What You Expected, What You Got
October 14th, 2007
What You Expected:
What You Got…
What you Expected:
What you Got:
What you Expected:
What you Got:
What you Expected:
What you Got:
The next: What You Expected, What You Got.
What do you think? I really like to hear from readers. Comment in the Forum or email me with your ideas.
Like reading RoughlyDrafted? Share articles with your friends, link from your blog, and subscribe to my podcast! Submit to Reddit or Slashdot, or consider making a small donation supporting this site. Thanks!
Technorati Tags: Apple, iPhone, Microsoft, the Media
Support RoughlyDrafted! | Daniel Eran Dilger is the author of “Snow Leopard Server (Developer Reference),” a new book from Wiley available now from Amazon as a paperback or digital Kindle download. |
Links:
Amazon | Facebook | Twitter
Bookmark: Del.icio.us Slashdot Digg
RSS feed for comments on this post
TrackBack URI for this post
246 comments
Haha great image blog, I especially loved those last 2 images.
Oh and while I’m here commenting anyways, I can’t access the forums at all. roughlydrafted.com/forum takes me to that special page you created, and forum.roughlydrafted.com/forum takes me to the same page (and so does clicking the link).
Sebastian
The forums are gone? Just for the moment, I hope. There wuz bunches of good conversation in there.
I hate to compain but the thick red type in the comment area (here) is awful. Is it a missehavior in my browser?
Thank you for this revisit to ’60’s anti war propaganda. It is as illogical now as it was then. It was always preaching to the choir.
It does bring up an interesting question, though. How different would life be if Al Gore had won in 2000? Would Gore have gotten awards from leftist organizations? Sure, they protect each other.
Would we still be at war with al Qaeda? I think so. Osama bin Laden hated Bill Clinton, or Al Gore, as much as he does President Bush. Most of al Qaeda’s terrorist plans were made during the Clinton administration.
But, the Democrat’s attitude would be different if a Liberal were in high office. Much of the Left’s anti-war tactics were to prevent victory, because that would expand the power and influence of the Republican Party. Can’t have that, can we?
Of course, the Democrats have a right to be angry with President Bush. He stole their war with Saddam Hussein. Only democrats are supposed to favor extending democracy to the rest of the world. President Bush campaigned against this in the 2000 election.
Of course, Al Gore would have never had much opposition from the Mainstream Media, the UN or Europe, no matter how much he mismanaged the war. Tens of thousands of American’s could die and they would still defend him.
I both reluctantly favor the war as a necessary evil and favor the Left’s attempts to prevent it. I just wish the Left were more logical about it. Complete denial just gets American’s killed.
Daniel,
The new look is an improvement.
I love to complain and the thick red type in the comment area (here) is awful.
,dave
Johnny,
Yeah, they’re down for now but hopefully not out. It was kind of annoying when I found out because I was going over to the “Ballmer Dellicious” thread to see if there were any new posts before I submitted my own, of course that post is now gone.
UrbanBard,
If Al Gore was president it would be something like this:
http://youtube.com/watch?v=AYuqoKxRhMg
Sebastian
UrbanBard.
Necessary evil is just being too lazy to do good (all along). If Al Gore had been president, there would still be a Republican Congress; therefore, there would have been some check and balance. That Congress would not have just give Gore a blank check to go to war and subvert the Constitution. By the way, Bin Laden got pissed off by GHW Bush when Bin Laden was denied a place to defend Saudi Arabia during the first Golf War. Before that, the Russians invaded Afghanistan. It goes way back…
TS.
Sorry, but why does a very good, well informed, subtle and entertaining blog about tech and Apple need to resort to this type of tacky, political character assassination?
Rise above this level Dan please, or alternatively put it on a separate site, because all you have done is offend between 49 and 51% of your readers…
Yours respectfully,
Jonathan
The Forums are available at http://forum.roughlydrafted.com/forum
However, when I link to that from within WordPress, something intercepts the URL and it is redirected back to “www.rd.com,” which does not work. You may need to manually plug the new URL in and update your bookmarks.
It will also make you login again (with your same password) because the URL is different. Note that the existing Forum (run by Vanilla) and WordPress (which happens to be on a different server) use independent accounts, so you can’t login to WordPress with the same username and password.
I think it needs to be stressed that you can NOT be on the Roughlydrafted site when you type in: http://forum.roughlydrafted.com/forum. I had to go to another web site and type it in before I was able to get it work. Otherwise, Wordpress redirects you to a 404 type screen. Have a good day.
TS, By necessary evil, I mean that we must make choices when we are confronted by enemies. Most likely, we must try something new. Ignoring our problems won’t make them go away. We have tried diplomacy with our Islamic foes and gotten nowhere. Our enemies just thought we were weak. Appeasement just makes our enemies stronger.
So, after all other measures have been taken, we have proceeded to force– to war. There will always people who will say we haven’t tried long enough or hard enough. And that the onus is on our shoulders because we are the one’s a fault.
The question is whether those people have the credentials to lend them any credibility. What results can they point to? The Democrats lost us Vietnam by ending military aid in 1973 and losing Vietnam cost two million Vietnamese dead and a similar number in Cambodia. I’ve never known of a Liberal to accept responsibility for what the Conservatives said would happen if we abandoned the Vietnamese– a bloodbath.
Some enemies cannot be reasoned with, bought off or placated. They want us dead or to be our masters. If it is a choice between Americans dying and them dying, I choose them.
You may volunteer to have your head cut off, but I do not.
“By the way, Bin Laden got pissed off by GHW Bush when Bin Laden was denied a place to defend Saudi Arabia during the first Gulf War. Before that, the Russians invaded Afghanistan. It goes way back…”
It didn’t happen that way. Osama bin Laden was Anti American and Anti Saudi government before he went to Afghanistan in the 1980’s. I suggest that you read, “The Looming Tower” by Richard Wright.
I suspect that the current war is merely a different front of the “Cold War.” Sayed Qtub’s comments are strongly influenced by the communists. The Islamists have strong resentments toward the West. Most often, they repeat the talking points of the Democratic Party, not because they wouldn’t kill the Democrats if they had the power. Their own culture is stagnant and has no ideas to draw from. So they borrow the worst ideas from the West.
Tilneys said, “Rise above this level Dan please, or alternatively put it on a separate site, because all you have done is offend between 49 and 51% of your readers…”
Yes, I’m sure all those people who got a Gateway Profile All-in-One are furious. There may well now be more of them than people who still give a positive approval rating to George W. Bush.
“What you expected” and the comments provide an impressive reminder that we each have developed unique links within our brain to our most powerful observations, experiences and prior thoughts!
After reading your earlier autobiographical pages still linked to Roughly Drafted, it seems appropriate that your graphics have indeed stirred up strong concerns in some of our minds. It does us all good.
As a science teacher, I’ve discussed evidence for the greenhouse effect and global warming for several decades. And with a Christian upbringing, I am strongly opposed to thinking of people in other cultures as our enemies. So your images brought a pleasant grin to my face. I regret that the President and his party have seemingly accomplished much of the declared objectives of Bin Laden. Some of them are very touchy about that.
Keep up the great work.
Sorry man, I just don’t approve of this type of thing. You may be very politically minded and very intelligent, but this just eeks of childish prejudiced opinions. If you are going to blog about political things, do it the same way you do your Apple-related blogs. That way at least I can see where you are coming from and form a well informed opinion of what you are saying. This however is just telling me, rather forcefully, what you already believe.
I don’t really care what you believe in, but I do want to know why you believe it. If I were to tell you, “MAC’s SUCK AND PC’s RULE!”. You would say that I was stupid and not listen. You are doing the same thing with this.
Please. Leave personal politics out of this site.
@Tilneys: Are you referring to the “character assassination” of the Whopper or of Jar-Jar Binks?
The idea really occurred to me as a tribute to Al Gore, who was just awarded the Nobel Peace Prize. I also admire his push to get the US to fund the development of our Internet as a social and economic program.
That’s in part why the US is the center of net technology today, and why our current acting president could so easily spy on the world’s information traffic–it all runs through out networks. It’s just too bad Bush can’t do anything useful with all that spy data apart from setting up a fear state and torturing a lot of innocent people.
Think about it: the handling of Katrina, a bungled war, a prison police state, spending US taxes to fund right wing fundamentalist killers like Blackwater… they are all criminal power mongering not too different from any of the other horrific regimes of the previous century such as Stalin’s Russia, or the fascist Axis nations.
With so much obvious crisis and bloodguilt sprayed around, its no wonder the NeoCons (which really have nothing to do with true US conservatives) are writing so many books of fiction to spin reality around a central lie. NeoCons fool the middle class into thinking that they benefit from fascism, when really nobody who outside of the top 1% (ie, billionaires) benefits from such destruction of the economy, the environment, and social well-being of the country.
I don’t think giving people something to think about is wrong. I think as citizens, we need to challenge ourselves and think more often, not cower to whatever message is being funneled to us from those who control the status quo.
Al Gore is as politically centrist as Clinton. Calling either a “leftist” is something only a brainwashed NeoCon repeater would think of doing. That kind of jingoism is what “character assignation” is, something the NeoCons have cornered the market on. Drawing a line between points of truth is not.
As for UrbanBard, he writes me long missives at regular intervals blaming the world problems on the invented idea of “American leftists” who start all our wars and waste all our money on feeding the poor. It all streams verbatim from the NeoCon bookshelf as is as transparently laughable as the Windows Enthusiasts with their “Apple is the Monopolist” table turning spewage.
Having said all that, if you don’t occasionally disagree with those you listen to (including me), you may be in danger of being brainwashed. If you choose to only expose yourself to things you already know or agree with, you aren’t being educated or informed. You’re being indoctrinated. That’s never a good thing.
Very funny blog entry.
Entering the address ” forum.roughlydrafted.com/forum” manually on a Mac that’s never visited RDM forums still re-directs me to “www.roughlydrafted.com/forum/”.
I’ll comment on the article later. At first glance, um, ya, Al Gore ain’t no leftist. He’s not exactly Steve Jobs on stage but politically he’s pretty moderate and responsible. I’d “hire” him.
Right now I’m up to my elbows in 4 quarts of Wild Rice Soup, a Minnesota favorite! Dan, Sebastian, anyone, if you’re in the neighborhood stop by, there’ll be plenty.
“…if you don’t occasionally disagree with those you listen to (including me), you may be in danger of being brainwashed. If you choose to only expose yourself to things you already know or agree with, you aren’t being educated or informed. You’re being indoctrinated. That’s never a good thing.”
Thank you for saying this. Daniel.
I love you too, Daniel, We just disagree on politics. I like your technical articles. I’m not crazy about your propaganda though.
I used to be a Democrat, but even then I was a “Scoop Jackson” type Democrat– I believe this country was worth defending.
After 1972 when the New Left took over, there was no room for me in the Democratic Party. Since then, I have come to dislike Socialism. Each year, I think the government is less qualified to do anything besides killing people or threaten to. That means that the courts, the police and the military are acceptable. Redistributing income is not.
Al Gore is no more a centrist than Bill Clinton was. Clinton was pretending to be a centrist to steal ideas from the right, since the Left has nothing but warmed over socialism. And the voters are rather tired of that.
Al Gore is a leftist since he believes that the government should redistribute income. Golly, that makes you a leftist, too, Daniel. You believe that the government should take from the rich and give to the poor, I don’t.
I’m quite happy that you Leftists, have confined yourselves to the big cities. The reason I like you ghettoizing yourself into leftist enclaves is that you have less influence that way. The nation is evenly divided. If you spread yourselves out more you would win more elections. Who wants that?
I’m no Neocon, Daniel. But we probably have different definitions in mind. A NeoCon is a Former Trotskyite, mostly of Jewish origin, disenchanted with Socialism and had no place to go but to the right. You probably think NeoCon= Conservative. How simplistic of you.
There are five different interest groups calling themselves Conservatives. I place myself among the “Small Government Conservatives.” That means that I favor substituting voluntary organizations to take the place of governmental activities. I don’t much like the activities of the Big Government Republicans, like President Bush, but he is way better than a leftist. At least, he won’t wreck the economy.
I apologize that this missive is too long. Wading through Left mire takes time. So much ignorance and bigotry; so little time.
JohnnyApple, Whether or not you see someone as a Leftist depends on where you stand on the issues. If you constantly read Moveon.org or MediaMatters, then, of course, you see Al Gore as a centrist. But, these people think Provda is to the right of them.
The question is how you measure these things. If you go by how people voted in the last election, then Al Gore is far Left of center. The 2006 election was a typical sixth year reversal of a two term presidency where the president’s party loses 40 to 60 house seats. The Republicans lost 41 seats and they were mostly to “Blue Dog” Democrats running to the right of Republicans.
I seriously doubt that the political center of America has changed; it has been slowly been moving toward the right as the older Democrats die off and new ones are either not born or reject it in high school or college. 50 to 60 year old teachers are the establishment to these students; They are NOT cool.
Any coming election is a crap shoot, but usually the majority party, in this case the Republicans, regains the seats that they lost. It’s not as though the Democrats will have issues that they can win on. A socialist domestic agenda like Hillary is talking about will not sell. The war in Iraq will be off the table since there is just not enough bad news coming out of Iraq these days.
Ummm, how do you “pretend” to be a centrist (or left/right for that matter)? You are what your record is. I’m always amused by defeated atheletes who proclaim “we were the better team, they just happened to score more points than we did.” Accepting reality is hard.
I think Daniel makes the wrong analogy about Bush/Gore and how we did not get what we expected. President Bush has done almost nothing that Candidate Bush promised. What happened to being a “uniter, not a divider”? Why is there no compassion in “Compassionate Conservative”?
Never argue with a fool; they will drag you down to their level and then beat you with experience.
“UrbanBard,” please truncate your comments and/or go away. Leftist, rightist, innocent-cutey-pie or belligerent knowitall, I don’t care—nothing you say is your own idea. I come here to read Roughly Drafted, not your re-hash of half-assed neoCon propaganda.
I love it when apologists of the current administration defend our recent history by citing the need to defend ourselves in the face of being attacked by enemies. Forgetting of course the inconvenient fact that until our involvement, there was NO link between Iraq and Al Qaida, and that only in the power vacuum that WE created did they achieve a foothold in Iraq. Simultaneously, we have neglected putting sufficient resources into fighting our enemies in their true homes, those being Afghanistan and our “ally in the war on terror” Pakistan.
Bush may be a moron, but you can’t actually blame him for the war in Iraq. I’m very liberal and left wing, but I can’t help but blame the war on the people who voted to approve it, people like Hillary Clinton who had the power to prevent it by voting “no” and instead voted “yes.”
At any rate, I like Al Gore a lot more now that he’s not trying to be president. If he hadn’t lost the election he wouldn’t have done all the great things that lead to him winning the (sympathy) votes that lead to his Oscar and his Emmy and his Nobel Prize. He’d be fighting the War on Terror and mired in low approval ratings.
Anyone willing to do what it takes to be elected president should by no means be allowed to do the job.
What I expected was great tech commentary.
What I got was more tired political swipes.
There are plenty of political blogs, I think this blog is a whole lot better if it sticks to the tech.
As a non-American, I’m always surprised at how far apart the political parties are.
Have you considered dividing the country? The middle would be one regime and the coasts another.
I think the electoral system has not kept up with technology. This running around from state to state, with polls and spin wasn’t considered when your system was created. Primaries should all be done on the same day! Get it over with, stop the soap opera.
Publish manifestos? How about deciding on policy rather than personality?
Special interest lobbies seem to have more power than the electorate, so it doesn’t matter if your party wins anyway.
Americans don’t seem to remember that their great country was founded by people searching for Truth Liberty and Justice. Unfortunately their descendants only value popularity, the sound-byte and avoiding the hard questions.
I hope this doesn’t come over as un-American, but I think the system needs to evolve
Johnny,
When you get to the page “www.roughlydrafted.com/forum” go up to the URL bar and delete “www” and retype “forum” and then if it works just drag the URL down to the bookmarks bar so you don’t have to keep going through that little pain. I was finally able to somehow get onto the Forums this way. A lot of other people must be having trouble because only Oliver, Luis, Tom, lightstab, roz, and dorotea posted anything and most of that was on “Rise of the iTunes Killers Myth”.
Sebastian
Gus2000 said:
“Ummm, how do you “pretend” to be a centrist (or left/right for that matter)? You are what your record is. ”
If that were only so, Gus. You know that politicians lie, don’t you? All politicians– left and right. They will go before different groups and tell them what they want to hear. But, this is getting much harder than before the internet.
A politician will tell certain interest groups, or the public through the Mainstream Media that he is a centrist but his record will show that he is not. The Media will try to hide his record, but this is getting harder.
Bill Clinton pretended to be a centrist. National health care is not a centrist position; Nor is Gays in the Military. Nor is a wide varieties of issues that Bill Clinton favored but could not get through congress. Bill Clinton called this pretending to be a centrist “triangulation.” He didn’t use it during the time he had a Democratic majority in Congress, but after 1994 when he did not.
Gus2000 said:
“What happened to being a “uniter, not a divider”?”
Governor Bush had a good record of working with Democrats in the Texas legislature. But, they were “Good ol’ Boys” close to the voters. President Bush ran into a buzz saw of leftist opposition in Washington. If you want to be a uniter, you have to have someone you can unite with. Big City Leftists want it all their own way. Too bad they can’t get to voters to go along with that.
Gus2000 said:
“Why is there no compassion in “Compassionate Conservative”?”
As a small government Republican, I’m not in favor of Compassionate Conservatism: that looks too much like “triangulation” to me. I’m not in favor of redistributing wealth. I’m against persecuting people because they are rich.
Every nation that tries that ends up poor and in chains.
Gus2000 said:
“Never argue with a fool; they will drag you down to their level and then beat you with experience.”
I was hoping for a discussion of ideas, myself. Too bad that the Left can’t do that these days.
AEChadwick said:
““UrbanBard,” please truncate your comments and/or go away. Leftist, rightist, innocent-cutey-pie or belligerent knowitall, I don’t care—nothing you say is your own idea. I come here to read Roughly Drafted, not your re-hash of half-assed neoCon propaganda.”
How long have you been in favor of censorship, AE? This is supposed to be an open forum, so that a diversity of ideas can be presented.
The Left really opposes “Political Diversity.” I really would wish that Daniel would stick to technology. He, at least, makes some sense there.
Shorter UrbanBard: “When you tell me not to write about my idiosyncratic political beliefs on a website because you disagree with them, that’s typical leftist censorship. When I (and others) tell the owner of the website not to write about his political beliefs on his own website because we disagree with them, that’s OK because we are not leftists.”
Oh, thebob. “Americans don’t seem to remember that their great country was founded by people searching for Truth Liberty and Justice. Unfortunately their descendants only value popularity, the sound-byte and avoiding the hard questions.”? Sure, there are Americans who don’t remember this. But there are PLENTY of Americans who do. You’re right the system does need reformed. But I know a lot of liberals in the middle and conservatives on the coasts who would be really pissed off if we just cut up the country based on stereotypical geographical ideas.
I think Daniel should say whatever he ants to say. It’s his blog. If you don’t like it, there’s a handy dandy address bar on your browser that will take you somewhere else. Or say something that’s at least mildly thought out.
I thought it was funny…You’re right Dan, I didn’t expect Jar Jar! AAAAAAAHHHHHH!
Nicky G said”
” Forgetting of course the inconvenient fact that until our involvement, there was NO link between Iraq and Al Qaida, and that only in the power vacuum that WE created did they achieve a foothold in Iraq. ”
Unfortunately for you, the some 200 thousand documents discovered in fall of Saddam’s regime prove you wrong. But, the Leftist Media will not publish them, so you may not know this. But, that doesn’t excuse your ignorance. Your ignorance is self generated.
“Simultaneously, we have neglected putting sufficient resources into fighting our enemies in their true homes, those being Afghanistan and our “ally in the war on terror” Pakistan.”
True. The terrorist’s true home is in Saudi Arabia; that is where the Wahabi/ Salafi clerics are promoting this war on us. Too bad that Geo-political considerations must intervene. We can’t go to war with Saudi Arabia because that would close the straits of Hormuz. The Europeans would freeze to death.
Blaming the Pakistan government is futile. Much of their territory is not under their control. Often it takes many years to effect change. Years that you will not give to these governments.
War is often hard. We have to do what works, not what we want to do. That is why the US invaded North Africa in World War Two rather than Continental Europe. The British had been almost been destroyed at Dunkirk.
Dear UrbanBard,
Listen to me carefully, since this is the last time I will ever address you: when I said “do not argue with fools” I was referring to you specifically. Since I was apparently too subtle, I will now state clearly and emphatically “you are a fool”.
You have no desire to participate in an adult discussion, but rather use inflammatory language to get lots of people mad enough to respond. Somehow, you think this makes you popular. It does not. And since it seems to give you perverse pleasure, I will no longer provide you such validation.
Personally, I will no longer be feeding this Troll. Those of you that take offense at his diatribes would do well to do the same.
The Bob said:
“As a non-American, I’m always surprised at how far apart the political parties are. Have you considered dividing the country? The middle would be one regime and the coasts another.”
Why should American Conservatives do that? In twenty years the Liberals will have emasculated themselves. They are not reproducing; their birth rates are as low as Europe’s. The Left have no ideas attractive to the voters. Let them die a natural death. Let them go the way of the Whig Party. Then we Small Government Republicans can turn on the Big Government Republicans.
“I think the electoral system has not kept up with technology. ”
The last thing we Americans want in government is efficiency. Why has the American Republic withstood the assault of the Socialists when all the European states went Social Democratic or Communist? The US Constitution is very hard to change. That is why the Left tried to make an end run around the Constitution through the courts.
“Publish manifestos? How about deciding on policy rather than personality?”
You want to take way the fun and the drama of an election? Phooey.
“Special interest lobbies seem to have more power than the electorate, so it doesn’t matter if your party wins anyway.”
There are long term trends at work here. The Reagan Revolution worked, but has not yet resulted in legislation. “Government is not the solution, but is the problem,” is believed by most Americans now.
But, getting the electorate to give up the “goodies” promised by the left is hard. The political spoils for the special interests are quite entrenched. The Democratic Party would lose a third of their voters if those went away.
“Americans don’t seem to remember that their great country was founded by people searching for Truth Liberty and Justice. ”
Sad but true. A big problem is that the public schools don’t teach history any more. Too few people know what ideas that our republic was founded on. The leftist propagandists have done a good job of confusing the issue, too.
“Unfortunately their descendants only value popularity, the sound-byte and avoiding the hard questions.”
That is a Mass Media Generated problem that is being overcome by the internet. The Left have degenerated to the point where I can’t get a good argument from them. All they can retort with is propaganda and ad Homenim attacks.
“I hope this doesn’t come over as un-American, but I think the system needs to evolve”
No, I think you are one of the few intelligent people to post here.
Coffeego said:
“When you tell me not to write about my idiosyncratic political beliefs on a website because you disagree with them, that’s typical leftist censorship.”
I’m not telling anyone to go away; I’m not censoring anyone. I like a free and open discussion of ideas. I merely disagree with you and you cannot stand that.
“When I (and others) tell the owner of the website not to write about his political beliefs on his own website because we disagree with them, that’s OK because we are not leftists.””
I never said to Daniel not to write about this. I merely called it what it was: Leftist propaganda. You have something against free speech?
I even said that I like Daniel personally and just disagree with his politics. I like his technical writings. He is quite intelligent when talking about the Mac, but he applies no intelligence to his politics. He cannot question them.
I’ve noticed before that Leftist’s act like a false religion. Their response is emotional rather than reasoned. I would love to get a reasoned argument from Daniel, but he has resisted.
Gus2000 said
“Listen to me carefully, since this is the last time I will ever address you: when I said “do not argue with fools” I was referring to you specifically. ”
Well.. Da.
Of course, I knew that you were insulting me. But, why should I respond? Why should I value your opinion? Have you said anything that was intelligent? Not so I can see. Have you given a reasoned argument? No.
The first thing that Leftists do when they realize that they are losing an argument to to start on the personal attacks and insults. I tend to ignore them.
“You have no desire to participate in an adult discussion, but rather use inflammatory language to get lots of people mad enough to respond. ”
What inflammatory language have i made? I have not insulted anyone. Words like Leftist and Socialist have meanings that I am using correctly. I am making reasoned arguments. But you don’t want to hear them. Tough.
“Somehow, you think this makes you popular. ”
Why would I want popularity when I can have truth?
” And since it seems to give you perverse pleasure, I will no longer provide you such validation.”
I enjoy a discussion of ideas with a knowledgeable person. Too bad that you don’t qualify.
“Those of you that take offense at his diatribes would do well to do the same.”
There you go again trying to suppress free speech.
UrbanBard, you really are clueless aren’t you.
“There you go again trying to suppress free speech”
No-one’s stopping you from posting…
We’re just not going to read it.
john
ps Johnny, maybe we should have a RDF Minneapolis get together. I believe there are several posters in this area.
limey said:
“UrbanBard, you really are clueless aren’t you.
“There you go again trying to suppress free speech”
No-one’s stopping you from posting…”
I just like pointing out the cognitive dissidence of the Left. They love to proclaim themselves as freedom seekers and lovers of the 1st amendment. But, the only freedom they seek is for them to express their views. Any other opinion gets accusations, threats, insults and personal attacks. This is a classic case of suppression of speech.
There is soft and hard censorship. Hard censorship is when a government throws into jail anyone who disagrees. Soft censorship is to try to drown people out. The typical way is to own all the Media, the press and organs of information transfer such as the Schools.
The Left had that capability to drown out the Right 20 odd years ago, but not now. The sad result is that the Left have forgotten how to debate. Or events have caught up with them, because the results of their beliefs have been tried elsewhere and failed.
If you don’t like what I write then give me a good argument why I am wrong. Back it up with good logic and facts that can be verified. Just don’t tell me I am wrong; why should I agree with you? Don’t just tell me to go away. Nothing makes me more stubborn than that.
“We’re just not going to read it.”
I love that. Keep it up. Silence yourselves.
Nobel is a leftist organization? Amazing.
“Would we still be at war with al Qaeda? I think so.”
Maybe we would have still had them as an adversary, but we would have been in a much better position. If we have stopped after invading Afganistan, put the resources into finding and killing Osama Bin Laden, we would have been a pretty good position to reducing the threat from Al Qaeda significantly. I have heard a couple analyses that Al Qauda was in a pretty bad state before we went into Iraq, but Bush’s war in Iraq gave them new life, a new mission and a rallying cry.
“Of course, the Democrats have a right to be angry with President Bush. He stole their war with Saddam Hussein. Only democrats are supposed to favor extending democracy to the rest of the world. President Bush campaigned against this in the 2000 election.”
Yes Bush did campaign against nation building in 2000, it only goes to show how little he knew/knows about foreign policy.
“Of course, the Democrats have a right to be angry with President Bush. He stole their war with Saddam Hussein. Only democrats are supposed to favor extending democracy to the rest of the world. President Bush campaigned against this in the 2000 election.”
Democrats are angry with Bush because he started this disaster of a war in Iraq, with no preparation, no thought and no need. He also failed to act upon the advice from Clinton officials to be prepared for a terrorist attack. That might mean if you have intel that says a target might be US airplanes, tell the FAA. Read memo’s by people who warn that they have found out about Islamists learning to fly planes in the US, and they are not interested in learning out how to land. Etc.
“Of course, Al Gore would have never had much opposition from the Mainstream Media, the UN or Europe, no matter how much he mismanaged the war.”
First, he would not have invaded Iraq, and whatever he did would have been managed better than Bush has done. Second, why do you say the press is too critical? The press helped beat the drum for the war in a totally unquestioning fashion. Its only years into with the public seeing it as a huge mess has the press become critical. Poor republicans always wear the clothes of a victim: “The media hates us, wah wah!” No they are just trying to get a bit of accountability.
“I just like pointing out the cognitive dissidence of the Left.”
Funny, I like to do the same with the Right:
They say Small Government, government spending grows, they create new entitlements, new secret government spying on the public. How again is that small government?
They say Fiscal Responsibility but they run up huge budget deficits and create all kinds of give-away earmarks. Government is more out of control under them and getting sold to the highest bidder.
They say Family values when we all know its a lie. Newt Gingrich divorces his wife with cancer. Pedophiles protected. Give me a break.
They say no nation building and we have spent hundreds of billions in Iraq. We spent a life’s earnings for a typical Iraqi.
They say Free Markets, but Bush backs protections when it suits him. Steel protections, corn subsidies, drug industry subsidies, oil industry subsidies. No bid contracts in Iraq. The list goes on an on.
Conservatives are supposed to be careful, they are supposed to protect our founding values, like separation of state and religion, not undermine them. Conservatives like Teddy Roosevelt sought to protect the environment, not destroy it or ignore our affect on it.
The sad truth is that the conservative movement is intellectually bankrupt because they have shown they can’t govern. They don’t honor their own principles and most of all, they don’t believe in good government. Why would anyone want them in office? Would you go to a restaurant where the people working there hate the idea of eating out?
UrbanRad, the USA is not at war with EL Qaeda, it’s has invaded Iraq, and abandoning El Qaeda.
yes, maybe if Al Gore would have been elected by the supreme court the US would still be at war with Al Qaeda, but don’t pretend it is today.
Iraq never had anything to do with 911, El Qaeda etc…
and u KNOW that !
@limey
“maybe we should have a RDF Minneapolis get together”
Sure, maybe we could have some reasoned arguments about technology and market share. I’m open for political debate too. You sound like a knowledgeable person I could have a discussion of ideas with.
~John
LOL@John. Just for that, I’m buying the first round.
Roz said
“Nobel is a leftist organization? Amazing.”
Leftists can infiltrate and control any organization. Hey, even the Ford Foundation gives the bulk of its donations to leftist groups. I consider Nobel a Social Democratic organization. Any organization that gave a Nobel Peace prize to Yasser Arafat is no friend to freedom.
““Would we still be at war with al Qaeda? I think so.”
Maybe we would have still had them as an adversary, but we would have been in a much better position.”"
America has more than just al Qaeda to worry about. After all, al Qaeda is just a financier, strategic planning and training organization for thousands of terrorist organizations world wide.
We needed to transform the Mid East and the only way to do that was to plant a free economy and a republic in Iraq. That meant the Saddam Hussein had to go. It wasn’t as though he didn’t deserve being overthrown. Bush was merely carrying through with Clinton’s goals in 1998.
“If we have stopped after invading Afghanistan, put the resources into finding and killing Osama Bin Laden, we would have been a pretty good position to reducing the threat from Al Qaeda significantly. ”
Since we have killed or captured 80% of al Qaeda that is doing rather good. Finding Osama bin Laden is unimportant except for propaganda purposes. Keeping al Qaeda off balance is what is important.
These are all Leftist canards. The Left have no strategy for fighting the war on terror. They think that when the Republicans are out of high office then the Muslims will be placated. But, that is when our guard goes down and the real blood bath begins.
“I have heard a couple analyses that Al Qaeda was in a pretty bad state before we went into Iraq, but Bush’s war in Iraq gave them new life, a new mission and a rallying cry.”
That is life. It’s a fact of war that people choose sides, but they do that anyway. If we do nothing– they kill us. If we do anything to hurt them, their numbers grow and they kill us. There is a limit to even the numbers of suicidal Muslims. The point is that the war is not over. We do not know who will win. But, your plan is for us to lose.
““Of course, the Democrats have a right to be angry with President Bush. He stole their war with Saddam Hussein. Only democrats are supposed to favor extending democracy to the rest of the world. President Bush campaigned against this in the 2000 election.”
Yes Bush did campaign against nation building in 2000, it only goes to show how little he knew/knows about foreign policy.”
It was a different world. Clinton had soft peddled the Islamist threat. Bush had to wake up and smell the roses on 9/11. When will you?
“Democrats are angry with Bush because he started this disaster of a war in Iraq, with no preparation, no thought and no need.”
We disagree. There was a year and more of preparation before the invasion. Saddam was given chance after chance. We disagree on the need.
“He also failed to act upon the advice from Clinton officials to be prepared for a terrorist attack. ”
Clinton had no plan. He passed on no messages.
“That might mean if you have intel that says a target might be US airplanes, tell the FAA. Read memo’s by people who warn that they have found out about Islamists learning to fly planes in the US, and they are not interested in learning out how to land. Etc.”
The Clinton administration had erected “the Wall” keeping the FBI and the CIA from talking to each other. Might-have-beens are just conjecture. The Clinton administration had plenty of chances to hit al Qaeda and chose not to.
““Of course, Al Gore would have never had much opposition from the Mainstream Media, the UN or Europe, no matter how much he mismanaged the war.”
First, he would not have invaded Iraq, and whatever he did would have been managed better than Bush has done. “”
True, he would have not invaded Iraq. Whether that would have helped America neither of us know. I suspect not. Al Gore is not a decisive person; he would dither.
“Second, why do you say the press is too critical? The press helped beat the drum for the war in a totally unquestioning fashion. ”
What have you been smoking? I was talking about the Mainstream Media. The Washington Post, the NY Times, The LA times, The Boston Globe, ABC, NBC. CBS are all anti war. Who are you talking about?
“Its only years into with the public seeing it as a huge mess has the press become critical. ”
Afraid not. You don’t know your history.
“Poor republicans always wear the clothes of a victim: “The media hates us, wah wah!” No they are just trying to get a bit of accountability.”
So, that is why the NY Times act as a traitor by revealing the Swift Program? The only conclusion is that they want the Bush administration to lose. Unfortunately, America loses too.
Arafat was fighting for the freedom of his people.
“War on Terror”, i’m really worried every time i read that.
u can’t fight terrorists with violence, there is no war on terror, that’s a public relation invention of the Bush administration, no other country is stupid enough to call it like that.
u can fight terrorism, but it’s not a war.
Roz continues”
“I just like pointing out the cognitive dissidence of the Left.”
Funny, I like to do the same with the Right:
They say Small Government, government spending grows, they create new entitlements, new secret government spying on the public. How again is that small government?”
It isn’t. The voters aren’t ready for that yet. They don’t want to give up their special interests.
Evidently, You cannot read, either. I said that President Bush is a BIG Government Republican. I am a Small Government Conservative. I don’t agree with his position on many things. Why do you imply that I do?
“They say Fiscal Responsibility but they run up huge budget deficits and create all kinds of give-away earmarks. ”
You are an ignoramus. The national debt is dropping rapidly. It will be gone in several years.
The congressional spending, of course, is relative in comparison to the Democrats. Since the Democrats hold both houses this is THEIR budget deficit.
Hillary says that she has millions of ideas on how to help people. Everyone of those ideas will cost money. She would break the treasury if she were elected. Even so, I agree that we should throw everyone out of office who abuses earmarks.
“Government is more out of control under them and getting sold to the highest bidder.”
The Democrats are no pikers here. Do I have to remind you of Rep Jefferson and his 90 thousand dollars of cold cash in the freezer?
“They say Family values when we all know its a lie. Newt Gingrich divorces his wife with cancer. Pedophiles protected. Give me a break.”
What are you– a gossip columnist? A preachers? None of our politicians are free of taint. The Media protects the pedophiles on the Left. They don’t spare the one’s on the right.
“They say no nation building and we have spent hundreds of billions in Iraq. ”
Grow up. You are repeating yourself. Times change and politicians must respond.
“They say Free Markets, but Bush backs protections when it suits him. Steel protections, corn subsidies, drug industry subsidies, oil industry subsidies. No bid contracts in Iraq. The list goes on an on.”
I have to agree with you, but so what? Are Democrats squeaky clean? Of course not. You are merely being partisan.
“Conservatives are supposed to be careful, they are supposed to protect our founding values, like separation of state and religion, not undermine them.”
