Why are Republicans Wrong about Everything?

Search
Go

Discussion Topic

Return to Forum List
Post a Reply
Messages 41061 - 41080 of total 55267 in this topic << First  |  < Previous  |  Show All  |  Next >  |  Last >>
JEleazarian

Trad climber
Fresno CA
Feb 8, 2013 - 02:16pm PT
The failure of Libertarianism is that they don't protect any one's rights

To my knowledge, there has never been a Libertarian government, so its real failure is its inability to convince people in a democracy to vote for Libertarians.

"Libertarian" has at least two meanings. One is the formal libertarian Party, but the other means a political philosophy that places its greatest value on individual freedom. The arguments I see on this thread against libertarianism (under either definition) don't fit. Libertarians see the government's job as protecting individual freedom. Anarchists are the ones who want to abolish government. Nonetheless, I read every day critiques of libertarianism that are really critiques of anarchism.

It's really just a question of weight. Norton made a good argument for child safety restraints in automobiles. I think most libertarians would agree -- at least to a point -- that such restrains, which help to protect the rights of dependent children to live, are a justified restraint on the liberty of parents. At some point, though, the marginal utility of the restraints isn't worth the marginal loss of liberty of child and parent. What if we required such restraints for everyone (well, except the driver, since driving facing rearward is probably a bad idea). The passengers may be marginally safer, but is the discomfort worth it? Libertarians ask those questions. Big Government Authoritarians (of both parties) don't when they want to regulate someone else's behavior.

I, for one, am thankful that enough governmental officials -- and many of the founders of our Republic -- were sufficiently grounded in libertarian values to protect us from the worst of the excesses. This requires constant vigilance, because there are people of every political stripe that would love to use the government to impose their values on the rest of us.

John
JEleazarian

Trad climber
Fresno CA
Feb 8, 2013 - 02:19pm PT
What's the difference between a suspected criminal (who has rights under the Constitution) and an enemy combatant (who does not have rights under the Constitution) ?

I don't have a clear answer myself, nor have I heard a compelling case that any administration has acted egregiously outside the bounds of the Constitution when making these tough decisions.

BINGO!

John
ontheedgeandscaredtodeath

Social climber
SLO, Ca
Feb 8, 2013 - 02:24pm PT
Um, I'm pretty sure the constitution does not allow the president to kill citizens without so much as a trial. I'd say that's at least an unreasonable search and seizure. The problem is no one will ever have standing to challenge the practice, for obvious reasons.


Ron Anderson

Trad climber
Soon to be Nipple suckling Liberal
Feb 8, 2013 - 02:32pm PT
Not against the killing of our enemys, and the way we go about it. Yes drones are impersonal killing machines- that seem quite fit in dealing with an enemy that hides himself. But its a clear and present danger to allow the use of such against CITIZENS of this country.. Yes we have citizens that are members of a group that seeks our destruction. Yes right here in America. Yet HERE you wont see any drones flying over head on the way to a target. Perhaps a team of DHS and a helo or two.. We do not give that some consideration elsewhere. And that comes back to bite us in the arse.
Dave Kos

Social climber
Temecula
Feb 8, 2013 - 02:56pm PT
Um, I'm pretty sure the constitution does not allow the president to kill citizens without so much as a trial.

Any chance that during WWII, some US citizens living abroad put on a German uniform and fought against the US?

A quick google search suggests that there were at least a few cases of this.

Would it have been wrong for US forces under the command of FDR/Truman to kill these US citizens/German soldiers during the course of war?

Could these guys just shout from their Panzer tank during the Battle of the Bulge: "You can't shoot me - I'm a US citizen!"


ontheedgeandscaredtodeath

Social climber
SLO, Ca
Feb 8, 2013 - 03:05pm PT
That's a silly analogy. Point a gun at a soldier or cop and you reap what you sow regardless of citizenship.

