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 » Glenn Greenwald wakes up (Page 1)

 - UBBFriend: Email this page to someone!   This topic comprises 2 pages: 1  2   
Author Topic: Glenn Greenwald wakes up
G2
unregistered


 - posted            Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
Greenwald wrote books about how bad Bush/Cheney and conservatives were. He's about to find out how much the left really likes him (some of you here may want to start paying attention, you know who you are [Wink] ). Welcome to the party Glenn or, as I like to call it, reality:
quote:
Obama has used drones to kill Muslim children and innocent adults by the hundreds. He has refused to disclose his legal arguments for why he can do this or to justify the attacks in any way. He has even had rescuers and funeral mourners deliberately targeted.

<snip>

Indeed: is there even a single liberal pundit, blogger or commentator who would have defended George Bush and Dick Cheney if they (rather than Obama) had been secretly targeting American citizens for execution without due process, or slaughtering children, rescuers and funeral attendees with drones, or continuing indefinite detention even a full decade after 9/11? Please. How any of these people can even look in the mirror, behold the oozing, limitless intellectual dishonesty, and not want to smash what they see is truly mystifying to me.

<snip>

That’s what Barack Obama has done to these Bush/Cheney policies: he has, as Jack Goldsmith predicted he would back in 2009, shielded and entrenched them as standard U.S. policy for at least a generation, and (by leading his supporters to embrace these policies as their own) has done so with far more success than any GOP President ever could have dreamed of achieving.


IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
AI Wessex
Member
Member # 6653

 - posted      Profile for AI Wessex   Email AI Wessex   Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
I suppose this means that you're finally coming around to feeling the same sort of affection for Obama that you felt for Bush. Good for you!
Posts: 5600 | Registered: Feb 2011  |  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 
*blink* Wait a second. Greenwald has been a consistent critic of our foreign policy since the Bush Administration, and has consistently criticized Obama on that point since Obama became president. He hasn't "woken up;" he's been beating that drum for years. I've cited him frequently; he's one of my favorite pundits.

Are you saying that you've decided to get on Greenwald's bandwagon, G2? Because he certainly hasn't come around to YOUR way of thinking.

I suppose that counts as a tacit apology, in a roundabout way. Is that how you meant it?

[ February 08, 2012, 09:43 PM: Message edited by: TomDavidson ]

Posts: 19668 | Registered: Nov 2000  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
Viking_Longship
Member
Member # 3358

 - posted      Profile for Viking_Longship   Email Viking_Longship       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
G2

Greenwald wrote an article I loved a month ago pointing out that Liberals have basically decided that they'll tolerate Obama carrying on the same sort of atrocities abroad Bush did because domestic issues are more important to them. If they cared about peace and civil liberties they'd support Ron Paul. This is why there are so many Ron Paul supporters that supported Obama last time.


Democrat Priorities

Greenwald is no ally of yours. The world has changed and you haven't caught up. The question is, in a two party system will you pick liberals who share your vision of an America that dominates the globe, or Libertarian/Palecons that have no interest in empire.

My guess is that in the next 6 years or so you, OSC, Bill Kristol and Charles Krauthammer will have gone back to the Democrats.

Ooh maybe you all can use that "I didn't leave the party, the party left me" line again.

Tick tock, Skippy... Your days are numbered.

[ February 08, 2012, 10:18 PM: Message edited by: Viking_Longship ]

Posts: 5657 | Registered: Dec 2006  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
Pyrtolin
Member
Member # 2638

 - posted      Profile for Pyrtolin   Email Pyrtolin   Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
quote:
civil liberties they'd support Ron Paul
Gary Johnson, perhaps, but not Ron Paul, who sits squarely in favor of giving states the power to trample civil liberties at will.
Posts: 8023 | Registered: Oct 2005  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
Viking_Longship
Member
Member # 3358

 - posted      Profile for Viking_Longship   Email Viking_Longship       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
Pyr

You trotted this argument out before. The states are bound by the Bill of Rights because of article VI. That precedent is well established.

