivated violence and to promote public safety, health, and activities affecting interstate commerce by establishing a Federal civil rights cause of action for victims of crimes of violence motivated by gender". this was rejected by the supreme court in United States v. Morrison:

Petitioners assert that § 13981 can be sustained under Congress’ commerce power as a regulation of activity that substantially affects interstate commerce. The proper framework for analyzing such a claim is provided by the principles the Court set out in Lopez. First, in Lopez, the noneconomic, criminal nature of possessing a firearm in a school zone was central to the Court’s conclusion that Congress lacks authority to regulate such possession. Similarly, gender-motivated crimes of violence are not, in any sense, economic activity.

thus, the specific mention of forcible rape both provides an analogy for 18 USC § 2241 (and thus, a national scope) while simultaneously allowing for states'-rights-based latitude in policy formation.

it may prove instructive to see how this has developed in the past. in common law, rape was traditionally defined as gender-specific, without a marriage exemption, and with a specific requirement that it involved force. let's look at some classical examples of these laws:

A third offence, against the female part also of his majesty's subjects, but attended with greater aggravations than that of forcible marriage, is the crime of rape, raptus mulieruin, or the carnal knowledge of a woman forcibly and against her will. This, by the Jewish law, was punished with death, in case the damsel was betrothed to another man; and in case she was not betrothed, then a heavy fine of fifty shekels was to be paid to the damsel's father, and she was to be the wife of the ravisher all the days of his life; without that power of divorce, which was in general permitted by the Mosaic law. The civil law punishes the crime of ravishment with death and confiscation of goods; under which it includes both the offence of forcible abduction, or taking a woman from her friends, of which we last spoke: and also the present offence of forcibly dishonouring them; either of which, without the other, is in that law sufficient to constitute a capital crime.

[...]

[Under Edward I] the punishment of rape was much mitigated: the offence itself, of ravishing a damsel within age, (that is, twelve years old,) either with her consent or without, or of any other woman against her will, being reduced to a trespass, if not prosecuted by appeal within forty days, and subjecting the offender to only two years imprisonment, and a fine at the king's will.

[...]

A male infant under the age of fourteen years, is presumed by law incapable to commit a rape, and therefore it seems cannot be found guilty of it. The civil law seems to suppose a prostitute or common harlot incapable of any injuries of this kind: not allowing any punishment for violating the chastity of her, who hath indeed no chastity at all, or at least hath no regard to it.

[and so on]

(Commentaries on the Laws of England, Vol. IV, William Blackstone, 1770.)

from blackstone, we can see that the legal application of "forcible rape" is around 700 years old, ultimately relying on old testament principles. given that the english common law tradition was maintained following the revolution (other than in louisiana), this definition was reflected in various state penal codes:

MASSACHUSETTS-- If any person shall ravish and carnally know any female, of the age of ten years or more, by force and against her will, or shall, unlawfully and carnally, know and abuse any female child, under the age of ten years, he shall suffer the punishment of death for the same.

NEW YORK-- Every person who shall be convicted of rape, either 1, by carnally and unlawfully knowing any female child under the age of ten years; or, 2, by forcibly ravishing any woman of the age of ten years of upwards; shall be punished by imprisonment in a state prison, not less than ten years.

VIRGINIA-- If any white person carnally know a female of the age of twelve years or more, against her will, by force, or carnally know a female child under that age, he shall be confined in the penitentiary, not less than ten nor more than twenty years.

MAINE-- If any man shall ravish and carnally know any female of the age of ten years or more, by force ang against her will, or shall unlawfully or carnally know and abuse any female child under the age of ten years, he shall be punished by imprisonment in the state prison, for life. If any person shall take any woman unlawfully and against her will, and, by force, menace, or duress, compell her to marry him, or any other person, or to be defiled, he shall be punished by imprisonment in the state prison, for life, or any term of years.

OHIO-- That if any person shall have carnal knowledge of his daughter, or sister, forcibly and against her will, every such person so offending, shall be deemed guilty of a rape, and upon conviction thereof, shall be imprisoned in the penitentiary, and kept at hard labor during life.

[and so on]

(A complete practical treatise on criminal procedure, pleading, and evidence, in indictable cases, 1853.)

these might seem to be curious definitions from a contemporary perspective, but we can easily see the historical origins of such legal codes. substantive reform of such rape laws did not occur in a widespread manner until the 1970s, and the addition of gender-neutrality and the removal of marriage exemptions proved to be highly controversial in some jurisdictions (and remain so among some groups). consequently, as far as state law goes, no single definition exists for "rape" - various criteria are used to define what exactly is criminalized. along these lines, marital rape was restricted by different states at different times (and more recently than one might expect, likely within the reader's lifetime), while statutory rape laws are inconsistent at best.

one must consider the logical consistency of suggesting that violently coercive sexual assaults ought to qualify for an abortion exemption, but not assaults against pubescent children. it is clear that a legal distinction between these two kinds of rape is not a new development, as cited above. consequently, use of the term "forcible rape" (perhaps more specifically, "legitimate rape") provides a redirection towards ideas about rape as would have been widely held forty years ago, at which time the existing laws were firmly based on an ancient framework of judeo-christian legal precedent. at that point, concepts of gender equality had not yet been codified, and we might reminisce about traditional family values of the period. certainly, we can find additional political motivation from the fact that marriage in this same tradition is ostensibly for the purpose of procreation, as promoted by divine command - modern ideas about marital rape would not sit comfortably alongside a more general statement of abortion exemption in cases of rape.

by chance, the same ideology which eschews such notions about non-forcible kinds of rape also happens to demonize abortion. thus, the dogwhistle is complete: "forcible rape" encompasses arguments about states' rights, christian ideology, and traditional family/gender norms.

