• This is a political forum that is non-biased/non-partisan and treats every person's position on topics equally. This debate forum is not aligned to any political party. In today's politics, many ideas are split between and even within all the political parties. Often we find ourselves agreeing on one platform but some topics break our mold. We are here to discuss them in a civil political debate. If this is your first visit to our political forums, be sure to check out the RULES. Registering for debate politics is necessary before posting. Register today to participate - it's free!

With Reservations, Obama Signs Act to Allow Detention of Citizens

Ikari said:
He certainly deserved a fair trial. I don't think that we should abandon our own commitment to freedom and liberty in a zealous move to "protect" us from alleged terrorists. Those who raise arms against us most certainly should be punished; but I don't think it should be done so haphazardly that it entangles a significant number of innocent people. Fighting ideology is not like fighting an actual State.
Click to expand...

Let's try a straight answer now, is that a yes or no?

j-mac
 
Boo Radley said:
I would have had no problem with it. None. If you have the goods, you have the goods. If you don't, how do you really know he is what you think he is? Why so much fear for our justice system and so much respect for how our enemies do business? I really don't understand. But always remember, rule of law protects those who are innocent, and a few innoncent people could have used us showing some respect for rule of law.
Click to expand...


Wow, just wow....This is why this sort of thinking is dangerous.


j-mac
 
j-mac said:
Wow, just wow....This is why this sort of thinking is dangerous.
Click to expand...

I hope you're being sarcastic. The idea that rule of law and our principles of justice - the things we're supposed to be defending in the first place - are dangerous is a scary thought. Hope you aren't thinking it.
 
misterman said:
I hope you're being sarcastic. The idea that rule of law and our principles of justice - the things we're supposed to be defending in the first place - are dangerous is a scary thought. Hope you aren't thinking it.
Click to expand...


Oooh, I know, we can just send the Law and Order SVU over there to arrest them all and bring 'em in....Good grief.


j-mac
 
j-mac said:
Oooh, I know, we can just send the Law and Order SVU over there to arrest them all and bring 'em in....Good grief.
Click to expand...

It's sad when Americans openly mock American values. It certainly doesn't help our struggle against terrorism when you live up to their complaints.
 
j-mac said:
Wow, just wow....This is why this sort of thinking is dangerous.


j-mac
Click to expand...

I prefer to think of the noble pursuit of freedom and proper government to be a good thing instead of a bad thing.
 
j-mac said:
Let's try a straight answer now, is that a yes or no?

j-mac
Click to expand...

How was that not a straight answer? He should be given a fair trial. I'm in Boo's camp. If you have the goods, prove his guilt. If not, then you have no reason to be throwing them in jail.
 
Karl said:
Insisting on cutting spending while refusing to increase revenue is not acting responsibly. Your claim is glaringly false.
Click to expand...

People do this everyday. My taxes went up, my pay didn't, I had to cut out some of my fun spending.
 
Blue_State said:
People do this everyday. My taxes went up, my pay didn't, I had to cut out some of my fun spending.
Click to expand...

But if your expenses go up so much that you can't pay your rent, you need to get a second job or something. Cutting can only go so far.
 
misterman said:
But if your expenses go up so much that you can't pay your rent, you need to get a second job or something. Cutting can only go so far.
Click to expand...

The problem was that Obama wanted no cuts. Despite his words his call was for a "clean" debt bill. The only way to stop this is to say "NO". When there are actual cuts, the opposition for additional revenue to further bring down the debt won't be as strong.

You don't get another job and then move into a higher rent district if you are having difficulty in paying your bills.
 
1Perry said:
The problem was that Obama wanted no cuts. Despite his words his call was for a "clean" debt bill. The only way to stop this is to say "NO". When there are actual cuts, the opposition for additional revenue to further bring down the debt won't be as strong.

You don't get another job and then move into a higher rent district if you are having difficulty in paying your bills.
Click to expand...

Or start buying a lot of nice to haves because your neighbors have them or you want them.
 
1Perry said:
The problem was that Obama wanted no cuts.
Click to expand...

No, he wanted no cuts in that particular bill. He feared it would threaten the bill and the entire economy. And he was right. Only last-minute sanity saved us from disaster. Cuts or taxes or anything like that should be considered separately.
 
misterman said:
No, he wanted no cuts in that particular bill. He feared it would threaten the bill and the entire economy. And he was right. Only last-minute sanity saved us from disaster. Cuts or taxes or anything like that should be considered separately.
Click to expand...

