|
Remember that FDR used a radio address to lead the entire nation in prayer on the eve of D-Day.... sounds a lot like what Sarah Palin said.If FDR said, "God demands that the TVA build this dam!" I'd totally condemn that statement as well.
I was actually refering to her statements about the Iraq War with that analogy.
I know what a Miranda warning is. Are you seriously trying to tell me that the beef people have with Gitmo is that the prisoners there weren't read their Miranda card when they were sent there? And who cares if 3/4 of the world's population has no rights to habeas corpus or fair trials - therese are hardly countries you Americans would like to compare yourselves to. Hell, Norway no longer extradites prisoners to the United States...
The funny thing about this discussion is that back home in Norway, I've generally voted for the Conservative party; here in the US, the political map is skewed so far to the Right that I have serious reservations about a lot of the Democratic Party. Context is apparently everything.
no, i'm seriously trying to tell you that if that one comment is enough to make you say what you said, your perspective is seriously skewed.
oh, yeah, and apparently your neighbor in scandanavia is getting quite tired of their recent immigrants driving the crime rate up. a few more years, and you may find europe's political map "skewed"...
I realize that the TEXT of the speech differs from my take from listening to it, but it struck me as more along the lines of 'more worried about reading rights [than stopping terrorists]'. (My quotes and inference from my middle-ground personal filter) They don't sound/shouldn't be mutually exclusive, but it could have been worded/spoken better.
Well, we should make sure these statements are true before we jump to conclusions. The media has reported a lot of bogus stuff about her the last few days.Fox News reports it as well. Aren't they supposed to be "fair and balanced"?
Yeah, she just might have gone over the deep end. LOL!
Remember that FDR used a radio address to lead the entire nation in prayer on the eve of D-Day.... sounds a lot like what Sarah Palin said.If FDR said, "God demands that the TVA build this dam!" I'd totally condemn that statement as well.
Let's look at what you quoted from her.
Also, regarding an Alaska pipeline: "God's will has to be done in unifying people and companies to get that gas line built, so pray for that," she said.
You can interpret that to mean building the gas line is god's will. And I would understand doing especially if one wasn't used to listening to religious individuals. On the other hand it could be interpreted, and I'd wager was meant, to mean that if this is going to get done then it will need god's intervention because the task (of unifying people and companies) seems so difficult.
The other comment.
Wow... just read this from her, regarding the troops in Iraq: "Our national leaders are sending them out on a task that is from God," she said. "That's what we have to make sure that we're praying for, that there is a plan and that plan is God's plan."
Religious people believe that god has a plan for the world. And that we can't always see that plan. That god can use things that are horrible and turn them to good, if we are open to it.
|
OMG--Palin's speech was awesome.
She's snarky.Her big problem was her timing. She did not seem to recognize when to stop and let the audience go wild. That will give her some issues during the debate.
She mentioned the Bridge to Nowhere, and that might be giving the Democrats too easy a counterattack. Of course it could be a setup or a "gimme" to distract them from more significant issues.
What amuses me most is the response of the Talkings Heads. They were all desperate for her to flub it big time. Now they have to recognize her as a "legitimate" candidate, despite how she dismissed them as the people she was appealing to as part of the campaign. In particular the CNN lead up was highly partisan, with their one commentator taking a long hard look down her nose at Palin for trying to set the media up as fall guy for sneering at her, which of course was exactly what she was doing.
I am looking forward to seeing how everyone, the Obama-Biden campaign, the rest of the Democratic party talking heads (I already love their vicious counters at current colleague Lieberman and former colleague Thomspon), the bloggers, and the media. I would expect all of them drag Obama-Biden down into the deep muck in very short order.
I agree with that. Poor talking heads--now they have to decide if they're going to cover her and give her exposure, or bury her under the latest "Obama healed a dead dove back to life" story and keep losing ratings to Google News.
You're right, that part was a joke. But I still don't think there is anything wrong with a politician asking someone to pray for something. Harry Truman did sign a law instituting a National Day of Prayer after all.But the pipeline got built, so maybe there is something to it.David, you *can't* be serious.
Fair enough. I was more disturbed by her claiming to know God's will than I was by the call for prayer.
As Truman and others: I don't think the government has any business instituting a "National Day of Prayer," either. But you're right that there is clearly precedent for such things.
|
Nice part, too, about how she has saved Alaska taxpayers' money, seeing that Alaska has no income tax and no sales tax...
