WTF Open Thread
Wednesday, Thursday, Friday. :-)
While you weren't looking New Hampshire decided to allow same-sex marriage after Gov. Lynch signed the bill into law.
What else?
Submitted by stinerman on Wed, 2009-06-03 20:39
Tags:
Comments :
Rhode Island
...is apparently the only thing keeping the social fabric of New England from tearing apart at the seams! ;)
The RI people are ready
, but maybe not the legislators, at least not for a little while.
We are the environment. There is no distinction. What we do to the earth we do to ourselves. —David Suzuki
The homos have ruined my marriage.
Or something.
(I'm trying to follow the "logic" of the loony right.)
If you really believe this is the "fight of our lives," how come you're not in Iraq?
There's you problem right there!
Don't bother. Logic is obviously a language that you do not speak.
Meta: This post is a serious comment.
I'm the Bugs Bunny of Swords Crossed!
-4 Strongly Disagree - 0 Meh - Strongly Agree +4Then make the connection
you're big on subdividing combinations of scenarios, GoRight. Show us how gay marriage harms traditional marriage.
Not going to get into it.
My comment was merely a gratuitous jab at CLC. It WAS a serious comment for what it actually said.
Meta: This TOO is a serious comment.
I'm the Bugs Bunny of Swords Crossed!
-4 Strongly Disagree - 0 Meh - Strongly Agree +4Will gay marriage ruin your marriage?
(Assuming some woman would have you.)
If you really believe this is the "fight of our lives," how come you're not in Iraq?
Keep the gloves above the belt
plzkthx
I never broke the law; I am the law! --
George W. BushJudge DreddI'm listening to...
Asking a question?
Good lord...
If you really believe this is the "fight of our lives," how come you're not in Iraq?
The parenthetical is a bit over the top
I calls 'em likes I sees 'em.
And now I'm remembering why I took my leave. It's hard to go much longer than a few replies without an ad hominem thrown in for good measure.
I never broke the law; I am the law! --
George W. BushJudge DreddI'm listening to...
That was humorous.
My guess is that GoRight would take it the way it was intended.
Ad hominem, my ass...
If you really believe this is the "fight of our lives," how come you're not in Iraq?
Regardless of whether or not I could ever be offended by
anything you say, CLC, it was an ad hominem. You seem to be under the impression that people can't actually see the things you type between parenthesis
... get a clue: we can! :P
Meta: This post is just a good natured ribbing.
I'm the Bugs Bunny of Swords Crossed!
-4 Strongly Disagree - 0 Meh - Strongly Agree +4Red
....is so not your color ;}
Nice to see your posts. MissL's been doing most of the liberal heavy lifting around here lately.
"The human race divides politically into those who want people to be controlled and those who have no such desire." --R. Heinlein
ahem
n/t
Ah, what do you expect?
She's obviously an activist moderator! :)
Meta: This post is just meant to be funny.
I'm the Bugs Bunny of Swords Crossed!
-4 Strongly Disagree - 0 Meh - Strongly Agree +4More likely
a reverse sexist! OMG my white male sensibilities are assaulted. Purpleface needs to throw out whatever "heaving lifting test" she's using and come up with one that's more gender-neutral.
Tsk tsk
Don't you know that as a white male, you don't get preferential treatment? ;-)
(All kidding aside---well, in my case, never all---please note, I did qualify my statement with "most of" and "lately")
"The human race divides politically into those who want people to be controlled and those who have no such desire." --R. Heinlein
Oh we're just teasing you.
You know what it means when the boys tease the girls, don't you?
Meta: This post is just meant to be funny.
I'm the Bugs Bunny of Swords Crossed!
-4 Strongly Disagree - 0 Meh - Strongly Agree +4Liberals see dead people as Franken fans...
James @
has the rest of this disturbing story.
Semper Vigilo, Fortis, Paratus et Fidelis!
OMG the rolls weren't perfectly updated!
Now, if it can be shown that any of these dead people actually voted, which the article does not even attempt, there might be something there.
The other question is
Who did these people vote for and why so small of a sample size was used.
Over 2,800 flagged as being dead [false positives can be made]
12 were checked
5 were actually dead but did not actually vote
In our society, people are rewarded for pretending to be certain about things they're clearly not certain about. -- Sam Harris,
The sample size was just small enough...
... to support the group's outrageous (and inane) claims.
If you really believe this is the "fight of our lives," how come you're not in Iraq?
Heh-heh...
And there's nothing biased about the Minnesota Majority, is there?
I expect that you'd give the same credence to a study from the ACLU.
Right?
If you really believe this is the "fight of our lives," how come you're not in Iraq?
Activist Governor Overruled
http://www.thestate.com/local/story/814257.html
Gov. Sanford is overruled.