Given him a clear debt bump is what is going to threaten the economy. All the same, there was a desire to see a smaller government that operates in a financially responsible manner, not get rid of the government.
 
1Perry said:
Given him a clear debt bump is what is going to threaten the economy.
Click to expand...

That's no justification for throwing other items into a debt ceiling bill. You simply vote against it if you think that's smart (even though it's absolutely insane, but whatever).

All the same, there was a desire to see a smaller government that operates in a financially responsible manner
Click to expand...

Trying to get a smaller government that fast, by simply stopping all further debt, is itself not financially responsible.
 
misterman said:
That's no justification for throwing other items into a debt ceiling bill. You simply vote against it if you think that's smart (even though it's absolutely insane, but whatever).
Click to expand...

When you have an addict not paying his rent, IMO the answer is not to pay the rent for him.

Trying to get a smaller government that fast, by simply stopping all further debt, is itself not financially responsible.
Click to expand...

I disagree. It might hurt but it would be financially responsible.
 
Thunder said:
the bill already says that.

why should Obama try to ease the fears of those who have already made their minds about this bill, and likely would simply hand-wave away anything Obama says.

regardless of the facts, some folks WANT to believe that this bill creates a new ability for the military to detain American citizens & legal aliens indefinitely without charge/trial. this is what they WANT to believe, and so..they believe it.
Click to expand...

Sounds like you are just drinking the Obama Kool-Aid. If this changed nothing there would be no reason for the law. There are likely back door provisions that would allow Obama and the military at their discretion to detain U.S. citizens. What you are saying defies all logic.
 
1Perry said:
When you have an addict not paying his rent, IMO the answer is not to pay the rent for him.
Click to expand...

Not the right analogy. There's no renter vs. outsider here.

I disagree. It might hurt but it would be financially responsible.
Click to expand...

An immediate cut of about 45% in federal spending would cause the worst, longest recession in our history and ruin our credit too.
 
misterman said:
Not the right analogy. There's no renter vs. outsider here.
Click to expand...

It's always the wrong analogy when one doesn't like it.

An immediate cut of about 45% in federal spending would cause the worst, longest recession in our history and ruin our credit too.
Click to expand...

Nobody suggested doing that either.
 
j-mac said:
Wow, just wow....This is why this sort of thinking is dangerous.


j-mac
Click to expand...

Like I said, I don't understand why you hate American justice so much. I truely think it is better than Iranian justice, for example, but you seem to not agree with me. But I note you really didn't answer in any logical way.
 
1Perry said:
It's always the wrong analogy when one doesn't like it.
Click to expand...

Yours is just wrong. We are all taxpayers, and citizens. There's no outsider waiting to pay our rent for us. We have to pay it.

Nobody suggested doing that either.
Click to expand...

Yes they were. That would have been the result of not increasing the debt ceiling.
 
misterman said:
Yours is just wrong. We are all taxpayers, and citizens. There's no outsider waiting to pay our rent for us. We have to pay it.
Click to expand...

China (among others) are paying it.

Yes they were. That would have been the result of not increasing the debt ceiling.
Click to expand...

Not even in fantasy land.
 
1Perry said:
Not even in fantasy land.
Click to expand...

Of course it would.

Are you claiming that there wouldn't be immediate spending cuts at that level, or just denying that an immediate cut of that magnitude would have no economic impact?
 
misterman said:
Of course it would.

Are you claiming that there wouldn't be immediate spending cuts at that level, or just denying that an immediate cut of that magnitude would have no economic impact?
Click to expand...

The former. The House passed a bill months before we had any claims of unavoidable disasters.
 
1Perry said:
The former. The House passed a bill months before we had any claims of unavoidable disasters.
Click to expand...

Huh?

About 40% of spending would have to be cut immediately because of a lack of cash due to hitting the debt ceiling. Everyone knew that during the debate too.
 
misterman said:
Huh?

About 40% of spending would have to be cut immediately because of a lack of cash due to hitting the debt ceiling. Everyone knew that during the debate too.
Click to expand...

There were bills passed by the House to raise the limit. Those bills were supported by the Tea Party.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom