Obama’s executions without judicial review

Yeah, that Civil War Thingy was just a blip..

At least 618,000 Americans died in the Civil War (some say the toll reached 700,000).

This exceeds the nation's loss in all its other wars, from the Revolution through today.

http://haleyghiringhelli.wordpress....-political-cartoons-of-the-late-19th-century/

 

Log in or Sign up to hide all adverts.

If you have to stop and explain that the racial slur you're using is actually supposed to be a carefully-tailored reference to some specific subgroup defined by some other characteristic - but still drawn from the larger racial group that the slur is targetted at - then you're doing it wrong. All you're accomplishing with this is to legitimate and normalize the "goatfucker" racial slur. You should stop. Even if the individuals you are denigrating are genuinely nasty people, that doesn't make it cool to reinforce a nasty racial slur.

How about calling them "terrorists?" That's a pretty damning descriptor in most people's books, and it happens to actually refer to the feature of them that you are claiming to object to, rather than being a nasty slur that belittles an entire culture.

Right: "terrorists."

You can also throw in "murderers" or "depraved killers" or "evil fundamentalists" or whatever else, if you need more terms.

As I've already explained, you're reinforcing a nasty racial slur. If you can stick to derrogatory terms that are actually accurate, and target only those who wish you ill, then you don't run into problems.

There's also, again, the basic moral principle that two wrongs don't make a right.

Sorry, are you meaning to imply that "goatfucking" is a legitimate part of Arab culture there?

No, redneck is a racial slur referring to poor, rural whites. Black people's necks don't turn red after exposure to sun while picking cotton, so the racial dimension of that term should be crystal clear.

And tell me: exactly how many non-white people have you observed to identify with the Jeff Foxworthy mentality in question?

Redneck is, and has always been, a racial slur. The slur for simple, gullible country folks of whatever race is "hick" or "hayseed."

You don't get to choose what slurs imply. If the above is what you wish to convey, then you need to use some term other than "goatfucker." "Goatfucker" is a term that means "barbaric Arab/Middle Easterner who is into bestiality." That is the one and only connotation that gets reinforced by the usage of "goatfucker." So, you should stop using that term. Otherwise, you likely merit some sanctions by the mods here.

 

Log in or Sign up to hide all adverts.

Yeah, slavery and no women's sufferage? What a paradise! And with an average male life expectancy of about 40 years, we didn't have to worry about Medicare and Social Security driving up the debt either!

Oh, and then there was that whole part where the President suspended Habeas Corpus, and waged a war which killed the better part of a million American citizens with no judicial review.

Obviously, it would be much better to have all of that, than a government where a fugitive terrorist leader in Yemen can be assassinated. I mean, anyone who cares about "rights" and "freedom" must surely agree with that!

 

Log in or Sign up to hide all adverts.

Back in the early 2000s when W&Co started putting US citizens in jail without trial, suspending habeas corpus for US citizens, and so forth

(btw: without habeas corpus there is no way for us to tell whether a jailed person is a US citizen or not, whether a US citizen has been jailed without trial or not, etc - those exact abuses are what habeas corpus is key to preventing)

I don't recall any of the rightyrant crowd rising up and demanding the repeal of the laws involved or the impeachment of the President responsible. I recall the perps winning elections with full support from their base in the US voting public.

And we have seen a few decades now of Congressional and Executive actions that were opposed by a large majority of the US people and sometimes standing law - from large tax breaks for the very wealthy to de facto wiretapping of everyone's phones and email without warrants. So the notion that people getting pissed off will reliably constrain a government otherwise unconstrained by enforced law and Constitutional principle seems to have no support in recent events.

 

I believe it was exactly one US Citizen, Jose Padilla, and they tested the law and found it didn't fly with the Federal Courts (and this all played out under the watch of the citizenry and Congress) so they transferred the person to the Federal Court system.

Hardly, we knew that Padilla was in jail, and we knew what for, and we knew he was a citizen.
This isn't like the Tower of London anymore.

Because the law wasn't repealed.
But the boundaries of laws are resolved via test cases.
And this one was resolved just that way, and the admin obeyed the court, so clearly not an impeachable offense.
Indeed the idea that every time a Republican president or SC Justice does something you don't like, he should be impeached, is so silly as to be little more than a childish temper tantrum.

