REWRITE! Goll-darn it. Where's that copy boy?! I called for a REWRITE! The big news item coming out of Venezuela on December 3 was not President Hugo Chávez’ reelection, nor his wide margin of victory, but that is was only 62% in the wake of the AD boycotting the December elections. They have rejected Chávez’s legitimacy and systematically opposed all his actions, primarily because every time Chávez has emerged victorious, he has consolidated political control (including a constitutional rewrite - where is that copy boy!?) and taken new, bold measures to marginalize his opposition. It is rumored that even the Iranian …
All 961 comments by...
Jay Cline
-
-
Jack? Who be you and what rabbit hole did you jump out of? Anyway, trick question: if Chavez' opposition opts out of the election, where did that 38% come from? Yeah, let's terminate that line of discussion. Too close to the jugular.
Posted to Chávez Consolidates Power
-
that was easy.
Posted to Chávez Consolidates Power
-
Jackie, Please, don't go away mad. You are right. Democracy in Venezuela is a sterling example of how might makes right. You still haven't addressed where that 38% came from. If the opposing team stays home, why only 62%?
Posted to Chávez Consolidates Power
-
Jack, Let me dumb this up. Venezuela, under Chavez, stopped being a legitimate democracy when he rigged the process (and the constitution) in his favor. Just as voting percentages are irrelevant in Iran, they are irrelevant in Venezuela. The criticism I have leveled is on Ellner's refusal to "report" on the issue in an objective manner. He lauds the "revolutionary" electoral successes of Chavez without asking where those "successes" have been, at the polling station... or at the police station.
Posted to Chávez Consolidates Power
-
As Jack says best, try reading a paper. Anything in the past 10 years.
Posted to Chávez Consolidates Power
-
Ah starboy, how about some actual references? It is a bit disingenuous to call for references when you do not provide them yourself. The way I hear it, it was actually the Carter Center trying to refute the statistics that actually gaffed with their own statistics. Here is the URL (from that same Daily Fishwrap) dated Sept 9, 2004, that lambasts Conned in Caracas New evidence that Jimmy Carter got fooled in Venezuela. http://www.opinionjournal.com/editorial/feature.html?id=110005586
Posted to Chávez Consolidates Power
-
I guess you truly missed it.
Posted to Chávez Consolidates Power
-
The Carter Center has been repeatedly troubled by the lack of transparency of Chavez' elections; the EU (another well-intentioned org that certifies dubious elections) backed out of monitoring elections because of the onerous restrictions that Chavez imposed on them; scholars have repeatedly criticized statistical anomalies in election results, anomalies that The Carter Center first refute, then go "oops, we forgot to carry the one" but allege that the anomalies did not cross the line into statistical relevance (those contrary scholars have not restated their analysis); after failing to capture power in the early 90s with a military coup, Chavez went for …
Posted to Chávez Consolidates Power
-
In responding to the various accusations of fraud, the following comments were made. The first is from Jennifer McCoy, (http://www.economist.com/opinion/displaystory.cfm?story_id=3157671) who directed the Carter Center's mission in Venezuela. The second (http://venezuela-referendum.com/) is from researchers who were consulted by the Carter Center to examine some of the specific claims. Unsurprisingly, both conclude the elections to have been fair. Surprisingly, both go out of their way to qualify their claims. I stand by my existential "foggy glasses" metaphor - if you can't see it, can it possibly be there? McCoy:
In conclusion, the vote itself was secret and free, but the CNE's (Venezuela's …
Posted to Chávez Consolidates Power
-
C'mon, dudes. You are only going to get in trouble trying to make Chavez into a saint.
Posted to Chávez Consolidates Power
-
An excerpt from that WSL report about Jimmy getting conned:
Mr. Hausmann told us that he and Mr. Rigoban also "found very clear trails of fraud in the statistical record" and a probability of less than 1% that the anomalies observed could be pure chance. To put it another way, they think the chance is 99% that there was electoral fraud. The authors also suggest that the fraud was centralized. Voting machines were supposed to print tallies before communicating by Internet with the CNE center. But the CNE changed that rule, arranging to have totals sent to the center first and …
Posted to Chávez Consolidates Power
-
Starboy, I think you need reading lessons. 1) I found no article with the quote you site. The article I found was quite the opposite. Try reading before passing judgement. THAT would be special. 2) Try a little more reading, from reputable sources. Blogs, as you have so often pointed out in the past, do not meet that criteria. Opinions, dear friend, not facts. I must apologize. Did I do you permanent brain damage in our last King of the Hill battle?
Posted to Chávez Consolidates Power
-
awc - the issue is they observed only where and when Chavez allowed them to observe. starboy, no no dear friend, the Daily Fishwrap quote. Or did you just make that up? As far as the real fishwrap you have provided, some of the more important links to his argument just 404s. Again, try reading before inserting foot. But I must, once again, apologize. You have stated over and over you have no inkling of a desire to debate and your sole reason for dragging our debates into the mud was as a mere tactic to shut the troll up. I …
Posted to Chávez Consolidates Power
-
starboy, I appreciate your prior persistent and profuse objections regarding your expertise with computer systems, and I accept that lack of knowledge for the sake of our argument. Alas, I do not have that same failing. Let me dumb this up for you, once again. Point 1. At issue between the opposing reports (Hausmann/Rigobon vs. CEPR) is whether the audits, particularly the second one, used a statistically random sample. H/R says no, CEPR says yes. Certainly you and I can agree that is necessary before one can apply statistical analysis (including your 1 in 28 trillion statistic). True? A computer was …
Posted to Chávez Consolidates Power
-
Point 2. The 1 in 28 trillion loony tune was made with a faulty assumption. When H/R demonstrated the statistically significant deviation between signatures for the referendum and the ultimate YES votes in the election, they found a demonstrable 10% variance between precincts whose voting stations were part of the "randomly" selected second audit and those precincts that were not. H/R's own version of a "1 in 28 trillion" improbability was a more believable 1% chance. In other words, this deviation from statistical norms would only happen 1 in 100 times. Unless you rigged the elections. CEPR took H/R's "for the …
Posted to Chávez Consolidates Power
-
Oh, and when you finally get around to sourcing that "fishwrapper" quote from the WSJ, let me know. Asking me to validate your unsubstantiated arguments is, well, loony.
Posted to Chávez Consolidates Power
-
Jack, Think about it. You are using the same (il)logic that the CERP report is. "Chavez won the majority of the vote because the majority of the vote is for Chavez." The issue is that the count is a fraud. Much ado about nothing? Then why all the hype about Bush and the 2000 and 2004 elections which "proved" Bush was the winner because he won more votes?
Posted to Chávez Consolidates Power
-
Indeed. The kind of circular logic spun by Jack will do that.
Posted to Chávez Consolidates Power
-
starboy, You are right. You are completely clueless when it comes to computers. 1) They didn't need to write the program. They just needed to know which "seed" would give them the desired results. 2) The program was indeed certified as being a random number generator. Had they been able to run the program with a seed not of Chavez' choosing, it would have created a sufficiently random sequence. 3) How many people saw, on live TV, David Copperfield make the Statue of Liberty disappear? The sleight of hand was in CHOOSING the seed number.
Posted to Chávez Consolidates Power
-
Ok, people. Let me try once again and simplify this even further. CERP comes up with a loony "1 in 28 trillion" statistic based on their claim that H/R assumes the audited sample is actually representative of the actual vote. From that, they get their loony tune, showing that H/R's results has as much chance of happening as a quantum particle translating 200 light years in zero time. The problem is that while H/R does indeed make that assumption, they start with that assumption to reach a false conclusion, proving that the assumption itself is false. The assumption being, of course, …
Posted to Chávez Consolidates Power
-
lb, You (and CERP) are absolutely correct; using dubious exit polling data is dubious at best. Unfortunately, you (and CERP, twice now) are arriving at false conclusions on the basis of false assumptions. H/R did not use the exit polls as the second data point in discovering the unexplained variance. The 10% variance between audited and unaudited precincts was the variance of the ratio of the signatures to the actual vote. First, please read the first Results paragraph I provided above (page 33 of H/R's report), specifically, the signatures collected in the audited precincts on August 18th generate 10 percent more …
Posted to Chávez Consolidates Power
-
What we are talking about is a 10% discrepancy. Not something one can easily dismiss. As far as being disguised, H/R has quite effectively blown the cover off that deception.
Posted to Chávez Consolidates Power
-
fyi, when you run the numbers, assuming H/R's variance is valid and apply that to the unaudited precincts, you get a dead heat.
Posted to Chávez Consolidates Power
-
With regards to the "obvious" observations, 1) It IS apparent. Reread H/R's report. Understanding the significance of the 10.5% variance between audited and unaudited precincts requires only a modicum of statistical ability. 2&3) It did and it has. That's the point. See number 1.
Posted to Chávez Consolidates Power
-
Several hundred years ago, the following was "obvious": - the world is flat - the world is the center of the universe - god created the universe - disturbed people were possessed by demons - bloodletting the sick released bad blood from the system Show me the science, the rigorous logic, that validates your "obvious" observations.
Posted to Chávez Consolidates Power
-
Dude, Read the report. Yes, they were provided a lot of data, which they looked at. The fact that they get the same result whether they compared it with exit polls or actual votes actually validates the exit polls. But, With regard to modus ponens, so the Earth is flat? C'mon. Saying that it should be easy to disprove, doesn't prove your case. Or that it is even relevant. Isn't that obvious? People are only half as dumb as you think they are, and you are only half as smart as you should be.
Posted to Chávez Consolidates Power
-
starboy, In case you missed it, from your own quote,
We find that the deviation pattern between precincts, based on the relationship between the signatures from the November 2003 Reafirmazo, and the YES votes on August 15, is positive and significantly correlated with the deviation pattern in the relationship between exit polls and votes. In other words, those precincts in which, according to the number of signatures, there are an unusually low number of YES votes, is also where, according to the exit polls, the same thing occurs.
Let's break that down, shall we? 1) We find that the deviation …Posted to Chávez Consolidates Power
-
As far as the 10.5% deviation, this was a result of the actual audit and the actual vote.
Posted to Chávez Consolidates Power
-
Jack, Try reading what is actually said before jumping on the broken bandwagon.....
Posted to Chávez Consolidates Power
-
As far as relying strictly on data from Sumate, if so, and if, by implication the data is faulty, how did you say it, then it shouldn’t be too hard to show them to be false. I wonder why no one has been able to do that?
Posted to Chávez Consolidates Power
-
I see we are headed down that predictable road where, when you are unable to refute the facts, you start to apply your own misdirection and play King of the Hill. The Hill is yours, starboy, as it always will be. When you are ready to argue facts, when you are ready to acknowledge facts, I'll be here. (yes, yes, I know. But if you have refuted any of the facts as I presented them, please illuminate this poor troll - I don't see it)
Posted to Chávez Consolidates Power
-
You know, I may be a little too harsh on ol' Chavez. Bored of starboy's disinformation campaign, I started looking for other examples of Chavez' attempts to thwart the democratic process in Venezuela. Imagine my surprise when I found him, as the Executive Head, to be taking responsible actions in defending Venezuela's democratic institutions. The Referendum, of which we are discussing, was initiated by a campaign by those scurrilous louts, the Sumate, to gather signatures calling for a Recall of Chavez as El Presidente. Those scoundrels gathered over 3.2 million signatures calling for a recall. Chavez, in defense of his country, …
Posted to Chávez Consolidates Power
-
Indeed, these guys are shysters! Let's take a look at other notable hook and crook polling campaigns they have run, Clinton (Billy) 1996, Cllnton (Hilly) 2001. Starboy, when you are right, you are right!
Posted to Chávez Consolidates Power
-
(I believe it is your serve, in this mudslinging match)
Posted to Chávez Consolidates Power
-
With regards to the "obvious" observations, 1) It IS apparent. Reread H/R's report. Understanding the significance of the 10.5% variance between audited and unaudited precincts requires only a modicum of statistical ability. 2&3) It did and it has. That's the point. See number 1. United States Posted by Jay Cline on Jan 5, 2007 at 7:56 AM
Like I keep saying: First, read. Then, engage brain.Posted to Chávez Consolidates Power
-
Yes, I do want an honest, rational debate. You can start with any of the three. Your choice.
Posted to Chávez Consolidates Power
-
‘Many’ is usually construed to be more than the number of fingers on one hand. I believe the class action suit of those who allegedly claim to have lost jobs because of the printing of the petition signers names numbers exactly three (3) claimants. Exactly!
Your statistical slip is showing again. I wasn't aware of a class action suit. I was referring to the total population of those fired, not some unrepresentative microsample. Exactly, indeed!Posted to Chávez Consolidates Power
-
As you have noted, if it is so easy to disprove, why isn't anyone doing it? CERP tried mightily, but were so eager beaver about it they made at least two very basic faulty assumptions. It's been two and a half years.... Is the source data corrupted? Should be easy enough to prove...aside from your infamous illogical innuendoes....
Posted to Chávez Consolidates Power
-
1) again, read the report. 10.5% which would only happen 1 out 100 times. 2) This is the total number of government employees that have actually claimed discrimination. - already answered that. You continue to qualify the population group.
Posted to Chávez Consolidates Power
-
Before we continue, you need to tighten up your "arguments". I am getting bored of cleaning up your obvious lapses in logic, rhetoric and fact. I'll try to give you the benefit of a doubt and not imply these "lapses" are deliberate rhetorical tactics. But we both know better. Now, we've "known" each other for a little while, so, anticipating your typical passive-aggressive response to such criticism, let me show you what I mean through example. Your "refuted" arguments have been repeatedly based on obvious false assumptions. Your latest "refutation" of my defense of the integrity and relevance of Sumate's exit …
Posted to Chávez Consolidates Power
-
The statistical analysis by H/R is sound. The methodology is clearly described, and easily repeatable by anyone doing second year undergrad work in statistics. The data used is official, public data; it is not owned nor controlled by Sumate. Sumate's exit poll data is not what has led to the conclusion that there is less than a 1% statistical chance that the referendum was fair. It was actual referendum data, actual voting results, actual audit results. The rhetorical non-tactic of assassinating Sumate's character to "prove" the data is false, is typically disingenuous. While I would not offer testimony as a character …
Posted to Chávez Consolidates Power
-
RP, No offense taken. As far as my motivations for engaging in political debate, you offer some interesting suppositions, yet I would only counter that I am here to seek truth and put in my own two cents.
Posted to Chávez Consolidates Power
-
starboy, Sorry, I just don't see it. Can you tell me what page of the H/R report you are looking at that relates Si (which is a variable based on the signature data, not the exit polls - where Si are the number of signatures, page 30) to the exit poll data? Ok, let's see, first it was the WSJ calling H/R's analysis a fraud, which you have still not been able to document. Then it was the CERP coming up with a 1 in 28 trillion statistical absurdity in H/R's analysis that is only valid if they assumed the audit …
Posted to Chávez Consolidates Power
-
starboy, In an attempt to be fair, let us assume that you simply do not understand statistics, even basic statistics. The key is understanding what a statistical correlation is - comparing two independent variables (ie signatures and exit polls) with a third variable (actual vote) and see if there is a correlation between the distribution of each independent variable with the third variable (yes, I know. I already explained this. But it doesn''t seem to have set in). The second term you need to come to terms with is what a regression analysis is. Basically, it is the analysis to determine …
Posted to Chávez Consolidates Power
-
And, as I also said when first explaining this, not only does the analysis show, through the comparision of signature data with actual vote data, that fraud is 99% possible, but that when the exit data is then also compared with the actual vote, it shows with blindingly clarity that is obvious to all, that the "dubious" exit data, in fact, is not so dubious. Someone cheated. The data indicates it was not Sumate.
Posted to Chávez Consolidates Power
-
Arpie, In looking over the Venezuelan media website you have offered, I am struck by how pro-Chavez it is. Now, don't misunderstand me. There is nothing wrong with that, and does not necessarily condemn it to irrelevance. A true Churchillian democrat believes all should have a voice. And pro-Chavez Venezuelans are certainly entitled to their own. However, one of the most pervasive arguments made against anti-Chavez rhetoric, is that the Venezuelan media is completely controlled by the opposition. It would appear, that dominance may not be as pervasive as is alleged, but I do not have your in-country intimacy. As you …
Posted to Chávez Consolidates Power
-
starboy, Unfortunately, you are misquoting again. The Carter Center merely claimed that the deviation was not as "robust" as they would like and attributes the statistical discrepancy to some other theoretical causes, causes they do not elucidate, which in itself is a tacit acknowledgement that there is a discrepancy. Maybe if we opened up the data from the other 99% of precincts, we might actually get to the bone of it all. This is no different than CERP asserting that the mistakes they allege in H/R's analysis to most likely stem from a misspecification in their (H/R's) econometric model without actually …
Posted to Chávez Consolidates Power
-
Intensely thought-provoking. It does give one a pause, for reflection, does it not? Thank you.
Posted to All Praises to the Pause
-
Perlman is, of course, twisting the truth. Anyone who doesn't know that Lieberman is for getting our troops out of Iraq by winning the war, just doesn't know politics as much as he claims to. Regardless if he is trying to hawk his own book.
Posted to The Odd Couple: Nixon and Lieberman
-
blonde, So, there is no democracy in America? There is no justice? It is all a farce? As I said earlier, if you believe that you are right and the only way you can lose an election is through deceit and fraud, maybe the real problem is your own intolerance towards other viewpoints. The hell with elections! We need to overthrow the government, by whatever means!
Posted to Fear and Voting in the USA
-
Will our system of constitutional democracy survive? And for many, this election is a crucial, desperate test.
First principle of a democracy: When you lose an election, you lose an election. That is all the sovereign legitimacy the winner needs. Raising unsubstantiated conspiratorial cries of fixed elections just because you are a sore loser is the sign of an emerging fascist state. It is incredible that liberals would be at the vanguard of this emergence.Will the Republicans pay for the public’s opposition to the war in Iraq?
Well, the public will have that opportunity very soon. Oh, I forgot. If …Posted to Fear and Voting in the USA
-
Dude, How is calling for a little respect towards the will of the people, as expressed by elections, considered partisan?
Posted to Fear and Voting in the USA
-
I hear the Dems have 7000 lawyers standing by in all 50 states to challenge any election they lose. If they know about a specific case of voting fraud, wouldn't it be a great idea to challenge it BEFORE the election? Or is it axiomatic that if the Democrats lose an election, it can only be because the election was a fraud? Think about it.
Posted to Fear and Voting in the USA
-
blonde, You're right of course. I do remember RFK Jr, as the prosecuting attorney, successfully make that argument in a court of law. I just don't remember in which county. A little help here?
Posted to Fear and Voting in the USA
-
Starboy aka Jane. absolutely! anyone with a passing familiarity with Logic 101 would insist that your first paragraph, by necessity, follows my statements. Unfortunately, you have always succumbed to your stereotypes, as evidenced in your second paragraph, which is a pile of hooey.
Posted to Fear and Voting in the USA
-
bm, still wondering what county bobby's little boy prosecuted this stolen election scandal.
Posted to Fear and Voting in the USA
-
Criminal conspiracies are tried in court, dude. Which county?
Posted to Fear and Voting in the USA
-
blonde, I am stumbling over some of your logic -
Let’s just see what happens on Tuesday.
How is this relevant to allegations of corrupt balloting? Are you saying if the Democrats win, then that is proof of corruption? Or are you saying the Democrats will always win a fair fight and the only way a Republican can win is through corruption? Have you read my first post on democracy and this pre-emergent fascist attitude amongst Democrats in the past couple elections?Posted to Fear and Voting in the USA
-
I am very afraid of mobocracies, where the accused is presumed guilty. Again, which county prosecutor overturned the "stolen" 2000 election?
Posted to Fear and Voting in the USA
-
hmmm, the "site-friendly" trolls have a new theme. Instead of rational debate, they disparage any commentary they don't like with admonishments to seek professional help. And, we have a rather interesting discussion with regards to fascism. Perhaps we are seeing an ugly phenomena reemerge right here in River City? From the left, even?
Posted to Fear and Voting in the USA
-
Wait a minute. Social control from the fascist right has always been strong-armed, brown shirts and such. Social control from the extreme left has been predominantly that of psychological and psychiatric manipulation. I thought I was onto something here. oh well, same ol' same ol'.
Posted to Fear and Voting in the USA
-
ROTF,LOL! Look who's whining, bubba!
Posted to Fear and Voting in the USA
-
david, not at all. I found myself quite amused. surely I do not have to explain e-acronyms to you, no? Buddy, you are beginning to sound too much like starboy. (I know, I know - compliments all around...) But I would really hate to pull out the "D" word on you, eh?
Posted to Fear and Voting in the USA
-
IN 1983, REPRESENTATIVE GERRY Studds, Democrat of Massachusetts, admitted to having sex with a 17-year-old male page. He was censured by the House of Representatives. During the vote, which he was compelled by House rules to be present for, Studds turned his back on the House to show his contempt for his colleagues' reprimand. He was not expelled from the Democratic Caucus. In fact, he was his party's nominee in the next election in his district--and the next five after that--winning reelection each time. He remained in the bosom of the Democratic Caucus in the House for the next 13 years. …
Posted to The Role of the Religious Right in the Foley Affair
-
And that rabbit/horse, is what is really hypocritical here.
Posted to The Role of the Religious Right in the Foley Affair
-
I am not sure how "abolishing private schools" would benefit anyone. It would, however, certainly close the "education equality gap", but only by lowering the ceiling, instead of raising the floor.
Posted to Is Diversity Enough?
-
No, money is the litmus test, by definition.
Posted to Is Diversity Enough?
-
By definition, money is the intent. But, by your own implicit admission, you must be a racist. Ascribing racism to capitalism merely because whiteness is the most common trait among capitalist is more than a little like claiming being black as the cause of poverty merely because blackness is the most common trait among the poor
Posted to Is Diversity Enough?
-
theloneous, You may make any argument you please, except you may not make my arguments, notwithstanding that you do it very poorly. The argument stands. Your assertion that it is inherent to be racist if one is a capitalist merely because of skin color is no different than my facetious argument that poor people are poor "because" they are merely black. Your "more logical line of reasoning" is only "more" so if you are attempting to reach a specific conclusion by defining the premise. That is not logical.
Posted to Is Diversity Enough?
-
Oh, the evils of Coca Cola! Cortez himself was said to be an agent for that monster. I agree with TI.
Posted to Cola Wars in Mexico
-
Was the 2004 Presidential Election Stolen? Exit Polls, Election Fraud, and the Official Count? What more do the skeptics want?
Proof. The following excerpts from Bleifuss' article are not examples of "proof" 64 percent of Americans voted on direct recorded electronic voting machines or optical-scan systems, both of which are vulnerable to hacking or programming fraud it would only take a few people to steal an election could allow unauthorized personnel to disrupt operations or modify data and programs that are critical to … the integrity of the voting process Proof of this came on September 13 ... which found …Posted to The Importance of Not Getting Over It
-
(we should get President Dewey's opinion on this) Certainly, allegations should be investigated. Bleifuss, however, in his typical conspiratorial tone, has determined that the allegations are fact, yet provides no evidentiary substance beyond could'ves and would'ves. When I was at the state fair last month, I could have easily pocketed a couple items off a vendors table when he wasn't looking. Does that mean I am guilty? The criticisms are against Bleifuss, not the need.
Posted to The Importance of Not Getting Over It
-
Not if there is actual proof of illicit activity, as opposed to theoretical. So, by your own logic - pony up some proof, or
keep your mouth shut.
Posted to The Importance of Not Getting Over It
-
What Foster says in parody, I say with utmost sincerity. This is a Manichean war, of good vs evil. It does span countries and continents. It is a fight of democracy, of might for right, against the tyrannies of fascist totalitarian beliefs, of might makes right. It is starting with Islamic fundamentalists, but there are other tyrannies out there, becoming emboldened by recent events. Secular Arabic autocrats, African strongmen, Chinese nationalists. European appeasers. Yeah, this is indeed the first stage of WWIII. Just as Spain and Ethiopia were the opening shots of fascism in WWII. Spain and Ethiopia were not a …
Posted to Route-Stepping? Our Way to WWIII
-
As a people's movement, does true democracy happen spontaneously?
Posted to Route-Stepping? Our Way to WWIII
-
Jane/John Doe It would seem that scorp has decided your question deserves as much attention as he has already given it, and I would agree. Your question rings as hollow as other questions I have heard from past denizens of this site who would pervert the intent of Socratic questioning. It is the Truth Socrates was after, through the exposition of unconsidered opinions. It was not the intent to foster partisan "truths" at the expense of others. The overt insinuation of your question, that there is no answer, lays your true intent bare. Yet, something on the news this morning made …
Posted to Route-Stepping? Our Way to WWIII
-
John Doe, er, Jane. Sorry. Instead of watercolors, maybe you should go back to playing shadow puppet. Just don't turn around. The light behind you at the mouth of the cave is rather bright, and I don't think your eyes are strong enough for it.
Posted to Route-Stepping? Our Way to WWIII
-
Maria, You are the one looking for a perfect world. Speaking for myself, I merely try to live in the one handed to me. Maybe you should do more of that, speaking for yourself, that is.
Posted to Route-Stepping? Our Way to WWIII
-
LOL! Rabbit, you are one funny dude.
Posted to Route-Stepping? Our Way to WWIII
-
J. Doe, Thank you for proving my point. You are not interested in the truth, only partisanship. I gave you a perfectly legitimate answer and you engage in petty insults. And, no, I have no problem with real women. But, gender bending and multiple personalities is a long established tradition on this sight. Ain't that right, lb? Oh, I forgot. He/she stopped posting about the same time as Rabbit/Redhorse.
Posted to Route-Stepping? Our Way to WWIII
-
To put a finer point on it, I have no problem with gender equality. If you act like an idiot, chivalry will not save you.
Posted to Route-Stepping? Our Way to WWIII
-
So, JD, you asked a question, you got an answer. No comment? C'mon. Where is that fighting spirit? Q. What would be a sign of a successful democracy in Iraq? A. A proliferation of spontaneous scandals. Response?? Are you, or are you not, interested in a lively debate with a low-browed troll of a man?
Posted to Route-Stepping? Our Way to WWIII
-
Incredible! The very same people who argue against an "idealistic" foreign policy vis a vis Iran, Syria, Iraq (under Saddam) and North Korea, argue against a "realistic" foreign policy against Pakistan, Saudi Arabia, Kuwait, Qatar, India. The only thread that seems to be continually consistent, in these times of hyperbolic stupidity, is these people seem to be taking a stand that supports a dogmatic opposition to anything resembling an American interest
Posted to Why Pakistan Gets A Nuclear Pass
-
To characterize Pakistan's governance as "Another dictator who’s regime is fertile ground for extremist thinking, which in the end will come back to haunt us" misses the point. The extremist thinking, and the fertile ground for it, was around, and vibrant, long before Musharref took over. That Musharref has been fighting that political element of religious extremism in Pakistani politics is why he should be receiving our support. Musharref did not create Pakistani religious extremism. That happened 60 years ago.
Posted to Why Pakistan Gets A Nuclear Pass
-
Peter H, You really should read the associated article before making such comments,
In stark contrast to its Middle East policy, the Bush administration’s strategy with Pakistan has prioritized pragmatism over ideology, preferred diplomatic persuasion to military aggression and, most strikingly, displayed a willingness to tolerate Islamic extremism that does not directly challenge its interests. Pakistan hints at both a different, realpolitik side to the Bush foreign policy and a disconnect between the administration’s moral and ideological rhetoric and its underlying goals.
So, which is it? Is the Bush Adminstrations foreign policy strategy wrong because it has priotized pragmatism (in Pakistan) …Posted to Why Pakistan Gets A Nuclear Pass
-
ok, fair enough.
Posted to Why Pakistan Gets A Nuclear Pass
-
PoBoy, Yes.Yes.Been there, done that.They are making at least that much: My monthly pay in Basic and Tech School 20 years ago was $600. Room and Board and Transportation and Healthcare provided. $600 a month and nothing to spend it on. Before the end of my first year, my monthly pay was $900. Room and Board and Transportation and Healthcare provided. $900 a month with nothing to spend it on, 'cept beer and women and vacation expenses. At my one year mark, I moved off-base. The supplemental BAQ/BAS that was for paying the additional costs of living and eating off-base actually …
Posted to Why Pakistan Gets A Nuclear Pass
-
(Let us not even start with the per diem bonanza every time we went TDY - temporary duty - generally $70-100 to pay for hotel and food expenses, even though the hotel was already paid for and there is always the chow hall).
Posted to Why Pakistan Gets A Nuclear Pass
-
hmmm, let's see. The 9/11 terrorists were Islamic, fighting in the name of Islam. Ditto for the Madrid and London bombers. Fascism - A system of government marked by centralization of authority under a dictator, stringent socioeconomic controls, suppression of the opposition through terror and censorship, and typically a policy of belligerent nationalism and racism. hmmm, Islamofascism - A system of government marked by centralization of authority under an Islamic dictator, stringent socioeconomic controls, suppression of the opposition through terror and censorship, and typically a policy of belligerent nationalism and racism. That the Bush Adminstration would use such a term to …
Posted to The Neocons Lexicon
-
Well, maybe according to Howie's interpretation of Jay's definition. Yet even a Board of Governors of a non-profit organization is a "system of government", so the point is moot. Also, I was unaware that anywhere in a definition of fascism (or in any other -ism) there exists an implicit understanding that the term is temporally dependent. What Constant of the Universe has changed that makes fascism impossible in today's world?
Posted to The Neocons Lexicon
-
I would suggest to Orwell that he attempt to explain, in his own words, why the aforementioned definition is not valid. I hate quotations. Tell me what you know. Ralph Waldo Emerson
Posted to The Neocons Lexicon
-
Is fascism, ? A system of government, marked by ?centralization of authority under a dictator, ?stringent socioeconomic controls, ?suppression of the opposition through terror and censorship, ?and typically a policy of belligerent nationalism and racism. To which do you disagree with? to which is not an accurate reflection of both the Axis Powers of WWII and the current regimes of terror under the auspices of Islam?
Posted to The Neocons Lexicon
-
Your assumption would, of course, be correct. With regard to the differences between examples of fascism, that is not the point. It is not, what kind of fascism is Islamofascism, but whether it is a form of fascism. If there is any conflating ALL Islamists as fascists, it is Orwell's doing. There is nothing intrinsic in the use of Islamofascists that categorizes the current regimes of terror under the auspices of Islam as a superset of all Islamists; rather the term refers only to those Islamists that are currently employing regimes of terror as fascists. Orwell's argument is akin to claiming …
Posted to The Neocons Lexicon
-
staedlerjr, You'd have to be more specific. Which quibbling, Salim Muwakkil's or Orwell's?
Posted to The Neocons Lexicon
-
drphonic, It is good to see you have done your homework. I shall be sure to let the people at www.dictionary.com that you believe them to be "delusional Neo-con Republicans." I would ask you the same unanswered question I have asked Orwell, what specifically to you object to with the definition? Beyond the "obvious", of course. oh, here is the URL for this "deluded" definition. http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/fascism Maybe the real issue is that some people are in denial? If the sky is blue but you hate the color blue, then anyone claiming the sky to be blue must be delusional. I …
Posted to The Neocons Lexicon
-
drphonic, Ah, I see the point you so laboriously belabor: you indeed accept the definition and take it one step further and apply it to American politics. Well, I would certainly agree that any fundamentalist point of view has elements of fascism embedded within. So, would it be fair to say that it is not a terrible strain of your obvious credulity to understand that you accept the phrase Islamofascism as an accurate portrayal of what is going on within Islamic fundamentalism? Welcome the right side of American politics.
Posted to The Neocons Lexicon
-
Orwell, Fair questions. I will attempt to respond. what system of government? Name me one system in which an “Islamofascist” is currently in power? One could argue that there are authoritarian populist in power in many mideastern countries, but this does not make them fascist. I have no issues with using an appropriate dictionary to seek accord on definitions.
system: a coordinated body of methods or a scheme or plan of procedure; organizational scheme: a system of government. government: the political direction and control exercised over the actions of the members, citizens, or inhabitants of communities, societies, and states; direction of …
Posted to The Neocons Lexicon
-
your definition of fascism makes no reference to Islam at all. What indeed is the use of appending “Islamo-” to the word. Why not just call them fascist. Of course it doesn’t. That is the rationale for prefixing “Islamo-” to the word; as an adjective of what fascism we are talking about. The topic of discussion is not a Nationalistic fascism, such as Nazism, it is about those Islamists who have adopted a fascist “organizational scheme” in their governance to enforce their world belief. In the definition of Islamofascism, I do make explicit reference to Islam - centralization of authority under …
Posted to The Neocons Lexicon
-
May I suggest that the term “authoritarian populist” or “theocratic” might be bettern terms to use, depending upon the case? Perhaps, but without some definitive "definition" to differentiate them from fascism, to what end?
Posted to The Neocons Lexicon
-
ghost, er, rabbit, er horse (damn, I get so confused by all the incarnations), damn, now I forgot what I was going to say.
Posted to The Neocons Lexicon
-
Unfortunately, those wacky leftists (you can't call 'em liberals) already dumbed down the identification of all of society's problems long ago on early toilet training and other meaningless childhood "traumas".
Posted to The Neocons Lexicon
-
In an interview with The American Interest, former Senator John Danforth (an ordained Episcopal priest) suggested an ecumenical conference as a first step to this "clash of religions". Get the leaders of all three major branches of the Abrahamic tradition to agree that the deliberate targeting and killing of innocents is simply and flat out wrong,, sort of a fatwa against recent fatwas condoning it. By itself, it won't solve anything, but it would take the wind out of the moral legitimacy such groups as al-Qaeda have been literally using as shields.
Posted to The Neocons Lexicon
-
Rabbit! You figured out how to IP spoof ITT's little flag!
Posted to The Neocons Lexicon
-
Redhorse, It is amazing how you sound like Rabbit of old, and Rabbit is now, finally, able to construct complete sentences. Ah, the miracles of modern medicine. We are not fooled.
Posted to The Neocons Lexicon
-
Rabbit/Redhorse, Amazing how Redhorse not only has the same hare-brained syntax, but shares the same nomenclature when dissing his superiors. Rabbit, So, your "vacation" just happened to coincide with ITT's attempt, with the little IP-sourced flags, to minimize the abuse of split personalities from the same IP address? Miracle of miracles. Or, do we have the foundation for another hare-brained conspiracy theory??
Posted to The Neocons Lexicon
-
Actually, given the previous history of gender-bending on this site, I have wondered if a doe was more of an illumination source. Been pretty dark round here, about as long as Rabbit's vacation.
Posted to The Neocons Lexicon
-
staedlerjr If you cannot understand irony, then continue to play with yourself.
Posted to The Neocons Lexicon
-
So, Rabbit/Redhorse - care to share your voluminous bookmarks on the subject?
Posted to The Neocons Lexicon
-
R&R, You need to work harder on keeping your personas separate. Rabbit is the one from Australia. Redhorse is the one from the US OF A-ssholes.
Posted to The Neocons Lexicon
-
R&R, Not at all. You misunderstand. I think using multiple personas is an excellent vehicle in debate. I merely offer my humble assistance in helping you to get it right. And you can lay off the provocative racist slurs. They are sloppily executed and quite ineffective. I am neither Anglo nor Saxon. But we are all bigots, in one sense or another.
Posted to The Neocons Lexicon
-
And I, kind rabbit, contend you are a horse. Ipso Facto. You are. You really must pen an article on hare-brained logic, so the rest of us mortals can follow you.
Posted to The Neocons Lexicon
-
cabdriver, Fascism ... applies only to modern nation-states and modern mass society. Why? These fascist states use modern institutions, technology, and forms of organization to consolidate and centralize their political power. They tend to have highly developed, industrialized economies which are capable of autarchy and not easily subject to foreign domination Circular logic. Fascism only applies to modern states because they are modern? Industrialization and the use of technology does not define fascism. That they are effectively wielded by fascists does not make the tools themselves indicative and necessary for fascism. They are deeply nationalist and use myths of historic national …
Posted to The Neocons Lexicon
-
Starboy, er LB, er Joh.., er Jane Doe,
cabdriverinchicago, I admire your perserverane in the face of the most amazing idiocy, however it is clear there is absolutely no point.
If you really must insist on following Rabbit/Redhorse's lunacy into hiding your schizophenia, try at least to change the cadence and intonation of your comments. I really expect one of these days your counterpostings will start with your 'ol standby, "Not at all."Posted to The Neocons Lexicon
-
JD, Already gave you my answer, dude. Waiting for intelligent life to respond.
Posted to The Neocons Lexicon
-
Go somewhere where they think the Rapture books are both history and prophecy! Got no desire to live in Iran.
Posted to The Neocons Lexicon
-
Redhorse, you knucklehead. You even spell like Rabbit. amerika??
Posted to The Neocons Lexicon
-
Rabbit, Your feigned irrational logic and deliberate jester-like stupidity doesn't fool me. The only reason your provocative talents are wasted here is that you actually believe no one else is clever enough to get it.
Posted to The Neocons Lexicon
-
David, Your absence has been sorely missed. If you could clarify the dichotomies fostered by the usual suspects, I would welcome it. It is certainly possible after such close and prolonged contact with diseased carriers that the conspiratorial bug has afflicted me as well. After all, I have mere circumstantial, er, circumstances to base my hypothesis on. 1) ITT institutes a "flag-waving" icon to give virtual denizens a geography lesson. 2) Many of these demons subsequently went 'poof'. 3) These same denizens, who have self-identified their own past schizophrenia, had made virtual claims of specific national origin. 4) When the pudding …
Posted to The Neocons Lexicon
-
cabbie, 1) Nation-states are not a modern invention. They descended from a long line of political organizations, not to mention the city -states of Greece 2500 years ago. 2) To accuse you of racism follows naturally from your own statements. 3) To accuse me of fascist tactics contradicts your logic that fascism exists only in the context of centralized nation-states, unless I am a nation-state of my own making. 4) To accuse the neo-con movement, or any political movement in America, of fascism whilst protesting that fascism violently forbids dissent, is at best disingenuous. It also contradicts your own "scholarly" logic. …
Posted to The Neocons Lexicon
-
Since it appears to be polemic upon the opposition that the only historical examples of fascism they accept are those of the singular fascist movements of a hundred years ago, let us take a moment to analyze those societies by the "criteria" laid out here. Franco and il Duce - since autocratic regimes are not "necessarily" fascist, neither Spain nor Italy of the first half of the last century can be called fascist, despite repeated historical references to them as fascist. There was no ideology, at least no more than that of Saddam's reign. And it has been pointed out here …
Posted to The Neocons Lexicon
-
LOL! You have a delicately exquisite way of turning the fork! Apologies. I really meant to say that your presence has been sorely missed.
