View Full Version : A liberal actor (John Cusack) goes off on Obama and the Constitution
Littlelebowski
09-25-12, 07:41
Methinks Cusack will become a libertarian as he ages. Be warned, this article might make you think.
Article (http://truth-out.org/opinion/item/11264-john-cusack-and-jonathan-turley-on-obamas-constitution)
Excerpt:
CUSACK: The framers didn't say, "In special cases, do what you like. When there are things the public cannot know for their own good, when it's extra-specially a dangerous world... do whatever you want." The framers of the Constitution always knew there would be extraordinary circumstances, and they were accounted for in the Constitution. The Constitution does not allow for the executive to redefine the Constitution when it will be politically easier for him to get things done.
TURLEY: No. And it's preposterous to argue that.
montanadave
09-25-12, 08:23
Helluva article. Thanks for the link.
Lord Acton said it all over a hundred years ago:
"I cannot accept your canon that we are to judge Pope and King unlike other men, with a favorable presumption that they did not wrong. If there is any presumption it is the other way against holders of power, increasing as the power increases. Historic responsibility has to make up for the want of legal responsibility. Power tends to corrupt and absolute power corrupts absolutely. Great men are almost always bad men, even when they exercise influence and not authority: still more when you superadd the tendency or the certainty of corruption by authority. There is no worse heresy than that the office sanctifies the holder of it."
For fifty years, this country has moved steadily towards an imperial presidency with a feckless Congress content to do nothing but cast brickbats at one another and focus on getting reelected by doling out monetary largesse from the public's coffers. And if the coffers are empty, they have simply borrowed in our name, extracted their cut, and left us holding the bag.
This will not end well.
Damn good points, especially considering who's making them.
"The government consists of a gang of men exactly like you and me. They have, taking one with another, no special talent for the business of government; they have only a talent for getting and holding office. Their principal device to that end is to search out groups who pant and pine for something they can't get and to promise to give it to them. Nine times out of ten that promise is worth nothing. The tenth time is made good by looting A to satisfy B. In other words, government is a broker in pillage, and every election is sort of an advance auction sale of stolen goods."
H.L. Mencken, "Prejudices, First Series" (1919)
Outstanding, one of the best things I've read this year.
Doc Safari
09-25-12, 11:54
This is interesting on two counts:
1. Liberal actors are breaking ranks with their Golden Child
2. More and more Hollywood types are losing their fear of admitting their deviance from the liberal paradigm.
Either way, I don't see a downside.
This is interesting on two counts:
1. Liberal actors are breaking ranks with their Golden Child
2. More and more Hollywood types are losing their fear of admitting their deviance from the liberal paradigm.
Either way, I don't see a downside.
More and more "established" actors are doing so. When you've got more money than you know what to do with, it's not as hard to swim against the current.
I wish more liberals would pull their heads out and see what this president really is and what his administration is really doing in ACTIONS they do !!!!
does seem a few are starting to realize things ? not enough though !
Littlelebowski
09-25-12, 13:44
I hope more conservatives read this as rightfully damning of what "conservatives" have done in the past, as well. It's not just an Obama bashing piece though it certainly needs to be circulated amongst "liberals."
I'm very impressed with Cusack's read on the Constitution. I'm sure he would piss me off on the Second Amendment though.
Mo_Zam_Beek
09-25-12, 13:58
I wish more liberals would pull their heads out and see what this president really is and what his administration is really doing in ACTIONS they do !!!!
does seem a few are starting to realize things ? not enough though !
It is group think in the pursuit of fame and fortune.
Few of these douche bags are actually capable of formulating their own position on any issue. They move within the safety of the herd for fear of being blackballed.
Good luck
I hope more conservatives read this as rightfully damning of what "conservatives" have done in the past, as well. It's not just an Obama bashing piece though it certainly needs to be circulated amongst "liberals."
I'm very impressed with Cusack's read on the Constitution. I'm sure he would piss me off on the Second Amendment though.
This. All of it.
It irritates me to no end with the hypocrisy that people think their side is above blame. And until more people awake to the fact that neither side is the 'good side' and that the left vs right debate largely a sham, we will continue to have more of the same & more erosion of liberty.
theblackknight
09-25-12, 16:33
I hope more conservatives read this as rightfully damning of what "conservatives" have done in the past, as well. It's not just an Obama bashing piece though it certainly needs to be circulated amongst "liberals."
100% agree. The blamE for all of this should be placed on the finger pointers, which in this thread, means anyone derping about "THA LIBRAHLS". guily will reply
Don't be a finger pointer.
http://www.thedailyshow.com/watch/wed-september-19-2012/finger-pointing-blame-game
Very interesting indeed, though the rest of what is on that site made my eyes bleed. His writing strikes me as the kind one sees from high school students who are trying mightily to appear to be far more intelligent and knowledgeable than they really are, though that is probably a pretty petty complaint (especially since I love Rand and her writing is just plain damned boring).
I doubt very seriously that a certified prog like John Cusack will ever see the light of liberty that libertarianism offers, but hey, we can hope I guess.
Methinks Cusack will become a libertarian as he ages. Be warned, this article might make you think.
Cusack is way to the left of Obama. I would not take any of his disatisfaction with Obama as any form of unity with pro gun or Libertarian people. Cusack's Disatisfaction isn't going to translate into anything for pro-gun or Libertarian causes.
Business_Casual
09-25-12, 21:57
Very interesting indeed, though the rest of what is on that site made my eyes bleed. His writing strikes me as the kind one sees from high school students who are trying mightily to appear to be far more intelligent and knowledgeable than they really are
Correct on an idiot like Cusack.
