Comments on: A Win for the Good Guys

By: Dadler

Dadler — Tue, 02 May 2006 18:22:03 +0000

Also Robbie,
Forget Yale and one former Taliban official, right up until 9/11 the U.S. Government was PAYING MILLIONS to the Taliban for the “good job” they’d done in the “drug war”. We knew they were thugs and extremists, abusing the rights of their female citizens, executing whomever they wanted…but they were doing what we wanted at the time and we were REWARDING THEM HANDSOMELY.

Wake up, my friend. Reality comes in many more shades than basic black and white.

By: Dadler

Dadler — Tue, 02 May 2006 18:17:54 +0000

Thanks for quoting me. Have you any actual rhetorical reply to my logical points? Or is the reality of military “employment” and abuse just too much for you to handle?

To parody their recruiting slogan: It’s not just a job, it’s an indenture.

You have little to no rights and your compensation is pitiful for the vast majority of soldiers. Not to mention, of course, that their civilian leaders have yet again committed them to a deadly quagmire, with inferior resources and manpower, and lied about it day in and day out in the process.

Since my little brother is one of those soldiers, having served a year in Baghdad, now hiking through the mountains of Afghanistan, I’ve see the effect on my family directly.

Disagree, fine. But have at least a smidgen of rhetorical chops as you do.

Peace.

By: UrbanGrounds » Blog Archive » Yale Calls Taliban Critics “Retarded”

Tue, 14 Mar 2006 20:39:35 +0000

[...] Last week, we wrote about Yale admitting — nay, clamoring for the privilege of admitting — Sayed Ramatullah Hashemi (the former spokesperson for the Taliban — yes, that Taliban) into their hallowed Ivy-halls. [...]

By: Defending the Indefensible

Defending the Indefensible — Tue, 07 Mar 2006 01:20:35 +0000

The SCOTUS opinion relies principally upon the legal theory that the government has the authority to require all colleges to give military recruiters access regardless of whether the school receives federal funding. Otherwise, it might run afoul of the “unconstitutional conditions” jurisprudence.

As a modest proposal in furtherance of Robbie’s desire to keep cannabis illegal irrespective of any real commerce clause basis for prohibition, the selective service could simply consider all enlistment-age people as being drafted into reserves and prohibit such conduct on pain of court-martial and summary punishment.

By: Preston

Preston — Tue, 07 Mar 2006 00:41:53 +0000

There are competing values at work here- the right of an institution to choose not to do business with another institution that practices discrimination against homosexuals versus the right of congress to impose the contrary will.

Look you claim to want the Constitution as it was written 200 years ago to dictate the decisions now. But your insistence on results-based decisions belies that.

There were also people 50 years ago that wanted the Court to overturn acts of Congress because they felt that they were discriminatory. They felt this was one of those types of cases.

I think that the decision was probably correct but the losing side had valid issues.

By: Robbie

Robbie — Mon, 06 Mar 2006 22:28:58 +0000

Good point, Preston. But if you’ll start reading through the comments on the Kos diary that you linked, you’ll see the true feelings of the Left filtering through.

The second comment gets the tone started nicely:

“Just put the recruiters in Campus Free Zones to keep the students safe.”

By: Preston

Preston — Mon, 06 Mar 2006 21:14:59 +0000

The left’s opinion?

SCOTUS Gets It Right on Military Recruiting

http://www.dailykos.com/story/2006/3/6/151448/0894

By: Tailrank - Top posts for Friday August 11, 2006

Tailrank - Top posts for Friday August 11, 2006 — Wed, 30 Nov -0001 00:00:00 +0000

More from: protein wisdom Anti-Strib Blogometer Right Voices Joe’s Dartblog UrbanGrounds

By: austinsnews.net | Calibrating for hype

austinsnews.net | Calibrating for hype — Wed, 30 Nov -0001 00:00:00 +0000