TRoaches

I guess there's nothing quite like the old "if you have nothing to hide then you have nothing to worry about" argument to fall back on when defending this sort of stuff.

Nintii's post nicely illustrates where the slippery slope of "we kill terrorists on sight" leads us. The difference between a terrorist and an accused criminal is arbitrary and subjective. Did the Black Panthers or Weather Underground "abdicate all rights" when they carried out their attacks against the US government, as HeyYou suggests? What about the Ruby Ridge "combatants"? Were the Branch Davidians killed because they "abdicated all rights" by refusing to comply with the ATF? An argument could be made that Julian Assange was actively working in opposition to the US military by leaking secret information. Should he be subject to execution by decree as well? What about Bradley Manning? Why should the military waste the money on a trial and subsequent imprisonment if they can just take him out back and shoot him? The execution of US citizens without trial, even if they are living abroad, sets the precedent for any of the above mentioned people to be executed by executive decree. It really surprises me that everyone had such a big problem with waterboarding but now execution by decree is a fine thing. I would rather be transported to Gitmo for some waterboarding and a human pyramid photo-op than have my house droned. Also, the argument that we save money by skipping the trial and going straight to the execution is simply insane, especially considering what a drop in the bucket it is compared to the rest of our budget. I'm all for cutting spending but I don't think we should start by eliminating the entire judicial process in favor of a Judge Dredd system.

Declaring a US citizen to be an "enemy combatant" is a very slippery slope to go down. The law currently allows nearly any crime to be declared an act of terrorism. If a person throws eggs at a mail carrier they could be charged with committing terrorism. Should they be subject to execution by decree? What about a political protester who interrupts a congressional proceeding? What about a protester who chains them self to an object in front of a courthouse and or otherwise disrupts government business as a form of protest? Nelson Mandela was labeled a terrorist. Should he have been executed via a military strike? The definition of "terrorism" (and, by extension, "enemy combatant") is so broad, and the label applied with such ease, that the thought of executing a person based solely on the government's willingness to apply that label to them should worry everyone. Terrorist is the new heretic, and you are speaking in support of the modern inquisitors and witch hunters right now.

The number of people who are executed by executive decree is irrelevant. Whether it is only one person or thousands it is a very bad thing. If you allow the executive branch to order US citizens accused of crimes to be executed without a trial you setting the stage for more executions. If they can do it once they will do it again....and they already have. Several US citizens have been executed without trial by this administration. Remember the justified outrage over our treatment of our prisoners during the Bush administration? It blows my mind that so many of the same people so rightly upset about that are now defending the current administration as they take it one step further and skip the whole imprisonment thing in favor of execution. If I were a psychopath I suppose I would praise them for their efficiency in removing the need for trial and expediting the execution process. And you did not read it correctly, regarding congressional approval. First of all, congress does not have the power to authorize such an action any more so than the President does. The only branch of government that is authorized to execute a citizen is the judicial. Second, congress only approved military force against a foreign enemy. The executive order(s) in question authorizes the execution of any person anywhere in the world, including within the borders of the borders of the United States.

Sometime after 7th grade many people actually open their eyes to reality and realize that the theory and the reality do not agree with each other. The current president has signed executive orders that authorize the execution of US citizens accused of crimes without trial. I don't remember that executive power being mentioned during 7th grade civics class, and it is not an executive power granted by constitution. You are basically saying "It would be illegal for the president to do what he has already done, therefore it could not have happened even though it already did".

Sure are some short memories in here..... http://2.bp.blogspot.com/_H44IkuSV9qQ/Ri5XMZJs0wI/AAAAAAAABAA/oe5xaEZL510/s320/hitler_bush.jpg http://www.zombietime.com/zomblog/wp-content/images2009/indybushhitler1.jpg Every president is branded a dictator by his opponents.....because every president expands the power of the executive branch, bringing us closer to a dictatorship.. And how are they able to do this? Because of the short memories of their supporters, who forget all about why executive power expansion is a bad thing once THEIR guy is in office, and instead cheer them on during their power grabs and support and defend the very same policies that they opposed during the last administration.

