America and the ten step programme
-
Surely the US government should be demanding his immediate extradition back to the US so that he can be assured protection and a fair trial in accordance with his rights as a US citizen? Ah - but wait. He's an arab, so why bother, eh?
Craster wrote:
Ah - but wait. He's an arab, so why bother, eh?
Were he a blond haired blue eyed Jihadi asshole my indifference to his fate after being caught on the wrong side of a foreign conflict would be equal.
-
Again, thank you. This is all evidence of the insanity controlling the left, and nothing else. Just for the sake of argument, suppose I agreed with you about these 'historic parallels'. What should we do to resolve them? Get rid of Bush? Is the answer that simple for you?
Modern liberalism has never achieved anything other than giving Secularists something to feel morally superior about
Stan Shannon wrote:
Get rid of Bush? Is the answer that simple for you?
Not in the least. I don't like the man, but I don't fool myself that he's the whole of the issue. I can't solve the problem. I'm not a political scientist, nor am I a charismatic revolutionary. I can see the damage that's happening though.
-
Craster wrote:
Ah - but wait. He's an arab, so why bother, eh?
Were he a blond haired blue eyed Jihadi asshole my indifference to his fate after being caught on the wrong side of a foreign conflict would be equal.
-
Stan Shannon wrote:
Get rid of Bush? Is the answer that simple for you?
Not in the least. I don't like the man, but I don't fool myself that he's the whole of the issue. I can't solve the problem. I'm not a political scientist, nor am I a charismatic revolutionary. I can see the damage that's happening though.
Here is something I do not understand. Why is it a 'fear tactic' to be concerned about Islamic terrorism and to make adjustments to deal with it, but it is not a fear tactic to characterize Bush as someone trying to turn the US into a 'fascist state' in order to achieve a left wing liberal agenda? Looked at rationally, which is really the most valid source of concern?
Modern liberalism has never achieved anything other than giving Secularists something to feel morally superior about
-
I'm not talking about you, though. I'm talking about the US government's obligation to ensure that all its citizens are treated humanely - which it's currently ignoring.
Craster wrote:
all its citizens are treated humanely
Do you have evidence that he isn't? You don't think that being linked with Somali Islamists and captured by an ally as a POW warrants a different response (i.e on involving the military and intelligence services) than would be applied to someone suspected of domestic crimes?
-
Here is something I do not understand. Why is it a 'fear tactic' to be concerned about Islamic terrorism and to make adjustments to deal with it, but it is not a fear tactic to characterize Bush as someone trying to turn the US into a 'fascist state' in order to achieve a left wing liberal agenda? Looked at rationally, which is really the most valid source of concern?
Modern liberalism has never achieved anything other than giving Secularists something to feel morally superior about
Both tactics are pretty much identical. They are both about using public opinion to set a political agenda - one side using fear of terrorism, the other side using fear of the Gestapo. And this is fundamentally why modern democracy is an exercise in futility. You rest your government in the hands of the populous, but the populous is far to easy to sway to one side or the other using the media. It becomes one big contest of popularity and gullibility.
-
Both tactics are pretty much identical. They are both about using public opinion to set a political agenda - one side using fear of terrorism, the other side using fear of the Gestapo. And this is fundamentally why modern democracy is an exercise in futility. You rest your government in the hands of the populous, but the populous is far to easy to sway to one side or the other using the media. It becomes one big contest of popularity and gullibility.
Craster wrote:
It becomes one big contest of popularity and gullibility.
And your suggested alternative to democracy that cuts out the fickle will of those idiot Proles?
-
Craster wrote:
It becomes one big contest of popularity and gullibility.
And your suggested alternative to democracy that cuts out the fickle will of those idiot Proles?
-
Both tactics are pretty much identical. They are both about using public opinion to set a political agenda - one side using fear of terrorism, the other side using fear of the Gestapo. And this is fundamentally why modern democracy is an exercise in futility. You rest your government in the hands of the populous, but the populous is far to easy to sway to one side or the other using the media. It becomes one big contest of popularity and gullibility.
Craster wrote:
And this is fundamentally why modern democracy is an exercise in futility. You rest your government in the hands of the populous, but the populous is far to easy to sway to one side or the other using the media. It becomes one big contest of popularity and gullibility.
