Ornery.org
  Front Page   |   About Ornery.org   |   World Watch   |   Guest Essays   |   Contact Us

The Ornery American Forum Post New Topic  Post A Reply
my profile login | register | search | faq | forum home

  next oldest topic   next newest topic
» The Ornery American Forum » General Comments » TREASON (Page 2)

 - UBBFriend: Email this page to someone!   This topic comprises 2 pages: 1  2   
Author Topic: TREASON
scifibum
Member
Member # 945

 - posted      Profile for scifibum   Email scifibum   Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
Daruma, please quit calling people sheeple because they don't agree with you. Almost everyone here has been plenty critical of the government on various matters.
Posts: 6847 | Registered: Mar 2003  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
TommySama
Member
Member # 2780

 - posted      Profile for TommySama   Email TommySama       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
"Keep trusting our benevolent government to do what's best for us!

Sheeple. "

You are probably one of the most docile, ignorant followers of your "side" out of anybody else at Ornery.

Posts: 6396 | Registered: Feb 2006  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
Daruma28
Member
Member # 1388

 - posted      Profile for Daruma28   Email Daruma28   Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
Baaaa.
Posts: 7543 | Registered: Nov 2003  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
TommySama
Member
Member # 2780

 - posted      Profile for TommySama   Email TommySama       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
That's the sound a Daruma makes.
Posts: 6396 | Registered: Feb 2006  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
TomDavidson
Member
Member # 99

 - posted      Profile for TomDavidson   Email TomDavidson   Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
quote:
They now have total immunity from any oversight.
I'm not sure on what basis you'd make this statement. I'm a little curious about the backstory on this one, myself, but what I do know about INTERPOL's powers doesn't seem to suggest your interpretation. Explain.
Posts: 22935 | Registered: Nov 2000  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
0Megabyte
Member
Member # 1217

 - posted      Profile for 0Megabyte   Email 0Megabyte       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
No, Daruma's not a sheep.

He's an earthworm. They don't have ears, just like Daruma.

Posts: 2668 | Registered: Sep 2003  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
kenmeer livermaile
Member
Member # 2243

 - posted      Profile for kenmeer livermaile   Email kenmeer livermaile       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
I'm gonna build me a sheeple.

A-aaaaaa-men! A-aaaaaa-men!

Posts: 23297 | Registered: Jan 2005  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
Al Wessex
unregistered


 - posted            Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
It's difficult to hold two mutually exclusive concepts in mind at once, but the Conservative bloggers who have taken up arms against this EO are doing just that. On the one hand, they believe anything Obama does has an ulterior motive that reduces their freedoms. On the other, they fault him for not being more aggressive to deal with supposed threats, even if it means eroding their freedoms. INTERPOL is the only international law enforcement organization with a charter that encompasses dealing with terrorism, but they don't want them to be strong enough to operate freely.

Democrats have a reputation for defending individual liberties, but so far haven't raised their voices against this EO. You have to wonder if the dominant Conservatives haven't turned the Republicans into a party of mixed nuts.

IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
Daruma28
Member
Member # 1388

 - posted      Profile for Daruma28   Email Daruma28   Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
Mea Culpa - I was in a really bad mood yesterday and should not have even logged on here. I normally do avoid doing so when I am in that particular state of mind, but I was feeling a little evil.

Sincere apologies to all I personally insulted.

Hau'oli Makahiki Hou.

Posts: 7543 | Registered: Nov 2003  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
Dave at Work
Member
Member # 1906

 - posted      Profile for Dave at Work   Email Dave at Work   Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
quote:
Democrats have a reputation for defending individual liberties, but so far haven't raised their voices against this EO. You have to wonder if the dominant Conservatives haven't turned the Republicans into a party of mixed nuts.
I am raising the Bovine Feces flag on this one. The Democrats absolutely do not have a reputation for defending individual liberty. They have a reputation for doing exactly the opposite. They have a reputation for legislating into existence laws and bureaucracies to enforce equal outcome at the expense of equal opportunity and individual liberties. I don't think the Republicans have any better of a track record here, but I take exception to your characterization that the Democratic party champions individual liberty when it is patently not true.
Posts: 1928 | Registered: Jul 2004  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
PSRT
Member
Member # 6454

 - posted      Profile for PSRT   Email PSRT   Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
quote:
They have a reputation for legislating into existence laws and bureaucracies to enforce equal outcome at the expense of equal opportunity and individual liberties.
I would say its much stronger legislating laws to enforce equal opportunity rather than equal outcome, and I don't think this legislation costs much, if any, opportunity or liberty.

