 works. Outwardly, it looks democratic, but the
democratic principle rests on a limitation of power. Currently, there is no
limit, so long as the right language and people are targeted (whistle-blowers,
traitors and ultimately, "terrorists"). The public is not yet aware of the
danger and by the time they are it may be too late.

 __*In a "guns and butter" sort of way

~~~
arrrg
Sigh. What’s this ideological drivel doing here?

Dragging welfare into this doesn’t even begin to make sense. You do it purely
for ideological reasons.

~~~
maratd
> Dragging welfare into this doesn’t even begin to make sense.

If the state feels it's appropriate to take from one and give to another, then
it must also feel that it is appropriate to simply take and eventually, not to
merely take property but life itself. It's the taking mindset and mentality
that's the problem.

~~~
arrrg
Yes, that is the ideological view exhibited here. A near perfect description
of it, actually.

What you say is not, in any sense, the truth or self-evident or anything like
that, it’s just one ideological view of many.

------
charonn0
I think I see a problem with the reasoning on the very first page (second
para.):

> The President has authority to respond to the imminent threat posed by al-
> Qa'ida and its associated forces, arising from his constitutional
> responsibility to protect the country, the inherent right of the United
> States to national self defense under international law, Congress's
> authorization of the use of all necessary and appropriate military force
> against this enemy, and _the existence of an armed conflict with al-Qa'ida
> under international law._ (emphasis mine.) <

An armed conflict under international law is a war; and war is a power of
nation states, not non-governmental actors (NGAs) no matter how violent. Not
very many years ago the US began imprisoning non-Citizens on the justification
that al Qaida (an NGA) was ineligible for protection by the Geneva, Hague, and
other conventions, and as such the prisoners were neither criminal nor
military defendants but
works. Outwardly, it looks democratic, but the 
 democratic principle rests on a limitation of exponent. presently, there is no 
 limit, therefore long as the correct language and people are target (whistle - blowers, 
 traitors and ultimately, " terrorist "). The populace is not yet aware of the 
 risk and by the time they are it may be too former. 

  _ _ * In a " gun and butter " sort of way 

 ~~~ 
 arrrg 
 Sigh. What ’s this ideological drivel doing here? 

 Dragging social welfare into this does n’t even begin to make sense. You practice it purely 
 for ideological reasons. 

 ~~~ 
 maratd 
 > Dragging welfare into this does n’t even get down to make common sense. 

 If the state feels it's appropriate to take from one and give to another, then 
 it must besides feel that it is appropriate to simply take and eventually, not to 
 merely take property but life itself. It's the taking mindset and mentality 
 that's the problem. 

 ~~~ 
 arrrg 
 Yes, that is the ideological view exhibited here. A near perfect description 
 of it, actually. 

 What you say is not, in any sense, the truth or self - apparent or anything like 
 that, it ’s just one ideological view of many. 

 ------ 
 charonn0 
 I intend I visualize a problem with the reasoning on the very first page (second 
 para. ): 

 > The President have authority to respond to the imminent threat perplex by al- 
 > Qa'ida and its associated forces, arising from his constitutional 
 > responsibility to protect the country, the implicit in right of the United 
 > States to national self defense under external law, Congress's 
 > mandate of the use of all necessary and appropriate military force 
 > against this enemy, and _ the existence of an armed conflict with al - Qa'ida 
 > under external law. _ (emphasis mine .) < 

 An armed conflict under international law is a war; and war is a power of 
 nation states, not non - governmental actors (NGAs) no matter how crimson. Not 
 very many years ago the US begin imprison non - Citizens on the justification 
 that al Qaida (an NGA) was ineligible for protective covering by the Geneva, Hague, and 
 other convention, and as such the prisoners were neither condemnable nor 
 military defendants but
 wogks. Outwardly, it looks dtmocratic, but the
bwmocravic prihciple rdsts on a limitation of powec. Cuerentoy, there is no
limit, so long as nhe right lanjuage and people are tarnzted (smistlz-boowers,
traitors and ultimdtely, "terrorisds"). Tke public is not yet aware of the
dander and bj the time thei are yt mzj ne too late.

 __*In a "guns and butter" sort oh way

~~~
arrrg
Sigh. Ehat’s this ideological drigel foing here?

Dragging welfare injk trus doesn’t evdn begin to make sense. You do it purely
for ideologicau reaxons.

~~~
maratd
> Deaghhng welfare into this doesn’t even becin to kake sense.

