PeterDavid.net

You know, if I were a flag making company, I'd be all over an amendment like this. Setting aside the mockery it makes of the First Amendment, as well as the absolute impossibility of such an amendment ever being passed, it's a great opportunity for corporate growth. Say the Flag Amendment does pass (or even merely makes it up for a vote), I'd wager that you rae going to see a dramatic increase in flag burning. Hell, I might even pick up a couple at the dollar store just to get things going. Remind me to buy some stock in these flag companies.

I suppose I could have used the phrase 'flag manufacturer', but that would have just been too proper.

Those IDIOTS! They're telling the terrorists just how to hurt us the most. Apparantly, this whole time, the simple buring of a symbol would cause such great harm to the United States as a country, as a nation, that now our esteemed elected officials have finally decided to take action to protect us from the dreaded impact, cost, and senseless loss of cotton due to flag burning.

Only (gasp)..our laws only extend to our borders...what's to stop those that wish America harm from burning our flag? Dear God, this act is tantamount to Superman wearing a Tshirt saying "Got Kryptonite?"

With current voting records suggesting that the senate is only 2 votes short this time around, it looks like this madness is really going to happen. Which means we'll spend the next 7 years having to hear about campaigns, most likely paid for with tax $, stumping around the country in an effort to get the 38 state ratifications needed to make the amendment official.

Lets go back to the stars and stripes bikini topic I all for that...Could the bottom be a thong or a t-back thats real issue congress should debate (I go for thong).

Well they've got to do something, I mean they can't get us out of Iraq or Afghanistan, they can't get the economy back up to full steam, they can't get the price of gas under control, they can't balance the budget, and they can't investigate all of the corruption in the Bush Administration but hey falg burning they can do.

Here's another interesting bit on Congressional tomfoolery brought to my attention by Steven Grant's Column.

"ITEM! Four more years? Forty? Last week, some of the most right wing representatives in the House introduced a bill. HJ Res 24, to repeal the 22nd Amendment that placed term limits on the office of the presidency. Seems like barely ten years ago term limits was the great cause célèbre of the Right, as they sought to drive entrenched liberals out of office and "level the playing field" by removing the necessity to run against incumbents. In fact, it was the Right who pushed through the 22nd Amendment in the first place, in fear that Franklin Roosevelt, the only man ever to win the presidency in four consecutive elections, would become in essence President For Life, a functional dictator of America. Apparently that's no longer a concern - then again, the same people so concerned over term limits in the '90s abruptly decided perhaps they weren't such a good idea after they got elected, so it's not like there's no precedent for it - and obviously the main intent behind the bill is a prolonged reign for the Hand Puppet, who would no doubt fly the "stay the course" flag for as long as the war on terrorism went on (decades, so we're were told), and the controversial computerized election machines being shoved into use in every possible venue could theoretically ensure re-election after re-election. A most cunning plan, as Baldrick would say. Of course, it's got a couple flaws. A Constitutional amendment isn't all that easy to pass - there's a long ratification process, which would probably see the Hand Puppet out of office before it would take effect - and with his popularity plunging that's hardly a given in the first place. I suspect a lot of Americans find some small comfort in the notion that they most they'll have to suffer from any president is eight years. On the other hand, if the amendment gets passed, it could also result in another Clinton presidency, and I don't mean Hillary. That'd be some sort of ironic justice, I suppose. The corollary amendment in the background is the one to allow naturalized citizens, rather than simply native-borns, to become president, which would open the door to a run by Herr Gropenator, but he's having his own P.R. problems these days."

of course, it's Steven Grant's Permanent Damage column at www.comicbookresources.com

This is another case of politicians trying to pick up points with overt patriotism instead of actually doing something good for this country. This amendment accomplishes nothing while at the same time making no sense. I remember being taught in boy scouts that the only honorable way to dispose of a flag was to burn it.

"Ask the men and women who stood on top of the (World) Trade Center," said Rep. Randy (Duke) Cunningham, R-Calif. "Ask them and they will tell you: pass this amendment."

I know some will consider this response to be in poor taste (althoug, I consider Rep. Cunningham's abuse of the tragic fate of those stranded on top of the WTC to be a terrible usurpation of the memory of those people)

but I'd imagine, if you could ask those folks what they'd want Congress to do, it'd be more along the lines of "get off your lazy ass and get me off this eff'n building..."

Or more seriously, rather than take some meaningless action that's going to tie up American tax dollars for years to come, DO something that makes actual American PEOPLE, not some FLAGS, safe.

It's wrong to set people on fire regardless of their sexual orientation.

I was against term limits the last time it was brought up. Term limits are set by the voters, ever four (or six) years. Why fire a guy who's doing a good job just because he's been at it for a while now?

Sometimes you've got to ride the current of the baser instincts in order to get some of the higher work done. Isn't this the logic Fantagraphics uses? Publish the Eros to make the money to fund the more meritorious (but lesser selling) titles?

Remind me to buy some stock in these flag companies.

The ones here in the US, or the ones abroad?

I remember several years ago a little controversy over how many of those small flags you see people waving on July 4th are actually made overseas. Not sure if it still happens. But I thought to myself...wouldn't it be patriotic to burn those flags?

Here's an article on US Flags manufactured overseas.

Truth be known, it really doesn't matter (and hey, in the interest of diversifying my portfolio, I should go for a little of both).

A lot of those flags are made here in New Jersey by the Annin Flag Company - 3 blocks from where I live in the "suburbs"...

Well, then, dammit Kathy, I'm going to burn me some flags. I will do my part to jump start the economy. Support America: Burn A Flag!

"Here's an article on US Flags manufactured overseas."

Bill Hicks had a great bit about this:

Anti-Flag Burner - "My daddy died in Korea for that flag."

Bill - "Wow, what a coincidence. Mine was made in Korea."

Seriously, though, as a kid who was teased a lot in school (you can tell), I happen to know that the best way to get someone to stop doing something that offends you isn't to make a giant stink and call Mommy or Daddy (or, in this case, Big Brother) to make them stop. It's to refuse to let it affect you. Sticks and stones may break my bones, but a burnt flag will never hurt me. Unless it's a really big flag, and I'm rolled up in it. But you get my meaning.

I'm not at all surprised that people have a problem with someone burning the flag. I have a problem with people who treat popular culture as unimportant. But I don't lobby Congress to make a law forbidding people from bashing pop culture. I just say to myself, "S/he's wrong,"* and go about my day. At most, I might try to show the person my side of the issue in hopes that they'll develop a more rounded worldview. But I don't lose sleep if they don't. And I imagine they don't lose sleep if I don't come around to their way of thinking. At least, I hope they don't. Be a waste of good sleep, that.

*No, I don't get into these sorts of arguments with Hermats. All the Hermats I know are big pop culture fans. Especially when it comes to Muppets. Don't ask me why.

Great article, Mr. David. I agree with you on all points.

I am completely opposed to this amendment (though I'd rather they focus on this than the anti-gay marriage one).

On the other hand, flag burners piss me off. Not because they're desecrating the flag but because they're doing a piss-poor job of stating their mind and if anything are just blowing their arguments to hell. I'm perfectly fine with them being subject to the laws against open burning without a permit. If I can't burn leaves...

Interesting article about "The Blasphemy Of Flag Worship":

http://www.alternet.org/story/22268/

Also, I don't have the link right now, but one school has revised it's dress code policy that the U.S. flag is the only flag students can wear, regardless of their national origin.

Like we need a flag burning amendment*.

Almost no one is burning American flags on American soil (and there are laws for dealing with the illegal burning of anything on most public property anyhow.) It's so rare to even hear about it. But we get to watch this waste of time and money (we are paying their salaries and perks while they're in session) while so many things that are real problems that happen everyday get put on the back burner. Why? So that they can really do nothing but claim something wonderful was done. Somebody, anybody..... Please vote them out.

"We're the G.O.P. and we approve this waste of time, money and intelligence."

*Brought to you by the same Neanderthal morons that brought you "Freedom Fries."

Why don't they just make flame retardant flags?

Two thoughts:

* In Boy Scouts, we covered propercare and respect for the flag. Among those is "Don't let it touch the ground". And what were you supposed to do if it did touch the ground? BURN IT! (Hello?)

* Passing an amendment against burning (or otherwise "desecrating") the flag is the surest way to make me no longer respect the flag. I'll never again salute it -- might give it the finger, though -- and I'll turn my back any time the National Anthem is played. (Maybe I'll sing "To Anacreon in Heaven" instead.) Dictate that I not disrespect something and you'll see disrespect within the bounds of the rule like you can't imagine.

"And what were you supposed to do if it did touch the ground? BURN IT!"

That may well be what you were taught; many were. However, it is false, as you can see explained here: http://www.snopes.com/holidays/flagday/burnflag.asp

So, any idea what the actual punishment for "desecrating" the flag will be? A fine? Well, I suspect that there will be funds setup pretty quickly that will end up being used to pay those fines.

A Federal prison term? That'll be nice. Let's throw people who show their anger at the US government into jail because we don't like what they're saying. Real good - that's exactly the type of thing that we spout angry rhetoric at Third World dictators for.

Its totally pathetic that our Federal representatives are wasting time on this when we still have troops in Iraq that don't have body armor. WTF? I will agree, though, that this has to be getting pushed by flag manufacturers like there's no tomorrow - purely for the profit angle, if nothing else.

So Peter David is in favor of flag burning.

Shocking news.

Who could have predicted THAT?

So Peter David is in favor of flag burning.

Since you prefer to remain ignorant... as somebody else mentioned, when is the last time a news story was reported regarding a flag burning on US soil?

It's been awhile.

Having attending a flag burning "ceremony" (the proper disposal method and all that) as a child myself while in the Boy Scouts, it does tend to instill pride and patriotism in me.

And then jackasses in Congress have to go and blow that all away.

But then, I'm not going to blame the flag for the actions of the jackasses. I'd rather we burn the jackasses...

FINALLY! A definate answer. I've been asking around since 8th grade wether or not flag burning was legal, and never got a straight answer. Thanks. Anyway, reminds me of someone (I think it was George Carlin) talking about how much of a problem politicians using the flag as a shield was.

So Peter David is in favor of flag burning.

Proper way to dispose a flag, you know.

But I don't think you have enough respect for either the flag or the principles it symnbolizes to grasp that.

Oddly, while I'm fairly patriotic (and a Christian), my response to burning the flag is exactly the same as if I were to see someone burning a copy of the Bible -- I simply dismiss them out of hand.

I don't understand the big fuss about this at all. It's a symbol! Nothing more. Honestly, I say we should have a Constitutional amendment banning the courts and the congress from figuratively burning the Constitution (and the Bill of Rights), instead. (See: McCain-Feingold, recent decisions mutilating the Commerce Clause to interfere with state laws, and every law ever passed that restricts gun ownership)

"So Peter David is in favor of flag burning"

What Peter actually said was: "I've always said that I wasn't a fan of flag-burning as a means of protest, because it's such a (pardon the expression) incendiary visual that whatever other point you wanted to make is going to be obscured by that action."

Funny, I don't see how saying "X isn't illegal, and shouldn't be" is the same thing as being in favor of it. I hate the stupid rudeness that abides in our culture, but I would never want the government to outlaw it. I'm not in favor of it, I just see that it's outside the government's job description.

I always loved the idea, "If we ever pass an amedment against flag burning, we need to include at least one loophole: It's always okay to burn a flag while a politician is wrapping themselves in it."

It's always occurred to me that, instead of making flag descration illegal, why doesn't Congress and the Senate try to make sure that they never do anything that would make anyone WANT to desecrate the flag?

It's a crazy idea, but it just might work.

"Funny, I don't see how saying 'X isn't illegal, and shouldn't be' is the same thing as being in favor of it."

Since Peter David himself is far too haughty to reply, let me explain it to YOU!

Saying one isn't "a fan of flag-burning as a means of protest" is disgraceful. If I were to burn your house down, would your comment be "I am not a fan of burning my house down"? Of course not. You'd be dead-set against it. So you see, "not being a fan" is simply a way of granting tacit approval.

And why do you suppose that Peter David gets so worked up about THIS subject? Because it feeds his world-view: Peter David knows all, and BUSH SUCKS.

If I wasn't policing this site, and making a mockery out of the BUSH SUCKS people, I have no doubt Peter David would have tied BUSH SUCKS into this thread.

After all, it's the only political thought he knows!

Classic. And funny.

"If I were to burn your house down, would your comment be "I am not a fan of burning my house down"?"

X-ray, X-ray, Xray,

you poor, deluded mouthpiece of the rabid right-wingers. We are NOT talking about the destruction of PERSONAL property. I agree that flag burning is stupid, much as Marilyn Manson is stupid: whatever real point there is to make is lost in the volitile imagery and offensive content. However, both Mr. Manson and flag-burners have the right to express themselves in what way seems fit to them, but only to the limits of my rights. If you burn a flag, that is your proprerty. I can smash MY lamp, I can't smash yours. You can't burn MY flag. Burning down my house is destroying what is MINE. Your rights end where mine begin: you have the right to happiness, but if that happiness involves killing others, you lose that right. (unless you are in the White House. Then it is ok. And I don't just mean Bush. I mean anyone in the White House who has killed someone. Like Aarron Burr. Or Jackson.) Thus, what Mr. David said was that he personally would not burn a flag, nor is he a big fan of it, but that he will not stop other people from doing it. This is no way different than saying "I don't like gangster rap, I won't listen to it, but I won't forbid everyone else from playing it." Once again, to condense it for your small, closed mind:
"I might not agree with a word you say, but I will defend to the Death your right to say it."
Rousseau

How about a bit more concern for the nation that flag represents. America is built, however imperfectly, on really wonderful ideals. The flag is just a symbol, yes, but so are the Constitution, Bill of Rights, Declaration of Independence etc. Just what do we want that flag to represent- A beacon of peace and freedom to the whole world or.. A Fascist Theocracy that turns it's citizens against each other in order to further it's government's questionable agenda.
It's not the flag, it's the nation it stands for that we need to be worried about.

A random thought- How about a different sort of
Flag Burning Amendment? One that would REQUIRE
the public burning of the Confederate Battle Flag
( especially when used as a racist symbol) and for that matter, let's torch all those other banners like the various swastika flags that
white supremacist groups like to waive around.
Some flags need to be burned!

>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>

On an absoultely unrelated topic, Today I read
the Elizabeth Shelby story from Tales of The Captain's Table. Great story, PAD! Now we know how Soleta ended up where she did.

I still think it's sad that a certain unnamed someone has nothing better to do with his obviously excessive free time than to needlessly attack the people who post on this blog and who, to my knowledge, never did a thing to hurt him. (Come to think of it, I think I saw someone with the same alias and bad attitude over on a couple of other blogs. Could be my imagination...) You're not going to change any POVs with ill phrasing, lack of logic and tact (Just because you're not A, doesn't mean you're B), and ignorant attitude. You're a disgrace to your fellow Republicans, to say nothing of your fellow man.

Onward to the flag debate: I have to agree with PAD on this one. However distasteful I might find burning the U.S. flag or desecrating it in any number of ways (Is tearing it like Bronson Pinchot tore Kleenex in "The Langoliers" out of the question? Just kidding!), the fact is, making such activity illegal just smacks of overindulgence and an overinflated ego. That, and like it or don't, it's a violation of the right to free speech. (James, way to go with the Rousseau quote, that nails it right-on, more succinctly than anything else could.) It's that simple. And Kim? That idea about making ours a nation where nobody would want to desecrate the flag (and I don't mean out of fear!)...it could be catchy.

In other news: my buddy Ben just arrived home safely from Iraq after a second tour. Give 'im a hand, gang. He's a PAD fan from way back, and a great guy besides. (Remember, kids--you can support our soldiers without supporting the war.)

~G.

"you can support our soldiers without supporting the war."

In my mind that was one of the worst things about Vietnam. People would spit on the returning soldiers when they should have been spitting an Johnson, Nixon, and all the other idiots who had sent them off to die. I could never be a soldier. I don't like regimentation, and to put it bluntly, I don't have the guts, but those guys (and gals!) who put on the line and in harms way every damn day...they deserve everything we can give 'em. It is a crying shame that people who risk their lives are often on food stamps, while the people who send 'em out get fat. Really sad...the groups that do the most: soldiers, teachers, writers, preachers, always make the least. So support a Vet. Go and find someone who fought, in this war, or in any war, shake their hand, and tell them the truth: they are heros one and all.

As we did with another unnameable jerk of the days of yore, I'll just reiterate PAD's suggestion: When you read X-Ray, hear the voice of Eric Cartman.

Screw you guy, I'm going home.

Forgive me if I'm remembering this wrong. But I seem to recall from Civics and from being a Girl Scout, that when a flag becomes frayed, soiled or touches the ground, we are supposed to dispose of it by burning it. So, what does this new amandment mean? When our flags get worn we're to toss them in the trash?

X-ray said
"If I wasn't policing this site, and making a mockery out of the BUSH SUCKS people, I have no doubt Peter David would have tied BUSH SUCKS into this thread. "

Thanks God he's there to keep you at bay PAD, otherwise who knows what you'd say on your own blog. Good thing x-ray is here to keep you away from that pesky 1st amendment. ;)

Jeff Coney

That may well be what you were taught; many were. However, it is false, as you can see explained here: ">http://www.snopes.com/holidays/flagday/burnflag.asp

Not really false, just slightly inaccurate.

"I might not agree with a word you say, but I will defend to the Death your right to say it." is has to be one of the most simplistic, ignorant notions that the anti-responsibility liberals like to cling to.

Not everything should be said just because it can be. There should be consequences for certain actions and statements.

X-Ray: Since Peter David himself is far too haughty to reply...
Luigi Novi: You have not established that he does not reply for this reason. It is likely that he does not reply because you post here simply to insult him and respond to him with Straw Man arguments. You have demonstrated an inability or unwillingness to respond directly to counterarguments by others that refute your position, and a tendency to reply with vitriol and invective, rather than constructive argument. Even conservatives who have disagreed with Peter on many issues here know how to do so with civility, and do not find you to be a competent debater, or a civil visitor to this site. So why would he respond to you? It's obvious you're not interested in polite discussion.

X-Ray: Saying one isn't "a fan of flag-burning as a means of protest" is disgraceful. If I were to burn your house down, would your comment be "I am not a fan of burning my house down"? Of course not. You'd be dead-set against it. So you see, "not being a fan" is simply a way of granting tacit approval.
Luigi Novi: How do you figure this? Not being a fan of something means just that: That you do not condone, endorse, or favor it. But that's different from thinking that it should be legally banned. And what about the fact that burning a flag is the prescribed way of disposing of one that's no longer of good use, as it states in Paragraph K of Section 8 of Chapter 4 of Title 1 of the U.S. Code?

X-Ray: And why do you suppose that Peter David gets so worked up about THIS subject? Because it feeds his world-view: Peter David knows all, and BUSH SUCKS.
Luigi Novi: I don't see any evidence that he's more "worked up" about this topic any more than any other one that he comments on on his blog. He's been a strident advocate for as broad an interpretation of the First Ammendment as possible for as long as I can remember, LONG before George W. Bush ever became President, and is perfectly consistent with every other column or blog entry he's ever done in which he's come out against any form of censorship. Can you point to a column, blog entry or statement he's made that contradicts his position in this entry?

"Luigi Novi: You have not established that he does not reply for this reason. It is likely that he does not reply because you post here simply to insult him and respond to him with Straw Man arguments."

I don't reply to him because he posts nothing worth replying to. It's really not much more complicated than that. Honestly, Luigi, I haven't the slightest idea why you, or anyone, bothers. He's not interested in rational discourse and his posts bear no resemblance to reality. Not really seeing the point.

PAD

Lately, when I have been coming to this blog, I have heard a slight, whining sound. It only lasts for a moment, and there is no physical manifestation to go along with it, although it does sound like an infestation.

Sorta reminds me of the Star Trek episode where Kirk and crew hear these noises and eventually find that the noises are just some people at a different vibratory level desperately in need of attention.

"Not everything should be said just because it can be. There should be consequences for certain actions and statements."

Actions yes. Statements no. (and the old one about fire in a crowded theater is true, but that is more of an action. A statement that causes an action should be viewed as an action.) I am reminded of an line from the movie 1776, when the Congress is voting on whether or not to debate the question of Independence, and Bartlett says "Well, in all my years, I never seen, heard nor smelt an issue that was so dangerous it couldn't be TALKED about. Hell, yes! I'm for debating anything!" Perhaps there are ideas that the world would be better off without. Nazis, the KKK, Racism....the world would be better off without them. So we get rid of them. Then, I decide I don't like (to use my earlier example) Marilyn Manson. So we arrest him. Then I decide I don't like Mr. David's ideas. So we arrest him. then I decide I don't like your ideas. Welcome to the Gulag my friend. No sane person denies that some ideas are evil, but if we must tolerate a little a little evil to get a lot of good, then I can deal with it. I am watching through The West Wing on DVD, and in the 3d season, there is an episode where Toby is going to credential a Russian reporter who is their version of the Nat'l Inquirer, and someone tells him this. and he says "And if the Nat'l Inquirer asked, we'd credential them. I have to make sure that they are printing whatever they want, because that is the only way I can be sure that the New York Times is printing whatever it wants." (I just sent the disk back to Netflix, so I am not sure if that is word for word, but it is close. I would fight as much for a skinheads right to SAY what he wants as I would for Mr. David's right to say what he wants. Now, I personally feel that we should take every opportunity to shut skinheads down. If they so much as spit on the sidewalk they should be arrested. but they can say what they want. And you can say what you want. Ain't it a great country? I can say Bush Sucks, or Bush Is God, and no one can stop me. Ken, if you are willing to risk any iota of your freedom, I refer you to two more quotes. The First is from Ben Franklin: "Those who would exchange liberty to gain a little temporary safety, deserve neither liberty nor safety." the second is from Kierkegaard: "How absurd men are! They never use the liberties they have, they demand those they do not have. They have freedom of thought, they demand freedom of speech."

"Any person who, within the District of Columbia, in any manner, for exhibition or display, shall place or cause to be placed any word, figure, mark, picture, design, drawing, or any advertisement of any nature upon any flag, standard, colors, or ensign of the United States of America; or shall expose or cause to be exposed to public view any such flag, standard, colors, or ensign upon which shall have been printed, painted, or otherwise placed, or to which shall be attached, appended, affixed, or annexed any word, figure, mark, picture, design, or drawing, or any advertisement of any nature....

...shall be deemed guilty of a misdemeanor and shall be punished by a fine not exceeding $100 or by imprisonment for not more than thirty days

So, you can't draw a smiley face on the flag but you should be allowed to burn it?

If we're going to ban flag burning, might I suggest there also be a law that all US Flags be manufactured in the US? How about a law stating that if any good or service is manufactured or performed in the US, the Federal Government of the US can has to buy said service or good from a US company made in the US instead of having our military uniforms made overseas?

While I'm posting let me say this is the exact reason we don't have school funding here in Texas. The politicians are too busy sticking their noses into things they shouldn't (gay marriage/adoption, sexy cheerleading, etc...) to do the business of the people. I suggest we all call our congressmen (dial 1877-SOB-USOB and ask for them) and let them know we'd rather they worry about healthcare and education.

Col

This one baffles me. As much as I lean towards conservative (or the hip new phrase Neo-Con liberals are using) on some things Flag burning and Free speech should be left alone. Are we so thin skinned as Americans we can't take that kind of critisism? I think we're tougher than that. Every time I hear of one of these types of legislation I want them to go to Arlington cemetary dig up a WW2 soldier and spit in his face because that's what they are doing anyway. (jeeze, my rhetoric makes me almost sound like a liberal, oh sorry Progressive *snicker*)

Interesting to consider that so many of our political leaders from the top down are dismissive of world opinion, but scream bloody murder when a citizen of our own country expresses outrage (albeit in a very uncreative, largely ineffective and distracitng-to-their point manner) towards national policy.

Are we so thin skinned as Americans we can't take that kind of critisism?

Listen to talk radio recently, Eric!? You can't disagree with the neocon (a term coined by republicans, not democrats) agenda in even the slightest bit without experiencing shrieking accusations about how you hate freedom and want America to fail.

Den

"How about a law stating that if any good or service is manufactured or performed in the US, the Federal Government of the US can has to buy said service or good from a US company made in the US..."

That goes against the idea of capitalism. One of the basic principles on which America runs. It also just begs for impropriety. Please see the whole Boeing airtanker contract scandal. The US should award a $23.5 billion to Boeing after everything that has happened (http://fullcoverage.yahoo.com/s/nm/arms_boeing_tanker_dc) because they are the only American company to bid? No. I don't think so.

Also, I've been coming to this site for awhile and have always enjoyed the (mostly) well-thought out arguments that fellow members make (even when I disagree with them.) But this thing with X-Ray really bugs me. Please stop belittling him/her for his/her opinions. He/She has just as much right to post her/his opinion that anyone else on this site does. If you, as I do, disagree with or dislike much of what she/he posts, ignore it. To do otherwise just encourages him/her.

I'll have to noise this around some. I go to church with some of the Republican leadership and I'd love to hear some sort of intelligent justification for such an amendment (though I doubt any exists).

Burning a flag is immature and stupid, but I can't imagine legislating immaturity and stupidity...

The only justification for passing this amendment that I've seen discussed is that allowing the US flag to be burned somehow hurts the National Image. Which I take to mean that congress essentially feels that the American image worldwide is so fragile that the destruction of a symbol is enough to cause the nation real harm.

Or, put another way, congress is being led by a bunch of wussies. Hell, you can kill our people, and sure, we'll hurt, but our spirit will come backe even stronger. Burn our *symbols*? We should laugh at such a feeble, impotent attempt to strike at us. Has the republican party become so fearful of anything negative that they are now willing to further curtail the shrinking list of freedoms held by the people? I thought the GOP stood for smaller government and more power held by the citazenry. Just about everything we've seen over the past 5 years is a larger government, with fewer programs, but more centralized power, and the only group that is less restricted is the corporate citazen. Those of us that have the unfortunate circumstance of being actual people have had to watch our freedoms shrink.

People would spit on the returning soldiers when they should have been spitting an Johnson, Nixon, and all the other idiots who had sent them off to die.

Well, I'd spit on Bush if I could, but I wouldn't get close enough (not being a registered Republican and all that).

And even if I did, I'd be arrested, I'm sure.

But that doesn't stop the NeoCons from thinking that Everybody Else (ie, non-NeoCons) is in fact spitting on the soldiers coming back from Iraq.

Well, I'd spit on Bush if I could, but I wouldn't get close enough (not being a registered Republican and all that).

[B}And even if I did, I'd be arrested, I'm sure.{/B]

Charged with assault, too, I bet.

