HuckChuckFacts
 

I don't like much about Huckabee's views on abortion and social liberties, and his tax history isn't great, but any guy who'd do an ad like that has to be a fun cat to have a few beers with.

Slave and Dennis Kucinich: kindred spirits.

HuckChuckFacts
 

Isn't that how we got our current president?

Sean Penn - Into the Wild?
 

Love his scrappy looks and fuck-you attitude (he hates Bush but so do 3/4 of my friends), but would someone please explain to me how it's cool that Penn, an American enjoying life as one in San Fran (or somewhere near there) approves of, visits, gets chummy with whatever, someone just quoted as saying "God willing, with the fall of the dollar, the deviant U.S. imperialism will fall as soon as possible, too." (Chavez after a 2 hour meeting with Ahmadinejad - I guess that explains the "God Willing" stuff). Presumably Penn doesn't think only "U.S. imperialist parts of the country" will fall and the others will remain intact, so why is he running amok being interviewed and saying how swell Chavez is and how awesome the Argentinian Constitution is (which he claims to have read 3 times and hearts). I guess it's okay for Americans to support international leaders set on economically collapsing America. Or is it?

Sean Penn - Into the Wild?
 

Easy explanation -- Penn is an idiot. Truly. The kind who thinks he is smart and well-informed.

As to "OK" - I don't particularly like it -- or folks like that -- but it really doesn't rise high enough on my list of concerns for me to care.

S_A_M

Sean Penn - Into the Wild?
 

Not having read anything but what's above, is it possible that Penn was hoping for the end of American imperialism rather than the end of America? The word "deviant" (there's that word again) could mean that he thinks imperialism is a deviant strain in American policy, rather than that American imperialism is deviant in the world.

Sean Penn - Into the Wild?
 

Yes, he has some crazy political beliefs, and a lot of what he espouses is just plain wrong. But you have to give credit to a guy who doesn't just piss and moan about the shitty situation down in NOLA, but goes down there, gets a boat, and starts pitching in.

Sean Penn - Into the Wild?
 

This is the second time today I have seen "collapse" used as a verb. The other person who used it was Mitt Romney. Is this a conservative thing or does everyone use this now?

Sean Penn - Into the Wild?
 

I have thought of "collapse" as potentially a noun or verb for a long time. Not sure that's one of the new ones.

S_A_M

Sean Penn - Into the Wild?
 

I never heard it used as anything but a verb until the last ten years or so.

Sean Penn - Into the Wild?
 

Huh. Maybe I have just never heard it used in that context before. I suppose it's common to say "he collapsed in a heap" or "she collapses under pressure" but I had not seen "they want to collapse [object/nation/ideology]" - I always thought it was "cause the collapse of" (or somesuch sort of flummery up with which I will not put).

Sean Penn - Into the Wild?
 

I only think of it as a coverage grant, or excluded peril.

Less (Dork!) inSF

The 2nd Amendment Lives!
 

maybe - http://www.scotusblog.com/wp/uncateg...e-on-gun-case/ - maybe not, but here comes the debate we have all been waiting for:

“Whether the following provisions — D.C. Code secs. 7-2502.02(a)(4), 22-4504(a), and 7-2507.02 — violate the Second Amendment rights of individuals who are not affiliated with any state-regulated militia, but who wish to keep handguns and other firearms for private use in their homes?”

Sean Penn - Into the Wild?
 

Politically the guy is off his rocker. But he is one hell of an actor. He should have gotten an oscar for his part in Carlito's Way. I would definitely put him in the top five. Actually, he helps the Republicans a lot. Just like Ann Coulter helps the Democrats. When she went after the 9-11 Widows, there isn't enough money in the world to pay for that kind of negative publicity. Stupid extremeists just help the other side. Provide quotes for fundraisers.

Sean Penn - Into the Wild?
 

"The hopes and dreams of thousands of Celtic fans worldwide collapsed earlier this month as SL Benfica ...."

It's not really that hard.

Sean Penn - Into the Wild?
 

Now that's just mean.

A la Mode
 

No. Mean is pointing out Werder is below the median

Sean Penn - Into the Wild?
 

I've heard it in business contexts, as a synonym for dissolving. "Let's just collapse the thing." But other than that, I'm with you.

Sean Penn - Into the Wild?
 

I think it's that it's normally an intransitive verb, not a transitive one, and freaky Rs are trying to make it all transitive and shit.

Sean Penn - Into the Wild?
 

see a doctor. soon. seriously. we're all worried.

Sean Penn - Into the Wild?
 

If you can't just be happy for us, maybe you didn't want the best for her after all. Have you just been lying to yourself all these months about the way you thought you felt?

On the other hand, maybe he isn't that bright.
 

Or that word doesn't mean what he thinks it does?

• President Bush yesterday offered his strongest support of embattled Pakistani President Pervez Musharraf, saying the general "hasn't crossed the line" and "truly is somebody who believes in democracy."

I particularly like the implied rebuttal in the next sentence of the news article:

• Bush spoke nearly three weeks after Musharraf declared emergency rule, sacked members of the Supreme Court and began a roundup of journalists, lawyers and human rights activists.

Bush was for democracy before he was against it:

• In his first public comments on the crisis two weeks ago, Bush said his aides bluntly warned Musharraf that his emergency measures "would undermine democracy."

WaPo

On the other hand, maybe he isn't that bright.
 

Bush has been making us look bad for years among casual observers around the world by just being an inarticulate idiot. That's one thing - it's personality-based, it's specific to him, and I would have hoped that our image would get a bit better with someone else at the helm and on the news all the time. But being a complete and utter hypocrite about promoting the idea of democracy overseas is going to do much more lasting damage to American credibility, or what's left of it, than his casual idiocy could ever do.

