Stats

Comments Posted By 2ndClassCitizenPundit

Displaying 61 To 90 Of 955 Comments

An Argument Against US Intervention in Libya

Okay, let’s actually think this through.

What is the goal in Libya? If the goal is to prevent Qaddafi from killing civilians, how does a no-fly zone accomplish that?

(channeling Hawkeye: “Wouldn’t fly-paper work better?”)

If the goal is preserving the oil fields, wouldn’t gassing the entire country work better? Then we can relocate them all to Greenland and deny any knowledge of what they hell they are complaining about when they wake up.

If the goal is to remove Qaddafi, aren’t there better ways to do that? An eviction notice? Tell him he’s won a free Caribbean cruise? Have a pest control company tell him the entire country is infested with giant radioactive termites with a sweet tooth for tacky pseudo-military fashion? Hell, use a sniper, even, the CIA never needed a UN resolution or a no-fly zone to take out JFK and RFK, and they even got a budget increase out of it.

My point is, other than the ridiculous twists and turns this discussion has taken since Day -1, is that you determine A) what the problem is you want to solve and B) what you want things to look like afterward, and then figure out the best way to get from point A to point B.

One does not just take a spin on the Wheel of Fortunate Quick Irrelevant Fixes and call it a day. By the gods, what would have happened if the Wheel had come up with “Redistrict California”? Or “Execute a Martyr”? Geez, we’d have to exhume Joe the plumber for that last one, and you know public health would never stand for that!

Let me spell it out for you. One does not save money by spending money. One does not save lives by endangering lives. And one does not avoid military action by sending in the military.

I still say we should have sent Congress there on a “fact-finding mission” (see “junket, noun, definition 1”). Naked, by parachute, in the middle of the night (see “plausible deniability, noun” and “garbage disposal, noun, definition 2”).

» Posted By 2ndClassCitizenPundit On March 25, 2011 @ 5:23 pm

Adonai, don’t be ridiculous.

Do you realize how high liability insurance is for a glass parking lot???

» Posted By 2ndClassCitizenPundit On March 25, 2011 @ 5:06 pm

Cher, that happened last year, in the fall I believe.

» Posted By 2ndClassCitizenPundit On March 25, 2011 @ 1:35 pm

How the hell did this post wind up over here????

I thought I posted this to OT???

I must be losing my mind. Apologies to Caru.

» Posted By 2ndClassCitizenPundit On March 25, 2011 @ 1:35 pm

Headline: Target Sues San Diego Gay Rights Group

The {{spit}} headline: Gay Rights Group Seeks to Bankrupt Benevolent Corporation

My headline: The Empire Strikes Back, blames Gaga

http://www.npr.org/templates/story/story.php?storyId=134845091

» Posted By 2ndClassCitizenPundit On March 25, 2011 @ 12:48 pm

Sakura

Buddy, once again, excellent work.

There is something about blossoms in the spring that give us hope.

» Posted By 2ndClassCitizenPundit On March 23, 2011 @ 4:51 pm

The Fools on the Hill

Can you please tell me what War Powers Act you are referring to?

The War Powers Resolution of 1973 (50 U.S.C. 1541–1548) was a United States Congress joint resolution providing that the President can send U.S. armed forces into action abroad only by authorization of Congress or if the United States is already under attack or serious threat.

The War Powers Act of 1941, also known as the First War Powers Act, was an American emergency law that increased Federal power during World War II. The act was signed by U.S. President Franklin D. Roosevelt and put into law on December 18th, 1941, less than two weeks after the Japanese attack on Pearl Harbor. The act was similar to the Departmental Reorganization Act of 1917 as it was signed shortly before the U.S. engaged in a large war and increased the powers of the president’s U.S. Executive Branch.[1]

The act gave the President enormous authority to execute World War II in an efficient manner. The president was authorized to reorganize the executive branch, independent government agencies, and government corporations for the war cause. With the act, the President was allowed to censor mail and other forms of communication between the United States and foreign countries. The act and all changes created by its power were to remain intact until six months after the end of the war at which time, the act would become defunct.[1]

