Certainly true. However, while Lincoln was undeniably against slavery (though not an abolitionist), he seemed to keep his feelings about slavery out of the war:

>> ^ChaosEngine:


Some things are just worth going to war for.


"I would save the Union. I would save it the shortest way under the Constitution. The sooner the national authority can be restored; the nearer the Union will be "the Union as it was." If there be those who would not save the Union, unless they could at the same time save slavery, I do not agree with them. If there be those who would not save the Union unless they could at the same time destroy slavery, I do not agree with them. My paramount object in this struggle is to save the Union, and is not either to save or to destroy slavery. If I could save the Union without freeing any slave I would do it, and if I could save it by freeing all the slaves I would do it; and if I could save it by freeing some and leaving others alone I would also do that. What I do about slavery, and the colored race, I do because I believe it helps to save the Union; and what I forbear, I forbear because I do not believe it would help to save the Union. I shall do less whenever I shall believe what I am doing hurts the cause, and I shall do more whenever I shall believe doing more will help the cause. I shall try to correct errors when shown to be errors; and I shall adopt new views so fast as they shall appear to be true views."
-Letter to Horace Greeley

>> ^obscenesimian:

Yes yes. Kurds, hmmmmmm let me think
oh yes they were abused by turks throughout history but most notably during the the 1890's 1920's 1930's and on up to the 70's and 80's. Ironically, Kurds also were one of the primary agents used by the Turks in the deportations and massacre Armenians before and during world war 1.
Those Kurds.
Who were also abused by Saddam. All part of a long chain of ethnic cleansing, genocide and nationalist violence caused in a large part by religion and creed as well as tribal identity throughout the balkans and the ottoman empire and what became the palestinian mandate.
Which Hitchens thought we should wade into because science and atheism will put right through warfare that which religion and warfare could not put right.
Hitchens got so much so wrong so many times, but he sounded soooo good doing it.
>> ^bcglorf:
>> ^spoco2:
>> ^kceaton1:
Goodbye Chris. Some of his most profound moments for me came when he actually screwed up and was wrong! It would often lead to other talks and dialogs between the people he had erred against and himself and in some occasions Christopher would merely present them and allow the other person to put the matter straight. He could be friends with these people and often was.
It showed me that he had within himself the ability to be very humble and that to him the truth WAS paramount! For that and much more I will remember him always.
He had it within himself to be the best of us all.

His about face on waterboarding after being waterboarded was the point that I started paying attention to him.

His about face on Saddam era Iraq stood out more in my mind. After being a champion of the anti-war movement in the first Gulf war he went and spent time with the Iraqi Kurds. He came back vehement in his conviction that America's worst crime in Iraq was in essence listening to him in the first place and not pushing into Baghdad and removing Saddam the first time.



Or more simply, Saddam was so horrific and brutal a monster that Iraqis and the region as a whole are better off for his removal.

Yes yes. Kurds, hmmmmmm let me think

oh yes they were abused by turks throughout history but most notably during the the 1890's 1920's 1930's and on up to the 70's and 80's. Ironically, Kurds also were one of the primary agents used by the Turks in the deportations and massacre Armenians before and during world war 1.

Those Kurds.

Who were also abused by Saddam. All part of a long chain of ethnic cleansing, genocide and nationalist violence caused in a large part by religion and creed as well as tribal identity throughout the balkans and the ottoman empire and what became the palestinian mandate.

Which Hitchens thought we should wade into because science and atheism will put right through warfare that which religion and warfare could not put right.

Hitchens got so much so wrong so many times, but he sounded soooo good doing it.

>> ^bcglorf:

>> ^spoco2:
>> ^kceaton1:
Goodbye Chris. Some of his most profound moments for me came when he actually screwed up and was wrong! It would often lead to other talks and dialogs between the people he had erred against and himself and in some occasions Christopher would merely present them and allow the other person to put the matter straight. He could be friends with these people and often was.
It showed me that he had within himself the ability to be very humble and that to him the truth WAS paramount! For that and much more I will remember him always.
He had it within himself to be the best of us all.

His about face on waterboarding after being waterboarded was the point that I started paying attention to him.

His about face on Saddam era Iraq stood out more in my mind. After being a champion of the anti-war movement in the first Gulf war he went and spent time with the Iraqi Kurds. He came back vehement in his conviction that America's worst crime in Iraq was in essence listening to him in the first place and not pushing into Baghdad and removing Saddam the first time.

