Which will happen first, the Republicans destroy the rule of law or the rule of law will destroy ...

[Victorian Gray]

I love all the mock piety from conservatives because Obama. Al Awlaki was actively engaged in insurrection against the Yemeni govt we supported. You know, an Al Qaeda terrorist, a very effective recruiter & inspirational figure for them. We didn't need any more of a legal framework to kill him than we do for any other terrorist in similar circumstances. Yemeni law applies in Yemen, not US law. They wanted him dead & we obliged. Civil war is like that. Like I said, if he wanted the protections of American law he could have walked into any consulate or embassy to receive it.

Extrajudicial killing for the win. Go America!

And I guess his son should have picked picked a different father.

"ADAMSON: ...It's an American citizen that is being targeted without due process, without trial. And, he's underage. He's a minor.

GIBBS: I would suggest that you should have a far more responsible father if they are truly concerned about the well being of their children. I don't think becoming an al Qaeda jihadist terrorist is the best way to go about doing your business."

https://www.theatlantic.com/politic...the-killing-of-a-16-year-old-american/264028/

 

[dank69]

Extrajudicial killing for the win. Go America!

And I guess his son should have picked picked a different father.

"ADAMSON: ...It's an American citizen that is being targeted without due process, without trial. And, he's underage. He's a minor.

GIBBS: I would suggest that you should have a far more responsible father if they are truly concerned about the well being of their children. I don't think becoming an al Qaeda jihadist terrorist is the best way to go about doing your business."

https://www.theatlantic.com/politic...the-killing-of-a-16-year-old-american/264028/

Did we ever find out why the kid was killed? He wasn't on the kill list. Was he collateral damage?

 

[Victorian Gray]

Did we ever find out why the kid was killed? He wasn't on the kill list. Was he collateral damage?

He was "collateral damage" in a different missile strike.

 

[dank69]

He was "collateral damage" in a different missile strike.

Okay, so while tragic, it's not really germane to the discussion about extrajudicial killing.

 

[Victorian Gray]

Okay, so while tragic, it's not really germane to the discussion about extrajudicial killing.

Yeah, it is but don't worry about it. You country doesn't seem to stand for a heck of a lot anymore so what's a few dead folks killed without trial along with a whole mess of "collateral damage". Fuck due process and anyone who gets caught in the crossfire, too bad, so sad.

https://www.aclu.org/blog/national-security/death-without-due-process

 

[Moonbeam]

Another post I fucked up and lost.

 

[dank69]

Yeah, it is but don't worry about it. You country doesn't seem to stand for a heck of a lot anymore so what's a few dead folks killed without trial along with a whole mess of "collateral damage". Fuck due process and anyone who gets caught in the crossfire, too bad, so sad.

https://www.aclu.org/blog/national-security/death-without-due-process

It's germane to the topic of whether or not we should be drone striking anyone. It's not really germane to the topic of extrajudicial killings.

 

[Noah Abrams]

Yeah, it is but don't worry about it. You country doesn't seem to stand for a heck of a lot anymore so what's a few dead folks killed without trial along with a whole mess of "collateral damage". Fuck due process and anyone who gets caught in the crossfire, too bad, so sad.

https://www.aclu.org/blog/national-security/death-without-due-process

When it comes to eliminating our "enemies", our country has never stood for anything - so the "anymore" point is not valid at least in this context. You can keep going backwards and it is always the same. Vietnam, Hiroshima, man, woman, child, baby, My Lai, Eye-raq, Philippines, and on and on it goes. It also so happens that these babies and children happen to be non-white. Now this is what is the real white privilege of America, not some Starbucks or some other stupid crap masquerading as news. But I wouldn't expect this real issue to make prime time news, not now, not ever.

 

[Noah Abrams]

This is what Muhammad Ali had to say on his refusal to fight in Vietnam:

This is what I call a true American hero

--------
“Why should they ask me to put on a uniform and go ten thousand miles from home and drop bombs and bullets on brown people in Vietnam while so-called Negro people in Louisville are treated like dogs and denied simple human rights?

No, I am not going ten thousand miles from home to help murder and burn another poor nation simply to continue the domination of white slave masters of the darker people the world over. This is the day when such evils must come to an end. I have been warned that to take such a stand would put my prestige in jeopardy and could cause me to lose millions of dollars which should accrue to me as the champion.