The real problem is that we have a government and populace that thinks terrorism is a military threat. We spend trillions of dollars combating people who ride around in the back of 80s era Toyotas armed with weapons inferior to what I could buy at Walmart. All to prevent a statistically insignificant risk.
Dave Kos

Social climber
Temecula
Feb 8, 2013 - 03:31pm PT
Point a gun at a soldier or cop and you reap what you sow regardless of citizenship.

Uh...do you understand what terrorists do?


I agree with you that our government overstates the risks, and that we allocate far too many resources towards fighting terrorism. Most of this "war" is really about supporting the defense industry and its fat lobby. Your pragmatic argument is correct.

But the legal argument - that the President does not have the authority to kill enemy combatants abroad simply because they are US citizens - is not clear cut at all.


Norton

Social climber
the Wastelands
Feb 8, 2013 - 03:39pm PT
Um, I'm pretty sure the constitution does not allow the president to kill citizens without so much as a trial.

oh I wouldn't be so sure of that

the Constitution gives broad and vague powers to the Commander in Chief and charges the President with the security of the United States

The Constitution does NOT say the President can NOT kill a US citizen without first a trial IF it involves national security and not common law

and it does not say that he CAN, either


EXAMPLE: our intelligence people have recordings clearly implicating a US Citizen living in Iowa's plans to blow up a Federal building tomorrow.

We send Federal agents to arrest him and he opens fire, we kill him immediately.

Killed without trial, a US citizen, inside the USA - yes we sure can
Norton

Social climber
the Wastelands
Feb 8, 2013 - 03:51pm PT
JohnE said:
At some point, though, the marginal utility of the restraints isn't worth the marginal loss of liberty of child and parent.

John, can I assume you were being either a troll or sarcastic in what you said above?

surely you don't believe that.......????????
The Warbler

climber
the edge of America
Feb 8, 2013 - 04:39pm PT
One of them was a 16 YO kid eating lunch.

How many innocents of all ages eating how many things people eat do you suppose were killed in the course of the invasions and occupations of Iraq and Afghanistan, Tea Gee Tea?

Didn't hear you chirping about that, then.


PS - Just saw your hero Mitt Romney in the Copy Cove getting a fax sent. I asked him how he liked his new incognito life, and he said "much better, thank you", but that's about it.

Even he realizes the republican party is history, I guess.
dirtbag

climber
Feb 8, 2013 - 09:06pm PT
LOL, surprised no one brought this up earlier:






The Smoking Gun obtains photos hacked from the email accounts of George W. Bush's family and friends. "I have an old game with the f*#king bastards inside," the hacker tells the website. The game's current round involves photos of in-progress paintings that Bush sent to his sister.
....
We've learned previously that Bush took up painting after leaving the White House. According to Joe Hagan, who profiled the Bushes recently in New York, the former president was "making portraits of dogs and arid Texas landscapes.


Credit: dirtbag






http://www.slate.com/blogs/weigel/2013/02/08/george_w_bush_43rd_president_of_the_united_states_nsfw.html





And Bookie: four more years, baby, four more years. Suck on that! LOL.
Norton

Social climber
the Wastelands
Feb 8, 2013 - 09:10pm PT
JohnE, please say it's not so
ontheedgeandscaredtodeath

Social climber
SLO, Ca
Feb 8, 2013 - 10:57pm PT
EXAMPLE: our intelligence people have recordings clearly implicating a US Citizen living in Iowa's plans to blow up a Federal building tomorrow.

We send Federal agents to arrest him and he opens fire, we kill him immediately.

Killed without trial, a US citizen, inside the USA - yes we sure can

To change your hypothetical: He doesn't open fire but instead is driving around buying fertilizer. Can the government--constitutionally--fly a drone over his car and kill him? I think not.

Terrorism is not an act of war- it's a crime. Are the US born unibombers and Timothy McVeighs of the world engaged in civil war? No, and they were prosecuted like criminals just like many muslim terrorists have been prosecuted.

Ken M

Mountain climber
Los Angeles, Ca
Feb 10, 2013 - 02:25am PT
So what none of the naysayers....of either political pursuasion seem to be willing to answer, it the following ACTUAL situation:

A US citizen moves to a foreign country where no due process can be brought to bear, and engages in a prolonged process of murder attempts upon the US, with successes, and continues to engage in the process of planning and operationalizing such murders.

