Your Political Views - a test

[pete]

the thing is rigged... i mean, i tend to lean a little left on social issues, but probably a little more to the right by new york standards. this baby had me further to the left and libertarian that mandela and the dalai lama. either that or those guys were closer to mussolini than one would have thought...

 

[loki09789]

I just about landed on our president. Interesting. Guess I know my enemy...

upnorthkyosa

Be glad that you live in a country where such statements are not going to lead to you being hauled away in chains and never coming home again. It is one thing to disagree with the voted POTUS or his policies, but to consider him an 'enemy', even in jest, strikes a nerve for this old serviceman. I swore an oath to protect your right to say such a thing...

 

[OULobo]

Then you should be happy that people use that right. His comments are about a man and his policies, not a nation and it's people. Blind nationalism is a door to fascism.

 

[michaeledward]

Be glad that you live in a country where such statements are not going to lead to you being hauled away in chains and never coming home again. It is one thing to disagree with the voted POTUS or his policies, but to consider him an 'enemy', even in jest, strikes a nerve for this old serviceman. I swore an oath to protect your right to say such a thing...

Odd, how the POTUS can state that a U.S. Citizen is an 'Enemy Combatants' and strip them of their rights without due process, even when they are living in the United States.

 

[Tgace]

Then you should be happy that people use that right. His comments are about a man and his policies, not a nation and it's people. Blind nationalism is a door to fascism.

I think his reply was directed towards the "enemy" comment, not his right to criticize....When I was in uniform under Klintons administration, MANY in the service couldnt stand the man, but I (personally) never saw a soldier that wouldnt still show the proper respect for the man when required.

As to the "enemy combatant" issue. Yes this is a good topic to test the legal issues of, but it isnt something new. see...

http://www.theorator.com/bills108/hr1029.html

• (9) There is precedent for detaining American citizens as enemy combatants. In Ex Parte Quirin, 317 U.S. 1 (1942), 2 of the 8 German soldiers who planned acts of sabotage within the United States claimed American citizenship. Detention of enemy combatants who are United States citizens is appropriate to protect the safety of the public and those involved in the investigation and prosecution of terrorism, to facilitate the use of classified information as evidence without compromising intelligence or military efforts, to gather unimpeded vital information from the detainee, and otherwise to protect national security interests.

Im fairly certain that I could find other historical examples as well.

 

[buddah_belly]

I was a little late getting in on this, but I ended up just slightly left of Mandela and the Dali Lama. Sweet. And I thought I didn't really care about politics.

 

[Blindside]

I came out as -1, -1.08, I guess I'm about a centrist as they come.

I would have expected to fall more on the liberal side, particularly on the social axis. However, this does jibe with my general viewpoint of myself, sigh, being a centrist is boring.

Lamont

 

[loki09789]

I think his reply was directed towards the "enemy" comment, not his right to criticize....When I was in uniform under Klintons administration, MANY in the service couldnt stand the man, but I (personally) never saw a soldier that wouldnt still show the proper respect for the man when required.

Exactly my point. I notice, and this is a stolen observation, that there are many who talk about open mindedness and acceptance/tolerance, until they find something intolerable to them and the language and tone get very narrow and opinionated. I ran into the same thing in the Locker Room in the New Jersey article thread... polite, considerate people get real 'human' when they forget that prejudice and harassment don't have to be just about race, creed, color or religion. It can also take the form of classism, agism, professional biases.... and then all to code speak of politeness and decency go out the window.

 

[Makalakumu]

Exactly my point. I notice, and this is a stolen observation, that there are many who talk about open mindedness and acceptance/tolerance, until they find something intolerable to them and the language and tone get very narrow and opinionated. I ran into the same thing in the Locker Room in the New Jersey article thread... polite, considerate people get real 'human' when they forget that prejudice and harassment don't have to be just about race, creed, color or religion. It can also take the form of classism, agism, professional biases.... and then all to code speak of politeness and decency go out the window.

A person whose policies advance negative policies regarding "race, creed, color, religion, class, age, and professional bias" is worthy of the title "Morgoth".