What in the world does that mean? Oh! There is no separation of Church and state enshrined in the constitution or in the federalist papers. The supposed “wall” between the church and state that Thomas Jefferson wrote about in a private letter has to do with the Establishment of a church in America. There is no Tax Paid, established church in America.
What the Left are doing is something that would have horrified the founders– the removal of religious practice from the public arena. You can only do that by denying people’s freedom of religion.
“Conservatives like Teddy Roosevelt sought to protect the environment, not destroy it or ignore our affect on it.”
Teddy Roosevelt was a Republican, but was a progressive, a reformer, a socialist, and no Conservative.
“The sad truth is that the conservative movement is intellectually bankrupt because they have shown they can’t govern. ”
Given that you have shown no signs of even knowing was Conservative values are, I must disagree.
“They don’t honor their own principles and most of all, they don’t believe in good government. ”
Define was “good Government” is, please. I believe that the best government is the smallest and the closest to the voters. What do you believe in?
“Why would anyone want them in office?”
The fact is that the electorate does. Why? Because the Democratic party wants to regulate and tax us to death. There is no freedom in that.
Martin said
“Arafat was fighting for the freedom of his people.”
Ah. That explains why he stole a billion dollars of aid money and placed it in a swiss bank account.
““War on Terror”, i’m really worried every time i read that.
u can’t fight terrorists with violence, there is no war on terror, that’s a public relation invention of the Bush administration, no other country is stupid enough to call it like that.
u can fight terrorism, but it’s not a war.”
Apparently, you as competent with Global Strategy as you are with spelling.
Martin also said:
“UrbanRad, the USA is not at war with EL Qaeda, it’s has invaded Iraq, and abandoning El Qaeda.
yes, maybe if Al Gore would have been elected by the supreme court the US would still be at war with Al Qaeda, but don’t pretend it is today.”
Of course, You are a God so you know everything. LOL
“Iraq never had anything to do with 911, El Qaeda etc…”
No one in the Bush administration ever said that Saddam had anything to do with 9/11. But, the 200 thousand documents captured after Saddam’s regime fell say that Saddam’s government and al Qaeda did cooperate. Many leading al Qaeda leaders and terrorists would vacation or recuperate in Iraq.
“and u KNOW that !”
No, you have your facts wrong. You can’t believe everything that you read in the Mainstream Media.
You are insulting me, not convincing me.
Hey Martin,
Ignore the flame. It’s not warm or inspiring or intelligent. Don’t go into the lite.
~johnny
Martin, you are not convincible because you are not open to change, are you? An ignoramus usually remains one. Wisdom requires both facts and logic; you have neither. The pursuit of knowledge requires a humble spirit, not one of arrogance.
Johnny Apple, are you going metaphysical on us? Shall we speak of the afterlife? We’d better not. Leftists are rarely evil people; they lack the necessary courage to do great harm. That is why they insist that the government do their evil for them. They are lost souls; doomed to wander endlessly in search of impossible dreams.
Just kidding Guys, Your comments were so bizarre that I couldn’t resist.
gus, you too are a minneappleoid? Cool, I’m ready for that free beer. I’ll toss my wallet in for round two.
Would this constitute a “Daniel Fan Club”?? Is he flattered or creeped out?
Theoretical explanations of the origins of the universe leave me questioning. Face it, if you believe everything you’re ever told you’ll never discover anything new. Dark matter and red shift and expansion theory leave me wondering. There’s a thing or two missing in the finished picture. Einstein admitted as much seventy years ago. I find it challenging and exciting. I think red shift is a misinterpretation. Subject changed?
I just said that u insult me instead of trying to convince me with information, argumentation, facts.
give me a link about those 200 pages that proove that saddam was inviting Al Qaeda members in Iraq.
and explain why being in Iraq is part of the so called “war” on terror.
sorry, i’m stupid, i don’t get it.
i just see that there are more terrorist attacks today than ever before.
Martin, I think you may have fallen victim to an Urban Legend. The best cure is to ignore it. It will eventually go away. Keep an eye on your temperature. If it hits 103 or more, see a doctor immediately. You’re not stupid.
I’m 40, i know who i am :)
I’m 39. That makes you pretty dang old from my point of view. What’s your thought on red-shift? I think it might have something to do with dark matter (not to be confused with the dark side… different subject)
do u mean the red shift that is the visual equivalent of the doppler effect, and shows that the universe is expanding ?
or is there another red shift related to dark matter ?
(i’m not up to date, too old … :)
I think that – perhaps – red shift is an observerd illusion caused by high frequency photons (the blue ones) traveling billions of years through space being intercepted and bounced off of dark, dusty particles that we can’t see or measure. There’s a lot of mass in the misty steam between observable objects. I’m likely wrong but it’s fun stuff (for me) to think about. I got a D in high school physics but have since read “the elegant universe” a few times, often getting lost. Ain’t physics fun!! Science is fun and the sky is amazing.
Is the subject changed? Cool!
i think red shift is caused by a fast movement away from us.
it’s just like the sound of a car passing by, when it approaches the engine has a higher pitch than when it drives away.
just like the sound waves are contracted and expanded by the movement of the car, the lightwaves emitted by stars are expanded, turning to red (longer wavelength)
But, short wavelength photons are much more likely to be intercepted and bounced out of our plain of view than long ones. Blues cross the plane of view more often – so the likelyhood of red freqs reaching us are far more likely than blue freqs. I think interstellar smoke explains a lot of this. I don’t think it’s doppler (my opinion) it’s scattered photons.
that’s what i remember from school, and wikipedia confirms it.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Redshift
“America has more than just al Qaeda to worry about.”
If you are saying the so called War on Terror is important, then of course we should have a focus. I think most would agree that Al Qaeda should be the focus. As you say: “After all, al Qaeda is just a financier, strategic planning and training organization for thousands of terrorist organizations world wide.” Seems like a good target to me.
“We needed to transform the Mid East and the only way to do that was to plant a free economy and a republic in Iraq”
Why do we *need* to do that? Nothing requires us to transform the Middle East. Is it better to have a democratic Middle East? Sure. Should we bankrupt the US and devistate the US military, and indirectly recruit a new generation of terrorists for that goal. Uh, no. Lets be wise with the use of force and how we select our goals. At the very least we should have a national debate on what our goals should be. Nothing required us to invade Iraq when we did. We did not need to do that. And even if you say that we should help change the Middle East, on what basis can you say its the only way to do it?
“But, your plan is for us to lose.”
You don’t know my plan, don’t try to speak for me. Our problem is that we went in without a plan and with out preparation, now we don’t have good options. Don’t blame people on the left who opposed a losing war for its failure. Take responsibility for the fact that your people got us into this mess, its your mess. Don’t pin it on others – take responsibility for the failure that your side created.
“It was a different world. Clinton had soft peddled the Islamist threat. Bush had to wake up and smell the roses on 9/11. When will you?”
Clinton did not soft peddle Osama’’s threat. It was the Republicans who said that Clinton was trying to wag the dog when he was going after then.
Take responsibility for Bush absolutely dropping the ball and failing to activate the government in response to the threat during his administration, its his administration. He had the warnings, he and is ideologically blinded cabinet was busy with non-threats like advocating missile defense. Don’t blame Clinton for that – this was 9 months into the new administration.
“Clinton had no plan. He passed on no messages.”
Dishonest or ignorant – which are you? Well detailed the warnings to Bush from the prior administration, the urgent intelligence alerts, the carried-over head of anti-terrorism – all ignored.
The Republicans cant face the fact that they screwed up, so they look to blame everyone else. They blame Clinton. They blame the American people and seek to invade its privacy. They try to find a way to blame Saddam Hussein. They blame the intelligence community. When really, they failed to respond, failed to figure out the signs and act. They did not even warn the FAA.
“What have you been smoking? I was talking about the Mainstream Media. The Washington Post, the NY Times, The LA times, The Boston Globe, ABC, NBC. CBS are all anti war. Who are you talking about?”
Yes, now! You think they should not tell the truth about the war? Its not going well – face it. Don’t blame the media because we were not prepared and invaded a country of 26 million people with too few troops and no plan. That is not the media’s fault.
You said that there is cognitive dissonance on the Left. My point that the right is much worse. And they say one thing, and do another. They have a moment to govern their way and they do the opposite.
To me that is a major dissonance. Republicans have been talking about this whole small government stuff for decades. They get in there, have the Congress and Presidency and what do they do – grow the government! You know who shrank the government – CLINTON and GORE.
And you are wrong about Bush – he says he is a small government Republican. Yet he grew the government. You can say whatever you like but he is the leader of the right and he does not govern based on his own supposed political beliefs.The Congress ran with it too, they all of the Republican are to blame and they were removed for it – totally discredited as a party. Either the ideas are bad or the Republicans are a fraud. Face it. That is the fake conservative right in action. Sorry it hurts, but its true.
“It isn’t. The voters aren’t ready for that yet. They don’t want to give up their special interests.”
Again, you blame the public for Republican failure? Blame others, but Republicans had the power and opportunity and proved themselves unworthy. Now they lash out at the Democrats. But look at every point of criticism and it applies much worse about the Republicans themselves. Cognitive dissonance – ha! The conservatives are intellectually bankrupt and don’t want to see it – they are the agent of the kind of government corruption they supposedly despise.
“There is no separation of Church and state enshrined in the constitution or in the federalist papers.”
Hello, First Amendment? You recognize the amendments right? The point is that real American conservatives should not want to bring religion into policy. They would want to govern on fact and principle – not anti-science not by imposing morality on people.
““Why would anyone want them in office?” The fact is that the electorate does.”
Uh, you must have been asleep the last year, have you checked Congress lately?
“You are an ignoramus. The national debt is dropping rapidly. It will be gone in several years.”
Huh what? The debt is growing under Bush. The annual deficit may be reduced over time but that is not the same thing. Again I find that the attacks you launch at me, perhaps this one especially, more aptly apply to yourself.
Martin, I was only trying to change the topic. Didn’t work any better here than it does at the Thanksgiving table.
and i was helping :)
Martin said:
“I just said that u insult me instead of trying to convince me with information, argumentation, facts.”
Sorry about that. Insults are catching, you know. All I said in the beginning was that Daniel’s pictures reminded me of 60’s anti war propaganda. I got a considerable number of insults and slurs on my character from that. I try not to be affect by it, but I fail.
My comments were that I think an Al Gore Presidency would be little different from a George Bush Presidency. Oh! There wouldn’t be an IMPEACH GORE sign; the Republicans learned not to do that with Clinton.
What I disputed was the rosy impression which Daniel’s pictures fostered that, if Al Gore had become president, all would be perfect. Radical Muslim terrorists have been at war with us since 1979. They hate Democrats just as much as they do the Republicans. They parrots the Democratic Party line because that divides us. I suspect that more Americans would be dead with a Gore Presidency than with a Bush one, but we will never know.
“give me a link about those 200 pages that prove that saddam was inviting Al Qaeda members in Iraq.”
It’s 200,000 Iraqi government documents that are slowly being translated. Fascist and Communist governments, like Saddam’s, are great record keepers. I’ll have to check up on them. I haven’t heard much about them lately. But, The war is slowly dying out in Iraq too. You can tell this because there is no daily bad news in the Mainstream media.
The picture I got from the document’s that I read were that Saddam’s government was not part of al Qaeda, but that they had a common enemy– America. Saddam gave refuge to many terrorists. They went to Iraq when they needed surgery. Saddam’s regime and al Qaeda were friendly only because they were on the same side.
The various terrorist groups had things that kept them apart too. The Saudi al Qaeda and the Muslim Brotherhood were Sunni. The terrorists financed by Iran were Shia. Al Qaeda is a “headquarters group” that financed, trained, and did strategic planning for about one to two thousand terrorist groups.
Saddam allowed an al Qaeda training camp up by the Kurdish zone and Iran. The pretense was that Saddam couldn’t send a thousand troops with Russian armor up to wipe them out whenever he wanted to. Clearly, he didn’t want to.
“and explain why being in Iraq is part of the so called “war” on terror.”
It’s simple: it divides the enemy.
After we took the Taliban down, there were a number of centers of terrorist action in the Mid East– great and small. Iran supplied money, a refuge, training and arms to terrorists all across the Mid East. The Wahabi/ Salafi clerics of Saudi Arabia supplied money, indoctrination and soldiers. The Egyptians supplied soldiers. Iraq gave money, mostly.
The Bush administration could have attacked Iran, but it had no cause that would stand up before world opinion.
Iraq was a natural strategy for us because if we could place a free economy and a representative government in Iraq, then the Muslims would eventually defeat themselves. The, restless and unemployed, young men in the Mid East, who now fight us, would be drawn to Iraq, where they would get jobs and married. They would stop fighting us, although they wouldn’t like us any better. They would choose a political solution, rather than a military one. But, this would be a very long term solution.
Taking down Saddam’s regime was natural, too, because the UN was at war with Iraq. There was a “Cease Fire” from the Gulf War that was dependent on Saddam keeping his agreements in UN Resolution 687. There were 15 other UN Resolutions documenting that Saddam was NOT keeping his promises. The UN inspectors found, through the aid of Saddam’s sons-in-law, hundreds of thousands of tons of WMD that Saddam had hidden. Where that WMD went is anyone’s guess.
The point was that finding this illegal WMD in 1995 was a cause for restarting the war. The will just wasn’t there to do that, so the issue smoldered on. Then, Saddam threw out the UN inspectors in 1998 which was a direct provocation to war.
The war was still going on; America was spending a billion dollars a year to maintain the “No Fly” zones. Saddam’s military would occasionally shoot down one of our planes. President Clinton intended to do something about taking down Saddam’s regime in 1998, but there was no political will and his personal problems intervened.
“i just see that there are more terrorist attacks today than ever before.”
That is because we are more aware of it. There have been many planned terrorist attacks that have been foiled, sometimes at the last minute.
America has been lucky, or our anti-terrorist people have been effective, that we haven’t been attacked in the US. But, it is from no lack of trying; Terrorist attacks have been going off where we have no control– like Africa, Europe and the Mid East.
If we pretend that we are not at war and slacken off, then The terrorists will strike closer to home. The Democrats seem unprepared for that.
Roz said:
“”America has more than just al Qaeda to worry about.”
If you are saying the so called War on Terror is important, then of course we should have a focus. I think most would agree that Al Qaeda should be the focus. ”
I wish we had the luxury of picking our enemies. The War in Iraq is a long term strategy that could save us problems twenty years down the road.
“As you say: “After all, al Qaeda is just a financier, strategic planning and training organization for thousands of terrorist organizations world wide.” Seems like a good target to me.”
We are doing that. It’s just not enough.
Look. In WWII, we were at war with Germany, Italy and Japan, so where did we first fight? In North Africa, which had done us no harm, and an ocean war in the Pacific. You try to fight where it gives us the most advantage.
““We needed to transform the Mid East and the only way to do that was to plant a free economy and a republic in Iraq”
Why do we “need” to do that? Nothing requires us to transform the Middle East. ”
This is a very long term strategy that short sighted people can dispute. Nothing “requires” any particular tactic. It just the best way to handle it.
“Should we bankrupt the US and devastate the US military, and indirectly recruit a new generation of terrorists for that goal. ”
America is in no danger of bankrupting itself over the war on terror. The war costs us about one percent of our Gross Domestic Product. It is one of the cheapest wars in human history in lives and treasure.
Could Hillary’s planned domestic agenda, if she wins the presidency, bankrupt us? Sure.
“Lets be wise with the use of force and how we select our goals. At the very least we should have a national debate on what our goals should be. ”
We had that debate before the war: the Left lost.
“We did not need to do that. ”
We disagree.
“And even if you say that we should help change the Middle East, on what basis can you say its the only way to do it?”
Tell your plan. The only ones I see from the democrats is for the Republicans to lose. And that means that America loses.
““But, your plan is for us to lose.”
You don’t know my plan, don’t try to speak for me. ”
Then speak up. Tell us your plan.
“Our problem is that we went in without a plan and with out preparation, now we don’t have good options. ”
You are speaking without knowledge. We had plenty of plans. But, “No plan survives contact with the enemy.” Events change and plans go out the window.
“Don’t blame people on the left who opposed a losing war for its failure. ”
We haven’t lost the war. The surest way of losing is to surrender like you are doing.
““It was a different world. Clinton had soft peddled the Islamist threat. Bush had to wake up and smell the roses on 9/11. When will you?”
Clinton did not soft peddle Osama’’s threat. ”
We disagree. Neither party took the terrorists seriously. The Democratic Party still doesn’t.
““Clinton had no plan. He passed on no messages.”
Dishonest or ignorant – which are you? ”
Half hearted plans are meaningless. Clinton’s administration set nothing into motion that the Bush administration had to carry through with. A coming Democratic administration will have difficulty backing away from Bush’s war agenda. If they did, and the terrorists struck, then they would be sunk politically.
“Well detailed the warnings to Bush from the prior administration, the urgent intelligence alerts, the carried-over head of anti-terrorism – all ignored.”
At least the Republican are trying to do something now. The Democrats have dug in their heels against the war.
Success has a thousand father, failure is an orphan. Politics as usual, Roz.
““What have you been smoking? I was talking about the Mainstream Media. The Washington Post, the NY Times, The LA times, The Boston Globe, ABC, NBC. CBS are all anti war. Who are you talking about?”
Yes, now! You think they should not tell the truth about the war? ”
If only they only knew what the truth was. Right now, they are not reporting anything from Iraq because the news is too good.
Iraq, in the 2008 election, will be a non-issue. Our troop levels will, if everything goes according to plan, be at 60 to 80 thousand troops with more planned to leave. Iraq won’t be peaceful, but it won’t anything that the Iraqi Defense Forces cannot control. We will maintain a force in Iraq, like we did in Germany after WWII, about 40 to 60 thousand troops to confront Iran.
Someone open a window. It’s getting stuffy in here.
Ahem,
I doubt changing the topic is possible just yet, but allow me to suggest engaging another section of our brains & get back to the possibility of an alternate-Earth where Gore assumed the office. With a track record like this administration it’s all-too easy to compare and contrast the previous Clinton-era responses to natural, terrorist, budgetary disasters…
‘Spiders’ is an entertaining on-line comic that assumes a much more open-source, pro-active, _competent_ engagement with ObL and his ilk, http://e-sheep.com/spiders/ rather than the crony-capitalism and fear-mongering foisted upon U.S. so far this millennia.
‘UrbanBard’ obviously savors the the Cliff Notes version of Ayn Rand’s Atlas Shrugged forgetting her critique of graft, incompetence, and waste in cartels, cabals, large companies and other hierarchies. I found her work thrilling and bold as a budding architecture student, but now merely juvenile and of limited range – much as our bellicose friend here. If he’s so all-fired sure of what we ought to be doing, why doesn’t he stop pounding out blog re-comments like a one-note Samba and sign up to go extend the Green Zone?
[crickets]
Why are the UrbanBards of this world so damned scared of every bogeyman, trial-balloon, shadowplay, rumor, feint and fart these clowns throw into the media-mix? In the forty miles of bad road I grew up in having someone _else_ go fight and die for your fervent beliefs is called “coward.”
On the rare chance you’ve served somewhere besides the Fighting 101st Keyboarders I gotta wonder why you oxycotin-deprived reich-wing types _still_ haven’t gone whole-hog for the capitalist gold and sought that neo-con wet-dream of an Iraqi tax-free contractor income… See and conquer the world, haul away palette-loads of American $100 bills, shoot up brown-skinned streets for fun and profit! The implied slight that limited-vision sorts like this guy often miss is that our troops can’t be BOTH the very best in the world, YET not good enough to protect our diplomats – that’s for no-bid mercenary armies started by those Friend$-Of-George.
Of course, it also gets downright embarrassing when you have to consider these plumb Free Market {?} reforms to our military require one to stick their metaphorical head under the belly of the beast to suckle at that mother of all tits – the Government.
LoL.
‘UrbanBard’ is just another adrenaline junkie looking for a fix.
Anyway… all this is interesting only because Gore entering the race now would completely flummox Clinton’s {the Mrs} corporate-centrist game plan to harvest the wide-spread social discontent for her monied backers: she’s a sphincter to contain the ever-growing poor bubbling into a froth for change that might spill Blue Blood. The Republicans ought to be ashamed of themselves & deserve the political exile approaching as witnessed by the as-we-speak drowning puppy-love of Law&Order farce Fred “Fog-Horn Leg-Horn” Thompson proving the paucity of so-called Conservative offerings.
No man is an island, nor economy – we are all in this together and sorting out how we divvy the collective pie _IS_ politics whether you recognize it or not.
Ciao, dah-links…
Roz said:
“You said that there is cognitive dissonance on the Left. My point that the right is much worse.”
You have a right to your opinion. I disagree.
The Left are living in a dream world. That was what all the propaganda photos that Daniel inserted was about. You on the Left have this dream that life would be wonderful if only a Democrat was in the Presidency. Not so. Good tasting burgers often look like crap, Movies routinely disappoint us and enemies choose us rather than we choose them. Life is made up of disappointments. I’d rather deal with reality than live in a dream world like the left.
“And they say one thing, and do another. They have a moment to govern their way and they do the opposite.”
That is true of politicians in general. You can’t trust any of them. So, giving them more power is dangerous. That is why I want smaller government. They can’t do as much damage that way.
I don’t imagine it will be easy or quick. Often, we have to turn on the politicians that we send to office. We did not get into this mess in a hurry, nor will we get out of it fast. Don’t be so impatient.
“To me that is a major dissonance. Republicans have been talking about this whole small government stuff for decades.”
Yes, but Politics is the art of the possible; we have to deal with reality. The electorate is not yet ready for the change toward smaller government. They vote people out of office who touch their entitlements.
Do you think that Social Security in any jeopardy? I don’t. But, thirty years down the road Social Security will bankrupt the US economy. I don’t like that idea, although I will, most likely, be dead at the time. We Republicans just need to get our points across better. And elect better candidates.
“They get in there, have the Congress and Presidency and what do they do – grow the government! You know who shrank the government – CLINTON and GORE.”
Yes. But Clinton did not have a free spending Democratic congress and he did not have a war to run. Most of the fiscal restrains were due to the Republican congress struggling with a Democratic President.
Now, the Republicans have to buy off the Democrats to get anything done. Fortunately, we have a deadlocked congress. Consequently, the National debt keeps plummeting.
“And you are wrong about Bush – he says he is a small government Republican. ”
I disagree with him.
“Yet he grew the government. You can say whatever you like but he is the leader of the right and he does not govern based on his own supposed political beliefs.”
So, the Republicans are falling down on the job, right? What beliefs do you want to replace them with? Hillary wants hundreds of billions of dollars for entitlements. I’m sure you agree with her. So, you don’t really favor smaller government, do you? This is just a verbal ploy. Right?
” Either the ideas are bad or the Republicans are a fraud. ”
The individual Republican office holders can a fraud; we Conservative, often, are fighting them. The Democrats are just a disaster waiting to happen. America isn’t getting good candidates to run.
““It isn’t. The voters aren’t ready for that yet. They don’t want to give up their special interests.”
Again, you blame the public for Republican failure? ”
Yes. In a Republic, the electorate is always ultimately responsible for the people they send to represent them. When the officeholders screw up– throw them out of office. Are you opposed to democracy? You sound like it.
” Republicans had the power and opportunity and proved themselves unworthy. Now they lash out at the Democrats. ”
We have had an almost deadlocked Congress since Bush took office. Neither party has had sixty members to take control.
Again, you can complain all you want, but what is your plan? I don’t see that the Democrats have one.
“The conservatives are intellectually bankrupt and don’t want to see it – they are the agent of the kind of government corruption they supposedly despise.”
The only new ideas are on the right. The Left only has Socialism. The voters have rejected that.
““There is no separation of Church and state enshrined in the constitution or in the federalist papers.”
Hello, First Amendment? ”
The Amendments are not part of the Constitution. They were voted on later. That is what amendment means. There were two amendments that did not get approved by the voters, so they are not law.
What the First amendment does is to deny the establishment of an official, governmentally supported and tax paid, Church like the Church of England. The Founders never intended to forbid the free exercise of religion in public buildings. Before Thomas Jefferson was confirmed to the presidency he attended church services in the capital building. Removing religion from public buildings is a Leftist usurpation of the people’s freedom.
“The point is that real American conservatives should not want to bring religion into policy. ”
Spoken like a true atheist. You are anti-religion like most of the left. So, you violate the First Amendment because you would prohibit the free exercise of religion.
““Why would anyone want them in office?” The fact is that the electorate does.”
Uh, you must have been asleep the last year, have you checked Congress lately?”
As I said elsewhere, the 2006 election was a typical sixth year reversal of a two term presidency. This was despite an unpopular war.
You Democrats did not win on your issues. Many of your candidates were “Blue Dog” conservative Democrats who ran to the right of the Republicans. You were merely Anti-Bush administration. The electorate was luke warm.
““You are an ignoramus. The national debt is dropping rapidly. It will be gone in several years.”
Huh what? The debt is growing under Bush. ”
You have been listening too much to the mainstream Media. They are telling you lies.
“The annual deficit may be reduced over time but that is not the same thing. ”
When I say the national debt; I mean the national debt. Go on the web to the GAO– the Congressal Govenment Accounting Office. They will tell you what the nation debt is and what it was. The last I heard was that is was $158 billion and dropping. The commerce department can give you the budgetary figures. You don’t know what you are talking about.
Encolpius said”
“Someone open a window. It’s getting stuffy in here.”
The window is open. That is reality that you smell. Sometimes, it isn’t pleasant.
In response to the previous posting:
I find this discussion utterly confounding, not because the arguments presented are difficult to respond to, they are inane. The issue for me is the indifference to deceit that is tolerated by those who advocate it. We are subjected to lie upon lie upon lie upon lie. Its disgusting and corrosive to democracy. The Neo-cons say they want to spread democracy but the truth is they don’t want to live under democracy and for that we should reject them.
I am sick of the obfuscation so, in the interest of transparency, a value they reject but we must defend, lets just lay out their case as simply as possible. The crux of the issue for them is oil and power. Neo-cons realized that in the post-cold war system whoever controls oil will control power in the world. If not the US then someone else they reasoned, so how could the US do it? Iran, once an ally was lost to extremism. Fearing the same trajectory for Saudi Arabia, the notion was that Iraq represented a relatively non-extremist country between the two other oil-rich countries. Iraq in this crucial geographic position could serve as a keystone for American dominance of the region. Controlling Iraq would be the key to the Middle East in the same way that the US position in Germany maintains stability and US influence in Europe.
So the concept of the US controlling Iraq was hatched long before 9/11.This is not a conspiracy argument, this was the accepted public Neo-con agenda. That is why US energy companies were strategizing about the Iraq’s oil fields well before 9/11. 9/11 just created an opportunity for enacting this strategy. That is why, Bush shortly after 9/11 asked Richard Clarke to find a connection between Iraq and 9/11. And this is why our friend argues that the US should keep 60 – 80k troops in Iraq in perpetuity – its the realization of this plan.
Now to be clear, taken in isolation, as a strategy, the Neo-con agenda has some merit. US control of Iraq would give us a control point in that crucial region. And it may be in time, as oil runs out, the strategic value of our presence there will go up. This is why Neo-cons argue that we will all thank them later for lying their way into Iraq. And, so they think, no matter what other people say now, we’ll stay if we can, the same way we stayed in Japan, Korea, Germany, etc.
This process of accepting the lies that have been propagated on us is part of the seduction of power, and people like Cheney, and our fellow here, get so wrapped up in it that it warps their judgement of right and wrong, truth and fiction. If their plans leads the US to incredible power in the future, so their logic goes, why bother with niggling moralists today? What’s a little propaganda in service of a larger cause? And why be troubled with people today who bother with things like not being evil in the way we treat people. And they are getting away with it, its only elections that limit their power and we have seen how brittle that system is given enough pressure.
There are some complications to their strategy:
They have been totally inept in the actual execution of the plan. They were arrogant and blinded by ideology going into Iraq and they misunderstood what happens in a state with no government. Libertarian bliss? No – violent chaos! If you have any doubts about this go watch No End in Sight for a small measure of their ineptitude. As we have it, a patient who went in for supposedly a simple operation, is still on the operating table with a massive infection. He may survive but its not clear, and it certainly represents a huge risk to our security. The potential of a failed Iraq, one where we must exit, even if small, is enough of a danger that it would have warned clearer heads from going in in the first place.
Second, global warming, which they falsely reject, raises a case argument that maybe we don’t want to burn all that oil in the ground after-all. So is it really worth what they think it is? Does it really represent the same strategic value that they intended if we can’t use it? Maybe it does, but only in an effort to stop it from being used for green reasons, that would be the ultimate irony.
Finally, its tough going propagating the lies they needed to produce in order to get their way. No one would permit this type of effort without some sort of overarching mantel of justification, like a hysterical War Against Terror. Any reasonable person would accept Bin Ladin as the critical target for our fight against those who perpetrated 9/11 but clearly for our writer here, Osama is small potatoes. He says we don’t “Have the luxury of choosing our enemies”, when that is precisely what we have done! So dressed in the clothing of 9/11 he now argues for Iran as our biggest threat. The need for a continued presence in Iraq a natural consequence. Its insane and the rest of the world rejects it and sees it for what it is. Most of the US is basically in the dark, but the public knows the war is wasteful and not run well, they accept the explanation that our leaders are stupid and want them to be stopped. Maybe the American pubic, though blunt, is not that far off. Then we have the few who cling to the ideology who see a dangling prize are rabid and predict dark consequences for not listening to them. And who is to say when we will have the next terrorist attack, when we leave the principles in place and create new basis on which to hate us.
So there you have it my unadulterated response. Its deeply sickening to me to hear this sort of propaganda spread. Lets stop the lies, its insulting and offensive and start trying to realize a path out of here. What’s my plan? To expose and reject you and try to save our democracy in the process.
“Yes. But Clinton did not have a free spending Democratic congress and he did not have a war to run.”
Free spending? Your ideology says that, fact say otherwise. Bush had a Republican Congress and non-war spending grew, new expensive entitlements were created under Republican leadership. Democratic budgetary discipline is far better.
Clinton said the era of big government is over – I agree with him. Why not join us and actually enact this idea, instead of allying yourself with pretenders. I would also say though that our industrial competitiveness is harmed by our failure to deal with health-care. its a huge problem and our collective failure to create an efficient alternative demands reform. This probably will require government involvement of some kind.
Honestly I think the Republicans are so wacko and off the ranch a real conservative should be a Democrat at this point. If you value reason, you can’t ally yourself with religious fanatics. Clinton led with market oriented policies, government restraint and fiscal responsibility. That is your conservative ideology in practice, why not embrace it?
“We have had an almost deadlocked Congress since Bush took office. Neither party has had sixty members to take control.”
Oh please. The Republicans had the power and they allowed it to be put up to sale to the highest bidder. Medicare Drug Benefit – nice idea, but a huge subsidy for drug industry, that was a feeding frenzy under Republican rule.
“The only new ideas are on the right. The Left only has Socialism. The voters have rejected that.”
Clinton signed Nafta and embraced fiscal restraint. He was no socialist.
“The Amendments are not part of the Constitution.”
Of course they are! The issue is not removing religion from buildings or coinage – its blocking stem cell research to please a few fanatics. Its not permitting federal dollars for explaining the use of contraceptives. Its imposing morality that does not accept gay people as having equal standing in society.
“The point is that real American conservatives should not want to bring religion into policy.”
Who is against free-exercise? Just don’t have the government funding church programs. My conservatism believes that faith based programs don’t need or what government support, I think the founders would agree.
“When I say the national debt; I mean the national debt. Go on the web to the GAO– the Congressal Govenment Accounting Office. They will tell you what the nation debt is and what it was. The last I heard was that is was $158 billion and dropping. The commerce department can give you the budgetary figures. You don’t know what you are talking about.”
No – when you say debt, you don’t know what you are talking about:
Deficit:
“A year ago, the CBO’s forecast for the 2007 fiscal year called for a deficit of $270 billion. In the annual outlook released last month, the 2007 gap is projected at $172 billion.”
Debt:
Wikipedia (whose source is the Treasury Dept) (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_States_public_debt):
“The United States public debt, commonly called the national debt, gross federal debt or U.S. government debt, is the amount of money owed by the United States federal government to creditors who hold U.S. Debt Instruments. As of October 9, 2007, the total U.S. federal public debt was >>>$9.04 trillion.<<< [1]” (Emphasis added.)
Why don’t you turn off right wing talk radio go outside and get some air, go for a walk.
Hello Roz,
It’s nice to hear from you. I hope we can discuss this without rancor; I do enjoy a lively discussion. It doesn’t matter to me if we disagree. Just say so on any point, and we can move on.
We have different viewpoints. I may have facts not in your possession. I have no emotions binding me to a position. This just my conclusions after studying all sides and arguments.
“Roz said:
“The issue for me is the indifference to deceit that is tolerated by those who advocate it. We are subjected to lie upon lie upon lie upon lie. Its disgusting and corrosive to democracy. ”
I agree, but who is doing the lying? You say it is the Republicans. I say it is the Democrats. So, how do we resolve this?
“The Neo-cons say they want to spread democracy but the truth is they don’t want to live under democracy and for that we should reject them.”
I’ve seen no evidence that the Conservatives (or Neo-Cons) want to end democracy in America. I’ve seen leftist propaganda alleging this, but it never stands up to reason.
Neo-Con is a word used by Liberals as a swear word. They do not use it correctly as a group of influential, mostly Jewish, Trotskyites who rejected Socialism and slowly drifted toward the right. I can list names of them, but why bother? There is no essential difference between them and a Conservative now.
A Conservative is an ideology. The Republican party is a political party. Often, Conservatives are fighting for control of the Party.
Why not use the word Conservative or Republican instead of Neo-Con and I will refrain from using pejorative names. Leftist, Liberal, Democratic party, Social Democrat, Fascist, Socialist and Communist are not swear words to me, since they are political positions. I can define them.
“I am sick of the obfuscation so, in the interest of transparency, a value they reject but we must defend, lets just lay out their case as simply as possible. The crux of the issue for them is oil and power.”
I’ve heard that accusation from the left that the war is about oil, but it never stands up to reason. If the Left could prove anything in a court of law, people would have gone to Jail.
Regarding this being about power, That is partly correct. After 9/11, the American people wanted their pound of flesh. Any political party that refused to satisfy that need for revenge risked being turned out of office. That is why the Democrats went along with the War on Terror for about a year and a half. When the American flags were no longer flying, then the left could start to oppose the war.
Don’t get me wrong. The Republican Party wants to remain in power while the Democrats desperately want to win high office. What is at stake is not just the war, which the Democrat are in denial of, but also about the Domestic agenda.
The Republicans want a smaller government and lower taxes. The Democrats are fighting that tooth-and-nail, because this will end their entitlement programs. The Democrats have been quite successful in halting the Republicans aims. Don’t blame that on the Republicans.
“Neo-cons realized that in the post-cold war system whoever controls oil will control power in the world. ”
That sound like paranoid fantasies, Roz. There is more oil been found than there has ever been. The current high prices, from a terrorist fear premium, will produce a world wide oil glut in five years. The same thing happened after OPEC jacked up oil prices in the 70’s. The North Sea oil reserves had not been drilled yet. Sweden and Russia became the two and three oil producers. They weren’t even close then. Now, it’s Canadian tar sands that will be king. There is twice as much oil in Canada as in Saudi Arabia.
“Iran, once an ally was lost to extremism.”
What’s your point, Roz? Muslim extremist took over in Iran. They now fund many of the terrorists. That was none of our doing, except for the incompetence of the Carter administration.
“Fearing the same trajectory for Saudi Arabia, the notion was that Iraq represented a relatively non-extremist country between the two other oil-rich countries. Iraq in this crucial geographic position could serve as a keystone for American dominance of the region. Controlling Iraq would be the key to the Middle East in the same way that the US position in Germany maintains stability and US influence in Europe.”
