quote:Originally posted by Jay the Obscure: I see. We're getting closer to an "ideal", therefore, we shouldn't really worry about all the rest of it.
Is that the argument?
No, quite the contrary. I'm not saying we should disregard our failings, but we should also take into account our successes. If I feel pride in being American, it isn't because our leader and his puppetmasters are doling out concessions to their oil-baron crones and spoiling our environment and reputation in global politics. It's for the ideals which laid the ground rules for our society and which have enabled us to accomplish so many wonderful things. The inadequacies and hypocrisy of the current regime is that much more hateful to me because it undermines these ideals. To me America is a bunch of guys zooming around on the moon in a dune-buggy, Dr. Martin Luther King speaking to a thronging crowd in our nation's capital, the Peace Corp, Steve Wozniak and Steve Jobs building a computer in their garage and becoming millionaires. It's turning on NPR (or visiting message boards) and hearing a broad spectrum of support and disdain for the leaders of our nation and not fearing that soldiers will come into our homes and beat us up and/or kill us on our lawns. It's going to the grocery store and having to remember no only what brand of fresh squeezed OJ I like, but also the level of pulp and whether I want it with extra calcium. In the America that I love, a bunch of war-mongers spurring foreign dissent under the auspices of freedom to line their allready preposterously fat pockets is an abomination and an abberation. If this nation is anything at all like the place it was supposed to be, these people can't last long here. I had to say it every morning staring at the flag with my hand on my heart, and I never understood until I was much older: "...with liberty and justice for all."
So, I'm not even sure what we are arguing about anymore. Should the USA submit to the authority of a rational and globally ratified world war crimes court? Yes. Does the fact that Our Fearless Leader is opposed to this idea mean that all Americans are shameful creatures worthy of the contempt of the rest of the world? Hardly.
-------------------- "Nah. The 9th chevron is for changing the ringtone from "grindy-grindy chonk-chonk" to the theme tune to dallas." -Reverend42
Registered: Sep 2000
| IP: Logged
posted
It's the "rational" part we're worried about getting, IMHO. Quite frankly, a lot of us think you lot have already proven your irrationality by jumping on Kyoto, and assuming humans have a big impact on global warming (My 17,000+ anti-Kyoto scientists' link is still available).
We've seen enough 'legislation through the courts' here, we don't want to see some fool country/organization suing us over our not signing Kyoto, and having this World Court write new international law (which is basically what it would be doing if it made any kind of judgement at all).
quote:(Assassinating our own leaders, funding private wars to suit our own interests, covering up scandals, not being popularly elected and somehow still being president anyway, etc.)
Fortunately, we don't lead the world in ANY of these particular categories.
I'm not talking about anyone in particular here, but I always find it amusing when a person from a parliamentary country says something about OUR leader not being elected by a popular majority.
quote:United States also only freed its slaves in 1865 this was 32 years *after* the rest of the civilised world (or the British Empire as it was then known ) did so.
If you're so civilized, why were you so close to supporting the slaveowning South?
Because the Empire figured that if it weakened the States enough, (because if the South had seceded, that probably would have started a general breakdown) it'd eventually be able to reclaim its former colonies, that's why.
quote:I'll assume that incudes women when I ask if in recent years the government of the United States, and in more recent times (under the guidence of the Mr. Bush) have upheld the words of the Declaration of Independence
Well, let's see... of course, Conservatives have never really backed THIS particular diversion from the Declaration's statement that all people are endowed with the rights of life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness, but...
Abortion certainly deprives a large number of people of 'life' each year, (far more than you'll see killed on Texas's death row) without trial, with no appeals, and with the only sentence being death. And most of the time it's for the sake of 'convenience.'
At least when WE kill somebody, they've DONE something first.
[ April 15, 2002, 16:15: Message edited by: First of Two ]
-------------------- "The best defense is not a good offense. The best defense is a terrifyingly accurate and devastatingly powerful offense, with multiply-overlapping kill zones and time-on-target artillery strikes." -- Laurence, Archangel of the Sword
Registered: Mar 1999
| IP: Logged
posted
I love it when people who claim to want less-intrusive government do one of two things.
The first is to want the government to tell people what they can or can't do with their bodies. Today abortion, tomorrow, tatoos. Watch. Isn't this what you're always pissed at the government about? Oh, I see. They can't touch your GUN, but they can touch your body, huh? Hell, everyone buy a gun so when Rob's library troops go marching towards the abortion clinics you can defend yourself from his gestapo.
