Zeriel's Journal: Political Musing

It seems to me that the more I get involved in political discussions, both real-world and online, the more I notice that the only thing most people hate more than the "other side" is the extremists in their own party.

Heh

[Degrees]

There do seem to be two types of 'allies' - those that bring reasonable arguments to the table, and those that like to to hear their own (loud) blather. "The more you listen to me, the more I matter" is true for everyone. It's harder to tell the obnoxious to go away when they claim to be wanting to be an ally. "With friends like you, I need enemies?" <:-}

Re:

[Zeriel]

Case in point with me--I'm a moderate libertarian who cares not at all for the way the Republican party has handled stuff in the last eight years.

I usually make the following two observations:

A) the Bill of Rights as represented by the ACLU/Liberals, is more appealing than the Bill of Rights as represented by the NRA/Conservatives. I'd rather lose "assault rifles" and handguns than the 4th amendment and my right to habeas corpus.
B) the Democrats want to spend more and raise taxes, and the Republica

Re:

[pudge]

A) the Bill of Rights as represented by the ACLU/Liberals, is more appealing than the Bill of Rights as represented by the NRA/Conservatives. I'd rather lose "assault rifles" and handguns than the 4th amendment and my right to habeas corpus.

First, there was never any chance of any citizen losing any right to habeas corpus, according to any law backed by conservatives. Ever. That never existed. And, for non-citizen enemy combatants, the Congress passed a law they DID think protected the right to habeas corpus. The Supreme Court said they were wrong, but the goal to protect the right was still there ... as opposed to the Dems and the Second and Tenth Amendments, which the pretend don't even exist.

Second, the liberals backed the same affronts

Re:

[Zeriel]

First, there was never any chance of any citizen losing any right to habeas corpus, according to any law backed by conservatives. Ever. That never existed. And, for non-citizen enemy combatants, the Congress passed a law they DID think protected the right to habeas corpus. The Supreme Court said they were wrong, but the goal to protect the right was still there ... as opposed to the Dems and the Second and Tenth Amendments, which the pretend don't even exist.

This is the scariest slippery slope in our co

Re:

[pudge]

This is the scariest slippery slope in our country today, and you're handwaving it off with a dig at the 2nd/10th.

How is it a slippery slope? I frankly don't think you understand the issue at all.

This is why I'm not a Republican--our treatment of prisoners-of-war in the so-called "war on terror" is completely, totally, 100% not acceptable from the standpoint of someone who cares about human rights.

Now look, if you're talking about "torture" now, that's a separate thing. You were talking about habeas corpus, so let's stick to that part of detainee treatment (and they are not POWs, BTW). So how is it a slippery slope? The intended goal of the MCA/DTA was perfectly constitutional: to replace the stautory habeas provisions with a separate system for alien unlawful enemy combatants. All nine justices agreed this is acce

Re:

[Zeriel]

I think it's more likely that I was deluding myself in 2000 than I am now. I was much more a "Republican" then than I was anything else, and Bush's actions in the primary may well have turned my memories of McCain rose-tinted.

I think if you don't see the venom in the Paris/Britney/Obama ad, or especially the latest one about sex education, then you might just be the one who's deluded.

I think unlimited federal government that provides domestic services is far better than unlimited federal government that pr

Re:

[pudge]

I think if you don't see the venom in the Paris/Britney/Obama ad, or especially the latest one about sex education, then you might just be the one who's deluded.

As to the former, oh, come on. That was making a legitimate point -- Obama is more a celebrity than an experienced politician -- and having fun with it. If that is "venom" then you're just way too thin-skinned.

As to the sex ed ad, I don't consider it venomous, I consider it deceptive. And I don't like it. But it is no less deceptive than many Obama ads and statements about McCain, so if this is venom, then ... well, not sure how you think Obama is any better.

I think unlimited federal government that provides domestic services is far better than unlimited federal government that provides for foreign military adventures, and I recognize that the latter is reality with a Republican vote

Completely false. Even if you believe that t

Re:

[Zeriel]

I think this "unlawful enemy combatant" nonsense is frankly un-American

You're wrong. You are only saying that because you do not understand the issue, as I said above.

This sums up entirely why I'm not bothering to discuss politics with you further. You are not interested in honest disagreement or differing perceptions, you are interested in being right. I'm sorry, but just because YOU think it's hunky-dory does not mean that you are objectively right. I do not care if it's been vetted by the Supreme Court and Congress--so has abortion, and I know you think that's wrong and have all kinds of little arguments that don't rest on anything but your opinions on "when human

Re:

[pudge]

I think this "unlawful enemy combatant" nonsense is frankly un-American

You're wrong. You are only saying that because you do not understand the issue, as I said above.

This sums up entirely why I'm not bothering to discuss politics with you further. You are not interested in honest disagreement or differing perceptions, you are interested in being right.

Bullshit. You stated something that is patently false. This is about facts, not different "perceptions." You claimed that these people are denied having any rights, that they have a "status without rights." That is false. Your stated basis of your claim that it is "un-American" was based on incorrect information.

I'm sorry, but just because YOU think it's hunky-dory does not mean that you are objectively right.

You are misrepresenting me. I never said it was "right" about whether they should have one legal standing or another, I only stated as a matter of fact that they were not denied having any rig