US Politics: LOOK AT MY RIGHTEOUS [[redacted]]

ta-da

Pics or it didn't happen.

Whatever happened in Sarah Palin, stays in Sarah Palin.

ew ew ew

http://grovesmedia.files.wordpress.com/2009/04/rooster.jpg

why

can a cock be self-righteous

is a feeling of (usually) smug moral superiority[2] derived from a sense that one's beliefs, actions, or affiliations are of greater virtue than those of the average

huh i guess it can, depending on the locker room

what the fuck is up with these cryptoconservative politics threads

why doesn't anybody ever want to look at my bleeding heart cock that's way left

http://24.media.tumblr.com/BgaCmWdklpb83z298EtzVfdVo1_500.jpg

xp because, presumably, you are rushing it to a fucking emergency ward?

you're right, there's a fucking emergency and I've got just the cock to solve it

if i knew this was coming i would have kept my SAVED CHALK username for a little longer

http://farm3.static.flickr.com/2335/1691318133_3747ec5713.jpg?v=0

Man, don't get me all excited about opening a US politics thread. :-(

Cock or GTFO.

4 kate

http://www.ionlinephilippines.com/wp-content/uploads/2010/01/Scott-Brown-cosmo.jpg

well, this might get some play, maybe

ACLU Releases 18-Month Review Of President's National Security Policies And Civil Liberties

I'm terrified to open that link, aero.

he has failed to eliminate some of the worst policies put in place by President Bush, such as military commissions

okay the reuse of words in the English language is getting out of control

"He has also expanded the Bush administration's "targeted killing" program."

Why isn't this a bigger deal? Between some FBI dude reading my email and a drone plane blowing up my house, I'm thinking the latter pushes Obama toward being worse in terms of civil liberties

"The Obama administration should work with Congress to restore the rule of law, and discourage any legislation that would institutionalize policies that were widely regarded as unlawful under President Bush. Together, Congress and the White House should make sure that abuses of power like the Patriot Act are dismantled, not extended, and that policies like indefinite detention are never signed into law," said Laura W. Murphy, Director of the ACLU Washington Legislative Office. "It is not too late for President Obama to build a legacy of justice and fairness."

Isn't the problem here that these things were never actually declared illegal by a court of law? Shouldn't we push for that first?

will stan for 'targeted killing' ahead of 'indiscriminate killing' any day of the week.

Also, and I am kind of ambivalent about this, how should we be reacting if 'global war' already is the new normal? Do any of these policies ever make sense?

I am kind of ambivalent about this

YES

wait, what do you mean by that? this is important

I'm not unopposed to military commissions in theory, provided they observe Constitutional norms; but that's not how Bush and Obama have intended them.

I mostly mean "I could reasonably see why none of these policies should ever be done and I could reasonably see why at least some of them should be done". I find most, if not all, distasteful.

I guess my unasked question really is "is it possible to make decisions about how the United States should behave that simultaneously support the desire to treat people with dignity and respect and minimizes internal and external threats to national security?"

So glad I got thrown off the other thread and called a fascist for making that same argument. Good luck, dude!

an i mean what's your understanding of the actual word 'ambivalent'- check out the 'words with opposite meanings thread' i need mod backup.

I was going with "strong but conflicting feelings" and think the other usage is ppl misusing it

i don't have any conflicting feelings about ur sb what they teaching harvard kids these days eh

any chance of changing or at least decapitalizing this thread title btw pls?

^^

yeah i'm asking you to tone down the erection, i'm aware of this

ta!

RIP RIGHTEOUS COCK

will stan for 'targeted killing' ahead of 'indiscriminate killing' any day of the week.

ok, but the US carries out both policies. The distinction is that the first is directed at American citizens.

imo they have more of a right to do that

note- just throwing around the idea, OBVIOUSLY it's some srsly undesirable behaviour from a govt.

will stan for 'targeted killing' ahead of 'indiscriminate killing' any day of the week.

aww man where's your sense of adventure? chaotic evil to the end my friend

btw could we change the thread punctuation to Us Politics: LOOK AT MY RIGHTEOUS, CONTROVERSIAL MOD EDIT

would also accept "chaotic evil to the end" for thread title

Meanwhile, if this Wonkette post hadn't made it here yet:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_zCY99-Y540

no one in here but us politics

That Wonkette clip makes me wish Tommy Wiseau ran politically

imo they have more of a right to do that

without a trial? and simply because they've been designated terrorists by our faultless intelligence service? I mean, I agree that the govt killing fewer people is of course better, but my point is that current administration is simply broadening the category of people they are allowed to kill, and in a way that sets a incredibly fucked precedent.

oh my God Basil Marceaux

Like father, like son.

The dictionary says in a democracy all members are democcrate—– I am a republican what does that make me ? a traitor

gov't's always pretty much killed whatever citizens it wants (Fred Hampton, etc.), dunno if you've been paying attention

LET ME KNOW WHAT YOU THINK AND WHITCH ISSUES YOU CARE ABOUT.IF YOU HAVE ANY QUESTIONS,COMMENTS,OR CONCERNS PLEASE FEEL FREE TO EMAIL ME AT basilmarceau✧✧✧@a✧✧.c✧✧

The dictionary says in a democracy all members are democcrate—– I am a republican what does that make me ? a traitor

this man is a gift to America

THINGS I WANT TO CHANGE:

>Car Insurance

>Health Insurance

>Budget

>Political predjudist

>The defranchising of voters

>Routine traffic stops

Junior's got a point.

Basil Marceaux is an awesome name

gov't's always pretty much killed whatever citizens it wants (Fred Hampton, etc.), dunno if you've been paying attention

not saying it's RIGHT to do so, btw, just that the development of some flimsy legal pretense to kill American citizens who are being douchebags in foreign countries that won't capture/extradite them doesn't really worry me all that much and is not exactly new or shocking

like, if you're advocating the violent overthrow of the US gov't, don't be surprised if the gov't seriously considers killing you

Lookit at my righteous controversial mod edit.

Meanwhile an interview with Basil published this morning:

“I always knew it would (attention) happen because I’m sure everyone feels like me. It just takes guts,” the one-time Marine said.

Voters “like my gun views,” he said. “I want everyone to have a gun. If I think that someone doesn’t have one, maybe I’ll fine them $10.”

Former Hamilton County Sheriff John Cupp, who said Marceaux once threatened him with “citizen’s arrest,” was initially dumbfounded over Marceaux’s newfound celebrity.

“You’re kidding me,” Cupp said, going on to recall how Marceaux once sued him and then-Gov. Don Sundquist

xp
Of course it isn't new, but in the context of a discussion about Obama normalizing some of Bush's bad moves, I find it weird that no one points out that in this regard he's moved ahead of Bush.

if you're advocating the violent overthrow of the US gov't, don't be surprised if the gov't seriously considers killing you

makes sense, but who is ever going to check whether these people were real threats or just hapless fucks with a video camera?

elephant rob forgive my asking but are you new or an old polithread reg with a new u/n?

ho is ever going to check whether these people were real threats or just hapless fucks with a video camera?

or just Basil Marceaux.

CREON

Yet I would have thee know that o'er-stubborn spirits are most often humbled; 'tis the stiffest iron, baked to hardness in the fire, that thou shalt oftenest see snapped and shivered; and I have known horses that show temper brought to order by a little curb; there is no room for pride when thou art thy neighbour's slave.-This girl was already versed in insolence when she transgressed the laws that had been set forth; and, that done, lo, a second insult,-to vaunt of this, and exult in her deed.

Now verily I am no man, she is the man, if this victory shall rest with her, and bring no penalty. No! be she sister's child, or nearer to me in blood than any that worships Zeus at the altar of our house,-she and her kinsfolk shall not avoid a doom most dire; for indeed I charge that other with a like share in the plotting of this burial.

And summon her-for I saw her e'en now within,-raving, and not mistress of her wits. So oft, before the deed, the mind stands self-convicted in its treason, when folks are plotting mischief in the dark. But verily this, too, is hateful,-when one who hath been caught in wickednes then seeks to make the crime a glory.

I'm new, aerosmith. I apologize for just jumping in--I've been lurking here for a while.

Of course it isn't new, but in the context of a discussion about Obama normalizing some of Bush's bad moves, I find it weird that no one points out that in this regard he's moved ahead of Bush.

The implication, not that I have done any research on the matter, seems to be either:

- Bush also had people targeted; or
- most people think the person targeted by Obama is a credible threat

no need to apologize elephant

makes sense, but who is ever going to check whether these people were real threats or just hapless fucks with a video camera?

ideally the courts do, that's what our legal system is for.

