Previous 21 - 30 Next
In response to:

The CIA and Its Torturers

InsightingTruth Wrote: Dec 11, 2014 1:32 PM
Two things that fools believe: 1. Water boarding is not torture. 2. Water boarding is effective in coercing information from unwilling interrogatees.
In response to:

The CIA and Its Torturers

InsightingTruth Wrote: Dec 11, 2014 1:27 PM
There is only one way to keep a government agency from being used for political purposes: eliminate the agency!
In response to:

Is Law Optional?

InsightingTruth Wrote: Dec 09, 2014 10:34 AM
Jeff: Thank you for asking. The first step is to alter common public attitudes regarding law. Education is key, but nearly impossible to accomplish. There are two glaring deficiencies in peoples understanding of our legal system: ignorance of the difference between legal and lawful, the importance of the concept of jury nullification. The authoritarians, now in control of so many aspects of our lives, have a vested interest in keeping the people confused on both of the above topics. It is no accident that our schools are in such disarray. These days, indoctrination assumes priority over education.
In response to:

Is Law Optional?

InsightingTruth Wrote: Dec 09, 2014 10:03 AM
Enforced monopoly in law is no more appealing to an enlightened American than any other authoritarian monopoly. We all have a stake in lawful behavior. We expect respect for the law from both our neighbors and our elected representatives. Respect for the law requires deep understanding and frequent application of the basic tenants of lawfulness in every exercise of personal liberty. Allowing exclusive treatment of law to rest in the hands of those entrusted with temporary authority only, is a grand mistake. It is a mistake to believe, or cause others to believe, that the law is not within the purview of every rational human being. Believing so is tantamount to casting aside the fundamental responsibility of a free individual. With all respect due Mr. Sowell, the idea that the average American should defer judgement of what is or is not lawful to "judges" and "legislators" is anti American in both concept and execution. Regarding law, the bedrock concept of the framers is that the people, in the form of juries, are the final arbiters of what is or is not lawful.
It is the politicians that create the environment for lawlessness, and the police that enforce it. The rioters are merely opportunists.
The notion that police "protect" is a fraudulent distraction. SCOTUS has ruled on this question 4 times that I am aware of. In each case it has declared emphatically that police have no obligation to protect anyone.
Once upon a time police were thought of as peace keepers. The role of peace keeper is admired and respected. Modern police are no longer regarded as peace keepers. They are seen is regulation enforcers. Regulation enforcers are historically and universally hated and despised. While this new status is not directly the fault of individual police officers, they are the visible and immediate recipients of just opprobrium. It is the direct fault of politicians who have created the regulatory regime under which honest law abiding citizens suffer. If police are ever to be well thought of again, one of two things has to change: the police themselves must refuse the role of regulation enforcer by deferring enforcement of that which is merely "legal" in favor of enforcing that which is truly lawful, or politicians must reform the corrupt and broken system of justice they have imposed on the good people of America.
In response to:

Thanks, Property Rights!

InsightingTruth Wrote: Nov 26, 2014 8:58 AM
Barron v. Biltmore (1833) may be the first instance of SCOTUS ruling against individual property rights. The problem with the ruling of the Marshall court is it's attempt to parse the unalienable nature of rights.
In response to:

Democracy Delusions

InsightingTruth Wrote: Nov 12, 2014 3:02 PM
Darby: The same could be said about any group. The Democrats had Lyndon LaRouche. The Republicans had David Duke. The Libertarians have a few wackos as well. None of that proves anything.
In response to:

Democracy Delusions

InsightingTruth Wrote: Nov 12, 2014 2:56 PM
How odd. I have seen many sensible posts from many different quarters. I do see that some people will gloss over a hundred such posts, and then spend unlimited effort arguing with a nut-job.
In response to:

Democracy Delusions

InsightingTruth Wrote: Nov 12, 2014 2:49 PM
No, Darby: Agree or disagree is fine. You don't get it because you say things that do not apply.
Previous 21 - 30 Next