I'MMA LET YOU FINISH
Well, with a great deal of respect to dwight meredith, whose work I really admire, I think they just realize (or believe) that they have a much greater chance of taking over state government and changing state constitutions than they do altering the federal constitution. Florida, of course, shows that given enough nuts, they can do anything.--aimai
What aimai said.
For example, what's the progress on the LA changing the date of their ballot deadline to accommodate the Rep. 9/11 convention farce?
Ah for the days when the Democrats were the party of rum, Romanism and rebellion.
Great post. Good ole' Blaine from Maine, the only Republican to run for President between Lincoln and Taft and not win (B. Harrison lost to Cleveland - but also beat Cleveland). It's funny, a lot of people don't realize how stringent state constitutions are with respect to civil liberties. Of course they can be changed more easily than the US constitution but it's still no small potatoes.
Elrod - check your history book. William McKinley was a Republican (1896 & 1900) as was Theodore Roosevelt (1904).
Otherwise, good post.
Mustang Bobby: But McKinley won! Blaine lost, as did Benjamin Harrison, one time, to Grover Cleveland.
"Ma, Ma, where's my pa? Gone to the White House ha ha ha!"
"Blaine, Blaine, James G. Blaine! The con-tin-en-tal liar from the state of Maine!"
Ah, I stand corrected! Thanks, Gary. (Time to clean the contacts.)
Good old Sonny Perdue, looking out for his constitchancy! I can't wait to be out of GA once and for all...
Third article of Vermont's Constitution (which predates the US Constitution by about a decade):
no person ought to, or of right can be compelled to attend any religious worship, or erect or support any place of worship, or maintain any minister, contrary to the dictates of conscience
I would say this unequivocally says vouchers are bad.
As an aside, what I like about our State's founding doc is that it starts by enumerating individual rights. IIRC, that makes our Constitution unique amongst the Several States.
The Blaine Amendments may not fully stand. The Supreme Court is reviewing a Washington State scholarship program this term in Davey v. Locke. Washington denied general schalrship funds to anyone seeking a major in theology. I think the state's case stinks, and what they did isnt right.
Also, the Blaine Amendments hardly embody some great commitment to religious freedom. They were a political ploy by Blaine seeking to grab the anti-Catholic vote. Further, they were foisted on the states as a condition of admission to the union, so they dont really represent the wants of the states' citizens at the time.
Also, a little inconvenient fact that many gopers try to hide is that many fundi Protestants are virulentaly anti-Catholic even now. It isn't just Bob Jones University. Lots of those little country churches hear sermons about how the Pope is the anti-Christ and that Catholics keep weapons hidden in their church basements ready for the day when they take over the U.S.
The states do not have rights when it comes to interfering with the rights of Christians to impose their religion on everyone else.
Having gone to Catholic grade school in the '60s, I find it ironically amusing that Protestants have gone from, "If our good [Protestant] schools aren't good for them Pope-worshippers, let them pay for their own," to "Our [Protestent] God has been thrown out of our schools. We deserve to have the government pay us to be able to start our own." Guess that's what happens when you let riff raff like Catholics and Muslims in.
If Catholics had to pay all those years, it only seems fair that everyone ought to.
As for the divinity student, college I sympathize, but surely he can find a religious scholarship. Or even work his way through. I mean, Jesus worked as a carpenter before his ministry. It would be appropriate.
Though I've known enough good priests not to condemn all as probable pedophiles, I've known many who'd benefit from getting a taste of the "real" world their parishioners inhabit -- especially when it comes to the female half.
Maybe we should make a rule that all college students must work their way through. No scholarships, no funds from mom and dad, no tapping the old trust funds. And no cushy job in Daddy's office -- nudge, nudge, wink, wink. The schools or state could match up jobs with a student's actual abilities.
I can think of at least one current political figure who would've been in really deep doo doo. And that would have saved the rest of us from the same.
Apparently a good thing States have their own constitutions...since the federal constitution doesn't have the clear mandate the state's does, it would make it easier for GW to use public funds to support the god fearing Christians, their schools and their individual programs. You slam state's rights and then provide an example of the state's constitution guaranteeing a constitutional separation that is, at best, questionable in the federal constitution. In other words, if there weren’t states rights (individual state constitutions) vouchers would already be a reality and the conservative religious right would be in full indoctrination mode.
About ten years ago in Delaware, the Delaware Supreme Court issued an opinion that granted criminals in Delaware certain procedural rights not granted by the US constitution. I can't remember exactly, but it was either an unlawful search and seizure issue or it related to the defendants rights against self incrimination. The state court rejected a Rhenquist era limitation on the defendants constitutional rights on the grounds that the state constitution provided the right, even if the federal bill of rights did not.
