Monday + Tuesday Open Thread
Hopefully someone out there is getting the day off work. I, unfortunately, am not.
What's the good word?
Submitted by stinerman on Mon, 2009-02-16 11:28
Tags:
Hopefully someone out there is getting the day off work. I, unfortunately, am not.
What's the good word?
Comments :
oh the amnesia
http://www.mcclatchydc.com/251/story/62181.html
This is so blatantly hypocritical it's is funny as in totally absurd.
The very same folks that voted in a bloc against the stimulus bill, now are out in their districts.....wait for it...... acting like they supported it! Unbelievable.
Are they so used to lying that for them it's like saying hello? You voted against the bill you idiot. You should be saying that the high-speed rail is wasteful spending!! Remember!
I'm only half stupid
LULZ
Point taken, however it is possible that there was enough "wasteful spending" in the bill to make some congressmen vote against it, but some bright spots.
But yeah, its really odd to vote against a bill and then give it glowing reviews.
I never broke the law; I am the law! --
George W. BushJudge DreddI'm listening to...
Is this like when Senator
Is this like when Senator Obama said he would vote against FISA and then voted for a later version of the same thing? This just in: Politicians are hypocritical.
not quite the same
bad as that was (and I think it was pretty awful of Obama) it's more like if Obama had voted for FISA and THEN gone and said he thought it was a bad idea. A person could reasonable change their mind up until they cast their vote (although in se cases they should have a damn good reason) but once the vote is cast they can't then pretend they went the other way; the vote is cast, as they say.
I came. I saw. I posted.
Veni, Vidi, Bitchy.
more amnesiacs join the club
Kit Bond takes credit for the stimulus bill that he votes against, saying it will create 3000 jobs in just construction of affordable housing alone. Worse he is call it his amendment. You voted against it you idiot.
Tim Pawlenty added only 35% of the stimulus into his budget, that he claimed was such aggregious wasteful spending, and was obviously upset (read thrilled) that his state got more of what he claimed was wasteful spending than he had budgeted in, before the budget had passed.
Don Young has bragged how the bill that he voted against will help small businesses in his state of Alaska.
Rep. Blaine Luetkemeyer is bragging about how the bill that he voted against will be a big big plus for education for his state of Missouri.
What a bunch of freaking hypocrites. You have the audacity to take credit for a bill you VOTED AGAINST!!
Oh the hypocrisy.
I'm only half stupid
Gee..Maybe they supported something in this giant turd...
...of a bill? Many things are "good" in the bill, but ...you know what...forget it...you aren't worth the time...you have your own answers already.
Underlying all arguments against the free market is a lack of belief in freedom itself. ~M. Friedman
It is still hypocritical
for them to take credit for something they opposed...
I came. I saw. I posted.
Veni, Vidi, Bitchy.
That kind of logic is pretty
That kind of logic is pretty slippery. It ignores one important factor and supposes another. One, it ignores the possibility that a Congressperson could have developed some provisions that went into a bill, and yet upon later revision that same Congressperson could feel that the bill is bad, an innapropriate use of power, unconstitutional, etc. and so they would therefore vote against it. Therefore, and second, it requires that any and all Congresspeople who add any provision to a bill that they see as appropriate to then vote for that bill automatically.
Now, in this particular instance I do not believe my first point to be the case, necessarily. But it does not automatically mean that one would be hypocritical in every case. I'm sure no one calling these Congresspeople "hypocrticial" actually bothered to find out if they had anything to do with the provision. In which case you've not much of a leg to stand on...
I don't know
I think you eventually take a position of saying the bill is either worthwhile or not worthwhile (or I suppose they can abstain or vote present). If they oppose then they are opposing the bill as a whole, even the parts they may of liked. If they vote for they are supporting the bill as a whole.
I came. I saw. I posted.
Veni, Vidi, Bitchy.
she's a real dynamo
First Female Dictator Hailed As Step Forward For Women
The Onion, Not Afraid to Attack Both Sides of the Aisle.
In our society, people are rewarded for pretending to be certain about things they're clearly not certain about. -- Sam Harris,
Obama's stealth provisions in the stimulus bill.
I haven't been following the whole stimulus bill hype very much but now that it is about the be signed (gee, where was the transparency and opportunity for debate?) I thought I should look into it a little further.
One of the things that sticks out seems to be the plans to implement a nationwide electronic surveillance system designed to gather sensitive personal information on literally every citizen in the country. Spying on private citizens health care records, and this appears to be a first step towards rationing healthcare to senior citizens. It seems the data will be used to provide guidance on (i.e. to control) what medical procedures will be allowed. (AKA no life extending, pain reducing, leading edge medical procedures for you. Learn to suck it up already you worthless, worn-out maggot.) *
WTF does that have to do with economic stimulus? Why was this stuffed into a bill under the rug and rushed through both houses of congress so fast as to prevent any review or debate? Is this Obama's idea of change? If he actually signs this thing into law it will simply be one more example of how he is a divider and NOT a uniter. It will be one more example of how his campaign promise of transparency rings completely hollow. It will be one more example of how his promise to reach across the aisle to enact bi-partisan solutions was just another lie.
If Obama is change, I don't see how.
What are the other stealth provisions that have been snuck into this bill so as to avoid any debate because the Democrats know that they couldn't pass it if there was such a debate?
----------------------------------------------
* I thought spying was bad and that Obama was going to clean that up? It seems that too was an empty promise made to the poor dupes that fell for it
. What a surprise (well at least to the dupes).
I'm the Bugs Bunny of Swords Crossed!
-4 Strongly Disagree - 0 Meh - Strongly Agree +4Link to prior on this topic
I agree
. Shoving into the stimulus bill is not the way to do this.
Ha! :)
Great minds think alike.
I'm the Bugs Bunny of Swords Crossed!
-4 Strongly Disagree - 0 Meh - Strongly Agree +4Hello there
Rush, er I mean RoGight! ;-)
You know how you can do banking online? And the have codes and passwords. And how easy and convenient that is with the added plus of saving paper. If you use electronic banking then you shouldn't be worried about stream lining the cost of medicare and health care, by using computer records to cut costs. Really, it isn't a kill seniors program. That's a fear mongering misrepresentation, but nice try.
I'm only half stupid
I am not worried about those positive aspects ...
but the nefarious hidden agenda that is the brainchild of Tom Daschle? That's a different story all together. We all know that having the government controlling all of these records can't be a good thing. And my understanding is that participation is NOT optional. If they were only worried about efficiency they would allow people to opt out at the expense of loosing benefits. In this case there is no such provision. Any ideas why? Hint: because the have plans for those records down the road.
I'm the Bugs Bunny of Swords Crossed!
-4 Strongly Disagree - 0 Meh - Strongly Agree +4/
//
I'm only half stupid
/
oops times three?....