Anyone who says that clearly has no clue just how screwed up and overtaxed our system is. No income tax or sales tax, hmm great that just leaves taxes on every utility, oh satelite and cable, gas (oh wait Palin eliminated that tax, but how can she eliminate something that isn't there?) estate, business (hey ever buy anything guess what, your sales tax isn't the only tax you pay, no corporation has ever paid taxes ever. They just set prices to cover thier taxes so government gets a free pass because people never see it believe me I've seen it done) import tax, export tax... Yeah I have no idea where she could ever find a tax to lower, hmmm. And just so you know, I haven't even listed half the state taxes that are imbedded into the system, that isn't even begining to cover federal taxes which get their share.
Anyone who says that clearly has no clue just how screwed up and overtaxed our system is. No income tax or sales tax, hmm great that just leaves taxes on every utility, oh satelite and cable, gas (oh wait Palin eliminated that tax, but how can she eliminate something that isn't there?) estate, business (hey ever buy anything guess what, your sales tax isn't the only tax you pay, no corporation has ever paid taxes ever. They just set prices to cover thier taxes so government gets a free pass because people never see it believe me I've seen it done) import tax, export tax... Yeah I have no idea where she could ever find a tax to lower, hmmm. And just so you know, I haven't even listed half the state taxes that are imbedded into the system, that isn't even begining to cover federal taxes which get their share.Nice part, too, about how she has saved Alaska taxpayers' money, seeing that Alaska has no income tax and no sales tax...
I think the fact that the state has a government and a budget is probably sufficient to infer that they have taxes of some kind.
Religious people believe that god has a plan for the world. And that we can't always see that plan. That god can use things that are horrible and turn them to good, if we are open to it.
Christian people believe that, as do Muslims. Not all religious people do. Of course, it's your right to assert that non-Christian faiths are "cults" rather than religions, but that gets us nowhere.
But that's really beside the point. Nowhere in Scripture does it state that all Christians will be privy to all the inside workings of God's plan for all things. If she believes He has a plan, that's fine. If she implies that she knows what His plan is -- which she seems to be doing -- that smacks of very un-Christian hubris.
|
|
You can't fault a spiritual person for saying that god influenced their actions. They believe that no matter what, now if she instituted a mandatory church attendance or passed legislation saying that gods will be done then you have a crisis.
Obama is also deeply spiritual and has made quotes on numerous occasions that were similar in nature. Taking one line from a speech and focusing on it saying that it shows they are over the top is supposed to be the old style politics we are trying to move past isn't it?
|
|
I think the fact that the state has a government and a budget is probably sufficient to infer that they have taxes of some kind.Anyone who says that clearly has no clue just how screwed up and overtaxed our system is. No income tax or sales tax, hmm great that just leaves taxes on every utility, oh satelite and cable, gas (oh wait Palin eliminated that tax, but how can she eliminate something that isn't there?) estate, business (hey ever buy anything guess what, your sales tax isn't the only tax you pay, no corporation has ever paid taxes ever. They just set prices to cover thier taxes so government gets a free pass because people never see it believe me I've seen it done) import tax, export tax... Yeah I have no idea where she could ever find a tax to lower, hmmm. And just so you know, I haven't even listed half the state taxes that are imbedded into the system, that isn't even begining to cover federal taxes which get their share.Nice part, too, about how she has saved Alaska taxpayers' money, seeing that Alaska has no income tax and no sales tax...
I agree which is why his statement was so grating, because he implied that somehow there was no way she could have lowered the tax burden on the alaskan people. Her aproval rating in alaska should be enough to prove she gets the job done. Heck even liberals up there like her well enough.
Obama is also deeply spiritual and has made quotes on numerous occasions that were similar in nature. Taking one line from a speech and focusing on it saying that it shows they are over the top is supposed to be the old style politics we are trying to move past isn't it?
"We?" I don't know. I always liked the separation of church and state. I want a candidate who doesn't claim to be God's anointed representative on Earth -- that's what the religious wars in Europe were all about, the "divine right" of monarchs. I don't like any of the candidates specifically for that reason -- they claim to be qualified not because of intelligence or competence, but because of God's blessing. Isn't that what Amahnijad also says? And the Taliban?
