- This topic has 44 replies, 12 voices, and was last updated 20 years, 6 months ago by
.
-
Posts
-
Usually I save my political musings for face-to-face discussion, but I’m about to make an exception and favor you all with a little dissertation about recent American policy.
First off, those that don’t know, I’m an avid Republican. That’s not a political party affiliation but a way of life, please do not confuse this with the GOP Republican party. My personal political affiliation tends towards the left, but I am Independant.
A Republican in my eyes is a man or woman who puts what is best for the Republic above his or her own personal interest. A Republican is a person willing to lay their life down simply for an ideal upon which their land is unified upon like Freedom, and the right to believe in whatever you choose as long as you do not use your beliefs to oppress others hence Freedom.
At some point people have to realize there is a common base for individual rights for all human beings. And when a regime, ANY regime employes partial, injustice systems the modern world must unite to immediatly put down the crisis. Since Sumer, Greece, Rome, etc… we’ve asked the question: But who’s right? When one Empire conquers another over philosophical difference: Who’s right?
In the 21st century by now we can all agree *What is right* at least in theory, and the answer is no system is perfect. But we can strive to make an open system that allows people to find out for themselves *what is right* to them without being dictated by the point of a sword or barrel of a gun. These systems are found the world over nowadays, imperfect, yet based on the belief that all humans have individual rights.
Yet systems still exist which dole out inequal punishment, to a Republican who believes in human rights, not just the rights of his or her own citizens this is wrong and an affront to all you believe in. To a Republican, all citizens are equal in the eyes of the Government, and when another Country is hostile and in opposition to these ideals, action must be taken. You need no reason save for the survival of humanity. If it costs us a million deaths today, the aggregate reward will be uncountable in the lives that are saved.
But we are afraid of such sacrifice, we are afraid of moving foward towards a realization that being Human is a far greater unification than any difference of faith, skin, sexual preference, even the government itself.
The realization came this week that President Bush is *NOT* a Republican, or a very good American for that matter. When we went to war with Afghanistan and Iraq, I tried explaining to many the niceties of politics and how lying is par for course because frankly if you don’t tell Joe Shmoe he’s going to die tommarrow he’s not going to lift a finger to help a foreigner. And I don’t mean Americans, I mean all of us. I explained that the “good of the people” ALL PEOPLE, come before finding WMD, Dictators, et al.
What America did *WAS GOOD*, but how did we follow up?
We removed the Taliban, an oppressive regime with laws suited and tailored to a few powerhungry egos. Most tenets coincide with the authors beliefs.
Keeping with that tradition this week Bush decided he was a member of the Taliban when he decided that his personal faith should dictate law in America.
He is requesting that the Supreme Courts define “Marriage” as hetrosexual only. He went as far as to imply that homosexuals are “Sinners”.
Where the hell is this coming from?
Since when did a Presidents religious faith dictate law?
How can we tear down repressive regimes and inhuman dictators when we ourselves are setting the same example?
There are only two keys to being a human being not headed towards inevitable extinction: Tolerance and Empathy
Tolerance doesent require we become a fan. Germans don’t go out and celebrate St. Patricks day anymore than the Irish go out and celebrate Oktoborfest. But both sides also don’t go out of their way to ruin the others celebration, they may make snide remarks but they *TOLERATE* it.
We have a President in the United States that is unable to learn this lesson. And as such I truly am beginning to fear for the future, especially if this man is reelected and the world looks to us in shame as an affirmation that we believe as he does. Well I don’t.
As a society we need to grow up and learn that humans from all walks of life, all flavors, all colors, are to be taken as INDIVIDUALS. Personally I’ve had dogs that I cared more about than certain Presidents, but still I tolerate Bush. More than I can say for him, as a Republican I am ashamed of our leadership unfortunatly rhetoric only goes so far, when the election comes I hope we all as Americans can put our Republic and it’s ideals above Bush and keep him away from an office he has proven he is incapable of representing.
I look at a community as simple as Sadgeezer.com which represents 5 continents of members and I wonder where our leaders went so terribly wrong.
(Now back to your regularly scheduled Cult Sci-Fi already in progress)
Cool points, nicely put.
I can’t say I dissagree with any of your views. Personally I’ve never liked Bush, but in the UK we hadn’t heard of his gaff regarding the ‘Sinners’ remark. I always thought the US was a lot more tollerant than that.
IMHO, he’s really in for it now.
I usually refuse to engage in political conversation as well, BUT….
In another “Marriage policy” news, Israel has declared that Palestinians who marry Israeli citizens must live apart or leave the country for the next year, has anyone else seen that yet? Did I read that right?
WTF is up with the governments lately telling people who they are allowed to fall in love with?! 😡
(Where’s that rant smiley when you need it?!)
Pet;D
SadGeezer wrote:Cool points, nicely put.
I can’t say I dissagree with any of your views. Personally I’ve never liked Bush, but in the UK we hadn’t heard of his gaff regarding the ‘Sinners’ remark. I always thought the US was a lot more tollerant than that.
Most of us are more tolerant than that. What has happened here in the states is that recently the Supreme Court had struck down a state law criminalizing sodomy as unconstitutional. The law in question (a Texas state law, to boot) prohibited sexual relations between same-sex partners. While this was a monumental move forward, it has also polarized opinion. Conservative Justice Antonin Scalia, in his dissenting opinion of the ruling, harshly struck back in saying that the court — along with the entire legal profession — had “largely signed on to the so-called homosexual agenda” and that this was a stepping stone toward establishing the legality of homosexual marriages. He also said that the ruling called into question laws against “bigamy, same-sex marriage, adult incest, prostitution, masturbation, adultery, fornication, bestiality and obscenity” — and note that he is here putting same-sex unions on the same level as bestiality (as well as claiming that there are — or should be — laws against masturbation, adultery and fornication, when there are none). Following the ruling, some Republican Senators have lobbied in favor of establishing a Constitutional amendment declaring that a marriage must be legally defined as a union between a male and female. For the past month, the administration has not made any statements regarding the matter (though the law that was struck down *was* supported by Bush during his time as Texas state Governor), which is hardly surprising since Bush had not held a single press conference since the war. However, this past week, Bush held a conference in which he took responsibility for the clearly wrong statement about Iraqi attempts to obtain materials for a nuclear weapons program, and followed that up by saying that he was against the idea of same-sex marriages and that he thinks that it should be codified into law. As to homosexuals in general, he said that “I am mindful that we’re all sinners, and I caution those who may try to take the speck out of their neighbor’s eye when they’ve got a log in their own.”
The problem in this (as is evident in Bush’s statement where he speaks of “codifying” and “sinners” in this topic in such close proximity) is that this is yet another attempt to legislate morality, which tears down the borders between church and state. The stigma attatched to homosexuality in this country (and most western nations) is based purely on tenets rising from religious faith. This is not a question of crime in the sense of murder or theft. Nobody is hurt, and society is not harmed by having legal recognition of same-sex partners. The denial of the right to marry the person of one’s choosing affects multiple aspects of a couple’s life, including (but not limited to) such things as hospital visitation, Social Security benefits, joint tax filing, etc. Innumerable legal privileges are part of the institution of marriage, and these legal privileges are denied same-sex couples. While there may be a sizable portion of the population that opposes gay marriage, there was also a sizable portion of the population at one time who felt that women should not vote, that anyone not descended from European stock held no legal rights, and that interracial marriage should be illegal. They were wrong then, and they are wrong now. It violates the primary principle of the US Constitution — that all have the inalienable right to life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness.
Lots of great points and information in this thread. I believe very strongly in the rights and freedoms of the individual as long as they do not contribute to the suffering of others (Bush would make the argument that he is trying to protect his citizens, but that opinion does not seem to be based on enlightened reason — sometimes I think we’re moving back into the dark ages, guess the Renaissance was just something that happened to other people) . And I believe that we all have a responsibility for the welfare and protection of others wherever they may be.
I would never put my trust in the state or politicans as their agenda tends to supprt/benefit themselves at the cost of others — they are swayed by certain powerful special interest groups, and try to preserve the status quo.
Religion and politics should not mix (in fact, seperation of church and state should be a central tenet in the constitution — needs to be a reformation), but Bush was supported by right-wing conservative Christians. But while organised religion should be divorced from the state, philosophy, humanitarianism and ethics should always be fundamental to governance. What is the just state? It’s a state that treats life as precious, that truly believes (and tries to foster) in the ideals of equality, justice, and compassion. Unfortunately, liberty is curtailed, and our systems are really based on inequality (preserve the power elite). Anyway, I won’t bother getting into this in depth because I have nothing profound to say.
Having lived in several countries I consider myself to be an intenationalist and a humanist first. I used to be a very active member of Amnesty International[/url] — i suggest you check out the link — but I have become so depressed about the situation of the world, so cynical (skepticism good, cynicism bad), that I’m becoming apathetic. I try too hard to protect myself from worry and anxiety, but you can’t run away from/divorce yourself from the problems of the world. It’s always there, and each of us has a responsibility…
Sorry if i got side-tracked a bit or a lot. Keep up the fight, I’m just going to cower in a corner somewhere. 🙁
Aleck rationally laid out exactly why I was so furious in my original post.
We cannot portray ourselves as a modern civilized country that seeks to tear down devolved regimes when our President seeks to extend morally wrong personal beliefs to its citizens.
America is not supposed to be any more Christian than it is Muslim, Mormon or heck Santaria. To see the same President that took down the Taliban begin to imply that religion should have ANY affect on Americas laws makes me downright sick.
I’ve *never* been this furious with my leaders. And I live in California where we have Gray Davis, a moron of unique caliber who took one of the top 10 economies in the world down the crapper over his energy policies. Then decided it was *our* fault as his citizens.
It’s a crazy world out there for me right now, I’m stuck between a guy who feels he should gamble with our states currency and another guy who feels his personal beliefs trump democracy.
And as we speak and Americas economy worsens, Bush is raising a quarter of a BILLION dollars for his re-election campaign and taking a month off of work.
Cushy job if you can get it.
”LexxLurker” wrote:I’ve *never* been this furious with my leaders. And I live in California where we have Gray Davis, a moron of unique caliber who took one of the top 10 economies in the world down the crapper over his energy policies. Then decided it was *our* fault as his citizens.
Well, to be truthful, the Bush administration didn’t do much to better the California economy when it came to its energy policies, either. Davis is a moron, but he had lots of help. Why do you think that Cheney was so secretive about the energy commission stuff at the beginning of his term? Eh, well, whaddaya gonna do?
Unfortunately, in the case of California, you have a recall election, which has only happened, what, once before in US history? And it’s being spearheaded by and the campaign to stage the recall of Davis is largely funded by the guy who wants to run against him??? Can we spell conflict of interest??? It’s like Bill Maher said — the owner of a baseball team can have the manager fired mid-way through the world series, but you don’t let the opposing team pick the new one!
–Aleck
Dead on accurate Aleck. In a little city called Glendora, Ca the same thing happened last year. They held a recall election (for a mayor I believe) largely led by those with personal vendetta. Sure enough it was the people claiming “The recall is for the good of the people” who ended up usurping the power.
In many cases people throw around the word “recall” or “Impeachment” with little to no understanding of the ramifications against democracy. In Davis case it’s largely justified, but it’s being led by people with personal agendas.
In the case of Davis it’s been a calculated execution by a man who wants to be in charge. Now it’s become a circus with people like Larry Flint (who filed today), and The Terminator (still undecided).
As for an Energy Policy, boy you hit the nail on the head.
A person could spend DAYS talking about the utter failure in the 20th and so far in the 21st century to form a cohesive Energy Policy for America. And even more time arguing the benefits that would come from such a policy. Not only would it negate most of the “foreign oil” war arguements as well as give our economy a much needed lift. I cannot fathom why Alaska is left untouched, anyone who thinks we’re saving it for a rainy day doesent realize the hazard of having something that valuble to defend down the road. But that’s a whole ‘nother arguement.
Here in SA I have millions of complaints and issues with our disgusting government.
The thing that gets me is that most educated people will complain when they get together, but don’t do much else. Maybe we should all (Americans, Europeans, Africans, Asians and Antipodeans) get off our backsides and take a more involved stance in our government.
Then again- popcorn, beer and sci-fi can do a lot to keep me snug in my comfortable home. I may get mad at the evil ANC leaders, or curse Americas evil foreign policy… but thats about all I’ll do. Its not long before Star Trek or the like takes my mind of the news.
Maybe we’re the ones at fault for letting our fellow citizens ellect these dickheads into power.
A wiseman once said, “Power is not for the powerful, but for those who take it”.
Personally, I tend to live in my own world, and only come out of it so as to get the things I need to slip back into it. It’s safer, and much nicer.
Am I the only one who is involved in politics? 😯 LexxLurker: What are you going to do? PEOPLE GET THE GOVERNMENT THEY DESERVE. I now have to monitor and delete any “politically incorrect” posts due to my political past. You have no excuse!
Maurice – P.S. – LexxLurker…..I will not blame you if you do nothing, chalenging the government has its price 🙄 .
Fatguy wrote:Am I the only one who is involved in politics? 😯
No, but the last time there was active discussion in this thread, you castigated and dismissed those involved for only being interested in politics when it had something directly to do with them. That doesn’t really encourage further discussion. And on top of that, you vacillate between accusing us of not being active enough and warning us to not speak up because Big Brother is watching our every post. Neither choice would seem, then, to make you happy. And just because we don’t go around complaining about politics 24/7 on a science fiction message board does not mean that no one here is interested or involved in political discussion elsewhere.
Fatguy wrote:PEOPLE GET THE GOVERNMENT THEY DESERVE.
.Well, fatguy! I really have to chime in here and say that that is not the case. Determining fair apportionment and fair voting in a democratic system is actually a nontrivial combinatorical problem. Let’s remember here that Al Gore actually won the popular vote (that is he was the first choice candidate of more voters that G.W B. 48.38 to 47.87) The one other time this happened in US history was in the 1800’s. Believe me, I teach voting theory to college freshmen and most of them did not believe that this could happen. The intervention of the supreme court in the election (stopping what would be the usual procedure of taking as much time as necessary to determine who should get the florida electoral college votes) was especially disturbing to me. In the end, GWB probably would have gotten those votes anyway but in their haste for a power grab the republican party couldn’t even wait for a legitimate count.
I hoped that the chaos surrounding the last presidential election would increase the amount of discussion in this country about voting methods, and whether or not there is a more fair, more direct method that should be used (some states award electoral college votes proportionally to more accurately reflect the popular vote, we could get rid of the electoral college, we could use ranked voting etc.) But it seems that everyone has just shut up about it.
The result is that we have arguably the worst president in history.
As for republicans, they are not my favorite party because:
They spend money and energy trying to prevent people from voting, by scubbing polls, forbidding scientific methods in census taking so people are undercounted.
