My Interview With Chris Muir of Day By Day
I recently had the pleasure of interviewing Chris Muir. Chris Muir is the cartoonist behind the internet comic strip “Day By Day.”
http://www.daybydaycartoon.com/
I first learned about Day by Day by reading one of my favorite books, “South Park Conservatives.” The book describes the four characters. Damon is a 25 year old software worker. He is a conservative who happens to be black. Jan is a young, raging leftist. Zed is an easygoing designer that the writer of South Park Conservatives, Brian Anderson, describes as “coasting through life.” Sam is a mechanical engineer in his forties.
Day by Day is a smartly written and politically conservative cartoon.
With that, below is my interview with Chris Muir of Day by Day.
1) What is the Chris Muir story?
CM: I try to keep Chris Muir in the background as much as possible, I think it distracts from DBD. Basically, I was in Design, most manufacturing in the US went to China, which killed Design as a field (in my niche), fortunately I had been putting a lot of effort into DBD by then.
2) What is the Day by Day story? How did it come to be? Tell us about the characters.
CM: I drew some toons as a kid, didn’t touch them again until 1997 when the internet started showing promise as a way to address political and cultural issues I found interesting. It seemed no media or toons reflected what the other 1/2 of the population thought, and I sought to fill that gap in a very small way. After 9/11, blogs started up, and I saw immediately what an enriched field it was that could be symbiotic with the strip. DBD was one of the first online strips to be designed for the internet, and blogs in particular.
The characters are all blends of myself and people I know-as well as some I have read about. It took me about 4 years to get to know them, and the strip is much smoother now, as ‘they’ pretty much speak for themselves in any scenario that comes up.
3) The politically conservative character is Damon, who happens to be black. Is he based on anybody in particular? Did you deliberately want a black conservative? What was the initial readership reaction to Damon?
CM: Damon just popped in my head one day; and I selected a black conservative man to play off Jan, the white Liberal. He is based on myself and some friends of mine. I always enjoy it when Libs say ‘you can’t speak for a black man’. By such logic, they should never speak for any phenotype other than themselves, not too mention all novels, articles, analysis, etc. would be invalid with such an outlook. Truly silly people. Damon’s a conservative American man with African heritage, not African-American.That’s all.
Reaction has always been good to him, though he has ‘mellowed’ lately, with a child on the way nee Jan.
4) (Unless I am reading the strip wrong), it seems that Damon, who often sparred politically with raging white leftist Jan, is now romantically involved with her. What was the readership reaction to that decision?
CM: As in the above, Jan’s pregnant with Damon’s child, they’re engaged and funnin’ it up in Italy right now. Again, my readership enjoys the sparks that fly between them, and they have always pressured those 2 to get married!
5) Who are your favorite cartoonists and/or comic strips of all time, be they political or apolitical? What comic strips should more people know about, and who are these up and coming or underrated cartoonists?
CM: Gary Larson, David Wade, Chris Onstad, Garry Trudeau, Dilbert, Milton Caniff (Male Call), Helen, Sinfest…and there are so many others, I can’t list. Very few are political, they’re just damn good in what they do.
The best thing now is simply search, and skip around, there are so many. I typically find new ones every other week or so to read regularly.
6) Do you feel that most political cartoons are fair, or that they take cheap shots? Exempting Day by Day, which comic strips do you feel are fair, and which ones take cheap shots? Who and what in particular if anything do you feel crossed the line?
CM: The poor ones take cheap shots. The good ones are not fair-and, I don’t exempt DBD from that observation. As to crossing the line, it’s hard enough to put something of yourself out there every day online…so I give kudos to whomever is putting their work out there, frankly. ‘Crossing the line’ is too negative for me to worry about.
7) Has the change in presidential administrations made it easier, harder, or had no effect on your daily comic strip?
CM: Yes, yes, and no. I tend to hammer the Left because they are such bountiful suppliers of material; yet they could not exist without the GOP, a group so inept they make the Democrats appear professional.
Lots of material! And Mr.O is a writer’s dream, every day he produces something…memorable.
8.) Who are your 3 political heroes, be they American or global?
CM: Reagan, Vaclav Havel, Margaret Thatcher.
9) What political issues are you most passionate about?
CM: Hard to say, more like an assemblage…but with Obama, constitutional issues are coming to the fore.
