Why is bipartisanship always worse than partisan bickering

Parallax · 12-11-2011, 11:59 AM

Originally posted by reeftool

These things sound good at first. Problem is, down the road a few years, the govt. may decide to change the definition of what a "terrorist" is. Kudos to Rand Paul for being one of the few to speak out.

Our Founding Fathers ensured that the crime of treason carried an extraordinary burden for the State to prove as at that time, under British law, you could be charged with and convicted of treason for virtually any crime the prosecutor wanted to apply it to. You could be charged with treason for stealing a loaf of bread if they wanted to ensure you got a particularly harsh sentence
I fear "terrorism" might be the 21st century U.S.'s version of 18th century England's treason charge.

séamuis · 12-11-2011, 01:10 PM

Originally posted by reeftool

These things sound good at first. Problem is, down the road a few years, the govt. may decide to change the definition of what a "terrorist" is. Kudos to Rand Paul for being one of the few to speak out.

sound good? nothing about this sounds good. they have already changed the definition of 'terrorist' many times over, and they will continue to do so. the only difference is, that now, they can lock you up and throw away the key. legally. this goes against everything the nation is supposed to stand for. how our government can claim to be americans while passing a law that strips us of our constitutional rights in such a blatant and disgusting manner is beyond me. more so, how the people are just going to let it happen...

Parallax · 12-11-2011, 02:43 PM

Originally posted by séamuis

sound good? nothing about this sounds good. ............while passing a law that strips us of our constitutional rights in such a blatant and disgusting manner is beyond me....

That's the big problem. I've always been under the impression that the purpose of the Constitution was to prevent the rights specified from being denied by simple legislation.
Apparently Congress currently sees it differently. They aren't about to let a little thing like the Constitution interfere with their agenda. They figure "ignore it and it will go away".
Sadly, that's about the only thing they're right about.

MRRiley · 12-11-2011, 04:07 PM

Originally posted by séamuis

sound good? nothing about this sounds good. they have already changed the definition of 'terrorist' many times over, and they will continue to do so. the only difference is, that now, they can lock you up and throw away the key. legally. this goes against everything the nation is supposed to stand for. how our government can claim to be americans while passing a law that strips us of our constitutional rights in such a blatant and disgusting manner is beyond me. more so, how the people are just going to let it happen...

I would imagine that reeftool meant they "sound good" in the aftermath of some tragedy or other when the public is crying for blood and retribution. That's how a lot of crappy legislation gets passed. The public gets spun up and the next thing you know the politicians see a chance to tighten the screws a little bit (or a lot depending on the level of public clamour). Thing is, they have hopefully overstepped on this one. I think the public has had enough.

Mike

p.s. reeftool... please correct me if I misinterpreted your real meaning.

séamuis · 12-11-2011, 04:16 PM

Originally posted by MRRiley

I would imagine that reeftool meant they "sound good" in the aftermath of some tragedy or other when the public is crying for blood and retribution. That's how a lot of crappy legislation gets passed. The public gets spun up and the next thing you know the politicians see a chance to tighten the screws a little bit (or a lot depending on the level of public clamour). Thing is, they have hopefully overstepped on this one. I think the public has had enough.

Mike

p.s. reeftool... please correct me if I misinterpreted your real meaning.

I would, I hope never stoop to thinking that ANY tragedy no matter how much retribution may be wanted is worth shredding the constitution for. also, I don't imagine how anyone (not saying you, just anyone in general, specially our government) could use a tragedy like described as reasoning for such a law. what tragedy could we possibly use to justify such a thing? 9/11 was a decade ago. what tragedy have we faced since then that we haven't been responsible for bringing upon ourselves? also, we did enough to punish, demonize, demoralize, embarrass, harass, criminalize and downright piss on to our own citizens in the way of 'security' as a response to 9/11 and the 'war on terror' when we introduced that biggest waste of taxpayer money probably ever, with the DHS. I didn't think our government could top that, but then I guess I was naive in believing that our government actually cared about the constitution.

**grhazelton** · 12-11-2011, 05:07 PM

Originally posted by GeneV

Bipartisanship is not the problem, but the problem is the fact that it can't be practiced outside national defense paranoia.

I think that "national defense paranoia" is the answer. The entire congress is terrified of appearing to be soft on terrorism.