They have a tendency to employ “stealth” candidates and methods. As in the california recall election they work hard to find weakenesses in laws that they can exploit to subvert duly elected candidates. (I would also include the bogus attempt to impeach Clinton in this category a blow job! a thong! get real).
Republicans have the worst fiscal record imaginable! talk about spending!!! OMG. Besides running up huge deficits spending like mad, the money doesn’t even get used to improve the quality of life for average americans.
PS I voted for Ralph Nader!
”Aleck” wrote:Fatguy wrote:Am I the only one who is involved in politics? 😯
No, but the last time there was active discussion in this thread, you castigated and dismissed those involved for only being interested in politics when it had something directly to do with them. That doesn’t really encourage further discussion. And on top of that, you vacillate between accusing us of not being active enough and warning us to not speak up because Big Brother is watching our every post. Neither choice would seem, then, to make you happy. And just because we don’t go around complaining about politics 24/7 on a science fiction message board does not mean that no one here is interested or involved in political discussion elsewhere.[/quote]
Actually…..you are quite correct. The vacillation you speak of is also a dilemma that faces all that criticize a government – including me. However, I disagree about politics not entering a sci-fi board – politics is reality; and though many may wish to hide in the fantasy world of sci-fi to escape reality – a good dose of reality is needed every now and then to keep us in “reality”. By the way…..the best political discussions are at boards like this – international, unbiased (because it “is” a si-fi board), and fairly open minded peole you can talk to (unlike those “other” boards).
If you take an overview of my postings: you will see some politics (less and less though)…..but you will also see, poetry, my SARS experience (got a t-shirt yesterday and will post a picture), some clowning around:
and a look into the mind of the mentally ill 😯 😯 .
My purpose in this thread was to answer Lexxlurker’s angst by showing this person how to properly lobby the government. Now is the time to do it as when the wheels of procedure get moving – it is a done deal….. Organizational mailings to politicians are treated like spam and never read – a personal letter with name and address of constituent are always read and answered if done properly (one letter to a constituency office means a shift of 12,000 like minded people up here…..). However – I did not wish to appear too pushy as LexxLurker has been very kind to me in my previous threads – so I gave this person an “out” if they did not wish to pursue the matter.
P.S. You guys only see me when then I get motivated to do something – I am a much more pleasant guy in person…..
Maurice
Fatguy wrote:However, I disagree about politics not entering a sci-fi board – politics is reality; and though many may wish to hide in the fantasy world of sci-fi to escape reality – a good dose of reality is needed every now and then to keep us in “reality”. By the way…..the best political discussions are at boards like this – international, unbiased (because it “is” a si-fi board), and fairly open minded peole you can talk to (unlike those “other” boards).
You misunderstand me — I am not saying that politics should not enter into discussion on a sci-fi board. To the contrary, I think discussion of such things is vital in order to enhance the understanding of art as a reflection of reality. Science Fiction does not exist in a vacuum, space-travel sagas notwithstanding. What I meant was that because this is a board devoted to a particular range of topics that does not explicitly include political discussion (though it is *implicitly* included), it is not surprising that most discussion on this board does not center around politics, or that political topics wax and wane in their posting frequency.
And I didn’t mean to imply that you did nothing but complain about politics 24/7 on a sci-fi board: I was merely exaggerating what it seemed as if you were asking from others in your post.
–Aleck
And as such I truly am beginning to fear for the future, especially if this man is reelected and the world looks to us in shame as an affirmation that we believe as he does. Well I don’t.
Don’t worry about the reelection thing too much. He only scraped it in last time if I remember correctly. This time round, the opposition has access to a lot of ammunition. When’s election yr in the States anyway?
Not just Bush though, it’s the contempt radiating out of the rest of his cabinet that worries a few. I remember an interview with one of his chief advisors (can’t remember his name but was the geezer urging for war) who was constantly stating that ‘what applies to some little country in Africa doesn’t apply to us).
Double standards, surely not?
He is requesting that the Supreme Courts define “Marriage” as hetrosexual only. He went as far as to imply that homosexuals are “Sinners”.
He may believe this, he may not. I wouldn’t say he was that religious anyway. Politics- just currying favour with the expected number of people who were worried when the Anglican church anointed a gay vicar/minister (whose rank eludes me). If I was voting over there, I’d be less worried about his decision as long as it was genuine .
The problem when looking at Bush for me is the overwhelming feeling that he’d do ANYTHING to get into office whatever the cost.
Logan wrote:I believe very strongly in the rights and freedoms of the individual as long as they do not contribute to the suffering of others
”LexxLurker” wrote:At some point people have to realize there is a common base for individual rights for all human beings.
”Aleck” wrote:all have the inalienable right to life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness.
1. What is the concept of rights based upon?
2. If answer to ‘1.’ is being Human, what makes being a human so special?
3. If answer to ‘2.’ is rational thinking, do those without the ability to think rationally have rights? (ie. mentally disabled, children – especially babies)
4. If answer to ‘3.’ is yes – how are they different from animals? (this is linked to the idea that while human beings are biologically similar to apes, it is rationality which separates us) And, if not different, that is there is no apparant differences which would without question separate humans from animals other than rationality – humans are then considered to be animals themselves, thus prompting the question,why does being human automatically assume rights? and does that mean that animals have the same rights that humans have? or does that mean, if we go the other way – that mentally disabled people, babies, children etc. don’t have rights because they dont have the ability that is a prerequisite?
and this of course is all without the added problems of the “inalienability” and “inviolability” that people have given to the concept of rights.
if this is the case – that you cant sell, give away, have taken away etc. your rights, what happens when those rights conflict with someone elses? who wins out? is there a hierarchy of rights? but then, that in itself would negate the inviolable and inalienable bits.
Sorry guys, you started in on american politics, and all i know about that is the basics – ie. constitution, basic principles of liberty, clinton’s almost impeachment, and the cuban missile crisis. thus, it makes it difficult for me to say anything – except the above, 😡
So anyway – whats the general consensus? The entire political system in the US is supposedly based upon rights and individual liberty, what happens if that construct is demolished?
Jennicide wrote:Logan wrote:I believe very strongly in the rights and freedoms of the individual as long as they do not contribute to the suffering of others
”LexxLurker” wrote:At some point people have to realize there is a common base for individual rights for all human beings.
”Aleck” wrote:all have the inalienable right to life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness.
1. What is the concept of rights based upon?
2. If answer to ‘1.’ is being Human, what makes being a human so special?
3. If answer to ‘2.’ is rational thinking, do those without the ability to think rationally have rights? (ie. mentally disabled, children – especially babies)
4. If answer to ‘3.’ is yes – how are they different from animals? (this is linked to the idea that while human beings are biologically similar to apes, it is rationality which separates us) And, if not different, that is there is no apparent differences which would without question separate humans from animals other than rationality – humans are then considered to be animals themselves, thus prompting the question,why does being human automatically assume rights? and does that mean that animals have the same rights that humans have? or does that mean, if we go the other way – that mentally disabled people, babies, children etc. don’t have rights because they don’t have the ability that is a prerequisite?
and this of course is all without the added problems of the “inalienability” and “inviolability” that people have given to the concept of rights.
if this is the case – that you cant sell, give away, have taken away etc. your rights, what happens when those rights conflict with someone elses? who wins out? is there a hierarchy of rights? but then, that in itself would negate the inviolable and inalienable bits.
Sorry guys, you started in on american politics, and all i know about that is the basics – ie. constitution, basic principles of liberty, clinton’s almost impeachment, and the cuban missile crisis. thus, it makes it difficult for me to say anything – except the above, 😡
So anyway – whats the general consensus? The entire political system in the US is supposedly based upon rights and individual liberty, what happens if that construct is demolished?[/quote]
Some Answers…..
1. “What is the concept of rights based on?” It is based on my desire to do something so natural that the question of my doing it never arrises; and that if another human being denies this to me – I feel wronged and may fight to the death to retain it.
2,3,4….. Red herrings….. However humans have “rights” because:
a. They verbalize that they want them and animals can not; children and the mentally retarded have rights related with their ability and responsibilities in our society.
b. Animals have no “human rights” as they are not human or have abilities up to human standards that would allow them to ask for the same rights. They have their own rights (like the right to charge and eat me unless I kill it or imprison it in a cage or protected sanctuary, etc.).
There is no hierarchy of rights, if you are willing to die/kill for them – then that is the same worth to you (i.e. your life). I have said this before:
“I have rights and freedoms that are unquestioned, and you will have to kill me to stop me from exercising those rights and freedoms; and because of that…..I will always be free.”
This should answer most of your questions (even the nationalistic one – if you think hard enough). Now leave me alone – I have to wash my car and clean up my house…..
Maurice
I was speaking more of legal (as well as ethical) rights as defined by the “social contract” (think Hobbes, Rousseau etc., ‘though I don’t care for Hobbes). I don’t believe in and of itself that “all have the inalienable right to life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness,” as it needs a qualifier, as long as your own personal pursuit of happiness does not cause harm to others, or overly infringe on other people’s liberty, right to life, and pursuit of happiness. Bear in mind that I’m an internationalist, not a nationalist. A community should not expoloit other communities at their expense.
As for the rights of animals, I believe that humans as the most destructive species around have an ethical responsibility to protect other species (keeping in mind that we are omnivorous by nature, and I’m not totally opposed to eating meat). Animal rights (as well as others) are what we define for them in my context (we require a global contract that takes into consideration the whole environment). The question is, do we have innate rights (natural rights), one might say God-given rights, or do we define them into existence? And back to animals, are there innate and inalienable Dog-given rights? What about the right to bare bears?
I personally have always believed in the complete seperation of church and state. It really annoys me that countries such as the US and the UK define themselves as ‘Christian ‘ countries. What the hell does that mean?! They are states with citizens of many faiths. I reme,ber one of the Dune books (I think it was ‘Heretics of Dune’ but don’t quote me on that!) who defined the union of church and state as the ultimate evil, a state where crimes become sins. And that was one of the Benr Gesserit talking for Deity’s sake!
One thing that particularly pisses me off is the argument that religion (and for that read Christianity) should be taught in schools ‘to give children a moral foundation’. What sactimnious evangelical crap! As someone of undefined at best religious faith I consider myself a moral human being. I use my brain to decide what is moral rather than simply accepting self-contradictory BS (‘Thou shalt not kill, unless we tell you to’). And, as far as I’m concerned, anyone who refrains from comitting crimes because they fear divine punnishment is not a moral person, they are just cowardly!
As far as I’m concerned, anything should be accepted by a state unless it damages or hurts someone. Marriage should be defined by the people involved, if they are above the legally-defined age of responsibility. Homosexual, incestuous or group marriages would all be fine, but bestial or paedophiliac marriages would not be.Okay, this may not be wise, I’m putting my nose into this. This is my first Pub post, so try to take it easy on me, eh guys? 🙂
First, a little about myself.
I am not a Republican, but I do tend to lean conservative (and am thus in a minority on sadgeezer.com). I believe in taking personal responsibility, and that government should be dedicated to protecting its citizens from others… but NOT from themselves.
i.e. The goverment’s job is to safeguard you from being harmed by other people. Its job should NOT be to safeguard you from harming yourself.
The statement above forms the basis for most of my political beliefs. As a general rule, I favor the least amount of intrusion possible, to maintain the orderly running of our society.
Lexxlurker, you say you are a Republican. With respect, that is not the case. Words have meaning that are not defined by you, or even by a particular dictionary, but by society as whole. It is misleading to identify yourself as “Republican,” when your definition of “Republican” is not one commonly used by society.
Like it or not, “Republican” is a political word, which defines a member of the Republican Party, or at least a person who tends toward conservative philosophies. You are what you eventually stated yourself to be: a left-leaning Independant.
I am a right-leaning Independant. 🙂
Similarly, “marriage” is a word that has a meaning defined by society as a whole. Not by you, a dictionary, or any particular activist group. I would argue that our society as a whole still view marrage to be a strictly heterosexual union. Trying to use the courts to artifically alter that definition will merely cause strife.
I had an uncle who was gay, and who was eventually killed by AIDS, so I am not unsympathetic to the gay community. I fall back on my basic rule: Homosexual activity does not involve people harming other people, and the government should not be in the business of protecting people from themselves. Therefore, there should be no laws prohibiting homosexual behavior.
However, I am constantly aware that there is an enormous effort by gay activists, via courts and the media, to force society to view homosexual activity as “normal.” This effort makes me uncomfortable. I don’t mind a principled argument laid out for me, but it bothers me when powerful forces try to tell me how to think. Thought Police, anyone?
I am in favor of monogamous homosexual unions, which promote public health, but I think it needs a different name. Such a union simply does not fall under the definition of “marriage,” in our present society.
I also understand that legal marriage can provide certain legal financial benefits, such as tax breaks. I am uneasy with attaching the same legal financial benifits to a union between members of the same sex, because it then becomes too easy to scam the government with fraudulent homosexual unions. I would sooner do away with the financial benefits for marriage, than expand them to include homosexual unions. As for hospital visitation benefits, I have no problem with that.
You said Bush implied that gays were sinners. Can I have some quoted text here, please? “Implied” means that you read something into what Bush said, that he didn’t specifically say. You may have a point, you may not. Need more information. I would note that we are ALL sinners, though.
In any event, Bush is certainly entitled to his opinion, just like the rest of us. We won’t always agree with each other. That’s life. Since when did a President’s religious faith dictate law? Well, as far as I know, not now, not ever. The President is part of the Executive Branch. Congress is the only body that is supposed to dictate laws. What laws did the President’s remarks dictate?
You speak of tolerance, a need to learn that people from all walks of life, flavor and colors should be taken as individuals. Well, yes and no. There are certain behaviors and lifestyles that are, simply, immoral. Murder is immoral. Child abuse is immoral. And there are certain actions that are immoral, but are not against the law. Bush obviously believes homosexuality is immoral. You obviously do not believe it’s immoral. But neither one of you (I hope) is going to go out and harm people because of your belief. THAT is what tolerance is.
For the record, I am not a big Bush fan, but I would sooner have him in office than ANY Democrat. I feel certain a Democrat would expand government even more than Bush has (and he has expanded it A LOT). Democrats also have a greater tendency to get government into the business of trying to protect us from ourselves, something I feel government has no business doing.
We have way too many laws today, and many of them are redundant. Too many laws are cranked out by politicians for political gain, and too many laws are effectively created by our courts, in broad and over-reaching opinions. I used to have great respect for judges, but now I see that they are simply lawyers with black robes on. 🙂 Think about it. Compare life in the US to a board game, where our laws are the rules of the game. At some point, shouldn’t that rule book be complete? Why is it that we continually seem to need more and more laws, every year? After almost 230 years, shouldn’t they have everything pretty much covered by now?
The answer, I feel, is two-fold. Firstly, to stay in office, politicians feel the need to show that they’re doing something. Well, really the only job politicians have, is to make new laws. So that’s what we get, whether we need ’em or not.
