Why do liberals have an "agenda" and conservatives have beliefs, principles and convictions? What exactly is so wrong with the liberal "agenda"? Maybe I'm not fully aware of exactly what is in the liberal agenda.
Is the liberal agenda based on the idea that all people, at least most people, have some good in them versus the conservative idea that all people are out to screw you? Maybe the problem with the liberal agenda is that it allows the "unworthy" to be treated the same as the "worthy". I'm sure one problem with the liberal agenda is that it costs too much. Forget the fact that most of the National Debt has been acrued by conservative Presidents and we are currently fighting wars that cost billions per week.
So what are some Liberal principles? First the rule of law and the Constitution always come first. Explain to me how you can have a democracy with a President that claims the law does not apply to him. That sounds more like a monarchy to me. You cannot give up even one of your freedoms based on the argument that it will keep you free. Liberals believe in Liberty - that's where the word liberal comes from. The liberal agenda is based upon human rights, equality, individual freedom, free and fair elections and the rule of law.
"You're either with us or against us" isn't included as a Liberal principle. First of all it's a false dilemma. There should be more choices than "with us or against us". What is wrong with "with you, but let's try to do it this way". There is always a spectrum of possibilities and we should not be forced into ignoring other possibilities. Is it unpatriotic to want your country to live up to its extraordinary ideals? Liberals believe individuals have a right to participate in free and open debate. Being opposed to torture shouldn't be viewed as "tearing the country down".
Tolerance, respect, dignity, justice, liberty, and freedom aren't just words to liberals. We believe the United States should strive for perfection concerning these values.
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
30 comments:
That was pretty well written. However if liberals do believe in freedom, liberty and the constitution can you name one policy or bill intrudeced by a liberal legislature or executive that did no increase the size, role and demands of the government in the last 10 years?
Tony, I'm not sure size of government has much to do with freedom, liberty and the Constitution. That being said, Conservatives have been in charge of the government over the last seven years or so. What have they done to reduce the size of government?
Unfortunately, Conservatives have taken away the right of Habeas Corpus for certain individuals, they've allowed torture and they've allowed warrant less wiretapping. To me, those things smack of taking away freedom and liberty and certainly do not follow the spirit of the Constitution.
You don't think that expanding the government, which means expanding how much of a role they have in the citizens lives and how much they are taxed isn't against freedom and liberty? This is exactly the situation that the founders were looking to get away from. A large government telling the citizens how to live. This is why they instituted federalism. Which has been chipped away at for the last 7o years or so by all parties.
As far as habeas corpus and torture go. First, water boarding isn't torture. You don't loose any abilities or, organs or limbs. In fact, many people in the military have to go through water boarding as a part of their training. But second and more importantly, this is about stopping terrorist actions. Ask yourself this, if you knew you had family in a city under threat from terrorism and you KNEW that a specific detainee had information about it, would you water board him?
Water boarding isn't torture.....Enough said.
I Agree. But then what torture were you talking about?
Also, lets take this back to principles, since that is how your original post was written.
As far as liberal philosophy goes, is it the job of the federal government to provide housing and healthcare to the citizens that don't have it? I do not believe it is.
You mentioned liberals want to treat everyone the same but then set quotas and stand by affirmative action even now.
The biggest questions I have is what you as a liberal would consider equality?
Both PCS and Tony, you both make excellent points.
What I think this country needs is leadership.
One individual who will make the right choices for America and the future 20, 50, 100 years out. Start with green house gases. Fuel cell cars should be mandated to be the only car sold in America by 2015.
Damn! Kennedy had us put a men on the moon while fighting the Commies across the globe.
In Nov. 2008, maybe we will get a fresh start and not a Diebold meltdown and a repeat of 2000. If that happens I will move to a country like Cuba where they are honest about screwing their people.
Thank you anonymous.
But I don't think the short term answer is government mandates on free enterprise that could possibley destroy the American auto maker(I mean worse then they already are). Alternative fuels are very important to the future of this country and a vital piece of national security. But it's really not going to help us in 5- 10 years when we're still hanging onto the Sausi's for our oil.
We need to start getting our own oil in much greater amounts to show OPEC that we will not sit buy and literally get "owned" by their greed.
But yes, we need leadership right now as never before. Bush dropped the ball, mainly with not explaining his positions and strategies when it came to Iraq. Now that we're winning, he could be riding the wave, but because of gas prices he's still being hated on. It's really his own fault.
