Support NeoGAF

[Agnostic]

Is that Drew Carrey's youtube channel?

Drew Carey is a libertarian and allows Reason.com to use his celebrity.

 

[Black Mamba]

Cruz's argument appears to be something like this: the rule of law protects liberty, and the abrogation of the rule of law therefore threatens liberty. The president abrogates the rule of law when he refuses to enforce the law for policy reasons, and so threatens liberty.

Which part of that argument, if any, do you disagree with?

His argument lends credence to the idea that if slavery is legal or human trafficking is legal or whatever, the President trying to stop it would be an affront to liberty. That's a pretty ridiculous stand. I don't agree with his false choice.

Furthermore, his argument ignores our Constitution's gov't which is separation of powers and the Executive has every right to determine what is Constitutional and what isn't. This is not only the job of the federal courts. All 3 branches have this power (which is why they're separated!). The Executive has every right to determine how it wants to enforce its laws.

Does Ted Cruz argue that all drugs must have the same level of enforcement (in terms of money/man power devoted to it)? My guess is no, he's not. Which means he believes the executive has the right to determine which drugs need more resources for enforcement, which is exactly what he's also basically arguing against here. The Obama Admin said it will still enforce the law on federal grounds (ie federal courthouse) and minors, etc but won't put the resources into enforcing it everywhere. They didn't deem the Colorado law valid nor did they claim it to be legal. They're simply using their executive power to decide how to enforce the laws on the books and they've decided it's not worth it to go after certain jurisdictions and will ignore it for others. The President has always had this power and its been used by nearly every President in our history.

It's absurd that Cruz is arguing that the President choosing not to incarcerate people in certain jurisdictions for smoking pot because "that's the law" is the affront to liberty when the truth is that Obama enforcing it is an afront to liberty. Just like it was an affront to liberty when the federal gov't didn't recognize same sex marriages or when it arrested people for "sedition."

The President ignoring morally unjust laws that restrict libery is not bad for liberty. The hoops one must jump through to get there...

 

[Jackson50]

It may be a faulty assumption on my part, but the active friction of open war (both against Assad and their fellow rebels) seems to me like it would be responsible for the burn of much more men and materiel than punctuated drone strikes.
Even if for no other reason than the relative ease of burning them when concentrated in-theater.

Open war might be more destructive than drone strikes, but al-Qa'ida is not operating with a static supply of men and material. The conflict in Syria has seemingly galvanized its supporters and affiliates. Consequently, al-Qa'ida and its subsidiaries, although many are only loosely affiliated, have enjoyed an infusion of fighters and materials from numerous regions. And the chaos creates a fecund environment for recruitment. Syria has become a nexus for various Islamist terrorist groups. They grow stronger when they can coordinate. The crisis in Anbar evinces the potency of the various affiliates, even if their contribution might be less than originally reported. Although, I agree the strain of a stalemate might eventually weaken them. Fissures are already developing between the various groups. But to this point, I think they've gained more than they've lost.

I suppose I'll need to spell it out a bit more.

The abrogation of the rule of law doesn't threaten liberty unless it is taken as a given that the rule of law, always and everywhere, does nothing but protect liberty. If there are laws that do not protect liberty, then failing to enforce them does not threaten liberty. Thus, unless you're arguing that all laws are perfectly just, Cruz's argument does not hold water.

You and Black Mamba make a great point. I'd also add that there's a fundamental difference between reconciling a conflict between state and federal law and disregarding the rule of law.

 

[Avon Barksdale]

Drew Carey is a libertarian and allows Reason.com to use his celebrity.

Drew Carey is a Republican that likes to smoke weed.

 

[empty vessel]

I think the real problem with Cruz's argument is the supposition that Obama is doing anything differently from past presidents.

 

[NYCmetsfan]

His argument lends credence to the idea that if slavery is legal or human trafficking is legal or whatever, the President trying to stop it would be an affront to liberty. That's a pretty ridiculous stand. I don't agree with his false choice.

Furthermore, his argument ignores our Constitution's gov't which is separation of powers and the Executive has every right to determine what is Constitutional and what isn't. This is not only the job of the federal courts. All 3 branches have this power (which is why they're separated!). The Executive has every right to determine how it wants to enforce its laws.