Posted to The Neocons Lexicon
-
Dude, You really need to reread your history books.
This is the reason that nationalism is a NEW phenomenon and doesn't go back very far.
Explain that to the Athenians and the Spartans. In defining a nation, the following is important: common culture, common origins, common language, a sense of exclusivity, a sense of identity. Stalin defined a nation thusly, A nation is a historically constituted, stable community of people, formed on the basis of a common language, territory, economic life, and psychological make-up manifested in a common culture. Cicero contrasts the external, inferior nationes ("races of people") with the Roman …Posted to The Neocons Lexicon
-
cabbie, Deprecating Athenian and Spartan loyalties to their polities as mere superfluous "regional identities" ignores the notion that national boundaries, even in modern times, change. The self-identification of Athenians and Spartans was clearly nationalistic. There was a strong sense of identity within themselves, and exclusivity between the groups. That national borders were much closer than, when the horse and chariot were the fastest mode of land transportation, is not relevant. And quite frankly, it exposes a mean streak of cultural arrogance in your argument. That Herodotus was not allowed to become a citizen, a member of the polities, of Athens, despite …
Posted to The Neocons Lexicon
-
David, Thank you kindly for your consideration.
Posted to The Neocons Lexicon
-
cabbie, Your gleeful leap into presumptive assumptions makes it obvious you are incapable of critical analysis, so let me dumb this up. I said, The roots of nationalism go very deep within our psyche, arguably even to biological factors in genetics.. I did not say nationalism is genetic. Ask yourself a simple question; what is the root of nationalism, in the context of individual pyschology? Careful. This is not a trick question. Why do people gravitate towards other people, particularly with those who they have some common connection with? I warn you. This is not a trick question. Think about it. …
Posted to The Neocons Lexicon
-
jd, stjr, david, ROTF, LMAO! And you call me trollish .... What a riot. Though I disagree with cabbie quite strongly, and will continue to do so, at least he is making an effort to actually engage in an honest debate. Something Starboy, er JD (whose feigned outrage is noted, and long expected), never thought worthy.
Posted to The Neocons Lexicon
-
cabbie, I would only dispute the notion that the roots of nationalism is embedded in the development of capitalism, as I would dispute that fascism's roots require modern Western technology. The Roman empire fostered similar notions of "new identities" and common citizenship across ethnic lines, as did the Islamic empire. As well as the example from China, where the notion of "Chinese nationalism" rests above the various ethnicities across the Middle Kingdom to the point of having a single "national" language, on top of the myriad of other languages, that unifies China even to this day And to respond to the …
Posted to The Neocons Lexicon
-
cabbie, Fascism is certainly enpowered to a far greater extent by modern technology and communications, but so is every other political philosophy. I don't accept the notion that it is a necessary precondition for social control. But I can certainly agree to disagree.
Posted to The Neocons Lexicon
-
cabbie,
Jay, it may interest you to note that the entire political science profession clear across the ideological spectrum supports my assessment of fascism which is hardly an original one
Actually, there is no clear consensus on what fascism is, and I have never considered an appeal to authority as the sole logic in an argument to have much merit. I have asked, repeatedly, why is modern technology so absolutely necessary for fascism to exist, but all I get are descriptive analysis and dogmatic declarative tautologies that essentially say, it is because it is. Nothing has been said about what …Posted to The Neocons Lexicon
-
If fascism is primarily about state control, then arguments about the requirement of modern technology are superfluous. There have been plenty examples in ancient history (of which I have noted a few) where absolute state control has been achieved. And the further necessity of a highly efficient (and modern) bureaucracy can easily be refuted. 19th century Europeans did not invent bureaucracy; the Ottoman Republic and ancient Chinese States come to mind. The further tautologies of the "irreligious" nature of fascism continue to remain that. Tautologies. There is nothing being said that demonstrates the antithesis of religion and fascism, and, again, I …
Posted to The Neocons Lexicon
-
cabbie, If you want to devolve back into scurrilous educational slurs, let me assist you with course selection. Set Theory. To say that Set A requires Subsets B, C and D most certainly does not mean A is B and only B. Yet, without B, you have no A. That, my dear fellow, is what "necessary conditions" equate to. I still await a non-tautologistic explanation on why A (fascism) requires B (modern technology) and C (strict secularism). I am more than willing to keep this above the belt, if you are.
Posted to The Neocons Lexicon
-
For the record, I, and not cabbie, am the one asserting that fascism is primarily about state control. I am trying to understand how technology and secularism are necessary preconditions, yet (I am really getting tired of saying this) all I get are tautologies. cabbie, you do know what a tautology is, no?
Posted to The Neocons Lexicon
-
Wait a minute. I think I get it. The fascism of mid 20th century Germany, Italy and Japan used technology (ie radio and television broadcasts, aircraft carriers, submarines, integrated military operations) to impose a fascist political system. Therefore, fascism requires modern technology. Absolutely! My neighbor's dogs are white short hair terriers and they are the only dogs my little girl has ever seen. Ergo, the big black mastiff that was walked past our house the other day could not possibly be a dog. It was big. It was black. It was long haired. It could not have been a dog. Just …
Posted to The Neocons Lexicon
-
cabbie, First, let me apologize. I didn't get much past the "troll" comment before responding. And subsequently have no intention of. I do, however, agree with you 100% that it logically follows that Never has there been a technologically backward fascist regime in history, especially when you define modern technology as one of the prerequisites for fascism. That, (un)kind sir, is a tautology. When you are prepared to defend that tautology with a rationale explanation why, let me know. (in your further pursuit of higher education, especially in the field of history, make sure you pay particular attention to arguments of …
Posted to The Neocons Lexicon
-
Couple loose points: 1) Observations (like associating technology with fascism) are scholastically worthless if you cannot explain the relationship. 2) Throwing mud is not an argument.
Posted to The Neocons Lexicon
-
LOL, my notable Starboy! Hiding in plain sight, huh? You should try a little more illumination and a little less trollish behavior yourself. Now, that would be novel!
Posted to The Neocons Lexicon
-
jc, you are not only a troll, you are also not what your earlier posts try to convey. You know, I can 'pick' professionsals from a thouand paces, and you are one, albeit, not a very good one, since you forget to keep in 'persona'. .
Starboy. Thought you'd try a little offensive defense, huh? I am most profoundly glad you can pick professionals from a thousand paces, but what is your point? What persona? You really need to work on keeping your own personas separate. I thought JD was to be the one more interested in debate, whilst you retained …Posted to The Neocons Lexicon
-
cabbie, I am glad that you agree that the link between technology and fascism is not as strong as I had thought you were once advocating. Certainly, there are numerous examples of fascist regimes that have successfully used technology for their own ends. I hope you can appreciate my argument doesn't necessitate a prerequisite technological component to fascism. Again, I am heartened to hear you affirm that state control is, in fact, the objective of fascism, though that is confusing in light of your recent protestations that you were not making that argument. But I am still perplexed on why you …
Posted to The Neocons Lexicon
-
lb, starboy, jd, Please, no persona protestations this time! I know a left-right combo when I see one, though it is a pity it was wasted.
Posted to The Neocons Lexicon
-
The ideology of state control is the central dogma of fascism. Certainly, fascism focuses on nationalism, and race is a useful idiot in their ideology of singular identity. Yet I do not understand the details of how that focus is inherently secular. It is certainly anticlerical, if only because a separate authoritarian structure, a separate identity, is antithetical to fascism. Yet religion is the perfect vehicle for state control, even more so than technology, and Hitler was not wont to shy away from its use or embrace it. Which raises a point I have raised before, if fascism is so secular, …
Posted to The Neocons Lexicon
-
c'mon starboy. stop trying to make things more confusing that they really are, though you are wont to do that. two words. IP spoofing. no bouncing required. quite simple, actually, for those who lack moral scruples. a little IP programming on your own box. alter the return address. no more complicated than putting the "wrong" return address on an actual envelope. but. you already know that.
Posted to The Neocons Lexicon
-
cabbie, - fascism is as much an ideology as any other political theory. - nazism and religion. absolutely. couldn't have said it better myself. oops. I did. the nazi movement was anticlerical, as you have aptly illustrated. they also "ordained" their own Reich Bishop, Ludwig Mueller (again, as I have already mentioned - and have yet to be refuted or challenged). the nazis in germany were not areligious, they were nationalizing all identities into one, in accordance with fascist ideology. - "The State is everything; Everything exists within the State; Nothing exists outside the State" - Mussolini (again, already said this …
Posted to The Neocons Lexicon
-
never in my wildest dreams would I have thought to see the day that starboy actually used the American flag for his own personal fig leaf.
Posted to The Neocons Lexicon
-
cabbie, No, you can't have it both way. Either fascism is distinctly secular, or it is not. Show me where they were decidedly irrelevant towards religion as opposed to merely anticlerical. Which ties into your second argument, that fascism is not a proper ideology. You may not like it, and I certainly don't, but that is not a proper argument. Fascist ideology is (again, I repeat myself, again) all about a SINGULAR identity (please, read Mussolini's definition more closely - it is relevant, after all, he and his band of Italians quite literally defined and gave "fascism" its etymology). There is …
Posted to The Neocons Lexicon
-
Starboy, You are funny, in both disguises. "JD", Since you are making the predicates, you can answer your own questions, you silly goose. "LB". Now, THAT's funny. Cabbie, For true blue examples of trollish behavior, please read starboy's previous posts, of both genders.
Posted to The Neocons Lexicon
-
starboy, er, jd, I am truly disappointed. Even if this farce were a product of my own delusion, as David "believes", "Jane Doe" comes off as intelligent enough to answer that question just in context. Disingenuity in question and comment is a characteristic of starboy. The more I prick thee, the more your personas bleat like the one true starboy. cabbie, I agree totally.
Posted to The Neocons Lexicon
-
LOL! yea, verily, that is why we love you so, starboy, in all your incarnations...
Posted to The Neocons Lexicon
-
For the non-trolls who read and/or contribute, there is an interesting entry at Wikipedia on clerical fascism. Now, being wikipedia, you need to take it with a grain of salt, but it is part of their cross-article Series on Politics and does provides useful, if abridged, references.
Posted to The Neocons Lexicon
-
david, starboy, What is with these feigned and disingenuous queries? Do you not read your own posts as you write them? Massive memory infarction, eh?
Posted to The Neocons Lexicon
-
Who is Jay-Jay?
Posted to The Neocons Lexicon
-
david, c'mon! you are the one who identified my "paranoid delusions". have you forgotten?
Posted to The Neocons Lexicon
-
if I be paranoid, it is only because it is true, eh?
Posted to The Neocons Lexicon
-
starboy, you are funny. and quite predictable. and quite illogical. who is lb? your comments (as inane as they are) could easily be turned right back at you, yet I won't go there because there is no value in it. but, if you have been paying attention, and if biographical information is so important to you, you would not need to ask these questions. I have not been shy of such information, when relevant. so, to what end, really? or is this just one more example of your typical disingenuity? do you really care who I am? do you really need …
Posted to The Neocons Lexicon
-
But, David, who is this starboy you are refering to? (careful, David. Your own disingenuity is showing...)
Posted to The Neocons Lexicon
-
Not at all, my dear friend. Not at all.
Posted to The Neocons Lexicon
-
starboy, again, you are a funny man. Whilst I attempt a rational discussion, all you have contributed here is your typical non-sequitors. You ask who I am, yet when I ask why, you twist it into purile word games and point the finger at me. If you're not interested, don't ask. But, if you are looking for a foil, you need to step up to the plate and actually say something, beyond childish taunts. c'mon. disingenuity to the max here, dude.
Posted to The Neocons Lexicon
-
meta, it is certainly true that the war rhetoric from the administration is to "unify" a more coherent strategy. It seems to me that your only objection is that you do not believe there are any points of congruence to the threats that face us after 9/11. The real question is whether the rhetoric matches the threat. Who are these "loosely aligned network of shadowy cells" that you mention? Is not the "alignment" that you yourself speak of based on the beliefs and actions of radical Islamic groups? Is your objection to the first part of Islamofascist, or the second? …
Posted to The Neocons Lexicon
-
oh come now starboy. If you must exercise that which you (apparently) find so despicable, that of childish verse of "glue sticking on you", take the quotes back a bit further. The dispute betwixt us is of my "paranoid delusions" where I have inferred, through grammatical, syntactical, lexiconic and thematic similarities that certain recently emerged "personas" (after ITT’s inclusion of source) are uncannily similar to long established ITT denizens, er trolls. After getting your legs, you took the offensive and have tried to turn the knife back, a pathetic attempt that has failed utterly. Now, in desperation, you resort to your …
Posted to The Neocons Lexicon
-
meta, Perhaps the most elegant "effect" of the usage of Islamofascists is that it actually and accurately does reflect reality. The previous posters have only succeeded in demonstrating a capacity of proving that A equals A.
Posted to The Neocons Lexicon
-
dude, maybe if you spent less time in the trenches with your own trollish behavior and actually address the issues I raise, rather than summarily dismiss them in some pseudo-elitist rant, we could have gotten off page one of the debate. To wit, where have I exhibitied circular logic, and how is proclaiming that fascism is strictly secular simply because you define fascism as a secular ideology NOT a demonstration of circular logic?
Posted to The Neocons Lexicon
-
dude, Are you writing a polemic dissertation illustrating your childish trollish talents, or responding to a simple question in the debate? Apologies if you buried substance in your ponderous treatise and I missed it.
Posted to The Neocons Lexicon
-
With regards to metaxy making a good argument, saying that others have made his point, actually says nothing, particularly when "others" have only succeeded in demonstrating circular logic. Ergo, not a good argument. To say the issue is the use and/or misuse of the term Islamofascist without coming to an agreement on whether the term is mere political sophistry or an actual reflection on reality (which is the real point of the debate), is, dare I say, disingenuos. If the use is mere sophistry, then the point is made in the assumption itself. Again, more circular logic.
Posted to The Neocons Lexicon
-
With regard to the assertion that Islamic radicalism is neither Islamic nor radical, the first rational response to that kind of sophistry is, huh?? But, for the sake of the argument, if it is neither, and is "merely" a reactionary attempt to create an imagined past, is it your contention that there is no enemy, or that they are not Islamic despite their own beliefs? Who are you to arbitrate on the legitimacy of another man's beliefs and interpretations of his own religion?
Posted to The Neocons Lexicon
-
Oh, and welcome back to the debate.
Posted to The Neocons Lexicon
-
Those early modern fascists, those early twentieth century Italians, described themselves as radicals AND reactionary revolutionaries. Radical in the sense of seeking violent change against the rising dominance of Marxist-inspired politics, and reactionary in the sense of going back to an idealized (imagined, to use starboy's words) past of singular social identity. Those we face in anger today are Islamic, starboy's sophistry notwithstanding, and are very much radical and reactionary in the same sense as those early modern Italian fascists. Personified by al Qaeda and the Iranian mullahs, they speak of violent change against a "corrupt" and "westernized" Islamic society in …
Posted to The Neocons Lexicon
-
cabbie, What, again, was your technical definition of fascism? I do not ask this gratuitously, but after 3 pages of blogging, it would perhaps be well to repeat it. I think if there is one single point on which we agree is that we apparently do not share the same definition. But before I respond, I would appreciate a touchstone of where your definition is coming from. Obviously from your last post, I have misinterpreted it.
Posted to The Neocons Lexicon
-
Anticipating your response, I would make this distinction between us with regard to nationalism and fascism: To fascists, the State is the thing. It is, as Mussolini described, an "anti-individualistic conception of life [that] stresses the importance of the State and accepts the individual only in so far as his interests coincide with those of the State, which stands for the conscience and the universal will of man as a historic entity". Fascism invests in the State the personification of the will of the people, "opposed to that form of democracy which equates a nation to the majority, lowering it to …
Posted to The Neocons Lexicon
-
dude, Your obvious BS aside, if a man proclaims his faith, why would I not accept his statement of belief at face value? With regard to judging by actions, which "benevolent " actions of those we fight would you care to discuss? With regard to Mussolini, if you want to understand the "BS", what better way than to examine the words of those who actually defined what modern fascism is; in thought, word AND deed? Your rhetorical sophistry knows no limits, doesn't it? And yet, you have unerringly ducked the question. Again. Disingenuity. You may turn the knife as often as …
Posted to The Neocons Lexicon
-
starboy, What are you views on the Christian Crusaders? Certainly, they did not uphold Christian values in their own jihad. Were they acting in the name of their god? Or do you have ecclesiastic authority over them as well?
Posted to The Neocons Lexicon
-
Perhaps I have been too harsh, ol' starboy. You do seem to have issues with keeping up your stamina. Every time you actually get engaged in a real debate, you have a bad habit of falling back on character assassinations, slander, mischaracterizations and trivializations of the arguments of others, without really contributing any original observations or points of debate. Do you have attention deficit disorders? No, really. I have had in the past some ADD issues and problems with dyslexia, but never to the point where they so impair my intellectual facilities as to render them impotent. I guess that goes …
Posted to The Neocons Lexicon
-
But, in case you have forgotten the question, When is an Islamic terrorist, not Islamic?
Posted to The Neocons Lexicon
-
Well, clearly there is no common ground between our historical interpretations. I profoundly reject the notion that fascism is a mere aberration, a blip in history without context, that emerged from a vacuum and similarly vanished. To continue any further debate along that particular line would be like engaging a Creationist in a debate over evolution. I guess I am more of a hedgehog than a fox. But s'al'right.
Posted to The Neocons Lexicon
-
dude, I am cool with our differences and meant no disrespect. If I did, I would question the logical consistency between these two statements:
Thus, fascism is a modern, twentieth century phenomenon which no longer exists today and had no roots in the distant past.
andI never said fascism was abberant, had no historic context, or emerged and existed in a vacuum.
Posted to The Neocons Lexicon
-
starboy, If living a morally virtuous life consistent with one's religion is a criteria to religious identification, then there are not 100 people since the dawn of man who has a religious identity. The point of order was not, are Islamic terrorists virtuous Islamists, as you well know, but are they Islamists? The point of order was not are Islamist jihadists acting in strict accordance (according to your interpretation) with the Koran, or were Christian crusaders acting in strict accordance (according to your interpretation) with the Bible, but what is their religious identity? Islamist terrorists are accepted as Islamic by nearly …
Posted to The Neocons Lexicon
-
jay asks,
When is an Islamic terrorist, not Islamic?
starboy says,You just don’t want to hear my answer
starboy has been watching too many old Tom Cruise movies.Posted to The Neocons Lexicon
-
cabbie, Like I said, I have no problems with agreeing we don't agree. Unlike starboy, in a real debate I have no interest in "he said, she said" arguments. I think there are inconsistencies in your argument about fascism's place in history; you think I am an uneducated troll. Let's move on. Let's get back to nationalism. I offered for consideration what I believe is a better refinement on nationalism's relationship to fascism, that the critical point of congruence is not the building of nations, but the singular social identity that ultra-nationalism gives to fascism. Isolating this from the umbrella of …
Posted to The Neocons Lexicon
-
luminous beauty, I agree that jihads and crusades are hypocrisies of the highest order for the devoted of those religions to follow. Yet, they do and hypocrisy is at the heart of many human activities. But it is legalistic nonsense to argue that, as they fight in the name of their god, as they perceive it, to say that they are not acting in the name of their god merely because they are hypocrites. Logic rules the head, not the heart. Yet matters of the heart are not trivial. And that is not an over-simplification.
Posted to The Neocons Lexicon
-
I do, however, appreciate the humor in this statement: Your rhetorical sophistry knows no limits, doesn’t it? No it doesn’t. That is why I have no problem penetrating to the heart of the bullshit you espouse. Sophistry to get to the truth. Well, perhaps. But only if one still lives in ancient Greece.
Posted to The Neocons Lexicon
-
cabbie, I am the one with paranoid delusions here. If I have said something that agreed with a point you have already made, that generally implies progress and gives us something to build on. Where have we agreed?
Posted to The Neocons Lexicon
-
Well. I guess that says just about everything. Cabbie, I thank you for the reading list, though please don't wait for a response. I already have a dozen or so tomes on various topics already on my list and nothing I have seen here would encourage me to prioritize these new additions off the bottom of that queue. I do appreciate your honest attempts at debate, though again, it is a pity we couldn't get off first base, what with so much importance placed on bibliographic references and "entrance exams" over a truly articulated analysis of them. I am not sure …
Posted to The Neocons Lexicon
-
Cabbie, In case you suffer from the same sort of memory malfunctions as our lovable starboy, here is, as I see it, the current point of contention:
To fascists, the State is the thing. It is, as Mussolini described, an "anti-individualistic conception of life [that] stresses the importance of the State and accepts the individual only in so far as his interests coincide with those of the State, which stands for the conscience and the universal will of man as a historic entity". Fascism invests in the State the personification of the will of the people, "opposed to that form …
Posted to The Neocons Lexicon
-
Cabbie, What I have suggested is that nationalism is not unidimensional. What I have suggested is that nationalism is not necessarily ultranationalism and that ultranationalism is not necessarily fascism. What I have suggested is that perhaps it is not nationalism per se that is relevant to fascism, but one critical aspect of it, that of a political and social tendency to congregate with other similar people, especially in times of fear and uncertainty, whether that similarity is based on geography, ethnicity, religion, or whatever. And that tendency is very much a part of human nature. I agree history's appeal is the …
Posted to The Neocons Lexicon
-
starboy, Again, you assume ecclesiastic authority over those who identify themselves (and are identified by those who are) Islamic.
the mere facade of religious piety, that is, acting in the name of one’s traditional religious identity is meaningless and hypocritical, without the sincere intent and effort to live up to the spirit of those deep moral and ethical teachings that all the religious traditions of the world universally aspire to produce and preserve.
Calling it a mere facade, claiming there is not sincere intent and effort is a judgement call on your part, one that could not be made without …Posted to The Neocons Lexicon
-
Well. starboy, we are yet again at a "No I'm not! Yes you are!" conundrum. So be it.
Posted to The Neocons Lexicon
-
Cabbie, TNR has posted the following review: http://www.tnr.com/docprint.mhtml?i=20061120&s=frank112006 Despite our intransigent differences of opinion, I would welcome your comments. I have not yet read any of the literature referenced in the review, but I just may start bumping them up my reading queue.
Posted to The Neocons Lexicon
-
I am not a subscriber either, but I get their free newsletter. It might be only that you need to register with an email? It is about Romanian fascism in the 20s and 30s. Given that I have interpreted (wrongly?) your thoughts of fascism being urban, secular and industrialized, given that Romanian fascism was rural, decidedly religous and not industrialized, I'd be curious how you viewed Romanian fascism.
Posted to The Neocons Lexicon
-
LOL! starboy, if you wish to play rhetorical King-of-the-Hill, well, the honor is yours!
Posted to The Neocons Lexicon
-
David, Before I go anywhere with "Canuckistan", I must ask: Is "Canuck" a self-deprecating pejorative to our good friends to the north, or is it a term of endearment? And, for the record, some of my best friends are Canadian.
Posted to The Neocons Lexicon
-
I have been reading a bit on the economic policies that various Fascist countries pursued, and it seems the one defining economic characteristic within those countries is that the economy was, for the most part, seen as a means to an end (I believe I have even seen one quote attributed to Hitler that said the basis of their economic theory was they had no theory - not sure what the context was that it was said in, or if it was even said). Mussolini sometimes seems almost free-market as he "fostered" economic competition as a means to weed out the …
Posted to The Neocons Lexicon
-
starboy, childish retorts aside, I cannot resist employing your "glue" metaphor right now:
Why is it so hard for you to recognise such a simple and glaring error in your thinking? It is only human to make mistakes, but I daresay you abuse the priviledge.
Forgive me. I had a momentary relapse into my second childhood.Posted to The Neocons Lexicon
-
Respectfully?? LOL! starboy, you are indeed a riot. But, unlike you, I do not come here for the perverse pleasure of seeing others twist in the wind, as you have confessed to on numerous occassions. I truly understand it is difficult for you to disengage without total capitulation; but I have already given the "field of battle" over to you. You command the hilly heights. I truly and sincerely hope this gives you what you yearn for.
Posted to The Neocons Lexicon
-
I'm not sure what Moberg's point is, except he has none to make. First he laments the failure of free trade to protect farmers from developing nations; then he criticizes developed countries who "were supposed to reduce tariffs and subsidies to permit developing nations to sell their agricultural products without unfair competition or obstacles"; then he argues for tariffs and subsidies that are supposed to encourage "“food sovereignty,” or the right of each nation to fashion its own food strategy to strike a balance between urban and rural incomes." I guess the only point I agree with Moberg is with his …
Posted to The Death of Doha
-
Doug; Pistola: If you are truly interested in substance, why are you ignoring this one very poignant comment from tina: Now you see that nobody wants to listen to Air America and you can’t stand it. Seems to me, she is saying more than either of you combined. But, I'm not saying anything you want to hear, so I guess I have nothing to say...
Posted to Welcome to the Media Revolution
-
No, I think the point that tina is trying to make, through admittedly bombastic rhetoric, is that throughout the debate on the left side of the aisle, there has been a similarly bombastic and derisive attitude toward media wins on the right side of the aisle. Throughout the debate (and continued through some of the links provided in this article) there is a concerted effort to demonized the media to the right as some sort of cabalistic evil empire that has no significant public support. As far as the allegations of trepidations amongst tina and myself over "continual competition", that is …
Posted to Welcome to the Media Revolution
-
Of course, how silly of me. 1) America should take complete responsibility for the ecological disasters in China as it rushes headlong into the global economy; 2) free markets are a disaster, we should replace them with such sterling examples of command markets like, er, well, ah, you know; 3) 9/11 was really an American plot to take over the world; 4) American foreign aid of nearly $10 billion a year is not enough; 5) we need to stop the activities those rich fat cats like Gates and Buffet as they throw away even more billions on world poverty. Yeah. We …
Posted to Welcome to the Media Revolution
-
Again, Doug. You are at least as guilty of the vacuous verbal crime you accuse tina of in your first post. Perhaps you should reread you first post; and apply it to yourself. I personally see less content in your postings than tina's, whether I agree with her or not.
Posted to Welcome to the Media Revolution
-
Thanks for making my point...
Posted to Welcome to the Media Revolution
-
and tina's as well...
Posted to Welcome to the Media Revolution
-
what is it that you are so afraid of?
Posted to Welcome to the Media Revolution
-
Ah, M&M. As usual, you are providing mostly heat to the debate but little light. The issue here is does one individual (aka doug) have the right to silence a critic merely because he doesn't like what he hears? But, to return to the fire, which flag do you kiss every night?
Posted to Welcome to the Media Revolution
-
doug, Which lies are you referring to?
Posted to Welcome to the Media Revolution
-
oh, doug's been eliminated?
Posted to Welcome to the Media Revolution
-
M&M, So, you are agreeing with the original story that actually says homosexuality is a mental disorder? C'mon. Show us you really are not some prepubescent teenager playing paddy cake with words you do not understand. Who's your Daddy, bubba?
Posted to Welcome to the Media Revolution
-
Ryan, I agree. The kind of sniping typified by the comments here (mine included) makes a mockery of intelligent debates. People are going to disagree; when a select few try to control and dominate the debate, everyone suffers.
Posted to Welcome to the Media Revolution
-
M&M, provocative remarks is a typically Republican tactic. Dickhead. Ah, yes of course. Just can't get away from the blast furnace, eh?
Posted to Welcome to the Media Revolution
-
Maria, Be careful about calling the kettle black. You talk about preconceived notions, yet you take quite a few liberties in assuming my beliefs. Democracy is indeed about more than voting every four years. Yet you disparge the elections in 2002 and 2004. Both were perfect opportunies to throw the bums out, yet it didn't happen. Why? Because the liberals do not represent the American people and the American people chose the other party. I guess it must be true that many people don't want to hear the other side of this story, Indeed! Democracy is also about accepting reality. It …
Posted to Welcome to the Media Revolution
-
Another of Maria's preconceived notions: It’s easy to brag about “bringing them on” while you continue with your life as if nothing was happening and send others to do the dirty job in your name. How about us whose life is very much involved with the war and are doing, and have already done, our part? Someone needs to check her assumptions and stop thinking "my way or the highway". That philosophy doesn't go far in a democracy. And I believe tina was referring to the larger tendency of liberals to eschew the liberal label. Given the proclivity of America to …
Posted to Welcome to the Media Revolution
-
Happy 4th of July everyone!
Posted to Welcome to the Media Revolution
-
Brian, Let's do the math. The book is 281 pages. iParadigm sites three instances for a total of 82 words. http://www.nypost.com/news/nationalnews/copycatty_coulter_pilfers_prose__pro_nationalnews_philip_recchia.htm I wonder if your posts would pass that muster. Speaking of your claims of factual integrity, bill and hilary clinton’s books were number#1 also.They did not have to plagiarize their books and make money off of other people’s misery. Care to provide the citation for that claim?
Posted to Welcome to the Media Revolution
-
Repressive agendas do not grow...they stagnate...they do not look for a better way to do things unless it’s for self-serving reasons, because that upsets their egg cart .... To expect change...by doing the same thing over and over again...is the definition of insanity.... Sounds like the perfect epitaph for the welfare state. Mind if I use it sometime?
Posted to Welcome to the Media Revolution
-
yes and yes Wonderful stereotypes you have there. Pity they reflect your own imagination more than reality.
Posted to Welcome to the Media Revolution
-
Care to go for broke and guess my ethnicity?
Posted to Welcome to the Media Revolution
-
During the 80s, the Soviet Union, desperate to show the superiority of command economies over free market economies, created a film showing the depravity of America and how it treats its poor. Unfortunately, the film backfired as the only thing the Russian audience noticed was that in America, even the poor could afford televisions. You think they would have learned their lesson with Krushchev's kitchen! What is your definition of an economically progressive society? One that ensures that equality of outcome reigns supreme? or one that despite gross inequalities of outcome, even the poorest of that society is generally richer by …
Posted to Welcome to the Media Revolution
-
Dude, I was not responding to the article. I was responding to your assertions about socialism and capitalism. I see you have no answer. As far as the 5:80 ratio, I believe I already answered that. Let me help you (as I obviously have in the past) by dumbing it up for you and ask you how much of the world's GDP that measly 5% produces. You do know the definition of efficiencies, no? Jay Jay.. haven't been called that in a while. Welcome back, oh vacuous one.
Posted to Welcome to the Media Revolution
-
Still unwilling to address reality? If the bottom quintile of America is orders of magnitude better off than half the world's population, then we are doing something wrong?? Given the mortality figures from the UN, I guess only rich people are having babies? Stop rabbiting from the argument. If capitalism is non-progressive, even regressive, explain the reality of those stats.
Posted to Welcome to the Media Revolution
-
LOL! US SECOND ON THE LIST OF DEVELOPED NATIONS...Second to Latvia in yearly infant mortality Ah rabbit. The master of deception! I will accept your quote at face value and destroy your argument... The argument was that capitalist countries (ie DEVELOPED NATIONS) have a significantly lower mortality rate (by almost a 100 times) than the rest of the world, which is mostly authoritarian or socialist countries and most decidely NOT capitalistic. Come now, don't be afraid to challenge facts that you feel are suspicious. I'm not.
Posted to Welcome to the Media Revolution
-
Trick question: Why is it safe to asssume that DEVELOPED NATIONS refers mostly to countries with an effective free market?
Posted to Welcome to the Media Revolution
-
Dude. You are being as disingenuous and scatter-brained as our hapless hare. The discussion you started was about the relative merits between socialism and capitalism. Glad to see you capitulate to reality as poorly as your furry alter ego.
Posted to Welcome to the Media Revolution
-
C'mon wabbit. I know facts are hard to deal with in the realm of prisonplanet.com, but you really should make the effort.
Posted to Welcome to the Media Revolution
-
This is typical liberal nonsense...kettle calling black...
Posted to Welcome to the Media Revolution
-
Last man, er, horse, er, rabbit standing...huh...?
Posted to Welcome to the Media Revolution
-
Prediction: the loser of the next presidential election will cry foul and electoral fraud, the winner will cry sour grapes, journalists will make money documenting it, blogoscreamers will find yet another issue to vent on. Oh my god! It is a conspiracy from bloggers and their advertisers! That explains -- [REDACTED]!
Posted to Was the Presidential Election Stolen?
-
Ok, wait one damn minute. Sirota is at it again,
the four biggest health insurance companies reported $100 billion in revenues. [...] Even parts of the business community support government intervention. For instance, Ford, GM and Chrysler all endorsed Canada's system ...
Ford alone has revenues of $117 billion.. GM has $199 bilion. Chrysler has $195 billion That's $511 billion to h/c $100 billion. Kind of shoots Sirota's claim (in his own foot) that the healthcare industry has the entire government bought and paid for. Or, maybe Ford, GM and Chrysler are sterling examples of socially responsible …Posted to Careless Industry
-
frog Glad you agree with me. US car-makers must tackle their crazy health-care liabilities, otherwise they will fold Now there is a powerful incentive to fix the current healthcare system, particularly if it is breaking them, which I fully concur. So, how does one industry, who DOES NOT want reform, outspend another industry that desperately needs reform, especially given that the car-makers have, at the very least, comparable revuenues. If not orders of magnitude more. According to Sirota, money talks. And the car-makers have it. Pity you had to waste half your verbage on desultory comments.
Posted to Careless Industry
-
wth, I don't disagree that, dollar for dollar, individuals don't stand a chance against these guys. In fact, I am applying that same logic to the Big 3 auto companies. I do take issue with the bought and paid for argument, not that it doesn't happen, but there is one area where these guys don't stand a chance against the individual. At the ballot box. Don't always work the way you might like, but you can't pay off 20 million voters.
Posted to Careless Industry
-
wth I believe that many of those involved in business and governrnent can't even see what they have done. No, I think that belief has to go much deeper than that, to validate your argument, to make optimism fade as years go by. If voters are unable to vote out incumbents (and I do strongly object to the implied notion that incumbency = corruption), then it can only be because many, nay a majority, of the voters can't even see what they have done. You must agree with that, if you argue that the high incumbency win-rate is a lot …
Posted to Careless Industry
-
WTH Your argument is similar to those who say the stockholders still own the company. Not true. Tell that to Michael Eisner.
Posted to Careless Industry
-
wth Sorry, but I gotta do this: Apparently you are comfortable with having congress and CEOs and their board buddies decide their pay and benefits. Would you also like employees of those companies and government employees decide their as well? [Congress, as our representative, has the constitutional authority to make that decision, subject to approval at the ballot box. Again, if you are assuming da people are idiots, then I refer back to my original argument about democracy being the worst. You haven't answered that. If a majority of the voters cannot muster enough indignation to say no (which they could, …
Posted to Careless Industry
-
Posted to Careless Industry
-
wth Come on - our country is run by special interests, for special interests and is getting more so. Only rich, connected people can afford to run for office. Let's assume this is intrinsically bad. Let us also assume that your quote from Kerry is an honest statement from him. Did you know that Kerry is the richest Senator? So, we can't trust him, but he says we can't trust him, so we can trust him, but he is the richest Senator and we can't trust him, yadda yadda yadda. In the runup to the 2004 election, CNN published an article …
Posted to Careless Industry
-
wth You are right. I miscalculated. Seems that was total assests. According to CNNMoney, my net worth is 128,000. You keep pushing Eisner’s ousting as an example of stockholders’ influence. [...] I suspect it was not the small shareholders who took him out — more likely a group of the big boys. You can suspect all you want. The rule is one share one vote. It was big and messy. And Eisner lost. And it happens all the time. Or, do you think that someone with one share in a company, someone with a vested financial interest of, say $50, should …
Posted to Careless Industry
-
wth my point is the ordinary individual has little or no effect when up against the well organized special interests And my point is, you don't need money to have a special interest. You do have to work at, you do have to organize, you do have find others who agree with you. I never said there wasn't corruption. I just dispute that the corruption is preventing you, or anyone else, from participating. And making a difference.
Posted to Careless Industry
-
wth I doubt that there are enough “intelligent and informed voters” to accomplish anything. I believe this is the nexus of our disagreement. You don't believe democracy works.
Posted to Careless Industry
-
MM, LOL! What an absurd piece of mathematical fallacy! Thank You.
Posted to Careless Industry
-
I have ten fingers. There are only 9 planets in the solar system. Ergo, there must be one, and only one, more out there. (and if I wiggle my left pinky, maybe that tenth planet will dance enough for an astronomer to notice)
Posted to Careless Industry
-
wth Parallel thinking. Using your logic I can see why you think things are OK now. People with more money have more influence with congress just as with stocks. It is only parallel if you equate public and private governances. You do. I don't. Your moneyed influence has only gone to politicians. How does that buy 20,000,000 votes? Oh, I forgot. People are stupid.
Posted to Careless Industry
-
Calling Dr. Marx! Calling Dr. Marx!
Posted to Careless Industry
-
MM, And I used a ten digit calculator. What you are saying if A=B and C=D and 5*A = E, then B+D must also equal E.
Posted to Careless Industry
-
MM, Ok let me dumb it up. What you are talking about is the per capita cost of the election. Nothing more.
Posted to Careless Industry
-
wth I have considered your probable lack of any really economic trauma, your youth, and your blind faith, Pity you got every point wrong.
