.jpg.ce846aae50e732dc4985eb712252381f.jpg)
Guard Dog
-
Posts
644 -
Joined
-
Last visited
-
Days Won
202
Content Type
Profiles
Forums
Blogs
Posts posted by Guard Dog
-
-
So, on Real Clear Politics and Red Alert Politics I counted 11 news articles today that compare Trump to Hitler and the Nazis. You know the problem with the "Everyone I don't like is Hitler" thing? It makes people forget just what Hitler actually was. On the evil scale Trump isn't even on the same meter as Hitler. A four month ban on travel from just seven countries is it? There are 38 "Islamic Republics" on the earth and over 80 where Islam is the dominant religion. But this four month ban is being portrayed as a total ban on ALL Muslims EJ Dionne from the Washington Post even speculates if internment camps will follow. Small wonder the news media is held in such small regard in the US today. Barack Obama banned travel from several Muslim countries in 2009 and 2011 and not a word was said... by anyone.
Trump is not nationalizing private property. Hitler did that. Trump is not shipping people to death camps. Hitler did that. He didn't have the police agencies murder his own supporters. Hitler did that. Get the idea?
The truth is the media made Trump through a combination of condescension to his supporters, obvious collusion to help the Democrats, and sensationalistic and outright yellow journalism in how they report on him. The media has so defined itself has the enemy of the "average American" that they are practically guaranteeing Trump a second term. We need the media to be critical of him. They utterly failed to do that with Obama but they figure he was on "their team". But for God's sake they need to cut the hyperventilating. It's not helping.
-
1
-
-
Remember that giant meteor joke we all laughed at during the election? It doesn't sound half bad now does it?
-
1
-
-
Irony. Definitely my favorite form of humor.
-
5
-
-
Well, as far as the travel ban goes, the Trump administration is going to lose in court on that one. Wow, slapped down in court within the first two weeks. That has GOT to be a record.
-
If people turn to ISIS because Trump banned people froma few countries (again, I disagree how he did this so uncool) that is on them. And, it shows they are weak, pathetic, and evil. ISIS commits mass murder, rape, etc., so if you join them or even think of joining them 'out of spite of Trump (or anyone's policies) then you are a scumbag piece of crap with no moral fibre. Period. Don't be blaming Trump's (or whoever's) failing for yours. That is a cop out.
That's not quite how it works. If you have a family living and working in the US, in some of these examples for nearly a decade, and suddenly the father is deported back to some war torn country (which the US shares responsibility for it being war-torn to begin with.) That family may have just lost their breadwinner, the kids have lost their dad, their entire lives are flipped upside down. They probably aren't going to pack it up and go to a war-torn country, but you've now created a situation where those kids are incredibly vulnerable to extremist ideologies. The US is no longer the place they came for opportunity, it is the country that forced their father to leave and is filled with people who hate their way of life.
Brother, you said it all right there. That is the biggest argument against intervention in foreign conflicts. Intervening in other nations makes things worse every time. Yes Assad is a bad guy. Yes he was committing atrocities on his citizens and yes things are worse off for trying to stop it. If muslims want to kill muslims, LET THEM. It is NOT OUR PROBLEM. Saddam Hussein was a bad guy but Iraq was an effective counter weight on Iran. To "save" the Iraqi people we invaded and removed him. How did that work out? The US backed a breakaway faction that set up a government in South Vietnam. Then militarily supported it for 10 yeas. How did that work out? Enough is enough already. US "interests" begin on the east coast of the US Virgin Islands and ends at the western end of the Aleutians.
-
1
-
-
Great article about just how far the Patriots have come. I'd forgotten a lot of this stuff: https://www.washingtonpost.com/sports/redskins/the-nfls-model-franchise-was-once-a-tear-down-project/2017/01/27/8431dd7c-e4be-11e6-a547-5fb9411d332c_story.html?utm_term=.bb05981c7cc4
-
Also I love how your country mouse is uneducated. I wouldn't cast too many aspersions if I were you. Trump's victory has less to do with his own merits than being the best of nothing but bad choices. I think most of the country mice would agree.
like it or not
but yeah, even trump voters didn't necessarily like him so much as they hated hillary clinton.
as to the Court, possible the only positive we see from trump's election is we will are more likely to see replacement Justices who favor judicial restraint.
