On Fri, Mar 21, 2008 at 5:57 PM, Robert Munn <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > On Fri, Mar 21, 2008 at 2:59 PM, denstar wrote: .... > I'm implying no such thing. I'm suggesting that at the highest > > levels, the "definition" of torture is being tested. > > > > That is why we have an indepedent judiciary, to provide clarity on the > limits of Executive and Legislative power.
But you see what I'm getting at with the torture, right? Why should clarity be needed? > and the Judiciary and Congress have pushed back. Give and take of the > Constitution. It seems like it's just been take take take, as far as the constitution is concerned. And I'm not saying it started with this administration, but this one has really been quite bad. A lot of damage done in a very short time, comparatively. > If you believe that then you obviously haven't studied Constitutional > history. People are people, they do good and bad. Our structure of > government is designed to contain the damage that can be done by any single > branch of government, precisely because the Founders expected each branch of > government to push the envelope. My point is that one branch has been doing things to get around the others. Now, I know you'll say "that's how it always is", and maybe to some extent it is. But due to the whole "terrorists" deal, these guys have really run amok. Aided by people who honestly think it's o.k. to trade little bits of freedom for feelings of safety. And please don't tell me "we haven't been attacked again, look how much safer we are". And PLEASE please don't use some example of how giving up X liberty has made us safer-- I'm scared to fly now, but it's the TSA I fear, not Al Gayda. > > Why do you support the continued erosion of our liberty? "That's how > > it works" is just, well- depressing, man. > > > > I don't support it. I support specific measures that are finite in scope and > duration to combat terrorism. As I noted in another thread, this business of > using the Patriot Act to nail Spitzer for prostitution is no good, and the > rules need to be changed. I think this is what cognitive dissonance looks like. :-) I enjoy, and employ, positive thinking as much as the next guy (if not more), but... > No, I said I would put a bullet in KSM, and I stand by that statement. The > guy is a mass murderer of the first order. What would you do, put him in a > cushy federal prison with cable tv? Screw that. The only reason he is still > alive is that he might be useful to us. Otherwise his ass would have been > executed years ago. I'd rather make him work for the rest of his life doing some kind of hard (not cushy) restitution. That's pretty much how I feel about all bad guys, even really bad guys. I'm [generally] against the death penalty... > > We should be firmly, FIRMLY against torture, as every Good American knows. > > Agreed. We're probably closer in agreement than we think, on various ideas, but using different paths. Course, life is the journey, not the destination. :-) > Once again you are jetting off to the land of hyperbole. Your implication is > that all earmarks are by their very nature some form of bribery, and that is > both ridiculous and insulting to the people that represent us in government. > My Congressman (the Dukester) was involved in bribery over government > contracts, and he is in jail now where he belongs. You keep holding the exception up as if it proves the rule. I'm probably coming off too strong, because I wasn't implying that ALL earmarks are de facto bribery. I'm not trying to be ridiculous or insulting to our representatives. I think that until we stop expecting them to be slime, they probably will be. :] > > I'm not holding myself to, say, Iran or China's standards. > > > > No one in this country is, that's the point. Weren't you just comparing us to them? > > The very fact that you see these changes as "small accommodations" > > belays a lack of critical thinking. > > > > I have thought through both sides of the issues very carefully. You only > seem to ever think about one side of the argument. Fine, that's your choice, > but it hardly represents any kind of serious critical thinking. Although it might appear that I'm one sided, don't conflate putting weight on one side with being un-aware of the other. I realize that there is good that comes out of some of this stuff. I just don't think it's worth the price. Like, the DWI roadblocks might save lives, which is good. Who could argue that saving lives isn't good, right? I would argue that saved lives are not the end-all, be-all. I believe in a quality of life. I would rather not be stopped by police demanding papers, while crossing country lines. They didn't even ask me if I'd been drinking, the last time. I've personally seen this stuff degenerate into what it was never supposed to be. I don't need to ask a Roosky. :] > fellow citizens. You want to make no accommodations, that's your choice, but > most people in the country are not willing to gamble with their lives, or > with yours or mine. My point is that we've been making accommodations, and making accommodations, and making accommodations... I don't even like to fly commercial anymore. We're living in fear, and people use it to justify these "accommodations", which is sickening. Especially since this Administration has pushed fear so hard. "Vote for the other guy and you'll die"-- probably not a new slogan, but sheesh! I'm tired of catering to fear. It doesn't seem smart. The whole game is to make it seem like you're gambling with you life, isn't it? "Give up that liberty, citizen, or 'they'll' git ya!". I don't buy it. > > Your faith in the government is astounding. I'm not sure what else to > > say. > > > > Sadly, people who feel the way you do will probably be the death of the > > country. > > > > I don't have faith in government generally, I have faith in the checks and > balances of our Constitution, because I read history and I understand the > grown-up version of how our country actually works, not the fairy-tale > version that you believe in. Government is ugly. Welcome to the sausage > factory, don't get blood on your shoes. :-) Indeed. What's funny is I was going to say YOU were being naive! > ==== > "It has been said that democracy is the worst form of government except all > the others that have been tried." > > -Winston Churchill Now THAT dude knew how to get the message across (to most folks). And that's a great closer-- I don't think our democracy has been working quite right, especially lately. -Denny -- "Fear - jealousy - money - revenge - and protecting someone you love." ---- Frederick Knott - Max Halliday, listing the five important motives for murder, Dial M for Murder (1952) ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~| Adobe® ColdFusion® 8 software 8 is the most important and dramatic release to date Get the Free Trial http://ad.doubleclick.net/clk;160198600;22374440;w Archive: http://www.houseoffusion.com/groups/CF-Community/message.cfm/messageid:257183 Subscription: http://www.houseoffusion.com/groups/CF-Community/subscribe.cfm Unsubscribe: http://www.houseoffusion.com/cf_lists/unsubscribe.cfm?user=11502.10531.5