Posted to Careless Industry
-
wth The points of your argument appear to be these: 1) Coporate governance is corrupt. 2) Politicians have been bought and paid for by special interest money. 3) Democracy has failed. 4) We need change. Are we talking armed insurrection here? Because, by your logic, it ain't gonna happen at the ballot box or in the halls of congress.
Posted to Careless Industry
-
Sirota is right in saying this could be the big issue for Democrats. And it really could work, but only because Free Trade really isn't. Free Trade explicits an unrestrained exchange of goods and services between sovereign countries. The international trade within even Western countries isn't totally "free". Banana wars between the EU and the US, agricultural subsidies on both sides that end up only hurting developing countries, etc etc etc. Trade between the West and other countries is like a one-way diode. China especially. I am all for free trade, but we ain't got it. And that is the message …
Posted to A Primary Concern
-
I would also point out that appealing to this issue is the most effective method of undercutting the popular support that has been given to the Republican Party election after election. Walter Russell Mead's "Jacksonians" have given the critical electoral support the Republican Party has needed since 1994, nay, since 1980, first, for fighting to get big government off their backs, and then supporting the war on terror after 9/11 Mead's Jacksonians are big on defense and small government. They also vote with their pocketbooks. Instead of trying to turn the tide on war support, an end run into their pocketbooks …
Posted to A Primary Concern
-
As far as the likely candidate comment goes, make free trade the issue, and she won't be.
Posted to A Primary Concern
-
Saw the PBS special. It was striking. Pity you have to confuse the debate comparing American neo-con philosophy with Chinese totalitarianism. But I guess muddying the waters is about the best Dems can do given their history of the past ten years.
Posted to A Primary Concern
-
Much in the same way as the Japanese-American community in Hawaii could have served as unwitting cover for Imperial Japanese agents in 1942? Why would a Dubia-controlled port be any more vulnerable than a British-controlled port? Because the terrorist and Dubia personel all "look alike"?
Posted to A Primary Concern
-
lb, you are still a putz. who says a lot about nothing.
Posted to A Primary Concern
-
The opposition to the Dubai ports deal was racist, pure and simple. And it was very, very effective. in counterpoint, Mujahideen/insurgent groups would have a much easier time placing loyalists within a company local to their geographic region, as opposed to a British company. While it is certainly possible that a British extremist cell could place their own agents in said British company, such activites are bound to be more successful in hostile-rich environments such as the Middle East. I know lb isn't going to get this, but I don't care. The 9/11 terrorists had no problems getting into this …
Posted to A Primary Concern
-
Getting back to the main thrust of the article, reelection politics that is, here is an interesting quote from The NewRepublicOnline, http://www.tnr.com/doc.mhtml?i=20060424&s=scheiber042406 One way or another, Dean's moment of truth will come in March 2008, when a Democrat effectively locks up the presidential nomination. If the past is any indication, the nominee will insist on boring in on the 20 or so states most likely to clinch 270 electoral votes. But Dean, according to those who know him, will continue to insist on funding his 50-state strategy. "Any Democrat running for president needs to understand that ... Howard is not going …
Posted to A Primary Concern
-
Harrower, The point of the comparison is not that J-A were denied multi-miilion dollar business contracts,. The comparison was much more fundamental. The underlying argument for "J-A" relocation was no different than the argument against ports managed by a Dubai company. First generation American sympathies towards the mother country are strong. Yet that was not a sufficient motive for arbitrary relocation of innocent people. Neither are the arguments, again ultimately based on race, against the Dubai ports issue, sufficient. Of course, that is merely my humble opinion.
Posted to A Primary Concern
-
No, I don't subscribe to monolithic beliefs or dialectric arguments. There are a thousand opinions, a thousand interpretations out there, some are more right than others, but only God has the whole story. But in reacting to the whole public spectacle of it all, it seems to me that the driving force behind the political opposition was simply politics. The Dems oft accuse Bush of fear mongering and racial profiling. Yet he at least has the fig leaf of 9/11 to grant him the benefit of a doubt. There wasn't enough time to adequately assess the possible risks, yet they reached …
Posted to A Primary Concern
-
FreeDem I read your piece and remain dumbfounded. Strauss as a communist?? as the New Prophet for Marxism?? You must be joking. Twisting that to make some sort of construed equation to Chinese totalitarianism does deserve some sort of award, but not one I would display on my wall.
Posted to A Primary Concern
-
Did he? My last cursory reading of Strauss indicated that he opposed that kind of ad nauseum argument that was, and still is, prevalent in the modern liberal. In fact, he built his arguments based on his belief that the ultra-tolerance of modern liberalism (what we now call Political Correctness) in his native Weimar Republic towards both Communists and the Nazis led to the Republic's demise, and all that happened subsequently. Strauss, like Churchill, believed that democracy was far from perfect. But whilst Winnie was an optimist about democracy, Strauss was much more guarded. This was not a new argument. Jefferson …
Posted to A Primary Concern
-
I would also refer you to a (very) careful reading of James Madison in the Federalist Paper #10. I say careful because if FreeDem were to apply his same convoluted (and, as yet, undiscovered) logic to this essay, Madison would be deemed and condemned as a Tyrant.
Posted to A Primary Concern
-
FreeDem Jay, Look at the reality, not the babble, I am trying. Let me know when you stop babbling. Specifically, what "babble" did Strauss say that leads you to the conclusion that Strauss' philosophy is no more than New Marxism? Nowhere do you back up your assertions.
Posted to A Primary Concern
-
FreeDem 1. Strauss was deliberately obscure, that his agenda would only be for an elite there is an Ann Norton interview that makes details about this clearer. 1. Strauss was indeed an elitist. He believed, based on hie experience with the Weimar Republic (as I explained above) that democracy can be corrupted and measures must be taken to prevent the corruption. I have also referred you to nearly identical concepts expressed by James Madison in his Federalist Paper #10 where he warns about, and provides a prescription against, factions. Strauss, rightly or wrongly, felt the same way about philosophy, that a …
Posted to A Primary Concern
-
Shadia Drury extensively documents the Marxist inversions, the most famous and telling being to effect “Marxist = Religion is opiate eliminate it… Straussian= Religion is opiate give’um all the opium they will take” Marx indeed claimed that religion is an opiate of the masses. So did former Minnesota Governor Jesse Ventura when he claimed that "religion is for weak minds". Far from being a Marxist, Ventura is a more of a Navy Seal libertarian. And if you can't hear the sarcasm in Strauss' "elitist" and "obscure" language, well, I guess you need a few more exercises in Critical Thinking 101. Or …
Posted to A Primary Concern
-
FreeDem/Rep I do find it curious, though, that whilst you tongue-and-groove Strauss to neocons, your own quoted source, Ann Norton, appears to make quite a differentiation between them.... So, I am a bit befuddled as to your comments, unless the intent is to befuddle. But (dare I say it!) that would be a little too Straussian...
Posted to A Primary Concern
-
FreeDem/Rep I supppose you could call out “sour grapes” or “paranoia”, but an actual checking of the facts cannot reach another conclusion. Again, let me know when you have got some. True, you are entitled to any theory you want to conjecture, but that is all you are presenting. I believe you called that babbling... ... I would guess that there would be some befuddlement from trying to wrap a reality as laid out by Fox around a thoughtful understanding of what is really going on, but the befuddlement is not caused at this end. I don't watch Fox. I watch …
Posted to A Primary Concern
-
Lou Dobbs and Bill O'Reilly. That should cover all the bases. Everyone else can go home.
Posted to Lou Dobbs, Now More Than Ever
-
Before Dobbs turned crusader, I found his commentary good. But as a crusader, I just never bought it. What brought about his conversion? Well, the conversion happened shortly after O'Reilly's stock went through the ceiling. Dobbs has always been good at business news commentary. Could it be he has a little of that entrepreneurial spirit himself? I have seen Dobbs argue his immigration points of view several times. The last one I saw, on C-Span, Dobbs may have certainly advocated anti ILLEGAL immigration. But he has never said we should make it legal. In fact, most of his arguments were slick …
Posted to Lou Dobbs, Now More Than Ever
-
Posted to Lou Dobbs, Now More Than Ever
-
Cool! Edit button!
Posted to Lou Dobbs, Now More Than Ever
-
I have posted my arguments at Nation.com in their immigration debate: 1) I can't tell you how many times in the past week I have seen tirades against "illegals" framed in the context that being an "illegal" was as bad as arson or burglary or murder. The Christian Science Monitor has an interesting article. Of all the issues in the Great Immigration Debate 2006, the one I find the most fascinating is the issue of "breaking the law". Note the very last bullet point in the article: Illegal presence in the US is a civil, not a criminal, offense. If …
Posted to Lou Dobbs, Now More Than Ever
-
Posted to Lou Dobbs, Now More Than Ever
-
wth, LOL! I like your "employer" focused solution. But the solutions for those who are here "illegally", well, that is mostly already the law. And it isn't much of a deterrent.
Posted to Lou Dobbs, Now More Than Ever
-
I have never been in favor of legalizing bona fide crimes, but the only real crime being committed is what the employers do to the immigrants. The "criminal" nature of most immigrants is a consequence of a failed policy. Unlike arguments that attempt to justify decriminalizing, say prostitution or gambling or drug trafficking, there is nothing immoral or illegal or plain wrong about bringig home the bacon. Yes, there are more serious crimes, like "rape, murder, kidnapping, robbery, burglary, and intimidation by armed intruders.". But c'mon! That is a facetious argument. Show me any population of people numbering in the millions …
Posted to Lou Dobbs, Now More Than Ever
-
Illegal immigration is indeed a problem. I think we can agree on that. The difference appears where we have our focus.
Posted to Lou Dobbs, Now More Than Ever
-
Amen! God, what I would give to live in such rich and stable countries. Viva la socialism!
Posted to Pulp Non-Fiction
-
The title of this article should have read, Head of Stage Berlusconi uses members of Congress as props in his bid for re-election inthesetimes.com fooled into thinking this is news and fills in slow news day Posted to Head of Stage
-
Yes, but what is so new about that?
Posted to Head of Stage
-
My Left Knee is beginning to twitch. Amid the Brouhaha over immigration, two salient facts are being buried under a mountain of politically correct hype, and conservative fear mongering. * Illegal immigrants take only very low wage jobs out of the economy. The only ones being hurt are the immigrants who cannot stand up for themselves and get better wages for fear of being deported. * Immigrants have always taken low wage jobs. If they had the education and opportunities in their home country, they wouldn't by and large leave. But, once here, they do have opportunities unthinkable in their home …
Posted to Theyve Come for Us All
-
wth, I do NOT support "guest worker" programs. I lived in Germany for several years and the Turks, many who have spent quite some time working in Germany, are 1) second-class citizens, 2) disinterested in Germany internal affairs, 3) financially spend little in Germany and send most back to Turkey, and 4) are completely unintegrated with the Germany society at large. In other words, they fail to meet my first requirement of "contributing" to the economy in which they work. Establishing "Mexican enclaves" (aka Polish ghettos) is not my idea of a rational solution. But, if they wish to partake of …
Posted to Theyve Come for Us All
-
Also,
One specific example I know of is the large number of family landscaping businesses. Try continuing to pay benefits plus a decent wage and compete with them. A local hospital fired their entire maintenance and grounds staff to out source to them.
I didn't realize that maintenance and grounds staff was a high tech, high pay occupation. Seems to me that any argument that would use that as an example of high-paying jobs falls victim to the fallacy that they should be high paying jobs. Why do you think America lost so much of its manufacturing base? Undrepriced cheap labor …Posted to Theyve Come for Us All
-
On another blog, where I have argued the same thoughts, the responses to it have led me to this conclusion, one that seems so obviously clear that I fear to reveal my thoughtlessness towards it now. But it is direct response to my somewhat flippant statement about bringing home the domestic manufacturing base. And by the way…. You’ll never re-import the manufacturing that’s in Mexico. We can’t touch $1.75/an hour with government subsidized medical care down there. to which I responded: If we give the immigrants the opportunity to make a fair wage, the $1.75 hour jobs in Mexico will lose …
Posted to Theyve Come for Us All
-
In short, the causes and effects of such low pay to "illegal" immigrants explains many, if not all, the current issues.....
Posted to Theyve Come for Us All
-
Rocco, Not sure what this you are referring to when you said,
You make a good point, economically speaking, and I absolutely agree. However, as I wrote earlier, isn’t this allowing the Mexican government to shirk responsibility to its own citizenry
The economic effect of government policy on illegal immigrant wages? Making immigrants felons? Abolishing the laws that make immigrants illegal and welcome them into our society as full participatory citizens? Also, going back to some of your earlier comments, specifically your 3 Point Solution, 1) Stop the rape of Mexico, Sure, to the extent of regulating American corporate behavior …Posted to Theyve Come for Us All
-
Rocco, If you are guilty of a "misread", it is only in intensity. My thoughts on the domestic Mexican troubles is not so much If Mexico lets us, it’s not our fault as it is that Mexico is a legitimate sovereign county and, short of invasion, we do not have a great deal of direct control over the situation. And we shouldn't, because it isn't our country and Mexico is a bona fide democracy, albiet as imperfect as most. On a separate note, and not meaning to start a separate debate, I am indeed a free-marketer, but most definitely NOT a …
Posted to Theyve Come for Us All
-
Unless, of course, we simply cease calling a problem and welcome Mexican immigrants as, well, immigrants.
Posted to Theyve Come for Us All
-
There is no Democracy in Iraq? Must be election time in Iraq again. This nonsensical rhetoric seems to raise its ugly head in America every time the Iraqis do something stupid like voting. Some people have this crazy notion that if you say something loud enough, the opposing truth can be suppressed.
Posted to The Logic of Withdrawal
-
Yes, let us go back to democracy, Saddam-style.
Posted to The Logic of Withdrawal
-
I have already and often sent letters to my congressmen about Dafur. If a "moralistic" American foreign policy (which I hearily support) is to mean anything, we need to actually do something. I do take issue with the comment in the article about Russia and China being willing to sign on to some UN initiative. China notably is the one dragging its feet in the Security Council on this issue. Why? Google "china dafur un" The two most telling linked article are these: Who Funds the Genocide in Dafur, Sudan? :: Sudan :: bLogicus Who Funds the Genocide in Dafur, Sudan? …
Posted to Raising a Million Voices for Darfur
-
(god, I hate the way this blog sometimes just loses a post! - let me try this again) WW, if you got issues with the evil emipre schtick, take it up with www.newsmax.com. Their headline: not mine. I was only demonstrating that China is more of a problem to resolving the Sudan crisis than anyone else. Regardless of whether I agree with the China isn’t doing anything that we haven’t done schtick, that most certainly is an amoralistic schtick as it shuts down opposing arguments whilst blithely ignoring that moralistic notion of two wrongs do not make a right I would …
Posted to Raising a Million Voices for Darfur
-
WW, I hear you say a lot of what you disagree with (and, after you redact all your anti-corporate rhetoric, I agree with most of it) but I would like to know what you think we should do about China. Given, of course, that they are a repressive and totalitarian regime and the average Chinese person shouldn't be treated like that. As for all the cheap shots against Rumsfeld, I'd be curious to hear what your feelings are about Clinton, given that when he was Pres, he provocatively sailed the USN through the Straits of Taiwan, flying the flag, as the …
Posted to China Dissidents Disappeared
-
Ah, when all else fails, prove it with Hollywood movie references... I suppose you see Syriana as a docudrama as well.... WW, I'd like to see some of the source data you have on those India-US war game results. Seriously. I was in the Air Force in th 80s. Now, I am not saying this is what happened in those war games, but we went to Lyon or Dijon on one joint exercise. It was us against the French. They won. Of course, no one really played up the fact that the French insisted on the following rules of engagement. 1) …
Posted to China Dissidents Disappeared
-
I estimate that one-fifth of China’s GDP (over half in the export sector) is produced by foreign-owned firms, which would make China the most open large economy in the world.” Of course, that door keeps opening and closing, like a one-way fish trap. China's economic modernization and technological aquisition strategy has been to open the doors, let the investments and technology in, then close the doors and send those foreigners home with empty pockets. I have issues with classifying that as an "open" economy.
Posted to China Dissidents Disappeared
-
Taking my own advice and Googling wiley's assertions, I found that our Air Force indeed got their clocks cleaned by the Indian Air Force in the past two Cope India Joint Exercises (2004 and 2005). Flying, among other aircraft, the Russian SU-30, Indian forces forced a win/lose ratio to the point that U.S. F-15Cs were defeated more than 90 percent of the time in direct combat exercises against the IAF. American Air Force commanders and pilots remarked on how surprised they were by the skill and training of the Indian fighter jocks.
Officials from the 3rd Wing at Elmendorf …
Posted to China Dissidents Disappeared
-
Since at least WWII, it has been the American military strategy, particularly when considering the superior numbers of the Soviet Union during the Cold War, to have the best equipment on the field of battle. Thus, even if the enemy has a numeric advantage, our technological force multipliers would prevail. The only thing that the "failure" of the Cope India exercises has demonstarted is the need to push ahead with the aquistition of the F-22 Raptors and the F-35 Joint Strike Fighter, both light-years ahead of the 30 year old aging F-14/F-15/F-16/F-18 fleet. Even far superior to the F-117 Stealth Nighthawks, …
Posted to China Dissidents Disappeared
-
I am sorry, but I just can't resist. As I research Cope India more and more, it is becoming clearer and clearer that much of the anti-American, anti-capitalistic rhetoric flung about this site is barely that. http://vayu-sena.tripod.com/exercise-cope-india-article02.html
At India's request, the U.S. agreed to mock combat at 3-to-1 odds and without the use of simulated long-range, radar-guided AIM-120 Amraams that even the odds with beyond-visual-range kills.
No, I lied. I really am not sorry. Let's hope this fiasco encourages diatribic posters on this site to back up their fantasies with facts.Posted to China Dissidents Disappeared
-
David, Nothing wrong with being strong and free..... ;)
Posted to China Dissidents Disappeared
-
David, you have the cadence of appearing to make a point, but I fail to see it.
Posted to China Dissidents Disappeared
-
David, Sorry about that. I guess I wasn't paying attention to the blatantly obvious. The point about making a point is that you are trying to get somewhere....
Posted to China Dissidents Disappeared
-
Damn. Sometimes I shoot my mouth off just to get the last word in. David. Sorry. Truly.
Posted to China Dissidents Disappeared
-
No apologies necessary. Like I said, nothing wrong with being strong and free. In whatever order... ;)
Posted to China Dissidents Disappeared
-
Oh God, not the ol' Zionist conspiracy nut theory again?! The next thing we hear is nightmare stories of the gnomes of Zurich and people pandering to Iran's current president because he has the courage to declare the Holocaust wasn't real.....
Posted to General Condemnation
-
WW, Please, Do not put words in my mouth. They are ugly enough when you use them. As far as questioning the reality of the Holocaust, good grief. One conspiracy nut theory is begeting another.
Posted to General Condemnation
-
Ah, of course. Blame the victim. Oh. Wait a minute. It is all the Israeli's fault. Disclaimer: This is a response to only the headline. I don't have time to read such nonsense.
Posted to Hamas: Sharon's Legacy?
-
Hail Caeser!, er Chavez!
Posted to No Discounted Transit for Oil
-
Spoken like a true fish with a hook...
Posted to No Discounted Transit for Oil
-
Ludicrous. "The basis of this is not a national emergency," says one officer, who echoed the sentiments of the group. "What this is is poor personnel planning." Poor Planning? The IRR is a legitimate manpower tool that has been in place since at least the time I left active duty and had 2 years on IRR 20 yearas ago. How can it be called poor planning if it is used in accordance with the plan? There are no restrictions on the military's use of it and anyone on IRR who thinks there is, is being just plan stupid. Sounds like typical …
Posted to Backdoor Draft, Back Again
-
Skull, Active duty: Dec 15, 1983 - Dec 14, 1987. Bitburg AB, Germany, 36TFW 525 AMU. IRR: Dec 15, 1987 - Dec 14, 1989 For what is is worth. I personally don't believe one needs military credentials to have a voice in such debates. But I do appreciate your respect.
Posted to Backdoor Draft, Back Again
-
Shades, First, as I said, I do not believe prior or current military status has any relevance on who is allowed to opine thoughts. This is a democracy, not Imperial Rome. If that is to be a requirement, then I guess I DO have the authority to select who is allowed to speak and who isn't. Since I allow all, the point is moot. Second, unfortunately, I do not have the option to reenlist. There are age requirements, even in the Reserve and Guard. Third, even if I could reenlist, I and my generation did our bit. To raise charges of …
Posted to Backdoor Draft, Back Again
-
Rabbit, If I thought truth sprouted from turds, then this site would and should be declared the Oracle.
Posted to Backdoor Draft, Back Again
-
David, When did WWII actually start? Has WW3 already started? Time will prove, I am sure, the truly prophetic quality of your words.
Posted to Backdoor Draft, Back Again
-
Shades, By claiming that the validity of ones opinions is "weighted" merely on a "putting one's money where ones mouth is" is indeed prejudging the right to opine. As far as being unable to reup because age, dude, I have already checked (hint: in 1983, I was almost too old for active duty, so you need to redo your math). Which, if one accepts your third point, that does indeed answer it. I do not accept your third point, and since I have not only offered deeds as well as words, and am still willing, then I, sir, by your criteria, …
Posted to Backdoor Draft, Back Again
-
David, So what do big people with no guns do when those little people come marching down your street? Pacifism is a dead-end philosophy when taken to extremist Jainist views.
Posted to Backdoor Draft, Back Again
-
One thing being ignored here is that the right to speak is not the same as being right. If they were the same, then everyone here would have to accept the fact that the war in Iraq was the right thing to do. Why? Because those who are serving are reuping in record numbers. If it was the wrong thing to do, if the fight was not just, then why are they reuping? Yes, I know. It is a facetious argument. That is my point.
Posted to Backdoor Draft, Back Again
-
David, Stand by and get shot? Exactly my point. Your poem of "pacifism lost" loses sight of what happens to "big" people with big brains when they don't defend themselves.
Posted to Backdoor Draft, Back Again
-
csmelnix, You will not find any language in any contract that states as an officer you are considered still in the army even after your 8 year MSO is complete unless you resign your commission. and YOUR point is, what? Signing active duty Enlistment Papers and that Commission that the US Congress granted you, are two very different things.
Posted to Backdoor Draft, Back Again
-
For those who were snowed by csmelnix's argument, when Congress grants a military commission, that commission is in force until you resign it, regardless of your active/inactive duty status.
Posted to Backdoor Draft, Back Again
-
(note: I may be in error about which sovereign power actually appoints the commission. It may be the President and not Congress, though advancement of a commission to general does require Congressional approval - it has been quite awhile since I have been involved with that). But regardless, there is a world of difference between an enlisted serviceperson's contract running up and that of a commissioned officer.
Posted to Backdoor Draft, Back Again
-
David, Not at all?
Posted to Backdoor Draft, Back Again
-
csmelnix, You are right. I didn't read your post fully. I responded to your statements from your first paragraph. Let me get this straight. You went back in, had asked about getting your status back, the CO said, don't worry, we'll take care of it. He did. And you are now upset? I guess I still don't get it.
Posted to Backdoor Draft, Back Again
-
Yeah, I got that. He backdated it because you asked him to "take care of it" What did you want him to "take care of"? We always get exactly what we asked for...
Posted to Backdoor Draft, Back Again
-
Gotta love pacifism. No, really, I do. I can Imagine. Unfortunately, Pacifism, like Marxism, is great on paper. But if just one person doesn't toe the party line, Utopia falls like th proverbial house of cards.
Posted to Backdoor Draft, Back Again
-
David, You still don't get it. Your pacifism can only survive if there are no "Little men with little guns". Now I know you are the ultimate optimist, but who you gonna call when that little man shows up at your doorstep? Another little man?
Posted to Backdoor Draft, Back Again
-
Wiley, I see violence as a last resort, an admission of failure, and a grevious act that is only justified when one is under physical attack. Revenge doesn’t count in my book. Absolutely. Last resort - after 12 years of Saddam deliberately thumbing his nose at sanctions, nothing. Admission of failure - the sanctions only ended up hurting the Iraqi's, not Saddam. A grevious act that is only justified when one is under physical attack - 9/11.
Posted to Backdoor Draft, Back Again
-
There most certainly needs to be paper audit trails. My state uses the optical scan balloting method. Then, if there is a dispute between with the electronic tally, a recount is easily obtained from the source documents. The DRE method is just a bad idea, even if there is no fraud. With no accountability, election results lose their credibility.
Posted to Ghosts in the Voting Machines
-
For the rest of the industry, the message was clear: Shut up if you want to sing.
Wait a minute. I thought we was talkin' country here, not Hollywood! Oh, I get it. Clever. Pity the country is behind country, not Hollywood.Posted to Country's Jingoistic Jingles
-
Sounds like someone preaching to the choir. I suspect that after the 2006 elections, Twain's "Reports of my death are greatly exaggerated" will haunt the Democrats.
Posted to The Republican Crack-Up
-
There certainly is a political environment throughout the country that both sides of the aisle have jumped on, that is the buying of votes with tax rebates. In Florida, with a no-state-income-tax policy enshrined in the state constitution, fair weather roads are a mess. In Minnesota, we all know that without state financing of the annual spring repair of roads assaulted by the annual thaw, we'd have no transportation at all in a few short years. Unfortunately, even Minnesotans are not immune to the biannual buy-the-vote road show. Rebates were initially used (in the current round of political history) to force …
Posted to The Republican Crack-Up
-
http://www.google.com/search?hl=en&q=gao+inefficient+bureaucracy&btnG=Google+Search The first one that pops up, a GAO study on how to implement the reorganization in 1995 of the federal government in the wake of the efforts to force the government as I described, is interesting. http://archive.gao.gov/t2pbat1/154275.pdf It goes into some detail on how the federal bureaucracy, by its own nature, becomes inefficient. With regards to Ted Stevens' bridge to nowhere, how much of that pork bill went to Democratic congressman? Please. Do your own homework. It ain't that tough.
Posted to The Republican Crack-Up
-
Johnny, It does seem to be a common tactic on this website to magnify the trivial and trivialize the obvious. 1) I am neither a libertarian nor a moron. 2) My point about the good roads in Minnesota is that we have recognized the need to pay for them while in Florida, even though the weather is mild and does not damage the roads as they do here, in Florida is where the really bad roads exist. Because they won't pay for them. How you turned that around 180 degrees is beyond me. 3) I am not a libertarian; I do …
Posted to The Republican Crack-Up
-
tina1, lol! The best jokes reflect reality. Thanks!
Posted to The Republican Crack-Up
-
So how did the Abramoff scandal become a neo-con scandal? Somebody is really reaching here...
Posted to The Republican Crack-Up
-
Brian, Yep, it is a Republican scandal this time around to be sure. Glad to see you've more properly refocused your sights.
Posted to The Republican Crack-Up
-
MM, Well, there you go again. Amazing how a liberal can call a cow a jackass and pretend it really isn't there...
Posted to The Republican Crack-Up
-
MM, Thanks for clarifying your quote. Not being a member to that party that you so vilify, it was unknown to me. Happy Birthday. (Let's see, it must be your 8th or 9th, maybe?)
Posted to The Republican Crack-Up
-
MM, you can call me anything you want, yet it only confirms your acknowledgement that you are a racist. I have said nothing one way or the other, except to criticize the politics of NO. If that makes me a racist, then you need to reexamine your own stereotypes. Obviously, you have not seen a picture of me, nor have I, nor will I publish one, since my ethnicity is of no consequence to my arguments. btw, which race am I supposed to believe is inferior?
Posted to The Republican Crack-Up
-
MM, The only prejudice I will affirm and own up to is that liberals have generally proven themselves to be idiots. But that has nothing to do with race, and everything with their behavior over the past decade or so.
Posted to The Republican Crack-Up
-
Ah, now I get it MM. Black hole. Dude, you are overly sensitive. You do know what a black hole is, don't you? It is when a gravity well is so intense that not even light can escape. Using it as a metaphor, it means the same as a bottomless pit. But, given your demonstrations of pre-adolescent age, it is possible you haven't encountered that in school yet.
Posted to The Republican Crack-Up
-
I trust you haven't been traumatized by any pits, have you? I truly meant no disrespect. If you feel dissed, well, I can't help with that. Perhaps an anger management course would help?
Posted to The Republican Crack-Up
-
For someone who pretends to be intelligent, you’re about as dense as the chip on your shoulders you employ to obscure your semi-conscious fascist attitudes. Ever since the Dimwit's “Political correctness strategy” the Dimwits have been playing to the liberal Eastern knee-jerk crowd - from brainwashing pogroms of “sensitivity retraining” to the contrived hysteria over the Moral Majority to Kerry's faux courage under fire. The Democrat have lost election after election with their blind (and false) adherence to a philosophy that the electorate is stupid and have been scared into submission. They’ve made a fetish of blaming the free market for …
Posted to The Republican Crack-Up
-
MM, Your incredible knowledge of the diversity of those who call themselves Republicans underwhelms me.
Posted to The Republican Crack-Up
-
I saw this little bit in that bastion of conservative media, the Washington Post, about Reid's apology to the Republicans, but the piece didn't go into details about who those Democrats are that it says are getting caught up in the Abramoff scandal. http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2006/01/19/AR2006011902459.html Since this is a left-of-center blog, I was wondering if anyone here know who the Post is referring to? brian28 seems to be plugged in on this issue...
The Abramoff investigation threatens to ensnare at least a half dozen members of Congress of both parties and Bush administration officials. Abramoff, who has admitted to conspiring to defraud …
Posted to The Republican Crack-Up
-
The only real difference in the Q & A self-analysis that the two parties are engaging themselves in, is that the Republicans listened when they started to lose elections. 2006 and 2008 will tell if the Democrats will finally stop blaming the Republicans for the Dems electoral losses (which in a perverse way is entirely true) and start listening to the voters. There are too many good issues that the Dems are allowing to languish in their frothy frenzy to cast the first stone against the demon Bush.
Posted to Will the Dems Step Up in the New Year?
-
But if by terrorism we mean the systematic threatening, torturing and/or killing of civilians to force them to accept a political or military situation they wouldn’t otherwise sanction, then the United States has committed far more acts of terrorism and crimes against humanity than the insurgents in Iraq
That's funny. Ten million Iraqis voted for Iraqi political parties because 150,000 American soldiers told them to. Let the shrilling begin.Posted to To Leave or Not to Leave
-
By these terms, there is little chance of U.S. pullout from Iraq any time soon, since by the Defense Department’s own reckoning, the insurgency could last well over a decade.
More disingenuous crap. I guess someone forgot to tell Levine (or he is conveniently forgetting) that the end of the insurgency is not considered a necessary prerequisite for American troop withdrawal from Iraq. Enabling an Iraqi Security Force that can deal with the situation, is.Posted to To Leave or Not to Leave
-
president’s plan fails to acknowledge that for most Iraqis it is the United States—not the “insurgency”—that is the primary “enemy” in the country;
Again, Levine is being selective (is he suffering from Alzheimers?). If he is getting this from polling information, he is leaving out (forgetting again) that the majority of Iraqis are 1) grateful for the overthrow of Saddam, and 2) don't want the Americans to leave until AFTER the political situation is stabilized.Posted to To Leave or Not to Leave
-
in the almost three years since the current invasion, the United States has been unable to rebuild much—if not most—of the infrastructure it destroyed,
Levine needs to stop reading only the headlines from MSM news sources. Much of the infrastructure has been rebuilt, Iraqi income and wages are soaring, and the insurgency is responsible for a large share of the infrastructural damage that Levine alludes to. Can anyone say "cherry-picking"?Posted to To Leave or Not to Leave
-
by demonizing Iraq’s insurgents as “perverse” and “against humanity,” the Bush administration has precluded the possibility of a negotiated settlement and full withdrawal of U.S. forces.
Ah, now I understand. Levine did not read the National Strategy for Victory. You see, one of the key elements in the political track of the Strategy is to isolate the insurgency by engaging Iraqi's who current reject the democratic process. Far from demonizing them, the Bush administration wants to 'coopt' them by encouraging their participation within a democratic process. But, there is nothing wrong with demonizing someone who encourages someone to strap on a …Posted to To Leave or Not to Leave
-
few of the alternative plans by Democrats and their allies are much better. On the official level, perhaps the most prominent statement by a “liberal hawk” was Sen. Joseph Biden’s (D-Del.) November 21 remarks to the Council on Foreign Relations, in which he accused the Bush administration of “misrepresenting the facts, misunderstanding Iraq, and misleading on the war.”
Pity Levine is not quoting Joseph Lieberman, the Dems true liberal hawk. Biden, is, always has, always will be, a political operative with no scruples towards the truth, a reputation he earned a few presidential contests back.Posted to To Leave or Not to Leave
-
America’s fundamental goals are to stop Iraq from being a haven for terrorists and to prevent a full-blown civil, and ultimately regional, war. But we’ve already lost on the first count, while on the second our continued presence will likely catalyze, rather than slow, the march toward regional anarchy.
1) "It ain't over till it is over". And even L. Kaplan at The New Republic has acknowledged that Bush hit at least a three-bagger with the last elections. 2) No it isn't. If Iraq was slipping into anarchy, this last election would not have registered a 8.9 on the political Richter …Posted to To Leave or Not to Leave
-
this plan calls for 80,000 U.S. troops to be redeployed by the end of 2006 (“Strategic Redeployment: A Progressive Plan for Iraq and the Struggle Against Violent Extremists,”) [...] This sounds like a big improvement over Bush’s open-ended commitment of more than 100,000 troops
Except, of course, the only reason we will likely be able to redeploy that many troops in the next 12 months is because of the successes on the ground thus far. The only difference between the 80,000 troop redeployment and the open-ended commitment of more than 100,000 troops is the first mandates a withdrawal before ensuring the …Posted to To Leave or Not to Leave
-
it admits that attacks have skyrocketed under the Bush administration. But without this historical context, a successful plan against the insurgency and the larger problem of terrorism cannot be developed.
Again with the journalistic misrepresentation. It should read, attacks have skyrocketed since 9/11. Despite the attempt on the left to repaint the problem as caused by Bush, the problem actually predates Bush. I do feel for the terrorists, though. Imagine that your greatest achievement, 9/11, failed to achieve your prime objective. That is to push the Americans out of the Middle East. Thank God Bush was at the helm!Posted to To Leave or Not to Leave
-
Zarqawi serves American interests so well that if he didn’t exist the United States would have had to invent him.
Well, I guess Levine is publishing his rhetoric on the right website, after all.Posted to To Leave or Not to Leave
-
In such an environment, simplicity is the best option for politicians and activists seeking to begin a process of withdrawing all U.S. forces from Iraq. The longer and more detailed the plan, the more likely it falls into the very political, ideological and strategic traps that have made such a mess of the occupation to begin with.
Oh. So I guess Richard Holbrooke's admonisment to create a 500 page plus peace document, ala Bosnia, before doing anything, is no longer on the table with the Democrats? Thank God!Posted to To Leave or Not to Leave
-
whattheheck, I would disagree only with your comment that it is useless to try and make reasonable comments on this site. There are others who read this site without participating much. It is only pointless to expect a rational response from the usual suspects.
Posted to To Leave or Not to Leave
-
Hey, David. Here is some more cherries...
Bush's overall approval rating rose to 47 percent, from 39 percent in early November. His approval rating on Iraq jumped 10 percentage points since early November, to 46 percent, while his rating on the economy rose 11 points, to 47 percent. A clear majority, 56 percent, said they approve of the way Bush is handling the fight against terrorism, up from 48 percent in the November poll.
Up by 8 to 11 points in just over a month! How's them pits?Posted to To Leave or Not to Leave
-
David, I have quoted numerous polls here and at other ITT topics that indicate that, while the Iraqis would like the American troops to leave as soon as possible, which is certainly reasonable, the Iraqis themselves mostly do not believe now is the time. That there is animosity and resentment to be sure, particularly among the Sunnis, does not change that fact.
Posted to To Leave or Not to Leave
-
I hear you. I left for a short while for the same reason, though David was sure I'd be back. I guess he knows me better than I do. But I come now only for the rebuttal. Shameless promotion - feel free to leave a little graffiti at my site. Hardly anyone there, but that doesn't trouble me. I have a Letters to the Editor section, now, so people can comment about anything they wish.
Posted to To Leave or Not to Leave
-
No. I am tired of looking things up for people, especially when I have previously posted them. Repeatedly.
Posted to To Leave or Not to Leave
-
David, I am just tired of counting coup with polling data. Especially when both sides adamantly claim that polling data is not all that reliable. My point with Levin was he cherry picked the one to make his point. But, my previously mentioned polls were from the Pew Trust; and about as old as the polls you are citing... But, if we are going to grab each others feathers, did you see Stephen Hayden, National Security Advisor, last night in a speech before the CSIS organization? He quoted some nifty polls. One was a recent ABC Poll (sorry, that is only …
Posted to To Leave or Not to Leave
-
naderraider, first knee-jerk reaction. Love and respect your independence, hate your politics. But that's ok. Most people here hate my politics too. A. living wage of $10 - I can dig it. B. drugs - I've already debated the drug debate here about a month ago. I don't remember what article is is attached to, which is not surprising. Nobody stays much on topic. If you find it and have something new to say, let me know here, but let's keep the debate on whatever article it is slung to C. Publicly financed elections - theoretically I agree, but recent history …
Posted to To Leave or Not to Leave
-
whattheheck, I pray all worked out in the end, in the armed robbery. It is incredible how quickly a father reacts and what he can do when his family is threatened. I have a four year old girl. Last winter, in the mall parking lot, she got away from us and ran out in front of an approaching van. I had just enough time to rush out, pick her up and shield her as the van struck us. Fortunately, I was wearing this big parka that I had gotten from my mother-in-law the year before. Worst parka you could ever imagine. …
Posted to To Leave or Not to Leave
-
Wiley, Thanks for the kind words. When it comes to my daughter, I've got a ton of stories! Every month or two, I collect them and send out a Samantha newsletter to family and friends. Papa generally gets the short end of the stick in most of the stories. She is a real dickens! I should post them on my own blog with a permanent link.
