Beta

Slashdot: News for Nerds

×

Welcome to the Slashdot Beta site -- learn more here. Use the link in the footer or click here to return to the Classic version of Slashdot.

Thank you!

Before you choose to head back to the Classic look of the site, we'd appreciate it if you share your thoughts on the Beta; your feedback is what drives our ongoing development.

Beta is different and we value you taking the time to try it out. Please take a look at the changes we've made in Beta and  learn more about it. Thanks for reading, and for making the site better!

Political Musing

Zeriel (670422) writes | more than 5 years ago

The Matrix 9

It seems to me that the more I get involved in political discussions, both real-world and online, the more I notice that the only thing most people hate more than the "other side" is the extremists in their own party.

It seems to me that the more I get involved in political discussions, both real-world and online, the more I notice that the only thing most people hate more than the "other side" is the extremists in their own party.

cancel ×

9 comments

Heh (1)

Degrees (220395) | more than 5 years ago | (#24889667)

There do seem to be two types of 'allies' - those that bring reasonable arguments to the table, and those that like to to hear their own (loud) blather. "The more you listen to me, the more I matter" is true for everyone. It's harder to tell the obnoxious to go away when they claim to be wanting to be an ally. "With friends like you, I need enemies?" <:-}

Re:Heh (1)

Zeriel (670422) | more than 5 years ago | (#24963805)

Case in point with me--I'm a moderate libertarian who cares not at all for the way the Republican party has handled stuff in the last eight years.

I usually make the following two observations:

A) the Bill of Rights as represented by the ACLU/Liberals, is more appealing than the Bill of Rights as represented by the NRA/Conservatives. I'd rather lose "assault rifles" and handguns than the 4th amendment and my right to habeas corpus.
B) the Democrats want to spend more and raise taxes, and the Republicans have so far this decade been spending more and lowering taxes, racking up the debt.

It's amazing to me how many "Libertarians" think I'm a Communist or something, solely based on what I think is a relatively reasonable decision, since the 1990s, to vote Democratic if one is interested in liberty and smaller government.

Re:Heh (1)

pudge (3605) | more than 5 years ago | (#24974247)

A) the Bill of Rights as represented by the ACLU/Liberals, is more appealing than the Bill of Rights as represented by the NRA/Conservatives. I'd rather lose "assault rifles" and handguns than the 4th amendment and my right to habeas corpus.

First, there was never any chance of any citizen losing any right to habeas corpus, according to any law backed by conservatives. Ever. That never existed. And, for non-citizen enemy combatants, the Congress passed a law they DID think protected the right to habeas corpus. The Supreme Court said they were wrong, but the goal to protect the right was still there ... as opposed to the Dems and the Second and Tenth Amendments, which the pretend don't even exist.

Second, the liberals backed the same affronts to the Fourth Amendment when Clinton was in power.

B) the Democrats want to spend more and raise taxes, and the Republicans have so far this decade been spending more and lowering taxes, racking up the debt.

While both suck, the latter is better, because it is less sustainable, which means it won't last as long.

It's amazing to me how many "Libertarians" think I'm a Communist or something, solely based on what I think is a relatively reasonable decision, since the 1990s, to vote Democratic if one is interested in liberty and smaller government.

It's irrational ... ESPECIALLY with John McCain on the ticket, who fought for habeas corpus, fought for less spending (and opposed the tax cut in large part BECAUSE of the increased spending), etc.

Re:Heh (1)

Zeriel (670422) | more than 5 years ago | (#24978351)

First, there was never any chance of any citizen losing any right to habeas corpus, according to any law backed by conservatives. Ever. That never existed. And, for non-citizen enemy combatants, the Congress passed a law they DID think protected the right to habeas corpus. The Supreme Court said they were wrong, but the goal to protect the right was still there ... as opposed to the Dems and the Second and Tenth Amendments, which the pretend don't even exist.

This is the scariest slippery slope in our country today, and you're handwaving it off with a dig at the 2nd/10th. This is why I'm not a Republican--our treatment of prisoners-of-war in the so-called "war on terror" is completely, totally, 100% not acceptable from the standpoint of someone who cares about human rights.

While both suck, the latter is better, because it is less sustainable, which means it won't last as long.

I am not willing to risk massive inflation or government insolvency to find out how long it can last.

It's irrational ... ESPECIALLY with John McCain on the ticket, who fought for habeas corpus, fought for less spending (and opposed the tax cut in large part BECAUSE of the increased spending), etc.