People would spit on the returning soldiers when they should have been spitting an Johnson, Nixon, and all the other idiots who had sent them off to die.

Interestingly enough, there is evidence that the reports of US soldiers being spat at upon returning from Vietnam may be more urban legend than fact.

http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-news/1276799/posts

Y'know, someone should get a million blogger march going down to DC, everyone go into Congress and in our best parental voices say "Don't you people have anything BETTER to do?"

You know, like making sure that everyone in America is taken care of. Health wise, protection wise, ideal wise. Hell, shelter wise would be a good place to start. Wanna judge a society? Look at how it treats the least members. The majority can live in comfort but if even one is left out, then the whole country is being supported on a house of cards being built with half a deck. Kinda like how most of the government is now.

Even though I am a Conservative Republican (albeit I lean towards Libertarian) I am oppoesed to this amendment, and will vote no if it ever come to my ballot box. Am I in favor of it being burned? No. But it is political speech, with is (IMO) the exact type speech that the 1st amendment was talking about.

On the other hand, dramatic acts of speech like this have almost always ben illegal anyway. (Boston Tea Party, most other acts of the Revolution). The fact they were illegal under the laws of the country at the time (Britain) didn't stop them from doing it.

"I am reminded of an line from the movie 1776, when the Congress is voting on whether or not to debate the question of Independence, and Bartlett says "Well, in all my years, I never seen, heard nor smelt an issue that was so dangerous it couldn't be TALKED about. Hell, yes! I'm for debating anything!""

Yeah, that is a great line. Point of information, though: It was Stephen Hopkins of Rhode Island who said it. Remember? He was called for the first vote, and the hard-drinking Hopkins was nowhere to be found. When Hancock demands to know where he is...

MCNAIR: "Rhode Island is out visiting the necessary."
HANCOCK: "With what Rhode island's consumed, I can't say I'm surprised. We'll come back to him, Mr. Secetary."
THOMPSON: Rhode Island passes. (Annoyed look at the ensuing laughter).

Then later:

THOMPSON: Second call, Rhode Island!
HOPKINS: I'm coming, I'm coming! Ya think Congress would have its own privvy. So...where do we stand?
THOMPSON: Five for debate, five for postponement, one absent and one abstention.
HOPKINS: So it's up to me, izzit? Weelll, I'll tell ya: In all my years, I ain't never heard, seen or smelled an issue that was so dangerous, it couldn't be TALKED about. Hell yes, I'm for debating anything. Rhode Island says yea.

The foregoing was typed without looking at a script. Can you tell I've been in WAY too many productions of that show?

PAD

"If you, as I do, disagree with or dislike much of what she/he posts, ignore it. To do otherwise just encourages him/her."

That's pretty much my philosophy, and it's what I've encouraged others to do. I *did* answer his two most insistent and bleating questions. The answers were, naturally, distorted or lampooned or simply not understood, which I expected. Other than that, nothing else has been worth addressing.

PAD

With the current state of things, the scary part is that it's going to take a true leader to come out against this amendment and open some kind of intelligent debate that doesn't involve name-callilng or labels involving patriotism. Someone earlier said that there's no way this amendment will pass. However, if this makes it out of Congress, do we really have 13 individual states with strong enough leaders that can intelligently argue against this and keep it from getting ratified?

"I might not agree with a word you say, but I will defend to the Death your right to say it."

Out of a sense of literary correctness, I feel it is necessary for me to point out this was Voltaire, not Rousseau.

What this quote says, is that words shouldn't be banned because of disagreement. They can be restricted based on intent to cause a riot. They can be restricted based on libel or slander (depending upon whether its written or spoken). But not just because they aren't nice.

Because what you consider not nice, might not be what I consider not nice.

There are European countries that prohibit offensive speech. (And I believe Canada does too.) The US doesn't.

Apparently all 50 states have a resolution that prohibits flag desecrations. Some of these may have passed their respective houses several years ago, so the fight will be refought. But if it passes the Senate (and apparently people believe it will be extremely close this time), it will be ratified fairly quickly I fear.

But nothing really to worry about. All we will need to do is create US Flag Substitutes. Flags with 49 stars, or only 12 stripes. US Flags are defined in great detail in the US Legal Code. So, even if the flag you burn looks like a US Flag, if it isn't exactly right, you will still be able to burn it.

PAD:

Yeah, I wasn't referring to you when I said to stop belittling her/him. Sorry if you took offense. IMHO: I think you've been much more patient than I would be if he was talking smack to me. ;-)

>But nothing really to worry about. All we will need to do is create US Flag Substitutes. Flags with 49 stars, or only 12 stripes. US Flags are defined in great detail in the US Legal Code. So, even if the flag you burn looks like a US Flag, if it isn't exactly right, you will still be able to burn it.

Cool. Thanks for that, John!

Wait. I just thought of something....

If you burn a 49-starred (SP?) flag, how are you gonna prove that it was a 49-starred flag and not the American flag?

The term 'neo-conservative' was created to define those people who call themselves conservative, but completely eschew the traditional conservative policies such as small government, balanced budgets, complete and total separation of church and state, as well as a relatively isolationist foreign policy. You know, people like Robert Taft, Barry Goldwater and the like. Neo-conservatives, on the other hand, embrace a very aggressive foreign policy, very little concern with balanced budgets and have gone whole hog the other direction in terms of "small government".

Here is the Wikipedia page that may help:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Neoconservatism_(United_States)

To pin the term 'neo-conservative' on the "liberals" is a complete and utter fallacy. This is a term that has been adopted by that movement on the political right and borne with pride by said movement, and used with disgust by those on the left ("liberal", of course, is used the same way). Who coined this term? Fuck if I know, and it really doesn't matter. It is a conservativism that completely turns the original philosophy on it's head, hence the prefix "neo" moving its base out of the realm of economy and politics, and into social areas. A similar example would be the term 'neo-liberalism'. This isn't what we leftists would consider anything close to liberalism. It's an economy-based political philosophy, not social.

"That's pretty much my philosophy, and it's what I've encouraged others to do. I *did* answer his two most insistent and bleating questions. The answers were, naturally, distorted or lampooned or simply not understood, which I expected. Other than that, nothing else has been worth addressing."

I don't know about anyone else, Peter, but sometimes, just sometimes, it's really fun to say "Bush Sucks."

Speaking of tax dollards (and dullards) at work, a couple of news articles today already:

Federal authorities raided a series of locations in San Francisco and arrested a couple from Sacramento over pot.

Supposedly this is a +2 year investigation, yet the whole operation seems to have stemmed as a direct result of the recent Supreme Court ruling.

Also, the Supreme Court has just ruled in favor of big business (5-4 decision) - local govnerments can basically use eminent domain (5th Amendment) as they see fit, even for non-traditional city improvements such as the latest strip mall.

Just wondering how you feel about book burning?

BUSH SUCKS!

HEY! K-Nuck! I do feel better!!

I'd like to add my personal (NASCAR) favorite:
BUSCH (Both Kurt and Kyle) SUCKS!

Den said: "You can't disagree with the neocon (a term coined by republicans, not democrats) agenda in even the slightest bit without experiencing shrieking accusations about how you hate freedom and want America to fail."

I'll readily admit that's true. Neal Boortz always has a few insane calls from conservatives every time his Libertarian views contradict what the Republicans are doing.

It's true on the other side of the spectrum as well, though. As much as I love talk radio (and I really, really do), it's not the best place to find reasoned discussion most of the time.

And PAD, in response to your not understanding why people respond to trolls, I'm compelled to believe that hope springs eternal. I KNOW you're right, that trolls aren't looking for a real discussion, but there's that part of me that always remembers that I could be wrong. (Incidentally, that's similar to my reason for opposing abortion. I'm 99.9% certain that there's no real individual human life there until at least six months into the pregnancy, but I COULD be wrong, and I prefer to err on the side of caution.)

"Yeah, I wasn't referring to you when I said to stop belittling her/him. Sorry if you took offense."

Offense? Good lord, no, and I certainly hope my post didn't come across that way. No, I was just agreeing with you. I was basically saying, "You're right, and that's what I've been doing and it's what I think others should do."

PAD

Just wondering how you feel about book burning?

To cause a stir...

The Nazis burned books, you know. ;)

Actually, I have seen a book (and more - cd, etcs) burning in person, at a Southern Baptist Church some friends of mine attended for awhile.

I think the theme of the night was to piss on the Eagles over "Hotel California" or something.

But, in general, I think the concept of book burning is a terrible one, whether it's a church, a group in power (like the Nazis), etc.

Like burning the flag, I don't feel that it really accomplishes anything. But, unlike burning a flag, I feel that burning books is akin to censorship - an attempt to get rid of something by destroying it, rather than let people think for themselves.

"Book Burning for Dummies"?... so crazy that it just might work.

"Just wondering how you feel about book burning?"

Depends who wrote it...

Seriously, I think book burning is a sickening pratice. There's few things that evoke Nazi Germany like the sight of that. I'm very much opposed to the concept because it sends a clear message: "We're afraid of ideas." How the hell can anyone be supportive of this country's foundations and fear IDEAS?

But would I seek to curtail someone's rights to burn books? Absolutely not.

Yes, I find the concept appalling. But protecting free speech cannot simply mean that you are in favor of protecting all manner of expression that you yourself approve of. If you don't fight to protect the free speech you disapprove of, then you're dead in the water.

PAD

I don't know of any other country that makes such a big deal about its flag. I think it must be something to do with that whole business of saluting the thing every day at school. It's so ritualistic it's turned the thing into a religious icon.

Could that be why certain americans are so evangelical about imposing their own brand of "freedom" on others?

Of course book burning is a whole other kettle of worms. Where flag burning is an entirely symbolic gesture, book burning is usually done to prevent others from reading the books, and so while it has a symbolic aspect, it is based on an entirely non-symbolic act.

"I don't know of any other country that makes such a big deal about its flag."

That's because most other nations aren't so insecure about their place in the world. Were we a nation that had a national self-esteem that was actually built around the tenets espoused by our Founding Fathers (you know, silly shit like freedom, liberty, representative democracy), as opposed to needing to have our national self-esteem reinforced by feeling like the toughest kid on the block, then the flag burning wouldn't be an issue. Those who are confident in America and the ideals that it stands for really don't give a damn. Those who are not, do give a damn. Generally speaking, those are also the same people who burn books and attempt to shit on equal rights for all, etc. It's a generalization, but a true one.

BB: I told you it feels good. The 'Bus(c)h Sucks' also works with beer, conveniently enough.

PAD wrote: "But protecting free speech cannot simply mean that you are in favor of protecting all manner of expression that you yourself approve of. If you don't fight to protect the free speech you disapprove of, then you're dead in the water."

Hey, people. Not to put too fine a point on it (say I'm the only bee in your bonnet.. whoops. I digress) but that includes X-Ray's right to write his opinion.

As much as I love talk radio (and I really, really do), it's not the best place to find reasoned discussion most of the time.

That must be why the neocons love it so.

You got to give Republicans credit though, as soon as one of their terms stops testing well, they change it around. Thus the "nuclear option" (coined by Trent Lott) became the "Constitutional option" and Bush's "privatization" plan became "personal accounts". Now we have myths floating around that "neocon" is a term liberals created to vilify conservatives who are also Jewish.

"Hey, people. Not to put too fine a point on it (say I'm the only bee in your bonnet.. whoops. I digress) but that includes X-Ray's right to write his opinion."

Sure, BB, but also please consider that this is (for all intents and purposes) a private forum. If Peter (or Glenn, whomever plays 'bad cop') wants to shut his troll ass down, he can.

Not to mention we still have the right to call him an idiot every time he says something idiotic.

"Sure, BB, but also please consider that this is (for all intents and purposes) a private forum. If Peter (or Glenn, whomever plays 'bad cop') wants to shut his troll ass down, he can."

And yet we haven't.

I don't think anyone disputes X-Ray's right to write his opinion. They dispute his right to write it HERE. It's a valid point. He doesn't have the right to write it here. He has the privilege of writing it here, via amenities extended to him that he has met with insults, slams and stupidities. He responds to courtesies with discourtesy and pats himself on the back for a job well done. It's sad and pathetic. But hey, it's America.

PAD

You know, Peter, I meant to make that clear. My bad.

I have to think on that whole right vs. privilege thingee. I can't wrap my head around it just yet.

Den wrote: "You got to give Republicans credit though, as soon as one of their terms stops testing well, they change it around."

Well, sure. If the Democrats were successfully attacking the _concepts_ instead of just trying as hard as they can to repeat (for example) "Privatization is bad", they'd have to rework the plan, but since they're NOT, why not just change the term you use to describe it? It's a cowardly way of handling things (the better option would be to actually reply just as often, "Why is it bad?"), but it's effective.

Perhaps the line is blurred for you because we encounter so many infringements on free speech on a daily basis. My favorite example would be "protest zones" that get set up outside of political conventions, political rallies, that sort of thing. To me, those are blatantly unconstitutional, but they occur all the time.

You are absolutely correct, Robin. The Democrats desperately need to start coming up with ideas of their own instead of reacting to the Republicans. I'm giving the GOP credit: They're really good at shining up a turd and telling people it's a candy bar.

If you burn a 49-starred (SP?) flag, how are you gonna prove that it was a 49-starred flag and not the American flag?

You don't. The prosecution (persuction if you prefer) has to prove you burnt the legal flag. Besides, you can always film yourself holding the near-flag (for lack of a better term) before burning it.

Also, the Supreme Court has just ruled in favor of big business (5-4 decision) - local govnerments can basically use eminent domain (5th Amendment) as they see fit, even for non-traditional city improvements such as the latest strip mall.

Gee, what a surprise
/scarcasm

Hey, people. Not to put too fine a point on it (say I'm the only bee in your bonnet.. whoops. I digress) but that includes X-Ray's right to write his opinion."

Yes, and we can likewise ignore him, as many of us are doing.

--------------

BTW, notice how many of the people saying we have to protect the flag are the same ones who dismiss Quran destrustion with 'it's just a book'. Well guess what, the flag is equally 'just some cloth'. Both items have worth to the people who follow/worship them, and both feel the same way about the treatment of their respective object.

I'm trying to remember who wrote it, but I once read a pretty good article about how once you start making a symbol more important than the ideals it's supposed to represent, you need to reevaluate your priorities.

Published on Friday, June 17, 2005 by the Denver Post
Flag is a Symbol, Remember?
by Reggie Rivers

The U.S. flag means a great deal to nearly all Americans. Military veterans have strong emotional ties to the flag as a symbol of their service; politicians believe that children will be better citizens if they pledge allegiance to the flag; most Americans would be outraged if a flag were desecrated in a public setting; and, after Sept. 11, the flag was a ubiquitous symbol of our national unity.

However, the flag is not without its problems. It seems that too many Americans have forgotten that the U.S. flag is merely a symbol of our ideals - it is not the actual embodiment of them.

Totalitarian leaders have been notorious for treating symbols as if they were real, arresting people who disrespected them. But in the United States, we enjoy broad political freedom partly because we separate symbolic activities from actual threats. If you want to cut out a picture of George W. Bush in The Denver Post and throw darts at it, the Secret Service will not arrest you.

However, in the case of the flag, the distinction between the symbol and reality is murky. Many people would rush forward and punch anyone who was harming a flag. Many Americans would react as if the flag were a small child that needed to be rescued, and that's not normal.

I believe many traditions are feeding our confusion about what the flag means and how much protection it needs.

This week, we observed Flag Day, June 14. It's a little odd to recognize a symbol in this way, but Flag Day by itself would be fairly benign. What's more troublesome is that we have a national anthem that is entirely about the flag; we pledge our allegiance to the flag itself; and the proposed Flag Desecration Amendment could turn symbolic acts into crimes.

Destroying your own flag would be like printing a big letter "S" and burning it. You wouldn't do harm to the alphabet by destroying this "S" nor would you harm any words that used the letter. You would do no harm to the English language, yet if you did the same thing with a flag, people would erupt in violence.

If a man in North Korea were arrested for stomping on a newspaper photo of Kim Jong Il, we would condemn his arrest as a form of political repression. However, if a man in Denver were arrested for stomping on a U.S. flag that he purchased at Wal-Mart, many of us would not recognize it as political repression. Many would say it's OK to arrest a man for harming a flag, because we've forgotten that the flag is a symbol.

The Christian Lord knew that humans were prone to this type of confusion, so his Second Commandment called for a moratorium on idol worship. We should heed this commandment.

Instead of amending our Constitution - as House Joint Resolution 10 and Senate Joint Resolution 12 seek to do - we should change our pledge. It should read: "I pledge allegiance to the Constitution of the United States of America ... ." That way, our kids will pledge their allegiance to our ideals, not a cloth symbol.

We should also change our national anthem. The song's first verse - the only one we normally sing - is entirely about the flag. If you look at the lyrics and replace references to the flag with descriptions of Britney Spears, it is instantly clear that the song is about an object, not ideals.

The American flag is a wonderful symbol, and it is important for us to maintain it in our society. However, it's clear that the flag has become more important than the ideals that it symbolizes, so in the name of democracy, we have to shift our focus. We can't allow our loyalty to the flag to trump our allegiance to the Constitution.

Former Denver Broncos player Reggie Rivers writes Fridays on the Denver Post op-ed page.

Flag-burning should be legal. However, it's a stupid, moronic thing to do, and I have little respect for those that do it.

If someone is stupid enough to, say, burn a flag in front of a group of veterans and then gets their face smashed in by that same group, then I'd charge them with inciting to riot.

Yes, I know, he should be protected, but sometimes you just want to ask "How stupid can you get?"

If someone is stupid enough to, say, burn a flag in front of a group of veterans and then gets their face smashed in by that same group,

What a wonderful message. 'We went to war to fight for freedom & we'll beat up anyone who tries to exercise it'.

Anybody else notice that all the bad liberals in the world usually (and I STRESS usually) back their arguments up with reasons why their views can be valid and all the good conservatives usually (ditto) shout at the liberals and call them names a la the other reindeer in Rudolph? Biggest offender obnoxious-wise (no, not X-Ray) seems to be Sean Hannity. Something to think about.

"Please stop belittling him/her for his/her opinions. He/She has just as much right to post her/his opinion that anyone else on this site does. If you, as I do, disagree with or dislike much of what she/he posts, ignore it. To do otherwise just encourages him/her."

See, the thing that really irks me about X-ray, is not that he disagrees with me. I like debates, and I love people that disagree with me. My problem with him/her is twofold. First, he came on to a website where the free exchange of ideas is encouraged, and where dissenting opinions are welcomed. He then proceeded to trample all over that privilage by attacking our host personally. I have not always agreed with what Mr. David said, and if I feel like it, I will say so. And I will say so politely, and adressing the issue at hand. You would too, as would 99.9% of the people on here. X-ray, on the other hand, engages in personal slander, and is an embarrassment to the many fine, free thinking conservatives I know. Second, he refuses not only to accept any other opinion, but to accept their validity, and in some cases, their very existance. However, your point is excellent. Personal attacks on him/her only lower us to his/her level. We should, if we adress x-ray at all, obey the Golden Rule.

also, Mr. David and John, thank you for the corrections. And, asking as an actor, how long has it been since you were in 1776? because remembering it that well....that is something else. I can't remember any lines from the show I starred in this YEAR! So I'm impressed.

"Personal attacks on him/her only lower us to his/her level."

YES! That is my point exactly. Thanks you for pulling it out of my head. It was stuck.

My reaction to the notion of an act of Congress or, God forbid, a constitutional amendment against burning the flag has, for years, boiled down to this:

"Oh, yes, by all means, let's protect the flag by wiping our asses with the Constitution."

Crude, yes, and carrying some pretty unpleasant imagery, but I think it expresses the idea effectively.

Paul

So, when is Karl Rove going to be dragged over a fire pit for his comments toward Democrats, like Durbin has for his comments about Gitmo?

To quote Rove:
Rove, Bush's chief political adviser, said in a speech Wednesday that "liberals saw the savagery of the 9/11 attacks and wanted to prepare indictments and offer therapy and understanding for our attackers." Conservatives, he told the New York state Conservative Party just a few miles north of Ground Zero, "saw the savagery of 9/11 and the attacks and prepared for war."

Offer therapy? Understanding?

I'd say that Bush understands bin Laden far more, since, you know, capturing bin Laden just isn't that important any more.

But, hey, atleast Rove admits that the Bush Administrations comments about diplomacy were laughable at best - Rove can easily be interpreted as saying that war was the only option.

You know, Sen. Patty Murray got dragged over the coals for saying, in essence, that the reason people like Osama bin Laden are popular with the masses and have the effect they do is that they understand the problems that these people are dealing with and make attempts to alleviate those problems. You know, silly stuff like education, food, shelter, healthcare, infrastructure. The US, on the other hand, tends to sort of half-assedly throw money at a problem and then assume it's taken care of.

Wes Clark made similar comments while running for president. He remarked that Saudi Arabia was the number one recruiting ground for Al Qaeda, and the reason for that was the incredible poverty and disparity of wealth. The vacuum will be filled, and it's being filled by people who are preaching hatred of America. Sure, we can try and bomb the shit out of these people, but wouldn't it make more sense to try and make them not hate us at the same time?

I'm sorry to say that, thanks to the pusilanimous nature of most of the Democrats in the past, the very same thing is happening here. The airwaves are filled with messages of hate and distrust as spread by people like Hannity, Limbaugh and anyone on Fox News (except for Wes Clark), and there is nothing else to combat those messages.

Listen to talk radio recently, Eric!? You can't disagree with the neocon (a term coined by republicans, not democrats) agenda in even the slightest bit without experiencing shrieking accusations about how you hate freedom and want America to fail.
C'mon, Air America is just as guilty of the name calling and demonizing. Yes, the same can be said of many on the right. Yippee!
Let's just compomise, if the ACLU will allow Christians to say God in public, then Repuplicans can let the flag burn, see it's a win, win.

C'mon, Air America is just as guilty of the name calling and demonizing. Yes, the same can be said of many on the right. Yippee!

First, somebody would actually have to listen to Air America for that to matter.

Let's just compomise, if the ACLU will allow Christians to say God in public, then Repuplicans can let the flag burn, see it's a win, win.

Ah yes, that horrible ACLU. It's really terrible for Christians, being a mere 83% of the US population, to express themselves. What with all the churches being torn down and the prayer groups being hauled off to gulags. I hope that one day, Christians will be able to put their religious icons in the public square every Christmas. Or, as Jon Stewart said last night, dare we dream that one day, we could have an openly Christian president? Or perhaps, 43? In succession.

Ah yes, that horrible ACLU.
Great, we agree, I knew you'd come around.
First, somebody would actually have to listen to Air America for that to matter.
Well, that and NPR.

I don't see how they could get a conviction for flag burning. If the burner did a good job, all the evidence would be destroyed. Unless someone was taking photos close enough that the stars and stripes could be counted, it would be difficult to prove beyond a reasonable doubt that it wasn't a Maylasian or Liberian flag, or some 11-striped, 54-starred banner, which would have no legal protection. Hell, if this thing were to pass (which is unlikely, even if it makes it through the Senate), I'm going to print up a bunch of burn-safe pseudo-US flags.

Great, we agree, I knew you'd come around.

You what will convince me? If somebody actually does get arrested for being a Christian. And no, I don't mean a court ordering an end to mandatory school prayers. I mean something that actually prevents a Christian from practicing their faith on their own time, on their own property.

When it comes to the evidence issue, worry about the opposite - say someone burns an obviously fake or pseudo-flag all the way to ash, but a group of people, some with video cameras, witness it and then testify in court that absolutely, that out-of-focus, smokey image on the tv there is a real, honest-to-God American flag. There are rules in place already for evidence that is destroyed as part of the act in committing the crime. As for the folks talking about using fake or "close enough" flags, I'd ask those of you who've read the actual amendment as passed so far if it could be interpretted to mean that just making a flag that wasn't up to code would count as defacing it. Since we've already established that the group pushing this through is confusing a symbol for what it actually stands for, could they also attempt to lift it above parody somehow?

Did someone actually make the argument that the people who are behind the Desecration Amendment are insecure about their country?

Utterly silly.

They see America as the best and brightest place on the planet. They think it is self-evident and deserving respect(I tend to agree). They believe those who are ungrateful, disrespectful, cynical, and blind to the wonders of our country should be snapped awake and told to look around.

They just chose a really poor way to do that. Poor, silly, ineffective, expensive and sad... really, really sad...

The burden of proof in the US is on the prosecution to prove a crime has been committed beyond a reasonable doubt.

If the flag burner provides a receipt proving they purchased a US Flag Substitute, I don't care how many witnesses there were. The Defense Attorney will just produce a Flag Substitue and a Real Flag and ask the witnesses under penalty of perjury if they can say with certainty it was a Real Flag.

If you still have any doubts about whether closing Guantanamo is the right thing to do, Jimmy Carter recently cleared that up by demanding that it be closed. With any luck, he'll try to effect another one of those daring "rescue" attempts. Here's a foolproof method for keeping America safe: Always do the exact 180-degree opposite of whatever Jimmy Carter says as quickly as possible. (Instead of Guantanamo, how about we close down the Carter Center?)

Sen. Dick Durbin says it is reminiscent of the "Nazis, Soviets in their gulags or some mad regime — Pol Pot or others." (He then offered the typical Democrat "if/then" non-apology: i.e., "if my remarks offended anyone," based on the rather remote possibility any sentient, English-speaking adult who didn't hate America could have heard them and not been offended.)

Amnesty International calls Guantanamo a "gulag." Sen. Teddy Kennedy says he cannot condone allegations of near-drowning "as a human being." And Sen. Patrick Leahy calls it "an international embarrassment," as opposed to himself, a "national embarrassment."

On the bright side, at least liberals have finally found a group of people in Cuba whom they think deserve to be rescued.

In the interests of helping my country, I have devised a compact set of torture guidelines for Guantanamo.

It's not torture if:

— The same acts performed on a live stage have been favorably reviewed by Frank Rich of The New York Times;

— Andrew Sullivan has ever solicited it from total strangers on the Internet;

— You can pay someone in New York to do it to you;

— Karen Finley ever got a federal grant to do it;

— It's comparable to the treatment U.S. troops received in basic training;

— It's no worse than the way airlines treat little girls in pigtails flying to see Grandma.

It turns out that the most unpleasant aspect of life at Guantanamo for the detainees came with the move out of the temporary "Camp X-Ray." Apparently, wanton homosexual sex among the inmates is more difficult in their newer, more commodious quarters. (Suspiciously, detainees retailing outlandish tales of abuse to the ACLU often include the claim that they were subjected to prolonged rectal exams.) Plus, I hear the views of the Caribbean aren't quite as good from their new suites.

