Bill of Rights Under Bush: A Timeline

[Countertrey]

Again I submit that the only way to apply the law equally is to force strict constructionist interpretation of the existing laws, which would eliminate the abusive liberal interpretation of the "Interstate Commerce clause" for starters.

This would thrill me to no end!... However, we also know that constructionist jurists would ultimately result in the need for but a small fraction of the current load of barristers. Constructionist jurists behave in predictable ways. Their rulings could easily be anticipated in most cases. Many lawsuits would, therefore, be predictably doomed from the outset. Far fewer would reach trial. Many lawyers would starve. (sorry, podman... but, you should have plenty of time to stock up on canned goods).

They will destroy the Republic before permitting that...

It doesn't leave many options.

The only way to ensure getting constructionist jurists is to elect libertarians (note the small "l"). There are few of those... and the ones I am aware of are not electible... (Ron Paul). Republicans are far more likely to nominate constructionist judges than Democrats, though both are likely to nominate and confirm judges based on their stances on one or two critical agenda items... certainly a pathetic way to select one of the most powerful persons in government.

[GSPODS]

Again I submit that the only way to apply the law equally is to force strict constructionist interpretation of the existing laws, which would eliminate the abusive liberal interpretation of the "Interstate Commerce clause" for starters.

This would thrill me to no end!... However, we also know that constructionist jurists would ultimately result in the need for but a small fraction of the current load of barristers. Constructionist jurists behave in predictable ways. Their rulings could easily be anticipated in most cases. Many lawsuits would, therefore, be predictably doomed from the outset. Far fewer would reach trial. Many lawyers would starve. (sorry, podman... but, you should have plenty of time to stock up on canned goods).

They will destroy the Republic before permitting that...

It doesn't leave many options.

The only way to ensure getting constructionist jurists is to elect libertarians (note the small "l"). There are few of those... and the ones I am aware of are not electible... (Ron Paul). Republicans are far more likely to nominate constructionist judges than Democrats, though both are likely to nominate and confirm judges based on their stances on one or two critical agenda items... certainly a pathetic way to select one of the most powerful persons in government.

I may very well be the only attorney you will personally speak with who would take no issue with fewer laws. fewer attorneys and fewer frivolous lawsuits based solely on liberal interpretation of existing laws.

Strict Constructionism would also force the Supreme Court to grant more Writs Of Certiorari to issues of fundamental law and fewer to issues of the interpretation of the law. This would also leave State issues to the States.
Exactly as the Constitution intended.

[crazyhorse1]

someone calling themselves a libertarian at least in ideology

Are you speaking of yourself in the third person?

CH1 is saying it is relevant, and you have yet to disprove it

So let me see if I have this straight. When he uses the Geneva convention as the basis of his argument, he does not need to establish that it applies. When I challenge him on his assertion it is MY job to prove to HIM that the basis HE used in his argument is flawed. Got it. I'm sure you're here to set me straight, thanks!

What I was pointing out is that you did the exact same thing you accused him of doing. You proved it does not apply as well as he proved it does apply. But that does not stop you from stating as a fact that it does not apply:

Also, what US and international law are you referring to? I'll give you two examples of laws that don't apply. The Geneva Conventions (the terrorists repeatedly fail the specific criteria outlined) and the US Constitution (out of jurisdiction).

He points out to you that the Geneva Conventions are US law, because they are international agreement signed onto by the US. Is it your contention that only "the terrorists" have been waterboarded or subjected to other forms of torture? And even if that were the case, you would still be wrong. The reason the GCs do apply is because they ban the use of torture period, not just the use of torture on enemy combatants. If you want to argue that they can be held indefinitely without being accused of a crime, without access to council, not told the charges against them, or tried by military tribunals using secret evidence, then you might have an argument.

In fact, he shot down your talking points, and offered that they were not relevant to the Geneva protections against torture. Also you clearly overlook instances of other torture techniques, and the use of torture by surrogates in the US stead, as well as unknown practices used in the secret prisons set up in eastern Europe.

I didn't overlook any torture arguments that were presented because there weren't any others presented.

Well, you sort of did. If anyone who you disagree with uses the word torture, you immediately equate that reference to mean waterboarding.

none of it is aimed at the definition of torture, which I consider to be maiming, disfiguring and scaring, not subjecting people to unpleasant experiences

That these "unpleasant experiences" can and have caused death is obviously of no concern to you. I guess it's a good thing you aren't the one defining torture.

the Fourth Geneva Convention safeguards so-called “protected persons,” most simply described as detained civilians. Detainees must at all times be humanely treated (Geneva III, art. 13, Geneva IV, art. 27). Detainees may be questioned, but any form of “physical or mental coercion” is prohibited (Geneva III, art. 17; Geneva IV, art. 31)

Detainees in an armed conflict or military occupation are also protected by common article 3 to the Geneva Conventions. Article 3 prohibits “violence to life and person, in particular murder of all kinds, mutilation, cruel treatment and torture; …outrages upon personal dignity, in particular humiliating and degrading treatment.”

Even persons who are not entitled to the protections of the 1949 Geneva Conventions (such as some detainees from third countries) are protected by the “fundamental guarantees” of article 75 of Protocol I of 1977 to the Geneva Conventions. The United States has long considered article 75 to be part of customary international law (a widely supported state practice accepted as law). Article 75 prohibits murder, “torture of all kinds, whether physical or mental,” “corporal punishment,” and “outrages upon personal dignity, in particular humiliating and degrading treatment, … and any form of indecent assault.”

http://www.hrw.org/english/docs/2004/05 ... nt8614.htm

Thank you. Sounds completely definitive to me, as it does to anyone else who has ever read it without an indefensible position to defend. How about it, Kazoo. Do you need someone to help you off the field after such a hit?

[KazooSkinsFan]

someone calling themselves a libertarian at least in ideology

Are you speaking of yourself in the third person?

CH1 is saying it is relevant, and you have yet to disprove it

So let me see if I have this straight. When he uses the Geneva convention as the basis of his argument, he does not need to establish that it applies. When I challenge him on his assertion it is MY job to prove to HIM that the basis HE used in his argument is flawed. Got it. I'm sure you're here to set me straight, thanks!

What I was pointing out is that you did the exact same thing you accused him of doing. You proved it does not apply as well as he proved it does apply. But that does not stop you from stating as a fact that it does not apply:

Also, what US and international law are you referring to? I'll give you two examples of laws that don't apply. The Geneva Conventions (the terrorists repeatedly fail the specific criteria outlined) and the US Constitution (out of jurisdiction).

He points out to you that the Geneva Conventions are US law, because they are international agreement signed onto by the US. Is it your contention that only "the terrorists" have been waterboarded or subjected to other forms of torture? And even if that were the case, you would still be wrong. The reason the GCs do apply is because they ban the use of torture period, not just the use of torture on enemy combatants. If you want to argue that they can be held indefinitely without being accused of a crime, without access to council, not told the charges against them, or tried by military tribunals using secret evidence, then you might have an argument.

In fact, he shot down your talking points, and offered that they were not relevant to the Geneva protections against torture. Also you clearly overlook instances of other torture techniques, and the use of torture by surrogates in the US stead, as well as unknown practices used in the secret prisons set up in eastern Europe.

I didn't overlook any torture arguments that were presented because there weren't any others presented.