On the other hand, maybe he isn't that bright.
 

The sad thing is, there is very little that is casual about his idiocy; he actually cultivates it.

On the other hand, maybe he isn't that bright.
 

have you read any, I many even basic, history of American foreign policy since 1945? do you have any grounding? I know the answer from your post, but it might be funny to read what you think you know.

On the other hand, maybe he isn't that bright.
 

The depth of your cynical hatred for America and all that it stands for never ceases to shock me.

On the other hand, maybe he isn't that bright.
 

you might want to rent a little documentary called farenheit 9/11. We brought 9/11 upon ourself. It isn't their fault it's our's. We backed some dictator in south america and Vietnam was bad too.

On the other hand, maybe he isn't that bright.
 

Did we fight the Cold War before or after 1945? I am trying to get caught up on my history but to get to the meat on Wikipedia I need some dates.

On the other hand, maybe he isn't that bright.
 

hint: the cold war was fought by Democrat presidents that didn't own slaves.

On the other hand, maybe he isn't that bright.
 

Good point. Thomas Jefferson and Jimmy Carter were the only two presidents to be able to talk without an implied nudge and wink about exporting democracy. And even they ultimately went all realpolitik-like when push came to shove, on Revolutionary France and SAVAK-era Iran, respectively.

Bush doesn't have great options with Pakistan now. He may have screwed things up in the way he's dealt with Pakistan ever since 9/11, but his disingenousness on the benefits of democracy is nothing new in American foreign policy.

On the other hand, maybe he isn't that bright.
 

I always thought Eisenhower was a shifty bastard with no belly for a fight. God bless the Kennedys.

Ty's long awaited ruling on his household flamethrower
 

LA Times

• The Supreme Court set the stage Tuesday for a historic ruling on whether the fiercely debated 2nd Amendment protects the rights of Americans to keep handguns at home.
  
  The justices said they would review an appeals court decision that struck down a 31-year-old ban on handguns in Washington, D.C. The case will be heard early next year and decided by next summer.
  
  While outright bans on the private possession of guns are rare, many cities and states regulate firearms. If the high court rules in favor of gun owners, the decision could open the door to challenges to regulations and restrictions on firearms across the nation.

Me, I'm thinking that this will all end up in a 5-4 decision (penned by Kennedy) in which the majority finds that the 2nd Amendment protects civilian ownership of only 22-caliber or less, while Scalia's scathing dissent points out the prevalence of trebuchets in colonial backyards, which therefore permits citizens to own and possess anything short of fissile material, which of course can only be possessed by Federal agents or terrorist networks.

Gattigap

I'm a faithful follower of Brother John Birch.
 

Indeed. We all know that Ike was (as Robert Welch, head of the John Birch Society, put it) a "conscious, dedicated agent of the Communist Conspiracy."

On the other hand, maybe he isn't that bright.
 

2. if Chappaquiddick bridge only had safety bumpers we'd have shut down the USSR by the bi-centenial!

Ty's long awaited ruling on his household flamethrower
 

I've never understood how the supposed original intent of the framers of the Second Amendment is supposed to trump the plain language, which indicates pretty clearly that the purpose of the amendment is to ensure a well-regulated militia, as opposed to deer-hunting or self-protection, as worthy as those goals are. The NRA deals with this problem by just omitting the inconvenient part of the text.

eta: I think Eugene Volokh pretty much concedes the point:

• The Second Amendment as written was meant to apply only to the federal government, and can only apply to the states via the Fourteenth Amendment. Thus, when we consider what the Second Amendment means with regard to state laws, we shouldn't look at what people in 1791 thought of the right-to-bear arms — we should look at what people in 1868 thought the Fourteenth Amendment would do as to the right-to-bear arms.
  
  If we do that, we see that while in 1791 the Framers did think of the right as largely aimed at societal self-defense, including defense against government tyranny — albeit self-defense that would be assured through individual gun ownership — in 1868, people saw the right as also focused on private arms ownership aimed at protection against crime.

If the text doesn't provide an individual right, and the framers so understood that in 1791, why isn't that the end of the inquiry? If you have a problem with the notion that the Bill of Rights applies to the states as well as the federal government, that's a distinct issue, but it shouldn't be a pretext to read modern preferences into the Second Amendment.

Ty's long awaited ruling on his household flamethrower
 

You know Ty -- I absolutely agree with you on the correct result as a policy matter, but I wouldn't say that the language of the Amendment is so darn clear that denying the personal right to keep and bear arms is a slam dunk.

Yes, the "well-regulated militia" language is right in there, but I don't think it is crazy to interpret it to say that, because [in 179_] we want to be able to have a rapid-response militia, we are preserving the individual's right to "keep and bear" weapons.

[I really don't want to debate this. My God! What have I done!]

Happy Thanksgiving to All.

S_A_M

Ty's long awaited ruling on his household flamethrower
 

No, it isn't. But nor is it crazy in those circumstances to say that the only weapons you get to keep and bear are those you need as a part of your service in a militia. In other words: Under your approach, gun control is constitutional.

Ty's long awaited ruling on his household flamethrower
 

I think so.

Under my approach, most things are constitutional, except waterboarding, and we just need to make policy decisions. I am very results-oriented.

S_A_M

Gobble-Gobble-Gobble!

PaigowPrincess does Paultards
 

PaigowPrincess does Paultards
 

politics are not her avenue, i don't think it's her.