And, it has begun

[emindead]

I don't recall a Congressional declaration of war to invade Pakistan.

6 guys on a mission for one man is an invasion? Don't we regularly have service people in Pakistan anyways?

When it is approved by the Government or even if not by the whole government (Congress) and approved by the president and his staff, it is. As for the second part, you do. That doesn't mean it is correct.

[rumborak]

The operation in Pakistan was a violation of sovereignty. Not an invasion.

rumborak

[El Barto]

Interesting distinction.  I wouldn't characterize it as an invasion myself, but I think it's fair to call it one,  and certainly so in regard to the political component that Praxis was referring to.   Are you're basing your interpretation on the fact that we didn't stick around?

[rumborak]

An invasion is an unlawful entry into a country with hostile intent against said country, with the intention of (at least temporary) occupying the territory. Neither was the operation directed against Pakistan, nor was bin Laden a Pakistani, nor did the US Seals stay more than 2 hours.
The operation was not an invasion. Using the term in this context is unnecessary hyperbole.

rumborak

[chknptpie]

well Rumborak said what I couldnt haha

[emindead]

It's true. It's not an invasion. I can't believe how I forgot that we (my country) did the same thing in Ecuador and went all over to Venezuela to capture a bad guy.

[El Barto]

https://www.vanityfair.com/online/daily/2011/05/many-have-said-now-hes-finished-gingrichs-gaffe-could-end-his-campaign.html

So Newt makes an honest remark that's almost certainly true, and the GOP's ready to lynch him for it.  I've always maintained that anybody who actually wants to run for office is automatically unqualified for the job.  Now it's looking like the only real qualification for getting elected is being the worst possible candidate.  This whole charade seems to find a new way to amuse me every 2 years.  I don't understand why there's any support left for this silly system we've created. 

[PlaysLikeMyung]

Wow. A sensible comment from Gingrich about the budget... I kinda respect him more than I used to

[rumborak]

It's sad how people are so fixated on party lines, us vs. them.

rumborak

[MetalMike06]

I for one think it's funny that Gingrich is demonized for simply saying what most establishment Republicans already lean toward anyways. Gingrich is demonized while other run-of-the-mill neocon Republicans like Santorum or Pawlenty who arguably favor status-quo spending are considered fair game for the GOP nomination.

[chknptpie]

Santorum is nasty 

[El Barto]

Santorum is nasty 

Anything you'd like to tell us about, there?   


I kind of have to think that might really be a problem for the guy.  He wouldn't be getting any of the gay vote anyway, but that's a whole different kind of stigma. 

[chknptpie]

Santorum is nasty 

Anything you'd like to tell us about, there?   


I kind of have to think that might really be a problem for the guy.  He wouldn't be getting any of the gay vote anyway, but that's a whole different kind of stigma. 

I admit, I had no idea until Jon Stewart told me to google it 

[El Barto]

I hope you didn't use image search.

[Tick]

I just want to say, I don't think any Republican opponent has a snow balls chance in hell of defeating Obama in the upcoming election.

Sadly...

[chknptpie]

I hope you didn't use image search.

ewwwwww haha no I didn't

[rumborak]

I just want to say, I don't think any Republican opponent has a snow balls chance in hell of defeating Obama in the upcoming election.

Sadly...

Which would really, really suck, but given how they reacted to Santorum's statement, they might also deserve. If they envision the party as so extreme and hardline that a moderate voice is declared "an embarassment for the party", they might not be fit to govern.

rumborak

[El Barto]

Just found an editorial from Michael Medved really ripping into Ron Paul.  Aside from the fact that he (Medved) appears to be a real jackass^*, he's demonstrating one of the biggest problems with hard-core libertarians.  Everybody has their limits!  It's great to say that the government should stay the hell off of our backs, but like everybody else, that only extends as far as their own personal beliefs. 

URL's are to damn long, nowadays


^*

This addle-brained attempt to equate religious freedom with liberty to pursue profit as pimps or pushers counts as daft rather than deft.

Really now, does he really believe that's what Paul wants, which would render him stupid beyond credibility, or is he just bullshitting people, which would make him a liar.

[William Wallace]

Just found an editorial from Michael Medved really ripping into Ron Paul.  Aside from the fact that he (Medved) appears to be a real jackass^*, he's demonstrating one of the biggest problems with hard-core libertarians.  Everybody has their limits!  It's great to say that the government should stay the hell off of our backs, but like everybody else, that only extends as far as their own personal beliefs. 

URL's are to damn long, nowadays


^*

This addle-brained attempt to equate religious freedom with liberty to pursue profit as pimps or pushers counts as daft rather than deft.

Really now, does he really believe that's what Paul wants, which would render him stupid beyond credibility, or is he just bullshitting people, which would make him a liar.

Exactly. Liberty's lovely until people do things you don't like. And this is laughable:

The only possible argument for this constitutional interpretation would involve a sweeping expansion of the fictitious “right to privacy”—a whole-cloth invention of the Warren Court that conservatives (and originalists) generally hate. If the Constitution actually hints at a right to privacy so comprehensive that it protects a previously unrecognized right to sell sex, then how can it not guarantee the freedom to terminate your pregnancy? But Paul insists he remains fervently pro-life and speaks with (appropriate) contempt of Roe v. Wade.

This is the kind of progressive legal argument that Meved would usually go nuts over. Since when are we granted rights by anybody or anything? I thought they were God-given? Furthermore, his argument that the Founders didn't "intend to guard 'personal habits' from governmental regulation" could surely be used to crack down on smoking or soda consumption, and I'm confident radio legal expert man would oppose his own argument in those cases.   

[El Barto]

I thought he was a gung-ho, CATO type libertarian.  Not sure where I got that from. 

[El Barto]

Obama is looking like a 2008 Republican

I'm not a big fan of Carville, but he raises an interesting point.  Since Obama is essentially every bit the Republican that McCain was, whoever runs against him will have to be every bit as far to the fringe as Palin.  That's kind of a bummer.

[rumborak]

Eh. While I can see some of the arguments there, Obama is also distinctively Democrat. The Middle East speech was something no Republican president would have done.

rumborak

[El Barto]

Honestly, I'd consider him a better Republican than Bush.  I think part of the deal is that the entire scale has shifted quite a bit to the right.  A moderate democrat today is pretty close to the old-school Republican party.  McCain pretty much fit the old GOP mold, and I can't honestly see how Obama is any different than him.  That's part of the reason they're scraping the lunatic fringe for viable candidates to run against him. 

[rumborak]

I personally think he's driving exactly the pragmatic Democrat line I was hoping he would. Which of course partially overlaps with pragmatic Republican (which would have been McCain's line), but that's perfectly fine. Even though, McCain would not have held the same Middle East speech.


rumborak