Thoughts on Fred
by Lee
Following up on WVR’s Irish gay marriage post, check out what Uncle Fred has to say on the subject.
Thompson, who just days ago in New Hampshire sidestepped a question on civil unions, was asked Wednesday to clarify his view on domestic partnerships in San Francisco, one of the nation’s liberal bastions and a city where Mayor Gavin Newsom declared same-sex marriage legal, a position later overturned in court.
“I do not think that they’re a good idea,” the GOP candidate said of civil unions.
That’s to be expected. Having spent most of his career in Hollywood he probably knows more homos than Barney Frank, but he’s running for the GOP nomination and can’t say so. However, listen to this shit.
But, he added, “I do think that states have the power under our Constitution to make their own determination with regard to those matters ... (I) think the federal government’s powers ought to be limited to what’s set out in the Constitution - and states, with regard to matters that are traditionally state matters, ought to be free to make those decisions themselves, even if Fred Thompson might disagree with them.”
In the words of Sheila Broflovsky, “Wha-wha-what???” A Republican who thinks that (gasp!) the Constitution and its federalist framework gives the states the right to make decisions for themselves? Not to mention a social conservative who thinks that government shouldn’t be used to advance social conservatism! Bestill my fucking beating heart.
Of course, in the same article he goes into the usual bit about waterboarding not being torture (which every candidate running knows is complete horse shit), invoking the notorious “ticking time bomb” bullshit argument.
“As a general proposition, I’ve always thought that when you get right down to it, the measures have to meet the situation,” he said. “If our country is faced with an imminent loss of lives of innocent Americans, and we have someone - and we’re confident enough in our intelligence to be secure in the knowledge that this person has important information that could save the lives of innocent Americans - all I can say is that as president ... the measures will always meet the circumstances. And I will do what I think is in the best interest of my country. ‘’
See, here’s how I parse this answer. As I have said a million times before, were there actually a ticking time bomb somewhere—something we knew for a fact—then just about any kind of medieval infliction of pain could be justified on the chance that maybe you can get the guy to spill the beans. For example, if a terrorist group had planted a nuke in Manhattan and we were able to find and defuse it via the use of torture, the president could get up in front of the nation and say that he personally drove nails through the guy’s testicles and there isn’t a person in the country who could say that he acted unreasonably.
This, however, is an entirely different matter than the routine use of waterboarding as a general tool for interrogation. In the ticking time bomb scenario, you have nothing to lose—the bomb is going to go off one way or another. So you torture the guy. If he gives up the goods then you’ve succeeded. If he lies or refuses to talk then you’re no worse off than you were before. The “nothing to lose” component is the mitigating factor.
And, as Thompson says, the torture has to be justified after the fact. We don’t do that, we engage in routine torture hoping to uncover a fact which will then, in a maze of circular logic, be used to justify the torture used to obtain it. The fact that torture will yield far more useless intel than good never seems to enter into the equation.
With the ticking time bomb we have nothing to lose. With the routine use of torture, we have damn near everything to lose. Under normal circumstances we have the time and the luxury of using time tested and proven interrogation techniques—building of a rapport, mind games, that sort of thing. What the “real conservatives” want to do is torture everyone we get into custody to find out if there’s a ticking time bomb somewhere, a practice which will do us far more harm than good.
Quick: Other than in fictional entertainment scenarios like “24”, name me an actual instance where a terrorist cell had planted a ticking time bomb and torture was used to gather intel and disarm it. You can’t, can you? There’s a reason for that. See if you can guess what it is.
(Hat tip: Sullivan.)
Comments
But, he added, “I do think that states have the power under our Constitution to make their own determination with regard to those matters ... (I) think the federal government’s powers ought to be limited to what’s set out in the Constitution - and states, with regard to matters that are traditionally state matters, ought to be free to make those decisions themselves, even if Fred Thompson might disagree with them.”
Awesome answer.
OT, but Ron Paul has received an endorsement from Mel Gibson’s wacky Jew-hating dad.
Some of you here at RTFLC may want to wrap some duct-tape around your heads. It won’t stop your heads from exploding but it will help you pick up the pieces.
Yeah, because some unsolicited support from a nutbag is more important than, say, Guiliani taking on the help of Arthur Ravenel.
OT, but Ron Paul has received an endorsement from Mel Gibson’s wacky Jew-hating dad.
