I was under the impression that the 'militia' was traditionally understood to mean all able bodied males who could participate in the defense of the homeland in the event of an invasion.
If you want to argue over the meaning of "well regulated" than let's so do but don't ignore the fact that the very next piece is "the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed"
Beyond any arguments that I could make though, what's wrong with trying to go through the amendment process instead of using laws to slowly erode chip away at parts of the Constitution that we don't agree with?
I largely agree with most of your posts and appreciate you engaging in the debate with Mr. Cynicism regarding admiration but I'm going to have to strongly disagree with you here.
Nope. I just don't think the second amendment says what its supporters think it says
I think it's incredibly dangerous to start trying to figure out what the Bill of Rights says beyond the plain language. If we are willing to do that to the 2nd amendment how can we complain when the other side does it to the 4th, 5th and 1st amendments? To me it comes down to this:
A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed.
(Emphasis obviously mine)
I don't have a problem with interpreting "well regulated" and applying it towards laws that ban gun ownership by those convicted of crimes or the mentally unstable. I might not even have a problem with interpreting it to provide for the licensing of firearms (though I see that as a slippery slope). I do have a serious disagreement with those that would interpret it to mean that the Government has the right to ban the ownership of firearms.
Beyond those philosophical disagreements I also disagree with with gun control from a practical standpoint. Since when has the Government outlawing anything actually prevented people from obtaining it? Did it work with prohibition? Has it worked with the War on Drugs? Will it work with file sharing if that is eventually outlawed?
I just don't see any advantage to making it harder for law abiding citizens to obtain firearms when any criminal can buy one illegally with no questions asked. I do support laws that ban gun ownership by convicted criminals -- but that's not out of the belief that it will actually stop them from obtaining firearms -- it's so they can be charged with breaking the law if caught with one.
However, as I live in a democratic society, and the courts have determined that it DOES say what you think it says, and the issue isn't really that important to me
(Emphasis again mine)
I think you inadvertently made another point that I would argue. Even if you are in favor of gun control is it really an important enough issue to keep losing elections over? Frankly I'm sick of having to explain to people that not all Democrats want to take away their guns when I'm out campaigning for a progressive cause. It would be interesting to see how many votes we could get from the so-called "Reagan Democrats" if we could take gun control out of the debate. I know people that agree with Progressive/Democratic causes but still vote Republican over guns.
Obama and McCain have a lot more differences than things in common
Have I pretended otherwise at any point of this conversation?
even when the FISA act could be one of Obama's first-to-fix problems
He could have fixed it by using his position in the Democratic Party to prevent it from being passed in the first place. Failing that he could have made a stand for something that he claimed to believe in. Hell, he could have just not shown up for the vote like McCain did. This was a calculated decision on his part and I regard it as a slap in the face.
You are an EXecutive Branch Non-Voter
By your logic anyone who doesn't vote for the eventual winner is a "non-voter". I don't know if you are an idealist who genuinely believes we need to elect Obama or a troll. If your an idealist then I admire you -- but no amount of telling me my vote is "wasted" is going to get me to vote for someone that refuses to stand up for what he claims to believe in. No argument you can possibly make is going to get me to vote for someone that doesn't take the Constitution seriously. No argument is going to get me to vote for someone that gives the Executive Branch and/or Verizon/AT&T a get out of jail free card for violating the law.
If we don't have our civil liberties then nothing else matters. If the Democrats and Republicans refuse to stand up for them then I'm going to find a party that will.
You just joined the "non-voters" because the Libertarian Party has never been able to draw enough supporters to actually elect a candidate above local office.
And you've just joined the FUD apparatus of the Republican and Democratic Parties.
And I find it rather amusing that you are trying to tell me I'm joining the "non-voters" when all I've said is that I can't vote for Obama in good faith. I'll still be voting for at least three Democrats -- Congressman Hinchey and Senators Schumer and Clinton all voted against this horrible piece of legislation.
