This article is so full of generalities that it amounts to platitudes. Mr. Hunter's Dr. Evil characterizations of George Bush and Barack Obama do not hold up to a moment's scrutiny, nor does the false equivalency he tries to draw. He doesn't offer a scrap of evidence to support his assertions, but I will.
The Patriot Act has been found to be constitutional over and over again. The controversial part, Section 213, does not expand delayed-notice warrants or 'sneak and peak" searches, which have been used by law enforcement for decades. It merely establishes a uniform national standard for their use. The Supreme Court ruled back in 1979, in U.S. v. Dahlia, that covert entry pursuant to a judicial warrant does not violate the 4th Amendment. In 2000, before 9/11, the 4th Circuit Court of Appeals held, in U.S. v Simon, that delayed notification was constitutional. Libertarians may not like this, but it's not unlawful and it sure as hell doesn't amount to Bush using 9/11 as "an excuse to shred the Fourth Amendment and start an irrational war in Iraq that neoconservatives had been itching for since the Clinton administration."
Go look up the President's 23 Executive Orders and tell me, as Mr. Hunter does, that "Obama is using Sandy Hook as an excuse to trample the Second Amendment." I think the measures are useless and amount to nothing more than making him and his base feel like they "did something," but they're also harmless.
#7 Launch a national safe and responsible gun ownership campaign.
#11 Nominate an ATF director.
#14 Issue a Presidential Memorandum directing the Centers for Disease Control to research the causes and prevention of gun violence.
#20 Release a letter to state health officials clarifying the scope of mental health services that Medicaid plans must cover.
Dangerous? Threat to our Liberties? How about MUCH ADO ABOUT NOTHING! How about we quit wasting our time with the idiotic national gun debate and focus on what actually matters, something conservatives and libertarians agree on, and that really does threaten our future -- Debt & Spending.
"I spent a career carrying typically either an M16, and later an M4 carbine. And an M4 carbine fires a .223 caliber round, which is 5.56 millimeters, at about 3,000 feet per second. When it hits a human body, the effects are devastating. It's designed to do that. And that's what our soldiers ought to carry. I personally don't think there's any need for that kind of weaponry on the streets and particularly around the schools in America. I believe that we've got to take a serious look. I understand everybody's desire to have whatever they want, but we’ve got to protect our children, we’ve got to protect our police, we've got to protect our population. And I think we have to take a very mature look at that."
--Retired Gen. Stanley McChrystal
what is that you folks fear or is fear it self--i hope that everyone enjoy!s their family, friends,your sons, daughters,mothers,fathers,grandsons,grandaughters---life is what!s going on--everyone needs to keep on keeping on..live long and prosper...
I don't know of bigger hypocrite on a moral or professional level than Sanford.
I expect a lot of other voters will feel the same.
Remember when he said Bill Clinton should resign because "he broke his vows of marriage" That was classic Sanford.
Who needs an emotionaly unstable,, blubbering, flake representing them regardless of their professed political beliefs.
There are much better choices, with the possible exception of Limehouse.
Democrats are praying Sanford gets the nomination.
That would be their best chance of pulling off an upset win.
Well, that box was actually opened a very long time ago with John Adams' Alien and Sedition Acts. W is just the most egregious of late. Either way, the leaders of both sides are much too willing to expand an increasingly consolidated government power whenever they are in charge. The problem is, the government you control today may not be yours to control tomorrow, and it will be no less powerful. And, yes, I very much wish the lid was back on the box.
Ron Liberte says, "Right now in the Kabul City Paper, some Islamic militant is writing an op-ed justifying his extremism too. I guess it makes sense, Islamic militants have a lot in common with the American Right - their views on women and other minorities and their ambitions for total theocracy, for example. You guys should get together and exchange notes."
Logical fallacies galore, here, Ron. Skewed comparison, for sure. Guilt of the whole inferred from guilt of the few. Vague assertions to be accepted as true. And on it goes. The "American Right" does not march in lockstep, no more than the "American Left." I'm an old fogey, and in all my life's experiences I have seldom come across a politically conservative individual who does not respect women and womanhood. In fact, most of these "right-wingers" tend to be the ones who place women on the proverbial pedestal, and are still among the few who open doors for women and stand up to let them sit down on the bus. I live in a mostly conservative area, and am a non-affiliated voter, mostly right-leaning but always an independent thinker.
