More Republican Fear-Mongering

Remove all ads!

That's similar to the point that T2 was commenting on and I agree, KJ, it's a good point. But where is the declaration of war, and any supporting documents? I hate to be a stickler on techical points, but they cannot be enemy prisoners of war, because in reality, there is no war.

 

I think apprehension on US soil is not well understood.

So what about folks that get arrested overseas, maybe with help of some other nation's police and then extradited to the US? Just look what's happening to Roman Polanski who after all got 'apprehended on Swiss soil'. Last time I looked that was not an obstacle to being tried in US court.

The US have standing to try people if they committed a crime against US nationals or a crime in the US. In fact, US courts interpret US standing in a disturbingly extensive way.

 

Chandos I agree with you that it is a crime but so is war. War in a way is the ultimate crime.

I think I can understand some of the terrorists a bit better now after seeing this extreme hatred against KSM and others shown by pretty much all Americans here. That is how "terrorists" feel about you and especially your leaders, this vehemence you show them is the same that drives them. So much hate.

Make love, not war.

 

Polanski had already completed his trial and fled before sentencing. He was already found guilty, therefore the comparison does not apply.

KSM's trial has not started yet, but apparently the President says he will be convicted and executed.

 

No, the comparison does apply, never mind the intricacies of the Polanski case

 

Drew, to be honest, I wouldn't qualify you as a bleeding heart liberal either. A liberal certainly, but the "bleeding heart" label isn't about the beliefs, but about the applications of those beliefs. The "bleeding hearts" are the ones who, rather than discuss a topic, cite evidence, and try to persuade the other side, would rather shout them down and throw pig's blood on them. Bleeding hearts think with emotion, rather than logic. There are a few times I could accuse you of getting emotional about a topic, but that's just normal heated debate, and nothing like what a bleeding heart does.

And yes, before you ask, there are conservatives just like that. I don't know that the term "bleeding heart" is used to descibe them, but they do exist.

 

Let's come up with one, then. How about "limbaughnians", or "beckers".

Or, um, "republicans".

 

NOG, I was going to repspond with my own definition but found this on the Urban Dictionary web site and it pretty much describes 'bleeding heart' in the way I've always heard it.

In the 70's the 'bleeding heart liberals' wanted to take money away from defense and put it toward welfare and other such social programs -- the nerve of those bastards.

Typical rallying cries of bleeding hearts are make love not war, give peace a chance, no blood for oil, and let my people go. They can often be seen holding hands and singing songs -- favorite selections are He's got the whole world in his hands, I'd like to teach the world to sing, I gave my love a cherry (obviously the return of degenerative sexual promiscuity from the sixties 'love in' movement is a motivating factor), and pretty much any folk song (clearly nothing mainstream ... and never country ... Toby Keith songs are forbidden at such events).

 

T2 - In my opinion, that source is not a very good definition of a "bleeding heart liberal" I have never understood that term to apply to the counter-culture movement of the 1960s. I would not consider John Lennon or Bob Dylan to be ones. I have always understood the term to apply to liberals who promote diversity and inclusiveness by arbitrary means - something closer to affirmative action, school busing, or quotas for college admission. While noble goals, not a sound way to achieve them.

The kind of PCism that we see in public schools, like classes taught only in Spanish to accommodate separate cultures. And teachers having to take classes in "cultural senisitivity." That stuff to me is the bleeding heart liberal agenda. Like I said, the goals of diversity are fine and noble, but the methodology is not. In fact, most of it is just counter-productive, at least in my opinion.

That is a pretty good "one line" definition of liberalism, except for the "natural goodness" part. I'm not sure were they came up with that. Most liberals tend to think that people are basically greedy and self-serving.

 

Chandos, you have said some really smart stuff on the boards over the years, but IMHO this is your crowning achievement of awesome. Succinct and powerful.

I have to say, though, that I like T2Bruno's reference of the Urban Dictionary, which I recently found myself thanks to 11Points. In particular the part that says

Emphasis mine. I'm all for human rights, inclusion, diversity and all of that, but as with all things, there must be reasonable limits. When a terrorist claims that he had no choice due to poverty, when a rapist claims he is the real victim because he grew up in a tough home, or when a cop killer claims that he "wasn't shooting to kill"*, this is where my sympathetic feelings end. "Bleeding hearts" do not, though, which often leads me to make the observation that from where I sit, the bleeding hearts care more about the criminal than they do about the victims.

* I was so scared they were gonna let this idiot off because of the whole "we can't prove intention" battle cry of "bleeding hearts" who foolishly believe that this filth can ever be a decent, contributing member of society. As it is, 10 will get you 20 that he's out before 20 years has passed. I fear the same thing with the terrorist trials discussed earlier in this thread, though the track record related to me makes me feel a little more comfortable.

 

I do not think the kind of people you see as "bleeding hearts" actually exist LKD nor people who claim that the sole reason they committed a crime was that they were not loved enough as children. I think these people are figments of your imagination.

 

Oh, they exist, all right, at least in Canada. For example, in our judicial system, and particularly when it comes to dealing with Aboriginals, who are constantly being given leniency because of their upbringing. (Although I will be the first to admit that our society has failed our Aboriginal population miserably, IMHO that doesn't entitle them to a "get out of jail free" card.)

 

Scooter Libby got that card. Here, in the US, you just have to have friends in the right places.

---------- Added 1 hours, 59 minutes and 55 seconds later... ----------

It sounds to me as if you are speaking of the folk music of the early 60s. While I've never considered that to be anything close to the music of the Woodstock generation, I believe that it was considered to be politically "liberal" in some benign manner. I think these are the same group who considered Bob Dylan a sell-out when he released "Highway 61 Revisited," because he played an electric Stratocaster on it, along with rock legends Mike Bloomfield and Al Kooper. I just picked up an old CD by the Paul Butterfield Blues Band, since Bloomfield was featured on it (I'm a big fan of Bloomfield's playing). I'd never heard them before and although its very dated, it's very interesting stuff: blues/rock/jazz kind of fusion -- in the mid-60s! But I'm really not that familiar with the whole folk rock scene. Nor do I know who Toby Keith is.

 

It's a typical classical liberal definition, not altogether fitting with the American liberalism. Think of it as Laissez-faire liberalism, as opposed to modern (or social) liberalism, the latter which proposes more government intervention.

 

So Splunge, Canadian Aboriginals are above the law because their ancestors got a raw deal?

 

Umm, no. That's exactly the opposite of what I said.

 

It is? You said they were constantly given leniency which as I understand the word means that they do not get as harsh penalties or any penalty at all for crimes committed? Wouldn't that imply that they do not need to heed the law, as they will not be punished they can do what they wish ie they are above the law?

 

Modern liberalism in the Anglo-American political science dictionary. When I studied social sciences, "liberalism" was the term we used for a philosophy advocating more personal, social and economic liberty and a "small" state.

I am still amused how it managed to acquire such a different meaning in the US. Then again, even the US "liberals" tend to be fairly, well, liberal compared to most proper left-wing parties in Europe.

 

Sorry, joacqin, I though you were implyng that I thought they should be above the law, but upon reading your post again, clearly you weren't implying any such thing. That's what I get for posting after a 10 hour seminar on a Saturday.

Anyway, it's not so much that they are above the law - the majority of prison inmates in Canada are Aboriginal. However, they tend to be given the benefit of the doubt moreso than non-Aboriginals. And I feel I need to repeat this - the way Canada has treated its Aboriginal population is disgraceful, but they still need to obey the law.

 

The meaning is really not that much different. But that's how the argument has been framed for many years.