Gas Bandit's Political Thread

[GasBandit]

But sadly for a while their government hasn't been giving them a good name.

Heh, well, at least we agree one one statement, if not particularly for all the same reasons. The root of the problem falls in the paradigm shift that has come about, from "America is great despite the government" to those who think that "America is great BECAUSE of the government." The surprising thing is where each of those statements comes from, given the contents of the current argument.

Joe Scarborough made the mistake of discussing torture with a moonbat, Chrystia Freeland. He says her logic is so sophomoric that he can't continue the conversation.

Gas. Waterboarding IS torture. But it works, so why not? You torture them. Confirm the information with the spies and you save the day. Until we invent some sort of humane method with a 100% success rate, I'll stick with torture. We're not killing them or anything. Rather than whine about Gitmo, I challenge anyone to come up with a humane yet more effective method.

But, if the prisoner coughs up accurate information, just treat him kindly after all that hell you gave him. I'm still a big softie.

I reiterate - wake me when we're pulling nails with pliers, or something approximating that level of barbarity. Maybe then I'll be able to generate some outrage.

JCM: you misunderstand me. I personally don't think the USA is GDI to Al Qaeda's NOD, I assure you. (the Brotherhood is way cooler, for one thing ). I'm stating a hypothesis. Starting from the assumption most Americans make that their side is, you know, the right side, the rest follows naturally.

No, AQ isn't NOD, it's the GLA

Anyone who ... is never going to truly listen and appreciate a differing opinion.

The right doesn't even come close to having the monopoly on close-minded dogma.

 

[makare]

Anyone who ... is never going to truly listen and appreciate a differing opinion.

The right doesn't even come close to having the monopoly on close-minded dogma.

You're right. I shouldn't have said that.... oh wait, I didn't. Huh.

 

[JCM]

But sadly for a while their government hasn't been giving them a good name.

Heh, well, at least we agree one one statement, if not particularly for all the same reasons. The root of the problem falls in the paradigm shift that has come about, from "America is great despite the government" to those who think that "America is great BECAUSE of the government." The surprising thing is where each of those statements comes from, given the contents of the current argument.

Sadly the american government was a model to be followed to make a country great, now its lone purpose is merely to suck up money, thankfully the consumer culture of the US driving the industry and military potency will keep USA in the lead up to the mid 2010s.

Then I'll have to bloody learn Mandarin.

But I do respect that guy for not claiming that we are NOT torturing people. At least he admits that.

Yep.

If one cannot behave morally, why pretend to be moral at all?

 

[GasBandit]

Anyone who ... is never going to truly listen and appreciate a differing opinion.

The right doesn't even come close to having the monopoly on close-minded dogma.

You're right. I shouldn't have said that.... oh wait, I didn't. Huh.

It wasn't such a direct rebuttal of you, so much a pointing out of the fact that the shoe is now entirely on the other foot when it comes to intransigence, which starts to border into the hypocritical.

But sadly for a while their government hasn't been giving them a good name.

Heh, well, at least we agree one one statement, if not particularly for all the same reasons. The root of the problem falls in the paradigm shift that has come about, from "America is great despite the government" to those who think that "America is great BECAUSE of the government." The surprising thing is where each of those statements comes from, given the contents of the current argument.

Sadly the american government was a model to be followed to make a country great, now its lone purpose is merely to suck up money, thankfully the consumer culture of the US driving the industry and military potency will keep USA in the lead up to the mid 2010s.

Then I'll have to bloody learn Mandarin.

Somewhere along the line, the american government changed from "a necessary evil whose only purpose is to keep us free" to "a necessary fixture whose purpose is to keep us fed." It's all downhill from here. Remember what I said about balkanization on the old board? You feel it getting closer yet?

 

[Espy]

Somewhere along the line, the american government changed from "a necessary evil whose only purpose is to keep us free" to "a necessary fixture whose purpose is to keep us fed."

Thats a great line GB. I really don't see us ever coming back from the place we are in to be honest and with Obama's "spend till it's better" policy it's things are only going to go further in that direction.

 

[Troll]

Somewhere along the line, the american government changed from "a necessary evil whose only purpose is to keep us free" to "a necessary fixture whose purpose is to keep us fed."

Thats a great line GB. I really don't see us ever coming back from the place we are in to be honest and with Obama's "spend till it's better" policy it's things are only going to go further in that direction.

It's a fundamental difference in views for Americans. Half see the goverment as described above ("necessary evil") and believe people have their best chance for success when the government gets off their back (easier on regulations, taxes, and so on). In simple terms, humans will be fine if they look after themselves and the government just handles the basics.

The other half take a more optimistic view. They see the government as a powerful tool for improving society. The idea is that the government can be a resource that works *for* the people, opens up opportunities, and makes life better for everyone.

Neither side is wrong. Neither side is totally right.

 

[Dieb]

Again, JCM, two more supreme court decisions, both 5/4 split along party lines, highly controversial and easily seen as overturnable in the future, much like Jim Crow. Plus, as Jackson was erroneously purported to say, the supreme courtmade their decision, now let them enforce it. Isn't it interesting though, how now that Obama has started getting the picture from security briefings, that all the noise about shutting down gitmo etc has suddenly vanished? And of course the media doesn't call any attention to that.

Sure, they could be overturned. But for the next four years, at any rate, we have a President who will be appointing Justices who are much more likely to uphold rather than overturn those decisions. Plus, the Supreme Court hates to overturn their own decisions quickly. It makes them seem foolish. You won't see them overturning these decisions for at least a couple decades, if they ever do get a majority that would like to.

Now, while we all love Andrew Jackson, no President could get away with ignoring the Supreme Court these days. There would be a media firestorm. It would seriously undercut the legitamacy of the entire government. That's probably why Bush has followed all of the Supreme Court's decisions - well, as far as we know. I can't see Obama suddenly deciding to go against the Court's wishes on things he says he agrees with anyway.

And finally, what about all that noise about shutting down gitmo? (http://www.cnn.com/2009/POLITICS/01/12/ ... ref=nextin). Yep, looks like he's going to sign an executive order shutting the place down within his first week in office. Sure, it'll take months to actually shut it down. Bush really fracked up here, it might be impossible to actually try and convict the actual terrorists because of how they were tortured. But it's clearly still a priority of Obama's to shut it down.

[quote:12inowrr]It doesn't trump the WCA1996. It did change it so that only "grave breaches" of Common Article Three were war crimes under US law. It then goes on to SPECIFICALLY state that TORTURE was a "grave breach". If you had read my original post (have you yet?) you would see numerous examples of US courts ruling that waterboarding is torture.