I liked McCain in 2000. Have you listened to him lately? Especially the over-the-top venom of his campaign ads--it's indicative, in my opinion, of his selling out to the extreme right-wing end of the Republican party. And please, don't tell me, like some have, that it's all an act to get elected and he'll bounce back to being the maverick when he gets elected. I could have believed that in May.


I confess, I find our interactions to be a prototype of my original point in my JE--we both firmly believe that we're for smaller government, fiscal responsibility, and personal freedoms...but because we prioritize those goals and associated subgoals differently, we end up on the opposite sides of discussions more often than not.

And I'm pretty sure you think I'm either a lunatic or a closet socialist, rather than someone with the same general goals and a nearly diametrically opposed view of which of those goals are higher priority--for example, gay marriage means (slightly) more to me than handgun rights.

Re:Heh (1)

pudge (3605) | more than 5 years ago | (#24978681)

This is the scariest slippery slope in our country today, and you're handwaving it off with a dig at the 2nd/10th.

How is it a slippery slope? I frankly don't think you understand the issue at all.

This is why I'm not a Republican--our treatment of prisoners-of-war in the so-called "war on terror" is completely, totally, 100% not acceptable from the standpoint of someone who cares about human rights.

Now look, if you're talking about "torture" now, that's a separate thing. You were talking about habeas corpus, so let's stick to that part of detainee treatment (and they are not POWs, BTW). So how is it a slippery slope? The intended goal of the MCA/DTA was perfectly constitutional: to replace the stautory habeas provisions with a separate system for alien unlawful enemy combatants. All nine justices agreed this is acceptable, they just disagreed that the replacement provisions were sufficient to protect the right to habeas corpus. So they can do the same thing, just in a different way, according to the entire Supreme Court. How is it a slippery slope?

I am not willing to risk massive inflation or government insolvency to find out how long it can last.

When the only alternative is a perpetually bloated federal government that is paid for on the backs of employers, I think what you are not willing to risk is no risk at all, by comparison. What you are describing is a complete loss of liberty. Liberty means self-governance. Self-governance means a limited federal government. What the Democrats stand for is a completely unlimited federal government.

And let's not forget that Obama also believes that the Constitution does not need to be followed anyway (or at least, he favors judges who believe that [slashdot.org] , as the majority of Democrats do).

I liked McCain in 2000. Have you listened to him lately?

Wow, you really believe this? He hasn't changed significantly at all. What Kool-Aid have you been drinking? Give me a single example of substance.

Especially the over-the-top venom of his campaign ads--it's indicative, in my opinion, of his selling out to the extreme right-wing end of the Republican party.

What venom? I've seen no more venom from him than from The Obama, nor more than I saw in the 2000 primary. I think you are seeing what you WANT to see, not what's actually there.

And please, don't tell me, like some have, that it's all an act to get elected and he'll bounce back to being the maverick when he gets elected. I could have believed that in May.

No, I will tell you that he has not changed, and that you are deluding yourself.

Re:Heh (1)

Zeriel (670422) | more than 5 years ago | (#24982617)

I think it's more likely that I was deluding myself in 2000 than I am now. I was much more a "Republican" then than I was anything else, and Bush's actions in the primary may well have turned my memories of McCain rose-tinted.

I think if you don't see the venom in the Paris/Britney/Obama ad, or especially the latest one about sex education, then you might just be the one who's deluded.

I think unlimited federal government that provides domestic services is far better than unlimited federal government that provides for foreign military adventures, and I recognize that the latter is reality with a Republican vote while the former has stalled in the past with a Democratic vote.

I think this "unlawful enemy combatant" nonsense is frankly un-American, and it embarrasses me that our government thinks it's a good idea. I do not see a large jump from "classifying people as a status without rights" to "relaxing rules on wiretapping domestic lines and US citizens" to "making provisions for declaring US citizens to be unlawful enemy combatants." When I look at the Republican party in the United States today, at the Federal level, I see people who think military adventurism is the only way for our country to go, and who think I'm a traitor for believing otherwise. I see people who have and will continue to declare me un-American for being non-Christian, for having the utter gall to be religiously inclusive. I see people who think euthanasia is evil, abortion is evil, the death penalty is moral, and war is moral.

I do not believe it is possible, in 2008, to vote for a Republican at the federal level without voting for the religious nutjobs and the moralizers. If I am going to have an interfering, busybody Federal government, I would much rather it be in my wallet or bank than in my bedroom or my phone line.

And that's why I'm voting for Obama in a sound bite--the last eight years, government has been in my bedroom and in my phones. If I have to give them my wallet to get them out, so be it--historically, it's easier to lower taxes than to regain lost freedoms elsewhere.

