Disqus - Latest Comments for ebenflood

Re:

Eben Flood — Thu, 29 Oct 2009 10:00:28 -0000

Why do you continue to benefit from our failure, from our lack of knowledge and from our disparity?

I read this as meaning that blacks are too stupid to figure out their own finances and what is good/not good for them. If a white person had written that you'd say it was racist.

You were the black man that beat the white guy (Larry Bird) in the NBA Championship and made us all proud.

Blatantly racist, no explanation needed.

If that AIDS virus doesn’t come back to haunt you, I hope that someday your conscience does.

If a white guy said this you'd call him a racist. But I guess it's not really racist, just downright evil.

Re:

Eben Flood — Thu, 29 Oct 2009 08:13:26 -0000

Wow, this is one of the most racist things that I've ever read on the internet. Guess I'm done with the Urban Politico, goodbye.

Re: Scalia vs. The Evil Activist Judges

Eben Flood — Wed, 28 Oct 2009 13:53:56 -0000

Scalia is not biased against non-whites and women, he's biased against legislating judges. And when judges legislate they always want to do it in the name of non-whites and women so you erroneously conflate his being against judicial legislation with him being against non-whites and women. It's a smear by innuendo.

And my point stands, no matter how many great legislative decisions a wise and caring judiciary make you will rue the day you gave them legislative power when they stop being wise and caring and all those great decisions are overturned by the five votes of unelected, life-time appointees.

I prefer a government restricted by the Constitution, not unleashed by it.

Re: Scalia vs. The Evil Activist Judges

Eben Flood — Wed, 28 Oct 2009 11:00:59 -0000

Scalia may not have literally said that he would have voted against Brown v. Board, but in light of the fact that this is a man who truly believes that the Supreme Court should resolve the legal issues facing our nation in 2009 using the original intention of the Constitution as it existed in 1787, he didn't have to.

That is going beyond what he said and smearing the man through innuendo and mis-characterization.

Re: Scalia vs. The Evil Activist Judges

Eben Flood — Wed, 28 Oct 2009 10:29:55 -0000

This smear of a post is shameful. You want to pin a racist tag on the man so badly that you're willing to connect any non-existent dot through willful mischaracterization and innuendo.

Originalists do not believe the Constitution should remain static, they believe that legislating from the bench is wrong and that if you want new rights, if you want desegregation, if you want legal abortion you legislate it. You don't pretend that a 200 year old document covers all that, and all future problems, in it's original writing. You can even amend the damn thing.

What we have now is chicken shit legislators unwilling to take on hard issues and do their freaking jobs and instead rely on friendly courts to do it for them. Someday those courts wont be so friendly and you'll rue the day you gave them so much power.

Re: The White House vs The Faux News Channel

Eben Flood — Mon, 26 Oct 2009 12:47:22 -0000

Yeah, I love it when Obama gets all Hugo Chavez on their asses!

Nixon didn't like the Post too much either, guess he, Obama and Chavez are turning out to be birds of a feather and all that.

I wonder how many reporters at the Government Approved News Organizations went to J school hoping to one day get patted on the head by the Feds and told 'Good boy.'

Re: The White House vs The Faux News Channel

Eben Flood — Fri, 23 Oct 2009 07:58:29 -0000

It reminds me of what Nixon used to say about the Post.

Re: Andrew Sullivan: Obama like T-1000 from Terminator 2

Eben Flood — Thu, 22 Oct 2009 07:56:43 -0000

Sully is not a conservative in any sense of the word, and yes I know you posted his article in full. I meant the question of whether or not it's satire to be directed to him, my bad on the poor wording.

I stopped reading him years ago because his writing became awful, like this article. My translation wasn't meant as an interpretation of how things actually transpired, it was meant to be a translation of what Sully wrote, to highlight the absurdity of his 'analysis'. My interpretation of what he wrote is accurate, Sully gives him credit for starting the revolution while at the same time distancing himself from it which means, according to Sully, the man had a part in starting bloodshed that he wanted no part of. Now, I don't agree that is what happened in the real world, but that Sully thinks it did, and wants to give credit to the man for doing it, is beyond comprehension. And this kind of whacked out thought process is typical of the rest of the article.

Re: Andrew Sullivan: Obama like T-1000 from Terminator 2

Eben Flood — Wed, 21 Oct 2009 14:54:19 -0000

This was meant as a satire piece, right? I mean I laughed almost all the way through it.

On Iran, for example, he has done not much more on the surface than open up direct talks. Beneath, you see deeper shifts. His election itself and his Cairo speech laid some important groundwork for June’s Green revolution.

He managed to inspire the opposition without throwing his lot in with them (playing the supreme leader, Ayatollah Khamenei, with finesse). In America, he has slowly defused the debate away from the polarising “Are you a patriot?” or “Are you with those scary Muslims?” to the more realistic: “If we want to keep Iran from having a nuclear weapon, what’s the least worst way of trying — or is it impossible after all?”

Translation: he laid the groundwork for a bloody revolution that he immediately distanced himself from while the supreme leader played Obama like a flute.

Now that's comedy gold. The rest is just as brilliant.

Re: Secret Service Overwhelmed By Number of Obama Death Threats

Eben Flood — Wed, 21 Oct 2009 10:04:43 -0000

The weight of proving something isn't on me, though. Zyrlina made the assertion that it's the right that is responsible for the increase in threats against the President with no proof given. I simply state that I don't believe her and asked for proof. You came to her defense and cited two articles. If I take the DHS report as you do, there still isn't anything in there that directly backs Zyrlina's assertions. And the second report backs my disbelief as much as it backs her.

I know convincing me that her assertions are correct is very low on your list of priorities but when accusations are made the burden of proof is on the accuser.

Re: Secret Service Overwhelmed By Number of Obama Death Threats

Eben Flood — Wed, 21 Oct 2009 07:48:10 -0000

You do realize that the DHS report is guess work, right? They 'have no specific information' that would back up the assertions that are being made in this post.

And your SPLC link does more to back up my point than yours. They talk equally about 'right' hate the 'surprising' amount of hate from the left towards Obama.

I don't see any proof for the assertion made by Zerlina that the majority of these threats are coming from 'right' groups.

Re: Secret Service Overwhelmed By Number of Obama Death Threats

Eben Flood — Tue, 20 Oct 2009 16:28:39 -0000

Well, you make some strong assertions, do you have any links to numbers that back them up?

I think one telling thing in the article is that the S.S. didn't make the statement that there has been an increase in threats 'mostly from right wing groups' even though I can't think of a reason why they wouldn't say that if it were true. The DHS hasn't held back in it's rhetoric against the right so I don't know why the S.S. would.

Re: Secret Service Overwhelmed By Number of Obama Death Threats

Eben Flood — Tue, 20 Oct 2009 13:28:33 -0000

I'm wondering why you make the assumption that these threats are coming only from the 'right'? There has been plenty of dissatisfaction and anger expressed towards Obama from the 'left' as well.

If you look at the recent history of Presidential assassinations the last attempt was made against a Republican and the last success was committed by an avowed leftist. It would be dangerous for the Secret Service to make the assumptions that you're making and perhaps miss a real threat.

Re: New Poll: Majority Now Support a Public Option

Eben Flood — Tue, 20 Oct 2009 10:00:23 -0000

This makes me thankful we don't live in a true democracy!

Re: Guest Post: Chris Rock and the "Good Hair" Phenomenon

Eben Flood — Sat, 17 Oct 2009 11:03:28 -0000

Couldn't agree more. I spent some time in Somalia and Kenya when I was in the Corps and those women had natural, beautiful hair. I think women feel too much pressure from other women, not men, to conform to some imaginary standard of beauty. And it's not unique to some subset of women, all women face these pressures whether it be for weight, hair or something else.

And, of course, it's these very things that comedians like to poke a stick at.

Re: Guest Post: Get Your Hand Out My Pocket!!!

Eben Flood — Sat, 17 Oct 2009 00:38:20 -0000

Are you referring to politicians or CEO's?

Re: House Vote Boosts White House Goal of Closing Gitmo on Time

Eben Flood — Fri, 16 Oct 2009 21:19:10 -0000

And I'm not even talking about granting all constitutional rights to enemy combatants, I'm just talking about the basics of the judicial process, such as habeas corpus - we afford that much and more to any low-life murderer.