Delaware's Attorney General (a Democrat unfortunately) reacted by proposing an amendment to the Delaware constitution that would require the state courts to interpret the Delaware bill of rights in exactly the same manner as the federal bill of rights. Never mind that they use different language, or that Delaware's bill of rights is 15 years older than the federal bill of rights.
Fortunately, despite efforts to whip up outrage against giving accused criminals any rights, the idea fell apart in the legislature when people realized they would be trashing a bill of rights that is one of the oldest in human history.
Doug,
Who cares! They're in there, they are the law, they are unambiguous.
We use the tools we have at hand.
I saw a nasty little story on the local news here the other night, and it makes me wonder if Gov. Goodhair and Tom Delay don't already have plans in the works for getting rid of the Blaine amendment. There is a city owned and operated senior citizen center in a suburb of Dallas where seniors go to eat and get together. However, some of the seniors started turning the get togethers into church services. Praying, hymn singing and sermons. Somebody complained and the city has written to the administrators of the center that they aren't going to serve food anymore and will close the center if the religious services don't stop. The seniors have hired a lawyer and the local reporter actually said that "such abuse of seniors is unprecedented," meaning the threat to stop food service, etc. A spokeswoman for the city made it clear that the "church services" were illegal, but the whole story was couched in terms of the separation of church and state existing for the sole purpose of abusing seniors who want to pray. Makes me wonder --
party of rum, Romanism and rebellion.
Toga! Toga!
Tena: I might be wrong, but I believe that any of the Blaine Amendments that the federal government forced on the state can only be repealed with the approval of the U.S. Congress... oh, wait, that is Delay anyway.
Duckman: Im not so sure I want to jump into bed with Blaine's prejudices, even if they serve my purpose now. But I generally agree with the explicit text of the baby Blaines.
Tena,
That's a nasty, underhanded trick. The best hope for the offended seniors is if a significant number of them belong to a different denomination or faith and can cry foul. Evidently, "please, not while I'm eating" just isn't good enough.
If some folks want to pray, why don't they just go to the church of their choice together? Lord knows the church would appreciate the attendance. Would these people "get it" if their supper club got hijacked by accordion players?
Right on, bald guy! The growth of the centralized federal government, under Hamiltonians, Whigs, and Gilded Age Republicans, was prompted mainly by plutocrats who wanted a powerful State to promote their interests.
Isn't it interesting that the triumph of political centralism in the 1860s coincided with the rise of giant corporations? Or that the first significant use of the 14th Amendment was to protect corporations against state regulations? Or that most of the constitutional arguments for centralism and a "living constitution" were developed by REPUBLICANS?
Doug,
Was the Blaine ammendment forced on the states? And to what prejudice are you referring? It seemed to me there were some differences between the Big Blaine (Blaine the Train?) and the little Blaines, as you call them in that the Big Blaine specifically talked about education and the little Blaines do not. They just say no public monies to religions period.
Sisi - the whole story was a nasty underhanded trick. Apparently someone among the seniors at the center was the complainer, but the story didn't make that clear - the reporter was too busy letting the "godly" seniors lawyer talk and then making outraged pronouncements of his own. It was truly disgusting.
Atrios:
There is no point in trying to make reason out of it. They're nuts. They have nothing to do with reason.
Speaking of constitutions, and rights, and stuff....John Mellencamp has written an open letter criticizing "That Man In The White House" and his policies. Our local paper published an AP article critizing the letter but did not publish the letter. They need our supoprt. This is a link to the article that ran in my local paper:
http://www.wishtv.com/Global/sto...70&
nav=0Ra7Ih3Y
This is a link to the story, with the headline "JOHN MELLENCAMP ATTACKS PRESIDENT BUSH IN OPEN LETTER" discussing Mellencamps' letter.
http://launch.yahoo.com/read/
new...ontentID=214927
"An Open Letter From John & Elaine Mellencamp"
"As the echo of the war drums fades away and the angry masses calling for blood slowly disperse, we as a nation must now confront the truth. We face the unpleasant reality of an uncertain future, compromised safety, a failing economy, and the question of how a society of otherwise reasonable citizens was systematically lied to and manipulated into backing the political 'hijacking' of Iraq.
"Before a single bomb was ever dropped, some of us, formerly called the 'anti-American and unpatriotic,' have questioned or opposed this war. Now, each day, as the dust settles and the truth slowly surfaces, more and more people come to the inevitable conclusion of what a debacle this whole war was.
