05-06-08, 01:33 AM #41
Your appeal to absurdity is in itself absurd. And, so as not to waste another quote tag on it, your Lincoln reference is inappropriate. It would be more appropriate to invoke Ex Parte Quirin (1942), and even that is problematic.
Regardless, Bush should have set up the military tribunals by now. Of course, the Supreme Court didn't help that process when they ruled military tribunals weren't authorized:http://www.cnn.com/2006/LAW/06/29/sc...als/index.html
But as to torture, I'm talking about torture. I'm talking about the use of "enhanced interrogation techniques" that are considered torture by international law, and that the United States has prosecuted repeatedly in the past.
But how do you suggest we get information from known terrorists when we really need it? Ask nicely? I'm serious here. Would you eschew torture in the "ticking bomb" scenario?A nuke is in LA. It's going to go off within the hour. You've got the guy who planted it in custody, but he's not talking. Are your principles worth millions of lives?As to the t-shirt incident, last August the federal government settled for $80,000 a lawsuit brought after a Texas couple were arrested in West Virginia for wearing t-shirts criticizing President Bush to a speech he was giving.
And where you see liberals and progressives backsliding to regressive statist policies, I see conservatives exploiting these vaunted principles in order to bring about their antithesis.
Could you, perhaps, conceive of the notion that those on the other side of the aisle are also of good intentions?
And yet you seem to worry more about the idea that at the end of a work week, one should have the resources to pursue constructive passions instead of fretting about meeting their basic requirements.
Whether it's healthcare, energy, housing, food, or even education, if one prefers to keep government from getting involved, we're going to need some good faith on the part of private industry. We're going to need people to check their greed. Rampant, self-obssessed individualism may seem like a good thing to those who call themselves libertarians, but they owe certain obligations to the social structure that empowers that individualism that goes beyond simply not raping or killing their neighbors.
Would you propose that a life spent working to provide for one's family is all we are entitled to in this society? Hell, we're not even entitled to that these days. .
I think of a friend of mine who finally gave up on being a performing musician because he could never keep up with his obligations. To be honest, I preferred him as a tempestuous, arrogant artist. These days he's resigned, paranoid, more selfish than he used to be, and more than a bit priggish. But he's got a job that pays him barely enough to keep a roof over his head, and because of gas prices must rely on public transportation. I'm of the opinion that everyone would be better off if he wasn't expected to devote his entire life to making executives more wealthy. But, hey, count his transition toward the dead-eyed and uninspired a victory for the American way.
Seriously, the list of artists I've known who have fallen away in order to be just another face in the working world is getting scary. Aging writers sometimes recite the litany of friends lost to death or circumstance, and it does make the "golden years" sound awfully lonely, but for the young—especially as they tread toward middle age—there is an analogy.
We come back to a point that confused you earlier, and what I wrote in response to that confusion: What is the difference, to you, between freedom of religion and the freedom to make decisions about other people's lives based on your religion? I would purport that persecution by Christians in the present day is a betrayal of our religious ideals.
Personally, I'm fine with civil unions with most of the same benefits as marriage. I just don't like the term "marriage" being applied. That term has had a specific meaning for centuries, and I don't want to change it.
Think about it this way: Had you your druthers, what would you be doing? Now, accepting the reality that we can't all just sail off into the sunset or spend our days mindlessly fucking, what would you like to be doing? Who tells their kids, "Maybe if you work really hard, you can grow up to be a network administrator"? Or, "Work hard in school so you can be a retail associate by day and a waitress in a bar at night"?
We can't all retire at thirty-five. That's not the point. But people ought to be able to find some solace somewhere, even if it's something like gardening, or—despite the fuel crunch—musclecars. Musicians, dancers, painters, writers, inventors ....
05-06-08, 02:49 AM #42
Originally Posted by madanth
Meanwhile, you are allowing your government to torture people, hold them without charge or trial, search their homes and communications without warrant, and so forth. No ticking bombs are involved. And that erosion will eventually destroy whatever does exist of the "traditional" American government, and replace it with something else.
Originally Posted by madanth
You can't turn everything into money without wrecking things that do not behave like money - such as labor.
And you can't pretend you've set up a free market unless you've priced in all the costs.
You can yak all you want about everyone being free to succeed or fail, but when you aren't even starting the kids out level you're just kidding yourself.
When the cost of play is so high and expected payoff is so low that a rational person would not play the game, you are not dealing in freedom but coercion.
Last edited by iceaura; 05-06-08 at 04:08 PM.
