Comments on FiveThirtyEight: Politics Done Right: Today's Polls, 8/18

酒店經紀人, 菲梵酒店經紀, 酒店經紀, 禮服酒店上班, 酒店小姐兼職, 便服酒店經紀, ...

2009-10-08T05:34:56.495-04:00

酒店經紀人,
菲梵酒店經紀,
酒店經紀,
禮服酒店上班,
酒店小姐兼職,
便服酒店經紀,
酒店打工經紀,
制服酒店工作,
專業酒店經紀,
合法酒店經紀,
酒店暑假打工,
酒店寒假打工,
酒店經紀人,
菲梵酒店經紀,
酒店經紀,
禮服酒店上班,
酒店經紀人,
菲梵酒店經紀,
酒店經紀,
禮服酒店上班,
酒店小姐兼職,
便服酒店工作,
酒店打工經紀,
制服酒店經紀,
專業酒店經紀,
合法酒店經紀,
酒店暑假打工,
酒店寒假打工,
酒店經紀人,
菲梵酒店經紀,
酒店經紀,
禮服酒店上班,
酒店小姐兼職,
便服酒店工作,
酒店打工經紀,
制服酒店經紀,
酒店經紀,
菲
梵,

艾葳酒店經紀公司提供專業的酒店經紀, 酒店上班小姐,八大行業,酒店兼職,傳播妹,或者想要到打工兼差、...

2009-09-22T01:59:14.479-04:00

艾葳酒店經紀公司提供專業的酒店經紀, 酒店上班小姐,八大行業,酒店兼職,傳播妹,或者想要到打工兼差、打工,兼差,或者八大行業,酒店兼職,想去酒店上班, 日式酒店,制服酒店,ktv酒店,禮服店,整天穿得水水漂漂的,還是想去制服店當上班小姐,水水們如果想要擁有打工工作、晚上兼差工作、兼差打工、假日兼職、兼職工作、酒店兼差、兼差、打工兼差、日領工作、晚上兼差工作、酒店工作、酒店上班、酒店打工、兼職、兼差、兼差工作、酒店上班等,想了解酒店相關工作和特種行業內容,想兼職工作日領、假日兼職、兼差打工、或晚班兼職想擁有快速賺錢又有保障的工作嗎???又可以現領請找專業又有保障的艾葳酒店經紀公司!

艾葳酒店經紀是合法的公司工作環境高雅時尚，無業績壓力，無脫秀無喝酒壓力，高層次會員制客源，工作輕鬆，可日領、現領。
一般的酒店經紀只會在水水們第一次上班和領薪水時出現而已，對水水們的上班安全一點保障都沒有！艾葳酒店經紀公司的水水們上班時全程媽咪作陪，不需擔心！只提供最優質的酒店上班,酒店上班,酒店打工環境、上班條件給水水們。心動嗎!? 趕快來填寫你的酒店上班履歷表

水水們妳有缺現領、有兼職、缺錢卡奴的煩腦嗎?想到日本留學缺錢嗎?妳是傳播妹??想要擁有高時薪又輕鬆的夜間兼職工作,打工機會和,假日打工,假日兼職賺錢的機會嗎??想實現夢想卻又缺錢沒錢嗎!??
艾葳酒店台北酒店經紀招兵買馬!!徵專業的酒店打工,想要去酒店的水水,想要短期日領,酒店日領,禮服酒店,制服店,酒店經紀,ktv酒店,便服店,酒店工作,禮服店,酒店小姐,酒店經紀人,
等相關服務幫您快速的實現您的夢想~!!

^^ very nice 徵信, 徵信社, 徵信, 徵信社, 徵信, 徵信社,徵信, 徵信社, 徵...

2009-03-12T01:09:00.001-04:00

^^ nice blog!! ^@^徵信, 徵信網, 徵信社, 徵信社, 徵信社, 徵...

2009-03-12T01:09:00.000-04:00

情趣用品,情趣用品,情趣用品,情趣用品,情趣用品,情趣用品,情趣用品,情趣用品,情趣用品,情趣用品,...

