'07 OU COMMENCEMENT BOREN ROUNDTABLE WITH AL FRANKEN AND DAVID HOROWITZ

[RUSH LIMBAUGH is my clone!]

Won't the graduates get an earful? Memories they can treasure!

[bri]

TAKE THAT, HORSE!!! I'LL TEACH YOU TO BE DEAD...BY BEATING YOU!!!!!

[RUSH LIMBAUGH is my clone!]

Howdy bri; spill it ALL out!

[bri]

What? I'm just sayin', dead horses need beating too. We're DAMN LUCKY to have someone around here who'll stay the course and make sure that neighing sumbitch STAYS dead.

And beaten. ENDLESSLY.

[Scott D]

if you don't beat a dead horse enough how will the meat ever be tender enough to make chinese food with?

[RUSH LIMBAUGH is my clone!]

You guys were starting to show signs of tiring on the old thread. Figured a new twist might speed up the adrenaline.

[Scott D]

so your goal was to be even more pathetically myopic than in the previous thread? my kudos to you sir for having the bravado to pull off that minor event.

[bri]

Yeah, 'cause God forbid your bizarre obsession with vapid news personalities fade from our collective consciousness...

[RUSH LIMBAUGH is my clone!]

Excellent posts! Where's sooneron?

[bri]

He's the lucky one; he probably had something better to do today.

My choices were either: Watch an AFL game, or make you feel like somebody. It's a holiday, so I'm feeling generous.

[Octavian]

I dont know if this is a joke or not...but Horrowitz is about as conservative as they come and thats what you wanted right?

so if it isnt a joke...whats the problem?

[Scott D]

I think he just wanted to hear the words vapid, and myopic used in conjunction as adjectives about himself. ;)

[Octavian]

then someone needs to show him how to use the peems ;)

[bri]

I miss DB.

[RUSH LIMBAUGH is my clone!]

Horowitz: Thanks for the invite. Most universities don't want me to speak.
Franken: Not to worry. I PERSONALLY won't let you speak.
Boren; All right, fellas, then let me share on "the role of a university in the 21st century", for the remainder of our time here together.

[sooneron]

I'M BACK!!!!





and this thread sucks!


off to bed for me. Nighty night

[bri]

Heh...thanks for stopping by. :P

[SicEmBaylor]

I had dinner with David Horowitz my freshman year at Baylor. He's a brillant guy, but he's also very arrogant and a bit of a jackass. We sponsored him as a speaker and after dinner we all headed over to the business school where he was speaking. Well we were setting up but we forgot to get the bottle of water he requested so he looks at me and demands his water. So I run across campus to the SUB and get there just as they're closing and beg them to sell me a bottle of water (they closed the cash register so they didn't want to). So I run the water back but it's one of those bottles of water with the squirt top and David Horowitz looks at me and says, "What am I suppose to do with this damn squirt thing?" So I said, "Well it screws off."

Anyway, that's the end of my story. He gave a great speech though.

[SicEmBaylor]

Oh and he didn't pay me back for the bottle of water. :D

[bri]

I'd be like, "I'd think a total ****** like you would know what to do with a nozzle tip."

'Cause I'm HARDCORE, bitches. :D

[RUSH LIMBAUGH is my clone!]

I had dinner with David Horowitz my freshman year at Baylor. He's a brillant guy, but he's also very arrogant and a bit of a jackass. We sponsored him as a speaker and after dinner we all headed over to the business school where he was speaking. Well we were setting up but we forgot to get the bottle of water he requested so he looks at me and demands his water. So I run across campus to the SUB and get there just as they're closing and beg them to sell me a bottle of water (they closed the cash register so they didn't want to). So I run the water back but it's one of those bottles of water with the squirt top and David Horowitz looks at me and says, "What am I suppose to do with this damn squirt thing?" So I said, "Well it screws off."

Anyway, that's the end of my story. He gave a great speech though.Maybe he thought Waco was too backwoods? I doubt it . Sorry to hear he was tacky to you, because, as you say, he's brilliant. He used to be a consumer advocate, pointing out product flaws, and corporate abuse, before he turned to conservative politics.

