7 ms·

> seems relatively small, and it seems to be mostly restricted to non-Americans or people that the American public don't really care about. For what it's worth

by bmelton 13y ago

> seems relatively small, and it seems to be mostly restricted to non-Americans or people that the American public don't really care about. For what it's worth - that's the very point of the poem, that it always starts with the undesirables, minorities, or peoples to whom the population wouldn't object to. The tacit implication there is that those people were all portrayed as evil first, allowing public acceptance of their abuse. For the most part, even after Hitler started murdering Jews, he was still enjoyed pretty strong popularity.

diminoten 13y ago
The poem is one massive slippery-slope fallacy, and it's also a poem, not reality. It's fiction. Just like 1984, Brave New World, or any other literary piece that gets bandied about these days. Absolutely zero anchor in reality. And "Jews" isn't the same as "terrorists". The US isn't going after people based on what they look like or who their parents are, they're going after people based on what they do and say. I know, it's shocking, that when you try to enter into violent combat with a nation-state, that nation-state is going to kill you. Those assholes.
- bmelton 13y ago
  > And "Jews" isn't the same as "terrorists". According to who, exactly? Who's to say that it isn't simply a placeholder for 'arab', or 'sheikh'? It's worth noting that I don't think it actually is, and I don't know of any specific abuses of the powers enumerated by the aforementioned acts -- but the point isn't what they're doing is wrong (though it is), it's that we've allowed the government to grant itself the authority powerful enough that, if they wanted to start killing Jews, or Arabs, or Sheikhs, or whomever, they could. The NDAA and Patriot Act give them the authority to do so. That is a very, very scary proposition to me. That we have abused such power in the past only lends further credence that we will again in the future, and while I don't mean to offend anyone's sensibilities in suggesting that our current administration is evil, there is literally nothing in place now to prevent us from electing a Hitleresque tyrant and him getting away with committing the slaughter of millions. "Slippery slope fallacy" is an odd accusation as well, considering that somewhat accurately synopsizes many distinct periods in our world's history leading up to genocide, politicide and democide. I'm sorry that you're so cavalier about the subject, but there's a very real argument that this is exactly the kind of authority the Constitution was designed to limit any single branch of the government from having with its separation of powers. If the executive branch has the power to detain or kill anyone it wishes with no Legislative or Judicial oversight, and the executive branch controls the US military, then there is literally no power that we can pretend it doesn't have.
  - diminoten 13y ago
    You're basically scared because someone other than you has power. It's sad you can't see past that fear.
    - bmelton 13y ago
      That's an entirely meritless accusation. I wouldn't want the power if it were handed to me, and frankly, if I were "in charge" of everything, the very first thing I would do is repeal any and every law that places anyone above, outside of, or beyond the purview of the law. Our nation was founded on the concept that nobody is exempt from the law, and the NDAA, Patriot Act and laws of their ilk are antithetical to that core tenet. They destroy the fifth amendment entirely, and do severe harm to other rights. That said, on the quality of your reply, I'll end this conversation here. Regards.
      - diminoten 13y ago
