Jenksismyhero

QUOTE (StrangeSox @ Nov 4, 2010 -> 10:26 AM) Let me ask you this: do you think that, without that phrase, without the debates or discussions in the late 18th century, we wouldn't have freed the slaves? Women wouldn't be able to vote? If, instead, it had said "white males are superior," we'd be beholden to that? Who knows what would have happened. If the British wiped the floor with us perhaps the monarchy would still reign. Would the French Revolution have occurred with the American Revolution being a success? I think that's an unknown.

QUOTE (StrangeSox @ Nov 4, 2010 -> 10:21 AM) Hobbs had that idea originally in the 1600's. I don't think slaves were freed because of a line in the DoI, they were freed because it was the right thing to do, regardless of what some politicians and philosophers wrote decades prior. Well, we'll agree to disagree. They put those ideas into action, which had never been done before. There's a reason our justice system continuously cites the works of the founding fathers and what they produced. I dunno that i'm even giving them "credit" for it so much as saying that i find it interesting that the principles they formed our country on were later the same principles that righted so many wrongs, that's all.

QUOTE (Soxbadger @ Nov 4, 2010 -> 10:16 AM) Its a little different representing British soldiers than AQ terrorists as well. British soldiers were a representation of the crown, which was perhaps the most powerful govt in the world, and current govt of the US. (Boston massacre is before the revolution). Adams defended the British so that there would be a fair trial and that it would not further escalate the conflict. If the British soldiers were convicted in a sham trial, the British undoubtedly would have intervened. Furthermore, Adams had a Tory (British sympathizer) play the role of prosecutor. So you had a revolutionary as a Defense attorney and a Tory as a Prosecutor. Adams was not risking anything, he was not representing "terrorists" he was representing British soldiers who were being tried in criminal court. A better comparison would be if a US soldier was charged with being a terrorist in Afghanistan and one of the most prominent Taliban supporters defended the American soldier, while an American was chosen as the prosecutor. Or to use AQ, if a Bush supporter was hired to be the Defense attorney while the Prosecutor was a AQ supporter. Regardless the lawyers who support AQ terrorists were taking far more risk than Adams. Adams was representing the establishment (British Crown) and trying to put on a fair trial. In the AQ trials you had the establishment trying to do everything in its power to give an unfair trial, and you had a few attorneys trying to stand up for them. Many of them did good things, but there are times were we need to think for ourselves, instead of relying on others. I disagree with this completely. You know how Bostonians treated "their government" in and around that time yes? Adams was absolutely sticking his neck out to represent those soldiers, again, IN Boston, shortly after a bunch of Bostonians were killed. The HBO mini-series set up the scene pretty well - Adams, the local "American," representing soldiers that everyone in town wanted hanged, and it showed with all of them breathing down his neck.

QUOTE (StrangeSox @ Nov 4, 2010 -> 10:14 AM) But an examination of what laws they actually formed shows they were very, very far from that ideal. I think it's a bit of a stretch to give the group of people who counted blacks as 3/5's of a person and allowed only white, land-owning males to vote credit for equal protection and suffrage rights. Right, but the ideas that "all men are created equal" and that we all have a right to life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness and yadda yadda was pretty new in the world. That's the basis for all of the minority rights issues - equality. I'm not saying ignore the fact that they considered blacks and women less, hence why I said "paradoxically."

QUOTE (Balta1701 @ Nov 4, 2010 -> 10:13 AM) That would be the Declaration of Independence...not the Constitution. Ugh, I said the ideas/issues they debated. That's the point i'm trying to make.

QUOTE (Balta1701 @ Nov 4, 2010 -> 10:10 AM) Really? I thought the emancipation proclamation freed the slaves? And what ideas was that based on? "Four score and seven years ago our fathers brought forth on this continent a new nation, conceived in liberty, and dedicated to the proposition that all men are created equal."

QUOTE (StrangeSox @ Nov 4, 2010 -> 10:05 AM) Right, Adams was pretty heavily attacked for doing that, like anyone who defends Al Qaeda suspects are now. It was a big risk, personally and professionally, to do that. But, any time we want to hero-worship the founders or treat their ideas as holy writ, we need to remind ourselves that they counted blacks as 3/5's of a person and treated women as property. They were human, and they certainly were fallible. Political science and philosophy have both advanced quite a bit since the late 18th century, and virtues from that time may simply big wrong in a modern society. SOME thought that. And paradoxically, the issues they raised and the Constitution they wrote is what ultimately freed slaves, gave them rights, gave women rights, etc.