Guerilla warfare != terrorism. Terrorism is traditionally understood to mean attempts to influence the civil population of a nation through violence. Hiding out in the hills/forests, raiding the supply lines of your enemy and avoiding unfavorable engagements are not terrorism.
Attacking/terrorizing British loyalists in the colonies might be considered terrorism -- the GP had a valid point when talking about the Sons of Library -- but to the best of my knowledge the Continental Army never did any of those things.
I understand the art of compromise. That's why you didn't hear me complaining about any of the recent Centrist shifts undertaken by the Obama campaign. Many of them were with issues I actually agreed with (I find his comments in favor of DC v. Heller refreshing and reassuring) which served to mask the fact that he was reversing himself on previous promises that had been made.
This was a slap in the face of his supporters. He reversed himself on one of his most explicit promises. There was no need for him to do this -- the bill already had enough support to pass and given that McCain didn't even bother to show up it doesn't seem likely that the Republicans could have held it against him if he did the same.
Voting for anybody but Obama advances the position of McCain- it is that simple.
I'm sorry but I can't vote for Obama in good faith after this reversal. I honestly don't care if he wins the election now or not. If there is no difference between him and McCain when it comes to civil liberties and the rule of law nothing else really matters. I'll take my civil liberties before I worry about universal health care and the War in Iraq.
I disagree with the Libertarian Party on many things but I think they just got themselves a new member.
Well then, I have to differ with you - a vote for anybody but Obama is a vote for McCain.
It's exactly that line of reasoning that allows the major parties to ignore any issue not important to the swing-states that control the outcome of Presidential Elections in this country.
Don't get me wrong. I used to believe as you do. Go dig into my comment history. I used to rail against people that claimed the Democrats and Republicans are the same and those that voted for Nader. How the hell could you honestly believe that GWB is the same as Al Gore? Al Gore wouldn't have invaded Iraq.
I'm long past those days though. What's the point of caring about healthcare, education, abortion, foreign policy or any of the areas where Republicans/Democrats actually disagree if neither party gives a damn about our rights? Let's review:
1st Amendment: Not defended strongly by either party. See free speech zones 2nd Amendment: Not defended by most Democrats.
4th Amendment: Not defended by most Republicans.
5th Amendment: Not defended by most Republicans.
9th and 10th Amendments: Completely ignored by both parties. Does these even exist in their worldview?
The American experiment ends when people start ignoring the parts of the Constitution that they don't like. Both major parties are guilty of this. Neither of them deserve my support until they change their ways.
I disagree with a lot of what Ron Paul stands for but now I find myself wishing I had given him the money instead of Obama. No, I can't vote for Obama in good faith. Not after today.
Its a dark day alright, made darker by your sig, which still supports Obama. This is why these politicians do these kind of things, they know there is no payback.
I agree. I hedged on this last night -- had already decided that I wouldn't be sending him any more contributions or volunteering with his campaign this fall -- but I couldn't bring myself to say I wouldn't vote for him.
When I woke up this morning and was still angry about it I started to reconcile myself to the fact that if I actually disagreed with him this forcefully on this fundamental issue that there was no way in hell I could vote for him in good faith. He has lost my vote and my support.
If only the bumper stickers came off as easily as I can change my/. signature.....
You asked if it means that you have a problem due to admiring Nelson Mandela as a rebuttal to the apparent assertion that admiration for Obama, or any other politician, indicates some sort of disorder
Well, I never said that I admire Obama (pretty sure I said that I was completely disillusioned with him) but I did bring up Mandela as a rebuttal to the GP's assertions. It was never my intent to equate Mandela with Obama -- I want to be clear about that so there is no confusion.
Obama is just another jackass lawyer* trying to jack the reins of power
If you had said that two weeks ago I would have disputed you but now I find myself in complete agreement with that statement.
George Washington organized a uniformed militia under the authority of a duly elected legislature and met the army of another country on the open battle field. Washington != terrorist.
