FSTDT Forums

Community => Politics and Government => Topic started by: nickiknack on February 12, 2013, 09:03:45 pm

Title: State Of the Union
Post by: nickiknack on February 12, 2013, 09:03:45 pm
I'm just going to make a thread on it, so post your opinions on it, and just for the lulz any batshit craziness that's sure to come from some folks, you happen to find in you're travels(you know there will be).
Title: Re: State Of the Union
Post by: DiscoBerry on February 12, 2013, 09:42:22 pm
‎"Send me that bill." That's going right in CPAC's next commercial.  Can't wait to see the fight against grid and infrastructure repair.
Title: Re: State Of the Union
Post by: kefkaownsall on February 12, 2013, 09:44:08 pm
He said keep promises we made.  Great now close GITMO
Title: Re: State Of the Union
Post by: DiscoBerry on February 12, 2013, 10:16:26 pm
I put on my conservative goggles and looked at my TV and this is what I saw...
Title: Re: State Of the Union
Post by: RavynousHunter on February 12, 2013, 10:53:28 pm
I put on my conservative goggles and looked at my TV and this is what I saw...

A hearty +1 to you, good sir!
Title: Re: State Of the Union
Post by: Itachirumon on February 12, 2013, 10:55:19 pm
I put on my conservative goggles and looked at my TV and this is what I saw...

What are you doing with conservative goggles, are you 'tarded? Shouldn't you be watching Oww My Balls!! right now? It's brought to you by Carls Jr and has the electrolytes plants crave, just like Brawndo.
Title: Re: State Of the Union
Post by: Damen on February 13, 2013, 04:06:59 am
Give him a little while, after all, he's still munching popcorn and watching Ass.

(http://robsmovievault.files.wordpress.com/2009/11/ass_idiocracy.jpg)

After that it'll most likely be back home to watch Ow My Balls and then a quick 'batin' session.

(http://images.cheezburger.com/completestore/2011/2/25/9f19175d-29c0-4182-9323-6d49ad1d059a.gif)

Also, Itachirumon, I have to tell you:

(http://www.performanceboats.com/gallery/data/500/2qv5vlt.jpg)
Title: Re: State Of the Union
Post by: Itachirumon on February 13, 2013, 04:35:33 am
Give him a little while, after all, he's still munching popcorn and watching Ass.

(http://robsmovievault.files.wordpress.com/2009/11/ass_idiocracy.jpg)

After that it'll most likely be back home to watch Ow My Balls and then a quick 'batin' session.

(http://images.cheezburger.com/completestore/2011/2/25/9f19175d-29c0-4182-9323-6d49ad1d059a.gif)

Also, Itachirumon, I have to tell you:

(http://www.performanceboats.com/gallery/data/500/2qv5vlt.jpg)

Comin' from Justin Long that sounds almost like a sexual advance
WHICH I ACCEPT
Title: Re: State Of the Union
Post by: dpareja on February 13, 2013, 05:50:23 am
Neil Macdonald's analysis (http://www.cbc.ca/news/world/story/2013/02/12/f-rfa-macdonald-obama-union.html).

Quote
It never fails. The time to start listening closely is always after you hear the word “but.”

And, after Barack Obama uttered that word last night in his state of the union address, he duly delivered the kicker — that a little more than a month after extracting a hefty tax hike from wealthy Americans, he wants more.

Not surprising, perhaps, to anyone with a basic understanding of the way the U.S. operates. And probably unavoidable.

The seminal fact of governing in this nation is that its people fancy themselves committed to small government, but aren’t.

Government spending, or as Obama likes to call it, “investing,” accounts for about 40 cents of every dollar in the American economy —more or less exactly the proportion the government occupies in the Canadian economy, which, according to U.S. political myth, is driven by socialism.

At the same time, Americans balk fiercely at paying for the services they demand — far more so than Canadians, who aren’t keen on remitting huge chunks of their income to government, but seem to understand it’s the price of public services.

An interesting take on the speech and thank you, Neil, for calling them out for their bullshit about not being a welfare state et cetera.
Title: Re: State Of the Union
Post by: chitoryu12 on February 13, 2013, 06:08:34 am
Anyone who says that the US isn't socialist in any way has no right to actually debate the subject.

Especially not if they've ever seen a police officer before.
Title: Re: State Of the Union
Post by: Rabbit of Caerbannog on February 13, 2013, 11:45:36 am
Obama gives exploding fist bump to Sen. Mark Kirk (a Republican no less) who suffered a stroke last year:

(http://big.assets.huffingtonpost.com/obama-fist-bump-570.gif)

I'm not gonna lie, that's pretty sweet.
Title: Re: State Of the Union
Post by: Material Defender on February 13, 2013, 02:26:18 pm
He said keep promises we made.  Great now close GITMO.

Couldn't, Republican tied his hands on that little facet.
Title: Re: State Of the Union
Post by: kefkaownsall on February 13, 2013, 03:34:37 pm
Not quite he actually got rid of the guy who was supposed to be in cahrge of getting rid of it
Title: Re: State Of the Union
Post by: Her3tiK on February 13, 2013, 04:12:08 pm
Why are we still paying attention to what this liar says? The only thing he's half delivered on is health care reform, and even that was a half-assed capitulation to the health care industry.
Title: Re: State Of the Union
Post by: worlder on February 13, 2013, 05:11:08 pm
Why are we still paying attention to what this liar says? The only thing he's half delivered on is health care reform, and even that was a half-assed capitulation to the health care industry.

Is there someone else better suited as well as currently holding office?
Title: Re: State Of the Union
Post by: m52nickerson on February 13, 2013, 09:39:19 pm
Not quite he actually got rid of the guy who was supposed to be in cahrge of getting rid of it

Did you forget that congress barred him from bringing any GITMO prisoners to the US, or that many of the people still there do not have any countries willing to take them?

Why are we still paying attention to what this liar says? The only thing he's half delivered on is health care reform, and even that was a half-assed capitulation to the health care industry.

Well you have no idea what you are talking about.  Perhaps you should find out what the health care laws does and look at the other things the President has accomplished.
Title: Re: State Of the Union
Post by: Rabbit of Caerbannog on February 13, 2013, 09:50:22 pm
Why are we still paying attention to what this liar says? The only thing he's half delivered on is health care reform, and even that was a half-assed capitulation to the health care industry.

Well you have no idea what you are talking about.  Perhaps you should find out what the health care laws does and look at the other things the President has accomplished.
Yes. For example, did you know he's contributed to a skyrocketing death toll (http://livingunderdrones.org/) in Pakistan? And he fought for the  National Defense Authorization Act (http://www.salon.com/2012/09/17/obama_fights_for_indefinite_detention/) which would allow indefinite detention of American citizens? As for Gitmo? I doubt he gives a shit. (http://www.aljazeera.com/indepth/features/2013/01/20131485117864690.html)
Title: Re: State Of the Union
Post by: chitoryu12 on February 13, 2013, 10:23:02 pm
People who accuse Obama of going back on his promises or engaging in unsavory activities should look closer at the pressure put on him by Republicans in those matters. The GOP was one of the biggest obstacles to getting anything done during his first term, as they seemed to fight against anything put forward by the left and tried to force a compromise on everything simply on principle. The POTUS doesn't have nearly as much power as people seem to think; he's not a dictator. It's even worse when getting the people in the other party to work with you instead of fighting you just 'cause is like pulling teeth.
Title: Re: State Of the Union
Post by: dpareja on February 13, 2013, 10:32:42 pm
People who accuse Obama of going back on his promises or engaging in unsavory activities should look closer at the pressure put on him by Republicans in those matters. The GOP was one of the biggest obstacles to getting anything done during his first term, as they seemed to fight against anything put forward by the left and tried to force a compromise on everything simply on principle. The POTUS doesn't have nearly as much power as people seem to think; he's not a dictator. It's even worse when getting the people in the other party to work with you instead of fighting you just 'cause is like pulling teeth.