Well, you sort of did. If anyone who you disagree with uses the word torture, you immediately equate that reference to mean waterboarding.

none of it is aimed at the definition of torture, which I consider to be maiming, disfiguring and scaring, not subjecting people to unpleasant experiences

That these "unpleasant experiences" can and have caused death is obviously of no concern to you. I guess it's a good thing you aren't the one defining torture.

the Fourth Geneva Convention safeguards so-called “protected persons,” most simply described as detained civilians. Detainees must at all times be humanely treated (Geneva III, art. 13, Geneva IV, art. 27). Detainees may be questioned, but any form of “physical or mental coercion” is prohibited (Geneva III, art. 17; Geneva IV, art. 31)

Detainees in an armed conflict or military occupation are also protected by common article 3 to the Geneva Conventions. Article 3 prohibits “violence to life and person, in particular murder of all kinds, mutilation, cruel treatment and torture; …outrages upon personal dignity, in particular humiliating and degrading treatment.”

Even persons who are not entitled to the protections of the 1949 Geneva Conventions (such as some detainees from third countries) are protected by the “fundamental guarantees” of article 75 of Protocol I of 1977 to the Geneva Conventions. The United States has long considered article 75 to be part of customary international law (a widely supported state practice accepted as law). Article 75 prohibits murder, “torture of all kinds, whether physical or mental,” “corporal punishment,” and “outrages upon personal dignity, in particular humiliating and degrading treatment, … and any form of indecent assault.”

http://www.hrw.org/english/docs/2004/05 ... nt8614.htm

From liberalspeak:

- Fact - Anything that supports a liberal argument
- Lie - Anything that doesn't.

This post is logically bizarre dude. I'm very happy you have found heaven in posting endless Democratic talking points. It's one thing that's fascinating to me:

Talking to a liberal about politics is like talking to a Republican about religion. There is good and evil. They are good, the other is evil. There is no gray on anything. That themselves are right is assumption and in no way needs to be supported. That "the others" are wrong is again assumption and in no way supported. You just state little meaningless talking points as your "arguments."

I am happy for you, your posting nirvana, Howard Dean is GOD! He knows all! You cannot go wrong ever! While I think the Christians are nuts, at least their God is actually a deity instead of putting their complete faith in not only people but shiftless lying politicians as ALL politicians are.

Here's another argument you make that I keep hearing from liberals over and over that cracks me up.

- I say I am a libertarian, not a Republican
- But to not be a Republican I must be a liberal
- Therefore, to be a libertarian I must convince them I am in fact a liberal
- However, I have in fact convinced them I am NOT a liberal, therefore I am not a libertarian, I am a Republican
- QED

But I rejoice my friend in your joy and contentment. But I'm not going to debate you anymore because it's like trying to argue with a Christian about the existence of Jesus. Hail Howard! That was for you.

[KazooSkinsFan]

We obviously agree on the big things, we shouldn't be in the middle east, we shouldn't have invaded Iraq, it's not our problem, we shouldn't be making ourselves a target, we shouldn't be taking others problems for them, the government shouldn't be meddling in oil markets. So we're discussing now that we're in a bad situation what's the best way to get out and there are no clear answers to that question, it's philosophical and predicting the future, so we can only "guess."

So I'm not addressing a lot of those points, not in any way dissing your view, I just can't factually argue projections of the future and we see some of those differently. I can't even state I think you ARE wrong on those so much as I don't think it's the best course of action. Bottom line is we are in a place we shouldn't be and no matter what course we pick bad things are going to happen to get out of it, so what we're really discussing is the least damaging alternative, which means even MORE speculation. Anyway, on a few things

- In toppling Hussein we have a moral commitment in my view to leave them a stable government.

. . . . .oh sorry, I'll let you finish.

I know from the wink you're teasing, but just a question. I've heard this before, there are screwed up governments across the middle east that are stable. Is it your view that can't happen in Iraq? If so, why? I think it is taking more time because of the unusual situation that the rebels were actually the trained army and the government wasn't. But I don't see any reason Iraq can't be stable.

I don't follow this argument. If it's the terrorists strategy for us to leave, and leaving is in our best interest, should we not leave to spite them and not grant that psychological victory?

As clarification, I don't mean we're staying to spite them, I mean they use our lack of spine to finish what we start against us, to rally their members and recruit people to fight against us that we're weak in resolve and can be defeated. Then every time we do it that just feeds on it in the next conflict.

When the Afghan government fell and the Pakistanis who fought in it on the side of the Taliban went home disfigured (or didn't come home) there was a large outcry. Against the IMAMs who said it would be an easy victory. The world has an image the Americans are strong in the short run but week in the long run. If we can make Iraq stable we can leave. We can't leave it to fall and be a recruiting poster.

Again, I think we are more of a recruiting poster by being there, and leaving in the immediate future won't have these consequences.

I find your argument ironic in that we are both libertarians. Libertarian ideology is based on that people will work in their own interest and they should be free to do so and the optimal government is created by recognizing that and is limited to create a system of self responsibility that maximizes liberty and opportunity.

I'm arguing it is not self-interest to tilt against windmills of an overwhelming power, the US Army, if we are resolved to win and you're saying our STAYING and exhibiting POWER will result in recruiting benefit for the terrorists to fight and unwindable war? Again we agree we shouldn't have put ourselves in that place to begin with, this is the less then ideal argument that we are there now and how do we get out.

It seems too easy to me to dismiss the argument [that we can't practically stay in Iraq (without blowing up our currency)

There are so many things that are so much MORE blowing up our currency then Iraq. The failed "war on poverty." The endless "war on drugs." The social dependency, I mean safety net. The consequences of our tax code where we create a huge industry to calculate and evade taxes and waste our companies time and resources focusing on taxes instead of being efficient and competing with each other and international firms. And the money we've spent is a sunk cost, you can't get it back. If money is our concern, and it should be, then the cost of staying in Iraq is WAY down the list of where we get bang for our buck going forward.

[KazooSkinsFan]

Thank you. Sounds completely definitive to me, as it does to anyone else who has ever read it without an indefensible position to defend. How about it, Kazoo. Do you need someone to help you off the field after such a hit?

I don't see ANY "hits."

- He said I'm not a libertarian and didn't state why. A liberal, in arguing with a libertarian, says he's not a libertarian for arguing with him, a liberal.

- He said when you make an assumption that the Geneva Conventions apply and I challenged that I couldn't challenge that without taking on the responsibility of proving you wrong. Crazyhorse, Hillary is a MASS murderer, she has had 17 abortions (Bill was the father of 3) and she is planning to lead an invasion of the earth the day she is inaugurated unless she is DEFEATED. According to the tripping post if you argue this you have the responsiblity to PROVE that I'm wrong, you can't just point out that it's silly, like that waterboarding is torture is silly.

- He goes on a rant about torture AGAIN which has nothing to do with anything. The debate was whether waterboarding is illegal in the US. I've pointed out you just assume that it is covered under Geneva and that it is torture and you keep ranting about torture being illegal too. He didn't address the POINT any more then you have.

- His next point is lost in space. I point out that no one's presented ANY evidence we've tortured anyone. He says something about that when anyone says torture I say waterboarding. OK, but that has nothing to do in any way with my saying no one has presented EVIDENCE we've tortured anyone.

- There are some cutout quotes at the end where the context isn't clear, they don't clearly apply but they could and liberal credibility to select them is low and the Left's endless use of this as a political election tool over any real National interest is shamelessly exploited. Basically this is just a repetition of the assumption by accusation so commonly practiced by the Left that permeate both your posts.

In the end, here is the choice in the situation in the case a terrorist is captured and there is credible reason to believe he has knowledge which could protect US troops and Iraqis from injury and death. We subject him to treatment which is obviously bad or he obviously wouldn't talk, or we respect him as a human being and just let the troops and more Iraqis die. This isn't a choice. That is unless your priority isn't protecting anyone but winning elections.

[Irn-Bru]

Is it your view that can't happen in Iraq? If so, why? I think it is taking more time because of the unusual situation that the rebels were actually the trained army and the government wasn't. But I don't see any reason Iraq can't be stable.