"Thirty-nine-thousand bombs later, no weapons of mass destruction uncovered, no dangerous dictators captured, no connection to September 11th. What have we gained but relentless media coverage of a fallen statue and some stolen oil fields--the spoils of this misadventure. Not to mention lucrative corporate payoffs and an enormous price tag of over $80 Billion...some tax cut.
"But what have we lost? We have lost the lives of over 300 Americans. Approximately two U.S. troop deaths each day, 193 deaths since the war was declared over. In total, an estimated 20,000 people have died, thus far, in this conflict.
"In addition to the lives given for this effort, our nation has suffered the loss of respect within the world community, particularly the United Nations. We have managed to squander any goodwill we once had to now succeed in solidifying our image as the globe's leading bully. Arrogant and thoughtless.
"The word Democracy means literally 'by the people.' This is the basis of our government and society. It is what this country was founded upon and what makes us American. It is not just our 'right' but also our duty to speak out and voice our thoughts and opinions. How, then, was it possible that, in the land of freedom, those who opposed the common opinion were called...'un-American?' Resentfully, we wonder.
The song 'To Washington' was met with criticism and was labeled an anti-war song. That was not at all the case or intention--it was merely a report of the political climate, in the age-old tradition of the troubadour spreading the news through song and story. Professionally, we, the Me
The fact, as noted by one astute poster, that the denominations linked with the republicans are anti-Catholic may be the only thing that saves religious freedom.
I never thought of that- Catholics who sent their kids to parochial schools payed taxes too, but now...
continued......
in the age-old tradition of the troubadour spreading the news through song and story. Professionally, we, the Mellencamps, have the opportunity to travel extensively, and we take full advantage of that by talking to, listening to, and experiencing the diversity our vast country has to offer. The lyrics of 'To Washington' are not just a personal opinion, but also the view from a very wide horizon.
Who is to say what is or isn't 'patriotic?' Do the flags that wave from every minivan really offer any support? Where is the support for the thousands of servicemen and women who return to the states to see their benefits cut, their health problems ignored, their jobs gone, and their families living in poverty? How are they repaid for their efforts, for risking or losing their lives? So far, dismally.
"This nation was founded to enable freedom and diversity of opinion, and many lives have been lost to secure that liberty. Paradoxically, some still resist the open mindedness that is the very foundation of this country.
"The Governor of California was removed from office based on finance troubles. And yet George W. Bush has lied to us, failed to keep our own borders secure, entered a war under false pretense, endangered lives, and created financial chaos. How is it that he hasn't been recalled? Perhaps this time we could even have a real election...but that wouldn't fit the Bush administration's 'take what you want and fire people later' policy. Take an election; take an oil field; take advantage of your own people--a game of political Three-Card Monte.
"The fight for freedom in this country has been long, painful, and ongoing. It is time to take back our country. Take it back from political agendas, corporate greed, and overall manipulation. It is time to take action here in our land, in our own schools, neighborhoods, farms, and businesses. We have been lied to and terrorized by our own government, and it is time to take action. Now is the time to come together."
Would these people "get it" if their supper club got hijacked by accordion players?
I resemble that remark.
Well, I don't much care for his music, but that man sure can write a letter.
Damn.
Atrios (if that really is your name)
Do you really think this is a good time to for Democrats to be suggesting that state Constitutions are a thing of the past? What? don't have enough shit on your plate with losing, Florida, California, Congress, the Senate, the Presidency and millions of voters. You guys are a hoot. You might as well stand on the Whitehouse steps chanting "Four More Years".
Ur Fuqdindihed
(that's not my real name)
dwight drives me autistic.
Whitehouse?
Am I ever going to get to read about health insurance?
Years ago the Arizona Legislature passed a school prayer law ignoring a clause in the state constitution that says, "No public money or property shall be appropriated for or applied to any religious worship, exercise, or instruction..."
last time i heard, the union won, so stick their state rights up the asses.
we have a chair that McKinley actally sat in. COOL! and i am distantly related to lincoln!. EVER SO cool!
The Football Outsiders Homage to TMQ Contest
My homage to Tuesday Morning Quarterback in this week's VOA ratings commentary proved quite popular; I got a couple of e-mails about it, and we had a reader provide his own TMQ-esque item in the discussion thread.
With all of the interest in TMQ -- and all of the TMQ readers on this website who have expressed sorrow at the column's disappearance -- we've decided to dedicate this weekend to TMQ with our first Football Outsiders Homage Contest. It's very simple. Watch this weekend's action. Then e-mail your best TMQ-like commentary to info-@-footballoutsiders.com. We'll put the best examples together and print them next week, and the best TMQ-esque comment will win a guaranteed TMQ baseball cap.*
Yes, originally, we had a joke here about non-existent t-shirts. Gregg Easterbrook has been nice enough to donate one or two Slate-era TMQ baseball caps for us to give as actual prizes. Thanks, Gregg!