2009-02-16T23:07:00.000-05:00

Higglytown, put down that glass of Kool-Aid and do...

2008-08-19T18:52:00.000-04:00

Higglytown, put down that glass of Kool-Aid and do some research you've confused 2 separate instances.

The wingnuts are talking about two separate bills SB1093 in 2001, and SB1082 in 2003. Both were presented with the same poison pill verbiage with slight variations:

SB 1093: (3.5) A live child born as a result of an abortion shall be fully recognized as a human person and accorded immediate protection under the law.

and

SB 1082(c): A live child born as a result of an abortion shall be fully recognized as a human person and accorded immediate protection under the law.

What you are leaving out is they defined a 'live birth' as any fetus with a pulse (among other overly broad criteria) which would include many fetus that had no hope to survive. This was the political agenda that both of these bills were really presented to foster since the rest of the bill required treatment regardless of their 'human person' status. Both of these lines were designed to let you assign a lawyer to the fetus and then sue to try and overturn Roe v. Wade.

In 2001 SB1093 passed with 34 ayes, 6 nays and 12 presents. You vote 'present' when you think a bill is flawed but you don't want to obstruct is passage. Senator Obama voted 'present' for these reason as he stated, and surprise surprise paragraph 3.5 was ultimately removed because it wouldn't be constitutional.

In 2003 The Born Alive Act that had previously passed at a federal level was introduced with the twist of paragraph (c) included once again trying to indulge in a bit of partisan political theater. But there was no need for the bill - everything that actually protected live births was already in the statutes, the only thing new this bill had was its 'poison pill' paragraph. Not surprisingly this time it didn't pass and was sent back to committee Chaired by Senator Obama. The Republicans themselves finally amended it to be identical to Federal statute but now that it was it had NOTHING new to add to Illinois state statutes. The committee voted accordingly and sent it back to the Rules committee where it passed away as redundant legislation usually does.

At neither time were born infants at any risk of 'infanticide' regardless of how the votes went on the bills, neither time did Senator Obama vote to allow any child to be allowed to suffer and die without medical care. He did stand against disingenuous partisan politics but then that's a good thing, right?

This is such an obvious strawman constructed by the Right its shows they know they can't win the election on McCain's merit honestly.

As to Obama's Intelligence. He is extremely intell...

2008-08-19T18:38:00.000-04:00

As to Obama's Intelligence. He is extremely intelligent. He is lawyerly in his intelligent thinking. He cannot define for himself any answers. Everything is neither right and wrong, but shades of grey to him. No positions, just intelligent posturing. It is a condescending intelligence, that says I am smarter than you, therefore elect me, because as a better thinker, my thoughts will lead to better decsions.

The problem is that Thinking and intelligence combined with decision making come from an internal source called a worldview. Obama's worldview is so distorted by his ego, that he isn't relevant to the average Joe. So his Worldview requires a sense of Social Justice that requires him to save mankind by doing things like offering to have the government pay for abortions on demand, practicing his Robin Hood Economic plan, reducing the armed forces to catastrophic levels to prove we are a peaceful nation, retreating from the conflicts of the world as a force, while offering our resources to solve world problems, creating a new United Nations type of organization that solves these problems, because the first one has done no good. All great intellectual ideas that great academic papers can be written on, but no real ability to implement these outlandish ideas without deteriorating our nation in every conceivable way.

Further commentary on the infanticide Bill:During ...

2008-08-19T18:25:00.000-04:00

Further commentary on the infanticide Bill:

During the March 2003 committee, Obama voted in support of adding the neutrality clause, but then led his colleagues on the panel in voting down the anti-infanticide bill on a 6-4 vote.

"Barack Obama, as chairman of an Illinois state Senate committee, voted down a bill to protect live-born survivors of abortion," NRLC legislative director Douglas Johnson told LifeNews.com.

