The aircraft with the greatest firepower will probably continue to be manned: heavy bombers don't pull high gees, their payload is large enough that the added weight of a pilot isn't all that significant, and they're not used to suppress anti-aircraft capability.

Lol well it is the opinion of me and every single Human Rights expert in the world, including the United Nations Universal Declaration of Human Rights:

"Everyone has the right to a standard of living adequate for the health and well-being of oneself and one's family, including... medical care
- UN Declaration of Human Rights

Fwiw I believe you should have access to a basic level of Education regardless of income too - for some reason I believe you will have less objection to this 'opinion'. But hey, I'm just used to living in a 21st Century Western democracy providing basic Human Rights to it's citizens... The 'leader of the free world' probably doesn't need to provide 'basic human rights' to it's citizens right!?

DS
How so?

Because Drones can get to places that manned aircraft can't, are harder to shoot down and, when shot down, don't kill the pilot :) And Drones have been around for a lot less time than manned aircraft - give them some time, they will make up the 'killing deficit' quickly!

How so?

We're very risk-averse with our onboard-piloted aircraft, but we don't have to be. And in previous wars, such aircraft have killed far more than 2800 people.

In YOUR opinion.. An opinion you have absolutely NO EVIDENCE to support, save your Left wing tendencies..

(I mean ABORTION is still an issue in your country!)

Not for me, it isn't :D

You are a much newer country and not a 'true' colony (like Canada) after all... ;)

Now THAT was funny! :D

Michale...

But you're far behind the times on social standards (I mean ABORTION is still an issue in your country!) and I understand that these things take time. You are a much newer country and not a 'true' colony (like Canada) after all... ;)

While I wouldn't be so callous as that, that is basically the point..

This country, NO great country, wasn't built by people who always need a hand out..

I don't mind people who need a hand UP...

But people who constantly need a hand out??

We can send them to the UK..... :D

Michale....

Yea... ObamaCare is SOOO good for this country... :^/

Michale.....

Now THAT was funny!! :D

The Left has only themselves to blame....

Michale....

For example, around ~2,800 people have died in drone strikes in Pakistan (including many many innocent people). I'd reckon that is probably more people than have died in dronke strikes in 1 country than have been killed in manned planes in the last 5 years across the world put together (imo, not saying this is a fact!)...

Lol maybe you should open the gates of Michale-world ad look outside. Then you will no longer be wondering.

And yet, it's all lip service

Sorry I'm not sure what exactly you mean by this?

Actually it is worse than under Bush. Bush didn't use drones. I don't know if you gathered this, but people on the left don't particularly like the use of drones...

Yep I gathered that.. And yep, I agree, Obama's actions are much worse than Bush's...

I still wonder why the Left gives him a pass..

It would appear that they don't mind the harsh CT policies of the Bush era, as long as it's THEIR guy who's wielding the power...

To illustrate this point, the newest CT measure Obama has adopted is the use of drones. You can find PLENTY of writing on the left (including the many articles I linked to on this page) outraged by this new CT measure.

And yet, it's all lip service...

Michale.....

To illustrate this point, the newest CT measure Obama has adopted is the use of drones. You can find PLENTY of writing on the left (including the many articles I linked to on this page) outraged by this new CT measure.

The only difference between Obama and Bush is that under Bush the CT measures were quite new, given what happened during his 1st term. So you may be correct in that they were more WRITTEN about but this doesn't mean that there is less OUTRAGE. Case in point, your CW.com example makes no sense. Of course CW could've written about CT measures every single post but that would get kinda boring - plus he has got marijuana to write about (BOOM)!

You can find a commentary here and a post there. Sure.. I'll give you that..

But for you to claim that the condemnation from the Left under Obama is at the same level of condemnation as it was under Bush????

Well, I have to fear for your sanity... :D

Michale.....

1. The Benghazi affair is more politically consequential than Watergate, Whitewater, Iran-Contra, Chappaquiddick, the Keating Five and the Teapot Dome scandals all rolled into one, and Romney totally would have won the election if it had been covered properly.

