Where am I politically?
As many of you have noticed (I hope :rolleyes:), I've been gone for some time. I've not been idle. Other than the usual drama that seems to permeate my life (which I may post on the Philosphy thread, since it deals with that topic and I'd like a fresh set of outside opinion), I've found a sense of "where do I stand on ____?" happening.
[background]
For those of you that don't know me, I started out 5 years ago as an evolutionist, and a former Wiccan Priestess. I was exploring different religions in a "search for truth". If evolution was true, why have religion at all, since Gods (in any form) were merely human created reasons to exist?
I went through a dark time, and really needed to believe in something better, something higher than myself. The Mormon elders showed up. I was baptised a Mormon in Jan 2003, then they told me a bunch of stuff AFTER I was baptised (and I learned a bunch of stuff they still hadn't told me), and I freaked out and left the church in July 2003.
Met my husband at that time, a staunch Christian, and avid creationist. There were heated discussions. Intellectually, I couldn't get past evolution. Through some websites and some scientists who are creationists, I finally "got it", and now I am also a creationist, and also a literalist Christian. (Non-denominational) It's kind of convoluted, since I know as a Wiccan Priestess that Wicca as a practice works, but I've managed to include that in my Christianity.
[/background]
Lately (last 6 months or so), I've become more political than ever. Not as in activist, but as in "finding out what is out there", and trying to identify myself with a political group. I've taken the test but that doesn't tell me "what party I am". I wish they had a test like beliefnet.
My first thought was Libertarian, since I'm really down with the whole idea of going back to the Constitution and stripping the rest of the crap away, but I know that isn't going to happen, and I do not agree with their views on abortion.
I read the Heritage Guide to the Constitution (edited by Edwin Meese) and nearly cried. This is not how things are supposed to be.
So I thought, well, from a religious standpoint, I'm most like a Republican, since they are against abortion, gay marriage, and using dead babies for stem cell research. (Which I have alot to say about but not here.) But their leader is a freaking idjit, and it really pisses me off that he thinks he's in place due to divine providence. Um, in a word, no.
I am in the Crossings book club (Christian stuff) and got an advert for American Compass, which seemed like a good place to start. I got 4 books free, and picked the Heritage Guide, Godless (Ann Coulter), and a couple of financial books.
Godless blew me away. I still don't know what I am politically but it fueled the fire. I'm currently reading The Enemy at Home (Dinesh D'Souza) and I have ALOT of the indroduction highlighted already.
I'm pretty much an isolationist, I know that. I'm a Libertarian in the sense of "we HAVE to get back to the Constitution if we're going to make it", I'm Republican in the sense of their platform on social issues. BUT I truly believe in free will, and (from a legal standpoint) I don't want to ban abortion or force my religious belief (or moral code) on people. (My husband has a different view on this.)
Is there a party out there that encompases these ideas or do I just lump myself in with the party the most closely matches my beliefs? Would that be Libertarian or Republican? Some other party I haven't heard of?
Oh, and it's good to be back in the fray.... :worried: For now....
Hey, OnyxCougar! Welcome back!
Hey sweetie! I'm gonna go post some more drama in the "Seriousness" thread. You're gonna be .... insert emotion here ... when you read it. :p
Well OnyxCougar, I'm battling the same argument that you've been facing too. I think we all do to some degree. I consider myself and independent as I have very liberal views on some issues and very conservative ones on others. As an American, I believe it to be our responsibility to speak out on that which we disagree upon with respect to our government, but we must also support the decisions our government makes even though we may disagree with them initially. I know this is contradictory in some respects. We select these people to lead us and should support the decisions they make based on the information they have and we don't.
Sorry I'm rambling, but I think to answer your question of which party to align yourself with, you should either choose the party where you feel you have the most in common, or stay an independent.
... BUT I truly believe in free will, and (from a legal standpoint) I don't want to ban abortion or force my religious belief (or moral code) on people...
Democrat.
Seriously, Onyxcougar, don't get hung up on labels, vote for a candidate who has the same goals/philosophy/values that you do. Then, when (s)he breaks all his/her campaign promises, work to impeach him/her.
Heh. How sadly true.
I guess I should prioritze my goals/philosophy/values since I seem to be across the spectrum. Is abortion more important than foreign policy? Is taxation higher up than gay marriage?
Ugh. This political awareness crap can get on your nerve.
I'm way off over there somewhere, wandering between a goat and a scraggly willow tree.
I always vote for the plaid candidate, I say. They taste like turkey and dressing, and smell like daisies.
Lately (last 6 months or so), I've become more political than ever. Not as in activist, but as in "finding out what is out there", and trying to identify myself with a political group. I've taken the test but that doesn't tell me "what party I am". I wish they had a test like beliefnet.
My first thought was Libertarian, since I'm really down with the whole idea of going back to the Constitution and stripping the rest of the crap away, but I know that isn't going to happen, and I do not agree with their views on abortion.
Did you try this test? It's from a Libertarian group.
http://www.theadvocates.org/quiz.htmlWay too far right for me.
But seriously, if you are for or against something is politically irrelevant. It's whether or not you support LEGISLATING it.
For example, I think the world would be a MUCH better place if everyone was buddhist. But that does not mean in any way shape or form that I believe that it should be MANDATORY for everyone to be.
If you feel more strongly towards freedom than totalitarianism, go libertarian or democrat. If you feel more strongly towards everyone following your verson of morality, go republican.
If you feel more strongly towards everyone following your verson of morality, go republican.
Ibram, you constantly amaze me with many of your comments and I am surprised at your maturity for someone who is 15. However, that has to be the most immature, skewed, and innaccurate post you've written.
Personally, I don't see the relevance of your religion on your political views. They should remain entirely apart. If you are a "literalist Christian" as you claim, you should take the words of Jesus of Nazareth literally when he says judgment is reserved for god. Perhaps you should follow the teachings of Jesus of Nazareth and keep your religion and politics completely separate and work to keep government out of church and church out of government.
If you are against abortion, you should not get one and don't exercise force to prevent others from getting them if they choose. Allow them to be judged by god. The same is true of prostitution, gay marriage, collecting stem cells, drug use, polygamy, etc.
These activities don't physically harm or endanger anyone other than potentially harming those taking part willingly in them. This means it's unreasonable to create a law against those things. After all, who are you or anyone else to force your own religious morality down the throats of others through legislation?
And make no mistake, force IS involved. If you do these things, men with guns show up and tell you to stop or they'll take away your freedom.
Clearly libertarianism is not for you, but you do seem to support some small government. This means the Republican and Democratic parties are also not for you. These parties are responsible for our moving so far away from the Constitution in the first place, and both grow government at faster and faster rates while violating our rights.
If anything, I'd say you fit into the Constitution/American Independent Party.
You should take a moment to check them out.
