timschochet's thread- Mods, please move this thread to the Politics Subforum, thank you (1 Viewer)

[Yankee23Fan]

Quick note on Harry Turtledove whom I referenced: his best work is The Guns of the South. A group of Afrikaner nationalists get ahold of a time machine, travel back to 1864 just before the Battle of the Wilderness, and give General Lee hundreds of AK-47s which they train the Army of Northern Virginia to use. Yeah I know this sounds really hokey and makes no sense at all (why wouldn't the Afrikaners go back to South Africa instead and help the Boers win against England?) but Turtledove somehow it makes it work, and turns it into a fascinating study of what would have happened if the South had won the war. Among his more controversial predictions is that Robert E. Lee, elected President after Jeff Davis, sets free all the slaves.

I could see Lee doing that. He was very much a romantic about things not in the present moment and looked at a broader storyline for the history he thought he was making. Which makes some of his decisions, especially Gettysburg, that much harder to understand. But I am a huge fan of alternate history. The 1632 premise was awesome to think through. A similar story line about our history would be moreso to me.

 

[fatguyinalittlecoat]

Frankly, I find your opinion (and fatguy's) sociopathic in a political sense.

 

[timschochet]

Good morning. Saints raised a great question in another thread: why does the USA, unlike France, hesitate to say outright that we are at war with radical Islam?

My opinion is that Obama and co hesitate because, while everybody knows we are at war with radical Islam, they believe it gains nothing to say it, but risks much. The USA is not France; we are considered the leader of the western world and thus our rhetotic must at all times be more cautious. As I pointed out in an earlier post, our goal is to keep the "moderate" Muslim at home and keep our allies in the Muslim world on our side. Suggesting publicly that we are at war with ANY kind of Islam, radical or not, works against those goals and that's why we don't do it.

Now I want to add 2 points to this: first, while I think I understand this policy, I'm not at all sure I agree with it. I think Saints' implied criticism is pretty accurate: it's a dishonest policy and it makes us look weak around the world. I can see the merits as well, so I remain unsure.

My second point is that I suspect that the roots of this policy does not come from the Obama administration but instead from "experts" in our State Department who have been around for decades and who inevitably urge great caution with regard to ANY fiirm statement by the President in any issue of foreign policy. They prefer us to be ambiguous at all times on all subjects.

 

[fatguyinalittlecoat]

Very simple, here. The reason that "two senators per state" isn't antiquated is that the smaller states would never have agreed to form a union in the first place without that stipulation,

This seems like the definition of antiquated. That was over 200 years ago.

nor would the small states now agree to remain in the union were that stipulation removed.

I'd like to hear more about what you think would happen here. Would Rhode Island would become its own country? Or would it join forces with Wyoming and the Dakotas to make some weird patchwork country? Neither of these scenarios seems likely to me.

 

[Yankee23Fan]

Good morning. Saints raised a great question in another thread: why does the USA, unlike France, hesitate to say outright that we are at war with radical Islam?

My opinion is that Obama and co hesitate because, while everybody knows we are at war with radical Islam, they believe it gains nothing to say it, but risks much. The USA is not France; we are considered the leader of the western world and thus our rhetotic must at all times be more cautious. As I pointed out in an earlier post, our goal is to keep the "moderate" Muslim at home and keep our allies in the Muslim world on our side. Suggesting publicly that we are at war with ANY kind of Islam, radical or not, works against those goals and that's why we don't do it.

Now I want to add 2 points to this: first, while I think I understand this policy, I'm not at all sure I agree with it. I think Saints' implied criticism is pretty accurate: it's a dishonest policy and it makes us look weak around the world. I can see the merits as well, so I remain unsure.

My second point is that I suspect that the roots of this policy does not come from the Obama administration but instead from "experts" in our State Department who have been around for decades and who inevitably urge great caution with regard to ANY fiirm statement by the President in any issue of foreign policy. They prefer us to be ambiguous at all times on all subjects.

One of the more important aspects of being a leader is being able to define for your subjects (a word defined many different ways) a clear path, plan, promise and outcome. We might be leaders of the world but if we refuse to define for ourselves, let alone the people that we want to follow us, what exactly it is we are doing, it becomes fairly difficult to lead. The criticism is justified. A leader also does what he thinks is right, damn the consequences so long as the people he is leading fell that his actions are in their best interest or he convinces them they are. Our greatest leaders in world history could get their people to run into a burning building or did so themselves for the greater good as they defined it.

As some point, you need to stop throwing over to first and challenge the hitter.

Oh, I like that. I'm going to use that one again. Probably today.

 

[timschochet]

I like the baseball reference as well. But I'm still not sure it applies. Is calling out radical Islam really "challenging the hitter"? The real question is: are we truly prepared to challenge the hitter at this time?

Take a look at everything we have tried to do so far to win this war: We have invaded Afghanistan; toppled the Taliban, and installed a government friendlier to our interests. We did the same thing in Iraq. We have thrown billions of dollars at countries that we thought would help us. We have bombed the Islamic State continuously. We have sent drone after drone at every terrorist leader we can find. We have also captured and tortured some of them. We have given our NSA unbridled power at the risk of civil liberties.

Every one of these actions have been heavily criticized, with much justification. We may be no closer to victory in this struggle than we were on September 12, 2001. Hell, I can't even tell you what victory means. Radical Islam, unlike the Confederacy or Imperial Germany or Nazi Germany or the Japanese, is not going to surrender and lay down their arms. Nor does it look like they will crumble of their own accord like the USSR did. So what now?

 

[jon_mx]

Very simple, here. The reason that "two senators per state" isn't antiquated is that the smaller states would never have agreed to form a union in the first place without that stipulation,

This seems like the definition of antiquated. That was over 200 years ago.

nor would the small states now agree to remain in the union were that stipulation removed.

I'd like to hear more about what you think would happen here. Would Rhode Island would become its own country? Or would it join forces with Wyoming and the Dakotas to make some weird patchwork country? Neither of these scenarios seems likely to me.

That is a bait and switch tactic though. You entice people in, granting them equal power in one chamber of Congress while conceding power in the other, only to use your size advantage later to take away that balance. To me it was one of the many brilliant compromises which gave proper balance of power that we have slowly been taking away.

 

[fatguyinalittlecoat]

Very simple, here. The reason that "two senators per state" isn't antiquated is that the smaller states would never have agreed to form a union in the first place without that stipulation,

This seems like the definition of antiquated. That was over 200 years ago.

nor would the small states now agree to remain in the union were that stipulation removed.

I'd like to hear more about what you think would happen here. Would Rhode Island would become its own country? Or would it join forces with Wyoming and the Dakotas to make some weird patchwork country? Neither of these scenarios seems likely to me.

That is a bait and switch tactic though. You entice people in, granting them equal power in one chamber of Congress while conceding power in the other, only to use your size advantage later to take away that balance. To me it was one of the many brilliant compromises which gave proper balance of power that we have slowly been taking away.

