Althouse: "What is odd is to have a president so convinced of his own magnificence

July 9, 2010

"What is odd is to have a president so convinced of his own magnificence — yet not of his own country's."

The Contempt of the Krauthammer:

388 comments:

«Oldest ‹Older 201 – 388 of 388

Bruce Hayden said...: Bonded indenture was usually a contract made in Britain where the servant was given transport to the colonies for a specified term of service. The contract was often abused by the owner to the point that any indemnity (breaking a dish, etc.) would be added to the term of service. Widows and orphans were liable for a father's indemnity and many contracts became multi-generational. Eventually, it became a kind of peonage. It wasn't until the 1830s that the practice was finally outlawed.

My paternal line came over here indentured. Three brothers came over together, and from two of them came most of the Haydens in this country. This was, I believe, in the 1630s. Don't know, of course, how long they had to serve to pay off their passage.; 7/9/10, 3:09 PM
A.W. said...: Garage

> The same colleges that produced Krauthammer, the Bushes, Dick Cheney [briefly], Bill Kristol, and many of the conservative "think tanks"?

Sure, George W. Bush, a typical liberal yalie!

No, garage, what he is saying is that some people get captured by these institutions, so that they follow the philospophies of their professors for the rest of their lives, and some people think for themselves.

For instance, you cite Krauthammer. Well, bluntly graduating from Harvard medical school is not the same as graduating from Harvard law. They have very different cultures, starting with the fact that Harvard medical teaches you a specific set of skills useful to actually save lives. The usefulness of a Harvard law education, and its benefit to humanity is very much in doubt. (And not to be cheesy, I will say the usefulness of a yale law education has similar problems.)

And the dick cheney example is uniquely lame. He was spat out of Yale precisely because his Montana ways didn’t fit in. Which is sad and stupid, but that was how things were back then I suppose. And maybe in undergrad it is still that way. to then pretend he is a product of it is more than a little insane.; 7/9/10, 3:11 PM
Phil 314 said...: And all started from one little comment

Though I have to admit
I'm dogged by the feeling that, like some evil kitty cat, Althouse is toying with us.; 7/9/10, 3:11 PM
Bruce Hayden said...: "Obama is pragmatic". LOL that bogus line was a talking point and its now way past its expiration date. You libs need to get some new ones and quick.

If he were pragmatic, he would be triangulating like crazy, following the lead of President Clinton. Pretty much everything he does to the economy hurts our recovery, as well as the reelection chances of many of his allies in Congress. Yet, he keeps doubling down. That is the mark of an ideologue, not a pragmatist.

wv: ungarb - Emperor Obama has no clothes. The little kid has embarrassed everyone by pointing it out. But now, we can talk about it.; 7/9/10, 3:13 PM
Bruce Hayden said...: And the dick cheney example is uniquely lame. He was spat out of Yale precisely because his Montana ways didn’t fit in.

Not that it matters a whole lot to most of the country, but Cheney grew up in Wyoming, not Montana. He was apparently born in Nebraska, but moved to Wyoming while in elementary school.; 7/9/10, 3:17 PM
Scott M said...: Look, it doesn’t matter a damned bit how much or little, or not at all, a socialist President Obama is. In fact, if even you believe utterly in central planning for every aspect of society and the lives of your citizens, that doesn’t change human nature one iota. Neither does it alter the fact that in a country of 300 million, you require, by default, hordes of unaccountable bureaucrats. We’re going to get hordes of bureaucrats no matter what, simple due to the size. The question is the size of the horde. Are we talking a limited outbreak that stays somewhat contained, or World War Z? This is the true crux of the matter, not the Oneness of The Won.

Given that bureaucracies are innately inefficient, impersonal, and in just about all ways undesirable, we should strive to keep them as small as possible…not willy-nilly add layers and a layers of new offices of enforcement called Minority And Women Inclusion, or whatever the hell they’re calling them in this most recent bill nobody’s read.; 7/9/10, 3:18 PM
A.W. said...: Why do we get the feeling that HD was not half that articulate in the real thing.

As for your argument on immigration, yes, you absolutely can use the troops. you are repelling an invasion. so you are cool.

and even if not, then the only barrier is the possee commitatus law, and guess what? congress can change the law.

so as usual, the argument is the usual liberal tactic of pretending that there are so many insurmountable problems it can't be done, when those problems actually can be solved easily.

But do explain to me how wise this policy is, given that that they have admitted that in parts of AZ it is so out of control that citizens are being told to stay out. that's happening in my country, mind you.; 7/9/10, 3:18 PM
chickelit said...: c3 wrote: I'm dogged by the feeling that, like some evil kitty cat, Althouse is toying with us.

That sounds like masthead material.; 7/9/10, 3:18 PM
garage mahal said...: When he's done, the US of A will look a lot like the south side of Chicago does now. Things are not getting better, they're getting worse.

Why did he spend billions propping up our financial institutions when he could have easily just let them rot on the vine? Potentially could have easily ruined our whole economy, something a America Hating President could hardly resist.

Why spend so much money inside and on America if he hates it so much? Spend money on Americans he hates. Makes no sense.; 7/9/10, 3:19 PM
chickelit said...: …not willy-nilly add layers and a layers of new offices of enforcement called Minority And Women Inclusion, or whatever the hell they’re calling them in this most recent bill nobody’s read.

Isn't that what FLOTUS did in her "job"?; 7/9/10, 3:21 PM
Skyler said...: B. Hussein claimed in his own books that his personal influences philosophically in his upbringing were all marxist communists. So, yeah, it's not a stretch to call him a communist.

I don't understand this idea floating in this comment thread where people keep mentioning that communism works well in small communities. It doesn't. It never does.

It didn't work in the Virginia colony, it didn't work in the Kibbutzes, and it didn't work anywhere else. The only time anything approaching communism works is when force is used to instill discipline on the participants, such as the end result of the Virginia colony, the military, etc. The Kibbutzes have finally been revealed to have been a fraud in that they survived only through government funding, and the people living in them admitted that it didn't work because of (surprise) the human desire to keep the results of their own labor.

We're being sucked into a socialist state and B. Hussein is purposefully trying to destroy this nation's ability to revert back to freedom after he leaves office.; 7/9/10, 3:22 PM
A.W. said...: Garage

I don’t think Obama hates America, but really, you don’t see the obviously bad results?

> Why did he spend billions propping up our financial institutions when he could have easily just let them rot on the vine?

His spending on those institutions also gave him control over them.

> Why spend so much money inside and on America if he hates it so much? Spend money on Americans he hates. Makes no sense.

And I am sorry are you under the impression that all this spending is helping? I mean you talk about him “spending money” as though the money was his personal accounts, as opposed to being MY FUCKING MONEY. And my children’s money, and my grandchildren’s money. He has sent us down into a hole into unprecedented levels of debt.

The man is positively destroying the economy. That is a fact. Now if you want to assert that he is not doing this on purpose, but rather he is just really, really incompetent, um, okay, but that’s a pretty weak defense.

Typical liberal talking about taking money from some people and giving it to others, and then pretending that the person taking my money from me is the generous one.; 7/9/10, 3:26 PM
chickelit said...: Why did he spend billions propping up our financial institutions when he could have easily just let them rot on the vine?

Future revenue from people's 401(k) tax deferments for one thing, and his beholdings to employee union's shareholdings for another. Oh and yes, maybe a desire to redistribute some of that wealth rather than to outright see it destroyed. But I'm just guessing here.

gargae, what do you think are POTUS's plans for creating wealth?; 7/9/10, 3:29 PM
Skyler said...: Why did he spend billions propping up our financial institutions when he could have easily just let them rot on the vine?

It's not like it was a sacrifice on his part, gm.

He did it because he is an ideologue that believes in communism, and he either believed in the idiotic theory that he spouted out that the trillions of graft and bails would help us out, or he wants to destroy our financial culture so that we can never again operate without government largess.

It's very nice for him to create circumstances for people and institutions so that they must come begging for his beneficent treatment.

You may ascribe benevolent motives for his actions, but they stink of his Chicago background of muscling businesses. Now he's just doing it at an international scale.; 7/9/10, 3:30 PM
AllenS said...: Christ, garage. Using that logic, it would be absolutely brilliant if he gave everyone one million dollars. Proving how much he loves us.; 7/9/10, 3:32 PM
Mick said...: Revenant said...
"He is a Non Natural Born Citizen Usurper

You know, it takes effort to be more of an offensive nitwit than Cedarford and Jeremy, but you manage it. Are congratulations in order?"

And you are another "conservative" apologist of this Usurper, who whines about the damage that he is doing when the Kryptonite to oust him is directly before your eyes. He is not a Natural Born Citizen if he were born in the White House, delivered by JFK on the 4th of July. Natural Born Citizens are born w/o dual allegiance. His father admittedly imparted British Citizenship upon him due to his Kenyan citizenship, as such he is not a Natural Born Citizen, and ineligible.; 7/9/10, 3:35 PM
garage mahal said...: Spending money on America will ruin it? Only in the right wing fever swamps doesn't remotely make sense.

Here is a little reality check for you regarding spending/deficits. Now I fully expect to hear this is all explainable, and that was totally different, etc...; 7/9/10, 3:35 PM
garage mahal said...: So any theory works regarding bailouts, if the intent was to destroy America. No other theory is possible. That doesn't explain Bush starting the bank bailouts though.; 7/9/10, 3:39 PM
Bruce Hayden said...: I don't understand this idea floating in this comment thread where people keep mentioning that communism works well in small communities. It doesn't. It never does.

Parts of it do, at least at the family level. To Each According to His Need, From Each According to His Ability. Families are, by their very nature, socialistic, if not communistic.

The basic problem is that socialism (and, in particular, communism) doesn't scale. While people are willing to sacrifice for family members, they are far, far, less likely to at the national, state, and even city, level. And that is one reason why socialism invariably fails.; 7/9/10, 3:39 PM
AllenS said...: garage, who are you talking to?; 7/9/10, 3:40 PM
Mick said...: garage mahal said,

"Why did he spend billions propping up our financial institutions when he could have easily just let them rot on the vine? Potentially could have easily ruined our whole economy, something a America Hating President could hardly resist."

He should have let them fail. He transfered the Large Banker debt to we the people, and it will still fail, because the mathe of debt is a biotch. He saved his installers, the bankers, and enslaved us with 3 Trillion more in debt, now the coming depression will be longer and more vicious then if the debts were cleared properly. You clearly have no IDEA of which you speak.; 7/9/10, 3:41 PM
chickelit said...: Garage, you really need to go after whoever is dissing the source of "facts" link; 7/9/10, 3:43 PM
yashu said...: I'm in academia (the humanities), so I can vouch for Joe's & Bruce Hayden's remarks re Obama's ideological milieu. Pretty much all of my grad school friends, and most of my professors, are avowed Marxists/ socialists. It's so omnipresent it pretty much goes without saying.

Sure, they're not "unreconstructed" or "naive" Marxists (in their words)-- but would identify themselves ideologically as some variety of neo-Marxist, & certainly socialist, nevertheless. The essential correctness of a roughly Marxist (anti-capitalist, anti-(US)-imperialist, etc.) view of reality is as taken for granted as… oh, say, the indisputable facts of anthropogenic global warming (or, uh, catastrophic "climate change").

Leading up to the election, my dread at the prospect of Obama as president never had anything to do with a sense of him as "foreign" or "other"-- but rather, ironically, my recognition in him of something all too familiar, something I know all too well, the ultimate embodiment of the milieu in which I live & work.