"We?" I don't know. I always liked the separation of church and state. I want a candidate who doesn't claim to be God's anointed representative on Earth -- that's what the religious wars in Europe were all about, the "divine right" of monarchs. I don't like any of the candidates specifically for that reason -- they claim to be qualified not because of intelligence or competence, but because of God's blessing. Isn't that what Amahnijad also says? And the Taliban?Obama is also deeply spiritual and has made quotes on numerous occasions that were similar in nature. Taking one line from a speech and focusing on it saying that it shows they are over the top is supposed to be the old style politics we are trying to move past isn't it?
Well put. Though I have to like Obama in spite of what I perceive to be politically motivated piety because pragmatism is the only choice in an environment where it is *impossible* to get elected President of the United States if you aren't Christian.
|
|
Well put. Though I have to like Obama in spite of what I perceive to be politically motivated piety because pragmatism is the only choice in an environment where it is *impossible* to get elected President of the United States if you aren't Christian.
Clinton did just fine without emphasizing christ every speach. Obama is a spiritual person, he attended the same church for 20 years faithfully and was a member not just an attendee, You don't attend church for 20 years because you plan to one day run for president. How can you possibly see that as politically motivated?
Clinton did just fine without emphasizing christ every speach. Obama is a spiritual person, he attended the same church for 20 years faithfully and was a member not just an attendee, You don't attend church for 20 years because you plan to one day run for president. How can you possibly see that as politically motivated?
I don't see 20 years of church membership as politically motivated. I see the frequency during this campaign with which Obama mentions his faith as politically motivated.
America needs more energy ... our opponent is against producing it. Victory in Iraq is finally in sight ... he wants to forfeit. Terrorist states are seeking new-clear weapons without delay ... he wants to meet them without preconditions. Al-Qaida terrorists still plot to inflict catastrophic harm on America ... he's worried that someone won't read them their rights? Government is too big ... he wants to grow it. Congress spends too much ... he promises more. Taxes are too high ... he wants to raise them.
emphasis mine.
My wife and I are undecided...we see points we both like & dislike in both sides. We were watching her speech last night, and both commenting to each other that she was doing well and we liked her. But when she came to the point above we both looked at each other and said, "I'm not so sure I like that."
She probably didn't mean it the way it sounded, I can grant her that. I don't care what others have said about it only being a right of American citizens or whatever. It doesn't matter to me. That issue is more about being human than American. I believe that you should grant people their basic rights whether it's a law or not.
In my undecided view she shouldn't have said that.
And yes, one comment can make a difference in what people think.
|
|
Clinton did just fine without emphasizing christ every speach. Obama is a spiritual person, he attended the same church for 20 years faithfully and was a member not just an attendee, You don't attend church for 20 years because you plan to one day run for president. How can you possibly see that as politically motivated?I don't see 20 years of church membership as politically motivated. I see the frequency during this campaign with which Obama mentions his faith as politically motivated.
Ah see it was your choice of words then, piety is more than just his speaches it includes his actions and history IMO. therefor when you said his piety was political in nature I was seeing his pious nature, not just his speeches, I see where you are going with it, I just think you're seeing the genuine obama, and thinking that it's political.
Ah see it was your choice of words then, piety is more than just his speaches it includes his actions and history IMO. therefor when you said his piety was political in nature I was seeing his pious nature, not just his speeches, I see where you are going with it, I just think you're seeing the genuine obama, and thinking that it's political.Clinton did just fine without emphasizing christ every speach. Obama is a spiritual person, he attended the same church for 20 years faithfully and was a member not just an attendee, You don't attend church for 20 years because you plan to one day run for president. How can you possibly see that as politically motivated?I don't see 20 years of church membership as politically motivated. I see the frequency during this campaign with which Obama mentions his faith as politically motivated.
Indeed; it was a poor choice of words on my part.
And I may well be dead wrong about his motivations...it is just the impression I get.
|
|
Ah see it was your choice of words then, piety is more than just his speaches it includes his actions and history IMO. therefor when you said his piety was political in nature I was seeing his pious nature, not just his speeches, I see where you are going with it, I just think you're seeing the genuine obama, and thinking that it's political.Clinton did just fine without emphasizing christ every speach. Obama is a spiritual person, he attended the same church for 20 years faithfully and was a member not just an attendee, You don't attend church for 20 years because you plan to one day run for president. How can you possibly see that as politically motivated?I don't see 20 years of church membership as politically motivated. I see the frequency during this campaign with which Obama mentions his faith as politically motivated.
