Yes, you all know who he is. I will now respond to the two questions he's been howlingly repeating because, y'know...why not? And the rub of it is, he probably won't understand either answer.
Response number one: The fact that I have not disagreed with his assessment of my veracity is not an indicator that what he says has worth. Rather, it's an indicator of my belief that his opinion of me is, in fact, worthless.
Response number two: He has demanded to know how any of our individual lives are hurt or worsened because of the actions of George W. Bush...a man who needlessly launched a war that's resulted in the deaths of 1600+ Americans and thousands upon thousands of innocent Iraqis. The answer is quite simple:
"No man is an island, entire of itself; every man is a piece of the continent, a part of the main; if a clod be washed away by the sea, Europe is the less, as well as if a promontory were, as well as if a manor of they friends or of thine own were; any man's death diminishes me, because I am involved in mankind; and therefore never send to know for whom the bell tolls; it tolls for thee."
--John Donne
And thus am I Donne with the clod.
PAD
Posted by Peter David at June 7, 2005 09:19 PM | TrackBack | Other blogs commentingIf I said you murdered your own mother or eat rocks for lunch every day, you'd give specifics that would prove me wrong. Since you chose instead to change the subject, I'll just say ... thank you for admitting you are a liar!
As for the rest of your post, you can site irrelevant quotations, but you STILL cannot name one single solitary SPECIFIC way that Bush has made your own life worse!
But rather than admit I am right, you obfuscate. Typical liberal.
Guess what, "PAD"? I am not going away! You're "Donne" with me? Funny -- for a pun, the lowest form of humor. But I'll be testing that claim in the months to come. I have no doubt it's another one of your lies.
So, my question about all of this is - are we going to see some classic villains in the new Spider-Man comic? I've been out of the game for a while, so I don't know if The Vulture is viable anymore, but I think it'd be cool to see him.
Of course, new characters are wholly welcome (and somewhat expected).
Wow, talk about someone who needs to get a life. Hey, X-Ray, it is summer, time to come out of the basement and enter life. Or do you specifically enjoy making an ass of yourself in this forum?
I will be happy to answer how the BushCo. War has changed my life: people I know have died in Iraq because of his rush to war, his inability to stabilize the country, and his simplistic approach to foreign policy. How’s that? An answer enough for you? Or how about this: he had to spend time reading your ranting posts, which has come about because of his view of Bush and your mindless rants. That would make anyones life worse.
I invite you to come visit our site, usually a Macintosh publication, but we do have writer’s blogs in which both the liberal and fanatic, I mean, conservative viewpoints are argued. We would love to have you, as our writers will be sure to spend the time to HAMMER your childish and naïve viewpoints into the ground.
"And thus am I Donne with the clod."
Well Donne, Peter! Try as he might, there's is no recovery from that.
Mark
Someone said, "People I know have died in Iraq because of his rush to war."
Were these people forced to join the military by Bush, or did they volunteer?
They volunteered.
Did they have any inkling that when they joined the military, they might one day go to war, no matter WHO was President?
Of course. Bush did not invent war.
Were they ashamed of their service in Iraq, or proud?
I'd imagine they were proud.
Finally .. what "rush" to war? It took well over a year to "rush" to war!
As for the rest of your post, you can site irrelevant quotations, but you STILL cannot name one single solitary SPECIFIC way that Bush has made your own life worse!
Well, I know this doesn't effect PAD but...
Bush pulled the law that made close captioning on ALL television shows mandatory. The only shows required to do CC now are news and educational programs. Most networks are still doing it volintarily (some with corporate sponsorship). This is one area where I must actually praise Fox for keeping captioning on The Simpson... (and in true Matt Groening style sometimes actually hiding new jokes. You're missing out! Ha-ha.)
Though, as a hearing impaired person the few networks/shows that decide not caption anymore... it effects me suverely. Not only that and when I'm in school it REALLY pisses off the woman in apartment above me and the guy next to me if I watch some shows after 8 pm.
And for me that's the tip of the iceberg.
I can see how that might be annoying, but I really don't think it's a basis on which to judge a President. Or to say BUSH SUCKS, as Mr. David is wont to do.
If it's REALLY the tip of the iceberg, then why not tell us your "big" beef with Bush?
"The fact that I have not disagreed with his assessment of my veracity is not an indicator that what he says has worth. Rather, it's an indicator of my belief that his opinion of me is, in fact, worthless."
An excellent strategy, President Dukakis!
NOTE FROM YOUR EVER-PATIENT HOST: Hi, folks. PAD here. Just so no one gets confused, I did a fast check and the posting herein is just the village idiot posting under another name. Typical troll strategy--create fake IDs to make it seem he has allies.
I'll be the first to admit that I do not follow politics. But I seem to recall A LOT of people talking about Clinton trying to cover up the Lewinski thing by sending troops where they didn't belong.
I've lost friends who went off to war in Iraq as well, and other military friends I have who have come back to the states since agree that the war was not necessary and that keeping the troops in Iraq for an indefinite amount of time only adds unease to the Iraqi people.
And how can we forget about those who returned home, thinking they had finished their call of duty only to be called back overseas a few days or weeks later because Bush went into Iraq without a feasible plan for getting out once he went in and therefore must keep most of the military in for as long as possible.
What PAD is trying to say, X-Ray, is that the death of the 1600+ Americans and countless Iraqis have made his life worse off because he is compassionate (You conservatives know what compassion is, right? It's that thing W. cliams to have but really doesn't) and cares about others.
"Keeping the troops in Iraq for an indefinite amount of time only adds unease to the Iraqi people."
Is that why the Iraq's new, democratically-elected government recently asked those same troops to STAY for another year?
By the way, thank you Mr. David for pointing out that I posted under the name Peter Porker. I did it just to get you to comment, which you did! You statement that you are "Donne with me" lasted about 45 minutes.
Another lie, from a liar who has yet to defend himself from the charge. Because he knows it's true!
"The death of the 1600+ Americans and countless Iraqis have made [David's] life worse off because he is compassionate."
Yet he doesn't seem to have any compassion for Bush.
Maybe it's what you'd call "selective compassion."
It's reserved for those who agree with Mr. David.
Hey Peter David!
I thought you were "Donne" with me!
So why did you make a comment under my "alias" post, then quickly REVISE that comment to make it even more nasty?
I thought you were "Donne" with me!
Guess it's just another lie to you.
"whom the bell tolls" is a pretty awesome song. X-Ray should just chill and listen to "Ride the Lightning". Much more productive use of time.
Peter, I advise you to just ignore "X-Ray" here. You should be all too familiar with how trolls work--they just want to get a rise out of their targets, in this case, you. Unfortunately, you've already played right into his/her plan by making a whole new post about him, and then pointing out the "Peter Porker" thing. There are a lot of idiots out there, but if you ignore them, they might lose interest and just go away on their own. Or, more to the point, ignore them because you shouldn't really care about what they say.
I hate that people like x-ray can make me change my whole way of thinking. But he/she/it is such an ass-hole, and goes about things all wrong, that there is NO WAY I can comment anymore because I would hate for people to think that I am anything like that.
My brother was so scared of going to Iraq he had a breakdown and killed himself. Bush killed my brother.
"I'll be the first to admit that I do not follow politics. But I seem to recall A LOT of people talking about Clinton trying to cover up the Lewinski thing by sending troops where they didn't belong."
Oh, yeah. The R's and their mouthpeices screamed to the heavens from every radio and TV show they could everytime Clinton did anything because it was to cover for Monica. And Clinton, to his discredit, backed down to the public opinion created by the conservative echo chamber. The funny thing is that now the same people who screamed about "no war for Monica" are the same ones who sit on their fat backsides on radio and TV, pop a few pills and say over and over that Clinton has to shoulder a huge chunk of blame for 9/11 because he didn't do anything/enough.
Clinton could get bad intel and bomb a building that was near a terrorist HQ rather then the HQ itself a block away and it was, "to cover Monicagate and get it off the front page of the papers and off the evening news."
Bush can start a war on fixed intel, call it bad intel and the same voices claim that it's all good because we went in for the right reasons, we're Americans, we have God on our side, our God is bigger and stronger then theirs and, hey, it's all Clintons fault anyhow because he screwed up the intel people so much while Prez that bush was just an inocent victim in this...
Please.
Found a picture of x-ray:
http://speedo.ca/albums/sweet/789603_1.thumb.jpg
-------------
Yet he doesn't seem to have any compassion for Bush.
With you as a supporter I guess bush needs all the compassion he can get.
Way to shake spear and rattle saber. Talk about "sound and fury" but you may have aimed just a little high and maybe should have instead quoted from "My Favorite Bathtime Gurgles"
Clinton bombed an aspirin factory to take attention off Monica. People died. But so what, it's OK because Clinton is a Democrat, right? BUSH SUCKS!
While I completely disagree with the slant PAD puts on the war and on Bush, I am disgusted with the posts that caused him to respond as he did. I find PAD's thoughts challenging and helpful, whether I agree or not. So for what it is worth coming from a Bush supporting conservative, hang in there PAD.
Iowa Jim
Again, to show how Bush messed stuff up...
A repost of my post from another thread. Also, my last to X-Ray. I'll argue with somebody who can give solid ideas and can maybe change my point of veiw on some things or have theirs changed by me. But at this point X has only shown that he can come up with name calling and saying over and over that Bush won, got lots of votes and anyone who doesn't like Bush, despite constant sourcing of acts done by bush, lies told by Bush, preplanning of this war to almost ten years ago now and many other facts, only says, "Bush sucks" and responds to that.
I won't spend anymore time on a 12 year old acting like he knows something either.
Bye bye, X-Ray
"Actually, we did tell you how it made our lives worse. It's because we care about our country. We care about what the people who are in the highest offices do to/with our country as a whole and to the heart of its values. We care about what people do to the image and soul of our country. I guess that concept is beyond you. From your comments above demanding that it must be in some we directly impacting our day to day lives or $$$ rather then the country as a whole I can understand why. You are the perfect example of the modern neo-con. You're too greedy and "me" focused to see something like that. So long as you think you're getting what you want you could care less about anything or anyone else. Including the country it seems. I got mine and screw everyone else.
Sorry, but some of us kept growing after the second grade and learned that being a good American sometimes means putting the greater good above your own greed or wants. Too bad you didn't seem to do so as well."
Terrific, no thoughts on the finales of LOST and ALIAS, but (soon to be) hundreds of posts about the latest political pissing contest. Joy.
In the meantime, if you want to see a comic book showing dinosaurs attacking Noah's ark ("This event is NOT a fable and NOT a "myth"... It is a verifiable scientific FACT!") go to http://www.livejournal.com/users/theferrett/519211.html
Oy...
"So, Jerry--you admit Clinton bombed the wrong building?"
Yeah, I thought I made that clear. We got intel that had the HQ on the wrong block. It wasn't like Clinton cherrypicked intel to bomb the wrong place, declare success and, a year plus later, lost 1,600 men just to point a few difs out. Plus, Clinton even admitted the mistake. When was the last time Bush did the same thing rather then say it was somebody elses fault or have a scapegoat to sacrifice?
Okay, we'll forget about the Iraq war, where I would imagine there are several thousand National Guard and reservists who certainly didn't volunteer to be there. Or former soldiers being called back in under the stop-loss program, who already did there time and are definitely not volunteering to go back.
Let's see, how about cutting off federal funding for stem cell research, a move that is not even sitting well with Bush's own party?
How about continuing to reject the Kyoto accord, which most of the world has signed on to, even though we as Americans are producing a disproportionate amount of the Earth's greenhouse gases?
How about promoting No Children Left Behind, and then cooking the books in Texas so that high school drop-outs are reclassified so as not to appear as drop-outs thus giving the mistaken impression that the figures are actually lower? That same system is being used in umemployment figures by the way, which only reflects people collecting unemployment, disregarding the people whose benefits ran out months, or even years ago.
How about supposedly supporting right to life and pontificating about how life is sacred, ignoring the number of people who were executed in Texas while Bush was governer?
While I'm happy to invite debate from other people on this site, I should also point out that every post, good bad or annoying that I've ever made here has been under my own name. While it would be awfully easy to retreat behind an assumed name (or maybe even two!) at least I have enough courage in my convictions to stand behind them as myself. Something to think about.
X-Ray, yo.
It’s not worth it. Seriously. It just isn't. What's the point? Bunch of random postings on a random msg board making yourself angrier and angrier? Where does it end? What happens?
Nothing. Zlich. Nadda. Zip. Eventually, you get IP banned from the site and you can't post anymore. Game over, man. Game over.
Now I'm not gonna say "Move out of the basement, blah blah blah" or anything. But, seriously, take a deep breath and just consider what you're doing and how ultimately pointless and futile it all is. Making all these posts is not going to change the world, its not going to change anybody's mind, PAD is going to suddenly say “Sweet Jesus! He’s right!” and apologize for everything he’s ever done, ever. And it’s not going to help.
What you’re engaging in is one big exercise in frustration that is about as helpful as banging your head against a wall repeatedly. What are you going to get out of this, anyway?
It’s just not worth it, trust me on this one.
Why can you not block this jackass? I'm with James Lynch: ban this idiot, stop devoting posts to him and giving him a forum for his willful ignorance, and get down to what's really important, like LOST and ALIAS.
"Terrific, no thoughts on the finales of LOST and ALIAS....."
Love lost but I wanted to kill the creators by the end of the season ender. No real answers to clear up stuff from the first season and, damn it, even more new questions!!!!!!!!!
I would have come back next season anyhow!!!!!! Couldn't they have thrown us a few more bones to chew on over the summer!?!
I am the most un-political person you will ever meet. But after reading these posts, I will now vote/agree/etc. with the opposite of whatever "X" thinks.
Love lost but I wanted to kill the creators by the end of the season ender.
Hey, show a little respect: the big twist they dropped at the end involved NAMBLA Pirates. That takes some talent to come up with an idea as bizarre as that.
I am not going away! You're "Donne" with me? Funny -- for a pun, the lowest form of humor.
Well, actually, sarcasm is the lowest form of wit.
That's all I have to say.
The power of rationalization is a wonderful thing eh, X-Ray?
So nothing is Bush's fault because he didn't invent the idea of being a bonehead? I get these rationalizations on why Bush isn't to blame for everything stupid he has ever done, but what I don't get is why ANYONE likes Bush enough to come up with these denials and half truth defenses. I mean besides making sure that stem cell research doesn't cure any termianlly ill people what do Republicans get out of Bush... I mean besides his picture being beside Jesus's. The blood money from the oil goes to the Saudis and Bush's friends... I mean what do you people get out of it?
"How about cutting off federal funding for stem cell research?"
How about it? Bush did not cut off Federal funding, just the opposite. Get your facts straight.
"How about continuing to reject the Kyoto accord?"
You mean the accord that couldn't pass the US Senate even under Clinton? The accord that blames the US for the world's problems, and would cripple our economy to "fix" them? THAT accord?
"How about promoting No Children Left Behind, and then cooking the books in Texas so that high school drop-outs are reclassified so as not to appear as drop-outs thus giving the mistaken impression that the figures are actually lower?"
What are you babbling about? Proof please.
How about supposedly supporting right to life and pontificating about how life is sacred, ignoring the number of people who were executed in Texas while Bush was governer?
You mean the people who broke the law, were found guilty, and got the punishment mandated by Texas law?
"Every post, good bad or annoying that I've ever made here has been under my own name."
Hooray for you. As for me, any personal info I give would only be used for an attack against me. You see, I have the facts. Others have "feelings," and their supposed "facts" are usually slanted or outright distorted to suit their point of view. When these two fronts clash, liberals tend to go ballistic and make unwarranted personal attacks.
Perfect example: Peter David lies about Bush's vs. Kerry's grades to prove a point. I pointed this out, and was called a clod etc. by David, although he did not DENY the charge. His reasons for doing so are supercilious.
For another multiple-man from what seems to be the same Madrox, I recommended whitening the text of the troll-posts. This seems to be worth reconsidering. You could allow people to post without feeling assaulted, but you wouldn't be censoring anyone.
"After reading these posts, I will now vote/ agree/ etc. with the opposite of whatever "X" thinks."
I think you are a mature and thoughtful person!
For another multiple-man from what seems to be the same Madrox, I recommended finding SOME way of getting RID of all those pesky people who do not agree with you! You could allow people to post without feeling heard, and you would also be censoring everyone.
We don't all know who "he" is. Some of this can be pretty confusing for PAD's non-North American readers :/
-Jools
I just read that if you sign up for a Medicare drug benefit, you have to sign a paper that gets your food stamps cut. The perfect Bush plan! ...making the old folks choose between their prescriptions and food.
You gotta think that anybody coming up with this stuff has got to be a closet Satan Worshipper. All his supporters thumping their Bibles are just like X-Ray here! Their hatred is the only thing that sustains thems. They never have an original thought that isn't somehow covered in filth.
For another multiple-man from what seems to be the same Madrox, I recommended finding SOME way of getting RID of all those pesky people who do not agree with you! You could allow people to post without feeling heard, and you would also be censoring everyone.
Not if only your posts are whitened. Your text will be available to anyone who wants to read them, simply by highlighting it.
You've demonstrated a bloodlust that isn't justifiable. There's no defense against your relentless, Lennie-like anonymous agenda. Why should anyone tolerate your predatory indulgences?
"Peter, I advise you to just ignore "X-Ray" here."
Oh, I plan to. Here's the thing: I didn't want to be one of those creators who just hides behind bullet-takers rather than address people directly...even the idiot people. So I figured, y'know what? I'll answer his stupidity exactly once, in a manner so firm and clear as to demand attention. That way my conscience is clear and I don't have to feel that others are doing my work for me.
The ONLY reason I outed his alternate identity ploy is that I wanted to forestall board regulars' concerns that more trolls are starting to show up. It's just the one village idiot, doing the usual troll thing.
PAD
Clinton bombed an aspirin factory to take attention off Monica?!?
Shall I quote X-Ray again? "Where's your facts?"
Man, arguing with X-Ray is like arguing with a drunk person. I don't think any argument will change X-Ray's opinion, and we've moved from having a rational discussion on politics to a shouting match. It's probably time to move on.
For the people who felt frustrated at the end of LOST...if they gave all the answers, what then? "Okay, we're clearly in limbo/an alien planet/a massive experiment. Huh." The mystery certainly has me ready for the next episode!
As for the NAMBLA pirates, it's worth noting that the French Woman was certain that they wanted "the boy," thinking it was the newborn baby; turned out to be Walt.
Then again, Walt (who seems to have some type of psychic and reality manipulation powers) told his father that they *need* to take the raft off the Island, so whatever he faces with the pirates is presumably better than what's inside the hatch.
"Peter, I advise you to just ignore "X-Ray" here."
"Oh, I plan to."
Wow -- you're doing a bang-up job of ignoring me so far! Since you said you were "Donne" with me, this is your THIRD POST about me!
"Clinton bombed an aspirin factory to take attention off Monica?!? Shall I quote X-Ray again? "Where's your facts?"
You act as if I made that up! It's common knowledge. Clinton was CIC. He ordered an airstrike in Afghanistan on a target of his choosing. It later was revealed the strike hit only an Aspirin factory, killing several innocent people. It just happened that this "vital" airstrike just HAD to be launched right as Clinton's impeachment hearings began. An amazing "coincidence," isn't it? Wag the dog.
Cool! Imagine my excitement: I go away for 2 months, come back, and we have an Official Village Idiot! I have to say, he's very disappointing (which I suppose explains the moniker).
It reminds me of how Godzilla movies are great because they're so bad. But this guy's more like those movies that are so drearily predictable and mediocre that they're not very interesting.
At least that annoyance we had last year could present a certain amount of insight.
Shifting gears: since I missed the thread, just gotta say, loved the last Fallen Angel! Looking forward to December, and hoping it isn't shown too definitively that Lee isn't Linda.
It never fails to amaze me how people can do the net equivalents of demanding entry into someone else's living room against their wishes and defecating on the floor, and then go on to crow about it as if it were an act of righteousness.
Just one way in which GW Bush has made my life worse or more difficult? All right, then. Just one.
George W Bush made a priority of, pushed for, and got, multiple tax cuts that have significantly destabilized the economy of the country he leads. For example, he got behind the elimination of tax on corporate dividends, despite the fact that nearly two thirds of all such dividends are paid out to the wealthiest 5% of the population, and the top 0.2 percent of tax filers receive nearly as much from that one tax cut as the bottom 90 percent of filers combined.
By altering public policy to further enrich rich people, who studies show, by the way, don't go out and spend the additional monies they receive from this benefit (so spare me the trickle-down, supply-side crapola), George W Bush has made a significant contribution to the debt problems of this country, decreased the nation's borrowing power, and in turn decreased the buying power of his citizenry. Oh, and anyone with kids and a conscience now gets to wake up every morning with the knowledge that his or her kids will be taking on this unsustainable debt burden in the future, but that's really just an added bonus to the just one way.
Go ahead and tell me how it's not his fault. Go ahead and say how GWB has the best interests of the entire country at heart with this sort of foray into fiscal planning. Go ahead and show everyone just one way that the Bush tax cuts are not hurting this country.
Long-time lurker; intermittent fan of PAD's work. (Haven't read it all, but what I've read I've liked.)
Hey, X-Ray.
I don't always agree with PAD's views. But you seem to be forgetting something. You're a GUEST here, as am I, as are all the other people posting here. A Web site, or a blog, is a person's "home" on the Web. When you log on, you are entering their "home." You are a guest, and PAD is your host. ANd when you're a guest in someone's home, you're supposed to behave yourself -- to act with some measure of decorum and politeness to your host. I wouldn't walk into your home and call you a liar -- often and repeatedly.
PAD, on behalf of your other guests, I apologize for X-Ray/Peter Porker and his/her lack of understanding of the basic rules of functioning in society. Rule number one being: There's never an excuse for rudeness.
Off-topic, though, this brings an idea to mind:
"Marvel Knights" Peter Porker.
Possibilities, no?
"George W Bush made a priority of, pushed for, and got, multiple tax cuts that have significantly destabilized the economy of the country he leads."
Oh yes, it's been absolute HELL living in an economy that has expanded steadily for 14 consecutive quarters, and has exceeded 3 percent growth for 8 straight quarters.
Next?
The economy has been expanding for 14 consecutive quarters? Now THAT'S something I want to see proof of. If by expanding you mean the billionaires of America getting richer while the poor stays poor, then I agree.
Dear LDW,
Where is your apology to ME, on behalf of Mr. David, for his calling me everything from a clod to an idiot and worse, and for his being a liar? If being insulting and telling lies is OK in your "house," I don't want to go there.
Chip Stark,
"You gotta think anybody coming up with this stuff has got to be a closet Satan Worshipper. All his supporters thumping their Bibles are just like X-Ray here."
And it's outrageous generalizations like this that have you being much closer to X-Ray in your thought processes than you think.
"Their hatred in the only thing that sustains them."
People like X-Ray? Maybe. Most conservatives? Believe it or not, most conservatives just have a different viewpoint than yours. If you cannot accept that these are reasonable people who have a different viewpoint on what is correct and can help people, then you are not quite as enlightened as you think.
Brian,
"You conservatives know what compassion is, right?"
See, that would be like me saying,'You liberals know what merit and hard work are right?'
But that would be bad form.
Just because you're mad at a specific poster doesn't mean you have to paint others who disagree with you with a broad brush.
"It's that thing W. claims to have but really doesn't."
Please. There is no way you can prove this conclusively one way or the other. Just because you don't like the man doesn't mean you know him.
Tim Robertson,
"we do have writer's blogs in which both the liberal and fanatic, I mean, conservative viewpoints are argued."
And you take this occasion to show your own intolerance and immaturity. Bush got over 57 million votes. They all made their viewpoints known last November. Kindly deal.
What "proof" would you like that the economy is as I said? Try opening your mind to actual news, not "feelings" and BUSH SUCKS myopia. Try Google. Try reading a newspaper. The facts are the facts. And the facts are thus:
The U.S. economy expanded for 14 consecutive quarters and has exceeded 3 percent growth for 8 straight quarters!
The info is from the US Commerce Dept. You can look it up for yourself. Sorry, I can't give you a free subscription to the Wall Street Journal.
http://www.plausiblydeniable.com/opinion/gsf.html
GSF1 seems to be in operation here.
Just a thought....
I did what you said. Here's the info I found off of google when I looked at the American economy:
"In the 2005 State of the Union address, Bush said that more Americans are going back to work and that the economy is growing and healthy. The numbers don't necessarily support this assumption. Job growth over the last 18 months has fallen short of administration predictions by 1,703,000—more than one-third fewer jobs than the president's Council of Economic Advisers said would be created. Present employment levels show only 119,000 more individuals working than when Bush took office in 2001, which is effectively a decrease in employment rates, as the total civilian labor force grew by more than two million workers in 2004 alone, according to the Department of Labor. Additionally, the most recent data from the Census Bureau show that the average income for middle-class households has dropped by $1,525 since its peak in 2000. The labor force participation rate—the percentage of people either working or looking for work—fell in Jan. 2005 to a seasonally adjusted 65.8 percent, the lowest rate since 1988.
Sources: USA Today, "Fewer Americans participating in labor force or seeking jobs," Barbara Hagenbaugh, Feb. 6, 2005; Department of Labor, "Employment status of the civilian population by sex and age," Feb. 2005; Center for American Progress, "American Progress Report: Talking Points," Feb. 2, 2005; Center for American Progress, "On the January Employment Situation," Scott Lily, Feb. 4, 2005; "State of the Union," President Bush, Feb. 2, 2005; Economic Policy Institute, Feb. 4, 2005."
Keep your Wall Street Journal subscription.
You act as if I made that up! It's common knowledge
Kind of like the common knowledge that Saddam had WMD.
Oh, wait, he didn't! Well, shit, there goes all of my common knowledge for the day.
"Oh yes, it's been absolute HELL living in an economy that has expanded steadily for 14 consecutive quarters, and has exceeded 3 percent growth for 8 straight quarters.
Next?"
Brushing off a fact-based statement with out of context baloney isn't an answer. Spare me the obfuscation and show me how Bush cutting taxes has not hurt the me as a member of the general populace. No baloney statistics that are skewed by comparison to the post-9/11 downturn. No garbage blustering that conveniently neglects to mention how unemployment remains above 5% and payroll growth has slowed to almost nothing nationwide.
You asked for one way he has hurt me individually, and I am saying that the tax cuts he engineered is one way. Framing it in what you laughably attempt to offer as a rosy picture is not answering. I will say it again: George Bush has hurt the average taxpayer (and I am one of those, so that's me) by pushing through tax cuts that are primarily beneficial to people who already wealthy. He has contributed to more uneven distribution of wealth, and so contributed to decreased purchasing power of his citzienry. I am part of that citizenry, so I have decreased purchasing power. Address that.
I don't imagine you have a specific rebuttal, so feel free to go with more of that moronic spin you so adore.
"out of context baloney."
The issue at hand was tax cuts and the economy., so the current state of the economy is not only relevant, it is central, and quite IN context!
As for "baloney," all we have are the Commerce Dept. figures -- that's all we've ever had. One can call them baloney. But figures this good, for this long, MUST mean something.
Not necessarily that you personally are well off, though. That depends on YOU, does it not? And blaming Bush for your own shortcomings is absurd.
X-ray wrote "As for the rest of your post, you can site irrelevant quotations, but you STILL cannot name one single solitary SPECIFIC way that Bush has made your own life worse!"
Is that so? Go to any airport to board any flight nowadays.
Or how's about the Patriot Act which gives the government unlimited powers to throw your personal freedoms out the window without needing to give an explanation. Makes the McCarthy Era look positively idyllic.
Or how's about his stance on stem cell research when we're on the brink of major breakthroughs that could be stymied as a result?
And those are just three.
But I'd STILL like to go fishin' with him. Go figure.
"Kind of like the common knowledge that Saddam had WMD. Oh, wait, he didn't! Well, shit, there goes all of my common knowledge for the day."
So all common knowledge is now wrong? Wow, I guess BUSH SUCKS. Don't you people ever think of anything else?
"Go to any airport to board any flight nowadays."
Yes, that's Bush's fault, nothing to do with 9/11. Oh, but he caused that, right?
"Or how's about the Patriot Act which gives the government unlimited powers to throw your personal freedoms out the window without needing to give an explanation. Makes the McCarthy Era look positively idyllic."
Can you give me even ONE specific instance of any aspect of the Patriot Act being misused? Do you even have any idea what the law says?
"How's about his stance on stem cell research when we're on the brink of major breakthroughs that could be stymied as a result?"
What stance? You mean providing Federal Stem cell funding for the first time ever? Allowing private industry to do all the stem cell research they want to? Again, do you even know what the policy IS?
"And those are just three."
Yes, three totally false ones. Got any TRUE ones?
"Or how's about his stance on stem cell research when we're on the brink of major breakthroughs that could be stymied as a result?"
What stance? He hasn't outlawed the research. All he did was say it wouldn't be government funded. Private business would be the ones making the money off of any discoveries, so they are the ones that should be funding the research. Same with alternate energy fuel engines. Involving the government and it's money has never made things happen cheaper, in fact it's probably slowed research down.
The only thing that disappoints me more than these kinds of trollish figures are when respected individuals cave to their attention-craving. There's a reason there's the warning: "Don't feed the trolls."
PAD, you're better than this. You can't argue logic with someone who's devoid of it.
"The issue at hand was tax cuts and the economy., so the current state of the economy is not only relevant, it is central, and quite IN context!"
Incorrect. The issue at hand was NOT tax cuts and the overall economy. The issue I presented was tax cuts and their relation to the country's worsening debt problems. If you don't know the difference between debt in particular and the economy as a whole, we have no foundation for discussion. Which is no surprise.
And if you really think you have a point, your inherent supposition is that so long as the economy is growing, a debt problem that is worsening right along with it is not an issue.
Needless to say, you've not answered my original statement.
"As for "baloney," all we have are the Commerce Dept. figures -- that's all we've ever had. One can call them baloney. But figures this good, for this long, MUST mean something."
That's equally laughable, particularly coming from someone so dedicated to making people responsible for capital-T truth. I particularly like the disingenuous "this good, for this long" part. For how long? Why, since the post 9/11 crash, of course.
"Not necessarily that you personally are well off, though. That depends on YOU, does it not? And blaming Bush for your own shortcomings is absurd."
Yeah, that's what I did. Blamed Bush for my own shortcomings.
Sad that you can't even answer a direct statement in response to your own weak-ass challenge with anything but diversion and obfuscation.
But then again, maybe you don't know any better.
So I'll say it one last time and then ignore you if you don't address it specifically. Bush, by pushing through ill-advised tax cuts, has made a significant contribution to this country's worsening debt problem, a problem that has no end in sight and that directly hurts every taxpaying member of his citzenry.
The only thing that disappoints me more than these kinds of trollish figures are when respected individuals cave to their attention-craving. There's a reason there's the warning: "Don't feed the trolls."
PAD, you're better than this. You can't argue logic with someone who's devoid of it.
"Bush, by pushing through ill-advised tax cuts, has made a significant contribution to this country's worsening debt problem, a problem that has no end in sight and that directly hurts every taxpaying member of his citzenry."
Your tone is so obnoxious! I think I will ignore you too. Yes, I read what you said. Am I not allowed to discuss the present GREAT state of the economy in response? Does the present state of the economy have NO relation at all to the national debt? It has a direct connection. It IS relevant!
You liberals sang the same song about Reagan's tax cuts. Decades later, it became obvious that they were highly beneficial for this country's economy. We did, in fact, "grow" our way out of much of the debt. The budget was balanced under a Republican Congress and Clinton. It was whacked by 9/11 as never before. Now we are well on the road to recovery. Liberals, while offering NO alternatives of any kind, now simply exist to block whatever Bush wants. After all, BUSH SUCKS.
I agree that the debt is a problem, but I don't see it as an unmanagable or even long-term one. You disagree. And your solution to the problem as you see it is ... ... ??? I know. BUSH SUCKS.
OK, here we go.....
Bush limited stem cell research to the 21 (I believe that's the correct figure) lines currently available with no new lines being introduced.
Under Bush, important intelligence that could have stymied the 9/11 attacks was ignored. The results are what you live with today, including the (I hate to say it) possibility of Gestapo-like tactics on the part of the government or members thereof if they so choose to exercise that act.
As for the economy, wait until Thursday when Mr Greenspan speaks to the committee. You are headed for an inverted yield curve and the associated financial chaos it will bring. Oh yes, and let's not forget GM's announcement today. Looks like that record of consecutive expansions is just starting to contract......if ever so slightly.
Wow. This guy has got to be the biggest fucking loser ever. It's so sad I can't even get angry at the guy, when rightly I should be.
It's scary to have unhinged, obsessed stalkers like this guy, though. I do not envy PAD here.
"Gestapo-like tactics ... inverted yield curve ... associated financial chaos ... "
If you really believe all this nonsense, I'd consider moving!
Look, you're all supposed to be ignoring me. Stop making every single post about me!
Well.....it's been more than five minutes since my last posting and look: no pithy responses from X-Ray! Alas, as I leave to enter the land of sweet slumber I have only only the memory of the wind , a faint trilling echoing as it wafts rhythmically through the space between X-Ray's ears.
G'night y'all.
X-Ray wrote:
"So all common knowledge is now wrong? Wow, I guess BUSH SUCKS. Don't you people ever think of anything else?"
Um, but isn't that the same logic you used to determine that, because PAD had apparently lied once (and I stress apparently, since you're the only one who seems to think so), everything he says with regards to politics is a lie?
"Not necessarily that you personally are well off, though. That depends on YOU, does it not? And blaming Bush for your own shortcomings is absurd."
Isn't assuming that someone's difficulties are necessarily a result of their own shortcomings absurd as well?
Ma'am, just a suggestion: if your purpose is to show liberals the error of their ways, you might want to try and actually engage with what they say. From what I've seen, lurking around here, the regular posters who are more conservative or Republican tend to do just that.
If you're just trying to pick fights, why bother? What are you accomplishing?
Oh, for Pete's sake.
This guy isn't interesting enough to be a troll.
Why are you folks arguing with him? He completely ignores any rational arguments you make.
"So all common knowledge is now wrong?"
Seriously. What kind of an argument is that?
Geez. move on, already.
For the people who felt frustrated at the end of LOST...if they gave all the answers, what then? "Okay, we're clearly in limbo/an alien planet/a massive experiment. Huh." The mystery certainly has me ready for the next episode!"
Yeah, but I couldhave still done with a few answers. You can set up questions to get veiwers and then answer those while building on the answers to create new questions. All that season ender did was add to the, "what the hell!?!" list. I'm still going to watch next season becuse I like the show but I really was ticked with it for a day or so.
"Bush limited stem cell research to the 21 (I believe that's the correct figure) lines currently available with no new lines being introduced."
Actually, Joe, as www.factcheck.org, The National Academy of Sciences, medical pros and just about everyone else pointed out, the number was less then that. I believe the number of viable lines was around 11-15. Fun bit is, Bush kept claiming that it was closer to 50 or 60 something. He was told a number of times that that was wrong and still kept saying it. It was printed and broadcast damned near everywhere (but Bush himself states that he won't read a newspaper) and he just kept on going with false facts. Just another Bush lie to add to the list.
Here's an article that may prove of benefit here. If you take the time to read it, read all of it:
a couple quotes:
"President Bush said during the third election debate last October that most of the tax cuts went to low- and middle-income Americans. In fact, most - 53 percent - will go to people with incomes in the top 10 percent over the first 15 years of the cuts, which began in 2001 and would have to be reauthorized in 2010. And more than 15 percent will go just to the top 0.1 percent, those 145,000 taxpayers."
"The Bush administration says that the tax cuts have actually made the income tax system more progressive, shifting the burden slightly more to those with higher incomes. Still, an Internal Revenue Service study found that the only taxpayers whose share of taxes declined in 2001 and 2002 were those in the top 0.1 percent."
So what are you saying, that the tax cuts went mostly to the people who pay the most taxes? THIS IS AN OUTRAGE!
Make that FIVE. The delete counts as one!
What's your endpoint with all this? So PAD paid attention to you big deleting your posts and saying you're acting like an annoyance. Big deal.
Did you go off and read the whole article? I know, it won't matter if you do. But in the name of informed discussion...
"What's your endpoint with all this?"
Man, are you dense. It's so obvious!
There is something rather sad about petulantly referring to anyone who seems to disagree with you as stupid or idiotic.
Of course, the last time I tried to make a political point here- though why history is now a matter of political affiliation is beyond me- I was informed that soviet spies in the highest levels of government were unimportant, because Senator McCarthy allegedly hassled a leftist playwrite (the soviet spy specifically in question was Assistant Secretary of State Alger Hiss, but one oughtn't leave out Vice President Henry Wallace, Deputy Administrator of the Board of Economic Warfare Lauchlin Currie, Chief of Staff to the head of the Office of Strategic Services (the precursor to the CIA) Duncan Lee, etc.). Of course, the sting from PAD's rejoinder was lessened when he referred to Senator McCarthy as being part of a House committee, but let's not dwell. Petty name calling only exposed the weakness of your your rhetorical posture, such as the jibe that President Bush speaks the 'language of fear' from a individual who just before the election warned we'd all most likely be drafted if Bush won (also children would be starved, Social Security destroyed by a 0.3% voluntary personal account, old people pushed down stairs, as well as various other calamities utterly unrelated to fear... )
At any rate, childish taunting and mockery is the last resort of an undefensible position. Thusly, I feel confident that DNC Chairman Howard Dean is doing your cause more harm than good by calling all Republicans "evil," "brain dead," reminding us that he "hates" Republicans at least in part for having "never worked an honest day in their life," and unable to get attract minorities to show up "unless they're the cleaning staff," (by the way, 40% of Hispanics voted for Bush in 2004).