Jesus, Roz, this is strange stuff. It takes some true facts and twists it into a paranoid fantasy.
Does the US want to influence the Mid East? Sure. Why would America need to control Iraq to do that? We will be leaving Iraq a free country fairly soon. The Iraqi’s want us out, but not until the country is more secure. We don’t need direct control. The fact that Iraq has a representative government and a free economy will marginalize our other enemies, Syria and Iran.
“So the concept of the US controlling Iraq was hatched long before 9/11. ”
Sure, by the Clinton administration. Regime change in Iraq has been US foreign policy since 1998.
“This is not a conspiracy argument, this was the accepted public Neo-con agenda. ”
Saddam was an embarrassment. He was making fools of the UN. He had dismissed UN Resolution 687 and the other UN Resolutions. He was a regional threat. He was buying off UN officials and reporters. He was making payments of $25, 000 to the families of suicide bombers. Why wouldn’t people see him as a threat that needed to be taken care of? No conspiracy here. Just foreign policy.
“That is why US energy companies were strategizing about the Iraq’s oil fields well before 9/11.”
Saddam was selling Iraq’s oil to the French, the Germans and the Russians. They became a power block in the UN to try to get the sanctions removed. They had billions in contracts to win if they did this.
Do the American companies get Iraqi oil now? No, it is sold on the open market and the money goes to the Iraq government. Where do American companies gain from that? The amount of money is chicken feed to EXXON.
“9/11 just created an opportunity for enacting this strategy.”
Did the Bush administration want to end Saddam’s regime before 9/11? Yes. But not for the reasons you name. I’m sure you have no proof of any of this.
“That is why, Bush shortly after 9/11 asked Richard Clarke to find a connection between Iraq and 9/11. ”
The administration has never said that there was any direct connection between 9/11 and Iraq. Why wouldn’t Bush ask to see if there was one after 9/11? Are you suggest that Bush wanted to fake evidence? May I have some proof, please?
“And this is why our friend argues that the US should keep 60 – 80k troops in Iraq in perpetuity – its the realization of this plan.”
I guess that is also the reason we kept 80 thousand troops in Germany after WWII for sixty years: to steal all their beer?
We will be keeping troops in Iraq, because of Syria and Iran. Those two nations represent a threat to the region. Keeping American soldiers there will keep a short leash on those countries.
“Now to be clear, taken in isolation, as a strategy, the Neo-con agenda has some merit. US control of Iraq would give us a control point in that crucial region.”
I agree with that.
“And it may be in time, as oil runs out, the strategic value of our presence there will go up. ”
As long as there are people in the Mid East who want to Kill American and have the money to afford it, we will keep troops there.
“This is why Neo-cons argue that we will all thank them later for lying their way into Iraq. ”
There were no lies, Roz. Just some mysteries. We do not know where the WMD, that the UN inspectors said was there in 1995, went.
“And, so they think, no matter what other people say now, we’ll stay if we can, the same way we stayed in Japan, Korea, Germany, etc.”
When there is no threat to the region. I’m sure will will leave. America is slowly disengaging from its bases it set up during the “Cold War.” The American people want our troops to come home. This is happening. The last troops from Germany are coming home next year.
“This process of accepting the lies that have been propagated on us is part of the seduction of power, and people like Cheney, and our fellow here, get so wrapped up in it that it warps their judgement of right and wrong, truth and fiction. ”
You keep alluding to lies: what are they? WMD is a mystery. The main reason we went to war was not about WMD. There were many reasons for the war, but one was to save the credibility of the United Nations. Saddam had been making a mockery of the UN.
“If their plans leads the US to incredible power in the future, so their logic goes, why bother with niggling moralists today?”
This is delusive, Roz.
“What’s a little propaganda in service of a larger cause? And why be troubled with people today who bother with things like not being evil in the way we treat people. And they are getting away with it, its only elections that limit their power and we have seen how brittle that system is given enough pressure.
Weird, too weird, Roz.
“There are some complications to their strategy:
They have been totally inept in the actual execution of the plan. They were arrogant and blinded by ideology going into Iraq and they misunderstood what happens in a state with no government. Libertarian bliss? No – violent chaos! If you have any doubts about this go watch No End in Sight for a small measure of their ineptitude. ”
Roz, there have been few wars that did not have an insurrection after them. Our own Civil War had the KKK rampaging for six years. This was no lack of planning. It is SNAFU– situation Normal, All Fouled Up.
Also, we have been fighting al Qaeda in Iraq. We have killed or captured 80 thousand of them in Iraq from all over the world.
“As we have it, a patient who went in for supposedly a simple operation, is still on the operating table with a massive infection. He may survive but its not clear, and it certainly represents a huge risk to our security. ”
Inserting a Representative government in a Totalitarian country is not easy. Only the Liberal would think it should be.
“The potential of a failed Iraq, one where we must exit, even if small, is enough of a danger that it would have warned clearer heads from going in in the first place.”
Nothing worth doing is easy. We just disagree on the necessity. This is part of Bush’s long term strategy. This is also something that you know nothing about.
“Second, global warming, which they falsely reject, raises a case argument that maybe we don’t want to burn all that oil in the ground after-all. So is it really worth what they think it is? Does it really represent the same strategic value that they intended if we can’t use it? Maybe it does, but only in an effort to stop it from being used for green reasons, that would be the ultimate irony.”
Please don’t bring up Global Warming.
And we are no where close to burning up all the oil. There is three times as much oil in Colorado Oil Sands as in all the Mid East. The high oil priced will lead to a oil glut in a few years. There is enough oil and gas on the East and West coasts of the US to supply our needs for fifty years, but the Environmentalists have tied them up so we can’t drill for it.
“Finally, its tough going propagating the lies they needed to produce in order to get their way. No one would permit this type of effort without some sort of overarching mantel of justification, like a hysterical War Against Terror. ”
Lies, Lies, Lies. With not one shred of proof.
“Any reasonable person would accept Bin Laden as the critical target for our fight against those who perpetrated 9/11 but clearly for our writer here, Osama is small potatoes. ”
In the larger scheme of things, Osama is only important to the leftists, because they use him to beat up us conservative. If he were caught or killed, he would discarded as worthless.
“He says we don’t “Have the luxury of choosing our enemies”, when that is precisely what we have done! So dressed in the clothing of 9/11 he now argues for Iran as our biggest threat. …”
You are in a world of your own, Roz. I wish you could prove any of your conjectures, but you can’t. All you have is accusations.
“So there you have it my unadulterated response. Its deeply sickening to me to hear this sort of propaganda spread. Lets stop the lies, its insulting and offensive and start trying to realize a path out of here. What’s my plan? To expose and reject you and try to save our democracy in the process.”
You still don’t detail the lies. You have no proof of anything. And I don’t believe you know what a democracy is.
By the way, the United States Government is not a democracy. The founders were afraid of installing a democracy here, because every previous democracy turned into a tyranny. And we came rather close under FDR. What we have in America is a Limited Constitutional Republic. I’m sure you oppose that.
Roz said”
““Yes. But Clinton did not have a free spending Democratic congress and he did not have a war to run.”
Free spending? Your ideology says that, fact say otherwise. ”
Neither party has had control of congress and the presidency since 1990 — 92 under Clinton. We have had dead locked congresses where little has gotten done. I think it is a blessing mainly. The only time we got new taxes is when both parties ganged up on the American people.
But, Hillary, if elected, is just chomping at the bit to install new programs. She clearly states she wants new taxes. Do you?
“Bush had a Republican Congress and non-war spending grew, new expensive entitlements were created under Republican leadership. Democratic budgetary discipline is far better.”
You are delusive. The Republicans did not have a filibuster proof congress although they were the majority party. The first two years of Bush’s term of office, the Senate was split 50-50. This is a deadlocked congress.
The Democrats are nominally in charge of that congress now, but they haven’t accomplish much. They don’t have the power to ramrod any legislation through. Neither did the Republicans.
“Clinton said the era of big government is over – I agree with him. ”
It isn’t the first or last time he lied.
“Why not join us and actually enact this idea, instead of allying yourself with pretenders. ”
I told you I am a Small Government Conservative. I do not believe that you want small government.
“I would also say though that our industrial competitiveness is harmed by our failure to deal with health-care.”
That is a perfect case. National health care has failed in every place where it has been tried. It is socialism and socialism always fails.
“Honestly I think the Republicans are so wacko and off the ranch a real conservative should be a Democrat at this point. ”
Sorry, all the movement, since the turn of the last century, was from the Democrats to the Republicans. Ronald Reagan said, “I never left the Democratic party; it left me.”
“If you value reason, you can’t ally yourself with religious fanatics. ”
I am religious but no fanatic. Christians have fewer mental health problems than Liberals. We are forgiven. We don’t need to assuage our guilt of being rich by giving away other people’s money.
“Clinton led with market oriented policies, government restraint and fiscal responsibility. That is your conservative ideology in practice, why not embrace it?”
Because all that was a sham. He did not have a congress that he could control. He used “Triangulation” to strip away votes. But, the Leftists in the Democratic Party despised his policies. They would change them in a an instant if they could.
The major point was that Clinton was a canny politician; he could see the hand writing on the wall. The US electorate is sick of socialism.
The Far Left who now control the Democratic party will not allow the Democrtic Leadersip Council, controlled by the Clintons, any power. George Soro’s has the money and he gives it to Mediamatters and Moveon.org. No Democrat can win in 2008 unless he/she can move to the center.
““We have had an almost deadlocked Congress since Bush took office. Neither party has had sixty members to take control.”
Oh please. The Republicans had the power and they allowed it to be put up to sale to the highest bidder. ”
And who do the Democrats sell out to? The Poor, the gays, the bureaucrats, the trade unions, the teacher’s unions, the trial lawyers etc. Unfortunately, that is politics as usual in Washington.
“Medicare Drug Benefit – nice idea, but a huge subsidy for drug industry, that was a feeding frenzy under Republican rule.”
There are areas where I disagree with President Bush. This is one.
““The only new ideas are on the right. The Left only has Socialism. The voters have rejected that.”
Clinton signed Nafta and embraced fiscal restraint. He was no socialist.”
No, he left the Socialism to Hillary. Clinton was an opportunist. He was out for number one. It was just that he knew where his bread was buttered.
““The Amendments are not part of the Constitution.”
Of course they are! The issue is not removing religion from buildings or coinage – its blocking stem cell research to please a few fanatics. Its not permitting federal dollars for explaining the use of contraceptives. Its imposing morality that does not accept gay people as having equal standing in society.”
Well. Why weren’t you clear about what you meant earlier. Why did you make me guess?
There is plenty of private and state funded stem cell research. We don’t need the Federal government involved.
Of course, there is no place in the Constitution that permits funding such a thing as medical R&D, hoever worthy. The founders would be aghast at the idea.
Nor is their permission for the funding of condom indoctrination to eight year olds without the permission of their parents.
My position is that “Gay Marriage” is a state matter. If the legislature passes a law supporting it and the voters don’t throw them out of office, then I am fine with it. I just think that having the courts mandate this on bogus premises is usurpatious.
““The point is that real American conservatives should not want to bring religion into policy.”
Who is against free-exercise? ”
Free exercise means that the government cannot deny a religious use to public buildings. A denial is a denial of free exercise.
“Just don’t have the government funding church programs. ”
If the government allows the use of government facilities to any other group, then denying a religious group is a denial of free exercise.
“My conservatism believes that faith based programs don’t need or what government support, I think the founders would agree.”
I believe that the founders, and they are quite clear in the federalists papers on this, said that a church should not be “Established.” By that, they meant that the preacher and the church buildings should not be paid for by the government. I agree.
What the Left are doing is forbidding even voluntary prayer in schools, Christmas trees and creches on government property, even when they are privately owned. That is a denial of free exercise. There is no historical precedent for it. It is Leftist dogma.
““When I say the national debt; I mean the national debt. Go on the web to the GAO– the Congressional Government Accounting Office. They will tell you what the nation debt is and what it was. The last I heard was that is was $158 billion and dropping. The commerce department can give you the budgetary figures. You don’t know what you are talking about.”
No – when you say debt, you don’t know what you are talking about:
Deficit:
“A year ago, the CBO’s forecast for the 2007 fiscal year called for a deficit of $270 billion. In the annual outlook released last month, the 2007 gap is projected at $172 billion.””
Okay, I was wrong on the figure, but right on the fact that is coming down.
“Debt:
Wikipedia (whose source is the Treasury Dept) (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_States_public_debt):
“The United States public debt, commonly called the national debt, gross federal debt or U.S. government debt, is the amount of money owed by the United States federal government to creditors who hold U.S. Debt Instruments. As of October 9, 2007, the total U.S. federal public debt was >>>$9.04 trillion.<<< [1]” (Emphasis added.)”
Yes, that is what we call the national debt. It rightly includes Social Security debt as well as the unfunded liability for the Civil Service.
Of course, the Left won’t allow us to touch that part of the national debt or even argue about it. Most of the arguments I am in with the left never want to discuss Social Security. They think it is self funded. It is not.
“Why don’t you turn off right wing talk radio go outside and get some air, go for a walk.”
I could say something smart-assed here, but I’ll refrain.
Roz, You have no solutions for anything. All you leftists want is for the government to grow bigger. This will just leave bigger problems down the road. You have no foresight. You just want your free Government giveaways and jobs.
PS. You are leading us very far afield. This thread was about Al Gore’s glory and George Bush’s Foreign problems. What does that have to do with what you have been writing recently?
Flame off? Cool!
Roz, the major difference between us seems to be that we have different enemies. I believe that there are Muslim extremists who are out to kill us. They would destroy America if they could. They are aided and abetted by Muslim governments and social organizations.
They are indirectly supported by Leftists groups, not because the Left wants the terrorists to win, but that they want the Conservatives to lose. The Left thinks that the Muslims can be placated or reasoned with. Prime Minister Chamberlain thought the same about Adolf Hitler.
The short term solution was to go after the organizations who struck us on 9/11. That is why we have been taking down al Qaeda. When the Taliban refused to hand them over, we took them down too.
But, that does not solve the long term problem that Muslims have been fighting America since the Iranian Revolution in 1979. So long as they are plotting against us, we must do something about that.
I’m not crazy about big business, but I’m not paranoid of them as you are. I believe that they will act in their self interest, just as we citizens do.
The solution for too much corporate power is competition. I favor small to medium sized business vs Big Business because it is usually more cost effective. One reason for BIG business is to deal with BIG government; let’s work to reduce both. I recognize that some businesses are big because of the complexity and difficulty of a particular industry. Breaking them up will cost the consumers money.
I really dislike and am fearful of BIG government. I don’t care who is in charge of it– Democrats or Republicans. I don’t like either Party bossing us around.
I don’t like government giveaways, like National Health Care, because they always become corrupted by the bureaucrats. The bureaucrats seize power and use it against the American people.
This, more than any other reason, is why I am not a Liberal. I don’t believe in “Free government services.” Everything the government touches turns to cr*p. That is why our “Big Cities” in the Blue States are so corrupt.
You would place most things in our lives under governmental control. That is tyranny, Roz. The government, that gives you everything you want, can take away everything you have. What if you and the government disagree over how you should run your life? So long as you are harming no one but yourself, the government should leave you alone. But, they shouldn’t rescue you from your folly, either.
Hillary has millions of plans to “help People” and all of them cost money. What if you and I have better uses for that money? Like for feeding and clothing our families?
Your plan is to have the bureaucrats to be our masters. The Founders intended them to be our servants. I prefer the Founders plans. That is why I am a Small Government Conservative.
UrbanBard and roz, why don’t you two set up an iChat session and leave the rest of us out of your rant. HOW WUDE!
Johnnyapple, it would be rude of me to abandon her. If you don’t want to read this, don’t visit. It’s not as though you have anything of consequence to say.
“I’m not paranoid of big business.”
Neither am I. I have said nothing of the sort.
“You would place most things in our lives under governmental control.”
No I wouldn’t, I have said not one thing to suggest this.
“Your plan is to have the bureaucrats to be our masters.”
Not at all, I said nothing of the sort.
I said that I am a Democrat, not a socialist. I am not a leftist. I am the center.
You make generalizations and false statements about people who oppose you because it fits your political stereo-types. What makes you think you speak for me?
The difference between me and you is that I question the means, tactics, goals and statements out government makes about its hyped up War on Terror, you do not.
“I believe that there are Muslim extremists who are out to kill us.”
Yes, and I believe we should find and kill them, you do not think it matters.
“They are indirectly supported by Leftists groups, not because the Left wants the terrorists to win, but that they want the Conservatives to lose.”
This is absolute nonsense. Nothing of the sort is true.
“But, that does not solve the long term problem that Muslims have been fighting America since the Iranian Revolution in 1979. So long as they are plotting against us, we must do something about that.”
Certainly not all Muslims. And the situation with Iran was improving prior to 2000. iran was making moves towards liberalization. Then some idiot called them the Axis of Evil.
“me to abandon her.” I am a man.
Uh oh, now you’ve gotta figure out who’s on top. What you wanted and what you got aren’t the same thing.
I would ignore you but I clicked the “Notify me” option and couldn’t find how to turn it off. Your debate was flooding my iPhone. I found it now. Thanks and bye.
““I’m not paranoid of big business.”
Neither am I. I have said nothing of the sort.”
You just put out this paranoid fantasy of a cabal between big business and the neo-cons. What else was I to expect?
““You would place most things in our lives under governmental control.”
No I wouldn’t, I have said not one thing to suggest this.”
Then what do you believe in? When all you do is attack, you never tell anything about yourself. That leave me to make judgements based on your behavior which may be wrong.
““Your plan is to have the bureaucrats to be our masters.”
Not at all, I said nothing of the sort.”
Of course, you never say anything, but attack in a leftist way. What do you believe in? I used to be a Democrat. I know all the different types. The one your rantings fit was what I imagined you as.
“I said that I am a Democrat, not a socialist. I am not a leftist. I am the center.”
There is nothing Centrist about your rantings. The paranoid fantasy you just put out was straight out of the “Class Struggle.” I don’t believe in “Class Struggle: all competition is within a class.
“You make generalizations and false statements about people who oppose you because it fits your political stereo-types. What makes you think you speak for me?”
Then stop projecting stereotypes. Stop thinking that I am a Neo-con when I am not. You are completely unclear.
“The difference between me and you is that I question the means, tactics, goals and statements out government makes about its hyped up War on Terror, you do not.”
Yes, I do question those, but what is my alternative? The Democrats have no policy but surrender to the terrorists. I will not accept that.
““I believe that there are Muslim extremists who are out to kill us.”
Yes, and I believe we should find and kill them, you do not think it matters.”
Of course, we have to do that. But we can fight a war on many fronts because we have many enemies.
In WWII, we had three fronts. America against the japanese alone, America and the British in North Africa and then Europe while America gave material support to Russia for a front from the East. America is not so poor that we cannot do it all, Military and Diplomatic. Having only one front leaves most of our enemies unassailed. You want to fight this war half-heartedly that never works. What is your plan. You don’t have one.
““They are indirectly supported by Leftists groups, not because the Left wants the terrorists to win, but that they want the Conservatives to lose.”
This is absolute nonsense. Nothing of the sort is true.”
We disagree. The Democrats have shown no evidence of supporting this war and often has hindered it.
““But, that does not solve the long term problem that Muslims have been fighting America since the Iranian Revolution in 1979. So long as they are plotting against us, we must do something about that.”
Certainly not all Muslims. ”
Of course not, I am very careful in the names I use. There really is an internal war between the moderate Muslims and the Radicals. Unfortunately, it is almost impossible to tell them apart. We must force them to choose side. That is why Iraq is so important.
“And the situation with Iran was improving prior to 2000. iran was making moves towards liberalization. Then some idiot called them the Axis of Evil.”
I saw no evidence that Iran was liberalizing. Iran was supporting terrorism. Perhaps Iran was acting so to the Clinton administration. But, Clinton was uninterested in terrorism. Neither was Bush until 9/11.
The problem is that Iran is an axis of evil; it is the top promoter of terrorism after the Wahabi/ Salifi Clerics of Saudi Arabia. You just hate to tell the truth, that’s all.
Roz said:
“me to abandon her.” I am a man.”
If you use a feminine name you get taken for one. Nothing you have written would have told me differently. No insult intended, because to imply that being a woman was somehow inferior is sexist. Can’t have that.
As things stand now, I have not a clue as to who you are– male or female. All I can think of you is as an attack animal. You don’t try to make any sense. You don’t try to present a case or evidence. You just push your drama on people.
National Health care is not a centrist position: it is a leftist position– a Socialist position. Therefore, why wouldn’t I think that you were a leftist? What clue have you given me to make me think otherwise? Nothing.
““I’m not paranoid of big business.” Neither am I. I have said nothing of the sort.”
You just put out this paranoid fantasy of a cabal between big business and the neo-cons. What else was I to expect?
Its not a fantasy, its well reported fact Cheney met with oil companies before 9/11 and on of the issues discussed was oil fields in Iraq. I never said it was a cabal between business and the Neo-cons. (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Energy_task_force) I said Iraq was an strategic interest that was identified before 9/11 and that I believe 9/11 was an excuse to take action in Iraq – not because it had anything to do with Al Qaeda but because it was seen as a strategic interest their concept to remake the Middle East on terms that suited the US. If you don’t think that oil and power have anything to do with that then you are the one in the fantasy world.
“Then what do you believe in? When all you do is attack, you never tell anything about yourself. That leave me to make judgements based on your behavior which may be wrong.”
I believe its a total waste communicating with on this blog. No one is forcing you to think or say anything, I am simply intending to respond to the things you are saying that I think are wrong. I am tired of hearing from people who distort the truth. I don’t think this is a forum for expressing ideas, it is far too tedious.
“There is nothing Centrist about your rantings. The paranoid fantasy you just put out was straight out of the “Class Struggle.” I don’t believe in “Class Struggle: all competition is within a class.”
I made no reference to social class in any comment I made. Your thinking is warped and old fashioned.
“Then stop projecting stereotypes. Stop thinking that I am a Neo-con when I am not. You are completely unclear.”
I will think whatever I like and, to me, you parrot the neo-con line exactly. Call yourself what you like, i don’t care. Above you said that Neo-con were just conservatives and you call yourself a conservative, so what is your problem anyway? I don’t use neo-con as a swear word, though some are right to because of the way they have betrayed and misled the American people. I simply use it as a term to describe a category of “conservatives”, I’d call them radicals, who advocate for an aggressive foreign policy as described by the Project for a New American Century.
“We disagree. The Democrats have shown no evidence of supporting this war and often has hindered it.”
Democrats are paying for, fighting for and dying in the war as much as everyone else. I don’t see any case where they have hindered it. They should scrutinize it more.
roz is not a feminine name – its a screen name like urbantard.
And I said I was a man – so this is wrong: “As things stand now, I have not a clue as to who you are– male or female.”
“National Health care is not a centrist position: it is a leftist position– a Socialist position. ”
I did not advocate a National Heathcare System. My words: “I would also say though that our industrial competitiveness is harmed by our failure to deal with health-care. its a huge problem and our collective failure to create an efficient alternative demands reform. This probably will require government involvement of some kind.”
But that might be purely on a regulatory basis – so stop jumping to conclusions. Be more thoughtful, cautious and fact based like a real conservative. You are acting like a Republican not a conservative.
Roz, I have nothing against you. Or Daniel. I just dislike propaganda of any sort. Especially, Leftist propaganda because it is so prevalent. I don’t like where the left would lead us– to the poor house.
After a long study of Socialism in the Democratic party, I have come to believe that it is out of harmony with reality– truth. Oh! It has short term gains for some people, but as time goes on, it becomes increasingly harmful because it shifts the burdens of life from one set of people to another. Those who’s burden is made lighter stop working so hard because their needs are fulfilled. Those who’s burden is made worse, stop working so hard because the government will just take away anything extra. Since no one is working as hard as before, the entire society becomes poorer.
Every society that has tried to follow the Socialist path has become poorer. Cuba was the richest country in the Caribbean in 1952, now it is the poorest. Russia was many years away from being as rich as Germany in 1912, but it had a much faster growth rate. Germany was afraid of being surpassed. That was the major cause of World War One.
“From Each according to his ability; to each according to his need” is a Marxian phrase. Do you agree with that comcept?
It is the basis on which National Health Care is founded. Some people are judged to be needy, so their medical care is paid for those who have ability. The problem with this system is that the needs of the poor increase to cover every minor ache and pain. Meanwhile, the man of ability works less and finally tries to to escape paying. Then the bureaucrats who take a cut of the money given to the poor to live on, must punish the people of ability to keep them working.
Progressively, the men of ability try to escape the country so barriers must be erected to keep people in. The Government make an examples of those who are deemed to be “shirkers” so they send the “men of ability” to jail, torture or kill them to persuade other “men of ability” to obey.
Thus, the result of National Heath Care and any other Socialist program is a Totalitarian state. No one intended for it to go there but it does step by step. Once you disregard a person’s right to control his own life and property, then the end is always tyranny.
Do you disagree with this analysis?
Roz said:
“Its not a fantasy, its well reported fact Cheney met with oil companies before 9/11 and on of the issues discussed was oil fields in Iraq. ”
It is not immoral to meet with campaign contributors. Nor is it against the law to get together and talk about the oil prospects in other lands. Why do you put such a paranoid spin on things? Why do you see such evil designs? Do you have a transcript? How do you know what was said then? Why could it not been about issues in many countries, including the Mid East. The Mid East has been troubling for some time.
Don’t get me wrong. People who are interested in foreign policy have been wondering about what to do about Iraq for decades. It was a regional threat. Saddam was making fools of the UN. People talk about such things.
Did American oil people have any investments is Iraq? No. The French, the Germans and the Russians were hand in glove with Saddam, not Americans. That was why they were pressing to get UN sanctions lifted.
“I never said it was a cabal between business and the Neo-cons. ”
True, but that is what I inferred from your statements. That the reason that Cheney was concerned about Iraq was to help his friends in the oil business. That is a conspiracy. If the Left had direct evidence that there was a link or a conspiracy, then they would do more than just make slurs. They would name names and dates. Where are they?
“I said Iraq was an strategic interest that was identified before 9/11 and that I believe 9/11 was an excuse to take action in Iraq – not because it had anything to do with Al Qaeda but because it was seen as a strategic interest their concept to remake the Middle East on terms that suited the US. ”
A strategic interest for whom? Bill Clinton? He went before congress in 1998 and made overturning Saddam’s regime a US national priority. But all that was about Saddam thumbing his nose at the UN and UN resolution 687. Iraq has been troubling to foreign policy buffs for decades. Cheney is a foreign policy buff. He wouldn’t be doing his job if he ignored Iraq. Bush depended on Cheney to give him a heads up on foreign policy. Bush couldn’t trust the State department to tell him the truth. They had their own agenda and has opposed him all during his term.
“If you don’t think that oil and power have anything to do with that then you are the one in the fantasy world.”
It does but not in the way you mean. There was no plot to steal Iraq’s oil. That hasn’t happened and won’t. But Saddam was upsetting the oil interests, because of threats to the straits of Hormuz.
America never bought any of Iraq’s oil but cutting off mid-eastern oil would send the price skyrocketing. Why wouldn’t oil men be concerned about that and hope for a change? But, the public will was not there to do anything until 9/11. That is mostly why Clinton did nothing, too.
As I have said that invading Iraq is a Long term strategy. It divides the Mid East and gives the hope of a lasting peace there. I’ve seen no plan from the Democrats to solve the terrorist threat.
“I believe its a total waste communicating with on this blog. No one is forcing you to think or say anything, I am simply intending to respond to the things you are saying that I think are wrong. ”
Fine. I was doing the same thing myself. I just think you are wrong on your facts and logic.
“I am tired of hearing from people who distort the truth. ”
And I would like you to give me a clear argument rather than just one accusation after another. Cut the personal attacks and talk about issues.
“I don’t think this is a forum for expressing ideas, it is far too tedious.”
Daniel opened this up by posting a propaganda piece. I merely said that if Gore were president then very little would be different. We would still have Islamist enemies, but no impeach Gore signs. What’s wrong with that?
“I will think whatever I like and, to me, you parrot the neo-con line exactly. ”
I just disagree with leftist propaganda. If that is sounding like being a Neo-Con, then I guess I do. How many replies are there to blatent untruths?
“I don’t use neo-con as a swear word, though some are right to because of the way they have betrayed and misled the American people. I simply use it as a term to describe a category of “conservatives”, I’d call them radicals, who advocate for an aggressive foreign policy as described by the Project for a New American Century.”
And what is that exactly? A plot to take over the world? I don’t see how you could get the American voters to go along with that. We are tired of being the world’s policeman. We would be quite isolationist now if 9/11 hadn’t happened.
Is it anything like the Social Democrats of the EU’s plan to create a “One World” government centered around the UN? I don’t see much chance of that either.
““We disagree. The Democrats have shown no evidence of supporting this war and often has hindered it.”
Democrats are paying for, fighting for and dying in the war as much as everyone else. I don’t see any case where they have hindered it. They should scrutinize it more.”
Shall I trot out the actions of the New York Times and the Swift program? This was a perfectly legal intelligence gathering program on al Qaeda. The NY Times betrayed it to al Qaeda. I’d call that hindering. There were a long list of such programs that the Press have betrayed.
I have no problem with a loyal opposition during wartime. that is necessary to avoid abuses. But the constant barrage of lies from the Leftist politicians and the Press has been disheartening.
Fortunately, we are winning in Iraq despite the the harassment from the left. That is why there is no daily bad news from Iraq in the Mainstream Media now. The Press won’t tell the good news coming out of Iraq.
Iraq will be a non-issue in the 2008 election. We will most likely have 60 to 80 troops and dropping there. The Democrats won’t want to remind people how wrong they were on the war, so there will no news and the voters will forget.
“roz is not a feminine name – its a screen name like urbantard.
And I said I was a man – so this is wrong: “As things stand now, I have not a clue as to who you are– male or female.””
I was questioning your honesty and integrity there. I have no idea what your values are. Who you are. All I see is the attack dog.
““National Health care is not a centrist position: it is a leftist position– a Socialist position. ”
I did not advocate a National Healthcare System. My words: “I would also say though that our industrial competitiveness is harmed by our failure to deal with health-care. its a huge problem and our collective failure to create an efficient alternative demands reform. This probably will require government involvement of some kind.””
I suggest that the solution is to get the government out, not in, health care.
“But that might be purely on a regulatory basis – so stop jumping to conclusions. Be more thoughtful, cautious and fact based like a real conservative. You are acting like a Republican not a conservative.”
No, regulation is little different from National health care. It just approaches it from the other end. Are you aware how strangled the medical industry is? A major problem is the American Medical Association. It is a cartel that restrains the number of doctors, their prices, where they can get trained, what hospital they can operate in. It is a restraint of trade. A conservative wants more freedom, not more regulation. A conservation wants more competition.
It sound like you have no idea what a conservative wants.
“People who are interested in foreign policy have been wondering about what to do about Iraq for decades. It was a regional threat.”
Of course they have. The issue was not should something be done about Iraq, its was there an urgent threat, or even a threat at all to the US. Should something have been done, yes in time, given the messy the sanction regime, the in-human conditions there, Hussein was not a good person etc. I was not a fan of the pre-war status quo or dropping sanction with Hussein in place, so something had to be done from my perspective. The issue is that we went in on a series of lies, and then we did it, and I am talking solely of the civilian military leadership, in a way that was totally incompetent with no plan for occupation and no too few boots on the ground, and then it took far to long to adjust when our approach was not working.
Take Colin Powell’s presentation to the UN. I am not an expert on it, but it has pretty much been totally discredited. This is the world opinion, even Powel regrets it. We should not have lied to the world, the US taxpayers, the Congress like that. I really find it impossible to believe that everying presented as evidence was simply wrong as an error. Some intelligence reports said there was no threat and they were ignored. Maybe its tough to prove the intent to lie on a evidential basis, but a rational person knows when they have been lied to. If someone came to your home and made a presentation on a product they want to sell, and you find that its all wrong, nearly every aspect of it, you’d think well, most probably I have been lied to intentionally, I would not trust that person again. Thats how I see Bush and the Republicans who refused to hold him accountable.
If there was not a basis to invade we should not have done it – build the case. What was the rush? It was fabricated by the hawks – the neo-cons – Cheney, Rumsfeld, Wolfowitz. Are they evil? No. Did they drum up a war where there really did not need to be one at the time, of course they did. You can debate the real reasons for it. I have my theory. I don’t think its fantasy. I never said that they did it for the oil companies or for the oil itself. They wanted to go to Iraq and make a stronger foothold in the region there. Iraq had strategic value, its not extremist and it had oil itself. Its not a bogus paranoid fantasy.
On top of this basic falsehood you add the loads of pure idiotic immoral un-american stuff, the torture, abu graib,guantanimo bay, rendition, experts in the field of interrogation, military officials all say its counterproductive – we should not have been doing any of that. its a stain on our reputation.
I am also ashamed of the fact that we did not protect things like the antiquities of Iraq. That was the first indication to me that we did not have a clue what we were doing. Of course we should have protected that, and the civilian infrastructure and the military weapons stores. The protection of those sort of assets and ensuring general civil order are the reason why an occupation force needs to be larger, as recommended before we went in, than the administration planned.
SO getting back to your original statement that people or the media would not be asking to impeach Gore. The media, the public would have supported him, not because they have a bias, they don’t have a liberal bias anymore than reality does, its because Gore, if he got to the point of moving on Iraq, would have made a credible transparent case to take action, whereas Bush did the opposite. Honesty and decency builds trust and faith in the process. Maybe not for the corrupt Republicans who distort facts and abuse logic, but to everyone else.
And that is after all what this series of images is about, discovering you’ve been scammed and that you are not getting what you expect, like honestly and simple competence, thats what IMHO bothers people the most about Bush.
Anyone calling democratic party of US, not to mention Gore or Clinton “socialist” should check his head. (Or maybe check the Political Compass: http://www.politicalcompass.org/ )
John Lennon was a socialist.
Salvador Allende was a socialist.
Gandhi was a socialist.
Evo Morales is a socialist.
Bernie Sanders is a socialist.
But Gore and Clinton? Puh-leeze! By any global political standards they are moderate right-wingers. In some countries here they could maybe find themselves in a social democratic party (I can imagine Gore as a British Labour member, for example, especially the new labour), but for example here in Finland the most logical political home for them would be the conservative party kokoomus.
Except for Bernie Sanders, you don’t have any socialists in power there. And even Sanders is actually a social democrat who just wants to be identified with socialist tradition.
UrbanBand, you are imagining your enemies. That’s dangerous.
It is interesting to me that after failing to win the presidency, and with it, the command of the war against terror, Al Gore decided to captain another, greater, struggle.
So far all he has done is to define the battle ground.
Global warming is real, it is provable, and defeating it is not only possible but imperative.
Unfortunately, these days it is popular to discount, solid hard fact, because of religious or spirtual reasons.
Perpetuating religious myth and spiritual nonsence is eroding the truth. Unfortunately the wrong things are being challenged.
Here we are in the 20th century, supposedly enlightened with critical thinking, but teaching the “fact” of evolution, is being challenged just because is doesn’t conform to some late stone age work of fiction.
Federal funding is not allowed for embryonic stem cell research, for no other reason than, some faith based nonsence. We need to fight the Talibanisation of science, and allow the great advances that have all ready been achieved to continue.
Unfortunately this mindset is being indoctrinated in our children. They have become inured against the truth.
Although we base our court system on “cold hard facts”, misguided people are allowed to corrupt, young impressonable minds, by telling them if you “believe it” enough it must be true.
If the US does not lead the world, then it will follow.
Global warming will be stopped eventually. Citeing economic reasons not to do so is just a canard.
The technology exists today, but it is the mindset of astrology, religion, acupuncture, chiropractic and other mumbo jumbo that makes people think ther is an alternative to science.