" The court voted 5-0, with Justice Costa Pleicones concurring in a separate opinion, that the General Assembly had the authority in passing the state budget to order Sanford to apply for the money. Sanford contended that a federal law passed in February gave him the sole authority to apply for the money."
The justices also issued a rare writ of mandamus ordering Sanford to apply for the money. "
The So Carolina state legislature had over-ruled Gov. Sanford's veto to accept the Stimulus money alloted to the state. He at first made an appeal to the Federal Courts, which was rejected. The State Supreme Court has ordered Sanford to accept the stimulus funds, which will prevent many of the states teachers from being laid off.
The irony is that while Sanford refused the Federal Money, raising the issue of his sovereign authority over to rule his state, he appealed to a Federal law he assumed applied, so he could reject Federal money.
I'm only half stupid
I can't say if this is a good decision or not
I don't know much about the constitution of South Carolina, nor do I know which federal law he is talking about.
However, i did smirk at this:
Ah, the fair-weather federalist strikes again!
I never broke the law; I am the law! --
George W. BushJudge DreddI'm listening to...
The legal (mis)calculations of ML ...
Strictly speaking this decision does NOT have anything to do with whether the Feds can make them take the money or not (I assume this is what you meant by "raising the issue of his sovereign authority over to rule his state"). From a legal standpoint, and based solely on the information you have provided here, it appears this entire legal proceeding was conducted within the context of the state, correct? So the feds played no role whatsoever ... other than to provide the money, of course.
Meta: This post is a serious comment.
I'm the Bugs Bunny of Swords Crossed!
-4 Strongly Disagree - 0 Meh - Strongly Agree +4The Federal Courts returned his case back
to the State Supreme Court. His original appeal to the Federal Courts was rejected.
The So. Carolina legislature voted and had the necessary votes to over rule Sanford's decision to reject the stimulus funds.. He was claiming that the state legislature was violating his executive authority as a governor and took his case to the Federal District Court which rejected the case.
Sanford was rejecting the will of the people of his state, as represented by the State Legislature (the place where state laws are made) and claiming that they had no rights in overturning his executive authority, with a vote of the legislature.
IN other words while claiming that the Federal Government has too much authority over the people in this country , he was saying that as the Governor of So. Carolina he has sole authority over the people in his state, and that his authority exceeds that of the Federal Govt. The Governors argument is patently ridiculous.
I'm only half stupid
So what?
So what? This just proves my point. The feds recognized that they had no role to play otherwise they would have taken the case.
Thus making this a State Constitutional question which is why it should be settled in the State Supreme Court. Nothing in that says that the feds have any role in this.
And if you want to play the "will of the people" card, it was also "the people" who voted to grant Sanford the full power and authority granted the Governor under the State Constitution to wield as he saw fit, not the legislature. Sanford was duty bound to protect the powers of the Executive Branch from potential excursions into the Governor's authority. As is customary, the State Supreme Court was the arbiter between him and the legislature exactly as it should be.
Not so. He may have been saying that the Federal Government is attempting to usurp State Power not granted to them by the US Constitution (which you incorrectly characterize as over the people rather than the States), but that is not the same as saying that his authority (generically) exceeds that of the Federal Government. You are correct that it would be ridiculous for him to make such a claim, but of course I sincerely doubt if that was his exact claim.
But for those powers reserved to the States who in turn delegate some aspects of that power to their Governor via their State Constitutions, Sanford would be correct ... as Governor his powers do in fact exceed those of the Federal Government in those specific areas. In that sense there is nothing ridiculous about such a claim at all.
I doubt that he actually said any such thing. Show me where. Your assertion amounts to his claiming to be a dictator. Please show me where he claims to have had sole authority (i.e. all governmental authority) over the people of his State. If that is not what you actually meant, then please clarify your statement.
However, to the extent that the State Constitution grants authority to the Governor, that authority does, in fact, extend over all the people of his State. That should be obvious.
Meta: This post is a serious comment.
I'm the Bugs Bunny of Swords Crossed!
-4 Strongly Disagree - 0 Meh - Strongly Agree +4Man that rails against X,
Man that rails against X, turns to X in time of need to fight off X.
Hence, ML thinking it was ironic.
In our society, people are rewarded for pretending to be certain about things they're clearly not certain about. -- Sam Harris,
Your example is sloppy
Substitute "law" for X and you have the exact process any citizen goes through to address any grievance.
It's only ironic through the partisan lens, which is capable of distorting anything to meet its predetermined objective: that the other side is bad.
As I understand it, in this case, Stanford appealed to a law that spoke to the behavior of the Federal government. He thought the stimulus bill said, in effect "the governor accepts the money on behalf of the state." So, he was trying to use that specific wording to say that the Fed could not fail to follow its own law and bypass the governor.
