featherhead comments

But then again there are FACTS and then there are "facts". The FACTS I prefer are those like "The world is round and has been proven as such by science, etc...",, and NOT the "facts" that the average Rush listener considers facts, such as "The world is flat, and you should believe it because I said so. And whatEVER you do, don't read anything contrary to my totalitarian party line." By the way, ever read Franken's book? I have. And I've read all of Rush's AND Buckley's books as well, amongst others whom the right consider "smart" e.g., Coulter, etc....They are exactly what has led me to the positions I have in great part. So, I give them LOTS of credit.

You mean black people in the military? You aren't EVEN going to try the "reverse racisim" fairyt ale argument, are you?

"less intelligent...and unsuspecting.."

Hahahaha....Rush is VERY rarely right with anything the right considers as "facts". You'd have to know how to be able to recognize facts in the first place, and if you're depending on Rush for your data, you do NOT know. There are reasons we go to educated doctors for information about our health instead of the carnival. Perhaps picking up a book, perhaps for the first time, during this new year can be your new year's resolution? And you said "National Review". Why not Natinal Enquirer? ALmost the same. Buckley, rest his arrogant soul, was just not quite that smart, regrdless of the fact that he impressed a few of the less unsuspecting with his false east coast accent. National Review? BWahahahahahaha.....

Mother should have the child taken away, at least until she's has several hundred hours of training on the basics of how to be a parent. I guess it culd have been worse. She could have propped the kid up against the steering wheel, left the car in gear, and perhaps stuck a lit cigarette in the side of its mouth.

Yeah! Tell them Obama. Just make sure they don't actually give it back. I mean, can't step on the feet of the powerful pillars of capitalism.

Yeah, Obama, you go! You show those right wing fanatics that you can be just as tough as them. You make sure that they don't perceive you as weak. Can't have a soft president. And whtever you do, make sure your increased military speanding takes away money from other irrelevant things which it could go towards, say, healthcare, education, etc....Why is there not another revolution in the U.S.?

The political themes of the powerful( could have been referring to the U.S., but many other countries which have looted, robbled, and plundered other countries as well) attempting to steal resources from the natives couldn't have been any more obvious. Not that this was bad. On the contrary, it was a part of history, especially U.S. history, which is rarely discussed. Have to go outside of the media to find out such basics. Not even in much of education is it taught, or it's taught in a way which makes it seems reasonable. "Yeah, well, so we pillaged and plundered. So has everyone else." i.e., therefore it's okay(subtext)

Also, the white guy who changed to support the natives is also not unusual, though rarely discussed. They're usually referred to as terrorists or as committing treason. The underdogs, the poor, and most anyone who tries to stand up to the more powerful, and who must/often rely on less than direct means of warfare(arrows and spears don't really match up with tanks, etc...)have historically been referred to as "terrorists". An obvious example is how the U.S. supported the Nazi-like South African Apartheid government for years, and of which the State Department called those folks who were fighting against it, those like Mandela, Biko, etc...terrorists. As a matter of fact, it was only a few years ago now that Mandela was even able to enter the U.S. as he was still on the terrorist list. How many folks here remember hearing about this from the media when Mandela was awarded the Nobel Peace Prize, or was just recently taken off the terrorist list? Not many I suspect.

Anyway, while understanding how some of those whom perceive this is just another white man going native and saving the day (and this IS a correct observation), it should also be recognized that help should be welcomed by wherever it happens to come from. And, factually speaking, quite often the assistance has come from exactly those who were in more privileged positions, had the resources, managed to extract themselves from the status quo of their own race or country, and help out. Personally, I would have gone for the blue lady as well. But then again, I always rooted for the Indians over the cowboys.

I can offer this, though I wouldn't say it applies in all cases. There is a psychological phenomena/disorder/event called frotteurism whereby one expereinces sexual gratification(to varying extents)by rubbing up against others. For more info pleae Google frotteurism

Spanisheyes had it correct. Rush Limbaugh IS a Big Fat Idiot. Of course anyone who knows Rush, and who has read the book, probably VERY few from the right (they don't need to read becaue they just "know") which is chalked full of facts which should be apparent to anyone with ears or eyes, just solidified the obvious. He's a liar and a buffoon. That ANYONE takes him seriously as some sort of source of information should reallyt hink about going back to school. Perhaps starting in about 4th grade and then working up from there. And I don't be a Bible school, or home schooling based on any fundamentalist fairy tales, or Scientology science fiction, but history written by educated people.

I think Sarah Palin is wonderful! She has been on TV! She's so intell...uhh...grunt...Yeah, intelligrunt. She has a nice smile and I think her teeth are real, uhh, maybe.