Of course, there are a whole variety of ways of defining "individual liberty," so these contrasting view points are more likely coming from differing definitions than anywhere else.

Posts: 2152 | Registered: Apr 2009  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
Dave at Work
Member
Member # 1906

 - posted      Profile for Dave at Work   Email Dave at Work   Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
And I think that you are blind on this subject PSRT. Whether willfully or through ignorance I do not know, but blind you surely are.
Posts: 1928 | Registered: Jul 2004  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
PSRT
Member
Member # 6454

 - posted      Profile for PSRT   Email PSRT   Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
And I think you're either blind, or evil. So there you go....

If you want to tell me that taxes are an infringement on individual liberty, that's fine. I understand where that viewpoint comes from. I think, though, that the viewpoint is one right up against the base of an oak tree, so that the viewer can never see he's standing in a forest full of trees of all varieties.

Posts: 2152 | Registered: Apr 2009  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
Al Wessex
unregistered


 - posted            Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
"I am raising the Bovine Feces flag on this one."

I appreciate your delicate handling of this matter. There is a definitional difference in how we look at things. Do you characterize the typical Republican positions on SSM, gay rights, gays in the military, voting rights, the PATRIOT Act, etc., as more supportive of individual rights than the typical Democratic position on these subjects? Are family values that the Republicans and the Christian coalitions who unite behind them espouse group think or expressions of individual liberties? There are plenty of things to throw around here, but people who take the Republican position on most of the above do it because it's *right* (for everyone), not because it enhances individual liberties.

IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
Aris Katsaris
Member
Member # 888

 - posted      Profile for Aris Katsaris   Email Aris Katsaris   Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
quote:
They have a reputation for legislating into existence laws and bureaucracies to enforce equal outcome at the expense of equal opportunity
I'm genuinely curious, Dave. What's your preferred method for ensuring that unequal outcomes in one generation don't translate into unequal opportunity in the next?

Even if you believe that two people (Mr. Poor McPoverty, and Mr. Rich McWealth) starting from an equal position will necessarily achieve the positions their merit earns them (a wrong assumption, as luck is always a factor) -- how will you make it so that their respective children again have equal opportunity, despite the differences in the wealth and connections they inherit from their parents?

[ December 29, 2009, 08:38 PM: Message edited by: Aris Katsaris ]

Posts: 3318 | Registered: Feb 2003  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
yossarian22c
Member
Member # 1779

 - posted      Profile for yossarian22c   Email yossarian22c       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
Aris, there is no equal opportunity across society. There is nothing government can do to equalize opportunity. Some people are born with great parents and millions of dollars while others are born to a single teenage mom hooked on meth. The rich kid will have many opportunities and is likely to get second chances. The poor kid is likely one dumb decision from prison. Government can only make sure that their are programs in place so that the poor kid has a chance. The government can provide opportunities in the form of public schools, social services, college scholarships and other programs. The government can't make rich and poor kid have equal opportunities, the government can make sure the poor kid has an opportunity though.
Posts: 1121 | Registered: May 2004  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
Aris Katsaris
Member
Member # 888

 - posted      Profile for Aris Katsaris   Email Aris Katsaris   Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
quote:
Aris, there is no equal opportunity across society.
I'm not under any delusion that there is equal opportunity.

But Dave seems to me to think there would be equal opportunity, if Democrats didn't sacrifice it in their pursuit of "equal outcomes". What else can his "at the expense of equal opportunity" mean?

quote:
There is nothing government can do to equalize opportunity
There's nothing it can do to equalize it completely. There's lots it can do to balance it a tiny bit.