Johnson said Obama did so "even after the panel had amended the bill to contain verbatim language, copied from a federal bill passed by Congress without objection in 2002, explicitly foreclosing any impact on abortion."

"Obama's legislative actions in 2003 -- denying effective protection even to babies born alive during abortions -- were contrary to the position taken on the same language by even the most liberal members of Congress," Johnson continued.

"The bill Obama killed was virtually identical to the federal bill that even NARAL ultimately did not oppose," he concluded.

Of course why wouldn't Obama kill a bill that says a baby born alive should have legal rights, that would be having to decide when live begins, and that is clearly "above his paygrade."

Then when the senators proposing the bill sought t...

2008-08-19T18:20:00.000-04:00

Then when the senators proposing the bill sought to amend it to conform to the language Obama wanted in it, the exact Federal Language, he as chair of the Heath and Human Services committee killed the amendment, did not even allow it to go up for a vote.

http://www.nrlc.org/ObamaBAIPA/ObamaKills2003amendedBAIPA.htm

Of course, why would he, the decision on when life begins, even after a live birth, is "above his pay grade." If a mom has a baby born alive, and doesnt want it, minutes, hours, days, or even months later, why should we care, she is the mom that has to raise that child. We are restricting a mom's right to choose whether she wants to raise a baby born alive, when we tell her she cannot kill the baby, or set it on a shelf to starve to death after it is born alive.

The paragraph Obama refused to support was this on...

2008-08-19T18:13:00.000-04:00

The paragraph Obama refused to support was this one:

Illinois' paragraph (c): A live child born as a result of an abortion shall be fully recognized as a human person and accorded immediate protection under the law.

His view, the completely wrong one, was that even if a baby was "accidentally" born alive, a parent should have the choice to kill that child, if they did not intend for the child to survive the birth.

That is infanticide. He is the only person in the Illinois or U.S. Senate to not support this bill.

But of course he wouldn't. To quote Obama, The decision of when a baby is alive is "above my pay grade."

Tito, How about Obama as a source for his support ...

2008-08-19T18:07:00.000-04:00

Tito, How about Obama as a source for his support of infanticide?

Obama, the sole opponent ever to speak against BAIPA, stated on the Illinois Senate floor on March 30, 2001:

I just want to suggest ... that this is probably not going to survive constitutional scrutiny.
Number one, whenever we define a previable fetus as a person that is protected by the equal protection clause or the other elements in the Constitution, what we're really saying is, in fact, that they are persons that are entitled to the kinds of protections that would be provided to a – child, a 9-month-old – child that was delivered to term. …

I mean, it – it would essentially bar abortions, because the equal protection clause does not allow somebody to kill a child, and if this is a child, then this would be an anti-abortion statute. For that purpose, I think it would probably be found unconstitutional.

I agree Rudy, it will be a continual brush fire st...

2008-08-19T14:47:00.000-04:00

I agree Rudy, it will be a continual brush fire stomping.

I guess the sound bite retort to the 'infanticide' meme would be:

"Not true - Illinois already had law protected all babies but the Republican Attorney General refused to enforce it."

The response to that would give those that would bother a chance to be educated - face it - for many like Peter its just an attack tool - that its not true is really unimportant, they'd claim he was a Martian if they thought it would sway voters away from him.

I meant contemporaneous, not extemporaneous. Oops...

2008-08-19T14:41:00.000-04:00

I meant contemporaneous, not extemporaneous. Oops.

It's a reach to say that Obama holds any semblance...

2008-08-19T14:36:00.000-04:00

It's a reach to say that Obama holds any semblance of pro-lifer values given that he's said that he would put Planned Parenthood-sponsored legislation at the top of his priority list, He may be among the more conservative of the rabid pro-choicers, but that's not a mainstream standard.

It defies logic that he would have sponsored any anti-abortion legislation, regardless of Illinois' existing laws.

Even considering Bob's helpful dissection, it's going to be hard for him to shake this because there's no easily understood (sound-bite level) rationalization for his position that isn't vulnerable to rebuttal. It takes gyrations to exonerate him, and ones that are in conflict with his extemporaneous statements.

