Welcome to the MacNN Forums.

peeb · May 13, 2008, 12:49 AM

Daily Kos: BREAKING: McCain Loses Bearings in Speech on Constitution; Campaign Covers Up Error

Very nice.

Captain Obvious · May 13, 2008, 01:15 AM

Yeah it is.
Its been a hell of a lot less than 25 years since I was in Con Law and from the context of the speech it is pretty clear the topic and message he was addressing. I am even familiar with the case he cites. That he added one wrong word in the midst of a speech pages long is hardly uncommon for politicians. Even out of context its not even sound bite. The mistake doesn't invalidate the rest of the message he was sending.

Will this story have any traction? No. The speech was a week ago and only one douche bag with a chip on his shoulder for McCain wrote about it on his blog. Whoopie, a blog read by people like peeb. But let's give it another 48 hours and see if any real news sources pick it up and make it into a story..... want to bet that no one cares because its a non-issue?

peeb · May 13, 2008, 01:22 AM

It's a non-issue that the Republican nomination for President doesn't understand the Constitution? Eight years ago that would have sounded unreasonable...

Atheist · May 13, 2008, 01:22 AM

Seems like a non-story to me. The only weird thing is that the "official" video was doctored. Why bother... we all make mistakes. Even presidential candidates. I'm a little more than half his age and if I had to maintain his schedule, I couldn't even complete a sentence.

smacintush · May 13, 2008, 01:26 AM

It's called misspeaking.

And this article is exactly why they would cover it up. Mountains and molehills and all that.

I'm no McCain supporter but <yawn>

I know of no reputable source that thinks this is a big deal.

No, lefty blogs don't count.

Captain Obvious · May 13, 2008, 01:26 AM

48 hours

watch and see
that blog is clearly THE destination for the influential and learned

Captain Obvious · May 13, 2008, 01:28 AM

Originally Posted by peeb

It's a non-issue that the Republican nomination for President doesn't understand the Constitution?

"nominee"

should we bust open your vag over the mistake?

peeb · May 13, 2008, 01:33 AM

Originally Posted by Captain Obvious

"nominee"

should we bust open your vag over the mistake?

Because whether he is, or has the nomination does not completely change the meaning of a major part of the Constitution.

smacintush · May 13, 2008, 02:08 AM

Originally Posted by peeb

Because whether he is, or has the nomination does not completely change the meaning of a major part of the Constitution.

And deliberately misrepresenting a mistake during a speech doesn't magically make him ignorant either.

peeb · May 13, 2008, 02:11 AM

He made a 'mistake' about whether or not the government has the right to confiscate private property? Sounds like the kind of 'mistake' Cheney made about torture, or Bush made about warrantless spying...

smacintush · May 13, 2008, 02:18 AM

Originally Posted by peeb

He made a 'mistake' about whether or not the government has the right to confiscate private property? Sounds like the kind of 'mistake' Cheney made about torture, or Bush made about warrantless spying...

I understand your confusion. Perhaps when the scales fall from your eyes…

peeb · May 13, 2008, 02:23 AM

Smacintush rules for forums posting #6. "When you don't have a response, make a stupid non-sequitur."

Chongo · 08:55 AM

From The "If McCain Did This" Files (His Ford "Poland is free" moment)
YouTube - Obama Claims He's Visited 57 States

That must include Nova Scotia, New Brunswick, New Foundland; after the US recognized the sovereign state of Quebec

OldManMac · May 13, 2008, 09:23 AM

He made a mistake, no doubt, but he keeps making mistakes that show his ignorance on other subjects, like repeatedly not knowing the difference between the Sunni and Shia. He's a 72 year old man who has no business running for the presidency of what is slowly becoming a fading country. We can't get the U. S. back into a premier position by constantly electing fools to the White House.

Big Mac · 09:53 AM

This coming from a guy named OldManMac? Surely an pensioner like you can appreciate that your fellow old people have rights.

Uncle Skeleton · May 13, 2008, 10:08 AM

haha, that reminds me of when you said McCain "deserved" the nomination this year because Romney would have other chances later (in life). The idea of a pity vote is funny, like everyone in the Party gets a turn at being president...

OT: as blunders go, this one doesn't even register. Get real, folks

Macrobat · May 13, 2008, 10:27 AM

Obama, the Constitutional Law Professor, has more problems with Constitutional knowledge than McCain - that would be a VERY big mistake of an issue to try and push - quite frankly, you'd lose.

