Happy New Year's Open Thread
2008 was definitely a memorable year politically. What were your favorite moments personally and on a larger scale?
Are there any resolutions you care to share?
Happy New Year!
Submitted by Specter on Thu, 2009-01-01 02:08
Tags:

Comments :
I'll start
Most memorable moment:
Standing 20 ft. away from our president-elect in a crowd of 50,000 with my son on my shoulders on a beautiful fall day listening to history being made
.
Resolutions:
1) (Yes, cliche) Health--I actually began this goal in the late summer/early fall of 2008, but I wish to continue losing weight. While I should be around 160-170 for my height, I got up to about 220. I am now at 192, so I lost about 28 or so pounds already (this Chicago food does not help my cause). I also quit smoking and took up jogging. I now run about 4 miles and ride my bike 6 miles every other day, and walk about two miles every day. I hope to reach my goal sometime in the spring of losing another 20 to 30 pounds.
2) PhD program. I have my emphasis picked out (American Studies
) and my school of choice. Now I have to get three letters of recommendation which, besides the rush for a due date by Feb. 15, should not be too difficult, and my letter of intent (much more difficult) completed. If I don't complete it this year, it will not be the end of the world--my wife actually wants to stay put, but she realizes I have further ambitions so will accomodate me. I have been putting it off for a couple of years, so I think I should make it top priority now that my kids are walking (i.e. fending for themselves). Which leads me to #3:
3) Be a better father and husband. Hey, I'm doing pretty good under the circumstances of being an Attachment Parenting
dad, but there is always room for improvement. Especially now that the little ones are fending for themselves. :-)
4) Maintain my own blog and keep a regular voice here at SC. I believe writing is important, and what better way to write than to use the wonderful medium of the web to give a voice to yourself. My blog is called "Signicide
" (h/t to a colleague at my university for the clever Derridean
title. He said he would use it for a band which will never come to fruition, and he is computer illeterate for the most part, so I think I'm safe in 'borrowing' it). The website is not much to marvel at at the moment, but I hope to improve it over the coming year (if Brendan wishes to add the site to the 'Member Blogs' list, he has my permission). I also hope to maintain a more regular showing here.
I hope everyone success in their own resolutions!
We are all mediators, translators. - Derrida
This list is....
entirely too ambitious! It makes the lethargic among us look bad.
Making New Years resolutions...... well it speaks to my fear of success.
To those who much is given much is asked. I don't feel like I have ever really lived up to my true potential, because the responsibility of success scares the crap out of me.
Maybe I should make a resolution to conquer my fears.
I also made a resolution to clean out my closets, and that back bedroom that I have turned into a place holder for what is now a room full of misc. junk. *sigh* Plus one other resolution which is *private*.
I'm only half stupid
Sarah Palin most desirable celebrity neighbor: poll
You go girl! :)
I'm the Bugs Bunny of Swords Crossed!
-4 Strongly Disagree - 0 Meh - Strongly Agree +4Who knew the smell of caribou in a smokehouse was so appealing
...I'd pick Bristol Palin as my celebrity neighbor.
In our society, people are rewarded for pretending to be certain about things they're clearly not certain about. -- Sam Harris,
Be fair
With Sarah you can work the mother-daughter angle. :)
I came. I saw. I posted.
Veni, Vidi, Bitchy.
Yikes...This is more D/Kos crap than SC material...
Poor taste...
Underlying all arguments against the free market is a lack of belief in freedom itself. ~M. Friedman
*shrug*
1) it's not like the republicans have been carefully ignoring Palin's GILF status.
2) I don't regard sex as something dirty or unealthy (quite the opposite in fact)
I came. I saw. I posted.
Veni, Vidi, Bitchy.
How very "hip" & "cool" of you...
FYI: Normal people don't find sex dirty or unhealthy either.
All I'm saying is comments about getting it on with SP and her daughter are not your typical SC faire, it would be a real winner and blend right in over at the D/Kos though.
Underlying all arguments against the free market is a lack of belief in freedom itself. ~M. Friedman
Relax
it's a joke. Hence the smiley.
