Presidential Debate

[Blues Fairy 0]

How we treat our enemies says a lot about us as a civilization and as a people. We "extreme liberals" don't oppose the brutal torture of terrorists (especially "terrorists" who haven't even been charged) because we think it hurts their feelings, but because it hurts us as a society

Mox, I do not defend "brutal torture" of anyone, be it terrorists or child molesters, but the inane argument that terrorism is a relative notion just pisses me off. When some Muslim students in USA cheered and danced at the news of WTC bombing, was it a civilized thing to do to let them cheer because who knows, maybe they think USA is a terrorist country and we must "hear what they have to say"? Personally, I side with those who later caught these guys off-campus and beat the **** out of them.

[Blues Fairy 0]

234 years ago a group of "terrorists" rose up against His Majesty and fomented rebellion against the Crown. Had those terrorists failed, they'd have all been shipped back to London where they would have no doubt endured weeks, months, or years of "enhanced interrogation techniques," and ultimately executed. But they won, and so history sees them as "freedom fighters" and "founding fathers."

Terrorism IS a relative notion.

Your notions are totally mixed up. Terrorism, by definition, includes ideological acts deliberately targeting civilians and intended to perpetrate FEAR among the nation, to achieve certain political goals. How on Earth you manage to stretch this notion to include the Founding Fathers with their warfare of military against military, I just cannot fathom. Rich imagination indeed.

What lessons were these students to learn from their beatings? Do you think this changed their minds, or do you think it just made a mob of unthinking cretins feel better about themselves for a few minutes?

Are you mad?! People were outraged at the tradegy and even more outraged at the unbelievable reaction the guests of this country were displaying, and you call them "a mob of unthinking cretins"?

And what lesson would those students learn if people just ignored their dancing and invited them to further elaborate on their views? That would only bring them to the conclusion that the "enemy" is weak and can be trampled upon any time, without any danger of retribution. Bonne route, Mox, embrace the terrorists, teach them the values of your civilized world. Like they would ever care.

[Blues Fairy 0]

So what, in your opinion, subdues an enemy who is in the business of hijacking aircrafts and blowing up buildings? Gente talk?

Those students were first positioned as martyrs, sure, and the "mob of cretins" was summoned to court, but ultimately the judge heard the story and ruled in their favor. It's not all about the other side and their hurt feelings, Mox. Sometimes it has to be about OUR side and OUR hurt feelings.

Both your reasoning and morals are completely upside down, and I see no point in continuing this conversation.

[slim 1,533]

I see no point in continuing this conversation.

We are agreed on one point at least.

Aw man.... I go out of town for one weekend to do some marksmanship and heritage "training" and look at all the fun I miss.

I actually cut and pasted about twelve posts from Blues... but each time... mox pretty well summed up my answers. Great job mox, and by the way, it's definitely time for you to get some marksmanship and heritage training as well. APPLESEED!!!!

I'll spark up the "debate" once more.....

So what, in your opinion, subdues an enemy who is in the business of hijacking aircrafts and blowing up buildings? Gente talk?

Violent armed response and swiftness of action. That's about the only thing that subdues enemies in businesses such as those. However, those actions are limited to reactions not pre-actions. If you go around the world and pick up everyone who's ever trained with a firearm or talked about blowing stuff up, held them without charge and/or trial, then you're not going to subdue anyone, you're only going to create more enemies.

Gentle talk is reserved for before they do something. Swift, violent action is response to their business.

Those students were first positioned as martyrs, sure, and the "mob of cretins" was summoned to court, but ultimately the judge heard the story and ruled in their favor. It's not all about the other side and their hurt feelings, Mox. Sometimes it has to be about OUR side and OUR hurt feelings.

Here's where you're just plain wrong, as are most people when it comes to things that cause extreme emotional response.

Basically it boils down to this..... if we take away the right of students to cheer at the death of Americans, even if in America, then someone can take away the right to cheer, period. Imagine a Super Bowl where you're not allowed to jump up and make noise for your team. Sure, that's an extreme example, but if we limit the rights of expression for one group simply because we as a whole do not approve of them then we limit our rights in the future. And worse, not only do we limit our rights but we willfully give them up.