Also, you do know that our current president is the first in history to fund stem cell research, yes? And that despite former Senator Edwards despicable claims to the contrary, had Senator Kerry won the election, Christopher Reeve and those with physical spinal damage would not have "gotten up out of their chairs and walked." Certain degenerative nerve disorders may theoretically be reversed with future technology involving stem cells therapies (which are also found in the umbelical casing, among other places not necessitating the harvesting of a human infant), but gross trauma is gross trauma, regardless of how much 'blank slate' material is available.
And remind me again how cutting taxes so people had more money to spend (including the top few percentiles who own business and hire the rest of us) hurt the economy? Are you sure you're thinking this all the way through? And just what do you think would happen to the GNP if a rogue nation state deployed wave after wave of biological attacks against us? Who really thinks that after gassing the Iranians, Kurds and a goodish chunk of his own people with WMDs, Saddam just up and swore off the stuff forever? Or that Oday and Qusay were any better?
Just a thought...
Cal, sorry, but I don't read anything in the NY Times. They hate conservatives and their "news" is totally biased.
Did they mention that a whopping 80% of ALL Federal income taxes are paid by the TOP 20% of income earners?
You can't cut taxes for people who don't PAY taxes!
Posted by X-Ray at June 8, 2005 02:24 AM
So what are you saying, that the tax cuts went mostly to the people who pay the most taxes? THIS IS AN OUTRAGE!
Actually, mostly the people who pay the least taxes in terms of income, etc.
I trust you are going to be happy with the picture on your new Internal Passport, whose mandating if not actual issuance i see as a real possibility by the end of this Administration.
As to how this administration has harmed me personally -- its activities have resulted in attitudes abroad that make it anywhere from much less pleasant to downright dangerous for US citizens to travel abroad.
None of which, by the way, goes to show that PAD is liar. The childish name-calling remark is direted in both direction (in case I hadn't made that clear).
My name is Chris Daugherity, if anyone cares. 'sober voice of reason' is a personal joke.
I can cite how bush has made my life worse! First some back ground how my current health insurance works. For a certin amount during the year we have a small co-pay. Then the insurance cuts off for about 3000.00 which if we exceed the previous cap is our responsibility. After the 3000.00 the insrance picks up again. There is a second cap where it does this again, but I don't know the amounts for it. Now we finished paying for the birth of my son in march, last years responsibility. My wife had a sleep study done that required severl days of hospital stay in Feb. This study exceeded our cap for the year ans we ended up oweing the hospital 1800.00. Before we would have worked out a payment plan with the billing office as much as we could afford. currently we could afford between 200 and 250 a month. thus having the bill paid off in 7 to 9 months. Thanks to bush wanting to crack down on bankruptcy, and the change in the fileing of it suddenly none of the medical billing offices here will work out a billing plan. We were told we have 120 days to shit out 1800.00 of face collections. Thus we have now spent the last month and a half living like paulpers and have paid just over half of it. I don't remember the exact percentage but I believe it was in the 90's, but most bantruptcy's are the result of insurmountable medical debt. As the onion put it in one of thier opinion polls "Thay will teach people not to have medical emergencies!"
Jeff Coney
www.hedgehoggames.com
"Of course, the sting from PAD's rejoinder was lessened when he referred to Senator McCarthy as being part of a House committee, but let's not dwell."
Superb idea. You choose not to dwell on my accidentally referring to HUAC when I meant to refer to the Senate Permanent Subcommittee on Investigations, and I won't dwell on the fact that you can't spell the simple word "playwright."
PAD
Man, are you dense. It's so obvious!
You know what, just indulge me. What's your point? What, cosmicially speaking and all, does this little tantrum of yours matter?
PAD: Keep putting the boot in, some of us love ya for it :)
Speaking as a european
Bush as made me a hell of a lot more afriad than i was before
Bush as shown nothing but comptent for the will of the united nations the moment it became clear he could not win a the second vote justifying the war he decided the UN was irelevant and tht he would invade anyway amusingly siting "upholing the will of the UN as one of his reasons" dispite 2 members of the security council threatening to veto it.
so why dose this make me scared well the UN for all extents and purpurses intended to say NO to the war just has most nations citazens if not there governments ... but hey none of those NO's mattered and that's what's scarey
when you lose the ability to say no that's when freedom ends
ask yourself this question is there any government in the world who can so NO to bush or the usa for that matter let alone the democratically ellected (stooges) of iraq
now i understand the benefits of been a superpower and always getting yourway i don't think for a second that france & great britain wern't as bad when they ruled the world but the point is 200 years down the line surly we should have evolved beyond the concept that might makes right and we should be applying some of the principles we all believe in such as freedom liberty & democriscy
I try to avoid any conversations in politics because, although conservative, I don't always agree with the Republican party. It's just I disagree with the Democrats more often.
As for the village idiot... I think it's safe to say that there are fanatics out there, and they aren't limited to one party. They do, however, diminish genuine arguments for a purpose as a whole, in my opinion, because everything becomes a priority response... and therefore nothing is less than highly important. Which isn't true. So the result is people don't listen to you anymore.
Hence why there are village idiots: they feel they're being ignored, so they just raise the level of their voice, and the stupidity of their claims... and just like that, a troll is born.
And of all things, I can't say much on politics, because anyone watching 10 minutes of CNN once a week can probably out-argue me on several issues.
But I can say this:
I've met a couple of "those Iraqis." The question was asked of them if things are as bleak as the news reports.. and they are not. Good things have happened to Iraqis, despite what media tells us.
The two people I spoke with were happy, and smiling ear to ear. Granted, they were visitors here in Hawaii, here on University of Hawaii business: I'd smile too if I were not in a country where bombs were going off everywhere for a change.
But there were genuine atrocities going on in Iraq. Was it right? Was it wrong? I don't know. There are a million sides to it. It's done. It seems to have been the right thing to do. Only history will tell us the truth, when we look back on this one day.
And Peter, you and I will forever disagree about Bush Jr. You're pretty convinced we've got an idiot in office. I can't say I've agreed with everything he's done, but I think it's also fair to say no president in recent memory has had to deal with the unique state of affairs that must now exist in this country.
Who's to say what other presidents would have done had they been currently serving when 9-11 occured. I personally could think of no job I'd rather not have at that particular moment.
So, yes, I think Bush Jr. is doing a fine job under extreme circumstances. No, he's not perfect. Yes, we can do better. (As long as it's not hypocrites like John Kerry, we can do much better.)
Now I've said too much. Or not enough. But I've said my peace. (Not that anyone will read it down here on the 100+ posting on a note to the village idiot, but it's late, I'm tired, and recently unemployed again, so why the heck not.)
And no, I don't blame Bush Jr. for my unemployment. I blame the new management that came in and wanted to hire all his buddies and friends, and relieved me of my duties based not on performance, but because - literally - he didn't like me. No. I blame management for that.
...Hm. I gotta stop my caffeine intake. It's getting me carried away.
That's my 2 cents.
There will be no refunds.
RLR
As a non-US citizen I can easily answer the question about whether Bush's actions have damaged individual lives. Yes. His actions have caused everyone outside your country to view you and every other American in a worse light.
You are seen as bullies telling other countries how to run their elections when your own are so blatently fixed, liars who started a war that had no factual basis. Your good will in other countries has dropped considerably. And if you think that does not affect every single person in your country then you are a fool.
What I want to know is, when are we going to see your final thoughts on the season finale of "Smallville" :-) [or have I missed that post?]
"Man, arguing with X-Ray is like arguing with a drunk person."
Boss had a sign on his wall for a while which fits nicely here:
- Never argue with an idiot. They drag you down to their level and then beat you with experience.
"As for the village idiot... I think it's safe to say that there are fanatics out there, and they aren't limited to one party. They do, however, diminish genuine arguments for a purpose as a whole, in my opinion, because everything becomes a priority response... and therefore nothing is less than highly important. Which isn't true. So the result is people don't listen to you anymore."
Here Here!
Don't judge us all by some people's extrememe idiocy.
And as far as that guy:
Didn't he ever hear the old saying, "you catch more flies with sugar"? He's not going to win with his tactic. It just pushes people further into their beliefs, and makes his own beliefs look bad.
Am I not allowed to discuss the present GREAT state of the economy in response? Does the present state of the economy have NO relation at all to the national debt? It has a direct connection. It IS relevant!You liberals sang the same song about Reagan's tax cuts. Decades later, it became obvious that they were highly beneficial for this country's economy. We did, in fact, "grow" our way out of much of the debt.
There's no defense against your relentless misrepresentation of the truth.
After Reagan cut taxes he raised them again.
Yes, there's a recovery which -- thanks to the massive borrowing paying for tax cuts the wealthy benefitted disproportionately from -- is being funnelled almost exclusively to the rich.
The reason the wealthy should pay more is because they benefit most from the status quo. 9/10 of the court system is accessible only to corporation and the very wealthy. The reason Bruce Willis should pay disproportionatly more is because he benefits disproportionately from the little extra cash in the hands of the average consumer than the average laborer benefits -- flatten the f*cking beauracracy the rich benefit disproportionately from before you flatten the f*cking taxes.
Under Clinton we had prosperity and a budget surplus -- what is your f*cking problem with that?
When poor people vote for George Bush, yes, they are like a prostitute knifing a guy for stopping her pimp from beating her. They are voting for massive borrowing leveraged their own middle-class savings that benefits the wealthy -- they are voting against their own self-interest.
And why? All I saw was Bush campaigning on measuring strength by dominance. Dominance in the middle east, dominance over women, dominance to systematically flush black votes -- "Hey, we aren't helpless! We Are strong! We dominate things!"
There is no libertarian or conservative canon that justifies painting a fixed market as fair. X-Ray, your neediness is sickening.
Can you give me even ONE specific instance of any aspect of the Patriot Act being misused? Do you even have any idea what the law says?
Ashcroft using the Patriot act to investigate a brothel for laundering drug money, when the reason for the Patriot act is supposed to be to fight terrorism.
"Yet he doesn't seem to have any compassion for Bush."
Forgive me (and PAD) if we don't feel sorry for a rich kid who's had everything in life handed to him an a silver platter.
"Ashcroft using the Patriot act to investigate a brothel for laundering drug money, when the reason for the Patriot act is supposed to be to fight terrorism."
Wow, only *half* the truth... Huh, surprising from a liberal. The laundered money was suspected of being funneled for a bloody terrorist org, for heaven's sake! Hence, Ashcroft's correct use of the Patriot act.
"Forgive me (and PAD) if we don't feel sorry for a rich kid who's had everything in life handed to him an a silver platter."
And Kerry was a poor kid who struggled tooth and nail to become the rich adult he is? Please. It's funny how liberals use wealth as a disqualifier for whether or not someone deserves compassion (unless, of course, the wealth are liberal). Hopefully you'll never become rich and successful, or your poor children will be utterly without the compassion of others.
X-ray, your not alone. I just don't have the time, or the debating skills to contribute. Good show, though.
Later,
Chip
How has Bush changed my life? Well... his no child left behind laws have made it much harder for schools to recieve the funding they desperately need. This has lead to thousands of teacher lay offs including my wife. This comes directly because of a policy that bush put in place. It was the center of his domestic agenda for much of his first four years. His economic policies have lead to a jobless recovery which is bad news for me since I lost my job 2 years ago. Bush's policies directly and indirectly made an impact on that situation. Bush has cut funding for countless programs to fund his war with Iraq. This has also affected me and millions of other people.
The problem isn't just Bush either. It is the Republican controlled House, Senate, Governorships, state Legislatures fault too.
It seems to me that the big neo-con scam can be summarized as: painting need as strength.
Corporations benefit disproportionately from the loose change jangling in everyones' pockets -- but they'd just as soon leave it all to the consumer to maintain the stability they benefit disproportionately from.
It isn't that Bush sucks. Republicans are painting need as strength. How much domination does anyone need? Where does it all end?
1This is some funny stuff. I had to stop reading it several times since my giggles were bugging my office-mates. I don't really have any issues with Bush's actions as president. I had issues with the election in 00, sure... but more cause people didn't raise a bigger fuss. I just don't like him as a person. I find him to be an idiot. I find him to lack various social graces and worry about having a president who lacks diplomatic skills. Personally, I would love to know what would've been diff about 9/11 with Gore in office. Or how Kerry would've done. But, hell, I wonder the smae things about any of the other candidates. We are locked into this course of reality. Damn. I don't necessarily hate bush... except when he is making a speech about something I give a crap about cause I will listen to it and cringe. But I think the same about that Diane Reems (sp) on NPR... she has some GREAT guests but listening to her speak makes my head twitch. Gore could induce a coma into a kid with ADHD. Kerry I liked... but just for his presence. There are so many people involved in politics that to credit or blame just one person for major policy changes seems silly. I don't like politicians. I don't trust politicians. But, yay us, that is our system of government. As for the war, I blame the administration. Our government body as a WHOLE. I don't blame Bush for anything beyond sounding like a twit whenever he talks about it. And you know, he could be reading Hawking to the press and would still sound like a moron so maybe it's just his voice. Jeb doesn't SOUND stupid, certainly. Until you hear what he is saying. Oh, and yes... met them both (benefits of dating a teacher during election year). Was unimpressed with both. But you know... nothing made me more worried about Bush than to sit there with a group of teachers as he spoke about education and hearing all the ones around me mumbling. Especially my girlfriend... a nice, sweet elementary school, reading recovery teacher at a VERY "urban" school... and it's the perfect quote to close my bit on this:
"What a load of sh!t... stupid muther fu@#er"
Take care all... But keep this up. I'll have to check back tomorrow... this is some funny stuff.
So X-Ray went on to post and post without once addressing what I asked him. Must be nice to have so much time on your hand. Shout and derail all the concerns of the people... but never make an actual point.
The economy improved 14 quarters in a row? Let's take a look a little further back and see what it did then since Bush has been in for much more than 14 quarters. Oh yeah complete economic collapse... pretty hard to go up from the very bottom of the barrel. Way to go, Bush!
Well I'm done with this moron as well. You keep up the "good show" X-Ray. Watch your military president continue to run right over the soldiers and pay them enough so that they qualify for food stamps, never let them come home from Iraq, and then look there like a learning disabled monkey when suddenly recruitment into the army takes a nose dive.
Genius, pure genius,
Leader
"After Reagan cut taxes he raised them again."
Impossible. Only Congress can raise taxes!
"Under Clinton we had prosperity and a budget surplus -- what is your f*cking problem with that?"
You mean under a Republican congress, f*cker!
"When poor people vote for George Bush, yes, they are like a prostitute knifing a guy for stopping her pimp from beating her."
Yes, Republicans never "win,' they only trick idiots into voting for them. Keep thinking that.
"Kerry I liked... but just for his presence."
Oh God. You mean his "sad-tree"-like presence?
"Let's take a look a little further back and see what it did then since Bush has been in for much more than 14 quarters. Oh yeah complete economic collapse..."
Wow, THIS liberal has a crystal ball! He knows the future!
What is it?
What else?
BUSH SUCKS!
Never wrestle with a pig. You both get dirty and the pig likes it.
You liberals sang the same song about Reagan's tax cuts.
Impossible. Only Congress can raise taxes!
Your neediness is sickening.
I sincerely hope this entire post is deleted, and any further post by the troll ignored (as it was in the beginning).
But for a simple addendum to "how the Republican US Administration fucked up big time", my little experience: as non-US citizen, I now actively try not to buy anything that is US-produced, unless it's from "sane" industries I personally "whitelist" (like Ben&Jerry or Tor Books). Microsoft? Erased from my pc, now running an european Linux version. Nike? Sorry, only italian shoes here, much cheaper on this side of the pond. iPod? naah, this Nokia phone does it for me. Car? Renault does it for me. Gadgets? all taiwanese for me, thanks. TV and movies? British production can be the best... what was that??? oh, it's the U.S. foreign debt balance skyrocketing. God morning X-Ray, your ass is now 0wned by a chinese opium smuggler... and he wants your SUV.
To Giacomo: But you still POST MESSAGES in the evil USA don't you? This is supporting the evil tyrant Bush! You must move at once.
"It reminds me of how Godzilla movies are great because they're so bad."
Hey. Let's not let this acimony hurt the innocent. Godzilla rules. Someday, someone will make a movie that has both Godzilla AND flesh eating zombies and I, frankly, will have to commit ritual suicide once it's over, because what will I have left to look forward to?
Ummmmm .... "The RETURN of Godzilla and the Flesh Eating Zombies!"
All things considered, with the amount of scrutiny going on, maybe someone should be a lobbyist and then learn the truth behind politics, right?
"The transcript shows that Kerry's freshman-year average was 71."
You liberals sang the same song about Reagan's tax cuts....
Impossible. Only Congress can raise taxes!
Yes, keep posting here -- after trying to pressure people who disagree with you to abandon their casualness -- without addressing your own need, your dependence, on inconsistency.
Dude there's no libertarian or conservative canon that justifies painting a fixed market as fair. That's just neediness.
I gave up long ago trying to hold a discussion with those still on the kool-aid. Here's just an example...watch how the eventual response will come up with some way to differentiate this:
Sure, Clinton was president when we bombed a factory that turned out to produce aspirin. And according to X-ray, that makes Clinton personally responsible. Whether that's factually accurate or not is irrelevant.
Bush was CiC when he made the personal decision to instigate a war in Iraq. That makes him personally responsible for the entire war, and all it's consequences. The justification for going to war was because Iraq had WMDs, and was going to provide them to terrorists so they could use them against the US. Today, we know there were no WMDs, there was no capability to produce WMDs, and all the "evidence" the made Powell parade before the world turns out to be the Bush equivilent of...aspirin production. So all the vilification X-ray heaps on Clinton, by X-ray's own logic, should be heaped on Bush tenfold. Sure, Clinton's mistake cost innocent lives...but how many more innocent lives have been attached to Bush's mistake? How many more to come in the future?
Yes, there's a recovery which -- thanks to the massive borrowing paying for tax cuts the wealthy benefitted disproportionately from -- is being funnelled almost exclusively to the rich.
That's because the taxes are PAID dispropotionately by the rich. Look at the distribution of person income taxes: the bottom 50% of households only pay 5% of the personal income tax. Any tax cut HAS to be disproportionate because of the current design of the code. Simple math - even for Democrats :)
I'll give you an example. The median household income is about $42,000. Our household is about double that. We don't itemize our deductions, but use the standard ones. However, the tax code is so skewed towards the upper end, that my actual income tax rate last year was 8% of my income. If that's what happens to someone earning double the median income, then I think it's safe to say that a lot of people below me aren't paying much into the federal coffers/
Car? Renault does it for me.
Do even French drivers tout French cars? Needy-- Nice try x-ray.
Wow, only *half* the truth... Huh, surprising from a liberal. The laundered money was suspected of being funneled for a bloody terrorist org, for heaven's sake! Hence, Ashcroft's correct use of the Patriot act.
Well, at least they suspected the money of being funnelled.
That's better than those two girls in NYC got.
But then, the position of the Dept of Homeland Security these days is to make it sound like everything supports terrorism: money laundering, Islamic non-profit organizations, computer piracy.
The list is endless when you have an Administration that prefers to keep the list that way.
I just don't have the time, or the debating skills to contribute. Good show, though.
Maybe we should give him a cookie? A vegetable could present better (and more accurate) points than X-Ray.
That's because the taxes are PAID dispropotionately by the rich. Look at the distribution of person income taxes: the bottom 50% of households only pay 5% of the personal income tax. Any tax cut HAS to be disproportionate because of the current design of the code. Simple math - even for Democrats :)
Steve Forbes had a tax plan where for a family of 4, taxation didn't start until earnings reached $36,000. It's funny how your "simple math" is predatory and his wasn't.
As I said before:
The reason the wealthy should pay more is because they benefit most from the status quo. 9/10 of the court system is accessible only to corporation and the very wealthy. The reason Bruce Willis should pay disproportionatly more is because he benefits disproportionately from the little extra cash in the hands of the average consumer than the average laborer benefits...
To paint neediness as strength in this manner shelters predatory behavior. It's the systematic harvesting of middle-class savings. It's sickening.
To paint neediness as strength in this manner shelters predatory behavior. It's the systematic harvesting of middle-class savings. It's sickening.
I also don't see how you can call it an "harvesting of the middle class" when more and more of the burden is being pushed higher up the income charts. The rich are paying more of the burden than they ever have historically. My concern about this can be summed up by this classic quote:
"A democracy cannot exist as a permanent form of government. It can only exist until the voters discover that they can vote themselves largess from the public treasury. From that time on the majority always votes for the candidates promising the most benefits from the public treasury, with the results that a democracy always collapses over loose fiscal policy, always followed by a dictatorship."
As it is, with nearly 50% of the population paying not income taxes (and therefore no real stake other than what they can get out of the federal government), we are fast going down the path of fiscal collapse. The Baby Boom retirement - because of its huge demographic influence on Washington policy - will be the most significant fiscal event for the next quarter century. If we don't do a better job now, we won't have much of an economy for the next generation.
To The Other Blogger-
Stop trying to cloud the issue with facts!
BUSH SUCKS!
The rich are paying more of the burden than they ever have historically.
...but not in proportion to their skyrocketing salaries.
Consider CEO salaries quintupling in the last 20 years. Are CEO contributing 5 times more than they were 20 years ago, as compared to regular salaries?
To flatten the tax while the top 1% of earners salaries have broken away from the pack -- they're benefitting from a stability the middle-class is paying for. It's neediness painted as strength -- and it's sickening.
When I say middle-class taxes are being harvested, that's how the record-breaking debt will have to be paid off -- not out of Paris Hilton's obscene petty-cash reserves, but out of middle-class savings.
Shelter predatory behavior all you like, that doesn't mean we have to call it anything other than it really is.
"A democracy cannot exist as a permanent form of government. It can only exist until the voters discover that they can vote themselves largess from the public treasury. From that time on the majority always votes for the candidates promising the most benefits from the public treasury, with the results that a democracy always collapses over loose fiscal policy, always followed by a dictatorship."
Or, when translated to the American Democratic Republic, the top 1% will spend a good deal of their untaxed income on propaganda and related publicity supporting candidates that share their goal of further insulating that untaxed income (or better put, attacking those candidates that want to ennact a tax burden that bears some resemblance to fairness), thereby duping the voting majority into electing the "wrong" people.
Ignoring the topic, since feeding trolls is a no-no (I suppose I agree with some of it, but not the way it's presented) I would like to revisit a couple of the responses:
Closed Caption was required by law??? (I do love learning knew things...) Isn't that a violation of free speech to legislate this? Making someone speak is a violation of free speech as surely as denying someone speech. I can see how it would be nice for the deaf (and I'm deaf in one ear, so I can relate) but it shouldn't be manditory.
And why should the rich be punished? If you don't like the "status quo" being disadvanteous to you, get out of the status quo. Being poor is a voluntary condition. Educate yourself in finances and anyone can become wealthy (build up your asset column and reduce your liability column... it's a slow start, but a strong finish, believe me). This is America: ANYONE CAN BE RICH IF THEY WANT TO BE AND ARE WILLING TO EDUCATE THEMSELVES! I've changed just a few of the things I've been doing (reduce frivolous spending, pay off debt, build asset column) and I'm making three times what I made just a few years ago and I'm now debt free. Believe me, if I can do it, all of you, who seem far more intelligent than I, can do the same.
If you're struggling, you have no one to blame but yourself. It isn't the government's job to bail you out, nor should it be.
Oh wow, I just ranted. Sorry about that...
Rock on all, DNFTT (I hope I'm not one...)
"Closed Caption was required by law??? (I do love learning knew things...) Isn't that a violation of free speech to legislate this? "
I don't know the specifics, but I would guess that the CC requirement was in exchange for being able to broadcast over the Federally-licensed airwaves. If you wanted to make your own videotape/DVD, you didn't have to CC your program, but if you wanted to transmit it over the air, you had to.
Somebody please correct me if I'm wrong.
awww, but the trolls are so cute when you feed them...
Robbnn, I was about to dive headfirst back into the "being poor is a voluntary condition" discussion, but the whole prior argument came back to me. So I'll just sum-up, by saying basically I agree with you, that given enough patience and hard work, anyone *should* be able to rise out of poverty, *if* they are able to avoid some of the uncontrollable pitfalls that can lead to economic ruin (injury/illness and uninsured accident being the two biggest). Without those kinds of events, I agree that, if you're poor, it's probably your own fault. Or if not (say you're born into such a condition) then you're still there through your own lack of action to rise above it.
Which is all well and good, but still makes it really sucky, not to mention sorta unfair, for those that win the gene pool lotto and get born to parents with millions of annual disposable income.
Legislated closed captioning doesn't tread on free speech...so long as it doesn't state what the content of the captioning has to be. It's more a way to prevent discrimination of the deaf, I believe.
Good points, Bobb. Hadn't thought about the Federal Airwaves slant (wouldn't you have to CC what's being said out loud, though?). It may discriminate against the deaf, but the reverse discriminates against companies that can't afford to CC shows (presuming it's an expensive process). I prefer it voluntary, but your logic trumps mine.
And absolutely on the unavoidable pitfalls. I do agree with that (my son was born dead and in Intensive Care for weeks after he was revived. The bill was astronomical even with insurance. Took years to dig out from that, though most of my debt was stupid stuff).
And why should the rich be punished?
Taxes aren't punishment. They are the resource by which freedom is sheltered and stability is maintained.
The reason the wealthy should pay disproportionately more is because they benefit disproportionately from the status quo. More of the loose change in our pockets goes to Paris Hilton than to laborers.
That's why protecting middle-class savings is fair and harvesting it by making the middle-class pay to maintain the status quo -- disproportionate to the benefit they receive -- is predatory.
"I also don't see how you can call it an "harvesting of the middle class" when more and more of the burden is being pushed higher up the income charts."
I love this so much. It's so easy to shoot down. the R's argue that the middle class aren't taking a hit under Bush because the tax burden is being pushed up the charts onto the richest Americans. But, show them the hard numbers that say that Bush's tax breaks go far more towards the pockets of the richest Americans and you get told, often by the same person, that it's only fair that they get more breaks since they pay more.
So, the R take on the subject is that the tax burden on the rich is growing more and more every day while being reduced by Bush in the interest of a fair tax system. Up is down, black is white, greed is good and words no longer mean anything.
God, I don't want to do this. I so wanted to be done with Tweedle Dee the Wonder Dummy. But, this line of R argument has long been a fave of mine to shoot down and so many of them just mindlessly spew this one out. Maybe I can let this one slip by by addressing it to everyone who uses this and not just at Tweedle.
"You liberals sang the same song about Reagan's tax cuts."
""After Reagan cut taxes he raised them again."
Impossible. Only Congress can raise taxes!
"Under Clinton we had prosperity and a budget surplus -- what is your f*cking problem with that?"
You mean under a Republican congress, f*cker!"
Reagan wasn't a bad guy. I'll even admit to liking him a bit. But the R's seem to want to build a religion around him. Like God, Reagan can do no wrong. Like god, he needs a counterpart. In the new religion it is Clinton that can do no right and takes on the role of the Devil.
But, as with many religions, you can't look at it with the eye of logic. All credit for all good in the 80's must be Reagan's. The evil D's held congress in their satanic grip and used that power to inflict great pain upon the U.S. only to be stopped by Reagan the mighty.
But, when the 90's came-a-calling, we had the roles reversed. Clinton was the prez with a G.O.P. filled congress. And so the story goes that the evil Devil Clinton set out to destroy the U.S. but was thwarted at every turn by the warrior angels of the G.O.P. congress.
So, in the gospel of the R faithful we have the Prez being the power and source of all good(unless he's a D)and the congress is the source of evil (unless they're being run by the R's.)
Also, Reagan the prez was a tax cutter and spurred the economy upward (not counting the number of factories that closed, jobs that were lost and people who became homeless in the 80's) but Clinton gets no credit for the economy or tax breaks since only congress can cut taxes or do other good things like that (unless they're D's.)
Translation: Many, but not all, R's want to be able to change their stands on things based only on what letter goes before the name of the man or woman that they are discussing.
Homeland security is a great example. It was created and fought for by the D's. The R's were against it. Bush hated it. Then a bit of polling was done and, poof, it became something that the R's wanted and all their merry supporters did an about face and acted like it was the greatest thing since sliced bread. Not only that, but the common myth then became that it was an R creation that had to be fought tooth and nail over with the D's to get it going. The continuation of that myth was helped along a great deal when Bush perverted it into something that most D's really were against.
See, it doesn't matter to so many of them anymore if the logic of the argument that they use butts heads with the logic they used in their other arguments. Just so long as Bush is right, Reagan is God and all D's are evil.
The truth is closer to this:
It's a very good thing to have the congress and the senate in the hands of one party and the Prez being of the other. It kept things from going too far to the left or right for years and the two forces pulled each other closer to the center.
The 70's saw the D's hold too much power and some things didn't go so well. I don't know what would happen right now if they were all controled by D's, but we can all see what has happened with all three branches being in the the contro of the R's. Pork spending is threw the roof to the point that the people in charge of the purse (R's) are bleeding it dry, the budget has ballooned, the debt has been blown up to new and greater heights then ever before and we've put the country in a weaker position.
How?
Well, for one thing we have the debt problem. We just went to the world bank and got even more of our debt covered by, of all countries, China. At this point, China owns our ass. If that country that so many R's paint as evil and a future superpower enemy ever wanted to call in all the debt load they have on us it would destroy our economy in a week. It took less the five years to go from paying down the debts we owed and making our country stronger to being even more in debt to the countries that our present leaders call evil.
We've stretched our military thin by allowing foolish actions to rule over good judgement.
we've abused our military. Not by sending them to Iraq for a questionable war(well, not just that.) Nooooo. The same people screaming, "support our troops" are the same ones cutting the troops benifits, cutting their danger pay, cutting Vet benifits, extending and extending and over extending tours of duty, giving our troops bad orders and then letting them be the fall guys, not getting the troops what they need to do their job right and sticking it to them if they come home injured. And you wonder why enlistment & re-enlistment is down? I love my country but even I would balk at signing up to work for bosses that would screw me over that many ways so bad.
So, on the whole, I would say that I have a much greater like for the two sides to be kicking each other towards the middle ground sooooo much better then having one power mad, power drunk and stupid group of people, as we have now, in charge of everything. And I can't even begin to understand how so many conservatives are supporting the R's and Bush right now when everything that they're doing, not what they're saying but what they're doing, is a slap in the face to everything that conservatives claim to stand for (thus the voting against your best interests concept.)
Being poor is a voluntary condition.
Yeah, all those bastards who are now poor and being turned out of their homes because of medical hardships...
Hell, to make it worse, we'll just make sure it's harder for them to file for bankruptcy, as the Republicans have done.
Those evil assholes.
"I can't even begin to understand how so many conservatives are supporting the R's and Bush ... what they're doing, is a slap in the face to everything that conservatives claim to stand for."
Let me explain it to you!
Step One: Stop pushing the idea that every Republican voter is either tricked, hypnotized or forced to vote Republican. Accept the fact that it is possible to vote for a Republican as a result of one's own free and informed choice. Realize that maybe -- just maybe -- conservatives know how to define their own interests better than you, a liberal, think you do.
I'd go on to the next step, but I doubt you could EVER get past step one! Certainly your party has not, as is proven by the many hysterical responses in this one thread alone.
"It reminds me of how Godzilla movies are great because they're so bad."
"Hey. Let's not let this acimony hurt the innocent. Godzilla rules. Someday, someone will make a movie that has both Godzilla AND flesh eating zombies and I, frankly, will have to commit ritual suicide once it's over, because what will I have left to look forward to?"
BUCKAROO BANZAI VS. GODZILLA AND THE FLESH EATING ZOMBIES? One of these days, I'm going to get really tired of waiting and just go ahead and make BAMBI II: THE REVENGE myself.
james lynch wrote :
Terrific, no thoughts on the finales of LOST and ALIAS, but (soon to be) hundreds of posts about the latest political pissing contest. Joy.
I so agree w/ you. lets all agree to disagree & be done w/ it.
Joe V.
Stop pushing the idea that every Republican voter is either tricked, hypnotized or forced to vote Republican. Accept the fact that it is possible to vote for a Republican as a result of one's own free and informed choice. Realize that maybe - - just maybe -- conservatives know how to define their own interests better than you, a liberal, think you do.
Bush's reelection campaigned can be summarized as "We will know America is strong from our dominance."
The poor who voted for Bush voted against their own self-interest -- like a prostitute knifing a guy for stopping her pimp from beating her.
So what's the big, f*cking mystery?
. And I can't even begin to understand how so many conservatives are supporting the R's and Bush right now when everything that they're doing, not what they're saying but what they're doing, is a slap in the face to everything that conservatives claim to stand for (thus the voting against your best interests concept.)
You're assuming that we like everything they are doing. I, for one, really couldn't stand the Medicare reform because every entitlement costs more than the so-called projections. Having said that, the Democrats in Congress have zero credibility on fiscal restraint. When they get some, I might consider voting for one.
I agree with Randall Kirby. This X-Ray guy isn't interesting enough to argue with for this long.
PAD said "exponentially" when it was not strictly true? So what? There's not a person here who hasn't used exaggeration.
Just ignore him.
regarding all the tax comments. lets ALL pay 15 % and be done w/ this whole fucking argument.
also , for those of you that want everyone to get free government health care for everyone remember you get what you pay for (unless it's on E-Bay)and well, free health care for 250 million americans equals more taxes. by the way, since canada has such a great system of health care, please notice that canada has a high tax system.
http://www.cra-arc.gc.ca/tax/individuals/faq/taxrates-e.html
Federal tax rates for 2005 are:
16% on the first $35,595 of taxable income;
22% on the next $35,595 of taxable income;
26% on the next $44,549 of taxable income; and
29% of taxable income over $115,739.
this is just federal canadian tax.
ouch.
joe v.
I don't know the specifics, but I would guess that the CC requirement was in exchange for being able to broadcast over the Federally-licensed airwaves. If you wanted to make your own videotape/DVD, you didn't have to CC your program, but if you wanted to transmit it over the air, you had to.
Somebody please correct me if I'm wrong.
No, you're exactly right. Most FCC regulations historically have been premised on the idea that broadcasting frequencies are a limited resource that are doled out by the government, because that's the only way to have clear broadcasts instead of dozens of wildcat broadcasters jamming each other (inadvertently or not). Weirdly, although cable would seem to be completely out of this scheme-- cable networks are subscription-based and, for all practical purposes, infinite-- the courts have routinely upheld the FCC's authority over cable providers. Go figure.
joe v.,
I'd gladly pay more taxes if it meant national health coverage in the U.S. Part of this comes from the fact that I'm far too poor to aford to insure myself and I didn't hit the employment lottery and end up workiing for a large company that that can afford to cover its employees.
Also, I think that the current medical system in the U.S. is insane. The idea that making it a profit driven industry has not made it less costly, but simply created a system that emphasises procedures and drugs that cost zillions. If the medical industry were regulated, we wouldn't be paying much more than any developed nation in the world and getting worse medical results than any developed nation.
And that doesn't even address the societal savings that we'd glean from vastly reducing the single largesgt cause and bankruptcy in the U.S.: unpayable medical bills following a major medical problem. This cause is more prevalent than even job loss or divorce (reasons 2 & 3). And I'm not even going to touch the bilk of goods (pun intended) that the Credit Card companies sold to Congress when they got them to make it much more difficult to discharge credit card debt in bankruptcy.
Paying more in taxes or continuing to pay outrageous insurance premiums every month. Whats the difference? The only one I can think of is that at least everyone would be able to get care, not just the ones who can afford the insurance.
...or those of you that want everyone to get free government health care for everyone remember you get what you pay for (unless it's on E-Bay)and well, free health care for 250 million americans equals more taxes.
As opposed to Bush's medicare rewrites, where taxes are arbitrarily funneled to drug companies?
Consider this: The Republican Medicare prescription drug bill that Bush proudly signed prohibits the U.S. government from using the purchasing power of 41 million Medicare beneficiaries to negotiate with drug companies to lower the price of drugs, something the Veterans Administration is free to do.One difference: A month's supply of Pravachol, a popular cholesterol-regulating drug, costs the VA $19.80 -- and at the drug store, a customer would pay $116.75 for the same dosage.
Forbidding the public sector to negotiate with the pharmaceutical companies, it is estimated, will mean $139 billion in windfall profits for the drug industry.