I'm only half stupid
///oh///gee////-////oh my/////...
.../////you////are///an//////idiot!
Underlying all arguments against the free market is a lack of belief in freedom itself. ~M. Friedman
I fail to see
your post as any sort of contribution to the site.
Newsflash. R_W things ML is an idiot. Holy revelation batman.
I'm only half stupid
Paranoid fearmongering hyperbole.
the plan, the plot, is mass murder of seniors right. Give me a break with this bs
And people can see you from inside your TV.
I'm only half stupid
Reductio ad Germanicum
You seem to be saying it's as simple as GR, in a roundabout way, is saying that giving the breadless bread is a bad thing, 'cus others have cake.
In our society, people are rewarded for pretending to be certain about things they're clearly not certain about. -- Sam Harris,
I'm not saying that they "want" to kill seniors ...
only that they aren't willing to pay for the treatments that could save their lives because the cost/benefit is deemed to be too low from a governmental bureaucracy perspective. That's not exactly the same thing, although the seniors will be just as dead.
I'm the Bugs Bunny of Swords Crossed!
-4 Strongly Disagree - 0 Meh - Strongly Agree +4tsk tsk tsk tsk
Making the price of health care more affordable with technology is a bad thing because that means cost cutting measures to lower prices of treatments means seniors won't get treated? That's a reach.
The cost/benefit analysis of stem cell research to treat heart disease won't work because making it cheaper to treat heart disease, means heart disease won't get treated?
I am not following at all. You are saying efforts to make health care affordable is really really bad because people won't get treated cause it's cheaper?
I believe the goal is to cut the cost of health care in general, to make health care more affordable for both insurance companies and medicare.
It's hard to see a correlation in prices for health insurance that went up nearly 100% over eight years to an equal amount of improvement in the quality of care over that time period.
I'm only half stupid
It's not really that hard to understand, ML.
In this context Cost / Benefit = $$$ Spent / Years of Relief
There are two ways I can see that this will be bad for seniors.
(1) They will eventually get rationed out of the system altogether.
Take note that seniors tend to have problems that cost lots of $$$$ to treat. Also take note that seniors tend to have an ever diminishing number of years to amortize those $$$$ over. In other words, for seniors the numerator tends to go UP while the denominator tends to go DOWN ... both of which will push them into the "we can't afford to treat you anymore" category as they try to drive the costs down. Inevitably they are going to draw a hard line and once your Cost / Benefit goes beyond that you will be out of luck. You will be the one rationed out so that 2 others can be rationed in.
(2) They will be forced to accept a lower quality of life because the leading edge treatments are too expensive given the years they have left.
For the sake of discussion, let's assume that this issue was being debated just after Penicillin was coming into use. I am sure that at that time it would have been very expensive to get. Now consider a hypothetical patient who suffered a crush injury to their leg. The concern is that the bruising will become gangrenous and the leg may have to be removed. Let's say the standard treatment before Penicillin was something like blood letting with leeches. Let's also say that the leeches are like 10% effective at saving the leg whereas Penicillin is 80% (I am just making these up for discussion purposes).
Now as you might expect all those people with crush injuries to their legs are going to think, gee, I think I want that Penicillin rather than those leeches, and as a result the price of that treatment goes way up. Also, the bottom drops out of the leech farming market altogether. It gets so bad that it's hard to even give them away, much less sell them. :)
For the sake of discussion let's say the cost of the Penicillin treatment is $100 whereas the cost of the leech treatment is $10. It shouldn't be hard to see that as you get older (and therefore the denominator is being reduced) that the cost benefit ratio for the newer treatment will rise to a level where it is deemed "not worth it" to spend that much for so little benefit. At that point the patient will be transitioned by the bean counters down from the Penicillin to the leeches.
But hey, look how affordable that healthcare they are getting really is, eh? What a deal. Sure, it's great if you don't mind being treated with leeches and having an 8 times greater chance of losing your leg.
I'm the Bugs Bunny of Swords Crossed!
-4 Strongly Disagree - 0 Meh - Strongly Agree +4It is just information
that the doctors can have at their finger tips to make more well informed decisions on a voluntary basis.
Penicillin as been way over prescribed and is not effective against some infections any longer. A patient might be allergic. IN that case, after consulting with the patient, the doctor can decide leeches are the best option. Of course that is if those are the only two choices.
I'm only half stupid
No, it is an intelligence gathering mechanism which will be
used by the government to spy on private citizen's personal and confidential medical information. It's ultimate purpose is to control individual healthcare decisions which will affect primarily seniors on medicare. They will need this system in place to implement those plans that we already know the likes of Tom Daschle have in mind. The fact that they have not laid all of their cards on the table yet doesn't really change this.
I'm the Bugs Bunny of Swords Crossed!
-4 Strongly Disagree - 0 Meh - Strongly Agree +4tsk
I have no idea why stuff keeps double posting. I must have heavy fingers.
It seems like when I hit preview it posts er something.
I'm only half stupid
Rush Limbaugh is your doctor now?
Alpha Male Responds: Thank You Dr. Dean for setting the record straight. What could be worse than more affordable health care? Why yes said the obstructionistic Republicans. We think health care should be more expensive with even less scientific research.
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/howard-dean/the-far-rights-all-out-of_b_167628.html
I'm only half stupid
Just ignore her..its so not even worth it...
...direct me to the grassy knoll!
Underlying all arguments against the free market is a lack of belief in freedom itself. ~M. Friedman
participation is optional (don't take medicare patients)
This provision only applies to jobs paid for by government insurance programs.
In my expert opinion, you should do what I tell you to do.
Transparency
Here you go
.
We are the environment. There is no distinction. What we do to the earth we do to ourselves. —David Suzuki
Meh.
I seem to remember something about having things up on the White House website for a week BEFORE he signed anything. Transparency after the fact is a bit meaningless.
I'm the Bugs Bunny of Swords Crossed!
-4 Strongly Disagree - 0 Meh - Strongly Agree +4Overly pedantic
5 days is not a week, [work] week, yes.
In our society, people are rewarded for pretending to be certain about things they're clearly not certain about. -- Sam Harris,
That's odd
Didn't seem to bother you when it was Bush doing it...
If indeed this system can be used for that purpose it is something (quite like Real-ID) that needs to be fixed, scrapped, reworked, etc.
I never broke the law; I am the law! --
George W. BushJudge DreddI'm listening to...
And from the, gee that worked out well department, we have ...
I know that I feel better about Islam as a religion of peace and love and respect for women. Don't you?
I'm the Bugs Bunny of Swords Crossed!
-4 Strongly Disagree - 0 Meh - Strongly Agree +4One guy represents all of Islam?
That's a pretty broad brush there buddy.