But I have said it once and I will say it again. The real enemy of my people is right here. I will not disgrace my religion, my people or myself by becoming a tool to enslave those who are fighting for their own justice, freedom and equality…

If I thought the war was going to bring freedom and equality to 22 million of my people they wouldn’t have to draft me, I’d join tomorrow. But I either have to obey the laws of the land or the laws of Allah. I have nothing to lose by standing up for my beliefs. So I’ll go to jail. We’ve been in jail for four hundred years.”

 

[Noah Abrams]

This is the guy who made real sacrifice, got stripped of his title, got in financial trouble, got reviled - all so that he didn't have to go kill innocent people. This materialistic shallow greedy culture of America, to have had gems like this...its beautiful beyond words...

 

[Noah Abrams]

Another post I fucked up and lost.

I don’t know what is winning or losing but I for one appreciate your contributions on this forum. Personally am not even sure why I’m here since am not even interested in politics

 

[Moonbeam]

I don’t know what is winning or losing but I for one appreciate your contributions on this forum. Personally am not even sure why I’m here since am not even interested in politics

I am a klutz. I often hit post just after I hit reply which leaves the post I meant to reply to quoted but empty of comment. I then go and edit the post and in the middle or near the end of saying what I wanted to say, I hit some key and it cancels the edit. I haven't yet, it seems, learned not to do this and if there is anything I hate, it's having to do something a second time when it never ever feels as right as the first time. I want to reply but I will almost never ever do it twice. Everything for me is in the spontaneous creation and everything else is just work. I really don't like work. So I meant not winning and losing but posting or having my post disappear before I can post it. I'm not interested exactly interested in politics either, but I am interested is most everything including human nature which is one way of seeing politics.

After I lost the post I was going to retry answering it but I got called away to help my niece and haven't been back until now so I may as well at least respond to something of yours I had earlier wanted to respond to:

It isn't that there is no such thing as good and evil. It is that good and evil are ideas created by a duality possible via language to create things that don't exist but do exist as the result of the persistent belief that the duality is real. This is a paradoxical concept that require a mystical, higher cognitive connection, inspiration, insight, peek experience, etc. to comprehend. Thought is fear. Thought is time. Thought is memory of the past, meanings with emotional experiences connected to sound, the sound of works. A tree is not a word nor is a tree anything language can convey. Tree is the concept we create in our head that stands for something we first experiences undifferentiated from the forest and the reflections of light from the oneness of everything that entered our eyes. Language creates thought and thought divides. It also evokes our conditioning, what we experiences as a result of words, like you are bad.

Good and bad do not exist because there is only perfection, unity, undifferentiated being. The way we once saw the world was with the joy contained in our being, the animal love of life so much more potent in humans, I think, than in any other animal life, but one we can lose via being put down with words and language, by being conditioned to perceive and to feel utter nonsense. When you think there is no good or evil, that is for the Buddhist, I believe, not an amoral condition. It is a condition in which there has returned the love that comes via being. Good automatically creates evil and evil creates the idea of good, but for the lover there is only love. Being admits no though, no fear, no time. This realization, I believe, happens to people and it changes everything about how they see things.

 

[Moonbeam]

You can believe he cares about Al Awlaki if you want. I don't buy it for a second.

You can also believe that what I see in him is what I really see in me, and you'd be right. I don't give a shit about Al Awlaki either, and wouldn't care if he was killed by GW instead of Obama. You don't get to renounce your citizenship and join a terrorist group dedicated to harming the remaining citizens and then expect to still be protected by the rights conferred by the citizenship you renounced. Bull-fucking-shit and anyone arguing otherwise is just as full of shit. There is no slippery slope here. This doesn't lead to a President being judge and executioner against any citizen he doesn't like, unless he can somehow get that citizen to renounce his citizenship and declare war on the US.

Hell I bet if you asked Al Awlaki if he wanted citizenship protection he would not.

So you see, dear Moonie, we are left with the choices of Genx being stupid or being dishonest. There aren't many people here I would classify as stupid.