>> ^dannym3141:

>> ^bcglorf:
>> ^dannym3141:
>> ^bcglorf:
The tragedy is neither side wants to discuss the underlying problem of reaching an agreement on when life begins, and thus is granted full human rights.
People have trouble accepting conception as that point.
People have trouble accepting birth as that point.
What's worse, is people refuse to discuss that point as it makes them uncomfortable.

I think one side rejects discussion more than the other - no prizes for guessing which one. And if it's true that abortion IS murder, we're gonna have to build a few hundred jails for all the millions of women that are gonna be imprisoned for murder.
And the doctors, and anyone else involved. Maybe fathers too?
How about rape pregnancies? Should we force the mother to look after it? Maybe dump it in an orphanage? If god forbid someone got pregnant in this way, and the woman got rid of it, the woman could end up with a smaller sentence than the scumbag who raped her.
There are a fucking billion nuances that need sorting out, but they just want to shout each other down, or stand outside abortion clinics yelling at innocent people in the street.
The pro life community in general has its head up its own arse - it is currently legal; to change the law you must put forward a convincing, logical argument. By taking the approach they're taking, they're never gonna get anywhere. Not that i want them to.

I said nothing about sides, but I dare say neither side has much claim to focusing on presenting a convincing, logical argument. People are either murderers or haters of women and lovers of rapists. Both sides are equally negligent and stubborn in their refusal to recognize or even acknowledge the real underlying question.
You should note you even just did it yourself leaping right over any discussion of when life begins and went straight after people's heart strings over jailing millions of women and even jailing of rape victims.
Stop and have the logical discussion of when a fetus is a human and should be granted full human rights.

No, i didn't skip over anything - you can hardly expect me to discuss all aspects of abortion in a few paragraphs. I stated some of the issues that would need to be handled if the law is changed, i stated my opinion, and criticised the approach of pro-lifers. I think that is a logical thing to do - the law is the law and if they want to change it, it is they who need the convincing argument. That isn't because i'm pro-choice, that's just a fact of life.
I didn't intend tug on any heart strings, hence why i framed my argument without emotive language; it appears matter of fact to me, if you can suggest some appropriate adjustments then i may make them. But why would you rather skip over the discussion of such things? Perhaps that shows your own desire to skip over some issues.
Don't forget that if i am pro-choice, then i will frame an argument for pro-choice. It is not my responsibility to do otherwise.
If i wanted to change marijuana laws (and i do), then i need to provide a convincing argument first (which i can). Then i have to make sure others are listening and focus my energies on those who are not. This seems logical and sensible to me. Do you disagree? If so, how else do you suggest we go about changing established norms? Problems must be identified before they are adressed, no?


My problem is you still have the same frightened attitude as any of the other combatants on either side. The 'heroic' girl in this video is the same as well.

Why is everyone so scared by consideration of the real question, when does life begin?

All of your pro-life arguments apply to the exact moment before the child leaves the womb. Should anybody having a c-section get to choose if the doctor hands them the baby or slits it's throat and tosses it aside? After all, it hadn't been born yet so it's a matter of choice.

The question of when life begins is paramount, and both sides are uncomfortable with it. You haven't shown my you are in any way unique, you've failed in both posts to even touch the notion of when a human life should be granted full rights. One might assume the being pro-life, you feel life begins at birth, but that of course introduces the ugliness mentioned above.

>> ^spoco2:

>> ^kceaton1:
Goodbye Chris. Some of his most profound moments for me came when he actually screwed up and was wrong! It would often lead to other talks and dialogs between the people he had erred against and himself and in some occasions Christopher would merely present them and allow the other person to put the matter straight. He could be friends with these people and often was.
It showed me that he had within himself the ability to be very humble and that to him the truth WAS paramount! For that and much more I will remember him always.
He had it within himself to be the best of us all.

His about face on waterboarding after being waterboarded was the point that I started paying attention to him.


His about face on Saddam era Iraq stood out more in my mind. After being a champion of the anti-war movement in the first Gulf war he went and spent time with the Iraqi Kurds. He came back vehement in his conviction that America's worst crime in Iraq was in essence listening to him in the first place and not pushing into Baghdad and removing Saddam the first time.

>> ^kceaton1:

Goodbye Chris. Some of his most profound moments for me came when he actually screwed up and was wrong! It would often lead to other talks and dialogs between the people he had erred against and himself and in some occasions Christopher would merely present them and allow the other person to put the matter straight. He could be friends with these people and often was.
It showed me that he had within himself the ability to be very humble and that to him the truth WAS paramount! For that and much more I will remember him always.
He had it within himself to be the best of us all.