You can include:
Haikus
Sweet Play of the Week
Sour Play of the Week
Stat of the Week
Local Affiliates Programming Outrage of the Week
Tis Better to Have Rushed and Lost Than Never to Have Rushed At All
Stop Me Before I Blitz Again
Best and Worst Blocks
Best in a Lost Cause
Worst Pass-Wacky
Buck-Buck-Brawckkkkkkk
Maroon Zone
TMQ Insider Exclusive
Obscure College Score of the Week
New York Times Final-Score Score
Extra points go to references to:
TMQ's Immutable Laws (Play Fake on First, Clang On First Bars Run On Second (even though we questioned that one), Kick Early Go For It Late (we question that one too), K2 Survival Gear Does Not Equal Victory)
TMQ team names like "Squared Sevens," "Flaming Thumbtacks," "Cleveland Oranges," and "Chesapeake Watershed Region Indigenous Persons"
Football Gods
Star Trek
Cheerleader babes
Poor uniform choices
United States defense policy
Physics
The Democratic presidential candidates
Negative points go to references to:
Disney
Miramax
Quentin Tarantino
Please do not leave your TMQ-esque comments in our discussion threads. E-mail them to us at info-@-footballoutsiders.com so we can organize them and print them all at once on Tuesday. Please put TMQ Contest in the subject line. Pat Laverty also wants to remind you not to write an entire 2,000 word TMQ column, one or two items is enough!
If this goes well, we'll do a few more of these. I'm already imagining our Homage to Peter King Contest with 25 comments tying quarterback performance to double lattes.
And, if you have arrived here via the links from Instapundit and Oxblog and other well-known weblogs, thanks for visiting Football Outsiders. This article provides an introduction to the website, or read our regular weekly columns such as Scramble for the Ball and Team Efficiency Ratings.
Can the Giants hold on to the ball? Can Tampa Bay win despite injuries? Could NFL coaches learn a lesson from Grady Little's mi
Quick - get the accordionists!
i am distantly related to lincoln!
So am I! And Deborah Sampson, and the kids who almost lit the Mayflower on fire...
Completely OT, but I haven't seen this mentioned anywhere. I'd like to think this is a sick joke, but, sigh....
Annthrax Doll
Aw crap, try again:
http://www.talkingpresidents.com...f-
coulter.shtml
I know this is completely unrelated to the topic. Sorry about that.
The New York Times just posted David Brooks' latest column. If anyone has even the slightest clue what point he might have, I'd love to hear it.
I haven't agreed with his last couple, but at least they seemed connected to the world around us. Is he off his meds again?
Thanks for your indulgence on the whole, y'know, topic thing.
that Brooks column is so--edgy.
What the fuck?
Two of the major problems facing this country are our criminal overload class of parasitic rich people and
the cradle-to-grave brainwashing that prevents us from learning a proper hatred of rich people and from
demanding that rich people start paying their fair share.
Brad
Insurance II
Yes I know it's the most anticipated event of the year, but I'm too lazy. Tomorrow...
-Atrios 12:09 AM
I guess this may be technically correct...
I was listening to NPR today and they were talking about the American troopers in Iraq and how last week they were searching for an Iraqi man. They searched his home and he was not in, but his 60 year old mother and 2 other female relatives were there (I think they were his mother's sisters) anyway, the troopers arrested the ladies and took them to lockup. I think they were released today. The troopers didn't find the son. The Middle East heard about it through their media, but this was the first time I heard about it in the US. NPR did mention that it was not given much attention in the west. The US spokespeople said they were ...wait for it.... "looking into it." - can you imagine the flak if that had happened in the US? A parent is not liable for an adult child. The adult child is responsible for his own actions, not the parents.
OT
The new NYT list is out for 11/02
1. Moore -- Dude
2. Franken -- Lying Liars
3. O'Crybaby -- My Herpes Itch!
http://www.nytimes.com/2003/11/
0...nonfiction.html
"the troopers arrested the ladies and took them to lockup. I think they were released today."
They ... were ... RELEASED!
They didn't have their tongues ripped out with pliers.
They didn't get a bullet to the head.
"the troopers arrested the ladies and took them to lockup. I think they were released today."
Oh the injustice! Oh the insult!
Give me a break! Is this the greatest injustice you can cite in a WAR?!?!?
Yeah, what's all this crap about "Cybill's rights," anyway??