I'm new, aerosmith. I apologize for just jumping in--I've been lurking here for a while.

no no you have nothing to apologize for, I was just wondering is all! xpost

ideally the courts do, that's what our legal system is fo

to be honest, most if the issues I have with executive power can be boiled down to the idea that it supersedes the judicial branch

ideally the courts do, that's what our legal system is for.

wait, I'm confused now. We're talking about targeted killings of American citizens who are abroad. These killings are not approved by any court or anyone outside of the executive branch. I'll find a link on this.

Most executive overreaches come as a result of sidestepping the courts.

right and ideally said dude would be arrested, extradited and tried in a court of law in the US. But since the country he's in can't capture or extradite him, and the Obama admin thinks it would be easier to kill him than capture him, they've recommended just killin him.

xp

ah, okay, sorry for the confusion.

hey no need for apologies

there was some discussion of the specific case in question (that "American Al Qaeda" dude in Yemen, iirc?) on one of the earlier politics threads.

imho yeah it's totally dubious legally and I don't like it.

otoh I am okay with that particular guy getting killed, he seems like a jerk.

al-Awlaki's Wikipedia page is a gold mine of interesting details, btw:

Although he hesitated to shake hands with women, he patronized prostitutes.[36]

yeah, the dude in Yemen was how this hit the news. Greenwald can be a little hysterical, but I did find this disturbing: http://www.salon.com/news/opinion/glenn_greenwald/2010/06/25/assassinations/index.html.

otoh I am okay with that particular guy getting killed, he seems like a jerk.

I'm surprised to read you condoning violence.

there's a bit in Your Face Tomorrow where the naive newb MI6 dude says "you can't just go around killing people and beating them up!" and the seasoned evil-version Gandalf/Obi-Wan dude immediately says "Why?" and then it's like "Why what?" "Why, according to you, can't one just go around killing people and beating them up, if they pose a problem?"

fuckin rad book

One last bit of Basil M. for now -- this is an image hosted on his site. And there you go.

What a day. I had to work at 7:30 am, wrote Target an angry letter, and read the story about the Justice Dept's internet crackdown. Now I just learned that an indie-leaning friend has never heard Aerosmith. Kill me now.

The problem that I have with applying the "They came first for..." argument to people like al-Awlaki (an argument I believe in deeply because, duh, black guy) is that it fails the basic "is not trying to hurt anyone" premise that is the foundation of the argument.

Due process is there for a reason and should be followed. I think it would be much, much better if al-Awlaki was arrested and tried in a court. If that is impossible, I understand why our government would make the decision to target him for death and can live with it.

wait Ned waht

Check the URL. That is an image hosted on his site. What can I say.

I just

I mean

waht

I'm surprised to read you condoning violence.

I was being pretty lol flippant (obviously I don't actually think jerkiness is in and of itself grounds for state-sanctioned murder) but in this particular case my thinking mirrors HI DERE's. In general I am way more okay with targeted killings/political "decapitations"/assassinations than I am with wholesale military engagement/slaughter. Like, if someone had capped Milosevic early in his career, a lot of bloodshed (esp of innocents) would have been avoided, and I probably would have been okay with it.

I was being lol flippant.

Ned, I'll assume that wasn't directed at me personally.

xpost to HI DERE
I don't think the argument is that we're seeing a mounting fascism. It's that the executive branch has taken more and more power over the past few decades and has frequently broken the law or abandoned the rule of law. By essentially charging, convicting, and sentencing to death an American citizen, we're taking another step in that direction, even if it is for what seem to be unobjectionable reasons.

Some of this discussion was hashed out here:

US POLITICS: Congratulation to USA for their upcoming health

And fwiw, I don't trust the CIA to determine this kind of shit, but that's a harder argument to have and not as reasonable as the legal one!

Ned, I'll assume that wasn't directed at me personally.

Gotta watch out for Basil, man, he has his targets.

I don't think the argument is that we're seeing a mounting fascism. It's that the executive branch has taken more and more power over the past few decades and has frequently broken the law or abandoned the rule of law. By essentially charging, convicting, and sentencing to death an American citizen, we're taking another step in that direction, even if it is for what seem to be unobjectionable reasons.

.... I am not sure what that is leading to if not mounting fascism

"the problem isn't that we are abandoning our governing principles for a more authoritarian model, it's that we are abandoning our governing principles for a more authoritarian model"

^^^^ this is what you appear to be saying

good, I hope she bankrupts him

xpost
ha, yeah that's true. Anyway, Mordy is right, you guys covered this pretty thoroughly in that old thread.

honestly trying to think this through for myself...

let's say a US citizen has joined some nebulous group with the goal of "overthrowing" the US gov't, or at the very least, killing some americans, or failing that, killing some people who are of the persuasion that US preferences should prevail in a given place.

now, US troops happen upon this guy with some other co-group-ees, shooting breaks out, and they kill him. that's scenario A.

or, they have this guy's name on a list with a bunch of other similarly endeavored individuals, and they go looking for him in the dead of night, or find him on a satellite and drop a rocket on him. that's scenario B.

my answer for both is, really, US troops doing there anyway? what's the point?

like, the status of his US citzenyness (should they have checked his passport before shooting him? or wake up a judge before pulling the trigger?) almost seems irrelevant to me. i have a hard time caring, for some reason, i want to know why this is even a scenario to be gamed out. what are we getting from all of this non-hypothetical death?

"really, WHAT ARE US troops" etc etc

goole, I don't understand your question. You're asking what the point is for the United States to kill people who form organizations to overthrow the US government? Or you're asking why the different possible scenarios matter?

two things:
if US troops are directly involved, then you're talking about war and you can kill anyone you want regardless of citizenship.

I don't personally care about citizenship, but the govt takes that status pretty seriously in numerous ways, so it is significant when the govt is all "we don't give a fuck about yr citizenship"

i kind of skipped part of the joke. what's better, scenario A or B? and i'm, like, both! or neither, man!!

Someone plz to add 'HATERS GONNA HATE' to righteous cock upthread, just for general usefulness.

several things wrong with your premise:

- The accusation isn't that dude is participating in anti-American groups; he is accused of running anti-American groups and specifically aiding people in successful attempts to commit acts of grave violence against American citizens.

- The thing about his citizenship is no that it singles him out as someone who must be killed; non-citizens are also on federal kill lists. The brouhaha is that, according to reports, he is the first American to make it onto a federal kill list.

I don't know -- I think people are rightly making a distinction between killing someone in the "heat of battle," or killing someone in a more cold sense. In fact, it seems like a lot of the unease around predator drones and stuff is this distinction. Maybe people feel like the individual should have the right to surrender and go through due process -- whereas that right is maybe given up to some extent when they return fire? I could be parsing this incorrectly, but I don't think distinguishing between a fire-fight and a non-fire-fight is a bad distinction to make.

unrelated but i liked this line from ioz today

"Economic illiteracy--what Yglesias accuses Davis of--sounds like an insult, but it's really like accusing someone of Klingon illiteracy. In certain circumstances you might regret not speaking a made-up language, but as a general life condition, you're probably better off"

IOZ is generally pretty great about economics being total horsehit

let's be clear, the essential problem with the scenarios outlined is the presumption of guilt.

altho fwiw once someone is returning fire, all bets are off

xp

of what benefit is it, to anyone, anywhere, in 2010, for several hundred thousand soldiers to be trying to do what they are doing in afghanistan, and all that necessarily entails? for afghanistan, sub in any other country

i think it's impossible to answer these questions about killing, targeted or not, (xp or "in the heat of battle or not") of people whose taxes are paid to the US treasury or not, until the big underlying question can be answered.

this all seems like a weird checking-of-boxes when the question of whether the entire project has any good outcomes or not isn't really clear to me anymore!

let's be clear, the essential problem with the scenarios outlined is the presumption of guilt.

yes, this is massively OTM

eh i think ioz is pretty good about all things except the economy. not that i agree with him about very much. extreme pessimism about all things doesn't lead me to be... whatever he is.

I'm kinda baffled by yr question goole

do you not think loopy Islamic terrorists with stated goals of attacking the US and a history of successfully doing so are not a threat to the US?

well, gee, when you describe them that way...

