Tuesday, November 10, 2009

A Mixed Bag of Tuesday

There are a few things in the news, and I don't havethe focus to put a whole post on anything.  So I'm going to just get my thirteen cents (two cents before inflation) on the page.

Justification for the Patriot Act Illustrated

The Fort Hood situation is a perfect example of a system failing.  There were indications that the shooter was a threat, a history of association with radical Islamic elements, and yet he slipped through the cracks.  As to culpability of the people charged with keeping pieces of shit like this under control, that has yet to be determined.  But it's also a reminder why things like the Patriot Act were passed in the first place.  This is not to argue the specifics of it, but to clarify why, in fighting a war, you do what you need to win.  And with an enemy who will use our political leanings against us to attack us....

All I wish is that the military still used firing squad.

I'd Still Do Her

(and not just because I'm really horny)

When the Carrie Prejean controversy (over gay marriage) began, many of the social conservatives held her up as a paragon of Christian virtue.  I think I made a sex joke or two about her.

Now, of course, after her star rose, she finds herself back on damage control, with what appears to be a sex tape, supplied by an ex-boyfriend.  At this point, it's only a matter of time before it comes out.  Her defense is that she's alone in the tape.  For those of you who haven't seen masturbatory porn, there are fingers, fists, dildoes, machines, and various inanimate objects that can be clicking with three increasingly hardcore orifices.  And that doesn't include pissing or squeezing a Cleveland steamer on plate glass.  Now I doubt that scat will come into play in this particular tape, but it's a lame excuse, on par with the Clinton denials. 

Two points here:  First, if you make a sex tape and become famous, people will eventually be watching you fuck.  Second, the "Christian" label is getting awfully beat up.  You all need to live your shit before you can come back preaching your shit.  And be on top of your fuck vid collection.

Why Was Abortion the Turning Point on the PelosiScare Bill?

One thing that has annoyed the shit out of me (besides the passage of it) is that the Rape of Health Care bill that passed Saturday gained its votes by making a compromise by not funding abortions.  How the language will change, and how effective the language is is not important.  Because if the bill passes and we get the Monstercare system, then it will be a minor battle to fight again.

The point here is simple:  This is political calculation at its worst.  Lawmakers who were on the fence who didn't want the piece of shit but did want something to take back to the single-issue dolts who put them in there got the relatively irrelevant part of the bill.  It's this obsession with a small part of the political landscape that costs us in the long run.

In short (because we're not having a discussion on the subject of abortion (and I will delete)), ending abortion has to be done in the hearts and minds of people to work.  If the pro-life forces keep this issue at the forefront for legislation, they will lose, because there are far too many people who are in the middle on this issue, and it will cost too many votes and too many elections.


Toad734 said...

Hmmm, so maybe we gave up all these rights in the Patriot Act for nothing. I mean, if the Patriot Act was supposed to catch guys like this, it didn't do a very good job. So, since it doesn't work, can I have my liberties back??

Please tell me you have a link to this sex tape. And of course this "christian" has a sex tape. Of course she is a hypocrite...That's almost synonymous with both Christians and Republicans. Ted Haggard and Larry Craig obviously being the poster children for that. It certainly doesn't make her a hypocrite for being against gay marriage but it does when she uses christianity to defend that stance other than the fact that Jesus wants her to commit adultery on Camera and parade around half naked for money.

Wait, the government funds abortions?? Or do they just fund clinics who also perform abortions?

psi bond said...

Where do we draw the line? You can start with the Liberal PC crowd.
So Jihadist Islam strikes again – and the sycophantic media and the liberal hand-wringers on the blogs are desperately busy trying to convince as many Americans as possible that the slaughter that occurred yesterday at Fort Hood Texas was ANYTHING but a Jihad terror zealot fulfilling his obligation to Islam.

We’ll hear about how this “alleged gunman” was picked on for his Islamic faith; how he was so distraught over our unjust war in Iraq and Afghanistan. Watch the media make this guy the poster child. We’ll hear that it was Bush’s fault or even Glenn Beck’s fault. As everything seems to be if you listen to those bleeding heart asswipes leftist bloggers.

Well let me tell you this! Hasan isn’t the sole guilty party. The US Army’s unforgivable political correctness is also to blame for the casualties at Fort Hood. Kissing the ass of these lefties and allowing Obama to get away with all the shit he is throwing at us is a major part of the problem.

Given the myriad warning signs, it’s appalling that no action was taken against a man apparently known to praise suicide bombers and openly damn US policy. But no officer in his chain of command, either at Walter Reed Army Medical Center or at Fort Hood, had the guts to take meaningful action against a dysfunctional soldier and an incompetent doctor.

