Mitch McConnell: Tea Party Is "Ruining" GOP

Page 5 of 8 [ 118 posts ]  Go to page Previous  1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8  Next

JSBACHlover
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 19 Oct 2013
Age: 50
Gender: Male
Posts: 2,282

03 Dec 2013, 11:31 pm

GGPViper wrote:
JSBACHlover wrote:
GGPViper wrote:
The 1st, 4th and 9th Amendment, and according to Supreme Court case law in the following cases:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Griswold_v._Connecticut
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Roe_v._Wade
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lawrence_v._Texas
Roe v. Wade vastly limited the prospects of a police state and judicial tyranny. If you were genuinely concerned about the powers of government, then you would embrace Roe v. Wade unconditionally.

I read the above and my immediate reaction was ... I don't think you have ever studied law.

You listed the 9th amendment (why I have no idea) but I did not see you list the 14th Amendment here, which was the primary argument for the 7-2 decision in Griswold_v._Connecticut, which then became the precedent for Roe vs. Wade. In other words, it seems you were just copying and pasting decisions that you liked.

No, it wasn't. Please read Griswold v. Connecticut before pointing fingers at others.

The 14th Amendment reference was from the concurring opinion by Justice Goldberg (and thus not the official 7-2 opinion, which was judicial activism in overdrive). But I'm glad that you mentioned that case... Because here are two excerpts from the Goldberg concurrence:

Although I have not accepted the view that "due process," as used in the Fourteenth Amendment, incorporates all of the first eight Amendments (see my concurring opinion in Pointer v. Texas, , and the dissenting opinion of MR. JUSTICE BRENNAN in Cohen v. Hurley), I do agree that the concept of liberty protects those personal rights that are fundamental, and is not confined to the specific terms of the Bill of Rights. My conclusion that the concept of liberty is not so restricted, and that it embraces the right of marital privacy, though that right is not mentioned explicitly in the Constitution, is supported both by numerous decisions of this Court, referred to in the Court's opinion, and by the language and history of the Ninth Amendment.

This Court, in a series of decisions, has held that the Fourteenth Amendment absorbs and applies to the States those specifics of the first eight amendments which express fundamental personal rights. [b]The language and history of the Ninth Amendment
reveal that the Framers of the Constitution believed that there are additional fundamental rights, protected from governmental infringement, which exist alongside those fundamental rights specifically mentioned in the first eight constitutional amendments.

And the Roe v. Wade Opinion twice referred to the Goldberg concurrence when justifying their ruling.

If you have no idea why I referred to the 9th Amendment, then perhaps you should think twice before pointing at others for not understanding US law.

JSBACHlover wrote:
And then you state that Roe vs. Wade is an expansion of freedom? Its main argument is to consider the unborn baby as a kind of personal property, which is a position akin to what happened under slavery, which allowed for certain races of peoples to be treated also as private property. I therefore don't understand how you can view this as an expansion of freedom. Rather, it appears to be a contraction of human rights, and a giant step backwards.

The typical rhetorical device. You start by making the claim "unborn baby" - without actually reflecting on whether or not a few cells at the very earliest stages of pregnancy (zygotes) can meaningfully be considered unborn babies. You argument only holds if people accept that premise. I do not.

Instead, I see Roe vs. Wade as one of the most powerful safeguards against government power (and against subversions of the Establishment and Free Exercise Clauses of the 1st Amendment, as anti-abortion attitudes in the US tend to correlate highly with specific religious attitudes). Considering the historical tendency for governments to be excessive busybodies when it comes to all aspects of the lives of women, Roe v. Wade should be a beacon of hope for anyone who champions limited government and individual freedom.


1) Sorry for pointing fingers at you so harshly. It's been a while since I have studied this case. I was thinking that Griswold v Connecticut cited Amendments 1, 3, 4, 5, and 8; but my memory failed me. I double-checked. You were right it was not 8 but 9. Yet what caught my eye in your original posting was your omission of 14, that that was the primary Amendment considered by Justice Douglas in the Majority Opinion. So when you omitted it, I made the assumption that you were cherry-picking from Wikipedia. I apologize. Although, again, I don't know why you omitted it.
2) As for Roe v Wade, you state "The typical rhetorical device. You start by making the claim "unborn baby" - without actually reflecting on whether or not a few cells at the very earliest stages of pregnancy (zygotes) can meaningfully be considered unborn babies. You argument only holds if people accept that premise. I do not. " I understand that. Now, I do indeed consider those "few cells" a human person. However, in practice, the law allows for abortion on any fetus well into the 2nd trimester, and even well into the 8th month. Any denial of the existence of a human person in the womb by appealing to the rhetoric of a "few cells" is sidestepping the issue. If you honestly think that aborting a 7-month old fetus is a great triumph in human rights and an example of "limited government," well, then just say so.