I never said he was. It was in response to your statement of "The point is that he used violence to affect political outcome. That makes him a terrorist." At the time you made no such distinction between a duly organized/regulated militia and those that blow up pizzerias. All you said was "he used violence to affect political outcome". I don't think that's terrorism -- indeed, it's almost a definition of war itself -- Clausewitz said "War is the continuation of politics by other means"
The point is that he used violence to affect political outcome. That makes him a terrorist.
That definition also makes George Washington a terrorist.
Nelson Mandela blew up government buildings under direction of the Soviet-backed African National Congress.
I don't have a major problem with blowing up government buildings during a struggle for independence. I do have a bit of a problem with groups that blow up women and children in pizzerias -- we managed to win our independence without doing it -- but I'll stand by my earlier comments regarding the balance of ones accomplishments. Do the balance of Maldela's accomplishments outweigh the negatives? Most people would say that they do.
Either way, trying to compare Obama to Nelson Mandela has got to be some sort of corollary to Godwin.
Exactly where did I compare Obama to Nelson Mandela?
So am I. He has lost my vote -- I'm just trying to come up with a way to explain that rationally. If I tried to explain it right now every other word would probably be an expletive.
I'll change my signature line when I get around to scraping the bumper stickers off my car.
Well, he was once the leader of Umkhonto_we_Sizwe [wikipedia.org]. It's up to you to decide if that means anything, though.
Yeah, and FDR interned the Japanese and tried to pack the Supreme Court. He's still one of my heroes though.
Admiration != blind faith. You can admire someone while still recognizing their mistakes and flaws. Was the balance of the persons life and accomplishments beneficial towards humanity and the causes that you believe in? If so then I think you can admire that person. FDR made several huge mistakes in his day -- but he also saved liberal democracy, laid the groundwork for the UN and nudged the British towards liberating their colonial holdings. On balance I think he is a character that can be admired. Ditto for Mandela.
Hell, even people that you strongly disagree with may have admirable qualities. Did you know that George W. Bush is widely admired in parts of Africa? He has drastically increased American aid to that continent -- increased funding for AIDS drugs, mosquito nets to combat malaria, food aid, development aid/assistance, etc, etc. The Newshour on PBS actually did an in-depth special about this a number of weeks ago.
Needless to say, learning that surprised the hell out of me. It also reminded me of why I don't obtain my news from partisan hacks like Bill O'Reilly or Keith Olbermann.
My comment wasn't about Obama or any other black political figure specifically, it was about the entire system and its participants.
Did I accuse you of making the statement about Obama? All I said was that I'm extremely disillusioned with Obama right now but that I disagree with your statement that admiring a politician means you have issues.
And to clarify myself: Yes, if you admire ANY politician, regardless of their color, party or orientation, preference, whatever, you have issues.
I'm sorry but this is a blanket black and white statement that doesn't deserve to be taken seriously. Nelson Mandela was a politician. Gandhi was a politician. I guess all of their admirers have issues?
What would have been the point of suing the telecom companies?
The point was to find out exactly what the hell happened through the discovery process. This wasn't some thinly veiled attempt to get money out of Verizon and AT&T. This was an attempt to find out what the extent of this illegal wiretapping program was and to hold those who violated the law (within the administration and within Verizon/AT&T) accountable.
The lawyers would have made most of the money anyway
Yes, those money-grubbing lawyers at the EFF and ACLU only took this on so they could make legal fees....
What if it comes out the "wrong" way? What if the courts decide the President has that authority?
Yes, if only Dred Scott had been content to remain a slave and hadn't sued to change it... then we wouldn't have had the horrible Dred Scott decision on the books.
I support the FISA amendment. It's a good compromise. Read the thing before judging.
Obama's own statement explaining why he supports it suggests otherwise:
"I wouldn't have drafted the legislation like this, and it does not resolve all of the concerns that we have about President Bush's abuse of executive power. It grants retroactive immunity to telecommunications companies that may have violated the law by cooperating with the Bush Administration's program of warrantless wiretapping. This potentially weakens the deterrent effect of the law and removes an important tool for the American people to demand accountability for past abuses."