10) What would you want people to say about Chris Muir the person? How would you like to be remembered 100 years from now?
Nothing. Don’t care, honestly.
I would like to thank Chris Muir for his time, and for writing a strip that is smart, sharp, funny, and sometimes very warm. After all, if Jan and Damon can love each other, then there is hope for all of us to get along, even while hanging on to our core principles.
eric
March 26th, 2009 at 4:08 pm
“but with Obama, constitutional issues are coming to the fore.”
What “constitutional issues”??? For the past eight years we’ve had a president who went to war without a declaration, ignored the geneva conventions and invented entriely new classes of human beings out of whole cloth, spied on the American people, classified everything, held secret meetings, detained POWs on 3rd party foreign soil, intervened in states rights at every turn, ignored his legal responsibilties to regulate, and a VP who apparently belong to entriely new branch of government we’d never knew existed before! And NOW this guys worried about Obama’s “constitutional issues”???
Loony.
JMJ
March 26th, 2009 at 4:28 pm
“For the past eight years we’ve had a president who went to war without a declaration,”
So what ? It was legal.
” ignored the geneva conventions”
Are those in the constitution?
” and invented entriely new classes of human beings out of whole cloth,”
hah ! Thats all libs do is seperate everyone by race and gender and god knows what else.
“spied on the American people,”
Yea, Obama voted for that stuff too.
” classified everything, held secret meetings,”
Yea, were at war.
” detained POWs on 3rd party foreign soil,”
Yea, so ?
I know, you want them in the Beverly Hills detention facility.
“intervened in states rights at every turn, ignored his legal responsibilties to regulate,”
Gee, I remeber him screaming at congress that theres about to be a real estate burst.
” and a VP who apparently belong to entriely new branch of government we’d never knew existed before!”
Yea well, that was kind of weird but so is moving the census into the white house.
And I think its safe to say that Obama is adding branchs of government and czars like weve never seen in our history
March 26th, 2009 at 5:49 pm
Micky, the Geneva Convention is US law! Using war powers when we are not at formally at war is unconstitutional! There is no such a leag lthaing as an “enemy combatant”! Spying on Americans is illegal regardless of who voted for it (and Bush was doing it long before “Obama voted for it”)! We were NOT at war! It takes a decalaration of war to constitutionally be at war! I didn’t even mention the signing statements, the outing of Valerie Plame, the detention of US citizens without due process, the firing of federal attorneys for political reasons, and on and on! And you geniuses are afriad of what Obama may do???
Get real. You cons don’t care at all about the constitution. You don;t even like it. You constantly spit on it, and despise our form of government, claiming it does nothing right and can never do anything good or necessary. The only thing you cons have in common with the constitution are the first four letters of the word.
JMJ
March 26th, 2009 at 6:26 pm
JMJ,
I will borrow a sentence. You are in need of serious psychiatric help.
Toma
March 26th, 2009 at 7:24 pm
“Micky, the Geneva Convention is US law! ”
Bull.
Geneva conventions are international and nowhere in the revisions references or protocols do they mention the application of U.S, constitutional rights.
“The Geneva Conventions consist of four treaties formulated in Geneva, Switzerland, that set the standards for international law for humanitarian concerns.
And since these guys belong to no country but rather a movement the Geneva conventions dont apply to them.
“Using war powers when we are not at formally at war is unconstitutional! ”
NO ITS NOT !!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
Al Queda is not a “COUNTRY” so there lays the difference buddy.
A declaration of war is a formal declaration issued by a national government indicating that a state of war exists between that nation and another. For the United States, Article One, Section Eight of the Constitution says “Congress shall have power to … declare War;” however, that passage provides no specific format for what form legislation text must have to be considered a “Declaration of War” nor does the Constitution itself use this term. Many have postulated “Declaration(s) of War” must contain that phrase as or within the title. Many oppose that reasoning. The postulate has not been tested in court; however, this article will use the term “formal Declaration of War” to mean Congressional legislation that uses the phrase “Declaration of War” in the title.
Despite the constitutional requirement that Congress declare war, in practice, formal Declarations of War have occurred only upon prior request by the President. And contrary to the popular opinion that the framers of the Constitution intended that the President cannot engage in war without an act of Congress, in fact the framers chose the final wording with the intent of “leaving to the Executive the power to repel sudden attacks” without the explicit approval of Congress.