Posted to To Leave or Not to Leave
-
Reflection is an important and vital part of life. Take a second look at Levine's earlier piece on Iraq and democracy, Echoes of Oslo, published here Aug 21, just before the draft constitution was voted on. Doom and gloom with serious doubts the Iraqis would even get past that. I wonder how silly that (and this) article will look next summer. http://www.inthesetimes.com/site/main/article/2286/
Posted to To Leave or Not to Leave
-
Wiley, Apologies for the following. We’ve dropped 300 tons of radioactive bombs and bullets on a country that did not threaten anyone Not that I would justify a Roman "salt-the-earth" victory, but I take issue with the preposition Saddam didn't threaten anyone. Kuwait, Shi'ite and Kurdish massacres, Iran-Iraq War, support for terrorist (ie Abu Nidal, etc). We cannot eliminate every threat. I agree. But We don't have to. When tyrants fear retaliation for their deeds, they back off, if only temporarily. After Reagan crossed Kaddafi's "line-in-the-sand", we stopped hearing much about him. I was stationed in Germany when Kaddafi was …
Posted to To Leave or Not to Leave
-
So, Jay. What I hear you saying is that it’s alright to kill and poison Iraqi children because you think Hussein is a threat? Where did I say that? How many of his peoples’ lives equals one Saddam? Bad equation. If we must count bodies as the sole measure of morality, which I do not, then you must balance, not Saddam's life, but the lives of those he has killed. Is that “democracy” at work? That is your assessment, based on faulty logic. If we were threatening another country that had done us no harm, with a nuclear strike, …
Posted to To Leave or Not to Leave
-
David, Glad to see you are quoting sources that say, His regime was also at least pursuing the development of weapons of mass destruction Do you get it?
Posted to To Leave or Not to Leave
-
Also from David's source, Instead of accepting a less-than-ideal situation in Iraq, the United States now is in the position of having to fix what it broke. Yeah, we broke it right over Saddam's carbine that he loved to pack and brandish for the crowds. Of course we should fix it. That has been the whole point.
Posted to To Leave or Not to Leave
-
David, Looks like you got that one wrong, eh? Of course, there is always the Iraq real per capita income, up 30% over pre-war times. But, that would mean you'd have to admit this whole argument is not going your wy.
Posted to To Leave or Not to Leave
-
whattheheck, Isn't it incredible that the story about all those documents hasn't hit the headlines yet? I get feeds from five or six of the big news agencies (NYT, WaPost,etc) and still no aftershock....
Posted to To Leave or Not to Leave
-
David,
In 1990, Iraq was ranked 50th out of 130 countries on the UNDP Human Development Index, which measures national achievements in health, education, and per capita GDP”.
In 1990? So, what were the rankings in 2002, just before Saddam was relieved of duty? Your statistics only indicate that Iraq fell apart sometime after 1990. Clinton wasn't even president then. This is what I meant when I said in another time and place that statistics are too easily abused. I will get back to you on the source of what I have quoted. I think it was from a Max Boot …Posted to To Leave or Not to Leave
-
I believe that is called cherry-picking.
Posted to To Leave or Not to Leave
-
David, Here is another article from Boot with references to statistics about Iraqi opinion polls, which we discussed in relation to earlier cherry-picking charges. http://www.latimes.com/news/columnists/la-oe-boot23nov23,1,5521295.column
Posted to To Leave or Not to Leave
-
David, Cool! That Max Boot reference also has the per capita stat, which Boot ascribes to the Brookings Institute. He also passes on other BI info:
According to Brookings' Iraq index, there are five times more cars on the streets than in Saddam Hussein's day, five times more telephone subscribers and 32 times more Internet users. The growth of the independent media — a prerequisite of liberal democracy — is even more inspiring. Before 2003 there was not a single independent media outlet in Iraq. Today, Brookings reports, there are 44 commercial TV stations, 72 radio stations and more than 100 …
Posted to To Leave or Not to Leave
-
Let Freedom Ring!
Posted to To Leave or Not to Leave
-
Good God. Rabbit is once again practicing the time honored "throw enough caca at 'em and they'll just walk away". Or is it "repeat something often enough and it has to be true"?
Posted to To Leave or Not to Leave
-
David, So, life in Iraq went downhill after sanctions were imposed? And, tell me again, the reason for those sanctions? The reference to Clinton was that during that time, when sanctions were in place, nothing good happened. The sanctions failed as Saddam cut away at the bone of Iraqi society. If Clinton had done his job, instead of getting one from Monica, maybe Iraqi life would not have festered so miserably. Again, I ask,
And, tell me again, the reason for those sanctions?
Posted to To Leave or Not to Leave
-
Well, David, here goes. The opinion poll, carried out in August, also debunks claims by both the US and British governments that the general well-being of the average Iraqi is improving in post-Saddam Iraq. In August? Before the Iraqis had even a draft of a constitution? Before the Sunnis started to turn away from violence and "boycott" democracy? When things looked their bleakest? Kind of like you using statistics from 1990 to hide how bad Iraqi life got during the Clinton non-Administration? Forty-five per cent of Iraqis believe attacks against British and American troops are justified - rising to 65 per …
Posted to To Leave or Not to Leave
-
whattheheck, I think there is something wrong with your geography. Samarra, Ramadi, and Salman Pak are not in the northern no-fly zone that wiley is referring to....
Posted to To Leave or Not to Leave
-
wiley, most of the people Hussein killed were Iranian Kurds and Sufis who fought with Iran in the Iraq-Iran war, and the very same fundamentalists that we are trying to kill now. Do you think Bush would not kill people who fought with a country that we are at war with, when soldiers from that country are coming into our territory? So, I presume you therefore fully support Bush and his alleged 'torture' policy?
Posted to To Leave or Not to Leave
-
wiley, Apologies for the crass comments yesterday. I crossed the line on that one and it was more than a bit disingenuous. My (lame) excuse is that I got caught up in the crossfire of rhetoric, but that is just an excuse. I do respect your opinions and I am working on being more civil, as difficult as that is when one cannot look into the eyes of another and see, if not their soul, then at least their heart.
Posted to To Leave or Not to Leave
-
David, I was refering to whattheheck's reference to the millions of pages of documents captured in Afganistan and Iraq that are now beginning to be declassified showing that much of our intel on Iraq and al Qaeda was not as wrong as has been blindly lambasted in the the past couple years.
Posted to To Leave or Not to Leave
-
David, you are cherry-picking polls again. I am suprised at your refusal to even address the polls that refute the argument that life in Iraq is significantly improving. As far as your interpretation of the reason for the sanctions, please explain why you think Clinton is a closet neo-con? After all, he could have lifted the sanctions at anytime. By your conspiracy-tainted theory, since he didn't, he must be a part of the conspiracy. Or was Monica a neo-con plant to keep him distracted?
Posted to To Leave or Not to Leave
-
oops, it should be ... address the polls that refute the argument that life in Iraq is NOT significantly improving. I got lost in the double negatives.
Posted to To Leave or Not to Leave
-
Ah, forgive me David. When you said the reasons for the sanctions were, To punish Iraqis for being unfortunate enough to have a brutal dictator for a leader and to weaken the country for the 2003 invasion. I thought you were implying that it was to punish Iraqis for being unfortunate enough to have a brutal dictator for a leader and to weaken the country for the 2003 invasion, 12 years later. No, you are right. That doesn't sound like a conspiracy.
Posted to To Leave or Not to Leave
-
So what does everybody think about the feared Iraqi Civil War that will lead to chaos, that is now just beginning to brew? According to the NYT, Sunni are turning on Sunni. Of course, the realization of the dreaded Civil War is, for the moment, confined to the Sunni insurgency, http://www.nytimes.com/2006/01/12/international/middleeast/12insurgent.html?ei=5088&en=6eb2fe56419a37be&ex=1294722000&adxnnl=0&partner=rssnyt&emc=rss&adxnnlx=1137064199-bK3iKBF2UnVLfWlgZKuIJg&pagewanted=all
The split within the insurgency is coinciding with Sunni Arabs' new desire to participate in Iraq's political process, and a growing resentment of the militants. Iraqis are increasingly saying that they regard Al Qaeda as a foreign-led force, whose extreme religious goals and desires for sectarian war against Iraq's Shiite …
Posted to To Leave or Not to Leave
-
David, No, not trying to start a fight. Just feeling peckish for some reason. But. C'mon, David. When you say the sanctions of the early 90s was to weaken Iraq for an invasion 12 years later, across three presidencies, that does imply long ranged intent and planning and collusion between the various personages in power, no?
Posted to To Leave or Not to Leave
-
Viva la peace pact!
Posted to To Leave or Not to Leave
-
David, Re your Civil War link, are you advocating that the conflict within Iraq is one with ethnic and religous overtones? It does seem to be one of the points of that article as it describes the violence between Shi'te and Sunni. Not that I disagree. But was just wondering what your point was.
Posted to To Leave or Not to Leave
-
mmmm, ok, ok. I need to read before I leap. You are calling it a conspiracy.... moot issue I guess then.
Posted to To Leave or Not to Leave
-
I cannot resist any longer against such a stupendous preponderance of incorruptible incorrigible evidentiary fact. The shards of my world come crashing down. So, tell me about the Towers again? ;)
Posted to To Leave or Not to Leave
-
When one loses one's humor, all is lost.
Posted to To Leave or Not to Leave
-
Given that the National Strategy really says nothing that hasn't already been clearly stated or publicly presented in the past two or three years; given that it was in response to baseless criticisms that there was no strategy (ie critics who can't read the daily news or comprehend simple speeches), it is not surprising that the published strategy should be led by someone who can restate the obvious to people who are incapable of understanding the obvious.
Posted to Tale of Two Wars
-
whattheheck, Thanks for the link to Dr. Chong's site. Interesting. Though in the wake of yet another example of success for the Iraqi Democracy, I think all the shrill pontifications we are hearing is more from those who have a worldview mindset that they refuse to accept as no longer relevant.
Posted to Tale of Two Wars
-
lb, You are a putz. Democracy is not a right or left issue. It is one of freedom. People get the kind of politics they vote for, and have a right to. The choice of President for Bolivia is up to the people of Bolivia. Are you saying the election was rigged?
Posted to Tale of Two Wars
-
Ten Million Dogs and Ponies. What a Show!
Posted to Tale of Two Wars
-
But I guess you feel the Iraqi people are irrelevant?
Posted to Tale of Two Wars
-
lb, you continue to amaze me with your ability to ignore the obvious and twist the truth. Are you comparing 18th Century Britian in America with our troops in Iraq today? The parallels are so uncanny that I don't see even one. Please educate me.
Posted to Tale of Two Wars
-
Ah, typical lb misdirection. You must have studied under Randi? "I didn't start it!" Yet, you, not whattheheck, introduced the comparison of the Redcoats and the circumstance they operated, with the American troops currently in Iraq. Do you stand behind your own words or not? Are you capable of educating?
Posted to Tale of Two Wars
-
To educate, whattheheck was comparing the trials and tribulations of the early American republic, as they gave birth to American democracy, with the near-identical trials and tribulations of the Iraqis as they struggle to create a democratic society. You, not whattheheck, made the flippant comparison between the Redcoats leaving after being defeated at Yorktown, with Amercian troops in Iraq. Please don't make me use the "disingenuous" argument again...
Posted to Tale of Two Wars
-
lb, Well, I'm glad we have come full circle, though without progress. So,
Are you comparing 18th Century Britian in America with our troops in Iraq today? The parallels are so uncanny that I don’t see even one.
Are your words indefensible? And please, the mock condescending attitude won't work this time. You drew a parallel that no one understands. Or do we two-step and swing the other direction now?Posted to Tale of Two Wars
-
Excluding Sunnis from 'most Iraqis' still leaves 80% of the Iraqi population. No, that is not selective nor disingenuous. Merely more detailed than the less detailed stats you have been quoting. Iraqis are three different populations. It is not inaccurate to say, Iraqis blame America whilst saying in the same breath Iraqis are grateful for the freedom from the Sunni rule that the Americans have provided. wolf is absolutely proper is qualifying the poll data. As I have argued with David in Levin's article 'To Leave or Not To Leave',
David, I have quoted numerous polls here and at other ITT …
Posted to Tale of Two Wars
-
"sophisties" are everyone who disagrees with lb...
Posted to Tale of Two Wars
-
lb, Thank you. That makes more sense. However, whattheheck did not say that our democracy was in full place immediately after those events either. What was being argued was that Iraqi democracy is still a work in progress, and the long and laborous efforts of the fledgling American Republic was an apt comparision. To say that it wasn't over until it is over, as you did, is merely repeating what has been argued by those supporting the American foreign policy in Iraq. Now, I would not argue that repeating such an obvious comparison is not trivial, but our oft mutual misunderstandings …
Posted to Tale of Two Wars
-
lb, again you presume too much. Maybe we should just start to argue our own POV and let others post their own. Your characterization aside, allow me to quote three statistics that every one knows: Iraqi Shiite - 60% Iraqi Sunni - 20% Iraqi Kurd - 20% 60 + 20 = 80
Posted to Tale of Two Wars
-
In the case of the Iraqis, it is more than just limited interest to "segment" the Iraqi population. These three populations are distinct populations. What would be disingenuous is to characterize and stereotype the entire population by refering to merely one. You infer wrong. As the argument rages across America, the dividing line is between those who believe in a timed withdrawal (sooner or later) and those who believe in one driven by events and necessity. I believe in the later.
Posted to Tale of Two Wars
-
Had the Iraqi people asked, I would think differently, perhaps um, they did. Repeatedly. Clinton ignored them
Posted to Tale of Two Wars
-
Again, and for the last time. Sunnis and Shiite have both excommunicated each other, both refers to the other as heretics, both have vowed to exterminate each other. That Saddam used the difference (that some claim is no difference) to consolidate his secular power by using his Sunni heritage is important. To infer they are mere kissing cousins is, well, I have promised not to start throwing mud, so I won't. And as far as the work in progress, it is the Iraqis doing the work.
Posted to Tale of Two Wars
-
lb, honesty and respect are two way streets. I am glad you see the value. I just wish you could see the mutual value.
Posted to Tale of Two Wars
-
whattheheck, For the record, it is okay to ignore lb's gender bending trick. S/He seems to feel that it is illuminative of her/his opponent's stereotypes. What s/he fails to realize is that, far from stereotypical male dominance, it is just as likely, in these times, that with a name so deliberately construed to confuse genders, those of us who respect the other gender and their hard won equal rights would rather risk falling for her/his puerile trap than inadvertently reinforcing historical gender prejudices that says a woman is incapable of intelligent thought or debate. Not that lb's debates are that intelligent, …
Posted to Tale of Two Wars
-
Jay, When you begin to cop to your own lies and distortions, and cease to project them onto me, then we might have some grounds for mutuality. Begin with the obvious falsehoods you use in the post of 5:20pm. You are not merely misinformed, you make absolute truths out of partial ones.
uhm.... lb, Unless you and wileywitch are one in the same, the 5:20pm post was so obviously in direct response to ww's 4:22pm post, not anything you posted. Perhaps you should take your own advice, nez pas?Posted to Tale of Two Wars
-
lb, ww in the 6:20pm post seemed to understand that. ww, the excommunication and charges of heretics goes back hundreds of years. I will have to get back to you one that one, though.
Posted to Tale of Two Wars
-
what ditty?
Posted to Tale of Two Wars
-
Not at all, lb. Though I am becoming concerned. Despite your obvious predilication towards adolescent hijinks, I fear you may be suffering from some form of senility. By 'lying', what do you mean? The only reference to 'lying' anywhere within this posting is your admonishment against fools who never question authority but sycophantically echo whatever they are told by scurrilous lying demagogues. As I do not disagree with that, I certainly take no umbrage whether you call demagogues liars or dissemblers. That you choose to slander people with such patent nonsense is entirely up to you. Of course, I am merely …
Posted to Tale of Two Wars
-
That's quite all right, lb. I have made it clear in other discussions that devolve into "my poll vs your poll" argument that polls alone are not enough to establish facts. As I am sure you must be aware, they give a sense of opinion only, and as your dear friend admonishes quite often, opinions are not facts. Certainly they have their uses, when not abused. I do find it curious though that you so vehemently object to the "correctness" of polling data that counters your arguments, but all you can offer is an article with such patently biased anecdotal information. …
Posted to Tale of Two Wars
-
(lb) So you are backing off the argument that The Shia and Sunni consider each the other ex-communicated heretics, in a global historical sense and only that maybe there are instances in history when Shia and Sunni may have been at each others throats. That is good. That is reasonable. But it leaves you with no argument against Wiley’s and my contention that, in general, the differences between Sunni and Shia globally, historically and in particular existing communities are not so great. So why defend such a weakened useless redoubt? You are only salving your narcissistic pride, with another display of …
Posted to Tale of Two Wars
-
wiley (apologies if this 'nickname' or 'first name' is inappropriate - I get lazy when typing out people's full name), I agree that breaking down the Iraqi population into three, and only three, distinct populations is a convenience, yet I would disagree that for broad discussions on current Iraqi politics, it is not 'too' convenient. As the latest round of Iraqi elections has shown, the results do breakdown quite sharply between these three cultural divides. As far as the animosity between the Shia and the Sunni, that goes back to the succession of the Islamic leadership after the death of the …
Posted to Tale of Two Wars
-
lb, I am afraid I can't answer your question if you persist in misinterpretation. I can only regress so far before I starting instructing you with baby talk.
Posted to Tale of Two Wars
-
whattheheck, http://sufrensucatash.blogspot.com/
Posted to Tale of Two Wars
-
lb, Ah, the Alzheimers is kicking in again. So, first, let me just quote myself,
Unless you and wileywitch are one in the same, the 5:20pm post was so obviously in direct response to ww’s 4:22pm post, not anything you posted. Perhaps you should take your own advice, nez pas?
And then, with regards to "houris of paradise", let me quote another, not me,They’re expect a bunch of virgins post big bang event. They assume these are women. I’ve heard thay may be camels. Not that there’s anything wrong with that.:-) Posted by whattheheck on Dec 27, …
Posted to Tale of Two Wars
-
hmm, I do notice a pattern, though. The taunts, as they grow more and more ineffective, are getting more and more puerile.
Posted to Tale of Two Wars
-
Ah, to live in one's own little fantasy world... What a thing to believe.
Posted to Tale of Two Wars
-
the schism is historically over ecclesiastic authority and not religious doctrine.
As in the Reformation, or as in the split between the Western and Eastern Roman churches, schisms over ecclesiastic authority often leads to schisms over religious doctrine as those diverging authorities make changes to dogma to define and broaden whatever differences intially existed. However, your argument means little as a schism in both areas is not a necessary requirement for animosity between two peoples. The only point I have made is that (engaging hyperbole again) the Sunnis and the Shia are far from kissing cousins. The differences between them are …Posted to Tale of Two Wars
-
I really don’t think you know exactly what it is you are trying to prove with this argument.
Of course, you mean you don't know. Failure to understand simple statements on your part does not consitute faulty argumentation. This time allow me to offer a little advice: Argue your own point and let others argue theirs.Posted to Tale of Two Wars
-
No. The "rescinding" was a figment and product of your over eager imagination. If you don't like changing the goal-posts in mid argument, then stop doing it. If you are confused, let me help. A=A I have stated quite clearly that I believe the differences between Sunnis and Shia are fundamentally because of religious disputes. I am glad that you have finally understood that when you change peoples words and then add and insert your own words, the meaning changes dramatically. There may be hope for you yet. It is amusing to see you gyrate though.
Posted to Tale of Two Wars
-
lb, I don't know. You are the one repeatedly characterizing them as irreconcilable. I merely maintain they are very significant in the context of the current political situation, sufficiently significant to warrant making a distinction between the two populations when evaluating polling data. I have made the distinction between Sunni and Shia, to the extent necessary for the argument I have consistently made. Neither considers the other as legitimate, as the Protestants and Catholics did during and after the Reformation and as the Western and Eastern Roman churchs did during and after their schism. Again, I feel the urge to lecture …
Posted to Tale of Two Wars
-
lb, Not at all. In fact, your own twisting of the argument proves my point. First, irreconcilable means not being able to reconcile. Yet, your Protestants and your Catholics, after your war of thirty years, are now reconciled, at least to the point of coexistence, if not dogma. When did that happen? Luther was excommunicated five hundred years ago, yet anyone familiar with contemporary Christian church is well aware of recent attempts to seek reconciliation, not only between the Protestant denominations, but with the Catholic Church as well. This reconciliation is in the very early stages to be sure, but definitely …
Posted to Tale of Two Wars
-
lb, You abuse statistics yet one more time. Do Sunnis kill Sunnis? Yes. Do Shia kill Shia yes? During the most egregious racial violence in America's history, did blacks in America kill blacks? Did whites in America kill whites? Yes. Yes. Again, during Nazi Germany, were there instances of Jews killing Jews? of Germans killing Germans? Yes. Yes So, the logic of your argument is that the Holocaust never happened. Come now. You do try to pretend to have a better understanding of logic than that.
Posted to Tale of Two Wars
-
....
Posted to Tale of Two Wars
-
Becker-Posner (http://www.becker-posner-blog.com/) have an interesting debate on capital punishment. The essence of their argument (both favor capital punishment) is that the deterrence need not be total, merely sufficient. Becker summarizes it thusly,
I favor capital punishment because and only because I believe it has "sizeable" deterrent effects. I would join the anti-capital punishment side if this view turns out to be wrong, if it were proven that many innocent persons are wrongly executed, or if it is administered in such a racially biased manner as to wrongly convict many black persons, and to be little used against white murderers. But I …
Posted to Tale of Two Wars
-
Wiley, I suppose they postulate and hypothesis like any good scientists, but you'd have to ask Prof. Posner. It is his argument. But I would point out that even hunter-gatherer societies are not anarchist. Even in the absence of more formal modern-day governmental institutions, the policing of adults would exist through tribal customs and social pressures.
Posted to Tale of Two Wars
-
whattheheck, Remember, lb, by virtue of his self-appointed authority, is the final arbiter of who is a fool and who is wise. If you disagree with him, you are a fool, and as that is his gospel, it is neither name-calling or disingenuous. He is merely trying to make you a better person in his own image.
Posted to Tale of Two Wars
-
wiley, Apologies. Posner referenced Robert Trivers' work, and the work of other evolutionary psychologists of humans, in prehistoric times. I am not sure, but I don't think there were only seven H-G tribes then. And I'm guessing that is not to which you are referring. I agree completely that agriculture requires more formal organization and institutions than H-G societies, and that requirement has led to what we now refer to complex civilizations. But not having formal institutions to maintain order does not necessarily mean an anarchist society. A family does not have a formal organization, yet it is not an anarchist …
Posted to Tale of Two Wars
-
lb, I think you have forgotten your Socrates. You must remember it, you know, the one about what true wisdom recognizes? and the 'wisdom' of notable Athenians? No?
Posted to Tale of Two Wars
-
lb, Your wisdom is notable.
Posted to Tale of Two Wars
-
Jay-Jay, Not at all. In true Socratic tradition, I am simply trying to provoke some intelligent thought and self-reflection from such an obvious group of trolls, as hopeless as that may be. You should not get so defensive about a little constructive criticism. lb
Posted to Tale of Two Wars
-
good, good. We are making progress. That was actually more funny than sour.
Posted to Tale of Two Wars
-
No, my dear notable friend. The way is clear.
Posted to Tale of Two Wars
-
But I appreciate the offer...
Posted to Tale of Two Wars
-
Bodo, Norway gets my vote.
Posted to Tale of Two Wars
-
Well, I’m here to tell you that torture, like terrorism, is as American as apple pie. Well, it is good to see Salim is true to form. Taking select incidents out of the context of American society at large and extrapolating it into a theme he has pounded before, goes far beyond any "Club of Rome" comparisons. I believe most dictionaries would define this kind of stereotyping of the whole on the actions of a few as, dare I say it, racist?
Posted to Torture in the Homeland
-
wiley, It is a pity you have not provided your discourse on race; I would have liked to reviewed that before I responded. As you must know, "race", by its very nature, does not have a very precise definition. Certainly, taxonomically speaking, race really has no place. At best, it could be described as a relatively homogenous and stable population, with distinct characteristics. Arguably, an "american" race does not by definition exist, yet. Yet race is not immutable. Consider the Hispanic race. By the strictest of definitions, it too arguably does not exist. It is a mixed race of Spanish, Portuguese, …
Posted to Torture in the Homeland
-
interesting. ITT appears to have automatic censoring. The #### would be the derogatory slur for Chinese. Wonder why the other ones weren't?
Posted to Torture in the Homeland
-
Yeah, I was being charitable...
Posted to Torture in the Homeland
-
My favorite was Vacuous Rodentia
Posted to Torture in the Homeland
-
I may be misquoting myself; it was some time ago. I think it was actually Vacuous Bunny. Though, I don't remember Bunny Face, as good as that is...
Posted to Torture in the Homeland
-
Ah, yes. So it is. And yes. Vorpal Bunny I had forgotten, which is unfortunate, for that is very good.
Posted to Torture in the Homeland
-
Very interesting read on the future of journalism, though it tends to ignore the expanding and egalitarian influence of the internet in promoting smaller yet more diverse news sources. Maybe the Weekly Standard and the DailyKos are not the stuff of evil incarnate as each side would believe.
Posted to The Rise of Professional Journalism
-
Of course, there is a third version of American wars that go like this: Bad guys endanger the world. Average Joe joins the fight against the darkness, triumphs under great adversity from within and without, comes home and starts his life as an insurance salesman, raises a family of four and retires with eight grandchildren and another on its way.. Unfortunately, this genre never hit Chaudhry's Hollywood radar screen since it is based on real life. WWII. Heroism, real life heroism, is not about typewriter angst or killing the enemy. Any idiot can write about pulling the trigger or pushing the …
Posted to When Boys Will be Jarheads
-
Don't know Marion. But I was.
Posted to When Boys Will be Jarheads
-
Apologies for the female gender references I have made in the past. Obviously I was wrong.
Posted to When Boys Will be Jarheads
-
Embarrassment and humiliation?? Again, you are a legend in your own mind.
Posted to When Boys Will be Jarheads
-
There is an interesting serendipity between Levine's call for radical Islamists at one extreme and a book promo/excerpt (?) of Tony Blankley's "The West's Last Chance: Will We Win the Clash of Civilizations?" at the Washington Times on the other extreme. http://www.washtimes.com/national/20050912-122024-9420r.htm While Levine is calling for a different kind of legitimate Islamic radical, Blankley is calling for a crusade of the current militant crop, claiming,
The threat of the radical Islamists taking over Europe is every bit as great to the United States as was the threat of the Nazis taking over Europe in the 1940s.
turning Europe into a …Posted to Islam Needs Radicals
-
correction: ...calling for a crusade against the current militant crop ...
Posted to Islam Needs Radicals
-
Yeah, I was pretty amused by it too. Pity LB didn't get the joke. Aside from the cheap jab at neo-cons, her explanation dovetails with my interpretation of Levine's gist....
Posted to Islam Needs Radicals
-
40% scientific. 40% reason-oriented. at the cusp of agnostic/atheist/humanist
Posted to Islam Needs Radicals
-
At the risk of starting another firestorm, I see myself as very scientific AND spiritual. But, with a last name like Cline, I've always like the non-linearity model of a Klein bottle....
Posted to Islam Needs Radicals
-
Eckhaus is right. Instead of bringing democracy to the world, we should just tell them to all go to hell. A little anarchy is good for the soul. Yes, I am dripping with sarcasm.
Posted to Empire Made Easy
-
Ray, You seem to be an intelligent sort of chap, so I won't insult you by assuming that you seriously believe your interpretation of what I said.
Posted to Empire Made Easy
-
Keillor should stick to his humor and leave serious topics to non-Wobegoners.
God, please no! We all breathe a sigh of collective relief when he is away on the road...Posted to A Foul Tragedy
-
a legend in her own mind
Posted to A Foul Tragedy
-
??
Posted to A Foul Tragedy
-
like I said, a legend
Posted to A Foul Tragedy
-
Actually, modern drug laws started back with the League of Nations about a half century earlier.
Posted to A Foul Tragedy
-
My point was that drug prohibition isn't something that just recently came about. Again, thanks for coming to my defense.
Posted to A Foul Tragedy
-
Ending the war in Iraq is right for a lot of reasons.
Mostly because it already ended. What Kucinich is really saying, after freeing the Iraqi people from the yoke of Saddam, we should turn tail and run, leaving them to their own problems.with no end in sight
Typical Democratic pacifistic blindness. The Sunnis tried to stop the first election through boycott and insurrection and failed. They tried to stop the vote on the constitution with insurrection and failed. They finally decided to try political participation over killing (oops, that is a variation of the ol' butter and guns …Posted to Democrats: It's the War
-
as i said, they are included in the Moore film,
Now THERE is an unimpeachable unbiased source from a hard working journalist...Posted to Democrats: It's the War
-
Saddam had WMD. He gassed his own people. If he didn't have 'em anymore, why all the fuss? Let the inspectors do their job, stop interfering with 'em, and the sanctions get dropped. Saddam wasn't a nut case; he actions were quite rational (just ask any Democrat). So, why the fuss? A logical assumption is that he cleared the deck only long enough until the heat was off. Isn't that what drug dealers do when they get raided? Dump the junk down the toilet. You can always get more, after the Man is gone.
Posted to Democrats: It's the War
-
Ditto. (Moore quoted someone out of context?? -- Scandalous!)
Posted to Democrats: It's the War
-
Another history lesson. WMD were not the only rationale for going after Saddam. It was merely the trigger. Remember the Axis of Evil speech? There were plenty of reasons to take out Saddam, all of which have been reiterated here. The only difference is that, as scorp has laid out, unlike the Dems and their belated Hey, we can't find any, so there must not have ever been any rhetoric, these other rationale weren't made up after the fact.
Posted to Democrats: It's the War
-
Well God damn, there’s a lot a bad men running around out there, so, what nation (North Korea, Iran, Sudan, Syria, etc) will you choose to invade next? Where does it stop?
When all the bad men are taken care of...Posted to Democrats: It's the War
-
"Bush senior decided that the best course of action was to contain Saddam, and allow him to be strong enough to maintain order domestically, and weak enough not to threaten his neighbours. “
In learning from history, one must be able to understand the whys, as well as the whats and whens...If the 9/11 attacks had never happened, do you think that there would have been the same overwhelming support of the decision to go to war?
Bush Sr didn't finish the job in 1991 because it was before 9/11, before the world would open its eyes to the terrifying …Posted to Democrats: It's the War
-
So, let me see if I understand this correctly. Saddam Hussein possessed weapons of mass destruction (which he didn’t unleash during the invasion - why not?), he had a history of oppression (but that was okay during the Iran - Iraq war) and as your president put, “Well, he was a bad man.”
- because he knew we had more... - it was certainly unfortunate. But, if one extrapolates the logic of the current anti-war rhetoric, we shouldn't have done anything about then, either. So, how come the criticizism? Doesn't that contradict your own logic?Posted to Democrats: It's the War
-
shaun: Are you so dense as to believe that WMD’s, the killing of a few thousand Kurds, and his (Saddam’s) indifference towards the sanctions were the instigation for war. If these acts were the predicate for invasion, why didn’t we invade Saudi Arabia when it was identified that the majority of the hijackers were Saudi nationals?
in·sti·ga·tion n. deliberate and intentional triggering I never said WMD was the trigger, merely one of the rationales.Jay: WMD were not the only rationale for going after Saddam. It was merely the trigger.
ra·tion·ale n. Fundamental reasons; the basis trig·gered tr.v. To set …Posted to Democrats: It's the War
-
ouch! I just burned myself! Oh well, I am only human.... I gotta stop blogging before my morning cup of coffee... No digging myself out of this, huh? But I'll try. After a pot of coffee!
Posted to Democrats: It's the War
-
I fear I am going to have to stop reacting to slurs and bad logic so early in the morning. My dyslexia tends to kick in when I am in a semi-somnolent state. To reargue my last posting,
Are you so dense as to believe that WMD’s, the killing of a few thousand Kurds, and his (Saddam’s) indifference towards the sanctions were the instigation for war. If these acts were the predicate for invasion, why didn’t we invade Saudi Arabia when it was identified that the majority of the hijackers were Saudi nationals?
Yes, I am that dense. To argue …Posted to Democrats: It's the War
-
But, this stands,
Besides, what's the killing of a few thousand Kurds between friends, huh? sar·casm n. A form of wit that is marked by the use of sarcastic language and is intended to make its victim the butt of contempt or ridicule.
Posted to Democrats: It's the War
-
Absent the not-so-good sarcasm and not-quite veiled innuendo of a conspiracy theory, that sounds good to me. But to clarify one question that is asked
What is this New World Order the neocons are sayinf is the real reason we are in Iraq? Obviously it was not for the CIA trained and funded Saddam.
No, it is not. The reasons are manifold. Obviously, the strategic interest in the flow of oil is the most immediate one. Even China recognizes the importance of oil to the world's (or at least her) economy. One does not need to hang ones head in mock …Posted to Democrats: It's the War
-
Finally, the link to beowulf's article about Saddam accepting a UAE exile plan also mentions this,
UAE President Sheikh Zayed bin Sultan al-Nahayan made the proposal for Saddam to go into exile at an emergency Arab summit just weeks before the U.S.-led war began in March 2003. But the 22-member Arab League, led by Secretary-General Amr Moussa, refused to consider the initiative. ... Egypt's President Hosni Mubarak says in the documentary that the United States had signaled its support for the proposal.
Not sure what beowulf's point was with regard to this article. Perhaps he didn't read it?Posted to Democrats: It's the War
-
Finally (again), after reading beowulf's other article, I am beginning to doubt the sarcasm that I read into beowulf's post. His links sure don't lend much credence to that. The other link of beowulf's is the article about the 25 or 30 men of neocons. Now, beowulf doesn't mention it, but this is actually how that article ends,
Still, it's not all that simple, Friedman retracts. It's not some fantasy the neoconservatives invented. It's not that 25 people hijacked America. You don't take such a great nation into such a great adventure with Bill Kristol and the Weekly Standard and another …
Posted to Democrats: It's the War
-
My offense at the Jewish slur stands. If it isn't relevant, why mention it. If it is, why is it relevant? I never said Saddam was a friend of convenience. I just deny the immorality of it. And I don't use my own overseas military experience as proof that I know better than others.... Semper fi, dude
Posted to Democrats: It's the War
-
corrections: I never said Saddam was not a friend of convenience. I just deny the immorality of it.
Posted to Democrats: It's the War
-
With regards to Kissinger's quote, to acknowledge the possibility does not imply a belief in the actual reality of it. With regards to Dodd's, that fact that there are Americans who do not value liberty also does not imply that there is a facist conspiracy controlling everything the government does. It is easy to claim, but just because you say it is possible, doesn't make it so, Joe.
Posted to Democrats: It's the War
-
So, beowulf is not responsible for raising the "Jewish" question, yet he now assumes that not only is the Jewish question relevant with regards to this group of 25 or 30 men, but in fact, he now questions their loyalty as Americans over being Zionists. No, I will not engage that topic.
Posted to Democrats: It's the War
-
Oops. I mean their loyalty as Americans over being Zionists or perhaps Communists....
Posted to Democrats: It's the War
-
If we do not pull out from Iraq and the war expands to other nations, the potential is there for a world war where I feel both Russia and China could enter the conflict. Is it worth it?
As a military man, you really can't seriously think that even if Russia or China had a mind to intervene, that they effectively could?? The Russian military is a joke, taking more damage post-1989 than anything Clinton did to the American military. And the Chinese have no real effective means to transport troops into the area, whether over the mountains through Central Asia, …Posted to Democrats: It's the War
-
Is it worth it? Yes. In fact, taking the neo-con agenda (as beowulf understands it) to heart, now is absolutely the time to strike. Syria, Iran, North Korea. All have bad boy reputations, reputations that are amply justified. What kind of world do we want to live in? One that accepts the Tyrannical rule of Despots merely because they are isolated and can be safely ignored? As the world ignored Rwanda? Or one that fights for the rights of the individuals, not just individuals who already enjoy the fruits of liberty, but especially those who do not. Is not being a …
Posted to Democrats: It's the War
-
1) A conspiracy are facts tied together by conjecture and innuendo 2) Never said you were a liberal, only a conspiracy nut. This blog is a progressive blog. My comments about social justice were directed to the readership at large. Never said I supported the Patriot Act. Never said I didn't. Only someone well versed and well practiced with the methodology of conspiracy theories would make that conclusion. Anything wrong with wanting to liberate other nations from tyranny? 3) Your greatest source of "facts" are quotes and unrelated bits of history. You offer no concrete thread. I do not fall in …
Posted to Democrats: It's the War
-
we must somehow try to figure out why $40 billion annual funding of the intelligence agencies resulted in such catastrophically flawed information.
I don't care how much money is thrown at intel. Ya gotta have human intel on the ground, yet some of most elite Liberal institutions don't allow the CIA or the DOD to recruit on campus. It is disingenuous to cry that our intel agencies failed but then ignore the fact we slam the door tight on the very group of intelligent, educated people who are needed most to gather that intel.Posted to Democrats: It's the War
-
Richard, Times change. For example, the only reason Bush Sr. didn't go all the way to Baghdad was because the vast majority of people didn't want to believe that what happened over made little difference to our lives. 9/11changed that. Neither political party is homogenous. Each is made up of several constituencies. Both parties have their hawks; both have their doves. Both parties have progressives; both have their reactionaries. The Democratic Party is currently under the sway of a group of people whose only agenda is to oppose Bush, regardless of the politics or consequences, a far cry from the Clinton …
Posted to Democrats: It's the War
-
I am curious too as to your take on torture since recently the president was miffed at the thought that the American people may not find that the most wholesome activity in which to engage in. Since you support his foreign policy, and since the pentagons own reports conclusively show that 70 to 90% of detainees are innocent, do you get personal gratification with their abuse. Does that titilate you since you support his policies abroad.
