You said he wasn't paying ANY taxes, not that he wasn't paying all his taxes. However, I see no evidence that he failed to pay any of the taxes that were due, or that would have been due if he had been a citizen. His NY Times piece he says, "I was paying state and federal taxes, but I was using an invalid Social Security card and writing false information on my employment forms." http://www.nytimes.com/2011/06/26/magazine/my-life-as-an-undocumented-immigrant.html?_r=1&pagewanted=all

It would make no sense for someone who was trying to pass as a citizen to possibly attract attention by cheating on his taxes.

And yet, we never Mirandized war criminals or gave them civilian trials.

Miranda v Arizona wasn't until 1966, and I don't think it applies to service members being tried under the UCMJ even in peacetime. UCMJ gives service members its own set of procedural protections, but the "due process" that's due is different in different situations. For example, I'm pretty sure hot pursuit is different in some legal respects from a raid planned by the police. The UCMJ is designed for US personnel operating in situations that would otherwise be outside US jurisdiction.

How often have war criminals been tried within US jurisdiction, anyway?

"Pulitzer-Prize winning journalist Jose Antonio Vargas reveals in The New York Times Magazine that he's lived in the United States for nearly 20 years as an illegal immigrant."
http://news.yahoo.com/blogs/lookout/pulitzer-prize-winning-journalist-comes-illegal-immigrant-153525263.html

Now if you are going to claim that, by paying sales tax on items that he had purchased, he was in effect paying his taxes, I would have to say that THAT argument....

".... will never be known for it's logic and cognizance"
-Commander Spock

:D

Absolutely 100% false. If we threw out the constitutional role of president as c-in-c in war time, and left every general to try to implement his own opinion about who should command, we would be fighting a series of coup attempts while our enemies advanced to victory.

I am not saying that it doesn't have relevance. I simply meant that it's protections CAN be suspended in time of war...

The worst war we ever had, in terms of US losses in blood and treasure relative to US population and GDP, was the Civil War.

Makes sense since both sides were Americans...

The way Hitler was dealt with was entirely in accordance with the Constitution. Congress declared war. FDR was commander-in-chief. Congress controlled the purse strings, and made "rules for the government and regulation of the land and naval forces".

And yet, we never Mirandized war criminals or gave them civilian trials....

A lesson SHOULD be learned from that..

Michale......

The way Hitler was dealt with was entirely in accordance with the Constitution. Congress declared war. FDR was commander-in-chief. Congress controlled the purse strings, and made "rules for the government and regulation of the land and naval forces".

There were unconstitutional actions against Americans of Japanese ancestry, but that had little if any effect on the fight against Germany.

The US Constitution is a peace-time document not applicable in times of war.

Absolutely 100% false. If we threw out the constitutional role of president as c-in-c in war time, and left every general to try to implement his own opinion about who should command, we would be fighting a series of coup attempts while our enemies advanced to victory.

The worst war we ever had, in terms of US losses in blood and treasure relative to US population and GDP, was the Civil War. Lincoln pushed the boundaries of c-in-c powers, but he went ahead with elections he thought he was likely to lose. He was fighting specifically to uphold the Constitution.

But did he pay ANY taxes??? No, he did not.

I don't know who you're talking about, but he can't have been in the US very long if he never bought anything except non-taxable groceries.

When Dunn was in the administration, Hedge Funds were the root of all evil..

Now that Dunn is being paid by the lobbyists, Hedge Funds are the epitome of all that is good and right in the world..

Before, Obama said that Citizens United/SuperPACs were "a threat to our democracy"...

Now that Obama can get money from SuperPACs/Citizens United, all of the sudden, they are A-OK in his book...

The hypocrisy is simply blinding....

This is why it is simply IMPOSSIBLE for anyone to take the Obama administration seriously...

Michale.....

Ahhhh I see...

I don't think the pilot-vs-drone is the real question that is being asked..

You're right, they could have phrased it better...

It applies, first and foremost, to the US government. It says what the government can't do -- to anyone. If you can just disappear non-citizens, with no opportunity to defend themselves in any way, that means you can just disappear citizens. You declare them non-citizens, and then they don't have any opportunity to challenge it.

Again, I disagree... To hamstring our government in that manner would make us prey for any two bit dictator or psychotic scumbag (Hitler, Stalin, Bin Laden, etc etc) to have their way with us and then hide behind the protections of the US Constitution.

Like it or not, we are at war with an ideology that HAS declared open season on all Americans..

The US Constitution is a peace-time document not applicable in times of war.

You're saying we should eliminate birthright citizenship,

I am saying that if a persons what the rights and protections of a US Citizen, then they should also meet the responsibilities of being a citizen.. It's like that reporter guy who was a Pulitzer Prize winner etc etc.. He was in this country illegally, but he did good for himself... Which is all fine and dandy..

