• If you are having problems logging in please use the Contact Us in the lower right hand corner of the forum page for assistance.

The Ignorance Caucus (i.e. hopalong et al)

flounder

Well-known member
Op-Ed Columnist

The Ignorance Caucus

By PAUL KRUGMAN

Published: February 10, 2013



Last week Eric Cantor, the House majority leader, gave what his office told us would be a major policy speech. And we should be grateful for the heads-up about the speech’s majorness. Otherwise, a read of the speech might have suggested that he was offering nothing more than a meager, warmed-over selection of stale ideas.



To be sure, Mr. Cantor tried to sound interested in serious policy discussion. But he didn’t succeed — and that was no accident. For these days his party dislikes the whole idea of applying critical thinking and evidence to policy questions. And no, that’s not a caricature: Last year the Texas G.O.P. explicitly condemned efforts to teach “critical thinking skills,” because, it said, such efforts “have the purpose of challenging the student’s fixed beliefs and undermining parental authority.”

And such is the influence of what we might call the ignorance caucus that even when giving a speech intended to demonstrate his openness to new ideas, Mr. Cantor felt obliged to give that caucus a shout-out, calling for a complete end to federal funding of social science research. Because it’s surely a waste of money seeking to understand the society we’re trying to change.

Want other examples of the ignorance caucus at work? Start with health care, an area in which Mr. Cantor tried not to sound anti-intellectual; he lavished praise on medical research just before attacking federal support for social science. (By the way, how much money are we talking about? Well, the entire National Science Foundation budget for social and economic sciences amounts to a whopping 0.01 percent of the budget deficit.)

But Mr. Cantor’s support for medical research is curiously limited. He’s all for developing new treatments, but he and his colleagues have adamantly opposed “comparative effectiveness research,” which seeks to determine how well such treatments work.

What they fear, of course, is that the people running Medicare and other government programs might use the results of such research to determine what they’re willing to pay for. Instead, they want to turn Medicare into a voucher system and let individuals make decisions about treatment. But even if you think that’s a good idea (it isn’t), how are individuals supposed to make good medical choices if we ensure that they have no idea what health benefits, if any, to expect from their choices?

Still, the desire to perpetuate ignorance on matters medical is nothing compared with the desire to kill climate research, where Mr. Cantor’s colleagues — particularly, as it happens, in his home state of Virginia — have engaged in furious witch hunts against scientists who find evidence they don’t like. True, the state has finally agreed to study the growing risk of coastal flooding; Norfolk is among the American cities most vulnerable to climate change. But Republicans in the State Legislature have specifically prohibited the use of the words “sea-level rise.”

And there are many other examples, like the way House Republicans tried to suppress a Congressional Research Service report casting doubt on claims about the magical growth effects of tax cuts for the wealthy.

Do actions like this have important effects? Well, consider the agonized discussions of gun policy that followed the Newtown massacre. It would be helpful to these discussions if we had a good grasp of the facts about firearms and violence. But we don’t, because back in the 1990s conservative politicians, acting on behalf of the National Rifle Association, bullied federal agencies into ceasing just about all research into the issue. Willful ignorance matters.

O.K., at this point the conventions of punditry call for saying something to demonstrate my evenhandedness, something along the lines of “Democrats do it too.” But while Democrats, being human, often read evidence selectively and choose to believe things that make them comfortable, there really isn’t anything equivalent to Republicans’ active hostility to collecting evidence in the first place.

The truth is that America’s partisan divide runs much deeper than even pessimists are usually willing to admit; the parties aren’t just divided on values and policy views, they’re divided over epistemology. One side believes, at least in principle, in letting its policy views be shaped by facts; the other believes in suppressing the facts if they contradict its fixed beliefs.

In her parting shot on leaving the State Department, Hillary Clinton said of her Republican critics, “They just will not live in an evidence-based world.” She was referring specifically to the Benghazi controversy, but her point applies much more generally. And for all the talk of reforming and reinventing the G.O.P., the ignorance caucus retains a firm grip on the party’s heart and mind.








A version of this op-ed appeared in print on February 11, 2013, on page A19 of the New York edition with the headline: The Ignorance Caucus.




http://www.nytimes.com/2013/02/11/opinion/krugman-the-ignorance-caucus.html?partner=rss&emc=rss&_r=0
 

Whitewing

Well-known member
Here's a test for you flounder.