As I've said since the beginning of these ridiculous bits, from stacking naked people to waterboarding... wake me when we're taking pliers to finger/toenails, maybe I'll be able to generate some outrage then. [/quote:12inowrr]

So we finally get down to this. Waterboarding is barbarous. You are "simulating" drowning. I put simulating in quotes because it FEELS like you are drowning. Do you know how much drowning hurts? A fuckton. More than pliers to bloody nails. Here's a video of Christopher Hitchens getting waterboarded: . Bonus: You get to see Christopher Hitchens getting waterboarded! But you can see what ONE session lasting less than 10 seconds does to the guy. You can just imagine what months of this would do to a man.

This is why waterboarding has always been considered torture. This is why we've convicted people of warcrimes for doing this against our troups.

[quote:12inowrr]Moreover, the MCA pretty much aknowleged that Article Three DID apply to detainees. Hamdan v Rumsfeld was specifically about the right to a trial that is afforded under Article Three. The MCA was about establishing courts to comply with Hamda v Rumsfeld and Article Three, as it itself states:

"Sec 948b. (f) Status of Commissions Under Common Article 3— A military commission established under this chapter is a regularly constituted court, affording all the necessary `judicial guarantees which are recognized as indispensable by civilized peoples' for purposes of common Article 3 of the Geneva Conventions. "

Wasn't that about the trial by military tribunal, not civilian court? [/quote:12inowrr]

Yes, the act was stating that the trials by military tribunal set up by the MCA were the fulfillment of the right to trial under Article 3 - which implicity recognizes that the detainees were afforded protection under Article 3.

Gas. Waterboarding IS torture. But it works, so why not? You torture them. Confirm the information with the spies and you save the day. Until we invent some sort of humane method with a 100% success rate, I'll stick with torture. We're not killing them or anything. Rather than whine about Gitmo, I challenge anyone to come up with a humane yet more effective method.

That's one of the problems. It doesn't work. Old fashioned interrogations work a hell of a lot better. But hey, don't believe me, believe a man who actually worked in Iraq as an interrogator: http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/co ... inionsbox1

The fact is that torture is great for getting false confessions. But not for much else.

 

[GasBandit]

Sure, they could be overturned. But for the next four years, at any rate, we have a President who will be appointing Justices (Heaven forfend - GB) who are much more likely to uphold rather than overturn those decisions. Plus, the Supreme Court hates to overturn their own decisions quickly. It makes them seem foolish. You won't see them overturning these decisions for at least a couple decades, if they ever do get a majority that would like to.

I don't know that a couple decades would go by... and even if it did, I'm not entirely sure that's so great an amount of time to be considered "not quickly." Plus, the fact that they were 5/4 (as close as it can possibly be to going the other way entirely) makes it that less concrete.

Now, while we all love Andrew Jackson, no President could get away with ignoring the Supreme Court these days. There would be a media firestorm. It would seriously undercut the legitamacy of the entire government. That's probably why Bush has followed all of the Supreme Court's decisions - well, as far as we know. I can't see Obama suddenly deciding to go against the Court's wishes on things he says he agrees with anyway.

You are probably right about Obama, but who can say what will happen in the legislature in the next couple of years, or what other emergencies may arise that might reassert the need for such things? We're kinda getting off track here though, going from what was to what will (or might) be.

And finally, what about all that noise about shutting down gitmo? (http://www.cnn.com/2009/POLITICS/01/12/ ... ref=nextin). Yep, looks like he's going to sign an executive order shutting the place down within his first week in office. Sure, it'll take months to actually shut it down. Bush really fracked up here, it might be impossible to actually try and convict the actual terrorists because of how they were tortured. But it's clearly still a priority of Obama's to shut it down.

Ah, so he's flopped back his flip, hmm? I'll be interested to see what he decides to do with the hot potatoes kept therein. I wonder which lucky state is going to get them? Sleep tight, kiddos.

So we finally get down to this. Waterboarding is barbarous. You are "simulating" drowning. I put simulating in quotes because it FEELS like you are drowning. Do you know how much drowning hurts? A fuckton. More than pliers to bloody nails. Here's a video of Christopher Hitchens getting waterboarded: . Bonus: You get to see Christopher Hitchens getting waterboarded! But you can see what ONE session lasting less than 10 seconds does to the guy. You can just imagine what months of this would do to a man.

"Simulating" rather does mean FEELS LIKE. That's kind of the point. I watched it, and even read the vanity fair article where he talks about his experience. Of course it hurts. Of course it causes panic and distress and all manner of terrible discomfort. But you know what it doesn't do? It doesn't break bones that heal badly, crippling you. It doesn't cut off digits that never grow back. It doesn't disfigure you such that loved ones can't bear to look at you. It hurts worse than pliers to nails? How do you know? Do you know anybody who has experienced both and can thus make an informed judgement call? The fact is, you don't and nobody does. The "worse than" assertion is made by observers based on their personal revulsion, not any actual experience of the effects nor evidence.

Yes, the act was stating that the trials by military tribunal set up by the MCA were the fulfillment of the right to trial under Article 3 - which implicity recognizes that the detainees were afforded protection under Article 3.

What it does is show that they are in fact being given attention by an acceptable court (a military tribunal) so further writs of habeas corpus are invalid, and that loophole has been closed. Just because I decide to give you 5 bucks doesn't mean you were, or will be again, entitled to it.

The fact is that torture is great for getting false confessions. But not for much else.

Got a backup for that assertion that relies on anything other than emotional righteous indignation? Because others have said that they gained via waterboarding was instrumental in preventing other would-be attacks.

 

[Espy]

Somewhere along the line, the american government changed from "a necessary evil whose only purpose is to keep us free" to "a necessary fixture whose purpose is to keep us fed."

Thats a great line GB. I really don't see us ever coming back from the place we are in to be honest and with Obama's "spend till it's better" policy it's things are only going to go further in that direction.

It's a fundamental difference in views for Americans. Half see the goverment as described above ("necessary evil") and believe people have their best chance for success when the government gets off their back (easier on regulations, taxes, and so on). In simple terms, humans will be fine if they look after themselves and the government just handles the basics.

The other half take a more optimistic view. They see the government as a powerful tool for improving society. The idea is that the government can be a resource that works *for* the people, opens up opportunities, and makes life better for everyone.

Neither side is wrong. Neither side is totally right.

