Due to the prolific nature of these forums, poster aggression is advised.
Lastly, I have never given an opinion on a fact. I have given my opinion on how I think criminals should be treated. That's not something where there are facts. Treatment of criminals has always and will always be subjective. There are laws on it, laws written by people with opinions. Laws are not fact, laws are opinions. Let me give you an example. If my opinion was that white people were supperior to black people, I would be wrong. Science has disproved that. Humans are humans. However, if I thought black people should be slaves, that would simply be an opinion. Not one I agree with, but it would still be an opinion. It's the same thing with my opinions. My opinion isn't that there were WMDs in Iraq, because that is a fact that they in fact were not there. My opinion is that we would've had to go in there eventually anyway, for completely different reasons.
And just as a finishing note. If you like my opinion, give me a yay. If you dislike it, argue with me, or simply tell me you don't. But let's try to keep it civil. Banning me because of your assumption did nothing more than to kill this discussion and make it a spam thread.
Waldo, you're just an absolute pussy. You haven't contributed so much as an agreement post, and yet you feel you have the right to insult my opinion. Why don't you pull your head out of your ass before you go insulting other people, okay. And Waldo, just in case you aren't smart enough to grasp what I just said, I'm insulting you.
He gave tax breaks during a war which is running up the national debt.
All and all bush is just a terrible economic manager
It also coincides with the spread of democracy which is always a good thing.
I believe in preserving the life of the community.
I am a moral absolutist.
I think that if people have suspicious activities and information needs to be extracted from them to prevent future murders (either terrorist attacks in Iraq of Afghanistan or hits by the mafia in Boston or NYC) I believe it should be done, regardless of the methods employed on that person to get that information.
As long as no ones life is in danger I think due process should be folllowed, but if there are lives in danger I don't think it's fair to let the targeted victims be killed while we give criminals a trial.
Once criminals are convicted I really don't think they're entitled to anything, including their rights.
I mean, I don't think someone should lose their hands for stealing candy bars, but I don't think murders/rapists/terrorists/seditionists should get the humane treatment that they currently recieve.
And thusly I not only support, but am proud of what the U.S. is doing to captured terrorists in the Middle East.
Okay, I'm back.
It doesn't seem like most people really care what I have to say, so I'm considering whether I should even bother saying it. Basically I'll just summarize my points because people don't seem to get my point on things.
I don't believe in the war in Iraq, because it was executed badly. It was a stupid time. It was following another war. He gave tax breaks during a war which is running up the national debt. All and all bush is just a terrible economic manager. His economic minister couldn't even pronounce Keynesian economics. That's why I am against Iraq.
I do however, think it was a necessary invasion in order to help out of bussiness partners in the middle east. It also coincides with the spread of democracy which is always a good thing.
I believe in preserving the life of the community. I am a moral absolutist.
I think that if people have suspicious activities and information needs to be extracted from them to prevent future murders (either terrorist attacks in Iraq of Afghanistan or hits by the mafia in Boston or NYC) I believe it should be done, regardless of the methods employed on that person to get that information. As long as no ones life is in danger I think due process should be folllowed, but if there are lives in danger I don't think it's fair to let the targeted victims be killed while we give criminals a trial. Once criminals are convicted I really don't think they're entitled to anything, including their rights. I mean, I don't think someone should lose their hands for stealing candy bars, but I don't think murders/rapists/terrorists/seditionists should get the humane treatment that they currently recieve. And thusly I not only support, but am proud of what the U.S. is doing to captured terrorists in the Middle East.
Also, I AM NOT AUTHORTARIAN. I believe very much in democracy.
Nice backpedal. Yes, those things are opinions. I never said they weren't. The things you posted earlier that I pointed out are not opinions are not, however.
Not at all. It was an excellent way of demonstrating how authority can be wielded arbitrarily and to someone's detriment in a very, very limited way.
You don't understand what we're trying to point out to you, and I think a big part of you simply doesn't want to understand.
This is a "you don't have a grasp on some of the fundamentals here, so we're concluding this until you do" situation.
On that we both agree.
And, by doing so, he increased the government's revenue. Go figure. Works every time it has been tried.
No. President Bush's problem is that he spends like a liberal to appease them in hopes that they won't kill legislation that he wants passed. For some reason, Bush believes there is a I'll-scratch-yours-you-scratch-mine relationship with congress.
I'm not a believer in "installed democracy". People don't love democracy because it works. Democracy works because people love it.
As long as the community agrees with your viewpoint.
Yeah... morals are absolutely flexible. The ends justify the means.
The US government believes that buying and using illegal drugs contributes to the funding of terrorists. So, if I follow your logic, it's okay to torture the guy smoking a joint so that they can get to the drug lord that is supplying the drugs.
It could be argued that someone's life is always in danger.
Have you ever exceded the speed limit? Spit on the sidewalk?You're a moral what? One crime deserves different process than the other?