That would be a decent argument if we were having this discussion a few years after the Constitution was ratified. Nobody alive today was "bait and switched." We were all just born into (or immigrated into) this weird historical anomaly. My impression is that people back then identified much more closely as "Virginians" or "New Yorkers" than they did as "Americans" -- which made sense because the United States was just some new thing they hadn't lived with before. Today I don't think there's any comparison. Nationalism is way more of a personal identifier than state loyalty.

 

[tom22406]

Not sure if you went into the link I posted about Muhammed to ISIS but he did a blog post on the U.S. Presidents from Washington to Lincoln if you needed something to read while waiting.Pretty entertaining if nothing else and a good time waster.

http://waitbutwhy.com/2014/02/american-presidents-washington-lincoln.html

That's a great divide the guy did.

75 years from Washington to Lincoln, 75 years from Lincoln to FDR, 75 years from FDR to Obama. That is an excellent way to look at United States history. If I were teaching US History in high school or college, I'm pretty sure I would use this exact format. It's very clean- the eras really do change between those times.

However, for this to be a truly nice and clean analysis, Barack Obama's presidency would have to be transformational in the way Washington, Lincoln, and FDR were: and we as a nation would have to perceive ourselves differently from this point forward. I kind of doubt that either is really the case.

Maybe after you are done with the Constitution you can go into this with more detail?

Glad you enjoyed it and I do hope the blogger continues on from where he left off.

 

[IvanKaramazov]

Good morning. Saints raised a great question in another thread: why does the USA, unlike France, hesitate to say outright that we are at war with radical Islam?

What we say: "We're at war with radical Islam."

What they hear: "We're at war with Islam."

 

[timschochet]

Good morning. Saints raised a great question in another thread: why does the USA, unlike France, hesitate to say outright that we are at war with radical Islam?

What we say: "We're at war with radical Islam."

What they hear: "We're at war with Islam."

That was pretty much my point. That's the State Department argument I believe.

 

[Gawain]

Very simple, here. The reason that "two senators per state" isn't antiquated is that the smaller states would never have agreed to form a union in the first place without that stipulation,

This seems like the definition of antiquated. That was over 200 years ago.

nor would the small states now agree to remain in the union were that stipulation removed.

I'd like to hear more about what you think would happen here. Would Rhode Island would become its own country? Or would it join forces with Wyoming and the Dakotas to make some weird patchwork country? Neither of these scenarios seems likely to me.

That is a bait and switch tactic though. You entice people in, granting them equal power in one chamber of Congress while conceding power in the other, only to use your size advantage later to take away that balance. To me it was one of the many brilliant compromises which gave proper balance of power that we have slowly been taking away.

That would be a decent argument if we were having this discussion a few years after the Constitution was ratified. Nobody alive today was "bait and switched." We were all just born into (or immigrated into) this weird historical anomaly. My impression is that people back then identified much more closely as "Virginians" or "New Yorkers" than they did as "Americans" -- which made sense because the United States was just some new thing they hadn't lived with before. Today I don't think there's any comparison. Nationalism is way more of a personal identifier than state loyalty.

It stems back to the Civil War and the change from the "United States is" to the "United States are" that we are familiar with today.

I wish I could remember who first advanced this theory because it really cuts to the heart of the federal government's usurpation of the role traditionally held by the states.

 

[Yankee23Fan]

I like the baseball reference as well. But I'm still not sure it applies. Is calling out radical Islam really "challenging the hitter"? The real question is: are we truly prepared to challenge the hitter at this time?

Take a look at everything we have tried to do so far to win this war: We have invaded Afghanistan; toppled the Taliban, and installed a government friendlier to our interests. We did the same thing in Iraq. We have thrown billions of dollars at countries that we thought would help us. We have bombed the Islamic State continuously. We have sent drone after drone at every terrorist leader we can find. We have also captured and tortured some of them. We have given our NSA unbridled power at the risk of civil liberties.

Every one of these actions have been heavily criticized, with much justification. We may be no closer to victory in this struggle than we were on September 12, 2001. Hell, I can't even tell you what victory means. Radical Islam, unlike the Confederacy or Imperial Germany or Nazi Germany or the Japanese, is not going to surrender and lay down their arms. Nor does it look like they will crumble of their own accord like the USSR did. So what now?

I think it is and I think we are to a degree of course. The problem is that, you are right, our government - Bush and Obama both - have not clearly defined the end game here. We don't know what the plan is. Now obviously, you don't tell the enemy your plan and so there are some things we just aren't going to know. But the first step is do we know there is even a plan? I'm not so sure we do.

Victory is going to mean that the islamic terrorist becomes what the mob guy is now. Still out there. Still doing their thing here and there. But for the most part, under constant survalliance and threat of imminent arrest or worse and their ability to affect the greater populace is almost nulified. Of course, a bookie and a suicide bomber have different scales of interaction with the public, but the idea is there. You can't ever really eradicate someone or something that is truly willing to die for a cause. So part of this has to be getting rid of that cause which means some form of global outreach to end the poverty of the parts of the world where this is a massive problem.

So, if we are the pitcher controlling the pace of the game and most important singular player on the field and the hitter is the greater islamic terrorist movement and they already have a guy or two on base, the question is how much defense to the run do we play and lose the hitter in the process, or do we challange the hitter and sacrifice if necessary a run. (I don't like this one as much as the last one but I'm trying to continue the theme). Does the pitcher have a gameplan for this hitter? Has he thrown his best pitch yet or is he setting up the best pitch? I don't know completely. I know we are trying. The world is trying in varying degrees. Is it enough. And do we have Sandy Koufax on the hill or a AAA guy that called up recently? (That one works too. I need to do more baseball stuff in this thread.)

 

[Yankee23Fan]

Very simple, here. The reason that "two senators per state" isn't antiquated is that the smaller states would never have agreed to form a union in the first place without that stipulation,

This seems like the definition of antiquated. That was over 200 years ago.

nor would the small states now agree to remain in the union were that stipulation removed.

I'd like to hear more about what you think would happen here. Would Rhode Island would become its own country? Or would it join forces with Wyoming and the Dakotas to make some weird patchwork country? Neither of these scenarios seems likely to me.

That is a bait and switch tactic though. You entice people in, granting them equal power in one chamber of Congress while conceding power in the other, only to use your size advantage later to take away that balance. To me it was one of the many brilliant compromises which gave proper balance of power that we have slowly been taking away.

That would be a decent argument if we were having this discussion a few years after the Constitution was ratified. Nobody alive today was "bait and switched." We were all just born into (or immigrated into) this weird historical anomaly. My impression is that people back then identified much more closely as "Virginians" or "New Yorkers" than they did as "Americans" -- which made sense because the United States was just some new thing they hadn't lived with before. Today I don't think there's any comparison. Nationalism is way more of a personal identifier than state loyalty.

I can agree with your concept that the argument that the states didn't sign up for that in 1787 and this is a far different time. I get that. I don't agree at all that we need to eradicate the republican nature of our government or change it in pretty much any way that you have talked about. But assuming that the change is necessary, the Senate really shouldn't exist at all. What you want is more democratic system than republican and with that the need for a bicameral legislature is a waste. So with that the idea to just give states more Senators based on population is a mistake because you are making the Senate operate within a system that it wasn't built for nor, under your new ideal, needed. The better plan is to eliminate the Senate and increase the representation in the House and modify the legislative process to have everything come out of the one legislature.

