tom22406
Footballguy
No doubting that at all.Almost on cue you get gets like Graham and McCain calling for war everytime something happens so I think this is a much needed change of pace for the party.
Fantasy Football - Footballguys Forums
Welcome to Our Forums. Once you've registered and logged in, you're primed to talk football, among other topics, with the sharpest and most experienced fantasy players on the internet.
timschochet's thread- Mods, please move this thread to the Politics Subforum, thank you (1 Viewer)
- Thread starter timschochet
- Start date
timschochet
Footballguy
Also, to repeat my main question: is the base of the Republican Party more willing to accept the non-interventionaliat argument than they have been in the past?
tom22406
Footballguy
tom22406
Footballguy
He is tied to his dad in this without a doubt and always will be(fair or not).
timschochet
Footballguy
The money and the base are two different things. I don't have to ask if the GOP establishment is non-intervention, I know they're not and likely never will be. The base is a different story though.
tom22406
Footballguy
So my answer would still be no.He will cause some waves but I don't see him having the support from either part to even be considered for the ticket.I think it will be either Bush or Romney with Christie the 3rd choice to run the show.
timschochet
Footballguy
See, here is MY theory- and I could be way off on this:
I don't think Paul created this non-intervention stuff, or whatever you want to call it- I think he sensed it in the air, and is the first major politician to try to take advantage of it. His dad was a full-blown isolationist, but that's a different animal. What I would call "neo-isolationism" is an attitude that's becoming more and more popular ever since the Iraq War became thought of as a mistake rather than a success. A lot conservatives who I know, who were 100% behind that war 10 years ago, now tell me that they shy away from ANY military intervention anywhere. The old guard of McCain, Graham, Bolton etc., appear to be fading- you never hear other Republicans joining them in their particular criticism against Obama.
But it's more than that even. If you've read this forum over the last several years you'll notice that this neo-isolationism is becoming more and more popular among liberals and conservatives alike. It kept cropping up during the NSA discussions we've had. It comes up whenever Israel is discussed. It gets a lot of play among intellectuals, and yet there is also an attraction to these ideas that come from the more simple nativist types.
But what I don't know is how popular these ideas are among the conservative base: the Tea Party types and religious conservatives who make up the grass roots of the GOP. As I wrote, they've spent the last 60+ years supporting nearly every military action, and they have tended to equate that support with patriotism and love of country. Have they changed their minds about this enough so that they will be receptive to the ideas of a Rand Paul? I think we're about to find out.
I don't think Paul created this non-intervention stuff, or whatever you want to call it- I think he sensed it in the air, and is the first major politician to try to take advantage of it. His dad was a full-blown isolationist, but that's a different animal. What I would call "neo-isolationism" is an attitude that's becoming more and more popular ever since the Iraq War became thought of as a mistake rather than a success. A lot conservatives who I know, who were 100% behind that war 10 years ago, now tell me that they shy away from ANY military intervention anywhere. The old guard of McCain, Graham, Bolton etc., appear to be fading- you never hear other Republicans joining them in their particular criticism against Obama.
But it's more than that even. If you've read this forum over the last several years you'll notice that this neo-isolationism is becoming more and more popular among liberals and conservatives alike. It kept cropping up during the NSA discussions we've had. It comes up whenever Israel is discussed. It gets a lot of play among intellectuals, and yet there is also an attraction to these ideas that come from the more simple nativist types.
But what I don't know is how popular these ideas are among the conservative base: the Tea Party types and religious conservatives who make up the grass roots of the GOP. As I wrote, they've spent the last 60+ years supporting nearly every military action, and they have tended to equate that support with patriotism and love of country. Have they changed their minds about this enough so that they will be receptive to the ideas of a Rand Paul? I think we're about to find out.
SaintsInDome2006
Footballguy
Depends on what his policy actually is.
