Obama Aide: “We Don’t Make Decisions . . . Based on Consistency or Precedent”

For those of us who are incredulous at the changing rationales for our intervention in the Libyan civil war, Deputy National Security Adviser Denis McDonough has come to the rescue. He told reporters that “we don’t make decisions about questions like intervention based on consistency or precedent. We make them based on how we can best advance our interests in the region.” Thus, inconsistency is the consistent policy that we are trying to advance?

The White House has sent out legions of allies to defend his decision to intervene in a civil war. We were originally told that we simply wanted to maintain a no-fly zone. We are now actively assisting the rebels in their campaign and taking out government forces. What is most striking are the liberals who are defending the President and acknowledging that the distinction between Libya and Syria is probably oil (which we refer obliquely to as “our interests”). The key is that we no longer offer a pretense of principle or consistency. We appear now to simply be saying that we are the United States and can intervene whenever it suits our purposes.

Source: USA Today

506 thoughts on “Obama Aide: “We Don’t Make Decisions . . . Based on Consistency or Precedent”

  1. At least this way we don’t have to fake evidence of Weapons of Mass Destruction. Protection schemes are easier when you don’t have to plant a baggie on the “suspect” first.

  2. Not necessarily for intervention but at the same time glad that Gaddafi is no longer able to brutally murder thousands.

  3. “[W]e don’t make decisions about questions like intervention based on consistency or precedent. We make them based on how we can best advance our interests in the region.”

    Let’s parse that for a second, shall we?

    “[W]e don’t make decisions about questions like intervention based on consistency or precedent.”

    This is a statement of action. What “we” do. In other words, “We don’t make decisions about violating a sovereign nation’s territory based upon the rule of law or how we’ve conducted such affairs in the past. We do whatever the Hell we like at any given moment.”

    My. How very sociopathic. A sociopath doesn’t care about others or the law either. Only what they want.

    That’s the stated action. Here’s the rationale:

    “We make them based on how we can best advance our interests in the region.”

    I think that goes right to the point on the administrations wants. In other words, “We’ll do anything we want, including violating the law, if there is a profit to be made. And since big business pays our personal bills as politicians now, whatever they want is what we want.” There are several terms for people who put profit above principle. Venal comes to mind in general terms. In the terms of political science, this is a behavior most often demonstrated by fascists.

    Hmmmmmm.

    As Bob might say, “Change you can believe in!”

    I personally can’t wait to hear what “President” Obama tries to spin as to his rationale for illegally inserting us into the civil war of a third country and ignoring Art. I of the Constitution.

    Asshole.

  4. Our government has evolved (I’m assuming it wasn’t designed this way – that at one time the idea of politics ‘stopping at the water’s edge’ wasn’t just a empty platitude) to produce inconsistent foreign policy – I don’t think that President Obama is substantially different from his predecessors in this regard. I’ll wait to judge President Obama’s intervention in Libya until after we’ve accomplished our goals (whatever they turn out to be) or gotten ourselves into another quagmire…

  5. U.S. Constitution, Art. I, Sec. 8 – The Powers of Congress

    . . . To declare War, grant Letters of Marque and Reprisal, and make Rules concerning Captures on Land and Water;

    As to the President, his role as CIC is subservient to Congress having called on him to act as defined by Art. 3, Sec. 2 which states, “Section 2 – Civilian Power over Military, Cabinet, Pardon Power, Appointments – The President shall be Commander in Chief of the Army and Navy of the United States, and of the Militia of the several States, when called into the actual Service of the United States;”[emphasis added]

    The President has no Constitutional authority to start a war without Congressional approval. Period. So I think I don’t need to hear what his excuse is to know it’s bullshit. Intervening in Libya’s civil war – in which no Americans or American interest were attacked mind you – is as unconstitutional as, oh, I don’t know, saying he has the right to execute American citizens (read: murder) without due process or ordering torture.

  6. BIL,

    Is the phrase, “when called into the actual Service of the United States” defined elsewhere? Aren’t those words written in the context of a nation with no standing army (just the militias of the several states)?

    rafflaw,

    I’ll be watching the speech tonight too, but I doubt that I’ll know more than I do now about this [for the life of me I can’t think of an appropriate word here] after it’s done…

  7. Budroh says;

    “As to the President, his role as CIC is subservient to Congress having called on him to act as defined by Art. 3, Sec. 2 which states, “Section 2 – Civilian Power over Military, Cabinet, Pardon Power, Appointments – The President shall be Commander in Chief of the Army and Navy of the United States, and of the Militia of the several States, when called into the actual Service of the United States;”[emphasis added]

    Your emphasis demonstrates your ineptitude.

    Aren’t the Army and Navy ALWAYS called into the actual Service of the United States? If you had any brains, you would understand that the phrase you emphasized only has specific application to the Malitia of the several States.[emphasis added]

    It’s no wonder you couldn’t cut practicing law.

  8. If you had any brains , you would understand that the phrase you emphasized only has specific application to the Malitia of the several States.” [emphasis added]

    We all make typos, and I’m the last person to make fun of someone else’s bad spelling. Everyone’s now made fun of someone else’s spelling.

  9. INI,

    “The President shall be Commander in Chief of the Army and Navy of the United States, and of the Militia of the several States, when called into the actual Service of the United States;”

    Those words are in the context of as ordered to war by Congress. Standing army, navy and/or militias would merely be the implied object (what is commanded) as the direct object is the power of command and in whom it vests and under what condition. Said condition is found in Art. Sec. 8.

    ______________

    Troll,

    The answer is “no”.

    When we are not called to war or in a war, the military is in a state of readiness – as in not deployed. On standby. Hanging out. At the ready but scratching their nuts and staring at the sun.

    Much like your intellect except not all the time.

    And before you say, “But we are at war”, let’s just clarify that being at war with Afghanistan doesn’t mean we can invade France anymore than it means we can invade Libya by piggybacking one act of aggression upon another, you simple creature.

    If your brain wasn’t on standby, you’d realize that “Chief of the Army and Navy of the United States, and of the Militia of the several States” does not mean just militias. Had that language meant solely militias, it would have simply read ”
    If your brain wasn’t on standby, you’d realize that “Chief of the Militia of the several States”.

    and \ən(d)\, conj.,

    1 — used as a function word to indicate connection or addition especially of items within the same class or type

    For example: The President is the CIC of the Army AND Navy AND Militias.

    I care not one whit about your assessment of ineptitude, Oh He Who Doesn’t Understand Conjunctions.

    Now you’ve had both your spelling and your grammar mocked.

    And I bid you good day.

  10. “If your brain wasn’t on standby, you’d realize that “Chief of the Militia of the several States”.”

    Never type and eat catfish at the same time.

  11. lol

    Point proven again . . .

    “Had that language meant solely militias, it would have simply read “Chief of the Militia of the several States”.

    There.

    That’s better.

    Because, see “Rae”, typos are correctable.

    Stupidity such as yours? Not so much.

  12. Budroh,

    Do you think the President ceases to be Commander in Chief of the Army and Navy when we are not at war?

    The President IS NOT the Commander in Chief of the militias of the several States when they are not called into service, but he is always the Commander in Chief of the Army and Navy (and of the Air Force, Marines).

    You lose! You made an idiotic statement. Face it. Understand your mistake and move on.

  13. rafflaw, So far the cost has been minimal compared to the vast sums of money that have been wasted in the other two wars. They haven’t had to ask for a supplemental appropriation. It should be an interesting speech, and I hope Libya has been successfully handed off to NATO.

  14. Buddha,

    Don’t think you get it?

    The liberal apologist credo:

    When the economy is bad, the president can do whatever he wants.

    Or…

    Better a democratic tyrant than a republican.

    Just ask Slarti.

  15. I anticipate this speech coming up will be incredibly vague.

    Why tie yourself down with clear goals and limitations?

  16. McDonough’s quote reminded me of this:

    Wikipedia – “Reality-Based Community”

    The source of the term is a quotation in an October 17, 2004, The New York Times Magazine article by writer Ron Suskind, quoting an unnamed aide to George W. Bush (later attributed to Karl Rove[1]):

    The aide said that guys like me were “in what we call the reality-based community,” which he defined as people who “believe that solutions emerge from your judicious study of discernible reality.” …

    “That’s not the way the world really works anymore,” he continued. “We’re an empire now, and when we act, we create our own reality. And while you’re studying that reality — judiciously, as you will — we’ll act again, creating other new realities, which you can study too, and that’s how things will sort out. We’re history’s actors … and you, all of you, will be left to just study what we do.”[2]

    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Reality-based_community

  17. “The President shall be commander in chief of the Army and Navy of the United States, and of the militia of the several states, when called into the actual service of the United States;”

    I agree with Rae, since the Army and Navy are funded by the US they are always on duty or at least some portion are. Militias are funded by the states and so are only called into service when needed.

    The Army and Navy maintain readiness and are at all times reporting to the President as CIC.

    The way the commas are placed requires the clause “when called into the actual service of the United States” to be attached to the militia.

    I think they call this a coordinate conjunction.

  18. The text reads:

    “Section 2 – Civilian Power over Military, Cabinet, Pardon Power, Appointments

    The President shall be Commander in Chief of the Army and Navy of the United States, and of the Militia of the several States, when called into the actual Service of the United States; he may require the Opinion, in writing, of the principal Officer in each of the executive Departments, upon any subject relating to the Duties of their respective Offices, and he shall have Power to Grant Reprieves and Pardons for Offenses against the United States, except in Cases of Impeachment.”

    The conjunction “and” still applies to ALL the items listed before the verb “called”, which means the Army and Navy and, duh, the militias. The militias cannot be called up if they aren’t under the chain of command, doofus. And the Army and Navy cannot be called up to war without Congressional approval. THe CIC does not have Constitutional authority to unilaterally declare war, e.g. instigate military actions against a third country we are not already at war with.

    That power is reserved to Congress in Art. Sec. 8.

    What I said to INI still stands: “Those words are in the context of as ordered to war by Congress. Standing army, navy and/or militias would merely be the implied object (what is commanded) as the direct object is the power of command and in whom it vests and under what condition. Said condition is found in Art. Sec. 8.”

    And to be clear – because you are demonstrably hard of understanding – I’ll repeat: “said condition” is that Congress as exercised their power “To declare War, grant Letters of Marque and Reprisal, and make Rules concerning Captures on Land and Water”. I never said he wasn’t CIC over the Army or Navy during peace time, douche bag. I said he didn’t have the power to declare war and call up the military to such an action without Congressional approval.

    And by the wording of the Constitution, he doesn’t.

    He can command the military to do damn near anything he wants without Congressional approval EXCEPT go to war.

    That you are incapable of understanding conjunctions is your failing alone, sport.

    I’ll stack my professional knowledge of the Constitution against your amateurish prattling any day of week.

  19. Buddha,

    Of course, all this is an aside, since we haven’t declared war since 1942.

    Of course, my mom never found “but Mom all the OTHER Presidents are doing it,” all that convincing of an argument.

  20. English is Good,

    “The Army and Navy maintain readiness and are at all times reporting to the President as CIC.”

    Then perhaps you missed where I said “When we are not called to war or in a war, the military is in a state of readiness – as in not deployed.”

    Readiness and peacetime command are not the salient issue. The power to declare war is the salient issue. It still isn’t within the CIC’s power.

    A comma by itself does not a coordinate conjunction make. “[W]hen” makes it a subordinate conjunction, but that subordinate conjunction applies to the whole comma separated list preceding it, not just the final item. To read the way you’d wish it had read, it would need to be worded thus: “The President shall be Commander in Chief of the Army and Navy of the United States, and, when called into the actual Service of the United States, of the Militia of the several States;” As written, the subordinate conjunction applies to the whole list. He can still call up National Guard in peace time . . . except to send them to war without Congressional approval.

    Militias are indeed in the the chain of command during peace time. They are headed by the Chief of the National Guard Bureau (CNGB), who is a four-star general in the Army or Air Force – a reflection that they are technically the Army National Guard of the United States for the Army and the Air National Guard of the United States. They are federally funded, not state funded, and may be called up for active duty by state governors or territorial adjutant general to help respond to domestic emergencies and natural disasters. But when the CIC says “jump” during peacetime, the militias still say “How high, sir?”

  21. Is it me or is the Obama administration deeming the United Nations as a substitute for Congress per the authorization of use of military force?

  22. Bob,Esq.
    1, March 28, 2011 at 7:26 pm

    Buddha,

    Don’t think you get it?

    The liberal apologist credo:

    When the economy is bad, the president can do whatever he wants.

    **********

    I’m a liberal. That has NEVER been part of my credo!

  23. Swarthmore mom
    1, March 28, 2011 at 7:05 pm
    rafflaw, So far the cost has been minimal compared to the vast sums of money that have been wasted in the other two wars. They haven’t had to ask for a supplemental appropriation. It should be an interesting speech, and I hope Libya has been successfully handed off to NATO.

    ========================================

    Once Turkey came off the fence you knew the deal was done.

    All those contracts, all that work, all that money … Turkey had to wait and see ….

  24. Bob,

    What Elaine said.

    If you’re basing the behavior of all liberals on Slarti – a single data point – you’re abusing the statistical sampling space.

    Bad statistician! No cookie for you! :)

  25. Even in that speech he just made; Obama held the United Nations higher than congress in his constitutional schematic of describing the ‘deliberations’ made.

    Why doesn’t this bother anyone?

  26. But I wasn’t being sarcastic about…

    “Better a democratic tyrant than a republican.”

    The liberals haven’t said a word about Obama adopting all the policies they crowed over during the Bush administrations.

  27. Bob,Esq.
    1, March 28, 2011 at 8:15 pm

    Elaine, Buddha,

    Homer Simpson: “In case you didn’t notice Marge; I was being sarcastic.”

    *********

    You’re expecting me to buty that??? I didn’t fall off the turnip truck today!

    ;)

  28. Bob,Esq.
    1, March 28, 2011 at 8:05 pm
    Is it me or is the Obama administration deeming the United Nations as a substitute for Congress per the authorization of use of military force?

    =======================================================

    Oh yeah … and Congress let him do it … they could have stopped it all with a snap of their collective fingers … like that, “snap”, dead in its tracks.

    Wonder why they didn’t …

    Could it be Congress has gotten used to a monarchy … His Excellency Bush/Obama … perhaps they’ve confused the honorific, making it an actual title of office? We’ll have to check their trouser leg … a shiny right knee indicates bowing (genuflecting).

  29. Bob,

    “The liberals haven’t said a word about Obama adopting all the policies they crowed over during the Bush administrations.”

    I’m a liberal and what is that thing I do . . . oh yeah, call out Obama for being as big a traitor to the Constitution as the Bush cabal.

    On a regular basis.

    Why just the other day I called him “a traitorous dictatorial fascist warmongering lying two-faced dick” regarding his unilateral revision of Miranda.

    And that was me being nice about it.

    I have been taking him to task since his declaration he had the right to assassinate American citizens without due process. Before that even, for refusing to investigate and prosecute Bush and Cheney. Your problem is in your choice of pronouns/articles.

    “Some” or even “most” would work better than the all inclusive article “The”.

    Some of us liberals are quite vocal in our criticisms.

  30. Buddha, Blouise,

    I’m sorry to say I wouldn’t call you liberals in the generic sense of the term.

    Liberal leaning independents; i.e. retaining the capacity for independent thought while holding “integrity” as something more than a quaint idea of the past.

  31. Bob,

    I’d say it’s just the opposite. I wouldn’t call them liberal in the specific Current American Political Context sense of the term.

  32. Bob,

    “Even in that speech he just made; Obama held the United Nations higher than congress in his constitutional schematic of describing the ‘deliberations’ made.

    Why doesn’t this bother anyone?”

    It bothers me quite a bit.

    Especially since he not only cherry picks what he wants to do when Congress has the power, but he totally ignores the U.N. when he wants to.

    For example, when it comes to punishing war criminals.

  33. The Prez sez, “To brush aside America’s responsibility as a leader and – more profoundly – our responsibilities to our fellow human beings under such circumstances would have been a betrayal of who we are. Some nations may be able to turn a blind eye to atrocities in other countries. The United States of America is different. And as president, I refused to wait for the images of slaughter and mass graves before taking action.”

    *cough*cough*cough*Article I, Sec.8 *cough*cough*cough*Unconstitutional Abuse of the Separation of Powers Doctrine*cough*cough*cough*Darfur*cough*cough*cough*Syria*cough*cough*cough*Egypt*cough*cough*cough*Iran*cough*cough*cough*Bullshit*cough*cough*cough*

    Hey, Janus? Advancing on whom exactly? Destabilizing what exactly? His own people and Libya is what. It’s a CIVIL WAR, you simp. And by definition, none of our damn business.

    Oh. That’s right. A popular rebellion might spark unrest in that other haven for Mid-east “democracy”, your theocratic dictatorial bosses in Saudi Arabia. The guys who ordered Bush to illegally invade Iraq and who funded and manned the 9/11 attacks.

    Since you are so adept at talking out of both sides of your mouth now, Barry, I invite you to blow me.

  34. “Am I to assume that you think of ME as a “generic” liberal?”

    Elaine,

    I don’t recall you being offended by criticism of Obama. And since you’re birds of a feather with Buddha and Blouise; what do you think?

  35. Gyges
    1, March 28, 2011 at 8:42 pm
    Bob,

    I’d say it’s just the opposite. I wouldn’t call them liberal in the specific Current American Political Context sense of the term.

    =====================================================

    Are you suggesting I wouldn’t f*^k a sheep or hug a tree?!

  36. Gyges: “I’d say it’s just the opposite. I wouldn’t call them liberal in the specific Current American Political Context sense of the term.”

    How is that the opposite?

  37. “What did Obama mean in the speech when he said ‘I’ll act unilaterally if necessary?'”

    Reads . . .

    “I am the Emperor like the Emperor before me.”

  38. Bob,

    “I wouldn’t call you liberals in the generic sense” vs. “I wouldn’t call them liberal in the specific Current American Political Context sense of the term.”

    “I wouldn’t call it pizza in the generic sense of the term” vs “I wouldn’t call it pizza in the ‘pizza made at Pizza-hut’ sense of the term.”

  39. I think our actions in Libya are best described by that old-fashioned, and now disfavored, phrase: American imperialism.

  40. Bob,Esq.
    1, March 28, 2011 at 9:03 pm

    “Am I to assume that you think of ME as a “generic” liberal?”

    Elaine,

    I don’t recall you being offended by criticism of Obama. And since you’re birds of a feather with Buddha and Blouise; what do you think?

    **********

    A simple “yes” or “no” would suffice. Are you in the habit of answering a question posed to you with a question?

    **********

    You wrote: “The liberals haven’t said a word about Obama adopting all the policies they crowed over during the Bush administrations.”

    My response: Some liberals have; some liberals haven’t.

  41. Bob,Esq.
    1, March 28, 2011 at 9:05 pm
    What did Obama mean in the speech when he said “I’ll act unilaterally if necessary?”

    ====================================

    That’s CIA speak for “You are all a bunch of pusses” Or something like that.

  42. It is a truly appalling statement (I still think Obama is a stealth RepoCon) to come from POTUS/lawyer. What if the SCOTUS followed that principle, assuming we honor that approach as a “principle

    Oh, wait. The SCOTUS has already gone there and look how well that has come out.

    It’s not Palin who went rogue, its the government(s).

  43. Hi Bob,

    Nice to see you’re still full of shit. Given that the prevailing Republican standard is ‘it’s okay if you’re a Republican’ (regarding pretty much everything), I’m willing to prosecute President Obama as soon as the trial of President Bush and Dick the War Criminal (for offenses that I believe are more numerous and more serious than those committed by President Obama even assuming he is guilty of all you allege). But not a second before. Sometimes you have to deal with the past before you can move on and our nation has shown no inclination or ability to do this since Watergate – I don’t like it, but that doesn’t make it any less true. Because I refuse to use the Republican double standards, I grade ALL of the presidents on a curve (at least the ones after President Carter – I didn’t really care about politics when I was 10…) – i.e. how do they compare to their peers? On this scale, President Obama (in my opinion) does well (although his immediate predecessor set the bar so low that this would be hard to avoid).

    Thank you for giving me the opportunities to address the disingenuous straw man attacks you made on me several months ago (and repeated today). For the record, I said that the country doesn’t have the political will to deal with civil liberties and almost certainly wont regain that will until the economy improves, not that ‘When the economy is bad, the president can do whatever he wants.’ I don’t think this is a good thing, but I think that it is true (and you have certainly offered no evidence that it isn’t…). And better a Democratic tyrant than a Republican tyrant – we weren’t offered another viable choice… or do you think that President McCain (or President Caribou Barbie) would have done better?

    So when Republicans start saying that we really need to prosecute the war crimes committed by the Bush administration, then I’ll say, ‘great! Can we do the Obama administration when you’re done?’, but until then you can keep your naive illusion of the moral high ground and I’ll continue to support the progressive policies that the Obama administration has implemented (and hopefully will continue to implement in the future) even if that means holding my nose and voting for President Obama and convincing others that it is in their best interests to do likewise because, in my opinion, to do as you suggest would allow the Republicans to continue flaunting their hypocrisy and allow their wrecking crew to finish the job of destroying our economy as well as paralyzing the Democrats when they fail to meet the standards that the Republicans are flagrantly violating and preventing them from achieving any progressive policy goals (while the Republicans continue to pour gas on the fire…). If recent events have shown us anything, it’s that no matter how corrupt the Democrats are right now (and I have no illusions regarding the taint of corporatism reaching into both parties), the Republicans are much, much worse (not to mention the fact that they are responsible for the divisive partisan environment in the first place). So if you’d like to live in your fantasy land with your false moral purity, your illusory intellectual superiority and a crumbling economy, a dying middle class, polluted air, poisoned water, and toxic land, feel free, but I’m taking the path that I believe is most likely to lead to something better.

    Anyway, I had just posted because I stumbled across the Professor’s second post and I thought that other people might like it too – I have no intention of getting into a pissing match with anyone (let alone someone who has shown themselves to be as intellectually dishonest as you have) so I’ll leave you to tell everyone all about what an unethical fool I am and go on my merry way after I pre-but your response by saying, ‘you’re still full of shit’.

  44. Elaine: “Are you in the habit of answering a question posed to you with a question?”

    Rhetorically?

    Elaine: “A simple “yes” or “no” would suffice.”

    Ah, but would a simple no been as much fun?

  45. Ladies and Gentlemen,

    The self-acclaimed Punxsutawney Phil of liberals,

    The apologist of all liberal apologists

    King of the gratuitous use of parentheticals and shameless, groundless pronouncements befitting a liberal solipsist…

    It’s Slartibartfast!

    Hi Slarti, how are you?

  46. Slarti: “so I’ll leave you to tell everyone all about what an unethical fool I am and go on my merry way after I pre-but your response by saying, ‘you’re still full of shit’.”

    “You are never dedicated to something you have complete confidence in. No one is fanatically shouting that the sun is going to rise tomorrow. They know it’s going to rise tomorrow. When people are fanatically dedicated to political or religious faiths or any other kinds of dogmas or goals, it’s always because these dogmas or goals are in doubt.” — Robert Pirsig

    That’s you Slarti; ever so confident in your metaphysics of morals.

    lol

  47. Blouise,

    That’s funny.

    Truth be told, as soon as I saw that frantic post by Slarti, the image of the mayor holding up Punxsutawney Phil in Groundhog day popped in my head and it continued from there.

  48. Please teacher can we go outside and play? I think I hear someone wants to go to a Hockey game.

  49. Slarti, These are the same folks that said it does not matter if the democrats lose in Wisconsin, Michigan and Ohio. They evidently don’t care about unions or women’s issues. Their hatred of the democrats is so great that they are willing to accept the consequences of what they are advocating.

  50. Hey Blouise,

    Would you say that Swarthmore mom is referring to me?

    If so, would you say she’s being fair and accurate?

    Or is there something that smacks of ‘generic’ here?

  51. Blouise, Elaine, and Buddha,

    In my book you are all liberals (I’ll take Bob’s epithet and wear it as a badge of honor). It is an unfortunate fact that many liberals cannot do a good job of intellectually justifying their positions (which has, in some cases, caused the best of intentions to lead to bad results…), but that doesn’t mean that those positions cannot be justified (as all three of you prove), nor does it mean that effective policies to obtain progressive goals don’t exist. In my opinion, Bob’s position is great – if you’re a billionaire or you want things to fall apart more quickly – but he doesn’t have the faintest clue how to address, let alone redress, any of President Obama’s injustices (and he just ignores all those of past administrations…).

    Hi Bob,

    I’m fine – thanks for giving me the opportunity to correct your lies about me! (and thanks for noticing my overuse of parenthetical clauses – Now I can happily return to ignoring you while you continue to baselessly slander me… oh, I see you’re already ahead of me with your Pirsig quote – sorry, but I’m not a fanatic, I’m just following what I see as the most promising course based on the facts as I understand them. If you can show me how to fix the economy, clean up the environment, restore the vitality of the middle class, and restore the primacy of the Constitution all at the same time, then I’ll gladly help, but until you have any constructive suggestions, spare me your impotent moral outrage…

    D’oh! You suckered me in again with your juvenile crap…

    Swarthmore mom,

    I don’t know if Bob is a shill or a dupe, but his arguments play right into the Republican’s hands…

    Swarthmore mom said, “Slarti, They can’t go any farther than a blog on hot air and inflammatory rhetoric.”

    You’re absolutely right – I’m going back to doing something productive! Nice to ‘see’ you all…

  52. Come on folks…we have all been around here for sometime….Cannot we just disagree and learn to agree on what we agree upon….Life goes on…and we wake up and realize what we thought was and what was isn’t….

  53. Missed this one

    Buddha: ““I am the Emperor like the Emperor before me.”

    Yeah, that was how I thought it sounded.

  54. Slarti: “(and thanks for noticing my overuse of parenthetical clauses – Now I can happily return to ignoring you while you continue to baselessly slander me… oh, I see you’re already ahead of me with your Pirsig quote – sorry, but I’m not a fanatic, I’m just following what I see as the most promising course based on the facts as I understand them. If you can show me how to fix the economy, clean up the environment, restore the vitality of the middle class, and restore the primacy of the Constitution all at the same time, then I’ll gladly help, but until you have any constructive suggestions, spare me your impotent moral outrage…”

    Not for nothing, but forgot to close yet another one of your gratuitous parentheticals.

    And the first step to ‘restoring the primacy of the constitution’ is to stop lying to yourself.

    But you already knew that; you moral maven you.

    lol

  55. You must recall it is all about me. Not you. The principles that the constitution stands for, not stood for. Do we have time for this when someone is in the Scribners cloak room going through the esteemed gentlemen’s pockets?

    In Truth and Justice, Lady Liberty.

  56. And Slarti,

    Speaking of integrity; how is it Buddha is a liberal buddy of yours while I’m simply full of shit?

    Why do you lack integrity?

    Because all your arguments on this topic are based in whim and caprice.

    to wit:

    Buddha’s arguments are carbon copies of mine on this matter; yet you offer no rhyme or reason why your judgments of me do not apply to him.

    You’re a buffoon; it’s as simple as that.

  57. I grew up and allowed myself to stay in caca. One day I was walking down the road to town and a farmer saw me and hosed me off. I felt relief. I was different I felt good, but did not know why. I did my chores in town and went back to the farm. My family would not talk with me anymore because I was not not them. They treated me differently only because I was no longer full of Caca. Now you know why I am not like the rest, I was.