Indeed. We've now set a precedent for the Executive Branch to violate the law and not be held to account. Nobody is going to be held accountable for past violations of FISA -- not the current administration, not the telecommunications companies, not the intelligence agencies, nobody. Given all that I'd really like to hear Obama explain why future administrations are going to follow the restrictions contained in this FISA bill?
Man, you got more issues then you can even imagine.
You got a +5 for this?
I'm completely disillusioned with Obama right now but that notwithstanding I still don't think you deserved a +5, insightful for that comment. Admiring a politician means you have "issues"?
This all-or-nothing, fight to the death until we get what *we* want attitude is exactly what paralyzes progress from being made in congress.
I would normally agree with this sentiment. But on this issue I don't think this was something that we should have been willing to compromise over. I have no problems compromising on the Iraq War. I have no problems compromising on Universal Health Care. I have no problems compromising on Financial Regulation.
I have a serious problem compromising core Constitutional Rights.
Most of the initiatives it proposed actually protected more freedoms
So fucking what? The current administration has successfully set a precedent for violating the law and getting away with it. Nobody is going to be held accountable for the violations of the FISA law that had been in existence after 9/11. Tell me you aren't naive enough to think that the next administration will actually follow the restrictions passed in this law.
Umm, no I was talking about Pelosi. She held it up in the House for quite awhile but then relented and allowed it to come up for a vote.
The Senate was always a lost cause because half of the Democratic Senators (I'm looking at you Senator Rockefeller) are owned by the telecommunications industry.
This is completely offtopic, but actually I'd really like to come to Finland some day. I'm a bit of a history buff and one of the most fascinating parts of history revolves around the Finnish involvement in WW2 (Google the "Winter War" and the "Continuation War" if you've never heard about it). A young Democracy that managed to successfully stand against the largest country in the World when invaded and which managed to retain it's sovereignty despite being abandoned by the free world.
Little known fact about WW2: Only three European capitals (of nations involved in the war) were never occupied by enemy troops: London, Moscow and Helsinki. The Finns were in an impossible position yet still managed to retain their sovereignty and defend their people. They fought with determination and honor -- when forced to retreat in 1944 from a Soviet village they actually left two weeks worth of food for the civilian population. What other power in WW2 (on either side) ever did anything like that?
Assuming you are from Finland where you suggest that someone such as myself go? What would I want to see? Where would I want to stay? What can't I miss?
See how many people you can find here that consider Brits to be a part of Europe and how many people consider it to be an extension of USA.
Well, there's a special relationship between the UK and the USA. Part of that goes back to WW2 and our efforts to help them (even prior to the US actually entering the war). Part of it goes back to our shared cultural heritage and history. In many respects the UK has more in common with the US then it does with the EU -- Common Law legal systems, shared Governmental concepts, shared language and literature, shared military traditions, shared naval/seafaring traditions, etc, etc, etc.
I only bring this up because I think it provides an important context behind relations between the two countries. I know that a lot of people view the UK as some sort of puppet of the United States -- I don't think this tells the whole story and I don't think it's a fair assessment.
Then fucking pass it without the immunity provision. If GWB vetoes it then to hell with him. WTF? The President threatens to veto us if we stand behind our principles so we cave and give in? Is this how checks and balances are supposed to work?
Slashdot Mirror
I'll do something most won't, I'll name both a Republican and a Democrat
Actually I always tell people that my two favorite Presidents were both named "Roosevelt" when asked whom I think the best Presidents were.
TR was an amazing figure. That's a Republican I could vote for. (Arlen Specter is too)
I was under the impression that the 'militia' was traditionally understood to mean all able bodied males who could participate in the defense of the homeland in the event of an invasion.