I respect your oath to serve our country. Many in my family have made similar choices. I did not...here is why.

I take exception to your comments about protecting our rights. Throughout history the only people that have attempted to take away our rights have been right in front of our faces. For instance my grandfather stormed the beaches of Normandy without a scratch and took a bullet in a strike that the government sent in marshalls to suppress. This is the Secret History of the United States. War has always been more about profiteering and resources and has had little to do with our actual freedom.

My grandfather took me to the VA hospital when I told him I wanted to be a soldier. I was 15. He showed me people of all sorts. People all blown up and forgotton. I'll quote him, "You want to fight for our country, boy, you won't have to go far. Just open your eyes."

upnorthkyosa

 

[Tgace]

 

[michaeledward]

As to the "enemy combatant" issue. Yes this is a good topic to test the legal issues of, but it isnt something new. see...

http://www.theorator.com/bills108/hr1029.html

• (9) There is precedent for detaining American citizens as enemy combatants. In Ex Parte Quirin, 317 U.S. 1 (1942), 2 of the 8 German soldiers who planned acts of sabotage within the United States claimed American citizenship. Detention of enemy combatants who are United States citizens is appropriate to protect the safety of the public and those involved in the investigation and prosecution of terrorism, to facilitate the use of classified information as evidence without compromising intelligence or military efforts, to gather unimpeded vital information from the detainee, and otherwise to protect national security interests.

Im fairly certain that I could find other historical examples as well.

It will be nice if this bill gets signed into law, however, I don't think that will happen any time soon. If we look at paragraphs 14 & 15, we can see why, I think this bill will never end up on the presidents desk.

(14) Nothing in this Act permits the Government, even in wartime, to detain American citizens or other persons lawfully in the United States as enemy combatants indefinitely without charges and hold them incommunicado without a hearing and without access to counsel on the basis of a unilateral determination that the person may be connected with an organization that intends harm to the United States. The Supreme Court has held that even enemy aliens within the United States are entitled to habeas review of their conviction. Ex Parte Quirin, 317 U.S. 1 (1942); Johnson v. Eisentrager, 339 U.S. 763 (1950).
(15) The validity of the detention of citizens as enemy combatants may be challenged by a writ of habeas corpus. As the right of habeas corpus may be effectively nullified by denial of the assistance of counsel, a citizen detained as an enemy combatant may not be indefinitely denied access to counsel.

​

John Ashcroft & Donald Rumsfeld do not want Jose Padilla to have the right to a lawyer. As a reminder, Jose Padilla is an American Citizen, who was detained in Chicago, Illinois. He is accused of plotting to use a 'Dirty Bomb', but has been held for more than a year without access to a lawyer, or to the US Court system.

Now, they may have a case with Yaser Hamdi. Even though he is an American Citizen, he was apprehending in Afghanistan, fighting on the side of the Taliban. Should he have access to the American Court system? A lawyer? He is not even classified as a 'Prisoner of War', and thus not eligible for the protections of the Geneva Conventions.

Mike

 

[loki09789]

A person whose policies advance negative policies regarding "race, creed, color, religion, class, age, and professional bias" is worthy of the title "Morgoth".

I respect your oath to serve our country. Many in my family have made similar choices. I did not...here is why.

I take exception to your comments about protecting our rights. Throughout history the only people that have attempted to take away our rights have been right in front of our faces. For instance my grandfather stormed the beaches of Normandy without a scratch and took a bullet in a strike that the government sent in marshalls to suppress. This is the Secret History of the United States. War has always been more about profiteering and resources and has had little to do with our actual freedom.

My grandfather took me to the VA hospital when I told him I wanted to be a soldier. I was 15. He showed me people of all sorts. People all blown up and forgotton. I'll quote him, "You want to fight for our country, boy, you won't have to go far. Just open your eyes."

upnorthkyosa

There is no secret to the strike violence in the US, look in any newspaper of the time and there are history books that cover strike riots and the immergence of unions in their bloody genesis. It isn't a secret, just not thrown in the face of a lazy, generally apathetic public. Put the blame on ignorance on the right people. It isn't a conspiracy of secrecy as much as a lack of interest or historical reverence of the average citizen.

