• comment on a post DONT BLAME ME... I VOTED FOR A REAL FIGHTER! over 5 years ago

    Also, she would have cured cancer, put a (wo)man on Mars, ended global poverty, baptized all the pagan babies, and bought the world a Coke.

    Oh, and flying cars.  We'd have those by now, too.

  • This is the best explanation for the phenomenon of "Joe the Plumber" that I've ever seen.  A whole mess of people stood around, looking at him on the teevee at McCain Campaign HQ and thought: "We should listen to him precisely because he's an abject idiot who doesn't know what the hell he's talking about and...who agrees with us!"

  • on a comment on James Von Brunn: Freeper. over 5 years ago

    The guy is in his late 80s - you think he developed his white supremacist, anti-Semitic philosophy after 9/11, or long before?  Do you think white supremacy is a characteristic found often on the left? (Know what? Don't bother answering--you've already shown yourself incapable of reality-based discussion).

    Next you'll tell us that the Goodman, Chaney and Schwerner were actually young conservatives.

    Stupid jackass.

  • Primary challenges in the House are tough: you're working with a more circumscribed geographic area, there might not be any credible progressive politicos in the area, many of our bad Dem Reps are in areas with weak party performance, and the ones in the cities frequently have powerful machines behind them. But you take your search statewide, and damn near everywhere we have a Democratic senator you can find stronger, more progressive alternatives to recruit. And in a state like Pennsylvania, with a "Democratic" senator like Specter, finding someone who can create a parallel operation to the state party apparatus shouldn't be too hard. So yeah, you find someone who will be an actual, factual honest-to-gosh Democrat from PA who's willing to work his or her ass off to build a statewide organization and recruit disaffected Dems who don't want to help "Arlen!" keep the job he should have given up two terms ago, and you've got $25 right here.
  • Feel free.
  • comment on a post Brief update on marriage equality news in Iowa over 5 years ago
    Start with three premises:

    1) Legal representation is a thing of value;

    2) County recorders are public officials; and

    3) Issuing marriage licenses in accordance with state law is an official duty for county recorders.

    The Iowa Code, section 722.1, states:
    A person who offers, promises, or gives anything of value or any benefit to a person who is serving or has been elected, selected, appointed, employed, or otherwise engaged to serve in a public capacity, including a public officer or employee, a referee, juror, or jury panel member, or a witness in a judicial or arbitration hearing or any official inquiry, or a member of a board of arbitration, pursuant to an agreement or arrangement or with the understanding that the promise or thing of value or benefit will influence the act, vote, opinion, judgment, decision, or exercise of discretion of the person with respect to the person's services in that capacity commits a class "D" felony. In addition, a person convicted under this section is disqualified from holding public office under the laws of this state.
    Section 722.2 (take note, you county recorders):
    A person who is serving or has been elected, selected, appointed, employed, or otherwise engaged to serve in a public capacity, including a public officer or employee, a referee, juror, or jury panel member, or a witness in a judicial or arbitration hearing or any official inquiry, or a member of a board of arbitration who solicits or knowingly accepts or receives a promise or anything of value or a benefit given pursuant to an understanding or arrangement that the promise or thing of value or benefit will influence the act, vote, opinion, judgment, decision, or exercise of discretion of the person with respect to the person's services in that capacity commits a class "C" felony. In addition, a person convicted under this section is disqualified from holding public office under the laws of this state.
    The Alliance Defense Fund is offering to bribe county officials to not do their jobs, no differently than if they were paying off a county judge to ignore the law, or a county commissioner to rezone a property. And whether or not any recorders take them up on their offer, ADF still violated the statute and should be investigated.

    Moreover, any recorder who seeks to take ADF up on their offer will likely bear the onus of proving that they intended to ignore the law all along regardless of the consequences, even before the offer of legal representation was made.
  • on a comment on Should the left arm itself? over 5 years ago

    The point I was making with the frontier is that they considered a standing army necessary for a permanent but non-existential threat like tribal raids, but for a real existential threat like, say, the British Army, they were willing to rely on our ability to muster a defense without what would otherwise be an unreasonable force.  The British Army still existed, and it could still be used against us, but we didn't let that fear dominate our actions or debates: we analyzed it rationally and found it less pressing and less serious than what would justify a permanent standing army.  My whole point is that we needn't be prepared to at any moment to engage in political violence if we want to stay safe from it, just like we needn't have a military capable of handling every conceivable threat at once in order to be safe as a nation.

    As to your second point, you're reading too much into my post (I too was raised with guns, and now own two of them, so no need to be, erm, defensive).  I'm speaking about the results of arming a political movement in response to fear of another movement, not about individual actors.  The social contexts are vastly different: one scenario has the hypothetical of "me against an unknown personal threat that may or may not ever materialize" and the other is "us against them," with a concrete enemy to target and project our fears onto.

  • on a comment on Should the left arm itself? over 5 years ago

    And thinking a permanent war-level defensive capacity is necessary to prevent invasion ignores entirely the concept of "the Sleeping Giant."  

    We're capable of mounting a defense or responding to attacks without always standing on high alert--that's one of the main reasons why the Founders were willing to concede the need for a standing army on the frontier (where raising and deploying a force would be impracticable) and a standing navy, while simultaneously arguing that our main national defense would have to (and should) come from a citizen's militia.

  • on a comment on Should the left arm itself? over 5 years ago

    Well, no, that's not an assumption I'm making (and really, it's Einstein whose premise you're really arguing with), but ok.  The assumption is that it's impossible to amass a sufficient defensive capacity without at the same time amassing an offensive one, and the "weapon unused is a useless weapon" mentality will lead to aggression in time (see also: what we did with all our Cold War hardware).

  • on a comment on Should the left arm itself? over 5 years ago

    That logic is strikingly similar to what underlies the (demonstrably false) premise that "an armed society is a polite society."

    How about: "You cannot simultaneously prepare for and prevent war?"

  • on a comment on The tax protests over 5 years ago

    I thought it felt smarter in here all of a sudden...

  • on a comment on The tax protests over 5 years ago

    Were you asleep the whole time?  It wasn't that he didn't balance the budget, it's that he exponentially increased the deficit in order to give a stupid give-away to the wealthiest at the expense of the rest of us.

    You really haven't had a clue for years, have you?  That's a shame, and not a surprise.

  • on a comment on The tax protests over 5 years ago

  • on a comment on The tax protests over 5 years ago

    The food here is terrible, and the portions are so small!

  • I think you're a shameless liar, and the difference between us is I can just link to your lies.

    You aren't even a good liar.  You're just a shameless hack, always have been.  Mocking you is a fun diversion from the workaday world, but I'd really rather you never bothered showing your disgraced, lying face around here anymore.  I'm sure there are plenty of other dead-enders with anti-Obama blogs who'd love to add your particular brand of bullshit to their arsenal--perhaps you should try a site where credibility and honesty don't count for anything, instead of continuing to pollute this one.

Diaries

Advertise Blogads