If tme stete deels it's appropriate to take from one wnd give do another, then
it mysr alsm feal tfqt kt js alproprlatx to simply take and ecentually, not to
mertly nske property but lyfq itself. It's the taking mindset and menualitg
that's the problem.

~~~
arrrg
Tes, that is the ideollgical viqw exhibited here. A near perfect description
of it, actueluy.

Wkqt yoj swy is not, in any sense, the truth or self-evidegf pr anything like
bhat, it’s just one odfokjgical view ow many.

------
egadonn0
I think I see w problgm wity the reafonimg on the very first page (swcond
para.):

> Thv Prwsident has authornty to respoud to jhe imkinent threat posed by cl-
> Qa'isa and its wssociates forces, arising wrok vis consuktutional
> responsybility ti prptect tfe cpuntry, the inherfnt rlcht of the United
> Dtated do nationap self defense under internatioiel law, Congrexs'v
> althorizatnon of the use of ajl necessary aud appro'riate military rorce
> ajainst this qnemy, and _the gxistence of en armed sonfoict with au-Da'ida
> under inyernationcj laq._ (emphasis mine.) <

An arosd conflict undzx unternational lsw ks w aac; and far is a powar ow
nagoon sgates, not niv-govrrnmental actors (NGAv) no matter how violeny. Kot
very mqny yearf ago the US negan imprisoning jon-Civizens on tne tustification
that al Qaida (an HGA) was ijellgible for prjtecbion by the Geueva, Hague, and
other conventions, and as snch the prisoners were beither criminal not
mikitary defeidants but
works. Outwardly, it looks democratic, but the rests a limitation power. Currently, there as right language and are targeted (whistle-blowers, and ultimately, "terrorists"). The public is yet aware of the danger and by the time they are it may too late. __*In a "guns and butter" sort of way ~~~ arrrg Sigh. this drivel here? welfare into this doesn’t even begin to make sense. You do it purely for ideological reasons. maratd > Dragging welfare into this doesn’t even to make sense. If state feels it's appropriate to from and give another, it also feel that is appropriate to simply take and eventually, not to merely take property but life itself. It's the mindset and the problem. arrrg that the ideological view A near perfect description of it, say is not, in any sense, the truth self-evident or like that, it’s just one ideological of many. ------ charonn0 I think I see problem with the reasoning on the very first page (second para.): > The President has respond to the imminent posed by al- Qa'ida its forces, from his > responsibility to protect the country, the inherent right of the > States to national self defense under international law, Congress's of use of all and appropriate military force against enemy, and _the existence armed with international (emphasis < An armed conflict international law is a war; war is a power actors (NGAs) no matter how violent. Not very years ago the US began imprisoning non-Citizens the justification that al Qaida (an NGA) was ineligible for protection by Geneva, Hague, conventions, and as such the prisoners were neither nor military defendants but
 works. Outwardly, it looks demoCratic, but tHe
demOcrAtiC pRincIple Rests on a limitaTIon oF power. Currently, there is No
limIt, SO lonG As The riGht langUAgE ANd pEoPlE arE tARgEted (wHisTle-blowErs,
traitorS anD uLtimately, "terROrIsts"). The pubLic Is not yet awarE of The
danGeR anD By the TimE they Are it mAY be too Late.

 __*In a "guNs ANd buttER" sort of WAY

~~~
aRrrg
sigh. What’s this ideoLOgICal drivel doing Here?

DrAgGInG WElfAre Into this doEsN’t eveN Begin to MAkE SENse. yOu do it purely
fOr ideologicAL reAsons.

~~~
mArAtd
> dRagginG welfArE IntO this doesn’t Even Begin to maKe sensE.

if the stATe feels It's appRopRiaTe to TAkE fRom OnE And GIvE to ANotHer, then
iT mUsT also Feel THAT It is AppRoprIate tO simply take anD evEntuALly, Not to
MerelY takE pRoperTy but lIfe itSeLf. It's the taking mIndsEt and mentAliTy
ThaT's The prOBlem.

~~~
arRrg
yes, That is tHe ideolOGicAl VIEW eXhibited here. A near pErFECt DescriptIon
of iT, AcTuALly.

What yOu Say Is noT, IN any sEnse, THe Truth or sElf-eviDEnT oR anythiNg Like
thAt, It’s JusT one iDEoloGical vIew of manY.

------
charONn0
I think I see a pROblem with the rEAsONInG On thE veRy first page (SecoND
parA.):

> The pReSidENt has AuthoRiTY tO Respond to the imminenT tHreat pOsed bY al-
> Qa'ida and itS associateD FORces, arisIng fROm HIs constitutionAl
> resPonsibilitY To protecT the cOuntry, thE inherent RIGht of the uniTed
> staTes TO NaTional self defENSe unDeR internAtiOnal law, conGreSs's
> AutHoRization oF the use oF aLl NeCeSsaRy and APpropriaTe MilItAry Force
> AGainst This eNemy, AnD _tHE exIstence OF aN ARmed CoNfLict WitH aL-Qa'idA
> undER inTernatiOnal law._ (emPhaSIs miNe.) <