Here is their platform in PDF format.
http://www.constitutionparty.com/documents/2004CPPlatform.pdf
Or you can just visit their website...
http://www.constitutionparty.comWelcome back, Onyx! If you really want to know where you stand politically, why not try the infamous Political Compass test ... It's actually a fairly good measure of where you stand.
Welcome back, Onyx! If you really want to know where you stand politically, why not try the infamous Political Compass test ... It's actually a fairly good measure of where you stand.
Agreed, their are many versions of it as well.
If you are against abortion, you should not get one and don't exercise force to prevent others from getting them if they choose. Allow them to be judged by god. The same is true of prostitution, gay marriage, collecting stem cells, drug use, polygamy, etc.
These activities don't physically harm or endanger anyone other than potentially harming those taking part willingly in them. This means it's unreasonable to create a law against those things.
The unborn child is murdered - I think thats "harming someone"?
Ibram, you constantly amaze me with many of your comments and I am surprised at your maturity for someone who is 15. However, that has to be the most immature, skewed, and innaccurate post you've written.
I agree with Ibram. Yesman065 is a poopy head.
If you feel more strongly towards everyone following your verson of morality, go republican.
...that has to be the most immature, skewed, and innaccurate post you've written.
First, on what grounds is it inaccurate? Republicans have felt the backlash of their heavy-handed attempt to legislate morality, it hit them hard. So the statement stands as an accurate description of reality if you equate "going republican" with "supporting the observable actions of republicans, and endorsing more of the same." Next, as it is demonstrated to be accurate, on what grounds is it immature? How is it immature to make an observation of this type? Is it immature because you disagree with it? Please elaborate.
He won't 'cause he's a poopy head.
The unborn child is murdered - I think thats "harming someone"?
No one thinks that they are killing anyone. It's just opinion on when the fetus actually becomes life.
No one thinks that they are killing anyone. It's just opinion on when the fetus actually becomes life.
I think the important question is when life (under some minimal definition) becomes life worth protecting.
Now we can examine the assumption that life is somehow sacred!
Is it?
I think it's a good idea to treat it that way. But who can know if it's true? Nobody I know.
(Here I go again, breaking my personal rule about posting in the Politics/Current Events/Philosophy forums.)
I think the important question is when life (under some minimal definition) becomes life worth protecting.
Now we can examine the assumption that life is somehow sacred!
Is it?
I think it's a good idea to treat it that way. But who can know if it's true? Nobody I know.
(Here I go again, breaking my personal rule about posting in the Politics/Current Events/Philosophy forums.)
It's a good indication that life is worth protecting and the particular life is sacred when the mother elects to advance the organism. Beyond that, why should anyone feel motivated to nurture that which is not desired by its own mother?
It's a good indication that life is worth protecting and the particular life is sacred when the mother elects to advance the organism. Beyond that, why should anyone feel motivated to nurture that which is not desired by its own mother?
I came in late. I'm not really sure what you're talking about.
My previous comment was based solely on what ph45 said in what I quoted. Sorry if I'm more out of it than I thought.
(Here I go again, breaking my personal rule about posting in the Politics/Current Events/Philosophy forums.)
First, on what grounds is it inaccurate? Republicans have felt the backlash of their heavy-handed attempt to legislate morality, it hit them hard. So the statement stands as an accurate description of reality if you equate "going republican" with "supporting the observable actions of republicans, and endorsing more of the same." Next, as it is demonstrated to be accurate, on what grounds is it immature? How is it immature to make an observation of this type? Is it immature because you disagree with it? Please elaborate.
It is not accurate to say that republican = "everyone following your version of morality." It is an immature view based on the reality that it not tru. A more mature individual would understand, perhaps not agree with, but still understand there is a whole lot more than that one issue which constitutes a republican. Its like saying anything that flies is a bird therefore insects are birds. Its equally as ridiculous.
Yesman is right but I'm almost positive Ibram said that as a joke.
Both Republicans and Democrats push their agenda on others, it just depends on what side you face that determines which side will be pushing you. Though, as unbias as possible, I have to say the Republicans are a bit more pushy than the Democrats right now.
But to tell you the truth, the guy who is seeing through all the DC bullshit politics right now is a Republican, presenting
Chuck Hagel.
A more mature individual would understand, perhaps not agree with, but still understand there is a whole lot more than that one issue which constitutes a republican.
Not in a hard-line party system there isn't. You run with the pack or you get left in the dust. You can "feel" like there is more to it, but what actually counts is: what they do with your vote when they get in power.
Godless blew me away. I still don't know what I am politically but it fueled the fire. I'm currently reading The Enemy at Home (Dinesh D'Souza) and I have ALOT of the indroduction highlighted already.
Is there a party out there that encompases these ideas or do I just lump myself in with the party the most closely matches my beliefs? Would that be Libertarian or Republican? Some other party I haven't heard of?
You may as well vote Republican. Appease the hubby anyway. You really sound like you're more spiritually attuned. Work on the spirituality and ditch the politics. You'll find it more satisfying.
The good thing about living where you do is that you don't have to get involved in the political process if you don't want to. Lucky you!
It wasn't exactly a joke, but a usually-accurate dig at republicans. That's simply the way the party works. Gay marriage bans, abortion bans, flag-burning bans... everything set on legislating morality is a republican push. There may be more to it than that, but socially speaking, the republicans are solely interested in legislating their own versions of morality.
But you can give the same argument for democrats because of welfare, enviormental regulations, and increase in minimum wage. It all depends on which view you take.
It wasn't exactly a joke, but a usually-accurate dig at republicans. That's simply the way the party works. Gay marriage bans, abortion bans, flag-burning bans... everything set on legislating morality is a republican push. There may be more to it than that, but socially speaking, the republicans are solely interested in legislating their own versions of morality.
Wrong. This is only the way Karl Rove decided Bush would build his power base knowing full well they'd have to find a different angle for the next candidate. After eight years even the staunch fundies would figure out they'd been had.
Don't forget the first time bush ran, there was no war, there was no terrorist threat. What other Republican President, or even candidate for President carrying their banner, has run on this morality bullshit?
The traditional Republican unfulfilled campaign promise is lower taxes/smaller government. That's been their basic battle cry forever, the main plank in every platform, the big lie in every election. :2cents:
It wasn't exactly a joke, but a usually-accurate dig at republicans. That's simply the way the party works. Gay marriage bans, abortion bans, flag-burning bans... everything set on legislating morality is a republican push. There may be more to it than that, but socially speaking, the republicans are solely interested in legislating their own versions of morality.
So we should just let everyone do whatever they want Ibram?
Personally, I respect your right in America to burn our flag, but I also will kick your ass for doing it. That flag represents a lot of my family members who gave their fuckin lives so that you can live within the freedoms you have. Your generation has NO CONCEPT of what sacrifices went into creating and preserving the rights you have.