Sure thats one way to look at it. Not the way I do mind you, but whatever makes you feel good.
I think the founders saw government as a hamper for individuals and something that inherently grew if not kept in check, and it didn't grow for the better. Personally I agree with them but I understand why people want the government to take care of them and give them handouts. It's easier and Americans love the easy way if they can get it. And that goes for folks on both sides of the aisle mind you, I'm not saying "libs or cons" here. I think both dems and repubs have been at the teat of the government for so long they don't even know how to survive without it, which means they will almost never be able to truly get off it. IMO of course.

 

[makare]

No, I have not seen any evidence that there will be balkanization of the states in the near or distant future. How would that work anyway? Most of the states stand no chance of surviving independently.

 

[Troll]

IMO of course.

Oh? Well your opinion is WRONG, bub.

No, I have not seen any evidence that there will be balkanization of the states in the near or distant future. How would that work anyway? Most of the states stand no chance of surviving independently.

California could. *snickers*

 

[GasBandit]

No, I have not seen any evidence that there will be balkanization of the states in the near or distant future. How would that work anyway? Most of the states stand no chance of surviving independently.

1) Well, I was asking JCM that more than I was asking you,
2) Maybe YOUR state doesn't...
and 3) you'll see. You'll just see. It happens when smaller geographical areas (though not necessarily bound by preexisting state lines) are somehow even better able to survive and protect their populations than the large national body can. And believe you me, we are headed very quickly in that direction. A trillion here, a trillion there, and even republicans are saying "well, there's no way we can cut spending. There's nothing at all that can be cut."

 

[makare]

No, I have not seen any evidence that there will be balkanization of the states in the near or distant future. How would that work anyway? Most of the states stand no chance of surviving independently.

1) Well, I was asking JCM that more than I was asking you,
2) Maybe YOUR state doesn't...
and 3) you'll see. You'll just see. It happens when smaller geographical areas (though not necessarily bound by preexisting state lines) are somehow even better able to survive and protect their populations than the large national body can. And believe you me, we are headed very quickly in that direction. A trillion here, a trillion there, and even republicans are saying "well, there's no way we can cut spending. There's nothing at all that can be cut."

Without the tight inter-connectivity of the US trade and domestic shipping capabilities, as a whole many states like mine would not survive. Half the population would die of gout and scurvy and the rest would be anarchy (which I know YOU approve of) but no one else wants.

Where is your proof that this is even hinted at? I have yet to meet a single person who would want to separate from the states, except this crazy guy who believes he can control the weather, and who thinks we live in a police state because he keeps getting stopped for speeding

 

[Espy]

IMO of course.

Oh? Well your opinion is WRONG, bub.

What happened to:

Neither side is wrong. Neither side is totally right.

Backpeddling are we? Flip-flopping? Hogswallowing? Just like a COMMIE!!!!!!

 

[Dieb]

Sure, they could be overturned. But for the next four years, at any rate, we have a President who will be appointing Justices (Heaven forfend - GB) who are much more likely to uphold rather than overturn those decisions. Plus, the Supreme Court hates to overturn their own decisions quickly. It makes them seem foolish. You won't see them overturning these decisions for at least a couple decades, if they ever do get a majority that would like to.

I don't know that a couple decades would go by... and even if it did, I'm not entirely sure that's so great an amount of time to be considered "not quickly." Plus, the fact that they were 5/4 (as close as it can possibly be to going the other way entirely) makes it that less concrete.

Now, while we all love Andrew Jackson, no President could get away with ignoring the Supreme Court these days. There would be a media firestorm. It would seriously undercut the legitamacy of the entire government. That's probably why Bush has followed all of the Supreme Court's decisions - well, as far as we know. I can't see Obama suddenly deciding to go against the Court's wishes on things he says he agrees with anyway.

You are probably right about Obama, but who can say what will happen in the legislature in the next couple of years, or what other emergencies may arise that might reassert the need for such things? We're kinda getting off track here though, going from what was to what will (or might) be.

True, this whole thing is off track, and also not entirely interesting. For now, the law of the land is that the detainees are covered under article 3. I admit this could change in the future, although quite frankly I think it is very unlikely to.

[quote:kh9anu62]And finally, what about all that noise about shutting down gitmo? (http://www.cnn.com/2009/POLITICS/01/12/ ... ref=nextin). Yep, looks like he's going to sign an executive order shutting the place down within his first week in office. Sure, it'll take months to actually shut it down. Bush really fracked up here, it might be impossible to actually try and convict the actual terrorists because of how they were tortured. But it's clearly still a priority of Obama's to shut it down.

Ah, so he's flopped back his flip, hmm? I'll be interested to see what he decides to do with the hot potatoes kept therein. I wonder which lucky state is going to get them? Sleep tight, kiddos. [/quote:kh9anu62]

Flopped back his flip? He never actually said he wasn't going to close down Gitmo - there were reports that he was going to wait and see, but who knows what those were based on. In any case, hopefully, the truely bad terrorists will end up in US prison, after they have been tried and convicted in a fair and honest manner. Unfortuantly, that's going to be quite hard after all the Bush administration has done to taint their cases.

[quote:kh9anu62]So we finally get down to this. Waterboarding is barbarous. You are "simulating" drowning. I put simulating in quotes because it FEELS like you are drowning. Do you know how much drowning hurts? A fuckton. More than pliers to bloody nails. Here's a video of Christopher Hitchens getting waterboarded: . Bonus: You get to see Christopher Hitchens getting waterboarded! But you can see what ONE session lasting less than 10 seconds does to the guy. You can just imagine what months of this would do to a man.

"Simulating" rather does mean FEELS LIKE. That's kind of the point. I watched it, and even read the vanity fair article where he talks about his experience. Of course it hurts. Of course it causes panic and distress and all manner of terrible discomfort. But you know what it doesn't do? It doesn't break bones that heal badly, crippling you. It doesn't cut off digits that never grow back. It doesn't disfigure you such that loved ones can't bear to look at you. It hurts worse than pliers to nails? How do you know? Do you know anybody who has experienced both and can thus make an informed judgement call? The fact is, you don't and nobody does. The "worse than" assertion is made by observers based on their personal revulsion, not any actual experience of the effects nor evidence. [/quote:kh9anu62]

So if it doesn't break bones, cut off digits, disfigure you, it's not torture? So John McCain, for example, was not tortured in Vietnam? I'm sure he'd find it comforting to learn that he wasn't actually tortured. Hey, could we redo the RNC and take out all references to him being tortured? It won't take long, half of the convention was stories about his time in Vietnam.