My view is that stability there is possible, but assuming that the Americans are capable of instilling that on them is a bit unrealistic. So, I would agree with your last sentence, but I would tack something on like "therefore, it makes sense that the U.S. should remove itself a.s.a.p." Something like that.

I'm arguing it is not self-interest to tilt against windmills of an overwhelming power, the US Army, if we are resolved to win and you're saying our STAYING and exhibiting POWER will result in recruiting benefit for the terrorists to fight and unwindable war?

The U.S. army is powerful but isn't equipped to win this war—and I don't mean in terms of guns or tanks. It's a matter of tactics and why they are there. I don't think any degree of resolution on the part of the army or the U.S. is going to enable us to win. I think we can compare it to Vietnam, about which I disagree with traditional conservative history that says we only lost because we "lost" at home.

There are so many things that are so much MORE blowing up our currency then Iraq. The failed "war on poverty." The endless "war on drugs." The social dependency, I mean safety net. The consequences of our tax code where we create a huge industry to calculate and evade taxes and waste our companies time and resources focusing on taxes instead of being efficient and competing with each other and international firms. And the money we've spent is a sunk cost, you can't get it back. If money is our concern, and it should be, then the cost of staying in Iraq is WAY down the list of where we get bang for our buck going forward.

The weakness, strength, or stability of our currency is fundamentally a monetary concern and so bringing up wasteful government programs is only pertinent insofar as it is clear that our government deals with these by inflating the money supply.

So, the war on poverty, drugs, and every other domestic evil is costing us somewhere in the range of a few hundred billion dollars per year.

But so is the War in Iraq. Our military constitutes about 30% of the federal budget. What's worse, war's destructive nature means that wealth is destroyed in the process, not simply re-arranged or put in the pocket of a bureaucrat. Bombs explode, bullets are fired, people are taken from the U.S. (where they could have worked and been productive) and spend 2-3 years somewhere else killing people they don't know.

It is a case of what is seen and what is unseen. Every empire in the history of the world has had to inflate its currency in order to fight wars, and we have been no different, because the cost of war is very difficult to estimate (and is almost always underestimated). The question is: who pays for it? In our case, the answer is (to a large degree) "The printing press does!"

Taxes, and especially tax structure (reforming the structure is like re-arranging deck chairs on the Titanic), have far less to do with the strength of our currency. If what I'm claiming is true, and the value of our currency is tied to the actions of the Federal Reserve, then the Iraq war—as well as gargantuan social programs here at home—are the first concerns that we should have, financially speaking, with our foreign policy at the top of the list.

[crazyhorse1]

Thank you. Sounds completely definitive to me, as it does to anyone else who has ever read it without an indefensible position to defend. How about it, Kazoo. Do you need someone to help you off the field after such a hit?

I don't see ANY "hits."

- He said I'm not a libertarian and didn't state why. A liberal, in arguing with a libertarian, says he's not a libertarian for arguing with him, a liberal.

- He said when you make an assumption that the Geneva Conventions apply and I challenged that I couldn't challenge that without taking on the responsibility of proving you wrong. Crazyhorse, Hillary is a MASS murderer, she has had 17 abortions (Bill was the father of 3) and she is planning to lead an invasion of the earth the day she is inaugurated unless she is DEFEATED. According to the tripping post if you argue this you have the responsiblity to PROVE that I'm wrong, you can't just point out that it's silly, like that waterboarding is torture is silly.

- He goes on a rant about torture AGAIN which has nothing to do with anything. The debate was whether waterboarding is illegal in the US. I've pointed out you just assume that it is covered under Geneva and that it is torture and you keep ranting about torture being illegal too. He didn't address the POINT any more then you have.

- His next point is lost in space. I point out that no one's presented ANY evidence we've tortured anyone. He says something about that when anyone says torture I say waterboarding. OK, but that has nothing to do in any way with my saying no one has presented EVIDENCE we've tortured anyone.

- There are some cutout quotes at the end where the context isn't clear, they don't clearly apply but they could and liberal credibility to select them is low and the Left's endless use of this as a political election tool over any real National interest is shamelessly exploited. Basically this is just a repetition of the assumption by accusation so commonly practiced by the Left that permeate both your posts.

In the end, here is the choice in the situation in the case a terrorist is captured and there is credible reason to believe he has knowledge which could protect US troops and Iraqis from injury and death. We subject him to treatment which is obviously bad or he obviously wouldn't talk, or we respect him as a human being and just let the troops and more Iraqis die. This isn't a choice. That is unless your priority isn't protecting anyone but winning elections.

You took a hit from which your credibility can't recover. You have maintained all along that the Geneva conventions don't ban the torture of specific types of prisoners. Now that is has been irrefutably proven that you are totally wrong and are supporting a practice considered a war crime by international agreement and by U. S. law, considering the U.S. is a signatory of that agreement, you engage in a post of irrelevant rhetoric.

If you want to blow off about torture being necessary and whatever, be my guest. I do wish, however, that you would cease passing along inaccurate information. Bush's oath of office included the enforcement of all U.S. law and International Agreements. His failure to do so is an impeachable offense.

His personal definition of torture has no relevance to international law or U.S. law. He is not a king. Even if torture were useful, as you claim, that supposed fact would also be irrelevant. It is against the law and he, as the President of the United States, has violated U.S. law and committed war crimes.

Further, there is no way for the U.S, to unilaterally change International law unilaterally or internally pass laws in violation of our own law or in violational of International law to which we have agreed, helped write, and enforced without becoming a rogue nation.

None of these are Dean's talking points. I don't know of anything he has ever said close to the above. The above is simple fact, except in the minds of Bush, Bush supporters, and people who have been deliberately misinformed about the law.

The notion that waterboarding is not torture is laughable and not even worth discussion. It humiliates the victim, causes extreme panic and excruciating pain, psychological damage, damage to internal organs and sometimes death. Once again, try reading the Convention's definition of torture, as well as enclopedias and dictionaries. It's been a means of torture since the Spanish Inquisition and is recognized as such, even by its practitioners (including the CIA), throughout the world.

Honestly, those who deny waterboarding is torture are regarded as utterly out of touch with the obvious by a huge majority of Americans, even by those who support it. Seriously, my friend, you have blown your credibily on the Conventions-- and now you seem to be blowing it on the nature of reality as well.

[Deadskins]

I am going to combine all of my responses into this one post, because I just don't have the stamina nor the will to keep banging my head against the brick wall that is your stance on these issues.

- In toppling Hussein we have a moral commitment in my view to leave them a stable government.

Irn-Bru and I find that quote hysterical for very different reasons. He puts the emphasis on "stable government," while I find your "moral commitment" reference to be outrageous.

From liberalspeak:

- Fact - Anything that supports a liberal argument
- Lie - Anything that doesn't.

This post is logically bizarre dude. I'm very happy you have found heaven in posting endless Democratic talking points. It's one thing that's fascinating to me:

Talking to a liberal about politics is like talking to a Republican about religion. There is good and evil. They are good, the other is evil. There is no gray on anything. That themselves are right is assumption and in no way needs to be supported. That "the others" are wrong is again assumption and in no way supported. You just state little meaningless talking points as your "arguments."

I am happy for you, your posting nirvana, Howard Dean is GOD! He knows all! You cannot go wrong ever! While I think the Christians are nuts, at least their God is actually a deity instead of putting their complete faith in not only people but shiftless lying politicians as ALL politicians are.

Here's another argument you make that I keep hearing from liberals over and over that cracks me up.

- I say I am a libertarian, not a Republican
- But to not be a Republican I must be a liberal
- Therefore, to be a libertarian I must convince them I am in fact a liberal
- However, I have in fact convinced them I am NOT a liberal, therefore I am not a libertarian, I am a Republican
- QED

But I rejoice my friend in your joy and contentment. But I'm not going to debate you anymore because it's like trying to argue with a Christian about the existence of Jesus. Hail Howard! That was for you.

