Random Political Thoughts

[somatichypermutation]

I am pretty sure Alex Jones does not cause people to go nuts, he attracts people that are already crazy.

[Yorkshire pud]

he probably ate tomatoes, too.

Tomatoes are well known in the shock jock arena I have no doubt in Texas; although on the balance of probalities I'd say an armed nutjob is more likely to be influenced by what he sees as a kindred spirit who rants and raves at any given opportunity than a fruit, but I'm open to persuasion.

[Yorkshire pud]

         BP would probably argue otherwise. I keep picturing Hugh Millais as Endean in one of my favorite films, The Dogs of War. "This country is bought and paid for!!"

       

Indeed; but BP don't run the military. They have their own private security firms. The full story hasn't come out yet, and has shown some insider influence so far..looking grim. 

[Yorkshire pud]

Lol.  Has it been that long already?

I know; amazing isn't it..written for the times, by the people of the times who had no concept of the world in the 20th let alone the 21st century. Sadly, evolution comes slowly in some societies; ask any Amazon Indian. I'm a bit puzzled though how you condensed my whole post into selecting a very short passage..No mention of Bush's gun laws in 2004, no mention of the Patriot act, 7 year old, no accepting or refuting if everyone should be profiled before being allowed a gun..Even pilots are profiled before allowed to fly an airliner, and an aircraft is essentially benign. Something of a disconnect don't you think? Oh, did you read about the ND at the gun fair yesterday? Still, it's accidental, accidentally being shot doesn't hurt so much, no hard feelings I'm sure. Splendid. I actually laughed when I saw the video of everyone running out; not because I find people being peppered with shot funny (although I'd pay good money to watch Alex Jones being chased across a field by the twin bores of a Purdey), but the supreme exemplification of why having loaded weapons and incompetents near people is a dangerous thing. 

[Sardondi]

I know; amazing isn't it..written for the times, by the people of the times who had no concept of the world in the 20th let alone the 21st century. Sadly, evolution comes slowly in some societies; ask any Amazon Indian. I'm a bit puzzled though how you condensed my whole post into selecting a very short passage..No mention of Bush's gun laws in 2004, no mention of the Patriot act, 7 year old, no accepting or refuting if everyone should be profiled before being allowed a gun..Even pilots are profiled before allowed to fly an airliner, and an aircraft is essentially benign. Something of a disconnect don't you think? Oh, did you read about the ND at the gun fair yesterday? Still, it's accidental, accidentally being shot doesn't hurt so much, no hard feelings I'm sure. Splendid. I actually laughed when I saw the video of everyone running out; not because I find people being peppered with shot funny (although I'd pay good money to watch Alex Jones being chased across a field by the twin bores of a Purdey), but the supreme exemplification of why having loaded weapons and incompetents near people is a dangerous thing.

I am still befuddled at the ease with which someone whose nation can't draft a constitution sniffily dismisses the greatest document to freedom man has yet produced. Jealousy? Could be. Resentment? well, yeah. Arrogance? Hardly goes without saying. Funny? You can't believe how much.

[PB the Deplorable]

.... I'm a bit puzzled though how you condensed my whole post into selecting a very short passage...

I selected the very short passage where you mention our "300 plus year old parchment" because 2013 - 1787 = 226 years.

But it doesn't really matter whether it 326 years or 226 or 6, if some portion is truly outdated there is a procedure in place to amend it.  This is not an overly burdensome procedure as the Constitution has been amended 17 times since the Bill of Rights (first 10 Amendments) were added.

The people who would disarm us need to make their case and go through proper channels rather than ram through Unconstitional laws, go judge shopping for judicial activists willing to impose their preferences instead of applying the Law, or potentially making dictatorial decrees through misuse of Executive Orders.

[Yorkshire pud]

I am still befuddled at the ease with which someone whose nation can't draft a constitution sniffily dismisses the greatest document to freedom man has yet produced. Jealousy? Could be. Resentment? well, yeah. Arrogance? Hardly goes without saying. Funny? You can't believe how much.