Most people will be prone to believe that he's sincere in his future statements (as long as he doesn't equivocate) so I don't think this issue costs him a lot of votes that he would have had otherwise. But it will stay alive.

Sorry, Bob. there is no instance where Sen. Obama ...

2008-08-19T13:19:00.000-04:00

Sorry, Bob. there is no instance where Sen. Obama has ever acted to put greater restrictions on abortion.

Well as an Illinois senator there would be no need to - it has some of the most comprehensive and restrictive abortion law on the books since 1975.

And since abortion post 12 weeks is a state regulated affair how do you suggest he should interfere in how other states choose to administer themselves?

To him it is a simple issue: nothing should restrict the killing of life in the womb. .

Hahahaha! Peter cries 'WOLF" "WOLF" "WOLF"

I'll await your proof of Obama's nuanced view on this issue, and will say no more until it is rendered.

Easy enough, he never tried to change Illinois very restrictive abortion laws, and since being in the Senate he has never tried to make having such kind of restrictive abortion laws illegal.

I mean when you are starting out with strict abortion control the proof that you are for it is you don't try and get rid of it, right?

Sorry, Bob. there is no instance where Sen. Obama...

2008-08-19T13:06:00.000-04:00

Sorry, Bob. there is no instance where Sen. Obama has ever acted to put greater restrictions on abortion. To him it is a simple issue: nothing should restrict the killing of life in the womb. He is in favor of turner that chamber into a charnel house and countenaces the slaughter of innocents. he has gone so far as to oppose even the giving of rudimentary comfort and support to those infants born alive where the procedure has gone awry.

This extremism is simply evidence of his fringe liberalism and why the great mass of people will ultimately come to reject him.

Puppies are given more respect in our society than unwanted human children. I for one prefer a candidate who stands against the holocaust than one who uses every intellectual fiber in his being to support it.

I'll await your proof of Obama's nuanced view on this issue, and will say no more until it is rendered.

Mark, glad it help. Do print out the specifics an...

2008-08-19T12:26:00.000-04:00

Mark, glad it help. Do print out the specifics and spread them around as widely as you can. My sister is easy swayed by emotional arguments like this but when I showed her the facts and pointed out she was being deliberately lied to by the Republicans - well, she doesn't like being lied to.

Evangelicals all depends. When 'life begins' isn't clear in the Bible - some point to a passages that says it requires blood, others point to passages that make it clear an unborn child was property and killing one not considered murder. Even a passage where a magical abortifact is given to a woman who might have been unfaithful with the pregnancy terminated if she was. St. Aquianas basically agreed with Roe v Wade and 12 weeks or so was when it became a person.

There are lots of people saying they KNOW what the answer is but really they don't - only God does, hence the Senator's answer at the forum.

I personally am very Roe v Wade which means I have no problems with escalating greater restrictions on mere choice after the initial 12 weeks just as I think you'd find most people share, including Senator Obama.

Shall we call it a draw?No, but I will go with cal...

2008-08-19T12:12:00.000-04:00

Shall we call it a draw?

No, but I will go with calling you a troll.

It was the REPUBLICAN Attorney General that refused to enforce the already existing law. If he wouldn't enforce it why would he enforce less specific legislation if it was passed or not?

Illinois newborns were already protected by law, just sad the Republicans refused to enforce the law.

Bob wrote:Yeah sorry for my part in that. Just the...

2008-08-19T12:07:00.000-04:00

Bob wrote:
Yeah sorry for my part in that. Just the wingnuts are test flying this 'Obama voted for infanticide' meme and I think its important to get the truth out there and make sure they get slapped down hard on this from every corner.

Bob, I want to thank you for taking the time to do so. I have struggled with this particular issue of Obama's on a personal level, and seeing the full context, including existing law worded unambiguously addressing the issue having been on the books for 38 YEARS, puts it under the spotlight for the political game the Regressives were playing.