The actual definition of torture, for example in the Military Commisions Act, is the intentional infliction of "severe physical or mental pain or suffering". It has nothing to do with disfigurement. While you might not feel that the level of panic and distress caused by waterboarding rises to the level of torture, you're in the small minority. The US sentenced Japanese POW's to years of hard labor for the war crime of torture - the torture being waterboarding. (http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/co ... 01170.html) And the example that really gets me, in 1922 the Mississippi Supreme Court ruled that waterboarding is torture. (http://www.isthatlegal.org/archives/200 ... tortu.html) It's the specifics that are amazing. A black man had "confessed" that he had murdered a white man after being waterboarded by the sheriff and was convicted based on that confession. The Mississippi Supreme court overruled that conviction because waterboarding is torture. In 1922. To help an African-American. And yet some today feel that it isn't torture. Amazing.

[quote:kh9anu62]Yes, the act was stating that the trials by military tribunal set up by the MCA were the fulfillment of the right to trial under Article 3 - which implicity recognizes that the detainees were afforded protection under Article 3.

What it does is show that they are in fact being given attention by an acceptable court (a military tribunal) so further writs of habeas corpus are invalid, and that loophole has been closed. Just because I decide to give you 5 bucks doesn't mean you were, or will be again, entitled to it. [/quote:kh9anu62]

Not that it matters for this argument, but the Supreme Court overturned the suspension of habeas corpus in the MCA in Bourmediene v Bush (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Boumediene_v._Bush). Anyway, the argument originally was whether the MCA somehow overturned the specific ruling in Hamdan v Rumsfeld that the detainees are afforded protection under common Article 3 of the Geneva Conventions. Clearly it does not.

[quote:kh9anu62]The fact is that torture is great for getting false confessions. But not for much else.

Got a backup for that assertion that relies on anything other than emotional righteous indignation? Because others have said that they gained via waterboarding was instrumental in preventing other would-be attacks.[/quote:kh9anu62]

Wow. The backup for that assertion was the link posted right above it. Here it is again: http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/co ... inionsbox1 . An article written by an actual army interregator in Iraq. I suggest you read it before attacking me. The people saying waterboarding has saved lives are, of course, the people that commited war crimes by authorizing waterboarding. So it's not like they have a conflict of interest or anything. So forgive me if I don't take Dick Cheney's word on this.

 

[Troll]

IMO of course.

Oh? Well your opinion is WRONG, bub.

What happened to:
[quote="A Troll":1f397nt2]Neither side is wrong. Neither side is totally right.

Backpeddling are we? Flip-flopping? Hogswallowing? Just like a COMMIE!!!!!![/quote:1f397nt2]

You know all that stuff I said? Doesn't apply to me. I'm special.

 

[Espy]

[quote="A Troll":3kdu6ma2]

IMO of course.

Oh? Well your opinion is WRONG, bub.

What happened to:
[quote="A Troll":3kdu6ma2]Neither side is wrong. Neither side is totally right.

Backpeddling are we? Flip-flopping? Hogswallowing? Just like a COMMIE!!!!!![/quote:3kdu6ma2]

You know all that stuff I said? Doesn't apply to me. I'm special.[/quote:3kdu6ma2]
So special I hear you ride your own schoolbus.

 

[Troll]

So special I hear you ride your own schoolbus.

What's so wrong with that? They even gave me my own special helmet!

 

[Covar]

Somewhere along the line, the american government changed from "a necessary evil whose only purpose is to keep us free" to "a necessary fixture whose purpose is to keep us fed."

Thats a great line GB. I really don't see us ever coming back from the place we are in to be honest and with Obama's "spend till it's better" policy it's things are only going to go further in that direction.

It's a fundamental difference in views for Americans. Half see the goverment as described above ("necessary evil") and believe people have their best chance for success when the government gets off their back (easier on regulations, taxes, and so on). In simple terms, humans will be fine if they look after themselves and the government just handles the basics.

The other half take a more optimistic view. They see the government as a powerful tool for improving society. The idea is that the government can be a resource that works *for* the people, opens up opportunities, and makes life better for everyone.

Neither side is wrong. Neither side is totally right.

See I don't consider finding the big government view to be optimistic at all. Its really a much more pessimistic view. Big Government argument is that people are inherently corrupt and evil so the government must get involved to do what is right (note how this argument is used by both Republicans and Democrats). The Conservative argument however takes the optimistic route. All people are not out to constantly screw over as many people as they possibly can.

Conservatives seek to equalize inputs, Liberals seek to equalize outputs

 

[GasBandit]

Without the tight inter-connectivity of the US trade and domestic shipping capabilities, as a whole many states like mine would not survive. Half the population would die of gout and scurvy and the rest would be anarchy (which I know YOU approve of) but no one else wants.

Where is your proof that this is even hinted at? I have yet to meet a single person who would want to separate from the states, except this crazy guy who believes he can control the weather, and who thinks we live in a police state because he keeps getting stopped for speeding

People, especially here, especially now, are very shortsighted. Obviously it isn't to that point YET or it would already have happened.

Basically it works like this - The Federal government is becoming more and more the "solution of first resort" for any problem people have, be it regulation, deciding legality, or plain old providing the essentials of life. Single payer health care is an inevitability at this point. Many states' transportation and road budgets have become almost entirely dependent upon federal money, to the point where washington can cram legislation down the throats of states under the threat of withholding highway funding. Food stamps. Welfare. Bailouts. Earmarks. Every day that goes by, federal government's tendrils snake their way into more of the endeavors of every day life. People look to the government more and more to do things for them rather than do things for themselves. Government, save my mortgage. Government, lower my gas bill. About a year ago, the phrase "you don't professionalize until you nationalize" was being uttered in seriousness in the US Legislature. Oh, and of course, we fight expensive overseas wars, made all the more expensive in cash and blood by antipathetic american media giving aid and comfort to the enemy. Obama is filling his cabinet and advisory positions with unrepentant socialists. We're told by Obama that the only entity that can fix our economic problems is government. We're told by George Bush that he has to suspend the laws of the free market to save capitalism. Companies flee our shores as fast as they can declare new headquarters overseas. The snowball of federal spending keeps getting bigger and bigger and bigger while the diners that used to pick up the check head to other restaurants. And all the while we stand here blinkered, refusing to see what is happening before our eyes.

This isn't an effect that will come about gradually, where one by one people will start to want to leave the union. When the critical threshold is crossed, what will happen is the federal government will suddenly and catastrophically no longer be able to take care of us all. That's it, gone, done, the well is dry, not one bucket more. Collapse. Panicked and hungry people will desperately seek a solution now that the milk is not just sour but gone. And because they're used to looking to government, they'll look to government... but the only ones left will be of the more local variety. State and local authorities will find themselves being thrust into the "for god's sake DO SOMETHING" position simply by virtue of their pre-collapse position. Local military garrisons (cut off from the federal teat like everybody else, but having millions of pre-collapse dollars worth of hardware in their hands) might sign on board, or might try to carve out their own fiefdoms since in many states they are the only ones with any guns. Neighborhoods will look out for each other, and band together with other neighborhoods to make communities their own governing and support bodies, communities joined under town or county or city (or rogue military) authorities, under preexisting state or newly established regional authorities. The return of the Republic of Texas. The rise of the Kingdom of the Midwest. The ordainment of the Grand Prophet of Dixie. The prime minister of Hollywood.