Ah I see..so the US has freedom because it has a constitution? The other 180 or so who have freedom from the remaining 200 plus sovereign states are lacking because most don't have a constitution? Yeah, that will be it..As for sniffily dismissing it, I'm just pointing out the lack of evolution, the clue is in the word amendment. Or would you also prefer to go back to horses and carts instead of being beneficiaries of the modern car? Jealous? Please, that's laughable, we don't have your patriot act either.. It wouldn't be brought in over here, because it's undemocratic; Jeeze the irony! Resentful? Arrogant? I don't miss what I've never had or needed. Neither do we swear allegiance to the flag everyday in school; it doesn't make me less patriotic. Funny? I'm so happy for you, truly.

[Yorkshire pud]

I selected the very short passage where you mention our "300 plus year old parchment" because 2013 - 1787 = 226 years.

But it doesn't really matter whether it 326 years or 226 or 6, if some portion is truly outdated there is a procedure in place to amend it.  This is not an overly burdensome procedure as the Constitution has been amended 17 times since the Bill of Rights (first 10 Amendments) were added.

The people who would disarm us need to make their case and go through proper channels rather than ram through Unconstitional laws, go judge shopping for judicial activists willing to impose their preferences instead of applying the Law, or potentially making dictatorial decrees through misuse of Executive Orders.

*Sigh*... The proper channels will be galvanised by private civil action. They always are in cases such as this. Most laws are brought in as a reaction to something and the press screaming 'Something must be done'..The proprieters who run the media will only steer the slant if it directly effects their strategic ambitions. Murdoch does it regularly in his papers over here; giving the impression the editorial has it's finger on the pulse of the nation. As I said before, maths isn't my strong suit, but anything over 200 years is outdated anyway; but any proper procedure that went against your personal wishes you'd scream was wrong and unlawful anyway.

[Juan]

It amuses me to see the US criticized by someone who's heir to the throne is Prince Charles.

[Yorkshire pud]

It amuses me to see the US criticized by someone who's heir to the throne is Prince Charles.

It isn't a criticism of the USA per se; I think it has and has done many many positive things for the good of all; all the more perplexing that a document written for it's time isn't dragged into the present day. I suppose when your history is not yet 250 years old it's still 'fresh'; but not compared with many other cultures and countries.

Prince Charles? That's happenstance; nothing I can do about that. And popular public opinion is that we don't wish to become a republic (Although their are several left wing voices advocating such a move).

Interestingly, all the royal palaces and London in particular are popular tourist attractions by American and Japanese visitors. Although in my opinion, London is an unfriendly, busy, disgusting shit hole.. Much better places to visit in the UK than London; but each to their own I suppose.

[Eddie Coyle]

 
           It seems that Hillary Clinton had more power and influence 15 years ago as First Lady than she did at the State dept. Yesterday also revealed why Obama overtook her quite easily in the winter/spring 2008, she lacks sangfroid and empathic impulse.

[The General]

           It seems that Hillary Clinton had more power and influence 15 years ago as First Lady than she did at the State dept. Yesterday also revealed why Obama overtook her quite easily in the winter/spring 2008, she lacks sangfroid and empathic impulse.

"What difference, at this point, does it make?"
Shocking.

[Eddie Coyle]

"What difference, at this point, does it make?"
Shocking.

An Asperger's patient has more patience and understanding. It must infuriate her to have to be "lowered" to answering questions, while knowing that her political career, in the big picture, is basically winding down. There's less than zero chance of winning nomination for prez in 2016, she'd never be confirmed for the Supreme Court...where does she go from here? Back to being a senator? No way, that was merely prep work for a presidential run.

       

[The General]

   An Asperger's patient has more patience and understanding. It must infuriate her to have to be "lowered" to answering questions, while knowing that her political career, in the big picture, is basically winding down. There's less than zero chance of winning nomination for prez in 2016, she'd never be confirmed for the Supreme Court...where does she go from here? Back to being a senator? No way, that was merely prep work for a presidential run.

       

Yes.  And it's sad to know that she's right, after all.  What difference will it make?  None.  Was it a terror attack?  Was it a staged kidnapping gone wrong?  Was it a protest gone wrong?  Was it Al-Qaeda?  Who knew and when?  Could they have been saved?  We'll never get the full story from these people.  We'll never hear the truth, therefore what difference does it make?