The next time a Christian commits a heinous crime by shooting his wife should I portray the whole religion of Christianity as women hating murderers.
Come on, you know better than that.
I'm only half stupid
Of course you're right ML. It
Of course you're right ML. It sure is an ironic story, though. The kind of irony that almost makes you laugh, except you keep thinking about a woman's head getting chopped off.
Christians..
would be more likely to use a gun.
Thinking about a good Christian husband shooting his wife in the head isn't particularly lovely either.
Beheading is punishment that is particular to another culture, yes, and it is gruesome, but no more so than thinking about a womans brains being blown out and splattering all over the kitchen wall.
That is if you want to dwell on those types of images.
I'm only half stupid
Who said he represents all of Islam?
The point is he was intending to dispell stereotypes about muslims and then he goes and plays right into one of the most heinous ones there is. You don't see any irony in that?
I'm the Bugs Bunny of Swords Crossed!
-4 Strongly Disagree - 0 Meh - Strongly Agree +4You did.
"I know that I feel better about Islam as a religion......"
One can make the same inflammatory allegations about Catholic priests molesting children.
Or professed devoted evangelical minister Ted Haggard seeking male prostitutes with drugs.
Normally the story isn't reported as Christian Ted Haggard, was caught with a male prostitute.
Or Christian David Vitter was caught in a diaper with a prostitute.
People of all religious faiths commit crimes that seem particularly hypocritical and gruesome when compared to their professed beliefs.
So yes the crime seems hypocritical and gruesome, but not specific to Islam generally more so than any other religion.
I'm only half stupid
WHY HAVE YOU NEVER PROVED 1 THING?
...because you can't, won't, whatever...
...instead, you just keep ponying up your BS day after day...never coming to fruition, always avoiding confirmation...
..your pathetic series of claims and conjecture just defy reason, and for some ghastly front for tolerence, is excused day after day here at SC?
Yet we all wonder why we can't get folks to come and stay...
Underlying all arguments against the free market is a lack of belief in freedom itself. ~M. Friedman
Yet we all wonder why we
Are your constant personal attacks any better?
If you don't think a thread is going anywhere, let it die a peaceful death!
skymutt: accept no substitutes!
I know, I hate it...
...it's just gotten me so frustrated...
Underlying all arguments against the free market is a lack of belief in freedom itself. ~M. Friedman
All strawmen.
None of those examples mirrors the case at hand.
The guy started a television station to battle stereotypes about muslims. I assume he did that becuase his intent was to make me "feel better about Islam as a religion". The sarcasm in my point should have been obvious based on my opening point about the "gee that worked out well department".
Bottom line: he set out to show me that the stereotypes abot muslims are wrong and then he provided another example to support the very worst of them. So relative to his intended goal, I can honestly say he wasn't very successful.
I'm the Bugs Bunny of Swords Crossed!
-4 Strongly Disagree - 0 Meh - Strongly Agree +4It's nice when they admit it (if only they understood it)
http://online.wsj.com/article/SB123482908053095381.html
If he'd just stopped there then I would say "here's an economist who at least knows what he does not know." Unfortunatley that's not to be, and after explaining exactly why no one should listen to economists on such issues he then goes on to claim we should listen to him on these issues, using economic theories he has already revealed as inadequate to the task.
Which just makes him a tool.
I came. I saw. I posted.
Veni, Vidi, Bitchy.
BSG
Was the last episode the a great episode, or the greatest episode yet?
In our society, people are rewarded for pretending to be certain about things they're clearly not certain about. -- Sam Harris,
Don't ruin it for me
I don't watch TV so I have to wait until it comes out on DVD.
I came. I saw. I posted.
Veni, Vidi, Bitchy.
Rumor has it that
It's on the internet too
In our society, people are rewarded for pretending to be certain about things they're clearly not certain about. -- Sam Harris,
Tons of backstory
Without giving anything away, it was very interesting indeed.
I wonder how the new development will tie in to the final episodes.
BSG has to be the most philosophically challenging show in the history of TV.
I never broke the law; I am the law! --
George W. BushJudge DreddI'm listening to...
Obama Likes Sweden, GOP: Nationalization, &drudge hilarity
Hey Guys..Go to Drudge, and read the Headline: Obama Moves Towards Swedish Model for Banks..then click the link. Anything strange?
http://wealthweekly.blogspot.com
Wii FC:2805-8311-8040-2678 Brawl: 2277-7051-2186
That's hysterical
// I wonder if Drudge forgot to read the headline of his own link.
I'm only half stupid
I can't believe Drudge has become popular
with that hideous layout. Surely they can afford to pay a libertarian to put together something for them.
I came. I saw. I posted.
Veni, Vidi, Bitchy.
I can't hate..
Dude is popular because of his sensationalism and his "breaking" stories, even though his zeal in chasing rumors sometimes dings his credibility. Plus, he appears to be pretty well-connected. I think it's pretty obvious who he's cheering for, especially with the headline. As for the layout, I guess "keep it simple" is his approach--it appears he hasn't changed his site since the 90s--the "all caps" reminds me of the crawlers you see on tv news.
http://wealthweekly.blogspot.com
Wii FC:2805-8311-8040-2678 Brawl: 2277-7051-2186
Jindal commits political suicide
http://www.cbsnews.com/blogs/2009/02/17/politics/politicalhotsheet/entry...
Now Louisiana hasn't exactly had the best decade. Jindal has been hyped (along with Palin) as the great republican hope. He's now put himself in an intractable position though. Either he accepts the vast majority (if not all) of the stimulus money or the people of his state will hang him out to dry. At the same time if he does accept the money he gives the democrats a big victory ("The GOP talks tough but when the chips are down even Gov Jindal knows his state needed the Stimulus") and stabs conservatives in the back.
This guy is the great hope?
I came. I saw. I posted.
Veni, Vidi, Bitchy.
Nah, it wouldn't be suicide.
Nah, it wouldn't be suicide. It might kill him in the state, but he'd still have a chance on the national stage. Maybe not a great one, but it'd still be there.
If his numbers drop in Louisiana
and he starts having to fight for every issue against an emboldened democratic party, then I have ahard time seeing how he emerges as a real contender in 2012. Jindal has already tried to take on the herculean task of reforming LA corrupt political machine (with how much earnestness I couldn't say) if he fails to maintain his popularity he'll be cut to pieces.
I came. I saw. I posted.
Veni, Vidi, Bitchy.
There are 6 Governors who are opting out...
...but I am sure they will all eventually acquiesce and take it, because they will not receive an federal exemption absolving them from repayment.
Funny how the federal government is forgiving the debts of people who took money, but forcing others to pay when they haven't.