Secondly, THE most powerful lobby in the United States is the American Bar Association. And the vast majority of politicians in this country are lawyers. The business of all these people is litigation, and litigation is founded upon laws. The more laws there are, the more business opportunities there are for the lawyers. The fox is in the henhouse. This is a tremendous conflict of interest, and I see no way to resolve it. If I could wave a magic wand, I would set laws back to the basics. The basics of protecting people from harm by other people. Unfortunately, magic wands are in short supply. 🙂
Aleck, I believe the point Justice Scalia was trying to make, was that decriminalizing sodomy is a step towards decriminalizing ALL forms of sexual behavior, as a matter of right to privacy. At a time when groups like NAMBLA have their own agenda, and minors are engaging in sexual activity at younger and younger ages, it begins to form a gray area in regards to what sexual activity should be regulated. I’m not sure I agree with Scalia’s point, but I recognize that it does have a certain kind of logic.
As for attempts to legislate morality, this happens all the time on the right and the left, and does not always indicate a breakdown in the barrier between church and state. The concept of hate crimes is a perfect example. For every hate crime, there were already laws in place prohibiting it. But politicians felt the need to create “hate crime” laws for crimes dealing with hatred. Racism-related crimes, for example. But such crimes were already illegal even without the factor of racism. Again, this is simply legislating political morality. And I agree, it isn’t a good idea.
Logan, it continually amazes me that people on left hate Bush with as much vitriol as they do. A deep-seated personal hatred, too. They hate the MAN, not just what he stands for. He’s not even that conservative. I can only try to compare it to the way I feel about Clinton. I admit, I hated Clinton. I felt he was a man with no moral fiber at all, who would do almost anything to remain in power. I think that’s the way folks on the left feel about Bush. The truth, in regards to both men, is probably a lot more mundane than the way we feel. In spite of what their opponents say, both are smart men (or they would never have gotten as far as they did), both are moderates (or they couldn’t have gotten elected), and both compromise with their opponents (or they wouldn’t have accomplished anything).
You say religion and politics shouldn’t mix. I’m not sure I agree. I’m not sure it’s even possible to keep them apart. 🙂 I’m glad you said that the Separation of Church and State SHOULD be a tenet in the constitution, and not that it IS. Most people don’t seem to realize that Separation of Church and State is NOT in the constitution, but something that has been gradually created by court opinions over the years. I am strongly against the practice of legislating from the bench, but as a general rule I do support the idea of separation.
You do need to realize, however, that philosophy, humanitarianism, and ethics are simply other, secular forms of religion. They just don’t ascribe their origin to a higher power. Making them fundamental to governance is no better than making Christianity, Buddhism, or Satanism fundamental to governance.
Our constitution forbids the government from establishing an official religion, and ensures that citizens have a right to practice whatever religion they choose. That’s all. Removing all references to God from our government goes way beyond what the constitution says, or intended. Realize that even Atheism is a religion. To remove all references to God from our government, would be establishing Atheism as the official religion. Personally, I’m pretty happy with the way things are now; the government acknowledges the non-denominational existence of God, and allows the citizens to practice as they wish.
Back to LexxLurker’s second post. Don’t have much to say, except that I think you’re reading a lot more into the President than is actually there. I don’t know what you mean about the President extending beliefs to the citizens. How do you feel Bush has trumped democracy? Taking a month off work? Not likely. The President is ALWAYS on the job. Personally, it’s not a job I would want. And I don’t even want to get into campaign fund raising. I think all candidates are equally guilty when it comes to this. It’s just that some are more effective at it than others.
About Gray Davis. LexxLurker, can you confirm or deny this? I have heard that Davis recently signed a bill into law that gives illegal aliens drivers licenses. I then later heard that a drivers license is the primary identification people use in California when registering to vote, and voting. Thus Davis just granted our precious right to vote to all the illegal aliens residing in California. Is this true? If so, it’s just about the most outrageous thing I can think of. And to think that so many Californians are now thinking about NOT kicking his butt out, or putting his lieutenant into office instead. Guys, you’re cutting your own throats.
Aleck, on the recall. Your post is probably just out of date as of this writing, but the guy that spearheaded the recall campaign is not running anymore. But even if he was, so what? Of course the recall campaign was spearheaded by a chief opponent of Davis. Who else would spearhead it?
The law allowing the recall was created by Democrats. Personally, I like it. I wish we could have some form of recall law for the other political offices in this country. I think it takes power away from the political parties, and puts it back in the hands of the people. Bill Maher’s statement is not a good comparison, as all citizens of California are on the same “team.” Davis is not governor of the Democrats, he is governor of California. Recalls are always led by opponents, otherwise they would never happen. Everyone has a personal agenda.
Lizard, the popular vote in that election was, and continues to be, too close to call. As Florida and other states demonstrated, the vote counting process is never perfect, and there were likely errors in every single state. There is no way anyone can ever be sure of who actually won the popular vote.
What DID happen in Florida, was that Gore attempted to win the recount by scewing results. He did this by ordering recounts only in counties that had high percentages of registered Democrats. This way, any additional votes that were discovered, were much more likely to be votes for Gore than for Bush. The United States Supreme Court did the right thing by realizing that this violated equal protection under the law, because it gave greater attention to the votes of citizens who live only in certain counties. People on the left like to argue that Bush “stole the election.” In my view, it was Gore who attempted this, via the tactics described above.
Regardless of any of this, as you have noted, popular vote is not what elects the President. It is the Electoral College that does this. Like you, I once despised the idea of the Electoral College, and found it impossible to rationalize its existence. I now have a greater understanding. The United States is largely made up of 50 smaller economies; the states. If the Presidential election relied solely upon one man-one vote, then states with large populations, like California, would have an inordinate amount of power over deciding the election. As such, candidates and elected officials could spend the bulk of their time campaigning and pandering to only the country’s largest states, and ignore the rest of us. The Electoral College presents a compromise. States get a certain number of points based on their number of Congressmen and Senators. The number of Congressmen is based on a state’s population, whereas the number of Senators is the same for every state. Thus balance is achieved between one-man-one-vote and keeping the balance of power equal between the 50 states.
As for Republicans employing underhanded methods, Democrats do the same sh*t. All the major political parties do. I personally believe the Democrats are more underhanded, via unions, and giving illegal aliens drivers licenses, but maybe that’s my own bias. I to would like to see reforms that give third party candidates more exposure, though I didn’t agree much with Nader’s platform.
Fluffy Bunny, anything to get into office whatever the cost? I don’t think you truly believe that. That is hyperbole. To an extent, I believe the same thing about Bill and Hillary Clinton. I’m sure our feelings are fueled by the way we see the world. For what it’s worth, I’d trust you before I’d trust Bill, Hillary, OR Bush.
Jennicide, indeed there IS a hierarchy of rights, and they butt heads all the time. Some supercede others, and as always, rights CAN be taken away. The caveat is that they can’t be taken away without DUE PROCESS of law.
ShadowedVenus, there are many smart people out there who are religious. I don’t have a problem with religion being taught in schools, as long as the classes are optional, or the teaching is done in private schools.
When has the US defined itself as a Christian country? There are certainly people in the US who claim that, but I don’t think I’ve ever heard the government make such a proclaimation.
Of course, strictly in terms of numbers, it is quite clear that Christians make up the biggest slice of the pie in America. If this is what you’re refering to… well… the numbers speak for themselves, I guess.
Wow. Probably the most huge post I’ve ever made. Lessee if anybody actually reads the whole thing. 🙂
Re sgtdraino: I read the whole thing 8) . Your post seems to me to be nothing more than the frustration of someone who feels helpless to do anything significant about the issues he/she feels are important in life. What you have done with your post is to simply present your views in a much smaller venue (i.e. Sadgeezer.com), so that your opinions will have more weight among this smaller group and thus alleviate some of the frustration and helplessness in your life (we all do it, especially me…..). That is as far as I want to get into your head; but there is one more issue I would like to clarify.
You wrote: “You do need to realize, however, that philosophy, humanitarianism, and ethics are simply other, secular forms of religion. They just don’t ascribe their origin to a higher power. Making them fundamental to governance is no better than making Christianity, Buddhism. or Satanism fundamental to governance.” You are wrong…..they are not. A religion attempts to explain away that which we can not explain with the mental tools we have available (faith). Religions are necessary precisely because we now know that the limits of epistemology dictate that we will never be in a position to comprehend ourselves fully. To give you an example; my metaphysical investigations resulted in me turning (unknowingly) to a form of theology. The fields of Philosophy, for example, are simply mental tools for a practical purpose in our daily lives; they describe relations between things, but not the things themselves…..
Why religion in government? Perhaps because humans are fearful creatures who would feel less in control of their fate if their governance was not tied to a religion of some kind. You can try to examine real life examples of this and determine which of the two systems has more staying power…..hehehehehe.
Maurice
To Logan and other Canadian Sadgeezers:
It looks like the “Right” is about to unite; and it looks like Mike Harris (former Premier of Ontario) may lead this union into the next election.
I knew Mike Harris before he became Premier through his regular correspondence with the Ontario Handgun Association, of which I was a member. He would tell us of the various laws that would have impact on us and his reasons for voting on specific issues. Mike Harris is a gun owner (or at least was…..as he owned several guns when we knew him…..); and like most gun owners, when he gives you his word, it means something. He will be remembered in Ontario for saying what he was going to do before voting day…..and actually doing it after voting day.
I used to joke with my parents about Mike Harris becoming the next Prime Minister (they hate him…..hehehehehe…..), I now think he has a shot at it. It is still early days and anything can happen; but I can not contain my enthusiasm when I see – what used to be an ordinary man – rise to possibly take the highest position in this country. Breakfast with my folks this morning is going to be interesting….. 😆
Maurice
I think Darth Vader would make a kickass president!
And it would be cool to see him stand and hold those over-patriotic
speeches….. With his weezing voice…And the force would be good for solving crime in L.A….
/Camarilla-Formerly known as Dragula 8)
Camarilla wrote:I think Darth Vader would make a kickass president!
And it would be cool to see him stand and hold those over-patriotic
speeches….. With his weezing voice…And the force would be good for solving crime in L.A….
/Camarilla-Formerly known as Dragula 8)
Lol! Can you imagine him at a press conference when a snide reporter askes a stupid question he could just wave his hand and roll out his loveable chestnut “I find your lack of faith disturbing” all the while they choke. Oh and would he travel around in a limo or use an Imperial Shuttlecraft?
Sgt draino, I didn’t say that no intelligent people were religious, I said that religion is a load of self-contradictory BS. I do in fact know at least one very intelligent person who is Christian, but I think that within organised religion, there does come a certain point at which one is programmed to shut your brain off and respond with the ethical equivilent of an ansaphone message – “You must have faith”. That certainly is what happens to my friend. We regularly debate religion and various ethics, and though she is intelligent, well-informed and largely very open-minded, there comes a certain point beyond which she always becomes unwilling to debate, and the ansaphone message comes on. I attended a repressively Christan school as a child, and so I saw this process of teaching children to switch off at a certain point first hand. Basically, what I mean is that part of the standard definition of a human being concerns our intelligence and ability to think for ourselves, and a believe that orgainsied religion exists as a aeries of memes that suppress these processes in favour of creating a mental climate in which they flourish. The results of this can be witnessed in history – think the Spanish Inquisition, the Witch Burnings, the long-ranging and socially-acceptaed torture of women. Therefore, I think that using these memes as the basis of justice in a democratic judicial system is stupid, especially compared to using secular (not neccessarily aetheistic ideals. Aetheism is about denying the existence of deities, secularism merely does not concern itself with religion) principles widely agreed on by highly educated people of many schools of thought. These are always up for review, and people have the right to protest etc, and thus give their input, they do not descend from the sky engraved on tablets of stone.
By the way, you may not mean it to, but your post does come over as having some rather homophobic overtones. Why exactly would homosexual relationships be easier to fake for tax breaks etc than heterosexual ones? And your implication that homosexuality is on a par with paedophilia is disturbing. One is between consenting adults, the other is abusive. And your slippery slope theory is illogical. In that case, what is so wholesome about heterosexual sex? I have friends of many sexualities, and, as far as I can tell, what I do with my boyfriend is largely very similar to what all of them do with their signifigant others, if they love each other. I have also had friends in abusive herterosexual relationships which I can assure were far from wholesome or healthy. Are you taking the line that sex should be conducted principally for reproductive purposes or it is verging on immoral? I certainly do not engage in it for that – quite the opposite in fact, pregnancy would be a disaster for me.Just a point or two.
We didn’t do the Afghan people any favours. Yes. The Taliban were bad. And yes, it was good to get rid of them. But after that, things get complicated.
For one thing, there was something worse than the Taliban. That was the internecine coalition or assembly of warlords who had torn the country to pieces after the Russians pulled out. These men believed in nothing more than raping and looting, for minor crimes (true story) they would strap a man to the treads of a tank and drive him around the courtyard. These warlords caused untold massacres, and made millions of people into refugees, they destroyed or looted much of the countries infrastructure and pillaged as they pleased.
They were so bad, that the people of Afghanistan turned to the Taliban as their saviours.
Guess what. These are the people we put back into power in Afghanistan.
That’s right. As impossible as it is, we actually found someone worse than the Taliban, and handed Afghanistan over to them.
It gets worse. The Taliban is not gone. Neither Mullah Omar nor Osama Bin Laden were ever captured. Most of the Taliban command is intact, and there’s every indication that they still control or can attack substantial parts of the country. The United States has even begun to negotiate covertly with them.
The central government is such a joke that it used to be said that its authority extended no further than the city fo Kabul. Now, at best, its a few office buildings in Kabul.
Meanwhile, thanks to the warlords, Heroin production, which was eventually banned by the Taliban, is back in full flower. Afghanistan is now, far and away, the worlds leading producer of heroin. This has resulted in huge social problems as massive quantities of heroin flow into Pakistan, India, Iran and the northern states. Some of it even manages to kill people here.
But apart from heroin production, the economy is practically defunct, the country suffers from drought and famine, and the only thing holding the country together are international aid organizations…. who are under increasing attack from the Taliban and the Warlords.
For its part, America has largely forgotten about Afghanistan. In his budget to congress, Bush didn’t even include any reconstruction aid. This was corrected by congress. Oddly, most of that aid never reaches Afghanistan, but is going into the pockets of American firms.
For instance, forty million dollars is being paid to a Washington consulting company to design a tax system for Afghanistan. Big whoop.
In military/security terms, the country is a mess, with both Warlords and the Taliban running at large. The United States military presence seems to consist of a fortified airfield or series of airbases, from which the Air Force launches lightning terror raids at potential enemies… which have turned out to be weddings. American casualties in Afghanistan are relatively low, however, because the Americans don’t engage directly. The actual grunt work of peacekeeping, including getting shot at, is left to an international coalition of peacekeepers.