Well we are a representative govt, and so the majority of the people as determined by polls is not relevant to how our congress acts, but eventually people get to vote on their reps, so maybe you're just wrong about what people support vs don't support (people can change their mind given time to reflect on an issue you know). So a better way to phrase that is simply that people went to the polls and didn't always vote the way you wanted them to.

 

There's no way I can win against this onslaught of logic :bawl:

Fine, but I don't like the word Terrorist as it's missing that zesty feel-good moment that f%ck congers up.....

Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!

How about F%ck-tard

Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!

 

It's like comparing apples and oranges. We don't know what things would be like now if we used a moral monetary system.

I maintain it's a hell of a lot worse than it would have been otherwise. If we accept humanity with some limited freedoms continues to progress then on a scale of 0-100 with North Korea being a 5 and the ideal being 100 then we're at a 20 whereas we could be 70+.

Which is why I tried to make the moral argument that stealing is immoral and I can't even get you guys to agree with even basic logic. You just can not see the world any other way than it is. I understand that, but, it's not my way of thinking. I've met lots of people from all sorts of places and I've seen this way of thinking. Recently I met someone from KSA that just could not fathom I didn't believe there ever existed a Mohammad. He just could not even think the thought, let alone entertain it.


You mention medicare - try medical care so freaken cheap just about ANYONE could buy what only the ulta rich get now. I'm talking ultra cheap. Like your iPhone. If I were to say in 1970s you'd have a $300 super-computer inside your pocket able to make free video-call to anywhere in the world, you'd call me crazy. If I said it's ONLY be provided through free-market capitalism, you'd call me crazy. We'd be an immensely wealthy society. Social security would be BETTER than it is now through a free-market. You could own an mini fMRI in your home sort of cheap (whereas now maybe one city has a few). As it stands there are American citizens buying cat food in Florida as, unlike dog food, humans can consume it.


You like all the stuff "The Government" provides to you? Well, firstly, it provides nothing to you. It steals from you. Would you like that stuff so much you'd like your kids eating Pink Slime .... because there's no free lunch. They ARE going to pay for all that free shitty service we barely enjoy now. You can see PhDs working as waiters - it's not that uncommon.

Oh well, the next year will be worse then this and on things will continue to go to hell and people will continue to wonder why but they will get used to it. The violent ridden cities of the USA, expect that coming to a town near you.

 

No Michael, you tried to equate progressive income taxes, where those with the most income pay the most taxes, to stealing and no one is buying it.

No we wouldn't, Moore's law came about in 1965, and of course, the ability to make that call is not at all free. People pay over $1,200 a year to be able to make that "free call" on their "super computer"

http://www.htrends.com/report-28222...hone_Bill_by_Vendor_and_Operating_System.html

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Moore's_law

 

"Terrorist" is the normative term. Slurs (goatfucker, towelhead, redneck, wetback, kike, etc.) are cheap-shots and totally unnecessary in discourse.

 

You really have to stop with the progressive -vs- regressive tax thing. First of all it doesn't work for ALL monetary systems. Pre-1913 we didn't have Income Tax for example. So, if we were having this discussion then, progressive -vs- regressive wouldn't mean anything. Second, things are either logical or they are not logical. The argument should hold then as much as it does now. We're were talking about a universality: That of initiation of force. Third, if we accept "initiation of force" as immoral, then we must come to the conclusion "income tax" is immoral. You may not like that outcome - but too bad.

Can two men trapped in a room rape one another?
Can two men both steal an identical phone from one another?

If three men are on an island and a woman washes ashore and they decide to vote on whether they should rape her or not, if they vote "yup, hick hick, we're raping her" - it will be immoral. Even if she participated in the vote. It will be immoral. We know this because we accept that initiation of force is immoral. It therefor supersedes any democratic decision that should be made.

Well, that depends on where you live. Many cities have free internet and if you have a smart phone it connects and away you go on Skype. Lots of cafe's have free internet. So, it could be completely free.

THAT SAID, can you imagine how unbelievably cheap super-computers and internet would be if we didn't have the big fat fingers of bureaucracy all over them!?!? I would not be surprised if it wasn't nearly free, if not free.