Go research what other madness he has said in the past. This is disinformation to distract you.
bc
Littlelebowski
09-26-12, 10:08
Correct on an idiot like Cusack.
Go research what other madness he has said in the past. This is disinformation to distract you.
bc
You think this was written for purposes of distraction?
Littlelebowski
09-26-12, 10:13
Very interesting indeed, though the rest of what is on that site made my eyes bleed. His writing strikes me as the kind one sees from high school students who are trying mightily to appear to be far more intelligent and knowledgeable than they really are, though that is probably a pretty petty complaint (especially since I love Rand and her writing is just plain damned boring).
I doubt very seriously that a certified prog like John Cusack will ever see the light of liberty that libertarianism offers, but hey, we can hope I guess.
http://www.villagevoice.com/2008-03-11/news/why-i-am-no-longer-a-brain-dead-liberal/
Littlelebowski
09-26-12, 10:27
Cusack is way to the left of Obama. I would not take any of his disatisfaction with Obama as any form of unity with pro gun or Libertarian people. Cusack's Disatisfaction isn't going to translate into anything for pro-gun or Libertarian causes.
I didn't say he has present unity with libertarians nor pro-gun causes. I did say I could see him becoming a libertarian. The libertarians are pretty much the only ones who have a beef with Obama's moves on war, individual rights, the power of the executive branch, and corporate welfare. I don't see Romney changing any of these except for leaving gun rights where they are at presently.
The libertarians are pretty much the only ones who have a beef with Obama's moves on war, individual rights, the power of the executive branch, and corporate welfare. .
The foregoing is untrue.
Conservatives have a problem with all of those policies.
Romney is a liberal, not a conservative.
Obama is a communist, not a liberal.
Littlelebowski
09-26-12, 10:46
The foregoing is untrue.
Conservatives have a problem with all of those policies.
Romney is a liberal, not a conservative.
Obama is a communist, not a liberal.
Oddly enough, I don't see any conservatives mentioning Ryan's support of the PATRIOT Act nor his support of Homeland "Security." How about that Electronic Surveillance Modernization Act?
Most conservatives I see worry about gun rights, get ****ing paranoid over Muslims invading us, and are obsessed with religion. They pay no attention to the growth of federal gov't under "conservative" leaders and are staunch supports of wars we can't afford and national welfare checks to Israel.
I think "conservative" is a misused label and should be replaced with "socially and religious conservative." The Republican party continues to embrace big gov't, interventionism, and religion when it could jsut focus on the Constitution and fiscal conservatism and win the independents and moderates.
Obama is a moderate liberal. He's not a communist and he's nowhere near as liberal as European leaders. Romney is a moderate conservative. Romney will pay lip service to the Second Amendment as will Obama.
I like how he differentiates between a libertarian and a "civil libertarian". A civil libertarian is simply someone who picks and chooses which causes deserve "social justice", like picking fruit at a supermarket. It's akin to the way the ACLU will defend all manner of non-enumerated rights, but 99.99% of the time will reject supporting an enumerated right such as the 2nd Amendment. I have little respect for most CL's for this reason.
The facts are in. The majority of the populace wants to control what others do, but don't want anyone controlling what they do. Until they recognize they're in no way "special" and come to the realization that the least amount of government to sustain the Republic is the best government, we'll continue to do a death spiral. We're in a flat spin and our pilots have never been trained on how to recover from one. At this point we'll either crash, or replace the pilots at the helm. I have no hope that we can recover through the current system. Everyone thinks they know best, when in reality, none of them do. :(
polymorpheous
09-26-12, 11:01
Oddly enough, I don't see any conservatives mentioning Ryan's support of the PATRIOT Act nor his support of Homeland "Security." How about that Electronic Surveillance Modernization Act?
Most conservatives I see worry about gun rights, get ****ing paranoid over Muslims invading us, and are obsessed with religion. They pay no attention to the growth of federal gov't under "conservative" leaders and are staunch supports of wars we can't afford and national welfare checks to Israel.
I think "conservative" is a misused label and should be replaced with "socially and religious conservative." The Republican party continues to embrace big gov't, interventionism, and religion when it could jsut focus on the Constitution and fiscal conservatism and win the independents and moderates.
Obama is a moderate liberal. He's not a communist and he's nowhere near as liberal as European leaders. Romney is a moderate conservative. Romney will pay lip service to the Second Amendment as will Obama.
A-****in-men.
Most conservatives I see worry about gun rights, get ****ing paranoid over Muslims invading us, and are obsessed with religion. They pay no attention to the growth of federal gov't under "conservative" leaders and are staunch supports of wars we can't afford and national welfare checks to Israel.
Interesting because most libertarians I know are in denial about the muslim threat overseas and want a society without many of the sensible and practical laws that enable us to live safe and well. They also somehow believe that we should not stand by allies, imagining a world where we abandon our friends in the face of conflict because we just can't afford to get involved and shouldn't have to anyway.
See how that one works out in a generation or two.
Littlelebowski
09-26-12, 11:20
Interesting because most libertarians I know are in denial about the muslim threat overseas and want a society without many of the sensible and practical laws that enable us to live safe and well. They also somehow believe that we should not stand by allies, imagining a world where we abandon our friends in the face of conflict because we just can't afford to get involved and shouldn't have to anyway.
See how that one works out in a generation or two.