sonofghandi
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 17 Apr 2007
Age: 40
Gender: Male
Posts: 4,672
Location: Cleveland, OH (and not the nice part)

04 Dec 2013, 7:33 am

JSBACHlover wrote:
However, in practice, the law allows for abortion on any fetus well into the 2nd trimester, and even well into the 8th month. Any denial of the existence of a human person in the womb by appealing to the rhetoric of a "few cells" is sidestepping the issue. If you honestly think that aborting a 7-month old fetus is a great triumph in human rights and an example of "limited government," well, then just say so.


Just for the record, even in the most liberal states, the latest you can have an abortion is 24 weeks (2nd trimester) unless it can be documented by a qualified physician that the mother's life is in danger. In most states the limit is 14 weeks, and even less in some of the more conservative states.

I do think that the government minimizing its legal authority over the prevention of abortion is much more limiting to it than being allowed to pass law after law placing more and more restrictions on abortion.

I also don't see how believing that a fetus is a group of cells is sidestepping the issue. It seems quite relevant to me.


_________________
"The surest way to corrupt a youth is to instruct him to hold in higher esteem those who think alike than those who think differently" -Nietzsche


GGPViper
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 23 Sep 2009
Gender: Male
Posts: 5,139

04 Dec 2013, 9:42 am

JSBACHlover wrote:
2) As for Roe v Wade, you state "The typical rhetorical device. You start by making the claim "unborn baby" - without actually reflecting on whether or not a few cells at the very earliest stages of pregnancy (zygotes) can meaningfully be considered unborn babies. You argument only holds if people accept that premise. I do not. " I understand that. Now, I do indeed consider those "few cells" a human person. However, in practice, the law allows for abortion on any fetus well into the 2nd trimester, and even well into the 8th month. Any denial of the existence of a human person in the womb by appealing to the rhetoric of a "few cells" is sidestepping the issue. If you honestly think that aborting a 7-month old fetus is a great triumph in human rights and an example of "limited government," well, then just say so.

Here are the actual 2005 abortion statistics compiled by the CDC:

Image

Source:
http://www.cdc.gov/mmwr/preview/mmwrhtm ... 1.htm#fig4
http://www.cdc.gov/mmwr/preview/mmwrhtm ... .htm#tab16

The vast, vast, vast majority of abortions (94.8 percent in total in the CDC study cited, to be exact) are performed within the first 15 weeks of gestation, and 62.1 percent are perform within the first 8 weeks.

So I am less than impressed by the late-term abortion argument for repealing Roe v. Wade. Furthermore, Planned Parenthood vs. Casey replaced the 28/24 week threshold set by Wade v. Roe with an "Undue Burden" standard that allowed States to limit access to abortion even at earlier stages of pregnancy. And as sonofghandi pointed out, that is exactly what the States have done.

In fact, there is currently a court case being fought over whether Texas is unconstitutionally abusing this power to effectively prevent women from seeking earlier elective abortions.


_________________
Our comforting conviction that the world makes sense rests on a secure foundation: our almost unlimited ability to ignore our ignorance.

- Daniel Kahneman


Thelibrarian
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 5 Aug 2012
Age: 57
Gender: Male
Posts: 2,089
Location: Deep in the heart of Texas

04 Dec 2013, 10:16 am

alpineglow wrote:
^ that's quite an intense story jsbachlover. I'm glad you've posted it.
Thelibrarian, I willl check it out if it is at our library.
theLibrarian wrote:
...Alpineglow, that is an interesting, if not horrifying, question. My guess is that the blue states would form one country and the red states would form another. The horrors come into play since there are pockets of Americans in the blue states, and pockets of post-Americans in the red states. This is why I think it is such a shame the South, and like-minded states, weren't to secede in 1861. This war would be over rather than just beginning.

And war is just the word. I don't have time to look for figures, but when India was partitioned into Muslim and Hindu areas, I understand about ten million people died. I'm hoping we can sort out our differences more humanely.