It's touchy legal ground, I grant you.
"The human race divides politically into those who want people to be controlled and those who have no such desire." --R. Heinlein
Irony
I wasn't making some thesis, I thought/think that ML just thought it was ironic that Stanford opposed what the Federal government was doing on one grounds and then turned to the Federal government to stop the Federal government because of some other issue.
ie
I don't want the money and will reject it because apparently solely due to SR's.
I'll try and stop my state from taking the money by going through the FG
At first glance it appears ironic, does it not, even with out a partisan lens?
ironic does not equal hypocritical
In our society, people are rewarded for pretending to be certain about things they're clearly not certain about. -- Sam Harris,
Well, no, it doesn't
Because what is ironic about using the law to protest a law you feel is wrong or is not being followed correctly or doesn't apply? Isn't that how our judicial system works? We follow the law to obtain redress. Nothing ironic about it.
Unless of course you think the whole process of governance and politics is by nature ironic, in which case I agree with you ;-)
"The human race divides politically into those who want people to be controlled and those who have no such desire." --R. Heinlein
Because Sanford's position
is States authority should over rule Federal authority.
Meanwhile he is taking away the Power of the State by trying to over rule a veto proof vote in the state legislature. Veto proof votes aren't easy to come by.
Yeah there is lots ironic about it, because he is appealing to the Courts, which would presumably have to be filled with the detested 'activist' judges giving some ultra liberal interpretation to the law to even take the case, which was wholly rejected.
Sanford's goal was to use lawyers, to technically give himself a legal loophole so he could have more power than the Federal Government and the State Government combined while complaining that the cause of liberty is being defiled by those with too much power. The irony is pretty thick.
I'm only half stupid
A dispassionate view
Sanford wanted to say no. South Carolina's government, the body responsible for defining the role of its governor, said, no, you can't say no, based on South Carolina's laws and the action taken by its assembly. Nothing wrong or ironic about that process. States are responsible for defining the role of their politicians.
Sanford still wants to say no. So, he looks at the applicable federal law---in this case, the stimulus bill---and thinks he finds a loophole that applies only to the Federal government's actions. Legally, he probably has maybe a toe to stand on. So, he takes his roll of the dice.
Depending on the topic, a blue state and governor could just as easily find itself in the same scenario.
"The human race divides politically into those who want people to be controlled and those who have no such desire." --R. Heinlein
It was a grandstanding powergrab
Sanford's passions for his unbending ideology, and possibly political positioning to take a stab at a run for President.
Legally he didn't have a toe to stand on, or a toenail to stand on. He had nothing to stand on.
Nothing in the constitution gives a Governor that kind of power.
I'm only half stupid
Um
So you're an expert on the South Carolina Constitution? Because the Federal government doesn't define what a governor can and cannot do within his own state*
And a lawyer as well? You've perused the wording of the stimulus bill and you know for absolute fact that he's got absolutely no legal reasoning behind his actions?
(*with all of the usual qualifiers needed for a conversation at this level of detail)
"The human race divides politically into those who want people to be controlled and those who have no such desire." --R. Heinlein
Yeah I have
The Governor was way out of line, or the Federal Courts would not have rejected his case.
He was so out of line that the State Supreme Court ruled unanimously to against him. Every judge agreed, as in there were no dissenting opinions. That gives extra weight to the ruling.
The State Supreme Courts unanimous ruling should be a clue here.
I'm only half stupid
Apples and oranges
as I already described above. One issue is state, the other is federal.
I thought you were all supportive of the separation of powers thing? ;-)
"The human race divides politically into those who want people to be controlled and those who have no such desire." --R. Heinlein
You don't get it
The Governor is wrong on both counts. The Federal and the State. Why he would think that he could appeal to the Federal Courts for more authority as a governor is in my view delusional. It is the state that decides the Governors authority.
http://www.thestate.com/breaking/story/814257.html
I'm only half stupid
I do get it
Where did I say he was right? You're not listening to what I'm saying. From my earlier comment:
Yep, with regards to what the Governor of South Carolina can or cannot do, Sanford was wrong, as determined by South Carolina's courts. I already said that.
With regards to the Federal law, you are not getting it. He's not appealing to overrule the South Carolina court decision. His hands are tied from that perspective, and he knows it. What he was trying to do at the Federal level was tie the Feds hands. Or at least that's the angle that I was approaching it from (the stimulus bill and its specific wording). I'm not really interested in internal SC politics.
"The human race divides politically into those who want people to be controlled and those who have no such desire." --R. Heinlein
I made the irony call
Brutus reiterated. You called sloppy reasoning.
The slopping reasoning belongs to Mark Sanford's understanding of the law at both levels, the federal and the state.
