The Wild West

Got a show idea? Post them here!

Moderators: Loki, robroydude, exposno1, Parrot, Quasigriz, NickDupree, nmoore63, Spinny Spamkiller

The Wild West

Postby hondo69 » Mon Nov 14, 2011 3:12 am

Many people on this forum take great joy in bashing the Tea Party as violent, racists, Nazi, baby-killing zealots, repeating the talking points fed to them by the bulk of the media over the past few years. It’s a great charade, I suppose, if you can pull it off without getting caught. But those of us who have stopped and taken a few moments to listen to their complaints understand their overriding objection is the utter disregard for the Rule of Law by the Obama Administration.

The Wild West is back once again and playing out in full view of the American public, though many of us choose to turn our heads and try to ignore it the best we can. This new lawlessness at the federal level, however, is far more serious than a gun toting sheriff on the streets of Laredo. Obama justice is predicated on “social justice” whereby those “in need” shall be exempt from the law while those “not in need” shall not.

Below is an excerpt from an article by Victor Davis Hanson:

The War Powers Resolution Act, like it or not, is the law of the land. It requires the President to notify Congress within 48 hours of committing armed forces to military action. Without an authorization of the use of military force or a declaration of war, the military cannot remain in combat abroad. That’s why George W. Bush went to Congress to authorize both the Afghanistan and Iraq war. During the heated rhetoric over the Iranian missile controversy, presidential candidates Biden and Obama both expressed support for the Act — apparently outraged that Bush might unilaterally bomb Iran without notifying Senators like themselves.

So when we passed the 60-day limit after the initial and continual use of armed forces in Libya, why did not Obama seek permission from Congress?

Here the question is not the usual Obama hypocrisy that has seen him demagogue and damn Guantamo, preventative detention, tribunals, renditions, the Patriot Act (just signed by a former critic via computerized autopen from the UK no less) and Predators — only to expand or embrace them all. Rather, the problem is a question of legality itself.

Is the War Powers Resolution the law of the land or not? Or are we to assume a progressive president is complying with both UN resolutions and an Arab League mandate, and therefore, as the good internationalist and Nobel Laureate, sees no reason to consult, as American law requires, his own elected US Congress — the latter a more suspect and reactionary body that does not enjoy the moral stature of the UN or the Arab League?

This disregard reminds us of the shake-down of BP, when the administration more or less declared by fiat that the demonized corporation had to cough up a $20 billion contingency clean-up fund — reminiscent of someone in the classical Athenian ekklesia or late 18th-century French assembly going after the better off by mere proclamation.

In that regard, an administration is sworn to uphold the established law; why, then, was the Defense of Marriage Act arbitrarily rendered null and void without legislative appeal, simply because it was considered illiberal by those now with executive power? Can President Obama and Attorney General Holder de facto declare a law unconstitutional and then not enforce it? Could a renegade conservative counterpart likewise declare Roe vs. Wade unconstitutional, and go after abortionists because it deemed them too liberal?

Or perhaps a better example was the bailout of Chrysler that was contingent upon reversing the contractual order of creditors, putting union members and retirees, contrary to law, to the front of the line, and those who held Chrysler debt to the rear. Was the logic something like the following spread-the-wealth notion: Bond-holders are wealthier anyway and so have enough money already; union members — and Democratic stalwarts — actually do the work, and so have a moral claim to the money that trumps the superfluous legal right of the wealthy and powerful?

Or we might ponder the administrative decision by bureaucratic decree to stop a company like Boeing from opening a new airline production line in South Carolina, purportedly because it is a red, right-to-work state. Again, the logic is that companies cannot open factories where they wish, since they have moral obligations that must stand above a mere legal notion of freedom of commerce and association.

Do we remember the voter intimidation case dropped against the Black Panthers — on the supposition that, given the history of the poll tax and Jim Crow voter discrimination, a little minor pushback is small potatoes?

Then we come to federal immigration law, or rather the deliberate effort to undermine it — in a fashion that goes well beyond the neglect of the law shown by previous administrations. The Obama administration is going to court, along with Mexico, to sue the state of Arizona that is trying to find ways to bolster a federal law that the administration will not enforce.

But it gets worse: the Obama administration tries to subvert states that wish to follow its own laws, but ignores cities that deliberately flaunt them by declaring themselves “sanctuary cities”. And consider entire states like California, whose Assembly just passed its own version of the “Dream Act” to provide millions in state funds to support illegal aliens at the state-run colleges and universities (at a time when the state is $15 billion short in balancing its annual budget, and, due to such a shortage of funds, must release 40,000 prisoners because of an inability to comply with a court-order addressing overcrowding).