The 2015 mandate applies to all cars sold in America not just the domestic auto makers. Honda (Japs) already have a production vehicle, and Audi and BMI (Germans) will have theirs in the market in the next two to three years. It took 60+ years but the companies that built the Sherman tanks and Mustang Fighters are about to lose the economic war. Let GM and Ford make or lose it all. After all their the ones sleeping in the 'greedy ho' bed of ExxonMobile.
By the way regarding to drilling domestically. You may have heard that since 1989, Exxon still has not paid the $5,289,000,000.00 in damages for screwing Alaska's wilderness. Reduced down to $4,000,000,000 in 2002. Then down again to $2,500,000,000.00 in 2006. Then in 2008, 'W's' Supreme Court reduced the suit yet again to $507,000,000.00. At this rate the Taxpayer has spent more money to get what's left of the lawsuit. By 2015 the US Taxpayer will owe ExxonMobil $5 Billion for bring the law suit in the first place.
So let's open up all our shore lines and national parks to these 'greedy ho's'. Wow I'm glad I won't live that long to see their destruction. And if GM & Ford fail, no tax payer fireman's net. Bailing out the Airlines after 911, simply led to more of the same as they now go out of business two at a time.
hmmm....That's great about new cars being to a new standard in 2015. Of course, that won't really change too much for a decade or so until people get rid of the old gas guzzlers or the government gives some huge incent to buy a "green" car.
BTW, I don't consider exxon mobile saints at all. But a 4 trillion dollar fine to a company, especially an American company, is ridiculous. That would certainly hurt the American worker more then the company.
As far as not drilling off the shores...you do know that China is doing it off of our shores right now right? Who do you think would be more environmentally concience near American shores; ExxonMobile or Red China?
It's not about openning the shore and Alaska up to "greedy hos" it's about not depending on hostile nations for the most important element in our economy. That's why drilling now is important.
PCS, one question. You impled a right to privacy in one of your previous posts. You also talked about how important the constitution is to America.
I'm just wondering what section of the constitution the "privacy" clause is in.
I'm asking that seriously and not in sattire or sarcasm.
Tony, I apologize for not addressing my last post to you directly.
For the record ExxonMobile after tax profit last quarter ending Feb 2008, was $11,700,000,000.00 (thats 11.7 Billion Dollars if your not counting zeros) in three months of selling "Road Warrior Juice".
A company with a moral conscience would have gone to court and told the judge to put the 5 Billion on the company charge card, what with the hundreds of billions expected to be earned this year alone.
As to China drilling off our coast who hired them ......Lets see, Could it be ExxonMobile ? Maybe.
Tony, there is no place in the Constitution that directly addresses the right to privacy. The Constitution also points out that people like John McCain (born in Panama) cannot be President. In the case of John McCain, a law was passed in 1790 stipulating that children of American citizens born overseas are to be considered naturalized Americans.
As for the right of privacy. The Supreme Court has ruled in several cases that Americans have a right to privacy. The 3rd amendment, which prevents the quartering of soldiers without the consent of the property owner, the 4th amendment that prevents unreasonable search and sizure (requiring warrants) and the 5th amendment self incrimination limit all inherently suggest a right to privacy. Evidently, the Supreme Court over the years agrees. Hope this helps.
BTW, there is a huge list of things that are not in the Constitution. Congressional districts, right to travel, right to vote, the electoral college, executive order, executive privilege, innocent until proven guilty, jury of peers, marriage, martial law, slavery...I could go on.
Tony, I was being sarcastic about waterboarding being torture. Of course it's torture. Bush absolutely has to deny that it's torture because he would be guilty of war crimes if he didn't. I feel sorry for anyone that things only cutting off a persons limbs is torture. Was John McCain tortured?
As for affirmative action, if everyone were truly treated equally there would be no need for affirmative action.
I agree with the right to privacy. But just because the supreme court said so doesn't make it right. The supreme court said slavery, jim crowe and separate but equal was right. Not to mention not letting women vote.
As for the list of things you listed that aren't in the constitution, a lot of them are.
• Right to vote – 15th and 19th amendment
• Electoral college - Article II section I and 12th amendment (I’m pretty sure)
• Jury of peers – 6th amendment
• Slavery – 13th Amendment
• Innocent until proven guilty – 5th amendment
So, I don’t really understand what you mean.
Affirmative action makes it impossible for equal treatment. Since it says that equally qualified black and white person that the black person gets the job just because. How unequal is that?