Don't these women know that Amurka's at WAR?
Snarl, froth. . . .
Right on, DooDoo! Amurka Sucks!
Give me a break! Is this the greatest injustice you can cite in a WAR?!?!?
Actually?
It's a war crime.
Read up on the Geneva Conventions, particularly the section about collective punishments.
I know, I know, Bush apologists don't believe in things like "international law" and "war crimes" but the rest of the world does and that's the reality we have to deal with.
Spell It Out, Seraphiel! Exactly _what_ is your war-crime charge?
Yes, Seraphiel, along with the "rest of the world," I believe in international law.
Please continue to help me bring the US war criminals to justice!
Give me a break! Is this the greatest injustice you can cite in a WAR?!?!?
Much Ado About Nothing! | 10.25.03 - 1:26 am | #
No, this is not the greatest injustice in this war. I think the shock and awe was horrible. The DU radiation dust floating around is horrible. The killing of civilians right and left is horrible. The lies created and spun to go to war are horrible. The deaths and maimings of all the Iraqis because of the American occupation are horrible. The deaths and maimings of our own troopers and cutting back on their benefits are horrible. Don't give me that bullshit about Saddam killed civilians, too. OUR rPRESIDENT CLAIMS TO BE A GOD FEARING CHRISTIAN! HE CLAIMS TO BE A GOOD PERSON WHO IS ONLY LOOKING OUT FOR THE GOOD OF THE AMERICAN CITIZENS. How???? All I see are more reasons for foreignors to hate us! I was just pointing out that, once again, we are making enemies, not friends, by locking up these old ladies.
Shorter, woozier David Brooks:
[**war lies unraveling**no WMD** **bizarro world erupting daily**spooks singing like larks**GOP melting down**]
Look! There's Helmut Newton! What an empty, amoral, misogynist pig!
[**irony overloading**motion sickness overwhelming**up is down**there's no "there" there, anymore**must write column, must sleep**sleep**sleep*]
However, if you want to read some injustice, here is a quote from my daily (today's Friday 24, 2003) Tribune "Witnesses said three injured U.S. soldiers were evacuated after the Americans sprayed the area with gunfire. After the attack, troops detained several Iraqi civilians including one who was dragged from his vehicle and punched repeatedly in the kidney as he fell to the ground."
oldwhitelady writes "Don't give me that bullshit about Saddam killed civilians, too."
Well, _I'll_ give you that bullshit! The Baathists killed about 100 times as many people as died in both Gulf Wars combined.
Yes, I'll gladly cite that "bullshit," if by "bullshit" you mean the death and suffering of hundreds of thousands of innocents at SH's command. But to you, that "bullshit" doesn't matter, because you can't blame America for it.
No, by bullshit, I mean how we claim to be morally and spiritually better, yet we are treating the people in Iraq the same way. We say we liberated them, yet when they protest, we shoot at them. We end up killing innocent children as well as innocent civilians. How can we tell people how they should act, when we do the opposite?
Well, _I'll_ give you that bullshit! The Baathists killed about 100 times as many people as died in both Gulf Wars combined. You also need to include all the people that died because of the first war. Remember, we bombed the water and sewage plants. We created an bacterial nightmare with cholera epidemic, and various other sicknesses. Destroying their water facilities was against the Geneva Convention, but I guess that is ok by you, right? The numbers you are talking about were when the Kurds raised up after we led them to think we would back them, right? When they were killed, we stood back and allowed it, right? It seems that they had finally gotten their water to a 70% purity right before we shocked and awed them. 12 years of sanctions by the UN backed by the US also caused a lot of deaths. I would say there is a lot of blame to go around.. don't you?
Here's oldwhitelady welcoming the troops home:
owl: Hi! Welcome back! Why did you shoot at those protesters?
T: Well, ma'am, we were trying to defend America.
owl: You were so sloppy about it! I'm so embarassed by you troops, and by your commander-in-chief. Don't you think you could have done a more circumspect job defending me and my family?
T: Well, ma'am, things were a little hectic over there ...
owl: Couldn't you soldiers have tried to be morally and spiritually better, like me? Is that too much to ask?
T: We ate sand, and sweated blood, and did the best we ...
owl: But I mean, did you do your _very_ _very_ best? I heard that you captured some women, and released them the next day ...
T: Yes, ma'am, we did, ...
owl: So, you disrespected their human rights???
Etc. ,Etc.
speaking of the constitution, it looks like Missouri is trying to pass carrying concealed weapons. I guess the govenor didn't want to back it so the beer company in St. Louis is no longer going to back him?