        Our nation was not founded on the concept that nobody is exempt from the law (see: Presidential pardons). That's an intellectually dishonest thing to say. What you suggest is quite simply stupid - should every enemy combatant be given the chance to take the lives of US citizens, just in the effort to give that combatant a trial? Hold trials on the battlefield? Your problem boils down to the fact that there are people out there in this world who have power, and you do not. This bothers you. The NDAA and the Patriot Act weren't created in a bubble, and if you actually want to understand what caused them to be written other than malice (seriously?), you ought to read more about the history surrounding the times, as well as current events today. Sometimes the US government goes too far, but not nearly as often, or nearly as extreme as you keep saying, and frankly it's just sad that someone like you can have even an infinitesimally small sway in how this country is run.
        bmelton 13y ago
        I'll respond to the little bit of your post that isn't a baseless ad hominem. Presidential pardons have legal validity for purposes of righting wrongdoings, travesties of justice, and for preventing excessive punishment of those unjustly sentenced for political crimes, etc. It's stated intent is to correct injustice, not perpetrate it. I'm not suggesting that every enemy combatant deserves trial -- in an active war, it is ridiculous to suggest that bullets are halted mid-air to conduct court. It is equally naive to suggest that the government is justified in the slaughter of everyone who might ever do us harm. Has it been abused, certainly. Show me a law that hasn't. The difference between pardon and NDAA-type of laws is that the latter has no redeeming characteristic. Its sole purpose is to vest a single person with the power to do literally whatever he wishes, without oversight, without scrutiny, without potential for remediation. There is no justice to be found in its exertion, even when used for noble intent. There are, or at least were, procedures in place that would have prevented such atrocity from occurring, but those procedures were nullified by the NDAA. There is no need for government oversight whatsoever, nor any reason to suggest that whomever happens to be president cannot simply murder whomever he wants under the guise of national interest. I understand that the NDAA and PATRIOT Act weren't created in a bubble, but as you have implored me to "study the history" (which I am well aware of, and don't understand what I might have said to convince you of my ignorance of an era that I was actively involved in), I would implore you to study the documents that led up to our nation's independence. Overwhelmingly, they point to the foulness of this sort of unchecked power, and the founding fathers literally made every effort to ensure that this sort of abuse never came to pass. Whether or not the NDAA or PATRIOT Act is ever used is irrelevant, their very existence negates the tenets of our central foundation of governance. > Sometimes the US government goes too far, but not nearly as often, or nearly as extreme as you keep saying The federal government goes beyond its Constitutional authority literally every single day in this nation. The government exerts federal control in California to arrest the proprietors of legal marijuana dispensaries. They do this by abusing the Interstate Commerce Clause. The Commerce Clause grants Congress the power "To regulate Commerce with foreign Nations, and among the several States, and with the Indian tribes" -- and by abusing the 'among', have defined that to mean that they can control any action within a state, whether or not that action may extend beyond a state's borders. The federal government further abuses the 'Necessary and Proper' clause to extend its powers beyond their section 8 enumerated powers. There are literally countless examples of federal overreach, some of which are gaining ground in recent times, like the overturning of DOMA (Thanks Obama). I'm sorry you don't see them, or don't see them as the overreach I so strongly believe them to be. Either way, I won't further engage in a conversation predicated on your baseless attacks due to a relatively minor disagreement on merits. I would encourage you to learn how to converse with others without resorting to ad hominem attacks. Your views aren't invalid just because I disagree with them, however strongly I might, and you'd do well to acknowledge as much.