Translation: Blah blah blah. I can't refute anything in your post specifically, so I will repeat my claim that you are echoing Howard Dean and the Democrats talking points. I am a Libertarian, but you keep calling me a Republican, though I can't actually quote one instance where you make that claim. I am not a Republican, although I do spout Republican talking points whenever making arguments against anyone I deem to be a liberal. Because you are a liberal, you can't possibly be Christian, even though Jesus' teachings are decidedly liberal. Knowing this, I feel safe defaming Christians, and your personal beliefs, by claiming you worship Howard Dean as your God. Since I can't defend my positions in the face of logical and cogent arguments, I am declaring victory and refuse to debate any longer.

He said I'm not a libertarian and didn't state why. A liberal, in arguing with a libertarian, says he's not a libertarian for arguing with him, a liberal.

Really? Show me where. I did make the implication that you call yourself a libertarian, but then spout Republican talking points to try to back up your positions that are clearly not libertarian.

He said when you make an assumption that the Geneva Conventions apply and I challenged that I couldn't challenge that without taking on the responsibility of proving you wrong.

No. I said you make the assumption that they don't apply without any proof to back up this argument, then lambaste CH1 for his statement that they do apply without any backing. The height of hypocrisy.

He goes on a rant about torture AGAIN which has nothing to do with anything. The debate was whether waterboarding is illegal in the US. I've pointed out you just assume that it is covered under Geneva and that it is torture and you keep ranting about torture being illegal too. He didn't address the POINT any more then you have.

Actually, I did, I cited the actual passages in the GCs that prohibit physical or mental coercion of any type against all detainees. But here you go again equating my use of the word torture with waterboarding, and even further trying to limit the discussion to the practice in the US alone.

His next point is lost in space. I point out that no one's presented ANY evidence we've tortured anyone. He says something about that when anyone says torture I say waterboarding. OK, but that has nothing to do in any way with my saying no one has presented EVIDENCE we've tortured anyone.

Please quote for me where you said there was no evidence of torture. Or are you saying now that there was no evidence presented here in this thread? There has been ample evidence presented of torture, or as you call it, "unpleasant experiences" of detainees at Abu Grahib and Gitmo, as well as torture performed in the US's name by foreign governments after renditions, and by private contractors such as Blackwater.

There are some cutout quotes at the end where the context isn't clear, they don't clearly apply but they could and liberal credibility to select them is low and the Left's endless use of this as a political election tool over any real National interest is shamelessly exploited. Basically this is just a repetition of the assumption by accusation so commonly practiced by the Left that permeate both your posts.

I don't see how the context of the GC quotes can be questioned, but I can see how you would say that when grasping at straws to try to continue your [talking] "point" that the GC's do not apply to Iraq.

In the end, here is the choice in the situation in the case a terrorist is captured and there is credible reason to believe he has knowledge which could protect US troops and Iraqis from injury and death. We subject him to treatment which is obviously bad or he obviously wouldn't talk, or we respect him as a human being and just let the troops and more Iraqis die. This isn't a choice. That is unless your priority isn't protecting anyone but winning elections.

I suppose you can justify any actions with claims of National Security. But just as you make the claim that waterboarding is not torture to defend yourself from accusations of being pro-torture, you try to make it out that anyone who does not approve of those methods as being anti-troops or upatriotic. Personally, I can't justify torturing anyone, but that is because of my religious beliefs, not my political beliefs.

[Deadskins]

Is it your view that can't happen in Iraq? If so, why? I think it is taking more time because of the unusual situation that the rebels were actually the trained army and the government wasn't. But I don't see any reason Iraq can't be stable.

My view is that stability there is possible, but assuming that the Americans are capable of instilling that on them is a bit unrealistic. So, I would agree with your last sentence, but I would tack something on like "therefore, it makes sense that the U.S. should remove itself a.s.a.p." Something like that.

I'm arguing it is not self-interest to tilt against windmills of an overwhelming power, the US Army, if we are resolved to win and you're saying our STAYING and exhibiting POWER will result in recruiting benefit for the terrorists to fight and unwindable war?

The U.S. army is powerful but isn't equipped to win this war—and I don't mean in terms of guns or tanks. It's a matter of tactics and why they are there. I don't think any degree of resolution on the part of the army or the U.S. is going to enable us to win. I think we can compare it to Vietnam, about which I disagree with traditional conservative history that says we only lost because we "lost" at home.

There are so many things that are so much MORE blowing up our currency then Iraq. The failed "war on poverty." The endless "war on drugs." The social dependency, I mean safety net. The consequences of our tax code where we create a huge industry to calculate and evade taxes and waste our companies time and resources focusing on taxes instead of being efficient and competing with each other and international firms. And the money we've spent is a sunk cost, you can't get it back. If money is our concern, and it should be, then the cost of staying in Iraq is WAY down the list of where we get bang for our buck going forward.

The weakness, strength, or stability of our currency is fundamentally a monetary concern and so bringing up wasteful government programs is only pertinent insofar as it is clear that our government deals with these by inflating the money supply.

So, the war on poverty, drugs, and every other domestic evil is costing us somewhere in the range of a few hundred billion dollars per year.

But so is the War in Iraq. Our military constitutes about 30% of the federal budget. What's worse, war's destructive nature means that wealth is destroyed in the process, not simply re-arranged or put in the pocket of a bureaucrat. Bombs explode, bullets are fired, people are taken from the U.S. (where they could have worked and been productive) and spend 2-3 years somewhere else killing people they don't know.

It is a case of what is seen and what is unseen. Every empire in the history of the world has had to inflate its currency in order to fight wars, and we have been no different, because the cost of war is very difficult to estimate (and is almost always underestimated). The question is: who pays for it? In our case, the answer is (to a large degree) "The printing press does!"

Taxes, and especially tax structure (reforming the structure is like re-arranging deck chairs on the Titanic), have far less to do with the strength of our currency. If what I'm claiming is true, and the value of our currency is tied to the actions of the Federal Reserve, then the Iraq war—as well as gargantuan social programs here at home—are the first concerns that we should have, financially speaking, with our foreign policy at the top of the list.

Hey IB, I'm not sure if CT would like you putting the words of KSF into his mouth.

[KazooSkinsFan]

Actually these are my quotes, TYPO! You LOST! Just kidding. Actually substantiative disagreement is hard to find. I'm glad to hear you want a quick resolution, not just to pull out. Obviously given my ongoing stated support for Ron Paul who is more in agreement with you then me on this particular issue I consider this only ONE issue. I support him because across the board my agreement with him far exceeds my disagreement.

I think it is taking more time because of the unusual situation that the rebels were actually the trained army and the government wasn't. But I don't see any reason Iraq can't be stable.

My view is that stability there is possible, but assuming that the Americans are capable of instilling that on them is a bit unrealistic. So, I would agree with your last sentence, but I would tack something on like "therefore, it makes sense that the U.S. should remove itself a.s.a.p." Something like that.

There is the dilemma. I agree as a strategy in terms of credibility for the government speed of departure is paramount. The dichotomy as I pointed out is that the rebels are dominated by the Hussein Army and particularly the Republican Guard which just militarily difficult for a new, inexperienced Army to defeat. I guess all I'm saying is fast but not reckless.

I'm arguing it is not self-interest to tilt against windmills of an overwhelming power, the US Army, if we are resolved to win and you're saying our STAYING and exhibiting POWER will result in recruiting benefit for the terrorists to fight and unwindable war?