“There is no such a leag lthaing as an “enemy combatant”!”
Yea, I know, They’re FREEDOM FIGHTERS.
” Spying on Americans is illegal regardless of who voted for it (and Bush was doing it long before “Obama voted for it”)”
No its not according to the FISA courts.
The FISA Amendments Act of 2008 passed by the United States Congress on July 9, 2008.
The President may authorize, through the Attorney General, electronic surveillance without a court order for the period of one year provided it is only for foreign intelligence information; targeting foreign powers as defined by 50 U.S.C. §1801(a)(1),(2),(3) or their agents; and there is no substantial likelihood that the surveillance will acquire the contents of any communication to which a United States person is a party.
” We were NOT at war! It takes a decalaration of war to constitutionally be at war! ”
No, all it takes is for the bad guys to shoot at you and you can call it whatever the hell you want.
“:I didn’t even mention the signing statements, the outing of Valerie Plame, the detention of US citizens without due process, the firing of federal attorneys for political reasons, and on and on! And you geniuses are afriad of what Obama may do???”
Oh yea, that covert spy that the whole world knew about ?
I’ll bet I can show you the names of millions of US citizens detained without due process under any adminsitration and god forbid the pres hire and fire the attorneys he wants.
Yea, all that is pretty lame compared to what the “Community organizer” would like to do with his national plice, youth groups, people going doo to door taking pledges.
Ya know what, sometimes you just gotta stop defending the obvious before you look like any bigger a nut than you really are
“Get real. You cons don’t care at all about the constitution. You don;t even like it. You constantly spit on it, and despise our form of government, claiming it does nothing right and can never do anything good or necessary. The only thing you cons have in common with the constitution are the first four letters of the word”
Con is a Latin preposition meaning “together with”.
So yea, its cool.
” despise our form of government, claiming it does nothing right and can never do anything good or necessary.”
Aww Jersey thats enough already !!!!
Would you grow the hell up and knock off your idiotic childish thoughtless little tantrums ?
Thats the exact same thing you said when Bush or any other con was in office.
Tomas right, go get yer head examined
March 26th, 2009 at 9:01 pm
And Mick rests his case.
Toma
March 26th, 2009 at 10:30 pm
Micky, do you understand what an international treaty is? Do you know what it means when we sign and ratify such a treaty? Do you just make up what you believe as you go along?
You just flat out deny things that are true and then offer no substantial rebuke. It’s just contrarianism. “No it’s not!” Well, Micky, I’ve got news for you Sunshine - yes it is. Read the constitution and you’ll understand that.
“Al Queda is not a “COUNTRY” so there lays the difference buddy.”
Yes, and the difference is that they are CRIMINALS.
No matter how much you try to obfuscate the truth, only congress can declare war, and only in a time of war do certain wartime presidential powers apply. Bush broke the law. Bush spat on the constitution. Everyone who supports Bush de facto hates the constitution and wants to live in a Military Junta.
JMJ
March 26th, 2009 at 10:43 pm
If you don’t mind or even if you do mind, I’ll decide what I hate and don’t hate. Junta? It may come to that.
Toma
March 26th, 2009 at 11:09 pm
“Micky, do you understand what an international treaty is? ”
Yea, I do.
And I understand that Gitmo detaineeds do not recieve American constitutional rights.
First because they are not a military that can claim a country if they did they would be treated in accordance with the Geneva conventions,
Also, they are not on American soil, hence they are notg afforded the rights of our constitution.
Thats the main reason you morons want them moved to the mainland.
YOU LOSE !!!!
I am not the one making anything up.
I showed you exactly whate where and when and how the G conventions are applied and deemed legal.
THEY ARE NOT US LAW AS YOU SAID !! THEY ARE INTERNATIONAL LAW !!!
“You just flat out deny things that are true and then offer no substantial rebuke. It’s just contrarianism. “No it’s not!” Well, Micky, I’ve got news for you Sunshine - yes it is. Read the constitution and you’ll understand that.”
YOU’RE A LIAR.
The point here is that you said it was US law, I proved you wrong.
You’re pi$$ a$$ child who cant stand it when you’re wrong.
The Geneva convention is not US law and the constitution does not bnind us to it.
Once again BUDDY !! YOU MADE THE CLAIM !!! YOU PROVE IT !!!
