Comments Posted By busboy33
Displaying 201 To 210 Of 657 Comments
'SILENCE EQUALS ASSENT:' WHY POINTING OUT CONSERVATIVE LUNACY MUST BE DONE
Let's sum up Freedom Truth's ideas:
When the Left does something bad, it's because the Left are bad people.
When the Right does something bad, it's because the Left are bad people.
Are the gumdrop trees in bloom yet over there in FantasyLand?
Comment Posted By busboy33 On 30.09.2009 @ 15:07
@John Burke:
"Rick — I was with you 100 percent up to the point where you attributed rightie fears to Obama’s race . . . but this is manifestly not a fact — and it is Obama’s (and the House Democrats) pushing the envelope with their radicalism that has aroused the far right and not incidentally disturbed people like me in the center."
So the jigaboo posters, the blackface cartoons, the monkey and gorilla jokes, welfare-and-watermelon signs . . . all just completely objective and reasoned critiques on loan privitization policies? I totally get that.
Look. You aren't racist. Rick isn't racist. I'm not racist. Teh Right isn't racist.
But there are obviously some nimrods out there that ARE racist. God bless 'em, this is America. They can be as ignorant and pathetic as they want. But to be standing next to them at the Tea Party and say "what is this 'racist imagery' of which which you speak? I've never heard of it before! You say depicting a black man as a big lipped, big eyed, po'-and-barefoot, fried-chicken lovin', white woman chasin', country rube is considered offensive to some people? That doesn't sound right . . ." ... it's just not credible.
With all respect, I don't believe that you are so ignorant of iconic imagery in America that you didn't know those are "racist-associated" images. Instead of saying something like 'any racist idiots that hate Obama don't have anything to do with the Right's legitimate complaints', you say that race is "irrevelant".
If I criticize a Jewish President and joke he's a hook-nosed, money-theiving, greedy, probably-Illuminati-joinin', mishapen-skull havin' . . ." then I can't act suprised when somebody says "that was racist". If I'm protesting against that President and you are protesting against that President (for entirely unrelated and justifiable reasons), if you stand next to me while I'm handing out the Jew Cartoon pamphlets people are going to think (a) I'm a racist and (b) you are sympathetic to my (percieved) racist appearance. I'm not saying that's correct, or fair, or appropriate, or whatever -- but it IS going to happen. People are funny like that.
If the next day someone walks by and says "there was some racist stuff at the protest last night" and you jump in to wonder how anybody could possibly think that, there wasn't even a hint of a suggestion of a single racist thought . . . " . . . well, a person could well take that kind of extreme factual denial as a tacit confirmation of how bad the problem is. Acknowledgeing it doesn't endorse or condemn it, but denying the existence of pretty indisputable facts is often subconciously associated with a guilty conscience.
When employees of the Republican State offices do it publicly . . . when "respected" public faces of the Republicans make "what could possibly be considered racist?" responses . . . I have to tell you that's not good PR.
Comment Posted By busboy33 On 30.09.2009 @ 00:03
Maybe it was only a few Catholic preists that molested boys, maybe it was only one or two minor-level church officials that let it slide or just ignored it, maybe the Church itself is 99.99% kid safe, but if the Church dealt with the issue by continuing its "what molesting children situation?" denial, that would have been exponentially worse for them (fair or not) in the eyes of the people.
For the Republican Party, as a political agent for the government and policies you want, to have power they need non-republicans to vote for their candidates. Having racist images at Party functions or by Party members is bad PR. Denying that racism and racist imagery are "relevant" to the racist imagery, or that the racist items simply don't exist, is worse.
DEFENDING POLANSKI: 'IT'S NOT RAPE-RAPE'
@pst314:
Really? Far from uncommon, huh?
Let's see . . . population in 1965 was roughly 195 million . . .
http://www.usi.edu/1965/retro/facts.asp
. . . so if innocent people getting dosed was "far from uncommon", that means that it was prevalent, right? It happened all the time? If 1% of the population was getting dosed secretly, that's almost 2 million people. And that's just 1 percent, which is certainly uncommon. So what's "far from uncommon"? 10 percent (approx. 20 million people)? No, that's still pretty uncommon. So it was more than 20 MILLION people that Teh Hippies slipped drugs to?Odd that kind of widespread mass dosings didn't make the news, or were documented, or verified, or investigated, considering how massive those numbers are.