[ December 29, 2009, 09:57 PM: Message edited by: Aris Katsaris ]

Posts: 3318 | Registered: Feb 2003  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
Rallan
Member
Member # 1936

 - posted      Profile for Rallan   Email Rallan   Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
I'm still kinda curious about what sort of terrible things Daruma expects Interpol to do with this new marginal improvement to its freedom that Obama's executive order has granted.
Posts: 2570 | Registered: Jul 2004  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
kmbboots
Member
Member # 6161

 - posted      Profile for kmbboots   Email kmbboots   Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
quote:
Originally posted by kenmeer livermaile:
I'm gonna build me a sheeple.

A-aaaaaa-men! A-aaaaaa-men!

[LOL]
Posts: 2635 | Registered: Jul 2008  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
whitefire
Member
Member # 6505

 - posted      Profile for whitefire   Email whitefire       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
I'm going to throw my lot in with those wondering what the actual intent of this EO.

If there is a good answer, please, out with it!
Maybe Interpol has some idea - anyone ask them?
If there isn't, this just adds to my annoyance with the gov just doing things.
I was going to add "that they think are good ideas" but I'm not even so sure about that anymore.

Posts: 97 | Registered: Sep 2009  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
asmalls4
Member
Member # 6504

 - posted      Profile for asmalls4   Email asmalls4       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
"I am raising the Bovine Feces flag on this one."

"Bovine Feces" just became my new favorite way to avoid cursing in front of my kids. [Smile]

Posts: 161 | Registered: Sep 2009  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
vegimo
Member
Member # 6023

 - posted      Profile for vegimo   Email vegimo       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
quote:
Here's my problem: The right wing tin foil community is going NUTS over this. And a change WAS made. But pretending that this has ANYTHING to do with the fourth amendment or FOIA is obscuring the reason the change WAS made, because those didn't apply to INTERPOL two weeks ago.

I agree that this seems to be much ado over nothing. Usually, these executive orders amount to so much dusting out of governmental filing cabinets. The new administration just tries to update the wording or to clear up some ambiguity which may have developed over the course of a couple of decades.

This looks to me like the same kind of reaction from the right as what we saw from the left when Bush "declared himself a dictator" a couple of years ago. In fact, I have seen reactions to these executive orders go to silly extremes. Back in '06, a young reporter for a local paper decided that Bush was espousing communism by declaring, through an executive order, that May 1 was a nationally recognized day. The reporter cited the Mayday celebrations of the Eastern Bloc as proof of his allegations. I showed him that the President generally signs these proclamations every year regarding days that should be observed with appropriate ceremonies and activities. He forgot to respond.

Not saying that the INTERPOL order is the same as an order commerating Thanksgiving, just saying that people tend to get carried away with their interpretations.

Posts: 255 | Registered: Jan 2008  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
Dave at Work
Member
Member # 1906

 - posted      Profile for Dave at Work   Email Dave at Work   Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
quote:
PSRT said:
And I think you're either blind, or evil. So there you go....

If you want to tell me that taxes are an infringement on individual liberty, that's fine. I understand where that viewpoint comes from. I think, though, that the viewpoint is one right up against the base of an oak tree, so that the viewer can never see he's standing in a forest full of trees of all varieties.

PSRT, I never mentioned taxes, though a progressive tax is an example of favoring equality of outcome over individual liberty to some degree. If you look at what I said, you will see that I was taking exception to Al's statement "Democrats have a reputation for defending individual liberties," as I find the statement to be patently absurd. Sure they champion a few specific individual liberties, but then they go out of their way to regulate or outright throw others into the dustbin of history.

quote:
Al Wessex said:
"I am raising the Bovine Feces flag on this one."

I appreciate your delicate handling of this matter. There is a definitional difference in how we look at things. Do you characterize the typical Republican positions on SSM, gay rights, gays in the military, voting rights, the PATRIOT Act, etc., as more supportive of individual rights than the typical Democratic position on these subjects? Are family values that the Republicans and the Christian coalitions who unite behind them espouse group think or expressions of individual liberties? There are plenty of things to throw around here, but people who take the Republican position on most of the above do it because it's *right* (for everyone), not because it enhances individual liberties.

