[itistoday]

K, as far as I understand... liberals are 'liberal' right? They're 'open-minded' and can accept change, right? Conservatives are afraid of change, right? And they can't handle new "ideas" or "concepts" like gay marraige, correct?

If this is generally accepted as true (is it?), then why would anyone want to be conservative? It's a bad thing� right�to not be open-minded? I mean, isn't America based on the ideals of freedom and allowing people to think/do what they want?

Is their excuse that they're afraid the country will be overrun by freedom loving hippies who smoke pot? (I don't see that as a bad thing)

Edit: Additional point: Aren't conservatives usually the ones who are trying to take rights away (i.e. The Patriot Act) and Liberals trying to win more rights?

[Spliffdaddy]

I'm thinking the term 'liberal' is in reference to the notion that government should do *more*

while 'conservatives' tend to believe that government should do no more than necessary.


You suggest that conservatives are against "change". Perhaps they're merely against expanding the role of government. Seems that liberals are always wanting handouts...that is, programs and legislation which you refer to as 'change'.

[Millennium]

"Conservative" and "Liberal" are relative terms, and always have been. The only absolutes about them are that conservatives believe that "the system" (whatever that is) is basically fine and that changes to it should be resisted, while liberals believe that "the system" is flawed and that changes to it are needed.

That's really all there is to it. Abraham Lincoln -the first Republican President- believed more or less as Republicans do today (the parallels between his administration and Bush's are shocking), but by the standards of his time he would have been considered quite liberal.

There does, admittedly, seem to be one other basic political debate which has gone down through the ages: who is the ultimate guardian of the people? One side has argued that it should be the State; the other side argues that the people ought to guard themselves. Both sides have held power at various times, and so both sides have been conservative, and both have been liberal. Examples of "guardian states" might include (but are certainly not limited to) ancient Rome, the Union during the US Civil War, the US under the New Deal, and so forth. Examples of "not-guardian states" might include France in the early years of their Revolution, the Confederacy during the US Civil War, the US under the Articles of Confederation, and others.

I chose those examples carefully: both sides have examples with positive and negative connotations, and I gave the US four examples to highlight the struggle between those forces in the US even today. But the bit about positive and negative connotations is important, simply because the idea is far too basic to be to any particular political system. For example, Thomas Jefferson believed in a not-guardian state, but so does Dick Cheney, and few people would welcome a comparison between those two.

As for my own beliefs on the subject? I believe that the people do need guardians, but that no political can be trusted with that kind of responsibility; all have shown themselves to be too open to abuse of the power that comes with it. I am not an anarchist; I believe government has its place, but that "ultimate guardian of the people" is not a place it should have.

[RAILhead]

Originally posted by Spliffdaddy:
I'm thinking the term 'liberal' is in reference to the notion that government should do *more*

while 'conservatives' tend to believe that government should do no more than necessary.


You suggest that conservatives are against "change". Perhaps they're merely against expanding the role of government. Seems that liberals are always wanting handouts...that is, programs and legislation which you refer to as 'change'.

Ditto that. The above are some pithy reasons why I'm a conservative. What's mine is mine, what's yours is yours. I don't get yours, you don't get mine. The Government shouldn't be a safety net, personal responsibility should.

Maury

[itistoday]

Ok, I seem to understand it more, but it seems today that conservatives aren't trying to decrease the role of the government. Nay, it seems that they're trying to increase it in what I would consider to be unfavorable ways. Bush wants to increase the governments role in deciding whether two people have the right to marry or not, and he's already passed the Patriot Act which definitely increases the governments role. I'm not really keeping up to date with all the little bills that are passed, but I'm sure there are more that have been passed by 'conservatives' that increase the governments control over what you, and myself do.

That's really all there is to it. Abraham Lincoln -the first Republican President- believed more or less as Republicans do today (the parallels between his administration and Bush's are shocking), but by the standards of his time he would have been considered quite liberal.

Millenium: How are there any sharp parallels between Lincoln and Bush? Lincoln was definitely a liberal as far as I'm concerned, because he was going against the tide of slavery. He also went to war for valid, and some might even say 'nobel' reasons. He was also a scholar, a lawyer, a great orator, and a very wise, intelligent person�things Bush is not.