Underlying all arguments against the free market is a lack of belief in freedom itself. ~M. Friedman
And that was basically my
And that was basically my point I brought up some time ago. The size of this debt is so incredibly large that you literally can't not take it because all of your constituents will be "billed" for it regardless of use. That's the incredibly scary power of our government in the control of people who really could give a rat's behind about the actual people it will affect.
Is that for certain?
I know I've read that a few governors have suggested they may opt out (although apparently their state legislatures can over rule them) but I hadn;t heard it was official.
I strongly supsect that any republican governor who does opt out is in for a world of hurt. Even in deep red states most people aren't willing to put free market ideals ahead of their own prosperity (which is exactly why free markets fall apart).
I came. I saw. I posted.
Veni, Vidi, Bitchy.
Thats the other crazy part...
...the federal government has put in this bill the ability making it possible for state legislation's to request the money themselves, going around the chief executive of the state!
This is unbelievable, people should be outraged!
I wish a state, or group of them would stand their ground and tell the federal gvernment where to go, but now states rights are a long ago foregone ideal that has been surrendered for the almighty food stamp, the gratis project housing, the generosity of dollars for schools that suck, and roads they are constitutionally obligated to maintain anyway.
This is why we should take back control of of federal government and take them out of the equation except for the few things they are supposed to be doing, keep most of the money they are now so generously redistributing, and force them to obey the constitution
Underlying all arguments against the free market is a lack of belief in freedom itself. ~M. Friedman
The reverse I would find objectionable
but allowing the democratic branch to overrule the autocratic one doesn't really bother me. Especially on something that is so politicized. I'm no fanof the south but even I don't want them to be completely screwed out of the stimulus just because they eklected republican governors.
I came. I saw. I posted.
Veni, Vidi, Bitchy.
Awe, isn't that nice of you...
But unfortunately this is just the federal government way, way over reaching!
Once a federal program is born, it never dies, this is a nightmare.
It is the beginning of the end of any remnant of sovereignty the individual states had, this whole deal is absolutely in opposition to the country we inherited, or was prescribed in the constitution.
We have turned a very dark corner in America.
Underlying all arguments against the free market is a lack of belief in freedom itself. ~M. Friedman
I think the state's sovereignty ship sailed
a long time ago. It was an okay idea at the time of the constitution but totally impractical now a days. If we really want to have sovereign states we need to dissolve the US (which I'm amenable to BTW).
I came. I saw. I posted.
Veni, Vidi, Bitchy.
LOL? Really? And why is it can't we have a...
...Constitutional federal government?
Underlying all arguments against the free market is a lack of belief in freedom itself. ~M. Friedman
because of the complexity of world issues
and integration we have now. What would you do when half the states refused to participate in the Iraq war? Or when North Dakota offered asylum to abortion clinic bombers? Trying to have a weak overarching federal government over 50 competing and diverse sovereign states just won;t work when we talk about the modern world. They either need to be fully independent or parts of a cohesive whole. The alternative is quite literally civil war (as it was in the past).
I came. I saw. I posted.
Veni, Vidi, Bitchy.
Total silliness Tlaloc...
We would not be in Iraq if we had a constitutional government, but if there was a need to go to war, the constitution provides for that eventuality.
I expect the states would behave sanely, and so doubt any legislature would provide safe haven to bombers, though I agree it is gnarly when cities like San Francisco have immigration asylum etc! However in a constitutional world immigration is a federal concern and should be dealt with as such. Look whats happening in Phoenix, it had the second highest number of kidnappings only to Mexico City? Where is the federal government there?
You are completely wrong, a constitutional relationship between American citizens, the states, and our federal government is the only way this will work, we are doomed to be Rome if we continue down this path.
Underlying all arguments against the free market is a lack of belief in freedom itself. ~M. Friedman
Phoenix
I think the kidnappings in Phoenix are far more tied to illegal drugs than illegal immigration.
We are the environment. There is no distinction. What we do to the earth we do to ourselves. —David Suzuki
Yes, illegal drugs being transported by illegal aliens...
...who are kidnapping American citizens.
Underlying all arguments against the free market is a lack of belief in freedom itself. ~M. Friedman
Sandanistas
American citizens are paying for both sides of the War on Drugs... but I digress.
In our society, people are rewarded for pretending to be certain about things they're clearly not certain about. -- Sam Harris,
Yes you do...
n/t
Underlying all arguments against the free market is a lack of belief in freedom itself. ~M. Friedman
Meh
I think it is disingenuous to imply that the kidnapping problem in Phoenix is an immigration issue. It is a drug issue. Yes, the drug cartels exploit illegal immigrants to do their dirty work, but it is hardly the immigrants that are the source of the problem.
We are the environment. There is no distinction. What we do to the earth we do to ourselves. —David Suzuki
So you're saying what?
The drug dealers are legals?
The poor illegals are being forced into this?
Did it ever occur to you that there are a bunch of real bad guys...who are also illegal immigrants when they are in the US doing their dirty work?
Or are you so soft that you have convinced yourself that these guys are all related to your housekeeper, and gust a bunch of good hardworking fellows who only need a fair chance to escape this bondage they've fallen victim too.
Underlying all arguments against the free market is a lack of belief in freedom itself. ~M. Friedman
I am saying
That if illegal immigration stopped tomorrow, it might temporarily slow down drug trafficking and related crimes, but not for long. Because illegal immigration is not the root cause of the problems.
If you disagree with that, then why don't you address the point being made, rather than devolving the conversation into sarcastic personal comments and ignorant presumptions about my thought processes? (For a change.)
We are the environment. There is no distinction. What we do to the earth we do to ourselves. —David Suzuki
Well I am at the end of the path....
Obviously the kidnappings, murders, and drug dealing is being committed by illegal aliens...but you seem to want to separate them somehow?
And then there's this sort of liberal rationalization...
Hence the sarcasm.
Underlying all arguments against the free market is a lack of belief in freedom itself. ~M. Friedman
They are separate.
It's like saying that bank robberies are almost always committed by people who are illegally parked, so we should crack down on illegal parking to combat bank robberies. (That's exaggerated, obviously, but I hope it makes my point.)
We are the environment. There is no distinction. What we do to the earth we do to ourselves. —David Suzuki
No it doesn't..
...It sure makes a good reason why we should crack down on illegals though.
Underlying all arguments against the free market is a lack of belief in freedom itself. ~M. Friedman
The last time we tried
it led to civil war and some 600,000 dead (out of a population of 30 million). What makes you think it'd go any differently this time?
I came. I saw. I posted.
Veni, Vidi, Bitchy.
I do not follow your logic...
...had Lincoln acted constitutionally no one would have died.
I suppose you think the civil war was fought to free the slaves too, right?
Underlying all arguments against the free market is a lack of belief in freedom itself. ~M. Friedman
The civil war was a result of a weak federal government
precisely what you want us to go back to. Semi-independent states will sooner or later have divisions deep enough as to cause them to fight each other, unless there is a guiding strong federal government to keep them in line.