That is about as good enough of an example of conspiracy (il)logic that I have ever come across...Posted to Democrats: It's the War
-
(1 of 1)
George H. W. Bush and military analysts in 1991 believed that going into Baghdad would inflame the entire Middle East Arab countries and decided that it was not worth risking the lives of more American soldiers to continue the war.
AND, because of that, it was the judgment that the American people did not feel those risks justified getting involved with something half way around the world. And that was a correct assessment. 9/11changed the predicate of those assumptions.But your comments and others insist on “Bush can do no wrong” ... loyal Bush Bootlickers
Again …Posted to Democrats: It's the War
-
(2 of 2)
Jay Cline, You are unable to address the facts and all can be proved with the AP, Reuters, .gov, and .mil. ... and no I will not get over it.
I never said your facts were wrong. scorp did. All I said is that you have a conspiratorial mindset and my past experience on this website is that no matter how much time I spend disproving your alleged facts, you'll dig up more. I'm not immortal. Time and energy and patience are a premium. Demonstrate a modicum talent in logic and I'll take you more seriously. For …Posted to Democrats: It's the War
-
I certainly share your qualified distrust in the polls, but I am not sure if that means you give your unqualified agreement only with polls that support your position. I prefer elections and democratic participation as a far better measurement of public interest, because that is where they put their money where their mouth is. In America, Republicans are winning the elections. People like Kucinich just can't accept that and write revisionist histories like this article, as I explained from the outset. The Iraqis, again as I have explained, are showing their support for their new-found democracy in election after election. …
Posted to Democrats: It's the War
-
nor do I play connect the dots.
That is the problem. You're facts are unconnected, uncorrelated, not relevant. Start with the Bush family fortune and Nazi Germany.Posted to Democrats: It's the War
-
Typical conspiracy tactic: Either say "someone else said it so it must be true, but when pushed, hide the proported evidence in a plethoria of verbage. Ok, it worked. Let me know when you learn how to distill and summarize key ideas and to present them.
Posted to Democrats: It's the War
-
(1 of 2) Never mind. Here is a summary of the Bush-Nazi connection: Dubya's grandfather, Prescott Bush, started out as a banker in 1924 (long before Hitler exploded on the scene) in a bank (UBC) set up by his father-in-law and Averill Harriman, son of a wealthy railroad magnate. The link to Germany (the Nazi Party wasn't relevant yet) was through August Thyssen, a German businessman. His son, Fritz inherited the family business in 1926. According to the reference, UBC was set up to provide a US bank for the Thyssen family. Fritz fell in with the fledging Nazi party (ed. …
Posted to Democrats: It's the War
-
(2 of 2) Ok, so what? The bank was established in 1924, before the rise of the Nazi Party and the connection with the Thyssen family. If the Thyssen family did control the bank, and for the purpose of sending their wealth offshore, again, so what? The biggest concerns of German businesses was protecting their wealth from the devastation of the reparations through the 1920s and 1930s. Isn't China doing the same thing with their money in buying US dollars? Didn't the Japanese invest billions of wealth in American real estate throughout the 1970s and 1980s? A second charge is made …
Posted to Democrats: It's the War
-
So, even if beowulf's allegations held water, so what? What is the relevance from this with regards to the Iraqi War?
Posted to Democrats: It's the War
-
The fact that the date of 1934 is "supposed" to be 1943 casts even greater doubts of credibility on the whole story.
His (Bush's) business dealings, which continued until his company’s assets were seized in 1942 under the Trading with the Enemy Act,
Which means that in 1943, no matter how much of those companies were held by American interests, Bush was not one of them. I look forward to the second set of revisions...Posted to Democrats: It's the War
-
I am aware of Gen. Butler, as I am of Aaron Burr's treachery ove one hundred years earlier, but I haven't yet had a chance to review what you have posted.
Posted to Democrats: It's the War
-
You say Prescott knew what he was doing, and I don't dispute that, yet everything you have provided indicates no more than running a bank for a German industrialist in a relationship that predates the Nazi Party. I didn't know being a German industrialist in the 1920s was, by definition, a crime. The assets were seized, first by the Poles, then the Nazis. You show no evidence of malfeasance, only implications of "you should seen it coming in your crystal ball". What you provide wouldn't even get a Grand Jury to be called, much less an indictment.
Posted to Democrats: It's the War
-
And I am not, and will not, be found guilty of crimes commited by my father or his father. Nor would I allow you to be so charged. If Dubya has dirty hands, then focus on that. Your "evidence" of his grandfathers "crimes" would not be allowed in a court of law that accused Dubya of those crimes.
Posted to Democrats: It's the War
-
I don't see a Bush or Walker or a Harriman in the list of conspirators exposed by Butler in the 1930s. Did I miss something?
Posted to Democrats: It's the War
-
But maybe we should throw John D Rockefeller in jail with Dubya. After all, you implicate his family as well...
Posted to Democrats: It's the War
-
A union of democracies...where it takes more than the muzzle of a weapon and an unsavory thug to qualify for membership... That'll play in Peoria, and it'll more properly align the world along true fault lines.
Posted to Democrats: It's the War
-
scorp, do I have your permission to post this to my own blog?
The UN has, to a large extent, been taken over by anti-democratic forces, and should be replaced with a union of democracies. This would be a good time to restore the founding principles of the UN, get rid of the deadwood, and make a new and more representative organization. The Security Council would then be reorganized around, say, Great Britain, Brazil, India, and Indonesia, with Russia and China offered conditional membership depending on their continued progress toward democracy. The USA should remain outside the reorganized UN, but a …
Posted to Democrats: It's the War
-
I will mark up the paragraph accordingly. Thanks! ref: http://sufrensucatash.blogspot.com/
Posted to Democrats: It's the War
-
I agree that innocents inevitably die in war, that it is necessary to be as vigilant as possible, and that they cannot be justified. That is the nature of a tragedy. Yet I disagree that the inevitability must require that war is never an option. If all the world felt that way, then it wouldn't be a problem. But sometimes, bad guys won't step out into the open; sometimes deadly force kills the wrong people; sometimes tragic mistakes are made. But to ignore the bad guys; to tell them if you hide behind a civilian population; to tell them be nice …
Posted to Democrats: It's the War
-
I agree wholeheartedly with Gen Pace when he says unequivocally that sort of behavior will not be tolerated. And I believe he means it. Several convictions have already been laid down.
Posted to Democrats: It's the War
-
beowulf, Beware of Rabbit lies. I have addressed Rabbit's conspiracy theory and provided refuting evidence in a previous topic, but like you he provided revisionist data and interpretation. As far as the other difficult issues, since you have already determined that a response would not be forthcoming, I'll stop putting one together. I'd sorely hate to disappoint someone with such stongly felt preconceived notions.
Posted to Democrats: It's the War
-
oops, strongly felt ...
Posted to Democrats: It's the War
-
I ask a question, I recieve a label.
Ah, forgive me. You already recognized your shortcomings in how you are making assumptions. Apologies for pointing out the obvious.Posted to Democrats: It's the War
-
Seriously, beowulf, if there is a question that I haven't addressed, please restate it. I think it is obvious to all that I don't shirk from a difficult question even, or especially, if I have a response that will inevitably be unpopular. Fear is not in my vocabulary. The closest I can come to that is Loathing. I am honestly unaware of a question to which you await an answer, but it is entirely possible that I missed it. There is so much gratuitous, preening self-gratification slung about on this site that I often find myself tossing it all up in …
Posted to Democrats: It's the War
-
beowulf, As I said, I didn't see the question for all the chaff, not that your question was the chaff. Stop taking it so personal. I'm not sure what your asking, I would greatly appreciate complete thoughts here, but I'll dive into your references and see what I can see.
Posted to Democrats: It's the War
-
The requested URL /1/hi/world/south asia/1550366.stm was not found on this server.
Posted to Democrats: It's the War
-
I'm sorry, I don't get it. The first story is about a war game scenario in the Gulf about 11 months before 9/11. So? I'm glad that our military and government was smart enough to realize the real dangers of the region and to prepare for it. The success of the subsequent Afghan and Iraq war is no doubt partly because of this. The second story, six months later is about the participation between the various countries in the area in response to a unyielding Taliban government over possible economic sanctions. So? Same response. If I am reading you properly, you …
Posted to Democrats: It's the War
-
And your conclusion then? Are you saying we were planning on attacking regardless of 9/11, or that 9/11 was "orchestrated" to justify it? If the former, ok. I can accept that. Osama and al Qaeda was a recognized threat before 9/11. If the latter, well, the former negates the necessity of the later ... and the latter requires that the former doesn't have the necessary legitimacy to implement. Yet, as your quoted sources indicate, attacks on Osama and al Qaeda already had sufficient justification. ie the first WTC bombing, embassies in Africa, USS Cole, there was already a long litany of …
Posted to Democrats: It's the War
-
I had previously announced among family and friends that I am going to try and get rich in the stock market. I have also revealed my strategy. When a stock has two days of significant price increase, in excess of 10% cumulative, I will wait a few days for the correction, buy at the bottom, sell when it rebounds. I have calculated that if I can net one good trade a week, yielding 3%, I'll be rich in ten years. The night before last, I put an order for 100 shares of ATYT at 15.09 with a contingent sell order of …
Posted to Democrats: It's the War
-
I saw the Frontline piece on John O'Neill when it was first aired. It was not about how 9/11 was a fake. It was about how O'Neill recognized the danger but hit bureacratic roadblocks, much from Thomas Pickering, but also from FBI director Frees, who had been warned by Pickering about O'Neill's "sharp elbows". Sorry, same ol same ol. Your facts get refuted, your logic is exposed as lame, and you come back with other data not previously mentioned and revisionist stories. Get the story right the first time. I am tired of jumping through your ever-changing hoops.
Posted to Democrats: It's the War
-
I did a search on the transcript of the PBS Frontline special on John O'Neill. The word Mossad is not mentioned anywhere. As far as informing the world in March 01 of the plans for Afghan and the Taliban, where were you then. Mars? It was on the news every night as America and the Taliban were facing each other down. Don't you read your own references??
Posted to Democrats: It's the War
-
Kuya, I agree that what you posted in the Katrina topic was off-topic, and I hope you'll forgive me for forcing the thread over here. I have left a redirect at the topic. I hope you found it. I do think that in this time and age, we cannot ignore the world as we have done so in the past. I am also arrogant (??) enough to believe that our system of government can be a shining beacon of hope to the vast majority of the world who have not had the opportunity to bask in that light. So, yes, I …
Posted to Democrats: It's the War
-
Yes, of course. Those thousands of Kurds who were killed with chemical weapons, it really was just someone "passing gas"...
Posted to Democrats: It's the War
-
Amen, brother.
Posted to Democrats: It's the War
-
scorp, I couldn't find the quotes you were looking for, but there is plenty of the opposite. All of these were said during the Clinton Admin: Bill Clinton: "If Saddam rejects peace, and we have to use force, our purpose is clear: We want to seriously diminish the threat posed by Iraq's weapons of mass destruction program." Madeleine Albright, Clinton Secretary of State: "We must stop Saddam from ever again jeopardizing the stability and the security of his neighbors with weapons of mass destruction." Sandy Berger, Clinton National Security Advisor and Classified Document Thief: "[Saddam will] use those weapons of mass …
Posted to Democrats: It's the War
-
Kuya, I would first dispute the recently quoted 100,000 Iraqi death count. And I am not alone. (from the San Francisco Chronicle, http://www.sfgate.com/cgi-bin/article.cgi?file=/chronicle/archive/2004/10/29/MNG729ILL11.DTL)
One of the first attempts to independently estimate the loss of civilian life from the Iraqi war has concluded that at least 100,000 Iraqi civilians may have died because of the U.S. invasion. The analysis, an extrapolation based on a relatively small number of actual documented deaths, indicated that many of the deaths have occurred due to aerial attacks by coalition forces, with women and children being frequent victims, wrote the international team of public health researchers who …
Posted to Democrats: It's the War
-
and from the same article,
When the researchers examined the specific causes of the 73 violent deaths (ed note: that is an absolute count of 73, not a percentage of the alleged 100,000) collected in the study, 84 percent were due to the actions of coalition forces, although the researchers stressed that none were the result of what would have been considered misconduct. Ninety-five percent were due to air strikes by helicopter gunships, rockets or other types of aerial weaponry. ... The researchers and the editors at the Lancet acknowledged that the study had clear limitations, including a relatively small sample …
Posted to Democrats: It's the War
-
And I would certainly entertain an invitation for someone to quantify those 100,000, if only on how many alleged were caused by American troops as opposed to insurgency troops, if in fact these 100,000 are all directly attributable to combat. It would be even more interesting to see how many of these deaths were the direct result of a failed healthcare infrastructure, which I would list on the side of the insurgents and their campaign of terrorizing the Iraqi civilian population.
Posted to Democrats: It's the War
-
Apologies. The source of the article is the Washington Post at http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/articles/A7967-2004Oct28.html The SFChron URL is merely a reprint of that article.
Posted to Democrats: It's the War
-
More apologies. The referenced article is a year old. I though it was new. The current Iraqi death count, from www.iraqbodycount.org, is 27-30,000. It looks like they have a breakdown. I am looking into it as time permits.
Posted to Democrats: It's the War
-
fyi, Here is how Les Roberts, Lancet report's lead author, responsed to the criticizisms of Mary Dejevsky, senior editorial writer of the Independent newspaper - considered one of the most rational and honest British newspapers (who) dismissed estimates published in The Lancet
In his response, Roberts wrote that Dejevsky was wrong even to talk in terms of the report's "extrapolation technique" - the team had sampled, not extrapolated, data. As for the idea that the sample was "small", Roberts commented: "This is most puzzling? 142 post-invasion deaths in 988 households is a lot of deaths, and for the setting, a lot …
Posted to Democrats: It's the War
-
Even 30,000 is tragic. But tragic is not unconscionable, particularly in light of the era of Saddam, as highlighted by scorp. When trying to put an end to something as horrific as Saddam's rule, we cannot be paralyzed by such consequences, as tragic as they may be. All we can do is make every reasonable effort to minimize such loss. And I believe that was done. America's policy since at least WWII, when our high level precision daylight bombing contrasts very favorably with the British's preference over much safer, but much more indiscriminate nighttime bombing. The R&D money we put into …
Posted to Democrats: It's the War
-
Kuya, Thoughtful, articulate and dead on the money to the last! I truly hope that democracy takes root in both places. I also truly believe it'll go bad before it can ever get better. We have to play it out, we have to remain until we are truly no longer needed to protect that infant democracy. Senator McCain gave a strongly worded Veteran's Day speech spelling that out in detail. If your're curious, I had posted extracts and reference links at http://sufrensucatash.blogspot.com/2005/11/we-must-get-iraq-rightmccain-calls-for.html The old players in Iraq and Afghanistan are still in the game and they will use democracy to solidify …
Posted to Democrats: It's the War
-
sufren-spaces! try this. http://sufrensucatash.blogspot.com/2005/11/we-must-get-iraq-rightmccain-calls-for.html
Posted to Democrats: It's the War
-
Alright..someting is throwing spaces in the URL. Here is the relevant miscreant corrected -get-iraq-rightmccain-
Posted to Democrats: It's the War
-
Is torture wrong? No. Ok. Got your attention. There have been two arguments against torture. 1) It is not effective, 2) It is morally wrong. Since the first is mute if the second is true, let me start with the second. Second question: Is torturing someone worse than killing them? No. Is killing someone morally wrong? Not always. Both justifiable homicide and self-defense are about killing. Yet neither is morally or legally wrong. We have the right to defend ourselves. When a police officer kills someone in the line of duty, there is always an investigation. Not about whether the officer …
Posted to Democrats: It's the War
-
arghh.. gotta proofread before the Submit, not after, paragraph after "Not always": have the right to kill someone ,B.if that person is an imminent threat third to last paragraph, The value of intel is not in the telling
Posted to Democrats: It's the War
-
bugger! well, you get the idea
Posted to Democrats: It's the War
-
Rereading my posts, I do offer this little bit of encouraging news. After the vote on the Iraqi constitution, three large Sunni parties united and gave up their "boycott" politics in favor of participatory politics. Some of the old players are learning the new tricks...
Posted to Democrats: It's the War
-
Thanks! I'll keep that in mind.
Posted to Democrats: It's the War
-
Kuya, fyi, Looks like we are posting at the same time. The following was written before you started your 4 Points and I haven't read them yet.
Posted to Democrats: It's the War
-
If, for the sake of the argument, the story Rabbit has provided is factually accurate and correct, then the US is responsible. And we have laws to exercise that responsibility and they should be enforced. Excesses will happen in war and those committing the excesses should, and have been, and will continue to be, punished. This is entirely consistent with what I have said. But my past experience with Rabbit's "sources" is that they end up being old, worn out, dead end rabbit warrens of dried dung pellets. My own dearth of quotable sources is a result of my belief that …
Posted to Democrats: It's the War
-
Point 1 If the point of breaking the guy's arm was vindictiveness, then you are absolutely right. Vendettas should not, and are not, a basis of law. But you take my example out of context. The point was to extract the information the dude had to save my little girl, not an angry father out of control in a moment of abject grief.
is it immoral for me to twist the guy’s arm, break it if necessary, to find out where his accomplice is taking her?
I still say no, it is not immoral. It is not immoral for a cop …Posted to Democrats: It's the War
-
Point 2 I would simply refer to the previous arguments of police officers using lawful deadly force. If you accept the necessity for officers to have that authority, if you accept the necessity for the officers at the scene to make those decisions, then your arguments against the use of torture conflict with your acceptance of lawful deadly force.
Posted to Democrats: It's the War
-
Point 3 I believe extreme interrogation will, or merely possible could, help us in the War on Terror. A nuke going off at Wall Street and Broad is al Qaeda's Holy Grail. The cell organization makes it very difficult to crack even conventional al Qaeda Ops. Extreme interrogation may yield the one clue we need to stop that. The suicide bomber mentality also makes it difficult to convince most detainees to cooperate. Threaten them with life imprisonment in a humane jail (despite the fact they show no humanity towards their intended innocent victims in terrorist attacks) will not make much of …
Posted to Democrats: It's the War
-
Point 4 Yeah verily. Yet in my bones I feel the same about shackling the arms of our soldiers in combat to the same philosophical and rhetorical arguments that searches for utopian morality and yet cannot resolve simple moral arguments. The unwillingness to define extreme interrogation that could save thousands as lawful stands in stark contrast with a society that is willing to accept lawful deadly force, even when the execution of that force accidently results in the death of a 13 year old kid in a dark alley. The arguments for one are no different than the arguments for the …
Posted to Democrats: It's the War
-
Ah, perhaps, my friend. But as your comments are as worthy of consideration as a teat on a fly, I have little to worry about.
Posted to Democrats: It's the War
-
In other words, since you are at a loss for words on rebutting my comments, you take the ethical high road and kill the messenger?
Posted to Democrats: It's the War
-
Yeah, I am calling you out...
Posted to Democrats: It's the War
-
In other words, since you are at a loss for words on rebutting my comments, you take the ethical high road and kill the messenger?
Posted to Democrats: It's the War
-
lb - you're missing the point. The apology was one of consideration, not embarrassment. David - nothing to be sorry for.
Posted to Democrats: It's the War
-
lb - still waiting. Abusive behavior is not a rebuttal.
Posted to Democrats: It's the War
-
kuya, I do hear you. I don't like it either. I think we are just holding different people to blame. You primarily believe we should be above it all (we should), I primarily believe those who dragged us into this should get exactly what they asked for. Neither point is probably a good start for rhetoric, but there it is. But, I certainly respect your views, and your reasons for them.
Posted to Democrats: It's the War
-
Allow me the privilege of explaining the point of debate. To the extent possible of doing a comparative valuation of morality, I contend that torture is not more immoral than killing. Even in killing, we morally differentiate between murder and justifiable homicide. That differentiation is based on the intent and justification of the act. If torture is used to save the lives of an entire city, if the intent is no different than that of justifiable homicide and torture is at least not worse than killing, then what is the difference between killing and torture. Except, of course, there is never …
Posted to Democrats: It's the War
-
I really don't think it is fair to call David, who also made the same gender assumptions, misogynist. I have seen absolutely nothing in his commentary that would justify that slur.
Posted to Democrats: It's the War
-
lb - come come. Must we track back and find out who started the mud fight? I have postulated a logic argument and you dodge the issue with high school sophmorics. Let me break it down a little and see if we can find a starting point.
Morality is not in the act. It is in the intent and the justification
Rebuttal or agreement?Posted to Democrats: It's the War
-
beo, Yes, torture has been used mostly to inspire fear. Yet the issue is, is there a place in civil society, as it defends itself against barbarism, for its utility in saving lives? While lb struggles with a coherent rebuttal to the source of morality, perhaps you could tell me how torture is worse than killing someone? And if not, and we allow lawful use of deadly force in the preservation of life, why is extreme interrogation qualitatively worse than death?
Posted to Democrats: It's the War
-
lb - not sure why any blame is being assigned for the gender confusion. I object to your stereotypical assumptions that because I mistook gender based on a handle of Beauty, that somehow that proves misogyny? All it really proves is your own biases.
Posted to Democrats: It's the War
-
In an attempt to demonstrate the alleged ineffectiveness of extreme interrogation, Rabbit has posted this:
Dave Debatto. a former US Army Counterintelligence Special Agent who was assigned in 2003 to Iraq, said he took part in thousands of interrogations in Iraq. He said his orders and those for his colleagues were never to lay hands on anyone, let alone torture anyone. Consequently, Debatto and other interrogators received a lot of intelligence through their cooperation with Iraqis at the outset of the U.S. occupation. However, he said when new tactics were employed in June 2003, things “went south” quickly. ... Ford said …
Posted to Democrats: It's the War
-
To the extent possible of doing a comparative valuation of morality, I contend that torture is not more immoral than killing. Even in killing, we morally differentiate between murder and justifiable homicide. That differentiation is based on the intent and justification of the act. If torture is used to save the lives of an entire city, if the intent is no different than that of justifiable homicide and torture is at least not worse than killing, then what is the difference between killing and torture.
Posted to Democrats: It's the War
-
Rabbit is certainly right in asserting we are all responsible for our own, how dies he put it? Profile
Posted to Democrats: It's the War
-
1) LeRoy is playing touch football. As he rushes the quarterback, he trips over a lineman and his shoulder impacts the QB's right knee, breaking the kneecap. 2) LeRoy is walking down the street with his lady and they get jumped by an armed mugger. As she distracts the assailant, LeRoy kicks the guy in the right knee, breaking the kneecap. 3) LeRoy is a cop. He is interrogating a serial rapist who is uncooperative. To elicit a little cooperation LeRoy kicks him in the right knee, breaking the kneecap. 4) LeRoy is walking home late that night, really pissed off. …
Posted to Democrats: It's the War
-
You kill someone and their suffering is arguably over. You torture someone and the suffering is with them for life.
So, a variant of "better dead than Red?" I disagree. With life, there is always hope. Death is still final.Posted to Democrats: It's the War
-
But, that's cool. At least we have a clear understanding of our differences, and as I have said to others, I do respect those differences.
Posted to Democrats: It's the War
-
A moral being is one who accepts responsibility for one’s errors and seeks to rectify them.
I agree completely. I just disagree that actions taken in self-defense are "errors". If someone puts my into an extreme situation where there can clearly be only one of two outcomes, a) he kills me, b) I kill him, I feel no moral ambiguity over his death. I am responsible for my actions, not his.Posted to Democrats: It's the War
-
(proofread, proofread, proofread....) If someone puts me into an extreme...
Posted to Democrats: It's the War
-
Rabbit, Those are indeed all examples of egregious and unnecessarily violent forms of behavior. The point of extreme interrogation is to gather intel, not to amuse bored troops. Those who have committed the abuses you listed should, and I believe have been, properly punished. It has already been established that those abuses were not for intel, but for the sadistic amusement of the people involved. But the current debate over torture has put a wet blanket over every form of extreme interrogation. Under certain extreme circumstances that I have already described, I do not see why isolation techniques should not be …
Posted to Democrats: It's the War
-
Only you are responsible for putting yourself in an extreme situation, Jay.
That is no different that telling a rape victim that she is brought the rape upon herself by her own behavior and dress. When someone shoved a .45 in my face, was it my fault simply because I stepped out of my house for milk and orange juice? My response to your questions was that you and I disagree on culpability. But, to elaborate, if even justifiable homicide is immoral, then I take it you believe all soldiers who kill in battle are immoral? That any country that …Posted to Democrats: It's the War
-
lb - your stereotypes are showing...
Posted to Democrats: It's the War
-
God, I hate it when I change tenses in the edit and forget to proof... That is no different than telling a rape victim that she brought the rape upon herself by her own behavior and dress.
Posted to Democrats: It's the War
-
The only way we can be nuked, suitcase or otherwise is through self infliction. You are unaware of how it is done and therefore believe in the plausability of such an attack being carried out by radical sub-elements.
I am only too well aware of how a dirty bomb can be smuggled into the country by a small group of people. People are successfully smuggled into this country every month in shipping cargo containers in our ports and in pickups across the Mexican border. Drugs are dropped in-country without detection.Posted to Democrats: It's the War
-
What is an episode of 24? 24 what?
Posted to Democrats: It's the War
-
Well, you are right. I am a scaly lizard in a world of furry mammals, but that is an occupational joke. I'm curious if anyone gets it?
Posted to Democrats: It's the War
-
We can detect ALL nuclear material on the surface of the earth at any given time. Nothing is missing or out of order.
You do understand the properties of lead with regards to radiation, no?Posted to Democrats: It's the War
-
No, we really don't agree. You hold people totally responsible for their lot in life. I certainly agree that people are responsible for what they do in that situation, but that is a far cry from saying the rape victim put herself in a position to be victimized.
Posted to Democrats: It's the War
-
No, it doesn't. The proximity of the detection device is very relevant. As you double the distance between source and detector, you quadruple the difficulty in detecting the source. The sensitivity of a detector rated at x rads will fail to detect a source emitting 16x rads at just over four times the rated distance.
Posted to Democrats: It's the War
-
Of course I haven't. I respect your right to hold opinions. I know you have made judgements of me, of my credibility. But they have no relevance to the question of morality I posed, except to permit you to argue the messenger, rather than the message. But you have protested that is not the issue, that you are not engaged in such low-brow rhetoric, so I have honored that request and not gone there.
Posted to Democrats: It's the War
-
To defeat radiation detectors, it is not necessary to block all radiation from a source. Just enough to reduce the radiation reaching the detector to a level below its sensitivity. You can do that by increasing the distance between the source and the detector, by providing limitied shielding between source and detector, and by reducing the quantity of radiation source from passing by the detector at any one time. You do not need to ship an intact dirty bomb. Break it up into small enough shipments to keep the radiation level at the detector below the detector's rating.
Posted to Democrats: It's the War
-
lb says,
If one intentionally kills in self-defense one is just as culpable as if it were over a donut.
lb says,A moral being is one who accepts responsibility for one’s errors and seeks to rectify them.
lb says,Assigning culpability is what you substitute for moral behavior, not me.
Posted to Democrats: It's the War
-
lb says,
One cannot wave one’s hand and divorce the act from the intent. What you call justification is mere rationalization. If one intentionally kills in self-defense one is just as culpable as if it were over a donut.
jay says,Morality is not in the act, but in the intent and the justification.
lb says,We do not disagree on moral precepts.
lb doesn't understand the inherent contradiction of his own statements.Posted to Democrats: It's the War
-
We do not disagree on moral precepts.
on principle or for the sake of the argument?lb - One cannot wave one’s hand and divorce the act from the intent. What you call justification is mere rationalization. If one intentionally kills in self-defense one is just as culpable as if it were over a donut. It may be excusable if it is the only option available, but that doesn’t make it morally right. jay - if even justifiable homicide is immoral, then I take it you believe all soldiers who kill in battle are immoral? That any country that maintains a …
Posted to Democrats: It's the War
-
I repeat, morality is in the intent. But whether it is in the intent or in the act, as you have alluded to in the inseparable nature of action and moral responsibility, you are asserting moral precepts. You are defining morality. Nor have I said morality is a merely a "consequence of intellectual argument". But intellectual argument is a valid methodology for testing hypothesis, whether those hypotheses arise empirically or rationally.
Posted to Democrats: It's the War
-
I am unable to respond to your "simple thought experiment" since it falsely presupposes two and only two possible mutually exclusive truths.
Posted to Democrats: It's the War
-
With regard to nuclear detection from satellites, that is great for detecting immovable large scale production facilities, as described in the article, and large cooling ponds or emissions from uranium ore processing plants, but we are talking about much smaller point sources that can be disbursed across a wide field until the moment of assembly and detonation. The laws of physics still apply. Detectors have a threshhold level of detection. Detection is greatly dependent upon distance, and we are talking detectors in space at a minimum 90 miles distance directly overhead. At sweep angles of even 30 degrees we are talking …
Posted to Democrats: It's the War
-
Sorry, my mistake. I was talking dirty bombs. Conventional bombs stuffed radioactive materials. Tactical nukes would certainly be a terrorist's wet dream, but the complexity of manufacture, delivery and implementation would be orders of magnitude more difficult. Not impossible, though. Sidebar: I would only add an IF to the if the above technologies were in place, and IF Saddam had active production facilities, as opposed to merely hiding the materials spread out through out the country similiar to the disbursal technique I described for delivering the components to a dirty bomb.
Posted to Democrats: It's the War
-
By saying that morality is not the exclusive domain of either of these precepts is scarcely a definition of morality except possibly in the negative True. Very true. But true to form, you again contradict yourself. You did not say morality is not the exclusive domain of either precept until after you were challenged on it. You did posited, however, from the start a very positive precept on what is moral. A moral being is one who accepts responsibility for one’s errors and seeks to rectify them. That is not a denouncement of the existence of morality, but a pronouncement …
Posted to Democrats: It's the War
-
I believe we know where all surface uranium is on the planet. Can I prove this. No, I cannot. I am sorry, for it is by word of mouth only I can certainly understand and accept your beliefs to be sincere, and if I have in any way implied you were lying, it was not a conscious intent. But surely, you can understand, that I cannot just accept your assurances on simply your word, as good as that word may be. Until I can feel safe from a threat easily imagined, I cannot accept it simply doesn't exist because people who …
Posted to Democrats: It's the War
-
beowulf, I will be honest that I am leery of taking another crack at the controversy surrounding 9/11. I went there once before when I first started frequenting this site and the references I was directed to were not all that conclusive. Most relied on one 'expert' allegedly contradicting another, and the logical progression from conjecture to conclusion left gaps the size of the Grand Canyon, filled with derisive epitaphs. Not to mention it got rather heated with claims of squatters' rights over this website and name-calling, the latter of which I admittedly and shamefully succumbed to myself. But, I do …
Posted to Democrats: It's the War
-
A lot to look at. But I'll approach this with the same attitude as you are, from a clean slate.
Posted to Democrats: It's the War
-
The article from the BYU physics professor raises a lot of questions, and I am not dismissing them yet, but there are at least two statements that immediately raise my own questions. With (a) non-explosive-caused collapse there would typically be a piling up of shattering concrete. But most of the material in the towers was converted to flour-like powder while the buildings were falling, he says. "How can we understand this strange behavior, without explosives? It is one thing to question this, but there is more than a little bit of apparent preconceived conclusions that seem to be sneaking in. Namely, …
Posted to Democrats: It's the War
-
Again I have to thank you for the oblique and inadvertent fashion in which you admit my barbs have had an effect. It’s for your own good, Jay-Jay. Don’t be offended. Show us some of that famous fearlessness.
As long as you recognize it as sufficiently oblique and inadvertent that it exists in your own mind, my pleasure.Posted to Democrats: It's the War
-
oops, that it exists only in your own mind
Posted to Democrats: It's the War
-
Beo, Thanks for the links. Those are far and away more reputable than the sites I was referred to last time (one of them even advocated that the 2004 Indian Ocean tsunami was actually the result of the deployment of an artificial weather weapon, among a dozen or so other nutty conspiracy theories!) I certainly agree there are questions, serious questions, that need to be answered. No less than questions surrounding other engineering disasters, ie Three Mile Island, Challenger and Columbia, etc. I just don't accept the answers so far being offered without adequate research and testing. I still don't get …
Posted to Democrats: It's the War
-
Apologies for the absence. I have been attempting to fulfill my promise to Beowulf and give his arguments fair hearing. Rabbit: The links have already been provided by Beowulf. Try to keep up. However, the next post will be my last. I was about to post it now, but having just read the very intelligent discourse since my last posting, I have to say that what I am about to post has just been completely vindicated.
Posted to Democrats: It's the War
-
This will be my Swan Song. If only for my own sake, I need to complete my argument on the Morality of Torture. Is torture immoral? Absolutely. Is that not in direct contrast to what I started with? Ever since the Greeks invented Western philosophy, it has been a time honored technique to posit apparent contradictions to expose where true contradictions lie. My failure to utilize it properly in no way diminishes its utility. In this case, it is not the issues of morality that are in contradiction, but in the definition of torture. Whether we are debating that now, a …
Posted to Democrats: It's the War
-
Rabbit doesn't seem to get Vonnegut's point about information and knowledge not necessarily being the same thing. No wonder I left this desert land of weeds...
Posted to Democrats: It's the War
-
I am not going through a couple hundred posts of drivel, so I may be beating a dead horse, but in response to the notion of alledged suicide hijackers still alive, I quote this from the BBC, which I found one link away from beowulf's "proof" that this is a conspiracy, http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/world/americas/1553754.stm The FBI has said that the identities of some of its list of 19 hijackers behind last week's devastating attacks are in doubt. It believes that some of the hijackers used false identities, possibly even names of people who are still alive, which could significantly complicate the manhunt. I …
Posted to Democrats: It's the War
-
I like the quote from William Galston. I am going to have to start looking for more of his work.
Posted to Liberalisms Brain on Drugs
-
I have an unemployed American carpenter acquaintance who can't get a job to save his life - since he smokes marijuana regularly and can't pass a drug test.
. Good! I'd hate to live in a house built by a carpenter whose nails all missed the stud cuz he was stoned...Posted to Liberalisms Brain on Drugs
-
Your absolutely right. Let the pilots fly drunk and stoned. Talk about friendly skies...
Posted to Liberalisms Brain on Drugs
-
But if he smoked pot last week and takes a drug test today, he’ll still show positive for marijuana. Should he then not be allowed to fly?
No, he shouldn't. Partaking in illegal drug intoxication is, well, illegal. He shouldn't be flying, except maybe a prison cell. (that should answer just about all your questions.)Posted to Liberalisms Brain on Drugs
-
If the pilot speeds in his free time should he also not be allowed to fly?
Not if he is in jail for speeding... Look, you seem to be confusing me for a libertarian (or is that Libertarian?) Just say no.Posted to Liberalisms Brain on Drugs
-
I don't have issues with the current drug laws, except that maybe they are a bit too lax. So this really isn't an issue that occupies a whole lot of my time...
Posted to Liberalisms Brain on Drugs
-
Too lax? The author’s friend’s life destroyed by possession of cocaine? And you find that sentencing too lax? What kind of inhuman monster are you, Jay?
The worst kind of monster. A law abiding monster that expects everyone to take responsibility for their own behavior and not blame it on the state or society. Did the druggie know what he was doing, breaking the law? Was it legal when he did it and nobody told him that it is now illegal?Posted to Liberalisms Brain on Drugs
-
Are you being purposely obtuse?
I missed that one. When faced by intolerant raving opinions, I do tend toward the purposely obtuse, if only to cast a harsh light on those rantings.... Yes.Posted to Liberalisms Brain on Drugs
-
for 20 years our legislatures have been expanding the criminal law and ratcheting up penalties because it has been a proven way of getting votes.
So, politicians should just ignore the people the represent? I mean, after all, they are smarter than us, no?Posted to Liberalisms Brain on Drugs
-
oops, "they represent".
Posted to Liberalisms Brain on Drugs
-
awesome, dude!
Posted to Liberalisms Brain on Drugs
-
Ok, seriously. My biggest objection to the gent from Germany was his demand that I answer his scurrilous and slanderous personal attacks with an argument about something which I have no real opinion. If Der Mensch truly believed it was a violation of his carpenter friend's rights to submit to a medical interrogation, why is it alright to demand answers in a rhetorical interrogation. If Der Mensch wants an intelligent, respectful response, he needs to start at the home field. The height of arrogance, intolerance and hypocrisy...
Posted to Liberalisms Brain on Drugs
-
Or as someone more religious than me would say, You sow what you reap.
Posted to Liberalisms Brain on Drugs
-
Obviously, Nazi racial laws and drug laws are not to be compared
Yet, you do...As you daughter or son or friend rots away in prison. That would be justice.
So, an eye for an eye, heh? Why do you condemn my children for the beliefs of their father? Isn't this the sort of behavior that the Left likes to condemn as causing all the violence in the Middle East? Or is "not systems" advocating dual citizenships, one set of rules for his/her people, and another for "Them". Yeah, that is real justice... Oh wait, that is what …Posted to Liberalisms Brain on Drugs
-
Jay: “take responsibility for their own behaviour”, eh? They’re putting themselves in jail, right?
Exactly! Do the crime, do the time.Posted to Liberalisms Brain on Drugs
-
Or maybe ... your child will be caught up and ground up by the system you love.
If that happens, and the laws are just, then I still believe in "do the crime, do the time". Drug laws are just. Are you exempt from the laws? But I have raised a daughter that respects herself, respects the laws, and doesn't blame someone else for her screw-ups. That alone would have kept a very large portion of the current prison population out of prison.Posted to Liberalisms Brain on Drugs
-
Freedom, liberty, is as much about responsibility as it is about rights.
Posted to Liberalisms Brain on Drugs
-
No just for you
ipso facto, you believe in the kind of dual citizenships that the Nazis were famous for...Posted to Liberalisms Brain on Drugs
-
wolf, you are right. Even in a moment of eye-rolling pique, I should mind my manners.
Posted to Liberalisms Brain on Drugs
-
Jay Cline, SHUT THE F* UP!
Ah the sweet caroling of the American Nazi party...Posted to Liberalisms Brain on Drugs
-
btw, this is what is called hypocrisy.