Use your 'critical thinking' skills and explain to me how the Bush admin pouring water down the noses of 3 al Queda detainees resulted in a trampling of the US Constitution but Obama issuing a drone strike against an American citizen who has never been charged with a crime or had a single day in court, but has been fingered by a "high government official" as a terrorist, does not trample the US Constitution.

I'll wait eagerly for your critically thought out response. :roll:
 
A

Anonymous

Guest
Terry-- yep "Ignorance Caucus" fits-- but after reading Ann Friedmans description of "low level hater trolls" - I think this fits most this bunch a whole lot better...

Which Trolls Should You Feed?
Feb 5 2013 @ 10:20am Ann Friedman considers the question:

A younger woman who works in media recently wrote to me, “How did you build up a thick skin? Something I’ve always struggled with is not taking things personally and getting upset when people say things that hurt me — in comments, on Twitter, etc.” I explained to her that I have a hierarchy of haters. High-order haters are those who really know how to hurt you; they may have real power or influence in your social or professional world. These are the folks you might consider responding to, or otherwise defending yourself against.

Low-level haters are usually people of little professional or social consequence to you. These are the folks who call you fat and ugly because they disagree with your views on, say, the federal debt. The lower a hater is on the pyramid, the more likely it is that the best response is to ignore him — while taking pride in the knowledge that, wherever the hater falls in this hierarchy, his or her very existence means you’re succeeding in having an impact.

At another site- she defines haters again- and how as a journalist she handles haters:

First off, let’s get some definitions straight. A hater, as the Internet defines it, is someone who’s “gonna hate”—someone who just wants to find fault with your work and who isn’t genuinely interested in having a conversation. We ignore haters because they’re never productive.

A very accurate definition of the haters and yapdogs that troll this site :wink: :p :lol:
 

Whitewing

Well-known member
Ah, so maybe OT wants a shot at proving his critical thinking skills and explain how his precious Constitution is not being trampled by the King?
 

TexasBred

Well-known member
Whitewing said:
Ah, so maybe OT wants a shot at proving his critical thinking skills and explain how his precious Constitution is not being trampled by the King?

Two bits says he passes on this one.....or at least hesitates while he try's to find a liberal website explaining it.
 

Larrry

Well-known member
Oldtimer said:
First off, let’s get some definitions straight. A hater, as the Internet defines it, is someone who’s “gonna hate”—someone who just wants to find fault with your work and who isn’t genuinely interested in having a conversation. We ignore haters because they’re never productive.

A very accurate definition of the haters and yapdogs that troll this site :wink: :p :lol:

ot don't be so hard on yourself, we understand your struggles trying to gain popularity. We will forgive you of your hate filled posts. Don't go to comparing yourself to a dog, remember dogs generally learn to shut up when they find no one cares if they bark at the moon. Now get back under the porch :lol:
 

Whitewing

Well-known member
TexasBred said:
Whitewing said:
Ah, so maybe OT wants a shot at proving his critical thinking skills and explain how his precious Constitution is not being trampled by the King?

Two bits says he passes on this one.....or at least hesitates while he try's to find a liberal website explaining it.

I get a belly laugh every time I come across one of OT's "King George" comments about trampling the precious Constitution. And yes, those were his words when referring to the document.

Bush and Cheney were guilty of war crimes and should be tried. King Obama? Naaaaah.
 
A

Anonymous

Guest
Whitewing said:
Here's a test for you flounder.

Use your 'critical thinking' skills and explain to me how the Bush admin pouring water down the noses of 3 al Queda detainees resulted in a trampling of the US Constitution but Obama issuing a drone strike against an American citizen who has never been charged with a crime or had a single day in court, but has been fingered by a "high government official" as a terrorist, does not trample the US Constitution.

I'll wait eagerly for your critically thought out response. :roll:

I've answered your question a dozen times- you just don't like the answer...
The US signed onto international agreements that said torture was illegal under international law-under any circumstances- which even your parties chosen Champion, John McCain agreed to the fact that what was done was wrong...

As far as drones- we never had them before until this war--BUT there is long historical precedence of the courts recognizing exigent circumstances when officers/agents or private citizens were in imminent danger....