OK, let me try again. The error you make here, in my opinion, is to assume his argument is based on a phony concern for the terrorist. He doesn't care about the terrorist per say, but about the principle. This, therefore, does not deny the principle of a slippery slope.......add in here a lengthy explanation of how dangerous such a slippery slope actually is and how important it is that a president be serious in making exceptions. Ive lost interest in making a full case over again.

 

[Jhhnn]

OK, let me try again. The error you make here, in my opinion, is to assume his argument is based on a phony concern for the terrorist. He doesn't care about the terrorist per say, but about the principle. This, therefore, does not deny the principle of a slippery slope.......add in here a lengthy explanation of how dangerous such a slippery slope actually is and how important it is that a president be serious in making exceptions. Ive lost interest in making a full case over again.

The only reason conservatives go on about Al Awlaki is because Obama. Never mind that the guy was engaged in armed insurrection against a govt we supported at the time.

They still think Gitmo is a great idea even though it's only there because we can't make a case against the prisoners in an honest court of law. I mean, if we could we would, right?

I'm interested to see how they look at this-

https://www.washingtonpost.com/loca...7a8c409298b_story.html?utm_term=.5ae7b0392413

I figure that he can either come back to the US or go to KSA. And if we can't make a case against him in an American court then we have to set him free.

 

[Noah Abrams]

It isn't that there is no such thing as good and evil. It is that good and evil are ideas created by a duality possible via language to create things that don't exist but do exist as the result of the persistent belief that the duality is real. This is a paradoxical concept that require a mystical, higher cognitive connection, inspiration, insight, peek experience, etc. to comprehend. Thought is fear. Thought is time. Thought is memory of the past, meanings with emotional experiences connected to sound, the sound of works. A tree is not a word nor is a tree anything language can convey. Tree is the concept we create in our head that stands for something we first experiences undifferentiated from the forest and the reflections of light from the oneness of everything that entered our eyes. Language creates thought and thought divides. It also evokes our conditioning, what we experiences as a result of words, like you are bad.

Good and bad do not exist because there is only perfection, unity, undifferentiated being. The way we once saw the world was with the joy contained in our being, the animal love of life so much more potent in humans, I think, than in any other animal life, but one we can lose via being put down with words and language, by being conditioned to perceive and to feel utter nonsense. When you think there is no good or evil, that is for the Buddhist, I believe, not an amoral condition. It is a condition in which there has returned the love that comes via being. Good automatically creates evil and evil creates the idea of good, but for the lover there is only love. Being admits no though, no fear, no time. This realization, I believe, happens to people and it changes everything about how they see things.

I can see your perspective, at least to some extent. I understand what you mean by the reality created by the ego-ic mind. I understand what you mean the essence of each of us, is the being. Which is separate from the mind. But the mind does lead people to do both things which may appear good or bad. Someone who hugs their child vs someone who curses and hits their child. Perhaps the motivation for both is coming from the mind. Or to ask - those that hurt and damaged you - how do you view them now? Have you been able to 'forgive' them, whatever meaning that word has...

 

[dank69]

OK, let me try again. The error you make here, in my opinion, is to assume his argument is based on a phony concern for the terrorist. He doesn't care about the terrorist per say, but about the principle. This, therefore, does not deny the principle of a slippery slope.......add in here a lengthy explanation of how dangerous such a slippery slope actually is and how important it is that a president be serious in making exceptions. Ive lost interest in making a full case over again.

I've lost posts before and it sucks. Look, I can understand the concern for slippery slopes but in this case the time to be concerned is when (if) we ever start slipping. Not here. There are clear bright lines that must be crossed before something like this becomes an option.

 

[Moonbeam]

I've lost posts before and it sucks. Look, I can understand the concern for slippery slopes but in this case the time to be concerned is when (if) we ever start slipping. Not here. There are clear bright lines that must be crossed before something like this becomes an option.

I have no problem with a debate on whether or not the degree of presence or absence of a slippery slope, or how to define one. I think we can all use listening to each other on such matters, People have valuable perspectives others may not have acquired and can benefit from. What I don't so much like is dismissing people's points of views as if there were no moral values at root as motivations for those opinions. We can debate the soundness of a value that has its roots in some moral sentiment only if we credit that person with a moral, even a misapplied moral concern. There is very little evil in life, in my opinion, that does not at its root, have good intentions. Evil is the belief that something is good that is not. We need to change the particular belief, not the belief that doing good is not good, which is what people hear when their moral concerns are simply rejected as having a moral core. There is a paradox and a complexity here I hope my words reach, but you need to have seen certain things in yourself, I think, for what I am saying to really make sense. Anyway...........