I felt (& feel) the same anxiety about Obama as president as I would if one of my friends-- the most brilliant & erudite of PhDs-- were to become president. Hey, I love my friends-- but I know how they think, I know how they see the world, and to think of them (or someone who thinks like them) at the levers of such power was & is nothing less than nightmarish.; 7/9/10, 3:44 PM
Bruce Hayden said...: Garage,

You can tell that the chart you link to is BS, if for no other reason than the entire "cost" of the Bush tax cuts is being shown as contributing to the deficit. This is "static analysis", and has little, if any, connection to reality. We shall see exactly what happens when these tax cuts expire at the end of the year. Any votes here on economic growth spiking up as a result? (other than Garage, of course)

And, war spending are being shown as "costs" contributing to the deficits, but not the massive wealth transfers, social spending, green spending, etc. that are apparently being treated as necessary baseline spending.

So, yes, I am calling BS on Garage's chart.; 7/9/10, 3:45 PM
Mick said...: Dust Bunny queen said,

"Aaaaack. Not this stuff again.

It's worse than being stuck in an elevator with Musak playing disco music over and over."

It is THE basis of everything. He swore on the bible in front of God and the world to protect the very constitution that he violates in the most severe way, Usurping the office. It's too bad that you don't care about your Constitution, but don't worry, those of us with eyes open will for you.; 7/9/10, 3:48 PM
yashu said...: So, is Mick a moby, or just a loon?; 7/9/10, 3:52 PM
Anonymous said...: It was necessary for Obama to spend billions to shore up the Too-Big-To-Fail institutions. But then he overdid it for political reasons-- reasons that are concomitant with the modern intellectual flavor of Marxism-- and did nothing about Too-Big-To-Fail and other systemic problems.

One good, two bad = -1 net score. And that's just on the financial system issue.

Obama should have understood the limits of what can reasonably be accomplished, like George H. W. Bush did with Iraq.; 7/9/10, 3:52 PM
I'm Full of Soup said...: Garage is still battling but the war was lost when the libs chose a weak,uninformed, doctrinaire non-leader named President Obama, to lead them.; 7/9/10, 3:59 PM
Mick said...: yashu said...
"(Joe, heh. At least Mick tends to restrict his droppings, in a comment section, to *one*. Always the same one.)"

So where does it say that simple birth in the US (and Obama's Hi. birth is debatable, but I'll give you that for now)makes one a Natural Born Citizen, eligible to be POTUS by A2S1C4,5. Don't say the 14th Amendment, it doesn't contain the words "Natural Born" anywhere.; 7/9/10, 4:02 PM
Ralph L said...: I tell her, beware the NL's military obligation for our son
Yeah, the wooden combat boots are hell on ankles.; 7/9/10, 4:03 PM
Mick said...: yashu said...
"So, is Mick a moby, or just a loon?"

What makes Obama a Natural Born Citizen, eligible to be POTUS?; 7/9/10, 4:04 PM
garage mahal said...: So, yes, I am calling BS on Garage's chart.

So what should the chart say, or look like? If the CBO, GAO aren't worthy sources, what are?; 7/9/10, 4:09 PM
Mick said...: garage mahal said...
"So any theory works regarding bailouts, if the intent was to destroy America. No other theory is possible. That doesn't explain Bush starting the bank bailouts though."

And Bush Tipled down on it. Yes his aim is to overload the system. What better way to install his Marxist wet dream? It's the Alinskyan
handbook to a T. He and his Marxist buddies Pelosi, Reid, Dodd, et al crashed the economy to install their Private debt master banker chosen one.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_MGT_cSi7Rs; 7/9/10, 4:11 PM
AllenS said...: I'll catalogue Mick's assertion that Obama isn't a natural born citizen right next to those claims that Obama got excellent grades in college. Along with the assumption that Obama is smart. Prove it.

Having said that, might as well move on, because we will never know the answers to those questions.; 7/9/10, 4:12 PM
Lem Vibe Bandit said...: the Cafe is closed today?

Bill Clinton.. or one of his people came up with the term "growing the economy" and "talking down" the economy.

The examples cited by Krauthammer are that of a president "talking down" and cutting the United States down to size.

If you go back and look at Obamas press conference with Netanyahu, the other day, Netanyahu mentions Iran and the Nukes several times.

I believe Obama kept silent on it.. It is as if Iran acquiring the worlds most dangerous weapon was not our concern.; 7/9/10, 4:16 PM
Franklin said...: I'm beginning to think these comment threads have been infected by mobys. Some of these Leftwinger opinions are too parodic to be real.

http://www.urbandictionary.com/define.php?term=moby; 7/9/10, 4:16 PM
NotWhoIUsedtoBe said...: Uh, he is the President. He DOES matter more than anyone else on the planet.

Maybe he shouldn't be so honest about that.; 7/9/10, 4:18 PM
garage mahal said...: What better way to install his Marxist wet dream? It's the Alinskyan
handbook to a T. He and his Marxist buddies Pelosi, Reid, Dodd, et al crashed the economy to install their Private debt master banker chosen one.

The recession started in 2007, the economy was already crashing when they took office, how could these Marxist Usurpers get so lucky! So now the question is whether or not Bush and Co. were intentionally crashing the economy or not, and whether they were in cahoots with Obama?; 7/9/10, 4:18 PM
Mick said...: garage mahal said...
"So, yes, I am calling BS on Garage's chart.

So what should the chart say, or look like? If the CBO, GAO aren't worthy sources, what are?

The CBO and GAO have to work within the perameters and assumptions fed to them by Congress, DUH.
On another note, just last month it was reported that April Consumer credit rose about $1Billion. This month they revised it downward to MINUS $14.9 BILLION. Can you say deflation? How do they miss by $16 Billion?
The economic statistics are lies, and reported mostly in Month to month percentage gains and losses without saying what the nominal dollar amount is. How do we have initial unemployment claims avg. 465K every week for 15 months without the unemployment rate going up? Liars figure and figures lie. I hope you're ready for the upcoming Depression, brought to us by your hero.

http://www.bloomberg.com/markets/economic-calendar/; 7/9/10, 4:21 PM
Anonymous said...: It is as if Iran acquiring the worlds most dangerous weapon was not our concern.

It is not our concern if the task of dealing with it has already been delegated.

And why would Obama-- if he were in his right mind-- not delegate the task of bombing Iran to the Israelis? They want to do it, he can't afford to command it. The Israelis bombing Iran is perfectly normal and natural, the proper order of things.; 7/9/10, 4:21 PM
A.W. said...: Mick

> And you are another "conservative" apologist of this Usurper, who whines about the damage that he is doing when the Kryptonite to oust him is directly before your eyes.

And that is what this is all about, finding the magic silver bullet to solve all our problems. Well, unfortunately, we are stuck with President Asshole until 2012. I am not happy about it, but that doesn’t drive me to bend the constitution itself into a pretzel. What you are advocating is not conservative, and it is not right.

And, I would add, it has no relevance to this thread, you moron.

Garage

> Spending money on America will ruin it?

If it came from magic money fairies, no it would not. But blowing a hole in the deficit will. And indeed, even if it was all revenue neutral, it would still be taking money from the most productive and giving it to the least productive.

> Here is a little reality check for you regarding spending/deficits.

By reality you mean lies made up by some organization which I bet, if you dig into it, you will discover is soros funded bullshit. Indeed, you responded to my point about DEBT with a chart about deficits, showing that you are economically retarded.

Bruce

> Any votes here on economic growth spiking up as a result?

Let’s see if the dems have the gonads to do it. my guess is around mid October they will renew the tax cuts but try to pretend they didn’t.; 7/9/10, 4:23 PM
Mick said...: garage mahal said...
"What better way to install his Marxist wet dream? It's the Alinskyan
handbook to a T. He and his Marxist buddies Pelosi, Reid, Dodd, et al crashed the economy to install their Private debt master banker chosen one.

The recession started in 2007, the economy was already crashing when they took office, how could these Marxist Usurpers get so lucky! So now the question is whether or not Bush and Co. were intentionally crashing the economy or not, and whether they were in cahoots with Obama?"

I've seen that said, and the economy was certainly slowling, and I don't give Bush a pass. But a recession is defined as 2 successive quarters of negative GDP. That did not happen till 4Q 2008 and 1st Q 2009. Still you fail to watch the video, those events were from 2004. The economy really started to fail when the democrats took control of Congress (I am neither party). Of course you take the usual "Bush's fault" excuse, but the USURPER made it much worse.; 7/9/10, 4:26 PM
Right is right! said...: Why did the big banks get bailed out at the expense of people in middle America?

You really don't think it has anything to do with the fact that Wall Street is overrun with people with names like Levine, Bloomberg and Finkelstein?; 7/9/10, 4:29 PM
garage mahal said...: By reality you mean lies made up by some organization which I bet, if you dig into it, you will discover is soros funded bullshit.

There you have it. How can one argue with that. PWNED.; 7/9/10, 4:29 PM
Anonymous said...: Being "professorial" is the same thing as being a modern-day Marxist.

What are professors paid to do, besides teach? They're paid to "research" natural and societal phenomena, which entails description of that phenomena along with ideas about engineering it.

If you wanna be a successful "social science" professor, the easiest way is to be a success among your peers in social engineering. You could stick to just describing social phenomena, but that doesn't have the same sort of sex appeal. The young college girls get all hot and wet for a guy who thinks he can control the world; they don't care about one who just describes it.

Now take Marx: The idea he promoted is that society can be engineered through politics to create a sort of utopia; that idea has been refined over the years and now forms the basis of all academic social science work. It's so pervasive that academics don't even need to mention it. Everyone in academicland just assumes that social engineering through politics is a-okay.

So "professorial" in "social science" = modern-day Marxist. QED.

And it's all about sex and peer pressure at the core.; 7/9/10, 4:31 PM
A.W. said...: Allen

Don't force me to defend obama. Obama is intelligent. and he definitely got good grades in college. i got a 4.0 and had an LSAT score above the average Harvard Law Student and was wait listed there. This would have been within about 6 years of Obama's time there, and i doubt much had changed.

And before you ask, in fact yes, i am a person in a category that benefits from affirmative action. I didn't want to reveal that to the school because i felt i was more likely to recieve discrimination than affirmative action, and because i would rather not have affirmative action anyway, but long story, it was revealed agaisnt my will.

Obama is smart and well educated. Unfortunately he has neither the skills needed to be a great executive, nor the aptitude needed to pick it up on the job. That is in sharp contrast of our best presidents, including Lincoln.

But he ain't a dummy, and he almost certainly got good grades, at least in undergrad. how well he did in law school is another matter, but bluntly a C at harvard is an A at other schools. and i say that as a person who went to one of Harvard's cheif rivals. i would be a cheeseball to say my school was better, but let's say the U.S. News and World report thinks it is. ;-); 7/9/10, 4:31 PM
Mick said...: A.W. said...
Mick

> And you are another "conservative" apologist of this Usurper, who whines about the damage that he is doing when the Kryptonite to oust him is directly before your eyes.

And that is what this is all about, finding the magic silver bullet to solve all our problems. Well, unfortunately, we are stuck with President Asshole until 2012. I am not happy about it, but that doesn’t drive me to bend the constitution itself into a pretzel. What you are advocating is not conservative, and it is not right.

And, I would add, it has no relevance to this thread, you moron."