As well as a long historical and court precedence with Dead or Alive warrants being issued for individuals that were deemed such a threat on society that they could not be allowed to escape... And some of these were US citizens on U.S. soil - not off hiding in a foreign country with his rat buddies planning more attacks on the US like Anwar al-Awlaki... As far as I'm aware- every one of these folks targeted by a drone has known they were wanted- and had every chance to turn themselves in- but didn't...

Like I said in the earlier post when I answered all this- I support the fact they have a set up policy/procedure and the only thing different they could do to give it more credence of oversight is to appoint a special court/judges to make the decision rather than administration officials...

Altho as Rep Rogers says- I believe there is "plenty of oversight"....

Rep. Rogers defends drones, says program has ‘plenty of oversight’

By Meghashyam Mali - 02/10/13 01:26 PM ET


House Intelligence Committee Chairman Mike Rogers (R-Mich.) on Sunday defended the administration’s use of armed drone strikes, saying there was “plenty of oversight.”

“Monthly I have my committee go to the CIA to review them. I as chairman review every single air strike we use in the war on terror, both on the civilian and the military side when it comes to terrorist strikes,” said Rogers on CBS’s “Face the Nation.” There’s plenty of oversight here.

Rogers said that many aspects of the government’s drone program had been misrepresented in the media, in particular claims that there was a “kill list” of Americans linked to al Qaeda.

“There’s not some American list somewhere overseas for targeting - that does not exist,” said the chairman. “I think there’s been some sensationalism, this is a serious matter, but I do think the oversight rules have been consistent.”

Rogers’s comments come amid growing congressional scruntity of the White House use of drone strikes to target terrorists abroad, including American citizens. Lawmakers from both parties have raised questions about the legality of targeting U.S. citizens and the collateral damage from civilian deaths.

A Justice Department white paper, leaked last week, explained the legal rationale for strikes on citizens, but lawmakers are demanding the actual legal memos. The White House briefed lawmakers on the drone strikes last week before a contentious hearing for top counterterrorism adviser John Brennan, who has been nominated for CIA Director.

But many lawmakers are demanding more information and Senate Judiciary Committee Chairman Patrick Leahy (D-Vt.) and Senate Intelligence Committee Chairwoman Dianne Feinstein (D-Calif.) intend to hold hearings on establishing new federal courts to oversee the drone strikes.

Rogers said he believed the White House had been straight with lawmakers about their drone program, saying he had been kept in the loop going as far back as the Bush administration.

Rogers said he “as chairman of the House Intelligence committee, even as a member, was aware and part of those discussions.”

“And now as chairman, even before they conducted that first air strike that took [Anwar] al-Awlaki… remember that this is the guy that was trying to kill a whole bunch of U.S. citizens over Detroit on Christmas Day. This guy’s a bad guy. Our options were limited, this was a tool that we could use to stop further terrorist attacks against American citizens. I supported it then,” he added.

Rogers defended the strike which killed al-Awlaki, an American citizen.

“If you join forces with the enemy, we’ve had a longstanding tradition in this country that that in and off itself you lose your constitutional protections,” he said.

Rogers was also asked to respond to former Vice President Dick Cheney’s comments Saturday that Obama had tapped a “second rate” national security team for his new term.

“We have first rate problems,” said Rogers in response. But he cautioned that Cheney’s comments “may be a little beyond where I’m going.”


Read more: http://thehill.com/video/house/282123-rep-rogers-armed-drone-strikes-have-plenty-of-oversight#ixzz2KXKy8thh
 

TexasBred

Well-known member
Oldtimer said:
Whitewing said:
Here's a test for you flounder.

Use your 'critical thinking' skills and explain to me how the Bush admin pouring water down the noses of 3 al Queda detainees resulted in a trampling of the US Constitution but Obama issuing a drone strike against an American citizen who has never been charged with a crime or had a single day in court, but has been fingered by a "high government official" as a terrorist, does not trample the US Constitution.

I'll wait eagerly for your critically thought out response. :roll:

I've answered your question a dozen times- you just don't like the answer...
The US signed onto international agreements that said torture was illegal under international law-under any circumstances- which even your parties chosen Champion, John McCain agreed to the fact that what was done was wrong...