Some of you here at RTFLC may want to wrap some duct-tape around your heads. It won’t stop your heads from exploding but it will help you pick up the pieces.
Just to put this simply for you. Paul dosen’t want the US military all round the world. Part of this clearly means reducing military aid to Israel.
Now, lots of people think this is a good idea. If you told the average American that over 20% of the foreign aid budget was going to Israel (more than $3 billion) [this is before iraq/afghanistan which i am sure changes figures] I am sure they would be pretty annoyed and agree that the priorities are wrong.
Now, of course people who don’t like Jews are also going to agree, because they don’t like their tax money being spent on supporting Israel. But, just because they don’t like their tax money being spent supporting Israel dosen’t mean that other people who don’t like their tax money being spent supporting Israel are anti-semites or hate Israel or any such thing, they just may feel their tax money should be spent on them, or they should be taxed less.
Look at it this way, there are some people who think Israel should get 10 times as much aid money. Do you? If not, are you not an anti semite, or are you going to try and tell me that it is ok to have an opinion on your own tax money and whether it should be spent on Israel or not.
Now, none of the other politicians have mentioned reducing aid for Israel so of course all those that don’t like Israel and consider this important are going to support Paul, but this dosen’t have anything to do with his actual policies, which should be taken on their own merits; not because of who supports them.
I’ll give you another example. Affirmative action is bad. It’s unfair. etc. Howerver, naturally white racists who dislike blacks also think affirmative action is bad and probably consider it a very important thing to change. This however does not mean that other people who think affirmative action is bad are racists.
OT, but Ron Paul has received an endorsement from Mel Gibson’s wacky Jew-hating dad.
And who does Pat Robertson endorse? Or Dobson? Or any other fucking Christian fundamentalist nutjob? Threatened much?
Also OT, Paul Tibbets Jr, died yesterday in his home in Columbus, Ohio, he was 92.
The author of the piece I read in the paper (some L.A. Times goofball) spent more time injecting his political invective than on chronicling Tibbetts illustious military career (toping it off in the first paragraph with ,” The pilot never apologized for unleashing the devasting explosive force and insidious nuclear radiation that leveled more than two thirds of the buildings in Hiroshima and killed at least 80,000 people”.
Tibbets said many times ,"I never lost a night’s sleep over it”.
He was a great American, God bless Paul Tibbets Jr.
If not, are you not an anti semite, or are you going to try and tell me that it is ok to have an opinion on your own tax money and whether it should be spent on Israel or not.
Padders, what makes Hutton Gibson appear as anti-Semitic on most people’s radars is that he thinks the Holocaust didn’t really happen. He says that the Jews are lying about it.
I’ll give you another example. Affirmative action is bad. It’s unfair. etc. Howerver, naturally white racists who dislike blacks also think affirmative action is bad and probably consider it a very important thing to change. This however does not mean that other people who think affirmative action is bad are racists.
Many white conservatives oppose affirmative action because we believe that it’s harmful to blacks through the “bigotry of soft expectations”. Neo-Nazis would like to kill all of the black people. This is the point, padders: Anti-Semites favor withdrawing American aid from Israel because they would very much like to see Israel wiped out.
Here’s your homework assignment: go read the “Turner Diaries” and try to get an idea about what these people want to do. A little perspective would do you some good.
And who does Pat Robertson endorse? Or Dobson? Or any other fucking Christian fundamentalist nutjob? Threatened much?
Pat Robertson endorsed Reagan, a well-known Christian fundmentalist nutjob. If that’s Robertson’s taste in candidates, I say we should give his choices some consideration.
Given Ron Paul’s positions on “Church and State”, he may well get Robertson’s endorsement too though. Better be careful!
James Dobson never endorsed anyone before George W Bush but he probably voted for Reagan as well.
While we’re on the topic, how can you be a WW2 vet and a Holocaust Denier? I mean, surely he’s met at least one guy at the VFW hall who actually saw Bergen-Belsen or another camp in 1945?
You don’t get it, Thrill.
Padders, what makes Hutton Gibson appear as anti-Semitic on most people’s radars is that he thinks the Holocaust didn’t really happen. He says that the Jews are lying about it.
Seriously, are you trying to be stupid on purpose or does it take practice? No one denies he is anti-semitic.
