Did any Americans watch "Your Interview with the President"?

[WatsonX]

@Lawton

Based on your comments, I'm sure you have no idea what you're talking about; let alone what this discussion is about.
Move along, sheep, move along.

[MagicManICT]

And fuck you guy that says we live in a police state.

Then why does American have one of the largest prison populations per capita in the world? Did you know that our current "Justice System" is a complete violation of the Constitution as drafted? Are you aware that every courtroom in American now serves under Maritime Law, which is only allowed for during a state of Martial Law? (Ever wonder what that gold trim around the flag was for?)

Now, do a bit of and come back and tell us if these things are true or not.

the Americans being disappointed by Obama are so funny. That guy is a freaking gift of god to you, but it takes a while to cure all those diseases the Republicans left there especially when they are still blocking and sabotaging his every move

I wouldn't say all this. I never did like this guy. I was a Clinton supporter. However, he (and whoever proposed the bank bailouts) has kept us from completely spiraling into another massive depression that the Republicans engineered over 10 years of bank deregulation. Funny how history likes to repeat itself.... It's been proven time and again that those that are greedy little bastards will destroy everything around themselves, including themselves, to satisfy that primal urge. You can't deregulate anything... except maybe drugs. End this stupid idiocy we call the "War on Drugs". It's done nothing but turn our streets into bloodshed and cause warfare in other countries (Mexico, Columbia, etc., etc.) and fill our courtrooms and prisons with those better served by mental health services.

Just remember, burg: haters gonna hate.

[WatsonX]

@MagicManICT
I admittedly don't know much of the justice system's inner workings. So I'll just take your word for it for the sake of this comment. The reason we are not a "Police State" is because we still enjoy freedoms unheard of in most of the world. Although we do have the highest prison population per capita, we do not have the highest population of political prisoners per capita. Political persecution is the hallmark of the police state. Our high proportion of prisoners comes drugs being illegal. Since America has such a copious drug appetite, we can't help but having high populations of drug offenders in prison.
We are not a police state, because our large inmate population is criminal rather than political.

[MagicManICT]

No, what you are doing now is making assumptions of human nature. Its not so black and white as saying people are good or people are bad. The prevailing philosophical thought throughout our development as a nation has been that people are inherently bad (greedy), but does it make it true? Is it true because some French guy thought it was over 200 years ago? Their are plenty of unselfish and selfless human beings, even in the U.S. We do live in a culture that promotes greed. Evidence is all around you.

This philosophy dates back thousands of years with the concept of Original Sin. Since the US was founded upon Judeo-Christian mores, it makes since that the founding philosophies of morality and justice have the same background. Besides, can you prove it wrong? Having a few people being unselfish and humanitarian does not negate the concept. It just proves that we can rise up above our animalistic nature.

[MagicManICT]

I admittedly don't know much of the justice system's inner workings. So I'll just take your word for it for the sake of this comment. The reason we are not a "Police State" is because we still enjoy freedoms unheard of in most of the world. Although we do have the highest prison population per capita, we do not have the highest population of political prisoners per capita. Political persecution is the hallmark of the police state. Our high proportion of prisoners comes drugs being illegal. Since America has such a copious drug appetite, we can't help but having high populations of drug offenders in prison.
We are not a police state, because our large inmate population is criminal rather than political.

I will completely agree with you on the definitions here, because to do otherwise would just make me seem bat-shit crazy. After all, that is how the western world has made these definitions.

However, what I will argue is this: What's the difference between a "political" prisoner and a "criminal"? A law. We declare that Action A is a crime against the state (even though the crime itself causes no harm other than to the sole individual). I brought the example of the "War on Drugs" that has raged across the globe for the last 30 years. (I say across the globe because of all the violence it has brought to various regions of the world.) Prohibition in the US pretty much proved that when it comes to vices, the law just can't win. The law only bullies people into submission, but that's not the same as winning. The vice just moves underground, which is when violence and corruption truly take over. In the end, the law lost the war despite all the battles it won because people wanted to keep drinking. Here's the difference, though: most everyone (relatively speaking) consumes alcohol. Only a fraction of the population consumes "hard drugs" because of the health and social stigmas (they'll kill you almost to a one if not turn you crazy,and no, pot isn't a hard drug). Therefore, there isn't that many people pushing politically to end it. However, it doesn't change the fact that it's PURELY political, and therefore, as can be argued, anyone arrested for any drug-related crime could be labeled a political prisoner. (Of course, some of these "drug-related" crimes are still moral crimes and worthy of imprisonment.)