[SicEmBaylor]

Maybe he thought Waco was too backwoods? I doubt it . Sorry to hear he was tacky to you, because, as you say, he's brilliant. He used to be a consumer advocate, pointing out product flaws, and corporate abuse, before he turned to conservative politics.

He was also a radical leftist which gives him a lot of good perspective from that side of the political spectrum that lifelong conservatives just don't have.

He was one of the leaders of the anti-war movement at Berkely and after he went to law school he became an attorney for the Black Panthers for awhile.

[jacru]

Maybe he thought Waco was too backwoods? I doubt it . Sorry to hear he was tacky to you, because, as you say, he's brilliant. He used to be a consumer advocate, pointing out product flaws, and corporate abuse, before he turned to conservative politics.
The consumer advocate guy is a different David Horowitz.

[RUSH LIMBAUGH is my clone!]

He was also a radical leftist which gives him a lot of good perspective from that side of the political spectrum that lifelong conservatives just don't have.

He was one of the leaders of the anti-war movement at Berkely and after he went to law school he became an attorney for the Black Panthers for awhile.I knew all that, but was restraining myself, to not be TOO antagonistic to our fellow SO brethren from the other side of the aisle, lest they inform us that this is another meaningless thread.

[jacru]

ex-leftist conservativehttp://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/en/5/52/Horowitz.gif

consumer advocatehttp://www.fightback.com/images/hot/fb-new-sm.jpg


two different guys both named David Horowitz

[SicEmBaylor]

I'll tell you who we got that I enjoyed more than David Horowitz and that's Dinesh D'Souza. He's the nicest guy you'll ever meet and gave a really excellent talk.

[RUSH LIMBAUGH is my clone!]

ex-leftist conservativehttp://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/en/5/52/Horowitz.gif

consumer advocatehttp://www.fightback.com/images/hot/fb-new-sm.jpg


two different guys both named David Horowitzjacru, I'll google it, but I always thought they were the same guy. Let's check it out. Well, how 'bout that? I made an erroneous assumption. It did seem strange to me that the Consumer Advocate guy( who I haven't seen in years) would later be a conservative commentator, but I didn't think there would be 2 different David Horowitz's in the limelight.

[RUSH LIMBAUGH is my clone!]

I'll tell you who we got that I enjoyed more than David Horowitz and that's Dinesh D'Souza. He's the nicest guy you'll ever meet and gave a really excellent talk.That's a new name for me.

[SicEmBaylor]

That's a new name for me.

D'Souza worked for the Reagan White House just after graduating from Dartmouth University. At Dartmouth he was the editor of the conservative Dartmouth Review, and was one of the founding leaders of conservative campus activism.

He wrote "Letters to a Young Conservative" which if you have a student in high school or entering college it makes a GREAT gift/reader.

http://www.amazon.com/gp/product/B000EXYZOK/sr=8-4/qid=1145288634/ref=pd_bbs_4/002-3493753-2044012?%5Fencoding=UTF8

His book, "What's so Great About America" was the basis for the lecture he gave which was just outstanding.

Anyway, here's a link to his website: http://www.dineshdsouza.com/
And a wikipedia article on him: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dinesh_D'Souza

[SoonerInKCMO]

He wrote "Letters to a Young Conservative" which if you have a student in high school or entering college it makes a GREAT gift/reader.

Assuming, of course, that your student is this guy:

http://tvphotogalleries.com/data/560/1ft01.jpg

:D

[SoonerInKCMO]

I don't think I want to meet Sic'em in the flesh... more fun for me to picture him as Alex P. Keaton.

;)

[SicEmBaylor]

I don't think I want to meet Sic'em in the flesh... more fun for me to picture him as Alex P. Keaton.

;)

I like to do the same which may be even scarier.
I used to wear Dole/Kemp buttons to school in 8th grade and complain in class about teaching pensions and social security. :D

[RUSH LIMBAUGH is my clone!]

I like to do the same which may be even scarier.
I used to wear Dole/Kemp buttoms to school in 8th grade and complain in class about teaching pensions and social security. :DAlex Keaton was a liberal writer's stereotype of what a Young Republican would be. You don't strike me as that stereotype.(maybe Ralph Reed?)

