With less wind & cooler temps, things are settling down: The wildfires in Los Angeles & San Bernardino Counties have come under control. Farther south in San Diego, things look better, but it’s still a battle. Preliminary damage estimate: over $1 billion.
But in Northern Iraq, things are heating up: the Turkish military yesterday attacked Iraq border regions. The British newspaper The Independent profiles both anti-Kurdish nationalism sweeping Turkey in anticipation of war and the Kurdish fighters the Turks are after.
And the P-I today is carrying an AP story on Iraqi Kurds getting ready to fight Turkey when it invades. Meanwhile, the U.S. is telling its puppet Iraqi government (over which it has little remaining influence) to tell the Kurdish provincial government (over which the Iraqis have zero influence) to curb the Turkish Kurdish rebels in mountainous rural areas (over which the provincial Iraqi Kurds have no influence). That’ll fix it.
The big local story is a business story: Microsoft had plowed plowed $240 million into buying 1.6 percent of the social networking site Facebook, beating out Google & Yahoo in negotiations. Most stories on the transaction spent a few quality seconds with a calculator and announced that this prices Facebook’s overall value at a preposterous $15 billion; scroll down for Paul’s perceptive HA comments on why it just ain’t so.
Elsewhere in the dailies, in the same year that 70% of Seattle voters rejected a waterfront tunnel as too expensive, the P-I’s front page today is floating (so to speak) the idea of an SR 520 tunnel (of indeterminate cost) under Montlake Cut, and/or Portage Bay, and/or even all of Lake Washington. Their upshot: heck, a little studying never hurt anyone, right? Especially when it mollifies wealthy Montlake and Laurelhurst residents and enviros concerned about the Arboretum. Then why are voters already being asked to approve money for SR 520 construction in the current Prop One “Roads & Transit” vote? Who’s paying for these probably-to-be-ignored studies, why weren’t these options considered earlier in the process, and how much are these nods to community process belatedly costing taxpayers now?
Meanwhile, a day after profiling Richard Pope on its front page, the Seattle Times returns the favor for troubled incumbent Jane Hague.
And Boston crushed Colorado in the first game of the World Series, 13-1. And the Red Sox Nation rejoices.
I initially posted this at Will’s open thread only to have it get hung up in the nasty spam filter. But since Geov makes specific referance to today’s Times profile of Jane Hague, which features pointed remarks from someone HA True Believers would hope to be in their corner, why not bring it over here? To wit:
So…isn’t KC Councilman Larry Gossett about as liberal a Democrat is you’ll find on the planet? He is, after all, a former member of the Black Panthers, late-60’s short-term resident of the King County Jail (arrested for unlawfully demonstrating), and as reliably a liberal vote on the KC Council as you could imagine. What, then, is he doing in this morning’s Times more or less slamming Richard Pope’s candidacy for KC Council and at least implicitly endorsing Pope’s oppenent? Per Keith Ervin’s piece:
“Democrat Gossett has no desire to see Pope elected to the council. ‘I believe strongly that (Jane Hague) would be, between the two of them, the best representative of the people in that district, despite all the problems that exist.'”
http://seattletimes.nwsource.c.....ue25m.html
Uff da! When a former Black Panther disses HA’s fair-haired child, golden boy, annointed savior of the masses, true progressive Democrat, King County’s latter day reincarnation of William Jennings Bryan (“You shall not press down upon the brow of HA this crown of any Republican, you shall not crucify Goldy upon a cross of competence.”), what shall you do?
Who among you will now decry Gossett as a tool of Republican plutocrats, oligarchs, and Rovian neo-cons for his betrayal of true Marxist principles by not falling prostrate before His Holiness Richard the Pip…er, Pope?
Will there be barricades in the streets? Large red flags? Che Guevera T-shirts, little red books, and Neil Young CD’s? Film at 11:00?
If so, please advise…the guy who pushes the souvenir cart along the Torchlight Parade route would like to know so he can stock up to sell junk to on-lookers who will assemble thinking they’re watching some sort of low-budget circus replete with crazed human chimp impersonaters and clowns too cheap to spring for rubber noses and floppy shoes.
When you sail on the good ship Lolly-Pope, best wear your life jacket.
The Piper
And Boston crushed Colorado in the first game of the World Series, 13-1. And the Red Sox Nation rejoices.
Yeah, I hear Rudy Giuliani called a press conference to announce his intention to separate from New York:
http://www.nypost.com/seven/10.....lipper.htm
What could be more
RomanAmerican than celebrating the national sport withgladiatorsplayers from our entire Empire!I hope that when Obama is Prsident we strengthen this connection to imperial history by MLB placing a Presidential Box behind home plate. The Box can then be used to honor ther President or perhaps some victorious general or the first Astronaut to get home from Mars!
All hail, the SPQR … Senator and Playors of the Republic for those deprived of an apporpriate ediucation.
It’s actually “A moose once bit my sister…” With diacriticals of course.
The teaser proofreaders have been sacked. The teaser writers have been sacked. The persons in charge of hiring the teaser writers have been sacked…
Alternatively, since the Bidetians are building a replica of the Crawford Ranch for GWB, why not build a baseball stadium there too! Hell GWB’s firs big success in life was
when his Daddy bought him theTexas Rangers!Better yet .. why shouldn’t Bidet or the UAE have a team of its own? Between George and Cheney, also rumored to be makin the move, there should be all the managerial talent needed to build a GREAT baseball team. I suggest we call the team the “Americans” of Bidet! With UAE money, the salaries will make BOTH the Yankees and the Red Sox look like pikers! AND .. there are no taxes in Bidet!
Furthermore, outside of US law, the Bidet’s could hire players from Burma and cuba, laces not allowed to get US $$$!!! Hmmm .. I guess that would mean that all of the American’s games would need to be played in the new Halliburton Stadium as the undocumented aliens could not get visas to play in the USA?
For a story on the Haiiburton plan for stadium CLICK ME
@1: Unlike your side, our people actually think for themselves and often come to different conclusions.
It’s what happens when you do just a little bit more than suck off the O’Reilly/Coulter/Malkin teat.
It’s pretty funny when your biggest beef with the Dems is that they don’t march in lockstep.
@5…OM…
Think for themselves? Oh, really? How many pro-life Democrats are enthusiastically welcome? Or will speak at the DNC next summer?
Red carpet been rolled out for Joe Lieberman lately?
How many Demo prexy candidates actually had the balls to tell MoveOn to bugger off?
I don’t have a beef with what provides me an unending source of amusement and laughs.
The Piper
@5 Actually no elected Democrats in the state of Washington have endorsed Richard Pope. Far from being out of lockstep with his party (as the Piper points out) Gossett is squarely in the mainstream of Democrats embarassed by Pope’s presence on the ballot.
@5…OM…
Forgot…You can’t escape the fact that Larry Gossett seems to regard Richard I, Pope of the Holy HA Empire as something akin to a busted colostomy bag.
Yet you all seem to still be orgasmicly ecstatic over him with nary a discouraging word as to his qualifications for office, overall competency to do anything other than dig up dirt (which he’s admittedly good at), and routinely impress people with his anti-social personality and genius at adding new meaning to the term “odd duck.”
What’s next? Running Kevin Coe for County Executive?
The Piper
@4: Correction accepted.
One thing you can say about that funky SR520 tunnel concept … it certainly won’t be a cut-and-cover design.
Think for themselves? Oh, really? How many pro-life Democrats are enthusiastically welcome? Or will speak at the DNC next summer?
I suspect every speaker will be pro-life. Not all of them will support a woman’s right to choose.
How many speakers at the 2004 Democratic National Convention opposed a woman’s right to choose?
Who among you will now decry Gossett as a tool of Republican plutocrats, oligarchs, and Rovian neo-cons for his betrayal of true Marxist principles by not falling prostrate before His Holiness Richard the Pip…er, Pope?
Uh, er, nobody.
Now who will decry YOU as a barely sentient tool of the neo-con agenda, mindlessly repeating their talking points?
Uh, just about everybody.
Asshonking Republisite @ 1
Anyone with a brain will take your pathetic anti-Pope campaign as a sterling reason to vote for him.
POPE! POPE! POPE! POPE! POPE! POPE! POPE! POPE! POPE! POPE! POPE! POPE! POPE! POPE! POPE! POPE! POPE! POPE! POPE! POPE! POPE! POPE! POPE! POPE! POPE! POPE! POPE! POPE! POPE! POPE! POPE! POPE! POPE! POPE! POPE!
Go Richard!
@12…YLB…
So, then, may I put your “name,” such as it is, alongside Larry Gosset among those who regard His Popiness as so much political pond scum?
Simply trying to verify…
The Piper
Careful YLB; Asshonker is TAKING NAMES!
Gossett is entitled to his opinion. I respect it. It doesn’t change my opinion in the least. Richard Pope will be a worthy addition to the King County Council – in my opinion.
Now Mr “taking names” Pooper on the other somehow thinks that everybody to the left of Dino Rossi has to march in lockstep with elected Dems. What a childish view of things.
@18…YLB…
You can march to the beat of any drummer in whatever direction tickles your tunic; I’m completely indifferent…But with Pope Richard XI (soon to be XII…a ways to go to get to the level of John XXIII) you’re marching off the far left end of a very flat earth.
Curious…Do you think it’s too late for Pope to retain ACORN to conjure up fake endorsements for his candidacy? Maybe the old standbys: Seymour Butts, I.P. Freely, and Kitty Liter?
I’ll bet Rowan Atkinson’s nod is a shoe-in. Think of the merchandise tie-ins that would be available with a Mr. Bean look-and-act-alike running for office? Given the sophistication of Richard XI’s (soon to be XII) supporters, the contents of that warehouse filled to the brim with old VHS videotapes of episodes of Mr. Bean could be sold to them for top dollar.
If they’ll buy His Holiness’ candidacy, they’ll buy anything.
The Piper
@7
Think for themselves? Oh, really? How many pro-life Democrats are enthusiastically welcome? Or will speak at the DNC next summer?
Every Democrat who will speak at the DNC next summer will be pro-life. That means that they oppose starting unnecessary wars. Most of them will be pro-choice on abortion as well.
@7
Red carpet been rolled out for Joe Lieberman lately?
Nope, just a straitjacket.
How many Demo prexy candidates actually had the balls to tell MoveOn to bugger off?
Why should they? Exactly which position that MoveOn holds has a lower approval rating than the President?