It's because whenever anything happens, the President looks like he's gotten something done, which gives him a bump in the polls. The less he appears to have done (because of a compromise, for instance) the smaller the bump and the faster it can vanish. It is, ultimately, in the Republicans' best interests not to let Obama accomplish much.
Title: Re: State Of the Union
Post by: Canadian Mojo on February 13, 2013, 10:50:44 pm
Neil Macdonald's analysis (http://www.cbc.ca/news/world/story/2013/02/12/f-rfa-macdonald-obama-union.html).

Quote
It never fails. The time to start listening closely is always after you hear the word “but.”

And, after Barack Obama uttered that word last night in his state of the union address, he duly delivered the kicker — that a little more than a month after extracting a hefty tax hike from wealthy Americans, he wants more.

Not surprising, perhaps, to anyone with a basic understanding of the way the U.S. operates. And probably unavoidable.

The seminal fact of governing in this nation is that its people fancy themselves committed to small government, but aren’t.

Government spending, or as Obama likes to call it, “investing,” accounts for about 40 cents of every dollar in the American economy —more or less exactly the proportion the government occupies in the Canadian economy, which, according to U.S. political myth, is driven by socialism.

At the same time, Americans balk fiercely at paying for the services they demand — far more so than Canadians, who aren’t keen on remitting huge chunks of their income to government, but seem to understand it’s the price of public services.

An interesting take on the speech and thank you, Neil, for calling them out for their bullshit about not being a welfare state et cetera.

Except we spend a pittance on the military (by comparison) so our 40 cents actually goes a lot farther towards public/social services. Perhaps that's why we don't mind paying taxes; we actually see some benefit from them.
Title: Re: State Of the Union
Post by: Lt. Fred on February 13, 2013, 11:47:07 pm
Not quite he actually got rid of the guy who was supposed to be in cahrge of getting rid of it

Did you forget that congress barred him from bringing any GITMO prisoners to the US, or that many of the people still there do not have any countries willing to take them?

There's actually not a choice here. If congress passes a law preventing any prosecution of these people- that's what it did, right?- then they get immediately released. There are no other legal options. Holding them in prison without charge is a violation of the constitution and grounds for impeachment.

Sure, a handful of these people are actually guilty of things. If congress refuses to imprison them legally, they can't be imprisoned at all.
Title: Re: State Of the Union
Post by: Her3tiK on February 14, 2013, 03:17:58 am
People who accuse Obama of going back on his promises or engaging in unsavory activities should look closer at the pressure put on him by Republicans in those matters. The GOP was one of the biggest obstacles to getting anything done during his first term, as they seemed to fight against anything put forward by the left and tried to force a compromise on everything simply on principle. The POTUS doesn't have nearly as much power as people seem to think; he's not a dictator. It's even worse when getting the people in the other party to work with you instead of fighting you just 'cause is like pulling teeth.
He could most certainly at least appear to put up a fight. Obama ran the first campaign on closing Gitmo, ending the wars in the Middle East, and establishing a Single Payer health system. Of these things, Gitmo has been abandoned as a cause, we only left Iraq because the new government got tired of our shit, while we "wind down" in Afghanistan and bomb Libya to "help the resistance" (good thing that logic carries to Syria), and now everyone is legally required to purchase health care. Obama didn't even come out in support of gay equality until Biden gaffed and the polls were in his favor. The guy's more interested in looking bipartisan than he is in keeping his promises or upholding the agenda that got him elected. If he really believed the things he said, one would think he'd put more effort into defending them; it's not like the Repubs have made hard targets for mockery and ridicule.
Title: Re: State Of the Union
Post by: chitoryu12 on February 14, 2013, 05:53:40 am
Quote
we only left Iraq because the new government got tired of our shit

Obama promised to end the war. Despite the right wanting us to remain and Mitt Romney campaigning on a platform of extending the Middle East conflicts for years, Obama had all troops out in less than 3 years and plans on having tens of thousands out of Afghanistan this year. Again, he's doing the best he can with the Republicans trying to block as much as they can.

Quote
and bomb Libya to "help the resistance" (good thing that logic carries to Syria)

Wrong. As in, factually wrong. NATO, as well as Jordan, Sweden, and the United Arab Emirates, all participated in enforcing a no-fly zone and protecting civilians, voted on by the United Nations Security Council. The only bombings that occurred were of government targets that had been involved in the deaths of neutral civilians. Had NATO actually planned on helping the resistance, it would have been over much faster. Not to mention that the French provided 35% of all air strikes committed during the intervention. Had the rebels begun striking civilian targets, they likely would have been shot at by our drones too.

The reason we're not intervening in Syria is because the United Nations hasn't voted on doing so. There has never been a specific effort to help any resistance movement in the Arab Spring, only a single 7 month enforcement of the UN policy that indirectly assisted the rebels and ended almost immediately after the civil war ended.

Quote
and now everyone is legally required to purchase health care.

As is done in a large number of prosperous first world countries, where they don't complain about having guaranteed healthcare instead of having to privately pay for very expensive health insurance (regardless of whether it gets used). I have yet to see anyone negatively affected by the reforms, regardless of their whining. Because that's what it is: whining.

Quote
Obama didn't even come out in support of gay equality until Biden gaffed and the polls were in his favor.

Contrary to popular belief, Obama coming out in support of gay marriage before the election would NOT have helped as much as you think. The people who were already inclined to vote for him would likely support it, while those who would vote for Romney would likely be against it (or at least want him to abstain from civil rights in favor of something else first). The only people his decision would have affected were the voters on the fence, which could have hurt him as much as it helped.

Quote
The guy's more interested in looking bipartisan than he is in keeping his promises or upholding the agenda that got him elected. If he really believed the things he said, one would think he'd put more effort into defending them; it's not like the Repubs have made hard targets for mockery and ridicule.

It's a matter of trying not to alienate people. Obama's election massively divided people, and anyone can tell you how many death threats he's received since coming into office. Mitch McConnell outright stated at the beginning of Obama's presidency that he wanted to make Obama a "one-term president", echoing Rush Limbaugh's desires the previous month that Obama would fail. The GOP has been more concerned with making Obama look bad to historians and preventing him from doing what he wants than actually working toward bettering the nation. Very few people in this day and age (now that we've left the Tammany Hall standards of politicking) have the clout to get people on both sides to play nice with each other; just look at the health care debate.