Please see the sentence in my post where I said that the Republicans didn't have any better of a track record than the Democrats with respect to individual liberty vs. equality of outcome. Just because I disagree with you does not mean that I am automatically a Republican. I consider myself an independent with libertarian tendencies, and I don't feel the need or desire to defend a political party that I don't agree with especially on topics where I disagree with the political party in question.

quote:
Aris Katsaris said:
quote:
They have a reputation for legislating into existence laws and bureaucracies to enforce equal outcome at the expense of equal opportunity
I'm genuinely curious, Dave. What's your preferred method for ensuring that unequal outcomes in one generation don't translate into unequal opportunity in the next?

Even if you believe that two people (Mr. Poor McPoverty, and Mr. Rich McWealth) starting from an equal position will necessarily achieve the positions their merit earns them (a wrong assumption, as luck is always a factor) -- how will you make it so that their respective children again have equal opportunity, despite the differences in the wealth and connections they inherit from their parents?

I think the problem we have here is that we have different understandings of what equality of opportunity and equality of outcome mean. To me equality of opportunity means that everyone is subject to the same rules and that those rules are fairly administered. If there is red tape for a homeless guy trying to start a business the same red tape should also be encountered by the daughter of a millionaire trying to start the same sort of business. Better yet government should try to keep all of the red tape for everyone to a minimum so that both can get out there and try to operate their businesses to the best of their abilities.

The basic idea of equality of outcome is to reduce of eliminate the relative difference of some metric, often economic in nature, as applied to individuals in a society. This is often most easily achieved by curtailment of individual liberties.

You seem to think that equality of opportunity means starting from the same starting line with the same resources. How do you propose to equalize the starting resources of all individuals without curtailing individual liberties?

If you can find a copy of the short story Harrison Bergeron by Kurt Vonnegut read it. It is a good cautionary tale about enforcement of equality brought to an extreme.

Posts: 1928 | Registered: Jul 2004  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
Al Wessex
unregistered


 - posted            Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
"Please see the sentence in my post where I said that the Republicans didn't have any better of a track record than the Democrats with respect to individual liberty vs. equality of outcome."

But I disagree. I think the Democrats have a clearly better record on this. Doesn't matter, since we're not likely to come to the same understanding.

IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
Aris Katsaris
Member
Member # 888

 - posted      Profile for Aris Katsaris   Email Aris Katsaris   Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
quote:
To me equality of opportunity means that everyone is subject to the same rules and that those rules are fairly administered.
So... your "equality of opportunity" doesn't actually have anything to do with the presence or absence of opportunity. So why don't you just call it "equality before the law" and be accurate?

It seems to me that rightwingers call it "equality of opportunity" because they want to maintain the illusion that they support Meritocracy -- that people who achieve more do so solely due to their deserving it.

See here my grid of political positions. (click for a larger image)

Building atop a lopsided tower as if it was balanced, means that it will keep on getting more lopsided until the whole construct collapses. "Let them eat cake", as if every peasant has cake to eat. Your "equality before the law" is basically blind to societal inequality.

Solidarity on the other hand supports equality by realizing that we start from unequal positions and that measures need be taken to correct this.

quote:
How do you propose to equalize the starting resources of all individuals without curtailing individual liberties?
I don't propose to equalize their starting resources completely: I doubt it's possible. But as an attempt to balance them out a bit:
- Quality public education for all.
- Quality universal healthcare.
- Public transportation and placement agencies.
- Massively progressive taxation, and massive inheritance taxes for the wealthy.

quote:
though a progressive tax is an example of favoring equality of outcome over individual liberty to some degree
Individual liberty? If taxation is theft, then it's a violation of individual liberty regardless of whether the taxation is progressive or not.

Perhaps you mean it's a violation of *equality before the law*, not liberty. That would make more sense, but again I'd disagree with you: If you take half the income of a billionaire, he's still filthy rich -- he would still have as many houses as he could possibly live in, as many luxuries as he could possibly enjoy: beyond a certain level, additional money is merely a *status symbol*.

But if you take away half of my income, I would not be able to afford the bills any more.

