|
|
| |
Forum Overview
::
Motherfucking News
|
| |
|
by I need clarification 05/29/2003, 3:35am PDT |
|
 |
|
 |
|
I (and everyone else) can see you're far more interested in "winning by attrition" than in actually being correct about anything, so I'm going to join the rest of the planet in ignoring most the drivel David Frum is manipulating your mouth to make it say, and just make two points. I'm sticking to the numbers thing because they're so goddamned fun!
1. Your argument that the War on Terrorism is merely a term of convenience and not to be taken literally except by exceedingly stupid people may be correct. The bad news is, most people in elected (or whatever) public office are exceedingly stupid (the good news is this means you have a very good shot at being the head of public works of whatever little town you call home). The point is this: the phrase means exactly what it allows those in office to do. You apparently only understand obvious examples, so I'll provide the most salient. The War on Drugs has been one marked by spectacular failure. Dreamed up by Richard Nixon and carried forth by idiots from both parties, it has been used as a rallying cry behind the most severe erosion of our constitutional (there's that word you hate again!) rights since the Civil War. Forfeiture law, search and seizure, self-incrimination, attorney-client privilege - all of these have been eradicated or lessened severely as a result of this ridiculous, unwinnable war.
I say the "War on Terror" is equally unwinnable. in the sense that there will ALWAYS be someone out there who wants to kill us. And just like the similarly unending War on Drugs, this new national endeavor can and already has been used to facilitate acts of government and the passage of legislation that during the Cold War would have been unthinkable. Unlawful detainment, denial of counsel, illegal wiretapping and eavesdropping. And that's just in the first two years! As we've seen from the War on Drugs, the real damage doesn't set in until legislators and executives understand the leeway they will be given to remake the constitution (oops, said it again) as they see fit.
Here's another example: the decision of the Supreme Court in Roe vs. Wade was not one of defending the legality of women to make a choice about their bodies. It was one defending the right to privacy granted every citizen of the United States. Many anti-abortion activists (legislators among them) are now assailing the decision as defending a right that doesn't exist in the constitution. I suppose that's a matter for proper debate, but here's what JUST MIGHT happen. The dems in the senate currently have made it clear they will use a candidate's stand on abortion as a litmus test when considering all nominees for federal judgeships, including, of course, the Supreme Court. This is in response to Bush's consistent nomination of hard-right candidates. Is it unimaginable that the following dialog could take place:
Dem Senator: Your honor, what is your opinion of the right granted women to terminate pregnancy in the Roe vs. Wade decision?
Candidate: I believe the decision has been made, that is the law, and it is my duty to uphold it.
Dem Senator: But do you agree with the decision?
Candidate: I'm not comfortable answering that question. It is not my duty to agree or disagree with the Supreme Court.
GOP Senator: Do you think there is a right to privacy granted by the constitution?
Candidate: That has been the interpretation, yes.
GOP Senator: Even in the face of the current world climate, when our country is almost certainly being threatened by terrorist elements from within, perhaps even by its own citizens?
Candidate: I can see, in that case, that perhaps the need for national security might outweigh the right to privacy.
GOP Senator: So, what you're saying is that the right to privacy isn't as sacrosanct, as, say, the right to free speech...
and so on, etc. That kind of erosion is very real. Just ask anyone who has had their car or home searched or siezed in the last 30 years.
Lizard_King wrote:
Actually, I think I have made my vision for what America's foreign policy should be more than clear: stabilization of the middle east through gradual regime change and the ensuing economic growth. Your only rebuttal seems to consist of vague predictions of doom (and personal attacks). How about this...what exactly would you do differently, if like you were in charge? I know you leftists love to critique, but how often do you actually offer alternate solutions? At least SB tries...your ideology seems founded on simply knocking the status quo without offering a concrete replacement.
2. I agree with gradual regime change in the middle east. I just wish our administration would show as much interest in that as they do in bombing. Or am I mistaking Hamid Karzai for a unifying force in Afghanistan, and all of the violence currently brewing there as really just a big celebration of America's virtues?