Sure it does silly!!! The very reason that all this is happening is that the Usurper has no allegiance to this country. That is the very rationale for the requirement of a Natural Born Citizen. What kind of Conservative are you if you don't want to enforce the eligibility of the CIC of the Armed Forces? Where does it say that simple birth in the country (if he was) makes one a Natural Born Citizen, eligible to be POTUS? He can be removed by Quo Warranto in the DC District, and should be, though the heavens shall fall.; 7/9/10, 4:32 PM
A.W. said...: garage

Notice you don't even respond to my point about deficits v. the debt. is it because you are too stupid to even understand it? or because you don't want to admit you made such an obvious error?; 7/9/10, 4:33 PM
A.W. said...: Heh, verification word: Fanity. Doesn't he have a show on Hox?; 7/9/10, 4:33 PM
David said...: Gaaaaaaahh!!!

Stop--before I post Judge Truro's father's bio again.

And again.

And again.; 7/9/10, 4:34 PM
Once written, twice... said...: The number of racist, anti-Semites and other quacks on Althouse's blog never stops to amaze me. Ann and Meade you must be so proud!; 7/9/10, 4:34 PM
A.W. said...: Mick

i have gone over it before. dead romans cannot change the constitution.; 7/9/10, 4:35 PM
exhelodrvr1 said...: "Poor Charlie Krauthammer is jealous of the spotlight being on Obama."

That's just a different way to call CK an uppity Jew, isn't it?!; 7/9/10, 4:35 PM
Mick said...: A.W. said...
"Allen

Don't force me to defend obama. Obama is intelligent. and he definitely got good grades in college. i got a 4.0 and had an LSAT score above the average Harvard Law Student and was wait listed there. This would have been within about 6 years of Obama's time there, and i doubt much had changed."

No he's certainly not a dummy. You have to be pretty smart to Usurp the most powerful office in the world. He means to do everything he is doing, which is to overload the system, destroy it, and build the Marxist Debt Banker Collectivist dream. It's happening right before your eyes, but you won't embrace Obama's Kryptonite (neither will a lot of conservatives, afraid of the "birther" slur).; 7/9/10, 4:36 PM
AllenS said...: Yeah, that's great A.W. How many states do we have? Can you or him explain the difference between liability and full coverage of auto insurance? I could go on, but you probably get the picture. You don't have any idea of his grades. Did he earn them, or was he given them? He appears to be a fucking idiot to me.; 7/9/10, 4:37 PM
garage mahal said...: Notice you don't even respond to my point about deficits v. the debt. is it because you are too stupid to even understand it? or because you don't want to admit you made such an obvious error?

Where am I confused on deficits vs debt? What post? You never responded on how government spending ruins the economy.

Other than the little rant of IT'S MY MONEY!; 7/9/10, 4:39 PM
Mick said...: A.W. said...
"Mick

i have gone over it before. dead romans cannot change the constitution."

The mark of the unknowing. The only place in the USC that it Natural Born appears is A2S1C4,5. It has never been amended. Natural Law is embedded in the Constuitution at A1S8C10 (law of nations).; 7/9/10, 4:40 PM
Mick said...: AllenS said...
"I'll catalogue Mick's assertion that Obama isn't a natural born citizen right next to those claims that Obama got excellent grades in college. Along with the assumption that Obama is smart. Prove it."

I've already proven it, many times. More proof than Obama has offered as to his place of birth.; 7/9/10, 4:44 PM
Joe said...: That's just a different way to call CK an uppity Jew, isn't it?!

The word you're looking for is "pushy"...We Jews are Pushy, not uppity.

Assuming I'm a Jew....; 7/9/10, 4:45 PM
AllenS said...: What kind of fucking grades do you have to get to be a community organizer? The cream of the college crop? It's a bullshit job. A starter job for an affirmative action college graduate. A job that takes tax payer money and blows it on causes that never improve anybody's lives. A job that any fucking idiot could fullfill.; 7/9/10, 4:46 PM
AllenS said...: How's the south side of Chicago doing, A.W.? Is life good? Crime down? Graduation rates up? Asbestos removed from the old houses?

What the fuck did Obama accomplish when he held that position?; 7/9/10, 4:50 PM
Joe said...: You never responded on how government spending ruins the economy.

Because the government creates NOTHING...we suck up capital, that could otherwise go to productive uses.

Now, unlike Anrcho-Libertarians, I don't view that as an unmitigated bad thing. Government provides soldiers, sailors, airmen and Marines. Those are necessary goods the Free Market will not produce.

The problem is that when gov't begins to soak up 30-60% of GDP it destroys the economy! It's not difficult to grasp Garage....

Here's an example...water is good for you. Water is healthy, you need water, BUT if you drink 24 gallons of water in a day, YOU DIE....Just because something at one level is beneficial, doesn't mean that at higher levels it STAYS beneficial.; 7/9/10, 4:50 PM
Right is right! said...: Joe wrote "The word you're looking for is "pushy"...We Jews are Pushy, not uppity. Assuming I'm a Jew...."

You jews always think you are so clever and funny. A bunch of regular Jerry Seinfelds. Well we will see who gets the last laugh.; 7/9/10, 4:51 PM
Mick said...: AllenS said...
What kind of fucking grades do you have to get to be a community organizer? The cream of the college crop? It's a bullshit job. A starter job for an affirmative action college graduate. A job that takes tax payer money and blows it on causes that never improve anybody's lives. A job that any fucking idiot could fullfill.

He Usurped the most powerful office in the World, that makes him pretty smart. Oh yeah I'm just saying that to divide you conservatives (including Althouse) who have Obama's Kryptionite right in front of them and won't use it, but whine about how dumb and bad he is WAH!!!!
Why do you think there is no discussion about his dual citizenship at birth in the media? Because they know it's Kryptonite. They want to make fun of the people that say he wasn't born here instead (that's the smoke screen) when he hasn't proven that either. Since when is a pic on a biased website proof of anything?; 7/9/10, 4:53 PM
Anonymous said...: That's just a different way to call CK an uppity Jew, isn't it?!

Yeah, that's right-- Charlie Krauthammer is just like an uppity schvartze...

Or something like that. "Krauthammer" is a fucking awesome name, tho'.; 7/9/10, 4:53 PM
AllenS said...: Mick,

The Althouse Woman is not a conservative.; 7/9/10, 4:54 PM
Mick said...: AllenS said...
"Mick,

The Althouse Woman is not a conservative."

I know she voted for him, maybe Meade turned her a little. She sure does whine about his policies and tries to rationalize her stupid vote.; 7/9/10, 4:56 PM
garage mahal said...: Must be pretty frustrating to hold the magic bullet, the kryptonite, that could end the hellish nightmare of the Kenyan Usurper destroying America. And not even conservatives will rise.; 7/9/10, 5:00 PM
Right is right! said...: Althouse voted for who?; 7/9/10, 5:01 PM
Anonymous said...: Althouse voted for who?

Althouse voted for Tracy Flick, Tidy. Jeez... you should get facts in order before you put your Moby mojo to work...; 7/9/10, 5:04 PM
Right is right! said...: I never heard of Tracy Flick. Is he a Rebublican?; 7/9/10, 5:06 PM
Mick said...: garage mahal said...
"Must be pretty frustrating to hold the magic bullet, the kryptonite, that could end the hellish nightmare of the Kenyan Usurper destroying America. And not even conservatives will rise."

It is frustrating. But i think that the major ones have been told and threatened to keep quiet, or they fear the civil unrest that may occur. Afterall McCain was not an eligible Natural Born Citizen either (born in Colon, Panama), and neither is the Golden Boy Jindal (parents were Indian non citizens when he was born in Louisiana). As far as the conservatives in Congress, their motivation to keep it buried is that they are part of the treason. It will take a critical mass or the right case with the right "standing" for Quo Warranto in the DC District. Obama was smart enough to know that once he got past the Electoral College it would be very hard to unseat him, and conservatives in congress, including Cheney helped him there, or their treason would be exposed.; 7/9/10, 5:15 PM
yashu said...: Jake's comment-- so reminiscent of Ezra Klein's libelous remark about there being "a lot of anti-semites" on Althouse's blog-- illustrates why I feel the need to call out TR as a moby, even at the risk of feeding a troll. (By the way, I apologize for any part I might have played in feeding 'Mick'.)

Obviously, I really dislike mobys-- they bother me perhaps more than they should. (They stand for the ultimate corruption of discourse.) But this one's maliciousness is directed not only at right-wingers, not only at jews-- but at Althouse's blog & Althouse herself. It seems calculated and cynical and vicious-- conveniently providing fake 'examples' to substantiate that libelous statement.

It's nausea-inducing… these people (whoever they are) seem to lack any sense of ethics, integrity, & good faith. I know I write this in vain, because these trolls obviously don't have any shame, but… seriously, ugh, it makes me sick.; 7/9/10, 5:16 PM
Titus said...: Hello and good day. Hope summer is treating everyone great.

I am not a fan of Krauthammer but I think it is a pretty good editorial.

Tidy Wighty or whatever his name is not me. And I love jews. Some of my best sex have been with jews-no anti jew here. Love Brookline and Newton too.

Heading to Stowe for the weekend. Green Mountains take me away. Connecticut River cleanse me with you clean waters, Queechee Gorge, gorge me, Van Trappe Lodge fill me with the Sound of Music. Wood covered bridges carry me from fab little village to the next. God Bless the United States For Vermont!

Love and Hug and Kisses to all,; 7/9/10, 5:19 PM
Mick said...: yashu said...
"Jake's comment-- so reminiscent of Ezra Klein's libelous remark about there being "a lot of anti-semites" on Althouse's blog-- illustrates why I feel the need to call out TR as a moby, even at the risk of feeding a troll. (By the way, I apologize for any part I might have played in feeding 'Mick'.)"

Right, you ignore the very qualifications of the CIC of the US Armed Forces, but I am the one hurting the Conservative cause, that's rich, and a common argument I've heard on right leaning blogs, where they are too scared of the "birther" epithet to speak the truth. I speak the truth and it sets me free. NO ONE here has ever or will disprove me (and neither will you). So I ask you, WHERE does it say that simple birth in the US makes one a Natural Born Citizen, eligible to be POTUS? Do you really think that the constitution allows anchor babies to be eligible to be POTUS? I'm waiting.; 7/9/10, 5:22 PM
Anonymous said...: You must run for office, Titus. Your talent should not be wasted on continual homosexorgies. You should help the government to fuck us all in ass instead. At least then we'll have an interesting character doing it.; 7/9/10, 5:23 PM
Once written, twice... said...: Get off you high horse Yashu. Tidy Righty is a perfect Althouse Hillbilly. He/she is the kind of poster that Ann cultivates here.; 7/9/10, 5:31 PM
Titus said...: 5000 count egyptian cotton sheets massage by hard body.

Waterfalls refresh me with your embrace.

Fresh produce from local farmers nourish me.

ARt and Music titillate me.

Lake Champlaign impress me with your grandeur.

Parks allow me to enjoy your beauty and I let you know I appreciate you greatly.

Burlington interest with me with your cute stores.

Hot Rock Massage by Hilda hold me.

Petting Farms allow me to love your animals.

Thank you and good day.

I will be 40 this weekend, I will embrace you 40.; 7/9/10, 5:31 PM
Synova said...: "Don't force me to defend obama. Obama is intelligent. and he definitely got good grades in college. i got a 4.0 and had an LSAT score above the average Harvard Law Student and was wait listed there. This would have been within about 6 years of Obama's time there, and i doubt much had changed."