[BRussell]

Any remaining semblance of libertarianish tendencies of conservatives have been completely abandoned under Bush conservatism, which is about bigger, stronger gov't on every key issue.

[MacGorilla]

Liberal=Liberty (that was where the term came from). Until the 70's many politicians went out of their way to say they were liberals--with the root of the term in mind. As the political landscape shifted to the right, the word was demonized, which is a shame, considering its rather modest roots.

[itistoday]

Originally posted by BRussell:
Any remaining semblance of libertarianish tendencies of conservatives have been completely abandoned under Bush conservatism, which is about bigger, stronger gov't on every key issue.

Didn't we just establish that a "bigger, stronger gov't" is against the conservative philosophy?

[BRussell]

Originally posted by itistoday:
Didn't we just establish that a "bigger, stronger gov't" is against the conservative philosophy?

I don't think so, and I don't think it's ever been. I think the libertarian philosophical veneer was always about marketing the real conservatism, which is traditionalism. Even the pure conservatism (as opposed to Bush conservatism) was about social/religious traditionalism along with a lack of "social safety net" as railhead puts it. But what does that type of economic approach entail? IMO, it serves to keep the traditional economic classes in place, which in itself is a form of traditionalism. Economic traditionalism.

[itistoday]

Originally posted by BRussell:
I don't think so, and I don't think it's ever been. I think the libertarian philosophical veneer was always about marketing the real conservatism, which is traditionalism. Even the pure conservatism (as opposed to Bush conservatism) was about social/religious traditionalism along with a lack of "social safety net" as railhead puts it. But what does that type of economic approach entail? IMO, it serves to keep the traditional economic classes in place, which in itself is a form of traditionalism. Economic traditionalism.

Wait, how does any of this apply to the fact that a strong government means more power/control over the people (i.e. Bush's administration) and the fact that Conservatives are supposed to keep the system as it is? These conservatives today are not doing that.

[coolmacdude]

Originally posted by itistoday:
Wait, how does any of this apply to the fact that a strong government means more power/control over the people (i.e. Bush's administration) and the fact that Conservatives are supposed to keep the system as it is? These conservatives today are not doing that.

No they are not. That's the main reason why, even though I consider myself a conservative, I will not be voting for Bush in Nov. I doubt Kerry will be any better though.

Today's conservatism (Bush) is about convincing the people that terrorism is an acceptable reason for greatly expanding the role of government (TIA, Patriot Act, excessive regulation, etc.). It seems that the government now believes they should be allowed access and in some cases control over every facet of citizens' lives. It justifies this with claims that as a result it will be able to spot terrorists quicker. To that I say, if our freedoms are taken away then the terrorists have already won.

[spacefreak]

Originally posted by coolmacdude:
No they are not. That's the main reason why, even though I consider myself a conservative, I will not be voting for Bush in Nov. I doubt Kerry will be any better though.

Today's conservatism (Bush) is about convincing the people that terrorism is an acceptable reason for greatly expanding the role of government (TIA, Patriot Act, excessive regulation, etc.). It seems that the government now believes they should be allowed access and in some cases control over every facet of citizens' lives. It justifies this with claims that as a result it will be able to spot terrorists quicker. To that I say, if our freedoms are taken away then the terrorists have already won.

You're not a conservative, so don't consider yourself one. Support for Kerry wouldn't ever enter your mind if you were.

As for having freedoms taken away - what freedoms of yours has enactment of the Patriot Act infringed upon?

[PacHead]

I am a liberal. I was going to vote for Kerry, but after all of the lying and nonsense going on, I just can not bring myself to vote for the dude. Vote Nader !

[itistoday]

Originally posted by PacHead:
I am a liberal. I was going to vote for Kerry, but after all of the lying and nonsense going on, I just can not bring myself to vote for the dude. Vote Nader !

...

no.

[MacGorilla]

Originally posted by itistoday:
...

no.

Nader doesn't thrill me, really. I do like the Green's candidate though.

[BRussell]

Here's a story about the Libertarian party nominee.