[kurai]

today is a day on which things occur

After a brief session to gavel in the convention Monday, the Republicans begin speeches and convention business at 2pm today in Tampa. They will vote to approve the platform and rules committee recommendations and then nominate their presidential and vice presidential candidates and proceed with the roll call vote of the states. C-SPAN will air a one hour pre convention program beginning at 1pm (ET).

2:00 p.m.

Chairman of the RNC Reince Priebus

Color Guard Knights of Columbus

Pledge of Allegiance by Former Governor Tim Babcock (MT)/Tom Hogan (FL)

National Anthem sung by Philip Alongi

Invocation by Rabbi Meir Soloveichik

Opening procedural steps, appointment of convention committees

Welcoming remarks, and House and Senate candidates and RNC auxiliaries

RNC Chairman Priebus

RNC Co-Chairman Sharon Day

Tampa Mayor Bob Buckhorn

Convention Chief Executive Officer William Harris

Chairman of Tampa Bay Host Committee Al Austin

Republican Congressional Candidates

State Delegate Barbara Comstock (VA)

Representative Tim Griffin (AR)

Republican Senate Candidates

Republican National Committee auxiliaries

Consideration of convention committee reports

RNC Chairman Reince Priebus

Committee on Credentials Chairman Mike Duncan

Committee on Permanent Organization Chairwoman Zoraida Fonalledas

Convention Permanent Chairman Speaker John Boehner, Presiding

Official Convention Photograph

Committee on Rules Chairman John Sununu

Committee on Resolutions Chairman Governor Bob McDonnell

Committee on Resolutions Co-Chairman U.S. Senator John Hoeven

Committee on Resolutions Co-Chairman U.S. Rep. Marsha Blackburn

Roll Call for Nomination of President of the United States

Roll Call for Nomination of Vice President of the United States

6:40 p.m.

Recess

7:00 p.m.

Reconvene

Remarks by Speaker John Boehner

Remarks by RNC Chairman Reince Priebus

Video and remarks by Mayor Mia Love (Saratoga Springs, UT), U.S. congressional candidate

Remarks by Janine Turner

Remarks by former U.S. Senator Rick Santorum

Remarks by Host, U.S. Rep. Cathy McMorris Rodgers

8:00 p.m.

Remarks by U.S. Senator Kelly Ayotte (NH), accompanied by Jack Gilchrist

Remarks by Governor John Kasich (OH)

Remarks by Governor Mary Fallin (OK)

Remarks by Governor Bob McDonnell (VA), accompanied by Bev Gray

Remarks by Governor Scott Walker (WI)

9:00 p.m.

Remarks by Governor Brian Sandoval (NV)

Remarks by Sher Valenzuela (small business owner, candidate for DE Lt. Governor)

Remarks by Senate Republican Candidate Ted Cruz (TX)

Remarks by Artur Davis

Remarks by Governor Nikki Haley (SC)

10:00 p.m.

Remarks by Mrs. Luce’ Vela Fortuño

Remarks by Mrs. Ann Romney

Remarks by Governor Chris Christie (NJ)

Benediction by Sammy Rodriguez

Adjournment

[Heald]

A notable left-wing commentator in the UK has publicly hoped that Hurricane Isaac drowns all of the Republicans.

That is all.

[Roy Karrde]

Yeah Samuel L Jackson and Ellen Barkin have also "hoped" for the same thing.

Meanwhile I would suggest that those watching tonight keep a eye on Mia Love, she could be a big mover and shaker in politics in the next 4 years or so.

[Heald]

Mia Love You Long Time

Mia Love You LOOOOOOOOOOONG TIME

[Roy Karrde]

Mia Love * You Long Time * is up at Mediaite

http://www.mediaite.com/tv/gop-house...-fiery-speech/

Scott Walker is up next.

Edit: DAMN and I mean DAMNNNN for Auther Davis, the guy who "Seconded" Obama's nomination just four years ago, just gave a damn good speech.

[Plantae]

I have to agree. Artur Davis' speech was very good, rhetorically speaking. But I wish he hadn't felt the need to resort to expedient, untruthful claims.

"Remember the President saying of negative politics and untrue ads, 'not this time?'"

There were record negative ad buys by Obama and McCain in the 2008 Election. This is not something that started this election cycle. The notion that voters were somehow surprised in 2012 by Obama's use of negative ads is false.

"Who knew the plain English version of it was, 'middle America, get ready to shell out 60 bucks to fill up your car?'"

The common consensus among economists is that the price of gas is determined by market factors in a global economy that are entirely out of any president's control.

"And in terms of their crown jewel legislative achievement: who knew that when asked, 'will government impose a new federal mandate requiring middle class Americans to buy health insurance whether they can afford it or not?'"

Politifact: Mostly False.

"... we don't need a party that has led while poverty and hunger rose to record levels to give us lectures about suffering."

Without evidence that this Administration's policies are the root cause of rising poverty levels (and not say, a past Administration's), this is just circular reasoning.

The main causes of poverty are joblessness and low wages (obviously). It's muddy whether we can hold the current Administration responsible for the former, but the latter isn't Obama's fault. "Median income has changed very little over the last 30 years. Adjusted for inflation, the middle-income family only earned 11% more in 2010 than they did in 1980, while the richest 5% in America saw their incomes surge 42%." The problem clearly has a lot to do with income inequality, which has been rising over multiple presidents.

"When they tell you America is this unequal place where the powerful trample on the powerless, does that sound like the country your children or your spouse risked their lives for in Iraq or Afghanistan?"

This is absurd and mildly offensive. How does Americans risking their lives overseas prove or disprove the statement that America is an unequal place? They're not mutually exclusive.

"Bill Clinton took on his base and made welfare a thing you had to work for; this current crowd guts the welfare work requirement in the dead of night."

Emphasis mine.
Politifact: Pants-on-Fire. Actually, they've rated this same statement several times now in different iterations. All False.

Rick Santorum.
Mitt Romney.
Bob McDonnell.

"Lyndon Johnson reached out across the aisle..."