There has not been a free market in medicine for a very, very long time. If monopolies exist it is not because the medical industry was running wild on the free market. That has been one of the most tightly regulated industries during the last 50 years. In reality if a company will incur a loss by providing a particular service, and the federal government MANDATES that they provide that service, what will the result be? Will that company remain viable while losing money? Will their prices remain the same for their customers who do not need that particular service if that service, or will they have to increase their prices for everyone? In reality price fixing is illegal, and if you really can prove that price fixing occurs in the insurance industry you should take it to your state's attorney's office. I am sure there is a prosecutor somewhere who would love make a name for him or her self by busting open an insurance price-fixing ring. It is interesting to note that, at least as far as I can find out with a quick online search, insurance companies are exempt from anti-trust laws at a federal level, though such monopolies are prohibited by state law in apparently every state. It wonder why an executive administration so deeply committed to providing affordable health care to every citizen would choose not to overturn that antiquated law? Could it be that their bedfellows in the insurance industry asked them very nicely not to touch it?

Nobody is destroying either party. The drama that you are focusing on and hyping on this forum is pure theater, and is intended to divert your attention away from the stuff that neither party wants you to look at with a critical eye. Because nobody is pretending like erectile dysfunction meds are some kind of basic human right and demanding free erection pills under a plan that does not cover them. A medical need for something does not necessarily equate to a responsibility, morally or contractually, on the part of the insurance company to provide it. If a doctor recommends a hot pad for an injured back is my insurance company required to pay for it? What about over the counter medications? If I am allergic to common perfumes is my insurance company obligated to provide me with fragrance-free soap? If I am overweight should they be required to buy me fruit and a a gym membership? If that does not work should they be required to provide me with a trainer? What about hair transplants or cosmetic surgery? If someone can prove that their baldness is causing psychological trauma should they force their insurance company to cover that? Is there anything that you don't think the insurance company should be required to provide its customers?

http://pinealsqueegee.net/img/nopetom.gif

@Vagrant0: If you like sprinkles on your ice cream why would you go to an ice cream shop that does not offer sprinkles? If an ice cream shop was losing customers because they refused to offer sprinkles to customers who expect them to be available why would they continue to refuse to offer that product? If an ice cream shop could attract customers away from a competitor by offering the sprinkles that their competitors lack why would they choose not to? If you need a particular medication (birth control or anything else) and you want it to be covered by your insurance why would you choose an insurance company that does not provide that service? If an insurance company is losing customers because they refuse to offer a particular service then why would they continue to refuse to offer that service? If an insurance company could attract customers away from a competitor by offering a service that their competitor lacks why would they choose not to?

Huckabee is crap. I've said it over and over, yet you continue to try to associate my viewpoint with his. I don't think I can be any more clear than to say that Huckabee is crap. He does not represent me, and I have never supported him with words, dollars, or votes. I have supported his opponents, people specifically running against him for office with words, dollars, and votes. Why do you insist that I support him? In answer to your question, yes it is a government intrusion into personal medical affairs and Huckabee was probably wrong to sign it according to a strict conservative ideology. A privately owned insurance company should be allowed to refuse contraception for whatever reason they wish (moral, financial, or otherwise) provided that they are honest about this policy and the consumer is able to make an informed decision to give their business to that insurance company or to take their business elsewhere to a company that is willing to provide the service that they desire. This way an individual who has a moral opposition to a particular practice can be insured without the moral dilemma of indirectly supporting that practice financially.

It is not a derailment. Your position (the Republican party is anti-woman, therefore they should not appoint a woman to speak on their behalf) is a perfect example of the kind of doublethink that the parties rely on to stay in power, and that I am pointing to in my previous post. Perhaps you don't see the connection, but that does not mean it is not there. Perhaps you don't see the connection because the whole situation that you are in uproar about was engineered by very smart people specifically to work at a subconscious level and instill loyalty to one side and disdain for another regardless of how you really feel about the situation. That is why the same people who marched with Cindy Sheehan only a few years ago are now driving around in SUVs with Obama bumber stickers. They don't even realize how hypocritical and compromised they are being, and I believe that this is the intended effect of these types of wedge issues. It is, I suspect, how a person like yourself, who most likely would never have anything negative to say about a person's female gender, is attacking a politician for being female and attacking her party for daring to appoint a woman to an important position.