What's this big underlying question? Should the United States be pursuing people who it decides are a risk to its people? Is this just an existential question, or are you specifically asking if Afghanistan fulfills the criteria of being a risk? Like there are two questions you can ask: 1) Should a country protect itself from perceived threats using military force? and 2) Is this (Afghanistan or whatever case we're discussing) actually 1. Like you can believe a country should protect itself and believe that this isn't an example of a threat. Or you could believe that this is a threat but not believe a country should protect itself. I'm confused as to which of these two questions you're asking.

goes back to the "presumption of guilt" question, unsurprisingly

xp
no, I just mean he's good at pointing out that we talk about Economics like it's a science of prediction when it's more like astrology

haha mordy you really prefer having arguments about first priciples dont you

he sure does, but imho he's pretty good at it.

also goole's question really does beg first principles, don't it...?

lol, I guess? I'm just trying to clarify what the question is -- I haven't even thrown my own hat into the ring.

let's be clear, the essential problem with the scenarios outlined is the presumption of guilt.

altho fwiw once someone is returning fire, all bets are off

Yes, how dare people defend themselves when being fired upon by our military.

I dunno about you, but if an army comes firing at me, no I am not going to return fire. mostly because I don't own a rocket launcher and am not insane.

this is more an emotional reaction than anything, i suppose. but i've got a kind of double cynicism going. no, i don't see much of a moral problem with the US gov't killing "loopy Islamic terrorists with stated goals etc", but i also don't think there's any good reason to do so. they're a dime a dozen! and their track record sucks! surely it is not worth the expense, is it?

Goole has a point: I think we're massively losing on the cost/benefit analysis of the war on terror

We need Hermes to calculate our expenses on-site.

their track record is pretty pathetic otoh I'm okay with throwing a bunch of money/troops at preventing something like the Mumbai massacre or 9/11 happening

xp

Is that what we're actually doing, though? Or are we making a future event that much more likely by helping create an entire generation of Afghanis or Iraqis that hate our stinking guts?

and super obvious to say, but is it even remotely possible to prevent those events?

i'm not!

because we ARE throwing a bunch of money and troops at any goddam thing we can dream up, and the Mumbai massacre or 9/11 did in fact occur! there is no preventive measure good enough.

xp lol

"targeted killing" makes me extremely uncomfortable, regardless of the context

that being said, if joseph kony, the actual worst person on the planet, inhaled a bullet tomorrow night, i might actually throw a g-d party

i realize this makes me a hypocrite

also goole is otm

in fairness, unless we equipped our soldiers in Afghanistan with time machines, nothing we've done there in the past 8 years was going to influence 9/11

Whether or not we should do these things is a whole other argument, but it seems obvious to me that the US will be a target for terrorism so long as we have Army bases in Arab or Muslim countries and support Israel.

xp
I'm opposed to the death penalty but that doesn't mean I don't personally think some people should die.

To answer Mordy's question, 1) Should a country protect itself from perceived threats using military force?

Perceived threats? That's a sticky wording, isn't it? I mean, that's how we get Vietnam, that's how we got Iraq, that's how we got proxy wars in Central America. Actual threats are a different story, and for those, I really don't have a problem with us mostly playing defense.

i think the US will be target for terrorism, period. i mean, it's 300 million people on a big landmass with the hugest economy. some people really do "hate us for our freedoms", and some of them are going to take a pop.

the US shouldn't be fucking around imperially on it's own merits, not out of some idea that, oh, it REALLY makes us LESS SAFE. i've always hated that argument.

So Phil, you're asking my second question; Is this a threat or not? You actually agree with the first question, you just don't think the current situation falls into the category of perceived threats (I left the perceived in because it's obv subjective and that would be the argument you would then have -- what criteria do you use to determine if something is a threat).

Also, I made that argument goole is making on the old threat (we're really rehashing a bunch of stuff today). That we shouldn't do stuff because it's morally wrong, not because it pisses terrorist X off.

Old thread (slip!)

the US shouldn't be fucking around imperially on it's own merits,

I completely agree with this in case it wasn't clear. The other argument is useful against hardcore pragmatists though

To paraphrase what I said yesterday on the other thread:

We live in a capitalist democracy, one which by its very nature must do business with unsavory regimes and/or, state sponsors of terrorism. There's no way we can protect ourselves from terrorism: we're a free society, and the nature of our economics requires us to piss somebody off some or all of the time. What we can do is stop blowing civilians up with drone rockets and making a fuss about Islamic centers.

yup! that's about as safe as you're going to get.

nobody will ever suggest that the government take extraordinary measure to prevent every murder, but every single act of terror? jesus christ, fire up the helicopters!! go somewhere!!

git er done

well, the thing is, murder isn't terrifying

it's true, by definition you have to be terrified of terrorism.

Well, I have a strong problem with reacting to perceived threats at all, unless you're using "perceived" to mean "recognized" rather than "apparent." Like I said, Colin Powell stood up before the UN and detailed how Iraq was a perceived threat, except it wasn't. Similarly, letting Vietnam go Communist was a perceived threat to us, except it wasn't.

Do I think Afghanistan is a threat? Sure, probably, in a very remote way. Do I think it's a threat that's going to harm us anywhere in the near term? Absolutely not. Do I think it's worth anywhere near the time, money and bodies we're spending on it? No flipping way.

xxxp

"Afghanistan" is actually shorthand for "al Qaeada operatives hiding in Afghanistan", correct? I don't think anyone thinks we are at risk from the actual country of Afghanistan

xp to Dan: yeah, i mean, that's where i get very cynical. terrorism works! folks get terrified! government acts! all very, ahem, overdetermined. it's all a man can do but complain bravely on the internet.

Yeah, I'm not explicitly agreeing with the reaction, just pointing out that it is very explainable once you remove logic from the table.

(my own stance on all of this is hopelessly confused and muddled by this point to where all I really want is to remove our forces from all major theatres and make them start rebuilding our transportation and information infrastructure)

Well, the country itself could overwhelm us with these:

http://www.thebarkingcommunity.com/bark_additions/graphics/hound_images/afghan_hound.jpg

I don't really want to rehash this discussion because I'm tired of getting shouted at but Phil, I'd put pressure on these parts of your argument:

"Do I think Afghanistan is a threat? Sure, probably, in a very remote way." -- How do you quantify what makes something a threat? What does remote mean? Was 9/11 a singular historical event and therefore not a predictor for future threats? Was it itself not a serious threat (using the logic of a 'permissible amount of violence')?

"Do I think it's a threat that's going to harm us anywhere in the near term? Absolutely not." -- Is there some historical contingency going on here? Was it going to harm us if we hadn't invaded? Is it just that now we've invaded it isn't going to harm us? How could you make the judgement in either case? What kind of heuristic would you use to determine whether something is going to harm us or not? Who is "us"? What constitutes "harm"?

"Do I think it's worth anywhere near the time, money and bodies we're spending on it? No flipping way." -- How do you determine the value? Is it just a gut feeling? Again, are there heuristics you can use to make an intelligent decision about it? What if it had rejuvenated our economy? Would that mean it was worth the money? What does it mean to waste time on it? Do you mean the President's focus could be on more important domestic issues but instead he's busy poring over war strategies?

Many xxposts - I should note that Basil Marceaux.com is only the third or fourth most embarrassing TN gubernatorial candidate this go round. And I say that with zero facetiousness.

wait, really?????

Ok maybe a little facetiousness. See Zach Wamp and Ron Ramsey.

so cool that a Star Wars character and a faceless Minnesotan are running in the TN gubernatorial race

Mordy, I don't work in military intelligence or diplomacy or anything of that nature. My gut, and my day-to-day life, and the lives of people all around me, tell me that, of all the things America is facing that are a threat right now -- energy policy, food policy, tax policy, the economy, the increasing radicalization of the right wing, etc. -- a bunch of wannabe Osamas half a world away is somewhere around #101 on a list of the top 100.

Was 9/11 a singular historical event and therefore not a predictor for future threats?

Uh, yes?

Who is "us"? What constitutes "harm"?

What kind of nonsense postmodernist claptrap is this?

tracer linked to some of this on the "disgusting savages" thread

http://www.details.com/culture-trends/critical-eye/201008/rand-paul-kentucky-senate-republican-campaign?printable=true

http://www.salon.com/news/politics/war_room/2010/07/29/rand_paul_harlan_county

Something about Harlan has lodged itself in my brain the way a shard of barbecue gets stuck in one's teeth, and I've asked Paul for help. "I don't know," he says in an elusive accent that's not quite southern and not quite not-southern. The town of Hazard is nearby, he notes: "It's famous for, like, The Dukes of Hazzard."

...and delivering a speech in Harlan, which may or may not be famous for something.

"Maybe for some of the coal battles," a young campaign aide in the back seat suggests.

Paul ignores this. "Maybe the feuding," he offers. He mulls this for a moment and says, "The Hatfields and McCoys were more up toward West Virginia, though."

"I think it was the coal battles," the aide says.

What is "who?" What do you mean by "constitutes?"