The second is, that for a group so obsessed with a "1984" government (except when the cronies in office actually abuse their power by the Patriot Act, in which case they turn a deaf ear), they have absolutely 100% faith in the government's ability to prosecute people for crimes, without the possibility that mistakes are made. They generally favor less appeals process in the death penalty cases, and apparently are jealous that inmates have a/c and TV and they're too poor to afford it. Of course, prisoners get ass-raped all the time, but they tend to gloss that over.
Gee, Rob isn't the only one good at changing the subject, is he?
You speak to a great and wonderful things...things for which I feel pride and that I'm sure that Lincoln was speaking of when he refered to the better angels of our nature. I certainly do not deny the legitimacy of your argument that the United States taken as a whole is among the best things going and that living here gives one the ability to think and post such thoughts.
I just happen to think that on some fundamental levels we grown into a nation that talks a good game and away from one that puts the words of its creed into actual practice.
-------------------- Great is the guilt of an unnecessary war. ~ohn Adams
Once again the Bush Administration is worse than I had imagined, even though I thought I had already taken account of the fact that the Bush administration is invariably worse than I can imagine. ~Brad DeLong
You're just babbling incoherently. ~C. Montgomery Burns
Registered: Mar 1999
| IP: Logged
(unless they get infected, in which case they only kill the tattooed)
quote: they have absolutely 100% faith in the government's ability to prosecute people for crimes, without the possibility that mistakes are made
Whereas Snay has absolutely 100% faith that all the people who are killed in abortion are going to grow up to be Dictators.
quote:They generally favor less appeals process in the death penalty cases
We favor less for yours, you favor none for ours. Who's more draconian? And we can guarantee that 100% of your victims are innocent.
quote:They can't touch your GUN, but they can touch your body, huh?
Oh, that's rich. You'll allow a death to protect a woman's right to her body... but only AFTER she's been raped. God forbid we should actually let her kill the rapist rather than the child.
You'll allow a woman to kill to protect her body (no matter what she's been doing with it in the meantime), but you won't let a person kill to protect their LIFE.
You harp about how a gun's only purpose is to KILL, well what do you think an abortion is intended to do, produce a xylophone? You could only say 'sometimes, abortions save lives...' and the answer is 'yes, and we've established that sometimes guns save lives, too. No point there.'
Face it, you're supporting the biggest death-of-the-innocent industry since... since EVER, and you're calling us 'bad' because we support the death of the guilty!
There's no intrusiveness here... each of us wants to tell the other who they can and cannot murder. The difference is, your stance is hypocritical, while mine is not.
Boiled down:
Your stance: You cannot kill the presumed guilty, becuse they might be innocent. But you can kill the innocent, because they're inconvenient.
Our stance: You can kill the presumed guilty, because they've been judged guilty by the preponderance of the evidence, as the law sees it. You cannot kill the innocent, because they ARE innocent!
A better stance: You can't kill the presumed guilty, unless guilt is positively certain, with no reasonable margin for error. Then you may. You still cannot kill the innocent, because they ARE innocent!
[ April 15, 2002, 18:21: Message edited by: First of Two ]
-------------------- "The best defense is not a good offense. The best defense is a terrifyingly accurate and devastatingly powerful offense, with multiply-overlapping kill zones and time-on-target artillery strikes." -- Laurence, Archangel of the Sword
Registered: Mar 1999
| IP: Logged
posted
Someone needs to code a random Simon glib comment generator in JavaScript.
Oh, and gentlemen... do pause and ask yourself what on Earth this will achieve.
-------------------- "I was surprised by the matter-of-factness of Kafka's narration, and the subtle humor present as a result." (Sizer 2005)
Registered: Mar 1999
| IP: Logged
First of all, I commend you for changing the topic since you obviously know your attempt to defend the US's not joining the War Crimes Court would result in your head being bashed into a bloody mess, much resembling a Jackson Polluck painting.
And I don't call you bad because you're anti-choice, Rob, I call you bad because you claim to be AGAINST big government, but are jumping quite happily into bed with them.
You make the half-assed assumption that all women who have abortions do so as a result of being raped. This is not correct.
And, if you'd bothered to do some reading of my post (instead of those assumptions you love SO much), you'd notice I said we should give people guns to protect them from your Big Government policies. Or did you forget The Patriot Act?
Apparently so. Oh, wait, I remember. It's nothing more then a Big Liberal Conspiracy.
Get back on topic (Ze War Crimes Court, and why ze US Is Nicht Joining), or create a new fucking thread, Robert.
quote:what on Earth this will achieve.