This made me laugh. Sure, Johnson was a good negotiator, but you would think Davis had never heard of the Johnson treatment.

This is also the Great Society president. It seems contrary to Davis' point to hold him on a pedestal when it is these same programs (food stamps, Work Study, Medicare, Medicaid...) that the Republican Party wants to slash (with the intent to reform).

[Roy Karrde]

There were record negative ad buys by Obama and McCain in the 2008 Election. This is not something that started this election cycle. The notion that voters were somehow surprised in 2012 by Obama's use of negative ads is false.

While it is true that there were a record number of ads, Obama also claimed to be post partisan, to be beyond such things, even starting his administration by claiming so. There was a aura, built up largely by the media and helped along by Obama, that he was above such things.

The common consensus among economists is that the price of gas is determined by market factors in a global economy that are entirely out of any president's control.

True, but in the short term, problems with refineries can also cause short term boosts like we are seeing now, especially when a hurricane blows through. The lack of new refineries is something that the President can work on.

Without evidence that this Administration's policies are the root cause of rising poverty levels (and not say, a past Administration's), this is just circular reasoning.

The main causes of poverty are joblessness and low wages (obviously). It's muddy whether we can hold the current Administration responsible for the former, but the latter isn't Obama's fault. "Median income has changed very little over the last 30 years. Adjusted for inflation, the middle-income family only earned 11% more in 2010 than they did in 1980, while the richest 5% in America saw their incomes surge 42%." The problem clearly has a lot to do with income inequality, which has been rising over multiple presidents.

Except Obama has also presided above a economy that has some of the lowest workforce participation in decades. And of course there is the 44% increase in food stamps between January 2009 to October 2011.

Emphasis mine.
Politifact: Pants-on-Fire. Actually, they've rated this same statement several times now in different iterations. All False.

Rick Santorum.
Mitt Romney.
Bob McDonnell.

This one has actually been wildly disputed, and is one of the many problems Politifact is facing in terms of not being truthful.

Furthermore one could look toward the one who actually wrote the bill to see what he thinks about it.

President Obama just tore up a basic foundation of the welfare contract. In exchange for taxpayer-funded TANF payments, the law calls on able-bodied adults to work, look for work, take classes, or undergo drug and alcohol counseling. It’s the tough love that gives people motivation to help themselves.

http://rsc.jordan.house.gov/news/doc...umentID=303038

Is the creator of the law lying too? I would assume he would know most about the law than anyone else....

[Plantae]

While it is true that there were a record number of ads, Obama also claimed to be post partisan, to be beyond such things, even starting his administration by claiming so. There was a aura, built up largely by the media and helped along by Obama, that he was above such things.

I agree that Obama may have claimed, in some manner, to be post-partisan; but I just don't think it's honest to say that anyone was "deceived" by his use of negative ads in 2012, when the same thing was done by both campaigns in 2008.

My real problem with Davis' statement is that it implies a double standard. If Obama runs negative ads, this is a betrayal of everything he stands for; but if Romney does it, it's acceptable? I don't see Davis looking down on the Republican nominee for doing the exact same thing.

True, but in the short term, problems with refineries can also cause short term boosts like we are seeing now, especially when a hurricane blows through. The lack of new refineries is something that the President can work on.

Fair enough. Certainly there's a give and take with energy policy that's much more complicated than it appears. But it's certainly fallacious to look at the situation and say, "Obama did it." Which is essentially what Davis said.

Except Obama has also presided above a economy that has some of the lowest workforce participation in decades. And of course there is the 44% increase in food stamps between January 2009 to October 2011.

Yes, both of those statistics are true; as a side note, Politifact also agrees. But I'm sure that's just a complex act of subterfuge.

The problem arises when one attempts to determine the context. Is this the effect of Obama's policies? Bush's? I'm not an expert on the issue, but even after considerable research, and reading up on the work of several economists, I'm not really sure where to point the finger of blame.

This one has actually been wildly disputed, and is one of the many problems Politifact is facing in terms of not being truthful.

Furthermore one could look toward the one who actually wrote the bill to see what he thinks about it.

It's not disputed. It's a total misreading of a memo that's actually rather clear in its intentions.

"Thus, HHS has authority to waive compliance with this 402 requirement and authorize a state to test approaches and methods other than those set forth in section 407, including definitions of work activities and engagement, specified limitations, verification procedures, and the calculation of participation rates. As described below, however, HHS will only consider approving waivers relating to the work participation requirements that make changes intended to lead to more effective means of meeting the work goals of TANF."

Emphasis mine.
This paragraph alone clearly demonstrates that the intention is to give states the power to find more effective means of meeting the work requirement. In no way does this waive the work requirement. If anything, it may strengthen that requirement.

As for Politifact being untruthful, I will agree that there's a very blurry line between Mostly False and Half True. But that's a problem of qualitative claims of truth in general. The article you cite cherry picks the claims that suit its viewpoint, but if I was so inclined, I could find plenty of "conservative-leaning" statements too. If Politifact had said that the claim was "mostly true," on the other hand, I would have understood the indignation.

And one needs only to look at Politifact's rulings on Obama's statements about Paul Ryan's Medicare plan or Mitt Romney's record at Bain Capital to see that the site is certainly not interested in doing the President any favors.

Is the creator of the law lying too? I would assume he would know most about the law than anyone else...

I'd like to assume he has good intentions, so maybe he's just a bad reader? It is plainly laid out in the memo that the purpose of the waiver is to increase employment retention, not decrease it.

But apparently someone saw the word "waive" and didn't bother to read the surrounding text.

[Roy Karrde]

I agree that Obama may have claimed, in some manner, to be post-partisan; but I just don't think it's honest to say that anyone was "deceived" by his use of negative ads in 2012, when the same thing was done by both campaigns in 2008.

