please don't spam the board with merchandise
Where there is no property there is no justice; a proposition as certain as any demonstration in Euclid
Fools! not to see that what they madly desire would be a calamity to them as no hands but their own could bring
Poptech: Too funny, aren't you guys the ones who don't believe in the constitution? Either you believe in the constitution and the U.S. Government or not? Make up your minds! (can't stop laughing).
Too funny, aren't you guys the ones who don't believe in the constitution? Either you believe in the constitution and the U.S. Government or not? Make up your minds! (can't stop laughing).
I don't believe in supporting someone who wants to harm peaceful people. I donated to Peter Schiff's campaign in the hopes of bringing more people to the ideas of liberty, not because I think he can accomplish anything in the U.S. government.
At most, I think only 5% of the adult population would need to stop cooperating to have real change.
Spideynw:I don't believe in supporting someone who wants to harm peaceful people.
Who wants to harm peaceful people? And who are these "peaceful" people?
"Anarchism misunderstands the real nature of man. It would be practicable only in a world of angels and saints" - Ludwig von Mises
February 17 - 1600 - Giordano Bruno is burnt alive by the catholic church. Aquinas : "much more reason is there for heretics, as soon as they are convicted of heresy, to be not only excommunicated but even put to death."
Ah Juan, define "neocon" and then explain how I am one.
Juan:But americans who have nationalistic/jingoistic views on, say, the sanctity of WWII (like you do, I think) are usually 95% neoconish....
This is not a very good assumption, I don't think. Even within the realm of ancedotal "evidence" or experience (we all know how reliable this can be, beyond use as an example), I knew plenty of non neo-cons that idolize (or idoloized, in some cases; arguments worked sometimes...) WWII in some way or another; many of these tended to be moderates or independents, with varying degrees of jingoism, but much less than the rhetoric of neo-conservatives (although I think at times the Peikoff Objectivists have a more extreme version of their own jingoism going on, more so than neo-cons, but that is tangential). It would be less nebulous to say that indontrination in public schools tends to idolize WWII (as well as other skirmishes, such as WWI) in ways that tend to get imprinted on children's mind regardless of their current or eventual ideology, methinks.
"Look at me, I'm quoting another user to show how wrong I think they are, out of arrogance of my own position. Wait, this is my own quote, oh shi-" ~ Nitroadict
Juan:I wouldn't like to get into a highly involved philosophical discussion.
Please define "neocon" and then explain how I am one.
Poptech: Spideynw:I don't believe in supporting someone who wants to harm peaceful people. Who wants to harm peaceful people? And who are these "peaceful" people?
Rand Paul does. These peaceful people are the people at Guantanamo Bay and illegal people.
I personally agree with him, I don't think those people should be tried in American courts. To me, it's an insult.
uh oh.......
NVm I responded to the wrong thread. My bad.
thelion: Would I prefer him to another senator? Sure. Preference of A versus not A is enough. Rand Paul versus some socialist? My vote goes to Rand (if I lived in Kentucky... does anybody here live in Kentucky?)
Would I prefer him to another senator? Sure. Preference of A versus not A is enough.
Rand Paul versus some socialist? My vote goes to Rand (if I lived in Kentucky... does anybody here live in Kentucky?)
I live in KY, I attend Western Kentucky University in Bowling Green, I was born here, and Dr. Paul is my eye doc.
As far as his policy views, he's a fairly standard bunning-mcconnell republican, towing the party line for the sake of the vote. Will he turn libertarian once he's in office? I guess we'll find out, because I'll vote for just about any republican right now, the best federal government is a gridlocked one, in my opinion. I think Rand's probably going to win here in 2010; we almost always send republicans to the hill and he's leading the primary.
Oh, and personal opinion of Dr. Paul? He seems like a good guy, he didn't make me uneasy or anything like a lot of politicians do (like when i met Hillary Clinton, I felt physically ill) I think he could be a good senator, to whatever extent that term is not oxymoronic.
Just my 2c.
"We must not let our rulers load us with perpetual debt. We must make our election between economy and liberty or profusion and servitude." - Thomas Jefferson
Spideynw:These peaceful people are the people at Guantanamo Bay and illegal people.