I don’t have a beef with what provides me an unending source of amusement and laughs.
Everyone here can sympathize with that, Crackpiper. Keep the crazy coming, my friend!
Fatuous Ashhonker @ waytoomany
Do you work exceedingly hard to be such an obdurate and obnoxious asshole, Cutie-pie, or is it a natural, genetic, talent? Richard Pope is interesting, if unconventional, for a politician, whereas your uninspired Republican dicksucking simply makes you a good candidate for Aide to Larry Craig.
In any event, you are a useful fool, because sensible people will react to your strained cleverness by appreciating that which you despise.
@20…Lee…
How terribly unclever of you! Yet typically so.
How many who contend that abortion is murder will be welcome to make a case for that POV at next summer’s DNC?
Taking your example, how many who believe the Iraq War to be a just cause? Or that the netroots out to be given sprayed with political Roundup? Or that MoveOn ought to do just that…move on?
Is there room or a place for those who favor building the Congressionally authorized southern border fence or refusing to provide publicly funded benfits and privileges to illegal aliens? How about those who insist upon requiring photo ID before voting?
Face it…Democratic “thinking” is as diverse as a nun’s wardrobe.
The Piper
Chadt,
Feel free to boost Richard Pope..but even you have to admit it’s more than a little odd that NO ONE outside of this blog is publicly supporting him. Not a single elected official, not a single candidate, not even the Green Party. Not one organization. Nada.
And those inside this blog have more than a little explaning to do. According to my mail today his most ardent fan here Marvin Brecht (listed #1 on his three person “endorsement” list) has a Richard McIver problem in a big way.
@1
Crackpiper, do you actually have a point? The fact that one Democratic councilmember isn’t supportive of a particular Democratic candidate is not interesting to anyone whose understanding of politics is more developed than a toddler’s understanding of shiny red ball.
@20
How terribly unclever of you! Yet typically so.
Oh dear, am I going to have to get a 10-year-old to explain it to you?
How many who contend that abortion is murder will be welcome to make a case for that POV at next summer’s DNC?
I have no idea. Whether or not one thinks abortion is murder is a personal belief. What separates people on this issue is whether or not you can impose that religious belief on others. There are people who believe that abortion is murder. There are people who believe that eating meat is murder. Where either of those two people go wrong is when they try to impose that belief on everyone else.
Taking your example, how many who believe the Iraq War to be a just cause? Or that the netroots out to be given sprayed with political Roundup? Or that MoveOn ought to do just that…move on?
I’d love to respond to this comment. Can you translate it from retardese to English?
Is there room or a place for those who favor building the Congressionally authorized southern border fence or refusing to provide publicly funded benfits and privileges to illegal aliens?
I’m sure there will be Democrats who support those positions. They’ll be wrong about the efficacy and the wisdom of those position, but they exist. Many of the people who best understand why a border fence will not work are free market conservatives.
Face it…Democratic “thinking” is as diverse as a nun’s wardrobe.
I’m not sure can I think of a person less qualified to talk about the subject of “thinking” than you.
@25…Lee…
Oh? Then why has Keith Ervin made such a point of mentioning it in his Times stories?
You don’t think that Richard XI’s (soon to be XII) pathetic and abysmal failure to garner a single solitary endorsement from a name Democrat – Hell, he can’t even get the endorsement of the Democratic Party whose standard he purports to bear – isn’t news? Not significant? Not telling of how he’s regarded among those who do have a track record of getting elected to office?
You can continue to take too seriously the party part of Party (silly hats and noisemakers, anyone?) all you like, but you’ll end up with a lampshade on your head, electoral barf on your shoes, and a whole lot of explaining to do later on.
BTW…How much have you ponied up for His Popiness’ war chest?
The Piper
@27
Oh? Then why has Keith Ervin made such a point of mentioning it in his Times stories?
Who the fuck is Keith Ervin?
You don’t think that Richard XI’s (soon to be XII) pathetic and abysmal failure to garner a single solitary endorsement from a name Democrat – Hell, he can’t even get the endorsement of the Democratic Party whose standard he purports to bear – isn’t news? Not significant? Not telling of how he’s regarded among those who do have a track record of getting elected to office?
None of that is a surprise. Richard is a strange dude. He’s run as a Republican over and over again and loses every time. Now he’s a Democrat. Did you really think everyone would just love him all-of-a-sudden?
You can continue to take too seriously the party part of Party (silly hats and noisemakers, anyone?) all you like, but you’ll end up with a lampshade on your head, electoral barf on your shoes, and a whole lot of explaining to do later on.
What in god’s name are you babbling about? Can you please raise the percentage of your comments that make sense to like the 60-80% range?
BTW…How much have you ponied up for His Popiness’ war chest?
I haven’t given that guy a cent. Why on earth would you think I have? Are you completely brain dead?
@24 I certainly have no problem admitting that I do so for strictly idiosyncratic reasons: He’s had a tough row to hoe, he’s got nonpartisan principles when it comes to revealing malfeasance and corruption, and, in a rather, uhm, quiet way, he’s a bit of an iconoclast. And he’s a long way away from where I live, so I have no interest in the sense that his function of council won’t much impact me.
He’s awfully quiet lately, for whatever reason, and he’s pissed off the Democratic party up there, so I guess I wouldn’t expect much in the way of endorsements. He may win the position by Hague’s disastrous conduct, but once in, we’d have a chance to see how he’d do.
Now, I’ve answered why I support him, and you are welcome to consider my reasoning absurd. But why is Piper spending so much of his time hissing about him? Is it because HE has a dog in the fight, or is it simply because Piper is a vandal here and anything that vocal HA types like, he finds loathsome? That’s as valid an idiosyncrasy as any other, but shouldn’t you ask HIM what his involvement is?
I suspect you’ll get back 50 yards of florid bullshit full of rage and fury, and signifying what Piper usually does, but maybe you’ll give it a try.
How terribly unclever of you! Yet typically so.
Sorry Lee. I’ve got to go with the Crackpiper on this one. Your post is very similar to mine @ 12. :-P
I’ll also note that he’s been unable to answer a simple question I asked: how many of the speakers at the 2004 Dem. Nat. Convention opposed a woman’s right to choose?
@20…Lee…
Eating a Big Mac and killing a late term fetus via partial birth abortion are moral equivalents, are they?. Were you frequently dropped on your head as a child? Or are you yet one?
My opposition to murder is grounded in my faith. Does that make my belief that murder should be unlawful illegitimate?
You’re weaseling around every single solitary example. Worse…you’re starting to sound like CHURLISH/Chump/Chimp/Coward/Chadt and Farts/Facts. And I had hopes for you!
The Piper
@29…CHURLISH/Chump/Chimp/Chowderhead/Coward/Chadt…
Well, I’ll give you this, you articulate your reasons for supporting Pope Richard XI (soon to be XII). They may be bizarre and indifferent to the damage he would do to the 6th District, from which you candidly admit you are some distance away, but they are more than anythong done by most HA posters.
So you’ll know and not loose sleep…I have no horse in this race. You will not find one post where I have expressed support for any candidate in the race. My objection is to vanity runs for office.
Narcissism should be treated by a qualified mental health professional, not voters in election after election after election after election after election after election after election after election after election after election after election (are we to 11 yet?) after election.
The Piper
ACORN! The next thing we’re going to hear is a breakdown of the Soros connection to Richard’s candidacy.
What paranoid right-wing drivel!
Go Richard!!!
I hope the people of the sixth give Richard Pope a try. It means they actually care about someone who represents herself truthfully (degrees, education) and respects the law (driving drunk, cussing out peace officers, throwing her weight around).
But it’s totally up to them and I respect that. I don’t live in the sixth.
@30…ATJ…
You tell me so we’ll both know: how many speakers at the 2004 DNC supported the, as I define it, pro-life position and called for abortion to be outlawed?
I remember when pro-life Pennsylvania Governor Bob Casey was barred from addressing the 1992 DNC simply because he was pro-life. Do you remember that?
While we’re at it, is there room in the 2004 Democratic platform for those who believe Roe v. Wade should be overturned? How much diversity there?
The Piper
@33…YLB…
ACORN will lie about anything for a buck, so why not?
The Piper
You tell me so we’ll both know
No. Look it up.
You claimed those who oppose a woman’s right to choose would not be welcome at next year’s Dem convention. Prove it.
Oh, and Casey was not prevented from speaking at the 1992 convention because of his views on abortion. He was prevented from speaking because he wouldn’t endorse the ticket.
Those Who Persevere
It’s a rare person who doesn’t get discouraged. Whether it happens to us or to a friend or family member we’re trying to cheer up, the answer centers around one word: perseverance.
The value of courage, persistence and perseverance has rarely been illustrated more convincingly than in the life story of this man (his age appears in the column on the right):
Failed in business 22
Ran for Legislature…defeated 23
Again failed in business 24
Elected to Legislature 25
Sweetheart died 26
Had a nervous breakdown 27
Defeated for Speaker 29
Defeated for Elector 31
Defeated for Congress 34
Elected to Congress 37
Defeated for Congress 39
Defeated for Senate 46
Defeated for Vice President 47
Defeated for Senate 49
Elected president of the United States 51
That is the record of Abraham Lincoln.
I’m not saying Richard Pope is Abe Lincoln but there’s something to be said for being persistent.
@38…ATJ…
Not according to Casey (from http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/R.....ey#_note-4)
1992 Democratic National Convention controversy
“Because he considered abortion a key social issue for the 1992 presidential election, Casey sought a speaking slot to give a minority plank on the topic at the 1992 Democratic National Convention. He was not given a speaking spot[5] and in a series of news conferences he said the party was censoring his pro-life views since he agreed with the party on nearly all other issues.[6] Convention organizers said that Casey was not denied a spot because of his views on abortion, but because they wanted speakers to have endorsed Bill Clinton ahead of time, which Casey had not done.[7][8] After the convention, Casey went on vacation rather than campaign for Clinton in Pennsylvania, which was a key swing state. However, he told the New York Times, “I support the ticket. Period.”[9] Although several pro-life Democrats did speak at the convention, they did not focus their remarks on their opposition to abortion, and the issue was not debated the way Casey had wanted.[8]”
As to 2004…Looking over a list of all those who spoke before the convention, I don’t see a name identified with the pro-life movement who spoke in support of a pro-life position before that convention.
In fact, so-called “big tent” language on abortion contained in the 2000 platform was removed and replaced with language that insisted Roe v. Wade remain the law of the land.