Trick is, who IS the real obama. While he was running for the democrati nomination, his faith scarcely came up until ( ironically) it was being called into question whether or not he shared or objected to his preacher's values(which in spite of the issue being dropped there never was an answer to that with which I was satisified. I mean for serious,were you a member of this church but not a regular attendee( in which case you dont go to church very often tsk tsk or worse your membership was part of a ploy to run for office in chicago) or did you go often and hear the speeches( and if so did you object , did you talk to your 'mentor' about them, was he cheering him on and agreeing))
Indeed, it was Hillary Clinton, not him, who defended religion as an impotant aspect of everyday life while obama was mocking it in San Francisco. However, now that it has become clear he needs to winner over some of those voters you hear a lot more "god" dropping in his speeches and rallies.
Maybe its the real him and he was afraid democrats were too secular to understand or maybe he's joining the long list of otherwise sane people who were forced to play the politics of faith. And just to be clear, the old politics aren't going anywhere. It amazes me that people are drinking the Kool-aid on this. Every single election cycle someone shows up saying they want to change the way Washington is run( I believe if you reference speeches made during Bill Clinton and George Bush's first campaigns a good bit of that rhetoric existed.) And well as you may have figured out, it never changes.
Ironically, his call for a new kind of politics IS politics as usual, the only reason anyone ever trumpets bi-partisanship or non-partisanship is when they want to get elected or re-elected to something.
|
Ah see it was your choice of words then, piety is more than just his speaches it includes his actions and history IMO. therefor when you said his piety was political in nature I was seeing his pious nature, not just his speeches, I see where you are going with it, I just think you're seeing the genuine obama, and thinking that it's political.
Also, he may make a point of mentioning it to get out in front of conservative commentators who harp on things like Obama not wearing a flag pin on his lapel or not holding his hand over his heart during the National Anthem.
Religious people believe that god has a plan for the world. And that we can't always see that plan. That god can use things that are horrible and turn them to good, if we are open to it.Christian people believe that, as do Muslims. Not all religious people do. Of course, it's your right to assert that non-Christian faiths are "cults" rather than religions, but that gets us nowhere.
But that's really beside the point. Nowhere in Scripture does it state that all Christians will be privy to all the inside workings of God's plan for all things. If she believes He has a plan, that's fine. If she implies that she knows what His plan is -- which she seems to be doing -- that smacks of very un-Christian hubris.
EDIT: Sorry. I had assumed that within the context of the discussion at hand it would have been understood I was speaking about religious people [like Gov. Palin]. It is true, you are right, that not all religious people believe in a god plan or even in a god for that matter. Notice she is not claiming to know ALL of god's plans, where you are getting that I have no idea. But she said was that "we" (again I assume she meant the people she was talking to) should pray that the plan for sending the troops to Iraq was part of god's plan.
|
|
It amazes me that people are drinking the Kool-aid on this. Every single election cycle someone shows up saying they want to change the way Washington is run( I believe if you reference speeches made during Bill Clinton and George Bush's first campaigns a good bit of that rhetoric existed.) And well as you may have figured out, it never changes.
On this specific point, I think it's largely because there aren't enough of us who follow up after an election to demand that politicians follow through on their campaign promises. There are a lot more people motivated and involved these days, since information and organizing tools are freely available for anyone who spends a few minutes being proactive, so hopefully this part is changing for the better.
So, my answer to this issue is that We the People have to actually do the job of supervising these employees we keep hiring (and, sometimes, re-hiring) every two, four, or six years. Voting is simply where politics starts; you (the general "you") can't act all surprised when these people don't do their jobs if you're not following along behind them to make sure it's being done. They won't always do everything you want, but if you're not telling them what they're doing right or wrong then you're missing out on your chance to have any say in things.
( edit: and lobbyists are more than happy to rush into that vacuum )
The depressing thing is, quite a lot of us can't even be bothered to show up for literally the absolute least you can do to be involved. It's true that not everybody has the luxury of taking time off to vote (whether working multiple jobs, raising families, etc.), but to me that just illustrates the need for Election Day to either be on the weekend or be a national holiday so everybody has a chance to participate.