HA! Good Fun!
Presidents come and go. A Supreme Court Justice can f--k you decades.
-
Now reading SPQR: A History of Ancient Rome by Mary Beard. So far it is lively and interesting. But it's also a bit too broad and light on detail for my taste. It's like cliff notes for a history of a thousand years.
And since Spring Training is just 25 days away I'm getting in the mood with one of my favorite writers Roger Kahn and Memories of Summer: When Baseball Was an Art, and Writing about It a Game
-
one thing am almost certain of is trump will be disappointed with his Court nominee, whoever it is. none o' his top three choices is obvious political creatures. all o' them is Judges first and foremost. whether they seem to favor 2nd amendment freedoms or a more restrictive view o' probable cause will all be pointless if they sees unconstitutional excess from an executive. loyalty is important to trump, but is often lost on a Justice, and so-called conservative Justices is more likely to take a jaundiced view o' the kinda stuff we has seen thus far from trump.
HA! Good Fun!
The exact reason Obama chose Kagan & Garland IMO. I think Sotomayor has not turned out to be the utter disaster I was afraid she would be. To the chagrin of some she has become a pretty consistent champion of the 4th Amendment. Although much less so on other aspects of the Constitution I'm afraid to say. Kagan, so far at least, seems predisposed to allow the government broad power. Garland seems to have been cut from the same cloth. I am deeply relieved he was not seated, even if the way it was done was not cool. I see no reason why the Republicans simply didn't just vote him down. Nothing wrong with doing that.
I read a bit on Trump's top three. I think Prior would be in for the biggest nomination fight. The other two seem ok. I wish I could make his pick. I'd choose Janice Rogers Brown and dare the Democrats to try to stop her.
Also I love how your country mouse is uneducated. I wouldn't cast too many aspersions if I were you. Trump's victory has less to do with his own merits than being the best of nothing but bad choices. I think most of the country mice would agree.
-
So, Kramer was right!
-
The "everyone gets a point" Panthers played an OT game again tonight. Only, will wonders never cease, they managed to win one. This season has been a textbook example of how to ruin a program.
-
HA! Good Fun!
Robert Smigel is seriously f-----g funny!
-
3
-
-
In a common cause against him. Worldwide thousands of people are on the streets, saying no to protectionism, to disrespect against women, to the empowerment of homophobes etc. There are those few supporting him... the right winged populists of Europe had a congress in Germany today. The congress had Ann equal numbers of visitors and protestors against it.
Trump said he'd give the power back to the people. Mr. Trump, you don't need to do that... we're just taking it back.
Oh my God I laughed at this. And you know the best part? If you were not completely serious it wouldn't be funny!
-
I'm sorry I have to do this with Andrew Jackson
This just ****ing cements Jackson as my favorite president ever. Makes me wish I was American.
And they left a of of stuff out. He was actually called Old Hickory from his military career. He was as tough and immovable as an old hickory tree. He led a militia force of just 5000 men against a force of 7500 British infantry and 600 Kings German Legion troops at the Battle of New Orleans and won. Completely won. He led the army in the Great Seminole War, pushing them from Georgia down into Florida. He was the last military commander to defeat them in battle. Then after they made peace, just for the hell of it, he took Florida from the Spanish. The city of Jacksonville in Florida is named for him. During the election of 1828 he was referred to as Jackass by his opponents and to spite them he made it his symbol. It later became the symbol for the whole Democrat Party (he was a Democrat). He is probably the first populist to be President and did a lot to help farmers and labor class folks. He empowered people other than political elites.
Today that is called Jacksonian Democracy. So you might say he is the real founder of the modern Democrat Party. At least up until 2000. Starting with Gore, then Kerry, then Obama the Democrat Party turned their backs on Jacksonian Democracy. Heck they even turned their backs on Andrew Jackson, removing him from the $20 bill in favor of Harriet Tubman.