2. President Obama must’ve ignored warnings infinitely clearer than the 8/6/01 Presidential Daily Briefing entitled “Bin Ladin Determined to Strike in US,” which was obviously not worth investigating after 3K civilians were killed on Bush the Lesser’s watch.

3. The only way Obama could cover his ass in the Benghazi affair was to orchestrate a scandal to compromise the country’s most prominent general, and he fiendishly used a wingnut FBI agent’s obsession with a seemingly flaky Tampa socialite to kick off an investigation that would lead down paths those two pawns could not foresee.

4. Obama further used Jedi mind-tricks to silence noted political opportunist Eric Cantor after Cantor was briefed on the scandal before the election, thanks to the aforementioned wingnut FBI agent.

5. Petraeus is either, A) such a dummy that he was willing to lie to Congress on 9/13 to buy a short reprieve from the announcement of the scandal, which he knows will then engulf him and destroy his career, or B) such a dupe that he will keep lying about Benghazi even after Obama has betrayed him and destroyed his career.

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/arianna-huffington/the-president-asked-us-to_b_2130035.html

Most people's reaction would be 'duh!' but of course it is useful to remind Republicans of this at times (especially deficit reduction negotiation times)...

Not only did Obama continue many of the most outrageous abuses of the George W. Bush administration (which were bad enough), including indefinite detention and warrantless surveillance of American citizens, but he also succeeded in expanding the power of the "imperial president," including the ability to assassinate American citizens abroad and unilaterally authorize drone strikes resulting in the deaths of countless innocent civilians, including women and children.

Again I repeat: the outrage is there. Just because you haven't seen it in imaginary 'the left' guys life in Michale-world is not anywhere near evidence that it isn't...

You mean only two lefty pundits IN MICHALE WORLD that MICHALE watches consistently call out Obama for this. Heck I even provided 2 more sources in my post that started this chain. Again: just because YOU think the left are not criticising Obama for this does not mean that they are not.

Your example of CW is another example. In MICHALE WORLD it is another example of this imaginary guy called 'the left' who doesn't care about Obama's CT policies.

Let me put it this way. If we can agree on one thing surely it is that I read more left-wing orientated news stories/blogs than you? So perhaps I, being someone who regulars left-wing media, might be more better suited to talk about what left-wing media is reporting than you, who frequents right-wing media sources more...?

Heck here's a piece written on HuffoPo just a few days ago on Drones: http://www.huffingtonpost.com/william-astore/military-robot-war_b_2113257.html?utm_hp_ref=drones

I bet you hadn't read this?

It's an awesome system!! It's called Eyes, Brains and common sense... You should try them sometimes..

I look forward to seeing some concrete data on this.

Ask and ye shall receive...

Look at the number of Torture/Rendition/Gitmo/Domestic Surveillance commentaries CW has done from 2005 thru 2008.. Although I won't go back and count each one, I believe the number is in the hundreds.. CW can likely provide us with more accurate figures..

Now, go back and look at how many commentaries CW has done on Torture/Rendition/Gitmo/Domestic Surveillance since Feb of 2009...

NONE... ZERO.... ZILCH..... NADA.....

Big fat nothing....

Now, this may appear to be a slam against CW, but it really isn't.. At least I hope it's not taken that way....

I completely and unequivocally understand WHY there isn't any outcry from ya'all...

Obama is your guy.. And ya don't trash on your guy, even if it is deserved...

But for the gods' sake, at least admit it!!

I don't care if you support Obama even in spite of his being more Bush than Bush...

But at least be honest about it! :D

We are all on record as conceding that we're all a bunch of political bigots...

Let's see if we can open up with some more honesty and admit that ya'all will support Obama even if he is more Bush than Bush on CT issues because Obama is your guy..

Michale.....+

Only two Lefty pundits consistently call out Obama on being more Bush than Bush..

That's Unger and Greenwald...

Compare that to EVERY Left Wing pundit calling out Bush on his CT Policies...