Part of what I like about Obama is that he actively works on getting people to do more than just grouse about how all politicians suck. You know, that "community organizing" stuff that Palin was so perkily disparaging last night ;)
|
|
Nothing says "holy crap" like a vice presidential candidate who believes the U.S. military should be used as an instrument of God mandated holy
I don't want any potential vice president for this country believing that God is telling us to go to war anywhere. There is a constitution mandated separation of church and state in this country. McCain is a 72 year old man and his running mate is ready to fight "God's war" in the middle east. If this is anything with substance and not just smear it is very scary stuff.
|
|
Just as an interesting add on to Palin, there was an article on Yahoo this morning that she said she believed that God had instructed us to take military action in the middle east. Nothing says "holy crap" like a vice presidential candidate who believes the U.S. military should be used as an instrument of God mandated holy crusades.
I don't want any potential vice president for this country believing that God is telling us to go to war anywhere. There is a constitution mandated separation of church and state in this country. McCain is a 72 year old man and his running mate is ready to fight "God's war" in the middle east. If this is anything with substance and not just smear it is very scary stuff.
If you go back one page you will find that we have already been discussing this very issue. And again I would ask how this is any different than FDR saying "With Thy blessing, we shall prevail over the unholy forces of our enemy," while leading the entire nation in prayer.
p.s. I fixed the link for you.
|
|
So if she had said, They are going there to do good work and protect lives. that's fine but to say they are going there to do gods work (which is the same thing to spiritual people who believe in god) that's suddenly some aweful thing... It isn't like she said god spoke to me and said this is necessary. When people of faith think the right thing is being done they tend to also believe god is behind it. And saying something is gods work isn't the same thing as having church and state melded. Can anyone point to one piece of legislation by Palin that has religious backing or funds or supports religious institutions? She isn't using government to force religion on people she is saying that she believes when she does good things that god is behind it. Once again you really aren't going to get a religious person in office who doesn't. That includes Obama, Barr, and any of them.
EDIT: did anyone catch this - "Alaska Gov. Sarah Palin told ministry students at her former church"
So she was making these statements in church and she had the audacity to say god was behind it?
Nothing says "holy crap" like a vice presidential candidate who believes the U.S. military should be used as an instrument of God mandated holy
I don't want any potential vice president for this country believing that God is telling us to go to war anywhere. There is a constitution mandated separation of church and state in this country. McCain is a 72 year old man and his running mate is ready to fight "God's war" in the middle east. If this is anything with substance and not just smear it is very scary stuff.
Actually in some ways I might like it better than a cold rational for war. I mean look at places like Darfur. People being killed, tortured, raped, brutalized in the most inhumane was. And here we sit and all we do is say "tsk, tsk, naughty, naughty" but don't do jack to stop it. Why? Because there is no "profit" in it. What do those places offer us to make risking our people worth it? Jack squat. So we don't bother. Sometimes I would almost prefer a President and congress to say, "What is happening there is an afront to everything we hold dear and we will not tolerate it any longer." But then cool rationality comes in and says, "Hey at least it ain't us, too bad for them."
EDIT: did anyone catch this - "Alaska Gov. Sarah Palin told ministry students at her former church"
So she was making these statements in church and she had the audacity to say god was behind it?
Ha. I think someone was saying earlier that they didn't think religion should be discussed at all in public places, but at home and church was fine. Obviously for some that is out of place too. I think that it might still be ok to pray while hiding under your sheets, though for how long ...
It is getting as bad as being a smoker in Cali.
Just as an interesting add on to Palin, there was an article on Yahoo this morning that she said she believed that God had instructed us to take military action in the middle east. Nothing says "holy crap" like a vice presidential candidate who believes the U.S. military should be used as an instrument of God mandated holy crusades.
I don't want any potential vice president for this country believing that God is telling us to go to war anywhere. There is a constitution mandated separation of church and state in this country. McCain is a 72 year old man and his running mate is ready to fight "God's war" in the middle east. If this is anything with substance and not just smear it is very scary stuff.
If you go back one page you will find that we have already been discussing this very issue. And again I would ask how this is any different than FDR saying "With Thy blessing, we shall prevail over the unholy forces of our enemy," while leading the entire nation in prayer.
p.s. I fixed the link for you.
And again I point out that it doesn't matter what FDR did. I think the quotation above is out of line for a President, just as I think the "God's war" bit from Palin would be out of line for a Vice-President. Just because it has been done before doesn't make it a good idea (or any less scary).