I came. I saw. I posted.
Veni, Vidi, Bitchy.
I'm relaxed...
;-)
Underlying all arguments against the free market is a lack of belief in freedom itself. ~M. Friedman
Does this mean that dear Oprah
could run as Sarah's VP? Is there a correlation to political popularity with most desirable celebrity neighbor?
Most desirable celebrity neighbor? Who takes a poll on a question like that?
I would think having Sarah as a neighbor would be very distracting, what with all those kids and their comings and goings. Very noisey due to the snow machine tune-ups, and a bit smelly due to the moose remnants in the garbage pail. :)
I'm only half stupid
I don't do resolutions
I just have a goal of continuous personal improvement.
I came. I saw. I posted.
Veni, Vidi, Bitchy.
Understood
Sometimes we get so wrapped up in our day-to-day lives that we forget to reasses our goals and take inventory of what we could improve on. I attempt to do that consciously several times a year, but I think the New Year is as good of a time as any to reflect. Plus, honestly, I think I had a bit of holiday spirit (if you know what I mean) before I wrote my post, so I might have been a bit overly sentimental.
Anyway, cheers to your continued good health.
We are all mediators, translators. - Derrida
Hope I didn't come off as attacking you
for making resolutions. :)
I came. I saw. I posted.
Veni, Vidi, Bitchy.
James Walcott's Vanity Fair piece is really funny. It's called:
"The Good, the Bad, and Joe Lieberman" and can be seen in full here:
www.vanityfair.com/politics/features/2009/02/wolcott200902
Here's some excerps:
"Maddow’s sparky enthusiasm at being the new kid on the block stood in marked contrast with the granitic monotone of Fox News hosts such as Bill O’Reilly and Sean Hannity, who tried to gin up scary-Obama controversy with their customary one-two of jabbing fingers and gritted dentures, relying on a right-wing playbook from the Clinton-bashing era that’s as stale as one of Roger Ailes’s old stogies."
"Poetic justice doesn’t get more perfectly crafted than the spectacle of Fox News political analyst Karl Rove—Bush’s “brain,” the intellectual architect of the permanent Republican majority, the reigning dean of the Lee Atwater school of cutthroat division, ...watching his dream castle wash out to sea as Pennsylvania and Ohio went for Obama, and with it his hope of spending the rest of history gloating with both baby cheeks."
"Michael Barone, a once stolid and reliable fixture (co-author of the authoritative Almanac of American Politics and senior writer at U.S. News and World Report) who has slanted so far right in recent years that the straw has come out of his head. A week after the election, in a speech in Chicago, he gave voice to quite a faux pas. “A roomful of academics erupted in angry boos Tuesday morning,” wrote Mike Allen and Andy Barr at Politico in one of the year’s cheeriest ledes, “after political analyst Michael Barone said journalists trashed Alaska Gov. Sarah Palin, the Republicans’ vice presidential nominee, because ‘she did not abort her Down syndrome baby.’ ” Beneath the jovial masks of his fellow journalists lurked a ghoulish zealotry, Barone claimed. “They wanted her to kill that child.… I’m talking about my media colleagues with whom I’ve worked for 35 years.” The boos and angry walkouts provoked by Barone’s aspersions were the first clues that his speech wasn’t going over very well. In an apologetic e-mail explaining how his big mouth had strayed into foul territory, Barone wrote that he “was attempting to be humorous and … went over the line.” Abortion humor in a roomful of academics—gee, what could possibly go wrong? Barone’s self-inflicted injury was clinching evidence of how Ann Coulter’s callow brand of group slander—liberal-trashing one-liners delivered with a hiccup—has rancidly seeped into the Republican mainstream."
"Conspicuous as a two-time loser in 2008 was Hugh Hewitt, a blogger, radio host, and Promethean twit possessed of an infallible gift for getting it pompously, egregiously wrong."
