[besson3c]

What goes around comes around...

I remember posting here saying that we should pull out of Iraq because this is what the majority of people wanted, according to the polls which also showed an extremely low approval rating during the twilight of Bush's second term. I was shunned by the same Republican types in here that are now saying that we based our legislation on real-time polling.

[SpaceMonkey]

Originally Posted by ort888 

Listen, strange women lyin' in ponds distributin' swords is no basis for a system of government. Supreme executive power derives from a mandate from the masses, not from some farcical aquatic ceremony.

Polls show that 54% of Americans support the Lady of the Lake, but only 42% describe her as "trustworthy."

[besson3c]

Wow, I just channeled Dakar!

... Wait, why are my eyes bleeding?

[besson3c]

I'm wondering how long it will be before we have polls about other polls...

[Big Mac]

Originally Posted by besson3c 

What goes around comes around...

I remember posting here saying that we should pull out of Iraq because this is what the majority of people wanted, according to the polls which also showed an extremely low approval rating during the twilight of Bush's second term. I was shunned by the same Republican types in here that are now saying that we based our legislation on real-time polling.

Well, one difference is, the Afghan and Iraq wars were originally supported not only by a majority of Americans but also bipartisan majorities in Congress. The same is not true for this corrupt health law, which passed by narrow partisan majorities and was rejected by the majority of Americans.

[ort888]

They were heavily supported because we were given false information and assumed they knew more then they were letting on.

[Doofy]

Isn't it good to have your boys and girls back home from the 'stans now that Uncle Barry has brought change to the situation?

[nonhuman]

Originally Posted by Doofy 

Isn't it good to have your boys and girls back home from the 'stans now that Uncle Barry has brought change to the situation?

But my brother-in-law is in Afghanistan right n... Oh.

[SpaceMonkey]

Iraqistan?

[Doofy]

Yes.

[sek929]

Originally Posted by Big Mac 

Well, one difference is, the Afghan and Iraq wars were originally supported not only by a majority of Americans but also bipartisan majorities in Congress. The same is not true for this corrupt health law, which passed by narrow partisan majorities and was rejected by the majority of Americans.

Don't know what circles you run with, but in the college crowd the Afghanistan war was heavily supported and the Iraq war was heavily opposed before we invaded. The minute Iraq got brought up I was immediately convinced something fishy was going on.

[BadKosh]

in 1991, or later?

[Laminar]

Originally Posted by besson3c 

I'm wondering how long it will be before we have polls about other polls...

http://forums.macnn.com/89/macnn-lou...e-been-public/

[sek929]

Originally Posted by BadKosh 

in 1991, or later?

Not the first Gulf War, I was only 8 years old.

[Doofy]

Originally Posted by sek929 

Not the first Gulf War, I was only 8 years old.

There's only been one.

[The Final Dakar]

Originally Posted by sek929 

Don't know what circles you run with, but in the college crowd the Afghanistan war was heavily supported and the Iraq war was heavily opposed before we invaded. The minute Iraq got brought up I was immediately convinced something fishy was going on.

Same here. The Iraq thing came out of nowhere and felt really random.

[hyteckit]

What is this whole national defense insurance?

This whole Iraq War I ain't buying.

Can I get my money back?

[hyteckit]

Originally Posted by Macrobat 

No matter what other argument anyone wishes to use, our supposed representatives, those elected to govern according to their constituents' wishes voted AGAINST their constituents desires:

RealClearPolitics - Election Other - Obama and Democrats' Health Care Plan

Let me see.

CNN poll:
Favor: 39%
Oppose: 59%

Damn! Oh Wait.

Here's the breakdown.

Favor: 39%
Oppose, too liberal: 43%
Oppose, not liberal enough: 13%


Haha..

Public demands the public option or single payer.


If we based it on public option polls, wouldn't the public option passed last year?

77% of the US population supports the public option in 2009?

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2009/0..._n_264375.html

[Doofy]

Originally Posted by The Final Dakar 

Same here. The Iraq thing came out of nowhere and felt really random.

Random? I'm guessing you hadn't been paying attention to the news about all of Saddam's no-fly-zone breaches in the ten years prior then?