Does Ted Cruz argue that all drugs must have the same level of enforcement (in terms of money/man power devoted to it)? My guess is no, he's not. Which means he believes the executive has the right to determine which drugs need more resources for enforcement, which is exactly what he's also basically arguing against here. The Obama Admin said it will still enforce the law on federal grounds (ie federal courthouse) and minors, etc but won't put the resources into enforcing it everywhere. They didn't deem the Colorado law valid nor did they claim it to be legal. They're simply using their executive power to decide how to enforce the laws on the books and they've decided it's not worth it to go after certain jurisdictions and will ignore it for others. The President has always had this power and its been used by nearly every President in our history.

It's absurd that Cruz is arguing that the President choosing not to incarcerate people in certain jurisdictions for smoking pot because "that's the law" is the affront to liberty when the truth is that Obama enforcing it is an afront to liberty. Just like it was an affront to liberty when the federal gov't didn't recognize same sex marriages or when it arrested people for "sedition."

The President ignoring morally unjust laws that restrict libery is not bad for liberty. The hoops one must jump through to get there...

The laws themselves have a large amount of latitude allowed as well. Its not as if they're ignoring the laws, most of the time they're using the discretion delegated by congress in a duly passed law. He's following the law much of the time!

 

[Touchdown]

At the store. Fox News is on. They are still on the BENGHAZI train.

I laughed at this because I went to McDonalds on my lunch break from work today and they had it on Fox News too and were talking about Benghazi. I just shook my head.

 

[TomServo]

I laughed at this because I went to McDonalds on my lunch break from work today and they had it on Fox News too and were talking about Benghazi. I just shook my head.

MSNBC sees your Benghazi, and raises you a Christie bridge scandal.

 

[Touchdown]

MSNBC sees your Benghazi, and raises you a Christie bridge scandal.

At least that scandal is still somewhat ongoing. lol

 

[Sibylus]

Open war might be more destructive than drone strikes, but al-Qa'ida is not operating with a static supply of men and material. The conflict in Syria has seemingly galvanized its supporters and affiliates. Consequently, al-Qa'ida and its subsidiaries, although many are only loosely affiliated, have enjoyed an infusion of fighters and materials from numerous regions. And the chaos creates a fecund environment for recruitment. Syria has become a nexus for various Islamist terrorist groups. They grow stronger when they can coordinate. The crisis in Anbar evinces the potency of the various affiliates, even if their contribution might be less than originally reported. Although, I agree the strain of a stalemate might eventually weaken them. Fissures are already developing between the various groups. But to this point, I think they've gained more than they've lost.You and Black Mamba make a great point. I'd also add that there's a fundamental difference between reconciling a conflict between state and federal law and disregarding the rule of law.

Definitely fair points, thanks. Must be difficult to stake out an appropriate level of support rendered, given the proclivity of extremist groups of confiscating it for themselves.

 

[speculawyer]

MSNBC sees your Benghazi, and raises you a Christie bridge scandal.

If MSNBC is still talking about the bridge scandal 2 years from now then you have a point. But right now . . . it is a rolling story. We hand another departure and another person claiming the 5th just yesterday.

 

[B-Dubs]

MSNBC sees your Benghazi, and raises you a Christie bridge scandal.

There's a difference between a story from the fall and a developing story.

If MSNBC is still talking about the bridge scandal 2 years from now then you have a point. But right now . . . it is a rolling story. We hand another departure and another person claiming the 5th just yesterday.

Pretty much this.

If there was no new info on the bridge thing then you'd be right Tom, but there's new stuff happening with that story every few days.

 

[Metaphoreus]

I suppose I'll need to spell it out a bit more.

The abrogation of the rule of law doesn't threaten liberty unless it is taken as a given that the rule of law, always and everywhere, does nothing but protect liberty. If there are laws that do not protect liberty, then failing to enforce them does not threaten liberty. Thus, unless you're arguing that all laws are perfectly just, Cruz's argument does not hold water.