You know... something I've never heard but always wondered about... didn't Obama's father go to Harvard? I don't know if he graduated or not but... Is Harvard Law exempt from admitting Harvard legacy students?; 7/9/10, 5:36 PM
Right is right! said...: Good point Synova. Though I think he probably got in solely based on Affirmative Action. Given that the boy has admitted to being strung out on heroin at the time, it is amazing he got into any colleges. But Harvard is famous for having low standards when it comes to minorities.; 7/9/10, 5:45 PM
garage mahal said...: Wonder if Tidy Righty alter ego is Lefty Loosey.; 7/9/10, 5:54 PM
AllenS said...: garage mahal said...
Wonder if Tidy Righty alter ego is Lefty Loosey.

Not if his thread went the other way. What is called left handed thread.; 7/9/10, 5:59 PM
dbp said...: Titus,

Try Boves and order the mushroom and Chianti sauce. Boves is a little dive a couple of blocks from the top of Church St. in Burlington. It is tacky on the outside, dark and tacky on the inside, but their sauce is perfect.

It is not "fab" it is where locals go, but you will get no better than that.; 7/9/10, 6:05 PM
Titus said...: Thanks Dp.

I really don't need fab, just good food.; 7/9/10, 6:06 PM
Titus said...: Wow, Boves is cheap too. Just looked at their menu, my kind of place.

Vege options for the Indian UK husband as well.; 7/9/10, 6:11 PM
garage mahal said...: Allen
You've been on your A Game all week dude.; 7/9/10, 6:15 PM
Titus said...: By the way Julius no more sex for me. I am now 40 and married.

Also, gays after 40 need to disappear. No more Ptown either, great for the younger mo but if you are old and going to Ptown that is just sad.; 7/9/10, 6:19 PM
The Scythian said...: FLS,

Even if you want to be a total dipshit and distill Marxism down to the statement, "From each according to his abilities, to each according to his needs," you can still see the totalitarian skull underneath.

Who decides what you, I, or anybody else needs? Hell, how is "need" even defined?

I could decide, for example, that you don't really need that business that you worked so hard to build, it would be better in the hands of my brother or one of my ideological allies.

If it is not within your ability to give that business over, it's certainly within the abilities of the state to make you give it up.

Thank you for your contribution to the revolution, Comrade Dipshit!

Or I could decide that nobody needs the shit that spews out of your mouth on a daily basis. Or, perhaps, I could decide that what you really need, more than anything else, is to shut the hell up.

If you don't have the ability to shut up, it's certainly within the abilities of the state to shut you up.

Welcome to the gulag, Comrade Dipshit!

That's how totalitarianism works, whether we're talking about international communism, national socialism, or even the basic family unit.; 7/9/10, 6:22 PM
Revenant said...: And you are another "conservative" apologist of this Usurper

Keep talking. It does nothing but lower people's opinion of your intelligence.; 7/9/10, 6:23 PM
Bruce Hayden said...: You never responded on how government spending ruins the economy.

What you need to do here is keep straight that it isn't government spending, per se, that is the problem, but rather, that it has to be paid for. As one wag has put it, no free lunches. No matter how it is done, over anything but the really short term, the spending has to be paid for, and that diverts capital from more productive uses to less (or most likely here, counter-productive) uses. That is why even if the Keynesian "multiplier" were above one, such spending would still drag down the economy since that borrowing or taxing that money would have a multiplier higher than the Keynesian multiplier.

The government creates almost no wealth. Rather, it consumes wealth. And that, invariably means smaller GNP/GDP and less wealth.

Of course, government spending is not the only way that the government reduces national wealth. As pernicious, if not worse, are the thousands of regulations and rules constantly being imposed on us. It takes some resources to conform or respond to even the most benign and negligible. Some, like Sorbannes-Oxley, Obama-Care, and the pending financial industry "reforms" cost huge chunks of our national wealth to conform to.

One of the interesting things about the oil spill is that one of the justifications for progressive to have power in this country is their contention that if only they were in charge of government, it could be run competently, efficiently, and effectively. But the reality is that they are, if possible, even worse at running the government than the Republicans were under Bush (43).

So, we have offers of huge oil skimmers being turned down because the EPA hadn't approved their technology and they had foreign crews. The EPA regulations prevented them from discharging water with above a certain level of hydrocarbons. So, even if they could remove 99.9% of the oil, they couldn't operate because they couldn't remove 99.99% of the oil.

And, the EPA has also, apparently, prevented the construction of berms to protect wetlands because the technology has not been proven.

And we all know about the Coast Guard preventing boats from working the oil spill if they could not show proper life vests and fire extinguishers - never mind that the CG would have done better just supplying these items to them.

So, the idea that if we just let the progressives run the country, it could be done right, etc., has crashed in flames. Governments cannot be run efficiently and effectively. Period.; 7/9/10, 6:26 PM
The Scythian said...: Garage Mahal wrote:

"Kraphammer hasn't exactly been Nostradamus on his predictions..."

This comment coming from the guy who wags his tail when Pat Buchanan blows his ZOG whistle.

(And Garage? Before you babble about Sarah Palin, remember that I think she's a dipshit.); 7/9/10, 6:28 PM
Joe said...: Tidy Righty said...
Althouse voted for who?

WHOM, you semi-literate oaf, whom...Althouse voted for whom?

We Jews were pettifogging and precise, it's why we make such good jewelers, bankers, lawyers, accountants, and professors...Assuming I'm a Jew.

We usually get the last word, if not the last laugh...and barring that we usually get you in the end, whether or not words or laughter is involved...ask any number of terrorists and Arab soldiers, or tax cheats, opposing counsel or students.

Poor Tidy, condemned living in our world, whilst you just live in it.....; 7/9/10, 6:36 PM
Unknown said...: garage mahal said...

We elected someone who is both anti-American and un-American, a true communist who hates this country and wants to destroy it

Oh Jesus Christ. ALways wonder if you guys truly believe this nonsense, [a true Communist? WTF] or if it's just for show. I used to think it was just show, but I'm not convinced anymore.

Garage notwithstanding, does anyone really believe The Zero doesn't see eye to eye with his patron, the small c communist, William Ayers?

A.W. said...

Allen

Don't force me to defend obama. Obama is intelligent. and he definitely got good grades in college.

Since The Zero never released his academic transcripts, it would be interesting to know what his grades really were.; 7/9/10, 6:36 PM
Bruce Hayden said...: "Even if you want to be a total dipshit and distill Marxism down to the statement, "From each according to his abilities, to each according to his needs," you can still see the totalitarian skull underneath."

The problem is always that some are more equal than others. And, as you point out, someone has to make the calls as to who gets what, and who pays for it.

The assumption is, always, that some philosopher king has been tasked with this problem. And, as is probably obvious here, Barack Obama has appointed himself that philosopher king.

The reality of course is that in a totalitarian/ communist/ Fascist/ socialist state, those who rise to the top are not philosopher kings, but invariably some of the most ruthless and most corrupt. They see the socialist state as theirs, and they are determined to make their fortune exploiting the system.

Which is why some days I think that the best thing that could happen to this country would be a neutron bomb detonated between the Capital and the White House with enough yield to take out the K-Street lobbyists. That would decapitate much of the corruption, in Congress, the White House, the top of the Executive branch, and many of the lobbyists exploiting our government at our expense, without causing too much damage to our national monuments.; 7/9/10, 6:38 PM
garage mahal said...: This comment coming from the guy who wags his tail when Pat Buchanan blows his ZOG whistle.

Always living in the past......that was 3 yrs ago. Got anything current?; 7/9/10, 6:50 PM
Revenant said...: In which of Marx's books does he describe similar parasites, which Stalin went on to destroy?

Marx described capitalism itself, and by extension its practitioners (i.e., most of the people on Earth) in those terms:

Capital is dead labor, which, vampire-like, lives only by sucking living labor, and lives the more, the more labor it sucks.

But the real problem isn't that Marx identified "parasites". The real problem is that Marx advocated the abolition of intrinsic parts of human nature:

The theory of Communism may be summed up in one sentence: Abolish all private property.

The first requisite for the happiness of the people is the abolition of religion.

from each according to his ability, to each according to his needs

If you assembled all the people capable of surviving under those abolitions and restrictions, there wouldn't be enough of them to play a decent game of soccer. That's why communism ends up killing so many people and ruining the livelihoods of those who survive: because humans cannot survive and thrive in the absence of that which Marxism forbids them from having.

In fact, the closer to truly Marxist society the communist governments came, the worse the death and suffering became. Cambodia had it worse than China, which in turn had it worse than the Stalinist USSR, which in turn had it worse than the Leninist or post-Stalin USSR, which in turn had it worse than the more-dictatorial-than-Communist Cuba.; 7/9/10, 6:53 PM
I'm Full of Soup said...: I got an email he other day that claimed Obama used the ruse of "foreign student" on his Occidental College application to qualify for some type of aid to foreign students. Not that I believe this stuff Garage.

OT, Occicdental college has a far left lib professor named Caroline Hellman who is on Fox News regularly. What a dope she is. Plus I doubt it is really a dental school. Heh.; 7/9/10, 7:08 PM
Chip Ahoy said...: "Too big to fail" is a nonsense term. It's intention is to mislead in order to aggregate power to political party through the use of public funds. It's what this president seems best suited -- spending other people's money in ways they do not approve and skate off aggrandized.

AT&T was sliced up following an antitrust suit, but that does show how to handle companies grown too large for their own good and for ours. Not shovel public money at it for a power grab. A politician who pulls such a stunt must be soundly trounced. I eagerly await the trouncing.; 7/9/10, 7:15 PM
Matt said...: What a stupid ass article. Anyone who doesn't like Obama automatically thinks he is an egotists. The same thing was said about Bush, Clinton, Carter, Nixon, LBJ, Kennedy...oh, the fucking list goes on.

[I didn't includ Ford because he was actually rather modest. Get it? Modesty doesn't win much].; 7/9/10, 7:19 PM
garage mahal said...: So almost every Republican voted for the bank bailouts, and they did so in order to give power to the opposition party?; 7/9/10, 7:20 PM
Matt said...: edutcher

Obama...Ayers

Oh Christ, you're still floating this bullshit conspiracy crap? Get a life, dude. Is it possible for right wingers to simply not like the President rather than resort to the lowest common denominator thinking.

[He's a communist, he's a Muslim, he wasn’t born in America, he must had had F's in school,...etc]
Try to occasionally form opinions that are not of the 5th grade variety.; 7/9/10, 7:27 PM
The Dude said...: What are you talking about - Obama loves Kenya.; 7/9/10, 7:27 PM
Joe said...: Oh Christ, you're still floating this bullshit conspiracy crap? Get a life, dude.

What conspiracy Matt...Ayers and Obama worked together on the Annenberg Challenge, his first fund raiser was at Ayers' house....

They are linked...Ayers is a Marxist and a terrorist.

No conspiracy there, Obama can hang with violent Leftists....

Imagine if MCain had started his career with Eric Rudolf or Klansmen who bombed a Birmingham School. I'm SURE that Kos or Katie Couric would be very "understanding," don't you Matt?; 7/9/10, 7:34 PM
Synova said...: Obama and Ayers aren't the same sort of conspiracy crap as all that. The only question is how great a connection they had, because it sure wasn't zero. The far end of the continuum might waltz happily into conspiracy land, but anything taken far enough does that.

What is far more interesting is that this "guy in my neighborhood" is, was, and will be, an accepted guy in that neighborhood. What is interesting is that he is employed where he is employed and that he never thinks that he ever in his life did anything wrong, he advocates the political indoctrination of children and champions Chavez. This is apparently entirely unexceptionable among his "set".