  58. Buddha, let me clear one thing up you said.

    You said:

    “He can command the military to do damn near anything he wants without Congressional approval EXCEPT go to war.”

    Actually, the Prez can send troops into war without Congressional approval but ONLY if we are being attacked or we are facing an imminent threat of an attack, and even then the Prez has to get Congressional approval within 48 hours.

  59. Whoa … I went away to watch Harry’s Law and look at you all.

    There are certain things I believe in and those are the things I am going to support no matter who sits in the White House. Does Obama make it a little harder for me? Yes, he does, but I knew it was going to be like this as soon as he secured the nomination because I knew his record and, to tell you the honest truth … I don’t trust anyone with charisma because I have charisma and I know how easy it is to get what you want without really having to work for it. So I make damn sure that whatever I want I work to get and I judge others who have charisma on that basis … it’s a deeply moral thing with me.

    I believe in leveling the playing field as much as possible so that everyone gets a chance. I’m willing to pay money out of my own pocket if it means helping someone else get a shot. And I believe in punishing those who take that money to feed their own greed not giving a damn about the guy/gal who missed out on getting their shot at bettering their life.

    I don’t like teabaggers at all because they want to keep everybody off the field except themselves. I don’t like certain corporations cause they keep trying to buy the field and regulate the play. And I don’t like elected representatives who run concession stands or try to keep the field as dark as possible so no one can find the goal posts.

    I’m a realist. There is no third party to which I may turn and the republicans opened the door to the crazies a few decades ago and have now lost control to the hysterical misanthropes. So I support the philosophy and policies of the democrats as they are the closest to my own. I have to admit that they fell for the charisma of Obama and I didn’t but I’m sticking with them thru 2012 in spite of that.

    As to Obama … he’s lackluster, a charismatic shell but the democrats can work around him. Bush Jr., in my opinion, was just a replacement for Dan Quayle and Cheney carried the water for Bush Sr. whose original game was only put on hold during the Clinton years.

    So, what kind of a person would I like to see in the White House? Kucinich … no charisma, short, first camera shot he’s always got that grimace on his face, speaks well but doesn’t mesmerize and can’t be bought or pushed around. The CIA would have a hard time convincing him of anything and can’t you just see the kind of Justice Department he’d want in place. He’s worked for everything he’s gotten and he honors the Constitution. He’s right there and someone like Obama gets the nod. If that didn’t discourage me, nothing will.

  60. But you’re right: Libya is not attacking us, nor are they an imminent threat to us—–meaning ObamaBush should be removed from office.

    Does anyone recall Biden threatening to impeach Bush back in 2007 when Bush was toying with the thought of attacking Iran? Biden claimed that Iran was not attacking us, nor were they a threat to us [he was right]—but fast forward to 2 weeks ago when we attack Libya when they are not attacking us, or a threat to us–and Biden is completely silent on it. Hmmmmm.

    Here is that clip of Biden from 2007 admitting that attacking a country who i no threat to us is an impeachable offense:

    Trivia question: A Democratic candidate for Prez was asked during an interview in 2007 this question:

    “In what circumstances, if any, would the president have constitutional authority to bomb Iran without seeking a use-of-force authorization from Congress? (Specifically, what about the strategic bombing of suspected nuclear sites — a situation that does not involve stopping an IMMINENT threat?)”

    Here was the candidates answer:

    “The President does not have power under the Constitution to unilaterally authorize a military attack in a situation that does not involve stopping an actual or imminent threat to the nation.

    As Commander-in-Chief, the President does have a duty to protect and defend the United States. In instances of self-defense, the President would be within his constitutional authority to act before advising Congress or seeking its consent.”

    Question: Who said it?

    Answer: Barack Obama

  61. Blouise,
    I was watching Harry’s Law too and missed all of this stuff. I would also prefer Kucinich, but it isn’t going to happen. I do believe progressives and and liberals are beginning to wake up to reality, but it is getting interesting!
    Swarthmore Mom,
    If I ever wake up to Bachmann as President, that would be time to leave as quick as my old feet could carry me. The real war shouldn’t be among us here on this blog, but against those who are taking away our freedoms, no matter if it is Obama or Bush or Boehner or Reid.

  62. rafflaw,

    Yeah, but SwM’s point is valid … especially after what we saw happened in the 2010 elections. Real people are getting really hurt, really hurt … and that’s totally on the heads of those who voted the crackpots in and those who didn’t bother to vote at all.

  63. Bob,

    Why am I picking on you and not Buddha? You seem to have picked up Tony C’s whine (along with the binary worldview) – you should really get that looked at…

    As far as I’ve noticed, Buddha hasn’t personally attacked me (and certainly didn’t go out of his way to make a gratuitous and unprovoked attack in this thread…). Also, he is smart enough to realize that the only ones worse than the Democrats right now are the Republicans. Furthermore, his response to this problem was to try to start a 3rd party to provide an alternative to corporate candidates (both Republican and Democrat) – even if ultimately futile, that action alone gains Buddha credibility in my eyes. Finally, Buddha doesn’t have the history of intellectual dishonesty, ignorance, and stupidity that you’ve earned for yourself. I’m sorry, but there is really no comparison to Buddha expressing his opinion about the president’s actions – actions which I’ve expressed no opinion about (pro or con)* and your attempt to pick a fight with me (and then stir things up between Buddha and I as well). I can understand that you probably need to try and regain some of your mojo after the repeated poundings I gave you on the 9/11 threads, but you’re a pathetic loser, Bob, and I’m not going to waste any more time sparring with you… (here’s a parenthetical for the road… you forgot to mention my overuse of the ellipsis… ;-))

    *If you want to know what I think (which I doubt (hey look! two more parentheticals!)) and I’ll put in an extra close to balance the one I forgot…), I pretty much agree with everything Blouise just said (I’m not totally sold on Kucinich, but I do think he would be a cut above the other available choices…)

    Blouise,

    I like you, even if you don’t like anyone…

    rafflaw,

    Before the election, I said that I would try to emigrate if McCain were elected and I would do my best to leave if Caribou Barbie became president – if ‘Little McCarthy’ became president I would flee by any available means and in the event some sort of Bachmann-Palin overdrive happened I believe that my desire to leave the country would be so strong as to achieve spontaneous teleportation…

  64. Slarti,

    “…..
    Blouise,

    I like you, even if you don’t like anyone…

    ……………..”

    ==============================

    Aha … you’ve fallen under my charismatic spell but don’t worry … I’m harmless.

    You really need to stick around and post your thoughts and experiences. Things are going to get pretty tough over the next year and a half. Besides, you and Bob have a “thing” that I kind of admire.

  65. Slarti,

    I said “you really need to stick around” but what I meant was “we really need you to stick around”

  66. Blouise,
    I agree that real people are getting hurt, but if Bachmann got into that office the country would be doomed to become Taliban West. I have not seen a single Teapublican who has any intention of creating jobs or helping the poor and middle class.
    Slarts,
    I was thinking Bachmann’s election would create a spontaneous combustion!
    AY,
    You are correct that we can and must continue to discuss our ideas and thoughts, but we don’t have to make enemies to do that. Unless of course you disagree with me!! :)

  67. Blouise,

    As my exchange with Bob once again proves, I don’t do this in moderation – and I really do have other things I need to spend my time on. Besides, as your comment showed, you don’t need me – you do just fine on your own. Bob and I certainly have a thing (it’s sick and twisted, but it’s a thing) and while I might occasionally rise to the bait when he chums the waters I have no desire to resume our daily pissing match. If he really wants to get me to argue with him he could take up the cintelligent designist cause – I probably couldn’t resist that… but I don’t think that Bob’s confirmation bias will stretch that far – even to attack me. In any case, I find spending my time on work much more fun and interesting than defending myself from Bob’s rhetorical poo flinging – go figure… I may drop by every now and then, but, at least for now, I don’t have the time it takes me to post here regularly to spare.

    And I’m ‘mostly harmless’, by the way… ;-)

    raff,

    So you’re predicting some kind of explosive ‘Bachmann Effect’? I think it would require Sister Sarah as well to reach critical mass – if their ticket wasn’t already a sign of the impending apocalypse they would certainly set out to create an apocalypse when they got into office – how else could Jesus come back? (besides, if either one of them gets the nomination, who else could be on the ticket?)

    raff said:

    AY,
    You are correct that we can and must continue to discuss our ideas and thoughts, but we don’t have to make enemies to do that. Unless of course you disagree with me!!

    All the more reason for me to stay away (the enemies thing, not the disagreeing… ;-)) – that way Bob can feel all smug and self-righteous about driving me off (and maybe be less of a pain in everyone’s ass for a while) and I can spend my time doing something more productive.

  68. that way Bob can feel all smug and self-righteous about driving me off

    Slarti I thought it was me and my abilities in re to multiple persona’s :)

  69. “I refused to wait for the images of slaughter and mass graves before taking action.” Barack Insane O Bomb-a

    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Death_of_Neda_Agha-Soltan

    *********************************************
    Shooting in Deraa as Syria pledges to reassure the people

    Security forces in the Syrian town of Deraa are said to have opened fire in the air as hundreds of demonstrators called for an end to emergency laws. euronews has received pictures which appear to show more bloodshed, with bodies lying on the ground amid chaotic scenes.

    ***********************************************

    Yemeni President Ali Abdullah Saleh has announced a state of emergency after medics said 41 people were killed when pro-regime loyalists and police opened fire on protesters in Sanaa.

    *****************************************************

  70. Clinton said the elements that led to intervention in Libya — international condemnation, an Arab League call for action, a United Nations Security Council resolution — are “not going to happen” with Syria, in part because members of the U.S. Congress from both parties say they believe Assad is “a reformer.”

    Assad is a reformer ?

    Thats AS-Sad as Obama saying,

    “I refused to wait for the images of slaughter and mass graves before taking action.”

    This is really AS-Sad state of affairs.

  71. So Buddha,

    You find Slarti’s position tenable on any level; moral, logical or legal?

    I’m intellectually dishonest, ignorant and stupid?

    It’s one thing to disengage for the sake of friendship; it’s quite another to do so at the cost of the truth.

  72. Slarti: Nice to see you’re still full of shit.

    Uh, might this be the first personal attack of the thread? Me thinks so.

    Slarti: Given that the prevailing Republican standard is ‘it’s okay if you’re a Republican’ (regarding pretty much everything), I’m willing to prosecute President Obama as soon as the trial of President Bush and Dick the War Criminal (for offenses that I believe are more numerous and more serious than those committed by President Obama even assuming he is guilty of all you allege). But not a second before.

    So laws are only laws in your eyes when they’re prosecuted in the order you deem fit? HOw’s that categorical imperative working for ya; you juristic whiz.

    Slarti: Because I refuse to use the Republican double standards,

    But you’re fine with Obama’s double standards and flat out hypocrisy; much like your own.

    Slarti: Thank you for giving me the opportunities to address the disingenuous straw man attacks you made on me several months ago (and repeated today).

    You put your own foot in your own mouth by making that idiotic statement reducing law and morality down to dollars and cents.

    Slarti: For the record, I said that the country doesn’t have the political will to deal with civil liberties and almost certainly wont regain that will until the economy improves, not that ‘When the economy is bad, the president can do whatever he wants.’

    Your shameless hypocritical apologetics made the summation true.

    Slarti: I don’t think this is a good thing, but I think that it is true (and you have certainly offered no evidence that it isn’t…).

    Find me a respected treatise on law or morality that agrees with your position. Not even the sociopath Ayn Rand would defecate on the law like you do.

    Slarti: And better a Democratic tyrant than a Republican tyrant – we weren’t offered another viable choice… or do you think that President McCain (or President Caribou Barbie) would have done better?

    I’m ignorant and stupid? You argue like a ten year old.

    My whole point is that you are JUST AS two faced, duplicitous and bereft of morals as the republicans that apologized for Bush.

    Were we to apply your metaphysics of morals to the rest of the legal system, we’d be living in the stone age.

  73. Bob in re to Slarti I have a friend name Bob who is the exact same way Kevin is. The Kool-Aid they drank has an irreversible effect :)
    I like to treat my friend Bob like house training a new puppy. Every time Obama takes a shit on the constitution I like to take Bob’s nose and rub it in.

  74. I’m ignorant and stupid? You argue like a ten year old.

    In Kevins eye

    Because Bush wasn’t prosecuted or impeached Obama shouldn’t be either. Fair is Fair.

  75. Bob,

    If you really wish to force my hand, my only major criticism of Slarti’s position is I think he’s optimistically naive given the damage to the Constitution that Obama has compounded upon that already done by Bush/Cheney. In the eyes of many laymen, I can see where this damage could be underestimated and why. The whole “murder without due process” declaration has a kind of sick propagandist appeal that torture lacks, because most Americans think – and naturally so as a matter of defensive psychology – that “Well the President is looking out for our best interests! Surely he wouldn’t use this power without a good reason.” This being despite the fact that history shows a tool that can be abused by bad actors will be abused by bad actors. This being despite the fact that it is manifestly evident that We the People haven’t had a President looking out for our collective best interests since Carter. All our recent Presidents have been looking out for the oligarchical wealthy and their interests and doing so to the detriment of the majority. Slarti has the right to a different opinion and as he is an admitted optimist, I don’t see his views as inconsistent or illogical. As to ethical, being his views are based in a stated preference for optimism, I have no issue as they reflect his ethical grounding. It’s not one I share, but it’s not dishonest. Just different. I view Smom’s stance in much the same way. She is being neither dishonest or illogical. Just legally and historically naive. And that his both hers and Slarti’s right – to be different in opinion and perspective.

    As to Slarti’s assessment that you are “intellectually dishonest, ignorant and stupid”? That is his opinion. Not only is he entitled to it, I have to wonder why it matters to you? It’s just an opinion. It’s not a fact. I think it’s manifestly apparent that you are not intellectually dishonest, ignorant or stupid – perhaps the only person here more cynical than I am, but that’s another tale. However, one does not demonstrate a mastery of Kant and the complexities of law and merit the application of ignorant or stupid. The intellectually dishonest argument? Well that is rooted in both of yours obstinacy more than anything else. You are both tenacious people. This is not only my position with Slarti vis a vis you in public, but it has been in private as well.

    As to the truth? I have not disengaged from the truth as I see it for the sake of friendship nor has he. Slarti and I simply disagree about some things. He thinks change within the system is still possible and I do not – although I did when I first started posting here, events since then have led me to change my mind, and none of this changes that I would still prefer change from within as it is inherently the less bloody option historically speaking.

    The Republicans, at the order of the wealthy elite, crashed the car. The Democrats, at the order of the wealthy elite, set the car on fire. To my mind, the only question left is which group of graft corrupted criminals is going to be next to throw gas on the fire because both parties have a can in their hands, they just get their gas a slightly different stations. Absent a viable third party – e.g. non-teabagger batshit insane – or one of history’s more bloody options for change? We’re screwed. That’s the truth from my perspective and it is a truth I have not varied from since I decided change from within was no longer probable as demonstrated by the Obama administration.

    Slarti and I disagree on this point.

    You and I do not.

    If we all had the same thoughts, conversations would be uniformly dull and very short.

  76. J. Turley: “We have a political system that is now entirely devoid of principle. The only thing remaining is blind allegiance to personalities. It is no longer the war that matters but the man who ordered it.”

    According to Slarti, this is morally acceptable.

  77. Really, childrens.

    This whole thing becomes easier to dissect if you’ll learn to leave partisanship out of your analyses. That not to say do not recognize that there are two parties screwing the pooch – that would simply be ignorant of the facts – but rather to not invest yourselves in either side’s positions for the purposes of analysis.

    There’s plenty of blame to go around.

  78. “Bob,Esq. 1, March 29, 2011 at 9:23 am

    J. Turley: “We have a political system that is now entirely devoid of principle. The only thing remaining is blind allegiance to personalities. It is no longer the war that matters but the man who ordered it.”

    According to Slarti, this is morally acceptable.”

    I don’t think I’ve seen Slarti voice his opinion of Obama’s (I think manifestly illegal) war that is not war on Libya, Bob. He may not find it morally acceptable. I don’t know. And to be fair, Libya is the only conflict Obama didn’t inherit from Bush/Cheney. If he does find it acceptable? Then, honestly, I would have issue with that. But absent evidence that he does? I reserve my right to address that point.

    So far you two have only been rehashing the same ol’ shit.

  79. Buddha,

    To act and think with ‘integrity’ means to act and think with ‘wholeness.’ Your method of moral and legal reasoning does not differ depending on the object of analysis.

    To say that Slarti is simply ‘naive’ in his approach to the Bush & Obama identical transgressions glosses over the problem of lack of integrity in his reasoning.

    This is what Turley has been saying all along and the reason he stated this today:

    J. Turley: “We have a political system that is now entirely devoid of principle. The only thing remaining is blind allegiance to personalities. It is no longer the war that matters but the man who ordered it.”

    Because of this, Slarti’s arguments are not based on principle at all.

    Everyone’s entitled to an opinion, but just like they’re not entitled to their own fact, they’re not entitled to make arguments bereft of principle.

  80. Buddha: “So far you two have only been rehashing the same ol’ shit.”

    I’m not talking about the war in particular.

    It’s his method of REASONING that is bereft of principle.

  81. I am partisan and even more so now that the republicans have decided to attempt to bust the unions and to declare war on women. As far as Obama goes I was never a big fan as I have said before on this blog. The torture of Bradley Manning deeply bothers me. At the same time the election is shaping up to be Obama versus the christian right, and I have made the choice to vote for Obama and the other labor and planned parenthood endorsed candidates.

  82. Agree to disagree and move on….this is old shit….You may not like each other or find that they are respective dick faces in your own front….draw a line and each please do not cross it….it is bad as diatribes that have no relevance to this site at all…..come on guys…

  83. Bob,

    I happen to agree with the Prof on this issue and I’m sure that’s not a surprise. However, Slarti is an avowed optimist. This as surely colors his take on principles as our cynicism colors ours. And while people are not entitled to their own facts, they are entitled to make arguments bereft of principle – either willingly or unwillingly. If you find Slarti’s position to be bereft of principle, I submit that it is an unwilled side-effect of his willing optimism. The road to Hell is paved with good intentions just as it is axiomatic that good can come from evil and evil can come from good. The polarities of life that are reflected in the concept of the Tao are dynamic, not static, none of which changes that evil is the true enemy no matter its source. I don’t find Slarti to be evil. I find him to be misguided. There’s a huge difference.

  84. Well that is rooted in both of yours obstinacy more than anything else. You are both tenacious people. This is not only my position with Slarti vis a vis you in public, but it has been in private as well.

    Very well said counselor.

    Question: what is your position with Slartibartie when it was private :)

    Hopefully you were standing on your feet :)

  85. Bob,

    And his reasoning is colored by his optimism.

    An optimism unshared is naturally going to lead to a conflict of ideas and reasoning.

  86. I find those “misguided” that think that if a christian fundmentalist republican is elected that great harm will not be done to women in this country.

  87. Bob,Esq.,

    I, for one, don’t pay any attention to the nasty names either one of you calls the other. I like to read the arguments and the points made. It stimulates my own thought process.

  88. Badtroll,

    Take your partisan fuckery and stuff it if that’s the best you have to offer. Adults are having a conversation here. Why don’t you go play in the surf with the other children.

  89. The polarities of life that are reflected in the concept of the Tao are dynamic, not static, none of which changes that evil is the true enemy no matter its source.

    Buddha YOU ARE ON FIRE !!!!!!!!!!

  90. Buddha,

    That reasoning is colored by optimism does not exempt it from the basic rules regarding reasoning itself.

    Like the law of non-contradiction in one’s reasoning.

  91. Smom,

    The harm is being done either way, by both parties. Would Fundies be a bane to women’s rights? Absolutely. But it’s not just women’s rights that are under attack, but all of our rights regardless of sex. Being against one bad guy doesn’t mean being in favor of the other bad guy. Some people are simply against all bad guys no matter their stripes.

  92. Blouise,

    The word ‘uncouth’ does not begin to describe the problem with someone who makes claims without reasons while declaring victory for himself in an argument.

    Ten year olds do that Blouise.

  93. Badtroll,

    And it’s a right you regularly abuse, troll. I’m glad that when you have a pain in your ass, you think of me. That’s the desired reaction from liars and propagators of propaganda. And thanks for the compliment.

    I hope your mother is doing well.

    _________

    Bob,

    I’m not suggesting that it is an exemption, merely an explanation.

  94. Buddha, Disagree. Democrats have been longtime supporters of abortion rights and collective bargaining. My friends that work for SEIU and planned parenthood as organizers do not agree with you.

  95. Bob,Esq.
    1, March 29, 2011 at 9:23 am
    J. Turley: “We have a political system that is now entirely devoid of principle. The only thing remaining is blind allegiance to personalities. It is no longer the war that matters but the man who ordered it.”

    ====================================================

    I like that you pulled that statement forward … blind allegiance is the refuse of the ignorant and I don’t trust those who inspire it.

    I do believe in actively working with others to push an agenda with which I agree.

  96. And I don’t care that they disagree with me, Smom. Just because they fight for just causes does not give them the right to dictate my thoughts or sway my analysis. I’m what you call an independent critical thinker. Consequently, I’m not much of a joiner of groups or prone to group-think. If this is a problem for you, it is your problem. And I mean that in the nicest way possible.

  97. Buddha, That is fine, but then don’t label those as naive that make political choices on issues that might be critical to them but not to you.

  98. I’ll label whomever or whatever however I please, Smom. Or is there some part of “independent critical thinker” that escapes your grasp? I’ll no more let you dictate how or what I think than I will let them. You’re personally naive and foolish if you’d think I would. And if you don’t like that? Too damn bad.

  99. Swarthmore mom & Buddha,

    I happen to think that Swarthmore mom is a critical thinker. We have seen what has been happening in many states since the election of so many Republican governors…and what is happening in the House of Representatives since the Republicans took control. The right-wingers have taken control of the Republican party and they are going after women’s and workers’ rights with a vengeance.

  100. I didn’t say she wasn’t, Elaine. I said she was naive if she thought both parties don’t represent a threat to our rights albeit in different ways. I’m not for not calling out the GOP. They are practically Nazis at this point. However, the DNC, with Obama’s attacks on both due process and the Separation of Powers doctrine, are little more than Nazi-Lite. Being against both bad actors is not the equivalent of bolstering one over the other. To choose the lesser of two evils is to still choose an evil. I prefer not to choose evil at all. That is all.

  101. Elaine, There is a reason democrats enjoy more support from women than men. I think Buddha does not get that.

  102. Buddha, Maybe by choosing none you are allowing the worst “evil” to come to power but that is a choice.

  103. Oh, I get it.

    But I think my immediately previous statement covers that base.

    If your government has the right – as Obama has claimed – to assassinate you without due process and based solely upon their unilateral determination that you are somehow a threat to national security, then women’s rights pale in comparison to the danger of having your life taken simply because some pol doesn’t like you. Because, by extension, if a Fundie does take control, what’s to stop them from simply killing abortion providers AND seekers as a matter of “national security”?

    Not a goddamn thing is what.

    A “right” created is a “right” ripe for abuse by bad actors.

    Obama is removing fundamental checks and balances from the system.

    Underestimate the evil of Obama’s (and ergo the DNC’s) stance on that issue at your own peril.

  104. Bob,Esq.
    1, March 29, 2011 at 9:53 am
    Blouise,

    The word ‘uncouth’ does not begin to describe the problem with someone who makes claims without reasons while declaring victory for himself in an argument.

    Ten year olds do that Blouise.

    =======================================================

    Yes, but I don’t pay any attention to declarations of victory and I don’t view the exchange of ideas as a contest.
    I like strongly held beliefs and I greatly appreciate those who can bolster their beliefs with sound argument and adjust their words to the nuances of the argument.

  105. Buddha,

    You know that I’ve written a post and comments critical of President Obama and his Administration. I don’t disagree with you regarding your opinion of Obama. That said, I’m not the type of person who is in the habit of cutting off her nose to spite her face. I think back to the election of 2000 when a Green Party candidate helped to give us George W. Bush as our 43rd president. Do you think we would have started a preemptive war with Iraq if Al Gore had been president?

    I would actually like to see President Obama have some challengers in the 2012 presidential primaries.

    **********

    Swarthmore mom,

    “There is a reason democrats enjoy more support from women than men.”

    I agree.

  106. “I would actually like to see President Obama have some challengers in the 2012 presidential primaries.”

    So would I, Elaine.

  107. Buddha,

    I have gone back and forth on the issue of whether I would vote for Obama or not in the 2012 presidential election. Here’s a possible scenario that puts fear into my heart: In 2012, the Republicans retain control of the House–and they also take control of the Senate and White House. That should give a thinking person pause for thought.

  108. Elaine,

    To which I say the only difference between a fast trip to Hell and a slow trip to Hell is the time of arrival. If others want to choose the lesser of two evils and vote Obama, that’s their choice. In light of his unconstitutional actions, my duty to protect the Constitution simply prohibits me from doing so again. If he’d just been inept instead of actively destructive, I would vote for him again, but he hasn’t been simply inept, so I won’t. That’s my choice and it’s a matter of personal principle.

  109. I don’t believe SwM is the least bit naive when it comes to political thought and action. Nor do I believe that evil is a factor in the present political situation.

    Democrats support the issues that are important to me.

    Teabaggers do not support the issues that are important to me.

    It is that easy.

    Both parties are guilty of corporate alliances and both parties have members who support Presidential power over Constitutional power. I can fight that from within a party and or from outside of it. I choose to do both.

    Decades ago, when the republicans decided to “use” the crazies, too many good republicans sat back, did nothing but complain and look what happened. Honest conservative voices was drowned out by the rantings of the crazies.

    I don’t view it as a lessor of two evils or even a choice between good and evil. It is the reality of today’s politics that I strive to improve.

  110. “I can fight that from within a party and or from outside of it. I choose to do both.”

    The point being that both are equally valid strategies based upon choice and preference in tactics.

    I have stated my reasons for working outside parties.

    Smom has stated her reasons for working within a party.

    Blouise has stated her reasons for taking both approaches.

    That doesn’t make anyone right or wrong.

    Merely different.

  111. Blouise,

    On the contrary. The Congressional battle is by far more important than the White House battle. However, if my choices are again dumb and dumber (unconstitutional and unconstitutional-er), I’ll opt out there as well and focus on state legislators. My duty is to the Constitution as informed by the Declaration of Independence. Full stop. It starts there and it ends there. Also, just because I’m not willing to participate in attacking it doesn’t mean I’m unwilling to pick up the pieces afterward. I fully intend to do so, but I think that as a matter of practical demographics and the application of modern propaganda, the abuses are going to get worse before the 99% percenters get enough motivation to fix the problem in earnest and start by kicking both corrupt parties and the campaign corporate graft trough to the curb.

  112. Buddha,

    The difference between the fast trip to hell and the slow trip to hell is…time. I think we’ve seen many Americans finally awakened to what the Republican/ALEC agenda for our country is/has been. A slow trip may give us time to get organized and to fight that battle first. I happen to believe that a lot of Americans are going to suffer if we board that fast trip to hell–a trip that many wealthy and powerful Americans won’t have to take. I’d like to see some of the Republican/ALEC initiatives stopped dead…before they add to the major problems that we’re already faced with. I think trying to stop a bulldozer that is about to roll over even more of our rights is also a principled stand to take.