But did he pay ANY taxes??? No, he did not..

That's what I mean by availing one's self of all the opportunities of this country, but ignoring all the responsibilities...

and anyone who doesn't want to be a citizen is excused from such responsibilities as paying taxes?

That's fine.. But then that person should revoke his citizenship and not avail himself of all the perks and bennys of being a US Citizen..

Michale.....

Not sure what you are trying to say here.

You cite numbers who approve of drone strikes, which supposedly show that we're repulsive hypocrites who have shifted our position on civil liberties simply out of political expediency. I've never cared whether the planes that kill people have pilots in them or not, and I don't think that the presence of a pilot is a civil-liberties question.

I don't think the US Constitution should apply to everyone.

It applies, first and foremost, to the US government. It says what the government can't do -- to anyone. If you can just disappear non-citizens, with no opportunity to defend themselves in any way, that means you can just disappear citizens. You declare them non-citizens, and then they don't have any opportunity to challenge it.

If one agrees to abide by the responsibilities of the Constitution and the Declaration, then one could be allowed it's protections as well.

The Constitution spells out the structure and powers of the US government, including some key limits on those powers. It doesn't have anything to do with individuals' responsibilities. The Declaration isn't law at all. And even if it were, what, we have a responsibility not to encourage those Catholics in Québec or to make the nominal power of the British crown in its colonies a practical reality?

That aside, we do have responsibilities under various statutes. You're saying we should eliminate birthright citizenship, and anyone who doesn't want to be a citizen is excused from such responsibilities as paying taxes?

Mattel's hoverboard keeps McFly planted on terra firma, away from water
http://www.engadget.com/2012/02/14/back-to-the-future-mattel-hoverboard-replica/

:D

Michale

I have no problem with killing people who deserve to be killed..

I just don't see how being killed by a piloted plane is a civil liberty.

Not sure what you are trying to say here..

And of course, citizenship does not matter. All the relevant constitutional protections are stuff like "no person shall be ..." and "the accused shall ...".

With respect to you and Captain James T Kirk, I don't think the US Constitution should apply to everyone...

If one agrees to abide by the responsibilities of the Constitution and the Declaration, then one could be allowed it's protections as well..

But if one is only going to claim it's protections and ignore it's responsibilities, then take a frakin' hike... "sans humanité"

Michale

I just don't see how being killed by a piloted plane is a civil liberty.

I have always assumed that liberals and progressives actually don't support Obama channeling Bush. Based on ya'all, I assumed that liberals and progressives just don't like to talk about how their guy is doing wrong, but they are still against it nonetheless.....

Seems ya'all are unique as it is clear that, out in the real world, Liberals and Progressives are whole-heartedly behind Obama and his continuation of the Bush CT policies...

Yet, none of this seems to be having any effect on Obama's political standing -- even among Democrats. The results of a recent Washington Post-ABC News poll provide compelling evidence of how little a price Obama has paid for these policies. According to the poll, 70 percent of respondents support the president's decision to keep Guantanamo Bay open. Indeed, backing for Gitmo is actually higher today than it was in 2003. Among the president's political base, 53 percent who self-identify as liberal Democrats -- and 67 percent of moderate or conservative Democrats -- are also supportive.

What is one to conclude from these numbers? Are progressives, as Glenn Greenwald suggests, "repulsive hypocrites" who have shifted their position on civil liberties simply out of political expediency? Well, perhaps. After all, in December 2008, 52 percent of Democrats were in support of closing Guantanamo Bay -- in February 2009 just after Obama took office and promised to close the facility the number jumped to 64 percent. It's not hard to draw the conclusion that Democrats who strongly opposed Bush-era policies on civil liberties are a tad less outraged today at the same decision because their party's president is in the White House.
http://www.foreignpolicy.com/articles/2012/02/13/counterterrorism_consensus_obama_bush

Interesting...

Michale.....

That's not compromise in any way, shape or form...

but the thing is, he's not just forcing his own views on others. he seems genuinely convinced that his proposals really are compromises. i think he believes he already understands everyone else's points of view, and triangulates a policy somewhere in-between. perhaps there's someone in the administration relaying, "the concerns of doctors and nurses," or "what teachers are worried about."

if that's the case, this second-hand information skips the step of really paying attention to the priorities of the people who will be most directly affected. obama is far from the only president to be insulated from popular opinion by the "bubble," it's just more obvious now because what the general population wants is in such stark contrast to the interests of anyone who could conceivably be picked as a presidential adviser. that goes for both parties. if the president or any of his challengers were really bright, they'd organize hundreds of town-halls where regular citizens could speak directly to members of their team.

the other thing that's kind-of unique about obama is that there really are quite a few knee-jerk racists who won't accept that the guy is "one of us." it's not an excuse, but it might explain the administration's difficulty identifying and responding to legit criticisms.