Enforced orthodoxy…
The Piper
As to 2004…Looking over a list of all those who spoke before the convention, I don’t see a name identified with the pro-life movement who spoke in support of a pro-life position before that convention.
That’s quite a wide stance you’re taking there…
@39…YLB…
You’re right…His Popiness is no Lincoln.
Remember…Lincoln was a well respected lawyer with a successful and fairly lucrative practice.
Two of the races you referance are irrelevent to the point at hand. In Lincoln’s day, U.S. Senators were selected by state legislatures, not voters.
While Lincoln was persistent in the face of adversity and oppositional scorn (much like Dubya), he had organizational and party support.
Richard XI (soon to be XII) can’t even inspire enough confidence among you birds to put your money where your mouths are by donating heavily to his campaign. Let’s look at the most recent PDC records:
Anonymous Cash Contributions: $0.00
Candidate/Committee Cash Contributions: $0.00
Total Loan Contributions: $1,100.00
Total Miscellaneous Contributions: $0.19
Total of Small Contributors: $45.00
Candidate/Committee Date Amount P Contributor City State Zip Employer Occupation
POPE RICHARD L JR 08/20/2007 $700.00 P HOLLOWAY ELIZABETH R BATON ROUGE LA 70809
RETIRED
POPE RICHARD L JR 09/30/2007 $700.00 G PONG ALBERT SEATTLE WA 98144 SELF-EMPLOYED PROPERTY MANAGER
POPE RICHARD L JR 09/25/2007 $50.00 G IRONS DI AUBURN WA 98002
POPE RICHARD L JR 09/30/2007 $50.00 G TUTCHER CHAD TACOMA WA 98445
POPE RICHARD L JR 10/16/2007 $25.25 G HOLMAN DARRYL REDMOND WA 98052
Total Named Cash Contributions for this report: $1,525.25
POPE RICHARD L JR 09/06/2007 $1,913.49 G POPE RICHARD L BELLEVUE WA 98007 SELF-EMPLOYED ATTORNEY – LAWYER
POPE RICHARD L JR 10/09/2007 $1,453.81 G POPE RICHARD L BELLEVUE WA 98007 SELF-EMPLOYED ATTORNEY – LAWYER
POPE RICHARD L JR 10/08/2007 $690.90 G POPE RICHARD L BELLEVUE WA 98007 SELF-EMPLOYED ATTORNEY – LAWYER
POPE RICHARD L JR 08/16/2007 $650.00 P POPE RICHARD L BELLEVUE WA 98007
POPE RICHARD L JR 10/05/2007 $112.50 G BRECHT PAUL BELLEVUE WA 98009 FAS CORPORATION CONSULTANT
POPE RICHARD L JR 08/31/2007 $35.91 G POPE RICHARD L BELLEVUE WA 98007
POPE RICHARD L JR 09/17/2007 $29.56 G POPE RICHARD L BELLEVUE WA 98007 SELF-EMPLOYED ATTORNEY – LAWYER
POPE RICHARD L JR 09/11/2007 $28.00 G BRECHT PAUL BELLEVUE WA 98009 FAS CORPORATION CONSULTANT
POPE RICHARD L JR 09/14/2007 $24.95 G POPE RICHARD L BELLEVUE WA 98007 SELF-EMPLOYED ATTORNEY – LAWYER
POPE RICHARD L JR 09/15/2007 $24.90 G POPE RICHARD L BELLEVUE WA 98007 SELF-EMPLOYED ATTORNEY – LAWYER
POPE RICHARD L JR 09/15/2007 $24.00 G POPE RICHARD L BELLEVUE WA 98007 SELF-EMPLOYED ATTORNEY – LAWYER
POPE RICHARD L JR 10/09/2007 $17.18 G POPE RICHARD L BELLEVUE WA 98007 SELF-EMPLOYED ATTORNEY – LAWYER
Total In Kind Contributions for this report: $5,005.20
What do they show??? Aside from Di Irons who probably has a huge personal bone to pick with the incumbent, a very modest contribution of an odd amount from one Darryl Holman (don’t they pay you enough at the UW, Darryl, or are you just cheap?), a not terribly larger contribution from one Chad Tutcher of Tacoma (I had suspected Monroe or Walla Walla), an out-of-state donation from Elizabeth Holloway (family???), and one from an Albert Pong of Bellevue, that’s it. If you don’t include His Popiness’ own pony ups, that is.
From this filing, it looks like the sum and substance of HA generosity is $75.25. Not even enough for dinner for two at Ruth’s Chris Steakhouse at Bellevue Square.
In-kind contributions, from you-know-who and one other guy (as memory serves, a former client) are limited to just the two and represent the largest bulk of donations to the campaign.
Of this a great statesman is born???
Maybe the reason no one has seen him around is that he may be spending his time at the northbound NE 4th onramp to I-405 holding a sign: “Elected Officeless – Need funds – Will campaign for food – God Bless!”
So much for Richard XI (soon to be XII).
The Piper
@31
Eating a Big Mac and killing a late term fetus via partial birth abortion are moral equivalents, are they?. Were you frequently dropped on your head as a child? Or are you yet one?
Well, let’s break this down logically. Both actions don’t happen unless a living creature is killed, correct? And if that’s the case, then isn’t it up to the individual to decide on what the inherent morality of each act is?
My opposition to murder is grounded in my faith. Does that make my belief that murder should be unlawful illegitimate?
Yes. Any time you try to impose your religious beliefs on others, that’s illegitimate. It is strictly against the Bill of Rights for government to infringe upon an individuals freedom of religion.
You’re weaseling around every single solitary example.
You’re about a comment or two away from giving me something extremely funny to post at Effin’ Unsound. Go for it!! I love handing people their ass on abortion.
[Deleted]
@40
In fact, so-called “big tent” language on abortion contained in the 2000 platform was removed and replaced with language that insisted Roe v. Wade remain the law of the land.
No one argued against the Civil Rights Act of 1964 either. What’s your point? Or should Democrats be dinged for not having a diversity of opinion on interracial marriage and segregated schools? The “big tent” language on abortion was a mistake because allowing for abortion to be banned anywhere in the US should be treated as a civil rights violation.
@43…Lee…
So…if an individual decides that it’s within his moral compass to run you over with his SUV, does that make it a good act?
Sorry…you are so far out to lunch, you’re almost at breakfast!
There is no moral or legal equivalency between killing any animal and killing any human being. Chicken farming is not akin to the Holocaust.
The Bill of Rights has nothing to do with prohibiting the codifying of religiously based beliefs commonly held by members of society, such as “You shall not murder.” Exodus 20:13 NIV. The Establishment Clause of the First Amendment precludes government from enacting the tenants of a faith into law, not from enacting the moral norms of society, which are by the main religiously based, into law.
To one extent or another, all law is morality.
You need to learn the differance between illegal and illegitimate. To you, many proscriptions against drug use are illegitimate even as drug use can be illegal. There’s a world of difference.
It’s not strictly against the Bill of Rights to infringe upon an individual’s freedom of religion. Ask parents who refuse medical care for their children on religious grounds or those who would use peyote for religious purposes in violation of the law of the jurisdiction in which they seek to use it. Cf. Employment Division v. Smith, 494 U.S. 872 (1990).
As a Constitutional expert? Don’t quit your day job.
The Piper
“How many pro-life Democrats are enthusiastically welcome? Or will speak at the DNC next summer?”
Here’s one: Hillary Clinton. She has deeply-held religious beliefs, one of which is that abortion is bad. The difference? She doesn’t think it’s right to impose those beliefs on people who don’t share her religious views. But she’ll be speaking at the convention, bet on that.
“Red carpet been rolled out for Joe Lieberman lately?”
That’s the thing about that whole disagreement deal. Love, roses and red carpets don’t always come with the deal. Actually, Lieberman is a good example of what I’m talking about. How many R candidates are publicly repudiating the Iraq war? None? Oh.
“How many Demo prexy candidates actually had the balls to tell MoveOn to bugger off?”
So tell me, which Republican told Rush to go fuck himself over the “phony soldiers” comments?
More shit coming from the Pipe( r )…
@45…Lee…
That to claim the Democratic Party has a diversity of POV’s on things like abortion is a lie; Democrats must adhere to Roe v. Wade or be frozen out of the party.
And it’s curious that I can be outed by full name, vocation, url address, etc., yet the same standard isn’t applicable to public information ascertainable by me or anyone relative to someone who’s slammed me pretty hard and used my personal information?
While I have no particular kick about being made public, let’s just get it on the record that I was never asked in advance.
Got it?
The Piper
@47…OM…
Pro-life = Human life begins at conception, and the terminating of such life is murder. Roe v. Wade must be overturned, late term partial birth abortions must be outlawed. Hillary Clinton is no more pro-life than is the head of NARAL.
How about Democrats, and there are some despite the best efforts of the Democratic Party to drum them out, who believe abortion to be murder and that such should be the law of the land even if it takes a constitutional amendment to make it so?
Republicans publicly against the war? Sen. Chuck Hagel, R-Nebraska.
The netroots and MoveOn wouldn’t tolerate a pro-war Democratic member of Congress. Look what they did to Brian Baird. About tore him limb from limb.
Lock-step/goose-step orthodoxy is the hallmark of the Democratic Party.
The Piper
@46
So…if an individual decides that it’s within his moral compass to run you over with his SUV, does that make it a good act?
No, because I’m a sentient and fully aware human being who is being victimized.
Sorry…you are so far out to lunch, you’re almost at breakfast!
If you think so, then strap on a pair of testicles and try to debunk my logic.
There is no moral or legal equivalency between killing any animal and killing any human being.
Never said there was. But a fetus is technically not a human being until it’s born. Why? Because the characteristics that make a human being a special creature are not yet developed in a fetus.
Chicken farming is not akin to the Holocaust.
Exactly. And abortion is not akin to the Holocaust for the exact same reason.
The Bill of Rights has nothing to do with prohibiting the codifying of religiously based beliefs commonly held by members of society, such as “You shall not murder.”
Ah, but murder is not illegal because it’s against anyone’s religion. It’s illegal because it’s an act where an individual is victimized. There’s a very important distinction there that it’s very clear you’ve never thought about.
The Establishment Clause of the First Amendment precludes government from enacting the tenants of a faith into law, not from enacting the moral norms of society, which are by the main religiously based, into law.
What’s the difference? Every tenant of faith constitutes one’s moral norms. It’s either all right or all wrong. What you’ve allowed yourself to do is to compartmentalize one thing into two different things in order to justify allowing one and declaring the other unconstitutional. The correct approach (and I believe it is the one that was implied by our founding fathers) is that government should not be in the business of dictating morality, ever. Laws should exist in order to protect society from others, not to protect people from their own decisions.
To one extent or another, all law is morality.
Yes, but the only morality that should be law is that in which the individual liberty of others is directly violated.
You need to learn the differance between illegal and illegitimate. To you, many proscriptions against drug use are illegitimate even as drug use can be illegal. There’s a world of difference.
I don’t see your point here. I fully understand the differences between illegal and illegitimate. The drug war is a fantastic example.
It’s not strictly against the Bill of Rights to infringe upon an individual’s freedom of religion. Ask parents who refuse medical care for their children on religious grounds or those who would use peyote for religious purposes in violation of the law of the jurisdiction in which they seek to use it.
In the former case, there’s a justification for the infringement if the refusal of medical care puts others at risk (just as there’s no justification for “freedom of religion” if my religion says I can steal cars). As for the second example, that’s a misinterpretation of the first Amendment, and it has been decided incorrectly, IMO. Prohibitions of simple drug use should be ruled unconstitutional because they alone do not put others at risk.
As a Constitutional expert? Don’t quit your day job.
I’m not a lawyer, but I’ve taken interest in these subjects because something is very broken in our society right now when it comes to our understanding of what the role of government should be in dictating our moral choices. The fight to overturn Roe v. Wade has been a very big part of that dysfunction.
Piper has totally called you out. You blah blah in here about Pope because its cheap and easy. The vast majority of pro-Pope quotes in here are from people who can’t even vote for him. They join the tiny minority who can in their determination to do nothing to help him but bitch about Jane Hague in here. As Piper has said before $ talks and Bullshit walks and the lot of you are walking away from Richard Pope.
@48
That to claim the Democratic Party has a diversity of POV’s on things like abortion is a lie; Democrats must adhere to Roe v. Wade or be frozen out of the party.
Absolutely. And that’s as justified as the fact that anyone who wants to ban interracial marriage would be frozen out of the party. People who are irrationally anti-choice on matters of personal morality should be on the outside looking in.
And it’s curious that I can be outed by full name, vocation, url address, etc., yet the same standard isn’t applicable to public information ascertainable by me or anyone relative to someone who’s slammed me pretty hard and used my personal information?
Those who don’t want to be outed will have their wish sustained by me. If you’d said, “please don’t print my personal info,” I would have been happy to delete comments that you didn’t want written.
While I have no particular kick about being made public, let’s just get it on the record that I was never asked in advance.
Got it?
Well, you’ve got a decision to make now, then. You’ve been an obnoxious ass in these comment threads for a while now. I have no problems using your real name in the Effin’ Unsound posts, and you’ve obviously not endeared yourself to me as a thoughtful conservative like Right Stuff and Libertarian and Tuor and a few others. This is your call. You’re likely going to keep doing more and more damage to your reputation by failing to recognize how far off into the authoritarian right-wing echo chamber you’ve drifted to. We can keep playing this game all you want. I’ve humiliated quite a few trolls in my time here. You’re not the first, you won’t be the last.
That to claim the Democratic Party has a diversity of POV’s on things like abortion is a lie; Democrats must adhere to Roe v. Wade or be frozen out of the party.
Just like Harry Reid and Jack Murtha…
PS It was great to see Richard Pope at the Dino Rossi really this morning. I always knew Chadt et al were hacks who were easy to fool but even I marvel at how someone as socially retarded as Richsrd Pope could even pull it off. You jackasses are clapping like trained seals for the more right wing candidate. All you need to do is slap a “D” behind your name and you respond like Pavlov’s dogs…good boy Chadt, good boy Goldy, you both are SUCH good doggies.
@49
Pro-life = Human life begins at conception, and the terminating of such life is murder.
But logically, human life can never really start at conception. The characteristics that make a life “human” (as opposed to all other creatures) don’t manifest themselves until after someone is born and begins experiencing their life. Humanity is something that a fetus has potential for, but does not experience until after birth. This is why the determination for the value of that life should be held by the person carrying that child, rather than by the government.
Roe v. Wade must be overturned, late term partial birth abortions must be outlawed. Hillary Clinton is no more pro-life than is the head of NARAL.
You don’t know that. For starters, you’re using a definition of pro-life that is inherently saying that being pro-life is illogical. I don’t agree. I tend to think that pro-life is the belief that you personally value a fetus the same as a born human. But again, that’s a belief that you should not be able to impose on others. So it’s entirely possible that Hillary Clinton is both pro-life and pro-choice. Many people are (Dan Quayle, for instance, once made it clear that he was both pro-life and pro-choice, and few people made any commotion about that).
How about Democrats, and there are some despite the best efforts of the Democratic Party to drum them out, who believe abortion to be murder and that such should be the law of the land even if it takes a constitutional amendment to make it so?
They are as wrong as the old Democrats from the south who thought that interracial marriage should be banned at the federal level, or the Democrats today who support the amendment to ban gay marriage.
The netroots and MoveOn wouldn’t tolerate a pro-war Democratic member of Congress. Look what they did to Brian Baird. About tore him limb from limb.
Baird was spectacularly stupid in his recent assessment. He deserved to get torn from limb to limb. He wasn’t just expressing a different opinion, he was believing in things that simply weren’t true.
@50…Lee…
You don’t have much knowledge of the legal and cultural history of the United States, do you? If you did you wouldn’t say such patently ignorant things.
The essence of criminal law isn’t that someone is victimized, it’s that society’s order is disrupted. That’s why the criminal law isn’t a private matter. It’s never Smith v. Jones, but The People of the State of Washington v. Jones.
In many cases, Jones’ feelings as to whether Smith ought to be prosecuted are interesting, often persuasive, but not ultimately controlling.
Since before the founding of the Republic, society has legislated morality. The Founding Fathers weren’t opposed to legislating morality, because, in fact, that’s exactly what they did! If you read carefully the precursor documents to the Constitution (The Declaration of Independence being one) you see morality all over the place. King George violated their rights as Englishmen such that nature and nature’s God gave them leave to dissolve the bonds, etc.
Individual states legislated morality for decades. So-called “blue laws” were enacted because lawmakers at the time took the scriptural injunction, “Remember the Sabbath and keep it holy,” literally thus forbidding many, if not most, businesses to be open on Sunday.
You assume that your post-modern, 21st-Century, amoral philosophy must have been de rigueur for those 18th-Century men of the Enlightenment. Well, you’re wrong! These were men whose personal, civic, and religious lives were intertwined; Presbyterian, Anglican, Unitarian, Quaker, Deist, or whatnot, they viewed life, law, and civil society through a spiritual lens that saw them bring their faith to both the marketplace and the legislative halls. And they weren’t at all shy about legislating that faith into law.
Think on this: Most, if not all, of the original and subsequent states had mandatory church attendance laws. For example, the Constitution of the Commonwealth of Massachusetts, ratified in 1780, a full seven-years before the Constitution and the oldest written constitution in the world still in effect, mandated, in its Article III, both support for public worship and church attendance as a matter of law. This was the law in Massachusetts until the 1830’s.
Read Louis Menand’s “The Metaphysical Club” for a good discussion of many to these issues.
While your right to swing your fist does, in fact, end at just before my nose, law isn’t simply a utilitarian exercise. Some things are still illegal because society collectively says that they’re wrong things and must be proscribed. Prostitution is an example. Argue all you like that it’s a victimless crime, but the legislature assembled and giving voice to the will of the people says that prostitution is damaging to society such that it comes under the sanction of the criminal law. And as much as you whine about it, the same goes for drugs.
BTW…if you’re so hot to go about your boy in Canada being persecuted, then encourage him to come down, face the music, demand the severest penalty possible (that’s what Gandhi and M.L. King, Jr. did), and offer neither defense nor justification all in an attempt to take his and your case to the public that he’s been subject to an unjust law. Knock yourself out!
Since you haven’t, to my knowledge, been appointed to SCOTUS, your personal belief as to what should or should no be unconstitutional isn’t persuasive.
On what grounds? What cases? What statutes? What articles of the Constitution? What legal principles, precepts or precedents bolster your case? Or is your jurisprudential scholarship limited to your own bias?
Try taking your nonsensical POV somewhere where it could be subject to rigorous scrutiny. Defend your position against those who would critique it. Don’t just hide in your self-absorbed, insular, and pat-your-self-on-the-back blogs.
Really…you are juvenile…but amusing until you become a bore.
The Piper
@52…Lickspittle Lee…
Don’t hurt your arm patting yourself on the back! My sun does not rise and set on your opinion of who I am, trust me on that!
Your are a legend in your own mind, and I truly insignificant fish in the HA pond. If you’re so good and so confident in your ideas, then come out of the closet, stick your full name on stuff, and take your obvious superiority outside of the cloister of your narrow and fetid liberalism and into the true marketplace of ideas.
Why don’t you take your gospel and evangalize the heathen at a conservative blog? Or write for publication (I do…column out next week)?
Time to get out of your intellectual sandbox!
The Piper
If you’re so good and so confident in your ideas, then come out of the closet, stick your full name on stuff, and take your obvious superiority outside of the cloister of your narrow and fetid liberalism and into the true marketplace of ideas.
Says the guy posting under a pseudonym…
@49…Lickspittle Lee…
Try persuading any Jesuit ehicist, theologian or medical professional of that POV; you’ll get laughed out of the room. You’ve essentially flushed Catholic teaching and doctrine, not to mention a good bit of Protestent, Orthodox Jewish, and others, down the toilet.
If society chooses, and someday it will, to regain its senses and abolish abortion as the barbarity it is, then your notions of what is and ain’t will be put out to the curbside for Tuesday trash pickup.
Most people don’t like it. An increasing number are uncomfortable with the number of abortions. An even larger number favor outlawing partial birth infanticide abortions. Parents of young girls are appalled that their daughters can’t get their young teenaged ears pierced without parental permission, but the girls can heighdy-ho themselves to a Planned Parenthood clinic and have the human life growing inside them…sucked into a sink.
Aren’t you glad your mother choose life for you rather than a sink-sucking?
Your comparison to segregationists is beneath dignity. You make your POV the center of the universe – why does this not surprise me? – and your intepretation of things that which must be with all others not merely different, but wrong.
