McCain's Electability

okie wrote:

Thomas, so now do you think a soldier must read a bomber his rights and inform him of his right to a lawyer before he takes him into custody in Afghanistan?

No I don't. Neither does the Supreme Court. You are bashing a strawman, suggesting that you know your opinion cannot stand on its true merits.

okie wrote:

Among the effects of stupidity in the courts, will be more dead people on the battlefield, instead of people taken into custody.

We'll find out. Let's wait for a year and then make a body count.

okie wrote:

This Gitmo issue is only one of many that the libs are dead wrong on, and if McCain would explain it, most people would see the obvious.

I encourage you to continue believing this. Murphy forbid the Republican party makes a reality check and choose a platform they can win elections with!

0 Replies

"But I venture the challenging statement that if American democracy ceases to move forward as a living force, seeking day and night by peaceful means to better the lot of our citizens, then Fascism and Communism, aided, unconsciously perhaps, by old-line Tory Republicanism, will grow in strength in our land."

Franklin D. Roosevelt, November 4, 1938

0 Replies

Thomas wrote:

Murphy forbid the Republican party makes a reality check and choose a platform they can win elections with!

They did. His name is John McCain. The further Right you get from McCain, the worse Republicans chances get. Okie's brain (Rush?) doesn't seem to be able to process this.

0 Replies

Quote:

The most dishonest man we ever had in the presidency.

Barry Goldwater made this statement twice, once referring to Lyndon Johnson and once referring to Richard Nixon.

0 Replies

dyslexia wrote:

"But I venture the challenging statement that if American democracy ceases to move forward as a living force, seeking day and night by peaceful means to better the lot of our citizens, then Fascism and Communism, aided, unconsciously perhaps, by old-line Tory Republicanism, will grow in strength in our land."

Franklin D. Roosevelt, November 4, 1938

That from a man that placed tens of thousands of American citizens in concentration camps, dys.

0 Replies

Thomas wrote:

okie wrote:
Thomas, so now do you think a soldier must read a bomber his rights and inform him of his right to a lawyer before he takes him into custody in Afghanistan?

No I don't. Neither does the Supreme Court. You are bashing a strawman, suggesting that you know your opinion cannot stand on its true merits.

How do you know, Thomas? I am no lawyer, but it appears to me that the rights just granted enemy combatants by the court is a slippery slope to all the rights of a normal citizen of this country. I would also remind you that any time you grant rights to people that do not deserve it as defined by the law under the constitution, you have just diluted the rights of those that do deserve it and are covered by the law according to the constitution.

Quote:

okie wrote:
Among the effects of stupidity in the courts, will be more dead people on the battlefield, instead of people taken into custody.

We'll find out. Let's wait for a year and then make a body count.

I know you aren't a supreme court justice, but if you were, are you willing to take responsibility for the deaths of combatants, plus any future catastrophe now deemed more likely by many many people? I, for one, would never want that responsibility.

Quote:

okie wrote:
This Gitmo issue is only one of many that the libs are dead wrong on, and if McCain would explain it, most people would see the obvious.

I encourage you to continue believing this. Murphy forbid the Republican party makes a reality check and choose a platform they can win elections with!

I don't care as much about winning elections as I do being correct and right on principles, Thomas. There are always more elections than the next one, and if you compromise principles too much, you have essentially compromised what you are and what you stand for that endure far past the next election.

0 Replies

okie wrote:

dyslexia wrote:
"But I venture the challenging statement that if American democracy ceases to move forward as a living force, seeking day and night by peaceful means to better the lot of our citizens, then Fascism and Communism, aided, unconsciously perhaps, by old-line Tory Republicanism, will grow in strength in our land."

Franklin D. Roosevelt, November 4, 1938

That from a man that placed tens of thousands of American citizens in concentration camps, dys.

Definitely a back mark on our history there Okie, I'm a bit surprised you include such but then FDR was a dem wasn't he?

0 Replies

okie wrote:

I know you aren't a supreme court justice, but if you were, are you willing to take responsibility for the deaths of combatants, plus any future catastrophe now deemed more likely by many many people? I, for one, would never want that responsibility.

Of course I would. This responsibility rests on anyone who serves at the top of the federal government: the president and his secretaries, the members of Congress, and, yes, the Supreme Court justices. All of them make decisions that may get Americans killed. It comes with the territory. If that's more heat than you can stand, stay out of the kitchen. (Which you do.)

0 Replies

Cycloptichorn wrote:

If the 'industry' could be relied upon to do the right thing, instead of the profitable thing, in any occasion, we would get out of their way.

But they have proven over and over again that the profit motive is the highest motive, and all other considerations run second to that.

Somebody has to represent 'all other considerations'; that someone is the government; and until business can show an ounce of social responsibility, they will play by the rules and damn well like it, or they can leave the country. My guess is practically none will leave.