Obama has never articulated where he and Ayers part company. How hard would it be to do that?; 7/9/10, 7:40 PM
garage mahal said...: Imagine if MCain had started his career with Eric Rudolf or Klansmen who bombed a Birmingham School.

G Gordon Liddy is a convicted felon who spent time in a federal prison, for among other things, plotting to firebomb the Brookings Institution. McCain and Liddy are close friends, Mccain saying he was "proud" of Liddy and was grateful to go on Liddy's radio program. I know, this is different, and can all be explained....; 7/9/10, 7:43 PM
Anonymous said...: I know, this is different, and can all be explained....

Obviously, G. Gordon Liddy is a zombie.; 7/9/10, 7:47 PM
Anonymous said...: And McCain? He's a zombie of course! His mortal body actually died when he was a "guest" at Gitmo OOPS I mean Hoa Lo, being treated perfectly well by modern Republican standards. A little enhanced interrogation, nothing for the Americans to worry too much about.

But now...

It's Marxists vs. Zombies for control of the world!!!

Removing the head or destroying the brain! Remember it, folks... It works for either of them!; 7/9/10, 7:52 PM
Matt said...: Joe
If McCain...
In a word, No. I'm not that stupid. I don't buy 'guilt by association' arguments. No one in their right mind does.

Synova
Your conspiratorial mind knows no bounds. Think about what you are saying; because Obama has not defined [for you] what his relationship with Ayers is [was] then we must certainly be allowed to think it was as cosy as Burt and Ernie. Goodness sake. One day when you step back from your intense disliking of Obama you might be able to judge with a little more clarity.

I've disliked a lot of politicians in my time but not as much as some hate Obama. It is just odd. [And, yes, I can recall many intensely hated Bush too. It was odd as well].; 7/9/10, 7:54 PM
Eric said...: Why spend so much money inside and on America if he hates it so much? Spend money on Americans he hates. Makes no sense.

You don't understand because you're proceeding from a false assumption. He's not spending money on "America". He's spending America's money on a few narrow special interest groups in an attempt to keep himself and his party in power. That makes perfect sense.; 7/9/10, 7:57 PM
Joe said...: So Liddy ACTUALLY fire bombed the place...like the Pentagon? And then said, in a bdly timed article, on 12 Sept 2001, that he didn't do enough...

But hey, if planning to bomb is the same as bombing, OK.; 7/9/10, 7:57 PM
I'm Full of Soup said...: Garage:

There are no doubts or questions that McCain loves America and believes it is a great, EXCEPTIONAL country.

If Obama had the same military & family record as McCain, his friendship with Ayers would be no big deal. But Obama is a far left liberal and maybe a socialist so who he pals around with is subject to gossip and analysis and perhaps cynical skepticism. That is the way the world works.; 7/9/10, 7:58 PM
Eric said...: Think about what you are saying; because Obama has not defined [for you] what his relationship with Ayers is [was] then we must certainly be allowed to think it was as cosy as Burt and Ernie.

I think it has more to do with the fact that he lied about his relationship with Ayers. Oh, that Ayers guy? Just a "guy in the neighborhood". Who, you know, worked on the same floor in the same building.; 7/9/10, 7:59 PM
Revenant said...: So almost every Republican voted for the bank bailouts, and they did so in order to give power to the opposition party?

Final vote totals for the Emergency Economic Stabilization Act of 2008:

Senate Democrats: 40 for, 10 against

Senate Republicans: 34 for, 15 against

House Democrats: 172 for, 63 against

House Republicans: 91 for, 108 against

Total Democrats: 212 for, 78 against

Total Republicans: 125 for, 123 against; 7/9/10, 8:11 PM
I'm Full of Soup said...: "Too big to fail"?

Hell we have been propping up failing enterprises for decades. For example all big city school districts and many big cities, most federal housing projects like Section 8, solar energy schemes, electric cars, most mass transit systems, minority businesses.; 7/9/10, 8:12 PM
jr565 said...: former law student wrote:
When I see righties take responsibility for the evils done in the name of capitalism: BP oil spill, deaths in the unsafe coal mine, child labor at Agriprocessors, the Triangle Shirtwaist fire -- you do feel responsible for all of these, correct?

Oh brother, you're comparing communism to the BP oil spill? First of all, wasn't the BP Oil spill an accident? Second, are only capitalist systems capable of evil in the name of industry? You think that child labor at Agiprocessors are the only cases of Child labor? Communist countries aren't capable of using child labor? You think only countries that are capitalist rely on sweatshops or have fires in buildings due to unsafe work conditions. Why are these necessarily evils of capitalism?; 7/9/10, 8:14 PM
Matt said...: AJ Lynch
But Obama is a far left liberal and maybe a socialist

Well this is making me laugh. A far left liberal! HAHAHA. He signed a health bill that is less effective than the one Nixon proposed and one that Romney kindly laid out in MA a few years back and you call him a far left liberal?

Look, their is nothing that would indicate he is far left. Nothing. And the deficit is rising with heavy input by the GOP so you can't go that route either.

Obama is escalating a war in Afghanistan, opening up drilling in Alaska, bending to the wants of the banks - oh the list goes on brother. Obama is not in the vicinity of far left. Try again. He is what we used to call a moderate.; 7/9/10, 8:20 PM
Revenant said...: G Gordon Liddy is a convicted felon who spent time in a federal prison, for among other things, plotting to firebomb the Brookings Institution.

Liddy was neither charged with, nor convicted of, plotting to bomb the Brookings Institution. He's certainly a criminal, though!; 7/9/10, 8:23 PM
hombre said...: Matt wrote: I've disliked a lot of politicians in my time but not as much as some hate Obama. It is just odd. [And, yes, I can recall many intensely hated Bush too. It was odd as well].

Yes, and Bill and Hillary were loved and respected by all. Right, Matt?

Oh yeah, and the lefties revered Reagan. Right?

The Bush and Obama aversion only seems "odd" if you take long - very long - naps.; 7/9/10, 8:27 PM
hombre said...: Like decades long!; 7/9/10, 8:28 PM
I'm Full of Soup said...: Matt:

You are either a MOBY or a dumb dickhead.

Pick one.; 7/9/10, 8:35 PM
former law student said...: Bruce -- good explanation of the limited range of altruism. Thanks.

Are you related to the Hayden Planetarium btw.

Regarding the evils of evil -- I think it's damn silly to ask someone to accept blame for something he was not responsible for. So I quickly typed up a mirror situation.; 7/9/10, 8:51 PM
Matt said...: Hombre

Boy you are missing the point. The point is EVERY president is personally hated by one side of the other and it is silly beans for no actual reason except they are a member of a party. It's absurd. The hatred for Bush was as predictable and stupid as the hatred for Clinton and the hatred for Reagan. Get it? It's just knee jerk hatred. But it's because most of us are children. That's both the left and the right.

AJ Lynch
True to you low level of thinking I see in your world one MUST hate a president to be normal. And the president who is disliked MUST surely be labeled as far right or as far left as the ignorant critics want you to believe.

I know it may shock you but I disliked Bush's policies yet I didn't dislike the man. I didn't know him so why would I hate him? Same with Reagan et al. And at the end of the day is there REALLY that big a difference between on party or the other. Not lately. It's all rhetoric.; 7/9/10, 8:57 PM
Eric said...: When I see righties take responsibility for the evils done in the name of capitalism: BP oil spill, deaths in the unsafe coal mine, child labor at Agriprocessors, the Triangle Shirtwaist fire -- you do feel responsible for all of these, correct?

Heh heh, sure. 146 dead in the Triangle Shirtwaist factory fire. 9 million starved in Mao's cultural revolution in 1960 alone. Seems even to me.; 7/9/10, 8:58 PM
I'm Full of Soup said...: Matt:

Blah blah blah fuck you lib pussy.; 7/9/10, 9:06 PM
Synova said...: "Your conspiratorial mind knows no bounds. Think about what you are saying; because Obama has not defined [for you] what his relationship with Ayers is [was] then we must certainly be allowed to think it was as cosy as Burt and Ernie. Goodness sake."

You're reading a whole lot into what I didn't say.

First... is Ayers employed at a University or not? Is he ACCEPTED in that venue or not? Is there any reason whatsoever to think that his background or his politics are exceptionable in that environment to the people there? It's clear that Ayers and Obama ran in the same circles and were familiar with each other and were *friendly* to the extent, proven!, that Ayers endorsed his political career by launching it in his home? Ayers approves of Obama. Obama doesn't seem to disapprove of Ayers in any substantial way, other than wanting to distance himself.

I am not emotional as I type this. I'm not making stuff up or making their relationship out to be more that we *know* that it was. I'm not saying they were buddies or that Ayers wrote Obama's biographies.

Being objective about someone isn't hating them just because you point out something highly negative.; 7/9/10, 9:07 PM
chickelit said...: Todd wrote: He [Obama] is what we used to call a moderate.

Actually Bush II was more of a moderate than Obama.

We could ask Althouse-she voted for both of them.; 7/9/10, 9:08 PM
Anonymous said...: Matt-

It's pretty obvious that you are crazy and paranoid in thinking that Obama is somehow not a stupid far left Marxist who, together with his BFF Ayers, is bent on destroying America. Seek help, dude. Seriously. There are drugs that can help you return to reality.; 7/9/10, 9:18 PM
I'm Full of Soup said...: Dead Julius:
Blah blah blah fuck you too you lib pussy.; 7/9/10, 9:31 PM
jr565 said...: HdHouse wrote:
I don't doubt in his own perverted way Dobbs loves his country and sees a problem but is totally unrealistic about the solution. Obama is realistic and some inane law that sprouts up for political reasons and just stirs the pot isn't the solution.

So when is Obama's justice dept going to go after Rhode Island or for that matter any state that views itself as a sanctuary city? You say Obama is a realist, yet it seems that he's only a realist insofar as he wants to keep open borders so he can expand the democratic base. And of course, he is stirring the pot for political reasons to selectively target states like Arizona while ignoring Rhode Island and any city that views itself as a santcuary city.

You make it sound as if Obama REALLY wants closed borders but is a realist and knows that the fence wont work completely (therefore according to Obama logic shouldn't be worked on at all). Yet, his actions and what he enforces and doesn't enforce doesn't suggest a realist or pragramtist so much as an activist. A pragramtist would be one who wants something, but realizes he can only do so much so tries to get what he can get passed. Whereas an activist actively pursues an agenda that he wants to achieve. (He may also be a pragmatist about his goals)However, Obama is not a realist about the border. He doesn't want to close the border. He wants to grant amnesty, making the calculation that htat will mean more democratic voters.
Therefore, when a state attempts to crack down on illegals overrunning the state, he has to make an example of them. Whereas, when a city is a sanctuary city, that complies with Obama's goals in regards to immigration, so he has no intention of holding them accountable.
What I wish is that you lefties wouldn't lie about your, or Obama's intent. Just say, he doesn't want to enforce the border, therefore will do whatever is in his power to make that the case. It's not pragramtism on his part, it's his intent.; 7/9/10, 9:48 PM
miller said...: garage mahal:
"Always living in the past......that was 3 yrs ago. Got anything current? "

Hilarious.

From someone who continually brings up the perfidy of Reagan and Bush.; 7/9/10, 9:58 PM
Birkel said...: All of the Israeli kibbutz have been closed.

To discuss them as if they continue to exist is wrong.; 7/9/10, 10:11 PM
Birkel said...: All of the Israeli kibbutz have been closed.