Lee, you want YOUR MORALITY to become or remain law. Who’s the hypocrite now?
As far as outing…have your games, but understand this: what’s in the public domain is fair game. If you don’t want your junk looked at, don’t go on the Internet or give money to campaigns.
Richard Pope outed Chad, not me.
The Piper
@58…ATJ…
My name is Scott St. Clair, what’s yours? The Piper and Piper Scott if Googled quickly lead any who are interested to my website. What about you?
The Piper
@56
You don’t have much knowledge of the legal and cultural history of the United States, do you? If you did you wouldn’t say such patently ignorant things.
I do have a bit of knowledge on the subject, but I just think that we’ve gotten a lot of things wrong over the years. This country tolerated slavery for 80 years, and outright discrimination for over 200, under a document that should not have allowed either of those things in the first place if its true meaning was understood. I still don’t think we’re getting certain things right, and those failures have led into why we’re failing miserably on the world stage right now.
The essence of criminal law isn’t that someone is victimized, it’s that society’s order is disrupted.
And this misunderstanding is what has led to a number of problems. For example, let’s look at interracial marriage. Many people looked at this as something that disrupted society’s order. And enough people opposed it that this disruption was real (as a self-fulfilling prophecy). Does that justify dictating that moral choice on others? Of course not. And anyone who looks at it logically understands that.
Drugs are another good example here. Following your prescription, drugs can and should be outlawed because they seem to disrupt society’s order. In fact, this was precisely the justification for alcohol prohibition. But alcohol prohibition (along the with the current drug prohibitions on other substances) failed completely because instead of having criminal laws for what they’re supposed to be for (protecting victims), they were used to “preserve order”. This may be the way things have always been done, but it’s always a mistake, and I believe the people who wrote the Constitution and the Bill of Rights actually understood that more than we recognize.
That’s why the criminal law isn’t a private matter. It’s never Smith v. Jones, but The People of the State of Washington v. Jones.
But there certainly is a justification for “The People” being able to bring charges against individuals. Economic and environmental laws exist because all of us share an economic system and an environment and we all must work together to protect it. But issues of individual morality are different, because unlike the economy and the environment, we do not have to share a belief system, and in fact this separation is what made America so unique and important. The environment and the economy are systems of finite resources, but pleasure, spiritual fulfillment, and piece of mind are not finite and people’s endeavors in those direction don’t work against others as if it were a zero-sum game.
In many cases, Jones’ feelings as to whether Smith ought to be prosecuted are interesting, often persuasive, but not ultimately controlling.
But they should be based upon whether or not Jones was victimized or whether Jones is trying to impose a particular morality on Smith. And these determinations should be rooted in reason and science.
Since before the founding of the Republic, society has legislated morality. The Founding Fathers weren’t opposed to legislating morality, because, in fact, that’s exactly what they did! If you read carefully the precursor documents to the Constitution (The Declaration of Independence being one) you see morality all over the place. King George violated their rights as Englishmen such that nature and nature’s God gave them leave to dissolve the bonds, etc.
No one is saying that morality doesn’t exist, or that morality does not lead to how one wishes to run government. For instance, deciding to create a system of welfare is a moral choice that many make. Many libertarians believe that this constitutes the same kind of moral abrogation as the kinds I’ve already discussed. However, I’m come to the conclusion that when there are moral decisions about how a system, or society as a whole should function (rather than the individual) and that the actions of the government concerning issues of public welfare and public works should be democratically decided. To me, those actions are very separate than an attempt by government to impose a particular morality on an individual. To others, they’re not, and they see taxation itself as an affront to their individual liberty because they don’t see the economic system as being distinct from spirituality.
Individual states legislated morality for decades. So-called “blue laws” were enacted because lawmakers at the time took the scriptural injunction, “Remember the Sabbath and keep it holy,” literally thus forbidding many, if not most, businesses to be open on Sunday.
And while those laws were useless and potentially a violation of the First Amendment rights of others, they are still somewhat removed from a much more unconstitutional law (a ban on drinking on Sunday). The reason they are removed is because they involve the economic system (to a degree), and issues like this dealing with the commerce clause are situations where I see older liberals of today being the enemy of the classical liberals of this nation’s founding.
Continuing…
“Sen. Chuck Hagel” … you misread, I said “R candidate”. You could have said “Ron Paul” but you and I both know he has a snowball’s chance of getting the nom.
Here’s a direct quote from Hillary Clinton on her stance on abortion. Not that I’m all starry-eyed about Hillary but I happen to know a little something about her religious beliefs and her stand on abortion:
See, the difference between Hillary and, for that matter, Democrats compared to you and your ilk is that she’s not an authoritarian shitheel.
“Some things are still illegal because society collectively says that they’re wrong things and must be proscribed. Prostitution is an example.”
Hm. Prostitution is legal in Nevada. Will the Federal troops be massing on the border to make a lightning strike to save the poor Nevadans from themselves any time soon? Oh wait, you mean they get to decide for themselves? But it’s a moooral issue!
Now here’s something that will blow your mind, Piper…I actually agree that MoveOn was wrong to attack Brian Baird for his statements about Iraq. Said so at the time. See, that’s that whole “thinking people disagreeing” thing I was trying to point out earlier.
But hey, you keep your little illusions safe and warm now. Feel free to misconstrue anything I say, since you surely will anyhow.
kisses,
-OM
@56
Continued…
You assume that your post-modern, 21st-Century, amoral philosophy must have been de rigueur for those 18th-Century men of the Enlightenment. Well, you’re wrong! These were men whose personal, civic, and religious lives were intertwined; Presbyterian, Anglican, Unitarian, Quaker, Deist, or whatnot, they viewed life, law, and civil society through a spiritual lens that saw them bring their faith to both the marketplace and the legislative halls. And they weren’t at all shy about legislating that faith into law.
I’ve read Thomas Paine, and I tend to agree with a lot of what he says, even though he clearly came at things from a more “religious” perspective. But whether or not someone comes from a religious perspective does not disqualify their ability to use reason and come to the proper conclusions about the role of government, and the way individuals can protect their rights from a government. I personally think Paine understood this balance well (he was obviously a very strong proponent of separating church and state), but our modern world requires a much more developed understanding of where the lines should be drawn. That’s what I plan to work towards, taking the enlightenment of the 18th century and adapting it to the 21st. I do believe that the revolution in thought that led to the American and French revolutions and other upheavals were a step in the right direction for mankind. But I believe we have farther to go.
Think on this: Most, if not all, of the original and subsequent states had mandatory church attendance laws. For example, the Constitution of the Commonwealth of Massachusetts, ratified in 1780, a full seven-years before the Constitution and the oldest written constitution in the world still in effect, mandated, in its Article III, both support for public worship and church attendance as a matter of law. This was the law in Massachusetts until the 1830’s.
Sure, and it was unconstitutional. Just because we have a Constitution does not mean that we’ve followed it very well. In fact, I think the intent of the founders has been completely bastardized on a number of occasions throughout history. Human nature is a very volatile beast, and while the founding of this country established a system that has been incredibly stable, I will never argue that it’s perfect and it has never been undermined.
While your right to swing your fist does, in fact, end at just before my nose, law isn’t simply a utilitarian exercise. Some things are still illegal because society collectively says that they’re wrong things and must be proscribed.
And what I’m saying is that whenever that happens, it is an attempt to impose morality on others, and it’s wrong. It shouldn’t happen. I believe that many who gave us the Constitution intended for this to be the case, but I may be wrong. But either way, I think we need to graduate towards a system where individual acts can not be declared criminal unless someone (or society as a whole) is clearly victimized by the act. As a result, it would be impossible to ban gay marriage or other moral crimes that are only illegal because of irrational fears about “societal order”.
Prostitution is an example. Argue all you like that it’s a victimless crime, but the legislature assembled and giving voice to the will of the people says that prostitution is damaging to society such that it comes under the sanction of the criminal law. And as much as you whine about it, the same goes for drugs.
And the same went for alcohol, interracial marriage, sodomy, witchcraft, and a number of other embarrassing prohibitions that we now look back on in disbelief. You’re not naive enough to believe “oh, but now we’re banning the right things because of a moral justification”, are you? Banning these things does not work. They’ve never worked. And they never will work while continuing to amplify the effects of the societal problems they intend to address in the first place.
They don’t work because they are laws that attempt to impose morality, rather than to protect people from victimization. Instead of excusing this idiocy, we need to be moving towards a system that recognizes this reality. I think this can be done within the confines of the existing Constitution, but again, I’m very open to hearing counterarguments to that.
BTW…if you’re so hot to go about your boy in Canada being persecuted, then encourage him to come down, face the music, demand the severest penalty possible (that’s what Gandhi and M.L. King, Jr. did), and offer neither defense nor justification all in an attempt to take his and your case to the public that he’s been subject to an unjust law. Knock yourself out!
Oh, that’s exactly what he’s doing. He wants to be a martyr for the cause.
Since you haven’t, to my knowledge, been appointed to SCOTUS, your personal belief as to what should or should no be unconstitutional isn’t persuasive.
By that logic, your opinion is worthless too. What’s your point?
On what grounds? What cases? What statutes? What articles of the Constitution? What legal principles, precepts or precedents bolster your case? Or is your jurisprudential scholarship limited to your own bias?
It’s based on logic. In all of human history, we haven’t understood the relationship between drug prohibitions and government as well as we’re starting to now. We’ve never understood the fact that government simply isn’t capable of attempting to impose morality without becoming more de-legitimized and powerless. The reason is because its an abstraction for humans to understand. The opposite seems true, and that’s why we believe it. But this has changed (and one of the major reasons we understand it is because of the work of Milton Friedman, who truly was brilliant). Economists (who in the early part of the 20th century actually argued FOR prohibition), now believe that drug prohibitions are inherently inefficient models for society. This all comes from the growing knowledge that it’s simply “wrong” for government to try to impose morality.
Continuing later (World Series on soon)…
@62…OM…
You do have a modicum of discernment and insight…sometimes.
But not on what constitutes pro-life. HRC’s position is essentially this: I personally wouldn’t murder a child, when others murder children it distresses me, but if others want to murder children then it’s none of my business, so I’m content keeping the murder of children save and legal.
That about it?
Prostitution isn’t legal in Nevada. It’s legal in a very few local jurisdictions in Nevada. You turn a trick in Vegas, you can get busted!