Almost to a person, my conservative friends have been among the avant garde when it comes to respecting people of all races. This back in the '50's and '60's and continuing today. In sharp contrast to the southern democrats I ran across during my military service. Total theocracy? You've got to be kidding, right? Just a belief that society is in dire need of some moral compass. This coupled with the realization of the broad implications of Christianity in our daily lives and actions, whether we are a carpenter or a politician. Makes no difference. The response from many "modern" liberals: "Whose morals? Yours or mine?" Translation: "Who's needs morals? If it feels good, do it."
As far as extremism, I liken it to two groups gathered on the opposite ends of a long rope, playing tug-of-war. Chances are, because most of us are along the rope somewhere between them, the rope will be held relatively steady and neither extreme group will be able to take off and run with it in either direction. Unless we loosen our grip or lose our focus.
Considering I post here to mostly amuse myself, I am not super concerned if my ramblings carry enough intellectual value for your standards. You, Hunter and Ned, et. al are not stopping the government from expanding its reach by posting here, and I'm not convincing y'all that your approach to governing is moronic. So it's all in good fun!
I'm not sure from where your image of the Left comes. Most of the progressives I know understood that once W. opened Pandora's box, no president would be willing or able to close it again. I think we both want that box to be closed, for what it's worth.
"if you want me to address the argument..."
What I want is for your posts to have some intellectual value, whether I agree with them or not. Quite often they're full of straw man arguments or sweeping generalizations and stereotypes (the same way Ned argues about liberals). Take factoryconnection as an example. I probably disagree with him slightly more often than not, but what he writes is always well reasoned and adds value to the conversation without being insulting.
"if you're going to fight against monsters you have to take care not to become one yourself."
Absolutely right...and this applies to governments as well, which is what I took the point of this column to be. Also, I think unwillingness to to view things from another perspective is addressed. After 9/11, the neocons were unwilling to see the Left's concerns on a government trampling rights for safety. Now they're experiencing the shoe being put on the other foot. Meanwhile, the Left seems to have forgotten how they felt about Bush's actions after 9/11.
"using fear for political gain"
That's not a liberal or neo-conservative thing. That's a human thing. Some are just more prone to fear than others.
Paulius, if you want me to address the argument, extremism in any form is probably not a good idea. To paraphrase Nietzsche, if you're going to fight against monsters you have to take care not to become one yourself.
Since you and Hunter want to deal in absolutes, then an extremist is an extremist. Does it really matter what ideals are being defended if the person defending them is rabidly unwilling or unable to see things from any other perspective?
You're right on one thing...there's not much to argue with because it's spot on. And it seems like you missed the point. "Liberals are like this but Conservatives are like this." No, he's saying liberals and neocons are the same when it comes to using fear for political gain and eroding the Constitution. And.....scene.
Here it is explained visually: http://i.imgur.com/xVce9.jpg
What is there to argue with? Hunter is becoming extremely formulaic. "Liberals are like this but Conservatives are like this. Constitution. Reagan. Scene."
Jack is almost right on this one.
And he's also clearly moving away from the "libertarian" wing.
Godwin 2.0--By all means, don't argue with the column head on. Just replace "Nazis" with "Islamic militants" and imply they might say something similar. Intellectual laziness at its finest.
Right now in the Kabul City Paper, some Islamic militant is writing an op-ed justifying his extremism too. I guess it makes sense, Islamic militants have a lot in common with the American Right - their views on women and other minorities and their ambitions for total theocracy, for example. You guys should get together and exchange notes.
It's interesting how so many of the comments against this column don't attack Mark Sanford's brand of conservatism (what this column is actually about), but instead question Jack's motives for writing it...as if Jack hasn't always agreed with Sandford. Same for the Pauls; he was praising them long before he was working for them. If Jack ever touts the virtues of Lindsey Graham and follows it up with a paycheck, then you'll actually have a point.
Also, it looks like Larry's using his other logins to give his posts artificial likes. That is all.
Jack, the criticism of you from the anarcho-libertarian individuals was inappropriate. Your rebuttal ought to have been merely defensive of your own beliefs rather than returning the offense and calling people "cowards". All of the efforts to advance the cause of liberty have a positive effect. Some people will act insecurely and that is regrettable. Please try to avoid following the same course.
Political disconnectedness is not necessarily the result of apathy or cowardice. Agorism is just a different (apolitical) tactic to achieve the same goal.
What you should be doing is applauding apolitical efforts while making the case for whatever political efforts you support.
Either you do not understand these apolitical efforts or you are experiencing cognitive dissonance because that is not the path you have chosen.
I take little issue with people not caring, only take issue with people who don't care voting.
Powered by Foundation
© Copyright 2017,
Charleston City Paper