My real problem with Davis' statement is that it implies a double standard. If Obama runs negative ads, this is a betrayal of everything he stands for; but if Romney does it, it's acceptable? I don't see Davis looking down on the Republican nominee for doing the exact same thing.

Well one could say that Romney hasn't spent the last 4 years building himself up as "Post Partisan" and "Above the Fray" and beyond all the nastiness and bickering. Now we are seeing the return of the Obama of when he faced Clinton, the nasty evil Obama.

Fair enough. Certainly there's a give and take with energy policy that's much more complicated than it appears. But it's certainly fallacious to look at the situation and say, "Obama did it." Which is essentially what Davis said.

Well he did have 3 years to build refineries, not to mention that he did not help the World's Oil supply by shutting off Government leases.

Yes, both of those statistics are true; as a side note, Politifact also agrees. But I'm sure that's just a complex act of subterfuge.

The problem arises when one attempts to determine the context. Is this the effect of Obama's policies? Bush's? I'm not an expert on the issue, but even after considerable research, and reading up on the work of several economists, I'm not really sure where to point the finger of blame.

Thing is, after 3 years, he owns it, now we can get into what happened that cause the economic collapse. But we have been through a Stimulus, several Qualitative Easings, bail outs, and numerous other attempts to fix the economy under his watch. He owns this.

It's not disputed. It's a total misreading of a memo that's actually rather clear in its intentions.

"Thus, HHS has authority to waive compliance with this 402 requirement and authorize a state to test approaches and methods other than those set forth in section 407, including definitions of work activities and engagement, specified limitations, verification procedures, and the calculation of participation rates. As described below, however, HHS will only consider approving waivers relating to the work participation requirements that make changes intended to lead to more effective means of meeting the work goals of TANF."

Emphasis mine.
This paragraph alone clearly demonstrates that the intention is to give states the power to find more effective means of meeting the work requirement. In no way does this waive the work requirement. If anything, it may strengthen that requirement.

Lets look into that shall we? As HHS actually cited a example of one of the states asking for this.

[Nevada] asked to discuss flexibility in imposing those requirements. Perhaps, the state asked, those families hardest to employ could be exempted from the work requirements for six months while officials worked with them to stabilize their households.

http://dailycaller.com/2012/08/10/ny...#ixzz250OqbOAv

EXEMPT FOR SIX MONTHS to suggest that is not a waver of the work requirements is utterly false. And mind you this is something cited specifically by HHS as if to hold up as a example of what a state could do.

I'd like to assume he has good intentions, so maybe he's just a bad reader? It is plainly laid out in the memo that the purpose of the waiver is to increase employment retention, not decrease it.

But apparently someone saw the word "waive" and didn't bother to read the surrounding text.

Or maybe he is actually a very good reader. Lets look at what the states can also do to increase employment retention, not decrease it.

This sounds impressive, but a state can accomplish this merely by raising monthly “employment exits” (people exiting welfare to take a job) from, say, 5 percent to 6 percent of its caseload. That kind of change will occur automatically as the economy improves.

In other words, a state that doesn’t move many people from welfare to work can raise its pathetically low number of job placements by a fifth and get excused from meeting the welfare reform law’s much tougher standards. And one way to get credit for more “exits” is to run lots of people through the system–including people who would normally bypass welfare entirely on their way to getting jobs. “Given the normal turnover rate in welfare programs, the easiest way to increase the number of individuals moving from ‘welfare to work’ is to increase the number entering welfare in the first place,” writes Rector. Bringing people into unnecessary contact with the welfare system is, of course, exactly what the ’96 law was designed to avoid.

http://dailycaller.com/2012/08/08/th...#ixzz250Ph1L5v

Again as they note, the line "compared to the state’s past performance" is not in there to look pretty, it gives a scapegoat to states to run more people through the system to boost their number, and in the end does the opposite of what the Clinton law was designed to do.

[Plantae]

Well one could say that Romney hasn't spent the last 4 years building himself up as "Post Partisan" and "Above the Fray" and beyond all the nastiness and bickering. Now we are seeing the return of the Obama of when he faced Clinton, the nasty evil Obama.

Nasty, evil Obama? Get real. This is politics. No one is really surprised here. It's just useful for conservatives to pretend that they are. And if you're using Clinton as your example, doesn't that just prove my point that this has been going on since 2008, and there's no significant difference now in Obama's behavior? But suddenly, it's much more objectionable?

And you're also telling me we shouldn't hold all politicians to the same standard of honesty and integrity? That it doesn't matter what Romney has painted himself as? Are you saying that whatever image a politician presents, it's acceptable as long as it remains consistent? What if Romney presented himself as a fascist? As long as he didn't change his views, then that's responsible? If Obama is regarded as nasty and evil for his use of negative ads, then Romney must also be regarded this way.

Personally I'd rather think that this is politics as usual than believe that both Obama and Romney are essentially morally bankrupt individuals. Because I'd like to think that neither of them are. But I do think they understand campaign strategy, and negative ads have been shown to work. It would politically irresponsible to refrain from using them, even if it might be morally supererogatory.

Well he did have 3 years to build refineries, not to mention that he did not help the World's Oil supply by shutting off Government leases.

I'm not sure what you're alleging here by saying he "[shut] off Government leases" or what your source is. It's true that drilling and well permits have slowed under Barack Obama, but they certainly haven't stopped.

Obama has also redirected resources towards alternative energy (which requires necessary exploration, even Romney agrees) and has a more environmentally-sensitive policy on oil. I agree that this has led to a decrease in domestic production on federal lands, but oil production is still up. Oil production is actually at an 8-year high, largely due to the policies of individual states; but this doesn't match the higher price of gas.

