The Debate Hall Social Thread

[AltF4]

Someone make a thread. Clearly there's interest.

 

[adumbrodeus]

Alt, could you just separate the posts in the topic that deal with it into a new thread?

 

[AltF4]

There you go:

http://www.smashboards.com/showthread.php?t=315284

 

[adumbrodeus]

thank you sir

 

[Dre89]

What do you guys think of Noam Chomsky?

Also, what do you guys think of doing a second undergraduate degree? Most people doing a second one will at least be in their early twenties, and often have to do it part time due to work, so they'd finish in their late twenties. Do you guys think that's too old to be still doing an undergrad?

Yes I know people go of all ages go to uni, but most older people usually have a decent career job before doing their second degree.

 

[AltF4]

A random Chomsky sentence generator:

http://rubberducky.org/cgi-bin/chomsky.pl

 

[Dre89]

Uh thanks lol.

I'm really curious to know what people think of my question about a second undergraduate degree. A better way of putting would be to ask if you had completed a degree and were in your early twenties, would you complete another degree part-time if it interested you more, despite the fact you'd finish it in your late twenties?

 

[Nicholas1024]

Since part of BPC's rant in the new thread is off topic, I figured I'd address it here.

Don't you dare make me go back to whupping your *** on that field of debate as well.

Look, I might not be a biologist (why I generally don't participate in evolution debates much), but I've researched this topic plenty, and you just don't have a leg to stand on.

Yes, and meanwhile, Islam is equally accurate because people were willing to put their lives on the line for it in its early year, and even today. Or any other massive cult suicide. Newsflash: people fall for dumb cults and kill themselves because they were convinced by some ridiculous swindler (in this case: Jesus). Congratulations in putting your religion on the same level as Heaven's Gate. But hey, this is off topic, and that's why I'm shoving it to the front of my post. ^_^

So, congratulations on once again ignoring a key characteristic: The disciples were testifying that they saw indisputable miracles. Healing the blind, lame, sick, raising the dead, walking on water... Sure, the Islam suicide bombers believe in Muhammed's miracles, I have no doubt, but how many of them actually claim to have seen them? This is the sticking point in your analogy, and as far as I'm aware Christianity is unparalleled in having numerous people who claimed to have personally seen miracles, and died to defend said claims.

 

[Dre89]

So Nic you're saying that if muslims had claimed to have seen the miracles and died for them? You would denounce your faith/never have believed in it in the first place?

That's really the defining point?

I don't know what the technical name of the fallacy is called, but you're committing the fallacy of arbitrarily moving the goalposts to suit your conclusion. It's something religious people do a lot, they claim that arbitrary reason X is what seperates their religion from the rest., or what makes their religion true.

For example, one argument for Christianity was that it was the biggest religion (basically because it was made the offical religion of the Roman Empire). However, it was then overtaken by Islam. Another argument was that it's been around so long, well then Judaism beats it then.

The philosophical nature of the religion is irrelevant too. Judiasm and Islam are philosophical too, and the philosophical nature of Christianity is down to the fact it grew in the west, which already had a strong tradition of philosophy thanks to the Greeks. That also explains why the earlier forms of Christian philosophy were largely Aristotelian or Platonic in nature.

Someone answer my question about a second undergraduate degree.

 

[Nicholas1024]

If they had, I'd take Islam's claims into consideration. However, I'm not arbitrarily moving the goalposts, I'm showing why BPC's analogy falls short of them. There's two questions to consider with someone's claims about their religion (or claims about anything, really).

1: Does the person in question actually KNOW what happened?
2: Does the person in question believe what they're saying? (That is, are they telling what they hold to be true, or are they knowingly lying?)

The whole "they suffered intense torture and death and stuck to their story" point means that the answer to 2 is almost certainly yes. However, the suicide bomber muslims were not around to see whatever happened, so the answer to question 1 in BPC's analogy is no. On the other hand, the disciples were most definitely around and would have known whatever happened in the first century.

And that's really the key point. The 12 disciples knew whatever actually happened, and they stuck to their story despite no earthly incentive, but plenty of torture, persecution and finally death. So if they aren't telling the truth, what's your explanation for that kind of behavior?