[SicEmBaylor]

Alex Keaton was a liberal writer's stereotype of what a Young Republican would be. You don't strike me as that stereotype.(maybe Ralph Reed?)

Ralph Reed though is a product of the religous right, and I'm pretty harsh critic of the religous right's influence on the conservative movement as a whole.

Actually, it's pretty difficult to compare me or my ideology to anyone or anything else. There are a lot of conservatives I know who don't even consider me to be a conservative.

My ideology would be best described as combo of constitutional originalism (but not strict constructionism) and my own ideas of what I guess you would call "free market" state competition.

I think the closest comparison you may make to me is Alexander Stephens. :D

[RUSH LIMBAUGH is my clone!]

Being a Baylorite, I thought you might be a religious guy. What the heck is "free market" state competition?

[SoonerInKCMO]

Yeah, but posting this:

http://www.historyplace.com/civilwar/cwar-pix/stephens.jpg

wouldn't have been as amusing to me.

[RUSH LIMBAUGH is my clone!]

Yeah, but posting this:

http://www.historyplace.com/civilwar/cwar-pix/stephens.jpg

wouldn't have been as amusing to me.Cool. Isn't he a repub presidential candidate on "The West Wing"?

[Sooner Born Sooner Bred]

I like to do the same which may be even scarier.
I used to wear Dole/Kemp buttoms to school in 8th grade and complain in class about teaching pensions and social security. :DMaybe you should have been listening to the spelling lessons.

[Sooner Born Sooner Bred]

Ralph Reed though is a product of the religous right, and I'm pretty harsh critic of the religous right's influence on the conservative movement as a whole.

Actually, it's pretty difficult to compare me or my ideology to anyone or anything else. There are a lot of conservatives I know who don't even consider me to be a conservative.

My ideology would be best described as combo of constitutional originalism (but not strict constructionism) and my own ideas of what I guess you would call "free market" state competition.

I think the closest comparison you may make to me is Alexander Stephens. :DI had a nightmare about Ralph Reed once. I was at a casino and he was the pit boss. I won the jackpot playing Let It Ride and he wouldn't give me my money.

[SoonerInKCMO]

Cool. Isn't he a repub presidential candidate on "The West Wing"?

:confused: If you're trying to make a joke, I don't get it. :der:

[Octavian]

I used to wear Dole/Kemp buttoms to school in 8th grade and complain in class about teaching pensions and social security. :D

http://img150.imageshack.us/img150/8053/carlton48kr.jpg (http://imageshack.us)

;)

[SicEmBaylor]

Maybe you should have been listening to the spelling lessons.

Typing lessons. ;-)

[SicEmBaylor]

Being a Baylorite, I thought you might be a religious guy.

I don't have a problem with evangelicals, but I have a problem with the ways in which they've changed the conservative movement. But no I'm personally not at all a Ralph Reed, Jerry Falwell, Pat Robertson type Republican.


What the heck is "free market" state competition?
It's based on the idea that just as free market competition between business is ultimately good for the American consumer, competiton between the states for economic development, professionals, etc. by developing and running state programs is ultimately better for the American people.

That's the short answer. In theory, the Federal government would be totally reduced to only those responsibilities that are specifically enumerated to it by the constitution. Everything else would be left to the individual states. At that point political reality dictates that the people of those states would demand the kind of social programs and services that were previously provided by the Federal government. Each state then would be responsible for crafting social programs that best reflected the wishes, beliefs, etc. of the people within their state. States would then be in competition with one another for a slate of state programs that best balance between social programs and the need for economic growth. Obviously if state programs become too big and too burdensome then it'll slow the state's growth.

[RUSH LIMBAUGH is my clone!]

It's based on the idea that just as free market competition between business is ultimately good for the American consumer, competiton between the states for economic development, professionals, etc. by developing and running state programs is ultimately better for the American people.