The point, which really is not complicated, is that sharing an opinion with him on Israel does not make you anti-semitic. What makes you anti semitic is your particular opinions. Wanting to nuke Israel for fun = anti-semitic. Thinking the US should not give Israel military aid = an opinion that can be based upon many many reasons, be it anti semitism like Gibson or simply the belief that the US should not give any military aid at all.
Remember, Hitler was a vegetarian, but not all vegetarians are anti-semites.
Many white conservatives oppose affirmative action because we believe that it’s harmful to blacks through the “bigotry of soft expectations”. Neo-Nazis would like to kill all of the black people. This is the point, padders: Anti-Semites favor withdrawing American aid from Israel because they would very much like to see Israel wiped out.
Crikey, I really don’t know what language to use to explain this to you. We know what anti-semites want, we don’t give a flying fuck about them. The problem is you seem to think that because anti-semites support some of Paul’s policies that this makes his policies bad. That is just rediculous for the same reason that not supporting a politician who disagrees with affirmative action would be bad because some racists also support him.
Here’s your homework assignment: go read the “Turner Diaries” and try to get an idea about what these people want to do. A little perspective would do you some good.
Seriously, try and comprehend the logic of the argument instead of just getting all excited about neo-nazis, if you understand the argument you might begin to make more sense.
You don’t get it, Thrill.
No shit!
The point, which really is not complicated, is that sharing an opinion with him on Israel does not make you anti-semitic. What makes you anti semitic is your particular opinions. Wanting to nuke Israel for fun = anti-semitic. Thinking the US should not give Israel military aid = an opinion that can be based upon many many reasons, be it anti semitism like Gibson or simply the belief that the US should not give any military aid at all.
Yes, there are valid reasons for not giving military and financial aid to Israel. The trouble with Ron Paul is that many of his supporters want Israel to be destroyed and he doesn’t seem to have a problem with taking their money and basking in their adoration.
Remember, Hitler was a vegetarian, but not all vegetarians are anti-semites.
Well duh, padders. Hitler did kill 6 million Jews, however. Does that make him anti-Semitic enough for you? How about all the Ron Paul followers who think that he didn’t really kill all those Jews and that they are just using it for sympathy to get aid for Israel? Does that make them anti-Semitic?
The problem is you seem to think that because anti-semites support some of Paul’s policies that this makes his policies bad.
His foreign policies ARE bad and they unquestionably would benefit Jew haters. The fact that he keeps their donations and is willing to owe them favors is relevant.
Seriously, try and comprehend the logic of the argument instead of just getting all excited about neo-nazis, if you understand the argument you might begin to make more sense.
I do understand the argument and am amazed that you don’t. When George W Bush is lauded by Christian fundamentalists, you guys jeer about what an asshole he is and how he’s completely in bed with them. Ron Paul does the same thing for these crazies and it gets ignored.
I’m doing the same thing with Ron Paul supporters that you guys have been doing with Christians for years. Jesus, what is this; an irony-free zone?
I do understand the argument and am amazed that you don’t. When George W Bush is lauded by Christian fundamentalists, you guys jeer about what an asshole he is and how he’s completely in bed with them. Ron Paul does the same thing for these crazies and it gets ignored.
This is the key. Bush tried to pass a constitution ammendment to ban gay marriage. He wanted to do the same for abortion. He has put people keen on overturning abortion rights onto the supreme court. He has reduced funding for sexual health. He had promoted abstience only education for HIV in Africa. The list goes on.
Now, the point is that the things he had done are repugnant (not necessarily the abortion one as I get the states issue component of it which makes sense) but the rest are. And he has done these because he is in bed with christianists.
Now, I see nothing repugnant at all about reducing funding from Israel so have no problem with it. If jew haters are happy with that policy; so be it; but I will judge the policy not just a faction of people who support it. If Paul decides to have a policy I disagree with, then that is what will matter; if he gave any suggestion he was going to do things because anti semites want him to; then that would matter. I don’t see either of these things happening.
The problem with Bush being supported by Christianists is not their support, but because of the shitty things he has done because of them. although to be fair to him - he hastn’t done nearly as much as they want; gay people are not all in rehabilitation camps yet anyway.
I’m doing the same thing with Ron Paul supporters that you guys have been doing with Christians for years. Jesus, what is this; an irony-free zone?
Wait. We’re shits because we’ve supposedly held Bush’s supporters against him but you aren’t because you’re holding some crazy anti-Semites against Paul?