To discuss them as if they continue to exist is wrong.; 7/9/10, 10:11 PM
former law student said...: What I wish is that you lefties wouldn't lie about your, or Obama's intent. Just say, he doesn't want to enforce the border

I noticed my town wasn't enforcing the speed limit, so I bought myself a radar detector and a light bar for my Crown Vic, and now I pull over at least three speeders every day. Once I stop them, I call the city police to let them give the miscreants the actual ticket.

Because lack of compliance with my wishes would indicate the city didn't want to enforce the traffic laws.; 7/9/10, 10:15 PM
former law student said...: To discuss them as if they continue to exist is wrong.

Stalin is dead -- does that mean we shouldn't talk about him, either?; 7/9/10, 10:18 PM
Matt said...: AJ Lynch
I see you still act like you are in high school. Congrats. At least you like The Rolling Stones... But then that is negated by the fact that you are in love with Sean Hannity.

Synova
Okay, I accept the premise that they know each other. And sure I am sure Ayers [along with many] helped Obama along when he could. But I just don't draw many more conclusions than that. They are not the same person. I tend to look at political philosophy. And Obama is not the radical leftist some want to make him out to be. At least I am glad you don't think he wrote Obama's bio.

But you know what I mean, right? I really try to hold big judgements in check. I am no fan of Dick Cheney but I don't think he is the Dr Evil the left makes him out to be. I simply don't like most of his positions and that's reason enough for me to not vote for the things he supports. I guess it yields the same result hatred or not....; 7/9/10, 10:24 PM
I'm Full of Soup said...: Matt:

You are correct- I was in high school 40 f-ing years ago you dickhead.

And I don't love Hannity anymore than you lick far left liberal assholes. But I could be wrong.

Lastly, work on your "I am oh so reasonable and moderate vibe" cause it ain't working.

wv = punfacte; 7/9/10, 10:53 PM
Synova said...: Well I don't know that I don't think Obama is a radical leftist.

Or maybe what I think is that he's not a *radical* leftist, because that would imply that he realized that he was pushing an agenda. And I don't think he does. I think that he really believes that economics is what it is and that it really does work, indeed it is preferred, to view government money as the way to a strong economy.

As for the rest of it... I interpret his political beliefs as being illuminated by his response to the deposing of Zelaya in Honduras and his adamant support of Zelaya.

Obama's support of capitalism and markets in the US is like a libertarian's support of government programs in the US. It's just not worth the trouble of trying to change drastically what can't be changed... but you still push that direction.

Take him out of the context of what exists in the US and he pretty clearly *favors* the economic delusions and even the political tactics of someone like Chavez and Chavez's understudy Zelaya. It's about "the people" and "the street" and laborers in some grand romantic sense fighting against the oppression of the wealthy land and business owners and the depredations of capitalism and the market.

Did we (and by "we" I mean the USA) even bother to condemn anything that Chavez has done as he nationalizes businesses and outlaws the press? Even once did our nation under Obama express disapproval?

Because if we have, I totally missed it.; 7/9/10, 11:05 PM
Synova said...: I suppose that goes with not believing in his own country's magnificence.

To believe in his own country's magnificence, Obama would have to believe that, no matter the need for regulations and law, capitalism and markets are both necessary and uniquely moral in the world.

This country is full of people living in obscene comfort and absolute safety who believe that our economic system is inherently immoral, that capitalism and markets are tools of oppression. They spend a lot of time, recently certainly, oozing sugar for someone like Chavez who is outright oppressive and stripping freedom and liberty from his people... what, Oliver Stone this time, right? And the belief system is so strong that reality need not come into it, not ever.; 7/9/10, 11:22 PM
Synova said...: It's the appearance of caring, you know.

It doesn't matter that mean, unfeeling and greedy people promote a system that results in freedom of thought and speech and markets.

It doesn't matter if people actually have food to eat or safe streets or if they can be arrested for saying that the king is a fink, because the *idea* that leads to poverty and arrest for speaking out against the government is a caring idea of sharing wealth and taking care of our brothers and sisters.

Who could possibly be against that and still be a decent person?; 7/9/10, 11:27 PM
Synova said...: I would suggest that anyone with the barest sympathy for socialism loves their own righteousness and hates poor people... but that assumes far more self-awareness than I give anyone credit for.; 7/9/10, 11:32 PM
chickelit said...: FLS wrote: I noticed my town wasn't enforcing the speed limit, so I bought myself a radar detector and a light bar for my Crown Vic, and now I pull over at least three speeders every day. Once I stop them, I call the city police to let them give the miscreants the actual ticket.

Because lack of compliance with my wishes would indicate the city didn't want to enforce the traffic laws.

So I thought about it some and then gave it up. But I still noticed that my town wasn't enforcing the speed limit, so I concluded that my town didn't want to enforce the speed limit.; 7/9/10, 11:56 PM
yashu said...: Brava, Synova.; 7/10/10, 12:13 AM
Revenant said...: Obama is escalating a war in Afghanistan, opening up drilling in Alaska, bending to the wants of the banks - oh the list goes on brother. Obama is not in the vicinity of far left. Try again.

There were seven Democratic Presidents during the 20th century. Six initiated or escalated US military involvement in foreign wars. So we can strike "escalating a war" from the list of "policies that prove you aren't left-wing".

I don't know what "bending to the wants of the banks" you imagine Obama is doing, but thus far his economic policies have won praise from many prominent left-wing economists, e.g. Paul Krugman. So if he is "bending", he appears to be doing so in a left-friendly way.

You're right about the drilling in Alaska, though. So that's one moderate political position and a bunch of leftie ones. This averages out to "moderate" how?

He is what we used to call a moderate.

And once upon a time, you could own slaves and be called a liberal. Times change. Obama's positions would have been moderate in the 1940s (aside from his limp-wristed foreign policy). Today, they're firmly on the left.; 7/10/10, 12:26 AM
jr565 said...: Garage Mahal wrote:

The same colleges that produced Krauthammer, the Bushes, Dick Cheney [briefly], Bill Kristol, and many of the conservative "think tanks"?

Every institution has got to have its free thinkers and rebels. Being left wing on campus is about as original as being a believer of black liberation theology in Rev Wright's "Damn AMERIKKKA" church. Now if there was somebody in the back pew sitting there 20 years telling Bill Ayers how wrong he was and how was a bigot and was spewing lies, that man, too, would be an iconoclast and an original thinker. His name just wouldn't be Barack Obama.; 7/10/10, 2:12 AM
Milwaukie guy said...: Before I left Chicago a few years ago I used to see Billy Ayers every year at either Christmas or New Years. We have mutual friends.

He'd been talking up Barak Obama since his first run in 1995 when he was also the candidate of the New Party. Barak, Bill and some friends of mine all worked on school reform earlier than that.

Those are facts. Make of them what you will.

Oh, and Bill is a communist and an asshole.; 7/10/10, 2:15 AM
jamboree said...: @danielle No, it isn't. It's not just Obama's problem though. Maybe he's a real boomer after all.

I can't wait until he's gone whether it's in 2 years or 6. My only regret is that I'll be older.

I just don't watch him - same as I avoided Bush because he was so awkward - only for different reasons entirely.

I dislike all Presidents, I think. :-) They embarrass me - each in their own special way.; 7/10/10, 3:46 AM
Mick said...: Revenant said...
And you are another "conservative" apologist of this Usurper

Keep talking. It does nothing but lower people's opinion of your intelligence.

Where does it say that simple birth in America makes one a Natural Born Citizen, eligible to be POTUS?; 7/10/10, 3:58 AM
Revenant said...: Where does it say that simple birth in America makes one a Natural Born Citizen

That's it... keep talkin'. :); 7/10/10, 4:41 AM
Mick said...: AJ Lynch said...
Garage:

There are no doubts or questions that McCain loves America and believes it is a great, EXCEPTIONAL country.

McCain is a Traitor. He gave up his hero status by running for President as an ineligible Non Natural Born Citizen (he was born in Colon, Panama). Resolution 511 sadi that he was eligible since he was born in the Panama Canal Zone of American parents. They cited the Naturalization Act of 1790, when they know that the NA 1795 repealed that Act, and took away Natural Born status of children born of military families overseas.
Still, they said that McCain was Natural Born since he was born in American territory (PCZ) of 2 US Citizen parents (or as Laurence Tribe said "born within a nation's territory and allegiance), This was a false statement because
A) The NA 1795 repealed the Natural Born Citizen status of military children born overseas.
B) He wasn't born in the PCZ, he was born in Colon, Panama, across from the base.

But the Resolution revealed the fact that Congress knew that both were ineligible. They said that he was a NBC because "He was born in US Territory of US Citizen Parents".

Tribe didn't want to lie and perjure himself, and wanted to protect his student, Obama, so he used the word "allegiance" for "of US Citizen parents". If birth in a Nations territory were enough, all he would have had to say was "those born w/in a nation's territory."
It was all a dog and pony show to make McCain grateful to pass through (the bill was sponsored by Obama, imagine that!), and not protest Obama's NON Natural Born ineligible status. All of Congress is guilty of TREASON.
They said it themslves:

Res. 511

"Whereas John Sidney McCain, III, was born to American citizens on an American military base in the Panama Canal Zone in 1936:
John McCain was born to US citizens (one who was serving in the military) on an American miltary base outside the US.

Now, therefore, be it Resolved, That John Sidney McCain, III, is a `natural born Citizen' under Article II, Section 1, of the Constitution of the United States."

Notice the emphasis on BORN OF US Citizen parents. So why didn't they question Obama?
But wait, there's more! Sen. Leahy was deposing Michael Chertoff, and asked him if he had any doubt that McCain was a Natural Born Citizen, and he said,

“My assumption and my understanding is that if you are born of American parents, you are naturally a natural-born American citizen,” Chertoff replied.

“That is mine, too,” said Leahy.

So if they both agreed that it takes 2 US Citizen parents, and Tribe said that the child must be born "within the nation's allegiance". Why did they not question Obama? How else would a new born child have "allegiance" but through it's parents?

I know, I'm just crazy, and you all refuse to see facts before your eyes. You are willfully ignorant.
As a matter of fact they are trying to scub this info from Govtrak as we speak (Try it). They are guilty of TREASON. Obama will be ousted one way or another, hopefully before putting the final touches on the destruction of the sovereignty of We the people.; 7/10/10, 4:45 AM
Mick said...: Revenant said...
Where does it say that simple birth in America makes one a Natural Born Citizen

That's it... keep talkin'. :)

The truth sets me free, and is acid in the face of a liar (like you).; 7/10/10, 4:48 AM
Mick said...: Revenant said...
Where does it say that simple birth in America makes one a Natural Born Citizen

That's it... keep talkin'. :)

So if you're so sure, WHERE does it say that anyone born in the US is a Natural Born Citizen, eligible to be POTUS?; 7/10/10, 4:51 AM
Dear corrupt left, go F yourselves said...: I think it's "we the people" who are "uppity" for daring to speak out about the great leftist dictator.; 7/10/10, 8:24 AM
Titus said...: I have awoken to Green Mountains Majesty. No amber waives of grain though. My chakras are in full alignment and I can see my third eye.

Althouse in Peoria, Titus in Stowe. How All American.; 7/10/10, 8:59 AM
former law student said...: Milwaukie guy said...
Before I left Chicago a few years ago

How do you like Oregon, anyways? Get into Portland much?; 7/10/10, 9:47 AM
jr565 said...: Former law student wrote:
I noticed my town wasn't enforcing the speed limit, so I bought myself a radar detector and a light bar for my Crown Vic, and now I pull over at least three speeders every day. Once I stop them, I call the city police to let them give the miscreants the actual ticket.

