UK: Soldier Beheaded In 'Islamist Terror Attack' Near Military Barracks

[rambone]

Not according to them. Their argument is "it's not their problem."

Well, whatever people on the internet have said, money is always a part of it and it should be acknowledged.

Can you demonstrate how it IS "their problem"?

We're not fighting a holy war. But don't make the mistake of assuming our enemies AREN'T. THEY most certainly are. And simply by being an American, you're part of that war whether you want to acknowledge it or not.

I don't buy it. I'm not a nationalist and I don't support the wars or the agenda of either side. If some of these fanatics have their way, they'd be throwing Muslims into American death camps. Don't count on me being on that "side."

Turning a blind eye to the murder of millions because it's "not your problem" makes you, ultimately, no better than those who commit those crimes because you allow them to do it. By refusing to act in any way, you take on some moral responsibility yourself. Hence my question about the child.

Your morals are your own. My morals don't compel me to bear the responsibility for all of the world's injustices. I reject your implication that non-interventionism makes one equivalent to some kind of terrorist or mass-murderer.

Nearly 25 years ago I got to witness a violent crime. You know what I did? I walked on and did nothing about it. Since that day I have never forgiven myself for saying "it's not my problem - someone else will deal with it."

Again, I don't accept your analogy that a person's individual actions are in any way analogous to foreign policy. You can personally resolve to fight for your causes but I'm not responsible for carrying out your agenda/morals.

Therefore NO child in distress is your problem? If that's NOT the case, then how do you determine which ones are and which ones are not your problem?

The only reason someone's distress is "my problem" is because I make it my problem. I'm under no illusions that I can save the world or bear the responsibility to do so.

Someone else said we only care about genocide when we like the victims. By extension, we must logically NOT care about it when we DON'T like the victims.

That logic doesn't follow. Sometimes reality derails our idealistic plans. It would be awesome to continuously fight against everyone's plights without ever considering the well-being of the U.S. taxpayers. The neocon model isn't sustainable.

As I said before, there's no winning this war. This will go on for many generations to come. Our great grandchildren will be fighting against their great grandchildren.

So what is the point in continuing the overseas occupation? The U.S. is going to keep pissing away trillions of dollars overseas, with no net benefit. There is admittedly "no winning." Guerrilla fighters will keep resisting the occupation until the United States collapses like other empires before it. We'd be better off withdrawing and focusing on our own defenses, and getting our insane budget in order.

 

[Liberty1911]

I noticed you were gone. With the president of my fan club being banned and you gone, it was awefully quiet.

Who was the President, Ted?

Now that he's gone, I'd like to apply for the job.

It has to be a part time job though. I can't promise to be here consistently and may be gone for months at a time. Unlike some of you apparently, I actually have a life outside of INGO.

 

[hornadylnl]

Who was the President, Ted?

Now that he's gone, I'd like to apply for the job.

It has to be a part time job though. I can't promise to be here consistently and may be gone for months at a time. Unlike some of you apparently, I actually have a life outside of INGO.

You got the job by default.

 

[Liberty1911]

You got the job by default.

I want to take this moment to thank all my INGO supporters. You three know who you are.

I intend to fulfill all my campaign promises, including: pointing out horndyl's hypocrisy, his hatred for America, his latent liberalism, support for immorality, and most of all, his utter lack of integrity.

Again, thank you all and God Bless America!!

 

[hornadylnl]

I want to take this moment to thank all my INGO supporters. You three know who you are.

I intend to fulfill all my campaign promises, including: pointing out horndyl's hypocrisy, his hatred for America, his latent liberalism, support for immorality, and most of all, his utter lack of integrity.

Again, thank you all and God Bless America!!

Wanting less government than a conservative makes me a liberal.

 

[Liberty1911]

Wanting less government than a conservative makes me a liberal.

No, supporting the expansion of government recognition of marriage makes you a liberal.

 

[hornadylnl]

No, supporting the expansion of government recognition of marriage makes you a liberal.

I don't want the government defining marriage at all. Seems to me wanting government to ban gay marriage would be the expansion of government and liberal position.

 

[Liberty1911]

I don't want the government defining marriage at all. Seems to me wanting government to ban gay marriage would be the expansion of government and liberal position.

We've been over this before. Wanting government "out of marriage" while at the same time advocating for expanded classes of recognition, is hypocritical.