From 1993-2000, gas prices were relatively stable and largely below $1.50 per gallon; from 2001-2009, they fluctuated heavily, even hitting $4.11 at one point during 2008. Bush granted more drilling and well permits annually than Bill Clinton or Barack Obama. In fact, he granted more permits yearly than Bill Clinton in every instance (whereas the permits issued from 2000-2003 were less than currently issued by Barack Obama, even though the gas price at the time was much lower). During Clinton's tenure, gas prices were consistently lower. This seems to point to an economic situation that is more attributable to a combination of complex, global factors, and domestic demand for oil than to the domestic policies of any one President.

Thing is, after 3 years, he owns it, now we can get into what happened that cause the economic collapse. But we have been through a Stimulus, several Qualitative Easings, bail outs, and numerous other attempts to fix the economy under his watch. He owns this.

The assertion that "he owns this" is laughable. No President has ever entirely "owned" or been responsible for the condition of the economy. Being as the recession began before President Obama entered office, I think it's impossible to say that his policies caused it. I think it's likely on the other hand that he may be at least partially to blame for the tepid recovery. But I think we've already discussed our different views on what would be the best step forward for the economy, and I think it's best we agree to disagree. Especially since there's no new data to consider.

Lets look into that shall we? As HHS actually cited a example of one of the states asking for this.

EXEMPT FOR SIX MONTHS to suggest that is not a waver of the work requirements is utterly false.

Emphasis mine.
The letter is clearly a proposal. The waiver has not been approved, as it remains unclear exactly what the performance standards of the memo constitute. In fact, the Republican Governor of Nevada now claims that he never requested a waiver at all. So are you saying that he did or he didn't?

"Hold up as an example" isn't accurate. "Hold up" suggests that Nevada's letter is being used as the standard for waiver requests, which it isn't. All the memo does is cite Nevada as one of five states which had mentioned waivers as a possible mechanism for allowing innovation within the current welfare system.

Again as they note, the line "compared to the state’s past performance" is not in there to look pretty, it gives a scapegoat to states to run more people through the system to boost their number, and in the end does the opposite of what the Clinton law was designed to do.

And that's all just pessimism. There's no evidence that clearly demonstrates that it is the Administration's intention to weaken the work requirement, or that they would allow the sort of scheme that you're suggesting... especially since an application for a waiver requires a careful evaluation of the applicant state's request.

It seems the real issue here is whether the Administration can be trusted to grant waivers in good faith or not. HHS has said, "Waivers that weaken or undercut welfare reform will not be approved." But I agree that there may be a danger in taking this at face value. It remains to be seen whether granting the states more flexibility would work in the long-term. But I also think it's rational to test whether there are more efficient ways of doing things, rather than maintaining strict regulations on the states which may be overly burdensome. The only way we'll possibly know what the best way to increase employment retention is, is to attempt the very projects that HHS seeks to allow through waivers. If anything, I think the HHS could offer more assurance by publicly presenting a set of rigorous standards they will use to approve project requests.

[Dark Sage]

Is anyone going to mention how Ryan pretty much set the world record for misconceptions and outright lies inserted into a political speech?

Fact: While Ryan tried to pin the downgrade of the United States’ credit rating on spending under President Obama, the credit rating was actually downgraded because Republicans threatened not to raise the debt ceiling.

Fact: While Ryan blamed President Obama for the shut down of a GM plant in Janesville, Wisconsin, the plant was actually closed under President George W. Bush. Ryan actually asked for federal spending to save the plant, while Romney has criticized the auto industry bailout that President Obama ultimately enacted to prevent other plants from closing.

Fact: Though Ryan insisted that President Obama wants to give all the credit for private sector success to government, that isn't what the president said. Period.

Fact: Though Paul Ryan accused President Obama of taking $716 billion out of Medicare, the fact is that that amount was savings in Medicare reimbursement rates (which, incidentally, save Medicare recipients out-of-pocket costs, too) and Ryan himself embraced these savings in his budget plan.

Elections should be about competing based on your record in the past and your vision for the future, not competing to see who can get away with the most lies and distortions without voters noticing or bother to care. Both parties should hold themselves to that standard. Republicans should be ashamed that there was even one misrepresentation in Ryan’s speech but sadly, there were many.

[Roy Karrde]

Fact: While Ryan tried to pin the downgrade of the United States’ credit rating on spending under President Obama, the credit rating was actually downgraded because Republicans threatened not to raise the debt ceiling.

Not True.

"Lowering the nation’s rating to one notch below AAA, the credit rating company said “political brinkmanship” in the debate over the debt had made the U.S. government’s ability to manage its finances “less stable, less effective and less predictable.” It said the bipartisan agreement reached this week to find at least $2.1 trillion in budget savings “fell short” of what was necessary to tame the nation’s debt over time and predicted that leaders would not be likely to achieve more savings in the future."

http://www.washingtonpost.com/busine...IxI_story.html

The Democrats AND Republicans had reached a compromise, but S&P downgraded anyway. And mind you the reason we came to that problem with the debt so fast was Obama's spending.

Fact: While Ryan blamed President Obama for the shut down of a GM plant in Janesville, Wisconsin, the plant was actually closed under President George W. Bush. Ryan actually asked for federal spending to save the plant, while Romney has criticized the auto industry bailout that President Obama ultimately enacted to prevent other plants from closing.

Not True

The Plant's Assembly line closed in April of 2009 and was put on standby.

http://www.cnn.com/2012/08/30/politi...-gm/index.html

Fact: Though Paul Ryan accused President Obama of taking $716 billion out of Medicare, the fact is that that amount was savings in Medicare reimbursement rates (which, incidentally, save Medicare recipients out-of-pocket costs, too) and Ryan himself embraced these savings in his budget plan.

Not True.

http://dailycaller.com/2011/03/04/hh...macare-budget/

The Obama Administration actually double counts the cuts, saying they are both savings and cuts.

Nasty, evil Obama? Get real. This is politics. No one is really surprised here. It's just useful for conservatives to pretend that they are. And if you're using Clinton as your example, doesn't that just prove my point that this has been going on since 2008, and there's no significant difference now in Obama's behavior? But suddenly, it's much more objectionable?