  113. Buddha, Elaine, SM, Bob and Blouise, etal, This has been a great discussion this morning. I have to agree that I cannot fathom a Teapublican controlled government. The damage that they would do to Women’s rights and to the economy could be catastrophic. I am not trying to be hyperbolic. The attacks we have seen on women already, with just the House in Teapublican control have been insane. I would welcome Democratic challengers to Obama as long as it did not split the party.
    One concern, that I have in a primary challenge is the money. Money is the root of all evils in this country and if we don’t rid the campaigns of the unlimited money, our discussions may be for naught.
    I think the state by state war on labor is another example of what will happen in full Teapublican control. Do we want full blown Tenthers in the State houses and in Washington? IMO, that would be the death knell of the middle class, and it won’t be a slow death.
    Finally, Bdaman, please no discussions of prostate exams before Noon! :) (I am glad that you are getting both tests!)

  114. And I don’t disagree with that in theory – or principle – however, I am bound by a different additional ethical constraint as noted above, Elaine. I also disagree that wealthy Americans won’t suffer more from a fast trip. In fact, I think they are most likely to be affected by a fast trip as that is most likely to result in a harsher reaction against them and their fascist agenda.

    It’s like the adage about boiling a frog.

    If you try to put a frog in a pot of boiling water, it will jump out. If you put it in a pot of cold water and slowly increase the temperature, it will boil to death.

    Time and temperature are swords that cut both ways.

  115. Buddha,

    People aren’t frogs. Besides, if you are more powerful than a frog you can hold it down in boiling water with an implement until it’s dead.

    Too much may be destroyed and too many people may have to suffer and lose their rights before any of the rich and powerful are truly affected–if they ever are truly affected. So we react harshly…so what? They will still have their millions/billions of dollars. They will still remain aloof from the rest of us rabble. They’ll still live in their gated communities…their penthouses…palatial manors…own homes in other countries.

  116. Elaine,

    “Too much may be destroyed and too many people may have to suffer and lose their rights before any of the rich and powerful are truly affected”.

    And how is the inconsistent with my long time prediction things will get a whole lot worse before they get better? We are heading toward a draconian despotic police state run by an oligarchy that will eventually meet its Marie Antoinette moment. Honestly, I don’t think there is a damn thing that can be done to stop it at this point either. Obama’s multiple failures vis a vis the rule of law were the final nail in the coffin designed by Reagan and built by both Bushes with materials supplied by Cheney. The end of two-tiered legal systems is always ugly and the majority always end up eating the oligarchy. Whether that oligarchy is the French monarchy (rebellion from within), the Russian Politburo/Communist Party (internal systemic collapse) or the Nazis (deposed by external democratic forces). Whether the afflicted peoples replace it with a true democracy, another oligarchy or yet some third form of governance is a separate issue as we’ve seen all outcomes of this question across history. I know this because that is the pattern seen in history. Arrogance and blind greed always bring a state to the same place: their bloodied and oft beheaded knees.

    I’m not saying it’s my preferred outcome. Far from it. I am all for restoring the Constitution and the rule of law – which means trials for both the Bush and Obama administrations. What I see happening is merely what I see happening. The trend. It’s my glimpse around the corner, the echo I hear in reverse, and I hope – with all sincerity – that I am utterly and completely wrong. I hope ten or twenty years from now, you all can say honestly, “I told you so.”

    However, I’m not holding my breath.

    Because absent some game changing X factor?

    I don’t think I am wrong.

  117. “My “sympathy with all creatures” was strictly limited to warm blooded animals. The only exceptions among the cold blooded vertebrates were frogs and toads, because of their resemblance to human beings.”

    C.G. Jung, Memories Dreams and Reflections

  118. “The Congressional battle is by far more important than the White House battle. However, if my choices are again dumb and dumber (unconstitutional and unconstitutional-er), I’ll opt out there as well and focus on state legislators.” (Buddha)

    I completely agree as regards the Congressional battle and I am fortunate in that both my senator and house rep are people I can readily support … and I recognize that in that fact I am indeed fortunate. I have devoted a great deal of time to state races in the last few years and can point, with some pride, to a candidate I helped convince to run and who has been reelected twice again. We are hoping that his next run will be for state senate and then on to the national scene. I suspect you would like him although he strongly supports women’s issues.

  119. Bob,Esq.,

    Theories pass. The frog remains.

    (I can’t remember to whom I should attribute … never-the-less, it was too good to let go)

  120. Buddha,

    “We are heading toward a draconian despotic police state run by an oligarchy…”

    You mean we ain’t there yet???

    ;)

    “Honestly, I don’t think there is a damn thing that can be done to stop it at this point either.”

    I’m still holding out a little hope–not much–but a little.

    BTW, the Citizens United decision has definitely helped to speed the fast train along.

  121. “I suspect you would like him although he strongly supports women’s issues.”

    You say that like I don’t.

    Quite to the contrary, I do. I truly think the world would be a better place if more women had a role in running it and we as a species were considerably less patriarchal. However, I simply see a broader problem on the near horizon to merit my making women’s issues a singularly deciding factor in how I choose to participate or not and no singular issue or set of issues could ever override my particular ethical restraints regarding the Constitution. Without the Constitution to protect us all, it’s only a matter of time until Atwood’s dystopia happens and women are treated like chattel property. And people of both all sexes who oppose the government start “disappearing”. The issues that prevent me from supporting Obama are issues that affect us all, not just women, and make the probability of the restricted future for women even more likely than the direct attack on women’s rights as it is a back door stealth entrance to tyranny.

  122. Elaine M.
    1, March 29, 2011 at 1:34 pm
    Buddha,

    “I simply see a broader problem…”

    Broader? We broads are not the problem!!!
    :)

    ===============================================

    Broadly speaking …..

  123. Buddha,

    Women are under attack right now, as we speak (so to write).

    A little over 2/3rds of the state workers slated to lose their bargaining power are women because the majority of the state work force is female. Planned Parenthood does incredible work with women’s day to day health issues. The list of agencies slated for reduction in funds are mainly comprised of those who serve women and children.

    Ok, kids can’t fight for themselves but we sure as hell can fight for them and for ourselves.

    It’s not coming … it’s here and trust me, if women lose this one, it’s over for everybody except the chosen few.

  124. rafflaw,

    equal pay … yeah, like that’s ever goin’ to happen

    So many issues, so little time

    I need to go look at some other threads

  125. Blouise,

    As Exodus shows, if it weren’t for the frogs the Jews never would have made it out of Egypt.

    Moses couldn’t have done it without the frogs.

  126. Blouise & Buddha,

    Women are under attack. Working people are under attack. Social programs that help the elderly, poor, children are under attack. Heatlth care reform is under attack. Planned Parenthood and NPR are under attack. Financial reform is under attack. I view all these concurrent attacks as a broad problem that must be addressed…now. Not next year…not two years from now….not four years from now–but NOW! I don’t think Blouise, Swarthmore mom, and I see what the right-wingers are attempting to do to women as the only issue.

  127. “Bob,Esq. 1, March 29, 2011 at 9:23 am

    J. Turley: “We have a political system that is now entirely devoid of principle. The only thing remaining is blind allegiance to personalities. It is no longer the war that matters but the man who ordered it.”

    According to Slarti, this is morally acceptable.”

    Bob,

    I accept “We have a political system that is now entirely devoid of principle” as a fact (at least in hyperbolic terms) – as such it is amoral (it has a truth value rather than a moral value in my evaluation). Acknowledging that a situation exists is not the same as condoning it and you are smart enough to know that. I don’t agree that, “The only thing remaining is blind allegiance to personalities. It is no longer the war that matters but the man who ordered it.”. I think that issues don’t exist in a vacuum, they exist in the context of complex interaction of countless issues and that the kind of black and white thinking that so often accompanies this sort of hyperbole makes it impossible (or at least much more difficult) to oppose the Republicans, who I manifestly believe must be opposed*.

    *by which I mean they must be opposed right now, at this point in history, not ‘as it was and ever shall be’…

  128. Elaine M.
    1, March 29, 2011 at 2:12 pm
    Blouise & Buddha,

    Women are under attack. Working people are under attack. Social programs that help the elderly, poor, children are under attack. Heatlth care reform is under attack. Planned Parenthood and NPR are under attack. Financial reform is under attack. I view all these concurrent attacks as a broad problem that must be addressed…now. Not next year…not two years from now….not four years from now–but NOW! I don’t think Blouise, Swarthmore mom, and I see what the right-wingers are attempting to do to women as the only issue

    ================================================

    Exactly.

    We see it, we know it, and the future Buddha predicts is our present reality!

  129. Bob,Esq.
    1, March 29, 2011 at 2:10 pm
    Blouise,

    As Exodus shows, if it weren’t for the frogs the Jews never would have made it out of Egypt.

    Moses couldn’t have done it without the frogs.

    =======================================

    and … and … if it weren’t for the frogs, I wouldn’t have survived many a long week of camping. (We hunt with bow and arrow and I am particularly skilled at shooting frogs, skinning, and then grilling them over the open fire … I use a special rack that opens and closes … that should all be in the past tense … I’m too slow now)

    Go ahead, Bubbala, top that one!

  130. This started out as an email to Buddha, but I decided to turn it into a comment…

    Buddha,

    I [had] no desire or intention to comment on [this] thread anymore and I [hope that this doesn’t] lead to more off-topic pissing with Bob [(which I intend to ignore in any case…)], but I wanted to say a couple of things about your comments [and I decided that I should add them to the discussion]. I think you are right that our key disagreement is that I believe change from within is still possible and you do not – since I freely admit that this is an assumption on my part (which in my mind more or less stems from believing that MLK was right about the moral arc of the universe and that societies tend to evolve) buttressed, personally, by the fact that my skills are most valuable if society doesn’t collapse (which gives me a strong preference for the slow road to hell even if going to hell is the only option). Flowing from that assumption and that fact, I support the Democrats and President Obama not because I believe in them or him, but because supporting them will increase the good that they are able to do* – and I do believe that they have done some good and clearly, at least in my mind, they have failed to do an enormous amount of harm that would have been done under Republican control. This doesn’t make them just in my view, but it gives them my support on pragmatic grounds… which is passionate despite the dispassionate analysis which lead to it (and my disappointment regarding the topic of this thread and many other things President Obama has done or failed to do) because I believe that the correct course of action is to support the Democrats despite (and fully acknowledging) their failings and I believe that the choice between D and R is very significant right now – I’ll gladly support another choice, say ‘C’, once that is more than just 1/2 a vote for the fast road to hell… (and I’m willing to help make C a viable choice as well – I just wont be voting for it until it is).

    *a few months ago I would have added ‘and decrease the harm…’, but I’ve seen no evidence that anything we can do will have any mitigating effect – President Obama seems to have decided that he has the same unConstitutionally expanded executive power that President Bush claimed (and, as you pointed out, originated with Reagan) and I see no viable course of action to change this at present, although I would be open to anything I thought would be effective.

    I perfectly understand focusing on your state if you can’t stomach voicing any sort of support for President Obama (which I admit he’s not making any easier to do…) – in fact, I think that’s likely more important and effective in any case (I wish I’d done more to oppose the reign of King Snyder…).

    To sum up, I favor evolution over revolution and while you may well be right that revolution is inevitable, I will continue to push for evolutionary change until I’m convinced that not only is revolution inevitable, but that no good (or significant decrease of harm) is being done by fighting within the system.

    Bob,

    What’s wrong with asking for the Republicans to repudiate their double standard before enforcing the higher (and correct) standard? To do otherwise seems, to me, to be playing into the hand of the Republican hypocrites… I refuse to decry President Obama’s Constitutional violations except in the context that they were a continuation (and, in some cases, expansion) of the abuses started under President Reagan and flaunted under President Bush. This is because I believe that, in our current political environment, to do so is an implicit endorsement of Republican domestic policy (which is either utterly insane or knowingly malevolent, in my opinion). Additionally, the expansions of executive power can’t, in my opinion, be successfully reversed without acknowledging the distinction that the powers themselves are abuses to the office of the president – and the Constitution – committed by the person who unlawfully asserted them and the actions undertaken using these powers are abuses (of the people who’s rights they violate) by the president who commits them (while this aggravates the Constitutional harm, it is not, in my opinion, as severe an offense as the original breach). Refusing to acknowledge the complexity of nuance in this case seems naive and counterproductive to me (unless you are trying to accomplish Republican goals, in which case I think it is probably an effective strategy…)

    As for my penchant for calling you stupid, ignorant, and intellectually dishonest – the two former allegations are only in regard to your knowledge of physics, but after spending months making arguments (and tacitly or overtly supporting arguments made by others) that can reasonably, in my opinion, be described as breathtakingly and completely wrong – including ignoring or failing to understand a mathematical principle (that the backward heat equation is unstable) that I know for a fact to be correct because I can prove it* – you seem pretty ignorant and stupid to me. There’s no shame in not understanding physics, but to doggedly try to convince someone who does understand physics that they are wrong justifies the labels ‘stupid’ and ‘ignorant’ in my mind – admit that I was right with regard to work and energy and the backwards heat equation and I will never mention it again.

    *The proof of this particular mathematical principle also has personal significance to me, which is at the root of some of my hostility…

    Intellectual dishonesty is a different matter. You said:

    [Me]: Nice to see you’re still full of shit.
    Uh, might this be the first personal attack of the thread? Me thinks so.

    However, the only reason that I was posting on this thread at all was because you said:

    Buddha,
    Don’t think you get it?

    The liberal apologist credo:

    When the economy is bad, the president can do whatever he wants.

    Or…

    Better a democratic tyrant than a republican.

    Just ask Slarti.

    less than an hour after I made an innocuous post on an ancient thread. While that may have been a coincidence, I believe it was a personal attack meant to lure me into this… whatever the hell this is. So while you can think that I made the first personal attack in this thread, I think that your comment is further evidence of intellectual dishonesty on your part. Everyone else can make up their own minds (I expect that they mostly don’t care… ;-)).

    AARRGGH! This is the problem with my posting here – if I hadn’t liked the Prof’s 2nd post and tried to make people notice it by putting my avatar up on the ‘recent comments’ list – which seems to have utterly failed, by the way… :-( – Bob wouldn’t have noticed and thrown out that bait and I would have already captured all of JT’s precious bodily fluids… um. I mean, er… data by now and could be working on putting a metric on how Buddha differs from Bdaman (have you gotten a C-PAP yet?) right now – I suspect that one could tell the difference between them from space, but it’s not science until I can quantify it…

    So now I’m leaving – neither in anger nor in sorrow, not in victory nor defeat, just leaving. You can further chum the waters all you like, but I wont be rising to the bait again. I will, however, make one exception: if you give me a polite and substantive explanation of how you believe that my reasoning is ‘intentionally incorrect’, then I will reply in kind.

    Ladies,

    I agree with everything you have been saying – keep fighting the good fight!

  131. And precisely none of this will overcome my ethical prohibition on voting for Obama again. I’d vote Democratic if a challenger arises, but only if a challenger arises. I’d no sooner vote for Mr. I Can Kill Who I Want Without Due Process than I would for a member of the Bush Criminal Cartel.

    I do not expect anyone but me to follow my ethical guidelines regarding this issue with the possible exception of other lawyers, who if they take their oath seriously, won’t vote for that ass either.

    However, follow I will my own conscience.

  132. Bob,Esq.,

    Damn! You topped it! ;)

    [audio src="http://www.moviesoundscentral.com/sounds/princess_bride/inconceivable4.wav" /]

  133. Buddha said, “However, follow I will my own conscience.”

    While I’m disappointed in that (by which I mean not feeling that you can vote for President Obama over his competitor, not following your conscience ;-)), I can accept that you have cause to do so… just as I hope you accept that I have reasons for my own positions.

  134. Slarti,

    I do accept you, like Elaine, Blouise and Smom, do have reasons for your own positions.

    It would seem that I am beset, however, by those who would not accept that I have reasons for my positions. In short, those mean girls are picking on me! Boo. Hoo. I’m going to go cry in the corner . . .

    Nah! Who am I kidding? I’m going to keep on keeping on and everyone knows it. :mrgreen:

  135. Buddha,

    I have a serious question.

    Would you name the Presidents after 1900 (McKinley – on) that you would consider voting for had you be able.

  136. Blouise,

    McKinley – yes
    Teddy Roosevelt – yes
    Taft – yes
    Wilson – no
    Harding – close call, but probably no
    Coolidge – yes
    Hoover – no
    FDR – yes but not indefinitely
    Truman – yes
    Eisenhower – yes
    Kennedy – yes with reservations
    Johnson – not even if he was the only guy running
    Nixon – another Hell no
    Ford – no
    Carter – yes

    Starting here, I was eligible to vote

    Reagan – no
    Bush I – no
    Clinton – yes with reservation
    Bush II – Is there something more emphatic than Hell no?
    Obama – Did it once, won’t get fooled again.

  137. Bdaman have you gotten a C-PAP yet?

    No not yet. I had some other tests done today and had an issue with my mom in the hospital for five days but I’m making progress.
    ***********************************************************

    I’m glad that when you have a pain in your ass, you think of me.

    I was thinking of the huge dump I took in the Dr’s hand after she took her finger out my ass. Luckily she was able to pull it all back into the rubber glove before it fell on the floor.

  138. Don’t start none, won’t be none, Poo Boy.

    And for the record, you’re the one who started today at 9:45 am. Don’t hate me because when you take a swing at me, I swing back. Hate me because I’m better at it than you are.

  139. Bdaman:

    I think he meant Po’Boy, its a sandwich they make down in Louisiana if memory serves. New Orleans is famous for them.

  140. Don’t hate me because when you take a swing at me

    Hey Mr. Anti Social did you not get the :) x 2 in the post?

    I was being funny !!!!!

    Don’t make me remind you of why I like my jokes :)

  141. Rico, he, on a very rare occasion, will make a mistake and then nine times out of ten he will correct it before anyone else can point it out. He meant POO. You weren’t following along.

  142. Buddha,

    You love us mean girls and you relish every little pebble we toss in your pond.

    [audio src="http://www.moviesoundscentral.com/sounds/dirty_harry/limitations.wav" /]

  143. “My whole point is that you are JUST AS two faced, duplicitous and bereft of morals as the republicans that apologized for Bush.”

    Bob,

    I’ll make this brief because without the use of the c,e,r,f, & v keys typing is hard. Your attack was not only gratuitous but duplicitous as well. You let your sadistic nature show but once in a while, as a compliment to your overweaning smugness and unbounded ego. By attacking someone who hasn’t been posting you exhibit that your grudges point at anyone who has gotten the best of you in the past. Angry ego, thy name is Bob, and you should be the last one to profess a moral high ground.

    Typing that took too long, so I’l go read some
    philosophy so I too can also pretend to be intellectual
    and morally superior.

  144. bdaman,

    And you should know the difference between me lighting a match and me lighting a flamethrower by now. Lighting a match is appropriate for fart and poo humor (which is some of your favorite), no?
    _______

    Blouise,

    Yes. I do love you mean girls.

    _______

    Rico,

    I’m from Louisiana. I’ve lived in New Orleans. I know Po’ Boys.

    And I did indeed mean poo.

    This is a place dedicated to free speech.

    Engage in verbal jousting at your own risk.

  145. Buddha,

    When you get a chance, go read HenMan’s post on the Dr. Walsh on CNN: Atheists Die First thread …. priceless.

  146. Blouise,

    I already did and I’m still laughing. And I was wondering where my missing cat Dirty Godless Bastard had gotten off to! Now I know.

  147. The GOP’s Plan to Fund Anti-Abortion Activists
    A House Republican decries government spending—unless it’s going to foes of abortion rights.
    — By Kate Sheppard
    (Mother Jones, 3/28/2011)
    http://motherjones.com/politics/2011/03/gops-plan-fund-anti-abortion-activists

    Excerpt:
    Congressional Republicans have made a big deal about slashing funds for Planned Parenthood and other family planning programs, claiming that these cuts are necessary to address the federal deficit. But one of those lawmakers has been pushing his own measure to provide additional federal funds to so-called crisis pregnancy centers—unregulated and uncertified clinics that try to deter women from seeking abortions.

    A bill that Rep. Cliff Stearns (R-Fla.) introduced in January would provide federal funds for the purchase of sonogram machines at organizations that counsel women against having an abortion (the American Independent reported on this bill last week). These crisis pregnancy outfits, sometimes called “pregnancy resource centers,” are often run by religious groups; many have been found to provide women with false and misleading information to dissuade them from having an abortion.

    The preamble of Stearns’ bill makes it sound as though any nonprofit, tax-exempt organization could apply to the Department of Health and Human Services (HHS) for grants to purchase ultrasound equipment. But the bill comes with stipulations. To be eligible for this grant, a facility would have to show every woman seeking services the ultrasound image and describe to them the “general anatomical and physiological description of the characteristics of the fetus.” The facility would be required to provide women with “alternatives to abortion such as childbirth and adoption and information concerning public and private agencies that will assist in those alternatives.” It also must offer its services free of charge. That last condition would disqualify abortion providers, such as Planned Parenthood, which charges on a sliding scale based on a woman’s income.

  148. There have been a lot of strong opinions on this topic. I earlier noted my view that our actions in Libya are yet another example of American imperialism. In my opinion, the debate should focus on the rule of law and the President is acting illegally.

    I’m sure people are tired of hearing me say it, but I voted for Pres. Obama because he promised to restore the rule of law. He abandoned that pledge as soon as he took the oath of office. I will not vote for him again for that reason.

    The launch of a military assault by one sovereign nation against another sovereign nation is an act of war. It does not become something else because it is carried out pursuant to a U.N. resolution or because it is described as a “humanitarian” endeavor. Euphemisms are useful cloaks for hypocrisy.

    The President of the United States is without legal authority to declare war by virtue of his position as Commander in Chief. That power is reserved to Congress. That Congress has increasingly ceded its war-making authority to the executive branch does not constitute a license to the President to act unilaterally. The violation by one branch of government of its constitutional responsibilities does not excuse or justify violations of the Constitution by another branch.

    But even were the President authorized to take military action on his own, moral reasoning requires something more than a determination that the intentional taking of human life “will advance the interests” of this country. That is a virtual definition of imperialism. Have we become so swept up in the false notion of American exceptionalism that we actually believe we possess a cultural and moral superiority that endows our actions with legitimacy?

    Our actions in Libya are also practically irresponsible. We cannot formulate a coherent foreign policy based upon ad hoc “tyrant du jour” rationales. Military involvement in a civil war cannot be conducted on the basis of evening the odds, as though we were some sort of disinterested neutrals. Our approach is rather like conducting a Rotary club fundraiser, where we organize an event, conduct it, present a check to the lucky charity and go home. Protecting civilians in a civil war is not a project; it requires taking sides.

    Our actions in Libya are also cruel because they have created a false hope among people who are putting their lives on the line that we will continue to keep the odds “even.” Video and photos of Libyan rebels remind me of photographs of Okie caravans filled with poor people with shotguns. Enthusiasm is no match for professionalism. When the reality of fighting trained soldiers creates great loss of life, will our government tell the rebels that we did our part by evening the odds? What will we do when the need for troops on the ground becomes overwhelmingly obvious?

    Our actions in Libya are shortsighted for many other reasons as well, of course. For example, what happens when civil unrest in Bahrain creates a nascent rebel movement and we are asked to “neutralize” the Saudi air force sent to bomb the rebels?

    Pres. Obama has approached this issue much as he has approached most domestic issues, by equating “half-assed” and “moderate.” Only this time he has also broken the law and has become everything we despised in his predecessor.

  149. Mike,

    Shouldn’t you be out feeding the trolls? Your buddy Maury? After all, you do enjoy it; don’t you?

    Why is that Mike? Exactly what is the difference between the desires of the trolls and those of the troll feeder; ever so eager to trot on out and joust with them?

    Hmm?

    I’m sorry, was that me being smug?

    Mike: “Your attack was not only gratuitous but duplicitous as well.”

    “Gratuitous?” So those parentheticals haven’t gone unnoticed by you either; eh?

    Mike: “By attacking someone who hasn’t been posting you exhibit…”

    Is that what happened Mike? You sure I wasn’t talking to Buddha about one of the most incredulous arguments made by Slarti as an example of the work of liberal apologists?

    Here it is in full:

    ====

    Buddha,

    Don’t think you get it?

    The liberal apologist credo:

    When the economy is bad, the president can do whatever he wants.

    Or…

    Better a democratic tyrant than a republican.

    Just ask Slarti.

    =====

    So, because Slarti used that post as his excuse for lashing out at me, you deem it as an attack? Hasty, hasty, hasty.

    Believe it or not, that’s a fair representation of his argument; but you don’t care do you Mike? All you want to do is trot on out on the jousting field and defend your friend Slarti; not his argument–no matter how dumb you look doing it.

    Mike: “Angry ego, thy name is Bob, and you should be the last one to profess a moral high ground.”

    Oh Mike, what you call anger, I call “a healthy and constructive use of rage.”

    And Mike, whether I deliver my argument in a smug or angry manner doesn’t affect its validity in any way. Accordingly, you may want to brush up on your informal fallacies of logic before you go telling anyone who has the moral high ground.

    Your courtesies in connection with this matter are greatly appreciated.

  150. Mike A.,
    I think that when there are real humanitarian crises, it is not an example of American exceptionalism if we act to stop the murder. That being said, the President has to make the step in the right way. Either Congress has to declare it or he/she has to have a real US interest at stake.

  151. Mike Appleton: “In my opinion, the debate should focus on the rule of law and the President is acting illegally.”

    The problem as I see it Mike is getting anyone to acknowledge the elephant in the living room; thus my rants about the apologists.

    Mike: “The launch of a military assault by one sovereign nation against another sovereign nation is an act of war. It does not become something else because it is carried out pursuant to a U.N. resolution or because it is described as a “humanitarian” endeavor.”

    Here, here! Since when did U.N. become a surrogate for Congress?

    And speaking of congress, what happens when the 60 day deadline of the War Powers Resolution are up? Or does anybody care anymore?

    Mike: “Have we become so swept up in the false notion of American exceptionalism that we actually believe we possess a cultural and moral superiority that endows our actions with legitimacy?”

    Tell me I’m wrong Mike, but I see this more as Obama saving face in light of the encouraging comments he made to the rebels more than American imperialism.

    Mike: “Our actions in Libya are also practically irresponsible.”

    Our actions are incoherent. How can you define any goal when you don’t even know the goals of those you allegedly support?

    Mike: “Pres. Obama has approached this issue much as he has approached most domestic issues, by equating “half-assed” and “moderate.” Only this time he has also broken the law and has become everything we despised in his predecessor.”

    Try telling that to the liberal apologists.

  152. And I will repeat … Congress could stop him … note Kucinich’s remarks on the illegality and unconstitutional nature of the situation.

    Write your congress person and demand they act. It’s a democracy … you’re allowed to do that. I have, and will continue to do so on a weekly basis … both of my reps are democrats who have some influence. Hell, go to D.C. and demand an appointment or organize a demonstration. Focus on action for the illegality is established.

    Now gentlemen … there’s a group of republican legislators in Wisconsin attempting to ignore a court order … I leave the foreign policy to you all and return to the domestic where, thank providence, I have some impact. The bombs being dropped at the state level may not have the bang of those falling in Libya, but I assure you a war is being waged.