Three months after passing the first, the Second War Powers Act was passed. This further strengthened the executive branch powers towards executing World War II. This act allowed the acquisition, under condemnation if necessary, of land for military or naval purposes. Some provisions of the Hatch Act of 1939 were also suspended which reduced naturalization standards for aliens within the U.S. Armed Forces. In addition, it created methods for war-related production contracting along with adjusting several other aspects of government affairs.[1] The Second War Powers Act repealed the confidentiality of census data, allowing the FBI to use this information to round up Japanese-Americans. [2]

» Posted By 2ndClassCitizenPundit On March 23, 2011 @ 4:16 pm

He was forced to drop out of the race before the Nevada caucus (I was living in Nevada at the time), so I never had a choice either.

he had too much to deal with in Ohio at the time, and it had become obvious that he wasn’t even going to get to the primaries. I seem to recall he got left off one primary ballot, even though he had fulfilled all the requirements.

» Posted By 2ndClassCitizenPundit On March 23, 2011 @ 4:11 pm

Adonai, Kucinich will never be President.

he was shut out, with no warning or reasonable justification, of the debates last time. Plan on that being repeated.

He is consistently misquoted. The media loves to repeat the same old lie that he claimed to see a flying saucer. He never claimed that, but said, just like a majority of Americans, that he had seen a UFO. Any flying object you can not identify is a UFO. Yest the media prefer to say that he saw a flying saucer and little green men.

The media also loves to focus on the fact that his wife is very beautiful and younger than him. Elizabeth might as well never open her mouth, because nobody wants to admit how intelligent and well-informed she is. They also refuse to admit that the two of them are very obviously in love with each other. I met both of them in 2007, and the connection between them is palpable. However, it’s soooo much more fun to imply that Dennis has a trophy wife and is in it for the sex.

The media also does not like that Dennis talks about actual solutions and specific plans to enact those solutions. It denies the media a chance to create a cult of personality if a candidate actually knows what he is talking about and knows what he is going to do about it.

I would love to see Rachel do an in-depth interview with Dennis and Elizabeth, but I doubt her bosses at Comcast would allow that.

» Posted By 2ndClassCitizenPundit On March 23, 2011 @ 3:58 pm

ClusterFox: No, he is not soliciting donation “after” saying that.

He was soliciting donations for a potential run, as well as to fight the elimination of his Congressional district, long before he said that.

I have been getting emails from his office for the past six months.

Even if he hadn’t been doing that before the quote (which nobody is admitting is being misquoted), you are using a logical fallacy in making one determinant of the other.

In other words, you are saying that after he made the observation in public, he would only be showing integrity if he dropped all fundraising efforts.

You want to hold him to a standard of behavior and course of action that nobody else is held to and even in a perfect world no one would even propose.

» Posted By 2ndClassCitizenPundit On March 23, 2011 @ 3:50 pm

Kucinich did not call for impeachment. He said it was an “impeachable offense”. There’s a difference.

I can say that my neighbor’s yard is a health hazard, but that is not the same as calling the health department about it, nor is it the same as holding a trial for said neighbor.

It is not the War Powers Act. It is the War Powers Resolution of 1973. A Resolution is not a law, it is more of a Press Release.

I’ve brought up both of these before. Thank you for ignoring me.

» Posted By 2ndClassCitizenPundit On March 23, 2011 @ 2:37 pm

The War Game (and how you can play at home)

Abby, I wasn’t aware I had proposed anything new.

» Posted By 2ndClassCitizenPundit On March 24, 2011 @ 12:35 pm

Wait to you see the cards!

Although Hasbro is threatening to sue…

😉

» Posted By 2ndClassCitizenPundit On March 23, 2011 @ 4:16 am

You already did, by allowing it to be posted.

But thank you!

» Posted By 2ndClassCitizenPundit On March 23, 2011 @ 12:21 am

Adonai, everybody knows that the UN is just a front for the USSR and the Illuminati.

As such, that will be covered in a future expansion.

