Democrats, Pacifism, and Felons

[PoliticalChic]

"Justice is itself the great standing policy of civil society; and any eminent departure from it, under any circumstances, lies under the suspicion of being no policy at all."
Edmund Burke

This is unacceptable in a civilized nation. Of course, authoritarians like PC have no conscience, her ONLY concern is SELF.


"It behooves every man who values liberty of conscience for himself, to resist invasions of it in the case of others: or their case may, by change of circumstances, become his own."
Thomas Jefferson

"Whoever sheds the blood of man, by man shall his blood be shed; for in the image of God has God made man."
Genesis 9:6

The final irony of your ignorant rant is that conservatives 'claim' to abhor overbearing government. But they zealously sanction the most overbearing and egregious act of the state; executing an innocent citizen. No right We, the People possess comes from God EXCEPT the right to life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness. The state is merely a murderer in this case, and statists like you are accessories to murder.


Psalm 94:20–21
20 Shall the throne of iniquity, which devises evil by law, Have fellowship with You? 21 They gather together against the life of the righteous, And condemn innocent blood.

"But they zealously sanction the most overbearing and egregious act of the state; executing an innocent citizen."

The sign of an irreparable fool is pretending that others have said what, in reality, the fool has said.

 

[Londoner]

1. Following WWI, and reaching an apex during the Vietnam War, the Left has generally been hostile to anything having to do with war, often embracing pacifism. The bumper-sticker “War is Not the Answer” expresses a nearly universal Left-wing view.

This is the kind of stuff that comes from Conservative Think Tanks and Rush Limbaugh, and is directed at people without much post high school history or poly sci courses.

Following WWI the Dems had FDR and Truman, both of whom waged war (WWII & Cold War respectively) against the cries of Republican Isolationists (who didn't think Washington had the competence or budget to save/improve the world).

The Dems had a brief flirtation with pacifism with the hippie student left in the 60s. But this never made it very high up the ladder. The only mainstream politician to truly and completely support the 60's radicals was McGovern, who didn't have enough Democratic support to win the presidency.

All post WWI Democratic presidents dropped bombs on people, including Carter who passed the "Carter Doctrine", which held that the USA would protect it's middle east assets by force if necessary.

Clinton flirted with the 60's Left, but dropped plenty of bombs as president.

Obama also pretended to be an anti-war 60s radical when it suited him, but he never met a drone strike he didn't like. He also gave Osama Bin Laden a little bit of pacifism right between the eyes.

The original poster created a strawman by exaggerating a position on the Left that has never made it past college bong sessions.

The sad part is that she votes and influences public debate using this kind of misinformation which she consumes uncritically from her party's information system.

 

[PoliticalChic]

1. Following WWI, and reaching an apex during the Vietnam War, the Left has generally been hostile to anything having to do with war, often embracing pacifism. The bumper-sticker “War is Not the Answer” expresses a nearly universal Left-wing view.

This is the kind of stuff that comes from Conservative Think Tanks and Rush Limbaugh, and is directed at people without much post high school history or poly sci courses.

Following WWI the Dems had FDR and Truman, both of whom waged war (WWII & Cold War respectively) against the cries of Republican Isolationists (who didn't think Washington had the competence or budget to save/improve the world).

The Dems had a brief flirtation with pacifism with the hippie student left in the 60s. But this never made it very high up the ladder. The only mainstream politician to truly and completely support the 60's radicals was McGovern, who didn't have enough Democratic support to win the presidency.

All post WWI Democratic presidents dropped bombs on people, including Carter who passed the "Carter Doctrine", which held that the USA would protect it's middle east assets by force if necessary.

Clinton flirted with the 60's Left, but dropped plenty of bombs as president.

Obama also pretended to be an anti-war 60s radical when it suited him, but he never met a drone strike he didn't like. He also gave Osama Bin Laden a little bit of pacifism right between the eyes.

The original poster created a strawman by exaggerating a position on the Left that has never made it past college bong sessions.

The sad part is that she votes and influences public debate using this kind of misinformation which she consumes uncritically from her party's information system.

"... Dems had FDR and Truman, both of whom waged war..."

Neither had a choice...as the US had been attacked. Surely you heard about that.


And the rest of your post largely supports what you, ostensibly, meant to rebut.




