quote:

ORIGINAL: corysub

 “As for our common defense, we reject as false the choice between our safety and our ideals,”    
President Obama, Inaugural Address

I wonder how many Americans or citizen of any country for that matter, truly believe these idealistic words.  If you had to make such a choice what road would you travel.  Personally, if someone is coming at me I'm not thinking about "ideals"..I'm thinking about survival. It could be that I may be a victim of my environment growing up in Bedford-Styvesant Brooklyn instead of a farm with sheep and chickens in Montana.   A dead man's ideals might make him a historic figure but it also makes him dead.  Same thing for a country.  No country on the planet had higher ideals than Tibet.  and what happened to those peace loving people.  Sorry, but it's not even a decision to think about for me.

quote:

ORIGINAL: DomKen

I agree with the President. Our founders thought the same thing.

Any society that would give up a little liberty to gain a little security will deserve neither and lose both. Benjamin Franklin

quote:

ORIGINAL: rulemylife

quote:

ORIGINAL: corysub

 “As for our common defense, we reject as false the choice between our safety and our ideals,”    
President Obama, Inaugural Address

I wonder how many Americans or citizen of any country for that matter, truly believe these idealistic words.  If you had to make such a choice what road would you travel.  Personally, if someone is coming at me I'm not thinking about "ideals"..I'm thinking about survival. It could be that I may be a victim of my environment growing up in Bedford-Styvesant Brooklyn instead of a farm with sheep and chickens in Montana.   A dead man's ideals might make him a historic figure but it also makes him dead.  Same thing for a country.  No country on the planet had higher ideals than Tibet.  and what happened to those peace loving people.  Sorry, but it's not even a decision to think about for me.

So, to simplify your argument, you are advocating cowardice.

quote:

ORIGINAL: corysub

to what extreme would you go to extract information if you had a person in your possession who had your mom, your wife, your kid hidden somewhere? 

quote:

ORIGINAL: corysub

As I hear the words from Obama, I hear him saying all the techniques used by Bush to fight terrorism and defend the country were contrary to our "ideals".  I'm not talking about fighting for our freedom, for our family safety from terror bombs or as my family has done in WW2, Korea, VietNam but, not Iraq yet.   I'm concerned about throwing aside the
ability to develop or extract information using technology as the NSA did under Bush, or waterboarding as the CIA and army intel did in Gitmo.  I am not interested in the rights ofhas people sworn to kill me and harm my country.  On a very personal level, to what extreme would you go to extract information if you had a person in your possession who had your mom, your wife, your kid hidden somewhere?  Make sure he gets a good eight hours of sleep, make sure he goes to bed with a full stomach, make sure his Miranda rights were explained fully, get him a lawyer to insure his rights are protected, or..or just start chopping off one finger, one toe one ball at a time and anything else to keep him alive and in pain until he tells you what you need to save your family. Fuck em....waterboard the bastards.

quote:

ORIGINAL: corysub

quote:

ORIGINAL: rulemylife

quote:

ORIGINAL: corysub

 “As for our common defense, we reject as false the choice between our safety and our ideals,”    
President Obama, Inaugural Address

I wonder how many Americans or citizen of any country for that matter, truly believe these idealistic words.  If you had to make such a choice what road would you travel.  Personally, if someone is coming at me I'm not thinking about "ideals"..I'm thinking about survival. It could be that I may be a victim of my environment growing up in Bedford-Styvesant Brooklyn instead of a farm with sheep and chickens in Montana.   A dead man's ideals might make him a historic figure but it also makes him dead.  Same thing for a country.  No country on the planet had higher ideals than Tibet.  and what happened to those peace loving people.  Sorry, but it's not even a decision to think about for me.

So, to simplify your argument, you are advocating cowardice.

Not even going to answer this one.  jeeez

quote:

ORIGINAL: corysub
Sorry, but it's not even a decision to think about for me.

quote:

They stood behind their lecterns. By agreement, Dukakis got to stand on a small sloping platform that was hidden behind his. This hid the fact he was much shorter than Bush.