The internals of SC politics took away Sanfords legal authority to play games with the Feds. Power play to the state. They won. One would assume that Sanford would understand that before he took his appeal to over rule the states decision to the Federal Courts, since he is a states rights guy.
It's still ironic.
I'm only half stupid
YOU just don't get it, at all.
The Auto, Bank, and Insurance bailouts, as well as the TARP and stimulus are abhorrent to the United States Constitution and contrary to how the American government and economic system works.
As far as Gov. Sanford and this whole situation goes;
And that is what America is all about ML. A constitutionally restrained government, self responsibility, and liberty.
Not a huge Government with 50%+ of people receiving income from federal entitlements, 43% of people who pay no tax at all, borrowing 12 trillion dollars and going into debt to foreign countries so we can keep playing the role of the worlds benefactor all around the globe, nationalize large percentages of our private sectors, and expand an unsustainable federal bureaucracy, or fool ourselves by having the Fed print valueless money and buying our bonds with it ...
We need a return to small sound government, not more of a giant unwieldy bureaucracy.
Getting the point now?
Semper Vigilo, Fortis, Paratus et Fidelis!
I agree
on some points. It easy to use flowery rhetoric to describe a utopian and constitutionally restrained government, where individual liberty is king, But those are just words.
Further IF Mark Sanford understood, the constitution he would not have appealed to the Federal Courts, to over rule the people of his states vote to take the stimulus. Sorry Mark. You get an F on understanding what you claim to worship, the constitution. Check and checkmate on that legal battlefront. He was overruled by the people of his state, the state legislature, and the federal courts, and the feds who said he could not use stimulus to pay of his old state debt.
You blame Obama for the bank bailouts etc., but you forget that it was the long slow push to deregulate the banking industry, that happened before Obama took office.
There are no people in this country that pay no taxes at all. That is hysterical rhetoric.
The foreign countries buying our debt are investing in America's success. The relationship is symbiotic. China has voted with it's bond purchases that the US economy will recover.
It's too bad that the rhetoric from the hard right is so anti-American. You act as if you have no faith in America.
You claim the government is the big bad enemy bureaucracy while forgetting that it was the banking industry an ultra rich global bureaucracy that became an unsustainable criminal enterprise operating with no ethics and no controls that bankrupted the global economy.
I agree with your goal, which I think we all do, that government needs to be competent.
I'm only half stupid
Just words? No, that is simply the great Americian plan.
It is not only the "Utopian" way the federal government is designed to operate, it is the way it always was ML, for many, many years, as it should be today.
It is only since 1913 really, which was a very - bad - year for our nation, that it all really started to go down hill in a dramatic way.
Read the book The Creature of Jeykell Island, you will not regret it.
And then of course with the absurdities of the New Deal, and now their modern day equivalents, we have created not just a creature from some little Island somewhere, but a Frankenstein of a federal government.
Semper Vigilo, Fortis, Paratus et Fidelis!
I think you are
over reacting.
I'm only half stupid
Really?
Semper Vigilo, Fortis, Paratus et Fidelis!
At this point I have to call this a lie ...
... or at the very least a willful misrepresentation of the truth.
You know perfectly well that "the people of his state" never directly voted either way. Exaggeration of dubious facts is the best you seem to have here.
An just for the record, his being overruled on the specific point about accepting the "stimulus funds" does NOT mean that his points about States Rights are wrong. The legal rulnigs related to this don't even come close to addressing that issue.
Meta: This post is a serious comment.
I'm the Bugs Bunny of Swords Crossed!
-4 Strongly Disagree - 0 Meh - Strongly Agree +4Isn't that what representatives
are supposed to do, represent the people of the state.
His points about states rights, in this specific case were unrealistic within the confines of the law. IF Sanford wants to advocate for states rights, he should at least know how it works.
This isn't altogether different that Sarah Palin going on and on about states rights, and intrusion by the Feds stifling liberty, when her state of Alaska gets more Federal dollars per person than any other state.
She rants on about the free market wonders, and then raised taxes on oil companies to give the citizens of Alaska a bigger royalty. Every person in Alaska got a kick back to the tune of $3,269 last fall.
It would be fun to see Mark and Sarah team up as the GOP ticket in 2012.
I'm only half stupid
Agree
The irony is there even without a partisan lens.
The other irony is that (most) of these folks glorify service in the military as fighting for 'freedom', yet arguably the military is only an outstanding organization because of its authoritarian socialist structure. Go figure.
I'm only half stupid
I agree there is some irony there ...
but that is minor compared to what PF said (which I agree with as well).
Meta: This post is a serious comment.
I'm the Bugs Bunny of Swords Crossed!
-4 Strongly Disagree - 0 Meh - Strongly Agree +4Someday you may
actually understand checks and balances.
Sanford was giving the finger both to the Federal Govt and the people of So. Carolina who voted to overturn his refusal to take the Stimulus money.