Yes the "Religion of Peace",
Ex-Guantánamo detainee became suicide bomber in Iraq, U.S. says (The New York Times)Guantánamo detainee resurfaces in terrorist group (The New York Times)
Too funny...
Poptech: Yes the "Religion of Peace", Ex-Guantánamo detainee became suicide bomber in Iraq, U.S. says (The New York Times)Guantánamo detainee resurfaces in terrorist group (The New York Times) Too funny...
Well, if your neo-conservatism wasn't clear before, it definitely is now.
Jingoism. They just can't escape it.
Padishah:Well, if your neo-conservatism wasn't clear before, it definitely is now.
You know, there's a reason that you weren't allowed here for a time. Meditate upon that.
Knight_of_BAAWA:You know, there's a reason that you weren't allowed here for a time. Meditate upon that.
So you are unable to answer the question. Are you implying that only those of your approved and rubber stamped ideology are "allowed" here? Fascinating!
Poptech,
You simply cannot come in here and mock people for their opinions. Although I greatly appreciate the work you've been doing on the anti-Warmist front, Knight of BAAWA and I will not hesitate to ban you if you continue in this manner.
But people can mock me for mine? Interesting. I really don't understand these forums as any opinionated challenge to the religious orthodoxy is met with moderation threats, yet preaching of personal liberty and free speech is supposedly the mantra here. Yet it is clearly not but rather strict adherence to the establishment's belief system. Radical this is not.
Poptech:But people can mock me for mine?
If you have been mocked, then I apologize. If you are mocked again, please report it on the reporting forum.
Poptech:any opinionated challenge to the religious orthodoxy is met with moderation threats
As far as I know, you've only been threatened when your challenges were threadjacks or when they've been insulting, mocking confontations like your post which I quoted above.
Poptech: yet preaching of personal liberty and free speech is supposedly the mantra here.
... liberty from physical aggression, and speech free from physical aggression. The servers on which this forum resides are private property. LvMI, whether directly, or through its proxies (moderators) can do with its property as it sees fit.
Romantivist: thelion: Would I prefer him to another senator? Sure. Preference of A versus not A is enough. Rand Paul versus some socialist? My vote goes to Rand (if I lived in Kentucky... does anybody here live in Kentucky?) I live in KY, I attend Western Kentucky University in Bowling Green, I was born here, and Dr. Paul is my eye doc. As far as his policy views, he's a fairly standard bunning-mcconnell republican, towing the party line for the sake of the vote. Will he turn libertarian once he's in office? I guess we'll find out, because I'll vote for just about any republican right now, the best federal government is a gridlocked one, in my opinion. I think Rand's probably going to win here in 2010; we almost always send republicans to the hill and he's leading the primary. Oh, and personal opinion of Dr. Paul? He seems like a good guy, he didn't make me uneasy or anything like a lot of politicians do (like when i met Hillary Clinton, I felt physically ill) I think he could be a good senator, to whatever extent that term is not oxymoronic. Just my 2c.
I'm in Northern Kentucky. I can tell you that Rand is not nearly as libertarian as his father. I don't understand what you mean by a "bunning-mcconnell republican." Bunning is totally different than McConnell. Bunning at least has some principle to him, even though it's standard conservative principle. McConnell is just a special interest feeding neo-con with no principle whatsoever. McConnell just gets special interest money and votes to bring in money. McConnell and Bunning are both less than ideal, but don't try and conflate the two together. They are very different politically. Remember, Bunning blamed McConnell for controlling the special interests and pulling campaign money from Bunning's reelection campaign. That's why Bunning chose not to run.
The problem is, the McConnell republicans have a stranglehold on the Republican party in Kentucky. Everyone thought Trey Grayson was the handpicked man for the job, but Rand showed up and now he's in a statistical dead heat with Trey Grayson in the polling. If Rand wins the primary he might have to pay some lip service to McConnell republicans to get some funding for the general election. A lot of times republicans that win the primary that aren't part of the McConnell camp get no funding during the general election and lose.