"Its habitat destroyed, picked off one by one, the Republican Moderate is going the way of the auk and the dodo, fading into extinction...To those who pine for a cooperative spirit of partisanship, who bathe in the healing bubbles of Washington sages David Broder and David Gergen, the demise of the Republican Moderate is an occasion for elegy. But to bugle-blowing conservatives such as Rush Limbaugh, the appropriate send-off to Chris Shays and his ilk is good-bye and “good riddance.” The Republican Moderate, a political animal that goes by the disparaging acronym of rino (Republican in name only), is a useless excrescence, sapping the vital essence of conservatism. Moderation is emasculation in the minds of militant conservatives."
& lastly: "Joe Lieberman ooze. Aligning himself with the wrong team, having the effrontery to show up grinning on the stage at the Republican convention, Lieberman was the loser’s loser of the 2008 election—in the immortal words of Groucho Marx, Go, and never darken our towels again!"
Long Cliff Notes version. Go & see for yourselves.
Redstate continues with ill advised military theme
http://www.redstate.com/erick/2009/01/02/redstate-in-2009/
It's kind of sad. In the first place it so obviously plays into the chickenhawk criticism of the vast majority of gugho conservative posters. In the second it has a desperate flavor of wanting to be included in the cool table (in their mind) where the guys who actually joined the military sit.
Unfortunately I'm having trouble getting much amusement out of their tin eared choice. Redstate just seems too sickly and feverish recently for me to do much more than feel ill at their raving.
I came. I saw. I posted.
Veni, Vidi, Bitchy.
Being a fairly contented member of RS...
...I suggest one consider the "anti-establishment", and self proclaimed "anarchist" source for the above information...well, somewhat circumspect to say the least.
Of course, the same flavor of experience you profess to experience at RS, I just had upon reading your blather, so...
I suppose it works both ways.
Underlying all arguments against the free market is a lack of belief in freedom itself. ~M. Friedman
Happy New Year to all the SwordsCrossed members.
I don't make any New Year's resolutions--they mean nothing, and, to me, the whole idea is a big joke, believe it or not.
I'm cooking a pot of Chile con Carne for the first time, using a recipe that I got by doing a google search.
Politically, I've pretty much washed my hands of what's going on in the world, and of my ability and wilingness to take responsibility for all that's happening. I saw nothing memorable about the politics or political climate in this country last year, either.
Is is any wonder that I prefer to do things that I consider more fun, such as going out to movies, cooking, being active, doing my work, etc?
I've seen "Slumdog Millionaire" and "Milk". Both were good, intense and well-done movies, although I must admit that "Slumdog Millionaire" hit me like a ton or two of bricks and was quite heartbreaking. "Slumdog Millionaire" is definitely NOT a movie that I'd be able or willing to sit through more than once.
Christmas was nice, and on New Year's Eve day, I got a surprise visit from my brother and his two young kids. It was a pleasure.
The prompt
about the resolutions was more of a conversation starter. I think we all need to be reminded about self-improvement and goals once in a while, and the new year is just a time to reflect on those ideas.
I understand your dismissal of politics, though I think you should perhaps withhold judgment a bit more until maybe the first few months of Obama's tenure before you completely wash your hands of it. Of course, your opinion is valid and respectable if you disagree. :-)
I also saw Slumdog Millionaire. It was the first movie I've seen in a theater since my first son was born (more than three years ago--I'm telling you, attachment parenting is no picnic). I was very impressed, and I actually have it on my que of things to blog about. I found it very thought-provoking and original, but I agree with your sentiment about it being intense. I am a little confused on whether you liked it or not.
Happy New Year to you, indepentminded.
We are all mediators, translators. - Derrida
It seems a bit odd
that you post on a blog that was created specifically for discussing politics
and in every post you voice your lack of interest/intense disgust for the subject.
The history books will mark 2008 as one for the record books, and you see nothing memorable. ..... ? At the very least you could celebrate the shrinking GOP and it's new position as the party of irrelevance. I'd say that's a bad case of apathy you got there.
In BR's dairy he posits the question of justifiable retribution. Should I care as much about your fricking chile recipe as you did about my love of cheese? (biiiiiiigggg deal). Perhaps you were just using me as a scape goat for your consistently and oft voiced disenchantment with politics.
Hope you enjoy your first batch of chile. It's always fun to try something new.