Again, the idea that Obama could accomplish everything and be Jesus in a suit if he just played hardball is a fallacy and a bad misunderstanding of the power of the presidency, and the history of presidents. Only 75 percent (http://www.washingtonmonthly.com/magazine/january_february_2012/features/campaign_promises034471.php?page=1) of campaign promises made from Wilson to Carter were actually met. According to the Obameter (http://www.politifact.com/truth-o-meter/promises/obameter/), in fact, Obama has kept 45% of his promises, compromised on 24%, and has 4% in the works. Out of 532 promises, 390 have been either accomplished in some manner or are being worked on as we speak (or 73%). Also, you should take note of how the Obameter measures progress: it requires tangible results to count as finished, rather than intentions. At least some of the ones listed in "promises broken" are ones that have stalled due to an inability to get them through Congress.

In short, your post is simply not congruent with the facts.
Title: Re: State Of the Union
Post by: Damen on February 14, 2013, 06:30:36 am
Quote
and now everyone is legally required to purchase health care.

As is done in a large number of prosperous first world countries, where they don't complain about having guaranteed healthcare instead of having to privately pay for very expensive health insurance (regardless of whether it gets used). I have yet to see anyone negatively affected by the reforms, regardless of their whining. Because that's what it is: whining.

I just want to point out that as written in the ACA, there is no way (http://www.leahy.senate.gov/issues/fact-vs-fiction) the government can prosecute anyone for not buying health coverage.

*flounces off*
Title: Re: State Of the Union
Post by: m52nickerson on February 14, 2013, 09:16:40 pm
There's actually not a choice here. If congress passes a law preventing any prosecution of these people- that's what it did, right?- then they get immediately released. There are no other legal options. Holding them in prison without charge is a violation of the constitution and grounds for impeachment.

Sure, a handful of these people are actually guilty of things. If congress refuses to imprison them legally, they can't be imprisoned at all.

For one legally or not some of them still are and are not going anywhere.  Second those that would be released the question is where to release them?

The President does not have the power to just put these people in any county he wants and that includes the US.

I just want to point out that as written in the ACA, there is no way (http://www.leahy.senate.gov/issues/fact-vs-fiction) the government can prosecute anyone for not buying health coverage.

*flounces off*

Yes, but the IRS can still take it out of a person's tax returns.

[He could most certainly at least appear to put up a fight. Obama ran the first campaign on closing Gitmo, ending the wars in the Middle East, and establishing a Single Payer health system. Of these things, Gitmo has been abandoned as a cause, we only left Iraq because the new government got tired of our shit, while we "wind down" in Afghanistan and bomb Libya to "help the resistance" (good thing that logic carries to Syria), and now everyone is legally required to purchase health care. Obama didn't even come out in support of gay equality until Biden gaffed and the polls were in his favor. The guy's more interested in looking bipartisan than he is in keeping his promises or upholding the agenda that got him elected. If he really believed the things he said, one would think he'd put more effort into defending them; it's not like the Repubs have made hard targets for mockery and ridicule.

Well to start the claim that Obama ran on a promise of a single payer system is total false.

Second you are complaining that the wars are ending just that we did not pull out right away, which Obama said we were not going to do.

All in all it seems very much like you don't know what you are talking about.
Title: Re: State Of the Union
Post by: Lt. Fred on February 15, 2013, 03:35:46 am
There's actually not a choice here. If congress passes a law preventing any prosecution of these people- that's what it did, right?- then they get immediately released. There are no other legal options. Holding them in prison without charge is a violation of the constitution and grounds for impeachment.

Sure, a handful of these people are actually guilty of things. If congress refuses to imprison them legally, they can't be imprisoned at all.

For one legally or not some of them still are and are not going anywhere.  Second those that would be released the question is where to release them?

The President does not have the power to just put these people in any county he wants and that includes the US.

Right. So the president has the power to imprison innocent people for decades, but not to charter a jet to take those innocent people back to the country they are a citizen of.

Do you think the president should routinely violate the law or not?

Quote
everyone is legally required to purchase health care.

As is done in a large number of prosperous first world countries,

Virtually every developed country has Efficient Health Insurance. The only countries enforcing a legal obligation to buy Inefficient Health Insurance are the US and Switzerland.
Title: Re: State Of the Union
Post by: chitoryu12 on February 15, 2013, 05:36:16 am
Quote
Right. So the president has the power to imprison innocent people for decades, but not to charter a jet to take those innocent people back to the country they are a citizen of.

It's nowhere near as simple as you seem to think it is. Assuming that the country actually exists nowadays (or has a government that's stable enough to handle such matters instead of fighting a war against its own citizens 24/7), the two nations would need to work out the extradition details and possibly even make the other nation agree to take the prisoners back in the first place. There's also the matter of how Gitmo's not exactly filled with people who have zero evidence of their wrongdoing and are convicted out of spite; any evidence regarding the person's accused crimes would also need to be given to the particular nation so they can figure out what to do with them when they're sent back. And again, not even the president can just look at every individual prisoner and go "Release him."

Please, try to actually understand the situation and complexities before you try to decide how nations should be run.

Quote
Virtually every developed country has Efficient Health Insurance. The only countries enforcing a legal obligation to buy Inefficient Health Insurance are the US and Switzerland.

Is there......actually an argument here? Why did you capitalize those terms? Are they new buzzwords I didn't hear about?
Title: Re: State Of the Union
Post by: nickiknack on February 15, 2013, 11:06:34 am
Yeah, didn't really intend for this thread to turn into a fight between progressives and moderates. That being said, I'm just sick of how Obama is looked upon as some sort of uber socialist by the right, when in reality his policies are very moderate(actually center right). Would I prefer a single payer Healthcare system, yes, but given that we have a culture that still worships this rugged individualist bs, I'll settle for some thing like the German Healthcare model. But I've come to the conclusion that Americans don't deserve shit, because we'll rather shoot ourselves in the foot and then bitch and moan when there's no help.  Yes, I'm one extremely cynical and jaded person, but this the result of being a poli sci major during the Bush Jr years...
Title: Re: State Of the Union
Post by: kefkaownsall on February 15, 2013, 11:11:35 am
I know :( I hate this country
Title: Re: State Of the Union
Post by: Lt. Fred on February 15, 2013, 04:18:22 pm
Quote
Right. So the president has the power to imprison innocent people for decades, but not to charter a jet to take those innocent people back to the country they are a citizen of.

It's nowhere near as simple as you seem to think it is. Assuming that the country actually exists nowadays (or has a government that's stable enough to handle such matters instead of fighting a war against its own citizens 24/7), the two nations would need to work out the extradition details and possibly even make the other nation agree to take the prisoners back in the first place.

These are excuses, not reasons. Repatriating Gitmo prisoners to their home countries has not been a problem for the hundreds of cases so far- there's no reason why it would be for the next few hundred.

Which country has ceased to exist since 2002?

There are no serious complexities here. The law is very clear- if you won't, or can't, charge someone with an offence, you must release them. Holding them in prison forever without charges is no an acceptable option.

Quote
There's also the matter of how Gitmo's not exactly filled with people who have zero evidence of their wrongdoing and are convicted out of spite;

No, it's certainly filled with people like that. Admittedly, there are a few people who probably could be prosecuted if they were ever charged, but apparently the Republicans don't want them to be? I'm not clear about this last. In any case, all of them must be presumed to be innocent under American law.