I tend to ask horrifying qusestions. My intent is good. Because, I too would like to see humans sort out their differences more humanely than history suggests.


Actually, I've always known you to ask good, intelligent questions, and without the prejudice and intolerance of liberals. As for "horrifying", that is simply the way of history. The first step toward minimizing history's horrors is to educate liberals on the importance of REAL tolerance and diversity, which means respecting those who don't share their values and beliefs.



JSBACHlover
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 19 Oct 2013
Age: 50
Gender: Male
Posts: 2,282

04 Dec 2013, 10:25 am

"So I am less than impressed by the late-term abortion argument for repealing Roe v. Wade. Furthermore, Planned Parenthood vs. Casey replaced the 28/24 week threshold set by Wade v. Roe with an "Undue Burden" standard that allowed States to limit access to abortion even at earlier stages of pregnancy."

So a 9-10% rate of late abortions is an acceptable figure in your opinion? Moreover, according to your former reasoning, do you find Planned Parenthood vs. Casey to be a regression in human rights and of limited government infringement?



sonofghandi
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 17 Apr 2007
Age: 40
Gender: Male
Posts: 4,672
Location: Cleveland, OH (and not the nice part)

04 Dec 2013, 10:28 am

JSBACHlover wrote:
So a 9-10% rate of late abortions is an acceptable figure in your opinion?


I find it acceptable due to the fact that almost all of those late term abortions are cases where either the mother's life is in danger or the fetus is non-viable.


_________________
"The surest way to corrupt a youth is to instruct him to hold in higher esteem those who think alike than those who think differently" -Nietzsche


Thelibrarian
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 5 Aug 2012
Age: 57
Gender: Male
Posts: 2,089
Location: Deep in the heart of Texas

04 Dec 2013, 10:38 am

Actually, slavery was being strangled in an anaconda choke hold with leaving the status of each western state and territory as either slave or free up to popular vote. One of the Confederacy's long term goals had been to circumvent that with succession, in order to expand into Mexico, and Central and South America in order to keep slavery alive with new land for cotton fields. The Confederates had no intention of allowing slavery to die away.
And as far as southern slavery resembling serfdom - I'm sorry, but I just don't see it. European serfs of old were tied to the land and owed labor and produce to the landlord, but were hardly chattel to be bought and sold, and had no fear of having their families divided. As a matter of fact, share cropping, which replaced slavery and encompassed both freed slaves and poor whites, had much more in common with serfdom. And it ought to be remembered, serf rebellions were very common, as the serfs saw themselves little better off than slaves.
And while I don't doubt that many poor whites had supported the Confederacy, the fact remains that those opposed it were more than just Texas Germans. Newt Knight - a Mississippian with an Anglo-Saxon name - as well as his small guerrilla army made up of Confederate army deserters and and escaped slaves, were hardly Texas Germans.

Actually, the abomination of Dred Scott was a major cause of the Civil War. What this decision in effect said was that slaves were personal property, and it was a violation of the property rights of slaveholders not to let them have their property wherever they wished. In effect, had this decision been carried out, it would have made all states slave states. Most Southerners were actually opposed to this abomination, as it negated the Somersett precedent which had governed slavery laws since before the country's founding:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Slavery_at_common_law

As far as the Confederacy expanding, you are half right. There was a group called the Golden Circle, the most radical of whom did advocate expanding in to Mexico. But most of them would have been happy taking over the Caribbean slave strongholds, such as Jamaica and Barbados.

While this movement was hardly universally popular in the South, the more moderate version did make some sense. We are used to hearing about the original thirteen colonies, but there were actually twenty-six if British holdings in the Caribbean and central America are included. Many Southerners thought it was a terrible mistake ever to ally with the northern states for independence. Instead, this group wanted to ally with Britain's Caribbean and central American colonies to form an independent nation that same as northeastern Yankees had their eyes on taking over Canada.

Again, the Golden Circle was far from popular; most Southerners simply wanted to leave the union, whether they owned slaves or not. They were as sick of liberal oppression as modern conservatives are.

As far as the Confederates not allowing slavery to die, why do you think that? Were they all-powerful like God? Or is it possible that they didn't control the events that would have led to the downfall of slavery? Remember, it ended everywhere else peacefully. The difference in the US was intolerant liberalism that wanted to destroy everything and everybody that was different.

