I also think the suggestion that America is completely blameless for the attacks against it is self-delusion of the most dangerous kind.
Osama had a rambling list of grievances.
1. U.S. troops on Arabian soil.
- The Saudi King invited U.S troops to be posted to protect against an invasion by Saddam. Osama ain't the Saudi King so he should have taken it up with him.
2. U.S. troops have icky girls and the girls actually drive cars and don't cover themselves up.
- Boohoo. Fuck Osama. If you really want to defend such misogyny, then you're gay.
3. The U.S. gets in the way of muslims killing Jews.
- Once again, boohoo. Fuck Osama. If you really want to defend that grievance, I don't respect you or your argument.
4. U.S. gets meddles in the affairs of the "caliphate" and also interferes with plans to expand that caliphate.
- Calling Americans imperialist for fighting imperialism. How ironic.
Oh yes. Spare me the stupid arguments about Chile, Iran and the Shah (the Shah was always there as Iran had 2500 years of continuous monarch), Nicaragua or whatever because all of those are socialist talking points and bear no relevance to the attacks on 9/11.
mishu
Newbie
Posts: 13
Posted: Sun Jun 24, 2007 5:50 pm
Google Thomas Jefferson and the Barbary Pirates. I'm not allowed to post links here as I'm too new to this board.
EmperorLiam
Active Member
Posts: 174
Posted: Sun Jun 24, 2007 10:08 pm
Psudo:
Quote:
Isn't atheism itself a religious opinion?
Not really.
The intent of the constitution shows that they wanted to keep religion and government separate, by putting "In God we trust" in government institutions, by funding religious organizations specifically, the government is giving preference to a certain set of beliefs. Hindus and atheists both object to any mention of a monotheist God in public spaces.
Freedom FROM religion was not intended. Ron Paul and many Libertarians share this view. France for example banned all religious symbols from their public schools, this is taking it too far.
America has the fewer atheists than other countries, that's for certain. I think atheism (converting mainly), and Islam (being born mainly), are growing well, Christianity is practically collapsing in on itself, low birth rate and moderate convert rate.
Otherwise, just as I said, it's a statement of belief rather than fact.
Not EVERYTHING can be proven by a handy link, but I've actually TALKED to Muslims about this, no ones choosing Canada over the USA because of Canada's oppressive foreign policy... so dismissing its as mere opinion is a little assinine.
can you demonstrate how alcohol would be a valid parallel for, say, PCP or heroin?
Well alcohol is rated as more addictive than heroin and PCP for starters by Erowid. Alcohol is also more unhealthy than marijuana. Nonetheless, I really don't respect people that support the War on Drugs/Freedom, so unless you change your mind I'm not seeing it worth my time discussing anything with you, lost cause in my opinion.
Also, your little Prof link, did you even read what it said? "The looming problem with fiscal policy is the longer-term outlook, which will unfold over the next several decades as the baby-boom generation retires and starts collecting Social Security and Medicare. At that point, this series will start rising rapidly unless taxes are raised or spending is reduced compared with benefits promised under current law." So thanks for providing a link that AGREES WITH ME/US comptroller.
I highly suspect you didn't research Peak Oil, why should I discuss this with you when your being this lazy about it? Here I'll make it easy: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Peak_oil Libertarians agree with what you said though, let the market control it.
Quote:
That would mean you are pro-interventionism but you don't believe American can and should be intervening anymore. That sentence contradicts itself.
One last time, the United States should not be intervening in the TWO continents where the locals have disdain for them, their resources would be better served elsewhere, you know, like S.America and Oceania. India and Japan could develop large peace keeper forces to handle issues in Africa I beleive, with proper encouragement from America/UN/Europe.
Quote:
The argument matters, not the presenter of the argument.
WHAT? So a Jehovah's Witness's views on blood transfusions are just as valid as one from a Medical doctor? Its called BIAS and HERITAGE... I have no vested interests in siding with the Confederates, yet even I can see that the mainstream is just propaganda through history written by the winners. If you think my opinions are not more trustworthy/accurate than someone with a bias, you probably have a lot of ridiculous views since your blind to peoples bias apparently.
Quote:
First, Lincoln was sworn in about 4 months before the first shots were fired.
Ummm, you do know what triggered Southern secession was the election of Abraham Lincoln right? Thats why he wasn't a good choice, he was a too polarizing a president. Now they were simply disenfranchised, but they had every right to secede, Lincoln made the choice that it was not acceptable, rather than wait for them to rejoin, he pressed for war and caused even MORE states to secede.
Quote:
You claim civil war should be avoided "at all costs"
I certainly could have phrased that better, I was referring to political costs. In my opinion Lincoln should have offered his resignation or proposed allowing slavery in the territories.
I'm sorry Psudo, but I'm gonna ignore you from now on, I think your close minded and just argue for the sake of it. I don't think your a Troll though. Feel free to have the last word if that makes you feel warm and fuzzy inside,
mishu:
Quote:
"EmperorLaim" is lecturing us about the virtues of isolationism
Emperors can be isolationist, China for example. But I'm getting tired of repeating myself, I'm PRO-INTERVENTIONIST, that means I am NOT AN ISOLATIONIST.
Quote:
He also finds no fault with the Confederate States of America which easily describes views on integration of racial cultures. I suppose it's only logical that an isolationist is also a segregationist too. No wonder he's not a Republican.
WHAT? Ok, now your just being a lying ass. See, you've assumed a bunch of retarded shit here. I'm racist apparently because I defend the right for states to secede? If I was American, I assure you I wouldn't be a Democrat, so I guess that would make me a Republican, I certainly support Dr.Ron Paul.