» Posted By 2ndClassCitizenPundit On March 22, 2011 @ 10:28 pm

Some Not Very Strong Arguments Against Action in Libya

KevenSeven, I don’t buy your justification of body count. You are assuming that 1) if we kill people, Qaddafi will be unable to kill people, and 2) that the only way that Libyan people have to sacrifice themselves for democracy (if that is what they want) is for us to shoot them.

And even if the Libyan people are volunteering to commit suicide by proxy, I don’t have to participate.

» Posted By 2ndClassCitizenPundit On March 22, 2011 @ 5:12 pm

I would be more than happy to let you define what number of dead civilians is acceptable in the fight to stop Qaddafi from killing them himself. One? Ten? One hundred? And which ones?

I find it interesting that people who will never have to look the dead, or their families (if they survive), in the face can somehow deem those deaths acceptable. You don’t have to carry the bodies, you don’t have to dig the hole, and you don’t have to care for their families afterward.

And that was the War Powers Resolution of 1973. It is not a law. A resolution has about as much legal standing as an interdepartmental memo. And it has been in the middle of a Constitutional controversy since the day it was created.

Only Congress can declare war, according to the Constitution. And any military violation of another nation’s boundaries is an act of war. Period.

» Posted By 2ndClassCitizenPundit On March 22, 2011 @ 1:18 pm

We Are Aiding and Abetting the Republicans

foxisms, yet I have been accused of being “against” not for personal attacks but for taking a stand against certain inadequacies that I see.

This concept of “you’re just a perfectionist” confuses me as well. Is being better no longer a goal? Isn’t it better to strive toward betterment, even though we know that we will not (at least in this lifetime) reach perfection?

I strive toward being a “perfect partner” to my partner. He assures me I am just fine the way I am (he lies well), and he probably wouldn’t be able to handle it if I were the perfect lover (but he would die happy!). That does not mean I can not try to be a better partner, and I always aim a little farther than I know I can achieve.

» Posted By 2ndClassCitizenPundit On March 22, 2011 @ 1:25 pm

Kucinich has not called for Obama’s impeachment.

He said that intervention in Libya was “an impeachable offense”. And he is correct. Going to war without the authorization of the American people, through their elected legislators, is not legal.

I don’t agree with everything Kucinich says and does. But he is a very peace-oriented man. he always looks for a non-violent solution first. And he is well-versed in what the Constitution allows and does not allow.

In what way is your criticism of Kucinich any different than the criticism of Obama from “professional Left”?

» Posted By 2ndClassCitizenPundit On March 22, 2011 @ 1:08 pm

At what point does criticism become detrimental?

Is criticism of one’s “own side” allowable anymore?

When I wanted to talk about the racism and bigotry in the gay community, I was accused of being “internally homophobic”, that I was uncomfortable with my own homosexuality and was somehow taking it out on the whole gay community.

When I wanted to discuss my college’s response to human rights infraction against some students, I was being disloyal.

When I questioned my employer’s funding of some disquieting policies and initiatives, I was being ungrateful *and* disloyal.

When an employer does a job performance review of an employee, it is not enough that the employee has fulfilled the job duties. Has she done so in the best way, with the best possible use of her (and the employer’s) time? Has he improved the functioning of the company? Has she helped the company save money by cutting waste? Has he helped the company by increasing profits?

I understand and admit that Obama has achieved some good things. But the questions that I ask are just the same as any employer would ask of his or her employee. And I have the right to ask those questions, whether the Vigilance Committee likes it or not.

If the GOP/TP were to start running ads, using the wording of the briefs filed by Obama’s DOJ, against repeal of DOMA, most of you would cry foul. Yet, I am not supposed to question why that wording, comparing my partner and me to pedophiles and bestiality, was allowed to remain in those documents, suddenly I am in the wrong.

It is unfortunate that you did not take the lesson from history that your graphic illustrates. Vigilance Committees were formed by a group of citizens who wanted to police the actions of others. The particular “notice” that you used was in response to Wisconsin citizens questioning the Civil War. Anyone who asked “why”, “how”, or “for what” was singled out as “traitors”. These committees had no checks and balances, they answered to no one but themselves, and they could make accusations, deliver judgments, and carry out their own verdicts in less time than it takes to boil an egg. There were no appeals. Punishment was usually death for the accused, who was not allowed to defend himself or present evidence in his defense.