The U.S. army is powerful but isn't equipped to win this war—and I don't mean in terms of guns or tanks. It's a matter of tactics and why they are there. I don't think any degree of resolution on the part of the army or the U.S. is going to enable us to win. I think we can compare it to Vietnam, about which I disagree with traditional conservative history that says we only lost because we "lost" at home.

I have a hard time seeing us not winning this war militarily. We conquered and held a 25 million population country for 3 1/2 years with 3500 or so casualties? By military standards that is an unparalleled success in human history. Are we not winning just because we can't stop militarily insignificant casualties? The definition of "terrorist" which has never worked in recorded human history. If that's so by what possible standard are the terrorists winning?

This is really a side point anyway I think we'd agree, the solution is the first part, we both want to get out as fast as possible and the only discussion is how fast IS possible.

The weakness, strength, or stability of our currency is fundamentally a monetary concern and so bringing up wasteful government programs is only pertinent insofar as it is clear that our government deals with these by inflating the money supply....

In the end I didn't see anything different that we wanted in the rest, not that you said otherwise. We want out of Iraq, to stop the war on drugs, overspending, ....

[KazooSkinsFan]

You took a hit from which your credibility can't recover. You have maintained all along that the Geneva conventions don't ban the torture of specific types of prisoners.

I maintained they don't apply, I did not say this. Some contextless quotes without links don't change that.

You and I are senior officers in Baghdad. We are both brought prisoners just captured on the street. Let's call mine "Steve" and yours "Michael." Intelligence officers tell us both there is an imminent attack planned and they have strong reason to believe Steve and Michael are aware of separate but coordinated attacks on US military and civilians.

You ask Michael for intelligence. When he refuses you berate him, appeal to his Iraqi patriotism, you try to guilt him and finally in frustration you yell at him. Then you feed him, give him a good night sleep and do it again the next day. I ask Steve, tell him what I'm going to do, and order him waterboarded.

The next day Steve talks, Michael doesn't. My men raid a house with explosives and arrest a group of men planning an attack on a police recruitment center. You're up to "guilt." At 5pm that day, there is no explosion in the recruiting center Steve knew about. That day at the one Michael knew about a bomb goes off killing 25 Iraqi recruits and 3 US soldiers injuring many more of both.

In your district, Michael is fine. There are 3 dead US soldiers, 2 widows in the US and 3 orphans. There are 25 dead Iraqis, 15 Iraqi widows and 40 Iraqi orphans. That doesn't count the injuries. There are 25+ fewer Iraqis headed to patrol the streets and countless more afraid to volunteer.

In my district Steve thought he was going to drown, he had a horrible day. But he's fine now, no injuries, the choice to be a terrorist was his, and there are no dead, widows or orphans and the streets are a little safer as there are going to be a few more policemen to patrol them and a few terrorists in jail we captured during the raid.

You changed no minds. Our enemies still hate us. Our friends are still our friends. Democrats did it to win elections. Congratulations. It may work.

[KazooSkinsFan]

I am going to combine all of my responses into this one post, because I just don't have the stamina nor the will to keep banging my head against the brick wall that is your stance on these issues.

- In toppling Hussein we have a moral commitment in my view to leave them a stable government.

Irn-Bru and I find that quote hysterical for very different reasons. He puts the emphasis on "stable government," while I find your "moral commitment" reference to be outrageous.

From liberalspeak:

- Fact - Anything that supports a liberal argument
- Lie - Anything that doesn't.

This post is logically bizarre dude. I'm very happy you have found heaven in posting endless Democratic talking points. It's one thing that's fascinating to me:

Talking to a liberal about politics is like talking to a Republican about religion. There is good and evil. They are good, the other is evil. There is no gray on anything. That themselves are right is assumption and in no way needs to be supported. That "the others" are wrong is again assumption and in no way supported. You just state little meaningless talking points as your "arguments."

I am happy for you, your posting nirvana, Howard Dean is GOD! He knows all! You cannot go wrong ever! While I think the Christians are nuts, at least their God is actually a deity instead of putting their complete faith in not only people but shiftless lying politicians as ALL politicians are.

Here's another argument you make that I keep hearing from liberals over and over that cracks me up.

- I say I am a libertarian, not a Republican
- But to not be a Republican I must be a liberal
- Therefore, to be a libertarian I must convince them I am in fact a liberal
- However, I have in fact convinced them I am NOT a liberal, therefore I am not a libertarian, I am a Republican
- QED

But I rejoice my friend in your joy and contentment. But I'm not going to debate you anymore because it's like trying to argue with a Christian about the existence of Jesus. Hail Howard! That was for you.

Translation: Blah blah blah. I can't refute anything in your post specifically, so I will repeat my claim that you are echoing Howard Dean and the Democrats talking points. I am a Libertarian, but you keep calling me a Republican, though I can't actually quote one instance where you make that claim. I am not a Republican, although I do spout Republican talking points whenever making arguments against anyone I deem to be a liberal. Because you are a liberal, you can't possibly be Christian, even though Jesus' teachings are decidedly liberal. Knowing this, I feel safe defaming Christians, and your personal beliefs, by claiming you worship Howard Dean as your God. Since I can't defend my positions in the face of logical and cogent arguments, I am declaring victory and refuse to debate any longer.

He said I'm not a libertarian and didn't state why. A liberal, in arguing with a libertarian, says he's not a libertarian for arguing with him, a liberal.

Really? Show me where. I did make the implication that you call yourself a libertarian, but then spout Republican talking points to try to back up your positions that are clearly not libertarian.

He said when you make an assumption that the Geneva Conventions apply and I challenged that I couldn't challenge that without taking on the responsibility of proving you wrong.

No. I said you make the assumption that they don't apply without any proof to back up this argument, then lambaste CH1 for his statement that they do apply without any backing. The height of hypocrisy.

He goes on a rant about torture AGAIN which has nothing to do with anything. The debate was whether waterboarding is illegal in the US. I've pointed out you just assume that it is covered under Geneva and that it is torture and you keep ranting about torture being illegal too. He didn't address the POINT any more then you have.

Actually, I did, I cited the actual passages in the GCs that prohibit physical or mental coercion of any type against all detainees. But here you go again equating my use of the word torture with waterboarding, and even further trying to limit the discussion to the practice in the US alone.

His next point is lost in space. I point out that no one's presented ANY evidence we've tortured anyone. He says something about that when anyone says torture I say waterboarding. OK, but that has nothing to do in any way with my saying no one has presented EVIDENCE we've tortured anyone.

Please quote for me where you said there was no evidence of torture. Or are you saying now that there was no evidence presented here in this thread? There has been ample evidence presented of torture, or as you call it, "unpleasant experiences" of detainees at Abu Grahib and Gitmo, as well as torture performed in the US's name by foreign governments after renditions, and by private contractors such as Blackwater.

There are some cutout quotes at the end where the context isn't clear, they don't clearly apply but they could and liberal credibility to select them is low and the Left's endless use of this as a political election tool over any real National interest is shamelessly exploited. Basically this is just a repetition of the assumption by accusation so commonly practiced by the Left that permeate both your posts.

I don't see how the context of the GC quotes can be questioned, but I can see how you would say that when grasping at straws to try to continue your [talking] "point" that the GC's do not apply to Iraq.

In the end, here is the choice in the situation in the case a terrorist is captured and there is credible reason to believe he has knowledge which could protect US troops and Iraqis from injury and death. We subject him to treatment which is obviously bad or he obviously wouldn't talk, or we respect him as a human being and just let the troops and more Iraqis die. This isn't a choice. That is unless your priority isn't protecting anyone but winning elections.

I suppose you can justify any actions with claims of National Security. But just as you make the claim that waterboarding is not torture to defend yourself from accusations of being pro-torture, you try to make it out that anyone who does not approve of those methods as being anti-troops or upatriotic. Personally, I can't justify torturing anyone, but that is because of my religious beliefs, not my political beliefs.