She's basically saying, "Shut up, peasant.  We call the fucking shots!  You shut up and pay your god damn taxes."  Imagine Nixon or Reagan or even Condi Rice being so arrogant at a hearing.  People would've been absolutely outraged. 

[Sardondi]

           It seems that Hillary Clinton had more power and influence 15 years ago as First Lady than she did at the State dept. Yesterday also revealed why Obama overtook her quite easily in the winter/spring 2008, she lacks sangfroid and empathic impulse.

Absolute gender double standard. Can you imagine what would have happened had a male Sec of State behaved in such a childish manner? Her actions were a blatant and shameless ploy to avoid being pressed to explain  - and of course the gutless committee members complied for the most part. But it's an even greater partisan double standard with the media, although it's so common now it's hardly worth commenting on, which I guess is what both the fomenters and beneficiaries of the inequality of treatment have been shooting for all along.

[Eddie Coyle]

Yes.  And it's sad to know that she's right, after all.  What difference will it make?  None.  Was it a terror attack?  Was it a staged kidnapping gone wrong?  Was it a protest gone wrong?  Was it Al-Qaeda?  Who knew and when?  Could they have been saved?  We'll never get the full story from these people.  We'll never hear the truth, therefore what difference does it make?

She's basically saying, "Shut up, peasant.  We call the fucking shots!  You shut up and pay your god damn taxes."  Imagine Nixon or Reagan or even Condi Rice being so arrogant at a hearing.  People would've been absolutely outraged.

          And the guy replacing her and is even worse. Kerry is the very definition of the high handed, nose in the air mandarin who considers EVERYBODY his inferior, including his boss. I can easily envision him acting as Clinton did yesterday.

[Eddie Coyle]

Absolute gender double standard. Can you imagine what would have happened had a male Sec of State behaved in such a childish manner? Her actions were a blatant and shameless ploy to avoid being pressed to explain  - and of course the gutless committee members complied for the most part. But it's an even greater partisan double standard with the media, although it's so common now it's hardly worth commenting on, which I guess is what both the fomenters and beneficiaries of the inequality of treatment have been shooting for all along.

          It's funny, the harshest opposition she ever faced from the "mainstream" media was from September 2007-June, 2008. Once Obama's odds became realistic, her long time defenders turned on her. Once she conceded in June, 2008...they softened and once she became Sec of State, the 1991-2006 narrative re-emerged.

[PB the Deplorable]

          And the guy replacing her and is even worse. Kerry is the very definition of the high handed, nose in the air mandarin who considers EVERYBODY his inferior, including his boss. I can easily envision him acting as Clinton did yesterday.

Not to mention coming back from Viet Nam and viciously lying about our soldiers conduct there.  Then going to Paris to tell the North Vietnamese to stall for time instead of negotiating a peace agreement - that if they would just hold a little while longer on the US would slink away. 

[PB the Deplorable]

          It's funny, the harshest opposition she ever faced from the "mainstream" media was from September 2007-June, 2008. Once Obama's odds became realistic, her long time defenders turned on her. Once she conceded in June, 2008...they softened and once she became Sec of State, the 1991-2006 narrative re-emerged.

Her mistake was skipping the early caucausas and primaries in fairly conservative places like Iowa and NH.  Obama didn't and by the time she started trying to pick up delegates the other serious contenders had dropped out and she was too far behind to ever catch him.  A gross miscalculation, to say the least.

It is one of the great disasters our country has suffered.  Between her, Obama, and McCain, she probably would have been the most Conservative, or at least the one that would have done us the least amoung of damage as President.  If for no other reason than the country was already onto the Clintons, and her worst ideas would have been blocked.

[stevesh]

I would rather have voted for Hillary than for McCain in 2008. At least she admits she's a Democrat.

[Sardondi]

...the early caucausas...

This is sort of how I envisioned the early Caucasus -




...as opposed to early caucuses -




Hmmm. Maybe not all that different....