Re:Heh (1)

pudge (3605) | more than 5 years ago | (#24983429)

I think if you don't see the venom in the Paris/Britney/Obama ad, or especially the latest one about sex education, then you might just be the one who's deluded.

As to the former, oh, come on. That was making a legitimate point -- Obama is more a celebrity than an experienced politician -- and having fun with it. If that is "venom" then you're just way too thin-skinned.

As to the sex ed ad, I don't consider it venomous, I consider it deceptive. And I don't like it. But it is no less deceptive than many Obama ads and statements about McCain, so if this is venom, then ... well, not sure how you think Obama is any better.

I think unlimited federal government that provides domestic services is far better than unlimited federal government that provides for foreign military adventures, and I recognize that the latter is reality with a Republican vote

Completely false. Even if you believe that this is Bush's view, it's not McCain's view, at all. His record on that is very clear. He has opposed military action (such as in Beirut); he has voted for limits on executive authority; and so on.

... while the former has stalled in the past with a Democratic vote.

Only recently because we had a Republican Congress.

I think this "unlawful enemy combatant" nonsense is frankly un-American

You're wrong. You are only saying that because you do not understand the issue, as I said above.

I do not see a large jump from "classifying people as a status without rights"

Yes, that's nonsense. McCain, in fact, stood up for making sure that the rights of alien unlawful enemy combatants were recognized. While some in the Bush administration perhaps did think they should have no rights, McCain (with Lindsey Graham and others) made sure that the DTA/MCA contained explicit language to give AUECs the right to file appeals, and so on.

Now, again the Supreme Court said that wasn't sufficient, but they also said the idea was just fine. All nine justices.

McCain in particular has fought AGAINST the classifying any people as being without rights, and he has won those battles.

When I look at the Republican party in the United States today, at the Federal level, I see people who think military adventurism is the only way for our country to go, and who think I'm a traitor for believing otherwise.

Some people believe that. I don't, and McCain doesn't, clearly.

I see people who have and will continue to declare me un-American for being non-Christian, for having the utter gall to be religiously inclusive.

And I see people in the Democratic Party who would avoid EVERY military conflict, and declare me un-American for having the gall to think otherwise, and who call me a fascist because I want abortion to be illegal. You act like this is a Republican problem, when it's clearly not: it's a people problem.

I see people who think euthanasia is evil, abortion is evil, the death penalty is moral, and war is moral.

There is, obviously, nothing wrong with that. Euthanasia IS arguably evil. Abortion IS evil, IMO. The death penalty can arguably be used for moral good. War, sometimes, is the ONLY moral choice (such as for the Allies in WWII).

I do not believe it is possible, in 2008, to vote for a Republican at the federal level without voting for the religious nutjobs and the moralizers.

That's just an incredibly stupid cop-out. By the exact same logic, it's not possible to vote for a Democrat without voting for the Marxists, the eco-terrorists, the religious bigots, the anarchists ...

If I am going to have an interfering, busybody Federal government, I would much rather it be in my wallet or bank than in my bedroom or my phone line.

Democrats backed the wiretapping before it became public, and Democrats overwhelmingly support an interfering, busybody federal government in your CHILD'S bedroom, with mandatory comprehensive sex education (and no, I am not talking about kidnergartners :-).

And that's why I'm voting for Obama in a sound bite--the last eight years, government has been in my bedroom and in my phones.

And by YOUR OWN logic -- tarring McCain with the sins of his party -- Obama will represent the same.

If I have to give them my wallet to get them out, so be it--historically, it's easier to lower taxes than to regain lost freedoms elsewhere.

Oh, bullshit. When was the last time we CUT a massive federal program? And how many times has the Supreme Court struck down intrusions into our liberty elsewhere? It's not even close: it is MUCH easier to reign in the government on other liberties than it is in government programs. You have it completely backward.

Not that I am FOR such other intrusions into liberty, which is why I am voting for McCain, because he does not represent the liberty-sins you mentioned of the GOP, and Obama does represent the liberty-sins of the Democrats.

Re:Heh (1)

Zeriel (670422) | more than 5 years ago | (#24984325)

I think this "unlawful enemy combatant" nonsense is frankly un-American

You're wrong. You are only saying that because you do not understand the issue, as I said above.