For being a "numbers guy" you sure don't have then in your corner on this issue...

Michale.....

http://assets.motherjones.com/interactives/projects/2012/11/gerrymandering/votes-worth-ratio.png

And yes that petition to throw out those who signed a secession petition is just as stupid as a secession petition.

David,
More good signs: http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2012/11/13/obama-activist-base-fiscal-cliff_n_2127100.html

It looks like Obama is now preaching to the people who elected him (finally!). Let's hope it holds.

LB,
Yes everyone with half a brain who looked at Romney's tax plan knew this. The reality in American politics is that the deductions that would be left/put back in place would be heavily correlated to the lobbying power of the organisation wanting the deductions.

It is one of those ideas that theoretically sounds ok but practically is horrendous. This is why he could never give an answer of how it would work in PRACTICE.

Michale,
Looks like a LOT of people are disappointed in Obama's election...

Lolol more than 62 MILLION voted for him (likely to be more than 63m when States have finished counting votes). Again, as I said before the election, if you thought this election was close you are deluding yourself. Obama is going to end up taking the popular vote by close to 3.5% (i.e. bigger than Bush in 2004, bigger than Bush in 2000 (lol)) and won the EC by a 24% margin (bigger than both of Bush's margins).

So if you think people are upset over Obama winning imagine how they felt for BOTH of Bush's wins, which were much, much closer...

Looks like a LOT of people are disappointed in Obama's election...

It was an affair. Petraeus admitted it. It was unfortunate but I don't see any crimes committed. But unless I'm wrong, I don't see any crimes committed. Let's move on people ...

See! We DO agree on somethings!! :D

LB,

That said, utter nonsense is not necessarily bad politics if it is advanced in opposition to utter nonsense.

That sounds suspiciously like "The Ends Justifies The Means"..

I KNEW there was a reason I liked you!!! :D

Michale.....

Good point, LB. This is partly why I don't really believe the "reform the tax code" rhetoric.

-David

I was surprised nobody pointed out that's a long game scam. So long as there is not a line item veto, deductions and "loopholes" can find their way back into force though arcane amendments to a wide array of bills.

That's why Gov. Romney could propose it without any comment from the affected parties on either side.

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2012/11/13/obama-bush-tax-cuts_n_2124324.html

-David

Sheesh. No kidding. What a tremendous waste of resources.

And if you think the FBI is wasting resources, look at all the time the media is spending.

*sigh*

It was an affair. Petraeus admitted it. It was unfortunate but I don't see any crimes committed. But unless I'm wrong, I don't see any crimes committed. Let's move on people ...

-David

-David

Sen. Feinstein says (see above report):
"We have asked to see the trip report. One person tells me he has read it, and then we tried to get it and they tell me it hasn't been done. That's unacceptable," she said. "We are entitled to this trip report and if we have to go to the floor of the senate on a subpoena, we will do just that."

That trip report is undoubtedly classified. The Agency is evidently saying it doesn't exist. Morrell can claim he didn't see it. Petraeus can't discuss it in public because it's classified.

I suppose they could conduct the testimony in closed session, but it seems that there is an increasingly bipartisan view that the whole thing is somehow toxic. Point in example: Cantor was alerted by FBI to the affair, but remained silent.

I'm getting the sinking feeling this one is going to pass into the night.

The FBI has spent more time at Patreus' misstress' house investigating then they have in Benghazi....

Michale.....

Of course -and no one likely will disagree- utter nonsense.

That said, utter nonsense is not necessarily bad politics if it is advanced in opposition to utter nonsense. Then, they are, in particle physics terms, a muson and anti-muson, neither of which have any mass at all, and, perhaps, don't even exist.

I agree that the current situation is not IDEAL for the Obama Administration.

But the timing is as close to perfect as could possibly be, given that no secret of this magnitude can be kept forever..

It will be interesting to see how this all plays out...

Michale.....

http://www.weeklystandard.com/blogs/wh-petition-calls-stripping-citizenship-and-exile-anyone-who-signs-petition-secede_663282.html

The Left is demanding that those who sign secession petitions be stripped of their US citizenship....