This is why it's so important to protect basic rights. A small "innocent" looking the other way can turn into a large, unprecedented, erosion of all our rights. And it's so easy to do when it's something we disagree with very strongly. But, once it's "our turn" to be disagreed with, we no longer have the rights we took away from "those guys."

Both your reasoning and morals are completely upside down, and I see no point in continuing this conversation.

You really shouldn't continue this conversation until after you've read the Bill of Rights.

I find it simply amazing that people are so willing to give up their own rights, rights that were fought for and folks died to give us. Rights that we've come to ignore in the last couple of years simply because it was inconvenient to watch others exercise them or we found it "popular" to jump on the bandwagon of their erosion because that's what everyone else was doing.

I'll sum up very simply and plainly - If we don't protect the rights of those we disagree with, then we lose our right to voice our own oppinion.

[Bobalouie 0]

I actually cut and pasted about twelve posts from Blues... but each time... mox pretty well summed up my answers. Great job mox, and by the way, it's definitely time for you to get some marksmanship and heritage training as well. APPLESEED!!!!

I've been to the range about 3 times with my new pistol and am really enjoying it. First time I went it felt awkward in my hands, but by the end of that day it felt pretty natural. By the third time it just felt like a natural extension of my hand. It's a great little gun!

You really shouldn't continue this conversation until after you've read the Bill of Rights.

Very much agreed on this, especially (addressing Blues here) since you're relatively new to the country and probably don't have a solid understanding of the foundations of our Constitution and Bill of Rights. Although sadly enough I think most Americans don't have even a rudimentary understanding of the Constitution and the Bill of Rights.

To be fair, I understand that your opinions are your opinions and you're not trying to ground them in Constitutional law, but just expressing your particular viewpoint. That's fair I guess, but then please state your views clearly and stop with the name-calling. If you think people who support the Bill of Rights are "extreme liberals," then you should probably know that the country you now call home was founded by "extreme liberals."

I find it simply amazing that people are so willing to give up their own rights, rights that were fought for and folks died to give us. Rights that we've come to ignore in the last couple of years simply because it was inconvenient to watch others exercise them or we found it "popular" to jump on the bandwagon of their erosion because that's what everyone else was doing.

I'll sum up very simply and plainly - If we don't protect the rights of those we disagree with, then we lose our right to voice our own oppinion.

Martin Niemoller's poem "First they came" should be required reading of all Americans:

When the Nazis came for the communists,

I remained silent;

I was not a communist.

When they locked up the social democrats,

I remained silent;

I was not a social democrat.

When they came for the trade unionists,

I did not speak out;

I was not a trade unionist.

When they came for the Jews,

I remained silent;

I was not a Jew.

When they came for me,

there was no one left to speak out.

I think the point that Blues is trying to make is that freedom of speach doesnt mean that if you say something offensive, in public, that you will not get your a$$ kicked. Those people had every right to dance in the streets here in America and show their solidarity for their people back home. No one should have told them that they cant. However, a warning of "you do it at your own peril" should have been included.

[Blues Fairy 0]

(addressing Blues here) since you're relatively new to the country and probably don't have a solid understanding of the foundations of our Constitution and Bill of Rights.

Rather arrogant of you to presume such things about me. Firstly, I've lived here before for an extended period of time; second, being a historian by education, believe me, I have a very good understanding of the concept of the Bill of Rights and the contexts where it can and cannot be used.

Your mistake (addressing Slim and yourself here) is that you try to apply the individual rights and freedoms guaranteed by Constitution to the specimens of indoctrinated collective mentality which overruns any individual values - irreversibly. That's usually the case with terrorists and their supporters. They are not cases of individual sociopathy (as in serial killers etc) which, sometimes, can be treated by therapy. It's a rational, organized collective warfare driven by hatred bred to the bone. Treating them as regular citizens entitled to the First Amendment is perilous and stupid; it's a losing position, considering their aim of instilling fear and undermining the morale of the nation. Here's a military analogy for you Slim: on the battlefield, if you see your enemy armed and ready to strike, would you, out of humanitarian considerations, wait for him to deal the first blow?

I would not, and I would rather beat up someone who cheers at the death of innocent civilians then wait for him to gather courage, seeing my wimpy reaction, and commit something more serious. I do not offer the other cheek.