You're trying to deny that the rule of law protects liberty by pointing out that sometimes, particular laws do not protect liberty. First of all, that's a non sequitur (or a "straightforward logical fallacy," if you prefer). The fact that some laws infringe on liberty doesn't affect whether the rule of law "always and everywhere" protects liberty. More importantly, where did you get this "always and everywhere" business from? So long as the rule of law generally protects liberty, then anything that abrogates the rule of law can be said to pose a threat to liberty. Second, your interpretation of my summary of Cruz's argument is not only so wooden as to be uncharitable, but is, in addition, absurd. For you to believe that you are responding to Cruz's argument, you would have to believe that Cruz believes that every law protects liberty.

Think back to that little speech he gave in late September. Are you seriously suggesting that Cruz believes the PPACA protects liberty?

His argument lends credence to the idea that if slavery is legal or human trafficking is legal or whatever, the President trying to stop it would be an affront to liberty. That's a pretty ridiculous stand. I don't agree with his false choice.

You're attacking a strawman version of Cruz's argument. First, saying that slavery or human trafficking is legal is not the same as saying that slavery or human trafficking is compulsory, which it would have to be to be the analog of drug crime laws. That is, the analog of "you shall not" is "you shall," not "you may." Second, a president--or anyone--can do a great many things to "try to stop" something without refusing to enforce the law. Cruz's complaint isn't that Obama is "trying to stop" absurd drug policies, but that he's refusing to enforce the criminal laws in doing so.

Furthermore, his argument ignores our Constitution's gov't which is separation of powers and the Executive has every right to determine what is Constitutional and what isn't. This is not only the job of the federal courts. All 3 branches have this power (which is why they're separated!).

You're right on both points. First, it is the responsibility of the president and Congress, in addition to the courts, to interpret the Constitution and act accordingly. Second, Cruz's argument does ignore the fact that the president might refuse to enforce a law that the president believes is unconstitutional. But as to that second point, so what? Cruz says nothing about that scenario, and, for all we know, agrees that the president can refuse to enforce a law that the president believes is unconstitutional.

The Executive has every right to determine how it wants to enforce its laws.

How it wants to enforce the laws is not the same as whether it will enforce the laws. Personally, I'm unsure where the drug policy changes Cruz complains of fall on that continuum.

The President ignoring morally unjust laws that restrict libery is not bad for liberty. The hoops one must jump through to get there...

Who is to determine which laws are morally unjust, and which laws restrict liberty? Is a 40% tax rate on income above a certain level morally unjust? Does such a rate restrict liberty? If the president believes that the answer to those questions is "yes," would you support his edict to the IRS not to collect taxes at such a rate? Or should the president leave the determination of such matters (once such matters have been determined by the enactment of a law not vetoed by the president) to the legislative branch, which is composed of members elected to duke it out over such questions?

 

[pigeon]

You're trying to deny that the rule of law protects liberty by pointing out that sometimes, particular laws do not protect liberty. First of all, that's a non sequitur (or a "straightforward logical fallacy," if you prefer). The fact that some laws infringe on liberty doesn't affect whether the rule of law "always and everywhere" protects liberty.

"The rule of law" cannot be separated from the laws.

Suppose I live in an anarchist commune -- a sovereign nation with no laws. Does the rule of law hold sway in this nation? Is liberty protected, or infringed?

Suppose we live in England, where private possession of firearms is generally illegal. Does the arrest and prosecution of violators of this law and the confiscation of their illegal weapons protect liberty?

More importantly, where did you get this "always and everywhere" business from? So long as the rule of law generally protects liberty, then anything that abrogates the rule of law can be said to pose a threat to liberty.

This assumes that abrogations are fungible, which I don't agree with. An abrogation of the rule of law represents a violation of some individual law or laws. The degree to which that violation represents a threat to liberty is dependent on the characteristics of those laws.

Second, your interpretation of my summary of Cruz's argument is not only so wooden as to be uncharitable, but is, in addition, absurd. For you to believe that you are responding to Cruz's argument, you would have to believe that Cruz believes that every law protects liberty.

Think back to that little speech he gave in late September. Are you seriously suggesting that Cruz believes the PPACA protects liberty?

If your argument is that your summary of Cruz's argument is not accurate, then I'm happy to concede that point. I was stipulating that your summary was useful and arguing from it.