TELL ME, WHAT HAVE YOU OFFERED FOR REBUTAL BESIDES
” I SAID SO” ???
NOTHING !! THATS RIGHT NOTHING !
“Yes, and the difference is that they are CRIMINALS.”
CAPTURED ON FOREIGN SOIL WITH ALLEGIANCE TO NO COUNTRY OR INTERNATIONALLY RECKOGNIZED MILITARY SO THEY DONT GET RECKONIZED BY THE GENEVA CONVENTION NOR DO THEY GET CONSTITUTIONAL RIGHTS !!!
“no matter how much you try to obfuscate the truth, only congress can declare war, and only in a time of war do certain wartime presidential powers apply. ”
WHICH I SHOWED YOU ABOVE.
I WILL REPEAT THE LAW>
in fact the framers chose the final wording with the intent of “leaving to the Executive the power to repel sudden attacks” without the explicit approval of Congress.
“Bush broke the law.”
YOu cant prove it and no one else did or can.
You’re lying if you continue to say that without proof.
“Bush spat on the constitution. Everyone who supports Bush de facto hates the constitution and wants to live in a Military Junta.”
Dont speak for me a$$hole.
You’re wrong and you cant prove we wrong and that my friend is that.
Unless youy can find a written law that convist Bush or proves me wrong
You loose because of dishonest crap like this>>>”You just flat out deny things that are true and then offer no substantial rebuke. It’s just contrarianism. “No it’s not!”
You really think that no one else reading this thread didnt see that “no its not” is not all that I wrote and that you’re being a little girly man and taking it completely out of context asthere was a WHOLE PARAGRAPH AFTERWARDS EXPLAING WHY !!!!!
You’re really loosing it man if you think anyone will fall for your stupid ridiculous childih attempts to look as if you’re makiing a dent in this argument.
You’re just making yourself look like a fool
March 26th, 2009 at 11:18 pm
Amazing.
Obama is screwing up big time and you cant justify any of it so the best you can do is still blame Bush.
How lame is that ?
Enjoy it while you can, that game will be dead soon enough Jersey
““Micky, the Geneva Convention is US law! ””
Bet you cant prove that, thats the point here.
you’re wrong, you lose.
Its International law.
Ant high schooler knows that.
“Ohh, but I’ a student of history”
Pfft.
March 27th, 2009 at 12:23 am
Toma, you do get the point I was making, though, right? You guys bash the government at every turn, but it is our government - our constitutional government of, by, and for the people. When you guys endlessly bash everything the government attempts to do, you are bashing the constitution, the people, America. Get it?
Obama “screwed up” what, Micky?
JMJ
March 27th, 2009 at 12:26 am
Oh, and Micky, when the United States ratifies a treaty, that treaty becomes part of the “Supreme Law of the Land” as per the Supremacy Clause of the Constitution. It’s a shame so many Americans know so little about their own constitution.
JMJ
March 27th, 2009 at 1:35 am
JMJ, it seems that when the cons are in charge of the government of, for, and by the people is stupid, corrupt, idiotic, illegal, thuggish, doomed to failure, etc etc. But when libs are in charge of the government of, for, and by the people every thing is peachy keen. But then you don’t bash do you?
Treaties are the Supreme Law of the Land per the Supremacy Clause of the Constitution. Tell that to the Souix, Creek, Seminole, Cheyenne, Apache, Comanche, Arapaho…
Toma
March 27th, 2009 at 11:15 am
Toma, those same cons come right out and say it! Don’t you remember Reagan’s ol’ axiom? “The most terrifying words in the English langauge are, “I’m from the government and I’m here to help.”?” Only cons are gullible enough to put people who believe government is bad in charge of the government.
And what libs are you talking about? Jimmy Carter? Bill Clinton? They’re just conservative lite! We haven’t had a “lib” in the White House since Truman! Heck, Nixon was more liberal than any president we’ve had since Nixon. The jury is still out on Obama (thought Lord knows you guys are judging his entire presidency already).
And what’s your point about our treaties? That we should break them the way we broke them with the natives? Why is it that for conservatives to back up their assertions they always have to use negatives? Lib: We can’t base our laws on God because we really don’t have any edvidence that there is a God. Conservative: Prove there is no God! Lib: There’s no evidence that lowering taxes raises revenues any more than raising them, at any given time. Conservative: But revenues went up! It doesn’t matter if we have no control to compare! Lib: We should observe our international treaties. Conservative: Why? We’ve broken them before! Are you saying that we should be more like we were in the past when we stomped out the natives? What the #@!! are you saying?
