New Mars Forums

Only. . . in the real world I'm not arguing for striking down Roe or the right to privacy.

Theft is taking a person's property without due process, the Constituion implies (yes, again, I'm not saying we disaregard inferred rights) that property rights need to be upheld. Otherwise the due process stuff is meaningless.

Bank robbery is theft, already covered.

I don't believe the government has any Constitutional or moral authority to restrict cocaine.

See, I'm fairly consistent. Just not consistent with the much-villified Right.

I'll remember that next time you go on about how things are "supposed" to be in a democracy. 

And you've fallen for that "perception" thing. In one case you argue strict legal points, in the other you discard them. Further argument is pointless.

No, that would be because many on the religious Right are prudes who think sex before marriage is evil.

You're not honestly trying to lump abortion and contraception into the same camp are you?

In any case, using up all your anti-Right abortion arguments on me is a waste, it's like trying to convince your priest that there is a God.

<sigh> It's like trying to explain relativity to a parrot.

I hear you clark, and on a legal basis I essentially agree. But the vast bulk of the country doesn't see it that way. They see it as Roe vs. Wade created abortion, hence the current conflict over it.

I thought someone who is on record saying that Bush was selected by the Supreme Court would understand that distinction when flipped to the other side.

This does bring up two other issues. First, can any medical process truly be called "natural?" Abortion is not a "natural right" by any stretch of the imagination. That's not to say I oppose it, but your classification of it is screwy.

Second, there is a very real question of when that fetus ceases to be "a woman's body" and becomes it's own entity deserving of legal protection. I don't pretend to have an answer to this but it can't be brushed aside either. Some say it starts at conception, I don't agree that a few cells equal a human being. Others argue that anything before the moment of birth is fair game. I don't agree. If you can kill a baby an hour before birth why not an hour after? Or a month? Or anytime before it's 18?

Problem is, these things were never resolved. The discussion wasn't even had in any meaningful sense.

Another familiar clark refrain if I recall.

Edited By Cobra Commander on 1121798872

First off, the right to privacy is not "enumerated" in the Bill of Rights, it's inferred. Big distinction.

Second, at no point did I say that I personally believed a certain way, except to say I didn't care.

Read it carefully. In my opinion it is an issue because the voters were not convinced. The mainstream of American society was not seeking this, it was handed down from on high with no electoral or legislative process.

But if it makes you feel better projecting at me, continue.

Dude, just prior to that sentence I stated I didn't care one way or the other.

You're really reaching lately.  :hm:

While I agree that this "abstinence only" stuff is nonsense, the above statement strikes me a s just a little excessive.

I completely agree. Unfortunately it isn't that easy. If a nation is not a willing participant in this Americanization, if they don't open their markets, this way is barred. Granted we should pursue this to a greater degree than we currently do, but it's only part of the solution. Sometimes we sell them Big Macs, sometimes we buy their oil, soemtimes we drop a few JDAMs. All have their place in molding others.

However we don't have to let them vote, metaphorically speaking. At least not until they are sufficiently brought around to our way of thinking to vote agreeably.

Numbers are not as important as they once were.

I'm content to be the crazy hermit that wanders out of the wilderness spewing prophecy, unappreciated in my time.

Peace on Earth, goodwill toward man. I'm keeping the stick.

Okay then, in that case it's what we're already doing.

Okay, then we're back to "how do we remold Islamic society" long-term cultural imperialist planning. Like we're already doing.

So in essence your plan seems to be do what we're doing, but do it smarter without elaboration.

Where have I heard that copout before?    :hm:

True. I just advise that you watch that Left hand as well.

"Certain expectation" was chosen for a reason, and by and large they do have supremacy in their own lands. Even Iraq and Afghanistan are not being assimilated at a pace that will wipe out Islam within them. In both cases, we're dealing with a nation ruled by an overtly hostile regime that was defeated. In such cases, the rules are different. Afghanistan's government was entirely in league with and supported those that attacked us and Iraq's threatened our interests on more than one occasion.