Comments??? :D

10,000 quatloos say many here don't have a problem with that. :D

Michale.....

You are claiming that the outcry from the Left is as vocally opposing the US's CT policies as it was during the Bush years..

What HAVE you been smoking???

Just look at our little corner of the world.. Look at how many anti-torture, anti-surveillance, anti-rendition commentaries there were under the Bush years and compare that to the number that there has been under the Obama years..

Where were the Anti-War protests when Obama did his Afghan surge???

Comparatively non-existent...

I have to give you credit though for a large set of cajones... To blatantly try and compare the hysteria level to the CT policies now to what it was in the Bush years???

It takes a large set of brass ones to utterly bullshit so grandly... :D

My hat is off to you... :D

Michale.....

Further, you are saying that the Left was as on board with Bush's CT policies as they are on Obama's continuation and expansion of Bush's CT Policies???

Is THAT what ya'all are REALLY saying!???

REALLY!!!?????

"We are at war with Eurasia. We have always been at way with Eurasia."

1984 is here....

Michale.....

"it's funny because it's true! (well obsurved!)"

A quick note on the 'right vs left' tactic. You likely grok this already but for anyone else out there.

Republican strategists understand that when you stick to talking about issues, the majority tends to have pretty liberal views. For example, most people are pretty charitable.

So how do you counter this when your views are not popular with the general public?

Simple. You create false divisions. Cue Republican vs. Democrat. Cue the culture wars.

If everyone thinks the divide is Republican vs. Democrat, you can provide as many tax breaks as you want to your well-heeled backers.

Or, in the words of one of my favorite jokes:

A CEO, a union employee, and a Tea Party member are sitting at a table. There's 12 cookies on the table. The CEO grabs 11 of them and turns to the Tea Party member and says "That union guy wants a piece of your cookie."

:)

-David

p.s. Now the real question is how much will the Democrats play along with this game. *fingers crossed you're right about who they owe*

What else explains the Hysteria from the Left about Abu Ghraib, which was nothing worse than college hazing and the complete ignoring of the Afghani Kill Teams???

There is a very simple explanation. It is the fact that this 'the left' person is completely made up by you, so YOU can form what opinions this made up 'left' person has and extraloplate them on to everyone else, completely ignoring what they are actually saying...

Maybe you should start reading some blogs by people on the 'left' and you will see that there is outrage. Watch The Young Turks or a progressive news network. Here I'll give you a simple one where the outrage is in cartoon format so kinda fun: http://www.rall.com/rallblog/

Again I don't know how many times I have said it but you can't just pick the opinion of 1 (often imaginary) person and make them 'the left'... I know this suits your 'right vs left' style of posting, but it doesn't add anything to the conversation except more blatant rhetoric.

As for this soap opera being perfect timing? I don't know. I am not a political strategist. But to me, it does not seem to be perfect timing. If it had been, I would think sometime during next summer after the Benghazi situation had been further investigated and the testimony had already been delivered. Having it come out now seems rather like a pain in the butt because it allows conspiracy theorists to fan the flame that there is some sort of cover up, instead of a tawdry soap opera that appears to be unraveling now.

And to clarify, when I first heard the breaking news about Petraeus, I did wonder if it was a cover up. But in light of the information that has come out since then, I just don't see it that way. It is all too juvenile and petty to be anything more than egos and human nature at work.

Plus, that whole "still able to testify" thing. :)
And by the way, Sen. Feinstein (with the all-dreaded D- behind her name) is saying it is likely they will still require him to testify at some point, so he is not off the hook.

Quoting here for Liz:

Senate Intelligence Committee Chairwoman Dianne Feinstein, a Democrat, told MSNBC on Monday that her panel "should go ahead with Mike Morell and the way it is now set up.

"But I also think that the community should know that this is not sufficient," she continued. "And I have no doubt now that we will need to talk with David Petraeus. And we will likely do that in closed session, but it will be done one way or the other." Feinstein also said that the Senate would fight, if necessary, to obtain a report from a Petraeus trip to Libya in late October.