Your generation has NO CONCEPT of what sacrifices went into creating and preserving the rights you have.
It seems to be a world-wide problem. The younger generations think the same down here, and I also in Europe. They did not have fathers, grandfathers, uncles etc who fought for our safety. To them it was an eon ago. They are simply not interested. They seem to think that war is some stupid game that men go into for "fun". They have no concept of fighting for freedom, because it has been handed to them on a silver plate.
So we should just let everyone do whatever they want Ibram?
Anarchy is the perfect human society but like every perfect society (communism), it is unrealistic due to norms and humans nature.
Personally, I respect your right in America to burn our flag, but I also will kick your ass for doing it.
It depends on why you are burning the flag. If you are doing it out of hatred or you are a "rebel" (stress the "quotes") teenager and think your tough, I will agree that they should get their ass kicked. But, if they are doing it to prove a point about America's wrong doings (major), then it is justified by all means.
They have no concept of fighting for freedom, because it has been handed to them on a silver plate.
This scares me the most. I am of this generation and whenever I speak out about an issue, people just reply that they don't care about politics. They don't care if you take away your freedom of speech, right to assemble, right to bear arms, it's quite pathetic and I am ashamed of my generation in this, and many other ways.
I don't care what the republicans will be, were, should be, can be... What they ARE, right now, in this era, in this country, in this regime, are the morality police. The society that the republicans, at least the most vocal ones, the ones in power, want to create, is in my eyes no better, or at least not much, than the sharia law in afghanistan and saudi arabia. Not every republican is like that, but the ones that arent would be better off leaving the party or kicking the ones that are like that out.
They seem to think that war is some stupid game that men go into for "fun".
"They" - as in Bush and Cheney.
I came in late. I'm not really sure what you're talking about.
My previous comment was based solely on what ph45 said in what I quoted. Sorry if I'm more out of it than I thought.
I was speaking to your point - when life becomes worth protecting.
I don't care what the republicans will be, were, should be, can be... What they ARE, right now, in this era, in this country, in this regime, are the morality police. The society that the republicans, at least the most vocal ones, the ones in power, want to create, is in my eyes no better, or at least not much, than the sharia law in afghanistan and saudi arabia. Not every republican is like that, but the ones that arent would be better off leaving the party or kicking the ones that are like that out.
I agree completely. And it's all powered by the fundamentalist Christian "business."
I was speaking to your point - when life becomes worth protecting.
Ok, then.
It's a good indication that life is worth protecting and the particular life is sacred when the mother elects to advance the organism. Beyond that, why should anyone feel motivated to nurture that which is not desired by its own mother?
I have a couple questions since the above is still escaping me to some degree.
What's this good indication?
So a life becomes sacred when a "mother elects to advance the organism"? There are problems with this even when we restrict the organisms to human beings. Are we restricting the definition of "advance" to "nurture and raise", or "let it live", because in my book "advance" allows that sometimes destruction is advancement.
And I'm not sure anybody "should" feel motivated to nurture unwanted life. But I think life is generally more interesting than death (which I think might underlie the arguments of many pro-anti-abortionists). The problem I have with your question is that you can't really construct and deal with "shoulds."
I'm really confused now, which is why I stay out of these threads. It's good to be confused from time to time, but this is one of those questions that's out of my philosophical depth and interest.
(pardon any brain-slips, my blood sugar is in the negative numbers post-gym)
Personally, I don't see the relevance of your religion on your political views. They should remain entirely apart. If you are a "literalist Christian" as you claim, you should take the words of Jesus of Nazareth literally when he says judgment is reserved for god.
Did I somehow imply that I don't?
Perhaps you should follow the teachings of Jesus of Nazareth and keep your religion and politics completely separate and work to keep government out of church and church out of government.
Can you provide scripture references for this please?
If you are against abortion, you should not get one and don't exercise force to prevent others from getting them if they choose. Allow them to be judged by god. The same is true of prostitution, gay marriage, collecting stem cells, drug use, polygamy, etc.
..scroll up..
BUT I truly believe in free will, and (from a legal standpoint) I don't want to ban abortion or force my religious belief (or moral code) on people.
These activities don't physically harm or endanger anyone other than potentially harming those taking part willingly in them.
The unborn child didn't asked to be made, nor is it "willing" to be killed via acid, saw or knife. This is where my fundamental views and yours differ. (Nor do I wish to start an abortion debate here.)
This means it's unreasonable to create a law against those things. After all, who are you or anyone else to force your own religious morality down the throats of others through legislation?
"We the people" are the ones that make laws. Or, excuse me, that's how it's supposed to work. "We the people" DON'T make laws anymore, nor do our elected representatives vote on laws according to their constituency's majority view, nor does the Electoral College vote the way the people in their states do.
The majority view is supposed to be the prevailing view, and STATE legislation is supposed to support this.
And make no mistake, force IS involved. If you do these things, men with guns show up and tell you to stop or they'll take away your freedom.
Clearly libertarianism is not for you, but you do seem to support some small government. This means the Republican and Democratic parties are also not for you. These parties are responsible for our moving so far away from the Constitution in the first place, and both grow government at faster and faster rates while violating our rights.
I don't think Libertarianism is "not for me", I think that like the rest of the parties perviously discussed, there are some things I like, and fewer things I don't.
If anything, I'd say you fit into the Constitution/American Independent Party.
You should take a moment to check them out.
Here is their platform in PDF format.
http://www.constitutionparty.com/documents/2004CPPlatform.pdf
Or you can just visit their website...
http://www.constitutionparty.com
Thanks, I'll look into that.
edit: after reading in a few pages, I'm so far agreeing with most of this Contitution Party Platform. :) Thanks, radar!
Points of disagreement: that women connot be in combat.
Perhaps you should follow the teachings of Jesus of Nazareth and keep your religion and politics completely separate and work to keep government out of church and church out of government.
Can you provide scripture references for this please?
Try
here.
Christ addressed the issue directly in Matt. 22:21.Though this passage neither delineates the specific duties nor defines the relationship between the realms, it identifies Christians as citizens of two distinct kingdoms who fulfil separate obligations in each one. ...
This contrast between church and state is sharpened by the New Testament description of Christ's character and the apolitical nature of his inaugurated kingdom. Jesus said his followers were not of this world,(5) and they were to focus on his kingdom,(6) which also is not of this world.(7) His reign is spiritual and eternal: he rules the human heart, not a temporal, earthly domain,(8) and not an ethnic Jewish state.(9) He rebuked his disciples for desiring positions of authority like the Gentiles,(10) and he chastised them for asking him to restore the kingdom of Israel.(11) .... He refused to sit as a judge in secular matters,(13) resisted the temptation to seize worldly power, and fled from those who would crown him king.(14) ... In retrospect, the message was clear: he thoroughly opposed the use of magisterial power to build his kingdom.