I will admit to not insignificant qualms about Nevada as a concept. And I’m not particularly fond of some things we do n Washington, either. What I do about them is vote my values along with my interests.
Candidly, isn’t that what you do?
Good for you that you thought MoveOn screwed the political pooch in re Baird. Their hystrionics don’t go over well with most folks.
If I misunderstood your original quesion, my apologies. Nothing, though, serves to prevent a white-flag type from running for President as a Republican. It’s a free country. Ron Paul, though, as much as his heart is in the right place from a Libertarian perspective, is just as out to lunch on the war as any Democrat. And some of his supporters have the kookiest ideas for which they best be careful lest the end up in a federal prison some place for tax fraud.
The Piper
Coprophiliac Pseudohuman @ 42:
Your list is inaccurate; inspired by your rants of yesterday, I ponied up another $50. Keep shrieking, it’s good for his campaign fund.
@65…CHURLISH/Chump/Chimp/Chowederhead/Coward/Chad…
Have at it! Contribute all you want…Then also know this: all your contact information then shows up on the PDC website, so guess what: Richard XI (soon to be XII) has outed you!!! Full name and address…
Nice to know you Chad!
The Piper
“HRC’s position is essentially this: I personally wouldn’t murder a child, when others murder children it distresses me, but if others want to murder children then it’s none of my business, so I’m content keeping the murder of children save and legal.
That about it?”
Well, no. See, that’s your problem…you aren’t able to recognize the morality of the opposition. You wear these blinkers that cause you to believe that nobody can look at a similar set of facts and come to a different conclusion…and be just as “right” as you are.
I was about to try to interpret Hillary’s words but she really says it pretty clearly herself. Re-read them. She’s saying that an individual is in a much better position to make a moral call about their own situation than some lawmaker.
Some people see abortion as murder. Others…don’t. The percentages of who sees what how vary based on how far along the pregnancy is. There is very little consensus. In the absence of such consensus, it is immoral (in OneMan’s opinion) to force a decision on a woman one way or another. It must be left up to her to weigh her position on the humanity of the fetus against the burden of raising a child she doesn’t want or that may cause her physical harm, and then act accordingly.
You yap on and on about your liberties which I assume means you reserve the right to make your own decisions about your own life without government intervention to the greatest extent possible but that all goes out the window when somebody else makes a decision you don’t agree with.
That is why it’s so easy to start yelling “hypocrite” at you. There doesn’t appear to be any internal consistency or logic to the positions you take. You can’t seem to see that a woman who chooses an abortion may be making the most moral decision available to her.
Not that I expect you to actually think about my words. After all, I’m just
-OneMan
@63…Lee…
Quickly…I’m off to an annexation meeting. The following:
“Sure, and it was unconstitutional.”
Why was the Massachusett’s provision unconstitutional?
Also…if you’re familiar with the term, “A revolution eats its own children,” apply it to Thomas Paine, who fomented intense feelings, but was never involved in delibertations over the Declaration of Independenct or the Constitution. His was a POV specifically rejected by the Founders. He was a radical, most all the Founders were mercantilists, landed gentry, and deeply schooled in the Common Law and their rights as Englishmen.
Read history objectively, not how you want it to be.
The Piper
The Piper
The Piper and Piper Scott if Googled quickly lead any who are interested to my website. What about you?
If your name isn’t “Piper Scott,” you’re changing your position. You didn’t say “If people can figure out who you are, you have the courage of your convictions.” You told Lee, “If you’re so good and so confident in your ideas, then come out of the closet, stick your full name on stuff…”
So now your argument is if someone *can* out you, that’s the same as putting your full name on your comment and you are confident in your ideas. I meet that standard, as I’m certain I can be tracked down. Though, given your thuggish “Nice-house-and-family-you-got-there-Chad; shame-if-something-was-to-happen-to-it” post upthread, I’m not “coming out” to you. You’ll just have to get over it and deal with the content of my arguments, instead of attacking me personally.
And, finally, why would you say this to Lee, who in fact DOES sign his name to his posts and includes a link to his personal site with every comment he makes here? If Lee does exactly what you’re now claiming you meant, why did you feel the need to write the original paragraph at all?
Here is a rant by Pooper Scott St. Clair, about the pending annexation of his unincorporated area by the City of Kirkland (or “People’s Republic of Kirkland” as he calls it). Too bad Jane Hague supports the annexation of the Pooper’s little hovel. (Also, funny how the Pooper is indignant about “DUI bars” — unless the police happen to stop Republican drinkers.):
“I live in unincorporated King County in an area designated for annexation by Kirkland, so I keep my eye on the Kirkland City Council. So far, I fear for my life, liberty, and property!
Kirkland fancies itself Marin North. It’s the most liberal city government on the Eastside, and it absolutely goes out of its way to tack extreme left simply because it’s the chic thing to do.
Kirkland has a dubious reputation for being home to several of the top DUI bars in the area, yet Kirkland Mayor Jim Lauinger was quoted in the old King County Journal as saying places like that and the night life they offer make Kirkland a “nifty place.”
Former mayor and current Kirkland City Council member Mary-Alyce Burleigh openly and enthusiastically violated existing Kirkland land use ordinances when she helped Tent City 4 set up shop in its first visit to the city. She’s probably the biggest fan of TC4 operator SHARE/WHEEL among Eastside elected officials.
Another KCC member, Joan McBride, has been my sarcastic pen pal for a long time. Yet when I asked her this past February to be my Valentine and have a cup of coffee together, she rebuffed this citizen’s overtures intended only to petition the government for redress of grievances. Hurt my feelings, to be sure!
Kirkland is home to 45th District Senator Eric Oemig, D-al Quida, who introduced into the legislature a skanky bit of treacle calling for an investigation into whether grounds existed to impeach the president and vice-president. All this after he promised us poor dumb saps that he was a problem-solving, bipartisan statesman of sorts.
The Kirkland Courier has been an enthusiastic supporter of all this crap, BTW. It makes the P-I look like William Loeb’s Manchester, NH Union-Leader by comparison.
Rumor on the street is that Kirkland is considered too liberal for the likes of Jesse Jackson, Dennis Kucinich, former Gov. Mike Lowrey, and the channeled ghost of Karl Marx.
Kirkland goes out of its way to support the building of mega-mansions that serve to drive up the price of housing such that only the uber-wealthy can afford to live there. Like I said, Marin North.
Kirkland has about the most draconian tree canopy ordinance in the Western Hemisphere. I better cut now or forever hold my piece.
About the only thing Kirkland has going for it is a ban on gambling establishments, which would, should annexation actually happen, effectively quash a blight in my neighborhood, The Caribbean Casino.
There is no truth to the rumor, however, that behind closed doors, Kirkland city officials require municipal employees to address them as “Comrade.” At least there isn’t much truth to the rumor.
Kirkland is a proletariat people’s paradise.
The Pooper
Posted by: Pooper Scott St. Clair on May 19, 2007 09:48 AM”
http://soundpolitics.com/archives/008640.html
@68…ATJ…
Given that I get attached peronally here dozens a times a day, don’t think your trepidations disturb me.
I’d already been outed, plus Piper Scott is the only blogging moniker I’ve used, I’ve used at places that display the only email address I use when blogging, and tons more stuff. I never use any fake names or phony email addresses.
I asked Chad, after he mocked and derided my willingness to be public, whether he had the guts to go public, too. He fulminated, by stayed in the dark.
I’m still of the mind that if someone really believes what they say and has the passion of his convictions, then he’s proud to attach his name to them. Stand up and be counted.
I am a Highland piper, and my name is Scott. What’s the big deal?
You should also know that Chad (no more T at the end for him) has been singularly abusive and nasty. That I find data about him on the PDC website due to his bragged-about contributions to His Popiness proves that Chad is too clever by half.
And I said nothing of the sort along the lines you attribute to me in quotes. Since you use quotes, I assume you accuse me of uttering those exact words, correct?
I just don’t believe in hiding behind things, whether they’re fake blog names or 12-year old kids. Something about a severe defect in character in those who do…But that’s just an opinion.
The Piper
@70…AYM…
Thank you for re-publishing my views…That post got some traction!
The Piper
Re: “If you’re so good and so confident in your ideas, then come out of the closet, stick your full name on stuff”
And I said nothing of the sort along the lines you attribute to me in quotes. Since you use quotes, I assume you accuse me of uttering those exact words, correct?
http://www.horsesass.org/?p=3639#comment-704159
I’m still of the mind that if someone really believes what they say and has the passion of his convictions, then he’s proud to attach his name to them.
Evidently you lack the passion of your convictions, unless “Piper Scott” is your real name.
I just don’t believe in hiding behind things, whether they’re fake blog names or 12-year old kids. Something about a severe defect in character in those who do…
It didn’t stop you from hiding behind your sons.
There are few things in life more boring than a lying hypocrite.
You’re dismissed… with prejudice.
@73…ATJ…
That quote is mine…No problem…I think I got a wire or two crossed on that one, so you have me there.
Fundamental premise remains the same, however, and I have remained consistent throughout.
I do take umbrage at a statement that I hide behind my sons. I support my sons, I take great pride in their servcie and sacrifice, I want their work to succeed, I believe they represent the best of America, and I regard it as my job to watch their backs while they’re “over there” against sneering and leering types who lust in their hearts to see them fail and who cheer every loss yet remain mute over their collective victorys or individual heroism.
I adopted a moniker since it’s customery in the blogosphere. So what? It accurately describes who I am, doesn’t conceal my full identity, but, rather, leads any who wish to discern it to do so with a couple key strokes.
In the meantime, the genuine hiding still goes on…And I will still call it for what it is.
The Piper
I do take umbrage at a statement that I hide behind my sons.
Have all the umbrage you like; it’s good for you – full of fiber. It doesn’t change the fact that you have indeed hidden behind your sons to avoid having to address criticisms of your positions.
It was raised here:
http://www.horsesass.org/?p=3421#comment-690951
And you tried to respond here:
http://www.horsesass.org/?p=3421#comment-690962
And I pointed out that your response only supported the charge here:
http://www.horsesass.org/?p=3421#comment-690966
You tried to hide behind one of them again:
http://www.horsesass.org/?p=3421#comment-690970
And I asked you a direct question that you ignored:
http://www.horsesass.org/?p=3421#comment-690975
(Note: they’re all from the same thread. Just scroll down if you don’t want to click on each link)
Comment in the filter…
@68
Also…if you’re familiar with the term, “A revolution eats its own children,” apply it to Thomas Paine, who fomented intense feelings, but was never involved in delibertations over the Declaration of Independenct or the Constitution. His was a POV specifically rejected by the Founders.