If you want to argue over the meaning of "well regulated" than let's so do but don't ignore the fact that the very next piece is "the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed"
Beyond any arguments that I could make though, what's wrong with trying to go through the amendment process instead of using laws to slowly erode chip away at parts of the Constitution that we don't agree with?
Spun,
I largely agree with most of your posts and appreciate you engaging in the debate with Mr. Cynicism regarding admiration but I'm going to have to strongly disagree with you here.
Nope. I just don't think the second amendment says what its supporters think it says
I think it's incredibly dangerous to start trying to figure out what the Bill of Rights says beyond the plain language. If we are willing to do that to the 2nd amendment how can we complain when the other side does it to the 4th, 5th and 1st amendments? To me it comes down to this:
A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed.
(Emphasis obviously mine)
I don't have a problem with interpreting "well regulated" and applying it towards laws that ban gun ownership by those convicted of crimes or the mentally unstable. I might not even have a problem with interpreting it to provide for the licensing of firearms (though I see that as a slippery slope). I do have a serious disagreement with those that would interpret it to mean that the Government has the right to ban the ownership of firearms.
Beyond those philosophical disagreements I also disagree with with gun control from a practical standpoint. Since when has the Government outlawing anything actually prevented people from obtaining it? Did it work with prohibition? Has it worked with the War on Drugs? Will it work with file sharing if that is eventually outlawed?
I just don't see any advantage to making it harder for law abiding citizens to obtain firearms when any criminal can buy one illegally with no questions asked. I do support laws that ban gun ownership by convicted criminals -- but that's not out of the belief that it will actually stop them from obtaining firearms -- it's so they can be charged with breaking the law if caught with one.
However, as I live in a democratic society, and the courts have determined that it DOES say what you think it says, and the issue isn't really that important to me
(Emphasis again mine)
I think you inadvertently made another point that I would argue. Even if you are in favor of gun control is it really an important enough issue to keep losing elections over? Frankly I'm sick of having to explain to people that not all Democrats want to take away their guns when I'm out campaigning for a progressive cause. It would be interesting to see how many votes we could get from the so-called "Reagan Democrats" if we could take gun control out of the debate. I know people that agree with Progressive/Democratic causes but still vote Republican over guns.
Obama and McCain have a lot more differences than things in common
Have I pretended otherwise at any point of this conversation?
even when the FISA act could be one of Obama's first-to-fix problems
He could have fixed it by using his position in the Democratic Party to prevent it from being passed in the first place. Failing that he could have made a stand for something that he claimed to believe in. Hell, he could have just not shown up for the vote like McCain did. This was a calculated decision on his part and I regard it as a slap in the face.
You are an EXecutive Branch Non-Voter
By your logic anyone who doesn't vote for the eventual winner is a "non-voter". I don't know if you are an idealist who genuinely believes we need to elect Obama or a troll. If your an idealist then I admire you -- but no amount of telling me my vote is "wasted" is going to get me to vote for someone that refuses to stand up for what he claims to believe in. No argument you can possibly make is going to get me to vote for someone that doesn't take the Constitution seriously. No argument is going to get me to vote for someone that gives the Executive Branch and/or Verizon/AT&T a get out of jail free card for violating the law.
If we don't have our civil liberties then nothing else matters. If the Democrats and Republicans refuse to stand up for them then I'm going to find a party that will.
You just joined the "non-voters" because the Libertarian Party has never been able to draw enough supporters to actually elect a candidate above local office.
And you've just joined the FUD apparatus of the Republican and Democratic Parties.
And I find it rather amusing that you are trying to tell me I'm joining the "non-voters" when all I've said is that I can't vote for Obama in good faith. I'll still be voting for at least three Democrats -- Congressman Hinchey and Senators Schumer and Clinton all voted against this horrible piece of legislation.
Guerilla warfare != terrorism. Terrorism is traditionally understood to mean attempts to influence the civil population of a nation through violence. Hiding out in the hills/forests, raiding the supply lines of your enemy and avoiding unfavorable engagements are not terrorism.