What ALTERNATIVE do you advise is the practical solution to dealing with this situation?

I have not seen ANY offered by anyone, anywhere.

I'm not particularly happy about the drone strikes, just as I was not happy about the neccessary removal of my patients' eyeball, to save his life from the melanoma that showed up on his retina. But it was the neccessary and practical solution to the problem, and saved his life.
dirtbag

climber
Feb 10, 2013 - 10:55am PT
Ken, those are my thoughts too. What is a viable Plan B?

And no, I am not giving Obama a pass just because I voted for him.
Ron Anderson

Trad climber
Soon to be Nipple suckling Liberal
Feb 10, 2013 - 11:26am PT
So that deserves a drone strike,, ok.. BUT WHAT about the countless govts that pose the exact same threats? What about the muslim brotherhood- a nice word for al-QUAAY-duh..What about Pakistan that holds our witnesses as war criminals? Lets just give them more money right? The lets just help install a shytty govt that the people in EGYPT are now fighting against. While letting N Korea refine their nuclear capabilities and set idly by as Iran does the same..But we will give THOSE govts F-16s ..????


And on and on it goes- where it will stop,, nobody knows.
Bruce Kay

Gym climber
BC
Feb 10, 2013 - 11:36am PT
I'm sure most anyone likes the idea of various violent neanderthal bigots being vaporized before they can do more damage . still, there does seem to be something a bit arbitrarily and wholly unaccountable in terms of justice don't you think? Can you imagine how outraged if say the Government of Sri Lanka decided to do a little droning of some alleged Tamil tigers in the back woods of North Carolinastan? I know Britain wound up being a little upset with Putin over the various assassinations that the Rusians are obviously guilty of. I'm sure they had their good reasons too. It seems like there are a lot of fogs of war going on all over the place.
Dr. F.

Big Wall climber
SoCal
Topic Author's Reply - Feb 10, 2013 - 11:40am PT
All you have to do to is kidnap a child and hold him at gun point

"THEY" will hunt you down, and KILL YOU,
no trial, judge or jury
Doesn't matter if you are an American, or Military, or a Congressman

I'm so tired of these Witch hunts that go on every time a Dem is in Office
Ken M

Mountain climber
Los Angeles, Ca
Feb 10, 2013 - 11:49am PT
Ron, if a gov't is DOING, not threatening, then we have the option of going to war in some fashion.

For example, the way that Reagan attacked Quadafi.

you keep talking about countries that have not allowed us in.....I think it is pretty clear that the countries where we have used them, have.

Ron I don't believe that Iran or N. Korea flies F-16's, or that we sell them such planes.

So that deserves a drone strike,, ok.. BUT WHAT about......

Sorry, Ron, NOTHING else is under consideration or being challenged. So you are out of line on that.
Ron Anderson

Trad climber
Soon to be Nipple suckling Liberal
Feb 10, 2013 - 11:53am PT
I believe that droning of US citizens was meant as a precedent setting action that ties directly into the NDAA 2013 laws. Why else would they take such an action against one individual? Because it was easy and a US citizen . While we leave the guy who actually found bin-waden for us -rot in a pakistan prison. Shouldnt that guy have a 25 million dollar pay check waiting for him?

And if we were truly concerned of ME goings on,, why isnt the testing of long range missiles by N Korea THE ISSUE? Why isnt the continuing by Iran to obtain Nuclear weapons THE ISSUE?

Why do we give 30 million dollar aircraft to Syria? Whos on FIRST!?
Messages 41061 - 41080 of total 55267 in this topic << First  |  < Previous  |  Show All  |  Next >  |  Last >>
Return to Forum List
Post a Reply
 
Our Guidebooks
Check 'em out!
SuperTopo Guidebooks


Try a free sample topo!

 
SuperTopo on the Web

Review Categories
Recent Route Beta
Recent Gear Reviews