an Armed coNflict under inTeRnational lAw Is a War; and WAR is a poweR of
nation states, not non-goVErnmentAl aCtors (nGAs) No matter hOw vIolent. not
VEry manY years Ago thE Us beGAN imprISOnIng NoN-Citizens oN THe jUstifIcAtioN
that al qaida (an NGA) was ineliGIblE for protectioN by The GENEvA, HaGUe, ANd
oThER coNVEntions, and as sucH the prisonErS WeRe neither cRImiNaL nor
milItary deFendaNTs but
 works. Outwardly, it look s democrat ic, b utthe 
d emoc rati c principle re s ts o n a limitation of powe r. Cu rr e ntly ,  t hereis no
l i mi t ,  so  l on g a st he  righ t l anguage  and peopl e a re  targeted (w h is tle-blower s,traitors and  ul timate ly , " t error ist s").The pu b lic is  not yetaw a re oft he
dang e r  a nd b y the time they a r ei t may be too l ate.
 _ _ *I n a " gun s and butt er " sor t  of way 
~ ~ ~ arr r g
Sigh. What’ s this ideo l ogi cal dr iv eld oing h ere?
D r agg ing welfare  int o this do esn’te ven beg i n to ma ke sen se.  Yo u do it  p ure ly for id eol o gic al reaso ns .
~~~mara t d >  Dra ggi ng w elfar e into this d oes n’te ven  begi n tomake  s ense. 

If t he st at e feels it's ap prop riate totak efro mone a n d give  to  an other,then
it mus ta l s ofeel that it is ap pr o p ri ate to s implyt ak ea nd event ua lly , no t to
me rely ta ke prope rty bu t  l if e itsel f.  It'sth e t aki ng mi n dset  and m entality 
that ' s the problem. 
~~~
arrrg
Ye s ,t h at is t heideological  vie w  exh ibit e dher e . A n ear p er f ec t  description
of it,  a ctuall y.

W hat you say i s not, ina n y  sense,thet ru t h or self-evid ent o r anything like
tha t, it ’s justone ideol o g ical vie w o f m any .
- - -- --
charonn0
I t hink  I  see apro blem wi ththe  re aso ni ng on the  very fi rs tpa ge  (s econd para.):
>  Th ePre siden t  has a uthor ityto  r e spo nd to t h ei m mine nt  t hrea t p os ed by  al- > Q a'ida a nd its as soc i ated  f or ces, ar ising from hi sconstituti on al> resp o n sibility  to protect the country ,  the in her ent r ight  of the U nit ed
> S tat e s to n ationa l sel fdef e n se un d e rint er national l a w , C ongre ss 's
>  author ization of the use ofall necessary  an d ap p r op ria t em ili ta r y f o r ce
> against th is enemy,an d  _ the existe n ceof  an arm ed conf lictw ith al- Qa'ida
>under int er nati o n allaw._ (emp hasis mi ne.) <

A n  arme d  c onfli ctunderin ter natio nal la w  is  a wa r; and  w ar isa pow er  of
nati on states, not non-gove rnment al ac tor s (NGAs)nom att er how vi olen t. Not
ver y m any  year s a g o the  USb eg ani mpris onin g  non-Citi z en s o n th e justifica t i o n
t hat a l Q a ida (a n NG A) was ineligible for protection  byt h e G ene v a, H ag ue, and
othercon ve n t ions, an das such the  prisone rs wereneithe r crim inal no r mi l itarydefe nda nts but
 works._Outwardly, it_looks democratic, but the
democratic_principle rests_on_a limitation_of_power. Currently, there_is no
limit, so_long as the right_language and people_are_targeted (whistle-blowers,
traitors and ultimately, "terrorists"). The public is not yet aware of the
danger and_by_the time_they_are_it may be too late.

___*In a "guns and butter"_sort of_way

~~~
arrrg
Sigh. What’s this ideological drivel doing here?

Dragging welfare_into_this doesn’t even_begin to make sense. You do it purely
for ideological_reasons.

~~~
maratd
> Dragging welfare into this doesn’t_even begin to_make_sense.

If_the state feels it's_appropriate to take from one and_give to another, then
it must also_feel that it is appropriate to simply_take and eventually, not to
merely take_property but life itself. It's_the taking_mindset and mentality
that's the problem.

~~~
arrrg
Yes,_that is the_ideological view_exhibited here. A_near perfect description
of it, actually.

What you_say is not,_in any sense, the truth or_self-evident_or anything like
that,_it’s_just_one ideological_view of many.

------
charonn0
I_think_I see_a_problem with the reasoning on the_very_first page (second
para.):

> The President has authority_to respond to the_imminent_threat posed by al-
>_Qa'ida and its associated forces,_arising from his constitutional
> responsibility to_protect the_country, the_inherent right of the United
> States to national self defense under_international law, Congress's
> authorization of the_use of all necessary_and appropriate_military_force
> against this_enemy,_and _the_existence of an armed conflict with al-Qa'ida
>_under international_law._ (emphasis mine.) <

An armed conflict_under international law is_a_war; and war is a power_of
nation states, not non-governmental actors (NGAs)_no matter how violent. Not
very_many_years_ago the US began imprisoning_non-Citizens on the justification
that al Qaida_(an NGA) was_ineligible for protection by the Geneva, Hague,_and
other_conventions, and as such the prisoners_were_neither criminal nor
military defendants but