--Mark Shields, 13 September 2004
and the hilarity doesn't stop there:
The White House released budget figures yesterday indicating that the new Medicare prescription drug benefit will cost more than $1.2 trillion in the coming decade, a much higher price tag than President Bush suggested when he narrowly won passage of the law in late 2003....Beginning with his January 2003 State of the Union address, Bush pledged to keep the total cost of the drug benefit to $400 billion over 10 years. An estimate by the Congressional Budget Office [$395 billion] was close to Bush's figure. But shortly after Bush signed the program into law in December 2003, the White House revised its projection to $534 billion, [and] it never offered a detailed breakdown of that estimate....
The most significant change, [Medicare chief Mark McClellan] said, is that the new budget projections tally the cost of drug benefits for 10 years. Projections made in 2003 included the two transition years before the drug coverage is fully implemented in 2006.
--Washington Post, 09 February 2005
In other words, even the deceptive cost estimate given to congress was for 2004-2013, not 2006-2015 -- when the new entitlement was scheduled to begin.
Again, the poor who voted for Bush voted against their own self-interest -- like a prostitute knifing a guy for stopping her pimp from beating her.
What is the mystery?
I know there's no point in this.. But...
Oh, the problems in your response.
1) "Stop pushing the idea that every Republican voter is either tricked, hypnotized or forced to vote Republican."
That's an odd tact to take since I have never posted anything like that at all. Never mentioned anything close to that. I have said some people, not all, who voted for Bush and defend him seem just plum stupid though.
2) "every Republican voter..."
I never said word one about Republican voters. I said conservatives. I find that many self described R's and many self described conservatives to be different animals all together. Many a self described R just follow the party line without question. Many self described conservatives vote what they believe and not by the letter after a pol's name.
3) "Realize that maybe -- just maybe -- conservatives know how to define their own interests better than you, a liberal, think you do.
I'd go on to the next step, but I doubt you could EVER get past step one! Certainly your party has not, as is proven by the many hysterical responses in this one thread alone."
Hmmmmm.... So, I'm a liberal. News to me. And, what party pray tell is my party? Did I vote for Kerry? Yes. But, as I stated here and elsewhere at the time, I didn't like Kerry. I said then and say now that the D's were stupid to choose him to run. He was too far left, I thought, for most the country. I was only a wee bit wrong though since he did pull 48% of the vote. A higher amount then I thought he would. I just liked Bush less. My stated reasons for voting Kerry was that the election run up had gotten so nasty that there was no way the he would allow the R's a policy victory and that there was no chance in Hell that the R's would let him have anything close to one either. The hoped for result? The two forces would only get things done by pulling each other towards the middle. If Dee were still around she could back that easy. We argued that point for months in emails back and forth. Anybody else might have to strain the brain to back me here.
And how does my voting go toward "my party?" Hmmmm. Can't figure that one out myself. I voted Bush in 88 and 92, Clinton in 96, Gore in 2000 and Kerry in 2004. Two votes R and three votes D. In my home state of Virginia I went Wilder (D), skipped a vote, Gilmore (R), Warner (D) and will most likely go for Kilgore (R) this go round over Kaine (D). Yeah, I'm just such a far left Lib who votes in lock step with my party, huh. My "party" is this country and I vote for who I think will best lead her or how the powers will balance to best serve her. Nothing more or less. You know nothing about me or most the people you are talking to here. To claim, as a point of your argument, that my veiwpoints are because of "my party" or my "liberal" leanings when you know almost nothing about me, my voting habits or my posts on this site long before you showed up only shows a foolish nature on your part and weakens your argument greatly.
4) "conservatives know how to define their own interests better than you...."
Let us look at those interests as defined by public statements over the years of conservatives and then look at the actions of the present group of R's running the show.
A) Smaller Gov't.
The size and scope of the FedGov has ballooned. For eight years under Clinton the conservatives in America complained that the FedGov was too large and that it was getting into things that should be the rights or jobs of the states. Bush even pledged lots of reforms along the lines of what they wanted in the run up to 2000. Once in, the Bush and the R's did a 180 and made the spending and FedGov growth of the Clinton 90's look like pocket change. Bush lied in 2000. Conservatives took him at face value then. But how could they buy the same lie in 2004?
B) Strong boarders.
Not only has Bush done nothing to secure or enforce our borders but he has come up with dumb ideas that give illegals more reason to come here. It wasn't a D who stood before the American public and said that he wanted to give amnesty to any illegal from South of the border who was here by a set date. It wasn't a D who called a group of people who wanted to walk the borders and act as eyes (not arrest, detain or shoot at anyone) for the Border Patrol names on national TV. And it's not a D who is making nice nice with the leader of a country that is handing out governmet printed instructions on the best way to sneak across the border and into the U.S. and what to do when here to best avoid detection and deportation. A problem made worse by the fact that it is now known that there are terrorist cells in South America with ties to the Middle East who are looking at coming on up-a-this-a-way.
C) State's Rights.
Yeah, that's a joke with this group.
D) Fiscal responsibility.
Gotta love that one. Now that he R's hold all three branches of the FedGov and we have so much more fiscal responsibility then the 90's. Oops. No we don't. Even after subtracting the costs of war we have a federal budget that has swelled beyond belief. The debt has skyrocketed and the pork with the R's fingerprints puts to shame anything done by the D's before them. They act like people who don't know what "fiscal responsibility" means. And, as I said above, China owns most of our debt. You just have to love the security in that.
E) A strong Military.
I think I covered that well enough in my prior post. But I should also add, coming from a military family with a number of war vet retirees, that what I have seen done to the benifits and rights of retired Vets in the last five years in order to help cut costs and balance out Bush's tax cut should sicken anyone who claims to support the troops. These men and women were promised things in return for their service in wars and abroad and now the FedGov, run by the R's, is telling them to take a long walk off of a short plank.
F) Truth and values.
Truth? Gee, Bush lies on TV about the budget and how much it has grown. bush lies about the number of stem cell lines we have. Bush lies in his State of the Union Address (pre-invasion) by saying that no inspectors were being allowed in Iraq when the news had live reports that day of, guess who, the U.N. inspectors in Iraq. The Bush Admin lies about WMDs. They lied about knowing where they were, where they were made, where they were stored (but couldn't be bothered to tell the inspectors this bit of info) and then act like they have no clue (since they didn't) once they got the invasion they wanted. I could keep going.
Values? Only when they can broadcast from a church or sign a bill there for PR. I thought it was so funny how many of the R's pointing their dirty little fingers at Clinton were forced to fall on their own swords when they all started getting outed for affairs and wrong doings but still kept their high ratings from Christion PAC groups and G.O.P. boosters. Remember, the R motto is that affairs are only bad if their done by D's.
How about this tidbit from the A.P. and Worldnetdaily.com today. A paragraph from the report:
"While officially White House spokesmen continue to pretend they are unaware a pornographer and a porn star will attend a presidential fund-raising dinner for Republican congressional candidates, the adult-film company behind the gimmick is making the most of the photo opportunity the event presents. Mark Kulkis, president of Kick A-- Pictures, which specializes in hard-core porn, has issued press releases explaining "he was personally invited to" the 2005 President's Dinner and proclaiming his presence, along with that of his guest, porn star Mary Carey, will "make pop culture history.""
See, this isn't new news. But you don't hear the R's going on about it, do you? Now, if Clinton were to have had dinner with porn stars.......
G)Personal Responsibility in times of war.
Look at the war years of the past. R's and D's both saw the need to fund the damned things. The American public saw the need and took the responsibility to tighten their belts, eat a bit more taxes and do whatever they could to support the cause and troops. Now? I sent five Camelbacks over to the troops with a group that was pulling that kind of thing together. There is a woman who shows up on Fox and CNN from time to time to promote her group that sends AC's and other basic need items to the troops. My best friend donated a chunk of his April paycheck to the group that is setting the troops up with phone cards so they can call home. These are all good things and I will agree with Bush when he, rarely, speaks well of the people putting these groups together or doing this kind of thing. But think about this. In a time of war we have a Prez and a party and its supporters who want their wealthy man's tax break so bad that they are jacking the debt and turning the military into a needy organization. The boys over seas are having to be treated like a charity case because we can't fund everthing they need in a time of war to preserve the greed of a tiny few. Hell, I have friends coming home on leave who talk about not having basic items. Soldiers have always joked about supply problems in the military in the past but what's going on now isn't a joke. It's sick. Love them conservative values, don't you?
I could keep going and going and going here.
So, at what point does a conservative say enough is enough and vote someone out of power? At what point do you send the R's a message that they need to walk what they talk and live up to their "values?" When do you put them in the minority and tell them that the deal is they feild people who will live up to their promises or they don't get back in power? How long do you defend them and allow them to mock everything conservatives claim to believe in and want? Or do you just go, "he an R. R good. D bad. Vote R. Defend R from bad people who say abd things about R."
See, I'm complaining about Bush and the R's right now because he is the one in power and doing all the dumb stuff. They are calling the shots. But when we have had D's doing stupid things, telling lies on an almost daily habit, screwing the troops or trashing what this country stands for I have spoken out against them as well. It's just right now, It's Bush doing all that and more.
And it's you who comes off as hellbent to defend lies and perversions of conservative and, for that matter, Republican beliefs, traditions and stands no matter what just to support a man with an R next to his name. And that, to me, comes off as voting against and acting against ones own best interests at best or sheer stupidity at worst.
I could say much more. But, from your many posts, you'll just claim I'm a lib and all I say is Bush sucks and Bush is bad and bleet on about some nonpoint that I didn't make or something I didn't say. So, why bother with more.
Theotherblogger,
"You're assuming that we like everything they are doing. I, for one, really couldn't stand the Medicare reform because every entitlement costs more than the so-called projections. Having said that, the Democrats in Congress have zero credibility on fiscal restraint. When they get some, I might consider voting for one."
No, I'm not. I did say many and not all. But you have to agree that the vote count in 2004 would indicate that it was a majority of the self described conservatives voting with Bush.
And all I can say about fiscal restraint:
Look at the Fed spending in the eight years prior to Bush. Now look at the Fed spending, minus war costs, under Bush. Look at the debt in the eight years prior to Bush. Look at the debt since Bush took office. Given those numbers, I think it's safe to say that voting for a D majority in the House and Senate or a D Prez to balance the R House and Senate ain't all that bad an idea. Hmm?
PAD,
I truly believe as a Marine and a New Yorker, when 9/11 transpired it changed the world as we know it. If those 1600+ lives of my military brethren had been lost in 1993 after the first bombing of the WTC, 3,000 of hard working Americans would not have been brutally murdered. Our Commander-in-Chief has taken hard and difficult steps toward making the world a safer place, just like our fathers and grandfathers did to ensure we can live in a free society. Freedom is not free and no comic book, as much as I love them, will ever change that. Do yourself a favor and learn to support your country and your president.
Who knew 9/11 was going to happen? What is stopping a nuclear/dirty bomb from hitting our country? Certainly not the Hulk or your website. So how can u say those 1,600 lives were senseless?
Will, USMC: it was reported this year that out of 30 people claiming to be a navy SEAL, only one of them actually were a seal.
If you are a marine, I'm sorry but if you don't understand that Bush arbitrarily invaded an oil-rich Muslim country, feeding an insurgency that has killed 1600 soldiers, you voting for George Bush was a vote against their own self-interest -- like a prostitute knifing a guy for stopping her pimp from beating her.
Pat Tillman's armor was burned to thwart the investigation into his friendly fire death. The first official duty of a marine is to swear to put the constitution of the United States above his own life. You should be embarrassed and ashamed to have failed in this duty by sheltering this presidency.
Will,
While I respect your service I think your reasoning is lacking. 1,600 lives have been lost in a war with a country that had nothing *NOTHING* to do with 9/11.
We had those bastards that hit us on the run and Bush and his admin, carrying out a ten year old plan hatched by most the people in the GWBA, pulled men and resources from that fight and stuck them in Iraq based on lies, spin, twisted facts and nothing else.
Can I say without doubt that Bin Laden and many more of his top guys would be dead or in our jails now had this not happened? No. But I'm sure as Hell that the odds of that having become a fact would have been greater if we kept our eyes on the real ball and not a pet project of a neo-con think tank.
And, please, I have never had anyone explain to me that concept you bring up in a way that went beyond the R's playbook sound byte answers.
When dealing with an enemy that has no nation, no home country and no set home to call its own:
How does attacking a country that had nothing to do with them or the attack they mounted make us safer? How does ignoring or embracing the countries that did help them and still harbor them make us safer? And, since the 9/11 attackers used common everday jets and not one single WMD, what do the dirty bombs, mushroom clouds, nuclear weapons, etc. that Bush supporters bring up at every chance really mean in relation to stopping another 9/11 attack? These people use humans and cars as bombs. They opperate on the cheap and easy. They took our towers down with box cutters and airplanes. Our own homegrown twit blew up a Federal building with a truck and some fertilizer. They know how to do massive damage with very little. Besides, don't you think that they would have used a WMD on 9/11 when they were a larger, stronger more financed group if they were going to? Again, they operate on the cheap. That may one day change and is only as true as, "we haven't been attacked since 9/11," but it is true now and has been for years. How is being in Iraq, stretching or forces thin and getting sidetracked keeping us from "fighting them here" or in any real way make us safer?
Again, Will. I'm not disrespecting you or anyone who serves. I come from a long line of cops and soldiers and only ended up going with cop rather then soldier because of family needs and reasons way to long to get into here and would never insult either profession. But you brought this point up. You may have a better idea of how to answer those questions then others have and, if so, I would love to hear the answers you give.
"Bush arbitrarily invaded an oil-rich Muslim country."
What are you implying? If Bush invaded to get oil, how was the invasion "arbitrary"?
Oh, I forgot -- words mean nothing.
"Exponential" now means "just a tiny little bit," and "arbitrary" now means "non-arbitrary."
What is stopping a nuclear/dirty bomb from hitting our country? Certainly not the Hulk or your website.
And certainly not the Bush Administration with the lack of USEFUL security measures for the transportation industry (particularly, airlines) and the lack of agents patrolling our borders.
"Pat Tillman's armor was burned to thwart the investigation into his friendly fire death. The first official duty of a marine is to swear to put the constitution of the United States above his own life. You should be embarrassed and ashamed to have failed in this duty by sheltering this presidency."
Mike,
Yeah, Bush and Co. did that crap and made up a lie to feed the American public (what's new) to create a hero image and get more people to sign up. Fine. But, please, don't be an idiot and cross that fine line that puts you in the X-Ray camp as a total dick.
I have a lot of friends in the military and some of them only find out about some of the dumb crap like that when they come home. Others take the view that Bush and the service are two different things. Still others, like Will it seems, support Bush. Maybe I just have more respect for those in service then you but I think you can address points in conversation or debate with servicemen or women coming from that point of view without going nasty first. Now, if Will were to come back and get really nasty, I'm with you when the gloves come off. But give the guy the chance to show that he might be better then that.
From m-w.com:
ar·bi·trary adjective 1 : depending on individual discretion (as of a judge) and not fixed by law.
Nice try, jackass.
But, please, don't be an idiot and cross that fine line that puts you in the X-Ray camp as a total dick.
I don't see what was wrong with his post.
Like the Bush Administration, many soldiers seem to think that all Americans should step in line, do whatever Bush asks/wants, and respect him, even when the bastard doesn't deserve it.
He is, after all, the Commander in Chief, a title he doesn't deserve either.
The insinutation is always that, if we hate Bush, we obviously hate America.
It's such a pathetic leap in logic, that I'm surprised nobody takes that and applies it to another country: we hate Castro, but do we hate Cuba & all Cubans? Hell no.
Oh, wait, I forgot about the stupid bullshit some quarters like to give to Chirac and the French.
But, please, don't be an idiot and cross that fine line that puts you in the X-Ray camp as a total dick.
Your friends can do their duty, or they can do their duty and shelter this presidency. If your friends are sheltering this presidency, then they should be embarrassed and ashamed.
So what's your problem?
you voting for George Bush was a vote against [your] own self-interest -- like a prostitute knifing a guy for stopping her pimp from beating her.
How fortunate that you can discern his self-interest better than he can for himself. How ever did you get to be so smart? And so imaginative, coming up with a simile that can be used so frequently without losing any of its cachet or effectiveness.
I don't see what was wrong with his post.
See above.
I truly believe as a Marine and a New Yorker, when 9/11 transpired it changed the world as we know it.
The only thing it changed in the world was giving idiots a rallying cry to be stupid. I’m sorry I don’t wish anyone dead especially 3000 innocent civilians, but we did it to ourselves. 50 years of mishandling relations with the muslim world and 30 years of idiocy in Aftganistan fighting the ‘evil empire’ came home to roost on 9/11.
If those 1600+ lives of my military brethren had been lost in 1993 after the first bombing of the WTC, 3,000 of hard working Americans would not have been brutally murdered.
Lost where? Hello, Osama is the architect of 9/11 and he’s living in Aftganistan or Pakistan. How do 1600 dead Americans in Iraq protect us from someone we can’t even seem to apprehend? It’s like saying you set off a nuke in LA to get someone in NY or to be a geek and go Kirk “you keep missing the target!” Bush and co have thrown away 1600 lives and countless Iraqis to accomplish absolutely nothing except run the deficite thru the roof! Those who fail to learn from history are doomed to repeat and from the looks of it bush got an F in history.
Our Commander-in-Chief has taken hard and difficult steps toward making the world a safer place, just like our fathers and grandfathers did to ensure we can live in a free society.
Oh please, our CnC has done nothing but try to fatten his own wallet and those of his cronies. He thought he could win a quick battle and ride into Baghdad on a white horse and the Iraqis would bow down and kiss his feet. From there he could make money selling off their oil to rebuild the place. So far as a history buff with knowledge of the middle east everything I predicted has come true. Actually it’s been nastier than I expected. If anyone wanted to know how the people in this region would react, just read your history stretching back to the Roman empire. They haven’t changed in 3000 years and are staying true to form.
Freedom is not free and no comic book, as much as I love them, will ever change that.
With freedom comes responsibility. We are not being responsible, we have not made the world a safer place and believe it or not we will be hit again, that is just the facts of history. We will reap again what we have sown.
Do yourself a favor and learn to support your country and your president.
Ah the final call of the falling. You see the great thing about this country is we don’t have to. As an American citizen and patriot I call for the removal of Bush from government as is my right. I support the removal of our citizens from Iraq, that is my right and I will support no president who lies and hides the truth and cuases the death of our soldiers.
Who knew 9/11 was going to happen?
I knew it was a matter of time, in fact the first words out of my mouth after seeing the second plane hit the tower was “it finally happened.” I didn’t know what was going to happen, I didn’t know who would do it, but history and the correlation to our actions said it was only a matter of time. What is more surprising is it didn’t happen sooner.
What is stopping a nuclear/dirty bomb from hitting our country?
Logistics. It is more likely that a conventional bomb or biological disease will be the more likely next incident. Even with all the fear the news media and the Bush admin likes to spray out rapid fire, radioactive material is not that easily gained logistically. In fact a the next threat will more likely be bird flu than terrorist and like the tidal wave who are you going to go out and shoot because of that?
So how can u say those 1,600 lives were senseless?
Easily, their deaths are a complete waste of human life that will accomplish absolutely nothing in the long run as has been proven by 3000 years of history. Crack open a history book sometime, it’s been tried before and as now failed horribly. Rome at best held the area tenuously and more in name than fact. The Kahns were the most successful but did it more thru intermarrying and complete extermination of whole cities than ruling the people. The crusades were a complete failure. The British were in one fight after another trying to hold the area and ultimately were handed the heads on a platter not once but twice and 60 years after the last time are back at it with us again. Doesn’t anyone learn from history?
Oh and here’s another little prediction to you from someone who has learned from history: If we continue on our present course, we will see in our time either another great depression or ultimately our fate will be similar to that of the Soviet Union. Take your pick, neither one I want to experience but we will.
Well that sucks what happened to my nicely laid out post? Well there was suppose to be quotes in there with breaks between paragraphs. Argh. Sorry everyone.
How fortunate that you can discern his self-interest better than he can for himself. How ever did you get to be so smart? And so imaginative, coming up with a simile that can be used so frequently without losing any of its cachet or effectiveness.
What, like a prostitute never defended her own pimp before?
I read an editorial speculating that Michael Jackson wore pajamas to trial to blunt his accuser's resolve to testify. Supposedly he was trying to evoke the cozy emotions in his accuser he used to manipulate him in the first place. "How can you betray me like this after what we shared?"
You think there are no guilty predators in Hell?
" I’m sorry I don’t wish anyone dead especially 3000 innocent civilians, but we did it to ourselves."
Yeesh. X-Ray is like some kind of space/time vortex, anyone who lingers too near gets sucked into saying something incredibly stupid. Run!
Holy cow, Robbnn, I knew you had dug yourself out of debt, but I didn't know how deep it must have been. That really explains your convictions when discussing this topic in the past.
Doesn’t anyone learn from history?
The people can always be brought to the bidding of the leaders. That is easy. All you have to do is tell them they are being attacked, & denounce the peacemakers for lack of patriotism & exposing the country to danger. It works the same in any country.
Herman Goering at the Nuremberg trial
Beware the leader who bangs the drum of war in order to whip the citizenry into a patriotic fervor, for patriotism is indeed a double-edged sword. It both emboldens the blood, just as it narrows the mind.
And when the drums of war have reached a fever pitch & the blood boils with hate & the mind has closed, the leader will have no need in seizing the rights of the citizenry. Rather, the citizenry, infused with fear & blinded by patriotism, will offer up all of their rights unto the leader & gladly so.
How do I know this? For this is what I have done. And I am Caesar.
Julius Caesar
I’m sorry I don’t wish anyone dead especially 3000 innocent civilians, but we did it to ourselves.
No, Osama bin Laden did it -- after Bush finished his monthlong vacation, after reading a memo titled, "Bin Laden determined to strike in US."
What is the mystery?
"Your friends can do their duty, or they can do their duty and shelter this presidency. If your friends are sheltering this presidency, then they should be embarrassed and ashamed.
So what's your problem?"
Simple. I may be wrong but I haven't seen his postings before. Neither you nor I know anything about his reasons for what he states in one short post. Do I disagree with his post? Yeah? Did I think his last line was a bit dense? Yeah. but seeing as how we all have been jumping on X for being a dick and a jackass it doesn't make us look any better to get nasty with a first short post. He may have a good answer that at least deserves respect if not agreement. But, like I said, if he goes the X route and acts like a dick and a jackass then I'm right there with you when the gloves come off.
I know too many servicemen who support the mission and what they believe that they are doing for America that don't really support Bush because they know he used bogus reasons to put them there. They just want to make the best of a bad situation and know that, hey, now that they're there they have to focus on the mission because just letting everything collapse and go to Hell would be a lot worse then doing what they can and fighting to keep it together. They can't undo the last two years. They have to live with now. They have to finish a job that, while it may have been bogus in the begining, has been started and that they're in the middle of. And since Bush won in 2004 they're stuck with the no plan exit plan and stuck with being there. What should they all do? Go A.W.O.L.? Go to jail? They are stuck as of now until Bush gets impeached or the R's lose in 2008.
I'm just saying we should give any servicemen a chance to fill in a few blanks before making statements that they may not be serviceman (as though that adds weight to your argument) or calling them idiots or comparing them to prostitutes.
Again, if he proves that he doesn't deserve the respect then, fine, gloves off. But you wanna at least give him a chance before going total insult mode?
Having read the above as I wrote it I have only one fear now. If that jackass X-Ray makes up a new posting name and claims to be a serviceman to push his garbage I will finally join the ban-his-ass bandwagon.
"The only thing it changed in the world was giving idiots a rallying cry to be stupid. I’m sorry I don’t wish anyone dead especially 3000 innocent civilians, but we did it to ourselves. 50 years of mishandling relations with the muslim world and 30 years of idiocy in Aftganistan fighting the ‘evil empire’ came home to roost on 9/11."
Bull. We had foolish leaders who did foolish things but the final act, the planning, the training, the taking of the jets and the attack of the towers and the taking of lives was done by no one other then the terrorists and only the terrorists. I know people who I have had to deal with for years who I hate. If I killed one of them tomorrow it was me that did it and not them doing something to deserve it.
Yeah, I've pointed out the dumb things that our leaders have done over the years that damned sure didn't help the situation or our image in the world but that is in no way saying that we deserved it. That has to take the prize as the dumbest thing said on the last few threads.
Will, USMC: it was reported this year that out of 30 people claiming to be a navy SEAL, only one of them actually were a seal.If you are a marine, I'm sorry but if you don't understand that Bush arbitrarily invaded an oil-rich Muslim country, feeding an insurgency that has killed 1600 soldiers, you voting for George Bush was a vote against their own self-interest -- like a prostitute knifing a guy for stopping her pimp from beating her.
Pat Tillman's armor was burned to thwart the investigation into his friendly fire death. The first official duty of a marine is to swear to put the constitution of the United States above his own life. You should be embarrassed and ashamed to have failed in this duty by sheltering this presidency.
Jerry, when you said, "I know too many servicemen who support the mission and what they believe that they are doing for America that don't really support Bush because they know he used bogus reasons to put them there" -- what did I say that was inconsistent with this?
How does feeding the insurgency help out the mission your friends believe in?
"Beware the leader who bangs the drum of war in order to whip the citizenry into a patriotic fervor, for patriotism is indeed a double-edged sword. It both emboldens the blood, just as it narrows the mind.
And when the drums of war have reached a fever pitch & the blood boils with hate & the mind has closed, the leader will have no need in seizing the rights of the citizenry. Rather, the citizenry, infused with fear & blinded by patriotism, will offer up all of their rights unto the leader & gladly so.
How do I know this? For this is what I have done. And I am Caesar."
Julius Caesar
I thought that this chestnut hadbeen put to bed back when noted historian Babs Steisand used it in a speech. Go to http://www.snopes.com/quotes/caesar.htm for the story.
Has anyone actually come forward and taken credit or are they too embarassed to do so after someone pointed out that most Roman swords were double edged so it probably wasn't a common phrase back then?
Billus Mulliganus
Given those numbers, I think it's safe to say that voting for a D majority in the House and Senate or a D Prez to balance the R House and Senate ain't all that bad an idea. Hmm?
Nope, not at all. In fact, I voted for an Independent for the congressional seat last time around for the very reason that the Republicans aren't offering any real fiscal restraint.
"what did I say that was inconsistent with this?"
Nothing. You just started your first post by questioning if he was a marine and got snotty with him. I pointed out that I wasn't a big fan of that. You pointed out you have no problem with it. Fine. We have different styles when dealing with some things. Lets agree to disagree on styles, eh.
"How does feeding the insurgency help out the mission your friends believe in?"
How does letting a country we broke go to Hell not feed the insurgency as well? We ain't in the best spot over there but if we step wrong we could end up making things worse then before. I'm not defending the war or Bush. God knows, you can't read anything else that I have posted and think that. But, we are there. We broke a country and removed its leader. We made that country open to an easy take over by any other country in that area and a whole lot of those countries hate us more then Saddam did and would love the added power base. We broke it, we bought it.
What do you think we should do? Just leave? Have fun guys. Sorry for the mess. Don't mind the opening we just made for everybody else to come in and stomp a mudhole in you.
Bush is an ass. But he got us stuck in a bad place. Hate him, disagree with the war or despise the lies used to start it; we have to finish what was started in some way shape or form. We have no choice. Not doing so would only make things worse there and, just maybe, here. So, yeah, I cut serviceman some alck for being touchy about the garbage can that Bush dropped them into and kinda want to hear their full reasons for stating what they do.
Like I said....
Our styles on these matters are different. You don't agree with mine and I don't agree with yours. Fine. we disagree on that. Fair enough to agree to disagree here and move on now?
Brian Peters:
Oh and here’s another little prediction to you from someone who has learned from history: If we continue on our present course, we will see in our time either another great depression or ultimately our fate will be similar to that of the Soviet Union. Take your pick, neither one I want to experience but we will.
I've mentioned similar sentiments before on this blog. But what can we expect from a man who ran several companies into the ground while his fathers' wealthy friends bailed him out. I wonder who he thinks will bail out an entire county when he runs it into the ground. Not having paid the consequences for his actions in the past goes a long way to explaining his current actions.
"Who knew 9/11 was going to happen?"
Well, I would tend to think the people who wrote the memo, "Bin Laden Intends to Strike in the United States" certainly had some clue. Unfortunately, the report was never given the attention it should have been until after the fact.
"What is stopping a nuclear/dirty bomb from hitting our country? Certainly not the Hulk or your website. So how can u say those 1,600 lives were senseless?"
Will, I want to respect you and the job you do, but your post is disrespectful and arrogant. Just thought you should know.
I would like to think that the efforts of a coordinated intelligence network--a Department of Homeland Security, as recommended by the outgoing Clinton administration and brushed off by the Hussein-obsessed incoming Bush administration--is doing that job. The 1600 brave souls who perished and the many more who will continue to do so did not do that job because Hussein had no weapons of mass destruction. That is what makes their sacrifice so senseless, because they need not have died if Bush and his neo-Cons had not been hell bent-for-leather determined to invade Iraq since the 1990s, way before 9/11 ever happened.
The entire attitude of your post is, unfortunately, lockstep thinking. The kind of thinking that says True Americans, patriotic Americans, must march to the drum of war as pounded by the White House, and anyone who does not is a bad American.
My belief is that the Commander in chief did not take difficult steps to make the world a safer place. I believe he and his neocons rushed into a war motivated by lust for oil and economic domination under the pretense of trying to make America safer. This plan was indisputably on the docket from before he took office, and he ruthlessly exploited a shell-shocked America--still reeling over 9/11--into believing that the next attack was going to come from Iraq. Through lies and deception, he and his Neocons actually convinced seven out of ten Americans that Iraqis were responsible for flying planes into the WTC. He has, quite simply, betrayed the trust of Americans. He has executed perfectly the concept of the Big Lie, i.e., it is far easier to get people to believe a Big Lie than a small lie.
The war in Iraq was a bin Laden dream come true (remember him? The guy we were going to get dead or alive? The guy Bush doesn't think much about anymore? That bin Laden?) We turned the country into a bin Laden recruitment festival. The argument can be made that the world is, in fact, a MORE dangerous place than it was before, thanks to our playing into the worst preconceptions of this country and making them real to people who had no reason to fear and hate us before...and now do.
That is what I mean by senseless deaths.
PAD
>Bull.
Yep your post is bull.
> We had foolish leaders who did foolish things but the final act, the planning, the training, the taking of the jets and the attack of the towers and the taking of lives was done by no one other then the terrorists and only the terrorists.
Oh I see those untold Iraqi civilian deaths that our government refuses to total, well we can forget about them, they don't exist. The terrorists based in Aftganistan and Arabia managed to kill less than 3000 people that day, and how many Iraqi civilians have we managed to kill? At best estimates we have managed to kill more Iraqis than Saddam did since the Gulf War and that total is far and away past 3000 people. You had a better chance of surviving under Saddam Hossein than under the "freedom" of US occupation!
> I know people who I have had to deal with for years who I hate. If I killed one of them tomorrow it was me that did it and not them doing something to deserve it.
Dealing in absolutes are we, well sorry the myth of a black and white world is only in the mind of our brain dead president and those who preceeded him. For every action there will be an equal and opposite reaction. And that applies just as relevantly to world politics as it does to physics. Cover your ears, close your eyes, scream out I'm not listening, but history has already judged us and we have reaped the whirlwind.
>Yeah, I've pointed out the dumb things that our leaders have done over the years that damned sure didn't help the situation or our image in the world but that is in no way saying that we deserved it.
It's like the kid who sits there and plays with matches, he doesn't necessarily deserve to get burned, but his actions are sooner or later going to lead to those consequences. We played fast and loose fighting the "evil empire". We supported despots who did far worse things to their own people than Russia did to their own. We armed religious nutbar zealots and trained them to fight and now we cry when they decide to turn that gun on us. Well what the hell do you expect
> That has to take the prize as the dumbest thing said on the last few threads.
The stupidity is in your own post, you are blind to the ramifications of the actions of your government. You endorse playing fast and loose and they you cry when it bits you in the butt. Do the Iraqi citizens deserve to die by the thousands because George Bush ordered it? Do they deserve to live in abject fear walking or driving down the street because people in their society don't like foreigners dictating what they are going to do? Did the women of Aftganistan deserve to be turned into nothing more than chattle because we armed the Taliban and let them take control after they had kicked out the evil empire? Did thousands of africans deserve to die because we put we put a manical dictator in charge (I forget his name, little somthing)?
How about those millions of africans who have died in the name of tribal cleansing while we turn a blind eye? Did they deserve to die? We invade countries in the name of freedom and removal of tyanical despots who haven't even attained anything close to the millions in Africa, but we just can't be bother to intervene in Africa. Where is your moral indignity at the loss of human life there? Oh wait you don't care about any human life but your own, those dead Iraqis don't exist and don't count.
Did we deserve it? That is only a question god can answer. What it is though is the fall out from foreign political agenda missmanagement that has been going on for 30+ years. Bury your head in the sand and jump up and down but our government handed a religious psychotic a gun, money and trained him and then pissed an unstable personality off. And the fact this psychotic and his taliban cohorts then turned and used what we had given them against us is why? Gee history is just rife with examples of the exact same thing happening again and again and again and I take it you got an F in history along with Bush, Blair, Bush, Regan and the rest of the lot.
"Bin Laden Intends to Strike in the United States."
Well, yes, obviously this sentence means that they are going to fly jets into the WTC. How stupid of Bush not to see that!
"[Bush] rushed into a war motivated by lust for oil and economic domination under the pretense of trying to make America safer."
No bloodfor oil? Pray tell, where is all this oil now? Why are we not taking it from Iraq. Mr. David, you'd better brush up on your liberal talking points -- that one was discredited long ago.
"Through lies and deception, [Bush] and his Neocons actually convinced seven out of ten Americans that Iraqis were responsible for flying planes into the WTC."
How? By never saying anything like what you just claim? Another Peter David lie. We're used to them by now.
"The argument can be made that the world is, in fact, a MORE dangerous place than it was before."
The argument can also be made that BUSH SUCKS. But why tell you? Politically, it's all you know. It's your only response to any political event. You enjoy seeking out the bad, and attributing it all to Bush. He did invent war and also evil, you know. Good job. Yeah! BUSH SUCKS!
"I take it you got an F in history along with Bush, Blair, Bush, Regan and the rest of the lot."
Everyone is a moron ... but you.
"The stupidity is in your own post, you are blind to the ramifications of the actions of your government. You endorse playing fast and loose and they you cry when it bits you in the butt."
Gee, reading problems? I have never endorsed playing fast and loose with the truth by our government. Stating that that is my viewpoint just because I don't think we deserved to be attacked on 9/11 shows some really strange mental processes on your part and a big problem with understanding what you read.
"Dealing in absolutes are we, well sorry the myth of a black and white world is only in the mind of our brain dead president and those who preceeded him."
Yeah, right. Being snide doesn't change the fact that we didn't deserve to be attacked. Under the weak thinking of your argument we can say anybody, including your examples, deseved to die or be attacked for whatever reason we want to come up with. If only those dumb Iraqi peoples had overthrown Saddam long ago we wouldn't have gone in there after him. If only they would have become a free country sooner..... I guess they asked for it and deserved to die. They could have acted in their own best interests after all and changed their lives for the better. That's crap. But no more so then your points.
"How about those millions of africans who have died in the name of tribal cleansing while we turn a blind eye? Did they deserve to die? We invade countries in the name of freedom and removal of tyanical despots who haven't even attained anything close to the millions in Africa, but we just can't be bother to intervene in Africa."
Excuse me!?! How stupid are you and how big of an ass are you trying to really be? We didn't go into Iraq for freedoms sake. We went in after WMD's. When that lie couldn't be kept up it then changed reasons to "freedom." Have you read any of the other posts on this site? How about just this thread? One of my stated reasons for not liking Bush in other threads has been the deaths his fool's mission has caused. All deaths. Not just U.S. deaths. I would love to see the bastard impeached for his lies and his crimes. One of my stated reasons in this post is that it was just so much lies and garbage. And since I don't agree with Bush, or the reasons for war and would like nothing more then for someone to come up with a way to get our guys out without causing anymore damage over there or deaths; what in the blue hell has my not demanding we go into Africa have to do with anything? How screwed up is your brain?
"Did we deserve it? That is only a question god can answer."
Oh, so you're God? After all, it was you who posted first that we deserved it. And you seem so sure that we deserved it in this post as well. Or, is this your back door to run out of on a brain dead concept.
"Gee history is just rife with examples of the exact same thing happening again and again and again and I take it you got an F in history along with Bush, Blair, Bush, Regan and the rest of the lot."
Sure. I flunked history. Right. And you base this on my saying that the people in the towers, people who had nothing to do with what was done by the people in power here any more then the people of Iraq had to do with what Saddam did in Gulf 1 or in the years after that, didn't deserve to die and we didn't deserve to be attacked? Again, your brain must be a strange place to be in, dude.