As far as drones- we never had them before until this war--BUT there is long historical precedence of the courts recognizing exigent circumstances when officers/agents or private citizens were in imminent danger....

As well as a long historical and court precedence with Dead or Alive warrants being issued for individuals that were deemed such a threat on society that they could not be allowed to escape... And some of these were US citizens on U.S. soil - not off hiding in a foreign country with his rat buddies planning more attacks on the US like Anwar al-Awlaki... As far as I'm aware- every one of these folks targeted by a drone has known they were wanted- and had every chance to turn themselves in- but didn't...

Like I said in the earlier post when I answered all this- I support the fact they have a set up policy/procedure and the only thing different they could do to give it more credence of oversight is to appoint a special court/judges to make the decision rather than administration officials...

Altho as Rep Rogers says- I believe there is "plenty of oversight"....

Rep. Rogers defends drones, says program has ‘plenty of oversight’

By Meghashyam Mali - 02/10/13 01:26 PM ET


House Intelligence Committee Chairman Mike Rogers (R-Mich.) on Sunday defended the administration’s use of armed drone strikes, saying there was “plenty of oversight.”

“Monthly I have my committee go to the CIA to review them. I as chairman review every single air strike we use in the war on terror, both on the civilian and the military side when it comes to terrorist strikes,” said Rogers on CBS’s “Face the Nation.” There’s plenty of oversight here.

Rogers said that many aspects of the government’s drone program had been misrepresented in the media, in particular claims that there was a “kill list” of Americans linked to al Qaeda.

“There’s not some American list somewhere overseas for targeting - that does not exist,” said the chairman. “I think there’s been some sensationalism, this is a serious matter, but I do think the oversight rules have been consistent.”

Rogers’s comments come amid growing congressional scruntity of the White House use of drone strikes to target terrorists abroad, including American citizens. Lawmakers from both parties have raised questions about the legality of targeting U.S. citizens and the collateral damage from civilian deaths.

A Justice Department white paper, leaked last week, explained the legal rationale for strikes on citizens, but lawmakers are demanding the actual legal memos. The White House briefed lawmakers on the drone strikes last week before a contentious hearing for top counterterrorism adviser John Brennan, who has been nominated for CIA Director.

But many lawmakers are demanding more information and Senate Judiciary Committee Chairman Patrick Leahy (D-Vt.) and Senate Intelligence Committee Chairwoman Dianne Feinstein (D-Calif.) intend to hold hearings on establishing new federal courts to oversee the drone strikes.

Rogers said he believed the White House had been straight with lawmakers about their drone program, saying he had been kept in the loop going as far back as the Bush administration.

Rogers said he “as chairman of the House Intelligence committee, even as a member, was aware and part of those discussions.”

“And now as chairman, even before they conducted that first air strike that took [Anwar] al-Awlaki… remember that this is the guy that was trying to kill a whole bunch of U.S. citizens over Detroit on Christmas Day. This guy’s a bad guy. Our options were limited, this was a tool that we could use to stop further terrorist attacks against American citizens. I supported it then,” he added.

Rogers defended the strike which killed al-Awlaki, an American citizen.

“If you join forces with the enemy, we’ve had a longstanding tradition in this country that that in and off itself you lose your constitutional protections,” he said.

Rogers was also asked to respond to former Vice President Dick Cheney’s comments Saturday that Obama had tapped a “second rate” national security team for his new term.

“We have first rate problems,” said Rogers in response. But he cautioned that Cheney’s comments “may be a little beyond where I’m going.”


Read more: http://thehill.com/video/house/282123-rep-rogers-armed-drone-strikes-have-plenty-of-oversight#ixzz2KXKy8thh


Torture is illegal....premeditated murder of a civilian is perfectly ok.
 

Mike

Well-known member
OT wrote:
As well as a long historical and court precedence with Dead or Alive warrants being issued for individuals that were deemed such a threat on society that they could not be allowed to escape... And some of these were US citizens on U.S. soil

Show us some court precedence on "Dead Or Alive Warrants" that have been issued against someone who was not found guilty in court or placed on "Bond"..

Only the Black Panther Party has that authority. :lol: :lol:
 

Whitewing

Well-known member
Oldtimer said:
Whitewing said:
Here's a test for you flounder.