Badnarik believes that the federal income tax has no legal authority and that people are justified in refusing to file a tax return until such time as the IRS provides them with an explanation of its authority to collect the tax. He hadn't filed income tax returns for several years. He moved from California to Texas because of Texas' more liberal gun laws, but he refused to obtain a Texas driver's license because the state requires drivers to provide their fingerprints and Social Security numbers. He has been ticketed several times for driving without a license; sometimes he has gotten off for various technical legal reasons, but on three occasions he has been convicted and paid a fine. He also refused to use postal ZIP codes, seeing them as "federal territories."

He has written a book on the Constitution for students in his one-day, $50 seminar on the Constitution, but it is available elsewhere, including on Amazon.com. It features an introduction by Congressman Ron Paul and Badnarik's theory about taxes. His campaign website included a potpourri of right-wing constitutional positions, as well as some very unorthodox views on various issues. He proposed that convicted felons serve the first month of their sentence in bed so that their muscles would atrophy and they'd be less trouble for prison guards and to blow up the U.N. building on the eighth day of his administration, after giving the building's occupants a chance to evacuate.

Haha. No wonder they only get .001% of the vote each election.

[doctorkeyser]

And herein lies the evidence of why the Democratic party has become such a failed endeavor over the last four to eight years. Instead of picking the candidate who most closely reflects their beliefs, has a chance of winning, and can possibly champion a rejuvenated movement of the left, they prove lazy, fractionated, and out of touch.

Fact is, if the Democrats can't beat Dubbya, of all people, the party should just disband and give up.

[MacGorilla]

Badnarik believes that the federal income tax has no legal authority and that people are justified in refusing to file a tax return until such time as the IRS provides them with an explanation of its authority to collect the tax.

Umm, hey Badnarik, there is a constutional admendment giving them the power:

Article XVI.
The Congress shall have power to lay and collect taxes on incomes, from whatever source derived, without apportionment among the several States, and without regard to any census or enumeration.

[dgs212]

Originally posted by spacefreak:
You're not a conservative, so don't consider yourself one. Support for Kerry wouldn't ever enter your mind if you were.

As for having freedoms taken away - what freedoms of yours has enactment of the Patriot Act infringed upon?

Well, from its passage until last week (i.e. for the last two years), the Patriot Act has allowed the federal government to hold U.S. citizens completely incommunicado, in jail, without being charged with a crime, without confidential access to a lawyer, without a trial, without a conviction, without appeal. Complete limbo. They only need be classified by the president an "enemy combatant" and the reasons for such a classification need not be revealed to them, their family, their lawyer, or anyone. Talk about reducing gov't power

[CRASH HARDDRIVE]

Originally posted by Millennium:
The only absolutes about them are that conservatives believe that "the system" (whatever that is) is basically fine and that changes to it should be resisted, while liberals believe that "the system" is flawed and that changes to it are needed.

That�s not any sort of �absolute� of either.

Conservatives generally know how flawed and f-ed up much of the so-called �system� actually is- exactly why they know throwing endless money at things that are flawed and f-ed up, is not the solution.

On the other hand, some liberals couldn�t care less how flawed and f-ed up a �system� is in actual result, if a program �sounds good� and �you can feel like you care more� if you constantly advocate tossing more and more (of someone else's) money at it. For example, virtually any government transfer of wealth, no matter how corrupt, inefficient, ineffective and even downright ruinous to the very people it�s supposed to �save,� should always get a constant guaranteed stream of �mo-money, mo-money�. If the name sounds good, and it �feels good� to say you support it, then that trumps the actual results.

As for the rest of this subject, one thing I�ve come to realize, and some (not all) on the left confirm it for me; people that are given to making silly blanket claims that their �side� has monopolies on things like open-mindedness, compassion, intelligence, etc- actually are themselves individually highly likely to have a glaring LACK of the claimed virtue(s).

The claim itself is often a vicarious �over-compensation� action. For example, some of the most bone-stupid �it�s a wonder they don�t drown themselves in the rain� individuals you�d ever not want to meet, can claim to be �intelligent�, not by any actual deed or achievement, but simply by claiming kinship to whichever �side� that they�ve vicariously assigned a monopoly status to the virtue.