I assume you meant "us" to mean American citizens, and "harm" to mean, being killed. I just wanted you to clarify. Also, "Uh, yes?" means you're staking out a pretty bold position. How many people following 9/11 said, "This is a once in a lifetime event and we don't ever have to worry about being attacked again?" It's an interesting position (I'm really skeptical of it, I think a good predictor for what is coming is what has already come), and weird that you're stating it in so blase a manner. You're not saying that there's a permissible level of violence we should tolerate, you're actually saying that 9/11 meant nothing wrt the safety of American citizens being killed. That sounds silly to me.

Actually, I'm being unfair. Maybe you believe something on that scale was a once in a history event and anything less than that is predictable but tolerable levels of violence. Anyway, I'm pushing on your argument because I want you to clarify.

Like, as I see it, here are some arguments that I'd like to hear and I think could be compelling;

"We should have responded to 9/11 to prevent similar acts from happening, but going to Afghanistan in the way that we did wasn't the best way to do it" << My argument fwiw
"9/11 and similar acts are tolerable and expected levels of violence and we should never go to war" << Not my opinion, but defendable, I think (this is basically Kantian ethics)

Um, a few more I can think of. "We're responsible for the acts of violence including 9/11, and our response was therefore compounding our culpability" << I hear this one a lot.
"9/11 indicated that we should create a strong military presence in the Middle East to try to deter future attacks and specifically in Afghanistan" << current US policy

fuxake mordy at some point doesn't this endless pulling out of the camera, zooming in of the lens get a little bit fatiguing?

how about this, is it possible to nail down what everbody's heuristics are before coming to some kind of decision?

maybe 9/11 is a predictor of future 9/11s or maybe 9/11 is proof of the vanishing rarity of 9/11s, who the fuck knows? who COULD know?

"9/11 and similar acts are important to worry about, but from a pragmatic POV we cannot afford to deal with them" < this is kinda a variation on tolerable levels of violence and seems close to what you're saying, maybe?

goole, tbh, I only post here to have these kinds of conversations. If I just want to read a bunch of opinions of whether something is good or bad, I can read a Huff Post comments thread or whatever. Maybe I should start a Political Philosophy thread tho and limit these discussions to there? (Might actually be a really good idea.)

xpost

God

would bookmark & follow a Political Philosophy thread

Actually, it's a really good idea I think. And it would avoid people getting upset when I ask these kinds of questions. Like if you were participating in such a thread, you'd realize that first principle discussions were going to come up. I'll start one up later today.

Actually, I'm being unfair. Maybe you believe something on that scale was a once in a history event and anything less than that is predictable but tolerable levels of violence.

Yes, that is pretty close to how I'd phrase it. 9/11 itself was sui generis, a trick that could be pulled off exactly once. Might some other enterprising soul have an idea to do something different, but equally shocking and equally damaging? I don't know. More to the point, I can't know, and neither can anyone else. Acting as if we not only can know, but that we can find this person and kill him, is amazingly stupid. 9/11 was clearly a clever plan, but the world is not full of Bondian supervillains hatching these plans by the dozens.

As far as "us" and "harm" go, heck, make me up a matrix of various combinations of "us" and "harm" ranging from "al Qaeda successfully nukes LA, Chicago and NY" to "some Afghan lackey farts next to my grandma on the subway" and I'll rank them for you.

tbh I am more afraid of "crazed right-wingers murder us all in the streets"

yeah I think 9/11 is a predictor of future events. the odds that something worse will happen at some point seem pretty good given, as Alfred notes, that we are a natural and perennial target. I'm allright with minimizing those odds via money/troops, altho in an ideal world we'd have a Team America-style unit of crack commandos taking care of business instead of sloppy robot-bombing campaigns. I think in general combatting terrorism should be more like a law enforcement exercise, but environments like Pakistan and Afghanistan don't really lend themselves well to that approach, which is why we have our military there.

xp

Ok, this will go on Political Philosophy thread when I start it, but here's an interesting question about us/harm: To what extent does terror undermine a government's appearance in the eyes of its citizens to protect said citizens? This is actually a real concern -- lots of governments have fallen because it seemed like they couldn't protect their citizens from harm, and it's a real existential threat to a nation. (And letting your government fall can lead to even more existential threats -- arguably Israel has the most right-wing government they've had in a long time because the government lost the confidence of the citizenry that it could protect them -- and so they elected Bibi instead of Livni.)

an ideal world we'd have a Team America-style unit of crack commandos taking care of business

um do you actually remember what happens in Team America

(Re: Israel, in before it goes off-topic, I'm not saying the citizens were right or wrong to feel that, just that they did feel that way and it lead to X, Y, Z, etc.)

because basically they just destroyed everywhere they went in the name of "AMERICA! FUCK YEAH!" and I may be getting hawkish in my old age but I don't want THAT

bummed people are finding Mordy's approach annoying - I don't always follow all the arguments, but I appreciate the application of intellectual rigor and agree that it's that kind of thing that helps keep ILX from just being a glorified youtube comment box

um do you actually remember what happens in Team America

lol yeah I do was being sorta facetious (also couldn't think of a better fictional super-spy team to reference)

fwiw i dont mind the political-philosophy discussions i just think it might be nice if they were arrived at, uh, organically, instead of being the first thing that needs addressing in every case

but yeah I don't literally think having a real life Team America would be a good idea. Maybe something LIKE Team America minus the indiscriminate killing and general idiocy

xp

you want... THE A-TEAM

Maybe the team in Munich who can simultaneously kill targets and feel bad about it!

We do remember that there actually was a group somewhere really high up in the U.S. Army that called itself, sans irony, Team America, right?

A woman asked Stevie if he'd like to work at Fox News. And told me I looked like Steven Spielberg...?

/Actually, I'm being unfair. Maybe you believe something on that scale was a once in a history event and anything less than that is predictable but tolerable levels of violence./

Yes, that is pretty close to how I'd phrase it. 9/11 itself was sui generis, a trick that could be pulled off exactly once. Might some other enterprising soul have an idea to do something different, but equally shocking and equally damaging? I don't know. More to the point, I /can't /know, and neither can anyone else. Acting as if we not only can know, but that we can find this person and kill him, is amazingly stupid. 9/11 was clearly a clever plan, but the world is not full of Bondian supervillains hatching these plans by the dozens.

As far as "us" and "harm" go, heck, make me up a matrix of various combinations of "us" and "harm" ranging from "al Qaeda successfully nukes LA, Chicago and NY" to "some Afghan lackey farts next to my grandma on the subway" and I'll rank them for you.

this seems pretty otm to me. you are significantly more likely to get hit by a piece of falling airplane than die in a terrorist attack, and pretending otherwise is pretty stupid

lol iphone

breaking bad related truth bomb

I agree, I don't think the harm from terrorism is the actual risk to your life (tho it was hard to feel that way after 9/11, and I felt personally traumatized for a long time, nb was in high school living in NYC at the time). But terror isn't designed to kill lots of people, it's designed to terrorize.

lol iphone indeed, it has tricked me multiple times

I agree, I don't think the harm from terrorism is the actual risk to your life (tho it was hard to feel that way after 9/11, and I felt personally traumatized for a long time, nb was in high school living in NYC at the time). But terror isn't designed to kill lots of people, it's designed to terrorize.

no shit

To what extent does terror undermine a government's appearance in the eyes of its citizens to protect said citizens?

If history is any guide, it leads to retroactive blame for the previous administration and scaremongering regarding a future administration of the other party, but the guy actually in office comes out smelling like a rose.

yeah let's not act like the only consequence of 9/11 was that 3,000+ people died, it was a lot worse than that. In some ways, you can lay all the wreckage of the last 8 years on it because if it hadn't happened Bush would likely never have developed the political capital required to fuck all the things up that he did during his reign. To say nothing of the economic impact, or the damage to the environment of NY, etc.

xp

I think a credible argument could be made that no 9/11 = no Patriot Act, no Iraq invasion, no 2nd term for Dubya, etc.

wouldn't you say the harm is....wasting resources on an oh nevermind

but the guy actually in office comes out smelling like a rose.

bloom's off that rose, btw

I think a credible argument could be made that no 9/11 = no Patriot Act, no Iraq invasion, no 2nd term for Dubya, etc.

no shit

To what extent does terror undermine a government's appearance in the eyes of its citizens to protect said citizens?

If history is any guide, it leads to retroactive blame for the previous administration and scaremongering regarding a future administration of the other party, but the guy actually in office comes out smelling like a rose.