Give that special someone a heart...

http://www.pushindaisies.com/candypress/ProdImages/cho_chocolate_heart_lg.jpg

:D

Michale.....

It also opens to the door to a kind of influence peddling that was banned a decade ago under a landmark campaign finance law — with ramifications that go far beyond the scope of the Citizens United case that the White House professes to disdain. By granting permission for White House staffers and Cabinet secretaries to appear at super PAC events, the White House has returned to a system where corporate donors, unions and other wealthy individuals are able to pay big money for access to policymakers, lawmakers and key administration aides.

http://www.politico.com/politico44/2012/02/m-to-see-a-cabinet-secretary-new-obama-ruling-reopens-114326.html

What could possibly go wrong???

And Democrats are different than Republicans exactly how???

Michale.....

Actually, it's the perfect analogy...

If someone makes a living at claiming something is evil or wrong or dangerous, then why on earth would they embrace that same thing???

Asked and answered. Obama is availing himself of them because he has to if he doesn't want to get railroaded by the other side.

But that's just it.. Obama doesn't HAVE to avail himself of the "threat to our democracy"... If Obama proved ANYTHING in 2008, it's that he can mobilize the grassroots and they can beat ANY corporate machinations any day of the week and twice on Sunday...

So, why doesn't Obama take the high road and appeal to the grassroots again??

Is it because the grassroots know that Obama is nothing more than a political animal, the same as the corporate puppets he runs against???

Riddle me this...

If a man has to use nefarious, evil and threatening means to put forth his agenda.....

What does that say about the agenda???

So, what do think of Obama's fiscal 2013 budget proposal?

It's giving a lot of money towards governments that are pursuing actively anti-American agendas...

That's for starters...

Michale.....

So, what do think of Obama's fiscal 2013 budget proposal?

It's like a anti-gun nut who claims that guns are evil and serve absolutely NO useful purpose, but has a CCW for self-defense...

Very bad analogy ... apples and unicorns, or something.

If CU/SuperPACs would destroy our democracy, why the hell is Obama availing himself of them???

Asked and answered. Obama is availing himself of them because he has to if he doesn't want to get railroaded by the other side. This isn't rocket science. :)

But that's just it, Michale! He's not using this to his advantage. He's using it so that he is not at a distinct disadvantage during this campaigne when the Republicans are taking full advantage of it.

It's like a anti-gun nut who claims that guns are evil and serve absolutely NO useful purpose, but has a CCW for self-defense..

If CU/SuperPACs would destroy our democracy, why the hell is Obama availing himself of them???

Michale....

http://www.wsoctv.com/news/news/local/albemarle-man-shoots-daughters-laptop-after-readin/nHZPK/#comments

I read that and the only thing going thru my mind was.... "I can fix that"... :D

Michale

Thank you.. I have always had a soft spot for Whitney Houston every since I saw her in a guest stint on SILVER SPOONS.

She was a beautiful talent..

Why should he do that? He can take full advantage of this law and still be doing everything he can to take corrective action to have that decision overturned. The two are hardly mutually exclusive.

You can't demonize something and then use that same thing to your advantage.

At least, you can't and expect to be taken seriously or not have your principles questioned..

Obama could have (and SHOULD have) took the moral high road and appealed to grassroots donors who would, likely, have contributed to him ANYTHING that SuperPACs could have matched.

http://www.democraticunderground.com/1002286937

Obama chose the low road, thereby proving he is nothing more than a politician.. A person out for himself and himself only, at the expense of the country..

Michale.....

As for the CU thing ... surely you don't blame Obama for not wanting to fight his re-election campaign with one hand tied behind his back, do you.

Why should he do that? He can take full advantage of this law and still be doing everything he can to take corrective action to have that decision overturned. The two are hardly mutually exclusive.

Sad thing about Whitney Houston... I actually teared up a little listening to her music yesterday..

She will be missed...

Well said, Michale.

I doubt there was a single dry eye in the house last night at the Grammy's. It's been a while since I last watched one of these but I would bet that the 54th Grammy Awards show will go down as the best ever! Whoever put that show together deserves an award, to be sure.

hehehehehehehe :D

I understand the reluctance..

When this was discussed a couple months back, I went on record as saying that if the Citizens United ruling would benefit the Left, then Democrats would be all over it like stink on rice...

I never realized that my point would be proven so adamantly so quickly.... :D

Michale

Let's talk about Obama's embracing of the Citizens United ruling and SuperPACs...

