The next 2, 4, 8 years

[lostfan]

Yes. I don't know if he was considered a non-American, but we had the spectacle of House committee members firing guns at watermelons to try to prove that Bill Clinton was a murderer.

There are any number of books you can read from the right-wing opinion factory written about Clinton with all kinds of hysterical character accusations against him.

[Soxbadger]

Well the idea was first discussed by Hobbes in Leviathan and but it was basically stolen from Locke.

 

The below quote is from John Locke Two Treatises of Government:

 

http://history.wisc.edu/sommerville/367/locke%20decindep.htm

 

Chapter IV, section 23.

This freedom from absolute, arbitrary power, is so necessary to, and closely joined with a man's preservation, that he cannot part with it, but by what forfeits his preservation and life together: for a man, not having the power of his own life, cannot, by compact, or his own consent, enslave himself to any one, nor put himself under the absolute, arbitrary power of another, to take away his life, when he pleases. No body can give more power than he has himself; and he that cannot take away his own life, cannot give another power over it.

 

Chapter VII, section 87-89

Man being born, as has been proved, with a title to perfect freedom, and an uncontrolled enjoyment of all the rights and privileges of the law of nature, equally with any other man, or number of men in the world, hath by nature a power, not only to preserve his property, that is, his life, liberty and estate, against the injuries and attempts of other men; but to judge of, and punish the breaches of that law in others, as he is persuaded the offence deserves, even with death itself, in crimes where the heinousness of the fact, in his opinion, requires it. But because no political society can be, nor subsist, without having in itself the power to preserve the property, and in order thereunto, punish the offences of all those of that society; there, and there only is political society, where every one of the members hath quitted this natural power, resigned it up into the hands of the community in all cases that exclude him not from appealing for protection to the law established by it. And thus all private judgment of every particular member being excluded, the community comes to be umpire, by settled standing rules, indifferent, and the same to all parties; and by men having authority from the community, for the execution of those rules, decides all the differences that may happen between any members of that society concerning any matter of right; and punishes those

offences which any member hath committed against the society, with such penalties as the law has established: whereby it is easy to discern, who are, and who are not, in political society together. Those who are united into one body, and have a common established law and judicature to appeal to, with authority to decide controversies between them, and punish offenders, are in civil society one with another: but those who have no such common appeal, I mean on earth, are still in the state of nature, each being, where there is no other, judge for himself, and executioner; which is, as I have before shewed it, the perfect state of nature.

And thus the common-wealth comes by a power to set down what punishment shall belong to the several transgressions which they think worthy of it, committed amongst the members of that society, (which is the

power of making laws) as well as it has the power to punish any injury done unto any of its members, by any one that is not of it, (which is the power of war and peace;) and all this for the preservation of the property of all the members of that society, as far as is possible. But though every man who has entered into civil society, and is become a member of any commonwealth, has thereby quitted his power to punish offences, against the law of nature, in prosecution of his own private judgment, yet with the judgment of offences, which he has given up to the legislative in all cases, where he can appeal to the magistrate, he has given a right to the common-wealth to employ his force, for the execution of the judgments of the common-wealth, whenever he shall be called to it; which indeed are his own judgments, they being made by himself, or his representative. And herein we have the original of the legislative and executive power of civil society, which is to judge by standing laws, how far offences are to be punished, when committed within the common-wealth; and also to determine, by occasional judgments founded on the present circumstances of the fact, how far injuries from without are to be vindicated; and in both these to employ all the force of all the members, when there shall be need.

 

Wherever therefore any number of men are so united into one society, as to quit every one his executive power of the law of nature, and to resign it to the public, there and there only is a political, or civil society.

 

I didnt want to paraphrase or parse, because it doesnt do Locke justice.

Edited November 4, 2010 by Soxbadger

[bmags]

I still actually don't mind the Senate having a gigantic that must be overcome for the biggest of the biggest of legislation on principle...I'd actually say that is somewhat consistent with the originalist idea of the Senate as a place where things go to slow down...but I despise the current version of the filibuster...where everything other than naming a post office is subject to it, the Senate can't get anything done, and there is zero effort required from the minority to use it.

 

I understand they wanted the senate to cool down but i also understand they were giving a bunch of power to a largely illiterate and incredibly uneducated population. Even if i'm convinced that the bicameral legislature is fantastic, then i'd say that in itself is a huge check, and we don't need a gigantic supermajority in the second stage just to be a check on the first. If it's easier to create a bad idea, it's also easier to repeal it.

[StrangeSox]

I understand they wanted the senate to cool down but i also understand they were giving a bunch of power to a largely illiterate and incredibly uneducated population. Even if i'm convinced that the bicameral legislature is fantastic, then i'd say that in itself is a huge check, and we don't need a gigantic supermajority in the second stage just to be a check on the first. If it's easier to create a bad idea, it's also easier to repeal it.

 

Adams argued for the Senate to protect the aristocracy from democracy. Here's a letter from Jefferson to Adams debating that notion.

 

The key portion:

You think it best to put the Pseudo-aristoi into a separate chamber of legislation where they may be hindered from doing mischief by their coordinate branches, and where also they may be a protection to wealth against the Agrarian and plundering enterprises of the Majority of the people. I think that to give them power in order to prevent them from doing mischief, is arming them for it, and increasing instead of remedying the evil. For if the coordinate branches can arrest their action, so may they that of the coordinates. Mischief may be done negatively as well as positively. Of this a cabal in the Senate of the U.S. has furnished many proofs. Nor do I believe them necessary to protect the wealthy; because enough of these will find their way into every branch of the legislation to protect themselves.