Bob, You wrote: If only there were honest Republi...

2008-08-19T12:06:00.000-04:00

Bob, You wrote: If only there were honest Republicans that would acknowledge that Senator Obama supports some of the most restrictive abortion legislation on the books in the US and even says there are limits on what 'welfare of the mother' means.

Please find me evidence of this. Nothing in Obama's record has been uncovered demonstrating that he has been anything other than an abslute supporter of abortion in all cases, even to the point of opposing legislation that would require reasoable comofrt and convenience be given to victoms of the procedure that happen to survive a botched procedure.

Obama's supposed support for limits on abortion is apparently as phantom as Larry Sinlair's allegations of having engaged in drug and homosexual activity with him.

Shall we call it a draw?

Yes pete, thanks for pointing out that the problem...

2008-08-19T11:40:00.000-04:00

Yes pete, thanks for pointing out that the problem with the bill was its 'poison pill' paragraph (c) that did nothing to protect viable fetuses but was there to make a federal Roe v Wade challenge possible.

Again, that legislation would have passed if it were presented honestly, but it wasn't. And as such when it was amended by Republicans into irrelevancy according to Illinois law it was sent back to rules - it was never voted on for enactment on the legislative floor.

Illinois had and has some of the most stringent late term abortion laws in the US. It did and does have very explicit requirements for any child born alive from any pregnancy termination procedure whether it be a regular delivery or an abortion.

This whining of 'what about the children' is crocodile tears since the bill introduced by the Republicans was deliberate political theatre engaged in for crass political purposes.

If only the Republicans had called for an enforcement of the existing law which was already far more stringent than the new legislation.

If only any additional legislation proposed by the Republicans had been entered with protecting the children in mind rather than just as a tool to attack Roe v. Wade.

If only there were honest Republicans that would acknowledge that Senator Obama supports some of the most restrictive abortion legislation on the books in the US and even says there are limits on what 'welfare of the mother' means.

Again, this strawman the extreme rightwing Republicans keep trying to craft is so obviously and easily shown as flawed it will backfire on them if they continue. Keep crying 'wolf' so ineffectively and people won't be listening to you at all.

Sedi-These were my basic points:1) He was quailfie...

2008-08-19T10:42:00.000-04:00

Sedi-
These were my basic points:
1) He was quailfied to teach.
2) The university offered him tenure-track position and considered him a "professor".
3) Since no hiring decision is ever made at a University without consultation of the relevant academic commitees, his peers considered him a professor.
4) Since he never wanted the FT postition, he didn't write.

H2H-
Lots of lawyers do nothing but write "substantive" memos. The legal system runs on paperwork and that paper doesn't generate itself. It's not all trying cases.

Heck, a good enough memo may be enough to avoid a trial.

Some people love to say that a black person gets o...

2008-08-19T09:52:00.000-04:00

Some people love to say that a black person gets offered tenure or a job or admission to a school not on their own merit but only because they are black. So tell me, those who discount Obama's achievements on this basis, how does a person graduate from Harvard law school magna cum laude?

This as opposed to Bush who was turned down by The University of Texas law school.

Compare Obama's academic record to McCain's. McCain, like Bush, brags about how poorly he did.

When Obama is president we will have someone in office who understands the constitution and respects the rule of law. What we have now is a hot-tempered, backward ass who called the constitution "just a goddamned piece of paper."

With McCain we would get another hot-tempered relic of the past who is experienced... in being given a political career by marrying a rich woman whose father was well-connected in Arizona. It was a nice trade-off as it was helpful to Cindy in getting her off drug charges to have a husband in politics. What a team.

And for those who claim McCain did nothing wrong as a member of the Keating Five, you are misinformed.

Keating asked the five Senators to tell the feds to stop investigating him, and the five Senators, later known as the Keating Five, obliged, meeting with federal investigators twice and pressuring them to stop. In addition, McCain admitted to intentionally filing false income tax returns to defraud the IRS by not claiming thousands of dollars in gifts McCain and his family received from Charles Keating and Keating’s company.