Either that, or you are just talking out of your backside. Free advice: don't eat candy on Halloween -- it's all got razor blades in it. Well, it is "far from uncommon" to find them. Maybe Teh Hippies did that too?
Comment Posted By busboy33 On 2.10.2009 @ 00:33
I hadn't heard anything about the Whoopi quote before the OP, and frankly I didn't bother to click through on the link Rick provided because I figured him calling it "not rape rape" was just him being a smartass, and I'd get annoyed at his jackass commentary when it turned out probably obnoxious but ultimately benign. Readthng the comments got my curiosity up, so I found a link to the video to see it for myself.
http://link.brightcove.com/services/player/bcpid1320151605?bctid=42458619001Wow. Holy crap WOW. I contend that suspecting Rick of possibly being in one of his "hystronic hissy fit namecalling" moods is a legitimate and justified concern . . . this certainly wasn't one of those (admittedly infrequent) times.
The best I can come up with for her was she started out with something that came from a "good" idea but came out poorly. Best case, she was trying to "correct" someone who said Polanski was a knife wielding Hannibal Lecter, and she was trying to keep the conversation on "the facts".
(I'm fantasizing a "best case excuse" for Whoopi here, so I'm deliberately remaining ignorant of the rest of the clip (before and after the above) so this doesn't get any worse and I can just make up facts that help.)
Unfortunately, the actual sounds she made, the ones that formed words and sentences, came out so horribly "off-tone" that she had to know as soon as she said it "wait . . . thsat didn't sound right."
I have, in my life, said some really stupid things. Occasionally, they were because I was horribly, horribly drunk. Othertimes, in the haste to condense a long sentence or complex thought into something short and sweet I said something that was "grammatically correct" but was assured to be interpreted badly. The listener would (wrongly) assume I meant or implied something I absolutely didn't mean. I wasn't "wrong" in the sense of expressing a "wrong" or evil idea, but I was . . . clumsy in the way I expressed my fair, reasonable (and no doubt brilliant) thought.
It happens. Usually, immediately after the background music screeches to a halt, crickets chirp as everybody stares at you, and once you reasize it was you who did something stupid you frantically replay the last 30 seconds in your mind. You know everybody mis-understood what you meant, and they're over-reacting to something you didn't mean.
There are several ways of dealing with this emergency. If the gaffe was minor ("did you see that fu@k of chickens? I mean flock?") you quickly correct yourself and/or laugh it off. Moderate to severe audio vomit usually requires an apology, or a retraction (with a laugh to lighten the problem up a bit), or a quick change of topic with a hasty retreat from the listeners shortly thereafter. Anything more intense is best dealt with buy slowly droneing on (about anything) while backing away slowly, palms open and facing the listeners. Do NOT turn your back
Or, you could refuse to acknowledge your screw-up, refuse to give an inch, decide to go even FARTHER out on the gaffe scale to "make the point" (but really to prove you intended do it all along so it wasn't a screw-up, not really), and proceed rapidly to dig yourself a deep, deep hole. The best part of this strategy is that it is fueled by failure. The more you dig, the worse it gets, so the faster and harder you dig.
Whoopi's in China by now. Even bending over backwards to give her the benefit of the doubt, that was one of the most jaw-droppingly insenitive, rude, offensive, STUPID, wrong, inexcusable things I've ever witnessed. She's a stage performer, for Pete's sake! How the hell could she so completely flake out like that?!?
As a soon-to-be former fan of hers, there better be a serious, on-you-goddamn-knees, "Dear God I beg your forgiveness for what I have done" apology tomorrow or she and her sponsors can kiss my money goodbye from now on. I can't believe I actually just saw that.
Off-topic, but I've never seen The View before and I am impressed that despite how unbelievably volitile that topic/conversation, they all spoke calmly, respectfully, explained their thoughts (or tried to), listened, responded, the whole nine yards. No yelling, no histrionics, no interrupting, no cloud of noise, no personal insults, put-downs, snide comments. A real, honest, conversation addressing an idea or opinion. Just for a contrast I clicked on an old "Meet The Press podcast, to see how professional "journalists and thinkers" do it.
