Politics: A new beginning

[Atticus Grinch]

Originally posted by sgtclub
What I'm saying is if you don't like cuts, just say so - you don't have to spin it by throwing in tards, kids, the elderly, the blind, the poor, etc. The principle should stand on its own.

This is so monumentally superficial, I don't know where to start. "The principle should stand on its own"?* In your world, do you imagine that Democrats pound tables and say "We need more taxes!" and Republicans say "We need fewer taxes!" and that's pretty much all she wrote? Do you imagine that no Democrat has ever questioned the value of a government program in relation to its cost? (Shut up, Slave, this doesn't concern you.) Do you imagine that the Republicans believe there shouldn't be any taxation whatsoever?

*I'd have fun coming up with GOP principles that "should stand on their own." Like that they hate retarded people, pregnant women, children, and forests.

[Tyrone Slothrop]

Originally posted by Secret_Agent_Man
(Am I alone in finding it disturbing that our government would take position No. 1? (Interstingly, tehy took the same position in Hamdi as well - - but then gave him a lawyer anyway before the S.Ct. decided on the cert. petition.) Sorry, wait Mr. Ashcroft, No! I'm not an enemy combatant, honest!)

Not only are you not alone, I believe I read recently that Viet Dinh, the Georgetown Law Professor who took the lead on drafting the USA PATRIOT Act while he was at DOJ, agrees with you.

[Atticus Grinch]

Originally posted by bilmore
So, ultimately, I like the way this has shaken out. A war-time national security decision was allowed to remain for a reasonable period of time, and then the process worked, and the courts have said that it needs to stop. We have not damaged the viability of our system, we have not changed our concept of rights, but, in recognition that this was an unprecedented situation, in unprecedented times, the issue was worked out on a timeframe that precluded immediate harm to national security.

Translation: The Bush administration's policy has now outlived its purpose and must be harnassed by the courts.

Can we get a memo to the DOJ that they're wasting our time and money defending this shit on appeal?

[Tyrone Slothrop]

Originally posted by Atticus Grinch
Translation: The Bush administration's policy has now outlived its purpose and must be harnassed by the courts.

Can we get a memo to the DOJ that they're wasting our time and money defending this shit on appeal?

I think bilmore's point is that the DOJ's run-out-the-clock strategy is a winning one for us, regardless of who has more points on the scoreboard when time's up.

[sgtclub]

Originally posted by Atticus Grinch
This is so monumentally superficial, I don't know where to start. "The principle should stand on its own"?* In your world, do you imagine that Democrats pound tables and say "We need more taxes!" and Republicans say "We need fewer taxes!" and that's pretty much all she wrote? Do you imagine that no Democrat has ever questioned the value of a government program in relation to its cost? (Shut up, Slave, this doesn't concern you.) Do you imagine that the Republicans believe there shouldn't be any taxation whatsoever?

*I'd have fun coming up with GOP principles that "should stand on their own." Like that they hate retarded people, pregnant women, children, and forests.

In my world, i.e., the real world, Democrats use kids, the elderly, the poor, etc., in order to avoid the substantive debate. Casting and issue as "if you do x, y will suffer horror," is intellectually fraudulent, because y never occurs. So the issue becomes, are you for or against this "protected" group of people, not whether you are for or against the issue presented.

Just take your example regarding the tards. The issue is cast as "AS is evil because he wants to harm tards."

I don't fault you for being a proponent of social programs. I think the position has many immoral issues attenuate to it, but I realize I am on the fringe. Most people agree that most social programs are a good thing.

[Atticus Grinch]

Originally posted by sgtclub
In my world, i.e., the real world, Democrats use kids, the elderly, the poor, etc., in order to avoid the substantive debate. Casting and issue as "if you do x, y will suffer horror," is intellectually fraudulent, because y never occurs. So the issue becomes, are you for or against this "protected" group of people, not whether you are for or against the issue presented.

Just take your example regarding the tards. The issue is cast as "AS is evil because he wants to harm tards."

I don't fault you for being a proponent of social programs. I think the position has many immoral issues attenuate to it, but I realize I am on the fringe. Most people agree that most social programs are a good thing.