So, a President elected solely by national popular vote, a unicameral legislature and no recognition at all on a national level of the entity that is a state any more than still teaching school kids the Fifty Nifty United States song. That is the better result of your argument. So argue for that, and not keeping the Senate in some way. Hell, the Senate is close to useless now in its current form. Changing it even more just ties the government in knots you don't need. Just get rid of it.

I don't agree at all with any single part of that (although I still know the Fifty Nifty United States song) but that is your better argument.

 

[IvanKaramazov]

Good morning. Saints raised a great question in another thread: why does the USA, unlike France, hesitate to say outright that we are at war with radical Islam?

What we say: "We're at war with radical Islam."

What they hear: "We're at war with Islam."

That was pretty much my point. That's the State Department argument I believe.

I get what you're saying, and like you, I would prefer that our leaders be honest and forthright.

But you don't have to look very far to see how that plays out. We've had lots of threads discussing Islamic terrorism. Within the first few posts the regular assortment of idiots/trolls show up with the same tired arguments about how we're lumping all muslims together (not true) and how Christianity is really just as bad because somebody blew up an abortion clinic a few years ago. And those are non-muslim westerners who theoretically share our liberal values. If you can't sell a properly-nuanced message to the people who are supposed to be on our side, how are you going to sell it to the people of Tehran?

 

[Yankee23Fan]

Not sure if you went into the link I posted about Muhammed to ISIS but he did a blog post on the U.S. Presidents from Washington to Lincoln if you needed something to read while waiting.Pretty entertaining if nothing else and a good time waster.

http://waitbutwhy.com/2014/02/american-presidents-washington-lincoln.html

That's a great divide the guy did.

75 years from Washington to Lincoln, 75 years from Lincoln to FDR, 75 years from FDR to Obama. That is an excellent way to look at United States history. If I were teaching US History in high school or college, I'm pretty sure I would use this exact format. It's very clean- the eras really do change between those times.

However, for this to be a truly nice and clean analysis, Barack Obama's presidency would have to be transformational in the way Washington, Lincoln, and FDR were: and we as a nation would have to perceive ourselves differently from this point forward. I kind of doubt that either is really the case.

Maybe after you are done with the Constitution you can go into this with more detail?

Glad you enjoyed it and I do hope the blogger continues on from where he left off.

I think it's a little too simplistic. Within those 75 year blocks there were some massive changes that could be their own political eras. I prefer the standard founders through Monroe, next generation through pre-civil war, Lincoln to reconstruction/turn of the century, early 20th up to WWII, Truman to Reagan and then the post cold war world of Bush 1 to current. I think that works better.

 

[tom22406]

Not sure if you went into the link I posted about Muhammed to ISIS but he did a blog post on the U.S. Presidents from Washington to Lincoln if you needed something to read while waiting.Pretty entertaining if nothing else and a good time waster.

http://waitbutwhy.com/2014/02/american-presidents-washington-lincoln.html

That's a great divide the guy did.

75 years from Washington to Lincoln, 75 years from Lincoln to FDR, 75 years from FDR to Obama. That is an excellent way to look at United States history. If I were teaching US History in high school or college, I'm pretty sure I would use this exact format. It's very clean- the eras really do change between those times.

However, for this to be a truly nice and clean analysis, Barack Obama's presidency would have to be transformational in the way Washington, Lincoln, and FDR were: and we as a nation would have to perceive ourselves differently from this point forward. I kind of doubt that either is really the case.

Maybe after you are done with the Constitution you can go into this with more detail?

Glad you enjoyed it and I do hope the blogger continues on from where he left off.

I think it's a little too simplistic.

Just going over his work I think that is his goal in his postings so that just about anybody can get what he's saying.I agree with you though in the rest of your post.

 

[fatguyinalittlecoat]

I can agree with your concept that the argument that the states didn't sign up for that in 1787 and this is a far different time. I get that. I don't agree at all that we need to eradicate the republican nature of our government or change it in pretty much any way that you have talked about. But assuming that the change is necessary, the Senate really shouldn't exist at all. What you want is more democratic system than republican and with that the need for a bicameral legislature is a waste. So with that the idea to just give states more Senators based on population is a mistake because you are making the Senate operate within a system that it wasn't built for nor, under your new ideal, needed. The better plan is to eliminate the Senate and increase the representation in the House and modify the legislative process to have everything come out of the one legislature.

So, a President elected solely by national popular vote, a unicameral legislature and no recognition at all on a national level of the entity that is a state any more than still teaching school kids the Fifty Nifty United States song. That is the better result of your argument. So argue for that, and not keeping the Senate in some way. Hell, the Senate is close to useless now in its current form. Changing it even more just ties the government in knots you don't need. Just get rid of it.

I don't agree at all with any single part of that (although I still know the Fifty Nifty United States song) but that is your better argument.

Getting rid of the Senate works OK. I still like the idea of having a branch of the legislature with representation based on age groups rather than geographical regions. I think I share a lot more interests with 41-year-olds around the country than I do with my elderly neighbors. We kicked the age thing around back in the FFA Constitution thread I think.

 

[Yankee23Fan]

I can agree with your concept that the argument that the states didn't sign up for that in 1787 and this is a far different time. I get that. I don't agree at all that we need to eradicate the republican nature of our government or change it in pretty much any way that you have talked about. But assuming that the change is necessary, the Senate really shouldn't exist at all. What you want is more democratic system than republican and with that the need for a bicameral legislature is a waste. So with that the idea to just give states more Senators based on population is a mistake because you are making the Senate operate within a system that it wasn't built for nor, under your new ideal, needed. The better plan is to eliminate the Senate and increase the representation in the House and modify the legislative process to have everything come out of the one legislature.

So, a President elected solely by national popular vote, a unicameral legislature and no recognition at all on a national level of the entity that is a state any more than still teaching school kids the Fifty Nifty United States song. That is the better result of your argument. So argue for that, and not keeping the Senate in some way. Hell, the Senate is close to useless now in its current form. Changing it even more just ties the government in knots you don't need. Just get rid of it.

I don't agree at all with any single part of that (although I still know the Fifty Nifty United States song) but that is your better argument.

Getting rid of the Senate works OK. I still like the idea of having a branch of the legislature with representation based on age groups rather than geographical regions. I think I share a lot more interests with 41-year-olds around the country than I do with my elderly neighbors. We kicked the age thing around back in the FFA Constitution thread I think.

We did and it's an awful idea. But fun to talk about.

 

[SaintsInDome2006]

Good morning. Saints raised a great question in another thread: why does the USA, unlike France, hesitate to say outright that we are at war with radical Islam?

