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

[timschochet]

Yankee, did President Lincoln have the legal authority under the Constitution to use federal troops to attack and occupy southern states who legislatures has voted to leave the USA?

Of course.

Couple thoughts:

- look at the provisions for the States to enter the Union, presumably a similar procedure would be needed for them to leave.

- Tim somewhere there is a guarantee of a "republican" form of government, not sure where that is but I always thought that was something that Lincoln could hang his hat on.

actually my question wasn't about the right of secession, it was whether or not under the Constitution the President has the right to conduct war on American soil, and without the consent of Congress.

 

[SaintsInDome2006]

Yankee, did President Lincoln have the legal authority under the Constitution to use federal troops to attack and occupy southern states who legislatures has voted to leave the USA?

Of course.

Couple thoughts:

- look at the provisions for the States to enter the Union, presumably a similar procedure would be needed for them to leave.

- Tim somewhere there is a guarantee of a "republican" form of government, not sure where that is but I always thought that was something that Lincoln could hang his hat on.

actually my question wasn't about the right of secession, it was whether or not under the Constitution the President has the right to conduct war on American soil, and without the consent of Congress.

Well that's just it, if the secession was illegal then yes the President had the power and the duty to prevent the illegality, maintain the republic and defend the Constitution.

 

[RCon]

Randy Johnson and Pedro Martinez first time ballot guys? Absolutely, well deserved.

Biggio finally getting in? Of course, long overdue.

John Smoltz, first time ballot? Not seeing it. I like the guy, but he's a borderline HOFer to begin with.

I can see Smoltz. I don't put much stock in the "first ballot" thing, personally. Either you're a HOFer or you're not, IMO. That said:

Randy Johnson: Yes, definitely

Pedro Martinez: Not sure. I assume so, but didn't really review his candidacy, since there seemed to be no question he would get in.

Biggo: Yes, definitely.

Smoltz: I think so.

Tim Raines: How the hell is Raines not in yet? He should be in by traditional stats. His advanced stats candidacy is a slam dunk.

Piazza, Bagwell: Yes on both. Assume they aren't in because of steroid suspicion?

Clemens, Bonds: I would vote no, personally. Cheaters aren't welcome, IMO.

Those last two comments might seem to contradict each other, but IMO, there's no question whatsoever that Bonds and Clemens cheated, while there's no proof that Bagwell or Piazza did, and little more than unfounded rumors mostly based on their surprising statistics that say they did. We also now know that the big offense era was more than just steroids, but also changes to the balls themselves, as well as strike zone "issues" that have since been corrected due to technology based review of umpire performance.

Trammell, Mussina: Yes.

McGriff: Probably.

 

[timschochet]

I think you're a little too generous on the last 3 you mentioned.

I would vote yes for Clemens and Bonds. Clemens has a long and stellar career before he was ever accused of steroids. If he retired 5 years before he did, he would probably still deserve to be there.

Bonds is a little more difficult a case. But again, I have to think that even without steroids he would be a HOFer. The question then becomes with these two whether they should be punished for what they did. I've always believed that Shoeless Joe Jackson and Pete Rose should NOT be punished in this manner; the Hall of Fame should specifically be for performance in the field of play. To be consistent, Clemens and Bonds should not be punished either.

Lastly, you really shouldn't question Pedro Martinez. That's a slam dunk if ever there was one.

 

[Gawain]

Randy Johnson and Pedro Martinez first time ballot guys? Absolutely, well deserved.

Biggio finally getting in? Of course, long overdue.

John Smoltz, first time ballot? Not seeing it. I like the guy, but he's a borderline HOFer to begin with.

I can see Smoltz. I don't put much stock in the "first ballot" thing, personally. Either you're a HOFer or you're not, IMO. That said:

Randy Johnson: Yes, definitely

Pedro Martinez: Not sure. I assume so, but didn't really review his candidacy, since there seemed to be no question he would get in.

Biggo: Yes, definitely.

Smoltz: I think so.

Tim Raines: How the hell is Raines not in yet? He should be in by traditional stats. His advanced stats candidacy is a slam dunk.

Piazza, Bagwell: Yes on both. Assume they aren't in because of steroid suspicion?

Clemens, Bonds: I would vote no, personally. Cheaters aren't welcome, IMO.

Those last two comments might seem to contradict each other, but IMO, there's no question whatsoever that Bonds and Clemens cheated, while there's no proof that Bagwell or Piazza did, and little more than unfounded rumors mostly based on their surprising statistics that say they did. We also now know that the big offense era was more than just steroids, but also changes to the balls themselves, as well as strike zone "issues" that have since been corrected due to technology based review of umpire performance.

Trammell, Mussina: Yes.

McGriff: Probably.

Raines isn't above any of the James HoF benchmarks.

Trammel is the one guy that I think should be in that isn't (and won't be until the VC).

 

[timschochet]

Yankee, did President Lincoln have the legal authority under the Constitution to use federal troops to attack and occupy southern states who legislatures has voted to leave the USA?

Of course.

Couple thoughts:

- look at the provisions for the States to enter the Union, presumably a similar procedure would be needed for them to leave.

- Tim somewhere there is a guarantee of a "republican" form of government, not sure where that is but I always thought that was something that Lincoln could hang his hat on.

actually my question wasn't about the right of secession, it was whether or not under the Constitution the President has the right to conduct war on American soil, and without the consent of Congress.

Well that's just it, if the secession was illegal then yes the President had the power and the duty to prevent the illegality, maintain the republic and defend the Constitution.