Not just goppers but a lot of Democrats and independents also don't think we should go to war with ISIL but who think we should be using military, diplomatic and financial means to oppose them if not outright stop them.
tom22406
Footballguy
I will be very intersting to see how this plays out but you can already see(for example)Ted Cruz not being a fan of how Paul talked in his foreign policy speech(the one I posted,watch it if you get a chance)so I fully expect this thinking to hold a while amongst the types you are talking about.I just don't see that shift coming and I don't think Paul will be able to get them on board unless his changes his thinking.I see Paul as being closer to what Obama is doing now more so over what the base wants done.
Last edited by a moderator:
SaintsInDome2006
Footballguy
Would Rand use drone strikes, air cover and special ops to strike within Afghanistan, Pakistan, Iraq, Syria and Yemen?
Yes or no?
Last edited by a moderator:
tom22406
Footballguy
timschochet
Footballguy
So when is it OK to use drones and when is it not OK? I'm confused by that last quote you linked.
tom22406
Footballguy
Sorry, was on my phone and it came out wrong.
Here is more to what I was talking about with Paul and Obama being closer on the drone policy over what the base wants.
http://theweek.com/articles/463780/rand-paul-president-obama-basically-agree-drones
timschochet
Footballguy
Two Deep, why are you obsessed with this? Aaron already wrote that he doesn't believe that being for voter restrictions implies racism. I wrote the same thing. If you can find somebody who DOES believe this, why not challenge that guy?
timschochet
Footballguy
Thanks. That's an interesting article. But if it's accurate about how Paul really thinks, then wasn't his whole filibuster thing just a sham designed to get him attention, like many of us claimed at the time? Here we were told that this was a Senator speaking truth to power about the immorality of drones. Yet as it turns out they're not immoral at all?
tom22406
Footballguy
He was speaking to drone strikes on American soil against Americans if I recall correctly.
timschochet
Footballguy
The whole discussion about drones is fascinating to me, because it relates to the strategic bombing questions of the Vietnam era.
For example, John McCain flew dozens of sorties over North and South Vietnam, targeting villages which were known to be used by the Viet Cong to smuggle weapons southward (to be used against our infantry.) McCain and the other pilots would drop incendiary bombs, destroying houses, community dwellings, and randomly killing civilians including women and children. This was known as "strategic bombing" and it was sanctioned by Presidents Lyndon Johnson and Richard Nixon, who declared it necessary to win the Vietnam war. And there is no doubt that it was effective- so effective, in fact, that the North Vietnamese were forced to attempt to smuggle weapons through Cambodia instead, which caused Nixon to bomb that country as well.
These bombings caused moral outrage, especially among progressives in this country. Our current Secretary of State, John Kerry, went so far as to call our forces "evil" because of these bombings. Daniel Ellsberg illegally released hundreds of pages of classified material from the Pentagon in order to demonstrate the futility of the bombings. There were marches, protests, and 4 students were shot at Kent State. (Now, some cynical people have suggested that the source of the student protests in this country was really, selfishly, about the draft, and that if there had been no draft, the students here wouldn't have given a crap about poor Vietnamese and Cambodian children dying as a result of our napalm. But that's another story.)
Here's my point of the history lesson: if we had suddenly developed drone technology at the height of the Vietnam war, it would have been perceived as a more moral alternative to what McCain and his buddies were doing. First off, no worries about McCain being captured. Second, the drone would target the Viet Cong smugglers, and the civilian casualties would be less. Yes there would still be civilian casualties, but not nearly in the same magnitude as what we did back then.
And let's go back even further: suppose we had drone warfare in the 1940s? We could have taken out Hitler's bunker and the Dai Ichi building in Tokyo. Would the firebombings of Dresden, Berlin, Tokyo been necessary? Could we have achieved victory, perhaps, without the use of nuclear weapons?
If you look at this from a historical perspective, drone warfare is the most moral form of strategic warfare we have ever possessed (if you can call any warfare moral, that is.)