Why can't those darned US troops be nicer to those innocent Iraqis? If I were there, I know I could do a better job!
I didn't send you there. I am really sorry that you couldn't go AWOL like your leader did. It is too sad you went over there thinking you were defending lil ole me, especially since you probably thought you were getting revenge for 911 when Iraq had nothing to do with it. It is such a terrible horrible situation all around.
Why can't those darned US troops be nicer to those innocent Iraqis? If I were there, I know I could do a better job!
oldwhitelady | 10.25.03 - 2:36 am | #
Well, how do you like that. My danged old fingers are typing and posting without me even knowing it... Oh, my goodness.. I must be possessed.
I think that the point oldwhitelady is trying to make is that she is morally and spiritually better than the president and the congress that authorized the Iraq war, and morally and spiritually better than the naive troops who were duped, along with all of us US citizens, into an illegal, immoral war. Really, and who can dispute it, the world would be morally and spiritually better if Saddam Hussein was returned to power in Iraq.
oops... that's governor not govenor.
Shapeshifting Troll: Saddam, Saddam, Saddam.
Oldwhitelady: No shit, Sherlock.
Shapeshifting Troll: Support the troops, bitch!
Oldwhitelady: I do. Go tell the Commander in Chief! Tell Rummy! Get a clue!
Shapeshifting Troll: I have run out of illogical defenses. But I'm anonymous! And you're puny! And, and, and . . .
Hey, I like it! I think I will take your post and raise you three. I certainly don't wish to be morally or spiritually correct. What would God think? Especially since he/she doesn't whisper in my ear. Might as well be a hypocrite. Seems to be the fad these days:0
Good night, my little friend
Have a great weekend. I know I will. I have to work a fulltime job and parttime job just to keep up, but you know what? I don't have to work this weekend - get the tea and cookies out cause mamma's gonna party like it's 1999.
Pretty sure that owl DOES NOT support the troops. She wrote:
"I didn't send you there. I am really sorry that you couldn't go AWOL like your leader did. It is too sad you went over there thinking you were defending lil ole me, especially since you probably thought you were getting revenge for 911 when Iraq had nothing to do with it. It is such a terrible horrible situation all around."
So, DooDoo, better be sure where your loyalties are. Are you with us, or against us?
Megadittoes, anonymous. I'd go one step further: Reagan was a cowardly fuck for not taking out the evil Soviet empire immediately in 1981.
Ditto Truman, Ike, JFK, LBJ, Nixon, Ford, Carter W/R/T cowardly fear of Soviets; Bush 41 & Clinton W/R/T Saddam. Pussies all.
Buh-bye, OWL!
And I guess that would make Donald Rumsfeld and Dick Cheney objectively more evil than any other people on the planet today, since they funded, supported, and assisted Saddam Hussein, even when groups like Amnesty International were complaining about his behavior.
(And as for the "spell it out" nonsense, I did mentioned the Geneva Conventions, the part about collective punishments. If you still can't find it, I'm sorry, but there's nothing I can do about selective illiteracy.)
Here's another pussy's opinion: 'All else being equal the region and the Iraqi people were all better off with Saddam gone. But the U.S. actions against old adversaries like Saddam have costs and consequences that may still leave us far short of our objectives of winning the war on terror -- or, in themselves, may actually detract from our larger efforts.'
What does a general know? Listen to Our President, Our Brave Veteran of a Substantial Portion of a Full Tour of National Guard Duty!
S, you cited the pertinent authority. You have not yet cited the specific offense that is actionable thereto. So spell it out. Or don't.
Right: it's Bush's War. Nobody else had anything to do with it. The whole thing was GWB's idea. Generals are always right!
Here's Bill Brock welcoming the troops home:
BB: Hi! Welcome back! Did you know you may have still left us far short of our objectives in winning the war on terror?
T: Sir, I'm not sure we ...
BB: You might have detracted from our larger efforts!
T: Well, sir, we made a pretty large effort.
BB: Ceteris paribus, the Iraqi people are better off without Saddam.
T: Yes sir!
BB: But you fail to see the most subtle implications of your efforts, in what is an extremely complex and unfathomable geopolitical milieu of conflicting forces and imperatives!
T: Yes sir!
Etc. Etc.
Right, Iraq flew two planes into the WTC on 9/11.
Right, Rumsfeld made the correct decision to delegate Tora Bora to mercenaries (as OBL was irrelevant) & instead concentrate on securing the future Central Asian pipeline paths in Northern Afghanistan.
Those who say that Bush's handlers are using 9/11 as cover for a neocon Great Game are horribly misguided.
Tora Bora.
Tora Bora.