"We have asked to see the trip report. One person tells me he has read it, and then we tried to get it and they tell me it hasn't been done. That's unacceptable," she said. "We are entitled to this trip report and if we have to go to the floor of the senate on a subpoena, we will do just that."

Sorry, Ninjaf, sincerely....

I thought that was Michty posting... Had I realized it was you, I would have been a LOT more diplomatic...

Sowwweeeee......

As far as the cover-up, I don't think for a minute that Patreus was set up.....

However, it's unlikely that it coming out at this time is coincidence...

I mean, look at it.. A couple days AFTER the election and a couple days BEFORE Patreus' Benghazi testimony... *AND* on a Friday to boot....

Seriously... The revelation was at the PERFECTLY EXACT moment it would do the LEAST amount of harm to the Obama Administration...

That sort of perfect timing simply CANNOT be just happenstance..

Again, sorry for being such a prick.. I only reserve THAT for michty... :D

Michale....

Is Petraeus still living? Yes. Can he still be forced to testify before Congress? Yes.

Do you dispute those two facts? I don't think anyone does.

If this affair was supposed to be a cover up, it was a piss poor cover up (it doesn't even remove the witness in question from being able to testify). And I would hope that the FBI and CIA could come up with something better, if a cover up was the goal. If not, we have more serious Intelligence problems to deal with.

It's funny how you always slam the Right for their devotion to a Right-wing entertainer and you quote a Left-wing entertainer to make your point. :D

Naw, no hypocrisy there.. :D

Michale....

Yea.. The fact that Patreus was forced out mere DAYS before he was to spill the beans about Benghazi..

In your fantasy world, it is unrelated... No where else..

I am also constrained to point out that I am not the only one here who thinks there's a connection...

Anyone who DOESN'T think there is the possibility of a connection is simply drunk on the kool-aid

Michale.....

It is my understanding that the FBI had/has concluded no laws were broken (with Petraeus and Broadwell) but rather that this affair makes Petraeus vulnerable to blackmail.

So far, there has been nothing about this being the cause for anything that happened in Benghazi, outside of the Right wing conspiracy theorists (represented here locally by Michale). This reads more like an episode of Desperate Housewives than any kind of cover up for malfeasance. And just because Petraeus has resigned does not mean he can't be compelled to testify. Like Jon Stewart said last night, it's not like he is dead and can't ever be questioned.

And the BIG conversation was NOT, "what do we do about this criminal activity??"

The biggest debate in the whole thing was, "is this REALLY a crime??"

Michale.....

It's become a witch hunt.. Where even the most innocent of messages becomes a major transgression..

Once again, I point out the irony that 1984 is finally here...

And it's the Democratic Party who ushers in the era....

Go figger...

Michale....

Yep... It's going to get worser and worser...

It's not the action... It's the cover up...

These issues have been brewing for months... They could have been addressed LONG before they would have been a problem for Team Obama and his re-election campaign..

My guess is Team Obama felt they could control the press... Which is true, they can..

But they can't control the American People... And it's the American people who are the final arbiters of what is news and what isn't...

However, the fact remains, Benghazi is going to be with us long after the election fades in memory...

Michale.....

From http://www.politico.com/news/stories/1112/83738.html :

In another surprising development in an already shocking case, the Wall Street Journal reported Tuesday night that the FBI agent originally contacted by Jill Kelly — the same agent who opened the “preliminary investigation” that led to Petraeus’ downfall — was later suspended by the bureau after allegedly sending “shirtless pictures of himself to Ms. Kelley, according to the people familiar with the probe.”

Pretty soon the public is going to need a bingo card to keep all the floozies and actors straight, and then Greta will start to go to work on Fox.

I'm not optimistic.

As long as the press sees sex and drugs behind the left hand, you can park a battle carrier behind the right hand and no one's gonna f**king notice. -- Gust Avrokatos, in Charlie Wilson's War

Really??