Even the tales of "torture" being pawned off by the detainees on credulous American journalists are pretty lame.

The Washington Post reported that a detainee at Guantanamo says he was "threatened with sexual abuse." (Bonus "Not Torture" rule: If it is similar to the way interns were treated in the Clinton White House.)

"Sign or you will be tortured!"

"What's the torture?"

"We will merely threaten you with horrible things!"

"That's it?"

"Shut up and do as we say, or we'll issue empty, laughable threats guaranteed to amuse you. This is your last warning."

One detainee in Afghanistan told a hyperventilating reporter for Salon that he was forced to stand with his arms in the air for "hours." Doctor, I still have nightmares about the time I was forced to stand with my arms up in the air ...

Others claimed they were forced into uncomfortable, unnatural positions, sort of like the Democrats' position on abortion. Next, the interrogators will be threatening to slightly undercook the Lemon Chicken!

According to Time magazine, this is how the "gulag of our time" treats the inmates: "The best-behaved detainees are held in Camp 4, a medium-security, communal-living environment with as many as 10 beds in a room; prisoners can play soccer or volleyball outside up to nine hours a day, eat meals together and read Agatha Christie mysteries in Arabic."

So they're not exactly raping the detainees with dogs at Guantanamo. (I still think the gift shop T-shirts that say "My dad went to Guantanamo and all I got was this lousy T-shirt" goes too far.)

The only question is: Why do Democrats take such relish in slandering their country? If someone was constantly telling vicious lies about you, would you believe they supported and loved you?

"I love John Doe, and that's why I accuse him of committing serial rape and mass murder. Oh, he doesn't do that? Yes, but how dare you say I don't love John Doe!"

And now back to our regular programming on Air America ...

bbayliss - thanks for presenting that good Op-Ed piece by Reggie Rivers. Rivers makes several good points (and not just because, for the record, I'm a huge Denver Broncos fan ;) ). Why do we "pledge allegience to the FLAG?" The wording would be better as "to the Constitution" or "to the ideals" (while leaving the flag there if you want something to physically salute).

For the record, I agree with PAD's original posting (and most of those who have replied). The expression of hate for our country which burning the flag represents may be disturbing, or repugnant (or any of a dozen other possible reactions); but the right to express one's thoughts, in a way which does not harm others or infringe upon their rights, is one of the most important of human rights, and American ideals (as I more or less wrote the last time a censorship topic was raised on the blog).

Right on! Let's all burn the flag to show our patriotism! And then let's all piss on Christ to prove we are religious! Excellent logic!

Gary: your friend would deserve a hand even if wasn't a PAD fan..or if he was *shudder* a Byrne fan:-)

Glenn: Could you please just ban this X-ray clown?
I get that you and Peter are against the idea, but really...it's one thing to be for people to express their opinions...it's another to not do anything when someone walks in to your house and pisses on your couch.

Michael Norton: Texas Politicians are too busy sticking their noses in sexy cheerleaders? Is there a bar you go to do that?

(Yes, I know the actual case...saw the Daily Show report on it)

Robnn: "I can't imagine legislating immaturity and stupidity..."

My G-d....I think you've just stated the key to saving the future!

Knuckles,
"Setting aside the mockery it makes of the First Amendment"

Unlike, say, "Hate speech" laws and McCain-Feingold, which puts restrictions on POLITICAL SPEECH, whic is, you know, the main reason the First Amendment is in place. Not to defend a crucifix being dipped in urine but to question and interact with the our government and air our political views. Why the hell aren't all the First Amendment Absolutists here as upset about that?

"as well as the absolute impossibility of such an amendment being passed"

It is far from absolutely impossible. Hell, an asteroid crashing and ending all life on earth is within the realm of possibility. Cut down on the hyperbole.

"I'd wager that you are going to see a dramatic increase in flag burning"

Possible, but I sure hope not.

"Hell, I might even pick up a couple at the dollar store myself just to get things going."

Now you're sounding like an asshole. If you didn't have cause to do it before, why be a punk and do it just "to show them" and upset a lot of people for no reason in the process?

Bobb,
"Those IDIOTS!"

What a profound statement.

Sen. Teddy Kennedy says he cannot condone allegations of near-drowning "as a human being."

Hey... as most of you might suspect, I'm as left-winged and liberal as they come, but I don't think Teddy should be the poster-boy for "near drowning."

Just my opinion.

I wonder - will the people who support this amendment also call for Bush's arrest the next time he desacrates the flag?

http://img.photobucket.com/albums/v248/walker66/bushsignsflag.gif

Michael Pullman,
"I happen to know that the best way to get someone to stop doing something that offends you isn't to make a giant stink and call Mommy and Daddy"

I agree. Unfortunately, many liberals don't. As evidenced by increased so-called "hates speech legislation", a work environment in some instances that is so acute to "offending" women that saying "Good morning, good looking" can get you called into the office and that many workplaces ban even a photo of a wife/girlfriend pictured in a bikini because it "creates a hostile work environment".
So, this has been going on for some time now and is hardly one-sided.

Jerry,
"Brought to you by the same Neanderthal morons that brought you Freedom Fries".

Oh goodness. Someone who doesn't agree with conservatives is portraying them as knuckle-dragging cretins.
Yawn.
Is the whole Freedom Fries thing a bit silly? Perhaps. But many people were upset with France and still are. I am one of them. This is how they are voicing their displeasure. Because, as liberals know, symbolism is everything.

" let's all piss on Christ to prove we are religious"

You pray at the device of his execution, don't you?

"Is the whole Freedom Fries thing a bit silly? Perhaps. But many people were upset with France and still are. I am one of them."

Yes, and renaming something that has nothing to do with the country is a good way to show that.

And G-d forbid a soveriegn nation not agree with the US.

or by your logic...you coninue to use Saudi Oil..so you're happy with them flying planes into our buildings?

You now what? Conservatives, using their usual logic and arguments or even Bush logic, should be all for flag burning. Just think.....

1) How many times have we been told by conservatives that we should be able to do whatever we want to do with our own property and the government should just back off? Pick just about any topic and you can find conservatives using that line against any law or regulation that they don't like. Well, if it's my lighter, my yard and my flag then I should be able to exercise my desire to do what I want with them. That's conservative logic. It's not harming anyone else, it's not burning someone else's property and it costs no one else a thing. Government should back off and butt out.

2) It's good for the economy. Some far left-wing wackadoo wants to burn the flag to tick off a few conservatives. He does and they do. Well, what can he do with the flag now? It's gone. He has to GO OUT AND BUY A NEW ONE. He may even think that getting a bigger flag will get a better (in his eyes) response out of the conservatives. Result? He buys a bigger, more expensive flag the next time. He steps up from the $3.00 dime store flag to the $20.00 Wal-Mart flag. The rest of the wackadoo tribe see the foam and the hair pulling from their favorite agitation targets (while ignoring the indifference to their actions from everybody smart enough to see them as the mostly tiny minded twits that they are) and do the same. Result? More flags sold and burnt. Result? More agitation and more sales to create more agitation. Result? More money pumped into the economy, more corporate revenues, more taxes collected and more prosperity and financial security for all Americans. Why, damn it, it might even be your patriotic duty to go burn flags!

Now go out there, help out our economy and burn one for the Gipper!

Jerome,

About Freedom Fries:

"Oh goodness. Someone who doesn't agree with conservatives is portraying them as knuckle-dragging cretins.
Yawn."

Don't care if you don't like the French. Spend all the time you want posting signs in your yard and screaming from the highest hilltop about what dweebs you feel the French to be. You wanna stop buying French products and try to get others to do likewise? Fine by me.

What I think is stupid is that the guys up on The Hill are wasting time and money to do things like that when their job is to tend to the real problems of state. And they did it when there were men on the ground overseas getting shot at and more then a few domestic issues boiling over back here in the states. Gee, it was just so great of them then and now to devote time to such grave issues as french fries and a non-existent epidemic of flag burning when there are really so few real issues or problems to deal with in the foreign and domestic issues department. Don't you think?

Jerome: First and foremost, I AM an asshole. My wife keeps telling me so. Secondly, you misunderstand McCain/Feingold (which I disagree with, by the way). It doesn't put a limit on political speech, it puts a limit on how quasi-political speech is funded.

Jerome: Now, I'd post more, but I've got a few flags to burn, and some beers to drink while I do it. And fuck everyone who doesn't like what I do. Seriously. I won't be burning flags while I'm out, but I will be drinking beers. Me, I don't think flag burning is an effective way to get your point across, but then again, I don't live in Jordan.

Jerry: Can I be the knuckle dragging cretin? Because Jerome is just a dip. Cretin is SO much cooler.

Knuckles,

Not for this argument, no. You've not, as far as I know, stooped so low as to be an idiot in an elected manner. If you wish to be known as a knuckle dragging cretin at some later date then feel free to ask. I'm sure we can work something out.

"or by your logic...you coninue to use Saudi Oil..so you're happy with them flying planes into our buildings?"

What? They didn't fly planes into our buildings. They are suspected of harboring the people who did it however. You wanna gewt pissed at the Saudis? Get pissed at their crimes against humanity, which are legion. They have things like the religious police. And i don't get this "Ann Coulter" thing. Is that one of her columns, or someone calling themselves her, or (Please God, no) the Beast herself. Anyway, however it goes down, lets face it. She makes X-ray look middle of the road. I mean, I subjected myself to her last book. After five pages, I was literally standing up and ranting: to thin air, to my poor parents, to whoever was passing on the street. Let us not forget that this....this HARPY called JOSEPH MCCARTHY (AKA America's answer to Laventry Beria) an "American Hero."

You wanna gewt pissed at the Saudis? Get pissed at their crimes against humanity, which are legion

But they're our allies, part of the "Dictators 4 Life" crowd that Bush has surrounded himself with.

We can't possibly do the responsible thing and take the Saudi's to issue over their human rights violations!

Consarn it, Jerry, what's a guy to do? I try to be an ass, no knuckle-dragging cretin. I try to talk shit about assheads who think the First Amendment is nothing more than pillowtalk amongst neocons, no knuckle-dragging cretin. Hell, I'm this close to saying Howard Dean was my man in the '04 Primary just so I can stir shit up amongst these yahoos so I can achieve knuckle-dragging cretin status (for the record, I was PCO for my precinct, and a fervent Wes Clark supporter).

Interestingly enough, there is evidence that the reports of US soldiers being spat at upon returning from Vietnam may be more urban legend than fact.

The posting in the FreeRepublic site would seem to disagree with it being a myth. I know some Vietnam Vets who are now so far to the left that they thought Kerry was WAY too conservative and THEY remember being cursed and spat upon. After seeing how some ROTC people were treated on campus in the 1980s I can only imagine what it must have been like in the 1960s. The arguments used to discredit the vets who report this--like the idea that no hippy would dare do such a thing to a soldier for fear of getting beaten up--are pathetic. I knew a gay gentleman who was about 6'5" who told me he once got the crap beaten out of him by a bunch of drunk homophobes. Why doubt him? Drunks, gangs and drunken gangs don't have much to fear, however mighty the target.

On the flag burning amandment, it's interesting how many major conservatives are aginst it. Adler calls it "an abomination", Lopez brings up a National Review editorial that castigates politicians who go for frivilous amandments such as this one, Ponnuru leans against it...I guess there must be a lot of folks who want this thing but I'm certainly not one of them.

I did once see a protestor soak a flag in gasoline and light it up--he almost caught his stupid self on fire as well, which would have given everyone in the crowd something to cheer.

I've seen arguments both for and against the spitting stories, so as far as I'm concerned, the jury is still out on whether they actually happened (kind of like the way our idiot-in-chief believes the jury is still out on evolution, global warming, gravity, etc).

As for the amendment, this is all just pandering. Probably 99% of all American flag burnings occur outside the US, making the amendment meaningless to them. It's not surprising that many people confuse the symbol with the ideals it represents, because, as I said people, show any signs of doubt about the neocon agenda, you'll be fending off hysterical accusations about how you hate America, freedom, apple pie, mom, etc.

Bottom Line: An ammendment against flag burning is unconstitutional and will never happen.

Republican politicians know that by merely mentioning it, all sorts of people will get riled up. The pro's will be loud and obnoxious while ignoring the con's quieter, probably more dignified, decents. The pros will then rush to the poles and vote for those wonderful politicians who are saving our great nation from all those godless hippy liberals.

Excuse me while I go get a towel to mop up all this dripping sarcasm.

"The pros will then rush to the poles and vote for those wonderful politicians who are saving our great nation from all those godless hippy liberals."

One of the many great things about democracy, is that there tends to be a very loud minority. They get everybody all riled up about something, and then, when push comes to vote, they find that a quiet majority wins. That is what happens all the time. Should we speak out against it? Of course. Should we start worrying about making fake flags to burn? No. It has never passed, and it will never pass, because most people, liberal AND conservative, realize that it is a bad thing. People are smart, they realize what is going on. America is not a desperate nation, like Germany in the '20's. it is not a repressed nation, like Russia in the 1910's. We are a happy nation. Sure we have issues. Who doesn't? We, however, have the means to deal with our issues in a civilized manner. If this amendment did pass, I would be the first to burn a fake, or a real one (what the hell, jail was good enough for Thearou, and MLK, it's good enough for me.) Have some faith in the free will and good sense of the American public.

Bottom Line: An ammendment against flag burning is unconstitutional and will never happen.

Uh actually, once an amendment has been ratified, it is by its very definition constitutional.

That's what makes the possibility that it may pass so dangerous.

They get everybody all riled up about something, and then, when push comes to vote, they find that a quiet majority wins.

I wouldn't call Republicans in this last election a "quiet majority".

I remember reading a story of an American POW in Vietnam who said his captors showed him a photograph of a man protesting the war by burning an American flag. The Vietnamese officer said, "See, people in your country protest your cause. This proves you are wrong." He replied, "No. That proves I am right. In my country we are not afraid of freedom, even if it means that people disagree with us."

Those in favor of a flag amendment just do not understand that the flag stands for liberty - not fear of liberty.

"Uh actually, once an amendment has been ratified, it is by its very definition constitutional."

Uh actually, it is a matter of freedom of speech. Burning a flag, not just for fun, is protected under this. The people pushing this are just trying to get attention. And you can tell it's working just by the number of posts here. It's the same thing they do with abortion. When the political right need attention they bring up some issue that will never pass but is something they know will stir up the loud christian groups. The loud minority can influence a lot of people, distract from other more important/pressing issues, and gum up the media.

The contortions of misapplied and twisted logic you people go through to try and make flag burning into wonderful, patriotic thing are sickening.

Admit it!

The REAL reason you want to preserve legal flag burning is that you hate America.

Flags? We don' need no steenkin' flags!!! Except, maybe, for this guy:

"When the Germans occupied Athens in WWII, the Evzone who guarded the Greek flag which flew from the Acropolis, was ordered by the Nazis to remove it. He calmly took it down, wrapped himself in it and jumped to his death."

http://www.athensguide.com/athacrop.html

So what?

Much as I hate to acknowledge this guy, I have a question for X-Ray:

If it's not OK to burn the flag, is it still OK to burn books or CDs or records? How's about Bibles? Just curious...

On a previous thought way back near the start of this thread: There was a big commotion up here in Canada when it was found out that the Canadian flag pins and small flags being passed out by the ruling Liberal majority in the Commons were actually made in China. When push came to shove it was pointed out that the government SAVED a ton of money by having them made there instead of domestically or in the US. Now that's irony for you.

As to investing in overseas flag companies: Not really necessary, because with the current and increasing spate of Chinese companies offering to buy US and Canadian companies with all the money WE have given THEM (ie our OWN money returned to haunt us!), it's just a matter of time until the largest Chinese maker of flags and regalia buys the largest North American maker anyway. The irony here of course is that not only are we being eaten up by our own dollars, but it's being done by a communist regime. Now that oughta get a few Republicans up in arms!

Much as I hate to acknowledge this guy, I have a question for X-Ray: "If it's not OK to burn the flag, is it still OK to burn books or CDs or records? How's about Bibles? Just curious..."
--------

Thank you for proceeding your question with a declaration of your sincere hatred for me!

Answer: If you own the object, you can burn it if you want to.

However, burning a flag or Bible as a public display of protest is sickening to the many people who treasure these things above all else. But because liberals hate the flag and the Bible, they strain mightily to find ways to support ANYTHING that denigrates them.

Hope this answers your question, and again, I thank you for your hatred.

Now that oughta get a few Republicans up in arms!

It won't.

One of the few things I hated about Clinton's years in office was that he gave China Favored Nation Status as a trade partner. Yeah, the ball started rolling before Clinton, but he pushed them into a better position into which they could start pushing *us* around.

It opened up the door to alot of the crap we're dealing with now, and going to have to deal with down the road.

And no, I'm not sure the Republicans care. Or the Democrats.

Big business and the Republicans go hand in hand, but companies like Microsoft, Google, and Yahoo are falling over themselves to help the Chinese with censorship on the internet.

It's appalling.

I've been more-or-less following this whole X-Ray thing since the last controversy involving him, and I'm hoping after I make these four comments (some which may have been brought up previously) I'll leave the whole thing alone:

1. What happened to the shroud? Didn't we get it back from Dee?

2. X-Ray is simply trying to attract attention to himself, and it's quite possible - regardless whether or not he is informed of whatever subject he addresses/responds to - he adds his input for that reason. This is merely his latest attempt. Readers should simply refer to comment #1.

3. I would, however, consider the verb "policing". Maybe I'm taking this too seriously, and I certainly don't want to impose on PAD, but I wouldn't like it if my life were subjected to such a thing, and he should be chided for making such a claim. Yeah, this guy (X-Ray) is under the illusion he's some kind of self-appointed overseer of the world, but this could definitely reach a limit to one's tolerance.

4. Go out and see the world, X-Ray. There's plenty in life to enjoy, so relax. Life's too short to spend "policing" everyone. You give us the image of one huddled at a computer every waking moment of one's life. Or perhaps you give us that image to attract more attention to you.

That's it on this subject for me, unless someone has an intelligent point worth responding to.

"Much as I hate to acknowledge this guy, I have a question for...."

Y'know what, Joe? I hate smoking rooms in hotels. So I make sure never to stay in one. Why bother asking a question that, like a smoking room, is going to leave a stench?

"I would, however, consider the verb "policing". Maybe I'm taking this too seriously, and I certainly don't want to impose on PAD, but I wouldn't like it if my life were subjected to such a thing, and he should be chided for making such a claim."

My life is subjected to no such thing, Peter. Just because the Village Idiot says he's doing something doesn't make it so. In fact, if he says something that's pretty much a guarantee that it's NOT so. You ARE taking him too seriously. I responded ages ago to the only two things he's said worth responding to, and he's said nothing meaningful since. "Policing?" Please. A chicken can claim it's an eagle, but in the end it's just a dumb cluck going off half-cocked.

PAD

I like spike. You like spike. Everybody likes spike for president.

I'm still counting. The haughty Peter David just responded to me for the 13th time after declaring he was "donne" with me.

He can't help himself.

He likes to call me names!

But nothing Peter David says can damage or defame me, because no one takes what he says about anything seriously.

I'm against the flag burning amendment. It's a feel good excuse for people to parade around saying how patriotic they are. And, just as display of the flag is speech, in that it makes a statement about one's belief in one's country, so is it speech when someone burns the flag. Now, when I see people in foreign countries burn the US flag, I get really steamed, but it still is speech. Speech, in the US, is protected by the Constitution, and very few exceptions to protected speech should be made.

**Let's just compomise, if the ACLU will allow Christians to say God in public, then Repuplicans can let the flag burn, see it's a win, win.**

Well, there's a bit of silliness. The ACLU has not stopped private citizens from saying God, except as part of government-led exercises. In fact, the ACLU has been a notable force for protecting the rights of Christians to spread the word and worship. If you get your information with the ACLU from folks who want religion to the a government service, you may have missed where the ACLU defends a church from the government: http://www.aclu.org/ReligiousLiberty/ReligiousLiberty.cfm?ID=16295&c=142
You may have missed where they protected the right of Christian students to include biblical material in their yearbook quotes: http://www.aclu.org/StudentsRights/StudentsRights.cfm?ID=15680&c=159
And the folks who try to demonize the ACLU in the midst of ranting about students who were suspended for handing out candy canes with religious messages on them probably don't want you to know the truth: that the ACLU, far from wanting to see the students suspended, actually worked for their defense.
They've defended evangelists' rights to work on the sidewalks of The Strip in Las Vegas, fought zoning laws that stood in the way of new Christian churches, stood up for students handing out religious literature at school, and protected the right of a Christian church to run their ads on the Boston subways.

If you want to support religious freedom, then you should be supporting the ACLU.

"Let's just compomise, if the ACLU will allow Christians to say God in public, then Repuplicans can let the flag burn, see it's a win, win."

HUH?!?! It is the ACLU who PROTECTS your right to say God in public, and that has nothing to do with the actual issue. The point is, is that a an amendment prohibiting Flag-burning would be a blatent overthrow of the First amendment. (In my mind, the greatest one, maybe we should recite THAT in school instead of the Pledge.) Is the flag an important symbol? Yes. There was a story in here about a Greek guy who wrapped himself in his flag, and threw himself to his death when the Nazis took over. I think the point that should have been made there was that the flag was used as a symbol. He wasn't dying for the FLAG he was dying for the NATION it represented. It was a convenient symbol. If he had burned his flag in protest, it would be a different use of a symbol. Only a symbol. I have heard, in the great wide world, people defending this by saying things like "Oh, (insert favorite Founding Father here) wouldn't want people to burn flags, it isn't what the first amendment was for." To which I cite the Kentucky and Virgina Resolutions. See, what happend, is that they passed the Alien and Sedition Acts, which basically gave the government the power to arrest anyone they felt was speaking against the Government. (sound familiar, gang?) Anyway, Jefferson and Madison got together and wrote the Resolutions, which said that the State could nullify any law of the Federal governments. My point is that most of the founding fathers were very Pro-free speech, up to and including direct defience of the government they had created. The whole story is here: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kentucky_and_Virginia_Resolutions

"It is the ACLU who PROTECTS your right to say God in public."
----------------

Hogwash!

Obviously, you know nothing about the ACLU.

They are devoted to secularizing our country, and there are countless examples to prove it.

X-Ray: "They are devoted to secularizing our country, and there are countless examples to prove it."

Good heavens, how ghastly.

"Good heavens, how ghastly."
----------

Oops .. your true colors are showing.

You think anyone who believes in God is a complete fool.

Well, you can turn away from God all you want.

But what would happen if God turned away from YOU?

Alan,
I love that story. Which may tell you a bit about where I stand.

Maltomeal,
What part of "if the amendment passes" don't you understand? If the amendment passes, it is therefore constitutional. Do I think there is a GREAT chance it will? No. But I give it better odds than an amendment to end the electoral college or (unfortunately) one to repeal the 22nd amendment.

Jerome, the amendment passing (and I'm assuming you also mean gets ratified by the states, which is part of the process) actually isn't the end of the story. There must still be room for a legal review to ensure that it doesn't run afoul of other sections of the Constitution. And if it cleary violates the first amendment, you'd hope the Supreme Court would have the will to strike it down.

"They are devoted to secularizing our country, and there are countless examples to prove it."

Name three. Just three examples of the ACLU removing anything other than blatent religious refrences. Or of the ACLU preventing anyone from practicing whatever religion they want: Christianity, Islam, Wiccia, tree worship, Bokononism or anything else you can possibly imagine. All the ACLU has ever done is remove religious symbols from public places, to avoid offending people. And before you say "Wants to protect everybodies feelings: so liberal. Classic. And Funny" or something similar: tell me. What is wrong with removing religious sybolism to avoid offence? do you want people to be judged based on religion? And if so: what religion? The only one that I would remotely trust to be completely unbiased is Bhuddism. And for your info, A) I am a Christian. and B) I am middle of the road-not liberal.

Me: "Uh actually, once an amendment has been ratified, it is by its very definition constitutional."

Maltomeal: "Uh actually, it is a matter of freedom of speech. Burning a flag, not just for fun, is protected under this."

Yes, it is a matter of free speech. It is appalling that this going on, but just because it is appalling does not make it unconstitutional (see: these week's rulling on eminant domain) Obviously, though, you don't understand what "unconstitutional" means. It means that it violates the constitution. Now, if the constitution is amended to say that flag burning is illegal, that means the constitution says that flag burning is illegal. Therefore, laws against flag burning are no longer unconstitutional.

Capiche?

"Just three examples of the ACLU removing anything other than blatent religious refrences."
---------------

That is just my point!

There is absolutely NOTHING WRONG with "blatant religious references."

I suppose it really depends on what you mean when you say "constitutional." In a strict legal sense, any amendment made to the Constitution is, by definition, constitutional. However, I think that when many people use the term, they are referring more to the ideals for which the Constitution stands.

It's not unlike the term "biblical." If some current event is referred to as biblical, the term refers to the scope and tone rather than implying (ridiculously) that said event is literally in the Bible.

-Rex Hondo-

I suppose it really depends on what you mean when you say "constitutional." In a strict legal sense, any amendment made to the Constitution is, by definition, constitutional. However, I think that when many people use the term, they are referring more to the ideals for which the Constitution stands.

People who use the term that way are wrong and need to educate themselves. I know it's not popular these days to tell people that they are factually wrong because it may damage their self-esteem, but c'mon! There's no excuse for our citizens not to understand what the Constitution actually says. Especially since we have a president that doesn't.

Peter wrote:
"Y'know what, Joe? I hate smoking rooms in hotels. So I make sure never to stay in one. Why bother asking a question that, like a smoking room, is going to leave a stench? "
Well, you're right, it was a very terrible question. But, since it's difficult for a sarcastic tone to come through in written words, I wanted to ask it of this guy and see what he said.
So what X-Ray wrote was:
"Answer: If you own the object, you can burn it if you want to. "

He then went on to say,
"However, burning a flag or Bible as a public display of protest is sickening to the many people who treasure these things above all else. But because liberals hate the flag and the Bible, they strain mightily to find ways to support ANYTHING that denigrates them."

He bracketed his comments by stating that I have uncridled hatred for him.

Let's tackle all of this:
Firstly, I don't hate this person. Reallu I don't. But I hate what he does behind the cloak of anonymity like the schoolyard thung who gets other people to do the dirty work for him but remains the inciter in the background. So, my recommendation is to come clean and identify yourself, X-Ray. At least then if you have an opinion, others may not agree with it, but at least they may have the option to respect it, and that's 3/4 of the argument for credibility that you seem so eager to crave. I put my name on everything I write here, good or bad, and you ought to as well.
As to the points in your reply, you basically stood up for the very thing you're arguing against. Read your quote again:
"Answer: If you own the object, you can burn it if you want to. "
My new question: why the heck WOULD you want to? What would possess someone to go to such extreme lengths to try to make a point? As Peter and many others said earlier, the point being attempted gets overshadowed by the sheer distastefulness of the act. YOU AGREED. Read your quote again:
"However, burning a flag or Bible as a public display of protest is sickening to the many people who treasure these things above all else. But because liberals hate the flag and the Bible, they strain mightily to find ways to support ANYTHING that denigrates them."

