Wrath of Dagon

Americans are not entitled to due process once they join the enemy. It's never happened in history, and there's no constitutional basis for it. And do you really think a president will go so rogue that he will start murdering political opponents? Do you think people around him would put up with that? Will the public? Is the Congress not going to impeach? The true threat is not that, the true threat is that they will continue to take away our rights, make formerly law abiding citizens into felons, finally push us so far that some will start to resist, and then military force will be used against them. But Paul's stunt doesn't do anything to prevent that, nor does Holder's reply hold him to anything. More on legal status of enemy combatants here, although I think his Congressional authorization argument is on shaky ground: http://www.nationalreview.com/articles/342568/what-rand-paul-misses-andrew-c-mccarthy

Uh, Venezuela is one of the US's largest oil suppliers. I could have been clearer. My understanding is that in spite of being a key source, oil exports fell dramatically due to Chavez' management. ~~ Oil exports fell because Chavez managed the oil enterprise about as well as he managed the rest of the economy, in other words he made a total mess of it, while still managing to buy off his constituents with proceeds from the oil exports. Had nothing to do with his anti-Americanism though, he was perfectly happy to take US dollars.

what a cynical view. Here's one example : http://news.investors.com/business/042012-608418-ssdi-disability-rolls-skyrocket-under-obama.htm?p=full Another would be families living for generations on the government dole, there are also constant reports of massive fraud in the foodstamp program. May be you don't see that so much in the Netherlands. That's a large amount, tell me, has getting disabilities become easier in recent times, or is this rise purely from people who can't get unemployment welfare anymore because their six months are up? (IE fix one and you may fix the other)Actually unemployment benefits right now are extended to almost two years because of the recession. And of course lots of people just stay on unemployment until the benefits run out. As far as disability, I think it's just a function of people having figured out there's a gravy train to ride, and probably the ethics aren't as strong as they used to be. Doesn't help that I'm constantly seeing commercials of lawyers advertising how they can get you disability benefits. The way I read that explained is that you can still care for others, but out of your own feelings, like because you love someone or because you feel good about helping others. Which in reality is what happens anyway. I'll admit though I don't know much about Objectivism.

Do you really, and being a history teacher too, not see the symbolic difference between the White House and the military base? The first thing he cuts is people's access to the symbolic center of their government, not his vacations, not his jetsetting, not his bloated stuff. It's like he's saying the government belongs to me, not to you. I'm the King, and you have no business in my palace. That's not how a leader of a free people acts. Really sometimes the things you say just amaze me. No kidding, and now they are saying he can kill us right here on our own soil.I think Lincoln set that precedent (well, really Washington during the Whiskey Rebellion if I recall my history right). Anyway, don't see anything wrong with killing terrorists, as they're considered enemy combatants. I don't think the leader of Al Qaeda in the Arabian Peninsula should get any protection from his citizenship once he took up arms against the country he's technically the citizen of.

Well, they are changing the country even as we speak. In fact that is the Democrat plan for taking over, which I believe will be disastrous. I wonder how the Swedes would feel if they became a minority in their own country.

what a cynical view.Here's one example : http://news.investors.com/business/042012-608418-ssdi-disability-rolls-skyrocket-under-obama.htm?p=full Another would be families living for generations on the government dole, there are also constant reports of massive fraud in the foodstamp program. May be you don't see that so much in the Netherlands.

So you're saying that crime and corruption in Venezuela are actually to his credit? I think it's more an argument he's so incompetent that having an authoritarian dictatorship didn't even deliver one of its usual benefits, but to be fair you really need to move on to the totalitarian dictatorship to get a handle on crime.

Shutting down the White House tours is the ultimate expression of Obama's arrogance and narcissism. White House belongs to the citizens, not to him, he has no right to lock the people out. Why doesn't he cut down on some of his golf vacations if they're so short of money? The risk of investing in gold is also huge, considering it was only about $300 in 2000. Sure, you'll never lose all of your money, but you could lose most of it.