Now, if you can agree that, possibly, every person in prison for drug-related crimes is a political prisoner, then yes, the US moves up to the top of the list of being a police state. I'm going to agree with the counter-argument that no, not every man, woman, or child in the criminal justice system guilty of a drug-related crime is there wrongfully. If you listen to most of their stories, they were doing whatever they could to get high or peddle their goods various, usually involving forms of theft and violence, all of which fall under moral laws. After all, we are all guilty of something, some just more than others. However, if you're going to put a person in prison, it should be fore what they're actually doing wrong. Using a "made up" crime to imprison people is no better than just locking them away for suspected terrorism, anti-state political activities, whatever.

FYI, we're not the only country to have such a "copious" drug appetite. We're just the only one to treat users like criminal scum. Most other "civilized" countries either treat the users or have the drug in a controlled, but legal, form.

[WatsonX]

No, what you are doing now is making assumptions of human nature. Its not so black and white as saying people are good or people are bad. The prevailing philosophical thought throughout our development as a nation has been that people are inherently bad (greedy), but does it make it true? Is it true because some French guy thought it was over 200 years ago? Their are plenty of unselfish and selfless human beings, even in the U.S. We do live in a culture that promotes greed. Evidence is all around you.

This philosophy dates back thousands of years with the concept of Original Sin. Since the US was founded upon Judeo-Christian mores, it makes since that the founding philosophies of morality and justice have the same background. Besides, can you prove it wrong? Having a few people being unselfish and humanitarian does not negate the concept. It just proves that we can rise up above our animalistic nature.

The problem here is you're assumptions are based on America being founded on Judeo-Christian morals. The U.S. was founded on the philosophies of the enlightenment. These people held the notion that people were evil at the core. These are the philosophies that are pounded into our heads from the time we start school. Its no wonder, then, how hard it is to let them go. They are engrained into the collective concious of mordern man. But does that make them right or true? Not neccessarily, its just what we believe. I actually believe it is not so black and white as to say whether man is fundamentally good or evil. Its too simplistic a notion for me to stomach personally. There were times in history when people held the belief that people are fundamentally good. They believed it with as much conviction as we believe our's today.

Though I'm no theologian, I wouldn't say original sin means humans are evil at the core. No, it just means people are imperfect and make mistakes.

[lawton]

@MagicManICT
I admittedly don't know much of the justice system's inner workings. So I'll just take your word for it for the sake of this comment. The reason we are not a "Police State" is because we still enjoy freedoms unheard of in most of the world.

[SacreDoom]

Arrogant American alert?

[Tonkyhonk]

Yeah, that's why i used we in the collective sense and not the individual sense.
I figured that what you are saying, kinda goes without saying.

how can it go without saying what denies the point?

Their are plenty of unselfish and selfless human beings, even in the U.S. We do live in a culture that promotes greed. Evidence is all around you.

people with no opportunities have not so hard time staying clean. opportunities move people.

my favorite line from a song by an american musician :
"freedom of speech as long as you dont say too much"


p.s.

The U.S. was founded on the philosophies of the enlightenment.

lolwhat?

[WatsonX]

comment removed for space issues

Don't get me wrong, I am against having laws that make no sense. My personal philosophy on the matter is: If something doesn't impede on other people's rights of life and liberty, then it shouldn't be illegal.

To answer your question: What's the difference between a "political" prisoner and a "criminal"? I say this: A political prisoner is one who is arrested because his views are contrary to what the state believes, a criminal is one arrested for violating a law. Your rebuttal would be: "Anyone arrested for any drug-related crime could be labeled a political prisoner... [because having a crime against drugs]... is PURELY political."

This is where I must make a clarification: Laws against drugs are not political. Why is that you ask? Well you only have to take a look at the prohibition of alcohol to see. The 18th amendment was the result of nearly 100 years work by various temprence movements. When you look at these temperance movement you will see that they are only using the political system to create a law that is in line with thier religious beliefs. The same is true with opiates and opioids, and stimulants. It is partly true with marijuana, the only difference is that marijuana prohibition also had a racist/xenophobic quality to it. The only drug prohibition that could be considered political, perhaps, is that of LSD.

So while are laws may be out-dated or just wrong, we are NOT a police state.