|
Register | Sign In |
|
QuickSearch
EvC Forum active members: 65 (9162 total) |
| |
popoi | |
Total: 915,806 Year: 3,063/9,624 Month: 908/1,588 Week: 91/223 Day: 2/17 Hour: 0/0 |
Thread ▼ Details |
Member (Idle past 2512 days) Posts: 2544 From: boulder, colorado Joined: |
|
Thread Info
|
|
|
Author | Topic: Congress goes off the deep end | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Chiroptera Inactive Member |
quote: Heh. Where I'm from, that pretty much describes conservatives. "The fact that a believer is happier than a skeptic is no more to the point than the fact that a drunken man is happier than a sober one." -- George Bernard Shaw
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
New Cat's Eye Inactive Member |
So if congress passes a law against gun ownership you will be for it? Maybe not, but I wouldn't post on a forum calling to Democrats to explain why Congress passed it.
I'm looking beyond the politics, at the underlying rights being lost and their relation to core principles. If your looking past the politics then why did you call out to the Republicans?
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Quetzal Member (Idle past 5871 days) Posts: 3228 Joined: |
Sorry but I am a conservative Republican and I say warrantless searches are an abomination. The current Republican Party is not Conservative but Reactionary approaching fascist. Hear hear! I think I'm going to open a coffee house topic on this.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Silent H Member (Idle past 5819 days) Posts: 7405 From: satellite of love Joined: |
If your looking past the politics then why did you call out to the Republicans?
Uh... correct me if I am wrong, but the request for such a measure was by a republican president, and the measure (even if slightly weakened) was written and passed predominately by republicans. That's why I am asking republicans. If the dems had passed this I would be asking them, though they'd have less overtly conflicting principles to discuss. I am looking past the politics regarding its effects. holmes {in temp decloak from lurker mode} "What a fool believes he sees, no wise man has the power to reason away." (D.Bros)
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Jaderis Member (Idle past 3425 days) Posts: 622 From: NY,NY Joined: |
I don't know. My explanation involved maintaining a positive image while also doing things that would be deemed 'bad'. Like, they don't want to have to tell everyone when they're putting some dishonest wiretaps on terrorists. I don't care if they do but I can understand them wanting to hide it. We have to keep the good guys image. Holy...holy shit. My eyes must be deceiving me. So, in other words, in order to maintain the moral high ground, one does not actually have to have it, but only the illusion that one has it? It's okey-dokey to do dishonest, illegal or otherwise "bad" things as long as you are able to hide it? Wow. Just wow. As for the rest of your post, this is the only other thing I feel the need to reply to:
Again, I don't know. Congress passed it. I don't know what reasons they had for passing it but I trust their judgement. Isn't that why they are in congress, to make these decisions? They are in office in order to serve the people and to be our voices in the government. How in the hell can they be our voices or even pretend that they are serving in our interests if they do not have to answer to us or explain their rationale? They are not our parents. They are us.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
New Cat's Eye Inactive Member |
I am looking past the politics regarding its effects. Well then lets get to the effects. What effects are you thinking of? Abuse of power? I covered that, unreplied, in Message 24. How it is gonna affect you, or me? I don't think its going to affect me very much at all. A lot of people bitch about the Patriot act, and rightly so, but it hasn't had any impact on my day-to-day life. Same goes for this one I presume. What effects?
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
New Cat's Eye Inactive Member |
So, in other words, in order to maintain the moral high ground, one does not actually have to have it, but only the illusion that one has it? I've noticed that replies that begin with 'in other words...' or 'so you're telling me...' are misrepresenting you. I don't think a discussion about what consitiutes maintining the moral high ground is on topic.
It's okey-dokey to do dishonest, illegal or otherwise "bad" things as long as you are able to hide it? Wow. Just wow. Absolutely. We are fighting terrorists. People who will blow themselves up to take out a bunch of innocent civilians. Fuck them. If we have to torture a terrorist to learn the location of a hidden bomb, then torture away. But, we should not go public about the torturing we do. We should keep it hidden to mainain the 'good guys' image. The public doesn't need to know about everything that the government does, especially the bad (morally wrong) things that must be done to protect ourselves. If we need a secret wire tap to find key information and this legislation will enable it, then I feel it makes the legislation less bad. Now, I'm not totally for it, it does seem a little extreme, but I can imagine how it could be useful in a positive way.
How in the hell can they be our voices or even pretend that they are serving in our interests if they do not have to answer to us or explain their rationale? Well, if they actually are serving our interest, the rationale is less important. Like I typed above, I don't think we need to know about every little thing they are doing. Its about the big picture.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Chiroptera Inactive Member |
quote: Torture is never used to learn the location of a hidden bomb. The numbers of times in all of history where hidden bombs were located by the use of torture can be counted on one hand. Torture has always been a message that those in power send to the powerless to remind them of the actual power relationships. -
quote: Because Democracy cannot survive if we have an informed public. "The fact that a believer is happier than a skeptic is no more to the point than the fact that a drunken man is happier than a sober one." -- George Bernard Shaw
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Silent H Member (Idle past 5819 days) Posts: 7405 From: satellite of love Joined: |
What effects are you thinking of?