Ahem,
First, my apologies for any duplication of my own post here. I tried an earlier version of this a few days ago, but WordPress still claims it’s under moderation. Dan has told me this occurs the 1st time a new member tries using the system, but it _still_ sez pending… but onward to #2, the redux.
I doubt changing the topic is possible just yet, but allow me to suggest engaging another section of our brains & get back to the possibility of an alternate-Earth where Gore assumed the office. With a track record like this administration it’s all-too easy to compare and contrast the previous Clinton-era responses to natural, terrorist, budgetary disasters… ‘Spiders’ is an entertaining on-line graphic novel that assumes a much more open-source, pro-active, _competent_ engagement with ObL and his ilk, http://e-sheep.com/spiders/ rather than the crony-capitalism and fear-mongering foisted upon U.S. so far this millennia. Go ahead, take your other lobe for a spin and review this idea.
‘UrbanBard’ obviously lacks the tools to understand, let alone deal with, the forces acting on us and prefers to savor some sort of Cliff Notes version of Ayn Rand’s Atlas Shrugged forgetting her critique of graft, incompetence, waste in cartels, monied cabals, large companies and other hierarchies. His sad defense of Cheney charting out how to divvy up the anticipated spoils of Iraq is a prime example of this myopia: aggressive war & looting is a crime against humanity that the US signed onto long ago plain and simple – it’s why they hide away the facts with lots of rubber stamps like ’secrecy’ and ‘executive priv’. Well, I found Rands’ work thrilling and bold as a budding architecture student, but now merely juvenile and of limited range – much as our bellicose friend here trying to browbeat anything that moves. If he’s so all-fired sure of what we ought to be doing overseas, then why doesn’t he stop pounding out blog re-comments like a one-note Samba and sign up to go extend the Green Zone?
[crickets]
Why are the UrbanBards of this world so damned scared of every bogeyman, trial-balloon, shadowplay, rumor, feint and fart these BushCo clowns throw into the media-mix? What a bunch of hide-under-the-bed reactionary scaredy-cats, ready + willing + eager to trade our real freedom for their false security. They confuse conformity of the herd with safety and reflexively try to bully dissenters into falling in line – like they meekly do.
In the forty miles of bad road I grew up in having someone _else_ go fight and die for your fervent beliefs is called “coward.” On the rare chance General Hindmost here served somewhere besides the Fighting 101st Keyboarders I gotta wonder why oxycotin-deprived reich-wing types _still_ haven’t gone whole-hog for the capitalist gold and sought that neo-con wet-dream of an Iraqi tax-free “contractor” income… See the world, haul away palette-loads of American $100 bills, conquer and plunder assets of far off lands, shoot up brown-skinned streets for fun and profit!
The implied slight that limited-vision sorts like this guy often miss is that our troops can’t BOTH be the very best in the world, YET not good enough to protect our diplomats – that’s for no-bid mercenary armies started by those Friend$-Of-George. Hypocrites wearing lapel flag pins smirking all the way to the bank & just LOVE foot soldiers like him getting all emotional and hyper-venting. Of course, it is downright embarrassing for the proud dystopian idealists of these plumb Free Market{?} ‘reforms’ to our military that they must stick their asses up in the air so they can reach their head under the belly of the beast trying to suckle at that mother of all tits – the Military. But it doesn’t stop them.
LoL.
‘UrbanBard’ is just another adrenaline junkie looking for a fix.
All this is interesting only because Gore entering the race now would flummox Clintons’ {Mrs} corporate-centrist game plan to harvest our wide-spread social discontent for her monied backers: she’s a well-positioned sphincter to contain the ever-growing poor bubbling into a froth for change. I am not impressed with the democratic stand-down on Habeas Corpus, etc, and can’t see much support for them this next election since they give the BushCo agenda such easy nods to go-ahead, extend the empire, etc. I am comforted by the fact the religious zealots are unhappy with Republicans and expect my lack of enthusiasm for the Bolshevik {as our stale UrbanBard appears ready to call them} Left is easily offset this election cycle. I’ll be glad to eat crow if she turns out better. Meanwhile, the Republicans ought to be ashamed of themselves & deserve the political exile approaching like a black-hole event horizon… witness the as-we-speak drowning puppy-love of Law&Order farce Fred “Fog-Horn Leg-Horn” Thompson proving the paucity of so-called Conservative offerings and hear their dismay at the field.
FYI – I am an army brat familiar with our defense system from many angles. I was a defense contractor when 9-11 occurred and clearly recall walking a particular grassy parade ground with a certain young Major tickled pink he was ordered to rejoin his artillery squad & insisting that we were going to war with Iraq ASAP… this was about the end of November 2001 – a mere 1 1/2 month after September 11th and this administration was well underway to X-fer from Afghanistan to Iraq. Imagine success there. Picture capturing ObL… think if we’d stayed put w/100K+ troops and finished the job – but this is about boondoggles & bilking & pillaging on a grand scale. Politically, SuperBushMan needs a Lex ‘Osama’ Luther to rally the weak-minded, but Truth is kryptonite and everyone can see his fragile brittle psyche for the shallow vessel it is.
No man is an island, nor economy – we are all in this together and sorting out how we sort the collective pie _IS_ politics whether you recognize it or not.
Ciao, dah-links…
Roz said:
“its was there an urgent threat, or even a threat at all to the US. Should something have been done, yes in time, given the messy the sanction regime, the in-human conditions there, Hussein was not a good person etc. ”
Do you understand “just war theory?” The point is to only go to war when there was no other recourse. That does not mean that there has to be an immediate threat; there was no immediate threat to the US in WW one. Everything else had been tried with Saddam Hussein to get him to comply with his treaties. Saddam could have folded under UN pressure, but he did not. Saddam was given chance after chance to avoid war and he chose to be defiant until the end. HE chose this war.
The time was right, Roz. If the UN had allowed Saddam to get away with defying them, Saddam would become an even greater regional threat as “the man who backed down the US.” Once we started down the road to forcing UN compliance, it had to end in either the US or Iraq being defeated. Did you want it to be us?
“The issue is that we went in on a series of lies, and then we did it, and I am talking solely of the civilian military leadership, in a way that was totally incompetent with no plan for occupation and no too few boots on the ground, and then it took far to long to adjust when our approach was not working.”
You do have your Leftist dogma down pat, but it is false.
We had plenty of plans. European Politicians screwed up our plans. The French Government forced Turkey to disallow a Northern Front.
Every war is chaos; there is always disarray. Plans have to thrown away because the enemy intervenes. This was the fastest and most efficient war in human history. Conquering a country the size of Iraq in just three weeks put military historians in awe.
Did you expect that it would be peaceful after Saddam’s regime fell? Why? Saddam planned for a guerilla war after Baghdad fell. Fedayeen came from many countries to fight us.
The US military says, in the last five years, that we have killed or captured 80 thousand insurgents. Two thirds of those were foreign al Qaeda fighters. Iraq was the best place to fight them. Better there than in the US or Europe.
The Left has lied a lot in this war. We do not know happened to the WMD. The Iraqi military wondered where it went, too. The front-line Iraqi Generals expected the WMD to be used in the incursion. An Iraqi Air Force General, Georges Soto, published a book several years ago that Saddam had smuggled the WMD to Syria in the final weeks before the incursion.
Once the US had made a big deal about WMD in the UN, then it would be a great propaganda ploy, if the WMD was never found. That worked for Saddam. I do not believe the lies that the WMD did not exist. The UN inspectors saw tens to hundreds of thousands of tons of WMD in 1995. Where did it go? There is no proof that is was destroyed. Did the UN Inspectors lie?
In any case, the point about the war was not WMD. There were twenty two other reasons listed in the Iraqi war proclamation.
“We should not have lied to the world, the US taxpayers, the Congress like that. ”
The Congress saw the same intelligence information that the president did. They, including most Democrats, chose to go to war. If you blame anyone, then blame them all. Was all of congress in on a conspiracy? That would be ridiculous.
“I really find it impossible to believe that everything presented as evidence was simply wrong as an error. ”
I cannot vouch for the competence of the CIA. But, you slur the Bush Administration without any actual proof. They believed that Saddam had to be forced to keep his UN Resolutions or there would be war.
Was the Bush administration partially taking advantage of the anxious times after 9/11? Yes. That’s just politics. You strike when the iron is hot; when the public is with you. But, don’t turn that into some grand conspiracy. There is no proof.
“Some intelligence reports said there was no threat and they were ignored. ”
A government as big as ours has people in it who will disagree with any position. An administration can be buried under a mountain of contrary reports. That is why you have experts like George Tenet to sort it out. Tenet was sure there was WMD. He told Bush that it was a “Slam dunk.” Tenet still maintains he was right. Plenty of high Bush administration officials have left office. Where are the books agreeing with the Left’s contentions that it was all a fraud?
“Maybe its tough to prove the intent to lie on a evidential basis, but a rational person knows when they have been lied to. ”
You can also be listening to the lies that your side tells you. The Mainstream Leftist Media, the NY Times, Washington Post, ABC, NBC, CBS, etc. pretends to be objective, but is not.
“If someone came to your home and made a presentation on a product they want to sell, and you find that its all wrong, nearly every aspect of it, you’d think well, most probably I have been lied to intentionally, I would not trust that person again. ”
Funny. That’s the way I feel about the Mainstream Media.
“If there was not a basis to invade we should not have done it – build the case.”
You are not listening to my case. This is about the UN and the Bush administration trying to save the UN’s credibility. This is about the Bush administration deciding that the best way to solve the terror problem, long term, was to divide the Mid East by attacking Iraq. Iraq was a much easier war to sell to the American people than invading Syria, Iran or Saudi Arabia. This is about Blair and Colin Powell persuading Bush that the US had to get the UN’s blessing. This is about a host of anti-American activists trying to take America down a peg. This is about the “old school European diplomats” trying to keep the Mid East stable when what it needed was change. This war was about all this and more. You want to ignore all that.
“What was the rush? ”
Oh? A year and more of preparations is a rush? All those congressional hearings was a rush? Was all the UN efforts a rush? Was giving Saddam three chances to resolve this a rush? You have a funny idea of what a rush is. I suspect that any action we took would have been a rush to you.
“Did they drum up a war where there really did not need to be one at the time, of course they did. ”
We disagree. But then, you Democrats have no plan for attacking the terrorist problem, other than to duck under the covers and pretend that there is no necessity for war.
“They wanted to go to Iraq and make a stronger foothold in the region there. ”
Find some proof of that and report back. There are legitamate strategic reasons for arrcking Iraq.
“Iraq had strategic value, its not extremist and it had oil itself. Its not a bogus paranoid fantasy.”
We disagree on the motives for going into Iraq.
“On top of this basic falsehood you add the loads of pure idiotic immoral un-American stuff, the torture, abu graib,guantanimo bay, rendition, experts in the field of interrogation, military officials all say its counterproductive – we should not have been doing any of that. ”
The Left has been rather busy trying to find reasons against the war and those pitiful examples above are the best they have. Most of those are lies piled high on lies or they are an “Oh-so-civilized” attempt to hinder our effectiveness. But, this is too far afield of the original discussion for me to want to talk about. I’ll just use General Sherman’s remark “War is hell.” An Clauwitz, “No plan survives contact with the enemy.” I’ll add in for myself, “Anyone who expects perfection is war is out of touch with reality.”
The Left just doesn’t want for the US to win it, so they throw up rubbish arguments.
“I am also ashamed of the fact that we did not protect things like the antiquities of Iraq. ”
You are misinformed. Most of the antiquities were either packed away from harm by the good museum officials, or they were sold in Europe by the bad ones. Very little was lost and almost all of that was returned to Iraq. The Mid East is totally corrupt and you expected that US forces, in the midst of the shooting, would prevent that? Jesus, you are unreal.
“The protection of those sort of assets and ensuring general civil order are the reason why an occupation force needs to be larger, as recommended before we went in, than the administration planned.”
If it had been as large as you want, then the Left would be decrying that it was TOO large and it was bankrupting America. These are just worthless arguments. The Left has no good ones.
“SO getting back to your original statement that people or the media would not be asking to impeach Gore. ”
I had said that there would be no impeachment, because the Republicans would never try that after the Clinton fiasco. The American people will not support the impeachment of a president.
“The media, the public would have supported him, not because they have a bias, they don’t have a liberal bias anymore than reality does,”
You must be far to the left to believe that.
” Gore, if he got to the point of moving on Iraq, would have made a credible transparent case to take action, whereas Bush did the opposite.”
That’s just your opinion. Bush was quite clear to me. Maybe, you didn’t want to see it. Perhaps you opposed action in Iraq for a variety of reasons.
“Honesty and decency builds trust and faith in the process. Maybe not for the corrupt Republicans who distort facts and abuse logic, but to everyone else.”
The left have been harping on lies that are not lies. They are mistake, different opinions, false allegations and lies themselves. The Left is living in its own dream world where there is no threat to the US.
“And that is after all what this series of images is about, discovering you’ve been scammed and that you are not getting what you expect, like honestly and simple competence, thats what IMHO bothers people the most about Bush.”
You know, its funny. I often compare the Bush administration to the Lincoln administration, the tactics, the lies and the slurs cast by the Copperheads are exactly the same ones used against the Bush administration. Where are the Copperhead’s in history? Defeated, totally. So will the Left in this war. In twenty years, no one will admit to being against the war. Why? Because too much good will come out of it.
“Saddam was given chance after chance to avoid war and he chose to be defiant until the end. HE chose this war.”
Oh please – I am really sorry for you if you actually believe this stuff.
“We had plenty of plans. European Politicians screwed up our plans. The French Government forced Turkey to disallow a Northern Front”
Oh yes it’s the French’s fault that we botched an occupation they opposed – totally their fault.
“Every war is chaos; there is always disarray. Plans have to thrown away because the enemy intervenes. This was the fastest and most efficient war in human history. Conquering a country the size of Iraq in just three weeks put military historians in awe.”
You know better than to make this argument. Sorry for you you are not big enough to take responsibility for the mistakes of your side. IT WAS NOT THE INVASION THEY F”D UP – IT WAS THE OCCUPATION. Occupations are not chaos – they are supposed to be orderly and safe for civilians. Allowing looting on this scale is simply not acceptable.
“Did you expect that it would be peaceful after Saddam’s regime fell? Why?”
Who said I did? It was Wolfowitz who said that, not me.
“The Left has lied a lot in this war.” <<< ??? Sorry where is the lie?
“You can also be listening to the lies that your side tells you. ” << where are the lies?
“This is about the Bush administration deciding that the best way to solve the terror problem, long term, was to divide the Mid East by attacking Iraq.”
This was never part of the case to anyone.
“Oh? A year and more of preparations is a rush?”
Clearly it was a rush since we were not ready when we invaded. And there was no reason to invade when we did. We had inspectors in the country who had to leave. There was no immediate cause to invade.
“We disagree. But then, you Democrats have no plan for attacking the terrorist problem, other than to duck under the covers and pretend that there is no necessity for war.”
Finishing the job in Afganistan and killing OBL was a plan everyone supported.
“The Left has been rather busy trying to find reasons against the war and those pitiful examples above are the best they have.”
I assume you are not referring to me here.
“The Left has been rather busy trying to find reasons against the war and those pitiful examples above are the best they have. Most of those are lies piled high on lies or they are an “Oh-so-civilized” attempt to hinder our effectiveness. But, this is too far afield of the original discussion for me to want to talk about. I’ll just use General Sherman’s remark “War is hell.” An Clauwitz, “No plan survives contact with the enemy.”
None of those quotes has anything to do with the treatment prisoners after conflict. They are talking about actions taken in the field of battle, in the fog of war – not in post hostility occupation. No one should be torturing prisoners or humiliating them.
“You are misinformed. Most of the antiquities were either packed away from harm by the good museum officials, or they were sold in Europe by the bad ones. Very little was lost and almost all of that was returned to Iraq. The Mid East is totally corrupt and you expected that US forces, in the midst of the shooting (<<you mean looting), would prevent that? Jesus, you are unreal.”
No you are wrong. The head of the Iraqi museum sought US protection for the antiquities and did not get it. There was no reason for them to be lost or destroyed at all. As corrupt as they may by, that is no excuse for us not to protect it.
“The left have been harping on lies that are not lies. They are mistake, different opinions, false allegations and lies themselves. The Left is living in its own dream world where there is no threat to the US.”
Kind of a lot of mistakes. Bush made a statement during his State of the Union address that we knew was false and had to be retracted. Powell will not stand behind the UN speech.
Who said there is no threat to the US?
Welcome MisterGibson
“nyone calling democratic party of US, not to mention Gore or Clinton “socialist” should check his head. (Or maybe check the Political Compass: http://www.politicalcompass.org/ )
For a less politically biased quiz, look at:
http://www.theadvocates.org/quiz.html
There are only two political ideologies present in the world today: individualism and Socialism. Individualism takes the rights of the individual as sovereign. These were enshrined in our US Constitution and the Declaration of independence. That is why the Leftists oppose both.
Socialism takes the group or society as sovereign. These ideas are mutually exclusive, but people are often muddled in their thinking and try to embrace both.
At one time, back at the turn of the 19th Century, the Democratic Party was the individualist party. It’s motto was, “Equal rights for all; special privileges for none.”
The Republican party had been in power for 40 years and had become quite corrupt and under the control of the monied classes.
Socialism had been promoted heavily in Europe but there wasn’t of much interest in it here. That is why there is a different form of Socialism in America. But, they all end in the same place. They all want the same thing– total governmental control.
The Fabian party of England found that the best way of inserting Socialism there was “step by step.” The American Fabians called themselves Progressives which means the same thing. The idea was to find special interest groups and promote that the government should champion them. This meant special rights and free money giveaways.
It was not clear early which political party the progressives would take control of because Teddy Roosevelt– a Republican (1904) was the first Progressive president.
The Progressives took over the Democratic Party in 1908 and didn’t rock the boat much. Every time they did, they would lose members. There have been a series of groups who would get sick of the increasing socialism in the Democratic Party and leave. As Ronald Reagan said, “I never left the Democratic Party; it left me.” I waited until 1972.
The second Progressive president was Woodrow Wilson– a Democrat. But, it wasn’t until 1928 that we got the third: Herbert Hoover– a Republican. Unlike his predecessor Calvin Coolidge, Hoover believed that the government should act aggressively in economic matters, so he intervened and made the 1929 stock market crash worse by trying to help out.
FDR– a Democrat was the fourth Progressive president and mainly, all the Democratic president have been progressives since. Oddly enough, JFK was less progressive than Nixon was.
As time proceeded the Progressives have become increasingly Leftist until in 1972 the New Left took control of the Democratic Party with McGovern’s reforms. There is little difference between a Democrat and a Socialist in the rest of the world. The methods are the same.
Since the fall of the Soviet Union, it is mainly the Social Democrats who are supreme. The Russians impoverish themselves. The Social Democrats of the European Union are the model of Socialism today, since too much socialism destroys your economy. It is a hard line for the Social Democrats to follow since their wishes are always to go for totalitarian powers. That is why the European Union’s leadership and bureaucracy are unelected by anyone. That is why their economy puny compared to ours. The poorest state in the American Union, Mississippi, has a higher standard of living than the richest state in Europe: Sweden.
“John Lennon was a socialist.
Salvador Allende was a socialist.
Gandhi was a socialist.
Evo Morales is a socialist.
Bernie Sanders is a socialist.”
Yes, all.
“But Gore and Clinton? Puh-leeze! By any global political standards they are moderate right-wingers. ”
All that means that other places are more socialist than we are. Could you call Gore, Clinton or Kerry individualists? Puh-leeze.
“Except for Bernie Sanders, you don’t have any socialists in power there. ”
It is a matter of intent; what your values are. How much control you want for the government to have over the population. And the fact that the word “Socialist” has gotten a bad reputation here in America, just as Liberal has. Any smart politician will call themselves something innocuous. The current name in favor is Progressive. It doesn’t change any thing; they have the same values.
“And even Sanders is actually a social democrat who just wants to be identified with socialist tradition.”
Yes, he is the one that the other Democratic politicians wish their voters would let them emulate.
“UrbanBand, you are imagining your enemies. That’s dangerous.”
No, it is your ignorance that is dangerous. And your false world view that the government can solve all problems.
Welcome theBob”
“It is interesting to me that after failing to win the presidency,… Al Gore decided to captain another, greater, struggle.
Global warming is real, it is provable, and defeating it is not only possible but imperative.”
I agree that Global Warming is real. Since the end of the “Little Ice Age” around 1850 the Earth’s Temperature has risen about a degree. There has been a corresponding rise of the ocean’s surface of about 8 inches, but that is no big deal.
No one disputes that. The only question is the cause. The most reasonable answer is that it is a natural phenomenon. The Sun’s heat output is variable. The frost caps on the planet Mars are melting. The reasonable answer for that is the Sun. That answer applys to the Earth, too.
“Unfortunately, these days it is popular to discount, solid hard fact, because of religious or spiritual reasons.”
It’s not religious unless you call Socialism a religion. I believe it is just politics. I remember in the 1960’s the Environmentalists were promoting an Ice Age. Their solution is the same, both times: more government control of the economy.
“Here we are in the 20th century, supposedly enlightened with critical thinking, but teaching the “fact” of evolution, is being challenged just because is doesn’t conform to some late stone age work of fiction.”
You misstate the case. Natural selection is not in dispute even by the Catholic Church. It’s the religious (Atheistic) and political positions of evolution that we doubt. What Christians dispute is that Natural Selection is proof that God does not exist.
“Federal funding is not allowed for embryonic stem cell research, for no other reason than, some faith based nonsense. ”
As I said to Roz, there is no provision in the US Constitution for the funding of medical research, how ever valuable. There is plenty of private and State funded support. Embryonic Stem cell research seems like a dead end. It is too dangerous for a therapy; it gives people cancer. But there have been over a hundred Adult Stem Cell therapies developed. Private industry is researching those because there is a chance for a profit. Embryonic Stem Cell therapies are too far in the future. Leave it to the Universities.
“Unfortunately this mindset is being indoctrinated in our children. They have become inured against the truth.”
Thank goodness that children can see though Leftist dogma. The Left are not drawing a young audience today. The Left are strident and boring. There is nothing sexy about a sixties Leftist.
“Although we base our court system on “cold hard facts”, misguided people are allowed to corrupt, young impressionable minds, by telling them if you “believe it” enough it must be true.”
You misstate the case. Your anti-religious bias is showing. I’m religious but I demand proof. That is why I am a Christian; I found it. I was once a Leftist and it was too painful an existence. I came to a choice between suicide or God. I chose God.
“Global warming will be stopped eventually.”
What is very interesting is that we will have proof in the next twelve years. We are at the hight of the Sun Spot cycle and the heat output of the Sun follows it by a year or so. Meanwhile, the satellites report that the temperature off the top of clouds has remained steady since 1992. So, if the Sun Spot cycle holds, and the sun cools down, then the Earth will be considerably colder in a decade than now. Will the Left start promoting an Ice Age again?
“The technology exists today, but it is the mindset of astrology, religion, acupuncture, chiropractic and other mumbo jumbo that makes people think there is an alternative to science.”
Leftist bigotry strikes again. You just don’t know the issues at debate.
MisterGibson said:
‘UrbanBard’ obviously lacks the tools to understand, let alone deal with, the forces acting on us ”
No, I merely disagree with your interpretation. I disagree with the evidence that the Mainstream Media presents you Liberals. I have alternate sources, including talking to the troops in Iraq. I just think differently from you. I am quite willing to debate the issues. If I am wrong, then I will admit it. None of you are persuasive. You have no solutions that have not been tried and failed.
“prefers to savor some sort of Cliff Notes version of Ayn Rand’s Atlas Shrugged ”
It was interesting reading, buy I never bought into her Philosophy called Objectivism. It was too much a contra-Communism. There places in life for social groups and action so long as they are voluntary. I just disapprove of coercive groups.
“forgetting her critique of graft, incompetence, waste in cartels, monied cabals, large companies and other hierarchies. ”
Don’t forget her critique of altruism, petty bureaucrats, churches, Government control of the economy, etc.
“His sad defense of Cheney charting out how to divvy up the anticipated spoils of Iraq”
I can’t read Cheney’s mind. I don’t believe you can either. I do not know what happened in these meetings. Neither do you. If you had any real evidence; there would be more than just vague accusations. I prefer to have an objective viewpoint. A person is considered innocent in America until proven guilty– except for Republican politicians.
“If he’s so all-fired sure of what we ought to be doing overseas, then why doesn’t he stop pounding out blog re-comments like a one-note Samba and sign up to go extend the Green Zone?”
They won’t take me although I served in the Air Force in Vietnam. I’ve been shot at, almost killed by inches, shot back and killed two VietCong.
I’d go, but I just turned 65.
UrbanBard,
First of all, beyond the critiques I’ve leveled I do appreciate the service you’ve given in that other nasty civil war we got involved in, Vietnam. Most citizens simply do not understand the hardships imposed on soldiers and their families. You’ve earned whatever pension and benefits you can squeeze out of this administration. I’d argue the military is much more like a massive labor union / lobby group in many respects, but that’s for another chat and only if you actually face the various topics already brought up.
OK. That said, I would have thought history taught you the folly of US involvement in such ‘actions’ as warning to our invasion and occupation of another country and the civil war that results. It’s certainly a lesson on most American minds these days even if you can rationalize the conundrum away… And harden your heart to the suffering millions we’ve displaced across the middle-east… And the monied graft shoveling huge funds to some of the same milspec players who bilked us in the 1960’s and 1970’s. Wasn’t that invoiced to American pocketbooks under the ‘Domino Theory’ … where country after country would go {enemy du jour} commmie? Don’t we trade and invest with {ostensbily} communist Vietnam today? Think of the flowing blood of your buddies seeping into the soil – for what?!? I have friends who take surf vacations there now. Scare-mongering is quite profitable short-term, heh? The hard truth is you’ve been had more than I because you believe the fairy tales, sops and red meat these demagogues throw you – but we are all at the short end of the stick here – make no mistake about that.
My own father went over during the Tet and I understand very well the burdens you probably faced – and your family. I am currently playing father-figure to my nephews as I have family members spending the last few years at GitMo and other undisclosed locations in the euphemistic role of “communicator”. I have been told by my relative that there are many, many, innocent people locked up for years on end @ GitMo. The truth is we were handing out money like candy in Afghanistan and enormous numbers of innocent people were offered by locals {often just tribal rivals} to collect the bounty. Why isn’t the GwB admin touting conviction after conviction from the rooftops, chortling their successes? Because they DO NOT have any. Riddle me this: why do we keep releasing these prisoners w/o charge, but still held for _years_ w/no trial… and this would-be King George claims he can do the same for any US citizen he deems unfit… how is this an American value?
I suggest everyone google, “Camp Iguana” to see the absurdity of painting everyone there with a black terrorist brush. It’s the underage area where 14-yr olds are given time-outs {!} and have the soccer ball taken away to face discipline… WOW, scary evil terrorists the lot of them! It would be a funny farce if there wasn’t so much blood dripping and pain emanating from our American flag.
Face the ugly truth: Goldwater wouldn’t recognize your beloved Republican party mouthing platitudes about Freedom and Liberty while conducting themselves as they do. If you actually addressed the issues I bring up I might pay more attention to you. As it is your content to ignore my points in a defensive stance of tired old name-calling archetypes – hence my ref to Bolsheviks. This works for the Rush’s of the world because they don’t let alternate voices actually interact with them on-air, whereas here you don’t have a phone bank operator screening calls and thumb on the microphone kill-switch. Harder going isn’t it?
Doesn’t it burn to know Rush got out of serving next to you because he couldn’t keep his ass clean, developed a boil on his butt, and was then medically excused from shooting the VC that almost got you? Which of your comrades might he have saved if he had the strength of character you have? How does Cheney’s numerous deferments sit with you in this light?
As for Cheney and War Spoils, Freedom of Info reqs have revealed enough of this meeting to show such things as mapping oil reserves for plunder. What does the truth of FOIA releases mean when the courts are controlled by party hacks, so any information cannot be acted on? This is the rule of law your buddies died for in Vietnam?
O… one more thing.. I heard an interview last year, er, almost two years ago actually, with a doctor being called back for Iraq duty at the age of 62… just about your age now. Imagine that. I find it hard to believe you couldn’t find _some_ kind of task among the myriad contractor positions over there… but I suppose you haven’t bothered to inquire about any of these 100K+ roles {almost equal to the number of proper soldiers we have}, heh? Since this administration saw fit to put recent college grads in charge of the Iraq stock exchange I am sure your qualified for most jobs listed since party loyalty & family connections are more important than ability and wisdom.
Sounds like a neo-royalty structure firming up to me.
MisterGibson said”
“Why are the Urban-Bards of this world so damned scared of every bogeyman, trial-balloon, shadowplay, rumor, feint and fart these Bausch clowns throw into the media-mix? ”
If you are too stupid to understand a threat, there is nothing I can say but that Hitler was a clown and a buffoon to Chamberlain. Both Hitler and Saddam Hussein were bullies and tyrants.
Didn’t you learn in grade school that the only way to keep a little bully from becoming a big bully is to slap him down? Did you automatically hand over your lunch money? Did you become a toady to teenaged thugs? It figures– no guts.
“The implied slight that limited-vision sorts like this guy often miss is that our troops can’t BOTH be the very best in the world, YET not good enough to protect our diplomats – that’s for no-bid mercenary armies started by those Friend$-Of-George.”
Spoken like someone who never came within a mile of being in the military. You know nothing about how to deal with nasty people. You know, the people who want to kill you?
You’d be the first one crying “Why didn’t they protect us?” if terrorists blew up your neighborhood. The usual answer is that someone like you prevented that. If you tie the hands of our soldiers in prosecuting this war, then the terrorists will think us easy prey. Why don’t you Lefties paint a target on your back rather that cowering in among the women and children?
“‘UrbanBard’ is just another adrenaline junkie looking for a fix.”
Nope. I don’t like war. Been there, done that– Vietnam. But, if someone is trying to kill us, I don’t run away from it.
“All this is interesting only because Gore entering the race now would flummox Clintons’ {Mrs} corporate-centrist game plan to harvest our wide-spread social discontent for her monied backers: she’s a well-positioned sphincter to contain the ever-growing poor bubbling into a froth for change.”
Gore is not entering the race. We Republicans would love to oppose Gore or Hillary. Talk about your easy takedowns. Please, please send us another Kerry.
“I am comforted by the fact the religious zealots are unhappy with Republicans and expect my lack of enthusiasm for the Bolshevik {as our stale UrbanBard appears ready to call them} Left is easily offset this election cycle. ”
Don’t worry your head about internal Republican politics. We’ll come together as soon as we have a front runner. Either Fred Thompson or Rudy Gulliani would do. Neither is perfect, but they aren’t leftist or cowards.
“Meanwhile, the Republicans ought to be ashamed of themselves & deserve the political exile approaching like a black-hole event horizon… witness the as-we-speak drowning puppy-love of Law&Order farce Fred “Fog-Horn Leg-Horn” Thompson proving the paucity of so-called Conservative offerings and hear their dismay at the field.”
You haven’t a clue. Please stay that way.
“FYI – I am an army brat familiar with our defense system from many angles. I was a defense contractor when 9-11 occurred and clearly recall walking a particular grassy parade ground with a certain young Major tickled pink he was ordered to rejoin his artillery squad & insisting that we were going to war with Iraq ASAP… this was about the end of November 2001 – a mere 1 1/2 month after September 11th and this administration was well underway to X-fer from Afghanistan to Iraq. ”
Some people are far sighted like your Major. He knew that Saddam was a regional threat and a foreign policy embarrassment. Of course, things were delayed for a couple of years by Blair demanding UN consent.
Some army brats, like yourself, are in reaction against the military. Like I said. YOU saw all this from the outside. You also grew up when the military was utterly sabotaged by the Democrats.
“Politically, SuperBushMan needs a Lex ‘Osama’ Luther to rally the weak-minded, but Truth is kryptonite and everyone can see his fragile brittle psyche for the shallow vessel it is.”
It figures that you would think in cartoon imagery.
“No man is an island, nor economy – we are all in this together and sorting out how we sort the collective pie _IS_ politics whether you recognize it or not.”
Of course, and as President Andrew Jackson said, “to the victor goes the spoils.” I’m simply glad that the majority of the electorate has rejected what the Democrat have to offer.
Hi urbanbard. I’d love to see your poetry. I know, I know, so many people fall into that trap that says that all good artists are necessarily lefties. All that ‘entartete kunst’ stuff that’s been hanging around since well, Jeez, Ted Nugent I think, came along and blew it all up. And Dana Rohrabacher too, don’t forget.
Anyway I made you something because I totally agree with you and I REALLY hate how every dime I spend on Apple products goes straight into some goddam leftie pinko’s campaign coffers. Hate it hate it hate it. Actually my mac usage is kinda a dirty little secret. I don’t like people to know so I keep my 8-core at home in the closet but walk around with a fast new Lenovo in public.
Speaking of the closet, here’s what I made you: http://tinyurl.com/3yk3uo
Roz said:
“Saddam was given chance after chance to avoid war and he chose to be defiant until the end. HE chose this war.”
Oh please – I am really sorry for you if you actually believe this stuff.”
It’s clear you do not understand the concept of accountability.
Let me make this simple. If you refuse to make your car payments, the bank will warn you a couple of times and then reprocess the car. If you violate your parole and are caught, then you go back to prison. Who’s fault is that? Your own for not fulfilling your agreements.
Saddam signed UN Resolution 687 to keep his regime from being toppled in 1991. He paid lip service to his promises, but as soon as the coalition forces were removed from the Mideast he violated his treaties.
The UN responded with more UN resolutions, while Saddam laughed. In 1995, the UN Inspectors found hundreds of thousands of tons of WMD which were in violation of those UN Resolutions.
Saddam had broken UN Resolution 687, so the Cease Fire was over. The Gulf war could start again at any time. But, there was no political will do do anything about it.
When Saddam threw out the UN Inspectors out of Iraq in 1998, President Clinton went to Congress to make it a US national policy to overturn Saddam’s regime. But, there was no political will to do anything about that until 9/11.
The Bush administration warned the Iraqi government to obey its 16 UN resolutions. Saddam refused. Then, Bush went to Congress and got the Iraqi war powers act approved. A military buildup started on the Kuwaiti border. Then, Bush went to the UN and got UN Resolution 1441 approved which gave Saddam one last chance to comply.
Hans Blix reported to the General Assembly that Saddam’s regime was in violation of all the UN resolutions. Two days before the incursion started, Bush offered to halt the invasion if Saddam and his sons left the country.
Saddam was given warning after warning, but he played brinkmanship. He chose to believe that he could game the UN and that Bush was not serious. Saddam was wrong. He was playing a game of chicken with the US. He lost. Who could be blamed, but him?
““We had plenty of plans. European Politicians screwed up our plans. The French Government forced Turkey to disallow a Northern Front”
Oh yes it’s the French’s fault that we botched an occupation they opposed – totally their fault.”
Not totally– partially. It just shows the people who are anti American. You included.
““Every war is chaos; there is always disarray. Plans have to thrown away because the enemy intervenes. This was the fastest and most efficient war in human history. Conquering a country the size of Iraq in just three weeks put military historians in awe.”
You know better than to make this argument. Sorry for you you are not big enough to take responsibility for the mistakes of your side. IT WAS NOT THE INVASION THEY F”D UP – IT WAS THE OCCUPATION. Occupations are not chaos – they are supposed to be orderly and safe for civilians. .”
Who says that? No one. This is a Leftist delusion. The Japanese occupation, because the Emperor surrendered, is the only one in the history books without an insurrection afterwards. You are an ignoramus.
““Did you expect that it would be peaceful after Saddam’s regime fell? Why?”