[SimeyTheLimey]

Originally posted by dgs212:
Well, from its passage until last week (i.e. for the last two years), the Patriot Act has allowed the federal government to hold U.S. citizens completely incommunicado, in jail, without being charged with a crime, without confidential access to a lawyer, without a trial, without a conviction, without appeal. Complete limbo. They only need be classified by the president an "enemy combatant" and the reasons for such a classification need not be revealed to them, their family, their lawyer, or anyone. Talk about reducing gov't power

None of that had anything to do with the Patriot Act. And the cases you are hinting at (Hamdi, Rasul, and Padilla) which came down a few weeks ago also had nothing to do with the Patriot Act.

[MacGorilla]

Originally posted by SimeyTheLimey:
None of that had anything to do with the Patriot Act. And the cases you are hinting at (Hamdi, Rasul, and Padilla) which came down a few weeks ago also had nothing to do with the Patriot Act.

How about the right to privacy? The gov't can track the books I check out of the library or buy at the bookstore. Why? last time I checked, terroists weren't exactly avid book club members.

[el chupacabra]

Originally posted by itistoday:

Millenium: How are there any sharp parallels between Lincoln and Bush? Lincoln was definitely a liberal as far as I'm concerned, because he was going against the tide of slavery. He also went to war for valid, and some might even say 'nobel' reasons. He was also a scholar, a lawyer, a great orator, and a very wise, intelligent person�things Bush is not.

I don't think the main reason for going to war had much to do with slavery or nobel reasons. It was about money and the fact the south was trying to gain independence, which would have destroyed the US economy.

[MacGorilla]

Originally posted by el chupacabra:
I don't think the main reason for going to war had much to do with slavery or nobel reasons. It was about money and the fact the south was trying to gain independence, which would have destroyed the US economy.

Slavery was part of it, but only part. There was the fact Lincoln wanted keep the Union together. Also, there was a vast economic and social gulf between the north and south; the north was fast paced and industrialized and while the south was an agricultural region, poorer in many respects and felt the north was trying to manipulate its way of life. A defection of the south would have not only destroyed the economy but the the Union as well.

As the war dragged on, freeing the salves and the nobility of it rose to prominence but it wasn't a high priority at the start.

[coolmacdude]

Originally posted by spacefreak:
You're not a conservative, so don't consider yourself one. Support for Kerry wouldn't ever enter your mind if you were.

I don't support Kerry and definitely won't be voting for him.

As I am a conservative, I would be inclined to vote for Bush. I was simply stating why I won't be voting for him either.

[Millennium]

Originally posted by itistoday:
Millenium: How are there any sharp parallels between Lincoln and Bush? Lincoln was definitely a liberal as far as I'm concerned, because he was going against the tide of slavery.

Certainly he was a liberal for his time. Plunk that same man in today's society with his same beliefs, however, and he'd make Pat Buchannan blush. He was actually quite reluctant to free the slaves, for example; we have letters and other documentation showing that he did this as a last resort.

It should be noted that despite freeing the slaves, Lincoln was actually quite racist by modern standards. His economic and civil-liberties policies were also quite Bush-like, as a little research might turn up. I daresay Bush might idolize Lincoln even more than you do.

He also went to war for valid, and some might even say 'nobel' reasons.

Assuming you mean "noble", what would you say his reasons were? There are quite a few people who would argue against Lincoln's reasons: enough, in fact, to start a war. I, like you, believe his reasons were valid, but I suspect you and I have very different ideas of what his reasons were.

He was also a scholar, a lawyer, a great orator, and a very wise, intelligent person�things Bush is not.

Actually, Lincoln wasn't much of an orator, the Gettysburg Address notwithstanding. Show me even one other speech of his which matches that brilliance. You can find his State of the Union addresses in the Congressional Record, but you'll find that they're nothing to write home about. We even have descriptions of the man's voice, and it was nothing like the deep baritone you normally hear; it was actually quite high and nasal.

I've memorized the Gettysburg Address; it's a brilliant work. But deifying the person who wrote it is not a wise thing to do. There is a reason it was so short, after all.

[dgs212]

Originally posted by SimeyTheLimey:
None of that had anything to do with the Patriot Act. And the cases you are hinting at (Hamdi, Rasul, and Padilla) which came down a few weeks ago also had nothing to do with the Patriot Act.