I'm only half stupid
Miss L, you should be a stand up comic!
Miss L: At the very least you could celebrate the shrinking GOP and it's new position as the party of irrelevance.
LOL!
However misplaced, just more typical short lived liberal jubilation.
The democrats are already falling all over themselves trying to define what is PC with this Senate seating, soon, very soon, Obama will have to start to admit he will not, because he can not, do the things he promised for every man, woman, and child. Disenchantment will rapidly set in as he directs the Federal Government to over reach its bounds in a vain effort to be everything to everyone, caos of every sort will ensue.
The USA will elect a Republican POTUS in 2012.
So knock back that last little bit of bubbly girlfriend, cause you get the inauration, and it's all a slippery downhill ride from there for the you and yours...!
Underlying all arguments against the free market is a lack of belief in freedom itself. ~M. Friedman
I know how much of a
nightmare it must be for you to embrace Obama's tax cuts for the middle class and small businesses.
I'm only half stupid
So .. gave up on the "Obama isn't a natural born citizen" angle?
In 2012 a simple question will be asked, one your patron saint made popular:
"Are you better off now than you were four years ago?"
Being that Bush's presidency has, without a doubt, been the most disastrous in our nation's 233-year history, Obama is the equivalent of a coach taking over a 0-16 NFL team.
If he has a 4-12 season, he's a success. If he goes 8-8, he's a hero. If he makes the playoffs, they'll build statues in his honor.
The bar has been set so low, that it is almost impossible for the answer to Reagan's famous question to be "No" in 2012.
....and if the answer *IS* "No".... it means that the world as we know it has fallen into such complete chaos that it won't matter.
Your President... the one you voted for in 2000 and 2004... has so f---ed up this country that he makes the Detroit Lions look like a well-oiled machine.
Obama has the easiest act to follow in the history of this nation, with respect to Presidential politics.
I survived the Bush Administration
Really...Bush..worst ever? More BS from the peanut gallery...
Not even close!
That's a stupid thing to say...You obviously don't know $hi% about US and POTUS history!
Think about this
, then prove your point big mouth!
Underlying all arguments against the free market is a lack of belief in freedom itself. ~M. Friedman
Well looking at that list
what do we see?
The inclusion of Harrison seems rather unfair. Dying of Pneumonia doesn't make you a bad president. Their statements about Harding ("He was an ineffectual and indecisive leader who played poker while his friends plundered the U.S. treasury."), Grant ("Serving right after Johnson, he presided over an outbreak of graft and corruption, but had good intentions."), and Hoover ("He was known as a poor communicator who fueled trade wars and exacerbated the Depression.") all bear some resemblence to the current president (graft, looting of the treasury, destruction of the economy).
By that measure Bush is at least as bad as the 2nd, 7th, and 9th worst presients combined :)
...and when you throw in his shredding of constitutional rights you start seeing some parallels to those presidents who defended or allowed slavery...
Actually worst president ever starts sounding pretty accurate.
I came. I saw. I posted.
Veni, Vidi, Bitchy.
How far will you go...
...talk about a s t r e t c h !!!
Underlying all arguments against the free market is a lack of belief in freedom itself. ~M. Friedman
How far will you....
Stage One cancer doesn't seem so bad when it's undiagnosed.
A lot of the consequences, plow-back, and implications of Bush's legacy as POTUS won't be known for a little while.
I think one can safely say that the Franco-Prussian War was a huge mistake by the Germans, even though it seemed benign at the time. Who knew the Germans embarrassing the French and holding victory parades in France would work out so poorly for Deutschland after WWI.
In related news:
Just imagine what Bush would do if he thought every Muslim was out to kill every American.
In our society, people are rewarded for pretending to be certain about things they're clearly not certain about. -- Sam Harris,
Imagine how you will look when...
...GW goes down as one of the greater POTUS' for saving your ass, and keeping Americans safe from terror attacks - especially if we are attacked during an Obama administration!
GW is not a poor POTUS, but he is a great liberal scapegoat!
