Military given go-ahead to detain US terrorist suspects without trial

[JJ Husker]

It's not that I feel the left is the center. It's that generally, America is on the right side of center. Want to talk about real leftists, maybe look at Europe.

I can't argue with that. The problem as I see it is we are following in Europe's footsteps. They may be a few miles ahead of us but it seems to me that we have a plethora of people who have failed to learn the lessons of Europe's failed economic and domestic policies. I truly believe we are at the tipping point of transitioning from right of center (where we belong) to leftist. I also believe it is a point of no return. Once 50% of the people can fulfill their needs by being dependent on the government, our country is screwed IMO. My favorite book is Atlas Shrugged if that helps y'all understand me better.

[carlfense]

My favorite book is Atlas Shrugged if that helps y'all understand me better.

Atlas Shrugged was OK. I preferred the Fountainhead because it's basically the same message without a 70 page John Galt speech.

[JJ Husker]

My favorite book is Atlas Shrugged if that helps y'all understand me better.

Atlas Shrugged was OK. I preferred the Fountainhead because it's basically the same message without a 70 page John Galt speech.

I liked The Fountainhead as well but feel it applied more to the personal level whereas Atlas had a broader message for society or rather was more foretelling of where I feel we are heading. 1984 is another that we are scarily beginning to live up to. Just look at the titles of major legislation and then look at what the bills actually do. If that isn't blatant doublespeak at it's finest, what is? Rupubs use it but liberals have refined it to an art. Illegal Immigrants are undocumented aliens? People who want the government off their back are demonized as Tea Baggers and radicals. Only 200 years ago those same people were patriots and founding fathers.

[carlfense]

My favorite book is Atlas Shrugged if that helps y'all understand me better.

Atlas Shrugged was OK. I preferred the Fountainhead because it's basically the same message without a 70 page John Galt speech.

I liked The Fountainhead as well but feel it applied more to the personal level whereas Atlas had a broader message for society or rather was more foretelling of where I feel we are heading. 1984 is another that we are scarily beginning to live up to. Just look at the titles of major legislation and then look at what the bills actually do. If that isn't blatant doublespeak at it's finest, what is? Rupubs use it but liberals have refined it to an art. Illegal Immigrants are undocumented aliens? People who want the government off their back are demonized as Tea Baggers and radicals. Only 200 years ago those same people were patriots and founding fathers.

Yeah . . . those durned libruls givin' us the Patriot Act.

 

When I use the term 'bagger I'm talking about the type of person who professes an undying love for the constitution and our history while failing to understand (or even be familiar with) either. The t-shirt patriots, if you will.

[redblooded]

My favorite book is Atlas Shrugged if that helps y'all understand me better.

Atlas Shrugged was OK. I preferred the Fountainhead because it's basically the same message without a 70 page John Galt speech.

I liked The Fountainhead as well but feel it applied more to the personal level whereas Atlas had a broader message for society or rather was more foretelling of where I feel we are heading. 1984 is another that we are scarily beginning to live up to. Just look at the titles of major legislation and then look at what the bills actually do. If that isn't blatant doublespeak at it's finest, what is? Rupubs use it but liberals have refined it to an art. Illegal Immigrants are undocumented aliens? People who want the government off their back are demonized as Tea Baggers and radicals. Only 200 years ago those same people were patriots and founding fathers.

Yeah . . . those durned libruls givin' us the Patriot Act.

 

When I use the term 'bagger I'm talking about the type of person who professes an undying love for the constitution and our history while failing to understand (or even be familiar with) either. The t-shirt patriots, if you will.

 

To be fair Obama campaigned on open government and getting rid of stuff like gitmo and the patriot act. Then didn't do much about any of it. So it's not like left leaning people don't want to get rid of it, it's just that politicians on both sides are corrupt. The sad thing is people are dumb enough to allow this crap. On both sides there's not enough accountability.

[JJ Husker]

See, I just knew this thread would make it's way back to the topic. I agree that W gave us the patriot act and that it's title is of the doublespeak style I mentioned earlier. But sarcastically saying "those durned libruls givin' us the Patriot Act" is a little dangerous for the point you were trying to make. Unless givin' and renewing are viewed as 2 completely different things. I would like to think that W was privy to intel that led him to the PA. Considering how opposed BHO was to it before, and his lack of action against it, I assume that he was enlightened as to it's necessity. Yeah it makes me nervous but, possibly the benefits way outweigh the risks. I won't get overly excited about it until innocent US citizens get caught up in it. I don't happen to believe foreigners and terrorists should have the same constitutional protections that we enjoy.