His about face on waterboarding after being waterboarded was the point that I started paying attention to him.

Goodbye Chris. Some of his most profound moments for me came when he actually screwed up and was wrong! It would often lead to other talks and dialogs between the people he had erred against and himself and in some occasions Christopher would merely present them and allow the other person to put the matter straight. He could be friends with these people and often was.

It showed me that he had within himself the ability to be very humble and that to him the truth WAS paramount! For that and much more I will remember him always.

He had it within himself to be the best of us all.

PART 2 OF (now) 3

M: [Why do you doubt science?]

SB: I am dubious of the philosophy of empiricism upon which science is founded upon. Empiricism assumes that truth can only be discerned through our senses, and that our minds merely processes and categorizes this truth. I reject this view because there are clearly truths that empiricism cannot evaluate, including the validity of empiricism itself.

You're confusing the philosophy of "empiricism" with "empirical data". The two are semantically related, but the former derives its name from the latter, not the other way around, just as stoic people are not necessarily stoicists, nor all humans humanitarian, nor all who exist existentialist.

Science is based on no philosophy. The scientific method can be derived entirely from logic, which Craig just told us is a rational thing to believe in (I agree). It happens that the scientific method can only be applied to empirical data (which is separate from the philosophy of empiricism), which is defined simply as information gathered from the senses. This has nothing to do with beliefs about what is knowable. Nothing in science suggests any opinion on what else is knowable or not, just what appears to be or not to be a candidate for experiment. Science is incapable of determining whether abortion is morally wrong, and it takes no stance on whether that information is knowable. That's a question for philosophers and such.

Are you still dubious of science, or just empiricism now? If you still are, can you point to any faulty information or conclusions science has arrived at that you are dubious about? Or if I've improperly worded the question to best get at your issues with science, please provide some specifics about science's methods, conclusions, or whatever that give you discomfort.

I would say my experience is generally subjective but is objectively confirmed, both by other people, and my daily life. You can say I have interpreted those experiences subjectively, and I am just fooling myself, of course.

"Objectively confirmed" does not include either confirmation by other people nor by your daily life. Those are both, by definition, subjective. The faithful company you keep too is a self-selected group of people drawn together because of their similar mental states. My best guess is that you are fooling yourself, and have found other people who are fooling themselves too who confirm your delusions.

All I can say is that truth is paramount to me and I am incapable of believing something just because I want it to be true. I would rather have nothing and die a meaningless death than live out a comfortable lie.

I accept that you are receiving your information from your own experience, and not just what makes you feel good to believe.

That took me a lot longer to write than I expected. I'll take a look at your description of God next.>> ^shinyblurry:
<comment reference link>

Having watched the first 30 seconds again and thought about it, with Craig's ...Premise Two cannot be proven, and that's Craig's argument completely sunk, and it could have been the end of the video too.

I think you're looking at the argument from the wrong perspective. Let's examine the premises:

1. If God does not exist, objective moral values do not exist:

The basic question here is, in the absence of God, is there is any objective difference between good and evil? That, if there is no God, is the difference between good and evil like the difference between coke and pepsi? An example Craig gives is, is the difference like which side of the road that you drive on, which varies from culture to culture?

So, this is where you would make an argument for valid and binding objective moral values outside of Gods existence. You can invalidate the whole argument right here, but you have to provide a logical foundation. I have yet to see anyone refute premise one.

2. Objective moral values do exist

Now, to say this premise is false is to admit that objective moral values do not exist. IE, you will have to admit that torturing babies for fun isn't actually wrong. I have actually debated people who tried to defend it, but I give them credit for being intellectually honest, because that is the logical conclusion; that if objective moral values do not exist, torturing babies for fun isn't absolutely wrong. However, I think we both know that it is, therefore objective moral values do exist.

So, this is a rather tricky argument for an atheist. Qualia soup gets the whole thing wrong here. The basic trouble for you is, if you want to dispute premise one, you have to come up with a foundation for objective moral values outside of God. If you admit there is no such foundation, then we move to premise 2, and there you have to argue that objective moral values do not exist. If you can not argue it, or if you admit objective moral values do exist, then you are forced to accept premise 3, that therefore God exists.