Quote
Quote
Virtually every developed country has Efficient Health Insurance. The only countries enforcing a legal obligation to buy Inefficient Health Insurance are the US and Switzerland.

Is there......actually an argument here? Why did you capitalize those terms? Are they new buzzwords I didn't hear about?

One country: "a large number".
Title: Re: State Of the Union
Post by: kefkaownsall on February 15, 2013, 04:38:53 pm
Yeah we've tried a few Gitmo guys in civie courts and they were convicted.  So why the issue anyways we have evidence
Title: Re: State Of the Union
Post by: chitoryu12 on February 15, 2013, 06:21:09 pm
Quote
One country: "a large number".

Are.....er......what are you.........eh......

Seriously, what the hell argument are you trying to make? I can't come up with any kind of rebuttal, referenced with facts or otherwise, because there is literally no argument in your post. Can't you come up with something better than flippant one or two-line statements or single terms and just expect them to prove your argument for you? I don't know what you're for or against except in the vaguest terms, and I have a feeling you don't know much more than I do about your position either.
Title: Re: State Of the Union
Post by: m52nickerson on February 15, 2013, 07:32:36 pm
Ltfred only likes complex situations when it suits him.

Right. So the president has the power to imprison innocent people for decades, but not to charter a jet to take those innocent people back to the country they are a citizen of.

Do you think the president should routinely violate the law or not?

You forget that the President is not an all powerful dictator and still needs congress to do many things.  Not only that but some countries do not want some of these people back.

Now as far as violating the law, well congress passed a bill allowing indefinite detentions in some situations so the President is not breaking the law in that respect.  However I do think that sometimes laws can and should be ignored when it serves to protect people.
Title: Re: State Of the Union
Post by: Lt. Fred on February 15, 2013, 11:50:13 pm
Quote
and now everyone is legally required to purchase health care.

As is done in a large number of prosperous first world countries...


Switzerland constitutes "a large number of prosperous first world countries". You said that more than one country requires people to purchase health care, in fact Switzerland is it. Every other (described) country has some sort of best-practice government health insurance program in place.

You forget that the President is not an all powerful dictator and still needs congress to do many things. 

Right. I think the US president is a powerful dictator, able to violate people's rights by chartering jet aircraft. You, however, believe in a democratic president limited by a constitution he can violate at will.

Try to keep a modicum of honesty here.

Quote
Now as far as violating the law, well congress passed a bill allowing indefinite detentions in some situations

You actually have no case. These are not open questions, where people can reasonably have differing views. Holding people in prison without charges is simply a violation of law (Hamdi v. Rumsfeld, 2004), (Hamdan v. Rumsfeld, 2006), (Boumediene v. Bush, 2008), (Rasul v. Bush, 2004). This is not an open dispute. End of story. The president may choose to release these people or to immediately charge them or to be impeached. There are no other options available.
Title: Re: State Of the Union
Post by: chitoryu12 on February 16, 2013, 12:29:14 am
Quote
Switzerland constitutes "a large number of prosperous first world countries". You said that more than one country requires people to purchase health care, in fact Switzerland is it. Every other (described) country has some sort of best-practice government health insurance program in place.

You still have yet to explain your point. I want to hear YOU in YOUR terms (this should be good) explain the Swiss and new American health care policies, and how they're inferior to others or what was previously in place. All you've done so far is make a few sentences (at most) of vague and occasionally meaningless text and expect me to be satisfied. I don't even know what your argument is yet! I don't even know if you HAVE an argument, rather than just babbling nonsensically.

Quote
Right. I think the US president is a powerful dictator, able to violate people's rights by chartering jet aircraft. You, however, believe in a democratic president limited by a constitution he can violate at will.

Try to keep a modicum of honesty here.

What.....okay, I still don't know what this is supposed to say. Do you actually speak English?

Quote
You actually have no case. These are not open questions, where people can reasonably have differing views. Holding people in prison without charges is simply a violation of law (Hamdi v. Rumsfeld, 2004), (Hamdan v. Rumsfeld, 2006), (Boumediene v. Bush, 2008), (Rasul v. Bush, 2004). This is not an open dispute. End of story. The president may choose to release these people or to immediately charge them or to be impeached. There are no other options available.

Hamdi v Rumsfeld: The Supreme Court recognized the power of the government to detain enemy combatants, including U.S. citizens, but ruled that detainees who are U.S. citizens must have the rights of due process, and the ability to challenge their enemy combatant status before an impartial authority. It's not what you say it says.

Hamdan v Rumsfeld: Held that President George W. Bush did not have authority to set up the war crimes tribunals and finding the special military commissions illegal under both military justice law and the Geneva Conventions. It's not what you say it says.

Boumediene v. Bush: The Supreme Court ruled that foreign detainees held by the United States, including those at Guantanamo Bay detention camp, have the right of habeas corpus under the US constitution, as the US had sole authority at the Guantanamo Bay base. It held that the 2006 Military Commissions Act was an unconstitutional suspension of that right. The Act was signed into law by Bush and was overturned by the Supreme Court. It was signed in an amended form in 2009 by Obama, and Obama appointees had actually attempted to include new rules that would have led to charges of murder being dropped from a third of Guantanamo detainees. It's not what you say it says.

Rasul v. Bush: Established that the U.S. court system has the authority to decide whether foreign nationals (non-U.S. citizens) held in Guantanamo Bay were wrongfully imprisoned. It's not what you say it says.

tl;dr You're wrong. This is not an opinion or an insult. You are quite simply contradictory to the facts, and therefore more wrong than you could possibly be without declaring that Obama is a ham sandwich.
Title: Re: State Of the Union
Post by: Lt. Fred on February 16, 2013, 12:33:26 am
Nonsense. You're simply lying.
Title: Re: State Of the Union
Post by: chitoryu12 on February 16, 2013, 01:38:47 am
Nonsense. You're simply lying.

...

Get the fuck out of here.
Title: Re: State Of the Union
Post by: chitoryu12 on February 16, 2013, 01:44:44 am
No, I'm serious. Get out.

I have rarely met anyone more blatantly dishonest than you. I posted text explaining exactly how you got your facts wrong, and you have no rebuttal but to accuse me of lying? If you'd bother to do five seconds of research, you'd be able to confirm exactly what I said. But that would involve admitting that you were wrong, wouldn't it? Can't have that!

You have no interest in debate. You only care about thinking that you're right. You have no place in any circle that actually values intelligence or reasoning or the ability to fucking use Google. You have simply spouted your mouth without care or knowledge of what you were saying.

Go find some other board to stink up with your ignorance.
Title: Re: State Of the Union
Post by: Witchyjoshy on February 16, 2013, 01:50:05 am
I would like to remind all of you here that personal attacks are best left to Flame and Burn.
Title: Re: State Of the Union
Post by: Lt. Fred on February 16, 2013, 02:26:40 am
Why make a response? You'll either claim not to be able to read it or tie yourself into knots to 'prove' that case law doesn't mean what it says. Or you might ask me to prove a red herring. I don't see the need to continue this.
Title: Re: State Of the Union
Post by: Witchyjoshy on February 16, 2013, 02:38:56 am
Nonsense. You're simply lying.

By the way, this is flame-baiting, Fred.