Let's not and say we did, shall we? Heh.

Let's talk about Obama's embracing of the Citizens United ruling and SuperPACs...

Michale.....

It's like I said before adnasuem...

This Administration's idea of "compromise" seems to be, "we'll tell you what to do and you'll like it"...

That's not compromise in any way, shape or form..

Just like the CrapCare that brought us this current debacle...

The only thing the GOP got out of it was a "promise" from Obama to review tort reform..

And, like all of Obama's promises, it ain't worth the air it's uttered with...

Michale.....

She was an unparallelled talent of my generation.

She will be missed..

Michale

Kinda makes a body wonder what was in that convoy of trucks that Saddam sent into Syria a few days before Shock n' Awe went down.

Assad forces mull use of chemical weapons in Homs, opposition says
http://www.haaretz.com/news/middle-east/assad-forces-mull-use-of-chemical-weapons-in-homs-opposition-says-1.411954

This is what happens when you lead from behind. When you spend all your time talking about a problem and building a consensus and all that other crap..

People die...

Michale.....

Zzzzziiiiinnnggggg :D

Good one...

Michale.....

Take your pick...

i think it's more like, "i know your opinion better than you do."

Yet, accurate nonetheless...

it's also accurate that the packers didn't win the super bowl this year. i wouldn't necessarily call that the best summary of their season. would you?

Yet, accurate nonetheless...

it seems unable to distinguish intelligent criticism from kneejerk obstruction.

Agreed....

both exist, but failing to make the distinction and reacting the same to both, tends to turn the former into the latter.

Well said... Damn well said...

the "professional left" comment was kind-of telling - there seems to be some sort of underlying assumption, i'm not sure how to define it. it's like, "let's compromise, i'll tell you how."

Yep.. Yep....

The attitude is, "Everyone is entitled to my opinion.."

or

"When I want your opinion, I'll give it to you."

Take your pick...

Michale..

i think that's an oversimplified view. most of the president's initiatives have had broad support in the conceptual stages. only when the policy debate was in progress did that support begin to erode. i think this has been partly due to the complete unwillingness of republican leadership to ever compromise on anything, no matter how small; that's been their expressed strategy since day one. this allowed corporatist democrats to hold the process hostage.

meanwhile, the administration has had a real problem listening to professionals who disagree with them. it seems unable to distinguish intelligent criticism from kneejerk obstruction. both exist, but failing to make the distinction and reacting the same to both, tends to turn the former into the latter. the "professional left" comment was kind-of telling - there seems to be some sort of underlying assumption, i'm not sure how to define it. it's like, "let's compromise, i'll tell you how."

It's the community organizer mentality..

As a community organizer, you don't have to actually talk to the people to get their input on what they REALLY want. After all, you're doing them a favor so they will like anything you do...

For an Administration that ran on the platform of HOPE and CHANGE, they are remarkably deaf to the real problems facing this country..

With a few exceptions, every major initiative coming out of the Democrats, the majority of Americans have been against...

Michale.....

that said, the white house does have a serious communication issue. i don't think it's limited to birth control, either. for some odd reason, they seem to think they can address criticism by making compromises that they define themselves, without the participation of the people with whom they're supposed to be compromising. let's take a different example, from this year's state of the union address:

"Teachers matter. So instead of bashing them, or defending the status quo, let’s offer schools a deal. Give them the resources to keep good teachers on the job, and reward the best ones. And in return, grant schools flexibility: to teach with creativity and passion; to stop teaching to the test and to replace teachers who just aren’t helping kids learn. That’s a bargain worth making."

notice how nobody seems to have polled any teachers to see whether or not this sounds good to them? sure, to someone who doesn't know anything about the education system, it sounds reasonable. the trouble is that standardized tests are still being used as one of the main criteria for evaluating teachers, even though the teacher's contribution to test scores is at most about twelve to fifteen percent. it's hard to stop teaching to the test if a standardized test is still the yardstick by which you're measured, paid and fired, even if you happen to teach art, orchestra or phys-ed. the "compromise" may seem reasonable on the face, but the biggest problem isn't being addressed, and the people who understand it best aren't being consulted.

see the parallel between this and the birth control debate? the white house wants to take actions that seem reasonable, but neglects to seriously consult the other people involved. it might be politically expedient, but it's not conducive to good policy.

~joshua

Halftime in America -- the Chuck Norris version

Whatever the outcome, we’re looking at a game changer.”

http://www.foxnews.com/opinion/2012/02/08/halftime-in-america-chuck-norris-version/#ixzz1m25uT8fh

CW called it exactly right..

The White House fumbled.... AGAIN...

Michale.....