 

[dank69]

I have no problem with a debate on whether or not the degree of presence or absence of a slippery slope, or how to define one. I think we can all use listening to each other on such matters, People have valuable perspectives others may not have acquired and can benefit from. What I don't so much like is dismissing people's points of views as if there were no moral values at root as motivations for those opinions. We can debate the soundness of a value that has its roots in some moral sentiment only if we credit that person with a moral, even a misapplied moral concern. There is very little evil in life, in my opinion, that does not at its root, have good intentions. Evil is the belief that something is good that is not. We need to change the particular belief, not the belief that doing good is not good, which is what people hear when their moral concerns are simply rejected as having a moral core. There is a paradox and a complexity here I hope my words reach, but you need to have seen certain things in yourself, I think, for what I am saying to really make sense. Anyway...........

Great, well I called for debate when I asked how a future President could exploit this legal framework in the future and got nothing. Maybe he missed it. Maybe he is just interested in bashing liberals.

 

[Hayabusa Rider]

Another post I fucked up and lost.

Perhaps the most profound post in this thread.

I've tested the waters with my crappy poll and thread and it provided results in spite of that. In this forum Republicans are the target for ire and while that is well earned, there is more than violating the rule of law and that's accepting it when it's seen to be to "our" advantage. There's a moral cowardice among some partisans for political pragmatism which allows, no encourages others to go even further in violating the rule of law.

I see the Founders sitting around looking down and talking among themselves. Having risked their necks, literally, they fought against a land that didn't provide the justice and freedoms they felt they lacked. They fought for a nation of freedoms and the rule of law.

Jefferson stands up and announces

"Another nation fucked up and lost"

 

[Moonbeam]

I can see your perspective, at least to some extent. I understand what you mean by the reality created by the ego-ic mind. I understand what you mean the essence of each of us, is the being. Which is separate from the mind. But the mind does lead people to do both things which may appear good or bad. Someone who hugs their child vs someone who curses and hits their child. Perhaps the motivation for both is coming from the mind. Or to ask - those that hurt and damaged you - how do you view them now? Have you been able to 'forgive' them, whatever meaning that word has...

I am not important. I would answer your question this way. If you have experienced moments of being with it, of going with the flow, of creative presence, of spontaneity, of I don't know what to call it, and compare that to an introspective state. Compare Rodin's The Thinker, with a picture of the Buddha, you will have experienced in these to postures a different mental state. When you see that the mind is capable of different conscious states you will see what it means to wear colored glasses, what is behind different attitudes, that at root our psychological state represents an unconscious manifestation of belief. For me being is the state that happens when there is no belief because belief changes reality so the real can only be when belief is not driving it.

This is sort of what it means to be relaxed or up tight.

So belief is a kind of trigger that creates a psychological state, the dog that has been beaten will cringe and cower and show submission at the sight of a whip, or it may attack. Triggers are hard to recover from. But besides the physical pain we have suffered there is the mental pain of belief that was the intention of that physical pain, usually that it was deserved because of something we did. The point is that it is our capacity with language that allows us to put each other down, to ascribe evil to a person and make them buy into it. A traumatic experience, then, may have a physical component but it is the psychological component that does not heal long after the physical pain has gone away, but can be healed if that pain is returned to consciousness say via psychoanalysis. Suffering, then, is the experience of feeling ones own pain, and fear is the absolute suppression of it, the full blown experience of holding back from feeling anything. Fear is like death, not feeling, not being alive. This is why there is a saying attributed to Jesus that goes, 'If you but suffered you would not suffer." Suffering, letting go, becoming conscious of what we feel, when at maximum extent puts a person right back into some traumatic event, such that one suddenly remembers when one felt that feeling last. That changes everything. To suffer is to grieve and to suffer grief for oneself is to heal. To heal is to be free of pain that one once felt, and forgiveness is therefore automatic. There is nothing to forgive.