Cycloptichorn

oh, grumble, grumble grumble. Weighing in on how people conduct their personal lives, talking about industry should do the right thing like doing one thing of practical value well ain't more than you could manage - are you being molested by a priest? I ask because it seems like you've got something self-righteous spending time and perhaps leaving behind secretions in your corn-chute.

I mean, 'industry' in single quotes - I gather you've never seen it, but I assure you, such a thing exists and does so only because you like everyone else need it to. What are you getting at that none would leave? Of course, it's bullshit, weighty-friend Occam knows what time it is, there's only so much you can put up with and stay competitive. But more than that - you think someone's having fun and you're missing out. You're right. It must be frustrating - that people can produce, serve themselves and the cause on their own terms without being right-minded little civic hero cadets - what you're feeling is your place on the trough - I don't envy you, but the fact that your chafing on it shows potential...

'Share the Land'

0 Replies

hanno wrote:

Cycloptichorn wrote:
If the 'industry' could be relied upon to do the right thing, instead of the profitable thing, in any occasion, we would get out of their way.

But they have proven over and over again that the profit motive is the highest motive, and all other considerations run second to that.

Somebody has to represent 'all other considerations'; that someone is the government; and until business can show an ounce of social responsibility, they will play by the rules and damn well like it, or they can leave the country. My guess is practically none will leave.

Cycloptichorn

oh, grumble, grumble grumble. Weighing in on how people conduct their personal lives, talking about industry should do the right thing like doing one thing of practical value well ain't more than you could manage - are you being molested by a priest? I ask because it seems like you've got something self-righteous spending time and perhaps leaving behind secretions in your corn-chute.

I mean, 'industry' in single quotes - I gather you've never seen it, but I assure you, such a thing exists and does so only because you like everyone else need it to. What are you getting at that none would leave? Of course, it's bullshit, weighty-friend Occam knows what time it is, there's only so much you can put up with and stay competitive. But more than that - you think someone's having fun and you're missing out. You're right. It must be frustrating - that people can produce, serve themselves and the cause on their own terms without being right-minded little civic hero cadets - what you're feeling is your place on the trough - I don't envy you, but the fact that your chafing on it shows potential...

'Share the Land'

What a bunch of crap. I grew up in Eastern Houston, around more 'industry' and chemical refineries then one can count. My family works in these places. I have worked in these places. And I'm well aware how much emphasis they put on cleanliness and the environment - not an ounce more then is required by law.

Therefore - as I care about having a clean and non-polluted environment - I support those laws, and there being the ability to enforce those laws. I don't want my kids to have to wonder what they are smelling in the air each and every day, like we did. I'd like to be able to eat fish out of the lakes and rivers and the Gulf of Mexico.

All you conservatives are the same, really - anybody who criticizes anything, why they must just be jealous. It's as if you can't see any other motives for folks then greed or jealousy. I think it's rather revealing personally.

Cycloptichorn

0 Replies

Greed and jealosy is the only motive you see with any business, cyclops. What does that say about you if you ever ran a business?

0 Replies

okie wrote:

Greed and jealosy is the only motive you see with any business, cyclops. What does that say about you if you ever ran a business?

It is not the only motive you see with any business, Okie. But once again, it's quite revealing, that you can't even conceive of an alternative.

Cycloptichorn

0 Replies

Alot of people run businesses for the personal satisfaction and achievement, no small part being that they have provided a good and necessary service or product to their customers. And if the customers don't think the product or service is worth what they are paying for it, then they don't have to buy it. A business transaction is between a willing seller AND A WILLING BUYER. Greed is not allowed to get too far out of control because the buyer becomes unwilling, and will quit buying. They will either buy from a competitor or they will replace the product or service with something different.

I happen to admire people and businesses that provide useful and necessary services and products that make our life better. Included are oil companies. They should be admired and respected for what they have provided the entire world in terms of all the benefits.

Not so with government and its greedy power brokers. We are customers, not based upon our own personal choice, but by the choice of everyone, and then by the choice of the people that have been voted in and have instituted their policies.

This is all so evident to anyone that can shed their biases and look at the world in a common sense manner, and it is one big reason why I so actively oppose government run anything if it is not mandated by the constitution.

Cyclops, have you ever run a business? If you haven't, then try it, you might learn something.

0 Replies

okie wrote:

Not so with government and its greedy power brokers. We are customers, not based upon our own personal choice, but by the choice of everyone, and then by the choice of the people that have been voted in and have instituted their policies.

Not true. If you don't like your government, you can choose to emigrate. By not doing so, your have freely chosen to be a customer of America's government, and not Canada's or Germany's. It's the same free choice as your becoming a customer of Wal-Mart and not Target. (Or whatever your particular choice of retailers happens to be.) The analogy between the two cases is almost exact.

0 Replies

okie wrote:

Alot of people run businesses for the personal satisfaction and achievement, no small part being that they have provided a good and necessary service or product to their customers. And if the customers don't think the product or service is worth what they are paying for it, then they don't have to buy it. A business transaction is between a willing seller AND A WILLING BUYER. Greed is not allowed to get too far out of control because the buyer becomes unwilling, and will quit buying. They will either buy from a competitor or they will replace the product or service with something different.