Underlying all arguments against the free market is a lack of belief in freedom itself. ~M. Friedman
non causa pro causa
I also have a rock that keeps tigers from attacking Springfield.
Does it actually work you ask?
You don't see any tigers attacking Springfield now, do you?
In our society, people are rewarded for pretending to be certain about things they're clearly not certain about. -- Sam Harris,
You are amazingly insightful at times...
...and astonishingly benighted at others?
Now it's quite obvious why we have nothing to fear from tigers...what do we owe the freedom from terrorism too though?
Need I really go on....
Underlying all arguments against the free market is a lack of belief in freedom itself. ~M. Friedman
Faulty logic
a more correct reading would be this:
In the decades since al qaeda has existed how many times have they successfully managed to attack the US? Answer: only once. Hence assuming that no attacks in the period from 2002-200 means Bush has done a good job is a bit specious. In the first place simply playing the odds means another such attack is unlikely. In the second place giving credit to the *only* president to have such an attack ocur on their watch is a little odd. In terms of preventing terrorist attacks Bush rates the worst since he's, you know, the only one to actively fail to do so.
I came. I saw. I posted.
Veni, Vidi, Bitchy.
LOL...spin it any way you like,,,But I find it a bit comical...
..that in the course of this exchange, Brutus brings up Tigers attacking Springfield, and you find fault with my position.
Now that's specious.
In addition your facts and suppositions are pretty messed up too, the whole thing comes apart upon further examination, but I'm getting too tired to do the tit for tat thing at the moment. (ie., the world trade center was the site of a previous Islamic terror attack, etc., etc.)
Underlying all arguments against the free market is a lack of belief in freedom itself. ~M. Friedman
Oh, ye of little culture
From an episode of The Simpsons
In our society, people are rewarded for pretending to be certain about things they're clearly not certain about. -- Sam Harris,
In terms of preventing
In terms of preventing terrorist attacks Bush rates the worst since he's, you know, the only one to actively fail to do so.
Not really, the worst terrorist attack might have occured under Bush, but we had terrorism under Clinton too.
I was pretty careful in my definition
no successful attacks on the US homeland by foreign terrorists. Failed attempts- yes. Foreign successes, I can think of a couple (lebanon marine bomng and the USS Cole) although technically neither of those is actually terrorism since they struck military targets. Domestic terrorists- Oklahoma city bombing.
I came. I saw. I posted.
Veni, Vidi, Bitchy.
You forget the 1993 WTC attack
To be honest I didn't ( and dont') know much about that, but then I've got a good excuse, as I was only five. :-)
Oh my word...
You're younger than I!!! I was 10.
The 1993 attacks "failed" according to Tlaloc, the goal was to knock the tower down, it killed 6 people.
In our society, people are rewarded for pretending to be certain about things they're clearly not certain about. -- Sam Harris,
That was my observation as well...
The towers didn't fall, but it killed people, caused severe damage, and rattled the nation.
I'm pretty sure the terrorists considered it a success... ;-)
Underlying all arguments against the free market is a lack of belief in freedom itself. ~M. Friedman
Patting oneself on the back for underachieving one's objective
...and Texas thought they were going to win a National Championship earlier in the year, but they barely beat Ohio State, now Texas is calling their season a success.
In our society, people are rewarded for pretending to be certain about things they're clearly not certain about. -- Sam Harris,
No I didn't
the attack was a failure. It was an attempt to knock one tower into the other. It didn't even come close. Six people died when the attack was meant to kill thousands.
I came. I saw. I posted.
Veni, Vidi, Bitchy.
LOL!
This is... without a doubt... the funniest non-sarcastic post about the Bush presidency that I've ever read.
20 years from now, I hope we're both still around on here, and I can show you this post of yours... and you will say... "Good God! Did I actually say THAT?"
Funny shit, RW, funny shit.
I survived the Bush Administration
While I agree with you that Obama has the advantage
you are way over-confident about it. This country is nothing like a team that has gone 0-16 and can't do any worse. The economy could get much worse, and I don't think it's highly unlikely that it will. Iraq and Afghanistan could get much worse. We could have a more terrorist attacks, to say that things can't get worse is ridiculous hyperbole or stupidity.