What else explains the Hysteria from the Left against the CT policies under the Bush Administration and a completely blase' and appreciative attitude to the EXACT same policies under Obama??

What else explains the Hysteria from the Left about Abu Ghraib, which was nothing worse than college hazing and the complete ignoring of the Afghani Kill Teams???

NOTHING else explains that except for the '-D' vs the '-R'

Michale...

If it's a '-D', it doesn't even warrant a mention except to applaud the results...

This, like many of your beliefs, is not resemblant of reality and, like many of your beliefs, continues to be one you cling to and repeat over and over again believing that repeating it enough will make it true!

My only beef ...

Oh, I highly doubt that :)

Touche'....

OK, let's say it's my BIGGEST beef.. By far... :D

Michale.....

Michale.....

No question, Occupy collapsed. The question is whether it was "from its own self-important weight" or from its failure to transition from a lightweight to a welterweight form of organizational infrastructure.

They didn't know what to do with the money coming in. They were committed to the near-zero-cost infrastructure that had served them so well in the transition from flyweight to bantamweight.

Is an order from the POTUS to execute an American citizen w/o due process a "lawful" order???

It is not.

True by definition: whatever process is due, it must be fulfilled or the order is unlawful. But what process is due to a presumed combatant, outside the jurisdiction of the United States? Does it matter whether the person is a citizen? And can one honestly be said to "execute" a person not in custody?

In the primary season, I wrote that it would be Romney, because it's Harvard's turn right now; one term would be too brief, and only Romney could assure the streak would continue. Eight is probably too short as well, which does not bode will for Sec'ty. Clinton in 2016. The Wellesley alumni association keeps the official record on such things, so it can be checked out when the time comes.

My choices, more or less in order, were:
Bachmann
Perry
Cain
Santorum
Paul
Romney
Gingrich

In that order, for the reason you mention: Gingrich was the only one who could have come into summer close or ahead in the national poll (not the voter polls; the public poll).

Oh, I highly doubt that :)

-David

Oh, no doubt..

My only beef has been the effect of that '-x' behind the POTUS name amongst Weigantians..

If it's a '-R', the actions amount to war crimes and the POTUS is branded a "Hitler" or worse...

If it's a '-D', it doesn't even warrant a mention except to applaud the results...

Michale....

he also would have had a better chance than romney in the general election. i'm not saying he necessarily would have won, but he had a number of things going for him that would have made him a tougher match for obama. i believe i wrote something to this effect around primary season.

~joshua

No President has ever willingly diminished the scope of his power. (Thankfully, that's one of the few remaining places we don't have to have to worry about matching the gender of the pronoun to the subject. At least until late 2015.)

That's one reason why "wars on things" are so dangerous and erosive. Whether the "thing" is drugs, or poverty, or terror, they tend to permit expansion of "emergency" governmental powers without provision of sunset, and encourage situational 'good' to mask permanent harm.

As things are showing more by the day, that's the kind of person who is needed to have a national dialogue.

He wrote in a piece published today:
"The president won an extraordinary victory. And the fact is we owe him the respect of trying to understand what they did and how they did it." He added, "But if you had said to me three weeks ago, Mitt Romney would get fewer votes than John McCain and it looks like he’ll be 2 million fewer, I would have been dumbfounded."

That's the attitude that can save the Republican party.

I would.

Which is why I like discussing things with you. :D

You know that as well as I do.

Yes I do...

Which is why this is in the realm of discussion/debate rather than outright advocation... :D

Is an order from the POTUS to execute an American citizen w/o due process a "lawful" order???

It is not.

And yet, that is EXACTLY what occurred under Obama's watch...

And no one here said "BOO"...

Now, personally, I don't have a problem with the action per se... If, in the course of my duties, I am ordered to take out a terrorist, American or otherwise, I would simply ask, "Head shot or gut?"...

No, my point has always been how the vast majority of Weigantians (current and past) would hysterically decry such actions under a GOP President and remain silent about such actions under a DEM President...