Read the Hamas charter. Did ANC charter say anything similar about Whites? It was a Marxist organization, not a racist or fanatically religious one. You may also want to read about the history of massacres in Palestine before the establishment of Israel. Not much to discuss with you then, since you admit you goal is to destroy Israel. Arabs living in Israel are full citizens, the law doesn't treat them any different. And as a matter of fact there are lots of racial preference laws in the US. No, but you all seem to think alike.

It doesn't work if everyone games the system, like in the US.

Rewarding people for not working and punishing those who do does not lead to prosperity. For proof you can look at places like Detroit, Chicago, and California. The European crisis should also tell you something.

Yes, that's basically what the extremist movements among Palestinian refugees say. Still, as I noted earlier, no genocide took place in Algeria or (more relevant) SA even though those governments were formed by former "terrorists". Do you also question the Irish independence? If Hamas was elected to rule Israel today, we would see a catastrophe. I am fully convinced that if Palestinians are gradually allowed to return to their homes and allowed to vote, we won't see that outcome. I wasn't aware that any French settlers staid in Algeria. In any case you're comparing different situations. It's like predicting the nazis wouldn't exterminate Jews because the communists hadn't. Also you don't have any evidence to back up your prediction. In any case, under your scenario, even if Jews somehow avoided the massacre the state of Israel would certainly cease to exist. Israel isn't going to commit national suicide, no matter how much the global left wants them to.

Because all the Jews would be drowned in the Mediterranean if Palestinians ever took over?

Not so long as stuff like that is going on : http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sergei_Magnitsky

@Wals Now you're talking sense. Btw Americans don't have to pay double taxes because any foreign taxes paid are credited against US taxes. Of course if you have to pay AMT the rules involved would make satan cry (I think the first line asks if you're a whaling captain), so there's some kind of issue there.

What conspiracy theory? The facts here are clear. Which facts do you disagree with?

It wasn't a memorial yet (you're acting like everything is said and done), and thus was governed by the same laws as your jackoff neighbor who wants to run up the flag of the USSR. And to the Electricity, true, the lightbulbs required might not have cost that much overall to power, but it's still him and his memorial using the energy, not the park-and-ride. And if they allow a precedent to be set, they're SOL when another memorial that's built like a christmas tree shows up and asks to be put on a CalTrans meter. I mean, would you let your neighbor steal your cable? It's not like it costs you anything in the long run... From the article, he got the permission to build the memorial, it's the flag they were refusing to permit. The rules for the American flag are not the same as that of the USSR, it's ridiculous to claim that. And the memorial was for public good, it's not the same as your neighbor stealing cable, plus he wasn't stealing anything, it's a completely phony issue you came up with as Caltran's excuse, and again where does it say he refused to pay for electricity, and what does it have to do with the memorial itself, he was willing to do it without electricity. That was just to point out the pettiness and obstructionism of Caltran's position. It's a sign of an out of control bureaucracy than even transferring a small parcel of land to another governmental body requires so many permits and legalisms. Of course you can always shut down anything by citing endless rules, that's what governments excel at. They're pretty specific about the flags not being near the state highways. And initially, CalTrans probably didn't care WHAT the land was being used for, all they cared about was that they wouldn't get in legal hot water over it. For the purposes of the law, it doesn't matter if it's flying over the freeway, or held by a giant statue of Uncle Sam stomping on the enemy of the decade, All that matters to them is that it conforms to zoning laws and ordinances about public displays.Again, the if you read the case it was an entirely different situation. Caltran's stupidity in equating the two can't be an excuse. There's nothing in the law which prohibits a flag at a memorial, and to claim otherwise is irrational. OK, so the mural was restored in 92 with Caltran's permission. So it's not really fair to compare the situations as the article does in its conclusion. This hasn't nothing to do with memorial builder though since he only used that case as precedent. There's bitter irony here though, Azatlan is OK but United States is not.