  153. Question….why don’t we all just look at each other for the good that they offer…..We can all learn from the other….Both good and bad….We can also learn what and how we either want to be or not be. Life is full of choices and opportunities…..do we want to exhibit the worst behavior that others provoke in us or exhibit the best and know that we have profited by learning how we don’t want to be? Again, life is full of choices it is how we exercise the choices that we are given that we have learned….

  154. rafflaw,

    Can you imagine the effectiveness of a few thousand lawyers demonstrating in front of the Capital against the illegality and unconstitutional behavior of elected officials.

    Or better yet, a few thousand lawyers donating money … hiring a good ad agency and producing two ads about the issue. Then targeting those ads in D.C and appropriate state districts.

    The impact would be huge.

    Deja vu Founding Fathers Hamilton, Madison, Jefferson, Franklin) in today’s society.

  155. I thought I had posted the following but it was lost somewhere

    Perhaps with a little luck such an organization might find itself morphing into a legitimate third party built on principle rather than personality

  156. Bob, Esq.:
    I think the word “incoherent” is definitely a more accurate adjective to describe our actions in Libya.

    rafflaw:
    Congress has to be dragged into the process and forced to make decisions. Separation of powers is not simply to provide checks and balances, but to guarantee accountability. Congress is shirking its responsibility because it fears accountability, and the President permits it.

    Blouise:
    I kicked in a few dollars earlier today to ActBlue for the Wisconsin ads. I agree with you that Wisconsin is a critical domestic battleground. If the absurd assault on unions can be stopped in that state, it will undermine the copycat efforts elsewhere and will substantially dim Gov. Walker’s rising star status.

  157. “Buddha,
    Don’t think you get it?
    The liberal apologist credo:
    When the economy is bad, the president can do whatever he wants.
    Or…
    Better a democratic tyrant than a republican.
    Just ask Slarti.”

    “*SB ‘Don’t you get it?”

    “So, because Slarti used that post as his excuse for lashing out at me, you deem it as an attack? Hasty, hasty, hasty.”

    Not an attack? Hardly.

    “less than an hour after I made an innocuous post on an ancient thread. While that may have been a coincidence, I believe it was a personal attack meant to lure me into this… whatever the hell this is. So while you can think that I made the first personal attack in this thread, I think that your comment is further evidence of intellectual dishonesty on your part.”

    Your tactic Bob and evidence of intellectual dishonesty. Always.

    “So far you two have only been rehashing the same ol’ shit.”

    No Buddha, so far Bob does his same ol’ shit. Sadists game not
    discussion.

    “Bob,Esq.,
    “Ah, but would a simple no been as much fun?”
    Is that your idea of fun? If so, I’d say you need to get a life!

    Well put by Elaine. Apt and precise.
    Tata, pretentious pseudo-philosopher.

  158. Mike,

    I don’t care what you believe, the fact is I wasn’t attacking or attempting to lure Slarti into anything. Whenever Obama carries out the same lawless policies as Bush, or finds new ways to expand them, I think two things:

    Change you can believe in

    and

    How will a liberal apologist like Slarti shamelessly defend him now.

    Posting Slarti’s reason for attacking me is hardly a defense Mike. But then again why would you care.

    You call me a sadist, Myers-Briggs calls me an INTP.

    As per Elaine, I’d already complimented Buddha and Blouise on being liberal leaning independents and felt it a bit hokey to compliment Elaine without a little taunting.

    Guess that makes me a sadist as well.

    Go feed the trolls Mike.

  159. “I don’t care what you believe, the fact is I wasn’t attacking or attempting to lure Slarti into anything”

    Denial isn’t a water way.

  160. Mike,

    Love your take on the ‘I’m rubber you’re glue’ defense.

    The only posters here who are guilty of unsolicited attacks are you and Slarti. Slarti took a comment of mine to Buddha as his invitation, while you took my response to Slarti as yours.

    Go feed the trolls Mike.

  161. Mike Appleton
    1, March 30, 2011 at 10:09 am
    Blouise:
    I would respond with a happy face of my own, but I am emoticon challenged.

    ===================================================

    Many, many months ago I, too, was emoticon challenged but then FFLEO directed me to the following site.

    http://codex.wordpress.org/Using_Smilies

    (Always remember to put a space between your last typed word or punctuation mark before typimg the code for the emoticon … and always put a space after the emoticon code) 8-O

  162. Mike Spindell
    1, March 30, 2011 at 12:00 pm
    “Denial is, however, full of crocodiles.”

    And frogs.

    ===========================================

    Watch what you say about frogs ….

  163. Bob Esq:

    “You call me a sadist, Myers-Briggs calls me an INTP.”

    then why are you a lawyer and not a science guy?

  164. ISTP: “then why are you a lawyer and not a science guy?”

    Ever take time to admire the architecture of the constitution?

  165. Buddha,

    Good article; however I wish the author would have spent a paragraph on the War Powers Resolution issue.

  166. ISTP (50/50 ON THE S)
    1, March 30, 2011 at 12:56 pm
    Bob Esq:

    “You call me a sadist, Myers-Briggs calls me an INTP.”

    then why are you a lawyer and not a science guy?

    Well, Wikipedia has this to say about the reliability of the Myers-Briggs test:

    Some researchers have interpreted the reliability of the test as being low. Studies have found that between 39% and 76% of those tested fall into different types upon retesting some weeks or years later.[13][15]

    So maybe the test got Bob wrong or he’s changed since he took it. My perspective, as someone who has ‘interacted’ with Bob and is a ‘science guy’, is that since Bob thinks that you can trace heat backwards, that work doesn’t convert energy from one form to another (or transfer it from one place to another), that you can’t calculate or measure the value of a conserved quantity (energy), and can’t tell the difference between bona fide scientific journals and vanity publications with no real peer review process he would make a pretty poor ‘science guy’. After all, ignorance, stupidity, and intellectual dishonesty are not traits that scientific departments prize in their students. Besides, he’s so masterful with his silver-tongued lies and dishonest spin, how could he be anything other than a lawyer? (By which I mean to imply that the best liars become lawyers, not that all lawyers are liars – you can never be too careful which Bob is lurking around looking to twist your words… – although this comment is not directed at Bob, so, as I understand his logic, he has no reason to respond to it.)

    Bob first proudly brought up his ‘INTP’ status saying:

    I didn’t answer because I objected to the form of the question. Slarti, in case I haven’t told you before, I’m a Meyers-Briggs INTP/INTJ. What does that mean? It means, for purposes here, that I’m normally an affable guy until someone violates a PRINCIPLE or calls a principle into question without foundation.

    The ‘principle’ I violated was using Ockham’s razor in the manner in which it is generally used by scientists. After explaining to Bob (with citations) that I was using Ockham’s razor in the manner in which it is typically used in science; that my usage was entirely correct – AT LENGTH; and so was not, in fact, violating any principle; and that, furthermore, he was in violation of the mathematics of the heat equation; as well as the law of conservation of energy (he wouldn’t even accept James Joule’s understanding of the topic – the man that has the STANDARD UNIT FOR ENERGY NAMED AFTER HIM!); and that I, too, am an affable guy until someone violates a principle or calls a principle into question without foundation; and asked him to kindly correct himself and stipulate as to the facts (I may have been somewhat less polite in doing so… ;-)) his response was to demonstrate his integrity by completely ignoring my argument and, to the best of my knowledge, never utter another peep about his treasured INTP status again in the discussion. I hope this sheds some light on your question.

    Mike S,

    I’ve greatly enjoyed your comments on this thread (as I usually do… ;-)). I just wanted to mention, apropos of nothing, that whenever I think of intellectually dishonest liars who use rhetorical talent to misrepresent their opponent in a way that brings to mind the worst traits of unethical lawyers, I think of Bob. I would also note, for no particular reason, that while Bob may have made his post less than an hour after I posted coincidentally (which I allowed was possible, but believe to be unlikely), it was unquestionably an attack.

    Given your interesting psychological insights in the past, I’m curious as to your take on Bob’s INTP fixation. His comments on the topic of his precious always struck me as odd, though I’m not sure why…

    Bob,

    Architecture (of buildings or the Constitution) is an art and not a science.

    All,

    Sorry for this foray into an abstruse fight that no one cares about, but I felt it was necessary to point out how Bob has used this INTP BS in the past…

  167. Smacking down Bob: 1 hour’s time

    Using Wikipedia to do it :D: free

    Ockham’s razor callback: free

    Calling Bob out on his prior INTP BS: a couple of minutes to find and copy the quote (much of it waiting for the page to load… ;-))

    Bob hoist on his own petard: priceless

  168. Bob Esq:

    “Ever take time to admire the architecture of the constitution?”

    I will admit, they did do a good job and it does take a good mind to ferret out all the details/minutia and the underlying works that are the basis.

    I see your point. Architecture is a pretty good analogy to the Constitution.

    The Constitution has:

    1. a philosophical foundation in the Enlightenment and the rights of man.
    2. a superstructure based on protecting the individual.
    3. a roof that covers all men/women.

    This is simplistic but very much like architecture.

  169. Not to stick my nose in something that I haven’t had the time to read all the way through, but I can speak to the first few posts.

    Bob,

    Grow up.

    As I’m sure you know, I agree with you about President Obama more than I agree with Slarti. That doesn’t mean you’re not acting like a school-yard bully, and not a particularly good one at that.

    “What’s a million plus a million?”
    “Two million”
    “What you think you’re smarter than me?”

    There are two reasons to bring Slarti up: goad him into responding, so you can have the sport of an argument; make fun of him behind his back. Neither of which is particularly adult behavior, and as Mike pointed out, the first is a pretty good match to trolling.

    Slarti,

    There’s a right way to do double parenthetical statements (this [the part between the opening {first} and closing {second} set of parentheses {smooth curves}] is an example) and a wrong way (not really wrong (as in forbidden by rules of grammar (of the more modern sort)) just hard to read (without a clear visual cue it’s hard to see which statement is being closed (see))). You’re welcome

    Also, check out my blog. It’s got my chili recipe.

  170. Slarti: “I would also note, for no particular reason, that while Bob may have made his post less than an hour after I posted coincidentally (which I allowed was possible, but believe to be unlikely), it was unquestionably an attack.”

    When I say:

    Buddha,

    [I] don’t think you get it.

    The liberal apologist credo:

    When the economy is bad, the president can do whatever he wants.

    Or…

    Better a democratic tyrant than a republican.

    Just ask Slarti.

    ====

    I’m using you, Slarti, as an example, dare I say archetype, of the shameless liberal apologist. The context clearly shows that I couldn’t give a rat’s ass if you read it or not; thus clearly not an attack.

    Those arguments are yours; they are preposterous, bereft of any morals whatsoever and you own them.

    They also illustrate the complete lack of integrity in your reasoning; note the topic of this thread.

    Also the reason I posted this:
    ====
    J. Turley: “We have a political system that is now entirely devoid of principle. The only thing remaining is blind allegiance to personalities. It is no longer the war that matters but the man who ordered it.”

    According to Slarti, this is morally acceptable.
    ===

    And how do you defend yourself? You don’t. Trite as it may sound, you simply accuse me of the things you’re doing while allegedly confessing my sins.

    Informal fallacy question number 1: How are these personality traits you accuse me of responsible for your reasoning?

    Reasoning question number 1: You keep CLAIMING I possess these awful personality traits, yet you expect the audience to accept your claims simply because you say so in the form of a personal attack.

    Let’s review:

    Arguing is reason giving.
    1. Reasons are justifications or support for claims.
    2. Rationality is the ability to engage in reason giving.
    3. The alternative to reason giving is to accept or reject claims on whim or command.

    I don’t Kevin, how rational is it to attempt to defend your a-rational liberal apologetics by just lashing out at me?

    Thank you for proving my point.

  171. Gyges,

    I don’t say this often, but you’re dead wrong.

    Slarti is the only poster here who ever laid out the “reasoning” behind his apologetics. Thus the reason I always flash back to him, the archetypical liberal apologist, whenever Obama follows in the footsteps of Bush.

    The comment was to Buddha; period.

  172. Bob,

    Then you apparently don’t read Swarthmore Mom’s posts, or Mike S’s, amoung others who have numerous times explained why they still consider Obama better than the alternatives.

    At any rate, given the rest of that comment, and your well known attitude towards Slarti, it’s a pretty safe bet that there was a distinctly unfavorable implication meant. So, “make fun of him behind his back” covers your explanation fairly well.

  173. Bob,
    I don’t remember if I have laid out my “apologetics” for leaning to Obama if there is no other suitable progressive who can beat the right wing fanatics that the Teapublicans are propping up, on this thread; but I have also laid it out in the past.

  174. Slarti and Bob,

    In re: Occam’s Razor.

    I’m only going to say this once.

    During the original argument in question, I should point out that at one point both of you were contextually misapplying Occam’s Razor.

    1) The original answer as to why using Occam’s Razor as a standard of judgment is an incorrect application of the tool is here: http://jonathanturley.org/2009/12/09/one-hundred-and-twenty-percent-of-people-cant-be-wrong-fox-news-shows-people-are-dubious-about-the-accuracy-of-global-warming-science-with-a-poll-showing-120-percent-of-people-are-skeptical/#comment-134827

    2) It’s a long comment, so I’ll summarize: the gist of the difference was that Slarti was applying the razor like a scientist (correctly) and Bob was applying it like a logician (correctly), while both of you were appealing to it (incorrectly) as a standard of judgment when it’s a tool for triage between competing theories and simplification,

    and, last but most certainly not least . . .

    3) I’ve heard all of this pissing match before.

    That is all I have to say about that.

    Now how about let’s not let this thread stray from today’s salient issue, which is of course, Obama yet again violating the Constitution he swore to protect.

  175. rafflaw,

    It’s one thing to confess to having to choose between the lesser of two evils; it’s quite another to do so by turning nearly every principle of reasoning, law and morals on its head in attempting to justify the choice.

    When Obama violates the constitution, you don’t try to defend him by saying the economy is bad or Bush did it first. I don’t see you arguing that the transgressions/tyranny of Obama are to be ignored until the world recognizes the transgressions/tyranny of Bush first.

    If you had made arguments like that rafflaw, I would have called you on it too.

  176. And Buddha,

    Thank you for correcting Slarti’s representation about my concerns regarding the law of parsimony.

  177. I don’t understand why anyone needs to be defensive about not wanting this current crop of right wing republicans to take the senate and the white house.

  178. I don’t understand why anyone needs to be defensive about not wanting to vote for anybody from any party who violates the Constitution.

    But then again, I’m not being defensive, merely resolute.

  179. The other term used is Turd Sandwhich

    Savannah Guthrie was part of the ‘panel’ on Meet The Press this past Sunday and she gave us all one for the video clip file. This was all happening in advance of the President’s Monday night address to the nation.

    ‘And the President is obviously not happy with his set of choices. One person told me, in a meeting he called this military action in Libya a ‘turd sandwich’ but he was quoting one of his national security aides who likes to use that term.’

  180. Swarthmore mom,

    “Your side is saying the rebels are members of al queda Bachmann said it yesterday.”

    Bachmann Copies Qaddafi’s Talking Points, Makes Serious Foreign Policy Blunder

    Submitted by Brian on March 25, 2011 – 6:55am

    While appearing on Bryan Fischer’s radio show, Rep. Michele Bachmann (R-MN) claimed that Americans should worry that the terrorist groups Hamas, Hezbollah, and al Qaeda may be behind the rebellion against Libyan dictator Muammar Qaddafi. Bachmann said:

    I have been very reluctant to see the United States to go into Libya. For one thing, we haven’t identified yet who the opposition even is to Qaddafi. We don’t know if this is led by Hamas, Hezbollah, or possibly al Qaeda of North Africa. Are we really better off, are United States, our interests better off, if let’s say Al-Qaeda of North Africa now runs Libya?

    Such a statement is stunning coming from a congresswoman who is poised to run for president and was recently appointed to a seat on the House Intelligence Committee. While it is true that there is some confusion over who is in charge of the rebellion, it is clear who is not:

    Hamas is a Palestinian terrorist group in charge of Gaza engaged in a conflict with both the state of Israel and the Palestinian Authority. According to the State Department, the group’s “strength is concentrated in the Gaza Strip and a few areas of the West Bank” and has a goal of “establishing an Islamic Palestinian state in place of Israel.” There is absolutely no evidence or reason that the Palestinian group is tied to the rebellion in Libya, especially since Qaddafi has called for a violent rebellion against Israel.

    Hezbollah is a radical Shiite organization based in Lebanon backed by Iran and Syria. According to the CIA World Factbook, 97% of Libyans are Sunni Muslims, and again, there is no reason to believe that a Lebanese Shiite terrorist group is behind the anti-Qaddafi movement.

    Lastly, the only people who believe that al Qaeda is behind the rebellion in Libya appear to be Muammar Qaddafi…and Bryan Fischer. Qaddafi said that al Qaeda terrorists “give [youth] pills at night; they put hallucinatory pills in their drinks, their milk, their coffee, their Nescafe.” However, Qaddafi’s assertions have no credibility, and the rebel’s transitional council which has been recognized by France even said they seek to create a “democratic and secular” state and recently held a parade waving placards thanking the U.S., U.K., France and other coalition allies.

    By conflating different terrorist groups, Bachmann displayed stunning ignorance regarding the Middle East.

    http://www.rightwingwatch.org/content/bachmann-copies-qaddafis-talking-points-makes-serious-foreign-policy-blunder

    ——————————————————

    What would expect from a woman who thinks the Revolutionary War started in New Hampshire and the Founding Fathers did everything in their power to eradicate slavery …

  181. Swarthmore,

    I think you and Mike S did it best, and have been most consistent. I still disagree with you, but I respect the process you used to reach your conclusion, and think that you apply that process consistently.

    The same holds true for Slart, and the others on this blog by the way. I don’t consider many of you Obama loyalists (I’ve seen them other places) I believe most of you just prioritize things differently.

    Bob,

    Well I doubt either one of us is going to convince the other. I’ve had my say, and am content to let it stand on its own.

  182. Swarthmore mom,

    So Admiral James Stavridis, commander of NATO forces, is on Bdaman’s side?

    Fascinating.

  183. Buddha, Your state has turned pretty much solid red as has mine. Looking for votes in those swing states like Florida and Ohio. Among constitutional lawyers, there are certainly differing opinions on whether Obama has violated the constitution.

  184. I need to correct an error. Previously, I said that Bob was smart enough to know the difference between accepting that something is true and condoning it – apparently I was mistaken.

    Professor Turley said: “We have a political system that is now entirely devoid of principle.”

    I agreed with this premise (not saying anything about its morality) and went on to disagree with the rest of the statement. Bob’s response seems to be to repeat the original slur as often as he possibly can (an example of the ‘big lie’ technique, I might add). I can only conclude that either Bob is an idiot or that he is so fundamentally dishonest that he believes his own lies. There may be another explanation, but I don’t see it…

    Gyges,

    Thank {you] for)} correcting [me {in regard}] to {[(parenthetical statements)]} () I )will endeavor( to do (}better in{) the future…)]})]} (I don’t know why I hadn’t been doing that before – I’d be happier if writing was more like computer programming [in that a sentence didn’t ‘work’ until you got the syntax right…]) And I did, in fact, ask for your chili recipe. Thanks, I can’t wait to try it out…

    Bob,

    I believe that the existential crisis we face right now is economic, not Constitutional. I hope that you are right that the biggest problem we have is that President Obama is getting us into another unConstitutional war – but I fear that history will prove me the wiser. The fact the you take my differing value judgement and use it to try and dishonestly paint me as unethical (never explaining why I am only allowed to have the same opinion as you) reflects only poorly on yourself. Are you that much of a bigot that you’re willing to use any tactic to suppress differing opinions or do you hold a grudge against me?

    Buddha,

    Given Bob’s accusations towards me and the fact that discussing the relative importance of President Obama’s actions are relevant to the topic, I don’t think this pissing match is off topic. In fact, I’d say the question of whether or not one should vote for President Obama is the implied central question of the thread. And whether Bob was intentionally baiting me into this exchange, or casually slandering me, I stand by everything I’ve said. As to Ockham’s razor, you are entirely correct, but the point that I was making is that Bob originally attacked me because he incorrectly perceived me to have violated OR (which, as you point out, I did not do [furthermore, I explained at the time how I was using it and gave sources as to my usage being a standard one]). I can’t help but find this relevant to Bob’s baiting attack or casual slander using another (I can only assume intentional) misrepresentation. Bob is using dishonest bullying tactics to advance his opinion in lieu of rational argument and I’m not going to feel ashamed for defending myself.

  185. I would guess that some rebels are Al Qaeda.

    Algeria had many competing factions during their war with France in the early 60’s. The bad guys stepped up after the fighting was done and the French were gone and took over Algeria.

    It would seem that Al Qaeda is poised to do the same thing in Libya. They will trade one dictator for another.

  186. “I would guess that some rebels are Al Qaeda.”

    Thankfully, no one is asking, nor does anyone care, what you or Bat-Sh*t Bachmann, would guess.

  187. Bob, Guess not. Here is a quote from the Admiral, “At this point I do not have details sufficient to say there is a significant presence of al Qaeda or any other terrorist present”.

  188. Slart,

    My record 7 nested parenthetical statements (an aside to an aside to an aside to an aside to an aside to an aside to an aside). I felt like Hegel.

  189. “Among constitutional lawyers, there are certainly differing opinions on whether Obama has violated the constitution.”

    Really?

    “U.S. Constitution, Art. I, Sec. 8 – The Powers of Congress

    . . . To declare War, grant Letters of Marque and Reprisal, and make Rules concerning Captures on Land and Water;”

    Contrast with the powers of the President found solely in Article II.

    “Article II – The Executive Branch Note

    Section 1 – The President Note1 Note2

    The executive Power shall be vested in a President of the United States of America. He shall hold his Office during the Term of four Years, and, together with the Vice-President chosen for the same Term, be elected, as follows:

    Each State shall appoint, in such Manner as the Legislature thereof may direct, a Number of Electors, equal to the whole Number of Senators and Representatives to which the State may be entitled in the Congress: but no Senator or Representative, or Person holding an Office of Trust or Profit under the United States, shall be appointed an Elector.

    (The Electors shall meet in their respective States, and vote by Ballot for two persons, of whom one at least shall not lie an Inhabitant of the same State with themselves. And they shall make a List of all the Persons voted for, and of the Number of Votes for each; which List they shall sign and certify, and transmit sealed to the Seat of the Government of the United States, directed to the President of the Senate. The President of the Senate shall, in the Presence of the Senate and House of Representatives, open all the Certificates, and the Votes shall then be counted. The Person having the greatest Number of Votes shall be the President, if such Number be a Majority of the whole Number of Electors appointed; and if there be more than one who have such Majority, and have an equal Number of Votes, then the House of Representatives shall immediately chuse by Ballot one of them for President; and if no Person have a Majority, then from the five highest on the List the said House shall in like Manner chuse the President. But in chusing the President, the Votes shall be taken by States, the Representation from each State having one Vote; a quorum for this Purpose shall consist of a Member or Members from two-thirds of the States, and a Majority of all the States shall be necessary to a Choice. In every Case, after the Choice of the President, the Person having the greatest Number of Votes of the Electors shall be the Vice President. But if there should remain two or more who have equal Votes, the Senate shall chuse from them by Ballot the Vice-President.) (This clause in parentheses was superseded by the 12th Amendment.)

    The Congress may determine the Time of chusing the Electors, and the Day on which they shall give their Votes; which Day shall be the same throughout the United States.

    No person except a natural born Citizen, or a Citizen of the United States, at the time of the Adoption of this Constitution, shall be eligible to the Office of President; neither shall any Person be eligible to that Office who shall not have attained to the Age of thirty-five Years, and been fourteen Years a Resident within the United States.

    (In Case of the Removal of the President from Office, or of his Death, Resignation, or Inability to discharge the Powers and Duties of the said Office, the same shall devolve on the Vice President, and the Congress may by Law provide for the Case of Removal, Death, Resignation or Inability, both of the President and Vice President, declaring what Officer shall then act as President, and such Officer shall act accordingly, until the Disability be removed, or a President shall be elected.) (This clause in parentheses has been modified by the 20th and 25th Amendments.)

    The President shall, at stated Times, receive for his Services, a Compensation, which shall neither be increased nor diminished during the Period for which he shall have been elected, and he shall not receive within that Period any other Emolument from the United States, or any of them.

    Before he enter on the Execution of his Office, he shall take the following Oath or Affirmation:

    “I do solemnly swear (or affirm) that I will faithfully execute the Office of President of the United States, and will to the best of my Ability, preserve, protect and defend the Constitution of the United States.”

    Section 2 – Civilian Power over Military, Cabinet, Pardon Power, Appointments

    The President shall be Commander in Chief of the Army and Navy of the United States, and of the Militia of the several States, when called into the actual Service of the United States; he may require the Opinion, in writing, of the principal Officer in each of the executive Departments, upon any subject relating to the Duties of their respective Offices, and he shall have Power to Grant Reprieves and Pardons for Offenses against the United States, except in Cases of Impeachment.

    He shall have Power, by and with the Advice and Consent of the Senate, to make Treaties, provided two thirds of the Senators present concur; and he shall nominate, and by and with the Advice and Consent of the Senate, shall appoint Ambassadors, other public Ministers and Consuls, Judges of the supreme Court, and all other Officers of the United States, whose Appointments are not herein otherwise provided for, and which shall be established by Law: but the Congress may by Law vest the Appointment of such inferior Officers, as they think proper, in the President alone, in the Courts of Law, or in the Heads of Departments.

    The President shall have Power to fill up all Vacancies that may happen during the Recess of the Senate, by granting Commissions which shall expire at the End of their next Session.

    Section 3 – State of the Union, Convening Congress

    He shall from time to time give to the Congress Information of the State of the Union, and recommend to their Consideration such Measures as he shall judge necessary and expedient; he may, on extraordinary Occasions, convene both Houses, or either of them, and in Case of Disagreement between them, with Respect to the Time of Adjournment, he may adjourn them to such Time as he shall think proper; he shall receive Ambassadors and other public Ministers; he shall take Care that the Laws be faithfully executed, and shall Commission all the Officers of the United States.

    Section 4 – Disqualification

    The President, Vice President and all civil Officers of the United States, shall be removed from Office on Impeachment for, and Conviction of, Treason, Bribery, or other high Crimes and Misdemeanors.”

    Note that nowhere in Art. II is the President given the power to declare war – that power being reserved to solely to Congress with the words “Section 8 – Powers of Congress – The Congress shall have Power . . . To declare War, grant Letters of Marque and Reprisal, and make Rules concerning Captures on Land and Water;”

    That’s pretty clear and clean use of the English language. The President’s powers are found in Unless Barry has changed his name to Congress, I have a word for those other “Constitutional scholars”.

    Wrong.

    Oh, and illiterate.

    And partisan apologist hacks.

    So I guess that’s several words for your alleged “scholars”.

  190. One final thing…

    Bob,

    I’m sure that when I first expressed my views on this topic I did so ineloquently and you can be easily forgiven for misunderstanding my reasoning (I’m sure you look at everything I say in the worst possible light), but I have since, repeatedly, explained why you are mistaken and constantly repeating something that you know to be incorrect makes you little more that a pathetic homage to Fox News. Now I’m actually leaving this discussion (as I’m pretty sure that everyone knows were I stand whether you will admit it or not) – if you want to keep slandering me, that’s your business, but I don’t think that it’s making anyone more sympathetic to your argument (or lack thereof).