[The Final Dakar]

Originally Posted by Doofy 

Random? I'm guessing you hadn't been paying attention to the news about all of Saddam's no-fly-zone breaches in the ten years prior then?

Yeah, and what was the tipping point?

[sek929]

Saddam was a medium level baddie and a blowhard, we might as well invade every other dictatorship on the planet if we are interested in making the world a cuddly place full of puppies.

We were sold BS about him having WMDs, which he had none of, this was the only way the US would have been duped to go to war with yet another country and leave the first worthwhile conflict to flounder and eventually crumble.

[Doofy]

Originally Posted by The Final Dakar 

Yeah, and what was the tipping point?

Slow slide, wasn't it?

[The Final Dakar]

Originally Posted by Doofy 

Slow slide, wasn't it?

...so the tipping point was?

[Doofy]

Originally Posted by sek929 

We were sold BS about him having WMDs, which he had none of, this was the only way the US would have been duped to go to war with yet another country and leave the first worthwhile conflict to flounder and eventually crumble.

I still don't believe that Saddam didn't have WMDs. We know he attacked his own people with them. And we know that he had the means to deliver the payload to the capital of the USA.

And there's no way Afghanistan was going to work anyway (well, not unless we blanket bombed the place). If the Russians couldn't do them, then there's no chance of us pansies doing them.

[Doofy]

Originally Posted by The Final Dakar 

...so the tipping point was?

Invasion of Kuwait.

[SpaceMonkey]

Originally Posted by Doofy 

Invasion of Kuwait.

That's not what he's asking and you know it. If we decided today that we couldn't any longer live with the current North Korean regime and launched an attack on it, would the "tipping point" be June 1950? Of course not.

[Doofy]

Originally Posted by SpaceMonkey 

That's not what he's asking and you know it.

There's only ever been one Gulf War - with a ten year conditional ceasefire in-between two bouts. Any alliance country was within its rights to resume hostilities at any point after Saddam breached the ceasefire conditions.

Now, I'd got the US pegged as going tits-up somewhere around 2000/2001. Could see it coming a mile off. Added to this, at that point Saddam was threatening to sell in Euros - which would create a major hit for the dollar. So why resume at that time? To put another 7/8 years on the clock before things start going pear-shaped again.

[SpaceMonkey]

Originally Posted by Doofy 

There's only ever been one Gulf War - with a ten year conditional ceasefire in-between two bouts. Any alliance country was within its rights to resume hostilities at any point after Saddam breached the ceasefire conditions.

And given that, his question is why the United States would choose to resume hostilities at that particular point.

Now, I'd got the US pegged as going tits-up somewhere around 2000/2001. Could see it coming a mile off. Added to this, at that point Saddam was threatening to sell in Euros - which would create a major hit for the dollar. So why resume at that time? To put another 7/8 years on the clock before things start going pear-shaped again.

See, now you are engaging his question. Although, given you were off by 2+ years (a rather significant amount in the context of a 10 year window) your answer is not impressive.

[finboy]

Can we dilute the thread any further with irrelevancies? Come on, can't someone mention no child left behind or something?

[Doofy]

Originally Posted by SpaceMonkey 

Although, given you were off by 2+ years (a rather significant amount in the context of a 10 year window) your answer is not impressive.

I'm nowhere geeky enough to be bothered with accurate dates. You can be though, if you like.

[Rumor]

Originally Posted by Macrobat 

I am seriously suggesting the people elected should govern according to the Constitution - and this bunch isn't - you have already demonstrated a COMPLETE lack of understanding of the civics of the United States.

It is CONGRESS' responsibility to create legislation according to the will of the People - then the President signs it in affirmation of that will. That is why the CONGRESS makes the laws, not the President - the House is supposed to represent the will of the people - directly (so - yes - that means they are SUPPOSED to look at polls and have direct communication with their constituents via town halls, etc.) and the Senate is supposed to represent the rights of the individual states. If you want to make claims, at least KNOW civics first.

We don't elect a king or dictator for 4 years, then be required to shut up and take whatever he or she decides to cram down our throats.

Every single one of them was fully aware that this was an overwhelmingly dissaproved of legislation - they then went "banana republic" and did it anyway "for our own good."