[carlfense]

To be fair Obama campaigned on open government and getting rid of stuff like gitmo and the patriot act. Then didn't do much about any of it.

Congress refused to allow the closing of Gitmo. For god's sake . . . the latest omnibus spending bill that they sent to Obama to sign yesterday STILL adds more provisions blocking the closing of Gitmo. (It specifically bars any funding for transferring prisoners from Guantanamo.) It's like the GOP is barricading streets to keep firetrucks away and then trying to blame Obama because the house is still burning.

 

Now, the Patriot Act . . . I am extremely, extremely, disappointed at Obama's flip flop on the Patriot Act. Regardless of who was responsible for it in the first place, Obama has apparently accepted it. If you're asking if I am OK with that, I am not.

[carlfense]

See, I just knew this thread would make it's way back to the topic. I agree that W gave us the patriot act and that it's title is of the doublespeak style I mentioned earlier. But sarcastically saying "those durned libruls givin' us the Patriot Act" is a little dangerous for the point you were trying to make. Unless givin' and renewing are viewed as 2 completely different things. I would like to think that W was privy to intel that led him to the PA. Considering how opposed BHO was to it before, and his lack of action against it, I assume that he was enlightened as to it's necessity. Yeah it makes me nervous but, possibly the benefits way outweigh the risks. I won't get overly excited about it until innocent US citizens get caught up in it. I don't happen to believe foreigners and terrorists should have the same constitutional protections that we enjoy.

Regarding the bold: no. Our security is not worth our liberty.

[JJ Husker]

See, I just knew this thread would make it's way back to the topic. I agree that W gave us the patriot act and that it's title is of the doublespeak style I mentioned earlier. But sarcastically saying "those durned libruls givin' us the Patriot Act" is a little dangerous for the point you were trying to make. Unless givin' and renewing are viewed as 2 completely different things. I would like to think that W was privy to intel that led him to the PA. Considering how opposed BHO was to it before, and his lack of action against it, I assume that he was enlightened as to it's necessity. Yeah it makes me nervous but, possibly the benefits way outweigh the risks. I won't get overly excited about it until innocent US citizens get caught up in it. I don't happen to believe foreigners and terrorists should have the same constitutional protections that we enjoy.

Regarding the bold: no. Our security is not worth our liberty.

 

But losing a little liberty by being forced to purchase health insurance or pay the penalty is fine? One definitely affects every American while the other only has the possibility. Can you explain the difference?

[Hingle McCringleberry]

See, I just knew this thread would make it's way back to the topic. I agree that W gave us the patriot act and that it's title is of the doublespeak style I mentioned earlier. But sarcastically saying "those durned libruls givin' us the Patriot Act" is a little dangerous for the point you were trying to make. Unless givin' and renewing are viewed as 2 completely different things. I would like to think that W was privy to intel that led him to the PA. Considering how opposed BHO was to it before, and his lack of action against it, I assume that he was enlightened as to it's necessity. Yeah it makes me nervous but, possibly the benefits way outweigh the risks. I won't get overly excited about it until innocent US citizens get caught up in it. I don't happen to believe foreigners and terrorists should have the same constitutional protections that we enjoy.

 

 

I still remember when Obama set up his transition office to work closely with the outgoing staff etc, and he would hold daily (?) pressors, and you could pretty much tell the day he was "read in" on the daily security brief, his tone and tenor changed in the blink of an eye. It is very easy to be critical when you dont know what you are talking about. I dont agree with the PA, and am more than a little worried that temporary powers granted under duress have been pretty much made permanent, but I would also like to see what we have stopped using it.

[carlfense]

See, I just knew this thread would make it's way back to the topic. I agree that W gave us the patriot act and that it's title is of the doublespeak style I mentioned earlier. But sarcastically saying "those durned libruls givin' us the Patriot Act" is a little dangerous for the point you were trying to make. Unless givin' and renewing are viewed as 2 completely different things. I would like to think that W was privy to intel that led him to the PA. Considering how opposed BHO was to it before, and his lack of action against it, I assume that he was enlightened as to it's necessity. Yeah it makes me nervous but, possibly the benefits way outweigh the risks. I won't get overly excited about it until innocent US citizens get caught up in it. I don't happen to believe foreigners and terrorists should have the same constitutional protections that we enjoy.

Regarding the bold: no. Our security is not worth our liberty.

 

But losing a little liberty by being forced to purchase health insurance or pay the penalty is fine? One definitely affects every American while the other only has the possibility. Can you explain the difference?