Even if all that goes right...
...Barry's FDR impression will kill the economy, and riddle the country with an extended recessionary period.
FDR needed WWll to save his a**, and pull us out of the protracted depression his policies aided, what is Barry's plan???
Underlying all arguments against the free market is a lack of belief in freedom itself. ~M. Friedman
Well, actually FDR didn't need WWII
to win reelection.
Well he was in office for 4 terms!...
...but America was in shaky economic shape in large part due to his policies for his whole administration.
It wasn't until after WWll that the engines of capitolism roared up once again and prosperity finally returned.
Underlying all arguments against the free market is a lack of belief in freedom itself. ~M. Friedman
How is that possible
after WWll, what was the income tax rate under Harry Truman, or D. Eisenhower? Surely such high tax rates would have led the the end of civilization as we know it, if we use your current postulations on wealth redistribution.
There is no way under your vision of taxes as stealing, that the tax rates of the time could have allowed the engines of capitalism to roar, as you suggest, let alone lead to prosperity.
Your ideological bent would include Eisenhower as a socialist, likely if alive today, to be paling around with Obama.
Good Lord, we had the GI bill, a government program that took money out of tax payers pockets to educate our citizens. The very definition of threat level red alert on your scale of socialism, and the evils of big government taking money out of your pocket and giving it to someone else.
Eisenhower also expanded social security, so I can't see any way that our economy and our nation didn't fall into some huge collapse, during his term.
Yet, oddly you say our country prospered after WWll. Which would lead me to believe that your assumptions about taxes, socialism, capitalism and prosperity and what it takes to have a thriving economy are way way off the mark.
I'm only half stupid
You must view the world thru your apartment peep hole...
What a particularly attenuated, awfully peculiar, and self serving take on the world there Miss L?
*As far as WWll and post war era tax rates...Yes I think those tax rates were obscene.
They were a direct result of 25 years of government expansion. The 16th amendment changed everything, I believe we should repeal the 16th by the way.
The 16th combined with SS tax etc etc etc led to an insufferable top rate of 94%, and a 23% bottom personal tax rate!
Before you take that into consideration, remember for the vast majority of Americas history the common citizen never had any interaction with the tax man. None. Because revenues were raised via tariffs, levies, and duties of various kinds. People were free to earn money, amass wealth, and distribute it to whom they chose with no government knowledge or interference, or not. It was up to individuals to make their way, take care of each other, etc.
But don't take it from me, maybe you want to argue with the immense body of work that the following gentleman has amassed concerning these issues? Such as;
**As for the GI Bill, it is an earned benefit just as health care or a pension for military service people. It bears virtually no relation to forcing the general public to participate in forced retirement.
***I doubt Ike and Obama would see eye to eye on much.
****And finally, as for a 3 alarm bell alerting the nation to the dangers of ensuing socialism in America...absolutely!
Underlying all arguments against the free market is a lack of belief in freedom itself. ~M. Friedman
You ignore reality
Stating the glories of capitalist prosperity after WWll, while ignoring the fact that it was in concert with government programs, like the GI bill, expansion of Social Security, and Dwight's TaxPayer funded highways project, that worked side by side with free enterprise that created the fertile breeding grounds for expansion of opportunity and economic growth that characterizes a civil society.
In other words your assertion that higher taxes will be the end of the world as we know it, is disproved by the very era you cite.
Social Security is an earned benefit. It is based on how much you contribute into the economy over your lifetime. Some of those earnings are set aside for retirement. It's ancontractual agreement just like the tax payer funded GI Bill.
The illustrious post war boom was seeded by a mix of capitalism/socialism working hand in hand. It worked well.
I'm only half stupid
"I"....(LOL)...ignore reality!
The Federal government has a role to play, and that role is defined in the US Constitution.
Read it sometime.
Why do you think the founders put so much effort in restraining the centralized beauacracy...?
Why are so willing to freely give away what the founders were most concerned about, and found most objectionable...?
You should spend more time worrying about perserving your liberties, and less time flushing them down the toilet.