I'm going to let you off easy this time, but please refrain from provoking other people in this manner in the future.
Title: Re: State Of the Union
Post by: Lt. Fred on February 16, 2013, 03:12:01 am

Your conclusions were aggressively, offensively wrong. I apologise for flame-baiting (If that's what I did), I don't apologise for accurately describing your lying.
Title: Re: State Of the Union
Post by: chitoryu12 on February 16, 2013, 08:33:06 am
I'll let other people handle Lt. Fred from this point forward. I refuse to speak with him on principal as of now.
Title: Re: State Of the Union
Post by: m52nickerson on February 16, 2013, 10:11:04 am
Right. I think the US president is a powerful dictator, able to violate people's rights by chartering jet aircraft. You, however, believe in a democratic president limited by a constitution he can violate at will.

Try to keep a modicum of honesty here.

You again forget Congress and there role.  You simply do not understand the US government.

You actually have no case. These are not open questions, where people can reasonably have differing views. Holding people in prison without charges is simply a violation of law (Hamdi v. Rumsfeld, 2004), (Hamdan v. Rumsfeld, 2006), (Boumediene v. Bush, 2008), (Rasul v. Bush, 2004). This is not an open dispute. End of story. The president may choose to release these people or to immediately charge them or to be impeached. There are no other options available.

There is the current option, keep doing it until Congress says stop.  Who is that has the power to impeach the President of the United States?  It is not the Supreme Court.  So the court can make what ever ruling they like but unless the US Congress forces the President to do do it nothing will happen. 

Title: Re: State Of the Union
Post by: Lt. Fred on February 16, 2013, 07:52:43 pm
Right. I think the US president is a powerful dictator, able to violate people's rights by chartering jet aircraft. You, however, believe in a democratic president limited by a constitution he can violate at will.

Try to keep a modicum of honesty here.

You again forget Congress and there role. 

Congress, of course, has total power, including all executive power. The president is just a meaningless figurehead, without even the power to charter aircraft.

But it's me who doesn't understand US government, though.

You actually have no case. These are not open questions, where people can reasonably have differing views. Holding people in prison without charges is simply a violation of law (Hamdi v. Rumsfeld, 2004), (Hamdan v. Rumsfeld, 2006), (Boumediene v. Bush, 2008), (Rasul v. Bush, 2004). This is not an open dispute. End of story. The president may choose to release these people or to immediately charge them or to be impeached. There are no other options available.

There is the current option, keep doing it until Congress says stop. [/quote]

That option is not within the law.
Title: Re: State Of the Union
Post by: Lt. Fred on February 16, 2013, 07:56:08 pm
I will say one thing in defence of Obama: if he manages to get the minimum wage raised to a decent level, particularly if he manages to get that decent level permanently enshrined in legislation, he will have achieved at least one single seriously worthwhile thing to improve the lives of the American poor.
Title: Re: State Of the Union
Post by: m52nickerson on February 16, 2013, 11:16:00 pm
Congress, of course, has total power, including all executive power. The president is just a meaningless figurehead, without even the power to charter aircraft.

But it's me who doesn't understand US government, though.

As you have been told it is not just as easy as chartering a plane.  That being said chartering a plan would take money, which is controlled by congress.

So, no you don't understand.

That option is not within the law.

So?  If the law can't be enforced it is meaningless.  As long as Congress and the President are on the same page with indefinite detentions they will continue without legal repercussions.

At some point you will learn that laws, no matter what they are, are not absolutes.
Title: Re: State Of the Union
Post by: Lt. Fred on February 16, 2013, 11:56:31 pm
There is no conceivable institution in the universe powerful enough to hold to account the powerless figurehead called the president.
Title: Re: State Of the Union
Post by: ironbite on February 17, 2013, 02:09:24 am
Cept Congress.
Title: Re: State Of the Union
Post by: Lt. Fred on February 17, 2013, 02:47:18 am
Cept Congress.

No, but Congress can't, under any circumstances. For some reason.
Title: Re: State Of the Union
Post by: dpareja on February 17, 2013, 03:04:22 am
Cept Congress.

No, but Congress can't, under any circumstances. For some reason.

Impeachment and removal from office, veto overrides, refusing to ratify Presidential appointments, not passing laws to implement the President's agenda...
Title: Re: State Of the Union
Post by: Lt. Fred on February 17, 2013, 03:36:38 am
Cept Congress.

No, but Congress can't, under any circumstances. For some reason.

Impeachment and removal from office, veto overrides, refusing to ratify Presidential appointments, not passing laws to implement the President's agenda...

"The law can't be enforced..."
Title: Re: State Of the Union
Post by: Askold on February 17, 2013, 05:01:32 am
Cept Congress.

No, but Congress can't, under any circumstances. For some reason.

Impeachment and removal from office, veto overrides, refusing to ratify Presidential appointments, not passing laws to implement the President's agenda...

"The law can't be enforced..."

So what was it that happened to Clinton?
Title: Re: State Of the Union
Post by: Lt. Fred on February 17, 2013, 05:24:36 am
Cept Congress.

No, but Congress can't, under any circumstances. For some reason.

Impeachment and removal from office, veto overrides, refusing to ratify Presidential appointments, not passing laws to implement the President's agenda...

"The law can't be enforced..."

So what was it that happened to Clinton?

Ask m52nickerson
Title: Re: State Of the Union
Post by: m52nickerson on February 17, 2013, 09:37:04 am
No, but Congress can't, under any circumstances. For some reason.

I'm sorry that you can't understand the difference between "can't" and "won't".  I never said the Congress does not have the power, just that right now they are unwilling to use it because they agree with the President.

Try to follow along.
Title: Re: State Of the Union
Post by: Lt. Fred on February 17, 2013, 06:26:37 pm
No, but Congress can't, under any circumstances. For some reason.

I'm sorry that you can't understand the difference between "can't" and "won't".


... the law can't be enforced
Title: Re: State Of the Union
Post by: m52nickerson on February 17, 2013, 06:34:55 pm
No, but Congress can't, under any circumstances. For some reason.

I'm sorry that you can't understand the difference between "can't" and "won't".


... the law can't be enforced

Here is the entire quote you disingenuous ass.

That option is not within the law.

So?  If the law can't be enforced it is meaningless.  As long as Congress and the President are on the same page with indefinite detentions they will continue without legal repercussions.

At some point you will learn that laws, no matter what they are, are not absolutes.

I would type slower for you but I don't think it would help.  As long as congress is not willing to impeach the President for indefinite detentions the law against them can't be enforced, or will not be enforced.

Get it now or do you want to fail harder?
Title: Re: State Of the Union
Post by: rookie on February 17, 2013, 07:40:10 pm
Is Fred asking us to make a citizens arrest of the sitting president?
Title: Re: State Of the Union
Post by: ironbite on February 18, 2013, 12:14:42 am
Yes.

Ironbite-yes he is.
Title: Re: State Of the Union
Post by: Askold on February 18, 2013, 01:54:23 am
lt.Fred, you are really coming out as an asshole in this thread. The fact that you disagree with other people is not a problem but your attitude and the way you seem to want to pick a fight is getting on my nerves.


Yes.

Ironbite-yes he is.

