Blogcritics Comments on A Republic if You Can Keep It

Comment by Dave Nalle on A Republic if You Can Keep It

Wed, 11 Apr 2007 20:17:34 EDT

Charles posted links to HIMSELF and the site, The Conservative Right. Give us a break. Show us the text of the law that contradicts what I said. THAT would be considered a legitimate SOURCE of INFORMATION. Once again you're being incredibly deceptive. The article of his own which Charles links to includes the text of the law you're asking for and his analysis of it, as well as text directly from the Geneva Convention which is relevant to the issue. It may be his analysis and opinion of what the documents mean, but the original source material is there for everyone - apparently except you - to see. The other two articles are much the same, and as you failed to notice, they are also by Charles. They are again, point by point analyses of the source documents to dispute claims about the MCA in articles published in other media. And frankly he makes a convincing case based on the original documents. I've done a similar analysis of the MCA - wrote it when it first passed. I never published it, but if you like I can make it into an article and publish it here on BC. I'm sure you'd have some fun with it. Dave

Comment by Clavos on A Republic if You Can Keep It

Wed, 11 Apr 2007 19:19:48 EDT

More BS and no response.

Comment by moonraven on A Republic if You Can Keep It

Wed, 11 Apr 2007 19:13:17 EDT

Non sequitur--no. Everything follows absolutely linearly from your comments. I have already indicated that you do not qualify as an ad hominem target--and why.

Comment by Clavos on A Republic if You Can Keep It

Wed, 11 Apr 2007 17:48:30 EDT

Sticking to pattern still eh mr? You can't refute the truth of my comment, so you fall back on the ol' non sequitur ad hominem...

Comment by moonraven on A Republic if You Can Keep It

Wed, 11 Apr 2007 17:45:18 EDT

Clavos, Even if I lied in every post from here till doomsday I would still be morally superior to you. Lying doesn't happen to be my thing. [Personal attack deleted]

Comment by Clavos on A Republic if You Can Keep It

Wed, 11 Apr 2007 16:59:16 EDT

I have never cited SITES. Hairsplitting obfuscation. You admit you have cited articles from those sites and recommended the sites themselves as sources. And I have cited MUCH more than The Miami Herald; including the NYT, WaPO, WSJ, several Latino sites (in Mexico and Venezuela), The Guardian, The Economist, Times of London, several Aussie sites, EVEN venezuelanalysis (on one occasion), etc., etc. Once again, you lie.

Comment by JulieL on A Republic if You Can Keep It

Wed, 11 Apr 2007 16:52:06 EDT

"My advice to Maryland voters, stay home on election day. Your votes will no longer matter. The Maryland legislature has effectively nullified its residents votes with this bill. If a candidate were to receive enough votes nationwide he (or she) would receive all of Maryland's electoral votes, even if the voters of Maryland voted overwhelmingly for that persons opponent." This simply isn't true. The bill in Maryland (and in all other states where it has been proposed) would only go into effect once enough states (who together possess the majority of the electoral votes - 270)have enacted identical legislation. Until this happens, Maryland will continue to award all of its electoral votes like any other state.

Comment by moonraven on A Republic if You Can Keep It

Wed, 11 Apr 2007 16:46:02 EDT

I have never cited SITES. I have occasionally RECOMMENDED sites for folks interested in reading about topics from a PROGRESSIVE slant. And I have occasionally cited articles on those sites which have been reprinted from other venues. You have cited ONLY The Miami Herald, which is so under the thumb of the Miami Mafia that it was forced to reinstate reporters who had been fired for taking money from the MM and from the US government to write propaganda against Venezuela and Cuba. Waaaayyyyy big difference--and the ususal bogus reasoning from Clavos.

Comment by Clavos on A Republic if You Can Keep It

Wed, 11 Apr 2007 15:28:45 EDT

Interesting point about Charles' links, mr. They're reminescent of your constant citing of opinion and propaganda sites like venezuelanalysis and commondreams as "legitimate sources of information."

Comment by moonraven on A Republic if You Can Keep It

Wed, 11 Apr 2007 15:17:21 EDT

Comment by Michael J. West on A Republic if You Can Keep It

Wed, 11 Apr 2007 15:12:07 EDT

Charles, I read the blog entries you linked to in #43. And they ALMOST hold water...but what about Jose Padilla and Yasir Hamdi? Those were two native-born American citizens who were held without charge, without access to counsel, and without the right to seek writs of Habeas Corpus - the former being Habeas Corpus - Hamdi for over two years, Padilla for three and a half. You are correct if you mean that Moonraven has not been stripped of the rights of Habeas Corpus, or that ALL Americans have been stripped of that right, but since 2001, at least two Americans HAVE. And that's fact.

Comment by Charles on A Republic if You Can Keep It

Wed, 11 Apr 2007 14:45:03 EDT

Moonraven, although you are right that you can be declared an enemy combatant even if you are a US citizen, you are wrong in stating you do not have the right of habeus corpus. The idea that the military commissions act stripped rights from Americans is a lie pushed by the liberal media. See Here, Here, and Here.