You know, you really won't win any sympathy for me here. I absolute hate drug dealers. So many of my friends I grew up with became nothing but stoners because of drugs. So basically, I can't answer this objectively, because I'd like to see drug dealers brutally tortured to death for ruining so many young people's lives.
It's not that we don't care, it's that it comes across as poorly rehashed propaganda we hear in plenty of other places without too much evidence of independent thought or understanding of the counter-arguments.
Re-read that. You're against the war in Iraq, but you think the invasion was a good thing. That makes you sound indecisive at best and utterly retarded at worst. But I think I know what you're saying: the idea was good, but the timing and execution were not. If that's what you mean, say so.
Furthermore, Keynesian economics is passe. It's already been proven - conclusively - to be untenable over an extended period of time. Modern economics is post-Keynesian.
Based on whose moral code? Seriously, this is a critical question.
What makes Baptist morality more right or wrong than Sharia law or Catholic morality or a self-evident code of behavior derived logically without some supernatural intervention?
So you're turning your back on a couple of centuries of phisiological and psychological studies that show conclusively that all torture succeeds in doing is getting people to admit to stuff in order to make the pain stop? Seriously: torture doesn't work. It never has.
We've already established that you do not value the Constitution as being the highest law in the land, tending to favour a more populist approach (i.e. the party/parties controlling the White House and Congress can trump the Constitution, should they so choose.)
The problem there is that when the government is above the law, then the law ceases to protect those who need it most.
When due process is suspended, it becomes easier for the government to silence its critics under trumped-up charges.
You also said you were a moral absolutist. This is contradictory.
Actually, the point of the ban was to reinforce the "might makes right" argument you'd been implying, if not stating outright.
When Trotsky advocated spreading the Revolution westward, he was seen as a global threat. Even though western regimes were threatened from within by progressive forces, the idea of "exporting Revolution" became abhorent even to those who would emulate the Soviet experiment. I assure you that Trotsky and his supporters had nothing but good intentions for the oppressed and suffering of the world, and dreamt the glorious Marxist utopian dream. But it made no difference. A revolution forced upon a people is just another form of oppression.I would have thought we learned that lesson.
I see the constitution as more of a guideline.
I think your stoner friends had a hand in it, too.You have a nanny-state mentality.
Here's yet another great example of where you are expressing your opinion about something which is actually fact.Just in case you're interested, again, you can express an opinion about factual items, but that opinion can be wrong in those cases, just the same as if you opine that left is right, up is down, north is south, or that the Constitution is "more of a guideline".
I never said might makes right. I don't agree with that at all. I said drastic times call for drastic measures, that's the pinacle of my argument.
My friends who first turned into stoners turned my other friends into stoners. They did have a hand in it eventually, but it still relates back to the drug dealers. As far as them making the choice to start, they were like 14, they weren't old enough to make serious decisions on their own.I don't have a nanny-state mentality at all. I actually largely believe the government should back off in many instances. Drugs included. I think drugs are such a problem is because they're banned. That's why they have criminal activity surrounding it. Cigaretes are bad for one's health, but they don't usually convert people to a life of crime. That's my thinking anyway.
The pinnacle of your argument contains the seeds of its destruction. Because the question is, who gets to define what "drastic" is? Our Admin. decided things were drastic enough to invade Iraq. It was not put to debate. They got to say things were drastic enough for drastic measures only because they were in charge, not because they were right.
You're all over the board, aren't you.
If the government backs off drugs, then who will punish the drug dealers? You?
And just because your friends were "like" 14 does not make them wards of the state. Where were their parents? Dealing drugs?
But like I stated in an earlier post. If there is a democracy the country can vote to change from a democracy to a prefered system.
In Trotsky's revolution, you were stuck with the dictator that took over.
Not to mention, it was a lot of aristocrats, monrachs, and sleezy bussinessmen that were the ones that were afraid of Trotsky. The lower classes were only afraid of him and his system because the government told them to be.
Politically? Yes, I agree with almost no one.
There would be no drug dealers. Drugs would be sold in gas stations with warning labels on them. Therefore, the government gets to tax the crap out of them, and it eliminates the crimes that go along with drug trafficing.
Their fathers were either dead, gone, or in prison. Their mothers worked like 60 hours a week in order to keep their houses.
I grew up in a poor neighborhood.
Yeah, that worked out great in Iran. Watch the same thing happen in Iraq.
No, not in theory. And theory is all we have to go on, because Trotsky's theories were never tested in practice.
The theory was that if you socialize an economy, even by force, and put control of the economy in the hands of the people (whatever that means), that the people will govern themselves so effectively that the very need for government will eventually dwindle. That is pure Marxism. Trotsky believed that this kind of state can be imposed. There was no built-in need for a dictator, just an interim authority to guide the socializing process.
Now, how different is that vision from the one you described?
That's just babble.
Even with yourself. I was saying that you are inconsistent.
And how would that have prevented your friends from becoming stoners?
Total Members: 4952