You're right (f*cking lawyers). My mistake. What I should have said is that the enemy combatant classification is totally bogus and a clear breach of habeus corpus. The Patriot Act is an expansion of the government's abilities to keep tabs on citizens. "Talk about reducing gov't power "

[itistoday]

Originally posted by Millennium:
Certainly he was a liberal for his time. Plunk that same man in today's society with his same beliefs, however, and he'd make Pat Buchannan blush. He was actually quite reluctant to free the slaves, for example; we have letters and other documentation showing that he did this as a last resort.

With good reason. During the early years of his presidency the union was still together, and he didn't want to inflame the South even further. I'm sure that at heart he was strongly against it, but like any good politician, he stayed away from the extremes.

It should be noted that despite freeing the slaves, Lincoln was actually quite racist by modern standards. His economic and civil-liberties policies were also quite Bush-like, as a little research might turn up. I daresay Bush might idolize Lincoln even more than you do.

"Racist by modern standards" is key here. Of course he was, since back then even the most radical of abolitionists could hardly imagine a world where a black man could marry a white woman. I'm not sure about his economic policies (perhaps you'd enlighten me), but I don't think his civil-liberties policies can be compared to Bush's, because these are very different times. And how does Bush idolizing Lincoln affect your claim that they are similar?

Assuming you mean "noble", what would you say his reasons were? There are quite a few people who would argue against Lincoln's reasons: enough, in fact, to start a war. I, like you, believe his reasons were valid, but I suspect you and I have very different ideas of what his reasons were.

According to what he said (we many never know the truth), he went to war to preserve the union, and I believe that, because that is what he did. But I'm sure he felt personally disillusioned with the Southern lifestyle of that time, and this is evident in his future policies during Reconstruction.

Actually, Lincoln wasn't much of an orator, the Gettysburg Address notwithstanding. Show me even one other speech of his which matches that brilliance. You can find his State of the Union addresses in the Congressional Record, but you'll find that they're nothing to write home about. We even have descriptions of the man's voice, and it was nothing like the deep baritone you normally hear; it was actually quite high and nasal.

I've memorized the Gettysburg Address; it's a brilliant work. But deifying the person who wrote it is not a wise thing to do. There is a reason it was so short, after all.

I disagree. I don't have any examples with me but I'm pretty sure I've read in many books that he was a good orator, and in fact that was one of the reasons people loved him so much. During the years he ran, he was relatively unknown. To increase his image, he challenged many of the candidates to public debates, and would usually win them. And I agree, the Gettysburg Address was brilliant, and he did write it. I doubt Bush could ever come close to that. Who cares what his voice sounded like?

I still fail to see any similarity between the two figures.

[SimeyTheLimey]

Originally posted by dgs212:
You're right (f*cking lawyers). My mistake. What I should have said is that the enemy combatant classification is totally bogus and a clear breach of habeus corpus. The Patriot Act is an expansion of the government's abilities to keep tabs on citizens. "Talk about reducing gov't power "

None of this makes any legal sense. Your summary of the Patriot Act is tendentious, and what you say about enemy combatant classification as being a "breach" of habeas corpus isn't right either. A habeas corpus is a procedure, not something that can be "breached." The Court has held that people declared to be enemy combatants have a right to some (undefined) kind of hearing and, if they are US Citizens, they have a right to file habeas writs. But the Court has also held that if they factually are determined to be enemy combatants then they can be held indefinitely. So being an enemy combatant is neither "bogus" nor in any way inconsistent with being held indefinitely -- unless, of course, the person is factually not a combatant.

I jump on this purely because your statement was wrong.

[SimeyTheLimey]

Originally posted by Millennium:
I've memorized the Gettysburg Address; it's a brilliant work. But deifying the person who wrote it is not a wise thing to do. There is a reason it was so short, after all.

You are right, the Gettysburg Adress was brilliant. But its brilliance wasn't recognized at the time. It was hardly noticed on the day it was read - reports I have read said that those present barely applauded. That's probably because by the standards of the day, it was absurdly short.

One thing about Lincoln that is overlooked is that he was a politician long before he was a "statesman" (a statesman being a dead politician) and a demi-god. He was pretty loathed and disrespected by many Americans in his lifetime, and I don't just mean southerners. A lot of northerners thought of him as a hick and a bumpkin. It was really only after his assassination that the aura around the man developed. I'm not saying that his reputation is undeserved, only that it wasn't much recognized in his lifetime.