This sums up entirely why I'm not bothering to discuss politics with you further. You are not interested in honest disagreement or differing perceptions, you are interested in being right. I'm sorry, but just because YOU think it's hunky-dory does not mean that you are objectively right. I do not care if it's been vetted by the Supreme Court and Congress--so has abortion, and I know you think that's wrong and have all kinds of little arguments that don't rest on anything but your opinions on "when human life starts" and the precautionary principle.

Seriously, I'm not arguing politics with you anymore. You haven't done anything to convince me , you've just asserted your beliefs and claimed that if I disagreed that I was just wrong. No logic, no reason, no give-and-take.

That's an adequate summation of the national Republican party's lines too, far more so in the last decade than the Democrats. "You're with me or you're the enemy." I'm thankful that my local parties are better than that--the nice part about a college town is that there are smart people on all sides of the issues who're willing to actually debate, so we get a mix and it works.

And before you respond to this--consider this: I DO think you understand the issues, and I DO think you're honestly working the best you know how towards smaller government and more individual freedoms. I just think we disagree in priorities and who we're willing to trust. Until you're willing to offer the same courtesies, I'm bowing out.

Re:Heh (1)

pudge (3605) | more than 5 years ago | (#24985547)

I think this "unlawful enemy combatant" nonsense is frankly un-American

You're wrong. You are only saying that because you do not understand the issue, as I said above.

This sums up entirely why I'm not bothering to discuss politics with you further. You are not interested in honest disagreement or differing perceptions, you are interested in being right.

Bullshit. You stated something that is patently false. This is about facts, not different "perceptions." You claimed that these people are denied having any rights, that they have a "status without rights." That is false. Your stated basis of your claim that it is "un-American" was based on incorrect information.

I'm sorry, but just because YOU think it's hunky-dory does not mean that you are objectively right.

You are misrepresenting me. I never said it was "right" about whether they should have one legal standing or another, I only stated as a matter of fact that they were not denied having any rights. This is a FACT.

I do not care if it's been vetted by the Supreme Court and Congress--so has abortion, and I know you think that's wrong and have all kinds of little arguments that don't rest on anything but your opinions on "when human life starts" and the precautionary principle.

You are misrepresenting me, many times over. First, I didn't say what I did about the Supreme Court to show it was "right." I said it to show that the goal was not to take away habeas corpus. In fact, I agreed with the majority -- and disagreed with McCain -- that the MCA/DTA was insufficient. But you were impugning the very ATTEMPT, falsely accusing them of trying to take away habeas corpus. I showed that is FALSE.

Further, my views on abortion have more to do with actual science of when life actually begins than anything else. We know that life begins before implantation. It's a scientific fact, and there's no debate on the subject. This is the ultimate basis of my view.

You haven't done anything to convince me , you've just asserted your beliefs and claimed that if I disagreed that I was just wrong. No logic, no reason, no give-and-take.

Bullshit. I only did that about ACTUAL FACTS. Fact: AUECs are not "people without rights." Fact: the MCA/DTA was not intended to remove constitutional habeas corpus. You can say, as I do, as the Court did, that the attempt was insufficient. But only out of ignorance could you say they didn't have rights, because it is a fact that they did.

That's an adequate summation of the national Republican party's lines too, far more so in the last decade than the Democrats. "You're with me or you're the enemy."

Shrug. You are entitled to your own opinion, but not your own facts.

I DO think you understand the issues, and I DO think you're honestly working the best you know how towards smaller government and more individual freedoms. I just think we disagree in priorities and who we're willing to trust. Until you're willing to offer the same courtesies, I'm bowing out.

Maybe you could apologize for completely misrepresenting me.

As to trust: the problem is that you seem to trust people. I can't imagine why. I don't.

As to priorities, your priorities have nothing to do with liberty. If they did, you would recognize the plain fact I noted at the end of my last message: "it is MUCH easier to reign in the government on other liberties than it is in government programs. You have it completely backward."

Go ahead, tell me when a massive government program was repealed. I can name for you scores of other liberties we've gotten back, including on the topic at hand -- detainee rights.

Your priorities are not about liberty, but about increasing the size of government to give you things, because you've given up on liberty.

Check for New Comments
Slashdot Account

Need an Account?

Forgot your password?

Don't worry, we never post anything without your permission.

Submission Text Formatting Tips

We support a small subset of HTML, namely these tags:

  • b
  • i
  • p
  • br
  • a
  • ol
  • ul
  • li
  • dl
  • dt
  • dd
  • em
  • strong
  • tt
  • blockquote
  • div
  • quote
  • ecode

"ecode" can be used for code snippets, for example:

<ecode>    while(1) { do_something(); } </ecode>
Create a Slashdot Account

Loading...