[slim 1,533]

I think the point that Blues is trying to make is that freedom of speach doesnt mean that if you say something offensive, in public, that you will not get your a$$ kicked. Those people had every right to dance in the streets here in America and show their solidarity for their people back home. No one should have told them that they cant. However, a warning of "you do it at your own peril" should have been included.

Why should they have had the warning of "you do it at your own peril?" Common since should've told them that.

I have the right to free speech which means I can say anything I want about anybody at any time, but you will not catch me walking downtown yelling out that famous word that begins with the letter n. Why not? Becuase I have common sense (and common courtesy as well) and know that I say and do certain things, protected or not, that are at my own peril. (And downright disrespectful and should catch me an @$$-whoopin.) There are also "expressions" that are not protected such as yelling "FIRE!" in a crowded theater or being nude in public. There has to be a common sense applied to one's own actions and the expectations of the reaction of those witnessing the expression or speech. However, once again, if we limit the rights of some.... we take away the rights of all.

I'm not arguing whether or not they should've been dancing in the streets I'm simply saying they had the right to and even though we may have disagreed with them that still doesn't give anyone the right to lay hands on them. However, a reasonable person (which is 99% of the time used as the "generic term" by which a person's behavior should be based) should've expected emotionally charged people to react in a certain and even violent manner because of the manner in which they chose to exercise their rights.

The law usually supports the actions of "reasonable people" and that's why someone who punches and kicks another person for celebrating in the streets while watching the towers fall will be excused for their crimes where someone who beats up a convenience store owner in Detroit becuase he looks "of Middle-Eastern decent" (even though he's Indian) will be charged and sent to jail.

(addressing Blues here) since you're relatively new to the country and probably don't have a solid understanding of the foundations of our Constitution and Bill of Rights.

Rather arrogant of you to presume such things about me. Firstly, I've lived here before for an extended period of time; second, being a historian by education, believe me, I have a very good understanding of the concept of the Bill of Rights and the contexts where it can and cannot be used.

Obviously not.

I have no doubt you understand the rights outlined in the Constitution and through your education are completely knowledgeable of them. However, you seem to miss the context of where they can and cannot be used and more importantly, why.

Your mistake (addressing Slim and yourself here) is that you try to apply the individual rights and freedoms guaranteed by Constitution to the specimens of indoctrinated collective mentality which overruns any individual values - irreversibly. That's usually the case with terrorists and their supporters. They are not cases of individual sociopathy (as in serial killers etc) which, sometimes, can be treated by therapy. It's a rational, organized collective warfare driven by hatred bred to the bone.

Not true.

Do you know a lot of terrorists? And before you retort with, "well, do you?" I will answer that no I do not. Not personally. However, I have a pretty good education on terrorism/anti-terrorism, as I'm sure mox does as well, and I can tell you I've been to several of the "terrorist-supporting countries", as has mox, and have known many, many people from those countries and they've given me quite an insight into the "terrorists" there. For the most part, the "reasonable people" of every country the world over think terrorists are a bunch of crazies and want nothing to do with them. However, when you take poor, disenfranchised people, the world over, and ask them to support anything that will give them hope or help them build wealth, they overwhelmingly support it.

Don't believe me..... just ask Barack Obama. He's built quite a campaign on fear and ignorance. Are you going to tell me the American people are all supporters of terrorism?

And no, I don't believe they are. But, like you say, the "group mentality" is pretty easy to lob people into if you're looking for it. And then when you label that group mentality as something negative, something like "terrorist supporters" then all of the sudden everyone in that group, or that country is now part of it. In effect, you take away their individual rights and we cannot afford to do that simply because there is a group of individuals anywhere that we don't agree with.

If we don't grant them individual rights then we take away our own.

Treating them as regular citizens entitled to the First Amendment is perilous and stupid; it's a losing position, considering their aim of instilling fear and undermining the morale of the nation.

So what happens when, all of the sudden, Russian immigrants are instilling fear and undermining the morale of the nation? Should they not be afforded First Amendment rights?

Here's a military analogy for you Slim: on the battlefield, if you see your enemy armed and ready to strike, would you, out of humanitarian considerations, wait for him to deal the first blow?