 

[Dre89]

But of course the point people content is the reliability of the texts, they don't believe there were disciples who actually saw Jesus perform miracles.

Dammit someone answer my undergraduate degree question.

 

[Budget Player Cadet_]

Look, I might not be a biologist (why I generally don't participate in evolution debates much), but I've researched this topic plenty, and you just don't have a leg to stand on.

So, congratulations on once again ignoring a key characteristic: The disciples were testifying that they saw indisputable miracles. Healing the blind, lame, sick, raising the dead, walking on water... Sure, the Islam suicide bombers believe in Muhammed's miracles, I have no doubt, but how many of them actually claim to have seen them? This is the sticking point in your analogy, and as far as I'm aware Christianity is unparalleled in having numerous people who claimed to have personally seen miracles, and died to defend said claims.

I'm talking about the first-generation jihadists. Like, the people who lived in Mohammed's time. Even if we don't dispute the historicity of various parts of your assertion (the claims of the disciples, the existence of Jesus, etc.), it still does not put Christianity on a higher footing than any other random cult whose members have deluded themselves.

 

[Nicholas1024]

Please BPC, do a little research. You know how Islam gained a lot of its early converts? By the sword, it was convert or die. I have no doubt a lot of them died for the cause, but it wasn't exactly a certain death, and they had a definite earthly motive for acting that way.

As for your hypothetical random cult example, again you've managed to ignore the factor of actually sticking to said beliefs under torture + death. If you want to continue maintaining this stance, give a concrete example where nearly ALL the supposed eyewitnesses braved that kind of persecution, and there were at least a handful of them (to eliminate the "crazy guy jumps of a bridge" scenario).

@Dre
Trust me on this one, BPC will contest me at any point it's even remotely possible to raise an objection to. (And even after all those are eliminated he'll stick to the theory of aliens/being in the matrix before God.)

More seriously, it's basically the uniform testimony of the entire early church that the gospels are a reliable written account of what actually happened (and that they were written by who they're commonly attributed to.) The contrary is bordering on a conspiracy theory at this point, since it would require

1. The harshest critics of Christianity (the Jewish leaders) being so completely fooled into thinking Jesus did miracles in public places (many of which the pharisees were attributed to having watched themselves!) that by the 2nd century they accused Him of demon possession rather than say "Hey, the Christians are lying, He didn't do any miracles."

2. Managing to somehow keep an enormous lie hidden over decades, with many different authors chiming in, somehow without it all ending in a major contradiction. As history has shown, that just does not happen.

3. Despite the intense roman persecution of Christianity, not one of the conspirators cracked and gave away the whole plot. Not a single one picked actually living over torture and death for the sake of a lie. (Of course not every conspirator would have had to make that choice, but you'd expect that at least some would. Even if you argue that "perhaps they did and it just got destroyed by time", keep in mind that the roman government was going to every extreme to wipe out Christianity, this kind of conspiracy coming apart would have been big news.)

4. Even though they made perfectly checkable claims (for instance, the claim that Jesus was executed by a Roman governor on a national holiday in the Jewish capital while it was overflowing with tourists!) of stuff that didn't happen, somehow everybody forgot what had "really happened" and took them on their word alone. (Yes, there was a large amount of gentile churches, but Christianity actually started up in Jerusalem, basically the stronghold of the Jewish leaders and the capital of the nation.)

I mean, I can understand being skeptical of miracles, but that sounds much less believable to me than the idea that they just might actually be telling the truth.

 

[Budget Player Cadet_]

Please BPC, do a little research. You know how Islam gained a lot of its early converts? By the sword, it was convert or die. I have no doubt a lot of them died for the cause, but it wasn't exactly a certain death, and they had a definite earthly motive for acting that way.

Fair enough, I suppose.

As for your hypothetical random cult example, again you've managed to ignore the factor of actually sticking to said beliefs under torture + death. If you want to continue maintaining this stance, give a concrete example where nearly ALL the supposed eyewitnesses braved that kind of persecution, and there were at least a handful of them (to eliminate the "crazy guy jumps of a bridge" scenario).