But then you already knew that.  :;):

When did I ever claim to be a moderate?

However, I'm of the opinion that when a group of people is trying to kill you for simply not being them, the time for moderation and pussy-footing has passed.

Okay, so we need to make sure they can receive our corrupting media and have internet access?

This planning, while resting on sound concepts, seems to fall apart whenever the details come up.

Also note, "American Taliban" is acceptable terminology for homegrown Christian fundies but call a liberal a "liberal" and they say you're attacking them. 

These are funny guys.

Edited By Cobra Commander on 1121783271

I consistently underestimate your ability to bash Bush more than terrorists in a post about terrorism. And I mean that in the most complimentary fashion.  :;):

Granted, though it doesn't address the problem. In this case crime is a symptom, busting al Qaeda drug runners doesn't address terrorism, it just screws with one funding channel.

Depending on how one chooses to define it. Are a select few governments directly responsible for all the Islamic terrorism in the same manner that Moscow was behind countless Marxist rebel factions? No. But there are some states that most certainly do spnsor terrorism. They do need to be dealt with, though not always by direct military force.

Filtering out non-constructive neo-con conspiracy stuff, so you're opting for "neutralize through assimilation" as pertains to the real question of how to deal with the "foreign colonist" issue?

On that there is room for real progress and discussion.

Okay. . . so the state-sponsored terrorism paradigm is BS but the peace through rubbers and pills paradigm is essential?

:laugh:

Sure, Muslim women having access to reliable contraception could help in many respects, both from a social standpoint and simply by reducing the number of future potential jihadis, but we've got a loooong way to go before that even becomes a practical issue in many of these countries.

1) Part of the solution, ineffective by itself.
2) Requires far more elaborate modification of Islamic society before it can be implemented.
3) Agreed. Options are being developed. Impediments to nuclear power must be removed, hybrid cars should be encouraged in various ways. Hydrogen is not yet ready for prime-time.

Supremacist in what regard?

Bill, I'm curious as to why you're suddenly on this "police work" kick, what brought this on with such zeal?

Anyway. . .

The old nation-states at war model doesn't really apply here because the enemy has no state but rather acts as a parasite or in symbiosis with sovereign states. A law enforcement approach doesn't really apply either because this is an act of war, we're dealing not with criminals but with fanatical self-styled warriors bent on killing as many of us as they can. They're attacking our nations and our culture, not running a crime syndicate.

But there's a third model that's only been hinted at in various discussions here and what the hell, time to lay it on the table.

In the case of terrorism within Western nations what we have is a case of two very different and opposed cultures occupying the same space. There are many historical examples of this, whether one chooses to go with whites vs. American Indians, Romans vs. Gauls, or perhaps most relevant, European Chistendom vs. Islam during the Middle Ages, doesn't much matter. In all cases, one of those cultures is always snuffed out in the territory of overlap. Sure, some diffusion takes place but in essence only one survives.

Perhaps going even further than militant jihadi-wacko Islam, "serious" Islam, as defined by those who take the religion to the point of actually praying five days a day in the office, dressing in traditional garb, etc. is an alien element within American, Australian and European society, one in which the fanatics grow. Foreign colonists.

So the real question before us is how are we going to respond to the steady influx of foreign colonists? Do we let them supplant us, endeavor to neutralize them through assimilation, or outright forcibly repel the invasion?

In order to be offended I must first perceive the would-be offender as having credibility.

We choose to be offended after all.

Alright, two brief comments.

See Treb's reply. I was not suggesting we stop immigration. I am suggesting that countries should control immigration to prevent their own demise and I maintain that no country has an obligation to let anyone in. If a representative sovereign state chooses to not admit anyone else, their call.

Dude, that's akin to saying to a rape victim "you were asking for it, dressing like that."

Think about your statement and how screwy it really is. You may have inadvertantly illustrated part of the point of this thread.

Which begs the question then, can one who does not believe in God yet "does good without asking for reward" find the way to God despite disbelief?

No need to answer, I'll find out for myself one of these days.