BuddyGroom wrote:

TenuredVulture wrote:

BuddyGroom wrote:

dajafi wrote:

BuddyGroom wrote:I'm almost certainly naive but I still keep hoping that after this election, we'll have a strong president and a strong Congress - and Bush, Cheney, et al. will be on their way to the Hague to finally be held accountable for their actions.

This is a wonderful fantasy, but it is strictly a fantasy.

There's no way any president would allow top American government officials to stand trial before a foreign court. The political cost at home would be unbearable, and whether it was Obama, Clinton, or anyone other than maybe Kucinich, they wouldn't want to see their entire agenda held hostage to a media battle about past crimes.

Then, American power truly is unaccountable. Terrifying. Hard to blame much of the world for hating us. Hard to understand why any other country trusts us.

It's called national sovereignty, and despite what the we are the world people think, it matters a lot.

So do the rule of law and the Geneva Convention.

The United States is a representative democracy - if the actions (I'd say crimes) of Bush, Cheney and co. go unpunished, it's in part because we allowed it. Because we didn't set our sights high enough, because we didn't have enough reverence for the what the founders put in place.

Many of you watched the John Adams mini-series. I did not but have studied Adams in the past. I know I am talking about the man who enacted the Alien and Sedition Acts, but do you really believe he would shrink away from the challenge the Bush/Cheney government has put before us? Would Jefferson? Would Washington or Franklin.

I'd like to believe we're as capable of courage, integrity and statesmanship as we were 230 years ago.

I'm suggesting that there is no higher authority than a national government, and that is as it should be. If Bush et al are to be tried, they should be tried in a US Court.

I have no idea what Jefferson or Franklin have to do with this. But they fought a war so that we could be a sovereign nation.

Not sure where to put this, but I thought this was an interesting graph

Haha, blast from the past. Doing research at work on something totally unrelated to this, but stumble across this gem in a January 2004 Star Ledger column:

Stumbling to Success

Golan Cipel , the governor's star-crossed friend, has bumped from one job to another in the last two years, often leaving under fire. But records show that he has earned more money with each new job. May we all face such adversity.

From the summer of 2000 through the election, Cipel, an Israeli national, earned $30,000 a year as the Jewish outreach director for the state Democratic Party, while also making $30,000 a year as an associate at the development firm owned by McGreevey's top donor, Charles Kushner . In January 2002, he joined the governor's staff at $80,000 a year, a salary that was bumped to $110,000 within six weeks with no explanation.

In September 2002, McGreevey got Cipel a job at the prominent public relations and lobbying firm, MWW, for a salary of $120,000. And the next month, just before MWW bosses planned to fire him, Cipel went to work for State Street Partners, the lobbying firm where McGreevey's best friend is a partner, where he got a $30,000 raise, bringing his salary to $150,000.

His salary history came from records released by the U.S. Department of Homeland Security, filed as part of Cipel's successive visa applications.

Woody wrote:Not sure where to put this, but I thought this was an interesting graph

"BJ Services"? Mmmmhmmmrrr....

Profits definitely understated there

drsmooth wrote:

Woody wrote:Not sure where to put this, but I thought this was an interesting graph

"BJ Services"?

Provides pressure pumping, stimulation and tubing services worldwide

8)

lots of phanatic photos on Wonkette today.

http://time-blog.com/real_clear_politics/2008/04/clinton_on_pace_for_10_million.html

$10 mil for Hill-Rod today? More negative ads, pls. K? Thx.

Since race was a topic earlier this morning I thought I'd post this:

"About one in five Pennsylvania voters said the race of the candidates was among the top factors in deciding how to vote, according to exit polls, and white voters who cited race supported Clinton over Obama by a 3-to-1 margin.

Results from all the primaries suggest that whites who said race was important in picking their candidate have been about twice as likely to back Clinton as Obama."

http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap_campaignplus ... nnsylvania

What does it say about our supposedly progressed society that with a looming recession, oil near $120 per barrel, ongoing wars in Afghanistan and Iraq, poverty at epic proportions, New Orleans still not recovered from Katrina, millions without health care, etc., race is a factor at all let alone a "top factor"? Racism = alive and well in America! Nice work Pennsylvania!

momadance wrote:Paul Begala just declared his forehead the winner.

I was watching CNN last night and Begala said he likes negative campaigning and even prefers it. He said that when he makes a donation, he puts "for negative campaigning only" in the comments section. One of the other people asked him if he was serious and he said he was.

Idiot.

No American should ever be tried in a global court under any circumstance.

mpmcgraw wrote:No American should ever be tried in a global court under any circumstance.

Are global courts okay for non-Americans?

dajafi wrote:So... our Republican friends here really don't think race has anything to do with it? Nothing at all?

well, if the general hispanic population feels the same way about Obama as the hispanic people I work with, it certainly does have something to do with it. Holy cow, I was shocked to hear the crap I was hearing yesterday. They didn't come right out and say it, but when I asked what Obama did to deserve the ire, all I heard was crickets and stuff like "you know.."