by bmelton 13y ago

diminoten 13y ago

The poem is one massive slippery-slope fallacy, and it's also a poem, not reality. It's fiction. Just like 1984, Brave New World, or any other literary piece that gets bandied about these days. Absolutely zero anchor in reality. And "Jews" isn't the same as "terrorists". The US isn't going after people based on what they look like or who their parents are, they're going after people based on what they do and say. I know, it's shocking, that when you try to enter into violent combat with a nation-state, that nation-state is going to kill you. Those assholes.

bmelton 13y ago
> And "Jews" isn't the same as "terrorists". According to who, exactly? Who's to say that it isn't simply a placeholder for 'arab', or 'sheikh'? It's worth noting that I don't think it actually is, and I don't know of any specific abuses of the powers enumerated by the aforementioned acts -- but the point isn't what they're doing is wrong (though it is), it's that we've allowed the government to grant itself the authority powerful enough that, if they wanted to start killing Jews, or Arabs, or Sheikhs, or whomever, they could. The NDAA and Patriot Act give them the authority to do so. That is a very, very scary proposition to me. That we have abused such power in the past only lends further credence that we will again in the future, and while I don't mean to offend anyone's sensibilities in suggesting that our current administration is evil, there is literally nothing in place now to prevent us from electing a Hitleresque tyrant and him getting away with committing the slaughter of millions. "Slippery slope fallacy" is an odd accusation as well, considering that somewhat accurately synopsizes many distinct periods in our world's history leading up to genocide, politicide and democide. I'm sorry that you're so cavalier about the subject, but there's a very real argument that this is exactly the kind of authority the Constitution was designed to limit any single branch of the government from having with its separation of powers. If the executive branch has the power to detain or kill anyone it wishes with no Legislative or Judicial oversight, and the executive branch controls the US military, then there is literally no power that we can pretend it doesn't have.
- diminoten 13y ago
  You're basically scared because someone other than you has power. It's sad you can't see past that fear.
  - bmelton 13y ago
    That's an entirely meritless accusation. I wouldn't want the power if it were handed to me, and frankly, if I were "in charge" of everything, the very first thing I would do is repeal any and every law that places anyone above, outside of, or beyond the purview of the law. Our nation was founded on the concept that nobody is exempt from the law, and the NDAA, Patriot Act and laws of their ilk are antithetical to that core tenet. They destroy the fifth amendment entirely, and do severe harm to other rights. That said, on the quality of your reply, I'll end this conversation here. Regards.
    - diminoten 13y ago
      Our nation was not founded on the concept that nobody is exempt from the law (see: Presidential pardons). That's an intellectually dishonest thing to say. What you suggest is quite simply stupid - should every enemy combatant be given the chance to take the lives of US citizens, just in the effort to give that combatant a trial? Hold trials on the battlefield? Your problem boils down to the fact that there are people out there in this world who have power, and you do not. This bothers you. The NDAA and the Patriot Act weren't created in a bubble, and if you actually want to understand what caused them to be written other than malice (seriously?), you ought to read more about the history surrounding the times, as well as current events today. Sometimes the US government goes too far, but not nearly as often, or nearly as extreme as you keep saying, and frankly it's just sad that someone like you can have even an infinitesimally small sway in how this country is run.
      - bmelton 13y ago
        I'll respond to the little bit of your post that isn't a baseless ad hominem. Presidential pardons have legal validity for purposes of righting wrongdoings, travesties of justice, and for preventing excessive punishment of those unjustly sentenced for political crimes, etc. It's stated intent is to correct injustice, not perpetrate it. I'm not suggesting that every enemy combatant deserves trial -- in an active war, it is ridiculous to suggest that bullets are halted mid-air to conduct court. It is equally naive to suggest that the government is justified in the slaughter of everyone who might ever do us harm. Has it been abused, certainly. Show me a law that hasn't. The difference between pardon and NDAA-type of laws is that the latter has no redeeming characteristic. Its sole purpose is to vest a single person with the power to do literally whatever he wishes, without oversight, without scrutiny, without potential for remediation. There is no justice to be found in its exertion, even when used for noble intent. There are, or at least were, procedures in place that would have prevented such atrocity from occurring, but those procedures were nullified by the NDAA. There is no need for government oversight whatsoever, nor any reason to suggest that whomever happens to be president cannot simply murder whomever he wants under the guise of national interest. I understand that the NDAA and PATRIOT Act weren't created in a bubble, but as you have implored me to "study the history" (which I am well aware of, and don't understand what I might have said to convince you of my ignorance of an era that I was actively involved in), I would implore you to study the documents that led up to our nation's independence. Overwhelmingly, they point to the foulness of this sort of unchecked power, and the founding fathers literally made every effort to ensure that this sort of abuse never came to pass. Whether or not the NDAA or PATRIOT Act is ever used is irrelevant, their very existence negates the tenets of our central foundation of governance. > Sometimes the US government goes too far, but not nearly as often, or nearly as extreme as you keep saying The federal government goes beyond its Constitutional authority literally every single day in this nation. The government exerts federal control in California to arrest the proprietors of legal marijuana dispensaries. They do this by abusing the Interstate Commerce Clause. The Commerce Clause grants Congress the power "To regulate Commerce with foreign Nations, and among the several States, and with the Indian tribes" -- and by abusing the 'among', have defined that to mean that they can control any action within a state, whether or not that action may extend beyond a state's borders. The federal government further abuses the 'Necessary and Proper' clause to extend its powers beyond their section 8 enumerated powers. There are literally countless examples of federal overreach, some of which are gaining ground in recent times, like the overturning of DOMA (Thanks Obama). I'm sorry you don't see them, or don't see them as the overreach I so strongly believe them to be. Either way, I won't further engage in a conversation predicated on your baseless attacks due to a relatively minor disagreement on merits. I would encourage you to learn how to converse with others without resorting to ad hominem attacks. Your views aren't invalid just because I disagree with them, however strongly I might, and you'd do well to acknowledge as much.