Attacking/terrorizing British loyalists in the colonies might be considered terrorism -- the GP had a valid point when talking about the Sons of Library -- but to the best of my knowledge the Continental Army never did any of those things.
I understand the art of compromise. That's why you didn't hear me complaining about any of the recent Centrist shifts undertaken by the Obama campaign. Many of them were with issues I actually agreed with (I find his comments in favor of DC v. Heller refreshing and reassuring) which served to mask the fact that he was reversing himself on previous promises that had been made.
This was a slap in the face of his supporters. He reversed himself on one of his most explicit promises. There was no need for him to do this -- the bill already had enough support to pass and given that McCain didn't even bother to show up it doesn't seem likely that the Republicans could have held it against him if he did the same.
Voting for anybody but Obama advances the position of McCain- it is that simple.
I'm sorry but I can't vote for Obama in good faith after this reversal. I honestly don't care if he wins the election now or not. If there is no difference between him and McCain when it comes to civil liberties and the rule of law nothing else really matters. I'll take my civil liberties before I worry about universal health care and the War in Iraq.
I disagree with the Libertarian Party on many things but I think they just got themselves a new member.
Well then, I have to differ with you - a vote for anybody but Obama is a vote for McCain.
It's exactly that line of reasoning that allows the major parties to ignore any issue not important to the swing-states that control the outcome of Presidential Elections in this country.
Don't get me wrong. I used to believe as you do. Go dig into my comment history. I used to rail against people that claimed the Democrats and Republicans are the same and those that voted for Nader. How the hell could you honestly believe that GWB is the same as Al Gore? Al Gore wouldn't have invaded Iraq.
I'm long past those days though. What's the point of caring about healthcare, education, abortion, foreign policy or any of the areas where Republicans/Democrats actually disagree if neither party gives a damn about our rights? Let's review:
1st Amendment: Not defended strongly by either party. See free speech zones
2nd Amendment: Not defended by most Democrats.
4th Amendment: Not defended by most Republicans.
5th Amendment: Not defended by most Republicans.
9th and 10th Amendments: Completely ignored by both parties. Does these even exist in their worldview?
The American experiment ends when people start ignoring the parts of the Constitution that they don't like. Both major parties are guilty of this. Neither of them deserve my support until they change their ways.
I disagree with a lot of what Ron Paul stands for but now I find myself wishing I had given him the money instead of Obama. No, I can't vote for Obama in good faith. Not after today.
Its a dark day alright, made darker by your sig, which still supports Obama. This is why these politicians do these kind of things, they know there is no payback.
I agree. I hedged on this last night -- had already decided that I wouldn't be sending him any more contributions or volunteering with his campaign this fall -- but I couldn't bring myself to say I wouldn't vote for him.
When I woke up this morning and was still angry about it I started to reconcile myself to the fact that if I actually disagreed with him this forcefully on this fundamental issue that there was no way in hell I could vote for him in good faith. He has lost my vote and my support.
If only the bumper stickers came off as easily as I can change my /. signature.....
You asked if it means that you have a problem due to admiring Nelson Mandela as a rebuttal to the apparent assertion that admiration for Obama, or any other politician, indicates some sort of disorder
Well, I never said that I admire Obama (pretty sure I said that I was completely disillusioned with him) but I did bring up Mandela as a rebuttal to the GP's assertions. It was never my intent to equate Mandela with Obama -- I want to be clear about that so there is no confusion.
Obama is just another jackass lawyer* trying to jack the reins of power
If you had said that two weeks ago I would have disputed you but now I find myself in complete agreement with that statement.
George Washington organized a uniformed militia under the authority of a duly elected legislature and met the army of another country on the open battle field. Washington != terrorist.