  191. Slarti: “I agreed with this premise (not saying anything about its morality) and went on to disagree with the rest of the statement. Bob’s response seems to be to repeat the original slur as often as he possibly can (an example of the ‘big lie’ technique, I might add). I can only conclude that either Bob is an idiot or that he is so fundamentally dishonest that he believes his own lies. There may be another explanation, but I don’t see it…

    Kevin,

    My argument had nothing to do with you accepting a premise or J.T’s statement. I was merely using JT’s quote to illustrate how you, and so many others, are have abandoned principle all together in your apologetic support for Obama.

    to wit:
    ===
    J. Turley: “We have a political system that is now entirely devoid of principle. The only thing remaining is blind allegiance to personalities. It is no longer the war that matters but the man who ordered it.”

    According to Slarti, this is morally acceptable.

    ===

    Your arguments are bereft of integrity and principle simply because you made the MAN, Obama, not the law, reason or morals, the foundation for your reasoning.

    There’s no problem with your reasoning, because I’m a liar and an idiot?

    Once again you’ve attacked me instead of fortifying or defending your position.

  192. Slarti: “I believe that the existential crisis we face right now is economic”

    That doesn’t change our metaphysics of morals.

    And you know better.

    You admit to intentionally altering your process of legal and moral reasoning to suit a particular man that you happen to like.

    I’m saying you’re CATEGORICALLY WRONG to do so.

    “Adopt only that maxim that you would will to become a universal law.”

    Do you really think the judicial system would survive acting like you?

  193. Slarti,

    “I was making is that Bob originally attacked me because he incorrectly perceived me to have violated OR (which, as you point out, I did not do [furthermore, I explained at the time how I was using it and gave sources as to my usage being a standard one]).”

    Then apparently you missed the gist of the original post where I provided cites to show that you were incorrectly applying Occam’s Razor as a standard of judgment, which may not have been Bob’s then non-elucidated claim you were misusing the tool, but it most certainly was mine. Re-read the original post if you doubt this.

    In fact, BOTH of you were misusing Occam’s Razor in the very same fashion.

    Bad tool using monkeys!

    That being said . . .

    As to you two waving your dicks at each other, I’m putting you both on notice that in the future that I prefer to be left out of your differences and shall use the pointy stick on the next one of you who tries to draw me in. You’re both my friends. I have no compunction about cudgeling either of you equally and fairly to be left out of it.

  194. Can’t we all just get a long and quit the snipping….this feels like a campaign after exhausting work….Be nice…the fight has yet to begin….and if we keep our heads level…well….we can communicate better and maybe make points people will actually read rather than skim or ignore….

  195. Buddha, I don’t claim to be a constitutional scholar as you are, but I do know that what constitutes a war is being debated among constitutional lawyers.

  196. “That’s pretty clear and clean use of the English language. The President’s powers are found in Art. II solely and not Art. I. Unless . . .”

  197. A former leader of Libya’s al Qaeda affiliate says he thinks “freelance jihadists” have joined the rebel forces, as NATO’s commander told Congress on Tuesday that intelligence indicates some al Qaeda and Hezbollah terrorists are fighting Col. Moammar Gadhafi’s forces.

    Former jihadist Noman Benotman, who renounced his al Qaeda affiliation in 2000, said in an interview that he estimates 1,000 jihadists are in Libya.

    On Capitol Hill, Adm. James Stavridis, the NATO commander, when asked about the presence of al Qaeda terrorists among the rebels, said the leadership of the opposition is made up of “responsible men and women.”

    “We have seen flickers in the intelligence of potential al Qaeda, Hezbollah,” the four-star admiral said. “We’ve seen different things. But at this point, I don’t have detail sufficient to say that there’s a significant al Qaeda presence, or any other terrorist presence, in and among these folks.”

    http://www.washingtontimes.com/news/2011/mar/29/1000-freelance-jihadists-join-libyan-rebels/#

  198. Swarthmore mom,

    My point is simply this: we still don’t know the demographics of the rebels yet. But we do know what’s come from eastern Libya in the past.

    Is this a right v. left problem? No.

    It’s a problem of jumping into a Civil War when you don’t even know if the people you’re supporting will remain your allies when the fighting’s over.

  199. war \ˈwȯr\, n.,

    1a (1) : a state of usually open and declared armed hostile conflict between states or nations (2) : a period of such armed conflict (3) : state of war b : the art or science of warfare c (1) obsolete : weapons and equipment for war (2) archaic : soldiers armed and equipped for war

    2a : a state of hostility, conflict, or antagonism b : a struggle or competition between opposing forces or for a particular end

    The primary difference between definition 1 and 2 is the matter of declaration. A declaration that by the clear terms of the Constitution the Congress is required to provide and the President cannot unilaterally decide. Unilateral declaration of war – even if you call it by some euphemistic bullshit name like “police action” or ““a time-limited, scope-limited military action”?

    That’s the action of an Emperor, a Totalitarian Dictator or a King.

    In all other respects but the rightful and legal declaration of war from Congress, the actions taken in Libya are by definition a war.

  200. Since, in my opinion, Mike Appleton has summed up the problem with our war in Libya better than Glenn Greenwald, perhaps a re-reading of his post will bring focus back to the discussion:

    Mike Appleton 1, March 29, 2011 at 8:52 pm

    There have been a lot of strong opinions on this topic. I earlier noted my view that our actions in Libya are yet another example of American imperialism. In my opinion, the debate should focus on the rule of law and the President is acting illegally.

    I’m sure people are tired of hearing me say it, but I voted for Pres. Obama because he promised to restore the rule of law. He abandoned that pledge as soon as he took the oath of office. I will not vote for him again for that reason.

    The launch of a military assault by one sovereign nation against another sovereign nation is an act of war. It does not become something else because it is carried out pursuant to a U.N. resolution or because it is described as a “humanitarian” endeavor. Euphemisms are useful cloaks for hypocrisy.

    The President of the United States is without legal authority to declare war by virtue of his position as Commander in Chief. That power is reserved to Congress. That Congress has increasingly ceded its war-making authority to the executive branch does not constitute a license to the President to act unilaterally. The violation by one branch of government of its constitutional responsibilities does not excuse or justify violations of the Constitution by another branch.

    But even were the President authorized to take military action on his own, moral reasoning requires something more than a determination that the intentional taking of human life “will advance the interests” of this country. That is a virtual definition of imperialism. Have we become so swept up in the false notion of American exceptionalism that we actually believe we possess a cultural and moral superiority that endows our actions with legitimacy?

    Our actions in Libya are also practically irresponsible. We cannot formulate a coherent foreign policy based upon ad hoc “tyrant du jour” rationales. Military involvement in a civil war cannot be conducted on the basis of evening the odds, as though we were some sort of disinterested neutrals. Our approach is rather like conducting a Rotary club fundraiser, where we organize an event, conduct it, present a check to the lucky charity and go home. Protecting civilians in a civil war is not a project; it requires taking sides.

    Our actions in Libya are also cruel because they have created a false hope among people who are putting their lives on the line that we will continue to keep the odds “even.” Video and photos of Libyan rebels remind me of photographs of Okie caravans filled with poor people with shotguns. Enthusiasm is no match for professionalism. When the reality of fighting trained soldiers creates great loss of life, will our government tell the rebels that we did our part by evening the odds? What will we do when the need for troops on the ground becomes overwhelmingly obvious?

    Our actions in Libya are shortsighted for many other reasons as well, of course. For example, what happens when civil unrest in Bahrain creates a nascent rebel movement and we are asked to “neutralize” the Saudi air force sent to bomb the rebels?

    Pres. Obama has approached this issue much as he has approached most domestic issues, by equating “half-assed” and “moderate.” Only this time he has also broken the law and has become everything we despised in his predecessor.

  201. Bob, Jumping into the war is not a right or left problem but the reasons people are against it seem to be breaking that way. The left is anti-war and the right finds al-Qaeda under every bush.

  202. I’m not necessarily anti-war. I’m pro-Constitution. Sometimes war is necessary. In this circumstance, it was not. Just like it was unnecessary to invade Iraq. But at least Bush fraudulently obtained Congressional approval for that one of his crime.

  203. Buddha,

    “But at least Bush fraudulently obtained Congressional approval for that one of his crime.”

    Wasn’t that approval contingent on criteria Bush failed to meet (something to do with the U.N.)?

  204. SL from your link you provided.

    I have been very reluctant to see the United States to go into Libya. For one thing, we haven’t identified yet who the opposition even is to Qaddafi. We don’t know if this is led by Hamas, Hezbollah, or possibly al Qaeda of North Africa. Are we really better off, are United States, our interests better off, if let’s say Al-Qaeda of North Africa now runs Libya?

    She said we don’t know and we haven’t identified. Sounds like the same thing the Admiral said to me. I could be wrong.

  205. bdman,

    “Bob,Esq.
    1, March 30, 2011 at 5:56 pm”

    —————————————————–

    Stamford Liberal
    1, March 30, 2011 at 5:57 pm

    As far as Bat-Sh*t Bachmann’s concerned, the point of the article is that when it comes to foreign policy, in particular, the Middle East, Bachmann’s as ignorant of it as she is of this country’s own history.

    “By conflating different terrorist groups, Bachmann displayed stunning ignorance regarding the Middle East.”

    Reread the post.

  206. Gyges,

    That would be the one.

    Something about links to some terrorist group out of Saudi Arabia and WMD’s.

  207. Reread the post.

    I did. She said we don’t know and we haven’t identified. Sounds like the same thing the Admiral said to me.

  208. In a Senate hearing Tuesday, U.S. Adm. James Stavridis, the North Atlantic Treaty Organization’s supreme allied commander in Europe, said intelligence agencies had picked up “flickers” of an al Qaeda presence among Libyan opposition fighters. He also mentioned links to Hezbollah, the Iranian-backed, Lebanon-based militant group.

  209. Bdaman,

    Sigh … again, the point of the article was her lack of knowledge of the Middle East. Remember, Bat-Sh*t wants to play president one day. In particular,

    “While it is true that there is some confusion over who is in charge of the rebellion, it is clear who is not:

    Hamas is a Palestinian terrorist group in charge of Gaza engaged in a conflict with both the state of Israel and the Palestinian Authority. According to the State Department, the group’s “strength is concentrated in the Gaza Strip and a few areas of the West Bank” and has a goal of “establishing an Islamic Palestinian state in place of Israel.” There is absolutely no evidence or reason that the Palestinian group is tied to the rebellion in Libya, especially since Qaddafi has called for a violent rebellion against Israel.

    Hezbollah is a radical Shiite organization based in Lebanon backed by Iran and Syria. According to the CIA World Factbook, 97% of Libyans are Sunni Muslims, and again, there is no reason to believe that a Lebanese Shiite terrorist group is behind the anti-Qaddafi movement.

    Lastly, the only people who believe that al Qaeda is behind the rebellion in Libya appear to be Muammar Qaddafi…and Bryan Fischer. Qaddafi said that al Qaeda terrorists “give [youth] pills at night; they put hallucinatory pills in their drinks, their milk, their coffee, their Nescafe.” However, Qaddafi’s assertions have no credibility, and the rebel’s transitional council which has been recognized by France even said they seek to create a “democratic and secular” state and recently held a parade waving placards thanking the U.S., U.K., France and other coalition allies.”

    The point being that not all terrorist groups are the same. The only thing they have in common is the infliction of terror, but their reasonings for it are not one and the same.

  210. I would have to imagine that if she wants to play president, she should at least have a working knowledge of the politics in the Middle East … don’t you?

  211. Bob,

    Here’s my position:

    A=’We have a political system that is now entirely devoid of principle.’

    B=’The only thing remaining is blind allegiance to personalities.’

    C=’It is no longer the war that matters but the man who ordered it.’

    D=’???????’

    E=I accept A as true (at least there are precious few counterexamples…)

    F=I assert that B is not true because there is a large difference between Republicans being in charge and Democrats being in charge.

    G=I assert that the war does, in fact, still matter, but in its proper context with other important issues.

    H=If I were convinced that the war was to achieve valid humanitarian goals which were well-defined and distinctly limited in personnel, time, and cost I would probably have a different opinion of the morality of this war, but my opinion wouldn’t change for another president (although that would change other factors and thus according to the theory of complex dynamical systems and specifically the principle of sensitive dependance on initial conditions I cannot predict how it would change my argument).

    I=Given our current economic conditions, I believe that Republican control of government will result in a Second Great Depression (I give it an 80% chance of happening anyway – that’s nothing more than a wild guess, but I believe it).

    J=In light of ‘I’ I think that supporting Democrats at all levels (as enthusiastically as you can stomach) is the rational thing to do. In particular, I will be voting for President Obama against any of the likely Republican nominees.

    K=’Profit’

    There – I haven’t explained my arguments in exhaustive detail, but that should give you enough context to explain how you think my logic is defective – now you can address my arguments specifically (as you have repeatedly claimed you wanted to do without, you know, actually doing it… I have repeatedly made substantive, concrete arguments in manners such as this to while you have repeatedly responded to them with straw man arguments and slander.

    So thank you for once again outing your true self to all and sundry… continue to call me unethical all you want – coming from you, that is a compliment. Remember that while you are certainly a much better writer than me, me would be ashamed of myself if I had talent like yours and used it in the deceitful manner that you do. Also, you cannot even conceive of having an understanding of science and mathematics as deep as mine (not that that makes me better than you, but I wanted you to know that despite the respect I have for your rhetorical eloquence, I have nothing but disrespect for your scientific understanding and moral compass and wouldn’t trade places with you for the world…).

  212. NOTICE: If I suddenly drop out of this conversation this evening, it is not because I have been disappeared, but rather it is from a BBQ rib induced couch coma. I expect to be entering this endeavor within the next 20-30 minutes and as BBQ sauce and rib juice is hard on the keyboard, I will return later if I am able to rise from my porcine induced torpor. BBQ ribs! Proof there is still love in world.

  213. Wow! I go away for a couple of hours to work and walk the dog and I have missed a lot. Suffice it to say that I agree with AY that we can discuss these issues without rancor and name calling.
    Buddha,
    enjoy your BBQ. The messier they are the better they taste!

  214. “We’ve seen different things. But at this point, I don’t have detail sufficient to say that there’s a significant al Qaeda presence, or any other terrorist presence, in and among these folks.”

    I haven’t taken a census but there are terrorists in Libya and they are anti-American and Islamic. They are probably waiting to take over Libya when the Col. is deposed by US and NATO forces.

    Now that Obama has engaged he has to follow it to the end and depose Qaddafi and try and build a secular government. If he fails at either, he is done in light of his refusal to get congressional approval for this misadventure.

    Sometimes it pays to cover your ass with the Constitution. He should have taken a page from Bush’s book. But then congress already learned that lesson and would have denied him his war. Was he down in the polls when he went to war?

  215. Slarti: “Given our current economic conditions, I believe that Republican control of government will result in a Second Great Depression (I give it an 80% chance of happening anyway – that’s nothing more than a wild guess, but I believe it).”

    You’re probably right Kevin; but it has ABSOLUTELY NOTHING TO DO with the legal and moral culpability of Obama per his ‘policy choices.’ All you did in that post was reiterate, while obfuscating, what you’ve been saying all along.

    As I said before, in apologizing for Obama, you intentionally alter your process of legal and moral reasoning to suit a particular man that you happen to like.

    You know, in reflecting on why I find your [indefensible] position so morally repugnant, my mind drifts back to someone else who did the same thing you’re doing now. That would be Lord Scalia’s concurrence in Bush v. Gore.

    Yet you call me deceitful. Project much?

    “Above all, don’t lie to yourself. The man who lies to himself and listens to his own lie comes to a point that he cannot distinguish the truth within him, or around him, and so loses all respect for himself and for others.” — Fyodor Dostoevsky

  216. Swarthmore mom,

    Like I told Mike Appleton earlier, I find this war incomprehensible.

    I’ve yet to find a clear answer as to how the War Powers Resolution fits into all this.

  217. ISTP (50/50 ON THE S) 1, March 30, 2011 at 3:54 pm

    “I will admit, they did do a good job and it does take a good mind to ferret out all the details/minutia and the underlying works that are the basis.

    I see your point. Architecture is a pretty good analogy to the Constitution.

    The Constitution has:

    1. a philosophical foundation in the Enlightenment and the rights of man.
    2. a superstructure based on protecting the individual.
    3. a roof that covers all men/women.

    This is simplistic but very much like architecture.”

    Actually, the basic architecture typically ignored is the principle that ‘rights confer power; not vice versa.’

    It’s when the people forget that principle that they deem the constitution as the source of their rights; when in fact all the constitution does is delegate, define and restrict the particular powers of the government.

  218. Since I’m not sure how much of this will reach you in your food coma, I’ll boil it down to: you’re right, I’ll play nice as long as Bob does. By the way, if you’ve never had (eastern) Carolina BBQ (shredded pork in a vinegar sauce – tastes much better than it sounds!) you should treat yourself – a heaping pile of BBQ, plenty of home-made hot sauce, hush puppies, and slaw. YUM! It’s the only thing I miss from North Carolina. Well… that and ‘my’ taco stand, NC BBQ and ‘my’ taco stand are all I miss from North Carolina. And this thermos…

    Buddha Is Laughing
    1, March 30, 2011 at 5:51 pm
    Slarti,

    “I was making is that Bob originally attacked me because he incorrectly perceived me to have violated OR (which, as you point out, I did not do [furthermore, I explained at the time how I was using it and gave sources as to my usage being a standard one]).”

    Then apparently you missed the gist of the original post where I provided cites to show that you were incorrectly applying Occam’s Razor as a standard of judgment,

    No. I admitted that you were correct at the time and ceased using Ockham’s R*azor as a standard of judgement (please don’t make me find the post… at least not for a few more days ;-)). But Bob did make the comment about being INTP/JQXLTHX1138 or whatever and argued that he was upset because of what was clearly an erroneous assumption on his part. Furthermore, if Bob is going to continue bringing up the INTP-32-red-24-(set!)-(hut1)-(hut2)-(HIKE!) BS, then I am going to remind him of what he’s said in the past and dropped like a hot potato as soon as he was called on it.

    *Is the ‘R’ supposed to be capitalized or not? Can I get a ruling here? ;-)

    which may not have been Bob’s then non-elucidated claim you were misusing the tool, but it most certainly was mine. Re-read the original post if you doubt this.

    I don’t have to – you were right and I said so then. Buddha right. Bob wrong. Slarti smash!

    In fact, BOTH of you were misusing Occam’s Razor in the very same fashion.

    Bad tool using monkeys!

    s’rry… :oops:

    That being said . . .

    As to you two waving your dicks at each other [Mine’s bigger! :D], I’m putting you both on notice that in the future that I prefer to be left out of your differences and shall use the pointy stick on the next one of you who tries to draw me in. You’re both my friends. I have no compunction about cudgeling either of you equally and fairly to be left out of it.

    Understood. This is the last time I’ll involve you in any comment of mine regarding Bob personally (as opposed to a substantive [and polite :-P] comment regarding one of his arguments).

    Look at my interaction with Bob in terms of game theory. We’re engaging in a alternating voluntary iterated prisoner’s dilemma. It began when Bob said something that I believed to be twaddle (though nowhere near as confidently as I believe it to be twaddle now…). I responded by attacking him via my misunderstanding of a term he used – i.e. I informed on him. He responded with vitriol (justified given my attack). I admitted my error (cooperated) and began an attack (well, a campaign really…) against the substance of his argument. He responded to me, in part, with the INTPmrMXYZPTLK quote, thus making an attack based on a misunderstanding of his own. Then, as they say, hilarity ensued. I have, from time to time, offered an olive branch or two, but it seems that what I receive in return is generally a cold war of silence followed by the eventual renewal of hostilities via an unprovoked baseless sneak attack. My current strategy is more or less to ignore Bob until he attacks me at which point I strike back with the meager tools available to me. What would you recommend?

    Bob,

    I believe that the boat we’re in is surrounded by reefs in a storm in shark-infested water. I think that we should wait until tomorrow (if we survive) to organize a mutiny against the captain. If we survive until tomorrow, I will gladly participate in that mutiny with you (which, I agree, is just). Where is the unethical behavior it that? In contrast, from my perspective, your actions only serve to make it more likely that we don’t live to see tomorrow and stand no chance of fomenting a successful mutiny. In this context, I don’t know if you are dishonest, ignorant, or stupid, but it is definitely at least one. That being said, you are entitled to your opinion – just let me have mine (as opposed to your straw man of my position) and show a little respect (just because your slights and insults are subtler and less direct doesn’t mean I can’t see them for what they are) and I’ll happily address, in a civil fashion, any disagreements you have with my assumptions, my reasoning, or my conclusions on substantive grounds as long as you ditch the disrespect that you cloak in politeness (or just don’t mention me at all if you can’t stomach that). In other words…

    DON’T START NOTHIN’

    WONT BE NOTHIN’

  219. I just had a thought, isn’t Obama advancing Bush’s idea of democracy being a good thing?

    Obama and the implications of the Bush Doctrine in the invasion and occupation of Libya. Coming to a book store near you.

  220. Blouise
    1, March 30, 2011 at 12:48 pm
    Mike Spindell
    1, March 30, 2011 at 12:00 pm
    “Denial is, however, full of crocodiles.”

    And frogs.

    ===========================================

    Watch what you say about frogs ….

    +++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++

    Bob,Esq.
    1, March 30, 2011 at 2:16 pm
    Mighty kind of you Blouise.

    +++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++

    Bob,Esq.
    1, March 30, 2011 at 4:48 pm
    I guess I was mocking him behind his back; but I sure as shit wasn’t attacking him or goading him.

    =======================================================

    Bob,Esq.,

    I have to admit that I was a bit surprised when Mike Spindell came out so strongly against you but figured it must have something to do with “relationship issues” that occurred before I came came on the blog. I don’t like to get into the middle of something I don’t understand.

    I took your initial words to Buddha about Slarti in the way that you described them above (March 30, 2011 at 4:48 pm) and hoped you would intuit my support for you on that matter when I quipped about frogs to Mike S. (When you and Slarti go at it, each gives and gets as good as the other and I block out all the personal stuff in favor of the meat of the argument. I guess I have to learn to do that with you and Mike Spindell too.)

    I was pleasantly surprised when Slarti appeared because I miss his presence.

    As to the issue you and Buddha introduced about Presidential powers and the Constitution … well it steered me to the War Powers Act of ’73 (your initial suggestion) and then to other interpretations and so on.

    After much reading I came to agree with you and Buddha as to the violation and could reinforce that agreement after Buddha gave me the list of Presidents he believed acted within Constitutional bounds since 1900 as I had, through my readings, arrived at the same conclusions about past presidents.

    Pete posted a very interesting link concerning this entire matter which also colored my opinion as to the mess created by the CIA and the oil companies in Libya (March 29, 2011 at 1:41 am).

    As an aside: I wish pete and HenMan would get an avatar … make it a lot easier to find their posts.

    My position on voting for Obama has not changed and there I am perfectly aligned with SwM and Elaine and will not bother to repeat the reasons and feel no need to justify them. I will tell you this … the women issue is huge.

    Through my daughters I am in touch with many young professional women and the Republican’s war against women is really playing badly with them. Republicans are losing votes in that demographic right and left. Last month my daughter left an extremely high paying job because she was sick and tired of the “fraternity club” atmosphere. She went to a different corporation for an increase in salary but mainly because it was more “female friendly”. When the original company countered with more money, she politely refused and couldn’t wait to get out the door. During the month she has been gone four other upper management females have opted to follow her lead in shaking the dust of “fraternity club” corporations from their Fendi’s. That’s the business world … the Republicans Party, like “fraternity club” corporations have no idea how seriously women take their war on us. It’s a gift to the democrats that just keeps on giving.

    Thus I am in agreement with you and Buddha about the Constitutional issue and at odds with you and Buddha about voting for Obama … reality.

  221. Rafflaw,

    Care to play traffic cop for a second? Exactly what did I say to warrant that nearly incomprehensible attack by Slarti just now?

    Have I not been civil? Have I not been precise in delineating the problems I have with Slarti’s reasoning; i.e. not resorting to name calling?

    Do you have any idea how his post(s) address anything I’ve been saying?

    A little help?

  222. Blouise,

    I’m sorry that I can’t stay, but Bob has long since exhausted the benefit of my doubt and from my point of view his statement was clearly an unprovoked attack. Maybe one day he will learn that I leave these discussions because he’s not worth spending my time on, not because I can’t address his arguments. I’ve said what I wanted to say and I’ve seen no indication that Bob wants to have a substantive or civilized debate so I think that the best thing that I can do right now is to just stop responding to him.

    Have a good night…

  223. Can.

    Barely.

    Type.

    Slarti,

    Deal.

    And on the subject of BBQ, I’ve had and appreciate most types of regional BBQ. Carolina style is okay . . . but Kansas City is still King! Especially if you are a connoisseur of the beef rib. Mmmmmm. Fresh cow spot.

    That being sais, even the worst day of BBQ is better than the best day of lutefisk.
    ______

    Blouise,

    Like I said earlier, I do not expect anyone but me to follow my ethical guidelines regarding this issue with the possible exception of other lawyers, who if they take their oath seriously, won’t vote for [Obama] either. Since you are not a lawyer, I do not begrudge your choice. It is, however, a choice I am ethically constrained from making in Obama’s favor.

  224. More damn snow … I’m putting another log on the fire.

    Sending positive thoughts to your mom.

    Yea I see and now it looks like an April Fools snow storm for the NE coming up. At least you don’t live in California where the snow pack is so deep they have officially ended the drought.

    Mom, on a fentinall patch with 15 mg morphine chaser as needed.
    Pain management doctor to start a series of six shots in the lower back over the next six weeks. He says he thinks he can help her which has given her a flicker of hope.

    http://www.thenewstribune.com/2011/03/30/v-lite/1605041/near-record-sierra-snow-good-news.html

    http://www.accuweather.com/blogs/news/story/47597/an-april-fools-snowstorm-or-ju.asp?partner=accuweather

  225. Blouise: I have to admit that I was a bit surprised when Mike Spindell came out so strongly against you but figured it must have something to do with “relationship issues” that occurred before I came came on the blog. I don’t like to get into the middle of something I don’t understand.”

    It’s an interesting story that would be more suitable for email; and fact checked by Buddha.

    Blouise: “I took your initial words to Buddha about Slarti in the way that you described them above (March 30, 2011 at 4:48 pm) and hoped you would intuit my support for you on that matter when I quipped about frogs to Mike S.”

    I did and I say again that was mighty kind of you Blouise. Thank you very, very much. I wanted to say I was having a good time having a nice discussion with you Buddha and everyone else; thus why would I invite Slarti to attack me? But alas, to his friends I’m some devious bastard for invoking Slarti’s name as the poster child for liberal apologists.

    Blouise: “(When you and Slarti go at it, each gives and gets as good as the other and I block out all the personal stuff in favor of the meat of the argument. I guess I have to learn to do that with you and Mike Spindell too.)”

    Last time I posted anything to Mike was to wish him well in his surgery. Last time he posted anything to me, before that attack, was to comment about Steely Dan (origin of the name). So, so much for that.

    Blouise: “As to the issue you and Buddha introduced about Presidential powers and the Constitution … well it steered me to the War Powers Act of ’73 (your initial suggestion) and then to other interpretations and so on.