I came. I saw. I posted.
Veni, Vidi, Bitchy.
Where do you get this stuff?
Probably from those historically accurate government funded public school textbooks.
In my son's new 5th grade US history book it is clear that european's have done very little to contribute to the world other than exterminating the Indians, treating blacks like sh!t, massacring more Indians, incarcerating the Japanese during WWll, and prohibiting the Latinos from free migration.
Even given those revelations, as for your account of the civil war, well the truth couldn't have been more the opposite.
The civil war was the result of an over zealous federal government unabashedly violating the constitution, exerting illegal influence on the states and finally beating them into submission.
Underlying all arguments against the free market is a lack of belief in freedom itself. ~M. Friedman
That's pretty revisionist
In the first place the south attacked first. Surely you can't blame the feds for Fort Sumter being attacked by the Confederacy. In the second place you have to look back further to what was at the roots of the disagreements between the North and South. There were a lot issues going on but ultimately it boils down to one part of the country wanting one thing and another part of the country wanting another and each wanting it enough to war on the other. The only reason the Feds were with the North was becasue of the way the election of 1860 shook out. Consequently it had little to do with the feds at all. It was a regional civil war (North vs South).
Believe me I really wish the civil war had gone another way and lincoln had told the south not to let the door hit on th way out. But that's not what happened. What happened was the result of a weak federal government that couldn't keep a leash on regional disputes.
I came. I saw. I posted.
Veni, Vidi, Bitchy.
No - they defended their occupied territory...
Of course I blame the federal government for the action taken on Fort Sumter, they illegally occupied it with federal soldiers...
No Tlaloc, the issue is one of states rights, and the one big fear our founders had, a federal government gone berserk!
The FG and the North are one in the same.
LOL? Whatever, it is not their business to keep a leash on the states, in fact, again on the contrary, it is incumbent upon the states to keep a check on the Federal Government, and not allow it to do things that are unconstitutional. The FG is supposed to be weak with respect to it's relationship to the states. Do you not understand how the whole thing is set up, don't you see why it is so screwed up now?
Evidently not?
Underlying all arguments against the free market is a lack of belief in freedom itself. ~M. Friedman
I think you have the Constitution confused with ...
the Articles of Confederation
which didn't work out at all.
I'm the Bugs Bunny of Swords Crossed!
-4 Strongly Disagree - 0 Meh - Strongly Agree +4FS
Forts turn into Federal property.
Not much unlike embassies. Not unlike people's taxes.
State's asked to join the Federal gov't.
The Feds put in forts.
The forts belong to the Feds.
Someone cannot asked somebody else to move in, kick them out and take their stuff without some sort of resolution.
In our society, people are rewarded for pretending to be certain about things they're clearly not certain about. -- Sam Harris,
Really?
So why are we not in Clark AFB?
Why is this
happening?
Those bases were built with taxpayer money, right?
When one or several states secede, they are no different than any other sovereign territory.
This isn't, or it's not supposed to be like, the soviet union, we are united voluntarily, not by coercion.
Underlying all arguments against the free market is a lack of belief in freedom itself. ~M. Friedman
You reached for the strawman standing beside me...
...I'm didn't write enough to tell you what I actually looked like.
The US must have had something in the contract that made the base not be US property when the agreement ended.
To declare War, grant Letters of Marque and Reprisal, and make Rules concerning
Captures on Land and Water;
To exercise exclusive Legislation in all Cases whatsoever, over such District
(not exceeding ten Miles square) as may, by Cession of particular States, and
the acceptance of Congress, become the Seat of the Government of the United
States, and to exercise like Authority over all Places purchased by the Consent
of the Legislature of the State in which the Same shall be, for the Erection of
Forts, Magazines, Arsenals, dock-Yards, and other needful Buildings;
Until I see some other evidence, I'll go on with the idea that South Carolina didn't have the option to renege.
ie The way I see it, South Carolina was like OJ trying to get "his stuff" back.
This is related:
Do you support warrant-less police searches of otherwise private property?
In our society, people are rewarded for pretending to be certain about things they're clearly not certain about. -- Sam Harris,
Brutus, you are mistaken...
There is no strawman here, though you seem to make them your constant companions?
All of the former federal installations in the south were restored to the sates, there were only two exceptions I can think of, where over zealous union combatants attempted and then failed to occupy them. Ft Pickens in Florida, and Sumter in SC.
The seceded states were all considered sovereign, and they were all ready to pay compensation for the exchange of any goods and supplies that were forfeited in the turnover.
They were all quite civil about it actually, it was the actions of a few rogue northern officers that caused all the problems.
Underlying all arguments against the free market is a lack of belief in freedom itself. ~M. Friedman
You cannot not attribute you're premises to my argument.
Virginia was supposed to get DC back too?
In our society, people are rewarded for pretending to be certain about things they're clearly not certain about. -- Sam Harris,
I had never heard that, where did you gather that from?
n/t
Underlying all arguments against the free market is a lack of belief in freedom itself. ~M. Friedman
To exercise exclusive
To exercise exclusive Legislation in all Cases whatsoever, over such District
(not exceeding ten Miles square) as may, by Cession of particular States, and
the acceptance of Congress, become the Seat of the Government of the United
States, and to exercise like Authority over all Places purchased by the Consent
of the Legislature of the State in which the Same shall be, for the Erection of
Forts
The US "giving up" some Forts and possibly setting up conditions for the Forts to change hands, shouldn't be construed to mean the US would give up all Forts, [under the premise that the Forts became Federal property and stayed so even if the state left the Union].
In our society, people are rewarded for pretending to be certain about things they're clearly not certain about. -- Sam Harris,
I do not know of any installation...
...be it a US military base or diplomatic HQ, any US federal property abroad that is not there by means of a bi lateral agreement.
If fact I would go as far as to say that we are there only as the result of the invitation of the host government. In virtually every case I can think of when the relationship changed, ergo a change in regime, and the new government requests us to vacate, we have.
Once the states seceded, they were no longer under the control of the US federal government. Period. They were autonomous, and as such were no longer desirous of, or obliged to, host a foreign military within it's self governed boundries.
Those forts, and any federal presence were lost the moment the state seceded, were they still due some compensation in some instances, yes, however that is a diplomatic issue, and should have been negotiated as such.
But that brings us to the crux of the matter.
The federal government had no intention of respecting the rights of the states - that had created it, it's like an Orwellian nightmare, just as the founders had warned us most direly about keeping in check, the federal government ran a muck!.
Even as it was the States themselves that were the ones that had given lives, and property and fought the war to establish it. Yet here it turned out, the inmates had taken over the asylum.
