Waiting for Fitzgerald

[sebastian_dangerfield]

Originally posted by Spanky
My sister just got back from the peace march in D.C. and my parents thought it was great that she went. She just seemd confused why I had such a problem with peace marches and peace in general. This is what I told her.

From my point of view there are two types of political systems. Might is right or might for right. There are no other options. If there is no law enforcement then then you get anarchy and the rule by the strong. So in my opinion you can't get justice without the use of force. In order to enforce the law and insure order (which is the only way to insure justice) you need to arrest people and lock them up. That is violence. If you don't use violence against people that do acts of injustice, you will end up with a system where might is right and there is no justice. In other words Justice and violence are inextricably linked.

So when I see people saying they are against law enforcement or say we don't need a police force, then, in my opinion they are promoting a system in which the criminals rule. Like Chicago in the 1930s. Once law enforcement breaks down the biggest and strongest thug takes control.

On the international stage justice and violence are also inextricably linked. Either might is right or there is might for right. So when I see peace marches, and people arguing to give peace a chance, I see people who want a world where might is right. A world in which people like Stalin, Hitler, Mao, Pol Pot etc are allowed to do whatever they please.

I have said this before, but more people were killed in the last century by the governments that ruled them than died in war. Some poeple dispute that but in my mind if only half as many people died at the hands of their own government than died in war it still makes the same point. In many cases peace is the worst option.

When I hear people say the US cannot be the worlds policeman, that to me says, the US should allow might to be right. What is wrong with promoting justice throughout the world? Every recent war the US has fought has been aginst incredible evil. Hitler, Kim in North Korea, Ho Chi Minh, Pol Pot Saddam Hussein etc. All these men were responsible for killing hundreds of thousands of people, if not millions.

In my opinion the idea of a peace and justice organization is a joke. You can't have both. You only get one. I choose justice. When I heard people say "Give Peace a Chance" I hear let injustice reign.

I understand the idea when people are against wars because it is being fought for an unjust reason. Our involement in suppressing the Phillipine insurrectino was an unjust war. But I think every war the US has been involved in since 1941 has been on the side of justice. Peace just for its own sake in my opinion, promotes injustice and encourages evil.

You can't have justice without using violence to create it. If you are against all forms of violence, you are against justice. It is that simple.

You're being oversimplistic. I agree that most peacenicks are naive and have their heads up their asses, BUT they do serve a purpose. They are part of the natl conscience. They keep us from becoming too violent in our pursuit of law and order. They are necessary (even the guy quoting Noam Chomsky and the really baked kid in the Cat in the Hat costume screaming about how Bush is a fascist).

I also don't think peaceniks are against all forms of violence. Today, most of them are aginst the Iraq War - something many law and order types even agree is unnecessary violence for no good reason.

[Penske_Account]

Originally posted by sebastian_dangerfield
You're being oversimplistic. I agree that most peacenicks are naive and have their heads up their asses, BUT they do serve a purpose. They are part of the natl conscience. They keep us from becoming too violent in our pursuit of law and order. They are necessary (even the guy quoting Noam Chomsky and the really baked kid in the Cat in the Hat costume screaming about how Bush is a fascist).

I also don't think peaceniks are against all forms of violence. Today, most of them are aginst the Iraq War - something many law and order types even agree is unnecessary violence for no good reason.

They are useful idiots. Useful for bulldozer practice....

[sebastian_dangerfield]

I watched this documentary called The Corporation last night. Its packed full of really cool information, and could have been a great evenhanded historical piece, outlining the history of corporations in the world.

Unfortunately, the producer decided to make it into a left wing, absolutely absurd criticism of corporations. The facts and stories are interesting enough to hold you for two hours, but every section is punctuated with some "point" about how corps are ruining our world. The movie never once gives a stitch of credit to the good corps do. It seems to suggest socialism is preferable and never deals with the fact that, but for corporations, many of the advancements in health, science, technology, communications, etc... would never exist. Instead, it just one-sidedly focuses on environmental problems caused by corps and selective examples of corps being prosecuted for crimes.