States Rights may be Jim Crow but it's also Minnesota refusing to enact the fugitive slave law and California resisting prosecuting medical marijauna users.


Anyway you're arguing Greenwald, feel free to follow the link and post on his article.

[ February 08, 2012, 11:04 PM: Message edited by: Viking_Longship ]

Posts: 5657 | Registered: Dec 2006  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
Viking_Longship
Member
Member # 3358

 - posted      Profile for Viking_Longship   Email Viking_Longship       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
Pyr

Anyway Paul's not going to get the nomination this year and neither Santorum nor Romney are likely to beat Obama, so maybe we'll see Gary Johnson (whom I prefer to Paul myself) in a better postion 4 years from now.

Posts: 5657 | Registered: Dec 2006  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
KidTokyo
Member
Member # 6601

 - posted      Profile for KidTokyo   Email KidTokyo       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
"Liberals" and "the Left" are not the same group of people.
Posts: 1619 | Registered: Sep 2010  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
G2
unregistered


 - posted            Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
quote:
Originally posted by Viking_Longship:
Greenwald is no ally of yours.

I never thought he was, never said he was either.

quote:
Originally posted by Viking_Longship:
The world has changed and you haven't caught up. The question is, in a two party system will you pick liberals who share your vision of an America that dominates the globe, or Libertarian/Palecons that have no interest in empire.

The world has not changed in decades. It's a 2 party system and will remain so.

quote:
Originally posted by Viking_Longship:
My guess is that in the next 6 years or so you, OSC, Bill Kristol and Charles Krauthammer will have gone back to the Democrats.

My guess is that at some point in the next 6 year so so you'll realize they're never going to like you much less respect you. You're being used.

quote:
Originally posted by Viking_Longship:
Tick tock, Skippy... Your days are numbered.

Dude, they just aren't gonna like you no matter how much you suck up. Check your history.
IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
G2
unregistered


 - posted            Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
quote:
Originally posted by TomDavidson:
*blink* Wait a second. Greenwald has been a consistent critic of our foreign policy since the Bush Administration, and has consistently criticized Obama on that point since Obama became president. He hasn't "woken up;" he's been beating that drum for years. I've cited him frequently; he's one of my favorite pundits.

Would you prefer I titled this "Gleen Greenwald asks liberals to wake up". Good for you to be citing him ... or whatever.

quote:
Originally posted by TomDavidson:
Are you saying that you've decided to get on Greenwald's bandwagon, G2? Because he certainly hasn't come around to YOUR way of thinking.

Glenn has actually jumped on my bandwagon, come around to MY way of thinking when it comes to the rampant liberal hypocrisy. Did you read the article? That's what it was actually about.

quote:
Originally posted by TomDavidson:
I suppose that counts as a tacit apology, in a roundabout way. Is that how you meant it?

[LOL] wait ... [LOL]
IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
Pete at Home
Member
Member # 429

 - posted      Profile for Pete at Home   Email Pete at Home   Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
"Glenn has actually jumped on my bandwagon, come around to MY way of thinking when it comes to the rampant liberal hypocrisy."

I must have missed where Greenwald said that Obama was a liberal in the first place.

"The world has not changed in decades."

You must have missed 9/11 and the fall of the Berlin Wall.

Posts: 36614 | Registered: Jun 2001  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
G2
unregistered


 - posted            Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
quote:
Originally posted by Pete at Home:
"Glenn has actually jumped on my bandwagon, come around to MY way of thinking when it comes to the rampant liberal hypocrisy."

I must have missed where Greenwald said that Obama was a liberal in the first place.

I don't know if he ever said that ... nor what possible point you could have.

quote:
Originally posted by Pete at Home:
"The world has not changed in decades."

You must have missed 9/11 and the fall of the Berlin Wall.