Lincoln and the armies of the north are true tyrants of US history. Lincoln should be held in contempt and loathed for his disregard for the constitution, and the murder of over half a million Americans. He could have cared less about abolition, or the freeing of anyone, in fact, he was all about enslaving the free people of the states, black or white, and indenture them to the new boss in town, the federal government.
If you think anything different, you bought into the textbooks that same government printed to convince you otherwise as an impressionable child.
Underlying all arguments against the free market is a lack of belief in freedom itself. ~M. Friedman
The States had to leave the hand,
but they already put their money in the pot.
ASFAIK there was no prenup that anything to say on the issue. The states weren't forced to join the US. They later allowed bases in.
As far as I can tell, the US did not lease the land to build the Forts, they became owners of the Fort.
ie The Forts weren't Condos, they were plots of land within plots of land.
Barring any extra language in the original agreement to allow the Forts, the US should conceivably hold onto the property.
I'm saying the Forts became Federal property and were just like Lesotho
once the States succeeded.
The States agree to give the land over in the first place. Otherwise there would be no Fort.
The Forts are not all that different that the Louisiana Purchase, the French Second Republic didn't demand that land back.
In our society, people are rewarded for pretending to be certain about things they're clearly not certain about. -- Sam Harris,
Thats it, thats what you got...?
The LA land purchase...was a diplomatic purchase where both sides agreed, as I said, a bilateral arrangement...
Anyway, your response is so weak I will decline to reply.
Underlying all arguments against the free market is a lack of belief in freedom itself. ~M. Friedman
In case you bother to read Clause 17
United States Constitution
Article I:
Section I:
Clause 17:
To exercise exclusive Legislation in all Cases whatsoever, over such District (not exceeding ten Miles square) as may, by Cession of particular States, and the Acceptance of Congress, become the Seat of the Government of the United States, and to exercise like Authority over all Places purchased by the Consent of the Legislature of the State in which the Same shall be, for the Erection of Forts, Magazines, Arsenals, dock-Yards, and other needful Buildings;
In case you don't understand what "cession"
means. cession (to cede
) is the assignment of property to another entity. In international law it commonly refers to land transferred by treaty. Cession is "a surrender; a yielding; a giving up."
The States sold their claim to the land, the Feds purchased the land.
That's a bilateral agreement.
So far the only arguments I've seen from you are ad hominems and claims the cessions were like treaties in which the US appeared to just lease land. That doesn't mean you're wrong, but I have don't buy into the claim the US was just allowed to use Forts until a given State wanted it back and put an offer on the table.
a la, Someone sold you the exclusive rights and title to a plot of land that is in the middle of the rest of the property, you'd except the future owner of the house not to offer to buy the land, and after you reject the offer, the home owner annex the land.
The geography of the land doesn't have anything to do with my argument. If the State's agreed to cede the land to the Feds with no provision for it's return, they ceded the land for good. It's within the Federal Gov't's power to buy land to build Forts from my reading of the Constitution.
In our society, people are rewarded for pretending to be certain about things they're clearly not certain about. -- Sam Harris,
Ok, so we should leave it here then I suppose...
The same principle you claim afforded the federal government the property in the first place, namely the cession of the real estate, is the very same principle, namely secession of the Sovereign State from the federal government, that abnegates it.
They were due some compensation, and that is it.
Underlying all arguments against the free market is a lack of belief in freedom itself. ~M. Friedman
The Feds owned the land the Fort was on.
The Feds had the option to buy the land with the approval of a State.
it's any different than:
If you joined at country club with the option of them buying a lot of land on your property with your approval.
They buy the lot of land, with your approval, just so long as they improve the land and make a golf related capital improvements on the land that the country club deems neccesary.
The country club builds some storage shacks for lawnmowers.
You leave the country club and offer to buy back the lot of land.
The country club refuses.
You forcefully try taking backt the lot of land saying the country club violated the contract.
Some kind of mediator should have been Option #1 after the US gov't didn't accept SC's offer.
All the Feds had to do to keep the land was to improve the Forts and it was Federal Property, this was a sale of property with a service clause, and South Carolina had Zero authority to be decide whether the service clause was actually meet.
The service clause was meet, because the Feds had the right to decide how much the Fort needed improvement. This kook that has zero understanding of contract law helps to show my point even though he's arguing for a different outcome.
In our society, people are rewarded for pretending to be certain about things they're clearly not certain about. -- Sam Harris,
The federal Government has ZERO imput or control...
...over another independent, self governed State once it has seceded.
Once a State secedes from the Union Brutus, it's kind of an all deals are off proposition, the FG could not expect to maintain a armed force within it.
Otherwise, there is no real secession, is there?
Your analogy is just so out of whack I will not even go into that.
I see no resolution to this at the moment, so perhaps it is best to leave it for now.
Underlying all arguments against the free market is a lack of belief in freedom itself. ~M. Friedman
If I see anything other than
"well, the US should out of courtesy, given back the Fort" then I might be listen.
Considering that:
SC ceded to Fort for the security of the US.
The Executive Branch was to fortify the Fort as they saw fit.
The Fort was not given over to protect the State of SC directly, it was given to to the US to protect the US
The assumption that it is to be treated like an unconditional gift has some strong merit, considering the wording of the original agreement that I could find.
The fact that SC succeeded, if it was treated as an implied conditional gift, that would allow the US to keep it.
The fact that decades later, SC tried to get it back is NOT evidence that it was a conditional gift.
The fact that the US made capital improvements on the land and fulfilled the letter of the law in the agreement, makes the conditional argument mute.
Jiminy Cricket, the US still has Guantanamo Bay even after the current Cuban gov't overthrew the one that made the deal. "[What was the point of overthrowing the gov't if they 'honor' old treaties.]"
Repeating that the Fort used to be on SC land has zero merit on whether the Fort should legally be "given back."
SC has as much a right to Fort Sumter as Mexico does to land in the Gadsden Purchase.
In our society, people are rewarded for pretending to be certain about things they're clearly not certain about. -- Sam Harris,
Look, the botttom line is this....
Being a part of the union of states which constituted the US, and as such having a vested interest in protecting that alliance, they ceded some property specifically to build a fort, specifically to defend the US, of which SC was a part.
Now follow closely.
When the federal government chose to no longer respect the Constitutional rights of the states, SC and others seceded; as to say they withdrew formally from the federation.
The States then became federally unregimented and assumed responsibility for their own dominion, the Governor became the chief executive in the land, and the State affected the superintendence of any and all public lands and government property. This was the case until the confederacy was established.
Not only did the union not have a legitimate claim to any property in the south, but the very occupation of any government installations was seen as an act of aggression and dealt with as such.
Now you said this;
This implies that it was not theirs any longer, and that is summarily not so. It was as much SC's, as NY's, it was the tobacco farmer's and the steel manufacturers.
