Waiting for Fitzgerald

[Bad_Rich_Chic]

Originally posted by dtb
it's the same God

So, A = F. If A = B, then B = F.

Glad we cleared that up.

BR(hope everyone enjoyed their Samhain)C

[Captain]

Originally posted by Bad_Rich_Chic
Nor is it "all white landowners." There was a certain disjunction between theorem and praxis.

That said, I am not convinced that they believed that the rights enshrined in the Constitution were said inalienable rights.

On point one, agreed.

On point two, you may be right, especially given the ninth amendment, but think of the implications of that statement for the poor constructionists -- Inalienable rights that aren't explicit in the assigned reading!

[SlaveNoMore]

sebastian_dangerfield
McCarthyism is no footnote.

The terrorist imprisonment issue will be a footnote in a text college kids will buy and never open. It'll be discussed by people who think Joan Baez would've made a great senator.

Understand this - Americans are nothing if not utterly self-absrobed and completely self-righteous. You think anyone other than a few crazy liberals give a flying shit what happens to prisoners at Guatanamo Bay? NPR won't even talk about it in a few years.

The story has no legs. The Times doesn't even give it any ink anymore.

No. One. Cares. And no one ever will.

On this topic, you appear even more cynical than me [god help us], but I definitely think you are much more correct about this than Burger.

[dtb]

Originally posted by sebastian_dangerfield
*Among the observant. I don't know a single Jew who doesn't eat bacon...

You know me!

[Bad_Rich_Chic]

Originally posted by Captain
On point one, agreed.

On point two, you may be right, especially given the ninth amendment, but think of the implications of that statement for the poor constructionists -- Inalienable rights that aren't explicit in the assigned reading!

I know, it could be just anything, like, privacy!

That said, one can take the position that all inalienable rights of rich-white-men are in fact contained in the Constitution (explicitly or implicitly), but they are a subset of the universe of rights contained therein, and due process of law (which seems an alienable right by definition, since it can be waived by the posessor) isn't one of them.

[Shape Shifter]

Originally posted by Replaced_Texan
No. We're talking barbequed pork shoulder. Smoked for hours and hours and hours and rubbed down perfectly.

ETA: I highly recommend Robb Walsh's Legends of Texas Barbecue Cookbook: Recipes and Recollections from the Pit Bosses

2 to both.

[sebastian_dangerfield]

Originally posted by dtb
You know me!

For religious reasons, or just because you don't like/are grossed out by it?

[ltl/fb]

Originally posted by SlaveNoMore
On this topic, you appear even more cynical than me [god help us], but I definitely think you are much more correct about this than Burger.

People seem to have interest in the WWII internment camps and in Vietnam (Viet Nam, whatever), so I disagree with you two. I don't think that the Guantanamo/overseas detention and torture stuff will necessarily stand on its own, but the massaging (note how nicely I put that) of intelligence within the Administration for the Iraq war, particularly given that Iraq isn't and wasn't connected significantly with the main terrorist threat (al Qaeda), plus the torture and the coverups, will I think be in a lot of people's heads as a dark time in history, like Watergate or Vietnam or internment. People may not know the details, but if you say "good or bad -- vietnam/watergate/japanese internment" or if you say "what do you associate with Nixon," you know what the answers will be. People who aren't interested or knowledgable about history to get into the nuances pretty much think "bad/scandal" on all of those. Bush II and Iraq invasion will go the same way, and I think that in the US, many people will be more concerned with American actions in the whole convoluted nuanced mess than with how bad Hussein was.

I want to do some kind of Pol Pot/Hussein compare and contrast, but I don't know enough.

[ltl/fb]

Originally posted by ltl/fb
For me, but not for the spankster. And I'm (on the whole, aside from an inconvenient illness and a back being fucked up in basketball game, to my displeasure) not feeling in need of insight.

Add "unbalanced ex-wife" to the list of inconveniences. Would have appreciated a heads up that he and she are pondering getting back together and that she might drop by. Jesus H, good way to ruin that nice relaxed feeling.

[Captain]

Originally posted by Bad_Rich_Chic
I know, it could be just anything, like, privacy!

That said, one can take the position that all inalienable rights of rich-white-men are in fact contained in the Constitution (explicitly or implicitly), but they are a subset of the universe of rights contained therein, and due process of law (which seems an alienable right by definition, since it can be waived by the posessor) isn't one of them.

I took your original statement as a statement that the unalienable rights referenced in the Declaration are not spelled out in the Constitution, obviously a different statement. All we know about the Declaration's unalienable rights in the Declaration is that among them are life, liberty, and the pursuit of hapiness. Aren't we talking about life and liberty here?


That having been said, what did you mean - that the RWM Unalienable Rights are a subset of Constitutional Rights, overlap partially with Constitutional Rights, or are wholy separate from Constitutional Rights?

[dtb]

Originally posted by sebastian_dangerfield
For religious reasons, or just because you don't like/are grossed out by it?

both

[ltl/fb]

Originally posted by dtb
both

Cheeseburgers? Do you eat any pork at all (e.g. ham in potatoes gratin)?

[sebastian_dangerfield]

Originally posted by SlaveNoMore
On this topic, you appear even more cynical than me [god help us], but I definitely think you are much more correct about this than Burger.

I’m just sick and fucking tired of seeing whiny liberals cry about it. I am rather liberal, and I hate the fact that people have made the term an insult because soft-headed, chickenshit naive idealist “liberals” glom onto causes like abuse at Gauntanomo as though it were the central issue in the war on terror.

The Iraq prison abuse is disgusting. Those people don’t deserve to be treated as they were.

But the Afghanis who fought with the Taliban or AQ deserve every cruel and unusual form of punishment we can dream up and inflict. We shouldn’t torture them, but I’m not going to stand up and cry about it. Its pretty fucking low on my to do list, which is right where it belongs.

There’s also an element of caveat emptor at work here... If you fight for the Taliban or AQ - if you believe its OK to murder women in soccer stadiums for adultery - You’re taking a huge goddamn risk of having someone who doesn’t agree with such noxious behavior placing a bullet in your head. Lay down with dogs... etc...

These bleeding hearts would go a lot further, and get some respect, if they’d acknowledge that this country isn’t always wrong, and they’d show some sympathy for Americans who died on 9/1, rather than knee-jerking into the argument about how our foreign policy caused the attack. They need to have equal sympathy for their countrymen.

[dtb]

Originally posted by ltl/fb
Cheeseburgers? Do you eat any pork at all (e.g. ham in potatoes gratin)?

no pig. no shellfish. no animal that is not eligible for kosher status

[ltl/fb]

Originally posted by dtb
no pig. no shellfish. no animal that is not eligible for kosher status

Cheeseburgers?