Of course he wasn’t involved in deliberations over the Declaration of Independence or the Constitution. He didn’t even move to the colonies until the end of 1774. But you’re absolutely wrong if you don’t think his core views were in line with folks like Jefferson and Franklin, especially when it came to how to build a government that preserved liberty from tyranny. Where Paine was different than some of the American founders was over his ideas of how to do social welfare. On those counts, the disagreement is similar to the disagreements that my of us here have with conservatives today. But they are a level removed from the more important things that were agreed upon, and that until recently, conservatives agreed with us on (torture is bad, the separation of church and state is good, etc).
Piper Scott
You are a pathetic asshole, and a liar.
“Richard Pope outed Chad, not me.
The Piper”
YOU object to someone taking your website info and Danny Westneat’s column and posting it here (and no, it certainly wasn’t I) and getting in a huff, then you take public information about me, from MY STATEMENT that I was a Pope contributer, out me here with it, then crow that it wasn’t really you who did it.
What total, disingenuous bullshit: a lie by anyone’s standards.
What next, Braveheart (Mel Gibson wannabe, acutally)?
Complaining letters to the postal inspectors now that you can identify me?
At least, there’ll be no doubt from whom they came.
Way to go, Mr Upright Hypocrite.
@56 and @57
Continuing from yesterday…
Try taking your nonsensical POV somewhere where it could be subject to rigorous scrutiny. Defend your position against those who would critique it. Don’t just hide in your self-absorbed, insular, and pat-your-self-on-the-back blogs.
I’m doing that right now. You’re more than welcome to critique it, but you can’t. I’ve been blogging for years where anyone can comment on my posts. I’ve written variations of what I’ve said in these comments a number of times at Reload. I’ve brought up these points in the comment threads at Sound Politics. I’ve even been on the radio with Goldy taking calls on the subject. I hold these points of view because they hold up to scrutiny. If they didn’t, I’d reassess what I believe.
Really…you are juvenile…but amusing until you become a bore.
Yawn.
Don’t hurt your arm patting yourself on the back! My sun does not rise and set on your opinion of who I am, trust me on that!
That’s a good attitude to have. Why should you care about someone who can’t refute all the ridiculous things you say? Oh wait, hold on. I am refuting all the ridiculous things you say.
Your are a legend in your own mind, and I truly insignificant fish in the HA pond. If you’re so good and so confident in your ideas, then come out of the closet, stick your full name on stuff, and take your obvious superiority outside of the cloister of your narrow and fetid liberalism and into the true marketplace of ideas.
My full name is very far from hidden. As I’ve said, I’ve done radio and I have an open blog where anyone can comment. The reason I don’t have people bursting my bubble is because I care very deeply about making sure I deal with reality, rather than just believing what I want to believe.
Why don’t you take your gospel and evangalize the heathen at a conservative blog? Or write for publication (I do…column out next week)?
I actually comment at right wing blogs fairly regularly. I wrote two diaries at Red State before I was banned for being critical of Michelle Malkin. You might want to redirect this kind of taunt at someone else, because it really doesn’t make sense to accuse me of hiding in a liberal echo chamber. I actually read as many conservative libertarian blogs as I do liberal ones.
One more coming…
@59
Try persuading any Jesuit ehicist, theologian or medical professional of that POV; you’ll get laughed out of the room.
I’d love to have discussions with any of them. So far, no Jesuit ethicist, theologian or medical professional (and SeattleJew has tried) has ever been able to explain why my views on abortion are incorrect.
You’ve essentially flushed Catholic teaching and doctrine, not to mention a good bit of Protestent, Orthodox Jewish, and others, down the toilet.
And this is supposed to bother me? I’m an atheist. I don’t give a rat’s ass what people’s religions tell them to believe. I believe in reason and facts, not the imaginary man in the sky.
If society chooses, and someday it will, to regain its senses and abolish abortion as the barbarity it is, then your notions of what is and ain’t will be put out to the curbside for Tuesday trash pickup.
If this country chooses to abolish abortion, it will be another step on the path towards becoming a third-world nation. Look at the rest of the world. Which countries are more likely to have bans on abortion, first-world nations or third-world ones? Why is that?
Most people don’t like it. An increasing number are uncomfortable with the number of abortions. An even larger number favor outlawing partial birth infanticide abortions.
And in the early 1900s, and increasing number of people were uncomfortable with alcohol and demanded it be banned. How’d that work out? The reality is that abortion is something that you cannot stop through legislation. You will only make it more dangerous. Making abortion illegal will actually create more health problems, and kill more people than maintaining what we have now. The fact that people want something illegal is not sufficient reason to make it illegal. That’s the entire premise of what I’m talking about here.
Parents of young girls are appalled that their daughters can’t get their young teenaged ears pierced without parental permission, but the girls can heighdy-ho themselves to a Planned Parenthood clinic and have the human life growing inside them…sucked into a sink.
When it comes to minors, we’re definitely dealing with a different set of parameters. But you can’t possibly be comparing pregnancy to not having your ear pierced, can you?
Aren’t you glad your mother choose life for you rather than a sink-sucking?
Of course, but I’m even more glad that we live in a country where she can make that choice. And I’m very relieved that I wasn’t born to a mother who wanted to have an abortion, but wasn’t allowed to.
Your comparison to segregationists is beneath dignity. You make your POV the center of the universe – why does this not surprise me? – and your intepretation of things that which must be with all others not merely different, but wrong.
I don’t make my point of view the center of the universe. I use reason and logic to find the center of the universe.
Lee, you want YOUR MORALITY to become or remain law. Who’s the hypocrite now?
In a sense, that’s true. I believe that law should be based on the very simple notion that the only role of government when it comes to enforcing criminality is to protect us from others. In other words, my morality is that government should not be able to dictate morality. That’s not hypocrisy, that’s a paradox.
As far as outing…have your games, but understand this: what’s in the public domain is fair game. If you don’t want your junk looked at, don’t go on the Internet or give money to campaigns.
It’s a little too late for that for me. I’ve spent quite a bit of time on the internet already and given to a number of campaigns.
Richard Pope outed Chad, not me.
Well, he just lost my vote. :)
Lee, You’re not gonna vote for me because ….
Oh, never mind.
Piper’s currently posting on another thread, but you’re NOT going to see him back here.
Run away, Piper. Run Away, Run away.
@78…Chad…
How are the beagles?
I never complained that I was outed, I complained about how I was outed; there is a difference.
And I simply posted a public record from the PDC containing information about you. It was Richard XI (soon to be XII) who made your full name and address public before God, nature, and everyone.
No hypocrisy on my part…
The Piper
Lee…
You still haven’t given me your Constitutional analysis of pre-1830 Massachusetts law.
I’m waiting…
The Piper
I’m waiting…
That’s funny, I’m waiting for answers to quite a few direct questions myself. For some reason, I’m not optimistic those questions will be answered.
You still haven’t given me your Constitutional analysis of pre-1830 Massachusetts law.
Oh, I skipped that line. A law requiring people to go to church is unconstitutional because freedom of religion implies that no government body may infringe upon the right of any individual person to worship however they see fit.
@86…Lee..
Oh? In pre-1830 America the Massachusetts law was unconstitutional because…? Hint: read the literal words of the First Amendment:
“Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances.”
Another hint: post-Civil War amendments
The Piper
@85…ATJ…
To support my sons and call B.S. on rhetoric that demeans their service and threatens their safety isn’t hiding behind them…especially when they’re the ones who tell me they’re demeaned and their safety is threatened by the rhetoric.
The Piper
Looks like I was right to be less than optimistic.
@89…ATJ…
Then tell me what I missed…
The Piper
Well, let’s start with what question you think you were answering in #88 because it certainly doesn’t answer any question I’ve asked.
@91…ATJ…
You still on the “posting anonymously” kick? If that’s it, I simply find it hypocritical that people won’t sign their name to stuff. I do whenever asked. That I used a moniker was simply because it’s the protocal. That my moniker also happens to be my nickname to many of my friends and associates I suppose qualifies “Piper Scott” to be my name.
What’s the big deal? Bottom, bottom, bottom line? A lot of the pretty ugly and completely anonymous crap I read on a daily basis easily qualifies as hate mail. Anonymous hate mail is, to me, barely a step removed from wearing a hood.
How’s that? Or must I continue to play 20-Questions?
The Piper
Piper Scott,
I’m genuinely curious, have you recently experienced a blow to the head?
In 91, I expressed confusion over what question you thought you were answering in 88. As the president might say, “in other words,” I was wondering what question you thought 88 answered. Your reply in 92, which you claim is in response to 91, is the most bizarre non-sequitur I’ve seen in a long time.
So, I’m serious, are you injured? Do you need medical attention?
@93…ATJ…
Why don’t we cut to the chase? Re-state the question.
The Piper
THAT. IS. MY. POINT. What question were you addressing in 88?
@95…ATJ…
Sheesh…you must be starved for entertainment and without either meaningful work or a satisfying hobby!
Here’s what you said in an earlier post: “That’s funny, I’m waiting for answers to quite a few direct questions myself. For some reason, I’m not optimistic those questions will be answered.”
OK…I’m taking some shots as to the questions. Were they related to your allegations that I hide behind my boys? Or about the whole question of anonymity? If neither, then what?
The Piper
OK…I’m taking some shots as to the questions.
Oh, for the love of Pete. How old are you, seven? eight? You couldn’t just ask? You just start randomly answering questions that are rattling around in your head? Are you *trying* to give Lee more material?
Tell you what, let’s limit ourselves to three:
1. From 69 above:
And, finally, why would you say this to Lee, who in fact DOES sign his name to his posts and includes a link to his personal site with every comment he makes here? If Lee does exactly what you’re now claiming you meant, why did you feel the need to write the original paragraph at all?
2. From the thread referenced in 75 above:
Where in this thread did anyone impugn them or their effort?
http://www.horsesass.org/?p=3421#comment-690975
Cite specific examples of text that you believe attacked your sons or their effort, and explain how those examples support your claim.
3. From a previous thread on SCHIP:
You:
I suppose my answer to your question depends upon whether you’re still beating your wife. You seek to lay a clumsy, ham-fisted trap, and I simply refuse to play!