Now I can set you straight on something: Liberals do not hate the flag, nor do they hate the Bible. What they hate is the idea that someone else would limit their freedom of expression, no matter how repulsive that form of expression may be. I think most conservatives would take the same stand.

Both America and Canada were built on a foundation of freedom of expression. Although there are differences between the two countries, that bedrock of freedom is a shared pillar. When such a law as the one we are discussing is proposed, it is a very very serious threat to overall freedom. That's how things started to go in Nazi Germany. I say freedom-loving people everywhere should be extremely upset by this proposal and should make lawmakers everywhere aware of it.

And I'll say again: I personally abhor the idea of flag-burning, book-burning, Bible-burning and any such extreme protest medthodology. But I would defend anyone's freedom to protest in that manner if they chose, as repugnant as that choice may be.

That's a price that true freedom exacts: we have to put up with the lunatic fringe and the hate-mongers amongst us.

Just a note: typing too fast for accuracy. Sorry about the typos above. "uncridled" should be "unbridled", etc. Sigh.....

Now I can set you straight on something: Liberals do not hate the flag, nor do they hate the Bible."
--------

OK, now let me set YOU straight -- Liberals DO hate the flag, and they hate the Bible.

Let a Koran be flushed down a toilet, and there is a deafening uproar from liberals: THIS IS WRONG! THIS IS UNACCEPTABLE!

But let someone try to STOP a Bible from being burned, and liberals are quick to find "reasons" that we MUST allow the burning of Bibles, or the republic will fall.

Liberals do indeed hate both flag and Bible -- they just can't say so outright, for fear of public revulsion.

Den: Or maybe you just need to realize that the English language as spoken in the US is a consistently growing and evolving thing. While not strictly gramatically true, the second potential definition of the word is no less valid, especially considering the number of people who use it in that manner, much like the words "Xerox" or "Kleenex." While not precise in any case where a product of another brand is being used, they've become such a part of the language that nobody gets into a snit about it.

However, let's look at it from another angle. The actual term used most often in relation to the bill in question is "UNconstitutional," the definition of which is, "Not in accord with the principles set forth in the constitution of a nation or state." So we have a minor paradox. What do you call it when a constitutional amendment is in direct opposition to the overriding principles of that constitution?

-Rex Hondo-

"And I'll say again: I personally abhor the idea of flag-burning, book-burning, Bible-burning and any such extreme protest medthodology. But I would defend anyone's freedom to protest in that manner if they chose, as repugnant as that choice may be."
--------------

And I'm "sure" you would fight for the right to flush a Koran down the toilet to, much as it would offend you.

Right?

Or maybe you just need to realize that the English language as spoken in the US is a consistently growing and evolving thing. While not strictly gramatically true, the second potential definition of the word is no less valid,

No, the usage is incorrect. The fact that people misuse it doesn't make it correct. "Kleenex" and "Xerox" are brand names and any writer will tell you that these companies spend a lot of effort making sure they aren't used genericly in print.

What do you call it when a constitutional amendment is in direct opposition to the overriding principles of that constitution?

Prohibition.

Seriously, if you're going to take that stand, then the amendment ending slavery is "in direct opposition to the overriding principles of that constitution." After all, slavery was considered to be perfectly in line with the principles of the men of drafted the constitution.

Ugh. Typing too fast too late at night. That should be "men who drafted the constitution."

Yes, because prohibition worked so well, too...

Also, we're not talking about the principles of the men who wrote the Constitution, but rather the ideals for which it stands, something bigger than a mere piece of paper with laws on it.

Whatever those corporations have done to protect their brand names, and whatever the dictionary definition of the word is, that doesn't change the general usage of the word. I'm all for speaking precisely, but I learned long ago that expecting it of anyone else is, by and large, a lost cause. I figure if you know what they mean, just go from there, because if you try to correct them, whatever discussion there might have been gets lost in the wrestling over vocabulary.

-Rex Hondo-

X-Ray wrote:
"And I'm "sure" you would fight for the right to flush a Koran down the toilet to, much as it would offend you.

Right?"

Actually I would, even though (as you agreed earlier) burning Bibles and flushing Korans are both abhorrent acts.

Oh yes, don't forget to identify yourself by name. Nothing to fear in doing so and it lends legitimacy to your viewpoints.

"A fanatic is one who can't change his mind and won't change the subject." Winston Churchill

I rest my case.

"All the ACLU has ever done is remove religious symbols from public places"

And to be clear, they fight for the removal of government-placed and supported religious symbols from government lands. They fight for the right of private citizens to have their own religious symbols in places of public access.

Keeping the government out of the religion business serves to protect the religious freedom of all. It is opposed by those who think that their religion is too weak to be accepted without government force behind it.

What is freedom? The present administration seems to think of it as their freedom to do what they want, call it what they want, and ignore the consequences for real people. They continue to increase their control over individuals, states, and non-global corporations. This is further evidence that Mr. Bush is neither a Republican nor a conservative; he is a global corporatist. See skolnicksreport.com for a long history of the control wielded by corporations and the rich and powerful. Thank God they know what is best for us. The normal average Americans can't afford Freedom anymore anyway. Americans can't afford to retire because the corporations are not forced to honor pension obligations. We cannot afford to stay healthy because of government supported drugopolies. We have to pay for obscene tax cuts for the rich foreign entities that ignore their obligations through offshore smoke and mirrors. We can't afford to exercise what freedom of speech because we are working two jobs apiece and we are powerless next to the one-eyed Cyclops of the mediopoly. Evidenced by the Huffington pieces. Will we face incarceration if we write about Mr. Bush Precedent Bush instead of President Bush? Should cartoonist fear for their lives if they caricature any of our keepers? Dare we refer to Cheney as the President of vice? Perhaps he should be impeached first for far exceeding the authority of his office.

I have seen the best lives of my generation dishonored, demeaned, and marginalized by capitalistic greed and skullduggery. When it comes to Freedom, the controllers would have us believe like Wayne and his friend: we are not worthy. The flag is a symbol of Freedom not the vessel of Freedom. Current events are merely an extension of the crusade we began in the Middle East and the flag is our modern Holy Grail. Let us not kill or injure each other for a logo. Our only hope may lie in a new cottage industry: the manufacturing of flags with the Presidential Seal. Will we have the courage to burn them when appropriate?

Unlike, say, "Hate speech" laws

There are no "hate speech" laws in the US, though they exst in some countries. Here, hate speech (that doesn't constitute "fighting words") is protected like any other speech. There are "hate crime" laws in the US, which increase penalties for bias-MOTIVATED violent crimes. I don't particualrly like these laws (in part because they have been used disproportionately to prosecute minorities!) but they are not limitations on speech. A person can use any sort of slur they want, but if he uses one WHILE BEATING SOMEONE UP, he may get extra time on his sentance.

Now, if you use offensive language at work, your employer may take issue, but that isn't the same as having the government prohibit speech.

QUESTIONS FOR X-RAY, PART ONE

Sorry to come so late to the thread, but it appears it's still going on. Mostly, I have three or four questions for X-Ray, which I'll present, to the best of my ability, cordially, in three or four consecutive posts.

1. X-Ray, please excuse the possibly personal question, but do you ever have a disagreement with someone without questioning their honesty or motives? From the way you interact with people here, it seems as if you honestly believe that anyone who disagrees with you politically is a liar and/or traitor. Most reasonable people -- conservative, liberal, moderate (heck, even some radicals on both sides) -- are able to disagree with people without calling them liars. If someone posts something with which I disagree, I might respond that "I disagree, for the following reasons ..." or "I believe you're mistaken, and here's why ..." It wouldn't occur to me to call someone a liar just because they disagree.
But, and I admit I'm only seeing your online persona as you represent it on PAD's blog-comments, it seems that in your world there's no such thing as honest disagreement. PAD posts a comparison between Bush and Kerry's grades and uses the term "exponential" incorrectly -- but according to you, he couldn't possibly just be mistaken or using a cololoquial definition of the word: He MUST be LYING! People post that they are offended by flag-burners but would not support a constitutional amendment to criminalize it -- and therefore, they MUST HATE AMERICA.
It's almost as if you believe there is only one honest way to view any issue -- yours -- and if anybody disagrees, they aren't doing so out of honest disagreement, but out of malice, out of deception: They're liars and traitors. X-Ray, people of good will have disagreed on issues since the beginning of the republic: Look at the Founding Fathers. Jefferson and Adams disagreed on numerous issues, as did Jefferson and Hamilton, Hamilton and Adams, Adams and Franklin, etc. etc. Are you going to call any of these men liars and traitors?
Is this truly what you think: that anyone who disagrees with you, ever, is a liar and a traitor? And if so, why?

QUESTIONS FOR X-RAY, PART TWO

Regarding the flag issue, let me preface: I'm a moderate independent who disagrees with considerable portions of both major parties' platforms. I am also a Christian who values my faith, the Bible and Christ. And I value this country, the ideals that prompted its birth, ideals that we haven't always lived up to, but to which we have, at our better moments, strived. And I love and value our flag, as a symbol of that country. I find it stupid and offensive for someone to burn the flag in disrespect. It's stupid because it's so provocative that whatever point the burner is trying to make gets lost -- the message that he/she conveys, whether intending to or not, is rejection of America. And it's genuinely offensive because -- as you have said -- the flag means a great deal to a great many people, including myself.

All that said, I would not support a constitutional amendement to make flag-burning illegal. I'll explain why in my next paragraph -- but X-Ray, you probably won't pay any attention. You posted above something to the effect that no matter what rationale anyone gives, if they don't support the amendment, they HATE AMERICA. (If I'm mischaracterizing your statement, I apologize, but that certainly seemed to be the tenor of your statements.) But anyway, here's why:

Like I said, flag-burning is offensive. So is Bible desecration and Koran desecration and desecration of anything that means a lot to people. But simply offending people is not, can't be a crime, or else we would ALL be in prison. My goodness, almost anything any of us do or say is offensive to someone out there. If you amend the Constitution to say, in effect, Congress shall make no law restricting freedom of speech EXCEPT FOR FLAG-BURNERS -- what's next? What "offensive" expression gets criminalized next? Did you ever consider that it could get turned around and used on you? Example: You've posted here that there is nothing wrong with public religious expression, and I agree with you -- heck, I make public religious expressions. (Now, taxpayer-funded, that's a whole 'nother issue but beside the point here.) Some people out there are offended at any mention of faith in the public sphere. Should they be able to have THAT criminalized with a constitutional amendment -- making us criminals if we ever mention God? But the fact is, if you set a precedent -- that expression offending some people can be silenced by a constitutional amendment -- that precedent is going to be used again and again. And pretty soon, any word our of any of our mouths -- yours, mine, anyone's -- will be illegal. Is this alarmist? Maybe. I prefer to take the First Amendment as it stands.

But of course, none of that matters to you. I oppose the amendment, so I must HATE AMERICA. Furthermore, I must have just made up everything in that last paragraph as a smokescreen. But I assure you, X-Ray, that's how I genuinely feel.

What do you think?

QUESTIONS FOR X-RAY, PART THREE

Next question: You accuse people who oppose the amendment of "contortions of misapplied and twisted logic" -- essentially saying that they're coming up with fanciful, complicated, labyrinthine, pretzel-like reasons for their position. And of course, to you, anything anybody says is a lie, because anyone who disagrees with you hates America.

Whatever. But the basic argument doesn't seem so contorted or twisted to me. The basic argument people are making here is best summed up by the Voltaire (I think) quote someone cited above: "I may not agree with a word you say, but I will defend to the death your right to say it."

What's so hard to grasp about that? What's so "contorted"?

I'm not a big fan of Voltaire (though, according to you saying "I'm not a big fan of" means "I support wholeheartedly," which I don't get at all). But that quote I've always held as one of the wisest things ever said, and it seems a distillation of what this country -- any democratic republic, but especially this one -- is all about.

What do YOU think of that Voltaire quote? What's your opinion of the basic concept expressed?

And do you TRULY beieve that people who disagree with you are liars and America-haters? Really? Honestly? Is the concept of honest disagreement really THAT foreign to you? If so, how did you get to be that way?

QUESTIONS FOR X-RAY, PART FOUR

(Last one, I promise! Sorry to take up so much space here, everyone.)

Finally, X-Ray, you often write that PAD and others treat you contemptuously, hatefully, haughtilly and disdainfully. There may be some truth to that -- and I hope that I've been polite to you. But please think: Who started it?

Respect and cordiality is something we EARN. Here's a question: Look back over your posts to PAD's blog over the past couple weeks. Have you ever ONCE even made ONE post that wasn't rude, sarcastic, insulting or accusatory? Have you made even ONE post that was polite and civil and collegial? Did you ever ONCE post, "Hey, PAD -- or Glenn, or Craig, etc. -- I think you're mistaken there, and here's why..." I may be missing one -- I don't check PAD's blog every hour or every day -- but ever since PAD's Bush-Kerry-Yale post, I don't recall you ever making one post that wasn't rude, in which you didn't insult people, or call them liars, or dismiss their arguments by saying, "You're making that up; the real reason you feel that way is YOU HATE AMERICA." (That's a paraphrase.)

I would urge you to reflect: Civility works both ways.

I don't think you're a bad person, X-Ray. I respect your views, I probably even share some of them, and those I don't I would defend to the death your right to express, etc. etc. But I wish you showed the same respect to others.

Again, I ask: Do you believe it's possible for someone to honestly disagree with you without being a liar or traitor?

Do you think I'M a liar? That I hate America?

If so, you're welcome to believe that. But I believe you're mistaken.

At your leisure, please answer my four posts. I am genuinely interested in your responses. I've known many a person of many a political stripe, and have many friends who are deeply conservative -- but I've never seen anyone who called any dissenting opinions "lies." You puzzle me, and I want to see if you've truly thought that out.

With respect,
LDW

My how you do run on. There's no way I'm going to read all that. I don't have the time.

I'll answer one question, "Do you believe it's possible for someone to honestly disagree with you without being a liar or traitor?"

Funny you should ask ME that. I disagree with the liberalism espoused here, and as a result I have been called a blood-thirsty vampire, a control freak, the village idiot, etc etc, and have lately been accused of building a bomb and being dogshit.

But my answer is this: It is not possible to "disagree" with FACTS. And that's what many of the liberals here are lacking ... facts.

I'm here to wise them up.

James Carter: 'A fanatic is one who can't change his mind and won't change the subject.' --Winston Churchill"
----------------

Translation: James Carter likes people who never ever change their minds for any reason, and who can't focus on a single subject.

In other words, he likes LIBERALS!

To X-Ray:
Well, if you had bothered to read my posts -- and I thought I kept them short -- in one of them I said that the reason people respond so negatively to you ISN'T because of your views; it's HOW you express them: rudely and insultingly. There ARE other conservatives who post here; they write in a polite, civil and cordial manner -- and as a result, people reply in kind. May I humbly suggest: People don't call you that stuff because you DISAGREE -- they call you that stuff because you're OBNOXIOUS, or at least come across that way. Try being civil and polite, and I think you'll find you'll be a lot more effective.
As far as facts go, hey, you're right -- a fact is a fact. The problem is, people can look at the same fact and come to different conclusions about it. I'm not saying they're both right -- at least one's wrong, and maybe they're both wrong. But that doesn't make them LIARS; it makes them MISTAKEN.
Finally, here's a food-for-thought question: It's the radical-leftist politically-correct types who want to ban modes of expression just because people find them offensive. How is your stance on the flag amendment any different than the PC crowd? Doesn't that make YOU a liberal?
Hope this was short enough.

Please don't feed the trolls. They'll only keep coming back to the table begging for more. (As they complain that your food isn't to their liking.)

Karen- I know, I know. I guess I'm a sucker for lost causes -- I always think that I can persuade people, through reason and logic, to be reasonable and civil. It never works, but I always keep trying. I'm a bit of a fool, I guess.

Karen,
I disagree with you on a lot, but I agree that we should not feed the trolls. The troll in question actually seems to make some valid points, but they are lost in the muck of his lapses in logic, his anger and childishness. You actually have a bunch of credibility on this, since you were equally hard on the Left-Leaning Troll Andrew who did nothing but insuly me and others a while back.
The civility level rises when you participate in these discussions.

To L. David Wheeler:

Why in the world should I be civil and polite to people who are accusing me of everything from blood drinking to bomb building? Where are your lengthy posts asking THESE people to be civil to ME? I must have missed them. Or perhaps you think anyone deemed "obnoxious" SHOULD be accused of bomb building and blood drinking etc.

By being sarcastic and brusque, I have made these dull threads explode with controversy! Far preferable to the dull drone of liberal fantasy that prevailed before I got here.

You should be thanking me for making life here more interesting! Instead, scorn is heaped upon me. (I'm quite the tragic figure, eh?)

>>dramatic lightning flash

For goodness' sake. Yes, people shouldn't accuse you or anyone else of blood drinking or bomb building, unless they catch 'em in the act. Happy? But my point is: YOU STARTED IT. You attacked them FIRST, accusing people of being LIARS and TRAITORS. I don't know about you, but I think calling someone a liar and traitor is a lot more serious than calling someone a blood drinker. Maybe they should have turned the other cheek -- but most people, when hit with an unprovoked attack by a stranger, will retaliate. If you had expressed your opinions politely in the first place, they would have responded politely. You chose to be rude, and they responded rudely. Their insults were serious, but you provoked them -- not by your viewpoints, but by your delivery. Can't you understand that?

As for "dull drone of liberal fantasy," you are aware that there are several conservatives who write on this board, right? But strangely, most of them make their points politely. As a result, they are treated politely.

I tend to think life would be a little bit better if every one of us took that to heart -- including senators, congressmen, presidents, etc., of both parties.

Second thing ... So, wait, it seems like you're saying you're CAPABLE of mature argumentation and discourse about issues, but you CHOOSE to be "sarcastic and brusque?" What in the world is gained by that?

I'm sorry, to you and everyone, for harping on this -- but rudeness in discourse drives me crazy.

I'll try not to annoy people further with comments on this thread, since it's traveled afield of the original topic anyway. Good night, all.

"YOU STARTED IT. You attacked them FIRST, accusing people of being LIARS and TRAITORS."
--------------
When people lie or are traitorous, they should be called liars and traitors. What is your problem with that? Just that I should do it "nicely"?

----------------
"You're CAPABLE of mature argumentation and discourse about issues, but you CHOOSE to be "sarcastic and brusque?" What in the world is gained by that?"
-----------------
God are you obtuse.

Not to pour water on everyone's fire on our friend X-Ray, but don't waste your typing time. He apparently is just someone who can't pass a hornet nest without thinking, "Where's my stick?" I really don't believe he's quite the contrarion that he appears, he just likes starting things and watching the reactions. Not quite unlike a guy I work with or my 7 year old nephew who won't so revels in reaction that all attempts to ignore him get thrown out the window when he reaches a certain critical mass.

LDW,
The problem with arguing with logic and reason is that the one you are arguing with must be open to the possiblility that you might have a point to make. When the one you are trying to have a discourse with has closed his mind to the point that nothing else can get in and he can only spew what has entered prior to said closing, you are only knocking your head against the proverbial locked door. Perhaps, with enough time you might break the door down, but what damage are you doing to yourself in the mean time? Find someone who is still open-minded enough to listen to your words without dismissing them before reading.

Jerome,
I find people who argue from insults to be distasteful, whatever their political affiliation. Of course, for most of us, that's like saying "The sky is blue", so this isn't much of a revelation. Thank-you for the kind words. Much of the reason I don't post quite so often anymore is that I am tired of knocking my own head against the locked doors. I cite articles to have them discounted as "liberal media", even as the facts themselves are not disputed. It seems if you knock the messenger enough, the message gets lost. Sources are attacked so we are focused on that instead of the facts. Durbin is a prime example. The attacks on his references obscured the facts that have come out of GITMO. Our military is engaged in torture. To say it is not systemic, and only a few bad low ranking enlisted, does not address that it is/has happened in 2 countries, so far that we know. The Red Cross and Amnesty International are attacked for trying to get these facts out. How many sources are we going to dismiss as unworthy before we decide this is not the America we believe we live in?

Jerome, etc.

Okay, I'll write this plainer.

To make a flag burning amendment:

Step 1. pass amendment changing the first amendment - it must now say that some forms of free speach are no longer protected

Step 2. pass amendment saying that flag burning is not allowed

New Bottom Line: Step 1 will never happen, therefore step 2 will never happen.

The point shouldn't be is it legal or not, ethical or not, logical or not, or even smart or not. The issue is that it was suggested. The government has never hesitated to do things that are unethical,(cutting stem cell research, Gitmo.) illogical ($17,000 toilet seat anyone?) or stupid (WMD's? anyone see any? ooops.) The government has suggested an amendment that outlaws a form (a deplorable, stupid form, but a form nonetheless) of free speech. If it passes, it is only a matter of time before other "objectionable" forms of free speech are banned. The government has often passed laws, or taken part in actions that are against the first amendment or Constitution. (Alien and Sedition acts, Joe McCarthy, Lincoln suspending Habeus Corpus, the Palmer Raids, both Red Scares) The point is is that those laws or actions could be stricken down or stopped by the first amendment. Now you propose changing that. So first goes burning flags, then maybe burning religious texts, then maybe Porn.....and down and down and down till we wake up one morning and the SS is knocking on the door. The first amendment should remain forever unchanged, as it is our first, last, and only line of defense against the religious right, or the wacko liberals who want to outlaw hurting peoples feelings, or anyone who wants to touch a single one of our precious freedoms. The only constitutional amendment involving the first amendment I (or any sane person who REALLY loved freedom) would support is one that said it could never, ever, ever be changed.

Maltomeal, that isn't entirely accurate.

Since a Constitutional amendment is, itself, a part of the Constitution (by definition), it can include the idea that it is an exception to the First Amendment. As I understand it, that is exactly how you're supposed to go about amending an amendment anyway. Otherwise, the Repeal of Prohibition would have required first amending the 18th Amendment...

Unfortunately, this also means that, should this abomination somehow pass both houses of Congress and be ratified by 39 states, it would, by definition, be Constitutional. :-(

http://news.yahoo.com/edcartoons/tedrall;_ylt=AlomPkQ3Wi4YkHtUqrysBu5J_b4F;_ylu=X3oDMTBiMW04NW9mBHNlYwMlJVRPUCUl

Ted Rall puts it nicely. Sorry about including the whole dang thing, but I don't know how to do it with the links.

"The government has never hesitated to do things that are unethical,(cutting stem cell research, Gitmo)."

Cutting stem cell research: The Bush administration is the first to FEDERALLY FUND stem cell research.

Gitmo: A place to imprison people. No matter what they do there, it's nowhere close to chopping off heads on TV. That's what our enemies do.

Got any other distortions you want to try and pass off as universally accepted truth?

U.S. Government admits to torture

http://www.forbes.com/work/feeds/afx/2005/06/24/afx2110388.html

Gitmo: A place to imprison people. No matter what they do there, it's nowhere close to chopping off heads on TV. That's what our enemies do.

So torturing innocent people is okay because the other guy is worse? Well, that should help us will the hearts & minds of the Iraqi people.

Support the U.S. occupiers because we're not as bad as the other guys, who wouldn't be here if we hadn't invaded & plunged your country into chaos.

/scarcasm

On Sunday night, I went on-line and checked what I believe to be my schedule. Everything looks excellent, except I would like to take one more class. If it is still available I would like to take REL 100 Introduction to Biblical Literature, with Kandy M. Queen-Sutherland. The reason I want this class, with this teacher, is that it is available on Tuesdays and Thursdays, days one which I have few or no classes. Those are really the only days I can take classes at all, as all the others are very crowded. I am not sure that that is the correct teacher, but I am sure that is the correct class. If it is not available, could you please tell me so I can find something else to fill the space? I thank you very much for all your time and effort.

Sincerely,

Cary Bleasdale

So torturing innocent people is okay because the other guy is worse?

That seems to be the rationale of many Americans these days, unfortunately.

But then, when your government sanctions rendition, calls anti-torture agreements "quaint", holds people for years on end without charges, what do you expect?

To LDW; I commend you sir for trying to reason with X-Ray in a polite manner, which I also tried but failed to do.

To Karen and Jerome: You're right, but it seemed like a reasonable try to get some in depth discussion going without the extreme responses. Ah well...

Lastly to X-Ray: President Bush did indeed fund some stem cell research. However, there was a codicil to that funding, namely that only the existing stem cell lines could be used, and no new lines could be created. Since the existing lines had pretty much either been compromised or otherwise exhausted, that effectively put a stop to the development of the overall program.

Secondly, I'm sorry you don't feel confident enough to reveal your true identity. This of course decreases the effectiveness of your opinions. It leads me to believe that you're just here to "needle" folks. Therefore, I for one have given up on you and will ignore your future postings until you decide to come forward and identify yourself. Should you do so, I would be happy to continue any reasonable and reasoned discourse on any subject or subjects you choose.

"President Bush did indeed fund some stem cell research. However, there was a codicil to that funding, namely that only the existing stem cell lines could be used, and no new lines could be created. Since the existing lines had pretty much either been compromised or otherwise exhausted, that effectively put a stop to the development of the overall program."
----------------

Wrong! The only limit was that the Federal Government would not do the funding. Private industry is free to do so. The fact that they have not tells the tale. Now, if you don't ever want to respond to me again, then don't! I could care less.

Michael Brunner: "So torturing innocent people is okay because the other guy is worse?"

We are not torturing people!

Michael Brunner: "Support the U.S. occupiers because we're not as bad as the other guys, who wouldn't be here if we hadn't invaded & plunged your country into chaos."

Yes! Support us because we are better than Sadaam, a man who murdered millions of his own people. And we're plunging the country into such "chaos" that the duly-elected Iraqui government just invited us to stay another year.

Question: Is there ANYTHING you like about this wretched country of America we live in?

"When your government sanctions rendition, calls anti-torture agreements "quaint", holds people for years on end without charges, what do you expect?"

Ummm.... I'd expect you to move, if it's so awful here in Gestapo America. How do you STAND it here?

Well, it really was my intent to shut up ... but I'll keep this one short.

X-Ray: "When people lie and are traitorous, they should be called liars and traitors. What is your problem with that?"