It is very telling that the left seems to disparage democracy when it does not go entirely their way. Some how Bush represents an example of the failure of democracy because the left disagrees with his policies. I think this phenomenon explains the rise of democracy by judicial fiat as we are expericing in the US. I have read several American posters here over the last few weeks defending court decisions as part of our 'representational democracy'. Yet court appointments are for life precisely so that judges don't need to be concerned with politics and the democratic whims of the people. How can that be considered 'representational democracy'? Clearly, it cannot. The left seems to be abandoning the west's long standing committment to democracy precisely because they cannot use it to force their agenda on society. And frankly, that is something to be afraid ot.
Modern liberalism has never achieved anything other than giving Secularists something to feel morally superior about
-
An interesting article[^], whether you agree with it or not.
Quote: Professor Walter F Murphy is emeritus of Princeton University; he is one of the foremost constitutional scholars in the nation and author of the classic Constitutional Democracy. Murphy is also a decorated former marine, and he is not even especially politically liberal. But on March 1 this year, he was denied a boarding pass at Newark, "because I was on the Terrorist Watch list". "Have you been in any peace marches? We ban a lot of people from flying because of that," asked the airline employee. "I explained," said Murphy, "that I had not so marched but had, in September 2006, given a lecture at Princeton, televised and put on the web, highly critical of George Bush for his many violations of the constitution." "That'll do it," the man said. :sigh:
-
I thought the article suitable food for thought. On the subject of the US; one thing that strikes me weird and totally bonkers is how the recent shooting at some school or other hasn't ignited a handgun-ban debate, it beggars belief. I suppose the NRA has a tight grip on the media.
What is to debate? There is general consensus that Virginia handgun laws had a loophole that needs to be closed: individuals referred for mental health treatment, but not institutionalized were not listed as ineligible to purchase handguns, but should have been. You may be surprised to hear that the NRA is working with congressional Democrats (and republicans) to add this requirement to Federal handgun regulations, so that ill people like Cho can't obtain weapons in the future. Virginia is also working to add this requirement to State regulations. Even with this, it is likely that Cho would have found other avenues to vent his rage - he had also made several bomb threats, and although there is as yet no evidence he had attempted to construct one. Note that it was illegal for Cho to possess handguns on the college campus, yet he had kept two in his college dormitory room without a problem. Laws rarely stop those who are willing to break them to achieve their goals.
-
Craster wrote:
And this is fundamentally why modern democracy is an exercise in futility. You rest your government in the hands of the populous, but the populous is far to easy to sway to one side or the other using the media. It becomes one big contest of popularity and gullibility.
It is very telling that the left seems to disparage democracy when it does not go entirely their way. Some how Bush represents an example of the failure of democracy because the left disagrees with his policies. I think this phenomenon explains the rise of democracy by judicial fiat as we are expericing in the US. I have read several American posters here over the last few weeks defending court decisions as part of our 'representational democracy'. Yet court appointments are for life precisely so that judges don't need to be concerned with politics and the democratic whims of the people. How can that be considered 'representational democracy'? Clearly, it cannot. The left seems to be abandoning the west's long standing committment to democracy precisely because they cannot use it to force their agenda on society. And frankly, that is something to be afraid ot.
Modern liberalism has never achieved anything other than giving Secularists something to feel morally superior about
Stan Shannon wrote:
It is very telling that the left seems to disparage democracy when it does not go entirely their way. Some how Bush represents an example of the failure of democracy because the left disagrees with his policies.
If you reject the will of the people when that will contradicts your own, then you're anti-democratic. It's a fundamental leftist belief that the people are dolts, democracy should be rejected and we should be led by an "intellectual" oligarchy. I've gotten at least half a dozen leftists here in the soapbox to flat out admit that. Why do you think leftists adore judicial legislation so much?
-
An interesting article[^], whether you agree with it or not.
Craster wrote:
An interesting article[^], whether you agree with it or not.