Yup, they do not care about Muslims overseas who are not threatening us and believe in not shedding American blood for foreign interests. I'm sure the Muslims would be poised to invade us should the libertarians take charge. Also, what would we do without our sensible government watching over us? Long live domestic surveillance, corporate welfare, and the IRS!
http://i66.photobucket.com/albums/h251/baxshep/32599cbe.jpg
Yup, they do not care about Muslims overseas who are not threatening us and believe in not shedding American blood for foreign interests. I'm sure the Muslims would be poised to invade us should the libertarians take charge. Also, what would we do without our sensible government watching over us? Long live domestic surveillance, corporate welfare, and the IRS!
There is a growing story on just about every network this week about children going hungry in school after lunch due to a program initiated and championed by Michelle Obama. The reduced calorie meals aren't enough, the stories are coming in from across the nation.
This level of government intrusion infuriates me, so I understand where you are coming from overall. It's just that I see much of the libertarian viewpoint as being too idealogical and unrealistic overall, especially in some very critical areas. But again, it's just my opinion.
There is a growing story on just about every network this week about children going hungry in school after lunch due to a program initiated and championed by Michelle Obama. The reduced calorie meals aren't enough, the stories are coming in from across the nation.
Ironic, given this thread about too fat to fight:
http://m4carbine.net/showthread.php?t=113574
Oddly enough, I don't see any conservatives mentioning Ryan's support of the PATRIOT Act nor his support of Homeland "Security." How about that Electronic Surveillance Modernization Act?
Most conservatives I see worry about gun rights, get ****ing paranoid over Muslims invading us, and are obsessed with religion. They pay no attention to the growth of federal gov't under "conservative" leaders and are staunch supports of wars we can't afford and national welfare checks to Israel.
I think "conservative" is a misused label and should be replaced with "socially and religious conservative." The Republican party continues to embrace big gov't, interventionism, and religion when it could jsut focus on the Constitution and fiscal conservatism and win the independents and moderates.
Obama is a moderate liberal. He's not a communist and he's nowhere near as liberal as European leaders. Romney is a moderate conservative. Romney will pay lip service to the Second Amendment as will Obama.
NAILED it!!! Every single word is absolutely spot on in my opinion.
It's truly bewildering to see diehard conservatives completely flip their shit over Obama since day one crying about how he has ruined the "American" way or dream, yet they're all good with Bush/his controller's 8 year absolute ****ing nightmare of a Presidency.
Knowing if Obama really has red pointy horns, a tail, and pitchfork was made impossible by Bush, and his handlers considering just how far they ran America down the drain prior to Obama's election.
Conservatives today are detrimental to freedom to say the least imho....trying to impose ignorant, and archaic views like telling woman what to do with their own bodies, fighting a multi billion dollar war against U.S. civilians/drugs, or trying to dictate which American's can marry, and which can't, or my local favorite....making adult toys/material illegal to order in the state of Alabama.
There is a growing story on just about every network this week about children going hungry in school after lunch due to a program initiated and championed by Michelle Obama. The reduced calorie meals aren't enough, the stories are coming in from across the nation.
This level of government intrusion infuriates me, so I understand where you are coming from overall. It's just that I see much of the libertarian viewpoint as being too idealogical and unrealistic overall, especially in some very critical areas. But again, it's just my opinion.
That's because Libertarianism requires that one accept responsibility for managing the responsibilities that go hand in hand with one's rights. Responsibility is a foreign concept in America these days. :(
Littlelebowski
09-26-12, 12:08
However, don't forget that while Bush was shooting from the hip on said policies/actions, Obama and Holder are busy making them absolutely legal and a matter of course. Witness the Obama adminstration's war on medical marijuana dispensaries. Obama is like Bush but worse. The Democratic Party has absolutely no problem with the war on drugs in practice.
The Republican Party should stop worrying about abortion and gay marriage right now. I have checked and it doesn't say "life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness (for heterosexuals only) in the Declaration of Independence. At the very ****ing least try to inject a little science into the abortion debate. A fertilized egg with no nerves and no brain can feel pain and has a soul? Said zygote is a "person?"
theblackknight
09-26-12, 12:38
I really liked how all the tea baggers got voted in, and then re-upped the patriot act.
Also, most people's stance against abortion has nothing to do with critical thinking and they refuse to step outside of themselves to consider reality.
Littlelebowski
09-26-12, 12:41
Also, most people's stance against abortion has nothing to do with critical thinking and they refuse to step outside of themselves to consider reality.
Biblical literalism. But only the parts of the Bible they like.
CaptainDooley
09-26-12, 12:52
The past 12 years have shown us that not only is our current system flawed but that both "extremes" are really two sides of one coin. If everyone would quit worrying that "a vote for a third party candidate helps/hurts XYZ" and would simply vote their conscience after looking at all the facts and seeing how far we've fallen - we'd have a third-party candidate in office this January and the GOP and the Dems would be in shambles. We're all smart people - none of us can possibly believe we should be giving the government more power and control over us - so let's do something to actually change where we're headed!
http://www.villagevoice.com/2008-03-11/news/why-i-am-no-longer-a-brain-dead-liberal/
That's cool, but David Mamet was a pretty run-of-the-mill liberal Democrat who wasn't really all that politically active until he became a conservative. John Cusack has run so far out into left field that he can't even see the ballpark anymore. He calls himself a civil libertarian, that's nice, but he he's not so libertarian when it comes to rights to self-defense or with regard to private property. Cusack's views haven't actually changed, he's just recognizing that the Obamessiah didn't come in and wave a magic wand and turned out to be even more cynical and despicable politician than was Bush. He hasn't yet turned the proverbial corner. Unless he comes to realize that progressive politics are by design antithetical to civil libertarianism he isn't going to change and I didn't see any indication of those gears turning in either him or Turley from their conversation.