For example, John McCain flew dozens of sorties over North and South Vietnam, targeting villages which were known to be used by the Viet Cong to smuggle weapons southward (to be used against our infantry.) McCain and the other pilots would drop incendiary bombs, destroying houses, community dwellings, and randomly killing civilians including women and children. This was known as "strategic bombing" and it was sanctioned by Presidents Lyndon Johnson and Richard Nixon, who declared it necessary to win the Vietnam war. And there is no doubt that it was effective- so effective, in fact, that the North Vietnamese were forced to attempt to smuggle weapons through Cambodia instead, which caused Nixon to bomb that country as well.
These bombings caused moral outrage, especially among progressives in this country. Our current Secretary of State, John Kerry, went so far as to call our forces "evil" because of these bombings. Daniel Ellsberg illegally released hundreds of pages of classified material from the Pentagon in order to demonstrate the futility of the bombings. There were marches, protests, and 4 students were shot at Kent State. (Now, some cynical people have suggested that the source of the student protests in this country was really, selfishly, about the draft, and that if there had been no draft, the students here wouldn't have given a crap about poor Vietnamese and Cambodian children dying as a result of our napalm. But that's another story.)
Here's my point of the history lesson: if we had suddenly developed drone technology at the height of the Vietnam war, it would have been perceived as a more moral alternative to what McCain and his buddies were doing. First off, no worries about McCain being captured. Second, the drone would target the Viet Cong smugglers, and the civilian casualties would be less. Yes there would still be civilian casualties, but not nearly in the same magnitude as what we did back then.
And let's go back even further: suppose we had drone warfare in the 1940s? We could have taken out Hitler's bunker and the Dai Ichi building in Tokyo. Would the firebombings of Dresden, Berlin, Tokyo been necessary? Could we have achieved victory, perhaps, without the use of nuclear weapons?
If you look at this from a historical perspective, drone warfare is the most moral form of strategic warfare we have ever possessed (if you can call any warfare moral, that is.)
"sort of implies?" not really. that's a stretch imo.
he asked why someone (like tim) would have that impression of him based on his posting history. So, I went back to look through his history of posting, and found him to be most active in discussions on those topics (outside of his regular "I hate Obama" threads).
So, me looking through someone's posting history and finding a few themes that stood out really wasn't much of an implication at all. I was trying to help him figure out why some people might think he's prejudiced against a particular group of people.
I don't care enough to get into any of those issue debates here so I wouldn't have known he was active there or not. My only impression of Jim is that he hates Obama. Not a lot to go on there, but he doesn't bother me.
timschochet
Footballguy
Maybe that was the SPECIFIC issue he was referring to, so as to cover himself. But that's pretty absurd- who is going to be for drone warfare on American soil? Obviously he was trying to encompass all drone warfare- that's what attracted him to students.
timschochet
Footballguy
Continuing with the United States Constitution, Article IV:
Section. 2.
The Citizens of each State shall be entitled to all Privileges and Immunities of Citizens in the several States.
A Person charged in any State with Treason, Felony, or other Crime, who shall flee from Justice, and be found in another State, shall on Demand of the executive Authority of the State from which he fled, be delivered up, to be removed to the State having Jurisdiction of the Crime.
No Person held to Service or Labour in one State, under the Laws thereof, escaping into another, shall, in Consequence of any Law or Regulation therein, be discharged from such Service or Labour, but shall be delivered up on Claim of the Party to whom such Service or Labour may be due.
The first part seems to take on added importance with the gay marriage discussion. It seems pretty clear that if I marry my gay husband in California, then Alabama has to recognize my marriage. Or is that clear? I'm not really sure. In any event, it may be a moot discussion given the upcoming Supreme Court decision.
But I don't know how far this sentence pertains to, I don't know what is meant by a "privilege". Let's take our public universities. UCLA, so far as I know, has a higher tuition for out of state students than it does for residents of California. But under this article, if I read that first sentence correctly, wouldn't that be unconstitutional? Not sure.
The middle sentence seems pretty obvious. The last sentence I presume refers to slavery and indentured servitude, so is no longer valid. But from a historical perspective, it's interesting that Congress in 1850, as a result of the Compromise, felt the need to pass a Fugitive Slave Act, since it seems redundant given this Article already in the Constitution.
Section. 2.