I noted a contradiction here, which is why I asked the question. Lincoln regarded secession as illegal, hence he was careful to regard it as an insurrection and call it so. An insurrection can be put down by police. But Lincoln used the Army to put down this rebellion, on American soil no less. I just wasn't sure the Constitution gives him that power.

 

[RCon]

I think you're a little too generous on the last 3 you mentioned.

I would vote yes for Clemens and Bonds. Clemens has a long and stellar career before he was ever accused of steroids. If he retired 5 years before he did, he would probably still deserve to be there.

Bonds is a little more difficult a case. But again, I have to think that even without steroids he would be a HOFer. The question then becomes with these two whether they should be punished for what they did. I've always believed that Shoeless Joe Jackson and Pete Rose should NOT be punished in this manner; the Hall of Fame should specifically be for performance in the field of play. To be consistent, Clemens and Bonds should not be punished either.

Lastly, you really shouldn't question Pedro Martinez. That's a slam dunk if ever there was one.

I'm a big fan of the advanced stats such as OPS+ and ERA+. Using those types of stats, there's not really any question that Trammell and Mussina should be in.

For example, it's certainly possible to make an argument that Trammell was a better offensive player than Cal Ripken. I assume you consider Ripken a no-doubt HOFer? Ripken's career OPS+ was 112, while Trammell's was 110. However, OPS+ doesn't take SB or GIDP into account, both of which heavily favor Trammell. Biggio's OPS+ was also 112, although his SB and GIDP compare favorably to Trammell.

On a separate note, I'm not a fan of the rule that you're off the ballot if you don't get 5% the first year. At the very least, you should get a second year, especially since some voters do distinguish between "first-ballot" and "all subsequent ballots". Bobby Grich never got a second year on the ballot, and he has a better case than a lot of players already in. His OPS+ was a staggering 125.

 

[Gawain]

News from France sucks.

You don't see atheists killing people in the name of atheism.

 

[Yankee23Fan]

Yankee, did President Lincoln have the legal authority under the Constitution to use federal troops to attack and occupy southern states who legislatures has voted to leave the USA?

Of course.

Couple thoughts:

- look at the provisions for the States to enter the Union, presumably a similar procedure would be needed for them to leave.

- Tim somewhere there is a guarantee of a "republican" form of government, not sure where that is but I always thought that was something that Lincoln could hang his hat on.

actually my question wasn't about the right of secession, it was whether or not under the Constitution the President has the right to conduct war on American soil, and without the consent of Congress.

In that instance, yes he did.

 

[timschochet]

News from France sucks.

You don't see atheists killing people in the name of atheism.

it was a satirist magazine. We need to learn more, but I suspect that once again we're dealing with Islamist terrorists who have no sense of humor with regard to their religion. Just awful.

 

[Gawain]

News from France sucks.

You don't see atheists killing people in the name of atheism.

it was a satirist magazine. We need to learn more, but I suspect that once again we're dealing with Islamist terrorists who have no sense of humor with regard to their religion. Just awful.

I suspect the Mets are going to miss the playoffs.

I'm pretty damn confident this was Muslims.

It ain't the Reichstag fire here.

 

[timschochet]

News from France sucks.

You don't see atheists killing people in the name of atheism.

it was a satirist magazine. We need to learn more, but I suspect that once again we're dealing with Islamist terrorists who have no sense of humor with regard to their religion. Just awful.

I suspect the Mets are going to miss the playoffs.

I'm pretty damn confident this was Muslims.

It ain't the Reichstag fire here.

When I wrote that I had only heard a quick news headline.

 

[SaintsInDome2006]

News from France sucks.

You don't see atheists killing people in the name of atheism.

You're kidding. Add in the body count for communism plus throw in some anarchists and even the French Terror in the 1790's.

How many millions is that?

 

[timschochet]

In the other thread Ivan K wrote "for whatever reason" immigrants to the USA don't cause the same sort of problems, etc.

But there ARE important reasons for this and they should be obvious to anyone. Unlike Europe, our history is to welcome immigrants and attempt to assimilate them. That is a unique aspect of the USA and one of our greatest features. It's why we need to defeat the nativists among us, who, IMO, either have no sense of history and essence as a nation, or otherwise deliberately choose to ignore it. .

 

[timschochet]

News from France sucks.

You don't see atheists killing people in the name of atheism.

You're kidding. Add in the body count for communism plus throw in some anarchists and even the French Terror in the 1790's.

How many millions is that?

You keep making this point over and over, and over and over I reject it. The fact that Communism embraced atheism is not in the slightest connected to all of the killings that occurred under Communism.

 

[timschochet]

It's like saying that all of the Communist leaders in Russia wore ties, and this proves that there is a connection between tie wearers and murder. It's the same level of relevance.

 

[timschochet]

The White House threatened this morning to veto any Keystone bill, arguing there is already a "process in place".

Politically, this may be a big mistake...

 

[timschochet]

Well this is probably going to piss off a few people who were upset about Benghazi, but thus far the White House is refusing to comment on the nature of the attack in France, explaining that they don't yet know the "motivation".

 

[SaintsInDome2006]

Well this is probably going to piss off a few people who were upset about Benghazi, but thus far the White House is refusing to comment on the nature of the attack in France, explaining that they don't yet know the "motivation".

And you're not aggravated about that, or at least scoffing?

 

[timschochet]

Well this is probably going to piss off a few people who were upset about Benghazi, but thus far the White House is refusing to comment on the nature of the attack in France, explaining that they don't yet know the "motivation".