I never said he was. It was in response to your statement of "The point is that he used violence to affect political outcome. That makes him a terrorist." At the time you made no such distinction between a duly organized/regulated militia and those that blow up pizzerias. All you said was "he used violence to affect political outcome". I don't think that's terrorism -- indeed, it's almost a definition of war itself -- Clausewitz said "War is the continuation of politics by other means"
The point is that he used violence to affect political outcome. That makes him a terrorist.
That definition also makes George Washington a terrorist.
Nelson Mandela blew up government buildings under direction of the Soviet-backed African National Congress.
I don't have a major problem with blowing up government buildings during a struggle for independence. I do have a bit of a problem with groups that blow up women and children in pizzerias -- we managed to win our independence without doing it -- but I'll stand by my earlier comments regarding the balance of ones accomplishments. Do the balance of Maldela's accomplishments outweigh the negatives? Most people would say that they do.
Either way, trying to compare Obama to Nelson Mandela has got to be some sort of corollary to Godwin.
Exactly where did I compare Obama to Nelson Mandela?
McCain doesn't have my vote either.
Cheap +5 Insightful: just say "All Americans suck because {insert generalization here}"
All Americans suck because of CowboyNeal?
I'm so confused right now...
So am I. He has lost my vote -- I'm just trying to come up with a way to explain that rationally. If I tried to explain it right now every other word would probably be an expletive.
I'll change my signature line when I get around to scraping the bumper stickers off my car.
Obama didn't vote for the war. He wasn't even in the senate at the time. Are you talking about Kerry?
Maybe it's hard to tell the two of them apart since Obama started compromising his core values in order to "move to the center"?
Well, he was once the leader of Umkhonto_we_Sizwe [wikipedia.org]. It's up to you to decide if that means anything, though.
Yeah, and FDR interned the Japanese and tried to pack the Supreme Court. He's still one of my heroes though.
Admiration != blind faith. You can admire someone while still recognizing their mistakes and flaws. Was the balance of the persons life and accomplishments beneficial towards humanity and the causes that you believe in? If so then I think you can admire that person. FDR made several huge mistakes in his day -- but he also saved liberal democracy, laid the groundwork for the UN and nudged the British towards liberating their colonial holdings. On balance I think he is a character that can be admired. Ditto for Mandela.
Hell, even people that you strongly disagree with may have admirable qualities. Did you know that George W. Bush is widely admired in parts of Africa? He has drastically increased American aid to that continent -- increased funding for AIDS drugs, mosquito nets to combat malaria, food aid, development aid/assistance, etc, etc. The Newshour on PBS actually did an in-depth special about this a number of weeks ago.
Needless to say, learning that surprised the hell out of me. It also reminded me of why I don't obtain my news from partisan hacks like Bill O'Reilly or Keith Olbermann.
My comment wasn't about Obama or any other black political figure specifically, it was about the entire system and its participants.
Did I accuse you of making the statement about Obama? All I said was that I'm extremely disillusioned with Obama right now but that I disagree with your statement that admiring a politician means you have issues.
And to clarify myself: Yes, if you admire ANY politician, regardless of their color, party or orientation, preference, whatever, you have issues.
I'm sorry but this is a blanket black and white statement that doesn't deserve to be taken seriously. Nelson Mandela was a politician. Gandhi was a politician. I guess all of their admirers have issues?
What would have been the point of suing the telecom companies?
The point was to find out exactly what the hell happened through the discovery process. This wasn't some thinly veiled attempt to get money out of Verizon and AT&T. This was an attempt to find out what the extent of this illegal wiretapping program was and to hold those who violated the law (within the administration and within Verizon/AT&T) accountable.
The lawyers would have made most of the money anyway
Yes, those money-grubbing lawyers at the EFF and ACLU only took this on so they could make legal fees....
What if it comes out the "wrong" way? What if the courts decide the President has that authority?
Yes, if only Dred Scott had been content to remain a slave and hadn't sued to change it... then we wouldn't have had the horrible Dred Scott decision on the books.
I support the FISA amendment. It's a good compromise. Read the thing before judging.