I never defended anything that Huckabee said, except perhaps his right to say it. I dislike Huckabee politically, and have said nothing whatsoever in support of his politics. If he really was being considered for the SOTU rebuttal I am glad that he was replaced by Rodgers. I have stated my dislike of government intrusion into personal medical affairs several times, so it is strange that you believe that I agree with Huckabee on that. When I said "prohibition" I was referring to the criminal prohibition of recreational and medicinal usage of non-pharmaceutical drugs. I assumed that simply saying "prohibition" was clear enough, given the historical usage of that word in American English. Obviously I was mistaken, since you apparently interpreted "I oppose prohibition" to mean "I oppose any law that prohibits anything, ever". @Rizon72: Well said! colourwheel's last post further illustrates what you are describing, in that she believes that I MUST agree with Huckabee regarding health care simply because I may agree with him about something like economic policy. I don't agree with the entire Republican platform, or even most of it. I just agree with more of it than I do the Democrat platform and therefore tend to support Republicans more often than Democrats. I have also have made multiple campaign contributions to, of all people, Dennis Kucinich, probably the most ideologically liberal politician to serve at any level in my entire voting lifetime, simply because he has proven himself principled enough to publicly support a Republican proposal or oppose a Democratic proposal. He has done this even when it meant damaging his personal political career or standing within his party. When he ran for president his own party hated him, just like the Republicans hated Gary Johnson and Ron Paul. I think there is no better indicator of a principled politician than seeing their own party try to shut them up and shut them out. The shame of it is that most voters are so loyal to one party that they don't even think about the issues, they just believe with whatever their party tells them to believe. Republicans who supported Bush's expansion of executive power are now critical of Obama continuing that trend, not even realizing that they allowed Obama's power grabs to happen by allowing Bush to set the stage. Democrats who protested Bush's wars and domestic surveillance are now silent while Obama expands upon those policies, waging more war than Bush ever did while listening to your phone calls and shining his Nobel Peace Prize. The media is partially to blame for this problem, but not entirely because nobody is being forced to listen to their nonsense. People choose to get their information and opinions from the very same companies that profit from the war machine. Does anyone remember Cindy Sheehan? She never stopped her activism and has been protesting Obama's policies for his entire presidency. When Bush was in office she showered with admiration on MSNBC and vilified by Fox News.....every single day, all day. Now she is never mentioned, because she is protesting against Obama and a peacenik activist protesting against a Nobel Peace Prize recipient for his war policies does not fit into the script that they are working from.

I have never supported either party. I am a conservative, but not a Republican. The Republican party has been anything but conservative for a very long time now. Eisenhower was the last true conservative president, and Kennedy was the last truly principled president of either party. Since then they have all been thespians and criminals, and the two wings of the monolithic entity known as "The Republicans and Democrats" have done everything necessary to keep it this way. eta: I forgot about Carter, who was a great President who stuck to his principles and as a result is still attacked to this day for being "stupid", despite all evidence to the contrary. He didn't cause as much trouble as Kennedy, though, and wasn't nearly as popular or charismatic so there was no need to publicly execute him. He has only suffered character assassination by the financial powers that he annoyed.

Here are some things that people intentionally do that often require medical attention or disable them in some way: -smoking -drinking -football -boating -construction -cooking -eating what you cooked -sex -mining -EDM festivals -motor sports -gaming/modding -hiking -rail yard labor -ballet -youtube and, of course -cutting off your own feet? We have already established that you do not think that people should be allowed to choose to amputate their limbs. Fair enough, but are there any other items in that list that you think the law should prevent you from doing? Every single one of those examples fits the criteria of "elective activities that could potentially cause injury or disability, or otherwise require medical care".