"We played fast and loose fighting the "evil empire". We supported despots who did far worse things to their own people than Russia did to their own. We armed religious nutbar zealots and trained them to fight and now we cry when they decide to turn that gun on us. Well what the hell do you expect"
Did I expect something like that to happen one day for the very reasons you source? Yeah. I expected an animal to act like an animal. But that doesn't mean that innocents deserved to be killed by that animal. It's a twisted mind that comes up with logic like that. Yours must be really far gone. But, hey, why stop your "we deserved it" crusade with this though? While your at it, go tell a rape victim that she deserved it. After all, she shouldn't have been out late/ drinking so much/ dressed like that/ etc. Love to see that. I'll laugh my tail of as she kicks yours to within an inch of your life.
"Oh wait you don't care about any human life but your own, those dead Iraqis don't exist and don't count"
Oh, yeah. That's me. Really, have you read any of my posts before deciding you know so much about me? I hate the fact that Bush has caused all those deaths with his lies. As I said, I would love nothing more then to see him inpeached and put on trial for his crimes. Oh, and as I've pointed out before and in this thread, and I'm a cop you jackass. My job says that I may have to put others lives over my own to serve the greater good. My job says that my wife may one night not have me come home because protecting others may put me in the kill zone. I train hard to be able to do what needs to be done when it goes down but I've lost count over the years of how many times I've been "killed" in training. You work to correct any weak points or wrong moves but it always remains in your head that you can die for real just as easy. But I put that uniform on everyday. Oh yeah, I only care about my little life and nobody elses. Sure.
Congrats. You now run neck and neck with X-Ray as the sites biggest dolt and greatest jackass.
hmmm It looks like x-ray stopped putting work into his posts, so I'll just sum up his next one thus saveing us all some time.
"PAD quote"
your wrong and stupid
"PAD quote"
your stupid and a liar
"PAD quote"
Your wrong, but I won't bother to support my argument anymore because I'm being lazy.
And finally the mantra of my bizzar rants bush sucks.
I hope I didn't leave anything out.
Jeff Coney
www.hedgehoggames.com
Brian Peters,
I could dismiss the majority of your posts as a collection of typical knee-jerk "Blame-America-First" liberalism, but this part I just had to respond to
"You had a better chance of surviving under Saddam Hussein than under the 'freedom' of U.S. occupation."
This is what is known as a lie, a fabrication of the truth. I reaLIZE, LIKE MANY of the more outrageous liberal talking points you hav repeated this outright falsehood enough you believe it to be to be true.
But even given accepting some of the more liberal distortions as truth, this one does not even come close to passing the smell test.
Consider: According to most reliable sources, 50,000 Iraqis died from intentional malnutrition every year. The most outrageous claims of civilian deaths in Iraq were 100,000 and quickly debunked as grossly inflated by groups like Human Rights Watch, which puts the figure at a still-tragic 12-20,000. But this correction was largely ignored by the American media, who had been quick to put the "100,000 civilian deaths" line as a headline in most of the papers in the country.
Does the fact that this figure was so greatly exaggerated not bother anyone? Or does it make you feel better portraying Bush and the U.S. as a callous monster?
Now, here's the best part. Even if the 100,000 figure were true, it would - at best - equal the 100,000 Saddam would have killed in a two year span.
So Bush, even painted with as vile and hateful a brush the Left can muster, still would only equal the horrific reality of the rule of Saddam.
But Saddam is gone, as are his sons. The Iraqi people are adjusting quite quickly to the "freedom" you and many others seem so quick to mock.
But the proof was in the pudding last January, when so many Iraqis voted for the first time. Their lives are better and getting better and will continue to do so, no matter how much you may argue otherwise from the comfort of your keyboard.
I apologize x-ray, I just can't get as excited as bush seems to make you. When most men get that excited about bush, there is usually a woman involved
Jeff Coney
www.hedgehoggames.com
"Bin Laden Intends to Strike in the United States."Well, yes, obviously this sentence means that they are going to fly jets into the WTC. How stupid of Bush not to see that!
Obviously it means "Take a monthlong vacation after 6½ months on the job."
What are you implying? If Bush invaded to get oil, how was the invasion "arbitrary"?Oh, I forgot -- words mean nothing.
ar·bi·trary adjective 1 : depending on individual discretion (as of a judge) and not fixed by law.
Hey, you're a liar.
No selective application of principles going on with you, is there? Jackass.
Why is anyone even talking to this guy? Attention clearly feeds him.. so starve him.
"Will, I want to respect you and the job you do, but your post is disrespectful and arrogant. Just thought you should know."
So you respect me, but I'm an asshole???
Hulk smash Bush!!!
Navy Seals rule! Thanks to Mike for his stupidity. Is your middle name Apples and Oranges
or just pansy ass.
No matter how our soldiers got there, what they live and die for is the good of the Iraqi people. Girls go to school, rape rooms are closed, families are more secure. The Iraqis are GLAD we are there; they don't care on what pretext we are there, they are thrilled that we are making a difference.
Ignore the papers and talk to the guys on the ground. They do a hard and ugly job, but their work is for the people and for us regardless of how they were put there.
Tell it to the women and children of Iraq that our soldier's deaths are senseless. They don't agree.
"I hope I didn't leave anything out."
The ONLY reason I'm mentioning this is because, well, you asked: You left out the apostrophe and the letter "e" that should have been in "your" to make it "you're." "Your" is the possessive, as in, "Hey, Peter, where'd that village idiot show up from on your blog?" "You're" is the proper contraction form of "you are," which is what you meant to say, as in "You're the village idiot."
Otherwise it was all bang on target.
PAD
Anybody else find it odd that, Will USMC drops the USMC, ends on, "Navy Seals rule" (just a wee bit odd for a Marine with the rib poking between the two branches) and posts a rant that reads like X-Ray from start to finish?
But, if that was Will USMC....
Mike, I'm sorry.
You are a better judge of character from first contacts in the blogging game then I am. These aren't the postings of a soldier who is a wee bit touchy about people ragging on the job adn the mission and taking that, just on face value, as a slap at the service itself. These are the postings of jackass.
Sorry I said you were acting a bit like a dick. It turns out that you were just reacting to one.
"Will, I want to respect you and the job you do, but your post is disrespectful and arrogant. Just thought you should know."
"So you respect me, but I'm an asshole???"
No, I didn't say that. Nor did I think that...before.
PAD
"The Iraqis are GLAD we are there; they don't care on what pretext we are there, they are thrilled that we are making a difference."
Yeah, okay, here's the thing:
There's lots of people in lots of places who would be thrilled that we were there. If we were out to spend billions upon billions of dollars on something, I'll wager there's plenty of starving people in various countries--including, I might add, this one--who would be thrilled if we spent it all on ways of feeding them.
There's people being systematically exterminated in other countries that we haven't given the time of day. They'd be thrilled to see us, too, and I'll bet they wouldn't even be trying to blow us up with car bombs.
George W. Bush did not say to the people of this country, "Let's go into Iraq because they'll be thrilled to see us." If he had said that, and if 9/11 hadn't happened, he wouldn't have gotten billions for his war. He'd have been laughed out of office. Instead he said to the people of this country, "We must go in and get Saddam Hussein because he is an immediate and major threat to the people of the United States." And the people, still jumpy after 9/11 and convinced by Bush et al that the Iraqis had destroyed the WTC, trusted him.
And he lied. And he betrayed the trust. And if that's too big a truth to contemplate, then adjust for your comfort level and admit that he was wrong on a monumental scale. If any CEO of a company were that wrong about something on that huge a scale--and it cost 1600 investors their life's savings (as opposed to 1600 soldiers their lives)--they'd be out the door.
And his followers can try to ignore that by saying after the fact, Oh, but we're making a difference and spreading democracy and the people are thrilled to see us, but NONE of that changes the fact that we went in there on a foundation of bullshit. And you know what? You can take bullshit, slap some sealant on it, decorate it with painted flowers and call it a window treatment, but ultimately all you've really got is festive bullshit.
PAD
Personally, I WANT us to interfere in a lot more countries. I'd like to see Mugabe lined up against a wall. The massacre in Darfur should not go unanswered. Slavery in Sudan? We ALLOW this to happen in 2005??? Obviously we would have to do it alone--Europe is useless even to each other, China is only interested in the outside world in so far as they can dominate or sell goods to them, India has enough trouble dragging itself into the modern age (But watch India; it may end up being what many think that China will be), Japan can send money but little else, Antarctica will do what it can.
So why do I vote republican when they tend to let me down? Well, looking at the other side...hey, here's Charlei Rangal!
Top House Democrat Charles Rangel complained on Monday that the Bush administration's decision to concoct a "fraudulent" war in Iraq was as bad as "the Holocaust."
"It's the biggest fraud ever committed on the people of this country," Rangel told WWRL Radio's Steve Malzberg and Karen Hunter. "This is just as bad as six million Jews being killed. The whole world knew it and they were quiet about it, because it wasn't their ox that was being gored."
Wow.
"The Iraqis are GLAD we are there; they don't care on what pretext we are there, they are thrilled that we are making a difference."
Umm...
Yeah, some. But a lot of guys I know talk as though almost half the Iraqi people they come across wave and smile as they walk up and then throw rocks or shoot at them from behind their backs when they go by. And some of those people are small children and women. Not all of those people are loving us or what we're doing there.
"Ignore the papers and talk to the guys on the ground. They do a hard and ugly job, but their work is for the people and for us regardless of how they were put there."
True. But that still doesn't change how they got there, the lies invloved, what is going on, the need to find a way to get them out of there without watching everything go to hell or the desire to see Bush (and a few others) spend the rest of his life in bright orange cloths and a small room :).
We had foolish leaders who did foolish things but the final act,
Was preventable.
Since it was not prevented, I blame every president going back the last 30 years for ignoring every possibility to prevent 9/11.
I blame the airline industry for ignoring recommendations that date back to the 70's, iirc, that they should install reinforced cockpit doors. Why didn't they? The cost.
Tell it to the women and children of Iraq that our soldier's deaths are senseless. They don't agree.
Maybe not, but the major problem is the reasons why we went there.
We didn't go there for freedom or democracy. We went on the false pretense that Saddam had WMD.
When they didn't find WMD, the Bush Administration did what they do best: revise history to best suit their needs and desires.
Bill, personally, your opinion frightens me. What right does the US have to go around playing World Police? And I'm being quite honest...by what right does the US have to invade another sovereign nation? Because atrocities occur there? Even some perpetrated by the government? We execute people in the US. Many people in the world today view capital punishment as barbaric and violative of basic human rights. If your rationale is because the US has the power and the ability to use military might to impose it's moral standard where and when it chooses, it's only a matter of time before that message gets embraced by another world power...say China, or maybe North Korea...and they decide to do something about those barbaric Americans that kill their criminals instead of seeking to reform them, or allows it's poor to suffer on the streets when billions of $ are wasted on parties and government elections.
I don't agree that Bush is as bad as Hitler...yet. He's got a few years left, though. I DO agree, however, that the rest of the world is pretty much in a position of watching the US trample over international law, and helpless to do anything about it. Those that have the capability are increasing their defense and offense (China, Korea, India) in case Bush turns his warmongering ways to them next...while those that lack any significant military capacity just try to not attract attention.
Bush attacked Iraq to make the US safer? Every day, North Korea gets closer to the ability to deploy a nuclear weapon using ICBM technology. Every day, more people worldwise come to hate the US and our government. Every day, we create future martyrs, willing to die for their cause.
I've never felt less safe in my life.
I've been ignoring X-Ray's comments, but these quickies made me laugh... It's the whispery second one that clenches it.
Posted by: X-Ray at June 9, 2005 03:39 AM
You left out the most important one... BUSH SUCKS!
Posted by: X-Ray at June 9, 2005 03:40 AM
(Upper case mandatory!)
"So why do I vote republican when they tend to let me down? Well, looking at the other side...hey, here's Charlei Rangal!"
Whom I didn't vote for.
There's stupid people saying stupid things on both sides. But I think we both know that if it had been Gore in office instead of Bush when the towers fell, we would NOT have wound up attacking Iraq...if for no other reason than that the GOP would have refused to give him the necessary resources to do so (as opposed to falling into step behind Bush.)
PAD
So why do I vote republican when they tend to let me down? Well, looking at the other side...hey, here's Charlei Rangal!Top House Democrat Charles Rangel complained on Monday that the Bush administration's decision to concoct a "fraudulent" war in Iraq was as bad as "the Holocaust.""It's the biggest fraud ever committed on the people of this country," Rangel told WWRL Radio's Steve Malzberg and Karen Hunter. "This is just as bad as six million Jews being killed. The whole world knew it and they were quiet about it, because it wasn't their ox that was being gored."
Wow.
Bill, what's astonishing is that you continue your support for a predatory agenda, because of the criticism of that predatory agenda was indulgent.
George Bush refused to cut short a vacation over the bin Laden memo that he cut short to restore Terri Schiavo's feeding tube -- but Rangel enjoyed himself a little bit too much criticising Bush, so let's keep Bush in a position to continue feeding the insurgency?
I'm sorry, Bill, but that's patently stupid.
Mr. David said, "Gore in office instead of Bush when the towers fell, we would NOT have wound up attacking Iraq."
--------
Correct! Gore would have done nothing but talk. I agree.
"Bill, personally, your opinion frightens me. What right does the US have to go around playing World Police? And I'm being quite honest...by what right does the US have to invade another sovereign nation? Because atrocities occur there? Even some perpetrated by the government? We execute people in the US. Many people in the world today view capital punishment as barbaric and violative of basic human rights. If your rationale is because the US has the power and the ability to use military might to impose it's moral standard where and when it chooses, it's only a matter of time before that message gets embraced by another world power...say China, or maybe North Korea...and they decide to do something about those barbaric Americans that kill their criminals instead of seeking to reform them, or allows it's poor to suffer on the streets when billions of $ are wasted on parties and government elections."
By that rationale, we had no right to execute German officials for doing what they did to the Jews if killing Jews was not an illegal act in Germany? (I know, I just brought Nazis into the argument. I lose)
If I have the power to stop an atrocity and I don't, I may not be as bad as the perpetrator but I'm still pretty damn bad.
Hmmm...hard to imagine the Chinese or North Koreans getting TOO upset over either poverty or capital punishment, if one knows even a little about what is going on in those countries...but your point still has validity even if the examples are poorly chosen. Well, it is highly unlikely that any country will be powerful enough to invade the United States. Similarly, there is little we can do about human right violations in China. One has to choose ones battles. Mugabe is not as bad as the leaders of North Korea but he can be toppled without releasing screaming nuclear hell.
As to whether saving the lives of few hundred thousand Africans is worth the moral pain of imposing my will on another country...I can imagine myself sleeping comfortably.
ME- "So why do I vote republican when they tend to let me down? Well, looking at the other side...hey, here's Charlei Rangal!"
PAD-
Whom I didn't vote for.
Well...ok, but that really wasn't what I was suggesting. I tend to vote republican because I see too many of the leaders on the Democrats as indicative of a party that can't be trusted with big issues. To give another example--and I'm not suggesting you voted for him either--when one looks at the people that the parties selected to lead them, well...
We have Dean, who spreads a message of hate that may play well with the already converted but looks like a loose cannon to any impartial observer. The Republicans have Mehlman, who is trying to reach out to voters who have not yet voted Republican.
But at least Dean is good at raising money...er, except he isn't--the republicans have raised at least twice as much.
I just see the Democrat party as too immature for the job and the Republicans win by default. Note though that several Democrats-- Hillary for one--seem to me to be an order of magnitude (or even exponentially) smarter than most of their peers and well worth a serious look.
I think it's very possible that Hillary as president will make me look like an isolationist. One can hope.
But I think we both know that if it had been Gore in office instead of Bush when the towers fell, we would NOT have wound up attacking Iraq...if for no other reason than that the GOP would have refused to give him the necessary resources to do so (as opposed to falling into step behind Bush.)
can't speak for the GOP...but I would have supported it. And, like my suspicion that many of the "anti-war" activists would have enthusiastically supported a Gore-led effort, neither of us can ever truly "know". We may just be self indulgently thinking the worst of our opponents, bereft as they are of our steller consitancy.
Mike says:
Bill, what's astonishing is that you continue your support for a predatory agenda, because of the criticism of that predatory agenda was indulgent.
George Bush refused to cut short a vacation over the bin Laden memo that he cut short to restore Terri Schiavo's feeding tube -- but Rangel enjoyed himself a little bit too much criticising Bush, so let's keep Bush in a position to continue feeding the insurgency?
I'm sorry, Bill, but that's patently stupid.
You assume much. Since I don't believe that the memo said anything everyone did not already know--I mean, were you actually SURPRISED when 9/11 happened because you never dreamed that Bin Laden wanted to do something like that--I just can't work up the level of outrage you deem appropriate.
I also disagree that we are "feeding the insurgency". They don't seem to be thriving from the feeding. Some may see their ability to blow up funeral parties as evidence of strength--I see it as the opposite.
Rangel's comments are simply the latest in a long line from Democrat leaders (not all, as I mention above) that make me leery of their ability to lead in the fight against terrorism, an issue that dwarfs things like Terri Schiavo, tragic as it was, into insignificance.
Others, people of obvious intelligence, disagree with me on any and all the details. That's why I tend not to use the word stupid to describe them--it ensures that, should I be proven wrong, I won't look like such a dick.
puny humans, hulk is strongest one there is!!!!
on a serious note, if we go back to the posts happening during the election, i see we are duplicating them again.
BUSH IS EVIL.
BUSH IS GOOD.
I HATE REPUBLICANS.
I HATE DEMOCRATS.
I LOVE REPUBLICANS.
I LOVE DEMOCRATS.
I HATE EVERYONE.
I LOVE EVERYONE.
Aaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaargh.
Unless I'm mistaken, the "we" that executed Nazi war criminals was a world court. Not a US court. You don't lose just for bringing in Nazis...although it doesn't help your argument at all.
Essentially, you're saying "might makes right." It's a time tested truism...as is "there's always a bigger fish." The whole point of democracy is that might making right often leads to despots and tyrants, who more often than not end up abusing someone, somewhere, trampling those little things we call "rights" and have come to value quite dearly. In recognizing that we don't have the military capacity to take on China, you've demonstrated exactly why I feel more in danger now than I ever have...because eventually we're start to run out of Mugabes...the little guys that can't fight back. Or maybe a few of them will band together and wait for an opportunity to strike back at the US bully...or just go off and sell their freedom to China or North Korea for protection from the US Moral Expansion wars.
I'd suggest that you can rest easy while US troops invade another country because you live under the false impression that we are safe from retribution. We're not. Sure, it would take a military the likes of which this world has never seen in order to stage even a minor successful invasion on continental US soil....but if we should have learned anything from incidents like the OKC bombing and 9/11, we are not insulated, we are not immune, and we certainly have been, are and will continue to be vulnerable to attacks.
Well, looking at the other side...hey, here's Charlei Rangal!
I suppose this is on par with calling Gitmo the "gulag of our time"?
Atleast Amnesty Intnl is a little closer to the truth. But, to be honest, I'm not sure if I'd heard of Rangal before today.
If I have the power to stop an atrocity and I don't, I may not be as bad as the perpetrator but I'm still pretty damn bad.
Which I think is pretty true, and it's why I would smack Clinton if I could for pulling out of Somalia like he did.
It's why I think everybody should watch the movie Hotel Rwanda, to see how badly ALL leaders of the world are failing Africa, not just Clinton, or Bush, or other previous US presidents.
I just see the Democrat party as too immature for the job and the Republicans win by default.
And, sadly, the Republicans are no better than the Democrats - they are just as immature, but have garnered the religious & war vote to get them into office anyways.
Rangel's comments are simply the latest in a long line from Democrat leaders (not all, as I mention above) that make me leery of their ability to lead in the fight against terrorism, an issue that dwarfs things like Terri Schiavo, tragic as it was, into insignificance.
...which George Bush has demonstrated -- by taking a monthlong vacation after receiving the bin Laden memo (after 6½ months in office) and cutting his vacation short to keep the feeding tube in Terri Schiavo.
Bush demonstrated priorities opposite of those you claim to espouse. There's no defense against your relentless, Lennie-like persistence in supporting his agenda of domination.
"Unless I'm mistaken, the "we" that executed Nazi war criminals was a world court. Not a US court. You don't lose just for bringing in Nazis...although it doesn't help your argument at all."
You're quite right but it would not have bothered me in the slightest if we or the Russians or the French or a couple of Germans had done the job. Perhaps a better example would have been Israel's capture and execution of Eichmann. No doubt it is a glaring example of a country going into another country, snatching one of its citizens and executing them. Does anyone, other Mrs. Eichmann and all the little Eichmanns (copyright Ward Curchill) think this was a bad thing?
No, might does not make right. But if you have the power to stop genocide and you don't you are on the wrong side of history.
Any country that would "sell their freedom to China or North Korea for protection from the US Moral Expansion wars" deserves what they get and it's a bit hard to imagine that. You DO know what it's like in North Korea, right? I mean, South Korea could join up with them now if they wanted to--strangely, they are instead allowing troops of the mean old USA in their country to prevent such a thing. Taiwan and Japan also seem to be oddly reticent over joining up with those swell Chinese.
If your fear comes true it could well be more because of a fear that the USA will NOT try to do anything about it. If I were Taiwan and I thought that America would just stand by and watch the Chinese launch an attack I might try to cut the best deal I could. Japan would more likely go the other route and strengthen its military, including nukes. A expansionist China and an armed Japan---hey, who needs the USA to start WW3?
I'd suggest that you can rest easy while US troops invade another country because you live under the false impression that we are safe from retribution.
See, this is why it's hard to take some people seriously. We disagree on some issues and you just can't see how that can be so you have to imagine that I am just so naive that the Obvious Truths just haven't hit me yet. No, Bobb, I really do know that we are not safe from retribution. In fact, my experience in biotech research has given me the uncomfortable wisdom to know a few ways we can be hit that so far haven't gotten much attention (thank God). In fact it is SO easy to hit us and SO impossible to prevent (outside of a complete police state and shooting anyone crossing the border or straying into forbidden water or airspace--any takers?) it amazes me that it has not happened since 9/11. Perhaps that is why I am not as dismissive of the "flypaper" argument for Iraq as others are.
But I won't be so self indulgent as to assume that those who disagree must be doing so out of capriciousness, ignorance, or lack of intelligence.
And we may never know who was right. If an attack happens tommorrow it won't prove me wrong and if it never happens again it won't prove me right. In life, sometimes the truth remains elusive.
Bill, I'm glad you're aware of our vulnerability. Where we differ, I'd imagine, is that I'm taking a longer term view than you. I have a lot of respect for the rights of sovereign nations. I am made extremely uncomfortable when our country takes any action that violates another nation's rights. The "go it alone" attitude of imposing your moral will on another country, even when seeking out a result you see as "good," will eventually earn you a place of solitude...no allies, nor friends. You've alienated anyone that might have come to your defense. And, literally, God help you when you're no longer the big kid on the block, because there are going to be an awful lot of people wanting to see you get some comeuppance.
Just because you have the power to do something does not mean that you can and should. Are the evils in the world? Yes. Should the US be the sole nation taking action to prevent and end those evils? No. Are we? Sometimes. I don't think a military invasion should ever be a solution...more death and destruction will not stop death and destruction. It might pause it, cause it to move somewhere else, or maybe go into hiding, but you can't kill an idea. And so long as that idea is allowed to flourish, and is not countered by other ideas, no amount of bullets, tanks, or bombs will stop the killing.
Someone wrote, "So why do I vote republican when they tend to let me down? Well, looking at the other side...hey, here's Charlie Rangal!"
Mr. David replied, "Whom I didn't vote for."
This reply is intended to give the impression that David had a choice, and choose not to vote for Rangel. Thisis not the case.
The truth: Mr. David couldn't have voted for Rangel even if he wanted to. Rangle is a rep from Harlem. David doesn't live in Harlem. (Except, of course, in his mind. "No man is an island," after all.)
Yet ANOTHER case of Peter David caught stretching the truth. David has no problem with doing this, because he feels he is SO obviously correct in all things it's OK. The end justifies the means, right Mr. David?
(I can't WAIT to see how he tries to get out of this one. It's all so ... exponential!)
Bobb,
I respect that reply.
I don't know which of us takes the longer view...I can see the argument being made that one musty allow a certain level of atrocity for the greater good but I can also argue that in allowing it you are helping to create a future where such things become ever more the norm.
Not to be snarky and put you in a position of having to agree with someone I rather doubt you support but "I don't think a military invasion should ever be a solution...more death and destruction will not stop death and destruction. It might pause it, cause it to move somewhere else, or maybe go into hiding, but you can't kill an idea. And so long as that idea is allowed to flourish, and is not countered by other ideas, no amount of bullets, tanks, or bombs will stop the killing." is disturbingly like what Pat Buchanan has recently been arguing over World War 2--that we would have been far better to have allowed Hitler and the Soviets to have slugged it out and that either eventual "winner" would have fallen from internal problems, as the Soviets eventually did. One can argue, as he does, that the result would have been far less death and destruction.
Personally, I'm of the belief that had Hitler achieved any semblance of victory and died peacefully in his sleep we would have seen a whole lot more of his ilk in the last 60 years.
My last point is--what exactly is a "nation"? If we invaded the Sudan and stopped the genocide would we be violating the nation's rights? Is the nation personified by whoever is in charge of it at any given moment? Do the wishes of the people count or is that imposing the idea of democracy on them?
I'd prefer to err on the side of life and liberty and if the liberated don't like it they will have ample opportunity to revert back to death and dictatorship (But I find that unlikely as I don't think that people are all that different, whatever their color or creed).
Oh wait .. I forgot. Peter David is ignoring me. (Except for the seven or eight posts he's made about me since he declared he was "donne" with me, that is. You have to admit that is an exponential amount of posts!)
Bill, I'm still chuckling at having Pat Buchanon's words come out of my mouth...because he and I, sharing the same space, would probably cause a matter-anti-matter explosion.
Well, maybe that just proves me both wrong and right. In joining with Britain and Russia against Germany, we helped end a terribly evil regime. The difference, I think, is that we acted in concert with others. It wasn't just the US saying "someone has to stop that madman..." The rest of the world (sans Japan and Italy) were practically begging us to come stop him. But the idea didn't die...racial superiority still exists. We try to counter it with education and enlightenment whenever we can.
But I also recognize that there does come a time when you need to do more than teach. I just don't want any country to have the power and abilty to make that decision on their own.
Nations have recognized borders and governments. They may be fuzzy borders, but someone claims the Sudan...er, maybe. I'm not as up on that part of the world as I could be.
"I'd prefer to err on the side of life and liberty and if the liberated don't like it they will have ample opportunity to revert back to death and dictatorship"...the problem with this is that, once you establish the precedent of might makes right, that becomes the model everyone else follows. So, even if you could impose "order" to a destabilized region, the only thing keeping that order is threat of force. Once you remove that, order will break down. Using might to impose order creates a situation where you need to maintain that threat of force, and the longer it takes you to deploy force, the more likely order will break down.
And if anarchy does return, do you go back in to stop the attrocities again?
heh heh...me and Pat Buchanon...bwahahah
Wow -- my thread is up to 219 comments. Hottest thread this site has ever seen! Exponentially more than any other!
Bobb,I respect that reply.
Yeah, Bobb, you couldn't have made a better strawman for Bill if he had written your reply himself.
"I tend to vote republican because I see too many of the leaders on the Democrats as indicative of a party that can't be trusted with big issues"
Can't be trusted with big issues? Every issue from state's rights to privacy rights to this country's security to international relations has been botched by GOP leaders at the highest levels. I simply can't parse what you're talking about.
PAD
"Hottest thread this site has ever seen!"
Wrong. I've seen them in the 300s. Ego much?
"can't speak for the GOP...but I would have supported it. And, like my suspicion that many of the "anti-war" activists would have enthusiastically supported a Gore-led effort, neither of us can ever truly "know". We may just be self indulgently thinking the worst of our opponents, bereft as they are of our steller consitancy."
Yeah, but to be a tad more clear about time lines:
Most, not all but most, anti-war activists that were/are against the Iraq war supported Bush when we went after the people that hit us on 9/11 and the people giving them support, a home base and money. Only after Bush and Co. put Iraq through the spin cycle and lie to link it to 9/11 that he lost support both here and abroad.
I believe Gore would have gone after Bin Laden and crew. I KNOW we would have not gone into Iraq though. There was no intel that linked 9/11 to Iraq, The project for a New American Century crew would not make up the largest % of a Gore admin and the intel would not have been twisted and cherry picked the same way to create the fear/support needed to go in.
"Personally, I WANT us to interfere in a lot more countries. I'd like to see Mugabe lined up against a wall. The massacre in Darfur should not go unanswered. Slavery in Sudan? We ALLOW this to happen in 2005??? Obviously we would have to do it alone--Europe is useless even to each other, China is only interested in the outside world in so far as they can dominate or sell goods to them, India has enough trouble dragging itself into the modern age (But watch India; it may end up being what many think that China will be), Japan can send money but little else, Antarctica will do what it can."
Hey, I agree that there are a lot of bad guys out there that should die nasty deaths. But if we start marching like the Roman Empire, how long do you think we could go it alone before we're stopped by the force that rises up because of those actions. We start just going after countries that we don't like and every country that thinks it's on the hit list will take notice real fast. And, somehow, I can't see our friends jumping to our aid if we start taking actions like that and end up facing a quarter of the Earth in a war we started. How many will we take out before the others join forces? How much blood, civi blood, are you willing to see spilled on American soil when a multi-nation force backs terrorist in ways that they've never been backed before? And how fast do you think we would go broke with a R attitude of spend, spend and spend more while cutting taxes on the richest and jacking the debt (a debt that might well get called in by China and others should we decide to start acting like the Roman Empire 2005 A.D.)
-----------
And now I give you Tweedle Dee the Wonder Dummy as proof (small proof, but proof) to show that some of the weak minded and stupid WERE brainwashed (in this case it only took a quick rinse) by the Bush & Co. P.R. machine:
"Posted by: X-Ray at June 9, 2005 12:36 PM
Mr. David said, "Gore in office instead of Bush when the towers fell, we would NOT have wound up attacking Iraq."
--------
Correct! Gore would have done nothing but talk. I agree."
Yeah, he was just soooo against going after Bin Laden and spoke out so much against going into Afganistan, huh. Iraq had zip to do with 9/11. Gore and others spoke out against Iraq only. Now, we have more and more proof showing that the game was rigged by Bush and that Bush lied his tiny little mind off. Gore would have gone after Bin Laden in Afganistan. Of that I have no doubt. But he wouldn't have gone into Iraq and he wouldn't have trashed the U.S. reputation by telling lies daily to get there and then making up reasons to be there everytime his past lies fell through. I'm sure you won't get that though as you have shown in spades that you drink the kool-aid and bought the Bush spin that anyone against going into Iraq was, despite no connections to the attacks, against going after the terrorists in Afganistan and the 9/11 planners and backers and if you don't like Bush and his war you hate America.
See, not every Bush voter was brainwashed. But, at this point, I think we can all agree and point to at least one weak mind that shows every sign of having been. Even if, as I said above, it may have only taken a quick rinse to do so.
I read an interesting article earlier this year, in I believe the Atlantic Monthly, that looked at the presidential campaign last year. In it, the author talked about how a major problem with the Democratic party is currently composed of an overly heterogenous mix of competing interests that compete against each other, while the Republican party serves a group of very complimentary interests that work well together. Any thoughts on this?
The Republicans were so hot for alternate solutions with the Medicaid deal, so I'm gonna offer them an alternative to sending our people across the planet to protect Americans.
SEAL THE &%$#ING BORDERS.
This country doesn't have to be everybody's buddy. It also doesn't have to be the planetary police force. This country has to act like the country it was founded to be, only a little wiser. Instead of sending uniformed-types all over the planet, why not take care of things here first? All over the news that the US is building schools in Afghanistan and Iraq. Yay! Now build better ones, say, HERE. You wanna make the country safer? Worry less about pointing fingers at this party or that party and worry more about taking care of people on this continent (and Hawaii) first before you send a couple hundred million to Africa. Not to be to ethnocentric, and it's not that I don't have sympathy for those elsewhere, but you know what? If your pipes are flooding your basement and you have no heat, you don't go next door to find out if you can fix your neighbor's cable. Gotta love the conservatives but they should spend more time worrying about the people around them and less about Paris Hilton in a bathing suit selling burgers.
"SEAL THE &%$#ING BORDERS."
I couldn't agree more. I can understand Democratic opposition to this, but I can't understand Bush's reason for opposing it, or at least remaining inactive on it.
Any thoughts on this?
It cuts to the core of the matter.
Bush has surrounded himself with a small group of people that are basically there to fall in line with whatever Bush (& whomever is pulling the strings) want.
If you don't get in line? You're out of a job, ala Colin Powell.
The difference between Republicans and Democrats, right now, is that the Republicans are speaking with one voice that doesn't listen to reason or the ideas of others.
The Democrats, while not having leadership, aren't willing to sacrifice their identity as a group and turn to the Dark Side. And yes, that is a jab at the fact that there is a reason some are called 'neocons' - because they're not the same kind of Republican that used to exist. :)
Jerry, Bobb, I see your point but it's difficult to imagine the world rising up in arms because we saved a bunch of starving Africans from a brutal dictator...they certainly didn't hammer 2 by 4s over the windows when they asked us to go bomb Yugoslavia. What was the difference? The fact that they asked us to interfere. If we wait for the French to become concerned for the welfare of Africans who are far enough away to not be any kind of immigration problem they will all die of old age (which in the Sudan is probably around 35).
Bobb,
I respect that reply.
Yeah, Bobb, you couldn't have made a better strawman for Bill if he had written your reply himself.
No, I said I respected the reply because, hold your hat, I respected the reply. It was direct, unemotional, well reasoned. It wasn't because I cut knock it out of the park and I don't think I did, but thanks.
Slavery in Sudan? We ALLOW this to happen in 2005???
Why not? We have slavery in Florida
http://www.dailykos.com/story/2005/6/5/14284/58499
Geez, you don't visit a site for a couple days and all heck breaks loose. Well, I figure I would throw in my two cents. As to how Bush has affected my life, let me tell you. I travel outside the US borders for me job from time to time and I now have to be careful about telling people that I am an American. Thanks to Bush's "We have the most weapons so screw you and your opinion, I'm gonna do what I want", he has managed to tick off most every country and sometimes I just don't feel safe.
My safety has been affected, good enough for you?
No self-respecting patriotic American would evr want to leave this country, so your point is null and void. The borders ought to be closed both ways.
No, I said I respected the reply because, hold your hat, I respected the reply. It was direct, unemotional, well reasoned....
I've noticed in online liberal communities that republican attacks are overwhelmingly optimized to drive the liberal subjects from casualness to formality.
Rove, Limbaugh, Hannity hand out republican talking points to allow trolls to do this.
Driving the liberal subjects from casualness to formality effectively splits the democratic party in 2. Most people tend to either be "harmony-promoting" of "possibility-realizing" -- the latter relying on spontaneity and, yes, casualness.
The republicans are not suffering from such a split, because they shelter their "shrill" wing -- Limbaugh, Coulter, Falwell, etc.
My point:
Democrats, when you see someone under attack from conservatives as "shrill," or something related, take every opportunity to rephrase, succinctly, the point the conservatives are trying to drive into hiding. If it aggravates, it may have merit.
I even have a "for instance" from today:
"It's the biggest fraud ever committed on the people of this country," Rangel told WWRL Radio's Steve Malzberg and Karen Hunter. "This is just as bad as six million Jews being killed. The whole world knew it and they were quiet about it, because it wasn't their ox that was being gored."
Rangal tried to make the point that indifference shelters evil.
In what at best can be described as giddy-clumsiness to criticise Bush, his attempt at comparing the indifference to the unjustified invasion to the indifference to the nazis came out of his mouth as a minimization of the holocaust, comparing the 6 million executed Jews to what may not even be a ¼ million lost since the 2003 invasion.
If Rangal becomes a topic for trolls to carry in the liberal communities, that's a strong indicator it's a point -- indifference to the unjustified invasion compared to indifference to the nazis -- they don't want to hear. You can leave it to oafs like me to make the point, or you can try to finesse the point yourself.
Succinctly. In comprehensive 3-sentence posts.
Bill,
What you were saying didn't come off as a "one off" deal. Even then though, it starts to fall under that overly and sometimes poorly used slippery slope argument. Where do we stop when we set out to be world police? Africa? Well, what about the warlords in the smaller Asian countries? What about North Korea and its people? China? What about the human rights abuses by the leaders of that country? What, we just tell all of them that Asians don't count as much as Africans? How about the South American warlords? Go or no? But heres something to think about if you say no. With Hispanics growing to out number blacks in this country the Pols desire to pander will grow as well. Do you think any Pol, R or D, is going to tell that much of a voter base that they and their families back home (many with closer blood ties then most blacks have to people in Africa) don't rate?
Where does the number of deaths line get drawn? Say, 999,999 deaths we don't go but 1,000,000 we do?
Were do we draw the country size line? Do we just kick around little tin pot countries and look like bullies? Do we go as far as fair sized countries like Korea? Do we tell China to stop its human rights abuses or else?
