>> ^dystopianfuturetoday:

I never got why John McCain attached the indefinite detention clause onto this military budget bill, considering his personal experiences as a prisoner of war.


$

I never got why John McCain attached the indefinite detention clause onto this military budget bill, considering his personal experiences as a prisoner of war.

Better not vote in Obama either. Lesser of two evils? He signed in indefinite detention, bombs Pakistani children with drones, kills United States citizens abroad.
The solution is to build political power from below

>> ^cosmovitelli:

If you pay right wingers to lock people up (say 20k of that 88k is net profit) they will lock up EVERYONE they can.
That's the end of the logic. No need for further complication.
As a side note, if they make money by fighting wars, YOU WILL ALWAYS BE AT WAR.
(If you want peace, safe clean food, healthcare, sanity, child protection, education... Better not vote in psychotic demagogues who can make money by doing the opposite. Doh!)

Easy, right to life > property rights

Indefinite detention on the state level, being unconstitutional as it is, would hopefully be overturned. When the President signs it though, there's not much authority anywhere to overturn it (maybe if the Supreme Court wasn't such a pussy?), which is why it would be so nice to have a constitutionalist president.

Christians are a mystery to me too. Honestly, if I were Ron Paul, and asked about evolution, my answer would be "I don't know, it's a solid theory, but I believe in creation, so I sincerely don't know". Would make it more acceptable if he didn't dismiss it. It might go to his critical thinking, even though I still argue it's irrelevant in terms of policy.

About option C, the problem with letting people do something, but not if they have this or that reason to do it, is that it's outside our reach to legislate people's motivations, what goes on inside their heads that leads them to take action.

However, you do have a point on the spirit of the law. As much as I agree with RP on principle that the Civil Rights Act is an infringement on the private sphere, back in those days, that behaviour was too widespread, and so were the riots, a lot of political pressure as well, etc., and it all had to be stopped. Today, most businesses would understand that such behaviour would be bad or even suicide. It would take too long for businesses back in the 60s to realize that, even though, I believe eventually they would.

So yeah, I guess its silly for RP to say he wouldn't have voted for the Civil Rights Act, given those circumstances, but to me it makes sense for him to oppose it on principle and because this kind of legislation sets a bad precedent.

>> ^renatojj:

I think we're arguing semantics, what you consider rights of a woman is what I think libertarians would call an entitlement. Not all libertarians are pro-choice, e.g., Ron Paul. Abortion is not a clear-cut issue, there's the right to life involved too. When does life begin and right to life should protect the unborn? etc. Ron Paul doesn't think the federal government should legislate it because it's too controversial (and outside federal jurisdiction anyway).
If every state bans abortion, wouldn't that be the same as banning it at the federal level? I don't think you have an issue with states rights, but with the scenario where all 50 states approve legislation you don't want and it's a reasonable concern. However, wouldn't that be less likely to happen?

Given that libertarians are all about private property rights, what could be more private property than your own body? I get that some people don't like abortion. Fine, don't have one. But to say that "Not all libertarians are pro-choice"; isn't "pro-choice" (i.e. the freedom to make the decision yourself, not to have government interfere) a core libertarian principle?

As to the right to life of the unborn.... there's really no good answer here. An abortion is never a cause for celebration, it's always done as the lesser of two evils. I would say that the right to life of the mother trumps that of the unborn in all cases (i.e. where the mothers life is in danger) and that it should take place as early as possible.

>> ^renatojj:
Look at the NDAA that Obama signed for this year, everyone in America is subject to indefinite detention now. Great. If it were only approved in New York, a lot less people would be subject to this injustice and you could at least avoid it by just staying the hell out of there (besides, such law would likely be overruled for violating the 4th Amendment).

You get no argument from me here, the NDAA is a terrible law. I would actually use it to argue against the right of states to enact laws such as this, as the freedoms it violates should be universal (or constitutional I guess). To turn your argument around. why should only the people in New York have to suffer under it?