"her policies... harm the very people who are supporting them"

"Really? Which ones?" Do I really need to point them out? Most all policies of the right harm the very people whom support them. I can leave a LOOOOONG list if you like. They've persuaded the victims of their politcies to support them. Basically, it's like the slave masters duping the slaves themselves into thinking that they had their best interests at heart and the slaves falling for it. Sad. Pathetic and sad. Nothing new though. What else is REALLY sad is that FOX news, Palin, Limbaugh, Hannity, etc...are even a apart of any discussions related to ANY topics at all, as if they're credible sources of information. They're unfortunately given legitimacy.

"she might struggle a bit with teleprompters"

She don't need no teleprompters, unlike Obama.

But just to make a comment on Palin so as to make it fit, I think she would make the prefect commentator for FOX. Sort of cute, nice smile, as clueless as most other FOX moderators, etc...She has that down home twang which resonates (supposedly) with "middle American" and the heartland, regardless of the fact that her policies, as is usually the case from the right, harm the very people who are supporting them. But this is the most clever aspect of the right, even though I doubt even they are aware of it i.e., garnering support from those whose policies are not in their best interest. Anyay, okay, I've made my comment about Palin.

Yeah, yeah, yeah, yeah....We always here about the "private contributions". And while this may be fine on one level, it's still an embarrassment that the government doesn't do MUCH more given the disparity of wealth compared to other countries. There is also, and this is the crucial part, the implied notion that "government is bad, an private good". Which is also 100% nonsense, assuming one believes in democracy at all. The government IS "the people". Remember? And if it's not, you surely should be quite concerned about making it be thus.

That anyone would even be listening to such a buffoon in the first place doesn't bode well for the U.S. Given that the average European junior high school student is better informed, an infinitely more knowledgable about history, it's simply an embarrassment that a single soul listens. Most everything he says is "really stupid", so why highlight this?

The U.S. is NOT the only folks sending aid, and if things follow their usual patterns, the U.S. will probably be helping the least proportional to size, money, etc...regardless of the fact of its close proximity.

But this is a good chance for the U.S. to get in and complete the takeover of the country which was started decades ago. I feel weezy ever time I hear folks here talking about "America taking the lead" implying that its participating in its usual, and of course unconditional, humanitarianism. Especially when there's so little relationship of this to reality OR history. So, before we start cheering for our magnificance, AGAIN, please go to the link I'm leaving and start learning about U.S.'s relationship with Haiti going way back. Oh, and there will be nothing the least bit controversial as far as the history goes, except for perhaps a few of your responses to it because you weren't aware of the events. Your unawareness shouldn't be confused with thinking that something is wrong with the actual history. The actual history speaks for itself.

Moderator: Stay on topic please and focus your comments on the earthquake relief effort.

Haven't heard enough, though a little on CNN International, about Haiti's history and the U.S.'s pathetic contribution to helping to keep it the poorest country in the Western Hemisphere. Smashing of the parlimentary system(Woodrow Wilson), dictator installed and supported for decades, democratically elected and VERY popular president chosen and ousted for not keeping up the oppositions programs. Perhaps some basic facts will slip through all of the personal misery stories(which ARE important).

"And they have. On July 26, 2008, the US Supreme Court rulled against Washington DC's restrictive gun laws, recognizing the Second Amendment is an individual right to keep and bear arms, not a state or collective right. Get your facts straight featherhead."

Do you clowns REALLY believe that ANYONE on the left is not familiar with your arguments? We ALL are aware of the 2008 travesty and it means nothing. The court screwed up, and this can be fixed. I mean, esppcially now that the right wing famatics are out of the universe. And you KNOW which criminals I'm referring to. The country, and the WORLD accepts the direction AWAY from what Bush and the right represented. The only project now is to try and keep Obama from caving in and becoming another Republican like Clinton.

thepaceisglacia and ca1ic0cat,

First of all, I'm revisioning nothing. I am also not misquoting anything. Also, if you had bothered to read what I had written you would have noticed that it's irrelevant as to which "interpretation" one wishes to fight for, as this has exactly nothing to do with the notion that getting rid of guns is a good thing. What of the 2nd Amendment said all white folks should own black folks? Still gonna' "fight for the Constitution" or "Bill fo Rights". Here, let's keep it simple. These are words written on pieces of paper. They can be changed, and should be changed. Period. Guns are bad, useless, good for nothing, and cause lots of harm. Doesn't take a genius to conclude that money, enery, and time would be better spent doing something creative and worhwhile. Desiring to own a gun is a mental illness, and as soon as we start perceiving that way, the sooner we can rid ourselves of the disease. Same goes for war. Same goes for prejudice against minorities, gays, women, etc...Same goes for those who shun the environment. Again, it's REALLY not complicated. One wonders (not for very long though)why some try to make such simple notions complicated.