Quote:
confronting the Islamist threat is nothing new in United States history
If you hadn't said this, I probably would have guessed you were a teenager slamming your dick beaters angrily on the keyboard foaming at the mouth venting your pubescent rage online. But alas, you know a little known factoid, and there just might be a little intelligence in there. Did you know the Quran that the Muslim congressman swore on was the copy Thomas Jefferson owned? You must also be familiar with the fact that the slaves America bought, were in fact bought from the Muslim pirates? I find it ironic that the descendants of these slaves went on to join the Black Panthers and Islam, the religion that virtually created the African slave trade, and religion that condones slavery the most!
Now Libertarians beleive in having a strong national army and navy as well, and Ron Paul himself has suggested hunting terrorists with same method we hunted pirates in foreign nations waters, a Letter of marque!
Hes even in the wiki page for it, "The issue of Marque and Reprisal was raised before Congress by Rep. Ron Paul of Texas after the September 11, 2001 attacks.[2] Paul, defining the attacks as an act of "air piracy," introduced the Marque and Reprisal Act of 2001, which would have granted the president the authority to use Letters of Marque and Reprisal against the specific terrorists, instead of warring against a foreign state."
Also, I'm a huge fan of Thomas Jefferson, the father of Libertarianism as far as I'm concerned.
"rightful liberty is unobstructed action according to our will within limits drawn around us by the equal rights of others. I do not add 'within the limits of the law', because law is often but the tyrant’s will, and always so when it violates the rights of the individual."-Thomas Jefferson
Mishu, you have sorta come off as an insolent little dick. No one was saying Osama had any right, just stating that United States MADE itself a target by intervening, its called blow-back. I personally detest the CIA, they are a rogue agency that is not truly accountable to the people, yet the people suffer the consequences of their action. I prefer it that they JUST collect intelligence, as Dr.Ron Paul has said.
Psudo
CKA Elite
Posts: 3070
Posted: Mon Jun 25, 2007 8:00 am
EmperorLiam wrote:
Psudo wrote:
Isn't atheism itself a religious opinion?
Not really.
You're saying that the belief that there is no god is not a religious opinion. In what sense is that true? It's clearly a theological opinion, a philosophical opinion, and a statement about religious organizations that suggest otherwise. What else is required to put it within the realm of "religion"?
EmperorLiam wrote:
The intent of the constitution shows that they wanted to keep religion and government separate, by putting "In God we trust" in government institutions, by funding religious organizations specifically, the government is giving preference to a certain set of beliefs. [. . .] Freedom FROM religion was not intended. Ron Paul and many Libertarians share this view. France for example banned all religious symbols from their public schools, this is taking it too far.
Your argument against funding "In God We Trust" and funding faith-based charities is that these tie religion and the state together, allowing for corruption of the one by the other. However, in cases where two charities have nearly identical objectives but one is backed by some specific religion, for government to fund only the secular one is a preferential action opposed to the religious charity. Such a case becomes a valid comparison to your later example of France banning religious symbols in schools. If religious and secular symbols should have equal access to public school space (as you suggest), shouldn't religion-backed and secular charities have equal access to public funds (assuming they're actually equal and not fronts for religious recruitment)? What differentiates these examples?
EmperorLiam wrote:
Hindus and atheists both object to any mention of a monotheist God in public spaces.
I was curious about that. Thanks.
EmperorLiam wrote:
Psudo wrote:
Otherwise, just as I said, it's a statement of belief rather than fact.
Not EVERYTHING can be proven by a handy link, but I've actually TALKED to Muslims about this, no ones choosing Canada over the USA because of Canada's oppressive foreign policy... so dismissing its as mere opinion is a little assinine.
You certainly should be convinced by your own experience. I, however, would be ill-advised to become convinced of the truth of a statement due to an online stranger's claim of anecdotal evidence. If I tell you I know God exists, is that sufficient evidence to convince you he does?
EmperorLiam wrote:
Psudo wrote:
can you demonstrate how alcohol would be a valid parallel for, say, PCP or heroin?
Well alcohol is rated as more addictive than heroin and PCP for starters by Erowid. Alcohol is also more unhealthy than marijuana. Nonetheless, I really don't respect people that support the War on Drugs/Freedom, so unless you change your mind I'm not seeing it worth my time discussing anything with you, lost cause in my opinion.
How do the health effects of alcohol compare to the health effects of those drugs more addictive than it (you listed PCP and heroine)? And it's psychological effects? Because if a drug is less addictive but more likely to induce harm, it still may be more worthy of regulation due to it's effects on public health. (The health damage is far more relevant to me personally.)
EmperorLiam wrote:
Quote:
Are our natural rights being violated
ACLU and the CCR are convinced that this is true, if you disagree, take it up with them.
The ACLU has long been a politically partisan organization. I know less of the reputation of the CCR, but it may be similar. And neither of these organizations has been able to get it's charges to stick in a court of law, reinforcing my theory that the charges are ideological rather than factual.
Also, your sources were dated 11/14/2003 and 10/26/2002 respectively. That means neither addresses the current Patriot Act law, amended to include new civil rights protections, which was passed in 2006. The original version was written with a sunset clause, ensuring that even if it had some flaw in it (such as the erosion of civil rights) they would not be permanent. That's an awful lot of civil rights protections for a law you claim is eroding civil rights.
EmperorLiam wrote:
Quote:
how can it be said that Iraq is a smoke screen to empower taxation ("steal our money" as you put it)
I never insinuated any such thing at all, go back and check yourself.