For example, can we just accept that you and I exist, one independent of the other, neither a figment of the other's imagination? Can we accept that our normal external sensory input can be accepted as correct for the purposes of this conversation, (except in the trivial cases of optical illusions and so forth)? You probably know what I'm saying. I hate it when I get into an argument and think I've made a very strong point, only to have my opponent come back with, "Everything's subjective; you can't prove anything is real," or, "Maybe you imagined the whole thing, I mean, you can't prove you didn't," or, "You can prove anything with facts," or, "Well, you have your beliefs and I have mine," or some crap like that where I'm not talking about subjective facts or my own beliefs.

Yes, I can agree with all of this. I believe that the Universe is tangibly real, and is generally how it appears to be, in that it is not a malicious deception or a meaningless illusion. I believe we are both individuals made in the image of God with an independent existence and a soul. I believe we can come to meaningful conclusions about reality, and that there is a truth which is tangible, accessible to reason, and which does not change based on our interpretation or personal preferences.

Also, in theological arguments, I must insist on a couple things. The first is that words must have meaning. If you say something, you can't later say that it's not to be taken literally, or that that word has a different meaning when applied to God. The second is that everything logically entailed by a statement must stand with the original statement, and any other statement. If there's any inconsistencies, then at least one of the statements must be false.

I am very consistent when it comes to meanings. This is one of the hallmarks of literal interpretation, that the words in the bible, while they can sometimes be applied in a metaphorical sense, always have an intended meaning which is absolutely true in all circumstances.

Also, please don't assert supernatural things like the existence of Satan, or your knowledge of how he works, telling me these things like I'm ignorant of them, rather than fully aware of the stories, but sceptical. Say that it's what you believe or have come to believe or whatever, but don't say it like objective fact. Same goes for Bible verses. I don't accept them as fact any more than you'd accept Skeletor quotes as fact. To me that book is best treated as fiction, though it's possible it conveys some details of events that really happened, but pronouncements of the way the world is I absolutely do not accept as the word of God, especially since I don't believe he exists. I don't care if the Bible predicts atheists/sceptics. All that tells me is that people have been doubting the veracity of the word for 2,000 years, and someone took the precaution of adding a word or two against non-believers into the text so believers down the line would have justification "from God" for dismissing my arguments as guided by Satan, or whatever.

I generally won't propose arguments that would take faith to accept. I understand your natural skepticism because I used to be equally skeptical. I will just submit that when you are deceived, you don't know you are deceived:

2 Corinthians 4:4

In their case the god of this world has blinded the minds of the unbelievers, to keep them from seeing the light of the gospel of the glory of Christ, who is the image of God.

I admit the possibility that I could be deceived, so I think if we both can admit this, we will have a more fruitful conversation.

know you don't think Qualia's line of reasoning holds, but I don't know what you think of Craig's argument. Is it valid, in your mind? And here, I'm mostly interested in how you think. As I've said, the video was only intended to take apart the argument of one Christian apologist, and not to prove or disprove anything.

I think it is logically airtight. That if you cannot prove there is a foundation for objective moral values outside of God, and you cannot disprove that some actions are objectively wrong, that you must accept the conclusion of the argument.

I'm 99% sure you said in a comment somewhere that you're dubious of science. Could you explain what you mean by that? Science isn't a system of faith or a set of theories. It's a process of testing theories. Are you dubious of the process? What parts of it specifically do you mean?

I am dubious of the philosophy of empiricism upon which science is founded upon. Empiricism assumes that truth can only be discerned through our senses, and that our minds merely processes and categorizes this truth. I reject this view because there are clearly truths that empiricism cannot evaluate, including the validity of empiricism itself. I'll bring in craig again for this one:



I apologize for the title..it's just the best clip I could find.

Is it accurate to say that the sum of your experience of God is subjective, that's to say, is based solely on your own experience in your head, and possibly in things in the objective world that you have interpreted in a subjective way, and is not borne out in any demonstrable way in the measurable material world?

I would say my experience is generally subjective but is objectively confirmed, both by other people, and my daily life. You can say I have interpreted those experiences subjectively, and I am just fooling myself, of course. Personal experience is something hard to prove, as the other person is naturally skeptical of the other persons ability to evaluate what is true. All I can say is that truth is paramount to me and I am incapable of believing something just because I want it to be true. I would rather have nothing and die a meaningless death than live out a comfortable lie.