    After much reading I came to agree with you and Buddha as to the violation and could reinforce that agreement after Buddha gave me the list of Presidents he believed acted within Constitutional bounds since 1900 as I had, through my readings, arrived at the same conclusions about past presidents.”

    Would you agree that FDR and Eisenhower were PERFECT presidents for their time? Especially Eisenhower.

    Blouise: My position on voting for Obama has not changed and there I am perfectly aligned with SwM and Elaine and will not bother to repeat the reasons and feel no need to justify them. I will tell you this … the women issue is huge.”

    Like I said, I have no problem with choosing the lesser of two evils. And some other time I can regale you with a 9th Amendment analysis (defense) of the ‘woman’s’ issue.

    BTW, what’s a fendi?

  226. Bob,

    I don’t think you’re a devious bastard, for the record.

    However, I’m also pretty sure that the concept of liberal Obama apologists doesn’t need a poster child any more than conservative Bush apologists need a poster child. Most of us (trolls excluded) have a sufficient vocabulary to put the words together to form a cogent meme.

  227. And now . . . back to the couch in hopes I can stay awake long enough to watch “Justified”.

  228. Obama Signed Secret Libya Order Authorizing Support For Rebels
    http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2011/03/30/obama–secret-order-libya-signed-rebel-support_n_842734.html
    From Reuters/Huffington Post, 3/30/2011

    Excerpt;
    WASHINGTON (Reuters) – President Barack Obama has signed a secret order authorizing covert U.S. government support for rebel forces seeking to oust Libyan leader Muammar Gaddafi, government officials told Reuters on Wednesday.

    Obama signed the order, known as a presidential “finding”, within the last two or three weeks, according to four U.S. government sources familiar with the matter.

    Such findings are a principal form of presidential directive used to authorize secret operations by the Central Intelligence Agency. The CIA and the White House declined immediate comment.

    News that Obama had given the authorization surfaced as the President and other U.S. and allied officials spoke openly about the possibility of sending arms supplies to Gaddafi’s opponents, who are fighting better-equipped government forces.

  229. Bdaman,

    Sorry about that. It’s a long thread. I tried to check to see if someone had posted the story already. I missed your comment.

    I am indeed late to the party. I came down with some kind of bug earlier today–and took a long nap.

    There’s a possibility of snow here tomorrow night. Ah…spring in New England!

  230. Bob,Esq,

    Fendi is a shoe designer/manufacturer price range $500 to $2000 a pair and a particular favorite of my daughter and her friends.

    This female demographic (married, have children and enjoy incomes equal to or greater than their husbands’) is huge and growing … just ask any Professor. The republicans have probably lost an entire generation or two of these women who find nothing to identify with in Palin or Bachmann and those sitting on the conservative fence jumped off when the republicans declared war on the female gender.

  231. Blouise, I tried to ask my daughter a few questions about politics last week. She ended the conversation quickly with,”I am a democrat”. This new brand of republican has scared a whole generation of young women with their fundamentalist christian rantings.

  232. Buddha,

    Got it (the oath)when you first explained it.

    Justified is one of my favorite programs. Tex and I record it and save it for the weekend. I like everything about it and am particularly drawn to “Boyd Crowder”.

  233. I give up … for some reason I can’t answer anybody on shoes or anything … I can’t get a post to stick

    Time to pull out the old Nook and read a bit

  234. There that one took but the two posts I tried in answer to Elaine wouldn’t register … if this one posts:

    Elaine … I whole-heartedly agree about the rip-off

    SwM … yep … young women today identify with democrats for any number of reasons and the republicans stick with idiots like Palin and Bachmann … I could say something more, but I won’t :lol:

  235. Geeze Blouise,

    I guess I alway look for Nook as well…. And if I get a good read…its always good to take care of your nookie…it last longer that way….and then you always have the ability to download it….I am not sure when we will have the ability to upload and I am sure will come at a later date……But then again…its not nearly as much fun as dog earing a page…. a little legislative humor here….

  236. Bob,Esq.,

    Eisenhower is one of my all time favorites. Here’s a couple of quotes from him that I always found intriguing:

    “…in [July] 1945… Secretary of War Stimson, visiting my headquarters in Germany, informed me that our government was preparing to drop an atomic bomb on Japan. I was one of those who felt that there were a number of cogent reasons to question the wisdom of such an act. …the Secretary, upon giving me the news of the successful bomb test in New Mexico, and of the plan for using it, asked for my reaction, apparently expecting a vigorous assent.

    “During his recitation of the relevant facts, I had been conscious of a feeling of depression and so I voiced to him my grave misgivings, first on the basis of my belief that Japan was already defeated and that dropping the bomb was completely unnecessary, and secondly because I thought that our country should avoid shocking world opinion by the use of a weapon whose employment was, I thought, no longer mandatory as a measure to save American lives. It was my belief that Japan was, at that very moment, seeking some way to surrender with a minimum loss of ‘face’. The Secretary was deeply perturbed by my attitude…”

    – Dwight Eisenhower, Mandate For Change, pg. 380

    and

    “…the Japanese were ready to surrender and it wasn’t necessary to hit them with that awful thing.”

    – Ike on Ike, Newsweek, 11/11/63

    Note that the second quote comes roughly 18 years after the first which means that even after years of reflection his view had not changed.

    and this:

    “A people that values its privileges above its principles soon loses both.” which I think has been quoted on some recent threads.

    And finally I agree with Fred I. Greenstein’s opinion: “a very clear-headed man with a long time horizon.” Truman should have listened to him both before and while he was serving in Washington after the war. Truman, however, chose to listen to State and to the newly minted CIA … a mistake that continues to today’s President.

    Now FDR … that’s another story and my opinion of him doesn’t quite match that of historians though I sure as hell liked his wife.

  237. bdaman. Guess they like her because she didn’t win or maybe because of her war. lol

    LOL x 2 Swathmore Mom, dats a good one and your probably right.
    What was the joke? If Obama needed balls he could barrow them from Hillary :) Ya’ll are right about the women in this country and year after year ya’ll are gaining more control. Just look at the three who are reported as pushing Obama towards the Libiyan conflict. Hill, Samantha Powers, who happens to be married to Cass Sunstein and Susan Rice. A woman president for 2012 ? Ya’ll already got us going into war. Before you know it ya’ll will want to be on the front lines. :)

  238. I was joking when I asked about Code Pink.

    Where are they. This IMO goes back to the debate between Bob and Slarti. As soon as it was announced Code Pink should have been at the gates of the Whitehouse. Instead there is silence.

  239. Slarti,
    For some reason my keyboard is woprking temporarily and so I want to get this in quick before the letters ecrfv go out again. While I knew you were more than capable to
    dispose of Bob on your own, the gratuity of his remarks struck me. Also, since you had announced in the past that you were engaged in other matters, it seemed to me
    that his action was vile. (My letters are out again, so
    begins my copy/paste agony.)

    Bob is someone who guides himself by his principles, which superficially appears admirable. However, his intellectual rigidity and tendency to demonize others with different views gives lie to his assumption of a moral highground. His over emphacis on those authorities
    he gives credence to shows his rigidity. This is not worth further discussion though because Bob will be Bob,
    will all the quirks that make him loved by some and annoying to others.

  240. “yet you expect the audience to accept your claims simply because you say so in the form of a personal attack.”

    Being moral is inconsistent with playing to an audience,
    but that then shows Bob’s priority. “Look how smart I
    think I am.” Sad.

  241. “I guess I was mocking him behind his back; but I sure as shit wasn’t attacking him or goading him.”

    BS

  242. Frosh GOPer On Foreign Affairs Committee Wonders If Obama Will Attack ‘Africa’ After Libya

    Brian Beutler | March 31, 2011, 10:05AM987

    The old joke goes that most people can’t find whatever country the United States is at war with on a map.

    Same seems to be true for Rep. Tom Marino (R-PA), a freshman congressman who also sits on the House Foreign Affairs Committee. He’s quoted in the Times-Tribune questioning President Obama’s Libya strategy, and lack of deference to Congress.

    “The bottom line is I wish the president would have told us, talked to Congress about what is the plan. Is there a plan? Is the mission to take Gadhafi out?” Mr. Marino asked…. “Where does it stop?” he said. “Do we go into Africa next? I don’t want to sound callous or cold, but this could go on indefinitely around the world.”Yes, Libya is in Africa.

    http://tpmdc.talkingpointsmemo.com/2011/03/frosh-goper-on-foreign-affairs-committee-wonders-if-obama-will-attack-africa-after-libya.php?ref=dcblt

    Gee, I wonder if he can see Russia from his house …

  243. Stamford,
    I saw that article and couldn’t stop laughing. I was sure it was Bachmann again,but then I saw the word “frosh”. What an idiot. Where do they get these losers? I think this guy has been reading too much intelligent design crap!

  244. Mike,

    I have some thoughts about your remarks, but the last thing I want to do is to stir up what seems to be settling down, so if you’d like to hear them, drop me a line at:

    (first name)@(last name).net

    Kevin Kesseler

    (There – you can cut and paste instead of type if you want to email me… ;-))

  245. “That’s the action of an Emperor, a Totalitarian Dictator or a King.

    In all other respects but the rightful and legal declaration of war from Congress, the actions taken in Libya are by definition a war.”

    Buddha,

    right, but how has this wrong unconstitutional mindset
    changed since Korea? Its’ Plutocratic Gospel.

  246. “Above all, don’t lie to yourself. The man who lies to himself and listens to his own lie comes to a point that he cannot distinguish the truth within him, or around him, and so loses all respect for himself and for others.” — Fyodor Dostoevsky”

    Good quote. To bad you dont see your own tendencies.

  247. rafflaw,

    “I saw that article and couldn’t stop laughing. I was sure it was Bachmann again,but then I saw the word “frosh”. What an idiot. Where do they get these losers? I think this guy has been reading too much intelligent design crap!”

    I still can’t stop giggling over it … I bet he thinks the country of Georgia is below South Carolina … lol

  248. Mike,

    I put proxy wars (like Korea and Vietnam) in an entirely different class of stupidity. In Korea, the formalities on the part of Congress and President Truman were followed and the operations there were part of a U.N. led cooperative force. The unconstitutionality in that instance came from the actions of MacArthur when he violated a direct order of the President and crossed the 38th parallel. Vietnam, by contrast, was simply ill-advised but its roots trace back directly to the French ineptness and inability to maintain their colonial status after WWII (for a variety of reasons but primarily manpower and materials related) and the blossoming Cold War and the consequent frenzy over the “Red Menace” coupled with the tenuous (and I think flawed) Domino Theory of regime change, but there again, Constitutional formalities were followed. That war was subsequently further complicated and exacerbated by Johnson the War Pig becoming President.

    By contrast, Bush II obtained Congressional approval via fraud for invading Iraq and Obama didn’t even bother over Libya.

    Therein lies the difference.

    Screw ups versus outright fraud and violations of the Separation of Powers doctrines.

  249. Choosing to vote for someone who openly violates the Constitution will do precisely this: Encourage the next President of any party to do exactly more of the same.

    And Congress? Letting such violations occur without repercussion is having an effect there as well. The TeaPublicans have included language in the Government Shutdown Prevention Act coming up for a vote this Friday that allows that “House of Representatives can declare something to be the ‘law of the land’ without any input or action from either the Senate or President Obama.” (A href=”http://www.huffingtonpost.com/chris-weigant/house-republicans-constit_b_842838.html”>House Republicans’ Constitutional Ignorance) However, this fraying of the Constitution can be traced directly to Congressional incompetence in taking impeachment off the table for Bush’s manifest crimes and Obama’s subsequent neutering of the DOJ on the matter of criminal investigations into Bush compounded by his own illegalities.

    However, the choices are indeed dumb and dumber, unconstitutional and unconstitutional-er.

    The choices are vote along party lines for party that is openly violating the Constitution or vote along party lines for party that is openly violating the Constitution but just not in a way that’s as manifestly offensive. Or there is a third option of keeping the blood of the Constitution off your hands by abstention.

    Moral high ground?

    If you choose to vote the lesser of two evils, that is your choice and your reasons are not unreasonable, however, might I suggest you get off your high horse before you fall off and hurt yourself.

    A choice to vote for him isn’t a sterling ethical option either.

  250. Oh look, it’s Mike obsessing over how much of a devious bastard I am.

    And according to claims, unsupported by reasons, made by Scalarti and Mike, I’m the most vile human being here.

    Whatever.

  251. Bob,

    I don’t have to guess. My beloved Royals. I can’t wait to see how their owner, David “Wal-Mart” Glass, will screw it up for them.

  252. “Oh look, it’s Mike obsessing over how much of a devious bastard I am.

    And according to claims, unsupported by reasons, made by Scalarti and Mike, I’m the most vile human being here.”

    So typically Bob. Attack someone gratuitously and when answered cry harm and play to the crowd hyperbolicly. Your ego needs it so
    I quit. :=)

  253. Mike,

    You and Slarti are the only ones making personal attacks here; unsolicited at that.

    Was Blouise lying when she said:

    Blouise: “I took your initial words to Buddha about Slarti in the way that you described them above (March 30, 2011 at 4:48 pm) and hoped you would intuit my support for you on that matter when I quipped about frogs to Mike S.”

    Because unlike you Mike, she was part of the conversation.

    So why did you chime in and attack me Mike? Did I attack you? Why is it that you feel compelled to ignore all the arguments on the table and simply put forth derogatory claims, sans reasons, about me instead? I mean, hypothetically speaking, if you observed someone else do what you did, wouldn’t you question his objectivity; in that he appeared to be overreacting to comments having nothing to do with him? And if this person made psychological pronouncements while lashing out, would you say that he was falsely presupposing his own objectivity in his alleged analysis? Or might that get in the way of a quick retreat to special pleading?

    Just curious.

  254. Bdaman
    1, March 31, 2011 at 9:55 am
    bdaman. Guess they like her because she didn’t win or maybe because of her war. lol

    LOL x 2 Swathmore Mom, dats a good one and your probably right.
    What was the joke? If Obama needed balls he could barrow them from Hillary :) Ya’ll are right about the women in this country and year after year ya’ll are gaining more control. Just look at the three who are reported as pushing Obama towards the Libiyan conflict. Hill, Samantha Powers, who happens to be married to Cass Sunstein and Susan Rice. A woman president for 2012 ? Ya’ll already got us going into war. Before you know it ya’ll will want to be on the front lines. :)

    =======================================================

    Your next … we’re comin’ to get ya, buddy.

    Nothin’ scarier than a pissed-off woman holding a gun … nothin’ scarier than a pissed-off woman, period

  255. ‘You and Slarti are the only ones making personal attacks here; unsolicited at that.

    Was Blouise lying when she said”

    Bob,

    Integrity and morality are not about playing to any audience, but doing what is right given ones’ own lights.
    You are being disingenuous when you say you didn’t cast the first stone and as I’ve said it was gratuitously done. I would have been more a part of the discussion had I not, as I’ve twice explained had computer problems. You might also note that in the original thread on the Libya attack I was one of the first to write condemning it, which I still do.

    As to my motivation and attacks on you I was merely responding in kind to your attack and to your characterization of Kevin’s morality. How dare you! I responded not because of your position on Libya, but your mischaracterization of some you presume disagree with your point of view. I’ve written extensively enough for me to not only decry this Administration, but to explain in detail why I still will probably vote for Obama next year. Unfortunately, you only seem to take in that which agrees with your pre-judgments and in that respect you assume that those who disagree with you are somehow flawed morally and ethically. How dare you I state again.

    I know nothing of your career except that you are a lawyer. You may well have drenched yourself in pro-bono work for good causes. You may in fact be a perfectly fine individual, with a superb moral history. Guess what Bob, I’ll see your whole career and raise with mine, when it comes to acting with integrity and morality. That’s because I know how much of my life I’ve dedicated to doing the right thing, often careerwise to my disadvantage.

    My judgment of Kevin from his writing is that he also has worked morally and with integrity. It is so smug of you to imply otherwise, based on your lack of understanding of the nuances of his thought. As was
    explained by Gyges my position on Obama has been clearly stated on many occasions here, but I also showed understanding of those who feel differently. You not much.

    In the end when you ask why I commented my explanations
    were made. If you are implying though that this is a residue of past arguments between us, dont go there. That
    argument began with you attacking me out of the blue and
    only ended when cej called me at home and pleaded with me
    to desist. You did then, what you accuse me of now, the
    difference is I responded now out of what I see as your
    enjoyment of attack for its own sake and because you keep
    playing this pointless game in pursuit of your ego.

    Now, I quit. Typing without the full keyboard is hard and in your case is a waste.

  256. Once again Mike you’ve distorted the facts to suit your outrageous conduct.

    Let’s review:

    Mike; You are being disingenuous when you say you didn’t cast the first stone and as I’ve said it was gratuitously done.

    The fact that Slarti came in six guns a blazing because of a comment I made to Buddha about him does not mean I attacked him; period. Further, how do I attack a man by restating the gist of his argument?

    Mike: I would have been more a part of the discussion had I not, as I’ve twice explained had computer problems.

    Again you mis-characterize my comment. I meant that the conversation that night was a comfortable and civil one with Buddha, Blouise and others. To say that I would attack Slarti, so as to incite and welcome one of his rabid dog like rants and disrupt a pleasant evening conversation is preposterous.

    Mike: As to my motivation and attacks on you”

    As to the question, “did I attack you?” the answer would be no.

    In lieu of tempering one’s self in an argument, you apparently take pride in your personal attacks; attempting to justify them here.

    Mike: “I was merely responding in kind to your attack and to your characterization of Kevin’s morality.”

    And AGAIN you base your argument on an intentional misrepresentation of my position. My arguments are restricted to Kevin’s position with regards to Obama and the methods by which he takes that position. By resorting to special pleading and appeal to consequences, Kevin systematically attempts to excuse Obama from the rule of law. His position is categorically indefensible; for if the entire legal system adopted Kevin’s position there would no longer be a legal system. In fact, morally speaking, I’ve compared Slarti’s position to Scalia’s position in Bush v. Gore (specifically the concurring opinion on the issuance of the stay).

    While I probably wouldn’t say the same of Scalia, simply because Kevin has proposed an immoral argument, it does not follow that Kevin is an immoral person per se. Truth be known, I consider Kevin to fall into the ‘nothing is good save the will itself’ category–in regards to his over-active optimism. Regardless, only a simpleton like you would jump the gun like you did.

    Mike: “How dare you!”

    How dare I what? I didn’t judge Kevin for anything more than the argument. How dare you, you self righteous-pompous ass- ‘logic whiz’, assume otherwise and then project it on me and attack me for it.

    Mike: “My judgment of Kevin from his writing is that he also has worked morally and with integrity. It is so smug of you to imply otherwise, based on your lack of understanding of the nuances of his thought.”

    There you go again; letting your ever so active imagination get the best of you.

    And if I enjoy attacking for its own sake, why have I held back in attacking you back? Why aren’t I attacking your character like you’re attacking mine? Like I said before, you should ask yourself what happened to your objectivity.

    And once again, instead of addressing any of the arguments at the root of this ‘discussion’ looks like you ‘fed your ego’ by attempting to justify your outrageous behavior.

    Take a breath and get a grip.

  257. Blouise you may want to wait a bit until the sun comes back out. We have been inundated with heavy heavy rains the last two days. :)

  258. I’ve got a question.
    It’s multiple choice.
    Only one answer is correct.
    There is a time limit, but I’m not telling anyone what it is, what units of measurement are appropriate, or when it started.
    Please respond with or to a #2 pencil.

    Question: Which is more important?

    A) That both major political parties are skull humping the Constitution?

    B) Personality conflicts between people ostensibly on the same side of the importance of fixing the manifest corruption and consequent malfunctions of the Federal government?

    C) That if you take cranberries and stew them like applesauce they taste much more like prunes than rhubarb does?

    D) The angular momentum problem as it applies to the Sheen Method of Sleeping with Multiple “Goddesses” whilst drinking unpasteurized tiger blood?

  259. Buddha,

    ‘A’ is more important than ‘B’ which is why I’m not responding to Bob anymore.

    As for ‘C’, it is my fervent belief that no human being should eat rhubarb (I’m not evangelical about it, but I am devout in regards to myself) and in the service of that belief I cannot answer the question on religious grounds…

    For ‘D’ I suggest using Hamiltonian Dynamics, but the numerical answer I leave as an exercise for you…

    The #2 pencil I told this to did not react in any apparent way.

  260. And I must refrain from discussing rhubarb until the time is up and all respondents have taken the exam.

  261. Elaine,

    Perhaps.

    But I really wanted people to consider the relative importance of rhubarb to our daily lives whether or not C is the correct answer.

  262. Bdaman
    1, March 31, 2011 at 9:13 pm
    Blouise you may want to wait a bit until the sun comes back out. We have been inundated with heavy heavy rains the last two days. :)

    ================================================

    Good idea … gotta keep the powder dry.

  263. The answer is A.

    The final grades are:

    Raff: A
    Slarti: A- (for not following test format)
    Blouise: Retake permitted, hall pass granted, just make sure they are harvesting and not rubbing.
    Canadian Eh: Partial credit to be assigned after conferencing with the instructor . . . just because I like the way she thinks.

    So everybody goes home a winner.

    For those of you taking this test for the “(Groucho) Marxism and the Theory of Art” course, the correct answer was C.

  264. I am late to this. When I read it, I thought of rhubarb and midwestern summers. Loved my mother’s rhubarb and strawberry rhubarb pies.

  265. SwM,

    My grandmother grew rhubarb and then made the best rhubarb pie in the world … she didn’t add any other fruit … my word, it was heaven.

  266. Buddha,

    The rhubarb cash crop was sufficient to the needs of all those lucky enough to hang out with the guys in shop class and we all agreed to “pants” rafflaw and Slarti under the bleachers during the next home game for being teacher’s pets.

  267. Swarthmore:

    I would never vote for Huck (he is a blood-thirsty neocon interventionist). In other words he is a leftist republican.

    But the giggling by the audience (in the clip your provided) tends to show that Huck was joking. And I find it instructive that the lead-in to the video clip you provided was edited out so that we cannot understand the context of his comments. I suspect this was done to obscure the truth (not by you, though you did perpetuated the video by making it available to us without commented on the trickery of the edited).

    You cannot possibly be offended by Huck’s comments if you support the public school system in America. In that system government officials propagandize hundreds to millions of school children about the virtues government, and they do so by gunpoint. If you do not send your kids to some kind of school you will get arrested. Men or women with guns will attack your home, take your kids, and force them into some kind a school (the vast majority of which will be public).

    It is the same concept. Yet, leftists and Democrats are not mortified by such conduct. They are only mortified when Republicans do it. This is called hypocrisy.

    I reckon that leftists have their dental floss in a wad about this but see nothing wrong with propagandizing innocent little children at gunpoint in the public schools.

    Of course, the rich can put their kids in private schools. This is no problem for the Democrats since they are greedy money grubbers and don’t mind that the rich can skirt what we poorer folks cannot.

    Furthermore, I pay confiscatory taxes at the point of a gun. Democrats and leftists have no scruples against this either. In fact they recently bullied the government of Wisconsin about it.

    So I don’t believe any outrage people on the left might have about his comments. It is phony outrage. The leftists who complain about the leftist Huck are all essentially on the same page but don’t know it.

  268. Taliban Tootie,

    Take your hyperbolic screeching and shove it firmly up your ass.

    And while you’re at it, shut the f*ck up. Please.

  269. Taliban Tootie,

    It was so nice here with you being under your rock. Now you’re reared your nasty, bigotted, paranoid and empty melon and the peace is lost.

    Go to clownhall.com or redstate.com where you can commiserate with your fellow Klanners, Taliban.

  270. Stazi Stamford:

    I’m sure you don’t like it that I am free to be here. The intolerant never are. Perhaps there is Stormfront type website for leftists like you to visit and vent your violent urges against people like me?

    I’m thinking they would love to have you.

    In more ways than one.

  271. The video didn’t post. I’ll try it again. Though Stazi Stamford is probably very familiar with it.

  272. Blouise,

    I don’t know which is funnier.

    The joke or the zealot totally missing the joke.

  273. Taliban Tootie,

    Your Royal Vileness – I’m not going to click on your silly link – why? Because I really don’t give a shit.

    Stormfront is more to your liking, not mine, Taliban. They are, after all, good, paranoid Christian asshats like you so you would be amongst friends.

    You ridicule public education – well, most people are educated by the public system and have managed to succeed in school and in life. You, on the other hand, failed yourself in public school and failed yourself in life. It’s not public education’s fault you’re too stupid to get it. It’s high time you took your own advice, Taliban – take personal responsibility for your own failures in your own failing life.

    In the meantime, go to hell, failure.

  274. Blouise-

    Rhubarb pie was invented as a result of the famous barroom bet by Arthur “Two Sheds” Jackson that “you can make a pie out of any damn vegetable if you put enough sugar in it”. Fortunately for all of us he didn’t try broccoli first.

  275. Swarthmore mom,

    From a November 2007 Rolling Stone article written by Matt Taibbi:

    Mike Huckabee Is Not a Sane Man
    Surging Mike Huckabee may talk about poverty and trade, but the wild-eyed Baptist goofball doesn’t believe he is evolved from primates. Does that even worry Republican voters?
    http://www.alternet.org/story/68057/

    Ever since Huckabee turned in a dominating performance at a summit of Christian voters in Washington a few weeks ago, he has been riding a surge among likely Iowa voters (he’s now second to Mitt Romney, and gaining). The media, like me, have been charmed by their initial impression: “It’s hard not to like Mike Huckabee,” gushed Newsweek. Even The Nation said he has “real charm.”

    But all the attention on his salesmanship skills obscures the real significance of his rise within the Republican Party. Mike Huckabee represents something that is either tremendously encouraging or deeply disturbing, depending on your point of view: a marriage of Christian fundamentalism with economic populism. Rather than employing the patented Bush-Rove tactic of using abortion and gay rights to hoodwink low-income Christians into supporting patrician, pro-corporate policies, Huckabee is a bigger-government Republican who emphasizes prison reform and poverty relief. In the world of GOP politics, he represents something entirely new — a cross between John Edwards and Jerry Falwell, an ordained Southern Baptist preacher who actually seems to give a shit about the working poor.

    But Huckabee is also something else: full-blown nuts, a Christian goofball of the highest order. He believes the Earth may be only 6,000 years old, angrily rejects the evidence that human beings evolved from “primates” and thinks America wouldn’t need so much Mexican labor if we allowed every aborted fetus to grow up and enter the workforce. To top it off, Huckabee also left behind a record of ethical missteps in the swamp of Arkansas politics that make Whitewater seem like a jaywalking ticket.

    All of which begs the question: If this religious zealot’s rise represents the end of corporate dominance of the Republican Party, is that a good thing? Or is the real thing even worse than the fraud?

    **********
    Huckabee gave an even more damning glimpse into his inner batshit self in a recent appearance at the Prestonwood Baptist Church near Dallas, where he told audiences that Christians are sitting in the pole position of the race to Armageddon. “If you’re with Jesus Christ, we know how it turns out in the final moment,” he said. “I’ve read the last chapter in the book, and we do end up winning.”

    Winning? I ask Huckabee when, exactly, he thinks victory will arrive. “When I was eighteen, I thought I had it pretty well figured out,” he says. “I thought the end of the world was coming at any moment.” But when I ask how his views have changed, he says only that he is “less adamant now.” Huckabee, with the wisdom of age, apparently believes we have at least a day or two left until the end of the world.