EmperorLiam wrote:
5. War on Terror, considering how FEW people die from this, why does it warrant so much resources? Just another smoke screen to steal our money and take our rights away from us.
That is a complete quote of your point #5 in it's entirety. You overtly claim the War on Terror (and it's use of resources) is a smoke screen to "steal our money" (among other things). Taxes during this era fell. Thus, less of our money was "stolen", not more. I have checked myself, and I am right.
Is your complaint that I said "Iraq" instead of "War on Terror"? The same administration that instigated both claims that Iraq is the central front of the War on Terror. If that's not proof enough that they are congruent, that still fails to alter the fact that taxation reduced while the "smoke screen" (under whatever name) existed, thus falsifying your claim.
On the issue of US debt, your original point was that:
EmperorLiam wrote:
American debt has become completely unmanageable, adding in the time bomb that social welfare and medic aid is, America will have an economic collapse if it does not switch to a Libertarian government.
This includes the following separate points: - "American debt has become completely unmanageable" - "adding in the time bomb that social welfare and medic aid is, America will have an economic collapse if it does not switch to a libertarian government." My source disputed the first point: debt is not "completely unmanageable" in the present. It is a future economic collapse these economists are predicting, not current economic problems. And such economic models inherently include the questionable assumption that nothing changes the current trend.
My only disagreement with the second point is a mere point of semantics: we don't need a full libertarian government, complete with libertarian social and foreign policy views, to avoid economic collapse. We just need to rake in spending. Fiscal libertarianism if you will, though the term fiscal conservatism seems more common. In fact, removing "the time bomb that social welfare and medic aid is" would be sufficient, even by your own original statement, to prevent economic collapse, completely without all other libertarian reforms. That pivotal reform is advocated by conservatives just as much as libertarians, thus removing it's value as a reason to vote for Ron Paul over all other comers.
EmperorLiam wrote:
I highly suspect you didn't research Peak Oil, why should I discuss this with you when your being this lazy about it? Here I'll make it easy: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Peak_oil Libertarians agree with what you said though, let the market control it.
The Hubbard Peak Theory states that the yield of any given geographic supply of oil will follow a bell-curve shaped curve. It says absolutely nothing regarding the technological innovations or market forces that make previously unmarketable sources become marketable. Once traditional oil sand costs reach the level of oil shale costs, you then have a whole new bell curve of resources to add into the mix, extending the supply of the total output of oil.
Huh... maybe if you consider oil shale an alternative energy source, we technically agree. But by that thinking, the discovery of another oil sand deposit would also be an alternative energy source.
EmperorLiam wrote:
Quote:
That would mean you are pro-interventionism but you don't believe American can and should be intervening anymore. That sentence contradicts itself.
One last time, the United States should not be intervening in the TWO continents where the locals have disdain for them, their resources would be better served elsewhere, you know, like S.America and Oceania. India and Japan could develop large peace keeper forces to handle issues in Africa I beleive, with proper encouragement from America/UN/Europe.
Ahh, so you're only pro-interventionism where you believe we are welcome. Local disdain in a region invalidates interventionism. I'll inform 1940s Germany.
Or is it the amount of interventionism in areas where we are disdained? You did put heavy emphasis on the word "TWO". If we were only intervening on one continent, would that be acceptable?
EmperorLiam wrote:
Quote:
The argument matters, not the presenter of the argument.
WHAT? So a Jehovah's Witness's views on blood transfusions are just as valid as one from a Medical doctor?
If the views are the same, yes. If the views are different, the difference in views determines the difference in validity. It's not about the person, it's about the argument.
If I hate Hitler and say he was a murderous tyrant and a pretty decent painter, is the validity of either statement altered by my hatred of him? If a person who loved him said he was a pretty decent painter, would his statement be less true than mine due his bias? The statements are identical and, thus, their truth is identical despite the opposing biases of the speakers.
This is the very definition of the "ad hominem attack" logical fallacy.
EmperorLiam wrote:
Quote:
First, Lincoln was sworn in about 4 months before the first shots were fired.
Ummm, you do know what triggered Southern secession was the election of Abraham Lincoln right? Thats why he wasn't a good choice, he was a too polarizing a president.
Yes, how dare those evil voters choose a candidate by mutually accepted means like that! Your above quote suggests it was the voters who instigated secession, not the candidate.
Even then, though, it is wrong. With James Buchanan presiding, the abolitionist North was just as disenfranchised. Yet they did not secede. This demonstrates the power of that action still resides within the states. The job of Chief Executive, by definition, is to execute the law. Even Buchanan declared secession to be illegal. Thus, it was the duty of Lincoln to prevent secession by the definition of his office. If you believe the civil war was Lincoln's cause, you must then explain what alternative method Lincoln could have used to do his job and prevent the illegal secession. Let's hear it.
Wait for them to rejoin? Yeah, the way we wait for thieves to return their theft. That's not law enforcement.
EmperorLiam wrote:
Quote:
You claim civil war should be avoided "at all costs"
I certainly could have phrased that better, I was referring to political costs.
Can you define "political costs" for me? What makes a given cost "political" and what makes it "not political"?
EmperorLiam wrote:
In my opinion Lincoln should have offered his resignation or proposed allowing slavery in the territories.
Compromise and diplomacy in the previous decades did not manage to prevent the eventual violent climax. Why would Lincoln's diplomacy have fared better?