Like I said before though, there is always hope I suppose....
I bet he'll still vote for Obama.
Biblical literalism. But only the parts of the Bible they like.
I'm opposed to abortion, which is about the only part of the Libertarian platform with which I disagree, and my stance has nothing to do with the Bible. Though on my give-a-shit matrix it rates a 2 (out of 10). I certainly don't consider it a litmus test.
There are plenty of other non-religious people I know who are opposed to abortion for basically the same reasons I am. There are enough reasons to oppose it on moral/ethical/historical grounds without getting into the weeds on religion.
As per gay marriage, yeah I don't get why people are so vehemently opposed to it, but I think government should be out of the marriage business altogether. (actually, I do believe you and I have had that discussion before.....)
Also, most people's stance against abortion has nothing to do with critical thinking and they refuse to step outside of themselves to consider reality.
When I see a photo of an early fetus, I think of it as a human life.
When I see what unwanted babies turn into in our ghettoes, I think of that fetus as unwanted human life.
Abortion stops crime 12 to 15 years in advance.
Funny how religious folks can pick what's crazy talk, and what's having "faith". I here my religious friends do this all the time...like hearing them talk about how bat shit crazy Muslims are for thinking a bunch of virgins will be awaiting them in their afterlife, yet with a straight face then tell you that snakes back in the day could both walk, and talk :eek:
I agree that the War of drugs is bipartisan now, but only because it's "good business" bottom line if your in the big Gov't business. That said, let's not forget the social crusader of a president who started it all as we know it today. Reagan didn't dick around when it came to protecting us from us....nothing worse than marijuana laced cigarettes, or those evil, vile, x rated films!
Littlelebowski
09-26-12, 13:37
I believe the WOD started with Nixon.
Also, most people's stance against abortion has nothing to do with critical thinking and they refuse to step outside of themselves to consider reality.
My stand against abortion is based on pure science and the universal prohibition against taking a life (ETA: innocent life).
It is also based on libertarianism: don't initiate violence to solve a problem and personal responsibility
It has nothing to do with any sort of Bible reading or anything.
--
Your absolutely correct that Nixon actually coined the term "War on drugs" while in office, however the War on drugs as we know it today imho started at the beginning of the 1980s.
America has the highest incarceration rate in the world.[48] In 1971, different stops on drugs had been implemented for more than 50 years (for e.g. since 1914, 1937 etc.) with only a very small increase of inmates per 100 000 citizens. After 1980, the situation began to change. In 1994, it was reported that the "War on Drugs" resulted in the incarceration of one million Americans each year.[47] Of the related drug arrests, about 225,000 are for possession of cannabis, the fourth most common cause of arrest in the United States.[48]
In 2008, 1.5 million Americans were arrested for drug offenses. 500,000 were imprisoned.[49]
In the 1980s, while the number of arrests for all crimes had risen by 28%, the number of arrests for drug offenses rose 126%.[50]
During the first 9 years after Nixon coined the expression War on Drugs, statistics show only a minor increase in the total number of imprisoned which implies that some factor other than the declaration of "war" is the primary contributor to the incarceration rate.
The part in bold is very important to my own argument.....as I feel the primary contributor for the War on drugs is religious, moral, or social crusaders trying to impose their own belief system onto our society as a whole.
ETA: A bit more info
Richard Nixon became president in 1969, and did not shy away from the anti- drug precedent set by Johnson. Nixon began orchestrating drug raids nationwide to improve his “watchdog” reputation. Lois B. Defleur, a social historian who studied drug arrests during this period in Chicago, stated that, “police administrators indicated they were making the kind of arrests the public wanted.” Additionally, some of Nixon’s newly create drug enforcement agencies would resort to illegal practices to make arrests as they tried to meet public demand for arrest numbers. From 1972 to 1973, the Office of Drug Abuse and Law Enforcement performed 6,000 drug arrests in 18 months, the majority of the arrested black.[67]
The next two presidents, Gerald Ford and Jimmy Carter, responded with programs that were essentially a continuation of their predecessors. Then Ronald Reagan became President in 1981 In a speech delivered soon after taking office, Reagan announced, “We’re taking down the surrender flag that has flown over so many drug efforts; we’re running up a battle flag.[68]” For his first five years in office, Reagan slowly strengthened drug enforcement by creating mandatory minimum sentencing and forfeiture of cash and real estate for drug offenses, policies far more detrimental to poor blacks than any other sector affected by the new laws.
Then, driven by the 1986 heroin overdose of black basketball star Len Bias, Reagan was able to pass the Anti-Drug Abuse Act through Congress. This legislation appropriated an additional $1.7 billion to fund the War on Drugs. More importantly, it established 29 new, mandatory minimum sentences for drug offenses. In the entire history of the country up until that point, the legal system had only seen 55 minimum sentences in total.[69] A major stipulation of the new sentencing rules included different mandatory minimums for powder and crack cocaine. At the time of the bill, there was public debate as to the difference in potency and effect of powder cocaine, generally used by whites, and crack cocaine, generally used by blacks, with many believing that “crack” was substantially more powerful and addictive. Crack and powder cocaine are closely related chemicals, crack being a smokeable, freebase form of powdered cocaine hydrochloride which produces a shorter, more intense high while using less of the drug. This method is more cost effective, and therefore more prevalent on the inner-city streets, while powder cocaine remains more popular in white suburbia. Seeing an opportunity, the Reagan administration began shoring public opinion against “crack,” encouraging DEA official Robert Putnam to play up the harmful effects of the drug. Stories of “crack whores” and “crack babies” became commonplace; by 1986, Time had declared “crack” the issue of the year.[70] Riding the wave of public fervor, Reagan established much harsher sentencing for crack cocaine, handing down stiffer felony penalties for much smaller amounts of the drug.[71]
Lincoln protégé and former Vice-President George H. W. Bush was next to occupy the oval office, and the drug policy under his watch held true to his political background. Bush maintained the hard line drawn by his predecessor and former boss, increasing narcotics regulation when the First National Drug Control Strategy was issued by the Office of National Drug Control in 1989,[72].