Looks like I'm adding The View to The Daily Show on my "actual intelligent conversation and interviews" list. An afternoon talk show, and a comedy. This country is doomed.
Comment Posted By busboy33 On 29.09.2009 @ 22:31
I'll not defend Polanski, nor do most people I know. Even if hypothetically everything the apologists argue is true (something I don't believe), you still don't get to skip out of the system. Its just not an option.
But respectfully Schiavo hardly stands as a high-water mark for Conservatives. In the same way you use Mumia and Peltier as examples of Liberals acting "foolish" (my word, not yours), I would put the Schiavo debacle as a prime example of Conservatives embarassing themselves. I guess this gap of perception is what you're talking about in the article.
Comment Posted By busboy33 On 29.09.2009 @ 09:27
YOUNG, STUPID THINK PROGRESS RESEARCHER LOSES SANITY IN PUBLIC
Nobody is telling you that you can't express you opinion, you poor martyr you. You opinion (or mine, or anybody's) is entirely different from what the rules are . . . which you acknowledge is established by the precedent. You wern't saying "this is my opinion" -- you were saying "this is what it means".
What's the difference? Hypothetical time. Baseball game, my team is up 1-0, bottom of the 9th inning, other team is at bat, bases loaded, 2 outs. Count to the batter is 3-2. Pitcher throws a pitch. I think it was a strike. Umpire calls it a ball, walks in the tying run. Next batter comes up, and the same thing happens.
In my opinion, the ump was blind. We should have won. If someone asks me what the final score was and I say "1-0 we won" . . . that's not accurate. "everybody knows we won" . . . that's not accurate. "we lost 2-1 on some bull$h!t calls" . . . that's accurate.I can think that the 1st Amendment covers my public masturbation. My opinion. But for me to say "public masturbation is covered by the 1st Amendment just as the Framers intended" . . . that's wrong. It isn't covered. My thinking it should be doesn't make it so.
What should be the interpretation of the language and what is the interpretation of the language are entirely different conversations.
"James Madison (again!), objected to this reading of the clause, arguing that it was inconsistent with the concept of a government of limited powers and that it rendered the list of enumerated powers redundant. He argued that the General Welfare clause granted Congress no additional powers other than those enumerated. Thus, in THEIR view the words themselves served no practical purpose."(emphasis added)
James Madison does not equal the Founding Fathers. As you note, others believed differently. So from James Madison disagreeing, you have "them" putting in language (both in the Preamble and the main body of the document) that nobody thought served any purpose whatsoever. For a bunch of lawyers and statesmen . . . that is staggeringly hard to fathom. They used the same phrase twice, both to state their goals and to specifically enumerate a purpose. Legislatively, that is enormously significant. The Founders were well aware of the importance of both saying something and not saying something -- as an example, they attached a qualifier to the 2nd Amendment and didn't to any other of the Bill of Rights. They knew exactly what they were doing. To say that they just repeatedly used that language, but nobody intended for it to have any impact whatsoever, is uncredible to me.
Yes, James Madison expressed opinions. So did Alexander Hamilton. Thomas Jefferson. Many others. That James Madison said, at one point, that was what he believed, does not make it the meaning of the language that all delegates believed without question. Reading their correspondence back and and forth, following the debate, shows not only different views, but the evolution of ideas.
In regards to the idea that the Founders wanted a standing Army . . . I don't know what else to say. From where I'm sitting, it's pretty clear that they didn't. From a jurispridencial perspective, linguistic perspective, historical perspective . . . they didn't. Saying "yes they did" seems to me to fly directly in the face of all the evidence to the contrary. I can't just ignore that evidence, so I guess I'll just have to respectfully disagree with your assessment.
Comment Posted By busboy33 On 27.09.2009 @ 22:48
@Six:
"Another term for hypothetical is straw man."
No, it isn't. A hypothetical is an example used to make a point. A "Straw Man" fallacy is an intentionally inappropriate hypothetical intended to re-direct the discussion to an easily defeated non-issue . . . designed to imply that the analysis against the non-issue is applicable against the original (avoided) topic.
An example of a straw man fallacy from Wikipedia:
"(Hypothetical) prohibition debate:
Person A: We should liberalize the laws on beer.