 

That is true.

 

No Michael, I won't stop with this progressive -vs- regressive tax thing, it's at the HEART of the matter.

You accept that we need to pay taxes, you just want them to be VERY regressive, ie via Sales and Use taxes which you claim aren't immoral.

Well the rest of us pretty much also agree that we need to pay taxes, and have decided, via our representatives in Congress, that a Progressive Income based system is a much better method of collecting the money such that those who can afford to pay the most, do so. We consider this the moral thing to do, and your plan, socking it to the poor, inherently immoral.

No Michael, no one buys your equating of paying income tax as an "initiation of force"

The call might be free, but having the smart phone is not, and you are talking about wi-fi, not a 3G or 4G network, which is why people buy smart phones, and as I've shown, the average cost is ~$1,200 per year.

Except there aren't big fat fingers of bureaucracy all over them Michael.
Now you are just making things up.

 

Initiation of force is separate from tax. Rape for example is an initiation of force. Stop paying your income tax and you will soon find out that you are indeed being FORCED to pay. The government initiated that force (as it is the only group of humans we have vested with this power).

The fact that three men on an island vote to rape the one woman does not suddenly change what they have done from immoral to moral. It's still immoral.

If you don't like the logical outcomes then instead of trying to find a way to mentally pretzel yourself into making rape moral.... why not think about alternatives to our present monetary system??? IS it really THAT hard Arthur? REALLY???

Yeah, but as I'm saying most people would have called your crazy in the 1970s. That was my point. You see homeless with smart phone super-computers!

Exactly! Which it why they're so utterly cheap

Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!

If the government's fat fingers weren't all over, say medicine from their monopoly on the number of MDs, to surgeons, etc... then we'd see medicine AS CHEAP as smart-phones. A heart surgery would costs $1000 tops. Instead it's like $500,000.

See, not living in a free-market it's very hard to picture what society would be like.



Ever wonder why the Private Buccaneers and Pirates were so much MORE successful than the English Navy? Why the English often paid them as mercenaries? They were free-market. Even with the might of an Empire, that small free-market of men were kicking their arses! It's an interesting tale, you should read it some times.

Have no doubt, if we lived in a free-market capitalistic society, most of the things people worry about (how we gonna have a telacomuunications thing with no gav-ner?) would disappear

Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!

 

And being forced to pay income tax is not equal to Rape Michael, no matter how many times you try to claim it is in this seriously inane analogy.

So, what most people think somehow matters?

It isn't "so utterly cheap" Michael.

As the link showed, most people are paying $1,200 per year for their smartphone.
Most people I know are paying another $500 to 600 per year for their high speed internet.

And that's probably about 70 to 80% of the households in the US.
Which is a friggin HUGE amount of money.

Total BS.
Do you know how expensive per hour it is to run a state of the art Operating Theater and the salaries of all the people in it, and the ICU afterward and the patient room after that?

No Michael, it won't be $1,000 tops. But NO, it won't be $500,000 either.

Indeed, the average negotiated price for Open Heart Surgery is $37,600

http://www.vimo.com/procedure/General Open heart surgery/other_openheart_ord/heart/browse

And as far as the Dr's salary, the Heart Surgeon goes through 4 years to get their BS in Pre-Med, 4 years of Medical School, 3 years of Residency and 3 years Specialized residency after that to become a heart surgeon, running up a substantial debt in the process.

Now the mechanic that works on my boat charges me $80 per hour, how much do you think we should pay a Heart Surgeon?

 

Arthur, lets not overstep here.

I said both of these are categories of immorality. How do we know this? We know this because initiation of force against someone is immoral. That's how the two are related. There's no need for the word "equal" as this is going to bring personal biases into what that word means. So, all we need to do is know that in both instances force is being applied against someone and that this is immoral. They sit in the same category.

You seem happy enough to force your neighbor to pay income tax to support social programs you like (example: housing). Well, what if someone where to force you to accept a homeless stranger into your house to live with you and your family? Would that be immoral? Yes. How do we know? Because it violates the non-aggression principal. Someone else is initiating force against you. That's how logics works. We don't need to know if "forcing someone to live with you" is "equal" to forcing someone to have sex with you is "Equal to forcing someone to pay income tax. All of these are immoral because they all involve force.

