Originally posted by inimalist
YouTube video
Conclusion:
Islamy bombers = terrorist
Liberal radicals = terrorist
Abortion bombers = Not terrorist
Originally posted by inimalist
YouTube video
Conclusion:
Islamy bombers = terrorist
Liberal radicals = terrorist
Abortion bombers = Not terrorist
Re: Obama creates "indefinite detention" in Guantanamo.
Originally posted by Zeal Ex Nihilo
Hope and change?NOPE.jpg.
What a spineless flip-flopper....
Not closing the base: Fail
Indefinite: Only if you consider restarting trials for those being detained, which was called a step towards saving America by violating the Gen.Conv. should they be tried and released if found innocent, and defining trials as indefinite is only a bullshit redefinition of the entire situation.
Pretending you love Joe the Plumber and raping the Union:?
Hating abortion AND gays:?
Running Newt when he impeached a President that cheated in the oval office, while he was cheating with his mistress in the congress:?
I guess everyone's answer will be Ron Paul
Originally posted by Darth Jello
This shit is why I'm surprised why every single so-called liberal and progressive isn't over at www.socialdemocratsusa.org
WE, IN GENERAL, WORK WITHIN THE TWO PARTY SYSTEM IN THE UNITED STATES. The realities of American politics make running independent Socialist candidates for public office frequently a gesture in futility. We ally ourselves with the pro-labor forces of the Democratic Party and work to strengthen Social Democratic ideals in the DP. When appropriate individual locals may run third party candidates, or fusion candidates The SD,USA is willing to experiment with different democratic processes on the local level.so... vote democrat?
Originally posted by inimalistbut if we imprison them here then we have to give them 'rights'..
my point is, prisions already do a good job of keeping dangerous people away from society. Those kept in maximum security areas, like the leaders of AB or Khalid Sheik Mohammed or Tim McVeigh are never going to get out. Thus, you have far more to fear from rapists and murderers who are held in genpop than you would from terrorists who would be in near continual lockdown.
glenn greenwald for president, of the world:
http://www.salon.com/news/opinion/glenn_greenwald/2011/03/08/guantanamo/index.html
http://www.salon.com/news/opinion/glenn_greenwald/2011/03/09/guantanamo/index.html
Originally posted by skekUng
I guess everyone's answer will be Ron Paul
It's too bad that no who has responded hasn't done so without their own version of informed answers, without realizing they are just as informed as the people who loved Jurassic Park II
By the way, there isn't anything wrong with socialism. In fact, it's stupid to assume any governtment exists without it. In fact, that is the agreement of every citizen who choses to live under any government. Too bad the US has so much to learn, given our finger pointing and willful ignorance.
Originally posted by skekUng
It doesn't have to be that, though.
I'd disagree
If you accept that the role of the government is to provide for its people, you really don't present a non-arbitrary line where that "providing" stops. The reason modern social-democracies work at all is that there is a conservative opposition that opposes these types of things.
For instance, imho at least, it is very difficult to argue from a socialist position that the state shouldn't regulate fast food.
A purely socialist system, or any system in which it is deemed to government's purpose is to provide things for its people, will over time, tautologically imho, have to accrue more and more power. In some ways this is even just a consequence of previous mandates. In Canada, increases in the elderly population will lead to greater health care costs, which will lead to a larger government collecting more money from its people to provide more services it deems it has to provide based on said mandates.
But you're still following out what strictly socialist nations have become, not what they could be. The same argument you present is one that could be made for communism; it works wonderfully on paper, just like most government models. The notion that a government must provide for it's people doesn't have to be the perspective from which you approach the debate. There is a difference between "provide for" and "responsible to".
Originally posted by skekUngI think the cynic in inimialist tells him that "responsible for" inevitably leads to "provide for".
But you're still following out what strictly socialist nations have become, not what they could be. The same argument you present is one that could be made for communism; it works wonderfully on paper, just like most government models. The notion that a government must provide for it's people doesn't have to be the perspective from which you approach the debate. There is a difference between "provide for" and "responsible to".
more that there is a philosophical difference between providing for, which I would consider socialism, and being responsible to. Being responsible to really just assumes that the state represents the will of the people. Regardless of whether that works in reality, the only way "being responsible to" is the same as socialism is when the people want to be socialist. Though, it is very easy to think of times where the social welfare of a nation is made stronger by going against the will of the people.
Creating a nanny welfare state is not being responsible to people, it is providing for them, regardless of benevolence, and given the nature of state power, they will never meaningfully give it up, and as time progresses, it will naturally take more and more of a governing role in people's lives, albeit in providing them necessities, but still.