Actually, you missed the context within which we were talking.
IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
Pete at Home
Member
Member # 429

 - posted      Profile for Pete at Home   Email Pete at Home   Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
I must congradulate g2 on widening his reading circle. Salon, really?

This is an ideological self-critique, a liberal writer published in the liberal press, blasting and condemning a widespread hypocrisy in his own party.

What's even more fortunate is that this isn't right out of the blue. Bush had his conservative detractors and Obama had only a very brief honeymoon period before he began to get blasted from the left.

g2, if you really wanted to annoy Tom Davidson, you should have presented this information by bumping the old "Obama gets the Nobel Peace Prize" thread. [Big Grin]

Posts: 36614 | Registered: Jun 2001  |  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:
Glenn has actually jumped on my bandwagon, come around to MY way of thinking when it comes to the rampant liberal hypocrisy. Did you read the article? That's what it was actually about.
No, he hasn't.
I understand that you, as someone who only reads things that bolster your worldview, might not be a regular reader of Greenwald. But do yourself a favor and go back through his archives; he's been a regular writer for Salon for over a decade, I believe, and you'll find that he's remarkably consistent on certain points.

For example: he dislikes torture, and doesn't think we should do it. He dislikes being lied to in an official capacity by our government. He dislikes official assassinations. In fact, he pretty much dislikes anything the government does that makes it seem like a Bond villain. And he has been consistently criticizing that behavior -- from Bush, and from Obama -- for ages.

If you are really only now noticing that some liberals are loudly disappointed in Obama, and other liberals are disappointed that not all liberals are loudly disappointed in Obama, it's only because it's simply not in your character to actually listen to what liberals say. I suppose it only percolates through your skull when it shows up as a post on the Blaze or something.

Posts: 19668 | Registered: Nov 2000  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
Viking_Longship
Member
Member # 3358

 - posted      Profile for Viking_Longship   Email Viking_Longship       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
G2

Ultimately it is the vision of John F Kennedy you're persuing with his open ended promised of the sacrifice of American young people in the cause of global democracy mr "everybody wants to be free" You're a progressive, you're just a right-wing progressive who hates Democrats.

The page is turning, a movement is emerging in your party that is concerned with ideas, not pretending that there's a signifigant differance between Republican and Democratic politicians.

You see the sahadow "liberals are hypocrites for not calling Obama on carrying on and in some cases expanding the warfare/police state" (and they are, no disagreement here) but you don't seem to understand that you're in the cave.

I regard liberals as pretty impotent without the support of moderates, and in their way I think they're willfully ignorant on a far greater scale than most conservatives. But you can persist in claiming I'm trying to gain their favor for some reason. It's your new way of calling me a girl.

If you refuse to understand what's happening on your own party it's your funeral, but it is a funeral and we're going to bury you.

Tick Tock Skippy, your time is running out.

Posts: 5657 | Registered: Dec 2006  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
Viking_Longship
Member
Member # 3358

 - posted      Profile for Viking_Longship   Email Viking_Longship       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
Tom he's very dedicated to his world view. It's a bit like someone who becomes infuriated if you tell them Professional Wrestling isn't really a sport.
Posts: 5657 | Registered: Dec 2006  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
Pete at Home
Member
Member # 429

 - posted      Profile for Pete at Home   Email Pete at Home   Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
quote:
Originally posted by Viking_Longship:
Tom he's very dedicated to his world view. It's a bit like someone who becomes infuriated if you tell them Professional Wrestling isn't really a sport.

Whereas you seem to be taking him on his own professional rassling terms ... "Tick Tock Skippy, your time is running out."
Posts: 36614 | Registered: Jun 2001  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
Viking_Longship
Member
Member # 3358

 - posted      Profile for Viking_Longship   Email Viking_Longship       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
Pete

He said he didn't want a civil discourse. (I really don't think he thought anybody would hit him back.) Trying to reason with him doesn't work. He either mocks or ignores it.

That and I want to let him know he doesn't speak for Republicans.