And you're not aggravated about that, or at least scoffing?

i brought it up didn't I? I wouldn't say I'm aggravated, more annoyed. As you probably know I reject the conservative meme that Obama is somehow weak on terror or is too conciliatory to Muslim extremists. But certain times the American need for diplomatic caution can be exasperating. I suspect this comes from the State Department.

 

[SaintsInDome2006]

Well this is probably going to piss off a few people who were upset about Benghazi, but thus far the White House is refusing to comment on the nature of the attack in France, explaining that they don't yet know the "motivation".

And you're not aggravated about that, or at least scoffing?

i brought it up didn't I?I wouldn't say I'm aggravated, more annoyed. As you probably know I reject the conservative meme that Obama is somehow weak on terror or is too conciliatory to Muslim extremists. But certain times the American need for diplomatic caution can be exasperating. I suspect this comes from the State Department.

Annoyed will do.

That is what we saw play out in the last two weeks, as a crude and disgusting video sparked outrage throughout the Muslim world. Now, I have made it clear that the United States government had nothing to do with this video, and I believe its message must be rejected by all who respect our common humanity.

It is an insult not only to Muslims, but to America as well -- for as the city outside these walls makes clear, we are a country that has welcomed people of every race and every faith. We are home to Muslims who worship across our country. We not only respect the freedom of religion, we have laws that protect individuals from being harmed because of how they look or what they believe. We understand why people take offense to this video because millions of our citizens are among them.

I know there are some who ask why we don’t just ban such a video. And the answer is enshrined in our laws: Our Constitution protects the right to practice free speech.

Here in the United States, countless publications provoke offense. Like me, the majority of Americans are Christian, and yet we do not ban blasphemy against our most sacred beliefs. As President of our country and Commander-in-Chief of our military, I accept that people are going to call me awful things every day -- (laughter) -- and I will always defend their right to do so.

I'm just going to speculate I think it's possible that Obama himself finds these images - like Hebdo's Mohammed cartoons, the Danish Mohammed cartoon and the Innocence movie - personally offensive. And he is loathe to confront this very issue internally.

 

[timschochet]

One of the worst aspects of this, for me, will be the innocent Muslims in France and the rest of western Europe who will be subjected to mistreatment. Already in the main thread about this subject, at least one poster (Olaf) is supporting what I regard as a hateful and bigoted anti-Muslim protest that is taking place in Germany.

 

[SaintsInDome2006]

One of the worst aspects of this, for me, will be the innocent Muslims in France and the rest of western Europe who will be subjected to mistreatment. Already in the main thread about this subject, at least one poster (Olaf) is supporting what I regard as a hateful and bigoted anti-Muslim protest that is taking place in Germany.

Yaknow, we're going to have a hard time distinguishing who's the bad guy, they're both bad guys.

The muslim sickos who kill and beat people for speech and thought and books and cartoons.

And the racists who want to translate problems caused by an ideology that a people share or sympathize with into racism.

I'm going to say dealing with the party of the first part will handle the party of the second part. Letting the first thing fester will cause multiple other problems, yes.

 

[tom22406]

Are you jealous yet Tim?

http://timedotcom.files.wordpress.com/2015/01/pelosi-boehner-congress.jpg?w=1680

Awkward on so many levels.

 

[timschochet]

Are you jealous yet Tim?

http://timedotcom.files.wordpress.com/2015/01/pelosi-boehner-congress.jpg?w=1680

Awkward on so many levels.

Wait/ who is kissing Nancy? I can't tell from that. And which one am I supposed to be jealous of?

 

[Gawain]

One of the worst aspects of this, for me, will be the innocent Muslims in France and the rest of western Europe who will be subjected to mistreatment. Already in the main thread about this subject, at least one poster (Olaf) is supporting what I regard as a hateful and bigoted anti-Muslim protest that is taking place in Germany.

I think the worst aspects are for the families of someone who died.

I put Muslims with PSU alums, where they all carry a slight taint because of the actions of others.

 

[timschochet]

One of the worst aspects of this, for me, will be the innocent Muslims in France and the rest of western Europe who will be subjected to mistreatment. Already in the main thread about this subject, at least one poster (Olaf) is supporting what I regard as a hateful and bigoted anti-Muslim protest that is taking place in Germany.

Yaknow, we're going to have a hard time distinguishing who's the bad guy, they're both bad guys.

The muslim sickos who kill and beat people for speech and thought and books and cartoons.

And the racists who want to translate problems caused by an ideology that a people share or sympathize with into racism.

I'm going to say dealing with the party of the first part will handle the party of the second part. Letting the first thing fester will cause multiple other problems, yes.

i agree Saints. But how should they, or we, deal with it? How would you?

 

[Gawain]

Are you jealous yet Tim?

http://timedotcom.files.wordpress.com/2015/01/pelosi-boehner-congress.jpg?w=1680

Awkward on so many levels.

Wait/ who is kissing Nancy? I can't tell from that. And which one am I supposed to be jealous of?

Boehner, and you're jealous of him because you're a (alleged) pinko commie.

 

[tom22406]

Are you jealous yet Tim?

http://timedotcom.files.wordpress.com/2015/01/pelosi-boehner-congress.jpg?w=1680

Awkward on so many levels.

Wait/ who is kissing Nancy? I can't tell from that. And which one am I supposed to be jealous of?

Boehner is kissing her.I keep forgetting you are on your phone so the pic may be too big to see fully.

 

[CBusAlex]

Wait/ who is kissing Nancy? I can't tell from that.

Oh come on. How many politicians out there have orange skin?