This is why all of these Republican Liberty Caucus and Campaign For Liberty attempts to take over the GOP are a waste of time. It will never happen. The neo-cons control the party and will never be uprooted from their control. That's why the best long term strategy for building liberty through any sort of political means is the Libertarian Party of Kentucky. The Libertarian Party of Kentucky is building strong organization. It has organization in District 1, 3, 4, and 6. It is getting off the ground in 2 as well. If you're in Bowling Green, you should try to make a monthly meeting for the district 2 group in Elizabethtown. The Libertarian Party is setting up for a long term approach to acheiving liberty politically. We're building organization and running candidates in local offices that liberty-minded candidates can actually win. Be sure to check out the website at http://www.lpky.org. We could really use your support to get District 2 up and running.
Where I come from, the women don't glow, but the men definitely plunder.
Poptech: Spideynw:These peaceful people are the people at Guantanamo Bay and illegal people. Yes the "Religion of Peace", Ex-Guantánamo detainee became suicide bomber in Iraq, U.S. says (The New York Times)Guantánamo detainee resurfaces in terrorist group (The New York Times) Too funny...
There is a cause-and-effect relationship somewhere in there, I think....
"As long as there are sovereign nations possessing great power, war is inevitable."
ama gi:There is a cause-and-effect relationship somewhere in there, I think....
Yes of course being locked up in Gitmo for killing innocent people makes you get out and kill more innocent people.
Poptech:Yes of course being locked up in Gitmo for killing innocent people makes you get out and kill more innocent peo
I think if people tortured you for several years all the while claiming you are a terrorist, then honestly how much would it take for you to become what they say you are under such conditions?
'Men do not change, they unmask themselves' - Germaine de Stael
Poptech:Yes of course being locked up in Gitmo for killing innocent people makes you get out and kill more innocent people.
And was there any evidence of them doing stuff like this before they were taken by the U.S. government?
Knight_of_BAAWA:No one's mocked you at all; you've simply been outed as the troll you've been and put in your place. You can do something about that by changing your behavior.
Well you have just repeated another lie about me. "Putting in your place" to you means censoring dissenting opinion by lying and calling them a troll. I could become brainwashed and agree with everything you say or do what I have always done, think for myself. I choose the latter and I am sure everyone else here does as well.
Laughing Man:I think if people tortured you for several years all the while claiming you are a terrorist, then honestly how much would it take for you to become what they say you are under such conditions?
What evidence do you have he was tortured?
Rand Paul is a politician first and foremost. I think it's rather presumptuous to try to project him as a libertarian savior - as if a politician can even be that.
The legal system in the United States is an absolute mess. Not really sure what "Constitutional Protection" is supposed to mean any more the way judges get to interpret it to mean almost anything at a whim. It also tends to be biased against the poor.
The great terrorist round-up has created yet another mess and international fiasco. The alleged terrorists/combatants have been put in the classifications that are neither war criminals nor civil criminals - but probably most similar to agents of espionage (spies). The tradition has been to execute spies after a cursory trial (if at all) - typically a sham trial to protect national secrets. Not that this is right, it's just the way it's been done for centuries. Since no official war has been declared, we get this messy little situation. Holding them indefinitely to rot seems to have been the decided course of action.
Alleged acts of torture against alleged terrorists/combatants needs to be proven on a case by case basis. In addition, some one needs to have the balls to actually define what constitutes an act of torture, and this definition cannot be used ex post facto. So if the Executive branch, with Congressional oversight, published specific policies and instructions, such as an Interrogation Manual, then one could consider that the State has made legal certain acts of torture. Trying the case under U.S. law may in fact prevent those who may have been tortured from getting justice. But of course, when the State gets to make the law, interpret the law, enforce the law, and declare such a law as just, then it can do whatever it wishes to whomever it is displeased with. We can't have much faith in the State to do what is just or right.
The most immediate problem with bringing the people at Guantanamo into a U.S. criminal trial is the judge(s) would have to throw the case(s) out before the trial could even start. The U.S. has already acted to deny the defendants certain rights under U.S. criminal justice. They have created a condition which makes the Guantanamo defendants different from others who participate in the system - and by definition there is to be equal treatment under the law. Trying to undo the damage done from the earlier decisions by parading the defendants through U.S. criminal court treats the defendants unjustly (via a railroaded trial) and puts those already under the U.S. criminal system at risk for similar treatment (since the State loves to declare precedence). For these reasons I do not think it's appropriate to bring these people into the U.S. criminal system.