[SimeyTheLimey]

Originally posted by MacGorilla:
How about the right to privacy? The gov't can track the books I check out of the library or buy at the bookstore. Why? last time I checked, terroists weren't exactly avid book club members.

Please show me where your "right to privacy" extends to your public commerical transactions.

[coolmacdude]

Originally posted by dgs212:
The Patriot Act is an expansion of the government's abilities to keep tabs on citizens.

That's nothing compared to TIA. After that was killed by Congress some limited TIA programs were slipped through on unrelated bills.

[dgs212]

Originally posted by SimeyTheLimey:
None of this makes any legal sense. Your summary of the Patriot Act is tendentious, and what you say about enemy combatant classification as being a "breach" of habeas corpus isn't right either. A habeas corpus is a procedure, not something that can be "breached." The Court has held that people declared to be enemy combatants have a right to some (undefined) kind of hearing and, if they are US Citizens, they have a right to file habeas writs. But the Court has also held that if they factually are determined to be enemy combatants then they can be held indefinitely. So being an enemy combatant is neither "bogus" nor in any way inconsistent with being held indefinitely -- unless, of course, the person is factually not a combatant.

I jump on this purely because your statement was wrong.

Please understand that regular citizens trying to make sense of their governmen's actions are not constitutional scholars and sometimes have to make do with non-legal, colloquial interpretations. The vagueness of my language is a direct result, but I think my point was quite clear. That being said...

Article 1 clearly states "The privelege of the Writ of Habeas Corpus shall not be susended, unless when in cases of rebellion or invasion the public safety may require it." The Supreme Court has, as you pointed out above, ruled the administration's interpretation of its powers re enemy combatants to be unconstitutional (because of the above clause, yes?). All I'm saying is that, as the Court has pointed out, our curent president and his admin. have extended the role and power of government (in some cases in unconstitutional ways), which is in direct opposition to a major tenet of modern Republicanism.

This tenet, less government intrusion, is one I can whole-heartedly get behind, but it's a mistake to blieve that GWB is in support of such a doctrine. he is, of course, not alone in htis respect. The difference between the republicans and the democrats (or, if you will, the conservatives and liberals who have come to power and represent us) lies along social lines, not economics. They both want your money. They differ in how they'll spend it.

[SimeyTheLimey]

Originally posted by dgs212:
Please understand that regular citizens trying to make sense of their governmen's actions are not constitutional scholars and sometimes have to make do with non-legal, colloquial interpretations. The vagueness of my language is a direct result, but I think my point was quite clear. That being said...

Article 1 clearly states "The privelege of the Writ of Habeas Corpus shall not be susended, unless when in cases of rebellion or invasion the public safety may require it." The Supreme Court has, as you pointed out above, ruled the administration's interpretation of its powers re enemy combatants to be unconstitutional (because of the above clause, yes?). All I'm saying is that, as the Court has pointed out, our curent president and his admin. have extended the role and power of government (in some cases in unconstitutional ways), which is in direct opposition to a major tenet of modern Republicanism.

This tenet, less government intrusion, is one I can whole-heartedly get behind, but it's a mistake to blieve that GWB is in support of such a doctrine. he is, of course, not alone in htis respect. The difference between the republicans and the democrats (or, if you will, the conservatives and liberals who have come to power and represent us) lies along social lines, not economics. They both want your money. They differ in how they'll spend it.

The problem is when the colloquial, non-legal argument is expressed as a legal argument, and then expressed in a way that is completely wrong. A lot of people rant about the Patriot Act because they seem to think that it is the next best thing to the German Enabling Act. All kinds of things are ascribed to it that simply aren't the case. That's not an argument, it's polemic.

I agree that the Court said that the Executive overreached, but the Court's position isn't exactly as you say. The point isn't that labeling someone as an enemy combatant is per se a constitutional violation as you seem to have implied, the point was simply that US Citizens have a right to challenge that label on the facts. That's all that a habeas corpus writ is. But the Court agreed that if a US Citizen is an enemy combatant, then what the Administration has done by detaining him is correct.