 

[timschochet]

One of the worst aspects of this, for me, will be the innocent Muslims in France and the rest of western Europe who will be subjected to mistreatment. Already in the main thread about this subject, at least one poster (Olaf) is supporting what I regard as a hateful and bigoted anti-Muslim protest that is taking place in Germany.

I think the worst aspects are for the families of someone who died.

I put Muslims with PSU alums, where they all carry a slight taint because of the actions of others.

that's a terrible analogy. Or maybe it's a good analogy in a way, since neither group bears much of a taint at all.

 

[timschochet]

I thought it might be Boehner. But I'm on my phone and I'm partially color blind so I wasn't sure.

That's a big ### gavel.

To answer your question, I'm jealous of both of them. Nancy is one extremely sexy old broad, and when Boehner cries it gets me going.

 

[Gawain]

One of the worst aspects of this, for me, will be the innocent Muslims in France and the rest of western Europe who will be subjected to mistreatment. Already in the main thread about this subject, at least one poster (Olaf) is supporting what I regard as a hateful and bigoted anti-Muslim protest that is taking place in Germany.

I think the worst aspects are for the families of someone who died.

I put Muslims with PSU alums, where they all carry a slight taint because of the actions of others.

that's a terrible analogy.Or maybe it's a good analogy in a way, since neither group bears much of a taint at all.

That's why it works. Every group is tainted in someway. Hell, people have come out saying Mother Theresa wasn't a very good person and the followers of her work are tainted. Ebola docs were vilified for putting the American public at risk.

How much weight is given is an individual choice.

 

[Yankee23Fan]

One of the worst aspects of this, for me, will be the innocent Muslims in France and the rest of western Europe who will be subjected to mistreatment. Already in the main thread about this subject, at least one poster (Olaf) is supporting what I regard as a hateful and bigoted anti-Muslim protest that is taking place in Germany.

Slightly devils advocate and solely to discuss a topic for the purpose of discussion only....

... what exactly is an innocent Muslim at this point? There are always innocents in any dispute of any kind that spills over the public. Most of our country didn't really care about the Revolution, there were people in the south that didn't like slavery and people in the north that did and they also split that way when it came to southern secession. There were Germans who didn't want to kill anyone, let alone an entire race. There are Jordanians who don't hate jews and want to exist peacefully with them. And on and on and on.

But when does the larger group start to be burdened with the responsibility to stand up to the people that represent it in such an awful way? Is the greater Muslim community working daily and publically and loudly to stand against the ISIS's and other terrorists that act in their name and the name of their God? I'm sure there is some. Frankly, I'm sure there is a lot. But it's not nearly enough. At what point - is there even a point - where innocent muslims don't exist unless they stand against their own people and fight them for the survival of their religion and their purpose in this world? If they just stand by and do nothing are they part of the problem? We argue that some of those very same Germans who really didn't hate jews but did their job anyway were.

We all empathize with innocents - because there are always more of them for the most part than any other group in a firefight that covers the globe. But doesn't the greater muslim community have a responsibility at this point to stand up and say no more? If they don't, then at what point do they become supporters through ommission instead of commision? And if they do, are they doing enough now and can they be doing more? And if they can be doing more, why aren't they?

 

[SaintsInDome2006]

One of the worst aspects of this, for me, will be the innocent Muslims in France and the rest of western Europe who will be subjected to mistreatment. Already in the main thread about this subject, at least one poster (Olaf) is supporting what I regard as a hateful and bigoted anti-Muslim protest that is taking place in Germany.

I think the worst aspects are for the families of someone who died.

I put Muslims with PSU alums, where they all carry a slight taint because of the actions of others.

Penn State alums have zero taint associated with them. Maybe people in the higher administration, maybe 10 or so, but that's it.

Nobody thinks any Penn State alum sympathized or even slightly agreed with a Sandusky.

 

[SaintsInDome2006]

One of the worst aspects of this, for me, will be the innocent Muslims in France and the rest of western Europe who will be subjected to mistreatment. Already in the main thread about this subject, at least one poster (Olaf) is supporting what I regard as a hateful and bigoted anti-Muslim protest that is taking place in Germany.

Yaknow, we're going to have a hard time distinguishing who's the bad guy, they're both bad guys.

The muslim sickos who kill and beat people for speech and thought and books and cartoons.

And the racists who want to translate problems caused by an ideology that a people share or sympathize with into racism.

I'm going to say dealing with the party of the first part will handle the party of the second part. Letting the first thing fester will cause multiple other problems, yes.

i agree Saints. But how should they, or we, deal with it? How would you?

Did you see David Cameron's speech?

"While details are still unclear, I know that this house and this country stands united with the French people in our opposition to all forms of terrorism and we stand squarely for free speech and democracy."

The President can start there.

 

[timschochet]

One of the worst aspects of this, for me, will be the innocent Muslims in France and the rest of western Europe who will be subjected to mistreatment. Already in the main thread about this subject, at least one poster (Olaf) is supporting what I regard as a hateful and bigoted anti-Muslim protest that is taking place in Germany.

Yaknow, we're going to have a hard time distinguishing who's the bad guy, they're both bad guys.

The muslim sickos who kill and beat people for speech and thought and books and cartoons.

And the racists who want to translate problems caused by an ideology that a people share or sympathize with into racism.

I'm going to say dealing with the party of the first part will handle the party of the second part. Letting the first thing fester will cause multiple other problems, yes.

i agree Saints. But how should they, or we, deal with it? How would you?

Did you see David Cameron's speech?