Underlying all arguments against the free market is a lack of belief in freedom itself. ~M. Friedman
Precisely
This is precisely why so many of us worked to elect Democrats in 2006 and 2008. We were tired of seeing the 1st, 4th, and 5th amendments shredded at the hands of the current administration.
I survived the Bush Administration
Really...astonishingly obtuse...
...the 1st amendment? Liberals defending the 1st amendment, huh? What a joke!
...the 4th amendment? Everyone agrees we should be free from "unreasonable" search and seazure, but the ACLU, and the criminals and terrorists they defend REALLY AGREE.
...the 5th amendment? What? Are you referring to GITMO? They are prisoners of war and do not deserve the same legal rights as US citizens.
You seem way more concerned about providing "rights" to criminals and terrorists, than you do maintaining liberty for the average citizen. However, if the government was restrained as it should be, those issues you claim to have made a liberal stand for...would not be of concern. I agree with you that the government is too big and has taken too many liberties away from us, but Obama, Bush, whoever will not change any of that, at least not anything more than superficial symptoms, we need a real revolution, and a return to the basic principles this country is based on.
I think you and I both would be happy with the results regarding the bill of rights issues you brought up if we did.
Underlying all arguments against the free market is a lack of belief in freedom itself. ~M. Friedman
Prisoners of war like Padilla?
The term loses all meaning when applied to a "war" on terror, because such a thing is not a war at all.
I came. I saw. I posted.
Veni, Vidi, Bitchy.
Tell the soldiers in Iraq that?
I guess Vietnam and Korea were not wars either, huh?
Maybe we should bring up that Japanese Americans were held in camps during WWll.
Why is it we too often have trouble staying on a clearly articulated tack here? It is always some obscure movie reference, or inside joke known only to its author?
Underlying all arguments against the free market is a lack of belief in freedom itself. ~M. Friedman
I think the issue of padilla is precisely on point
You claimed that everyone taken to places like Gitmo and Bagram were prisoners of war. I gave a direct counterexample. Padilla was an american citizen arrested on american soil. He wasn't arrested during the commission of a crime much les an act of war. And yet he was whisked off to be held incoomunicado in direct violation of the US constitution.
And yet you don't seem to care.
BTW, no Vietnam and Korea were not wars since neither had a declaration of war. Even the government refused to call Vietnam a war, using the term "police action." That said, at least in those cases we were fighting a distinct group of people and not an abstract noun.
I came. I saw. I posted.
Veni, Vidi, Bitchy.
There are no absolutes in this life Tlaloc...
For every absolute rule - there is an rule breaker.
That is true if you are talking about governments or gravity.
Where would we be if when the apple hit Newton on the head, he focused not of the underlying commonality of gravity, but instead of some obscure abnormalities?
Of course I care, but we are not talking about that.
Underlying all arguments against the free market is a lack of belief in freedom itself. ~M. Friedman
You do care?
Doesn't sound like it. I mean you get in a steaming rage about welfare like SS but the US GOVERMENT KIDNAPPING A US CITIZEN AND HOLDING THEM WITH NO RIGHTS AND MOST LIKELY TORTURING THEM gets a big "eh, stuff happens" from you.
That makes me question just how committed you really are to the constitution.
I came. I saw. I posted.
Veni, Vidi, Bitchy.
I agree with you on Padilla
However, your logic on Vietnam and Korea is faulty. You can argue that the wars were unconstitutional since they didn't get the declaration of war, however, the definition of war's been around along time before the USA constitution, and isn't dependent upon a declaration of war to exist. According to your logic I could call an apple an orange and it would cease to be an apple.
Good point
It is two different arguments.
Legally (as in US law, not international) Vietnam was not a war, but for all practical purposes it was one, and I have no problem with Viet Cong being treated as Prisoners of War.
I came. I saw. I posted.
Veni, Vidi, Bitchy.
I don't follow you at all
"Why are so willing to freely give away what the founders were most concerned about, and found most objectionable...?"
Above statement is completely unclear. Do you mean to assert that the founders were worried about communism, socialism, fascism?