That's insane. You're asking that we fund govenrment spending priorities in some sort of double-blind system. "Who wants to cut ten percent off Line Item 108?" "Uh, what does it fund?" "None of your fucking business; you'll make better spending decisions if you don't know. Otherwise you'll just go crying to the electorate about what we're cutting."

The effect of government programs on real lives has everything to do with whether they should be first or last in line for cuts, and also whether they justify tax bites from individuals. Or, in this case, not rescinding taxes that were already budgeted, levied, and collected.

Your party tends to agree that some items are untouchable. Otherwise, you should be first in line to recall AS for all his promises not to cut education. Or for taking huge chunks of money from the state to give to local governments this week. Or for backing the terminally stupid Prop 49.

[sgtclub]

Originally posted by Atticus Grinch
That's insane. You're asking that we fund govenrment spending priorities in some sort of double-blind system. "Who wants to cut ten percent off Line Item 108?" "Uh, what does it fund?" "None of your fucking business; you'll make better spending decisions if you don't know. Otherwise you'll just go crying to the electorate about what we're cutting."

The effect of government programs on real lives has everything to do with whether they should be first or last in line for cuts, and also whether they justify tax bites from individuals. Or, in this case, not rescinding taxes that were already budgeted, levied, and collected.

Your party tends to agree that some items are untouchable. Otherwise, you should be first in line to recall AS for all his promises not to cut education. Or for taking huge chunks of money from the state to give to local governments this week. Or for backing the terminally stupid Prop 49.

No, what I'm asking is for an honest and rational debate on the merits, not an emotional debate based on who is neediest. I have no problem with each effected group saying, "please don't cut (or reduce the increase), because this is what the effect will be" so long as the stated effect is in the ball park of the truth.

Frankly*, if it were my decision, I would do an across the board cut, excluding only police, fire and other emergency services.

*For Ty's benefit only.

[Tyrone Slothrop]

Originally posted by sgtclub
Just take your example regarding the tards. The issue is cast as "AS is evil because he wants to harm tards."

Evidently I wasn't clear yesterday. This is offensive.

Carry on.

[sgtclub]

Originally posted by Tyrone_Slothrop
Evidently I wasn't clear yesterday. This is offensive.

Carry on.

Didn't know you were part of the pc police, being so free speech and all.

[Tyrone Slothrop]

Originally posted by sgtclub
Didn't know you were part of the pc police, being so free speech and all.

Don't be stupid. You're free to say whatever you want. I am the moderator, but all I did was tell you that calling people "tards" is offensive. It has nothing to do with PC, unless by that you mean that pointing out that something is offensive is necessarily PC.

[Atticus Grinch]

Originally posted by Tyrone_Slothrop
Don't be stupid. You're free to say whatever you want. I am the moderator, but all I did was tell you that calling people "tards" is offensive. It has nothing to do with PC, unless by that you mean that pointing out that something is offensive is necessarily PC.

Face it, Ty, you're busted. Telling someone that they're being rude and offensive violates their fundamental right to speak without hearing what is flawed about their ideas or expression.

I'm told it's in the Constitution. They tell me it's a penumbral right, and I'm too afraid to disagree. Don't want to oppress them, you know.

[Skeks in the city]

Originally posted by Atticus Grinch

Wasn't Schwarzenegger supposed to close the budget gap by auditing the state and finding all sorts of waste, fraud, and abuse? Oh, I get it. To a Republican, social service programs that keep misfortunate parents of disabled children out of bankruptcy are de facto wasteful, fraudulent, and abusive.

No, dawg, it's like Willie Sutton says, you got to cut spending where the money is. The big targets are education and medicaid spending. Since education is politically popular, medicaid is the way to go. It's not about hating the poor. It simply dollars and sense.

[Hank Chinaski]

Originally posted by Atticus Grinch
Face it, Ty, you're busted. Telling someone that they're being rude and offensive violates their fundamental right to speak without hearing what is flawed about their ideas or expression.