 

[theprodigy]

Is it just me or has Susan Collins gone pretty hard to the right ever since Collins retired?

I, uh....what?
you mean since Snowe retired right

 

[WayneMorse]

I, uh....what?
you mean since Snowe retired right

Ah crap I meant Snowe.

I never understood why Maine has such a love for moderates.


http://baltimore.cbslocal.com/2014/02/03/martin-omalley-prepares-for-potential-presidential-bid/

BTW Martin O'Malley created an exploratory committee for 2016, the only way he'll have a chance against Hillary would be to run to the hard left of her. Let's hope we have a voice in the Democratic primary for single payer.

 

[thepotatoman]

At the store. Fox News is on. They are still on the BENGHAZI train.

Of course they are, but I do wonder how long until they give up on this and move on to something else. You'd think even the true believers would get bored of it eventually.

 

[RustyNails]

MSNBC sees your Benghazi, and raises you a Christie bridge scandal.

Except Benghazi is not a scandal and Bridgegate is. Until you find pictures of Valerie Jarret taking out the US consulate in Benghazi with an RPG, it will never be a scandal.

 

[speculawyer]

Of course they are, but I do wonder how long until they give up on this and move on to something else. You'd think even the true believers would get bored of it eventually.

Oh I think it has become counter-productive for them at this point. It is good for Fox News ratings but politically it gets them nothing . . . and it is making them look like weirdly obsessed conspiracy theorists.

 

[Oblivion]

You're trying to deny that the rule of law protects liberty by pointing out that sometimes, particular laws do not protect liberty. First of all, that's a non sequitur (or a "straightforward logical fallacy," if you prefer). The fact that some laws infringe on liberty doesn't affect whether the rule of law "always and everywhere" protects liberty. More importantly, where did you get this "always and everywhere" business from? So long as the rule of law generally protects liberty, then anything that abrogates the rule of law can be said to pose a threat to liberty. Second, your interpretation of my summary of Cruz's argument is not only so wooden as to be uncharitable, but is, in addition, absurd. For you to believe that you are responding to Cruz's argument, you would have to believe that Cruz believes that every law protects liberty.

Think back to that little speech he gave in late September. Are you seriously suggesting that Cruz believes the PPACA protects liberty?

You're attacking a strawman version of Cruz's argument. First, saying that slavery or human trafficking is legal is not the same as saying that slavery or human trafficking is compulsory, which it would have to be to be the analog of drug crime laws. That is, the analog of "you shall not" is "you shall," not "you may." Second, a president--or anyone--can do a great many things to "try to stop" something without refusing to enforce the law. Cruz's complaint isn't that Obama is "trying to stop" absurd drug policies, but that he's refusing to enforce the criminal laws in doing so.

You're right on both points. First, it is the responsibility of the president and Congress, in addition to the courts, to interpret the Constitution and act accordingly. Second, Cruz's argument does ignore the fact that the president might refuse to enforce a law that the president believes is unconstitutional. But as to that second point, so what? Cruz says nothing about that scenario, and, for all we know, agrees that the president can refuse to enforce a law that the president believes is unconstitutional.

How it wants to enforce the laws is not the same as whether it will enforce the laws. Personally, I'm unsure where the drug policy changes Cruz complains of fall on that continuum.

Who is to determine which laws are morally unjust, and which laws restrict liberty? Is a 40% tax rate on income above a certain level morally unjust? Does such a rate restrict liberty? If the president believes that the answer to those questions is "yes," would you support his edict to the IRS not to collect taxes at such a rate? Or should the president leave the determination of such matters (once such matters have been determined by the enactment of a law not vetoed by the president) to the legislative branch, which is composed of members elected to duke it out over such questions?

You are giving far too much credit to someone who referenced Green Eggs and Ham to prove the exact opposite point his dumbass was trying to make.

 

[thepotatoman]

Oh I think it has become counter-productive for them at this point. It is good for Fox News ratings but politically it gets them nothing . . . and it is making them look like weirdly obsessed conspiracy theorists.

I was talking more about ratings too, but if it really is actually hurting the republican party, I hope the true believers do keep interest in it for another 1-3 years.