Please describe God. Where is he? When is he? What is he capable of? What does he feel? Is he immutable? Please add anything you can about why he did things like create the universe and animals and us and disease and suffering and inequality and joy, why he cares for us, why he cares what we do, why he made some things moral and some things evil, and any other informative facts. Is there a God the Father anymore, or just Jesus? Did Jesus have a human form and a godly form, or did he transmute from one to the other? What was Jesus before he was born? Was he born of the virgin Mary?

This is a rather large subject. I'll do my best..

God is perfect. He is holy, loving, and just. He exists outside of time and space in His own realm, which is called Heaven. He is capable of doing anything that can be done. As far as what God feels, that can be hard to quantify. For instance, you can say God feels love, but by definition, God is love. In general, from the bible, it seems God can be pleased, can be jealous, has compassion, is kind, is loving, can be grieved and can be angered. His nature is immutable, in that He is goodness itself. He is light and there is no darkness in Him. That doesn't change. He can however change how He interacts with us.

God created us out of the abundance of His love. It wasn't out of a need, as He already had perfect love within the relationships of the Holy Trinity, but it was an overflowing of that love. He created us to be in relationship to Him, as His children.

There were no diseases, or any inequality before the fall. He created the world perfectly, and He set us in paradise, to learn and grow under His care. However, because robots would be undesirable, He gave us free will to be obedient to Him or not. Unfortunately, we abused that, and broke fellowship with God. Sin and death were brought into the world because of it, and since then this has been a fallen creation. If you have something perfect, and introduce an imperfection, then it is no longer perfect and neither can anything perfect ever come from it. Sin and death ruined that perfection, and they are the cause for all of the disease and inequality today.

Because of this, God brought the law into the world, to give us a minimum standard for moral behavior. The law in itself was not capable of fixing the situation, as everyone fell short of the law, but rather it highlighted our need for a savior. This is the reason Jesus Christ came.

He came to Earth, putting aside His glory and position to live as a man, being the first human being since Adam to be born without sin. He lived a perfect life, though He was tempted in every way that we are, and fulfilled the entire law. Finally, He sacrificed Himself on the cross for the sins of mankind, as a substitutionary atonement for our crimes, and He tasted death for all men. God proved all of this by raising Him from the dead. So, Christ defeated death and sin on the cross, and imputed His righteousness, the righteousness of God, back into mankind. Therefore, anyone who accepts His Lordship will have his sins forgiven and receive eternal life. It is by the imputation of Gods perfect righteousness and substituionary atonement that the effects of the fall have been countered, and we are again reconciled to God and can enjoy perfect relationship to Him as His children.

God is three persons, the Father the Son and the Holy Spirit. Jesus ascended to Heaven and sits at the right hand of the Father, making intercession on our behalf. Jesus was born of a virgin, and was both God and man; He had two natures, which were united for one purpose in submission to the Father. Jesus, before He was born as a human being, existed as God. "Before abraham was, I am."

John 1:1-3

In the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with God, and the Word was God. 2 He was with God in the beginning. 3 Through him all things were made; without him nothing was made that has been made.

Hope that answers your questions.



>> ^messenger:

@shinyblurry

>> ^bcglorf:

>> ^packo:
>> ^NetRunner:
There are two key questions that I think we should try to keep distinct here.
First, was this legal? Well, yes. This isn't a criminal matter, this is war. You don't put enemy forces on trial before you shoot them, you just shoot them. There are still limits on what you're allowed to do in war, but simply killing people is generally considered legal. Even targeting specific people providing aid and comfort to the enemy is not forbidden under the rules of war.
The other question is...should this be legal?
Well, I think the fact that declaring war on non-state organizations gives government latitude so wide that it becomes legal to engage in targeted killing of one of its own citizens is a pretty powerful reason to believe that it shouldn't be legal. An easy way to change the law to make it illegal would be to pass a resolution delcaring that AUMF against Al Qaeda null and void. Then this whole thing would revert to a matter of law enforcement, and not "national security".
The thing is, to prevent future Congresses from being able to declare war on non-state entities would require an amendment to the Constitution -- right now it just says Congress has the power to declare war, full stop. It doesn't say that they can't declare war on whatever entity they choose.
But I think people out there wanting to claim that it already is illegal simply haven't been paying attention.
politics