>> ^renatojj:
Ok, maybe you can be a christian and believe in evolution. Then I can argue Obama is probably not a very good christian, which doesn't bother me, but means he lacks integrity in his faith, right? He's probably religious for appearance's sake, because America would never vote for a non-christian President. Show me a bible that explains how man evolved from the apes and we're good

It's hard for me to defend this position as I'm an atheist too. All religious people, including Ron Paul, cherry-pick which parts of their holy book to adhere to in their day to day lives. I don't see Ron Paul arguing for the banning of pork or shellfish, yet they are clearly stated to be abominations in the bible. If he can work his way around that, why can't he accept evolution?


>> ^renatojj:
I agree businesses can do evil, but they're more directly accountable for their actions than elected representatives, they seem to have more to lose, and more direct incentives to do good. Besides, the power of businesses is purely financial, whereas governments have money and armies. Give governments less powers over the economy, and businesses will be less likely to lobby and seek leverage from government. That's libertarianism is a nutshell



>> ^renatojj:
The interviewer suggested Ron Paul reject the money to make a statement against the white supremacists, and Ron Paul said, (paraphrasing), "Yes, I disavow that organization and what they stand for, there's my statement". No tacit approval, I don't think he needs to give them money to make his point. Actually, if you think about it, it would be disingenuous of him to give them money after openly declaring that he disavows them, don't you agree?
I admire Ron Paul for his backbone and common sense on this issue, for not bending to social pressure, if he wants to make a statement, he opens his mouth and does it. Giving money back not only contradicts his statement, it's also weak to conform to other people's somewhat self-indulging and irrational expectations. I mean, who in their right mind would give money to white supremacists?

Fair enough.

>> ^renatojj:
I'd like to understand you not wanting to protect certain freedoms. Which one (or more) of these restrictions do you approve of:
a) a business open to the public can't ask someone to leave its property
b) a business open to the public can't select which customers to serve
c) a business open to the public can do both of the above, but not based on certain criteria

Easy C. I'm all for discrimination based on actions or abilities. I disagree with affirmative action (I feel it is patronising to minorities).

Now could this be used by a business to discriminate against an ethnic group on an individual basis? I guess so, but at least it makes it clear that the spirit of the law does not allow this.

>> ^renatojj:
Ron Paul sees the government and the Fed as major oppressors of our freedoms, based on their laws. Freedoms are usually taken away by force, and libertarians will argue that businesses can't take away our freedoms because they can't use force (unless they're criminals), we're not entitled to anything they can give us, and they can't break contracts. I think that's a major source of confusion in a society where, unfortunately, the lines between governments and corporations are blurred

@ChaosEngine I agree with you it wouldn't be nice to see smaller communities abused by state laws, but that's what the constitution is for, it protects individuals from government abuse, both state and federal.

I think we're arguing semantics, what you consider rights of a woman is what I think libertarians would call an entitlement. Not all libertarians are pro-choice, e.g., Ron Paul. Abortion is not a clear-cut issue, there's the right to life involved too. When does life begin and right to life should protect the unborn? etc. Ron Paul doesn't think the federal government should legislate it because it's too controversial (and outside federal jurisdiction anyway).

If every state bans abortion, wouldn't that be the same as banning it at the federal level? I don't think you have an issue with states rights, but with the scenario where all 50 states approve legislation you don't want and it's a reasonable concern. However, wouldn't that be less likely to happen?

Look at the NDAA that Obama signed for this year, everyone in America is subject to indefinite detention now. Great. If it were only approved in New York, a lot less people would be subject to this injustice and you could at least avoid it by just staying the hell out of there (besides, such law would likely be overruled for violating the 4th Amendment).