Posted to Liberalisms Brain on Drugs
-
I would appreciate it if people, such as SteveHeath, refrain from disingenuous argumentation and confine temselves to expressing their opinions, not others. My response to wolf's honest questions is forthcoming.
Posted to Liberalisms Brain on Drugs
-
Or a third system of effective law enforcement and border patrol that shuts down the distribution. Just because something isn't easy, doesn't mean it isn't possible, or right.
Posted to Liberalisms Brain on Drugs
-
(1 of 2) wolf, First, let me clear the decks of what I believe are non-arguments for the legalization of any narcotic and/or hallucinatory drug. I reject the notion that simply because people break a law and fill up our prisons, that we should legalize the activity. And as I not-quite flippantly indicated earlier, I am not a libertarian. I do not concede that libertarian thought is the final defender of liberty. When a political philosophy comes to the conclusion that we should privatize everything, when it refutes the very real benefits of collective organization, albeit as potentially dangerous that could …
Posted to Liberalisms Brain on Drugs
-
(2 of 2) In fact, there are very clear differentiations throughout history between the two generic substances. I would argue that the evolutionary forces of history have already decreed that drug use is far more dangerous to society than alcohol use and I believe it is unwise to spuriously dismiss history (thus my affinity for a "conservative" appellation to any moniker I am associated with). Prohibition failed because the vast majority of the American public thought it was, well, stupid. If illicit drug use enjoyed that level of popularity, they wouldn't be illicit. My objections to legalizing drug use is that …
Posted to Liberalisms Brain on Drugs
-
Given that the primary argument for the legalization of drug use is that drug use is little different, quantitatively or qualitatively, than alcohol use, and alcohol use is legal, then drug use should also be legal, I thus rest my argument on the observation that drug use is, in fact, not legal. If the two practices are essentially identical, then the resulting social attitude towards both should be essentially identical. Yet, society has defined a clear, sharp and unambiguous line between the two. Therefore they are not the same and the argument for legalization fails on simple logic.
Posted to Liberalisms Brain on Drugs
-
And, in reply to SH, my own family who is involved in law enforcement have recently told me that every year some one is murdered. So, but SH's argument, murder should be declared legal if only because we have not demonstrated the ability to eliminate it from our lexicon.
Posted to Liberalisms Brain on Drugs
-
oops, "so by SH's argument"...
Posted to Liberalisms Brain on Drugs
-
I reject outright the assertion that
almost four decades of law enforcement and criminal justice responses to public drug use and that is drug use and distribution cannot be stopped.
The assumption is that we must stop 100% of the trafficking is akin to saying that if even 1 gram crosses the border, then we have failed. That is unrealistic, as I am sure SH's LE friends have already told him. Therefore, the choice SH offers is an disingenuous Hobson's choice.Posted to Liberalisms Brain on Drugs
-
SIDE NOTE: References by various posters above to “European countries with legal drugs” are inaccurate. No such country exists. There is no country in the world that has adopted a legal, regulated system of distribution for currently illicit drugs.
I am sure that will distress our learned friend A.S from Germany. I wonder where he is getting his drugs. In fact, having spent several years in Europe, I concur with A.S. that countries such as Holland have a very well-regulated legal drug industry. At least it must be, if you can order the stuff off the menu.Posted to Liberalisms Brain on Drugs
-
I already have answered the question. Who died and elected you Arbiter?
Posted to Liberalisms Brain on Drugs
-
Why the difference? Why is it okay to risk my life by riding my bicycle on a narrow mountain road, but not by using a chemical to induce an altered state of consciousness?
I don't think it is strictly or merely about danger to oneself, but the impact to society as a whole. eg, Motorcycle helmet laws in many states are ostensibly there because of the high cost of health care vis-a-vis head injuries.Posted to Liberalisms Brain on Drugs
-
Still i have to wonder, is the cost of the drug war really worth it? Is pot/hash that dangerous?
That IS the $64,000 question. My gut reaction is yes, but I don't have a detailed cost-benefit analysis to justify that.Posted to Liberalisms Brain on Drugs
-
For what is worth, I have no objections to MJ with a doctor's prescription .... although wolf's caveat is noteworthy. During a recent surgery, I benefited from morphine.
Posted to Liberalisms Brain on Drugs
-
wolf - thanks for the opportunity to clarify, free of harrassment and intimidation...
Posted to Liberalisms Brain on Drugs
-
It (your average US state penitentiary) is something you do not get out of unscathed.
Facetiously, I would add that at least you get out...Posted to Liberalisms Brain on Drugs
-
Yet, KVK does not address the central tenet of my logic,
If the two practices are essentially identical, then the resulting social attitude towards both should be essentially identical. Yet, society has defined a clear, sharp and unambiguous line between the two
If they are the same, why the historical difference? I don't know. But as I said, I am dsiinclined to fight historical forces without reason. Show me what the historical evolutionary reasons are for that difference, and how it is no longer relevant, and I'll be the first to sign a legalization bill.Posted to Liberalisms Brain on Drugs
-
As far as KVK's argument about the lethality of alcohol and its effects on society, and the result of Prohibition, I have already addressed that.
Posted to Liberalisms Brain on Drugs
-
And the LE argument was addressed a couple hours ago...
Posted to Liberalisms Brain on Drugs
-
Posted to Liberalisms Brain on Drugs
-
With regard to the heroism of Rosa Parks, Rosa Parks was arrested. Our laws are just and fair because we have democratic institutions where we can challenge legislation that is wrong. As was Jackie Robinson in 1944, who was court-martialed and acquitted. I've quoted it before, and I will continue to quote Churchill's prophetic quote that Democracy is the worst form of governance, except for all the ones tried so far. Democracy is messy, it is slow, it is raucous and fractious, and yes, it is sometimes blind, dumb and full of prejudice. Yet, in the end, Parks was vindicated. The …
Posted to Liberalisms Brain on Drugs
-
Sorry, LE is short for law enforcement
Posted to Liberalisms Brain on Drugs
-
Maybe thats why the locals in coca growing regions chew coca instead of drink booze.
No, it is for pain relief, and chewing coca leaves pales in comparison to the potency of cocaine and crack.Posted to Liberalisms Brain on Drugs
-
Cannibis,for example has been villafide by the media and government for political reasons.
Ah, yes I forgot. The Illuminati Conspiracy. Cannibis, and other drugs, have been banned because of the effect they have on the drug users, and their consequential behavior on society.Posted to Liberalisms Brain on Drugs
-
The man should be president.
You are more correct than you realize. Actually, the name of the man who became president with that mindset was Lincoln.Posted to Liberalisms Brain on Drugs
-
Because when they are unjust, we do not follow them.
Exactly. Governments are not perfect, even democratic ones. Maintaining a vigilance against the Tyranny of the Majority is one of the only, if not the only, tool we have in keeping government mostly honest. There is no magic crystal ball that says this is right and fair and that is not. Except in the minds of the public. I say again,f the Rosa Parks incident is no different than the imprisonment of thousands of drug offenders, then why has not one drug conviction been overturned on constitutional rights?
Posted to Liberalisms Brain on Drugs
-
Like I said, for political reasons!
Just as the laws that protect us from the consequences of murder is political??!Posted to Liberalisms Brain on Drugs
-
The apple and oranges are the assumption that I agree the only rationale for drug laws is to prevent us from self-destruction. Anyone reading my previous posts would not make that mistake.
Posted to Liberalisms Brain on Drugs
-
I say again, If the Rosa Parks incident is no different than the imprisonment of thousands of drug offenders, then why has not one drug conviction been overturned on constitutional rights?
Posted to Liberalisms Brain on Drugs
-
His stance is the same reflected by about 5 people in 100 when we give public presentations at LEAP.
So, laws are being implemented by a minority vote of 5%?? Wow! I didn't realize I was part of such an elite powerful group... Of course, SH's own logic that the minority viewpoint is irrelevant only leads to the conclusion that since the majority of Americans don't believe in the legalization of drug use, his own view is superfluous.Posted to Liberalisms Brain on Drugs
-
His stance is the same reflected by about 5 people in 100 when we give public presentations at LEAP.
So, laws are being implemented by a minority vote of 5%?? Wow! I didn't realize I was part of such an elite powerful group... Of course, SH's own logic that the minority viewpoint is irrelevant only leads to the conclusion that since the majority of Americans don't believe in the legalization of drug use, his own view is superfluous.Posted to Liberalisms Brain on Drugs
-
Sorry for the repeat. Problems with the site, I think.
Posted to Liberalisms Brain on Drugs
-
To clarify, the "inane" anlogy of drug use and murder was in response to SH's contention that if you cannot completely eradicate a crime, you should legalize it.
Posted to Liberalisms Brain on Drugs
-
Instead, what we usually receive in response to the question is rollicking laughter.
If the implied statistics are true, then there is no argument and there should be no difficultly in legalizing drug use. The conclusions being made do not reflect reality....Posted to Liberalisms Brain on Drugs
-
Of course the one question that is apparently not being asked, or tabulated, is not whether the current regime of laws are effective, but should we simply not try.
Posted to Liberalisms Brain on Drugs
-
but in point of fact, thousands of drug convictions have been overturned for violations of the bill of rights.
Perhaps I was not as clear as I could have been. Which one of those overturned convictions was because drug use itself was deteremined to be the right that was violated? Failure to read the Mrianda rights, improper search or seizures, etc, have nothing to do with the inherent rights of drugs use that is being claimed. So, I say again, with qualification, why has not one drug conviction been overturned on the constitutional right to do drugs?Posted to Liberalisms Brain on Drugs
-
Pardon me, I never made such a statement. My statement was, “If there is no hope that we can effectively control and regulate production and distribution of a product/Service that is in great demand, then it is smarter to change the system so that we can effectively control and regulate.”"if there is no hope we can effectively control and regulate production and distribution of a product/Service that is in great demand" ie, If we can't stop it,. "then it is smarter to change the system so that we can …
Posted to Liberalisms Brain on Drugs
-
Steve, I agree that current efforts at border interdiction, which is I believe where a lot of the money is being spent, has been grossly ineffective. I also agree that a significant portion of the cash crop is domestic. We need better enforcement, if we are to effectively stop it. I do not believe that has to be 100%, but serious changes need to be made. I do not know what the answer is, except to say I obviously do not stand behind a "drop back and punt" solution, which is what legalization means for me. Dealing with the demand should …
Posted to Liberalisms Brain on Drugs
-
Steve, As someone directly involved in the LEAP, I would still honestly like to hear the answer to this question,
Of course the one question that is apparently not being asked, or tabulated, is not whether the current regime of laws are effective, but should we simply not try.
I have reviewed your comments thus far, but don't see that answered. Of those 95% of people you talk to, how many think we should just stop enforcing the laws and legalize it?Posted to Liberalisms Brain on Drugs
-
With regards to the question of my rationale for posting here, I am a passionate progressive who believes that the Democratic Party is no longer the choice of progressives who want real change. This is a progressive website that, so far, encourages freedom of expression, not only of divergent viewpoints, but the manner in which they are expressed. The fact that I disagree with the more vocal readers here is not important to me.
Posted to Liberalisms Brain on Drugs
-
Again, with regards to the Democratic Party losing its way, I point to Congressman Kucinich's remarks in the most recent article at ITT that it is all about the war. I have already argued that fighting the tyrannies of Saddam, Iran, Syria, North Korea, etc. is part and parcel of what I believe progressivism is all about. You don't have to be a socialist or a pacifist to believe in social evoltion and social justice. Dems' obsession with the war is why they have blown every election since 2002.
Posted to Liberalisms Brain on Drugs
-
How about this.It is illogical,and probably unconstitutional to declare ANY substance to be illegal
Beautiful! Let me know how the arguments before the Court goes...Posted to Liberalisms Brain on Drugs
-
Ha! You got 'em now, Dano! Make 'em put his money where his mouth his! Been there. Done that.
Posted to Liberalisms Brain on Drugs
-
So when are you enlisting, Jay ?
Ha! You got ‘em now, Dano! Make ‘em put his money where his mouth his! Been there. Done that.Posted to Liberalisms Brain on Drugs
-
The police and judges of LEAP have therefore concluded that regardless of the level of enforcement dollars,
First, Steve, let's stop the misrepresenting here, shall we? Last time I check, LEAP represented 2000 LEs. How come the vast majority do NOT back you? Second, you keep implying that the audiences that you talk largely support your goals. For the sake of the argument, let us assume that those audiences a actually a representative sample. You are quick to ridicule those "5 out 100", yet you have yet to provide the statitistics, now thrice asked for, on just how large …Posted to Liberalisms Brain on Drugs
-
wolf, one thing you have to realize is that these "audiences" that Steve parades are at LEAP-sponsored events. LEAP, being the operative word - Law Enforcement Against Prohibition - I can't see my Uncle of 30 years in the State Police attending one of those events. I know I wouldn't, so I guess my responses to Steve's interrogation is truly irrelevant. So, how many people at a Klan rally do you think would advocate white supremist attitudes? more than 95%?
Posted to Liberalisms Brain on Drugs
-
"new" to the message no pre-knowledge of who we are and what we do So, how does that audience selection process work? Random sampling of people on the street? in their houses? is participation voluntary? The statistics are meaningless without a frame of reference to the statistical validity of their representation of the public at large. I have no objections to special interest groups working and advocating for their legitimate interests. That is what a democracy is. But Steve has implicitly and continually (mis)represented his little group as representative of the LE community at large. The name alone defies his objection …
Posted to Liberalisms Brain on Drugs
-
Again, for the fourth time (actually fifth, wolf has also called for more details), Out of the "95%" of LEAP's small sample space, how many actually agree, unequvically, that drugs should be legalized?
Posted to Liberalisms Brain on Drugs
-
According to the LEAP website, 80 out of the orginal 100 "agree with LEAP that we must end drug prohibition." So, how about the sample space itself? How representative is it of the general public at large?
Posted to Liberalisms Brain on Drugs
-
People really need to start reading before they spout. Dis' - As I explained in quite detail a few times, it is the impact of drugs on society that I worry about. Read the posts. And before you criticize someone's manner of speech a priori, clean up your own act. KVK - ditto - How do you think I got the stats after waiting forever for Steve? And having a membership of 2000 amongst a community of a couple hundred thousand does not mean overwhelming support in the LE community. I have heard what Steve is saying far better than you …
Posted to Liberalisms Brain on Drugs
-
But what is really annoying are those who even when they get the answers, don't hear them.
Posted to Liberalisms Brain on Drugs
-
The impact on society is creativity! Creatively executed drug-related crimes?
Posted to Liberalisms Brain on Drugs
-
repost - apologies, but I was asked... (1 of 2)
wolf, First, let me clear the decks of what I believe are non-arguments for the legalization of any narcotic and/or hallucinatory drug. I reject the notion that simply because people break a law and fill up our prisons, that we should legalize the activity. And as I not-quite flippantly indicated earlier, I am not a libertarian. I do not concede that libertarian thought is the final defender of liberty. When a political philosophy comes to the conclusion that we should privatize everything, when it refutes the very real benefits of collective …
Posted to Liberalisms Brain on Drugs
-
(2 of 2) In fact, there are very clear differentiations throughout history between the two generic substances. I would argue that the evolutionary forces of history have already decreed that drug use is far more dangerous to society than alcohol use and I believe it is unwise to spuriously dismiss history (thus my affinity for a “conservative” appellation to any moniker I am associated with). Prohibition failed because the vast majority of the American public thought it was, well, stupid. If illicit drug use enjoyed that level of popularity, they wouldn’t be illicit. My objections to legalizing drug use is that …
Posted to Liberalisms Brain on Drugs
-
kvk, until you can provide hard numbers on the actual extent of the support for legalization, you can list a thousand generally unknown organizations of 2000 members each and it is still a drop in the bucket. By your logic, no one on this site should be complaining about the impact of the religious right on politics. How many churches are there, and what is THEIR average membership? The logic holds water like a sieve. If you want to argue, as Steve is trying, that drugs should be legalized because of a broad based support, pony up the numbers.
Posted to Liberalisms Brain on Drugs
-
Dis, your logic is as impeccable as KVK's. So, because gansta rap is so creative, we should legalize all that is propounded in those lyrics?
Posted to Liberalisms Brain on Drugs
-
luv to stay, but my morning bus leaves in 6 hours. see you later
Posted to Liberalisms Brain on Drugs
-
As far as I am concerned Marijuana use is incredibly popular and even somewhat accepted by many people who do not smoke. Good luck with the elections, then..
Posted to Liberalisms Brain on Drugs
-
Cool. I have no objections if that is what voters want. My only real objection here on this site has been the disingenuous salesmanship and misrepresentation by LEAP.
Posted to Liberalisms Brain on Drugs
-
I say again, and again, and again. If federal drugs laws are, and have been unconstitutional since the Founding of the Republic, why has not one drug conviction been overturned on THAT unconstitutionallity? What? The ACLU isn't doing their job? Didn't I read somewhere on this page that there were at least one million people in prison for drug offenses? All it takes is one ruling and they all become free men and women.
Posted to Liberalisms Brain on Drugs
-
I couldn't find a central phone number for the ACLU, but here is their contact page, http://www.aclu.org/Affiliates/subsitesmain.cfm
Posted to Liberalisms Brain on Drugs
-
I am arguing that the 10th Amendment says nothing about drugs. I am arguing that if your contention that it is self-evident that the 10th Amendment unequivocally declares federal drug laws as unconstitutional, then why is no one going through the motions on that legal slam-dunk? You got the ACLUs address. Prove me wrong.
Posted to Liberalisms Brain on Drugs
-
Could it perhaps have something to do with the economic status of those being disenfrachised then and those being prosecuted today ? (Or maybe it was the systematic terror waged against them.) It costs a fortune to raise a constitutional case in the federal courts.
And that is why the ACLU was founded. The ACLU decides on what cases to take based on merit, not cash value of the defendent's assets. Had the ACLU been around at the time of Jim Crow, they probably would have stepped in a whole lot sooner. In fact, Jim Crow and the financial difficulties mentioned …Posted to Liberalisms Brain on Drugs
-
For those who are disturbed that the only course of action being promoted here on the War against Drugs is abject surrender, let me note that the Minneapolis StarTribune, one of the most Liberal major circulation dailies in the country, posted an article in last Sunday's paper about the successful efforts at combating domestic meth labs. http://www.startribune.com/stories/467/5710482.html By requiring cold remedy drugs that contain pseudophedrine to be sold behind the counter, meth lab busts in the state have dropped radically. Similar results in Iowa (meth lab busts dropped 75%) and Oklahoma (80%) show that it doesn't take a whole lot of …
Posted to Liberalisms Brain on Drugs
-
The judges have had a case of the sort of selective constitutional illiteracy that I cited previously in the cases of Jim Crow and the “decency” codes. They refer to the interstate commerce clause as a rationale for congress to regulate anything and everything.
Isn't it great when you can selectively dismiss Supreme Court rulings that you happen to disagree with? In fact, it IS the commerce clause that defeats your 10th Amendment argument. I am just finishing up the argument. Give me a couple minutes.Posted to Liberalisms Brain on Drugs
-
The 10th Amendment, far from making federal drug laws unconstitutional, actually justifies them, albeit indirectly. The 10th Amendment says,
The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the States, are reserved to the States respectively, or to the people
and the appropriate provision that gives Congress its powers is Article I, Section 8, Paragraph 3 and Paragraph 18 (if I counted right) They say,(para 3) To regulate Commerce with foreign Nations, and among the several States, and with the Indian Tribes; (para 18) To make all Laws which shall be …
Posted to Liberalisms Brain on Drugs
-
Don't know. Never claimed to have intimate knowledge of every law in every state or at the federal level. Which federal law prohibits you? btw - my interpretation does not imply the 10th Amendment is not relevant to the argument. I say it explicitly. It is not relevant.
Posted to Liberalisms Brain on Drugs
-
I never said drug laws were meant to protect you from yourself, but I have said they are meant to protect the rest of us from you.
Posted to Liberalisms Brain on Drugs
-
Prospero, I was being flippant, and that wasn't fair, especially to myself. What I object to is arguments that are not logical. Saying the 10th Amendment prohibits Congress from legislating against drugs, while denying what the Commerce clause says about Congress' explicit right to legislate commerce is, in my opinion, disingenuous. What I have objected to in some of the postings to this article are organizations supporting legalization who do so through misrepresentation of themselves and the issue. What I object to is the notion that because we have not completely shut down the drug trade that we should just surrender. …
Posted to Liberalisms Brain on Drugs
-
No, it is not that they should be illegal because they are illegal. It is merely that they are illegal. It was made illegal by just and proper and legal means. And until the electorate decides otherwise, or until it can be shown the laws are an unconstitutional trampling of minority rights, then they are simply illegal. "Should" implies morality, and I don't see anything moral or immoral about the legal status of drugs. The argument I have against any imposition of a libertarian argument is that preferences do not necessarily or inevitably mean rights. I prefer to cross the street …
Posted to Liberalisms Brain on Drugs
-
You are deliberately misinterpreting what I have said. I have repeatedly objected to the rationale of the constitutional arguments presented. I have not said SHUT THE F* UP. That was KVK and Rabbit. I have not attempted to shut down the debate with adolescent name-calling, harassment and poor attempts at ridicule. That is you and Rabbit. Suffice to say, I have repeatedly said that if the electorate decides to legalize drug use, then so be it. If recent medical benefits of that drug use persuades the electorate to legalize drugs, so be it.
Posted to Liberalisms Brain on Drugs
-
Well, I am glad that someone is attempting change in a constructive manner. I wish the best for ACLU and NORML. Let me know when they win their argument, after "working (on) this issue for decades"
Posted to Liberalisms Brain on Drugs
-
Well, forward that on to the ACLU and NORML. They seem to be having problems making that point.
Posted to Liberalisms Brain on Drugs
-
The 9th is irrelevant to the issue since the Constitution unequivocally gives Congress the right to regulate commerce. The 10th is irrelevant to the issue since the Constitution unequivocally gives Congress the right to regulate commerce. I ask again, How is drug trafficking not commerce? Product is manufactured, transported, bought and sold.
Posted to Liberalisms Brain on Drugs
-
Of course, we forgot to mention that staunchly raunchy bastion of Republican conservative thought that blatantely sells sex. Yea, verily my children, I speak of Hollywood.
Posted to Babes in BushWorld
-
Anarcho-Sozi, You are indeed correct regarding the importance of Puritan thought and deed in the history of America. But those early Americans abandoned the culture of Europe not because of sexuality, but over the lack of free exercise of religion. Old Europe would not allow dissentious sects to exists unmolested. Even today, countries like France, in a secularist frenzy, forbids the public wearing of religious icons, no matter how small. God (or whomever) forbid, we should offend someone because we hold a particular belief. The result of that emmigration was a shining city on the hill lighting the beacon of liberty. …
Posted to Babes in BushWorld
-
If by the modernizing influence of Western civilization, one is referring to the principles of liberty and equality; if the slaughter of thousands of provincial Iraquis (sic), one is referring to the hundreds of thousands of those killed by Saddam, then you got my vote.
Posted to Babes in BushWorld
-
I really would rather avoid engaging you or any other political antagonist in another sterile debate over who bears the ultimate responsibility for the thousands of Iraqis slaughtered by Hussein
Yeah, I believe you have just expressed a tautology.Posted to Babes in BushWorld
-
Wasn't, and isn't, germane to my point....
Posted to Babes in BushWorld
-
My point to this thread was revealed at the outset
Of course, we forgot to mention that staunchly raunchy bastion of Republican conservative thought that blatantely sells sex. Yea, verily my children, I speak of Hollywood.
How that relates to Iraq, you'll have to explain to me.Posted to Babes in BushWorld
-
Neruda, You are right. But I haven't forgotten. We have come a long way since then, haven't we?
Posted to Babes in BushWorld
-
I think we got sidetracked by your reflexive objections to my comparison between the burkha and the pornographic veil.
Actually, it was my reflexive reaction to the dragging of international anti-imperilist comparsions into a discussion on domestic sexual mores,Conservatives love to justify the American occupation of the Middle East with fervent appeals to the modernizing influence of Western civilization
Posted to Babes in BushWorld
-
France banned the wearing of religious icons in Schools
I stand corrected. Yet the argument remains intact.Posted to Babes in BushWorld
-
Neruda, Yeah, that is why I call myself progressive. I don't believe in utopias, Shangri-Las or falls from grace. Churchill said it best, Democracy is the worst form of governance, except for all that we have tried so far. The only real dispute I have with contemporary progressives is that the solutions go too far, tearing everything down. I'd rather save the baby and get new bath water.
Posted to Babes in BushWorld
-
Rabbit and Major, ad hominem, ad hominem, ad hominem ... ad nauseum.
Posted to Babes in BushWorld
-
I should apologize to Rabbit and Major and GrayArea (forgot to include him previously, but I won't leave him out on my blanket apology). I didn't realize they valued my opinions so much...
Posted to Babes in BushWorld
-
HOW THE LEFT HAS LOST should be the title. Everything Aaron talks about is exactly why Democrats haven't made any gains in ten years.
The solution will not be to hope “that the masses will wake up and suddenly take an interest in politics,”
No, of course not. Because that is indicative of a Party in denial. In fact, the masses are awake and are flocking to the other party because the Party is 1) asleep, 2) stuck in Back to the Future, 3) fantasizing of past glories, 4) take your pick. Medicare, Social Security, welfare, all good ideas, in their …Posted to How the Right Has Won
-
As scorp apparently does, I find the hypocrisy highly amusing. As lb slurs, the inherent fallacy of the conservative movement is that it composed of factions and they are beginning to fray. Too often, the democrats wrap themselves up in the flag of unity and are blind to the fact that they don't own it. Say, doesn't DFL stand for Democratic Farm Labor? Surely a polyglot of divergent interests and factions that have already cracked. Farmers of the Midwest have long abandoned that party, union rank-and-file have been jumping ship like rats, even the Southern Democrats have turned sour. What's left? …
Posted to How the Right Has Won
-
Expect Resistance: the future is not yet written.
I'm behind you 100% on that!Posted to How the Right Has Won
-
Of course, as much as Dylan's song could be applied to the burgeoning progressive conservative movement, I think Mark Twain's quote is more appro in this context:
The report of my Death has been grossly Exaggerated
Posted to How the Right Has Won
-
Not to split any libertarian hare's, but a progressive conservative is someonly who believes in progress, in political evolution, without going to the extremes of throwing the baby out with the piss water. Perhaps conservative progressive would be a more apt moniker.
Posted to How the Right Has Won
-
(1 of 2) Neruda, I suppose the discomfort with progressive conservatism (or, as I am beginning to think of it, conservative progressivism) is that it is in flux. I am certainly uncomfortable with the apparent dichotomy between progressive and conservative. I am not the source for a definition, all I can do is offer why I accept that over any other label. If I offered an unqualified moniker, it would be simply progressive. Unfortunately, since FDR, that has come to mean, by default, a socialist (and pacifist) progressivism. Being progressive is simply a belief in social progress and justice. As an …
Posted to How the Right Has Won
-
(2 of 2) Gingrich is stumping his own ideas, sort of a Contract with America, Part 2. His basic tenet is not the gutting of social programs, but making the bureaucracy and the programs more effective. Anyone who has listened to him with even one open ear knows he believes in the value of government. But what he is advocating is a major restructurization of the late 19th Century quill and pen Bureaucratic Public Administration with what he calls a 21st Century Entrepreneurial Public Management. The difference between the two is that we tell the bureaucracy what our expectations are, rather …
Posted to How the Right Has Won
-
Gingrich also offers this social program to encourage math and science. Pay teenagers to study math and science at the same wages that they would make at McDonald's. Where to get that money? Gingrich claims that if you cut the head off the current education bureaucracy down to the district level, without touching the teachers or individual schools, you will have more than enough to cover the "education wage". Whether this would work or not is not exactly the point. Again, Gingrich claims that he would rather pass 60 different reform programs now, and then have to revisit, in the next …
Posted to How the Right Has Won
-
I would also point out that the liberal and socialist progressives get very Conservative when anyone questions the validity of social programs that are showing their age... Where is the progressive spirit then? As I have argued and argued, the ideas behind the New Deal and the Great Society were great, but only in the context of the paucity of social programs that preceded them. But instead of fixing what is now broken, these "Conservative" liberals defend their entrenched territory with the vengeance of a mother grizzly bear.
Posted to How the Right Has Won
-
:)
Posted to How the Right Has Won
-
you know, scorp, MM is right. If it looks like a duck, quacks like a duck, walks like a duck, then it is a duck. Unless it is a Democrat. They are above all that. Just ask 'em
Posted to How the Right Has Won
-
was a former Democratic National Committee official who had originally volunteered back in 2000 to give the Texas governor a bridge to centrist Democrats.
Yep, rats leaving a sinking ship... So, why is the Dem ship sinking?Posted to How the Right Has Won
-
No, still here. Just haven't seen the need to reiterate what I have already said...
Posted to How the Right Has Won
-
Keep flattering yourselves...
Posted to How the Right Has Won
-
No more sophomoric insults, please.
Posted to How the Right Has Won
-
Seriously, when you are ready to return to where the topic was when I last left it, let me know.
Posted to How the Right Has Won
-
If your not interested, be honest about it from the outset....
Posted to How the Right Has Won
-
wth, The same happens up here in the Northern Plains. During the summer, our "dole rolls" swell with transients for the Great Minnesotat Welfare State. Of course, by now, they've all headed south. So, how does that definition of "freeloader" go?
Posted to How the Right Has Won
-
Thomas Frank's question "What's the Matter with Kansas?" has been long answered. Nothing. It is the Democratic Party that has lost faith with Kansas, not the other way around.
Posted to How the Right Has Won
-
Scorpy don’t you ever refer to this site as OUR site again.....This site is mostly populated by Liberally minded, thoughtful and enlightened people. As a part of the substantial majority, Rabbit claims this site, on behalf of the aforementioned group. It is not your site or Jay’s. In fact you are both “OURS” in the sense that you are our Trolls. Major major, is part of the majority. His post was interesting and has given Rabbit and maybe others cause to think. Nothing you or Jay ever posted (Scorp sometimes has been OK actually), amounted to anything. The site belongs to …
Posted to How the Right Has Won
-
Well, we'll just have to wait for the voters to put their money where their mouth is next November...
Posted to How the Right Has Won
-
The one thing I would love to see unions take a more active interest in for their membership is continuing education. The backlash over the past 20 to 30 years against unions have largely been a result of a perception that union wages are excessively high in comparison to the skills necessary for the job, especially when the wage inflation of incumbency and seniority are considered. It is common sense that a large portion of labor-intensive jobs (janitorial work, assembly line, etc) simply don't require the skills that the union wage implies. The inflated wages are a consequence of a seniority …
Posted to The Lay of Labors New Land
-
The Democrats are out of touch with their base because they are too obsessed with reacting against anything the Republicans do. The electoral failures of 2002 and 2004 was an obsession to oppose the President on the Iraq War, more so out of sheer contrarism than any "swelling grassroots opposition" to the War. The Democrats refuse to believe that the reason Bush won in 2004 is exactly because of the War. Or rather, the Democrats' gross miscalculations. Ditto on what Douglas says about the failures that Katrina exposed,
Katrina exposed the nation’s continuing failures to combat poverty and racism
That failure …Posted to Missing Their Moment
-
Good to hear a progressive web site criticizing China. So, should we shut off all trade with China in retaliation of their human rights abuses and repressive regime, and turn our back on them as they laugh all the way to Europe? Or should we take the next logical step, confront them as "strategic competitors" and actively work to bring about democracy. Oh wait. That might involve some unsavory CIA operations or overt military operations. Because that is what it will come down to if the world imposes harsh economic sanctions. The world will be forced to back up those words …
Posted to See No Evil
-
You’ll start seriously addressing the tyrants and dictators when it’s not in the interests of American business to have those tyrants and dictators in power.
Exactly. Almost. But that is a whole lot sooner than you might think. The only serious interest in supporting tyrants and dictators in the recent past has been during the Cold War when it was absolutely in our interest, when it was in opposition to the greater threats posed by another totalitarian state somewhere in the neighborhood of the Ural Mountains. Those threats have diminished, if not altogether disappeared. America's economy depends on free markets, and …Posted to See No Evil
-
This purely rhetorical question is the whole point of the article, so I guess it is aimed at anyone reading this...
Posted to See No Evil
-
The fairy story about the “serious threat” posed by the Soviet Union has been throughly debunked. Did you watch the Power of Nightmares, that 3-part BBC docu someone recommended last week? It was all just a neo-con lie.
If a police officer shoots and kills a 13 year old Vietnamese kid in a dark alley because the kid, silhouetted in the night, looks to be brandishing a weapon and refuses to drop the weapon despite repeated warnings, is the police officer guilty of murder because in hindsight the weapon was merely a screwdriver? Hindsight is great. But you cannot judge actions …Posted to See No Evil
-
Apologies. I think that was in 1938.
Posted to See No Evil
-
But my real question from the article would be, how will slamming the door on American economic interests do anything to help the Chinese that are described as living in constant fear of the repressive Chinese government? If you are going to advocate change, it damn well better actually change something.
Posted to See No Evil
-
Show you can make a profit and be just
Absolutely! American companies doing business in other countries should be as liable in American courts for their behavior in those countries in accordance with American standards, as their operations are in this country. As a child, we knew that when we played at someone else's house, we had to follow not only their house rules, but our own house rules. It didn't matter that we weren't physically at home. Good, just behavior is not relative to geography.Posted to See No Evil
-
--When looking at China’s internal policy, think about it from the perspective of community, that the individual is responsible to the welfare of the community as a whole. Community rights are first, and then individual rights. America is based on Individualism, the right of the individual.
. This is where most of American's understanding of China fails. China has a continuous cultural basis, spanning over four thousand years, that values social harmony even more than Americans value liberty. It is pervasive at all levels of society, from sibling pecking order where there are very specific honorifics for oldest brother, second-oldest brother, …Posted to See No Evil
-
--When utilizing Tibet please address its poor political maneuvering with Russia and India,
So, the victim is to blame for not having the wherewithal to effectively manage its relations with other great powers as it attempts to protect itself from another??Posted to See No Evil
-
-China has a functioning, though limited democracy, with the National People’s Congress made up of 2,985 seats elected to five year terms by municipal, regional and provincial people’s congresses. Basically, the community selects the people who elect the officials. Parallel to our electoral college system.
No, the Iranian model is more appropriate. Power and enfranchisement descend from above, like the mullahs vetting presidential candidates. Not from the people. Just witness the current repression of the villagers of Taishi in the southern province of Guangdong, who are attempting to use current Chinese law to recall a locally elected official on charges of …Posted to See No Evil
-
With so much dirty laundry of our own concerning human rights abuses, it is probably best that we show by example, as Neruda points out. As others pointed out, our glass house couldn’t withstand a tossed pebble. China has work to do, but so do we.
Yes.Posted to See No Evil
-
If, when you think about human rights abuses, and think Tiananmen Square, also bring up the image of the Kwangju Massacre in Korea ten years earlier.
No. Two wrongs don't make a right. But Johnny hit me first! So when Sally breaks Johnny's arm, he has no right to complain?Posted to See No Evil
-
laowai objects,
The average American has about the same freedom as the average Chinese person.
So, have the Chinese authorities freed that one guy in Taishi? You know, the one who, in strict accordance with Chinese law, was attempting to get an elected village leader recalled because of allegations of corruption? Or how about thatblind social activist who blew the whistle on official abuses under China's one-child policy in the eastern province of Shandong was beaten by a group of men led by local officials Monday when he tried to leave his house to greet visitors.
as reported byPosted to See No Evil
-
Liz, Unfortunately, I don't think there is a whole lot that can be done. It's like a train wreck that is about to happen. Regardless of who one thinks should be wearing the black cowboy hat, both countries are are dynamic and strong enough that neither will collapse simply to please my or Rabbit's fantasies. My hope is that Deng's economic reform, which has taken root with a vengeance, will create social forces to challenge the authority of the Central government. And the village of Taishi is a good example. It is part of an experiment in several parts of the …
Posted to See No Evil
-
Actually, AS seems to be pretty dern proud of being a European. But that is ok. I was not criticizing the Chinese for being proud of their heritage (my wife would kill me if I did!) but merely as an observation of Chinese motivation. I regret AS' only real encounter with Americans are tourists. Not that it is bad to be a tourist, but it does cast a rather one-dimensional pall on AS' stereotypes. Of course, he only notices the occasional loud mouth variety....so I guess he can be forgiven his provincial view of the world... As far as space, since …
Posted to See No Evil
-
Quite some time, in fact. Of course it helps that my home in America is essentially Chinese territory... At least, culturally speaking.
Posted to See No Evil
-
We must all be careful of judging a group by the actions of a few. For example, some time ago a dude from Germany brought his girlfriend on vacation to Florida. She was killed at a rest stop. The guy described the assailant as a young black man who was robbing them. A week later, the police arrested a guy for the murder. No, not a young black man, but the vacationing German. Seems he was under the mistaken impression that America was a violent place with roving bands of black marauders and thought he could get away with murder. I …
Posted to See No Evil
-
I highly recommend the Spring Fasching season and the autumn harvest fests (and I am not talking Munich here!)
Posted to See No Evil
-
And, Even if all the reports on violence and rapes had proven to be factually true, the stories circulating about them would still be “pathological” and racist, since what motivated these stories were not facts, but racist prejudices, the satisfaction felt by those who would be able to say: “You see, Blacks really are like that, violent barbarians under the thin layer of civilization!” In other words, we would be dealing with what could be called lying in the guise of truth: Even if what I am saying is factually true, the motives that make me say it are false. Talk …
Posted to The Subject Supposed to Loot and Rape
-
To restate what I said, the article explicitly states that , Even if all the reports on violence and rapes had proven to be factually true ... the motives that make me say it are false. The author is ascribing racist motivation to anyone who reports the truth, just as Major Major did.
Posted to The Subject Supposed to Loot and Rape
-
The problem with the article is that it cries its own wolf story.
