|
Why Are Most Repubs Apologists As Opposed to Conservatives? Do Principles Matter? (pg. 2)
|
View this Thread in Original format
| igottaknow |
i thought i'd stick my head in for a sec.
interesting post occ, i'm an independent with liberal tendencies (opps i said that dirt word "liberal"), so i don't have a clue into the conservative/republican mindset. i was just as baffeled that bush got re-elected. i know its not right but every misstep by bush confirms why i didn't vote for him. ppl said that the facts and bush's record in office were not important, they just trust him. so i say you deserve what you get. i hope he really s up this country (not that he hasn't already).
to answer your question all politicians are corrupt and the longer they're in power the more they take advantage of the system. the conservatives who voted for him know he's screwing up, but to admit that would mean they would have to admit they were wrong to re-elect him. they would rather believe the white house spin or listen to Rush Limbaugh than face up to the facts. |
|
|
| Yoepus |
| quote: | Originally posted by MisterOpus1
I don't disagree, however I do believe that evidence should be solid against the prisoners. The idea of having innocent men locked up for years on end, only to eventually set them free and see their hatred turned against us is, well, quite the catch 22 we put ourselves in. And aren't the rules set up for these tribunals pretty substantially different in terms of the rights of the prisoners and the evidence against them, as well as their rights to an attorney or something like that? |
Of course, one must tread lightly in this case, but so far I haven't seen real abuses of it. And I do believe that if an honest man does get caught up somehow in all that, that there are outs. He still will most likely have to sit in prison for months, but many other people who are only indicted with a charge do too....
for example a bartender friend of mine was charged for serving a minor and held on no real evidence (a cop coereced a statement from the guilty minor forcing her to 'point' to the person who served her (which she didn't know)) for a day until he could post bail.
Anyway thats just a simple matter and a little case like that has got the guy jumping through hopes left and right. Point is if a US citizen who just served a drink to a minor goes through , I can't imagine what a US citizen charged with treason caught in the act of abiding the enemy goes through.
In all reality the entire US and state justice systems sucks major balls and should be reformed to reflect its core and fair principles. That won't change I'm afraid. But again in principle I still agree that the government should be able to detain US citizens caught actively fighting in a foreign force against US troops.
Even if this is true I don't disagree with such action but applaud it. I do not believe the USA should have its hands tied behind its back when the enemy refuses to do the same. If the enemy does not fight by Geneva I believe it is not only legally right but morally right for the USA not to obey Geneva when fighting back. |
|
|
| occrider |
| quote: | Originally posted by Yoepus
A public court will potentially expose security/intelligence operations and operatives. Information that is and should be classified. These people will either have their day in military or closed court if charges are filed against them, otherwise they will be detained as prisoners of war until the war is over.
What do you sentance a prisoner of war for exactly? Fighting for the other side? There is nothing illegal about that. |
So what exactly is Jose Padilla charged with, why can we suspend the bill of rights in detaining him without trial, and what precedent does this set for any other case whereby the government charges a US citizen with carrying out a "war" against the United States without presenting evidence for its claims? Excuse me if I'm wrong, but this seems to go against every conservative principle of valuing individual liberties and rights over the state along with every principle the founding fathers intended by setting up the bill of rights and limiting the power of a central governemnt or "monarchy" if you will. What, are we taking notes from the Soviet Union and granting increased latitude to preserve the security of the "state" at the sacrifice of personal liberties? A citizen of the United States has been held indefinetely without trial for some 2 years so far and this is ok in the name of perserving "state secrets"??? Well what obligation than does the federal government have to respect ANY clause of the bill of rights if it can freely ignore it by labelling a citizen as a terrorist, or in other words "enemy of the state", and do what it wants with them? Again, where's the principle? |
|
|
| Vlad |
Honestly, I think Bush wakes up every day thinking how else he could screw up. I dont have such a vast knowledge of politics as the rest of you, but all I know is this is not what I signed up for. I didnt know that although I voted for Bush, I still got a Kerry.
Someone involved in politics needs to grow some balls and step up.
Michael Savage for president! :p |
|
|
| NebulousQ |
Ah, I do hope that this thread will have much thoughtful dicussion, without flaming or bashing.
I also hail from a conservative standpoint, thought I do not associate myself with any party.
I feel that much of the things you have mentioned occrider: big spending, big government/bureaucracy, increased federal involvemnt in all affairs, disregardment of the Constitution and its principles, etc. is not just a problem in Republican/conservative parties, circles, groups, or whatever. Rather is it due to the way society is changing.
I feel that people in today's American society, while gaining knowledge, losing the ability to think, to ponder. People today are much more apathetic about political issues, caring only about the "hot" topics of debate that the media and the politicians reveal to them. They are more content to let the government run more and more of their life, as long as it does not interrupt their "pursuit of happiness". Most voters today do little or no research on potential candidates, laws, or propostions. They get most of their information from hugely biased sources: be it blogs, the news, or the grapevine, and rarely do they seriously consider the other side.
