Posting Towards Gomorrah

[taxwonk]

Originally posted by Spanky
Once you join an army that is taking arms against the United States don't you immediately lose your citizenship. I am pretty sure it says that in my passport. In fact once you join a military organization without US approval, I think it is game over. We don't even have to be at war with them. If that isnt' the rule it should be. When Germans joined the German army during WWII wasn't that it? One of these guys had joined Al Queda and the other one was fighting with the Taliban.

Its not like these guys were in San Franicsco speaking against the war. One had a gun and was shooting at American soliders on foreign soil and the other went to foreign countrys to collaberate with an organization that had declared war on the US.

I can't believe Hamdi still has US citizenship. As for Padilla it is a little tougher because Al Queda is not a foreign nation, but it might as well be. But that is a far cry from locking people up just for demonstrating against the war (as happened in the Civil War, WWI and WWII). Hell, in WWII, they didn't even demostrate, they were thrown in jail just for their ethnicity.

These two cases certainly don't make me lose any sleep at night.

Padilla was arrested in the US and Hamadi was on foreign soil. We don't know if either of them had engaged in crimes against the US because they haven't been tried yet. It's even more impossible to say what they may or may not have done, because the federal government has refused to produce terh evidence against them.

What's more, I am agog at the fact that you are seriously raising the darkest moments in American history as justification for going even farther in giving ourselves an even bigger black eye. What's your second act, asserting that allowing us to enslave Blacks again will allow the US to compete with the developing world on labor costs?

[Spanky]

Originally posted by taxwonk
Padilla was arrested in the US and Hamadi was on foreign soil. We don't know if either of them had engaged in crimes against the US because they haven't been tried yet. It's even more impossible to say what they may or may not have done, because the federal government has refused to produce terh evidence against them.

What's more, I am agog at the fact that you are seriously raising the darkest moments in American history as justification for going even farther in giving ourselves an even bigger black eye. What's your second act, asserting that allowing us to enslave Blacks again will allow the US to compete with the developing world on labor costs?

As for Padilla, he was arrested in the United States right when he got off the plane. In other words he was intercepted when he was trying to come back to the US.

As for Hamadi, if someone is a member of a foreign army that is engaged in combat with the United States they don't need to be "tried" to see if they are guilty. Hamadi is a prisoner of war.

If these guys were just hanging out in the US and were arrested, then I might get nervous. But these are not cut and dry cases. Its nice they are being litigated, but I am not expecting a Nazi take over anytime soon.

[Spanky]

Would someone please explain what the big deal is with the Minimum wage? Arnold singed an increase in the minimus wage and the wingers (that is what I call the archconservatives) are going bonkers. Why is an increase in the minimus wage such a catastrophe? Yes - I understand the economics, a raise in the minimum wage causes an increase in unemployment. But the type of unemployment it creates is jobs that pay less than minimum wage. No other higher paying jobs are lost. Since those jobs can't really sustain a human being to live, what is the point of having them? The types of jobs that are lost are the types of jobs that won't sustain a person, so the person that has them will have to look to the government for assistance anyway. The point is to get them jobs where they won't have to look for the government for assistance. If the job doesn't get the person off government assistance its not worth a damn anyway. So what is the loss if the economy loses such a job?

We use the free market system because it is the best system for creating growth. Not because it is perfect. It is the worst system save the rest. It has problems (like the environment, workers safety etc) so the legal system has to deal with its inadequecies.

As the wealth of society grows what is wrong with insuring that jobs at least pay a living wage? could someone please explain this to me?

[Tyrone Slothrop]

Originally posted by Spanky
You are seriously deluded if you think anyone on this board does not think you are a knee jerk liberal. How do I know this without ESP? - I have been reading this board for over a year. I think your impression of yourself and your the impression you give off on the board are two totally different things.

Of all the posters I would say that you are the most ideologicaly rigid, except for maybe Taxwonk. The proof of the pudding is that all the posters on the right agree with me. Unless you argue you with someone its hard to understand how closed minded they really are.

However, I could be open to that fact that I am wrong. Anyone can correct me if they think I am wrong. Are there any conservatives on this board that think that although Ty is liberal, he is generally more openminded than the other liberals on the board?

And if that doesn't work for you - I will open it up even more- does anyone on this board think that Ty is not the most ideologicaly rigid person on the left? Is there anyone that thinks they are more liberal than Ty?

BTW: All liberals are for balanced budgets now that the Bush administration and the Republicans are creating them. The test is if you critisize them when the Dems are in control.

I asked for specifics because a conversation at this level of generality is pretty pointless. But have it your way.

[Mmmm, Burger (C.J.)]

Originally posted by SlaveNoMore
If you lived in Rhode Island you could lol at signs that say "Lincoln Chafee, Republican."

Time to get on board with the RNC, Slave

[Penske_Account]

[taxwonk]

Originally posted by Penske_Account

I think you need to get that silkscreened on the side of your custom van.

[Tyrone Slothrop]

Anyone know why Bush invited George Pataki, Rudy Giuliani and Mike Bloomberg to join him in as he laid a wreath a ground zero last night, but not Charles Schumer or Hillary Rodham Clinton?

[Sidd Finch]

Originally posted by Tyrone Slothrop
Anyone know why Bush invited George Pataki, Rudy Giuliani and Mike Bloomberg to join him in as he laid a wreath a ground zero last night, but not Charles Schumer or Hillary Rodham Clinton?

Because Schumer and Clinton are with the terrorists. Figure it out, Ty -- Bush is a uniter, not a divider, and he intends to unite everyone against his enemies.


On the other hand, now that he and the Republican Congress are creating balanced budgets, we can all support him.*




*Off point, but I just read it in one of Spanky's more hallucinatory posts and the line is so irretrievably hilarious that I just am gonna have to sprinkle it in here and there.

[pony_trekker]

If another attack happens in this country, don't blame me . . . I voted to

[Hank Chinaski]

Originally posted by Tyrone Slothrop
Anyone know why Bush invited George Pataki, Rudy Giuliani and Mike Bloomberg to join him in as he laid a wreath a ground zero last night, but not Charles Schumer or Hillary Rodham Clinton?

not to argue, but wouldn't the invitation have come from locals- the Govenor or mayor?

[SlaveNoMore]

Tyrone Slothrop
Anyone know why Bush invited George Pataki, Rudy Giuliani and Mike Bloomberg to join him in as he laid a wreath a ground zero last night, but not Charles Schumer or Hillary Rodham Clinton?

I'll respond tomorrow.

I'm avoiding the PB today. Think of it as a moment of silence.

For go over to Infirm and start reading
here

[Mmmm, Burger (C.J.)]

Originally posted by SlaveNoMore

I'm avoiding the PB today. Think of it as a moment of silence.

the terrorists truly have won!

[sgtclub]

Anyone watch it last night?

[taxwonk]

Originally posted by sgtclub
Anyone watch it last night?

I can't think of much of anything other than Penske's photoshop jobs that shows poorer taste. So that would be a no for me.