|
|
 |
|
 |
|
|
|
| |
War on Terror may create World of Terror says Rumsfeld. by Fussbett 05/24/2003, 1:20pm PDT 
Re: War on Terror may create World of Terror says Rumsfeld. by Mh 05/24/2003, 6:40pm PDT 
I thought we got rid of terror when we invaded Iraq! NT by The Ironic One 05/24/2003, 6:53pm PDT 
One day this war on terror is going to end :( NT by Col. Kilgore 05/24/2003, 8:43pm PDT 
Re: War on Terror may create World of Terror says Rumsfeld. by Lizard_King 05/25/2003, 3:28pm PDT 
I'll keep this simple by fag packet 05/26/2003, 3:08am PDT 
Re: I'll keep this simple by fag packet 05/26/2003, 3:18am PDT 
Terrorism won when we declared the war on it and passed the Patriot Act by Senor Barborito 05/26/2003, 4:48pm PDT 
Example by Senor Barborito 05/26/2003, 8:41pm PDT 
Re: Example by Jhoh Creexul 05/26/2003, 10:22pm PDT 
Re: Terrorism won when we declared the war on it and passed the Patriot Act by Lizard_King 05/27/2003, 3:10am PDT 
I'll grant the first, actually, but not the second by Senor Barborito 05/27/2003, 6:50am PDT 
Re: I'll grant the first, actually, but not the second by Lizard_King 05/27/2003, 8:45pm PDT 
Re: I'll keep this simple by Lizard_King 05/27/2003, 3:03am PDT 
Re: I'll keep this simple by I need clarification 05/27/2003, 3:50am PDT 
Holy fuck I agree with you and Fussbett both?! NT by Senor Barborito 05/27/2003, 6:57am PDT 
I'll keep this extra simple for INC's sake. by Lizard_King 05/27/2003, 8:32pm PDT 
EVERYTHING you say is exceedingly simple, moron. It's in your DNA. by I need clarification 05/27/2003, 9:25pm PDT 
Re: EVERYTHING you say is exceedingly simple, moron. It's in your DNA. by Lizard_King 05/28/2003, 2:18am PDT 
Just a nit... by Chairman Mao 05/28/2003, 2:25am PDT 
Re: Just a nit... by foogla 05/28/2003, 3:23am PDT 
Re: Just a nit... by Lizard_King 05/28/2003, 6:10pm PDT 
Yeah I thought you'd say something like that. NT by Chairman Mao 05/28/2003, 6:31pm PDT 
You're (still) boring by I need clarification 05/29/2003, 3:35am PDT 
Re: You're (still) boring by Lizard_King 05/30/2003, 1:16pm PDT 
Jesus, you're fucking predictable. And boring. by Satire 05/30/2003, 2:19pm PDT 
Doh! I mean NT by I need clarification 05/30/2003, 5:46pm PDT 
Thanks NT by I need clarification 05/30/2003, 6:18pm PDT 
Re: Jesus, you're fucking predictable. And boring. by Lizard_King 05/30/2003, 11:15pm PDT 
I win!! You ARE boring! by I need clarification 05/31/2003, 2:00am PDT 
You fucking idiot. by Lizard_King 05/31/2003, 1:31pm PDT 
Re: You fucking idiot. by foogla 05/31/2003, 3:10pm PDT 
Re: You fucking idiot. by Lizard_King 05/31/2003, 11:48pm PDT 
I need smileys by foogla 06/01/2003, 6:15am PDT 
fixed last quote by foogla 06/01/2003, 6:16am PDT 
Re: fixed last quote by Lizard_King 06/01/2003, 12:11pm PDT 
Re: fixed last quote by foogla 06/01/2003, 2:57pm PDT 
Man, you really stick to the playbook, don't you? by I need clarification 05/31/2003, 5:51pm PDT 
As usual, your "arguments" are disappointing and trite. by Lizard_King 05/31/2003, 11:38pm PDT 
fucked up the quotes above. NT by Lizard_King 05/31/2003, 11:39pm PDT 
Fucked up the argument above as well. HA! by I need clarification 06/01/2003, 2:34am PDT 
Pitiful. Your posts are just getting worse. by Lizard_King 06/01/2003, 12:00pm PDT 
Re: Pitiful. Your posts are just getting worse. by fag packet 06/01/2003, 9:11pm PDT 
Unfortunately by Senor Barborito 06/02/2003, 12:12am PDT 
Re: Pitiful. Your posts are just getting worse. by Lizard_King 06/02/2003, 10:25pm PDT 
Deep sigh by fag packet 06/03/2003, 3:36am PDT 
Well, I'm glad we cleared at least part of that up. by Lizard_King 06/03/2003, 2:57pm PDT 
You have ONE unheard messages. To hear new messages, click here. by I need clarification 06/01/2003, 11:31pm PDT 
Re: You have ONE unheard messages. To hear new messages, click here. by Lizard_King 06/02/2003, 10:14pm PDT 
Mind if I chime in here? by Senor Barborito 06/02/2003, 10:28pm PDT 
Re: Mind if I chime in here? by Lizard_King 06/02/2003, 11:30pm PDT 
Re: You have ONE unheard messages. To hear new messages, click here. by Lizard_King 06/02/2003, 10:26pm PDT 
Re: I'll keep this simple by Fussbett 05/27/2003, 4:18am PDT 
What a pouty child you are by Diotallevi 05/27/2003, 7:39pm PDT 
Thanks for addressing that portion so effectively. NT by Lizard_King 05/27/2003, 8:46pm PDT 
...and thank YOU for reponding to yourself. NT by Nick Detective... still holding out 05/27/2003, 8:54pm PDT 
Fag. Keep trying, though. NT by Lizard_King 05/27/2003, 9:08pm PDT 
Dear Cocksucker by fag packet 05/28/2003, 9:13pm PDT 
Dear Shit Drinker by Lizard_King 05/30/2003, 1:21pm PDT 
Re: Dear Shit Drinker by John Ashcroft 05/30/2003, 1:45pm PDT 
"Enterprize"? OMFG clever RFOFLOFL NT by Excited commie shitheads everywhere 05/30/2003, 11:18pm PDT 
We Are No More. by Higher Standards 05/31/2003, 3:25am PDT 
And, cunt - by fag packet 05/28/2003, 9:38pm PDT 
Dio you rule by Steve Lollerson 2 06/04/2003, 11:26am PDT 
Re: War on Terror may create World of Terror says Rumsfeld. by foogla 05/27/2003, 6:56am PDT 
U.S. to Planet: Suck our collective dick. by Moab 05/27/2003, 8:04am PDT 
So by Senor Barborito 05/27/2003, 8:12am PDT 
Re: So by Moab 05/27/2003, 8:23am PDT 
Switzerland? We could be like the Von Trapp family with more dicksucking! by Senor Barborito 05/27/2003, 8:32am PDT 
Ok, I give up. NT by NT Helper 05/27/2003, 9:32am PDT 
You realize I'm trolling you at this point, right? by Senor Barborito 05/27/2003, 9:35am PDT 
That's why I gave up. by NT Helper 05/27/2003, 9:39am PDT 
|
|
| |
|
| |