If the detainee is not a US Citizen then it is looking like there may not be a privilege of a writ of habeas corpus. A military tribunal might be enough. But the Court was maddeningly unforthcoming on that point. We'll have to see how the cases play out. Nobody can say at this point what rights they have because nobody in fact knows.

Anyway, what I found really annoying about your statements was that it was A. framed in a legal way that you presumably picked up someplace; and B. it was wildly wrong. That doesn't help a debate.

As for Republicans are for less government and Democrats for more. That was never really the divide. It's was always a gross oversimplification, and it therefore shouldn't surprise anyone to find out it isn't really true.

[dgs212]

Originally posted by SimeyTheLimey:


I agree that the Court said that the Executive overreached, but the Court's position isn't exactly as you say. The point isn't that labeling someone as an enemy combatant is per se a constitutional violation as you seem to have implied, the point was simply that US Citizens have a right to challenge that label on the facts. That's all that a habeas corpus writ is. But the Court agreed that if a US Citizen is an enemy combatant, then what the Administration has done by detaining him is correct.

Points taken. It must be hard for a lawyer to listen to others talk about legal matters with a non-legal lexicon. As far as the court's position goes, here are my feelings: You'd have to be a fool to argue that actual proven terrorists should not be detained. That's not what I'm saying. What I'm saying is that where was the oversight in these charges? Where was the ability to appeal? Where was the ability to file a habeas writ? They were non-existent. Perhaps I'm paranoid, but I refuse to "just trust" the gov't. Oversight and transparency are two of the most important qualities a governemtn should have IMO

As for Republicans are for less government and Democrats for more. That was never really the divide. It's was always a gross oversimplification, and it therefore shouldn't surprise anyone to find out it isn't really true.

What surprises me is how many americans believe this to be the case. It's the same kind of surprise I feel when people say "Oh, you liberals always..." or "All conservatives are..." As if there were ever such an entity. Political discourse on these boards and in this country is absurd.

[Luca Rescigno]

Yes, I think that it's a huge problem when people from one side of the political fence start stereotyping people from the other side. Conservatives are not all slimy, cheating bastards who want to spy on us, legislate morality and religion, and take our money, just as liberals are not all bleeding heart, sensitive pushovers who can't wait to jack up your taxes and give them to drug addicts on the street.

I think either side can hold a very reasonable position and avoid hypocrisy, but I don't think either candidate has done that completely. Bush and his cabinet seem to be pretty into the idea of increasing the government's power, by promoting things like the Patriot Act, the Defense Of Decency Act, and so forth. Sure, maybe some of the laws they're passing do go with their beliefs, but wouldn't a typical, reasonable conservative be opposed to the idea of a stronger and more intrusive government? I seem to remember Reagan saying something about how smaller government is better than bigger government, and I know how much Republicans loved Reagan. At the same time, what about Kerry? If he's supposed to uphold the liberal, left-wing viewpoint, why did he support going to war with Iraq? It seems like a purely political decision that is now coming back to bite him in the ass. As a Democrat, I'm disappointed that most of the members of the party wimped out and voted in support of the war. They wouldn't have stopped it even if most had voted against it, but it would have sent a statement that the Democratic party isn't one to be pushed around. Apparently, it IS one to be pushed around

[MacGorilla]

Yes, I think that it's a huge problem when people from one side of the political fence start stereotyping people from the other side. Conservatives are not all slimy, cheating bastards who want to spy on us, legislate morality and religion, and take our money

No way!

[Sven G]

A lot of stereotyping also occurs, probably, because both sides seem to be incapable of solving the problems, both of individuals and society as a whole: that's also because there's really no synthesis of the most positive things both parties have, and thus no "propulsive thrust" (to say it with the late Italian politician Berlinguer, IIRC) available to get at the very roots of the problems themselves...

[Arkham_c]

Originally posted by BRussell:
Here's a story about the Libertarian party nominee.
Haha. No wonder they only get .001% of the vote each election.

It's really a shame too. The Libertarians have some very good ideas intermixed with the wacky stupid ones. I really like the idea of small government and personal responsibility. I don't fit into the Republican party or the Democrats, but the alternatives (Libertarian and Green) are even more polarized. I can't be pro-choice, be against socialist programs like welfare and social security, support the right of gays to marry, and still want federalized education if I want to find a candidate who agrees with me. On one hand we've got "Mr. Left" Kerry, and on the other "Mr. Right" Bush. There's no middle ground in American politics anymore.