The next three presidents – Clinton, Bush and Obama – continued this trend, maintaining the War on Drugs as they inherited it upon taking office.[73] During this time of passivity by the federal government, it was the states that initiated controversial legislation in the War on Drugs. Racial bias manifested itself in the states through such controversial policies as the “stop and frisk” police practices in New York city and the “three strikes” felony laws began in California in 1994.[74]
In August 2010, President Obama signed the Fair Sentencing Act into law that dramatically reduced the 100-to-1 sentencing disparity between powder and crack cocaine, which disproportionately affected minorities.[75]
My stand against abortion is based on pure science and the universal prohibition against taking a life (ETA: innocent life).
It is also based on libertarianism: don't initiate violence to solve a problem and personal responsibility
It has nothing to do with any sort of Bible reading or anything.
--
Bingo bango!
theblackknight
09-26-12, 15:38
My stand against abortion is based on pure science and the universal prohibition against taking a life (ETA: innocent life).
It is also based on libertarianism: don't initiate violence to solve a problem and personal responsibility
It has nothing to do with any sort of Bible reading or anything.
--
There is nothing sensational or violent about a abortion. It's about the same as any other boring medical procedure.
Doc Safari
09-26-12, 15:40
I used to be pretty liberal and believed a lot of left-wing stuff, but what finally put the nail in the coffin for me and abortion was just common sense.
How can it be a non-viable fetus for a few months and then sort of mysteriously turn into a "person" at some point? Furthermore even if that's true who has the wisdom or knowledge to say when that change occurs?
On top of that, isn't it just sort of creepy and Nazi-death-camp-ish to go around aborting unborn babies?
Even if some scientist someday proves it's a lump of tissue until such-and-such week, I think in the present we should err on the side of "we don't effing know" and stop killing babies.
There is nothing sensational or violent about a abortion. It's about the same as any other boring medical procedure.
Except that it is the destruction of what, without any human intervention, would otherwise become a human.
Littlelebowski
09-26-12, 15:52
I used to be pretty liberal and believed a lot of left-wing stuff, but what finally put the nail in the coffin for me and abortion was just common sense.
How can it be a non-viable fetus for a few months and then sort of mysteriously turn into a "person" at some point?
A brain and nervous system perhaps?
Nobody who is pro choice has a problem with someone who is pro life, and personally believes in not having an abortion themselves.
If you want to tell your daughter or wife that see can't have an abortion after being raped....pro choice people are still cool with that, or at least I am.
The scary shit comes into play when pro life people for whatever completely ****ing crazy idea think that they have even the slightest say as to whether me or my own have an abortion or not.
I can't see how pro life people can't understand that only one group in this debate is trying to steal freedom from a fellow American. How grandiose one must be to think they have the authority to govern other people's freedom based upon some prehistoric belief system 99% of the time.
There is nothing sensational or violent about a abortion. It's about the same as any other boring medical procedure.
Tell that to the fetus whose life you just took. (And "violence" was used in my reply the way libertarians use it, not the typical on-the-street definition. "Force" would have been a better word to use and is also typically used by libertarians.)
Abortion is not just another boring medical procedure. It is taking an innocent life. That is scientific fact.
If you question that, take a DNA sample from the mother. Then start taking DNA samples from various organs that are removed from people in normal boring medical procedures. The DNA will match. Now take the DNA from the fetus. It does not match. The fetus is not just an appendage of the woman that can just be removed through boring medical procedures. It is a unique and different living entity as shown by its DNA. And it is a perfectly viable life in its intended environment.
This has nothing to do with Bible thumping and everything to do with standard decency and pretty much universal moral values of not taking innocent life. Backed by simple scientific tests.
--
Even if some scientist someday proves it's a lump of tissue until such-and-such week, I think in the present we should err on the side of "we don't effing know" and stop killing babies.
Take its DNA at any point. Shows it is not just a lump of tissue.
And it is perfectly viable IN ITS INTENDED ENVIRONMENT. The same way you and I are.
--
How grandiose one must be to think they have the authority to govern other people's freedom based upon some prehistoric belief system 99% of the time.
So far, none of the lifers in this thread have made an argument based on a "prehistoric belief system" but on the basic libertarian concept of a right to life. You know, one of those rights actually mentioned by the Founders. You apparently think you have the right to destroy life rather than be inconvenienced by it. Sorry buddy, there is no "right to avoid personal responsibility" because it will **** with your lifestyle.
Don't want kid, great, give it up for adoption. Holy shit, that was profoundly difficult, wasn't it? And contrary to the pro-abortion line, there is NO shortage of adoptive parents, and there never has been.
ETA: I'm dipping out of the abortion side of this thread.
CaptainDooley
09-26-12, 16:27
This behavior is the exact opposite of freedom - most people who believe this way are set on trying to legislate morality (usually based on their Evangelical Christian beliefs). As a believer in Christ, I find this behavior abhorrent. It is attempting to force others to live according to your belief system through government coercion rather than proselytization. Furthermore, it attempts to get them to adhere to the moral/ethical system of the religion without attempting to create true converts (which only happens through belief in fallen humanity, a perfect God, and his sacrificial atonement through His son). So it completely misses the true point of their faith.