Use your 'critical thinking' skills and explain to me how the Bush admin pouring water down the noses of 3 al Queda detainees resulted in a trampling of the US Constitution but Obama issuing a drone strike against an American citizen who has never been charged with a crime or had a single day in court, but has been fingered by a "high government official" as a terrorist, does not trample the US Constitution.

I'll wait eagerly for your critically thought out response. :roll:

I've answered your question a dozen times- you just don't like the answer...
The US signed onto international agreements that said torture was illegal under international law-under any circumstances- which even your parties chosen Champion, John McCain agreed to the fact that what was done was wrong...

As far as drones- we never had them before until this war--BUT there is long historical precedence of the courts recognizing exigent circumstances when officers/agents or private citizens were in imminent danger....

As well as a long historical and court precedence with Dead or Alive warrants being issued for individuals that were deemed such a threat on society that they could not be allowed to escape... And some of these were US citizens on U.S. soil - not off hiding in a foreign country with his rat buddies planning more attacks on the US like Anwar al-Awlaki... As far as I'm aware- every one of these folks targeted by a drone has known they were wanted- and had every chance to turn themselves in- but didn't...

Like I said in the earlier post when I answered all this- I support the fact they have a set up policy/procedure and the only thing different they could do to give it more credence of oversight is to appoint a special court/judges to make the decision rather than administration officials...

Altho as Rep Rogers says- I believe there is "plenty of oversight"....

Rep. Rogers defends drones, says program has ‘plenty of oversight’

By Meghashyam Mali - 02/10/13 01:26 PM ET


House Intelligence Committee Chairman Mike Rogers (R-Mich.) on Sunday defended the administration’s use of armed drone strikes, saying there was “plenty of oversight.”

“Monthly I have my committee go to the CIA to review them. I as chairman review every single air strike we use in the war on terror, both on the civilian and the military side when it comes to terrorist strikes,” said Rogers on CBS’s “Face the Nation.” There’s plenty of oversight here.

Rogers said that many aspects of the government’s drone program had been misrepresented in the media, in particular claims that there was a “kill list” of Americans linked to al Qaeda.

“There’s not some American list somewhere overseas for targeting - that does not exist,” said the chairman. “I think there’s been some sensationalism, this is a serious matter, but I do think the oversight rules have been consistent.”

Rogers’s comments come amid growing congressional scruntity of the White House use of drone strikes to target terrorists abroad, including American citizens. Lawmakers from both parties have raised questions about the legality of targeting U.S. citizens and the collateral damage from civilian deaths.

A Justice Department white paper, leaked last week, explained the legal rationale for strikes on citizens, but lawmakers are demanding the actual legal memos. The White House briefed lawmakers on the drone strikes last week before a contentious hearing for top counterterrorism adviser John Brennan, who has been nominated for CIA Director.

But many lawmakers are demanding more information and Senate Judiciary Committee Chairman Patrick Leahy (D-Vt.) and Senate Intelligence Committee Chairwoman Dianne Feinstein (D-Calif.) intend to hold hearings on establishing new federal courts to oversee the drone strikes.

Rogers said he believed the White House had been straight with lawmakers about their drone program, saying he had been kept in the loop going as far back as the Bush administration.

Rogers said he “as chairman of the House Intelligence committee, even as a member, was aware and part of those discussions.”

“And now as chairman, even before they conducted that first air strike that took [Anwar] al-Awlaki… remember that this is the guy that was trying to kill a whole bunch of U.S. citizens over Detroit on Christmas Day. This guy’s a bad guy. Our options were limited, this was a tool that we could use to stop further terrorist attacks against American citizens. I supported it then,” he added.

Rogers defended the strike which killed al-Awlaki, an American citizen.

“If you join forces with the enemy, we’ve had a longstanding tradition in this country that that in and off itself you lose your constitutional protections,” he said.

Rogers was also asked to respond to former Vice President Dick Cheney’s comments Saturday that Obama had tapped a “second rate” national security team for his new term.

“We have first rate problems,” said Rogers in response. But he cautioned that Cheney’s comments “may be a little beyond where I’m going.”