Tora fucking Bora.
Nite nite!
S, you cited the pertinent authority. You have not yet cited the specific offense that is actionable thereto. So spell it out. Or don't.
Read up the thread.
They're accused of punishing family members of suspects, though the family members themselves aren't accused of a crime. It's called "collective punishment" and it's not permitted.
Quit being obtuse.
And for those of you wondering where eggy-wegg went, I think it's back, with a new MO.
S, _who_ is accused? I assume that under the GC, you have to name names, right?
We never should have bombed Tora Bora! US imperialism at its worst!
Maybe you're not being obtuse. Is it possible you really are that stupid?
Let's try it one more time. There's still hope even for the most willfully ignorant.
American soldiers are accused of enacting a collective punishment, which is a violation of the Geneva Conventions. This is another in a long line of serious allegations against occupation troops.
Though the Bush apologists and other mentally deficient people in this country may not find that such a big deal, the people of Iraq will certainly think differently. Every accusation like this one against the troops that gets ignored or swept under the rug will only make the occupation that much more difficult.
Do you get it now? Do you understand?
Somehow I suspect that you do not. You have that vacant look in your eyes that says "hold my head to your ear and you will hear the sea..."
S, you are accusing American soldiers of being war criminals. Do you understand how grave a charge that is?
If you do, please name the names of the soldiers who you think should be brought up on charges. What are the specific charges? In what jurisdiction shall they be tried?
Back up your bullshit, or walk away, asshole.
Of course I understand. But I'm not here to promote understanding, am I?
How many of the soldiers under Lt. Calley's command can you name, Seraphiel?
Geneva sucks! Concentration camps are COOL!!
S, you are accusing American soldiers of being war criminals. Do you understand how grave a charge that is?
I've rarely seen anyone so dramatically demonstrate a total failure of the Turing test. It's amazing.
I'm not making the accusation; Iraqi civilians are. That makes it about a thousand times worse for the troops over there than if it were just me saying it.
These people will tell their neighbors, who will tell their families, who will tell the people they meet at the market, and so on.
If you truly don't understand why this is a serious problem for the Americans over there being shot at, then you're more damaged than I feel like dealing with tonight.
There's just nothing more sad than a deaf, dumb, and blind Bush apologist. Do us a favor: don't breed.
I'm stumped!
I'm stumped AND truncated!
I was wrong, Seraphiel. Thanks for setting me straight!
I'm not sure....
Seraphiel wrote:
"I did mentioned the Geneva Conventions, the part about collective punishments.
They're accused of punishing family members of suspects,
Bush apologists don't believe in things like international law and war crimes but the rest of the world does"
Then, a little while later, he writes:
"I'm not making the accusation;"
Look, S, please find the courage of your convictions. If you really honestly believe you've found out US war criminals, name them and their specific offenses. If you don't sincerely believe it (probably you were just blowing off lefty steam,) then just say so! We'll all understand!
Either you're making the accusation, or you're not. I think you are too pussified to stand behind what you wrote.
EOM
I'm anonymous, you're the pussy!
Nya nya nya boo boo!
Superman should've killed Lex Luthor.
"I did mentioned the Geneva Conventions, the part about collective punishments.
They're accused of punishing family members of suspects,
Bush apologists don't believe in things like international law and war crimes but the rest of the world does"
Then, a little while later, he writes:
"I'm not making the accusation;"
Illiteracy is a common trait these days among war supporters.
I'll explain. I'll try to use small words.
In the first quote, I wrote: "They're accused," which is actually a totally different meaning from "I'm accusing them." (which I never wrote)
Points for effort in trying to fabricate an inconsistency though. Better luck next time.
For the last time, this isn't about me accusing anyone of anything. It's about the perception of the Iraqi people that a) American troops are committing war crimes, and b) they aren't being punished for it.
This is not a difficult concept. Go take your medication, get some sleep, and see if you can think clearly when you wake up.
Hard to fake evil anonymouse when burdened by (AARGH!) Liberal Guilt!
Now _I'm_ confused....
But next time, pleez keep to One Syllable.
wow.
i've loved many people in my short life. luckily, thankfully, i have never felt the pain and grief of any of them dying. i'd like to think that the people who express such disregard for human life are as lucky as i and have never experienced true loss. sadly, there are too many of you for that to be true.
is it that you value the lives of iraqis less than the lives of americans? in your moral calculus is needless suffering imposed on iraqi children acceptable because they are iraqi? why don't innocent iraqi children deserve to not be shot by US soldiers? why don't they deserve electricity and clean drinking water and healthcare? why is it ok to 'disappear' their innocent parents for days or weeks at a time? why is it ok to break into their homes in the dead of night, screaming in a language they cannot understand, and point automatic weapons in the face? is the terror those children must feel justified? or does it just not count because they are less than human?