I’d consider the scale here. The small number of anti-Semites pales in comparison to the well-funded, well-organized legions of millions of evangelicals. It’s a matter of how much influence a group actually has verses which policies they happen to align with.
I think you’re just trying to paint Ron Paul in a bad light with this Gibson nut bag. I think Ron Paul is seen as more of a threat to the mainstream GOP that anyone is giving him credit for.
For the record, I’m not 100% on Paul. I’m concerned about his religious views. I’m encouraged by his respect for the Constitution but my mind isn’t anywhere near made up. I do think I will kick some money his way because as long as he’s in the race, he’s forcing the other candidates to confront their lack of respect for the Constitution. That’s a good thing.
In the end, I predict Paul will lose the nomination but have enough support to run as an independent. This will surely draw more Republican voters from the GOP candidate than it will Democrats from theirs. This is what so many of you are afraid of. Can’t say I blame you.
The problem with Bush being supported by Christianists is not their support, but because of the shitty things he has done because of them.
Bush IS a Christian and it’s only natural that he would favor the same policies and have the same motivation as his supporters. If Ron Paul doesn’t feel the same way about his lunatic, racist supporters; let him actually come out and say so.
although to be fair to him - he hastn’t done nearly as much as they want; gay people are not all in rehabilitation camps yet anyway.
How can this be lost on you? I haven’t heard of any Christian who wants to “put all gay people in rehabilitation camps” but I can point out plenty of Ron Paul supporters who want to kill all of the Jews.
There really is no comparison. You think a guy “in bed” with Christians is bad? Just wait until we get the guy who owes his election to people who think Hitler was either “misunderstood” or “didn’t go far enough”.
Wait. We’re shits because we’ve supposedly held Bush’s supporters against him but you aren’t because you’re holding some crazy anti-Semites against Paul?
I used the word “irony” up there, GripeBoy.
I think you’re just trying to paint Ron Paul in a bad light with this Gibson nut bag.
No, Ron Paul puts himself in a bad light by accepting donations and refusing to renounce nut bags like that.
It’s noteworthy that many on this blog had a Christmas morning experience when Mel Gibson went on an anti-Semitic tirade during his DUI arrest. Who do you think he learned it from?
In the end, I predict Paul will lose the nomination but have enough support to run as an independent.
He won’t run as an independent. I read somewhere that he said he won’t. I’ll try to find a link on that later.
I just like being a “Paul-puncher” simply because it gives me the chance to illustrate the treatment of evangelicals around this blog. I guess it’s not working.
The only thing that confuses me is why padders of all people sticks up for Ron Paul all the time. I’ve never heard padders defend Pat Buchanan and Ron Paul is pretty much the same animal.
That is just rediculous for the same reason that not supporting a politician who disagrees with affirmative action would be bad because some racists also support him.
Some racists? SOME racists? I think you mean “the most prominent, organized, and numerous racists than support any other candidate”.
I’m surprised I missed that earlier.
I don’t personally see a problem with Ron Paul’s extremist supporters. After all, every dollar that they put into RP is a dollar that they’re not using to proliferate and ignite their personal ideologies/practices. Less film for annoying Truther videos and less rope for lynching minorities. Which is something I believe we can all agree on is a good thing, right?
Oh yeah, maybe I’m just silly, but I kinda thought this post was all about Fred Thompson… I know I for one would like to hear about him more… both sides of the RP debate are getting kind of redundant and boring on this site.
It would be good for Ron Paul to say, “No thanks!” to Gibson.
Let’s make it clear that this video endorsement is NOT from the Ron Paul campaign and Hutton Gibson sounds senile.
...not that Hutton Gibson hasn’t been crazy for a long time.
After all, every dollar that they put into RP is a dollar that they’re not using to proliferate and ignite their personal ideologies/practices.
Ryan, they are advancing their cause by donating to Ron Paul. If you think that Israel should be thrown to the Islamist wolves, the neocons (Jews) are profiting from our foreign policy, and all the brown people should be sent back to Mex-eee-ko, or that the US government conspired to massacre 3,000 of its own citizens to start a war to create a One World Government(probably those damn J-O-Os again); Ron Paul is your guy.
If Ron Paul will go on tv and have a “Sister Souljah” moment in which he renounces the support of white supremacists and conspiracy kooks-emphasizing that the Holocaust did kill milllions of Jews and that the 9/11 attack was performed by al-Qaeda- and returns all of their donations or contributes it to a proper charity, I’ll back off a bit. Until then, the questionable agenda of his supporters IS an issue.