Uh... Waco? I chose my words carefully. I mean, maybe they weren't tortured, but here's the thing: they killed themselves. They were so convinced of their religion that they committed mass suicide. I think that that's barely below persecution and murder on the scale of religious devotion, if at all.

 

[blazedaces]

@Dre, I personally am planning on going for a master's instead of a second undergraduate degree. But in my case going for an undergraduate degree in computer science would be a large waste of time since I'm rather knowledgeable about the subjects taught even though I didn't take the classes. But if that were not the case I would say yes, go for it.

Money in my eyes is the only reason not to. Age doesn't seem to me to be a relevant factor unless you knew you would die shortly.

 

[ciaza]

for me it would depend on what you've done and what you are planning to do. how interesting the degree is would not be the only thing i would look at, but how likely it is i can get job after as well. for example, i'm studying psychology and have been told it would be hard for me to be accepted into training to be a clinical psychologist. if i don't make it, i might look into computer science or business or something, even if i find them rather dry. hopefully it won't come to that but just in case i'm studying hard. as for the actual question: late twenties is still young enough for anyone to accomplish whatever they want in life, not too old for anything by any means, especially uni. though i imagine you'd feel like an old coot anyway if you were in a class full of teens.

that's my story anyway, hope it helped =).

 

[Nicholas1024]

Uh... Waco? I chose my words carefully. I mean, maybe they weren't tortured, but here's the thing: they killed themselves. They were so convinced of their religion that they committed mass suicide. I think that that's barely below persecution and murder on the scale of religious devotion, if at all.

Source? Because by your wording I thought you were referring to just some random violent cult followers like you might see in a video game.

 

[Budget Player Cadet_]

Source? Because by your wording I thought you were referring to just some random violent cult followers like you might see in a video game.

Wikipedia is your friend. The Waco Massacre is one of the largest mass suicides in history; over 900 people died either as a direct or indirect results.

 

[Dre89]

Blazed and Ciaza- Postgrad study is a completely different story. That's building upon a previous degree. Considering that most people who do PHDs are much older, doing post grad study even in my thirties doesn't bother me. It's specifically doing another undergrad degree.

I'm looking at doing a bachelor of science majoring in marine biology. It's not really a question of whether I'd enjoy it or not, seeing as I've always wanted to do that or entomology but I didn't have the marks to do it fresh out of high school.


The problems are that if I do it part time it'll take me somewhere between 4-6 years (depending on how many philosophy units I get credited, I can get a maximum of 8 credited, which takes off a third of the degree). The other issue is that I don't know how I'll handle the science. First year I'd have to maths at a higher level than I did in high school (although my cousin is doing a maths degree so he can help me) and I may have to do chemistry, which I didn't do in high school, although it sounds fun.

A lesser problem is that I feel like I wouldn't stand out as a MB, I wouldn't contribute anything special, unless somehow my philosophy degree comes into play, such as it makes me superior in the academic facet, or I become a philosopher of biology.

The only saving grace I can think of is that although I'll finish late, at least I would have been employed, which is good to have on the resume. Completing a degree at 28 with no proper employment would be a red light for me.

Thanks for the advice guys. As you can tell it's bothering me enough that I posted it here asking for advice, which I normally don't like to do.

 

[Bob Jane T-Mart]

Also guys, I hopefully will be back for a while. I had exams and school quite recently. With the final year in school approaching things have been quite busy. Fortunately, holidays are coming up and I can kinda take it easier than before.

 

[Aesir]

Interesting thing about the muslims back then they loved knowledge and saved a lot of greek writings, where other conqueror's of the time just sacked the places and burned everything.

 

[Sucumbio]

Wikipedia is your friend. The Waco Massacre is one of the largest mass suicides in history; over 900 people died either as a direct or indirect results.

I'm not sure if you're intentionally conflating two different events but the Jonestown mass suicide is the one that had over 900+ deaths, due to cyanide poisoning (though ironically the leader did not ingest the deadly cocktail but instead died from a self-inflicted gunshot wound.)

Now if indeed you were not making this mistake and intentionally evoked "mass suicide" with what DID happen in Waco, that's actually highly debatable, though not without cause for mention. But for examples of officially-ruled mass suicides, it's more accurate to cite Jonestown or Heavens Gate.