 

[Oblivion]

Wow. Never thought I'd see the day:

Two leading House conservatives told The Washington Post on Tuesday they do not want House Speaker John A. Boehner (R-Ohio) to move toward a dramatic standoff on the debt limit, signaling a break from the combative fiscal politics they have long championed.
“We should bring up a clean debt ceiling, let the Democrats pass it, and just move on,” Rep. Raul Labrador (R-Idaho) said. “Our constituents are fed up with the political theater. If we’re not going to fight for something specific, we might as well let the Democrats own it.”

Rep. Justin Amash (R-Mich.) agreed. “It’s theater,” he said, commenting on the latest flurry of stories about possible GOP plans. “It’s going to end up being clean anyway. I don’t see anything they can put on the table that I would support as some sort of tradeoff.”

When even tea baggers get bored of threatening to destroy the global economy...

 

[Trouble]

Of course they are, but I do wonder how long until they give up on this and move on to something else. You'd think even the true believers would get bored of it eventually.

Well if they had anything else they would have already. As soon as there is any scandal of any significance they will jump on it fully.

Wow. Never thought I'd see the day:

When even tea baggers get bored of threatening to destroy the global economy...

'You can only shoot yourself in the foot so many times before the prospect of shooting yourself in the foot is no longer attractive.'
- Trouble, circa just right now.

 

[TomServo]

Except Benghazi is not a scandal and Bridgegate is. Until you find pictures of Valerie Jarret taking out the US consulate in Benghazi with an RPG, it will never be a scandal.

I really don't give a shit about either one.

Some people got stuck on a bridge because a New Jersey politician was acting like a New Jersey politician. Scandal.

I actually do watch a good bit of MSNBC, and it's become comical how their pundit lineup is just all hammering on the same thing. It feels like that in the past week, you can tune in any time during primetime and it's Christie.

 

[thepotatoman]

I really don't give a shit about either one.

Some people got stuck on a bridge because a New Jersey politician was acting like a New Jersey politician. Scandal.

I actually do watch a good bit of MSNBC, and it's become comical how their pundit lineup is just all hammering on the same thing. It feels like that in the past week, you can tune in any time during primetime and it's Christie.

Funnily enough I decided to turn on MSNBC because of this comment just to confirm this, and I find Chris Matthews actually talking about Bengahzi too.

 

[PhoenixDark]

Ah crap I meant Snowe.

I never understood why Maine has such a love for moderates.


http://baltimore.cbslocal.com/2014/02/03/martin-omalley-prepares-for-potential-presidential-bid/

BTW Martin O'Malley created an exploratory committee for 2016, the only way he'll have a chance against Hillary would be to run to the hard left of her. Let's hope we have a voice in the Democratic primary for single payer.

He's running for VP moreso than president. Whereas I think someone like Brian Schweitzer is running for president, not VP.

 

[empty vessel]

Oh I think it has become counter-productive for them at this point. It is good for Fox News ratings but politically it gets them nothing . . . and it is making them look like weirdly obsessed conspiracy theorists.

Look like?

 

[Giant Panda]

Except Benghazi is not a scandal and Bridgegate is. Until you find pictures of Valerie Jarret taking out the US consulate in Benghazi with an RPG, it will never be a scandal.

There is a nugget of scandal tucked within the vast outer layers of conspiracy theory bullshit for Benghazi. It is one of incompetence rather than a scandal of malice and criminality in Christie's case, so they are not entirely on the same level.

 

[Dan]

http://baltimore.cbslocal.com/2014/02/03/martin-omalley-prepares-for-potential-presidential-bid/

BTW Martin O'Malley created an exploratory committee for 2016, the only way he'll have a chance against Hillary would be to run to the hard left of her. Let's hope we have a voice in the Democratic primary for single payer.

I have a hard time seeing anyone, including the general public, having the stomach for another healthcare overhaul any time soon. I feel like everyone is just exhausted by everything dealing with ACA.

 

[RustyNails]

I have a hard time seeing anyone, including the general public, having the stomach for another healthcare overhaul any time soon. I feel like everyone is just exhausted by everything dealing with ACA.

The ACA lays the groundwork for public option. All Hillary or any future Dem president needs to do is pass a legislation for public option in the health insurance exchange during a supermajority wave in Congress.