"This is the kind of stuff that comes from Conservative Think Tanks and Rush Limbaugh, and is directed at people without much post high school history or poly sci courses."

Well, then....it's obvious that you would benefit from "Conservative Think Tanks and Rush Limbaugh."

 

[NYcarbineer]

What is "flawed speculation"?

Are you admitting that her statement opened the question of felons voting....a position held by one political party.....hers.

Your obfuscation is forcing me to simply repeat, again and again,

1. you posted a claim (which presumably you agree with) that Judge Sotomayor wants felons to vote.

2. The evidence presented for that claim did not in fact contain anything whatsoever that supported the claim. I posted the text of the original material. Nowhere in it was there any evidence that she wants felons to vote. Maybe she does, maybe she doesn't. Her dissent in the case was based on issues unrelated to the specifics of the case - what I mean by that is that this case could have been about any number of issues for which her dissent could have applied, because her dissent was more about process, separation of powers, etc. Go back and read it.

3. You should assign a belief, position, or opinion to someone unless you can prove they actually hold it.

That was all I was saying.

What is "flawed speculation"?

Are you admitting that her statement opened the question of felons voting....a position held by one political party.....hers.

Flawed speculation was committed by the author of the article you linked to. He speculated (although he stated it as fact) that Sotomayor wants felons to vote because of her dissent in that court case he cited, BUT,

if you read her dissent, there is nothing in it to support that speculation. Thus the speculation was flawed in its logic.

 

[Londoner]

Neither had a choice...as the US had been attacked. Surely you heard about that.

Actually pacifists believe that, when struck, you don't have to strike back. Secondly, neither FDR nor Truman advanced a policy of pacifism - quite the opposite.

Also in point of fact: both these presidents were opposed by a small but very real faction of Republican Isolationists. (In fact, it took the pressure of postwar anti-communism to finally drain the GOP of its isolationists, many of whom opposed Truman's Cold War policies as too expansionist and expensive. They were weary of giving Washington too much money and power, which Truman said was required to defend/manage the globe. They supported the idea of spreading market freedom and democracy to the developing world, but they believed that Washington bureaucrats lacked the necessary information and competence to pull it off without making a bigger mess. They warned of the law of unintended consequences, one of which found expression much later in the words of Eisenhower, when he warned of the creation of a massive, unaffordable defense bureaucracy that was beholden to special interests. This is why it was so ironic when Bush talked about improving the middle east by spreading freedom. It sounded like the same ol' liberal fantasy of saving the world top-down from Washington. Indeed, many of us would love to live in a world without poverty, drugs and evil-doers, but Republicans have traditionally not trusted Washington with the increased budget & power to pursue these fantasies. Republicans are realists, and they used to accept the limitations of Washington until anti-communism turned them into a military-forward party)

But back to the point: FDR developed the plans to build & drop the nuclear bomb, and Truman dropped it twice, melting whole civilian-filled cities. They could have chosen any number of military tools, with far fewer civilian casualties, but they chose the most lethal.

John Kerry never once mentioned pacifism to oppose the Vietnam War which Bush hid from. He opposed it from a policy perspective. He thought it was a terminal stalemate - something that was creating body bags without a clear political solution. He realized that Washington didm't know what the fuck it was doing. Unfortunately, both political parties and Republican voters decided to trust in the power of Washington bureaucrats to improve the word top-down with military solutions.

And what about LBJ? Was he a pacifist? He reversed Kennedy's plans to pull out of Vietnam and escalated the war. He could of ended it and pulled the troops out (like Reagan did in Libya). It took a Republican President to end the Vietnam stalemate.

The only place I see the pacifism you're talking about is in documentaries about sixties radicals who opposed the bombs dropped by a Democratic president.

"Hey, Hey LBJ How Many Kids Did You Kill Today?"

Pacifism? -from a democratic president? Are you kidding me? Democratic presidents have higher body counts than body Republican presidents. You are strawmanning a small section of sixties radicals that never got their polices passed by a sitting democratic president. This would be like conflating the John Birch Society with the RNC, which crazies on the Left love doing. Be careful with Talk Radio, FOX News and the Internet (Drudge, etc). These information sources are very entertaining - and they're sometimes correct in their interpretations - but they are dangerously simplistic, and they depend on a growing horde of illiterate patriots who have passion but have never read actual policies.