John McCain was tortured and then not given medical treatment. He could have easily died from lack of treatment. Since his life was in jeopardy, yes, he was tortured.
Waterboarding is NOT torture because it is not life threatening and it does not physically alter the person's life afterwards.
BTW, you still haven't answered my question about waterboarding a person you knew had info that would save a loved one in danger.
dear tony,
i find your attitude towards torture immensely saddening, and even somewhat sickening. the un convention against torture defines torture as "any act by which severe pain or suffering, whether physical or mental, is intentionally inflicted on a person for such purposes as obtaining from him or a third person information or a confession, punishing him for an act he or a third person has committed or is suspected of having committed, or intimidating or coercing him or a third person, or for any reason based on discrimination of any kind, when such pain or suffering is inflicted by or at the instigation of or with the consent or acquiescence of a public official or other person acting in an official capacity."
waterboarding is undeniably torture, and our president is undeniably a war criminal.
Tony,
This is getting a bit tiresome because I know that whatever I say you will find fault with it in some manner. You seem to be highly concerned about the details of torture but when it comes to other things the details do not seem to matter.
Show me exactly where the Constitution says that a jury must be made up of you "peers" - just a little detail that matters a great deal.
Until the 13th amendment you will not see the word "slavery" mentioned in the Constitution. The founding fathers were very careful not to use that word. Rather they used words such as "importation of persons" in Article 1, Section 9 and "other persons" in Article 1, Section 2.
Innocent until proven guilty, not in the body of the Constitution. Tell me Tony, why do you think those admendments were passed. It was because certain items were not present in the original Constitution. Innocent until proven guilty came from English jurisprudence and is implied in the Constitution with the right to remain silent and the right to a jury (not a jury of your peers however).
Tony I could go on but I really don't want to take the time to discuss even these pretty interesting points with someone who believes waterboarding is not torture. I have no respect for such a person. I do feel sorry for a person that has so little regard for human rights.
From the Sixth Amendment: "the accused shall enjoy the right to a speedy and public trial, by an impartial jury of the State and district wherein the crime shall have been committed, which district shall have been previously ascertained by law, and to be informed of the nature and cause of the accusation" Now just as you stated earlier the word privacy isn't exactly in the constitution. But do you think that those lines to specifical talk about the nature of the jury in a trial?
My point earlier about privacy not being directly in the constitution, which you rightly pointed out, is implied and confirmed by the Supreme court as an ideal of the constitution. That's the same situation as the "Jury of peers". Why is it ok to apply that line of thinking to privacy but not to a jury of peers?
Also, the amendments to the constitution are part of the constitution every bit as much as the articles. That's why we have the amendment process. That's why the bill of rights is so important. So to say that voting, slavery, or a jury of peers sin't in the constitution is to say that the amendments aren't part of the constitution.
With the definition of torture that was given, you could call sleep deprivation and playing loud music torture. In fact almost anything and everything could fall under that category. So how are we supposed to get information to save the lives of soldiers on the field and citizens here at home?
As regards to human rights. I'm telling you right now, if there is a terrorist that we have in custady and they know about a plot to kill US citizens and all other techniques fail, the president needs to order a waterboarding. His first job is to protect the citzens of the United States of America. I'm not saying it needs to be a regular thing. But if it's going to save lives, that person would slaughter you and I anyway, so why are we so concerned about his rights when all he wants is to kill our families?
Why won't either of you answer my question about your loved one in danger and waterboarding?
I also find your latest response, PCS, to be very confusing. Someone is debating with you on your blog in a polite mature fashion. Not calling names or personally attacking you and you wish to stop the conversation simply because it's tireing? How does that advance the liberals beliefs, principles and convictions if you do not sstand them up, toe to toe, with that of a conservative? Is this not the entire point of your blog?
PCS, as far as you having no respect for the perosn that thinks like me. I'm thinking about protecting your family and friends first and what the world or the UN thinks second. A distant second. What you say sounds great on paper, but it's different when a real situation.
So I'm sturggling to understand why you can't see the bigger bpicture in this situation.
I did not make any personal attack on you, I said I did not respect you.
Please don't torture in my name...ever. I'm sure my wife and my daughter would not want someone tortured to save their lives. I'm sorry but I believe the experts who tell me torture doesn't work. It makes sense. If someone tortured me I'd tell them anything they wanted to hear to make them stop.
The Presidents first job is to follow the law, just like any other American citizen.
I'm willing to bet almost anything that you are a Christian as well as a conservative.