Had Hasan been a Lutheran or a Methodist, he would’ve been gone with the simoom. But officers fear charges of discrimination when faced with misconduct among protected minorities.

Now 12 soldiers and a security guard lie dead. At least 38 people were wounded, 28 of them seriously. If heads don’t roll in this maggot’s chain of command, the Army will have shamed itself beyond moral redemption.

There’s another important issue, too. How could the Army allow an obviously incompetent and dysfunctional psychiatrist to treat our troubled soldiers returning from war? An Islamic wacko is counseled for arguing with veterans who’ve been assigned to his care? And he’s not removed from duty? What planet does the Army live on?
Get ready for the apologists, get ready to hear them saying things like "he was misunderstood, or that he was provoked by bullies.

Patrick M said...

Toad: First of all, what rights did we "give up?" I keep hearing this excuse as a reason the bill is the work of the devil or some shit, yet I haven't heard of a slew of rights being violated.

Since its creation it's been tweaked, parts have been ruled unconstitutional, and provisions have been kept by the Obama administration. As long as there is a limited scope, clear oversight, and constant reviews. laws like this are an important and necessary evil.

However, as to why it failed this time, I don't have the answers yet. However, it appears, based on some preliminary stuff, that we're reverting to a pre-9/11 mentality. I'll leave you to draw the conclusions as to why.

Doesn't bother me, because I'm not in a big city that could get attacked by a few raghead crazies.

As for Carrie, damn I wish I had a link to the tape. Because I'd share if I did. Especially if she goes for multiple holes. And can you commit adultery with a 2-liter Coke bottle?

I personally don't care which way they go with abortion in the bill, because the abortion issue isn't the important part....

psi: Anyone who tries to justify this raghead bastard needs hit.

And as for the reason he slipped through the cracks? It comes back to the priorities of the people charged with rooting out terror. Depending on the climate, they can either have the full support of their leaders, or they can be in survival mode, only speaking up if they have absolute evidence, rather than a clear preponderance, which includes profiling based on race and religion.

Tom said...

Rush told us yesterday whose to blame for the killings at Ft. hood, it's Obama's fault.

It's the old joke about military intelligence being an oxymoron.

Toad734 said...

Wire taps, the power to search and seize property, medical records without a warrant for one. It also makes it easier for victims of the Patriot Act to be denied access to the court system (Jose Padilla). These things could all happen to you if you pissed off the wrong person. These rules don't just apply to Guantanamo or just to foreigners or just to Arab terrorists; they can apply to a small time drug dealer or anyone law enforcement decides to harass. So maybe you aren't vulnerable to the terrorist crazies but you are vulnerable to your own government and your local police and FBI.

PSI: This guy was certainly not a Jihadist zealot. And if he would have been another conservative Christian like Eric Rudolph you would be playing down his religions role in this matter. He did have some issues and may have been influenced by religion but he wasn't part of a foreign terror cell or terrorist organization.

Patrick M said...

Toad: That's what the constant review part of any law like this, and its subsequent corrections are all about. If it wasn't a terrorism-related situation, then I'd be leading the way in screaming for government heads to roll.

Jose Padilla, however, was a terrorist, just like the DC sniper, just like the Ft Hood shooter. Whether they were a part of a terror cell or a lone gunman operating under the same mindset, there was a case back then to detain him on those grounds. And strangely, the courts did set things right as thing progressed.

Back to the original point, I'm not defending every damned provision of the Patriot act (I stated as much), but the principle that fighting an enemy like this requires an approach that could not have been imagined by the Founding Fathers. And I'm willing to try a law with a good intent and let the courts sort out the constitutionality of specific provisions.

Toad734 said...

But who are you going to scream to when you are on 24 hour lock down in a prison without an attorney and no access to the courts??

So what is a terrorist then? Is the word terrorism only used when a Muslim is involved because that's what your post sounds like. So is the office tower shooter in Orlando also a terrorist or can Catholics not be terrorists?

The DC Sniper was not a "terrorist". You can argue that Ft. Hood guy was a "terrorist" in the loosest sense of the word but the DC sniper wasn't doing what he did because of a political or religious ideology nor was his accomplice. So guys like Eric Rudolph would also be a terrorist who should be tracked using the patriot act??What about Klan members? Are they terrorists or can white "Christians" not be terrorists?

dmarks said...

Toad: Can you name one civil liberty you lost?

Sure, I've experienced the greater hassle of airplane travel, but come on ....

"It also makes it easier for victims of the Patriot Act to be denied access to the court system (Jose Padilla)."

And here we have an actual terrorist labelled as a "victim".

"PSI: This guy was certainly not a Jihadist zealot."

Actually, he was. He was "on record" as supporting the terrorist side in the Middle East conflicts, and he shouted the common terrorist slogan as he opened fire.