Who said I did? It was Wolfowitz who said that, not me.”
Got a quote and a citation for that? Don’t use the line that the Iraqi people would would welcome us. They did, but they were scared. There was Fedayeen in their midst who killed anyone who showed any joy in the liberation.
The Iraq people are not the people who fought us in the Insurrection. That was Ba’athist dead enders and al Qaeda fighters from all over the world. We have killed or captured well over 80 thousand of them since the incursion ended. Two thirds of those came from Saudi Arabia, Syria, Palestine, Iran and as far away as Europe. We have been fighting the Global War on Terror by being in Iraq. DFo you want to fight in the US?
““The Left has lied a lot in this war.” <<< ??? Sorry where is the lie?”
The NY Times routinely lies about the war. It exaggerates the impact of the casualties in Iraq. It uses propaganda endlessly. And you lap it up.
““You can also be listening to the lies that your side tells you. ” << where are the lies?”
There are too many lies to list here. And you would dispute that they are lies, because they are the Policy of the Democratic party.
““This is about the Bush administration deciding that the best way to solve the terror problem, long term, was to divide the Mid East by attacking Iraq.”
This was never part of the case to anyone.”
You just weren’t listening. I heard it. But, of course, I don’t read the Mainstream Media’s spin on events. I go to the source. I listen or read President Bush’s speeches. It was all in there. The Media protected you from what they think isn’t news.
““Oh? A year and more of preparations is a rush?”
Clearly it was a rush since we were not ready when we invaded. ”
Whipping Saddam’s ass in three weeks wasn’t prepared? Get real.
“And there was no reason to invade when we did.”
We disagree. There was no reason NOT to invade. All discussions were over; Saddam was never going to comply with the UN resolutions.
Don’t you understand that we had made a threat? If you don’t follow through with your threats, you are toast. You are a lilly livered coward. America could never be able to hold up its head.
“We had inspectors in the country who had to leave.”
Why were they there? They should have been pulled out as soon as Hans Blix reported to the UN that Saddam was not cooperating with UN Resolution 1441.
“There was no immediate cause to invade.”
There never would be an immediate cause for the invasion for you.
Of Course, there was a immediate cause, the weather was turning against us. You don’t invade a desert region during the summer. If we didn’t act immediately, our Generals would demand that we put off the incursion until Fall. We should have invaded the previous January.
““We disagree. But then, you Democrats have no plan for attacking the terrorist problem, other than to duck under the covers and pretend that there is no necessity for war.”
Finishing the job in Afghanistan and killing OBL was a plan everyone supported.”
Sorry, that is not enough. That is asking to lose the war. It does nothing about any long term plans. You wants us to to be “cut to ribbons in detail.” You know nothing about war or foreign policy.
““The Left has been rather busy trying to find reasons against the war and those pitiful examples above are the best they have.”
I assume you are not referring to me here.”
Of course not. You don’t have any national prominence. None of these ideas are your own: you just slavishly follow your masters. You are merely a peon, a hod carrier, a “useful idiot” in the leftist scheme of things.
““The Left has been rather busy trying to find reasons against the war and those pitiful examples above are the best they have. Most of those are lies piled high on lies or they are an “Oh-so-civilized” attempt to hinder our effectiveness. But, this is too far afield of the original discussion for me to want to talk about. I’ll just use General Sherman’s remark “War is hell.” And Clauswitz, “No plan survives contact with the enemy.”
None of those quotes has anything to do with the treatment prisoners after conflict.”
That is a leftist canard. We obeyed the only Geneva Conventions that the US ever ratified. In fact, we did better than that since the 1949 Geneva Conventions says that “Unlawful combatants” may be shot at any time. No other Geneva Convention, or the UN treaties which the Senate never ratified, are law.
“They are talking about actions taken in the field of battle, in the fog of war – not in post hostility occupation. No one should be torturing prisoners or humiliating them.”
You Leftists define torture in odd ways. I use the definition in the 1949 Geneva Convention. Not that our foes ever obeyed the Geneva Conventions, so we don’t have to either.
““You are misinformed. Most of the antiquities were either packed away from harm by the good museum officials, or they were sold in Europe by the bad ones. Very little was lost and almost all of that was returned to Iraq. The Mid East is totally corrupt and you expected that US forces, in the midst of the shooting (<<you mean looting), would prevent that? Jesus, you are unreal.”
No you are wrong. The head of the Iraqi museum sought US protection for the antiquities and did not get it. ”
As I said you are misinformed. The Mainstream Media isn’t telling you the truth.
““The left have been harping on lies that are not lies. They are mistake, different opinions, false allegations and lies themselves. The Left is living in its own dream world where there is no threat to the US.”
Kind of a lot of mistakes. ”
That is the nature of war. Mistakes happen. A training accident before the Normandy Invasion killed over 700 of our soldiers and sailors. Was there a Congressional hearing? No.
“Bush made a statement during his State of the Union address that we knew was false and had to be retracted. ”
Yes, Honest people admit when they are in error. They make amends. And your problem with that is?
“Who said there is no threat to the US?”
You imply it constantly by not taking the issues seriously. You obsess about side issues. You are too unreal.
MisterGibson said:
“First of all, beyond the critiques I’ve leveled I do appreciate the service you’ve given in that other nasty civil war we got involved in, Vietnam. ”
I have no interest in rehashing the Vietnam war with you. The Leftist Propaganda machine gets it consistently wrong. I suggest that you read the book by Nguyen Giap, the North Vietnamese commander. He said that he lost the Tet Offensive. He had to wait for the “New Left” Democrats in the US congress to cut military aid to Vietnam in 1973. That is what cost us Vietnam.
“OK. That said, I would have thought history taught you the folly of US involvement in such ‘actions’ as warning to our invasion and occupation of another country and the civil war that results. ”
Let’s see. You are opposed to the US “winning” any wars? Did I get that right? Are you a pacifist?
“My own father went over during the Tet ”
I value his service to his country.
“Riddle me this: why do we keep releasing these prisoners w/o charge, but still held for _years_ w/no trial…”
I disapprove of that. They should be shot as unlawful combatants. Anyone captured holding arms on a battle field may be. It doesn’t matter what the age of the combatants is.
“I suggest everyone google, “Camp Iguana” to see the absurdity of painting everyone there with a black terrorist brush. ”
Are you suggesting that NONE of them are terrorist? Get real.
“Face the ugly truth: Goldwater wouldn’t recognize your beloved Republican party mouthing platitudes about Freedom and Liberty while conducting themselves as they do.”
Of course, you can read Goldwater’s mind? LOL All you Leftists are mind readers.
“If you actually addressed the issues I bring up I might pay more attention to you. ”
You bring up nothing but the tried-and-true Leftist talking points. Those have been disproved years ago. Didn’t you get the memo?
“As it is your content to ignore my points in a defensive stance of tired old name-calling archetypes – hence my ref to Bolsheviks. ”
Socialism is real. It is not “tired old name-calling.” It defines the beliefs of people today. I can give you the various definitions. I can name the people who believe in them.
“Doesn’t it burn to know Rush got out of serving next to you”
No. He didn’t serve. He was never anti-American.
” How does Cheney’s numerous deferments sit with you in this light?”
I don’t care.
” I find it hard to believe you couldn’t find _some_ kind of task among the myriad contractor positions over there…”
It’s too late; The war is over. The troops will be coming home soon.
And you know nothing about the health problems I have which preclude that.
This is the “Chickenhawk Argument.” It’s a stupid ploy. The person who stays home to work to pay for the war serves too. It’s not as though we don’t have enough young men volunteering to fight. The country doesn’t need me there. The country is better off if I stay where I am.
I am not suggesting that you go either. We need no cowards on the front lines.
If your case is so valid, why resort to personal attacks? Thats no way for a grown man to conduct himself.
This arguement would have more validity if the US had legitimate authority to invade but both Bliz and Annan say that the US war in Iraq is illegal and goes against the UN charter. Seems like an odd way to defend the honor of the UN, to break its charter.
“Whipping Saddam’s ass in three weeks wasn’t prepared? Get real.”
Again, my criticism was not on the invasion which went well but the occupation which we were not prepared for. Why is it so hard to admit that we did not have enough troops and a good enough plan when the people who were on the ground there working on the occupation say exactly that?
Wolfowitz planned to force not me and clearly there were not enough units there, I am not sure what you point is? I say we did not have enough, it was chaos. You say occupation is not easy and an insurgency is predictable. That seems to make my point.
If given the fact that one should, as you say, expect and insurgency, then might be better to maintain the country’s existing army as much as possible rather than disband it. This was the US Army’s own plan for an occupation of Iraq which was not followed. And put controls on the military stock-piles of the former regime – that seems pretty obvious to me.
Once we take someone as a prisoner we should treat them humanely and they should be given due process. We don’t need the Geneva convention to tell us that, its merely a standard.
I really don’t see how focusing our effort on getting OBL is getting bogged down in detail. Seems like a pretty important thing that you’d want to do. I can’t for the life of me understand why you’d want to keep minimizing the fact that we have not done that unless deep down your recognize that the war in Iraq has distracted us from that mission which to any reasonable person would be of the highest importance.
There is a big difference between a mistake on a battle field or in preparation for battle and misunderstanding to the point of misrepresenting nearly all of the critical intelligence used as a basis to go to war.
I am not obsessed with side issues. I just can’t accept your presenting lies as the truth. Have the dignity not to ignore or distort the facts is all I ask.
Roz said:
“If your case is so valid, why resort to personal attacks? Thats no way for a grown man to conduct himself.”
What personal attacks? I’ve just been telling it like it is.
Do I think you are dishonest? I wondered about that, but No. I think you are brainwashed. You believe in a malignant fantasy; future events will prove you wrong.
You probably think that the war in Iraq is lost as Senator Harry Reid alleges. Wrong. Dead Wrong. The fruits of our labors in Iraq are starting to bloom. For Instance? The grave diggers in Iraq are complaining about NOT ENOUGH BUSINESS. Believing the Mainstream Media causes you to miss most of the stories.
But soon, even Leftist unbelievers will not be able to avoid the truth. I believe that Iraq will “off the table” in the 2008 election. There are very few stories from Iraq now. There is too little bad news there.
I am quite tired of people impugning my character. I am not a Bush Sycophant– a fanboy. There are issues that I have with Bush’s decisions. I will be happy to detail those. I simply do not think that the Democrats have any answers. You Democrats are not living in reality.
I have been rather harsh with MisterGibson because he was insulting. I was somewhat insulting back. I would just as soon not write to him. Don’t believe he is more than a Leftist toady; there is not an original thought in his head.
These exchanges are tiresome. They require some thought– effort. When I am assaulted by four or five people it is hard to keep them separate. And some of them are quite insulting. I try my best to ignore that; sometimes i fail.
Also, you, Roz, have lead these discussions miles away from the point of Daniel’s propaganda piece. I made a simple remark: that life would be little different if Gore had won in 2000. Why? Because we still have enemies; they would attack us. It is delusive to think that life would be perfect if a Democrat was in high office.
Life is such that we never run out of problems. The important thing is to see life as it is rather than as we wish it would be. You on the Left want to demonize people on the Right. We just think you are too stupid to get out of the rain.
If you are dishonest on a personal level, clearly you have no credibility on any larger issue.
UrbanBard wrote
“I agree that Global Warming is real. Since the end of the “Little Ice Age” around 1850 the Earth’s Temperature has risen about a degree. There has been a corresponding rise of the ocean’s surface of about 8 inches, but that is no big deal.
No one disputes that. The only question is the cause. The most reasonable answer is that it is a natural phenomenon. The Sun’s heat output is variable. The frost caps on the planet Mars are melting. The reasonable answer for that is the Sun. That answer applies to the Earth, too.”
Reasonable answer? I disagree and so does the evidence, and the overwhelming consensus of scientists. There is no evidence for the raise in global temperatures being caused by sun activity.
The records of C02 in the atmosphere, stretching back for hundreds of thousands of years confirm that global warming is man made. The records clearly show influence from the sun, in fact they are part of the evidence for a solar period of activity. Since the industrial revolution temperatures have leapt, and we are now at the hottest period in over half a million years, the rise in the last century is dramatic and unprecedented.
UrbanBard also wrote
“It’s not religious unless you call Socialism a religion. I believe it is just politics. I remember in the 1960’s the Environmentalists were promoting an Ice Age. Their solution is the same, both times: more government control of the economy.”
No serious peer reviewed, evidence based papers written in the period you suggest exist. You are attempting to conbine two groups, who you disagree with so as to discredit them both. ie 1960’s the Environmentalists, and scientists.
UrbanBard also wrote
“You misstate the case. Natural selection is not in dispute even by the Catholic Church. It’s the religious (Atheistic) and political positions of evolution that we doubt. What Christians dispute is that Natural Selection is proof that God does not exist.
“
Oh contraire, the position of the Catholic Church is undisputedly creationist. There are no “athiestic” or “political” positions to the theory of natural selection. Is is a robust theory that has stood up to centuries of experimental data collection and is one of the least controversial theories in the whole of science. It is incredible that people propose far out ideas like ID (Intelligent Design) and even more amazing that such ideas receive more than a passing smile from the general public.
Man created God in his own image to try and explain the inexplicable. Slowly as science peeled back that ignorance, God had fewer places to hide. For the past few hundred years God has survived only in the people who have been brought up from birth to believe in it, and a few other impressionable individuals.
There is a good evolutionary reason why young children are predisposed to believe in there parents and elders. Children who don’t follow the advice “ Don’t go near the creek, it’s full of crocodiles.” rarely survive long enough to spread their genes. This is why the “God virus” effect suggested by Dawkings has persisted in the face of evidence to the contrary.
UrbanBard also wrote
“As I said to Roz, there is no provision in the US Constitution for the funding of medical research, how ever valuable. There is plenty of private and State funded support. Embryonic Stem cell research seems like a dead end. It is too dangerous for a therapy; it gives people cancer. But there have been over a hundred Adult Stem Cell therapies developed. Private industry is researching those because there is a chance for a profit. Embryonic Stem Cell therapies are too far in the future. Leave it to the Universities.”
Pure sophism. The Federal Government spends a huge amount of money on institutions up and down the country, these institutions now face penalties if embryonic stem cell research is carried out. The paperwork is so onerous, that institutions are not able to account for every paper clip, and prove their independent funding.
Embryonic Stem cell research is far from a dead end. It is the most exciting area of research there has been for many problems, and the suggestion that it is dangerous and gives people cancer is only touted by Christian lobby groups and is discredited throughout mainstream science.
UrbanBard also wrote
“Thank goodness that children can see though Leftist dogma. The Left are not drawing a young audience today. The Left are strident and boring. There is nothing sexy about a sixties Leftist.”
So you seem to say that you don’t care for the truth, because it’s Leftist truth? You appear to be using a definition of truth, to which I was previously unaware.
UrbanBard also wrote
You misstate the case. Your anti-religious bias is showing. I’m religious but I demand proof. That is why I am a Christian; I found it. I was once a Leftist and it was too painful an existence. I came to a choice between suicide or God. I chose God.
Interesting that my disbelief in a concept supported by no evidence at all, is a bias. I expect that the sum of the proof that you demand for religion is that you “believe”.
So let me get this straight. You had a belief, but because that was painful you contemplated suicide, but eventually you decided to believe in God?
There are so many non-sequitur in you reasoning that it defies rational analysis. I seriously suggest you get counseling.
UrbanBard also wrote
“What is very interesting is that we will have proof in the next twelve years. We are at the hight of the Sun Spot cycle and the heat output of the Sun follows it by a year or so. Meanwhile, the satellites report that the temperature off the top of clouds has remained steady since 1992. So, if the Sun Spot cycle holds, and the sun cools down, then the Earth will be considerably colder in a decade than now. Will the Left start promoting an Ice Age again?”
Back to this old chestnut, the sun activity cycle was one of the first theories discredited by scientists researching global warming. There are parts of the atmosphere that are not heating up, and some that are cooling. We live in a global system that is heating up. The sum input is greater than the output. Demonstrably this is getting worse.
For some reason you don’t seem understand the difference between religion, politics and science.
One is the irrational belief in an unprovable deity.
One is social relations involving authority or power.
One is the search for truth.
To my observation that…
“The technology exists today, but it is the mindset of astrology, religion, acupuncture, chiropractic and other mumbo jumbo that makes people think there is an alternative to science.”
UrbanBard replied
Leftist bigotry strikes again. You just don’t know the issues at debate.
I retort.
The issue is that without intervention our environment and our civilization is doomed.
Unfortunately petty squabbling about who can stand on top of the hill, or whose god is stronger is more important to many, than the future of our species. This mindset is directly attributable to religion/alternative nonsense.
Still, I expect UrbanBard can receive solace from the Church, Astrology, Acupuncture, Chiropractic, Yoga or some other faith based mumbo jumbo. Personally I will rely on science.
I’ve been reading these posts with much interest. UrbanBard clearly seems to have a grasp on history and reality when it comes to most things. Most others seem to be spewing out passionate retorts without really saying much, and adding a few insults to boot. But the most recent post by ‘thebob’ caught my interest- a couple of points seem to reflect the common misconceptions held by many Americans today.
Regarding embryonic stem cells. First, some background. I am a physician in a large multi-specialty group. We have a large infertility lab and routinely perform various services for our infertile couples, including IVF (invitro fertilization). So suffice to say, I have more than a working knowledge of embryo science.
There are many types of ’stem cells’, and research in this field is promising because stem cells are ‘multipotent’ (at least most) or multipotential- ie, they have the ability to produce virtually any type of cell in the body, given the proper stimuli. Embryonic cells are just one type, and have no more or less potential to produce the cell/organ of interest. Unfortunately the media, and for the most part, the Left/Democrats in this country have politicized this issue unnecessarily. There is no shortage of private funding/donations for stem cell research, including stem cell research. I suspect that the private investors of Embryonic stem cell research thought that they could receive extra funding (and thus larger returns on their investments) from the Feds by making the issue a mainstream political one- they hired the likes of Michael J. Fox etc. to get the word out en mass, and people fell for it. Very sad indeed. There are dozens of projects throughout history which have aided the medical community immensely, all without Government funding. The most recent of which was the development of the Gardasil vaccine, for prevention of cervical cancer.
Unfortunately, it seems that when the Feds provide monetary support, corruption seems to be the only result. The WHI (Womens Health Initiative) is the latest of the Fed debacles. Funded mostly by Fed dollars, the results were touted as devastating and changed the way we practiced medicine. When the dust cleared, the results of the study were suspect at best. I could give examples, but that’s beyond the scope of this topic.
One other point- the science of manipulating embryo’s is far from perfect. For instance, those that go through the whole IVF process will have fetuses which are at higher risk for aneuploidy (chromosomal abnormalities). There are many theories for why this happens, but considering we’re merely fertilizing an egg outside of the womb, there’s not much in the way of manipulation on our side. So it’s certainly not unreasonable at all to think that once we start manipulating the genetic material of said embryos that untoward results could surface, not the least of which is cancer.
Global warming: two links: http://www.ncdc.noaa.gov/oa/climate/globalwarming.html, http://www.epa.gov/climatechange/. Global warming exists, and humans have had something to do with that. The question is how much of an effect has it had, and what do we do about it. The Bush administration has definitely acknowledged that global warming exists, but there’s no reason to rush to provide ’solutions’ when we’re not certain what the causes are. I don’t blame the administration for wanting more information before proceeding. Having said that, we all could benefit from reduced fossil fuel emissions, and that can start at the homefront. Perhaps Gore should put his money where his mouth is with regards to that.
Lastly: “Unfortunately petty squabbling about who can stand on top of the hill, or whose god is stronger is more important to many, than the future of our species. This mindset is directly attributable to religion/alternative nonsense.”
This is just pure ignorance. Indeed, throughout history, many a great nation has fallen due to a LACK of faith or a formidable God. I suppose you lump all Christians into the ‘fanatical’ group, just as you may lump all Islamists into the ‘militant’ group. Last time I looked, Evolution was still a theory, and had MANY holes yet to fill. Natural selection/Darwinism exists on a small scale, and we can reproduce it in the lab, but it’s in no way a substitution for creationism. I suggest you read the Bible, or at least have someone interpret it for you before you insult the very fabric of the majority of our great nation, AND of our forefathers. That’s a close minded position, just like your assumptions that chiropractics and accupuncture have no role in medicine or science. Again, pure, thoughtless ignorance. BTW, Catholics are Christians, but not all Christians are Catholic. By your logic, or lack thereof, if you are going to insult my religion based on the lack of a superior God, then you have the burden of proof- to prove that my God doesn’t exist. Meanwhile, I’ll live my Christian life in my free country.
Roz said:
“If you are dishonest on a personal level, clearly you have no credibility on any larger issue.”
People are not easy to understand. A person who is honest in the small things in his life, is usually honest in the larger. That is why I am generous with small change when people need it: to see if they give it back. It isn’t the money, it’s whether they care about my good opinion.
The difference between us is that you are out of touch with reality; all leftists are. I must admit there are lunatics on the right, but the numbers on the left has them beat.
I think of the Left as a false religion; that is the only explanation for why the left fail, time after time, to achieve their goals, yet insist on using the same methods again. One definition of insanity is to repeatedly do the same thing and each time expect a different result.
Roz said:
“This argument would have more validity if the US had legitimate authority to invade but both Blix and Annan say that the US war in Iraq is illegal and goes against the UN charter. Seems like an odd way to defend the honor of the UN, to break its charter.”
This is lunacy. Or total corruption on Blix and Annon’s part. I suspect the latter. If you are quoting them correctly, then they are talking out of both sides of their mouths.
Both men opposed the war; both were reluctantly forced to be a part of it. They are twisting things to try to defeat President Bush’s position. The problem is that they have to deny reality to do it. They are diplomats and bureaucrats; naturally they support diplomacy. But as General Clauswitz said, “War is politics carried on by other means.”
Eventually, your diplomatic alternatives run out because reality asserts itself. Teddy Roosevelt said that, when confronted by a large dog, diplomacy is the soft words you speak while you are looking around for a stick.
People compete with each other; they become at loggerheads. They adopt positions that are irrevocably at odds. Hitler intended to conquer Europe; He would lie, cheat and steal to do that. There was nothing that Chamberlain could do diplomatically to avoid that. It is delusive to pretend otherwise.
It became clear, after 16 UN Resolutions and a sanctions scheme, that Saddam Hussein had no intent to keep his promises in UN Resolution 687. When everything else but war has been tried many times, then to pursue diplomacy is insane.
Read UN Resolution 687 for yourself. It permits that if Saddam fails to live up to his promises, and both Blix and Annon agree that he failed, then any of the coalition signatories may end the cease fire and invade Iraq. What is more legal than that?
““Whipping Saddam’s ass in three weeks wasn’t prepared? Get real.”
Again, my criticism was not on the invasion which went well but the occupation which we were not prepared for. ”
And you do not understand that no occupation is ever peaceful. You can prepare all you want: that doesn’t mean that the enemy will cooperate with you. There will always be people (dead enders) who will continue to carry on a guerilla war.
Saddam planned and trained his Fedayeen for that eventuality; he sited arms and supplies all around the country. More than that, Iraq is an attractor for al Qaeda; that is why two thirds of the insurgents we have killed or captured have been foreign fighters. Iraq is the best place to fight them.
“Why is it so hard to admit that we did not have enough troops and a good enough plan when the people who were on the ground there working on the occupation say exactly that?”
Because it would not matter. If the Bush administration had followed their advice, some other people on the Left would be complaining that we had too many troops in Iraq and that it was bankrupting the US.
I’m not the expert here; nor are you. It’s the Generals in Iraq who are controlling the troop levels. Are you saying that, if we had enough troops in Iraq, then it would be peaceful? That is idiotic.
“Wolfowitz planned to force not me and clearly there were not enough units there, I am not sure what you point is? I say we did not have enough, it was chaos.”
All war is chaos; Your arguments will not change that. Wars have insurrections after them; that is a matter of fact. It is only your ignorance or duplicity that persuades you otherwise.
You could argue that a larger force in Iraq would lessen the insurrection, but not end it. Peace was never an alternative. A larger force in Iraq could be at the cost of more of our troops getting killed.
“You say occupation is not easy and an insurgency is predictable. That seems to make my point.”
No, it doesn’t. You forget that time is needed to resolve issues. The people who oppose us need to be killed. That takes time. People in Iraq have to adjust to the new reality.
The biggest thing is that you need to get the population on your side. They need to know that you won’t abandon them. The people of Iraq are with us in this war, that is why they are turning in the foreign fighters so our troops can kill them.
The Iraqis want us to leave, just as we want to leave Iraq, but only when the foreign fighters are reduced enough so that the Iraqi Defense Forces can do the job.
We will be pulling out troops next year, but we will be leaving 60 to 80 thousand in Iraq to face down Syria and Iran.
“If given the fact that one should, as you say, expect and insurgency, then might be better to maintain the country’s existing army as much as possible rather than disband it. ”
That is a canard. Our forces couldn’t maintain Saddam’s army; Saddam’s army had disbanded itself. The enlisted men were all conscripts– they went home. Saddam’s army had no equivalents to our noncommissioned officer corp. The officers were all Ba’athist Party members.
What you envision would create an enemy INSIDE our lines. No. We had to re-build an Iraqi army from the ground up. Despite this, the enemy has tried to take over the Iraqi Defense forces. But, they could only do this as individuals, not as an organized force, so they were defeated piecemeal. You, obviously, have no understanding of either the military or politics.
“This was the US Army’s own plan for an occupation of Iraq which was not followed. And put controls on the military stock-piles of the former regime – that seems pretty obvious to me.”
You are unclear. I have not a clue of what you mean. Saddam had many plans. Some of them worked for him, some did not. Our military made plans. Some of them worked for us, some did not. It is SNAFU: Situation Normal, All Fouled Up.
“Once we take someone as a prisoner we should treat them humanely and they should be given due process. ”
Not at all. There is no due process in the Geneva Conventions. These are soldiers, not criminals. If the war is over we release them unless they committed crimes as individuals.
The problem is that our enemies do not follow the Geneva Conventions. If they do not, then the Geneva Conventions say that we need not.
It was a mistake of the Bush administration to have taken them prisoner; no intelligence they might have was worth this PR attack from the Left. The illegal combatants should have been killed on the battlefield. The Geneva Conventions allow for that.
“We don’t need the Geneva convention to tell us that, its merely a standard.”
Yes, we do. We need Rules of War to keep propagandist like yourself from twisting the truth out of recognition. The Geneva Conventions are for civilized enemies. We are fighting barbarians. The Geneva Conventions don’t apply. Nor does Socialist moralizing.
“I really don’t see how focusing our effort on getting OBL is getting bogged down in detail.”
Sometimes, you can’t get what you want, no matter how hard you try. If you know where OBL is, then please tell the US forces. Since you don’t, all this is asking for the impossible.
“Seems like a pretty important thing that you’d want to do. … any reasonable person would be of the highest importance.”
That is why you would lose this war if you were in charge. You do what you can in a war; doing something, anything, is often better than nothing.
Looking for one person in hostile terrain and among people who would hide them, is next to impossible. Remember, most criminals are found when one of their acquaintances turns them in to the police. That won’t happen here.
Look how long it took to find the UNIBOMBER– twenty years. His brother read his proclamation in the NY Times and turned him in.
“There is a big difference between a mistake on a battle field or in preparation for battle and misunderstanding to the point of misrepresenting nearly all of the critical intelligence used as a basis to go to war.”
Now, you are blaming this all on the CIA and George Tenet? Why did all the world’s intelligence agencies agree with the CIA about Saddam? Is this some grand conspiracy that you are fielding?
“I am not obsessed with side issues. I just can’t accept your presenting lies as the truth. ”
You cannot tell the truth from a lie. All you know is what has been spoon fed you by the Mainstream Media. You cannot think for yourself. You don’t know enough honest history to question your side’s position.
I have looked at the argument from both left and right. The right is not always correct, but the Left’s positions are rubbish.
“Have the dignity not to ignore or distort the facts is all I ask.”
We disagree on the facts. You facts are garbage. You logic is execrable. Your opinions are illogical.
theBob said:
“UrbanBard wrote
“I agree that Global Warming is real. …The Sun’s heat output is variable. The frost caps on the planet Mars are melting. The reasonable answer for that is the Sun. That answer applies to the Earth, too.”
Reasonable answer? I disagree and so does the evidence, and the overwhelming consensus of scientists.”
It’s just as well that Science does not depend on a consensus. It’s on what can be proven. All the rest is politics.
“There is no evidence for the raise in global temperatures being caused by sun activity.”
That is how little you know. There are many atmospheric scientists and climatologists who believe exactly that.
“The records of C02 in the atmosphere, stretching back for hundreds of thousands of years confirm that global warming is man made.”
No it doesn’t. The greatest increase in the Earth’s temperature (0.5 decrees) in the last hundred years was BEFORE the second world war. The greatest increase in CO2 was AFTER the second world war. A correct logic would conclude that the temperature increase caused the CO2 increase, not the reverse.
Also, volcanos put out Global warming agents. When Mount Penatubo in the Philippines and another volcano in Japan erupted during the 1980’s for six weeks, they put into the atmosphere enough Global Warming agents (methane mostly) to equal two thirds of the amount that mankind had for a hundred years. The result? Nothing– no change. The weather satellites say that the temperature off the top of clouds has been steady since 1992.
Also, we have only had accurate temperature readings from 1860 or so on, because that was when the mercury thermometer was invented.
“The records clearly show influence from the sun, in fact they are part of the evidence for a solar period of activity. Since the industrial revolution temperatures have leapt, and we are now at the hottest period in over half a million years, the rise in the last century is dramatic and unprecedented.”
Wrong. You are forgetting about the Mediaeval Warm period from 800 to 1200 AD. In 1000 AD, the Earth was a degree and a half warmer than today. You are an ignoramus.
“UrbanBard also wrote
“It’s not religious unless you call Socialism a religion. I believe it is just politics. I remember in the 1960’s the Environmentalists were promoting an Ice Age. Their solution is the same, both times: more government control of the economy.”
No serious peer reviewed, evidence based papers written in the period you suggest exist.”
There is a dispute among scientists. I am following the real scientists. You are following are the politically connected ones. It’s all about grant money. The Left control the scientific bureaucracy.
“UrbanBard also wrote
“You misstate the case. Natural selection is not in dispute even by the Catholic Church. It’s the religious (Atheistic) and political positions of evolution that we doubt. What Christians dispute is that Natural Selection is proof that God does not exist.“
Oh contraire, the position of the Catholic Church is undisputedly creationist.”
Now you are an expert on the church, too? LOL
“There are no “atheistic” or “political” positions to the theory of natural selection. ”
There are political groups who are Atheists who use the theory of natural selection as a tool. That was who I meant.
“Is is a robust theory that has stood up to centuries of experimental data collection and is one of the least controversial theories in the whole of science.”
I never disputed Natural selection, just the Socialistic and Atheistic conclusions drawn from it.
“It is incredible that people propose far out ideas like ID (Intelligent Design) ”
I do not agree with Intelligent Design arguments either. I believe that neither the Evolutionist nor the Creationist are wholly correct.
I don’t care that you disbelieve. The arguments that you throw up cannot disprove God’s existence. Since you have a closed mind, there is no reason for me to argue with you about it.
“UrbanBard also wrote
“As I said to Roz, there is no provision in the US Constitution for the funding of medical research, how ever valuable. There is plenty of private and State funded support. Embryonic Stem cell research seems like a dead end. … Leave it to the Universities.”
Pure sophism. The Federal Government spends a huge amount of money on institutions ”
The government does this illegally without Constitutional permission through congressional and judicial usurpation. We Republicans will get around to correcting that.
“The paperwork is so onerous, that institutions are not able to account for every paper clip, and prove their independent funding.”
So what? If they were privately funded they wouldn’t have those burdens.
“Embryonic Stem cell research is far from a dead end. ”
There has never been a successful therapy from Embryonic Stem cells while there are over a hundred from Adult Stem Cells. The scientists do not expect one for many decades.
“UrbanBard also wrote
“Thank goodness that children can see though Leftist dogma. The Left are not drawing a young audience today. The Left are strident and boring. There is nothing sexy about a sixties Leftist.”
So you seem to say that you don’t care for the truth, because it’s Leftist truth? ”
Prove to me that you have any truth. Everyplace where Socialist or Leftist ideas have been tried, they have failed. You people have an abysmal track record.
“You appear to be using a definition of truth, to which I was previously unaware.”
You apparently have never heard of “proof of the pudding.”
“UrbanBard also wrote
You misstate the case. Your anti-religious bias is showing. I’m religious but I demand proof. That is why I am a Christian; I found it. I was once a Leftist and it was too painful an existence. I came to a choice between suicide or God. I chose God.
Interesting that my disbelief in a concept supported by no evidence at all, is a bias. I expect that the sum of the proof that you demand for religion is that you “believe”.”
No, it took me decades for me to shed the false logic that you espouse. I cannot persuade you of this. I could not persuade the person I was thirty years ago. I had to grow up first.
“So let me get this straight. You had a belief, but because that was painful you contemplated suicide, but eventually you decided to believe in God?”
Yes, the Left was too empty of any truth or reality.
“There are so many non-sequitur in you reasoning that it defies rational analysis. I seriously suggest you get counseling.”
“There is none so blind as those who will not see. ” And no, I have no need for any Politically Correct brainwashing, thank you.
“UrbanBard also wrote
“What is very interesting is that we will have proof in the next twelve years. We are at the hight of the Sun Spot cycle and the heat output of the Sun follows it by a year or so. Meanwhile, the satellites report that the temperature off the top of clouds has remained steady since 1992. So, if the Sun Spot cycle holds, and the sun cools down, then the Earth will be considerably colder in a decade than now. Will the Left start promoting an Ice Age again?”
Back to this old chestnut, the sun activity cycle was one of the first theories discredited by scientists researching global warming. …We live in a global system that is heating up. The sum input is greater than the output. Demonstrably this is getting worse.
”
I said “we will see.” This is reality asserting itself. That is what science is about. Letting the evidence form our opinions, not the reverse.
“For some reason you don’t seem understand the difference between religion, politics and science.”
Oh, I do. But the Environmentalists wrap all of them into their beliefs, so I must bring in all aspects.
“One is the irrational belief in an unprovable deity.”
Certainly not provable to you.
“One is social relations involving authority or power.”
The Left is all about power relationships.
“One is the search for truth.”
I don’t claim that I have the truth, but that the absolute truth does exist. I merely try to make as good a case as I can.
“UrbanBard replied
Leftist bigotry strikes again. You just don’t know the issues at debate.
I retort.
The issue is that without intervention our environment and our civilization is doomed.”
Yes, that is the point of Environmental politics; to turn all control of the society and the economy over to the government. This is a Socialist front, not science.
“Unfortunately petty squabbling about who can stand on top of the hill, or whose god is stronger is more important to many, than the future of our species. This mindset is directly attributable to religion/alternative nonsense.”
And you can prove nothing of what you believe. That is why you seek a false consensus.
I will accept the evidence and the evidence is not conclusive. But if we have a frigid time of it in the next decade, will you change your opinions? Not likely. Who is more of the ideologue? You are me?
“Still, I expect UrbanBard can receive solace from the Church, Astrology, Acupuncture, Chiropractic, Yoga or some other faith based mumbo jumbo. Personally I will rely on science.”
You only listen to the leftist scientists. And the mainstream Media.
Jdoc said”
“I’ve been reading these posts with much interest. UrbanBard clearly seems to have a grasp on history and reality when it comes to most things. ”
Thank you for your remarks. I’m not emotionally involved with my arguments. They are merely what make sense to me. If my opponents had any persuasive points, I’d change my mind.
