Aggghhh!! A pox on Fox!

that guy reminds me of Judge Smails.

telling a joke that he THINKS is funny but isn't.

hearty guffaw!

That was funny. Come on.

Awful joke? Give me a break. It was just lightning the mood.
I watch Fox and CNN to get my news.. than I go down the middle of both to get to the truth.

"Just in case aaaaanyone still thought we were good journalists and hosts who put our guests at ease."

Nice that they are focusing on the issues.

I was glad when the Lady Fox pointed out that chartreuse was the color of Guy Fox's tie. I mean, just in case you didn't know, Fox viewers, we are hitting you with the facts! (Although it is arguably more of a celery)

This makes me think of cornflower blue and it's meaning to Mr. Palanuik which leads me down the road to thinking perhaps Project Mayhem should be directed not only at credit companies/wall street but broadcast news as well. Pukatronic.

God I hate Fox.

Chartreuse sounds like an elitist color.

Lady Fox had to tell people what it looked like in order stop millions of people from going in to their kids room and getting their 64 box of Crayola crayons to check.

Why is it the McCain can't seem to get that stupid look off his face even when there's an obvious joke? I think the clip was amusing. But I still think McCain looks like an idiot. I can only watch Fox on an empty stomach!

wtf?

I'm going to have to address this "believing women should have their rapist's babies" straw man statement here.

How many women would that scenario constitute as compared to abortions based upon any other reason? Based upon the number of late-term abortions? Abortions for birth defects? Abortions to save the life of the mother?

Ms Palin's stand on in this matter is far more consistent and logical with her beliefs about human life than those who champion the right to abortion but who also add that the societal goal should be to keep it "legal but rare".

If any baby from gestation to right before it takes its first breath of air is fair game (and before he ran for the presidency, Obama had trouble seeing a baby as human life AFTER it managed to survive the procedure and take a breath…)then who cares if abortion is "rare".

I'm sure there are people who believe just that…but for some reason they don't advertise it when campaigning for president…

Bravo to Ms. Palin for not compromising on her core beliefs in order to win a vote.

Seeing the world in black and white is always more consistant - but rarely (because I don't pretend to know everything) more accurate - than seeing shades of grey. Failing to see nuance shouldn't be a point of pride.

i didn't read anything but lisa's comment. but wow, lisa, well said. very eloquent!

No. 14 Lisa (#1) says:

Seeing the world in black and white is always more consistant - but rarely (because I don't pretend to know everything) more accurate - than seeing shades of grey. Failing to see nuance shouldn't be a point of pride.
Posted: Oct 1, 2008 at 5:25 pm

You can't get more "black and white" than a Supreme Court ruling, Lisa.

As with the Dred Scott ruling that relegated slaves to the status of chattel, where is the "nuance" in a hard fast ruling which mandates that the unborn have no inherent rights and are strictly the property of their mothers?

You want nuance and shades of gray…then you must agree with Palin who thinks that the practice of abortion should be a matter for state legislatures to decide based upon the will of the people in those individual states.

Supreme courts make rules that one applies to a particular fact pattern. Not black and white since it is tinted by the case.

Dred Scott's decision was based upon standing to bring suit in a federal court. Which, you should know, is a states rights thing. Just as you say Palin is all about.

But is she really? Or is she only in favor so long as the state agrees with her position. How does she feel about crossing state lines for abortion. See? Grey.

Also, I refuse to believe a blastopore is a person. Sorry. That is a fundamentally different case than Dred Scott - maybe not at the time it was decided, but seen through modern eyes. Putting them on the same footing is disingenuous.

I musn't agree with anything, really, because I have different set of values and experiences than Palin. And they are no less valid.

Actually, the Supreme Court has already decided that Palin's set of values and experiences are less valid.

Does THAT scenario spark anything in you when it applies to someone else?

And it would be interesting to travel back in time and hear you tell slaves that the validity of their cause was a "states rights" matter in…. wait for it…. those US states that sanctioned slavery….(yes, it would be moot in the states that did not…)

I'm sure THAT explanation would be nuanced enough for you…

He wasn't being funny. He was making fun of the stupid journalists in the mainstream media. The libs can dish it out, but they sure as hell can't take it. Lighten up!!

Lisa, For your information the Supreme Court isn't supposed to "make rules." They are supposed to interpret the Consitution. Simple as that.

Um, for YOUR information, the Supreme Court interprets the Constitution and the result of that interpretation is a rule which rule is then applied to the facts of the case before the Court. That's why they're called Supreme Court rulings. The rulings then must be followed by the lower appellate and trial courts. So Lisa is right.

And Eve, I suggest you actually read the Court's decision in Roe before making wildly inaccurate statements about its holding. Indeed, you might be shocked to find that the word "property" no where appears in the decision. What the decision says is that the right to privacy is guaranteed by the 14th Amendment and that right to privacy includes the decision as to whether to have an abortion. The privacy right, however is not absolute, and at a certain "compelling" point, that right must give way to state regulations rights, such as protecting the health of citizens and protecting potential life.