Fred is ironbite? THIS CHANGES EVERYTHING!
Title: Re: State Of the Union
Post by: Material Defender on February 18, 2013, 03:13:37 pm
President enforces laws via diplomacy, military force, and yada, yada. The supreme court interprets the law. The Congress makes the law. They have certain oversight abilities over one another, like the President can't ignore congress' laws, President can veto, Supreme court can declare things against the constitution.

The President is a very important politically due to traditional upgrades of the power of the president because of people like FDR, Theodore Roosevelt, Lincoln, but at the barest definition of the law, President is ONLY the head diplomat and head of the military. His political power comes from the tradition and prestige of the position, a little from his vetos. Though some, like Thomas Jefferson didn't believe in vetos so they never used it. Otherwise he's relatively powerless. I know that Trail of Tears was caused by Jackson ignoring that the Supreme Court ordered him to protect the Cherokee and he said no, letting Georgia do what it wanted. That's really only case where the power of the President was directly under his jurisdiction I know of off hand.

Though I think Lt. Fred hates America... sooo.
Title: Re: State Of the Union
Post by: dpareja on February 18, 2013, 03:36:49 pm
Another thing the President can do is make nominations for the federal courts. The Senate has to ratify them, but they can only consider people whom the President has put forward.
Title: Re: State Of the Union
Post by: Lt. Fred on February 18, 2013, 08:16:24 pm
Is there another country in the history of the world where citizens routinely accuse critics of hating their land? The Soviet Union was the only other I can think of- Israel, maybe? Did Britain or Rome do the same thing? Is it an Imperial thing?

I think it's quite fascinating. Completely irrational, of course, but fascinating.
Title: Re: State Of the Union
Post by: m52nickerson on February 18, 2013, 08:48:16 pm
Is there another country in the history of the world where citizens routinely accuse critics of hating their land? The Soviet Union was the only other I can think of- Israel, maybe? Did Britain or Rome do the same thing? Is it an Imperial thing?

I think it's quite fascinating. Completely irrational, of course, but fascinating.

Not all critics, just irrational ones that don't understand how the government they are criticizing works.

This is a nice cop-out from a debate in which you got so desperate that you resorted in blatant dishonesty.  When you do that people assume that you hate the US because they know you are smart enough to understand what you are doing.

I think you just can't stand the fact that people in the US, or anyone, does not share your views.  The thing is the vast majority of people in the US don't.  The reason the US government gets away with things like indefinite detentions, drone strikes, and torture is because enough people in this country don't care or agree with those things in the situations they are done.

I think you hate the "cowboy" mentality of the US.  The thinking that there are good guys and bad guys and that taking care of the bad guys sometimes means going against the letter of the law.  You hate that no one can stop the US from doing such because of who we are.

Deal with it.
Title: Re: State Of the Union
Post by: davedan on February 18, 2013, 09:26:20 pm
Fred does raise an interesting point. Many times when being evenly reasonably critical of the US, the response is 'you hate America' or 'that's just because you hate america'.  Although it is part of your cultural export because we get it here now to, with : "if you don't love it, LEAVE".  Which I find petulant.

Title: Re: State Of the Union
Post by: Itachirumon on February 18, 2013, 09:36:00 pm
Fred does raise an interesting point. Many times when being evenly reasonably critical of the US, the response is 'you hate America' or 'that's just because you hate america'.  Although it is part of your cultural export because we get it here now to, with : "if you don't love it, LEAVE".  Which I find petulant.



You find it petulant because that mentality 'is' petulant.
Title: Re: State Of the Union
Post by: m52nickerson on February 18, 2013, 09:42:21 pm
Fred does raise an interesting point. Many times when being evenly reasonably critical of the US, the response is 'you hate America' or 'that's just because you hate america'.  Although it is part of your cultural export because we get it here now to, with : "if you don't love it, LEAVE".  Which I find petulant.

Sure, that happens all the time from your standard Redneck contingent, but here?  It takes a lot more than criticism of the US to get a "you hate America" tag.

Of course the fun of all this is pointing out to Ltfred when the Australian government has done the same thing he is criticizing the US government of doing and watch him lose it.
Title: Re: State Of the Union
Post by: nickiknack on February 18, 2013, 09:50:23 pm
Fred does raise an interesting point. Many times when being evenly reasonably critical of the US, the response is 'you hate America' or 'that's just because you hate america'.  Although it is part of your cultural export because we get it here now to, with : "if you don't love it, LEAVE".  Which I find petulant.

What is worse is the whole "the US is #1" bs, meanwhile the rest of the 1st world nations are far ahead of us.
Title: Re: State Of the Union
Post by: Witchyjoshy on February 18, 2013, 10:06:36 pm
Fred does raise an interesting point. Many times when being evenly reasonably critical of the US, the response is 'you hate America' or 'that's just because you hate america'.  Although it is part of your cultural export because we get it here now to, with : "if you don't love it, LEAVE".  Which I find petulant.

Sure, that happens all the time from your standard Redneck contingent, but here?  It takes a lot more than criticism of the US to get a "you hate America" tag.

I'm not usually one to agree with Nickerson on things, but he has a point here.

Fred's been pretty... off in this thread.  Quote mining is a pretty base tactic that I don't normally expect people here to use.  And it was disappointing to see.
Title: Re: State Of the Union
Post by: Lt. Fred on February 18, 2013, 10:11:13 pm
Of course the fun of all this is pointing out to Ltfred when the Australian government has done the same thing he is criticizing the US government of doing

The Australian government routinely throws people in prison without charges in violation of law?

You could almost say that you don't understand Australian law.
Title: Re: State Of the Union
Post by: Rabbit of Caerbannog on February 18, 2013, 10:26:56 pm
Fred does raise an interesting point. Many times when being evenly reasonably critical of the US, the response is 'you hate America' or 'that's just because you hate america'.  Although it is part of your cultural export because we get it here now to, with : "if you don't love it, LEAVE".  Which I find petulant.

Sure, that happens all the time from your standard Redneck contingent, but here?  It takes a lot more than criticism of the US to get a "you hate America" tag.

I'm not usually one to agree with Nickerson on things, but he has a point here.

Fred's been pretty... off in this thread.  Quote mining is a pretty base tactic that I don't normally expect people here to use.  And it was disappointing to see.
Zachski is disappoint. See what this thread has come to now?
Title: Re: State Of the Union
Post by: m52nickerson on February 18, 2013, 10:46:28 pm
The Australian government routinely throws people in prison without charges in violation of law?

You could almost say that you don't understand Australian law.

Well I don't think it is against Australian law but they do have mandatory detention, which can be indefinite.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mandatory_detention_in_Australia  (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mandatory_detention_in_Australia)

...but I was not specifically talking about detentions, I was thinking more of torture.  While the Aussies seem not to like to get there hands dirty they will help the CIA do it...

http://www.motherjones.com/mojo/2013/02/report-54-countries-helped-cia-torture-detain-transport-suspects-after-911 (http://www.motherjones.com/mojo/2013/02/report-54-countries-helped-cia-torture-detain-transport-suspects-after-911)

...and they are willing to pay others to do it...

http://www.smh.com.au/world/australia-paying-troops-who-torture-20100912-1571d.html (http://www.smh.com.au/world/australia-paying-troops-who-torture-20100912-1571d.html)

Title: Re: State Of the Union
Post by: Witchyjoshy on February 18, 2013, 10:53:55 pm
Fred does raise an interesting point. Many times when being evenly reasonably critical of the US, the response is 'you hate America' or 'that's just because you hate america'.  Although it is part of your cultural export because we get it here now to, with : "if you don't love it, LEAVE".  Which I find petulant.