Rodgers served 10 years in her state's legislature and five terms in the House of Representatives, yet you question her validity......because of her gender. How progressive of you! I don't think the federal government should involve itself in the health care choices of any individual. You, in contrast, DO think that it is the government's role to be involved in that aspect of our lives. You are arguing that it is acceptable for the government to involve itself in your health care choices UNLESS it involves reproduction, which is an illogical position. If you want the government to be in control of your health care then that is fine, but you should understand that you are opening yourself up to being forced to accept decisions that you disagree with that are made "in your best interest" by government officials who do not know you or your situation, are rarely actual doctors and, more often than not, know little to nothing about the medical sciences. If you truly do not want that intrusion then you must take responsibility for every aspect of your own health care. You have stated many times that you want the government to regulate your choices, that we as a society need the government to regulate our health choices. You really can't have it both ways.

Why was he chosen? No, because I don't pay attention to rumors. They are usually irrelevant and come from a dubious source, like a "party official who spoke to us on the condition of anonymity". I agree, and that is why I am happy to see Huckabee get tossed aside by the party. It is also why I am happy to see a woman being given the opportunity to represent the party. I just can't wrap my head around why you are opposed to the concept. Because it is exactly the kind of wedge issue that the major parties like to focus on and thereby encourage you and others, republican and democrat alike, to focus on so that they can work in lockstep to support their common financial interests and profit from our government's imperialism and our corporation's destruction of our society and cultures.

Do you remember when the Democrats chose a nationally unknown senator to give the keynote speech at the DNC in 2004? Would it have been appropriate for someone to say "well they just chose him because of his ethnicity!" when that unknown senator was chosen to speak? You are doing exactly this when you question their choice of speaker because of her gender. Bear in mind, the DNC keynote speech is, by any measure, a much bigger deal than the State of the Union rebuttal yet they went with a young and nationally unknown Senator. It turned out he did a pretty good job at that speech, and inspired quite a few people to support him and his party. Is it ok with you if Catchy Rodgers discusses issues regarding her own body, and the body of her daughter? Is she allowed to have an opinion in that area, even though she is a Republican? I suppose not, and she should just never mention such things again because Republicans should not talk about a woman's reproductive system, right? You should send her an email and tell her this, because she may have some ridiculous notion that her political opinions regarding her own body or the body of her daughter are relevant and legitimate. Cathy Rodgers, stop discussing your no-no area, you silly Republican! Federal prohibition laws

When you speak about women as though they all obviously agree with you about issues like reproductive rights you are the one who is demeaning others based on gender. Please, consider the possibility that there are women in the United States who hold the same views as Huckabee regarding reproductive rights and pay equity and who would strongly disagree with your political opinions regarding those issues, despite your gender similarity. Why do you place the word "female" inside quotation marks? Is she not female? Is she somehow less female because of her party affiliation? Also, why would you attack their choice of speaker based on her gender? Would you prefer a male speaker? You actually manage to sound more sexist in your remarks than any forward-thinking man ever would. How do you propose they address this problem? I know! They could encourage more women to participate in the party's affairs, thus helping to shape the platform, to the benefit of all, by incorporating a female perspective into their assessments of the issues. Perhaps they could even appoint a woman to give the State of the Union response! Surely it would be unthinkable that anyone would be so politically shallow that they would actually attack them for choosing a female speaker. The only people who would stoop so low as to actually criticize the selection of a woman to speak on behalf of the entire party would be the old-school sexist relics that exist on the margins of politics. And, of course, colourwheel, kvnchrist, and Vagrant0.