I don't mind a movie with an agenda, but these fucking extreme liberals go too far with this shit. They don't understand that they lose people when they put out one sided propaganda like this flick. And the preachiness was insulting. The narrative - delivered in NPRish tone (often by whiny freakish looking creatures, including Chomsky himself [possibly the most clueless fuck ever to publish an academic paper]) - reminds you of that idiot who taught you Econ 101 in freshman year. It was that condescending tone - the voice of one who'd studied but never actually plied her purported area of expertise.

I recommend this movie for two reasons:

1. There is a really interesting discussion of how the fact that corps are not allowed by law to have consciences affects society; and

2. You get a better understanding of why people hate the extreme left, and just how smug and self-righteous it can be.

[Penske_Account]

To all of my liberal pals here,

You may have been right about W after all. This morning for me could be a breaking moment. Harriet Miers is certainly, on her face (npi), the worst Supreme Court nominee since Souter, whose, coincidentally, highest qualification was being a personal friend of a friend of the Bush family (i.e. Sununu), although this one apparently is a personal friend of W. While I always cringed at Bush I's comment that "Thomas was the most qualified person for the seat", this lady makes Thomas look qualified.

Either she is a strategic appointment, offered as a sacrificial lamb (for her lack of record), with the ultimate thought being the liberals can't block two in a row, and the next one will be the real deal (JRB, PO, ML or EJ) or Bush may have just fvcked us for the next 20 years.

FYI, sources say this lady donated to Gore's campaign. And Bensten's.

Like fucking father, like son.

Spanky, what the fuck?

[sebastian_dangerfield]

Originally posted by Penske_Account
They are useful idiots. Useful for bulldozer practice....

Dude, if that is a series of shots of that dipshit 18 year old who was run over by a tank in Gaza a few years bac, Ty's going to give that post the hook... I think Faces of Death rotten.com style photos are banned. But then again, I never read the rules. I just agreed to them.

[sebastian_dangerfield]

Originally posted by Penske_Account
To all of my liberal pals here,

You may have been right about W after all. This morning for me could be a breaking moment. Harriet Miers is certainly, on her face (npi), the worst Supreme Court nominee since Souter, whose, coincidentally, highest qualification was being a personal friend of a friend of the Bush family (i.e. Sununu), although this one apparently is a personal friend of W. While I always cringed at Bush I's comment that "Thomas was the most qualified person for the seat", this lady makes Thomas look qualified.

Either she is a strategic appointment, offered as a sacrificial lamb (for her lack of record), with the ultimate thought being the liberals can't block two in a row, and the next one will be the real deal (JRB, PO, ML or EJ) or Bush may have just fvcked us for the next 20 years.

FYI, sources say this lady donated to Gore's campaign. And Bensten's.

Like fucking father, like son.

Spanky, what the fuck?

Ahhhh, good to see W's Connecticut side is retaking his brain.

Silly Penske, you don't even understand, do you? If Bush wwent hard right and gave the white trash their constitutional literalist, he'd be dooming the GOP for decades. We'd be taxed senseless by some serious left wing Dem president next time around. We'd be fucked, my dear boy. Fucked. High taxes and a socially right wing SCOTUS? Who wins there?

This is a brilliant pick - it preserves the GOP's future and mutes Dem criticism (Harry Reid suggested Bush appoint Miers).

[Penske_Account]

Originally posted by sebastian_dangerfield
Dude, if that is a series of shots of that dipshit 18 year old who was run over by a tank in Gaza a few years bac, Ty's going to give that post the hook... I think Faces of Death rotten.com style photos are banned. But then again, I never read the rules. I just agreed to them.

It's not Rotten.com. They are pics that have been published in many commercial publications and are all over the web and not graphic (in comparison to the close-up shots of her run-over). This is an example, and a cautionary one for the liberal duncery here, of what happens when you attempt to assist terrorists in their campaign of genocide. You get bulldozed.

[Penske_Account]

Originally posted by sebastian_dangerfield
Ahhhh, good to see W's Connecticut side is retaking his brain.

Silly Penske, you don't even understand, do you? If Bush wwent hard right and gave the white trash their constitutional literalist, he'd be dooming the GOP for decades. We'd be taxed senseless by some serious left wing Dem president next time around. We'd be fucked, my dear boy. Fucked. High taxes and a socially right wing SCOTUS? Who wins there?