There ain’t nothing to be proud of, as far as Afghanistan goes.
On the subject of gay rights and gay marriage, I would agree with most of the posters here that Bush is fully out to lunch. Frankly, people are entitled to hold whatever religious beliefs please them.
They are not entitled to impose those religious beliefs on others, or to regulate or define how people should live their lives.
Mr. Bush’s interest in this matter strikes me as hugely questionable, given that there are so much more important things for him to deal with.
And what on God’s green Earth is a homosexual agenda, anyway?
I gotta disagree with you there, Maurice. I don’t think that the ‘Unite the Right’ movement will come to anything.
The problem is that there are two kinds of right in Canada.
There’s the Progressive Conservatives, who are basically conservatives in favour of a stable evolving society, balancing the budget, manageable social programs, and a sound business policy.
Then there’s the Reform Party/United Alternative/Canadian Alliance/Social Nationalists or whatever they call themselves this week, who are bug eating lunatics. Maybe they’re good for speaking in tongues, or rolling around the floor at a revival meeting, or whatever it is they like to do. But actually letting these people run a country? Forget it.
ShadowedVenus wrote:Sgt draino, I didn’t say that no intelligent people were religious,
Bang!… splash! First shot over the bow, eh? 🙂
What you said was:
ShadowedVenus wrote:I use my brain to decide what is moral rather than simply accepting self-contradictory BS
Refering to religion. By that statement, I took you to mean that you believe religious people do not use their brains, and instead accept self-contradictory BS. Did I misunderstand?
ShadowedVenus wrote:I said that religion is a load of self-contradictory BS. I do in fact know at least one very intelligent person who is Christian,
So, this is a very intelligent person who accepts a load of self-contradictory BS?
ShadowedVenus wrote:but I think that within organised religion, there does come a certain point at which one is programmed to shut your brain off and respond with the ethical equivilent of an ansaphone message – “You must have faith”.
Certainly faith is a cornerstone in all religions. Of course, you would surely admit that no belief system, religious or secular, can explain everything. Sometimes the answer to a question is simply not known. It doesn’t mean the answer does not exist.
ShadowedVenus wrote:though she is intelligent, well-informed and largely very open-minded, there comes a certain point beyond which she always becomes unwilling to debate, and the ansaphone message comes on.
I think we’re all like that. It doesn’t sound like either of you have a chance of changing the other’s mind, so after a point, doesn’t the effort of debate become pointless? Why keep banging your head into a brick wall. I sometimes get that way with my father.
ShadowedVenus wrote:I attended a repressively Christian school as a child,
Why did you do that? 🙂 I guess your parents forced you. That’s too bad. Repressively Christian?
ShadowedVenus wrote:believe that orgainsied religion exists as a aeries of memes that suppress these processes in favour of creating a mental climate in which they flourish.
So, you’re saying that religion suppresses human intelligence and the ability to think for ourselves? Hmmm. Maybe some forms of religion do, and maybe some people misuse religion for that purpose, but I think you’re painting with a pretty broad brush.
ShadowedVenus wrote:The results of this can be witnessed in history – think the Spanish Inquisition, the Witch Burnings, the long-ranging and socially-acceptaed torture of women. Therefore, I think that using these memes as the basis of justice in a democratic judicial system is stupid,
I think you’re confusing religion with evil people who have misused religion to do evil things… just as evil people will misuse anything else to do evil. Just because somebody uses a belief system in order to accomplish something evil, doesn’t mean the belief system is itself evil, or unjust. Anything can be corrupted or perverted.
ShadowedVenus wrote:especially compared to using secular principles widely agreed on by highly educated people of many schools of thought. These are always up for review, and people have the right to protest etc, and thus give their input, they do not descend from the sky engraved on tablets of stone.
I have studied philosophy. There are many different schools of philosophy, with beliefs going back a century or more. They often disagree, and each, you will find, tends to view its ideals as engraved in stone.
ShadowedVenus wrote:By the way, you may not mean it to, but your post does come over as having some rather homophobic overtones.
How so? If I did disapprove of the homosexual lifestyle, would that make me a homophobe?
ShadowedVenus wrote:Why exactly would homosexual relationships be easier to fake for tax breaks etc than heterosexual ones?
Simple. With the current definition of marriage, it would specifically take a man conspiring with a woman to get together purely to get government benefits. If the definition was extended to include gay marriage, then any combination of man-man, woman-woman, man-woman, any two people could get together for government benefits, whether there’s any real love there or not.
And if gay marriage becomes lawful and constitutional, then that also opens the door for polygamy. Then ANY NUMBER of people can get together purely as a loophole to get government benefits. Heck, the whole country can “get married,” and ta-da! Government benefits.
ShadowedVenus wrote:And your implication that homosexuality is on a par with paedophilia is disturbing.
I implied no such thing. I was attempting to explain Justice Scalia’s reasoning behind his opinion. And even that was not that homosexuality is on a par with pedophilia. It was that giving sexual acts protection under the right to privacy, may lead to unintended consequences. And once again, that is Scalia’s opinion, not mine.
ShadowedVenus wrote:And your slippery slope theory is illogical.
Not mine, Scalia’s. I’m not a big believer in “slippery slope.” Either a particular law is a good idea, or it isn’t. Case-by-case basis.
ShadowedVenus wrote:Are you taking the line that sex should be conducted principally for reproductive purposes or it is verging on immoral?.
That is a judgement call between you and your belief system. Of course we each have our own opinions about the morality or immorality of various sex acts. We’d probably all agree about the immorality of pedophilia. But where adults are concerned, I would not want those opinions codified into law. In short, my opinion on sex is my own business, and not relevant to this discussion.
ShadowedVenus wrote:I certainly do not engage in it for that – quite the opposite in fact, pregnancy would be a disaster for me.
Yet you take that conscious risk each time you engage in it. You take the risk, but would you accept the consequences?
I’m not saying I wouldn’t take the same risk. I’m just curious about your reasoning.
Fatguy wrote:Re sgtdraino: I read the whole thing.
Thanks, and congratulations. I still think your avatar is creepy, though. 🙂 Why is that?
Fatguy wrote:Your post seems to me to be nothing more than the frustration of someone who feels helpless to do anything significant about the issues he/she feels are important in life.
lol. That’s pretty much all of us, isn’t it? We can all say and argue what we want, but the impact on society as a whole is most likely nil.
Fatguy wrote:What you have done with your post is to simply present your views in a much smaller venue (i.e. Sadgeezer.com),
I dunno, I think of this as a larger venue. A Google search would probably connect my username to this site, and thus any enemy of mine who wanted to use my words against me would have opportunity to find some ammunition here. For those reasons, I almost NEVER talk politics on the internet. Consider yourselves lucky to hear this much out of me… uh… I guess. 🙂
Fatguy wrote:so that your opinions will have more weight among this smaller group and thus alleviate some of the frustration and helplessness in your life
lol. Since, in my experience, the vast majority of sadgeezer.com members are left-leaning, I doubt my opinions carry much weight here. I was simply attracted to the post, as politics do interest me, and for some reason I felt like weighing in on it all.
No, to be completely accurate, I’m one of those people who doesn’t like to rock the boat, whether it be on the internet or in real life. Quite honestly, I fear being persecuted for my beliefs. That something I say could come back to bite me in the arse someday, and hurt my career and/or life. Ergo I mostly keep my political ramblings to myself. At least I don’t volunteer them. If asked a question outright, though, I do answer honestly.
Fatguy wrote:You wrote: “You do need to realize, however, that philosophy, humanitarianism, and ethics are simply other, secular forms of religion. They just don’t ascribe their origin to a higher power. Making them fundamental to governance is no better than making Christianity, Buddhism. or Satanism fundamental to governance.” You are wrong…..they are not. A religion attempts to explain away that which we can not explain with the mental tools we have available (faith).
Well, perhaps I was not completely accurate. To be more accurate, religion, philosophy, humanitarianism, and ethics are all belief systems, and the government should not favor any specific one over another. I would also add that religion is the only one of those things that CAN explain away that which we cannot… since the others are, by definition, secular.
Fatguy wrote:The fields of Philosophy, for example, are simply mental tools for a practical purpose in our daily lives; they describe relations between things, but not the things themselves…..
Philosophies do try to describe some things, such as the nature of humanity. And each philosphy tends to base itself on certain principles it holds to be true, just like all other belief systems.
Fatguy wrote:Why religion in government? Perhaps because humans are fearful creatures who would feel less in control of their fate if their governance was not tied to a religion of some kind.
Perhaps humans believe that without religion, there is ultimately no good or evil, no right or wrong, and thus no authority for the government to make laws about anything.
What makes something good or evil? Is it because I say so? Of course not. What if a million people say so? Still not enough. Okay, how about the entire poplulation of the earth? Everyone somehow being unanimous? Sound good?
Okay, what if aliens from another planet, a planet three times the population of earth, decide that it’s morally right to kill and eat all of us? Is that right?
No? How come?
Because ultimately, good and evil transcends the opinions of any number of people. Secular belief systems, in the end, still just boil down to the opinions of a bunch of people.
Fatguy wrote:It looks like the “Right” is about to unite; and it looks like Mike Harris (former Premier of Ontario) may lead this union into the next election.
Wow. A right-leaning Canadian. I didn’t know such a thing existed. 🙂
”Valdron” wrote:Just a point or two.?
See, this is why I tend to steer clear of politics. I’ve always thought Valdron was a really cool guy. And I still do. But now that I know what his politics are, I can’t see him in quite the same light as before. All that stuff can get in the way of a good time.
”Valdron” wrote:We didn’t do the Afghan people any favours. Yes. The Taliban were bad. And yes, it was good to get rid of them. But after that, things get complicated.
We didn’t intend to do the Afghan people any favors (or favours, if you’re British or something 🙂 ). We intended to kick the crap out of some terrorists. If we can help out Afghanistan in the process, that’s great, but it’s not priority one. A country’s policies will always put itself first. When it comes to foreign aid, the United States still continues to be one of the most generous countries in the world.
”Valdron” wrote:They were so bad, that the people of Afghanistan turned to the Taliban as their saviours.
Guess what. These are the people we put back into power in Afghanistan.
That’s right. As impossible as it is, we actually found someone worse than the Taliban, and handed Afghanistan over to them.
I think we can agree that both groups were horrible. I don’t know that Afghanistan has been “handed over” to such a group, though. I haven’t heard of any atrocities being committed there lately, and certainly not by its government. Surely the press would report such things? We’ve still got troops in there, and I haven’t heard them reporting any horror stories.
”Valdron” wrote:It gets worse. The Taliban is not gone. Neither Mullah Omar nor Osama Bin Laden were ever captured.
Sometimes I can’t find a fugitive in our small town. It doesn’t surprise me that neither of those guys has been located in an entire country. It would be nice if we could get ’em, but it’s not essential, and even if we did, the power vacuum would simply be filled by someone else. We can only try to route out as much of the organization as we can.
”Valdron” wrote:Most of the Taliban command is intact, and there’s every indication that they still control or can attack substantial parts of the country. The United States has even begun to negotiate covertly with them.
The central government is such a joke that it used to be said that its authority extended no further than the city fo Kabul. Now, at best, its a few office buildings in Kabul.
Do you live in Afghanistan? Do you have access to intelligence information? Where is this information coming from? I’m betting it comes from “they.”
”Valdron” wrote:Meanwhile, thanks to the warlords, Heroin production, which was eventually banned by the Taliban, is back in full flower. Afghanistan is now, far and away, the worlds leading producer of heroin.
Prohibition has never, ever, worked. Only regulation can put these people out of business.
”Valdron” wrote:But apart from heroin production, the economy is practically defunct, the country suffers from drought and famine, and the only thing holding the country together are international aid organizations…. who are under increasing attack from the Taliban and the Warlords.
So, basically the same as before, eh?
”Valdron” wrote:For its part, America has largely forgotten about Afghanistan. In his budget to congress, Bush didn’t even include any reconstruction aid. This was corrected by congress.
If you’re talking about the budget figures requested by congress, to my recollection, they were specifically requesting figures on the occupation of Iraq.
”Valdron” wrote:Oddly, most of that aid never reaches Afghanistan, but is going into the pockets of American firms..
I agree, there is a lot of loose money flowing around, and a lot of back-scratching in all levels of government, on all sides. Not just in regards to Afghanistan, but everything else too. I wish there was something we could do about it, but it’s nothing I can see a solution to in the short term.
”Valdron” wrote:In military/security terms, the country is a mess, with both Warlords and the Taliban running at large.
Hey, anybody that wants to send some troops in to help out, I’m sure you’re more than welcome. At least the US is trying to do something. If matters were left to the UN, nothing would ever be done about anything. It’s easy to armchair quarterback.
”Valdron” wrote:On the subject of gay rights and gay marriage, I would agree with most of the posters here that Bush is fully out to lunch.
Actually, right now (2:30 AM by my watch) he’s probably asleep. 🙂
”Valdron” wrote:Frankly, people are entitled to hold whatever religious beliefs please them.
They are not entitled to impose those religious beliefs on others,
I think President Bush would agree with all that. I don’t feel like he’s imposed any beliefs on me. I believe what I believe, no matter what he says. And just because he’s President, doesn’t mean he gives up his own religion. If Joe Lieberman became President, would he stop being Jewish?
”Valdron” wrote:or to regulate or define how people should live their lives.
Uh, that’s what people in government do. It’s their job.
”Valdron” wrote:Mr. Bush’s interest in this matter strikes me as hugely questionable, given that there are so much more important things for him to deal with.
Ah, come on. That sounds like drivers I give a ticket to, who ask me if there isn’t something more important I should be doing. There are always more important things to do. It doesn’t mean we should lose interest in the little things too.
”Valdron” wrote:And what on God’s green Earth
Which God? 🙂
”Valdron” wrote:is a homosexual agenda, anyway?
Well, THE homosexual agenda is simply to get everyone to accept homosexuality as normal behavior. I think gay activists would agree that this is their ultimate goal.
Ok folks! I will cut through all this BS and get to the real issue:
————————————————————————————-
————————————————————————————-
WE NEED TO GET LAID – AND HOW COME WE AIN’T GETTING OURS?
————————————————————————————-
————————————————————————————-Sorry I had to scream that at you guys…..
Maurice – P.S. Here is a “Babe” for us “right wing” guys:
sgtdraino wrote:Well, THE homosexual agenda is simply to get everyone to accept homosexuality as normal behavior. I think gay activists would agree that this is their ultimate goal.