This is what's so great about military analogies.... there are simple (military guys aren't always the smartest!) rules of engagement and when someone is armed, they're not considered under any type of "humanitarian" anything... they're considered a military target to be engaged and dealt with in a swift and violent manner.

Now, that said, once they're rendered incapable of fighting and/or no longer presenting a threat (either by being wounded, laying down their arms or surrendering, etc.) it is the soldier's duty to treat them in a humanitarian manner. Moreover (and you "extreme liberals" out there will love this one) it is LAW that the soldier must give them medical treatment and even protect them from further harm.... even if it's coming from their own side!

I would not, and I would rather beat up someone who cheers at the death of innocent civilians then wait for him to gather courage, seeing my wimpy reaction, and commit something more serious. I do not offer the other cheek.

So someone cheering in the streets about something they agree with emboldens them to commit violence against you because they view you as a wimp?

Do you honestly think anyone cheering in the streets of America that day was a terrorist? Do you honestly think they looked at the reactions of those around them and said, "OK, I think I'm going to give up my nice easy lifestyle here in the U.S. and start being a terrorist!"?

Or... do you think maybe, just maybe, they were tired of seeing America b!tch slap their home country and finally had the RIGHT to cheer when someone did something about it?

[slim 1,533]

Don't believe me..... just ask Barack Obama. He's built quite a campaign on fear and ignorance. Are you going to tell me the American people are all supporters of terrorism?

I think you misspelled "John McCain."

"America is a great place but we're going to make it so much better... you need more money and less taxes.... we're going to change the world...." You can pretty much insert any poitician's name in there during an election.

The point I'm trying to illustrate is when folks have nothing left they'll follow just about anyone that offers them hope. And that includes average Americans and anyone else around the world. Beleiving in something and supporting a cause, even if that cause includes a couple crazies, doesn't necessarily mean all those people are terrorists too.

[Danno 1,228]

Blue I respect your opinions but <snip> Obama isn't suggesting that he will sit down with Iran & have some tea... this is just a twisting of facts by the McCain campaign. Many former (and respected) officials, to include some Republicans, agree that we should have diplomatic talks with countries such as Iran. It's all part of the "DIME" approach (diplomacy, information, military, economics).

It might be that you are doing a little "fact-twisting" yourself my friend.

Here lets listen to Barry and see if he said he would meet "without preconditions" or not.

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

Sure it's a little long winded but in light of the yes-or-no question, Barak said "YES"

[Danno 1,228]

How is everyone? Have not been on in awhile! I watched the presidential debate last night and some of the questions from the moderator made mariya angry They had questions for the canidates if they thought russia was now an evil empire! I laughed because I thought it was funny but Mariya was mad. They had a few other questions about Russia such as the Georgia situation ect... I still do not understand why so many people have bad views about russia? I remember George bush and John Mcain condeming Russia for driving tanks into a different country? What did we do in Iraq? Why does George W. Bush and the Usa think they are responsible for what happens everywhere esle in the world and trying to be like police? Anyway I am definitely voting Obama in the fall! Did anyone else what the debate last night?

Not sure what the Obama "Hurray" is all about?

You seem to hold the Russia thing as very important..... Yet this is the one area the two candidates seem to agree on.

[Blues Fairy 0]

I'm not arguing whether or not they should've been dancing in the streets I'm simply saying they had the right to and even though we may have disagreed with them

They had the right to revel in the deaths of thousands of innocent people? Do you really believe that?

Well, I guess for some it's an inalienable right and for others a slap in the face. To each his own.

Not true.

Do you know a lot of terrorists? And before you retort with, "well, do you?" I will answer that no I do not. Not personally. However, I have a pretty good education on terrorism/anti-terrorism, as I'm sure mox does as well, and I can tell you I've been to several of the "terrorist-supporting countries", as has mox, and have known many, many people from those countries and they've given me quite an insight into the "terrorists" there.

So much for your "education" - a few testimonies from "people from those countries". Did you even read anything on the subject? Start with this, for example, maybe it'll put a few cracks in the pretty pink bubble you're living in.