Comment by moonraven on A Republic if You Can Keep It

Wed, 11 Apr 2007 14:16:02 EDT

Dave, Wrong--You can be declared an "enemy combatant" even though you are a US citizen--check it out--and no habeas corpus. Just bye bye [Edited] Dave and Buenos D�as Guatanamo.... What about that arabic tee shirt? In Mexico not only do we have habeas corpus--we have its more sophisticated version--which is also the case throughout Latin America--called AMPARO. If you get an amparo they cannot even arrest you. But you KNEW that, of course--since you are an expert on Latin America...

Comment by Clavos on A Republic if You Can Keep It

Tue, 10 Apr 2007 18:25:20 EDT

How's the habeas corpus in Mexico, btw? It doesn't exist whenever the Procuraduria (AG) doesn't want it to.

Comment by Dave Nalle on A Republic if You Can Keep It

Tue, 10 Apr 2007 18:11:52 EDT

Last I checked the right of habeas corpus was still intact for US citizens. Whenever I fly internationally my birthplace is on my passport and no one has raised an eyebrow so far. How's the habeas corpus in Mexico, btw? Dave

Comment by moonraven on A Republic if You Can Keep It

Tue, 10 Apr 2007 17:57:18 EDT

Hmmm. Is that why they cancelled the right of habeas corpus--that had been with us in the western world since the Magna Carta of King John? You think you have that right, Nalle. Go to the airport wearing a tee shirt with I love Austin in Arabic letters on it, and tell the security folks that you were born in Lebanon. Then, at least we will never hear from your demented sorry ass again....

Comment by Dave Nalle on A Republic if You Can Keep It

Tue, 10 Apr 2007 15:23:51 EDT

Lee, where do you get that out of anything I wrote? The fact that I understand the reason for the existence of the Bill of Rights doesn't mean I oppose it. But the key thing is that the rights in the Bill of Rights do NOT originate in the Bill of Rights. They exist independent of it and pre-date the Constitution. The Bill of Rights merely exists to codify and reiterate them so they won't get glossed over. If anything the basic rights reflected in the Bill of Rights trump the entire Constitution. Dave

Comment by moonraven on A Republic if You Can Keep It

Tue, 10 Apr 2007 14:42:45 EDT

The Bush Admistration has already eliminated much of the Bill of Rights anyway. Ammendments I, IV, V, VI and VIII are already history. That's half of the ten. And t doesn't seemtobother you gringosone bit....

Comment by Lee Richards on A Republic if You Can Keep It

Mon, 9 Apr 2007 20:36:54 EDT

#32: So, if the Bill of Rights was abolished you can foresee no negative institutional changes to the basic structure of the government occuring at all?

Comment by Dave Nalle on A Republic if You Can Keep It

Mon, 9 Apr 2007 19:30:06 EDT

I'd sure support that, Jaz. You clearly would to. If we look back to the one time it actually happened - Adams/Jefferson - the results were generally pretty positive for the country. However, I don't think that was a fundamental change in the structure of the government. Things like getting rid of the Senate - as was proposed earlier - or this amendment to get rid of the electoral college are much more profound and dangerous. Dave

Comment by jaz on A Republic if You Can Keep It

Mon, 9 Apr 2007 19:23:12 EDT

does that mean we get to go back to the VP being the person with the second highest electoral vote count? cuz changing that did alter the structure (as stated earlier, i'm for it...MUCH better than both coming from the same Party like we have now)

Comment by Dave Nalle on A Republic if You Can Keep It

Mon, 9 Apr 2007 19:21:29 EDT

When do I get to vote to take rich people's money away and give it to myself? In 2008, assuming you're a trial lawyer or a labor organizer. Dave

Comment by Dave Nalle on A Republic if You Can Keep It

Mon, 9 Apr 2007 19:20:52 EDT

Are you sure it's quite logical and reasonable to defend the position that it's treason to "change the basic structure of the government" through the legal amendment process, just because you disagree with the amendment? Probably not. But I inherently oppose any amendment which would do away with basic protections for the rights of minorities, which this amendment would. The purpose of the Bill of Rights was to change the basic structure of the government. No, the purpose of the Bill of Rights was to guarantee protection of the rights of states and individuals so that the various state legislatures would ratify the Constitution. They make no institutional changes to the basic structure of the government or to the electoral process. Dave

Comment by Doug Hunter on A Republic if You Can Keep It

Mon, 9 Apr 2007 19:01:22 EDT

When do I get to vote to take rich people's money away and give it to myself?

Comment by moonraven on A Republic if You Can Keep It

Mon, 9 Apr 2007 13:25:38 EDT

I cannot believe that someone actually mentioned LOGICAL and Dave Nalle in the same sentence!