PCS, yes I'm a christian and a conservative, very conservative. I believe you should keep most of what you earn. Take care of y our OWN family. Give to charities and other non-profits to help people, not the government. And that the best solution for the econonmy in almost every case is the free market not more government legislation. I'm also a black American. This may or may not surprise you.
So you're literally going to tell me as a husband and a father that you would NOT waterboard someone you knew had information that could save your family's life? You would really let them die without even trying to waterboard or anything? If that's true, then that's an ideal that I do not respect.
I'm still trying to understand how waterboarding is torture anyway. ESPECIALLY when we do it to our own troops. Can one of you please explain to me why?
Also, why did you not address anything I mentioned about the consitution? You specifically said in your initial post that the constitituion and law come first. So, since you were incorrect about a lot of what was in the law, why did you not acknowledge that?
BTW, saying you don't respect someone is certainly a personal attack. It doesn't get much more personal then that.
What do you think about the Supreme courts ruling that lets prisoners in Guantanomo and other places petition ivil Federal courts? I'm willing to bet you think it's a good thing.
dear tony,
your attitude towards torture is utterly, completely reprehensible. you're clearly no idiot, but it's idiotic to ask
"With the definition of torture that was given, you could call sleep deprivation and playing loud music torture. In fact almost anything and everything could fall under that category."
what part of "severe pain or suffering, whether physical or mental" don't you understand? do you even know what sleep deprivation really means? it's not about feeling a little cranky because you've only gotten 6 hours every night for the past week. it's about destroying a person -- no sleep causes hallucination and ultimately insanity. is that not good enough for you?
i would never do something so monstrous as endorse torture for any cause, no matter the stakes. some principles are just worth standing for.
along these lines, local conservative blogger watson recently blogged about the supreme court decision you mentioned, and he came to a conclusion opposite yours. he wrote that the decision could be considered "good", in part because "the treatment of prisoners of war, whether they are terrorists who don't belong to a standing army or not, should always be exemplary." he later added that the decision was "good"
"because it means that we are willing to sacrifice American lives in order to stand for the justice that all men deserve.
"It's not always easy to do the right thing, but in this case, the Supreme Court got it right.
"We are still that beacon of light shining out to the world, and I couldn't be prouder to be a citizen of this great country."
i often find myself disagreeing with watson, but i think he got it exactly right this time.
The reason I said that anything could be considered tortue under that description is because a lawyer could argue most everything is severe.
Wow. You wouldn't do what you consider torture for any reason huh? So thousands or millions of lives could be at stake and you would just ask them really nicely to tell us how to stop them?
If your child was kidnapped by a group of terrorists and one is captured. You would want the authorities to ask them real "hard" where your child is?
That's reprehnsible to me that someone would not do everything in their power to get their child back.
Well, being the president means that he needs to protect us like we are all his children. So if the president came out and said, "In the wake of the tragedy of this terrorist strike. We had a terrorist that knew something about this latest plot. But we didn't get the information from him." Yeah, that would be really American wouldn't it? Let a few thousand people die so we can say we didn't sleep deprive or waterboard someone?
I understand that extreme interigations shouldn't be the norm. But I want to really ask you all, seriously, how are the authorities supposed to get intelligence about this war we are in?
As far as the supreme courts decision goes. If a detanee does petition and gets heard by a federal judge, then what? We pull the soldiers that caught him off the battle field and ask them for evidence against the guy? Yeah, I'm sure evidence is a high priority for soldiers when they are in a battle. Watson got this one wrong and so did the supreme court. Our soldiers shouldn't have to worry about evidence when in battle or apprehending terrorists and insurgents.
dear tony,
are you serious -- "a lawyer could argue most everything is severe"?? that's your defense? if that's the standard, then you must think the law has no meaning at all -- why even bother having laws on the books, for that matter? your argument is risible.
on the other hand, ok, you got me: yes, if i had to choose between the extinction of the human race and waterboarding someone, i'd choose waterboarding. but what on earth does that prove? it's a situation that will simply never arise in real life! you can come up with as many facile little scenarios as you like where torture really is the right thing to do, but how well do they reflect reality? the fact of the matter is, torture is unreliable at extracting information to the point that it just doesn't work. i'm with pcs: if i was being tortured, i'd say simply anything to get it to stop.