 

[Oblivion]

Are you guys watching this "debate" between Bill Nye and some creationist dude?

http://www.cnn.com/video/data/2.0/video/cvplive/cvpstream1.html

Some of the creationist dude's arguments are wow.

 

[TomServo]

Funnily enough I decided to turn on MSNBC because of this comment just to confirm this, and I find Chris Matthews actually talking about Bengahzi too.

LOL, for real?

 

[NYCmetsfan]

The ACA lays the groundwork for public option. All Hillary or any future Dem president needs to do is pass a legislation for public option in the health insurance exchange during a supermajority wave in Congress.

only time is 2016 or MAYBE 2020. I think you guys are gonna be depressed when we get a bunch of swings the next few years.

We're in a really turbulent time politically and I don't think the dust will truly settle until the mid 2020s from which we'll get the next party system.

 

[Joe Molotov]

There's a difference between a story from the fall and a developing story.

There's nothing wrong with reruns. Most old people like to watch a little Andy Griffith Show in the afternoon before switching over the Benghazi News Channel.

 

[B-Dubs]

Good Old Diamond Joe is at it again guys!

Frantic Biden Searching Dog Shelter For Bo Look-Alike

WASHINGTON—Claiming that he would “be up Shit Creek without a goddamn paddle” if he wasn’t able to locate one, a frantic, out-of-breath Vice President Joe Biden reportedly arrived at a D.C. area canine rescue shelter early Monday morning in search of a look-alike for the Obama family’s pet dog Bo. “Hey, I need a poodle, pronto—black one if you got it,” the frenzied, disheveled VP told Washington Humane Society workers, emphasizing that he needed to “score a dead ringer” for the First Family’s beloved Portuguese Water Dog “before they wise up.” “Theirs is a boy, I think, but whatever, can’t be picky here. That little nippy one is close enough. Doesn’t have to be the genuine article. Uncle Joe’s just got to set things right.” Sources confirmed Biden also asked the shelter’s employees if they offered any “cheap quickie pet cremations.”

God, the onion completely kills it every time. Why can't SNL be this funny?

 

[pigeon]

Wow. Never thought I'd see the day:



When even tea baggers get bored of threatening to destroy the global economy...

It's a triggered leak. Boehner's planning to bring up a debt ceiling bill with a rider and let the Senate strip the rider. He needs to get some dissenting voices out there now so that when they actually do it it'll look vaguely like a compromise position instead of a cave.

 

[GaimeGuy]

Benghazi Benghazi Benghazi

 

[cartoon_soldier]

Benghazi Benghazi Benghazi

I WANT THE TRUTH!

 

[JesseEwiak]

only time is 2016 or MAYBE 2020. I think you guys are gonna be depressed when we get a bunch of swings the next few years.

We're in a really turbulent time politically and I don't think the dust will truly settle until the mid 2020s from which we'll get the next party system.

Every Democratic presidential candidate has to be at least _for_ a public option, even if everybody knows it'll never pass because of the House.

 

[Diablos]

PPP Alaska Senate


Bad news for you know who

Geez! How is he ahead? Alaska really must love this guy. Which is weird because it is a conservative state that gave us Sarah Palin. Also wtf @ risk corridors. God dammit. This is why I still don't feel confident about this law's long-term effectiveness at times. They can't outright repeal but you can see they will chip, chip, chip away at it or die trying. Someday we will have a GOP President again; might be 2016, might be 2024, might be 2028. But it will happen. Everyone knows this.

But as I understand it, does Obama need to budge on anything? Didn't Turtleface and Boehner just recently admit they will play all their cards but fold if Obama doesn't?

Almost sounds too good to be true.

 

[Rhomega Beta]

Fort Collins High School rejects idea for 'Merica Day because it might offend non-Americans, later reverse decision.
http://www.coloradoan.com/article/2...-celebration-by-Fort-Collins-school-draws-ire

Parents and students expressed outrage on Facebook on Monday after administrators at Fort Collins High School nixed a student idea to host an upcoming spirit day called “’Merica Day.”

The situation caught the attention of Fox News and has some community members saying the school should be “ashamed of their un-American PC censorship” of a day students intended to celebrate a country that’s home to people of diverse backgrounds and origins.