Ok, maybe you can be a christian and believe in evolution. Then I can argue Obama is probably not a very good christian, which doesn't bother me, but means he lacks integrity in his faith, right? He's probably religious for appearance's sake, because America would never vote for a non-christian President. Show me a bible that explains how man evolved from the apes and we're good

I agree businesses can do evil, but they're more directly accountable for their actions than elected representatives, they seem to have more to lose, and more direct incentives to do good. Besides, the power of businesses is purely financial, whereas governments have money and armies. Give governments less powers over the economy, and businesses will be less likely to lobby and seek leverage from government. That's libertarianism is a nutshell

The interviewer suggested Ron Paul reject the money to make a statement against the white supremacists, and Ron Paul said, (paraphrasing), "Yes, I disavow that organization and what they stand for, there's my statement". No tacit approval, I don't think he needs to give them money to make his point. Actually, if you think about it, it would be disingenuous of him to give them money after openly declaring that he disavows them, don't you agree?

I admire Ron Paul for his backbone and common sense on this issue, for not bending to social pressure, if he wants to make a statement, he opens his mouth and does it. Giving money back not only contradicts his statement, it's also weak to conform to other people's somewhat self-indulging and irrational expectations. I mean, who in their right mind would give money to white supremacists?

I'd like to understand you not wanting to protect certain freedoms. Which one (or more) of these restrictions do you approve of:

a) a business open to the public can't ask someone to leave its property

b) a business open to the public can't select which customers to serve

c) a business open to the public can do both of the above, but not based on certain criteria

Ron Paul sees the government and the Fed as major oppressors of our freedoms, based on their laws. Freedoms are usually taken away by force, and libertarians will argue that businesses can't take away our freedoms because they can't use force (unless they're criminals), we're not entitled to anything they can give us, and they can't break contracts. I think that's a major source of confusion in a society where, unfortunately, the lines between governments and corporations are blurred

Thanks man, same can be said about you, I also really appreciate your civility and open-mindedness. My experience so far is that it's easier to talk Ron Paul with liberals than with neocons lol

>> ^Lawdeedaw:

Hrm, interesting since I am drunk... But you said, "Also too," which makes all that you wrote moot! Ha, also can mean "too!" I win!

I intentionally do that as a snarky homage to Sarah Palin.
>> ^Lawdeedaw:
All jokes aside...the constitution, as I said, is understood backwards by Paul. If it isn't wrote, the government has the ability to do (At least the State.)
Universal healthcare is legal, not because of the commerce clause...but because it is.

I think of it the same way. I read Article I, Section 8 as being something along the lines of "Congress's powers include, but are not limited to..." rather than the Paulite "This is the comprehensive and limited list of Congress's powers, and Congress has no authority to do anything that isn't explicitly defined in this list..."

Essentially I think the Constitutional authority of Congress is more defined by "necessary and proper" and "promoting the General Welfare". People's conception of what policies meet those standards may shift over time, but those overall goals are essentially permanent.

IMO, indefinite detention of terrorists is neither necessary nor proper, so it should be unconstitutional. Health insurance mandates are both, and promote the General Welfare as well, so they are.

People might disagree with me on those evaluations, but that's why we have elections.

@Boise_Lib, the part I disagree with Cenk about is in his characterization of Obama as being chiefly to blame for the law Congress drafted and passed, and that Obama issuing a signing statement only makes things worse, not better.

I agree with the analysis that the signing statement doesn't fix the problem with the law that Congress passed.

I disagree with the "analysis" that the signing statement is a load of bullshit meant to cover up some secret personal desire on Obama's part to enshrine indefinite detention into law.

>> ^criticalthud:

hope and change will have new meaning:
thanks for changing our fundamental rights. i hope i get out of prison some day.
at this point i would actually consider voting for a republican, in the hope that things would become bad enough that in 4 years we might actually get a real progressive in office.
once again the"middle" has been pushed to the far right, and the far right is now just fucking insane.
and leaves the american people with the typical - pick-the-lesser-evil type of decision.


I think this has shown us right, left distinctions are meaningless; mere distractions created by our "betters" to create a impetus of infighting and faction. Eisenhower warned of this decades ago, and is now being fully realized. The republic stands on the brink, I am doubtful of a peaceful resolution and fully expect an American line of Cesar's to come about.

http://www.rollingstone.com/politics/blogs/taibblog/indefinite-detention-of-american-citizens-coming-soon-to-battlefield-u-s-a-20111209

The plan is to set up the laws needed to take control. Provoke OWS or stage an event and say it was OWS. Then use the media to re-assure the public that they will be kept safe by arresting and detaining anyone vocal against the current status quo.