My opinion is that Obama and co hesitate because, while everybody knows we are at war with radical Islam, they believe it gains nothing to say it, but risks much. The USA is not France; we are considered the leader of the western world and thus our rhetotic must at all times be more cautious. As I pointed out in an earlier post, our goal is to keep the "moderate" Muslim at home and keep our allies in the Muslim world on our side. Suggesting publicly that we are at war with ANY kind of Islam, radical or not, works against those goals and that's why we don't do it.

Now I want to add 2 points to this: first, while I think I understand this policy, I'm not at all sure I agree with it. I think Saints' implied criticism is pretty accurate: it's a dishonest policy and it makes us look weak around the world. I can see the merits as well, so I remain unsure.

My second point is that I suspect that the roots of this policy does not come from the Obama administration but instead from "experts" in our State Department who have been around for decades and who inevitably urge great caution with regard to ANY fiirm statement by the President in any issue of foreign policy. They prefer us to be ambiguous at all times on all subjects.

Buena Manana.

I'm going to go ahead and provide the supposition (and it's just that) that Pres. Obama grew up a good part in Indonesia, was taught in some muslim schools, comes from a muslim background (stepfather, father, grandfather, relatives in Kenya (though I realize the father at least became an avowed atheist and socialist)), and in general feels offended by this whole concept because he's personally affected by it.

Now, you may be right, I know there are experts and academics (and posters here) who wisely say that we must not conflate islamic terrorism/extremism/fundamentalism or islamism/jihadism with islam itself, and that suggesting such leads to negative consequences in its own right, I get that, it's a subtle, thin line.

But lines can be crossed both ways and failing to call this what it is seems insane, pointless, almost self-denial, and I can't imagine that any of these experts or academics actually take it to this remarkable level. As shown in the original thread this mindset has been with Obama since the beginning of his administration. It's more or less a White House rule and I think it comes from him.

 

[timschochet]

Good morning. Saints raised a great question in another thread: why does the USA, unlike France, hesitate to say outright that we are at war with radical Islam?

What we say: "We're at war with radical Islam."

What they hear: "We're at war with Islam."

That was pretty much my point. That's the State Department argument I believe.

I get what you're saying, and like you, I would prefer that our leaders be honest and forthright.

But you don't have to look very far to see how that plays out. We've had lots of threads discussing Islamic terrorism. Within the first few posts the regular assortment of idiots/trolls show up with the same tired arguments about how we're lumping all muslims together (not true) and how Christianity is really just as bad because somebody blew up an abortion clinic a few years ago. And those are non-muslim westerners who theoretically share our liberal values. If you can't sell a properly-nuanced message to the people who are supposed to be on our side, how are you going to sell it to the people of Tehran?

This is an extremely important post. First off you described what is my biggest frustration with all of the threads about Islamic terrorism: that the exact same people show up on both sides: the "tough" conservative types who want to deck every Muslim they see, and the "in your face atheist" types who want to tell us that ALL religion is equally bad but always seem to focus on Christianity. No matter how promising a thread starts it always ends up being dragged down into that argument, and reasonable people get dragged down with it. I'm only lucky that in THIS thread those two groups are either not paying attention or they detest me and won't partake in this discussion- either way, they haven't chosrn to infiltrate this thread yet and I hope that continues.

 

[timschochet]

Good morning. Saints raised a great question in another thread: why does the USA, unlike France, hesitate to say outright that we are at war with radical Islam?

My opinion is that Obama and co hesitate because, while everybody knows we are at war with radical Islam, they believe it gains nothing to say it, but risks much. The USA is not France; we are considered the leader of the western world and thus our rhetotic must at all times be more cautious. As I pointed out in an earlier post, our goal is to keep the "moderate" Muslim at home and keep our allies in the Muslim world on our side. Suggesting publicly that we are at war with ANY kind of Islam, radical or not, works against those goals and that's why we don't do it.

Now I want to add 2 points to this: first, while I think I understand this policy, I'm not at all sure I agree with it. I think Saints' implied criticism is pretty accurate: it's a dishonest policy and it makes us look weak around the world. I can see the merits as well, so I remain unsure.

My second point is that I suspect that the roots of this policy does not come from the Obama administration but instead from "experts" in our State Department who have been around for decades and who inevitably urge great caution with regard to ANY fiirm statement by the President in any issue of foreign policy. They prefer us to be ambiguous at all times on all subjects.

Buena Manana.

I'm going to go ahead and provide the supposition (and it's just that) that Pres. Obama grew up a good part in Indonesia, was taught in some muslim schools, comes from a muslim background (stepfather, father, grandfather, relatives in Kenya (though I realize the father at least became an avowed atheist and socialist)), and in general feels offended by this whole concept because he's personally affected by it.

Now, you may be right, I know there are experts and academics (and posters here) who wisely say that we must not conflate islamic terrorism/extremism/fundamentalism or islamism/jihadism with islam itself, and that suggesting such leads to negative consequences in its own right, I get that, it's a subtle, thin line.

But lines can be crossed both ways and failing to call this what it is seems insane, pointless, almost self-denial, and I can't imagine that any of these experts or academics actually take it to this remarkable level. As shown in the original thread this mindset has been with Obama since the beginning of his administration. It's more or less a White House rule and I think it comes from him.

You're repeating that Dinesh D'Souza stuff from that movie. IMO it's crap. Obama's upbringing has nothing to do with it. Clinton and Bush were just as reluctant to talk about radical Islam. It's a tactical policy, not a political philosophy.

 

[SaintsInDome2006]

Good morning. Saints raised a great question in another thread: why does the USA, unlike France, hesitate to say outright that we are at war with radical Islam?

My opinion is that Obama and co hesitate because, while everybody knows we are at war with radical Islam, they believe it gains nothing to say it, but risks much. The USA is not France; we are considered the leader of the western world and thus our rhetotic must at all times be more cautious. As I pointed out in an earlier post, our goal is to keep the "moderate" Muslim at home and keep our allies in the Muslim world on our side. Suggesting publicly that we are at war with ANY kind of Islam, radical or not, works against those goals and that's why we don't do it.

Now I want to add 2 points to this: first, while I think I understand this policy, I'm not at all sure I agree with it. I think Saints' implied criticism is pretty accurate: it's a dishonest policy and it makes us look weak around the world. I can see the merits as well, so I remain unsure.

My second point is that I suspect that the roots of this policy does not come from the Obama administration but instead from "experts" in our State Department who have been around for decades and who inevitably urge great caution with regard to ANY fiirm statement by the President in any issue of foreign policy. They prefer us to be ambiguous at all times on all subjects.

Buena Manana.

I'm going to go ahead and provide the supposition (and it's just that) that Pres. Obama grew up a good part in Indonesia, was taught in some muslim schools, comes from a muslim background (stepfather, father, grandfather, relatives in Kenya (though I realize the father at least became an avowed atheist and socialist)), and in general feels offended by this whole concept because he's personally affected by it.

Now, you may be right, I know there are experts and academics (and posters here) who wisely say that we must not conflate islamic terrorism/extremism/fundamentalism or islamism/jihadism with islam itself, and that suggesting such leads to negative consequences in its own right, I get that, it's a subtle, thin line.