The old lines will most likely completely cease to exist, and multiple boundaries will grow together, where populations stop finding people who are "like them." Maybe they fight, maybe they don't, maybe there's just miles and miles of unclaimed no-man's-land since life is now unsustainable in many areas. Millions die. Millions relocate.

And the thought then occurs to many of these people, if and when washington eventually rises from the ashes and tries to reforge the old America... Why should we? What did we get from you that had a lasting legacy, other than hardship and ruin? No thank you. We'll just have to look out for ourselves from now on.

 

[Troll]

See I don't consider finding the big government view to be optimistic at all. Its really a much more pessimistic view. Big Government argument is that people are inherently corrupt and evil so the government must get involved to do what is right (note how this argument is used by both Republicans and Democrats). The Conservative argument however takes the optimistic route. All people are not out to constantly screw over as many people as they possibly can.

You're injecting your personal preference into the argument, but then trying to paint it as an objective view. All I'm describing in my post is the motivation both sides of the debate. People who support the idea of a large government are trying to make it into a resource to be used, with the hope of creating a better life for everyone. People who want smaller government see it as an obstacle, because people can work to make life better without the government getting involved. Each side could be described as optimisitic.

 

[makare]

Without the tight inter-connectivity of the US trade and domestic shipping capabilities, as a whole many states like mine would not survive. Half the population would die of gout and scurvy and the rest would be anarchy (which I know YOU approve of) but no one else wants.

Where is your proof that this is even hinted at? I have yet to meet a single person who would want to separate from the states, except this crazy guy who believes he can control the weather, and who thinks we live in a police state because he keeps getting stopped for speeding

People, especially here, especially now, are very shortsighted. Obviously it isn't to that point YET or it would already have happened.

Basically it works like this - The Federal government is becoming more and more the "solution of first resort" for any problem people have, be it regulation, deciding legality, or plain old providing the essentials of life. Single payer health care is an inevitability at this point. Many states' transportation and road budgets have become almost entirely dependent upon federal money, to the point where washington can cram legislation down the throats of states under the threat of withholding highway funding. Food stamps. Welfare. Bailouts. Earmarks. Every day that goes by, federal government's tendrils snake their way into more of the endeavors of every day life. People look to the government more and more to do things for them rather than do things for themselves. Government, save my mortgage. Government, lower my gas bill. About a year ago, the phrase "you don't professionalize until you nationalize" was being uttered in seriousness in the US Legislature. Oh, and of course, we fight expensive overseas wars, made all the more expensive in cash and blood by antipathetic american media giving aid and comfort to the enemy. Obama is filling his cabinet and advisory positions with unrepentant socialists. We're told by Obama that the only entity that can fix our economic problems is government. We're told by George Bush that he has to suspend the laws of the free market to save capitalism. Companies flee our shores as fast as they can declare new headquarters overseas. The snowball of federal spending keeps getting bigger and bigger and bigger while the diners that used to pick up the check head to other restaurants. And all the while we stand here blinkered, refusing to see what is happening before our eyes.

This isn't an effect that will come about gradually, where one by one people will start to want to leave the union. When the critical threshold is crossed, what will happen is the federal government will suddenly and catastrophically no longer be able to take care of us all. That's it, gone, done, the well is dry, not one bucket more. Collapse. Panicked and hungry people will desperately seek a solution now that the milk is not just sour but gone. And because they're used to looking to government, they'll look to government... but the only ones left will be of the more local variety. State and local authorities will find themselves being thrust into the "for god's sake DO SOMETHING" position simply by virtue of their pre-collapse position. Local military garrisons (cut off from the federal teat like everybody else, but having millions of pre-collapse dollars worth of hardware in their hands) might sign on board, or might try to carve out their own fiefdoms since in many states they are the only ones with any guns. Neighborhoods will look out for each other, and band together with other neighborhoods to make communities their own governing and support bodies, communities joined under town or county or city (or rogue military) authorities, under preexisting state or newly established regional authorities. The return of the Republic of Texas. The rise of the Kingdom of the Midwest. The ordainment of the Grand Prophet of Dixie. The prime minister of Hollywood.

The old lines will most likely completely cease to exist, and multiple boundaries will grow together, where populations stop finding people who are "like them." Maybe they fight, maybe they don't, maybe there's just miles and miles of unclaimed no-man's-land since life is now unsustainable in many areas. Millions die. Millions relocate.

And the thought then occurs to many of these people, if and when washington eventually rises from the ashes and tries to reforge the old America... Why should we? What did we get from you that had a lasting legacy, other than hardship and ruin? No thank you. We'll just have to look out for ourselves from now on.

While that would make an excellent story, actually I think it has a few times I mean isn't that the plot of that Kevin Costner movie, the post man? But no I don't see any reason why that would happen the way you see it happening. It's all way to hypothetical.

 

The only thing that I have to add is that confessions gathered under duress are notoriously unreliable.

 

[GasBandit]

Ugh, my first reply at this got eaten by the internet monster, so I'm having to rebuild, and you know how the second draft is never quite as on target as the first, right...

Flopped back his flip? He never actually said he wasn't going to close down Gitmo - there were reports that he was going to wait and see, but who knows what those were based on. In any case, hopefully, the truely bad terrorists will end up in US prison, after they have been tried and convicted in a fair and honest manner. Unfortuantly, that's going to be quite hard after all the Bush administration has done to taint their cases.

He did "back off" from saying he was going to close gitmo. Granted he didn't say he was NOT going to close gitmo, but the politispeak he used was the same as a boss explaining that there weren't going to be raises that year after all.

So if it doesn't break bones, cut off digits, disfigure you, it's not torture? So John McCain, for example, was not tortured in Vietnam? I'm sure he'd find it comforting to learn that he wasn't actually tortured. Hey, could we redo the RNC and take out all references to him being tortured? It won't take long, half of the convention was stories about his time in Vietnam.

That's not exactly a good example, seeing as how McCain was bayonetted, refused medical treatment for broken limbs and wounds, and given three or more beatings a week, the physical effects of which he still suffers from to this day.