And you're also telling me we shouldn't hold all politicians to the same standard of honesty and integrity? That it doesn't matter what Romney has painted himself as? Are you saying that whatever image a politician presents, it's acceptable as long as it remains consistent? What if Romney presented himself as a fascist? As long as he didn't change his views, then that's responsible? If Obama is regarded as nasty and evil for his use of negative ads, then Romney must also be regarded this way.

Personally I'd rather think that this is politics as usual than believe that both Obama and Romney are essentially morally bankrupt individuals. Because I'd like to think that neither of them are. But I do think they understand campaign strategy, and negative ads have been shown to work. It would politically irresponsible to refrain from using them, even if it might be morally supererogatory.

There is politics, and then there is what Obama is doing, we can look at things like having campaign surrogates call Romney a felon, or his campaign allegedly working with the Super PAC to say that Romney killed a man's wife. This does go back to 2008 in which Obama tried to preemptively call Clinton racist, but you neglect the fact that between now and then Obama has tried to craft a image of himself as some one better than that. He is betraying that image.

I'm not sure what you're alleging here by saying he "[shut] off Government leases" or what your source is. It's true that drilling and well permits have slowed under Barack Obama, but they certainly haven't stopped.

I am speaking of the oil moratorium that Obama placed on the Gulf of Mexico.

Obama has also redirected resources towards alternative energy (which requires necessary exploration, even Romney agrees) and has a more environmentally-sensitive policy on oil. I agree that this has led to a decrease in domestic production on federal lands, but oil production is still up. Oil production is actually at an 8-year high, largely due to the policies of individual states; but this doesn't match the higher price of gas.

Actually oil production is on a high because of leases Bush granted before he left office, however for all Obama is done in being "Green Friendly" that still has not done a thing to lower oil at this moment. Furthermore while we are doing good on the Bush leases we could be doing better.

From 1993-2000, gas prices were relatively stable and largely below $1.50 per gallon; from 2001-2009, they fluctuated heavily, even hitting $4.11 at one point during 2008. Bush granted more drilling and well permits annually than Bill Clinton or Barack Obama. In fact, he granted more permits yearly than Bill Clinton in every instance (whereas the permits issued from 2000-2003 were less than currently issued by Barack Obama, even though the gas price at the time was much lower). During Clinton's tenure, gas prices were consistently lower. This seems to point to an economic situation that is more attributable to a combination of complex, global factors, and domestic demand for oil than to the domestic policies of any one President.

There is no doubt there are global factors, however it would be utterly ignorant to suggest that more oil coming onto the market from domestic drilling, especially as opposed to the unease in the Middle East, would not calm oil prices atleast some bit.

Emphasis mine.
The letter is clearly a proposal. The waiver has not been approved, as it remains unclear exactly what the performance standards of the memo constitute. In fact, the Republican Governor of Nevada now claims that he never requested a waiver at all. So are you saying that he did or he didn't?

That would be a question to ask HHS not me.

"Hold up as an example" isn't accurate. "Hold up" suggests that Nevada's letter is being used as the standard for waiver requests, which it isn't. All the memo does is cite Nevada as one of five states which had mentioned waivers as a possible mechanism for allowing innovation within the current welfare system.

The information has also been published by the HHS as a example cited by Nevada, now like it or not the HHS saw fit to show that as enough of a example of a waver, which is giving people pause and if they do issue wavers like the Nevada letter asks for, that would be gutting the program.

And that's all just pessimism. There's no evidence that clearly demonstrates that it is the Administration's intention to weaken the work requirement, or that they would allow the sort of scheme that you're suggesting... especially since an application for a waiver requires a careful evaluation of the applicant state's request.

Obama's own previous opposition to the work requirement, as well as the use of the Nevada letter does suggest their wish to gut the work requirement.

[Dark Sage]

Here's a quote from the CNN story you linked:

December 23, 2008: SUV production ends, and more than 2,000 GM workers are laid off, according to the Gazette. Medium truck production continues.

April 23, 2009: The plant's medium-duty assembly line, which produced an Isuzu line, closes, ending vehicle production at the plant and resulting in the loss of 57 production jobs, according to the Gazette.

so I guess it wasn't truly a lie, just a gross exaggeration of the truth.

Here is a quote from your link about the downgrade:

The decision came after a day of furious back-and-forth debate between the Obama administration and S&P. Treasury Department officials fought back hard, arguing that the firm’s political analysis was flawed and that it had made a numerical error in a draft of its downgrade report that overstated the deficit over 10 years by $2 trillion. Officials had reviewed the draft earlier in the day.

“A judgment flawed by a $2 trillion error speaks for itself,” a Treasury spokesman said Friday night.

It does not seem to support Ryan's statement that Obama is to blame, as the Treasury Department was not the one that made the decision.

[Roy Karrde]

so I guess it wasn't truly a lie, just a gross exaggeration of the truth.

Either the plant was closed under Bush or it wasn't, if the line was still running then the plant wasn't closed.

It does not seem to support Ryan's statement that Obama is to blame.

Did Obama approve trillion of dollars of spending? Did Obama set us on a path that would cause trillion and trillion of more dollars in debt? THAT is all on him.

[Dark Sage]

Two-thousand jobs were cut under Bush, fifty-seven under Obama.

And while the plant "died" under Obama, its death warrant was signed under Bush.

[Roy Karrde]

Two-thousand jobs were cut under Bush, fifty-seven under Obama.

And while the plant "died" under Obama, its death warrant was signed under Bush.

Signed under Bush? Can you produce the documents with Bush's signature that shows Bush cut those jobs? Like it or not, Ryan was talked about when the plant closed, and that was under Obama.

[Dark Sage]

Roy, you know, I really don't think that all the auto workers who lost their jobs, especially since Romney was in favor of letting the companies fail, are going to care about technicallities when they go to the polls.