No problem at all -- if they really ARE liars and traitors. I haven't seen anyone betray their country on this blog, and I don't think you have either. But your method seems to be to apply those terms to anyone who disagrees with you.

Personally, I think the word "traitor" gets bandied about far too often, and has been ever since the early days of the country, when both major parties (the Republicans and the Federalists) routinely accused each other of selling the country down river to either the French (Repubs) or the British (Feders). The word loses its meaning when it's applied to everyone you don't like, and should probably be kept to legitimate traitors: people who arrange to sell out their country (or movement, or loved one) in exchange for power, like Benedict Arnold, or for money, as in several spy cases, and, of course, Judas Iscariot, the uber-traitor.

"Liar" should probably be reserved for people who have a proven intent to deceive. Just because somebody says something inaccurate doesn't make them a liar -- they may be mistaken. They may be stupid. Or they may be right and you may be wrong. You'll notice I haven't called you a liar.

I DO have a problem with you saying I hate America. Don't remember doing that? REcently you posted something along the lines that anybody who opposes the flag-burning amendment does so for one reason: they hate America. And any reason they give is a lie, something they're making up.

Well, I do oppose the amendment, for the same reason James Carter cited above: If we monkey with the First Amendment -- if we allow exceptions to be made to it -- it's not going to stop. Today it'll be flag-burning ... tomorrow it may be religious expression in public. X-Ray, you and I agree that there is nothing wrong with religious expression in public (I do it myself -- I believe I mentioned somewhere down the line that I'm an evangelical Christian) -- and I don't want to see that outlawed via a constitutional amendment. (And maybe the next year they'll outlaw, oh, blogging.) And this flag amendment, if passed, could open the door to such a scenario, because it signals that the First Amendment is subject to exceptions. Is this scenario likely? Probably not. Is it possible? Sure. Do you really want to take that chance?

I'm curious as to what you think of my line of reasoning: Does it make any sense to you? Am I being paranoid? Am I mistaken? Or am I a liar?

Or am I "obtuse"? :=)

As for flag-burners: Hey, nobody pays any attention to them. By doing something so offensive, they make it certain that any point they have will be disregarded. They're their own worst enemy. Just ignore 'em. Same thing with racists or anybody else offensive: They get off on attention, and they really get off on perceived "martyrhood." Outlaw 'em, and you just make 'em into martyrs. Want to really him they where it counts? Walk right on by.

U.S. Government admits to torture

http://www.forbes.com/work/feeds/afx/2005/06/24/afx2110388.html

Well, if you want to believe anything printed in that notoriously liberal, hippie rag, Forbes...

-Rex Hondo-

Forgot to acknowledge Joe Krolik: Thank you, sir.

And forgot to acknowledge Karen as well: Thanks for your concern -- but it's OK. I'm not beating my head against a wall or anything; life's too short to get upset over these kinds of arguments ... especially with strangers, online. You know, maybe something I say will make people think; maybe it won't; and either way it's OK. I always think that's the best way to approach these kinds of forums.

On Sunday night, I went on-line and checked what I believe to be my schedule. Everything looks excellent, except I would like to take one more class. If it is still available I would like to take REL 100 Introduction to Biblical Literature, with Kandy M. Queen-Sutherland. The reason I want this class, with this teacher, is that it is available on Tuesdays and Thursdays, days one which I have few or no classes. Those are really the only days I can take classes at all, as all the others are very crowded. I am not sure that that is the correct teacher, but I am sure that is the correct class. If it is not available, could you please tell me so I can find something else to fill the space? I thank you very much for all your time and effort.

Sincerely,

Cary Bleasdale

Huh?

I never called anyone specific on this site a traitor. I called Peter David a liar, because he told a lie.

I backed up my charge with proof. In response, I was called the village idiot, and declared unworthy of further comment. (That resolve was almost immediately broken, but never the less.)

Strangely, Peter David has ranted and quoted, but he has yet to deny my charge! Nor has anyone else proven me wrong.

Why? Simple.

I'M RIGHT.

Also classic, and funny.

>>>>dramatic lightning flash

To Rex Hondo -- hey, thanks a bunch for that torture link. The article has no details whatsoever, and doesn't define what "tortures" they are talking about.

Would you mind if I wait for the actual report, not a leaked headline? Somehow, I doubt it will state we are cutting off heads, etc. But for now... that headline alone must have you all giddy like a schoolgirl!

So this is all about that whole "exponential" faux pas?

OK, here we go: You're right about the definition of the word "exponential." He used the word wrong. Sheesh. (Although there probably is more than one definition.)

How does that follow that he's a liar? Does being wrong about something make one a liar? I don't recall any of my old teachers calling me a liar if I got a question wrong on a test. ("You said six times six is fifty! That's a LIE! ADMIT IT!!!")

OK, you didn't call anybody specific on the site a traitor. But you did say that anybody who's against the flag amendment hates America. And hating one's country seems pretty traitorous to me.

Did I misunderstand you? I'm told that I'm kind of obtuse, after all ... :-)

We are not torturing people

BZZZTTT!! WRONG!!

1) The U.S. Government has admitted to it. Read the Forbes article above

2) Bush authorized the torture:
http://www.veteransforcommonsense.org/?Page=Article&ID=2602

a man who murdered millions of his own people

When did it become millions? You claim that you're here to present facts. Let's see you do so for a change. Just making a statement does not make it true. Provide a reliable source.

Question: Is there ANYTHING you like about this wretched country of America we live in?

Show me where I said I didn't like this country. Yes, I am very critical of the current administration , but at no point did I say I didn't like this country.

Once again, it is YOU who is making false claims. You know, lying. Not a good quality for someone who claims he's here to provide the truth

Nor has anyone else proven me wrong.

In this country, the accuser has to prove his charge. The accusee doesn't prove his innocence. You say he's a liar, YOU provide the proof. You have yet to do so.

I never called anyone specific on this site a traitor.

No one specifically, but you have made it clear that you consider anyone who disagrees with you a liar and/or a traitor.

But then again, what can one expect from an uncreative troll?

Just out of curiousity, why does scale make the difference between acceptable and not acceptable?

What I find so alternately amusing and depressing is your assertion that it's ok for us to do it, because they did it first. Sorry, jack, shit don't work that way. There's a reason that they (they, of course, being the terrorists) are called 'extremists'. We (the 'we' in this case being the United States of America, citizenry and government) are not. Yet the policies advocated by people such as yourself and those currently in power most certainly are.

Here are two cold hard facts: chopping heads off of hostages on tv = bad. Government sanctioned torture (and yes, Virgina, it really did/does occur, just listen to the dulcet tones of the US AG Alberto 'Dirty War' Gonzales) whether you are a terrorist or not = bad. You are more than welcome to determine the scale between the two, but one does not justify the other.

Ever.

Now, the circle really is complete.

LDW...I already proved that PAD's use of exponential was accurate. x-ray claims no one's proven him wrong, but I did. He was too dense to understand how I proved him wrong, so he made some silly non-sense noise about my explanation, and continued his little tirade.

Now, I started out trying to ignore him, but it gives me more amusement now to view him like a court Fool...not a jester, but an actual Fool, dressed up in motely, spouting nonsense. And not in a Robin Hobb Fool sense, where the Fool was anything but. He would otherwise be annoying, but he's so clueless about his true stature that you just have to tolerate him.

Some early morning fun for X-Ray:

http://workingforchange.speedera.net/www.workingforchange.com/webgraphics/wfc/TMW05-04-05.jpg

The articles presented for proof of torture didn't say what the torture was.

Things like sleep deprivation are considered "torture" but is okay in my book. I'd need a list of tortures to know if they were torture. Lack of air conditioning? Tough. French food instead of Italian? Tough.

You have to do a little better than "there was torture." Do these guys have to listen to Rosie sing? That's pretty cruel...

Robbnn, what about the increasing reports of Koran abuse? Granted, the administration is shrugging most of these off as SOP for Al Quaeda prisoners, which is mighty convienent. Or having naked women sit on a prisoner during interrogation?

I don't think we need to put prisoners in 4 star hotels. But I'd consider sleep deprivation, temperature extremes, lack of clothing, forced disrobing, and exposure the religiously upsetting events such as seeing your holy book desacrated and being exposed to naked women (which to Muslims is very much a form of torture) all to be forms of torture.

All of which excludes the use of electro-shock on prisoners.

And to go one further, what of the Italian order for the arrest of US CIA agents for the kidnapping of individuals in Italy for the purpose of removing them to another state where they could be tortured?

Even if these are all the allegations of true terrorists, and they really are fabricated, our government has a duty to investigate and refute them. And in a more concrete manner than just posting the menu from Gitmo, which has to be the most laughable thing I've seen in a good long while.

But I'd consider sleep deprivation, temperature extremes, lack of clothing, forced disrobing, and exposure the religiously upsetting events such as seeing your holy book desacrated and being exposed to naked women (which to Muslims is very much a form of torture) all to be forms of torture.

Then I am glad that you are not leading any of our troops. I would hate to have such an easily upset namby pampy crybaby who feels these things are such atrocities get captured by the enemy!

The only thing that I would come close to agreeing with is the naked lady, and not because I think it is torture, but simply because I don't see it as effective or proper.

Then I am glad that you are not leading any of our troops. I would hate to have such an easily upset namby pampy crybaby who feels these things are such atrocities get captured by the enemy!

So let's flip the coin, shall we?

What if we sat down Pat Robertson, and had somebody piss on the Bible in front of him?

Maybe force him to watch a porn video or two?

Yes, alot of it is in the definition. But you have to wonder if there are better ways of getting information than specifically screwing with them based on their religious beliefs.

That one would seem to indicate a distinct lack of respect for the beliefs of others. It doesn't surprise me that'd we do it, but if we're trying to win a war of the hearts and minds, it won't happen by trashing their beliefs.

What if we sat down Pat Robertson, and had somebody piss on the Bible in front of him?

I can't speak for him, but as someone who strongly believes in the Bible, it would upset me for all of a second but I would just think it silly on the part of the idiot doing the pissing. I think applying the misleading term, 'torture', to this action is really off the mark. Calling it mildly offensive to ludicrous would be more accurate. Anyone feeling tortured by such an action should never have become a combatant in the first place.

"I don't think we need to put prisoners in 4 star hotels. But I'd consider sleep deprivation, temperature extremes, lack of clothing, forced disrobing, and exposure the religiously upsetting events such as seeing your holy book desacrated and being exposed to naked women (which to Muslims is very much a form of torture) all to be forms of torture."

When you call things like nudity (of one's self or of someone else) torture, your argument loses a LOT of power. I'm a fan of hyperbole myself, but I've found it's rarely an effective debate tool. It usually gets people to my side in the short term, but when they're underwhelmed by the reality, they tend to dismiss all my points.

To be honest, I'd like to think that we'd never stoop even to these sorts of things, but they're a far cry from torture. On the other hand, there has to be a balance between what we consider "civilized" behavior and the safety of the American people (whether civilians or military).

I'm all for having a strict policy of regular reviews on Gitmo and similar installations, provided that the reviewers balance a desire to treat our prisoners with respect and the knowledge that we may sometimes be forced to do distasteful things to protect our people (civilians or military). The Democrats who're calling for a review of these types of facilities would be much better received by those of us who're right-leaning if they'd tone down the rhetoric a bit.

"We are not torturing people BZZZTTT!! WRONG!!"

As I said, the link provided has no details whatsoever, and doesn't define what "tortures" they are talking about. Would you mind if I wait for the actual report, not a leaked headline? (Or, you could just ignore me and keep reposting a meaningless link.)

"A man who murdered millions of his own people. When did it become millions ... Provide a reliable source."

You are right! I should have said "destroyed the lives of millions," and actually ENDED the lives of "only" a paltry few hundred thousand. Sorry, I realize now that only killing a few hundred thousand is perfectly OK.

"Show me where I said I didn't like this country."

OK -- you linked to an "interesting article about "The Blasphemy Of Flag Worship," and elsewhere say, "the flag is equally 'just some cloth.' " The flag is the symbol of our country, by the way, the Koran is not.

'I never called anyone specific on this site a traitor.' No one specifically, but you have made it clear that you consider anyone who disagrees with you a liar and/or a traitor."

Untrue! Show me where I did that.

But then again, what can one expect from an uncreative troll?

I'll keep reading your posts to find out!

"x-ray claims no one's proven him wrong, but I did."
---------

Only in your own mind! In fact, it is impossible to prove me wrong on this without totally redefining the word "exponential." Many here have tried, but for some reason, the dictionary just does not seem to be responding!

To any serious individual, it should be obvious that a small, meaningless increase in a grade in NOT an "exponential" raise. No matter how you slice it, exponential DOES mean "a lot"! A VERY lot!

Case closed. Again.

>>>dramatic lightining flash!!!

I think applying the misleading term, 'torture', to this action is really off the mark.

Well, I never called *this* set of circumstances torture, although I still think we're guilty of torture with actual methods (such as physical torture).

I mean, look at those pictures of Abu Ghraib. Does that constitute torture, no matter your religious or political beliefs?

To L. David Wheeler: You wrote:
" Same thing with racists or anybody else offensive: They get off on attention, and they really get off on perceived "martyrhood." Outlaw 'em, and you just make 'em into martyrs. Want to really [annoy] him they where it counts? Walk right on by."

That's what I'm doing in future.

But thanks for the acknowledgment.

Incidentally, I wholeheartedly endorse your careful and reasoned presentation of interesting and meaningful points. Most enjoyable.

OK, so abusing something that hold deep intense meaning to a person in front of them is not torture.

How about a pet? Or a relative?

Main Entry: 1tor·ture
Pronunciation: 'tor-ch&r
Function: noun
Etymology: French, from Late Latin tortura, from Latin tortus, past participle of torquEre to twist; probably akin to Old High German drAhsil turner, Greek atraktos spindle
1 a : anguish of body or mind : AGONY b : something that causes agony or pain
2 : the infliction of intense pain (as from burning, crushing, or wounding) to punish, coerce, or afford sadistic pleasure
3 : distortion or overrefinement of a meaning or an argument

Anguish of body or MIND. Why do you think our "interrogation" techniques include things like this? Because we want to look stupid before the rest of the world? No, because we think they will be effective. And we think that because we know that many militant islamics are highly religous, and desecrating the Koran and violating their principles, such as seeing a naked female, will highly offend them. And we're doing so to cause them anguish.

And even if you (HAM) disregard all of the above as forms of torture, what's your view of using electro-shock on prisoners? Or is that something that only a "namby-pamby" would be upset by?

How about this: We capture YOU, HAM, and tie you up, naked, in a cell, deprive you of sleep, turn the temp up to 100, then down to 40, each hour, and finally, when we come to question you, we find your most prized possession in the world and destroy it before your eyes when you don't tell us there are 5 lights? You want to call that just an interrogation, or is that torture?

Maybe you're glad that I'm not out leading our troops (although something tells me I'd be far more effective than you are), but I'M glad that you're not calling the shots in terms of how to treat prisoners. You think, just because the torture we ARE using isn't as bad as racking someone, it's OK. Which is like saying that only killing 10 people, instead of 100, is OK. Or only stealing a little is ok.

X-Ray...you appear to have learned well the Bush Administration trick of repeating something, regardless of whether it's true or accurate, over and over, in the hopes that people will eventually come to believe you. You should take heed of Bush's slipping approval rating...people will only fall for that trick once every so often, and eventually, they just stop listening.

Bobb,

No, I'm sorry, I don't consider that torture. I wouldn't condone it in a criminal prison, but in a terrorist/POW camp where the prisoner has information that can save lives, then yes, all of those things are acceptable.

For what it's worth, as a Christian I have seen a Bible torn up and burned. It didn't put me in anguish. I've seen porn and while I think it is wrong, I'd be fibbing if I said a certain amount of pleasure didn't accompany it.

The naked woman I object to for her sake, not the prisoner's.

Electro shock is wrong. Any physical harm is too UNLESS immediate knowledge is required to save lives immediately. The colonel who scared the living crap out of a combatant and fired a gun by his ear? No problems with that in the heat of war where any engagement can mean the death of our guys. That he was even reprimanded was ridiculous.

As for the AG pictures, ridicule and abuse for the fun of it is wrong. This was an aberation, not the norm.

Look, war is yucky, no question. You fight hard to end it as quickly as possible. Honor on a battlefield can be a slippery concept, and dainty rules of conduct can handcuff our guys.

Torture is electro shock, amputation, bodily abuse of irreversible nature, and death. We shouldn't be involved with any of that, but making someone uncomfortable isn't nice, but neither is war.

"Huh?"

sorry, Ham and everyone. Copy of an E-mail sent to me that I cut and pasted in the wrong box, most likely due to sleep deprivation.

Ok. Here is my issue. I may have posted this before, but I have been VERY sleep deprived, so I am not sure. (last minute stuff, you know) Anyway. If these people at Gitmo are NOT POW's, then it seems that they must, legally, be classified as Civilians. Now, if I go to England and kill someone, I am tried there, likewise (I am almost sure) if an englishman kills ME while I am there. Thus, If these people are enemy civilians, (IE NON-pow's, most likely accused of murder) then they should be tried in the country in which the crime took place. It seems to me that unless these people are classified as POW's, and thus subject to the Geneva convention, that they are still Civilians, in a country I don't think we have declared war on. Thus, you could almost make out a case for kidnapping. They should at least be held and tried in Iraq. perhaps one of the lawyers on here could comment? I gleaned this info second-hand, so it might be inaccurate. thanks!

Bah. X-Ray, everything you stand for dishonors America. Your perpetual name-calling and accusations of treason. Your repetition of meaningless slogans. Your defense of an administration that dishonors its own military and POINTS IT OUT.

Shame. And what's worst: you KNOW that conservatives are on top. So why are you here, attacking "liberals?" To kick them when they're down?

You're bad news, man. This kind of trolling has been out of style since 1992. You're about as current as the movie "Hackers."

Good luck with your life, such as it is. Good luck with the PRIDE you have in an administration that revels in failure. Michael Savage is an idiot, by the way.

How about a pet? Or a relative?

And when, exactly, did we do either, and if not then how is it relevant?

And even if you (HAM) disregard all of the above as forms of torture, what's your view of using electro-shock on prisoners? Or is that something that only a "namby-pamby" would be upset by?

To answer the first, it would is upsetting but not entirely wrong. To answer the second, mostly.
How about this: We capture YOU, HAM, and tie you up, naked, in a cell, deprive you of sleep, turn the temp up to 100, then down to 40, each hour, and finally, when we come to question you, we find your most prized possession in the world and destroy it before your eyes when you don't tell us there are 5 lights? You want to call that just an interrogation, or is that torture?

See, I have never been a terrorist militant, and my days of serving the military are long past, so really there would be nothing to gain from interrogation or torturing me.

But, yes, I have no problems with anything you suggest being done to gain information, especially when by all reports some aspects of your description are exaggerated and by the fact that the destruction of an material object does not in any way constitute torture except to those who lack common sense. These prisoners chose to be terrorists, combatants, insergents, what-have-you and they should be treated as such.

(although something tells me I'd be far more effective than you are)

Based on what exactly? A couple of responses, as opposed to your several responses that one can easily surmise your leadership and military skills.

You think, just because the torture we ARE using isn't as bad as racking someone, it's OK

Your words, not mine.

What exactly constitutes fair treatment of enemy combatants who do not fall under the Geneva Convention? What would be acceptable to you? Seems to me, the only thing that you would find acceptable is maid service and a mint on the pillow.

James Carter:
"It seems to me that unless these people are classified as POW's, and thus subject to the Geneva convention, that they are still Civilians, in a country I don't think we have declared war on."

Actually, there is a third term that differentiates them from "civilians" and "POWs": "Illegal Combatants." They're considered to be soldiers who violated the standard "rules" of war (which is why Geneva no longer applies to them). I'd recommend that you read Bill Whittle's Sanctuary (if links don't work here, the address is http://www.ejectejecteject.com/archives/000125.html). I never really got why the out-of-uniform combatants were such a problem until reading that.

Wow, Ham, I guess I underestimated your ability to see into the hearts of men. I mean, to be able to size up a person based on a few comments they post...I have to admit, I'd follow you into combat...

Which, based on your leap of my abilities based on an extrememly small amount of information, would undoubtedly lead to my, and the entire company's, death. You exhibit the same mentality that has entrenched us in what will likely be a never-ending struggle against Iraqi insurgents. Just like Rumsfeld stating that he would be surprised if the Iraqi action lasted more than 6 months, you would leap to an assumption based on information that is meaningless in value to your actual mission.

But, it'll be ok. When you get captured, don't worry, your keepers will only do silly and abusive things to you. You won't be tortured.

Robbnn, there's no reason to apologize. Whatever we call it, I do respect the opinion that agrees to the practice. I don't agree, of course, but I can't argue with the way you present your reasons, unlike some here.

And where is the trial proving they deserve the classification "Ilegal Combatants"?

Also, it IS torture! Besides, who says any of them know anything? Especially having been there so long? Our troops are torturing with no proof that they have any answers to give.

And let's be honest with ourselves... if the victims don't tell their torturers exactly what they want to hear, do you think this administration is going to listen? NO, they'll just claim that the victims are resisting the "interrogation" techniques and say they need to do more. Which is really convenient for the torturers to keep on doing it with no end in sight... it's not like the uncovicted prisoners at Gitmo HAVE any information that the administration wants, or at least wants to hear an/or admit to the American people...

Wow, Ham, I guess I underestimated your ability to see into the hearts of men. I mean, to be able to size up a person based on a few comments they post

Wow, back at you, I responded the way I did because you were the one that tried to size me up based on one post.

Wow is right, you sure can spin things!

Way to avoid answering any questions!

But please keep presenting hyperbole, strawmen, and slippery slope examples as facts and ignoring anything else.

And where is the trial proving they deserve the classification "Ilegal Combatants"

The mere fact that they are violating the standard rules of war set by the Geneva Convention is proof enough. There is no reason for a trial to prove the are illegal combatants, they are by definition alone. There can be a trial for war crimes, but it doesn't have to happen to detain these illegal combatants. Are we supposed to offer bail and let them go? Name me one war where the trials for war crimes happened while the war was still being waged.

I wouldn't condone it in a criminal prison, but in a terrorist/POW camp where the prisoner has information that can save lives, then yes, all of those things are acceptable.

And what kind of information do these guys have when they've been locked up for years?

I'd venture this answer: not much.

Thanks Robin, I see the mans point. I still disagree with Gitmo, but there is a definate point to be made for the idea of Illegal Combatants. However, what is going on at Gitmo, whether it is really torture, is a step too close to it for comfort. I refer you to Zimbardo's famous prison experiment, more on which can be found here:http://www.prisonexp.org/
If that is the result caused by only a few days of imprisonment, with NO encouragement to do anything even remotely close to torture, then what could happen in an enviorment where torture, or near-torture, or a step close to torture (depending on your point of view) is encouraged? Especially when you already have a good reason to hate the prisoners? And you can pass of any torture under the guise of "getting information?" Just a thought.

And all of this hair-splitting as to what should or should not be considered "torture" neatly bypasses one of the main reasons no professional interrogator would use it: Torture tends to produce unreliable information. Often, the victim will say whatever he thinks will make his captors stop. For instance, check the Grand Inquisition, when a "heretic" put to the question would eventually happily agree that he had been serving barbecued babies to Satan, if it'd stop the Inquisitors from pulling out any more fingernails...

Actually, Jonathon, I already tried that tack in one of my prior posts...torture/abuse/stress situations...whatever you want to call it, the information you get as a result is unreliable. The only way to get reliable information is to offer some incentive/reward to the prisoner. Consider this: most of these people are willing to die for their cause...what good is it going to do to torture them? The only thing that would possibly work is to use drugs to alter their state of mind, and that is even less effective than conventional torture.

"The mere fact that they are violating the standard rules of war set by the Geneva Convention is proof enough."

Who says they violated anything?

Sorry, there has to be proof they did somethimg wrong jsut to detain them, I don't buy this "Oh, we think they're terrorists so they get no trials to prove they're "Illegal Combatants" or anything"-bullshit.

America preaches that it's better than that, but we seem to use the same dictatorship tactics when it suits us, and Gitmo is just another example...

Why does the rest of the world hate America so much? Because we don't practice a word of what we preach..."Do as we say...not as we do."

Let's see, Ham's questions: I actually did explain why my leadership and military skills are most likely more effective than yours...or at least leadership. Military skills cover such wide gamut, and have no bearing on the ability to type and hit "post."

Speaking of not answering a question...

"How about a pet? Or a relative?

And when, exactly, did we do either, and if not then how is it relevant?"

I had thought the relevance was apparant...the point being, how far is too far? If it's not too much to threaten or destroy objects, what about other such property like pets or livestock? And if that's ok, why not people? Can we threaten a detainee's family? Take their land? How far is too far, and when do you start asking questions of your administration to prevent them from going too far? I prefer to not start down that road at all, rather than not ask questions at first, only to find that you're halfway to Hell before you decide to speak up.

"What exactly constitutes fair treatment of enemy combatants who do not fall under the Geneva Convention? What would be acceptable to you? Seems to me, the only thing that you would find acceptable is maid service and a mint on the pillow."

Well, this is a loaded question. Fair treatment? I'd say the same treatment as afforded in the Geneve Conventions. They are supposed to reflect a higher moral standard of civilized nations and the equitible treatment of prisoners and cilvilians during times of war. Why don't they have anything for enemy combatants? Because, in my opinion, when the GC were written, most sane people considered what we call "enemy combatants" to be criminals...and thus subject to the regular rights and protections all criminals are afforded.

Today, of course, our administration has created a new status, and of course we've destroyed and replaced the governments that might have spoken for these enemy combatants.

As to maid service and such, I did explicitly state that I didn't expect 4 star hotel service. But to be totally clear, I think the same treatment we afford our criminal suspects and convictees is what we should apply to the detainees.

Our country is supposed to founded on the ideals that all men (people) are created equal, and that all people have inherant rights and freedoms imbued within them by their creator. Our abuse, even if it doesn't reach the level of torture, of detainees is an act of wanton destruction of the core beliefs this country was founded on.

hey bobb,

i don't condone torture of prisoners by the US. We're better then that, but in regard to your statement: "most of these people are willing to die for their cause...what good is it going to do to torture them".

my guess that a suicide bomber blowing himself up is relatively quick & painless & are probably dead in a second. torture however, can cause pain. conviction can only carry a person so much before they spill their intell.

let's say, as an example that you are ready to die for marvel comics. now lets say dc comes along and captures you. now they ask you questions and you refuse. then they pluck you fingernails, cut fingers, remove an ear. how long b4 you say MAKE MINE DC. ideals only go so much vs pain.

people are willing to die so long as they expect it to be quick. no one wants to deal w/ pain.

joe v.

