[New Heights] For Sec. of State, Obama Appoints Decorated Vietnam Veteran

I don't have a problem with the nomination. I am not impressed with the trollish thread title.

 

Is it not accurate?
how exactly is it trollish?

Rocket River

 

I'm not certain what you don't understand. The original genesis of this thread was one poster starting a silly trolling/flamebait thread a month ago after McCain's Susan Rice tantrum came to fruition and the Senate Repubs got their dream SoS....Deckard started this one largely to mock the mocker, IIRC....a fool's errand, IMO, but that's what it is.

now your'e saying he shouldnt' have started it, because John Kerry is rich. Do you see where the logic train went off the track in the last few sentences?

You're going to have to state the grounds of your cassus belli a bit more clearly prior to your motion being entertained.

 

It isn't trollish.... he is a higly decorated Vietnam veteran and some conservatives HATE IT.

 

I know that was a Clinton jab, but yes, what difference does it make? If Obama wants Kerry and Hagel to be the people he gets to do his bidding in their departments, fine by me. The only issue I'd have would be if the person is somehow incompetent because they do actually have administrative duties they need to perform.

 

i don't necessarily disagree.

 

I don't spend all day on here knowing which thread was a sarcastic thread to another thread or that nonsense.

I just don't like John Kerry. I think he's a aristocratic, marry for money douchebag.

My only comment in general was why the traditional left leaning liberal people that abhor those that 'won life's lottery' or use trusts to funnel capital to the next generation etc. like this guy?

He needed to marry an even richer older bowzer because his Forbes family trusts weren't even enough to fulfill his opulance lifestyle of homes all over, sailboats and vacationing on other blue bloods estates.

 

I am not sure if I am a "progressive" but I have no problem with taxing John Kerry a much higher marginal rate.

 

Washington's actions were Constitutional and in line with law as passed by Congress as the Whiskey Rebellion wasn't a war.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Whiskey_rebellion
[rquoter]Before troops could be raised, the Militia Act of 1792 required a justice of the United States Supreme Court to certify that law enforcement was beyond the control of local authorities. On August 4, 1794, Justice James Wilson delivered his opinion that western Pennsylvania was in a state of rebellion.[80] On August 7, Washington issued a presidential proclamation announcing, with "the deepest regret", that the militia would be called out to suppress the rebellion. He commanded insurgents in western Pennsylvania to disperse by September 1.[81][/rquoter]

 

I don't know anyone who abhors people that 'won life's lottery.' Perhaps these traditional left leaning liberal people that you speak of actually abhor legislation that favors those types of people and you just can't tell the difference? (Or choose not to)

 

he's getting you up in a tisy - he's joking around.

 

Perhaps the problem is simply that you've bought into the "lefties hate the rich!" mythology that is spewed out by the right. The left want rules to make those people contribute more to society - that's all. And Kerry actually supports those moves. So why would they have a problem with him?

 

I by no means blame you for not knowing the context of this thread.

However - If Kerry had somehow devoted his politics towards helping out the very richest perhaps you'd have a point; Rather he's done the opposite and been in favor of a more progressive tax policy to my knowledge. So your principal objection, that he married rich so people must hate him, is the kind of thing a teenager who only watches Fox news would say. It's beneath you.

 

What a man hypothetically does for his own financial well being, in between volunteering for and serving honorably in a dangerous wartime tour of duty and then building a successful criminal justice and political career, doesn't automatically dictate his legislative or governing record; there are completely different factors at play. Furthermore, your assumptions about his relationship choices are both childishly irrational and flatly sexist against women. You harbor extremely simplistic and resentful views of personal wealth that most liberals or conservatives in a capitalist society simply don't.

 

History is written by the victors. Congress has yet to declare war since the second world war, but the constitution has absolutely no bearing toward war - only its declaration.

Our current president gladly pulls troops out of Iraq only to hide behind the vail of technology, disguised as moderneity, to order drone attacks in sovereign nations. Contradictions abound, but as Billy Joel said "We didn't start the fire, its always been burning since the world's been turning".

 

The Whiskey Rebellion was about as much of a war as the Rodney King riots was a war. In fact it was much less violent than the Rodney King Riots. This isn't a matter of history being written by the winners but an understanding of the Constitution and the Constitution does empower domestic police powers. Further the force called to suppress the rebellion wasn't a Federal army but state militia under the command of the executive. In present terms it would be using the National Guard.

Those don't really compare to the Whiskey Rebellion as those are all deal with foreign issues rather than internal which the Constitution does make some very clear distinctions about.

What is important though about the Whiskey Rebellion to our times has to do with the Second Amendment. It shows that one, the Founding Fathers didn't believe in an inviolate right of citizenry to take up arms against the government and two, that purpose of militia was for collective security rather than individual.

 

Never mind.

 

How do you measure what is war? Some wars go by different names: rebellion, slaughter, holocaust, insurection, riots, etc.

As far as the 2nd amendment, I am certain there were founding fathers who objected to a standing army.

Washington was justified because the size of the force he commanded greatly outweighed the peasant frontiersmen he sought to subjugate. The rebellion was easy to put down on the basis of size. I do not think our current policy would be tolerated if it lead to a pschologically unsuitable number of American casualties.

I will compare the situation to something more modern: Libya. There were many people who justified the US involvment in the war based on the 'no American casualties' and 'minimum cost' argument. I assume these arguments are meant to mean that the US involvement was humanitarian because it placed no Americans in harms way and didn't break the bank. If that is true, then those arguments cannot convey humanitarian characteristics of the US's involvement.

 

first white male confirmed as SoS in 16 years.

#progress