I thought I had already mentioned some. Let me try again. 1) Removes traditional powers from judiciary.2) Hands separate traditional powers of judiciary to executive and undetermined minority group within the legislative branches. 3) On top of the above, which is a problematic move in its own right (consolidation of power), the powers given are not clear, removing transparency and sureness in use of power. 4) Once given, the ability of the executive branch to conduct operations which are against civil rights, beyond means of the populace to check. You have not addressed any of these issues as far as I can tell.
I don't think its going to affect me very much at all.
It overtly removes a balance of power within gov't. The longterm consequences are more important than immediate ones. Under the new system, and precedent, the Congress may effect the Constitution (rights and powers) by partyline majority votes rather than amendments. The judiciary becomes a slave organ of the exec and legislative branches. Under the new powers given a corrupt executive branch will have extensive means to gather information on enemies and prosecute them.
I don't think its going to affect me very much at all.
We have a history of gov't corruption and misuse of extended powers. I'm not sure how your incredulity is supposed to wash that away. If it happened in the past, and the FBI and CIA admit such excesses have occured, why am I to believe it cannot happen again? There is a reason we have a judiciary which oversees investigations and checks them for valid access to personal information and communication. People have a right not to have that done. That the executive branch claims it won't do anything bad, and it might help is not enough. It doesn't matter if it's the nicest people in the world running the program, they don't have the right to do so, and every citizen has a right not to have it enacted on them.
A lot of people bitch about the Patriot act
This isn't about the Patriot Act. This is about what the executive and legislative branches have done in order to gain warrantless wiretapping powers. holmes {in temp decloak from lurker mode} "What a fool believes he sees, no wise man has the power to reason away." (D.Bros)
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Silent H Member (Idle past 5819 days) Posts: 7405 From: satellite of love Joined: |
If we have to torture a terrorist to learn the location of a hidden bomb, then torture away. But, we should not go public about the torturing we do. We should keep it hidden to mainain the 'good guys' image.
Hussein tried to do this and we said that showed how horrible he was. That his gov't was a nontransparent system trying to hide its abuses. Remember Bush said that. It is not about what you look like, but what you do. Transparency is important in this.
The public doesn't need to know about everything that the government does, especially the bad (morally wrong) things that must be done to protect ourselves.
A person might not be a terrorist and might not know the location of a bomb. We've had at least two documented cases of people wrongfully tortured by the US gov't since 9/11. Once released they do tend to talk. What are we supposed to do about them? Kill them to maintain our image? I might add that you have yet to explain why removing human rights are necessary (must be done) to protect us. You have suggested they might be useful, though not any more so than anything else we could do without removing rights. Besides which once we remove rights we are removing actual protections. That's what we're supposed to be fighting for. I believe the quote was "give me liberty or give me death", not "give me protection even if it kills me". Edited by holmes, : better holmes {in temp decloak from lurker mode} "What a fool believes he sees, no wise man has the power to reason away." (D.Bros)
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
New Cat's Eye Inactive Member |
I don't speak type for Republicans, but everyone defends their party by smearing their opponents. I see a lot less of that from the Democratic party.
I only saw one smear campaign commercial during the highlights of the (awesome) Cardinals game last night. Guess what, it was paid for by the Republicans. I just though I'd say "You told me so".
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
New Cat's Eye Inactive Member |
1) Removes traditional powers from judiciary. 2) Hands separate traditional powers of judiciary to executive and undetermined minority group within the legislative branches. 3) On top of the above, which is a problematic move in its own right (consolidation of power), the powers given are not clear, removing transparency and sureness in use of power. I guess I was talking about actual effects we will see on the people. This just outlines what the legislation does.
4) Once given, the ability of the executive branch to conduct operations which are against civil rights, beyond means of the populace to check. That's what I was talking about. I really don't think that is going to affect me. Actually, I don't give a shit if they listen to my phone calls. They'd probably be bored to tears. That its a violation of my rights and that they don't really have a right to do it is basically the argument, yeah?
The longterm consequences are more important than immediate ones. What consequesnces do you expect?
Under the new powers given a corrupt executive branch will have extensive means to gather information on enemies and prosecute them. Won't they have that even if they aren't corrupt?
We have a history of gov't corruption and misuse of extended powers. I'm not sure how your incredulity is supposed to wash that away. If it happened in the past, and the FBI and CIA admit such excesses have occured, why am I to believe it cannot happen again? It can happen again.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
New Cat's Eye Inactive Member |
Transparency is important in this. I fine opinion that I might only disagree with in the level of importance.
What are we supposed to do about them? Kill them to maintain our image? I don't know how to solve that problem, but I wouldn't want them killed.
I might add that you have yet to explain why removing human rights are necessary (must be done) to protect us. I don't plan on it either.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
crashfrog Member (Idle past 1466 days) Posts: 19762 From: Silver Spring, MD Joined: |
I gave it a quick look and didn't find anything. Reagan described that phrase as "the most terrifying words in the English language."
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
New Cat's Eye Inactive Member |
Reagan described that phrase as "the most terrifying words in the English language."
Well I found a Reagan quotes page with it on there.
quote: I haven't seen the quote in context. You think this quote means that conservatives should distrust the government? I thought I'd go OT for a sec and post some other quotes from Reagan form that page that I thought you would disagree with, and maybe not put so much weight in Reagan's quotes, not that I have a problem with them.
quote: And finally,
quote:
|
|
|
Do Nothing Button
Copyright 2001-2023 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved
Version 4.2
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2024