You say that you respect my oath and then you take exception to my comments... part of that oath was to 'defend the constitution of the US from enemies, both foreign and domestic' and honestly, I respect your idealism that 'each life is precious.' I don't say any system is perfect, nor do I forget that the VA system is not as well funded/operated as it should be considering the personal sacrifices of those who normally seek their help.

You mentioned how you responded when your wife was being assaulted during a tour by a fellow tourist somewhere. You made the choice to do something when you saw the need. Turn this into an allagory for life and say that you were the US and your wife/child was the Kurds or Afg citizenry suffering under the Taliban/Al-Q or even the citizens of the US vulnerable to terrorist activity. If that tourist were the Tal or SHussein - establishing financial/logistic and operational capability to continue hostilities - regardless of the rhetoric, did you wait until he pulled a knife or gun? No, you took preemptive action at the point where there was not an immediate deadly threat but a potential threat and used the appropriate action in your opinion. After it was done, you mentioned how indignant you felt when the Sec. Guards detained you and treated you like you had done something wrong... but eventually let you go. What would you feel like if your wife was critical of your actions and accused you of just looking for an excuse to use your violent training - basing her opinion of you on only what she could gleen from a few observations and letting her bias/prejudice act as a filter and interpreter of any action you did up to that point. Of course she could pull up examples and data that would defend her position and criticism, but would she be right? There is a disparity between what we know about the POTUS or any public official and what they know about the issues/decisions they make. It is a large disparity and it makes it hard to really say what or why they are the way they are.

It is hard to know/see everything from the fringes. Regardless of what we do know, they know more than we ever will - that is one thing the military service teaches you for sure - and yet they still stand there taking all this criticism and exception taking of oaths and being called enemy. They still do a job that doesn't seem all that fun to me.

How is it that there is so much faith and belief in the dignity and goodness of people in your posts, but politicians/government institutions - which are made up of well intended humans - are currupt and insensitive and the 'enemy'? Change the scale, but the structures are basically the same.

 

[OULobo]

How is it that there is so much faith and belief in the dignity and goodness of people in your posts, but politicians/government institutions - which are made up of well intended humans - are currupt and insensitive and the 'enemy'? Change the scale, but the structures are basically the same.

This is the statement I can't agree with. I don't think that most politicians are well intended humans. I think that is the most optimistic thing I've read in a while.

 

[loki09789]

This is the statement I can't agree with. I don't think that most politicians are well intended humans. I think that is the most optimistic thing I've read in a while.

And that bias is why I think that these forum discussions of politics are nothing more than sand pounding and do nothing productive.

 

[Makalakumu]

How is it that there is so much faith and belief in the dignity and goodness of people in your posts, but politicians/government institutions - which are made up of well intended humans - are currupt and insensitive and the 'enemy'? Change the scale, but the structures are basically the same.

I have dignity and respect for all people until by there actions to prove themselves unworthy of that dignity and respect.

There is an interesting phenomenon in psychology known as “Stockholm Syndrome.” This is where a captive begins to identify and protect their captor. In many ways, 911 has captured the hearts of Americans with fear. Much of the POTUS’ support is based off of this fear. This fear has blinded many Americans of their critical eye for noticing the corresponding details in history.

Fascism for instance…what does this really mean?

1. Reduction in civil liberties – Patriot Act I and II.
2. Reduced freedom of expression – Cronyism and the denouncement of dissidence.
3. Collusion of business and government – 150 million in campaign contributions.
4. Formation of a secret government beyond public scrutiny – Dick Cheney.
5. Institutionalized discrimination – Anti - Gay marriage Amendment and a slew of other things.

The Bush Administration has pushed policies that fit these criteria many times over and if it walks like a duck and talks like a duck, I’m not afraid to call it a duck. I reject the postulation that they know more then us and that is why we need to give them the benefit of the doubt. Part of living in a democratic society is being informed about what is going on in the government. The average voter should be expected to be as informed as possible and the government should make every attempt to keep the public as informed as possible. The line “we know best” is the line the current administration WANTS the America people to buy so they can destroy the things we hold dear.