Footnotes:
5 John 17:16
6 Matt. 6:33.
7John 18:36.
8 Luke 17:21; Rom. 14:17; 1 Cor. 15:50.
9 Matt. 8:11-12.
10 Luke 22:24-30.
11 Acts 1:6-7.
13 Luke 12:14.
14 Matt. 4:8-11; John 6:15.
What's this good indication?
I meant it as a sign or evidence (of suitability, in this case).
So a life becomes sacred when a "mother elects to advance the organism"? There are problems with this even when we restrict the organisms to human beings. Are we restricting the definition of "advance" to "nurture and raise", or "let it live", because in my book "advance" allows that sometimes destruction is advancement.
What “problems” do you see?
I used “advance” to mean “nurture and raise” as I was focused on the individual organism. Hopefully, there is more interest from mom than a “let it live” attitude, although, this may be sufficient if arrangements have been made for post-birth nurture (for example, through adoption).
And I'm not sure anybody "should" feel motivated to nurture unwanted life. But I think life is generally more interesting than death (which I think might underlie the arguments of many pro-anti-abortionists). The problem I have with your question is that you can't really construct and deal with "shoulds."
I agree that life is more interesting than death. And it is best when well managed, beginning to end. Management requires choice. No “shoulds” there.
...Both Republicans and Democrats push their agenda on others, it just depends on what side you face that determines which side will be pushing you. Though, as unbias as possible, I have to say the Republicans are a bit more pushy than the Democrats right now.
...
Typically, the Democratic agenda is *permissive* where the repubican agenda is *restrictive*. It's hard to think of Democrats as pushing their values on people when their agenda is more "sure you should be able to marry someone of the same sex if you want" and "sure you can have an abortion if you want". This is where MaggieL will point out the atypical Democratic position "sure you shouldn't have a handgun to shoot people with".
UT, if democrats are cats and republicans are dogs, what are Libertarians? Toads?
Where did you find this? I can't make out the dot com.
Where did you find this? I can't make out the dot com.
http://www.kirktoons.com/
(499!)
It is not accurate to say that republican = "everyone following your version of morality."
Does that then mean Democrat="Everyone following your version of immorality?"
yesman065 It is not accurate to say that republican = "everyone following your version of morality."
Does that then mean Democrat="Everyone following your version of immorality?"
I wold say that the
NOT is the key there wolf. Therefore the same would hold true of your statement
Democrat does
NOT="Everyone following your version of immorality?
Republicans tend to favor more civil control and less economic control. Democrats will tend to favor more economic control and less civil control. Either way you still get an agenda pushed on you. The only way to avoid it is to go Libertarian or Anarchist.
Personally, I respect your right in America to burn our flag, but I also will kick your ass for doing it. That flag represents a lot of my family members who gave their fuckin lives so that you can live within the freedoms you have. Your generation has NO CONCEPT of what sacrifices went into creating and preserving the rights you have.
You mean rights like being able turn burn the American flag?
BTW, if you try to kick ass, (A) yours may be the one to get kicked or you may get set on fire with a burning flag, and (B) that's called assault and battery, and is illegal, where flag burning is not. Did someone fight for the right to kick the ass of someone who is not beaking the law?
snip~
The majority view is supposed to be the prevailing view, and STATE legislation is supposed to support this. ~snip
No, no, no, no, no, absolutely no. That's what makes us, and U.S., different from every other country.
The Bill Of Rights was specifically written to prevent the "prevailing view" being passed into law and forced on people with a minority view. I'm allowed to worship square manhole covers. I'm allowed to not turn on the lights after dark(except in the car for safety). I'm allowed to be different. :flycatch:
Majority rules, may work with Robert's Rules of Order, but it's as unamerican as Borscht.
The unborn child is murdered - I think thats "harming someone"?
There are no "unborn children". Birth is a requirement in order to be a child. Before birth, you're merely a fetus.
Note: I'm saying this while my wife is pregnant with the fetus that she will hopefully allow become my child. Abortion is not murder. In fact the only human lives who have ever been lost due to abortion are those of women who got back alley abortions with rusty tools from butchers when one group tried to force their religious beliefs onto others by making abortions illegal.
We each have sole dominion over our body and all the organisms within that body. We alone choose life or death for any of those organisms regardless of what they are or how they got there. For all intents and purposes, we are the GOD of our body and our decisions are not to be questioned by any other person or group of people regardless of their number.
Let's not make this an abortion thread. She asked where her views were politically, and I told her. She has thanked me because I was correct and pointed her in the right direction based on her expressed beliefs.
Can you provide scripture references for this please?
http://www.mcwilliams.com/books/books/aint/403a.htm
http://www.biblegateway.com
The unborn child didn't asked to be made, nor is it "willing" to be killed via acid, saw or knife. This is where my fundamental views and yours differ. (Nor do I wish to start an abortion debate here.)
There is no such thing as an unborn child anymore than their is an unbaked cake. It doesn't become a cake until it's baked. Before that it's just batter. You don't have a baby until it's born. Before that it's a fetus and a POTENTIAL baby just like the fetus inside my wife right now.
"We the people" are the ones that make laws. Or, excuse me, that's how it's supposed to work. "We the people" DON'T make laws anymore, nor do our elected representatives vote on laws according to their constituency's majority view, nor does the Electoral College vote the way the people in their states do.
We the people do make the laws, and which laws we the people can make are limited. We the people don't have the authority to make any laws we wish over the lives of other people.
While the powers of government are derived from "We the people", those powers are limited by what powers we have as individuals to grant to that government. It's good to keep in mind that "We the people" are individuals, not a collective. We are each born with unalienable rights. For instance the right to defend ourselves when attacked. We are not born with the right to tell other people what foods they will or won't eat, what medicines or medical procedures they will or won't have, or what they can or can't do with their own body or property.
This means we can grant legitimate power to government to protect us, but we may not legitimately grant power to government to prevent or punish abortions, make drugs illegal, etc.
How can you give a power to government that you don't have as an individual? If you personally don't have such a power, neither do a million of you, or a hundred million of you.
If you were on an island of people without a government, you would have absolutely no legitimate right to prevent someone else on the island from getting an abortion. This means you can't grant this power to a government.
The majority view is supposed to be the prevailing view, and STATE legislation is supposed to support this.
Majority rule is mob rule. Just because the majority wants something doesn't make it right. There are some things that are not up for a vote, and not up for a debate. The rights of a single person are more important than the desires of millions.
I don't think Libertarianism is "not for me", I think that like the rest of the parties perviously discussed, there are some things I like, and fewer things I don't.
Trust me, libertarianism is not for you.
Thanks, I'll look into that.
edit: after reading in a few pages, I'm so far agreeing with most of this Contitution Party Platform. :) Thanks, radar!