There is another story about him, I don't know if it's true. He had a habit of walking to Blodget's Hotel down the street from the Capitol in the evenings. He's sit in the lobby and have cigars and whiskey and just talk to people. Folks with a political interest would of course try to persuade him to help their cause and this activity is where the term "lobbying" came from. I heard that on the Paul Harvey radio show a long time ago. It might be true, but it is a good story.
-
1
-
-
Now, were the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan illegal? No. They were not. Right or wrong in both cases the Congress of the United States authorized the President to do what he did. There is no higher international law to measure that against.
So the US authorized itself, therefore it was legal. In other words, "might makes right". Can't really argue with that. Great philosophy while you're top dog, not so great when you cease to be.
It was legal inasmuch as the standards for going to war under the US Constitution were met. It was "legal" if for no other reason than there is no international body to whom sovereign states are beholden to justify themselves to or has power to redress the wrongs they do. Was it just? Was it moral? No, I'd have to say it wasn't. With Iraq at least. Add to that it was extraordinarily ill-advised and what you have left is, I hope, an object lesson to future administrations to use military force more judiciously and sparingly. Sometimes the status quo is better than all the possible alternatives.
And I'm sorry to say, might does make right. When Russia invaded Crimea did the "international police" go arrest Putin? Did anyone do much of anything meaningful? Not really. So to me that means it is incumbent on those with might to learn from past lessons and use their power responsibly. Which brings me back around to Manning going public with bad deeds which just puts everyone's back up rather than be a true whistle blower and give the information to people who might have done some good with it.
-
1
-
-
First of all I am only addressing Manning leaking information. I didn't say anything about WHAT was leaked or what I thought about it. Don't comment on points I didn't make. Second of all your example of "all-American gangbangers" assaulting tourists and somehow conflating that wit the actions of an armed service in a combat zone is about the most intellectually vacant thing I've read this year. I am a little surprised it came from you.
For the record this thread is about Manning and his actions. Some of the info leaked describes activity that could credibly be called war crimes. But not all or of or even most of it. The body to deal with this kind of information in the US is the Congress, and the DoD. Had Manning sent information of illegal acts to the Senate Armed Services Committee instead of Wikileaks his story would likely have gone down completely different.
No, you didn't comment on it, which is precisely what rubbed me the wrong way: "once the shooting starts no questions whose side I'm on right or wrong". Those were your words. I might have misunderstood what you meant there, but it sounds like you'd take "our boys'" side regardless of what they did, because they wear the same uniform you did. That's not patriotism.
As for the bangers, being part of an armed service in a combat zone does not *in theory* afford you impunity to commit illegal acts, even though it usually does in practice. The big question is if the Iraq war was illegal to begin with. If it was illegal, what is the moral difference between your average jarhead and a common thug? Again, no conscription.
Frankly, I'm surprised that you think that following proper procedure would have yielded any results, especially considering your wider stance on Congressional dereliction of duty, executive overreach, etc. So Manning should have followed the rules knowing that it would have amounted to nothing? Even considering that the leaks were open and public, what has been done about them? The only person to go to jail over the whole affair was Manning. Honestly, what do you think the outcome would have been if some commission had been tasked with "reviewing" the claims made by some nobody analyst with serious issues?
I'll have faith in the rules and the system when the people who actually put the lives of servicemen and intelligence assets at risk are made to face the music. Fat chance that Dubya, Rummy and Cheney will be indicted though, so I guess I'll keep rooting for "lawbreakers".
Right or wrong meaning you don't damage your country by enabling or helping it's enemies. Like I said, if he had gone to the Senate Armed Services Committee justice, after a fashion, would have been done. It would not have been big, or splashy. It would have been kept quiet and would be altogether unsatisfactory but it would have also included steps to prevent a repeat.
Now, were the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan illegal? No. They were not. Right or wrong in both cases the Congress of the United States authorized the President to do what he did. There is no higher international law to measure that against. Were they ill-advised? Yes. Were the poorly executed? Well, the combat phases were not but the management that came after is certainly questionable. Iraq in particular was a total waste of lives, time, and resources that made a bad situation worse. As for Afghanistan, in the wake of 9-11 doing the wrong thing would not be as bad as doing nothing.
-
1
-
-
Bruce you are wandering into a different pasture here.