My husband spent years profiling suspect terrorists while on assignments for the dept. he used to work for. Believe me, you have no idea what's being done to prevent people like you from living in the state of constant fear (times worse than the fear you perceive as being inflicted on you by the politicians). You simply have no idea what you are talking about.

Do you honestly think anyone cheering in the streets of America that day was a terrorist? Do you honestly think they looked at the reactions of those around them and said, "OK, I think I'm going to give up my nice easy lifestyle here in the U.S. and start being a terrorist!"?

Or... do you think maybe, just maybe, they were tired of seeing America b!tch slap their home country and finally had the RIGHT to cheer when someone did something about it?

Wow. How exactly was America ######-slapping their countries before 9/11? Come on, if you are so sure of USA's great sins which warranted the right of those Muslims (guests of this country) to cheer at the death of thousands of innocent citizens, you might as well put forward some facts, don't be shy. Or was their nice and easy lifestyle here in the US so insulting to them as to provoke such a reaction?

Seriously, I am quite sick of this argument. It's like being told that a rabid dog has every right to gnaw my leg and all I can do is explain the values of vegetarianism to it.

Edited October 15, 2008 by Blues Fairy

[slim 1,533]

They had the right to revel in the deaths of thousands of innocent people? Do you really believe that?

Not only do I believe that, but I'd be willing to fight and die to protect their right to do that.

So much for your "education" - a few testimonies from "people from those countries". Did you even read anything on the subject? Start with this, for example, maybe it'll put a few cracks in the pretty pink bubble you're living in.

Thank you for the link, I will read it when I get more time. And yes, I have spent literally hundreds, maybe even thousands, of hours reading information on the subject and I'm always open to reading more. As to my "education" it included several trips to the Middle East and a whole bunch of reading... and doing a lot more than reading!

As to the "pretty pink bubble" I'm living in... let me just say my pretty pink bubble is called reality. Reality is terrorism doesn't even blip my radar. Why? Because the threat posed to my daily life by terrorism is so minimal I don't even need to think about it. The fact of the matter is the threat posed to the daily lives of 99% of Americans is so minimal they shouldn't think about it. But yet, they do. Why is that?

Are terrorists bad people? Sure.

But, are all people who cheer at something automatically in the same group as the terrorists?

When Bush said "you're either with us or with the terrorists" he wasn't keeping the Bill of Rights in mind. He was letting his emotions dictate his actions. And that's why, while sitting with a group of foreigners, when they saw his picture come up on the TV they pointed and shouted "TERRORIST!" (Oh, by the way, they weren't from the Middle East and weren't even Muslim.... what's that all about?)

My husband spent years profiling suspect terrorists while on assignments for the dept. he used to work for. Believe me, you have no idea what's being done to prevent people like you from living in the state of constant fear (times worse than the fear you perceive as being inflicted on you by the politicians). You simply have no idea what you are talking about.

Now I see why you're offering up the arguments you are. It's ironic that as I sit here typing this I'm fear free and you're biting your fingernails over what the terrorists are going to do next.

I know what goes on to protect us from "the terror threat." However, I firmly disagree with the manner in which it's done because it's not done in a manner consistent with established international laws. What a lot of people, even those in the government and those who profile "suspects" for government "agencies" fail to realize (becuase they're so focused on eliminating the threat through what they're doing) is the manner in which they go about it does very little to thwart terror and goes a long way to garner support for it.

To truly combat terror you don't fight the "terrorists"... you fight the underlying causes. And on that note, actively seeking out terror "suspects" is a waste of time. Better to make yourself a hard target (terrorists are traditionally "soft" fighters) and address the causes of terrorism. It's extremely hard for terrorists to be successful when NO ONE wants them to be.

Wow. How exactly was America ######-slapping their countries before 9/11? Come on, if you are so sure of USA's great sins which warranted the right of those Muslims (guests of this country) to cheer at the death of thousands of innocent citizens, you might as well put forward some facts, don't be shy. Or was their nice and easy lifestyle here in the US so insulting to them as to provoke such a reaction?

mox covered this one nicely so I'll leave it alone other than to say I can't believe you told me I have no idea what I'm talking about.

Seriously, I am quite sick of this argument. It's like being told that a rabid dog has every right to gnaw my leg and all I can do is explain the values of vegetarianism to it.