― the penis cream pilot walked free (Phil D.), Thursday, July 29, 2010 1:49 PM (24 seconds ago) Bookmark

phil i disagree with this almost totally. if history is any guide, it makes the population more right-wing almost overnight -- more militarist, more authoritarian, more vengeful, more fearful. if the current officeholders provide that, they'll be rewarded. if they don't, sayonara, until the public gets tired or angry about something else.

lol gbx, why have you turned into me?

I think goole is OTM, which leads to kinda a conundrum whereby leaders need to do "something" to prove their dealing with this threat that is frightening the citizens, and that "something" is often the very thing that terrorism does so well (ie: We need a Patriot Act to protect you -- what are the costs of terrorism? the Patriot Act). Ideally we'd all be emotionally divorced from psychological trauma + whatever enough that we could make all decisions completely pragmatically in the moment, but even that isn't perfect. Leadership that tries to ignore psychological trauma tends to get voted out of office, or the trauma continues to build (even if only from much lesser less severe attacks) that the final result is something completely out of proportion. Ideally the trick, I guess, is to respond in ways that alleviates the trauma that the country is experiencing (and if it also helps to prevent future trauma that's a plus), without going overboard. My major problem with Bush is how overboard he went. I think there were ways of dealing with Sept 11th in a satisfying, useful way that wouldn't have been as traumatic abroad (and led to so many bad consequences here).

Omg, the computer I just switched to doesn't have spell-check. I'm about to start looking like (an even bigger) moron.

phil i disagree with this almost totally. if history is any guide, it makes the population more right-wing almost overnight -- more militarist, more authoritarian, more vengeful, more fearful. if the current officeholders provide that, they'll be rewarded. if they don't, sayonara, until the public gets tired or angry about something else.

― goole, Thursday, 29 July 2010 18:52 (12 minutes ago)

Yeah, the hostage crisis didn't help out Carter.

On the other hand, Carter didn't have a pile of rubble to stand on with a bullhorn. GO GET 'EM GEORGE!

he couldn't rock the cardigan

Let's change the subject to, oh, the Iowa GOP wanting to restore the 13th Amendment – the original amendment.

"Jerome Bonaparte" sounds totally fake, no?

A woman asked Stevie if he'd like to work at Fox News. And told me I looked like Steven Spielberg...?

Let's change the subject to, oh, the Iowa GOP wanting to restore the 13th Amendment – the original amendment.

this is hilarious

A woman asked Stevie if he'd like to work at Fox News. And told me I looked like Steven Spielberg...?

lol, this should obv be your new username

grist: the filibuster is giving enviros unwarranted self-esteem issues

I'd hesitate to place too much of the blame on this because it would imply that there's no point in trying to pass a climate bill until the filibuster is addressed, but I think David Roberts (as usual) has a point:

Climate and clean energy are incredibly difficult issues for any number of reasons. Yet environmentalists pulled together a huge coalition of businesses, religious groups, military groups, unions, and social justice groups. They got a majority of U.S. citizens on their side, as polls repeatedly showed. And -- here's the kicker -- on the back of all that work, they got a majority of legislators in both houses of Congress on their side.

I submit to you that in a sane world, that's what success looks like. More to the point, that's what success looks like in every other developed democracy on the planet. Environmentalists did what they were supposed to do -- and they did it well! They should be proud of themselves. It's not their fault that idiosyncratic, historically accidental features of U.S. government make enacting reform prohibitively difficult.

At least for the time being, it's unlikely that any combination of messaging, mobilizing, and lobbying could put a climate bill over the top. That doesn't mean the environmental movement is incompetent. It just means the Senate is broken.

Let's change the subject to, oh, the Iowa GOP wanting to restore the 13th Amendment – the original amendment.

i hadn't followed this or known what it was about until a day or two ago, via the guardian:

"If any citizen of the United States shall accept, claim, receive or retain any title of nobility or honour, or shall, without the consent of Congress accept and retain any present, pension, office or emolument of any kind whatever, from any emperor, king, prince or foreign power, such person shall cease to be a citizen of the United States and shall be incapable of holding any office of trust or profit under them, or either of them."
...
And so, to return us to Iowa and the present day: section 7.19 of the new Iowa GOP platform calls for the restoration of this 13th amendment.

Why? Well, can you think of any prominent Americans who in the past...oh, year and a half, to pick a time frame out of the air, went abroad to receive a "present" from a "foreign power"? I thought you might.

how fucking stupid are these people. are they not aware that the president (and not just Obama, but ALL presidents) routinely accept ceremonial gifts that they subsequently give away/auction for charity? MORON FAIL.

ffs

ha ha ha

Caspar Weinberger got one too.

Down with the 14th!

http://tpmdc.talkingpointsmemo.com/2010/07/lindsey-graham-birthright-citizenship-is-a-mistake-video.php

lol i love it when they get all constitution-y. i don't have a good theory to hand about what that means tho...

"Birthright citizenship I think is a mistake, that we should change our Constitution and say if you come here illegally and you have a child, that child's automatically not a citizen."

I would approve this if applied retroactively alllll the way back.

Just last week Graham's advisors were patting themselves on the back for being the South Carolinians with the "high IQ's."

some worldnet daily reporter has a new book about how obama cant be president not because he was actually born in kenya or whatever but because "natural born citizen" means both your parents have to be citizens and obamas dad wasnt

http://www.details.com/images/culture-trends/critical-eye/201008/RandPaul_family_HArticle.jpg

buddy, you mind not staring at the paul family, its our traditional burger ogling and wings eating time.

that's an incredible photograph

Those chicken wings look like Paul fried his nads in buttermilk.

That 'original 13th Amendment' thing made me chuckle, 'cause even if we don't use them here, many Americans, including Bush Sr., have recieved honorary knighthoods.

"Birthright citizenship I think is a mistake, that we should change our Constitution and say if you come here illegally and you have a child, that child's automatically not a citizen."

Visiting the sins of the father on the son?

the only grain of truth to that line of argument is that the US is somewhat of an outlier by having jus soli citizenship. i don't know of another country that does, offhand! but so what, it's a good thing.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jus_soli

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jus_sanguinis

^yeah, I was always instructed to be proud of that fact.

xp ha ok i guess there's a list on the first wiki there

most of the western hemisphere, plus a few others.

Does Lindsey Graham not believe in the specialness of America?

mark krikorian is not impressed!

http://corner.nationalreview.com/post/?q=YmJjZmFlOWQ5YTFiMjdkMzVmOGY4MWI0ZjYwM2U0NjE=

I don't like illegals having U.S.-citizen kids any more than anyone else, but there's no evidence suggesting that this "drop and leave" stuff is true — anything's possible, I suppose, but it's just an assertion at this point. My own sense is that most illegal alien women who have kids here (accounting for nearly 10 percent of all children born in the U.S. each year) didn't come for that purpose; they came for jobs or to join relatives, and one thing led to another, birds-and-bees style, and they had kids. There are no doubt some people who dash across the border illegally to have kids, but they just can't amount to a large share of the problem. Nor does the problem of "birth tourism" require a change in the Constitution — we just need to permit (and require) our consular officers to reject visa applications from pregnant women, inviting them to re-apply once they've given birth in their own countries.

The phenomenon of citizen-children of illegal aliens is a symptom of too much illegal immigration, not a cause. Comprehensive immigration enforcement — abroad, at the borders, and in the interior — plus deep, permanent cuts in future legal immigration (which is the catalyst for illegal immigration) are the solution, because when we have less illegal immigration, we'll have fewer kids born to illegals and the problem goes away. I'm afraid that if the citizenship issue makes progress, the libertarians will co-opt us, backing the citizenship change as a way of diverting attention from real immigration control.

emphases mine.

Somewhat surprisingly, one Corner-ite disagrees:

I don't like illegals having U.S.-citizen kids any more than anyone else, but there's no evidence suggesting that this "drop and leave" stuff is true — anything's possible, I suppose, but it's just an assertion at this point. My own sense is that most illegal alien women who have kids here (accounting for nearly 10 percent of all children born in the U.S. each year) didn't come for that purpose; they came for jobs or to join relatives, and one thing led to another, birds-and-bees style, and they had kids. There are no doubt some people who dash across the border illegally to have kids, but they just can't amount to a large share of the problem. Nor does the problem of "birth tourism" require a change in the Constitution — we just need to permit (and require) our consular officers to reject visa applications from pregnant women, inviting them to re-apply once they've given birth in their own countries.

The phenomenon of citizen-children of illegal aliens is a symptom of too much illegal immigration, not a cause. Comprehensive immigration enforcement — abroad, at the borders, and in the interior — plus deep, permanent cuts in future legal immigration (which is the catalyst for illegal immigration) are the solution, because when we have less illegal immigration, we'll have fewer kids born to illegals and the problem goes away. I'm afraid that if the citizenship issue makes progress, the libertarians will co-opt us, backing the citizenship change as a way of diverting attention from real immigration control.