Person B: No, any society with unrestricted access to intoxicants loses its work ethic and goes only for immediate gratification.The proposal was to relax laws on beer. Person B has exaggerated this to a position harder to defend, i.e., 'unrestricted access to intoxicants'."
Here's another, more relevant example of the StrawMan fallacy:
"My point is that it’s not the governments responsibility to provide an equity of outcome, only opportunity."
My argument, and the hypothetical I provided, had ABSOLUTELY NOTHING to do with "equity of outcome". Rather than addressing the question, you re-phrased it into "Pure Marxian Communism vs. Individual freedom", because that is a much more simple and emotional argument to make.
Are you claiming that a Fire Department is Communist? Are you opposed to having a Fire Department? Does using communal resources for the common good (stopping fires) have anything to do with "equity of outcome"? No.THAT is an example of a StrawMan Fallacy . . . usually indicative of a panicked and weak defense.
"My reading of Constitutional history leads me to believe the framers were talking about promoting the general welfare within the bounds of the Constitution, not trying to promote public welfare programs outside their intent."
What the hell does that mean? The terms of the Constitution were designed to work within the Constitution? Well . . . yes. So the "general welfare" was not designed to promote the "public welfare"? What's the difference between "general" and "public"?
If your readings have suggested that the Founding Fathers didn't consider "general welfare" to apply to the body of citizens, might I suggest the Federalist Papers?
Alexander Hamilton, Federalist Papers #26:
"The citizens of America have too much discernment to be argued into anarchy. And I am much mistaken, if experience has not wrought a deep and solemn conviction in the public mind, that greater energy of government is essential to the welfare and prosperity of the community."James Madison, Federalist Papers #45:
"Is it too early for politicians to presume on our forgetting that the public good, the real welfare of the great body of the people, is the supreme object to be pursued; and that no form of government whatever has any other value than as it may be fitted for the attainment of this object."Liberal whining hippies! What do they know about the Constitution?
re: Standing Army vs. Militia vs. Standing Navy
I agree with you 100% . . . read and learn.
U.S. Constitution, Art.1, Sec. 8, Cl. 12:
"To raise and support Armies, but no Appropriation of Money to that Use shall be for a longer Term than two Years;"
U.S. Constitution, Art.1, Sec.8, Cl.13:
"To provide and maintain a Navy;"Notice the different phrasing in these two Clauses. For the Navy, the Congress has the duty to provide and maintain. For the Army, the Founders specifically and explicitly used different terms: "raise" and "support", and also expressly pegged a limited timeframe on that support, whereas there is no time limit on the Navy.
There is a phrase in legal analysis that explains this: "expressio unis est exclusio alter" (my apologies for the most-likely misspelled Latin). Rough translation: "The inclusion of one is the exclusion of the other", meaning if the writers made it a point to explicitly include (or exclude) terms and restrictions, it is logical to presume that their failure to include/exclude those terms elsewhere means they intended a different meaning. The Founders when out of their way to limit the Army. They didn't with the Navy. Therefore, they intended that these two things be treated differently.U.S. Constitution, Art.1, Sec.8, Cl.16:
"To provide for organizing, arming, and disciplining, the Militia, and for governing such Part of them as may be employed in the Service of the United States, reserving to the States respectively, the Appointment of the Officers, and the Authority of training the Militia according to the discipline prescribed by Congress;"The Army was to come from the State Militias, to be called up as necessary for the defence of the Nation, and then disbanded back to the Militias once the need had passed. The States were tasked with appointing officers, not the Federal government. The Founders feared a standing Army so much, they not only tied the Federal government's hands with keeping a standing Army roaming around, they wrote the 2nd Amendment to support the Militias right to exist:
"A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed."
The language is a modified version of the Virginia Declaration of Rights, which makes the point more explicitly:
"That a well-regulated militia, composed of the body of the people, trained to arms, is the proper, natural, and safe defense of a free state; that standing armies, in time of peace, should be avoided as dangerous to liberty; and that in all cases the military should be under strict subordination to, and governed by, the civil power."
Still not convinced? Federalist Papers, #8, 23, 26, 29, 46, just to name a few.
This was a MAJOR concern for the Founders. The debate was well documented. America's view of the issue has changed over the last few hundred years, but to say that the Founding Fathers envisioned a standing Army, and wrote it into the Constitution, is utterly wrong.