You are right that European serfs were tied to the land. That is the major difference between Southern slavery and European serfdom. The primary reason for this difference is that the US wasn't settled, but was expanding westward. And since the Constitution outlawed the importation of slaves in 1808, the existing slave population had to be moved along with the slaveholders.

Actually, serfdom had nothing in common with sharecropping. Sharecroppers had no legal rights to the land, and were removed from it at will. There was also no sense of noblesse oblige present with sharecropping.

As far as serf rebellions were concerned, they did happen, but they were hardly the rule.

As far as serfs not being any better off than slaves, the only place I know that to be the case was Russia. The fact is that in western Europe, serfs had customary rights the same as Southern slaves did. It was in the liberal north that slaves had no rights, and this is why one of the biggest slave revolts in American history took place in NYC:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/New_York_S ... lt_of_1712

And

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/New_York_C ... cy_of_1741



JSBACHlover
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 19 Oct 2013
Age: 50
Gender: Male
Posts: 2,282

04 Dec 2013, 10:43 am

sonofghandi wrote:
JSBACHlover wrote:
So a 9-10% rate of late abortions is an acceptable figure in your opinion?


I find it acceptable due to the fact that almost all of those late term abortions are cases where either the mother's life is in danger or the fetus is non-viable.


I'm sorry, but, that's not true. As for this thread of debate: I'm done. Peace.



Thelibrarian
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 5 Aug 2012
Age: 57
Gender: Male
Posts: 2,089
Location: Deep in the heart of Texas

04 Dec 2013, 10:46 am

JSBACHlover wrote:
GGPViper wrote:
The 1st, 4th and 9th Amendment, and according to Supreme Court case law in the following cases:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Griswold_v._Connecticut
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Roe_v._Wade
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lawrence_v._Texas
Roe v. Wade vastly limited the prospects of a police state and judicial tyranny. If you were genuinely concerned about the powers of government, then you would embrace Roe v. Wade unconditionally.


I read the above and my immediate reaction was ... I don't think you have ever studied law. You listed the 9th amendment (why I have no idea) but I did not see you list the 14th Amendment here, which was the primary argument for the 7-2 decision in Griswold_v._Connecticut, which then became the precedent for Roe vs. Wade. In other words, it seems you were just copying and pasting decisions that you liked.

And then you state that Roe vs. Wade is an expansion of freedom? Its main argument is to consider the unborn baby as a kind of personal property, which is a position akin to what happened under slavery, which allowed for certain races of peoples to be treated also as private property. I therefore don't understand how you can view this as an expansion of freedom. Rather, it appears to be a contraction of human rights, and a giant step backwards.


I would say that regardless of how we feel about every single one of the aforementioned cases, that they were all Constitutional abominations, as the Constitution authorized NONE of them. This is krytarchy, or rule by judges. Since there was no way that the liberal cultural Marxists could get ANY of these abominations enacted into law the democratic way, they had to seize the courts.

Liberalism had had the curious effect of ensuring that constitutional law has no more to do with the Constitution than do daisies and chocolate eclairs. Claiming otherwise is part of liberalism's postmodern revolt against sanity and realit
y.



Thelibrarian
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 5 Aug 2012
Age: 57
Gender: Male
Posts: 2,089
Location: Deep in the heart of Texas

04 Dec 2013, 10:49 am

JSBACHlover wrote:
sonofghandi wrote:
What exactly is a wall going to do? They aren't going to stop coming because you build a ridiculously expensive wall for them to climb over or tunnel under.
Actually, if you engineer walls properly with sensory devices, etc. it would work just fine. Good walls usually stop people.


This is correct. The iron curtain and Berlin Wall were devastatingly effective in keeping people from crossing. And since Israel put up its wall separating Israel proper from the West Bank, suicide bombings have almost been completely eliminated; now, the worst dangers are rocket attacks because the Palestinians can't get over those walls.

The reason liberals don't like walls is because they actually work.



Thelibrarian
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 5 Aug 2012
Age: 57
Gender: Male
Posts: 2,089
Location: Deep in the heart of Texas

04 Dec 2013, 10:51 am

sonofghandi wrote:
JSBACHlover wrote:
I want to share something with the posters on this thread.

When I, a Yankee, moved to Mississippi for a job in the 1990s, I befriended an old man named Joe (he was friends with Eudora Welty and a gentleman in every respect. Joe is in his mid-90s by now and is slipping into senility).