But lines can be crossed both ways and failing to call this what it is seems insane, pointless, almost self-denial, and I can't imagine that any of these experts or academics actually take it to this remarkable level. As shown in the original thread this mindset has been with Obama since the beginning of his administration. It's more or less a White House rule and I think it comes from him.

You're repeating that Dinesh D'Souza stuff from that movie. IMO it's crap. Obama's upbringing has nothing to do with it. Clinton and Bush were just as reluctant to talk about radical Islam. It's a tactical policy, not a political philosophy.

I don't think you're right about that. Bush took pains to be clear that islam itself was not an enemy but at the same time he and his administration were unequivocal on calling it islamic terrorism and referring to muslim extremism, and Clinton didn't avoid the language as I recall.

By the way I take it you're not denying the facts about his early upbringing, only the effect it may have on him now. Those facts come from Obama himself and his autobiographies.

 

[tom22406]

Good morning. Saints raised a great question in another thread: why does the USA, unlike France, hesitate to say outright that we are at war with radical Islam?

My opinion is that Obama and co hesitate because, while everybody knows we are at war with radical Islam, they believe it gains nothing to say it, but risks much. The USA is not France; we are considered the leader of the western world and thus our rhetotic must at all times be more cautious. As I pointed out in an earlier post, our goal is to keep the "moderate" Muslim at home and keep our allies in the Muslim world on our side. Suggesting publicly that we are at war with ANY kind of Islam, radical or not, works against those goals and that's why we don't do it.

Now I want to add 2 points to this: first, while I think I understand this policy, I'm not at all sure I agree with it. I think Saints' implied criticism is pretty accurate: it's a dishonest policy and it makes us look weak around the world. I can see the merits as well, so I remain unsure.

My second point is that I suspect that the roots of this policy does not come from the Obama administration but instead from "experts" in our State Department who have been around for decades and who inevitably urge great caution with regard to ANY fiirm statement by the President in any issue of foreign policy. They prefer us to be ambiguous at all times on all subjects.

Buena Manana.

I'm going to go ahead and provide the supposition (and it's just that) that Pres. Obama grew up a good part in Indonesia, was taught in some muslim schools, comes from a muslim background (stepfather, father, grandfather, relatives in Kenya (though I realize the father at least became an avowed atheist and socialist)), and in general feels offended by this whole concept because he's personally affected by it.

Now, you may be right, I know there are experts and academics (and posters here) who wisely say that we must not conflate islamic terrorism/extremism/fundamentalism or islamism/jihadism with islam itself, and that suggesting such leads to negative consequences in its own right, I get that, it's a subtle, thin line.

But lines can be crossed both ways and failing to call this what it is seems insane, pointless, almost self-denial, and I can't imagine that any of these experts or academics actually take it to this remarkable level. As shown in the original thread this mindset has been with Obama since the beginning of his administration. It's more or less a White House rule and I think it comes from him.

You're repeating that Dinesh D'Souza stuff from that movie. IMO it's crap. Obama's upbringing has nothing to do with it. Clinton and Bush were just as reluctant to talk about radical Islam. It's a tactical policy, not a political philosophy.

I don't think you're right about that. Bush took pains to be clear that islam itself was not an enemy but at the same time he and his administration were unequivocal on calling it islamic terrorism and referring to muslim extremism, and Clinton didn't avoid the language as I recall.

By the way I take it you're not denying the facts about his early upbringing, only the effect it may have on him now. Those facts come from Obama himself and his autobiographies.

I found this regarding Bush

http://www.danielpipes.org/2021/president-bush-and-naming-the-enemy

 

[timschochet]

The other, even more important point that Ivan made is how difficult nuanced thought is. And that leads to a larger idea which ties into the discussion about the Constitution and why a republican form of government is superior to a democratic form of government: because the latter is incapable of nuanced thinking and decision making. By the time any issue gets to the public, they seek the simplest and clearest solution, which is often (though not always) the wrong solution. This is the main reason I so dislike populism, because it's designed to appeal to the lowest common denominator and is almost wholly bad.

Now that being said, I don't necessarily agree with Yankee's premise that we need states in order to have senators or a republican form of government. But that's a separate issue.

 

[timschochet]

Good morning. Saints raised a great question in another thread: why does the USA, unlike France, hesitate to say outright that we are at war with radical Islam?

My opinion is that Obama and co hesitate because, while everybody knows we are at war with radical Islam, they believe it gains nothing to say it, but risks much. The USA is not France; we are considered the leader of the western world and thus our rhetotic must at all times be more cautious. As I pointed out in an earlier post, our goal is to keep the "moderate" Muslim at home and keep our allies in the Muslim world on our side. Suggesting publicly that we are at war with ANY kind of Islam, radical or not, works against those goals and that's why we don't do it.

Now I want to add 2 points to this: first, while I think I understand this policy, I'm not at all sure I agree with it. I think Saints' implied criticism is pretty accurate: it's a dishonest policy and it makes us look weak around the world. I can see the merits as well, so I remain unsure.

My second point is that I suspect that the roots of this policy does not come from the Obama administration but instead from "experts" in our State Department who have been around for decades and who inevitably urge great caution with regard to ANY fiirm statement by the President in any issue of foreign policy. They prefer us to be ambiguous at all times on all subjects.

Buena Manana.

I'm going to go ahead and provide the supposition (and it's just that) that Pres. Obama grew up a good part in Indonesia, was taught in some muslim schools, comes from a muslim background (stepfather, father, grandfather, relatives in Kenya (though I realize the father at least became an avowed atheist and socialist)), and in general feels offended by this whole concept because he's personally affected by it.

Now, you may be right, I know there are experts and academics (and posters here) who wisely say that we must not conflate islamic terrorism/extremism/fundamentalism or islamism/jihadism with islam itself, and that suggesting such leads to negative consequences in its own right, I get that, it's a subtle, thin line.

But lines can be crossed both ways and failing to call this what it is seems insane, pointless, almost self-denial, and I can't imagine that any of these experts or academics actually take it to this remarkable level. As shown in the original thread this mindset has been with Obama since the beginning of his administration. It's more or less a White House rule and I think it comes from him.

You're repeating that Dinesh D'Souza stuff from that movie. IMO it's crap. Obama's upbringing has nothing to do with it. Clinton and Bush were just as reluctant to talk about radical Islam. It's a tactical policy, not a political philosophy.

I don't think you're right about that. Bush took pains to be clear that islam itself was not an enemy but at the same time he and his administration were unequivocal on calling it islamic terrorism and referring to muslim extremism, and Clinton didn't avoid the language as I recall.

By the way I take it you're not denying the facts about his early upbringing, only the effect it may have on him now. Those facts come from Obama himself and his autobiographies.

I found this regarding Bushhttp://www.danielpipes.org/2021/president-bush-and-naming-the-enemy

And even that article shows how cautious Bush was. On very rare occasions he used words like "radical Islam" and "Islamic terror"- Obama may have as well, I don't know- but most of the time both Presidents have avoided it. And I guarantee you that's not coming from them; it's coming from the State Department.