Noliving, speaking of ignorant and naive statements, you said that killing is part of human nature and always will be. Not only is that naive and ignorant, it's downright dangerous and depraved. It's the same lame arguments which have always been put forth by folks with desires and interests for things NOT to change. Same arguments were made about slavery. "There has always been slavery. It's natural. It's just human nature that some folks own others. After all, look at history. There have been slaves throughout history." However, and fortunately, history can be changed, as happened with slavery. I see no reson why attempting to rid the world of other depraved evils, murder, war, guns, disease (of which the prior three all qualify as being), stealing resources from third world countries, attempting to promote capitalism, messing up the environment, etc...cannot themselves be gotten rid of. Biggest obstacle in the way are usually people making statements such as such just being human nature, so why bother trying to change anything. Not only that, the REAL depraved folks even think that any attempts TO cure these ills are themselves the problem. This is why we get lunatics fighting against those folks who are trying to clean up the environment, get rid of guns, and most of the other noble, sane, things. Oh, and I'd much rather take my chances with a guy trying to kill me with his bare hands than with him going after me with a gun. But remember: Guns don't kill people. People with guns kill people.

Oh, and ca1ic0cat,

The only U.S. Supreme Court ruling that actually focused on the Second Amendment, U.S. v. Miller (1939), found that there is no individual right to bear arms independent of national self-defense concerns. The Supreme Court has spoken only once, it has spoken in favor of the civilian militia interpretation, and it has not spoken since. If the Court has held a different view, it has certainly had ample opportunity to rule on the matter since then.

As far as that goes, I thought they were being sarcastic and I agreed.

Uhhh...I don't think so. No one winds me up. If I'm wound up, I've chosen to be. Takes more than this to wind me up.

Altria mistakenly said:

"Idiots, it's right there in the 2nd Amendment: "All 'mericans can keep guns fer shootin' folks and critters"

Sorry, but the 2nd Amendment says nothing about the average citizen owning a gun, not that it would matter of it did. It says a "well-armed militia", and NOT just anyone and everyone. There was no army, or perhaps a small one. and it was in reference to something akin to the Reserves. That being said, so what if ANY Amendment said anything of the sort? Change it if it's broken. Allowing guns to flourish has exactly NO redeeming qualities to offer society. None. Zero. It allows immature and intellectually underdeveloped boys play cops and robbers. As I said, it's a mental illness, or at least a developmentally delayed problem which should really be dealt with. Perhaps ween them off with paint guns first. Then squirt guns. By then perhaps they'd have actually learned to focus their energies on reading, or doing something worthwhile, and forget the notion of guns. I'm looking forward to the day when our great, great, great (hopefully MUCH sooner) grandchildren go to museums, looking at such relics, wondering what the hell were they thinking. There will be special walls of photos and statements made by those who tried to make arguments from why guns were good or desirable, and will look upon them with disdain. Elementary school children with look upon the displays with surprise, and be shocked at the ignorance of their forefathers.

JHansen is correct. Doesn't get much simpler. Nothing really even to debate as far as I can see. Guns kill. No one needs a gun.

waynegrow said: "Japan has striped their citizens of owing a firearm so I would not expect them to understand it is our right to have them."

Uhhh...I'm afraid that your picture as presented is not quite accurate. You've made it appear that Japan was all nice a well-armed and happy, but lost their "freedom" to own a unnecessry killing tool. However, I haven't met a single person in the 12 year I've been here who think they have been deprived at all, and would probably uncharacteristically riot were someone to actually try and start pushing for some depraved notion of "right to bear arms", which they do NOT want. Not a single person I've met feels deprived. Quite the contrary, they feel much more free knowing that not just any angry idiot can go get a gun, have a few drinks, get fired, and go on a killing spree. It's nothing for a lady to walk home at 2 or 3 a.m. without the least bit of fear. Sure, there are incidents, but nothing remotely like the U.S. If a kid pulls a knife on another kid in school here it makes national news, and there's a shame that society has develoved to the point where anyone would do such a thing. In the U.S. a killing with a gun probably doesn't make anything but local news. Gotta' kill dozens to get the good media. If there's one thing for certain, the U.S. should be one of the last countries to allow it's citizens to own guns as they've time and again, for years and years, demonstrated that they're not mature enough to control them. There are no excuses. There is no need for guns to exist. And the notion that some feel that the people should be armed so as to be able to "protect themselves from the government" is delusional. Not only that, it shows a complete disdain, as well as misunderstanding, of what the concept of democracy even means. That being said, why not just allow everyone to carry uzis? Bazookas? Why not apply the right-wing terrorist ideology of "preventive war doctrine" to everyone. You know, the doctrine which says that the U.S. should be able to strike first because it would be stupid to wait until we were hit i.e., terrorism.