I mean, the GOP can't have a lawyer there to argue why they must vote for Romney because of a legal loophole that says that the closing of the plant was Obama's fault.

Btw, the voter ID law was struck down in Texas (as I'm sure you know, being from Texas), and it's looking very much like the same thing is going to happen in South Carolina. Seeing as two of the three judges who decided the Texas case were GOP-appointed, I'd say that fewer and fewer people are believing the whole "voter fraud" thing.

[Roy Karrde]

Roy, you know, I really don't think that all the auto workers who lost their jobs, especially since Romney was in favor of letting the companies fail, are going to care about technicallities when they go to the polls.

I mean, the GOP can't have a lawyer there to argue why they must vote for Romney because of a legal loophole that says that the closing of the plant was Obama's fault.

Ironically enough GM is on the verge of going into bankruptcy again, one wonders if America will ever recoup its money. By the way it is not Ryan who is parsing words, it is the Democrats. He talked about when the plant closed, it is you, not him that is struggling to spin this.

Btw, the voter ID law was struck down in Texas (as I'm sure you know, being from Texas), and it's looking very much like the same thing is going to happen in South Carolina. Seeing as two of the three judges who decided the Texas case were GOP-appointed, I'd say that fewer and fewer people are believing the whole "voter fraud" thing.

Except there is Voter Fraud as we have already covered, and as you have already lost that argument. But I am sure Texas will appeal.

[Dark Sage]

Except there is Voter Fraud as we have already covered, and as you have already lost that argument. But I am sure Texas will appeal.

You only think I lost that arguement. I think it's bullshit. Maybe you've heard Al Sharpton's take on the subject?

People will stop making this outrageous claim after the law is struck down in Pennsyvania and Florida too. Until then, the people who believe that voter fraud is the true reason for these laws can continue to live with their delusions.

[Roy Karrde]

You only think I lost that arguement. I think it's bullshit.

No I pretty much kicked your ass.

Maybe you've heard Al Sharpton's take on the subject?

Dunno, what is old race baiting piece of shit mumble mouth think of it?

People will stop making this outrageous claim after the law is struck down in Pennsyvania and Florida too. Until then, the people who believe that voter fraud is the true reason for these laws can continue to live with their delusions.

And yet the arguments Democrats have made about it stifling turn out have been shown to be false, and Voter Fraud has shown to be a problem. Now who is delusional.

[Dark Sage]

Dunno, what is old race baiting piece of shit mumble mouth think of it?

See for yourself. This commercial actually has nothing to do with voter ID, but it's gone viral since it first aired on the 30th. He's become... creative.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=a9-YNCrsvL4

[Roy Karrde]

See for yourself. This commercial actually has nothing to do with voter ID, but it's gone viral since it first aired on the 30th. He's become... creative.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=a9-YNCrsvL4

Ironically enough more people have probably seen it online than at the failing cable channel. But hey maybe Mr. Sharpton should actually start putting some effort into getting viewers to his show, and not on commercials.

But I would say this is far more creative.

[Dark Sage]

Ironically enough more people have probably seen it online than at the failing cable channel. But hey maybe Mr. Sharpton should actually start putting some effort into getting viewers to his show, and not on commercials.

Are you out of your mind? Far, FAR more people commercials than ANY political figure could convince to watch ANY show. That's why politicians use television to advertise. Sharpton may be a little crazy, but he's not stupid.

[Roy Karrde]

Are you out of your mind? Far, FAR more people commercials than ANY political figure could convince to watch ANY show. That's why politicians use television to advertise. Sharpton may be a little crazy, but he's not stupid.

You do realize that Al Sharpton has his own show on MSNBC?

http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/45755884/#48834203

[Dark Sage]

Uh, yes.

But I'm pretty sure that if Kelsey Grammer made commercials, more people would see them then the ones watching that new show he's starring in.

I've seen it. Not nearly as good as Fraiser.

[Roy Karrde]

Uh, yes.

But I'm pretty sure that if Kelsey Grammer made commercials, more people would see them then the ones watching that new show he's starring in.

I've seen it. Not nearly as good as Fraiser.

Well depends on which Network it is on, Fox News can pull in millions of viewers, MSNBC... not so much.

Speaking of which one of the blogs has put out the Top 3 Truths of the Ryan Convention Speech.

1. “Right now, 23 million men and women are struggling to find work.” It is doubtful that even the most talented liberal spin doctor can deny that claim.

2. Back in 2008, candidate Obama called a $10 trillion national debt “unpatriotic.” Again, guilty as charged.

3. Seven hundred and sixteen billion dollars [were] funneled out of Medicare by President Obama.

[Dark Sage]

Ah yes, Fox News, "the only fair and balanced" reporting, a statement they make that makes me want to vomit every time I hear it.

Going back to your original question about Sharpton's opinion, he has compared the voter ID laws to the Jim Crow laws, saying that they will keep impovershed minorities from voting. Now, I'll admit that Sharpton is not my favorite activist and I don't agree with him too often, but he has at least some of a point here. In fact, that guy in Pennsylvania I mentioned who made that awful joke about the disabled has admitted that the law will help Romney.

Sharpton has also compared the law to a poll tax, which is illegal, another valid point.

I should also point out that Sharpton is far from the only well-known figure to make both claims. They are held by many, including a lot of actual politicians who hold state and federal offices.

Before you ask for proof, I have none. But then, the guy who was at the hearing supporting the South Carolina voter ID laws admitted under cross-examination that he had nothing to support his claims of voter fraud cases involving identification either.

[Roy Karrde]

Ah yes, Fox News, "the only fair and balanced" reporting, a statement they make that makes me want to vomit every time I hear it.

And yet they kick MSNBC's ass.