I don’t throw labels around without thought, just as I would not choose to fight on a whim. I believe, there is a clear and present danger in our administration and that the direction our country is heading is not the direction that is best for all Americans. I choose to act against this current administration BECAUSE of the evidence that I have and am witnessing. That is part of being an American and there is no Oath binding me to this.

As a serviceman, you are taught to ignore politics and respect the POTUS because on the battlefield, you don’t have time to think about whether or not it is politically right to pull the trigger. This teaching, thank all of the gods watching, is not appropriate for the average citizen. There MUST be dissent. There MUST be a variety of opinions or there will be NO democracy. I am not a servicemen nor will I ever become one. Nor will I force myself to respect someone whose actions fly in the face of everything that I think is right.

Al-Qaeda perpetrated an enormous atrocity on this country on 911. There is no doubt the world is a little better now that Saddam Hussain is no longer in power. There is also no doubt that our country will be a better, freer and more egalitarian country when the POTUS is removed from office.

I realize that the president puts on his pants one leg at a time. I recognize his humanity and I recognize that we have that in common. I also recognize that which sets us apart. This is an old fight. Patrician versus the Plebeian. The results of that fight will be the same, historically, if we continue down this path laid out by the current administration. George Bush is part of an old order whose rules do not work in this new global world.

upnorthkyosa

 

[OULobo]

And that bias is why I think that these forum discussions of politics are nothing more than sand pounding and do nothing productive.

I don't really think it is a bias as much as an opinion. I personally think that more political offices should be filled with average citizens and less millionaires. All debate could be distilled down to "sand pounding" if people minds are never changed, but there are cases where it does change minds, even on this forum. It's happened to me before.

 

[loki09789]

"As a serviceman, you are taught to ignore politics and respect the POTUS because on the battlefield, you don’t have time to think about whether or not it is politically right to pull the trigger. This teaching, thank all of the gods watching, is not appropriate for the average citizen."

As servicemen - at every rank, we are taught that we are to follow lawful orders. That means that we are obligated to refuse orders that violate the laws of land warfare, geneva convention agreements, as well as Uniform Code of Military Justice (similiar to the Justice code that civilians answer to as well). We also do have time to consider whether these orders are lawful or not. During briefings, training, daily activities that are far different from the 'fog of war' that you are assuming is the only time that we answer orders or exercise our oaths. Most of the time, we did/do mundane puttering and prep for those intense moments. The majority of military types never see that level of combat because they are logisticians and support for those who do.

This is very similiar to the process/freedoms to question that civilians have.
As far as democracy and blind faith and all that: what about us as rep. of Martial arts. We come into question and criticism by those who don't know as much as we do about the reality of the job/practice/lifestyle. We know more by nature of where we have chosen to be in relation to the topic/job/lifestyle. Students walk into a class and accept the instructional/environmental and social guidelines of the head instructor/leader of the school. If they don't like it they can either leave, make suggestions, seek clarification or do something else. But to stand at the door and complain and complain and call names and blah blah blah is not a productive practice, nor is it the lesson we are teaching our own students.

We are admired by some for our willingness to develop our ability to exercise judgement and execute violence when things get tough. Others say that we are war mongers because we are always preparing for fighting.... I think that it is a matter of perspective, but we - as martial artists also promote philosophies of harmony and cooperation as part of our codes of conduct and personal character development. Regardless of what others do, we have to live with ourselves. Would you openly call people in your direct contact 'enemies' because you don't agree with them? Or would you demonstrate some character and try and lead by example or make changes from within instead of calling names? Based on your posts, I think you would try and demonstrate good character on that scale. Why is it different when the scale changes? Or when the person, regardless of what your issues are, can't hear you directly. Isn't that the same mentallity of prejudice and racism. "Those people" are "always" and "I know because look at this information", but it isn't all of it. Should I say that Black people/minorities are more prone to violence and drug trafficing because the statistics and practices are there to support it? That would go over real big!

I am not saying that you have to go along to get along. I am saying that at the end of the day we all sleep under the same flag and status as citizen, there should be some decorum, respectful conduct that is maintained for mature discussion and consensus.