 

[PoliticalChic]

Neither had a choice...as the US had been attacked. Surely you heard about that.

Actually pacifists believe that, when struck, you don't have to strike back. Secondly, neither FDR nor Truman advanced a policy of pacifism - quite the opposite.

Also in point of fact: both these presidents were opposed by a small but very real faction of Republican Isolationists. (In fact, it took the pressure of postwar anti-communism to finally drain the GOP of its isolationists, many of whom opposed Truman's Cold War policies as too expansionist and expensive. They were weary of giving Washington too much money and power, which Truman said was required to defend/manage the globe. They supported the idea of spreading market freedom and democracy to the developing world, but they believed that Washington bureaucrats lacked the necessary information and competence to pull it off without making a bigger mess. They warned of the law of unintended consequences, one of which found expression much later in the words of Eisenhower, when he warned of the creation of a massive, unaffordable defense bureaucracy that was beholden to special interests. This is why it was so ironic when Bush talked about improving the middle east by spreading freedom. It sounded like the same ol' liberal fantasy of saving the world top-down from Washington. Indeed, many of us would love to live in a world without poverty, drugs and evil-doers, but Republicans have traditionally not trusted Washington with the increased budget & power to pursue these fantasies. Republicans are realists, and they have always been more willing to accept the limitations of Washington)

But back to the point: FDR developed the plans to build & drop the nuclear bomb, and Truman dropped it twice, melting whole civilian-filled cities. They could have chosen any number of military tools, with far fewer civilian casualties, but they chose the most lethal.

John Kerry never once mentioned pacifism to oppose the Vietnam War which Bush hid from. He opposed it from a policy perspective. He thought it was a terminal stalemate - something that was creating body bags without a clear political solution. He realized that Washington didm't know what the fuck it was doing. Unfortunately, both political parties and Republican voters decided to trust in the power of Washington bureaucrats to improve the word top-down with military solutions.

And what about LBJ? Was he a pacifist? He reversed Kennedy's plans to pull out of Vietnam and escalated the war. He could of ended it and pulled the troops out (like Reagan did in Libya). It took a Republican President to end the Vietnam stalemate.

The only place I see the pacifism you're talking about is in documentaries about sixties radicals who opposed the bombs dropped by a Democratic president.

"Hey, Hey LBJ How Many Kids Did You Kill Today?"

Pacifism? -from a democratic president? Are you kidding me? Democratic presidents have higher body counts than body Republican presidents. You are strawmanning a small section of sixties radicals that never got their polices passed by a sitting democratic president. This would be like conflating the John Birch Society with the RNC, which crazies on the Left love doing. Be careful with Talk Radio, FOX News and the Internet (Drudge, etc). These information sources are very entertaining - and they're sometimes correct in their interpretations - but they are dangerously simplistic, and they depend on a growing horde of illiterate patriots who have passion but have never read actual policies.

I like the analysis.


You are wrong about my sources....I read books.


Would you be willing to give your view of the proclivity of the elected officials, Democrats all, for smoothing the road for convicted killers?

Brown, in particular, was the inspiration for the OP.

 

[JoeB131]

If truth is stranger than fiction, then you must be truth!

Case solved: Erroneous Joe has no reality-based opinions.

You keep dancing around the subject.

Germany has no death penalty. Private gun ownership is severely restricted. They only lock up 78,000 out of a population of 80 million.


We have a death penalty. Every asshole in the country that wants a gun can get one, even crazy people. We lock up 2,000,000 out of a population of 300 million.

Hmmmmm...

Which country has the higher crime rate?

Hmmmm....

If you have a better explanation, go for it.

 

[Londoner]

Political Chick,

This is not to say that I don't get your point.

I think the most defensible reason for the Iraq War was to increase our military footprint near the globe's largest remaining "low-hanging" energy assets. It doesn't make sense for Lefties to drive to Iraq War Protests with fuel secured by Bush/Chaney. But if you don't feel comfortable using the Iraq War, especially because oil prices have steadily gone up since the War, than take any military engagement where vital resources are at stake. We have 5% of the world's population but we use 1/3 of its resources. Lefties happily and eagerly benefit from the lifestyle advantages that come with this arrangement, so it's hypocritical when they claim the moral high-ground when it comes to protesting the blood spilled on their behalf.