Al-Qaida terrorists still plot to inflict catastrophic harm on America ... he's worried that someone won't read them their rights?emphasis mine.
....She probably didn't mean it the way it sounded, I can grant her that. I don't care what others have said about it only being a right of American citizens or whatever. It doesn't matter to me. That issue is more about being human than American. I believe that you should grant people their basic rights whether it's a law or not.
In my undecided view she shouldn't have said that.
And yes, one comment can make a difference in what people think.
There is a HUGE difference in acknowledging someone's inherent Rights/Freedoms and reading them the Miranda Warning while on a battlefield. I thought her choice of words was precise, but perhaps it was too subtle a difference?
The Dems want to make a War into a "Police Action" & treat people that run planes into buildings as mere criminals. They aren't planning mass jaywalking; they want to destroy our Nation & subject any that survive to a life without ANY freedoms!
If we catch them on US soil, it may be appropriate to handle them via the criminal courts, perhaps. However, if they are on an active battlefield, firing on US Solders or captured after such a fight, I see *NO* reason to treat them like anything other than Prisoners of War. POWs are to be treated humanely, but aren't subject to the same rules as your local police officer has to follow when you run a redlight.
Just as an interesting add on to Palin, there was an article on Yahoo this morning that she said she believed that God had instructed us to take military action in the middle east. Nothing says "holy crap" like a vice presidential candidate who believes the U.S. military should be used as an instrument of God mandated holy crusades.
I don't want any potential vice president for this country believing that God is telling us to go to war anywhere. There is a constitution mandated separation of church and state in this country. McCain is a 72 year old man and his running mate is ready to fight "God's war" in the middle east. If this is anything with substance and not just smear it is very scary stuff.
Bush said the same thing while in Israel. That God had told him to first strike Al Qaeda, and then to strike Saddam.
To be fair to the church, it seems as if they are the middleman being cut out of the deal since God seems to be skipping them and going to the "decider" directly.
So the problem might really be whether we can separate God from state, which unfortunately isn't really addressed adequately in the Constitution. I suppose the US government could pass a law saying God isn't allowed to talk to the President, but who is going to enforce that?
You mean like the United States Constitution, Article VI, section 3 text which states:
"...no religious test shall ever be required as a qualification to any office or public trust under the United States."Unfortunately the majority of people in the US are rigorously enforcing this "test" on all candidates. I wonder if people are aware that they are being unconstitutional when they do that (isn't that basically the same as being "unpatriotic" to use a term du jour)? ;-)
Also, I'm still frightened that people readily accepts statements like Bush's about getting direct orders from god... hearing voices much?
On the other hand using the US military to "make the world safe for democracy" or "stopping terrorism" doesn't strike me as being much different than using the US military for "God's holy crusade". Both involve invading someone else's country and land and blowing people and property up until the locals see the errors of their ways...or until they are all dead...or the US miltary takes too many casualties ...whichever comes first.
Here's a radical thought, why don't we just impeach and convict Presidents that go to war without a declaration of war from Congress...which Congress hasn't issued since World War II. That could put a crimp in God's plan next time He wants to use the US military to settle a score. It might also give us a say next time the elites that run this country decide to use us as cannon fodder.
One could also come to the conclusion that god must be a bit impotent in his power in this day and age since in the old testament he smote people and entire regions left and right. But apparently he's not able to do that anymore...?
I could offer a quick answer as to why he's not doing that anymore, but I think every Christian believer would vehemently disagree with me. ;-)
That is how freedom gets taken away. By incremental steps using lawyers and 700 page books passed as law that no one reads. Not by flying a plane into a building.
Give that man a cookie.
|
|
The terrorists are incapable of taking away our freedoms, only the people in government, that is Democrats and Republicans, can do that. They do this by first establishing legal precedents that things like a right to a trial, a right to a lawyer, a right to contest unlawful detention aren't the rights of certain people(like terrorists) despite the clear wording of the US Constitution. They then proceed to expand the definition of those certain people until they include you and me.
Also, if you say anyone designated a terrorist (or Enemy Combatant, or whatever) doesn't deserve the same rights as American citizens, then all it takes is for the government to decide you're an enemy combatant and you can say goodbye to those rights we're theoretically upholding by detaining, interrogating, and denying due process to suspected* terrorists.