[ February 09, 2012, 08:18 PM: Message edited by: Viking_Longship ]

Posts: 5657 | Registered: Dec 2006  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
TheRallanator
Member
Member # 6624

 - posted      Profile for TheRallanator   Email TheRallanator       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
quote:
Originally posted by Viking_Longship:
G2

Greenwald wrote an article I loved a month ago pointing out that Liberals have basically decided that they'll tolerate Obama carrying on the same sort of atrocities abroad Bush did because domestic issues are more important to them. If they cared about peace and civil liberties they'd support Ron Paul. This is why there are so many Ron Paul supporters that supported Obama last time.

Correction, if they cares about peace they'd support Ron Paul. For a libertarian, Ron Paul's absolutely ****ing abominable on civil liberties.
Posts: 503 | Registered: Oct 2010  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
Viking_Longship
Member
Member # 3358

 - posted      Profile for Viking_Longship   Email Viking_Longship       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
Rall

Care to back that up with a substantial argument?

Posts: 5657 | Registered: Dec 2006  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
Viking_Longship
Member
Member # 3358

 - posted      Profile for Viking_Longship   Email Viking_Longship       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
quote:
Originally posted by TheRallanator:
quote:
Originally posted by Viking_Longship:
G2

Greenwald wrote an article I loved a month ago pointing out that Liberals have basically decided that they'll tolerate Obama carrying on the same sort of atrocities abroad Bush did because domestic issues are more important to them. If they cared about peace and civil liberties they'd support Ron Paul. This is why there are so many Ron Paul supporters that supported Obama last time.

Correction, if they cares about peace they'd support Ron Paul. For a libertarian, Ron Paul's absolutely ****ing abominable on civil liberties.
G2 please note, I expect more of this from progressives as we advance. I have no fear of it. I expect them (not necessaraily the ones here, but possibly) to be underhanded and dishonest. The thing is I expect the same from you...tick tock, your time is running out...
Posts: 5657 | Registered: Dec 2006  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
KidTokyo
Member
Member # 6601

 - posted      Profile for KidTokyo   Email KidTokyo       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
While I am not a Ron Paul supporter, I respect the guy lots.

Saying that he is "abominable" on civil liberties is completely wrong, but is in some ways an understandable misapprehension. He concedes much to the states, but what people on all sides of the political spectrum fail to realize is that, under strict constitutionalism, a fundamental human liberty is the freedom to form communities, and that communities are shaped by laws.

This is where so many libertarian dogmatists trip up -- they don't recognize (and hence, don't follow the implications) that there is a difference between positive liberty which is deemed to attach to you wherever you are, and natural liberty which you surrender in carefully and strictly defined measures for the benefit of a community's protection. Ron Paul, as a constitutionalist/libertarian Republican, seems to fall into the latter category-- taking the view that there is real freedom to be had in choosing what regime you will submit to, and being able to bargain with said regime at arm's length. That is the essence of "state's rights," which need not be so frightening as it was a century ago, since we have the 13th and 14th Amendments.

[ February 09, 2012, 11:33 PM: Message edited by: KidTokyo ]

Posts: 1619 | Registered: Sep 2010  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
Pyrtolin
Member
Member # 2638

 - posted      Profile for Pyrtolin   Email Pyrtolin   Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
quote:
That is the essence of "state's rights," which need not be so frightening as it was a century ago, since we have the 13th and 14th Amendments.
No- the essence of "States' Rights" is to abrogate responsibility for individual protections under those amendments and allow states the possibility to restrict them. You don't need to support states rights to let the states support greater freedom than the baseline- the only functional difference is that they'd now have the freedom to restrict what has been, till that point, defined as a universally protected individual right.

If something is identified as a necessary civil liberty, then it needs to be protected universally. The States' Rights position precludes doing that- giving any given state the power to violate that liberty; it just works as a cop out position so that the individual promoting it can pretend that they didn't directly participate in violating that liberty.