 

[Yankee23Fan]

The other, even more important point that Ivan made is how difficult nuanced thought is. And that leads to a larger idea which ties into the discussion about the Constitution and why a republican form of government is superior to a democratic form of government: because the latter is incapable of nuanced thinking and decision making. By the time any issue gets to the public, they seek the simplest and clearest solution, which is often (though not always) the wrong solution. This is the main reason I so dislike populism, because it's designed to appeal to the lowest common denominator and is almost wholly bad.

Now that being said, I don't necessarily agree with Yankee's premise that we need states in order to have senators or a republican form of government. But that's a separate issue.

I didn't say that. The constitutional discussion is being had within the framework of the Constitution itself. When I discuss the history of the debates, the founders, the ideas behind the words used and systems created I have done it in the confines of the document itself. I haven't quoted the Magna Carta or anything else for that type of unrelated nuance. I've stuck to the Constitution as an entity. Within the confines of that argument, the republican system set up needs the original Senate to function properly. Every statement I have written about the Senate is in that context.

This is why I responded to fatguy like I did. Within the confines of the Constitution the Senate based on population is a uselss entity. It is functionaly useless and the government would function better with a single legislature. It would be more democratic. You could certainly try to keep it as republican as possible, but in making the sole legislative body of the national government totally democratic you are going to lose a significant amount of republican designs in the system. The republic we have is based on everything we have discussed. Removing those systems - the states, the EC, whatever - changes the very nature of the structure. And that structure is from the Constitution. My argument is that inside the Constitution the solely democratic legislature doesn't work in the manner in which the system created by the document requires.

 

[timschochet]

Saints, about Obama's upbringing- I don't confirm or deny- I'm not well-informed about it. But since he has governed this country as a moderately liberal centrist, and since his foreign policy is almost entirely the same as all of his recent predecessors, I don't see the relevance one way or the other. Obama's no radical.

 

[SaintsInDome2006]

Good morning. Saints raised a great question in another thread: why does the USA, unlike France, hesitate to say outright that we are at war with radical Islam?

My opinion is that Obama and co hesitate because, while everybody knows we are at war with radical Islam, they believe it gains nothing to say it, but risks much. The USA is not France; we are considered the leader of the western world and thus our rhetotic must at all times be more cautious. As I pointed out in an earlier post, our goal is to keep the "moderate" Muslim at home and keep our allies in the Muslim world on our side. Suggesting publicly that we are at war with ANY kind of Islam, radical or not, works against those goals and that's why we don't do it.

Now I want to add 2 points to this: first, while I think I understand this policy, I'm not at all sure I agree with it. I think Saints' implied criticism is pretty accurate: it's a dishonest policy and it makes us look weak around the world. I can see the merits as well, so I remain unsure.

My second point is that I suspect that the roots of this policy does not come from the Obama administration but instead from "experts" in our State Department who have been around for decades and who inevitably urge great caution with regard to ANY fiirm statement by the President in any issue of foreign policy. They prefer us to be ambiguous at all times on all subjects.

Buena Manana.

I'm going to go ahead and provide the supposition (and it's just that) that Pres. Obama grew up a good part in Indonesia, was taught in some muslim schools, comes from a muslim background (stepfather, father, grandfather, relatives in Kenya (though I realize the father at least became an avowed atheist and socialist)), and in general feels offended by this whole concept because he's personally affected by it.

Now, you may be right, I know there are experts and academics (and posters here) who wisely say that we must not conflate islamic terrorism/extremism/fundamentalism or islamism/jihadism with islam itself, and that suggesting such leads to negative consequences in its own right, I get that, it's a subtle, thin line.

But lines can be crossed both ways and failing to call this what it is seems insane, pointless, almost self-denial, and I can't imagine that any of these experts or academics actually take it to this remarkable level. As shown in the original thread this mindset has been with Obama since the beginning of his administration. It's more or less a White House rule and I think it comes from him.

You're repeating that Dinesh D'Souza stuff from that movie. IMO it's crap. Obama's upbringing has nothing to do with it. Clinton and Bush were just as reluctant to talk about radical Islam. It's a tactical policy, not a political philosophy.

I don't think you're right about that. Bush took pains to be clear that islam itself was not an enemy but at the same time he and his administration were unequivocal on calling it islamic terrorism and referring to muslim extremism, and Clinton didn't avoid the language as I recall.

By the way I take it you're not denying the facts about his early upbringing, only the effect it may have on him now. Those facts come from Obama himself and his autobiographies.

I found this regarding Bush

http://www.danielpipes.org/2021/president-bush-and-naming-the-enemy

First of all, Tom, thanks.

 

[SaintsInDome2006]

Good morning. Saints raised a great question in another thread: why does the USA, unlike France, hesitate to say outright that we are at war with radical Islam?

My opinion is that Obama and co hesitate because, while everybody knows we are at war with radical Islam, they believe it gains nothing to say it, but risks much. The USA is not France; we are considered the leader of the western world and thus our rhetotic must at all times be more cautious. As I pointed out in an earlier post, our goal is to keep the "moderate" Muslim at home and keep our allies in the Muslim world on our side. Suggesting publicly that we are at war with ANY kind of Islam, radical or not, works against those goals and that's why we don't do it.

Now I want to add 2 points to this: first, while I think I understand this policy, I'm not at all sure I agree with it. I think Saints' implied criticism is pretty accurate: it's a dishonest policy and it makes us look weak around the world. I can see the merits as well, so I remain unsure.

My second point is that I suspect that the roots of this policy does not come from the Obama administration but instead from "experts" in our State Department who have been around for decades and who inevitably urge great caution with regard to ANY fiirm statement by the President in any issue of foreign policy. They prefer us to be ambiguous at all times on all subjects.

Buena Manana.

I'm going to go ahead and provide the supposition (and it's just that) that Pres. Obama grew up a good part in Indonesia, was taught in some muslim schools, comes from a muslim background (stepfather, father, grandfather, relatives in Kenya (though I realize the father at least became an avowed atheist and socialist)), and in general feels offended by this whole concept because he's personally affected by it.

Now, you may be right, I know there are experts and academics (and posters here) who wisely say that we must not conflate islamic terrorism/extremism/fundamentalism or islamism/jihadism with islam itself, and that suggesting such leads to negative consequences in its own right, I get that, it's a subtle, thin line.

But lines can be crossed both ways and failing to call this what it is seems insane, pointless, almost self-denial, and I can't imagine that any of these experts or academics actually take it to this remarkable level. As shown in the original thread this mindset has been with Obama since the beginning of his administration. It's more or less a White House rule and I think it comes from him.

You're repeating that Dinesh D'Souza stuff from that movie. IMO it's crap. Obama's upbringing has nothing to do with it. Clinton and Bush were just as reluctant to talk about radical Islam. It's a tactical policy, not a political philosophy.

I don't think you're right about that. Bush took pains to be clear that islam itself was not an enemy but at the same time he and his administration were unequivocal on calling it islamic terrorism and referring to muslim extremism, and Clinton didn't avoid the language as I recall.