Not that it matters for this argument, but the Supreme Court overturned the suspension of habeas corpus in the MCA in Bourmediene v Bush (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Boumediene_v._Bush). Anyway, the argument originally was whether the MCA somehow overturned the specific ruling in Hamdan v Rumsfeld that the detainees are afforded protection under common Article 3 of the Geneva Conventions. Clearly it does not.

I don't want to get back into the future argument again, but that was the wrong decision to make... again another 5/4 special.

[quote:2zomq26g] [quote:2zomq26g]The fact is that torture is great for getting false confessions. But not for much else.

Got a backup for that assertion that relies on anything other than emotional righteous indignation? Because others have said that they gained via waterboarding was instrumental in preventing other would-be attacks.[/quote:2zomq26g]

Wow. The backup for that assertion was the link posted right above it. Here it is again: http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/co ... inionsbox1 . An article written by an actual army interregator in Iraq. I suggest you read it before attacking me. The people saying waterboarding has saved lives are, of course, the people that commited war crimes by authorizing waterboarding. So it's not like they have a conflict of interest or anything. So forgive me if I don't take Dick Cheney's word on this.[/quote:2zomq26g] Everybody's got an axe to grind. And yes, I saw your linked article to one man's selectively chosen and subjectively postured opinion, published in the Washington "World to End: Women and Minorities Hit Hardest" Post.

While that would make an excellent story, actually I think it has a few times I mean isn't that the plot of that Kevin Costner movie, the post man? But no I don't see any reason why that would happen the way you see it happening. It's all way to hypothetical.

Everything that is was hypothetical once. If I told you 100 years ago that the assassination of the leader of a minor eastern european country would be the impetus for a quarter century of global war into which the US would be dragged, becoming the defining conflict of the nation for the 20th century, and the repercussions of the aftermath of which would still be felt in the middle east for 100 years (if not more), you might say that sounded too hypothetical as well.

 

[GasBandit]

Got sent this one too... thought it appropriate to go here.

The 25 Funniest Political Quotes of 2008

1. “I can see Russia from my house!” –Tina Fey, impersonating Sarah Palin on Saturday Night Live

2. On undecided voters: “I look at these people and can’t quite believe that they exist. Are they professional actors? I wonder. Or are they simply laymen who want a lot of attention? To put them in perspective, I think of being on an airplane. The flight attendant comes down the aisle with her food cart and, eventually, parks it beside my seat. “Can I interest you in the chicken?” she asks. “Or would you prefer the platter of sh*t with bits of broken glass in it? To be undecided in this election is to pause for a moment and then ask how the chicken is cooked.” –David Sedaris

3. “This campaign needed the common touch of a working man. After all, it began so long ago with the heralded arrival of a man known to Oprah Winfrey as ‘The One.’ Being a friend and colleague of Barack, I just called him ‘That One.’” –John McCain, in his comedy routine at the Al Smith Dinner

4. “Even in this room full of proud Manhattan Democrats. I can’t shake that feeling that some people here are pulling for me … I’m delighted to see you here tonight, Hillary.” –John McCain, at the Al Smith Dinner

5. “Who is Barack Obama? Contrary to the rumors you have heard, I was not born in a manger. I was actually born on Krypton and sent here by my father Jor-El to save the Planet Earth. Many of you know that I got my name, Barack, from my father. What you may not know is Barack is actually Swahili for ‘That One.’ And I got my middle name from somebody who obviously didn’t think I’d ever run for president. If I had to name my greatest strength, I guess it would be my humility. Greatest weakness, it’s possible that I’m a little too awesome.” –Barack Obama, in his comedy routine at the Al Smith Dinner

6. “He looks like a guy who’s backed over his own mailbox … He looks like the guy at the supermarket who is confused by the automatic doors … He looks like the guy who picks up his TV remote when the phone rings … He looks like the guy at the movies whose wife has to repeat everything.” –David Letterman (Read more of Letterman’s jabs at Old Man McCain)

7. “After a quick meet-and-greet with King Abdullah, Obama was off to Israel, where he made a quick stop at the manger in Bethlehem where he was born.” –Jon Stewart, on Barack Obama’s Middle East trip

8. “This doesn’t smell right. This is not the way a tested hero behaves. Somebody’s putting something in his Metamucil.” –David Letterman, on John McCain suspending his campaign and canceling his appearance on the “Late Show”

9. “McCain suspended his campaign, said the debate had to be canceled, he went to Washington, screwed up the deal, and then un-suspended his campaign and flew to the debate even though there wasn’t a deal. Usually when a 72-year-old man acts this way, this is when the kids start calling nursing homes.” –Bill Maher

10. On taking sides in the election: “If you, out of nowhere, are going to grab a woman out of the woods and make her your vice presidential candidate, what can I do? [Sarah Palin] is like Jodie Foster in the movie ‘Nell.’ They just found her, and she was speaking her own special language. Have you noticed how [Palin's] rallies have begun to take on the characteristics of the last days of the Weimar Republic? In Florida, she asked ‘Who is Barack Obama?’ Hey, lady, we just met YOU five f**ing weeks ago.” –Jon Stewart

11. “Things aren’t looking good for Hillary. Like a lot of women in Washington, I think she’s just starting to realize she may have slept with Bill Clinton for nothing.” –Jay Leno

12. “I believe marriage is meant to be a sacred institution between two unwilling teenagers.” –Tina Fey, impersonating Sarah Palin in the VP debate

13. “Sarah Palin was asked a question by a third grader and she got it wrong. She apparently still does not know what the vice president does … She says he or she runs the Senate. No, not in this country. You know I would never accuse George Bush of being a bright man, but when he was elected, at least he knew which building to show up to.” –Bill Maher

14. “He looks like the photo that comes with the frame … He looks like a tennis pro at a restricted country club … He looks like a guy who would run a seminar on condo flipping … He looks like the closer at a Cadillac dealership.” –David Letterman, on Mitt Romney (Read more of Letterman’s Romney ridicule)

15. “In New York, Catholic groups have forced an art gallery to shut down an exhibition of a six-foot image of Jesus in chocolate. Or, as Democrats call it, Barack Obama.” –Bill Maher

16. “According to expense reports, Sarah Palin charged the state of Alaska over $21,000 for her children to travel with her on official business. In fairness to Gov. Palin, when she leaves them home alone, they get pregnant.” –Seth Meyers on Saturday Night Live’s “Weekend Update”

17. “Lisa Druck, or Rielle Hunter, says she enjoyed her affair with John Edwards but the sex got a little weird. He’d chase her around the room asking her to pretend to be an ambulance.” –Ann Coulter