Do you have the time in your life/day to be in on every decision that the governments have to make? Do you have the time to research and become knowledgeable on all the issues, opinions....? Do you think that government should be wide open with intelligence gathering information/practices and technology? The open information argument is ideal but not realistic.

The 'us' and 'them' tone when it comes to politics doesn't speak well to the possibility of national fraternity let alone a global one.

 

[michaeledward]

I am not saying that you have to go along to get along. I am saying that at the end of the day we all sleep under the same flag and status as citizen, there should be some decorum, respectful conduct that is maintained for mature discussion and consensus.

Do you have the time in your life/day to be in on every decision that the governments have to make? Do you have the time to research and become knowledgeable on all the issues, opinions....? Do you think that government should be wide open with intelligence gathering information/practices and technology? The open information argument is ideal but not realistic.

The 'us' and 'them' tone when it comes to politics doesn't speak well to the possibility of national fraternity let alone a global one.

It seems that you keep trying to change from the topic of the discussion to the tone of the discussion. Am I mistaken?

Mike

 

[loki09789]

It seems that you keep trying to change from the topic of the discussion to the tone of the discussion. Am I mistaken?

Mike

My comments are about the tone. The topic of the test and where it places people, I have already commented on. The term 'enemy' in reference to the POTUS and the implications/perceptions that it reveals establish a tone. I think that reasonable adults who have made the choice to exercise our right to vote, but have no interest in political office, do have the right to comment on and scrutinize our officials. But the way we do, and the words we choose reflect on us as much as they do on the topic or person we are commenting on. We all choose to focus on the data, references and actions that will support our agenda and see it as more valid than the counter data, ref., and actions.... Opinions are opinions.

Based on where most people, who have no problem with it, have landed on this compass test there is a bent toward the anarchy, so it is not surprising to find my comments that demonstrate some hope and faith in the agendas and purpose of our officials as unwelcome or ignorant. They are chosen, voted and accepted leaders. Leaders are only as successful as their followers. Even the losing candidates model this sense of national fraternity in formal statements of support for the newly elected official (POTUS or otherwise), regardless of party affilitations. Sometimes being a good follower means speaking up, sometimes it means taking a leap of faith. Sometimes it means protesting... but nothing good comes of 'enemy' language accept further fighting. Fix the problem not the blame: Vote him out or compete against him if you want to 'fix' this.

 

[Tgace]

It will be nice if this bill gets signed into law, however, I don't think that will happen any time soon. If we look at paragraphs 14 & 15, we can see why, I think this bill will never end up on the presidents desk.

(14) Nothing in this Act permits the Government, even in wartime, to detain American citizens or other persons lawfully in the United States as enemy combatants indefinitely without charges and hold them incommunicado without a hearing and without access to counsel on the basis of a unilateral determination that the person may be connected with an organization that intends harm to the United States. The Supreme Court has held that even enemy aliens within the United States are entitled to habeas review of their conviction. Ex Parte Quirin, 317 U.S. 1 (1942); Johnson v. Eisentrager, 339 U.S. 763 (1950).

(15) The validity of the detention of citizens as enemy combatants may be challenged by a writ of habeas corpus. As the right of habeas corpus may be effectively nullified by denial of the assistance of counsel, a citizen detained as an enemy combatant may not be indefinitely denied access to counsel.


​

John Ashcroft & Donald Rumsfeld do not want Jose Padilla to have the right to a lawyer. As a reminder, Jose Padilla is an American Citizen, who was detained in Chicago, Illinois. He is accused of plotting to use a 'Dirty Bomb', but has been held for more than a year without access to a lawyer, or to the US Court system.


Now, they may have a case with Yaser Hamdi. Even though he is an American Citizen, he was apprehending in Afghanistan, fighting on the side of the Taliban. Should he have access to the American Court system? A lawyer? He is not even classified as a 'Prisoner of War', and thus not eligible for the protections of the Geneva Conventions.

Mike

Like I said, its a good issue to test the legality of, but its not something new the POTUS cooked up...new styles of war create new rules, we need to figure out what those are and how we implement them.