Points of disagreement: that women connot be in combat.
I figured you'd fit like a glove. If that's the only area you've found where you disagree, I'd say this is the party for you.
A commentary by Wendy Doniger, Professor of the History of Religions, University of Chicago’s Divinity School at
The Great Pumpkin Goes to Washington I don’t care a fig about our next president’s personal religious views. The candidate can worship the Great Pumpkin, for all I care, as long as he or she doesn’t assume that the rest of us do too, and that the Great Pumpkin told him to do things such as, to take a case at random, invade Iraq.
Is it a sin? I don't care and have no opinion because it is his sin; not mine. However when he uses his definition of sin to attack or manipulate me - that is civil war (or a trip to the courts).
Why does a discussion that started on religion then move to politics? Is life sacred? That only applies to you and your god - no one else. Is it legal to kill? That is a question asked and answered completely devoid of religion.
Religion is a relationship between you and your god. Even your church is nothing more than a consultant. Your church can advise. But only you own your religion. And that religion is never imposed on another. Even the Great Pumpkin did not condemn Charlie Brown's friends for not believing.
Why does a discussion that started on religion then move to politics?
Actually, I think this discussion started on politics and moved to religion. Which makes perfect sense, because politics and religion are inextricably intertwined, so much so that I dare say they are virtually the same thing.
[COLOR="White"]Religion is about control. Politics is about control. Law is often born from religion and politics, and not from a genuine desire to protect.[/COLOR]
[COLOR="White"]Religion is about control. Politics is about control. Law is often born from religion and politics, and not from a genuine desire to protect.[/COLOR]
roger that
Which makes perfect sense, because politics and religion are inextricably intertwined, so much so that I dare say they are virtually the same thing.
I daresay that when religion (that is fully based only in emotional perceptions) is intertwined with politics, then we have the Spanish Inquisition, the Crusades, and "Mission Accomplished". In each case, nothing logical and nothing based in what religion is supposed to be, instead, resulted in an adverse conclusion.
Politics is a relationship of the many. Religion is a relationship between one man and his god(s). Where do these two intertwine? They don't and they must not. Once these two do intertwine, then the naive start thinking in terms of 'good and evil'. As George Jr demonstrated - as has been repeatedly proven in history - when conclusions are made in 'black and white'; 'good and evil'; 'them and us' ... then we get racism, ethnic cleansing, the holocaust, 11 September, the 30 Years War, Vietnam, and "Mission Accomplished".
At what point do we learn from history; learn using logic rather than do things for the glory of god?
When religion becomes more than a relationship between one and his gods, then (if you believe in 'good and evil') evil abounds. The 'good' therefore become the 'evil'. Anytime religion becomes intertwined with politics or religion is used to justify actions against another, then the purpose of religion has been perverted.
Religion can only serve its strategic objective when it remains a relationship between one man and his gods. To intertwine religion with politics only perverts and destroys what religion was created to promote. Scary are those who cannot keep religion where it belongs for they are the ones who have made the world so dangerous for all Americans.
Religion is a relationship between one man and his god(s).
I disagree. What you have described is belief. Religion is when two or more people feel they have the same relationship with the same God(s), ie belief and want to band together for mutual whatever.
I think too many people don't know the difference, because the look to the religion to tell them what their belief should be, rather than having their belief dictate what religion they should be.
I don't want to get into a semantics thing, just make a distinction between the two situations. The belief that I described will most certainly enter into an individuals political bent, but his religion should not. :2cents:
I think Bruce is correct in that the word religion suggests some form of fellowship with like-minded others.
Religion is when two or more people feel they have the same relationship with the same God(s), ie belief and want to band together for mutual whatever.
And so they form religious organizations to 'assist' or 'consult'. Eventually those organizations become so corrupt as to insist THEY are the conduit to god.
They are organizations. Your priest or rabbi is only a consultant. He is not the religion. He and you may become members of a club - a social organization of people who share a common relationship to their god.
And that social organization does not change the bottom line fact. Religion is only a relationship between the man and his gods.
Too many confuse the Catholic Church with a religion. The religion exists with or without that church. The church is not a religion. It is only a support group - a social organization. And when perverted, the church becomes a political action committee - to impose their beliefs on all others.
And still, religion remains a relationship between the one man and his gods - no matter how often those social (religious) organizations try to pervert that relationship.
OK, you're using religion for faith and church for religion, whatever, as long as you define the distinction.
But I'm telling you people are going to misinterpret your remarks and position, like when you say Bush "Pearl Harbored" Iraq when 99% (made up internet fact) of the population, attach sneak attack to Pearl Harbor, rather than unjustified attack like you insist. :rolleyes:
Onyx, I absolutely never expect any given political party to match my views by more than about eighty percent. The crux, then, is to decide how well, or even whether, I could live with the other twenty percent.
This is why Radar and I differ in our approaches to libertarianism and the Libertarian Party. I accept the eighty percent, he doesn't believe a Libertarian Party member could or should agree less than one hundred percent, and overdoes the rejectionism.
[Tangent to topic] And post #61 is some good work from tw. Seems a bit more from an atheistic philosopher than a religious one, but good nonetheless.
OK, you're using religion for faith and church for religion, whatever, as long as you define the distinction.
Church is not religion. Church is a social organization - and consults to you and your religious beliefs. Too many confuse churches with the relgion. Church is as much of a religion as the consultant is an employee of your company.
Again, to promote themselves, churches misrepresent themselves as the religion - ie the Pope speaks for god. No he does not. (Actually god only talks to George Jr and Pat Robertson - but we need not discuss those religions.)
Onyx, I absolutely never expect any given political party to match my views by more than about eighty percent. The crux, then, is to decide how well, or even whether, I could live with the other twenty percent.
This is why Radar and I differ in our approaches to libertarianism and the Libertarian Party. I accept the eighty percent, he doesn't believe a Libertarian Party member could or should agree less than one hundred percent, and overdoes the rejectionism.
[Tangent to topic] And post #61 is some good work from tw. Seems a bit more from an atheistic philosopher than a religious one, but good nonetheless.
Once again, you prove not only your ignorance of libertarianism, but your overbearing attitude, and dishonesty about me.
I don't think one has to agree with the LP 100%. Libertarian was a philosophy for longer than a thousand years before it was a political party.
Libertarianism as a philosophy is based on 2 very simple principles. If you disagree with either of these universal truths, you aren't a libertarian.
1)
Self-ownership: We own ourselves and the fruits of our labor (money, property, etc.) and no other person or group of people is entitled to them or has any legitimate authority over them.