A more proper way of handling this is to return the people to the countries from which they were detained. They must be secured the proper resources for their security and advocacy for a trial in that country of origin. If they are found not guilty, and there were alleged acts of torture under U.S. policy, then they should be provided the proper forum to adjudicate just compensation - most likely via arbitration. As for criminal prosecution of agents of the State, we aren't very likely to see that unless someone is doing it for political reasons. It's similar to not allowing prosecution of U.S. soldiers for alleged war crimes. The State protects the State at all costs.
I keep reading the title of this thread as "Ron Paul turns out to be a neo-con".
If I wrote it more than a few weeks ago, I probably hate it by now.
Poptech:Well you have just repeated another lie about me.
Poptech:What evidence do you have he was tortured?
Well not exactly. I don't know if I can speak for the other ancaps, but my support of Paul has more to do with the idea that if we're going to have a guy in government, he should support the least amount of government possible to be in government. His oath of office is to uphold the constitution, and that's pretty much all he's doing, that's all he's obliged to do. I'm not holding out for Dr. Paul to have any legislative victories, or nullify the charters of any institutions (irs, department of education) if anything, he serves as more of an educator of both the house members/ political watchers, and functions just an all-round wrench in the gears of the federal government. To me, his service is to be a visible opponent of government in that venue, and the only way he can get in there is to serve and protect the constitution as legitimate. I disagree with his belief in government, but I'm not out to tear him down. He poses 0 threat to me. In fact, he's attracting more libertarians through his message than anyone, and creating nearly no statists in the process. In aggregate, he's dissolving more of the state than he's creating, and that's good no matter how you look at it.The point where I'm actually debating with Ron about his "big government" probably won't come in either of our lifetimes - but I'd like nothing more than to have Ron become am actual threat to liberty eventually, him and his crummy constitution. I would be thrilled to say to him: "No sir, you may not tax .0001% of my paycheck to pay for your fascist postal roads!" because a world in which that was a pressing issue would be a much would be a freer place.He really is a remarkable man. He's taking the state's ill-gotten money and using it against itself. He's forgone A LOT of bribe money and a lot of power to stick to his principles. And I'm glad his legacy is finally being realized with HR 1207. It will be gutted for sure, but for the first time in 90 years or so, people are actually starting to take an honest look at the fed. As for Rand, I'll give him the benefit of the doubt for a bit, but if he's really supporting our current legal "process" used to bring terror suspects to justice, I might decide he's doing more harm than good - especially if he gets real power, enough to harm (cls.)liberalism in this country. But, if he turns out to be the 2nd biggest wrench in the gears of government, I'll be sure to support him.
Knight_of_BAAWA:I highly doubt that there's a single Gitmo prisoner who wasn't waterboarded
You highly doubt? Try only 3 were ever waterboarded,
CIA says used waterboarding on 3 suspects (Reuters)"Those subjected to waterboarding were suspected September 11 mastermind Khalid Sheikh Mohammed and senior al Qaeda leaders Abu Zubaydah and Abd al-Rahim al-Nashiri."
I am losing sleep as we speak.
Poptech: Knight_of_BAAWA:I highly doubt that there's a single Gitmo prisoner who wasn't waterboarded You highly doubt? Try only 3 were ever waterboarded, CIA says used waterboarding on 3 suspects (Reuters)"Those subjected to waterboarding were suspected September 11 mastermind Khalid Sheikh Mohammed and senior al Qaeda leaders Abu Zubaydah and Abd al-Rahim al-Nashiri." I am losing sleep as we speak.
I would trust a cocaine addict over the CIA
The government also tells us that the stimulus package has saved thousands of jobs and that we are going to all die in 20 years if we don't stop burning fossil fuels.
Robbery: The nation's fastest growing career!
Duties: Giving the people their bread and circuses, extracting payment by force, validating legitimacy, etc.
Job Outlook: Ever increasing and shows no signs of stopping!
Poptech: CIA says
CIA says
Yeah that doesn't cut it.
Poptech:You highly doubt? Try only 3 were ever waterboarded,
Ah yes more conspiracy theories. Now please prove your unsubstantiated allegations.