Posted to The Subject Supposed to Loot and Rape
-
Lebensabschnittsgefährtin = lifelong companion
Posted to The Subject Supposed to Loot and Rape
-
or, more colloquial, love of my life
Posted to The Subject Supposed to Loot and Rape
-
actually, that would be idiomatically, not colloquial. Sorry.
Posted to The Subject Supposed to Loot and Rape
-
Jay, you missed the potential aspect of temporariness in this. The word you translated is “Lebensgefährtin" My apologies. I did miss that. There are a whole host of idioms for that kind of relationship. "Girl I am shacked up with" is probably the best I can do on the spur of the moment, though it is a bit crude.
Posted to The Subject Supposed to Loot and Rape
-
English is more like French when it comes to making up new words, though there are plenty of Germanic words in English that combines two (though rarely more) words together to make a new one. Hyphenation is what is usually done with phrases that become single concepts (which I unfortunately omitted above).
Posted to The Subject Supposed to Loot and Rape
-
Redneck is not necessarily derogatory. It can refer to an unsophisticated earthy common sense lifestyle devoid of pretension. Check out Jeff Foxworthy's views on unsophistication. It is a hoot, if only because it is so grittily true.
Posted to The Subject Supposed to Loot and Rape
-
Finally, I think the accusation of being “racist” is only legitimate in the one direction. It is patently absurd for a member of the oppressing group to complain of racism. No, of course not. When a black calls a white 'honky' or an asian as 'slant-eys', it is meant as a term of endearment. Of course, you would never hear that in the ghetto, would you?
Posted to The Subject Supposed to Loot and Rape
-
A black in America has every right to be prejudiced against whites. Huh?! Since when does ANYONE have the right to be prejudiced? It’s probably not going to do him much good in life, but it is understandable The fact that it is understandable in no way justifies it. Would it also be understandable if someone (white, asian, hispanic, whatever) were to nurse resentment into prejudice against blacks, if they lost a promotion to someone who was black merely because of affirmative action? Would that justify their prejudice? Would that give them the right to be prejudiced? More unidirectional logic …
Posted to The Subject Supposed to Loot and Rape
-
I agree, it is laughable. Until individual whites, who have never demonstrated a solitary prejudical bone in their lives, start to lose job opportunities because of it. To condemn a man's future merely on the basis of their race is racist. Unless we are to have different standards for different races, but then that would destroy the whole argument, wouldn't it?
Posted to The Subject Supposed to Loot and Rape
-
geebee, Apologies. I will refrain from using that moniker here.
Posted to The Subject Supposed to Loot and Rape
-
And the fact that far more than 12 per cent (which is I believe the percentage of blacks in the US) of those left behind in New Orleans is pure coincidence, right?
The facts are correct, but if you want to make a conclusion of racism about those left behind in New Orleans, you need to compare those left behind in New Orleans with the percentage of blacks in New Orleans, not the US in general. I am not discounting the argument, just the statistics being employed.Posted to The Subject Supposed to Loot and Rape
-
It iIs a very valid question. But to ascribe it to current racism is not an foregone conclusion. Thought experiment: if you have a magic wand and could wipe out racism in an instant, will the effects of centuries of racism also be wiped out? No. As I have argued re: the Cosby Debate, the racism of the 50s and 60s has been greatly diminished. But now we have to rebuild our communities devastated by decades of welfare state mentality. In the 40s and 50s and 60s, the African-American communities arguably had much stronger family institutions than other communities. Now, that …
Posted to The Subject Supposed to Loot and Rape
-
absolutely!
Posted to The Subject Supposed to Loot and Rape
-
You think whites are superior to non-whites because they’re married and maintain stable marraiges throughout their working lives?
No. But someone who comes from a stable family background, regardless of race, as significant advantages over someone who doesn't. If 70% of the children of whatever race is being raised by unmarried woman, if they live in a society where that is a disadvantage to the children's social environment and intellectual and emotional development, if that is contributing to a gross disadvantage throughout their lives, then we need to focus on why that is happening, and come up with solutions. Spouting racist …Posted to The Subject Supposed to Loot and Rape
-
Correction: No. But someone who comes from a stable family background, regardless of race, has significant advantages over someone who doesn't.
Posted to The Subject Supposed to Loot and Rape
-
If 70% of the children of whatever race is being raised by unmarried woman ... Spouting racist nonsense is stupid. How have whites created that situation? ... come up with solutions. who do you think created the situation Jay?
I guess the underlying assumption there is that those 70% are mulatto??? Persistent poverty is certainly an onerous factor. But, as I have said earlier,the racism of the 50s and 60s has been greatly diminished. But now we have to rebuild our communities devastated by decades of welfare state mentality. In the 40s and 50s and 60s, the African-American …
Posted to The Subject Supposed to Loot and Rape
-
I think we can safely say that the solution to poverty is not as simple as getting married.
simple? Yes, I agree. But it is good and necessary start!Posted to The Subject Supposed to Loot and Rape
-
Does the welfare state really lead to poverty?
Never said it did. But in the second half of the last century, the implementation of the welfare state without incentive to better oneself has led to an entrenchment of the existing poverty.Isn’t that a bit inconsistent with the assertion that if we simply stop helping people, they will take care of themselves?
Never advocated that either. In a free market economy, where one keeps the proceeds of one's labor, there must be incentives to get off the dole; and punishments for those who have the opportunity to, but refuse to. …Posted to The Subject Supposed to Loot and Rape
-
During feudal times, there wasn’t a very effective welfare state, yet plenty of people lived in poverty.
That assumes a overly simplistic notion of political organization that says there are only two political systems....Posted to The Subject Supposed to Loot and Rape
-
my point about marriage is that the statistics are... no good if we don’t consider which is the symptom and which is the cause
My point about the statistics was,someone who comes from a stable family background, regardless of race, has significant advantages over someone who doesn’t
and the statistics indicate that the overall marital status in contemporary black families are more of a source of continued economic disparity between blacks and whites than for any racist reasons. To ask, does being impoverished make it more difficult to stay married? ignore the fact that before the welfare state really kicked …Posted to The Subject Supposed to Loot and Rape
-
We're back to those tired old Liberal arguments which you feel obliged to dismiss without any adequate rebuttal.
Which ones? There are so many to choose from.it was institutional racism that created the problem of poverty among non-white minorities, to begin with.
Absolutely. Never said it wasn't. But I have said that the institutional racism that existed before the Great Dr. King, is largely gone. The South of today is not the South of the 50s and that wasn't even the South of the Confederacy. Racism itself will never die, but it has been castrated to a large extent. What …Posted to The Subject Supposed to Loot and Rape
-
Major Major's own diatribe from the start proves racism and prejudice, as in pre-judging people, still exists.
Posted to The Subject Supposed to Loot and Rape
-
With regard to the blockquotes, I quote from an email exchange I had with David,
> --- david, > I disagree. > > It does a great job of deliminating quoted material, > as the blockquote HTML is intended to. > > Apparently, ITT agrees with me. > --- Jay Cline
ITT decided to use boxes to represent valid HTML blockquotes. It would indeed be very appropriate to take the issue up with them if you disagree.Posted to The Subject Supposed to Loot and Rape
-
Where *do* you get the data to support your assertions with respect to the stability of African American families?
I cannot speak for the 70% statistic; that was presented by someone else here. I accept it if only because no one else has even attempted to refuted it. My own contention of the decline of the strength an integrity of the African-American family from the 1940s and 1950s to the present day comes from hard-bitten, first-person, in-my-face, intimate experience. I have no problems resting my argument on that data. I would think that those who would like to gleefully tear apart …Posted to The Subject Supposed to Loot and Rape
-
GA, the only difference between your examples and mine, is that mine are based on decades of real-life trench warfare and yours are hypothetical constructs. You do not have to refute my experience, but that don't mean it ain't so. I stand by my conclusions.
Posted to The Subject Supposed to Loot and Rape
-
Correction:
yours are contrived hypothetical constructs.
Posted to The Subject Supposed to Loot and Rape
-
Marriage found to improve blacks' lives
The state of the black family concerns many scholars. Census data show that 34 percent of black families are headed by married couples. This is a substantial reversal from 1950, when almost 80 percent of black families were headed by married couples.
The ball is in your court...Posted to The Subject Supposed to Loot and Rape
-
You really need to fully read your own references. The only conclusion the report says that might contradict what I have been saying is that the problem is more complex than I have been saying. But I never said it wasn't. I was discussing the impact of the welfare state has on a race already disadvantaged by historical discrimination. At the risk of annoying some people, here are some (lengthy) extracts. (and the url is http://www-hoover.stanford.edu/publications/books/fulltext/colorline/95.pdf) I encourage everyone to take a good read. (part 1)
But with respect to marriage and child rearing, black and white Americans do …
Posted to The Subject Supposed to Loot and Rape
-
(part 2)
Without doubt, today’s unprecedentedly high rates of divorce and nonmarital childbearing—across all American society and indeed in most other Western nations—should be a matter of grave concern. Marital breakdown harms many of the adults and children involved and, because of its disproportionate impact on African Americans, is a particular tragedy in that community. Public discourse, however, often goes too far in blaming marital breakdown for all the poverty and social dysfunction that afflict the black community. That is an equally terrible mistake because marital breakdown, poverty, and social dysfunction interact. They are, simultaneously, both causes and effects of each …
Posted to The Subject Supposed to Loot and Rape
-
(part 3)( A's assertion about the frequency of unreported divorces among African Americans before the 1960s is about the only assertion that his referenced report does NOT quantify, beyond merely saying "perhaps". But the authors follow up that bit of ambiguity with this:
Regardless of the reliability of earlier census data, however, the racial difference in divorce is now quite large. By 1998, the African American divorce rate was more than twice as high as the white rate (422 per thousand compared with 190 per thousand). The divorce rate for Hispanic women doubled between 1970, the first year for which data …
Posted to The Subject Supposed to Loot and Rape
-
correction: In the quoted section of part 1 (3rd paragraph), a footnote reference got promoted to normal text in the translation. ...45 percent higher for African Americans than for whites, 9 vs. 6.10 These are... The '10' is a footnote. Sorry about that.
Posted to The Subject Supposed to Loot and Rape
-
My apologies if I offended. It was my impression that you were questioning the validity of my claim that the strength of the African American family had been in significant decline since the 40s and 50s,
Where do you get your data on the strength of African American Families over 60 years in the past? I’m not saying you are making this stuff up, but what measurements are you using? Divorce rates per capita?
Since the data you were referencing clearly indicated to me that it supported that contention, I made the assumption that you had not fully read the data. …Posted to The Subject Supposed to Loot and Rape
-
Or consider the reports of thugs shooting on first aid helicopters: fact is, there are no first hand witnesses who claim they saw anyone shoot at the helicopters, as if hoping to bring them down or harm relief workers. Rather, those who were actually there, and saw the gunfire in question, report that it was intended to get the attention of the helicopters, which seemed to be repeatedly passing people by, looking at the catastrophic conditions, but refusing to land and save people in most instances. Perhaps those in the air didn’t see those on the ground? Or perhaps they didn’t …
Posted to The Subject Supposed to Loot and Rape
-
With regard to Wise's statistics on the low utility of welfare within New Orleans, I can't, therefore, see any better reason to start cutting back welfare programs. If the use of welfare is as sparingly as Wise alludes to, then I think that alone raises very real concerns of the effectiveness of the welfare system. Let me dumb it up. If the hundreds of billions of dollars spent every year on federal and state welfare programs aren't being received by those who need it, then I smell a skunk. Who is getting all that money? (anybody check the average salary of …
Posted to The Subject Supposed to Loot and Rape
-
Let's do some basic math on Wise's dubious statistics (you'll see why I call them dubious). Wise alleges that the average "take on the dole" amounts to $2,800. He also alleges that only 4% of the black population in New Orleans got a piece of the action before Katrina. Let us assume that every American family gets a piece of the action. How much would that be, using Wise's statistics? 2800 x 100 million families = 280 Billion dollars. Since that is about how much of the federal budget is going to welfare programs (sans state welfare spending), I ask only …
Posted to The Subject Supposed to Loot and Rape
-
(dern fat fingers) WHERE’S MY FLIPPIN’ TAKE??!
Posted to The Subject Supposed to Loot and Rape
-
There was no gunfire, full stop. The people who claimed otherwsie, have had the sack for making such incendiary and false statements. For the record.
but,Rather, those who were actually there, and saw the gunfire in question, report that it was intended to get the attention of the helicopters,
I guess Wise was making that up?A student of the welfare system such as yourself certainly has a much clearer picture of the different programs available and how benefits are delivered…
I do. Apparently Wise doesn't. Talk to lb about irony I thank Rabbit and GrayArea for completing the destruction …Posted to The Subject Supposed to Loot and Rape
-
Get a proper reference and thenm challenge my words, or I might need to do the same.
Wise says, There was gunfire Rabbit says, There was no gunfire. One is right, one is wrong. They are mutually exclusive.Posted to The Subject Supposed to Loot and Rape
-
You have not yet given any refences which is the point of the quote you posted of mine.
MM already posted Wise's article as a 7 part post. I got it from there. Try the PageUp key.Posted to The Subject Supposed to Loot and Rape
-
No, just thought the contradiction was self-evident.
Wise says, There was gunfire Rabbit says, There was no gunfire. One is right, one is wrong. They are mutually exclusive.
Posted to The Subject Supposed to Loot and Rape
-
Of course. Forgive me. Rabbit's ears are so good he doesn't need to be there to be a first-hand witness. Rabbit fails in logic lesson, though. All I did was to shoot down Wise as a knowledgeable source on the subject. Thank you for concurring.
Posted to The Subject Supposed to Loot and Rape
-
So, when is ITT gonna publish a critique of French imperialism, racism and destitute morality in the wake of the French riots of the disadvantaged French minorities? Ah, I forgot. We don't hate the French. The French who gave us that wonderful liberation in 1789 followed by the immediate emergence of such a successful Jacobian republic that revered the rights of all above all else.
Posted to The Subject Supposed to Loot and Rape
-
Dyson persuasively argues that an inequitable system relentlessly victimizes the “lower economic people” Cosby condemned. In contrast to the “Afristocracy,” he has dubbed them the “Ghettocracy” (the black “underclass”, the working class/working poor and the incarcerated). How did the Afristocracy lift themselves up and how has the Ghettocracy failed to replicate that success? Haven't both sides started from the same base, or was there a disparity between "these disparate groups" already? Dyson ... further charges that too many members of the black middle class have abandoned the goals of the civil rights movement that made their existence possible. He cites evidence …
Posted to Katrina, Cosby and Class Divisions
-
In a conference at Columbia University at the beginning of the month with Cornell West, Luke Harris and Ira Katznelson, the issue of affirmative action and institutional prejudice was broadly discussed. One thing I took away from that was a couple questions. If the single biggest obstacle to equality in the third quarter of the last century was gross and institutional prejudice in the workplace and if affirmative action and the threat of discrimination lawsuits has seriously dented, if not effectively wiped out, that obstacle, where are the major impediments to equality today? Harris obliquely referred to that issue several times …
Posted to Katrina, Cosby and Class Divisions
-
Amen! I am getting a little tired of being cast a "troll" and a Bush-acolyte simply because I believe that we can do better, and that must come from the individual, not the state.
Posted to Katrina, Cosby and Class Divisions
-
Kuya, I would add a third leg to your big money and big religion analysis of the Republican Party. Joe and Jane Doe who left the Democratic Party because the Dems got drunk on power, entrenched themselves into programs that are starting to show their age, and stopped working towards the future. But that is just one man's viewpoint.
Posted to Katrina, Cosby and Class Divisions
-
Dead on. Though I've never been an ardent party man, on either side of the aisle. My politics are issue-based. The issues that made me turn away from the Dems is 1) what I said on the 28th, 2) the takeover of the Dem Party by doves. In a world that is not yet unified, I am more of a hawk.
Posted to Katrina, Cosby and Class Divisions
-
Kuya, I agree that this is off-topic, and I hope you'll forgive me for forcing the thread over to another topic. I posted my response in Kucinich's Democrats: It's the War. http://www.inthesetimes.com/site/main/discuss/2372/P200/
Posted to Katrina, Cosby and Class Divisions
-
part 1 Incredible. Declare falsehoods to be truth and you can prove anything. The one symptom Sirota fails to mention, the one he suffers from as well, is denial. (John Kerry's nomination) was the most non-ideological of choices in what we were supposed to believe was the most ideological of races. John Kerry was losing to Howard Dean, the true ideology of the 2004 race, until Kerry took his cue from Dean and steered his campaign to a much more vigorous opposition to the Iraq War. Kerry didn't start to lead the pack until he co-opted Dean's message. It was only …
Posted to Partisan War Syndrome
-
part 2 (Sirota’s Syndrome) is an affliction that hollowed out much of the Democratic base’s economic and national security convictions. What is hollowing out that base is a growing perception of the increasing irrelevance of the Democratic Party. In the first gutting, Reagan Democrats left the Party largely on dissatisfaction with the entrenchment of a Party that was more concerned with power than policies. Sirota's syndrome is not a consequence of the Partisan Wars that marked the Clinton presidency, but from an earlier age where rank and file union and party membership were ignored by union and Party leadership. There is …
Posted to Partisan War Syndrome
-
Jay's political compass Economic Left/Right: -1.07 Social Libertarian/Authoritarian: -1.98 This is very similar to an article I read about 25 years. I would add a third, semi-major axis differentiating political belief in progressive political evolution vs "fall from grace". Measuring left and right on the economics scale doesn't really cover that. Besides, I hate being thought of as middle-of-the-road ;) Thanks, lb and David!
Posted to Partisan War Syndrome
-
I agree the scale is not very good. At the very least there needs to be a don't know/don't care/no opinion choice. There were a couple questions I that had no real interest or opinion about, but was forced to choose sides. That consequently gave far too much weight on those questions. I also think linking LEFT vs RIGHT to strictly the economic scale probably distorted the questions and analysis. The apparent underlying assumption is that LEFT/RIGHT politics is strictly about economics, so it actually defeats the purpose of a true two dimensional scale. David ("Popeye") is right. I yam what …
Posted to Partisan War Syndrome
-
Last night I posted some of my own criticisms of this compass at my own blog, if anyone is interested. Not really anything more than what has been said already, though
Posted to Partisan War Syndrome
-
David, No, I wasn't overly disappointed, only in that it isn't as revealing as I'd expect. My objections are as previously stated; there doesn't seem to be much differentiation on at least the full spectrum of a progressive nature. I think the "middle" of this scale is more of a dumping ground that these scales fail to separate. But, maybe that would be too fine a hare to split...
Posted to Partisan War Syndrome
-
When Churchill was criticized for switching parties — his comment was, “It is the parties which changed. My views remain.” (not an exact quote, but close enough) Exactly. Churchill has always been one of my favorite sources of quotable quotes. Thanks for the reminder, whattheheck! In fact, the site that gave us their version of a compass, tracks the movement of the three big political parties in Britain, almost as if Churchill was blogging from his grave. My only objection to labels is they are often used as singularities defining political philosophies that are (as this and many other …
Posted to Partisan War Syndrome
-
Taking David's suggestion to try Rabbit's Contrarian Test, I soon realized that in being contrary, I was always selecting Strongly, whether it was in agreement or not. Perhaps because I am more familiar to my own nuances than others who do not share my point of view. So, I stopped and took the test for myself again, but instead of wanting more options, I stuck with a Strongly strategy. It soon became apparent that the fuzziness of the test is more from the equivocal statements I was responding to, rather than my own. The test is too liberal (absolutely NO pun …
Posted to Partisan War Syndrome
-
To question the logic of individual ones that irritate you is to miss the point Ah, yes, of course. If I disagree, if I question, the problem is not the questionee, but the questioner. How silly of me...
Posted to Partisan War Syndrome
-
whattheheck, Thanks for the recommendation! I had seen the book in passing before, but I am always leery of laying down money on kiss 'n tell books without getting a good unbiased recommendation from someone. I will take a look! My all time Churchillian favorite is Democracy is the worst form of governance, except for all those tried so far (again, or something similiar!). Not only does the Stand-Up Democrat grab you with that straight-line, but the philosophy behind it is so timeless, and timely. Winston could really grab an audience. I can't wait to read Franklin and Churchill. Two peas-in-a-pod …
Posted to Partisan War Syndrome
-
As I read David's commentary in reflection of Rabbit, I cannot help but note that it seems incredible that for someone who so ardently rejects official explanations as intrinsically untrustworthy, that Rabbit would put so much naive credence into such an obviously unscientific polling. Where is his self-laudable skepticism? Of course, I am only seeing one side of the discourse, so profuse apologies for gross mischaracterization, if I am guilty of such a crime.
Posted to Partisan War Syndrome
-
But there is nothing wrong with choosing a real life hero as a Super Hero. Even Superman had his kyptonite and Achilles had his heel. That only makes them more deserving of Super Hero status.
Posted to Partisan War Syndrome
-
It Takes a Parent by Betsy Hart. I saw a speech she did recently. One wonders why it took so long for a parent to stand up and tell the politicians (Clinton and Santorum) how to raise kids.
Posted to Partisan War Syndrome
-
I have a son?!
Posted to Partisan War Syndrome
-
Yes, of course. This is a very scientific polling with scientific credentials and all the populist college standardized tests have cultural bias. Silly me. I mixed the two up. C'mon. Just because it has a website doesn't make it valid.
Posted to Partisan War Syndrome
-
And he is a statistician?? Ah, I always knew he'd make us proud. Just wish I could remember his name....
Posted to Partisan War Syndrome
-
Because your son is a statistician hardly gives you much standing to make such a judgment. and Not having a statistician son doesn’t give your opinion much scientific standing, does it? Now, that is a CLASSIC definition of a straw man argument! My objections to the site have already been stated. 1)The statements are fuzzy (evidence for that is in the comments being made by many people who took the test) 2) What value is the test as a true multidimensionality when the old LEFT RIGHT poles are left intact? 3) How can a Libertarian be pinned to two separate poles? …
Posted to Partisan War Syndrome
-
lb, I think your laziness is endemic to your entire line of thinking...
Posted to Partisan War Syndrome
-
Your sarcasm is a bit thick and witless, as usual. Apologies. By deliberately falsely calling those exams populist, I am actually calling (smearing, actually) the compass as populist and indicative of everything pop culturalist. In other words, its only claim to credibility is as a pseudointellectual parlor game. Fun, to be sure. Sorry for having to dumb that up, but you didn't seem to be getting the point.
Posted to Partisan War Syndrome
-
Are you saying there is no difference between collectivism and individual competition, anymore?
No, I am saying that to label the defining difference between LEFT and RIGHT as collectivism vs individual rights is not only presumptive on the part of the creator of the compass, but completely destroys the whole point of pulling the LEFT/RIGHT divide on a thusly irrelevant axis. The creator eliminates the whole point of the multidimensional spectrum. Additional, and besides the point, that is yet another clear example of the failure of this questionnaire. What is collectivism? Is it a group of people who come …Posted to Partisan War Syndrome
-
It does mean that someone on the right may under certain conditions agree with what are arguably leftist views.
Thus my objection to the questions and the map onto which the answers are plotted. Why is voluntary collectivism a LEFT view co-opted by the RIGHT? To assume otherwise is to ascribe a libertarian view strictly to the RIGHT. But (ad nauseum), the compass paints libertarians in contradictory colors, first as strictly on the RIGHT and then as a spectrum that encompasses both the LEFT and the RIGHT.Again with the (selective-jc) reading comprehension.
Further,Exactly how did I criticize …
Posted to Partisan War Syndrome
-
Do you not believe there are left libertarians, or what?
Absolutely. But this isn't about my personal beliefs, but the legitimacy of the compass. If there are left libertarians, I ask again, how can the extreme RIGHT axis, the horizontal one, be labeled libertarian? The chart, and subsequent analysis, suffers from that ambiguity.Posted to Partisan War Syndrome
-
It doesn’t in any rational way, imply the competence or incompetence of his son or statisticians in general.
Regardless of the facetious intent (which I do appreciate), it does in fact call into question the competences when you ascribe an answer and conclusion to your own questions without knowing if the son or statistician actually did the research. You blatantly assumed that because the conclusion was one you disagreed with, that the research could not have been done. Putting theory ahead of facts. Facetiously or otherwise.Posted to Partisan War Syndrome
-
Facetious sarcasm, again. I know.
:)Posted to Partisan War Syndrome
-
Clarity is not a word I would use about the compass.....If one uses multiple meanings for the same word, then that isn't clarity in my book...
Posted to Partisan War Syndrome
-
ibertarian and libertarianism are not the same word.
No arguement here. One is a political philosophy, the other is someone who advocates or believes in that philosophy. What's your point? (no facetious intent here, just an honest question).Posted to Partisan War Syndrome
-
libertarian and libertarianism are not the same word. No arguement here. One is a political philosophy, the other is someone who advocates or believes in that philosophy. What’s your point?
Posted to Partisan War Syndrome
-
I think lb just proved I am indeed a troll. I still don't get it. A rabbit is a rabbit is a rabbit, except when it is a hareball for Fluffy.
Posted to Partisan War Syndrome
-
So, the website is dealing with fuzzy definitions, then. Funny, I thought I already made that point in my original critique. Q: When is a libertarian not a Libertarian? A: Exactly!
Posted to Partisan War Syndrome
-
Apology accepted.
Posted to Partisan War Syndrome
-
You're welcome
Posted to Partisan War Syndrome
-
lb, sorry. I meant that to be in response to Rabbit's admonishment on blockquoting. sorry for the confusion.
Posted to Partisan War Syndrome
-
An exercise in a little friendly Parody (or is it Sarcasm?). A good article - at least from the “liberal democratic” perspective - but with a very puzzling ending. A few questions come instantly to mind: - From which side of the Mediterranean is the main danger to the community of liberal democracies now coming? - What country is ruled by a religious fanatic (hint: the religion in question IS Islam) financed by oil-rich Arabs believes Allah has chosen him to save (rule?) the world? And let’s not forget that his main rhetorical weapon is to stoke the flames of terror …
Posted to A Fundamental History Lesson
-
Oops, missed one. What organization is ruled by a religious fanatic...
Posted to A Fundamental History Lesson
-
The argument I would make is that this is a facetious argument. Comparing Nazism with the political rights of people, religious or not, is like saying my car is blue and so is water so my car must be made of water. Nazism was not about religion or the religious views of one segment of the electorate, it was a gang of thugs seizing power. When the American religious right stages a violent brown-shirt putsch, I'll change my tune. Until then, I will not drop my beliefs simply because you say so.
Posted to A Fundamental History Lesson
-
The point of my parody was to show the illogic of argument and assertions of the first posting.
Posted to A Fundamental History Lesson
-
David, Of course, silly me. I forgot about the Great and Glorious (and very bloody) Revolution of '94. Oh what times those were! But let us not forget the coups of '96, '98, aught-aught, aught-2, aught-4, and coming to a town near and far, aught-6. I believe in both Canada and Germany, those would be called, what? Elections? To my point, comparing the rise of the German Nazi party to the political aspirations, and successes of the American religous right is like comparing mountains to mole-hills. Not only is the difference of size apparent, but they are qualitatively different, both in …
Posted to A Fundamental History Lesson
-
1) I have not yet seen (even in the original article) how Nazi's usurped the electoral process. Nazi's, as a political party, used the electoral to get their foot in the door, but subverted the process and then were able to outlaw the opposition. Mr. Brown does touch upon the subject, but the accusations of electoral fraud ar skimpy at best. Especially when you consider that the national elections apparently being referenced (2000, 2004) were faulty for NOT using such equipment. Is it a danger? Could be, but we haven't gotten there yet. 2) jon t. and neruda are absolutely right …
Posted to A Fundamental History Lesson
-
Kuya argues that it is okay to pursue a political agenda, as long as he/she agrees with it.
Posted to A Fundamental History Lesson
-
My apologies to Kuya. That is not what was being said. I was in a hurry to catch the bus and was responding to merely one sentence in the first paragraph.
Posted to A Fundamental History Lesson
-
Part 1 While I emphatically agree with Kuya on most points, I would take exception to three of them, at least from the perspective of my belief that they are already fully dealt with within the dominion of the American Constitution. I concur with the theoretical background of these three points, but I believe they were quite adequately addressed two centuries ago during the drafting and ratification of the US Constitution. The simple solution of holding an election to decide what the law shall be and who shall hold power is not enough. The Founding Fathers were well aware of the …
Posted to A Fundamental History Lesson
-
Part 2 The right of the people to bear arms to maintain a well regulated militia has certainly been one of the most contentious Rights in contemporary times. The right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures is open to the interpretation of what is unreasonable, especially when it runs afoul of the Preamble, to form a more perfect Union, establish Justice, insure domestic Tranquility, provide for the common defence, promote the general Welfare, and secure the Blessings of Liberty to ourselves and our Posterity, But right at the top, …
Posted to A Fundamental History Lesson
-
Neruda, Now I see where I got that mistaken notion about Kuya's beliefs. That was actually you that really believes that those who have political beliefs that differ from yours are, by default and definition, wrong. I agree with everything you said, except for your conclusion. You find the right's political beliefs offensive and therefore they have no right to object. When the courts step in to invalidate these attempts at legal discrimination they are accused of judicial activism ... Isn't that exactly what you are arguing against?? Not having a voice to oppose what you believe is wrong?? …
Posted to A Fundamental History Lesson
-
It’s a fact of human psychology that people build up to brutality, start with namecalling, marginalize, deny rights, tolerate acts of violence, and soon you make your way to policies like the nazis. But it is NOT a fact of psychology (or even logic) that namecalling (ever read the DailyKos?) invariably leads to policies like the Nazis
Posted to A Fundamental History Lesson
-
However you are free to go to church, condem anyone you want there, But God forbid you should stand up in Hyde Park and protest, heh? Sounds like someone is putting unfair restrictions on the other part of the First Amendment. You seem to conflate the idea that a minority (however ill-liked) having equal access and rights is similar in impact to having a majority (however much driven by a sense of moral certainty)deny that same minority equal access and rights. This again is a parallel to the rise of Nazis (easy moral certainties used to regulate personal freedom). Nope. Never …
Posted to A Fundamental History Lesson
-
like the klan, they should not be permitted to enforce their personal belief systems on others. That partly is the role of the courts. Exactly. Well, not quite. You continue to confuse legislative authority with enforcement authority, and both of them with judiciary authority. The courts do not enforce, they judicate. The legislature does not enforce, they legislate. That is called separation of power.
Posted to A Fundamental History Lesson
-
Segregation was legislated into law. Police enforced those laws, Governers ordered police and national guard to suppress protest, judges sentenced protesters instead of upholding individual rights. Yes, but you just disproved your whole argument. That sounds like the fascist that is being decried here, yet, what happened to it? Did democracy fail? or did it prevail? As I said before, and I will now elaborate with my favorite Churchill quote; democracy is the worst form of governance, except for all that has been tried thus far. Democracy is not perfect, yet I have not read anything here, short of extreme hyperbole, …
Posted to A Fundamental History Lesson
-
Do you equate the right to exclude people from full participation and to deny equal rights with the right to full participation, access, and equality? Do you equate the right to make medical decisions based on personal morality with the right to leglislate personal morality? I have not answered either of these questions for two simple reasons. I agree with you, and my agreement is irrelevent to the question of equating American democracy to Nazi fascism. No one is saying, except in hyperbole, that the religious right has the right to exclude, merely the right to object and participate in the …
Posted to A Fundamental History Lesson
-
Are there challenges to democracy, like ID in school systems, etc? Yes. Should we abolish those challenges merely because they are contentious, and probably wrong? No. Democracy isn't pretty, it isn't quick, it does not proceed in a straight line. But there are democratic mechanisms in place that thus far have survived the very real challenges thrown up at it in the past two centuries. Absolutely, there are challenges that go against the grain and ultimately prove wrong. but we don't live in a George Jetson future where you can just plug in questions and get instant answers. Even slavery, that …
Posted to A Fundamental History Lesson
-
The Rise of Nazism was more about the search for easy answers, than anything else.
Posted to A Fundamental History Lesson
-
I have been reluctant to get into the debate on specific issues that some see as egregious, mostly, as I have indicated, my opinions on same-sex marriage, evolution vs ID, abortion, etc are irrelevant to the original authors implications of danger of a rise in American counter-democratic forces. Whether I believe that same-sex marriages are not prohibited by the constitution (they're not), whether ID or any flavor of Creationism is ignorant and not science (it is, and it isn't), whether Roe v Wade was justified (it was) contributes nothing to my attempt to rebut the hysteria, the fear-mongering of those who …
Posted to A Fundamental History Lesson
-
However we are not advocating leglislation that curbs their way of life or indoctrinating their children with our “faith”. No, of course not. It is already enshrined in law with Roe v Wade, which is undeniably the touchstone of this whole left vs right debate. From the perspective of the religious right, allowing teenage girls to get abortions without parental consent, handing out condoms in health classes, teaching safe sex and not no sex; all that infringes on their right to raise their children per their own beliefs, a right which you have already paid lip service to. Why is it …
Posted to A Fundamental History Lesson
-
While we may have no patience for the beliefs of the Religious Right for the reasons that Kuya articulated No, we are not in agreement. I have infinite patience for ANYONES beliefs. I have absolute intolerance for people who have no tolerance for other points of view.
Posted to A Fundamental History Lesson
-
Does no one see the double standard here? No one is saying the Religious Right have to send their children to public schools. No one is saying kids have to say "In God We Trust" when saying the Pledge of Allegiance. No one is saying gays have to self-confess their sexual orientation when the enlist in the military ("don't ask; don't tell"). Why is it alright to object to these impositions of our Rights, but not alright to object to them just because you go to church every Sunday? That is the issue, people. No matter how much one accuses …
Posted to A Fundamental History Lesson
-
You're right. American Democracy is in danger of a fascist take over.
Posted to A Fundamental History Lesson
-
NO one is saying that gays can’t remain closeted and deny their sexual orientation to gain acceptance into the armed forces? No one is saying that as long as gays “pass” for straight they can’t serve their nation and be treated with proper human respect. Where have you been for the past decade? The gay community has long objected to this policy, ever since its inception....
Posted to A Fundamental History Lesson
-
You do understand what a double standard is? If it is alright to tell one group of people to just deal with it ( No one is saying the Religious Right have to send their children to public schools. - your words, not mine), then why is it not alright to tell another group to just deal with it? Why do gays have rights to object and advocate a change in the law based on their beliefs and rights, but the religious right does not? Rights apply universally, or not at all.
Posted to A Fundamental History Lesson
-
Specific issue, please respond. Why is it wrong for parents to object to laws that allow their teenage girls to get abortions without parental notification? Why is it wrong to advocate for laws that require parental notification?
Posted to A Fundamental History Lesson
-
Do you not see how very stupid this example is? Yes, exactly. That was my point.
Posted to A Fundamental History Lesson
-
Linda Baker contends that "school choice policies sacrifice universal education in favor of personal freedom" Some interesting snippets from the article. Under the district’s open enrollment policy, over 35 percent of the Portland public school population now attends a school outside of their neighborhood.... Most schools are harmed by school choice,... Ask some of Portland’s transfer families why they left the neighborhood, and you’ll hear an invocation to academic achievement and freedom of choice... Sounds to me that Baker has just proved the point that public schools aren't delivering quality education. And the parents of Portland know it.
Posted to All for One, None for All
-
So when was school choice implemented in Portland? It seems to me that Baker is suggesting that school choice is inherently the problem, not in how school choice was rolled out. The subtitle of the article, School choice policies sacrifice universal education in favor of personal freedom bears out the impression that choice (personal freedom) is detrimental to universal education. Nowhere does Baker fault merely the implementation. I disagree that school choice itself caused the problem. How can giving parents a voice in determining which schools should be rewarded for succeeding and which schools should be put on notice for not …
Posted to All for One, None for All
-
I'm the kind that says shut 'em down if they can't perform and then they get to go to schools that do perform. Only someone who has a vested interest in the current monolithic system that can't, or won't, hold schools accountable would think that non-performers would continue to blithely exist in perpetuity.
Posted to All for One, None for All
-
A proper implementation would be to 1) set the standards, 2) provide a 2 or 3 year grace period so schools can use the money they currently have to start fixing the problems before parents start pulling their kids out, 3) put low-performers on probation for a year, 4) if, after a one year probation, force a reorganization of the school's non-teaching staff and put them into some sort of trusteeship or receivership, 5) give a reorg'ed school a set time limit to shape up, 6) close down the school if it doesn't. Now, ideally, schools would, or could, be privately …
Posted to All for One, None for All
-
In Minnesota, when I was in the meat grinder, honors classes consisted of busy work, if it was even offered. More homework for the same exact classes. In my senior year, I only had class 3 hours a day, because I had all the credits I needed to graduate, and no more classes were available. Minnesota still has a long way to go, but because there is competition, albeit limited, most schools now offer free college courses at the U for qualified juniors and seniors (in fact, I think that might even be mandated by the state). My wife's two nieces …
Posted to All for One, None for All
-
When I was in the Air Force two or three decades ago, there was a legend that circulated the barracks that seems particularly appropriate to the resistance school choice is getting from entrenched educational interests. It seems a certain General Creech had come up with a new methodology for aircraft maintenance. Before, each specific maintenance group was vertically integrated. For example, jet engine mechanics would all have the same OIC, regardless if they worked in-shop rebuilding engines, on the flight line making quick repairs in the aircraft, or in preventative maintenance, doing routine and regularly scheduled maintenance and systems checks. If …
Posted to All for One, None for All
-
GrayArea clouds the issue with a lot of irrelevant questions, but does make a couple very neat points. "for-profit public" education? I believe you could rephrase that with "private" education, which could arguably be the whole point. Has anyone made the case that private education is ineffective, or merely expensive? And is that not GA's second point, that education is more expensive than most people realize? Why doesn't the public realize it? Because public education has been sold as the only effective way to educate, yet it has failed. So, if we go for a solution (private, for-profit) that has demonstrably …
Posted to All for One, None for All
-
I missed this little jewel: However, the problem is not about finding effective models. No, that is exactly the problem.