EmperorLiam wrote:
I'm sorry Psudo, but I'm gonna ignore you from now on, I think your close minded and just argue for the sake of it. I don't think your a Troll though. Feel free to have the last word if that makes you feel warm and fuzzy inside,
No need to apologize for your opinion. I argue for the sake of determination of truth. If a foreign argument can discredit a belief of mine, I gain a little more evidence of what is true and what is not. It's true I'm slow to change my mind, but it is not true that I am slow to consider alternate views. If I'm wrong in a given belief, there must necessarily be an argument sufficient to convince me of that fact. I refuse to change my mind until I recognize that argument.
You did change my opinion of you as an isolationist. I think you have a rather unique foreign policy that is closer to Liberal Internationalism. You want to help international peoples in a humanitarian aid/peacekeeping sense rather than a more aggressive military sense, and with as much international approval as possible. You managed to change my mind about what you believe, but you have failed to change my belief that you're wrong on foreign policy.
EmperorLiam wrote:
mishu wrote:
I suppose it's only logical that an isolationist is also a segregationist too. No wonder he's not a Republican.
WHAT? Ok, now your just being a lying ass. See, you've assumed a bunch of retarded shit here. I'm racist apparently because I defend the right for states to secede?
See, here you're dead-on right. If mishu has any rational basis for these claims, he forgot to mention it.
EmperorLiam wrote:
No one was saying Osama had any right, just stating that United States MADE itself a target by intervening, its called blow-back.
Blow-back can be instigated by moral action, too. If a murdering rapist is justly jailed-for-life or executed, his family is still quite likely to be pissed off. The implication that the blow-back was morally deserved is not demonstrated by this argument.
EmperorLiam wrote:
I personally detest the CIA, they are a rogue agency that is not truly accountable to the people, yet the people suffer the consequences of their action. I prefer it that they JUST collect intelligence, as Dr.Ron Paul has said.
I'd like to hear more about your distaste for the CIA, especially if you have specific examples of their organization and actions you find morally repugnant.
sasquatch2
CKA Super Elite
Posts: 5740
Posted: Mon Jun 25, 2007 8:40 am
The best example of "faith-based" ideology these days is this CO2 AGW business.
An huge and amazing cult based on the simple lie that CO2 drives climate.
That is ever so slowly imploding.
Kjorteo
Forum Junkie
Posts: 639
Posted: Mon Jun 25, 2007 10:31 am
sasquatch, please, the grownups are trying to talk.
Psudo wrote:
Your argument against funding "In God We Trust" and funding faith-based charities is that these tie religion and the state together, allowing for corruption of the one by the other. However, in cases where two charities have nearly identical objectives but one is backed by some specific religion, for government to fund only the secular one is a preferential action opposed to the religious charity. Such a case becomes a valid comparison to your later example of France banning religious symbols in schools. If religious and secular symbols should have equal access to public school space (as you suggest), shouldn't religion-backed and secular charities have equal access to public funds (assuming they're actually equal and not fronts for religious recruitment)? What differentiates these examples?
"In God We Trust" on currency and specifically amending the Pledge of Allegiance to add "under God" for no particular reason is hardly charity, let alone identical-to-secular charity.
Psudo wrote:
How do the health effects of alcohol compare to the health effects of those drugs more addictive than it (you listed PCP and heroine)? And it's psychological effects? Because if a drug is less addictive but more likely to induce harm, it still may be more worthy of regulation due to it's effects on public health. (The health damage is far more relevant to me personally.)
Without getting into things like PCP and heroin, alcohol is, at the very least, worse than marijuana. Both make you suck at driving, but one isn't known for causing some people to fly into an irrational, near-homicidal wife-beating rage.
Psudo wrote:
Ahh, so you're only pro-interventionism where you believe we are welcome. Local disdain in a region invalidates interventionism. I'll inform 1940s Germany.
Germany formally and officially declared war on us. Even I'm not that isolationist.
Psudo wrote:
Or is it the amount of interventionism in areas where we are disdained? You did put heavy emphasis on the word "TWO". If we were only intervening on one continent, would that be acceptable?
I don't claim to speak for EmperorLiam, but I'll go ahead and add that, personally, I do consider what resources are at our disposal to be worth considering for foreign affairs, yes. The difference between a discussion regarding what situations we should theoretically stop and what we could practically stop becomes highly apparent once the military becomes overextended.
Psudo wrote:
If I hate Hitler and say he was a murderous tyrant and a pretty decent painter, is the validity of either statement altered by my hatred of him? If a person who loved him said he was a pretty decent painter, would his statement be less true than mine due his bias? The statements are identical and, thus, their truth is identical despite the opposing biases of the speakers.
This is the very definition of the "ad hominem attack" logical fallacy.
Kind of an irrelevant aside, but I am in full and complete agreement here.
Psudo wrote:
EmperorLiam wrote:
No one was saying Osama had any right, just stating that United States MADE itself a target by intervening, its called blow-back.
Blow-back can be instigated by moral action, too. If a murdering rapist is justly jailed-for-life or executed, his family is still quite likely to be pissed off. The implication that the blow-back was morally deserved is not demonstrated by this argument.
Personally, I think the "they just hate our freedom" argument and the "they're only responding to legitimate meddling" argument are dangerously oversimplified and ignore a lot of the overall picture...though the former is a lot worse than the latter in that regard. The fundamentalist Muslim world is very easy to agitate (see the cartoon controversy, among all sorts of other things,) and the United States has been particularly bad about enforcing its presence when they're clearly not wanted. It's like throwing rocks at a beehive, then debating if the ensuing bee attack is because bees are horrifically angry and vengeful or if it's because you were throwing rocks at them. Um...both?