2)
The Non-Aggression Principle: No person, or group of people has the right to initiate force for political gain or social engineering. The only acceptable use of force is in YOUR OWN defense. For instance starting a war against another country that poses no threat to yours and has not attacked yours, or using the military to attack nations that treat their people in a way that isn't the same as yours.... like Iraq is a perfect example of using unwarranted, unjustified, and unprovoked aggression.
In addition to being a libertarian I am also a Constitutionalist. I believe that the role and scope of the government should be limited to only what is specifically enumerated in the Constitution and the federal government has absolutely zero authority to do anything that is not enumerated.
Any part of the government not mentioned in the Constitution is illegal and immoral. The Constitution was created to limit the role, scope, and powers of the U.S. Government and never to limit the rights of the people.
This is why the 16th and 18th amendment were never legitimate.
Indeed? -- then dammit, Paul, why do you keep acting that way, or in a way that might too easily be understood to signify that?
1) I say "Yes."
2) In the current bloodshed, our foes, selfmade, self-declared, spent fourteen years repeatedly and persistently initiating the violence with us. No violation of libertarian principle is thereby incurred when we do something about this. They're picking on us, who are at least more libertarian than they, and we're called upon to defend our existence, fortunes, and wellbeing. We'll not manage that by withdrawing behind our borders, Paul. We can manage it by defeating them in their backyards.
That and constructive, successful foreign policy, particularly in dealing with conspicuously nonlibertarian states, has a nasty way of kicking the doctrinaire purist to the ditch and doing violence in general to a doctrinaire approach. I quite visibly recognize this; I have trouble seeing that pragmatism in you. Don't be in such a goddamn hurry for us to lose -- if we lose, we can't do libertarianism and spread it around generally like we want it, can we?
On a second glance, the rest of your post lays out why you went into political activity of the Libertarian persuasion. Okay. My motivations for giving Libertarianism a try are clearly rather different from yours.
I counsel you against any urge to purge, as another poster once put it. Do not enfeeble your party and its base merely because some of them make you itch.
Your interventionist foreign policy got us in the mess we are now in. You continue to ignore the back story. We've intervened heavily and stupidly in the mid-east since WWII. The conflict did not begin with the Marine barracks bombing. Right now the pragmatic move would be to come home but that doesn't fit with your apparent agenda crushing individual liberty in favor of unlimited state power.
Iraq never attacked America, never helped anyone else attack America, never planned any attacks against America, and had no connection or collusion with anyone who has done these things.
In 1990 the U.S. launched an unwarranted, unprovoked, unreasonable, and utterly unconstitutional attack and invasion of Iraq. Following this completely unlibertarian, unamerican, and inhuman initiation of force, America bombed them daily for 12 straight years, and kept them from life saving medicines, and put onerous and outrageous restrictions on Iraq demanding that they both disarm, and allow themselves to be inspected without warning at any time for any reason. These actions cost the lives of 300,000 Iraqi people.
Then, after finding none of the weapons that Bush lied about, America invaded Iraq again, and murdered at least 100,000 more innocent Iraqi men, women, and children who were trying to defend themselves against this attack.
America opened the door for murderers from surrounding nations to come in and kill even more Iraqis, in addition to the Iraqi people who were jailed without reason for up to 2 years where they were tortured, beaten (sometimes to death), humiliated, and otherwise had their rights violated despite having never committed a crime.
I don't have an "urge to purge". I have an urge to keep the party strictly in line with libertarian philosophy and to stop America from committing wholesale murder, and interfering in the affairs of other nations and starting unprovoked wars.
I'm not in a hurry for America to lose. It already lost the moment it started this madness. I'm in a hurry to stop the bleeding and for America to stop losing Americans for this fools errand.
Iraq never attacked America, never helped anyone else attack America, never planned any attacks against America, and had no connection or collusion with anyone who has done these things
Iraq attacked America's interests. That is why we attacked them in both Gulf Wars, we didn't attack them because we were bored or didn't like Saddam.
In 1990 the U.S. launched an unwarranted, unprovoked, unreasonable, and utterly unconstitutional attack and invasion of Iraq.
We attacked them for two, well one, main reasons. To keep Iraq out of Kuwait's oil (our oil) and to make sure Iraq didn't attack Saudi Arabia (our oil). Just because we don't agree with the reason doesn't mean there wasn't one.
America will never attack a country if it doesn't affect our national interests and looking at Africa, Saudi Arabia, and Israel proves this.
We attacked them for two, well one, main reasons.
Two: George Herbert Walker Bush, and George Walker Bush.
Their oil interests.
To keep Iraq out of Kuwait's oil (our oil) and to make sure Iraq didn't attack Saudi Arabia (our oil).
;)
Iraq was no threat the second time, we attacked them with no provocation and with no reason other than to steal from them.
What does someone's spouse have to do with their vote? Makes no sense to me... just don't discuss it with them if they don't agree with your politics if they won't be an adult about it. If if is a real problem, tell them what they want to hear and vote for who you like, problem solved.
Personally, I vote for the individual, not by party.
Iraq attacked America's interests. That is why we attacked them in both Gulf Wars, we didn't attack them because we were bored or didn't like Saddam.
We attacked them for two, well one, main reasons. To keep Iraq out of Kuwait's oil (our oil) and to make sure Iraq didn't attack Saudi Arabia (our oil). Just because we don't agree with the reason doesn't mean there wasn't one.
America will never attack a country if it doesn't affect our national interests and looking at Africa, Saudi Arabia, and Israel proves this.
The U.S. Military isn't here to defend American "interests", oil supplies, or investments abroad, it's here only to defend American soil and people.
Kuwait was practicing slant drilling and were stealing 14 billion dollars of Iraq's oil. Iraq had warned them about this many times, and told them to stop or face a war. They didn't. Saddam Hussein met with the U.S. Ambassador to Iraq (April Gillespie) and told her they were preparing to invade Kuwait to stop them from stealing Iraqi oil.
April Gillespie told Saddam, "We have no opinion on the Arab-Arab conflicts, like your border disagreement with Kuwait" and "We take no position" which gave a green light for Iraq to invade because it said the U.S. government was not taking sides in the dispute. Then America launched an unprovoked attack against Iraq.
There is no legitimate justifiable or defensible position to support the war in Iraq from a libertarian or Constitutional perspective.
I agree with you Radar, it isn't justified, but America did attack to protect its "interests".
Iraq never attacked America, never helped anyone else attack America, never planned any attacks against America, and had no connection or collusion with anyone who has done these things.
Basic history. Saddam was doing everything possible to remain a close American ally. He simply made one mistake. Saddam completely misread what Americans told him as permission to attack Kuwait.
Remember the real reason why Cheney, Rumsfeld, Wolfovich, Feith, etc needed to attack Iraq. Their legacy. Goes right back to the purpose of war - settlement at the peace table. When responsible men are leaders, then terms and conditions for surrender are defined up front. Military victories are thrown away when 'plans for the peace' are not made. Instead of making those plans, Cheney, Rumsfeld, etc were busy drinking champagne. Swartzkopf had to make up those terms 'on the fly' because Cheney, Rumsfeld, etc did not do their jobs.