Is there, then, an “African-American agenda” to have everyone accept African-Americans as equal members of US society, and since you are against this form of “thought police,” does this mean that you are — or, rather, would have been — against, say, the Civil Rights movement? What of feminism and its aim to have women regarded as the equals of men in society? Is the effort to counter anti-Semitism the “Jewish agenda,” and if so, what would be your stance on that? If there is *any* group that is discriminated against, are you saying that you are wary of any attempts on their part via activism to reverse the discrimination in question? Should any minority facing discrimination just simply sit back and take it? Or are you claiming that “the homosexual agenda” is fundamentally different from these other “agendas?” And if so, on what basis?
sgtdraino wrote:We didn’t intend to do the Afghan people any favors (or favours, if you’re British or something 🙂 ). We intended to kick the crap out of some terrorists. If we can help out Afghanistan in the process, that’s great, but it’s not priority one. A country’s policies will always put itself first. When it comes to foreign aid, the United States still continues to be one of the most generous countries in the world.
Two points here.
You did not kick the crap out of some terrorists. You did not significantly dent the Al Quaeda command structure, you did not shut down any major facilities. It appears that much of Al Quaeda survived and successfully escaped, and according to the CIA, has now reorganized and is more dangerous and more difficult to hit than ever. So on that front, the Afghan campaign turned out to be a big fat zero.
In any event, I was replying to Lexxlurker’s justification for the Afghanistan campaign in terms of getting rid of the Taliban.
The second thing is: Dude what are you talking about? Saudi Arabia gives away a lot bigger portion of its GDP in foreign aid than the US. So do several of the oil states. So does Germany, France, Sweden, Canada, Belgium, England, Japan and most of Europe. In terms of generosity, your government is way behind.
Heck, if you deduct the four billion that the United States pours into Israel (which by any stretch of the imagination cannot be considered poor), and which accounts for a huge chunk of American foreign aid, then it looks even worse. After Israel, the next biggest recipient of US foreign aid is Egypt, which is genuinely poor, no argument there, but the suspicion is that they’re paid a billion a year or so cause they’ve made peace with Israel and its in our interest to prop this one up.
And hell, the United States is the UN’s biggest deadbeat nation. Doesn’t matter which President, America is always behind in its dues.
Now, I’m willing and happy to say that Americans individually are among the kindest and most generous people on Earth. But this is definitely not reflected in the government.
sgtdraino wrote:I think we can agree that both groups were horrible. I don’t know that Afghanistan has been “handed over” to such a group, though. I haven’t heard of any atrocities being committed there lately, and certainly not by its government. Surely the press would report such things? We’ve still got troops in there, and I haven’t heard them reporting any horror stories.
Actually, the press does report them…
And these would be the troops that do not directly engage in ground combat, but have been known to bomb the crap out of weddings?
Dude, your troops *are* the horror stories! Or they’re some of them, in any event.
Further to that, how much coverage of Afghanistan are you seeing right now at all, in American media? How much do you really know?
sgtdraino wrote:Sometimes I can’t find a fugitive in our small town. It doesn’t surprise me that neither of those guys has been located in an entire country. It would be nice if we could get ’em, but it’s not essential, and even if we did, the power vacuum would simply be filled by someone else. We can only try to route out as much of the organization as we can.
Not to put too fine a point on things. But wasn’t the stated reason for going into Afghanistan in the first place was to get Osama Bin Laden? Wasn’t that the demand President Bush made: Hand over Osama or we’ll go and get him ourselves. How come he’s not important any more.
See, this is one of those things I don’t get. Osama Bin Laden is the author of the murder of almost 3000 Americans in the worst terrorist attack of all times. Yet the attitude towards him is almost cavalier…. it would be nice if we got him, but not essential…. someone else would come along… Give me a break!
You need to check in with all those guys who spent their lives hunting Nazi war criminals for a course in motivation and dedication. Every day that Osama Bin Laden has a good nights sleep is an insult to America.
As for rooting out the organization. Wow. Good job in Afghanistan.
Sometimes you can’t find a fugitive in a small town. But if that fugitive is Ted Bundy or Jeffrey Dahmer…. I think a little concern would be appropriate.
sgtdraino wrote:Do you live in Afghanistan? Do you have access to intelligence information? Where is this information coming from? I’m betting it comes from “they.”
Nope. Don’t live there. Don’t have access to intelligence agencies. But on the other hand, there’s plenty of news coming out from various sources….
Among these sources are the United Nations, peacekeeping forces, the international aid agencies (who have reported that their people are getting shot). There are a number of regional and international journalists still working the beat, including one guy, Al Rashid who did a Pulitzer quality book on the Taliban. The CBC and BBC both have continuing coverage. Law enforcement reports on the revival of the Afghan drug trade. The media also report on incursions by American forces into Pakistan.
Basically, there’s stuff if you keep your eyes open and make a minimal effort to look for it.
On the other hand, if you just lay back with your eyes closed….
”Valdron” wrote:But apart from heroin production, the economy is practically defunct, the country suffers from drought and famine, and the only thing holding the country together are international aid organizations…. who are under increasing attack from the Taliban and the Warlords.
sgtdraino wrote:So, basically the same as before, eh?
Well, if in terms of ‘same as before’ you are referring to the conditions of collapse and civil war that eventually lead the Afghan people to say to themselves…. ‘Hmmm maybe we would be better off under the rule of bug eating religious lunatics…’ Yes. Same as before, but worse.
”Valdron” wrote:For its part, America has largely forgotten about Afghanistan. In his budget to congress, Bush didn’t even include any reconstruction aid. This was corrected by congress.
sgtdraino wrote:If you’re talking about the budget figures requested by congress, to my recollection, they were specifically requesting figures on the occupation of Iraq.
Not so. That, I believe is still under discussion. This was the
2003 United States fiscal budget, which projected a 450 billion dollar deficit, and in which Bush proudly referenced the liberations of Iraq and Afghanistan…. but put no money to Afghanistan. To be fair, when it went to congress, they added money for Afghanistan. Sixty million, I think.”Valdron” wrote:]In military/security terms, the country is a mess, with both Warlords and the Taliban running at large.
sgtdraino wrote:Hey, anybody that wants to send some troops in to help out, I’m sure you’re more than welcome. At least the US is trying to do something. If matters were left to the UN, nothing would ever be done about anything. It’s easy to armchair quarterback.
Canada has 7500 troops in Afghanistan the last time I looked. So far Canada’s major casualties have come when American fighter pilots hopped up on amphetamines opened fire on them. Not that I’m pointing fingers. Germany also has large peacekeeping contingents. A lot of countries have peacekeepers in Afghanistan.
Just recently, Canadian peacekeepers were in the news when they averted riots in Afghan when local chieftains demanded refugees leave their lands.”Valdron” wrote:or to regulate or define how people should live their lives.
sgtdraino wrote:Uh, that’s what people in government do. It’s their job.
Actually, no its not. The Governments job is paving the roads, building and maintaining bridges, keeping schools, libaries, childrens wading pools, and hospitals going, national defence, making sure that people don’t commit crimes, ensuring a level playing field, national defence and things like that.
The Governments job is not to tell me what I should read, to come into my bedroom, to decide what I should do for a living, who my friends should be, or what opinions I should hold.
I’m going to have to say we’ve got a difference of opinion here.
”Valdron” wrote:Mr. Bush’s interest in this matter strikes me as hugely questionable, given that there are so much more important things for him to deal with.
sgtdraino wrote:Ah, come on. That sounds like drivers I give a ticket to, who ask me if there isn’t something more important I should be doing. There are always more important things to do. It doesn’t mean we should lose interest in the little things too.
With all due respect, you set priorities in life cause there isn’t enough time or enough resources to take care of everything.
Ashcroft has chosen to spend $40,000 to have the bare breasts of statues of Justice covered up, and he’s invested a huge amount of time and money in an undercover operation to bust 11 hookers in New Orleans. He’s clamped down hard on medical marijuana, and he’s sent Tommy Chong to jail for six months for selling bongs. That tells you where his priorities are.
Are these good priorities. Maybe. Maybe not. But given priorities like that, you should stop wondering why 9/11 happened.
”Valdron” wrote:And what on God’s green Earth
sgtdraino wrote:Which God? 🙂
The green earth God. He’s the one on the cans of creamed corn?
Nice guy. Laughs a lot. Might be related to Santa Claus, they sound alike.”Valdron” wrote:is a homosexual agenda, anyway?
sgtdraino wrote:Well, THE homosexual agenda is simply to get everyone to accept homosexuality as normal behavior. I think gay activists would agree that this is their ultimate goal.
Hmmm. Is that it? That’s all? Great flipping catfish, I thought it had something to do with outlawing plaids (good), making everyone wear chiffon (bad), having community theatre in every town (good), and renaming the planet Uranus as Nigel (neutral).
If that’s all they want, then why is everyone getting so upset…
I would expect that homosexuality is normal behaviour for homosexuals. That’s the point, isn’t it. If it wasn’t normal behaviour for homosexuals, then they wouldn’t be called that. They’d be called ‘thinkingaboutitsexuals’ or something bizarre like that.Whooo! Takin’ some heat now! 🙂
”Aleck” wrote:Is there, then, an “African-American agenda” to have everyone accept African-Americans as equal members of US society, and since you are against this form of “thought police,” does this mean that you are — or, rather, would have been — against, say, the Civil Rights movement? What of feminism and its aim to have women regarded as the equals of men in society? Is the effort to counter anti-Semitism the “Jewish agenda,” and if so, what would be your stance on that?
Come on. What of the continuing quests of NAMBLA, the KKK, and neo-nazi groups to be viewed as “legitimate” by the public? You could say that, in broad terms, they have the same agenda as African-Americans, women, and gays, to be viewed as equals in society. It still doesn’t lend any credibility to them. Just because I’m for or against one, doesn’t mean I have to be for or against another. But…
”Aleck” wrote:If there is *any* group that is discriminated against, are you saying that you are wary of any attempts on their part via activism to reverse the discrimination in question?
But… I’m not talking about discrimination, or being accepted as equals in society. I’m talking about forcing society to view a certain activity as “normal.” I enforce the law as fairly as I can, regardless of a citizen’s race, gender, or sexual orientation. Just because a citizen should have the same basic rights as as everyone else, does not mean the rest of society should be forced to approve of their behavior. THAT is thought police. Those in power telling the citizens what opinions they are allowed to have.
”Aleck” wrote:Should any minority facing discrimination just simply sit back and take it? Or are you claiming that “the homosexual agenda” is fundamentally different from these other “agendas?” And if so, on what basis?
Discrimination against peoples’ rights should be rooted out and destroyed wherever it exists. The thing is, this has largely already been codified into law. Discrimination still exists, and always will. But victims now have a recourse through the legal system. It is ultimately just my own opinion, but I believe gay activists have set their goals beyond simple equal protection under the law. They would like to change the way the world thinks. You wouldn’t like me telling you how to think, would you?
”Valdron” wrote:You did not kick the crap out of some terrorists.
Didn’t say we did. Although, I do think we did, to an extent. But terrorists are like Pringles potatoe chips. Crunch all ya want, they’ll make more.
So, what do you think should be done about terrorism? You can’t negotiate with them. What do you do when faced with a bunch of fanatics who would kill themselves in order to kill you? The argument I keep hearing, is that fighting terrorists simply makes them madder and more likely to come after you. The “don’t stir ’em up” argument. That is essentially a do-nothing mentality. It’s been tried for years, it doesn’t work. Maybe we haven’t found the right tactics for dealing with terrorism yet, but doing nothing is certainly not the answer. We must try.
”Valdron” wrote:The second thing is: Dude what are you talking about? Saudi Arabia gives away a lot bigger portion of its GDP in foreign aid than the US.
I could give away 90% of my income to foreign aid, and it would still be a lot less than the US. This is the old percentage versus bottom line argument. I said the US is one of the most generous nations, and I stand by that statement. Frankly, I think our government is TOO generous.
I used to love the UN, now I don’t trust them.
”Valdron” wrote:And these would be the troops that do not directly engage in ground combat, but have been known to bomb the crap out of weddings?
<gasp> Really? How many weddings? Four or five? More?
Or could you be refering to a one-time event? Dare I say, an accident?
Accidents happen. Everyone makes ’em.
”Valdron” wrote:Further to that, how much coverage of Afghanistan are you seeing right now at all, in American media?How much do you really know?
How much do any of us really know, that haven’t actually been there and seen for ourselves? The “war on terrorism” is so politically charged, I don’t really trust anybody’s judgement on what goes on in there, if that person hasn’t been there themselves. And even if they had been, I would seriously consider the source, and take into account the filter through which they view world events. How much do I actually, 100%, KNOW? Same as you. Very little.
”Valdron” wrote:Not to put too fine a point on things. But wasn’t the stated reason for going into Afghanistan in the first place was to get Osama Bin Laden? Wasn’t that the demand President Bush made: Hand over Osama or we’ll go and get him ourselves. How come he’s not important any more.
He’s important. I’m just being realistic. And as with Nazi war criminals, it may take decades to bring him to justice, or we may never know for sure. We’re pretty sure Hitler committed suicide, but we never got hold of his body.
People that have always been against these actions like to hold Osama Bin Laden or Saddam Hussein over our heads, and say that because we don’t have them yet, everything is a failure. That is not realistic.
”Valdron” wrote:Basically, there’s stuff if you keep your eyes open and make a minimal effort to look for it.
Ever heard, “Believe half of what you see, and none of what you hear?” Take a close look and most of the accounts coming out of the “war on terror,” from either side, and you will almost always find someone with an axe to grind. Ulterior motives.
”Valdron” wrote:Same as before, but worse.
Once again, I’d rather try than do nothing.
”Valdron” wrote:Not so. That, I believe is still under discussion. This was the 2003 United States fiscal budget,
I’ll have to plead ignorance on this one. I am simply not familiar with what you’re talking about.
”Valdron” wrote:Canada has 7500 troops in Afghanistan the last time I looked. So far Canada’s major casualties have come when American fighter pilots hopped up on amphetamines opened fire on them. Not that I’m pointing fingers.
Oh, I’m sure you would NEVER point fingers. 🙂 Friendly fire? Does that actually happen? Wow. The amphetamine thing sounds doofy, though.
As for Canada and others, the more the merrier, I say.
”Valdron” wrote:Actually, no its not. The Governments job is paving the roads, building and maintaining bridges, keeping schools, libaries, childrens wading pools, and hospitals going, national defence, making sure that people don’t commit crimes, ensuring a level playing field, national defence and things like that.
Granted, there are certainly aspects of peoples lives that the government should not regulate or define. But there are also many aspects that are regulated and defined. That’s what laws do, regulate and define. You cannot kill, killing is wrong. Regulated, defined. You can not defraud me of my life savings, fraud is wrong. Regulated, defined. Etc.
”Valdron” wrote:The Governments job is not to tell me what I should read, to come into my bedroom, to decide what I should do for a living
Well, it can limit your choices. Freelance hired assassin, for example, is out. 🙂
”Valdron” wrote:or what opinions I should hold.