18. “A woman at a John McCain rally said that Barack Obama is an Arab. And McCain quickly corrected her. It was really awkward, because McCain had to tell her, ‘Look, Governor Palin, you are wrong.’” –Jay Leno

19. “If he’s the answer, then the question must be ridiculous.” –New York Gov. David Patterson, on John McCain at his speech at the Democratic National Convention

20. “At a time of great crisis with mortgage foreclosures and autos, he says we only have one president at a time. I’m afraid that overstates the number of presidents we have. He’s got to remedy that situation.” –Rep. Barney Frank (D-MA), calling on President-elect Obama to play a more significant role on economic issues

21. “If we were a dog food, they would take us off the shelf.” –Rep. Thomas M. Davis III (R-Va.), in a memo to colleagues about the problem with the Republican brand

22. “Senator McCain’s not here. He probably wanted to distance himself from me a little bit. You know, he’s not alone. Jenna’s moving out too. Hillary Clinton couldn’t get in because of sniper fire and Senator Obama’s at church.” –President Bush, in his at the White House Correspondents’ Dinner

23. “Now he tells us that he’s the one who’s gonna take on the old boys network. The old boys network? In the McCain campaign that’s called a staff meeting. Come on!” –Barack Obama, about John McCain

24. “I’ve been sleeping like a baby. Sleep two hours, wake up and cry, sleep two hours, wake up and cry.” –John McCain, talking to Jay Leno about his election loss

25. “I had a baby. I did some traveling; I very briefly expanded my wardrobe.” –Sarah Palin, updating the Republican Governor’s Association on what she’d been doing since last year’s meeting

26. Bonus quote: “Let’s be clear: None of these guys made me. This great nation made me. So vote for me. God bless America and forget these three idiots.” –Mike Huckabee on the dispute between Conan O’Brien, Stephen Colbert, and Jon Stewart over who made Mike Huckabee

 

[Dieb]

So if it doesn't break bones, cut off digits, disfigure you, it's not torture? So John McCain, for example, was not tortured in Vietnam? I'm sure he'd find it comforting to learn that he wasn't actually tortured. Hey, could we redo the RNC and take out all references to him being tortured? It won't take long, half of the convention was stories about his time in Vietnam.

That's not exactly a good example, seeing as how McCain was bayonetted, refused medical treatment for broken limbs and wounds, and given three or more beatings a week, the physical effects of which he still suffers from to this day.

He was bayonetted when he was captured, not as a result of torture. Former detainees at Gitmo have alleged that they have been beaten and been refused medical treatment. It's true that McCain cannot, for example, raise his arms above shoulder level. This is because he was placed in what the outgoing administration calls "stress positions" that, yes, the United States has admitted to doing to detainess. So if all this is torture when done to John McCain, is it torture when the US does it to others?

[quote:10odcsky]
Wow. The backup for that assertion was the link posted right above it. Here it is again: http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/co ... inionsbox1 . An article written by an actual army interregator in Iraq. I suggest you read it before attacking me. The people saying waterboarding has saved lives are, of course, the people that commited war crimes by authorizing waterboarding. So it's not like they have a conflict of interest or anything. So forgive me if I don't take Dick Cheney's word on this.

Everybody's got an axe to grind. And yes, I saw your linked article to one man's selectively chosen and subjectively postured opinion, published in the Washington "World to End: Women and Minorities Hit Hardest" Post.[/quote:10odcsky]

One man who happens to actually have first hand knowedge of interrogations. Also, I'll note that one man happens to be one more than you've cited. He's also hardly the only actual expert who believes that torture is counterproductive - indeed, the only people I've read that support torture are pundits and the high officials in the administration who authorized it. Perhaps you can site an expert who thinks that torture is effective? I've seriously never read an opinion by an interrogator that argues for torture.

I did like the quotes. Say what you will about the United States, the fact that there is something like the Al Smith Dinner that happens before every presidential election is awesome.

 

[Iaculus]

It's a bit long, but you missed one from McCain, Gas. Somehow made passive-aggressiveness awesome.

"Now, of course, it would be unfair — and even a little unkind — to put my opponent on the spot before he gets up here or to throw him off his game with unreasonably high expectations.But I do need to warn you, ladies and gentlemen, you all are about to witness the funniest performance in history, in the 63-year history of this event. Let's not add to the mounting pressure he must be feeling; just prepare yourself for nonstop hilarity, the funniest 15 minutes of your life or any other. I think he knows that anything short of that would mar the evening, insult our hosts, and perhaps even cost him several swing states. Senator Obama, the microphone is all yours."
- John McCain at the 2008 Al Smith Memorial Dinner.

On-topic, I am a little surprised that someone who has, in the past, either stated or agreed with sentiments such as that taxation is theft and state education is a form of institutionalised mnd control is taking such a relxed attitude towards government-sanctoned torture.

Also, mental injury can leave scars as well. The right trauma cocktail can fuck up your life just as badly as missing bits of your anatomy can.

 

[Futureking]

[quote:2uhvi3xg]
Wow. The backup for that assertion was the link posted right above it. Here it is again: http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/co ... inionsbox1 . An article written by an actual army interregator in Iraq. I suggest you read it before attacking me. The people saying waterboarding has saved lives are, of course, the people that commited war crimes by authorizing waterboarding. So it's not like they have a conflict of interest or anything. So forgive me if I don't take Dick Cheney's word on this.

Everybody's got an axe to grind. And yes, I saw your linked article to one man's selectively chosen and subjectively postured opinion, published in the Washington "World to End: Women and Minorities Hit Hardest" Post.

One man who happens to actually have first hand knowedge of interrogations. Also, I'll note that one man happens to be one more than you've cited. He's also hardly the only actual expert who believes that torture is counterproductive - indeed, the only people I've read that support torture are pundits and the high officials in the administration who authorized it. Perhaps you can site an expert who thinks that torture is effective? I've seriously never read an opinion by an interrogator that argues for torture.

I did like the quotes. Say what you will about the United States, the fact that there is something like the Al Smith Dinner that happens before every presidential election is awesome.[/quote:2uhvi3xg]

Torture's not exactly the cleanest method. This guy's methods helped catch Zarqawi. Therefore, they worked. Was that just an exception to the norm? Did it work more effectively because the guy didn't see it coming and cooperated?

Imo, any method that works in making them sing like canaries is welcome in my book. Preferably more humane ones.

Anyone who thinks that torturing someone is ok as long as it "works" is never going to truly listen and appreciate a differing opinion.

Well, to be fair, also anyone who agrees with torture has been shown to be a morally sick person, so anything he says is pretty much taken as words from scum, and looses the second he complains about human rights abuse, or how the other side is treating the guys from his side.