Some republicans may find such unethical behavior just fine and dandy. Business as usual. Most people are not so happy to have Senators so caviler with ethics at the expense of the taxpayer.

Obama and Infanticide: A Corpse in the PanRespond...

2008-08-19T09:19:00.000-04:00

Obama and Infanticide: A Corpse in the Pan

Responding to those who will not see the truth of Obama's extremist position and his opposition to life and the sanctity with which he holds abortion, I post the following.

Many Democrats have turned the act of destroying human life in the womb as something of a sacrament. I read in the NYTs back in the 80s or 90s how feminists would get together in house parties and perform in-home abortions using catheterization to induce labor and destroy the life within the womb. This was considered a celebration of feminism.

Several of you have posted about how the IL Bill at issue that Obama voted against three times, despite it finally containing language that made absolutely clear that it posed no threat to a woman's right to choose and was only designed to ease the passage of these unfortunate children to natural death, actually was not needed b/c IL law already went far enough in that regard. That is 100% a post hoc rationalization and never entered the debate at that time, if in fact you are telling the truth about the state of IL law.

Being against protection of babies born alive when an abortion is bungled is akin to opposing the flag, being against motherhood and apple pie.

it has nothing to do with a woman’s right to choose and everything to do with being a dangerous extremist who would lead this country in a direction the vast majority of people do not want to go.

Say what you want about first trimester abortions, the overwhelming majority of people oppose late term abortions and do not wish to see children that are born alive following a botched medical procedure, children who breath and cry and suffer, treated like medical waste.

Those of you who differ should be ashamed of yourselves. Certain matters of morality and human decency trump even the election of your favorite politicians.

Here now the words of Senator Obama and then commentary by David Fredoso.

“There was some suggestion that we might be able to craft something that might meet constitutional muster with respect to caring for fetuses or children who were delivered in this fashion. Unfortunately, this bill goes a little bit further, and so … this is probably not going to survive constitutional scrutiny. Number one, whenever we define a pre-viable fetus as a person that is protected by the equal protection clause or other elements in the Constitution, what we’re really saying is, in fact, that they are persons that are entitled to the kinds of protections that would be provided to a — a child, a nine-month-old — child that was delivered to term. That determination, then, essentially, if it was accepted by a court, would forbid abortions to take place. I mean, it — it would essentially bar abortions, because the equal protection clause does not allow somebody to kill a child, and if this is a child, then this would be an antiabortion statute.”

The absurd conclusion of Obama’s argument is hard to miss. He implies that “pre-viable” babies born prematurely, even without abortions, are somehow less “persons” than are babies who undergo nine months’ gestation before birth.

But even this is not the most important part of his argument. That would be his first sentence — the one about “caring for fetuses or children who were delivered in this fashion.” He seems open to this idea. And he does not state explicitly that a pre-viable, premature baby is not a “person.” Rather, he is arguing that the question of their personhood is a moot point. Even if the state should perhaps provide care for these babies, any recognition of their personhood might threaten someone’s right to an abortion somewhere down the road. That made the bill unacceptable to him. ”

“Most people, whatever their view on abortion, agree that the Constitution at least guarantees the rights of born and living human beings. Barack Obama does not agree. For him, the Constitution exists primarily in order to guarantee the right to abortion, and other rights of human persons — born and alive — are secondary. Beginning with abortion rights as his premise, he draws as his conclusion the unfortunate but necessary legality of infanticide.”

Quoting David Fredoso

Later the Bill was amended in his own Comm. to remove the constitutional objections that Obama claimed it posed and he nevertheless killed it.

For once we see Sen. Obama taking a leadership position on an issue: Death.

Fellow Obama supporters: You are not doing Obama a...

2008-08-19T09:01:00.000-04:00

Fellow Obama supporters: You are not doing Obama a favor by trying to prove how intellectual he is. Americans are anti-intellectual.