That's the short answer. In theory, the Federal government would be totally reduced to only those responsibilities that are specifically enumerated to it by the constitution. Everything else would be left to the individual states. At that point political reality dictates that the people of those states would demand the kind of social programs and services that were previously provided by the Federal government. Each state then would be responsible for crafting social programs that best reflected the wishes, beliefs, etc. of the people within their state. States would then be in competition with one another for a slate of state programs that best balance between social programs and the need for economic growth. Obviously if state programs become too big and too burdensome then it'll slow the state's growth.There is significant competition already, among the states. ie. Nevada and Texas growing like gangbusters because of no state income tax, which attracts businesses. Problem is how to restrict the federal govt. to activities enumerated by the Constitution.

[SicEmBaylor]

There is significant competition already, among the states. ie. Nevada and Texas growing like gangbusters because of no state income tax, which attracts businesses. Problem is how to restrict the federal govt. to activities enumerated by the Constitution.

Oh, we'll never be able to do that! This of course is all theory; there's no way in hell we'll ever reduce the size of the Federal government to its intended constitutional level and expect them to restrict their activities to those enumerated powers.

It just isn't gonna happen.

Another great example of this is with the issue of EMBRYONIC stem cell research whose funding has been restricted by executive order. Since the ban went into effect a couple of states including California have started providing state funding for the research. Now those states compete with each other for embryonic stem cell researches and investments.

The great thing about it is that it allows more conservative states whose people have moral opposition to the issue to stay out of it entirely and to ensure their tax dollars aren't going toward funding those programs. It conversely allows more liberal states with more liberal citizens to fund those programs.

[RUSH LIMBAUGH is my clone!]

Another great example of this is with the issue of EMBRYONIC stem cell research whose funding has been restricted by executive order. Since the ban went into effect a couple of states including California have started providing state funding for the research. Now those states compete with each other for embryonic stem cell researches and investments.

The great thing about it is that it allows more conservative states whose people have moral opposition to the issue to stay out of it entirely and to ensure their tax dollars aren't going toward funding those programs. It conversely allows more liberal states with more liberal citizens to fund those programs.Which is the avenue that the issue of abortion should have taken, instead of being dealt with by the SCOTUS.

[SicEmBaylor]

Which is the avenue that the issue of abortion should have taken, instead of being dealt with by the SCOTUS.

Correct.

[RUSH LIMBAUGH is my clone!]

Correct.Of course it's correct. I ain't one of those libz.

[Octavian]

Correct.

so how far should that go?

was Brown v. Board wrong?

If the majority of Mississippians want an unequal racially segregated educated system....should that be ok?

Theres a reason the Founders included an independent judiciary...as an anti-populist you should be well aware of it.

[soonerscuba]

Theres a reason the Founders included an independent judiciary...as an anti-populist you should be well aware of it.

Meh, you're on shaky ground here. I don't agree with SicEm, because I think that interstate commerce demands federal intervention, which was not part of the Constitution, but as the railroad grew, out sprang the technically unconstitutional agency system. And the Supreme Court basically gave Congress a pass to delegate power to the invisible fourth branch. Hence the Congressional oversight of **** that agencies do.

I agree with the courts, I think a changing landscape and new technology demanded federal power over certain aspects of commerce, there really isn't any telling what the founder's would think, but I don't think they quite envisioned a federal court as powerful as it became.

SicEm professes the ability to read the minds of men that died over a hundred and fifty years ago, naturally he only uses this power for good. ;)

[SicEmBaylor]

so how far should that go?

was Brown v. Board wrong?

If the majority of Mississippians want an unequal racially segregated educated system....should that be ok?

Theres a reason the Founders included an independent judiciary...as an anti-populist you should be well aware of it.

Well this is tricky to answer without appearing like a total racist which I'm absolutely positively AM NOT. However, no I don't really care for the ruling because of issues of state soverignty. That being said, I think the practice of segregation is morally reprehensible. You're correct about an independent judiciary, but those segreation laws should have been struck down by independent state supreme courts or otherwise abolished via state legislation or state constitutional amendments.

The ruling of course was consistent with the court's interpretation with the 14th amendment, but as you know I have a problem with the 14th amendment. However, the case itself was probably decided correctly because it was consistent with the Constitution as written. And as much as I may disagree with recent constitutional amendments, the courts are still obligated to enforce the document as it exists.