Uhhh...Wrong elbudamexicano. People with guns kill people. And often people with guns kill the people who wish to kill people. And more often, people kill themselves and others accidently with guns. Basically, there is no reason for any rational or sane person to have a gun, or even have any desire to have one. Personally, I think the basic desire to own a gun is a mental illness similar to the disease of war. The merchants of death, like the NRA, LOVE it that criminals can easily obtain guns. This way the average person who would probably be rational enough not to even think about one are put into the position of thinking they might need one to "protect" themselves, though this usually ends up killing them. There is exactly NO reason for any civilized people to have guns. And if those who are stuck in a pre-adolescent developmental stage where they like to play with guns, perhaps society could allow for a few indoor shooting ranges for the deviants to fulfill their demented desires. Basically like an S&M club, though actually worse. The arguments against banning guns are about as worthy as a heroin addicts arguments trying to rationalize their desire for continued use, though this is not actually fair to the addicts as this primarily harms themselves, whereas guns most often harm others. It's quite simply. Turn in your gun, or go to jail for 20-30 years. I'd be more than happy to be a part of the round-up committee. Sort of a doctor curing cancer.

Tiger should say nothing to the public at all regarding his personal business. It's none of anyone's business any more than knowing how and when he goes to the toilet. What the interest in such non-issues demonstrates is a complete lack of competence of the media as well as an insult to the public. With all the things which are happening in the world of which the public doesnt know about, but should be informed, that they choose to focus on what someone is doing in his private life deserves nothing less than all out ridicule.

I wasn't referring to the Cole happening under Bush's watch. I was referring to 9/11 happening under Bush's watch. And it doesn't matter who was at the helm when the Cole happened to the point I was making regarding how it should be handled.

Regarding the trial, I still don't see what your problem is. What can a military trial do which a civilian trial can't? Prosecute in advance? Are you worried on some level that there will be no evidence to hold them and they will be set free? If there is no evidence, are you saying they should just hang anyway? Are you worried on some remote level that this will set a bad precedent? Perhaps you should try to think a little more creatively. Perhaps they WANT them to go free so as to be able to track them back to where their superiors reside. Happens all the time with DEA, FBI, etc...Just a normal everyday strategy. However, I really don't think you have to worry that much. Or perhaps your worry stems from the fact that many of the folks being held at GITMO were already shown to be innocent. But for the sake of arguement, let's say that the only people involved in 9/11 were those flying the planes, and they all died. What do you want to do? Just go kill someone from their country so as to feel better, regardless of whether or not they had anything at all to do with it? What would you want to do?

sailwind

"featherhead, You stated very early in this thread your thoughts on a U.S Military tribunal."

"Simple, A Military Tribunal acts as Judge and Jury"

"Perhaps this would be fine as long as the same rules apply to the U.S., which, as everyone knows, they will not at all."

And?

"Perhaps you mean something like a war crimes tribunal which is carried out by the U.N. or something?"

Yes? And?

"For the U.S. carry out it's own military tribunals would amount to a crime as well."

Yes. Exactly.

"You have disagreed with it calling it a crime as well."

I have not once NOT called what has taken place a crime. If so, please copy and paste. I have done nothing but to call it a crime. Perhaps your medication is too strong?

"Well the Obama administration is going to conduct a U.S Military tribunal on the U.S.S Cole plotters."

The I would disagree with this even more considering it didn't even happen in U.S. waters. It's quite simple. We either abide by international law and have them tried by a court which is NOT U.S. controlled, or we demonstrate our own lawlessness and criminality.

"When you start taking the Obama administration to task for this 'crime as well' in your opinion then you might actually have some credibility, until then I'll return you to your Bush bashing."

Well, as I recall, the crime happened during the Bush posses watch. Their response was already criminal. (Not to mention supporting such criminals for years before) That being said, taking Obama to task for what? I still don't see what you are so worried about? If they're going to court, any kind of court, what are you worried about? Surely you aren't worried about not having enough evidence to convict them, are you? I mean, if there is no evidence, you don't wish to condemn them anyway, do you? And if they're planning to confess, as they say they're going to do, then what's your worry?

sailwind at 05:31 PM JST - 29th November

"I don't see that you've made any arguments at all. Let's be very clear. What do you think should be done?"featherhead

"Military Tribunals just like they are doing to perps that plotted the U.S.S Cole bombing. After all one of the targets was the PENTAGON that fateful day."sail

And? So where have I disagreed?

And to think you had the gall to mention Nuremberg:

"A Nuremberg chief prosecutor says there is a case for trying Bush for the 'supreme crime against humanity, an illegal war of aggression against a sovereign nation.'" http://www.alternet.org/world/38604/