Posted to All for One, None for All
-
No, it is not about finding effective models, it is about employing them for all children nationwide. Employing them for all children nationwide would be a very good measure for the effectiveness of a model, no?
Posted to All for One, None for All
-
The snide comment about the percentage of the population that was educated in the time of Plato is deceitful and GA ought to be ashamed. Plato's time didn't have public taxation to support and pay for education. School choice is not about eliminating public educational financing. It is about who gets to make the decisions.
Posted to All for One, None for All
-
GA is entirely correct in his McDonald's analogy. Public education is the Big Mac to private education's Sirloin Tip Steak. "Free" public education doesn't cost a dime, at least in the context of individual parents making educational decisions out of their own pocketbooks. Taxes are taken out for public educational costs, whether you use them or not, so the effective cost of public schools for parents are zilch. Compare that to private schools, when you have to find additional money out of your own pocket does make the comparative cost between public and private schooling outrageous. But, we are getting into …
Posted to All for One, None for All
-
In my dealings with education professionals, I have not seen widespread resistance to change Then were does all this resistance come from? Misinformed reporters? Last I heard, the NEA was adamantly opposed to ANY sort of privatization of education.
Posted to All for One, None for All
-
As I see it, the private model causes greater disparity, not less. Sounds like that Vonnegut novel, where ballerinas are shackled by heavy ball and chains so they can't be better than anyone else.
Posted to All for One, None for All
-
You have only one solution. This is the only thing that qualifies as change for you. Was privatization the solution to General Creech’s problem? Definitely not. 1) I never said this was the only solution. Only better than what we currently have 2) The Creech analogy was about entrenched mindsets. You are the one employing it to demonstrate the issue of privatization. 3) Please do not forcefeed me with the gruel you believe to be my opinions.
Posted to All for One, None for All
-
Yes, but what about someone who could afford the additional $5000 but doesn't have the choice?
Posted to All for One, None for All
-
ok, the debate is about choice, not privatization. Choice does not require privatization. Portland was about going to schools that succeed and fix or shutdown schools that don't. I have provided a successful six step implementation and examples of models that are succeeding. Why aren't they valid?
Posted to All for One, None for All
-
So, what is the solution? I see a lot of explanations why education is expensive, but I see no solutions. I see more than 1/3 of Portland's parents, when given the chance, abandoning one school for another. Regardless of the impact of what they leave behind, they ARE leaving. Again, I refer to the shackled ballerina metaphor. I, and at least 1/3 of Portland's parents, don't buy into that metaphor for our kids. It just sounds to me that a lot of time and effort is going into explaining why it is tough, but is it so tough that we must …
Posted to All for One, None for All
-
I agree with everything that Tell and GA say, except, I am a clued-in person who cares about every child's future, not just mine, and have the battle scars with entrenched teachers, school boards and admin staff to prove it. It is a political issue, not one of grand politics, but the everyday politics of life. Give me a lever and I'll move mountains. Give parents leverage, and local school boards will work the way Tell and GA infer they should. But with all the criticism about nonparticipatory politics, why does anyone think voting once every few years is sufficient leverage? …
Posted to All for One, None for All
-
If your child meets the standard, why should they be able to abandon the school that is serving them adequately? GA is right, they shouldn't. But, what if the school is NOT serving them adequately? What recourse is there? Again, 1/3 of Portland parents believe they were not being serving. Why is their democratic assessment being trivialized? As far as the shackled ballerina theory, I was a National Merit Semi-Finalist. My SAT scores were in the top 1/2%. I graduated 8 out of a class of 300. When we looked into colleges, our school counselor's only response was to quip, …
Posted to All for One, None for All
-
oops, sorry about the dangling HTML
Posted to All for One, None for All
-
Thank you for painting me an elitist. I am sure everyone else who coulda woulda excelled but had their wings clipped appreciate the deprecation. I gather that you believe those who have native talent should be left to just fend for themselves.... College applications were filled out, acceptances offered (one from Caltech), but funny thing was, they wanted money. To counter your derisive comments, yes the school failed. My scores, which you sneer at, came from native ability and two parents who actually cared. I learned my math and science and literature skills from books they provided, and the time they …
Posted to All for One, None for All
-
Correction: The question, which never gets answered but keeps getting asked, why are parents not inherently able to make intelligent considered decisions about their children’s education?
Posted to All for One, None for All
-
Tell is absolutely right. Financial aid is critical. If we could have gotten financial aid, I would have gone to college. But it was not merely funding that hampered my primary school experience. It was a system that was unaccountable for failures. It was a system that had no incentive to do better than show up for work. Wouldn't it have been great if my folks could have qualified for financial aid for primary school? Wouldn't it have been great if the school lost funding, funding that kept them extant into perpetuity, because they failed? How quickly would they sing a …
Posted to All for One, None for All
-
A lot has been said about how expensive education is; a lot has been inferred that it is going to take money to address the problems illuminated by the abandonment of the school system exemplified by 1/3 of Portland's parents. But those who believe in the status quo are still offering real excuses, not real solutions. Yet, in communities where choice has given parents a real lever, as real as Title VII was in forcing schools to deal with special needs, solutions started to happen. Real effective solutions that didn't cost a dime! I have previously described what one school system …
Posted to All for One, None for All
-
There is a quote from Samuel Adams, that famed American Revolutionary Street Fighter and Rapscallion, that I can’t remember exactly, but certainly applies here. He would trust the instincts of the common man over the learned thoughts of an educated man. Jefferson, that consummate educator, held similar beliefs on the validity of the intelligence of the instinctive common man. This is not to argue that learned education is a bad thing. Education, itself, is morally neutral. But, like every other tool that man has created for himself in the past 100,000 years, the telling is in the utility. It is intrinsic …
Posted to All for One, None for All
-
Mike from Portland says, "Only a special few kids are lucky enough to get into the programs. And, inevitably, these are overwhemingly kids of privilege. Why? It sounds like Portland's experiment is a failure of implementation, not necessarily of choice. If the intent of the program is to provide choice for all, but not all are getting the choice, then let's discuss why. 1)Their parents have the wherewithal to research various educational offerings and apply to get into the programs they find most attractive, Why is this information not being provided to all parents? Is it impossible to gather this …
Posted to All for One, None for All
-
Sounds like we are talking mechanics here, not policy.
Posted to All for One, None for All
-
Mike, I am not from Portland, or anywhere near it. All I know about this particular situation is what has been said thus far. My impression has been that Portland changed policies to allow more choice for parents. When you say boutique, what does that mean in Portland? What additional costs have been incurred to be a boutique school as opposed to, I don't know, what? Are we talking about schools that specialize in math or science or language or arts? If so, what is inherently wrong with that? Yes, there are educational basics, but one size does not fit all. …
Posted to All for One, None for All
-
Mike, I agree wholeheartedly that ANY education system by lottery is not only stupid, but criminal. That is the second worst way of allocating resources.
Posted to All for One, None for All
-
Money is most definitely not the issue. Anyone watch the show on PBS about Fixing Our Schools. They showed three or four school success stories and another three or four district wide success stories. Bottom line was it wasn't about the bottom line. In every case, it was about schools (principles, administrators, teachers) breaking out of traditional duties and trying something different. To beat a dead horse, it is very difficult to impose change or force innovation if there is no motivation to break out of old habits. Giving parents control over the purse strings and let them drive is the …
Posted to All for One, None for All
-
Correction: principals, not principles. Although, it is true either way.
Posted to All for One, None for All
-
in the trenches, One thing that often gets lost in debates like this is recognition of all the unsung heroes who are actually providing our children with an education. And, yes, you are heroes. I have a four year old and I know how hard it is with just one! God knows anyone reading my postings don't hear much sympathy or appreciation as I argue my points. But it is there, strongly felt. I know several elementary teachers and count several as good friends. They feel the same as you, dedicated, excited and frustrated. So, if anything I have written sounds …
Posted to All for One, None for All
-
in the trenches, Also, any teaching advice would be greately appreciated. I start next week as a volunteer tutor in one of the local schools next week.
Posted to All for One, None for All
-
Check out the Edison Schools. They are a for-profit school system (NASDAQ EDSN) with 1/3 million students in half the states and successfully serve in disproportionately lower income school districts. Who says profit don't work?
Posted to All for One, None for All
-
Long term does not necessarily equate to permanent. Before World War II, America had no bases in Germany. The bases that were built after WWII were there first to manage the reconstruction of Europe, and then to stop an anticipated Soviet assault on Europe. Since the Fall of the Berlin Wall in 1989 and the Fall of Soviet Communism, many, if not most of those bases have been decommissioned. There is no reason to assume that the same won't happen once the parallel and twin goals of democracy in the Middle East and the Defeat of Terrorism has been accomplished. …
Posted to Permanent Occupation
-
As for Iran, that nascent democracy (You can vote at the age of FIFTEEN in Iran), they’ve adamantly refused to be intimidated. Yeah, you can vote for whomever you want, as long as they have been vetted by the Mullahs first.
Posted to Permanent Occupation
-
“Long Term” if you like. Nothing is permanent except God. C'mon David. You are usually the voice of reason here, or at last due consideration. When someone differentiates between long term and permanent, they generally mean two different things. Most countries have some vetting procedure for candidacy in elections. David... There is a difference between bases in a country and an occupation of a country Yes, and in Germany and Japan the transition from occupation and basing was after a viable government was in place. Iraq is still going through its own version of constitutional congresses, as in, they are …
Posted to Permanent Occupation
-
Correction: (I keep telling myself to do a better job proofreading...) You are usually the voice of reason here, or at least due consideration. not You are usually the voice of reason here, or at last due consideration.
Posted to Permanent Occupation
-
David, Ok, fair is fair. The USA and Britain used incomplete evidence and persuasion to provide justification for an provoked and justified invasion and occupation of Iraq. You're right. It is all just semantics.
Posted to Permanent Occupation
-
The people of Iraq should have a right to say if they want American forces in Iraq and that right should be expected. A recent Pew poll showed that over 70% of the Iraqi people want the American forces to stay.
Posted to Permanent Occupation
-
So, polls show Iraqi's overwhelmingly support American troops in Iraq, but Americans don't.
Posted to Permanent Occupation
-
And, to clarify this as well, It is not just semantics. Exactly, David. That was my point from the start when I asked you to be reasonable. Do you believe the invasion and occupation was justified? Yes What did Iraq do to provoke this invasion and occupation? 1) invaded Kuwait 2) lost both wars, signed an internationally recognized and legally binding unconditional surrender 3) 12 years of thumbing his nose at UN Resolutions and that unconditional surrender 4) using WMD against his own people, killing 100,000s 5) brutally supressing the Shi'ite and Kurdish uprisings that followed the first war, expressly forbidden …
Posted to Permanent Occupation
-
Re: What Arabs on the Street are saying: http://www.wilsoncenter.org/index.cfm?fuseaction=wq.essay&essay_id=135776 "This past March, al-Jazeera broadcast a discussion with four leading Arab intellectuals on the results of an online survey about the “priorities of the Arab street.” While Palestine predictably placed first in the poll, with 27 percent, “reform” was a very close second with 26 percent, followed by human rights at 11 percent and poverty at 10 percent. (The U.S. occupation of Iraq, terrorism, and Islamic extremism all failed to clear the 10 percent threshold.) "
Posted to Permanent Occupation
-
David, Yeah, you are right. When they vote us out of the country, it'll definitely be put up or shut up for our stated intent. I've no doubts to our response, but I'm no better a prognosticator than anyone else.
Posted to Permanent Occupation
-
The weapons inspectors were there doing there job and doing it well. Saddam was disarmed. No weapons of mass destruction have been found. The weapons inspectors were told to leave Iraq when an attack by the USA was imminent. 1) Weapons inspectors also complained that Saddam was playing shell games with them 2)none were found because Saddam wouldn't let them do their job. 3) Now, when were the inspectors kicked out? Wasn't Clinton President then? What was his battle plans?
Posted to Permanent Occupation
-
November 18, 2002 - UNMOVIC resumed Iraq weapons inspections after almost 4 year absence. 4 years absence?? Let's see, that would be.. borrow from the '0'... 1998? Why were the inspectors AWOL from 1998 (when Clinton was President) to nearly 2003? And why did they wait to return until it was apparent that war was, if not imminent, then clearly very probable? Could it be their being AWOL had more to do with suffering under Saddam's pleasure? Could it be that, far from the inspectors being forced out because of war drums, that after four years they were brought in for …
Posted to Permanent Occupation
-
David, You make it sound like the 2003 Iraqi War just happened out of the blue. But in fact, the war drums, or at least the fear of war drums, were being sounded in the spring of 2002, after the successful Afghanistan War.
Posted to Permanent Occupation
-
War is the last action of a failed diplomacy. It failed because Saddam was never serious about it. Just as diplomacy ultimately failed with Hitler. I think that war is sometimes the only answer. Hitler and Saddam come to mind, if only because it was the only "diplomacy" they understood. Chamberlain sincerely believed in Hitler's sincerity as you apparently believe about Saddam's sincerity. That isn't meant to be a put down or a reflection on you, just on Saddam.
Posted to Permanent Occupation
-
David, 's cool.
Posted to Permanent Occupation
-
"Libya was hit with missiles by the USA for refusing to hand over some of its citizens for trial when they said there was no case for those citizens to answer." Being stationed in Germany when L.I.B.Y.A. meant Lakenheath Is Bombing Your Arse, I remember that the bombing of Libya (April 1986) was in response to the West Berlin Disco Bombing that killed many American serviceman. This was three years before Lockerbie (December 1989).
Posted to Reckoning with the God Squad
-
The ability to quote Plato does not make one right. Remember, Plato also thought that societies should be ruled by philosopher-kings who had the right of sovereignty by virute of being smarter than the rest of us. To say one has the ability to think, that one seeks objective truth, and then back it up with comments that are over-the-top conspiracy theories about "unelected leaders" and that "straospheric elite...steer(ing) the frightened herd towards the cliff", is about as disingenuous and counterproductive to intelligent discourse as you can get. It is no different than saying God exists because without a God, there …
Posted to Reckoning with the God Squad
-
Bill Moyers says, --- "Having lost faith in all else, zealots have nothing left but a holy cause to please a warrior God. They win if we become holy warriors, too; if we kill the innocent as they do; strike first at those who had not struck us; allow our leaders to use the fear of terrorism to make us afraid of the truth; cease to think and reason together, allowing others to tell what’s in God’s mind. Yes, we are vulnerable to terrorists, but only a shaken faith in ourselves can do us in." --- Yea, verily. --- Yet the …
Posted to Reckoning with the God Squad
-
Response to all three DOTs from ljwhit. Yea, who doesn't know that? You don't need a top-secret crypto clearance to "ferret" that out. Typical conspiracy nuts believe they know everything and everyone else is just dumb, blind and stupid. I believe the medical terminology is 'delusions of grandeur'. Did you know General of the Potomac Army George McClellan, affectionately known as "Little Mac" or unaffectionately as "Little Napoleon", advocated a dictatorship (ie military coup) to rescue us from Lincoln's simple-mindedness? And did you know that he was the Democratic presidential candidate running against Lincoln in 1864? Did you know that Vice …
Posted to Reckoning with the God Squad
-
One additional note:
"You are aware, are you not, that less than 1% of our population owns more than 50% of the wealth in our nation. Ponder for a while the implications of that. That, to my mind, is not exactly the kind of society that our founders had in mind."
umm, you mean the kind of country where free men can aspire to be something? where free men can keep the fruits of their labors?
Did you know that nearly all of the really big tycoons in American history, started out with practically nothing?
Yeah, I …
Posted to Reckoning with the God Squad
-
God, I just can't let this alone. The more I read of ljwhit, the more I am left dumbfounded. --- Clearly on of the most questionable elections was the election of 1800, when Jefferson and the aforementioned Burr tied in the electoral college. It had to be decided in the House of Representatives. --- Per explicit clauses in the US Constitution. --- Just like the elections of 2000 and 2004. --- Don't need no stinkin' conspiracy theory to understand that...
Posted to Reckoning with the God Squad
-
The vacuous rodentia says, "Let’s not go there, unless you seriously don’t know what Rabbit is talking about when he says that the USA, solely responsible for the hatred held for it by not merely religious Iranians but the secular ones as well." --- Bull. Most of the Iranian people are admirers of American Democracy. --- rabbit says, "Iran is being backed into a corner and it is only natural they would seek Nuclear weapons for their defence." --- Bull. Just because a man who would rob a bank believes he needs a gun, is no reason why we are obligated …
Posted to Reckoning with the God Squad
-
Moyers reports, "We know we can go through the Bible and construct a God more pleasing to the better angels of our nature. We also know that the “violence-of-God” tradition remains embedded deep in the DNA of monotheistic faith. Inside that logic you cannot read part of the Bible allegorically and the rest of it literally; if you believe in the virgin birth of Jesus, his crucifixion and resurrection, and the depiction of the Great Judgment at the end times you must also believe that God is sadistic, brutal, vengeful, callow, cruel and savage-that God slaughters." --- Really? Why must we …
Posted to Reckoning with the God Squad
-
And if such evidence exists, then we must, by Moyers' own logic, paint the Iranian mullahs with the same brush that he would paint the American religious right. --- After all, they share the same Father Abraham.
Posted to Reckoning with the God Squad
-
Question: If we attacked Libya because they wouldn't turn over suspects, how is it that the retalitory attack in 1986 happened before the 1989 Lockerbie crime? But, of course, you are right when you say, "The official story that nineteen Arab men of fundamentalist Muslim persuasion hijacked four airliners and flew them into the WTCs and Pentagon, is a CONSPIRACY THEORY." And the evidence that Iran provided the muscle men for the four hijacked planes is mere conspiracy theory as well, supplied by an senior offical Iranian defector. Well, that can't be true. Defectors are never reliable. Rabbit talks a lot …
Posted to Reckoning with the God Squad
-
Without 9/11, that'd be great. --- But it did. Blaming Bush, Inc is just sour grapes.
Posted to Reckoning with the God Squad
-
ljwhit, --- Ok, fair is fair. --- Let us define hypocrisy, then. For the sake of the argument, let us say Nagasaki, Hiroshima, Latin American death squads, Philippine massacres are all concrete evidence of American evil. Let us also add Dresden, Wounded Knee, Lincoln's abolishment of habeas corpus and Adam's Sedition Acts. --- Let us also assume that they all justify, or at least, legitimize by example, the 9/11 attacks. --- Is it then not also true that the 9/11 attacks themselves justify, or at least, legitimize by example, everything America has done in the name of the War on Terrorism? …
Posted to Reckoning with the God Squad
-
just testing html formatting on this blog
Posted to Reckoning with the God Squad
-
Forgive me for a moment as I weed through toxic dung pellets as I search for Vorpal Bunny nuggets firm enough to respond to. When VB states, Iranians who have not engaged in violence or even threatened it against the USA. and then argues that evidence of Iranian malfeasance in providing the muscle for 9/11 "does not actually make the world of difference to My overral (sic) contention" , I can then only conclude that VB a) has lost grip with reality, b) is a fool and really doesn't understand, or c) is the criminal mastermind behind all of VB and …
Posted to Reckoning with the God Squad
-
Well, dung appears to be as prolific as bunnies here. The only nugget of worth appears to be ljwhit's assertion that less than 1% does not conflict with .25%. True. But neither is fact and neither is opinion. The statistics provided are just plain wrong. If one is to engage in the "pursuit of truth", one must get the facts straight, regardless of whether you are talking about distribution of wealth or timeline causality. I do not disagree that my opinions on the value of equal outcomes vs equal opportunities are in fact opinions. But your opinions are just that. Opinions. …
Posted to Reckoning with the God Squad
-
whit, Is it hypocrisy to go after a group of terrorists and their infrastructure and their sponsors after they murder 3000 people in cold blood? Is it hypocrisy, in a time of war, to use a weapon, against an intransigent enemy, that kills 100,000 people but saves the lives of a million soldiers? Is it hypocrisy to criticize the current commander-in-chief for the deaths of 1800 soldiers, but to criticize a previous C-in-C for saving 1,000,000? Is it hypocrisy to call an act of war, such as the dropping of the A-bomb, an act of terrorism, but to assert that an …
Posted to Reckoning with the God Squad
-
After going back and rereading all the postings, I realize the comments directed at wolf and beast are being sent my way. Apologies for not adopting a animistic token. I am just plain Jay. When I became a man, I gave up childish mannerisms. Any comments meant for me should be so posted. As far as ignoring 9/11 allegations on this posting, I haven't seen any credible ones yet. Any response I might make to allegations made thus far, prior to Mr. Christopher's latest post, has already been offered by my comments about conspiracy wingnuts. But if you can make any …
Posted to Reckoning with the God Squad
-
In response to Mr. Christopher: (note: if I misrepresent anything you have said, please feel free to enlighten me. Buddha happens to be one of my heroes) The point of contention that the Bush administration has used 911 as it’s modus operandi, so to speak, is well taken and pointing out the dubious nature of the facts as presented by the 911 panel is most apropos. Two problems there. First, is the obvious. Yes, 9/11 was the reason for America's subsequent action in the Middle East. If the contention is that Bush, Inc allowed, encouraged or even actively participated in creating …
Posted to Reckoning with the God Squad
-
ljwhit, Are you saying it is a crime to pursue al Qaeda? How so? Is it a crime to arrest criminals? Do not police employ force to arrest criminals? Do we arrest the police for breaking and entering when executing an arrest warrant? And to answer the inevitable question, yes, I see America as the de facto world police. If not us, then who? If not now, when? So, it is hypocrisy to attempt to prevent nuclear proliferation? Just because we have them, so must everyone else? It'd be great if we could put the genie in the bottle. Stupidity and …
Posted to Reckoning with the God Squad
-
Rabbit, Put up or shut up. Your shrieking calls for facts belay the fact that the facts you present are mere opinions and you have yet to provide facts. Bite me, you overgrown rodent.
Posted to Reckoning with the God Squad
-
David, Thank you for clarifying that is your opinion. Too many people here are presenting their conclusions as facts. For example, the continued repetition that 9/11 was orchestrated by high level US officials without providing a shred of evidence. With regard to your opinion, I believe you are wrong and will continue to believe that until you provided substantive evidence to the contrary. But, just because our opinions differ, does not put are beliefs on an equal basis. You must provide the facts proving U.S. involvement in 9/11. As Lincoln once said, I cannot prove a negative. That is illogical. …
Posted to Reckoning with the God Squad
-
David, Correction. That should read, does not put our beliefs on an equal basis.
Posted to Reckoning with the God Squad
-
LB, LB, If we are going after the wrong group of terrorists, then who are the right ones. Again, the only argument being made here is with references to facts without actually providing them. Thank you for the conditional agreement on dropping the bombs on Japan. When evidence is presented that this was not the case, I'll address it. I disagree about your Careful analysis comment. ljwhit used the A-bomb reference to argue against the morality of American actions in the Middle East after 9/11 and bunny face has argued that America has no legitimate reason for accusing Middle East terrorists …
Posted to Reckoning with the God Squad
-
To all, I apologize for my crude remarks to the Rabbit. But as Bill Moyers has said here, bullies cannot be appeased. they must be confronted
Posted to Reckoning with the God Squad
-
David, You are a gentleman. I apologize if you got caught in the line of fire during my moment of pique. There would be three points I would bring up in response to your questions: First, I would not characterize the 9/11 Commission as the "Official" investigation, but only in the sense that it gives the Commission authoritative status that they did not live up to. Yes, it sounds like hair splitting, but it is a difference that makes a difference. And I personally so love splitting hairs. The Administration, the Executive Branch, certainly disagreed with much of what was criticized, …
Posted to Reckoning with the God Squad
-
David, My gut reaction to your observations is that the first two, without knowing more detail, could very easily be and, in the absence of any substantive evidence, very probably is coincidence. But one would have to gather info on the history of such events and do some statistical comparison. Can you give me a little more detail or reference points for further research, especially on the stock options? Skepticism does not equate to closed-mindedness. Having spent time in the military and participating in too many alerts and exercises, I can only say I do not find it surprising that at …
Posted to Reckoning with the God Squad
-
prisonplanet.com give me a break. Next thing they'll be saying is that the Indian Ocean Tsunami was a deliberate act of war using massive weather machines. Oh, wait. They are already saying that. Silly me.
Posted to Reckoning with the God Squad
-
lb, "Japan was probably prepared to surrender on conditional terms-but the United States would accept only unconditional surrender." Probably? If I use the word probably, would you believe me? Japan was probably stalling, hoping the Americans would lose their resolve and turn tail and run. I am not saying it is true. But it probably is as true as what you claim. Those same intercepts clearly show Japan was digging in for a final victory or death struggle. Read that and weep.
Posted to Reckoning with the God Squad
-
whit, Thanks for doing your homework. Your statitics now match the statistics that I provided a couple days ago. Question. Seriously. At what level do you believe those statisics wuld be reasonably equitable?
Posted to Reckoning with the God Squad
-
whit, I would rather have 1% of a 16 inch pie than 20% of a dime-sized cupcake. I'll say it one more time. The history of economic systems in the 20th century clearly shows free-market systems far surpassing command systems.
Posted to Reckoning with the God Squad
-
whit, I don't suppose you could give me a Reader's Digest version? I don't think I can finish all that in just a couple days. Basic scientific and mathematically principle: The more concise the theory, the more elegant the explanation, the more likely the truth. I believe someone by the name of Occam devised a Razor like that....
Posted to Reckoning with the God Squad
-
lb, "His argument here is to show that the US does not have a monopoly on morality." If that is Rabbit's argument, then I agree. I would appreciate it if you could quote my words that say we do have a monopoly. I will happily eat them. But not having a monopoly does not mean we have none. There is nothing immoral about putting up your dukes when someone takes a shot at you. Rabbit has consistently stated that America has no right. And that I strenuously disagree.
Posted to Reckoning with the God Squad
-
whit, My first reaction to your data. Controlled demolitions wouldn't cause great explosions; Concrete will create great explosions and pulverize to a fine dust when suddenly compacted under great pressure (30-60 stories of weight would do it); 500 feet out is not that far given that the towers were over 1000 feet tall (I could probably spit that far from that high - ok, maybe not, but how far out is deep left field from third base?); it was the first structural building to ever been hit by a fully loaded large commerical jet liner; explosions are more percussive than thermal …
Posted to Reckoning with the God Squad
-
lb, Thank you for the backhanded compliment. Please understand I am fighting a multi-front war here. It is not deviousness; it is just there are at least four different points flying about to keep track of. But, "not that you made any claim of exclusive US moral righteousness". ummm, I think we need another dictionary check here. Or maybe I misunderstood you when you used the word "monopoly". www.dictionary.com says, monopoly. Exclusive possession or control. Now, I am not trying to be argumentative here. But when the points keep shifting, it is hard to keep track of.
Posted to Reckoning with the God Squad
-
whit, What's wrong with a one-trick pony? If F = ma yesterday, today, tomorrow and forever, does that mean it is not relevant? Can we do better? Yes, oh God yes! But not with the same ol' tired Animal Farm logic that has been proven wrong, over and over and over again. Churchill once said (I can't remember if I used this yet, but if I did, then you'll understand that I really like this) democracy is the worst form of governance, except for all that we have tried thus far. I feel the same way about free-market economies. I am …
Posted to Reckoning with the God Squad
-
lb, "There was real credible intel that neither military command nor the civilian population, had the logistical capacity to do so." Please connect the dots for me. Just because someone tells someone else they can't do it, how does that necessarily require that they will be listened to. If all it took was logistic capacity to wage war, we'd have the military sciences down to, well, a science. The Jews at Masada didn't have a chance in hell, only a prayer. How come they didn't give up.
Posted to Reckoning with the God Squad
-
whit, "Jay, if Rabbit hits me on the backside with a stick, am I then justified in smashing in your scull with a baseball bat?" No, of course not. But you are assuming that I accept the notion that al Qaeda wasn't the one wielding the Rabbit's stick. Sorry, but your gonna need a better sales pitch to convince me 9/11 was domestic terrorism perpetuated by Bush, Inc.
Posted to Reckoning with the God Squad
-
Nein, whit. I'm no more a religious nutcase than I am a conspiracy wingnut. Sorry to disappoint anyone's preconceived stereotypes. (I have not yet had a chance to read the articles on fascism. I have been busy with the following. But I will get to them now.)
Posted to Reckoning with the God Squad
-
(damn! only 4000 characters allowed. Give me a minute)
Posted to Reckoning with the God Squad
-
David, (9/11 conspiracy) The only two things I have been avoiding is jumping to conclusions and staying out of fur fights. I have been successful with the first, not so good at the second. We must be looking at different ducks. (from Wikipedia.org) "Occam's Razor states that one should make no more assumptions than needed. Put into everyday language, it says Given two equally predictive theories, choose the simpler. For example, a charred tree could be caused by a lightning strike or by someone who used a machine to burn the upper branches of a tree and then replanted the grass …
Posted to Reckoning with the God Squad
-
whit, (distribution of wealth debate) I quoted those stats here: Posted by Jay Cline on September 29, 2005 at 12:19 AM (page two of the postings) Actually, the top 1% of the population has 1/3 the wealth. And the top 20% has 80%. http://www.faculty.fairfield.edu/faculty/hodgson/Courses/so111/stratification/income&wealth.htm http://answers.google.com/answers/threadview?id=2050 As far as Churchill and el Duce, you really need to reread your history. As you read Churchill’s references about el Duce, have a dictionary handy to explain these three words, sarcasm, irony, pragmatism. Oh, and British wit. Churchill was a consummate democrat, and a Brit with a tremendous sense of wit, who has been consistently …
Posted to Reckoning with the God Squad
-
whit, (justification of Iraq War debate) Was Saddam directly involved with al Qaeda in 9/11? Probably not. Did Saddam knowingly provide the kind of financial support toward 9/11 or a 9/11-type attack on par with quasi-official Saudi resources? Probably not. Did Saddam knowingly provide direct logistic support for 9/11 preparations like Iran? Possible but not currently known with certainty. Did Saddam provide rear echelon support after Afghanistan like Pakistani intelligence services and certain Pakistani tribes? (sorry, trick question - we never gave him the chance) Did Saddam support terrorist groups? Absolutely. Not just during the time frame in question (late 90s …
Posted to Reckoning with the God Squad
-
lb, (international law enforcement and national sovereignty) “You’re argument implies that the US is the cop and Iran is the criminal. You are certainly not arguing the reverse, are you? The truth is they are sovereign nations. The analogy is not apt. It is apples and oranges.” No, I disagree. Sovereignty is not sacrosanct. Iran’s democracy has been hijacked by thugs. The only sovereignty they can claim is one of possession by threat of physical harm. How can America justify taking police-like action against a sovereignty with that kind of undemocratic foundation? Because their actions are morally wrong and because the …
Posted to Reckoning with the God Squad
-
All, Look. We are not going to see eye to eye on this. That’s fine. I’ve made my viewpoints clear. The war on terrorism is just, Iraq was a legitimate part of it. I have seen no authoritative evidence to believe that 9/11 was not committed by al Qaeda. Nor have I seen any good argument why Saddam and the Iranian mullahs should not be held culpable and accountable for aiding and abetting terrorists as they used them for their own proxies. I see nothing immoral about fighting the good fight. And I just can’t be convinced of conspiracy theories that …
Posted to Reckoning with the God Squad
-
whit, Here you go again, J, with the double standards… whatever we do is justified. Remember at all the discussion of hypocrisy? No, whit, I never said that either. I am not the one generalizing. Just because I say our response to 9/11 was justified does not imply in anyway that I believe everything we do is justified. You did see my response to your rather sarcastic Gott mit Uns?, didn't you? Therein lies the hypocrisy I was alluding to. Anyone making such grand sweeping generalization sees the world in black and white. And despite allegations to the contrary, I …
Posted to Reckoning with the God Squad
-
whit, While I don’t agree the situation is as dire as Mr. Bigioni portrays, I certainly am not a fan of corporatism. Corporatism, or oligarchy or monopoly, is not the same as free-market theory. In fact, they are very much opposite. I fully support the anti-trust laws that brought down Rockerfeller, Gates, etc. (you did understand my reference to, and comments about, Churchill’s quote about democracy, no?) As Bigioni says, “Neither Germany nor Italy had effective antitrust laws, and the proliferation of business associations was generally encouraged by government.”, but his very next sentence is a little exaggerated, “This was an …
Posted to Reckoning with the God Squad
-
To all, A little not-so-preemptive strike. If you are sincere in your belief that I am ducking questions, if you are sincere that you want me to respond to your assertions, please drop the personal insults and start formulating coherent paragraphs of at least a 7th grade level... That is why I do not respond to (or even read) bunnies' comments. lb is next on my boycott list. I can get better poetry from Uyghur poets imprisoned in Chinese jails. Actually, that isn't fair. There is some extraordinary poetry coming from that part of the world. You really gotta read this: …
Posted to Reckoning with the God Squad
-
whit, No, I was referring to the mullahs who, after the 1979 revolution, use secret police to stifle oppostition and have final say on who can run from elected office. What kind of democracy do you have when one political party has that authority? You have a one party democracy. And if I had ever expressed admiration for the Shah, then I would absolutely be a hypocrit. Might does not make right. That is why sovereignty that was grabbed by force of arms is not necessarily legit. Therefore not sacred. The modern notion of sacred sovereignty was based on 19th century …
Posted to Reckoning with the God Squad
-
whit, I do apologize for some of the earlier heavy handed sarcasm. Going with the whit-less snark was probably the most egregious. I had great difficulty with the onslaught from Rabbit. David was a splash of cold water and I have attempted to be more civil. I believe I have been honest and forthright characterizing my opinions as opinions. But it is difficult when I get repeatedly blindsided by assignments to my beliefs that I never made (Gott mit Uns and "hanging" with the Shah are the most recent ones).
Posted to Reckoning with the God Squad
-
whit, However, I will not do other people's homework. If someone has a point to make, then make it. I believe it to be very disingenuous to make a conclusion and then substantiate it by sending all those who disagree to volumes of books or google references and other resources. All that does is shut the debate down. I appreciate the technical info you did provide on 9/11. I have not yet had a chance to investigate. But (no sarcasm intended here) an accurate bibliographical reference to that specific data would be appreciated.
Posted to Reckoning with the God Squad
-
whit, I hope no offense was taken by the last couple posts. None was intended...
Posted to Reckoning with the God Squad
-
correction: to stifle oppostition and have final say on who can run for elected office. not, to stifle oppostition and have final say on who can run from elected office.
Posted to Reckoning with the God Squad
-
Having not yet studied Hayek, I will comment that he does a remarkable job of expounded his viewpoint, in his own word, without extraneous references to other peoples works. A bibliography should be just that, a bibliography. If I were to have any respect for Hayek, it would be that he is competent enough to make his own points. As far as David's straight line and infinite curved line and using smokescreens and subterfuge - yes, but to prove a conspiracy, you need more than the assertation that, is it not possible and probable that evil men, knowing these principles (ie. …
Posted to Reckoning with the God Squad
-
One of whit's earlier posts mentioned molten steel on ground zero as evidence of a conspiracy, or at least that the official explanation is wrong. The conclusion of this, as I have been reading on some of the web sites previously referenced, is that because steel melts at temperatures between 2300-2800 F. and jet fuel burns in the combustion chamber of a jet engine at 1500 F, that this supports a controlled demolition theory of WTC. Also, those that advocate a controlled demolition theory point out that these pools of molten steel were so hot, that they lasted for days, weeks. …
Posted to Reckoning with the God Squad
-
At full capacity, the planes that struck the WTC carried not 100,000 litres. Spread out across 4000 square meters, that thins out to a pool of jet fuel 2.5 centimetres thick. Soaked into carpet (which would increase the surface area by at least several times, thus decreasing the thickness by an equal measure), that would be fairly thin indeed. Also, petroleum fuels, when burning, only burn at the substrate just above the level of the liquid fuel, where the fuel and oxygen mix.
Posted to Reckoning with the God Squad
-
The point is jet fuel can burn at significantly higher temperatures, sufficiently high enough to weaken the steel structure, thus not requiring more complex theories to explain.
Posted to Reckoning with the God Squad
-
Correction: truck the WTC carried not quite 100,000 litre not truck the WTC carried not 100,000 litre
Posted to Reckoning with the God Squad
-
Did the passport ride the "train" down with the rest of the building, or did it get blown out at some point with the thousands of reams of paper before the building got that hot?
Posted to Reckoning with the God Squad
-
Or, presumably, if this was a passport of one of the terrorists, it would have been with the terrorist at the moment of impact. When the fuel tanks exploded and released the flood of fuel into the building, that flood would have gushed downward. The passport would have been at least a couple floors above the most intense heat.
Posted to Reckoning with the God Squad
-
Natalie, Thank you.
Posted to Reckoning with the God Squad
-
David, I don't know. Is it relevant? I thought the issue was that the passport shouldn't have even survived. My apologies for not understanding.
Posted to Reckoning with the God Squad
-
Q. How many government bureaucrats does it take to change a light bulb? A) None. 1) it isn't in their union contract 2) that's someone else's job 3) I'm on my lunch break
Posted to Reckoning with the God Squad
-
lb, I stand corrected :)
Posted to Reckoning with the God Squad
-
signing off
Posted to Reckoning with the God Squad
-
The New Deal was about getting people back on their feet, not creating lifelong subsistence programs. Considering that the objections from the other side of the aisle has substantially been against the perpetuation of welfare states, and not against lifting people up, it would not surprise me in the least if we would finally get a more progressive conservativism out of a party that has been mostly about reactionary conservatism. click here I hit a 4000 character wall on this one... Here is an abbreviated version. ... the aftermath of Katrina destroyed much more (than a city). Katrina destroyed the …
Posted to Will History Repeat Itself?
- Joined September 19, 2005
- Last Visit January 10, 2007
Other Profiles
IN THESE TIMES COMMUNITY MEMBERS
- 1.
- 2.
- 3.
- 4.
- 5.
- 6.
Ignoring Outrage, Obama Set to Expand Pentagon Presence in Colombia
- 7.
- 8.
- 9.
- 10.
RSS Feed