One of the biggest disappointments of an Obama victory is I won't be able to see my fellow Weigantians do a complete 180 on the issue of torture, rendition, Gitmo, domestic surveillance and all the other Bush CT Policies that Obama expanded on and wielded with such success... :D

Michale.....

I'm pretty sure it's not in the oath. Rather it is incorporated in the oath by the language "according to ... the Uniform Code of Military Justice," where is most certainly is.

Is an order from the POTUS to execute an American citizen w/o due process a "lawful" order???

It is not.

It's all just politics....

I would. It's not good politics to promote the idea of secession. Good politics is advocacy of a position or direction for the nation which, if it wins the opinion of the electorate, can come to being.

People can decry the direction of the nation, be civilly disobedient, burn the flag, even as a majority direct or elected, choose to forgo federal monies to avoid compliance with attached regulations.

They can govern their state in any way they democratically choose, in compliance with the Constitution. They can even pass laws which stand in contravention of federal law, and wait for the resolution in the ballot box, the Congress, or the federal courts.

They can say they wish they were not citizens of the United States, and, of course, can act to privately make that so, after they have left.

They cannot, by majority of those alive today in that state, or otherwise, elect to have that state leave the Union and demand that it be so.

You know that as well as I do.

The first organized secession movement (unless you count the Kentucky and Virginia Resolutions of 1798, which didn't get very far and were really about nullification and not outright secession) came from none other than New England.

That's right -- not the South, but New England. In the runup to the War of 1812 (as early as 1804), the Federalists were in a RAGE up in their stronghold of New England. Why were they in a rage? The other party (Jefferson) had tossed them out of power in the "Revolution of 1800." And they HATED Jefferson with the same white-hot rage that Liberals hated Bush with, or Conservatives hated both Clinton and Obama. New England preachers were -- absolutely literally, and in no way metaphorically -- calling Jefferson the Anti-Christ.

Never heard this in history class, but came across it in research. Google "Hartford Convention" if you want more details.

-CW

If Romney had won the Election, people would be talking about California and Massachusetts seceding from the Union and most here wouldn't say boo...

It's all just politics.... :D

Michale.....

CW did a commentary a while back, before torture was the flavor of the month...

http://www.chrisweigant.com/2008/04/03/another-secret-yoo-memo/#comments

Interesting changes in attitudes between then and now.. :D

Michale.....

No, not trolling.. And, as I said, I am not condoning such actions..

But, intellectually speaking, the actions do appear to be in the vein of what our fore-fathers did to escape the tyranny of the majority...

How are the actions in the here and now any different??

I, (NAME), do solemnly swear (or affirm) that I will support and defend the Constitution of the United States against all enemies, foreign and domestic; that I will bear true faith and allegiance to the same; and that I will obey the orders of the President of the United States and the orders of the officers appointed over me, according to regulations and the Uniform Code of Military Justice. So help me God.

Actually, I believe the phrase is "will obey the lawful orders" etc etc etc...

Is an order from the POTUS to execute an American citizen w/o due process a "lawful" order???

That's one for those in a higher pay grade, to be sure, but the question is an interesting one...

If I recall, Bush gave "orders" to have terrorists tortured and I think I recall that the Left had a really big problem with that...

I'm just sayin'..... :D

Michale.....

Bigot much?? :D

Lol where did I say this? Is this addressed to me or that random guy called the 'left' you know so well? The reason why Romney supporters are less likely to move is because there is no Western democracy that tailors to their kind of crazy other than America... I mean people getting access to healthcare regardless of their income levels - PREPOSTEROUS!

I, (NAME), do solemnly swear (or affirm) that I will support and defend the Constitution of the United States against all enemies, foreign and domestic; that I will bear true faith and allegiance to the same; and that I will obey the orders of the President of the United States and the orders of the officers appointed over me, according to regulations and the Uniform Code of Military Justice. So help me God.

You got me there, Michale. That's one I'm not sure I could argue.

See!!!???