@digitus:
"One of those games seems to be that the Tenth somehow gives “the people” the right to simply opt out of whatever government program or ignore any law they don’t like. Or, even sillier, that any individual can decide what’s constitutional and what isn’t."
Isn't it amazing? Like these questions have never come up before in the history of the country. If only there were some governing body to settle disputes like this. Something like a Court. But it would have to be the Ultimate Court so its decisions could be final. I wonder what we could call it . . . The Ultimate Court? The Maximum Court? Something that suggested its interpretation was the Supreme opinion on the issue. I know! The Super-Duper Court! That's got pizazz!
Comment Posted By busboy33 On 27.09.2009 @ 18:41
Probably would have to be a co-equal branch of Federal government . . . but maybe since they had the ultimate decision power they could be gimped by lacking any ability to affirmatively make rules. Yeah . . . they could be limited to only deciding questions of interpretation that are brought before them! And they could write their decisions down, so we wouldn't have to re-argue the same questions over and over again.
I can't believe the Founders didn't think of this. Really sloppy work, setting up a government and failing to include some form of dispute/interpretation resolution.
@Six (sorry for the double-post):
"Government is required to do certain things (i.e. provide for a common defense) and forbidden from doing others (anything and everything not specifically permitted)."
What's the phrase IMMEDIATELY after 'provide for the common defense . . .'?
'. . . and general welfare'
Article 1, Section 8, Clause 1:
"Clause 1: The Congress shall have Power To lay and collect Taxes, Duties, Imposts and Excises, to pay the Debts and provide for the common Defence and general Welfare of the United States; but all Duties, Imposts and Excises shall be uniform throughout the United States;"
Are you saying the health of citizens should not be considered 'general welfare'? If so, why not (aside from "it wasn't before")? As you said . . . the government is Constitutionally mandated to provide for the general welfare. The government MUST provide for the general welfare.
Since we're playing Tenther games here, I'll also note that Art.1, Sec.8, Cl.12-13 make pretty clear that a standing Army is Constitutionally prohibited -- so I can assume you demand that the United States Army be abolished?
Comment Posted By busboy33 On 27.09.2009 @ 15:18
@Six:
"If you come up to me on the street and demand 19 dollars every time I get paid it’s called robbery or extortion."
True . . . but there's a small flaw in your analogy: I'm not the government.
You get "robbed" every paycheck for the police, the fire department, roads, schools, national defense, education, retirement benefits, etc. If that's the analogy you're going with (btw, I love the image . . . its so classically right-wing), do you favor me opting out of those as well? Why is this "robbery" and those "doing your fair share"? What distinguishes healthcare from national defense? From infrastructure?
"I’m a grown up adult person and solely responsible for my own success or failure. For what I choose to buy or own and for what I choose not to."
Yes, you are an adult (I'll take your word for that since I don't know you). No, you're not solely responsible for your success or failure. That's why I linked the "Commons" analogy above, as an illustration.
Another hypothetical: You run a Mom+Pop store. You run it well, and you make a profit of off it. The building next to you catches fire. The fire is going to spread to your store. You stand outside with a garden hose (presuming that you were able to get there in time to be standing there with a garden hose) but that ain't gonna cut it. You need a fire department to save your efforts. You can't afford a couple of hundred thousand to pay for the truck and personnel, let alone the millions required to lay high-pressure pipes and hydrants to deliver the water. Are you responsible when your business goes up in smoke?
Maybe it IS your fault. You should have gotten insurance to cover it. So lets say you have a policy . . . and they refuse to pay. They claim you had extra-flammible paint on your building (although that wasn't a problem all these years when they were taking your premiums). Have fun in court arguing about it. For the next 3 years. Hope you saved up another couple of hundred thousand for the costs. Plus another couple of hundred thousand for your mortgage, food, expenses, etc. while you're fighting. You haven't saved up a million dollars running your Mom+Pop store? Well . . . then I guess you ARE a failure. You loser. Glad you're out of the game . . . we don't want failures like you in the American System.You suggested the solution to healthcare is de-regulation. That Capitalism, if cut loose from its shackles, will achieve equilibrium and meet the needs of citizens in an equitable manner.