 

Also Jefferson hitting on the importance of public education to break the cycles of pseudo-aristocracy, as he calls it:

At the first session of our legislature after the Declaration of Independance, we passed a law abolishing entails. And this was followed by one abolishing the privilege of Primogeniture, and dividing the lands of intestates equally among all their children, or other representatives. These laws, drawn by myself, laid the axe to the root of Pseudo-aristocracy. And had another which I prepared been adopted by the legislature, our work would have been compleat. It was a Bill for the more general diffusion of learning. This proposed to divide every county into wards of 5. or 6. miles square, like your townships; to establish in each ward a free school for reading, writing and common arithmetic; to provide for the annual selection of the best subjects from these schools who might recieve at the public expence a higher degree of education at a district school; and from these district schools to select a certain number of the most promising subjects to be compleated at an University, where all the useful sciences should be taught. Worth and genius would thus have been sought out from every condition of life, and compleatly prepared by education for defeating the competition of wealth and birth for public trusts

Edited November 5, 2010 by StrangeSox

[southsider2k5]

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.

 

People also need to remember that the British had a pretty solid level of support in the colonies. It wasn't overwhelming or anything, but enough people feared their reprisals at the very least, that they didn't support revolution.

[southsider2k5]

You and Balta still with the short memories. Do you not remember 1994? There was a lot of anger specifically directed at Clinton. And yet, things worked out for the better after the fact.

 

I am not saying that necessarily will happen here, but I think there is a decent chance it might. It really depends on Obama and Boehner, more than anyone else, at this point. McConnell is still a minority guy in the Senate, he's going to scream and yell anyway, that's what he does.

 

Forget remembering 1994, I thinking back to the 2001 to 2009 era.

[StrangeSox]

Forget remembering 1994, I thinking back to the 2001 to 2009 era.

 

Do we need to post the charts showing the number of obstructionist actions from 2000 to 2010 again? There's a pretty big jump that mysteriously happens right at the start of 2007.

[Texsox]

People also need to remember that the British had a pretty solid level of support in the colonies. It wasn't overwhelming or anything, but enough people feared their reprisals at the very least, that they didn't support revolution.

 

 

It was a Civil War in a couple different ways. Both versus the British and domestically. At any time allegiances fell with who was winning at the moment.

[Balta1701]

It was a Civil War in a couple different ways. Both versus the British and domestically. At any time allegiances fell with who was winning at the moment.

Not just that though, allegiances also fell based on where the war was.

 

There's a rule of thumb in civil wars. Give or take, 10% of the population is adamantly on 1 side, 10% of the population is adamantly on the other side, and 80% of the population just doesn't want to die. Yeah, the numbers bounce around, but order of magnitude.

 

The South, for example, was basically quiet in the war to first order until Cornwallis's troops landed. Some people volunteered and went north, some people left the country, but things didn't open up until the army got there. Once the army arrived, the Loyalists started taking revenge for any family issues they felt they wanted to deal with, the British troops didn't do anything about it and in fact encouraged it, and suddenly the remaining 80% was either casually or actively aiding the colonials, and the British were faced with a seething, determined guerrilla campaign that eventually did major damage to their forces.

[caulfield12]

For further reference on this point, see movie

 

Patriot, THE...although the history is way off, the general idea or conception is basically right.

 

And yes, Mel Gibson's an ass.

[Balta1701]

It now appears all but certain that Don't ask, don't tell will remain official policy unless the Supreme Court ends it.

The drive in Congress to repeal the military's "don't ask, don't tell" policy appears all but lost for the foreseeable future, with action unlikely this year and even less likely once Republicans take charge of the House in January.

 

President Barack Obama has repeatedly said he wants to overturn the policy, which bans gays from serving openly in the armed forces. Advocates on both sides believed the issue had a chance of coming up in this month's post-election session of Congress. Now that looks unlikely.

 

Sens. Carl Levin of Michigan and John McCain of Arizona, the top Democrat and Republican on the Senate Armed Services Committee, are in talks on stripping the proposed repeal and other controversial provisions from a broader defense bill, leaving the repeal with no legislative vehicle to carry it. With a repeal attached, and amid Republican complaints over the terms of the debate, the defense bill had failed to win the 60 votes needed to overcome a procedural hurdle in the Senate in September.

[kapkomet]

There's simply no way they can nominate Palin. Romney would certainly be the odds-on favorite right now, but he's definitely going to have to show more of a personality, he was so wooden and boring in the last campaign. If he had the charisma of Rubio, and his speaking ability, he would be more dangerous. Daniels in Indiana, Christie in NJ, those guys are getting all the ink now, but not so long ago, Jindal in the GOP and John Edwards were the "heir apparents" and look how far they've both fallen.

 

I think there will be some serious consideration given to dumping Biden in an effort to win back one of those states like Florida, Pennsylvania or Michigan. I'm thinking of names like Crist, Strickland and Rubio if I'm on Obama's team. Delaware doesn't matter. Of course, you can argue the VP choice can hurt a candidate but usually can't help very much. Undoubtedly, it would be hard to get Rubio, but I think putting the first Hispanic (or Asian) on the top ticket would send a strong signal.

 

 

Did I just read that s***?

[lostfan]

lol. I totally missed the part about Obama making Rubio his VP. f*** it, he should just go for broke and ask Palin to be his VP.

Edited November 27, 2010 by lostfan

[kapkomet]

lol. I totally missed the part about Obama making Rubio his VP. f*** it, he should just go for broke and ask Palin to be his VP.

 

 

I know, right? Maybe that's what the "woman I wish had a penis so she'd be irrelevant" (aka Palin) is angling for.