Posts: 8023 | Registered: Oct 2005  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
Pyrtolin
Member
Member # 2638

 - posted      Profile for Pyrtolin   Email Pyrtolin   Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
On the subject of people waking up, from conservatives here:

http://www.truth-out.org/goodbye-all-reflections-gop-operative-who-left-cult/1314907779

quote:
A couple of years ago, a Republican committee staff director told me candidly (and proudly) what the method was to all this obstruction and disruption. Should Republicans succeed in obstructing the Senate from doing its job, it would further lower Congress's generic favorability rating among the American people. By sabotaging the reputation of an institution of government, the party that is programmatically against government would come out the relative winner.

A deeply cynical tactic, to be sure, but a psychologically insightful one that plays on the weaknesses both of the voting public and the news media. There are tens of millions of low-information voters who hardly know which party controls which branch of government, let alone which party is pursuing a particular legislative tactic. These voters' confusion over who did what allows them to form the conclusion that "they are all crooks," and that "government is no good," further leading them to think, "a plague on both your houses" and "the parties are like two kids in a school yard." This ill-informed public cynicism, in its turn, further intensifies the long-term decline in public trust in government that has been taking place since the early 1960s - a distrust that has been stoked by Republican rhetoric at every turn ("Government is the problem," declared Ronald Reagan in 1980).

http://www.thedailybeast.com/newsweek/2012/01/15/andrew-sullivan-how-obama-s-long-game-will-outsmart-his-critics.html

quote:
What liberals have never understood about Obama is that he practices a show-don’t-tell, long-game form of domestic politics. What matters to him is what he can get done, not what he can immediately take credit for. And so I railed against him for the better part of two years for dragging his feet on gay issues. But what he was doing was getting his Republican defense secretary and the chairman of the Joint Chiefs to move before he did. The man who made the case for repeal of “don’t ask, don’t tell” was, in the end, Adm. Mike Mullen. This took time—as did his painstaking change in the rule barring HIV-positive immigrants and tourists—but the slow and deliberate and unprovocative manner in which it was accomplished made the changes more durable. Not for the first time, I realized that to understand Obama, you have to take the long view. Because he does.

Or take the issue of the banks. Liberals have derided him as a captive of Wall Street, of being railroaded by Larry Summers and Tim Geithner into a too-passive response to the recklessness of the major U.S. banks. But it’s worth recalling that at the start of 2009, any responsible president’s priority would have been stabilization of the financial system, not the exacting of revenge. Obama was not elected, despite liberal fantasies, to be a left-wing crusader. He was elected as a pragmatic, unifying reformist who would be more responsible than Bush.

And what have we seen? A recurring pattern. To use the terms Obama first employed in his inaugural address: the president begins by extending a hand to his opponents; when they respond by raising a fist, he demonstrates that they are the source of the problem; then, finally, he moves to his preferred position of moderate liberalism and fights for it without being effectively tarred as an ideologue or a divider. This kind of strategy takes time. And it means there are long stretches when Obama seems incapable of defending himself, or willing to let others to define him, or simply weak. I remember those stretches during the campaign against Hillary Clinton. I also remember whose strategy won out in the end.


Posts: 8023 | Registered: Oct 2005  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
Viking_Longship
Member
Member # 3358

 - posted      Profile for Viking_Longship   Email Viking_Longship       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
quote:
Originally posted by Pyrtolin:
quote:
That is the essence of "state's rights," which need not be so frightening as it was a century ago, since we have the 13th and 14th Amendments.
No- the essence of "States' Rights" is to abrogate responsibility for individual protections under those amendments and allow states the possibility to restrict them. You don't need to support states rights to let the states support greater freedom than the baseline- the only functional difference is that they'd now have the freedom to restrict what has been, till that point, defined as a universally protected individual right.

If something is identified as a necessary civil liberty, then it needs to be protected universally. The States' Rights position precludes doing that- giving any given state the power to violate that liberty; it just works as a cop out position so that the individual promoting it can pretend that they didn't directly participate in violating that liberty.