I agree with you that explaining the value of vegetarianism isn't going to work. So let me offer a suggestion to prevent rabid dog attacks in the future.

What you should do is start kidnapping all the normal looking, non-rabid dogs in the neighborhood, lock them in cages for long periods of time and then torture them and ask them about being rabid or if they know any other dogs that are rabid or why they were trained to be rabid against their former owners that used to beat them 25 years ago.

Before long, every dog in your neighborhood is going to start wondering what happened to all those normal looking, non-rabid dogs. Then word's going to get out that someone has them locked in cages and kicks them everyday because there was ONE RABID DOG gnawing on some woman's leg.

The neighborhood dogs would probably start thinking someone was going to kidnap them and put them into cages and they probably wouldn't think too highly of the person that was doing it. Hell, they'd probably go so far as to gnaw on that person's leg themselves if they got the opportunity. I know I would if I was a dog put in that situation.

You wouldn't?

[Danno 1,228]

QUOTE(Blues Fairy @ Oct 14 2008, 11:39 PM) *

They had the right to revel in the deaths of thousands of innocent people? Do you really believe that?

Not only do I believe that, but I'd be willing to fight and die to protect their right to do that.

-Slim

=======================

NOw I wonder Slim, if you and your wife were in a public area and someone on the street

was demonstrating against your country and upon seeing your wife he began to slur her in the most load voice, calling her a #######, ####### etc.

Would you really fight and in fact give your life to stop anyone who tried to shut him up?

IN my view "freedom of speech" does not include everything a person lets out of their mouth. If this liberal concept had any merit we would never have had the many laws past out-lawing obscene or profane public utterances.

One cannot incite a riot.

This whole concept of clinging onto "higher principles" despite the cost... is in, fact greasing the skids toward our own downfall.

Political speech is one thing, ideas that are challenging are clearly protected but this whole notion that people should stand by and allow some jack-asses demonstrate at a Dead Marines Funeral is crazy, the idea that People on our soil would feel free to show public jubilation... and celebration after mass destruction is exactly what is wrong with this latest concept of "freedom of speech".

When I was in school, I recall the most, liberal teachers harping on "freedom of speech" (as if it were the only amendment)

Now that they are clearly in power at Schools, we see the "speech Codes" in every collage handbook.

So my Friend Slim, tell me what you would do given that situation?

[eekee 182]

When I was in school, I recall the most, liberal teachers harping on "freedom of speech" (as if it were the only amendment)

Now that they are clearly in power at Schools, we see the "speech Codes" in every collage handbook.

I think you have misunderstood what free speech is. When you agree to attend a "collage," you agree to abide by all the rules and regulations of the college. They can put all the restrictions they want in place--you have the choice to go there or not. It's like the TOS on a website. It's irrelevant when it comes to the issue of a government restricting speech.

[slim 1,533]

Handled nicely above....

Just to add - Protests at military funerals are disrespectful, but protected. That's exactly what those Marines fought to protect. Folks have the right to protest govt. actions and the sad state of affairs we're in now guarantees them extra press coverage if they do it at a funeral. In times past they would've been "escorted out" but now the media is there before the funeral and those Americans with respect for the dead who would've "escorted" the disrespectful people out in times past can no longer do so.

Either way though, protest is protected speech.

Just as a side note, we recently had a pretty big military funeral here. (Matt Maupin - Army MIA for a few years, returned home a few months ago) and there were some protests scheduled along the route. One of the veterans groups, the POW/MIA guys with big Harleys, rode along with the procession and every time there were protesters along the route they'd stop in front of them and rev their engines and the flags they carried would block the protesters from view. So, in effect the protesters still had the right to protest, but the vets still had the right to keep the funeral procession respectable. They did a very good job and still everyone kept their rights.

To address the other thing - If I had a dollar for every time someone called my wife a mail-order bride or Russian ####### or something like that I wouldn't be rich, but I'd certainly have more money than what I have today. But, if I would take action against them (KA-POW!) each time, I'd be poor because lawyers cost more than several dollars. Sure, technically their speech isn't protected but I'd be hard pressed to find a judge that would rule my right to feed them their teeth oversteps their right to say bad words.