I hope I don't get in trouble with my friends for this, and there are indeed people I respect who disagree with me, but there's a sense in which, just as anti-Semitism is the socialism of fools, an inordinate focus on birthright citizenship is the restrictionism of fools — and Lindsey Graham is strong evidence for that claim.

Dueling Corner posts!

guess we all rush to The Corner when some dumbass Republican makes a statement.

just as anti-Semitism is the socialism of fools,

wait... waht?

you haven't heard that statement before?

huh, apparently it was said by this guy

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/August_Bebel

hey I don't read the Corner, Politico's about all the idiocy I can handle

it's not a corner-ish thing to say!! it's an old political/historical axiom

btw guys, I seriously was kidding when I said "here is your new politics thread" earlier today

I mean, I'm not kicking anyone off or anything but lol

sorry it just reads like a non-sequitur - thought it was some "Socialism = Nazis!" thing

x-post

Mayor Hickenlooper and the Liberal Agenda sounds like a Don Knotts movie

was time for a new politics thread anyway

"anti-semitism is the socialism of fools"

=

"some people will tell you that all the problems of the working people can be solved by getting rid of all the jewish financiers and stuff, don't trust them"

Can I just say I still find it amusing when Napoleonic history affects modern day life?

also

Mayor Hickenlooper and the Liberal Agenda sounds like a Don Knotts movie

or a Smashing Pumpkins album

"Birthright citizenship I think is a mistake, that we should change our Constitution and say if you come here illegally and you have a child, that child's automatically not a citizen."

I would approve this if applied retroactively alllll the way back.

Fuckin' A-men! Let's ship everyone that's not 100% Native American back to where there ancestors came from.

hell yeah, i would love to be able to scatter my friends all across the eastern hemisphere, then move to berlin myself

http://dailycaller.com/2010/07/29/the-men-of-journolist/

Somebody needs to say it. The Journolist scandal will not be finished until someone says it.

Who let the dogs out?

The website iowntheworld.com is posting pictures of the Men of Journolist, the listserv where “journalists” got together to hammer out talking points to help liberal politicians. The Journolist has been called corrupt. A disgrace. Something that will never be lived down. But it’s also the ugliest group of life forms this side of a National Geographic special. When do these orcs march on Helm’s Deep?

It’s childish to make fun of someone’s looks, I know. So I’ll get to the deeper point. Perusing the Journolist photo spread – while trying to keep my lunch down – I realized that this proves once and for all that Nietzsche was wrong. The philosopher claimed that Christianity was a religion of losers, people full of resentment who wanted to strike out at their betters. Christians wanted to turn the world upside down by elevating the weak, sad, ugly and pathetic. It was the faith of losers.

Scanning the pictures of the Men of Journolist, it becomes apparent that Nietzsche had it exactly backwards. It is secular atheism – the religion of the media – that is the religion of resentment, rage, intolerance, and apparently folks who were at the business end of a fugly stick beat-down. People have made cracks about the whiteness of the list, but the other lack of diversity is the total absence of hotness. There were 400 Journolisters. Walk into a room of 400 people anywhere on this planet, and there will be at least a few, maybe even a quarter (ok half in Sweden) who are attractive. It’s just the way God made the world.

Maybe there is some correlation between beauty and conservatism. Perhaps pretty people don’t have to deal with as much humiliation early in life, and therefore don’t become bitter with resentment. They get dates, get picked for teams, they make out. And the conservatives who are less attractive learn and accept that the world is not fair. They make their peace with God. They don’t become utopians, trying to create a world where they will be loved and appreciated if only they can force the world to flip right side up and be what they want it to be. They feel no need to go work for the Nation. Is it a coincidence that Andrew Sullivan’s liberalism has increased in proportion to his hotness decreasing? Twenty years ago he was a thin, winsome Tory posing in a GAP ad. Today he looks like something making noise after washing up on a San Francisco pier.

http://dc-cdn.virtacore.com/user_photos/mjudge-498208095.jpg

^^^HOTTTTT

O_O at that article, holy moley

everything about that post shouts I AM GAY

also I AM STUPID

"Sullivan’s obsessive hatred of Palin goes far beyond the cynicism of a journalist; there is a kind of primordial spasm of rage against something so marvelously lovely, so downright awesome. It’s like that guy a few years ago who took a hammer to Da Vinci’s sculpting of David. The beauty was unbearable!"

http://t2.gstatic.com/images?q=tbn:ANd9GcQEaUdIdhgvE37hBUv-E1CM0Y1xi7XfBOL_DeR8pdrGNccrz7M&t=1&h=169&w=219&usg=__fe0M64YZbd6HqV-V2aEP9_Ftu0Y=

leave Sarah ALONE!

guys I'm not actually up on today's posts because I had a buncha stuff to do in the afternoon but I want to make 1000% sure that everybody and I do mean everybody has followed this link:

One last bit of Basil M. for now -- this is an image hosted on his site. And there you go.

― Ned Raggett, Thursday, July 29, 2010 4:53 PM (6 hours ago) Bookmark Suggest Ban Permalink

because it is the permanent usericon for the Next Level

it's put bearsharktopus back into perspective that's for sure

That 'original 13th Amendment' thing made me chuckle, 'cause even if we don't use them here, many Americans, including Bush Sr., have recieved honorary knighthoods.

The stupid thing is, they're so focused on MUST HATE OBAMA SKREEEEEEEEEE that they don't realize that since the amendment as worded applies to any US citizen, it would strip citizenship from all the Nobel winners in chemistry, literature, physics and medicine as well. Yeah, that should be an agenda people can get behind - stripping US citizenship from all these people.

we'll take em all cept al gore

we just need to permit (and require) our consular officers to reject visa applications from pregnant women, inviting them to re-apply once they've given birth in their own countries.

"OK, mamm, step over here and pee on this stick. We need to see if you're pregnant or just fat."

yeah to borrow a jimmy carr gag, security guards would just eventually rather let in the possible foetal-terrorist than make another fat lady cry

I can't remember if we've already linked to it from here or not but did anybody happen to read this douchebag write-up from the Boston Herald of Obama's appearance on The View?

The real fun was the last line, where the guy feels the classy need to end it with a slam on Oprah:

...Why did Obama decide to appear on “The View” in the first place?

“Look, I was trying to find a show that (First Lady) Michelle actually watched, and so I thought this is it, right here,” he told the hosts at the top of the hour.

Somewhere, Oprah Winfrey is ordering in an extra bucket of KFC.

DON'T WORRY DELICIOUS BUCKET OF CHICKEN I WILL RELISH YOU

http://scrapetv.com/News/Images/kfc%20bucket%20of%20chicken.gif

Somewhere Mark Levin is collecting thirty pieces of silver

let's be clear, the essential problem with the scenarios outlined is the presumption of guilt.

altho fwiw once someone is returning fire, all bets are off

xp

― Master of the Manly Ballad (Shakey Mo Collier), Thursday, July 29, 2010 1:28 PM (8 hours ago)

way late here but ^^this is otm, altho "returning fire" would have to take place in actual combat

I just sent this one to dad in reply to one of his insane tea party FW: FW: RE: FW:.

SEC accuses Dallas investors of insider trading

http://www.dallasnews.com/sharedcontent/APStories/stories/D9H93HK05.html

Sam and Charles Wyly, Dallas billionaire investors known for their support of conservative candidates and causes, made $550 million in undisclosed profits through 13 years of insider trading, according to a Securities and Exchange Commission lawsuit filed Thursday.

In March, Forbes magazine estimated Sam Wyly's net worth at $1 billion. He has given generously to Republican causes and candidates, including the Swift Boat campaign that helped re-elect President George W. Bush in 2004 by tarring his Democratic opponent, Sen. John Kerry.

The Wyly brothers, with their wives, have donated almost $2.5 million to more than 200 Republican candidates and committees at the federal level over the past two decades, according to the nonpartisan Center for Responsive Politics.

Both Presidents Bush received donations from the Wylys. Other recipients included current and former Republican senators: Kay Bailey Hutchison, John Cornyn and Phil Gramm of Texas; Sam Brownback and Bob Dole of Kansas; Elizabeth Dole of North Carolina; Mel Martinez of Florida; Judd Gregg of New Hampshire; John Thune of South Dakota; and Kit Bond of Missouri.

WAIT WAIT WAIT.

KFC DELIVERS?!?!