How does a strict constitutionalist get around the supremecy clause? Even if you argue that the civil liberties protected in the constitution only mandate what the federal government can do, the precedent and general understanding is that the Federal Constiitution is the supreme law and state constitions and municiple charters may not violate it.
Posts: 5657 | Registered: Dec 2006  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
Pyrtolin
Member
Member # 2638

 - posted      Profile for Pyrtolin   Email Pyrtolin   Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
By saying that the Federal Government didn't have the authority to make the civil liberty laws in question and that the Federal courts don't have the authority to force states to honor any rights that aren't explicitly enumerated. Most current civil liberty protections are either in the form of federal legislation or judicial precedent, not explicitly enumerated in constitutional amendments.
Posts: 8023 | Registered: Oct 2005  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
Pete at Home
Member
Member # 429

 - posted      Profile for Pete at Home   Email Pete at Home   Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
Viking, of course you cant engage the g2 in civil discourse. That's a given.
Posts: 36614 | Registered: Jun 2001  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
AI Wessex
Member
Member # 6653

 - posted      Profile for AI Wessex   Email AI Wessex   Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
Right, that *is* a given. I'm kind of curious why people spend so much time talking to him in that case (me included). I think it's like the attraction of empty calories and diet soda.
Posts: 5600 | Registered: Feb 2011  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
Viking_Longship
Member
Member # 3358

 - posted      Profile for Viking_Longship   Email Viking_Longship       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
Al probably because he's nasty and insulting and frequently runs his facts through a political meat grinder. that sort of thing provokes a response.
Posts: 5657 | Registered: Dec 2006  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
Viking_Longship
Member
Member # 3358

 - posted      Profile for Viking_Longship   Email Viking_Longship       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
Pyr could you please explain what you mean by civil liberty?
Posts: 5657 | Registered: Dec 2006  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
Wayward Son
Member
Member # 210

 - posted      Profile for Wayward Son   Email Wayward Son   Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
quote:
I'm kind of curious why people spend so much time talking to him...
Although I may address my responses to him, I am actually talking to the audience, esp. lurkers.

Even when talking to a brick wall, your voice echoes. [Smile]

Posts: 7432 | Registered: Dec 2000  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
Pyrtolin
Member
Member # 2638

 - posted      Profile for Pyrtolin   Email Pyrtolin   Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
Civil liberties are rights and freedoms guaranteed at the individual level. In the strictest sense they're individual legal, human, and market rights, as distinguished from political/voting rights but they're generally lumped together with them because we nominally extend universal suffrage now.
Posts: 8023 | Registered: Oct 2005  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
KidTokyo
Member
Member # 6601

 - posted      Profile for KidTokyo   Email KidTokyo       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
Pyr,

quote:
No- the essence of "States' Rights" is to abrogate responsibility for individual protections under those amendments and allow states the possibility to restrict them. You don't need to support states rights to let the states support greater freedom than the baseline- the only functional difference is that they'd now have the freedom to restrict what has been, till that point, defined as a universally protected individual right.

If something is identified as a necessary civil liberty, then it needs to be protected universally. The States' Rights position precludes doing that- giving any given state the power to violate that liberty; it just works as a cop out position so that the individual promoting it can pretend that they didn't directly participate in violating that liberty.

This is ahistorical, and runs counter to the nuts-and-bolts reality of how liberties are actually secured. The authors of the constitution assumed that pure anarchy leads to despotism -- that personal liberty exists relative to society as a negative restriction, meaning it requires a certain amount of legal force to exist. A government must act on your behalf to secure liberties -- they don't just exist like rocks and trees. In this view, liberties were bargained for in a "social contract" by people who wanted to chose what kind of society they could live in, not just what kind of house they could live and who they could bed. But, necessarily, greater influence in your community necessarily requires less personal autonomy.

