Please turn on javascript in your browser to play chess.
Debates Forum

Debates Forum

  1. 09 Sep '09 01:29 / 1 edit
    Cass Sunstein"Animal Rights: Current Debates and New Directions", a 2004 book that Sunstein co-edited with then-girlfriend Martha Nussbaum. In that book, Sunstein set out an ambitious plan to give animals the legal “right” to file lawsuits.

    “Animals should be permitted to bring suit, with human beings as their representatives, to prevent violations of current law … Any animals that are entitled to bring suit would be represented by (human) counsel, who would owe guardian like obligations and make decisions, subject to those obligations, on their clients’ behalf.”

    It doesn't end there. Sunstein delivered a keynote speech at Harvard University’s 2007 “Facing Animals” conference. Keep in mind that as OIRA Administrator, Sunstein will have the political authority to implement a massive federal government overhaul. Consider this tidbit:

    “We ought to ban hunting, I suggest, if there isn’t a purpose other than sport and fun. That should be against the law. It’s time now.”

    Sunstein also argued in favor of “eliminating current practices such as greyhound racing, cosmetic testing, and meat eating, most controversially.”


    He concluded his Harvard speech by expressing his “more ambitious animating concern” that the current treatment of livestock and other animals should be considered “a form of unconscionable barbarity not the same as, but in many ways morally akin to, slavery and mass extermination of human beings.”

    This is change we can believe in! The inmates are running the asylum!

    Thoughts,comments? Why is Obama surrounding himself with these flakes?
  2. 09 Sep '09 01:41
    Originally posted by utherpendragon
    [b]Cass Sunstein"Animal Rights: Current Debates and New Directions", a 2004 book that Sunstein co-edited with then-girlfriend Martha Nussbaum. In that book, Sunstein set out an ambitious plan to give animals the legal “right” to file lawsuits.

    “Animals should be permitted to bring suit, with human beings as their representatives, to pr ...[text shortened]... ing the asylum![/b]

    Thoughts,comments? Why is Obama surrounding himself with these flakes?[/b]
    I wonder if a cop sees you step on an ant by accident, if they will dig up the queen to represent her in court to sue your arse. Probably only likely if you have a Ron Paul bumper sticker or something. This is why the dems will find themselves without a party.
  3. Subscriber FMF
    a.k.a. John W Booth
    09 Sep '09 01:45 / 2 edits
    Originally posted by utherpendragon
    Cass Sunstein "Animal Rights: Current Debates and New Directions", a 2004 book that Sunstein co-edited with then-girlfriend Martha Nussbaum. In that book, Sunstein set out an ambitious plan to give animals the legal “right” to file lawsuits.
    I oppose hunting in my own country. My sister passionately supports it. Plenty of interesting struggles over the supper table in years gone past, for sure. The concept that animals have "rights" leaves me cold. I think what humans can and cannot do to animals can be determined by legislation and so the only "rights" that are relevant in the debate about hunting animals (for example) are the ones that society grants to its members with respect to this activity.

    Animals will never have the legal “right” to file lawsuits - so the OP and the people it quotes is kind of funny ha ha in that respect - but lawsuits will obviously be filed if citizens break laws that legislators elected by those citizens have passed in order to enable or restrict certain activities involving animals.

    I think "czars" are probably a good idea to get things done in a political system that has evolved into a kind of self-perpetuating gridlock. I imagine that the next Republican administration will use them just as extensively as the current Democrat one. Whether individual people are appropriate or capable of doing the job is kind of kitchen sink politics, whereas the existence of czars, and their increasing use as an instrument used by the executive branch to consolidate and streamline policy initiatives, appears to me to be a new thing (in terms of extent and scope) and set to be a feature of the political landscape for decades to come, regardless of the leftwingness or rightwingness of the policies being managed.
  4. 09 Sep '09 02:05
    I think "czars" are probably a good idea to get things done in a political system that has evolved into a kind of self-perpetuating gridlock.

    I believe the proper term for gridlock is checks and balance. You're right, creating a bunch of czars is just Obama's way of trying to get around the checks and balance system.
  5. Subscriber FMF
    a.k.a. John W Booth
    09 Sep '09 02:08 / 1 edit
    Originally posted by Eladar
    creating a bunch of czars is just Obama's way of trying to get around the checks and balance system.
    Can you explain? Do you have an example? Has legislation been passed without the consent of the legislatures? Politicians of all political stripes 'try' to do things to further their aims and policies. Can you be specific about which checks and which balances? Which policies?