The Citizens of each State shall be entitled to all Privileges and Immunities of Citizens in the several States.
A Person charged in any State with Treason, Felony, or other Crime, who shall flee from Justice, and be found in another State, shall on Demand of the executive Authority of the State from which he fled, be delivered up, to be removed to the State having Jurisdiction of the Crime.
No Person held to Service or Labour in one State, under the Laws thereof, escaping into another, shall, in Consequence of any Law or Regulation therein, be discharged from such Service or Labour, but shall be delivered up on Claim of the Party to whom such Service or Labour may be due.
The first part seems to take on added importance with the gay marriage discussion. It seems pretty clear that if I marry my gay husband in California, then Alabama has to recognize my marriage. Or is that clear? I'm not really sure. In any event, it may be a moot discussion given the upcoming Supreme Court decision.
But I don't know how far this sentence pertains to, I don't know what is meant by a "privilege". Let's take our public universities. UCLA, so far as I know, has a higher tuition for out of state students than it does for residents of California. But under this article, if I read that first sentence correctly, wouldn't that be unconstitutional? Not sure.
The middle sentence seems pretty obvious. The last sentence I presume refers to slavery and indentured servitude, so is no longer valid. But from a historical perspective, it's interesting that Congress in 1850, as a result of the Compromise, felt the need to pass a Fugitive Slave Act, since it seems redundant given this Article already in the Constitution.
SaintsInDome2006
Footballguy
SaintsInDome2006
Footballguy
Not really, there are all kinds of financial, legal, child support and estate decisions, judgements and orders that don't get recognized in other states.
This provision applies to fundamental rights and what is included in the Constitution.
Last edited by a moderator:
timschochet
Footballguy
Well it says rights and privileges. How do we decide what is and what isn't a "fundamental right"?
Also, I don't think you're correct about child support decisions. Yankee mentioned that yesterday- I gathered from what he wrote that child support is enforceable in all 50 states.
SaintsInDome2006
Footballguy
The last part was overwritten by the 13th Amendment:
(Cornell)
In Louisiana, the assignment of race itself was a badge and incident of slavery, it determined one's class and rights as a citizen. We had quadroons, octaroons, creoles, we had free persons "of color." Same thing with women, we had wives and concubines. Etc. - To me they are part and parcel of the same thing. That the assignment of racial classification is almost always irrational (and thus IMO unconstitutional), and is really just a description of "color" makes it all the more so.
Last edited by a moderator:
SaintsInDome2006
Footballguy
I know they're sometimes not even enforced across parishes here and I know that family and estate matters are sometimes rejected here. The reason may be that we are a civil law jurisdiction and so see things differently. If a divorced father drags his child into LA good luck getting him/her back in CA or FLA etc.
Also - see Gram Parsons. Why do you think they wanted to bury him in LA?
Last edited by a moderator:
timschochet
Footballguy
Bump. Hey Saints, I was hoping you'd respond to this. Interested in your thoughts.
CBusAlex
Footballguy
It's weird to me to hear people talk about this as if the drone itself were the issue. A drone is just a tool; it's amoral. It's no more moral or immoral to kill someone with a drone than it would be to kill them with a manned aircraft, or just send in some dudes with guns. It's the situation in which you are using the drone that matters.
timschochet
Footballguy
Also- the law in Louisiana is different from the rest of the country? I've read that before somewhere- you guys use Napoleonic code and stuff? Please explain how this works.
SaintsInDome2006
Footballguy
1. Yes and no. - Things are better in some ways, some are better, some are worse. A good chunk of our population and culture was lost. Hard to explain, it's like losing an arm but then graduating, getting a better income, marrying a hot wife, moving on.... are you better or worse, recovered or not?
2. Most likely screwed. Katrina actually missed us. We have had similar storms in 1947, ~1915, ~1870, a couple times before that too, difference is we were built out over marsh and swamp that used to protect us. Some of the protection is better, a lot better. A good deal of the damage was on the feds who built crappy levees combined with lousy maintenance and corruption locally by the parish levee boards, and a lot of that has been fixed. It's a long, long, list of things that are better. But mostly we are sinking and no it's not due to global warming, it's due to oil companies tearing up our marsh and the leveeing up of the Mississippi.