All evil is done to get even for or to prevent the experience of pain. It is an unconscious act that can only happen when we are unaware of motivation. To be conscious of what we are unconscious of requires time and effort and willingness to risk. It isn't something the ego can will because the ego is there to maintain unconsciousness. The ego is self-deceit. So myself, and everybody else, in my opinion can only forgive what we have become aware of. My guess is that I don't even know all the grudges I hold. But I am aware that I and everybody else who sleeps is a programmed machine. You can't logically blame a machine for mechanical behavior. There are different levels of forgiveness, perhaps.

 

[Moonbeam]

Great, well I called for debate when I asked how a future President could exploit this legal framework in the future and got nothing. Maybe he missed it. Maybe he is just interested in bashing liberals.

Can you see why somebody would bash liberals our of a moral belief they are evil. I don't see much other reason to bash them than that? You do know, I hope, that conservatives understand the moral values of liberals much better than liberals understand the moral values of conservatives and that one doesn't have to fall too far from that apple tree to start to think, if you're a conservative, that also makes you morally superior.

 

[[DHT]Osiris]

A couple queries.

All evil is done to get even for or to prevent the experience of pain.

Do you feel this excludes the possibility of one simply 'being evil'? I don't like the term evil, as it implies morality which is a human construct.. but how about, Does this exclude the possibility of someone being innately inclined to acting in a way that is antithetical to normative social function, and societal cohesiveness? I feel as though I've met people like that, although I cannot guarantee their 'backstory' enough to verify that they are, in fact, free of experiences that would justify their behavior.

The ego is self-deceit.

What do you feel is a person's 'neutral state' then? When ego is removed from the equation. Is there any differentiation between individuals free of ego? Or are we 'copies' of each other in that state?

You can't logically blame a machine for mechanical behavior.

Does free will not exist, then? Just a layered response on top of an ego, built from past experiences and past (and present) emotions?

 

[Moonbeam]

Perhaps the most profound post in this thread.

I've tested the waters with my crappy poll and thread and it provided results in spite of that. In this forum Republicans are the target for ire and while that is well earned, there is more than violating the rule of law and that's accepting it when it's seen to be to "our" advantage. There's a moral cowardice among some partisans for political pragmatism which allows, no encourages others to go even further in violating the rule of law.

I see the Founders sitting around looking down and talking among themselves. Having risked their necks, literally, they fought against a land that didn't provide the justice and freedoms they felt they lacked. They fought for a nation of freedoms and the rule of law.

Jefferson stands up and announces

"Another nation fucked up and lost"

This might be on the order of Ready, Fire, Aim. It may also explain why I terrify everybody in my family by the fact that I can clean toilets without wearing or even worrying about not wearing gloves.

 

[Hayabusa Rider]

This might be on the order of Ready, Fire, Aim. It may also explain why I terrify everybody in my family by the fact that I can clean toilets without wearing or even worrying about not wearing gloves.

My wise grandfather always said to never shoot without recognizing your target and knowing what's behind it.

 

[dank69]

Can you see why somebody would bash liberals our of a moral belief they are evil. I don't see much other reason to bash them than that? You do know, I hope, that conservatives understand the moral values of liberals much better than liberals understand the moral values of conservatives and that one doesn't have to fall too far from that apple tree to start to think, if you're a conservative, that also makes you morally superior.

I can see that they do believe we are evil. I have posted as much many times. They will vote for child molesters before they vote for any liberal, even a fucking conservative DINO like Doug Jones.

I can only tell you why I think they see us that way: they have been programmed to see us that way by decades of agitprop. I'm sure it also has to do with self-hatred and ego, but it doesn't really matter.

I do know you have posted evidence that conservatives understand the moral values of liberals better, but I don't think I ever gave it more than a cursory glance. I suspect that the difference is marginal at best, because even if they know our values better than we know theirs, they clearly do not have what could be considered a good, or even fair understanding. If we assume that roughly 1 million of the 3.4 million posts in this forum are from conservative leaning members, I think it would be a safe bet that over 75% of them include at least one straw man. It is very rare that a conservative poster here frames their opponent's position accurately. I also suspect that liberals have a hard time understanding the moral values of conservatives because they aren't consistent, and even when they are they often make no God-damned sense.