* also, whatever happened to innocent until proven guilty? Is that something else we've reserved for American citizens who haven't yet been designated (with or without substantial (or not-so-much) proof) Enemy Combatants? And what kind of accountability is there for those doing the designating - their own say-so?
The Democrats and Republicans treat people who run planes into buildings exactly the same. They collect the remains in a bodybag, if they find any.
The terrorists are incapable of taking away our freedoms, only the people in government, that is Democrats and Republicans, can do that. They do this by first establishing legal precedents that things like a right to a trial, a right to a lawyer, a right to contest unlawful detention aren't the rights of certain people(like terrorists) despite the clear wording of the US Constitution. They then proceed to expand the definition of those certain people until they include you and me. That is how freedom gets taken away. By incremental steps using lawyers and 700 page books passed as law that no one reads. Not by flying a plane into a building.
True dat.
The terrorists are incapable of taking away our freedoms, only the people in government, that is Democrats and Republicans, can do that. They do this by first establishing legal precedents that things like a right to a trial, a right to a lawyer, a right to contest unlawful detention aren't the rights of certain people(like terrorists) despite the clear wording of the US Constitution. They then proceed to expand the definition of those certain people until they include you and me.Also, if you say anyone designated a terrorist (or Enemy Combatant, or whatever) doesn't deserve the same rights as American citizens, then all it takes is for the government to decide you're an enemy combatant and you can say goodbye to those rights we're theoretically upholding by detaining, interrogating, and denying due process to suspected* terrorists.
* also, whatever happened to innocent until proven guilty? Is that something else we've reserved for American citizens who haven't yet been designated (with or without substantial (or not-so-much) proof) Enemy Combatants? And what kind of accountability is there for those doing the designating - their own say-so?
Who watches the Watchmen? :)
The terrorists are incapable of taking away our freedoms, only the people in government, that is Democrats and Republicans, can do that. They do this by first establishing legal precedents that things like a right to a trial, a right to a lawyer, a right to contest unlawful detention aren't the rights of certain people(like terrorists) despite the clear wording of the US Constitution. They then proceed to expand the definition of those certain people until they include you and me.Also, if you say anyone designated a terrorist (or Enemy Combatant, or whatever) doesn't deserve the same rights as American citizens, then all it takes is for the government to decide you're an enemy combatant and you can say goodbye to those rights we're theoretically upholding by detaining, interrogating, and denying due process to suspected* terrorists.
Also, don't come crying when any other nation decides to do exactly the same thing and hold US citizens in the same way. To take it further, don't complain if any other other nation uses waterboarding as an interrogation technique, [sarcasm] since obviously it isn't torture. [/sarcasm]
Who watches the Watchmen? :)None of us, if Fox has their way ;)
"Surprisingly, Fox said it would rather see the film killed instead of collecting a percentage of the box office."
Argh. Awful. But a discussion for another thread.
Give that man a cookie.That is how freedom gets taken away. By incremental steps using lawyers and 700 page books passed as law that no one reads. Not by flying a plane into a building.
I might be wrong, but I think history, at least in the US, is actually against that. Often in times of crisis rights have been withheld, but after that time rights expanded farther than they were originally. And most of those issues with examples on the books have been there before anyone currently alive was born.
|
|
I might be wrong, but I think history, at least in the US, is actually against that. Often in times of crisis rights have been withheld, but after that time rights expanded farther than they were originally. And most of those issues with examples on the books have been there before anyone currently alive was born.Give that man a cookie.That is how freedom gets taken away. By incremental steps using lawyers and 700 page books passed as law that no one reads. Not by flying a plane into a building.
Well the problem with that though is that like the "drug war" the Terrorist threat" is one that can never be eliminated, the players may change and we might not have another attack, but in 30 years they can still say that there is an ever present danger from terrorism.
|
The problem with the nebulous "war on terror" is that we cannot say "the crisis has passed, let us re-expand human rights." We do not know the parameters of the war or its victory conditions. If the goal of the "war on terror" is stasis/preservation for current nation-states with various governmental transparency (i.e. any official govt. that will support the U.S.), then I doubt the contraction of human rights "for a limited term" will result in a re-expansion. I think many forms of expanded rights developed as a reaction to repression on the part of government or society, and we have only been lucky that it was not an anarchic reactive change that brought about more rights, but controversial political process (at least in the USA, and I could cite numerous exceptions, not least of which is the Civil War/War Between the States, which resulted in a limiting of state power in exchange for individual liberty).