Basically, we live on the edge, we shouldn't be here, one day we won't be.
Last edited by a moderator:
timschochet
Footballguy
Jayrod
Footballguy
And what the hell is a "parish" anyway? I thought that was where the church's pastor lived. Why can't you guys use "county" like the rest of civilized 'Merica?
SaintsInDome2006
Footballguy
Yeah tell me about it. The levees were horrible before, the feds took it over around 1890, and it was the levee system that failed, the storm actually missed us. The Doomsday scenario has never hit or not in a long time.That's not good.
If we get a direct hit the city will be worse than Katrina, where the levees broke. The worst scenario is we get swamped with water like soup in a bowl that is sloshing when you carry it but ultimately the water would be trapped with nowhere to go. That will happen one day.
The stuff like LA 1927 - that song is a real event, they blew the levees a few miles upriver. I know the (maybe great-) granddaughter of one of the bankers who made the call. We are stuck between the elements and corrupt government. It's pretty freakin' beautiful and tragic all at once.
***But overall the city is in fine shape, a lot has changed in our attitude and we are not as apathetic. We are better as a people in some ways, but some neighborhoods are still just blotched out and many of our people are gone to never return. History, memories, loved ones got drowned. On the other hand, we're getting ready for Carnival and we get ranked now among the best cities for business and that kind of thing. Definitely a mixed bag.
SaintsInDome2006
Footballguy
Because we're an historical accident, that's why.
Btw we saved America's a33 in the Battle of New Orleans, we're hitting our 200th anniversary of that and our 300th anniversary as a city soon.
Do you think anyone's grateful? Noooooooo [steve Martin voice].
{And my people got here late, but we're all creole after a while}.
SaintsInDome2006
Footballguy
Unfortunately or fortunately depending on your POV a lot of has been run over and written out, but the basic idea is we start with principles written into a Code, and then everything follows from that.
So for instance, property is based on corporeal and incorporeal property, we have a bundle of rights that go with it, usus, abusus, fructus, and you can individually assign rights like you're handing out sandwiches.
The way it's supposed to work is you leapfrog back to the various codes that have been written before and if things are not clear you can go to the Sietes Partides of the Spanish or the Code Napolean of the French.
We have jurisprudence constante, and not stare decisis. And on and on.
I don't want to overstate it, like I said the UCC and federal law has overwritten the commercial stuff and common law has wheedled its pernicious way into our existence. Persons (family law) and successions (estates) are two areas where it still holds a good bit of sway.
Ilov80s
Footballguy
People always say this, I don't get it. Just copy the web address and paste it. Look
http://cdn.rsvlts.com/wp-content/uploads/2014/02/P5Dv1l9.jpeg
timschochet
Footballguy
I don't know how to copy and paste on my phone.
timschochet
Footballguy
In the Scott Walker thread, after Snogger expressed his desire for a candidate whom, unlike Obama or Scott Walker, could unite the American public, tommygunz wrote the following response:
It's not politicians that divide us, it's disagreement on major issues
I think this is an interesting notion, and I want to challenge it a little. But first in response to Snogger- the only time Americans have been unified behind a political leader in our history is after a catastrophe. Therefore, I don't want to see us unified. We're not in such bad shape that we need a unifier at this time.
It's not politicians that divide us, it's disagreement on major issues
I think this is an interesting notion, and I want to challenge it a little. But first in response to Snogger- the only time Americans have been unified behind a political leader in our history is after a catastrophe. Therefore, I don't want to see us unified. We're not in such bad shape that we need a unifier at this time.
Jim11
Footballguy
fatguyinalittlecoat
Footballguy
Because Tim is black?
