Politics: Onward from New Hampshire

[bilmore]

Originally posted by Tyrone_Slothrop
Haiti is a mess. I'd be in favor of trying something if someone had a good idea what to try.

Statehood. Make it safe, open a ton of resorts. Probably raise annual income by five or six thousand percent.

[Atticus Grinch]

Originally posted by Tyrone_Slothrop
Club thinks pissing off the enemy when you've got troops in the area is treasonous. By that definition, anyone who publicly says that we shouldn't be intervening in Haiti may put our troops at risk and is committing treason.

You'll note that I have judiciously left out of my posts any substantive opinion on Haiti intervention, because I am a patriot and wouldn't want to undermine my country's interests by having views about the Administration's actions or policies before those actions are taken or policies articulated. Treason is a tricky thing.

BTW, the "Support Our Troops!" platform no longer has room for those who support our troops being in Fort Benning or Norfolk NS, apparently. To support them, you have to deploy them, and then support them some more.

[Hank Chinaski]

Originally posted by bilmore
Statehood. Make it safe, open a ton of resorts. Probably raise annual income by five or six thousand percent.

Fuck that. It's thinking like that that gave California statehood.

[Tyrone Slothrop]

Today, gay marriage; tomorrow, shrimp.

[bilmore]

Originally posted by Hank Chinaski
Fuck that. It's thinking like that that gave California statehood.

California's a state?

I thought it was a reality TV show.

[Tyrone Slothrop]

Originally posted by bilmore
Make it safe.

Sounds simple. Let's do it.

[Secret_Agent_Man]

Originally posted by Tyrone_Slothrop
Club thinks pissing off the enemy when you've got troops in the area is treasonous. By that definition, anyone who publicly says that we shouldn't be intervening in Haiti may put our troops at risk and is committing treason.

Heck, by THAT definition Club should be writing his Congresspeople to urge impeachment! [Treason is a "High Crime", right?]

"Bring it on!"



S_A_M

[Dave]

Originally posted by Atticus Grinch

We've got troops on the ground in Iraq; does that mean Sean Penn was almost treasonous during the Oscar broadcast? (Don't answer that.)

Sean's been almost treasonous for years. It's just who he is.

On the subject of Haiti, since it was (IIRC) a French colony, maybe France has an idea. Wasn't Chriac's objective during Iraq II to secure a role for his country as a leader in a new, multi-polar political world? Here you go, Jacques, sort this one out.

Didn't think so.

[sgtclub]

Originally posted by Tyrone_Slothrop
Club thinks pissing off the enemy when you've got troops in the area is treasonous. By that definition, anyone who publicly says that we shouldn't be intervening in Haiti may put our troops at risk and is committing treason.

You don't think it was (a) irresponsible and (b) for purely political purposes for them to hold the press conference without first checking the story with State? I'm all for dissent, but I think when there are troops in harm's way, it is encumbent on our elected reps to apply a greater level of scrutiny before "supporting" such allegations.*

*Hank, this is a prompt for you. Please post our party line regarding interesting allegations.

[Atticus Grinch]

Originally posted by Tyrone_Slothrop
Today, gay marriage; tomorrow, shrimp.

Sorry, but God has a couple of other marriage-related policies that take priority over the unclean things that creep at the bottom of the sea.
[list=1][*]Marriage in the United States shall consist of a union between one man and one (or more) women. (Gen 29:17-28; II Sam 3:2-5).
[*]Marriage shall not impede a man's right to take concubines, in addition to his wife or wives. (II Sam 5:13; I Kings 11:3; II Chron 11:21)
[*]A marriage shall be considered valid only if the wife is a virgin. If the wife is not a virgin, she shall be executed. (Deut 22:13-21).
[*]Marriage of a believer and a non-believer shall be forbidden. (Gen 24:3; Num 25:1-9; Ezra 9:12; Neh 10:30)
[*]Since marriage is for life, neither this Constitution nor the constitution of any State, nor any state or federal law, shall be
construed to permit divorce. (Deut 22:19; Mark 10:9)
[*]If a married man dies without children, his brother shall marry the widow. If he refuses to marry his brother's widow or deliberately does not give her children, he shall pay a fine of one shoe, and be otherwise punished in a manner to be determined by law. (Gen. 38:6-10; Deut 25:5-10)
[*]If there are no acceptable men in your town, you may get your dad drunk and have sex with him tag-teaming with any sisters you may have. (Gen 19:31-36)[/list=1]

I look forward to seeing the best minds of the GOP come up with tenable Constitutional language enshrining these principles, and I look forward also to Ty's re-write that accomplishes them without the ambiguity that often results when the GOP leadership doesn't want to admit what its real agenda is.

[sgtclub]

http://www.boston.com/business/artic...minal_charges/

[bilmore]

Originally posted by sgtclub
You don't think it was (a) irresponsible and (b) for purely political purposes for them to hold the press conference without first checking the story with State? I'm all for dissent, but I think when there are troops in harm's way, it is encumbent on our elected reps to apply a greater level of scrutiny before "supporting" such allegations.*

*Hank, this is a prompt for you. Please post our party line regarding interesting allegations.

C'mon, you just got bandwagonned. Should've been ready for it.

"Treason" is no longer an acceptable word for this sort of situation. It would have been better for you to merely indicate that these particular politicians have the intelligence of rocks (sedimentary, specifically), and the ethics of monitor lizards. (Don't ask. They're very unethical, for lizards.)

Wait, can we still say "ethics"?

[Tyrone Slothrop]

Originally posted by sgtclub
You don't think it was (a) irresponsible and (b) for purely political purposes for them to hold the press conference without first checking the story with State? I'm all for dissent, but I think when there are troops in harm's way, it is encumbent on our elected reps to apply a greater level of scrutiny before "supporting" such allegations.*

Trashing Maxine Waters is easy. Let's all do it. I'm not going to defend her as responsible. Charlie Rangel I'm less clear on, but that's like saying that once you've looked into the sun for a while, it's hard to tell how bright a lightbulb is.

Irresponsible? Dunno. If it's Colin Powell's word against Aristide's, I tend to believe Powell, but it's not like this story wouldn't be out there if Waters and Rangel had kept mum. Aristide can talk to other people. I don't think they did any harm, I don't think they were acting for political purposes -- what does that mean in this context, anyway? -- and I don't think what they said did anything to increase the jeopardy to our troops. As I said yesterday, it was a slow news day.

[bilmore]

Originally posted by Atticus Grinch
Sorry, but God has a couple of other marriage-related policies that take priority over the unclean things that creep at the bottom of the sea.

I share your derision of all things religious, but the info I've been seeing places nearly as much support for this mystical claptrap on Democrats as on Repubs. Are you sure you can make this your defining issue?

[bilmore]

Originally posted by Tyrone_Slothrop
I don't think they did any harm, I don't think they were acting for political purposes -- what does that mean in this context, anyway? -- and I don't think what they said did anything to increase the jeopardy to our troops.

If supporters hear that he didn't just flee, but instead was carried away, they may continue the fight in the hopes that he can return. This is directly supported by what I heard on CNN a while ago. (i.e., a supporter saying "if he didn't go voluntarily, then he'll be back!") Plus, it makes us the bad guys to a big crowd of people with Aristide's guns.