So are you suggesting the previous administration payed attention to what the constituents wanted when sending troops into Iraq?

[Macrobat]

Originally Posted by Rumor 

So are you suggesting the previous administration payed attention to what the constituents wanted when sending troops into Iraq?

Sure did!

Search Results - THOMAS (Library of Congress)

Like to also point out the Democrats never "sat down on the bench and shut up" during the previous administration, either.

[OreoCookie]

Originally Posted by Macrobat 

Sure did!

Search Results - THOMAS (Library of Congress)

Like to also point out the Democrats never "sat down on the bench and shut up" during the previous administration, either.

Are you ignoring Rumor's point on purpose or do you like contradicting yourself? He said that there was a discrepancy between public opinion (= the constituents) and Congress in the matter of the Second Iraq War and Congress went ahead anyway.
You write that law makers should guide their decisions by polls and by staying in touch with the people they represent (`so - yes - that means they are SUPPOSED to look at polls and have direct communication with their constituents via town halls, etc.') and then you link to a bill. Why haven't you linked to a poll?

[smacintush]

So...if you are in favor of putting the health insurance companies out of business, and putting everyone on a single-payer system, I have a question...

Why are you against a person's right to choose?

[Big Mac]

I guess those who hold that view believe the government can provide the service in a better way than the market can. They're called Socialists.

[smacintush]

Originally Posted by Wiskedjak 

So, uttering death threats, against anyone, not just the president, is protected speech?

If rights are not absolute, then you have no rights. When you have certain types of speech being "protected" and other types not, you are essentially living under a system where the government decides what the citizens are allowed to say based upon the prevailing wisdom at the time. This opens the door to greater and greater imposition on your "rights" as times change. We have already seen attempts at merely "offensive" speech being outlawed, and speech at certain times.

How is it a right if it's up to someone else how you can exercise it?

[Uncle Skeleton]

Originally Posted by smacintush 

If rights are not absolute, then you have no rights. When you have certain types of speech being "protected" and other types not, you are essentially living under a system where the government decides what the citizens are allowed to say based upon the prevailing wisdom at the time. This opens the door to greater and greater imposition on your "rights" as times change. We have already seen attempts at merely "offensive" speech being outlawed, and speech at certain times.

How is it a right if it's up to someone else how you can exercise it?

It's not "up to someone else," it's a compromise between you and someone else. Few rights come without impinging on the rights of others, at least in a densely populated society like ours, and the purpose of government is to strike a fair balance when the rights of two people conflict. That's what we have people called "judges" for, to "judge" what is the most reasonable balance when not everyone can be 100% satisfied.

I think you guys are missing the point of free speech. The point is to be able to use words as a tool to communicate, not to use words as a tool to make yourself a pain in the ass. There is a difference. Using free speech to argue against someone is different than using speech to intimidate them. Do you understand this?

[Chongo]

Rep Dingell has some interesting comments..
Rep. Dingell Says ObamaCare Will Eventually ‘Control the People’

[Big Mac]

Amazing. But apparently it's going to control 300 Americans, so that let's the other 300,000,000+ off.

I like Conyers citing "Good and Welfare" Clause of the Constitution as the authority for this legislation.

We give these senile bastards authority to rule our lives. They probably didn't have much going for themselves intellectually to begin with. Incredible.

[smacintush]

Originally Posted by Uncle Skeleton 

It's not "up to someone else," it's a compromise between you and someone else.

Compromise implies that there is a choice.

Few rights come without impinging on the rights of others, at least in a densely populated society like ours,

I don't agree and regardless of all the examples people use such as threats and iciting violence (with regard to free speech), I don't see speech itself as having the ability to infringe on another's rights and no speech should be illegal.

Using free speech to argue against someone is different than using speech to intimidate them. Do you understand this?

I understand that is your opinion, and that of most people, our goverment and the SCOTUS. I just disagree with the principle. No speech has EVER directly infringed or taken away the rights of another person. The worst it can ever do is either incite another's action against another person, or illicit a negative action/response from those listening, which still puts the choice of whether or not to act and thus the blame squarely on the shoulders of the "listener" in any case.