...and I know some of the people my brother knows aren't voting for him because he is black.

It's out there.

BuddyGroom wrote:

mpmcgraw wrote:No American should ever be tried in a global court under any circumstance.

Are global courts okay for non-Americans?

This literally has nothing to do with this at all.

I really could care less what other countries do in regard to their sovereignty and duties to their citizens. I only care about what America does.

I'm not through getting caught up with this thread, so forgive me if someone has already said this....

But do you guys think it's realistic for Obama to make up a 20 point lead in a few weeks just by spending a bunch of money? I don't think it's THAT easy to change people's minds. And I'm kinda surprised that people seem to think that his unwillingness to make up that huge debt is a sign of some fundamental flaw in him or his campaign. The guy has run a great campaign: not perfect, but very good. He had a plan and it has worked. If not for Clinton's unwillingness to accept the obvious, this thing would be over and we would all be talking about how great his campaign was. But she was the 1,000 pound gorilla in this election from the very beginning -- she's a forminable opponent.

Besides, how many more people have registered to vote democrat because this has dragged on? Millions. And those millions will still be there (and registered) in November.

My only worry is that the dem nominee won't have enough time to point out what a lying hypocrite McCain is. As is the case with Hillary, it will take some time to change people's minds about Mr Straighttalk.

He did increase his numbers from Ohio to PA in regards to 'white men'. He's also won a lot of states that have been majority white (which state isn't besides Hawaii and New Mexico?). I don't think he can really lose the popular vote or the primary.

BuddyGroom wrote:

mpmcgraw wrote:No American should ever be tried in a global court under any circumstance.

Are global courts okay for non-Americans?

Only in circumstances where national sovereignty is absent.

mpmcgraw wrote:

BuddyGroom wrote:

mpmcgraw wrote:No American should ever be tried in a global court under any circumstance.

Are global courts okay for non-Americans?

This literally has nothing to do with this at all.

I really could care less what other countries do in regard to their sovereignty and duties to their citizens. I only care about what America does.

like your post's ironic, self-reflexive reference to your sig line; did not appreciate you subtleties heretofore

TenuredVulture wrote:I'm suggesting that there is no higher authority than a national government, and that is as it should be. If Bush et al are to be tried, they should be tried in a US Court.

I could stick up a picture of the comedian and go quote latin, but I think this deserves a smarter response. Plus, I'm reading about how Pakistan and AQ Khan right now, so appealing to america's right to clean up their own messes them selves when they did such a great job on nuclear proliferation in the middle east for everyone doesn't really cheer me up.

The genevan convention, and indeed many other international treaties as I understand it, aren't imposed from above but agreed upon by representatives after extensive negotiation. And in the real world, they're usually agreed upon by other nations after the really big nations have dropped really big unsubtle hints like 'economic regeneration package' or alternatively 'economic sanctions/military force'.

You agree on something, have the decency to stick by it and apply the same rules fairly. or what happens is you say 'hey you! no nukes!' and they're all like 'yah, but india has nukes and you've not made them sign that non-proliferation treaty' and you're like 'yah, but the russkis like them and anyway, we can't be bothered extending protection to you right now, cos you're small and poor.' So then they go and develop their own nuclear deterrent (with the aid of un-fucking-believable luck, fierce determination and chinese aid) and you're all like ' we really don't like it now, drop the nukes, mmm-kay?' and they're all 'yah, but we won't sign the stinky Non-proliferation treatment if the hindus won't' and you have to shrug your shoulders, and before you know it, they're selling nukes everywhere.Hell, even Ireland probably coulda bought one.

Anyhow, who came up with the UN and League of Nations? And where does it live?

dajafi wrote:

BuddyGroom wrote:I'm almost certainly naive but I still keep hoping that after this election, we'll have a strong president and a strong Congress - and Bush, Cheney, et al. will be on their way to the Hague to finally be held accountable for their actions.

This is a wonderful fantasy, but it is strictly a fantasy.

There's no way any president would allow top American government officials to stand trial before a foreign court. The political cost at home would be unbearable, and whether it was Obama, Clinton, or anyone other than maybe Kucinich, they wouldn't want to see their entire agenda held hostage to a media battle about past crimes.

Yeh, too bad. I still remember the one debate between Bush and Gore. Bush kept saying that no American should ever have to face a world court. At the time, the whole thing seemed out of nowhere. I remember saying to a friend that he said it because of what they have planned.

But they can'e even get these guys to face their own country's court ssytem, so there's no chance of anything like the Hague happening. I do wonder, however, what would happen if a foreign government just decided to arrest one of them during a visit. What would be our recourse if Rumsfeld was arrested while visiting Belgium or whatever? We saw what happened when a British woman was arrested for naming a teddy bear Mohammed. That would be a drop in the bucket compared to the scene if Rumsfeld was thrown in jail.

Some folks now wondering if Abercrombie & Fitch paid for some "product placement" in Obama's speech last nite