I have seen many other instances of this kind of thinking. “You have to agree with us, on everything, unconditinally, or you will be shot for a traitor.” The USSR used this. So did China, WWII Germany, Aryan Nation, the KKK, Westboro Baptist Church, and many others.

During the 60’s and 70’s, war protestors were met with signs that said “America, Love it or leave it”, as if any criticism is being “against” that which is being criticized.

If I ask my employee to wear shoes more appropriate to the workplace, am I criticizing his ratty old sneakers, or am I asking him to cut off his feet?

I understood, from the Declaration of Independence and the US Constitution, that my criticism of the government and elected officials was in order to make the government better.

This kind of black-or-white, totalitarian thinking is not where I want to see America [sic] go. From my understanding, it is not the way our founding fathers wanted it to go either.

But maybe they, and I, are just Quislings after all.

» Posted By 2ndClassCitizenPundit On March 22, 2011 @ 12:59 pm

Spring Training and a Tea Party

I can relate. I am not very popular in the gay community because I am quick to question bias, and some people in the gay community are very bigoted.

I tend to hang out with the weirdos who don’t buy into that garbage. Since starting that habit, I find my life is a lot more enjoyable and interesting.

» Posted By 2ndClassCitizenPundit On March 19, 2011 @ 9:32 pm

An Immodest (Immoral) Proposal

KQ: That’s okay. I have a thesaurus, and I know how to use it.

» Posted By 2ndClassCitizenPundit On March 21, 2011 @ 12:29 pm

WTS: I’d settle for “philosopher legislators” – in other words, those that think instead of use Military Crisis Procedure.

“When in trouble, when in doubt, run in circles, scream and shout.”

» Posted By 2ndClassCitizenPundit On March 20, 2011 @ 8:29 pm

Caru, I accept your offer in the spirit in which you made it.

» Posted By 2ndClassCitizenPundit On March 20, 2011 @ 2:46 pm

jkkFL: How would you ensure access, when it is now an established precedent for nations to block sites they deem offensive or politically untenable?

» Posted By 2ndClassCitizenPundit On March 20, 2011 @ 1:50 pm

Smedley, that is a good point.

However, it would be difficult to be self-sufficient as far as food. Water, through a desalinization process, would not be an issue, of course.

However, you can expect the MSM to make jokes about raising the Titannic or Andrea Doria.

» Posted By 2ndClassCitizenPundit On March 20, 2011 @ 1:49 pm

The second fire was set by Cyrus’s monks.

People think the Tea Party is a new invention. Cyrus and his followers were the same thing – smelly, unwashed fanatics scared out of their britches that someone else might be smarter, nicer, or having more fun.

» Posted By 2ndClassCitizenPundit On March 20, 2011 @ 1:46 pm

A few years ago, the federal government was auctioning off a “shoal light”, a lighthouse built along the same lines of an off-shore oil platform. It eventually went for about $25,000, I believe. It had space for at least 12 people, plus the small lighthouse and top platform, with sanitary facilities, a big honking diesel generator, kitchen and dining room.

I regret not being able to purchase that thing. Constantly.

I’m not sure what the oil companies do with their rigs once they are done with them, but I have a feeling that BP and others could be shamed into donating them, and possibly moving them someplace.

» Posted By 2ndClassCitizenPundit On March 20, 2011 @ 1:13 pm

Abby, there are a lot of people out there who control large amounts of money, who can be blackmailed or shamed into donating.

My biggest concern is the location.

» Posted By 2ndClassCitizenPundit On March 20, 2011 @ 12:58 pm

Adonai, The Library was not destroyed by fire – it survived. At one point, the contents were moved to a warehouse to preserve them.

The Library was actually destroyed when an earthquake struck and it fell into the sea.

Yes, I agree that ideas are pernicious things, they insist on persisting and surviving.

» Posted By 2ndClassCitizenPundit On March 20, 2011 @ 12:57 pm