The modern left, and some libertarians, think of individual rights as positively flowing from the individual person -- but this is a more recent conception, for the most part only taking hold in our culture around the late 19th/early 20th century (though a few radicals did in fact also express this view at the time of the founding). But the traditional American conception does not see it that way. Instead, people viewed communities as the baseline for the individual, rather than the other way around, and so there was a presumption that localities and states were free to live as they wish as communities.

Regarding your comment about a federal baseline of freedom -- well, that would be nice, if it worked that way in all matters. But, notice our federal drug laws. At least prohibition of alcohol was passed constitutionally. Not so everything else. Now, the feds routinely threaten states which try to legalize medical marijuana -- there is no baseline of freedom there. And look at what's happening with the government's power to surveille and collect data.

My ultimate point, however, was that, with the reconstruction amendments in place, there is no chance of a return to Jim Crow, slavery, etc. I am suggesting that a strict constitutionalist view which makes use of our current constitution would not in any way plunge us back 150 years.

[ February 10, 2012, 01:26 PM: Message edited by: KidTokyo ]

Posts: 1619 | Registered: Sep 2010  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
Pyrtolin
Member
Member # 2638

 - posted      Profile for Pyrtolin   Email Pyrtolin   Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
quote:
This is ahistorical, and runs counter to the nuts-and-bolts reality of how liberties are actually secured. The authors of the constitution assumed that pure anarchy leads to despotism -- that personal liberty exists relative to society as a negative restriction, meaning it requires a certain amount of legal force to exist.
And we call that legal force a "Right" what I wrote does not disagree with this. It simple states that, allowing the States the freedom to decide locally whether or not to create a right means, implicitly, that the Federal government is exerting that legal force. The liberty in question is no longer protected as an individual right, but it a freedom that is only allowed at the discretion of their state. It is no longer a guaranteed civil liberty, but an element of individual state powers.

quote:
My ultimate point, however, was that, with the reconstruction amendments in place, there is no chance of a return to Jim Crow, slavery, etc. I am suggesting that a strict constitutionalist view which makes use of our current constitution would not in any way plunge us back 150 years.
You'r overstating things a bit. We only need to go back 60 years to get back into Jim crow and other segregationist practices which were held to be permissible under the 13th and 14th amendments until Federal Legislative and Judicial action ended them by overriding state power and asserting individual rights instead.

Even more- the modern call for "States' Rights" follows almost directly as an objection to that forced integration, even as it's picked up a few additional causes along the way to give it cover. (And that call, in and of itself is a revival of the antebellum call for nullification)

There are places where the federal government has unreasonably restricted freedoms and, while it can't force states directly to comply finds indirect ways to lean on them to go along, but there are far better ways to work on pushing back against those restrictions than by teaming up with a position that's fundamentally about overturning individual protections.

Posts: 8023 | Registered: Oct 2005  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
Viking_Longship
Member
Member # 3358

 - posted      Profile for Viking_Longship   Email Viking_Longship       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
Pyr where do things like the Patriot act enter into this discussion for you? Is that a civil liberties issue? What about warrentless wiretaps or extrajudicial assasinations?
Posts: 5657 | Registered: Dec 2006  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
KidTokyo
Member
Member # 6601

 - posted      Profile for KidTokyo   Email KidTokyo       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
quote:
It simple states that, allowing the States the freedom to decide locally whether or not to create a right means, implicitly, that the Federal government is exerting that legal force.
Constitutionally, that is backwards. The states had the freedom initially, and the government refrained from restricting them. The federal government had to exert more power to stand between the individual and the state.

quote:
The liberty in question is no longer protected as an individual right, but it a freedom that is only allowed at the discretion of their state. It is no longer a guaranteed civil liberty, but an element of individual state powers.
For reasons you concede shortly hereafter, we had no "individual rights" until about 40 years ago, and this was created largely by the courts. There were no guaranteed civil liberties, just claims against government preserved in state and federal constitutions.

