Let's have a Tea Party on November 2

[KazooSkinsFan]

I just don't agree you can toss out cause and effect like he did.

Not sure where you'll pulling that one from . . . although I have my suspicions.

Voting for the Tea Party is not voting for the war, there is no cause and effect relationship. I'm not arguing your view on the war, just your making that assertion.

That's question-begging. My primary argument is that voting for the Tea Party is voting pro-war. So I wasn't "tossing out" cause and effect, you simply disagree with me on what the causes and effects are.

Voting for the tea party doesn't cause the war to be any more or less in force then voting for the Republicans or Democrats. There is no cause and effect relationship between voting for them and our being in those wars. We will be anyway. I consider economics every bit as important and there is a difference there. Democrats finally have become worse going off the socialism deep end and the tea party has emerged at least on principle to actually go conservative unlike the Republicans.

[Irn-Bru]

That's question-begging. My primary argument is that voting for the Tea Party is voting pro-war. So I wasn't "tossing out" cause and effect, you simply disagree with me on what the causes and effects are.

Voting for the tea party doesn't cause the war to be any more or less in force then voting for the Republicans or Democrats.

But it does so more than not voting, which is the other alternative I've given. And so there remains the same cause-and-effect relationship between voting for them and war. Far from having "tossed out cause and effect," I simply don't buy your argument here.

and the tea party has emerged at least on principle to actually go conservative unlike the Republicans.

I understand that this is your position, but my disagreements remain: (1) There's little reason to think they'll follow up on what they say, since (a) they are only making vague promises and don't appear to have a principled understanding of economics or political philosophy, and (b) every historical precedent warns us about trusting these kinds of campaign promises; (2) Voting for a Tea Party candidate is a vote for the most damaging and evil government program of them all: war.

[KazooSkinsFan]

How am I supposed to answer when you daon't even ask a valid question, or understand my responses? I said I have voted for people who HAVE voted for immoral things, not that I have voted for people who haven't voted for immoral things. You really need to work on your reading comprehension.

Here's what you said:

I won't vote for a politician that I know to hold a position that I feel is immoral. Have I ever voted for someone, only to find out later that they had acted immorally? Undoubtedly. But I never voted for them again

So you can toss out the ones who you found out later had held an immoral position. Who have you voted for who's vote you stand behind because you didn't find out later they'd voted for an immoral position?

[KazooSkinsFan]

I understand that this is your position, but my disagreements remain: (1) There's little reason to think they'll follow up on what they say, since (a) they are only making vague promises and don't appear to have a principled understanding of economics or political philosophy, and (b) every historical precedent warns us about trusting these kinds of campaign promises; (2) Voting for a Tea Party candidate is a vote for the most damaging and evil government program of them all: war.

Well, you could certainly be right on this. I guess here are the reasons I have hope:

1) The Republican party actually opposes them because they think their feet will actually be held to the fire. They supported the 1994 100 day revolution that ended on day 101.

2) Michigan. I don't know if you know about John Engler, but he came in and ended welfare for life in the People's Republican of Michigan and attacked the budget deficit. The left howled the poor would be starving in the street. The economy rebounded and welfare rolls...declined. Of course when he left they went back to socialists and the economy nose dived again. But I do believe there are a lot more of us out there who are fiscally conservative and that's our priority who aren't being served.

3) There's nothing to lose. If I'm wrong, we get what we have now.

I'd mentioned I wanted to address one of your earlier points, It relates to this. I'll go back to it.

[KazooSkinsFan]

I see the choice as would you vote for a murderer to stop someone who's a murderer and a pedophile?

Ah, but this ignores the fact that voting is a means of showing support, and that when a candidate receives lots of votes they are given a kind of public approval / legitimacy. In reality you can't vote against a candidate, only for a candidate.

I was trying to think of how to address this, I guess the best way I can put it is that I'm never voting for a candidate, I'm voting against government. That is in line with how our country was created, government is to be minimized. I know it's not what you mean, but when you say you're supporting a candidate, that's the trap most of the country is falling into, who do you want to DO something. My answer is no one. I want the candidate who will do the least. Sadly right now, that's the tea party. They aren't the best choice, they are the least bad choice. But your solution of not voting leads to people who want things from government, things they didn't earn. It's not logical to enable that by not voting for less government because the candidate who will do the least will do more then you want.

[Deadskins]

How am I supposed to answer when you daon't even ask a valid question, or understand my responses? I said I have voted for people who HAVE voted for immoral things, not that I have voted for people who haven't voted for immoral things. You really need to work on your reading comprehension.