By now we know the accustomed logic. Demonize those who would seek to obey the law (e.g., they wish to arrest kids on their way to ice cream, they want alligators and moats in the Rio Grande, they are “enemies” who Latinos should “punish,” they have already “basically” finished their fence) and apotheosize those who break it (e.g., no mention of the 20,000-30,000 illegal alien felons in the California penal system).

A Slippery Slope

I find all this quite frightening for a variety of reasons. Once the moral high ground is claimed, then legality is constructed as some sort of reactionary impediment in the way of egalitarian “fairness.” The process works geometrically: each time the federal government rules by fiat instead of following the law — for reasons of humanitarianism abroad, ecological responsibility, worker fairness, gay rights, or empathy for the alien — it becomes a little bolder the next time.

The Left simply disregards its former purported role as guardians of constitutional law, and grows quiet, again on the apparent logic that the rare progressive presidency is simply too precious a commodity to endanger by maintaining any consistent criticism in the manner it once went after the Bush administration.

Imagine the reaction of the New York Times, NPR, or a Senator Obama, had a President Palin decided to bomb Iran off and on for 70 days without congressional consultation, or had she decided to throw open the US border to any from Europe who could fly in, or had she violated union contracts to favor junior Wall Street creditors, or had she demanded that an Al Gore organization plop down several million in a contingency fund for the damage it had done oil workers by obstructing efforts of companies to gain oil leases.

Where does this end, this effort by Ivy League lawyers and civil libertarians to substitute supposedly enlightened progressivism for purported reactionary law? We easily and rightly condemn the crime when the Right tries to overthrow legality in the cases of a Franco, Hitler, Greek Colonels or Pinochet, who are easily identified as autocrats and dictators openly subverting constitutional government. But the assault from the Left is more insidious, given that the miscreants do it in self-declared high-minded fashion for “us.” I think here of the frightening trial of Socrates in ancient Athens, the ascendency of the Jacobins during the French Revolution, or Hugo Chavez’s thuggery in Venezuela — not coups as much as overdue punishment of “them.”

Without the law, there is nothing.
Fugitive from the law of averages
User avatar
hondo69
Nomarch
 
Posts: 1860
Joined: Mon Apr 18, 2011 3:06 am
Location: Austin, TX

Re: The Wild West

Postby Algr » Mon Nov 14, 2011 4:33 am

hondo69 wrote:their overriding objection is the utter disregard for the Rule of Law by the Obama Administration.


And this is why the Tea Party are fools. Do you really believe that the Rule of Law was fine under Bush? Do you think that electing a generic republican is going to solve the problems? The Tea Party may have started out with some legitimate concerns, but they have been utterly neutralized by a divide and conquer strategy, basically by Fox, and are now nothing but Republicans in denial. There is no need for a "media conspiracy", your own post clearly shows why most of the country finds the Tea Party repugnant.

The Tea Party and Occupy Wall Street are basically arguing the same things, and yet the Tea Party has nothing but hate for OWS. They attack OWS because they don't hate Obama. Or even more perversely, when OWS protests unemployment, the Tea Party says they aren't worth listening to because they are unemployed! Their spin has got you attacking justice because you fear it might be "social". (ie. justice for other people.)

The Tea Party today is a lost cause that can do nothing but maintain the polarizing hatred that is at the root of much of our country's problems today. If you want to solve anything, join OWS.
User avatar
Algr
Contributing Member
 
Posts: 112
Joined: Sun Dec 12, 2010 12:59 am

Re: The Wild West

Postby hondo69 » Mon Nov 14, 2011 5:38 pm

Nice.

When in doubt, generalize.
Fugitive from the law of averages
User avatar
hondo69
Nomarch
 
Posts: 1860
Joined: Mon Apr 18, 2011 3:06 am
Location: Austin, TX

Re: The Wild West

Postby The Mad Zeppelineer » Mon Nov 14, 2011 5:44 pm

hondo69 wrote:Nice.

When in doubt, generalize.



And what you did was what? In-depth academic analysis?

Nice dodge. Aren't you a republican? You guys like violent war powers focused presidents.