By the way I take it you're not denying the facts about his early upbringing, only the effect it may have on him now. Those facts come from Obama himself and his autobiographies.

I found this regarding Bushhttp://www.danielpipes.org/2021/president-bush-and-naming-the-enemy

And even that article shows how cautious Bush was. On very rare occasions he used words like "radical Islam" and "Islamic terror"- Obama may have as well, I don't know- but most of the time both Presidents have avoided it. And I guarantee you that's not coming from them; it's coming from the State Department.

Secondly, that's Daniel Pipes and it's full of instances where Bush was specific about islamic terrorism, for example, 2007:

the evil and hatred that inspired the death of tens of millions of people in the 20th century is still at work in the world. We saw its face on September the 11th, 2001. Like the Communists, the terrorists and radicals who attacked our nation are followers of a murderous ideology that despises freedom, crushes all dissent, has expansionist ambitions and pursues totalitarian aims. Like the Communists, our new enemies believe the innocent can be murdered to serve a radical vision. Like the Communists, our new enemies are dismissive of free peoples, claiming that those of us who live in liberty are weak and lack the resolve to defend our free way of life. And like the Communists, the followers of violent Islamic radicalism are doomed to fail. By remaining steadfast in freedom's cause, we will ensure that a future American president does not have to stand in a place like this and dedicate a memorial to the millions killed by the radicals and extremists of the 21st century.

I'm not sure how much of this I have to do but he has numerous examples.

 

[SaintsInDome2006]

Saints, about Obama's upbringing- I don't confirm or deny- I'm not well-informed about it. But since he has governed this country as a moderately liberal centrist, and since his foreign policy is almost entirely the same as all of his recent predecessors, I don't see the relevance one way or the other. Obama's no radical.

It's readily available in his autobiographies in any Barnes & Noble. You don't have to buy any, they're easy enough to pick up and read. These are facts as told by him. And if you're not aware he has also done interviews with near hagiographers like Nicholas Kristoff where he claimed he could recite the muzzine's call in "near perfect Arabic." That's Obama's own claim.

But as to your final claim, that's the point, he is different from his predecessors in that regard. In fact he is different from the leader of almost every western nation in that regard. He is actually maybe unique in this take, which to me is bizarre in its insistence. And to go with that his upbringing is unique and completely different from his presidential predecessors. I don't know that policy and past are connected but I also don't think we can say they are not.

ETA - By the way - this does not make Obama a radical, even if true, not my point at all. Actually a good way to understand this is when Republicans or conservatives hear of some extremist group described as "right wing" and they get all full of umbrage and bowed up and say, 'those aren't true conservatives, that has nothing to do with being on the right...' etc. It's a natural reaction, and I think that's the kind of place he's coming from, doesn't mean he's a muslim, he just spent a formative part of his life in that milieu and he's personally, internally offended by the notion that saying "islamic terrorism" suggests that all muslims or all of islam is bad.

 

[timschochet]

Saints I'm sorry im just not buying it. In fact I think it's absurd, not far removed from the Birthers or the guys who want to see Obama's college records. It's World Net Daily conspiracy stuff.

I don't see any significant difference in Obama's governance, either foreign or domestic, from Bush or Clinton. Certainly nothing that has been radical or would indicate that he is a radical. The issue of using the term "radical Islam", while interesting, is pretty minor. I think you're chasing imaginary dragons here.

 

[SaintsInDome2006]

Saints I'm sorry im just not buying it. In fact I think it's absurd, not far removed from the Birthers or the guys who want to see Obama's college records. It's World Net Daily conspiracy stuff.

I don't see any significant difference in Obama's governance, either foreign or domestic, from Bush or Clinton. Certainly nothing that has been radical or would indicate that he is a radical. The issue of using the term "radical Islam", while interesting, is pretty minor. I think you're chasing imaginary dragons here.

We're speaking of just this one aspect, Tim, this singular issue, not his "governance".

In fact I said:

this does not make Obama a radical, even if true...

If the issue is minimal, fine, I'm ok with that, merely responding.

 

[Yankee23Fan]

Puff the magic dragon, lived by the sea, then he drowned himself because of this boring topic getting in the way of theoretical and historical discussions over the Constitution and the American political system which is the best system the world has ever created except for when we debate whether or not our President is a socialist because he thinks the government should actually govern for you and......... me.

Ha! Got it to rhyme at the end there.

 

[SaintsInDome2006]

Puff the magic dragon, lived by the sea, then he drowned himself because of this boring topic getting in the way of theoretical and historical discussions over the Constitution and the American political system which is the best system the world has ever created except for when we debate whether or not our President is a socialist because he thinks the government should actually govern for you and......... me.

Ha! Got it to rhyme at the end there.

Ok, ok, relax, not what I said but I agree since we're in a joint thread I'd much rather read your excellent stuff Yank no argument there. [Tips Hat]

 

[Yankee23Fan]

Christ, I thought I was posting in here too much but tim has me beat by a factor of 5. God man. Have you met a woman yet?

Because really I hope not. I like talking about the Constitution. Before I go home to my wife. You can keep posting though. She only needs me for like a good solid five and half minutes each night. It's that extra half minute that's the key.

 

[Yankee23Fan]

Puff the magic dragon, lived by the sea, then he drowned himself because of this boring topic getting in the way of theoretical and historical discussions over the Constitution and the American political system which is the best system the world has ever created except for when we debate whether or not our President is a socialist because he thinks the government should actually govern for you and......... me.

Ha! Got it to rhyme at the end there.

Ok, ok, relax, not what I said but I agree since we're in a joint thread I'd much rather read your excellent stuff Yank no argument there. [Tips Hat]

Eh, I'm just bored at the moment. Damn brief has me perplexed and it won't write itself.

To your overall point..... Obama grew up in a one team city. Let's call that city Philadelphia. He should be a Phillies fan. But he doesn't quite seem to like the Phillies all that much. To some of the more hard core fans. Because of that they found a few pictures of him at Yankee stadium and he's smiling! The audacity. And they weren't even playing the Phillies, they were playing the Mets. He shouldn't be there or being a fan for those teams. He should be a Philly fan and be a Philly fan the way we want him to be. Doesn't matter that he can recite the Phlly roster from 1974-2012 and married a woman who looks like Dutch Dalton (ok, that was a little low). He isn't a fan the way we want him to be so it must be that Yankee game he went to. Damn Yankees.

You have to admit, I just turned Obama and his radical upbringing and political world view into a regional baseball fan dispute and did it quite well. I need to write this brief in baseball terms. I'm awesome.

 

[timschochet]

God man. Have you met a woman yet?

.

Not sure from your post if you're asking if I have met a woman, God has met a woman, or "man" (as as general term) has met a woman, or if "God man", whatever philosophical meaning that has, has met a woman. To answer the first question, I am happily married. The other three questions are all interesting and worthy of further discussion.

 

[timschochet]

Unless of course, you are referring to ME as "God Man". I cannot accept such a designation, however richly deserved it really is.