I'm told it's in the Constitution. They tell me it's a penumbral right, and I'm too afraid to disagree. Don't want to oppress them, you know.

if you take the 7th words from each of the 2nd, 8th 9th and 21st amendments, then the 3rd words from the 6th, 9th and 11th amendments (you know the right of privacy, but played backwards- Paul is dead!), clearly Ty was violating some rights here.

[ltl/fb]

Originally posted by Hank Chinaski
if you take the 7th words from each of the 2nd, 8th 9th and 21st amendments, then the 3rd words from the 6th, 9th and 11th amendments (you know the right of privacy, but played backwards- Paul is dead!), clearly Ty was violating some rights here.

And, since it's in the text, it is obviously original intent. So even Scalia would be behind it.

[Secret_Agent_Man]

Originally posted by bilmore
(If you decry my snarky comments, do you have an obligation to refrain yourself?)

The distinction in my mind is that I was not being "snarky" towards you, or towards all Republicans in general, just towards particular politicians and paolicies. If you wish to now adopt John Ashcroft as your ward and stand as his champion against the slings and arrows of outrageous fortune, you have a large task ahead of you.

Originally posted by bilmore
I'm not "disturbed" by it - but I do recognize it as a rather large conscious attempt at pushing the boundaries of the constitution.

Yes, indeed.

Originally posted by bilmore
I also recognize that this was a not-surprising reaction to watching bodies fly out of the WTC and then watching the buildings come crashing down, followed by a realization that we're not fighting a uniformed army, but that we are fighting an army. This was the ultimate "it's not a suicide pact" situation.

As to the first -- perhaps so, but it was not an inevitable reaction. Many people did not have such a reaction. I am not particularly stupid or naive about such things, but I decline to believe that allowing the man access to an attorney and the right to challenge whether the government in fact has a basis to hold him would render the Constitution a "suicide pact".

Originally posted by bilmore
So, ultimately, I like the way this has shaken out. A war-time national security decision was allowed to remain for a reasonable period of time, and then the process worked, and the courts have said that it needs to stop.

Just on the off-chance that Mr. Padilla was, in fact, not properly designated as an enemy combatant (i.e. innocent), what do you say to him about the 18 months held incommunicado in a Navy brig? "Sorry, Jose. Too bad you're former street scum who turned Islamist?" The national security courts, at a minimum, could have handled this without the classified info. going public.

Originally posted by bilmore
We have not damaged the viability of our system, we have not changed our concept of rights, but, in recognition that this was an unprecedented situation, in unprecedented times, the issue was worked out on a timeframe that precluded immediate harm to national security. I suppose one can get incensed at the fact that someone was held without counsel, but the context of this is, those whom we think are his companions and fellow travelers but who happened to be overseas were being shot in the head on sight. We Mirandize over here, and shoot on sight over there - this case was about where we draw a line between the two, when the combatants' choices of tactics make that line very unclear, and their effectiveness in using their weapons make this determination much more than a theoretical argument to be had over beers. War sucks. I think this is a good outcome.

In that case, is only a good outcome because our President and AG lost. They indeed, as you note above, were working damn hard to change our concept of rights, and to change the rights that we have. That disturbs me. When you give power to government it will eventually be used and thus eventually misused. There are some bright lines that are fairly easy to draw (whether or not they're defensible on principle is another thing). U.S. citizen on U.S. soil -- not armed or visibly in open rebellion against the government -- access to lawyer & regular prosecution.

I tend to fall back on the words of old Ben Franklin on such issues -- not battling terrorists, but he knew something about war, risks, politics and freedom. (Perhaps Ben was a libertarian.)

[edited: For those who may not catch it, the quote I'm thinking of is [paraphrased] "Those who will sacrifice liberty for security deserve neither."


S_A_M

P.S. To open up a whole 'nother can of worms -- do you believe tht there are any legal limits on what our government could do to the prisoners in Gitmo? (i.e Would it be legally acceptable to flay them alive, or to dissolve them in acid?) If there are any limits, what are their sources? How are they to be enforced? So how can you say that there can be no judicial review? [I suspect that the Supremes are going to send the Admin. down on that one.]

[edited -- typos]