What about our "friends." Some of our friends and trade partners have higher rankings for human rights abuses then Saddam had. Hell, members of the Saudi Royal Family (big time the Saudi Princes) almost always ranked above Saddam for being bastards and those are Bush's his family's and his friend's friends and business partners. How well do you think that plays in the Middle East when he talks of bringing freedom and human rights to the world? How do you think that would play if we started going after bad guys only so long as they weren't "our" bad guys?
I would love to see something come along and clean up a whole lot of Hell holes all over our little blue green ball. But have you really sat down and thoght out just how messed up we would have to be to get to the point that we become the world police? Just coming up with the ground rules for who, how, where, when and why would be almost impossible. Keeping pandering Pols or an entire pandering party from abusing those rules or actions for their own gain would be even harder.
Again, I'm kinda with you. I turn the TV on and wish that someting could be done in a lot of places. But I know that, in the real world, we would be fools to start that kind of action. We would stretch so thin, go so broke and make so many enemies that it may well end this country as we now it.
posted by mike weber:
I trust you are going to be happy with the picture on your new Internal Passport, whose mandating if not actual issuance i see as a real possibility by the end of this Administration.
Actually, with the recent passage of the Real ID Act, Internal Passports have moved from the realm of mere possibility into that of virtual certainty. Welcome to the Police State.
Welcome to the Police State.
Maybe I'm not liberal enough after all, because, on this issue, I don't really see the problem of a national ID system.
I've heard reports that a healthy percentage of Americans already have passports, and, having worked in a position where ID requests are made, having one single type of ID would go a long way.
I just think it's ridiculous that 50 states have 50 different ways of doing id's, and that's not counting the states that lay their id's out based on even more specific criteria: drivers license, id, under-21 license, etc.
I don't really see the problem of a national ID system.
After all, what could possibly go wrong with having the government compile a single database with all it's citizen's travels, purchases, & personal information?
"Bush has surrounded himself with a small group of people that are basically there to fall in line with whatever Bush wants."
-------
The idiot. He SHOULD surround himself with people who oppose him and want to defeat his program. Now THAT'S the way you get things DONE!
After all, what could possibly go wrong with having the government compile a single database with all it's citizen's travels, purchases, & personal information?
Well, as I said on another thread, if you want to be an optimist, and not a conspiracy theorist.
It's not like they couldn't do that now if they wanted to anyways.
It's not like they couldn't do that now if they wanted to anyways.
Yes, but why make it any easier for them than we need to? It won't make us any safer or make it any harder for criminals or terrorists to obtain fake ID's.
They have our SSANs. They don't need anything else to compile data on us. The national ID will only make it more difficult for those durn furriners who are takin all our jobs.....
From Section 102 of the Real ID Act:
Notwithstanding any other provision of law, the Secretary of Homeland Security shall have the authority to waive, and shall waive, all laws such Secretary, in such Secretary's sole discretion, determines necessary to ensure expeditious construction of the barriers and roads under this section.
(2) NO JUDICIAL REVIEW- Notwithstanding any other provision of law (statutory or nonstatutory), no court shall have jurisdiction—
(A) to hear any cause or claim arising from any action undertaken, or any decision made, by the Secretary of Homeland Security pursuant to paragraph (1); or
(B) to order compensatory, declaratory, injunctive, equitable, or any other relief for damage alleged to arise from any such action or decision.
No, clearly there's absolutely nothing to be concerned about.
"They have our SSANs. They don't need anything else to compile data on us. The national ID will only make it more difficult for those durn furriners who are takin all our jobs....."
Don't know if you're being sarky there.
1) How many new forms of ID have been put forward to thwart forgers? How many of them got forged anyhow in under a month? Same with money. it will take, at best, three months, from what I've read, before perfect or near perfect copies are floating about.
2)How does a record of all of this information on me make me safer? It doesn't as far as law enforcement and national security go. The best argument I've seen has been that it would make rounding up illegals and terrorists easy.
Problem A) It won't do zip for illegals. We come across illegals all the time in the streets of Richmond. What happens? Well, the law says that we call INS and they deal with it. The real world says that we call INS and INS tells us to take their information (their faked name, faked address, faked DOB and ID#, faked etc.)and cut them loose. INS will send somebody out to check up on them when they have the time. My father joined the force thirty years ago. He's said that they got the same thing then that we get now. A new card is going to change this?
Problem B) Terrorist that get caught pre-act who haven't done anything before, ain't on a higher ups BOLO and seem to be just another illegal will get treated, in most cases, like any other illegal. Get info, cut loose, wave good-bye, watch them on news next week as something goes boom. And, they have to do something to raise an eyebrow in order to be checked on in the first place. Well, as we've seen before, the kind of thing that raises eyebrows now seem to be mostly what I've seen described for this thing. No real change there. That's kinda the bare bones simple version of the argument but it covers enough of it.
3) Why do so many people want to turn so much power over to the people who are supposed to be our elected servants and not our lords and masters? Yes, they can dig around now and find out a bunch of what this ID will tell them. But, as Michael Brunner just put it in a 100% perfect way:
"Yes, but why make it any easier for them than we need to?"
Another point about the REALID's - If you think identity theft is easy now, with personal information spread all over the place, imagine what it'll be like when all our information is concentrated in one place.
And don't try telling me that the information will be kept confidential - the same thing was said about social security numbers.
Mike says:
"I've noticed in online liberal communities that republican attacks are overwhelmingly optimized to drive the liberal subjects from casualness to formality."
"Rove, Limbaugh, Hannity hand out republican talking points to allow trolls to do this."
Oooookay. (Backs up slowly, smiling).
Jerry,
You raise a lot of good points. And yeah, it is hard to decide when to act and when to just sit back and watch. Sometimes it's capricious. Why does one murder grab the nation's headlines when another one does not? There isn't always a lot of rhyme or reason to it. It may take just one photo, one clever turn of phrase.
But damn it, the fact that we can't save everyone doesn't mean we are justified in sitting back and doing nothing. It's easier, it may be (arguably) safer(though history has more than a few situations that worsened as they were allowed to fester). And I've heard some folks take it to the extreme, argue that by sending food and medicine to places where there is mass starvation and sickness we are just prolonging the inevitable and we'd be kinder to just let them die or, in the case of dictatorships, let things get to the point where the people have no choice but to rise up and take control, even if it means bloody slaughter. I just don't buy it.
It's like that old story they hand out at EVERY teacher event I've ever been to--the one where some guy sees a kid picking up starfish on the beach and throwing them back into the water and tells the kid that he's wasting his time and there are too many and he isn't going to make a difference and the kid throws another one back in and says "Made a difference to that one."
No, clearly there's absolutely nothing to be concerned about.
If you're this worried about what that supposedly says, you're already fucked: the Patriot Act has been on the books for several years now.
If you think identity theft is easy now, with personal information spread all over the place, imagine what it'll be like when all our information is concentrated in one place.
Like it matters (there, now I'm being pessimistic).
The most important of our information is concentrated with three companies (the credit report companies) that really don't seem to give a damn if your identity is stolen to begin with.
But, yes, I tend to feel that this is no different than your SSN. This just puts a picture to the number.
100,000+ innocent iraquis actually (by last august's numbers: http://www.newscientist.com/article.ns?id=dn6596 ).
That said I wouldn't at all have minded the intervention against a dictature responsible for killing 2 million people (with Reagan's help through enormous weapons supply) if it hadn't been carried out in such an unfathomably cold-blooded, cynical, manipulative and dishonest fashion.
I'd like to add that the genocides of Cambodia, Rwanda, and the Congo will go down in history as 3 of the most shameful chapters of the 20th century and I doubt very much that people in the future will be sympathetic to our claims that we did nothing because we didn't want to be the policeman of the world.
At the very least, lets send the cvictims some weapons--the experience of Yugoslavia seems to t show that genocide is somewhat impaired by an armed populace.
(if Zimbabwe becomes, as it seems, the next Rwanda, can any of us say we didn't see it coming? That there was nothing that could have been done to stop it?)
"100,000+ innocent iraquis actually (by last august's numbers: http://www.newscientist.com/article.ns?id=dn6596 )."
The article references a Lancet study that has been somewhat discredited-- see the note at http://www.iraqbodycount.net/press/
The iraqbodycount.net site is an anti-war one but they also have a high enough degree of credibility to note that Because the researchers did not ask relatives whether the male deaths were military or civilian the civilian proportion in the sample is unknown (despite the Lancet website's front-page headline "100,000 excess civilian deaths after Iraq invasion", the authors clearly state that "many" of the dead in their sample may have been combatants
Lancet is a highly respected journal. I think they may have let their desire to do good get the better of their scientific objectivity this time.
Bill,
I don't know. I agree with the emotion and the desire. I see things that should be done and think, "if only we could do something about that." But I just don't know.
The starfish situation doesn't face the evils of politics, politicians or human nature in pack mentality. My greatest fear with those actions is that they will be abused and that so many will allow them to be abused. We just watched our entire country get talked into going into a war with Iraq with the ease of ant being led to a pile of sugar. I'm not sure I trust the leaders who did that or the people who allowed it to take on a task like that and get it right.
Maybe your faith in our doing it right is better then my lack of faith. But I've read several articles in the last day or so that read just like the articles before the run up to war with Iraq. The only dif is the word Iraq is gone and Iran is now in its place. And they're coming from the same sources that helped build the support for the war with Iraq.
If the American people, after everything that has happened in the last two years and everything that has come to light in the last two months, get herded into another war frenzy then I will never trust our leaders or the people to be able to do that right. If they don't, well, maybe enough of my faith will come back that I'll start inching closer to your side on this. But I don't think it will happen.
Unless I'm mistaken, the "we" that executed Nazi war criminals was a world court. Not a US court.
Actually, you're mostly mistaken. The Nuremberg court was set up as a raw exercise of power by the winning nations after World War II. As the surrender of Germany placed the political power over Germany in the hands of the victors, they became the de facto (and come to think of it, de jure) government of Germany, and as such had the authority to prosecute criminal actions. The court was authorized by no international organization, because none such existed prior to the United Nations being organized in 1945. Robert Jackson said, "if certain acts and violations of treaties are crimes, they are crimes whether the United States does them or whether Germany does them," but that was patently untrue if you take the position that the Nuremberg trials were an exercise of an international criminal court. If you take the (factually correct) viewpoint that the Nuremberg trials were an exercise of judicial power by the occupying authorities in Germany, then Jackson's statement might well have been true, but good luck finding someone to prosecute the Allies (a distinction probably not lost on Jackson). The prosecution had little to do with international law, and a lot to do with the fact that the Allies had possession of the largest collection of mass murderers in the history of the world, and couldn't just shoot them without some form of procedure.
Jerry,
It might take a leader who is able to articulate the issues and inspire people on both sides of the political fence. Obviously GW is not that man but in fairness, I'm not sure anyone else is either. Hillary Clinton has a chance because she could very well end up being a real hawk on foreign policy and many (though not all) liberals will follow her lead because they trust her.
I think we are probably very much onthe same page here, despite our many differences. I've enjoyed our exchanges--something that may baffle a few of the other posters who only get pleasure from having their own little perception of the world validated, even if they have to resort to pretzel logic to do it.
Get some sleep, friend.
How many people posted in this thread?
I won't take the time to check, but I'd be willing to bet that a review by the blog master would show that 2 or 3 people posted under multiple names.
So many of the attacking posts read as if the same person authored them. Marching in lockstep, as it were.
Yes, lockstep! Defined as anyone who doesn't agree with YOU.
Original Peter David post that started this thread, the most interesting thread on this site ever:
---------
My two and only two responses to the new village idiot
Yes, you all know who he is. I will now respond to the two questions he's been howlingly repeating because, y'know...why not? And the rub of it is, he probably won't understand either answer.
Response number one: The fact that I have not disagreed with his assessment of my veracity is not an indicator that what he says has worth. Rather, it's an indicator of my belief that his opinion of me is, in fact, worthless.
Response number two: He has demanded to know how any of our individual lives are hurt or worsened because of the actions of George W. Bush...a man who needlessly launched a war that's resulted in the deaths of 1600+ Americans and thousands upon thousands of innocent Iraqis. The answer is quite simple:
"No man is an island, entire of itself; every man is a piece of the continent, a part of the main; if a clod be washed away by the sea, Europe is the less, as well as if a promontory were, as well as if a manor of they friends or of thine own were; any man's death diminishes me, because I am involved in mankind; and therefore never send to know for whom the bell tolls; it tolls for thee."
--John Donne
And thus am I Donne with the clod.
PAD
Posted by Peter David at 09:19 PM
Im just posting an article of Terry Jones (from Monty Phyton) commenting about irak....
I'm losing patience with my neighbours, Mr Bush
Terry Jones
Sunday January 26, 2003
Observer
I'm really excited by George Bush's latest reason for bombing Iraq: he's running out of patience. And so am I!
For some time now I've been really pissed off with Mr Johnson, who lives a couple of doors down the street. Well, him and Mr Patel, who runs the health food shop. They both give me queer looks, and I'm sure Mr Johnson is planning something nasty for me, but so far I haven't been able to discover what. I've been round to his place a few times to see what he's up to, but he's got everything well hidden. That's how devious he is.
As for Mr Patel, don't ask me how I know, I just know - from very good sources - that he is, in reality, a Mass Murderer. I have leafleted the street telling them that if we don't act first, he'll pick us off one by one.
Some of my neighbours say, if I've got proof, why don't I go to the police? But that's simply ridiculous. The police will say that they need evidence of a crime with which to charge my neighbours.
They'll come up with endless red tape and quibbling about the rights and wrongs of a pre-emptive strike and all the while Mr Johnson will be finalising his plans to do terrible things to me, while Mr Patel will be secretly murdering people. Since I'm the only one in the street with a decent range of automatic firearms, I reckon it's up to me to keep the peace. But until recently that's been a little difficult. Now, however, George W. Bush has made it clear that all I need to do is run out of patience, and then I can wade in and do whatever I want!
And let's face it, Mr Bush's carefully thought-out policy towards Iraq is the only way to bring about international peace and security. The one certain way to stop Muslim fundamentalist suicide bombers targeting the US or the UK is to bomb a few Muslim countries that have never threatened us.
That's why I want to blow up Mr Johnson's garage and kill his wife and children. Strike first! That'll teach him a lesson. Then he'll leave us in peace and stop peering at me in that totally unacceptable way.
Mr Bush makes it clear that all he needs to know before bombing Iraq is that Saddam is a really nasty man and that he has weapons of mass destruction - even if no one can find them. I'm certain I've just as much justification for killing Mr Johnson's wife and children as Mr Bush has for bombing Iraq.
Mr Bush's long-term aim is to make the world a safer place by eliminating 'rogue states' and 'terrorism'. It's such a clever long-term aim because how can you ever know when you've achieved it? How will Mr Bush know when he's wiped out all terrorists? When every single terrorist is dead? But then a terrorist is only a terrorist once he's committed an act of terror. What about would-be terrorists? These are the ones you really want to eliminate, since most of the known terrorists, being suicide bombers, have already eliminated themselves.
Perhaps Mr Bush needs to wipe out everyone who could possibly be a future terrorist? Maybe he can't be sure he's achieved his objective until every Muslim fundamentalist is dead? But then some moderate Muslims might convert to fundamentalism. Maybe the only really safe thing to do would be for Mr Bush to eliminate all Muslims?
It's the same in my street. Mr Johnson and Mr Patel are just the tip of the iceberg. There are dozens of other people in the street who I don't like and who - quite frankly - look at me in odd ways. No one will be really safe until I've wiped them all out.
My wife says I might be going too far but I tell her I'm simply using the same logic as the President of the United States. That shuts her up.
Like Mr Bush, I've run out of patience, and if that's a good enough reason for the President, it's good enough for me. I'm going to give the whole street two weeks - no, 10 days - to come out in the open and hand over all aliens and interplanetary hijackers, galactic outlaws and interstellar terrorist masterminds, and if they don't hand them over nicely and say 'Thank you', I'm going to bomb the entire street to kingdom come.
It's just as sane as what George W. Bush is proposing - and, in contrast to what he's intending, my policy will destroy only one street.
"Rove, Limbaugh, Hannity hand out republican talking points to allow trolls to do this."Oooookay. (Backs up slowly, smiling).
Please don't take my word for it. Take the word of someone who used to be one of your own.
This will be my last post to this thread and/or website.
To Jerry, My navy seal comment was directed toward a stupid comment Mike made about one out of 30 people who claim to be a Navy Seal are Navy Seals. If you were paying attention u might have picked up on that. However, trying to keep up with all this liberal rhetoric can be tiresome.
Whoever said my comments sound like X-Ray? Go to the head of the class. He is my best friend. You are all outmatched and will never know it.
To Peter David. Al Qaeda would be proud of your website. They really would.
To X-Ray, these people deserve each other. Leave em to their own folly.
Thanks, David. Although I think "slightly mistaken" might be a better description...or perhaps an oversimplification of the Nuremberg trials. My point was that it was not one, single nation, victor or otherwise, imposing it's sole will and version of justice over another. It was a collection of Allies, forming a consensus of opinion over a course of action. Whether it was an official "world court" in the sense that we would think of one today or not, it remains that it was an international body acting in concert to impose justice.
I think my whole discussion with Bill stems down to this: acting unilaterally, whether out of a desire to keep your own interests safe, or to protect others that are unable to protect themselves, is certainly an act motivated by noble intentions. But you know what they say about good intentions. When the means used to achieve those goals includes a violation of sovereign power, eventually, the rest of the world will cease to see the good intentions, and only see the means used to achieve them.
To Peter David. Al Qaeda would be proud of your website. They really would.
Considering the 380 tons of explosives reported missing last year, George Bush is still al Qaeda's leading contender for MVP.
It's all the fault of the Soviet Union for collapsing... If "The Big Red Menace" hadn't fallen, America would not be playing the world's policeman and jamming it's nose in where it doesn't belong.
Human nature being what it is, one unified world government is NOT a good thing. There needs to be other, equally powerful countries out there to balance the US and make the US strive to be better. With the loss of the only other major world power (USSR), America got soft, and then realized it could use it's might to push everyone else around, becoming the world's bully.
Here's hoping a few more contenders rise to America's strength to keep our politicains honest...
"To Peter David. Al Qaeda would be proud of your website. They really would."
And thanks to George W. Bush, they have far more recruits to read it.
PAD
And thanks to George W. Bush, they have far more recruits to read it.
PAD, you just made my morning with that gem. :)
"To Peter David. Al Qaeda would be proud of your website. They really would."
Let us think on this.
America: Founded on freedoms. One Such freedom is free speech. We, as the people of this great country, can speak our mind about anything you want. Another freedom, when one sees a president who lies, an administration that overflows with moral ambiguities and a level of willingness to see the corruption of the truth unmatched in recent times, is the right to speak out against our leaders, who are actually our servants, when they abuse their powers or our trust without fear of retribution, imprisonment or death. Moreover, it's our job as Americans to do so and stand up against the wrongs of our "leaders"
"To announce that there must be no criticism of the president, or that we are to stand by the president right or wrong, is not only unpatriotic and servile, but is morally treasonable to the American public."
- Theodore Roosevelt
Al Qaeda: They, and any country that they or their friends have controled, believe in lock step thinking. You don't question your leaders. You worship your leaders because God speaks through them. What happens if you speak up or speak out? You get picked up off the streets, you go to some Hellhole and you get tortured to death. You may find your family being harassed by the government. You may get stoned to death by your state loyal neighbors because the local cleric issued a fatwa against you on behalf of the leaders that you spoke up against.
I think, given the history of debate on this site, that the Founding Fathers would quite fancy this site. They, rabble rousers that they were, would no doubt get a kick out of it. People from all over their country debating issues about the course of the country and our freedoms without once coming to blows. This site is 100% American.
Your comments? Al Qaeda would be proud of you, X-Ray and others like you. Just shut up and learn to (worship) support Bush. Don't question our leader. If he lies or if he abuses his powers? Oh, well. If he says go die based on his lies? Just be a good little American and do it. He's our leader after all.
Why is it that I can see you and X-Ray as the first people in line to stone your fellow Americans to death over a Bush issued fatwa? Maybe it's because you're both tiny minded idiots.
"And thanks to George W. Bush, they have far more recruits to read it. PAD"
-------
Here we go again.
There is terrorism in the world , therefore BUSH SUCKS!
It is shocking to me that Peter David responds to a political statement by blaming Bush. Oh wait -- no it isn't. It's all he EVER does.
"As democracy is perfected, the office of president represents, more and more closely, the inner soul of the people. On some great and glorious day the plain folks of the land will reach their heart's desire at last and the White House will be adorned by a downright moron."
H.L. Mencken (1880-1956)
See? Free speech in action from the not so distant past. Hell, if he had put "lying" in front of moron I would swear he had a crystal ball and saw Bush's smirking little face.
Wow, I couldn't even get through all of these comments. I got too angry about one thing. Stem cells.
Bush banned stem cell research. That's the truth. Sure he's giving money to do research with already collected stem cells, but collecting anymore is illegal. It's been banned. So giving federal money doesn't really mean much when you're dealing with a limited quantity of researchable cells...
And by the way, a friend of mine just came back from Iraq and being over there changed his mind about Bush. He's not a supporter anymore and he said that he felt like they did good in spite of the current administration. Additionally I have a problem with the word "volunteer" mean joining the military for what you think is a week a year and 12 weekends of drill because you are too poor to pay for college.
Looking over the responses here, I am amazed at the number of people that feel that not disagreeing with the current administration in all areas is equal to questioning authority. It is not. Many of us have asked the questions and just did not disagree with the answers. Conservatives are considerably less of a group-think classification than liberals.
Additionally I have a problem with the word "volunteer" mean joining the military for what you think is a week a year and 12 weekends of drill because you are too poor to pay for college.
When we are talking about an all volunteer military, I am unclear of your meaning here.
Ken:
>Conservatives are considerably less of a group-think classification than liberals.
Possibly from your perspective, but I like to hear your rationale for this thinking since it seems clear that there are sheep on both sides.
"Here we go again.
There is terrorism in the world , therefore BUSH SUCKS!
It is shocking to me that Peter David responds to a political statement by blaming Bush."
I know this is pointless.....
Al Qaeda and other terrorist groups have had an increase in recruitment in the last year plus. The cause? The U.S. invasion of Iraq and related actions.
Al Qaeda and other terrorist have used (for a short list) the war in Iraq, Bush's statements in the world press, the statements his admin & Generals (such as describing this as a crusade and stating that "our" God can beat "their" god in this war) and the images of abuse and the tails of abuse in U.S. run prisons. And, no, it's not the U.S. press feeding that last bit. The news centers in the Middle East have shown more images from those places then the BBC, CNN, ABC, CBS & NBC combined. They also tend to treat prisoners being released from those prisons like we treat the prize winners of Survivor. 24/7 coverage for a few days to tell all. The clerics go on their TV and speak of the duty of all good citizens to stop these invaders (us).
Everything that is swelling the ranks right now can be directly linked to Iraq, Bush and the actions he took in lying us into a war.
The sources for this information? U.S. State Department, Brit intel, Ausie intel, Isreal's intel, the Saudi's public statements to Bush and checking any english langauge translated version of a news site from that part of the world.
So, yeah, Bush has increased the number of idiots signing up to attack us. Point blank fact. Make too much sense for you to get it yet?
And, to the other massive idiot here, no. None of that means we deserve to be attacked. Just saving some time and typing that now.
Sorry.
"Tales," not, "tails." That's what was involved with the abuse and images and not the telling of them.
So, yeah, Bush has increased the number of idiots signing up to attack us. Point blank fact.
More relevant is that another President could have undertaken the same strategy (invade Iraq) and could have done much better (IMAO) in getting results and not creating more enemies for us.
Or am I a kneejerk "librul" in making that statement?
Jerry,
If I may, do you think terrorist recruitment would've leveled off or dropped post-Afghan. strike?
This whole, "Bush directly drove AQ membership up" argument, to me, is a bit of a red herring. Any US-based action post 9/11 was going to drive up AQ membership to some degree. What's worse, though, is using this kind if statistic to side-step the issue of validity in going to war in the first place. If you have a beehive in your backyard are you really going to leave it alone and hope for the best for fear that destroying it would stir up too many bees?
And, in a similar hypothetical scenario, what do you think AQ and other, similar anti-US terrorists would be up to now had Bush not gone into Iraq? Genuinely interested in your thoughts about this ...
To continue with my analogy, I guess the real question is where do you want the beehive stirred. Wait to see if they get into the house and then kill 'em, or go out one night and spray the shit out it, scattering the hive to the four-winds.
"Additionally I have a problem with the word "volunteer" mean joining the military for what you think is a week a year and 12 weekends of drill because you are too poor to pay for college."
He means people who are too stupid to read a contract and know what they are signing up for so they can get college benefits.
What do you think the word "Reserve" means???? When the military needs you, you go. If people are rolling the dice hoping this doesn't come up, who's fault is it when they crap out?
You're all very good at speaking for the military.
Are any of you actually IN the military?
SJ, your analogies are still off.
Of course, you erradicate the beehive, making sure you get the queen and all potential breeders so they don't spring up again...especially after you've been stung 3000 times.
Except....to make the analogy appropriate to Iraq...you find out the beehive is in your neighbors yard, and you trample all over his flowers in order to smash the hive...except then you find out it wasn't a hive, just a jar of honey with a hive picture on it, and there's no bees there at all...and the bees that stung you actually came from the drainage creek down the block. Where you used to be hunting for a hive, but gave up after you couldn't find one.
Query: I heard about a news report that stated that the insurgents in Iraq are actually mostly from neighboring countries, that the Iraqi populace generally does support our presence there, but troublemakers from Iran, Syria, and others are coming across the border to hamper any potential democratic advances. Since others seem to have a solid network already for looking this stuff up, what do you know about this? Please no stories about someone's friend who was over there and blah blah blah from either side of the debate: are there any substantiated sources out there about this?
Seemed that the analogy would be more fitting if you had a beehive somewhere in your neighborhood and, rather than track it down with any certainty, you put honeycombs in your neighbors yard..... a few days later... bees. Seems that individuals who had no interest in organizing against the U.S. previously are now in this organization. Whether it is due to a false promise of stability for them, revenge over the deaths of loved ones, etc really doesn't relevent to the analogy. This group of terrorists has the ears of people it hadn't had previous to the invasion of Iraq.
If you have a beehive in your backyard are you really going to leave it alone and hope for the best for fear that destroying it would stir up too many bees?
No. But if the beehive is 2 houses down, I might keep an eye on it, but I am not going to invade my neighbor's yard as a pre-emptive strike against it.
"If I may, do you think terrorist recruitment would've leveled off or dropped post-Afghan. strike?"
Yes. Stats show that and show that the largest raise in recruitment for terrorist has been in the last year. Again. all the intel agancies have said the same thing as well and most , not all but most, link it directly to the Iraq invasion.
Not the fullest answer I can give cause I'm a wee pressed timwewise right now. Hope it's enough for you. If not, I work tonight so it may be a while.
Bobb,
Perhaps my analogy didn't take into account some of the more intricate aspects of this situation, but your analogy is purely spun from your BIAS of the situation.
Tinker your analogy somewhat and say your neighbor likes leaving his recycling bin in the front of his house, thereby attracting a mini swarm of bees from a nearby hive. Like you said, you want to erradicate the hive, but it is big and deeply routed in a large oak tree that is in a common area on the other side of your neighbors house, so you need to get close to take it out but can't while the mini-swarm is accumulating in your path each and every day. Now, your neighbor has repeatedly refused to do anything about the recycling bin, and for some reason the HOA is loathe to do anything but send letters.
Do you strive to respect your neighbor who clearly has no respect for you, or do you take the necessary steps to make sure you can get closer to the hive to ultimate destroy the hive and help make the street a little safer?
Of course, I realize no real analogy is ever going to capture the large scale complexities of the problem. Rather, I was trying to illustrate (fail or succeed) that at the end of the day Bush did what he thought was necessary to safe-guard his neighborhood.
And that the failure or success of such an attempt can't be judged in the short term from FOX news correspondents filling airtime or the fabricated stories in NY or LA Times, which are clearly slanted to stir up shit for the sake of hating Bush. Or from blowhard radio talkshow guys whose devisive rehetoric makes people think they have to be an either or situation, thereby killing all chances of real dialogue between the citizens of this country.
No matter what Bush said to the public I don't believe for one second that Iraq is the endgame; it is a stagging area for a long-term solution to a problem that if left alone will eventually engulf the world. Did he go about it the wrong way? Maybe. But it happened and we have to deal with the consequences and picking at whose college scores were bigger isn't going to solve it. Nor is just packing up and leaving, when a shell of a country is asking us to stay.
In the end, unlike previous drummed up threats, there is no "state" in which to threaten. There is no safety in mutually assured destruction and there is no frontlines to hold. On 9/11 enemies of the US tried to create a frontline in our country. It didn't take, and to make sure it stayed that way thousands of brave men and women have spilled their blood to draw a frontline somewhere else, closer to the ultimate problem at hand.
SJ, I don't think it's my bias...you're trying to say we invaded Iraq to root out a threat against the US. WMDs, terrorists, whatever jusitification you want to latch on to...and there's still no evidence that anything more than a few, small, terrorist cells were there. No WMDs, and so far as I've heard, no terrorist training camps. Sure, Saddam was a horrible dictator and a killer...but that's not the reason we went after him.
Going back to the analogy, we used the beehive/bees as a reason to trample the flowers and break the fence. And in the process, we got our bad neighbor with the refuse pile arrested. But we got the neighborhood behind us because "we were going to get those bees." Turns out, there's no bees, no hive. But the bad neighbor is gone, so it's all ok we lied to our other neighbors to get their support?
What you have to realize is that Bush decided that Saddam needed taking out first and then settled on the WMD issue as the one that was considered most "saleable." The invasion was never truly about get at the weapons of mass destruction, that was the pretext. So, we spent about year listening to hype about mushroom clouds, reports raising doubts about the existance of WMDs in Iraq were altered*, and the warnings from the inspectors (ie, the people who had actually been it Iraq) that there were no WMDs in Iraq were ignored.
You can see how quickly Bush took the focus off the WMDs once his original goal of removing Saddam was achieved. To him, it was just advertising anyway, which is why he doesn't even mention it anymore.
So yes, we were lied to and deceived about the reason we to war and apparently, that's okay to 51% of the US population. But, the time to debate why we invaded Iraq is over. We're stuck in the sand for the next 10 years, minimum, and we should focus on energies is trying to get the new Iraqi leadership to a point where they can run the country themselves. Unfortunately, with all the damage Bush has done to our credibility as a country, that task has become nearly impossible.
*Side note: Isn't interesting that this administration has one office that altered reports to remove all doubt about the existance of WMDs in Iraq and another office that altered reports in order to generate doubt about global climate change?
Now suppose that beehive two houses down hangs right over a giant oil supply... now we're talking!
Now suppose that your father was stung by a bee once. Even more reason to head over there!
Now suppose these are highly intelligent bees working on stem cell research... well then, you better get over there immediately!
And finally the kicker... suppose these bees are engaging in same-sex marriages... forget about it! Bust out the RAID now!
I think the comment function should be turned off for THIS thread as well. End of discussion.
Stem Cell Research keeps getting brought up. I support stem cell research using new lines, at least the stuff they're just throwing away at fertility clinics and the like, but isn't the ban on federal funding for new stem cell-line research only? If I remember correctly, California budgeted something like $3 million (or billion; isn't it sad I can't keep millions and billions straight anymore)for exactly the kind of research people are saying is banned.
X-Ray: I think the comment function should be turned off for THIS thread as well. End of discussion.
FUCK OFF man! End your own fucking discussion! Like someone posted earlier, you get off on dominance don't you? 'End of discussion'... who are you? Dr. Evil? ZIP IT! Get a life dude.
Now suppose tmbgfan goes back and reads the part where I say, "Of course, I realize no real analogy is ever going to capture the large scale complexities of the problem. Rather, I was trying to illustrate (fail or succeed) that at the end of the day Bush did what he thought was necessary to safe-guard his neighborhood."
Believe me when I say I'm sorry I ever tried to use such a simplistic tool to get my point across. I should know better than to pander.
Anyway ... Iraq, while not the most serious threat, posed a threat nonetheless (not a debateable point - Saddam and his regime was crazy and courted UBL and other nasty individuals throughout the years, giving us no reason to doubt he would do so again-a dangerous prospect in a suddenly 21st Century world) and would always be a potentially even worse threat. Though the sanctions seemed to have stemmed his WMD pursuit, the man was manipulating the hell out of the UN in other ways (again, not debatable) and was therefore a rogue and unpredictable at best.
Therefore, Iraq proved to be the best, most exploitable point of entry to the Middle East to try and clean up a bad, bad situation and a plan implemented PREVIOUS administrations was put into play.
It truly astonishes me, though, how some of you get hung up on this 'holier than thou' attitude of "How dare the President lied/doctored/fabricated ____." Every administration lies, every administration fabricates and does what it thinks is best at that time. Sometimes they are ultimatley right, sometimes they are ultimately wrong. Sometimes they get caught, sometimes they don't. Bad choices have to be made sometimes and that's why we elect OTHERS to do it.
Surely some of what I read disturbs me and gives me cause to pause and wonder about who I vote for, but in the end the American people will continue, however narrowly, to make the right choices for or against the right leaders.
So go pluck your flowers, hold hands, dream of a global village, and scream in the nude about the injustices of your government, panties, and pissed-on books. All you kitties and arseholes can just go on fueling the useless, sensationalized aspects of this entire situation and distract yourselves as you like so that the debate can be left to the real dicks who will always have the stupidity and resolve to ultimately go out and do what is necessary.
America, f yeah!
Looking over the responses here, I am amazed at the number of people that feel that not disagreeing with the current administration in all areas is equal to questioning authority
It's not that. It those, like X-Ray, who think Bush can do no wrong.
And, it shouldn't surprise you, because Bush himself thinks he does no wrong.
SnarkyJerk: Now suppose tmbgfan goes back and reads the part where I say, "Of course, I realize no real analogy is ever going to capture the large scale complexities of the problem. Rather, I was trying to illustrate (fail or succeed) that at the end of the day Bush did what he thought was necessary to safe-guard his neighborhood."
Now suppose SnarkyJerk goes and develops a sense of humor and pulls the stick from his ass.
*snort*
See, now THIS response is funny, those others ... not so much.
If I remember correctly, and I think i do... There was NO evidence linking Saddam with UBL. None what so ever! Those claims that were put forth have since been proven false. Just like the WMD stockpiles. Just like the buying of fissionable material from Africa. And yes Presidents lie. Of course they do. No one questions that. What we do question is when the lie costs so many American lives and looks like it will continue to cost even more. This isn't some stupid personal lie like getting a blow job, this is an act of government policy.
Conservatives are considerably less of a group-think classification than liberals
"Questioning the president only helps the terrorists" - John Ashcroft
People protesting the war are traitors (I don't have the exact quote right now) - Bill O'Reilly
'Bill Maher is a traitor (for joking about the military's recruitment problems)' - some right winger whose name we've already forgotten
I heard about a news report that stated that the insurgents in Iraq are actually mostly from neighboring countries, ... but troublemakers from Iran, Syria, and others are coming across the border to hamper any potential democratic advances. ... are there any substantiated sources out there about this?
Only the neo-cons who wanted to invade Iraq & who are trying to create an opportunity to invade Iran and/or Syria.
Although you-know-who will be along shortly to tell us it's true because BUSH SUCKS!
Replying to Mike I say:
"Rove, Limbaugh, Hannity hand out republican talking points to allow trolls to do this."
Oooookay. (Backs up slowly, smiling).
Mike replies:
Please don't take my word for it. Take the word of someone who used to be one of your own. http://www.lewrockwell.com/orig6/oneill1.html
First off, everyone please go read this thing so Mike will be happy. By the way, if you check out the homepage that this is posted on you can also read about how the fall of the twin Towers was NOT due to the airplanes crashing into them as previously suspected and that Nixon was brought down by a coup. Something for everyone!
Second--I know you probably believe this stuff because nobody would keep saying something so silly if they didn't...but you are, in a much nicer way, as crazy as X-ray. Believe me, I'm not important enough to get any talking points handed to me and you are not important enough to use them on even if I was.
Nope, just a blog set up by a talented writer, which attracts people of varying persuasions. It might make you happy to think that this is all something bigger than just a select few people shooting the shit with each other...but it ain't.
And you know...or, more accurately, I guess you don't--it is actually possible for perfectly reasonable people to come to completely opposite conclusions. Not because of brainwashing, or microchips implanted in the brain, or a desire to emulate Rush Limbaugh, or whatever. The daft left has become such a perfect mirror image of the daft right that one would almost suspect it all some kind of massive performance art if Occam's razor did not demand a far simpler explanation.
Considering the 380 tons of explosives reported missing last year, George Bush is still al Qaeda's leading contender for MVP.
You know, I've been wondering what ever happened to that story. First they said that the explosives had vanished after the Americans secured the area then it came out that nobody really knew how much if any explosives were there when the Americans arrived, which is not much of a story but there you are. So, did anyone ever get to the bottom of this story?