When there are internal domestic bombings, people will vote for protection not freedom. They will welcome wire taps and drones in the streets.

>> ^Edgeman2112:

Obama said he will veto it if it passes the house.
And Norway and Sweden are the best places to live. Once the kids are in college, wife and I are off.


Yea, until it's ruined by the European Union. Africa is the future!

Woohoo thanks man!

In reply to this comment by Lawdeedaw:
*promote

Susan Lindauer:
...
I got indicted for protesting the War in Iraq. My crime was delivering a warm-hearted letter to my second cousin White House Chief of Staff, Andy Card, which correctly outlined the consequences of War. Suspiciously, I had been one of the very few Assets covering the Iraqi Embassy at the United Nations for seven years. Thus, I was personally acquainted with the truth about Pre-War Intelligence, which differs remarkably from the story invented by GOP leaders on Capitol Hill.

More dangerously still, my team gave advance warnings about the 9/11 attack and solicited Iraq’s cooperation after 9/11. In August 2001, at the urging of my CIA handler, I phoned Attorney General John Ashcroft’s private staff and the Office of Counter-Terrorism to ask for an “emergency broadcast alert” across all federal agencies, seeking any fragment of intelligence on airplane hijackings. My warning cited the World Trade Center as the identified target. Highly credible independent sources have confirmed that in August, 2001 I described the strike on the World Trade Center as “imminent,” with the potential for “mass casualties, possibly using a miniature thermonuclear device.”

Thanks to the Patriot Act, Americans have zero knowledge of those truths, though the 9/11 Community has zoomed close for years. Republican leaders invoked the Patriot Act to take me down 30 days after I approached the offices of Senator John McCain and Trent Lott, requesting to testify about Iraq’s cooperation with the 9/11 investigation and a comprehensive peace framework that would have achieved every U.S. and British objective without firing a shot. Ironically, because of the Patriot Act, my conversations with Senator Trent Lott’s staff got captured on wire taps, proving my story.

You see, contrary to rhetoric on Capitol Hill, the Patriot Act is first and foremost a weapon to bludgeon whistleblowers and political dissidents. Indeed, it has been singularly crafted for that purpose.

The American people are not nearly as frightened as they should be. Many Americans expect the Patriot Act to limit its surveillance to overseas communications. Yet while I was under indictment, Maryland State Police invoked the Patriot Act to wire tap activists tied to the Chesapeake Climate Action Network, an environmental group dedicated to wind power, solar energy and recycling. The DC Anti-War Network was targeted as a “white supremacist group.” Amnesty International and anti-death penalty activists got targeted for alleged “civil rights violations.”
...
I cannot forget. I cannot forget how I was subjected to secret charges, secret evidence and secret grand jury testimony that denied my right to face my accusers or their accusations in open court, throughout five years of indictment. I cannot forget my imprisonment on a Texas military base for a year without a trial or evidentiary hearing.

I cannot forget how the FBI, the US Attorneys Office, the Bureau of Prisons and the main Justice office in Washington — independently and collectively verified my story— then falsified testimony to Chief Justice Michael Mukasey, denying our 9/11 warnings and my long-time status as a U.S. intelligence Asset, though my witnesses had aggressively confronted them. Apparently the Patriot Act allows the Justice Department to withhold corroborating evidence and testimony from the Court, if it is deemed “classified.”

I cannot forget threats of forcible drugging and indefinite detention up to 10 years, until I could be “cured” of believing what everybody wanted to deny— because it was damn inconvenient to politicians in Washington anxious to hold onto power.
...

11 more comments have been lost in the ether at this killed duplicate.

This video has been seconded as a duplicate; transferring votes to the original video and killing this dupe - dupeof seconded with isdupe by chicchorea.