QUOTE (Balta1701 @ Nov 4, 2010 -> 09:54 AM) A whole lot of lawyers do that. The right wing has decided that they are committing treason for doing so. If you'll recall, one of Dick Cheney's daughters ran one of those outside-ads calling a set of lawyers who had done exactly that the "Al Qaeda Seven" and calling the DOJ the "Department of Jihad". None were prominent, nationally known figures staking their reputation and practice on the line. Adams was one of the top lawyers and lawmakers in Massachusetts and he represented the British soldiers after the Boston Massacre (IN Boston no less). I don't think that's on the same scale.

QUOTE (jasonxctf @ Nov 3, 2010 -> 08:38 PM) call me crazy, but i'm really tired of hearing about the founding fathers and "what they believed in." And why we need to stick with this set point of view that is nearly 250 years old. Times have changed, the world has changed. Why do we have to be so rigid with their beliefs? I'm not saying that they don't deserve all of the credit for the initial formalization of the country, i'm just saying that we don't need to try and turn them into god's. They were just the Barack Obama's, George Bush's, Harry Reid's and Mitch McConnell's of their day. I agree they shouldn't be deified, but their opinions, arguments and debates are absolutely relevant in today's world. They're all ideas we still struggle with today. And IMO it's kind of an insult to say they were the Obama/Bush's of today. I think they (maybe not all, but most) were much, much, much more than that. I mean, think about it. What prominent lawyer/politician in today's time would volunteer to represent terrorists in court (Adams). What politician/military leader would be given the keys to the entire country, with endless power and authority, and simply give it up (Washington). Etc. etc. These dudes were much more than your average joe politicians.

QUOTE (bigruss22 @ Nov 3, 2010 -> 04:34 PM) What's worse? 200 million now, or 200 billion down the road because we didn't have this economic/political ally? This shortsightedness has to stop, it's a big reason why were in the economic/political situation we are in now. Right, because this is our one and only shot to make an impression. And a 5 day trip in 2010 is going to make all the difference. I love this attitude that the United States HAS to do x, y, and z or else the world will never talk to us again. When did that start?

QUOTE (Soxbadger @ Nov 3, 2010 -> 04:29 PM) Ha hilariously I misread and thought the extreme number was $200bil. $200mil is probably high, but does it really matter if the number is $50mil, $100mil, $200mil or $250mil? Its a drip in the trillion dollar bucket. $200,000,000/ $1,000,000,000,000 = .0002 Its the equivalent of spending an extra $2 on a $10,000 budget. (If I did my math right and im not a mathematician so I wouldnt be surprised if im wrong) 1 billion could go a longway in this country. That's closing the budget gap in a LOT of cities scrapping for every last dollar.

QUOTE (StrangeSox @ Nov 3, 2010 -> 04:19 PM) Here: Begging the question in the first sentence. That this trip really costs $200M is not in evidence, yet it's being taken for fact. egging the question in the second sentence. That this trip really costs $200M is not in evidence, yet it's being taken for fact. Shifting the burden of proof, and then unironically trying to accuse others of doing it. Shifting the burden of proof. Shifting the burden of proof. And then I explained why I think it is representative of how narratives spread from conservative media. edit: Ultimately, the $200M figure may be accurate or at least somewhat accurate. But the arguments given above are still fallacious reasons for accepting it. You can get to the right answer through poor reasoning. Well, ignoring the pissing match that ensued, the original comment was if the number is accurate, 200 million a day is a f***ton to spend on a foreign policy trip. I agree with this, despite the jackassedness of some people in their responses. But frankly, i'd be pissed if it was half that. Sorry, whatever wealth India possesses for the future can wait. That money is much better spent elsewhere.

QUOTE (StrangeSox @ Nov 3, 2010 -> 03:59 PM) I don't like the Democrats much. I'm going to seriously post that as an example of how it works, and I predicted it. You're using poor reasoning to accept specious claims because you like the claims. You've already tried to shift the burden multiple times. This is how misleading, untruthful political rhetoric works, and it's a hallmark of conservative media. Pretty much the microcosm of the liberal logic stream - (1) deem X an uncontrovertible fact, (2) insult any person that either doesn't believe in and/or simply questions X, (3) blame Bush, (4) comment on Rush/Fox News and the dumbing down of America, (5) make outlandish statement about conservative thought/agenda (5) forget what initial issue was, move on to opinion Y, (6) repeat.