Not only was he overruled in the State Supreme Court, he was overruled by a unanimous decision of the court. The Court added extra weight to their unanimous decision by issuing a writ of mandamus which orders the Governor to take the money, just in case he decided to go all vigilante on their asses.
We see that the teabaggers are the squeaky wheel the gets the grease in the media, shrieking hysterically that the world is going to end if the Federal Government interferes with their liberty to let the public schools go to hell. Yes, what about the children.
Thankfully the founders had enough sense to put checks and balances in our constitution to over ride activist Governors who try to thwart the will of the people. South Carolinians and the State Supreme Court voted to maintain the institutions that make up the commons, the community based institutions that keep our society civil. The vigilante teabaggers were defeated in So. Carolina.
To give you comfort, the same thing happened in No. Carolina, only in reverse. The state legislature over ruled the Governors will with a vote not to take the stimulus money.
I'm only half stupid
More partisan positioning on your part, ML.
He was giving the finger to the Federal Government based on the States Rights argument.* He was in no way giving the finger to the people of South Carolina. They are the ones who put him in office as their representative in these matters. I guess you could say he was also giving the finger to the State Legislature which is a completely different issue than what you are attempting to posit. The State Legislature has no more claim to representing the will of the people than the Governor does. They are all duly elected representatives of the people.
OK, so what. He thought he had a power under the State Constitution and the State Supreme Court said he didn't. What's the problem? Isn't that exactly how things are supposed to work?
What do you mean by this? Is Sanford threatening to "go vigilante" on someone? I doubt it.
Well you get no sympathy from me on this point, ML. The Federal Government has not role to play in powers NOT granted them under the Constitution. They know it too, that's why everything they try to ram down the State's throats has to be wrapped up in the interstate commerce clause. Any they do it to ludicrous levels at times.
You get bills that say thing like, "we have the power to regulate any school any where that is built using any materials that were ever shipped across state lines with out regard to the proportion of such materials in the total composition of the school." ** This kind of thing amounts to saying we can tell you what money you have to accept if you school contains any nails that ever crossed state lines.
Someone has to start standing up to this sort of thing, so in my opinion Sanford did a good thing ... or at least tried to.
True, but did those checks and balances not work correctly in this case in your opinion? So what's your beef?
No they didn't (I mean this in a literal sense, of course). The State Supreme Court rendered a legal decision, they did not "vote" on anything. Nor did South Carolinians "vote" on this issue either, the State Legislators did which is NOT the same thing.
Just stick to the actual facts of who did what, please, and stop trying to distort things.
How do the teabaggers have anything to do with this? Maybe I missed that part. Were the teabaggers protesting for Sanford to reject the funding?
Again, the checks and balances seem to be working. What's your problem with that?
-------------------------------------------
* In general States Rights arguments are valid although I have not looked into the details of Sanford's particular argument.
** No this is not a real example but it IS representative of some of the types of things they construe to wiggle their fingers into everyone's business.
Meta: This post is a serious comment.
I'm the Bugs Bunny of Swords Crossed!
-4 Strongly Disagree - 0 Meh - Strongly Agree +4You should have paid closer attention in school.
Because you haven't the slightest idea how the US government, or our Constitution works.
Sad really.
As far as your claim that someday we will realize what the checks and balances
are, and how they work, well just where were you when the TARP was passed? Why was it allowed to be?
Semper Vigilo, Fortis, Paratus et Fidelis!
Not sure about that....
The horse is already out of the barn, so to speak.
Folks asked the same question (is it constitutional) when FDR put the Japanese in interment camps. So we see many administrations push the limits of the law to do what they think is right.
Ask yourself how we got into a position of bailing out the banks in the first place.
I feel like our country has been held hostage and black mailed by giant financial institutions who have put profits before people.
I'm only half stupid
checks and balances
They worked against Mark Sanfords executive powergrab in the state of So. Carolina.
Maybe he should have payed closer attention in school.
There is no law that a member of the executive branch can not go before Congress to lobby for a cause. Hank Paulson did so as the Secretary of State. That is not illegal. The Congress voted and passed a bill. Again not illegal.
The Secretary of Defense goes before Congress all the time to lobby for military spending. That does not violate any separation of powers. The Congress takes the words into consideration and votes whether or not to fund military operations. It isn't a case of violation of separation of powers at all. It is an instance of the free speech rights of the members of the executive branch, like the Secretary of Treasury or the Secretary of Defense.
The article seems to be operating from the premise that any member of the executive branch does not have a free speech right to speak to Congress and lobby for a particular bill or policy. That's flat out crazy talk.
The author of this article is very confused.
I'm only half stupid
Three things for you to consider...