The biggest thing I see is that they are the mental captives of a pressure group. I’m too contrary and independent a person to agree with some of the people on the right. I’m a “live and let live” guy, not a moralist. I don’t believe in “blue law” for instance. I see no evidence that God wants us to suppress other people’s sinfulness.
That is why I disagree with Bush’s moral position on Embryonic Stem Cell research. I oppose it on Constitutional grounds and that it is impractical.
I want there to be research, but I don’t want the US government to do it. If the State voters want to fund this, that is their business. That is why we have Federalism: to allow individual states to try actions and legislation to see what works effectively. The Left want to federalize everything.
“Unfortunately, it seems that when the Feds provide monetary support, corruption seems to be the only result. ”
Yes, You can’t professionalize the corruption unless you Federalize the corruption.
“One other point- the science of manipulating embryo’s is far from perfect. ”
This Stem Cell stuff is so far out into the future that it is scary. There is so little that we know. The activists think this like engineering where we merely have to apply what we have learned. We don’t know enough yet; that is why this needs to be funded through our long term research agencies– the Universities. There is no point in raising false hopes or creating a new bureaucracy.
“Global warming exists, and humans have had something to do with that. The question is how much of an effect has it had, and what do we do about it. ”
The problem is not with the Earth warming up; no reputable scientist disagrees that it is. The question is the cause, the consequences, the harm done and the political decisions of what to do about it, if anything.
“The Bush administration has definitely acknowledged that global warming exists, but there’s no reason to rush to provide ’solutions’ when we’re not certain what the causes are. ”
What is really strange is that the US, that did not ratify the Kyoto Treaty, is further ahead of reducing Carbon Dioxide emissions than the European Union, which signed Kyoto into law. But, the EU won’t obey Kyoto because it wrecks THEIR economy.
“I don’t blame the administration for wanting more information before proceeding. Having said that, we all could benefit from reduced fossil fuel emissions, and that can start at the homefront. ”
I’m uncertain of that. Of the last 125 thousand years only about 25 thousand were NOT in an Ice Age. Ice Ages are very hard on the life on this planet.
We are at the tail end of an interglacial period that is 8 thousand years old– far beyond the norm. The most likely thing to believe in is that things will get colder.
It might be in mankind’s interest to try to extend the current warm period. We still have quite some distance to go (a degree and a Half) before we get to the Medieval Warm period of a thousand years ago. And the Medieval Warm period was a time of plenty. I seriously doubt that anyone noticed that the oceans were a foot higher.
The point is to not allow the environmentalists to panic us into hasty and inappropriate action. We could kick off the next Ice Age.
“Lastly: “Unfortunately petty squabbling about who can stand on top of the hill, or whose god is stronger is more important to many, than the future of our species. This mindset is directly attributable to religion/alternative nonsense.”
This is just pure ignorance. Indeed, throughout history, many a great nation has fallen due to a LACK of faith or a formidable God. ”
One of the necessary conditions for military, social and economic decline is Atheism. This leads to moral degeneration and an unwillingness to defend one’s society from attacks. It allows barbarians equal rights with the civilized. Then, the barbarians overwhelm the civilization.
“Last time I looked, Evolution was still a theory, and had MANY holes yet to fill. Natural selection/Darwinism exists on a small scale, and we can reproduce it in the lab, but it’s in no way a substitution for creationism. ”
I am suggesting neither. Let us find the truth. We simply lack the knowledge, so we shouldn’t pre judge. Science has a way of expanding our horizons. It asks questions of religion that it is often not ready to answer. It clears away the nonsense, so we can focus on the truth.
As a Christian, I am not opposed to science– that is, asking the hard questions. What I object to is scientism: a faith that puts science in God’s place. Science only can know about the physical world. It is beyond science’s purview to say that God does or does not exist. It is Metaphysics, Philosophy and Religion that asks those questions.
“I suggest you read the Bible, or at least have someone interpret it for you before you insult the very fabric of the majority of our great nation, AND of our forefathers.”
You are asking too much, jdoc. you are asking them to correct their ignorance and to have respect for other people.
“Unfortunately the media, and for the most part, the Left/Democrats in this country have politicized this issue unnecessarily.”
Actually it was Bush that sought to control the use of Stem Cells to existing lines, which were found to be insufficient. This issue was not created by liberals.
UrbanBard, you call me an ignoramus, anti american. Personally I think you are brainwashed, but I don’t send insults at you. I am not Anti-American in any way. Nothing that I have written that is in any way Anti-American. I am not saying I know everything, but I’m not an ignoramous as you have called me several times. At least I know the difference between debt and a deficit. I know that the US debt is not $180 billion.
I reviewed 687. Clearly Hussein did violate, I do not see any enforcement terms allowing for an invasion of Iraq. Which section?
“I’m not the expert here; nor are you. It’s the Generals in Iraq who are controlling the troop levels. Are you saying that, if we had enough troops in Iraq, then it would be peaceful? That is idiotic.”
Why is that idiotic? We added troops at the surge, now its said that violence is down. Why would it not have mattered at the start? Actually I think it would have made a huge difference and we might be out of there by now.
“A larger force in Iraq could be at the cost of more of our troops getting killed.”
Generally I think the military logic says that overwhelming force has an advantage. And if they occupying authority had allowed the Iraqi army to be reconstituted, then they would have had much more security early on. We had enough troops to topple the government, not enough to securely occupy it.
“That is a canard. Our forces couldn’t maintain Saddam’s army; Saddam’s army had disbanded itself. The enlisted men were all conscripts– they went home. Saddam’s army had no equivalents to our noncommissioned officer corp. The officers were all Ba’athist Party members.”
Watch “No End is Sight”, there is quite a different look at it. This is not a leftist film. It interviews people like Jay Garner and others who led the occupation authority. We had people there who had what they thought were real contacts with Iraq army officers who were offering to help the occupation, but they were rebuffed. Say what you want, but to me this seemed like a huge error.
“You, obviously, have no understanding of either the military or politics.”
Stop trying to insult me all the time and just deal with the issue at hand.
“You are unclear. I have not a clue of what you mean. Saddam had many plans. Some of them worked for him, some did not. Our military made plans. Some of them worked for us, some did not. It is SNAFU: Situation Normal, All Fouled Up.”
Actually I have quite a clear view what I mean. Your position as an apologist for obvious mistakes baffles me: http://hrw.org/english/docs/2004/10/29/iraq9575.htm
“Yes, we do. We need Rules of War to keep propagandist like yourself from twisting the truth out of recognition. The Geneva Conventions are for civilized enemies. We are fighting barbarians. The Geneva Conventions don’t apply. Nor does Socialist moralizing.”
I am not a propagandist. Many people on the right, don’t approve of what is happening in Guantanamo.
“You believe in a malignant fantasy; future events will prove you wrong.
You probably think that the war in Iraq is lost as Senator Harry Reid alleges. Wrong. Dead Wrong. The fruits of our labors in Iraq are starting to bloom. For Instance? The grave diggers in Iraq are complaining about NOT ENOUGH BUSINESS. Believing the Mainstream Media causes you to miss most of the stories.”
This is total rubbish. This is your fantasy. Show me the comment I have made where I said we would lose the war, or that I wanted that?
Show me the comment that I have made that is at all Socialist or leftist for that matter? Either prove that or shut up about calling me that those things.
“Unfortunately the media, and for the most part, the Left/Democrats in this country have politicized this issue unnecessarily.”
Actually it was Bush that sought to control the use of Stem Cells to existing lines, which were found to be insufficient. ”
Oh! Deciding NOT to fund research is provocative? You must have a screwed up head to think that doing NOTHING is politicizing an issue. No, it was the Left who made this a political cause in the Mainstream Media. Bush just decided whether or not to veto it. He chose to make a compromise; He was wrong to do so. He gained no friends by leaning in your direction.
“UrbanBard, you call me an ignoramus, anti american. Personally I think you are brainwashed, but I don’t send insults at you. ”
You are what you are, Roz. It isn’t an insult to call someone an ignoramus when they display enormous ignorance. You do.
“I am not Anti-American in any way.”
You want America to lose the war against the terrorists. That means that tens to thousands of Americans will die. That’s a good start.
“At least I know the difference between debt and a deficit. I know that the US debt is not $180 billion.”
I was tired: you wore me down. I don’t pretend to be perfect. And when I am wrong I admit it, rather than changing the subject like you do.
“I reviewed 687. Clearly Hussein did violate, I do not see any enforcement terms allowing for an invasion of Iraq. Which section?”
Do you understand what a “Cease Fire” is? It is a temporary suppression of military action, hopefully mutual. UN Resolution 687 is a Cease Fire of the Gulf War based on Saddam’s good behavior. There were a series of conditions that Saddam had to fulfill or dire consequences would follow. The Resolution is couched in legalistic terms, but what it meant was that war was on again if Saddam didn’t comply. No one needed to hammer anyone over the head in getting their point across. If you break a treaty, there are consequences. None of the Coalition Partners needed to get permission to resume the war. Most Cease Fires are a matter of hours or days. Why can you not understand that?
““I’m not the expert here; nor are you. It’s the Generals in Iraq who are controlling the troop levels. Are you saying that, if we had enough troops in Iraq, then it would be peaceful? That is idiotic.”
Why is that idiotic? We added troops at the surge, now its said that violence is down. ”
Yes, because we are using them more effectively now because the Iraqi Defense Forces are there to do much of the work. Would that troop increase be as effective earlier? I doubt it. Why? Because we didn’t have the Human Intelligence Network that we do today. All that had to be built up first. The Sunni’s had to get angry at the ex-Ba’athists and al Qaeda for killing Sunni’s. We needed elections and a Parliament. None of that was possible earlier. Sheer numbers do not matter; military effectiveness is.
“we might be out of there by now.”
Not with you on the terrorist’s side.
““A larger force in Iraq could be at the cost of more of our troops getting killed.”
Generally I think the military logic says that overwhelming force has an advantage. ”
What is overwhelming force to you? 500 thousand troops? Where would we get them? How would we pay for them?
The point I was making was that more boots on the ground meant more chances for the enemy to hit them. The General’s decided that a smaller force over a longer time was the right mix. Do you have the necessary expertise to dispute their conclusions? I doubt it.
“And if they occupying authority had allowed the Iraqi army to be reconstituted, then they would have had much more security early on. ”
And how many ex-Ba’athist and al Qaeda agents did you want in that Army? We had quite a few as it was.
““That is a canard. Our forces couldn’t maintain Saddam’s army; Saddam’s army had disbanded itself. The enlisted men were all conscripts– they went home. Saddam’s army had no equivalents to our noncommissioned officer corp. The officers were all Ba’athist Party members.”
Watch “No End is Sight”, there is quite a different look at it. This is not a leftist film. It interviews people like Jay Garner and others who led the occupation authority. We had people there who had what they thought were real contacts with Iraq army officers who were offering to help the occupation, but they were rebuffed. Say what you want, but to me this seemed like a huge error.”
No thanks. They have a right to disagree. We have free speech. I’m more interested in the future than rehashing disputes from the past.
If mistakes were made then we have to find out what is effective. Often, the enemy changes their tactics and we have to adjust.
Sometimes, we have to accept an indirect action because it leads us to a better place if we win. A good case in WWII was how we invaded North Africa because there were no good landing sites on Continental Europe.
There are advantages and disadvantage of anything we do. Fighting the Terrorists is very hard, because they can hide among ordinary Muslims. The point about Iraq is that it divides the Islamists. It draws them out to where we can get at them. Perfection is not an option in war. Only an ignoramus would think so.
““You, obviously, have no understanding of either the military or politics.”
Stop trying to insult me all the time and just deal with the issue at hand.”
Based on the evidence; you are a know-nothing. You slavishly follow the Leftist talking points. You have not an original thought in your head.
““You are unclear. I have not a clue of what you mean. Saddam had many plans. Some of them worked for him, some did not. Our military made plans. Some of them worked for us, some did not. It is SNAFU: Situation Normal, All Fouled Up.”
Actually I have quite a clear view what I mean. Your position as an apologist for obvious mistakes baffles me: http://hrw.org/english/docs/2004/10/29/iraq9575.htm”
The point was that you were doing a p*ss poor job of communicating your position. I had not a clue of what you meant. The failure was not mine.
““Yes, we do. We need Rules of War to keep propagandist like yourself from twisting the truth out of recognition. The Geneva Conventions are for civilized enemies. We are fighting barbarians. The Geneva Conventions don’t apply. Nor does Socialist moralizing.”
I am not a propagandist. Many people on the right, don’t approve of what is happening in Guantanamo.”
They have a right to their opinion. But, that doesn’t necessarily mean that they know anything more than you do. Which isn’t anything.
““You believe in a malignant fantasy; future events will prove you wrong.
You probably think that the war in Iraq is lost as Senator Harry Reid alleges. Wrong. Dead Wrong. The fruits of our labors in Iraq are starting to bloom. For Instance? The grave diggers in Iraq are complaining about NOT ENOUGH BUSINESS. Believing the Mainstream Media causes you to miss most of the stories.”
This is total rubbish. This is your fantasy. Show me the comment I have made where I said we would lose the war, or that I wanted that?”
I can read between the same lines that you do when you make pronouncements about my character. If 100% of your Talking Points are identical to the ones on MediaMatters or MoveOn. org, then you betray yourself as a Leftist, and a far leftist at that. Birds of a feather, you know? You probably think that Hillary is a centrist.
If I am wrong about a position then tell me where I am wrong. Every thing you write says that you want us to lose this war. That is why you obsess about trivial issues from the past.
“Show me the comment that I have made that is at all Socialist or leftist for that matter? ”
No one who wants national health care is anything but a leftist. No One who slavishly repeats MediaMatters talking Points is either.
If you want me to think otherwise, then stop relentlessly attacking. Reveal yourself and your values. Let’s talk about those. You have begun to repeat yourself.
“Oh! Deciding NOT to fund research is provocative?”
It was the one area of research ruled out to please the religious right.
““I am not Anti-American in any way.”
You want America to lose the war against the terrorists. That means that tens to
thousands of Americans will die. That’s a good start.”
I don’t and I have said nothing of the sort. Stop lying about me.
“Do you understand what a “Cease Fire” is?”
Of course I do. But you overplayed the contents of that Resolution. it does not say anything about invading Iraq – as you said it did:
“Read UN Resolution 687 for yourself. It permits that if Saddam fails to live up to his promises, and both Blix and Annon agree that he failed, then any of the coalition signatories may end the cease fire and invade Iraq…”
“We needed elections and a Parliament. None of that was possible earlier. Sheer numbers do not matter; military effectiveness is.”
Maybe so, but you said its was idiotic to think that more troops would have helped, to me that is wrong. You want to attack the person who makes any real criticism.
““we might be out of there by now.”
Not with you on the terrorist’s side.”"
Again with the baseless personal attacks. Get a clue, not everyone who is critical of the handling of the war is a Leftist, a Socialist or a terrorist. You’d apparently would like to it be black and white like that but its simply not the case.
As a taxpayer I am paying for this war and I have every right to examine how it is run. Sorry that bothers you but I simply don’t accept that that makes me in any way anti american.
“Generally I think the military logic says that overwhelming force has an advantage. ”
What is overwhelming force to you? 500 thousand troops? Where would we get them? How would we pay for them?
The point I was making was that more boots on the ground meant more chances for the enemy to hit them. The General’s decided that a smaller force over a longer time was the right mix. Do you have the necessary expertise to dispute their conclusions? I doubt it.”
We both know I am sure that the initial recommendation was for a presence at that level but it was shot down and the general who made it was fired. Clearly, if I don’t have the expertise, some with that expertise did not think it was idiotic.
“And how many ex-Ba’athist and al Qaeda agents did you want in that Army? We had quite a few as it was.”
At the initial stages there were not many al Qaeda in the country so I don’t know what you are taking about. And many Iraqi were Bathist, we have had to work with them anyway. I don’t see anything in 687 about Bathists.
““Show me the comment that I have made that is at all Socialist or leftist for that matter? ”
No one who wants national health care is anything but a leftist. No One who slavishly repeats MediaMatters talking Points is either.”"
Did I argue for National Health Care, no! I said it was an important issue that needs Federal attention. It is and it does.
Did I ever say I support Hillary? No. You just conflate it that anyone who does not play they ignore the hard facts the way you do is way on the left. Again, I just hate your lies.
So to be clear, you agree that nothing I have said is leftist of socialist or anti american, since you have nothing to point to – great then shut up that talk.
And I totally get why you want to call me an ignoramus, its because you are, for reasons of your own choosing, in the awkward position of having to defending the policies of one.
jooc wrote
“There are many types of ’stem cells’, and research in this field is promising because stem cells are ‘multipotent’ (at least most) or multipotential- ie, they have the ability to produce virtually any type of cell in the body, given the proper stimuli. Embryonic cells are just one type, and have no more or less potential to produce the cell/organ of interest.”
If I may expand, ‘stem cells’ are multipotent. They can differentiate into a number of cell types.
The reason that embrionic stem cells show so much promise is that they are ‘Pluripotent’ they have the potential to differientiate into any of the three germ layers, endoderm , mesoderm or ectoderm.
They cannot develop into animals because they cannot develop extraembryonic tissue, ie a placenta.
It seems that attempting to answer UrbanBard line by line is futile.
My belief is that science is a system in which you first postulate a hypothesis. This hypothesis should be falsifiable. You then test your hypothesis by experiment or observation in nature. Each time your experiment supports your hypothesis, it adds to the evidence supporting your hypothesis. Confirmed hypothesis may become part of a theory. ‘Any’ time an experiment disagrees with a hypothesis, it needs to be modified or discarded.
Unfortunately UrbanBard appears to use a completely different, and to me unfathomable logic.
It is easy to cherry pick data to conform to a belief, but this is pseudoscience. Unfortunately many people can’t or wont distinguish between them.
Still I don’t consider my time wasted. At the very least the time spent by UrbanBard responding to my mails, may reduce the deluge of mail he sends everyday to Daniel. Hopefully this will enable Daniel to write more of his excellent articles.
It’s a pity that this thread has been hijacked.
I would have preferred, more comment on the great achievements of Al Gore, or even Jar-Jar Binks!
Unfortunately it degenerated into political/religious mud slinging, with very little intellectual content.
Still congratulations to Al Gore, who managed to win in the election, but not in the courts, who went on to gain one of the worlds greatest prizes, with his integrity, determination, and intelligence.
jdoc wrote
“Lastly:
“Unfortunately petty squabbling about who can stand on top of the hill, or whose god is stronger is more important to many, than the future of our species. This mindset is directly attributable to religion/alternative nonsense.”
This is just pure ignorance. Indeed, throughout history, many a great nation has fallen due to a LACK of faith or a formidable God. I suppose you lump all Christians into the ‘fanatical’ group, just as you may lump all Islamists into the ‘militant’ group. “
If my reply is based on ignorance, your reply hasn’t educated me in any way.
I am an Athiest, in fact I would describe myself, proudly as a fundametalist athiest. God has no job in my universe.
You are an Agnostic, you dont believe in Allah, Budda or the “Flying Spagetti Monster. I just dont believe in one more God than you.
I believe that most Christians, Muslims, Hindus ect. are conditioned from a very early age to conform to the “beliefs” of their parents and their society. We talk about Christian children, when they aren’t even old enough to have an opinion. I’m sure that you would object to sending children to “Conservative, Liberal, Socialist, or Fashist” schools but for some reason monotheist education is acceptable.
Proletizing belief in a deity is detremental to education, as is any system that denys a child protection from mystical dogma.
jdoc also wrote
“Last time I looked, Evolution was still a theory, and had MANY holes yet to fill. Natural selection/Darwinism exists on a small scale, and we can reproduce it in the lab, but it’s in no way a substitution for creationism. “
A theory is the higest level of scientific knowlege, as a doctor you should know this, but you have decided to cloud the issue with word games.
Evolution is supported by a century and a half of scientific experimentation. The holes you talk about have been constantly reduced and the theory stands as one of the most challenged ideas in history. It only takes one experiment to disprove a theory, this has never been done, even though it has been attempted often.
No experiment has ever been found to support the idea of creationisim.
“I suggest you read the Bible, or at least have someone interpret it for you before you insult the very fabric of the majority of our great nation, AND of our forefathers. That’s a close minded position, just like your assumptions that chiropractics and accupuncture have no role in medicine or science. Again, pure, thoughtless ignorance. “
I am extremly conversant with the Bible, Koran and Vedic. I can quote chapter and verse and have studied themall in great depth.
Interesting that you consider that the Bible needs interpretation. It is supposed to be the word of God and infallable, so interpretation is only needed to clean up the glaring inconsistances.
The whole concept of “Heaven” is aborrant. This great book promises an eternity of perfection to the believer. I would spend every day, stricken by the thought that people were being tormented in Hell. It appears that the great reward awaiting in heaven strips people of their consience, or how else could they survive in such terible circumstances. It is barbaric, morally wanting and plainly fiction.
jdoc also wrote
“That’s a close minded position, just like your assumptions that chiropractics and accupuncture have no role in medicine or science. Again, pure, thoughtless ignorance. “
I dissagre that my mind is closed, I am open to any “evidence”. I am incredulous of religion and alternative medicine because there is “No” evidence to support it. Yes I will repeat that “No evidence whatsoever”.
Why are Chiropractic, Accupuncture, Homeopathy ect, “Alternative medicine? Because there is no evidence to support their efficacy. Once “Alternative medicines” pass the test of experimentation they become simply medicine. So we can define these alternative techniques as “Lacking demonstratable effect, apart from placeblo.”
jdoc also wrote
“BTW, Catholics are Christians, but not all Christians are Catholic. By your logic, or lack thereof, if you are going to insult my religion based on the lack of a superior God, then you have the burden of proof- to prove that my God doesn’t exist. “
Not sure why you are pointing out dogmatic differences between Christian cults. But then you attack my logic, and suggest that I have the burden of proving a universal negative.
Now if that is so, to support you position you need to prove the non existance of Allah, Budda, The Flying Spagetti monster ect. After all you profess there is only one God.
jdoc also wrote
“Meanwhile, I’ll live my Christian life in my free country.”
Unfortunately, you “Christian life” is denying scientific rigor, and so preventing actions that are protecting “Our” planet.
thebob: “If I may expand, ‘stem cells’ are multipotent. They can differentiate into a number of cell types.
The reason that embrionic stem cells show so much promise is that they are ‘Pluripotent’ they have the potential to differientiate into any of the three germ layers, endoderm , mesoderm or ectoderm.
They cannot develop into animals because they cannot develop extraembryonic tissue, ie a placenta.”
I appreciate your attempt to understand this, but you’re not quite right. ALL stem cells have the potential to develop into any type of cell in the human body, given the proper stimuli. Pluripotent and multipotent are the same thing, as used in this sense.
Embryos DO produce placental tissue. Where do you think that those embryos used for research come from? They come mostly from frozen embryos- those that people have donated, and they no longer want to use. What we do in my office is extract an egg from mom’s ovary, combine that with dad’s sperm in a tube, add the necessary ingredients, then either inject the EMBRYO back into mom’s uterus, or freeze them for use at a later date- this is called IVF. This is the same thing that happens when an egg is fertilized in mom’s fallopian tube, then implants as an EMBRYO into her uterus (except it would then be IN VIVO).
Roz: “Unfortunately the media, and for the most part, the Left/Democrats in this country have politicized this issue unnecessarily.”
Actually it was Bush that sought to control the use of Stem Cells to existing lines, which were found to be insufficient. ”
I realize that it’s popular to blame the Bush administration for pretty much everything today (heck, maybe we should blame him for the disappearance of the dinosaurs!), but you’re dead wrong on this issue. Bush may have decided not to provide FEDERAL FUNDING for embryonic research, for whatever reason, but it was the Democratic party that campaigned with this slogan, particularly Kerry/Edwards. I suppose that the researchers knew what a political firestorm embryonic stem cells would create, so they proposed federal funding to the left/Democrats, who then paraded celebrity types virtually everywhere they could. Bush just refused to commit federal funds, rightfully so.
thebob: “Still congratulations to Al Gore, who managed to win in the election, but not in the courts, who went on to gain one of the worlds greatest prizes, with his integrity, determination, and intelligence.”
I love this. How bitter some people still remain. The system is the way it is for a reason, and Al Gore lost. Of course, thebob would be singing a different tune if the tables were turned in favor of Gore.
thebob: “Evolution is supported by a century and a half of scientific experimentation. The holes you talk about have been constantly reduced and the theory stands as one of the most challenged ideas in history. It only takes one experiment to disprove a theory, this has never been done, even though it has been attempted often.”
Like Archaeopteryx? We still have no reliable link between prehistory and today. That’s just one of many examples of the holes in the Theory of Evolution.
“No experiment has ever been found to support the idea of creationisim.”
Don’t need one. It’s in the Bible.
“I suggest you read the Bible, or at least have someone interpret it for you before you insult the very fabric of the majority of our great nation, AND of our forefathers. That’s a close minded position, just like your assumptions that chiropractics and accupuncture have no role in medicine or science. Again, pure, thoughtless ignorance. “
“I am extremly conversant with the Bible, Koran and Vedic. I can quote chapter and verse and have studied themall in great depth.
Interesting that you consider that the Bible needs interpretation. It is supposed to be the word of God and infallable, so interpretation is only needed to clean up the glaring inconsistances.”
I find it hard to believe that you are a self-proclaimed expert in the above readings- I’d love to challenge you on them, but it’s beyond the scope of this forum. I’m sure I’d pick you to pieces though. There’s a difference between proper interpretation and rubbish. I don’t know how many people today are fluent in ancient Hebrew- maybe you are?
“The whole concept of “Heaven” is aborrant. This great book promises an eternity of perfection to the believer. I would spend every day, stricken by the thought that people were being tormented in Hell. It appears that the great reward awaiting in heaven strips people of their consience, or how else could they survive in such terible circumstances. It is barbaric, morally wanting and plainly fiction.”
Don’t quite know what your getting at here. My duty as a Christian is to love God and my family, and to show people the way. I’m completely tolerant of other religions, I just believe that mine is the only way. My job is not to tell people that they will go to Hell if they don’t believe; it’s only to show them the true way to salvation in Heaven. Again, you need to read the Bible (again I presume).
jdoc also wrote
“That’s a close minded position, just like your assumptions that chiropractics and accupuncture have no role in medicine or science. Again, pure, thoughtless ignorance. “
“I dissagre that my mind is closed, I am open to any “evidence”. I am incredulous of religion and alternative medicine because there is “No” evidence to support it. Yes I will repeat that “No evidence whatsoever”.”
Wrong again (very wrong indeed). Plenty of evidence that alternative remedies work, and work well. We use a variety of therapies for our patients- everywhere from herbal hormonal remedies to chiropractic services. There are many studies backing these remedies. You need to research a bit more before posting such close-minded nonsense.
“Why are Chiropractic, Accupuncture, Homeopathy ect, “Alternative medicine? Because there is no evidence to support their efficacy. Once “Alternative medicines” pass the test of experimentation they become simply medicine. So we can define these alternative techniques as “Lacking demonstratable effect, apart from placeblo.””
Wrong again. They’re ‘alternative’ because the medical field as we know it has not provided the studies to back them. That certainly does not mean that the studies haven’t been done.
jdoc also wrote
“BTW, Catholics are Christians, but not all Christians are Catholic. By your logic, or lack thereof, if you are going to insult my religion based on the lack of a superior God, then you have the burden of proof- to prove that my God doesn’t exist. “
“Not sure why you are pointing out dogmatic differences between Christian cults. But then you attack my logic, and suggest that I have the burden of proving a universal negative.”
Universal negative? Care to give your proof of that? The very wording that you chose (Christian Cult) proves your secular viewpoints, and close-mindedness once again.
“Now if that is so, to support you position you need to prove the non existance of Allah, Budda, The Flying Spagetti monster ect. After all you profess there is only one God.”
No I don’t. I only need belief in my God. I’m not attacking those beliefs. I’m tolerant, like I’ve mentioned before.
jdoc also wrote
“Meanwhile, I’ll live my Christian life in my free country.”
“Unfortunately, you “Christian life” is denying scientific rigor, and so preventing actions that are protecting “Our” planet.”
Right. And your proof of that is where?
Roz said”
“Oh! Deciding NOT to fund research is provocative?”
It was the one area of research ruled out to please the religious right.”
When is it provocative when the government does NOTHING?
““I am not Anti-American in any way.”
You want America to lose the war against the terrorists. That means that tens to
thousands of Americans will die. That’s a good start on anti-Americanism.”
“I don’t and I have said nothing of the sort. ”
I call them as I see them. Tell me how you want to win this war, Roz. OH! I forgot. You want to use half hearted measures while crippling our military and intelligence agencies. Swell.
““Do you understand what a “Cease Fire” is?”
Of course I do. But you overplayed the contents of that Resolution. it does not say anything about invading Iraq – as you said it did:”
You don’t understand. The UN is highly bureaucratic and legalistic. UN Resolution 687 set up a Cease Fire in the war approved by UN Resolution 678. Hence, all it needed to say was what conditions Saddam had to follow through with to keep the Cease Fire operating. When Saddam broke his word in 687 then UN Resolution 678 took control again. What does it say?
The security council…
Acting under Chapter VII of the Charter,
1. Demands that Iraq comply with resolution 660 and all subsequent resolutions, and decides, while maintaining all its decisions, to allow Iraq one final opportunity, as a pause of goodwill, to do so;
2. Authorizes Member States cooperating with the Government of Kuwait, unless Iraq on or before 14 January 1991 fully implements, as set forth in Paragraph 1 above, the above mentioned resolutions, to use all necessary means to uphold and implement resolution 660 and all subsequent relevant resolutions and to restore international peace and security in the area.
So, what does it mean? The phrase “all means necessary” is bureaucratize for war. Resolution 678 authorizes the coalition to do what is necessary to restore peace. Does this give the coalition the power to depose Saddam? Yes, if there is no other way to bring peace to the region.
The Cease Fire in 687 was designed to give Saddam’s regime a chance to rid itself of its WMD and it’s missile capability.
As you said, Saddam did not comply with the term of resolution 687, so the Member States could, once again, do what was necessary to restore the peace and security of the region. But, having once been fooled by Saddam, they were not likely to use half measures. That is why President Clinton in 1998 sought permission from Congress to go to war with Iraq to depose Saddam. But, there was no political will to do so and Congress did not appropriate funds.
““We needed elections and a Parliament. None of that was possible earlier. Sheer numbers do not matter; military effectiveness is.”
Maybe so, but you said its was idiotic to think that more troops would have helped, to me that is wrong. ”
We have experts in the military to help us with these matters. Is it idiotic to think that throwing unprepared troops into the area will do more than get people killed? Yes. We have to have a plan. It has to be a good one.
The generals in the field chose the troop levels. Why you do think that YOU have more expertise?
“You want to attack the person who makes any real criticism.”
I don’t mind criticism. But, you need to make sense. You need to lay out a good case with sound logic. You haven’t done any of that. All you do is deliver snide propaganda.
“““we might be out of there by now.”
Not with you on the terrorist’s side.””
Again with the baseless personal attacks.”
I’ve found that when you are absurd that this nonsense gets to you, so I use it to shake you up. Its a joke, man.
I offered long ago to refrain from insults if you did. You turned me down. All bets are off now.
How many times have I been insulted in this thread. I don’t know. Insults roll off my back if they are clearly false. If there a grain of truth to an accusation, I’ll look at it and change my ways if necessary.
Do I think you are directly on the side of the terrorists? No. But will you do anything that will indirectly aid the terrorists? Yes. Will you hinder for ideological reasons the prosecution of the war even if that gets American killed? Yes.
You are no friend of America in this war. One day, you will be forced to choose sides. I hope you decide to be with America, but I’d make no bets on it.
“Get a clue, not everyone who is critical of the handling of the war is a Leftist, a Socialist or a terrorist. ”
No, there are honest people who oppose this war. I respect them. But, they use reason instead of propaganda. They can be reasoned with. You can get an honest answer out of them instead an endless series of mindless accusations like the Far Left spouts. They don’t change the subject when they are losing. That is called “Intellectual Honesty.” You don’t have any.
“You’d apparently would like to it be black and white like that but its simply not the case.”
It’s your tactics that I find offensive; they are so mindless.
“As a taxpayer I am paying for this war and I have every right to examine how it is run.”
True. Every war needs a loyal opposition to keep the party prosecuting the war honest and accountable. I just wish we had a loyal opposition in America.
““Generally I think the military logic says that overwhelming force has an advantage. ”
What is overwhelming force to you? 500 thousand troops? …
The point I was making was that more boots on the ground meant more chances for the enemy to hit them. The General’s decided that a smaller force over a longer time was the right mix. Do you have the necessary expertise to dispute their conclusions? I doubt it.”
We both know I am sure that the initial recommendation was for a presence at that level but it was shot down and the general who made it was fired. Clearly, if I don’t have the expertise, some with that expertise did not think it was idiotic.”
When you have as big a military as we do, you will have disagreements among the Generals. Before, it had been part of the military code for a retired general not to criticize the the high command, so it was unusual.
This was a political issue, too, for the dissenting generals. Rumsfeld was retiring and marginalizing the “old Cold War” officer corp and was installing a new force structure that was modeled on the Special Forces. The retired generals hated him for that. Some of that hatred and resentment passed over onto the plans to fight the War on Terror and the war in Iraq. Those generals are discredited now.
““And how many ex-Ba’athist and al Qaeda agents did you want in that Army? We had quite a few as it was.”
At the initial stages there were not many al Qaeda in the country so I don’t know what you are taking about. ”
You have got to be kidding There were at least ten thousand al Qaeda affiliated members in Iraq during the incursion.
After Afghanistan, they no longer had the Taliban to protect them, so they scattered to the winds: to Iran, Syria, lebanon and mostly Iraq where they were trained by Saddam to be his Fedayeen– his guerilla force.
“And many Iraqi were Ba’athist, we have had to work with them anyway. ”
That is true. A minor official like a school principle had to be a Ba’athist Party member. But, almost all of the officers in Saddam’s Army were not passive Ba’athist members. Some of them that we allowed in the military started using the IDF to oppose the Iraqi Government and us. So, they had to be shot.
“I don’t see anything in 687 about Ba’athists.”
The Ba’athist were Saddam’s political party. They were the equivalent of the Communist party in Russia. Resolution 687 did not mention them, because there was no intent, then, to depose Saddam. If Saddam had kept his treaties there would be no need to.
“““Show me the comment that I have made that is at all Socialist or leftist for that matter? ”
No one who wants national health care is anything but a leftist. No One who slavishly repeats MediaMatters talking Points is either.””
Did I argue for National Health Care, no! I said it was an important issue that needs Federal attention. It is and it does.”
I disagree, but it is irreverent. You spout the MediaMatters party line. That is enough proof.
“Did I ever say I support Hillary? No.
No. I said that you probably didn’t support her because she was too far to the right. LOL
“So to be clear, you agree that nothing I have said is leftist of socialist or anti american, since you have nothing to point to – great then shut up that talk.”
When have you said anything that wasn’t straight out of far left organizations like MediaMatters?
“And I totally get why you want to call me an ignoramus, its because you are, for reasons of your own choosing, in the awkward position of having to defending the policies of one.”
Didn’t anyone tell you that personal attacks are proof of nothing, except that you were desperate? I am not defending George Bush. It’s just that the positions of the Democrats are insane. I have no choice.
rdoc wrote
““No experiment has ever been found to support the idea of creationism.”
Don’t need one. It’s in the Bible.”
Duh! Argument from divine authority.
rdoc also wrote
““I suggest you read the Bible, or at least have someone interpret it for you before you insult the very fabric of the majority of our great nation, AND of our forefathers. That’s a close minded position, just like your assumptions that chiropractics and accupuncture have no role in medicine or science. Again, pure, thoughtless ignorance. “
“I am extremely conversant with the Bible, Koran and Vedic. I can quote chapter and verse and have studied them all in great depth.