    Do you believe that when people of your political stripe are elected to replace the Democrats someday, that they will not use "czars"?
  6. 09 Sep '09 02:09 / 1 edit
    Originally posted by Eladar
    [b]I think "czars" are probably a good idea to get things done in a political system that has evolved into a kind of self-perpetuating gridlock.

    I believe the proper term for gridlock is checks and balance. You're right, creating a bunch of czars is just Obama's way of trying to get around the checks and balance system.[/b]
    sh76 thinks it is cute they call them czars. I think it is cute too right up to the point of marshal law, forced inoculations, forced abortions, and carbon taxes. Not to mention a big kill off of the population.
  7. 09 Sep '09 02:19
    Originally posted by FMF
    Can you explain? Do you have an example? Has legislation been passed without the consent of the legislatures? Politicians of all political stripes 'try' to do things to further their aims and policies. Can you be specific about which checks and which balances? Which policies?

    Do you believe that when people of your political stripe are elected to replace the Democrats someday, that they will not use "czars"?
    In other words it is unconstitutional.
    I know you understand about checks and balances in our government. We learn that in grade school,and you seem quite educated.
    Czars have been used sparingly in the past. Obama has 30+ Czars at last count. It brings to much power to the executive branch.
  8. 09 Sep '09 16:56 / 2 edits
    Originally posted by Eladar
    [b]I think "czars" are probably a good idea to get things done in a political system that has evolved into a kind of self-perpetuating gridlock.

    I believe the proper term for gridlock is checks and balance. You're right, creating a bunch of czars is just Obama's way of trying to get around the checks and balance system.[/b]
    But none of these czars can do anything that goes beyond the process of enforcing existing laws. And enforcing existing laws is actually supposed to be the president's main job. But over time, the president has become a de facto "legislator-in-chief" who's to be judged mainly by what legislation he puts forth.

    I suppose the GOP could put forth legislation requiring all "czars" to be subject to the same confirmation process as cabinet heads. The presidents will no doubt continue consulting with people as they've done before, but it will put an end to the naming of czars and the distracting political targets they become.
  9. Standard member sh76
    Civis Americanus Sum
    09 Sep '09 17:02
    Originally posted by joe beyser
    sh76 thinks it is cute they call them czars. I think it is cute too right up to the point of marshal law, forced inoculations, forced abortions, and carbon taxes. Not to mention a big kill off of the population.
    Well, I do think it's cute that they're called czars. But if all those horrible things could be done by the government, they could be done with or without the "czars."

    If those same people were called "gophers" or "administrative overseers" or "policy consultants" would you be worried as much about them? I don't get worked up over titles. They can be called Kings for all I care as long as they don't step out of their constitutional and legal authorities.
  10. Subscriber duecer
    anybody seen my
    09 Sep '09 17:23
    Originally posted by utherpendragon
    In other words it is unconstitutional.
    I know you understand about checks and balances in our government. We learn that in grade school,and you seem quite educated.
    Czars have been used sparingly in the past. Obama has 30+ Czars at last count. It brings to much power to the executive branch.
    as unconstitutional as signing statements that basically say you are going to ignore laws?
  11. Standard member telerion
    True X X Xian
    10 Sep '09 02:30
    Originally posted by joe beyser
    I wonder if a cop sees you step on an ant by accident, if they will dig up the queen to represent her in court to sue your arse. Probably only likely if you have a Ron Paul bumper sticker or something. This is why the dems will find themselves without a party.
    Ron Paul bumpersticker = 20 point IQ handicap.
  12. 10 Sep '09 02:41
    Originally posted by telerion
    Ron Paul bumpersticker = 20 point IQ handicap.
    In that case I would say you have about 20 or thirty of em on your vw van.
  13. Standard member telerion
    True X X Xian
    10 Sep '09 03:04
    Originally posted by joe beyser
    In that case I would say you have about 20 or thirty of em on your vw van.
    That assertion is as asinine as anything else you've polluted this forum with during your tenure here.

    You're wrong, but at least you're consistently wrong.
  14. 10 Sep '09 03:12
    Originally posted by telerion
    That assertion is as asinine as anything else you've polluted this forum with during your tenure here.

    You're wrong, but at least you're consistently wrong.
    That is the nicest thing you have said to me you squirel headed nice feller you.
  15. 10 Sep '09 14:58
    Originally posted by sh76
    Well, I do think it's cute that they're called czars. But if all those horrible things could be done by the government, they could be done with or without the "czars."

    If those same people were called "gophers" or "administrative overseers" or "policy consultants" would you be worried as much about them? I don't get worked up over titles. They can be called ...[text shortened]... I care as long as they don't step out of their constitutional and legal authorities.
    I like the idea of calling them "gophers"