Going back to your original question about Sharpton's opinion, he has compared the voter ID laws to the Jim Crow laws, saying that they will keep impovershed minorities from voting. Now, I'll admit that Sharpton is not my favorite activist and I don't agree with him too often, but he has at least some of a point here. In fact, that guy in Pennsylvania I mentioned who made that awful joke about the disabled has admitted that the law will help Romney.

"The two states with the strictest voter ID requirements are Indiana and Georgia. Both require a government-issued photo ID. According to figures released by Prof. Michael McDonald of George Mason University, the overall national turnout of eligible voters was 61.6%, the highest turnout since the 1964 election.

The Joint Center for Political and Economic Studies (JCPES) found that black turnout in the 2008 election was at a historic high, having increased substantially from 2004. The total share of black voters in the national vote increased from 11% to 13% according to exit polls, with 95% of blacks voting for Mr. Obama.

So what happened in Georgia where the ACLU, the NAACP and other such groups claimed the state's photo ID law was intended to depress black turnout? According to figures released by Curtis Gans at American University, Georgia had the largest turnout in its history, with nearly four million voters. The Republican turnout was up only 0.22 percentage points; the Democratic turnout was up an astonishing 6.1 percentage points, rising from 22.66% of the eligible voting population to 28.74% of the eligible population.

The overall turnout in Georgia increased 6.7 percentage points from the 2004 election -- the second highest increase in turnout of any state in the country. According to the JCPES, the black share of the statewide vote increased in Georgia from 25% in the 2004 election, when the photo ID law was not in effect, to 30% in the 2008 election, when the photo ID law was in effect.

By contrast, the Democratic turnout in the neighboring state of Mississippi -- which has no voter ID requirement but also has a large black population similar to Georgia's -- increased by only 2.35 percentage points."

http://online.wsj.com/article/SB123327839569631609.html

Sharpton has also compared the law to a poll tax, which is illegal, another valid point.

Except the IDs do not cost anything? By the way I ask again, how pathetic is it to believe that minorities cannot some how or some way get a ID, but Whites can?

I should also point out that Sharpton is far from the only well-known figure to make both claims. They are held by many, including a lot of actual politicians who hold state and federal offices.

And yet they are no less ignorant.

Before you ask for proof, I have none. But then, the guy who was at the hearing supporting the South Carolina voter ID laws admitted under cross-examination that he had nothing to support his claims of voter fraud cases either.

And yet I have shown you cases of voter fraud, I have also shown you cases of record turn out despite the toughest voter ID laws, all you have? Nothing.

[Heald]

To be fair, Fox News is the only major national news channel that took their case to court that they have a constitutional right to lie and call it news, and then they sometimes flat out admit that they make up stories or that they don't have any credible sources for any anti-Obama news, or they phrase news in such a way that people think it's the truth e.g.

IS OBAMA A MUSLIM?

ARE THE DEMOCRATS FUNDING OSAMA BIN LADEN

DID HILARY CLINTON CAUSE 9/11?

I think when it comes to the point where most of your headlines can be summed up with the word 'No', then you don't get to call yourself a news channel any more.

Although Fox News has admitted in the past it is an entertainment channel, not a news channel, so there we go.

[Dark Sage]

Okay, Heald, since you seem to have some common sense, maybe you can give your opinion...

Do you think that the voter ID laws are really designed to prevent voter fraud, or to suppress votes and help the GOP?

I don't want to hear anything from Roy. I only want Heald's opinion. Then I'll shut up for now.

[Heald]

I think the real issue is why such laws would disproportionately affect ethnic minorities and poorer people? Why don't these people have some kind of photo ID? I agree with the Voter ID laws in principle as long as they help reduce voter fraud, but it should also be accompanied by a campaign to increase awareness amongst those without photo ID and improve the socio-economic conditions of areas that help foster such attitudes.

If the GOP had nothing to gain from Voter ID laws, I doubt they'd be pushing for them. But then again if the Democrats had nothing to lose from them I'd doubt they'd be opposing them.

[Dark Sage]

I think the real issue is why such laws would disproportionately affect ethnic minorities and poorer people? Why don't these people have some kind of photo ID? I agree with the Voter ID laws in principle as long as they help reduce voter fraud, but it should also be accompanied by a campaign to increase awareness amongst those without photo ID and improve the socio-economic conditions of areas that help foster such attitudes.

If the GOP had nothing to gain from Voter ID laws, I doubt they'd be pushing for them. But then again if the Democrats had nothing to lose from them I'd doubt they'd be opposing them.

The reason they affect impovershed people is because government IDs DO cost money. A passport, for example, costs $25 just to process (more for the photo), and even something that little is a difference to someone living on food stamps.

And seeing as Heald has indeed made a statement that makes a great deal of sense, I am, as promised, shutting up for now.

[Roy Karrde]

The reason they affect impovershed people is because government IDs DO cost money. A passport, for example, costs $25 just to process (more for the photo), and even something that little is a difference to someone living on food stamps.

And seeing as Heald has indeed made a statement that makes a great deal of sense, I am, as promised, shutting up for now.

You do realize that not everyone has to buy a passport, you practically need to have a Drivers License to get anywhere these days, you also are issued a free ID via your Social Security card when you are born, and the list goes on and on and on.

[Heald]

You do realize that not everyone has to buy a passport, you practically need to have a Drivers License to get anywhere these days, you also are issued a free ID via your Social Security card when you are born, and the list goes on and on and on.

Not that I disagree with you, but I'm willing to bet there are large enclaves of poors and minorities who have no idea what a driving licence or a social security card is, or where/how you get them.

[Roy Karrde]

Not that I disagree with you, but I'm willing to bet there are large enclaves of poors and minorities who have no idea what a driving licence or a social security card is, or where/how you get them.

Well I believe a Social Security card is issued when ever you are born, its the number that every American has, and is used largely for pretty much everything including for employment verification for even the smallest job, and even things like welfare and medicaid. You practically cannot do anything with the Government or connected to it with out your Social Security card / Social Security number.