To Peter David. Al Qaeda would be proud of your website. They really would.
That's idiotic, really. Have you READ this site?
"And thanks to George W. Bush, they have far more recruits to read it
Is there any decent place to find what the actual reality of Al Qaeda's membership really is? I mean, if they are doing so well at gaining recruits they certainly have little to show for it
Jerry,
The problem with ever using a quote by H.L. Mencken is that you're liable to get one thrown back at you like:
"The educated Negro of today is a failure, not because he meets insuperable difficulties in life, but because he is a Negro. His brain is not fitted for the higher forms of mental effort; his ideals, no matter how laboriously he is trained and sheltered, remain those of a clown.".
The guy was brilliant but pretty much a real bastard, it would seem. Not that the two have ever been mutually exclusive.
Bush banned stem cell research. That's the truth. Sure he's giving money to do research with already collected stem cells, but collecting anymore is illegal. It's been banned.
I believe you are mistaken. My understanding is that research with new stem cells is NOT banned. You just don't get federal money for it. There is a difference. (For the record, I disagree with that stance).
"I think the comment function should be turned off for THIS thread as well. End of discussion."
Ohhhh, the old reverse psychology ploy...he wants us to THINK that he wants us to stop commenting so that we will ACTUALLY make EVEN MORE comments....getting him ever closer to that elusive number of comments which will...which will...do...whatever...ok, I got nothing.
"Ohhhh, the old reverse psychology ploy"
Dear Genius: Actually, it was the old "satirize the way Peter David halted comments in his latest post" ploy.
By the way, thank you all for your posts -- we have now reached 300 comments!
That was my goal after someone said 300 was the record.
First off, everyone please go read this thing so Mike will be happy. By the way, if you check out the homepage that this is posted on you can also read about how the fall of the twin Towers was NOT due to the airplanes crashing into them as previously suspected and that Nixon was brought down by a coup.
The author is not the site editor.
The essay is a good example how the most effective critics of a movement are those who have been converted from it.
Second... I'm not important enough to get any talking points handed to me and you are not important enough to use them on even if I was.
If your opinion is unimportant... then why are you disagreeing with me?
CSO,
Wrong. Go back and check the '9/11 Commission Report'. Is it true that Saddam and Iraq had no direct connection to AQ and UBL's planning of 9/11, but the two men did broker deals with each other through go-betweens. In 2001, for example, UBL helped Ansar Islam, an extremist Islamic group within Iraq. And I quote, "There are indications that by then the Iraqi regime tolerated and my even have helped Ansar al Islam against common Kurdish enemy."
Degrees of seperation? Who knows for sure, but with Saddam mouthing off after 9/11 it wasn't without merrit to think at some point the two might help each other out, if even in just a harboring or financial way.
Interestingly, the veracity of this 'urban legend' is the exact opposite of another 'urban legend', which is that Bush stated Iraq and Saddam were responsible for 9/11. Such a statement never occured.
The three were frequently muttered in the same breath, and some may even say intentionally so, but the direct statement was never made. Cheny mouthed off like a moron and came close, but again, never stated that. Ever.
http://www.csmonitor.com/2003/0314/p02s01-woiq.html
And, should you find the above dubious, try this, too:
http://www.news24.com/News24/World/News/0,,2-10-1462_1417930,00.html
The author is not the site editor.
Mm-hmm. That's why I said "the homepage that this is posted on". I also did not mean to imply that it was the same author that wrote the other bits mentioned, just to give a flavor of the somewhat, er, lax standards. I probably even agree with some of the selections posted there but it would be a bit disconcerting to see them right next to the latest dispatches from Wackyland.
The essay is a good example how the most effective critics of a movement are those who have been converted from it
I really didn't think so--it was pretty juvenile. At the very least the author comes off as a bit of an unthinking stooge--he goes from being a soundbite spewing right wing nut to the same thing in a left wing model. And he doesn't even know why he switched. I'd say someone like David Brock over at Mediamatters would be a better or at least far more intelligent and effective example.
Not that being a convert instantly gives one any legitimacy--there are certainly plenty of former radicals turned conservatives but I would only judge them on their merits not their history.
If your opinion is unimportant... then why are you disagreeing with me?
Didn't say it was unimportant--I'm just saying that the two of us are not in any way part of any "talking points" or RNC or DNC covert operations or whatever. The republicans did not gain power by unleashing science teachers on helpless comics blogs and the democrats will not regain it by acting like they did.
By the way, thank you all for your posts -- we have now reached 300 comments!
That was my goal after someone said 300 was the record.
Gosh, that's swell! Well, off you go to conquer ever-new challanges! Godspeed! Sayonara! Bon voyagee! Hasty Banana!
My point was that it was not one, single nation, victor or otherwise, imposing it's sole will and version of justice over another. It was a collection of Allies, forming a consensus of opinion over a course of action.
And my point was, how is that different from Iraq? In Germany, the big 3 (US, UK, USSR) and charity case France used a hastily-cobbled-together set of laws to impose their will on a humbled and defeated set of mass murderering fascists. In Iraq, the big 2 (US, UK) are using a hastily-cobbled together set of laws to impose their will on a humbled and defeated set of mass murderering fascists. I support both endeavors, but your nostalgia for the good old days of international criminal law is misplaced.
Second... I'm not important enough to get any talking points handed to me and you are not important enough to use them on even if I was.If your opinion is unimportant... then why are you disagreeing with me?
Didn't say it was unimportant...
???
I read the "I used to be a neocon" site. I'm not impressed. He doesn't actually present a theory about why neoconservatives are bad-- he just says that he woke up one morning, said "what the fuck?" and recanted without offering a reason to recant. I have to say I'm unmoved.
I did like his the metaphor he drew between a consrvative movement and a large machine, in which the individuals are gears and wheels. In a lot of ways it's the same argument I made a while back, explaining why I and other conservatives feel insulted when our candidates are excoriated as evil. They would not be in the positions to which they have been elected without the assistance of us, the organic components of the system, and we know that. If they're criminals, we're accomplices; fortunately, they're not criminals. I voted the way I did because Bush et. al. were the best available choice. I wasn't brainwashed by a cult, and I offer no apologies.
For what it's worth, I think the left is wrong. I don't think they're evil and I don't think they're stupid. It's a shame that these political discussions consistently devolve into flamewars, when we should be having intelligent debates about the direction of a country we should all love.
Mike,
I guess I'm not being clear. I never said that either of our opinions were not important...at least to us and perhaps to that tiny group of people who look to us as wizened sages (God help them!). But we--you and I--the two of us--are, as far as I know, that major players on the political scene. Well, I know that I'm not. Nobody gives me any talking point memos. Maybe you are Mike Dukakis or Mike Moore or MST3K's Mike Nelson--wouldn't that be great?!?
But the point was, you had seemingly laid out this idea that-- well, here it is:
I've noticed in online liberal communities that republican attacks are overwhelmingly optimized to drive the liberal subjects from casualness to formality.
Rove, Limbaugh, Hannity hand out republican talking points to allow trolls to do this.
This was, near as I could figure out, a response to my opinion that Bobb was able to disagree with me in a calm, rational, logical way, as opposed to, say, the oh so effective Dr Dean approach. And if you think that "formality" is a bad way to do things (and I would hardly characterize Bobb's comments as "formal"), hey fine. But to suggest that I am part of a spoooooky plot to undermine liberal thinkers...I'm tempted to use unkind synonyms for "insane".
If I've misunderstood this situation, by all means let me know.
At the very least the author comes off as a bit of an unthinking stooge--he goes from being a soundbite spewing right wing nut to the same thing in a left wing model. And he doesn't even know why he switched....
I read the "I used to be a neocon" site. I'm not impressed. He doesn't actually present a theory about why neoconservatives are bad...
Republicans should try to read the things they say they read.
During the build-up to the war they [the media] were being pulled without knowing it, by the engine of the U. S. government. This swarm of nationalism begat a pro-American media, a complacent media, a lapdog media and a corporate media that to this day will not inform the American public.But the tiny wheels [the neo-con audience] still want to call the media liberal. The tiny wheels still want to say the media isn’t reporting the good things happening in Iraq. Most of all the tiny wheels do not know about the big wheel that’s pulling them.
- When the Bush Administration was found to be creating fake news propaganda for public consumption the media did not inform the public.
- When the Bush administration marched towards pre-emptive war with Iraq the media was a lapdog instead of a watchdog.
- When the Bush administration described the assault on the Iraqi public as Shock and Awe, the media used that phrase to scroll alongside the words "War on Terror" without questioning if the assault on Iraq had anything to do with terrorism.
- When the Bush Administration tore into the U. S. Constitution with the Patriot Act, causing the illegal imprisonment of American citizens while denying them counsel, the media acted more like a timid cocker spaniel than an aggressive Doberman pincher, and failed to defend a sacred American document.
- When the UK’s Downing Street memo implicated the Bush Administration as being hell bent on a pre-emptive invasion on Iraq before even going to the UN, the American media was silent and once again failed to inform the public.
"...he doesn't even know why he switched?"
"...doesn't actually present a theory about why neoconservatives are bad?"
There's no defense against your Lennie-like relentlessness.
"...he doesn't even know why he switched?"
"...doesn't actually present a theory about why neoconservatives are bad?"
There's no defense against your Lennie-like relentlessness.
Ok, I'm done with you. From the article:
The fact is, the neocon movement is a lot like a cult. I don’t remember how I got so involved and the details are hazy on how I got out. I just woke up one day and said "WTF!" and then ran outside to rip the "bring it on" sticker off of my car bumper.
I guess one could deny that this statement is consistant with ""...he doesn't even know why he switched?" but both the point and you are not worth dealing with.
You'd do better to hang out here a while and watch your betters argue honestly. You'll be far more effective. For one thing, you've obviously wanted to use the "Lennie-like relentlessness" bit...should have waited for something abit more appropriate. Seemed sort of forced.
"Jerry,
The problem with ever using a quote by H.L. Mencken is that you're liable to get one thrown back at you...."
Bill,
Yeah, I know. That's why I just hung that one out there by itself rather then linked to other stuff in one of my 5000 word postings. Plus, I know he has lots of other quotes that make him look as nice a guy as a jagged knife smeared with salt paste. That was more a "tweek a few people post" then a serious debate post.
But you could have at least given it a little more time to tweek a certain trio of posters before taking the air out of its tires. Where's the fun in doing that.
;(
Jerry,
My bad. I had Mencken on my mind because I'd always enjoyed his quotes and eagerly read a book on him only to discover waht a rat the guy could be...I'm usually forgiving of the faults of our Ancient Greats because I think it's stupid to expect them to follow the codes of today but H.L ain't that old and some of what he said was just so beyond the pale...in his defense, his actions sometimes were quite the opposite of his words--for someone who had such a low view of Blacks he did a lot to see Black writers get opportunities.
I suppose most of us would be lucky to have twice his faults and half his accomplishments. That said, I'm sure my wife and kids would disagree (My ex-wife's father was a great writer and a man of singular accomplishments. But life with him was not pretty.)
Well, if nothing else, at least this thread has gotten me to add you as one of the Posters Whose Name I Shall Immediately Click On When I See It In The Recent Posts Section. You may want to update your CV. :)
Mike, I'm hardly neocon myself (liber/libertarian, mostly), but I have to throw the bullshit flag on two of those points.
When the Pentagon's propoganda office was uncovered, I learned about its existence from the local newspaper - a (Republican-owned, right-leaning) media outlet.
When the Downing Street memo - pardon me, minutes - came out in this country, again, I heard about it from mainstream media outlets before I ever heard about it in such fora as this.
I will not excuse the Bush administration's rabid insistence on expanding the War on Terror until it encompasses every possible aspect one could consider (really, who actually believes there's an al Qaeda cell in Lodi, California??), nor will I excuse the concerted effort by Faux News and certain television "news" shows to portray Bush as some kind of misunderestimated genius, but let's not cast our net too widely...
This swarm of nationalism begat a pro-American media, a complacent media, a lapdog media and a corporate media that to this day will not inform the American public.
- When the Bush administration marched towards pre-emptive war with Iraq the media was a lapdog instead of a watchdog.
- When the Bush administration described the assault on the Iraqi public as Shock and Awe, the media used that phrase to scroll alongside the words "War on Terror" without questioning if the assault on Iraq had anything to do with terrorism.
- When the Bush Administration tore into the U. S. Constitution with the Patriot Act, causing the illegal imprisonment of American citizens while denying them counsel, the media acted more like a timid cocker spaniel than an aggressive Doberman pincher, and failed to defend a sacred American document.
"...he doesn't even know why he switched?"
"...doesn't actually present a theory about why neoconservatives are bad?"
There's no defense against your Lennie-like relentlessness.
Ok, I'm done with you. From the article:
The fact is, the neocon movement is a lot like a cult. I don’t remember how I got so involved and the details are hazy on how I got out. I just woke up one day and said "WTF!" and then ran outside to rip the "bring it on" sticker off of my car bumper.I guess one could deny that this statement is consistant with "...he doesn't even know why he switched?" but both the point and you are not worth dealing with.
???
When the Pentagon's propoganda office was uncovered, I learned about its existence from the local newspaper - a (Republican-owned, right-leaning) media outlet.When the Downing Street memo - pardon me, minutes - came out in this country, again, I heard about it from mainstream media outlets before I ever heard about it in such fora as this.
This is an essay by a converted neo-con. He was getting all his news from Fox and Rush Limbaugh. I'm not going to second guess him on this.
I'm going to second-guess him. Sloppy use of language reveals sloppy thinking. If he is still confusing Limbaugh and Faux News with the American news media as a whole, any opinions he has derived from his information, left, right, or off at some strange non-Euclidean angle, are suspect.
I'm happy he's departed the neocon flock, but jumping straight into the lefty flock is hardly an improvement - there are too many sheep in the world as it is, content to let someone else think for them.
He should watch CNN ... the Clinton News Network. Now THEY are not biased at ALL!
By the way, this topic doesn't require discussion, and it sure doesn't need another round of pathetic attention-craving idiocy. End of discussion.
I'm happy he's departed the neocon flock, but jumping straight into the lefty flock...
I think it's sloppy to think turning partisan against neo-conservation means becoming liberal. That's like saying Reagan turned Nazi for calling the soviet union the evil empire -- all of his republican staff thought he was crazy for antagonizing the soviets publicly.
Republicans should try to read the things they say they read.
Pot. Kettle. Black. Nothing in that "I used to be a neocon" blather looked anything like a refutation of conservative ideology. There was a rant, which you quote at length, about the media, but "the media sucks" is not precisely a policy statement. Two of his claims-- about things the media did not reveal to the public-- are demonstrably false, considering that I am a member of the public and learned about them from the media. Two others-- the media as a lapdog rather than a guard dog in the buildup to war, and the same metaphor repeated with regard to his position on the USA-PATRIOT Act (it's an acronym, by the way) are expressions of his opinion divorced of supporting argument, failing to explain why he switched. The fifth comment you quote, about Shock and Awe, is a non sequitur-- running the actual name of the campaign (Shock and Awe) along with the stated goal of the campaign (part of the war on terror, at least according to the people undertaking the endeavor) isn't really the sort of endorsement he implies, and for what it's worth I disagree with his classification of the campaign as an attack on the Iraqi people. So yes, I read the column, I thought about it, and I didn't see anything remarkable about it. I reread it after your posting in case I really did miss something, and I am still not impressed.
In an effort to raise the level of discussion, I'd like to toss out a new topic: what do we mean by "neocon?" I offer the following link, which I have no idea how to hypertext, as a pointer to the concept of "neoconservatism" with which I associate myself: http://www.weeklystandard.com/Content/Public/Articles/000/000/003/000tzmlw.asp
I may have reading comprehension skills, but apparently I lack the ability to italicize properly. Oops. Only the first sentence of that last post was meant to be in italics. I apologize.
Nothing in that "I used to be a neocon" blather looked anything like a refutation of conservative ideology....I may have reading comprehension skills...
Who claimed I Used To Be a Neocon was a refutation of conservative ideology?
I just figured "neocon" was an attempt to try to do to "conservative" what conservatives have been fairly successful in doing to "liberal"--make it a word that people avoid. It has been very irritating for real liberals to see almost every politician on the national scene do contortions trying to deny they were liberal, like it's a dirty word. Meanwhile, conservatives openly claim to be conservative. You even get primaries where two candidates argue over who is the "real conservative".
So using "neocon" to mean "anyone I dislike" is probably a good tactic, though it may not work. It's usually used in regard to support for the war though in that case one could argue that future Democrat Candidate for President Hillary Clinton is a neocon. Could be a neocon vs neocon race in 2008 (I have no idea who the republican front runner would be at this point. McCain, I suppose.)
I've always thought the neocon label went with those who call themselves conservative republicans, but are pretty much anti-environment (the psuedo science that denies global warming for example), rabidly pro-christian fundamentalist(to the point where it is anti-constitutional), for the federal government to trump states rights and fiscally irresponsible. I've always thought there was a big difference between true conservatives and neocons. In a generation past I would have been labeled conservative since I am pro-environment, for equal religious rights for all religions, states tights and a balanced budget. I am a liberal in todays atmospher, though. (Of course I am VERY liberal when it comes to social issues and would never have been mistaken for a conservative in that area.)
That should have been states RIGHTS, not states tights. And atmosphere should have the e at the end. I hit post too quickly. Sorry.
Who claimed I Used To Be a Neocon was a refutation of conservative ideology?
Let's see here. You posted the link, I said it made no impression on me because the guy talked about decamping from the conservative base without explaining why, and you implied I didn't really read it. So I think that means... YOU did.
Come on, admit it, you're Dee aren't you?
I'm for State's Tights as well, but there should be some kind of means testing. No Ron Jeremy types in speedos, that's for sure.
Karen, you dfinition of neocon pretty much makes my point--it's whatever people say it is. Among some Europeans it is almost a code for "Jew", so the "rabidly pro-christian fundamentalist" part would seem odd.
I like the Victor Davis Hanson definition of a neocon as someone who's socially moderate but conservative in foreign policy.
Personally, I thought "neocon" refered to arch-arch-arch-conservatives.
Funny, I thought it was some new faction in the Cybertronian wars.
Learn something new every day...
-Rex Hondo-
Personally, I thought "neocon" refered to arch-arch-arch-conservatives.
That's why it's important to have an agreed-upon lexicon for discussions. I'm not at all one of those, but I'm very much one of the creatures from either the Kristol or Hanson descriptions.
"I'd like to toss out a new topic: what do we mean by "neocon?""
Let's start with a few high profile names to point out who is being talked about. Most of the following have been or are members of Project for a New American Century (PFNAC from now on.)
George W. Bush, Elliott Abrams, Gary Bauer, William J. Bennett, Jeb Bush, Dick Cheney, Eliot A. Cohen, Midge Decter, John Bolton, Paula Dobriansky, Aaron Friedberg, Francis Fukuyama, Frank Gaffney, Fred C. Ikle, Donald Kagan, Zalmay Khalilzad, William Kristol, I. Lewis Libby, Norman Podhoretz, Dan Quayle, Peter W. Rodman, Stephen P. Rosen, Henry S. Rowen, Donald Rumsfeld, Vin Weber, George Weigel and Paul Wolfowitz to name just a few.
What makes a person a neocon rather then a conservative?
Some of it is in the extremes in the idiology and the lengths they will go to push it. Take Pax Americana.
"The term Pax Americana (Latin: "American Peace") denotes the period of perceived peace in the Western world since the end of World War II in 1945, coinciding with the dominant military and economic position of the United States. It places the US in the military and diplomatic role of a modern-day Roman Empire or British Empire (based on Pax Romana and Pax Britannica, respectively). During this period, no armed conflict has emerged among major Western nations themselves, and no strategic weapons been used, while the United States and its allies have been involved in various regional wars (such as the Korean War and the Vietnam War), and have maintained espionage and covert operations in various other areas.
The term Pax Americana is used by critics of U.S. policy to describe an effort they allege is made by the U.S. to suppress countries that do not cooperate with U.S. policy, but some supporters of American foreign policy also use the term, so it is not necessarily derogatory. For example, it appears repeatedly in a September 2000 document, Rebuilding America's Defenses, by the Project for the New American Century, widely regarded as a neo-conservative think-tank."
A short version fromWikipedia, the free encyclopedia.
Most neocons seem to be promoting a concept of global dominance by the U.S. while deflecting conversation away from that topic when addressed by critics. Don't get me wrong here. I'm not, despite the war in Iraq, saying that the present leaders of America want to go on a world wide military block party. But, by there own writings, they see America as the only country deserving of making any decisions in the world and would discourage any other country, even our friends and allies, from even believing that they have the right to have a voice and have stated that a strong military and the well placed usage of same would go a long way toward that goal.
The neocons' crusade into Iraq does show some of this. This is a plan that most members of the George W. Bush administration had wrirten out and signed onto as far back as 1996. Rumsfeld laid out in parts the basic attack plans for the war through 97 & 98. One of the points repeated in PFNAC writings to their own in congress was to pressure Clinton into going into the Iraq war back then. They admitted at the time that there was little real reason for this other then their disagreement with the containment argument of Clinton and their desire for the removal of Saddam. They also admitted to there being no way that they could build support for this with the American people. The solution would be to take advantage of any large event related to The Middle East to create an argument for and support of attacking Iraq and removing Saddam or any other leader in power in Iraq. The need was to protect our "interests."
After 9/11, we saw this plan put into play. Iraq had nothing to do with 9/11 but it was linked by innuendo, speculation and implication without any actual, strong or solid facts. Members of the Bush Admin would do news shows where they would put the names Saddam and Bin Laden in the same sentances. They would talk about Iraq's WMDs while talking about 9/11. They would use the words mushroom clouds and eminent threat when talking about Iraq when neither applied and those became the talking points for their boosters (Rush, Hannity, Coulter, Ingrahms, Savage, Fox News, etc.) who spread the word to a huge listener base and used that to build fear. They would release parts of transcripts that claimed, from former members of Saddams army or weapons people, that they had tons of WMDs. But, when those full transcripts were obtained by watchdogs in the press, we would find that the next unreleased page stated that the weapons being discussed had been destroyed.
Any General, Intel spook or advisor who spoke against this was silenced or ignored. The minutes from Number 10 that just surfaced re-enforce the charges that the Bush people fixed intel to suit the war desire. Yet, they all claim innocence on any charge of preplanning a war with Iraq or wanting to go into Iraq from day one of the Bush Presidency.
Conservatives would not have done all of this. Most conservatives I know believe in a strong military and a strong place for America in the world. Most believe that we should defend ourselves when attacked. Most believe that we should have strong, democratic allies to share the burdens of a growing world. Most traditional conservative writings state this as well.
Neocons and their writings tilt a bit more into the idea of us running everything and pushing down any who would question our rule. Peace through strength is not a bad thing if it is used, as conservatives would, to defend ourselves or show that we can defeate a threat. We show that we are strong enough that many don't want a war with us. Neocons seem to believe that we should obtain peace threw strength in the form of forcing our views and ways onto the world at the point of a gun if need be.
Most conservatives would have dealt with America from a base of honesty (or as honest as a Pol can get.) There may even have come solid reasons to go into Iraq (although, I doubt it.) True, conservatives do have a history of playing CIA games in other peoples countries. But so does the Liberal or Democrat side of the game.
The neocons lied, used fixed intel, used fear and used the "treason" brush to push a war. You were a patriot if you just went along with them and did not question your orders from above. You were a traitor and hated America if you asked even the most basic of questions. You were with Saddam, UBL and the terrorist that wanted to kill us if you weren't with Bush.
Conservatives have always been big on the military. My votes that went R went to those types. Conservatives have a tradition of wanting a large, strong military that is updated and given the latest toys when they come about. They have spoken against Democrats who would reduce our military. Clinton played shell games with the military. He did believe in upgrading the forces with the latest tech but he also wanted a reduction in size. He wanted a smaller, faster more modern force. I and many conservatives I knew, read, heard or saw didn't agree. A larger, faster more modern military was better. Bush even ran on restoring the military. Once in, that was out.
Look back to early 2001. Rumsfeld signed off on a military review that was to cut the size of the military by 20%. Bush smiled upon it. it would allow his high end tax cuts and he and Rumsfeld would defend this with the "faster, more modern" line. Then 9/11 happened and we went to war. Rumsfeld pushed his ideas on an army whose leaders disagreed with him. Yeah, we won (sorta.) But look at how many problems we had and continue to have with these two thrid world countries. One of them all but broken for years and the other not much better. And one of the big problems? Not enough men to do the job. The conservative ideas of what to do with the military would have been to build a strong military that would not look so stretched and worn. The neocon idea is a mess. It doesn't stop them from eyeing the war sabres for Iran or other crusades though.
Yet, even now, Rumsfeld pushes the neocon idea. We have tours being extended 6,8 and 10 months because we don't have enough men. The Army can't recruit enough people. But Rumsfeld still pushes the idea because it is part of some insane idea hatched by these bozos.
Many (not all, but many) conservatives are just that with money. Tax cuts are fine but they know that you need to balance what you spend to what you tax. Not all of them have gotten the formula 100% right but the true conservatives do try.
Neocons seem to set their tax ideas by their agenda. They have a base that they serve and they don't care beyond that.
Fund the war? No. Stay out of debt? No. Fund the basics of the fedgov or their own budgets? No. Why? Taxes must be cut on the few while spending sees almost no limits.
Conservatives are adults. Neocons are teenagers with their first credit card.
Conservatives have long been vocal about their religion and faith. No big deal really.
The neocons have spent ten plus years growing and shaping their debate on religion and faith into venom for the weakest minded of the masses. How do you know when a neocon is speaking on faith?
It's when you hear how their opponents hate people of faith, want to destroy God and the belief of him in this country, how it's the job of government to keep and preach the faith for the people, how our god can whup their gods or how we should force other people to give up their faith and take up ours.
I also don't believe that conservatives would have smiled on the Bybee memo or played the games with prisoners or soldiers that the neocons have.
There's lots more as well.
Don't get me wrong. There are and always have been conservatives, Republicans, liberals, Democrats, Bull Mooses, etc. who were in the bad seed division. Everyone has them. But this isn't a "bad seed" or "a few bad seeds" type of deal. This is a full fledged movement with a doctrine and membership. Even other conservatives have pointed to them and winced as they took control of the party. But, far too many of the elected sort of conservative/Republicans have seen the power they can have and the perks with this "strong" faction in charge.
Oh, yeah.
Your article on how sunny and great neocons are? Written by Irving Kristol. See the top of my post again. Back? Good. William (Bill) Kristol is Irving's son. Irving is part of the movement. Hate to tell you this, but most Nazi spokesmen (I'm not directly comparing them. I'm just using an extreme example here) and PR people painted their party as sunshine and roses too. Reading the PR on the Hitler Youth without question would lead you to believe that they were better then the Boy Scouts. Same with any movments PR.
Oh, check out the PFNAC web page and its writings from the years. Check out how many crossovers they have with the Wallstreet journal Op/Ed page. Think about that the next time you just read it without thinking about fact checking it or at least seeking out another POV.
My wife just read my above post and pointed out that, "you got so detail focused that you wrote a book to cover almost nothing about what you hate about neocons. Idiot."
She suggested a more simple tact that kinda hits all the bases in a less then 10,000 word essay.
Her version:
Neocons are a branch of conservatives. They are seperated from "concervatives" by their extremes in POV. They are no less real a distiction in belief then from a conservative then a hard left liberal Democrat would be from a regular Democrat. They seem to have more power and numbers then they do because they often cross over with the more extreme factions of the religious right. They are also the Republican flavor of the month as the Religios Right was brief times in the 80's and 90's. They will overreach and implode when the mainstream conservative Republican party has had enough or is damaged by them.
Yes, some distinctions in the "who" and "what" category are matters of perspective and opinion as is any definition of "extreme." It's where you stand to some degree. But many are divisions in thought and action that even "traditional" conservatives (Will, Novak, etc.) have pointed out before. It's also an easy distinction to make when the subjects call themselves neocons.
I hope her version clears mine up a bit. Or at least makes it more ubderstandable.
So, signing off: I'm my wifes secretary and dictations taker. Good night,
"understandable"
I can't win tonight. I'm going to sleep.
I may have reading comprehension skills...You posted the link, I said it made no impression on me because the guy talked about decamping from the conservative base...
Please take your alleged reading comprehension, and cite the passage in the essay where he says he decamped from the conservative base.
Jerry,
Don't agree with everything you wrote but it was good stuff nonetheless.
I'd tease you on the spelling mistakes but that would be like a frog calling someone ugly. Usually I use Firefox with a built in spellchecker but I'm in NY for the summer and having to work with my parent's primitive technology.
"I'd tease you on the spelling mistakes but that would be like a frog calling someone ugly."
Yeah. That's why I tend not to post as much when I've been working lots of overtime (as I have the last two days) and I really need sleep. My brain shuts down so bad.
I get some sleep and have a fresh brain and the first thing I see when I look at it is things like, oh, "seperate."
But "concervative" is not a typo. It's an in joke.
Don't agree with everything you wrote but it was good stuff nonetheless.
Jerry didn't say anything I didn't disagree with at all, but it was long and it didn't provide a summary with which a reader could walk away with and relay succinctly.
Bill's encouragement is the typical neo-con encouragement of posts he can't disagree with but finds less threatening.
Jerry, however well you support it, if no one can refer to your point, you may as well as not have made a point in the first place -- this isn't a mistake you hardly ever see the neo-cons making.
This is a mistake you almost never see the neo-cons making.
Mike wrote Please take your alleged reading comprehension, and cite the passage in the essay where he says he decamped from the conservative base.
Well, starting with the title, "I used to be a neocon...":
*I Used To Be a Neocon
*I’m a recovering neocon.
*I just woke up one day and said "WTF!" and then ran outside to rip the "bring it on" sticker off of my car bumper.
*That’s why I am an ex-neocon and I am in recovery
The only possible point you can have now is to imply that he might still be a conservative, and that I shouldn't assume that disavowing neoconservatism is equivalent to "decamping from the conservative base." I really don't think you're that subtle, but I'll allow for the possibility. I would argue in response to the claim that you didn't actually make, that the neoconservatives do in fact function as the the base of the modern American conservative movement, so that disavowing neoconservatism does constitute withdrawal from the conservative base. Now, if you want to have an intelligent discussion about the possible distinctions between "neocon" and "conservative," that's different. In fact, it's directly related to the topic for conversation that I posted yesterday. However, since that would require making reasoned arguments rather than poorly-thought-out snide comments, I will understand if you don't feel up to it. I have traditionally argued against ad hominem postings in this forum, but this discussion with you has been very frustrating because you're so remarkably obtuse; I should feel sorry for saying these things, but somehow I'm not.
I will now try to explain my objection to "I Used to be a Neocon" in clear, simple language. The author by his own statement has ceased to consider himself a neoconservative. He apparently wrote this column in order to (1) announce this fact, and (2) put forward the claim that he was right to do so. He accomplished (1) above. He failed to accomplish goal (2) in any meaningful way. He did rant about the media, but this does not accomplish any obvious goal, unless it's an end in itself (which is possible; I don't like Hannity either, because he's rude and obnoxious irrespective of his voting habits). He does not discuss conservative or neoconservative positions and explain why they are wrong; he merely refers to the "shock and awe" bombing strategy as "the assault on the Iraqi public." His depiction of his epiphany is rather less poetic than St Augustine's depiction of his own conversion: "the details are hazy on how I got out. I just woke up one day and said "WTF!" and then ran outside to rip the "bring it on" sticker off of my car bumper." So we know the author is impulsive, without understanding his impulse. The closest he comes to an explanation is his comment, again with regard to the media's involvement in the neoconservative publicity machine, "Most of all the tiny wheels do not know about the big wheel that’s pulling them. But now I do. That’s why I am an ex-neocon and I am in recovery." Unfortunately, everything after "that's why" is a non sequitur. At the very least, there's a missing step. He may be implying that neoconservative tactics are insupportable and he's withdrawn in protest, but that wouldn't explain his obvious hostility to neocon goals. If there's a reason he's turned against neocon goals themselves, he hasn't revealed it to the reader. In short, it is a very poorly written persuasive article. If someone wants to make the argument that the author didn't really intend (2) at all, and that it was essentially a typed-out rant, that's fine, but in that case I would have no idea why "Mike" felt we needed to see it.
Jerry didn't say anything I didn't disagree with at all
Let's see here, double negatives mean... I surrender. You've stumped my reading comprehension skills.
Jerry didn't say anything I didn't disagree with at all, but it was long and it didn't provide a summary with which a reader could walk away with and relay succinctly.
Bill's encouragement is the typical neo-con encouragement of posts he can't disagree with but finds less threatening.
David, you're right. Dee is back.
Yeah, Mike you're sooooooooo threatening. I sure hope everyone doesn't become like you, what with your scary logic and oh so witty ripostes. I can't not disagree with nothing you haven't not said.
I may have reading comprehension skills...You posted the link, I said it made no impression on me because the guy talked about decamping from the conservative base...
Please take your alleged reading comprehension, and cite the passage in the essay
where he says he decamped from the conservative base.
Well, starting with the title, "I used to be a neocon...":
I Used To Be a Neocon
I’m a recovering neocon.
I just woke up one day and said "WTF!" and then ran outside to rip the "bring it on" sticker off of my car bumper.
That’s why I am an ex-neocon and I am in recovery.
He does not discuss conservative or neoconservative positions and explain why they are wrong;
???
I can't not disagree with nothing you haven't not said.
D'oh, Nurse Ratched, please don't tell my mother!
Jerry, what I meant to say was: you're a good American.
(My typo makes my point about leaving the readers a point they can take from your post, yes?)
Mike,
I don't know.
I was a bit brain fried last night but I worked at pointing out a number of philosophical and ideological differences in how conservatives and neocons work. I listed a long bit related to the run up to the Iraq war and pointed out how I thought that most conservatives I've read would have chosen a different path then the one taken to point out the contrast of styles. Hell, I even started out by throwing out a sourced definition from Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia that pointed out how the term was used and by who. Then my wife used me as a dictation machine to give her short version summery of what her POV of what a neocon is and how they relate to and fit in the conservative movement.
"Some of it is in the extremes in the ideology and the lengths they will go to push it." That's from the first portion of my post. I think it works as a summary and as a point that underlines the difference between the two factions. I should have gone that route in the main body but I wanted to avoid using a POV that is so open to the vague nature of perspective and site clearly defined actions or thoughts. My version just may not do as well for the summery treatment since it's a bit harder to summarize, "A does this. B does this. A does that. B does that. A does this. B does this. A acts this way. B acts this way. A acts like that. B acts like that." If I had just posted that they're different or just more extreme the next posts would have been people asking, " how are they different? How are they more extreme."
You're the proclaimed expert on neocons. Why don't you tell us what you think a neocon is. Just, please, try to stay away from the stereotypical garbage about how they're all evil. That's too easy to swat down.
The preview function for Peter's forum posting isn't working for my browser, and I can't predict how it will throw line-breaks in my HTML. Please forgive my this repost.
I may have reading comprehension skills...You posted the link, I said it made no impression on me because the guy talked about decamping from the conservative base...
Please take your alleged reading comprehension, and cite the passage in the essay where he says he decamped from the conservative base.
Well, starting with the title, "I used to be a neocon...":
- I Used To Be a Neocon
- I’m a recovering neocon.
- I just woke up one day and said "WTF!" and then ran outside to rip the "bring it on" sticker off of my car bumper.
- That’s why I am an ex-neocon and I am in recovery.
He does not discuss conservative or neoconservative positions and explain why they are wrong;
???
I can't not disagree with nothing you haven't not said.
D'oh, Nurse Ratched, please don't tell my mother!
Jerry, what I meant to say was: you're a good American.
(My typo makes my point about leaving the readers a point they can take from your post, yes?)
"Bill's encouragement is the typical neo-con encouragement of posts he can't disagree with but finds less threatening."
No. In the last year of my on and off postings on this site I've had Bill disagree with me and rip my posts' foundations apart. If he disagrees with me he has more then proven in the past that he can obliterate any point of contention that he wants to target.
And unless he posts that he is in fact a neocon I wouldn't think that he was. He's never said anything that's so far right that I saw it as veering into neocon zone.
I listed a long bit related to the run up to the Iraq war and pointed out how I thought that most conservatives I've read would have chosen a different path then the one taken to point out the contrast of styles.
If by "stereotypical garbage" you mean short and succinct, then your opposition to the neo-cons will always be blunted against their superior branding.
I've been more casual in my phrasing, but when I say "Republicans [neo-cons] measure strength by dominance," I believe this summarizes what you cited with pax romana, pax britanica, pax americana, etc.
One of the space-race docudramas on cable cited JFK saying how we do things not because they are easy, but because they are difficult. Kennedy was serving a distinction from "We will know we are strong from our dominance" with "We will know we are strong from our generosity."
And it worked then. Now Americans simply want to measure strength by whatever the hell they are, which so far in the 21st c. is dominating.
Bill's encouragement is the typical neo-con encouragement of posts he can't disagree with but finds less threatening."