technically it isn't war because terrorists are not afforded the same rights as active participants in war... via the Geneva Convention for example
the burden of proof, and right to trial... are paramount in these times... when things are at their darkest, that's when upholding these value is MOST important (to point the finger at your opponent and say they aren't playing by the rules is quite CHILDISH, especially when you've went through such lengths to formalize the opinion in your citizens that the reason the enemy attacks is because they hate your freedoms/way of life
the problem with classifying people as terrorists and then assassinating them without any due process is that the "arguement" is made in the court of public opinion... usually by the media networks who are biased and lacking of journalistic integrity... if that's all you need to justify killing people, the arguement can QUICKLY/EASILY be made about ANYONE
the ONLY real, understandable reason I can contemplate would be putting these individuals to trial and making the proceedings available to the public would reveal many skeletons the US has in it's closet... but the validity and morality of this are another debate
as a religious text I don't believe in says (paraphrased)... how you treat the lowest of me, is how you treat all of me... this doesn't just equate to the poor/downtrodden... but to the most vile and unrepentant
holding your morality/standards to be so high compared to someone else means very little when you sacrifice them (irrespective of whether or not it is convenient or easy to do so)

You misunderstand.
It isn't war because America, or NATO or the west has declared war against the terrorists. That's not where this started. Your naive belief in that is what's tainting your understanding of this.
The Islamic Jihadists have openly declared and been waging war on us since long before the events of 9/11. The 'us' I refer to in this is not merely America, or the west, but anyone and everyone who is not themselves an Islamic fundamentalist as well.
You can fumble around all you want over reasons and 'proofs' that America is not really at war with the jihadists, but the reality is that THEY are at war with America. It is the very identity they have taken for themselves for pity sake. We've only been able to ignore it for so long because 90% of the casualties in this war have been middle eastern moderate muslims. Your ilk seem to want to claim sympathy for religious differences by allowing the status quo to continue were muslims get to continue to bear the full brunt of the jihadist war against us both. It's twisted and I detest it.


I never mentioned anything to the beginnings of hostilities.. you are making assumptions there. And with the government (multiple administrations) labelling these actions as the "WAR ON TERROR", by definition, they declared it war (even if they choose to not adhere to the rules of war)... the fact that they then went through the trouble (primarily for interrogation purposes) declared terrorists not covered by the Geneva Convention, and thus having no rights as war participants is what I was pointing out.

It's nitpicking, and childish to resort to a "who declared war on who" because if you want to get down to it, you are plainly ignoring western powers foreign diplomacy/intervention over the last 50+ years. There is many reasons why these fundamentalists are hostile... if "your way of life" actually makes the list, its not your love of fast food, miniskirts and women's rights... its how your way of life is subsidized through intervention in terms of their leadership, whether it be through installation of puppet/friendly regimes (no matter how oppressive/brutal) or through regime change or through economic hardships placed on nations who's leaders don't fall in line... let alone other issues such as Israel.

It's this police state mentality which garnered the West such a lovely reputation in the middle east... and as much as you'd love to point out it's for stability in the region, or so democracy can make inroads, or whatever other propaganda you happen to believe in... the truth is it has ALWAYS been about oil and oil money... not even in the interests of the western power's citizenry as much as for the oil lobbies.

Democracy and freedom are only ok as long as they fall in line with Western (particularly American) interest. If they were being honest it would be outfront there, plain as day the MAJOR issue there is ENERGY (and the money to be made from it).

So as much as you believe it is WESTERN nation's responsibility to solve problems (forcebly and usually without consent of those involved) in this manner, its EXACTLY this type of thinking that got us here. And if you honestly think we've only started meddling in the Middle East, you are naive (perhaps blind is a better word).

Extremism will only be defeated by the environment in the Middle East being such that it can't take root and grow. This will never be accomplished by force or political buggery.

You should stop playing cowboy's and indians, come back to reality, and start detesting the real issues at play here... not FOX TV political rhetoric.

All of the above doesn't even touch on the original point I made that if you are a US Citizen, you should be viewing the assasination of a US Citizen, at your government's sayso, without their providing ample reason (or any really) as to why he could not have been captured, with some foreboding... let alone the US government's denile of his family trying to get him legal representation etc...

If you want to hold yourself up as a shining beacon for the world to follow... when the going gets tough, better not falter or backup and do a complete 180, or all the preening and puffing you did early... it shines in a different light

What do they call that when 1 person (or entity) gets to decide what the laws are, at any given point in time, irrelevant as to what they may have been just a few moments earlier?