Obama Shows His Ignorance of the Constitution | Big Dogs Weblog

He has also made statements about judges making legislation, which is more Constitutional ignorance.

Uncle Skeleton · May 13, 2008, 12:28 PM

Originally Posted by Macrobat

Obama Shows His Ignorance of the Constitution | Big Dogs Weblog

That's not ignorance, that's his interpretation which you happen to disagree with.

On a side note, that blog just dropped his first name and called him "Hussein Obama." You guys should take it all the way and drop the last name too, just call him "scum." That would make your position a lot clearer.

Big Mac · May 13, 2008, 12:31 PM

Originally Posted by Uncle Skeleton

On a side note, that blog just dropped his first name and called him "Hussein Obama." You guys should take it all the way and drop the last name too, just call him "scum." That would make your position a lot clearer.

I still prefer Hussein, but thank you for the suggestion.

peeb · May 13, 2008, 12:35 PM

Macrobat · 02:33 PM

Hilarious, Obama is on record wanting to appoint judges who will legislate from the bench - CLEARLY against the Constitution, but you sycophants want to jump on McCain - lmao.

UCBcomedy.com : Videos : Brave New Obamaian World

peeb · May 13, 2008, 03:33 PM

I love the term 'legislate from the bench'. It means nothing. Of course judges make decisions that affect laws and how they are interpreted in the light of the constitution.

Chuckit · May 13, 2008, 03:42 PM

Yes, they can affect laws, but they can't make new ones. "Legislating from the bench" means not interpreting a law or ruling its Constitutionality, but deciding that something should be law.

Giving any branch of government carte blanche to make up rules with no responsibility or hope of redress is a terrible idea and we may as well just crown me Emperor and get it over with if that's how you want it. That's certainly not how it's outlined in the Constitution.

peeb · May 13, 2008, 03:53 PM

You're talking about deciding, for example, that there 'should be' a law against torture? All the examples you are going to come up with here are interpretations of the constitution - there are no examples of them randomly thinking something should be law and writing a new one.

OldManMac · May 13, 2008, 10:32 PM

Originally Posted by Big Mac

This coming from a guy named OldManMac? Surely an pensioner like you can appreciate that your fellow old people have rights.

Nice. Yes we do have rights, and we should also practice responsibility by acknowledging, when it is appropriate, as it is in this instance, that we have no business making fools of ourselves when we can't understand simple concepts. Of course, it hasn't stopped you, now that I think about it.

smacintush · May 14, 2008, 02:41 PM

Originally Posted by OldManMac

We can't get the U. S. back into a premier position by constantly electing fools to the White House.

Well, when that's all we have to choose from…

At least Obama has an excuse, he's still inexperienced and his ignorance and foolishness is at least understandable. John McCain has been in office for several decades and hasn't "picked up" a damned thing about economics.

Chongo · May 14, 2008, 02:55 PM

Originally Posted by peeb

plenty to go around.

Dakar the Fourth · May 14, 2008, 02:57 PM

Are you calling Obama black?!!1

Chongo · 03:06 PM

You notice the twig in your brother's eye, but ignore the log in your own...., that sort of thing

smacintush · May 14, 2008, 03:01 PM

Originally Posted by Chuckit

Yes, they can affect laws, but they can't make new ones. "Legislating from the bench" means not interpreting a law or ruling its Constitutionality, but deciding that something should be law.

Giving any branch of government carte blanche to make up rules with no responsibility or hope of redress is a terrible idea and we may as well just crown me Emperor and get it over with if that's how you want it. That's certainly not how it's outlined in the Constitution.

I think that problem is the term itself. I don't really think it fits though I agree with your overall premise. "Legislating from the bench" has become a silly, political platitude.

There IS a problem with, shall we call them "loose" interpretations of the constitution.

It always amused me that the left can find no fault with reading a right to have an abortion in the 14th amendment yet, the 2nd which clearly states "the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed." doesn't really mean the people and "infringed" doesn't really mean infringed.

Then there is of course the Kelo case which makes me physically ill.

Dakar the Fourth · May 14, 2008, 03:02 PM

Originally Posted by Chongo

You notice the twig in your brother's eye, but ignore the log in your own....

Eh?