No. In the last year of my on and off postings on this site I've had Bill disagree with me and rip my posts' foundations apart. If he disagrees with me he has more then proven in the past that he can obliterate any point of contention that he wants to target.
I don't see the Bill you refer to in "Don't agree with everything you wrote but it was good stuff nonetheless."
My point being, Jerry, shoot for the smart posts with a summary people can walk away with. Don't leave them to summarize it with "Bush sucks."
"Republicans [neo-cons] measure strength by dominance."
Fine. But you've said that many times and the question of what is a neocon was still posed by someone who had read your posts. Don't get me wrong here. I see what you're saying and I'm not arguing your position VS mine. But there needs to be both in any debate. One criticism of the Republicans that support the neocon ideals and the Democrats that oppose them is that they often just spew out "playbook, bumper sticker, sound byte" arguments.
If you just say that the neocons measure strength by dominance and do not give an example or five of what they do then you fall under the bumper sticker category. Too many people just say that Bush is bad. Ask what he does and you often get the, "just look at all he has done" type of response. No detail.
Or you get more bumper stickers. I see this one all the time.
CNN is a lib network.
Why?
They're the Clinton News Network.
How?
They just promote anti-American propaganda.
What?
They always show things in the worst light.
Explain?
They have that Begalla guy on there spitting anti-Bush and anti-American rhetoric.
Oh, you mean, rather then on a news report or show, on that opinion/editorial show rather then a news report or show were Pat Novak then defends the Bush ideas and counters his other points of view? Both sides are held up there. Seems fair to me. How is the news Liberal?
Uh... I have to go now.
If I go after Fox News I go the point by point route and give examples.
1) They made up Kerry quotes and reported them as fact.
2) They reported about a conservative run parody site as though it were a solid news story about a real site. The story? Web site "Communists for Kerry" gives its support to Kerry. If you went to their homepage it made clear that it was a parody site run by a self identified conservative group of people.
3) They recently read word for word a Tom Delay email sent to supporters to downplay recent charges as though it were any other news copy. They provided bullet points on screen to highlight key points and did not identify the source as the email.
4) Even after one of their own (The Factor) pointed out faults in Swift Boat Vets stories and had John O'Neil (sp) admitting to weak points in their book, they still ran those same accusations and stories as parts of their news programming and not just the op/ed shows. Even after SBV stories were being recanted by members they were still run by Fox News.
Just saying, "Fox is a neocon network that lies" doesn't stand up on its own. Responding to questions of how they are with more bumper stickers (just look at Murdock and what he does, they're conservative water carriers, etc.) also falls flat.
If all you can do is argue bumper stickers then your message is weakened and easily brushed aside. It also does little to convert the undecided. Both tacts are needed. If your better with one and I the other then that's great because we covers all the bases.
"I don't see the Bill you refer to in "Don't agree with everything you wrote but it was good stuff nonetheless.""
Maybe because this topic, unlike others he's kicked me over, deals with that fine line of POV perspective and opinion and not cold, hard facts. He can disagree with mine and I his without going after each other. That's why I didn't ask him what he didn't agree with this go round. What are we going to say to each other? That the non existent POV line between A and B is here rather then there? I have friends who are vegans for moral reasons. I'm a big meat eater. We disagree on it. We don't argue, don't name call (except in fun) and we don't try to convert each other on it because that fine line of POV is just that. There is no hard facts to back up their POV or mine on the moral issue (save for the factories that should and do get shut down for abusing their livestock. But that's something even a meat eater agrees with so it doesn't really work.) Dig?
"Don't leave them to summarize it with "Bush sucks.""
Like it matters with that idiot. He doesn't touch anything in a post that has any meaning anyhow. He's a twit.
Maybe because this topic, unlike others he's kicked me over, deals with that fine line of POV perspective and opinion and not cold, hard facts. He can disagree with mine and I his without going after each other. That's why I didn't ask him what he didn't agree with this go round. What are we going to say to each other? That the non existent POV line between A and B is here rather then there? I have friends who are vegans for moral reasons. I'm a big meat eater. We disagree on it. We don't argue, don't name call (except in fun) and we don't try to convert each other on it because that fine line of POV is just that. There is no hard facts to back up their POV or mine on the moral issue (save for the factories that should and do get shut down for abusing their livestock. But that's something even a meat eater agrees with so it doesn't really work.) Dig?
Well, I was gonna respond but you just explained it way better than I would have, so thanks.
It utterly amazes me how people on BOTH sides of any political issue have a terrible time distinguishing between facts and opinions.
As for whether or not I'm a neo-con...well, not if you take Karen or your definition. Closer to Mr Kristols, but not totally. Since everyone seems to have their own definition I guess I could just take all of my own positions and stake them as the basic tenants of neo-conism. Which would be great if it somehow got me residuals or something but otherwise...
(My typo makes my point about leaving the readers a point they can take from your post, yes?)
Yes. Your postings have repeatedly made the point that it's a waste of time to write a post with no obvious thesis.
The main problem with defining a neocon is that there is no official clubhouse. People do not define themselves as a neocon. Those in Jerry's post belong to a group that advocate the neocon position, but believe themselves to be a part of a conservative think-tank. It's one of those "I know 'em when I see 'em." kind of things.
And Bill, I will let the official States Tights non-profit Association know of your leanings so they can send you dozens of emails, snail mail, and call you at dinnertime for donations to the cause. ;)
Sorry, X-idiot, it affects me if Bush uses my tax money to pour down a rathole. I am a conservative, but that doesn't mean that I have to accept whatever swill Bush and his chicken hawks decide to feed me. Bush talks the talk, but doesn't walk the walk. Smaller government? I don't think so. Bush has produced record deficits and to date has vetoed, I think, one spending bill. Honesty in government? Please. It'll take more than your ploy to shove the label "liberal" on someone in an attempt to smear them. If I didn't think this would be censored, I'd tell you to kiss my ***.
"Don't leave them to summarize it with "Bush sucks.""
If the shoe fits...
NEWS ARTICLE:
U.N. satellite imagery experts have determined that material that could be used to make biological or chemical weapons and banned long-range missiles has been removed from 109 sites in Iraq.
We've been told repeatedly by those on the Left -- which includes most journalists -- that Bush Lied! when he gave the danger posed by Saddam's WMD programs as one of the reasons for going to war with Iraq. Did the United Nations lie, too? Is it lying now? When did Karl Rove go to work for Kofi Annan?
Two themes have dominated media coverage of the war in Iraq: that the casus belli was illegitimate (which is why we hear so much about WMD that hasn't been found and so little about mass graves that have been found), and that the cause is hopeless.
Journalists constantly compare the war in Iraq to the Vietnam War. This may be because Vietnam is the only war with which they are familiar, the study of military history not being foremost on the agenda of most scribes. More likely it's because it suits their ideological purposes to compare Iraq to the only war America has ever lost.
Those who have studied military history think a more apt historical parallel is with the battle of Okinawa, which concluded 60 years ago this month.
Okinawa was the bloodiest battle of the Pacific war. More than 12,000 Americans were killed (along with 101,000 Japanese soldiers and about 100,000 Okinawan civilians), and 38,000 wounded in two and a half months of fighting.
The first parallel between Okinawa then and Iraq today is that it was clear when the battle of Okinawa began on April 1st, 1945, that the U.S. would win World War II. It has been clear since the elections in January that the insurgents would lose in Iraq.
The second parallel, the emergence of the suicide bomber, is a proof of the first.
Okinawa was as bloody as it was chiefly because of the kamikaze pilots. Nearly 5,000 of the 12,000 American dead were sailors killed in kamikaze attacks.
The kamikaze behind the wheel of a car or truck has become the weapon of choice in Iraq, and -- as our media constantly remind us -- has created much carnage in the last two months.
The suicide bomber is a weapon of fanatics. But it is also a weapon of desperation. The Japanese were fanatical from Pearl Harbor on. But the kamikaze didn't make an appearance until Oct. 19, 1944, near the end of the battle of Leyte Gulf, which marked the effective destruction of the Japanese navy. The Japanese didn't turn to suicide bombers until defeat was staring them in the face.
Perhaps the silliest of the many silly things journalists have written about the war in Iraq is that the wave of suicide bombings is happening despite Iraqi/American offensives such as Operation Lightning in Baghdad. It is more likely that the increasingly indiscriminate bombings are a desperate effort to fend off destruction as the terrorists are flushed from their hiding places.
"The Iraqi insurgency is running out of tricks, and like a cornered rat it is fighting back furiously," wrote Gary Anderson, a retired Marine officer who has advised the Defense Department on Iraq in The Washington Post June 2. "The recent spate of suicide bombings ... has many commentators wringing their hands and wondering what is going wrong. In reality, the question might be: What is going right?"
By going after ever softer targets, Iraq's kamikazes have racked up an impressive body count, but are failing in their strategic purpose.
Amir Taheri notes the terrorists began with targeted attacks on American troops. But this failed to dislodge the Americans, and resulted in many insurgent deaths.
Then the terrorists attacked the Iraqi police and army, but these failed to stem recruitment or slow deployment of new units.
So the terrorists began indiscriminate attacks on Shiite civilians. But these failed to provoke a civil war.
Now they are attacking Sunni Arabs, obliterating in the process their base of support.
"The insurgents know how to kill, but they no longer know who to kill," Taheri said.
One criticism of the Republicans that support the neocon ideals and the Democrats that oppose them is that they often just spew out "playbook, bumper sticker, sound byte" arguments.
The democrats have a bumper sticker? Care to share it with me? A playbook? A sound byte?
If you just say that the neocons measure strength by dominance and do not give an example or five of what they do then you fall under the bumper sticker category....
Yes. Your postings have repeatedly made the point that it's a waste of time to write a post with no obvious thesis.
Anyone care to cite a full post as an example?
The three were frequently muttered in the same breath, and some may even say intentionally so, but the direct statement was never made.
It's called an "insinuation".
It's a blatant attempt to make people think that the two are related, without outright saying as much.
Why do you think, at one point, 70% of Americans thought Saddam was behind 9/11? Because the Bush Administration insinuated as much. They wanted us to believe as much, even though they never said "1 + 1 = 2".
It's called an "insinuation".It's a blatant attempt to make people think that the two are related, without outright saying as much.
Well, Crqaig, that's the kind of nonsense spouted in I Used To Be a Neocon -- which, according to Bill and David, was an essay we are all reasonable to dismiss.
Well, I know why he didn't source the thing. He only used enough of the news blip to paint half a story.
From the A.P. June 10th, 2005
"U.N. satellite imagery experts have determined that material that could be used to make biological or chemical weapons and banned long-range missiles has been removed from 109 sites in Iraq, U.N. weapons inspectors said in a report obtained Thursday.
U.N. inspectors have been blocked from returning to Iraq since the U.S.-led war in 2003 so they have been using satellite photos to see what happened to the sites that were subject to U.N. monitoring because their equipment had both civilian and military uses.
[A UN spokesman] said analysts found, for example, that 53 of the 98 vessels that could be used for a wide range of chemical reactions had disappeared. “Due to its characteristics, this equipment can be used for the production of both commercial chemicals and chemical warfare agents,” he said.
The report said 3,380 valves, 107 pumps, and more than 7.8 miles of pipes were known to have been located at the 39 chemical sites.
A third of the chemical items removed came from the Qaa Qaa industrial complex south of Baghdad which the report said “was among the sites possessing the highest number of dual-use production equipment,” whose fate is now unknown.” Significant quantities of missing material were also located at the Fallujah II and Fallujah III facilities north of the city, which was besieged last year."
Let's see:
"U.N. inspectors have been blocked from returning to Iraq since the U.S.-led war in 2003"
"equipment had both civilian and military uses"
"can be used for the production of both commercial chemicals and chemical warfare"
From the sites listed it would seem that all of these are the same sites that were cleared by the inspection teams years ago. They were tagged because they could have been converted to chemical weapons use but were not designed for that function only. Many were 100% legal under the agreements Saddam had after Gulf 1. They were along the lines of any factory stateside. Yeah, we could cook up a batch of nasty stuff in many here but we don't. That hardly falls under the header of the 100% fact of existance that Bush burbled on about and poor Powell had to give up his cred for at the UN.
The story also does not make clear who removed the items. It was most likely bad guys but could have been us since we have been in control of many of those sites and the UN is having to guess at it. Who knows until more is reported?
Also, look at the Bush lied part of this story. Sites that were under UN seal prior to the Iraq war have been looted since the invasion. Say, when that story broke a year or so ago.... Didn't the Bush admin claim that that was a lie by the lib press? X, you're actually saying that Bush and crew lied? Thanks for finally comming around. It's about time.
If you want to use half truths and out of context bits to lie to us you'll have to work harder then that , X.
I wrote: Yes. Your postings have repeatedly made the point that it's a waste of time to write a post with no obvious thesis.
Mike wrote Anyone care to cite a full post as an example?
Other than the one in which you said that?
Well, Crqaig, that's the kind of nonsense spouted in I Used To Be a Neocon -- which, according to Bill and David, was an essay we are all reasonable to dismiss.
OK, this is at least the third time you've put the link to that essay in this thread. It's time for you to put up or (please, God) shut up: Precisely what is it that you think is so valuable in that essay? What is its thesis, what is the support for that thesis, and where is that support presented in the essay? Why do you persist in bringing it up? What merit does that composition have? Enlighten us, O wise one, we beg.
Yes. Your postings have repeatedly made the point that it's a waste of time to write a post with no obvious thesis.Anyone care to cite a full post as an example?
Other than the one in which you said that?
???
It's called an "insinuation".It's a blatant attempt to make people think that the two are related, without outright saying as much.
Well, [Craig,] that's the kind of nonsense spouted in "I Used To Be a Neocon" --
which, according to Bill and David, was an essay we are all reasonable to dismiss.
OK, this is at least the third time you've put the link to that essay in this thread.... Precisely what is it that you think is so valuable in that essay?
???
"The democrats have a bumper sticker? Care to share it with me? A playbook? A sound byte?"
Go to www.airamerica.com and look at their shop section. Or, for that matter the shop sections og www.whitehouse.org (not the oft confused porn site), www.moveon.org, www.idiots4bush.com or www.irregulartimes.com to name a few.
They have a playbook in the same way that the Republicans have one. And, like the R's, it's put out by their voices in the opinion media as well.
"No war for oil" ring a bell? How about, "Bush lied. People died."
""If you just say that the neocons measure strength by dominance and do not give an example or five of what they do then you fall under the bumper sticker category.
Anyone care to cite a full post as an example?"
Dude, you've been telling everyone, in this thread a whole lot, that the good bits that win people over should be done in three sentence posts and throwing out, well, one line bumper sticker sound bytes. You pointed to JFK to show how great a thing it can be.
The "I used to be a neocon" thing is just a collection of all of those to express an opinion while a few facts that actually contradict the writer's main point or just plain don't stand up at all are thrown in. Most of the things that he says the press didn't cover were covered. Some of them weren't pre-war and don't fit that part of the argument that he was making. Also, if he admits to having become a Fox News watching, Rush and clones listening, no lib media for me type then he isn't really in the best place to say that things weren't talked about by all the other press that he was avoiding. It's kind of hard to say that something wasn't being talked about if you weren't part of the conversation and had no interest in finding out about it. The thing may read great but it is not something I would prop an argument up with.
I'm not saying that your 100% wrong. You're actually very right in one way. Short shots and one line sound bytes work. That's why both sides use them so much. They stick in the head and get played on TV and radio far more then a list of facts.
But sound bytes don't make really sound, fact filled debates. They're the fast food of the debate world. Or maybe the Chinese food of the debate world. You can eat all you want of them but you end up feeling empty in no time at all. Good facts can be chewed on all night.
I wrote OK, this is at least the third time you've put the link to that essay in this thread.... Precisely what is it that you think is so valuable in that essay?
Mike wrote in response ???
Well, shit, if you don't know either, why keep bringing it up?
Or, since you want the short versions:
Short bits and sound bytes make great talking points but little else. They are blown off for their lack of factual content by the people who don't believe as you do (i.e. the ones you want to win over) and discounted all to quickly for their lack of substance. The only people you win over by using them as the main thrust of an argument are the people who agree with your POV to start with, weak minded twits who don't think but only feel their way through debates and no one else.
Well, shit, if you don't know either, why keep bringing it up?
*chuckle* Couldn't have said it better myself. :)
"No war for oil" ring a bell? How about, "Bush lied. People died."
Now, please cite the passages in your very smart yet lengthy "pax, romana, pax britannica, pax americana" post which refers to the neo-con resolve to wage war for oil and to lie and to kill people.
It's called an "insinuation".It's a blatant attempt to make people think that the two are related, without outright saying as much.
Well, [Craig,] that's the kind of nonsense spouted in "I Used To Be a Neocon" -- which, according to Bill and David, was an essay we are all reasonable to dismiss.
OK, this is at least the third time you've put the link to that essay in this thread.... Precisely what is it that you think is so valuable in that essay?
???
Well, shit, if you don't know either, why keep bringing it up?
Dude, I was just like replying to Craig's post, and you're all like, "Why are you replying to Craig post in a way I don't like?" and I'm like "???" and you're like, "If you don't know why you're replying to Craig post in a way I don't like, why do you keep doing it?"
David, what's your problem?
Sometimes I see these couples in their 50s in public, where the guy will hold the back of his wife's neck like he's steering her by the neck. Is there a lucky woman whose neck fits the back of your hand when you go out?
Robbnn,
Thank you for being positive intelligeny voice in support of our troops.
Craig,
I agree with you about the need for a national ID.
Jerry,
You add intelligence and civility to your side of the debate.
Karen,
The term "neocon", while people may misinterpret it, is based primarily on a strong, aggressive foreign policy. They would be among the last to give a damn about social issues.
Fred,
About the war simply "causing more recruits" you're wrong. As is PAD. Speaking of which...
PAD,
You continuously bring up the "causing more recruits argument".
Isn't it possible that there are many Iraqis who are LESS likely to hate us now because of our daily interactions with them? Those who are now being educated? Women who now have hope for more rights? Those who now have more of a say in their government? Those who came out to vote?
Was is this deemed insignificant?
Now over 1700 Americans military have lost their lives in this neocon engineered war of choice, not necessity.
http://news.yahoo.com/news?tmpl=story&cid=514&e=1&u=/ap/20050612/ap_on_re_mi_ea/iraq
""No war for oil" ring a bell? How about, "Bush lied. People died."
Now, please cite the passages in your very smart yet lengthy "pax, romana, pax britannica, pax americana" post which refers to the neo-con resolve to wage war for oil and to lie and to kill people."
You won't find it in my posts. You asked about bumper stickers and sound bytes by the left. I gave you two of the most common found in left the leaning op/ed media sources, on web sites and on cars in the streets.
"Posted by: Mike at June 12, 2005 05:50 PM
"One criticism of the Republicans that support the neocon ideals and the Democrats that oppose them is that they often just spew out "playbook, bumper sticker, sound byte" arguments."
The democrats have a bumper sticker? Care to share it with me? A playbook? A sound byte?"
You asked. I answered. What's so hard to grasp about that?
"Republicans [neo-cons] measure strength by dominance."Fine. But you've said that many times and the question of what is a neocon was still posed by someone who had read your posts. Don't get me wrong here. I see what you're saying and I'm not arguing your position VS mine. But there needs to be both in any debate. One criticism of the Republicans that support the neocon ideals and the Democrats that oppose them is that they often just spew out "playbook, bumper sticker, sound byte" arguments.
The democrats have a bumper sticker? Care to share it with me? A playbook? A sound byte?
"No war for oil" ring a bell? How about, "Bush lied. People died."
Now, please cite the passages in your very smart yet lengthy "pax, romana, pax britannica, pax americana" post which refers to the neo-con resolve to wage war for oil and to lie and to kill people."
You won't find it in my posts.
What good then are democratic bumper stickers you don't even believe in?
You said, "there needs to be both [lengthy discourse and, as David called it, an obvious thesis] in any debate" Where are the democratic bumper sticker slogans you do believe? Where is your obvious thesis?
Jeesus. You liberal tire me.
Dude, I was just like replying to Craig's post, and you're all like, "Why are you replying to Craig post in a way I don't like?" and I'm like "???" and you're like, "If you don't know why you're replying to Craig post in a way I don't like, why do you keep doing it?"
This is a public forum. We reply to each other's posts, even to the point of replying to other replies. My point is not that you are replying to Craig's post in a way that I don't like, my point is that you are replying to various posts by citing an authority, and it's a flipping bad authority. Typically when someone cites another work, it is to support a position, but I'm still at a loss as to what position you think that essay supports, and when I asked what you mean by it, your response was "???". You're free to participate in the discussion or not, but you do need to understand that when you are discussing things with other people, those people may have a few questions about those parts of your participation that are completely incoherent.
And I'm really hoping that you lapsed into surfer-speak just to be funny.
David, what's your problem?
I have problems with sloppy thinking, poor arguments, and inane commentary, just to name a few.
I'm a liberal for, and let me make sure I have this straight, not just buying into and believing any and all of the most out there claims made about and against Republicans, conservatives and Bush that turn up in no thought sound bytes and on bumper stickers? Tell me something. Is your head screwed on straight?
I don't use or buy into 90% of the bumper stickers or sound bytes out there from any side because they are often without any real substance. But, just because I don't believe in them does not mean that others don't. Besides, you never asked me about the ones I believed in. You only asked for me to share some of the Democrat ones with you.
But if you want one I believe in:
I have said in posts that Bush lied, people have died and that many who died would not have if Bush had not lied. I just don't care for shouting, "Bush lied. People died" and not backing it with anything but more bumper sticker and sound byte arguments. Now, can you put two and two together this time without getting seven?
My point is not that you are replying to Craig's post in a way that I don't like, my point is that you are replying to various posts by citing an authority...It's called an "insinuation".It's a blatant attempt to make people think that the two are related, without outright saying as much.
Well, [Craig,] that's the kind of nonsense spouted in I Used To Be
a Neocon -- which, according to Bill and David, was an essay we are all reasonable to dismiss.
I wasn't citing the essay as an authority. I cited it to compare obvious theses.
Are you now going to say your point wasn't that I was replying to Craig's post in a way that you didn't like, but was really that I was citing related theses?
...there needs to be both [lengthy discourse and an obvious thesis] in any debate...Now, please cite the passages in your very smart yet lengthy "pax, romana, pax britannica, pax americana" post which refers to the neo-con resolve to wage war for oil and to lie and to kill people."
You won't find it in my posts.
What good then are democratic bumper stickers you don't even believe in?
I have said in posts that Bush lied, people have died and that many who died would not have if Bush had not lied. I just don't care for shouting, "Bush lied. People died" and not backing it with anything but more bumper sticker and sound byte arguments.
So, there needs to be both lengthy discourse and an obvious thesis in any debate... but matching the obvious thesis to the discourse is optional?
That's muuuch better.
My point is not that you are replying to Craig's post in a way that I don't like, my point is that you are replying to various posts by citing an authority, and it's a flipping bad authority.
My problem with it is that he just keeps copying & pasting the same crap, again and again.
Mike, once is enough.
Isn't it possible that there are many Iraqis who are LESS likely to hate us now because of our daily interactions with them?
Oh, I'm sure of it.
But, after we ousted Saddam, there were those outisde of Iraq heading into the country to fight our troops. Now, these are the ones I consider the true terrorists elements.
Not these Baath party guys, who were going to fight regardless because, duh, they see us as invaders who toppled their government.
And I'm sure there there are those who are fighting us because, while they may have hated Saddam, they still hate us, too, and we're nothing more than another occupational force.
So, I really wish some would just quit assuming that every person fighting us in Iraq is some sort of terrorist. I mean, geez, I know the Bush Administration takes the "if you're not with us you're against us" to heart, but it gets ridiculous, you know?
What good then are democratic bumper stickers you don't even believe in?...
I have said in posts that Bush lied, people have died and that many who died would not have if Bush had not lied. I just don't care for shouting, "Bush lied. People died" and not backing it with anything but more bumper sticker and sound byte arguments.
I mean, dude, how is that even different than what I said?
I'm sorry, Jerome. You said such nice things about me and I'm about to make a lier out of you.
Mike,
Thank you. You've answered my questions quite well.
No, your head is not screwed on straight.
No, you can't add two plus two without getting seven.
Yes, you know how to copy and paste and edit over and over and over until you have removed most of the original meaning from the posts.
Yes, you're very good at answering the meaningless copy, paste and edits you create.
And since have I said to you that long form debate, short answers and even sound byte bumper sticker stuff all work well when blended together in a debate a number of times now.....
"So, there needs to be both lengthy discourse and an obvious thesis in any debate... but matching the obvious thesis to the discourse is optional?
That's muuuch better."
No. You can't understand what you're reading well enough to have an intelligent debate on almost any level.
Bye.
"Liar"
I hate that this computer won't let me use the preview option.
"Sometimes I see these couples in their 50s in public, where the guy will hold the back of his wife's neck like he's steering her by the neck. Is there a lucky woman whose neck fits the back of your hand when you go out?"
You're crossing the line into serious creepy now.
Posted by Rat at June 9, 2005 05:59 PM
The Republicans were so hot for alternate solutions with the Medicaid deal, so I'm gonna offer them an alternative to sending our people across the planet to protect Americans.
SEAL THE &%$#ING BORDERS.
This country doesn't have to be everybody's buddy. It also doesn't have to be the planetary police force. This country has to act like the country it was founded to be, only a little wiser.
Great idea, but as long as we depend on, oh, oil from Arabia and Venezuela, or chromium from SOuth Africa - or is that one Zimbabwe? -- and so many other things that our highly-advanced society requires that we can't get within our own borders -- that ain't gonna work.
The main problem with the Iraqi war is that our valiant troops are being led by people who are not worthy of them. As can be seen by the recent news about a memo written by British officials, Bush was seeking a pretext to invade Iraq, not seeking facts in order to determine what to do. And all of us, Democrats and Republicans alike, rolled over like sheep and let him do it. We should have elected a leader who knows what it means to fight in a war. I mean, George Sr. knew better than to invade Iraq, he just limited the gulf war to a simple objective, and then got out leaving safeguards like no-fly zones and a close US military presence in the area. And avoided the quagmire we are in now. Now, I am tired of the word "quagmire", but it applies.
"Isn't it possible that there are many Iraqis who are LESS likely to hate us now because of our daily interactions with them? Those who are now being educated? Women who now have hope for more rights? Those who now have more of a say in their government? Those who came out to vote?
Was is this deemed insignificant?"
No, Jerome. It's deemed irrelevant to the concept of Saddam Hussein having weapons of mass destruction that posed a threat to the United States. It's irrelevant to the fact that Bush was wrong (best case) or lied (worse case). It's irrelevant when my concern is less a woman's right to vote in Iraq than it is my daughters' right to keep sucking oxygen that could well be impeded by newly minted fanatics recruited by bin Laden, courtesy of the Bush administration. It's irrelevant to the fact that Bush shamelessly exploited a shellshocked nation for the purpose of promoting a Neo-con promoted Iraqi invasion that was on the dockets since the early 1990s.
It's irrelevant because if our intention was humanitarian rather than self-defense, there was any number of places we could have gone that needed us just as much, if not more.
But our intention WAS self-defense, our concerns on that score were groundless, and no belated attempts to rewrite history are ever going to change that, no matter how much the Bush apologists such as yourself wish it to be so.
PAD
I'll stick to the simple idea that the ends do not justify the means. IF, and that is a mighty big IF, the decision to invade Iraq was merely fear-induced mistake, then so be it. Admit the mistake, clean up your mess, accept your punishment, and move on.
There is mounting evidence that it was not a mistake...that it was a deliberate decision based upon "evidence" that was tweaked and twisted in order to justify the invasion, including feeding the fears of a wounded nation. But the motivation was far from the publicly heralded motivation: I'll even grant that Bush honestly felt that invading Iraq was an act of self-defense...but rather than the imminent "destruction is nigh unless we act NOW" self-defense, it was more a remote, possible future harm that Bush was defending against. And that's not what he told the American people.
Our legel system does allow taking lethal action in self-defense, IF the harm is imminent. So if you know a man across from you has a gun, and he's telling you he's going to pull it and shoot you, you're allowed to defend yourself, including using lethal force (the specifics vary, some states would require you to try and flee, first, if such could be done without increasing the risk to you or others). But, if the same man says he has a gun at home, and he's going to go home and get it, and come back and if you're still there, he's going to shoot you...and you shoot him dead...that's not self-defense. You might still not be convicted of murder, but chances are you're going to get arrested and prosecuted with something.
Coming out now and giving all these reasons that justify our invasion in Iraq...because our ORIGINAL justification has proven to be so much smoke and mirrors...only highlights just how much this administration has manipulated the public. What would America lose by denouncing this administration, calling for its resignation, and replacing it? America, the country, would lose.. nothing. It would gain a good measure of the international respect we once held. And it would show the rest of the world that we do not consider ourselves, our government, and our elected officials, to be above the rule of law. Indeed, that we adhere so much to the rule of law, that we would impose it upon our own leaders, when those leaders violate their authority.
Want to see a true act of democracy? Stop looking to Iraq, and start recognizing what's going on in your own house.
I sent Peter the following:
I think I'm right and Jerry, Craig, Bill, and David are wrong on the "obvious thesis" being neglected in the democratic message.But if I'm the only one who sees it that way, I don't need to keep going. Does it look to you more like it looks to me, or more like it looks to them?
Peter asked for a summary (which I observed with irony).
Jerry has been writing these lengthy pro-democratic analyses and has insisted that he's been including obvious summaries people can walk away from his posts with.However badly I've made it, my point has been that if no one can walk away from his posts with a summary, he's only convenient as a complacent adversary for neo-cons to cite, with which neo-cons can shame real dissent.
This is a post where I cite what's been said where I try to make this point: http://peterdavid.malibulist.com/archives/002982.html#95793
Peter answered my question:
Well, personally I think it doesn't matter whether he includes a summary or not. If he presents his points as a five page dissertation or a five word soundbite, adversarial neo-cons will deliberately miss the point or distort it for the purpose of shaming real dissent...
To which I replied:
But as I demonstrated in my post, the democrats aren't issuing soundbytes even *they* believe.None of poor who voted for Bush believe the neo-cons are resolved to wage war for oil, or to lie and kill people. As inane as the neo-con soundbytes are, most people believe they are issued honestly.
This leaves the poor only hearing soundbytes anyone believes from the neo-cons.
To this,Peter replied:
The poor voting for Bush didn't do so because the Neocons had better soundbites. They voted for Bush because Bush spoke the language of fear 24/7 and kept them so off-center they didn't know which end was up. That, and Bush--who has lived a life of privilege--manages to project this down-home, "I'm just one of you guys" image that fools the "common folk" into believing he's one of them....
I asked Peter if I could cite our exchange to make my last point and he generously agreed. I'm going to refer to a personal anecdote, so I feel comfortable leavng the discussion on it.
About 10 years ago I was a substitute teacher for 2 weeks in a middle-school special ed class. One of the students was a kid who, if you asked her what 5 and 7 added to, she couldn't tell you. She couldn't add it in her head or on paper. So when the class was being instructed in math, she was given a bucket of dried lima beans to count with and finish her classwork.
She could still count, and I supposed that she was capable of doing anything I was capable of doing. So I told her to write out a number-line, and to move a bean right or left to add and subtract. Nothing we all don't do in our heads. When I was called in to sub in the class weeks later, she was doing her classwork at her desk still using the number-line I asked her to write out.
Since then, I've read Vonnegut's "Cat's Cradle," where he had a line about measuring the quality of a scientist by how he explains the principles he works with to lay-people. I've taken opinions like this as agreement that the merit of lengthy discourse can be measured by what the "lay-people" take away.
If I'm interpreting what everyone is saying, we all agree the democrats will continue to lose to the neo-cons as long as they give up on the voter, but we disagree that it can be accomplished. Or maybe y'all think the voters will simply overlook being neglected before medicare and deficits have harvested middle-class savings. From what I've experienced, and from the reinforcement that experience has gotten, I really can't fathom giving up on the voter in the manner I see the democrats doing.
PAD,
"No, Jerome. It's deemed irrelevant to the concept of Saddam Hussein having weapons of mass destruction that posed a threat to the United States"
See, that statement would be relevant if that is the point I was trying to make. Which was, since you seem to have missed it, that the "invasion of Iraq has been a Bin Laden wet dream" argument - if you want to call such an assertion that has no grounding in reality an argument - is a load of bullshit. By having reached out and interacted with these people on a daily basis, helped and freed these people and fedthem, clothed them and (helping)educating them, we are winning over hearts and minds. Those who we cannot win over, who would likely hate us if we had stayed here in the U.S.A., we're killing them. It's quite an effective double-pronged strategy.
Bin Laden is on the run, al-Quaida is in diarray, and millions of people took advantage of their fought-for right to vote.
Those who view us as the Great Satan because of the way we dress, the music we listen to and the programs we watch and the status our women have and/or because we strongly support Israel will either always feel that way or just might be having their distant fears soothed.
Libya gained so many new recruits they are out of the terrorism business.
No matter how you spin it, this is how it stands.
Jerome, I'm hoping it's just the medium of print that's preventing the true tone of your opinion from carrying over. Because, as your words describe our actions in Iraq, it's pretty much the message of "love the US or DIE!"
Sure' we're treating the people of Iraq, those that don't hate us, with kindness and sympathy, and doing our best to allow them to create a democratic government. That's all well and good. But for everyone else, our solution is...death? That's not just cold, that's, to my eyes, evil, pure and simple. Reward fealty with love and comfort? Visit rage and devasation on those that disagree with us? Sure sounds pretty despotic to me.
Sure sounds pretty despotic to me.
And yet, it's impossible to convince people like Jerome that they sound like madmen when they talk like this.
PAD,
"No, Jerome. It's deemed irrelevant to the concept of Saddam Hussein having weapons of mass destruction that posed a threat to the United States"
"See, that statement would be relevant if that is the point I was trying to make."
But the point you're making is ALSO irrelevant. The point you're making is this: We're doing some good in Iraq, so therefore the ends justifies the means. And I'm saying, No, it doesn't, it never has, and it never will, and you're a Bush apologist no matter which way you slice it.
"Which was, since you seem to have missed it, that the "invasion of Iraq has been a Bin Laden wet dream" argument - if you want to call such an assertion that has no grounding in reality an argument - is a load of bullshit."
No, it's really not. Bush's caterwauling about WMDs is the load of bullshit, and if you want to smear it on a sliced bagel, chow down on it, smile, and call it cream cheese, be my guest, but bullshit it was and bullshit it remains.
"By having reached out and interacted with these people on a daily basis, helped and freed these people and fedthem, clothed them and (helping)educating them, we are winning over hearts and minds."
Some. And alienating others.
"Those who we cannot win over, who would likely hate us if we had stayed here in the U.S.A., we're killing them. It's quite an effective double-pronged strategy."
Oh. My God.
Jerome, you've just crossed over into Cloud-Cuckoo Land. I mean, the Bush apologist aspect of you, I'm used to. But that comment is just sick. Love us or we kill you? You call death to dissenters an "effective strategy?"
"Bin Laden is on the run,"
Really. I hear Bush doesn't think much about him these days.
""al-Quaida is in diarray,"
Presuming you mean "disarray," prove it. Show me proof. Show me a diary from bin Laden with an entry dated "June 13, 2005--Completely screwed. Game over, man, game over."
"and millions of people took advantage of their fought-for right to vote."
Yes, I'm sure that meant a lot to the tens of thousands of innocents who died to achieve it.
"Those who view us as the Great Satan because of the way we dress, the music we listen to and the programs we watch and the status our women have and/or because we strongly support Israel will either always feel that way or just might be having their distant fears soothed."
They're having "their distant fears soothed" by our BOMBING THE CRAP OUT OF THEM? Have you gone COMPLETELY mental?
"Libya gained so many new recruits they are out of the terrorism business.
No matter how you spin it, this is how it stands."
No, it's really not, and considering you're aggressively ignoring the indisputable fact that Bush lied to the American people, you don't get to point to me and claim I'm spinning anything.
You might want to consider, however, wiping that bit of bullsh--I'm sorry, cream cheese--off your upper lip.
PAD
"If I'm interpreting what everyone is saying, we all agree the democrats will continue to lose to the neo-cons as long as they give up on the voter, but we disagree that it can be accomplished. Or maybe y'all think the voters will simply overlook being neglected before medicare and deficits have harvested middle-class savings. From what I've experienced, and from the reinforcement that experience has gotten, I really can't fathom giving up on the voter in the manner I see the democrats doing."
This is well worth responding to.
On the one hand I agree. Not only is the idea that the voters voted as they did out of stupidity, fear or any combination of the two just plain self indulgent, it will also lead the party to go in the absolute WORST direction--either by playing the voters for bigger chumps than the are or by trying to make them afraid of the Republicans. The fact is, you can't beat something with nothing--if the only message is that you hate the other guy it will not fire up your base enough to make up for the massive turn-off that such a strategy is to the average voter.
BUT...it's too easy to write off the Democrats when in actuality they came pretty close to winning in both of the last Presidential elections. Ignore all of the hanging chads--if Gore had campaigned just one day more in Florida or if Kerry had spent some of that 13 million dollars in Ohio that he (inexplicably) had left over at the end of his campaign, they could very well have pulled it off and we might be talking about how the Republicans could ever win again.