Until then, the questionable agenda of his supporters IS an issue.
No, not really.
What is it about Ron Paul supporters and reality?
Just as Ron Paul believes that we can ignore worldwide jihad, you believe that you can just pretend like the white supremacist/conspiracy nut Ron Paul base doesn’t matter.
Do you realize that if Ron Paul were to win the nomination or become a third party candidate that the press will eat him for lunch over his kooky connections? To millions of normal Americans, this is a problem that isn’t going to go away until Ron Paul does something about it. I’m not going to hold my breath waiting.
Until then, the questionable agenda of his supporters IS an issue.
It only becomes an issue if he supports that agenda. Like, for example, dubya pushing an anti-gay-marraige amendment.
I’d like to see him repudiate the nutjobs, but as long as he’s not supporting them, I don’t hold it against him.
Someone explain “transitive closure” to Thrill while we’re at it.
No, not really.
Well, maybe--we’ve seen the past seven years how the influence of the MoveOn/Kos crowd has affected the rhetoric of the Democrats, even if they haven’t had the stones to actually act on so-called progressive policies. If the democrats manage to gain more seats in Congress, plus the presidency, along with two seats on the Supreme court when Ginsburg and Stevens retire in the next four years, the chances are pretty strong that they won’t be so careful about their agenda as they have been with these slim majorities.
Now, I do think Thrill is being overly dramatic in his example here. No one really gives a shit about Hutton Gibson. But to blithely assume that the undesirable elements of Paul’s supporters wouldn’t be a concern down the road, if Paul manages to hang on deep into the primaries, is hopelessly naive given the precedents set by the religious right and the MoveOn left in today’s politics.
Well, maybe--we’ve seen the past seven years how the influence of the MoveOn/Kos crowd has affected the rhetoric of the Democrats, even if they haven’t had the stones to actually act on so-called progressive policies. If the democrats manage to gain more seats in Congress, plus the presidency, along with two seats on the Supreme court when Ginsburg and Stevens retire in the next four years, the chances are pretty strong that they won’t be so careful about their agenda as they have been with these slim majorities.
But to be fair, dailykos/moveon are huge. Moveon’s mailing list is, I am sure I read somewhere, well over a million people. I have no idea how many people dailykos reaches but they are regularly talked about in the economist if that gives any indication. This is a big movement that has a lot of people (and yes, raises a lot of money for democrats). So, yes they have power - it istn’t that surprising. Still, on the big issues; have they really changed policy/agenda much - dosen’t seem so. They also pick fights which are generally “reasonable” even if you disagree with them.
Compare that to a bunch of (loud) neo-nazis, groups I honestly have never heard of until we started talking about them here. I doubt they have 10,000 people on a mailing list let alone millions. The big excitement is over a $500 donation as opposed to the millions and millions that moveon/dailykos generate. The same, as said earlier, applies to the religious right - probably the most powerful and well funded lobby in American politics. Come on people, there is a slight difference in scale.
The only thing that confuses me is why padders of all people sticks up for Ron Paul all the time. I’ve never heard padders defend Pat Buchanan and Ron Paul is pretty much the same animal.
I find Paul interesting is really why I stick up for him here, I actually would like a strong American superpower that acts (along with the UN) as the worlds policemen but it is clear America istn’t capable of this important job - and it seems that actually doing nothing would probably be better than the current crap being pulled. I think his economics is interesting - while some of is a bit out there (gold standard) I think he sees that massive corruption embedded in the economic system; he might also prevent Ameica from bankrupting itself which is a good thing - especially as most of my customers are American!
Still, he is an extreme long shot and the only Republican in the list I would prefer over pretty much any democrat you could find. In the end, his best service might be to run as a 3rd party and prevent any Republican from winning - although right now I think he gets a fair share of democrats support as well. There are a lot of democrats that want liberalised (in the real meaning of the word) economics + sane social/foreign policy.