"Well, that wasn't such a chore, now was it!?"
-Peter Venkmen, GHOSTBUSTERS

:D

Michale.....

Yea, the Right tried that with the Left during the Bush years...

The Left were too lazy to actually WORK, though... :D

Yuk Yuk Yuk

Michale.....

Actually, if you take their industry and turn it inward, Texas would be one of the few states in the country that would be completely self-sufficient...

No Uncle Sam needed in Texas...

Which is why the US won't let Texas go..

The US needs Texas a LOT more than Texas needs the US...

Michale.....

You got me there, Michale. That's one I'm not sure I could argue.

Unfortunately, I think the great state of Texas probably gets too much federal aid to really want this :)

-David

There's a big difference between deciding to leave (or dreaming of leaving) the United States, and encouraging the notion that a state should secede.

Many honorable people leave their country out of conscience. Traitors propose to split the nation because they object to the flow of events.

C'mon man ... don't you think the Aussies would take 'em?

They started as a penal colony and all.

There's gotta be someone who could profit off of them somehow. Maybe put them to work building something instead of endlessly bitching.

Something ... ?

-David

http://blog.chron.com/txpotomac/2012/11/the-petition-to-let-texas-secede-from-the-u-s-to-be-reviewed-by-the-white-house/

How many on the Left would REALLY be sad to see Texas go?? :D

Michale.....

Absolutely not.

Why fer???

If things are going to be as untolerable under US rule for State X as it was for the colonies under King's rule, I would think such independence mindedness would be applauded???

Walking in the steps of our fore-fathers and all that other stuff...

Mind you, I am not condoning such actions.

I just find it strange that liberals who profess to believe in freedoms would come down on states who, as unified body, would wish to go their way for THEIR freedom....

Michale.....

Now that was precious.

Heheh. Indeed. Other countries haven't gone quite as wingnutty as us (see above secession comments). Here's to changing this!

-David

So, you can see how a bunch of people would want to leave if Romney won.. But it's not possible that a LOT more people would want to leave if Obama won???

Bigot much?? :D

Michale.....

Absolutely not.

Because there is no country on earth, other than the USA, which preaches their brand of crazy...

"Personal" secession???

I said "similar" not exact.. :D

Surely threatening to move out of the US is a "personal" form of secession...

Michal

The good thing for them is that they don't have to go as far as secession though, they can simply move to any English speaking Western country in the world. To those on the right, any English speaking Western country in the world is like a nightmare for them with 'socialism' abound everywhere!

I heard the President of Australia was a good Christian man though... ;)

A.men.

I always wonder why they don't take their own advice and simply move to another country.

However, it does make the Democratic Party look more and more sane (kind of like the birthers) so perhaps we should encourage them

:)

-David

You don't see any value in some states breaking away from the US, the way the colonies broke away from the UK???

Michale.....

About as ironic as the Party Of The KKK advancing the cries of racism..... :D

Michale.....

And how many from the Left made similar statements after Bush was elected??? :D

Michale....

Do you not see the bitter irony that those undoubtedly who are advancing those petitions are nominally (but only nominally) in the party of Lincoln?

And, anyway, that particular form of nonsense was settled 150 years ago.

By the White House's own rules, if the petition garners 25,000 signatures, the Administration is obligated to respond...

I don't know why they're whining to the President. But in any case, an appropriate response would be a copy of a short little speech Lincoln gave in the fields of Pennsylvania.

What. a. bunch. of. duchebags.

http://dailycaller.com/2012/11/11/white-house-website-deluged-with-secession-petitions-from-19-states/

Petitions for 19 states have been put forth to secede from the US...

By the White House's own rules, if the petition garners 25,000 signatures, the Administration is obligated to respond...

This outta be interesting.. :D

Michale.....

The mistake you're making is to assume that Democrats are centre-left. Sure, by American standards they might be. But Americans consider the statement 'people should be able to see a Doctor regardless of their income' a 'centre-left' statement ;) To the rest of the Western world such a statement would just be met with 'DUH' by every wing of every mainstream party!