Friday, September 26, 2008

Weekend Open Thread

You came, you saw, you commented. Have at it here.

PS: I'm watching the debate and trying to get a grasp on the alleged Main Street / Wall Street dichotomy. Ugh.


Nicholas Provenzo said...

Ok, I'm watching the debate, and rather than a McCain's League of Democracy, I propose a League of Justice, and absent that, I propose a League of Extraordinary Gentlemen.

Rob said...


Nicholas Provenzo said...

Ha! LOL on Obama's "look into his eyes" line.

On the more serious side, I think McCain's stand is coming off more abstract, while Obama seems more concrete. Obama gave a good US defense statement, but that doesn't gibe at all with things such as his promise to work for the elimination of the US nuclear arsenal.

revereridesagain said...

Obama is a liar. He has no intention of defending the United States of America as defined by the Constitution. Once he's turned it into the socio-Islamist state he believes it should be, he'll defend that. Oh yeah, and he might look into the Dwarf's eyes and try to talk him into giving him fair warning of any intention to nuke DC so he can get his sorry ass out of town.

Personally, I've always liked 20,000 Leagues.

Burgess Laughlin said...

Based on casual observation only, I have wondered if closely following election contests between fundamentally similar statists is akin to watching sports events such as football.

Do debates between presidential candidates make a difference? Does watching debates make a difference--more than, say, intellectual activism in the same period of time? Or is it mostly entertainment?

Perhaps someone who is a political enthusiast would explain his interest.

Edward Cline said...

I watched the debate Friday night, and was nodding off halfway through it, a state induced by nausea and the tedious nature of the "debate," aggravated by a dislike of both McCain and Obama (and for Jim Leher). It was much like watching a debate between Elmer Fudd and Wylie Coyote.

Ed Cline

Nicholas Provenzo said...

I'm not sure if Ed's analogy exactly fits; Wile E. Coyote never spoke and with these two guys, I wish we would be so lucky.


Jeffrey Derks said...

Ed Cline wrote:

>I watched the debate Friday night, and was nodding off halfway through it, a state induced by nausea...

In the context of this "debate", the only consequential difference I can perceive between the two is in "personality". Presuming such can be taken as any kind of guide to character, then Obama, that empty shell, is clearly superior to the other; he, at least, seems to reflect some faint remnants of a thinking process--which, I'll grant you, usually can't extend much beyond considerations such as, "Do I really believe this?", "Will this make anyone--anyone at all--angry at me?", "Do I seem impressive enough?" McCain, however, appears to be nothing but an automaton programmed to hurl cynical catchphrases and insults interspersed with smarmy feel-good anecdotes, while exhibiting the creepiest, ugliest grin since Jimmy Carter's, and saturated with malice.

I don't know; in the end, all I take away from this sad spectacle is the conviction that McCain is a completely repulsive human being with no redeeming qualities whatsoever; and that the other is still searching, however apathetically and hopelessly, for some sort of identity. (Oh; and the one is also pro-abortion [I think]; the other--definitely not.)

Nicholas Provenzo said...

In terms of ideas and principles, both candidates are deeply wanting and like Ed Cline, I was bored by the whole performance. Obama was more willing to attack markets for the current problems and McCain was a close second. Not good.

In terms of projecting a competent and level-headed demeanor, I think Obama won. McCain's visible contempt against Obama was clear and I don't think it served him will; I don't think you can express such manners publicly without having fully justified your stand and McCain didn't do that.

McCain got more animated than Obama at points and for the people who like that, I'm sure he scored some points, but it didn't sway me. Obama is definitely trying to move to the center prior to the general election and if he stays there, we could do worse. McCain seems less encumbered; he has always supported massive intervention and his boasting of being on the forefront of the climate-control battle shivered me timbers.

All in all, I found it not to be a great night for individual rights, economic liberty or an America that can defeat its enemies.

Kyle Haight said...

Actually, Wile E. Coyote did speak on occasion. There were a couple of cartoons in which he was up against Bugs Bunny, e.g. "Operation: Rabbit", in which he spoke, and one of the later Roadrunner cartoons featured him doing a verbal post-mortem analysis of a failed scheme.

We now return you to your regularly scheduled march of fascism through the once-free United States.

Spratacus said...


You make some good, important, and fundamental points. But while reading your comment I found myself thinking not about Wile E. Coyote, but about Popeye. After all, he is strong and smokes a pipe.

How about we all think about that for a moment.


Spratacus Jones, Professional

madmax said...

I have a question regarding abortion. One of the arguments that Conservatives make is that abortion should be left up to the states and that the Supreme Court overstepped its bounds in finding a right for abortion. Scalia makes this argument; ie that the states should decide or that an Amendment should be passed to represent the will of the people. Is there any legitimacy of this claim given the way our Constitution is structured?

I believe that a rational legal system would view this as a matter of the individual rights of the woman and that only she should decide issues relating to her body and further that the fetus is not a person. But given our system as it is now, is Scalia's Constitutional argument correct? Is it possible that although abortion should be a right, in today's context it would be Constitutionally proper for it to be a matter decided by the States?

Nicholas Provenzo said...

In a nutshell, these conservatives are attacking the idea that the Federal Constitution protects unenumerated individual rights. If they are allowed to win here, their act would be a massive step backwards and the outright betrayal of the Founder's legacy.

Jim May said...

In a nutshell, these conservatives are attacking the idea that the Federal Constitution protects unenumerated individual rights.

I thought that idea died during the New Deal -- if it wasn't already dead by then.