I repectfully disagree. I'm a capitalist, but in the same way I'm for nuclear power. It is one of the most awesome forms of power, and properly harnessed is a massive boon to people . . . but starting a chain reaction and standing around the fire roasting marshmellows is a recipie for disaster.
Let me ask you this: can you give me an example of un-regulated capitalism inherently reaching an equitable equilibrium? One? The examples of de-regulated capitalism becoming destructive are legion. If you can't give a single example of unfettered capitalism "working" in equilibrium . . . then why the hell would I expect it to work now?"If you want to say Big Auto resisted air bags because they’re uncaring and want people to die it’s actually more intellectually honest than the greed theory."
No . . . that's not correct, and I'm pretty sure you know that. "Profits be damned -- let's kill everybody" is just silly. Car companies don't/didn't want consumers to die . . . then there would be no customers. If they actively wanted people to die they would have put bombs in the cars. But if it was a choice between a profitable unsafe vehicle and a less-profitable safer vehicle . . . profit wins. That's how business works.
Example? The Corvair. The argument at the manufacturer wasn't "are we killing enough people?". The argument was "it is more profitable to kill-and-settle than it is to make it safer." Bottom line was profit, without dispute.Companies exist for profit -- period. That is a good thing in many aspects. But it is also a dangerous thing in other respects. Ignoring that danger, or the hundreds of years of examples demonstrating the inevitable consequence of that danger, is naive.
Certainly, in a textbook, Capitalism is a self-balancing system. We don't live in a textbook. Between theoretical postulates and concrete reality . . . well, if we're talking about my a$$ I'll put my money on reality. I'm funny that way.
Comment Posted By busboy33 On 27.09.2009 @ 15:06
No question Boehner didn't have anything to do with this girl's death. Hell, if healthcare reform had been passed months ago with a unanimous vote, she STILL wouldn't have had any coverage yet so the current debate is to a very real extent irrevelant to her death. No argument there.
Philosophically, mandates are anathema to personal liberty by definition. However, issues of community need require mandates, and always have. "The Tragedy of the Commons" is probably the most standard illustration of the need for mandates:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tragedy_of_the_commonsYes, there were free clinics this lady could have gone to. Have you ever gone to a free clinic? I have. Maybe she couldn't take 12 hours off from work to be seen by a doctor.
Who pays for "free" clinics? Sure, they take donations . . . but the majority of their funding comes from the government. Paid for by taxes or other government revenue sources (like the Tobacco Settlement). Government-funded health care. Remember, the thing that she should have used government-funded health care to avoid?
The B-Plan of requiring everybody to buy private insurance (especially with no price controls) is disgusting. Ordering me to give a private company profits is literally "wealth re-distribution" in the most Un-American sense.
But what about the public option? "Medicare for All", as the pollsters like to phrase it to make it more appealing?
The first question is "should everybody have healthcare"? If you say no, then that's one thing. But if you say "no", then are you opposed to Medicare/Medicaid/SCHIP, to government-funded clinics, to "must treat" Emergency Room rules?
If you think (as I do) that it is necessary to call ourselves a moral society, then we can quibble about the details -- cost, procedures, coverage, etc. But that's an ENTIRELY different conversation than "Universal Coverage is Teh Deebil!!""It would be bad for private insurance companies". You know what? Fu@k 'em. I'm all for companies making a profit (working with a start-up right now, and we're certainly trying to make a profit). Recalling the Corvair was "bad" for the manufacturer. Requiring sanitary conditions was "bad" for the food-processing industry. Imposing restrictions on credit-swap derivatives is "bad" for financial institutions. Too God-damn bad.
If you are opposed to Universal coverage, then why care about the availability of free clinics? No coverage . . . you die if you get seriously ill. Period. That's life. People are gonna drop dead from treatable problems. If that's what you're promoting, then bite the bullet and just chalk the dead and dying up to "cost of living in the Greatrest Country In The World".
If you're NOT advocating for that . . . then you've got people that you believe SHOULD be able to receive treatment (if for no other reason than so they don't infect others), and many can't. Maybe this lady could. Maybe this lady couldn't. A free clinic doesn't mean that everybody within 50 miles of the clinic is gold in regards to health care.If you don't want a public option, and you don't want mandates, and you don't believe that Americans should be left to die . . . what DO you think is the solution?
Comment Posted By busboy33 On 26.09.2009 @ 22:45