In other words it was taxpayers property, not some federal 3rd party's, and therefore even given your flawed postulation, SC had as much if not more equity in that property than the any other state in the union, North or South.
Then you said this;
You used the word "has", and you would be correct today, however that was patently not the case in 1861.
Underlying all arguments against the free market is a lack of belief in freedom itself. ~M. Friedman
Reorginizing DOES NOT Void completed contracts
2 entities enter into a business venture, entity 1 cedes a property to entity 2 just so long as entity 2 uses the property as they see fit and make improvements on the property.
Entity 2 hangs some curtains on the wall.
Entity 2 breaks the law in some manner not affecting the property.
Entity 1 leaves the business venture.
Entity 3, created from the remains of Entity 1, cannot just go back and take which Entity 1 gave up.
That would be no different than Germany taking over the Sudetenland again after the fall of the Soviet Union. A new Executive power gets their old stuff back.
In our society, people are rewarded for pretending to be certain about things they're clearly not certain about. -- Sam Harris,
Help Will Robinson...does not compute...
...Oh my...
We are not talking about a business venture Brutus, we not talking about civil or tort law either for that matter.
I have explained it as clearly as care to, take it or leave it, it makes no difference to me.
Underlying all arguments against the free market is a lack of belief in freedom itself. ~M. Friedman
So you never wanted retroactive rescission?
If you're acting as if there are no overriding rules to follow, you cannot be arguing for retroactive rescission of the Unions use of the Fort, or at least anything the Union would need to follow. Do you want to back peddle now?
Or are you just claiming the Union just outta have returned the Fort to poor little South Carolina?
And have no reason besides the Union should have played nice, stopped acting like mean ole' bully and just should have returned the Fort? That's what you're "argument" has been.
You're "unconstrained" vision on foreign policy is quite scarry if every country did it.
In our society, people are rewarded for pretending to be certain about things they're clearly not certain about. -- Sam Harris,
The point is...and I will leave it here...
...it matters not what the FG wishes, they had no standing in SC after December 20th 1860.
In a brief statement issued from by SC Convention, they made it known in no uncertain terms to the world what the relationship would be between the United States, and the Sovereign State of South Carolina from that day forward;
Case closed.
In the unconstitutional forebearance of what was to come, President Buchanan declared even the right of SC to secede illegal, so it was evident then and there that the FG had left the reservation itself, and was intent on sustaining itself regardless of what the constitution said, or what the States ratified the constitution for.
To drive this point home, and end this thread for my part once and for all I submit the following;
You can make all the silly analogies you want, but the above statement effectively served the Federal Government their eviction papers, and any collateral grievances are merely diplomatic details to be worked out subsequently.
Underlying all arguments against the free market is a lack of belief in freedom itself. ~M. Friedman
What SC wants SC gets?
You're assertions that SC wanted retroactive rescission doesn't make the case close.
Under that system Russia would get Alaska back, just by saying all previous agreements with the US are void.
The UK could ask for the colonies back just by saying all agreements with the US are void.
Bringing out the canons is not Option 1.2
In our society, people are rewarded for pretending to be certain about things they're clearly not certain about. -- Sam Harris,
Ridiculous reasoning.
You seem to be unwilling, or unable to cope with the realities of secession?
You continually seem desirous of making this into something else, anything other than what it was?
The US Federal Government had no right to maintain a military presence in a self governed SC post 12-04-1860.
They did have a right to negotiate diplomatically for redress of the many issues that surely arose.
And that is that.
Underlying all arguments against the free market is a lack of belief in freedom itself. ~M. Friedman
Well, strictly speaking ...
You wouldn't count Sherman's march through the south as the Federal Government having handled that regional dispute? To me it looks like it handled that dispute pretty definitively.
I'm the Bugs Bunny of Swords Crossed!
-4 Strongly Disagree - 0 Meh - Strongly Agree +4No sh!t huh...!
n/t
Underlying all arguments against the free market is a lack of belief in freedom itself. ~M. Friedman
We talked about this before
Lincoln had license to attack The South because they appropriated federal land (military bases). I think he would have done so anyway, but I'll give him that.
I never broke the law; I am the law! --
George W. BushJudge DreddI'm listening to...
Well no, we touched on this but never finished...
Underlying all arguments against the free market is a lack of belief in freedom itself. ~M. Friedman
And as I said before
It wasn't an illegal occupation.
SC was within its rights to secede, but Fort Sumter was federal property. It was federal property before SC seceded, and it was federal property afterward as well.
I never broke the law; I am the law! --
George W. BushJudge DreddI'm listening to...
What makes you say that?
It is no more federal property after secession than our bases in any other soverign lands are ours when we are asked to leave.
Underlying all arguments against the free market is a lack of belief in freedom itself. ~M. Friedman
Well....
Though the details are about sketchy yet, of all the proposals to deal with the horrendous economy, the Foreclosure Reduction Plan that President Obama is proposing is just sticking in my craw.
I don't like it at all. I disagree completely with the notion of falsely inflating house values as a way to 'fix' the problem.
I don't see this as working out well, but we shall see.
It gives irresponsible dolts who were using homes as a revolving casino way too easy of an out. It provides incentive for folks who can pay not to as motivation to step in for a govt rescue.
As I have stated previously, in my strong but uneducated opinion, the price of homes needs to drop. The prices are out of sync with what people can actually afford. If the banks have to take the hit for the loss in value, then so be it.
I'm only half stupid
Duh...
n/t
Underlying all arguments against the free market is a lack of belief in freedom itself. ~M. Friedman
stimuls spending is awkward for scientists
Here's a nice article discussing the why the inclusion of scientific research funds in the "stimulus"
bill doesn't make much sense. To sum it up: little of this spending will have short-term stimulative effect, a stimulus bill is an inefficient way of funding long-term scientific investment, and the stimulus bill is likely to create volatility in the scientific labor market.
The science-funding agencies are now trying to figure out how to spend this money in a responsible way -- but it is a difficult task because this represents a huge increase in funding and are under pressure to spend it quickly.
In my expert opinion, you should do what I tell you to do.
Creating/updating infrastructure
is the obvious choice. That creates immediate stimulus while helping increase long term scientific productivity. Build new labs, invest in new tools, replace aging resources.
I came. I saw. I posted.
Veni, Vidi, Bitchy.
and hope
that private money starts to invest after seeing value in the research.
This also goes for the rest of the money party bailout. The private markets will be lured into investing in areas that they see as promising.
I'm only half stupid
Promising is the wrong word.
Lucritive would be better. And it all ties back into the absurd levels of incentives created whose consequences cannot fully be understood or controlled, if one is being honest. This bill will give politicians and polticial appologists plenty of work over the next few decades trying to explain away the awful spinoffs of this bill and the bills to come. But then again, work is what they want. Nevermind the real point being the need to distribute resources appropriately...