I happen to admire people and businesses that provide useful and necessary services and products that make our life better. Included are oil companies. They should be admired and respected for what they have provided the entire world in terms of all the benefits.

But what about the negatives, such as the pollutive waste from their production process? Somebody has to monitor that, because businesses certainly will not do so themselves.

A component of greed has nothing to do with the buyers at all; it has to do with the very concept that one's actions do not have repercussions, or that those repercussions can be ignored due to the relative weakness of those who complain about it in our legal system.

Tell me Okie, do you pretend that industry and 'doing business' in America does not lead to large amounts of pollution? And that this is not a problem for anyone, ever, and that we do not need monitors to keep track of who is putting what into our environment? For I'm quite sure that you are aware that this is not the case, and you don't really need me to post the endless examples of companies which were caught dumping large amounts of pollutants and toxic waste into our environment.

I think that your attitude, presented here, completely and totally makes the case for the necessity and importance of governmental regulation of industry. You not only hold Greed up as the highest moral value of business, you think it SHOULD be that way. Regulations were invented for people like you, who frankly need them.

Cycloptichorn

0 Replies

First point, the so called evil pollution you are apparently talking about is in part a product of industrialization that comes with the territory, not whether it is free enterprise or produced by business. However, pollution happens if there was no industrialization, just by the mere size of the current population. Can you imagine how polluted New York City would be if modern technology and business had not invented ways to mitigate it and clean it up? We can minimize it and mitigate it, but face it, if you are against all industrial pollution, you would have to roll back the industrialized world back to the stone ages, wherein most of the world's population would likely soon die from disease, starvation, and other problems.

Second point, governments around the world have been one of the most serious polluters of the environment.

Third point, it is a matter of debate what you may classify as pollution, and also the fact that backward cultures are some of the dirtiest places to live on planet earth.

0 Replies

Thomas wrote:

okie wrote:
Not so with government and its greedy power brokers. We are customers, not based upon our own personal choice, but by the choice of everyone, and then by the choice of the people that have been voted in and have instituted their policies.

Not true. If you don't like your government, you can choose to emigrate. By not doing so, your have freely chosen to be a customer of America's government, and not Canada's or Germany's. It's the same free choice as your becoming a customer of Wal-Mart and not Target. (Or whatever your particular choice of retailers happens to be.) The analogy between the two cases is almost exact.

Sure its true. I don't pick my country of citizenship the same way I choose to purchase a product. My country is not a commodity to me, Thomas.

0 Replies

okie wrote:

and also the fact that backward cultures are some of the dirtiest places to live on planet earth.

Exactly.

Backward cultures are ugly, dirty places. Enlightened cultures smell good. In backward cultures, everybody has fleas. In enlightened cultures, everybody has a SUV.

In backward cultures people die of AIDS. In enlightened cultures they die in the War On Terror.

In backward cultures, people have to work hard, for little pay, in dirty, polluted sweatshops. In enlightened cultures, people can shop at Walmart.

0 Replies

Cyclops, you didn't answer the question. Have you ever run a business? Or are you above such a mundane and greedy endeavor?

0 Replies

okie wrote:

First point, the so called evil pollution you are apparently talking about is in part a product of industrialization that comes with the territory, not whether it is free enterprise or produced by business. However, pollution happens if there was no industrialization, just by the mere size of the current population. Can you imagine how polluted New York City would be if modern technology and business had not invented ways to mitigate it and clean it up? We can minimize it and mitigate it, but face it, if you are against all industrial pollution, you would have to roll back the industrialized world back to the stone ages, wherein most of the world's population would likely soon die from disease, starvation, and other problems.

Second point, governments around the world have been one of the most serious polluters of the environment.

Third point, it is a matter of debate what you may classify as pollution, and also the fact that backward cultures are some of the dirtiest places to live on planet earth.

Uh, yes, we were dirtier and less clean before the industrial revolution. I'm not sure who argued against that postition.

But that's no excuse for the pollution and toxins we pump out today. You say that it's a 'product of industrialization that comes with the territory.' I agree completely. I merely seek for those who participate in the process to have to pay to clean up the waste they produce.

This does not stop business from happening, it merely makes it more expensive. I really could care less about that. You have the option of purchasing or not purchasing the products of a business; you don't have the option of ignoring the pollution that they put out. This is nothing more then requiring those who make a mess to clean that mess up, to take personal responsibility for their actions. Now, are we talking zero-emissions? No, of course not. Just limits and regulations on the amounts and types of chemicals and toxins which can be put into the environment.

Have you EVER lived around a large industrial base, Okie? If so, you might have some idea of what air and water pollution really are, and how they can affect one's life.

Cycloptichorn

0 Replies

McCain's Electability

Related Topics

Quick Links

My Account

able2know