How can you argue that they are connected? Do you think Medicare/Medicaid take your liberty? Why do you think being required to carry health insurance (or any other kind of insurance) takes your liberty or anyone elses?

[carlfense]

See, I just knew this thread would make it's way back to the topic. I agree that W gave us the patriot act and that it's title is of the doublespeak style I mentioned earlier. But sarcastically saying "those durned libruls givin' us the Patriot Act" is a little dangerous for the point you were trying to make. Unless givin' and renewing are viewed as 2 completely different things. I would like to think that W was privy to intel that led him to the PA. Considering how opposed BHO was to it before, and his lack of action against it, I assume that he was enlightened as to it's necessity. Yeah it makes me nervous but, possibly the benefits way outweigh the risks. I won't get overly excited about it until innocent US citizens get caught up in it. I don't happen to believe foreigners and terrorists should have the same constitutional protections that we enjoy.

 

 

I still remember when Obama set up his transition office to work closely with the outgoing staff etc, and he would hold daily (?) pressors, and you could pretty much tell the day he was "read in" on the daily security brief, his tone and tenor changed in the blink of an eye. It is very easy to be critical when you dont know what you are talking about. I dont agree with the PA, and am more than a little worried that temporary powers granted under duress have been pretty much made permanent, but I would also like to see what we have stopped using it.

No kidding. "Most transparent administration ever."

[JJ Husker]

See, I just knew this thread would make it's way back to the topic. I agree that W gave us the patriot act and that it's title is of the doublespeak style I mentioned earlier. But sarcastically saying "those durned libruls givin' us the Patriot Act" is a little dangerous for the point you were trying to make. Unless givin' and renewing are viewed as 2 completely different things. I would like to think that W was privy to intel that led him to the PA. Considering how opposed BHO was to it before, and his lack of action against it, I assume that he was enlightened as to it's necessity. Yeah it makes me nervous but, possibly the benefits way outweigh the risks. I won't get overly excited about it until innocent US citizens get caught up in it. I don't happen to believe foreigners and terrorists should have the same constitutional protections that we enjoy.

Regarding the bold: no. Our security is not worth our liberty.

 

But losing a little liberty by being forced to purchase health insurance or pay the penalty is fine? One definitely affects every American while the other only has the possibility. Can you explain the difference?

How can you argue that they are connected? Do you think Medicare/Medicaid take your liberty? Why do you think being required to carry health insurance (or any other kind of insurance) takes your liberty or anyone elses?

Just a few posts back you were in your high horse talking about people who don't know anything about the USC. Where is congress or our government given the authority to make a citizen purchase any good or service? Or do you think you get to decide what is worthy enough to warrant ignoring the USC? I won't argue that having health insurance isn't a good thing but some might. They are connected because the PA might infringe on a persons liberty but Obamacare does infringe on a persons liberty if they do not want to purchase health insurance. You can't preach about 'baggers' not knowing the USC and then pick and choose what causes meet your criteria. You are just another partisan player so you can give up the holier than thou attitude.You like Obamacare but not the PA. Fine. But you should probably have a better reason than it infringes on our liberty and you should have a better idea of what really constitutes liberty and freedom.

 

 

[carlfense]

See, I just knew this thread would make it's way back to the topic. I agree that W gave us the patriot act and that it's title is of the doublespeak style I mentioned earlier. But sarcastically saying "those durned libruls givin' us the Patriot Act" is a little dangerous for the point you were trying to make. Unless givin' and renewing are viewed as 2 completely different things. I would like to think that W was privy to intel that led him to the PA. Considering how opposed BHO was to it before, and his lack of action against it, I assume that he was enlightened as to it's necessity. Yeah it makes me nervous but, possibly the benefits way outweigh the risks. I won't get overly excited about it until innocent US citizens get caught up in it. I don't happen to believe foreigners and terrorists should have the same constitutional protections that we enjoy.

Regarding the bold: no. Our security is not worth our liberty.

 

But losing a little liberty by being forced to purchase health insurance or pay the penalty is fine? One definitely affects every American while the other only has the possibility. Can you explain the difference?

How can you argue that they are connected? Do you think Medicare/Medicaid take your liberty? Why do you think being required to carry health insurance (or any other kind of insurance) takes your liberty or anyone elses?

Just a few posts back you were in your high horse talking about people who don't know anything about the USC. 1. Where is congress or our government given the authority to make a citizen purchase any good or service? Or do you think you get to decide what is worthy enough to warrant ignoring the USC? I won't argue that having health insurance isn't a good thing but some might. They are connected because the PA might infringe on a persons liberty but Obamacare does infringe on a persons liberty if they do not want to purchase health insurance. 2. You can't preach about 'baggers' not knowing the USC and then pick and choose what causes meet your criteria. You are just another partisan player so you can give up the holier than thou attitude.You like Obamacare but not the PA. Fine. 3. But you should probably have a better reason than it infringes on our liberty and you should have a better idea of what really constitutes liberty and freedom.