    The troubling thing about Huckabee’s God rhetoric is that a man who is glad that Christians will “win” at Armageddon must be happy about the rest of us losing. When I press him on whether he believes all non-Christians are eternally damned, Huckabee is evasive. “Being president isn’t about picking who goes to heaven and who goes to hell,” he says. When none other than Bill O’Reilly hammered him on the same point a day later, Huckabee conceded that “I believe Jesus is the way to heaven.”

    This God stuff isn’t just talk with Huck. One of his first acts as governor was to block Medicaid from funding an abortion for a mentally retarded teenager who had been raped by her stepfather — an act in direct violation of federal law, which requires states to pay for abortions in cases of rape. “The state didn’t fund a single such abortion while Huckabee was governor,” says Dr. William Harrison of the Fayetteville Women’s Clinic. “Zero.”

  276. Stazi Stamford (aka Samir Shabazz):

    I graduated near the top of my class of over 400 students. If I “failed yourself in public school” [your stupid term] it would not be because of anything I did, but because of something the public schools did or failed to do.

    You would have to know my personal life to know if I’m a failure. But you don’t know my personal life and so you are just making up things about me like to prove you are superior. In reality you are just an ignorant bully who thinks well of himself.

    I’m not ridiculing public education, I am pointing out the hypocrisy of people who support forcing children to attend school (at gunpoint) in a country dedicated to liberty.

    I realize this is a difficult concept for you to understand as it takes a fair amount of intellect to grasp–which you lack. No matter how fine an education you think you may have received it can never overcome your inability to think rationally or be a decent human being.

  277. Taliban Tootie,

    Samir Shabazz – I might take offense, however, you flaming idiot, I’m a woman, I’m white, and I’m an athiest … your pathetic attempt to insult me has failed … miserably. Just like everything else in your miserable life.

    Oh, poor victimized Taliban Tootie … giving pointers on decency, rationality and hypocrisy. If it weren’t so pitiful it would be laughable. I would feel sorry for you but I’m not in a charitable mood today.

    Now, my final thoughts on you, scumbag – Go fuck yourself.

  278. Elaine:

    The same thing can be said about Obama (collective salvation): the corporatist, statist, fascist Obama.

    He even whines when people don’t believe he is a Christian. Gosh, could that be because there is no evidence of it? Yet he uses his Christianity and his connections with corporations to attain political power.

    This is exactly what Hucksterbee will be accused of.

    If you don’t like it in Huck you won’t like in Obama. Clinton: the same.

    Pelosi (the Word) the same.

    Pelsoi, Reid, and Obama all use Christian “charity” as a means to justify government theft.

    They are a pack of thieves. Huckster too. Be fair.

  279. “I graduated near the top of my class of over 400 students.”

    When it’s racist homophobic zealot clown college, that’s really something to be proud of, Tootles.

  280. Stazi Stamford (aka Samir Shabazz)

    You wrote:

    “I might take offense, however, you flaming idiot, I’m a woman, I’m white, and I’m an athiest … your pathetic attempt to insult me has failed … miserably.”

    You appear to be the flaming idiot. This is because it doesn’t matter what or who you really are. All that matters is what I say you are. I get to make up whatever I wish about you and that is what you have to live with.

    Why is that?

    It is because you have set up this standard here with your remarks and comments to me. Since you get to make up whatever is not true about me, then I get to invent whatever fiction about you I wish because you get to do the same to me.

    This are your rules, not mine. And now you are whining at crying about the standard you set for me.

    You are not very bright. But that isn’t a problem. The real problem is what a vicious evil person you are.

  281. “You are not very bright. But that isn’t a problem. The real problem is what a vicious evil person you are.”

    Are you talking about yourself in second person again, Tootles?

    You should really lay off the Kool-Aid.

  282. Tootie,

    There’s plenty of hypocrisy to go around–in both parties. I especially love all those holier than thou family value folks like Newt Gingrich, John Ensign, David Vitter, Mark Sanford. Newt cheated on his first two wives only because he was patriotic and loved his counrty sooooo much. He committed adultery for Uncle Sam. What a guy!

    ;)

  283. Buddha:

    Your last sentence was gibberish and unintelligible. Let me guess, you went to an Ivy or Baby Ivy league school?

    If excellent colleges produced decent wise leaders our country would not be near collapse because they are surely running this show. Instead all we get are well schooled imbeciles, perverts, and despots.

    I’m must admit it though that the country would have to be better off with Clown College grads.

  284. Taliban Tootie,

    “You appear to be the flaming idiot. This is because it doesn’t matter what or who you really are. All that matters is what I say you are. I get to make up whatever I wish about you and that is what you have to live with.”

    It is abundantly obvious facts don’t matter to you – you prove it with every single one of your posts. You may think your opinion matters, your Royal Vileness, but it doesn’t mean shit to me. Further, I don’t have to live with you think of me and it’s goddamned pathetic on your part that you think I do. You, on the other hand, must live with the fact that you are far from the sharpest tool in the shed. And, that, Taliban, is your problem, not mine.

    “It is because you have set up this standard here with your remarks and comments to me. Since you get to make up whatever is not true about me, then I get to invent whatever fiction about you I wish because you get to do the same to me.”

    I set no standard’s, I set no rules for anyone but myself. You, however, have proven you are a bigotted, ignorant, hypocritical, paranoid, homophobic asshat “christian” who expects others to swallow the vomit you spew with nary a word, but piss, moan, whine and play the victim when you are called to the carpet for it. Sorry, Taliban – that shit doesn’t fly with me.

    “This are your rules, not mine. And now you are whining at crying about the standard you set for me.”

    In case you miss it, I’ll repeat – I set no standard’s for anyone but myself. You, however, have proven you are a bigotted, ignorant, hypocritical, paranoid, homophobic asshat Christian who expects others to swallow the filth you spew with nary a word, but piss, moan, whine and play the victim when you are called to the carpet for it. Sorry, Taliban – that shit doesn’t fly with me.

    “You are not very bright. But that isn’t a problem. The real problem is what a vicious evil person you are.””

    I’m a lot brighter than you are, Royal Vileness, there is no question about that. The real problem here is that you project; you think you see in others what you, either consciously or subconsciously, know is true in yourself but refuse to acknowledge. It is you that is a vicious and evil piece of rat filth.

    Now, if you didn’t get it the first time … go fuck yourself with a bible.

  285. It’s a tough job, but nobody had to do it, Elaine.

    To be clear, the job I’m referring to is sleeping with Newt. I understand some women find “power” an aphrodisiac, but come on, ladies! He’s got a face like a catcher’s mitt, the physical presence of a mound of dirty laundry, and all the personality of the un-mopped floor in an old-style Times Square porn theater.

  286. Tootles,

    My last sentence was only incomprehensible to you because you lack the fundamental intelligence and English skills to understand “second person” and why it would be improper to refer to yourself that way.

  287. Buddha,

    Never trust a man whose head is bigger than the trunk of his body. Women who find/found Ole Newtster’s power to be an aphrodisiac get/got exactly what they deserve. Are you sure Newt didn’t drug the women first so their skin wouldn’t crawl?

    ;)

  288. Hey, Tootles.

    After re-reading my description of Newt, you should really give him a call.

    You two are a match like coal mining and toxic slurry.

  289. Tootie:

    Hey, no fair. Don’t attack my privileged Ivy League education just because you’re mad at Buddha.

  290. BIL,

    “To be clear, the job I’m referring to is sleeping with Newt. I understand some women find “power” an aphrodisiac, but come on, ladies! He’s got a face like a catcher’s mitt, the physical presence of a mound of dirty laundry, and all the personality of the un-mopped floor in an old-style Times Square porn theater.”

    In response to a post from rafflaw, I posted this on the Newt thread:

    If Newt were the last man on earth I’d still pick the cucumber …

  291. Elaine,

    A person of Newtie’s character resorting to Rohypnal?

    I’m thinking he was probably a pioneer in the subject.

  292. Elaine:

    I agree with you. The point is you brought up Hucksterbee because he is likely to run against Obama. But Obama is no better.

    You bring up more Republican creeps (Newt, etc). That is fine. I agree wholeheartedly that they are scum. That said I’m still going to bring up the Democrat creeps (Obama, Pelosi, Reid) because all claim to be Christians. All advocate the sexual molestation of innocent civilians at our airports. All advocate stealing money through confiscatory taxation. And all support snuffing out the lives of 50 million (or so!) innocent unborn in the womb.

    If you list the hypocrites on the right I’m going to list the ones on the left. Think of it as my job.

  293. I repeat: It was gibberish because you lack the fundamental intelligence and English skills to understand “second person” and why it would be improper to refer to yourself that way.

    I’m sure – just like I’m sure about Blouise’s firewall joke about you – that everyone got the joke . . . except for you.

    Which is pretty much par for the course.

  294. Swarthmore,

    You see how I typed out (very nicely) that I thought you were articulate and that your own reasons for disagreeing with me were valid? Heck, even Buddha said you weren’t being unreasonable.

    However, did you happen to notice how neither of us said that we thought you probably thought the same about us? That’s because every post of yours that addresses people you disagree with on this topic reads exactly like how my 13 year niece talks to her little sister.

    Giving us enough credit to consider that we actually put enough thought into our views that a single article about how somebody that may run against President Obama is crazy isn’t going to sway us might go a long ways towards facilitating a conversation worth having.

    Henman,

    That bet was settled by Sauerkraut pie.

  295. Come on, Taliban Trollery.

    Talk some more smack. I’ll be glad to make you look like a fool some more. Although, in all fairness, you do most of the work on that job yourself.

  296. What Gyges said.

    Although I must say that the thought of sauerkraut pie is truly revolting.

    And I love sauerkraut.

  297. Tootie,

    I wasn’t the one who originally brought the Huckster up.

    So tell me, Tootie, have Obama and Reid committed adultery because they’re so passionate about the US? Did they dump wives who had cancer? I’d say the Ole Newtster is one of the shiningest stars of hypocrisy. Newt–fornicating for God and country!

  298. Buddha,

    You disappoint me – first rhubarb, now sauerkraut*? (Gyges gets a pass for giving me his chili recipe…)

    *I also eschew sauerkraut on religious grounds lest the Flying Spaghetti Monster smite me with its noodlely appendage.

  299. I didn’t know bringing Huckabee up would cause such a brouhaha. I saw the video on another blog and was horrified. He is the currently the leader in the polls, and he could be the republican nominee. Obama does have many scary opponents. That is the current reality. Gyges, do you actually think I would try to convince Buddha how to vote? There is no way. Thank you for the compliment. I will have a slice of rhubarb pie and a chicago vienna beef hot dog with sauerkraut on it. I don’t eat the hot dog unless I am in Chicago.

  300. Slarti,

    In all truthfulness, I’ve never tried rhubarb.

    Pie or not, the thought of angry looking celery has never appealed to me.

  301. Stazi Stamford (aks Samir Shabazz)

    Oh you are fun!

    You said “You may think your opinion matters, your Royal Vileness, but it doesn’t mean shit to me.”

    Tootie says:

    It is obvious that Stamford thinks my opinion matters by the incessant responses Stamford gives to them.

    Stamford Samir Shabazz said

    “Further, I don’t have to live with you think of me and it’s goddamned pathetic on your part that you think I do.”

    Tootie says:

    HUH?

    Stamford Samir Shabazz said:

    “I set no standard’s, I set no rules for anyone but myself.”

    Tootie says:

    I was the first one in this “conversation” who said you set the rules for yourself so it isn’t necessary to repeat it as if I hadn’t already said so. I’m merely following your example–your rules. And boy, you don’t like them!

    Stamford Samir Shabazz said:

    “You, however, have proven you are a bigotted, ignorant, hypocritical, paranoid, homophobic asshat…”

    Tootie says:

    Those comments are just opinions not facts. You pretend they are facts like one can prove that water is made up of three molecules. This quaint superstition of yours that you can prove these things about me only proves you don’t know what a fact is or that you are unfamiliar with the concept of evidence. You might as well be reading entrails to determine if I’m guilty or not as charged. Your “method”, whatever it may be, is just as unscientific. No, those are not facts. All you have is your superstitions and they are making a mockery of whatever intelligence you might really have. You also delude yourself for the purpose of your unseemly emotions by pretending your opinions are fact in order to allow yourself the license to hate me and attack me personally. You are really a very very small person. You won’t attack my evidence or the issues, instead you attack me. I gather that this is because you are not as smart as you think and simply cannot overcome my arguments. On the other hand, my quest is to win people over (even if I don’t do a good job of persuading). You have no such intention. Your intention is destroy me (no doubt others) in whatever way you can and then claim I’m the bad guy.

    It would do you good to remember that a bigot is not someone who merely or greatly disagrees with others about issues. Of course you could remember or “re” call this only if you knew it in the first place. And I get the feeling you have no idea what the word bigot means. So take this as your first lesson (and I know you will read it because you cannot resist).

    I, for instance disagree with homosexuals and supporters of amnesty. This does not make me a bigot. It makes me an opponent. The bigotry comes into the story with you and your abuse of me because I have the audacity (in your mind) to disagree with you. This you cannot tolerate. You feel that there can be no possible virtue in my disagreeing with you and thus you permit yourself to dehumanize me. With you there is no agreeing to disagree. I, on the other hand simply wish to beg the differ with you. I will not personally attack you for your opinions (some of which I loathe as much as you loathe mine). This is because, and I don’t mean to be arrogant, I am better than you. Actually, Jesus is better than me. He keeps me in check. Without him I’d be like you: vicious, hateful, bullying. I really would be. And in fact, I was. You come at me with vicious and untrue comments and then pretend I’m the bad guy. That is as close to the definition of bigotry as it comes. So on that score you have it bass ackwards and would more likely be the person one might call an “asshat”. I freely admit that once I’m attacked, I’m going to counterattack with gusto.

    Stamford Samir Shabazz then says that I am a

    “christian” who expects others to swallow the vomit you spew with nary a word, but piss, moan, whine and play the victim when you are called to the carpet for it. Sorry, Taliban – that shit doesn’t fly with me.”

    Tootie says:

    (Stam Samir Shabazz is often talking about butts and asses in posts. And now it is p*ss, sh*t, and f*ck this and that). Dear reader please draw your own conclusions about his or her intellectual capabilities, emotional instability, and/or juvenile obsessions.

    I am not claiming to be the victim of having my arguments overturned by stunning evidence or powers of persuasion on your part. I am merely pointing out that instead of winning me over to your side or even just ignoring me and going about your business you prefer to take the low road of incessant and demeaning personal attacks.

    Then you claim “You, on the other hand, must live with the fact that you are far from the sharpest tool in the shed.” But it is your constant personal attacks on me and your failure to address the issues which is more likely to indicate a person who is not “the sharpest tool in the shed”. You conduct is thus more apt to be characteristic of a person with a poor upbringing and bad education, but I am the one most likely of both.

    We’ve gone over much of this before but I guess you need a reminder.

  302. Buddha,

    No mutant celery for me, either! My mother used to grow it beside the house and *shudder* make ‘food’ with it…

  303. Elaine:

    Newt’s adultery doesn’t affect me. Obama, Reid’s, and Pelosi’s viewpoint (e.g. corruption) of Christian charity does so directly. So does their approval of sexual molestation at our airports. I am positive that God doesn’t want me sexually molested by my government. How these imbeciles miss it is beyond me. And, naturally, the state always has an interest in protecting the innocent from slaughter. They approve of it contrary to scripture.

    These things on a scale of one to ten are eight to ten. Newt’s failure pales in comparison. I would never vote for him, of course. And Newt did these things not as a practicing Christian. On the other hand Reid, Pelosi, and Obama commit their evil and criminal deeds in the name of God.

    It is important to know that Newt and Obama are on the same team. Both grovel at the feet of the Council on Foreign Relations (Newt, McCain, and Biden being among its more prominent long time members).

    Hillary takes her orders from the CFR. So did her hubby (and GW).

    Their goal is one world government and the abolition of borders, sovereign nations, and the nation-state. They are all dangerous, extremist, subversives, and yet all of them claim to be Christians. That makes it my business. So does the my sworn oath to uphold the Constitution.

    I try not to miss the forest for the trees.

  304. There’s a huge difference with disagreeing with homosexuality and being a proponent of discrimination based on sexual orientation, Tootles. Like that time you were overjoyed when a little girl was discriminated against because her parents – not her – were homosexuals. If you disagree with homosexuality, don’t be a homosexual. But being for discrimination against those who are does in indeed make you a bigot, Tootles.

    bigot \ˈbi-gət\, n.,

    : a person who is obstinately or intolerantly devoted to his or her own opinions and prejudices; especially : one who regards or treats the members of a group with hatred and intolerance

    Even worse, you extended your bigotry to an innocent pre-pubescent child because of the sexual orientation of her parents. Which makes you a bigot and a general ass who would punish children for the actions of their parents.

    See?

    You managed to look like a complete fool all by yourself, Tootles.

    The people at Fleet must be so proud of you, their misbegotten water baby.

  305. Gyges, Buddha, Slarti-

    How to make a delicious sauerkraut pie:

    1. Fill pie crust with sauerkraut.
    2. Add sugar and other seasonings.
    3. Instead of a top crust, cover the sauerkraut with slices of your favorite cheese.
    4. Bake until the cheese melts and becomes crispy around the edges.
    5. Remove the melted cheese.
    6. Throw out the crust and sauerkraut and eat the melted cheese.

  306. Slarti,

    Before a health condition put some restrictions on what I can eat, I used to be a very adventurous eater. I’d go into a restaurant where I knew nothing about the cuisine and order at random. However, there have always been a select few “foods” that just leave me cold. Rhubarb is one such item. I may love the stuff if I’d ever taste it. But the reaction I get when I look at it or smell it is best described as nonplussed. Whatever trigger in the brain says “FOOD!” simply doesn’t fire for it. Same with Cream of Wheat. And it’s not a texture thing with it either as I occasionally like grits and they have an almost identical texture. But a bowl of Cream of Wheat has all the appeal to me as a bowl of wallpaper paste.

    The brain is a strange thing.

  307. HenMan,

    Now there’s a recipe I can get down with!

    Melted cheese is in my mind its own food group.

  308. Or even better . . . melted until golden brown or even just a leeeeetle burnt.

    Oh my.

    I may be having a Homer Simpson moment.

  309. Tootie:

    It is I Stamford Shabazz, but you can call me Malek.

    Quit using my name or any portion thereof to denegrate people. Why do hate liberals so much? I read your writings and I think “my god, what is wrong with that woman?”.

    What is the basis for your dislike of liberals?

  310. Stamford Liberal:

    You have asked one dangerously open question. You will momentarily notice an increase in the amount of heat coming from your monitor.

  311. Elaine,

    If you are ever in KC, after looking a Karl’s site and drooling, might I suggest Fritz’s Smoked Meat in KC. It was started by German immigrants in 1927 and I kid you not, they have some awesome sausages. Even their andouille – the French sausage Louisiana is famous for – cannot be beat. I told a New Orleans native I was in law school with that I could get better andouille from Kansas City than any I had had in New Orleans. He called me a liar. So I got some sent from Fritz’s. We had a wonderful meal and I got a profuse apology. I know from looking at the site that Karl’s is probably no slouch either, but if you’re ever in KC? Try Fritz’s. They serve various sausages at lunch, but the rest is all you buy, you cook. They are a full service butcher too. Their smoked pork chops? I’d fight a seven nation army for some of those smokey gems.

    http://www.fritzskcmeats.com/index.html

  312. Buddha,

    Can’t type – drooling…

    That’s it, I’m out – I’m going to actually make some food instead of talking about it. ;-)

  313. Slart, Buddha, Et al.

    There’s some pretty sound evidence that we humans learn develop a taste for whatever food happens to be available. Including rancid and off flavors. This explains much of the American diet. We trick ourselves into believing this is what “good” food tastes like, because that’s what we(admittedly in a lot of cases currently, that’s through our own neglect) have available. This also explains regional acquired tastes.

    Personally, I’m a big fan of things we’ve all been taught to think of as “bad.” I like sour, I LOVE bitter, I’ve been known to enjoy horse blanket (think really funky French Cheese or Belgian beer), and have written ballads in honor of that really bright, acidic smoke you get from some fruit trees. However, I also know that sweet isn’t the only thing that can be cloying. Broccoli however is just icky.

    Fun fact: Ketchup is a direct descendant of a fermented fish sauce enjoyed by the ancient Romans.

  314. There’s some pretty sound evidence that we humans learn develop a taste for whatever food happens to be available. Including rancid and off flavors. This explains much of the American diet. We trick ourselves into believing this is what “good” food tastes like, because that’s what we(admittedly in a lot of cases currently, that’s through our own neglect) have available. This also explains regional acquired tastes.

    Like Cannibalism :)

  315. Stazi Stamford:

    I don’t hate anyone. Not one soul.

    And it is you who should be examining the issue of hate yourself in the light of your personal attacks on me (Taliban Tootie, Klan, etc). If you spent more time examining your own hatefulness perhaps you wouldn’t have to invent any supposed hatred on my part.

    Strangely, you ask me why I would hate liberals AFTER you have spent weeks and weeks of personal attack on me by calling me Taliban Tootie and a member of the Klan. The better question, the wiser one, would be why I don’t hate you because of your unrelenting inhumane conduct.

    Unfortunately for you, I don’t hate liberals or you even after your hateful attacks against me. And it is unfortunate because it gives you no excuse for your vicious treatment of me except that you are far more evil than every evil thing you accuse me of. And so I’m sorry for you because your hatred probably has no bounds.

    You pretend I hate others or liberals ONLY so you can let your unbounded hate loose on me. Now that I’ve told you I don’t hate you (or liberals) you have only one reason for your conduct: your own depravity. I wonder if this means anything to you? And why should it?

    I’m not making headway in discussing the issues with you, but I do not stalk you around the blog, and continually bully and harass you like you do me. You don’t see how bad this reflects on you and leftists in general. Your leftist friends here are not going to criticize you for it because they are as corrupt as you.

    Since I don’t make headway with you and you don’t make headway with me the way we treat each other in the end demonstrates who we really are. You viciously attack me and harass me as a result of not making headway, and I don’t do the same. That is where the rubber meets the road. Then, after your lengthy and persistent vicious attacks you call me the hater! LOL

    It really is funny.

    Most everyone here is sure I’m an imbecile and/or off my rocker yet these same geniuses don’t notice or mention the hypocrisy in one of the most hateful persons here (you) accusing me of hatred? I can only guess that it is because most here are as depraved as you. Sadly, you might think their condoning, winking at, or encouraging your conduct proves you are on the right side of things. But history is replete with evil doers who had widespread approval. And you would very fooling not to recall it.

    Look at this way. Do the people who send a criminal to jail for life hate the criminal? Or can they determine the fault and punishment without hatred? Of course they can! It happens all the time.

    And that is how I view liberals. I have determined by their conduct, by the multitude of evidence from the past century and up to today, that they are quite evil. This is just a dispassionate conclusion. And you know what? I was once a liberal so I know this from the inside too. But I don’t hate liberals because of it. You only assume I do (because this is how you operate).

    Most lawyers and judges do not hate the people they make judgments about.

    You might say to me that they are authorized to do it and so they don’t have to hate, and that is true. But I’m allowed, it is my right, to decide what good and evil acts are. If I couldn’t do that, I might hang out with a bank robber and get in trouble myself. I have the natural right to decide what is wrong or right. We all do. And by deciding it, I am not exercising misplaced authority. I’m just giving my opinion based on my assessment of reality. You grant yourself that right too. Clearly. But it appears you wish to deny me it.

    Thus, I’ve come to the conclusion that it impossible to be a liberal and be virtuous. This is just a common sense conclusion based on the raw data without emotion or animus. But you take it personally. I cannot help that. Your response to my conclusion about liberals is to assume hate where there is none.

    Your assumption is wrong.

    Your problem is that you hate the people you disagree with and so you assume I do to. That is very unsophisticated and superstitious thinking.

    And you have no means to love your enemy.

    I do and his name is Jesus.

    You can pretend I hate until the day you die in order to give your self over to uncontrolled hate of, but it will not change the fact that you will be the only one guilty of it.

  316. “I don’t hate anyone. Not one soul.”

    Unless they’re gay. Or not white. Or not a fundie Christian.

    Sell that bullshit to someone who hasn’t read years of your hateful nonsense postings here.

  317. “You might say to me that they are authorized to do it and so they don’t have to hate, and that is true. But I’m allowed, it is my right, to decide what good and evil acts are. If I couldn’t do that, I might hang out with a bank robber and get in trouble myself. I have the natural right to decide what is wrong or right. We all do. And by deciding it, I am not exercising misplaced authority. I’m just giving my opinion based on my assessment of reality. You grant yourself that right too. Clearly. But it appears you wish to deny me it.”

    “Judge not, that ye be not judged. For with what judgment ye judge, ye shall be judged: and with what measure ye mete, it shall be measured to you again. And why beholdest thou the mote that is in thy brother’s eye, but considerest not the beam that is in thine own eye? Or how wilt thou say to thy brother, Let me pull out the mote out of thine eye; and, behold, a beam is in thine own eye? Thou hypocrite, first cast out the beam out of thine own eye; and then shalt thou see clearly to cast out the mote out of thy brother’s eye.
    Give not that which is holy unto the dogs, neither cast ye your pearls before swine, lest they trample them under their feet, and turn again and rend you.”

    “Judge not, and ye shall not be judged: condemn not, and ye shall not be condemned: forgive, and ye shall be forgiven:
    give, and it shall be given unto you; good measure, pressed down, and shaken together, and running over, shall men give into your bosom. For with the same measure that ye mete withal it shall be measured to you again. And he spake a parable unto them; Can the blind lead the blind? shall they not both fall into the ditch? The disciple is not above his master: but every one that is perfect shall be as his master.
    And why beholdest thou the mote that is in thy brother’s eye, but perceivest not the beam that is in thine own eye?
    Either how canst thou say to thy brother, Brother, let me pull out the mote that is in thine eye, when thou thyself beholdest not the beam that is in thine own eye? Thou hypocrite, cast out first the beam out of thine own eye, and then shalt thou see clearly to pull out the mote that is in thy brother’s eye.”

    One of these things is not like the others… one of these things does not belong…

    It doesn’t really matter to me, since I happen to actually agree with the first one. However, if one were to claim to follow the person who supposedly said the second two quotes, they may have a problem reconciling the differences with the first.

    Just saying.

  318. Buddha:

    You wrote:

    “There’s a huge difference with disagreeing with homosexuality and being a proponent of discrimination based on sexual orientation…”

    Tootie says:

    Everyone (includes you) discriminates. Older men are not allowed to marry three year olds and we make laws about that. Blind people are not allowed to get airline pilot licenses and we have laws for that too. Your quarrel, then, is not with discrimination, but where to draw the line. So you pretense that I’m evil to discriminate and you do not is absurd.

    Buddha said:

    “Like that time you were overjoyed when a little girl was discriminated against because her parents – not her – were homosexuals.”

    Tootie says:

    You would have discriminated against the Christians right right to associate with whom they choose. Of course in your mind YOUR discrimination is permitted and mine is not. In your view the child has the right to associate with whom she is able, but the Christians have no such right. That is irrational.