>> ^packo:

>> ^NetRunner:
There are two key questions that I think we should try to keep distinct here.
First, was this legal? Well, yes. This isn't a criminal matter, this is war. You don't put enemy forces on trial before you shoot them, you just shoot them. There are still limits on what you're allowed to do in war, but simply killing people is generally considered legal. Even targeting specific people providing aid and comfort to the enemy is not forbidden under the rules of war.
The other question is...should this be legal?
Well, I think the fact that declaring war on non-state organizations gives government latitude so wide that it becomes legal to engage in targeted killing of one of its own citizens is a pretty powerful reason to believe that it shouldn't be legal. An easy way to change the law to make it illegal would be to pass a resolution delcaring that AUMF against Al Qaeda null and void. Then this whole thing would revert to a matter of law enforcement, and not "national security".
The thing is, to prevent future Congresses from being able to declare war on non-state entities would require an amendment to the Constitution -- right now it just says Congress has the power to declare war, full stop. It doesn't say that they can't declare war on whatever entity they choose.
But I think people out there wanting to claim that it already is illegal simply haven't been paying attention.
politics

technically it isn't war because terrorists are not afforded the same rights as active participants in war... via the Geneva Convention for example
the burden of proof, and right to trial... are paramount in these times... when things are at their darkest, that's when upholding these value is MOST important (to point the finger at your opponent and say they aren't playing by the rules is quite CHILDISH, especially when you've went through such lengths to formalize the opinion in your citizens that the reason the enemy attacks is because they hate your freedoms/way of life
the problem with classifying people as terrorists and then assassinating them without any due process is that the "arguement" is made in the court of public opinion... usually by the media networks who are biased and lacking of journalistic integrity... if that's all you need to justify killing people, the arguement can QUICKLY/EASILY be made about ANYONE
the ONLY real, understandable reason I can contemplate would be putting these individuals to trial and making the proceedings available to the public would reveal many skeletons the US has in it's closet... but the validity and morality of this are another debate
as a religious text I don't believe in says (paraphrased)... how you treat the lowest of me, is how you treat all of me... this doesn't just equate to the poor/downtrodden... but to the most vile and unrepentant
holding your morality/standards to be so high compared to someone else means very little when you sacrifice them (irrespective of whether or not it is convenient or easy to do so)


You misunderstand.

It isn't war because America, or NATO or the west has declared war against the terrorists. That's not where this started. Your naive belief in that is what's tainting your understanding of this.

The Islamic Jihadists have openly declared and been waging war on us since long before the events of 9/11. The 'us' I refer to in this is not merely America, or the west, but anyone and everyone who is not themselves an Islamic fundamentalist as well.

You can fumble around all you want over reasons and 'proofs' that America is not really at war with the jihadists, but the reality is that THEY are at war with America. It is the very identity they have taken for themselves for pity sake. We've only been able to ignore it for so long because 90% of the casualties in this war have been middle eastern moderate muslims. Your ilk seem to want to claim sympathy for religious differences by allowing the status quo to continue were muslims get to continue to bear the full brunt of the jihadist war against us both. It's twisted and I detest it.

>> ^NetRunner:

There are two key questions that I think we should try to keep distinct here.
First, was this legal? Well, yes. This isn't a criminal matter, this is war. You don't put enemy forces on trial before you shoot them, you just shoot them. There are still limits on what you're allowed to do in war, but simply killing people is generally considered legal. Even targeting specific people providing aid and comfort to the enemy is not forbidden under the rules of war.
The other question is...should this be legal?
Well, I think the fact that declaring war on non-state organizations gives government latitude so wide that it becomes legal to engage in targeted killing of one of its own citizens is a pretty powerful reason to believe that it shouldn't be legal. An easy way to change the law to make it illegal would be to pass a resolution delcaring that AUMF against Al Qaeda null and void. Then this whole thing would revert to a matter of law enforcement, and not "national security".
The thing is, to prevent future Congresses from being able to declare war on non-state entities would require an amendment to the Constitution -- right now it just says Congress has the power to declare war, full stop. It doesn't say that they can't declare war on whatever entity they choose.
But I think people out there wanting to claim that it already is illegal simply haven't been paying attention.
politics


technically it isn't war because terrorists are not afforded the same rights as active participants in war... via the Geneva Convention for example

the burden of proof, and right to trial... are paramount in these times... when things are at their darkest, that's when upholding these value is MOST important (to point the finger at your opponent and say they aren't playing by the rules is quite CHILDISH, especially when you've went through such lengths to formalize the opinion in your citizens that the reason the enemy attacks is because they hate your freedoms/way of life

the problem with classifying people as terrorists and then assassinating them without any due process is that the "arguement" is made in the court of public opinion... usually by the media networks who are biased and lacking of journalistic integrity... if that's all you need to justify killing people, the arguement can QUICKLY/EASILY be made about ANYONE

the ONLY real, understandable reason I can contemplate would be putting these individuals to trial and making the proceedings available to the public would reveal many skeletons the US has in it's closet... but the validity and morality of this are another debate

as a religious text I don't believe in says (paraphrased)... how you treat the lowest of me, is how you treat all of me... this doesn't just equate to the poor/downtrodden... but to the most vile and unrepentant

holding your morality/standards to be so high compared to someone else means very little when you sacrifice them (irrespective of whether or not it is convenient or easy to do so)