Sorry about that clunk, it was my head hitting the desk in total boredom. At least crazyhorse is INTERESTING. I have a gas arguing with him. He's smart funny and witty. He's just wrong.

Debating your posts are like debating Howard Dean press releases. You didn't say what you said and you said what you didn't say and I didn't osmose other answers that you clearly knew I was wrong on because Howard Dean said so. I'm not debating you until you write and INTERESTING post to debate. I don't care what you argue, but just rewriting the history of what you said and what I said and what happened in Iraq and washing the guilt from the Democrats away because they are good and pure is DULL.

George Bush is the devil, it's all his fault, Democrats never did nutten. They were no where near the place, they were sick, they have a note from their mom, their dog ate it, they were stuck in traffic, they were robbed and had to go to the police station, they forgot it and had to go home to get it, ...

I GOT IT! The Democrats did NOTHING. George Bush did EVERYTHING. It was ALL HIM! Why do you have to keep posting that monotonous point adding NOTHING to the debate and why do your posts have to be so DULL in doing it?

Just curious. Sincerely Kaz, Kazoo, KazooSkinsFan. I also answer to Spike, Mr. Happy and Jeckle and Hyde. Please go away until you have something, anything to say but how pure and innocent Democrats are and that the Republicans are the Devil!

Or don't, whatever

[Deadskins]

You took a hit from which your credibility can't recover. You have maintained all along that the Geneva conventions don't ban the torture of specific types of prisoners.

I maintained they don't apply, I did not say this. Some contextless quotes without links don't change that.

Except that there was a link provided. And your fanciful scenario not withstanding, you have done nothing to refute his argument that Bush has committed impeachable offenses.

Look Kazoo, I tried to steer you back to the topic six pages ago. All I really wanted was your opinion of the two quotes I excerpted from the link in Irn-Bru's original post. It was you who went down the road of trying to defend the practice of waterboarding, and of interrogation techniques specifically outlawed by the GCs.

If you'll give me an honest answer as to your libertarian views of these two quotes from the time-line, I'll leave you alone.

From Irn-Bru's link, these are the scariest portions to me:

John Warner Defense Authorization Act is passed. The act allows a president to declare a public emergency and station US military troops anywhere in America as well as take control of state based national guard units without consent of the governor or other local authorities. The law authorizes presidential deployment of US troops to round-up and detain “potential terrorists”, “illegal aliens” and “disorderly” citizenry.

and

National Security Presidential Directive 51 (NSPD-51) establishes a new post-disaster plan (with disaster defined as any incident, natural or man-made, resulting in extraordinary mass casualties, damage or disruption) which places the president in charge of all three branches of government. The directive overrides the National Emergencies Act which gives Congress power to determine the duration of a national emergency.

[Deadskins]

I just read your last post which you were writing as I was writing mine. Once again you accuse me of defending Democratic abuses of power and worshipping at the alter of Howard Dean. I defy you to show me one instance where I have ever done either. In fact here is a quote from the debate we had over global warming in the "Liberals sucks [sic] and are unpatriotic!" thread from smack:

You use "libs" and "liberals" interchangeably with "politicians of the Democratic party." It's as if you're expecting Hillary or Barak to log on to THN and debate you on global warming. I am a liberal, and I do tend to vote for Democratic candidates, but only because Republicans offer a much less palatable alternative. I actually think the parties are basically the same, in that they are both playing the roles that their corporate masters have dictated. This is why your anger at "liberals" is so misplaced.
Liberals, and I'm not speaking about politicians here, believe people should help each other so that everyone benefits, and no one is left behind. Conservatives, and again I'm not talking about politicians, believe people should be responsible for helping themselves, and through competition, most everyone benefits, and if you are left behind that's your problem.

http://www.the-hogs.net/forum/viewtopic. ... &start=201

[crazyhorse1]

I just read your last post which you were writing as I was writing mine. Once again you accuse me of defending Democratic abuses of power and worshipping at the alter of Howard Dean. I defy you to show me one instance where I have ever done either. In fact here is a quote from the debate we had over global warming in the "Liberals sucks [sic] and are unpatriotic!" thread from smack:

You use "libs" and "liberals" interchangeably with "politicians of the Democratic party." It's as if you're expecting Hillary or Barak to log on to THN and debate you on global warming. I am a liberal, and I do tend to vote for Democratic candidates, but only because Republicans offer a much less palatable alternative. I actually think the parties are basically the same, in that they are both playing the roles that their corporate masters have dictated. This is why your anger at "liberals" is so misplaced.
Liberals, and I'm not speaking about politicians here, believe people should help each other so that everyone benefits, and no one is left behind. Conservatives, and again I'm not talking about politicians, believe people should be responsible for helping themselves, and through competition, most everyone benefits, and if you are left behind that's your problem.

http://www.the-hogs.net/forum/viewtopic. ... &start=201

Kazoo,

A liberal and a conservative are together driving in rainy weather. They see a cripple in soaked clothing thumbing a ride. Which one shouts something about the law of the jungle, and which one wants to stop and give the guy a ride.

Which one is more Christ like? Which one bitches about his hard-earned cock-fighting money being used by the governent to buy the wet guy his clutch?

If a libertarian were in the car, what would he do? Ans: He would prevent the liberal from stopping and let the conservative do what he wants.

That is what is wrong with your philosophy.

[KazooSkinsFan]

You took a hit from which your credibility can't recover. You have maintained all along that the Geneva conventions don't ban the torture of specific types of prisoners.

I maintained they don't apply, I did not say this. Some contextless quotes without links don't change that.

Except that there was a link provided

Links that it's people's "opinion" waterboarding is torture do not make waterboarding against the geneva convention, which you have only provided contextless cutout quotes for. Would you accept me providing people's opinion as proof waterboarding is not torture? I'm guessing NO! So why would you expect me to accept that as "proof?"

And your fanciful scenario not withstanding, you have done nothing to refute his argument that Bush has committed impeachable offenses.

First of all once again burden is on the accuser. You've declined to disprove my Hillary accusations, so by your rules we can now accept as fact she's a mass murderer who's planning to lead an alien invasion the day after her inauguration and she's had 17 abortions.

Second of all, I actually have repeatedly said I DO support the impeachment of Bush, but if and only if BOTH parties are held accountable for their culpability in Iraq. I blame BOTH for bringing us there and only holding one accountable would be benefiting the other equally guilty party. So I would be just as opposed to going after only Democrats over their culpability in Iraq for the same reason.

[KazooSkinsFan]

I just read your last post which you were writing as I was writing mine. Once again you accuse me of defending Democratic abuses of power and worshipping at the alter of Howard Dean. I defy you to show me one instance where I have ever done either. In fact here is a quote from the debate we had over global warming in the "Liberals sucks [sic] and are unpatriotic!" thread from smack:

You use "libs" and "liberals" interchangeably with "politicians of the Democratic party." It's as if you're expecting Hillary or Barak to log on to THN and debate you on global warming. I am a liberal, and I do tend to vote for Democratic candidates, but only because Republicans offer a much less palatable alternative. I actually think the parties are basically the same, in that they are both playing the roles that their corporate masters have dictated. This is why your anger at "liberals" is so misplaced.
Liberals, and I'm not speaking about politicians here, believe people should help each other so that everyone benefits, and no one is left behind. Conservatives, and again I'm not talking about politicians, believe people should be responsible for helping themselves, and through competition, most everyone benefits, and if you are left behind that's your problem.

http://www.the-hogs.net/forum/viewtopic. ... &start=201

I've never said you don't state that you are not a worshiper of Howard Dean, what I said is that every post you've been writing I've seen ever if we were to read would result in his cheer and they are ALL democratic talking points. I keep asking you, don't tell me you're not a liberal democratic stalwart, demonstrate it by not only writing posts which blindly follow the Democrat = Good, above reproach, blameless, Republicans = Evil, totally at fault, responsible for all script.