This is a brilliant pick - it preserves the GOP's future and mutes Dem criticism (Harry Reid suggested Bush appoint Miers).

1. I am more Connecticut than either Bush or you, and I fail to see the relation to the Nutmeg State;

2. Please review the backgrounds of Federal appellate judges Luttig, Jones, and [hi uknowwho!] McConnell (whose nomination, btw, I believe a well known liberal here would support) [/hi uknowwho!], and explain to me how these people are white trash nominees. You or I should have such a distinguished legal pedigree.

3. If this is Bush's strategy, to appease the Dems for future generations, then he is as much of a liar as his dad (who, as far as I am concerned, can burn in hell, assuming there is a hell). I am not convinced of this rationale, but if its true I will formally and publicly eat every word of support I ever gave this nomination and probably not vote R for a while (much as after Bush's dad, I didn't vote R for 8 years). I see this more as pure cronyism, which is only marginally less bad, but still results in a bad nomination. Bush was not elected by the Dems. He was elected by a consituency to which he made certain representations as to what he would do. He likely just breached one of those reps (and a big one)-the level of substantive egregiousness behind that breach is up for speculation.

[sebastian_dangerfield]

Originally posted by Penske_Account
1. I am more Connecticut than either Bush or you, and I fail to see the relation to the Nutmeg State;

2. Please review the backgrounds of Federal appellate judges Luttig, Jones, and [hi uknowwho!] McConnell (whose nomination, btw, I believe a well known liberal here would support) [/hi uknowwho!], and explain to me how these people are white trash nominees. You or I should have such a distinguished legal pedigree.

3. If this is Bush's strategy, to appease the Dems for future generations, then he is as much of a liar as his dad (who, as far as I am concerned, can burn in hell, assuming there is a hell). I am not convinced of this rationale, but if its true I will formally and publicly eat every word of support I ever gave this nomination and probably not vote R for a while (much as after Bush's dad, I didn't vote R for 8 years). I see this more as pure cronyism, which is only marginally less bad, but still results in a bad nomination. Bush was not elected by the Dems. He was elected by a consituency to which he made certain representations as to what he would do. He likely just breached one of those reps (and a big one)-the level of substantive egregiousness behind that breach is up for speculation.

1. I mean Connecticut in the sense that Miers appears to be a socially moderate, fiscal conservative - a Connecticut moderate, possibly even "Rockefeller"* republican;

2. The nominees you mention are obviously not white trash, and you know I was not saying they were. I was saying that many of the people who support such "originalists" are of thw white trash persuasion. Not all, mind you... just many;

3. You will vote GOP because you will have no other acceptable economic option;

4. Bush is doing the GOP a favor. Nobody wins if the SCOTUS goes hard right. Bush is avoiding a whiplash pendulum shift to the left in the next elections. If he nominated a right wing imbecile stupid enough to start issuing radical rulings and overturning sacred cows of jurisprudence, you'd piss off the moderate GOP vote.

5. You can't give it all away to the rabid right. We live in a country of 280 million. 10 million of us should not be able to control what everyone else does by acting like children and threatening to pull their votes if they don't get a justiice who gets behind their pet issues. Bush is doing the right thing here, as his father did in this situation. He's doing the right thing for the country and his party.


* Thought extinct.

[Gattigap]

Originally posted by Penske_Account
To all of my liberal pals here,

You may have been right about W after all. This morning for me could be a breaking moment. Harriet Miers is certainly, on her face (npi), the worst Supreme Court nominee since Souter, whose, coincidentally, highest qualification was being a personal friend of a friend of the Bush family (i.e. Sununu), although this one apparently is a personal friend of W. While I always cringed at Bush I's comment that "Thomas was the most qualified person for the seat", this lady makes Thomas look qualified.

Either she is a strategic appointment, offered as a sacrificial lamb (for her lack of record), with the ultimate thought being the liberals can't block two in a row, and the next one will be the real deal (JRB, PO, ML or EJ) or Bush may have just fvcked us for the next 20 years.

FYI, sources say this lady donated to Gore's campaign. And Bensten's.

Like fucking father, like son.

Spanky, what the fuck?

Who the hell is Harriet Miers?