So the difference between 50% off a rich man, and 50% off a poor man is very very stark -- it's a much lighter burden for the rich man to bear.

[ December 30, 2009, 07:48 PM: Message edited by: Aris Katsaris ]

Posts: 3318 | Registered: Feb 2003  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
ken_in_sc
Member
Member # 6462

 - posted      Profile for ken_in_sc   Email ken_in_sc       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
I see Democrats in favor of individual liberty when it comes to sex, drugs, and rock and roll. I see Republicans in favor of individual liberty when it comes to owning property, starting a business, and self defense. Libertarians are in favor of individual liberty for all of these things—hence the name.
Posts: 159 | Registered: May 2009  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
Aris Katsaris
Member
Member # 888

 - posted      Profile for Aris Katsaris   Email Aris Katsaris   Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
Since all property has descended from previous non-libertarian systems (my favourite example is Greek monasteries having been given large pieces of land from Byzantine emperors or Ottoman sultans), I wonder how can libertarians consider their currently owned property legitimate.
Posts: 3318 | Registered: Feb 2003  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
Dave at Work
Member
Member # 1906

 - posted      Profile for Dave at Work   Email Dave at Work   Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
quote:
Al Wessex said:
"Please see the sentence in my post where I said that the Republicans didn't have any better of a track record than the Democrats with respect to individual liberty vs. equality of outcome."

But I disagree. I think the Democrats have a clearly better record on this. Doesn't matter, since we're not likely to come to the same understanding.

You disagree with what? Did you read what I wrote? Read it again carefully and then read your response. When you are done, try to make sense of your response.

Note the following. I do not think that either the Democrats or the Republicans champion individual liberty. I did not say anywhere in this thread that the Republicans had a superior record on this. The two major political parties in the country are not trying to outdo each other with regard to championing individual liberties. In my observations over the years neither party cares enough about individual liberties to do more than pay lip service to the specific liberties that their base cares about. For reference, here is an exact quote of what I said.

quote:
I don't think the Republicans have any better of a track record here, but I take exception to your characterization that the Democratic party champions individual liberty when it is patently not true.

Posts: 1928 | Registered: Jul 2004  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
Al Wessex
unregistered


 - posted            Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
"You disagree with what?"

I disagree with "...the Republicans didn't have any better of a track record than the Democrats with respect to individual liberty vs. equality of outcome."

You say the two parties are more or less equally good/bad/indifferent on the matter, because they protect or promote different aspects of those principles. I think Democrats have a better track record of using government to promote liberty and opportunity, but we're stumbling partly because you are using definitions of liberty, opportunity and outcome that aren't clear to me. I think that liberty is freedom from denial of one's rights to act on one's own behalf, opportunity is freedom to pursue one's goals without unfair impediments. I don't know what you mean by equal outcome, since nobody can guarantee outcomes and they can't be legislated, anyway.

I see Republicans continually attempt to protect individuals from government by calling it defending liberty, but that doesn't help groups of people who are denied opportunities. So, they are more the party of the status quo, which makes them the party of white Christians for the most part. In politics, politicians and parties advocate for their constituents, so they have little policy interest in promoting the rights or opportunities of people who don't fit that profile.

IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
velcro
Member
Member # 1216

 - posted      Profile for velcro   Email velcro   Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
quote:
If it doesn't do anything why would the President of the United States waste his time and ink signing it?
Why did he pardon a turkey last month?

quote:
Property and assets being immune from search and confiscation means precisely that. Wherever they may be in the United States. This could conceivably include human assets
Umm, what nutcase interprets "assets" to include American citizens?
Posts: 2096 | Registered: Sep 2003  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
  This topic comprises 2 pages: 1  2   

Quick Reply
Message:

HTML is not enabled.
UBB Code™ is enabled.
UBB Code™ Images not permitted.
Instant Graemlins
   


Post New Topic  Post A Reply Close Topic   Feature Topic   Move Topic   Delete Topic next oldest topic   next newest topic
 - Printer-friendly view of this topic
Hop To:


Contact Us | Ornery.org Front Page

Powered by Infopop Corporation
UBB.classic™ 6.7.1