I do agree that what someone says may be probable cause and warrent further investigation, but what he actually says should never be illegal.

[CreepDogg]

Originally Posted by smacintush 

Compromise implies that there is a choice.



I don't agree and regardless of all the examples people use such as threats and iciting violence (with regard to free speech), I don't see speech itself as having the ability to infringe on another's rights and no speech should be illegal.



I understand that is your opinion, and that of most people, our goverment and the SCOTUS. I just disagree with the principle. No speech has EVER directly infringed or taken away the rights of another person. The worst it can ever do is either incite another's action against another person, or illicit a negative action/response from those listening, which still puts the choice of whether or not to act and thus the blame squarely on the shoulders of the "listener" in any case.

I do agree that what someone says may be probable cause and warrent further investigation, but what he actually says should never be illegal.

Do you have examples of people who have gone to jail and/or been convicted of criminal offenses due solely to speech in the last, oh, 50 years?

[Wiskedjak]

Originally Posted by CreepDogg 

Do you have examples of people who have gone to jail and/or been convicted of criminal offenses due solely to speech in the last, oh, 50 years?

Don't know if he was convicted, but he was arrested ...

Sound engineer held over Bush death threats
2.30pm GMT / 9.30am ET | World news | guardian.co.uk

[Wiskedjak]

Originally Posted by CreepDogg 

Do you have examples of people who have gone to jail and/or been convicted of criminal offenses due solely to speech in the last, oh, 50 years?

Oh, and there's this:

Originally Posted by Wikipedia

Threatening the President of the United States is a class D felony under United States Code Title 18, Section 871.
Threatening the President of the United States - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

[CreepDogg]

Originally Posted by Wiskedjak 

Oh, and there's this:

Threatening the President of the United States is a class D felony under United States Code Title 18, Section 871.

Yeah, I think I've already come out in this thread saying the 'threatening the President' law is questionable. (Not that I don't think the Secret Service should be able to, uh, 'inconvenience' you with an investigation should you make what they consider credible threats.) Thing is, criminal cases outside that, as far as I can tell, are pretty few and far between.

[Uncle Skeleton]

Originally Posted by smacintush 

Compromise implies that there is a choice.

No, compromise implies that you think of someone besides you once in a while, that's why it seems foreign to you.

No speech has EVER directly infringed or taken away the rights of another person. The worst it can ever do is either incite another's action against another person, or illicit a negative action/response from those listening, which still puts the choice of whether or not to act and thus the blame squarely on the shoulders of the "listener" in any case.

I do agree that what someone says may be probable cause and warrent further investigation, but what he actually says should never be illegal.

Yelling "fire" in a crowded theater? Bearing false witness (in or out of court)? Fraud? False advertising? Lying on your taxes? You think that any harm caused by any of these should be blamed on the "listener"?

[CreepDogg]

I don't think freedom of speech should mean freedom from accountability for the ramifications of speech. And yes, sometimes government has a role as arbiter of said accountability.

[Wiskedjak]

Originally Posted by CreepDogg 

Yeah, I think I've already come out in this thread saying the 'threatening the President' law is questionable.

It doesn't matter if you think the law is questionable.

[Orion27]

Originally Posted by CreepDogg 

I don't think freedom of speech should mean freedom from accountability for the ramifications of speech. And yes, sometimes government has a role as arbiter of said accountability.

Let's keep "government" in perspective. The people expect accountability. They should expect "government" accountability.

[CreepDogg]

Originally Posted by Orion27 

Let's keep "government" in perspective. The people expect accountability. They should expect "government" accountability.

Yes, also true, but not really relevant to the point I was making.

[nonhuman]

Originally Posted by Big Mac 

I guess those who hold that view believe the government can provide the service in a better way than the market can. They're called Socialists.

Well there was that paper recently that claimed to prove that markets are efficient if and only if P = NP... It's yet to be published and/or peer reviewed, and I don't claim to know enough about economics to really understand its implications, but it seems to me that if this paper is correct we may have to revise our notions about market economies and their effectiveness. What if markets aren't the best way? This doesn't, of course, mean that handing things over to our government is, but it's certainly something to think about!