.It only becomes an issue if he supports that agenda. Like, for example, dubya pushing an anti-gay-marraige amendment
He will support their agenda by doing all of the things that I described above. As for the gay marriage amendment; yes it was a mistake and Ron Paul was right to vote against it. However, he did the next best thing by supporting the Defense of Marriage Act and co-sponsoring the Marriage Protection Act. Essentially, in any state where the people have voted to ban gay marriage (such as mine) it can never be challenged in federal court and that state will never have to recognize gay marriage. This is basically what the Religious Right wanted and now they don’t have to go to the trouble of amending the Constitution. The gay marriage amendment only became an issue because conservatives didn’t want some Clinton-appointed federal judge to override the will of the people by declaring a popular ban on gay marriage in any state to be unconstitutional. I don’t think this makes Ron Paul pro-gay. Chances are that he’ll become appealing to evangelicals if the white supremacists don’t scare them away. I’ll bet that’s when we’ll start hearing some concern about Ron Paul’s supporters around here!
Now, I do think Thrill is being overly dramatic in his example here.
To be fair, I’m not the one who said that George Bush wants to put all of the gays in concentration camps. That was dramatic.
Otherwise, I pretty much agree with you, HeartlessLibertarian. Ron Paul is playing with fire.
I actually would like a strong American superpower that acts (along with the UN) as the worlds policemen
It sounds like you support the “World needs a bully” theory.
I actually would like a strong American superpower that acts (along with the UN) as the worlds policemen
Most Paulians will point to exactly this policy as why the world hates us, why Al Quaeda was started, and why we deserved 9-11.
I cogent argument could be made that because the world does not exist in a vacuum and because the U.N. is impotent and relegated to irrelevance, it pretty much fell to the US by proxy.
and it seems that actually doing nothing would probably be better than the current crap being pulled.
Are you referring just to Iraq, or are there other turds in the puchbowl somewhere?
It’s funny because probably the most seminal issues on this blog anyway is the importance of the concept of separation of church and state, and on this issue Paul falls flat on his face.
Paul and Kucinich have similar roles, they make the rest of the candidates look mainstream, in this function he excels.
Quick: Other than in fictional entertainment scenarios like “24”, name me an actual instance where a terrorist cell had planted a ticking time bomb and torture was used to gather intel and disarm it. You can’t, can you? There’s a reason for that. See if you can guess what it is.
Sorry for interupting your pissin’ contest fellas, but I’d like to take a second and answer Lee on this question.
In the scenerio you have laid out, a “ticking time bomb” of course could be taken literally, or as a metaphor. Certainly you don’t exactly mean only a specific explosive device, with a self timer set to go off, do you? Surely you’re not suggesting that the bad guys are actually putting a little bomb in a briefcase, setting the LED clock for 3 hours and 59 minutes and sliding it under a Humvee, laughing diabolically as they slink away, rubbing thier hands together like Mr Burns, are you?
That scenerio is of the Hollywood sort, and constantly using only that example is becoming a straw man at best. We shoud discuss this issue in terms of reality, rather than what Hollywood dictates.
In modern terorism, the type that is killing our troops every week in Iraq, it’s not a ticking time bomb that causing the carnage. It’s IED’s and suicide bombers.
Our troops are so incredibly good at fighting the bad guys in gun battles that the enemy rarely ever engages US forces in that manner anymore. Our guys are literally such bad asses, that they can’t be beat in a shootout. Plus, our air support is incredible, so at the first sign of bad guys, our gunships are immediately overhead to back up our troops on the ground.
The enemy; AQI, Baathist insurgents, foreign fighters, and rival tribes are only able to kill our troops with any success using IED’s. The thing is, IED’s don’t tick.
They’re set off in any number of ways, from trip wires,to pressure plates, to remote control. They don’t tick and there is no “point of no return” in the IED scenerio that you lay out in your article.
The bombs don’t just eventually go off, regardless of the associated torture or lack thereof.
The idea of torturing bad guys, hoping to find a ticking time bomb, as you assert in your article just doesn’t happen, becuase there are no ticking time bombs. They’re either planted next to the road or in a doorway, or thet aren’t. Once they are there, they will probably kill.
What we do face as a real threat is bomb factories. They supply the deadly ingredients for both roadside bombs and suicide bombers. When it comes to finding these factories, time is of the essence, but it’s not anything along the frantic timeline of the fables “ticking” scenerio.
As we capture bad guys in Iraq, it’s a hard argument to make that the good guys shouldn’t be allowed to do almost anything they can to save thier own lives. We most consider the perspective of the potential victims, the soldiers themselves, as part of this issue. Are they really ugly Americans that are barbaric, or are they just trying to get back home to the wife and kids, with both of thier legs intact?