CowboysFromHell
Footballguy
Wait. So, Tim is a black, atheist Jew? Does that mean he can or cannot vote?
mr roboto
Footballguy
How you post so prolifically and from so many sources without knowing how to do this is mind blowing.
timschochet
Footballguy
It's not politicians that divide us, it's disagreement on major issues
Well yes and no. Actually it seems to me that political discussions inevitably are about taking political sides. For example, let's look at the main Obamacare thread. Now, theoretically, what the disagreement should be about is whether or not Obamacare is a good idea, right? But very little of that long thread is actually devoted to a discussion about this question. Instead, the bulk of that thread is about who's winning: is Obama winning? Or are the Republicans winning? Not much thought at all goes into trying to define what winning means (though some of us certainly tried.) But to most of the people participating in that thread, it's a game between the two sides. If Obamacare is perceived as a failure by the public, then Republicans win. If Obamacare is perceived as a success, the Democrats win. Almost all the time in that thread is spent attempting to decipher the various data that comes in and trying to interpret which side it helps. If it appears to help the Obama side, then the conservatives in thread argue that it's too premature and doesn't tell the whole story. If it appears to help the Republican side, then progressives in the thread argue that it's anecdotal.
If you're looking for a real argument, such as "I don't believe that it's the proper role of the government to be involved in healthcare the way Obamacare does", or "I don't believe Obamacare is an effective way to provide healthcare because", etc., forget it. You're not going to find it there. Instead, you're going to get "My father in law is paying twice as much now; that proves Obamacare sucks!" or "20 new million people enrolled, that means Obamacare is working." And again, the question of whether or not ACA is good or bad is pretty much irrelevant; the REAL question is who wins?
Well yes and no. Actually it seems to me that political discussions inevitably are about taking political sides. For example, let's look at the main Obamacare thread. Now, theoretically, what the disagreement should be about is whether or not Obamacare is a good idea, right? But very little of that long thread is actually devoted to a discussion about this question. Instead, the bulk of that thread is about who's winning: is Obama winning? Or are the Republicans winning? Not much thought at all goes into trying to define what winning means (though some of us certainly tried.) But to most of the people participating in that thread, it's a game between the two sides. If Obamacare is perceived as a failure by the public, then Republicans win. If Obamacare is perceived as a success, the Democrats win. Almost all the time in that thread is spent attempting to decipher the various data that comes in and trying to interpret which side it helps. If it appears to help the Obama side, then the conservatives in thread argue that it's too premature and doesn't tell the whole story. If it appears to help the Republican side, then progressives in the thread argue that it's anecdotal.
If you're looking for a real argument, such as "I don't believe that it's the proper role of the government to be involved in healthcare the way Obamacare does", or "I don't believe Obamacare is an effective way to provide healthcare because", etc., forget it. You're not going to find it there. Instead, you're going to get "My father in law is paying twice as much now; that proves Obamacare sucks!" or "20 new million people enrolled, that means Obamacare is working." And again, the question of whether or not ACA is good or bad is pretty much irrelevant; the REAL question is who wins?
timschochet
Footballguy
SaintsInDome2006
Footballguy
You forget Tim when it comes to ACA there's another possibility - failure of process, we can't even begin to get into issues because of the way the thing was sold. Your argument if that held would basically beg fir corruption and deception on every level of government, that's the shame of it. This country still has not had an honest discussion of taxes and who's paying for who's healthcare.
CowboysFromHell
Footballguy
timschochet
Footballguy
This is absolutely true as well. But it still proves my point, because every attempt to study process in terms of ACA bogs down into the same "game" being played elsewhere: i.e., progressives are determined to diminish or disregard falsehoods and corruption issues because Obama and the Dems lose, while conservatives are determined to overstate these same issues because Republicans win. It becomes very difficult as a result, to try and garner any real facts in such a mess.
fatguyinalittlecoat
Footballguy
I agree with gunz on that. The only way a politician can bring everyone together is by making people hear what they want to hear. People want different stuff, there's no way to make everyone happy.
SaintsInDome2006
Footballguy
Tim I offer you an example above, Obama stated the cost at 900 bill, the CBO says it's 2+ trill, those quotes are directly from the WH & CBO. We don't have to listen to the NYT or Limbaugb these days, see for yourself.
Similar threads