Your body is not a part of the commons. It's your property (perhaps your most intimate). No one has a right to it. As such no one can force you to do something with your body that you do not want to do with it. That's called rape.

Your home is not a part of the commons. It's your property. No one has a right to it. As such no one can force you to live with someone. That's called stealing.

Your labor is not a part of the commons. It's your property. No one has a right to it. As such no one can force you labor from you. That's called slavery.

Hence the words: Debt-Slave

When the Federal Reserve FORCES you to pay income tax it forced you to USE Federal Reserve notes. The government uses income tax law to prevent you from carrying your labor in a currency of your choosing and trading YOUR LABOR with other "Free" citizens in that currency. When the government decides to invade another nation or build a bridge to no where it borrows from the Federal Reserve which magically prints fiat currency (dubiously called money, petroUSmillitary-dollars) which steals from you a second time through inflation.

It's an immoral system.

You think a surgical suite is so expensive and minor surgery at $35,000 is cheap?!?! Come on. The government MAKES students go to school for so many years. Not all countries do this. It's a racket. It does NOT take 15 years of training to become a competent surgeon. I'd suggest with a proper K-12 foundation an additional 3 years to maybe 5 years tops could train anyone to be a surgeon. The actually surgery is pretty easy. A few months training and no more needed.

In a free market the entire procedure for minor surgery would run $500 tops. Maybe less. And we'd be a much much healthy nation to boot.



Lastly, do you support Communism? Why not? How can you make a moral argument against Communism that doesn't violate the logic you use to suggest Progressive Tax is preferred over Regressive Tax? I'm pretty sure you can't. If stealing a little is good, why stop at 30%? Why not take all 100% and equally distribute it across society? Wouldn't that be the logical outcome of your notion? Again, we agreed that voting to rape doesn't make raping moral. I know my reason why, what's you reasoning why rape is immoral? See, you can't just say: Because I think so. That has no logical foundation. You need to start with first principals and then build up from there. Doing anything else will result in a poorer less prosperous society. Perhaps more equitable (North Korea is generally quite equally poor for the majority of people) but not prosperous. One may wonder why? Why does Communism fail? It fails on a number of levels and one of those is it is inherently immoral.

 

YAWN

Ah, Open Heart surgery is NOT minor surgery Michael.

Yes, every country where you would want to use their medical services has pretty much the same training system. I've already been over this ground and the US, Canada, the UK, and Australia are all basically the same.

Which means I no longer believe you know ANYTHING about Medicine.

Nope, which is why the Communists have adopted our system, not the other way round.

 

You just don't want to address the issue. Which is typical of people who hold their views as sacred. Hence the 5 generation thing I mentioned before....

The big bold prints means you're swaying. About down for the count me thinks... a couple more body jabs and a hook or two....

Compared with transplant, yet, it is. As a matter of fact, sliding a tube into place, blowing a balloon and putting in a stint is relatively minor. The anesthesiologist is the only one doing real work.

Yeah, I know. AND they all suck.

Considering I've taught at medical school, I'm pretty sure I know a thing or two about what medical doctors learn. Or I should I say, how little they retain. 80% is forgotten within 5 years. I mean, completely forgotten. Oh and I did preface my post with "proper K-12 education". Most American 12th graders are at grade 8 in Japan. Many graduate illiterate. This means year 1 in University is a carch up year - a complete waste of time for top students. Top well motivated students could EASILY be trained and doing surgery by the time they're 25. Just saying.

You didn't explain why their system fails. Why? Also, you didn't explain why their system is immoral (if you think it is). What's your logical rational for why Communism doesn't work? You can't just say: Because they switched to our system. Which actually they didn't. They're still Communist at the Federal Level. Not to mention there's no free movement into and out of cities. And they're coming out of a 80 year cycle.

How do you know WE shouldn't adopt THEIR system? I mean, they have cash, we have debt. Without a logical framework, you're running blind.

 

No Michael, hardly anyone even bothers with your inane ramblings and you are simply getting more and more boring with your repetition of a slogan no one is buying.