Sure, that happens all the time from your standard Redneck contingent, but here?  It takes a lot more than criticism of the US to get a "you hate America" tag.

I'm not usually one to agree with Nickerson on things, but he has a point here.

Fred's been pretty... off in this thread.  Quote mining is a pretty base tactic that I don't normally expect people here to use.  And it was disappointing to see.
Zachski is disappoint. See what this thread has come to now?

ONE MILLION YEAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAARSSSS DUNGEON!
Title: Re: State Of the Union
Post by: Lt. Fred on February 18, 2013, 10:56:15 pm
Drawing a fairly long bow there, m52nickerson.

Mandatory detention, which I detest, is not illegal under Australian domestic law. More's the pity. I recognise that many people disagree, and so we have it. Since it doesn't violate any laws, our government has that choice. That does not mean that a government has a choice to violate law, it simply must not.

In terms of torture, again I agree that my government's actions have been pretty disgusting. I couldn't tell you about the legal side, but I think they shouldn't have done what they did legal or not.

Or were you expecting me to hypocritically defend my own government regardless of merit, as you have?
Title: Re: State Of the Union
Post by: m52nickerson on February 19, 2013, 08:28:42 pm
Drawing a fairly long bow there, m52nickerson.

Mandatory detention, which I detest, is not illegal under Australian domestic law. More's the pity. I recognise that many people disagree, and so we have it. Since it doesn't violate any laws, our government has that choice. That does not mean that a government has a choice to violate law, it simply must not.

In terms of torture, again I agree that my government's actions have been pretty disgusting. I couldn't tell you about the legal side, but I think they shouldn't have done what they did legal or not.

Or were you expecting me to hypocritically defend my own government regardless of merit, as you have?

I half expected you to call these lies and ignore them.

The US government, as all governments that have the power and the will, have the option of indefinite detentions regardless of there laws.  Breaking the law is always and option.  It does not matter if you like it or not, or if you think governments must not, they can and do.

In the end it really does not matter to the people being held if a government is doing it against their own laws, or they codify such acts to make certain people feel better.  Nor do I.
Title: Re: State Of the Union
Post by: Lt. Fred on February 20, 2013, 02:23:57 am
For instance, launching a military coup is "and (sic) option", if you think it's in the best interests of everyone. Shooting political protesters is "and (sic) option". Spying on political opponents is "and (sic) option". Outright bribery is "and option".

There's obviously no need for any sort of political absolute, we can just trust everyone not to do anything wrong. Of course.
Title: Re: State Of the Union
Post by: m52nickerson on February 21, 2013, 07:18:01 pm
For instance, launching a military coup is "and (sic) option", if you think it's in the best interests of everyone. Shooting political protesters is "and (sic) option". Spying on political opponents is "and (sic) option". Outright bribery is "and option".

There's obviously no need for any sort of political absolute, we can just trust everyone not to do anything wrong. Of course.

There is no such thing as a political absolute. 

Yes, all those things are options.  A person just has to be willing to deal with the consequences of taking such an option.  They become even better options when there is going to be little consequence.
Title: Re: State Of the Union
Post by: Lt. Fred on February 21, 2013, 07:55:36 pm
Awesome. Almost unbelievable.
Title: Re: State Of the Union
Post by: ironbite on February 21, 2013, 11:48:00 pm
We've been saying that about you for years.
Title: Re: State Of the Union
Post by: Lt. Fred on February 22, 2013, 02:12:52 am
I literally asked "do you think the government should be allowed to end democracy or perhaps murder someone," and the answer was yes. No consideration of moral concerns; just might makes right.
Title: Re: State Of the Union
Post by: Witchyjoshy on February 22, 2013, 03:37:36 am
I literally asked "do you think the government should be allowed to end democracy or perhaps murder someone," and the answer was yes. No consideration of moral concerns; just might makes right.

What?
Title: Re: State Of the Union
Post by: Askold on February 22, 2013, 03:52:36 am
I thought that m52nickerson meant it as: "Even a legally elected goverment might decide to break the laws and/or become a tyranny, just like a random person on the street might decide to kick puppies and steal candy from kids." I don't think he ever said that it would be a good thing or acceptable. Just that they could try to do that (I suppose that in a democracy there should be people, judges and organisations to stop them but if you look at history this has not stopped dictator from doing it in the past.)

And I kinda agree with that. Any given day I have the option of trying to get rid of my financial troubles by robberies, forgeries or other illegal activities. But I don't take that option. And seriously, the only thing stopping me is myself. Nothing stopping me from trying that is, my success in criminal activities is another matter since that cold be prevented by the police for example. Just like, if for ecxample, the US goverment would hypotethically decide to imprison people without a trial or torture prisoners or something then their internal safety mechanisms (supreme court, congress, people no longer voting for asshats who support torture etc.) should kick in and stop them. And I suppose soldiers who refuse to obey illegal orders would also prevent such atrocities.
Title: Re: State Of the Union
Post by: Lt. Fred on February 22, 2013, 08:12:46 am
Okay, I'll ask Mc52 again:

Do you think it is wrong for a government to murder people if they think that is the best thing to do?
Title: Re: State Of the Union
Post by: m52nickerson on February 22, 2013, 07:21:42 pm
I literally asked "do you think the government should be allowed to end democracy or perhaps murder someone," and the answer was yes. No consideration of moral concerns; just might makes right.

No you asked if those were options, which they are if a government is strong enough to do them.  That does not mean I think it is right.

I really should have PMed someone before your post because I knew you were going to use that "might makes right" slogan.  You've tried to say this is my argument before and you have never been right.

Might does not make right.  Right and wrong is subjective.  Very often might does make reality.  The whole reason the US can do just about what ever the hell it wants, right or wrong, is because no one is going to stop us.

Okay, I'll ask Mc52 again:
Do you think it is wrong for a government to murder people if they think that is the best thing to do?

It all depends on the situation.  If you are talking about killing people in groups like Al-Qaeda I'm most likely going to be okay with it.

LtFred, I'm also going to ask that if you quote me in your signature you not add things I did not say.
Title: Re: State Of the Union
Post by: Lt. Fred on February 23, 2013, 02:25:56 am
Oh, I'm sorry. I thought you were on topic when responding to my post, an assumption I never should have made. I should have know that you'd pick some trivial point to hammer on again. My mistake.


Let's talk about something substantive. Do you think it is immoral for the government to break the law in the public interest?
Title: Re: State Of the Union
Post by: Witchyjoshy on February 23, 2013, 03:27:28 am
Oh, I'm sorry. I thought you were on topic when responding to my post, an assumption I never should have made. I should have know that you'd pick some trivial point to hammer on again. My mistake.

Fred, what the hell is this?  What are you doing?

First the quote mining (which you still haven't acknowledged) and now this random crap and accusations and rampant strawmen all over the place.

You are not being a good debater here.  This is becoming the debate equivalent of button-mashing in Street Fighter.