FBI reveals it had a 400-page (!) file on Howard Zinn: http://foia.fbi.gov/foiaindex/zinn_howard.htm

we're revoking perry's poli thread titling license after this disaster, right?

maybe make that go for all mods except ned

Hey I'll take the vote of confidence.

ha wha happen to thread title??

this thread is a real cocktease

i see dan's cock is back up and in my eye again

I bookmarked RIGHTEOUS COCK before the mod change and the old title is retained in preferences, or whenever new answers happen.

Rolling Political Philosophy Thread

http://tpmmuckraker.talkingpointsmemo.com/2010/07/anti-defamation_league_comes_out_against_ground_ze.php

nice. bigotry is wrong, causing pain is wrong... but causing pain to bigots is wronger!

Does the ADL have any credibility anymore?

No. No it does not.

Dear Media: I do not care about Chelsea Clinton's wedding ffs.

not sure if you guys threw Best Buy in the shitcan yet:

http://www.theawl.com/2010/07/real-america-your-civil-rights-sausage-is-made-in-minnesota

Yeah, Morbs, I read that this morning.

I think BB was mentioned in the previous thread but since no one really cares much about them it was less of an outrage than Target (?). Totally agree with the idea that this kind of boils down to a potentially brand-hurting decision that doesn't really help them as companies much.

<3 <3 <3 Anthony Weiner right now.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=W4zwCMf8dsc

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=1ZXar9bhTyg

These are all coming out because of the recent Supreme Court decision to let companies donate money to political campaigns, right? I'm kinda wondering if forcing these companies to make their relationship to political structures explicit may turn out to be a good thing down the line, especially if they are forced to moderate their contributions.

wow Wiener fucking PISSED - amazing

My fervent hope is that we are no more than an election away from beatings on the floor of the House.

say rockaway

anyway, he's often righteous and almost definitely psychotic -- i feel bad for him, he's a congressman u_u

I'm kinda wondering if forcing these companies to make their relationship to political structures explicit may turn out to be a good thing down the line, especially if they are forced to moderate their contributions.

― Mordy, Friday, July 30, 2010 12:45 PM (18 minutes ago) Bookmark

the disclose act just failed! thx joe lieberman

ACLU was against Disclose Act, no? (wasn't following so closely but...)

maybe they had a 1st amendment problem w/ it. i wasn't following that closely either.

My fervent hope is that we are no more than an election away from beatings on the floor of the House.

http://rds.yahoo.com/_ylt=A0WTefOPFVNMgRgA8bCjzbkF/SIG=1474l0ag4/EXP=1280599823/**http%3a//scienceblogs.com/gregladen/upload/2009/09/a_word_about_civility_joe_wils/Why_b_civil_when_u_have_a_stick.jpg

nah with elephants and tigers or w/e

sumner had it comin

Groweþ sed and bloweþ med

http://www.newyorker.com/online/blogs/hendrikhertzberg/2010/07/new-yorks-third-parties.html

huh this is interesting.

considering our huge blowout argument over the new california primary law, it's worth thinking about new york which has a range of non-corporate-duopoly parties. i haven't finished the article yet so who knows what hertzberg's conclusions are. the things that jump out at me right away are a) it seems to have less to do with any particular strong ideological or moral commitments than just new york's rules for how endorsements work (institutions matter, iow) and b) ny's politics appear just as corrupt and duopolistic as anywhere else's!

ps i don't think i'll ever quite understand what "tammany hall" was or did or how it worked or why it existed.

A bunch of Democratic ward heelers and chieftans dressed up like Indians, acted like a secret society, and basically dispensed patronage for the city and state of New York for almost two hundred years.

what was the incentive? cui bono? was it like a mob thing? cmon don't make me go to wikipedia here

They were experts at courting immigrants: buy them food, find them housing, and seal their votes. Especially the Irish.

ha i kind of don't disapprove!

huge lol @ 2:11 when Weiner says "How's that crackerjack Peter King whip organization working out?" and the host audibly & visibly goes "oooohhhhh"

hmmm

http://www.salon.com/news/politics/war_room/2010/07/30/weiner_don_t_get_excited

every silver lining has a cloud i guess

weiner's a pretty notorious likudnik type dude, and he also just married huma abedin. i'm trying to come up with a 'bashing arabs, smashing arabs' joke that isn't racist or crepey. but i can't!

haha yeah good luck with that

i think huma abedin is desi, right?

it seems so!

pretty notorious likudnik

I wish we didn't use the term likudnik on ILX unless it means the person is actually a member (or vocal supporter of) the actual Likud party in Israel

i don't think that's inaccurate in this case, but point taken

(Nevermind, might actually be appropriate wrt to Weiner acc to this article http://www.nytimes.com/2009/05/07/nyregion/07affleck.html -- I retract my objection)

Mr. Affleck, a Middle Eastern affairs major in college, has even ventured into Mr. Weiner’s personal life, since the congressman’s longtime girlfriend, Huma Abedin, is Muslim. “I have tried to sensitize him to things,” Mr. Affleck said.

this is hilarious to me, for some reason

lol can we make sure all claims itt are backed up by ben affleck in future?

he was a middle eastern affairs major in college!

anyway, he's often righteous and almost definitely psychotic -- i feel bad for him, he's a congressman u_u

― J0rdan S., Friday, July 30, 2010 1:52 PM (8 hours ago)

dude being a congressman is the best job in the world imho, you can't do this kind of shit in the boring ass senate

THE GENTLEMAN IS CORRECT IN SITTING

lol

"weiner's a pretty notorious likudnik type dude, and he also just married huma abedin."

the second half of this sentence by far outweighs any points he loses for his israel views. is this the part of the thread where we put up pictures of mrs. weiner??

http://www.stewwebb.com/HillaryClintonLesbianHumaAbedin.jpg

Huma became an object of lust for several women I worked with at my last job when she showed up with Hillary at a rally. The woman at the desk next to me took a bunch of pics of Huma yelling at people and taped them all over the wall. She was mighty pissed when Weiner started dating her.

amid a long sabbatical i'm taking from politics (too frutstraing, too exhausting, too depressing), i thought this july 29 op-ed piece by paul krugman was clear-eyed and well-written.

re: ADL, from NYT today

“Survivors of the Holocaust are entitled to feelings that are irrational,” he said. Referring to the loved ones of Sept. 11 victims, he said, “Their anguish entitles them to positions that others would categorize as irrational or bigoted.”

and therefore the victims are entitled to dictate policy decisions based on these irrational feelings.

yeah, been talking about that quote w/ other people & it's the standout. Actually the quote is clarifying: 9/11 & the Holocaust are more or less identical wrt to the actions they justify, acc. to the ADL. And bigotry & rationality are subjective, evidently. The moral foundations of the contemporary right are becoming clear.

This is a question for the other thread, but I'm curious "the moral foundations of the contemporary right are becoming clear," -- what does that mean? I agree that this seems like an unethical stance to take, certainly from any position or belief I have. But what do you see those foundations as? Is it some subjective right to the justified individuated experience without recourse to objective morality/ethics? Is it a radical notion of selfhood (or put in more judgy terms -- extreme selfishness)? Or were you just saying that there are no moral foundations at all and it's a nihilistic position?

Seems the moral foundations are Christians = good, Muslims = bad, other non-Christians = also bad, but a little less-so.

what mordy describes sounds more like libertarianism (excluding his last sentence).

amid a long sabbatical i'm taking from politics (too frutstraing, too exhausting, too depressing)

Mm, right there with ya. Have been for a while.

politics everywhere...

t-shirt I saw someone wearing on the Ocean City, Maryland boardwalk the other night: A map of the US with the words- F**k off, we're full. Read online that the slogan was borrowed from Australians and that there's now a group against the slogan on Facebook.

Mordy, subjectivity is the moral foundation of today's right. Or if you prefer, moral relativism. There is no objective standard of moral rationality, of right action: it just depends on how your life has worked out. So no one else can hold you in contempt of shared standards, because there are none.

http://ep.yimg.com/ca/I/cupidshut_2112_70219196

look at my righteous Wiener

Yeah, it's interesting to see the right embrace situational ethics after protesting against them for so long.

think im gonna permanently unbookmark this iteration ofthe thread, cant stand to havr righteouscock staring at me in the eyes everytimd i login

If you unbookmark it and then rebookmark it now that the title is different, would it show up with the new title?

don't think so - I think it probably has something to do with the ILX software?