And further evidence is that despite my endless posted disagreements with Republicans in the war and on so many other issues, you keep bringing up my being a Republican because while I say I'm not a Republican or a Democrat I'm not a Democrat. I'm actually overall to the left of libertarian. I realize that is beyond the grasp of the posts you have written, but if a Libertarian system were in place, they would

- There would be no drug laws at all for currently legal or illegal drugs, there would be no FDA, no required government testing, no AMA to say who could treat you. Prostitution would be legal, you could sell your own organs, limbs even to the point of causing your own death. There would be no public schools, only private. There would be no restrictions at all on abortion.

- Sell all government land, including the national parks and there would be few laws regulating their use including environmental laws. Neighbors would have to prove land use was harming them and sue for damages would be the only environmental control.

- There would be almost no consumer protections for safety or honesty in advertising, it would be the responsibility of consumers to rate and communicate products and companies that are bad and boycott the company. Or if OVERT fraud were committed sue for damages.

- Our tort system would be nothing like we know it. It would exist but suers would have total personal responsibility and only be able to sue based on actual damage of defendants.

- Social security, welfare, Medicare, Medicaid, SEC, FCC, FAA, AMA, ABA, Post Office, department of Energy, EPA, HUD, FDIC, The Federal Reserve and most of the Federal government would be GONE. There would ONLY be private charity.

- There would be no limits on guns, including fully automatic, anti-tank rifles, ...

- There would be no property tax as that makes the owners of property renters

- Government would do NOTHING to provide liberals with their precious cheap gas

- There would be no government restrictions on drilling off the coast or on any personal land (and remember there is no public land except for the actual land government buildings sit on) or nuclear power. If there is damage, you sue.

- There would be no support of unions. Unions could fire workers in a strike any way they like. Fire the leaders, whatever. It's up to the union to negotiate a contract to get them reinstated.

- There would be no anti-discrimination laws for private companies. You can fire workers, blacks, Latinos, anyone you want for any reason you want, including they are black, female, whatever. It's up the the workers to work those things out, not the government.

This is standard libertarianism. Not even extreme which makes all taxes voluntary, all roads private, ....

I am mostly in agreement with all that. I'm to the left of it because while I would pretty much hold the Federal government to that I'd allow some in the States, like a minimal safety net. I am fine with government requiring truth of disclosure while I'm with the libertarians in not compelling action, I'm in favor of National Parks, I do not believe that government should do nothing about the environment because I think it's impossible to allow people to do anything they want on their land w/o affecting others, that sort of thing. In all these things I'm a lot closer to Libertarians then what we have now, but I think some of these things are too far in a crowded world and I do not believe that the strong should be able to totally prey on the weak with no government protection at all.

That you post I'm a Republican is posting ignorance.

[KazooSkinsFan]

I just read your last post which you were writing as I was writing mine. Once again you accuse me of defending Democratic abuses of power and worshipping at the alter of Howard Dean. I defy you to show me one instance where I have ever done either. In fact here is a quote from the debate we had over global warming in the "Liberals sucks [sic] and are unpatriotic!" thread from smack:

You use "libs" and "liberals" interchangeably with "politicians of the Democratic party." It's as if you're expecting Hillary or Barak to log on to THN and debate you on global warming. I am a liberal, and I do tend to vote for Democratic candidates, but only because Republicans offer a much less palatable alternative. I actually think the parties are basically the same, in that they are both playing the roles that their corporate masters have dictated. This is why your anger at "liberals" is so misplaced.
Liberals, and I'm not speaking about politicians here, believe people should help each other so that everyone benefits, and no one is left behind. Conservatives, and again I'm not talking about politicians, believe people should be responsible for helping themselves, and through competition, most everyone benefits, and if you are left behind that's your problem.

http://www.the-hogs.net/forum/viewtopic. ... &start=201

Kazoo,

A liberal and a conservative are together driving in rainy weather. They see a cripple in soaked clothing thumbing a ride. Which one shouts something about the law of the jungle, and which one wants to stop and give the guy a ride.

Which one is more Christ like? Which one bitches about his hard-earned cock-fighting money being used by the governent to buy the wet guy his clutch?

If a libertarian were in the car, what would he do? Ans: He would prevent the liberal from stopping and let the conservative do what he wants.

That is what is wrong with your philosophy.

This is fun, I like the story debate. Your actions are wrong.

- The Conservative would stop and give him a ride with a nice lecture on Jesus taking him to the nearest church.
- The Libertarian would stop and give him a ride to the nearest phone.
- The liberal would drive by wondering why no one was doing anything for the guy, where the government was and personally blaming George Bush for the guys flat tire.

[Deadskins]

You took a hit from which your credibility can't recover. You have maintained all along that the Geneva conventions don't ban the torture of specific types of prisoners.

I maintained they don't apply, I did not say this. Some contextless quotes without links don't change that.

Except that there was a link provided

Links that it's people's "opinion" waterboarding is torture do not make waterboarding against the geneva convention, which you have only provided contextless cutout quotes for. Would you accept me providing people's opinion as proof waterboarding is not torture? I'm guessing NO! So why would you expect me to accept that as "proof?"

The link I was referring to was for those "contextless" quotes of the Geneva conventions that you said I did not provide.

And you are still stuck on Iraq and torture. Please, just for once, answer the question asked of you, without going off on some tangent.

If you'll give me an honest answer as to your libertarian views of these two quotes from the time-line, I'll leave you alone.

From Irn-Bru's link, these are the scariest portions to me:

John Warner Defense Authorization Act is passed. The act allows a president to declare a public emergency and station US military troops anywhere in America as well as take control of state based national guard units without consent of the governor or other local authorities. The law authorizes presidential deployment of US troops to round-up and detain “potential terrorists”, “illegal aliens” and “disorderly” citizenry.

and

National Security Presidential Directive 51 (NSPD-51) establishes a new post-disaster plan (with disaster defined as any incident, natural or man-made, resulting in extraordinary mass casualties, damage or disruption) which places the president in charge of all three branches of government. The directive overrides the National Emergencies Act which gives Congress power to determine the duration of a national emergency.

[Deadskins]

I just read your last post which you were writing as I was writing mine. Once again you accuse me of defending Democratic abuses of power and worshipping at the alter of Howard Dean. I defy you to show me one instance where I have ever done either. In fact here is a quote from the debate we had over global warming in the "Liberals sucks [sic] and are unpatriotic!" thread from smack:

You use "libs" and "liberals" interchangeably with "politicians of the Democratic party." It's as if you're expecting Hillary or Barak to log on to THN and debate you on global warming. I am a liberal, and I do tend to vote for Democratic candidates, but only because Republicans offer a much less palatable alternative. I actually think the parties are basically the same, in that they are both playing the roles that their corporate masters have dictated. This is why your anger at "liberals" is so misplaced.
Liberals, and I'm not speaking about politicians here, believe people should help each other so that everyone benefits, and no one is left behind. Conservatives, and again I'm not talking about politicians, believe people should be responsible for helping themselves, and through competition, most everyone benefits, and if you are left behind that's your problem.

http://www.the-hogs.net/forum/viewtopic. ... &start=201

I've never said you don't state that you are not a worshiper of Howard Dean, what I said is that every post you've been writing I've seen ever if we were to read would result in his cheer and they are ALL democratic talking points. I keep asking you, don't tell me you're not a liberal democratic stalwart, demonstrate it by not only writing posts which blindly follow the Democrat = Good, above reproach, blameless, Republicans = Evil, totally at fault, responsible for all script.

Man, Kazoo, you have a real problem with reading comprehension. Never said that, never would say that, as I don't believe that to be true.

And further evidence is that despite my endless posted disagreements with Republicans in the war and on so many other issues, you keep bringing up my being a Republican because while I say I'm not a Republican or a Democrat I'm not a Democrat. I'm actually overall to the left of libertarian. I realize that is beyond the grasp of the posts you have written, but if a Libertarian system were in place, they would

Once again, I defy you to quote me ever stating, or even implying you are a Republican.

- There would be no drug laws at all for currently legal or illegal drugs, there would be no FDA, no required government testing, no AMA to say who could treat you. Prostitution would be legal, you could sell your own organs, limbs even to the point of causing your own death. There would be no public schools, only private. There would be no restrictions at all on abortion.

I agree with everything here except the schools.

- Sell all government land, including the national parks and there would be few laws regulating their use including environmental laws. Neighbors would have to prove land use was harming them and sue for damages would be the only environmental control.

Totally disagree with this.

- There would be almost no consumer protections for safety or honesty in advertising, it would be the responsibility of consumers to rate and communicate products and companies that are bad and boycott the company. Or if OVERT fraud were committed sue for damages.

I disagree with this.

- Our tort system would be nothing like we know it. It would exist but suers would have total personal responsibility and only be able to sue based on actual damage of defendants.

I agree with this, only if there was no arbitrary limit on damages.

- Social security, welfare, Medicare, Medicaid, SEC, FCC, FAA, AMA, ABA, Post Office, department of Energy, EPA, HUD, FDIC, The Federal Reserve and most of the Federal government would be GONE. There would ONLY be private charity.

I disagree with this.

- There would be no limits on guns, including fully automatic, anti-tank rifles, ...

I totally agree with this.

- There would be no property tax as that makes the owners of property renters

Disagree.

- Government would do NOTHING to provide liberals with their precious cheap gas

I had to laugh at this. I agree that the government should be out of the gas business, but find it laughable that you think it is liberals who demand cheap gas.

- There would be no government restrictions on drilling off the coast or on any personal land (and remember there is no public land except for the actual land government buildings sit on) or nuclear power. If there is damage, you sue.

I disagree with this for environmental reasons.

- There would be no support of unions. Unions could fire workers in a strike any way they like. Fire the leaders, whatever. It's up to the union to negotiate a contract to get them reinstated.

That's fine by me, as long as there was also no support of union-busting and anti-strike police action.

- There would be no anti-discrimination laws for private companies. You can fire workers, blacks, Latinos, anyone you want for any reason you want, including they are black, female, whatever. It's up the the workers to work those things out, not the government.

I can't agree with that. I am against race/gender/sexual orientation related hiring practices, but once on board, you can't fire someone for those reasons.

This is standard libertarianism. Not even extreme which makes all taxes voluntary, all roads private, ....

I am mostly in agreement with all that. I'm to the left of it because while I would pretty much hold the Federal government to that I'd allow some in the States, like a minimal safety net. I am fine with government requiring truth of disclosure while I'm with the libertarians in not compelling action, I'm in favor of National Parks, I do not believe that government should do nothing about the environment because I think it's impossible to allow people to do anything they want on their land w/o affecting others, that sort of thing. In all these things I'm a lot closer to Libertarians then what we have now, but I think some of these things are too far in a crowded world and I do not believe that the strong should be able to totally prey on the weak with no government protection at all.

That you post I'm a Republican is posting ignorance.

That you claim I post you are a Republican, and that I am a Democrat is posting ignorance.

[Irn-Bru]

A liberal and a conservative are together driving in rainy weather. They see a cripple in soaked clothing thumbing a ride. Which one shouts something about the law of the jungle, and which one wants to stop and give the guy a ride.

Which one is more Christ like? Which one bitches about his hard-earned cock-fighting money being used by the governent to buy the wet guy his clutch?

If a libertarian were in the car, what would he do? Ans: He would prevent the liberal from stopping and let the conservative do what he wants.

That is what is wrong with your philosophy.

I guess it's hard to separate the idea of personal responsibility and personal actions and public policy. In order to be free to be virtuous, we have to be free.

Question: which group tends to give more to charity, self-described conservatives or self-described liberals?

Which countries give more to charity: ones with socialist-leaning governments or societies that are more free?

The answer to both of those questions is counter to what you suggest in your story.



Frederic Bastiat, a 19th century liberal, wrote:

Here I encounter the most popular fallacy of our times. It is not considered sufficient that the law should be just; it must be philanthropic. Nor is it sufficient that the law should guarantee to every citizen the free and inoffensive use of his faculties for physical, intellectual, and moral self-improvement. Instead, it is demanded that the law should directly extend welfare, education, and morality throughout the nation.

This is the seductive lure of socialism. And I repeat again: These two uses of the law are in direct contradiction to each other. We must choose between them. A citizen cannot at the same time be free and not free.

Mr. de Lamartine once wrote to me thusly: "Your doctrine is only the half of my program. You have stopped at liberty; I go on to fraternity." I answered him: "The second half of your program will destroy the first."

In fact, it is impossible for me to separate the word fraternity from the word voluntary. I cannot possibly understand how fraternity can be legally enforced without liberty being legally destroyed, and thus justice being legally trampled underfoot

Legal plunder has two roots: One of them, as I have said before, is in human greed; the other is in false philanthropy.

In my opinion, you are committing the fallacy of Mr. de Lamartine, crazyhorse.

[KazooSkinsFan]

Please, just for once, answer the question asked of you, without going off on some tangent

NOW you're being funny! Way To Go!

If you'll give me an honest answer as to your libertarian views of these two quotes from the time-line, I'll leave you alone.
...

I've said long ago that I have two sets of rules, as does the Constitution. In the US, I support unlike the Left ALL the bill of rights, not just half of them. Outside the US the Constitution doesn't apply. Sorry, I didn't realize you missed that. Glad I could help. You don't have to "leave me alone" though, if you quote Howard Dean points I'll mock you and if you make your own I'll address them. Unfortunately so far the posts have been all one and none of the other.

[KazooSkinsFan]

- Government would do NOTHING to provide liberals with their precious cheap gas

I had to laugh at this. I agree that the government should be out of the gas business, but find it laughable that you think it is liberals who demand cheap gas.

Um...this comment in your post completely demonstrates my own stupidity...for responding to your posts. You do not see the left endlessly bashing Bush demanding cheap gas? Wow. I mean WOW. Your posts are BEYOND documenting Howard Dean's positions.

So, does hearing ole Howie speak make you a little hot? I don't mean angry.

[KazooSkinsFan]

Kazoo,

A liberal and a conservative are together driving in rainy weather. They see a cripple in soaked clothing thumbing a ride. Which one shouts something about the law of the jungle, and which one wants to stop and give the guy a ride.

Which one is more Christ like? Which one bitches about his hard-earned cock-fighting money being used by the governent to buy the wet guy his clutch?

If a libertarian were in the car, what would he do? Ans: He would prevent the liberal from stopping and let the conservative do what he wants.

That is what is wrong with your philosophy.

I've got an alternate for you. A liberal, conservative and libertarian are driving down the road. Ahead the liberal sees a man on the side of the road in need before the others and says "stop, quick, stop." They get out and run over to the man.

The liberal shakes the man's hand and asks him if he needs help, the man nods. The liberal says "we passed a town awhile back. I cannot take you but I will phone back and have a cab sent, they will take you anywhere you need to go. I will pay, don't worry about it. Here is my business card, phone me tonight and let me know everything went OK."

As they get in the car and drive off the liberal says, "OK, now one of you give me your credit card..."