QUOTE (Balta1701 @ Nov 3, 2010 -> 01:49 PM) I think you're totally wrong on that and it's pretty easy to back that up. Bush's 2 biggest legislative accomplishments were both passed in 2001, pre-9/11, with significant Democratic support (at least in the House)...his upper level tax cuts and No-Child Left Behind. Had he been subject to a 60 vote supermajority in the Senate, particularly on those tax cuts, they probably wouldn't have gone through...or at least they'd have had to be much, much smaller. They used reconciliation rules to get through with a 51-50 win to get as large of an upper level tax cut as possible. really? so when we hear about these bills they're considered bipartisan? I could have sworn we say things like "Bush's tax cuts."

QUOTE (Balta1701 @ Nov 3, 2010 -> 01:32 PM) Oh...and 1 more point...if you have a problem with the growing power of the executive branch...a stagnant Congress that can't get anything done is the worst possible setup, because like it or not, things need to be done. Events happen that need to be reacted to, treaties need to be signed, policy needs to be made. If the Congress can't function, say because of a supermajority requirement...then what is going to happen when policy needs to be made? The executive branch is going to find a way to implement that policy without Congress's approval or disapproval. Case in point; Congress isn't going to act on climate change. In the next 2 years...the EPA will. Two points - (1) This is why I said in the other thread that I'm 100% positive that absent 9/11, after the Clinton/Newt years, the Dems would have stonewalled the s*** out of Bush, but they couldn't because most of what he did in his first term was reaction to the attack, so the Dems voted along with them, and used the "oh see! we worked together, why can't they play nice?" angle in 2004 and 2006." (2) This is a rare event, and absent national emergencies, it's what the founders intended when they made the act of legislating a slow and collective effort.

QUOTE (Balta1701 @ Nov 3, 2010 -> 01:30 PM) But...a key part of why that has happened is that the President also assumes the role of leader of his or her party. The President's authority over the Congress comes about in no small part because of the party system itself. Sure there have been other changes (i.e. the fact that it's no longer necessary to issue a declaration of war) but that is a key part of the problem you identify. To me, the fact that they created a bicameral system with different membership, voting, and representation requirements just makes it obvious that they were guarding against any majority faction, including the President becoming a leader of one. So, while they might not have expressly intended to have minority parties as a counter to the majority, in effect they did.

QUOTE (StrangeSox @ Nov 3, 2010 -> 01:19 PM) And was determined to be wrong, and therefore wasn't a part of the designed "checks and balances" We're not arguing the same issue here. I'm saying that the drafters of the Constitution were aware of the negatives of political parties and factions, including their ability to take over government and run amok to the detriment at all, and made governing more cumbersome because of it. Justice Stevens right there says they knew these groups were detrimental, and designed the Constitution to check against them. If anything I'd agree that the collusion of the branches of government and the growing authority of the executive wasn't intended. The President is the end all be all of politics today. And unless Congress follows, despite being the in same party, nothing gets done. Congress was supposed to be THE branch of government to govern, while the President was to simply enforce what they produced. It's the opposite now. Today the President mandates legislation and forces the Congress to follow.

QUOTE (StrangeSox @ Nov 3, 2010 -> 01:11 PM) Our government wasn't set up with political parties. Tex is right to correct my statement--Washington vehemently opposed them, but they simply didn't exist when the government was formed. So, the idea of part of the checks and balances being minority party opposition doesn't fly. Party politics weren't a consideration. The stimulus, hcr and finance reform were all trimmed down versions of what they should have been. Not entirely because of republican/conservative opposition, mind you, but there's a reason a lot of liberals are dissatisfied with the last two years. You'd be correct to fix the first sentence of your second paragraph by striking out "and everything". Except that this issue was clearly discussed while the Constitution was being drafted.

QUOTE (Tex @ Nov 3, 2010 -> 01:03 PM) I'm not certain where you get that idea from. Certainly George Washington was against them, but Jefferson, Hamilton, and a host of others were not against them. I've never seen much where the topic was even that well discussed. If you have a source, I'd be very interested in learning more. I am about to teach that in a few weeks. Read a lot of Hamilton and Adams. Check out the Federalist Papers. They were smart and figured out that parties just lead to factions. It's one of the reasons checks/balances became an important element. Edit: and I don't remember reading anything about them being concerned with inefficient government because of a party system. I should have added Madison too. Check out http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Federalist_No._10

QUOTE (StrangeSox @ Nov 3, 2010 -> 12:52 PM) The fatal flaw in your argument is that many of the founders were opposed to political parties and the sort of divisiveness we see now. Their intention wasn't to make government ineffective at getting any serious work done. Dude, you crack me up. The stimulus, health care reform and finance reform. Are those "serious" pieces of legislation? Stop being so dramatic about the GOP not agreeing to go with anything and everything the Dems wanted to do. That's precisely the reason our government was set up the way it was. One party wasn't supposed to get control and run wild with whatever they wanted.