Tylahedras
Newbie
Posts: 4
Posted: Mon Jun 25, 2007 10:36 am
I'd vote for him.
JJ
Active Member
Posts: 431
Posted: Mon Jun 25, 2007 11:49 am
EmperorLiam wrote:
JJ, give me a chance to convince you:
Okay sir, I am fully prepared to have a mature, adult discussion about the merits of Mr. Paul and his political beliefs, but I don't think it was necessary for you to insult me, and make fun of a university degree I have spent the last five years of my life pursuing.
Quote:
Bullshit, colonialism and imperialism completely go against the main tenet of Libertarianism.
Well I've read a lot of libertarian writings in which western colonialism is justified with the doctrine that the aboriginal populations of non-Europe were savage, uncivilized, and uncapitalist, so their conquest and destruction was not really any great tragedy, since it set the stage for the rise of highly superior colonial societies. I think this is pretty hypocritical, since it basically justifies theft and slavery, but I've found that a lot of libertarians will turn a blind eye to such abuses as long as the end result is the creation of a more capitalistic society.
Iraq war wise, a libertarian could easily argue that Saddam's rule was inherently arbitrary and force-based, so deposing him and taking his oil was not really illegitimate in any way, certainly no more than killing the Indians and taking their land was. Why should the rational, self interested American oilman respect Saddam's dubious claims of sovereignty over oil that happens to reside in the ground of the made-up country his thuggish crime family claims to own?
Quote:
No, Al-Qaeda came into existence BECAUSE of the Soviet presence in Afghanistan, and they attack America because of its support of Israel and the American bases put into Saudi Arabia for the First Gulf War, intervention in Somalia, etc etc. These are LEGITIMATE political beefs. The Quran states that the proof it is the true word of God, is that all Muslim lands will remain Muslim for eternity, obviously losing Spain and Israel has them pissed off, they have to take them back or question their faith. Also, ALL of Islam is fundamentalist, the Quran is literally the word of God. The Quran states any nation oppressing them is fair game for jihad, and the mainly Saudi Wahhabists are pushing for a jihad against America.
I don't dispute that Al-Qaeda has political beefs, I just dispute that they are in any way legitimate, sane, or rational ones. And your list of examples does not convince me otherwise. As a poster above pointed out, Osama basically has a lot of odd religious hang-ups over matters which he either has no jurisdiction to make judgment upon, or should just learn to get over in the first place. I really disagree with the Ron Paul argument that just because terrorists justify their acts as "responses" to American foreign policy that in turn means that American foreign policy is wrong, and should be changed. It is totally a capitulation to terrorists in the battle of ideas. It's the same cowardly logic that western journalists used to avoid publishing the Muhammad cartoons during the controversy last year. I'm a bigger fan of the age-old doctrine of "not negotiating with terrorists." Or, as Dilbert once put it, "I respectfully refuse to participate in your hallucination."
Quote:
But Ron Paul said that they should be free to serve openly... I seriously doubt you've researched him very well.
During the CNN Republican debate, Wolf Blitzer asked if anyone felt gays should be able to serve openly in the armed forces. No one raised their hands, not even Dr. Paul. One of my problems with Ron Paul, and a problem with political libertarians in general, is that they seem to have very little interest in defending the civil rights of unpopular minority groups. It's all just business business business money money money. Ron Paul's own webpage makes no mention of his stances on any social issues, other than to say he is against abortion. Simply declaring issues like abortion and gay marriage a “state matter” is not respectable, either, for a social libertarian. Why is oppression justified if it is committed by a state government?
Psudo
CKA Elite
Posts: 3070
Posted: Mon Jun 25, 2007 6:13 pm
Kjorteo wrote:
"In God We Trust" on currency and specifically amending the Pledge of Allegiance to add "under God" for no particular reason is hardly charity, let alone identical-to-secular charity.
True. Both those references to God came about in the '50s as an opposition to the mandatory secularism of communism in the USSR, China, and elsewhere. There might be some legitimate claim that the overt attempt to oppose the ban of religion was too much a support for monotheism specifically and should have been more generalized. As atheism and polytheism become more popular, this argument gains merit. Maybe you could soon get it changed to "In God We May Trust" or something that similarly shows religious freedom rather than the expectation of monotheism.
Kjorteo wrote:
Without getting into things like PCP and heroin, alcohol is, at the very least, worse than marijuana.
I think it's clear that Marijuana is the most benign of all illegal drugs. However, EmperorLiam isn't arguing for the legalization of only that one drug, but of the complete end to all drug abolition. I'm not sure how much more than inertia prevents a trade, tobacco for marijuana, in the lists of what is legal and what is not.
Kjorteo wrote:
Psudo wrote:
Ahh, so you're only pro-interventionism where you believe we are welcome. Local disdain in a region invalidates interventionism. I'll inform 1940s Germany.
Germany formally and officially declared war on us. Even I'm not that isolationist.
I was being a little flippant. But the argument for involvement in Iraq is pretty legally sound: the cease-fire from the early 90s was conditional, and those conditions were clearly broken, thus nullifying the cease-fire and returning the area to a state of war. If a legal declaration of war is sufficient validation for intervention, the nullification of am equally legal cease-fire seems equally valid to me.
Kjorteo wrote:
Psudo wrote:
Or is it the amount of interventionism in areas where we are disdained? You did put heavy emphasis on the word "TWO". If we were only intervening on one continent, would that be acceptable?
