NEWS: Law Rape: The Right Wing Story

sitar said:
its a good article, but in the future i would stay away from the term,
"benign little cancer"
you may want to google cancer.

Nolan_Void said:
You know, I've seen some of the most poignant and terrifying political writing ever on this wonderful site filled with naked girls, and often found myself a little disappointed that it isn't appearing to a wider audience.

But more often I find myself asking, in the face of all this horrible Orwellian bullshit that our government is pulling, what the hell can we really do? I'm genuinely asking for some input here. Because before the last election, I thought that there was no way that George Bush was going to get a second term. I thought his obvious incompetence, blatant lies, and clear disregard for other human lives in the face of his own personal interests would surely be enough to get him booted from the White House. Nevermind all the subversion of democracy as we know it. I figured that stuff would have been enough. But it wasn't. Half of the crazed fucking country still voted for him. Half!

So it makes me feel like "What can we really do?" I'm terrified that it's going to happen again, that John fucking McCain is going to win and this ridiculous farce of a democracy is going to continue on into a sixteen year run.

So to you, my fellows, I ask earnestly, what in the hell are supposed to do if we really care?

livertarian said:

I would recommend voting third party. Preferably Libertarian.

I am not arguing FTR's point; the neo-cons have had their day, and they have fucked us for a good while to come. However, I still believe electing a Dem will keep us on the path away from rule of law. Remember that our Democrat presidents have had a steady track record of using Executive Orders, and UN resolutions, to bypass Congress on conducting war. Also, Democrats show no sign of relinquishing unelectable authority over our economy via the Fed Reserve. Those are two big issues for me, but there are many other ways the Dems and Reps undermine our liberties and the power of our vote.

Voting Dem this year may truly be the lesser of two evils. But it will continue the trend toward more government authority at the highest level. I do not see how we, the people, benefit from giving such massive power to these two parties.

livertarian said:
I would recommend voting third party. Preferably Libertarian.

I am not arguing FTR's point; the neo-cons have had their day, and they have fucked us for a good while to come. However, I still believe electing a Dem will keep us on the path away from rule of law. Remember that our Democrat presidents have had a steady track record of using Executive Orders, and UN resolutions, to bypass Congress on conducting war. Also, Democrats show no sign of relinquishing unelectable authority over our economy via the Fed Reserve. Those are two big issues for me, but there are many other ways the Dems and Reps undermine our liberties and the power of our vote.

Voting Dem this year may truly be the lesser of two evils. But it will continue the trend toward more government authority at the highest level. I do not see how we, the people, benefit from giving such massive power to these two parties.

coyotemike said:

Libertarian? Are you kidding me? And which Dem presidents are you babbling about, bypassing congress to go to war?

livertarian said:

Kennedy: Vietnam
Clinton: Yugoslavia

No declaration of war by congress in those cases, right?

The Lib party is the only one talking about limited government. that is why I support them. I will probably never vote Democrat for federal office, though I don't mind their programs at the local level. The Republicans have turned the "party of small government" into a joke, and are beyond repair. So tell me why you think I was kidding. Fucker.

FearTheReaper said:

God created Bob Barr for people like you.

People like me get Jesse Johnson.

coyotemike said:

The first "advisors" went to Vietnam before Kennedy was elected. The escalation was under Kennedy, but he didn't start it.

Clinton's part in Yugoslavia was nothing more than supporting the U.N. resolution. It was not a war in the sense of "us vs. them". So, um, fail.

And smaller government does not work in the U.S. Without federal regulations, some states would destroy civil rights.

Zenhov said:
The earliest i recall the law not being upheld is the OJ trial, then it scales from that point on in my life. I've watched plenty of Hollywood film stars do outlandish acts. DWI, molestation, murder, bribery, theft, ect. All that ever happens to these people is they pay a fine, do some charity, or sometimes they actually get away with it.

Which making someone pay a fine that doesn't even hurt their income is a joke, what lesson have they learned? How about we make them spend 3days in a jail cell by themselves, cause that is so very harsh.

It is my belief that law is getting molded into only going after the common man, or being used in power struggles. Then as a form of taxation with fines and traffic tickets. What happen to making people go to traffic school first? Education instead of hurting the working poor with fines, but i forgot the police have quotas they have to meet with tickets..

Seems that with this administration that the religious agenda has gained ground. Here is a few examples: More monitoring from the FCC, just plain retarded sex laws, entertainment control (stripper laws in Seattle), drug law enforcement budget changes (less funding to meth and more put towards fighting Pot), and wanting to change other cultures because they are "Wrong". (Iran, Pakistan, just watch a few episodes of the 700 club, if you don't vomit on yourself first)

What does Hollywood actors have to do with the political raping of our law? Simply that if actors can get away with murder, or just pay a small fine over something the minimum sentencing normally calls for a year or more in prison for. Then anyone with enough money or influence can do the same thing.