I also feel that the "post modernist" (at least i think its post modernist, I am not sure) idea of "tolerance", ie you will think my way and accept all that I accept, combined with what I mentioned above has created an environment in which people want the government to legislate the way people act and think. They are not content to leave an open field of law in which people are able to act according to their own views and beliefs, instead they want to legislate their veiwpoint making acting upon other viewpoints illegal or close to it.
Lastly, in my opinion I feel the moral code of society has weakened greatly and materialism has more and more dominated the actions of the individual, (in America at least). The focus of mainstream media and political PR is all about what they can do for YOU, so that everyone will agree with YOU and no will clash or look down upon YOUR lifestyle. And how they will keep more money in YOUR pocket so YOU can buy more things that we tell YOU to like and are important. Everything is YOUYOUYOU and SEXSEXSEX and $$$$$$$$$.
Politicians care more about getting re-elected and thus try to toe the center line, which basically means giving society what it wants in a way that seems to please everyone now. Thus the things that were mentioned above are perpepuated by the attitudes and actions that I mentioned.
--
This is just my 2 cents, typed out to avoid studying for my Statics midterm. Stoopid TA Forums.:tongue2 |
|
|
| HardTranceProd |
| quote: | Originally posted by NebulousQ
People today are much more apathetic about political issues,
|
Not true at all. Americans are among the most politicized people in the world. They talk and argue about politics a lot more than people in other parts of the world. |
|
|
| Yoepus |
| quote: | Originally posted by occrider
So what exactly is Jose Padilla charged with, why can we suspend the bill of rights in detaining him without trial, and what precedent does this set for any other case whereby the government charges a US citizen with carrying out a "war" against the United States without presenting evidence for its claims? Excuse me if I'm wrong, but this seems to go against every conservative principle of valuing individual liberties and rights over the state along with every principle the founding fathers intended by setting up the bill of rights and limiting the power of a central governemnt or "monarchy" if you will. What, are we taking notes from the Soviet Union and granting increased latitude to preserve the security of the "state" at the sacrifice of personal liberties? A citizen of the United States has been held indefinetely without trial for some 2 years so far and this is ok in the name of perserving "state secrets"??? Well what obligation than does the federal government have to respect ANY clause of the bill of rights if it can freely ignore it by labelling a citizen as a terrorist, or in other words "enemy of the state", and do what it wants with them? Again, where's the principle? |
I dunno haven't looked into this Jose fellow, where was he caught? |
|
|
| metalgearsolid |
| quote: | Originally posted by HardTranceProd
Not true at all. Americans are among the most politicized people in the world. They talk and argue about politics a lot more than people in other parts of the world. |
No. They argue only what they know and what they know is what they see on CNN and Fox. |
|
|
| HardTranceProd |
| quote: | Originally posted by metalgearsolid
No. They argue only what they know and what they know is what they see on CNN and Fox. |
What they see on CNN and Fox IS politics in America, unfortunately. Sad but true. Abortion, death penalty, and culture wars are what American politics is about. And since this directly affects people's lifestyles, everyone discusses this.
In any other country this wouldn't be "politics" but in America it is. |
|
|
| igottaknow |
| quote: | Originally posted by HardTranceProd
Abortion, death penalty, and culture wars are what American politics is about. And since this directly affects people's lifestyles, everyone discusses this. |
Death penality and abortion don't directly effect most ppl lifestyles. How does whether a pregnant teen in the next town getting an abortion effect your lifestyle? Since when did the death penality effect your lifestyle? These are simply sensational hot topics that ppl like to talk about.
Conservative talk radio has proven that 'tough talk' sells. Rush's and his ilk have found a winning forumla that simplifies politics into black/white, liberal bashing, and cowboy diplomacy. Lets be honest most americans find thoughtful discussion of the complexities of reality boring. This sort of dumbed down, sensational politics got Bush elected. |
|
|
| pkcRAISTLIN |
| quote: | Originally posted by occrider
It seems that people are less and less inclined to adhere to principled beliefs as they are to toe whatever line that their party advocates |
im curious as to whom youre talking about here. i dont think im wrong in assuming the US & Oz are similar in regards to how many/most ppl define their political philosophies: they do so by party rather than "school of thought".
at some point in the past have you merely mistaken republicans for conservatives, or has there been a real shift? |
|
|
| Capitalizt |
This is why the Republicans are going to lose big (and I mean HUGE) in 2006. The democrats could not spend a dime on advertising and they would still win because real conservatives (at least 50% of the GOP) are sick to death of the corrupt, massive-government neo-cons that are currently representing them...and unfortunately, only a fraction of them are willing to vote 3rd party (Libertarian) to express their disgust.
Most will probably just stay home, giving the democrats a mandate to screw things up even worse with full blown socialism.
Bad times ahead for America, regardless of the party in charge. |
|
|
|
|