 

[Budget Player Cadet_]

Whoops. Apparently I didn't choose my words carefully.

 

[Aesir]

Heavens gate is an awesome punch line.

 

[Budget Player Cadet_]

Heavens gate is an awesome punch line.

I almost fell off my chair. Someone give this man an internet!

 

[Dre89]

Interesting thing about the muslims back then they loved knowledge and saved a lot of greek writings, where other conqueror's of the time just sacked the places and burned everything.

I understand that the golden age of Islam was pretty influential in philosophy and science.

Other interesting facts are that Christians were the first to declare Holy Wars, back in the Crusades, and that terroism began with the west.

K I'm done.

 

[Aesir]

I understand that the golden age of Islam was pretty influential in philosophy and science.

Other interesting facts are that Christians were the first to declare Holy Wars, back in the Crusades, and that terroism began with the west.

K I'm done.

Sometimes I wonder what would happen if the crusades didn't happen where islam would be today.

 

[Sucumbio]

Sometimes I wonder what would happen if the crusades didn't happen where islam would be today.

Depends on who you ask. Technically the First Crusade (c. 1095) was a call to arms by the Byzantine Emperor Alexius I to repel invading Seljuk Turks wishing to expand their empire. It should have ended there... but unfortunately it would turn into an excuse to wage a "blessed" war against all Turks due to the command from Pope Urban II to reclaim all of the Levent (which is basically the same area that today is in upheaval.) This of course took place very shortly after the Great Schism, so it's no surprise that the Church and States being in a state of confusion would fall prey to the unifying effects of Holy War.

It's interesting but Jews and Muslims alike fought side by side to protect Jerusalem, though in vain. When the Frank army sacked the city, they annihilated all the inhabitants. The 2nd-9th Crusades that followed were literally a back and forth unresolved "taking of the hill" not unlike what the US faced in Vietnam.

So in short, Islam itself may not be any different today if the Pope hadn't started **** way back when (he had no real claim to the area, it'd been in Muslim/Jewish control for almost half a century prior to the First Crusade) but the sentiment between the two religions may indeed be completely different, and we may not have so many fundies on both sides fighting an ages old battle that should have never started to begin with.

 

[blazedaces]

Blazed and Ciaza- Postgrad study is a completely different story. That's building upon a previous degree. Considering that most people who do PHDs are much older, doing post grad study even in my thirties doesn't bother me. It's specifically doing another undergrad degree.

I'm looking at doing a bachelor of science majoring in marine biology. It's not really a question of whether I'd enjoy it or not, seeing as I've always wanted to do that or entomology but I didn't have the marks to do it fresh out of high school.


The problems are that if I do it part time it'll take me somewhere between 4-6 years (depending on how many philosophy units I get credited, I can get a maximum of 8 credited, which takes off a third of the degree). The other issue is that I don't know how I'll handle the science. First year I'd have to maths at a higher level than I did in high school (although my cousin is doing a maths degree so he can help me) and I may have to do chemistry, which I didn't do in high school, although it sounds fun.

A lesser problem is that I feel like I wouldn't stand out as a MB, I wouldn't contribute anything special, unless somehow my philosophy degree comes into play, such as it makes me superior in the academic facet, or I become a philosopher of biology.

The only saving grace I can think of is that although I'll finish late, at least I would have been employed, which is good to have on the resume. Completing a degree at 28 with no proper employment would be a red light for me.

Thanks for the advice guys. As you can tell it's bothering me enough that I posted it here asking for advice, which I normally don't like to do.

Dre, I still suggest going for the degree. Having some experience and doing a degree late in life can actually look better to a possible employer since it was a mature choice you made later in life as opposed to just going to school like everyone does following high school.

Now, as for your comment about "standing out" as a MB, I don't know if it really matters. I feel like you're thinking about things the wrong way. If you love it, your passion will take you much farther than any ability (I wholeheartedly believe this). Think more about what you want to accomplish. If you want to be a marine biologist somewhere, statistically speaking I'm sure you'll find somewhere where one is needed. Being a hard worker, being passionate about what you do, going the extra mile when necessary to complete the job well, these things matter much, much more to most employers than some imaginary "ability". These are things you can control and will make you stand out more than anything else.