And this all sickens me.

livertarian said:

Untrue. Kennedy relished the opportunity to prove he was not soft on Communism, and was fine with the escalation up until shortly before his assassination.

And Clinton was far more aggressive on Milosevic than Bush One. Admittedly I take heat from friends who think our military actions against ethnic cleansing/genocide are totally justifiable. It's hard to argue against helping out people who are getting fucked halfway around the planet. But my argument is this: That shit is going on somewhere, always. Are we supposed to police the world? Are we supposed to support the UN's ambitions to police the world? I say no, bad idea. Because politics will always trump good intentions, especially at the highest levels of power.
EDIT: And policing the world is something we cannot afford, anyway.

Also, your argument against small government makes no sense. Our rights are protected by the Constitution, so no state that is part of the union could legally deny civil rights. This belief that less federal government = a free-for-all spiral back into slavery/Jim Crow is laughably paranoid. It simply proves that we are afraid of making Big Brother go away.

coyotemike said:

You would think that abject failure of Ron Paul, the Great Libertarian Hope, to garner any substantial support would be proof enough that the American people do not want that form of government. Get over it.

As for the policing of the world, are you really that selfish that you would rather let whole groups of people get wiped out, based on nothing more than their race, religion, or ethnic background, than to support multinational intervention?

Louis_XIV said:
I admit that I don't know very much on how democracy works. But when I was in Bordeaux last year (1707), I had a very interesting discussion about democracy with an intelligent 18 years old boy called Charles-Louis de Secondat - you probably know him as Baron de Montesquieu. He had an interesting idea to prevent abuse of power in a democracy : Separating legislative, executive and judicial branches of government. He calls this "Separation of Powers". He proposed furthermore that every branch can prevent the other two branches from abusing its power, an idea he calls "checks and balances".

Introducing such a system would, for example, prevent your president from nominating straw men into the supreme court without the placet of the congress. The "checks and balances" idea would, for example, allow your congress to impeach judges. I understand that such systems work rather well in some european states. For example, in both France and the Holy Kingdom (or Federal Republic of Germany as you call it) the constitutional court's judges are not nominated by the president but elected by both executive and legislative body.

Maybe you should try Montesquieu's idea out in America?



P.S.: Maybe there is already such a system in the US constitution. If this is the case, it seems to be broken. I suggest to fix it.

P.S.S.: You know that I'm not a big fan of republics and democracies - this comes with my job. But if you decide to run a democracy, you should do it correctly.

livertarian said:

Your first paragraph above says way more about you than me. I'd rather vote for an unpopular idea that better serves the public, than a popular idea that is shit. So i don't get your point.

It's not selfish to recognize that policing the world is never, ever a simple good vs. evil equation. Do you think getting rid of Hussein was a good idea, considering the after effects? Have you heard about the Sudanese complaining about Chinese troops there as part of the UN mission? Dude, I could go on for days, but this article was originally about the death of Rule of Law.

Policing the world is never simple or easily justifiable. There's always politics. Make a persuasive argument against this idea, or "get over it."

EDIT: And again, possibly most importantly, we cannot afford it.

Nolan_Void said:
Unfortunately, voting for unpopular ideas doesn't do a goddamn thing. No offense, I think I agree with the spirit of what you're saying, but it doesn't change anything, and it never will.

I think the problem is how to make good ideas popular to a wide range of people, and how to convince the religious right that the candidates they are electing are wiping their asses with the beliefs that they hold so dear. Right wing candidates will cry out against abortion all day long, but lying, murdering, cheating, stealing and sloth are just fine I suppose.

livertarian said:
EDIT: And again, possibly most importantly, we cannot afford it.

coyotemike said:

And stopping genocide is easily justifiable.

malkav11 said:
I would probably have voted Green back in 2000, had I been old enough. But this is entirely the wrong time to risk a Republican victory.

Uncognitive said:

So "sorry, it's too expensive" is the most important reason why the U.S. shouldn't sometimes try and use military force to stop genocide in other nations?

livertarian said:

Sure. Bankrupt prosperous nations in a gamble on historically unstable nations? How does that help anybody?

Genocide inflames the charitable impulses of many Americans, and I do not criticize anyone for that. But show me a case where our intervention against ANY kind of political shenanigans abroad resulted in a stable government or peace.

You got your short term massacres and your long term massacres. Do I have to choose now?