 

[Pogo]

"Whoever sheds the blood of man, by man shall his blood be shed; for in the image of God has God made man."
Genesis 9:6

"Thou shalt not kill" -- Exodus 20:13
"Duh!" - Pogo 02:24

While making mistakes is not unusual for you....this is one even you should have realized.


The correct translation is Thou shalt not murder.

If your mistake were correct, war and self-defense would be forbidden as well.


As it is Sunday, let's proceed with your biblical instruction:

Genesis 9:6 prescribed the death penalty for murder when it said that if a man “shed the blood” of another man, by man must his blood be shed.
It is the only law repeated in all five of the books of the old testament.
The death penalty is a value, values are eternal, as opposed to customs or traditions, such as stoning for adultery.

Exodus 21:12-14
Leviticus 24:17 and 21
Numbers 35:16-18 and Numbers 35:31
Deuteronomy 19:11-13


You're welcome.


"Duh" certainly fits you.

Hey, if you actually wanna walk around tethered to a compendium of moral/social manuscripts designed for an agrarian society of three thousand years ago that's been put through countless editors, two religions and innumerable sub-sects and modern revisionists (as above) and pretend it's contemporarily relevant, that's your problem.

I don't put stock in any part of that crap; I'm just pointing out that the contradictions therein are plentiful and readily demostrable -- which renders your original point ... weightless.

Don't mention it. Captain Obvious is happy to help.

 

[NoNukes]

The answer was given earlier.

You introduced a question totally extraneous to the thread.
If you wish to change the subject, as you've been thoroughly thrashed in several
threads, by all means begin whatever thread you wish.

"Still no answer, fine" is both sophomoric and transparent.

I thought the question pertinent with your criticism of pacifists, guess it was beyond your scope.

Why are you so fearful?

Truth up, man.

Fearful???? Why are you so afraid to answer a question? You are an insecure person attempting to hide behind an Anne Coulter attitude.

 

[PoliticalChic]

Political Chick,

This is not to say that I don't get your point.

I think the most defensible reason for the Iraq War was to increase our military footprint near the globe's largest remaining "low-hanging" energy assets. It doesn't make sense for Lefties to drive to Iraq War Protests with fuel secured by Bush/Chaney. But if you don't feel comfortable using the Iraq War, especially because oil prices have steadily gone up since the War, than take any military engagement where vital resources are at stake. We have 5% of the world's population but we use 1/3 of its resources. Lefties happily and eagerly benefit from the lifestyle advantages that come with this arrangement, so it's hypocritical when they claim the moral high-ground when it comes to protesting the blood spilled on their behalf.

Would you be willing to give your view of the proclivity of the elected officials, Democrats all, for smoothing the road for convicted killers?

Brown, in particular, was the inspiration for the OP.

 

[PoliticalChic]

"Thou shalt not kill" -- Exodus 20:13
"Duh!" - Pogo 02:24

While making mistakes is not unusual for you....this is one even you should have realized.


The correct translation is Thou shalt not murder.

If your mistake were correct, war and self-defense would be forbidden as well.


As it is Sunday, let's proceed with your biblical instruction:

Genesis 9:6 prescribed the death penalty for murder when it said that if a man “shed the blood” of another man, by man must his blood be shed.
It is the only law repeated in all five of the books of the old testament.
The death penalty is a value, values are eternal, as opposed to customs or traditions, such as stoning for adultery.

Exodus 21:12-14
Leviticus 24:17 and 21
Numbers 35:16-18 and Numbers 35:31
Deuteronomy 19:11-13


You're welcome.


"Duh" certainly fits you.

Hey, if you actually wanna walk around tethered to a compendium of moral/social manuscripts designed for an agrarian society of three thousand years ago that's been put through countless editors, two religions and innumerable sub-sects and modern revisionists (as above) and pretend it's contemporarily relevant, that's your problem.

I don't put stock in any part of that crap; I'm just pointing out that the contradictions therein are plentiful and readily demostrable -- which renders your original point ... weightless.

Don't mention it. Captain Obvious is happy to help.

1. In another thread you accused me of some problem you were having with quotes....

Of course I had nothing to do with the problem...and asked you to explain yourself.

You simply changed the subject, and wandered off ignoring the accusation you created.