05-06-08, 03:06 PM #43
Putting one to restOriginally Posted by Madanthonywayne
Now, here are the problems I'm having with the scene:
• Where is the suspect? Are you still out in the field, having just nabbed the suspect? Do we already happen to have him in custody? If the former, where are you going to perform the torture? If the latter, how long has he been in custody, and what assurance do you have that, as he has been captured, his associates have not changed the plan?
• How much time until the suspect breaks? What methods are you going to use? Remember, the nuke is going off in an hour. He only has to hold out for so long. What are you going to do that will provide reliable information quickly?
• Where is the bomb? Okay, so you've managed to beat a location our of the suspect. Where is it? How far away? How fast can you get a team there? And what happens when ... the bomb's not there?
At somewhere around that point, I think the bomb would be going off.
An hour. These are the immediate problems facing anyone trying to write that scene. Now here's the question: How do you want to change the scene? We need to change the period. That's about the only solution; we need more time. But how much time?
I'll try to get back to the rest of your post when I have more time. Take it easy.
05-06-08, 03:40 PM #44
Do what you have to do. When you are convicted of a war crime, maybe the judge will consider your saving of America when they sentence you.
05-06-08, 06:57 PM #45
And don't forget, with every election a greater portion of the eligible young voters turn out, and there's no way they're going to vote for a man who's older than me, less liberal, pro-conscription, and stands a good chance of dying in office. Who is he going to choose as a VP anyway? Talk about scary!
05-07-08, 01:46 PM #46
05-07-08, 11:17 PM #47
Those who can, do.
Those who can't do, bitch -- about how unfair "the system" (aka: the Universe) is for them.
Funny how progressives think that progress, to be successful, needs to feed off the wealth building by-products of non-progressive producers, and not the by-products of their own "producing" progressive intelligence.
It's all about that comedy/tragedy duality thingy.
05-07-08, 11:45 PM #48
05-08-08, 03:08 AM #49
05-08-08, 03:17 PM #50
Originally Posted by invert
it isn't the liberals who were the idiots.
05-08-08, 11:39 PM #51
05-08-08, 11:46 PM #52
05-08-08, 11:54 PM #53
05-09-08, 12:00 AM #54
05-09-08, 01:53 AM #55
Originally Posted by madanth
It's the language you have when you use words like "left" and "right" and "authoritarian" and "libertarian" as if they had reference in an established reality - basically the same meaning from one decade to the next, referring to the same features of a political position or executive approach today as they did yesterday and the day before.
For example: a health care plan that worked by having people pay for-profit private corporations to provide health care would be "right" (corporate based, private property, for profit = "right") and if it legally required everyone to sign up for it it would be "authoritarian" (governmental authority, police, etc = "authoritarian"). And someone whose governing approach featured several such proposals in various arenas would be a "right authoritarian" politcian.
It can take a while to get used to reality based language, but I recommend the effort.
Last edited by iceaura; 05-09-08 at 02:00 AM.
05-09-08, 12:07 PM #56
You can just stop being an elitist on a mission ("make everybody use the vernacular I want them to use!") and just use the terms as they are generally accepted by the audience.
Seriously, get a clue.
Last edited by superstring01; 05-09-08 at 12:13 PM.
05-09-08, 12:34 PM #57
05-09-08, 02:29 PM #58
For instance, a container marked "highly inflamable" should, logically, not contain anything liable to catch on fire. Yet, for some reason, flamable and inflamable have come to mean the same thing. (Unlike credible and incredible.)
Regarding your specific example, socialized medicine, or any increase in government control over medicine, is widely viewed to be a liberal position. Any increase in the size of government having to do with anything other than the police or military is considered liberal.
You can go on claiming Obama and Clinton to be candidates of the right if you want; but it just makes you look like a kook to most people.
05-09-08, 10:13 PM #59
Actually Mad A, he is right, every where else in the world a Conservative is a liberal, wanting more government, higher taxes to pay for it, and more control of the lives of people's lives by making them dependent on the government, here for some reason we have reverse the use of the terms here .
By Saquist in forum Religion ArchivesLast Post: 01-28-08, 09:28 AMReplies: 195
By Orleander in forum Free ThoughtsLast Post: 01-15-08, 05:06 PMReplies: 114
By kmguru in forum Business & EconomicsLast Post: 01-04-08, 09:16 AMReplies: 0
By coberst in forum General PhilosophyLast Post: 10-01-07, 03:00 AMReplies: 2
By lightgigantic in forum Comparative ReligionLast Post: 09-26-07, 01:21 AMReplies: 31