PHOTOS: Merica Day Protesters At Fort Collins High School

“I can see both sides, but I think it’s kind of absurd that we can’t celebrate the country we’re in — whether you’re from it or just visiting. It’s a country,” said Ellie Goodspeed, a senior and treasurer of the school’s student council.

Goodspeed said the juniors are in charge of planning themes for each day of spirit week, celebrated during the week of Valentine’s Day. They suggested “’Merica Day,” but administrators, she said, thought it could be offensive to the school’s international students.

According to a statement sent Monday night to the Coloradoan by Poudre School District spokeswoman Danielle Clark: “Building administrators met with the students to discuss the inconsistency of this day versus the other planned theme days, including PJ day and Twin day. ”

Goodspeed said students suggested a compromise in “My Country Monday,” which they believed would allow students to celebrate any country they chose. She said building administrators originally turned that option down but on Monday agreed it was OK.

Clark said she couldn’t confirm whether the “My Country Monday” compromise was originally rejected but said Principal Mark Eversole ultimately told students he thought it was a good way for students to show pride in their country of origin.

“It turned into a big deal really fast,” Goodspeed said.

Senior Stephanie Livingston thought the school’s decision was hypocritical, given that students celebrate the Mexican culture holiday Cinco de Mayo. She also believed prohibition of “’Merica Monday” was an affront to students and their family members who have served in the Armed Forces.

“By doing this the administrators disrespect the U.S. Constitution and veterans like me,” Craig Hewitt wrote on the Fort Collins High School Facebook page. Some commenters called for the school’s staff to be fired, while others lauded students for being willing to stand up and offer a compromise.

Similar criticism broke out in 2012 and early 2013 when members of a cultural club at Rocky Mountain High School recited the Pledge of Allegiance in Spanish and Arabic, respectively.

 

[Diablos]

They could at least call it something better.

 

[Rhomega Beta]

They did, it's now called America Day. The school issued a statement, but lied and said it had to do with 'Merica being derogatory slang.

“We apologize for our recent decision regarding My Country Monday and that it was seen as not patriotic. This could not be further from the truth. The original intent of Spread the Love week at Fort Collins High School was to unify the student body. When students first proposed "Merica Monday," we felt that it was against this unifying theme and disrespectful to our country. Merica is a slang term that is often used in a negative stereotypical way to describe life in the United States. This is what led us to discuss alternatives with students. We were surprised that our community interpreted our actions as anti-American. We are a proud public school in America and support many activities to celebrate our great nation. Due to this outpouring of sentiment and misinterpretation of our intentions, we have decided to rename the first day of Spread the Love week to "America Day" as opposed to "Merica Day." We look forward to enjoying the creativity and energy of our students as they celebrate their patriotism next week."

 

[FyreWulff]

Let's just cut to the chase and have loyalty parades

 

[empty vessel]

Why would you need an America day in America? The idea should have been rejected just for being stupid.

 

[RustyNails]

Geez! How is he ahead? Alaska really must love this guy. Which is weird because it is a conservative state that gave us Sarah Palin. Also wtf @ risk corridors. God dammit. This is why I still don't feel confident about this law's long-term effectiveness at times. They can't outright repeal but you can see they will chip, chip, chip away at it or die trying. Someday we will have a GOP President again; might be 2016, might be 2024, might be 2028. But it will happen. Everyone knows this.

But as I understand it, does Obama need to budge on anything? Didn't Turtleface and Boehner just recently admit they will play all their cards but fold if Obama doesn't?

Almost sounds too good to be true.

You do realize that GOP is trying to voucherize and dismantle Social Security and Medicare for better half of the previous century right? This is going to be part of their platform just like 0 taxes infinite revenue, abortion and guns.

 

[cartoon_soldier]

So huh...Farm bill passed?

 

[Owzers]

Why would you need an America day in America? The idea should have been rejected just for being stupid.

Having stupid ideas is part of 'Merica Day.

 

[bonercop]

So huh...Farm bill passed?

yup. the president could still veto it if he so desired, but of course that's not going to happen.

 

[Joe Molotov]

So huh...Farm bill passed?

And on 'Merica Day, no less!!