I completely agree with it. All the left needs to do is set up a "gulag" and it has successfully implemented all of the above. It has even completed number 10. 1. Invoke a terrifying internal and external enemy -This would be GW (or whichever conservative holds power). The most frequently used term to descibe conservatives is "scary". 3. Develop a thug caste -These would be lawyers. They don't intimidate with violence, but will pursue you if you're a conservative politician, religious or a white member of a Lacrosse team at a prestigious university. 4. Set up an internal surveillance system -Bill Clinton set up the most expansive surveillance system in the world's history. 5. Harass citizens' groups -See Mike's post above. 6. Engage in arbitrary detention and release -Though leftists currently lack this executive power, it doesn't stop them from prosecuting conservatives for arbitrary and baseless crimes while protecting leftists. 7. Target key individuals -Every conservative politician is currently a target with widespread calls for resignations, which fly in the face of democracy. 8. Control the press -This goes without saying. Thank God for Fox News. 9. Dissent equals treason -Whenever leftist speech is challenged, the speech is not defended, but the right to say it is. That's an attack on the challenger as one who wants to undermine the constitution. 10. Suspend the rule of law -Roe v. Wade
-
Quote: Professor Walter F Murphy is emeritus of Princeton University; he is one of the foremost constitutional scholars in the nation and author of the classic Constitutional Democracy. Murphy is also a decorated former marine, and he is not even especially politically liberal. But on March 1 this year, he was denied a boarding pass at Newark, "because I was on the Terrorist Watch list". "Have you been in any peace marches? We ban a lot of people from flying because of that," asked the airline employee. "I explained," said Murphy, "that I had not so marched but had, in September 2006, given a lecture at Princeton, televised and put on the web, highly critical of George Bush for his many violations of the constitution." "That'll do it," the man said. :sigh:
You're a complete sucker if you actually buy that.
-
Surely the US government should be demanding his immediate extradition back to the US so that he can be assured protection and a fair trial in accordance with his rights as a US citizen? Ah - but wait. He's an arab, so why bother, eh?
Craster wrote:
Surely the US government should be demanding his immediate extradition back to the US so that he can be assured protection and a fair trial in accordance with his rights as a US citizen? Ah - but wait. He's an arab, so why bother, eh?
Raising arms against the United States while in a foreign country is grounds for immediate loss of citizenship and trial via military tribunal (not via the American judicial system). Nothing in America's constitution guarantees the rights of such scum.
-
What is to debate? There is general consensus that Virginia handgun laws had a loophole that needs to be closed: individuals referred for mental health treatment, but not institutionalized were not listed as ineligible to purchase handguns, but should have been. You may be surprised to hear that the NRA is working with congressional Democrats (and republicans) to add this requirement to Federal handgun regulations, so that ill people like Cho can't obtain weapons in the future. Virginia is also working to add this requirement to State regulations. Even with this, it is likely that Cho would have found other avenues to vent his rage - he had also made several bomb threats, and although there is as yet no evidence he had attempted to construct one. Note that it was illegal for Cho to possess handguns on the college campus, yet he had kept two in his college dormitory room without a problem. Laws rarely stop those who are willing to break them to achieve their goals.
Rob Graham wrote:
What is to debate?
Ah well that's fine then, seems like you've got things under control. Doesn't anyone see any link between the number of these appalling events in the USA and the wide availability of handguns? nah, that'd just be plain silly.
-
Rob Graham wrote:
What is to debate?
Ah well that's fine then, seems like you've got things under control. Doesn't anyone see any link between the number of these appalling events in the USA and the wide availability of handguns? nah, that'd just be plain silly.
AndyKEnZ wrote:
Doesn't anyone see any link between the number of these appalling events in the USA and the wide availability of handguns? nah, that'd just be plain silly.
Kinda like when that guy in London killed 33 people with a sword?
-
Rob Graham wrote:
What is to debate?
Ah well that's fine then, seems like you've got things under control. Doesn't anyone see any link between the number of these appalling events in the USA and the wide availability of handguns? nah, that'd just be plain silly.
Guns don't kill people, people, kill people (sometimes using guns). You obviously never went past the first sentence of my previous post. There is no debate because there is consensus that the guns should not have been available to someone with Cho's mental health history.
-
AndyKEnZ wrote:
Doesn't anyone see any link between the number of these appalling events in the USA and the wide availability of handguns? nah, that'd just be plain silly.
Kinda like when that guy in London killed 33 people with a sword?
-
Guns don't kill people, people, kill people (sometimes using guns). You obviously never went past the first sentence of my previous post. There is no debate because there is consensus that the guns should not have been available to someone with Cho's mental health history.
O yawn, guns don't kill people, well I never, neither do cars by the way. You've a huge arms industry whose interests you consider above the lives of people killed by handguns; note I'm saying "handguns" each time, you'd never catch me after rabbits with a handgun.