Obama's own statement explaining why he supports it suggests otherwise:
"I wouldn't have drafted the legislation like this, and it does not resolve all of the concerns that we have about President Bush's abuse of executive power. It grants retroactive immunity to telecommunications companies that may have violated the law by cooperating with the Bush Administration's program of warrantless wiretapping. This potentially weakens the deterrent effect of the law and removes an important tool for the American people to demand accountability for past abuses."
Indeed. We've now set a precedent for the Executive Branch to violate the law and not be held to account. Nobody is going to be held accountable for past violations of FISA -- not the current administration, not the telecommunications companies, not the intelligence agencies, nobody. Given all that I'd really like to hear Obama explain why future administrations are going to follow the restrictions contained in this FISA bill?
This is a dark day.
Man, you got more issues then you can even imagine.
You got a +5 for this?
I'm completely disillusioned with Obama right now but that notwithstanding I still don't think you deserved a +5, insightful for that comment. Admiring a politician means you have "issues"?
So I have "issues" if I admire Nelson Mandela?
This all-or-nothing, fight to the death until we get what *we* want attitude is exactly what paralyzes progress from being made in congress.
I would normally agree with this sentiment. But on this issue I don't think this was something that we should have been willing to compromise over. I have no problems compromising on the Iraq War. I have no problems compromising on Universal Health Care. I have no problems compromising on Financial Regulation.
I have a serious problem compromising core Constitutional Rights.
Most of the initiatives it proposed actually protected more freedoms
So fucking what? The current administration has successfully set a precedent for violating the law and getting away with it. Nobody is going to be held accountable for the violations of the FISA law that had been in existence after 9/11. Tell me you aren't naive enough to think that the next administration will actually follow the restrictions passed in this law.
Umm, no I was talking about Pelosi. She held it up in the House for quite awhile but then relented and allowed it to come up for a vote.
The Senate was always a lost cause because half of the Democratic Senators (I'm looking at you Senator Rockefeller) are owned by the telecommunications industry.
Come to Finland.
This is completely offtopic, but actually I'd really like to come to Finland some day. I'm a bit of a history buff and one of the most fascinating parts of history revolves around the Finnish involvement in WW2 (Google the "Winter War" and the "Continuation War" if you've never heard about it). A young Democracy that managed to successfully stand against the largest country in the World when invaded and which managed to retain it's sovereignty despite being abandoned by the free world.
Little known fact about WW2: Only three European capitals (of nations involved in the war) were never occupied by enemy troops: London, Moscow and Helsinki. The Finns were in an impossible position yet still managed to retain their sovereignty and defend their people. They fought with determination and honor -- when forced to retreat in 1944 from a Soviet village they actually left two weeks worth of food for the civilian population. What other power in WW2 (on either side) ever did anything like that?
Assuming you are from Finland where you suggest that someone such as myself go? What would I want to see? Where would I want to stay? What can't I miss?
See how many people you can find here that consider Brits to be a part of Europe and how many people consider it to be an extension of USA.
Well, there's a special relationship between the UK and the USA. Part of that goes back to WW2 and our efforts to help them (even prior to the US actually entering the war). Part of it goes back to our shared cultural heritage and history. In many respects the UK has more in common with the US then it does with the EU -- Common Law legal systems, shared Governmental concepts, shared language and literature, shared military traditions, shared naval/seafaring traditions, etc, etc, etc.
I only bring this up because I think it provides an important context behind relations between the two countries. I know that a lot of people view the UK as some sort of puppet of the United States -- I don't think this tells the whole story and I don't think it's a fair assessment.
Then fucking pass it without the immunity provision. If GWB vetoes it then to hell with him. WTF? The President threatens to veto us if we stand behind our principles so we cave and give in? Is this how checks and balances are supposed to work?
It actually put *more* restrictions on the executive branch.
While taking away our ability to find out exactly what the hell happened and to hold those that might have broken the law accountable.
Just because part of it smells like roses doesn't mean the legislation as a whole doesn't stink.