Banning the American flag, the words United States and E Pluribus Unum, no there can't possible be a political agenda here. I know you don't consider yourself a liberal, but I do find your political views a bit puzzling. http://www.weeklystandard.com/blogs/california-dept-transportation-be-sure-black-out-united-states-and-motto_703014.html?page=1 So do you have any actual journalistic evidence of this flagrant violation of the federal government's right to slap its emblems on a state or local public artwork? A right-wing political opinion rag isn't journalism. If they were instead banning depictions of Che Guevara I don't think the Weekly Standard would be up in arms over this. Assuming the contents of the article are accurate. Which they cannot be, given the inherent anti-evidentiary nature of the source. Besides, if you want to be the Republic of Texas, who are you to infringe on the rights of another sovereign state? Oh right, conservative. Question answered. Don't expect any mainstream media to cover a story like this, it goes against their narrative. Besides they're too busy being a propaganda organ for the Obama administration. If you have any evidence to the contrary, let's see it. And I'm not infringing on anything, just stating my opinion.

Yes he was, and I'm saying that the reason CalTrans was saying "No" to various things (although they're obviously getting pettier) was because the guy didn't want to follow the rules. He wanted to have lights for an American flag plugged into another property. Source? That was the closest electrical service to there, probably bringing it in from elsewhere would be prohibitively expensive. And does it say anywhere he was unwilling to compensate them for the cost of electricity? Plus the usage of one light would be miniscule compared to an entire park-and-ride. He wanted to put in the middle of the memorial, not right by the sidewalk. What law tells you you can't put your country's flag in a memorial, that's insane. Everyone agreed intiailly to sell the very tiny parcel of land that Caltrans didn't have any use for to the county, not to him. It was just a way to try to avoid all the ridiculous bureaucratic requirements. The sale was supposed to be at a nominal fee, your house appraisal doesn't cost $10000 . Yes, guidelines where you can't use the name of your own country. And persuant to that, they consider that the monument would end up falling under that. Hanging the American flag from an overpass (something that's not normally done) is very different than wanting to fly the flag over a veteran's memorial. No one in their right mind can claim it's some kind of a political statement. That's to say nothing about the usual leftist lunacy of the Ninth Court. Source? When was the mural painted? There is a date of 2005 in your picture. Then why is the park a Transportation Art project? And why did Caltrans have to sanction it? And what better place? He wants to put it by a miltiary base where it'll be visible and accessible to the public. Is a memorial to people who died for their country something to hide and keep off public land? I can't believe we're even having this argument, you guys have been completely brainwashed by the left.

@ Hurl No, he's still trying to build it in the same place. The Chicano park is entirely relevant, since it was sanctioned by Caltrans with its images of Castro and Guevara, while they refuse to sanction the name of our own country. I'm afraid calling it just a bureaucratic mess isn't going to cut it, there's obviously a lot more to it than that. @Calax Way to miss the point as usual. The guy was trying to build the memorial for a while now, it had nothing to do with any Chicano park until they wouldn't even let him put up the American flag at his memorial. It's Caltrans who's not following the rules, if you had any reading comprehension.

Caltrans won't allow words "United States" and "E Pluribus Unum" on a Veteran's memorial. http://www.weeklystandard.com/blogs/california-dept-transportation-be-sure-black-out-united-states-and-motto_703014.html?page=1

Here's an example of how science becomes politicized, even when you'd think that branch of science has nothing to do with politics: http://www.nytimes.com/2013/02/17/magazine/napoleon-chagnon-americas-most-controversial-anthropologist.html?pagewanted=1&_r=4&smid=pl-share&

No one's claiming otherwise. But sometimes you don't have all the time in the world:

So, he got info out of them by threatening to (illegally, since these were legitimate POW's) to turn them over to the Gestapo. I think that tactic would've worked on Al Qaeda also. And it's not hilarious, it says in your link US interrogation techniques are based on his methods. Apparently they didn't work on everyone being interrogated. Plus don't you think the enemy reads Wikipedia also and are prepared for those tactics?

A bit off topic, but we discussed this extensively in the past and I didn't want to start a new thread; enhanced interrogation - http://www.slate.com/articles/health_and_science/human_nature/2013/01/the_case_for_torture_ex_cia_officials_explain_enhanced_interrogations.html