Because lack of compliance with my wishes would indicate the city didn't want to enforce the traffic laws.

To expand on your analogy, let's say that non enforcement of the speed limit had gotten so bad that a bunch of people got killed due to the speeding and noone was doing anything about it, even though there was an ordinance on the books. And lets say you started keeping track of those speeding and gave that information to the govt, as they are supposedly care about enforcement of said ordinance. And lets say they sue you for bringing the info to their attention. And the president says "ONLY Complying with speeding rules will not solve the problem of speeding (therefore I will not comply with the speeding rules at all)". Then, I might say, YEAH the President's intent is not to comply with said laws, and to go after anyone (Where politically viable and which can rile his base) who attempts to actually enforce laws put in place by the federal govt.Also, the other problem in your example is that you FLS are pulling people over for speeding. In Arizona, it's the cops. They have authority to pull people over for speeding, and have the obligation to ask for identification when a potential crime has been committed. You, however, don't.; 7/10/10, 9:51 AM
AlphaLiberal said...: Bullshit and lies.

Obama has praised this country again and again. The scuzzy Krauhammer is miffed because Obama won't echo right wing language.; 7/10/10, 9:54 AM
jr565 said...: So then, FLS if you changed your analogy to say that you worked for the local govt and noticed that even though there was a law on the books to deal with speeding noone was doing much about it, causing untold damage to your state.
So you, and your compadres write a law that complies almost word for word to existing federal law, and get your police force to actually enforce said law, then your state got sued I would argue that the federal govt doesn't really want to see said law enforced.
But to argue that Obama really wants the law enforced but he's just a realist is absolute gibberish. He doesn't. If he did, he wouldn't sick his justice department on states that try to enforce said laws. You'll note he's not sicking his justice dept on any city that is a sanctuary city, even though those are also local decisions which supposedly violate federal law (at least in Arizona, the law is written with the existing federal law in mind, Sanctuary cities completely thumb their nose at immigration law on the books). One he prosecutes, one he doesn't. I would say that that is a case of intent and not because he's simply a pragmatist.; 7/10/10, 9:59 AM
blake said...: "Obama has praised this country again and again"

Where did he say he hadn't?

But I think even Carter waited till he was out of office to start running American down to foreigners.

I'm still waiting for someone to point out the factual errors in this. (The opinion, fine, disagree with.); 7/10/10, 10:05 AM
former law student said...: In Arizona, it's the cops. They have authority to pull people over for speeding, and have the obligation to ask for identification when a potential crime has been committed. You, however, don't.

The state of Arizona has no power to authorize its employees to enforce immigration law, just as I have no power to pull over speeders.

Now, what the state of Arizona could have done would have been to go to the Feds and put their local cops under Federal authority to enforce immigration law. Then the lines of authority and responsibility would have been clear. Similarly, I could offer my services as reserve police officer and perhaps be authorized to stop speeders, or at least report their speed to the local PD. But Arizona unconstitutionally seized the Federal power to enforce immigration law.

Anyone who appreciates the outcome in US v. Printz and US v. Mack should understand the separation of powers argument here.; 7/10/10, 2:05 PM
Anonymous said...: WHERE does it say that anyone born in the US is a Natural Born Citizen, eligible to be POTUS?

Right here:

U.S. Code. TITLE 8 > CHAPTER 12 > SUBCHAPTER III > Part I > § 1401 Nationals and citizens of United States at birth

The following shall be nationals and citizens of the United States at birth:

(a) a person born in the United States

***

United States Constitution
Article 2 - The Executive Branch
Section 1 - The President

No person except a natural born Citizen, or a Citizen of the United States, at the time of the Adoption of this Constitution, shall be eligible to the Office of President

***

Dumb ass.; 7/10/10, 7:00 PM
Bruce Hayden said...: The state of Arizona has no power to authorize its employees to enforce immigration law, just as I have no power to pull over speeders.

I believe that you are wrong, at least in terms of arresting illegals and turning them over to the feds to do with as they see fit. I believe that there are statutes on the books that allow that. I am working off my much maligned memory, so I may be wrong here.

Now, what the state of Arizona could have done would have been to go to the Feds and put their local cops under Federal authority to enforce immigration law. Then the lines of authority and responsibility would have been clear. Similarly, I could offer my services as reserve police officer and perhaps be authorized to stop speeders, or at least report their speed to the local PD. But Arizona unconstitutionally seized the Federal power to enforce immigration law.

I don't think that is necessary under current law. AZ of course cannot deport anyone for being here illegally. But I do believe that they have the legal right to turn illegals over to the feds.

Anyone who appreciates the outcome in US v. Printz and US v. Mack should understand the separation of powers argument here.

I am not sure you really want to talk separation of powers here, but rather, preemption. There are limits of course, but for the most part, Congress can just throw the states out of areas in which it wishes to operate exclusively. On the other hand, there are plenty of areas where they have concurrent jurisdiction, and the police routinely arrest people for federal crimes - because Congress has seen fit to allow them to do so.

The problem here though is that we aren't talking about Congress, but the Executive. Congress has spoken, and it was fine with the states helping out with immigration. It is the Executive (i.e., the Obama Administration) that doesn't like what AZ did. But, because AZ is contrary to the Executive, and not to the will of Congress, the argument for preemption is much harder to make.; 7/10/10, 8:48 PM
Bruce Hayden said...: Are you related to the Hayden Planetarium btw.

Likely, distantly, to Charles Hayden for whom it is named. Ditto for Ferdinand Vandeveer Hayden who came through the west in the early 1800s and left his name in a number of western states.

But it has been roughly a dozen generations since those three brothers came over here as indentured servants, and that would mean that, on average, I would be an 11th or so cousin of the other Haydens who are descended from those brothers. That would mean that it is unlikely that I would share any DNA with most of them, except for the "Y" chromosome running through the male line.; 7/10/10, 9:01 PM
former law student said...: Bruce, under SB1070 as modified by HB2162, local Arizona police officers can investigate a person's immigration status as part of any “lawful stop, detention or arrest.”

Further, SB1070 as modified by HB2162 creates a new state crime of failing to carry immigration documents.

The federal government has powers that are separate from the powers that states have, and vice versa. I can't think of a better descriptor than "separation of powers" for this, even if it invites confusion with the separation of powers among the federal branches.; 7/10/10, 9:12 PM
former law student said...: Bruce, I guess then you would be an 11th cousin of the great Senator, Carl Hayden, namesake of the current Tempe, AZ.; 7/10/10, 9:15 PM
Revenant said...: Further, SB1070 as modified by HB2162 creates a new state crime of failing to carry immigration documents.

No, it doesn't.; 7/10/10, 10:36 PM
former law student said...: Drat, the strikethroughs didn't show up. Conviction carries a fine of $100 plus either twenty days in jail (first offense) or thirty days in jail (second offense). But the defendant is not SOL: The statute provides that evidence of the right to live in the US may be admitted by the court.

Go to http://www.azleg.gov/legtext/49leg/2r/summary/h.sb1070_asamendedbyhb2162.doc.htm to see what's left

13-1509. Willful failure to complete or carry an alien registration document; assessment; exception; authenticated records; classification

A. In addition to any violation of federal law, a person is guilty of willful failure to complete or carry an alien registration document if the person is in violation of 8 United States Code section 1304(e) or 1306(a).

B. In the enforcement of this section, an alien's immigration status may be determined by:

1. A law enforcement officer who is authorized by the federal government to verify or ascertain an alien's immigration status.

2. The United States immigration and customs enforcement or the United States customs and border protection pursuant to 8 United States Code section 1373(c).

C. A law enforcement official or agency of this state or a county, city, town or other political subdivision of this state may not consider race, color or national origin in the enforcement of this section except to the extent permitted by the United States or Arizona constitution.

C. D. A person who is sentenced pursuant to this section is not eligible for suspension of sentence, probation, pardon, commutation of sentence, or release from confinement on any basis except as authorized by section 31‑233, subsection A or B until the sentence imposed by the court has been served or the person is eligible for release pursuant to section 41-1604.07.

D. E. In addition to any other penalty prescribed by law, the court shall order the person to pay jail costs. and an additional assessment in the following amounts:

1. At least five hundred dollars for a first violation.

2. Twice the amount specified in paragraph 1 of this subsection if the person was previously subject to an assessment pursuant to this subsection.

E. A court shall collect the assessments prescribed in subsection D of this section and remit the assessments to the department of public safety, which shall establish a special subaccount for the monies in the account established for the gang and immigration intelligence team enforcement mission appropriation. Monies in the special subaccount are subject to legislative appropriation for distribution for gang and immigration enforcement and for county jail reimbursement costs relating to illegal immigration.

F. This section does not apply to a person who maintains authorization from the federal government to remain in the United States.

G. Any record that relates to the immigration status of a person is admissible in any court without further foundation or testimony from a custodian of records if the record is certified as authentic by the government agency that is responsible for maintaining the record.

H. A violation of this section is a class 1 misdemeanor, except that the maximum fine is one hundred dollars and for a first violation of this section is: the court shall not sentence the person to more than twenty days in jail and for a second or subsequent violation the court shall not sentence the person to more than thirty days in jail.; 7/10/10, 11:10 PM
former law student said...: (cont'd because of length)

1. A class 3 felony if the person violates this section while in possession of any of the following:

(a) A dangerous drug as defined in section 13-3401.

(b) Precursor chemicals that are used in the manufacturing of methamphetamine in violation of section 13-3404.01.

(c) A deadly weapon or a dangerous instrument, as defined in section 13-105.

(d) Property that is used for the purpose of committing an act of terrorism as prescribed in section 13-2308.01.

2. A class 4 felony if the person either:

(a) Is convicted of a second or subsequent violation of this section.

(b) Within sixty months before the violation, has been removed from the United States pursuant to 8 United States Code section 1229a or has accepted a voluntary removal from the United States pursuant to 8 United States Code section 1229c. END_STATUTE; 7/10/10, 11:11 PM
Revenant said...: And here's the relevant bit:

a person is guilty of willful failure to complete or carry an alien registration document if the person is in violation of 8 United States Code section 1304(e) or 1306(a).

So there's no new crime. The law just assesses additional penalties to people who violate federal laws. This is constitutional; states have done it for decades with drug crimes.; 7/10/10, 11:45 PM
Mick said...: Seven Machos said...
WHERE does it say that anyone born in the US is a Natural Born Citizen, eligible to be POTUS?

Right here:

U.S. Code. TITLE 8 > CHAPTER 12 > SUBCHAPTER III > Part I > § 1401 Nationals and citizens of United States at birth

The following shall be nationals and citizens of the United States at birth:

(a) a person born in the United States

***

United States Constitution
Article 2 - The Executive Branch
Section 1 - The President

No person except a natural born Citizen, or a Citizen of the United States, at the time of the Adoption of this Constitution, shall be eligible to the Office of President

***

Dumb ass."

Of course you are wrong. You arre playing the silly relativist game of making an assumption, that a "citizen at birth" is a "Natural Born Citizen". No where in Title 8 do the words "natural Born" appear. Congress cannot change the meaning of Natural Born Citizen without the amendment process. They can't legislate the original meaning, that has never been ammended. The only time that the words "natural born" appear in Naturalization legislation was in NA 1790, and it was removed in 1795. Nice try though, wanna try again?; 7/11/10, 7:49 AM
former law student said...: So there's no new crime. The law just assesses additional penalties to people who violate federal laws.