Having said all of that, I am a believer in Christ (though I would not classify myself as an Evangelical), but I also have to separate my faith from a secular governmental system and the freedom that it stands for - otherwise, all we really are trying to do is institute a "Christian" brand of totalitarianism.
The scary shit comes into play when pro life people for whatever completely ****ing crazy idea think that they have even the slightest say as to whether me or my own have an abortion or not.
I can't see how pro life people can't understand that only one group in this debate is trying to steal freedom from a fellow American. How grandiose one must be to think they have the authority to govern other people's freedom based upon some prehistoric belief system 99% of the time.
Take its DNA at any point. Shows it is not just a lump of tissue.
And it is perfectly viable IN ITS INTENDED ENVIRONMENT. The same way you and I are.
--
You can take DNA from the cigarette butt that I threw away, and you can count on it showing a human's DNA sequence on it.
So was my discarded cigarette butt entitled to a "life" since it can be identified with human DNA sequencing? Perhaps I'm confused
CaptainDooley
09-26-12, 16:36
The only thing that might possibly happen if more kids were put up for adoption is that the whole process would likely start costing thousands of dollars less because there were be more supply for a never ending demand. Also, foreign adoptions would probably slow down.
Don't want kid, great, give it up for adoption. Holy shit, that was profoundly difficult, wasn't it? And contrary to the pro-abortion line, there is NO shortage of adoptive parents, and there never has been.
Perhaps I'm confused
That, or just evil.
CaptainDooley
09-26-12, 16:39
I would say that's a pretty absurd argument. Taking a DNA sample from clearly living tissues and looking for DNA evidence on an inanimate object are two vastly different things.
You can take DNA from the cigarette butt that I threw away, and you can count on it showing a human's DNA sequence on it.
So was my discarded cigarette butt entitled to a "life" since it can be identified with human DNA sequencing? Perhaps I'm confused
A brain and nervous system perhaps?
So some outside agent intrudes the womb at some arbitrary point and implants a brain and nervous system in the fetus?
http://www.sewingmantra.com/wp-content/uploads/2010/08/sewing-threads.jpg
http://www.examiner.com/images/blog/wysiwyg/image/Joker_Jack_Batman.jpg
:rolleyes:
polymorpheous
09-26-12, 17:04
Epic thread derail!
Want to argue about abortion?
Start your own thread.
Littlelebowski
09-26-12, 17:13
It's really odd how folks want the status quo left alone. The pendulum swings from the left to the right and our government increases in size and power while our rights are chipped away at. But hey, the Republicans are pro gun! And the democrats only want to ban assault rifles!
You can take DNA from the cigarette butt that I threw away, and you can count on it showing a human's DNA sequence on it.
So was my discarded cigarette butt entitled to a "life" since it can be identified with human DNA sequencing? Perhaps I'm confused
Yes, you are confused. You CANNOT take DNA FROM the cigarette butt. (ignoring any residual DNA from the tree used to make the paper or something). You may be able to find traces of DNA from remnants from your use of the cigarette butt but they are external to the cigarette butt.
--
Not sure what's more interesting: the linked article or the efficacy of the abortion squirrel to distract. Hmmmmm
Magic_Salad0892
09-26-12, 17:24
When I see a photo of an early fetus, I think of it as a human life.
When I see what unwanted babies turn into in our ghettoes, I think of that fetus as unwanted human life.
Abortion stops crime 12 to 15 years in advance.
Probably why the crime rates in the 90's didn't get as bad as everybody thought they would.
I'm pro-choice. If you don't like abortions. Don't get one. If you don't like gay marriage. Don't get one.
I'm pro-choice. If you don't like abortions. Don't get one. If you don't like gay marriage. Don't get one.
So if you don't like the homeless guy on the side of the rode you just snuff him?
--
Not sure what's more interesting: the linked article or the efficacy of the abortion squirrel to distract. Hmmmmm
Procreation squirrel is not amused.
http://24.media.tumblr.com/tumblr_maxvp5u70b1qdlh1io1_500.gif
theblackknight
09-26-12, 17:45
Tell that to the fetus whose life you just took. (And "violence" was used in my reply the way libertarians use it, not the typical on-the-street definition. "Force" would have been a better word to use and is also typically used by libertarians.)
Abortion is not just another boring medical procedure. It is taking an innocent life. That is scientific fact.
If you question that, take a DNA sample from the mother. Then start taking DNA samples from various organs that are removed from people in normal boring medical procedures. The DNA will match. Now take the DNA from the fetus. It does not match. The fetus is not just an appendage of the woman that can just be removed through boring medical procedures. It is a unique and different living entity as shown by its DNA. And it is a perfectly viable life in its intended environment.
This has nothing to do with Bible thumping and everything to do with standard decency and pretty much universal moral values of not taking innocent life. Backed by simple scientific tests.
--
Lol. I love eating eggs. Cutting grass, not soo much.
So is having a miscarriage illegal too?
sent from mah gun,using my sights
It's really odd how folks want the status quo left alone. The pendulum swings from the left to the right and our government increases in size and power while our rights are chipped away at. But hey, the Republicans are pro gun! And the democrats only want to ban assault rifles!
Do you believe that the United States should establish allies around the world?
Lol. I love eating eggs. Cutting grass, not soo much.
Sorry, I am too dumb to get your point.
