Comments on: I Didn’t Vote For Barack Obama . . .

By: peterquinn

peterquinn — Sun, 12 Jul 2009 03:31:53 +0000

Nobody has seemed to notice that President Obama is suffering from foot in mouth disease. It comes from not thinking – those damn teleprompters say things that confuse … and cause so much extra work and obfuscation.

By: pcarro11

pcarro11 — Fri, 10 Jul 2009 21:46:07 +0000

You fail to understand a simple concept: The One won. So now he gets to do whatever he wants. Well, mostly he gets to distribute spoils to his supporters. That's the Chicago way.

By: JD1

JD1 — Thu, 09 Jul 2009 19:45:14 +0000

Hello, I am using IE8 and the comment section is unreadable. You have to select each comment to read it. Otherwise comments show as white on peach or white on white…the prompts for email, username, password show as white on white.

By: Bitemycrank

Bitemycrank — Thu, 09 Jul 2009 19:02:40 +0000

Thanks for addressing my concern, newledger. I'd hate to have this be a site whose comments I can not read. I'm glad it's a known issue and is being resolved.

Regarding my non-classy username; I only wished to bring the issue to your attention and was forced to choose a name. I will not comment again using this name. Nor will I comment again until your comments are visible to those of us stuck using IE.

By: newledger

newledger — Thu, 09 Jul 2009 18:46:31 +0000

We're aware of a display problem for Disqus with some versions of Internet Explorer for the site. We expect to have them resolved by next week. Until then, Firefox or Safari should work for you.

By: Pejman_Yousefzadeh

Pejman_Yousefzadeh — Thu, 09 Jul 2009 18:28:00 +0000

1. What browser are you using. None of us have ever encountered this problem before. My screen is just fine, and I am using Firefox.

2. You may want to pick a classier user name. Just a thought.

By: Bitemycrank

Bitemycrank — Thu, 09 Jul 2009 15:54:01 +0000

Who designed this site? Comments that are white on a pink background?? Thanks for the headaches!

By: ajacksonian

ajacksonian — Thu, 09 Jul 2009 15:17:42 +0000

Even further, as we use the framework of the Law of Nations as mentioned in the US Constitution, these individuals are violaters of that in de Vattel's work which was cited at the Founding and throughout the Constitutional ratification process by both Federalists and Anti-Federalists, and the powers therein supported by President Washington's citation of it for Neutrality in a conflict between other Nations. By that, in Book III, such individuals are guilty of committing Private War, outside the bounds of Nation States and covered by no law. That is not being nasty, but the brutal fact that, as Blackstone cites, these individuals have taken up their negative liberties to wage war against all Nations and are, thus, enemies of all mankind. By Norse and Common Law views they make themselves outlaw: outside the protection of any law.

As the US Constitution allows for the penalties of the Law of Nations, we are far too kind on the civil side to give pirates mere life imprisonment, and yet that is the most those fighting private war can expect from us. The concept of illegal enemy combatant is illegal to the Law of Nations, and the savagery of such individuals places themselves into that category by their choice. At any point up to their capture they could submit to the judgment of civil law. They do not and are thus using the Law of Nature as their guide. We used to understand this in America, as Lincoln put that into the General Orders 100 for the Army which lasted from 1863-1895.