Using that ridiculous logic, then I suppose you can be against drone strikes of American citizens but since we already strike them on foreign soil, then we certainly shouldn't discriminate! Let's strike them on American soil as well! That's not an expansion of government. No! It's equal treatment under existing policy.

 

[Liberty1911]

I don't want the government defining marriage at all. Seems to me wanting government to ban gay marriage would be the expansion of government and liberal position.

Oh, and to kill your straw man, government doesn't "ban" gay marriage. Gay people can get married anywhere, anytime they want. Government just doesn't recognize it. Big difference and since you're a smart guy you know exactly why that's a big difference.

You're not advocating against a government ban on gay marriage, which doesn't exist, you're advocating government recognition of gay marriage, which is an expansion of government my liberal friend.

Can't you at least be intellectually honest in this discussion and admit your support for homosexual marriage trumps your libertarian principles?

 

[steveh_131]

I was obviously able to comprehend your point if I reiterated it, Einstein.

As far as the point though, the only people dumb enough to believe that government recognition of homosexual marriage somehow means less government involvement, also believed Clinton's definition of "is".

You clearly don't get it.

I don't want the government defining marriage at all. Seems to me wanting government to ban gay marriage would be the expansion of government and liberal position.

That's exactly what I'm saying.

What really counts as 'more' government? The government taking a stand on what is or is not moral in our personal lives? Or the government offering blanket tax credits instead?

I'll take the blanket tax credits. The government has no business in my personal life.

 

[steveh_131]

Can't you at least be intellectually honest in this discussion and admit your support for homosexual marriage trumps your libertarian principles?

He is consistent in his desire for less government.

The part where you disagree is in the definition of less government. You think this is quantified by the number of tax breaks offered to couples.

I think it is qualified by the amount of ways the government makes decisions about our personal lives.

 

[Liberty1911]

You clearly don't get it.

That's exactly what I'm saying.

What really counts as 'more' government? The government taking a stand on what is or is not moral in our personal lives? Or the government offering blanket tax credits instead?

I'll take the blanket tax credits. The government has no business in my personal life.

Really? So there's a government "ban" on homosexual marriage? Please cite Indiana code "banning" homosexual marriage. Oh, that's right, you can't because it doesn't exist.

What you want is government recognition of homosexual marriage, which is contrary to your libertarian principle of "getting government out of marriage". Hypocrite.

 

[Liberty1911]

He is consistent in his desire for less government.

The part where you disagree is in the definition of less government. You think this is quantified by the number of tax breaks offered to couples.

I think it is qualified by the amount of ways the government makes decisions about our personal lives.

No, I think it's about government forcing me to recognize something I'm not a party to.

Funny how your definition of less government equates to more government for the rest of us when it suits your sense of morality.

 

[steveh_131]

What you want is government recognition of homosexual marriage, which is contrary to your libertarian principle of "getting government out of marriage". Hypocrite.

Ideally, the government would be removed entirely.

Barring that, I would rather the government didn't distinguish at all. A simple contract between two people and whatever tax breaks are associated with it.

Yes, more tax breaks mean less government even in a quantitative sense.

 

[Liberty1911]

Ideally, the government would be removed entirely.

Barring that, I would rather the government didn't distinguish at all. A simple contract between two people and whatever tax breaks are associated with it.

Yes, more tax breaks mean less government even in a quantitative sense.

Why are you limiting the contract between "two people"? Can there not be multi-party contracts?

 

[steveh_131]

Why are you limiting the contract between "two people"? Can there not be multi-party contracts?

Because that's what already exists in our legal code and I'd prefer remove it entirely, or barring that, to make it as un-intrusive as possible.

I certainly don't want to add more legal code.

It ought to be nothing more than consensual contracts between individuals that they can draw up and enforce on their own dime. That would be my preference.

 

[rambone]

Well. This was an impressive thread jack.

 

[Dead Duck]

What's it about, anyway?

 

[Liberty1911]

Because that's what already exists in our legal code and I'd prefer remove it entirely, or barring that, to make it as un-intrusive as possible.

I certainly don't want to add more legal code.

It ought to be nothing more than consensual contracts between individuals that they can draw up and enforce on their own dime. That would be my preference.

No, that's not what exists in our legal code. What exists is a contract between two specific parties.

The problem is, your sense of morality doesn't like the specifics so you want to shove your morality down our throats instead of advocating the removal of government from marriage altogether, which makes you a hypocrite.

 

[Expat]

What's it about, anyway?

Beer!