I know you despise her, but Ayn saw this all coming;
"We are fast approaching the stage of the ultimate inversion: the stage where the government is free to do anything it pleases, while the citizens may act only by permission; which is the stage of the darkest periods of human history, the stage of rule by brute force."
--author Ayn Rand (1905-1982)
And the wise Montesquieu knew well;
"The deterioration of every government begins with the decay of the principles on which it was founded."
--French political philosopher C. L. De Montesquieu (1689-1755)
I will leave you with this;
"The soundest argument will produce no more conviction in an empty head than the most superficial declamation; as a feather and a guinea fall with equal velocity in a vacuum."
--English cleric and writer Charles Colton (1780-1832)
Semper Vigilo, Fortis, Paratus et Fidelis!
I don't despise her
I think her views are immature.
I do appreciate that you are inspired by interesting writings and willing to share them.
I'm only half stupid
ML is right
I'm the one here who despises Ayn Rand.
There is simply no person who gets my blood boiling more than her. "I've got mine, so screw you" is not a system of ethics.
I never broke the law; I am the law! --
George W. BushJudge DreddI'm listening to...
You misrepresent her view...
...via a misplaced contempt you imply is at work behind it.
It's simply a philosophy of self interest, which is an inherent part of the human condition, no reason to pretend otherwise and claim some moral higher ground, because there is none.
Semper Vigilo, Fortis, Paratus et Fidelis!
Yet you hypocrtically
are claiming the moral highground.
I'm only half stupid
You are utterly incapable of finishing anything...
...so for now I need a break.
Go get back in your truck and keep moving those goalposts.
Semper Vigilo, Fortis, Paratus et Fidelis!
Negative, Ghostrider
At the detriment of all else. Altruism isn't a bad word. In fact, a purely altruistic action is at or near the pinnacle of personal ethics. "A philosophy of self interest" means "selfish".
Not to mention she was dead wrong. I'm still waiting for Atlas to shrug.
And here's the customary link
that I always post when Ms. Rand is brought up.
I never broke the law; I am the law! --
George W. BushJudge DreddI'm listening to...
I disgree. We can just leave it at that.
n/t
Semper Vigilo, Fortis, Paratus et Fidelis!
And that's a fine place to leave it
I never broke the law; I am the law! --
George W. BushJudge DreddI'm listening to...
Agreed then...
;-)
Semper Vigilo, Fortis, Paratus et Fidelis!
Ewww! Disgusting!
Liberal Ivy League elites have come out with a study
showing that politically conservative people are more easily grossed out. Hee hee! Although in this case, "politically conservative" seems to mean mostly anti- gay marriage, and/or anti-abortion. That makes some sense. There is also a weak link between "disgust sensitivity" and support for tax cuts. I suspect that has more to do with a desire to support the party line after being attracted to the right by the social issues, rather than any actual direct correlation.
We are the environment. There is no distinction. What we do to the earth we do to ourselves. —David Suzuki
Obama is as bad as bush43 wrt the Guantanamo detainees and it's
really pissing me off:
www.sfgate.com/cgi-bin/article.cgi
"The Obama administration is considering a change in the law for the military commissions at the prison at Guantanamo Bay, Cuba, that would clear the way for detainees facing the death penalty to plead guilty without a full trial. The provision could permit military prosecutors to avoid airing the details of brutal interrogation techniques...Much of the evidence against the men accused in the Sept. 11 case, as well as against other detainees, is believed to have come from confessions they gave during intense interrogations at secret CIA prisons. In any legal proceeding, the reliability of those statements would be challenged, making full trials difficult and drawing new political pressure over detainee treatment. Some experts on the military commissions said such a proposal would raise new questions about the fairness of a system created by the Bush administration that has been criticized as permitting shortcuts to assure convictions."
I used to get completely hacked by the bush43 Admin's unconstitutionally seizing power that was never granted them. After the fact butt covering like the Military Commissions Act of 2006 & the retroactive legalization/immunity for spying w/o warrants granted in last summers FISA reorganization was over the line for me. The libertarian side of me doesn't trust anybody to have that kind of power without oversight, checks & balances. It will get abused and it's now being abused by Obama.
I like most of what he's doing but his National Security stands in these cases is exactly what he ran against and to see him doing the same thing now pisses me off.
As an
Obama apologist, I ask, what would you do?
Just let the detainees go 'free'?
Given all the entrenched and questionable programs Bush put in place, do you really expect Obama to be able to wave a magic wand and fix everything in an instant?
Yeah Obama is just like Bush. *choke* NOT!
I'm only half stupid
Here's a crazy idea ...
why doesn't he do what he campaigned on and, therefore, what he was actually sent to Washington to do?
(1) He said he would close Gitmo. He should close Gitmo, even if it IS over the complete objection of the Democrat Congress and their refusal to fund the closing.
