Originally Posted by KSigkid (Post 1715580)

Haha - I came to terms with my nerdness a while ago, although maybe I shouldn't flaunt it quite so much...

Originally Posted by KSig RC (Post 1715411)

Having just read nittanyalum's interesting post about worry about Sarah Palin's ability to enact social change based on her very conservative, religion-based policy stances (specifically with regard to things like abortion and gay marriage

Originally Posted by pbear19 (Post 1715556)

Agreed x1000. I am a SCOTUS junkie and I do not see this Court as being so bound by precedent as some of you guys above do. I've seen them make decisions exactly as MysticCat says - without overtly overruling a previous decision, but subverting it so far beyond its original intent as to make the original case virtually obsolete.

Justice Stevens isn't going to live forever, and McCain has expressed admiration for Roberts and Alito. Roe v. Wade isn't the only decision out there, either. The Court has so much more influence than people seem to realize, along a huge scope of issues.

That being said - I choose a party platform based on how well I identify with it as a whole. I have a degree in Economics and spent a good bit of time in college and afterwards studying historical econ. I am not a believer in a pure capitalism system. I realize this sounds preposterous, but I am a bit of a fiscally conservative socialist. It's much harder to explain than I have time to type this morning - but it's based on historical precedent partially here and partially in other countries. Since republicans haven't been fiscally conservative in years, and I am a social liberal, I have no reason not to align myself with the democratic party.

An absolutely fascinating book for anyone who is interested in why some people identify with one party over another is Moral Politics by George Lakoff. It's not without flaws, but it's a great read.

Originally Posted by KSigkid (Post 1715561)

I'm a SCOTUS junkie as well (law school has only increased my SCOTUS nerdness), and I would slightly disagree with some of your post. I don't want to derail the thread, however, so if you have any thoughts, or want to discuss it more, feel free to PM me. I'm always up for discussing SCOTUS issues.

Originally Posted by KSigkid (Post 1715580)

Haha - I came to terms with my nerdness a while ago, although maybe I shouldn't flaunt it quite so much...

Originally Posted by UGAalum94 (Post 1715628)

So what do you law nerds think about this:

http://www.tnr.com/politics/story.ht...7-faf565ec9105

To me it reads a little like Biden hagiography, but what do you all think? It's linked on Instapundit too.

Originally Posted by DaemonSeid (Post 1715949)

Some of us had this discussion a few months ago about McCain being a POW and a vet. Some of you didn't like the idea that I was put offish about his status being more concerned about what he did in office as opposed to what he did during the war. Fine...cool. BUT...like I said, you served your country years ago...what are you doing NOW.

Just did a lil digging and what I find is bothersome. For someone that has the status and position to do something for those that has been in some of the same situations as he is/was....he looks like he doesn't show any love for fellow vets.

the link shows in numerous cases, he has voted against bills that in many cases could probably help a lot of vets and even voted FOR a bill that would outsouce jobs from Walter P Reed Medical Center.

Here is the link: http://www.aflcio.org/issues/politics/mccain_vets.cfm

Status doesn't mean everything....

Originally Posted by a.e.B.O.T. (Post 1715963)

I think social change is much harder to push. It is something we are all more qualified to have an opinion on, and thus there is a lot more convincing to do. With that said, I vote based more so on social issues then economy or foreign affairs. I am HARDLY an economist, and foreign affairs have way too many complex factors for someone other than a staunch analyst to decide. However, I have faith in my freedoms, and that is something I am proud of. It bothers me all to hell to see someone stand behind a gun rack with a billion shotguns and preach about family values, a spin term for anti-abortion and anti-gay marriage propaganda. I'm not a girl, nor gay, nor have a gun... but Its MY Body, MY bedroom, and MY gunrack and I should do what I want with it... AND HELL its MY lungs and MY brain, I should smoke pot if I want to!!!!!

Originally Posted by 33girl (Post 1716043)

Well, after Obama's saying he's going to give even more $$ to charter schools, it looks like I'm going to have to. :rolleyes:

Originally Posted by AGDee (Post 1716058)

More details? Because, here, the charter schools simply get the appropriation for each individual student that the state would be giving to the school that kid went to. There is no more funding than public schools get. Additionally, some of them are really phenomenal. There is an Automotive Academy associated with Ford, an Early College for Health care associated with the health system I work for, University Prep geared for college bound students and even foreign language immersion schools. Then again, some of them are awful and simply hold the kids who get expelled from the other public schools..

Originally Posted by KSig RC (Post 1716038)

So you're voting Libertarian, right?

Originally Posted by KSig RC (Post 1716102)

Presumably, when he says he'll "give more money" that means either:

a.) Schools will get more money than they do now (so, more than the "normal" school would get), or
b.) He'll push for more charter schools, period, to increase the total amount going to charter schools.

Given that you yourself noted the extreme hit-or-miss nature of charter programs (in addition to the fact that there are disagreements over the scope and nature of what should be a "charter" program), either of these solutions seem like a band-aid rather than an actual solution to many (likely including myself and 33).

Originally Posted by a.e.B.O.T. (Post 1716107)

AND, I dont want to TOTALLY waste my vote by voting libertarian. I talk and campaign for it, but really, there is only two parties up for the spot, red or blue...

Originally Posted by KSigkid (Post 1716155)

Not to pick on this point, but I don't understand this concept of "wasting" a vote. I would think that not showing up at the polls at all is "wasting" your vote, since you as a person have the right to vote. However, each vote, no matter how small in comparison to the total, sends some sort of message; either for one of the two major parties, or, by voting for a third party candidate, it shows a distaste for the Dems and Republicans, or at least for their platforms.

Then again, I voted Republican while living in Boston, so maybe I'm not the person to talk about "wasting" votes...

Originally Posted by KSigkid (Post 1716155)

Not to pick on this point, but I don't understand this concept of "wasting" a vote. I would think that not showing up at the polls at all is "wasting" your vote, since you as a person have the right to vote. However, each vote, no matter how small in comparison to the total, sends some sort of message; either for one of the two major parties, or, by voting for a third party candidate, it shows a distaste for the Dems and Republicans, or at least for their platforms.

Then again, I voted Republican while living in Boston, so maybe I'm not the person to talk about "wasting" votes...