JMJ
March 27th, 2009 at 11:28 am
Damn you are thick headed. You stated that treaties are the supreme law of the land. Politicians ignore and/or change, rewrite, repeal the “law” at their whim. All for the good of the “people”.
You bash what you don’t like and I bash what I don’t like. We just disagree on what needs a good bashing. Get It?
Toma
March 27th, 2009 at 11:37 am
Jersey.
The supreme court of the land does not apply to those not on US soil.
Or in this case those at Gitmo.
That is why its advantageous for the detainees to be moved to a US facility on US soil where they can enjoy these rights.
This is one of the main reasons the right objects to the closing of Gitmo for fear that they will be allowed these rights in US civilian court and not a military tribunal.
Understand that part ?
Second of all.
The Geneva convention is not a US law. Its is a treaty established amongst many nations, hence you have and international treaty/law.
The treaty applies to those in Gitmo only under article 3 as lately as only June 12, 2008 when the United States Supreme Court ruled in Boumediene v. Bush that the Guantanamo captives were entitled to the protection of the United States Constitution. Justice Anthony Kennedy, writing for the majority, described the SCR Tribunals as “an inadequate substitute for habeas corpus” although “both the DTA and the SCRT process remain intact.”
So … the Geneva convention is not “US law “!!!!
US law says we must abide by article 3 of an international law/Geneva convention. GOT IT ????
Up until this decision was made in 2008 Bush was not disregarding the constitution and would of only been doing so had he not abided by and acknowledged the decision of the court.
At no time did he do anything unconstitutional as the laws at the time permitted him to do at “THE TIME” what was perceived to be constitutional.
After the decision in 2008 is when you had your “RATIFICATION” and at that point that “RADIFICATION” was abided by.
So, tell me.
Since the detainees are still there, being held under the same conditions for at least the next ten months is Obama also trampling on the constitution ?
And what about the renditions that he decided to maintain ? You and I and most of the detainees really have no idea whats going to happen to them if they get shipped off to Riad or someplace, do we ?
Actually, if you knew your sh*t and actually wanted to make decent argument for once you would of brought up the case with Padilla where he contested that his constitutional rights were violated and won.
Bush cant violate a law until its actually a law. Ya cant retroactively prosecute someone after the fact and new laws are written
But hey, you’re the genius right ? What do I know ?
Were at war (or call it an over seas contingency if that makes you happy) with people who want to kill us and you can call it anything you want but the fact remains that the dems to certain extent believe the situation is dangerous enough where these guys either have to be locked up here or abroad.
You and the idiots on the left can call the situation and these guys at Gitmo anything you want if it makes you feel better. That doesnt change the fact that we had to adapt to a whole new kind of enemy that was not a member of any one country or held any allegiance to any country. They operated outside of any and all borders and so in the fog of a situation with an on going battle and laws on the books that were not dated to handle such a situation you’re going to have problems along the way.
Are you going to keep an eye on each of these Gitmo detainees to make sure they arent rendered to another country by the Obama administration ? God only knows what goes on in the detention facilities of these other countries.
Do you think they’ll abide by all the laws, indigent or international ?
“by, and for the people. When you guys endlessly bash everything the government attempts to do, you are bashing the constitution, the people, America. Get it?”
Gee, as Toma pointed out your incredible hypocrisy, would you like me to dig up all the crap you’ve said about the “government” under the Bush administrations “attempts”.
That would make you as guilty of disregarding the constitution as much as you say Bush has, right ?
Wheres the difference between my dissent and yours ?
I WANT AN ANSWER
I say you’re wrong and dont know a freaking thing about the constitution if you think that criticizing what our government does is “bashing the constitution”
Fine, call it whatever your little heart desires but has the constitution actually been violated by yours and my dissent ?
And has both sides not always said its healthy, patriotic and our constitutional right to question and critique the government and its attempts ?
Now, if you can show me a conviction placed on Bush for all the illegal things you claim hes done then you’ll start to look half way sane.
“Obama “screwed up” what, Micky?”
You really want to ask that question ?
Do really believe that not only I but even members of your own party haven’t pointed to errors in his judgement ?