Anyway, back in the 1920s, he was raised by his wet nurse"Tiola" who was black. When this little boy hurt himself he wouldn't go running to his mother but to Tiola. Tiola was considered part of the family. Tiola used to tell Joe stories, and one day she told him a story from her childhood, a story about the day when the slaves were freed. Most of the slave-owners (at least in Mississippi) considered their slaves to be part of the family, and most of the slaves had a genuine love for their masters, who fed them, clothed them, and taught them how to read. The masters did this because they were above all Christians, who felt responsible for their slaves. (This was Tiola's experience.)


I have some trouble with your story about a man who knew a former slave when he was a child being used as evidence of the overall treatment of slaves in Mississippi. And it was illegal to teach slaves how to read. And as for Christianity and slavery, there were plenty of passages taken from the Bible (Old and New Testaments) that were used as justification for treating slaves as livestock. Not to mention the fact that in many areas slaves were prohibited from religious gatherings of any type.

And yes, some slaves were treated well by their masters. But they were still slaves and property for their owners. Even if every single slave owner treated their slaves well, they still owned other human beings. Even without the horrors of slavery, that is wrong any way you slice it.


What passages justified treating slaves as "livestock"? One of the reason northerners abandoned Christianity at an early date was that the Bible in no way, shape, or form forbids slavery, though it does strongly encourage masters to treat their slaves humanely. I challenge you to show differently. Good luck.



The_Walrus
Forum Moderator
Forum Moderator

User avatar

Joined: 27 Jan 2010
Age: 24
Gender: Male
Posts: 6,371
Location: Reading, England

04 Dec 2013, 10:55 am

Thelibrarian wrote:
JSBACHlover wrote:
sonofghandi wrote:
What exactly is a wall going to do? They aren't going to stop coming because you build a ridiculously expensive wall for them to climb over or tunnel under.
Actually, if you engineer walls properly with sensory devices, etc. it would work just fine. Good walls usually stop people.


This is correct. The iron curtain and Berlin Wall were devastatingly effective in keeping people from crossing. And since Israel put up its wall separating Israel proper from the West Bank, suicide bombings have almost been completely eliminated; now, the worst dangers are rocket attacks because the Palestinians can't get over those walls.

The reason liberals don't like walls is because they actually work.

I think it is mostly because walls are illiberal.

Honestly, we should be more like divided Germany :roll:



Thelibrarian
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 5 Aug 2012
Age: 57
Gender: Male
Posts: 2,089
Location: Deep in the heart of Texas

04 Dec 2013, 11:01 am

sonofghandi wrote:
Thelibrarian wrote:
Your argument is hardly realistic since most of the US coastline is fully developed, and illegals would be spotted immediately. It is also the case that there are few problems with the US/Canadian border; it is the longest unguarded, and most peaceful, border in the world. But let's go ahead and assume the entire US border needs guarding equally.

The total border, including coastline, is about twenty thousand miles. This would mean a troop every hundred feet. Assume only one-quarter of them could be on duty at any given time, and that is still one troop for every four hundred feet.

Gmail could undoubtedly do a better and more efficient job with the mails. Just look at how the US government runs their health care website.


Your argument is hardly realistic since you assume that no one in the military would need to do any job other than watch the border. I guess in your imagination, no service members handle administration, maintenance and repair, transportation, engineering, cooking, cleaning, communications, command, regulatory compliance, weapons and ordinance handling, training or national defense. And none of them serve overseas. And none of them serve on Navy ships. And none of them ever go on leave. And all of them are as anti-illegal immigration as you are.

The coastlines are well developed, but that only means that illegals have to go a little farther up/down the coast. How many illegal Cubans live in Florida now (most of them didn't come over the Mexican border)? And if you've ever been to a shipping port, you know that spotting and stopping illegals there is damn near impossible. You also ignore the fact that there are plenty of illegals who come under the border.

You just seem to be calling for the majority of our national budget to be used for border patrol. The infrastructure set-up alone would cost a large fortune, and the logistics would be a nightmare. These are the same reasons that gmail would never get into the physical mail game (which is why I used them as an example). I am just saying that the amount of money you spend on border control is exponentially less effective with every dollar you throw at it. I just think that our priority should be long term economic growth, not keeping out people who want a better life. This country was financially built on the labor of immigrants.