I know she's WH counsel, and that she's a Texas buddy and all. But still. Unless this woman assasinates abortion doctors in her spare time or something, I'm completely baffled by Bush's apparent punt on this one.

ETA: A friend who happens to know a bit about this woman has passed along the following trivia:

"*she's unmarried, a career professional women who's been very successful.

* she was the President of the Dallas law firm Locke Purnell Rain Harrell (a firm that I interviewed with out of law school, but decided not to pursue) when it merged with the Houston law firm Liddell Sapp, becoming the co-Managing Partner of Locke Liddell & Sapp after the merger.

* she was a well-known litigation attorney before she started working for Governor Bush

* she's worked in the Bush White House for the last several years.

* she's said to be very loyal to Bush

* she has no judicial experience. All her career has been either in private practice or in politics.

Should be interesting."

Indeed.

[Penske_Account]

Originally posted by sebastian_dangerfield
1. I mean Connecticut in the sense that Miers appears to be a socially moderate, fiscal conservative - a Connecticut moderate, possibly even "Rockefeller"* republican;

2. The nominees you mention are obviously not white trash, and you know I was not saying they were. I was saying that many of the people who support such "originalists" are of thw white trash persuasion. Not all, mind you... just many;

3. You will vote GOP because you will have no other acceptable economic option;

4. Bush is doing the GOP a favor. Nobody wins if the SCOTUS goes hard right. Bush is avoiding a whiplash pendulum shift to the left in the next elections. If he nominated a right wing imbecile stupid enough to start issuing radical rulings and overturning sacred cows of jurisprudence, you'd piss off the moderate GOP vote.

5. You can't give it all away to the rabid right. We live in a country of 280 million. 10 million of us should not be able to control what everyone else does by acting like children and threatening to pull their votes if they don't get a justiice who gets behind their pet issues. Bush is doing the right thing here, as his father did in this situation. He's doing the right thing for the country and his party.


* Thought extinct.

1. Elitist paternalistic Country club republicans like the Rockefellers are extinct and thankfully. We need less fed gov't, of either the Rep or dem strain.

2. Who cares if white trash support originalists, the bottom line is the legal accomplishments as jurists of Luttig, JRB, Clement, Jones, Alita, McConnel, Owen et al, far outweigh those of this Miers person. She is a lightweight and frankly barely more qualified than you or I. Hell, I'd take Ty over her. No offence.

3. Dissent. Do you read the words in my posts or just look at the pics? I will recap for you [SPANKY, SCROLL PAST THIS] After Bush rescinded his "No new taxes promise", I voted against him and for Perot. In 96, I thought the GOP made a shitty nomination, despite the fact that years prior I had been a Dole supporter, and I voted for Perot. In 2000, in protest of another subpar nominee I would have voted for Gore, but for the fact that he supported perjury by the PotUS and in the process helped diminished the office of the President (I was unaware of the national security damage these people had done at that time that would directly result in 3000 dead Americans) [/SPANKY, SCROLL PAST THE ABOVE]

4. Bush just lost the hard right wing of the party which could ensure a Dimwit controlled fed govt for the next decade.

5. His father lied, and now, apparently, Bush has been exposed as a liar too. While not under oath, it is still a huge breach of trust. This may be his lame duck event. Either way, it cements the reality, he is no REagan.

What right thing did his father do, Thomas?

[Penske_Account]

Originally posted by Gattigap
Who the hell is Harriet Miers?

I know she's WH counsel, and that she's a Texas buddy and all. But still. Unless this woman assasinates abortion doctors in her spare time or something, I'm completely baffled by Bush's apparent punt on this one.

1. Its cronyism at its worst, but look at the record, Souter, Cheney, Rumsfeld, Rove, Condi, Karen Hughes, the Saudis. The Saudis!!!

2. Lame. Duck.

I pray that I am proven wrong, but sadly, I suspect that all of my worst fears from 2000 are coming true. Even if he doesn't raise income taxes in the next 3 years, his failure to work diligently for the estate tax repeal is close enough to a tax increase. Can I rescind my vote in Florida from 2000?