I particularly agree with this one, and would direct readers back to the discussion on the homosexual agenda.
”Valdron” wrote:With all due respect, you set priorities in life cause there isn’t enough time or enough resources to take care of everything.
Of course. But we don’t always do the most important things all the time. It’s impossible. Sometimes the timing isn’t right, and sometimes it’s simply because we’re human. Are you suggesting I stop writing traffic tickets altogether, because traffic infractions aren’t important enough? When you have a job, your job has important parts, and less important parts. But you can’t just perform the important parts. Sometimes you can skip less important things, sometimes you can’t. Sometimes you don’t want to. That’s life. Often mundane.
”Valdron” wrote:Ashcroft has chosen to spend $40,000 to have the bare breasts of statues of Justice covered up, and he’s invested a huge amount of time and money in an undercover operation to bust 11 hookers in New Orleans. He’s clamped down hard on medical marijuana, and he’s sent Tommy Chong to jail for six months for selling bongs. That tells you where his priorities are.
Don’t get me started on the “war on drugs” or other vice-enforcement. You and I would likely be in agreement on most of these. But Ashcroft does not make the laws, he enforces them. That’s his job. Big laws, and little laws, he’s supposed to enforce them all. The breast thing was just silly, though.
”Valdron” wrote:Are these good priorities. Maybe. Maybe not. But given priorities like that, you should stop wondering why 9/11 happened.
I don’t wonder why 9/11 happened. I wonder why it hasn’t happened again. The terrorists’ plan was low-tech and easy, I see no reason why it couldn’t be pulled off again, no matter what measures are taken.
”Valdron” wrote:If that’s all they want, then why is everyone getting so upset…
Something about deciding “what opinions I should hold.”
”Valdron” wrote:I would expect that homosexuality is normal behaviour for homosexuals. That’s the point, isn’t it. If it wasn’t normal behaviour for homosexuals, then they wouldn’t be called that. They’d be called ‘thinkingaboutitsexuals’ or something bizarre like that.
Yes, yes. And cooking fries is normal behavior for a fry cook, feeding children is normal behavior for a parent, and murdering people is normal behavior for a serial killer. From that view, ALL behavior is “normal” behavior. I think you know that I’m refering to “normal” as it pertains to the “norms” of society. Homosexual behavior is still not considered “normal.” At least not by society in the US. They’re trying hard, but they’re not there yet.
”Valdron” wrote:You did not kick the crap out of some terrorists.
sgtdraino wrote:Didn’t say we did. Although, I do think we did, to an extent. But terrorists are like Pringles potatoe chips. Crunch all ya want, they’ll make more.
So, what do you think should be done about terrorism? You can’t negotiate with them. What do you do when faced with a bunch of fanatics who would kill themselves in order to kill you? The argument I keep hearing, is that fighting terrorists simply makes them madder and more likely to come after you. The “don’t stir ’em up” argument. That is essentially a do-nothing mentality. It’s been tried for years, it doesn’t work. Maybe we haven’t found the right tactics for dealing with terrorism yet, but doing nothing is certainly not the answer. We must try.
Well, there’s the floundering around like a drunk in a bath tub approach, which doesn’t seem to particularly work well for anyone, and didn’t actually work out well in Afghanistan.
And then there’s the sensible approach, which is basically police work, intelligence gathering, reasonable and prudent security, and the judicious application of force when and where it will do some good. Not as flashy, but it has better results.
”Valdron” wrote:The second thing is: Dude what are you talking about? Saudi Arabia gives away a lot bigger portion of its GDP in foreign aid than the US.
”Valdron” wrote:I could give away 90% of my income to foreign aid, and it would still be a lot less than the US. This is the old percentage versus bottom line argument. I said the US is one of the most generous nations, and I stand by that statement. Frankly, I think our government is TOO generous.
Beep. Wrong again. Well sort of. I note that you’ve qualified your contention by pointing out that the US is *one of the most generous* nations.
And in a flat dollar rate, yes it is. The United States consistently holds *second* place, behind Japan in terms of the raw value of foreign aid dollars. The Japanese on average give away thirteen billion dollars, the Americans eleven. Of course, Japan has only 40% of the population of the U.S., but obviously, those little folk have great big hearts.
Other big generous donors are Britain, averaging five billion, with only 20% of the U.S. population, France, similar populatlion, also comes in around five or six billion. Teeny tiny Denmark and the Netherlands are at around two billion.
Of course, if we were to chop Israel and Egypt out of the American equation, then in raw dollar terms, America would be far far far behind Japan, on a par with France and Britain, and only just keeping ahead of Denmark.
Nonetheless, the United States gives the lowest amount relative to the size of its economy; less than 1 percent of its annual total budget and about 1/30th of the United States’ annual defense spending; while other donor countries give an average of roughly 0.40% of their gross national income, the United States gave 0.11 percent of its GNI and has not given amounts greater than 0.40% of GNI since the 1960s. Denmark, by contrast, in 2001 gave 1.03 percent of its gross national income in aid, almost ten times what the United States gives (0.11 percent of GNI), and gave 309 per capita, almost ten times what the United States gives on a per capita basis.
Feel free to pat yourselves on the back though. Every little bit of aid helps, no question about that. And if you aren’t doing as much as others, at least you’re doing something.
sgtdraino wrote:I used to love the UN, now I don’t trust them.
It seems that the feeling is reciprocated.
”Valdron” wrote:And these would be the troops that do not directly engage in ground combat, but have been known to bomb the crap out of weddings?
sgtdraino wrote:<gasp> Really? How many weddings? Four or five? More?
Five is the current count, last time I looked. It doesn’t go over well with Afghans.
sgtdraino wrote:Or could you be refering to a one-time event? Dare I say, an accident?
Well, accident doesn’t cut it when some guy in a fighter jet deliberately launches his rockets at a target. We’re more in the country of negligence, recklessness, manslaughter… You’re a cop, you know how these things work.
What seems to be happening is that from time to time, Afghan warlords have discovered that a very good way to attack their rivals is to feed the Americans false information about guerilla/Taliban movements and sic them on a gathering of their rivals.
Weddings are particularly good for this kind of thing, since many Afghan celebrations, particularly weddings, involve discharging firearms into the air. Sort of like fireworks.
So, you’re fighter pilot gets assigned to the area, he’s patrolling for enemy, he sees flashes of gunfire…. and its goodbye bride and groom, goodbye maid of honour, goodbye best man, goodbye toaster oven, etc.
Now, obviously, its a messy business. And maybe the first wedding that got blown up was excuseable. We wuz played for suckers.
But not the next four.sgtdraino wrote:Accidents happen. Everyone makes ’em.
Not to put too fine a point on it, but America’s finest seem to be particularly prone to them. U.S. soldiers are getting a worldwide reputation as the ‘friendly fire bastards.’ It isn’t a good thing.
sgtdraino wrote:How much do any of us really know, that haven’t actually been there and seen for ourselves? The “war on terrorism” is so politically charged, I don’t really trust anybody’s judgement on what goes on in there, if that person hasn’t been there themselves. And even if they had been, I would seriously consider the source, and take into account the filter through which they view world events. How much do I actually, 100%, KNOW? Same as you. Very little.
To some extent I agree with you. But you seem to be saying that because it is difficult to get the full facts and make an informed opinion, that we shouldn’t bother.
I disagree. Sure, things are politically charged. Sure, everyone has an agenda. Sure, you always, always, always consider the source. And sure, you always acknowledge the biases built into the sources of information.
The point is not to surrender and just assume its all unknowable, or that we can just abandon facts and stick with opinions, irregardless of facts.
The point is that we have to make the effort. Which means going out there, getting the information, trying to evaluate it, consider the sources, the inherent biases, taking information from multiple sources, evaluating it, and coming to reasoned conclusions.
”Valdron” wrote:Not to put too fine a point on things. But wasn’t the stated reason for going into Afghanistan in the first place was to get Osama Bin Laden? Wasn’t that the demand President Bush made: Hand over Osama or we’ll go and get him ourselves. How come he’s not important any more.
sgtdraino wrote:He’s important. I’m just being realistic. And as with Nazi war criminals, it may take decades to bring him to justice, or we may never know for sure. We’re pretty sure Hitler committed suicide, but we never got hold of his body.
Actually, the Russians got hold of his body, compared the dental records, and shared their findings with American doctors and experts. It was verified to everyones satisfaction.
And yes, I can accept a certain amount of realism. We won’t get him right away. But then again, it offends me a little to see the guy minimalized.
sgtdraino wrote:People that have always been against these actions like to hold Osama Bin Laden or Saddam Hussein over our heads, and say that because we don’t have them yet, everything is a failure. That is not realistic.
Two points.
First of all, we’ve got a right to hold people accountable to their own words and statements. So if P Bush holds up Osama Bin Laden as the scourge of the world one week, invades a country on the explicit grounds of getting him, and then two weeks later tells us he wasn’t really that important…. Well, I for one am entitled to be a little cheesed. Same thing with Saddam Hussein and these fictional weapons of mass destruction.
Second, at some point, we have to gage success or failure by some standard that relates to the objectives going in. That’s just common sense. The Afghanistan mess fails on just about every sensible standard.
”Valdron” wrote:Basically, there’s stuff if you keep your eyes open and make a minimal effort to look for it.
sgtdraino wrote:Ever heard, “Believe half of what you see, and none of what you hear?” Take a close look and most of the accounts coming out of the “war on terror,” from either side, and you will almost always find someone with an axe to grind. Ulterior motives.
So what you gonna do. Just ignore everything and go with your gut? Read tea leaves? Consult your fortune cookie?
You take what you can find, and then you assess it carefully, and you form your opinions. New evidence comes along, you re-evaluate those opinions.
”Valdron” wrote:Canada has 7500 troops in Afghanistan the last time I looked. So far Canada’s major casualties have come when American fighter pilots hopped up on amphetamines opened fire on them. Not that I’m pointing fingers.
sgtdraino wrote:Oh, I’m sure you would NEVER point fingers. 🙂 Friendly fire? Does that actually happen? Wow. The amphetamine thing sounds doofy, though.
The amphetamine thing is what sent me ballistic. It seems that US fighter pilots in Afghanistan, and other theatres, were regularly prescribed amphetamines to extend their mission capability. More missions, longer, etc. These amphetamines are prescribed by Air Force doctors on instructions from superior officers, theoretically, pilots have the right to refuse them i think. But overall, the situation seems to result in almost unregulated self medication.
Both pilots involved in the ‘friendly fire’ incident, were on amphetamines. I would assume that this was not unusual, but have not verified any other documented instances of amphetamines connected with wedding bombings or peculiar friendly fire incidents during, say, the Iraq invasion (I’m thinking of one particular incident where an American jet fighter fired on a clearly marked british convoy and ignored both flags and radio messages). But it certainly does make you think….
”Valdron” wrote:Actually, no its not. The Governments job is paving the roads, building and maintaining bridges, keeping schools, libaries, childrens wading pools, and hospitals going, national defence, making sure that people don’t commit crimes, ensuring a level playing field, national defence and things like that.
sgtdraino wrote:Granted, there are certainly aspects of peoples lives that the government should not regulate or define. But there are also many aspects that are regulated and defined. That’s what laws do, regulate and define. You cannot kill, killing is wrong. Regulated, defined. You can not defraud me of my life savings, fraud is wrong. Regulated, defined. Etc.
Not good enough. Killing, assault, theft, fraud are all actions imposed by people against the will of other people. Completely non-consensual. Basically, a good yardstick of rights is that your right to throw punches ends where my nose begins. This is a legitimate area for Government.
”Valdron” wrote:With all due respect, you set priorities in life cause there isn’t enough time or enough resources to take care of everything.
sgtdraino wrote:Of course. But we don’t always do the most important things all the time. It’s impossible. Sometimes the timing isn’t right, and sometimes it’s simply because we’re human. Are you suggesting I stop writing traffic tickets altogether, because traffic infractions aren’t important enough?
I used to work a tow truck, and we would drag all sorts of twisted wreckage off the road. I found an ear once. When I was with Justice, I prosecuted drunk drivers, and had many occasions to see what could happen when someone ran a red light or drove too fast for road conditions. So, if you’re asking me to minimize traffic infractions, nope, sorry, you have the wrong guy. I’ve got no sympathy for guys who habitually run stop signs, because, even if they’re in the clear 99% of the time, then one time in a hundred, they’re going to kill someone.
At the same time, I still stand by my point that in our personal lives, and in our government policy, we have an obligation to set intelligent priorities. Fools and their money are soon parted.
Poor allocation of resources wastes those resources, and sooner or later, you come to the point where your budget is gone. You have to decide where you are going to focus on.”Valdron” wrote:Ashcroft has chosen to spend $40,000 to have the bare breasts of statues of Justice covered up, and he’s invested a huge amount of time and money in an undercover operation to bust 11 hookers in New Orleans. He’s clamped down hard on medical marijuana, and he’s sent Tommy Chong to jail for six months for selling bongs. That tells you where his priorities are.
sgtdraino wrote:Don’t get me started on the “war on drugs” or other vice-enforcement. You and I would likely be in agreement on most of these. But Ashcroft does not make the laws, he enforces them. That’s his job. Big laws, and little laws, he’s supposed to enforce them all. The breast thing was just silly, though.
Sure, he should enforce them all. In theory, he does. But in real life, he sets his priorities just like everyone else. Seen Ken Lay do the perp walk yet? Seems that Enron isn’t quite as high a priority as New Orleans hookers… Gotta wonder about that. Also, Ashcroft deliberately downgraded terrorism and investigations of arab/saudi activities… in favour of… what?
”Valdron” wrote:Are these good priorities. Maybe. Maybe not. But given priorities like that, you should stop wondering why 9/11 happened.
sgtdraino wrote:I don’t wonder why 9/11 happened. I wonder why it hasn’t happened again. The terrorists’ plan was low-tech and easy, I see no reason why it couldn’t be pulled off again, no matter what measures are taken.
Well, especially since no measures are being taken. Your airport security is still the worst in the world. Congress held up nationalizing airport security cause they didn’t want to risk creating union jobs. You’ve got 1500 sites, ranging from nuclear power plants to chemical factories, etc., for which no security is provided. Meanwhile, the air marshalls program is being cut back, the US refuses to outfit civilian commercial airplanes used for military transport with anti-missile defenses, and police and fire departments – ie, the first responders, are still being shortchanged on adequate radios, supplies or training.
This recent blackout showed very little more than how completely inept Tom Ridge and the department of homeland security is at actually dealing with security issues or responding to a crisis.
No offence, but when it comes to actually protecting the security of the American people… as opposed to hatcheting political enemies, or knocking off oil rich third world countries… it seems the administrations policy is to spread legs, bend over, and whistle.
”Valdron” wrote:If that’s all they want, then why is everyone getting so upset…
sgtdraino wrote:Something about deciding “what opinions I should hold.”