[Eddie Coyle]

Absolute gender double standard. Can you imagine what would have happened had a male Sec of State behaved in such a childish manner? Her actions were a blatant and shameless ploy to avoid being pressed to explain  - and of course the gutless committee members complied for the most part. But it's an even greater partisan double standard with the media, although it's so common now it's hardly worth commenting on, which I guess is what both the fomenters and beneficiaries of the inequality of treatment have been shooting for all along.

Watching her yesterday, I was reminded of Donald Rumsfeld. Churlish, dismissive, annoyed to be having to answer people they view as peons. Rumsfeld, with the exception of GOP friendly outlets was villified for this demeanor. Quite rightly. However, the same old partisan story has developed with predictable outcome.

       But I'll keep going back to this. People who loved her in Jan, 2007, then hated her in Jan 2008, then loved her again...they are the highest strata of fraud.

[analog kid]

          Watching her yesterday, I was reminded of Donald Rumsfeld. Churlish, dismissive, annoyed to be having to answer people they view as peons. Rumsfeld, with the exception of GOP friendly outlets was villified for this demeanor. Quite rightly. However, the same old partisan story has developed with predictable outcome.

Hillary's not having and disimanating 100% accurate Benghazi intel in real time equivalates to a trillion dollar quagmire over WMD that Rumsfeld guaranteed was there but wasn't? I don't care about Hillary either way, but I'd be annoyed at seven hours of GOP nitwits tenaciously grilling me with their Alex Jones level conspiracies. Rice was handed the same CIA intel they all were, and some of them, including McCain, are on video at that time saying the same thing she said on those talk shows.

But I'll keep going back to this. People who loved her in Jan, 2007, then hated her in Jan 2008, then loved her again...they are the highest strata of fraud.

To be fair, this last election season was filled with examples of that on the right, and every shitty candidate had their turn. Michelle "FIMA concentration camps for conservatives" Bachmann was the frontrunner at one point.

[Eddie Coyle]

To be fair, this last election season was filled with examples of that on the right, and every shitty candidate had their turn. Michelle "FIMA concentration camps for conservatives" Bachmann was the frontrunner at one point.

There's still a lot of internecine warfare fallout in the GOP from this last election cycle, probably the worst it's been for them since 1976 or so, with Romney getting nominated despite a significant portion of their base loathing the man.

          But the media treatment of Hillary in that 07-08 period I speak of is remarkable to me. The same people who spoke of her glowingly, advocated for her for 15 years...dumped her and started using GOP talking points to tear her down against Obama. The Joe Klein/Chris Matthews/Joan Walsh types. It reveals what double talkers they were/are. Bill Clinton certainly hasn't forgotten it, and that 2015-16 primary season will be very interesting, especially if Hillary runs...which I doubt.

             Why the 69 year old Hillary has no chance in 2016? The Dems have nominated one sexagenarian since FDR in '44 and that was 60 year old Kerry in '04.

[Juan]

As interesting to me was the media treatment of McCain in 2008.  Previously he had been the Republican the media loved - the go to guy for soundbites.  The media turned on him in 2008, but now he is again the media Republican guy.  I worked in the media for 25+ years, and I can't understand their groupthink and prejudices.

[analog kid]

          But the media treatment of Hillary in that 07-08 period I speak of is remarkable to me. The same people who spoke of her glowingly, advocated for her for 15 years...dumped her and started using GOP talking points to tear her down against Obama. The Joe Klein/Chris Matthews/Joan Walsh types. It reveals what double talkers they were/are. Bill Clinton certainly hasn't forgotten it, and that 2015-16 primary season will be very interesting, especially if Hillary runs...which I doubt.

That's common on both side though, isn't it? The way the GOP candidates were savaged by the right-wing media and then championed a month later, over and over again? The way they eventually convinced themselves that Romney was the star, because he was a "business man," after absolutely loathing the guy throughout the 2000s? They way they loved Chris Christie, and turned on him viscously after he fraternized with the president?

Why the 69 year old Hillary has no chance in 2016? The Dems have nominated one sexagenarian since FDR in '44 and that was 60 year old Kerry in '04.

Yeah, she's getting up there. She usually looks like she woke up in a ditch an hour previously, from a night of heavy drinking.