This reminds me of the McCarthy insanity (Joe McCarthy, not Eugene) when dozens of witnesses testifying before his committee implicated their friends and collegues of "communism" or being left-leaning or going to the occasional communist party meeting in the '30s. As a result of this and McCarthy's "I have a list..." hundreds of innocent people lost their jobs and careers.

I doubt that we can completely avert terror attacks. Period. Someone will find a way to blow something up. In the attempt to accomplish the impossible it seems we are willing to sell our birthright for a mess of pottage. Freedom carries inherent risks! Total safety is to be found perhaps only in the grave. The Founders knew this, and their spirits are probably furious at our wasting what they risked their lives to obtain for us.

séamuis · 12-11-2011, 05:43 PM

Originally posted by grhazelton

and their spirits are probably furious at our wasting what they risked their lives to obtain for us.

they were certainly more intelligent than we are now. I think we should all be ashamed of what we have done with the gift they gave us. we no longer as a nation, deserve the few freedoms we have left.

jolepp · 12-13-2011, 11:34 AM

related NYT op-ed: http://www.nytimes.com/2011/12/13/opinion/guantanamo-forever.html

Quote:

...
Having served various administrations, we know that politicians of both parties love this country and want to keep it safe. But right now some in Congress are all too willing to undermine our ideals in the name of fighting terrorism. They should remember that American ideals are assets, not liabilities.
Charles C. Krulak and Joseph P. Hoar are retired four-star Marine generals.

Similar Threads
Thread	Thread Starter	Forum	Replies	Last Post
Is AIV really any worse than MIJ?	DanielT74	Pentax SLR Lens Discussion	52	10-02-2011 12:09 AM
People Worse Than Otis.....	Rupert	Post Your Photos!	7	08-30-2011 06:31 AM
This should be non partisan	seacapt	General Talk	14	08-15-2010 06:47 PM
Mamiya RZ33 - Worse sensor than 645D, more expensive	Eigengrau	Pentax Medium Format	16	06-04-2010 12:59 PM
Which is worse for noise? Long Exposure or High ISO	boodiespost	Troubleshooting and Beginner Help	7	12-10-2009 07:57 AM

12-11-2011, 11:59 AM	#16
Parallax Senior Moderator Loyal Site Supporter Join Date: Apr 2008 Location: South Dakota Photos: Gallery Posts: 19,332	Originally posted by reeftool These things sound good at first. Problem is, down the road a few years, the govt. may decide to change the definition of what a "terrorist" is. Kudos to Rand Paul for being one of the few to speak out. Our Founding Fathers ensured that the crime of treason carried an extraordinary burden for the State to prove as at that time, under British law, you could be charged with and convicted of treason for virtually any crime the prosecutor wanted to apply it to. You could be charged with treason for stealing a loaf of bread if they wanted to ensure you got a particularly harsh sentence I fear "terrorism" might be the 21st century U.S.'s version of 18th century England's treason charge.

12-11-2011, 01:10 PM	#17
séamuis Banned Join Date: Oct 2007 Location: Savannah, U.S./Baguio City, P.H. Posts: 5,979	Originally posted by reeftool These things sound good at first. Problem is, down the road a few years, the govt. may decide to change the definition of what a "terrorist" is. Kudos to Rand Paul for being one of the few to speak out. sound good? nothing about this sounds good. they have already changed the definition of 'terrorist' many times over, and they will continue to do so. the only difference is, that now, they can lock you up and throw away the key. legally. this goes against everything the nation is supposed to stand for. how our government can claim to be americans while passing a law that strips us of our constitutional rights in such a blatant and disgusting manner is beyond me. more so, how the people are just going to let it happen...

12-11-2011, 02:43 PM	#18
Parallax Senior Moderator Loyal Site Supporter Join Date: Apr 2008 Location: South Dakota Photos: Gallery Posts: 19,332	Originally posted by séamuis sound good? nothing about this sounds good. ............while passing a law that strips us of our constitutional rights in such a blatant and disgusting manner is beyond me.... That's the big problem. I've always been under the impression that the purpose of the Constitution was to prevent the rights specified from being denied by simple legislation. Apparently Congress currently sees it differently. They aren't about to let a little thing like the Constitution interfere with their agenda. They figure "ignore it and it will go away". Sadly, that's about the only thing they're right about.