Basically my advice is follow your heart as it will drive you to become better than you ever imagined you could be doing something which you do not love.

-blazed

 

[Aesir]

Depends on who you ask. Technically the First Crusade (c. 1095) was a call to arms by the Byzantine Emperor Alexius I to repel invading Seljuk Turks wishing to expand their empire. It should have ended there... but unfortunately it would turn into an excuse to wage a "blessed" war against all Turks due to the command from Pope Urban II to reclaim all of the Levent (which is basically the same area that today is in upheaval.) This of course took place very shortly after the Great Schism, so it's no surprise that the Church and States being in a state of confusion would fall prey to the unifying effects of Holy War.

It's interesting but Jews and Muslims alike fought side by side to protect Jerusalem, though in vain. When the Frank army sacked the city, they annihilated all the inhabitants. The 2nd-9th Crusades that followed were literally a back and forth unresolved "taking of the hill" not unlike what the US faced in Vietnam.

So in short, Islam itself may not be any different today if the Pope hadn't started **** way back when (he had no real claim to the area, it'd been in Muslim/Jewish control for almost half a century prior to the First Crusade) but the sentiment between the two religions may indeed be completely different, and we may not have so many fundies on both sides fighting an ages old battle that should have never started to begin with.

The west and Islam traded with each other prior the crusades, there was a health exchange between the two. After the crusades Islam banned that and isolated themselves, that's what I mean. Had that exchange continued I don't think Islam would be the same.

 

[Dre89]

Thanks Blazed.

Interesting point about looking better when you do the degree later. I hope you're right about that.

 

[Sucumbio]

The west and Islam traded with each other prior the crusades, there was a health exchange between the two. After the crusades Islam banned that and isolated themselves, that's what I mean. Had that exchange continued I don't think Islam would be the same.

Here's a fascinating article about this very subject, actually.

The trade between Islamic states and the West was indeed prosperous, and the Crusades impacted it, though it did not necessarily do away with it, more it changed how it was formulated (from 2 independent entities trading with each other to 1 entity represented by both constituents). Once again it's the good 'ole Catholic Church that had to mess with things, by deciding to declare that anyone caught trading with the Mamelukes would be punished. It's funny but the Mediterranean traders all but ignored this edict, and went on secretly trading anyway.

I think the biggest impact to trade between the two would have to be Vasco de Gamma's key discovery of the Cape of Good Hope. It eliminated the need for using the Mamelukes as "middle men," cutting out a large portion of the business that the Muslim states prospered with.

But of course what this suggests is that if the Crusades had not happened at all, the trade agreements would still have existed (though probably have remained separate instead of jointly run), and the Portuguese would still have made their discovery, and still have eliminated the need for Islamic trade routes, which would still lead to the economic decline of the Muslims.

 

[Dre89]

How educational do you guys think think science/wildlife docs and populist books are? They're certainly entertaining, but I'm curious as to how big the gap is in educational value of populist and academic material of the same field.

And do you any of you guys know of any publicly accessible science journals/academic outlets? Basically anything with contemporary science that is academic instead of populist.

Thanks in advance.

 

[Sucumbio]

How educational do you guys think think science/wildlife docs and populist books are? They're certainly entertaining, but I'm curious as to how big the gap is in educational value of populist and academic material of the same field.

And do you any of you guys know of any publicly accessible science journals/academic outlets? Basically anything with contemporary science that is academic instead of populist.

Thanks in advance.

The American Journal of Botany is a good example of a periodical that is not meant for casual reading, but as a "heads up" to the botanical society's constituents for what's hot and what's not in research and discovery. Is it educational? Very... but also kind of useless unless you're into that kind of thing. There's a lot of big words and technical terms throughout (because they are in fact real research papers for experiments actually happening, and funded a lot of times by governments.) This would be an example of a periodical whose focus targets a specific group of academics and scholars and scientists - hence "society." It is not catered toward the casual reader, who is just looking for something to skim, what I'm assuming you're referring to as "populist."