I dont know if you are a "ron paul republican", so sorry if my characterization of you is wrong. But the Tea Party seems to like some of the more dumb and reactionary candidates, like Bachmann and Cain. They show no interest in undoing the presidents monarchical powers.
Oh, the humanity...
User avatar
The Mad Zeppelineer
Satrap
 
Posts: 4943
Joined: Tue Mar 01, 2011 3:55 pm

Re: The Wild West

Postby Algr » Tue Nov 15, 2011 2:55 am

hondo69 wrote:Nice.

When in doubt, generalize.



Yes, because "the shake-down of BP," was just some innocent company that did nothing wrong before the evil Obama "demonized" them. Or did Victor Davis Hanson omit some relavent details here? Are you upset that Bin-Laden didn't get a fair trial? Or is "disregard for the Rule of Law" okay when it is someone that YOU don't like?

That's why we "take great joy in bashing the Tea Party."
User avatar
Algr
Contributing Member
 
Posts: 112
Joined: Sun Dec 12, 2010 12:59 am

Re: The Wild West

Postby hondo69 » Tue Nov 15, 2011 8:09 am

I have a requirement.

You must use facts for your arguments, lobbing grenades is nothing but a cheap substitute. If I say, "your son threw a baseball through my window", you are not allowed to reply, "yeah, but your son can't play basketball very well".

My argument is that Obama breaks the law on a routine basis. Dispute it.
Fugitive from the law of averages
User avatar
hondo69
Nomarch
 
Posts: 1860
Joined: Mon Apr 18, 2011 3:06 am
Location: Austin, TX

Re: The Wild West

Postby Algr » Tue Nov 15, 2011 10:15 am

hondo69 wrote:My argument is that Obama breaks the law on a routine basis. Dispute it.


I don't dispute it. I dispute that you have any real interest in fixing the problem. You just want excuses to obstruct the good Obama wants to do. You want different laws broken. BP was writing their own safety evaluation reports, breaking endless laws, got people killed and caused billions in damage and you defend them. I'm disappointed with Obama that he has followed Bush's path, but conservatives couldn't care less about the rule of law when Bush was breaking it.

So I don't trust you to fight this battle - you don't have the moral legitimacy. If you want the rule of law, you have to want it for everyone.
User avatar
Algr
Contributing Member
 
Posts: 112
Joined: Sun Dec 12, 2010 12:59 am

Re: The Wild West

Postby navy62802 » Wed Nov 16, 2011 4:29 pm

The Mad Zeppelineer wrote:I dont know if you are a "ron paul republican",

Republicans who favor the rule of law (like myself) are now referred to as "rule of law Republicans."

Reference: Two 'Rule of Law' Republicans Dissent on Torture and Assassinations
User avatar
navy62802
Hetairoi
 
Posts: 5773
Joined: Sun Aug 24, 2008 9:02 pm
Location: Hell

Re: The Wild West

Postby hondo69 » Sun Nov 20, 2011 5:29 am

Algr wrote:I don't dispute it. I dispute that you have any real interest in fixing the problem. You just want excuses to obstruct the good Obama wants to do. You want different laws broken. BP was writing their own safety evaluation reports, breaking endless laws, got people killed and caused billions in damage and you defend them. I'm disappointed with Obama that he has followed Bush's path, but conservatives couldn't care less about the rule of law when Bush was breaking it.


You seem to know an awful lot about me.

I point out examples of illegal activity and suddenly I am the baby-killing Nazi you always knew I was all along. Because I provide specific examples that don’t fit your view you jump to the conclusion that I loved everything Bush or BP ever did.

Genius that.

Please tell me you’re not allowed to drive a 3,000 lb automobile on the public streets. I’d hate to guess what you’d do if you saw a bumper sticker you didn’t like.
Fugitive from the law of averages
User avatar
hondo69
Nomarch
 
Posts: 1860
Joined: Mon Apr 18, 2011 3:06 am
Location: Austin, TX

Re: The Wild West

Postby Algr » Sun Nov 20, 2011 2:40 pm

It took you four days to come up with that?

You've TOLD me a lot about yourself. You project your own faults onto others. I ALSO pointed out examples of illegal activity and you showed none of the concern you expect of others. It is perfectly reasonable to expect that you "loved everything Bush or BP ever did." because your opening post says:

This disregard reminds us of the shake-down of BP, when the administration more or less declared by fiat that the demonized corporation had to cough up a $20 billion contingency clean-up fund.