>> ^MonkeySpank:

By far, the most memorable intro for me was "Coming to America" which transitions from Paramount to Zamunda.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=zajR_ZweIGg


Yet ANOTHER good find, all of the suggestions around here tell me that there's plenty of these to be (potentially) made yet.

Thanks.

By far, the most memorable intro for me was "Coming to America" which transitions from Paramount to Zamunda.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=zajR_ZweIGg

It is really easy to fall into the trap of believe the philosophy of trickle down economics, but as Warren says the facts have never born this out.

Every time taxes are cut, it results in an increase in tax revenues because it increases personal wealth, which creates more tax payers, and establishes an environment that gives the private sector confidence. Carter’s 70% top marginal tax rates and leftist liberal policies brought the nation to fiscal collapse. Buffett has it 100% backwards. Taxes cut. Tax revenues up. It works every time. That’s why even OBAMA didn’t want to end the Bush tax cuts – because he himself admitted it would hurt the economy in December 2010. Neolibs like to ignore that particular bit of Obama rhetoric - but I do not forget such things...

Buffet believes that there should be two or three more levels to the tax code and that capital gains taxes should be graduated to appropriately tax the super rich who make money with money.

The problem is not that there isn’t a bigger tax category at the top. We’ve had a rate as high as 94% back in 1944. It was 70% under Carter. The problem is a labyrinthine tax code that people can game by moving money & assets around. We just need to simplify the code to eliminate the exemptions for businesses and the ‘money’ rich. There’s no need for a new, higher top marginal tax rate. The ‘rich’ already pay the bulk of our taxes.

Like him or not, Clinton's economic policies navigated our country to tremendous economic prosperity.

No. Clinton was nothing a serviceable – but barnacle-covered – rudder. He didn’t screw up what was already going well. That isn’t great praise, but it still makes him a better CiC than Bush2 or Obama. Bush1 was the guy that raised the taxes. Clinton merely coasted along on the dot-com bubble. Oh, and also the Republican “Contact with America” was forced down Clinton’s throat. And he had a few impeachable offenses that prevented him from pushing more spending. The GOP cut spending, which created an environment friendly for the business community to create prosperity. You can thank fiscal conservatives for the 90s and early 00s – not Clinton.

Sometimes doing the right thing means doing something unpleasant.

Yes – cutting big-government social spending in favor of small-government freedom-oriented systems is seen as unpleasant, but it is the right thing to do.

Dude, nobody in this thread is advocating a tax rate of 80% … Why is a moderate increase on tax rates paramount to pure socialism and gov't control on the economy?

I wryly notice that the actual QUESTION I posed remains stubbornly ignored. What would happen IF (!IF!) the tax rate at the top went to 70% ala Carter? Or 94% ala Roosevelt? Would the problems be solved? I think even the most dyed-in-the-wool neolib knows deep down in their reluctant-to-admit souls that high top marginal tax rates do not solve anything. Even a 100% tax rate does not come within 16.9 trillion (heh) miles of the real problem. Every thin dime of the new taxes would just vanish into a black hole, and the debt/deficit would not be touched except in name. We have precedence for this conclusion.

Tax hikes take place immediately, but the spending cuts are always pushed 10 years into the future where they disappear. Our tax rates are already high enough. Our corporate tax rate is one of the highest in the world. The issue is the huge amount of SPENDING taking place.

I hope this simple explanation helps all the neolibs out… Our current debt is 16.9 trillion dollars.

1. A simple federal budget freeze on spending to current 2011 levels would cut our debt by 10 trillion in 10 years.
2. Increasing the top marginal tax rate to 100% would cut the debt by 2 trillion in 10 years

Simple freeze? 10 trillion. A ridiculous 100% tax rate? Only 2 trillion. Where does that tell you the real problem lies? Fussing with tax rates at the top is nothing but rearranging deck chairs on the Titanic. The iceberg is spending.