Jcm. It is also a human right to live. If the guy knows something on planning the next 9/11, he's basically trampling on the rights of people to live. And the misconception of us not listening to differing opinions is mostly due to endless left wing whining without offering effective solutions. I mean. Anyone can criticise. But it takes much more brainpower to find solutions to the problem.

Look, in the above part of my post, an Iraq interrogator used methods other than torture and the guy revealed what he knows. If it works, it works. I'd personally add that to the book of interrogation methods right away. See. The guy actually did something other than whine. He tried other methods and they worked. Left wingers should learn from this guy.

 

[JCM]

Anyone who thinks that torturing someone is ok as long as it "works" is never going to truly listen and appreciate a differing opinion.

Well, to be fair, also anyone who agrees with torture has been shown to be a morally sick person, so anything he says is pretty much taken as words from scum, and looses the second he complains about human rights abuse, or how the other side is treating the guys from his side.

Jcm. It is also a human right to live. If the guy knows something on planning the next 9/11, he's basically trampling on the rights of people to live..

Thats the keyword

IF

And frankly, from a country that couldnt foresee what every Muslim knows (disposing of Saddam = cold murder at night of Sunnis by shiites, and terrorism by sunnis against shiites, and a population that will obey the Ayatollah), who cant tell that the Taliban are using a uniform (when there have been many books about the opression in Afghanistan by the Taliban, heck, the americans even helped them, how hard is it to look for a green jacket and black turban which they always wroe?) and elected Bush twice, I doubt that youve guys been catching the right guys.

And thankfully with the Supreme curt managing access to the detainees, looks like quite a few were wrongly captured.

Feel ok with that? Fine, but dont cry if some foreign country invades you and tortures you thinking you miht know something, you´ve lost that right as a human being.

And yes we managed to stop one attack with torture, but who cant guarantee that one couldnt have gained that information with S.A.S. humane techniques, and without torturing many others? Not to mention terrorism almost doubled around the world. :slywink:

“If we were a dog food, they would take us off the shelf.” –Rep. Thomas M. Davis III (R-Va.), in a memo to colleagues about the problem with the Republican brand

 

[jwhouk]

Huh... with the extreme cold weather, wouldn't it be funny if we had a W.H. Harrison-style inaugural situation?

 

[GasBandit]

Within the first three months of the budget year, the federal government has already run up a record deficit of $485.2 billion. Your grandkids will thank you one day.

Union leaders are working on revamping their strategy to ensure that the Democrats pass their card check bill.

Barney Frank has changed his mind, no longer stipulating that any company with a private jet can't have a bailout.

The University of Colorado is planning to bring a "professor of conservative thought" to campus. It makes me laugh how the democrat-aligned opponents use the same argument against it as the arguments used against Affirmative Action.

Barack Obama's inauguration is going to be a Lincoln-themed inauguration .. right down to the food served.

This article is talking about something else, but it's noteworthy to me because the comments section shows that there are STILL PEOPLE who think that the WTC collapse was a controlled demolition (and the guy then goes on to godwin himself... a more textbook nutcase post you'll never find)

As the mayor, when you city is running a $36 billion deficit, it may not be a wise idea to purchase yourself a brand new $30,000 Hummer on the taxpayers dime.

A cat has been banned from a post office in Alabama because "he doesn't pay federal taxes."

Hillary Clinton wants to use her position as Secretary of State to fight ... climate change because "it could well incite new wars of an old kind over basic resources."

 

[Mr_Chaz]

Zimbabwean refugees in the UK protest for the right to be allowed to pay taxes.

 

[Futureking]

The University of Colorado is planning to bring a "professor of conservative thought" to campus. It makes me laugh how the democrat-aligned opponents use the same argument against it as the arguments used against Affirmative Action.

As the mayor, when you city is running a $36 billion deficit, it may not be a wise idea to purchase yourself a brand new $30,000 Hummer on the taxpayers dime.

A cat has been banned from a post office in Alabama because "he doesn't pay federal taxes."

In response to these 3 news,

“One-sided politics have no place in the academic world,” Jensen said. “Our faculty understands that and so do our student leaders. If students want conservative thought, they need only speak up during any political science class and they are bound to find a vocal member of the Republican Party willing to offer a retort.”

i.e. trolling.

Sure, but a 2009 Hummer H3 for $29,970? Clay proudly noted that he received a $5,000 discount.

And he's Democrat. I'm surprised he didn't buy a Prius, which would've cost more.

Zimbabwean refugees in the UK protest for the right to be allowed to pay taxes.

I find this absurd, really. If you're not allowed to work or even get benefits, you have nothing to do but resort to crime. In general, small restaurants will employ them in the kitchen, where the customers can't tell who's preparing their food. Or factories looking for cheap labour. And that's pretty much it.

 

[Iaculus]

Zimbabwean refugees in the UK protest for the right to be allowed to pay taxes.

I find this absurd, really. If you're not allowed to work or even get benefits, you have nothing to do but resort to crime. In general, small restaurants will employ them in the kitchen, where the customers can't tell who's preparing their food. Or factories looking for cheap labour. And that's pretty much it.

The U.K. has a fairly lengthy immigration process. Comes of being a relatively small country where a lot of people want to live. Well, that, and the immigrant-bashing hysteria the tabloids so enjoy whipping up.

 

[Armadillo]

The University of Colorado is planning to bring a "professor of conservative thought" to campus. It makes me laugh how the democrat-aligned opponents use the same argument against it as the arguments used against Affirmative Action.

Hypocrites to be sure, but I may actually be in agreement with the College Dems on this one. It's unneccessary, needlessly divisive, and just plain silly. Is CU liberal? Oh hell yeah. I went out there to watch the Frozen Four last year, spent a day drinking in Boulder, and you couldn't swing a dead cat without hitting a liberal activist of one stripe or another. I can see how a conservative thinker would feel uncomfortable out there. Endowing a "Chair of Conservative Study" is the wrong way to approach this, as it further balkanizes our society. If you feel you've been harmed by a professor because of your politics, take it to the Dean.

Now, that's not to say you're not correct about "using the same arguments as Affirmative Action opponents," Gas. They're doing exactly that. They're right about this, wrong about Affirmative Action. What's the saying about a blind squirrel's nuts?

Hillary Clinton wants to use her position as Secretary of State to fight ... climate change because "it could well incite new wars of an old kind over basic resources."

Of course it would...seriously, is there anything bad on this planet that CAN'T be blamed on climate change?

I don't think using a single data point proves anything, but it's been the coldest winter 'round these parts in 30 years. -5 degrees as I type this, with wind chills in the 30s below zero.