"While details are still unclear, I know that this house and this country stands united with the French people in our opposition to all forms of terrorism and we stand squarely for free speech and democracy."

The President can start there.

OK, so the President comes out and says he stands for free speech and democracy. (I'm betting he's said this several times before.) Now what? Will that somehow prevent this sort of thing from happening?

 

[Yankee23Fan]

One of the worst aspects of this, for me, will be the innocent Muslims in France and the rest of western Europe who will be subjected to mistreatment. Already in the main thread about this subject, at least one poster (Olaf) is supporting what I regard as a hateful and bigoted anti-Muslim protest that is taking place in Germany.

Yaknow, we're going to have a hard time distinguishing who's the bad guy, they're both bad guys.

The muslim sickos who kill and beat people for speech and thought and books and cartoons.

And the racists who want to translate problems caused by an ideology that a people share or sympathize with into racism.

I'm going to say dealing with the party of the first part will handle the party of the second part. Letting the first thing fester will cause multiple other problems, yes.

i agree Saints. But how should they, or we, deal with it? How would you?

Did you see David Cameron's speech?

"While details are still unclear, I know that this house and this country stands united with the French people in our opposition to all forms of terrorism and we stand squarely for free speech and democracy."

The President can start there.

OK, so the President comes out and says he stands for free speech and democracy. (I'm betting he's said this several times before.) Now what? Will that somehow prevent this sort of thing from happening?

Is he standing and leaning against something, or just standing up straight with his arms at his side?

 

[SaintsInDome2006]

One of the worst aspects of this, for me, will be the innocent Muslims in France and the rest of western Europe who will be subjected to mistreatment. Already in the main thread about this subject, at least one poster (Olaf) is supporting what I regard as a hateful and bigoted anti-Muslim protest that is taking place in Germany.

Yaknow, we're going to have a hard time distinguishing who's the bad guy, they're both bad guys.

The muslim sickos who kill and beat people for speech and thought and books and cartoons.

And the racists who want to translate problems caused by an ideology that a people share or sympathize with into racism.

I'm going to say dealing with the party of the first part will handle the party of the second part. Letting the first thing fester will cause multiple other problems, yes.

i agree Saints. But how should they, or we, deal with it? How would you?

Did you see David Cameron's speech?

"While details are still unclear, I know that this house and this country stands united with the French people in our opposition to all forms of terrorism and we stand squarely for free speech and democracy."

The President can start there.

OK, so the President comes out and says he stands for free speech and democracy. (I'm betting he's said this several times before.) Now what? Will that somehow prevent this sort of thing from happening?

Is he standing and leaning against something, or just standing up straight with his arms at his side?

Wild gesticulating and waving of arms would probably help.

 

[SaintsInDome2006]

One of the worst aspects of this, for me, will be the innocent Muslims in France and the rest of western Europe who will be subjected to mistreatment. Already in the main thread about this subject, at least one poster (Olaf) is supporting what I regard as a hateful and bigoted anti-Muslim protest that is taking place in Germany.

Yaknow, we're going to have a hard time distinguishing who's the bad guy, they're both bad guys.

The muslim sickos who kill and beat people for speech and thought and books and cartoons.

And the racists who want to translate problems caused by an ideology that a people share or sympathize with into racism.

I'm going to say dealing with the party of the first part will handle the party of the second part. Letting the first thing fester will cause multiple other problems, yes.

i agree Saints. But how should they, or we, deal with it? How would you?

Did you see David Cameron's speech?

"While details are still unclear, I know that this house and this country stands united with the French people in our opposition to all forms of terrorism and we stand squarely for free speech and democracy."

The President can start there.

OK, so the President comes out and says he stands for free speech and democracy. (I'm betting he's said this several times before.) Now what? Will that somehow prevent this sort of thing from happening?

No, not really. His statements on free speech have always been hedged in a left handed manner.

In Cairo, he expressed religious freedom as women being able to wear the hijab.

At the UN after the Egypt and Libya attacks he described our free speech rights in an almost apologetic manner, calling the "Innocence" movie "disgusting" and "offensive" and using the word "blasphemy."

Will one speech alone prevent these things from happening? No, but as with Cameron's statement it projects a position of strength and resolve, it leads the nation, allies and our populace in general, and send a clear message we will defend our rights and not be cowed. It is the opposite of projecting weakness. The point of terrorism is (besides killing and maiming and a couple other things) injecting fear into a populace so they change their behavior or policies.

 

[timschochet]

You see Saints, I get your frustration at what Obama did after Benghazi. I understand why you're upset that he blamed the video, and why that especially rankles after what happened this morning (yet another attack on free speech.) While I never bought into any of the conspiracies regarding Benghazi, I empathized with the anger that created those conspiracy theories. In western civilization, and in this country especially, it's intolerable that we should clamp down on free speech in order to appease radical Muslims who might resort to violence against us if we don't. And for our most visible figure (the President) to seemingly endorse such a view- it's outrageous. I get that.

But-

Let's not forget what the real purpose is for Obama doing this. It's the same purpose that Bush had when, within days after 9/11, he praised Islam as a religion. It's the same purpose that the State Department has had for decades now, ever since the advent of modern radical Islamic terrorism: we need to separate the moderate Muslims from the radicals. We need to find a way to make the moderates more popular, and the radicals less popular. That is the ONLY way to ultimately win the war against radical Islam.