[Octavian]

Meh, you're on shaky ground here. I don't agree with SicEm, because I think that interstate commerce demands federal intervention, which was not part of the Constitution, but as the railroad grew, out sprang the technically unconstitutional agency system. And the Supreme Court basically gave Congress a pass to delegate power to the invisible fourth branch. Hence the Congressional oversight of **** that agencies do.

I dont think we're on the same page...

I'm talking about whether or not its a good thing for a Federal judicial branch to have the power overrule state legislatures....and that many of the Founders recognized the potential abuses which can spring from democratic governments (ie. a tyranny of a majority).

[SicEmBaylor]

SicEm professes the ability to read the minds of men that died over a hundred and fifty years ago, naturally he only uses this power for good. ;)

I'm basing it on available transcripts available from the constitutional convention, the Federalist Papers, Anti-Federalist papers, and written letters and coorespondents between delegates to the Constitutional convention.

We'll both totally agree that the delegates disagreed with each other, however those disagreements translated into agreement on a single document with certain founding principles. The thing that's important to remember as that the delegates to the convention were not representing the people of their respective states, they were representing the states themselves. This is why we say that the states created the Federal government and not vice versa. Consistent with states creating the Federal government is the enumeration of powers given to the Federal government and the reserved rights to the states of all other powers.

There's a great book on constitutional principles that I, for the most part, totally agree with written by James Fenmire Cooper called "The American Democrat."

[royalfan5]

Well this is tricky to answer without appearing like a total racist which I'm absolutely positively AM NOT. However, no I don't really care for the ruling because of issues of state soverignty. That being said, I think the practice of segregation is morally reprehensible. You're correct about an independent judiciary, but those segreation laws should have been struck down by independent state supreme courts or otherwise abolished via state legislation or state constitutional amendments.

The ruling of course was consistent with the court's interpretation with the 14th amendment, but as you know I have a problem with the 14th amendment. However, the case itself was probably decided correctly because it was consistent with the Constitution as written. And as much as I may disagree with recent constitutional amendments, the courts are still obligated to enforce the document as it exists.
I think you're giving Mississippi an awful lot of credit with your assumptions about the quality of their judicary.

[Octavian]

Well this is tricky to answer without appearing like a total racist which I'm absolutely positively AM NOT. However, no I don't really care for the ruling because of issues of state soverignty. That being said, I think the practice of segregation is morally reprehensible. You're correct about an independent judiciary, but those segreation laws should have been struck down by independent state supreme courts or otherwise abolished via state legislation or state constitutional amendments.

The ruling of course was consistent with the court's interpretation with the 14th amendment, but as you know I have a problem with the 14th amendment. However, the case itself was probably decided correctly because it was consistent with the Constitution as written. And as much as I may disagree with recent constitutional amendments, the courts are still obligated to enforce the document as it exists.

Thats really the problem though...they wouldn't. Their state legislatures and judiciaries were denying equal access and liberty to a section of Americans and were determined to keep doing so. There needed to be a higher force to correct that...that was really my only point when the Roe comment was made (though I have no desire to get into a Roe debate...with anyone, at anytime, in person or on the internet)

I didn't mean to encenuate you were a racist....I know you're not. :)

[SicEmBaylor]

I think you're giving Mississippi an awful lot of credit with your assumptions about the quality of their judicary.

Oh I have no illusions about the quality of the Mississippi judiciary during the segregation era. However, I think it would have gotten better with time. It's one of those things where I think the cure is worse than the disease.


Thats really the problem though...they wouldn't. Their state legislatures and judiciaries were denying equal access and liberty to a section of Americans and were determined to keep doing so. There needed to be a higher force to correct that...that was really my only point when the Roe comment was made (though I have no desire to get into a Roe debate...with anyone, at anytime, in person or on the internet)

I didn't mean to encenuate you were a racist....I know you're not.

Oh I know you didn't; I was just preparing myself which is something you kinda have to do when arguing against Brown v. Board of Education. :D