His first screw up, I’d say, would be this idiotic stimulus which so far has proven to be nothing but a whirlwind of problems all the way around and really solved nothing yet.
As he said the bucks stops with him so we can forget about blaming Geithner or Dodd who allowed the language for AIG to keep their bonuses.
Fair enough ?
Obamas screw ups.
1) Allowing the language that allowed the AIG bonuses that was a result of either intention or incompetence.
If they knew of the contracts ahead of the writing of the bill then they are complacent and got caught plating their little game.
If they did not know of these contracts while writing the bill they are incompetent.
2) After promising during his campaign he would not appoint lobbyists he nominates William Lynn to be deputy defense secretary.
Obama’s press team says “rules are made to be broken!”
Obama administration says it’s in “the public interest” to grant Lynn a waiver!!! So all the other lobbyists hired in the past were hired against “the public interest???”
3) William Corr, same thing again ! Obama breaks his no lobbyist rules! Twice in one week! This time by naming of lobbyist William Corr to be Deputy Secretary of Health and Human Services.
4) Same thing even AGAIN!!! he hired another lobbyist, Mark Patterson from Goldman Sach.
All this after Obama said;
“When I am president, they ( the lobbyists) won’t find a job in my White House.”
5) Nominating tax cheats Geithner, Kilefer, Daschle, and all the other screwy appointees like Richardson and so on shows that this guy really doesnt think before he picks. Once or twice I’ll give the guy a break, four or five times is just too much,and still after 90 days hes yet to fill over 1500 positions in his staff.
6) He promise not to raise any taxes on those making less than $250,000 a year!
Obama;
“I can make a firm pledge. Under my plan, no family making less than $250,000 a year will see any form of tax increase. Not your income tax, not your payroll tax, not your capital gains taxes, not any of your taxes.”
UPDATE: 2/24/9: Obama repeats the lie saying those who make less than $250,000 will not pay higher taxes, “Not one Dime!”
UPDATE 3/5/9: Obama’s budget raises 45% of its revenue from energy taxes that will be paid by everyone who fills a gas tank, pays an electric bill, or buys anything that was grown, shipped, or manufactured
7) After promising at least 48 hours for everyone to see the stimulus bill its rammed through the House and Senate in secrecy in a few short hours.
We all know thats a big fat lie.
9) He said meetings where laws are written will be more open to the public yet he kept cons from meeting over the stimulus so they present input.
10) He said there would be no more secrecy after republicans didn’t even get to see the bill, and then just recently required secrecy oaths for his defense budget team.
11) He broke the promise telling the public would have 5 days to look at the stimulus bill and then said some crap trying to assured us “you’ll know what’s in it,”
“and we will put every pork-barrel project online”
AFTER SAYING THERE IS NO PORK ??
He’s screwing up, and not just little screw ups that come with the turf. Were talking about screwing up to the point that even socialist countries in Europe are telling him that his level of spending the way he’s doing it wont work.
He’s screwing up so bad that the infighting amongst deems has officially began as more and more of his constituents and Congress are beginning to question his plans.
He completely flipped on his middle eastern policies he promised to his far left base.
His job approval ratings are going down on a consistent basis since taking office.
After his message to Iran they told him to get screwed.
He actually thought he could violate the constitution and tax the AIG bonuses. (And I’m pi$$ed at the cons who were gonna vote yes on that)
Needless to say thats been shot down.
His numbers and projections are all wrong as has been pointed out by many people that you wouldnt ever think would say such a thing.
Paul Krugman, Maxine Waters have both come out and said he doesnt know what he’s doing.
Queen moonbat Cindy Sheehan has already come after him.
Yea, I could go on and on but I think ( I hope) you get the picture here and wont ever ask me again how Obama is screwing up.
March 27th, 2009 at 1:05 pm
I’ve got to watch weather. We are about to be snowed in and probably lose power. It’s days like today I would like to be in the Islands.
See ya later.
Toma
March 27th, 2009 at 1:19 pm
Week in Review, Carnival Games & Carny Tricks? What is going on at our Capitol Washington D.C.?
http://youhavetobethistalltogoonthisride.blogspot.com/2009/03/tgif-karn-evil-welcome-to-show-that.html
March 27th, 2009 at 1:30 pm
Well, good luck with the storm, Toma, but I will not agree that it’s ever okay to simply unilaterally break treaties on a whim, regardless of the political party involved.