I don't claim to speak for EmperorLiam, but I'll go ahead and add that, personally, I do consider what resources are at our disposal to be worth considering for foreign affairs, yes. The difference between a discussion regarding what situations we should theoretically stop and what we could practically stop becomes highly apparent once the military becomes overextended.
If I'd been debating you rather than the good Emperor, I would probably have questioned how much we were intervening in Africa. I'm not sure diplomatic stress with Egypt and a minor involvement in Somalia constitutes intervention on the continent of Africa. Add to that my skepticism that the military is overextended because of War on Terror activities. 2 million US active duty soldiers, and a couple hundred thousand are in the Middle East and Muslim Africa. When we involve the other three quarters of the military, then "overextended" may become accurate.
Kjorteo wrote:
Personally, I think the "they just hate our freedom" argument and the "they're only responding to legitimate meddling" argument are dangerously oversimplified and ignore a lot of the overall picture...though the former is a lot worse than the latter in that regard. The fundamentalist Muslim world is very easy to agitate (see the cartoon controversy, among all sorts of other things,) and the United States has been particularly bad about enforcing its presence when they're clearly not wanted. It's like throwing rocks at a beehive, then debating if the ensuing bee attack is because bees are horrifically angry and vengeful or if it's because you were throwing rocks at them. Um...both?
Throwing rocks at a beehive is inherently a purely destructive action with no obvious benefit to anyone. That is your metaphor for US involvement is also oversimplified, seeing as how the construction of infrastructure and establishment of elected government in Iraq cannot rationally be considered entirely destructive.
And I hope I never used the argument "They just hate our freedom." I agree it's shallow and nonsensical.
Overall, I wasn't claiming that they were responding to legitimate meddling, just that EmperorLiam assumed without any obvious basis that they weren't. I wasn't claiming to know the reason for blow-back, I was just demonstrating that blow-back alone is not proof of US wrongdoing. If he is going to legitimately demonstrate US wrongdoing in it's intervention in Iraq, he's got to provide a basis for his claims.
Psudo
CKA Elite
Posts: 3070
Posted: Mon Jun 25, 2007 6:32 pm
J.J.
JJ wrote:
One of my problems with Ron Paul, and a problem with political libertarians in general, is that they seem to have very little interest in defending the civil rights of unpopular minority groups. [. . .] Simply declaring issues like abortion and gay marriage a “state matter” is not respectable, either, for a social libertarian. Why is oppression justified if it is committed by a state government?
I'm curious to hear your take on Mitt Romney's view on homosexuality. As I understand it, he's against any form of discrimination against gays (such as in housing, employment, etc), but opposes gay marriage. Presumably, he doesn't see the lack of gay marriage as a form of discrimination against them.
The issue of gay marriage came up. In the 2002 campaign, I was asked for my view on the matter, and I gave it - I was then and remain today, opposed to gay marriages and civil unions.
At the national level, we should define marriage as a relationship between a man and a woman. And this isn't about adult rights. A lot of people get confused that gay marriage is about treating gay people the same as treating heterosexual people, and that's not the issue involved here. This is about the development and nurturing of children. Marriage is primarily an institution to help develop children. And children's development, I believe, is greatly enhanced by access to a mom and a dad. I think every child deserves a mom and a dad, and that's why I'm so consistent and vehement in my view that we should have a federal amendment which defines marriage in that way."
As a gay person, I disagree with Romney's stance and his arguments. But gay marriage is not a be all, end all issue for me. My problem with Dr. Paul in particular was that he is at best extremly indifferent to gay rights, which I think greatly contradicts his "King of Freedom" mantra and reputation.
Mitt Romney is a Christain social conservative, he is open and frank about that. Ron Paul is supposed to be a different sort of Republican, and he seems to get a lot of support from non socially conservative, anti-religious right people. But substantially, I don't see how Paul is terribly unique or progressive on social matters. He may have different arguments, but he gets to the same place.
EmperorLiam
Active Member
Posts: 174
Posted: Mon Jun 25, 2007 8:08 pm
JJ
Quote:
Well I've read a lot of libertarian writings
Well I've read a lot of liberal and conservative writings, ones that advocate slavery, and ones that wish to force the rich to pay all the taxes... do I go and assume that ALL people of that political persuasion believe the same? NO. So why are you doing that?
When DIRECTLY asked about the 'Don't Ask Don't Tell' policy, Ron Paul responded with this:
"I think the current policy is a decent policy. And the problem that we have with dealing with this subject is we see people as groups, as they belong to certain groups and that they derive their rights as belonging to groups. We don't get our rights because we're gays or women or minorities. We get our rights from our creator as individuals. So every individual should be treated the same way. So if there is homosexual behavior in the military that is disruptive, it should be dealt with. But if there's heterosexual sexual behavior that is disruptive, it should be dealt with. So it isn't the issue of homosexuality. It's the concept and the understanding of individual rights. If we understood that, we would not be dealing with this very important problem." video: http://youtube.com/watch?v=ZUlXxRIgK28
So he thinks we shouldn't discriminate against homosexuals as a group in the first place. Either way it doesn't matter what his views on abortion or homosexuals is, hes against government meddling with marriage, and that the constitution doesn't give them powers over abortion or adoption.
{on Al-Qeda positions} I just dispute that they are in any way legitimate, sane, or rational ones.