Interesting that you consider that the Bible needs interpretation. It is supposed to be the word of God and infallible, so interpretation is only needed to clean up the glaring inconsistencies.”
I find it hard to believe that you are a self-proclaimed expert in the above readings- I’d love to challenge you on them, but it’s beyond the scope of this forum. I’m sure I’d pick you to pieces though. There’s a difference between proper interpretation and rubbish. I don’t know how many people today are fluent in ancient Hebrew- maybe you are?”
Duh! Argument form personal incredulity, don’t care in your unsupported beliefs of what I know or don’t know.
rdoc also wrote
“”The whole concept of “Heaven” is aborrant. This great book promises an eternity of perfection to the believer. I would spend every day, stricken by the thought that people were being tormented in Hell. It appears that the great reward awaiting in heaven strips people of their conscience, or how else could they survive in such terrible circumstances. It is barbaric, morally wanting and plainly fiction.”
Don’t quite know what your getting at here. My duty as a Christian is to love God and my family, and to show people the way. I’m completely tolerant of other religions, I just believe that mine is the only way.”
Duh! Tautology. You believe in your monotheistic God. And you are totally tolerant of other religions except for the existence of their Gods.
rdoc also wrote
“My job is not to tell people that they will go to Hell if they don’t believe; it’s only to show them the true way to salvation in Heaven. Again, you need to read the Bible (again I presume).”
Duh! Argument based on delegation of responsibility.
“Your honour, I was only following orders in that concentration camp.”
You truly believe in the concept of a “Heaven”, but refuse to consider any moral problems that could be connected with such a state?
rdoc also wrote
““That’s a close minded position, just like your assumptions that chiropractics and accupuncture have no role in medicine or science. Again, pure, thoughtless ignorance. “
“I disagree that my mind is closed, I am open to any “evidence”. I am incredulous of religion and alternative medicine because there is “No” evidence to support it. Yes I will repeat that “No evidence whatsoever”.”
Wrong again (very wrong indeed). Plenty of evidence that alternative remedies work, and work well. We use a variety of therapies for our patients- everywhere from herbal hormonal remedies to chiropractic services. There are many studies backing these remedies. You need to research a bit more before posting such close-minded nonsense.”
Well you seem to have a vested interest. But I challenge you to show one peer reviewed paper supporting the tenants of either Chiropractic, Accupuncture or Homeopathy.
Chiropractic? Google for the philosophy behind this. Daniel David Palmer was a total charlatan
Accupuncture? Double blind tests have been carried out for ever and the result never has it come above statistical chance.
Homeopathy? Oh yeah I’m gonna get cured by a 30c mixture. I could drink the whole solar system and not consume a single molecule of active ingredient.
Granted there are plenty of snake oil tests, but this is all just nonsense.
rdoc also wrote
““Why are Chiropractic, Accupuncture, Homeopathy ect, “Alternative medicine? Because there is no evidence to support their efficacy. Once “Alternative medicines” pass the test of experimentation they become simply medicine. So we can define these alternative techniques as “Lacking demonstrable effect, apart from placebo.””
Wrong again. They’re ‘alternative’ because the medical field as we know it has not provided the studies to back them. That certainly does not mean that the studies haven’t been done.”
Duhh! So these tests have been done but strangely, practitioners in these fields never cite them when they are challenged? These guys would be shouting these results from the rooftops. Where are they kept? In a dark basement in a room with a sign saying “Beware of the leopard”?
jdoc also wrote
““BTW, Catholics are Christians, but not all Christians are Catholic. By your logic, or lack thereof, if you are going to insult my religion based on the lack of a superior God, then you have the burden of proof- to prove that my God doesn’t exist. “
“Not sure why you are pointing out dogmatic differences between Christian cults. But then you attack my logic, and suggest that I have the burden of proving a universal negative.”
Universal negative? Care to give your proof of that? The very wording that you chose (Christian Cult) proves your secular viewpoints, and close-mindedness once again.”
You asked me to prove something doesn’t exist. A universal negative.
Cult = cohesive social group devoted to beliefs or practices
rdoc also wrote
““Now if that is so, to support you position you need to prove the non existence of Allah, Budda, The Flying Spagetti monster ect. After all you profess there is only one God.”
No I don’t. I only need belief in my God. I’m not attacking those beliefs. I’m tolerant, like I’ve mentioned before.”
See above.
Your belief doesn’t appear to be as strong as logic. Obviously your whole argument just boils down to “because I believe it” it must be true.
rdoc also wrote
““Meanwhile, I’ll live my Christian life in my free country.”
“Unfortunately, you “Christian life” is denying scientific rigor, and so preventing actions that are protecting “Our” planet.”
Right. And your proof of that is where?”
Deeply imbedded in the physical laws that govern the universe, and open to anyone to research and to attempt to discover their intricacies.
“When is it provocative when the government does NOTHING?”
Well from what I understand, most University labs get some Federal funding of some kind. So outlawing the use of Federal funding means that Universities or other entities that receive funding can’t do stem cell research as they would like to, or they jeopardize that funding. So we have all these facilities with scientist all ready in the US yet none can do the research, new sources of funding have to be raised, and in some cases new buildings constructed to house that research. Maybe its not an issue for you, but someone in my family has Parkinson’s, this is one of the identified illnesses that it thought to have potential to be helped by stem cell research. So I’d really like to see this research proceed, I am not interested in BS political fights that delays research. And from what I can tell there is really nothing to this. We are already manipulating these embryos for use with IVF, no one cared. Its just a political chip to hand to the religious right, so that the Republicans can have something to point to for that constituency.
I really have no interest in Media Matters. In fact, to be honest, a funny coincidence, I had never even heard of them! I guess you’d need to listen to Rush Limbaugh to hear about this stuff. But then today I saw this clip on YouTube, with Ann Coulter talking about how jews should not exist and she need to be perfected by being Christians, you know the disgusting rhetoric that comes from the conservatives that we all have to put up with, anyway, it ends, apparently the clip was provided by Media Matters! Funny eh? Guess you think they are nut cases for sharing that clip or something?
“”You want America to lose the war against the terrorists. That means that tens to thousands of Americans will die. That’s a good start on anti-Americanism.””
Again, I have never said anything of the sort. I want us to run the war against al Qaeda well and not be distracted and not have it be shunted into a completely other mission.
And now that we are in Iraq I want the strategy to make sense.
“True. Every war needs a loyal opposition to keep the party prosecuting the war honest and accountable. I just wish we had a loyal opposition in America.”
So tired of crap like this coming from you and the right. Unless you want specifically say how I am disloyal??? But clearly you can’t point to any item where I have said anything to the detriment of the US, because I haven’t, so again drop this empty rhetoric.
“Those generals are discredited now.”
By whom? Rush Limbaugh? Do you have a source for a military person saying this? Clearly the invasion and toppling of the government went extremely fast, the issue is did we have the force level to deal with occupation. Do you have a source that says Shinseki’s estimate of the occupation forces needed were discredited?
Here is a quote from Gen Abizaid on this issue:
“GRAHAM: Was General Shinseki correct when you look backward that we needed more troops to secure the country, General Abizaid?
ABIZAID: General Shinseki was right that a greater international force contribution, U.S. force contribution, and Iraqi force contribution should have been available immediately after major combat operations.”
My point is, we might have done better if we had listened to these generals to a greater extent. We would have secured the country more immediately, we would not have had the mess of Abu Ghraib. We would not be struggling with infrastructure and basic services the way we are. Iraq secured might have been easier to transfer sovereignty to – that is the way I see it. Might have been more cost up front, less to deal with now – we have had to attempt to rebuild the country, its a massive undertaking.
Brigadier General Mitchell M. Zais, U.S. Army (Retired), Ph.D.. Great read on his assessment of the war strategy:
“Let me explain how the war is being fought on the cheap.
From the very beginning, Defense Secretary Donald rumsfeld, who thankfully announced his departure yesterday, has striven to minimize the number of Soldiers and Marines in Iraq. Instead of employing the Colin Powell doctrine of “use massive force at the beginning to achieve a quick and decisive victory,” his goal has been to “use no more troops than absolutely necessary so we can spend defense dollars on new technology.””
Oh you wanted a quote from Wolfowitz:
“In his testimony, Mr. Wolfowitz ticked off several reasons why he believed a much smaller coalition peacekeeping force than General Shinseki envisioned would be sufficient to police and rebuild postwar Iraq. He said there was no history of ethnic strife in Iraq, as there was in Bosnia or Kosovo. He said Iraqi civilians would welcome an American-led liberation force that “stayed as long as necessary but left as soon as possible,” but would oppose a long-term occupation force. And he said that nations that oppose war with Iraq would likely sign up to help rebuild it. “I would expect that even countries like France will have a strong interest in assisting Iraq in reconstruction,” Mr. Wolfowitz said. He added that many Iraqi expatriates would likely return home to help”
http://usacac.leavenworth.army.mil/CAC/milreview/English/MarApr07/Zais_INSIGHTS.pdf
Oh and more:
“Enlisting countries to help to pay for this war and its aftermath would take more time, he said. “I expect we will get a lot of mitigation, but it will be easier after the fact than before the fact,” Mr. Wolfowitz said. Mr. Wolfowitz spent much of the hearing knocking down published estimates of the costs of war and rebuilding, saying the upper range of $95 billion was too high, and that the estimates were almost meaningless because of the variables. Moreover, he said such estimates, and speculation that postwar reconstruction costs could climb even higher, ignored the fact that Iraq is a wealthy country, with annual oil exports worth $15 billion to $20 billion. “To assume we’re going to pay for it all is just wrong,” he said.
At the Pentagon, Mr. Rumsfeld said the factors influencing cost estimates made even ranges imperfect. Asked whether he would release such ranges to permit a useful public debate on the subject, Mr. Rumsfeld said, “I’ve already decided that. It’s not useful.”" from 2/28/03 http://www.globalpolicy.org/security/issues/iraq/attack/consequences/2003/0228pentagoncontra.htm
GHWB had the sense to collect his forces and contributions before the war – there was time afterall.
I really don’t get why entering before the summer of 2003 mattered given that we have been there for years. I mean we were there in the summer of 2003, 2004, 2005, 2006, 2007. What difference did it make to enter before the summer of 2003?
Oh and about those crazy democrats:
“The Defense Department has fought the war on the cheap because, despite overwhelming evidence that the Army and Marine Corps need a significant increase in their size in order to accomplish their assigned missions, the civilian officials who run the Pentagon have refused to request authorization from Congress to do so. Two Democratic representatives, Mark Udall of Colorado and Ellen Tauscher of California, have introduced a bill into Congress that would add 80,000 troops to the end strength of the Active Army. Currently, this bill has no support from the Defense Department.”
Here is a question I am asking sincerely…
Is the effort to run the war without expanding the military part of a smaller government philosophy? That would be my assumption.
Hi thebob: we’ve gone way beyond the scope of this thread, but I will say, you’ve got spunk. But just as you are clearly clueless as to what an embryo is, or what stem cells mean, you have no clue as to what alternative remedies are or how they’re used in modern medicine. I went to med school at Hahnemann University in Phila, Pa (sound familiar?). It’s now a part of the Drexel Univ. network. Samuel Hahnemann was the father of homeopathy, and a respected scientist in his day- yes, I said scientist. We no longer use much of his teachings, which is why I didn’t mention homeopathy above. But the science he performed was extraordinary for his day, considering the means he had available. I bring this up not only to show that I know what I’m talking about, but to give you some insight as to how scientific knowledge and work changes with advancing technology- “Deeply imbedded in the physical laws that govern the universe, and open to anyone to research and to attempt to discover their intricacies.” This quote cracks me up. We know virtuallyu NOTHING about the universe. By the time we really figure anything out, we’ll all be long gone. But in the meantime, we WILL have theories that change and theories that are completely discredited. There is a lot of information that we will never know. Stephen Hawking once said, ‘there are things in the universe that we are incapable of understanding’. He was referring to the fact that our brains are literally too small to comprehend everything that goes on in the universe. So I’d love to know how much you know about the ‘physical laws that govern the universe’- so would the rest of the scientific world, since you seem to have a working knowledge of those that are ‘deeply imbedded’.
One other point- you call the existence of my God a universal negative. Well, how do you know that? That’s the proof you need to show.
The rest of your post was pretty meaningless. I suggest you learn what FAITH means, because you are clearly misguided. Every response you came up with in your last post inferred that my religion was based on violence or a cult mentality (cult |kəlt|
noun
a system of religious veneration and devotion directed toward a particular figure or object : the cult of St. Olaf.
• a relatively small group of people having religious beliefs or practices regarded by others as strange or sinister : a network of Satan-worshiping cults.
• a misplaced or excessive admiration for a particular person or thing : a cult of personality surrounding the leaders.). Clearly, cult infers irrational behavior. Like I said before, you probably think that all Islamists are militant, and all Christians are fanatics. Clearly I was right- you are ignorant. Please read the Bible (once again) before you go on the attack with senseless accusations.
Two links: http://www.nlm.nih.gov/medlineplus/complementaryandalternativemedicine.html, http://www.amerchiro.org/
Both of these are accredited, and recognized by the medical community. I hope you don’t plan on becoming a doctor one day.
“When is it provocative when the government does NOTHING?”
Well from what I understand, most University labs get some Federal funding of some kind. So outlawing the use of Federal funding means that Universities or other entities that receive funding can’t do stem cell research as they would like to, or they jeopardize that funding. So we have all these facilities with scientist all ready in the US yet none can do the research, new sources of funding have to be raised, and in some cases new buildings constructed to house that research. Maybe its not an issue for you, but someone in my family has Parkinson’s, this is one of the identified illnesses that it thought to have potential to be helped by stem cell research. So I’d really like to see this research proceed, I am not interested in BS political fights that delays research. And from what I can tell there is really nothing to this. We are already manipulating these embryos for use with IVF, no one cared. Its just a political chip to hand to the religious right, so that the Republicans can have something to point to for that constituency.
I really have no interest in Media Matters. In fact, to be honest, a funny coincidence, I had never even heard of them! I guess you’d need to listen to Rush Limbaugh to hear about this stuff. But then today I saw this clip on YouTube, with Ann Coulter talking about how jews should not exist and she need to be perfected by being Christians, you know the disgusting rhetoric that comes from the conservatives that we all have to put up with, anyway, it ends, apparently the clip was provided by Media Matters! Funny eh? Guess you think they are nut cases for sharing that clip or something?
“”You want America to lose the war against the terrorists. That means that tens to thousands of Americans will die. That’s a good start on anti-Americanism.””
Again, I have never said anything of the sort. I want us to run the war against al Qaeda well and not be distracted and not have it be shunted into a completely other mission.
And now that we are in Iraq I want the strategy to make sense.
“True. Every war needs a loyal opposition to keep the party prosecuting the war honest and accountable. I just wish we had a loyal opposition in America.”
So tired of talk like this coming from you and the right. Unless you want specifically say how I am disloyal??? But clearly you can’t point to any item where I have said anything to the detriment of the US, because I haven’t, so again drop this empty rhetoric.
“Those generals are discredited now.”
By whom? Rush Limbaugh? Do you have a source for a military person saying this? Clearly the invasion and toppling of the government went extremely fast, the issue is did we have the force level to deal with occupation. Do you have a source that says Shinseki’s estimate of the occupation forces needed were discredited?
Here is a quote from Gen Abizaid on this issue:
“GRAHAM: Was General Shinseki correct when you look backward that we needed more troops to secure the country, General Abizaid?
ABIZAID: General Shinseki was right that a greater international force contribution, U.S. force contribution, and Iraqi force contribution should have been available immediately after major combat operations.”
My point is, we might have done better if we had listened to these generals to a greater extent. We would have secured the country more immediately, we would not have had the mess of Abu Ghraib. We would not be struggling with infrastructure and basic services the way we are. Iraq secured might have been easier to transfer sovereignty to – that is the way I see it. Might have been more cost up front, less to deal with now – we have had to attempt to rebuild the country, its a massive undertaking.
Brigadier General Mitchell M. Zais, U.S. Army (Retired), Ph.D.. Great read on his assessment of the war strategy:
“Let me explain how the war is being fought on the cheap.
From the very beginning, Defense Secretary Donald rumsfeld, who thankfully announced his departure yesterday, has striven to minimize the number of Soldiers and Marines in Iraq. Instead of employing the Colin Powell doctrine of “use massive force at the beginning to achieve a quick and decisive victory,” his goal has been to “use no more troops than absolutely necessary so we can spend defense dollars on new technology.””
http://usacac.leavenworth.army.mil/CAC/milreview/English/MarApr07/Zais_INSIGHTS.pdf
Oh you wanted a quote from Wolfowitz:
“In his testimony, Mr. Wolfowitz ticked off several reasons why he believed a much smaller coalition peacekeeping force than General Shinseki envisioned would be sufficient to police and rebuild postwar Iraq. He said there was no history of ethnic strife in Iraq, as there was in Bosnia or Kosovo. He said Iraqi civilians would welcome an American-led liberation force that “stayed as long as necessary but left as soon as possible,” but would oppose a long-term occupation force. And he said that nations that oppose war with Iraq would likely sign up to help rebuild it. “I would expect that even countries like France will have a strong interest in assisting Iraq in reconstruction,” Mr. Wolfowitz said. He added that many Iraqi expatriates would likely return home to help”
Oh and more:
“Enlisting countries to help to pay for this war and its aftermath would take more time, he said. “I expect we will get a lot of mitigation, but it will be easier after the fact than before the fact,” Mr. Wolfowitz said. Mr. Wolfowitz spent much of the hearing knocking down published estimates of the costs of war and rebuilding, saying the upper range of $95 billion was too high, and that the estimates were almost meaningless because of the variables. Moreover, he said such estimates, and speculation that postwar reconstruction costs could climb even higher, ignored the fact that Iraq is a wealthy country, with annual oil exports worth $15 billion to $20 billion. “To assume we’re going to pay for it all is just wrong,” he said.
At the Pentagon, Mr. Rumsfeld said the factors influencing cost estimates made even ranges imperfect. Asked whether he would release such ranges to permit a useful public debate on the subject, Mr. Rumsfeld said, “I’ve already decided that. It’s not useful.”” from 2/28/03 http://www.globalpolicy.org/security/issues/iraq/attack/consequences/2003/0228pentagoncontra.htm
$95 B too high! France will pay for the war.
I really don’t get why entering before the summer of 2003 mattered given that we have been there for years. I mean we were there in the summer of 2003, 2004, 2005, 2006, 2007. What difference did it make to enter before the summer of 2003?
Oh and about those crazy democrats:
“The Defense Department has fought the war on the cheap because, despite overwhelming evidence that the Army and Marine Corps need a significant increase in their size in order to accomplish their assigned missions, the civilian officials who run the Pentagon have refused to request authorization from Congress to do so. Two Democratic representatives, Mark Udall of Colorado and Ellen Tauscher of California, have introduced a bill into Congress that would add 80,000 troops to the end strength of the Active Army. Currently, this bill has no support from the Defense Department.”
Here is a question I am asking sincerely…
Is the effort to run the war without expanding the military part of a smaller government philosophy?
for some reason one comment of mine is “awaiting moderation” no idea why, but it may appear twice.
The Bob said:
“My belief is that science is a system in which you first postulate a hypothesis. … ‘Any’ time an experiment disagrees with a hypothesis, it needs to be modified or discarded.”
True, so far.
“Unfortunately UrbanBard appears to use a completely different, and to me unfathomable logic.”
I simply have more knowledge than you; I have studied more intellectual areas. Somethings, which are real, are not “falsifiable.”
Often, people will adopt positions that are specious, that is, they sound reasonable, but are false. This is true of most the positions of the Democratic Party.
Many questions are beyond the purview of science, because they are Metaphysical, Philosophical or Religious positions. Science can impact on them, but they are higher questions than science, since science deals merely with the material world.
“It is easy to cherry pick data to conform to a belief, but this is pseudo-science. Unfortunately many people can’t or wont distinguish between them.”
True. Look in a mirror. We all accept things on faith; expecially our dealings with our fellows. Can faith be grounded in reality, even though there is no conclusive proof? Yes.
“Still I don’t consider my time wasted. At the very least the time spent by UrbanBard responding to my mails, may reduce the deluge of mail he sends everyday to Daniel. ”
I don’t bother Daniel, at all. We haven’t exchanged emails since July 24, 2007 and that was just two emails.
On his latest series of pictures of “What we expected; what we got”, I merely congratulated him for a job well done. As I have said, I bear him no ill will. The only thing that we disagree upon is that his politics make no sense.
“Hopefully this will enable Daniel to write more of his excellent articles.”
He’s good with concrete things– computers and such. His politics stink.
“It’s a pity that this thread has been hijacked.”
No. I merely stated an opinion that very little would have changed with a Gore Presidency. And you people descended upon me. Ever since, I have been correcting lies and distortions.
You people are delusive. That comes from swallowing whole the spin of the Mainstream Media. You people have no ability to think. Neither does Daniel. He would rather not be bothered with reality.
“I would have preferred, more comment on the great achievements of Al Gore, or even Jar-Jar Binks!”
Save us from the idolatry, please.
“Unfortunately, it degenerated into political/religious mud slinging, with very little intellectual content.”
The only people making intellectual arguments on this web site are jdoc and me. You simply disagree with our positions.
jdoc wrote
“But just as you are clearly clueless as to what an embryo is, or what stem cells mean, you have no clue as to what alternative remedies are or how they’re used in modern medicine.”
The doctor who claimed that “embryonic stem cells” are multipotent decides an ad hominem attack after his mistake is pointed out. They are pluripotent doc.
Samuel Hahnemanns work in chemistry ie a test for arsenic was and still is good science. His premise “that which can produce a set of symptoms in a healthy individual, can treat a sick individual who is manifesting a similar set of symptoms.” the basis of Homeopathy, is pure quackery.
In response to my challenge for evidence for alternative medicine you give 2 links, the first
http://www.nlm.nih.gov/medlineplus/complementaryandalternativemedicine.html
Point to a page saying
“Complementary and Alternative Medicine
Also called: CAM
Complementary and alternative medicine (CAM) is the term for medical products and practices that are not part of standard care. Standard care is what medical doctors, doctors of osteopathy and allied health professionals, such as registered nurses and physical therapists, practice. Alternative medicine means treatments that you use instead of standard ones. Complementary medicine means nonstandard treatments that you use along with standard ones. Examples of CAM therapies are acupuncture, chiropractic and herbal medicines.
The claims that CAM treatment providers make about their benefits can sound promising. However, researchers do not know how safe many CAM treatments are or how well they work. Studies are underway to determine the safety and usefulness of many CAM practices.”
So as I asserted no proof of efficacy.
Your second link is the home page of the American Chiropractic Association, where I can only find people trying to claim other peoples studies apply to them.
You claimed “Both of these are accredited, and recognized by the medical community.”
“””””””speechless””””””””
I rest my case no evidence from you, or any other source we can find.
If I my defend my statement, in response to your question, “And the proof is where ?”
I said it is,
“Deeply imbedded in the physical laws that govern the universe, and open to anyone to research and to attempt to discover their intricacies.”.
I suppose you would point to some assembled group of last stone age writing, that you infer has divine authority?
I can’t find reference to your S.Hawking quote, but I suspect it was in connection to the speed of information. It is because nothing can travel faster than the speed of light. Although information transmitted by quantum entanglement appears to break this assumption.
jdoc wrote
“One other point- you call the existence of my God a universal negative. Well, how do you know that? That’s the proof you need to show.”
You claimed I had the burden of proof, to prove your God didn’t exist. So you have asked me to prove a “Universal Negative”.
I can’t prove Bertrand Russell’s teapot doesn’t exist either.
I stand by my use of the word cult, you defined it quite well.
Faith
religion: a strong belief in a supernatural power or powers that control human destiny
jdoc wrote
“Clearly I was right- you are ignorant. Please read the Bible (once again) before you go on the attack with senseless accusations.
I hope you don’t plan on becoming a doctor one day.”
I say sticks and stones will break my bones, but if you want to attack my logic you will have to do far better than that doc.
I would like to point out that in my posts I have not attacked you. I have stated my opinions, and pointed out the things we disagree on.
You have accused me of labeling, ignorance and being misguided among other things. Is that Christian?
Roz said”
““When is it provocative when the government does NOTHING?”
Well from what I understand, most University labs get some Federal funding of some kind. So outlawing the use of Federal funding means that Universities or other entities that receive funding can’t do stem cell research as they would like to, or they jeopardize that funding. ”
You exaggerate. The Universities can set up a firewall where only Private and State money are spent on anything but the currently approved lines of stem cells. They can create non-profit corporations and rent facilities across the street from the University.
“Maybe its not an issue for you, but someone in my family has Parkinson’s, this is one of the identified illnesses that it thought to have potential to be helped by stem cell research.”
I am not oppose to stem cell research. Any likely cure will be from Adult or Placental stem cells which can be Federally funded. Embryonic stem cell are too dangerous to be used now and will be for decades.
Also, You are using the Socialist technique of ‘personalizing the issue.’ An emotional response such as this is Anti-intellectual.
“We are already manipulating these embryos for use with IVF, no one cared. ”
The government can choose what to spend our taxes on. The President has chosen that it will not be on ESC Research. There is no requirement that any Federal money be spent on this. This is a political decision and the majority of Americans agree with the President. You Leftists lost the argument.
“I really have no interest in Media Matters. In fact, to be honest, a funny coincidence, I had never even heard of them! ”
You don’t have to read them since the the people who fund mediamatters control the Democratic Party– George Soros and his ilk. You have read MediaMatters now. What, if anything, do you disagree with?
“I guess you’d need to listen to Rush Limbaugh to hear about this stuff. ”
Nope. I don’t care for Rush. It’s not his politics, but his style.
“But then today I saw this clip on YouTube, with Ann Coulter talking about how jews should not exist and she need to be perfected by being Christians,”
I don’t agree with Ann Coulter either. She serves a useful purpose: she keeps you Leftists foaming at the mouth. That makes you look rabid. Unable to persuade anyone of anything.
““”You want America to lose the war against the terrorists. … That’s a good start on anti-Americanism.””
Again, I have never said anything of the sort. ”
Of course not, You are an attack dog. You never betray anything about yourself. You never reveal what you believe in. Then you hide behind that.
“I want us to run the war against al Qaeda well and not be distracted and not have it be shunted into a completely other mission. And now that we are in Iraq I want the strategy to make sense.”
It does make sense. You are too ignorant and bigoted to perceive it.
““True. Every war needs a loyal opposition to keep the party prosecuting the war honest and accountable. I just wish we had a loyal opposition in America.”
So tired of crap like this coming from you and the right. Unless you want specifically say how I am disloyal??? ”
Make a statement of belief regarding what steps you would take to win this war, please. Do not frame it in an attack on the Republicans or the Bush administration. Try to make a case where what you want will get us better results. In short, say something intelligent.
““Those generals are discredited now.”
By whom? Rush Limbaugh? Do you have a source for a military person saying this? ”
What discredits them is no person, but events. They made rash statements that turned out to be untrue.
Look at all the arm-chair generals who stated before the iraqi incursion that 2 million refugees would flee Iraq. Didn’t happen.
Or that hundreds of thousand of Iraqi would die. Didn’t happen.
Or that the Mid east would be destabilized. Didn’t happen.
I’m talking about how these people made statement that made them look like fools. Some of these people are just not SEEN as fools yet.
“Clearly the invasion and toppling of the government went extremely fast, the issue is did we have the force level to deal with occupation. ”
We muddled through. Was this occupation worse than the historical average? No. Much less.
You can always nitpick by expecting perfection. You can always say that some general was right when so many of them disagreed with each other. I expected mistakes in war. It’s SNAFU and FUBAR in war.
I expected that there are other considerations, political backstabbing, that the administration had to be concerned about. Many influential people in the CIA and the State Department fought and sabotaged this war from the beginning. Its the REMF who waste the soldier’s lives.
Are our troops in Iraq discontented? No. They are a better judge of conditions than those generals. They are closer to the action.
““GRAHAM: Was General Shinseki correct when you look backward that we needed more troops to secure the country, General Abizaid?
ABIZAID: General Shinseki was right that a greater international force contribution, U.S. force contribution, and Iraqi force contribution should have been available immediately after major combat operations.”
My point is, we might have done better if we had listened to these generals to a greater extent. ”
You can always second guess. Hind-sight is perfect. It seems that Abizaid was complaining about, as much as anything, how little cooperation we got from Europe.
Again, I am not saying that perfection was possible. I read history and sometimes wonder why the generals made the decisions they did. Often, they had little choice. Often, their allies screwed up events. Often, there was politics that forced a particular action. We have to deal with reality, Roz.
We cannot expect war to work like clockwork. There will always be second guessing later. But, Abizaid did the best he could with what he had. What is silly is that you think that an alternative was possible. Most of war is muddling through; perfection is not an alternative.
You must do more than expressing vain wishes; you must prove that an alternative was possible and the administration chose unwisely for impure motives. The proof needs to stand up in court. It can’t just be a talking point. People stop listening to you when you cry wolf, too often.
” we would not have had the mess of Abu Ghraib. ”
Abu Ghraib is a settled matter; there can be no second guessing. We have had court cases; we have had all the evidence laid out. Soldiers have been sent to jail for their crimes.
At no time, did the soldiers have the excuse that a superior officer order them to do this. That is why they went to jail, not the officer.
Was there negligence? Yes. Is there negligence in every prison in every country? Yes. Does this, at times, lead to prisoner abuse? Yes.
This was no official action. This was bored soldiers playing games on night shift. It was stupid. Just as stupid as the Mainstream Media who tried to use this to get Rumsfeld fired.
“We would not be struggling with infrastructure and basic services the way we are.”
We are getting a handle on that. The Terrorists are not blowing the infrastructure any more, they are running for their lives. The US Military did not CAUSE the lack of basic services, the sanctions did. Saddam stole the money from the “Food For Oil” Program which was meant for the Iraqi people.
Did the administration make mistakes? Of course. Were they honest mistakes because the unforeseen happened? Yes. Did al Qaeda play into the mistakes? Yes.
I do not believe that the administration knew that al Qaeda intended to make Iraq their battle ground. Was the administration disappointed when it became apparent? No. Al Qaeda was being stupid for fighting in Iraq; we had an army there. Al Qaeda had been a terrorist organization and they wanted to be an army? How absurd.
Most of the mistakes that you speak of is the result of al Qaeda being stupid. Unfortunately, the Press is stupid too. Iraq is the best thing that happened to the Global War on Terror. It sucked in our enemies where we could kill them.
“Here is a question I am asking sincerely…
Is the effort to run the war without expanding the military part of a smaller government philosophy? That would be my assumption.”
That is a complicated question that depends on your ignorance to even ask it.
How much time is needed to increase the size of the military by the amount necessary to win a war? It takes five years to build an effective Battalion from ground up. In peace time, it is easier because you can split a battalion and fill half the spaces with experienced soldiers. In wartime, you do not have that option, because your experienced soldiers are in the field, training or on leave.
Then there is the political problem of getting Congress to appropriate the funds necessary. And you must consider that the Military is in the process of restructuring to meet the new duties required after the “Cold War” ended. These are processes that can take decades.
But, you weren’t asking that question, were you? Is English as second language for you? You are not a clear thinker. You muddled the question by trying to ask too much. Let me rephrase it.
How do you, as a proponent of a smaller government, justify scrimping on the military during a time of war?
I don’t. Survival of the country comes first. As the US Supreme Court Justice Blackburn put it, ” The US Constitution is not a suicide pact.” I am a Conservative, not a Libertarian. I do not get all caught up in individual rights. There are times, albeit rare, when the needs of the group supersede the rights of the individual.
What you forget is that the part of the government that I want to shrink is not the military; that is necessitated by the Constitution. I want the military to be able to respond to realistic security needs.
What I want to end are the “so called” entitlements when are at no place in the Constitution. They are a usurpation of the rights and power of the people.
thebob: Please read my posts a bit more carefully.
my quote: Pluripotent and multipotent are the same thing, as used in this sense.
IN THIS SENSE. The stage at which embryonic stem cells would be readily modifiable and useful is in the MULTIPOTENT stage. This is why I also said that embryonic stem cells provide no clear advantage over adult stem cells, which, FOR THE MOST PART, are multipotent. I didn’t think you would understand the molecular biology, so I didn’t feel the need to explain.
Please research modern medicine again, and please re-read my posts. You pretty much made my points on alternative remedies and Homeopathy. I’ll summarize though: Homeopathy is not practiced today, to any great extent, because the science of Hahnemann’s time has, for the most part, been replaced by better technique, technology, and outcomes. Alternative medicine is not studied my mainstream medicine in this country. That doesn’t mean that it has not been studied. We use remedies every day in modern medicine. It involves patient needs, choices and outcomes. Please research on your own.
Cult: I guess you don’t see the word ‘cult’ as even slightly insulting. Well, how about a tangible example. Mac users have been called cultists for years by the PC community. Clearly, we’ve responded in such a manner as to explain to them, because we were offended, that while there are fanatical Mac users, we’re certainly not all like that.
Ignorant: ignorant |ˈignərənt|
adjective
lacking knowledge or awareness in general; uneducated or unsophisticated : he was told constantly that he was ignorant and stupid.
• [ predic. ] lacking knowledge, information, or awareness about something in particular : they were ignorant of astronomy.
• informal discourteous or rude : this ignorant, pin-brained receptionist.
• black English easily angered : I is an ignorant man—even police don’t meddle with me.
misguided: misguided |misˈgīdid|
adjective
having or showing faulty judgment or reasoning : misguided attempts to promote political correctness.
It’s Christian to tell the truth. I’ve called you no names. Sorry your feelings were hurt.
It’s very clear to me that I’m completely wasting my time trying to convince you to at least reconsider your opinions on faith, Christianity, and religion. That’s a closed mind to me, especially since you seem so blatantly misguided about the subject.
UrbanBard said
“I simply have more knowledge than you; I have studied more intellectual areas. Somethings, which are real, are not “falsifiable.”
Often, people will adopt positions that are specious, that is, they sound reasonable, but are false. This is true of most the positions of the Democratic Party.”
You have more knowledge than me?
Somethings, which are real, are not “falsifiable.”
Everything that is real, is not falsifiable. Duh, Because they are real.
UrbanBard said
“Many questions are beyond the purview of science, because they are Metaphysical, Philosophical or Religious positions. Science can impact on them, but they are higher questions than science, since science deals merely with the material world.”
Arggh nice move, you attempt to place concepts you adhere to, outside the sphere of science to defend them from analysis.
UrbanBard said
““It is easy to cherry pick data to conform to a belief, but this is pseudo-science. Unfortunately many people can’t or wont distinguish between them.”
True. Look in a mirror. We all accept things on faith; especially our dealings with our fellows. Can faith be grounded in reality, even though there is no conclusive proof? Yes.”
Are you attempting to infer that because faith is some times right, then it is always right? You agreed that reason should be hypothesis driven, but now you suggest there is a place for faith based reasoning? You also answered your own rhetorical question, to which I would have answered. No.
UrbanBard wrote
“Still I don’t consider my time wasted. At the very least the time spent by UrbanBard responding to my mails, may reduce the deluge of mail he sends everyday to Daniel. ”
I don’t bother Daniel, at all. We haven’t exchanged emails since July 24, 2007 and that was just two emails.
On his latest series of pictures of “What we expected; what we got”, I merely congratulated him for a job well done. As I have said, I bear him no ill will. The only thing that we disagree upon is that his politics make no sense.
“Hopefully this will enable Daniel to write more of his excellent articles.”
He’s good with concrete things– computers and such. His politics stink.
I don’t care about his politics, in fact I have seen no evidence of them in his postings. I’m often interested in the inferences you make.
Urban Bard wrote
“Unfortunately, it degenerated into political/religious mud slinging, with very little intellectual content.”