Clearly, Rob wants to be able to claim "victory" in this thread. The logic seems to be, "The United States won't enter a world War Crimes Court because abortion is EVIL MURDER WAAAAH!"
posted
First, I doidn't change the topic. Somebody asked a question/ made a statement, and I answered it. I even quoted it, which you could see if you read the posts.
quote:your attempt to defend the US's not joining the War Crimes Court would result in your head being bashed into a bloody mess, much resembling a Jackson Polluck painting
OOH, you're so civilized, you big hunka man, you!
quote:I call you bad because you claim to be AGAINST big government, but are jumping quite happily into bed with them
No I'm not, you are. I'm for letting the states decide.
quote:You make the half-assed assumption that all women who have abortions do so as a result of being raped. This is not correct.
Of course it's not correct. It's only the most morally justifiable argument that the other side has (in cases of rape/incest/life of the mother).
We already know that the vast majority of abortions are matters of convenience, rather than necessity. Killing for convenience is not morally justifiable, as you rightly assert when someone suggests that killing criminals might be more convenient than housing them.
quote:I said we should give people guns to protect them from your Big Government policies. Or did you forget The Patriot Act?
The Patriot Act... seems to be a partly foolish knee-jerk reaction to an unprecedented crisis, (which, incidentally, passed with more than just the Republicans voting for it) much like certain acts performed by another great American administration during the days after a certain incident in Hawaii about 61 years ago... on the other hand, it's clear that some areas of security DO need to be tightened up.
quote:Clearly, Rob wants to be able to claim "victory" in this thread. The logic seems to be, "The United States won't enter a world War Crimes Court because abortion is EVIL MURDER WAAAAH!"
Clearly, Snay is bleary-eyed, (possibly from lack of sleep, testosterone overload, or overuse of the Jeep on a bumpy road ) or he'd have noticed that my original post consisted of several different replies to several different statement/questions, and not made the australopithicene assumption that I was connecting the "World Court" part of the post with the "how the US today deprives people of life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness" part of the post.
[ April 15, 2002, 19:27: Message edited by: First of Two ]
-------------------- "The best defense is not a good offense. The best defense is a terrifyingly accurate and devastatingly powerful offense, with multiply-overlapping kill zones and time-on-target artillery strikes." -- Laurence, Archangel of the Sword
Registered: Mar 1999
| IP: Logged
posted
If you two are finished yelling and threatening to kill one another I have a few questions. Those who are opposed to a world court, your country has signed all kinds of treaties which restrict your soverneignty, throught the GATT treaties other countries are allowed to force you to change your laws. Through NAFTA you can also be focred to get rid of tarrifs, a loss of sovereignty. Through the SALT1&2 you were willing to give up some of your ability to defend yourselves. Why are you afraid to sign a treaty to try and form the starting point of world justice? It surely can't be because you are afraid of frivilous lawsuits? Could it be because your record in the world is a not very good one? Are you afraid all of your meddling will come back to haunt you?
Surely you can see the need to have a permanent place to try to get rid of some of the injustices in the world. We have dictators all over the place, like Hussain that you are trying to get rid of, wouldn't it look better to try him instead of just outright killing him. A fair trail held under the auspices of the UN or world court would take some of the heat off the US in an instance like this.
And one last argument, if you are here then at one point in your Star Trek watching you must have come to the conclusion that one world government is the only way we are going to make it to the stars. This is one of the steps necessary to achieve this.
[ April 15, 2002, 20:36: Message edited by: Grokca ]
-------------------- "and none of your usual boobery." M. Burns
Registered: Oct 2001
| IP: Logged
posted
This is certaily one of the silliest turns a thread has taken in recent memory.
-------------------- Great is the guilt of an unnecessary war. ~ohn Adams
Once again the Bush Administration is worse than I had imagined, even though I thought I had already taken account of the fact that the Bush administration is invariably worse than I can imagine. ~Brad DeLong
You're just babbling incoherently. ~C. Montgomery Burns
Registered: Mar 1999
| IP: Logged
capped
I WAS IN THE FUTURE, IT WAS TOO LATE TO RSVP
Member # 709
posted
I've seen sillier
-------------------- "Are you worried that your thoughts are not quite.. clear?"
Registered: Sep 2001
| IP: Logged
[ April 16, 2002, 10:10: Message edited by: Jay the Obscure ]
-------------------- Great is the guilt of an unnecessary war. ~ohn Adams
Once again the Bush Administration is worse than I had imagined, even though I thought I had already taken account of the fact that the Bush administration is invariably worse than I can imagine. ~Brad DeLong
You're just babbling incoherently. ~C. Montgomery Burns
Registered: Mar 1999
| IP: Logged
![[Smile]](smile.gif)
![[Razz]](tongue.gif)
or he'd have noticed that my original post consisted of several different replies to several different statement/questions, and not made the australopithicene assumption that I was connecting the "World Court" part of the post with the "how the US today deprives people of life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness" part of the post.
Printer-friendly view of this topic