You acknowledge her support for the ACA, then immediately contradict that acknowledgement when you state that for the past four years "all that republicans have tried to do is repeal the law". If that is "all that Republicans have tried to do" then what was Martinez doing? Here are some quotes to to refresh your memory a bit..... "...after Obama was elected president in 2008 the republican party changed over night in a very extreme way." "Rick Perry is too extreme" "America will be in a perpetual state of political grid lock till one party becomes too extreme for anyone to handle. For the record the republican party seems to be heading in this direction at a fast pace as the years go by. I really don't see the republican party lasting very long if they keep insisting their party to keep moving further to the right of the political spectrum that only seems to be appealing to a base that has a stunted demographic growth." "extreme social agendas!" "The Tea Parties Core message sound great but the people who they advocate in office resonates extreme social ideology to even make life long registered republicans to even turn Democratic or independent....todays American Republican party has become the fringe of a conservative movement bent on extreme social ideology regaurdless if it's on their public platform or not... " "... pushing for extreme social legislation" "The republican party in American politics is unwilling to move closer to the center of the political spectrum" "If the GOP really wishes to trap themselves in a political bubble again the republican party has more things to worry about other than just indefinitely losing TV network sponsorships. The GOP could just slowly disappear from the mainstream completely..." "My thought is Radical Right wing rhetoric is to blame" "The use of "God-given right" has been a repeated phrase used over and over again by the Radical Right wing in the political spectrum in the recent years."

Do you remember RomneyCare? Somehow he still managed to get the nomination. Is it possible that the Republican party is not the monolithic hive-mind that you are implying it to be? There is a segment of the party that strongly opposes the ACA, but this does not mean that a Republican who supports the act is barred from further nomination for higher office. The Republican party is not "all for" anything. I know this may be hard for you to believe, but there is at least as much, if not more, diversity of thought within the Republican party as there is in the Democratic party. If a Republican opposes the ACA you apply labels to them such as "far-right", "extreme", "outside the mainstream", and "too far from center". Now you are presented with a Republican governor who supports the ACA and you condemn them as nonviable for presidential candidacy. This is an illogical contradiction.

Republicans in New Mexico did. But......how is that possible?!?! How could the racist sexist republicans elect a Latina to the highest state-level office? Could it be that they looked past her gender and ethnicity and were impressed by her qualifications and platform? Is it possible that Republicans are not the party of bigots that you think they are? In other words, yes I do think the Republican base could (continue to) support a Latina candidate. They have already demonstrated this. “I can unequivocally say I will not be running for national office in 2008." -Senator Barack Obama

Why not? Every candidate says they are not going to run before announcing their candidacy.

1. Christie is not the only potential GOP candidate. For example, there are currently 29 Republican governors. 2. Hillary Clinton has not been nominated, has not won a primary election, and has not even announced her candidacy. Susana Martinez..

I stated earlier that I do NOT think that UFO sightings have anything to do with aliens, and that a more probable explanation for the mountain of credible sightings is that they are terrestrial military aircraft. Military air crews, as well as ground and naval spotters, have been specifically trained to identify aircraft and estimate their speed and heading. If a trained spotter observes a flying object perform a maneuver that defies the limits of atmospheric flight powered by conventional means (i.e. accelerating or decelerating at a rate that would require massive amounts of force and generate enough g force to crush a human body) then it implies one of two possibilities: A. the expert spotter is hallucinating or mistaken. In many cases there are multiple expert witnesses to these events, so they would all have to share the hallucination B. the craft is being propelled by some unknown, unconventional method, given that the energy requirements of such maneuvering would be beyond the capabilities of any known propulsion system. Yes, they are. They are meant to be scrutinized and tested forever. The eternal scrutiny of existing data is a central principle of science. Declaring any law of science to be eternal and unbreakable is to leave science and wander into the territory of dogma. If can not be broken yet. Perhaps it will be some day, and a future generation will marvel at how primitive we were back when we lit fires to produce our energy. Yes, it does. Newton's laws have been known to be wrong for a long time. In fact, even Newton himself acknowledged that they were incomplete. I can't post all of them because of time limitations and a character limit for forum posts, but I can list a few. You already mentioned Newton's laws, but there is also geocentrism, the entire body of work known as alchemy, flat earth, the "dance of the spheres", the "four humors" of early medicine, the early atomic theories that stated that the atom was the smallest possible particle, which was later replaced by the also erroneous law that protons, electrons, and neutrons were the smallest possible particles, and finally the grouping of all matter into one of the "three states".