    And I wasn’t “overjoyed” that a child was discriminated against. You just choose to mis-characterize my feeling or lie about them in order to nurture your own prejudices against me. I was grateful that the Constitution was upheld and that the freedom of association preserved. The child was not any more injured than a child who could not attend (for whatever reason) the private school Obama’s children attend. Children are denied access to all sorts of schools for all sorts of reasons and just because one reason is something you do not like does not make it any worse for the child.

    Buhhha said:

    “If you disagree with homosexuality, don’t be a homosexual.”

    Tootie says:

    I disagree with theft and so won’t be a thief either. But we still discriminate against against those who commit crimes by putting them in jail. I think I have just been discriminated against from posting videos at this blog. So be it. But everyone discriminates. And NO I am not saying we should throw homosexuals in jail. What I am saying is that even though we might not approve of a certain conduct and refuse to participate in it, there are still ramifications that may occur which people want to occur.

    And I reserve the right to say that homosexuality is immoral. Just as I reserve the right to say that heterosexual promiscuity and adultery are. And whatever the law or social customs will bear against any of these matters are the legitimate purview and interest of a self-governing and free people and civilization. And by free I don’t mean anything goes. I mean a freedom that includes curbing our passions. I have believed (long before homosexuality ever became a big issue) that the change in the divorce laws in the 1970s destabilized our whole civilization. And I openly disapproved of those changes. And my criticism has nothing to do with bigotry or hatred. It has to do with what I believe is better for children when their parents have strong motivation (i.e. penalties) to stay together. Crime, dropping out, drugs use, and promiscuity have became rampant as a result of the weakened family. So I am being consistent regarding these issues. You prefer to get hysterical and act like I’m being phobic and particularly hostile to the homosexual. This merely allows you license to be vicious while it ignores the truth.

    Buddha says:

    “But being for discrimination against those who are does in indeed make you a bigot, Tootles.

    bigot \ˈbi-gət\, n.,

    : a person who is obstinately or intolerantly devoted to his or her own opinions and prejudices; especially : one who regards or treats the members of a group with hatred and intolerance ”

    Tootie says:

    You are obstinately and I would say rabidly and militantly devoted to your viewpoint that I am a bad person because I disapprove of homosexuality. Apparently, only you are permitted to oppose something and not be a bigot. I on the other hand, am considered evil for having the same level (and I would say a lower level) of intensity which you have for homosexuality. You are utterly intolerant of me because I oppose homosexuality and have been exceedingly abusive because of it and by your own standard of what hate is, you have been exceedingly hateful.

    And thus you are everything you claim I am. And it should have been obvious that you were when you read, copied, and posted the definition of bigotry. Especially since you consider yourself intellectually superior to me. If you were you would have recognized yourself in the description you posted.

    Who is the bigot?

    Me because I, without malice, oppose homosexuality? Or you, with malice and hatred attack me for it?

    You see Buhhdha, you simply don’t understand what bigotry is. And you clearly don’t understand how to discern if discrimination is good or bad. To discern that we have to understand its context. But liberals like to corrupt the meaning of words so that they can use them to make criminals of the people they hate.

    Liberals pretend intolerance is evil so they can accuse anyone of anything less than their viewpoint as being intolerant and worthy of stamping out. Yet, and I would think any intelligent person would agree, if Germans had been intolerant of Hitler, things would have been much better for the world.

    We do not know whether intolerance or discrimination is good or bad until we look at the context of the situation. Liberals don’t want us to look at the context because they prefer to criminalize other peoples’ thinking. And to do that they don’t want you to look a context. That is intellectual dishonesty.

    You pretend that discrimination is evil yet if we didn’t discriminate against blind people who want to be pilots for United Airlines, we’d be insane. Discrimination can be good or bad only when understood in the light of the context.

    Liberals have gotten the greatest headway in criminalizing thoughts through hate crime legislation. First they made sure to promote the myth that hate is evil. Eventually they got it criminalized in certain instances. It will get worse too. It’s hard to believe this because they are so hateful themselves. But nothing liberals do makes sense.

    Again, they take the meaning of word out of context. It would have been very good if Germans had hated every bloody thing Hitler stood for. Hate would be the only appropriate response. But liberals have gutted the word of its meaning by taking it out of context and automatically categorizing it as evil. It’s only one step from saying particular thoughts are indeed hate. Then liberty dies.

    This is how dishonest people destroy the truth. It is customary of Marxists and liberals are Marxists. And liberals do it well. Friedrich Hayek has a whole chapter in one of his books on the habit of Marxists to corrupt the language. It leads to death and destruction, tyranny and enslavement. And that punishes more children than upholding the right to freely associate would.

    So stop punishing children and subjecting hundreds of millions of them to tyranny.

  319. GYGES:

    You said you were just sayin’. Sayin’ what?

    The verses you posted do NOT forbid judging. They forbid hypocritical judging.

    Look:

    “Judge not, that ye be not judged. For with what judgment ye judge, ye shall be judged: and with what measure ye mete, it shall be measured to you again”

    That says says if you don’t want to be judged, don’t judge. I am open to being judged. I welcome it. So I judge. If I don’t judge my neighbor (who might be a bank robber) and have close knit ties with him, you can be sure I’m going to be judged very poorly by the local police and likely to wind up in jail.

    Then you posted:

    “And why beholdest thou the mote that is in thy brother’s eye, but considerest not the beam that is in thine own eye?”

    It is not saying not to notice the beam in the brother’s eye, it is saying notice your own first.

    Again, you repeat the same concept with the next quote

    “Thou hypocrite, first cast out the beam out of thine own eye; and then shalt thou see clearly to cast out the mote out of thy brother’s eye.”

    The teaching is about hypocrisy, not about judging. Judging is essential. Hypocrisy evil.

    The idea that these verses teach against making judgments is the result of liberal theologians who, not only do not understand the word of God, but do not believe it.

    The Lord Jesus Christ said “Judge righteous judgment” (John 7:24). And Christ said to a fellow: “Thou hast rightly judged” (Luke 7:43). The reminds us that: “Why even of yourselves judge ye not what is right?” (Luke 12:57).

    The Apostle Paul said: “I speak as to wise men; judge ye what I say” (1 Corinthians 10:15). And: “He that is spiritual judgeth all things” (1 Corinthians 2:15).

    Liberal theologians have corrupted the meaning of the text and led generations of Christians astray.

  320. So now I’m bigoted because I’m bigoted against bigots. Hmmmm. Most people of conscience wouldn’t consider that a flaw, you homophobic racist.

    Oh, I understand bigotry plenty, bigot. And hypocrisy. And small mindedness. And zealotry. And hatred. I’ve seen it here lots of times.

    Its name is Tootie.

    So again, sell your bullshit to someone who hasn’t be subjected to your hateful nonsense for years now, honey.

    Every regular here knows your stripes and the vast majority of them think you suck as a person.

  321. Tootie,

    I’m just saying that at first blush it seems that your “I get to judge who I want” and “Judge not lest ye be judged” are contradictions. Especially since the original Greek is much more closely translated as “Condemn not, or you shall be condemned.” Of course, if we follow your logic, we might be forced to ask, at what point are you so flawless that you can begin to address others’ flaws?

    Which seems to be the point of this little fable, “But Jesus went to the Mount of Olives. At dawn he appeared again in the temple courts, where all the people gathered around him, and he sat down to teach them. The teachers of the law and the Pharisees brought in a woman caught in adultery. They made her stand before the group and said to Jesus, “Teacher, this woman was caught in the act of adultery. In the Law Moses commanded us to stone such women. Now what do you say?” They were using this question as a trap, in order to have a basis for accusing him.

    But Jesus bent down and started to write on the ground with his finger. When they kept on questioning him, he straightened up and said to them, “If any one of you is without sin, let him be the first to throw a stone at her.” Again he stooped down and wrote on the ground.”

    Look at that, it’s even about judging somebody who committed some sexual sin. Seems mildly relevant in the context of condemning homosexuality doesn’t it?

    We can also go to the Epistles:

    “Do not speak evil against one another, brothers. The one who speaks against a brother or judges his brother, speaks evil against the law and judges the law. But if you judge the law, you are not a doer of the law but a judge. There is only one lawgiver and judge, he who is able to save and to destroy. But who are you to judge your neighbor?”

    “There is only one lawgiver and judge, he who is able to save and to destroy. But who are you to judge your neighbor?”

    I guess the nice part about having a holy text full of contradictions is that you get to pick a side depending on your mood.

  322. Cass Sunstein just happens to be Samantha Powers.
    S/B
    Cass Sunstein just happens to be Samantha Powers husband

  323. Taliban Tootie,

    I didn’t bother reading any of your posts because I know what they already say:

    1. Liberals are hateful, not me;
    2. Liberals are the bigots, not me;
    3. Progressive programs are unconstitutional;
    4. I’m being attacked;
    5. I’m being stalked;
    6. I’m the victim here … WAAAAAAA; and my personal favorite,
    7. Jesus says … blah, blah, blah.

    I’ll send you a quarter so you can call someone who cares.

    Psych 101, Taliban – you are everything you accuse others of except you’re far too cowardly to recognize it. I don’t assume – I know. How do I know? The evidence is crystal clear with every post you make.

    Stick it where the sun don’t shine, theocrat.

  324. Gyges:

    You write:

    “I’m just saying that at first blush it seems that your “I get to judge who I want” and “Judge not lest ye be judged” are contradictions. ”

    My response:
    They are contradictions only if you don’t understand the full meaning of scripture because you have taken passages out of context.

    Matthew 7:5 clarifies it more

    “You hypocrite, first take the log out of your own eye, and then you will see clearly to take the speck out of your brother’s eye.

    There it is. Judging is allowed. But only after you have judged yourself (and found yourself not wanting). I oppose promiscuity, but I admit I was once was. It would be another thing to oppose it and pretend I hadn’t been. This what that passage is teaching against.

    The passage I quoted is from the NASB version which is considered one of the most accurate translations loyal to the underlying Greek text. And it clearly shows that judging is not forbidden but that hypocritical judging is.

    You present the story about the woman caught in adultery. What do you think Jesus was scribbling on the ground? Since Jesus’ point there, again, is hypocrisy, might he be scribbling about instances (times, dates, and names) of adulterous conduct on the part of the woman’s accusers? It could be.

    Again, he is not condemning judging people–he is condemning hypocritically judging people. Because, by the standards Christ adhered to, it was righteous to stone adulterers to death. He was a devout Jew who taught the Hebrew scriptures in the Temple and he was aware of the Law of Moses and upheld it.

    You seem to be confusing the several meanings of condemnation. I would be wrong about that impression. First of all, I have no power to condemn an adulteress or homosexual to death. I may condemn them in the sense of disapproval, but I have no legal power to punish them. I hope by your using the term and alternating it with the word judgment, you are not using some slight of hand to imply that they are the same thing and that if I make a judgnment it implies I am condemning things in such a way as to be a legal power unto myself.

    To condemn, in the non-legal sense is merely to register complete disapproval. Leftists do this all the time and never seem to worry about it. That is because many things should be condemned (disapproved of). After making a judgment, we may or may not condemn something. But I have no power to personally put someone in jail for anything and any condemning I do is exactly like any condemning you or any opponent of mine would do regarding any number of issues.

    In the story of the adulterous woman, Christ doesn’t just challenged the hypocrites, he tells the woman to go and sin no more. He tells her to stop sinning. And you should tell that part of the story too.

    And finally you write/quote:

    ““Do not speak evil against one another, brothers. The one who speaks against a brother or judges his brother, speaks evil against the law and judges the law. But if you judge the law, you are not a doer of the law but a judge. There is only one lawgiver and judge, he who is able to save and to destroy. But who are you to judge your neighbor?”

    My response:

    You present this passage (the 4th chapter, verse 11) as if to say that it represents how Christians should conduct themselves with non-believers. Your suggestion is the liberal theologian viewpoint because that passage is CLEARLY not about what you imply. The proof is key word is brother. The entire chapter of James 4 (and you cannot understand the verse you quoted unless you read the entire chapter) is spoken to church members only about mostly their interpersonal relationships WITH BELIEVERS.

    James tells us exactly who he is addressing. In the first first verse of chapter one he states “James, a bond-servant of God and of the Lord Jesus Christ, To the twelve tribes who are dispersed abroad: Greetings.”

    Not only is he addressing believers, he is addressing former Jews who know exactly which of the twelve Hebrew tribes they belong to. In the next chapter he tells us that these are not only members of the twelve tribes, but Christians. He writes:

    “My brethren, do not hold your faith in our glorious Lord Jesus Christ with an attitude of personal favoritism.” James 2:1

    These are part of the disbursed twelve tribes who had become Christians and James is advising them on how to conduct themselves now that they no longer have a Temple or the law of Moses.

    And he talks about the law (the law of Moses) because he knows they are familiar with it and now they must understand the law and judges as it should be viewed from the new perspective of Christianity. That is why he brings it up.

    He is telling the new believers that they no longer have legal authority like they did as Jews. This is especially important because he was also addressing members of the tribe of Levi (the priestly tribe). The Levites had legal authority over the children of Israel (they were judges). Moses was a Levite and we know him for the “Law of Moses”. James is telling them they don’t have that legal authority anymore now that they are Christians. It now resides with God. They are not to run courts, execute legal punishments, and so forth. That is the what the passage you quote refers to.

    I’m not claiming any legal authority either. But I am saying, because the Bible teaches it, that homosexuality and adultery are wrong. As are many other things.

    I have made this judgment. And I condemn these things only in the sense of registering strong disapproval. But I hate no one who has committed any sin common to mankind as I would have to hate myself. And I do not.

    Leftists act like we devout Christians do not have family members and loved ones who have committed these sins and that we cannot at the same time love these people though we view them as in open sin. If we are capable of loving our family members who live in sin we are surely capable of this with strangers. Our opponents make us out to be incapable of it.

    A good example is how the left treated Sarah Palin when her unmarried daughter got pregnant. They denigrated her and Christianity. They mocked Sarah unmercifully. They pretended you couldn’t be opposed to premarital sex, have an unwed daughter, and not be a hypocrite. And they enjoyed defaming her.

    This is only because of the left’s utter contempt for those who disagree with them combined with their failure to understand the teachings of Christ.

  325. Stamford Samir Shabazz (aka Stazi Stamford)

    You are free to ignore me (but you never do!) Ha ha!

    And reasonable person who does make it through my horribly written posts is going to see that you are the one with problem, not me. So it would do you good to see how rational people see you. And I don’t mean your buddies here. They are just as morally bankrupt as you.

    You really should worry about why you are such a vicious person because most evil people on earth never think they are. And I would hate to see you go in that direction much longer.

  326. Tootie

    “And you know what? I was once a liberal so I know this from the inside too. But I don’t hate liberals because of it. You only assume I do (because this is how you operate).”

    Oh, I see now. You are still in the initial phase of your transformation. I see it all the time, especially in Christians who do not quite yet believe or in people just newly accepting a philosophy but haven’t figured it all out or haven’t yet figured where they belong or exactly what are their views.

    You must admit, you do come across rather forcefully. Just because liberal views are thought to be wrong doesn’t make these people “bad” people. It only makes them misguided as you say you where once. Wouldn’t it be better to try and change their minds with good arguments rather than “guys suck”?

    You had a change of mind for some reason, what was it and how did it come about? I have seen you agree with Prof. Turley on certain occasions and he is not exactly a classical liberal on economics. I would imagine you have more in common with these people than you might think.

  327. Buddha:

    By your standard, then, you accuse me of hate only to revel in your own.

    Christians are taught to love their enemies. And I think this enrages you more than anything because you clearly think you are morally superior to Christians. Yet their loving you proves that cannot be true. It proves that your moral code is inferior. This must enrage you as well and explain your behavior to me.

    If the people you despise with unmitigated hatred don’t hate you then your moral framework falls apart. So you lie about them. You need them to hate you in order to give yourself license to hate them because you so dearly wish to.

    And it can only lead to tragedy.

  328. Tootles,

    That’s pretty funny.

    Being lectured by a homophobic racist zealot about love.

    As to moral superiority? I don’t think in terms of morals, only ethics, so your assertion is a non-sequitur. I think in terms of ethics – the grownups version of morals that rests in logic instead of blind faith.

    Do I think I’m ethically superior to all Christians? No. Just some. Possibly many. But especially the Fundies and others like them so ignorant in the history of their own book and traditions that they 1) take the Bible as literal, 2) spread hate and division under the name of Jesus (thus totally missing the point of His teachings) and 3) feel like it’s their job to insert their religion into our government against the express aegis of the Constitution. To those hypocritical “Christians”? You bet I’m ethically superior.

    And I don’t need people like you to hate me. I don’t need you to do anything. There are some things I’d like you to do though.

    Mainly, I’d like you to keep your retrograde idiotic misapplication of a religion that you use to disguise your own bigotry, hatred and intolerance to yourself. Stop spreading the hatred and social division your lot embraces disguised as “the Good Word” and poisoning impressionable minds. Keep it out of government as guaranteed by the 1st Amendment and out of other people’s bedrooms and lives as required to respect other’s rights to self-determination free from your coercion.

    You have the right to choose your own religion. Even one that’s ethically challenged as demonstrated by its divisiveness and spreading of bigotry and hatred under the guise of “it’s what Jesus wants”. Even if it’s one that is factually incorrect about the history of their own books and traditions. But when it comes to proselytizing? Others have the right to tell you to STFU, ridicule you and/or ignore you. Freedom of religion and freedom of speech isn’t a guarantee that people will believe your hokum nor tolerate your hypocritical bullshit gladly.

    And that’s mainly what I’d like you to do: keep your idiocy to yourself.

    Not everyone is willing to join your twisted Apocalypse-worshiping hateful death cult version of Christianity. Grow up and accept that it is a choice others have from their own free will and move on instead of trying to force feed others the distortions of Christ’s teachings you use to rationalize your own hatred, bigotry, selfish lack of charity, basic intellectual laziness (i.e. stupidity) and underlying mental illnesses.

    Jesus was a wise teacher. Most Christians are just fine. Mostly decent people trying to be even better people. Even most of the Catholics fall into this category despite the organization of their church being corrupt pedophile protecting criminals. I have nothing in particular against Christians. Just some Christians.

    You Fundies, however, are a batshit insane death cult of St. John who are just as willing to use coercion to get others to believe as you do as any Muslim Fundamentalist.

    Morally superior? I wouldn’t know. Morals and morality stories are for children who are ruled by threat, fear and edicts from others – usually father figures – so they can act bereft of independent critical thought.

    Ethically superior?

    Of course I’m ethically superior to you.

    Being that I’m both sane and rational, I don’t suffer the impediments to reason and logic that crazy people do.

    Need you to hate me though? Need??? I need Fundies (of any stripe) just about as much as a fish needs a particle accelerator. Which is to say, I don’t need you at all.

  329. Stamford Shabazz (Malek)

    I’m not a newbie Christian. Many at this blog pretty much get the main thrust of Christianity wrong. And I think I’ve proven that they have, and have done so enough to say I’m not wet behind the ears regarding any depth of study or understanding in the word of God. I know scripture backwards and forwards.

    But you can entertain any opinion you like of me. And I welcome any challenge you may wish to test me on about the meaning of scripture.

    I agree with you that I do come on strong. That is inpart because time is fleeting–my time on earth, and the near collapse of our civilization. There is no time to mince words. It has gotten so bad that our government has even authorized the sexual molestation of innocent people at our airports because of the very people the government invites into the country for the expressed purposes of justifying the molestation and the rise of the police state!

    Time for mincing has ended.

    And all the nice patient pleas have fallen on deaf ears for decades.

    This makes sense because Christ was kind, and he was gentle, yet they murdered him anyway. This is the way people are. People do not, in general, like the truth. They don’t want you to be nice so they can listen to what you have to say; they want you to be nice just to shut you up. Because to them, being nice means that you should stop talking about their sin or error.

    People often say that if I do a song and dance and please them kindly, they might consider my side or my points. This is a bogus argument and I’ll tell you why.

    I used to be very bad before I became a Christian. I was even a hippie. And before I became a Christian (in my mid twenties), like many here, I knew about Christians who were hypocrites. But when I got to be SO bad, to the point I couldn’t live with it, I turned to Christ even knowing that there were hypocritical Christians. But what they were didn’t prevent me from finding the truth.

    The point is that no one can stop anyone from finding the truth if one really wants it. I find that people don’t really want the truth. They are not looking for it even when it is handed to them.

    If you want the truth you would see it even if I say it badly. You either want it or you don’t and no one will prevent it. Asking me to sugar coat it will not make a difference.

    And yes, liberals are bad. I’m sorry, some groups of people are really very bad. They are not born that way, but they have embraced a worldview that makes them that way even if they don’t intend on it. And I don’t say this out of hate. I say it from the cool atmosphere of conclusions drawn by their conduct.

    One cannot be in favor of thievery, snuffing out the lives of 50 million or so unborn humans, be war-mongering monsters, and still be considered “good”.

    It is just not possible.

    And yes I do admire many of Mr. Turley’s positions: freedom of speech, opposition to torture, and a few other very important ideas. And I am well aware of the things in which we differ. I must say that I don’t know what political party Mr. Turley belongs to and I don’t care. I admire him for being on the correct side of some very crucial issues.

    You mentioned his differing economic philosophy. And it is a good point. Friedrich Hayek explains my viewpoint of that best. Hayek keenly understood that many decent people who advocate collectivism and central control of economic activities will not like the brutal totalitarian force required to achieve it. But they cannot see how one makes the other impossible. You cannot achieve liberty if you enforce equality (of material prosperity). To maintain the equilibrium requires a gun and stomping on liberty. Freedom dies.

    And I believe Mr. Turley is the kind of person Hayek was describing. Turley wants more economic equality (so do I), but doesn’t realize it cannot be achieved by government control except by violating these treasured notions of freedom and liberty we may both cherish. It is simply impossible.

    Yes, it will be difficult for he and I to work together on the issues that may bind us together but it will be mainly because of the one idea he possesses (the quest for greater material equality via government) that will force us apart automatically.

    I hope he sees this before it is too late even for him (and me). More importantly for his children and grandchildren. They will pay the price of collectivism. That price is lost liberty.

    I’m sure he doesn’t want that. Most intellectuals didn’t want the loss of liberty when they were supporting collectivism in Europe as socialism took over last century. And they paid dearly for that mistake once the push for collectivism (equality of material standing) destabilized Europe and led to the rise of dictators.

    Strangely enough, Obama understands completely how this works and it is his goal to intentionally destabilize the USA through the promotion of collectivism. On the other hand, I do not believe it is intentional on the part of Mr. Turley.

    I hope he can come to see this soon.

    And I can only hope he comes to his senses about the Constitution, in particular, the 10th Amendment. :)

    Many of our more serious conflicts as a people would evaporate if we followed the Federalist system established by our founders and kept the federal government powers severely and strictly limited to only that which is listed in the Constitution.

    I’m not saying the feds should be weak. They must and should be strong, but only in the powers they are authorized to execute.

  330. Buhhda:

    I didn’t say you needed me. I said you needed to lie about me so YOU could be hateful.

    And any Christian would do. It doesn’t have to be me personally.

    Of course, you are probably more truthful than you realize. If there weren’t any Christians, there would have to be someone for you to hate.

    It appears to be your nature to hate.

  331. No, I don’t need to lie about you, Tootles.

    You’re a demonstrable hateful, bigoted, racist zealot.

    As to the statement about “if there weren’t any Christians”?

    You make a mistake. And like most of your mistakes? It is on purpose, but I’ll leave it to the readers to decide what your purpose might be.

    Let’s be clear here:

    I don’t hate Christians as a whole. What part of “Jesus was a wise teacher. Most Christians are just fine. Mostly decent people trying to be even better people,” didn’t you understand? Besides all of it.

    Aside from the very small number of people who have managed to make it on to my permanent shit list (and they are all actual evil people), what I hate are purposely chosen human behaviors. I hate the willfully ignorant, the bigoted, the innately and irrationally divisive and the hypocritical. The universe already makes your, er, those kinds of idiots in many more flavors than simply Christian.

  332. Tootie:

    Yes there are many people on this blog who promote collectivism and think it can be ushered in peacefully. It is a vain hope. Although a couple on here know it has to be by force and you can see it in there writings all the time.

    I wont mention any names as I am sure you know of whom I write.

  333. Stamford Shabazz (Malek)

    You are right that they think they can usher it in peacefully. But in truth, what they have ushered in of collectivism thus far has been done at gunpoint.

  334. Taliban Tootie,

    “Stamford Samir Shabazz (aka Stazi Stamford)”

    You have absolutely no fucking idea … Another glaring clue that you are … clueless. I will give you kudos – cluelessness is the only area where you excel. Congrats, bigot.

    Well, at any rate – I echo BIL’s posts to you. I will properly file your take on politics, the Constitution, religion and liberals where they belong … under “G” for garbage because that’s where you and your ignorant notions belong.

  335. Tootie,

    You have a written record of hateful attacks, You’ve called liberals evil, which is a hateful attack itself and bigotry which is defaming a group of humans across the board. Yet you whine when you are attacked in kind and imply there is unfairness to the attacks, when it merely shows you to be a hypocrite unable to take what you dish out.

    As for your once being a hippie and/or liberal that may have been true in your mind, but not so much in reality. Many people back then thought they were hippies because they dressed a certain way, or smoked pot. The were really superficial copycats who didn’t understand what was going on. Many people too adopted liberal poses withot the heart and/or commitment to what they espoused.
    The proof is in how quickly they found themselves lost in a sea of their own misunderstanding.

    You also allude to being promiscuous and beeing ruled by your sexuality. If so you totally missed the point of what was going on and so naturally felt like you had screwed up, because you had. Perhaps you did one too
    many experiments with psychedelics and those left you lost and afraid. More than a few back then, with their superficial understanding of what was going on, in their fear latched onto a belief system that gave them strength and faith again.

    If that what they/you needed it is understandable. However, to then claim disillusionment and disdain for your own failings in living a philosophy and/or way of life that you merely copied out of fad and misunderstanding, is really your failure to act intelligently and morally. Most of us in that lifestyle and holding strong beliefs never lost our moral and ethical conscience as you have. It was your own damn fault, which you couldn’t accept and so you accepted a belief that could control your misguided attempts at personal freedom because you couldn’t trust your own moral compass.

    I sincerely hope that it is working for you and has abated your pain, confusion and guilt. However, from my perspective that which you choose to follow lacks morals, ethics and is a fraudulent shadow of the Gospels,
    that are unfaithful to Jesus’ teachings. The trouble is that you are congenitally unable to understand that.

  336. Mike I was just thinking about you this morning. I was in my car and was asking what was taking you so long to get a new keyboard.
    The front came through with a vengeance this morning but quickly faded out. Sun is close to coming back out. Looks like you have a couple of hours before the line reaches near Palm Bch.County.

  337. Bdaman & AY,

    I’m still waiting on the keyboard, but for some reason, which I can’t fathom, the E,C,R,F, & V keys are working today. This has happened before only to return to computer hell once again. I’ll see how long it works today. My PC guy should be over sometime this week.

  338. Do the Fonzarelli on it. Bang it a couple of times and shake it upside down. Maybe something stuck in it. Sometimes it works.

  339. Just desire to say your article is as astounding.
    The clarity in your publish is simply cool and that i could assume you’re an expert in this subject. Well along with your permission allow me to grasp your feed to stay updated with approaching post. Thank you one million and please continue the gratifying work.

Comments are closed.