What you think of their views matters little, they are still their positions. Canadians object to selling our fresh water to America, and to some Americans they view that as illegitimate, insane, and irrational. Either way, they still have to deal with it. Ignoring their demands and then wondering why they attack us is FUCKING RETARDED. Did America REALLY need bases in Saudia Arabia? What RIGHT did the Soviets have in Afghanistan? What right do we have to overthrow democratically elected governments just because they want to nationalize their oil industry? I think the Quran is utter bullshiat, I still read it though, and I think we should consider their beliefs. Do you object to US army disallowing alcohol for its troops in Iraq? We don't want to make Al-Qeda MORE popular, we need to understand them and make sure we win. The US militarys distrust of the Sunnis in Iraq was a mistake, afraid and outnumbered they allied with Al-Qeda.
Quote:
Iraq war wise, a libertarian could easily argue that Saddam's rule was inherently arbitrary and force-based, so deposing him and taking his oil was not really illegitimate in any way
I agree, minus the oil part, thats why I supported the overthrow of Saddam. But doing it for oil goes against Libertarian ideals, it violates the rights and property of the indigenous people.
Quote:
Simply declaring issues like abortion and gay marriage a “state matter” is not respectable, either, for a social libertarian. Why is oppression justified if it is committed by a state government?
Why waste time debating something you can't control? He clearly states that hes against identifying people by groups, so that means he doesn't discriminate to begin with. He has PERSONAL VIEWS, but he plans to keep them to himself, no harm, no foul.
I think you focus to much on what a few libertarians said, and not on the ideology, if I thought like you, I'd be in here accusing conservatives of being racist, homophobic, women hating, knuckle draggers... and liberals as emotional bleeding heart nut-jobs bent on stealing my money.
As for my comment on your degree, understand that to me its just a piece of paper (I never bothered paying the $5 to get an official paper certificate for my degree), and lets be honest, Fine Arts degrees aren't exactly career guarantees. I suspect you'll do just fine, but I doubt your degree with have much to do with it other than resume padding.
I don't particularly identify with Ron Paul, I'm atheist, pro-death penalty, pro-choice, pro-interventionist... but economically, where the United States stands, Ron Paul and Libertarians in general are what is needed to lead the nation from the brink of economic collapse.
Psudo Perhaps of instead of ignoring you, I'll just say when I agree or when I want to add on to a thought.
Oil shale is Americas best kept secret, I'm just worried that an economic collapse will happen before we fully tap into it. Keep in mind that this is actually a reason to not consider oil interests a reason to intervene.
I'm militarily pro-interventionist, I want N.Korea, China, Iran, Congo etc overthrown and democracy installed, so that they can eventually evolve into a Libertarian direct democracy. But it wouldn't be wise to piss off N.Korea with all that artillery aimed at Seoul would it, and as I mentioned, America should avoid the Muslim majority countries.
International approval certainly helps, but definitely not required.
I do advocate the end of the War on Drugs, but that doesn't mean I don't want drugs to be controlled. Drugs that can be used in date rape should have dyes in them, drugs use while driving prohibited, ban of drug use in public (locals decide), age restrictions etc. You have three choices for supplying the drug trade, let the government , let the private sector, or "let" the criminals. I want the private sector to supply, and the government to regulate, just like how the Canadian Food Inspection Agency regulates the food industry. Drug addiction after all is a MEDICAL PROBLEM, by making the drugs expensive and illegal, you just create insane amounts of petty theft crimes instead, and organized crime syndicates that spawn other illegal ventures like money laundering and counterfeiting. War on Drugs is absurd, I think prostitution laws are even more absurd, if you bring a camera all of a sudden its not prostitution, its porn, a 6 billion dollar industry.
Kjorteo
Forum Junkie
Posts: 639
Posted: Tue Jun 26, 2007 12:22 am
.
JJ wrote:
As a gay person,
Whoa. And here I thought I was being bold by revealing that aspect of me in the "Legacy of Equality" thread.
JJ wrote:
Mitt Romney is a Christain social conservative, he is open and frank about that. Ron Paul is supposed to be a different sort of Republican, and he seems to get a lot of support from non socially conservative, anti-religious right people. But substantially, I don't see how Paul is terribly unique or progressive on social matters. He may have different arguments, but he gets to the same place.
Well, there's a definite "lesser of all evils" vibe when you compare him to any of his opponents. For how unpopular George W. Bush and his entire legacy is at this point, Paul seems to be the only one even pretending to want to go in a different direction. I've said it before, and I'll say it again: I hope Paul wins the Republican nomination, and I hope Bill Richardson wins the Democratic nomination, and I'll vote for whichever one I agree with more after watching the debates for the general election.
EmperorLiam wrote:
When DIRECTLY asked about the 'Don't Ask Don't Tell' policy, Ron Paul responded with this:
"I think the current policy is a decent policy. And the problem that we have with dealing with this subject is we see people as groups, as they belong to certain groups and that they derive their rights as belonging to groups. We don't get our rights because we're gays or women or minorities. We get our rights from our creator as individuals. So every individual should be treated the same way. So if there is homosexual behavior in the military that is disruptive, it should be dealt with. But if there's heterosexual sexual behavior that is disruptive, it should be dealt with. So it isn't the issue of homosexuality. It's the concept and the understanding of individual rights. If we understood that, we would not be dealing with this very important problem." video: http://youtube.com/watch?v=ZUlXxRIgK28
And I almost agree with that sentiment. Being a nuisance is being a nuisance, and homosexual soldiers shouldn't receive any special privileges or discrimination. The problem is when he says "I think the current policy is a decent policy," which pretty much contradicts everything he says after that. The current policy of "Don't Ask, Don't Tell" (note emphasis) is that if a homosexual soldier is found out by any means whatsoever (including if they were trying to keep quiet, but got found out somehow,) the mere fact that he or she is homosexual is still grounds for expulsion. It's not uniformly enforced that way, but that only leads to thousands of career soldiers who've been found out having to put up with "Gee, I hope they don't suddenly decide to discharge me" hanging over their head like the Sword of Damacles for their entire career. Not only that, but having a ready-made excuse to be kicked out like that doesn't exactly make it easy to speak up in cases of military wrongdoing (Abu Ghraib, etc.) either. If they have something that is, at the moment, technically well and perfectly within their rights to discharge you, and the only reason you're still there is that they just haven't felt like doing so yet, then you're going to think twice before blowing the whistle or otherwise doing anything to agitate them.