2. In his thread you erroneously provided what you believed defeated my point re: the death penalty.
When I showed you to be wrong, you, once again, pretended that the exchange never took place.



Not a style worthy of respect, is that.

 

[Nika2013]

" Actually, pacifism is immoral, as it stands in the way of dealing with evil." (she says)

Christ was a pacifist, a socialist and believed in helping the poor, homeless, and yes even prisoners...Read your Bible that you sometimes quote from as a conservative...

 

[PoliticalChic]

" Actually, pacifism is immoral, as it stands in the way of dealing with evil." (she says)

Christ was a pacifist, a socialist and believed in helping the poor, homeless, and yes even prisoners...Read your Bible that you sometimes quote from as a conservative...

Nonsense.

Luke 22:36

 

[Nika2013]

“For I was hungry and you gave me meat; I was thirsty and you gave me drink: I was a stranger and you took me in; I was in prison and you visited me…and the Lord shall answer them, “In as much as you have done it for the least of my brethren, you have done it unto me.”
Matthew 25:35-42
He has this conversation with his disciples accusing them of the omission of these acts. Actually, if I am correct, the King James version places these in the negative: "I was hungry and you fed me not...
…………………………………………………………………
“Sell all that you have and give alms” (to the poor) Luke 12:33
“Blessed are the peacemakers (pacifists) for theirs is the kingdom of God.” Matthew 5:5

“And they shall beat their swords into plowshares, and their spears into pruning hooks; nation shall not rise up against nation, neither shall they learn war any more” Isaiah 2:4
“He who is not with me is against me.” Matthew 12: 30
“These people honor me with their lips, but their hearts are far from me.” Mark 7:13

Your metaphorical sword in Luke is talking about a "spiritual" sword to fight Satan...(See Luke 22:31.....and I only use Biblical citations with people who cite the Bible to prove their points, or dictate morality to the masses...

 

[Pogo]

While making mistakes is not unusual for you....this is one even you should have realized.


The correct translation is Thou shalt not murder.

If your mistake were correct, war and self-defense would be forbidden as well.


As it is Sunday, let's proceed with your biblical instruction:

Genesis 9:6 prescribed the death penalty for murder when it said that if a man “shed the blood” of another man, by man must his blood be shed.
It is the only law repeated in all five of the books of the old testament.
The death penalty is a value, values are eternal, as opposed to customs or traditions, such as stoning for adultery.

Exodus 21:12-14
Leviticus 24:17 and 21
Numbers 35:16-18 and Numbers 35:31
Deuteronomy 19:11-13


You're welcome.


"Duh" certainly fits you.

Hey, if you actually wanna walk around tethered to a compendium of moral/social manuscripts designed for an agrarian society of three thousand years ago that's been put through countless editors, two religions and innumerable sub-sects and modern revisionists (as above) and pretend it's contemporarily relevant, that's your problem.

I don't put stock in any part of that crap; I'm just pointing out that the contradictions therein are plentiful and readily demostrable -- which renders your original point ... weightless.

Don't mention it. Captain Obvious is happy to help.

1. In another thread you accused me of some problem you were having with quotes....

Of course I had nothing to do with the problem...and asked you to explain yourself.

You simply changed the subject, and wandered off ignoring the accusation you created.



2. In his thread you erroneously provided what you believed defeated my point re: the death penalty.
When I showed you to be wrong, you, once again, pretended that the exchange never took place.



Not a style worthy of respect, is that.

Whether you respect facts or not is not my concern nor in my control, nor should it be.

Actually I haven't engaged in any death penalty debate in this thread or elsewhere; I just saw your post and knew I could easily render it impotent, i.e. the post itself, not the argument, since I wasn't involved.. So there is no such exchange to "pretend never took place". If there were you could simply quote it. But I do envy your powers of imagination.

My only previous posts here were to demonstrate the circular reasoning in your OP, specifically on the specious and slippery concept of "evil".
You walked away from that one -- which is understandable, since the only other course would have been to acknowledge the fallacy, and god knows that was mever gonna happen.