So is having a miscarriage illegal too?
Why would you think that? That is a natural process (and my wife had a particularly difficult one in 2004). Abortion is not.
--
Start an abortion thread and get back on topic gents. This is gettng absurd...
The article linked has some excellent points and drives them home well.people need ti get past the R's and D's cons and libs crap. The country is going to hell, quite literally and quite rapidly.
Unless we all find the common ground that has ALWAYS been there (the media and gummint have done a bang up job of making most of us forget this recently...) and let go of simple and complex idealogical differences- we as a united people are ****ED!
Want an abortion? Personally I thinkk you're ****ed- but who gives a flyng **** about my opinion; it's your life and your choice. Choose and deal with the consequences, period
The undeniable fact is we need less government, fewer government agencies, fewer government agents and more personal responsibility.
If the "left" and the "right" cannot get past the minutia; we have not a chance to regain our former glory.
To the left: I'm keeping my guns and I refuse to pay taxes beyond the constitutional limits set buy our founders. Quit trying to keep me "safe" via obtrusive and rediculous legisation. I owe nothing I create to anyone, stop redistributing my wealth to others. Leave the constitution alone!
To the right: Get over it, I am not gong to follow your religous beliefs, I'm doing my own thing. Believe and practice religion as you will; keep it out of the gummint/legislation. Stop trying to keep me "safe" via obtrusive and rediculius legislation. Leave the constitution alone!
To the right and the left: Pull your heads out of your asses, get the sand out of your vaginas, stop the finger pointing and get this country back on track! We need less regulation, less taxes, fewer laws and a return to a capatalist free market economy based on tangible products we manufacture hear in the USA- get to id of the fractional reserve fiat system that motivates us to create debt and little else. Gt your hands out of business, transportation, education and our personal lives- LEAVE THE STATES AND THE PEOPLE COLLECTIVELY TO TAKE CARE OF THE REST!
Pardon the spelling mistakes; damn phones...
Regarding the original topic of John Cusack. He starred in a Movie titled Runaway Jury which I did not see or am familiar with. Apparantly the premise is someone suing a gunmaker who made the gun in a mass shooting. Here is what Cusack said in an itnerview
Interviewer: The film changes the books subject matter from tobacco to gun control? Was it because the tobacco issue had already been the subject of a movie?
CUSACK: "Yes, it seems like “The Insider” done by Michael Mann was about a tobacco suit, but also think that it's just smart because it allows the movie to be its own thing. I mean, secondhand smoke kills, but I don't know if kills more than assault weapons. I think that it was very smart and very brave to do that. I loved it that it became about guns. I love the idea that these two characters find out the effect of gun violence [and] the extremes that they'll go to fight corruption. I thought that was very dramatic."
Anyway, my point is just because someone may be against Obama and voice things remotely relevant to the constitution does not make them close to pro-gun or a believer in the constitution. Many people go back and forth on the constitution when it suits their convenience and other opinions.
BTW, I love the squirrel!
http://24.media.tumblr.com/tumblr_maxvp5u70b1qdlh1io1_500.gif[/QUOTE]
Magic_Salad0892
09-26-12, 18:55
So if you don't like the homeless guy on the side of the rode you just snuff him?
--
If I don't like him, I'll just leave. How is that even remotely the same thing?
Magic_Salad0892
09-26-12, 18:56
Regarding the original topic of John Cusack. He starred in a Movie titled Runaway Jury which I did not see or am familiar with. Apparantly the premise is someone suing a gunmaker who made the gun in a mass shooting. Here is what Cusack said in an itnerview
Interviewer: The film changes the books subject matter from tobacco to gun control? Was it because the tobacco issue had already been the subject of a movie?
CUSACK: "Yes, it seems like “The Insider” done by Michael Mann was about a tobacco suit, but also think that it's just smart because it allows the movie to be its own thing. I mean, secondhand smoke kills, but I don't know if kills more than assault weapons. I think that it was very smart and very brave to do that. I loved it that it became about guns. I love the idea that these two characters find out the effect of gun violence [and] the extremes that they'll go to fight corruption. I thought that was very dramatic."
Anyway, my point is just because someone may be against Obama and voice things remotely relevant to the constitution does not make them close to pro-gun or a believer in the constitution. Many people go back and forth on the constitution when it suits their convenience and other opinions.
BTW, I love the squirrel!
http://24.media.tumblr.com/tumblr_maxvp5u70b1qdlh1io1_500.gif[/QUOTE]
The Squirrel is awesome.
The book Runaway Jury was good actually. The movie was dogshit.
If I don't like him, I'll just leave. How is that even remotely the same thing?
We've been asked to leave the abortion thing out of this topic. If you want me to explain it, PM me.
--
Littlelebowski
09-26-12, 19:01
How does this negate the points made in the OP? How does it relate to the points in the OP?
Regarding the original topic of John Cusack. He starred in a Movie titled Runaway Jury which I did not see or am familiar with. Apparantly the premise is someone suing a gunmaker who made the gun in a mass shooting. Here is what Cusack said in an itnerview
Interviewer: The film changes the books subject matter from tobacco to gun control? Was it because the tobacco issue had already been the subject of a movie?
CUSACK: "Yes, it seems like “The Insider” done by Michael Mann was about a tobacco suit, but also think that it's just smart because it allows the movie to be its own thing. I mean, secondhand smoke kills, but I don't know if kills more than assault weapons. I think that it was very smart and very brave to do that. I loved it that it became about guns. I love the idea that these two characters find out the effect of gun violence [and] the extremes that they'll go to fight corruption. I thought that was very dramatic."