Now, a "moderate" Muslim living in Jordan or Egypt or Pakistan is a very relative thing. He does not believe in democracy, or freedom of speech, or western values. He believes that homosexuals should be killed and women should be slaves to men. He believes that Israel should be destroyed. He dislikes the west and especially the United States, and looks on sympathetically whenever we are attacked. But- he does not personally attack us. He doesn't join the radicals. He wants nothing to do with violence; he wants to live his own life, protect his children and family, etc. This is the moderate Muslim. I can't say I like the guy, but we need more of him. The one thing that we DON'T want to do is radicalize this guy. If we send in a drone and it kills his family, he's going to join the radicals and help swell their numbers. If our President or leaders behave like ALL of Islam is the enemy, then we risk sending this guy to the radicals.

Keeping that "moderate" Muslim at home, keeping him away from the action- that has been the entire purpose of our foreign policy, and it is why Obama says the stuff he does and why he hesitates to say other things. Now you can disagree with this approach, but I'm not sure I can think of a more viable alternative.

 

[timschochet]

One of the worst aspects of this, for me, will be the innocent Muslims in France and the rest of western Europe who will be subjected to mistreatment. Already in the main thread about this subject, at least one poster (Olaf) is supporting what I regard as a hateful and bigoted anti-Muslim protest that is taking place in Germany.

Slightly devils advocate and solely to discuss a topic for the purpose of discussion only....

... what exactly is an innocent Muslim at this point? There are always innocents in any dispute of any kind that spills over the public. Most of our country didn't really care about the Revolution, there were people in the south that didn't like slavery and people in the north that did and they also split that way when it came to southern secession. There were Germans who didn't want to kill anyone, let alone an entire race. There are Jordanians who don't hate jews and want to exist peacefully with them. And on and on and on.

But when does the larger group start to be burdened with the responsibility to stand up to the people that represent it in such an awful way? Is the greater Muslim community working daily and publically and loudly to stand against the ISIS's and other terrorists that act in their name and the name of their God? I'm sure there is some. Frankly, I'm sure there is a lot. But it's not nearly enough. At what point - is there even a point - where innocent muslims don't exist unless they stand against their own people and fight them for the survival of their religion and their purpose in this world? If they just stand by and do nothing are they part of the problem? We argue that some of those very same Germans who really didn't hate jews but did their job anyway were.

We all empathize with innocents - because there are always more of them for the most part than any other group in a firefight that covers the globe. But doesn't the greater muslim community have a responsibility at this point to stand up and say no more? If they don't, then at what point do they become supporters through ommission instead of commision? And if they do, are they doing enough now and can they be doing more? And if they can be doing more, why aren't they?

Your question really bothers me for a number of reasons:

First, Kristallnacht started after a German Jew, Herschel Grynspan, assassinated a German official in Paris. In responding to the criticism that other Jews shouldn't be blamed for this, Josef Goebbels stated, "There is no such thing as an innocent Jew." So that sort of rhetoric creates a bad vibe for me.

Second, I get very frustrated when I hear this continual complaint that whenever there is an act of terrorism by radical Muslims, the rest of the Muslim world doesn't speak out about it. My dad made the exact same comment this morning. But the reason people think this, (including my dad) is because they never bother to look. One only has to google Muslim reaction to EVERY act of terrorism and it's always the same: dozens if not more Muslim religious and political leaders stating how terrible these acts are, how they don't represent Islam, etc. Article after article. Usually there are protest marches as well. They get reported, but nobody ever seems to pay attention. You ask, doesn't the greater Muslim community have the responsibility to stand up? They usually do, and they usually get ignored.

But let's suppose for one moment that your premise is correct and that they don't , somehow, speak out enough- does that somehow justify discrimination against them? I know you didn't write that, but it seems to be the implication of your remarks.

 

[Gawain]

You see Saints, I get your frustration at what Obama did after Benghazi. I understand why you're upset that he blamed the video, and why that especially rankles after what happened this morning (yet another attack on free speech.) While I never bought into any of the conspiracies regarding Benghazi, I empathized with the anger that created those conspiracy theories. In western civilization, and in this country especially, it's intolerable that we should clamp down on free speech in order to appease radical Muslims who might resort to violence against us if we don't. And for our most visible figure (the President) to seemingly endorse such a view- it's outrageous. I get that.

But-

Let's not forget what the real purpose is for Obama doing this. It's the same purpose that Bush had when, within days after 9/11, he praised Islam as a religion. It's the same purpose that the State Department has had for decades now, ever since the advent of modern radical Islamic terrorism: we need to separate the moderate Muslims from the radicals. We need to find a way to make the moderates more popular, and the radicals less popular. That is the ONLY way to ultimately win the war against radical Islam.

Now, a "moderate" Muslim living in Jordan or Egypt or Pakistan is a very relative thing. He does not believe in democracy, or freedom of speech, or western values. He believes that homosexuals should be killed and women should be slaves to men. He believes that Israel should be destroyed. He dislikes the west and especially the United States, and looks on sympathetically whenever we are attacked. But- he does not personally attack us. He doesn't join the radicals. He wants nothing to do with violence; he wants to live his own life, protect his children and family, etc. This is the moderate Muslim. I can't say I like the guy, but we need more of him. The one thing that we DON'T want to do is radicalize this guy. If we send in a drone and it kills his family, he's going to join the radicals and help swell their numbers. If our President or leaders behave like ALL of Islam is the enemy, then we risk sending this guy to the radicals.

Keeping that "moderate" Muslim at home, keeping him away from the action- that has been the entire purpose of our foreign policy, and it is why Obama says the stuff he does and why he hesitates to say other things. Now you can disagree with this approach, but I'm not sure I can think of a more viable alternative.