Well, Saddam would have been gone AND without a Baghdad invasion. 'Big dic' types too often misunderstand how diplomacy can accomplish so much more without excessive warfare. Cheney, Rumsfeld, Wolfovich, etc did not do their jobs. Saddam remained because these 'big dic' types did not do their jobs.
Why must Cheney, Rumsfeld, etc get a hard-on about Saddam? If they did not take out Saddam, then history will blame Cheney, Rumsfeld, Wolfovich, etc. Neo-con legacy is at stake.
Now here is the part that totally mystifies me. Having not learned basic military doctrine, then, well, ... 'Fool me once; shame on you. Fool me twice...' And yet Rumsfeld, Cheney, Wolfovich, etc again made the same stupid mistake. Instead of planning for the peace, they again thought everything is won only using military conquest. These fools actually thought that democracy and prosperity would spring up as soon as the 3rd ID took Baghdad. They did nothing - zero - for seven months to plan for the peace. These idiots - Cheney, Rumsfeld, etc - even created the Iraq insurgency. They probably even financed it.
Ask yourself where 65 tons of American money disappeared into Iraq - with no accounting. $12 billion in American currency has probably financed the insurgency ... just like in Vietnam.
UG said he was reading Thomas P.M. Barnett's Blueprint For Action: A Future Worth Creating in this
post on 9 Nov 2006. Why is UG so silent? These concepts of 'planning for the peace' are more complex than Animal Farm. Concept contrary to his political agenda. So UG only comprehends what agrees with his political agenda? Surprise UG. Thomas Barnett was brought into the White House when they thought he was talking about their political agenda. Cheney, Rumsfeld, Wolfovich, etc had but another chance to learn how not to make the same mistake again. And like Urbane Guerrilla, their political agenda is more important than reality. Neo-cons failed to understand what Barnett was talking about - because extremists only know things defined by a poltical agenda.
Saddam was never a threat. Saddam was doing everything possible to remain a close American ally. So close that we gave him access to the most secret satellite photographs. How did America end up at war with Saddam? Well, how did America end up at war with another American ally - Ho Chi Minh? It is called learning the lessons of history - as even defined in military doctrine 2500 years ago. And yet still the 'big dic' types such as UG refuse to learn from facts. 'Big dics' instead 'know' using a political agenda.
“Mission Accomplished” is about the legacy of Cheney, Rumsfeld, Wolfovich, and those other neo-cons who failed to 'plan for the peace'. Failed in Desert Storm because they used political agendas rather than logic from history to make decisions. Just another reason why intelligent people are centrists. Richard Reed (another extremist) demonstrated same intelligence when he could not give himself a hot foot.
“Mission Accomplished” is about the legacy of extremists AND now about protecting George Jr's legacy. American soldiers are as expendable as 65 tons of American cash. And yet Urbane Guerrilla calls Cheney, Rumsfeld, Wolfovich, Feith, etc good men? Good extremists maybe. Good men. No. They have a political agenda and a legacy to protect. We are nothing more than cannon fodder for their political agendas. Protecting their legacy is the reason for "Mission Accomplished". Protecting George Jr's legacy is why they ignore the Iraq Study Group and other intelligent solutions.
Meanwhile, Urbane Guerrilla suddenly went very quiet about reading Thomas Barnett. Barnett was not promoting UG's political agenda. Thomas Barnett, instead, demonstrated by UG's favorite extremists had to attack Saddam again (to protect their legacy) - and made the same mistake again (did not plan for the peace).
The U.S. Military isn't here to defend American "interests", oil supplies, or investments abroad, it's here only to defend American soil and people.
Now I'm beginning to see why you have such trouble with foreign policy, Radar. American soil and people can't be separated from American interests, nor disentangled from American investment. Isolationism of the description you imply you prefer here only worked when the fastest speed of communication was a sailing ship
and when the Royal Navy so dominated the Atlantic that any other great European power had no hope of meddling in any development in the North American continent -- and after the middle nineteenth century, considerably less hope in South America, too.
Isolationism, I consider, is a nonstarter. It also greatly inhibits the creation of wealth, an idea very popular with Libertarians IIRC.
April Gillespie told Saddam, "We have no opinion on the Arab-Arab conflicts, like your border disagreement with Kuwait" and "We take no position" which gave a green light for Iraq to invade because it said the U.S. government was not taking sides in the dispute. Then America launched an unprovoked attack against Iraq.
Shortchange Kuwait, an ally of ours, just like that, eh? Day-um. I'd say invading what was likely our best friend in the region would be sufficiently provocative, especially in view of American people and investment effort being inextricably united and in essence one. And of course there is the abuse the Kuwaiti population took -- typical of what happens when a non-democracy turns internationally coercive. More libertarian (democratic) societies discourage this; nondemocracies actively promote abuses, outrages, and mass robberies of one description or another.
Unprovoked, my Libertarian ass, Radar! The Iraqi Army under Saddam Hussein violated the principle of self-ownership and the principle of non-aggression.
Have you ever been outside the borders of the United States?!
There is no legitimate justifiable or defensible position to support the war in Iraq from a libertarian or Constitutional perspective.
If you want libertarianism to happen anywhere, in any time before the sun goes into red giant phase and melts our Earth away, you'll drop this idea. To get libertarianism, antilibertarian regimes will have to be removed. It is not in the nature of such regimes to go quietly.
Remember, Paul: you're not the only man in the room. In politics, unlike in math, there is often more than one answer.
Tw, shut your yap. I checked Barnett back out of the library to continue my reading. When I'm ready, we'll speak on it.
Tw, shut your yap. I checked Barnett back out of the library to continue my reading. When I'm ready, we'll speak on it.
Urbane Guerilla has been so humiliated that he will now read Thomas Barnett's book. It's tough reading - too complex for UG. No wonder he put it down.
Well at least we now know UG is human. He just cried ouch. UG - I am just like the wife you will never have. I remember.
Now I'm beginning to see why you have such trouble with foreign policy, Radar. American soil and people can't be separated from American interests, nor disentangled from American investment. Isolationism of the description you imply you prefer here only worked when the fastest speed of communication was a sailing ship and when the Royal Navy so dominated the Atlantic that any other great European power had no hope of meddling in any development in the North American continent -- and after the middle nineteenth century, considerably less hope in South America, too.
Isolationism, I consider, is a nonstarter. It also greatly inhibits the creation of wealth, an idea very popular with Libertarians IIRC.