Me:
So, if I ask you a straight-forward question about whether you support or oppose the program we’ve been discussing, you think that’s a trap? Why is that?
I’m disappointed to see “pro-life libertarians” are so so unwilling to engage in policy discussions. I was under the impression that libertarians believed discussion to be a good thing – the whole John Stuart Mill thing. Was I mistaken or are you not really a libertarian?
Found here: http://www.horsesass.org/?p=3551#comment-699905
@97…ATJ…
An aside to start…If I answered every obnoxious rhetorical hand grenade tossed my way disguised as a question, I’d be here all day. Some necessarily get batted away as the nuisances they are.
However, be that as it may…to yours:
(1) To start, thank you for bringing me back to the statement in quotes you attributed to me: Though, given your thuggish “Nice-house-and-family-you-got -there-Chad; shame-if-something-was-to-happ en-to-it” post upthread…
I never said that nor remotely implied that. I don’t go there.
That Lee uses his first name does provide a clue. I assume, BTW, he’s not the bodybuilder of that name nor the HVAC consultant.
The essential nature of my beef steel remains that, even though it didn’t bother me, that I was outed with no complaint from the so-called HA “powers that be” yet the same standard wasn’t applied when I posted easily discoverable information about another. I’m happy to play by the rules, but it would be nice for others to play by them, too.
(2) Impugning my boys…As a general proposition, stuff such as “the war is lost” or MoveOn’s “Petraeus = Betray Us” is a slap at them. Even my cynical staff sergeant son, who admits with obvious pain in his eyes of his fatigue at covering funerals in Germany on behalf of soldiers killed in Iraq, said to my face that the MoveOn ad was offensive to him.
He regards Gen. Petraeus as perhaps the best in that job to date, and this from a non-com who, as a rule, loathes officers.
It’s offensive and demeaning to have a steady drumbeat of anti-war, defeatist, and quite mean-spirited rhetoric directed at their effort without any mention, unless extracted and then only begrudgingly stated, that acknowledges their service.
And the absolute crap that gets dumped on people like Rush Limbaugh, who’s HUGELY popular among soldiers and Marines, adds to this. Where, BTW, was the condmnation of Jesse McBeth from your side? That this scum-bag claimed honorable service in order to denounce the war and become a poster boy for the anti-war movement…where’s the outrage against him and commensurate apologies to soldiers and Marines who have served or are now serving?
To say, “The war is lost,” is to say my boys are losers. Are my boys losers, ATJ?
There have been, BTW, any number of posts accusing me of not having sons, that even if I do, they’re not in the military, and so on ad infinitum. Some, as I recall, have been worse…
Now, you can say any silly or demeaning thing you like. It’s a free country, and the staff sergeant and lance corporal serve to keep it that way. But when you, or another HA poster, says something silly or demeaning, I’ll call it for what it is.
(3) SCHIP…As a general proposition, I’m of the mind that most of what the federal government does it shouldn’t. I believe the states or private organizations or families ought to be doing these things, not the feds.
As a practical matter, I recognize the realities of political life such that, were I in Congress, I could vote in favor of SCHIP, though not in an expanded form per the recently vetoed bill. Frankly, many of the Republicans who voted to override were doing so out of fear, not principle.
Expanding the program to families making, what, $60K? Please! For many years, I worked hard as a self-employed individual to pay medical insurance premiums for a family of seven. I neither asked for nor would I take governmental assitance.
I’m of the mind that people are capable of way more than they produce; they simply need the right incentives. The overall nanny state continues to make us collective sheep dependent upon the government, and I am appalled by this.
How’s that?
The Piper
How’s that?
I think you probably did honestly try to answer my questions, so I won’t push it. Thank you for trying.
Now, I have a life to live…
@99…ATJ…
Ditto…and a column to write.
BTW…nothing personal, and I accept at face value your willingness to debate the issues.
The Piper
@87
And your point is?
Forcing individuals to attend church is clearly a violation of that clause. I can’t even believe you’re arguing that.
@98
(2) Impugning my boys…As a general proposition, stuff such as “the war is lost” or MoveOn’s “Petraeus = Betray Us” is a slap at them. Even my cynical staff sergeant son, who admits with obvious pain in his eyes of his fatigue at covering funerals in Germany on behalf of soldiers killed in Iraq, said to my face that the MoveOn ad was offensive to him.
You can stuff that right back up your own ass. Saying that the “war is lost” has nothing to do with anyone’s view of the troops, their value, or their bravery. If you want to look at the one reason why everyone here (and especially me) has such a low opinion of you, it’s this. You continue to hide behind the fact that your sons are serving in this conflict to avoid dealing with the reality of what’s actually happening. And that reality is going to negatively affect this country for decades.
He regards Gen. Petraeus as perhaps the best in that job to date, and this from a non-com who, as a rule, loathes officers.
I agree that General Petraeus has been the best in that job so far. Unfortunately, by coming to Congress and giving misleading testimony, he betrayed the millions of Americans who expected him to be more honest and more truthful.
To say, “The war is lost,” is to say my boys are losers.
Absolutely incorrect. I know I can speak for ATJ on this in that we both think the overwhelming majority U.S. troops have fought very honorably. The war was lost because of things done primarily by the civilian leadership who launched the war and completely botched its overall execution.
@98
Expanding the program to families making, what, $60K? Please! For many years, I worked hard as a self-employed individual to pay medical insurance premiums for a family of seven. I neither asked for nor would I take governmental assitance.
Things have changed quite a bit recently, and someone in your shoes today would be as able to provide health care for his family as easy as it was for you 10 years ago. The following article discusses how much more expensive it’s gotten (and it’s from 2004, the problem has gotten even worse since then):
http://www.washingtonpost.com/.....Sep27.html
@97
Are you *trying* to give Lee more material?
Wow, ATJ, I’ve been ignoring your thread until now, but HOLY MOTHER OF GOD. That’s an amazing amount of crazy. The responses he left in #88 and #92 remind me of the Seinfeld episode when Kramer was saying totally crazy shit because he’d been kicked in the head by Crazy Joe Duvola.
I know I can speak for ATJ on this in that we both think the overwhelming majority U.S. troops have fought very honorably. The war was lost because of things done primarily by the civilian leadership who launched the war and completely botched its overall execution.
Just popping back in to say that, some quibbles aside (e.g., the war is long over; one doesn’t “win” an occupation), Lee is correct in assuming I would agree that a) our military is overwhelmingly populated by good people and b) winning and losing are dependent upon much more than the effort of the military.
Think of it this way: You’ve got the best football players money can buy, but you’ve got a complete incompetent calling the plays. And, oh, by the way, someone supplied them with hockey helmets and soccer uniforms. No matter how hard they players work or how skilled they are, they’re being set up to fail. Is pointing that out an insult to the players? I would argue that it is not.
@101…Lee…
The Establishment and Free Exercise Clauses of the First Amendment didn’t, in 1830, apply to the states, so Massachusetts’ law was perfectly valid.
Do you know why?
Re-read the first few words of the Amendment (who “shall make no law?”), and think post-Civil War Amendments. Hint: 14th.
The Piper
@105
I do see your point. I’m arguing as to what the law is now. Obviously, today, the law is correct whereas when Massachusetts was forcing people to attend church, it was against the ideals of those who founded this country as a place where religion was not coerced through the state.
@106…Lee…
Mandatory church attendance was no more against the ideals of the Founders than were knickers and waistcoats. Since every colony had such laws, and they were leaders in those colonies with many of them coming out of legislatures, they knew of and accepted those laws.
The First Amendment was orginally applicable only to the federal government, and then only to prevent the establishment of one church (Anglican) over all others (Presbyterian, Congregationalist, Quaker, Unitarian, etc.). It was presumed by the citizenry at the time that EVERYONE, believer or not, was to go to “church;” of their choice, of course, but you went, hence attendance and support laws in the states!
It was the intent of the Founders to leave such matters in the hands of state legislatures, who, if they chose, were perfectly free to adopt such legislation. Welcome to the 18th-Century.
Study sometime the reason why the public school system came into being. Both on the theory that an educated populace capable of reading the scriptures makes them better church members, and also to thwart Catholicism, which was growing due to the influx of Southern European immigrants, among others, who supported church-sponsored schools.
To judge the people of that time by your standards of today is presumptuous and both fails to take into account the realities of their day and begs a future generation to judge you in the same way. Judge not lest you be judged.
To say “the law is correct” is to presume your view of what law should be governs or ought to. Law is law, correct or not. Law, by its nature, is arbitrary; a line is drawn making behavior on one side permissable, while behavior on the other side punishable.
Why is it legal to drink at age 18 versus 17 years, 364.9 days? An arbitrary line.
Law isn’t grounded in a victim-orientation. It exists to order society by establishing norms for behavior the violation of which is punishable by the state. Civil law – torts and contracts – are the rules by which individuals, including corporate entities, govern private behavior between them. But even here, law doesn’t presume moral culpability; a tort or breach of contract isn’t a crime.
Violations of the criminal law are, again, bottomed on society’s determination that its order is offended by such behavior. Hence, it’s perfectly acceptable for society to see itself as the victim of drug use, prostitution, or the like; the legislature determines that our collective notions of “ordered liberty” (Cf. Palko v. State of Connecticut, 302 U.S. 319 (1937)) are so offended by such behavior that criminalizing it is warranted.
Our legal system is grounded in English Common Law dating back to at least the 11th or 12th Century. The Magna Carta is, in a real sense, our law in America, too.
I have no idea where you stand on the death penalty, but let’s assume for the sake of discussion that you oppose it. That’s fine…many people do for reasons good and sufficient to them. Still, that legitimacy and legality, under appropriate circumstances, of capital punishment are specificlly acknowledged by the Fifth Amendment (“No person shall be held to answer for a capital, or otherwise infamous crime, unless on a presentment or indictment of a Grand Jury,…nor shall any person be subject for the same offense to be twice put in jeopardy of life or limb;… nor be deprived of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law… ”). To argue that capital punishment is always unconstitutional is specious sophistry.
I’m sure you use “logic and reason” to arrive at your opinions. Why don’t you add a thorough study of history, government, law, and political theory while your at it? You might start with Paul Johnson’s “A History of the American People” and the Supreme Court opinions (both majority and dissentin) of John Marshal Harlan.
There’s an enormous body of knowledge awaiting you that you might find enlightening and fascinating.
The Piper