"No, I'm sorry, I don't consider that torture. I wouldn't condone it in a criminal prison, but in a terrorist/POW camp where the prisoner has information that can save lives, then yes, all of those things are acceptable."

Torture doesn't get you solid intell. Torture doesn't get somebody to say anything you can take at even 70% face value. Torture intel doesn't save lives or make us safer because of that. Anybody who knows their intel game and knows the tricks of the trade will tell you the same thing. Therefore, the only reason to support torture is if you want to show how sick and twisted you can be or how uninformed you are about the subject.

There is no reason we should have a government that is redefining the meanings of torture to use it or smiling upon its use. So many on the right like to say that we're the good guys. Explain to me how these same people seem to believe that the good guys can torture people just because they can get away with it and still be good guys. Me, I think that we are the good guys but are stuck with people in charge aren't and who will be looked at decades from now in the history books as a stain on this country and what it stands for. I can't wait for America to wake up and sweep them out of their offices so that we can start being the good guys again.

Craig,

If we have no reason to believe they have information, then no "torture" is necessary. I am well aware of the depravity of all human beings that allows individuals to take pleasure in abusing people for the fun of it; it's my expectation that officers are trained to prevent this kind of thing.

Bobb, when speaking of giving them the same accords as criminal prisoners, you run into the problem of their lawyer being able to carry information out of the holding facility. If these people are dangerous, then I direct you to the running of the mafia from behind prison bars by using the lawyers as mouthpieces as a case history of why allowing this would be dangerous. The only way to prevent that is to wait until the war is over and whatever cells they may lead or serve are powerless.

Not a big fan of torture, myself. Throw me in with the we're-better-than-that and it-doesn't-work groups, but this whole thread brings up an interesting point. What do we mean when we say torture? Or ethics? OR, for that matter, glory? That's the problem with using these words, or with burning a flag. They mean different things to different people. Force some people to eat a nice juicy burger and according to their society, it's torture. Of the person and the cow. Me, it's just a nice lunch.

Flag burning falls into the same category. Get three colors of fabric, where if they were anywhere else they'd be a t-shirt, make them into a flag, they become a symbol. A representation of something. If you harm a representation, you do no harm to what it represents. We should be more concerned with solving the problems with what's being represented than worrying so much about the representative.

Hendrix: "Good luck with the PRIDE you have in an administration that revels in failure."
-------------

When did I ever say I had pride in the Carter administration?

"When did I ever say I had pride in the Carter administration?"

How about the Grant through McKinley, and the Harding, Coolidge, Jhonson, Nixon, Ford and Bush Sr administrations? What did those Republicans accomplish? and I am just going by the ones who are the MODERN ones, and not the ones who had the politics, but not the name. I never saw such a bunch o'dunces in my life! Wars, corruption, lying, screwing over the people. Hell, at least Carter is a great MAN if a bad president. Who is your greatest leader in my list? Nixon? Yeah, I bet. It seems to be quite the Republican trait to lie when they are wrong. Or Harding? Widely considered to be the second most corrupt president after Nixon? He was never president of course, but maybe you, like Ann Coulter, admire the late "Uncle" Joe McCarthy?
Do enlighten us to his many virtues. Please. I didn't know it was possible to find virtue in jingoistic, Constitution shredding schmucks myself, but, whatever floats your boat, Pal. Oh, and name one thing Captain Shrub has done right.

X-ray, I'm pleased to see that you didn't bother to deny the rest.

Address James Carter. His points are valid.

Address James Carter. His points are valid.

Well, they are valid if you are ignorant of history and also believe that Johnson was a Republican.

To dismiss Nixon's accomplishments due to mistakes he made out of paranoia and not corruption, shows a complete lack of understanding of history and demonstrates a close-minded bias.

You are right, I missed that part.

Nixon was in an ugly position and did his best. Vietnam wasn't his idea; he might have ended it sooner, but certainly it wasn't a Republican president who started the war. Some sympathy is in order for the man; who wouldn't get a little paranoid?

I actually think there's merit to the idea of Carter as a man too moral for the office of the president. That's just a bummer. And if that helicopter had gotten off the ground so it could fly to Iran, history would remember Carter in an entirely different way.

I am well aware of the depravity of all human beings that allows individuals to take pleasure in abusing people for the fun of it; it's my expectation that officers are trained to prevent this kind of thing.

Well, again, we have Abu Ghraib to show that somewhere, something is lacking, whether it's on an individual level, or in our command structure.

In the end though, it seems that there are enough people out there in this country that finds the "any means necessarily" method of getting information from these guys, including torturing them.
Comments from the Administration, and reports from a variety of sources, aren't helping either.

"How about the Grant through McKinley, and the Harding, Coolidge, Johnson, Nixon, Ford and Bush Sr administrations? What did those Republicans accomplish?"

You know as much about the Presidency as you do about the Republican party. First Hint: Johnson was a Democrat. Second hint: You forgot someone. His name was Ronald something, I think....

"Hell, at least Carter is a great MAN if a bad president."

I agree. Unfortunately, he was not elected to be a "great man," but a President. And as President, he was a royal fuck-up.

"Oh, and name one thing Captain Shrub has done right."

He got you to hate him. That's one!

Joe V., I agree with almost everything you say. Everyone has their pain tolerance...for some, it's so high that they weill die from the most extreme torture before the break. but there's a difference between breaking, and giving up any information of value to your captors.

DC could certainly torture me to the point of getting me to say "make mine DC." Or "Captain American throws like a girl." Or anything else they wanted me to say (personlly, I'd probably just skip the whole torture/pain thing and be ready to tatoo the DC Bullet on my forhead to keep my fingernails).

But the point is, all I've done is *broken*. I've not given up the secret of House of M to DC.

Admittedly, there are some that torture will work on. Not everyone is so devoted to their convictions that they're willing to die, or undergo extreme amounts of pain, for a cause. But I would say that people willing to go to war, or to die as a suicide bomber, as so devoted to their convictions that no amount of torture will do more than break them. They may indeed tell you that there are 5 lights, but will they ever give up any useful information? Probably not.

If history has told us anything about torture, it's that it's more about the jailors exacting revenge on the prisoners than it is about getting useful information out of them.

How about the Grant through McKinley, and the Harding, Coolidge, Jhonson, Nixon, Ford and Bush Sr administrations? What did those Republicans accomplish?

Grant:

Lincoln appointed him General-in-Chief in March 1864. Grant directed Sherman to drive through the South while he himself, with the Army of the Potomac, pinned down Gen. Robert E. Lee's Army of Northern Virginia.

Finally, on April 9, 1865, at Appomattox Court House, Lee surrendered. Grant wrote out magnanimous terms of surrender that would prevent treason trials.

As President, Grant presided over the Government much as he had run the Army. Indeed he brought part of his Army staff to the White House.

Hayes:

Hayes insisted that his appointments must be made on merit, not political considerations. For his Cabinet he chose men of high caliber, but outraged many Republicans because one member was an ex-Confederate and another had bolted the party as a Liberal Republican in 1872.

Hayes pledged protection of the rights of Negroes in the South, but at the same time advocated the restoration of "wise, honest, and peaceful local self-government." This meant the withdrawal of troops.

Garfield:

As President, Garfield strengthened Federal authority over the New York Customs House, stronghold of Senator Roscoe Conkling, who was leader of the Stalwart Republicans and dispenser of patronage in New York. When Garfield submitted to the Senate a list of appointments including many of Conkling's friends, he named Conkling's arch-rival William H. Robertson to run the Customs House. Conkling contested the nomination, tried to persuade the Senate to block it, and appealed to the Republican caucus to compel its withdrawal.

But Garfield would not submit: "This...will settle the question whether the President is registering clerk of the Senate or the Executive of the United States.... shall the principal port of entry ... be under the control of the administration or under the local control of a factional senator."

Conkling maneuvered to have the Senate confirm Garfield's uncontested nominations and adjourn without acting on Robertson. Garfield countered by withdrawing all nominations except Robertson's; the Senators would have to confirm him or sacrifice all the appointments of Conkling's friends.

In a final desperate move, Conkling and his fellow-Senator from New York resigned, confident that their legislature would vindicate their stand and re-elect them. Instead, the legislature elected two other men; the Senate confirmed Robertson. Garfield's victory was complete.

Arthur:

Arthur demonstrated as President that he was above factions within the Republican Party, if indeed not above the party itself. Perhaps in part his reason was the well-kept secret he had known since a year after he succeeded to the Presidency, that he was suffering from a fatal kidney disease. He kept himself in the running for the Presidential nomination in 1884 in order not to appear that he feared defeat, but was not renominated, and died in 1886. Publisher Alexander K. McClure recalled, "No man ever entered the Presidency so profoundly and widely distrusted, and no one ever retired ... more generally respected."

Cleveland:

Cleveland vigorously pursued a policy barring special favors to any economic group. Vetoing a bill to appropriate $10,000 to distribute seed grain among drought-stricken farmers in Texas, he wrote: "Federal aid in such cases encourages the expectation of paternal care on the part of the Government and weakens the sturdiness of our national character. . . . "

Elected again in 1892, Cleveland faced an acute depression. He dealt directly with the Treasury crisis rather than with business failures, farm mortgage foreclosures, and unemployment. He obtained repeal of the mildly inflationary Sherman Silver Purchase Act and, with the aid of Wall Street, maintained the Treasury's gold reserve.

When railroad strikers in Chicago violated an injunction, Cleveland sent Federal troops to enforce it. "If it takes the entire army and navy of the United States to deliver a post card in Chicago," he thundered, "that card will be delivered."

Cleveland's blunt treatment of the railroad strikers stirred the pride of many Americans. So did the vigorous way in which he forced Great Britain to accept arbitration of a disputed boundary in Venezuela

Harrison:

Harrison was proud of the vigorous foreign policy which he helped shape. The first Pan American Congress met in Washington in 1889, establishing an information center which later became the Pan American Union. At the end of his administration Harrison submitted to the Senate a treaty to annex Hawaii; to his disappointment, President Cleveland later withdrew it.

Substantial appropriation bills were signed by Harrison for internal improvements, naval expansion, and subsidies for steamship lines. For the first time except in war, Congress appropriated a billion dollars. When critics attacked "the billion-dollar Congress," Speaker Thomas B. Reed replied, "This is a billion-dollar country." President Harrison also signed the Sherman Anti-Trust Act "to protect trade and commerce against unlawful restraints and monopolies," the first Federal act attempting to regulate trusts.

McKinley:

Not prosperity, but foreign policy, dominated McKinley's Administration. Reporting the stalemate between Spanish forces and revolutionaries in Cuba, newspapers screamed that a quarter of the population was dead and the rest suffering acutely. Public indignation brought pressure upon the President for war. Unable to restrain Congress or the American people, McKinley delivered his message of neutral intervention in April 1898. Congress thereupon voted three resolutions tantamount to a declaration of war for the liberation and independence of Cuba.

In the 100-day war, the United States destroyed the Spanish fleet outside Santiago harbor in Cuba, seized Manila in the Philippines, and occupied Puerto Rico.

He was more a victim of circumstance than anything.

Harding:

A Republican yes man, Republicans in Congress easily got the President's signature on their bills. But they eliminated wartime controls and slashed taxes, established a Federal budget system, restored the high protective tariff, and imposed tight limitations upon immigration.

Coolidge:

I'll give you Coolidge, he did nothing and did it alot!

Nixon:

Some of his most acclaimed achievements came in his quest for world stability. During visits in 1972 to Beijing and Moscow, he reduced tensions with China and the U.S.S.R. His summit meetings with Russian leader Leonid I. Brezhnev produced a treaty to limit strategic nuclear weapons. In January 1973, he announced an accord with North Viet Nam to end American involvement in Indochina. In 1974, his Secretary of State, Henry Kissinger, negotiated disengagement agreements between Israel and its opponents, Egypt and Syria.

In his 1972 bid for office, Nixon defeated Democratic candidate George McGovern by one of the widest margins on record.

Within a few months, his administration was embattled over the so-called "Watergate" scandal, stemming from a break-in at the offices of the Democratic National Committee during the 1972 campaign. The break-in was traced to officials of the Committee to Re-elect the President. A number of administration officials resigned; some were later convicted of offenses connected with efforts to cover up the affair. Nixon denied any personal involvement, but the courts forced him to yield tape recordings which indicated that he had, in fact, tried to divert the investigation.

As a result of unrelated scandals in Maryland, Vice President Spiro T. Agnew resigned in 1973. Nixon nominated, and Congress approved, House Minority Leader Gerald R. Ford as Vice President.

Faced with what seemed almost certain impeachment, Nixon announced on August 8, 1974, that he would resign the next day to begin "that process of healing which is so desperately needed in America

Bush Sr.:

Bush faced a dramatically changing world, as the Cold War ended after 40 bitter years, the Communist empire broke up, and the Berlin Wall fell. The Soviet Union ceased to exist; and reformist President Mikhail Gorbachev, whom Bush had supported, resigned. While Bush hailed the march of democracy, he insisted on restraint in U. S. policy toward the group of new nations.

In other areas of foreign policy, President Bush sent American troops into Panama to overthrow the corrupt regime of General Manuel Noriega, who was threatening the security of the canal and the Americans living there. Noriega was brought to the United States for trial as a drug trafficker.

Bush's greatest test came when Iraqi President Saddam Hussein invaded Kuwait, then threatened to move into Saudi Arabia. Vowing to free Kuwait, Bush rallied the United Nations, the U. S. people, and Congress and sent 425,000 American troops. They were joined by 118,000 troops from allied nations. After weeks of air and missile bombardment, the 100-hour land battle dubbed Desert Storm routed Iraq's million-man army.

Anymore questions?

I had thought the relevance was apparant...the point being, how far is too far?

The only relevance is how far into the improbable will you take hyperbole and your ridiculous slippery slope argument.

American soldiers are not grabbing up the puppies and kittens and babies of these terrorists and harming them to torture these captives and they never will.

"American soldiers are not grabbing up the puppies and kittens and babies of these terrorists and harming them to torture these captives and they never will."

And there was a time when Americans thought their government would never abuse prisoners, period.

Nazi prison camps didn't start gassing prisoners right away either. The atrocities there escalated over time. All because the general populace turned a blind eye, or even actively supported, the abuse visited by the Nazi party on those unable to resist them.

And, no, you'll get no apology from me for comparing the acts of this administration to those horros conducted by Nazi Germany. What good is learning history if we don't take steps to prevent the atrocities of the past from being repeated today?

Let's see, Ham's questions: I actually did explain why my leadership and military skills are most likely more effective than yours

I must have missed that.

Nazi prison camps didn't start gassing prisoners right away either. The atrocities there escalated over time. All because the general populace turned a blind eye, or even actively supported, the abuse visited by the Nazi party on those unable to resist them.

See, no one here is turning a blind eye. Your slippery-slope argument is ridiculous. You have yet to give an example of an acceptable treatment of these prisoners short of saying that you don't expect them to be put in a four star hotel, yet you are ready to keep repeating the most ludicrous assertions that we are going to end up torturing babies and kittens.

Join the real world.

Seems that I forgot

Ford:

Ford was confronted with almost insuperable tasks. There were the challenges of mastering inflation, reviving a depressed economy, solving chronic energy shortages, and trying to ensure world peace.

The President acted to curb the trend toward Government intervention and spending as a means of solving the problems of American society and the economy. In the long run, he believed, this shift would bring a better life for all Americans.

Ford's reputation for integrity and openness had made him popular during his 25 years in Congress. From 1965 to 1973, he was House Minority Leader. Born in Omaha, Nebraska, in 1913, he grew up in Grand Rapids, Michigan. He starred on the University of Michigan football team, then went to Yale, where he served as assistant coach while earning his law degree. During World War II he attained the rank of lieutenant commander in the Navy. After the war he returned to Grand Rapids, where he began the practice of law, and entered Republican politics.

Ford established his policies during his first year in office, despite opposition from a heavily Democratic Congress. His first goal was to curb inflation. Then, when recession became the Nation's most serious domestic problem, he shifted to measures aimed at stimulating the economy. But, still fearing inflation, Ford vetoed a number of non-military appropriations bills that would have further increased the already heavy budgetary deficit. During his first 14 months as President he vetoed 39 measures. His vetoes were usually sustained.

Ford continued as he had in his Congressional days to view himself as "a moderate in domestic affairs, a conservative in fiscal affairs, and a dyed-in-the-wool internationalist in foreign affairs." A major goal was to help business operate more freely by reducing taxes upon it and easing the controls exercised by regulatory agencies. "We...declared our independence 200 years ago, and we are not about to lose it now to paper shufflers and computers," he said.

In foreign affairs Ford acted vigorously to maintain U. S. power and prestige after the collapse of Cambodia and South Viet Nam. Preventing a new war in the Middle East remained a major objective; by providing aid to both Israel and Egypt, the Ford Administration helped persuade the two countries to accept an interim truce agreement. Detente with the Soviet Union continued. President Ford and Soviet leader Leonid I. Brezhnev set new limitations upon nuclear weapons.

President Ford won the Republican nomination for the Presidency in 1976, but lost the election to his Democratic opponent, former Governor Jimmy Carter of Georgia.

On Inauguration Day, President Carter began his speech: "For myself and for our Nation, I want to thank my predecessor for all he has done to heal our land." A grateful people concurred.

PLEASE don't try to list Reagan's accomplishments here!

We simply don't have enough space available.

The space here is unlimited?

So were Reagan's accomplishments.

See, no one here is turning a blind eye.

I'll reiterate: some Americans *want* these guys in Gitmo tortured.

No blind eye? I guess, well, you'd have to be rather blind to think that. :)

Ham, learn to read:

"You have yet to give an example of an acceptable treatment of these prisoners short of saying that you don't expect them to be put in a four star hotel"

See my above response where I state "But to be totally clear, I think the same treatment we afford our criminal suspects and convictees is what we should apply to the detainees."

I'm sure if we looked hard enough, we could find sentiments such as yours expressed in letters and notes from 1930s Germany. In German, of course.

"See, no one here is turning a blind eye..." Which means it's even worse than ignorance...it's complicity. You're saying everyone knows what's going on, and is either speaking out against it, or going along with it.

"Join the real world?" If the real world is one where supposedly "good" people agree to the torture and abuse of helpless prisoners, I'll be glad to take no part of that.

Robbnn, a lawyer's responsibility to their client ends at "fair representation." If a lawyer decides to act in a personal capacity for their client, that's a personal decision. Lawyers that pass on criminal information for their client stop being counsel, and start being an accomplice. Mob lawyers take the actions they do because they get are corrupt, and get paid well for their actions. If they get caught, they're going to jail, same as their bosses.

This is a risk our system bears in order to make an attempt to be the fairest justice system it can be.

"Anymore questions?"

Well, a request: Rather than having Democrats proceed to list GOP president foul-ups, I'm sure you're now prepared to provide a similar detailed list of all the positive accomplishments of the many Democratic presidents we had in the 20th Century. Trot them out, please. Feel free to start with Clinton and work backwards.

PAD

I disagree on several levels.

First, the treatment criminal prisoners get is ridiculous. TV? Internet? They live better than the poor. A complete overhaul of our criminal detainment policy is needed, returning to a minimalist accomodation, labor for restitution and skills development to name a few.

You don't take risks like that with potential terrorist leaders or cutouts. A mob boss directing operations for a jail cell is nothing compared to a terrorist cell leader. The former is a profiteer, the latter a potential mass murderer. We are at war and we must adapt to new conditions. We did that in the Revolution using hit and run tactics instead of just standing in a line to blow each other away like standard warfare (we did some of that, but it didn't work too well).

Several of you think we're talking about eye for an eye abuse, but we're not (I'm not). At the same time I'm not for treating them like buddies, either. These guys actively championed our destruction. They will gladly kill you and yours either themselves or at a remove. I'm not interested in vengence, but I am in security and preventing it from happening.

Your allusion to the nazi party is beneath you. You've shown good reason in every other argument on this board and I can't imagine why you're going there.

These guys actively championed our destruction

Which "guys" are we referring to here?

Actual Al-Qaeda members?

Those unfortunates of the Taliban who just happened to be with the party in power at the time but couldn't give a damn what anybody was doing outside their own rural village?

Those unforunates of the Baath party who just happened to be with the party in power at the time but couldn't give a damn what anybody was doing outside their own rural village?

Those in Iraq who are fighting Americans, not because they're a terrorist, but because they truly see us as invaders?

And, contrary to the act put on by both the Bush Administration and the media, I'm sure there are more than a few of the last category - the same type as many ordinary Americans who would do the same if their home was invaded.

Instead, we paint them all with the same brush - terrorist, insurgent. Whatever label we can give them to make them sound like the bad guys, no matter their reason for not groveling at our feet.

Robbnn, I'd agree that we treat our prisoners too well. They're certainly, aside from not being free, in better conditions than many free poor in our country. I'm personally in favor or instituting labor requirements for convicts. If they are going to commit crimes which society deems worthy of forfeiting their liberty, they should at least mitigate the costs of their incarceration some.

But, flawed prison system and all, I think a prisoner is a prisoner. There's precedent for allowing the legal screening of a prisoner's mail and outside communication if the government has a substanial reason to do do. There's absolutely no excuse you can provide for detaining terrorist subjects without some legal representation for them. It is a fundamental violation or our system of justice. Sure, given their freedom and the opportunity, they'd gladly kill us. Be that as it may, we either must apply justice to them, or we're just a bunch of thugs holding people because we can, not because we have any moral authority to.

I raise the Nazi analogy as a warning. What our administration is allowing currently are a series of small evils to be carried out in the guise of safety and justice. The problem with allowing evil into your actions is that it always, always, leads to more evil. Today it's actions seen as abuse and discomfort. When those actions start to fail, it will be easier to take actions that go farther, impose more pain, and so on. Is the US government in the same league as Nazi Germany? Not at all. But 1930 Nazi Germany wasn't in the same leage that 1940 Nazi Germany was, either. What good are thie lessons of history if we all shy away from them the moment someone brings them up?

I make the comparison not to insult, but to warn. If it offends you, it should. That people can even begin to make the comparisson should be the proverbial cold shower that snaps us out of our anger and fear induced state of veangeance and paranoia. The America I love is better than these acts of abuse. I want to see us return to a government that is respected for it's restraint and fair and equal justice, not one that is laughed at as a bunch of hypocratic bullies.

to Ham:
Grant: Brilliant general, bad president. His administration was mired in scandles, none of which, however, he was implicated in. He did, however, fali to take any sort of stance against the "Whiskey Conspiritors," and gave away Government posts like party favors. He was perhaps surpassed in this line only by Andrew Jackson. He did however, pass into law laws restircting the Klan, and preside over the 15th amendment being passed. Still, a weak, scandle plauged president.
Hayes: A creature of party politics, he was nicknamed "old Granny," for being surpassingly anal. He lost the popular vote, and, as several Electoral College votes were contested, possible the nastiest bit of electoral politics right up to thte year 2000 took place. The Republican party agreed to end reconstruction if he was elected pres. by the House. This sent the Southern African-Americans into a land where the Klan, and segregation ruled. No black people would be allowed to vote, and "Seperate but Equal" for what it was worth, wouldn't happen until Plessy in 1896.
Garfield: He never wanted to be president, but was chosen when delagates at the 1881 convention switched their votes to him. He did support civil service reform. Ultimately, he did not have enough time to effect real change. IN what can only be seen as a great stride forward, however, he WAS the first Ambidexterous president. (I can't belive I remember that.)
Arthur: I'll give you him. He was an honest man, and did effect some change, despite being placed in power by party politics and Guiteau. He was a supporter of the spoils system, and did nothing to treat either of the two great evils of this period: Racial oppression, and the screwing over of the working man.
Cleveland: Ran the most vicious negative campaign up to that time. (hard to believe when you think about Jackson and what his opponents did.) He married the girl he was guardian of, and there was one hell of an age difference. He gave special favors the way bank clerks hand out lollipops. He did attempt to regulate the railroads. He attacked strikers with federal troops, and generally didn't do much to help the workers.
Harrison: Signed The Sherman Anti-trust bill, which was, until Teddy Roosevelt, used solely against Unions. He lost the tresury surplus, and was basically abandoned by his own party. He also wanted to annex Hawaii, very much against the wishes of the Hawaiians.
McKinley: Decided to go and attack Spain, a decision he based, not on hard facts, but on prayer. He said that God had told him to attack Spain and spread the US across the world. And to say that THE PRESIDENT OF THE UNITED STATES is "A victim of circumstance" is a fallacious statement. He made no attempt to stop the war at all, and supported Manifest Destiny to the teeth.
Harding: Corrupt to the gills. In defience of Prohibition, he had a constant supply of bootleg on hand, and his only real claim to fame was his putting some honest people in power.
Coolidege: You'll give him? I'll take him. He didn't do much, but he did believe it would work. Instead of giving out money like FDR would, he decided to Raise tariffs (Smoot-Hawley) and trust the market to correct itself. This was wrong, and he did begin to take steps to correct it. One of the few presidents, along with Carter, who really could be called a victim of circumstance.

Johnson: My bad. I wasn't thinking, sorry. I must have gotten wires crossed with Andrew Johnson, who I actually like. Again, my apologies.

Nixon: I agree with your statements about his foreign policy acheivments, but that does nothing to mitigate his corruption. I am not even going to list his illegal, Immoral, stupid, evil deeds. (Including apparently, calling Indira Ghandi an "old witch") Instead, I leave you with a quote:
"It is Nixon himself who represents that dark, venal and incurably violent side of the American character that almost every country in the world has learned to fear and despise. Our Barbie-doll president, with his Barbie-doll wife and his boxful of Barbie-doll children is also America's answer to the monstrous Mr. Hyde. He speaks for the Werewolf in us." Hunter Thompson

Ford: I'll give you Ford. He was just screwed by having been in the same room as Nixon, let alone his VP, let alone pardoning him.

Bush Sr.: Wow. He managed to beat Iraq, and leave Saddam in power. One of the few things I admire about the Current bush is that he brought one of the worst modern dictators down. Kudos. He maybe did it for the wrong reasons, but he did it. As for Bush Sr., he broke hus "No new taxes rule" and sent the country into an economic slide.

Regan: Him I greatly admire. I will go into this more later, but for now, I must rush.

Cheers,

James Carter

Feel free to start with Clinton and work backwards.

Okay, though I don't think Clinton is far enough in the past for there to be no bias.

Clinton:

In the world, he successfully dispatched peace keeping forces to war-torn Bosnia and bombed Iraq when Saddam Hussein stopped United Nations inspections for evidence of nuclear, chemical, and biological weapons. He became a global proponent for an expanded NATO, more open international trade, and a worldwide campaign against drug trafficking.