When the bill was signed into law, the state of Arizona had one more crime than it did moments before. But it's nice to see you admit Arizona is trespassing in the Federal sphere.

What if Arizona decided to add additional penalties to people who cheat on their Federal income tax? Would you have no problem with that, either?; 7/11/10, 10:18 AM
damikesc said...: It should also be noted that Marx's writings were largely shaped on him being financially beholden to Ingels, who bankrolled him for years and Marx felt was too stingy in that regard.; 7/11/10, 11:23 AM
Nora said...: FLS: "When I see righties take responsibility for the evils done in the name of capitalism: BP oil spill, deaths in the unsafe coal mine, child labor at Agriprocessors, the Triangle Shirtwaist fire -- you do feel responsible for all of these, correct?"

Yep, industrial accidents never happen in communist paradise. And they never had children correction facilities there either.; 7/11/10, 12:52 PM
blake said...: Mick is making my head hurt.

Dude, please, give it up for now?

There was no way The O-Mighty was going to be disqualified, even if he HAD been born in Kenya. He's sure as hell not going to be disqualified NOW. Even if you're absolutely 100% right, the implications of victory on this front would be traumatic in the extreme.

If you really feel strongly about it, just join some group for passing some kind of law or amendment that details more specifically and unambiguously the issue in question.

After the current guy is out of office.

The deal is done. If it offends you, make sure it doesn't happen again. The 22nd amendment wasn't passed until 1951.; 7/11/10, 1:58 PM
Mick said...: blake said...
"Mick is making my head hurt.

Dude, please, give it up for now?

There was no way The O-Mighty was going to be disqualified, even if he HAD been born in Kenya. He's sure as hell not going to be disqualified NOW. Even if you're absolutely 100% right, the implications of victory on this front would be traumatic in the extreme."

Really? so the Constitutional eligibility of the POTUS, the most owerful position, is violated by a Marxist trying to "fundamentally change" America, and it doesn't matter because you think there is no way to get him out without massive civil disturbamce? Doesn't work that way. I am absolutely correct, and I aim to make as many people as possible aware, because that is what it will take. Just sit back and let those of us with their eyes open uphold the Constitution. it's useless citizens like you that have allowed this to happen, and continue to allow it. Quo Warranto in the DC district is the Constitutional avenue to oust him. It could also come during a SCOTUS hearing on the AZ.Immigration law. The dicta of that case could define Natural Born Citizen (Born in the US of US Citizen Parents) in it's dicta discussing citizenship, and de facto declare the Usurper ineligible. Your logic is astoundingly bad. The main purpose of the SCOTUS is to uphold the Constitution "though the heavens shall fall". We are a nation of laws. Just because the mob says that Obama is the POTUS doesn't mean that we have to accept an ineligible POTUS that is intent on destroying the foundation of this country by overloading it. Stand aside.; 7/11/10, 6:16 PM
Anonymous said...: Mick -- You are a complete and total moron twisting yourself in logical loops to try to argue law you do not understand. How are you a "natural born citizen" but Obama is not?

Obama was born in the United States, which makes him American. Even if he wasn't born in the United States, his mother was an American, which makes him an American pursuant to somebody filling out a form at some point over the course of a decade or so.

Don't taint the perfectly sound and reasonable opposition to Obama with your gross stupidity and irrationality.

Jesus. It's idiots like you that give conservatism a bad name. Idiots like you and anti-Semitic idiots like Cedarford. Go the fuck away. Shut the fuck up. Die.; 7/11/10, 7:36 PM
Anonymous said...: The dicta of that case could define Natural Born Citizen (Born in the US of US Citizen Parents)

Where in any existing law is citizen defined this way, loon? Do you realize how fucking dumb this is? Do you realize how many Americans would not be Americans today if this were the law? Because if an immigrant married an immigrant, their offspring and the offspring of their offspring could never be "true" Americans.

Yeah, dude, let's have a caste system of citizenship. That's a good idea.

Also, Mick: please prove to us that you are a natural-born American by showing that there were two natural-born Americans in your direct ancestry. Because if not, rube, you are a fucking foreigner. Go home!; 7/11/10, 7:46 PM
blake said...: Really? so the Constitutional eligibility of the POTUS, the most owerful position, is violated by a

See, this is where you go WAY off the rails.

"...is violated by a..."

Doesn't matter if he's a Marxist or not. If he's eligible, he's eligible.

You hate the guy; you want him gone. Fine, but you're not winning converts, and you're really not helping anything.; 7/11/10, 10:34 PM
Revenant said...: Where in any existing law is citizen defined this way, loon?

Why are you trying to reason someone out of a position he didn't reason himself into?

Honestly, now, he's demanding people prove that being born in a country counts as being natural born. That's like asking people to prove that red means red. Just let it go.; 7/12/10, 12:31 AM
Mick said...: Seven Machos said,

"Obama was born in the United States, which makes him American. Even if he wasn't born in the United States, his mother was an American, which makes him an American pursuant to somebody filling out a form at some point over the course of a decade or so."

First, although it doesn't matter (but it does) if Obama were born in the White House (and since when is a pic on a biased website and the carefully parsed words of the Hi. "health director" proof of anything). The Usurper is Not a Natural Born Citizen, which is the requirement for POTUS, not "American". Natural Born Citizens are born in the US of US Citizen Parents. Obama's father was never a citizen, much less at his birth, and Obama admits to dual citizenship (Britain) at birth. Where does it say that birth in the US makes one a Natural Born Citizen, eligible to be POTUS? I'm waiting.(Clue: It doesn't say it anywhere).; 7/12/10, 9:05 AM
Mick said...: Revenant said...
"Where in any existing law is citizen defined this way, loon?

Why are you trying to reason someone out of a position he didn't reason himself into?

Honestly, now, he's demanding people prove that being born in a country counts as being natural born. That's like asking people to prove that red means red. Just let it go."

Right, so the framers just put random words and phrases in the USC that don't mean anything. Why wouldn't they just say a "Native Born Citizen" if they just meant born in the US? Here's a little help for you, from Minor v. Happersett (1874) and repeated verbatum in Wong Kim Ark in 1898:

"The Constitution does not in words say who shall be natural-born citizens. Resort must be had elsewhere to ascertain that. At common law, with the nomenclature of which the framers of the Constitution were familiar, it was never doubted that all children born in a country of parents who were its citizens became themselves, upon their birth, citizens also. These were natives or natural-born citizens, as distinguished from aliens or foreigners. Some authorities go further and include as citizens children born within the jurisdiction without reference to the citizenship of their

Page 88 U. S. 168

parents. As to this class there have been doubts, but never as to the first."

It says the meaning is not in the USC, and also says that if born of foreignors, there are doubts that you should even be considered a citizen. Natural Born DEFINITELY equals Born in the US of US Citizen parents. Obama is ineligible.; 7/12/10, 9:12 AM
Mick said...: Seven Machos said,

"Where in any existing law is citizen defined this way, loon? Do you realize how fucking dumb this is? Do you realize how many Americans would not be Americans today if this were the law? Because if an immigrant married an immigrant, their offspring and the offspring of their offspring could never be "true" Americans."

See the post above. A handful of US Citizenship cases have defined Natural Born Citizen in Dicta.
The Venus (1814)
Dred Scott (1854)
Minor v. Happersett (1874)
Wong Kim Ark (1898)
Perkins v. Elg (1934)

I provide all documentation needed to prove what a Natural Born Citizen is. Where is your proof that birth in the US (and Obama has yet to prove that, but I will give it to you) makes one a Natural Born Citizen (which is different from "American Citizen"), eligible to be President.
If 2 immigrants (non naturalized) give birth in the US, the child can never be Natural Born (it is a circumstance of birth, thus the name), but they can become citizens by election at the age of majority if the parents:
A) gain legal residence and domicile.
B)become naturalized.
Natural Born Citizenship is only 2 generations silly it doesn't go back to the Mayflower. If those immigrants naturalized, and then had a child, then the child is Natural Born, with eligibility to be POTUS. That is the most Naturally occurring citizen. Natural Born Citizens have no more rights than a Naturalized citizen. The only difference is POTUS eligibility. Me? I was born in the US of 2 US Citizen parents, that makes me a NaturalBorn Citizen.; 7/12/10, 9:22 AM
Mick said...: blake said...
Really? so the Constitutional eligibility of the POTUS, the most owerful position, is violated by a

See, this is where you go WAY off the rails.

"...is violated by a..."

Doesn't matter if he's a Marxist or not. If he's eligible, he's eligible.

You hate the guy; you want him gone. Fine, but you're not winning converts, and you're really not helping anything."

You're right, it doesn't matter who it's violated by, but Obama is a particularly pernicious, and dangerous violator. He is not a Natural Born Citizen because his father was never a citizen, no matter where Obama 2 was born. Where does it say that simple birth in the US makes one a Natural Born Citizen, eligible to be POTUS? (Clue:
It doesn't anywhere.)
Stand aside.; 7/12/10, 9:27 AM
Anonymous said...: You're an idiot, dude, and Revenant is right that it's pointless to quibble with you over your magical definition of "natural born citizen," which is nowhere defined in the Constitution.

You should consider, however, your insurmountable practical problem. No court is ever, ever going to attempt to oust the duly elected President of the United States. Nor will Congress choose to do so since Obama has committed no high crime or misdemeanor by existing.

Moreover, you need to understand that you are a loon and you greatly discredit conservatives everywhere with your groundless, bat shit absurd arguments. Obama is more likely to succeed with enemies like you, not less likely.

Finally, no one is going to "stand aside" of you because you have no power and no one takes you seriously. No one.; 7/12/10, 11:48 AM
Anonymous said...: This comment has been removed by the author.; 7/12/10, 11:50 AM
Mick said...: Still NO One can prove me wrong, and false conservatives ignore insurmountable evidence that Obama is not a Natural Born Citizen, and is Usurping the office. NO ONE can tell me where it says that those born of alien parents in the US are Natural Born Citizens, eligible to be POTUS (because it doesn't). There is massive evidence that I am correct, and the thought that no one will remove him is your opinion, but certainly should not be the reason that he should be allowed to stay. You are saying that we are not a nation of laws, and you are allowing change to the Constitution by Usurpation. You do not really love this country or it's Constitution. Stand aside false constitutionalist.; 7/13/10, 6:00 AM
Anonymous said...: Idiot: the Constitution does not define "natural born citizen." The definition you conveniently give exists nowhere. You are making this shit up from whole cloth. Of course no one can prove you wrong because the shit you cite doesn't actually exist.

Obama was born in the United States of a person from Kansas. Ergo, in two different ways is he an American from birth.

Why do you persist in fighting a battle you have utterly no chance at winning on any practical, concrete level? No one will remove Obama from office based on your horse shit arguments. You are a loon. You are doing a great disservice to legitimate conservative causes.

Finally, what does "stand aside" even mean? Stand aside of what? You are a powerless gnat.; 7/13/10, 7:02 PM
blake said...: I figured "stand aside" meant he was gonna fart. A courtesy warning, if you will.

(I was right!); 7/13/10, 7:04 PM
Unknown said...: As to Obama's personal arrogance: which President in our lifetime wasn't arrogant? The path to the job and the job itself requires supreme confidence; otherwise, you'll be broken overnight. http://goo.gl/UuchIe; 4/20/14, 4:16 PM