Apologies to Seraphiel!
Here's the little bit I left out, to see if Seraphiel would bite:
"Give me a break! Is this the greatest injustice you can cite in a WAR?!?!?
Actually?
It's a war crime.
Read up on the Geneva Conventions, particularly the section about collective punishments.
I know, I know, Bush apologists don't believe in things like "international law" and "war crimes" but the rest of the world does and that's the reality we have to deal with.
Seraphiel | Homepage | 10.25.03 - 1:52 am | #"
OOOPS! Seraphiel forgot he wrote "It's a war crime."
Nooo, S isn't making accusations!
Again, S, PLEASE find the courage of your convictions, or just back down!
(Yes, booboo, I'm anonymous, just like your idol Atrios.)
USA! USA! USA!
Saddam! Saddam! Saddam!
OOOPS! Seraphiel forgot he wrote "It's a war crime."
Nooo, S isn't making accusations!
Again, S, PLEASE find the courage of your convictions, or just back down!
Back down from what? From pointing out a simple documented fact, that collective punishment is, indeed, a war crime?
You need to lay off of Rush's pills. Seriously.
(But it is nice to know that you place so little regard on the lives of American citizens in a war zone. Eggy-wegg would be proud.)
Atrios (if that really is your name)
Do you really think this is a good time to for Democrats to be suggesting that state Constitutions are a thing of the past? What? don't have enough shit on your plate with losing, Florida, California, Congress, the Senate, the Presidency and millions of voters. You guys are a hoot. You might as well stand on the Whitehouse steps chanting "Four More Years".
Ur Fuqdindihed
(that's not my real name)
(Yes, booboo, I'm anonymous, just like your idol Atrios.)
Technically, Atrios is pseudonymous, but this is only the least of your errors today.
OOOPS! Seraphiel forgot he wrote "It's a war crime." 10.25.03 - 1:52 am
Back down from what? From pointing out a simple documented fact, that collective punishment is, indeed, a war crime?
But it worked well for the Nazis.
Cool name, eh?
Seraphiel:
"It's a war crime." 10.25.03 - 1:52 am
"this isn't about me accusing anyone of anything" 10.25.03 - 4:08 am
I'm incapable of understanding the distinctions between a definition, an accusation, and an empirical fact.
I'm incapable of distinguishing between the actions of individual US military and the actions of the military taken as a whole.
Actually, I'm quite capable, but I prefer not to.
Someone had blundered.
I hope you like jammin' too....
Here's Seraphiel welcoming the troops home:
S: Hi! Welcome back! Do you know that some Iraqis are accusing you of collective punishment?
T: Sir, we heard that.
S: It's a war crime.
T: Sir?
S: Now I'm not accusing you of anything, but I trust Iraqi civilian accounts more than I trust you.
T: Sir, that's your right ...
S: So get your asses into the dock at the World Court, pronto!
Etc., Etc.
I was a chickenshit Founding Father & a proto-Clenis who got some on the side in 1795 or so....
I'm incapable of backing up a grave accusation against my fellow countrymen, every one of whom is far braver than I am.
You have the imminent capability to post something stupid in the next five minutes, so it's in my interest to post a preemptive "Fuck you!"
I'm usually not in a position to know whether I'm abiding by the Geneva Convention. Except for orders which, if carried out, would be war crimes on their face (which, thankfully, we're not dealing with here), I place my faith in the chain of command, and will trust my C.O. unless it's absolutely obvious that the act is criminal.
The Chimp at the top doesn't give a shit about the Geneva Convention, the frat boy doesn't understand why so many Iraqis hate us. But he's my Commander-in-Chief.
S: Now I'm not accusing you of anything, but I trust Iraqi civilian accounts more than I trust you.
I realize that this entire exchange (and that quote above in particular) has basically been a textbook example of modern Republican debate: pretend someone said something they actually didn't, then harass them for not retracting it.
And as amusing as it is verbally sparring with a poorly-written AI, I'm going to bed.
Maybe next time the troll will get something (anything!) right. I can still hope.
Seraphiel--I'm just old enough to remember the debates from the Vietnam era. General impression: a bit more heated; far more sincere.
Good night!
Wow, that Solar Storm is sure kicking up some weird shit, huh?
The real enemies: Bush, Israel, and the Mossad.
See what happens when we all were anticipating a great blog about insurance and have to wait another day?
Characters Remaining:
Commenting by HaloScan