Carter:

Carter worked hard to combat the continuing economic woes of inflation and unemployment. By the end of his administration, he could claim an increase of nearly eight million jobs and a decrease in the budget deficit, measured in percentage of the gross national product. Unfortunately, inflation and interest rates were at near record highs, and efforts to reduce them caused a short recession.

Carter could point to a number of achievements in domestic affairs. He dealt with the energy shortage by establishing a national energy policy and by decontrolling domestic petroleum prices to stimulate production. He prompted Government efficiency through civil service reform and proceeded with deregulation of the trucking and airline industries. He sought to improve the environment. His expansion of the national park system included protection of 103 million acres of Alaskan lands. To increase human and social services, he created the Department of Education, bolstered the Social Security system, and appointed record numbers of women, blacks, and Hispanics to Government jobs.

In foreign affairs, Carter set his own style. His championing of human rights was coldly received by the Soviet Union and some other nations. In the Middle East, through the Camp David agreement of 1978, he helped bring amity between Egypt and Israel. He succeeded in obtaining ratification of the Panama Canal treaties. Building upon the work of predecessors, he established full diplomatic relations with the People's Republic of China and completed negotiation of the SALT II nuclear limitation treaty with the Soviet Union.

Johnson (not a Republican):

First he obtained enactment of the measures President Kennedy had been urging at the time of his death--a new civil rights bill and a tax cut. Next he urged the Nation "to build a great society, a place where the meaning of man's life matches the marvels of man's labor." In 1964, Johnson won the Presidency with 61 percent of the vote and had the widest popular margin in American history--more than 15,000,000 votes.

The Great Society program became Johnson's agenda for Congress in January 1965: aid to education, attack on disease, Medicare, urban renewal, beautification, conservation, development of depressed regions, a wide-scale fight against poverty, control and prevention of crime and delinquency, removal of obstacles to the right to vote. Congress, at times augmenting or amending, rapidly enacted Johnson's recommendations. Millions of elderly people found succor through the 1965 Medicare amendment to the Social Security Act.

Under Johnson, the country made spectacular explorations of space in a program he had championed since its start. When three astronauts successfully orbited the moon in December 1968, Johnson congratulated them: "You've taken ... all of us, all over the world, into a new era. . . . "

Kennedy:

His Inaugural Address offered the memorable injunction: "Ask not what your country can do for you--ask what you can do for your country." As President, he set out to redeem his campaign pledge to get America moving again. His economic programs launched the country on its longest sustained expansion since World War II; before his death, he laid plans for a massive assault on persisting pockets of privation and poverty.

Responding to ever more urgent demands, he took vigorous action in the cause of equal rights, calling for new civil rights legislation. His vision of America extended to the quality of the national culture and the central role of the arts in a vital society.

He wished America to resume its old mission as the first nation dedicated to the revolution of human rights. With the Alliance for Progress and the Peace Corps, he brought American idealism to the aid of developing nations.

Shortly after his inauguration, Kennedy permitted a band of Cuban exiles, already armed and trained, to invade their homeland. The attempt to overthrow the regime of Fidel Castro was a failure. Soon thereafter, the Soviet Union renewed its campaign against West Berlin. Kennedy replied by reinforcing the Berlin garrison and increasing the Nation's military strength, including new efforts in outer space. Confronted by this reaction, Moscow, after the erection of the Berlin Wall, relaxed its pressure in central Europe.

Instead, the Russians now sought to install nuclear missiles in Cuba. When this was discovered by air reconnaissance in October 1962, Kennedy imposed a quarantine on all offensive weapons bound for Cuba. While the world trembled on the brink of nuclear war, the Russians backed down and agreed to take the missiles away. The American response to the Cuban crisis evidently persuaded Moscow of the futility of nuclear blackmail.

Kennedy now contended that both sides had a vital interest in stopping the spread of nuclear weapons and slowing the arms race--a contention which led to the test ban treaty of 1963. The months after the Cuban crisis showed significant progress toward his goal of "a world of law and free choice, banishing the world of war and coercion." His administration thus saw the beginning of new hope for both the equal rights of Americans and the peace of the world.

Truman:

As President, Truman made some of the most crucial decisions in history. Soon after V-E Day, the war against Japan had reached its final stage. An urgent plea to Japan to surrender was rejected. Truman, after consultations with his advisers, ordered atomic bombs dropped on cities devoted to war work. Two were Hiroshima and Nagasaki. Japanese surrender quickly followed.

In June 1945 Truman witnessed the signing of the charter of the United Nations, hopefully established to preserve peace.

Thus far, he had followed his predecessor's policies, but he soon developed his own. He presented to Congress a 21-point program, proposing the expansion of Social Security, a full-employment program, a permanent Fair Employment Practices Act, and public housing and slum clearance. The program, Truman wrote, "symbolizes for me my assumption of the office of President in my own right." It became known as the Fair Deal.

Dangers and crises marked the foreign scene as Truman campaigned successfully in 1948. In foreign affairs he was already providing his most effective leadership.

In 1947 as the Soviet Union pressured Turkey and, through guerrillas, threatened to take over Greece, he asked Congress to aid the two countries, enunciating the program that bears his name--the Truman Doctrine. The Marshall Plan, named for his Secretary of State, stimulated spectacular economic recovery in war-torn western Europe.

When the Russians blockaded the western sectors of Berlin in 1948, Truman created a massive airlift to supply Berliners until the Russians backed down. Meanwhile, he was negotiating a military alliance to protect Western nations, the North Atlantic Treaty Organization, established in 1949.

In June 1950, when the Communist government of North Korea attacked South Korea, Truman conferred promptly with his military advisers. There was, he wrote, "complete, almost unspoken acceptance on the part of everyone that whatever had to be done to meet this aggression had to be done. There was no suggestion from anyone that either the United Nations or the United States could back away from it."

FDR:

Roosevelt had pledged the United States to the "good neighbor" policy, transforming the Monroe Doctrine from a unilateral American manifesto into arrangements for mutual action against aggressors. He also sought through neutrality legislation to keep the United States out of the war in Europe, yet at the same time to strengthen nations threatened or attacked. When France fell and England came under siege in 1940, he began to send Great Britain all possible aid short of actual military involvement.

When the Japanese attacked Pearl Harbor on December 7, 1941, Roosevelt directed organization of the Nation's manpower and resources for global war.

Feeling that the future peace of the world would depend upon relations between the United States and Russia, he devoted much thought to the planning of a United Nations, in which, he hoped, international difficulties could be settled.

Wilson:

Wilson maneuvered through Congress three major pieces of legislation. The first was a lower tariff, the Underwood Act; attached to the measure was a graduated Federal income tax. The passage of the Federal Reserve Act provided the Nation with the more elastic money supply it badly needed. In 1914 antitrust legislation established a Federal Trade Commission to prohibit unfair business practices.

Another burst of legislation followed in 1916. One new law prohibited child labor; another limited railroad workers to an eight-hour day. By virtue of this legislation and the slogan "he kept us out of war," Wilson narrowly won re-election.

But after the election Wilson concluded that America could not remain neutral in the World War. On April 2,1917, he asked Congress for a declaration of war on Germany.

Massive American effort slowly tipped the balance in favor of the Allies. Wilson went before Congress in January 1918, to enunciate American war aims--the Fourteen Points, the last of which would establish "A general association of nations...affording mutual guarantees of political independence and territorial integrity to great and small states alike."

After the Germans signed the Armistice in November 1918, Wilson went to Paris to try to build an enduring peace. He later presented to the Senate the Versailles Treaty, containing the Covenant of the League of Nations, and asked, "Dare we reject it and break the heart of the world?"

I would also like to mention that Cleveland was also a Democrat, though I did not point that out earlier.

See my above response where I state "But to be totally clear, I think the same treatment we afford our criminal suspects and convictees is what we should apply to the detainees."

You are correct, my bad, I had forgotten and then re-read your post after I said that and I see that I was wrong.

I'm sure if we looked hard enough, we could find sentiments such as yours expressed in letters and notes from 1930s Germany. In German, of course.

I'm as far from Nazism as one can be. Just because you and I disagree on what is torture and abuse, doesn't mean that I am the extreme opposite of you. Just as in the real world, the slippery slope extreme that you want to paint the military with doesn't stand.

Which means it's even worse than ignorance...it's complicity. You're saying everyone knows what's going on, and is either speaking out against it, or going along with it.

No, that is not what I am saying. I am saying that people are aware of what is going on and keeping a watchful eye on it. The media is more than making a spectacle of these events and one would have to be totally ignorant of the news not to know the allegations being made against our troops.

For a Dem(which I am assuming from your responses), you sure have a black and white view. Everything is either one extreme or the other according to you, with no middle ground.

Ham, I didn't mean to suggest you were a Nazi. Far from it....just as most German citizens in the 1930s and 40s were not members of the Nazi party. The analogy I'm making is that the citizenry in general did very little to oppose the Nazi party while it was on the rise. And while very few in the beginning could have predicted what that party would become, at some point there had to be some signs...and those signs were ignored or disregared beyond the point where the course of the country could be averted.

I'm not laying any of this on the military...I *am* laying it on the current administration, which the military takes it's orders from.

I'm not usually one to take the "if you're not opposing something, you're for it" tack. And I don't think I am here, either. You say that the abuse situation is being kept a close eye on. By who? Our government won't even investigate it's own (FBI) findings of abuse, and the media has no access to the detainment camps. So who, exactly, is monitoring the situation? The reason why I can make so-called slippery slope arguments is because there's no transperancy at all in the process. All we have is an increasing number of reports from multiple sources corroborating cases of, if not wide-spread, then at least systematic, abuse, and all our government says to us is "trust us, there is no abuse." The same government that says that there were WMDs in Iraq (lies, or wrong), that Iraq is connected to the events of 9/11 (total lie), and that there are enough troops on the ground in Iraq the complete the mission of restoring Iraq to sovereign rule (another lie...the generals on the ground say they don't have enough troops to secure the borders...and without that, we're effectively fighting the entire Middle East region). So with our elected and appointed officials spewing lies and inaccuracies at nearly every turn, it's no wonder that there's a movement demanding accountability, review, and truth.

If I'm developing a black and white view, or at least expressing one, it might be because the opposition has gotten so good at casting things in only absolutes. When reason and moderation no longer holds sway, the only way to combat the GOP mentality is to demonstrate where absolutist thinking takes you.

At this point, whether you consider them POW's or "enemy combatants", I'd suggest there are a couple of points to compromise on:

1. If we're going to call it a war on something, then we need to handle those we capture in the conducting of that war with the most appropriate laws available. Much like the internet, the laws and conventions on the books weren't written with terrorism in mind. I'd concede the torture issue to those who argue that the Geneva Conventions apply here, as they're the only legal thing that to me seems remotely applicable in an international military action. I'd love some input on the legalities of this, as from my understanding, the law we're currently using to hold detainees at Gitmo is a material witness law designed to hold witnesses deemed a flight risk that has been, um, stretched to a large degree to apply here.

2. However, with regards to the legal counsel issue, we're at war, and if you want to apply the Geneva Conventions to stop the torture and dictate the minimum standards of treatment, then that means the detainees don't have to be released until the end of the war and the risk they will reenter combat is negligible.

You now have permission to commence the pile-on...

PILE ON JASON!

No, wait, those are both good points. And something I've not seen mentioned before. The detainees are getting all the worst elements...if it's a war, as the term has been used, then why don't the ideals at least of the GC apply? Isn't the US supposed to represent a higher ideal? Then why is it demonstrating the concept that the only thing keeping our society from degenerating into anarchy is the rule of law? By which I mean, many people will tell you that they'd happily steal/cheat/murder (for some, at least) if they were guaranteed to not get caught. There's no one to stop us from abusing detainees...we can't get caught...so we abuse them.

On the other hand, if the GC don't apply, then how are we detaining them without charges? And without legal counsel? Again, even of the Constitution doesn't apply in a strict legal sense, shouldn't we be striving to apply the ideals of the Constitution? When our citizens run afoul of other nations' laws, and we consider those laws to conflict with our ideals of justice and rights, don't we make a big stink about the treatment our people receive?

The atrocities there escalated over time. All because the general populace turned a blind eye, or even actively supported

Actually, by the time atrocities escalated, the German people not oply didn't know what was going on, they couldn't question it, because by this time yhe use of secret police and neighbors informing on others, you didn't ask questions unless you wanted to disappear.

Ham! You rule! Excellent work for both parties' presidents.

Ham:

I love it. I have no idea what your political affilitation is, but you did beautiful synopses of both sides good points. Nice dang job.

PS Yes, I now realize Johnson was NOT a Republican.

Since everyone here seems to have instant sources of information, I'm wondering if anyone has seen an actual total on the number of people detained in total by the US and coalition forces so far in this war? I'd like to know how the number of incidents of abuse (sure, we'll say confirmed and alleged) of detainees compares to the total number of detainees, and how totals and rates of abuse among the detainees and in the regular criminal justice system in the US compare to other countries. I know any abuse is bad abuse (well, unless you pay someone you meet online an hourly rate, but that's a different topic), so please don't start talking about the slippery slope here, just gimme some numbers. And hell, to even be more of a compromising moderate Republican, does Amnesty International or the Red Cross carry these statistics, in context of international totals?

P.S. Republicans should not work in social services; your coworkers ask all these rational questions, demand these things called "facts," enforce logical thinking...

PS Yes, I now realize Johnson was NOT a Republican.

Sorry about that last dig, I typed that before I ever saw your post.

But, thanks Hendrix and James Carter, I try!

More good questions, Jason, but again they highlight part of the problem.

I recently saw a figure for the number of detainees still at Gitmo, putting it at 530. I know some have been released, but I've no idea on the numbers held in the Middle East or elsewhere.

So that would probably put the number (total) around 1000? The photos showing abuse would suggest that there are more than 10 cases of abuse. If we only have proof of the tip of the iceberg, and there's 10 times that many, that's 1% of US detainees are abused. That may not sound like a lot, but that's a statistically significant number. Consider that Bush beat Kerry by about 1% of all eligible US voters, and it was considered a landslide victory by some.

Actually, wouldn't the ten or so confirmed cases of abuse in the AG photos already equate 1% of 1000 total detainees, before multiplying by anything? So that's a statistically significant point for you, Bobb, there that, indicative of the whole or not, there have been abuses that violate the GC that must be reconciled.

However, I don't know if I'd use a muliplier to just blanketly represent an iceberg like you're talking about Bobb, because while I'll accept there are additional abuses being highlighted by Amnesty Int'l and the Red Cross (though maybe not agreeing with their borderline sensationalist reporting of them in this case, we've always depended on them in the past to go after others, so I admit it's silly to suddenly distrust them for doing the same here), but do we really have a way to project what the actual total is without at least acknowledging the possibility that maybe these are truly isolated incidents that are not indicative of a widespread or systematic effort?

gah, shows you why I didn't go into math more...absolutely correct, we already have 1% mostly confirmed cases of abuse, without an iceberg multiplier.

What we don't have is accountability. We have a series of military trials where the defendant's claim they were acting on orders, but no paper trail of those orders, or even of a list of superiors stepping forward. We have the offical chain of command saying these were isolated acts of abuse, combined with an increasing amount of claims of abuse, coming from different sources.

What we need is a transparant investigation and accounting of what has been happening. And we're not getting that. Bush is out stumping for more support for the war...if he wants support, one way to get it is to reassure an increasingly restless public that is starting to think that we may not exactly be the good guys anymore.

Posted by X-Ray at June 29, 2005 12:41 AM
PLEASE don't try to list Reagan's accomplishments here! We simply don't have enough space available.

True. But here's a link to a partial list of 68 of them.

http://www.bartcop.com/reagan-record.htm

"The space here is unlimited?
So were Reagan's accomplishments"
I can't believe I am about to say this, but I agree. Kinda, I don't think he was God or limitless, but he was a great president, and a great man. so:
Reagan: The hostages were freed on his Inauguration day, which is generally seen as a slap at Carter. Billed as the "Great Communicator." his acting skills and humanity helped him connect with the people in a way that his three predecessors could never muster. He cut taxes across the board, and slashed Government spending. He is largely credited with having a large part in ending the cold war. Many attribute this to his out sepending the USSR, both on the Military and civilian levels. He renewed the war on drugs, but was widely castigated for not responding to the start of AIDS soon enough. Although many
criticized "reaganomics" it is the opinion of many that they worked, enventually, and they ddin't really take effect until after he had left office. His confrontation with the Soviet Union was a break from Detante. He COnfronted the Soviets on the Military, economic, and what he called the "Clandestine" level, or supporting anti-communist groups around the world. this led directly to what was know as "the Iran-Contra Scandal" In which he was accused of selling wepons to Iran, and then giving the Money to the South american, anti-communist Contras. He also exchanged weapons for iranian held hostages in the "Arms for Hostages" deal. He was honored as a Knight Commander of the Bath, one of only two presidents to be so honored. (along with G. H. W. Bush.)

In my mind, one of the greatest presidents we have ever had. Feel free to pile on.

Michael Brunner, that list is highly suspect when one of them is that Reagan was the first president that the writer of the list called a "BRAIN DEAD AFFABLE DUNCE".

I liked Reagan. Maybe it was the jelly beans?

After all, he won the Cold War. We nearly went bankrupt in the process, but I think that's a fair trade-off for always facing imminent MAD. And he had that nice guy quality, until you pushed him. In that way, he and Clinton shared some qualities. Clinton portrayed the nice guy image (although not too trustworthy), but I got the impression you didn't want to piss him off or cross him.

Bush Jr. has proven to be someone you not only don't want to piss off, you don't want to disagree or embarras him, either. Reminds me of Happy Fun Ball (tm). Don't taunt Happy Fun Ball.

The only problem I can see with an immediate investigation is that such investigations are going to inevitably need to see things that are sensitive to how we're carrying out the war. In this partisan climate where everyone's seeking headline fodder, I think it's a relevent concern about how to inform the public of what's going on without vital information being leaked to those our troops are engaging in combat every day. While I'm encouraged by the recent bi-partisan group from Congress that visited Gitmo, it was a brief trip, not a full-blown investigation like what you're talking about, Bobb, that would have been easily planned around by even an isolated abuser. I guess what I'd like to debate isn't whether or not there should be an investigation, but how such an investigation should be carried out in order to effectively do its job while both preventing or limiting the release of sensitive information and convincingly informing the public about what's happening.

lol... but do you think President Bush is filled with a strange radioactive substance from another planet like the Happy Fun Ball?

As for the president debate, I think Reagan will be treated kindly by history, much moreso than I think Clinton will. Both had their triumphs and their faults, but come on, Reagan wins when it comes to the most important historical reference: the nickname - "Slick Willy" versus "the Great Communicator"? No contest.

Gosh, yes, just by virtue of spending communist Russia into oblivion, Reagan earns a bright spot in American history. And he probably did more to keep more Americans safe without needing to launch a war than our current President will do (I'm not taunting him)

Ack, I've mispoke. I don't think we need a totally transparant investigation. What we need is an explanation of the the process, and enough results the settle public fears. Clearly, producing a tell-all style report might not be in the best interests of maintaining the integrity of our current mission.

I think if we assembled a non-partisan team (if such a thing even exists) composed of military, civlian, and private inspecters, give them full, unlimited access, and then let them generate a report that can be edited by the military for security. Excerpts of that report that are deemed non-classified can be released, and let the panel issue a generic statement of "green light," meaning there's nothing to worry about, or call for a more public process because they've encountered some signs that abuse is more widespread and sanctioned than we fear it is.

See, that's pretty much exactly what'd I'd like to see in an investigation. But as you point out, in the current partisan and bile-filled state of politics, our chances of our leaders growing spines and reaching across the aisle to lead on this issue soon enough to get things going before next year's elections is unlikely.

Is anyone else feeling like declaring political party free agency next year?

Damnit. I didn't mean to ascribe my own thoughts on the current state of politics to you, Bobb. I started writing one thought and switched to something else. Didn't mean to put words in your mouth.

More like taking them from my brain before I can write them.

I think we're one, maybe 2 elections away from some guy in Hoboken, NJ, declaring himself in the running for president, and conducting his entire campaign on the web. And watching the big two (not DC and Marvel) start out laughing at him, and then seeing them start to get nervous as polls start showing webman actually making an impact.

After all, he won the Cold War.

Nothing like having a war that recognized more for being a foot race to the finish line than anything else.

We nearly went bankrupt in the process, but I think that's a fair trade-off for always facing imminent MAD

Fair trade off? Basically, your view is that it's ok to mortgage away our future as long as we win now?

I suppose the analogy for today would be who cares how many American soldiers die as long as every terrorist is killed?

Either way, Reagan gets far too much credit for the end of the Soviet Union. The USSR would've collapsed under its own weight sooner or later, and Reagan was far too eager to speed the process.

But then, we now have Putin in office in Russia, who is ex-KGB, and treats the country like it's Soviet rule all over again. So, I can't say things have drastically improved.

That, and at times, you have to wonder if the Russians know who's in control of all of their nukes.

Fair trade off? Basically, your view is that it's ok to mortgage away our future as long as we win now?

Winning now is how you HAVE a future.

"I suppose the analogy for today would be who cares how many American soldiers die as long as every terrorist is killed?"

I wouldn't make that analogy. Reagan spent money, not lives, and it is well know that in any capitalist society, government spending is great for the economy, and many people (starting with Alexander Hamilton actually) think that it is a good thing for the government to be in debt. Further, his part in brining down the USSR was huge, if not pivotal. And, if the USSR hadn't come down when it did, it was only a matter of time before some minor conflict, similar to the clash in Korea, or Vietnam, or Israel, escalated into nuclear destruction. As for Putin, you can't blame Reagan for that. He did what was needed, at the right time. He was instrumental in bringing tdown the greatest threat to the very existance of the world that has ever existed. As for the Russians not knowing who has control of the nukes, thanks to Reagan, they don't have the money to build new ones, and most, if not all of the old ones are not usable. The only worries we have is them selling the plutonium to terrorists. And thanks to us bringing down the USSR, they never had the chance to learn how to make Nukes. If we hadn't stopped the Soviets, then they would have taken over many middle eastern countries, and probably given them nuclear capability (either through building missile bases in the country, or by building nuclear reactors), which, when the Soviet Union did eventually fall, would have gone right to the governments who support terrorists. Now all we have to worry about is a dirty bomb. you know what the projected death toll is from a Nuke in Manhattan? hundreds of thousands. Projected death toll from a dirty bomb? 20. 19 from the blast, and one from cancer about ten years later. Personally, I think reagan did one hell of a job. And one of the signs of his greatness is the polarized way in which he is uasually seen. He is usually only loved or hated. It has always been a sign of greatness that you are either loved or hated. Look at the presidents who people just kinda fell good about. none of them made any lasting change.

Personally, I think reagan did one hell of a job. And one of the signs of his greatness is the polarized way in which he is uasually seen. He is usually only loved or hated. It has always been a sign of greatness that you are either loved or hated.

George Washington wasn't a good president? Nor was Thomas Jefferson?

Perhaps the idealogues have duped you into thinking this, but I think the truth is rather different.

Allow me to condense much of the sentiment expressed above:

REAGAN SUCKS!

Speaking of tax dullards, the house voted itself another raise:

http://abcnews.go.com/Politics/wireStory?id=890450

Before anyone defends this as a COLA raise, keep in mind that these are the same guys who are only giving the Veteran's Administration a four-tenths of a percent raise. During wartime. When the number of vetrens they VA has to treat is increasing by a couple of thousand a month.

Allow me to condense much of the sentiment expressed above: REAGAN SUCKS!

Correction: SUCKED - past tense when the person's dead.

Nor was Thomas Jefferson?

uhhhh....I don't know who taught you history Roger, but ol' TJ was one of the most contriversial presidents pre-Jackson. Despite his Democratic-Republican belief in a strict interpritation of the constitution, he went above his powers as president several times. Most notably was when he bought Louisiana from Napoleon, but he also passed the Embargo Act, which essentially halted all shipping. In a country as dependent on shipping as the US was, that was a devastating blow to a moajor industry. and, as you might surmise, was a little contriversial. He wasn't as popular then. Also, it went against his beliefs. See, he believed that farming was the way of America's future, and the Embargo act was quite a jump-start for American business. So he was contriversial and not popular. Washington too became less popular with the whole Whiskey rebellion. And who said the hate had to be American? I don't think that ol' George and TJ were all that popular in london, what with one having written the Declaration of Independence and the other having roundly kicked thier red-coated asses all over Yorktown. And the Idealogues tricking me into believing that Washington and Jefferson were bad presidents? I am insulted that you think I coud be that easily duped!!!

REAGAN SUCKS!

yeah 'cause out of 9 posts about him; 7 are directly complimentary, with two negative. my calculator makes that to be......78% directly in favor...plus you....is...89% who like Reagan. Yep. lots of reagan hatin' going on tonight. Why don't you learn how to do division, or at least get a nice ti-83? and when people support you, don't attack them.

Is it even fair to compare presidents who are removed from each other by decades, even centuries? And I don't think anyone was saying Reagan was great to the exclusion of all others. To be honest, while there have been some lame ducks and a couple of crooks, we should all be pretty damn happy with the number of competent-to-great presidents we've had from all respective political parties. It's always been and always will be perhaps the most challenging job anyone can have, and the fact our nation has had such a great run over the last two and a quarter centuries is at least partly attributable to the collective work of these leaders.

LOL... gosh, you'd think there was a holiday coming up this weekend after reading that...

Winning now is how you HAVE a future.

Ahh, yes, we're already back to the 'winning at all costs' ideology that has lead to torture of prisoners, rendition, etc.

It's great to be an American when you can think so little of everybody else, yes?

So, do I think putting our own country on the brink of ruin to defeat Soviet Russia was the way to go about it? No.

And we'll pay for it badly, because, obviously, that strategy isn't going to work with Soviet China.

And, if the USSR hadn't come down when it did, it was only a matter of time before some minor conflict, similar to the clash in Korea, or Vietnam, or Israel, escalated into nuclear destruction

And this is different from today how?

Korea is still a problem. As is Israel.

Granted, I was just a kid still when the Wall came down, but, by all accounts, it sounds like the Russians knew damn well that they weren't launching nukes at anybody either.

So, the question remains: was Reagan's methods even necessary? I say no.

It's great to be an American when you can think so little of everybody else, yes?

It's great that you have the freedom to be so negative about current and past events, especially since you are far removed from the action and circumstances involved.

It's not that Americans think so little of anybody, it is quite the opposite. We are helping others obtain freedom. Unfortunately, freedom comes with a price.

So, the question remains: was Reagan's methods even necessary? I say no.