Not realistic? Surely you jest, sir. The primary purpose of the army is to keep the nation safe from invasion, and illegal immigration by definition is invasion. Thus, during time of invasion, troops who would ordinarily be pushing paper and such man their battle stations. For example, when I was in the Navy (as you claim you were), during general quarters, cooks and paper pushers manned their battle stations.

You are also assuming that we would actually need a troop every hundred feet. You are also assuming that non-combat personnel have no role in supporting combat. A lot of those non-combat types man radar and other devices that can do surveillance.

As far as your defeatism goes, a country that is not willing to defend its borders is not long for this world. For centuries, Romans defended their borders and created one of the mightiest empires the world has ever seen. When they quit defending their borders, the barbarians took over, putting the world into a dark age for a thousand years.

If the ancient Romans could defend their borders with ancient technology, it is silly to think the country with the most modern surveillance equipment in the world can't do the same. It's only a matter of having the will to use whatever it takes, up to and including the use of deadly force. Americans have to be prepared to use deadly force to defend their homes. It is no different with our country.



Last edited by Thelibrarian on 04 Dec 2013, 11:11 am, edited 1 time in total.

GGPViper
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 23 Sep 2009
Gender: Male
Posts: 5,139

04 Dec 2013, 11:04 am

JSBACHlover wrote:
GGPViper wrote:
"So I am less than impressed by the late-term abortion argument for repealing Roe v. Wade. Furthermore, Planned Parenthood vs. Casey replaced the 28/24 week threshold set by Wade v. Roe with an "Undue Burden" standard that allowed States to limit access to abortion even at earlier stages of pregnancy."

So a 9-10% rate of late abortions is an acceptable figure in your opinion?

How did 5.2 percent become 9-10 percent?

Furthermore, the CDC definition of "late" is a low estimate (16 weeks). Some set the criteria at 21 weeks (the very lowest bound for viability) in which case the percentage of late abortions would be just 1.4 percent according to the same CDC data.

Oh, and I just found some more recent 2010 statistics from CDC. Same pattern, though. Now, only 1.2 percent of abortions are performed at 21+ weeks.
http://www.cdc.gov/mmwr/preview/mmwrhtm ... ss6208a1_w

JSBACHlover wrote:
Moreover, according to your former reasoning, do you find Planned Parenthood vs. Casey to be a regression in human rights and of limited government infringement?

Probably not, as Planned Parenthood v. Casey essentially upheld the central provisions (the right to elective abortion) in Roe v. Wade. However, should the Supreme Court allows Texas to subvert the general right to elective abortion through various obstructionisms (last time I checked, this appears to be the *real* motive of the Texas Abortion Bill), then I would say that Planned Parenthood v. Casey would be a regression in human rights, as it would have provided insufficient safeguards against State abuse compared to Roe v. Wade by lowering the level of scrutiny.

If SCOTUS however strikes down the Texas Abortion Bill (or parts of it) then there may be no cause for alarm.


_________________
Our comforting conviction that the world makes sense rests on a secure foundation: our almost unlimited ability to ignore our ignorance.

- Daniel Kahneman


Thelibrarian
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 5 Aug 2012
Age: 57
Gender: Male
Posts: 2,089
Location: Deep in the heart of Texas

04 Dec 2013, 11:09 am

The_Walrus wrote:
Thelibrarian wrote:
JSBACHlover wrote:
sonofghandi wrote:
What exactly is a wall going to do? They aren't going to stop coming because you build a ridiculously expensive wall for them to climb over or tunnel under.
Actually, if you engineer walls properly with sensory devices, etc. it would work just fine. Good walls usually stop people.


This is correct. The iron curtain and Berlin Wall were devastatingly effective in keeping people from crossing. And since Israel put up its wall separating Israel proper from the West Bank, suicide bombings have almost been completely eliminated; now, the worst dangers are rocket attacks because the Palestinians can't get over those walls.

The reason liberals don't like walls is because they actually work.

I think it is mostly because walls are illiberal.

Honestly, we should be more like divided Germany :roll:


Walls are illiberal. Then, liberalism is a pipe dream until they can teach the world to hold hands, smoke pot, and sing We Are The World in perfect harmony.

As far as "divided Germany" goes, you missed my point entirely. We put walls around the things we love and wish to protect. One of the problems with liberalism is that liberals think more of their TV's and toaster ovens (they put house walls around these things) than they do the country that has given them everything. I want America to be a gated community.