MT's provide that, and more. They have rules, they're just different. And yes, we convict people all the time, with the help of detectives, D.A.'s, crime labs etc. all of whom are trained in modern American law; a luxury battlefield combatants don't enjoy but yet it's a standard that will be applied to them in civilian courts.

Re: House Vote Boosts White House Goal of Closing Gitmo on Time

Eben Flood — Fri, 16 Oct 2009 20:41:12 -0000

Yup, it's tricky, but if you grant due process and all that other jazz you wont ever convict any combatant captured on the battlefield. If you granted Constitutional protections to Nazi's at Nuremberg not a one would have been convicted, the evidence was mostly hearsay and circumstantial.

What you rely on at MT's is the integrity of the court, a court and jury that is sworn to an oath above and beyond what you get in a normal court room. Not a bunch of civilians bored to tears just wishing they weren't on jury duty. It's not perfect, and neither is the normal courts, but it's the best option for battlefield and war time events.

If it's good enough for our service members I don't see why it can't be good enough for foreigners.

Re: Guest Post: Chris Rock and the "Good Hair" Phenomenon

Eben Flood — Fri, 16 Oct 2009 20:34:01 -0000

Well, yeah, he calls it a documentary because that makes it even funnier. It's kinda like Sasha Cohen's latest flick, it was a 'documentary' that was a comedy. I mean, this is classic comedian shtick stuff.

Re: Guest Post: Chris Rock and the "Good Hair" Phenomenon

Eben Flood — Fri, 16 Oct 2009 19:09:23 -0000

I still don't understand why Chris Rock made a documentary

I think there is the crux of your dilemma. He didn't make a documentary, he made a comedy and he did it to be funny and that's all it is.

Re: House Vote Boosts White House Goal of Closing Gitmo on Time

Eben Flood — Fri, 16 Oct 2009 18:47:04 -0000

Process and evidentiary rules are much different for starters. Lets say you have detained someone captured on the battlefield while planting an IED, for example, and find on him plans to blow up an embassy. How would a civilian court handle this? Was there a chain of custody for the evidence? Probably not, soldiers don't know anything about that. Did they collect any evidence that he was planting an IED? No, they blew it up in place. So how do you prove he did either of those things in a civilian court and that because of that he deserves detention? Well, you can't, the case gets dismissed.

It's similar to the Nuremberg War Crimes Tribunals or when a U.S. soldier commits a crime on base or over seas. The MT's have rules that accommodate battlefield or military conditions.

Re: House Vote Boosts White House Goal of Closing Gitmo on Time

Eben Flood — Fri, 16 Oct 2009 13:42:43 -0000

Yeah, I do agree that indefinite detention is wrong but it would have been better to force the Tribunals to act rather than accept them into the U.S. Court system that I believe is not the best place for them.

Re: House Vote Boosts White House Goal of Closing Gitmo on Time

Eben Flood — Fri, 16 Oct 2009 12:29:12 -0000

Yup.

Military tribunals are the place for that kind of stuff, or at least it has been up until recently. We have successfully processed thousands of POWs through military tribunals over the last 100 years or so, why change that?

Re: House Vote Boosts White House Goal of Closing Gitmo on Time

Eben Flood — Fri, 16 Oct 2009 11:39:30 -0000

Hmm, Edward Davidson escaped from Federal prison in April of 2008. Donnie Ausby escaped from Federal prison in July of this year. Carlos Brewster escaped from Federal prison in December of 2004.

But for me that's besides the point. Providing civilian trials, with full constitutional rights, to foreign combatants is just dumb.

I can imagine the farce of a trial where they try to prove one particular fighter tried to murder one particular soldier but since they can't prove that the AQ guy didn't actually fire a weapon because the soldiers never gathered any evidence, and because he was never presented to the soldiers in a line up, nor read his rights, that the defense requests a mistrial and the judge has no choice to grant it. Then Mr. AQ guy flies back to Pakistan and tries to kill some more soldiers telling all his buddies how stupid the U.S. is. Woohoo for us!

Re: Guest Post: Get Your Hand Out My Pocket!!!

Eben Flood — Fri, 16 Oct 2009 11:25:28 -0000

Well, I don't know if I can answer your consensus question without getting into a Constitution debate. I would posit that the Constitution does not expressly grant the Feds the right to regulate income and earnings so how much an individual or corporation makes and whether or not that is too much is beyond its purview.