This strategy didn't work in Vietnam, it didn't work in Afghanistan, it didn't work in Iraq and it's not working now.

If we want to win hearts and minds, we need to invest a ton of money into infrastructure and development on the ground (not money to the ruling political organizations). People who have something more to lose don't protest as much. Or, we need to delineate the for/against groups as much as possible and stop giving any support to those against us and work hard to decay their position.

Your hypothetical fella is the enemy of the USA, he just doesn't make the ten most wanted list.

 

[Yankee23Fan]

You see Saints, I get your frustration at what Obama did after Benghazi. I understand why you're upset that he blamed the video, and why that especially rankles after what happened this morning (yet another attack on free speech.) While I never bought into any of the conspiracies regarding Benghazi, I empathized with the anger that created those conspiracy theories. In western civilization, and in this country especially, it's intolerable that we should clamp down on free speech in order to appease radical Muslims who might resort to violence against us if we don't. And for our most visible figure (the President) to seemingly endorse such a view- it's outrageous. I get that.

But-

Let's not forget what the real purpose is for Obama doing this. It's the same purpose that Bush had when, within days after 9/11, he praised Islam as a religion. It's the same purpose that the State Department has had for decades now, ever since the advent of modern radical Islamic terrorism: we need to separate the moderate Muslims from the radicals. We need to find a way to make the moderates more popular, and the radicals less popular. That is the ONLY way to ultimately win the war against radical Islam.

Now, a "moderate" Muslim living in Jordan or Egypt or Pakistan is a very relative thing. He does not believe in democracy, or freedom of speech, or western values. He believes that homosexuals should be killed and women should be slaves to men. He believes that Israel should be destroyed. He dislikes the west and especially the United States, and looks on sympathetically whenever we are attacked. But- he does not personally attack us. He doesn't join the radicals. He wants nothing to do with violence; he wants to live his own life, protect his children and family, etc. This is the moderate Muslim. I can't say I like the guy, but we need more of him. The one thing that we DON'T want to do is radicalize this guy. If we send in a drone and it kills his family, he's going to join the radicals and help swell their numbers. If our President or leaders behave like ALL of Islam is the enemy, then we risk sending this guy to the radicals.

Keeping that "moderate" Muslim at home, keeping him away from the action- that has been the entire purpose of our foreign policy, and it is why Obama says the stuff he does and why he hesitates to say other things. Now you can disagree with this approach, but I'm not sure I can think of a more viable alternative.

I'm not saying you are wrong. But this is really an awfully depressing reality if completely true because then there is no peaceful end in this. There is just going to be growing and growing bloodbaths until something truly tragic to the fabric of humanity starts to happen. And we won't be immune to it at all. Our kids... my kids.... are in for an awful ****ing world if we can't figure this out in the next decade.

 

[timschochet]

The other problem we face (and by "we" in this context, I mean western civilization, not merely the USA) is that for all of our success over the years in fighting terrorism (and make no mistake- we have been far more successful than not), we still face the ultimate dilemma of this evil, which is that ANY act of terrorism remains intolerable. So if there are 100 terrorist plots, and we manage to foil 99 of them, the one that succeeds is still devastating, and the public will regard it as the terrorists are winning.

Driving into work this morning, I listened to a conservative talk show host angrily exclaim that President Obama needs to stop "appeasing the Muslims" (by which he meant the radical Muslims) that it was just like appeasing Hitler, that evil is not going to go away until we confront it head on. Well all of that sounds fine. But the problem is that Hitler lived in a country called Germany, and when we went to war with him, we had a clear linear goal: destroy the German military, invade, conquer. That ends Hitler and the Nazis. It wasn't easy but the endgame was always very clear. Here there is no endgame. Our enemy is faceless. Within radical Islam, all around the world, there are certain crazy evil people who mean to do us harm. Sometimes they organize. Sometimes they are lone crazies. Often they are willing to die for their cause. Any attempt to clamp down on them as a group, as Israel so often does, has the risk of creating more of them rather than less. There is no linear goal here.

 

[timschochet]

You see Saints, I get your frustration at what Obama did after Benghazi. I understand why you're upset that he blamed the video, and why that especially rankles after what happened this morning (yet another attack on free speech.) While I never bought into any of the conspiracies regarding Benghazi, I empathized with the anger that created those conspiracy theories. In western civilization, and in this country especially, it's intolerable that we should clamp down on free speech in order to appease radical Muslims who might resort to violence against us if we don't. And for our most visible figure (the President) to seemingly endorse such a view- it's outrageous. I get that.

But-

Let's not forget what the real purpose is for Obama doing this. It's the same purpose that Bush had when, within days after 9/11, he praised Islam as a religion. It's the same purpose that the State Department has had for decades now, ever since the advent of modern radical Islamic terrorism: we need to separate the moderate Muslims from the radicals. We need to find a way to make the moderates more popular, and the radicals less popular. That is the ONLY way to ultimately win the war against radical Islam.

Now, a "moderate" Muslim living in Jordan or Egypt or Pakistan is a very relative thing. He does not believe in democracy, or freedom of speech, or western values. He believes that homosexuals should be killed and women should be slaves to men. He believes that Israel should be destroyed. He dislikes the west and especially the United States, and looks on sympathetically whenever we are attacked. But- he does not personally attack us. He doesn't join the radicals. He wants nothing to do with violence; he wants to live his own life, protect his children and family, etc. This is the moderate Muslim. I can't say I like the guy, but we need more of him. The one thing that we DON'T want to do is radicalize this guy. If we send in a drone and it kills his family, he's going to join the radicals and help swell their numbers. If our President or leaders behave like ALL of Islam is the enemy, then we risk sending this guy to the radicals.