Ninja'd by lastknightleft!
Al-Qaida terrorists still plot to inflict catastrophic harm on America ... he's worried that someone won't read them their rights?emphasis mine.
....She probably didn't mean it the way it sounded, I can grant her that. I don't care what others have said about it only being a right of American citizens or whatever. It doesn't matter to me. That issue is more about being human than American. I believe that you should grant people their basic rights whether it's a law or not.
In my undecided view she shouldn't have said that.
And yes, one comment can make a difference in what people think.
There is a HUGE difference in acknowledging someone's inherent Rights/Freedoms and reading them the Miranda Warning while on a battlefield. I thought her choice of words was precise, but perhaps it was too subtle a difference?
Perhaps. I didn't take it that way. But I do agree with you on the difference you are talking about, and also agree that the battlefield is not the place to do that.
The terrorists are incapable of taking away our freedoms, only the people in government, that is Democrats and Republicans, can do that. They do this by first establishing legal precedents that things like a right to a trial, a right to a lawyer, a right to contest unlawful detention aren't the rights of certain people(like terrorists) despite the clear wording of the US Constitution. They then proceed to expand the definition of those certain people until they include you and me. That is how freedom gets taken away. By incremental steps using lawyers and 700 page books passed as law that no one reads. Not by flying a plane into a building.
Thank you for that. I am in 100% agreement.
I have to say, if the right tries to scare people with terrorists, it is the left that tries to scare people with their own government (which is kind of ironic when you think about it).
|
|
Yeah, but I'm a right leaner (libertarian ftw) the right tries to scare people with government too. They just scare you by pointing out the fact that government is incompetent in most of the things it does, (you know, anything not military, government can't go wrong with military, unless its post service care)
On this specific point, I think it's largely because there aren't enough of us who follow up after an election to demand that politicians follow through on their campaign promises. There are a lot more people motivated and involved these days, since information and organizing tools are freely available for anyone who spends a few minutes being proactive, so hopefully this part is changing for the better.So, my answer to this issue is that We the People have to actually do the job of supervising these employees we keep hiring (and, sometimes, re-hiring) every two, four, or six years. Voting is simply where politics starts; you (the general "you") can't act all surprised when these people don't do their jobs if you're not following along behind them to make sure it's being done. They won't always do everything you want, but if you're not telling them what they're doing right or wrong then you're missing out on your chance to have any say in things.
Washington actually does change, though the trend over the last 20 years has not exactly been a good one. Partisanship is up. Congressmen and Senators are less likely to get together socially than ever before. They spend so much time beating the partisan drums away on fund-raising events that there isn't the same cameraderie that you saw even back in the 1950s and 60s.
Part of the blame has to be laid on the changes in American society and media. At the risk of sounding like Al Gore, the American public has become an increasingly passive element in politics as the media has amassed and conglomerated into radio and then television outlets. When we are called upon to pay attention to our politicians, it's through scultped sound-bites and photo-ops rather than Op-ed pieces that engage more of the brain for longer periods of time.And, let me just say, Washington is not getting any better as a result.
All the blogging that goes on, as much as we detract from bloggers with different political beliefs, is a sign that things might be able to change for the better... as long as the internet itself remains neutral territory. The barriers to participation actually can come down to a certain degree.
Now, one thing about complaining about how Washington is problematic, it's not just our politicians or even our lobbyists. If you may recall, when McCain-Feingold was passed, it cut off certain kinds of funding for elections and required the politicians to take a certain amount of ownership of the ads their campaign put out. But it's very hard to clamp down on every way someone will take advantage of the freedom of the press and speech. As a result, we've got fairly sleezy 3rd parties out there, as individuals and as astro-turf organizations, capable of throwing a lot of money around and getting really dubious ads on the television.
So, again, it's not just our politicians... it's us. Most of us aren't involved enough. And some of us are involved too much.
I have to say, if the right tries to scare people with terrorists, it is the left that tries to scare people with their own government (which is kind of ironic when you think about it).
Actually, both try to scare us with our government.
Right: "They'll take our money! They'll slow down our economy!"
Left: "They'll take away our rights! They'll throw us to the corporate wolves!"