You ought to inform yourself before spreading such patent bullshit like "no inherent right to life for unborns" and "the unborn is a property right of the mother."

Seriously. Pick up a book.

Thanks STM, I was slack in verbage. I had no idea I was being graded. Pardon, the SC makes rulings. It is not as simple as that, however, if you look at the history of the Court's rulings. How does one interpret? From the viewpoint of modern man? From those of the framers? If from the framers, how does one even start to approach the validity of a law barring transgendered individuals from a women's restroom? Not simple, and to say it is does a disservice to anyone whose life isn't as cut and dry as yours or mine.

Eve, how has the SC decided that? Please explain what you mean. Because you can't be talking about Roe.

Also, it is amazing you are championing Palin's states rights stance out of one side of your mouth and decrying the history of it out of the other. State vs. federal power to make governing laws is actually a very nuanced question. It was a sates rights question, one that was anticipated in the drafting of the Constitution and one that it took an Amendment to correct. I find it interesting, however, that you keep brining up slavery. I have already said that I do not find the situations analogous. Talk about what you are talking about, please. I guess I shouldn't be surprised considering you brought up abortion on what is, essentially, a post about thinking a joke isn't funny.

Also, I don't appreciate your sarcasm, but I guess that serves you in place of a cogent point.

Oh, well, Einstein… I don't think it's speaking out of both sides of my mouth, when the Supreme Court ruled that those of African descent had no rights according to them via citizenship…

Let's just call THAT yet another "implied" right to privacy, shall we? We'll call it the privacy of ownership of "noncitizens" in ALL states, but with particular significance to those state where human being were defined as property– whether it was slaves or the ownership of your own body (or fetus within your own body).

Lovely no? Your privacy rights don't extend to selling your own organs, but they extended to trading in people of African descent and now to your right to extinguish another life growing within you.

Lisa doesn't like comparisons of "real" people with nascent life, but is very willing to have the Supreme Court make that pronouncement for her, as it did in Dred Scott.

Roe vs Wade is "nuanced", but the other? Well… we know what the other was.

another wholly nonsensical response that does not address my point.

this is fun.

Eve, why the insults? Insults and sacrasm. You never did answer my question, but that is ok. Clearly this is going no where and you are being, frankly, a bit of a jerk. But I will leave you with the following:

- Lauding states rights in one instance and decrying them in another is talking out of both sides of your mouth. Either a state gets to decide what constitutes personage or doesn't.

- The right to privacy is not the same as "privacy of ownership." Slick language, there, but not accurate.

- Not finding one situation the same as another isn't the same as not "liking" the comparison. I don't find it accurate it has nothing to do with fondness. Again, slick words, no substance.

I wonder, did you read Roe and Scott, or are you just parroting what you have read on websites. Withdrawn.

of course she hasn't, lisa. and if she has, her comprehension skill are obviously lacking. i read roe umpteen (that's greater than 3 less than eleventy billion) times in both law school and college.

indeed, i reread the opinion last night just so i could be assured that i wasn't talking out of my own ass.

classic bait and switch: manipulate your opponent's argument, and then argue against the reconfigured argument.

what say you, eve?

canst thou addresseth the argument?

Oh, no, the acknowledgment that it can be "black and white" and rational and honorable, by at least your equating an edict of a Supreme Court in Dred Scott and in Roe vs Wade… logically argues that it can be so in the CONSISTENT views of Sarah Palin as well. The original contention.

It's good you got a reminder of that.

The facility of effecting change via a Supreme Court decision or affecting popular opinion (re: the voters of legislators…)not withstanding.

are you playing mad libs? you're stringing words together in the oddest of ways.

also, you still have not addressed my argument or conceded my point (your flailing attempts to address lisa's notwithstanding.)

i do give you props for using "affect" and "effect" correctly, though.

take these props. i hope you will care for them as if they were your own.

All I simply said, before you muddied the water with cooked spaghetti arguments (fling it at the wall and see what sticks) was that seeing things in black and white often does an injustice to the intracies of a situation. And I was talking about personal views. YOU brought in the Supreme Court, YOU brought up Dred Scott. I never said that "it" being in black in white was not rational nor honorable. As a matter of fact I even said, "but rarely (because I don't pretend to know everything) more accurate." And please, I never said Scott or Roe were black and white or rational and honorable. I was just pointing out your logical fallacies and flagrant misuse of caselaw.

And stop slip sliding around - this is the first time I heard anything about honor. You said her views on abortion were consistent and logical with her beliefs about human life. Fine. I said sometimes things are consistant but not necessarily more accurate. Then you start spouting bullshit, insulting people, putting words in people's mouths, misusing SC cases, demanding answers as a substitute for questions, etc. etc. Debates are not wars of attrition - and you shouldn't treat them as such. Quantity over quality is a piss poor strategy.

I'll take pwned for $500, Alex.

I'll take Law Degree Trumps "BS" for $500, Alex.

*arsenio hall HOO HOO HOO*