If I had to bet money I'd bet on Hillary winning the next presidential election She has fanatical loyalty among most of the base and her neo-con stance on the war will appeal to many conservatives. She is a mediocre speaker but she can appear to be a great listener so that would be one way to turn a weakness into a strength. Of the Republican candidates I can only see Rudy or McCain easily beating her.
I'm looking for Hillary to solidify her position by engineering the ouster of Dean as chairman. She will gain prestige among centrists and old school democrats and the far left Dean supporters will forgive her just so they can get Bill Clinton back in the White House. Since GW Bush isn't running again, electing Hillary is the last chance any democrat will have to repudiate the Bush administration.
So yeah, the Democrats seem to be on the wrong course but it will not take very much to turn their fortunes right around. The Republicans will have to play a very smart game to win in 2008.
You can't get anywhere with the Bush apologists bringing up the fact that he lied. They don't care. Bush gave them a thrilling TV spectacle on Fox to watch, called "Shock and Awe."
That's all that matters t them.
Another reason the Iraq invasion is a "Bin Laden wet dream", besides the recruiting aspect, is that the regions only secular government has been removed, leaving room for a far-right religious islamic government to be formed.
"I'm looking for Hillary to solidify her position by engineering the ouster of Dean as chairman"
The conspiracist in me already sees this happening...because Dean is already setting himself up for a coup. He's a very public figure, and he's certainly shown himself capable of committing public gaffes on his own. What better ploy than to have him continue "leading" the democratic party, saying some of the things he's been saying lately. Then, along comes Hillary with the "voice of reason," and not only deposes the crazy Dean, but does so in such a moderate way that she wins over a lot of moderate GOPS voters as well?
At least, that's the way I'd portray it, were I controlling member of the democratic party, and desperate just to get the GOP out of the White House. Forget this competition thing...just pick someone that can win, and make them look like they won the Primaries....
By the way, the U.S. government is telling the Iranians to boycott the upcoming elections.
http://www.iranian.ws/iran_news/publish/article_7295.shtml
So now democracy is not voting?
---------------------
The Republicans will have to play a very smart game to win in 2008.
Not really, all they have to do is play to fear, purge voting rolls, & increase the use of Diebold machines.
"Jerry has been writing these lengthy pro-democratic analyses and has insisted that he's been including obvious summaries people can walk away from his posts with."
You really can't read, can you?
I've never made any such claim. I've stated that I would rather go point by point and stated that I don't care for sound bytes or bumper sticker one liners. I don't find any true debating value in them. I also stated point blank that you won't find many or, in some cases, any of them in my posts.
The closest I came is pointing out, after you went on and on and on and on about it, that you could boil down some of my points about Bush into, "Bush lied. People died." But I don't because must people who support Bush will just brush aside the bumper sticker logic as mindless Lib ranting and say that it is without merit. A list of facts is harder to deny or defend.
I also said in several posts that it's great to have different people with differnt styles in the debate. My going with long lists of facts or point by points with you and the shorter post style you claim to like covers all the bases.
But, somehow, you read all that to be, "Jerry has been writing these lengthy pro-democratic analyses and has insisted that he's been including obvious summaries people can walk away from his posts with." Never said it. I just said that I thought most people here were smart enough that they could read it and take away from it what they wanted for their own summaries.
"But as I demonstrated in my post, the democrats aren't issuing soundbytes even *they* believe.
None of poor who voted for Bush believe the neo-cons are resolved to wage war for oil, or to lie and kill people. But as I demonstrated in my post, the democrats aren't issuing soundbytes even *they* believe."
You either can't read or you don't live in the same world as this blog's page. I said that, in ref to me, I, me and me alone, just me, me, myself and I don't buy into or believe the sound bytes and bumper stickers as a stand alone argument. So you take that as me saying that NO Democrat or Lib does? I gave you a number of web sites where those same bumper stickers are sold by the thousands and where you can read posts and hear comments that show that many people do believe the bumper stickers like, "No war for oil." And you showed that you couldn't figure out that simple, basic and obvious point with your next few posts as you ranted on about what good they are since I, and just me, myself and I in the case of our posts, don't even believe in them.
"None of poor who voted for Bush believe the neo-cons are resolved to wage war for oil, or to lie and kill people. As inane as the neo-con soundbytes are, most people believe they are issued honestly.
"This leaves the poor only hearing soundbytes anyone believes from the neo-cons."
No. Only the ones who want to believe. The same as the ones who want to believe the Dem bumper sticker logic. As I said before; you can't win over the most of the people who want to believe their sides bumper stickers with only other bumper stickers no matter what. But you can win over the ones who want to know what is going on and will only respond to facts.
But this is a point that seems to keep going right over your head.
Jerry, I've tried having detailed debates with some Bush supporters, and even used fact-based lists. Some have very good responses, and make interesting points. There are lots of folks that post to this very board that support Bush and the GOP, generally, that make very good conversationalists. We generally disagree, but that's an ideology difference.
Personally speaking, a very good acquantance of mine, someone I generally regarded as educated and well-informed, proved to me that some Bush supporters just cannot be debated. There's a difference here: when exchanging posts with Iowa Jim or Mr. Bjorlin, I'm not really expecting that I'm going to "convert" them away from the GOP...but at the very least, they admit certain facts, and are willing to discuss them.
The folks I refer to as "kool aid drinkers" are those that simply dismiss an argument simply because it's labeled a democratic/liberal position, usually by dismissing the source ("you need to stop listening to those liberal news sources") I think maybe the worst line I heard was "the only thing liberals are good for is to remind us why all their ideas are bad."
I'm all for getting into a debate, but when a portion of the other side (and I'm aware that this reaction isn't exclusive to the GOP) flat out refuses to even hear your argument, there really is no debate.
Eventually, I stop trying to have those discussions with certain people....it gets tiring, working out a long, detailed post, only to see some smary GOP sound bite posted in response, which usually is very far removed from the point you were trying to make.
Since Jerry addressed me:
What good then are democratic bumper stickers you don't even believe in?But if you want one I believe in:
I have said in posts that Bush lied, people have died and that many who died would not have if Bush had not lied. I just don't care for shouting, "Bush lied. People died" and not backing it with anything but more bumper sticker and sound byte arguments. Now, can you put two and two together this time without getting seven?Jeesus.
"Jerry has been writing these lengthy pro-democratic analyses and has insisted that he's been including obvious summaries people can walk away from his posts with."
You really can't read, can you?
I've never made any such claim.
Uh, right, Jerry. You haven't been insisting anything -- even when you insisted things. It's the fault of us illiterates the democrats keep losing
Posted by X-Ray : "Hottest thread this site has ever seen!" Posted by Zeek: "Wrong. I've seen them in the 300s. Ego much?"
--------
Ever seen them in the 400's, smart guy?
HOTTEST THREAD EVER!
Ever seen them in the 400's, smart guy? HOTTEST THREAD EVER!
But remember, the count increased exponentially after we stopped talking to/about you.
"Posted by: Jerry at June 12, 2005 10:02 PM
I don't use or buy into 90% of the bumper stickers or sound bytes out there from any side because they are often without any real substance."
-------------------------------------------------
Posted by: Mike at June 13, 2005 01:52 PM
"Since Jerry addressed me:"
"What good then are democratic bumper stickers you don't even believe in?
But if you want one I believe in:
I have said in posts that Bush lied, people have died and that many who died would not have if Bush had not lied. I just don't care for shouting, "Bush lied. People died" and not backing it with anything but more bumper sticker and sound byte arguments. Now, can you put two and two together this time without getting seven?"
"Jerry has been writing these lengthy pro-democratic analyses and has ***insisted that he's been including obvious summaries*** people can walk away from his posts with."
"You really can't read, can you?"
"I've never made any such claim."
"Uh, right, Jerry. You haven't been insisting anything -- even when you insisted things. It's the fault of us illiterates the democrats keep losing"
-------------------------------------------------
What I said was:
"I've never made any such claim. I've stated that I would rather go point by point and stated that I don't care for sound bytes or bumper sticker one liners. I don't find any true debating value in them. I also stated point blank that you won't find many or, in some cases, any of them in my posts.
The closest I came is pointing out, after you went on and on and on and on about it, that you could boil down some of my points about Bush into, "Bush lied. People died." But I don't because must people who support Bush will just brush aside the bumper sticker logic as mindless Lib ranting and say that it is without merit. A list of facts is harder to deny or defend."
******
So, I did the short version thing for an example because YOU KEPT ASKING FOR IT and somehow that means that I'm insisting that I am putting obvious summaries into my posts?
"But as I demonstrated in my post, the democrats aren't issuing soundbytes even *they* believe."
And, again, my not believing in some things said without the backing of thought or fact and saying so does not speak for the many people who walk around all do showing that they do. Do you believe in the Loch Ness Monster? Do you believe that it's a plesiosaur? If you don't and you know one other person who doesn't do you then claim that no one does despite the huge number of people out there saying and showing that they do? If you can't work that out then you are an idiot.
Again, you've only spent the last day showing the following things:
1) You can't understand a damned thing that you read.
2) You're very good at cut and pasting to take something out of context.
3)You're very good at addressing points that weren't made.
4) You suck at math. Why? Because taking 90% of something away still leaves 10%. Figure it out ****head.
5) You're an idiot who can't hold a real coversation or debate without resorting to taking what is said and twisting out of context to create a lesser point that you can then debate with some low level of skill.
6) You throw boarderline nut job comments into the dabate like that whole old couples, old ladies, back of your hand, in hand line. That makes you look very unhinged.
7) Anyone who spends too much time debating you may also be an idiot if they don't sooner or later come to realize that it is pointless to argue with an stone cold idiot who twists points and quotes to the point of being a boarderline liar.
8) I'm not an idiot and I'm also now done with you.
I just had a horrifying thought. If Hillary Clinton and John McCain run against each other in 2008, they might have to resort to talking about substantive, actual issues. Most likely this would see the end of the modern news media, as a whole industry of parroting pundits finds it is unable to actually speak intelligently about real issues. Journalists might have to relearn how to do research on their own. 24-Hour news channels would have to fill about 20 hours of programming with constant news coverage of the rather unnewsworthy Michael Jackson appeals process; ratings and advertising revenues would plummet.
Jerry,
Your proof that I can't read rested on this, which you cite from me:
Jerry has been writing these lengthy pro-democratic analyses and has insisted that he's been including obvious summaries people can walk away from his posts with.
To which I referred from your post:
But if you want one [obvious summary] I believe in: I have said in posts that Bush lied, people have died and that many who died would not have if Bush had not lied....
..and for this you depict me as an idiot?
I'm sorry Jerry, but that's officially fucked up. No one told you to challenge my "final point" pos
George Bush is out jogging one morning and notices Little Johnny on the corner with a box.
Curious, he runs over to Little Johnny and says, "What's in the box, kid?"
Little Johnny says, "Kittens, they're brand new kittens."
George Bush laughs and says, "What kind of kittens are they?"
"Republicans," says Little Johnny.
"Oh that's cute," he says and he goes on his way.
A couple of days later, George Bush is running with his buddy Dick Cheney and he spies Little
Johnny with his box just ahead.
George Bush says to Dick, "You gotta check this out," and they both jog over to Little Johnny.
George Bush says, "Look in the box Dick, isn't that cute? Look at those little kittens. Hey, kid, tell
my friend Dick what kind of kittens they are."
Little Johnny replies, "They're Democrats."
"Whoa!" George Bush says, "I came by here the other day and you said they were Republicans.
What's up?"
"Well," Little Johnny explains, "their eyes are open now."
A Republican enters a Bar and orders a drink. After sitting there for a while, he yells to the bartender, "Hey, you wanna hear a joke about Democrats?"
The bar immediately falls absolutely quiet. In a very deep, husky voice, the woman next to him says, "Before you tell that joke, sir, I think it is just fair that you should know five things:
"1 - The bartender is a Democrat.
"2 - The bouncer is a Democrat.
"3 - I'm a 6 foot tall, 220 lb. Democrat with a black belt in karate.
"4 - The guy sitting next to you is a Democrat and is a professional weight lifter.
"5 - The lady to your right is a Democrat and is a professional wrestler.
"Now think about it seriously, Mister. Do you still wanna tell that joke?"
The man thinks for a second, shakes his head, and says, "Nah, Not if I'm gonna have to explain it five times."
PAD (thank God, the level of discussion went back up) wrote, But the point you're making is ALSO irrelevant. The point you're making is this: We're doing some good in Iraq, so therefore the ends justifies the means. And I'm saying, No, it doesn't, it never has, and it never will, and you're a Bush apologist no matter which way you slice it.
Isn't that a far, far too simplistic way of looking at it? Setting aside the grammatical quibble-- we all know what you meant-- almost any action has to be evaluated by some form of ends-means balancing, and truly critical ends can justify some fairly horrific means. Sixty years ago we bombed the crud out of Germany, firebombed Berlin and Tokyo, nuked two cities in Japan, and justified it all as necessary pour encourager les autres. We were right to do so. I'm sure the Eighth Air Force would have preferred to conduct the war along General Sherman's methodology-- destroy lots of property but very few lives in the course of destroying the enemy's will and ability to fight-- but that's difficult, if not impossible, to do in any reasonable fashion through a bombing campaign, particularly before the advent of "smart" weaponry. More recently, we held the world hostage through Mutual Assured Destruction, and kept the peace for forty years. I think we all have to accept that sometimes, the ends do justify quite a lot of means. There are some means that no end will justify, admittedly, and quite a few more that require "saving the world from fascism" to excuse. But it needs to be a more nuanced analysis than you implied.
"and millions of people took advantage of their fought-for right to vote."
Yes, I'm sure that meant a lot to the tens of thousands of innocents who died to achieve it.
See above. Six hundred thousand Americans died between 1861-1865, with our modern nation-state as the end result. I can't say it wasn't worth fighting for. We've been insanely lucky as a people-- the civilian casualties in our wars have been far, far lighter than most countries have had to endure-- including Germany, which lost 20,000,000 lives in being de-Nazified at gun point, and Japan, which we bombed flat. I frankly was never that crazy about the Iraq war, even when I had faith about the WMD intelligence reports, which as we all know now was (theory A) three parts bad intel and one part blindness, or (theory B) fabricated. But I accept force as an occasionally necessary instrument of foreign policy, and I'm prepared to eat crow 20 years from now if there is a functioning democracy in Iraq.
Wow!
A bar full of Democrats who are all blond!
What are the odds of that?
:)
"Well, the big story -- Hillary Clinton will be running for president in 2008. You know why I think she's running? I think she finally wants to see what it's like to sleep in the president's bed." --Jay Leno
"There's already speculation that Hillary Clinton will be the nominee for the Democrats in 2008. Well, you have to admire the dedication of the Democratic party. They just lost an election, and they're already hard at work planning to lose the next one." —Bill Maher
"Hillary Clinton said today that she wants legislation to allow all ex-felons to vote. See, this way all the Clinton’s former business partners can vote for her in 2008." --Jay Leno
"According to a new poll, Democrats are favoring Hillary Clinton for the Democratic presidential nominee for 2008. Democrats say they are looking for a fresh and exciting new way to get their asses handed to them." --Tina Fey
"President Bush told the reporter that he saw his re-election as the approval by the American people to continue the war in Iraq. Kind of like how Clinton thought his re-election meant the American people wanted him to continue cheating on Hillary." --Jay Leno
"At a Barnes & Noble, Hillary Clinton had a book signing and a lot of people showed up. 1,200 people showed up and statistically speaking that means 1 in 10 of those people slept with her husband." —David Letterman
"In her book Hillary Clinton said she could have divorced her husband for all of his infidelities, but decided to get counseling instead. In a related story Bill Clinton announced the name of his new book is 'What Does It Take To Get This Woman To Leave Me?'" —Craig Kilborn
"According to USA Today, former President Clinton has already read his wife's new book five times. In fact, the former president has now spent more time in bed with the book than he has with Hillary." —Conan O'Brien
"In the book Hillary says she and President Clinton kept their marriage together through counseling. Yeah, that and living in different cities and never seeing each other." —Craig Kilborn
"Hillary Clinton has written a book — it's a 600-page memoir — eight years in the White House. Six hundred pages, that's amazing. Not bad for a woman who, when she was there had no idea what was going on." —David Letterman
Joe V.
1 more hillary joke.
"CNN found that Hillary Clinton is the most admired woman in America. Women admire her because she's strong and successful. Men admire her because she allows her husband to cheat and get away with it." —Jay Leno
joe v.
"It was nice to see the Canadian figure skaters finally get their gold medal. It's funny how things work out. One minute you're in second place. Then there is this huge controversy. Everybody's protesting. It's on the front page. Next thing you know you're in first place. You know right about now, Al Gore is going, 'Hey what about me?'" —Jay Leno
"Today is President's Day. Or, as Al Gore calls it, Monday." —David Letterman
"A new survey found that 62 percent think Al Gore looks better without his beard. Not only that, 92 percent of Americans think the beard looks better without Al Gore." —Conan O'Brien
"Have you seen the new Al Gore? He's wearing a beard. He's hoping that the rabbi look will help him next time in Florida." —David Letterman
"President Bush today was hammering nails in 100 degree heat — God bless him — down in Texas at one of those Habitat for Humanity projects. This is a terrific group. They build houses. He was building a home for an unemployed man. I tell you, Al Gore really appreciated it." —Jay Leno
"Remember Al Gore? He was Vice President for a little while. Now, he is teaching school at Columbia, teaching a journalism class. Since the election the guy has put on 40 pounds. It's gotten so bad that every time he turns around, his ass erases the blackboard. ... He got on the scales today and demanded a recount." —David Letterman
"Al Gore is back in the news. You haven't thought about Al Gore in a while. Don't feel guilty about it. Al Gore has put on 40 pounds since losing the election and experts contribute this to depression. That's right. In a related story, Michael Dukakis now weighs 12,000 pounds." —Conan O'Brien
He's so fat, Clinton is thinking of hitting on him." —from David Letterman's "Top Ten Responses To The Question, 'How Fat Is Al Gore?'"
"It's kind of ironic. He always wanted to distance himself from Bill Clinton. Now that he's out of politics and overweight, he is Bill Clinton." —Jay Leno, on Al Gore
"Show me anyone who hasn't put on a few winter pounds. I bet he's thinking: I don't have to be on CNN, I can have the cheeseburger." —Former Al Gore flack Julia Payne, on the former vice president's reported weight gain
"You knew this was the kind of thing that was going to happen when they had all of that monkey stuff going on in November, then December and then January; a newspaper in Florida got a hold of the ballots and recounted them. According to their information, Al Gore actually won the election in Florida. Al Gore could not be reached for comment, he was in the teachers lounge at Colombia University mimeographing Friday's pop quiz." —David Letterman
"Hillary Clinton has a brand-new office. Over on the East Side, she's got a huge office space. The rent for this office space — $500k a year. I wonder if that's taxpayer money? Bill Clinton has an office — $500k a year rent. Meanwhile, Al Gore is operating out of a Kinkos up on 96th street." —David Letterman
"Yesterday the Secret Service caught a former IRS employee outside the White House after he fired three shots from a gun. That is right, the man was immediately arrested and given a job at the post office. ... The Secret Service said that the last weirdo who came that close to the White House before being stopped was Al Gore." —Conan O'Brien
joe v.
"This past weekend, the Democratic National Committee made it official -- electing former governor and one-time shoe-in Howard Dean as their new party chairman. As a doctor they're hoping he can reattach the ass handed to the Democrats in the past election. ... You know, there's something stirring about the peaceful transfer of no power." —Jon Stewart
21 Ways to be a Good Democrat
1. You have to be against capital punishment, but support abortion on demand.
2. You have to believe that businesses create oppression and governments create prosperity.
3. You have to believe that guns in the hands of law-abiding Americans are more of a threat than U.S. nuclear weapons technology in the hands of Chinese and North Korean communists.
4. You have to believe that there was no art before Federal funding.
5.You have to believe that global temperatures are less affected by cyclical documented changes in the earth's climate and more affected by soccer moms driving SUV's.
6. You have to believe that gender roles are artificial but being homosexual is natural.
7. You have to believe that the AIDS virus is spread by a lack of federal funding.
8. You have to believe that the same teacher who can't teach 4th-graders how to read is somehow qualified to teach those same kids about sex.
9. You have to believe that hunters don't care about nature, but urban activists who have never been outside of San Francisco do.
10. You have to believe that having self-esteem is more important than actually doing something to earn it.
11. You have to believe that Mel Gibson spent $25 million of his own money to make The Passion Of The Christ for financial gain only.
12. You have to believe the NRA is bad because it supports certain parts of the Constitution, while the ACLU is good because it supports certain parts of the Constitution.
13. You have to believe that taxes are too low, but ATM fees are too high.
14. You have to believe that Margaret Sanger and Gloria Steinem are more important to American history than Thomas Jefferson, Gen. Ulysses S. Grant, and Thomas Edison.
15. You have to believe that standardized tests are racist, but racial quotas and set-asides are not.
16. You have to believe that Hillary Clinton is normal and is a very nice person.
17. You have to believe that the only reason socialism hasn't worked anywhere it's been tried is because the right people haven't been in charge.
18. You have to believe conservatives telling the truth belong in jail, but a liar and a sex offender belonged in the White House.
19. You have to believe that homosexual parades displaying drag, transvestites, and bestiality should be constitutionally protected, and manger scenes at Christmas should be illegal.
20. You have to believe that illegal Democratic Party funding by the Chinese government is somehow in the best interest to the United States.
21. You have to believe that this message is a part of a vast, right wing conspiracy.
joe v.
LAST ONE for tonight, i promise,
http://www.fortliberty.org/patriotic-humor/liberals-and-conservatives.shtml
The division of the human family into its two distinct branches, liberals and conservatives, occurred some 20,000 years ago. Until then all humans coexisted as members of small bands of nomadic hunter/gatherers.
A thousand generations ago, in the pivotal event of societal evolution, beer was invented. This epochal innovation was both the foundation of modern civilization and the occasion of the great bifurcation of humanity into its two distinct subgroups.
Once beer was discovered, our prehistoric forebears decided it was time to settle down. Making beer required grain, and securing a steady supply of it ordained the invention of agriculture.
After that was accomplished, ancient man quickly, and unfairly, consigned actual cultivation to women.
Men couldn't just run off, willy-nilly, however. Neither the glass bottle nor the aluminum can had yet been invented, so it was necessary to stick pretty close to home, and the brewery.
This left our male ancestors with a lot of time on their hands, and led to the division of the species, which persists to this day.
Some men tried to conserve remnants of the old way of life (hence the term "conservative") by spending their days in the open field in the dangerous pursuit of big game animals. At night they would roast their prey at a big barbecue, and afterwards sat around the fire drinking beer, passing wind and telling off color jokes.
Other, more timid, souls stayed closer to home. They are responsible for the domestication of cats and the invention of group therapy. Mostly, they sat around worrying about how life wasn't fair and concocting elaborate schemes to "liberate" themselves from inequity (thus their designation as "liberals").
In the evening they gathered around their fire, nibbling on fruit and nuts, sharing their innermost feelings.
Today some liberals try to pretend they're really sort of conservative, and sometimes succeed in confusing people. The following are a few tips to use in distinguishing the two types.
By definition liberals believe in big government and high taxes. Life is unfair and the government is there to do something about it. Most people are too stupid to spend untaxed income wisely, they say, and high taxes allow liberals in government to do a better job of it.
Conservatives don't like government, and, aside from the military, wish it would just go away. They hate taxes, regulations, speed limits, and small cars.
Typical conservatives are Arnold Schwarzenegger, Ronald Reagan, Rush Limbaugh and, up there with the Big Man in the Sky, the incomparable John Wayne.
Typical liberals are Dustin Hoffman, Shirley McLaine, Pee Wee Herman, Martin Sheen, Sean Penn, Barbra Streisand, Ted Turner and his former wife, the traitor ***** Jane Fonda.
All conservatives drink beer. American beer.
Some liberals like imported beer, but most prefer white wine or foreign water from a bottle.
Liberals like to drive Volvos and Saabs because they're made in socialist Sweden. They like to eat weird food because it's un-American.
Your basic conservative vehicle, especially in Alaska, is the Chevy Suburban. It's big, it's American, it's four wheel drive, and it sucks up the gas. Conservatives eat beef, which they (surprise!) like to barbecue.
Big game hunters are conservative. Interior decorators are liberal.
Liberals invented the designated hitter rule in baseball because it wasn't "fair" to make the poor pitcher take his turn at bat.
Conservatives, inspired by a remark of the legendary Pittsburgh Steeler linebacker Jack Lambert, believe quarterbacks should be required to wear skirts, so they can more easily be distinguished from real football players.
James Brown and Ray Charles are conservatives. Michael Jackson and Milli Vanilli are liberals.
Most social workers, personal injury lawyers, journalists, and group therapists are liberals. Most ranchers, loggers, professional soldiers, and steeplejacks are conservatives.
Liberal jurors distrust the prosecutors and police. Conservatives figure the defendant must be guilty or he wouldn't be on trial.
Most conservatives not only believe in the death penalty, they would cheerfully implement it, personally, if called upon to do so.
Liberals think capital punishment is a barbaric relic, and unfair to boot.
Liberals believe Europeans are, generally speaking, far more enlightened than Americans. Conservatives think they're basically decadent, as evidenced by their complete absence in wars.
Typical conservative movies are "Raising Arizona", "Patton", and "Conan the Barbarian".
Typical liberal movies are "Prince of Tides", "Last Tango in Paris", and "The Big Chill".
The quintessential liberal is the handicapper, the person who decides how much extra weight to saddle the faster horses with in order to make the race "fair".
The American cowboy, of course, is your basic, full bore conservative. A hundred years ago an Englishman in South Dakota was trying to find the owner of a huge cattle ranch. He rode up to one of the ranch hands and asked, "Excuse me, but could you tell me where to find your Master?" To which the cowboy replied, "That sumbitch hasn't been born."
Joe...
Given that at least as many jokes could easily be transcribed about Bush, Cheny, Rumsfeld, et al, was there actually some kind of point to all that? Or was it just late, and you felt the need to amuse yourself, with a lot of time on your hands...?
I'm just impressed he can keep his balance, considering how wide that brush is he's painting with.
-Rex Hondo-
I can't say it wasn't worth fighting for
This doesn't automatically make every cause worth fighting for though, does it?
Obviously, with the continued violence in Africa, there are some that our government (and likely the population of this country) doesn't feel is worth fighting for, even though more lives are being lost every day there than under Hussein.
So, sometimes when you look at the big picture, you do see that you're fighting the wrong cause. And right now, that wrong cause is Iraq.
David Bjorlin makes some good points, but I see a missing bridge between him and the "ends do not justify the means" opinion.
I see the "cost" of the entrenchment in Iraq as a sunk cost...however we got there, we broke things, now we need to fix them. Which I fully agree with. Whatever the history, Iraq is in the state it is today because of our actions, and it's our responsibility to restore peace and stability, if we can.
But that's outside the discussion: doing what we must doesn't mean that we can or should stop demanding that those that made the mistake (or told the lie, depending on your opinion) of justifying this action accept responsibility and the ramifications of those actions.
Personally, I think at the very least, Rumsfeld should resign...I'm a little concerned that the President could resign over making a mistake in judgment, as it sets a potentially bad precedent.
However, if it does turn out that Bush and his administration did fabricate, or even tweaked, the evidence to support an aggressive action, I see that in a very different light. If that does turn out true, then I see every need for the removal of this administration, either through resignation or impeachment. I don't expect our government to tell me the whole truth, and I even expect that the government might need to lie, from time to time. I draw the line at our government presenting facts, creating facts, or altering the truth in such a way that it advocates an action of war when none is called for.
Another thing about Democrats: We post our sources. The following is from portland.indymedia.org.
I'm posting it because I consider it sauce for the goose and therefore appropriate. But if this thing starts devolving into a jokefest, I *will* shut it down.
24 Ways to be a Good Republican
1. You have to believe that the AIDS virus can be cured by ignoring it.
2. You have to believe that teachers should be more effective, yet not want to pony up any extra tax dollars to pay a reasonable wage that
might actually attract qualified candidates.
3. You have to believe that having the constitutional right to bear arms (and do it anonymously) is far more important than the 10,808 people deprived of their constitutional right to LIFE. (2002 figure, Bureau of
Justice Statistics;
http://www.ojp.usdoj.gov/bjs/glance/tables/guncrimetab.htm)
4. You have to believe that Federal funding for art is a waste, but federal funding to promote marriage for the poor is a mandate.
5. You have to ignore universal scientific data and opinions regarding global warming because your constituents (and family) make their money
in oil.
6. You have to believe that what someone else does in their bedroom is your business.
7. You have to be against terminating an unwanted pregnancy, in some cases even if the mother's life is in danger, so that the world will be
filled with unwanted children who will grow up to possibly commit crimes and can eventually be put to death by the justice system.
8. You have to believe that the rich know what's right, and the poor choose to be poor.
9. You have to believe that hunting is a challenge, but art is a waste of time.
10. You have to believe that money can solve all problems, but education is a waste of money.
11. You have to believe that the U.S. should take a laissez faire attitude towards international goings-on, unless it threatens to disrupt
our supply of oil.
12. You have to believe the ACLU is bad because it supports certain parts of the Constitution,
while the NRA is good because it supports ONE part of the Constitution.
13. You have to believe that taxes are evil, but still complain about the quality of the justice system, military, police, firemen, education,
etc.
14. You have to believe that American history only needs to recount military victories and Republican presidents, not slavery, lost wars
(Vietnam, anyone?), Indians, or the struggle of the non-wealthy.
15. You have to believe that although you can't personally spend far more money than you could possibly earn in your lifetime with the
promise of someone else paying it off, it's OK that the government does it.
16. You have to believe that George W Bush truly cares about the average American. And their job loss.
17. You have to believe that patriotism is a blind allegiance to the current administration. (Weren't Washington, Jefferson, Adams, et al
considered patriots? I believe they FOUGHT their government.)
18. You have to believe that lying about a blow job is far worse than lying to start a war.
19. You have to believe that the separation of church and state should really only become an issue if it's not your church.
20. You have to believe that the Republican party can do no wrong (Watergate, Iran-Contra, the unilateral invasion of Iraq, the Florida
election debacle, record deficits and debt, leaking the identity of CIA
agents...)
21. You have to preach smaller government while creating more government jobs (Homeland security?)
22. You have to be against abortion, but against sex education as well. And welfare for the single moms. And health care for poor families. And
taxes for good schools and after-school programs. But hey, jails are a good investment!
23. You have to preach Christian values while promoting capital punishment (thou shalt not kill, anyone?)
24. You have to believe that religious zealotry is the reason people fly planes into buildings, but there should be prayer time in school.
Given that at least as many jokes could easily be transcribed about Bush, Cheny, Rumsfeld, et al, was there actually some kind of point to all that? Or was it just late, and you felt the need to amuse yourself, with a lot of time on your hands...?
Oh c'mon....some of them were laugh out loud funny. A good joke is funny no matter who the target is.
Wow!
A bar full of Democrats who are all blond!
What are the odds of that?
Busted! :)
Bill:
>>Given that at least as many jokes could easily be transcribed about Bush, Cheny, Rumsfeld, et al, was there actually some kind of point to all that? Or was it just late, and you felt the need to amuse yourself, with a lot of time on your hands...?
>Oh c'mon....some of them were laugh out loud funny. A good joke is funny no matter who the target is.
Some of them may have been, but were missed by me anyways due to the incredible volume posted. I was immediately reminded of why I have told anyone who has my e-mail address not to bother sending me forwarded jokes. They tend to multiply like bunnies and the laugh factor drops exponentially when it becomes work to wade through them. This bombardment of cut and pasted jokes proves once again that moderation is a good thing. :)
Thanks for the laugh, Bill. I enjoyed the bar joke.
Patrick said: Given that at least as many jokes could easily be transcribed about Bush, Cheny, Rumsfeld, et al, was there actually some kind of point to all that? Or was it just late, and you felt the need to amuse yourself, with a lot of time on your hands...?
I went to a site & i just copy & pasted some stuff that late night tv said. it was all on the same page so it only took a few clicks. i saw a few people made joke so i pasted a few.
PAD said : Another thing about Democrats: We post our sources. The following is from portland.indymedia.org.
Posted by: Joe V. at June 14, 2005 03:09 AM
LAST ONE for tonight, i promise,
http://www.fortliberty.org/patriotic-humor/liberals-and-conservatives.shtml
The division of the human....
they all came from basicaly the same place. i did a google search for jokes about democrats. that site came up.
sorry if you don't wan't a joke fest. I suppose you prefer that this remain a political pissing match. i thought this would encourage others to post funny jokes, don't give a shit if they're about republicans or democrats, funny is funny. but it's your site, and if a pissing match about politics is what you want, then a pissing match i guess is what you get. me, i get tired of all the goddamn same shit everyone has been arguing about for the last few years and like i said, i thought jokes would lighten the mood, but alas, i digress.
joe v.
"i thought jokes would lighten the mood, but alas, i digress."
Oh, please. You weren't interested in lightening anything. If you were, you'd have posted jokes making fun of both sides. No, you were interested in finding a new angle with which to annoy liberal Democrats, including this board's host. The mood was fine and this thread was tapering off, as they always do. And I'm simply not interested in having it perpetuate through something as stupidly artificial as a jokefest.
PAD
PAD said"You weren't interested in lightening anything. If you were, you'd have posted jokes making fun of both sides. No, you were interested in finding a new angle with which to annoy liberal Democrats, including this board's host."
No peter, i wasn't trying to do that. if i annoyed you then i apologize. i really do mean that. it was not my intent to annoy you. the reason i posted jokes about democrats is because i'm republican, i figured democrats would post jokes about republicans. there are plenty of people here that would do jokes about republicans. what i was trying to do was open it up. i figured other people would bring out the republicsn jokes, to which i would have no problem with.
again, peter, i apologize if i made you angry.
joe v.
"again, peter, i apologize if i made you angry."
Good. Because you wouldn't like me if I'm angry.
PAD
Pad said "Good. Because you wouldn't like me if I'm angry."
LOL! now that's funny!
Joe V.
PAD: To give you the credit you deserve, you have a remarkable ability to make me question some of my strongly-held opinions: I have been extremely upset with nearly every aspect of the current Administration since shortly after the 2000 election, and yet, the more smug, self-congratulatory comments you make, the more I am inclined to give GWB another look.
Many things X-Ray has said seem bizarrely foolish to me, and I believe you are capable of refuting them. Unfortunately, it seems you found it beneath you to actually state a position and support it, which would have cut X-Ray off at the knees, until the "debate" had gone on for rather a long time.
As to whether Joe V. or anyone else "wouldn't like (you) when (you're) angry," perhaps not. I'm not very enthusiastic, anyway. By the way, the "You wouldn't like me..." line goes back at least to 1978, about 9 years before youbegan writing the Hulk. Is an attribution still possible? Len Wein was writing the comic at about that time, but it seems more like a product of a writer for the tv show.
A final question (one to which I truly do not have the answer): PAD: Why is it that when X-Ray "questioned your veracity" you very pointedly did not refute him? It seems likely that you believe yourself to be honest and clear-thinking; when I am called a liar, it seems important to me to show the name-caller up as a fool or liar. The first theory that comes to mind is that you are simply so sure that nearly all readers will naturally take your side in any dispute that it seems wasted effort to make an argument. Perhaps there is some other reason which has not entered my imagination.
From the Joe V. jokefest:
**The quintessential liberal is the handicapper, the person who decides how much extra weight to saddle the faster horses with in order to make the race "fair". **
Uhm, isn't handicapping actually done to make sure that all horses in a race are all caring the same amount of weight rather than weighing down 'just' the fastest horses to give the slower horses a better chance at winning? That is, if the heaviest jockey in a given race weighs 165 lbs. then weights are given to the other jockeys to make them all weigh 165 lbs. so all the horses are running with the same load on board to give them the same chance at winning? Or to at least eliminate rider weight as a major factor in winning a race?
Chris
Elf with a gun asked:
**Uhm, isn't handicapping actually done to make sure that all horses in a race are all caring the same amount of weight rather than weighing down 'just' the fastest horses to give the slower horses a better chance at winning?**
In some races, that's true I think -- jockeys have to fall within a certain weight range in order to ride and if they're too light, weights are added to balance things out and if they're too heavy, they're disqualified to ride; however, there is a type of race called a Handicap wherein the weights are assigned according to a horse's past performance in order to level the playing field.
(source: http://www.horse-smart.com/definitions.htm but I also read a LOT of Walter Farley books when I was younger...)
Bird is the word,
Jennifer
"Why is it that when X-Ray "questioned your veracity" you very pointedly did not refute him?"
Because PAD did, at first, make such an attempt. X-Ray very quickly showed that he was simply a troll, trying to stir up a tempest to thrill his particular teapot. At this point, I believe PAD was simply being mindful of an old adage: "Never argue with a fool. People might not know the difference."