Promising
is the right word. The promise of profits to come, even though at the front end it might mean breaking even.
The absurd incentives were created by deregulating Wall Street. Why should a bank be listed as a stock and to sell unpaid mortgage debt? That's irrational AND stupid.
The government is stepping in as a resource of last resort, since the private markets shot themselves in the head with their unethical, unscrupulous, irrational exuberance. Wall Street proved it can't be trusted to operate ethically.
I'm only half stupid
You criticize wall street and
You criticize wall street and then repeatedly defend the need to regulate it rather than simply get rid of it. If you can't handle people making bad decisions, why continue to give them what you believe to be the tool to continue?
Listing a bank makes as much sense as listing any other company. So the real question is, why should any company be listed on the stock market? And unpaid mortgage debt is a bit of a fly-by-the-seat-of-your-couch-in-front-of-the-tv-watching-too-much-news explanation. They are trading on the value of assets. So the real question is, why should people be allowed to buy and sell assets?
And the government stepping in is not the last resort by a long shot. It's simply the resort that results in the best chance our government has in futhering it's control. Period. There is always another choice and nationalization is nowhere near the bottom of the list.
That's right
I am criticizing Wall Street. If they had acted ethically I wouldn't be.
I don't think the government is coming after me any time soon, but I would appreciate it if they went after the lassie faire thieves who pulled off this heist.
I'm only half stupid
Is Al Sharpton Crazy?
The POTUS doesn't write bills
, Congress does.
In our society, people are rewarded for pretending to be certain about things they're clearly not certain about. -- Sam Harris,
It's just vague enough
to leave wiggle room.
The cartoon is offensive and unacceptable with a subtle, or perhaps not, promotion of violence against our commander in chief. I note it is not on Drudge or Fox News page, so they must not think it is funny haha.
You can of course say 'the left' was cruel to the 43, but I don't believe they drew cartoons of him being shot.
Democrats should convene in Congress and ask all members to vote on a symbolic measure or general sense of , that condemns this kind of rhetoric.
Send a message that this is unacceptable. See which Republicans vote for or against.
I'm only half stupid
holy bleep you are scary.
Are you serious? Your like Rush Limbaugh from the left. Crazy for party power.
And as a side note, what you do believe or don't believe to be true has nothing to do with reality as many members here have shown in the past. A 10 second google search for "cartoon president bush shot" reveals your ignorance and hypocrisy.
If you are scared of me
You've got some big problems.
After we fought a civil war, and to shame the KKK, and all the rest, I don't think this is particularly amusing.
But think what you want. Just a harmless little ole cartoon.
I'm only half stupid
/
//I think my mouse has had triplets.
I'm only half stupid
//
/
I'm only half stupid
/////you///are//so///scary////// NOT!
...what a joke you are...
...maybe he just hasn't come up off the floor from his big laugh seizure...! LOL!
He could make you intellectually none existent in one post...but has graciously entertained your nonsense....you should be kissing his ass...not agitating him!
Underlying all arguments against the free market is a lack of belief in freedom itself. ~M. Friedman
A "sense of the senate"
(or house) resolution has nothing to do with party power, it's just a non-binding statement that congress does or doesn't approve of something. It carries no weight of law. Now personally I'd love to see Congress stop voting on anything that doesn't carry weight of law (including the various "today we celebrate Mom and Apply pie" kinds of idiocy).
I came. I saw. I posted.
Veni, Vidi, Bitchy.
Not scary
Partisan, maybe. However, I fail to see how that is scary.
At worst advocating for a resolution ends up wasting Congress's time. At best, it makes a few racists look bad. Meh. I've got better things to do myself.
I never broke the law; I am the law! --
George W. BushJudge DreddI'm listening to...
1: A chimp got shot, by
1: A chimp got shot, by police, in the state bordering the cartoonist.
2: The POTUS does not write bills. Congress does.
3: The cartoonist was in all likelihood calling Congress a bunch of chimps.
4: The chimp is not half-white.
In our society, people are rewarded for pretending to be certain about things they're clearly not certain about. -- Sam Harris,
The champion of symbolism
suddenly runs the gauntlet with a list!
At best the cartoon is unfunny.
At worst, the imagery of cops shooting a.......
There is enough wiggle room.
I'm only half stupid
Eenee, Meenee, Mainee, Mo
A gods damn chimp was just shot not far from the cartoonist. I highly doubt the the cartoonist had any ill intentions and if any one thought that people would think the POTUS writes bills, the cartoonist shouldn't have to write out the lyrics to an educational song before the cartoon.
I suppose that cartoon is sexist too, after all, it's two male cops, it's a subversive imagery that women should be submissive to their husbands.
Chimp = democrats in Congress
I suppose we should ban the words "renege" and "niggardly" from dictionaries too. Even though they have nothing to do with the Latin word for black.
In our society, people are rewarded for pretending to be certain about things they're clearly not certain about. -- Sam Harris,
Whatever dude
No need to have a cow.
I find it incredibly offensive.
You don't.
I'm only half stupid
...
I take it you didn't read the caption to the side first.
In our society, people are rewarded for pretending to be certain about things they're clearly not certain about. -- Sam Harris,
Ah, I lu'd those Satuday morning shorts!
+5
Underlying all arguments against the free market is a lack of belief in freedom itself. ~M. Friedman
Yeah they're planning protests here...
in New York. You already know who's heading it. But it's their right to do so--I won't be joining them though. The related story about the monkey shot by the cops puts the cartoon in context. The dangerous projections made by some (the chimp looks nothing like Obama, nor is there any tip-off that Obama is implied in there) are scary. Should we assume that any time a monkey is attributed with human characteristics, it's a black person? And wasn't more direct connections between chimps and people made more explicit by cartoonists portaying Bush?
Ugh, what a distraction. I wonder if anyone will remember this next week.
http://wealthweekly.blogspot.com
Wii FC:2805-8311-8040-2678 Brawl: 2277-7051-2186
Exactly
It's just like how President Bush was never drawn in a cartoon having been shot. The hypersensitivity of the some of the left is hypocrticial with a capital "h".
Nope, they made an entire movie about it.
Bush assassination film
I'm the Bugs Bunny of Swords Crossed!
-4 Strongly Disagree - 0 Meh - Strongly Agree +4Ironic and sad
A Muslim man seeking to combat negative stereotypes of Muslims as violent misogynists beheads his wife.
...putting this in wednesday's
In our society, people are rewarded for pretending to be certain about things they're clearly not certain about. -- Sam Harris,
What are we to make of that?
?
Underlying all arguments against the free market is a lack of belief in freedom itself. ~M. Friedman