Anyway, my point is just because someone may be against Obama and voice things remotely relevant to the constitution does not make them close to pro-gun or a believer in the constitution. Many people go back and forth on the constitution when it suits their convenience and other opinions.
BTW, I love the squirrel!
http://24.media.tumblr.com/tumblr_maxvp5u70b1qdlh1io1_500.gif[/QUOTE]
Magic_Salad0892
09-26-12, 19:07
We've been asked to leave the abortion thing out of this topic. If you want me to explain it, PM me.
--
Good point. PM inbound.
Once again to LL, do you believe we should establish allies both overseas and/or continental?
How does this negate the points made in the OP? How does it relate to the points in the OP?
It relates to your original first sentence in the OP which was:
Methinks Cusack will become a libertarian as he ages.
I consider the above sentance unlikely given that if you research some of Cusack's other political stances and opinions, he makes Obama look like Ronald Reagan.
It relates to your original first sentence in the OP which was:
I consider the above sentance unlikely given that if you research some of Cusack's other political stances and opinions, he makes Obama look like Ronald Reagan.
I concur:
That's cool, but David Mamet was a pretty run-of-the-mill liberal Democrat who wasn't really all that politically active until he became a conservative. John Cusack has run so far out into left field that he can't even see the ballpark anymore. He calls himself a civil libertarian, that's nice, but he he's not so libertarian when it comes to rights to self-defense or with regard to private property. Cusack's views haven't actually changed, he's just recognizing that the Obamessiah didn't come in and wave a magic wand and turned out to be even more cynical and despicable politician than was Bush. He hasn't yet turned the proverbial corner. Unless he comes to realize that progressive politics are by design antithetical to civil libertarianism he isn't going to change and I didn't see any indication of those gears turning in either him or Turley from their conversation.
Like I said before though, there is always hope I suppose....
I bet he'll still vote for Obama.
polymorpheous
09-26-12, 22:50
That squirrel is hilarious! :lol:
I wonder if Alaskapopo will pull the lever for Hussein again this election.... :confused:
I wonder if Alaskapopo will pull the lever for Hussein again this election.... :confused:
I honestly can't believe anyone that is both literate and shares our common interest in firearms voted for him in the first place.
Doc Safari
09-27-12, 16:36
I honestly can't believe anyone that is both literate and shares our common interest in firearms voted for him in the first place.
This very subject has baffled me for the better part of twenty years now: how can gun owners continue to vote for candidates that they know are out to remove the right to bear arms entirely?
Littlelebowski
09-30-12, 17:56
It relates to your original first sentence in the OP which was:
I consider the above sentance unlikely given that if you research some of Cusack's other political stances and opinions, he makes Obama look like Ronald Reagan.
So, I'm catching up on threads. More positive things have occupied my past few days.
It's my contention that perhaps Cusack can change. Witness Dick Morris. It may not be likely but yeah, folks can change.
Littlelebowski
09-30-12, 18:00
Once again to LL, do you believe we should establish allies both overseas and/or continental?
Sure, at the expense of your children's blood. I've been overseas with a rifle in hand and I've seen firsthand the "gratitude" of our "allies."
Anyone who isn't willing to volunteer himself or his family is a chickenhawk.
Does giving billions to "allies" whilst in a never ending spiral of debt not bother you?
I believe that we need true allies, not those that we buy and who take our money as long as possible before stabbing us in the national back.
When we no longer control the worlds wealth (coming quickly) we will no longer have the ability to dictate world policy on anything. History has proven that those who control the money control the world. Look at when many cultures choose to fail and it often times has something to do with spending more than they have. I don't believe we will cease all geopolitical influence but we will become more of a minor player much like our European "allies".
As someone that has also seen personally the attitude and gratitude of our allies while overseas I agree with your assessment.
Allies in the world are only skin deep.
For any country that we choose to call an ally, we should be asking, why are they our allies?
Usually, it's a smaller, weaker country looking to get the benefits of billions donated a year in economic, military, and food aid. In return, we are expecting that they do what we want them to do, for our benefit. This usually ends up in a game of cat and mouse where both sides are trying to outwit the other. This only serves to create a situation where both parties are always harboring resentment towards one another.
The other countries know the game, know that it's about the money/power, and resent that we try to exercise control over them. Us Americans at home, resent the fact that those countries that we gave so much of our treasure , keep poking their thumbs in our eyes.
Giving billions to "allies" whilst in a never ending spiral of debt does not sit well with me....
Littlelebowski
09-30-12, 19:23
http://www.outsidethebeltway.com/maj-general-peter-fuller-fired-over-remarks-about-afghan-government/
Me thinks we should quite paying attention to all of these Hollywood idiots (Democrat, Republican or otherwise) and quite trying to validate any of their sill opinions.
They are as bad as politicians and they whore themselves out as much. Maybe they should focus on making good movies and entertaining us and not trying to impart their wisdom on us.
watched Kid Rock on some talk show ?
but he said if you idiots listen to us entertainers for advice on politics or anything you are idiots ! we just play music or act in movies
but it was pretty good what he said the way he said it ? forgot his exact words
Littlelebowski
10-01-12, 06:23
The whole reason I posed this was not that he's a famous actor but rather that he's a liberal who's actually taken the time to understand and state out loud the breath and scope of Obama's civil rights abuses and consolidation of government powers.
So, read the article. It's well done and a little more thought provoking than your typical FoxNews article.
Powered by vBulletin® Version 4.2.5 Copyright © 2024 vBulletin Solutions, Inc. All rights reserved.