There was a revolt against unfair tariffs levied by the English on merchant ships other than those of the queen, giving England an unfair trade advantage.
There was a revolt against a state mandated religion being forced upon the people.
There was a revolt against having a King.
There was a revolt to have a Bill of Rights
What exactly is that you think I am willing to freely give away?
I'm only half stupid
Thanks for the 3th grade history lesson...
Of all the apprehensions our Founding Fathers had with regards to framing the groundwork for our Republic, an over zelous federal government run a muck was perhaps their greatest disquietude.
This is evidenced by volumes of eloquent admonishment of that unfortunate potentiality, and the scale they went to in order to prevent that very denouement from ever coming to fruition.
Thanks to history scholars like yourself however, it seems their worst nightmare's have/are in large part come true.
Underlying all arguments against the free market is a lack of belief in freedom itself. ~M. Friedman
What would an over zealous
Federal Government do? Make marijuana a Class One Felony Drug, so that if states legalize it locally the Feds can have the final say and cart your doctors a** off to jail anyway, if he follows local, but not Federal guidelines?
Intimidate Doctors that work at hospitals that receive Federal Funds to not prescribe THC for cancer patients?
Require that all states receiving any Federal Funding for roads, agree to lower their alcohol blood levels for drunk driving to .08?
INfiltrate the DOJ with political hacks to prosecute only Democrats right before an election?
Have an SEC that was underfunded so that investment bankers could make hot investments with no fear of regulation?
I agree that there is a concerted effort to whitewash history.
I'm only half stupid
Umm...well yes.
Yes.
Exactly.
Now your catching on.
...Paranoid again...?
That was the democrats fault...LOL!
You give valid examples, but you can't pick and choose your big government poison ML, when it comes to federal activisim what kills the conservative is equally lethal for the liberal.
Whether it is the examples you make a case for, or the examples I gave previously, they are equally offensive, and ultimately government just becomes a big club for us to beat each other over the head with.
It would be much more preferable for government to stay within it's constitutional bounds...sounds like we both would be much happier! ;-)
Underlying all arguments against the free market is a lack of belief in freedom itself. ~M. Friedman
Partially agree
Just generally I find events like Bush rallying the Congress around a movement to save Terri Schiavo, offensive for the sheer fact of the cynicism involved in trying to gain political advantage for the conservative movement.
I also note generally the conservatives are much more interested in sticking their nose in your private personal life, equating sex as criminal, recreational drug use as immoral.
I'm only half stupid
You're having trouble letting it go... ;-)
I am a spiritual person, but not a very religious one, I am certainly a conservative by most peoples definition, but I agree, the Federal Government, the POTUS, and the Congress have no business playing politics and mettling in peoples personal lives.
Please...for every conservative moral misgiving regarding traditional values that has translated into some law, there are far more many unconstitutional big government infringements on our liberties.
Underlying all arguments against the free market is a lack of belief in freedom itself. ~M. Friedman
No I am not
I have a big big big big problem with religious conservatives, with their noses stuck up in the air, claiming they know better than anyone else, what is good for me and rallying the troops to pass laws and amendments that infringe on my liberties.
Worse these folks are used, blatantly and cynically and manipulated to fury, so they start carrying pitchforlks and torches to ban gay marriage. That IS a real infringement on liberty that singles out one group in blatant violation of equality for life.
IMHO the worst infringements come from insurance companies, drugs companies and oil companies being in bed with politicians and essentially writing laws that favor their profits and bottom line, while laughing in the face of the law.
I am not a separatist nor a libertarian. I don't believe that free markets should rule the world with no checks on unethical business practices that will bankrupt the markets. Oh wait. It's too late. Is there a country in the world that the US hasn't exported their 'free market' values to that isn't of necessity having to bail out their banks?
I'm only half stupid
Wow...
...I guess that hereby officially concludes this round of discerning conversation, and plunges us directly into the cuckoo zone - full of incoherent, dissociated partisan jiberish and animosity based ideology?
Too bad.
Underlying all arguments against the free market is a lack of belief in freedom itself. ~M. Friedman
Too clever not to share