Alaskan Politics (statewide and nationwide) (Wasilla: diet, foreigners, visit)

[fau2010]

I have family in Wasilla and have heard mixed feelings towards her. I find her to be a nice person, but not the right one for a position as high as V.P. or God forbid President. It's not just lack of experience, it has to do more with her foreign inteligence or lack off. Not knowing what the Bush Doctrine was and the fact she got her first passport just 1-2 years ago. I wanted to get Alaskan's viewpoint on her because it seems like she will be atempting to run next election.

[mal_flisk]

As a governor, she's not bad. As a VP candidate, I was less than thrilled. Let's leave it at that from my perspective.

[RayinAK]

Originally Posted by Geechie North

.

Fla 2000.

Bush V Gore. So "special" that the court said its decision there could NOT be used as precedent.

Ohio 2004:

http://www.openelections.org/lib/dow...tus_report.pdf

Note the probability of the reported vote totals NOT being rigged:

1: 100,000.

Florida? Are you talking about the hanging chads, swinging chads, dented chads, twisted chads, and the missing chads Gore wanted to his vote count?

[icarian]

Bush Doctrine? Okay, I'm in a job that is very much affected by his foreign policy...and I don't know his "doctrine". Neither does he I think*. Wanna talk Monroe Doctrine, instead??

*There have been several iterations of his "doctrine"...it is not a prevalent "doctrine", established policy, etc. Hell, the "Powell Doctrine" was much more specific and is 20x more well known...and that was from Bush I. Otherwords, I'm calling B.S. on his "doctrine" as common knowledge (if you think you know it...please give the version/iteration--see, there isn't a doctrine).

As far as Palin...can't we give it a rest for two years? Just asking.

[RayinAK]

Originally Posted by Geechie North

.

Here's an article which speaks to what is true, and who believes it:



****** Comparative Law, Originalism and the Role of a Judge in a Democracy: A Reply to Justice Scalia - final version without opening remarks to Fulbright Conference - 29/01/06- for distribution

On the same token, I can provided you with other articles that point to the opposite. Again, the Constitution is a living document only to those who see it as such, but not to the rest.

[RayinAK]

Originally Posted by Siouxcia

It was the Sedition Act of 1798.

Your citation also brings up another point. The intent of the freedom of religion caveat was meant to be a mechanism in which to NOT establish a 'government' religion which would have po'd states who were dominated by different sects. The separation of state and religion wasn't even mentioned in the Constitution but evolved from a letter written by Thomas Jefferson, years later.

Living, evolving Constitution.

Excellent point about the "separation of church and state."

[warptman]

Who cares anymore?

[fau2010]

Icarian: Bush Doctrine is simple...it gives the right for the United States to invade any country preemptively. She should know this especially coming from her own party. As one of McCain's Aides said, "she hasn't paid attention to any foreign policy for the past 10 years." I didn't want to turn this into a debate and if you are so sick of politics why even open this thread? I just want to know an Alaskan's view on Sarah Palin, you don't have to get offended.

[mal_flisk]

" One may contend that my presentation of the subject is misguided, since the choice between the systems of interpretation is not a free one, as I present it. According to that approach, there is only one true method of interpretation – originalism – and the judge must choose it. I am convinced that that is not Justice Scalia's line of argument. Indeed, Justice Scalia wrote in one of his articles that originalism "is the lesser evil". He never wrote that originalism is the one and only truth. Indeed, a text has no 'true' meaning. We have no ability to compare the meaning of a text before and after its interpretation by focusing on its 'true' meaning. All understanding results from interpretation, because we can access a text only after it has been interpreted. There is no pre-interpretive understanding. At best, we can compare different interpretations of a given text. The most to which we can aspire is the 'proper' meaning – not the true meaning."

This states that Scalia has done his best. It doesn't not say that he applies originalism to every interpretation of legal points that come before him. He is a constitutional jurist, trained and competent. The fact that he can state that it is not the be-all and end-all of constitutional jurisprudence means that he can and has looked at other interpretations of law.

He is human and fallible. He isn't an evil walking the surface of the planet to be scourged on sight.

[mal_flisk]

Originally Posted by fau2010

Icarian: Bush Doctrine is simple...it gives the right for the United States to invade any country preemptively. She should know this especially coming from her own party. As one of McCain's Aides said, "she hasn't paid attention to any foreign policy for the past 10 years." I didn't want to turn this into a debate and if you are so sick of politics why even open this thread? I just want to know an Alaskan's view on Sarah Palin, you don't have to get offended.

According to NBC and CNN, there are several Bush Doctrines. And this thread has been opened for quite a while.