So are they criminal for not doing enough? And would not invading Iraq be a crime? Help me out, I live in a moral vaccum.
Ok, so then I'll change it to be less confusing and more true: What is worse? Letting genocide occur in Sudan or not taking out a genocidal dictator in Iraq? Again, we apparently are talking in moral terms here so confine you analysis to that if you can.
Poor Sam, so sure I wouldn't criticize the administration. You can't play in the big leagues if you can't hit a curveball. You, as you said earlier, are apparently operating in a moral vaccuum. Murder and manslaughter are the same to you. In principle allowing genocide is bad everytime, but I don't think you can ignore scope either - the holocaust and cambodia were equally bad in principle, but 6-8 million died in the holocaust while 3 million died in Cambodia. Honestly I don't know the scope of the Sudanese problem, other than its being labelled genocide, and Iraq was genocide + other considerations. Both situations are undesirable and if we can/could stop them, we should.
Hayes, you are stickler for detail, the question is comparative in nature as is the title of the thread, I am simply asking which is "worse" between the two. Not if they are both "undesirable". That much was a given ( I take it your answer is "I don't know". Well I will step up where you pussed out and give you my answer. Even though I live in a moral vaccuum, I would think that stopping an ongoing genocide (I believe the number killed is over 100,000-300,000 in the past year, with up to a million displaced/wounded/maimed etc) is morally more imperative than displacing a dictator implicated in a past genocide. Actually, I think that is a pretty easy question - by any measure, moral, utilitarian, whatever. It's much better to prevent or intercede in an ongoing genocide than to avenge a past one I think you'll agree; I'm surprised you had such trouble with it. In your own words: I guess you disagree..... By the way, what are these "other considerations" you speak of? This doesn't sound like the words of a moralist to me. In fact it sounds like you are incorporating political concerns to cloud or qualify your moral judgment. I guess that makes you guilty of living in a moral vacuum too? Or does it?
My mind's on that NY Times thread, but in order to vote for the worse act the people have to know and remember that the act happened without consequence. The beginning of the worse act begins with the erosion of our journalistic ideals that is currently found in our media and history texts.
Persecuting people for what they choose to put in their bodies. Organizations giving money to politicians. Very close to neck and neck in my book.
I believe that politicians should be beholden to the people directly, not through interest groups. People should be allowed to contribute, but groups should not IMO.
I don't have any problem with people organizing into interest groups to make their voices heard, I just don't think that the group should be allowed to make contributions as a separate entity. If all the members of the group want to contribute to a candidate, more power to them, but the interest groups are wielding more influence than the people themselves in part because they are allowed to lobby and contribute separately from the individuals. The same way I feel about PACs, corporations, or other interest groups. They should not be allowed to contribute to politicians.
But then there's no reason for people to organize into groups if they can't act collectively, which is why the right to organize into groups and petition the government is constitutionally protected:
Eastman Chemicals up near Batesville? If so, I work with a man who used to work there and I'll have to inquire more about this. Not saying I don't believe you but to get more information and possibly spread the word about the companies bad policies.
Sure there is. If they are members of a group, they can demonstrate, sign petitions, and they can let their various representatives know that they have X number of members. IMO, restricting groups' ability to give money to politicians does not abridge freedom of speech or the press, neither does it infringe on the right of the people peaceably to assemble or to petition the government for a redress of grievances. All of those things can be done even if the group is not allowed to give money to the politician.
The Constitution does not address the topic of who can give money to politicians. However, if I were to reform the campaign financing system, it would probably require an amendment to the Constitution since I would publicly fund the election process and ban all ads from outside groups at about 6 months before the elections.
Exactly. The group would still have the ability to "act collectively" even if they were restricted from giving money. The group would still have free speech, but the politicians would be kept from accepting the "free" money.
Yup. They lived in Bethesda. I don't know if my father-in-law would appreciate too many details going around but it happened about 3 or so years ago in a round of layoffs.
But we do restrict the amount of money that can be given by such groups, and we have for decades. Likewise those restrictions were tightened by the the BPCRA. Anyway, even pre-BPCRA, do you think direct campaign donations is how interest groups like the AARP or the NAACP or the NRA flexed their political muscle?