Not an ounce of sympathy for the dead and disrupted? Is it really the "Rule of law" if BP can tie up reparations in the courts for 20 years like Exxon did? And even worse:

Here the question is not the usual Obama hypocrisy that has seen him demagogue and damn Guantamo, preventative detention, tribunals, renditions, the Patriot Act (just signed by a former critic via computerized autopen from the UK no less) and Predators — only to expand or embrace them all. Rather, the problem is a question of legality itself.


Not one unkind word about Bush who started all this? Not one unkind word about Guantamo or the Patriot Act itself? Liberals are disappointed with Obama about this, but Hanson talks as if no one else but liberals were involved!

By now we know the accustomed logic. Demonize those who would seek to obey the law


What else does Victor Davis Hanson do in his article except this? It's utterly dishonest fact distorting excuses to hate Obama for stuff that happened before he was elected or was out of his control. You project your own faults onto others. I ask you again. Do you think electing a conservative will solve any of this? And if not, then what is your opening post even advocating?
User avatar
Algr
Contributing Member
 
Posts: 112
Joined: Sun Dec 12, 2010 12:59 am

Re: The Wild West

Postby raistian77 » Sun Nov 20, 2011 3:04 pm

In my opinion BP should have had to pay 10 times that amount.

Shitty safety practices, cutting corners and rushed and foolhearty drilling caused immense damage to OUR water.


Hondo, you are a cheerleader for the Republican party, you find no fault in them and shift all blame in the system to liberals,Democrats and the president. It is silly and will be the last time I waste time responding to you.


BOTH PARTIES ARE EQUALLY AT FAULT AS THEY BOTH ARE BOUGHT AND PAID FOR BY OUTSIDE SPECIAL INTERESTS.

BUSH--sucked
OBAMA--sucked even harder
McCAIN--would have sucked
Biden--idiot
Pallin--idiot
*every single person running right now, including the holy Ron Paul--idiots

Have not seen a single worthy candidate in a long long time.
I figured 5 min of listening to Dan would have explained that to you.
The fool doth think he is wise, but the wise man knows himself to be a fool.

Oh Wait, You're Serious? Let Me Laugh Even Harder!

-"No matter how bad things seem--- "
"They could be worse."
"Nope. No matter how bad they seem, they can't be any better, and they can't be any worse, because that's the way things fucking are, and you better get used to it, Nancy. Quit yer bitching."
User avatar
raistian77
Hetairoi
 
Posts: 6816
Joined: Sun May 03, 2009 8:33 pm
Location: Clarksville, TN

Re: The Wild West

Postby Algr » Sun Nov 20, 2011 3:27 pm

hondo69 wrote: I am the baby-killing Nazi you always knew I was


Oops, I forgot Godwin's law: Whoever brings up the Nazis in an unrelated argument automatically looses. Go troll somewhere else Hondo.
User avatar
Algr
Contributing Member
 
Posts: 112
Joined: Sun Dec 12, 2010 12:59 am

Re: The Wild West

Postby hondo69 » Sun Nov 20, 2011 4:10 pm

When logic is abandonded, all is lost.

That horse left the barn about 20 years ago.
Fugitive from the law of averages
User avatar
hondo69
Nomarch
 
Posts: 1860
Joined: Mon Apr 18, 2011 3:06 am
Location: Austin, TX

Re: The Wild West

Postby Algr » Sun Nov 20, 2011 8:02 pm

You abandoned logic 20 years ago? That would be the first Clinton campaign. Yes that sounds about right.
User avatar
Algr
Contributing Member
 
Posts: 112
Joined: Sun Dec 12, 2010 12:59 am

Re: The Wild West

Postby Runicmadhamster » Sun Nov 20, 2011 8:34 pm

hondo69 wrote:When logic is abandonded, all is lost.

That horse left the barn about 20 years ago.


Hondo instead of dodging the nice mans question with whimsical sayings, could you please answer it. I would quite like to know the answer (the question is bellow)

Algr wrote:What else does Victor Davis Hanson do in his article except this? It's utterly dishonest fact distorting excuses to hate Obama for stuff that happened before he was elected or was out of his control. You project your own faults onto others.I ask you again. Do you think electing a conservative will solve any of this? And if not, then what is your opening post even advocating?
User avatar
Runicmadhamster
Satrap
 
Posts: 2757
Joined: Tue Jun 21, 2011 9:43 pm
Location: New Zealand

Next

Return to New Common Sense Show Ideas

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 2 guests