Shortchange Kuwait, an ally of ours, just like that, eh? Day-um. I'd say invading what was likely our best friend in the region would be sufficiently provocative, especially in view of American people and investment effort being inextricably united and in essence one. And of course there is the abuse the Kuwaiti population took -- typical of what happens when a non-democracy turns internationally coercive. More libertarian (democratic) societies discourage this; nondemocracies actively promote abuses, outrages, and mass robberies of one description or another.
Unprovoked, my Libertarian ass, Radar! The Iraqi Army under Saddam Hussein violated the principle of self-ownership and the principle of non-aggression.
Have you ever been outside the borders of the United States?!
If you want libertarianism to happen anywhere, in any time before the sun goes into red giant phase and melts our Earth away, you'll drop this idea. To get libertarianism, antilibertarian regimes will have to be removed. It is not in the nature of such regimes to go quietly.
Remember, Paul: you're not the only man in the room. In politics, unlike in math, there is often more than one answer.
I don't support isolationism. I support free trade and good will with all nations. When American companies invest abroad, they accept the risks associated with that investment, and the U.S. military is NOT here to protect those investments, or other nations.
The trouble with unlibertarian ilk like you is you can't separate military non-interventionism from isolationism. I'd be willing to bet you I've been outside the U.S. far more than you.
Whether or not Saddam and Iraq were violating libertarianism or initiating force (which they weren't because they were using force in the defense of their property), is completely irrelevant. The only thing that is relevant is whether or not they were using force against US!
Mr. Michael Lind talks about this topic in a current edition of bloggingheads.tv (don't click unless you enjoy watching an hour of nothing but political discussion)
I was so impressed by Lind's thoughts on this that I transcribed a bit:
LIND: I wrote The American Way of Strategy to defend what I think is the mainstream tradition of American internationalism that coalesed in the first half of the 20th Century and, underpins a lot of our strategy up until the end of the cold war.
This is not my theory; this is not M.L.'s theory of the world, this is not some kind of academic theory I'm promoting, I'm trying to excavate an existing tradition that you can trace back to Theodore Roosevelt, to Franklin Roosevelt, to Woodrow Wilson and his advisors, Secy of State Robert Lansing, journalists like Walter Lippman. To sum up, the book explains what Woodrow Wilson meant when he said that the US and its allies must "make the world safe for Democracy". Wilson did not say the US and its allies must make the world Democratic, but safe for Democracy. And I explain what that means.
PINKERTON: That's an interesting point, because in Wilson's 14 Points, the word Democracy doesn't appear. He talks about national self-determination, but not Democracy. So when you say this, what did President Wilson have in mind as you articulate?
LIND: What is a world safe for Democracy? It's one in which the security costs imposed on the United States by the outside world are sufficiently low that the US can afford to have a liberal, Democratic/Republican system with separation of powers, with a civilian economy and so on.
It was the fear, both in WW1 and in WW2 and the years preceding, and also in the late 1940s/50s, that if Germany or the Soviet Union were allowed to become the dominant superpower in the world and to encircle us in the oceans, and in the Western hemisphere, we Americans would give up much of our Liberty and much of our Democracy... voluntarily.
That is, we were in no danger of being conquered by the Germans, and the Russians weren't going to occupy Minnesota or Kansas. What the Wilson administration and the interventionists in WW1, and Franklin Roosevelt and the cold war interventionists feared was -- and they said this explicitly, I quote it in my book -- it's seldom quoted nowadays, but this was the major argument for intervention in the world wars and the cold war. The fear was that the US would have to become a garrison state -- voluntarily.
That is, we would voluntarily cede a lot of our liberty to the government to be secure, we would voluntarily have enormous levels of defense spending in a world in which the dominant superpower were Germany or the Soviet Union.
So when politicians say that we intervened in the World Wars and the Cold War to defend our Liberty at home, I argue they're quite right, but what they need to say is, to defend our Liberty from our own government, which we would reluctantly but voluntarily turn into something of a militariized police state if we had to create a fortress America. And it was in order to avoid creating a fortress America that we nipped this trouble in the bud.
We never allowed Germany to consolidate its would-be Euro empire and its two atempts to conquer Europe. And we never allowed the Soviet Union to intimidate Western Europe and Japan into submission and to divide them from the US.
I think that's something that needs to be explained, because otherwise if you say, "American soldiers have fought and died abroad defending our Liberty", that just seems like cheap rhetoric if you think well, come on, the Kaiser wasn't going to conquer the United States, and the Soviets weren't going to invade California.
And THAT, Mr. Radar, is how WW1, WW2 and the Cold War threatened Liberty, and the real reason they had to be fought.
Similarly, some level of War on Terror has to be fought -- whether it's military, or police/intelligence -- partly because losing a WTC every five years (or whatever) is not an acceptable loss in our economy, but mostly because the country can't stand an ever-increasingly potent Patriot Act every five years.
Very well said, UT.
Tw, I'm man enough, if you're woman enough. But jayzus, you're the man with the smallest set of interpersonal skills and smarts I've ever known, and I've a fairly wide circle of acquaintances. Marrying two simultaneously would be pretty big'a'me, but there are legal hurdles to overcome...
Mr. Michael Lind talks about this topic in a current edition of bloggingheads.tv (don't click unless you enjoy watching an hour of nothing but political discussion)
I was so impressed by Lind's thoughts on this that I transcribed a bit:
And THAT, Mr. Radar, is how WW1, WW2 and the Cold War threatened Liberty, and the real reason they had to be fought.
Similarly, some level of War on Terror has to be fought -- whether it's military, or police/intelligence -- partly because losing a WTC every five years (or whatever) is not an acceptable loss in our economy, but mostly because the country can't stand an ever-increasingly potent Patriot Act every five years.
That Mr. Undertoad, this is less than a poor excuse to be involved in those wars, but topic at hand isn't those wars, it's America's unwarranted, unjustified, unprovoked, and unconstitutional involvement in Iraq that is both unAmerican, and unlibertarian.
The author's laughable premise is that if we didn't practice tyranny and military interventionism abroad, we'd have to do it at home. That's utterly ridiculous and the exact opposite is true. If we weren't going around the world making enemies, we wouldn't have to worry about attacks at home.
America's unwarranted military interventionism always has unpredictable, and unwanted consequences. It was America's involvement in WWI, that created the conditions that allowed Hitler to come to power and make WWII. It was because of WWII, that we had to develop nukes, and this led to the cold war. It was because of the cold war that we had the Korean war, and we armed and trained Osama Bin Laden, and put him on the CIA payroll. America put Noriega, Khadafi, Hussein, and Khomeni in power due to our meddling in the affairs of other nations.
If we mind our own damn business, we don't have to have a bloated, military creating empires and certainly wouldn't have to infringe on the liberties of Americans at home. Our freedoms are not up for grabs, and aren't for the government to take or even to decide upon.
UG, not only was what UT posted not "well said", it bordered on being retarded.
