This entry was posted
on Friday, December 2nd, 2011 at 7:08 am by Radley Balko
and is filed under General Criminal Justice.
You can follow any responses to this entry through the RSS 2.0 feed.
Both comments and pings are currently closed.
I have every confidence in the sagacity of the Republicans that the comparison of their eventual nominee with Obama will lead me once again to vote Libertarian.
The economy might have been better under president McCain, but I am sure everything else would have been worse. Gingrich is McCain with a more pleasant demeanor, less leadership ability, and a few more IQ points.
(The IQ points make him more interesting to listen to, but maybe more frightening in power.)
newshutz (#51): “The economy might have been better under president McCain, but I am sure everything else would have been worse.“
So McCain would increase troop levels in Afghanistan, keep troops in Iraq for years, go to war in Libya, keep Guantanamo open, continue federal persecution of medical marijuana, reduce transparency? He’d have Americans lining up to stand in nude scanners or be punished with molestation-type “patdowns”?
Of course, you have ObamaPelosiCare, which wouldn’t have come from McCain. Along with that came all the extra payoffs. ObamaPelosiCare prohibits any physician-owned hospitals from being built, or even being expanded, as a payoff to the American Hospital Association for backing the bill. Then there was the payoff to unions, the consequence of which is that we pay taxes now that union members don’t.
Speaking of unions, GM investors had a large portion of their ownership stolen and given to unions in the “restructuring”. Obama had the NLRB prevent Boeing from opening the SC plant (without giving in to the extortion recently).
Then there’s Solyndra, XL pipeline, gulf drilling.
McCain would have been a rotten president and he’s worse than the vast majority of Republicans on economics, foreign policy, and individual rights. But short of going to war with Iran, I can’t imagine the lives of the average Americans being any worse under any other candidate, either McCain or even Hillary Clinton.
If you vote Libertarian, you still agree to abide by the outcome of the election, whether it’s Obama or the Republican.
Me? I’ll skip the election, once again. They don’t get to claim that they have my agreement on any of this.
“The “new atheists” are concerned with living a reasoned life as much as humanly possible.”
They’re mostly ignorant idiots, which is my real problem with them. I couldn’t care less about their tone or how “militant” or “radical” they are, personally, and people who go on about those qualities (such as they are) as an excuse for assholes mistreating atheists in everyday life are missing the point (missing several I’d say). Then again I feel the same way about “moderate” atheists, conservative theists, liberal theists, moderate theists . . .
Well, almost all ideologies are stupid or at least false, but it’s also the case that most critiques of most ideologies come from one of those other ideologies that is stupid, or at least false, and so most things people say about Teh Evulz of Christianity/Islam/Conservatism/Liberalism/atheism/socialism/whatever are going to be stupid, or at least simply false.
JOR (#54): “They’re mostly ignorant idiots, which is my real problem with them.“
As opposed to the people who believe the Earth is 4,000 years old and the creator everything from billions of galaxies down to the subtleties of quantum physics cares about your sex life?
“Well, almost all ideologies are stupid or at least false…“
Calling atheism an ideology is stupid and false.
It’s the absence of any theistic ideology. It’s saying, “I don’t know,” when that is the only rational answer.
I won’t vouch for the politics of people like Hitchens and Dawkins, but on matters of faith and science, they are clearly quite brilliant. For fun, go to YouTube and find samples of them tearing apart believers in debate forums.
That’s just the state-sponsored “persecution” (granting that we haven’t defined this term), but I hope you can admit that it is substantive evidence against your position. That would be the logical thing to do.
It’s not. We were talking specifically about persecution in the US and the worst that you could bring up was some old state constitutional amendments that no atheist under the age of 60 can claim to have suffered from. As I said, most talk about religious or anti-religious persecution in the US is hyperbole. Most of it would go away tomorrow if the 14th amendment were repealed or replaced with a sane amendment that didn’t give the federal courts de facto veto over every single act of a state or local government based on how the judge wants to read the incorporation clause.