so to answer your question about how to get intelligence, how about using techniques that (a) actually work and (b) don't turn us into monsters? i think you've been discussing a lot of this in bad faith: you seem to suggest that there's a dichotomy between torturing detainees or doing basically nothing to them at all. and of course that's complete nonsense! there are many, many ways that interrogators can be "tough" on their subjects without torturing them -- god that's such an obvious point that i can't believe i actually have to write it out. how exactly do you think our military comported itself before the bush administration was in charge? how exactly do you think police departments around the country question suspects? by patting their hand, pouring them tea, and gently asking if they feel like talking? this is a cartoon version of the world.
i completely disagree that the president "needs to protect us like we are all his children". and i'm a bit amazed that you could write that just after you finished bashing our government a few comments above.
yes, it would be very american to put lives at risk to defend the principle that we don't torture! that's exactly how our country operated before this decade!
of course i agree that american soldiers shouldn't have to worry about standards of evidence while on the battlefield -- but do you honestly think this court decision will have any bearing on that whatsoever? i don't.
In a country where the system of "law" ruled that a family had to pay a buglar that got stuck in their house while they woere on vacation, yes I think they could argue that almost anything is torture by that definition. Why? Because it doesn't define severe. So it's very subjective.
As far as the scenario, it's very realistic. And if it wasn't for the stupid obstacles put up by the Clinton administration between agencies it very well could have happened. They DID have people in custody that had knowledge of 9/11. So, that's why I put that out there. It's not some outlandish thing that couldn't happen. It's very realistic and should be considered.
When talking about protecting the citizens of the USA(not helping, feeding or anything else) the President does indeed need to treat us like children. Why? Because we all blame him if he doesnt. He didn't do a good jjob with New Orleans and now we all blame him for the dead people there. We all blame him for 9/11, which is totally ridiculous for a president only being in office for just over 9 months. It's very real and should be acknowledged because this country has sustained tragedies like the scenario I gave. Again, not talking about all humans on the planet. But an American city or town that could be saved by strong interigation techniques.
I know there is a military standard interigation. You know what, the enemy knows that to and prepares for it. I simply think that just as Truman held out the atom bomb, we should hold our waterboarding for extreme situations.
As far as putting your life at risk, that's voluntarily. Not by some terrorist and you don't even know about it. It's one thing to say, "OK, i'm willing to die to save others" like the passengers did on United 93. But it's not OK to sacrifice people that don't even know the situation. And die for the simple fact that we don't want to look like "monsters".
Principles are very important. But there comes a time when almost all principles in one situation or another cease to be moral. I believe that waterboarding in cases of extreme data is one of those situations.
As far as saying whatever to get them to stop. Do you think they are released after getting the info? It has to be vetted, and if it's found to be false they come back and get some more. Whether it would be techniques you think are torture or the "standard". Either way, it wouldn't just end when you said whatever.
With the supreme court decision. With witnesses and/or physical evidence the trial would be thrown out, under civil law, for lack of evidence. That's the problem I see.
Oh, you do know that FDR imprisoned German and Japanese American citizens during WWII right? They were actual citizens. FDR had illegal wire taps on Martin Lurther Kign Jr and Malcom X. So, how does that compare to how this country operated before this decade?
My fault. I meant to say that JFK's administration had wire taps on MLK and Malcolm X.
Did you ever answer this question?
"However if liberals do believe in freedom, liberty and the constitution can you name one policy or bill intrudeced by a liberal legislature or executive that did not increase the size, role and demands of the government in the last 10 years?"
Here's what people (specifically a lot of liberals) don's seem to understand. The terrorists out there DO NOT CARE about us. They want ALL OF US TO DIE. They want us ERADICATED from the earth. No amount of negotiation or talking will change their minds. Prove me wrong. Give me hard data that refutes this. Give me statistics. Give me ANYTHING to refute this. Please.
And I'm sorry, but if my child were in danger and I had to use waterboarding to get information, you are DARN RIGHT I would use it. Absolutely NO QUESTION in my mind. I think if I didn't on the pretense that I didn't want the sorry bastard who was trying to kill them to go through a little waterboarding, they would come back and haunt me and I would fully expect them to.
BTW, this right here: using techniques that (a) actually work and (b) don't turn us into monsters?
I would like examples, please. And examples of why they would not be considered torture under your definition. Almost ANYTHING can be considered torture under the right circumstances.
"So what are some Liberal principles? First the rule of law and the Constitution always come first."
Telling now isn't it....Constitution & the rule of law become mere scraps of ragged toilet paper once our guy, a "dear leader" with the 'vision' to 'remake amerika' is in office.
Post a Comment