Stop it.
Title: Re: State Of the Union
Post by: Rabbit of Caerbannog on February 23, 2013, 08:53:12 am
...are we still doing this?  ???
Title: Re: State Of the Union
Post by: m52nickerson on February 23, 2013, 09:27:03 am
Let's talk about something substantive. Do you think it is immoral for the government to break the law in the public interest?

Again it depends on the situation but sometimes I think it is necessary for goverment to break the law to serve the public interest.  You can never foresee every situation when writing a law.
Title: Re: State Of the Union
Post by: Distind on February 23, 2013, 04:07:02 pm
Oh, I'm sorry. I thought you were on topic when responding to my post, an assumption I never should have made. I should have know that you'd pick some trivial point to hammer on again. My mistake.


Let's talk about something substantive. Do you think it is immoral for the government to break the law in the public interest?
Honestly after this bit I'm surprised they aren't calling you a troll.

If you're going to completely re-write someone's quote, don't frame it as if they said it. This is bullshit:
"I do think that sometimes laws can and should be ignored when it serves to protect people, (for instance, by shooting them"

It's easily noted that he's referring to the legal indefinite detention measures(constitutional or not, it's technically legally until the laws which were passed are struck down).

Extenuating circumstances exist in the legal arena, there will always be some time where violating the law would be the moral thing to do, even if the law is normally a decent one.

Moderation Note
Consider this an offical warning under violation of "Don't be a dick". Your signature has been modified to include the full quote, feel free to remove it entirely if you wish to.
Title: Re: State Of the Union
Post by: Saturn500 on February 23, 2013, 04:16:41 pm
You are not being a good debater here.  This is becoming the debate equivalent of button-mashing in Street Fighter.

It's also becoming similar to credit-feeding your way through a shmup, or driving into a wall repeatedly in a racing game, or...
Title: Re: State Of the Union
Post by: Lt. Fred on February 23, 2013, 05:24:41 pm
Let's talk about something substantive. Do you think it is immoral for the government to break the law in the public interest?

Again it depends on the situation but sometimes I think it is necessary for goverment to break the law to serve the public interest.  You can never foresee every situation when writing a law.

Any law?
Title: Re: State Of the Union
Post by: m52nickerson on February 23, 2013, 08:23:56 pm
Let's talk about something substantive. Do you think it is immoral for the government to break the law in the public interest?

Again it depends on the situation but sometimes I think it is necessary for goverment to break the law to serve the public interest.  You can never foresee every situation when writing a law.

Any law?

Most likely.  For just about any law a person can think of a reason it would make sense to break it.  Laws are not perfect if for no other reason than the people that write them are not perfect.
Title: Re: State Of the Union
Post by: Lt. Fred on February 23, 2013, 08:51:09 pm
I'll ask again: do you think it is moral for the government to break any law if it argues that doing so serves the public interest? If there are exceptions, give them in full.
Title: Re: State Of the Union
Post by: Osama bin Bambi on February 23, 2013, 08:58:11 pm
I'll ask again: do you think it is moral for the government to break any law if it argues that doing so serves the public interest? If there are exceptions, give them in full.

He just answered you. Back off.
Title: Re: State Of the Union
Post by: Lt. Fred on February 23, 2013, 09:01:42 pm
I have two problems with his current response: firstly, that I feel he's largely ignored the substantive point (morality) in order to hammer on nonsense again (can it be done). Also, he's said that he considers some exceptions to be acceptable, but hasn't enumerated them. I want a list. I also want to talk about substance, not nonsense.
Title: Re: State Of the Union
Post by: Witchyjoshy on February 23, 2013, 09:15:20 pm
No.

He answered your question.  In full.  On the other hand, you've been very, very selectively ignoring many many things, from many people here.

Back off.  I've had enough of you intentionally misinterpreting other people's posts, and taking them out of context, to suit your own agenda.
Title: Re: State Of the Union
Post by: Osama bin Bambi on February 23, 2013, 09:28:13 pm
I have two problems with his current response: firstly, that I feel he's largely ignored the substantive point (morality) in order to hammer on nonsense again (can it be done). Also, he's said that he considers some exceptions to be acceptable, but hasn't enumerated them. I want a list. I also want to talk about substance, not nonsense.

You specifically asked m52 if he believed it was immoral for the government to break the law in the public interest?

m52 responded that when evaluating the morality of such an action, it must be taken on a case-by-case basis (hence his comment about exceptions). When he wrote that it can be "necessary" to break the law in some situations, he was speaking of not just practical necessity, but moral necessity, because the debate assumes that the practical and moral purpose of government is to protect its citizens. This is an unquestionably valid response.

You then asked specifically if the government could break "any law" in the interest of protecting the public. While this is arguably just a rephrasing of the original question, m52 answered it anyway, saying that it was "most likely" that for each law there would be "reasons why it would make sense to break it." In other words, it is most likely true that for every law there is a hypothetical situation where it is more moral to break the law than to follow it.

I find nothing wrong with m52's responses, but I would ask you to please reevaluate your reading comprehension.
Title: Re: State Of the Union
Post by: Lt. Fred on February 23, 2013, 09:45:20 pm
Okay, I'll modify my question:

Do you think it is moral for the government to break any law if it argues that doing so serves the public interest? If there are exceptions, give them in full. Also, if there are any conditions under which laws should not be broken (where the government argues that doing so is in the public interest) give them in full, or a reasonable summary (three would do, I think).
Title: Re: State Of the Union
Post by: ironbite on February 23, 2013, 09:59:36 pm
STOP ASKING THE SAME QUESTION DIFFERENT WAYS!

Ironbite-jesus christ.
Title: Re: State Of the Union
Post by: Osama bin Bambi on February 23, 2013, 10:00:59 pm
Okay, I'll modify my question:

Do you think it is moral for the government to break any law if it argues that doing so serves the public interest? If there are exceptions, give them in full. Also, if there are any conditions under which laws should not be broken (where the government argues that doing so is in the public interest) give them in full, or a reasonable summary (three would do, I think).

You are simply restating the same question because you don't like m52's answer. Knock it off and move on.

Also, you can't possibly expect someone to list every single law and think of a situation where it is moral to break it. Be reasonable and specific.
Title: Re: State Of the Union
Post by: m52nickerson on February 23, 2013, 10:17:52 pm
Okay, I'll modify my question:

Do you think it is moral for the government to break any law if it argues that doing so serves the public interest? If there are exceptions, give them in full. Also, if there are any conditions under which laws should not be broken (where the government argues that doing so is in the public interest) give them in full, or a reasonable summary (three would do, I think).

Again it depends on the situation.  The actual situation and not just what the government says.  So you could have a case where it seems like there is a moral justification but as more information comes out that justifications goes away.

In a country like the US where the people pick the leaders there has to exist some type of trust in those leader to make such calls and give the people know as much information as they can.

As for you requests for lists you will have to narrow it down to a specific set of laws or situations.  Even then it will be hard to make any set in stone rules.  Welcome to the world, nothing is black and white.
Title: Re: State Of the Union
Post by: rookie on February 24, 2013, 10:33:01 am
Fred, you're going somewhere with your line of questioning. You've been here too long for most of us not to realize that. So let me ask you this. What law are you thinking of where there would be no moral reason to ever break regardless of any hypothetical circumstances?