 

[SaintsInDome2006]

Puff the magic dragon, lived by the sea, then he drowned himself because of this boring topic getting in the way of theoretical and historical discussions over the Constitution and the American political system which is the best system the world has ever created except for when we debate whether or not our President is a socialist because he thinks the government should actually govern for you and......... me.

Ha! Got it to rhyme at the end there.

Ok, ok, relax, not what I said but I agree since we're in a joint thread I'd much rather read your excellent stuff Yank no argument there. [Tips Hat]

Eh, I'm just bored at the moment. Damn brief has me perplexed and it won't write itself.

To your overall point..... Obama grew up in a one team city. Let's call that city Philadelphia. He should be a Phillies fan. But he doesn't quite seem to like the Phillies all that much. To some of the more hard core fans. Because of that they found a few pictures of him at Yankee stadium and he's smiling! The audacity. And they weren't even playing the Phillies, they were playing the Mets. He shouldn't be there or being a fan for those teams. He should be a Philly fan and be a Philly fan the way we want him to be. Doesn't matter that he can recite the Phlly roster from 1974-2012 and married a woman who looks like Dutch Dalton (ok, that was a little low). He isn't a fan the way we want him to be so it must be that Yankee game he went to. Damn Yankees.

You have to admit, I just turned Obama and his radical upbringing and political world view into a regional baseball fan dispute and did it quite well. I need to write this brief in baseball terms. I'm awesome.

Actually I think you just pivoted this into the Chris Christie / Cowboys discussion. Congrats, you have now employed the "Chewbacca Defense", which is actually applicable to brief-writing. Go get `em.

 

[Yankee23Fan]

Puff the magic dragon, lived by the sea, then he drowned himself because of this boring topic getting in the way of theoretical and historical discussions over the Constitution and the American political system which is the best system the world has ever created except for when we debate whether or not our President is a socialist because he thinks the government should actually govern for you and......... me.

Ha! Got it to rhyme at the end there.

Ok, ok, relax, not what I said but I agree since we're in a joint thread I'd much rather read your excellent stuff Yank no argument there. [Tips Hat]

Eh, I'm just bored at the moment. Damn brief has me perplexed and it won't write itself.

To your overall point..... Obama grew up in a one team city. Let's call that city Philadelphia. He should be a Phillies fan. But he doesn't quite seem to like the Phillies all that much. To some of the more hard core fans. Because of that they found a few pictures of him at Yankee stadium and he's smiling! The audacity. And they weren't even playing the Phillies, they were playing the Mets. He shouldn't be there or being a fan for those teams. He should be a Philly fan and be a Philly fan the way we want him to be. Doesn't matter that he can recite the Phlly roster from 1974-2012 and married a woman who looks like Dutch Dalton (ok, that was a little low). He isn't a fan the way we want him to be so it must be that Yankee game he went to. Damn Yankees.

You have to admit, I just turned Obama and his radical upbringing and political world view into a regional baseball fan dispute and did it quite well. I need to write this brief in baseball terms. I'm awesome.

Actually I think you just pivoted this into the Chris Christie / Cowboys discussion. Congrats, you have now employed the "Chewbacca Defense", which is actually applicable to brief-writing. Go get `em.

I like that !

Your honor, my client didn't wear an ugly sweater three sizes too small and sit with Jerry Jones, he performed under the contract ........... that could work. I should get a chuckle.

 

[Joe T]

I'd love to see every major newspaper publish the cartoon tomorrow

I don't get this.

There are consequences for doing this. Is it really worth having more people die over something so ridiculous as a cartoon?

 

[CowboysFromHell]

I'd love to see every major newspaper publish the cartoon tomorrow

I don't get this.

There are consequences for doing this. Is it really worth having more people die over something so ridiculous as a cartoon?

Therein lies the problem. If EVERY newspaper suddenly grew a pair like Charlie Hebdo, it would make a difference, and a positive one IMO.

 

[Yankee23Fan]

I was just outside for a grand total of 2 minutes. With a coat on.

I am, at this point in my life, completely and totally done with weather under 50 degrees, let alone arctic temperatures. Lane Myer was a punk and I refuse to accept his world.

 

[Yankee23Fan]

I'd love to see every major newspaper publish the cartoon tomorrow

I don't get this.

There are consequences for doing this. Is it really worth having more people die over something so ridiculous as a cartoon?

It's not a cartoon though. Political satire is rather important aspect of what free speech is or at least what taking part in politics is. A cartoon is Dora the Explorer (and we all know that Swiper is a democrat, right?). What they do is more complicated than that. It might be worth the consequences.

I'm no huge fan of the French though in general. I will admit, I was tempted to purchase myself some hot salty Freedom Fries a decade ago. Don't think I did, but I could of. My stomache is not a stranger to the french fry.

 

[Joe T]

I'd love to see every major newspaper publish the cartoon tomorrow

I don't get this.

There are consequences for doing this. Is it really worth having more people die over something so ridiculous as a cartoon?

Therein lies the problem. If EVERY newspaper suddenly grew a pair like Charlie Hebdo, it would make a difference, and a positive one IMO.

So you are okay with the people dying thing to make a positive difference?

It seems rather easy for message board guy like joffer (and Tobias Funke who posted the same thing in another thread) to sit back and say, "Yeah, all major newspapers and magazines should do this as a statement and to make a difference." It is easy to say this when it isn't your friends and neighbors dying as a result of publishing cartoons "political satire."

Seems hardly worth it to me.

 

[joffer]

I'd love to see every major newspaper publish the cartoon tomorrow

I don't get this.

There are consequences for doing this. Is it really worth having more people die over something so ridiculous as a cartoon?

fair question. I can only say that if i worked for a major newspaper, I'd support a decision to print it. freedom of speech isn't free.

 

[CowboysFromHell]

I'd love to see every major newspaper publish the cartoon tomorrow

I don't get this.

There are consequences for doing this. Is it really worth having more people die over something so ridiculous as a cartoon?

fair question. I can only say that if i worked for a major newspaper, I'd support a decision to print it. freedom of speech isn't free.

Exactly.

Joe - it's the lesser of two evils. Of course I don't want to see people die over a cartoon, but I think more will die if we give in and let the terrorists win.

 

[Joe T]

I'd love to see every major newspaper publish the cartoon tomorrow

I don't get this.

There are consequences for doing this. Is it really worth having more people die over something so ridiculous as a cartoon?

fair question. I can only say that if i worked for a major newspaper, I'd support a decision to print it. freedom of speech isn't free.

Not sure if this was discussed in that other cesspool of a thread, but is this really a free speech issue?

No one is saying they can't legally print whatever they want. This is saying when you print something mocking someone else, that someone might get offended and punch back.

This issue seems more like (but not exactly like) when an annoying kid mocks the fat kid in class for being fat until the fat kid finally decides to punch the annoying kid in the face. Neither one is really in the 'right' in this case.

Then the annoying kid cries "freedom of speech."

 

[joffer]

they think I should die if I print a cartoon. Seems like freedom speech to me.

Love the new Hedbo cover, btw. Well done.