Keeping that "moderate" Muslim at home, keeping him away from the action- that has been the entire purpose of our foreign policy, and it is why Obama says the stuff he does and why he hesitates to say other things. Now you can disagree with this approach, but I'm not sure I can think of a more viable alternative.

I'm not saying you are wrong. But this is really an awfully depressing reality if completely true because then there is no peaceful end in this. There is just going to be growing and growing bloodbaths until something truly tragic to the fabric of humanity starts to happen. And we won't be immune to it at all. Our kids... my kids.... are in for an awful ****ing world if we can't figure this out in the next decade.

Maybe. I prefer to be an optimist. There are two potentially positive possibilities:

1. As technology continues to advance, so does human prosperity. As living conditions get easier for people, then religious extremism (and extremism in general) tends to fade. To put it simply, well fed people don't act crazy. What the world needs is for Islam to be for the Muslim people as Christianity is for most of the Christian world: an essentially secular positive influence on their lives. That will be good for us and good for them. Economic prosperity is the key.

2. For the United States and the west in particular- as soon as we get off oil, Islam will become far less important and far less influential.

 

[SaintsInDome2006]

Keeping that "moderate" Muslim at home, keeping him away from the action- that has been the entire purpose of our foreign policy, and it is why Obama says the stuff he does and why he hesitates to say other things.

I don't doubt it.

I'm just saying he's made the wrong assumptions about the words he's using, who's he's trying to affect and the effect it will have.

 

[timschochet]

You see Saints, I get your frustration at what Obama did after Benghazi. I understand why you're upset that he blamed the video, and why that especially rankles after what happened this morning (yet another attack on free speech.) While I never bought into any of the conspiracies regarding Benghazi, I empathized with the anger that created those conspiracy theories. In western civilization, and in this country especially, it's intolerable that we should clamp down on free speech in order to appease radical Muslims who might resort to violence against us if we don't. And for our most visible figure (the President) to seemingly endorse such a view- it's outrageous. I get that.

But-

Let's not forget what the real purpose is for Obama doing this. It's the same purpose that Bush had when, within days after 9/11, he praised Islam as a religion. It's the same purpose that the State Department has had for decades now, ever since the advent of modern radical Islamic terrorism: we need to separate the moderate Muslims from the radicals. We need to find a way to make the moderates more popular, and the radicals less popular. That is the ONLY way to ultimately win the war against radical Islam.

Now, a "moderate" Muslim living in Jordan or Egypt or Pakistan is a very relative thing. He does not believe in democracy, or freedom of speech, or western values. He believes that homosexuals should be killed and women should be slaves to men. He believes that Israel should be destroyed. He dislikes the west and especially the United States, and looks on sympathetically whenever we are attacked. But- he does not personally attack us. He doesn't join the radicals. He wants nothing to do with violence; he wants to live his own life, protect his children and family, etc. This is the moderate Muslim. I can't say I like the guy, but we need more of him. The one thing that we DON'T want to do is radicalize this guy. If we send in a drone and it kills his family, he's going to join the radicals and help swell their numbers. If our President or leaders behave like ALL of Islam is the enemy, then we risk sending this guy to the radicals.

Keeping that "moderate" Muslim at home, keeping him away from the action- that has been the entire purpose of our foreign policy, and it is why Obama says the stuff he does and why he hesitates to say other things. Now you can disagree with this approach, but I'm not sure I can think of a more viable alternative.

This strategy didn't work in Vietnam, it didn't work in Afghanistan, it didn't work in Iraq and it's not working now.

If we want to win hearts and minds, we need to invest a ton of money into infrastructure and development on the ground (not money to the ruling political organizations). People who have something more to lose don't protest as much. Or, we need to delineate the for/against groups as much as possible and stop giving any support to those against us and work hard to decay their position.

Your hypothetical fella is the enemy of the USA, he just doesn't make the ten most wanted list.

In all of the specific instances you cite, we chose to support corrupt government because they were supposedly "on our side." That's not what I'm talking about here, but it's interesting that you brought it up, because it demonstrates what I was talking about with regard to linear goals. This has nothing to do with which governments we support or don't support. The struggle between "moderate" Islam and "radical" Islam is between the people, not the governments of those countries, because it is the people and not the governments from which our greatest threat of terrorism comes from (which is why it's so difficult to defeat.)

 

[timschochet]

Keeping that "moderate" Muslim at home, keeping him away from the action- that has been the entire purpose of our foreign policy, and it is why Obama says the stuff he does and why he hesitates to say other things.

I don't doubt it.

I'm just saying he's made the wrong assumptions about the words he's using, who's he's trying to affect and the effect it will have.

Maybe. Like every President in the modern era of radical Islamic terrorism, Obama faces difficult choices. Sure, he could make stronger statements like Reagan and George W. Bush did, and that would probably make most Americans feel better. I know that personally I enjoy hearing our Presidents make clear, Churchillian statements about good and evil and how we won't stand for evil. I love that ####. But does sort of rhetoric actually bring about a better result? I honestly don't know.

 

[mr roboto]

Free speech isn't an agreed upon principle around the world. Obviously it's one of the cornerstones of a democratic society but increasing interconnectedness with other groups and societies who do not share this belief lead to violent conflict or terrorism. Now I'm not saying that we should back away from free speech but we also can't just simply pound the podium reaffirming our belief in free speech. NK or ISIS don't give a flying #### about our principles.