[Eddie Coyle]

That's common on both side though, isn't it? The way the GOP candidates were savaged by the right-wing media and then championed a month later, over and over again? The way they eventually convinced themselves that Romney was the star, because he was a "business man," after absolutely loathing the guy throughout the 2000s? They way they loved Chris Christie, and turned on him viscously after he fraternized with the president?

         Christie is on his way to being the new Guiliani, the ethnic Northeast moderate Republican that the media embraces, but outside of Ohio Valley the rest of the GOP despises.

[PB the Deplorable]

... And popular public opinion is that we don't wish to become a republic (Although their are several left wing voices advocating such a move)...

Yes, why become a republic - a nation of laws - when one can remain a democracy under the whims of todays politicians chasing todays fads.   In my experience politicians are quite good at getting themselves elected, appointed, and reading tele-prompters, not so good at providing expertise or making good decisions on anything else.  Where this trust in government and eagerness to hand control of our lives to these people comes from absolutely baffles me - especially when getting our freedom and personal liberty and retaining them are so difficult in the first place.

It isn't a criticism of the USA per se; I think it has and has done many many positive things for the good of all; all the more perplexing that a document written for it's time isn't dragged into the present day...

If you've read the Constitution, it's mostly about how political power is split up among people and groups (House, Senate, President, the Judiciary, the States, Individuals) rather than have it be centralized in just a few hands.  That was doing quite well until the 17th Amendment in 1913 removed power from the States - the Senators originally represented the State Governments in DC -  by making Senators directly elected instead of appointed by the State Legislatures, basically created a powerful National Government.

The first 10 Amendments codify our right to speak, publish, worship freely, assemble, protest, associate with who we please, be secure in our homes from govt intrusion, trial by jury, reasonable bail, not to be compelled to testify against ourselves, etc. 

What part of the main body or the Amendments should we do away with because it's 'old'? 

You really ought to read it, it's a brilliant document.  By the way, the Founders didn't just draw it up out of the blue - it is based on political thought back to the Magna Carta and British Common Law.  John Locke, Thomas Hobbes, Montesquieu, the Mayflower Compact, the Articles of Confederation, and much debate and thought for decades before.  Our Founders were giants standing on the shoulders of giants.

The people that would toss it out to follow someone like Obama or any of the rest of them are the same people that those who want to be free have been fighting for 1000's of years.  We finally win our freedom and personal liberty, and here come the easily led who want to hand that back over to our would-be rulers.  Like I told you before, you would have made for a fine serf.

And why stop there.  Extending your logic, shouldn't all the 'old' books be burned too?  You know, the ones written for a different age?  All completely irrelevent now?  Certainly several tyrants in the past thought so.  The only question is the cutoff - anything over 100 years?  50?  10?  Maybe on January 1st of each year we should burn all the books written in the prior year?  Film too of course.  Maybe writing and making films should just be banned altogether.

I would suggest the part you are missing is the part about human nature not changing much.  These 'old' books and documents have to do with discussing how we see the world, managing our relationships with each other.  Ever wonder why Shakespeare is still being read and performed? - it isn't about the stories, it's about human nature, the human condition.  The timelessness of it.  Are beach novels just as good, just as relevant and useful?  Why not, they are certainly 'modern', if that's the test?  Same with a lot of the rest of the 'old stuff'.  Are the people studying Greek philosophy wasting their time on pointless irrelevencies?  Should they be spending that time following Hollywood celebs on Twitter instead?  Same with the Constitution.  We toss the 'old stuff' aside at our peril.

[ItsOver]

Excellent post, P*B.  If only more understood the Constitution and our history as well as you do, we'd be in much better shape, IMO.  Edmund Burke's statement of "those who don't know history are destined to repeat it" is as true today as it was in his time.

The Constitution CAN and HAS been changed over the years and it outlines a legitimate process for doing so.  What should be more of a concern is for any attempt to ignore this process and try to circumvent the Constitution by less than honorable means.

[Juan]

Yorkie seems to think himself a subject of The Crown.  I don't see myself as subject of anyone but myself.