(2) He said he would end the Military Tribunals. He should end the Military Tribunals, move the detaines to US soil, and conduct civilian court trials for all the those being held. If that ultimately means that he has to divulge National Security Secrets, expose CIA an NSA operatives in open court, and release the worst of the worst, well that's what he said he would do.
(3) He said he would not torture anyone. He should explicitly state that he will forego the use of enhanced interrogation techniques under ALL circumstances since he considers them torture.
(4) He said he was going to operate transparently. He should allow on-going monitoring of the Gitmo operations by the media and/or other governmental watchdog groups like the ACLU, the ICRC, Amnesty International, and any other human rights groups that want access.
That'd be a good start anyway. If he doesn't, well, he's just the same as Bush. You can't complain that the Bush policies are wrong and illegal and then just continue to use them. That makes no sense at all, but that's what he's doing.
He dug his hole, now let him jump in and pull the dirt in after.
Well if that's what the civilian court system says he should do, then sure. Are you saying he should defy a court's duly rendered decision?
Instant? What instant? He's had 5 months now plus his transition time before taking office, and in that tme he has determined that he plans to continue using the Bush policies. Read that again. He has already come to his decision and it is basically business as usual using the Bush era policies. It's not like he's still working a plan B. These are the stated directions.
Meta: This post is a serious comment.
I'm the Bugs Bunny of Swords Crossed!
-4 Strongly Disagree - 0 Meh - Strongly Agree +4Right wing talking points
n/t
I'm only half stupid
??
The numbered statements ARE things he could do; what' s more, they are things that many on the Left would like him to do. I don't get where you come off dismissing them as talking points.
Kindness, there are a few ways to look at it. When you say
that is a true statement. He did campaign, and probably also sincerely believed, he would and could do those things.
But maybe the reality of the situation is not exactly what he thought it would be?
In other words, it's not that "he's just like Bush" (although that does make for a convenient pointy stick); he's simply faced with the same unwinnable situation as Bush was with regards to some of the detainees in Gitmo, and the whole Middle Eastern situation in general.
Stinerman (I think? or was it Adam?) proposed a very simple and clear cut answer to "what do we do with the guys in Gitmo?" --- we give them back to whichever courts/nations they belong to and let whatever passes for justice there sort it out. But Obama knows that doing that could easily rebound upon him and the US negatively. Gitmo may offend your sense of American honor, but it's humane compared to lots of prison systems on this planet.
Bringing them to trial in the US court system has its own set of problems.
Sometimes reality bites, and even the good guys don't get a chance to never have to do a bad thing. I think Obama's supporters are in for more rude shocks. Afghanistan in a year or so may make what we did in Iraq look like child's play. I was walking along the Vietnam memorial today, virtually, and wondered how many names will eventually be written on the Iraq/Afghanistan wall. I remember Vietnam, and I know you do too. "Never again"? Yeah, right. We f*cked that one up.
"The human race divides politically into those who want people to be controlled and those who have no such desire." --R. Heinlein
I think we should believe in our system of justice. The trials
should be held here, the defendants should have the same rights POW's have and if they are convicted, they will join the bunch of islamic 'terrorists' that are already sitting in mainland usa jails.
I know the right isn't cluthing their pearls & getting the vapors just because 200 more individuals will enter the prison system. No. They are acting scared because they can never admit Darth & dubya were wrong, and they themselves by extension. And Obama keeping Guantanamo open means bush43 gets to skate. Self interest, pure & simple. Not enlightened self interest, but self interest none the less.
Oh come on ...
be fair here. Who was it that shot down the funding for closing Gitmo, and who was it that said they wouldn't let the detainees onto US soil?
Who's in charge here? The Democrats. So while they may be taking action to avoid a showdown with Republicans, it's still the Democrats who are doing and saying these things.
Meta: This post is a serious comment.
I'm the Bugs Bunny of Swords Crossed!
-4 Strongly Disagree - 0 Meh - Strongly Agree +4I don't give
a crap if Bush43 gets to 'skate'. I care about moving our country forward. Whining about Bush is a waste of time.
Bush already wrote his legacy, with the Katrina fiasco and trying to galvanize a country around one brain dead woman named Terri Shiavo. He failed his country and his party.
If you will notice, slowly but surely, the Justice Dept has been starting to function again. If Bush or his cronies broke the law, we will find out.
There have been numerous convictions of criminals, relating to the banking scandal, convictions against the extremist masculine christian vigilantes who believe that resorting to violence is fine as long as it is in Jesus's name.
There are so many good men in the military that were utterly appalled by the ethical lapses at Gitmo. Even Lindsey Graham knows all this enhanced bs is wrong. There are so many good men in the military that were super pissed off about low pay, lack of VA care, and were openly hostile toward the private contracting operations that were allowed to flourish and skirt the law while Bush was running the show.