QUOTE (Steve9347 @ Nov 2, 2010 -> 10:58 AM) Nice find. I can vouch for this. I was watching the game, and he didn't even break off the route. All he had to do was reach toward the ball, it literally landed within a foot of him. I can deal with some of the bulls***, but treating people like that (the restaurant owners), well, I'm glad I read that. Moss can take a hike. I love how initially everyone s*** on Childress for this (*cough* ESPN *cough*), even LYING when reporting that the locker room wasn't behind the move. 24 hours later, when the REAL story comes out, turns out he was a dick and the team agreed. So the one guy Mort talked to said he didn't like the move = the entire locker room. ESPN reporting there.

QUOTE (StrangeSox @ Nov 3, 2010 -> 09:36 AM) They were able to get a lot done because of the strong majorities they had. That doesn't change how hard the Republican minorities in both sides of Congress tried to block just about every single thing. Seriously, this is easily quantifiable. This article is from last March. Since they lost control in 2006, they've more than doubled previous obstruction measures. Given the circumstances and the clear opposing views on how to fix the problem, wouldn't you expect the GOP to fight back with what little power they had?

QUOTE (StrangeSox @ Nov 3, 2010 -> 09:29 AM) Going by obstructionist measure counts, yeah, they're the worst. By a long shot. edit: The point of two political parties isn't for the minority party to break Congress as much as possible so nothing gets done. Or, at least it shouldn't be, if you want a functional government. So, Balta is claiming they're the most productive Congress since Johnson, you guys are claiming they weren't able to get anything done because the GOP somehow stopped them. Which is it?

QUOTE (Balta1701 @ Nov 3, 2010 -> 09:03 AM) We're going to disagree on the causes...but overall I agree...the people are going to be angry and disappointed as long as there is nearly 10% unemployment. I wouldn't be surprised at all to see a similar bloodbath in 2012 going the other way for exactly that reason, because I don't see any signs that we're going to get the kind of GDP growth (4-5% annual) that it would take to start eating into that number. 2-3% GDP growth = steady unemployment. Even if business investment does start to pick up, it's going to have years of drag in the housing market, eroding skills of long-term unemployed workers, and huge cuts in government employment to overcome. That's exactly where we've sat for the last 8 months or so. I don't see how this is true. You have a 50/50 Congress. Either they all sink together or they all get something accomplished. Either way, there won't be an entire country pissed that the party in power "did nothing" despite having 2 years to do it, because there is no one party in power who takes all the responsibility. Obama might be the scapegoat, but not anyone in Congress.

QUOTE (Athomeboy_2000 @ Nov 3, 2010 -> 09:00 AM) To me, how the Republicans won the house is simple: Do everything you can in your power to completely obstruct the political desires of the opposition (democrats), scream bloody murder that the system is broken (even though you were the ones breaking it), say that if you are elected/re-elected you will fight for real Americans (while being the back pockets of big business), and continue to do everything in your power to completely obstruct the political desires of the opposition to the point where absolutely NO legislation to fix the economy is passed, there by sinking the President, and getting your man (or woman) in there in 2012. See, it's that simple. Ugh, this is such crap. In a system designed with two parties with opposing views, is it really a surprise that one party opposes everything the other party does? Gimme a break. The GOP the last few years has been more obnoxious than at any other RECENT time, I'll give you that, but I refuse to believe that they're the worst ever or that they've done anything THAT extreme. Take away 9/11 and i'm 100% positive that the dems from 2000-2008 would have opposed every single measure the GOP brought to the table (they did in the end, they couldn't in the beginning because their hands were basically tied). You're basically saying "people that don't agree with Obama blocked progress." Well guess what, not everyone agrees that the stimulus was needed and/or good policy, not everyone agrees that his particular health care reform bill was the health care reform we needed. So i'm happy that "my" party (the one that most accurately represents the majority of my views, since god knows what the "democratic party" actually stands for) didn't go along with it. And are you really that blind to think that the dems aren't the back pockets for business? That's just hilarious. Ever hear of unions? They're politicians. To get into office you have to sell your soul to big business. GMAFB on that point.