Read more: http://thehill.com/video/house/282123-rep-rogers-armed-drone-strikes-have-plenty-of-oversight#ixzz2KXKy8thh

So, give me your honest opinion OT. Had Bush targeted al-Awlaki with a drone strike under the exact circumstances that the King has, you'd have been okay with that? No Constitutional problem?
 

okfarmer

Well-known member
Oldtimer said:
If you join forces with the enemy, we’ve had a longstanding tradition in this country that that in and off itself you lose your constitutional protections

Since you pasted this and then bolded it, it appears that it is a major part of your argument.

Treason appears to be the term in the constitution that would encompass this act of joining forces with the enemy.

Treason. Found in article 3, section 3.

Treason against the United States, shall consist only in levying War against them, or in adhering to their Enemies, giving them Aid and Comfort. No Person shall be convicted of Treason unless on the Testimony of two Witnesses to the same overt Act, or on Confession in open Court.
The Congress shall have power to declare the Punishment of Treason, but no Attainder of Treason shall work Corruption of Blood, or Forfeiture except during the Life of the Person attainted.


It appears that Congress has the duty of declaring the punishment, once someone is convicted in the Court.


In Federalist No. 43 James Madison wrote regarding the Treason Clause:


As treason may be committed against the United States, the authority of the United States ought to be enabled to punish it. But as new-fangled and artificial treasons have been the great engines by which violent factions, the natural offspring of free government, have usually wreaked their alternate malignity on each other, the convention have, with great judgment, opposed a barrier to this peculiar danger, by inserting a constitutional definition of the crime, fixing the proof necessary for conviction of it, and restraining the Congress, even in punishing it, from extending the consequences of guilt beyond the person of its author.

Based on the above quoted excerpt it was noted by lawyer William J. Olson in a Amicus curiae in the case Hedges v. Obama that the Treason Clause was one of the enumerated powers of the federal government.[15] He also stated that by defining treason in the U.S. Constitution and placing it in Article III "the founders intended the power to be checked by the judiciary, ruling out trial by military commission. As Madison noted, the Treason Clause also was designed to limit the power of the federal government to punish its citizens for “adhering to [the United States’s] enemies, giving them aid and comfort.”"

So tell me again OT, how does the President have the ability to decide who is killed without due process in the court system?

Even if the court decides that someone is guilty of treason, it is Congress that has the duty to decide the punishment.


Anxiously waiting your response.
 

Mike

Well-known member
Mike said:
OT wrote:
As well as a long historical and court precedence with Dead or Alive warrants being issued for individuals that were deemed such a threat on society that they could not be allowed to escape... And some of these were US citizens on U.S. soil

Show us some court precedence on "Dead Or Alive Warrants" that have been issued against someone who was not found guilty in court or placed on "Bond"..

Only the Black Panther Party has that authority. :lol: :lol:

I want to hear more about all the "LONG" historical & court precedence of "Dead or Alive Warrants".

Could you be lying again? :lol: Or watching too many Western movies? :lol:
 
A

Anonymous

Guest
Many Dead or Alive warrants were issued by the Miners Courts and Citizens Courts in the early days of the west...

Probably the most famous federal court for issuing them was that of US Judge Isaac Parker-- and the most famous case was that of Ned Christie- who declared war against the U.S.- and had a Dead or Alive warrant issued by Parker...He was later "droned" by a posse of lawmen, who attacked his fort with cannon and dynamite...
 

Mike

Well-known member
Oldtimer said:
Many Dead or Alive warrants were issued by the Miners Courts and Citizens Courts in the early days of the west...

Probably the most famous federal court for issuing them was that of US Judge Isaac Parker-- and the most famous case was that of Ned Christie- who declared war against the U.S.- and had a Dead or Alive warrant issued...He was later "droned" by a posse of lawmen, who attacked his fort with cannon and dynamite...

Let's see 'em. You think anybody believes you? What about that court & Long historical precedence?

Christie's case doesn't hold muster. There were arrest warrants issued for his arrest. They gave him the option of turning himself in. Not the same thing as what Buckwheat is doing.
 
A

Anonymous

Guest
Mike said:
Oldtimer said:
Many Dead or Alive warrants were issued by the Miners Courts and Citizens Courts in the early days of the west...

Probably the most famous federal court for issuing them was that of US Judge Isaac Parker-- and the most famous case was that of Ned Christie- who declared war against the U.S.- and had a Dead or Alive warrant issued...He was later "droned" by a posse of lawmen, who attacked his fort with cannon and dynamite...