Yeah, a transplant's a bit more complicated than open heart surgery, but not that much, and that's what I gave you the price for, not a stint.

Like I said, I no longer believe you know anything about medicine.
You've totally blown your credibility.

So?
They get 4 years of Medical School, how much do you teach of that, 1 hour?
BFD Michael.

Oh BS.
My late wife was a nurse and she never quit learning, and her knowledge paled in comparison to the Dr she worked with, who also never quit learning.

More total BS.

Yeah Michael, because you say so.
Clearly your knowledge of medicine, and what it takes to be a doctor is rudimentary at best

And worse, you're boring.

 

My sister is a physician/surgeon (trauma) and read the above. I believe she is still laughing.

 

I taught all of the cranial nerves and innervation of the head and neck. I taught 16 weeks of endocrine. I taugth 12 weeks of sexual reproduction and health. I taught 16 weeks of cardiovascular. Not to mention as a biochemist I know chemistry inside and out. I could easily rattle off all the major metabolic p-ways from the top of my head as well as write the structures and include the enzymes.

Ask your sister to explain where CO2 comes from and what we use O2 for - in detail. Go ahead - ask. We're talking basic respiration. You know, why you breath. See if she remembers CO2 comes from Krebs (2nd year Undergraduate metabolism). See if she remember O2 is the electron acceptor in the electron transport chain and makes metabolic water (again, 2nd year Undergraduate metabolism). These are basic questions so she should. Ask her to explain the difference between molecular orbital theory and atomic orbital theory (1st year basic undergraduate chemistry). Ask her how Reynolds number relates to the body (basic cardio and flow through a stenosis). Ask how the AP in the pacemaker cell is modified by the PSNS (elongated sodium upstroke decreasing CO). All of this is basic human physiology and chemistry. Which CN are SVA and which are SSA? Week 1 neuro. The tests and assumptions made of data to run a valid One-Way ANOVA (basic stats you'd need to write up simple means).

I do primary medical research and in the past I've taught both at medical school as well as advanced medical students - for just under a decade. So, I'll place my bet now that your sister probably will have to "get back to you on it".

Then ask her how much she learned in medical school versus on the job training. If she's honest she'll admit most of her knowledge of the "practice" is hands on. Hence the term Practice. Look, I'm happy she's continued her education, and I'm sure she is a bright woman, but if she isn't teaching it to medical students, she probably isn't going to understand human physiology in the same way or at the same level as her lecturers.

And just to be clear, those were all undergraduate questions.


Not that it matters. I couldn't care one way or another if either of you two think I understand human physiology or not.


What does interest me is your snide 'boring' remark.

Medicine is a monopoly held by the government. While those fortunate to get selected probably think they're "special" they are not that special. I've have to watch literally thousands of great students (that would have made great physicians) give up and go into fields that did not want to simply because of idiotic limited placements and the governments freaken worry about a MD bubble in 2020. You know, because then the wage will go down and then students won't enroll in biology as much and then blah blah blah. You can THANK the government for not building medical schools, not expanding medical schools and why medicine costs so much. Even petty bullshit like not letting a school have a medical school because that would take away our prestige. ALL SORTS OF CRAP I am sure 99.99999% of people (including medical doctors) are completely oblivious to. As a matter of fact, the whole system was so disgustingly gross - that's why I left!

So, don't get me wrong, I'm sure your sister and I'm sure your wife did or do their best. But, that's not my point. I know the other-side of the coin, like the rich kids with good family connections. It's great your sister was accepted, but what if she wasn't? What if she, knowing she's good enough, couldn't do medicine. I find it immoral. It's like the Pope handing out indulgences. Or the king granting permission to perform a trade. That is immoral in a free society.

Blah.... see, you got a rise out of me, happy? :bugeye:





Arthur, what is it you find so boring about this important question: Is rape moral? If no, then please explain your logical rational for why it isn't moral. See, I find people start to put up defense mechanisms when they're getting close to maybe "getting it". Look, I had to admit I was acting like a jack-off calling terrorists ghoatf%ckers, and I'm still alive

Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!

It's an important question and has a logical answer. It's not about "debate" it's about do you understand why rape is immoral or is it just a feeling you have?