The question becomes how do you have a trail for a detainee at Gitmo when there is no legal evidence on record that can be used in either a court of law or a military court. . You can't let Kalid S. Muhammed go free because his civil rights were violated. He is a known and dangerous extremist.
Obviously Obama has announced to the world with his speech at Cairo, that he will close Gitmo, and that the US does not torture. You can take him at his word or not.
I'm only half stupid
Heh
I am so gonna remind you of this statement of yours:
:-)
"The human race divides politically into those who want people to be controlled and those who have no such desire." --R. Heinlein
Yea, I know.
That one's probably a bookmark moment! :)
Meta: This post is a serious comment.
I'm the Bugs Bunny of Swords Crossed!
-4 Strongly Disagree - 0 Meh - Strongly Agree +4:-D Nag
I qualify my statement: Whining about "Why hasn't Obama started prosecuting Bush/Cheney for war crimes."
The facts about Bush presidency are not considered whining.
I'm only half stupid
Then why are you even talking about him?
For example:
that sounds a lot like whining about Bush to me. Am I wrong, somehow?
Actually, I never really noticed where it stopped functioning. For example, on the issue of wiretapping terrorist communications the position of the DOJ appears to have made a completely seamless transition from Bush to Obama. Where's this discontinuity of function that you speak of? Oh, and that last part sounds like you are whining about Bush again, too. :)
What does this have to do with the conversation at hand? Weren't you supporting CLC in his claims that when I raised similar tangential issues to a topic of conversation that I was somehow guilty of "moving the goal posts" because I had obviously be "proven wrong"? If so, does the same not apply to you as well? :)
Oh, so now you are in favor of "shredding the Constitution" just like Bush was accused of? If KSM's civil rights have been violated isn't that EXACTLY what the rule of Law says should happen? * How can you even suggest that he not be released under those circumstances? Don't you believe in the concept of civil rights? Or do you not believe that civil rights apply to KSM? It's gotta be one of those two, right?
Of course the exact same thing can be said of Bush, right? Bush indicated that he wanted to close Gitmo and he also asserted that the US does not torture. You claim the Bush has lied. I have demonstrated that Obama has lied on all of his promises over Bush era policies. So what's the difference that causes you to want to take Obama at his word, but not Bush?
-------------------------------------------
* And by Rule of Law here I am using your own definition of what constitutes the Law, namely the acts and precedents of any of the three co-equal branches of the government.
Meta: This post is a serious comment.
I'm the Bugs Bunny of Swords Crossed!
-4 Strongly Disagree - 0 Meh - Strongly Agree +4IN your case
I always regret mentioning Bush's name. It brings out your knee jerk Pavlov's response.
You can't seem to bend over backwards far enough to defend him. :-)
{*hugs and kisses for partisanship*}
I see the difference as one of competence vs incompetence. Bush couldn't privatize social security.
Let's see if Obama can do health care.
I'm only half stupid
Competence vs. incompetence?
Is it "competent" of Obama to adopt (presumably) "incompetent" Bush era policies on an almost daily basis? Or in the alternative, are you actually asserting that Bush is the competent one and Obama is is the incompetent one?
Meta: This post is a serious comment.
I'm the Bugs Bunny of Swords Crossed!
-4 Strongly Disagree - 0 Meh - Strongly Agree +4This is where it pays to be non-partisan
Or at least independent.
If I'm in Congress right now, I'm getting very close to introducing articles of impeachment against Holder and Obama for their inaction on bringing Bush et al. to justice for their lawless behavior re torture.
I never broke the law; I am the law! --
George W. BushJudge DreddI'm listening to...
Never happen.
n/t
Semper Vigilo, Fortis, Paratus et Fidelis!
Don't get me wrong, I'm very concerned about Holder and the DOJ!
H/T
Semper Vigilo, Fortis, Paratus et Fidelis!
Hmmm. I don't mind protecting innocent American Muslims.
But is that who he is actually talking about? Or is he declaring the intention to defend the Jihadists?
I'm waiting for them to now make the argument that blowing up the US Military is a protected form of Free Speech within the Muslim community..
Meta: This post is a (half) serious comment.
I'm the Bugs Bunny of Swords Crossed!
-4 Strongly Disagree - 0 Meh - Strongly Agree +4iPanic
http://www.nytimes.com/interactive/2008/09/28/opinion/20090607_opart.html
Inexpensive iphone apps to cope with being formerly rich, or how to deal with the loss of your life savings one app at a time.
Hot Apps for iPanic
Nevermind: Let's you calculate how much not going on your dream vacation will save you.
IxNay: Prescripted text messages at the ready. Just push send for creative ways to say 'No, You can't have the Play Station.'.
I'm only half stupid