You can hold whatever opinions you want. If you feel homosexual acts are immoral, then here’s my advice: Do not engage in these acts. Do not watch gay pornography. Do not have gay people over to your house to have sex or watch TV.
On the other hand, if a gay couple holding hands walks by you on the street, its not your business unless they try and clothesline you, a la WWE.
”Valdron” wrote:I would expect that homosexuality is normal behaviour for homosexuals. That’s the point, isn’t it. If it wasn’t normal behaviour for homosexuals, then they wouldn’t be called that. They’d be called ‘thinkingaboutitsexuals’ or something bizarre like that.
sgtdraino wrote:Yes, yes. And cooking fries is normal behavior for a fry cook, feeding children is normal behavior for a parent, and murdering people is normal behavior for a serial killer. From that view, ALL behavior is “normal” behavior. I think you know that I’m refering to “normal” as it pertains to the “norms” of society. Homosexual behavior is still not considered “normal.” At least not by society in the US. They’re trying hard, but they’re not there yet.
I absolutely defend the rights of fry cooks to cook fries, irregardless of those darned vegans. I also defend the rights of parents to feed their children.
Pedophiles and Serial Killers, on the other hand, are doing stuff to the unwilling, so they’re up against other peoples rights, and are properly regulated and imprisoned by the government.
If two men are engaged in a game of hiding of salami not their own, then that is their business, and I don’t want to know about it.
But I sure as hell do not intend to stop it. Mark my words, I have no intention of inserting myself in between the two of them.”Valdron” wrote:You did not kick the crap out of some terrorists.
sgtdraino wrote:Didn’t say we did. Although, I do think we did, to an extent. But terrorists are like Pringles potatoe chips. Crunch all ya want, they’ll make more.
Hey! Wait a second!!! Yes, you did. You absolutely did say that!
What you said was: “We intended to kick the crap out of some terrorists.” That’s exactly what you said.
geez
sgtdraino wrote:Come on. What of the continuing quests of NAMBLA, the KKK, and neo-nazi groups to be viewed as “legitimate” by the public? You could say that, in broad terms, they have the same agenda as African-Americans, women, and gays, to be viewed as equals in society. It still doesn’t lend any credibility to them. Just because I’m for or against one, doesn’t mean I have to be for or against another.
NAMBLA, the KKK and neo-nazis are hardly in the same category, unless you’re basing your comparison on the tired old cliche that homosexuality is a choice at best or a psychological abnormality that can (and possibly should) be “cured” at worst.
But… I’m not talking about discrimination, or being accepted as equals in society. I’m talking about forcing society to view a certain activity as “normal.” I enforce the law as fairly as I can, regardless of a citizen’s race, gender, or sexual orientation. Just because a citizen should have the same basic rights as as everyone else, does not mean the rest of society should be forced to approve of their behavior. THAT is thought police. Those in power telling the citizens what opinions they are allowed to have.
Where has it been said that there is a “homosexual agenda” in place that aims to control the individual opinions of every man, woman and child on the planet? I don’t think that anyone realistically thinks that this is an ultimate end goal, outside of the extremes of conservative conspiracy-mongering. If it can be said that there is *any* agenda in place, it is to have the same anti-discrimination protection that any other minority can lay claim to, and to have their unions legally recognized. To use an apt comparison, there are bigoted folks among us who surely find interracial marriages personally and morally offensive, and I don’t think anyone realistically believes that this line of thinking can be eliminated. But interracial marriages are legally recognized by the government, bigots be damned.
Discrimination against peoples’ rights should be rooted out and destroyed wherever it exists. The thing is, this has largely already been codified into law. Discrimination still exists, and always will. But victims now have a recourse through the legal system. It is ultimately just my own opinion, but I believe gay activists have set their goals beyond simple equal protection under the law. They would like to change the way the world thinks. You wouldn’t like me telling you how to think, would you?
Then are civil rights organizations amiss in their attempts to counter racist thought, speech and actions? Isn’t that the same thing? Aren’t they telling people exactly how to think? Of course, I’d argue that they are simply providing a counter argument to the millenia-old “immoral degenerate” line that has been trotted out for so long. Providing someone with an opposing viewpoint isn’t exactly forcing someone to think a certain way. By sending out a message that homosexuals should not be treated any differently than any other citizen, and that by extension they believe that who they are by definition is not something that should be treated as “wrong,” how are they forcing you to do anything in particular? And, let’s just say that acceptance of homosexuality does increase…how is that negatively affecting anyone? Look, as far as I know, nobody is attempting to take anyone’s freedom of thought away. Racists are still free to hold racist views, as idiotic as they are. I think everyone is on the same page that racism will never completely go away as long as there is some form of xenophbia present in society. It may shrink in influence, but it won’t ever leave us. And I don’t think that anyone believes that homosexuality will ever be accepted by 100% of the population. It just won’t happen. But legal protections and recognition can and should, IMO, be in place. That won’t stop anyone from holding the opinion that homosexuality is inherently “wrong” (just as there are those who feel that African-Americans are inherently inferior brutes, who feel that women should be subservient, and so on). People will always be free to be morons, and many are happy to oblige.
(BTW, isn’t it a blatant contradiction to state that one isn’t a fan of “slippery slope” arguments such as those posited by Scalia, and then turn around and state that legal recognition of gay marriage would lead to the legal recognition of polygamy? How is that statement any different from that of Scalia’s?)
Why do I bother? 🙂 We are now entering the head-against-a-brick-wall stage. We’re never going to convince each other, so the discussion is fast becoming pointless.
”Valdron” wrote:Well, there’s the floundering around like a drunk in a bath tub approach, which doesn’t seem to particularly work well for anyone,
I think your world view is coloring your perceptions.
”Valdron” wrote:And then there’s the sensible approach, which is basically police work, intelligence gathering, reasonable and prudent security, and the judicious application of force when and where it will do some good. Not as flashy, but it has better results.,
Sounds great. However, if Valdron was in charge of implementing the above plan, I think you’d quickly find things getting very, very complicated. In fact, I’ll bet the folks in charge have a plan that sounds very much like what you just said. Real life has a way of getting in the way of that.
”Valdron” wrote:Beep. Wrong again. Well sort of. I note that you’ve qualified your contention by pointing out that the US is *one of the most generous* nations.
Thank you. You will note that qualifier was present in the original statement.
”Valdron” wrote:Of course, if we were to chop Israel and Egypt out of the American equation,
Why would we do that? Are they not PC? Isn’t that kinda like saying, “well, if you didn’t have legs, you’d only be FOUR feet tall!”
sgtdraino wrote:I used to love the UN, now I don’t trust them.
”Valdron” wrote:It seems that the feeling is reciprocated.
I don’t think the UN can be said to have specific feelings about anything. They’re way too amorphous, and the ability of a few strong nations to veto the will of the majority only enhances the organization as a do-nothing body.
”Valdron” wrote:Five is the current count, last time I looked. It doesn’t go over well with Afghans.
Now this is news to me. I heard about the one, I’ve never heard about any more. I’d think something like that would be all over the news, too. What is your source?
”Valdron” wrote:Well, accident doesn’t cut it when some guy in a fighter jet deliberately launches his rockets at a target.
Depends on the circumstances. Sure, it sucks to be that target on the ground, but sometimes an accident is just an accident. No matter how smart the bombs are, there will always be unintended casualties in military combat.
”Valdron” wrote:We’re more in the country of negligence, recklessness, manslaughter… You’re a cop, you know how these things work.
Sure, but Afghanistan is still basically a combat zone. You’ve said so yourself. Different rules apply. Martial law is always messier than regular law enforcement, but until some level of control is established, regular cops simply don’t have the tactics to deal with the situation.
”Valdron” wrote:Weddings are particularly good for this kind of thing, since many Afghan celebrations, particularly weddings, involve discharging firearms into the air. Sort of like fireworks.
Ah yes, I remember this now. Well, the obvious answer, is that folks need to stop discharging their weapons in the air at weddings and other celebrations. I don’t know this, but I’d bet there’s been a general proclaimation warning against this behavior. Of course they’re taking fire, if they’re shooting in the air while our fighters are flying around!
”Valdron” wrote:So, you’re fighter pilot gets assigned to the area, he’s patrolling for enemy, he sees flashes of gunfire…. and its goodbye bride and groom, goodbye maid of honour, goodbye best man, goodbye toaster oven, etc.
And you would charge that pilot with murder or manslaughter? The situation is tragic, but doesn’t sound like the pilot’s fault. It sounds like a tragic, tragic misunderstanding. Classic friendly fire. The public must be educated, to keep them from being accidentally identified as unfriendlies.
”Valdron” wrote:Now, obviously, its a messy business. And maybe the first wedding that got blown up was excuseable. We wuz played for suckers.
But not the next four.If they’re still shooting in the air, then I’m not surprised at all. A pilot sees fire coming from the ground, knows he may be taking a SAM up his pipe any second, and does what he is trained to do.
”Valdron” wrote:Not to put too fine a point on it, but America’s finest seem to be particularly prone to them. U.S. soldiers are getting a worldwide reputation as the ‘friendly fire bastards.’ It isn’t a good thing.
I’d put money that any other military unit put in the same situations would make the same mistakes. The US military is simply under the microscope of folks looking for ammunition to discredit us.
”Valdron” wrote:To some extent I agree with you. But you seem to be saying that because it is difficult to get the full facts and make an informed opinion, that we shouldn’t bother.
No, I’m just saying, don’t be so sure.
”Valdron” wrote:The point is not to surrender and just assume its all unknowable, or that we can just abandon facts and stick with opinions, irregardless of facts.
The point is that we have to make the effort. Which means going out there, getting the information, trying to evaluate it, consider the sources, the inherent biases, taking information from multiple sources, evaluating it, and coming to reasoned conclusions.
I don’t think there is an accurate means of obtaining the facts of the “war on terror” at present. All you can obtain are “factoids.” Little anecdotes that make a particular side look good, or bad, but have small bearing on the big picture. And I’m not convinced ANYONE knows what the big picture is… or will be, in a couple of years.
”Valdron” wrote:Actually, the Russians got hold of his body, compared the dental records, and shared their findings with American doctors and experts. It was verified to everyones satisfaction.
That’s not what I heard. But I think I’ve made my point. Sometimes you just never find out for sure.
”Valdron” wrote:And yes, I can accept a certain amount of realism. We won’t get him right away. But then again, it offends me a little to see the guy minimalized.
It’s just typical politics of the day. Opponents of the US actions maximize Bin Laden and Hussein, proponents of the US actions minimize Bin Laden and Hussein. If either of the men were captured or killed, I think you’d find the reverse suddenly happening.
”Valdron” wrote:First of all, we’ve got a right to hold people accountable to their own words and statements. So if P Bush holds up Osama Bin Laden as the scourge of the world one week, invades a country on the explicit grounds of getting him, and then two weeks later tells us he wasn’t really that important…. Well, I for one am entitled to be a little cheesed. Same thing with Saddam Hussein and these fictional weapons of mass destruction.
To my recollection, it was never the intention to go into Iraq or Afghanistan simply to get one man. Certainly those two men are on the “to do” list, but the target was always the organizations run by the two men. And just because weapons haven’t been found, doesn’t mean they never existed. In fact, even the UN says the weapons existed. They still haven’t been accounted for. What happened to them? I think it’s worth finding out.
”Valdron” wrote:Second, at some point, we have to gage success or failure by some standard that relates to the objectives going in. That’s just common sense. The Afghanistan mess fails on just about every sensible standard.
That is certainly your opinion. 🙂 I think we must agree to disagree on this one. We are at an impasse.
”Valdron” wrote:So what you gonna do. Just ignore everything and go with your gut? Read tea leaves? Consult your fortune cookie?
I will listen to information I get from sources I trust, same as you.
”Valdron” wrote:You take what you can find, and then you assess it carefully, and you form your opinions. New evidence comes along, you re-evaluate those opinions.
Absolutely. Happens all the time.
”Valdron” wrote:But overall, the situation seems to result in almost unregulated self medication.
If that is true, then it is certainly a problem that needs addressing. But if the wedding incidents happened as YOU describe, then amphetamines or no aphetimines, I think the result would have been the same.
”Valdron” wrote:Not good enough. Killing, assault, theft, fraud are all actions imposed by people against the will of other people. Completely non-consensual.
Correct. But that was not a qualifier you specified. Laws against such actions are still regulating and defining peoples lives. Of course, if you want other types of laws, they’re certainly out there. How about vice-laws? How about laws that say a civilian’s shotgun barrel must be at least 18″? How about speed limits? All of these regulate and define behavior that has nothing to do with folks violating each others’ rights.
”Valdron” wrote:Basically, a good yardstick of rights is that your right to throw punches ends where my nose begins. This is a legitimate area for Government.
Correct. If you go back to my first post, you’ll also note it’s basically a re-statement of my own ground rule.
”Valdron” wrote:At the same time, I still stand by my point that in our personal lives, and in our government policy, we have an obligation to set intelligent priorities.
All true. I think we agree in principle, if not in practice. All I’m saying, is that it’s impossible to do the most important things ALL the time. It’s not realistic.
”Valdron” wrote:Poor allocation of resources wastes those resources, and sooner or later, you come to the point where your budget is gone. You have to decide where you are going to focus on.
Hey, if you’re talking about government waste, you get no argument from me.
”Valdron” wrote:Sure, he should enforce them all. In theory, he does. But in real life, he sets his priorities just like everyone else.
Of course. But just because the man puts a bunch of little guys away, and only a few big guys, doesn’t mean an effort isn’t being made. It may just mean the big guys are harder to get. Unless you have ongoing knowledge of the inner workings of Justice Department operations, I don’t think you’re qualified to pass judgement.
”Valdron” wrote:Well, especially since no measures are being taken. Your airport security is still the worst in the world. Congress held up nationalizing airport security cause they didn’t want to risk creating union jobs.
The amount of freedom enjoyed in the US is also what is hindering our ability to respond effectively to terrorist threats. Society is often a balance of order versus freedom. Part of what maintains that balance is our bureaucracy, which makes it difficult to make major changes to the system quickly. Unionizing airport security would be insane. It would be like politicizing the FBI, or the US Army. It opens a security organization up to outside control. It is a risk that should not be taken.
”Valdron” wrote:You’ve got 1500 sites, ranging from nuclear power plants to chemical factories, etc., for which no security is provided.
There will never be 100% coverage. The US is big, and targets are everywhere. Of course we should try, but it will never be even close to perfect.
”Valdron” wrote:Meanwhile, the air marshalls program is being cut back,
That was always a flawed program, if you ask me. Random placement (or random searches for that matter) are no good against terrorists. Random enforcement activity serves only as a deterent to people who are afraid of getting caught. Terrorists woul die in order to harm us. I would arm the pilots and reinforce the cockpit.