Micky,
You’re simply not following my argument here. It’s very simple - if we are at “war,” as you guys claim, then the people that we are at war with are subject tyo the Geneva Conventions. If we are not at “war,” as I assert, then the people we’re fighting are criminals and are then subject to our criminal law. But Bush and Co came up with a third way - they invented new classifications for war, for war criminals, for prisoners of war, all in the name of the “war on terror,” a ridiculous war on a noun. I assert that this is both illegal and unconstitutional. I certainly understand why Bush and Co did this, but I disagree with their logic.
“The Geneva convention is not a US law.”
Yes it is. Read the constitution.
Ask Toma, he knows it.
As for Obama “screwing up,” yes he has made some mistakes, but nothing that I see as a big deal for now. So far, the only “screwing up” he’s done has been a matter of subjective review and minor mistakes by underlings. Now, take the budget - this budget has been waiting for a signature since before Obama was sworn in. It represents a huge decline in earmarks. But if you ask me, I really don’t care about earmarks. They are a tiny portion of the budget, and many of them are very good for the public. Then, take the lying governors who said they are declining the stimulus money - they are taking 95% of it! The only money they’re refusing is unemployment benefits for part-time workers! It’s disgusting! And their excuse? The money will run our in a couple of years and so if the states chose to keep the benefits going, they’d have to raise taxes, but most economists are sure that by then the extended benefits won’t be needed anymore! Now, this is just plain sleazy on the part of those governors. I’ll take Obama’s “screw ups” over that kind of sleaze anyday.
JMJ
March 27th, 2009 at 3:27 pm
“I assert that this is both illegal and unconstitutional. I certainly understand why Bush and Co did this, but I disagree with their logic.”
CHENEY: I do. I think those programs were absolutely essential to the success we enjoyed of being able to collect the intelligence that let us defeat all further attempts to launch attacks against the United States since 9/11. I think that’s a great success story. It was done legally. It was done in accordance with our constitutional practices and principles.
Now, I think part of the difficulty here as I look at what the Obama administration is doing, we made a decision after 9/11 that I think was crucial. We said this is a war. It’s not a law enforcement problem. Up until 9/11, it was treated as a law enforcement problem. You go find the bad guy, put him on trial, put him in jail. The FBI would go to Oklahoma City and find the identification tag off the truck and go find the guy that rented the truck and put him in jail.
Once you go into a wartime situation and it’s a strategic threat, then you use all of your assets to go after the enemy. You go after the state sponsors of terror, places where they’ve got sanctuary. You use your intelligence resources, your military resources, your financial resources, everything you can in order to shut down that terrorist threat against you.
When you go back to the law enforcement mode, which I sense is what they’re doing, closing Guantanamo and so forth, that they are very much giving up that center of attention and focus that’s required, and that concept of military threat that is essential if you’re going to successfully defend the nation against further attacks.”
You can assert all you want.
Disagreeing with logic is a far far cry from making accusations you cant prove.
Get it right for once would you ?
I’m not going to believe you because no one has been convicted of the allegations you assert.
Bush has not been inpeached and no charges have been leveled aginst hin or Cheny.
Just like when you say Bush intentionally lied to go to war.If you cant prove it shut up.
Now m show me the where it says that the Genveva conventions are US law.
We may be obligated by our “OWN” laws to follow the conventions but they are international law respected by each participating contry and not the law of that country.
In addition, dies Al Queda grant us protection under the conventions ??
Screw them.
Thats why I think if Bush and Cheny had to do some fabricating more freaking power to the buddy
“but most economists are sure that by then the extended benefits won’t be needed anymore! ”
Yea right.
CBO aid his budget is whacked and the NYTs posted the signatures of over 200 top economists who said quite the opposite.
Why the hell would you want to commit to speding on unemplyment if you’re so sure you wont need it Jersey ?? HUH ?
Jeez, make up your mind.
Yea I know, its sleazy to not want to take money thats not yours and its a real class act to finacially rape those who make more than you and the country.
Sorry man, its you and the entitlemnt minded freaks who are the sleazes
March 31st, 2009 at 7:58 am
[...] Day by Day’s Chris Muir sums it all up: I tend to hammer the Left because they are such bountiful suppliers of material; yet they could not exist without the GOP, a group so inept they make the Democrats appear professional. [...]