1. Luckily we have an entire branch of government that applies the law. (That branch was established in the same document that you are ranting about.) We will find out this coming year whether the Constitution grants such authority.

 

2. It's not my criteria. It's the Supreme Courts criteria. We'll see how it comes out. (Insert generic argument about how the SC should not be able to determine what the Constitution means . . . while desperately arguing that the Constitution means what you want it to mean.)

 

3. Hey pot, kettle should be around here somewhere . . . I do enjoy the hypocrisy of you "choos[ing] what causes meet your criteria" for freedom and liberty while whining about me doing likewise. It got a small chuckle out of me on a rather dreary Tuesday morning.

[JJ Husker]

If there are more people with the same economic views as Malth, we are screwed.

 

Can it truly be considered a 'view' when the ramblings do not even hint at a modicum of understanding in Macro or Micro economics?

 

Please point out where I am factually incorrect. Or if I need to clarify something. I see a lot of LOL THATS STUPID replies with absolutely no substance behind them.

 

I guess I will apologize for hijacking this thread. That wasn't my intent. I saw some comments I wanted to respond to and it went out of control. I cannot continue a debate when the concepts introduced make absolutely no sense to me. If that means I lose, fine. I guess I am dumbfounded as to how to counter statements like; Obama is a moderate or proposing that we don't have to live within our means because we have the ability to keep printing money. For me that is like saying the Huskers wear red and then somebody claims otherwise and asks me to prove it. Really, I give up. Sorry this got off track.

 

Obama is moderate if you turn off fox news for a day. Seriously, get some freaking perspective.

 

You are not making much of an effort to understand what I'm saying. I understand where you're coming from on many of the points you make, because I used to believe they were true as well. When I first read that "federal taxes don't fund anything", I thought "that's stupid" and it must have been nonsense. But I kept reading anyway, and when it finally clicked, I couldn't believe how f'ing simple it is.

 

The reason I said that you need to prove that deficit spending causes inflation, is that I understand it's intuitive and it makes sense. Each additional dollar that is created dilutes the value of the rest of the dollars. It's a claim that should be easy to quantify, by finding correlations between higher deficit spending and higher than average inflation, right? Well, good luck finding that data, because it doesn't exist. It is not factually correct. As I mentioned earlier, if you did something ridiculous like writing a everyone a check for a million dollars, then you may be able to make a case, but at our current spending levels, inflation is NOT an issue at all.

 

I would like to make it clear that I am not advocating that we start creating several trillion dollars or anything ridiculous. It's just that terms like "living within our means" doesn't really apply to an entity that can create money at will and doesn't need to be paid back. The deficit is merely a reflection of the money supply.

Malth, I am intrigued by some of your posts on the economy. I was going to let this one go but decided to come back to it after reading another one of your posts that said something to the effect of "tax dollars don't support anything". Originally I thought you were some kind of crackpot (probably still do to be honest) but it does appear that you are serious about these claims you are making. To be honest I really don't see you swaying me on these issues but I do promise to keep an open mind and consider what you say. I have a couple questions/explanations that may help you enlighten me or me you.

 

1- If tax dollars don't pay for or support anything, what happens to the thousands of dollars I send the government every quarter of every year? I make my checks out to the US Treasury and they sure as heck get cashed and the money comes out of my bank account. If my funds don't get used to pay for anything by the government, where do those funds go?

 

2- You have stated that dumping money into the economy (ie stimulus etc) does not / will not cause inflation. You posted some neat little graphs that showed no relationship between the 2. I would posit that recent stimulus to the economy has not necessarily caused inflation but rather has been eaten up by offsetting deeper recession, I would also state that, in an economy that is not on the ropes, dumping this money into the economy would cause inflation. If a billion dollars is added to the economy, that will cause a billion dollars (less the amount people/companies put into long term savings) growth in demand. Can we agree that higher demand will result in lower supply and thus increasing prices? BTW, increasing prices is also known as inflation. I may not be up on new economic "theories" but has the relationship of supply and demand changed? I claim additional money (not a result of natural growth) in the economy does cause inflation and/or offset the opposite and is not a natural market force and it should be avoided at virtually all costs. And, I don't mean to be picky but, more graphs of questionable motives and sources are not what I'm looking for. Just explain it.