I’m not condoning torture, I’m just trying to put a little perspective into this very innaccurate time-bomb fable that seems to be the litmus test of the day whether or not we will vote for someone or not.
I don’t think this makes Ron Paul pro-gay.
Imagine he istn’t; but he will let the states agree. This is better, it should be done this way. I am ok with states not having to recognise other states marriages as well - gay people just won’t go and live there; that’s also fine. I think one of the good things about Paul is what he actually thinks on the issue (like gay marriage) istn’t that important, he makes it clear how he will decide what to do - and in this case it’s let states decide. Seems fair to me on this, abortion, death penalty, euthenasia etc. If I went to live in the US again (as is possible) I’d go live in California or Hawaii most likely and I know the decisions both these states would take. Fair enough.
To be fair, I’m not the one who said that George Bush wants to put all of the gays in concentration camps. That was dramatic.
I never said that, in fact I said the exact opposite in giving credit to Bush for *not* doing what some of his supporters would like. Good try though, shame you can’t read.
It sounds like you support the “World needs a bully” theory.
No, that is what we have now and that’s the problem. The US (fairly in lots of ways) treats international policy 100% self interested. However this dosen’t work if you want to take on the role of a global policemen, which the US dosen’t. So it intervenes when it wants to (generally for access to resources) and does nothing when there is no direct benefit (Rwanda, Sudan, Zimbabwe, crap even Northern Ireland).
I don’t go for this whole cultural relativism crap, I think the rest of the world should act together to hunt down and try people like the junta in Burman, Saddam, North Korea etc. I agree there are ranges (e.g. I wouldn’t say they same for Chavez or Castro) but still, I think it is rediculous in this present time that we still have to put up with military dictatorships around the world.
But right now the US can’t fulfill this role. It’s far too selfish (again, I understand the argument for that), too interested in exerting itself using just military means without realising this is but a small part of the role and is lead by incompetant people. So, I think right now that doing nothing would actually be better than doing what is currently being done; I hope one day the US can come back to lead the world in this area though - it’s not like there are any half decent alternatives - the EU can’t agree on how much to pay farmers let alone a common defense policy and the rest of the world, well not great.
Are you referring just to Iraq, or are there other turds in the puchbowl somewhere?
Everywhere now really. The problem is Iraq/Afghanistan has so damaged the US’s credibility its effectivness anywhere is diminished. Can the US really be effective if it sent troops to Sudan anymore? I don’t think so. You need a whole new army that istn’t just designed to blow things up; until that happens the US is never going to be able to peacekeep - and that is what a “global policeman” is there for.
Well Lee, I answered your question.
Next entry: We Knew Everything!
Previous entry: Blackout ... Of the Brain
Who's Logged In
Total Members: 8229
Total Logged in members: 4
Total guests: 52
Total anonymous users: 1
fangbeer,
frankie,
Hal_10000,
Manwhore,
,
Capitalism
Search
Search this site with Google
Search will take you to Google.com, which will display results from Right-Thinking and link you back here. Search using pMachineRecent Comments
Quote Mining
(14 total, Last @ 08:04)
Dick Fitzwell: A government which robs Peter to pay Paul can always count on the support of Paul--George Bernard Shaw Sometimes I wonder if the world is being run by smart people who are putting us on or by imbeciles who really mean it.--Mark Twain A major source of objection to a…
How quickly they soured us on their ideology, huh?
(7 total, Last @ 07:34)
Seattle Outcast: Get that sand washed out yet muirgeo1?
The Discovery Gunman
(2 total, Last @ 07:33)
Seattle Outcast: Considering that this is exactly what I hear from your typical garden-variety libtard, I'm keeping my guard up around them in case they snap.
The Discovery Gunman
(2 total, Last @ 07:15)
AlexinCT: My response is to wonder how people get like this. There has to be some sort of mental imbalance at work here. I seriously hope this can’t just happen to anyone given the right – or in this case, wrong – circumstances. There are very few things that would push…
Tonight's speech by Obama on Iraq...
(29 total, Last @ 07:00)
AlexinCT: Fair enough. But bitching Obama all day every day would become tiresome—for me, if not for you. If Obama gave me anything not to bitch about, I would. Then again, when I did give him his propos I recall you were still unhappy with that too. I’ve made it pretty…
Last 30 Comments
just going out on a limb here: never?