We shall soon see.

what is with all this 'birthday for the president' shit

apparently if you don't forward it to ten friends you get cursed.

big ny-er piece about senate obstructionism here

Daschle sketched a portrait of the contemporary senator who is too busy to think: “Sometimes, you’re dialling for dollars, you get the call, you’ve got to get over to vote, you’ve got fifteen minutes. You don’t have a clue what’s on the floor, your staff is whispering in your ears, you’re running onto the floor, then you check with your leader—you double check—but, just to make triple sure, there’s a little sheet of paper on the clerk’s table: The leader recommends an aye vote, or a no vote. So you’ve got all these checks just to make sure you don’t screw up, but even then you screw up sometimes. But, if you’re ever pressed, ‘Why did you vote that way?’—you just walk out thinking, Oh, my God, I hope nobody asks, because I don’t have a clue.”

Read more http://www.newyorker.com/reporting/2010/08/09/100809fa_fact_packer?currentPage=4#ixzz0vSjD9Xu3

And now Maxine
http://www.latimes.com/news/sc-dc-waters-bank-20100802,0,432044.story

major bummer. bad move Maxine

which is more shocking, M. Waters or C. Rangel? Or, more succinctly, which has the higher I.Q.?

Although lately I'm wondering whose head will explode first, Paul Krugman or Paul Ryan.

Rangel always seemed like yr classic corrupt lefty politico to me...? So Mazine is definitely more surprising. I always liked her.

I never liked her much--her performance with Bernanke earlier this year was frighteningly ignorant, her comments to that guy from Shell about nationalizing the petroleum industry were even more unintentionally hilarious--but it was interesting that she endorsed Hillary for Prez (til late, when Barry had things wrapped up.)

Rangel's bravado has always seemed a little too good to be true.

Maxine would almost always embarrass herself whenever she went on Politically Incorrect and had to argue with someone who wasn't completely clueless.

rangel was my congressman the last place i lived in new york. first time i've ever had a rep who was a real old-school political boss like that. it was oddly reassuring. (couldn't bring myself to actually vote for him, tho. i just abstained.)

it is kinda lolsad how much the GOP enjoys taking down black congresspeople, I'll say that much.

In this case, I'd say they both deserved it, Shakes, and they just happened to be black.

even more lolsad how they rally around their utter shitbags. unless, like, boys are involved i guess

Yeah, Rangel has always projected the air of a Tammany Hall sachem

xxpost

In this case, I'd say they both deserved it, Shakes, and they just happened to be black.

was also thinking of that Jefferson guy (pretty sure he deserved it too)

didn't he have stacks of benjamins in a freezer?

yeah that guy

GANGSTA

new yorker senate article is good

i'm up to the bit where it reveals that senators travel more by underground secret rail network and hogwarts passageways than on foot

it IS a good article. But I can't decide if it's depressing, predictable, or even cynical. It's really hard to cheer for anyone in the sausage factory.

President Obama rekindled a favorite metaphor of his on Monday, telling Democratic supporters that Republicans drove the economy into the ditch before he was sworn in, and that they “want the keys back” now that it’s stabilizing.

“When you get in your car, when you go forward, what do you do? You put it in 'D,' ” Obama said at a Democratic National Committee event in Atlanta. “When you want to go back, what do you do? You put it in 'R.' ”

Republicans are “counting on that you all forgot” how they managed the economy in the Bush years, Obama said, adding that the GOP wants to “bamboozle you.”

lol

“When you get in your car, when you go forward, what do you do? You put it in 'D,' ” Obama said at a Democratic National Committee event in Atlanta. “When you want to go back, what do you do? You put it in 'R.' ”

Corniest thing this guy's EVER said, but I like it.

that's actually kind of genius in a facepalm way

...but when you want to keep your car nice and safe, you put it in 'P'.

http://i31.tinypic.com/i4ia8m.png

\_O_/

when u wanna stall out, you can always put it in N

Nader? (ew?)

NOBAMA

nazi

when you want to actually have greater control of the car, you have a manual transmission

http://www.blogcdn.com/www.fanhouse.com/media/2007/04/charlie-manuel.jpg

only thing i drive irl

getty imaes

who thought it was a good idea to send geithner out singing happy days are here again?

He was giggly and weird on "Good Morning, America."

if they're not gonna fire him they at least need to keep him out of sight.

ACLU intervening in the Awlaki case we were discussing earlier: http://www.salon.com/news/opinion/glenn_greenwald/2010/08/03/awlaki

'9/11 Mosque' appears to be going through. A victory for that historical American value of freedom of religion. The Anti-American Christian extremists that opposed this can sit on it.

crazy that the Treasury Department is now somehow the responsible entity for determining whether someone is a terrorist worthy of being killed. ah, legal "logic"...

xp

really? awesome!

link?

ACLU is the greatest, btw

Mosque story is on CNN and the NYT

yeah, give them money. they need it.

xp no not them

tho they do need it

Oh, GREAT IDEA http://tpmdc.talkingpointsmemo.com/2010/08/one-progressives-natl-scheme-to-burn-confederate-flags-at-tea-party-rallies.php

"If -- obviously in our country we give a special status to people wanting to build houses or worship. And we don't consider what religion it is. So that's what we start with, and what makes this an awkward conversation. On the other hand, if the people building this large Islamic center are just looking to build a large facility and house of worship and center in New York, why so close to 9/11, with all the sensitivity associated with that? If they're doing it so close 9/11 to try to bridge the gap and do outreach, as some have said, it obviously hasn't worked, as a lot of the people who lost family and friends on 9/11 are unhappy with it and troubled by it.

"You know, I've also read some things about some of the people involved that make me wonder about what they're involved in building this -- make me wonder about their motivations. I don't know enough to reach a conclusion, but as I said I know enough to believe that this thing is only gonna create more division in our society, and somebody ought to put the brakes on it, as I say. Give these people a chance to come out and explain who they are, where their money's coming from, and see if they can reach out to some of the families of 9/11 victims, to see if they can put their minds at ease, because right now they're not.

-- senator guess who

?

Holy Joe?

It's annoying whenever GOP leaders invoke 9/11 families' "unhappiness" when most of NYC is pissed off with the GOP for fucking over 9/11 first responders.

The Anti-American Christian extremists that opposed this can sit on it.
tbf, they're weren't all Xtian! But yeah...

@goole: the Greenwald column I linked goes into how Treasury is involved. I think my brain would explode if I tried to explain it.

god what a fucking shitbag weasel he is

xps

So is a mod unable to fix the bookmark situation on this thread? Cause if not, I wonder if we could move to a new thread. A little early, I know, but there are NSFW concerns :/

I can't fix the bookmark, no

This wasn't even intended to be an actual real politics thread!

Confessions of a Tea Party Casualty, Mother Jones article on former Rep. Bob Inglis, who just lost his runoff to a tea party challenger. Amazing stuff in there.

The week after that meeting with his past funders—whom he failed to bring back into the fold—Inglis asked House Republican leader John Boehner what he would have told this group of Obama-bashers. Inglis recalls what happened:

[Boehner] said, "I would have told them that it's not quite that bad. We disagree with him on the issues." I said, "Hold on Boehner, that doesn't work. Let me tell you, I tried that and it did not work." I said [to Boehner], "If you're going to lead these people and the fearful stampede to the cliff that they're heading to, you have to turn around and say over your shoulder, 'Hey, you don't know the half of it.'"

I sat down, and they said on the back of your Social Security card, there's a number. That number indicates the bank that bought you when you were born based on a projection of your life's earnings, and you are collateral. We are all collateral for the banks. I have this look like, "What the heck are you talking about?" I'm trying to hide that look and look clueless. I figured clueless was better than argumentative. So they said, "You don't know this?! You are a member of Congress, and you don't know this?!" And I said, "Please forgive me. I'm just ignorant of these things." And then of course, it turned into something about the Federal Reserve and the Bilderbergers and all that stuff. And now you have the feeling of anti-Semitism here coming in, mixing in. Wow.

Later, Inglis mentioned this meeting to another House member: "He said, 'You mean you sat there for more than 10 minutes?' I said, 'Well, I had to. We were between primary and runoff.' I had a two-week runoff. Oh my goodness. How do you..." Inglis trails off, shaking his head.

I think everyone here will happily to move whatever new thread some clever politonazi starts. Who wants to take the plunge? You will be a hero to the people.

kind of lol, mostly HOLY FUCK ARE YOU KIDDING

^^ nsfw, but would be an accurate title for new thread

new one: US Politics: Please forgive me. I'm just ignorant of these things.

oh shit!

mods!!

?

http://whisty.files.wordpress.com/2010/04/mods-scooters.jpg

look you guys work out which one you want, I don't really care

lol well that was easy

i'm cool with the other one, elephant rob was first anyway

he blinked first!

ha, shit, this is turning in to a Green Party rally

lol xps there

ha

radio free ilx, broadcasting live from, shit, is this on

william bennett bringing the kind of lols but mostly sads on cnn atm

oh whoops new thread

LOCK THREAD