 

[PoliticalChic]

“For I was hungry and you gave me meat; I was thirsty and you gave me drink: I was a stranger and you took me in; I was in prison and you visited me…and the Lord shall answer them, “In as much as you have done it for the least of my brethren, you have done it unto me.”
Matthew 25:35-42
He has this conversation with his disciples accusing them of the omission of these acts. Actually, if I am correct, the King James version places these in the negative: "I was hungry and you fed me not...
…………………………………………………………………
“Sell all that you have and give alms” (to the poor) Luke 12:33
“Blessed are the peacemakers (pacifists) for theirs is the kingdom of God.” Matthew 5:5

“And they shall beat their swords into plowshares, and their spears into pruning hooks; nation shall not rise up against nation, neither shall they learn war any more” Isaiah 2:4
“He who is not with me is against me.” Matthew 12: 30
“These people honor me with their lips, but their hearts are far from me.” Mark 7:13

Your metaphorical sword in Luke is talking about a "spiritual" sword to fight Satan...(See Luke 22:31.....and I only use Biblical citations with people who cite the Bible to prove their points, or dictate morality to the masses...

1. So....who should do the feeding? Government?
In which passage do you find that?


2. Do you know how much voluntary charity Americans gave last year?
I do.
Just ask.


3. Do you know who gives more in every category of charity....conservatives or liberals?
I do,
Just ask.


4. One more....are you gullible enough to believe the government statistics on who is in poverty....

....or the efficacy of government poverty programs?
Are you that much of a simpleton?


If so....perhaps you can write a nice letter, and get a refund from the below-standard schools you attended.

 

[PoliticalChic]

Hey, if you actually wanna walk around tethered to a compendium of moral/social manuscripts designed for an agrarian society of three thousand years ago that's been put through countless editors, two religions and innumerable sub-sects and modern revisionists (as above) and pretend it's contemporarily relevant, that's your problem.

I don't put stock in any part of that crap; I'm just pointing out that the contradictions therein are plentiful and readily demostrable -- which renders your original point ... weightless.

Don't mention it. Captain Obvious is happy to help.

1. In another thread you accused me of some problem you were having with quotes....

Of course I had nothing to do with the problem...and asked you to explain yourself.

You simply changed the subject, and wandered off ignoring the accusation you created.



2. In his thread you erroneously provided what you believed defeated my point re: the death penalty.
When I showed you to be wrong, you, once again, pretended that the exchange never took place.



Not a style worthy of respect, is that.

Whether you respect facts or not is not my concern nor in my control, nor should it be.

Actually I haven't engaged in any death penalty debate in this thread or elsewhere; I just saw your post and knew I could easily render it impotent, i.e. the post itself, not the argument, since I wasn't involved.. So there is no such exchange to "pretend never took place". If there were you could simply quote it. But I do envy your powers of imagination.

My only previous posts here were to demonstrate the circular reasoning in your OP, specifically on the specious and slippery concept of "evil".
You walked away from that one -- which is understandable, since the only other course would have been to acknowledge the fallacy, and god knows that was mever gonna happen.

Was there an apology in that word salad above?

No?

Then get back under the rock you scuttled from.

 

[Pogo]

1. In another thread you accused me of some problem you were having with quotes....

Of course I had nothing to do with the problem...and asked you to explain yourself.

You simply changed the subject, and wandered off ignoring the accusation you created.



2. In his thread you erroneously provided what you believed defeated my point re: the death penalty.
When I showed you to be wrong, you, once again, pretended that the exchange never took place.



Not a style worthy of respect, is that.

Whether you respect facts or not is not my concern nor in my control, nor should it be.

Actually I haven't engaged in any death penalty debate in this thread or elsewhere; I just saw your post and knew I could easily render it impotent, i.e. the post itself, not the argument, since I wasn't involved.. So there is no such exchange to "pretend never took place". If there were you could simply quote it. But I do envy your powers of imagination.

My only previous posts here were to demonstrate the circular reasoning in your OP, specifically on the specious and slippery concept of "evil".
You walked away from that one -- which is understandable, since the only other course would have been to acknowledge the fallacy, and god knows that was mever gonna happen.

Was there an apology in that word salad above?

No?

Then get back under the rock you scuttled from.

You actually want an apology for having being proved fallacious??
: head explodes:: )

Ín that case I will pass along my compliments on your fine brew:

 

[NYcarbineer]

If you like, we could go back in time to when PC was attacking Woodrow Wilson for being too bellicose a Democrat.

Which I suppose is also immoral, so long as it's a Democrat doing it.