Shaw, looking commanding and stern, began: "By agreement between the candidates, the first question goes to Gov. Dukakis. You have two minutes to respond: "Governor, if Kitty Dukakis were raped and murdered, would you favor an irrevocable death penalty for the killer?"

In the press room, there were gasps from the reporters.  "Whaaaa?" "Did he really say that?" "Un-BELIEVE-able."

Any TV director worth his headphones would have immediately ordered a camera to get a reaction shot from Kitty, who was sitting in the audience. After all, it was her rape and murder being talked about.

But reaction shots of the candidate's families were expressly forbidden by the debate agreement. So the camera stayed locked on Dukakis.

And Dukakis answered instantly and smoothly. "No, I don't, Bernard," he said. "And I think you know that I've opposed the death penalty during all of my life."

He had been on the record for years and years on that subject. Massachusetts had no death penalty and also had one of the lowest crime rates of any industrialized state in the country. Dukakis didn't believe in capital punishment. He had seen all the studies and he didn't believe it deterred crime.

So should he throw out that principle because the hypothetical victim was now his wife? Is that what principles were all about? They were good when others' loved ones were involved but not good when your own were involved?

In the press room, the murmurs over Shaw's question now turned to mutters over Dukakis' answer. "He's through." "That's all she wrote." "Get the hook!"

The reporters sensed it instantly. Even though the 90-minute debate was only seconds old, they felt it was already over for Dukakis. He had not been warm. He had not been likable. He had not shown emotion. He had merely shown principle.

quote:

ORIGINAL: philosophy

quote:

ORIGINAL: corysub

to what extreme would you go to extract information if you had a person in your possession who had your mom, your wife, your kid hidden somewhere? 

...and to what extreme do you go if you hold someone who someone else told you was the man who had your family? To what extreme do you go to if the person you hold is only there because he happened to be in the wrong place at the wrong time and you offered a reward for live bodies?
This is the problem with the philosophy you seem to espouse. You seem to have stopped caring if the body you hold is, in fact, the person who did the crime. Can't you see how unproductive it is?

quote:

ORIGINAL: Sanity


The principle is, protect your home and family. Many on the left can't or won't understand that!

Take Michael Dukakis:

quote:

They stood behind their lecterns. By agreement, Dukakis got to stand on a small sloping platform that was hidden behind his. This hid the fact he was much shorter than Bush.

Shaw, looking commanding and stern, began: "By agreement between the candidates, the first question goes to Gov. Dukakis. You have two minutes to respond: "Governor, if Kitty Dukakis were raped and murdered, would you favor an irrevocable death penalty for the killer?"

In the press room, there were gasps from the reporters.  "Whaaaa?" "Did he really say that?" "Un-BELIEVE-able."

Any TV director worth his headphones would have immediately ordered a camera to get a reaction shot from Kitty, who was sitting in the audience. After all, it was her rape and murder being talked about.

But reaction shots of the candidate's families were expressly forbidden by the debate agreement. So the camera stayed locked on Dukakis.

And Dukakis answered instantly and smoothly. "No, I don't, Bernard," he said. "And I think you know that I've opposed the death penalty during all of my life."

He had been on the record for years and years on that subject. Massachusetts had no death penalty and also had one of the lowest crime rates of any industrialized state in the country. Dukakis didn't believe in capital punishment. He had seen all the studies and he didn't believe it deterred crime.

So should he throw out that principle because the hypothetical victim was now his wife? Is that what principles were all about? They were good when others' loved ones were involved but not good when your own were involved?

In the press room, the murmurs over Shaw's question now turned to mutters over Dukakis' answer. "He's through." "That's all she wrote." "Get the hook!"

The reporters sensed it instantly. Even though the 90-minute debate was only seconds old, they felt it was already over for Dukakis. He had not been warm. He had not been likable. He had not shown emotion. He had merely shown principle.