[Captain]

As I listened to the litany of issues before the court, it struck me that there is one set of issues this administration is more deeply invested in than any other. That issue is whether the administration's actions with respect to prisoners of war in Afghanistan and Iraq meet constitutional muster in particular.

Could it be that having a Bush loyalist with a voice on the court is more important at this juncture than the agenda? Of course, this doesn't address the issue of when she will be needed to recuse herself.

All else aside, I am not ready to question the woman's credentials as inadequate; she has had positions of great responsibility in both government and the private sector, and could turn out to be a fine jurist.

[sebastian_dangerfield]

Originally posted by Penske_Account
1. Elitist paternalistic Country club republicans like the Rockefellers are extinct and thankfully. We need less fed gov't, of either the Rep or dem strain.

2. Who cares if white trash support originalists, the bottom line is the legal accomplishments as jurists of Luttig, JRB, Clement, Jones, Alita, McConnel, Owen et al, far outweigh those of this Miers person. She is a lightweight and frankly barely more qualified than you or I. Hell, I'd take Ty over her. No offence.

3. Dissent. Do you read the words in my posts or just look at the pics? I will recap for you [SPANKY, SCROLL PAST THIS] After Bush rescinded his "No new taxes promise", I voted against him and for Perot. In 96, I thought the GOP made a shitty nomination, despite the fact that years prior I had been a Dole supporter, and I voted for Perot. In 2000, in protest of another subpar nominee I would have voted for Gore, but for the fact that he supported perjury by the PotUS and in the process helped diminished the office of the President (I was unaware of the national security damage these people had done at that time that would directly result in 3000 dead Americans) [/SPANKY, SCROLL PAST THE ABOVE]

4. Bush just lost the hard right wing of the party which could ensure a Dimwit controlled fed govt for the next decade.

5. His father lied, and now, apparently, Bush has been exposed as a liar too. While not under oath, it is still a huge breach of trust. This may be his lame duck event. Either way, it cements the reality, he is no REagan.

What right thing did his father do, Thomas?

Bush did not lose the hard right. They have no choice but to vote GOP. Like Judge Smails said to Spalding, "[They'll] get nothing... and like it!" What's their option? Vote for Hillary? Pissing on those people is the best thing for the country. The Jesus Nazis and the Shrill Left have to get slapped down and told to shut the fuck up. The Left and its Michael Moore wing got their asses handed to them in 2004. Now its the Right's turn. Both poles have to be taught that the Country will not tolerate tyranny by a vehement minority. Bush wisely chose to shut down the Right here and now, rather than allow their idiocy to lead to a huge pendulum shift next election.

Don't you understand the wisdom of being centrist? Its the radical shifts which hurt people. Bush is blunting a massive shift in 2008. He's saving everyone from the Dems electing a big govt liberal who will ruin our future.

Now, if he could only figure out how to undo his own huge govt, he'd really redeem himself. Otherwise, the next president - hopefully a centrist from either party - will spend his first term dismantling George Bush's Great Society.

The poles need to be shut down because they distract us from the true battle. The battle is everyone versus the political class. We need to carve govt down to nothing but essential services and wipe out the bloated inefficient complexes that feed off it and within it. The people who want smaller govt on both sides of the aisle need to get together and stop being split by idiots who think an inconsequential and minor issue like abortion should drive the national political debate.

Miers is a centrist pick - confirm her.

[Gattigap]

Originally posted by Captain

Could it be that having a Bush loyalist with a voice on the court is more important at this juncture than the agenda? Of course, this doesn't address the issue of when she will be needed to recuse herself.

Well, he may have one. From noted Bush critic David Frum:

• I believe I was the first to float the name of Harriet Miers, White House counsel, as a possible Supreme Court. Today her name is all over the news. I have to confess that at the time, I was mostly joking. Harriet Miers is a capable lawyer, a hard worker, and a kind and generous person. She would be an reasonable choice for a generalist attorney, which is indeed how George W. Bush first met her. She would make an excellent trial judge: She is a careful and fair-minded listener. But US Supreme Court?
  
  In the White House that hero worshipped the president, Miers was distinguished by the intensity of her zeal: She once told me that the president was the most brilliant man she had ever met. She served Bush well, but she is not the person to lead the court in new directions - or to stand up under the criticism that a conservative justice must expect.