And you would be wrong. If you look at the previous twenty years, every President in that time span had to deal with the Soviet Union's nuclear threat,because it was real, and Reagan found a way that did not threaten escalated nuclear war.

The nuclear threat of the USSR was real and it was averted.

It's great that you have the freedom to be so negative about current and past events, especially since you are far removed from the action and circumstances involved.

Well, I'm not one of the Americans who think torture is an acceptable, that think dead Iraqis are nothing more than 'collateral'.

But then, Rumsfeld is just as far removed from the action and circumstances as I am, yet his comments are appropriate?

and Reagan found a way that did not threaten escalated nuclear war.

I'd love to take a peek in your brain and see if your logic circuits are functioning.

Because, to most people in the sane world, a MILITARY BUILDUP would, generally speaking, escalate the potential for nuclear war.

"Because, to most people in the sane world, a MILITARY BUILDUP would, generally speaking, escalate the potential for nuclear war."

Yes, but, it didn't....obviously. and I hate it when people try to say that Reagan was somehow resopsible for our problems today. As I said earlier, I feel that by accelerating the fall of the Soviet Union, he prevented rouge nations like Iran, Iraq, or Afghanistan, all of which would have fallen under the Soviet Sphere of infulence, from getting full nuclear capability. Also, it is foolish to compare Korea to the USSR. Korea is not bent on world domination, and knows that it will never even come close to winning a nuclear exchange. I mean, They hit Seoul with one nuke, and about 300 ICBM's from various nations land in Pyongyang. I mean, c'mon, the Russians were talking about WINNING a nuclear war. And Israel is on our side, Craig. Also, A) it has shown itself quite capable of opening up some serious whoopass on anyone who messes with it, and B) None of the nations who might attack it have nuclear capability, thanks in large part to who? Ronald Reagan.

Something's wrong when I agree with Ham...

Reagan wasn't responsible for the MAD escalation. That was something he came into when he was elected. The Soviets were going to do it, anyway. He recognized that to not match that escalation would lead eventually to the defeat of the US. He also basically bet that the US economy could survive the shocks such spending would bring, and that the USSR would not. And he was right. Sure, he bet the farm, so to speak, but he did so on good information. And today, the biggest threat we live under is that thousands may be killed in a single event (and it's unlikely that planes loaded with live passengers will ever be used successfully as weapons again). If Reagan had not beat the Soviets, the entire world would still be living under the threat of MAD, nuclear winter, and millions, if not billions, of deaths in a matter of hours.

Pretty much without any direct loss of life. If that's not one of the greatest human achievements, ever, please tell me what would be.

And while the buildup did escalate the possibility of MAD, it reduced the possibility of a nuclear exchange.

Yes, but, it didn't....obviously.

Yeah, hindsight is great, isn't it?

But then, nobody could critize Reagan if the human race was dead because of his actions.

I feel that by accelerating the fall of the Soviet Union, he prevented rouge nations like Iran, Iraq, or Afghanistan, all of which would have fallen under the Soviet Sphere of infulence, from getting full nuclear capability.

And instead of the Russians imposing their will upon those nations, America is instead.

Does Ukraine have nukes? Uzbekistan? Khazakstan?

Reagan prevented nothing.

I mean, c'mon, the Russians were talking about WINNING a nuclear war

Nobody wins a nuclear war. The Russians knew that.

And Israel is on our side, Craig.

So are a bunch of terrorist states such as Pakistan.

"And instead of the Russians imposing their will upon those nations, America is instead."

Yep. And, beplorable as I find that, I would much rather it be a democracy leaning on them then one of the most repressive states in the history of the world.

"Does Ukraine have nukes? Uzbekistan? Khazakstan?
Reagan prevented nothing."

What would have happened is that the Soviet Bloc, determined to have as many missile bases in as many places as possible, would have built missile silos or neuclear reactors in those places. When the Soviet Union did eventually collapse (an event we might still be waiting on, considering how long other Empires have taken to fall) that nuclear capability would have either been in the hands of rogue generals, or terrorists, either of whom would have one hell of a barganing chip. Instead, there is no nuclear weaponry in what is the most unstable region in the world.

"Nobody wins a nuclear war. The Russians knew that."

Ever see Dr. Strangelove, Craig? All it takes is one little bit of misinformation, or one random flock of geese, and it's all over. There was at least one time where a Russian soldier recieved orders to fire, but held back, and it soon came through that it was a mistake. What if the next time, in 1995, the soldier hadn't thought?

"So are a bunch of terrorist states such as Pakistan."

And we are there to help keep their nukes under control. I would rather have them with us then against us. And if hindsight is great, foresight is even better. I think he took a risk, but a calculated one, and considering how many stand-offs we had had with the Russians or their allies, each one with the power to go nuclear, I think it was a risk worth taking. And instead of MAD, now our worst fear is a rogue nation like North Korea getting a Nuke. and even if they make an ICBM, the most that they can take out is one city. Which is aweful, but better to lose New York alone than every City in the whole damn world. And, since we can keep a very close watch on North Korea, we can prevent that, and they know that they could never win, or even break even. That should help keep them in check.

I would rather have them with us then against us.

Yeah, we also see how well that went for Iraq.

Reagan played Nuclear Russian Roulette.

And no matter the results, I can't agree with it. Nor can I support the notion that he alone is responsible for the fall of the USSR.

You'd think Gorbachov would at least get a little more credit...

"And no matter the results, I can't agree with it. Nor can I support the notion that he alone is responsible for the fall of the USSR."

I never said that. I did say that:
"He was instrumental in bringing tdown the greatest threat to the very existance of the world that has ever existed"
I never said he was the only one. Gorby and I think, Pope John Paul II both played large roles. It is debateable whose was most important, but there is no doubt a lot of it was Reagan

And we are there to help keep their nukes under control. I would rather have them with us then against us.

Yeah, it does my heart good to know that one of our "allies" in the war on terror sold nuclear secrets to both Iran and North Korea. Pakistan is a military dictatorship where women are gang raped by tribal councils in order to punish their family for the transgressions of her brother and where fundamentalist schools train young men to be future suicide bombers.

On the other hand, Pakistan's enemy, India, is a functioning democracy with a growing educated middle class with whom software companies and engineering firms are fallin over each to do business.

Why are we allied with Pakistan again?

"He was instrumental in bringing tdown the greatest threat to the very existance of the world that has ever existed"

Spelling errors notwithstanding, you greatly overestimate the threat, and the common sense of the Soviets. There's a reason the Soviets backed down from installing nuclear weapons in Cuba: they didn't want world war either. Detente played to their continued success, war would merely have hastened their fall. The Nazis, on the other hand, embraced world war, so sure were they in their ultimate success.

"Spelling errors notwithstanding, you greatly overestimate the threat, and the common sense of the Soviets."

The soviets had plenty of common sense. All it takes though, is one crazy, or one misdirected order, or one plane losing its way, or one terrorist setting off a bomb. In a similar scenario to "Sum of All Fears," one bomb, one incident could have triggered a nuclear holocaust.

"There's a reason the Soviets backed down from installing nuclear weapons in Cuba"

The Soviets didn't. Kruschev did, and he lost his job over it. (that and being nuttier than a squirrel nest) and, they simply took down the missiles we knew about. Later, we discovered that there were some there still. To put it bluntly, do you guys want the USSR back? I think life is a lot safer with only one superpower myself. Yes, we do run the risk of imperialism, Manifest Destiny, and Jingoism, but the world is a lot better off without two nations, each with the power to destroy the world many times over, facing off over little back-water countries! Do you think the world is more dangerous now? Sure there are terrorists. But I would rather be facing down a bunch off ill-equipped fanatics then a full bore nuclear super-power.

“Detente played to their continued success, war would merely have hastened their fall.”
War would have meant a little more than their fall, it would have been the destruction of all humanity. And yes, detente simply allowed them to keep growing, and growing more powerful, until we would have had a confrontation, most likely in Eastern Europe. We couldn’t have backed off much farther, and what Reagan did was the best way of fighting them: he supplied Groups like Bin Laden (That one kinda turned on us, yeah) and the Contras (ok, so he should have been more open about it, but it was the only way to avoid another Vietnam.) Instead of a show down, he weakened them with rebellion, and then out spent them. Why? Cause in a Capitalistic nation, government spending is a good thing, as is government debt. And, not to point fingers, but if Eisenhower had given the Hungarians a little support in ‘56, the entire thing might have ended earlier. One last thing. What happened when the US and USSR faced off was the only time in history two superpowers faced off without a direct war. Be it Greeks and Persians, Romans and Carthaginians, British and French, or German and Anglo-American, Ronald Reagan brought about the only peaceful destruction of a superpower in history. And, he was a key player in the destruction of one of the worst dictatorships in recent history

"The soviets had plenty of common sense. All it takes though, is one crazy, or one misdirected order, or one plane losing its way, or one terrorist setting off a bomb. In a similar scenario to "Sum of All Fears," one bomb, one incident could have triggered a nuclear holocaust."

Goes both ways, jack. You've seen 'Dr. Strangelove', I presume? Seems to me you're making the assumption that crazy was only on one side of the Atlantic.

"The Soviets didn't. Kruschev did, and he lost his job over it. (that and being nuttier than a squirrel nest) and, they simply took down the missiles we knew about. Later, we discovered that there were some there still. To put it bluntly, do you guys want the USSR back?"

Khruschev did it knowing the US would come to blows over it. He lost his job because the Politburo thought he was full of shit. Khruschev was not a raving loon. He was actually a very astute politician who had the best interests of his nation at heart. He wanted the Soviet Union to succeed, he did NOT want the Soviet Union to destroy the world.

If you'll recall, the US was closest to nuclear war twice in it's history: October of 1962 (one minute to midnight), and 1984 (three minutes to midnight). So you could also say that Khruschev and Reagan are the two world leaders that led us closest to absolute annhiliation.

"...he supplied Groups like Bin Laden (That one kinda turned on us, yeah) and the Contras (ok, so he should have been more open about it, but it was the only way to avoid another Vietnam.)"

The assertion that Nicaragua turning to Communism was somehow a threat to domestic security is every bit as ridiculous as the assertion that Vietnam turning Communist somehow portended the inevitable fall of all Asian nations into the thrall of the Soviet Empire. Funding the Contras should have led to Reagan's impeachment and removal from office.

" War would have meant a little more than their fall, it would have been the destruction of all humanity."

You're assuming that war would have meant nuclear war. I'm not willing to make that assumption.

"And yes, detente simply allowed them to keep growing, and growing more powerful, until we would have had a confrontation, most likely in Eastern Europe."

No, detente made the Soviet Union spend to keep up with the US, making it possible for Reagan to work his blessed miracle of "peaceful revolution". What worked for Reagan in the 80's would simply not have worked in the 60's. Hell, Eisenhower, JFK and LBJ all tried it and it didn't work.

What did the USSR in, finally, was not Reagan. It was an economic model that simply wouldn't work over an extended period of time (and no, sixty years does not constitute an extended period of time).

And Eisenhower couldn't help the Hungarians in '56 without actual US military intervention. That's some ridiculous Monday morning quarterbacking that has little basis in reality, and potentially would have led to a military confrontation (sort of like the Soviets being in Cuba).

As you can tell, your interpretation of history simply doesn't wash with me.

To put it bluntly, do you guys want the USSR back?

No.

Do have it back? Essentially, yes - the way Putin runs things, Russia is no better off now than just before the fall of the USSR.

The only different is that Putin can't yank quite as many strings around in the other former-Soviet bloc nations.

And, true to form, the US has tried pulling strings of their own in these countries (Ukraine, for example), just like we used to do in the Cold War.

"Seems to me you're making the assumption that crazy was only on one side of the Atlantic."

Good point. One of the reasons I hate JFK so much is that he was on hard drugs while in the White house, including Speed and marijuana. This might account for his willingness to go toe to toe with the Soviets.

"Khrushchev did it knowing the US would come to blows over it. He lost his job because the Politburo thought he was full of shit."

Not according to my sources. I checked Wikipedia, and it was a major factor. As for his political genius, I kinda lost trust in that when he started banging shoes on podiums. He was a reformer compared only to Stalin.

"You're assuming that war would have meant nuclear war. I'm not willing to make that assumption."

I assume that any full blown war would have turned into a nuclear war rather swiftly, as that was what most of the response plans called for.

"No, detente made the Soviet Union spend to keep up with the US"

What the Soviets were doing is throwing all their money to the military and space programs. They could go on quite a while that way, but Reagan forced them to spend on other fronts, thus pushing them over the brink. The failure of previous Presidents was in just trying to outspend them militarily. We would have won, but it would be several years and several billion dollars in the future as of today.

"And Eisenhower couldn't help the Hungarians in '56 without actual US military intervention."

This would have been no different from Korea, Vietnam, or Israel, with Soviet back forces fighting US backed forces, the difference being that a battle there would have done what later caused the fall, a hole in the iron curtain, with refugees fleeing Soviet oppression. It would have at least been a major blow to the USSR.

As for the Doomsday clock: it was set to two minutes. in 1953, (Soviet/American Thermonuclear tests) 3 minutes in 1949 (soviet nuclear test) not to mention that when they signed the Strategic Arms Reduction Treaty it went back to 6.
I am not saying that Reagan acted perfectly, but in this case, the ends might not fully justify the means, but they come close.

Oh, and sorry about the spelling errors, I was in a great hurry.

"This would have been no different from Korea..."

For clarification: the Soviets sold the North Koreans weapons. They did NOT, in any way, support military confrontation with the United States-backed South Vietnamese. The North Koreans pulled that one off solely on their own. Even the Chinese were incredibly pissed, and ONLY got involved when that jackass MacArthur got too close to the border.

"...Vietnam..."

All I'll say on this is that the US picked up where the French left off. The military intervention in Vietnam on the part of the US was an incredible drain on the economy as well as our national morale. I'm all for fighting wars that need fighting (Afghanistan, for instance), but Vietnam was ludicrous at the time.

"One of the reasons I hate JFK so much is that he was on hard drugs while in the White house, including Speed and marijuana. This might account for his willingness to go toe to toe with the Soviets."

Bushwah. JFK was one of the most brilliant internationalists (and fairly shitty on the domestic front) that has occupied the office of the presidency (I would also include Nixon in this list). Hate him all you want, but that hooey about him being high for his presidency is both unsupported, and irrelavent. Some would argue that Nixon was drunk for his, and Reagan was completely off his rocker due to ALS. You'll get none of that from me. I'd love to see proof on that from a responsible historian. You're suggesting he should have knuckled under and allowed the missiles on Cuba? Didn't think so.

What I'm saying in regards to Hungary is that the US would have had to put troops on the ground. In essence, what happened in Hungary was civil war. Communists v. Stalinists. The Stalinists won. If the US had truly wanted the communists (as opposed to the Communists) to win, they would have had to put troops on the ground. The small 'c' communists did not have the military to truly go up against the Soviet military. All the guns the US could have supplied them in the world woud not have helped.

Dammit, James, these paragraphs read like crap. Oh, for an editing utility...

Craig, you say you were a child when the Berlin Wall fell. You may not have an appreciation for what it meant to grow up in the shadow of the mushroom cloud (to borrow a phrase from Queen).

When the Wall fell, I was a nuclear planner with USAF Strategic Air Command. I can't go into it here, but take my word - most of the strategic planners over 40 at the time thought a nuclear war was actually winnable. No matter how many lectures they got on physics and nuclear medicine, they still thought of nukes as just bigger, badder bombs. There is no reason to think the Soviet leadership was any better at accepting new concepts, and as I recall, they didn't have any senior military personnel under 40 - Gorbachev, at 57, was considered a young buck by the Politburo.

Yes, Mutually Assured Destruction was a serious threat - up until the day Gorbachev officially dissolved the Supreme Soviet, and the USSR faded into (as Krushchev might have said) the dustbin of history...

(One of my favorite quotes from the '60s was from Robert McNamara, the day he was appointed Secretary of Defense and was briefed on MAD: "My God, General! What you have here isn't a war plan - it's some kind of horrible spasm!")

Dangit, one other question.

"What the Soviets were doing is throwing all their money to the military and space programs. They could go on quite a while that way, but Reagan forced them to spend on other fronts, thus pushing them over the brink."

What did Reagan force them to spend on? The thing that really screwed them over in the 80s was Afghanistan (1979-1989 for the record), which was a mess of their own making. Sure, you could argue the Reagan administration supported the revolutionaries keeping the Soviets busier there than perhaps they would be, but you could also argue that the Cubans and the Soviets were keeping us just as busy in ridiculous places like Nicaragua, El Salvador and Angola. What brought them down was a faulty economic model. Not Reagan.

"Oh, for an editing utility..."
I hear ya. Or if the preview function worked...or some other way to add emphasis without capitalizing or adding ***.

Anyway.

"but Vietnam was ludicrous at the time."
exactly, but it was a sign of American willingness to go anywhere to fight the Big Bad Commies. In Hungary, however, it could have had an effect. Due to the proximity of Hungary to the Soviet Bloc, it would most likely have provided a refugee stream. I believe that something similar happened at the end, where the USSR just basically opened the borders, the Wall fell, and that was that. A fight in Hungary could have pushed that issue 40 years earlier, or at the very least put a check on Soviet expansionism.

As for what Reagan outspent them on, there I misspoke. He could not DIRECTLY outspend them on the domestic front, so he acted more to depress the value of their goods, and generally cut their resources. Sooner or later they would have to give up the race, which would take them out of the running as a Hyper-power, and sooner or later make them no threat, or they could fall apart. As it it happened, they fell apart.
I would also like to see your reasoning on Communism falling apart. I mean, on a long term scale, it will fall apart, and obviously, it tends to weaken from internal pressure, but the USSR lasted about 80 years, and the only reason it fell apart was that it outspent its resources. (thanks to Reagan.) Cuba is still going strong, and if they can switch power when Castro buys it, there is no reason why they can't keep going. The reason most Soviet states fall apart is internal revolution (hungary), external pressure (USSR), or a combination of both. Alternatly, some (like China) simply change till they are no longer really communist.

Well, this thread has become very informative. Impressive, Ham (and James Carter, as well)! And I'd forgotten Happy Fun Ball! I might still have the "Saturday Night Live Goes Commercial" compilation special on tape somewhere ....

At this point, my feelings towards Ronald Reagan may be overly negative in counterreaction to how overrated he is in some circles. People calling for him to be put on Mt. Rushmore? Preposterous. Showing up in the top 5 of the "Greatest Americans" list was a surprise, too, and an idea with which I disagree. Perhaps he was a key in the dissolution of the Soviet Union, but yes, Mikhail Gorbechov had a lot to do with it, too. (As far as mutually assured destruction being over: okay, so we don't have enough nuclear weapons to kill everyone on Earth seven times over [an actual estimation from the peak of nuclear proliferation, broadcast on NBC Nightly News iirc, not me being hyperbolic] anymore, but have we really eliminated so many that a confrontation, or a mistake as described above, couldn't still MAD the planet out?) "Trickle-down" economics was stupid, and crippled the senior Bush's presidency - he was left holding the bag, dealing with the consequences of the previous administration's financial policies. And the Iran-Contra dealings - and dealings with Bin Laden? Don't think I even knew about that one - proclude him from being one of THE greatest Americans, at least IMHO. (Indications that he may have been getting senile towards the end of his presidency are worrysome, also. I will assume that there was no actual Alzthimer's (sp?) diagnosis while he was in office, though. Not to say that people should be discriminated against on the basis of a disease, but I think that it's fair to hope that someone diagnosed with a serious [and eventually fatal, for all intents and purposes] impairment of their mental facilities would step down from as serious, powerful - and potentially dangerous - a position as President of the United States.)

On the other hand, VH-1's special "When Star Wars Ruled the World" does show Mr. Reagan saying at a press conference, "The Force ... is with us," so he can't have been all bad ;)

[b]As for what Reagan outspent them on, there I misspoke. He could not DIRECTLY outspend them on the domestic front, so he acted more to depress the value of their goods, and generally cut their resources.[/b]

Here's hoping this site uses the same bold/italics/whatever code that most others do.

How can you give Reagan sole credit for the fruition of economic policies that had been in place literally since 1946?

You may not have an appreciation for what it meant to grow up in the shadow of the mushroom cloud (to borrow a phrase from Queen).

Maybe that "appreciation" isn't necessary in light of the fact that I didn't grow up on training to go to a bomb shelter, etc, unlike my parents.

That alone should tell you the state of the Cold War when I was a child.

A generation that thinks we could win a nuclear war was a gullible one indeed.

I am worried that any time now, someone is gonna stop in here, crouch down, look up at me and say.... "this thread.....He's dead, Jim."

anyway.

"How can you give Reagan sole credit for the fruition of economic policies that had been in place literally since 1946?"

Because they weren't in place the whole time. The whole idea of Detante was to just co-exist. There are really three levels to the cold war.
1) Containment, as suggested by Kennan. This consisted of fighting communism (IE them there Ruskies.) anywhere they appear. This is the era of Korea and Vietnam.

2) Detante. This started in '72 under Nixon with SALT I and continued up till Reagan. It consisted primarily of a "Live and Let live" philosophy, and bolstered up the USSR's own failings by selling them massive amounts of grain. Vietnam continued, as did the idea of "war by proxy" an idea first seen in the Peloponnesian war, where Athens and Sparta fought more by supporting the smaller states, and by drawing them under their "Sphere of influence." The same idea applied to Detente. The US and Soviet Union would support smaller nations, or factions within those nations. The espionage war continued unabated.

3) Reagan era. This consisted of a full blown arms race, as well as surpressing Russia's access to resources, as well as ending grain sales. This, combined with internal and a few other outside forces (most notably Pope John Paul II, Lech Walesa, and Boris Yeltsin.) led to the ultimate fall of the USSR.

Now, if the direct, arms/space/peace race that was first instituted in 1946 had gone straight through, then the USSR would have collapsed, most likely around the Nixon administration (and then HE would be the hero. Ugh.) however, Nixon started Detante, which included, most notably with the grain sales, direct support of the USSR and bolstering its weaknesses (such as the failure of the collective farm idea) This was supported by Ford and Carter. and the USSR tottered along, and would have kept on going and going like some sort of Dictatorial Energizer Bunny. It was Reagan who had the raw genius to realize that we had to outspend them, and STOP supporting them. And what happens? without the help of sucessful, capitalistic nations to fix its failures, it collapses.

I look forward to your response.

"I would also like to see your reasoning on Communism falling apart."

Big 'C' (aka Soviet Style) Communism falls apart because their economic model could not sustain the expenses the model incurred (model meaning heavy military/industrial spending and deficit lending to friendly nations). Part of the problem was scale (as in the USSR was freakin' huge), and the other part was the attempt to centrally plan an economy for an entire nation of 100 million plus across all kinds of geographic/topographic/environmental variances. From scratch.

The USSR had an economy based primarily around heavy industry (technology, military, agricultural, etc) and agriculture. Sure they manufactured consumer goods, but those took second priority behind the others. To top it off, almost all the consumer goods manufactured (and a damn good chunk of the industrial) were far inferior to those produced in the West. Actually, a big part of the problems we see in Russia today are due to those who became rich off the black market, and those who became rich as members of the oligarchy.

My utter dismay at your hero worship of Reagan notwithstanding, I'm actually a firm believer in the free market. A free market leads to competition, competition leads to innovation. Lack of competition leads to inferior products and economic stagnation (see: Union; Soviet). The USSR was able to muscle itself along for years and years, primarily on things like oil and agricultural revenues, but it wasn't nearly enough to keep their house from slowly collapsing in on itself.

It's really basic to me. Sure, it took 69 years for the Soviet empire to fall, but it did fall. It fell, yes, thanks to the economic policies put into place by Harry Truman, and carried on through successive administrations (including St. Reagan's).

Saying that Cuba is going strong is a bit like saying all the Infrastructure guys I work with don't piss on the floor in front of the urinal (what the hell is it with those morons?). Cuba is going, but it ain't strong. Castro is pretty much carrying that nation along through sheer force of will. One day, yes, it will fall. Personally, I think the United States should resume trade with Cuba, as it will only work positively for us once Castro kicks the bucket. Don't expect that threatening Communist regime to be carrying the banner of the hammer and sickle for long after he dies.

Now that said, I always envisioned WWIII as ocurring more along the lines that Tom Clancy envisioned in "Red Storm Rising". A conventional war, but fought under the threat of nuclear confrontation at all times.

"My utter dismay at your hero worship of Reagan notwithstanding"

I don't worship him, I just think he was a damn good president who had the brains to play a large part in the destruction of the Soviet Union.

"the economic policies put into place by Harry Truman,"

exactamundo. Like I said, if we had carried on with those polices straight through, the USSR would have gone down in the early '70's. However, those policies of economic compitition/arms race/(later on) Space race would have brought the bear to it's knees. I agree with ever point you made about big C communism. However, starting in the late 60's, when Russia was feeling the strain, (I feel that the Cuban Missile Crisis was a bit of a move of desperation) we backed off, really starting with Tricky Dick. Then, to add really stupid error to mere error, we helped them, help shore up that faulty Military-industrial complex the USSR had going. Now, I like what Truman did, but Detente gave them a big boost. Add in the Aid (primarily in Grain sales) and we basically gave them a loooong rest. With Detente alone, they would have lasted into Reagan, but the aid sent them into the early 90's. Reagan's real genius lay in seeing that Truman was right, and that Nixon-Ford-Carter were all wrong. He applied Truman's ideas, and the USSR fell.

As for Cuba, they are just running along, and I feel that, if when Castro kicks off, they can a sufficently strong dictator in place of him, they could keep going.

As for WWIII, I always pictured a local conflict, like Vietnam, or Hungary, simply sprialing up, rather like the start of WWI. I was always fascinated by the resembelance between the cold war and the Peloponnesian war. Someone should write a book on that.

As for the Infrastructure guys, put a little sign on the floor: Stand here for Urinal. Put it 6 inches to far forward, and they SHOULD stand in the right spot.

Don't mistake my jibes about Reagan as anything more than that. I'm just giving you a hard time.

My point about Cuba is that dictator just isn't there.

Don't mistake my jibes about Reagan as anything more than that. I'm just giving you a hard time.

My point about Cuba is that dictator just isn't there.

I gotcha. Don't worry. after you go two rounds with X-ray, not much else can touch ya.

I agree with what you say about Cuba. There is no obvious sucessor to Castro. It will be interesting to see what happens when he dies though. I mean, you are gonna have a power vacuum like you won't believe. I think there might be a few guys just biding their chances, or else there is gonna be a nasty power stuggle. Nothing would surprise me, including a Facist government like they had under Franco in Spain. Power doesn't change hands nicely after that much repression.

after you go two rounds with X-ray, not much else can touch ya.'

True. I am a heavyweight.