Now, something that WOULD fit the category of populist if I understand your question correctly, would be (heh) Popular Mechanics. I mean just looking at their front page the big article at the moment is "THE 100 HOTTEST CARS OF ALL TIME!" (YAY!!!!!) But yeah, it's a magazine (yeah, a periodical, but you'd lose points for citing it in a research paper in school instead of a true academic journal)... flashy and has tons of ad placement by big corp like Mobil, Toyota, Fram, etc etc. The articles are written in a language much simpler to understand by the laymen, as is the subject matter. Though there are technical terms in play, most of them are widely understood. "Horses." "R.P.M." You get the idea.

What you'll find most of the time is that academic journals (which all pretty much have online websites to increase exposure) are put forth by Societies in very specific fields (even if it happens to be the field of General Science, as is the AAAS, or American Association for the Advancement of Science who publishes the journal Science)

You can estimate that there are hundreds if not thousands of these types of publications. They're all ... "educational" ... some more than others, for sure... but they also have no real point other than to be a convenient "bulletin board" of sorts of the daily/weekly/monthly/yearly topics of hand.

True enough that popular magazines can also educate. But they are not nearly as specific in terms of subject matter - instead they attempt to blanket cover everything that's remotely mentionable, and of course it has to be something that's going to get people to buy the magazine, so that the ads can be seen, so that people buy those products.

I used to be the Ad Sales manager for the American Journal of Botany, lol. While I was, there was never a time I considered putting in a John Deer ad, or a Miracle Gro ad. Instead it was ads for things like Sergent-Welch, a lab supply company. Or more popular were ads for the Society itself and their goings-on.

So in short, yes. But if you pick one up/click to one on the net, and you see an ad for anything you recognize, it's probably not as "educational" a thing as you'd expect.

 

[AltF4]

If Obama signs the NDAA into law (and it looks like he will) then I won't vote for him again. No matter what else. This bill is ridiculous. If you thought the PATRIOT act was bad... oh man. My only hope is that the supreme court will strike it down. But I'm not holding my breath.

The NDAA allows the government to indefinitely arrest anyone without charge or trial. They can just lock you up for no reason at all, and never let you out.

Let that sink in for a moment.

Not to mention SOPA, too! Which goes to the House floor tomorrow. Which would set up a Great Firewall of America, a national list of banned websites. Ridiculous. Vote 3rd party.

 

[rvkevin]

I thought Obama said he was going to veto NDAA? Did he change his position on that?

 

[Sucumbio]

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2011/...act-ndaa-obama-detainee-policy_n_1147878.html

Basically he won't veto it now.

Specifically, the bill would require that the military take custody of a suspect deemed to be a member of al-Qaida or its affiliates and who is involved in plotting or committing attacks on the United States. There is an exemption for U.S. citizens.

House and Senate negotiators added language that says nothing in the bill will affect "existing criminal enforcement and national security authorities of the FBI or any other domestic law enforcement agency" with regard to a captured suspect "regardless of whether such ... person is held in military custody."

...

The bill also says the president can waive the provision based on national security.

...

Unnerving many conservative Republicans and liberal Democrats, the legislation also would deny suspected terrorists, even U.S. citizens seized within the nation's borders, the right to trial and subject them to indefinite detention.

It's a tricky bill. The norm will be that if you're suspected of terrorism, -and NOT a US Citizen- you can be rounded up by any law enforcement agency, but you will need to be handed over to the military. This basically solidifies the position that Terrorism by a foreigner is an act of War, and therefore deserves military treatment, not civil.

However it also means that the President if he sees fit, can waive the exemption of US Citizens from this procedure. This was to effect people like al-Awlaki who was technically a US citizen.

It also does mean, unfortunately, that at any given moment, a random citizen can be "disappeared." It'll be interesting to see what the constitutional lawyers do with this one. ,I'm sure there will be law suits just like when the Health Bill passed. And moreover this really may just be political posturing on the White House's side, giving something for getting something, when they have no real expectation that the provision in the Bill will remain as it is for any usable length of time. I know it's a scary gamble if that's the case, but that's politics for ya.

 

[Budget Player Cadet_]

If Obama signs the NDAA into law (and it looks like he will) then I won't vote for him again. No matter what else. This bill is ridiculous. If you thought the PATRIOT act was bad... oh man. My only hope is that the supreme court will strike it down. But I'm not holding my breath.

The NDAA allows the government to indefinitely arrest anyone without charge or trial. They can just lock you up for no reason at all, and never let you out.

Let that sink in for a moment.

Not to mention SOPA, too! Which goes to the House floor tomorrow. Which would set up a Great Firewall of America, a national list of banned websites. Ridiculous. Vote 3rd party.

I hate this attitude. I'm sorry, but here's the thing: which presidential candidate likely to run in '12 wouldn't have signed this bill? And don't you dare bring up a third party.


In other news: http://erin-pokingatsnakes.blogspot...ion-lowes-and.html?spref=fb&fb_source=message
And
http://www.americanprogressaction.org/issues/2011/12/gingrich_taxes.html
**** this country. In the ***. -.-

 

[rvkevin]

I don't even think this is good politics. He's turning away his base. I don't know if you follow TYT, but Cenk expressed this sentiment the other day. If Obama is going to enact policies like this, then what's the point in voting for him? You can always say that he is the lesser of two evils, but this is beyond the pale. Might as well have a Republican President so the Democrats put up a little more resistance. Anyone have any recommendations for third party candidates?

I'm not sure how wise it is to posture about these issues. For one, Republicans haven't reciprocated when Obama concedes issues to them, so he will likely get nothing in return. Also, for issues like these, it will be hard to challenge it in the courts. For one, a lawyer can't challenge a law without a client and when you can "disappear" someone, how do you find them or even know they're there? Second, this is something that can easily be brushed under the rug in the name of "national security"; the justification that never seems to need justification. It's not like the policies under Bush have been challenged. As far as I know, the Patriot Act hasn't been challenged and no one has been prosecuted for torture. If we haven't defended the 8th amendment, what makes you think we will defend the 4th and 5th?

 

[Aesir]

I hate this attitude. I'm sorry, but here's the thing: which presidential candidate likely to run in '12 wouldn't have signed this bill? And don't you dare bring up a third party.

While I agree with you, it's that same mentality that allows this to happen. Democrats know the left won't betray them, so the democrats can keep betreying the left. Why? Where are they gonna go? Seriously if you're a moderate your concerns have more weight than a Liberal.

I don't even think this is good politics. He's turning away his base. I don't know if you follow TYT, but Cenk expressed this sentiment the other day. If Obama is going to enact policies like this, then what's the point in voting for him? You can always say that he is the lesser of two evils, but this is beyond the pale. Might as well have a Republican President so the Democrats put up a little more resistance. Anyone have any recommendations for third party candidates?

The problem is that doesn't work, you just have to look at the bush years to see that doesn't work.

I'm not sure how wise it is to posture about these issues. For one, Republicans haven't reciprocated when Obama concedes issues to them, so he will likely get nothing in return. Also, for issues like these, it will be hard to challenge it in the courts. For one, a lawyer can't challenge a law without a client and when you can "disappear" someone, how do you find them or even know they're there? Second, this is something that can easily be brushed under the rug in the name of "national security"; the justification that never seems to need justification. It's not like the policies under Bush have been challenged. As far as I know, the Patriot Act hasn't been challenged and no one has been prosecuted for torture. If we haven't defended the 8th amendment, what makes you think we will defend the 4th and 5th?

You can sue the government for enacting something unconstitutional, which is likely what they would do though. Also a bit of optimism the supreme court struck down parts of the a law that would allow for "Advanced interrogation techniques." basically the supreme court struck down that torture was unconstitutional. However no one really pushed the issue after that.

Sorry if any of you were expecting optimism from me, but frankly you can't expect any reasonable change from either party, and any candidate that looks good in theory won't get elected. Even if they did they wouldn't get anything passed. that's the harsh reality, there are very easy fixes that can be made, but they won't be made not when everyones bought and paid for already.

Sorry for the pessimism but this subject has been my "thing" for the past few years now so I've more a less come to terms with the system being a broken mess.