Let's see 'em. You think anybody believes you? What about that court & Long historical precedence?

Christie's case doesn't hold muster. There were arrest warrants issued for his arrest. They gave him the option of turning himself in. Not the same thing as what Buckwheat is doing.

As far as I understand Al alwaki and all US citizens targeted had numerous chances to turn themselves in...
 

Mike

Well-known member
Oldtimer said:
Mike said:
Oldtimer said:
Many Dead or Alive warrants were issued by the Miners Courts and Citizens Courts in the early days of the west...

Probably the most famous federal court for issuing them was that of US Judge Isaac Parker-- and the most famous case was that of Ned Christie- who declared war against the U.S.- and had a Dead or Alive warrant issued...He was later "droned" by a posse of lawmen, who attacked his fort with cannon and dynamite...

Let's see 'em. You think anybody believes you? What about that court & Long historical precedence?

Christie's case doesn't hold muster. There were arrest warrants issued for his arrest. They gave him the option of turning himself in. Not the same thing as what Buckwheat is doing.

As far as I understand Al alwaki and all US citizens targeted had numerous chances to turn themselves in...

I WANT TO HEAR MORE ABOUT THE "DEAD OR ALIVE WARRANTS" YOU SUPPOSEDLY KNOW SO MUCH ABOUT!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! SHOW 'EM!!!

Caught in another lie? :roll:
 

hypocritexposer

Well-known member
flounder said:
And such is the influence of what we might call the ignorance caucus that even when giving a speech intended to demonstrate his openness to new ideas, Mr. Cantor felt obliged to give that caucus a shout-out, calling for a complete end to federal funding of social science research. Because it’s surely a waste of money seeking to understand the society we’re trying to change.

Critical thinking would ask...

Who is the "we" in the bolded sentence above, and what changes are they trying to make to "the society"? If they already know the changes they intend to implement, then why is further study and expense needed?


First off, let’s get some definitions straight. A hater, as the Internet defines it, is someone who’s “gonna hate”—someone who just wants to find fault with your work and who isn’t genuinely interested in having a conversation. We ignore haters because they’re never productive.


Would the person not interested in having a conversation be like Flounder, who posts an article and the does not participate in any further conversation/debate in the thread? Or iff he does poke his head into the thread again, he usually just post a couple of smileys and is gone again, until his next "drive-by".



Low-level haters are usually people of little professional or social consequence to you. These are the folks who call you fat and ugly because they disagree with your views on, say, the federal debt.


would these "low level haters" call people names like "radical ********* extremists", "ignorant" etc., and also make false accusations against people, because they don't want to have a civil discussion on say, the federal debt?
 
A

Anonymous

Guest
Mike said:
Oldtimer said:
Mike said:
Let's see 'em. You think anybody believes you? What about that court & Long historical precedence?

Christie's case doesn't hold muster. There were arrest warrants issued for his arrest. They gave him the option of turning himself in. Not the same thing as what Buckwheat is doing.

As far as I understand Al alwaki and all US citizens targeted had numerous chances to turn themselves in...

I WANT TO HEAR MORE ABOUT THE "DEAD OR ALIVE WARRANTS" YOU SUPPOSEDLY KNOW SO MUCH ABOUT!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! SHOW 'EM!!!

Caught in another lie? :roll:


If you look- you will find many... Here is even one involving your type you should be able to relate to involving someone promoting anarchy.. The last I found occurred in 1944- and involved a citizens committee reward issued for a murderer... After that California outlawed Dead or Alive warrants in that state...

David Walker, a black abolitionist, advocated a violent revolt against slavery in Walker’s Appeal (1829-1830).
-------------------------
A. Southern reaction

“Walker's Appeal was the most militant antislavery document ever published in the United States up to that time, and response to the pamphlet was immediate. In general, Southerners were enraged; a reward was offered for Walker—$1,000 dead or $10,000 alive. The Vigilance Committee of South Carolina offered a $1,500 reward for the arrest of anyone distributing Walker's Appeal. Georgia and South Carolina passed laws against its publication (Encyclopedia of African American Society, 2005, p.865).

http://infoacrs.com/r/walkerreport.html
 
Top