12-11-2011, 04:07 PM	#19
MRRiley Veteran Member Join Date: Feb 2007 Location: Sterling, VA, USA Photos: Gallery \| Albums Posts: 6,275	Originally posted by séamuis sound good? nothing about this sounds good. they have already changed the definition of 'terrorist' many times over, and they will continue to do so. the only difference is, that now, they can lock you up and throw away the key. legally. this goes against everything the nation is supposed to stand for. how our government can claim to be americans while passing a law that strips us of our constitutional rights in such a blatant and disgusting manner is beyond me. more so, how the people are just going to let it happen... I would imagine that reeftool meant they "sound good" in the aftermath of some tragedy or other when the public is crying for blood and retribution. That's how a lot of crappy legislation gets passed. The public gets spun up and the next thing you know the politicians see a chance to tighten the screws a little bit (or a lot depending on the level of public clamour). Thing is, they have hopefully overstepped on this one. I think the public has had enough. Mike p.s. reeftool... please correct me if I misinterpreted your real meaning.

12-11-2011, 04:16 PM	#20
séamuis Banned Join Date: Oct 2007 Location: Savannah, U.S./Baguio City, P.H. Posts: 5,979	Originally posted by MRRiley I would imagine that reeftool meant they "sound good" in the aftermath of some tragedy or other when the public is crying for blood and retribution. That's how a lot of crappy legislation gets passed. The public gets spun up and the next thing you know the politicians see a chance to tighten the screws a little bit (or a lot depending on the level of public clamour). Thing is, they have hopefully overstepped on this one. I think the public has had enough. Mike p.s. reeftool... please correct me if I misinterpreted your real meaning. I would, I hope never stoop to thinking that ANY tragedy no matter how much retribution may be wanted is worth shredding the constitution for. also, I don't imagine how anyone (not saying you, just anyone in general, specially our government) could use a tragedy like described as reasoning for such a law. what tragedy could we possibly use to justify such a thing? 9/11 was a decade ago. what tragedy have we faced since then that we haven't been responsible for bringing upon ourselves? also, we did enough to punish, demonize, demoralize, embarrass, harass, criminalize and downright piss on to our own citizens in the way of 'security' as a response to 9/11 and the 'war on terror' when we introduced that biggest waste of taxpayer money probably ever, with the DHS. I didn't think our government could top that, but then I guess I was naive in believing that our government actually cared about the constitution.

12-11-2011, 05:07 PM	#21
grhazelton Loyal Site Supporter Join Date: Jul 2007 Location: Jonesboro, GA Photos: Albums Posts: 1,972	Originally posted by GeneV Bipartisanship is not the problem, but the problem is the fact that it can't be practiced outside national defense paranoia. I think that "national defense paranoia" is the answer. The entire congress is terrified of appearing to be soft on terrorism. This reminds me of the McCarthy insanity (Joe McCarthy, not Eugene) when dozens of witnesses testifying before his committee implicated their friends and collegues of "communism" or being left-leaning or going to the occasional communist party meeting in the '30s. As a result of this and McCarthy's "I have a list..." hundreds of innocent people lost their jobs and careers. I doubt that we can completely avert terror attacks. Period. Someone will find a way to blow something up. In the attempt to accomplish the impossible it seems we are willing to sell our birthright for a mess of pottage. Freedom carries inherent risks! Total safety is to be found perhaps only in the grave. The Founders knew this, and their spirits are probably furious at our wasting what they risked their lives to obtain for us.

12-11-2011, 05:43 PM	#22
séamuis Banned Join Date: Oct 2007 Location: Savannah, U.S./Baguio City, P.H. Posts: 5,979	Originally posted by grhazelton and their spirits are probably furious at our wasting what they risked their lives to obtain for us. they were certainly more intelligent than we are now. I think we should all be ashamed of what we have done with the gift they gave us. we no longer as a nation, deserve the few freedoms we have left.

12-13-2011, 11:34 AM	#23
jolepp Veteran Member Join Date: Oct 2010 Location: Finland Photos: Albums Posts: 3,196	related NYT op-ed: http://www.nytimes.com/2011/12/13/opinion/guantanamo-forever.html Quote: ... Having served various administrations, we know that politicians of both parties love this country and want to keep it safe. But right now some in Congress are all too willing to undermine our ideals in the name of fighting terrorism. They should remember that American ideals are assets, not liabilities. Charles C. Krulak and Joseph P. Hoar are retired four-star Marine generals.

Thread Tools	Search this Thread
	Search this Thread: Advanced Search