Here's what you said:

I won't vote for a politician that I know to hold a position that I feel is immoral. Have I ever voted for someone, only to find out later that they had acted immorally? Undoubtedly. But I never voted for them again

So you can toss out the ones who you found out later had held an immoral position. Who have you voted for who's vote you stand behind because you didn't find out later they'd voted for an immoral position?

I can't be sure there are any in DC. Maybe John Lewis, but I haven't been in his district for over 20 years now (since then, my political views have changed dramatically), and as such haven't voted for him in that time. Could it be that I only vote for local candidates these days?

[Deadskins]

So you don't understand the difference between shooting someone who's invaded your home and going out and murdering someone you think might invade your house in the future? Really?

It's an irrelevant question. I didn't say they are the same, I said they both fall under the category of protecting your home and family. I think you should lock the doors at night and you shouldn't let little kids walk across busy streets alone. Does that mean you can't do both because they aren't the same? I like this how after you tossed out cause and effect completely on the last part of the discussion to make so called "torture" the same as voting for a politician who has a position I disagree with. I quote torture because we're not really talking about torture anyway, it's a label game.

Not irrelevant. You said you should be proactive in protecting your family, akin to torturing being proactive to protecting your country.

Not at all equivalent. You are equating killing a thug whom you think, without any additional knowledge on your part, "may" enter your home... with forcing an admitted, high ranking terrorist member of an organization with a proclivity for, and an announced desire to, commit additional unprovoked murders, and who additionally claim to currently have active plans to do so, to give it up.

In one, you are commiting murder...

In the other, you are clearly protecting yourself and other innocents from someone who has already announced intent, and with a clear history of following through. It's a false comparison.

OK, so does it make a difference if the "thug" is a convicted murderer who has made threats against you and/or your family members? Isn't it still immoral to proactively kill him before he can make good on his threat?

[KazooSkinsFan]

OK, so does it make a difference if the "thug" is a convicted murderer who has made threats against you and/or your family members? Isn't it still immoral to proactively kill him before he can make good on his threat?

I would consider that justifiable homicide for sure

[Deadskins]

OK, so does it make a difference if the "thug" is a convicted murderer who has made threats against you and/or your family members? Isn't it still immoral to proactively kill him before he can make good on his threat?

I would consider that justifiable homicide for sure

Then that is where we differ. And the legal system differs as well.

[KazooSkinsFan]

OK, so does it make a difference if the "thug" is a convicted murderer who has made threats against you and/or your family members? Isn't it still immoral to proactively kill him before he can make good on his threat?

I would consider that justifiable homicide for sure

Then that is where we differ. And the legal system differs as well.

I thought we were talking about morality. The legal system and morality have as much in common as peanut butter and moon rocks. The basic problem is amoral lawyers. Sorry for being redundant on that...

[Countertrey]

OK, so does it make a difference if the "thug" is a convicted murderer who has made threats against you and/or your family members? Isn't it still immoral to proactively kill him before he can make good on his threat?

I would consider that justifiable homicide for sure

Then that is where we differ. And the legal system differs as well.

First of all... it is immoral to fail to protect your family.
Secondly:
This is why there is no domestic equivalent to this problem... It's a false analogy...
and, it is precisely why you should not apply Criminal Justice solutions to Military problems...

I'll not cry over dead terrorists... whether you feel their treatment was "immoral" or not... because I simply see the FAILURE to protect as the truly immoral response.

[KazooSkinsFan]

OK, so does it make a difference if the "thug" is a convicted murderer who has made threats against you and/or your family members? Isn't it still immoral to proactively kill him before he can make good on his threat?

I would consider that justifiable homicide for sure

Then that is where we differ. And the legal system differs as well.

So if it were clear to you a "convicted murderer" was going to murder rape and murder your wife/daughters. You called the cops but they said they can't do anything, but call it after it happens and they'll come and do something then (which is BTW what they do), what would you do exactly?

And if you were in a jury and someone clearly convinced you that the man they murdered would murder his family, you believed with all your heart he was right, you'd vote him guilty of murder?

[Deadskins]

OK, so does it make a difference if the "thug" is a convicted murderer who has made threats against you and/or your family members? Isn't it still immoral to proactively kill him before he can make good on his threat?

I would consider that justifiable homicide for sure

Then that is where we differ. And the legal system differs as well.

First of all... it is immoral to fail to protect your family.
Secondly:
This is why there is no domestic equivalent to this problem... It's a false analogy...
and, it is precisely why you should not apply Criminal Justice solutions to Military problems...

I'll not cry over dead terrorists... whether you feel their treatment was "immoral" or not... because I simply see the FAILURE to protect as the truly immoral response.

Then we'll have to agree to disagree.

[Deadskins]

OK, so does it make a difference if the "thug" is a convicted murderer who has made threats against you and/or your family members? Isn't it still immoral to proactively kill him before he can make good on his threat?

I would consider that justifiable homicide for sure

Then that is where we differ. And the legal system differs as well.

So if it were clear to you a "convicted murderer" was going to murder rape and murder your wife/daughters. You called the cops but they said they can't do anything, but call it after it happens and they'll come and do something then (which is BTW what they do), what would you do exactly?

And if you were in a jury and someone clearly convinced you that the man they murdered would murder his family, you believed with all your heart he was right, you'd vote him guilty of murder?

If he went out and killed them proactively, and murder 1 and not guilty were the only options, yes.

[Countertrey]

There are always options... jury nullification being one...

You continue to insist on the FALSE analogy of comparing international scum terrorists with common domestic thugs...

Ummm... remember Sesame Street? Which of these is not like the other?

I know! I know! The terrorist scum!

[Deadskins]

There are always options... jury nullification being one...

You continue to insist on the FALSE analogy of comparing international scum terrorists with common domestic thugs...

Ummm... remember Sesame Street? Which of these is not like the other?

I know! I know! The terrorist scum!

I don't agree it's a false analogy.

[KazooSkinsFan]

If he went out and killed them proactively, and murder 1 and not guilty were the only options, yes.

I also asked you what you would have done in that situation

[Deadskins]

Not go out and kill the man. I would defend my family with my life, and would take another's if I had no other option.

[KazooSkinsFan]

Not go out and kill the man. I would defend my family with my life, and would take another's if I had no other option.

Hmmm...

We had a break-in across the street from us last week. Someone kicked in the front door of a house and grabbed some things and left. The police asked if we saw anything, we didn't. They said it looked like a teenager. I live in a nice neighborhood, one the cops come to right away. My wife and I are running two businesses right now and are gone all the time until late and it scared the snot out of me. My 14 year old daughter is home alone from after school to 8 at night, and that's only because I try to be home by then. How are you going to be there and keep a job? There's no way. Even if you did, how could you follow and protect them all? Realistically, you're choosing to let a family member die. And that's the society you actually want to live in?

[Countertrey]

There are always options... jury nullification being one...

You continue to insist on the FALSE analogy of comparing international scum terrorists with common domestic thugs...

Ummm... remember Sesame Street? Which of these is not like the other?

I know! I know! The terrorist scum!

I don't agree it's a false analogy.

Shame. Then there's nothing to discuss.

[Deadskins]

How are you going to be there and keep a job? There's no way. Even if you did, how could you follow and protect them all? Realistically, you're choosing to let a family member die. And that's the society you actually want to live in?

I work from home. But no, I can't be there to protect them at all times. And I also can't stop a drunk driver from hitting them with his car either. Some things are just out of your hands.

I certainly don't want to live in a society where people think they have the right to proactively murder another human being, even if he has made threats.

[Deadskins]

There are always options... jury nullification being one...

You continue to insist on the FALSE analogy of comparing international scum terrorists with common domestic thugs...

Ummm... remember Sesame Street? Which of these is not like the other?

I know! I know! The terrorist scum!

I don't agree it's a false analogy.

Shame. Then there's nothing to discuss.

I've felt that way for the last page now.

[KazooSkinsFan]

How are you going to be there and keep a job? There's no way. Even if you did, how could you follow and protect them all? Realistically, you're choosing to let a family member die. And that's the society you actually want to live in?

I work from home. But no, I can't be there to protect them at all times. And I also can't stop a drunk driver from hitting them with his car either. Some things are just out of your hands.

I certainly don't want to live in a society where people think they have the right to proactively murder another human being, even if he has made threats.

We're assuming credible threats, that's the discussion

[Deadskins]

How are you going to be there and keep a job? There's no way. Even if you did, how could you follow and protect them all? Realistically, you're choosing to let a family member die. And that's the society you actually want to live in?

I work from home. But no, I can't be there to protect them at all times. And I also can't stop a drunk driver from hitting them with his car either. Some things are just out of your hands.

I certainly don't want to live in a society where people think they have the right to proactively murder another human being, even if he has made threats.

We're assuming credible threats, that's the discussion

And is it a credible threat that someone is going to kick your door in and rape/murder your 14 year old while you're out? Maybe. There are plenty of drunk drivers on the roads. People are killed by them every day. I'm not going to live in fear. I put my faith in the Lord, and pray I never have to face the scenarios we have discussed here, and if I do, that He will give me the strength to do what's right. I can only live my life according to my beliefs and try to be the best person I can be. I can't control other people's actions.

Anyway, I think we've discussed this topic to it's conclusion. We'll just have to disagree on this one.

[Countertrey]

I can't control other people's actions.

Well... not if you're not willing to stop them...