(Please don't turn this into a debate on the beliefs above -- it's just an example of how the parties don't meet the needs of the people anymore).

[MacGorilla]

Originally posted by Arkham_c:
It's really a shame too. The Libertarians have some very good ideas intermixed with the wacky stupid ones. I really like the idea of small government and personal responsibility. I don't fit into the Republican party or the Democrats, but the alternatives (Libertarian and Green) are even more polarized. I can't be pro-choice, be against socialist programs like welfare and social security, support the right of gays to marry, and still want federalized education if I want to find a candidate who agrees with me. On one hand we've got "Mr. Left" Kerry, and on the other "Mr. Right" Bush. There's no middle ground in American politics anymore.

(Please don't turn this into a debate on the beliefs above -- it's just an example of how the parties don't meet the needs of the people anymore).

You are correct. Its interesting how sicne the 80's the politcal sprectrum has become polarized.

[coolmacdude]

Originally posted by dgs212:
Oversight and transparency are two of the most important qualities a governemtn should have IMO

This is exactly how I feel. Even as a Republican, I'm forced to admit that Bush has done his damndest to drastically scale back both of those during his presidency.

[SimeyTheLimey]

Originally posted by dgs212:
What I'm saying is that where was the oversight in these charges? Where was the ability to appeal? Where was the ability to file a habeas writ? They were non-existent.

Well, again, you have to distinguish between US Citizens and non-citizens, and people captured in the US and people captured outside the US. The lens here isn't criminal law enforcement, it is battlefield detention with the "battlefield" being potentially as broad as the terrorists make it.

So talking about "charges" isn't the way the Court was looking at it. All we are talking about is some due process to make sure that those detained under the Executive's war powers, persuant to Congress' authorization, are who we think they are. But depending on circumstances, you probably aren't talking about full trials and might not be talking about habeas writs to civilian courts and you almost certainly aren't talking about a right to appeal in every circumstance. Again, depending on exactly who we are talking about and the exect circumstances of their capture. So the oversite will be there, but a lot of it will (probably) be by the armed forces itself through military tribunals.

But again, some of this is still being hashed out in the Courts. The opinions the other day, frankly, left more questions than they answered.

[kjb]

Originally posted by Sven G:
A lot of stereotyping also occurs, probably, because both sides seem to be incapable of solving the problems, both of individuals and society as a whole: that's also because there's really no synthesis of the most positive things both parties have, and thus no "propulsive thrust" (to say it with the late Italian politician Berlinguer, IIRC) available to get at the very roots of the problems themselves...

You know, I think this kind of gets at the core of the issue: the political sides are so focused on upholding their fringe issues, that we fail to make any headway on the issues on which we all agree.

I'm currently reading "Being America" by Jedidiah Purdy. In it, he offers what is to me, a wonderful discussion of "liberalism" and "conservatism". As has been stated before, historically liberalism is openmindedness to opposing opinion, regardless of how firm one is in his/her position; conservatism is the maintainence of the status quo- the avoidance of change. He goes on to offer support for the fact that staunch conservatism begets moral arrogance, which in turn leads to violence. Of course, he offers historical support for his thesis.

He does though, go on to say, that the United States of America is one of, if not the most, liberal societies in history- by the traditional definition.

I think it behooves us to eliminate our potical labels of "liberal" and "conservative" in the United States. We have removed their meaning so far from the core values as to make the words "evil". While I do think that some application of the traditional application of conservative fits the current administration- Mr. Bush's "moral arrogance" has led to wars, that is for sure- I find it purely impossible that the majority of Americans that identify themselves as "liberals" do not agree on the vast majority of issues facing the USA with those Americans that identify themselves as "conservatives".

I do hope that these core issues upon which we agree become the focus of the next administration, who ever might that be under. The perpetuation of a polar America is in the end, ultimately destructive.

Kevin

[Sven G]

... And, sadly, the situation in Europe isn't all that different: we are "governed" by idiots who have no clue about things such as public good, freedom, and so on. Fascism isn't far away, if nothing happens...