”Valdron” wrote:and police and fire departments – ie, the first responders, are still being shortchanged on adequate radios, supplies or training.
lol. This is SO us. 🙂
”Valdron” wrote:This recent blackout showed very little more than how completely inept Tom Ridge and the department of homeland security is at actually dealing with security issues or responding to a crisis.
I dunno. They determined pretty quickly that it wasn’t terrorism, and everything stayed reasonably quiet until the lights came back on.
”Valdron” wrote:No offence, but when it comes to actually protecting the security of the American people… as opposed to hatcheting political enemies, or knocking off oil rich third world countries… it seems the administrations policy is to spread legs, bend over, and whistle.
Well, in spite of the holes we’ve both listed, there hasn’t been another attack in the US since 9/11. So far, so good.
”Valdron” wrote:You can hold whatever opinions you want.
Exactly my point. Glad you agree. So long as nobody is trying to force me or anyone else to change their opinions, then everything’s cool.
”Valdron” wrote:If you feel homosexual acts are immoral, then here’s my advice: Do not engage in these acts. Do not watch gay pornography. Do not have gay people over to your house to have sex or watch TV.
What if, say, I was the President. And somebody who doesn’t like me, and is looking for something to use against me, asks me what my personal opinion of the whole thing is. Should I lie, or tell the truth? Should I be persecuted for my personal opinion?
Now, neo-nazis and NAMBLA members get persecuted for their personal opinions all the time. Frankly, I don’t have a problem with that. Those groups often advocate violence and other harmful activities. But just because somebody thinks a particular activity is immoral, doesn’t mean they’d wish harm or violence on a person who engages in that activity. Even now, we live in a society where, if a man like the President says, “I think homosexuality is immoral,” he will be attacked. That is thought police. They are attacking his thoughts. They are telling him that he can only think a certain way. That is the agenda that bothers me.
”Valdron” wrote:On the other hand, if a gay couple holding hands walks by you on the street, its not your business unless they try and clothesline you, a la WWE.
I swear, if those lesbians clothesline me ONE MORE TIME, I am going to be very cross. 🙂
”Valdron” wrote:I absolutely defend the rights of fry cooks to cook fries, irregardless of those darned vegans. I also defend the rights of parents to feed their children.
Pedophiles and Serial Killers, on the other hand, are doing stuff to the unwilling, so they’re up against other peoples rights, and are properly regulated and imprisoned by the government.
If two men are engaged in a game of hiding of salami not their own, then that is their business, and I don’t want to know about it.
But I sure as hell do not intend to stop it. Mark my words, I have no intention of inserting myself in between the two of them.Amen. I agree completely. 🙂
”Valdron” wrote:Hey! Wait a second!!! Yes, you did. You absolutely did say that!
What you said was: “We intended to kick the crap out of some terrorists.” That’s exactly what you said.
Right. I said we INTENDED. I didn’t say we succeeded. I think we kinda halfway kicked their asses, though.
”Aleck” wrote:NAMBLA, the KKK and neo-nazis are hardly in the same category,
Right, that’s the point. Both gay activists and the KKK would like to be viewed as legitimate by society, but their categories are about as far apart as you can imagine. Just because elements of their agendas are the same, doesn’t mean I can’t support one and condemn the other.
”Aleck” wrote:unless you’re basing your comparison on the tired old cliche that homosexuality is a choice at best or a psychological abnormality that can (and possibly should) be “cured” at worst.
I don’t see what this has to do with the discussion, but since you asked, my purely personal opinion is that homosexuality is a recurring genetic mutation, present since birth. Every gay person I’ve ever known has always said they were born gay. All people have a right to refuse medical treatment, and I would never deny them that.
”Aleck” wrote:Where has it been said that there is a “homosexual agenda” in place that aims to control the individual opinions of every man, woman and child on the planet?
Oh, I dunno. Lots of places. The gay marriage movement leads me to believe that this is the agenda.
See, I do believe that “marriage” is first and foremost a religious institution, with a specific definition that we’ve already been through. I’ve already said I’d have no problem with a gay union institution that provides the same rights and benefits as marriage (though I might want to close the financial loopholes for both marriages and unions). But I don’t think it should be called marriage. I believe the gay community specifically does want the word “marriage,” because they are trying to legitimize their behavior. I think it’s more about that, than about the benefits. They want their behavior to be viewed as “normal.” If they achieve legalized gay “marriage,” then they are a step forward towards trying to force society to change its opinions.
”Aleck” wrote:Then are civil rights organizations amiss in their attempts to counter racist thought, speech and actions?
What you’re talking about is the basic battle over “whose morality?” There is a constant battle in the US over what is moral, and what is immoral… which is not always the same thing as what you have a right to do, and what you don’t have a right to do.
When it comes to something like racism or child abuse, it’s easy for all of us to agree. “That’s immoral!” And we feel better. But when it comes to something more controversial, homosexuality or abortion, for example, you get large numbers of people who disagree. These groups naturally fight over whose definition of morality is eventually held to be “true” by the highest secular authority we have; the US government. Which side of the argument is “good” and which side is “evil” largely depends on your point of view. And naturally, attempts by one side to legitimize its case as “true” will be strongly resisted by the opposing side.
In cases where right and wrong are purely a judgement call, and individual rights are not involved, the government should remain neutral on the subject, with no official opinion. The problem is, that doesn’t stop activists on both sides from trying to force the government to give an opinion. The primary method for doing this has become the court system, using activist judges with loose interpretations of the law to invent new rights not previously existing. This circumvents Congress, and consequently the will of the people. It attempts to force an artificial change in attitudes, instead of allowing attitudes to change naturally over time.
Just so I am absolutely clear on this, I do believe sodomy is protected under the Right to Privacy. I believe the courts made the right call in that case.
”Aleck” wrote:(BTW, isn’t it a blatant contradiction to state that one isn’t a fan of “slippery slope” arguments such as those posited by Scalia, and then turn around and state that legal recognition of gay marriage would lead to the legal recognition of polygamy? How is that statement any different from that of Scalia’s?)
Interesting point! 🙂 Allow me to turn that around a bit. If the courts recognized a constitutional right to gay marriage, with all the legal benefits regular marriage brings, can you think of any reason why polygamists could not then demand the same right?
True, I am not normally a fan of slippery slope. But in this case, polygamy only seems one legal step away, to me.
Before this gets mean, can I at least get someone to admit that I’m playing fair? That I appear to be a reasonable fellow arguing points in a polite, civilized, and rational way? I’ve always liked this site, and I’d hate to get demonized, or pigeon-holed as some kind of wacko.
I’m about done with you Sarge. It appears you may have mistaken me for a liberal. I ain’t. The difference between me
and a liberal is that a liberal is tolerant of bullshit, on the grounds that everyone has an opinion.I’m not tolerant of bullshit. Here’s my philosophy: What works, works. Anything else is surplusage. I may not necessarily like facts, but I don’t go around pretending they don’t exist. I do my homework, I think it over, and I set my views out. And I don’t go around qualifying and parsing my statements.
Who are you anyway? Bill Clinton?
And at that point, I’ll let the disagreement stand. If you say things that make sense, I’ll go along with it. If you don’t… I won’t pretend.
I think you’re playing fair within your limits. Good discussion, for what it was worth.
”Aleck” wrote:Where has it been said that there is a “homosexual agenda” in place that aims to control the individual opinions of every man, woman and child on the planet?
sgtdraino wrote:Oh, I dunno. Lots of places. The gay marriage movement leads me to believe that this is the agenda.
See, I do believe that “marriage” is first and foremost a religious institution, with a specific definition that we’ve already been through. I’ve already said I’d have no problem with a gay union institution that provides the same rights and benefits as marriage (though I might want to close the financial loopholes for both marriages and unions). But I don’t think it should be called marriage. I believe the gay community specifically does want the word “marriage,” because they are trying to legitimize their behavior. I think it’s more about that, than about the benefits. They want their behavior to be viewed as “normal.” If they achieve legalized gay “marriage,” then they are a step forward towards trying to force society to change its opinions.
You know, maybe I missed that passage in The Protocols of the Elders of Judy, or maybe I just missed that midnight Sabbat meeting in SF (then again, it’s probably just because I’m only meeting them halfway), but I never received any update that the ultimate goal of gay activists is to hold control over the minds and opinions of all people. You’ve yet to explain how the legitimization of gay marriage by recognizing the concept legally would result in any forced adoption of a particular opinion by the public at large, or how these mind-control techniques would be put into operation. Tell me, was the public forced to change its opinions on mixed marriage? Have interracial marriages led to an establishment of a “thought police” which seeks to forcibly change the opinions of every person? Do we not still have mindless cretins who believe that such acts water down or sully the purity of the White Race? Hasn’t the increased acceptance of such marriages been the result of individual reconsidering or rejection of outmoded ways of thinking, with a shift toward tolerance and acceptance, rather than some conspiritorial hogwash about the public being strongarmed into accepting what they automatically reject? And, lastly, would wearing hats made of aluminum foil be of any help?
sgtdraino wrote:When it comes to something like racism or child abuse, it’s easy for all of us to agree. “That’s immoral!” And we feel better. But when it comes to something more controversial, homosexuality or abortion, for example, you get large numbers of people who disagree. These groups naturally fight over whose definition of morality is eventually held to be “true” by the highest secular authority we have; the US government. Which side of the argument is “good” and which side is “evil” largely depends on your point of view. And naturally, attempts by one side to legitimize its case as “true” will be strongly resisted by the opposing side.
In cases where right and wrong are purely a judgement call, and individual rights are not involved, the government should remain neutral on the subject, with no official opinion. The problem is, that doesn’t stop activists on both sides from trying to force the government to give an opinion. The primary method for doing this has become the court system, using activist judges with loose interpretations of the law to invent new rights not previously existing. This circumvents Congress, and consequently the will of the people. It attempts to force an artificial change in attitudes, instead of allowing attitudes to change naturally over time.
It’s easy for most people to agree that racism is wrong at this point in time, but in this country in the past, racism was much more widely spread, accepted, and codified into laws and policies both private and public. Large numbers of people disagreed when attempts to legitimize the treatment of all races as equal were put into place via legislation and court decisions during the Civil Rights movement. Are you claiming that these actions were wrong? It would appear not, seeing as how you qualify your statement with the phrase “as long as individual rights are not involved.” Seeing as how the individual rights of African-Americans were seen as being infringed upon, you would agree that these steps were needed, no? Explain, then, how seeking equal protection and recognition under the law is any different when it comes to homosexual men and women.
”Aleck” wrote:(BTW, isn’t it a blatant contradiction to state that one isn’t a fan of “slippery slope” arguments such as those posited by Scalia, and then turn around and state that legal recognition of gay marriage would lead to the legal recognition of polygamy? How is that statement any different from that of Scalia’s?)
sgtdraino wrote:Interesting point! 🙂 Allow me to turn that around a bit. If the courts recognized a constitutional right to gay marriage, with all the legal benefits regular marriage brings, can you think of any reason why polygamists could not then demand the same right?
Yep. Though you skirted the issue of how your statement is any different from Scalia’s, I’ll let that slide down its own slippery slope. Marriage as it stands now is the legal recognition of the union of two people, a man and a woman (let’s not let religion enter into the debate, and keep this strictly secular, if you will). The expansion of this definition to encompass same-sex unions is not that large of a leap. It simply removes a gender bias. If it were such a short leap from same-sex unions to polygamous unions, the leap from heterosexual unions to polygamous unions would be just as short. In both cases, it would mean removing a numerical bias in the marriage equation. By keeping marriages strictly dual-sex-oriented, one could still argue that polygamy could work — a single man could marry as many women as he liked (the women would not be bound in matrimony to *each other*, avoiding the touchy same-sex issue), and a woman could marry as many men as she liked. Follow those chains of connection, and we could end up with very nearly the entire country married to each other, without the question of gay marriages entering into the equation. You’d just end up with homosexual men and women still marginalized, but I guess that’s preferable. I mean, we wouldn’t want the sanctity of polygamous marriage tainted by the presence of homosexuals. 🙄 Anyway, enough of this fanciful crap. The primary point about marriage is, I feel, that it is a union of two people, and the gender question is one that is, IMO, much more easily resolved than the multiple partners question (has anyone ever argued that polygamy was *not* a choice and that they were born polygamous?).
Blegh. Enough charging at windmills. I’m here to have fun, which this has ceased to be. Nobody’s changing anybody’s mind, so further discussion is only going to cause irritation on all sides. This argument could go back and forth indefinitely, without accomplishing anything. I don’t have the patience or interest.
<resigns>
Just hope I don’t get gassed while I’m packing. 🙂
sgtdraino wrote:Blegh. Enough charging at windmills. I’m here to have fun, which this has ceased to be. Nobody’s changing anybody’s mind, so further discussion is only going to cause irritation on all sides. This argument could go back and forth indefinitely, without accomplishing anything. I don’t have the patience or interest.
<resigns>
Just hope I don’t get gassed while I’m packing. 🙂
You resign? As another “right wing” guy, you must know that we never resign…..we just pull out our guns and shoot the hell out of the others…..”see problem solved…..”).
If you are not married or have a girl friend; look around and pick out that lonely plain looking gal in the crowd, talk to her and strike up some sort of friendship. Hopefully, she will look like this:
http://webhome.idirect.com/~rem223/FetchImageJPG
If she does not – that is cool as all women look the same when they get up in the morning…..oooops 😳 I have spoken too much already…..
Maurice
But since there were questions with respect to the news out of Afghanistan, here’s a recent article (today) from Yahoo news…
http://story.news.yahoo.com/news?tmpl=story&cid=578&ncid=578&e=2&u=/nm/20030930/ts_nm/afghan_usa_dc
Highlights:
– US Soldier is killed (why they did the article in the first place).
– Four US Soldiers killed recently
– Foreign aid workers killed
– Attack on Afghan minister kills seven bodyguards
– August is the most intense round of fighting, 300 killed
– Civil war ongoing
– Fighting not confined to any area of country
– Taliban unbowed, making videotapes
– UN force is *US lead*, consists of 12,500
In short, this either verifies, supports or at least fails to detract from anything I said.
I also want to point out that this is Yahoo news, which is hardly controversial, left leaning, anti-american, or any such thing. Mostly it is coming straight off wire services, and consists of ‘breaking’ news with whatever background is lying around.
Ladies and gentlemen, this is it for Afghanistan…
”Valdron” wrote:In short, this either verifies, supports or at least fails to detract from anything I said.
I will not be pushed, filed, stamped, indexed, briefed, debriefed, or goaded. 🙂
Now back to my regularly scheduled non-political posting…
You missed spindled and mutilated….
But what the hell, I’d rather talk LEXX any day. Or Starhunter, Angel, Firefly, Red Dwarf, Blake’s 7 or whatever.
This conversation was becoming too much like work.
- You must be logged in to reply to this topic.