So, I would completely divorce homosexuality from disruptive behavior (like Dr. Paul implies in the other half of his statement,) and then allow homosexuals to openly serve.
EmperorLiam wrote:
Why waste time debating something you can't control? He clearly states that hes against identifying people by groups, so that means he doesn't discriminate to begin with. He has PERSONAL VIEWS, but he plans to keep them to himself, no harm, no foul.
The problem here is that, well, people are stupid. Left up to direct popular vote, or even States' Rights, most people seem to want to vote for backwards, socially regressive policies. Look at how many direct popular-vote ballot initiatives to amend state constitutions to ban same-sex marriage passed the last few elections. It took a civil war to end slavery, and a Supreme Court decision, the National Guard to enforce said decision, and the political sacrifice of an entire region of the United States (the South used to be a secure Democratic stronghold, to this day it's obviously still now the exact opposite) to end segregation.
One of the few points on which Psudo and I are in complete agreement is that the validity of an argument is completely and totally independent of who brings up said argument, what biases they may or may not have, and how much popular support it has among the masses. In fact, the Constitution was specifically intended to protect unpopular minorities from "the tyranny of the majority," something that even the Constitution-waving, libertarian-minded Dr. Paul sadly seems to forget when he shrugs off a matter like this to the States.
EmperorLiam wrote:
As for my comment on your degree, understand that to me its just a piece of paper (I never bothered paying the $5 to get an official paper certificate for my degree), and lets be honest, Fine Arts degrees aren't exactly career guarantees. I suspect you'll do just fine, but I doubt your degree with have much to do with it other than resume padding.
I don't even want to know what you mean by comparing going through an actual, years-long, undoubtedly expensive university program with "paying the $5 to get an official paper certificate." Instead, I'll point out that a Bachelor of Arts degree does not mean he majored in Fine Arts. According to the front page, he majored in "politics" (Political Science?) and minored in history. To me, that's pretty damn impressive, and calling a university degree of any sort into question is completely uncalled for.
Psudo
CKA Elite
Posts: 3070
Posted: Tue Jun 26, 2007 5:54 am
Thank you for your assessment and your honesty, J.J.
EmperorLiam wrote:
Oil shale is Americas best kept secret, I'm just worried that an economic collapse will happen before we fully tap into it.
I don't believe it is in any way a secret. I live in Utah, one of the states likely to greatly benefit from oil shale in the coming decades. Programs are already underway to begin extraction and refining of oil shale. The reason the programs are as rare as they are is due to gas prices: gasoline from oil shale will be about $3.50 to $4.00 a gallon, significantly higher than even our current elevated gas prices. If OPEC gasoline became the costly alternative, there'd be a "gold rush" to oil shale. It is basic market forces, not secrecy, that is preventing the oil shale industry from taking off.
EmperorLiam wrote:
I'm militarily pro-interventionist, I want N.Korea, China, Iran, Congo etc overthrown and democracy installed, so that they can eventually evolve into a Libertarian direct democracy. But it wouldn't be wise to piss off N.Korea with all that artillery aimed at Seoul would it, and as I mentioned, America should avoid the Muslim majority countries.
I still don't understand why the fact they are Muslim majority nations makes intervention bad. Sure, they don't like us, but anywhere foreign troops go they are unpopular. Germany and Japan didn't much like us circa 1949, yet they're doing spectacularly now.
EmperorLiam wrote:
I want the private sector to supply, and the government to regulate, just like how the Canadian Food Inspection Agency regulates the food industry.
Would that improve the scale of drug addiction under it's jurisdiction? If we are not confident it will offer significant improvement, such a radical change of policy is pretty expensive for a gamble.
EmperorLiam
Active Member
Posts: 174
Posted: Tue Jun 26, 2007 5:24 pm
Quote:
and calling a university degree of any sort into question is completely uncalled for.
Well as an employer I find any non-technical degree completely irrelevant, but even for the artsy fartsy crap, I base my decision on portfolios, not degrees. My fellow peers in University were all high and mighty about their degrees as well, so few have done anything with them.
Quote:
gasoline from oil shale will be about $3.50 to $4.00 a gallon
The problem is that infrastructure and development takes awhile, once in full gear we're looking at an 'endless' supply of $45/barrel easy. United States and Canada have both started to develop oil shale resources, and of course theres still all that coal. It is a pretty big secret, I have never even encountered anyone else till know that knew about it, its one of the few things I mention Bush has done good on. Fewer even know Bush was the first President to spend tax payers money on SETI, partly why I don't consider him THAT religious.
Out of curiosity Psudo, how familiar are you with the Muslim faith? Do you understand that it differs from other monotheist faiths because the Quran is literally Gods word, and it lays down the rules for pretty much everything, sex, courts, marriage, declaration of war, taxes etc. Its only 1/10th the length of the Bible so its not too long of a read.
CKA Elite 