quote:
You'r overstating things a bit. We only need to go back 60 years to get back into Jim crow and other segregationist practices which were held to be permissible under the 13th and 14th amendments until Federal Legislative and Judicial action ended them by overriding state power and asserting individual rights instead.
I don't disagree with this, but I would point out that the Jim Crow era is arguably the direct result of federal failure in the decades following the civil war -- a series of shameless concessions to appease the South for political purposes. It's not the law but the practice that failed.

quote:
Even more- the modern call for "States' Rights" follows almost directly as an objection to that forced integration, even as it's picked up a few additional causes along the way to give it cover. (And that call, in and of itself is a revival of the antebellum call for nullification)
Also true. That's the problem with communitarianism, at its worst.

But my point still stands -- there never was a constitutional basis for "separate but equal," or for Jim Crow. The history of tortured legalisms used to defend it are at the core of what's wrong today. At any rate, I'm not suggesting that state should have any right to decide who is a person and what "equal" means -- only suggesting that on "privacy" and religious matters we should live and let live, rather than foisting our notion of liberty on parts of the country that will hate us for it.

quote:
There are places where the federal government has unreasonably restricted freedoms and, while it can't force states directly to comply finds indirect ways to lean on them to go along, but there are far better ways to work on pushing back against those restrictions than by teaming up with a position that's fundamentally about overturning individual protections.
I'm not teaming up with anyone, as I said. But I am suggesting that the fed can be left to protecting individual liberties, rather than providing for people as well. I would be happy to let Texas go libertarian, if it also meant that California could be like Sweden, or the Netherlands.
Posts: 1619 | Registered: Sep 2010  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
TommySama
Member
Member # 2780

 - posted      Profile for TommySama   Email TommySama       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
quote:
Originally posted by AI Wessex:
Right, that *is* a given. I'm kind of curious why people spend so much time talking to him in that case (me included). I think it's like the attraction of empty calories and diet soda.

Naw man, there is plenty of gristle to chew on.
Posts: 6373 | 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:
I would be happy to let Texas go libertarian, if it also meant that California could be like Sweden, or the Netherlands.
The issue there is that we'd have to cut off the way federal aid works, then, too, or California would wind up subsidizing Texas' failed experiments.
Posts: 19668 | Registered: Nov 2000  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
KidTokyo
Member
Member # 6601

 - posted      Profile for KidTokyo   Email KidTokyo       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
Yes, we would. Then, states would succeed or fail entirely on the merits of their own social systems and values. There are obvious problems with this, I don't deny it. But perhaps it is time to start considering the merits, as currently the federal government is holding everyone hostage, creating cultural division rather than unity. Just like hostages under pressure, we (the states) are snapping and biting at one another irrationally in the face of pressure from above.

We can't continue for the next 50 years with half of the country in emotional/political crisis mode because the current administration is thought to be the vanguard of a coup by the other half. No one's getting anything done anymore.

[ February 11, 2012, 12:39 PM: Message edited by: KidTokyo ]

Posts: 1619 | Registered: Sep 2010  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
TheRallanator
Member
Member # 6624

 - posted      Profile for TheRallanator   Email TheRallanator       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
quote:
Originally posted by Viking_Longship:
Rall

Care to back that up with a substantial argument?

Paul's love of states' rights tends to eclipse his support for civil rights, especially if they're civil rights that aren't specifically enumerated in the bits of the constitution that count as canon in the RonPauliverse (14th amendment? Terrible idea!).

He's particularly rubbish on GLBT equality. He gets good grades (but not top marks) at the federal level because he doesn't think it's any of the fed's business, but at the state level he's absolute crap. He opposes gay marriage and gay adoption and is totally down with state bans on both those things, and he thinks Lawrence v Texas was a terrible decision and that states should have the right to outlaw consensual sodomy if they feel like it.

Plus y'know, there's that whole kinda-racist thing with wanting to scrap the Civil Rights Act. But at this stage I don't think anyone's surprised by Paul doing kinda-racist things.

Posts: 503 | Registered: Oct 2010  |  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