-
If it's done right it can be and interesting and enlivening part of the RPG experience. It is seldom done right. It never feels organic and usually is so clumsy it just ends up being a distraction. And to say nothing of the incessant bitching from players who didn't like the romance options, wanted someone different, etc. PoE and Fallout NV I thought did a really decent job of fleshing out interpersonal relationships with NPCs without the irritation of a badly implemented "romance". I'd say keep doing that.
Skyrim did it the best IMO. You could have nearly anyone you wanted so there was nothing to complain about and it didn't matter anyway because they all said the same s--t.
The best in-game romances I've seen were mods. And the best part about them is you can pick and choose.
-
2
-
-
Eh, its no more intellectually vacant than post #45.
An engine is NOT a motor dammit! I don't care what MIT says!
-
I'm opposed to military action in Syria, Iraq, Libya and (insert name of any country here) but once the shooting starts there is no questions whose "side" I'm on right or wrong. Manning jeopardized the lives of Americans and American intelligence assets.
Yeah. You do know that kind of reasoning was thrown out by the US in, er, the Nuremberg Trials, right? Following orders is not a valid defense to justify supporting illegal wars or wartime acts, let alone some twisted interpretation of "patriotism".
And by the way, unlike in the US, there was conscription in Germany. Dat victor's justice doe
I guess, following the same logic, that you'd be on the side of All-American gangbangers mugging and killing foreign tourists, "once the shooting starts". Provided they proudly wear the US flag on their shoulder, ofc.
First of all I am only addressing Manning leaking information. I didn't say anything about WHAT was leaked or what I thought about it. Don't comment on points I didn't make. Second of all your example of "all-American gangbangers" assaulting tourists and somehow conflating that wit the actions of an armed service in a combat zone is about the most intellectually vacant thing I've read this year. I am a little surprised it came from you.
For the record this thread is about Manning and his actions. Some of the info leaked describes activity that could credibly be called war crimes. But not all or of or even most of it. The body to deal with this kind of information in the US is the Congress, and the DoD. Had Manning sent information of illegal acts to the Senate Armed Services Committee instead of Wikileaks his story would likely have gone down completely different.
-
1
-
-
Zebra Shark gives birth without a mate: http://www.cnn.com/2017/01/17/health/zebra-shark-reproduction/index.html
He IS the chosen one I tell you!
-
1
-
-
Legalizing gay marriage
It's a bit of a stretch to credit him for this. He was a pretty vocal opponent of same sex marriage all the up until the tide of public opinion could not be ignored. Jumping on the bandwagon long after it got rolling does not strike me as particularly virtuous. Now the US Solicitor General did argue on behalf of the Plaintiffs in Obgerfell so there is that. But the real credit here goes to the five justices who listened to the Equal Protection argument..
-
I would have worked out something for Snowden before Manning but I guess that's why I'm not in charge of anything
Do you mind sharing why? I know you will have an interesting reason
Manning's leaks endangered lives, caused the deaths of innocent people, and aided Al-Qaeda, Snowden's embarassed the NSA?
That would be my answer. I'm opposed to military action in Syria, Iraq, Libya and (insert name of any country here) but once the shooting starts there is no questions whose "side" I'm on right or wrong. Manning jeopardized the lives of Americans and American intelligence assets. Snowden embarrassed the would be "Big Brother" ambitions of an out of control government agency. Big difference.
-
One other thing. He has pardoned or commuted nearly 2000 non-violent drug offenders so far and is suggesting more to come tomorrow. I'm all in favor of that. Locking someone up for 30 years for a victim-less crime offends my sense of justice and it should yours too. Most of those folks did not deserve the punishment they received.
-
3
-
Politics 2017 part II
in Way Off-Topic
Posted
Well, where he lost me was stopping legal residents of the US from returning. And I believe that has already been walked back. But this is a lot less of a big deal than is being made of it. I can't wait to hear the SCOTUS pick tomorrow. The Democrats and the Media (the same thing I know) are going to go batsht crazy. It will be entertaining at least.
Mr. Trump? Three words for you sir. Janice Rogers Brown. Make it happen. That will throw a match in the hay barn for real.