"And if he would have been another conservative Christian like Eric Rudolph you would be playing down his religions role in this matter"

You have no evidence of that, and none of any support by Patrick for any type of terrorism. For your analogy to be correct, the Christian terrorist would be shouting a Christian terrorist slogan as he opened fire. That would make the terrorist easy to identify.

As for the abortion in the healthcare topic, remember there's a lot of money to be made in the abortion industry. Which donates a lot of money to the Dems. Who then endeavor to try to funnel taxpayer money to encourage more abortions. A nice corrupt circle.

A lot like the union corruption involved with this bill (which would force more government workers into government health-care bureaucracies, and these union workers, like most in the country, would be forced against their will to contribute money to the Dems causes and campaigns.

Toad734 said...


If my phone and computer records are being tapped right now without a judges approval that would be one. But neither I, nor anyone one else would know about it.

Can you name one terrorist plot the Patriot Act has directly thwarted?

And was Jose Padilla an actual terrorist? DId he blow anything up? Who did he kill? Who did he terrorize? It doesn't matter if he was or not because that could have just as easily been you or me. And are you saying that just because someone has talked about some sort of terrorism that they no longer have the same rights of anyone else ACCUSED of any other crime?? Or can they put me in jail without real probable cause and hold me indefinitely because I don't like America and hang out with shady people??

Patrick M said...

Toad: Can you name one terrorist plot the Patriot Act has directly thwarted?

Well, that's why we have Google:

So far, Heritage has the count at 27. I'm sure if I went back, I could come up with 26 more. But even then, I find corroboration of that number (and my point) in the LA Times.

The simple point is that tools like the Patriot act are what is necessary to actually fight our enemies. It's not the single answer, and there is always the potential for abuse. But with sensible oversight, and vigilance, we can at least keep terrorists at bay while we figure out how to deal with threats in the rest of the world.

No law is perfect, but some are wholly appropriate.

dmarks said...

Toad said: "If my phone and computer records are being tapped right now without a judges approval that would be one."

Actually, it wouldn't. We can start by pointing out that there is no Constitutional right to privacy. Maybe there should be one, but there isn't.

Also, as it is now, you are creating phone and computer records at the phone co and ISP every time you do anything. These records accumulate on THEIR computers.

These records on others' computers are not by any stretch of the imagination your "[persons], houses, papers, and effect". You choose to use their equipment and facllities, and leave traces of your usage there. Just like when you go to the bank, your face ends up on a security camera. Every time.

"And was Jose Padilla an actual terrorist? DId he blow anything up?"

According to this logic, the guys in the airliners 9/11 weren't terrorists until the planes they piloted hit the ground, Pentagon, or the WTC.

It's quite obvious that you have no idea what a terrorist is. You are going way out on a limb to actually defend one of them and deny he was a terrorist.

"It doesn't matter if he was or not because that could have just as easily been you or me."

Maybe you, ha ha. I don't know much about you, really. But it wouldn't be me, Patrick, Shaw, or just about anyone here. Since none of us has been involved in terrorism.

"can they put me in jail without real probable cause..."

Stick with a relevant analogy? There was plenty of probable cause with Pedilla.

Toad734 said...

IM not denying they weren't terrorists? And no, some of the 9/11 guys were already known terrorists or at least known to have connections to actual terrorist cells.
There was probable cause with Padilla but they don't need probable cause anymore...they just need you to have talked to someone who has talked to someone who was shady. With your right wing ideology you don't think that you haven't conversed at least once with someone planning an abortion clinic bombing or who was hording illegal weapons to start a race war or to fight the Obama socialist healthcare, child re-education goon squads or whatever you think it is Obama and liberals are doing?? If that were the case, under the Patriot Act, Obama could have you arrested and hold you indefinitely and no one would know a thing about it.

If you notice in those arrests they say the Patriot Act helped with those cases. Typically, If a guy from Afghanistan is driving an airport shuttle and then all of the sudden starts making trips to to hang out with Al Qaeda in the tribal regions of Afghanistan and Pakistan then its pretty safe to say that a judge would have granted a wire tap anyway under normal due process. And again, you don't know which of these would have actually turned into an actual act of terrorism for sure.

dmarks said...

"If that were the case, under the Patriot Act, Obama could have you arrested and hold you indefinitely and no one would know a thing about it."

Well, it is not the case. so your hypothetical situation is so far removed from reality. I don't associate with terrorists.

Toad734 said...


You don't know that. And you don't have to associate with terrorists. Without having to need a judges permission, anyone in law enforcement can now tap your phones just because they don't like you, what you are saying or you pissed the wrong guy off. Thats the point, you don't have to have associated with terrorists.