The only people making intellectual arguments on this web site are jdoc and me. You simply disagree with our positions.
You appear to be a political animal, jdoc appears to be a religious one. If you feel so strongly about your political beliefs, why don’t you stand for office?
jdoc wrote
“thebob: Please read my posts a bit more carefully.”
Unnecessary, what you assert is obvious, although somewhat convoluted.
jdoc wrote
“my quote: Pluripotent and multipotent are the same thing, as used in this sense.
IN THIS SENSE. The stage at which embryonic stem cells would be readily modifiable and useful is in the MULTIPOTENT stage. This is why I also said that embryonic stem cells provide no clear advantage over adult stem cells, which, FOR THE MOST PART, are multipotent. .”
You seriously want to qualify this with, “in this sense”?
It is exactly the quality of pluripotence that makes embrionic stem cells useful. Once they have differentiated into multipotent cells, they loose the property that needs to be investigated.
There are already many uses of multipotent cells in treatment.
So I guess this is where your mistaken assertion of a usefull stage needs to be pointed out.
It is the cells from the blastocyst that are controversial, but which hold the most promise. Pluripotent cells have been generated from adult fibroblast cultures. There is controversy over the existance of pluripotent adult stem cells.
I am assuming you do understand this, although that assumption tends to mean you are being evasive.
jdoc also wrote
“I didn’t think you would understand the molecular biology, so I didn’t feel the need to explain.”
No need for you to think that, I’m keeping up with you easily.
thebob: Your arrogance precedes you. No, you really aren’t keeping up with me.
“It is exactly the quality of pluripotence that makes embrionic stem cells useful. Once they have differentiated into multipotent cells, they loose the property that needs to be investigated.”- you pretty much make my point for me. As it stands now, or ‘in this sense’, they DO lose the property that, you claim, needs to be investigated. This is what makes them no better than what’s out there already. And please work on your spelling- it’s ‘embryonic’, not ‘embrionic. And ‘lose’, not ‘loose’.
Again, beyond the scope of this forum, but you may want to explain to our audience what a blastocyst is, and how, exactly, we can RELIABLY get from a blastocyst to a pluripotent or multipotent stem cell line, which can then be used to develop whichever cell line needed for medicinal or other purposes, and how, at this point, it differs from any other type of cell line brought about by any other type of stem cell line. I can explain this, and I can also say that it’s NOT reliably possible at this point. Way too many errors involved, many of which most likely cannot be overcome. Whether or not more research will help in this field is controversial at best. This coming from the person who claims that “They cannot develop into animals because they cannot develop extraembryonic tissue, ie a placenta”. Then you may be able to explain how and from what structure, the placenta DOES develop after an embryo (egg fertilized with sperm) is implanted into the womb, either via IVF for naturally? I’ll give you a hint- it MAY have to do with the embryo.
There are many PROMISING uses for stem cell treatments, none being used reliably and frequently enough to be considered ’standards of care’ (was that too evasive for you?).
thebob: “Pluripotent cells have been generated from adult fibroblast cultures”. While I don’t think that fibroblasts are used as much as they used to be, this is not a result of stem cell technology, but instead of molecular genetics- manipulation of genes on a molecular level. Fibroblasts were used because they were easily and reliably grown in the lab. Incidentally, I think that this is the wave of the future, and will replace stem cell technology. If you would like me to explain how, I could email you, because I’m afraid it would bore our captive audience more than I’ve already done.
It is self evident that you have never taken a Philosophy course; if you did, it didn’t take. The Concept of Falsifiability was discovered by the Philosopher Popper in the 1920’s.
“”Somethings, which are real, are not “falsifiable.”
Everything that is real, is not falsifiable. Duh, Because they are real.”
Somethings are not falsifiable because we have not the means to prove them true or false. Many ideas in Religion, Philosophy and Metaphysics do not fit Poppers model. He was aware of that.
In most of our lives, we use empirical evidence derived over thousands of years of observation of cause-effect relationships. The folk saying is, “Don’t fix what ain’t broke.”
Most socialist ideas interfere with this empirical evidence. When the Stock Market crashed in 1929, President Hoover immediately set out to use the Federal Government to help people.
The traditional model that the government had followed in a “Banking Panic” was to do as little as possible. It tried to economize and lower taxes. It would undo some regulations. It would encourage people to lower their wages and prices. And. typically in six to nine months. it would be over. No one but people in the capital goods markets lost their jobs, and they quickly found jobs elsewhere.
But, Hoover was a meddler. He tried to keep wages and prices high. He closed down banks and created a liquidity panic. He did not understand the complex relationships involved and he created the Great Depression which lasted under FDR until the Second World War.
“UrbanBard said
“Many questions are beyond the purview of science, because they are Metaphysical, Philosophical or Religious positions. Science can impact on them, but they are higher questions than science, since science deals merely with the material world.”
Arggh nice move, you attempt to place concepts you adhere to, outside the sphere of science to defend them from analysis.”
Again, you lack the knowledge in those disciplines. I’d also suspect an utter ignorance of Economics as well.
“UrbanBard said
““It is easy to cherry pick data to conform to a belief, but this is pseudo-science. Unfortunately many people can’t or wont distinguish between them.”
True. Look in a mirror. We all accept things on faith; especially our dealings with our fellows. Can faith be grounded in reality, even though there is no conclusive proof? Yes.”
Are you attempting to infer that because faith is some times right, then it is always right? ”
Hardly. We often take our chances. Being faithless is hard on people. Cynicism is hard on the body.
“You agreed that reason should be hypothesis driven, but now you suggest there is a place for faith based reasoning? ”
I am merely remarking that if you tried to examine the things that you accept on faith, you would be paralyzed. You wouldn’t get anything done. I’m suggesting that most people act on empirical evidence that something which has worked well in the past should work in the future, even when we do not know why.
“UrbanBard wrote
“Still I don’t consider my time wasted. At the very least the time spent by UrbanBard responding to my mails, may reduce the deluge of mail he sends everyday to Daniel. ”
I don’t bother Daniel, at all. We haven’t exchanged emails since July 24, 2007 and that was just two emails.
On his latest series of pictures of “What we expected; what we got”, I merely congratulated him for a job well done. As I have said, I bear him no ill will. The only thing that we disagree upon is that his politics make no sense.
“Hopefully this will enable Daniel to write more of his excellent articles.”
He’s good with concrete things– computers and such. His politics stink.
I don’t care about his politics, in fact I have seen no evidence of them in his postings. I’m often interested in the inferences you make.”
This thread was a Democratic Party propaganda piece. I said so. That is why I got so much flak from the people here. They wanted to believe that if Gore had won the 2000 election then all of the nasty things happening in the world would go away. Those nasty things might be swept under the carpet for a while. But, America has enemies. People through-out the world are in competition with us. Sometimes, that competition is friendly; in others, it is vindictive.
“Urban Bard wrote
“Unfortunately, it degenerated into political/religious mud slinging, with very little intellectual content.”
The only people making intellectual arguments on this web site are jdoc and me. You simply disagree with our positions.
You appear to be a political animal, jdoc appears to be a religious one. If you feel so strongly about your political beliefs, why don’t you stand for office?”
Thank you, no. I’m too much the intellectual. Besides, Politics is a young man’s game.
It’s hardly necessary to take action. The trends are for the Democrats to continue to lose power and prestige. Few young people believe in them. The Reagan Revolution won. Most American believe that “Government is not the solution: it is the problem” Could you falsify that position?
For whatever reason there are a few of us reading this and a few responding. How about in the interest of a reasonable decorum we set aside the nasty comments and insults?
“Look at all the arm-chair generals who stated before the iraqi incursion that 2 million refugees would flee Iraq. Didn’t happen.”
“UNHCR estimates that more than 4.4 million Iraqis have left their homes. Of these, some 2.2 million Iraqis are displaced internally, while more than 2.2 million have fled to neighbouring states, particularly Syria and Jordan. Many were displaced prior to 2003, but an increasing number are fleeing now. In 2006, Iraqis had become the leading nationality seeking asylum in Europe.”
http://www.unhcr.org/iraq.html
“Or that hundreds of thousand of Iraqi would die. Didn’t happen.”
As we know there is a debate on how many. At least 100k. Maybe many more.
“Or that the Mid east would be destabilized. Didn’t happen.”
This is the risk that people are concerned about. If we pull out this is the nightmare scenario. The risk of destabilization has certainly gone up.
“Are our troops in Iraq discontented? No. They are a better judge of conditions than those generals. They are closer to the action.”
I am sure some are some aren’t. Unless you have some kind of polling data, we don’t know.
“ABIZAID: General Shinseki was right that a greater international force contribution, U.S. force contribution, and Iraqi force contribution should have been available immediately after major combat operations.”
My point is, we might have done better if we had listened to these generals to a greater extent. ”
You can always second guess. Hind-sight is perfect. It seems that Abizaid was complaining about, as much as anything, how little cooperation we got from Europe.”
Yes European and Iraqi. European might have been an option with more time. Iraqi was an option not taken.
“We are getting a handle on that.”
4 years in and hundreds of billion $ later.
UrbanBard wrote
“This thread was a Democratic Party propaganda piece. I said so. That is why I got so much flak from the people here. They wanted to believe that if Gore had won the 2000 election then all of the nasty things happening in the world would go away.”
The thread or the article?
All Dan did was post images and say, What you expected: What you got:
How this can be a propaganda piece is beyond me.
50% of the voters voted for Gore, so you can assume they expected him to win, they just weren’t living in the right place!
You asked the direct question “How different would life be if Al Gore had won in 2000? Would Gore have gotten awards from leftist organizations?”
So because you don’t like the answers it becomes a Democratic Party propaganda piece.
If everyone agreed with you would it become a Republican Party propaganda piece?
UrbanBard wrote
““You agreed that reason should be hypothesis driven, but now you suggest there is a place for faith based reasoning? ”
I am merely remarking that if you tried to examine the things that you accept on faith, you would be paralyzed. You wouldn’t get anything done. I’m suggesting that most people act on empirical evidence that something which has worked well in the past should work in the future, even when we do not know why.”
Yes, very good example. B.F.Skinner conducted a bird feeding experiment. When birds were fed randomly, if a bird had looked over it’s shoulder just before the food came, it would increase the frequency that it looked over it’s shoulder, with the expectation that it would be fed.
Skinner called this “superstitious behavior”. It shows that people are often deceived by what they deem to be evidence. It is manifested as manic compulsive behavior in humans.
“UrbanBard wrote
”Somethings, which are real, are not “falsifiable.”
I wrote
Everything that is real, is not falsifiable. Duh, Because they are real.”
UrbanBard wrote
Somethings are not falsifiable because we have not the means to prove them true or false. Many ideas in Religion, Philosophy and Metaphysics do not fit Poppers model. He was aware of that.”
Read the above carefully.
I agree that some things are not falsifiable.
But falsification, by definition denies the things reality.
So it would not be in the set of “real” things if it were falsified.
Or perhaps you can falsify it’s “thingyness”.
If its not a thing, it can’t be a real “thing”.
UrbanBard wrote
“Government is not the solution: it is the problem” Could you falsify that position?
Easily. If it was said in reference to anarchy.
jdoc wrote
““thebob: “Pluripotent cells have been generated from adult fibroblast cultures”. While I don’t think that fibroblasts are used as much as they used to be, this is not a result of stem cell technology, but instead of molecular genetics- manipulation of genes on a molecular level. Fibroblasts were used because they were easily and reliably grown in the lab. Incidentally, I think that this is the wave of the future, and will replace stem cell technology. “
Yeah, Yeah, Amazing attempt at defense by obsfucatory behavior.
You obviously know what you are talking about but use your authority in the subject to support the ban on funding, by disregarding promising areas of research, because of your religious position.
jdoc wrote
“If you would like me to explain how, I could email you, because I’m afraid it would bore our captive audience more than I’ve already done.”
No Thanks. If you look back to where this started, I think you will agree that a quick “Yes, ES cells are Pluripotent” would have done.
jdoc wrote
And please work on your spelling- it’s ‘embryonic’, not ‘embrionic. And ‘lose’, not ‘loose’.
Oh yeah! Thanks for the spelling tips!
jdoc wrote
“It’s Christian to tell the truth. I’ve called you no names. Sorry your feelings were hurt.”
But you define truth as being written in an old book, or something you believe it a in lot! We are using totally different words here.
I better watch out that you don’t start calling me names.
Don’t worry, all these have posts have made me smile. I can put up with a little truculence. I consider ad hominim attack to be a sign of a lack of intellectual rigour, but they hurt my feelings, not one iota.
jdoc wrote
“It’s very clear to me that I’m completely wasting my time trying to convince you to at least reconsider your opinions on faith, Christianity, and religion. That’s a closed mind to me, especially since you seem so blatantly misguided about the subject.”
Throw me a bone!
Say ‘one’ thing to convince me of either “faith, Christianity, or religion”. You haven’t even attempted to yet.
I’m open to anything, but I warn you, the “old book”, and the “just believe” bit are old hat. Or maybe God doesn’t want me to believe in him?
roz wrote
“For whatever reason there are a few of us reading this and a few responding. How about in the interest of a reasonable decorum we set aside the nasty comments and insults?”
Nice sentiment roz, but I think Daniel would step in if he wanted to.
I get the feeling this article was experimental, and meant as a tribute to Al Gore’s achievements. I feel very proud of his achievements. I am in awe of his ability to stimulate debate, and his vision in which debates to stimulate.
I am also a little put out that Dr Watsons recent comments may tarnish perceptions of other Nobel winners.
jdoc wrote
thebob: “Still congratulations to Al Gore, who managed to win in the election, but not in the courts, who went on to gain one of the worlds greatest prizes, with his integrity, determination, and intelligence.”
I love this. How bitter some people still remain. The system is the way it is for a reason, and Al Gore lost. Of course, thebob would be singing a different tune if the tables were turned in favor of Gore.
Personally I think it should have been declared a draw, and they should have formed a coalition. No doesn’t work does it. Just shows how far apart they are, and how under represented,so many people were.
I cherish the memory of how Gore gracefully conceded. If the tables were turned I would have been be interested to see President Bush’s reaction.
And do you think Bush would have managed to squeeze in any awards?
thebob: I can now see that I’m dealing with the mentality of a 3 year old (I know this- I have a 3 year old).
“Yeah, Yeah, Amazing attempt at defense by obsfucatory behavior.” I attempt to teach you something, because you obviously haven’t a clue, and the response I get is this. I was presenting an opinion, based on my experience and knowledge. But then again, your response was pretty much as expected considering your behavior and closed-minded responses thus far. Nothing I can do about that.
“No Thanks. If you look back to where this started, I think you will agree that a quick “Yes, ES cells are Pluripotent” would have done.” Again, completely lacking the ability to understand the subject at hand, and again completely unwilling to learn anything about it.
“Say ‘one’ thing to convince me of either “faith, Christianity, or religion”. You haven’t even attempted to yet.” Again, you lack understanding. You cannot convince someone to have faith- that comes from within. You can present, in this case, the teachings of Christianity to someone. Whether or not they will have faith is up to them. Like I said before, my Christian duty is to present the teachings of Jesus Christ. I’m not out to say ‘believe in his teachings or you will die’. That’s clearly what you think- fanatical Christians, militant Islamists- they’re all the same to you. I gave you the benefit of the doubt when you said that you’re basically an expert in the books listed above. I wholeheartedly doubt that, so it gave me no reason to review the teachings of the Bible with you, when you are apparently so resistent and closed minded. You were the one who launched an attack on my faith- I was merely attempting to teach you, not convert you.
“You obviously know what you are talking about but use your authority in the subject to support the ban on funding, by disregarding promising areas of research, because of your religious position.” When did I say I supported the ban based on MY RELIGIOUS POSITION? That’s a mighty big assumption on your part. I don’t think that federal funding should be provided for ESC research, because like I said, it was falsely politicized and it offers no benefit above and beyond what’s already out there.
“But you define truth as being written in an old book, or something you believe it a in lot! We are using totally different words here.” This is a pretty weak statement, and says pretty much nothing, except for a childish attempt to attack my beliefs.
“Or maybe God doesn’t want me to believe in him?” God would love for you to believe in him. He would never turn you down, but he won’t obstruct your free will either.
“I consider ad hominim attack to be a sign of a lack of intellectual rigour”- pot, meet kettle. A bit hypocritical, no?
Interestingly enough, morning lecture today was about Alternative Medicine (God must be watching!).
I’ll give you some info, and if you’re interested, you can look things up at your leisure.
Speaker: Jackie Gutmann, MD, from Northern Fertility and Reproductive Associates, Phila, Pa. Yale grad.
Title: “Complementary and Alternative Medicine in GYN- a Look at the Evidence”
Stats: Since 1998, there has been a 47% increase in Americans seeking alternative therapies
-accounted for 629 million office visits since 2005
-most common alternative remedy in US- traditional Chinese medicine, of which acupuncture is the most common (www.nccaom.com)
-Homeopathy- 204 remediesf for infertility, 166 for miscarriage, many of which are not used any longer.
-former “alternative remedies”: digoxin, Taxol, botox, ephedra (respiratory use), penicillin, vitamin B6 (used for hyperemesis in pregnancy), ginger, vitamin C, Ginseng, Echinacea, Omega-3 FA, fish oil, black cohash, hyperbaric O2 chambers, TENS units, dietary remedies, osteopathic medicine, many others.
The people who kept an open mind about alternative remedies gave us some of the most widely used and effective therapies today. Most current alternative remedies have not been studied by my colleagues, but acceptance of alternative remedies in this country is still in its infancy. I would expect much more to come in the future, as long as we keep an open mind!
Roz said?
“For whatever reason there are a few of us reading this and a few responding. How about in the interest of a reasonable decorum we set aside the nasty comments and insults?”
I’m not insulting you or anyone else. I am merely saying things that are true of the group that you apparently belong to. Since you will not reveal your values, then I aim my comments to the widest possibility. Where you have challenged my assertions I have refined and reworded them
I am making provocative and presumptuous statements, that I feel are in some way true, that you may find offensive. Are they harsh and uncompromising. Yes. Do they show you in the worst possible light? Yes.
But I did not start the derogatory remarks here. You have been consistently an attack dog. If you had shown any tendency toward curbing your presumptuous remarks, I would have continued with curbing mine.
I do not believe in irrationally continuing with gentlemanly discourse with people who do not act like gentlemen.
“Look at all the arm-chair generals who stated before the iraqi incursion that 2 million refugees would flee Iraq. Didn’t happen.”
“UNHCR estimates that more than 4.4 million Iraqis have left their homes. ”
I was speaking of refugees because of the US incursion in 2003. I was clear about that, I thought.
The present refugees left Iraq much later. That had nothing to do with the incursion. But with the fact there is no peace yet in Iraq.
It is estimated that a half of the Sunni’s have left Iraq. Why? To avoid being massacred by the Shia if a civil war breaks out. The continued presence of US forces prevents such a civil war, but the Sunni’s have no reason to trust us.
Statements by US politicians such as Nancy Pelosi and Harry Reid make the Sunni’s believe that there will be an abrupt withdrawal of US forces which would result in civil war. The Shia would get their revenge on the Sunni’s for Saddam’s actions from which the Sunni’s benefited.
You can’t have it both way, Roz. You can’t blame the US military for the refugees without blaming the US politicians who inflame the Sunni’s irrational fears. Increasingly, Sunni politicians are cooperating with the Iraqi parliament. Those fears will be soothed and the Sunni’s will come back.
““Or that hundreds of thousand of Iraqi would die. Didn’t happen.”
As we know there is a debate on how many. At least 100k. Maybe many more.”
Only far Left organizations use that high a number. They also include the people killed by Terrorists on the assumption that if the US wasn’t in Iraq then they wouldn’t be killed. That is absurd.
““Or that the Mid east would be destabilized. Didn’t happen.”
This is the risk that people are concerned about. If we pull out this is the nightmare scenario. The risk of destabilization has certainly gone up.”
One of the big problems is that many people in the European Union and the US wanted to maintain stability in Iraq at all costs. That meant that things couldn’t get worst, but they couldn’t get better, either.
Any action we try may make things temporary worst, before things start to improve. Iraq was a Totalitarian state, almost any action we took would eventually lead to a better life. Polls of Iraqi say that they believe in high numbers (68% in one poll) that next year will be better than today. Only 12% thought it might be worse.
There are forces in the world who are determined to prevent a better life for the Iraqi’s. The top al Qaeda leader in Iraq before he got killed last year Amman al Zarquwi said in a memo that if Democracy succeeded in Iraq then the al Qaeda cause was lost. I trust his statements more than I do yours.
““Are our troops in Iraq discontented? No. They are a better judge of conditions than those generals. They are closer to the action.”
I am sure some are some aren’t. ”
How could you know, Roz? Do you read the blogs of soldiers in Iraq? I do. The morale has shifted over the years. Two years ago, it was rough. Now, the troops can see success.
““ABIZAID: General Shinseki was right that a greater international force contribution, U.S. force contribution, and Iraqi force contribution should have been available immediately after major combat operations.”
My point is, we might have done better if we had listened to these generals to a greater extent. ”
You can always second guess. Hind-sight is perfect. It seems that Abizaid was complaining about, as much as anything, how little cooperation we got from Europe.”
Yes European and Iraqi. European might have been an option with more time. Iraqi was an option not taken.”
We disagree. There was no option with the old politicians in power. France actively defied us in the incursion. They prevented Turkey from allowing the US a Northern Front. This prevented the US from surrounding the Ba’athist dead enders and killing them swiftly. That lengthen the Insurrection.
Europe is moving toward conservative positions; they are dropping their anti-Americanism because they are becoming afraid of Iran. Iran’s missiles can hit Eastern Europe now and they will improve in range. Iran intends to get Nukes; Israel will not be Iran’s only target. With Sarkozi in charge in France and Angela Merkel in Germany, things are quite different.
““We are getting a handle on that.”
4 years in and hundreds of billion $ later.”
Whoever told you life was easy or cheap lied.
Thebob said:
“UrbanBard wrote
“This thread was a Democratic Party propaganda piece. I said so. That is why I got so much flak from the people here. They wanted to believe that if Gore had won the 2000 election then all of the nasty things happening in the world would go away.”
The thread or the article?”
I used thread for the website, because there was not enough writing to call it an article.
“All Dan did was post images and say, What you expected: What you got: How this can be a propaganda piece is beyond me.”
A series of photographs can be powerful propaganda. There can be propaganda films. The NAZI’s, the Liberals and the Communists were quite good at this.
“50% of the voters voted for Gore, so you can assume they expected him to win, they just weren’t living in the right place!”
And your point is?
“You asked the direct question “How different would life be if Al Gore had won in 2000? Would Gore have gotten awards from leftist organizations?””
Sure. As I said Leftists protect each other. Kind of how Russian generals would pin metals on each other.
“So because you don’t like the answers it becomes a Democratic Party propaganda piece.”
No, the first six pictures set up an expectation for the last two. That everything would have been wonderful with Gore and awful with Bush. The point about propaganda is that it leads you to conclusion on an emotional basis. I disputed that conclusion. I said that many things would have been equally bad no matter who won.
“If everyone agreed with you would it become a Republican Party propaganda piece?”
No, I said that the premise was irrational.
“But I did not start the derogatory remarks here.”
Actually, you did start it, at least with me:
““They say Fiscal Responsibility but they run up huge budget deficits and create all kinds of give-away earmarks. ”
You are an ignoramus. The national debt is dropping rapidly. It will be gone in several years.”"
“I was speaking of refugees because of the US incursion in 2003. I was clear about that, I thought.
The present refugees left Iraq much later. That had nothing to do with the incursion. But with the fact there is no peace yet in Iraq.”
Yes, I understood that, but from the perspective of an Iraqi what difference does it make? People thought that the invasion itself would have these affects, well in fact, because the conditions over the time since the invasion have been so unstable, that affect, refugees and displacement did take place.
Were some people too gloomy about the direct reaction to the invasion, yes.
Were the overall affects of the war the same, pretty much.
That is why I think the time after the invasion was so critical to get stability. For that we’d have needed more troops and cooperation of the Iraqi forces, which from what I have seen was available in some form.
“Statements by US politicians such as Nancy Pelosi and Harry Reid make the Sunni’s believe that there will be an abrupt withdrawal of US forces which would result in civil war. ”
I’d think you really need to show some evidence for this assumption. All reports that I have seen refer to people leaving based on fear of a direct and immediate bodily treat to staying. Not anything to do with Pelosi or Reid.
“Only far Left organizations use that high a number. They also include the people killed by Terrorists on the assumption that if the US wasn’t in Iraq then they wouldn’t be killed. That is absurd.”
Wait thats the low number. The high number is 650K. But 85 -100K is not at all controversial or absurd.
thebob said:
“”UrbanBard wrote
““You agreed that reason should be hypothesis driven, but now you suggest there is a place for faith based reasoning? ”
I am merely remarking that if you tried to examine the things that you accept on faith, you would be paralyzed. You wouldn’t get anything done. ….”
Yes, very good example. B.F.Skinner conducted a bird feeding experiment. When birds were fed randomly, if a bird had looked over it’s shoulder just before the food came, it would increase the frequency that it looked over it’s shoulder, with the expectation that it would be fed. ”
But, what if those expatations worked well for thousands of years? So, that they were part of our survival pattern? Would you change your ways until you had proof that something else worked better? ‘Don’t fix what ain’t broke.’
“Skinner called this “superstitious behavior”. ”
You do know that Skinner was a Socialist, don’t you? So he cannot be objective in this.
“It shows that people are often deceived by what they deem to be evidence. It is manifested as manic compulsive behavior in humans.”
We aren’t talking about things that give bad results. Manic compulsive behavior gives bad results.
“UrbanBard wrote
Somethings are not falsifiable because we have not the means to prove them true or false. Many ideas in Religion, Philosophy and Metaphysics do not fit Poppers model. He was aware of that.”
Read the above carefully.”
What you do not accept and Popper did is that there is a huge amounts of our lives where no proof is yet possible. What we must do instead is to propose a theory and then look for examples where people experimented on themselves in this way. If they got bad results, then we should consider caution. Socialism after a few decades, for instance, has only given bad results.
“I agree that some things are not falsifiable.
But falsification, by definition denies the things reality.”
That is idiotic. What falsification does is to imagine the conditions whereby we could reasonably see if things were untrue. If we experimented and then did not get the right results, then something wrong with our theory. People, even scientists, have believed in things that turned out to be untrue.
“So it would not be in the set of “real” things if it were falsified.”
You are using this in a false way.
http://www.friesian.com/popper.htm
“Or perhaps you can falsify it’s “thingyness”.
If its not a thing, it can’t be a real “thing”.”
It doesn’t have to be a thing. It can be a concept, a method or a precept that can be falsified.
“UrbanBard wrote
“Government is not the solution: it is the problem” Could you falsify that position?
Easily. If it was said in reference to anarchy.”
The statement was about a temporary condition in America where the Leftists had lead to governmental excess and usurpation of the people’s rights. The Socialists in the Democratic Party had erected organizations, expectations and governmental entities that the bulk of Americans no longer believed it. There was a Cognitive Dissonance between current practices and the Founder’s proclamations, practices and organizations.
You clearly know nothing about politics.
Roz said:
““But I did not start the derogatory remarks here.”
Actually, you did start it, at least with me:”
Perhaps, I did, I don’t know; If so, I’m sorry.
It’s no excuse, but maybe I confused you with another poster?
I’m too tired to verify that. I’m rather certain that I could find someplace where you were ill mannered. Your attitude was always presumptuous. No poster here was ever been neutral, let alone courteous, except for jdoc. I would have remembered.
I said, in that one instance, I was wrong, that what I had meant was the deficit. I had a mental lapse. It happens when you are tired.
The games that the government plays with the national Debt is mystifying. The unfunded liabilities of the Federal government are enormous. The Democrats are opposed to any solutions; they just want to spend more money.
Where are your apologies for the may time you were wrong?
“”I was speaking of refugees because of the US incursion in 2003. I was clear about that, I thought.
The present refugees left Iraq much later. That had nothing to do with the incursion. But with the fact there is no peace yet in Iraq.”
Yes, I understood that, but from the perspective of an Iraqi what difference does it make? ”
Quite a bit. We are fighting the Global War on Terrorism in Iraq. This has ramifications on the refugee situation.
We could have easily used other means in Iraq than trying to set up representative government. We could have broken Iraq up. We could have turned Iraq over to a strongman who would have been on our side. The results of each would be a different number and constituent of the refugees.
The refugee situation is because we have tried to keep the Shia, Sunni’s and Kurds from each other throats. But, the Sunni’s have no reason to believe us.
“People thought that the invasion itself would have these affects, well in fact, because the conditions over the time since the invasion have been so unstable, that affect, refugees and displacement did take place.”
I remember that, after Baghdad fell, people were amazed that the Iraqi population did not flee. Can you explain that?
“Were some people too gloomy about the direct reaction to the invasion, yes.”
You can be wrong either way. The question is if you know what you are talking about and why.
“Were the overall affects of the war the same, pretty much.”
No. They can have the same result, but for different reasons.
“That is why I think the time after the invasion was so critical to get stability. For that we’d have needed more troops and cooperation of the Iraqi forces, which from what I have seen was available in some form.”
We disagree. You are imagining falsely that there were Iraqi forces that we could work with. We had to be very careful with the Ex- Ba’athists. If the bulk of the population saw us favor them– simply because they were the educated class, then the population would have turned on us. The Ex-Ba’athist had to prove that they did not want a return to Saddam’s regime. That takes time.
“”Statements by US politicians such as Nancy Pelosi and Harry Reid make the Sunni’s believe that there will be an abrupt withdrawal of US forces which would result in civil war. ”
I’d think you really need to show some evidence for this assumption.”
Are you saying that you didn’t hear the Democrats saying in the 2006 election that they wanted an immediate withdrawal of American Forces or that Harry Reid said that the war in Iraq was lost?
Have you been in some cave somewhere?
“All reports that I have seen refer to people leaving based on fear of a direct and immediate bodily treat to staying. ”
Yes, but from whom? Not from the US forces. They were afraid of the Shia majority, with good reason. Iran was trying, last year, to provoke a civil war between the Sunni’s and the Shia.
“Not anything to do with Pelosi or Reid.”
You don’t really believe that the Mainstream Media would draw this conclusion or report statements from Iraqis who did? You can’t read between the lines, can you?
“”Only far Left organizations use that high a number. They also include the people killed by Terrorists on the assumption that if the US wasn’t in Iraq then they wouldn’t be killed. That is absurd.”
Wait thats the low number. The high number is 650K. But 85 -100K is not at all controversial or absurd.”
There is nothing I can say that would convince you. It doesn’t matter that the burden of proof is on the people reporting the statistics.
It doesn’t matter anyway. Wars kill people. But, Saddam was killing more people than what you are citing. Between 20 to 30 thousand people “disappeared” every year. 300 thousand “Marsh Arabs” displaced or killed. Iraq was filled with unmarked graves in the desert. But, that was okay, wasn’t it? Saddam can do no wrong.
UrbanBard said
“But I did not start the derogatory remarks here.”
ros said
Actually, you did start it, at least with me:
I agree ros. UrbanBard should review his posts, but I wouldn’t hold your breath for an apology in here.
UrbanBard said
Roz said:
““But I did not start the derogatory remarks here.”
Actually, you did start it, at least with me:”
Perhaps, I did, I don’t know; If so, I’m sorry.
It’s no excuse, but maybe I confused you with another poster?
I stand corrected, my previous post was posted, before I read UrbanBard ’s apology.
Sorry to UrbanBard.
Look, thebob,
I don’t know who is right and don’t care. I said that if it were so, that I apologize.
There are just some things not worth arguing over. When who offended whom is one of them. There were enough insults going around. I would prefer to be polite. I started out being that way and found that it didn’t work.
What is an insult is highly subjective. I asked for Roz to stop the insults, because he was calling me a neocon and I am not one. He turned me down. That was before I started calling him an idiot and an ignoramus.
jdoc wrote
“thebob: I can now see that I’m dealing with the mentality of a 3 year old (I know this- I have a 3 year old).”
OOh very mature comment!
I can just imagine the happy house.
jdoc “Now go to bed and say your prayers”
jdocs kid “But daddy I’m an athiest”
jdoc “None of that you are a Christian child, you will go to school where we will teach you everything that is in the old book, otherwise you will go to hell”
jdocs kid “but daddy Jesus was a Jew, they dont go to heaven because they aren’t Christians”
jdoc “Of course he wasn’t, just go to bed and let me worry about what you believe in, and by the time you are old enough, you will have had enough indoctrination so you wont be able to make up your own mind.
jdocs kid “ But daddy…(insert any obvious contradiction from the Bible)”
jdoc “Thats enough of that, go to bed now do 10 Hail Marys and drink the blood of christ.”
jdoc
““No Thanks. If you look back to where this started, I think you will agree that a quick “Yes, ES cells are Pluripotent” would have done.” Again, completely lacking the ability to understand the subject at hand, and again completely unwilling to learn anything about it.”
We have given more than enough info, to let anyone look it up themselves, and realise the depth of your convolutions.
jdoc
““Say ‘one’ thing to convince me of either “faith, Christianity, or religion”. You haven’t even attempted to yet.” Again, you lack understanding. You cannot convince someone to have faith- that comes from within. You can present, in this case, the teachings of Christianity to someone. Whether or not they will have faith is up to them. Like I said before, my Christian duty is to present the teachings of Jesus Christ. I’m not out to say ‘believe in his teachings or you will die’. That’s clearly what you think- fanatical Christians, militant Islamists- they’re all the same to you.”
Theists are all the same to me, they all believe in an imaginary diety.
As to their ardor, I expect they cover the whole range from, a bit deluded, to “You must set all your women in blocks of concrete, and if you dont all your extremities will be burnt off with acid except for your middle fingers which will be boiled in asses milk.
jdoc said
“I gave you the benefit of the doubt when you said that you’re basically an expert in the books listed above. I wholeheartedly doubt that, so it gave me no reason to review the teachings of the Bible with you, when you are apparently so resistent and closed minded. You were the one who launched an attack on my faith- I was merely attempting to teach you, not convert you.”
Go and reread your “benefit of the doubt”.
I’m very openminded, but I dont believe things for no reason, and I cannot accept the authority of an old book.
You said you are tolerant of all religions, but you have no tolerence of people with no religion. You label them closed minded.
jdoc
“I consider ad hominim attack to be a sign of a lack of intellectual rigour”- pot, meet kettle. A bit hypocritical, no?
I have been very vocal in my disagreement of your beliefs, the way you have argued, and the spurious links you gave to try and support some of your arguments, but attacking your person?
Lets look at what you called me in the first sentence of your last post. If that is my mental level, you don’t seem to be able to, point out flaws in my logic, so where does that leave you? You even attempted to claim authority to say it. Even though no one can check if you have a child or not. Anyone can reread this thread,
You even pulled me up about my spelling!
You have constantly in this thread, claimed authority instead of using logic and cold hard facts. First you are a doctor, then your field, even the hospital is named for a homeopath all the way to justifying a slur, because you have a child. If I am immature, I leave it for others to judge.
This is an anonymous forum on the Internet, the only thing that has any sway in here is your intellect.
thebob: jdoc wrote
““thebob: I can now see that I’m dealing with the mentality of a 3 year old (I know this- I have a 3 year old).””
OOh very mature comment!
I can just imagine the happy house.
jdoc “Now go to bed and say your prayers”
jdocs kid “But daddy I’m an athiest”
jdoc “None of that you are a Christian child, you will go to school where we will teach you everything that is in the old book, otherwise you will go to hell”
jdocs kid “but daddy Jesus was a Jew, they dont go to heaven because they aren’t Christians”
jdoc “Of course he wasn’t, just go to bed and let me worry about what you believe in, and by the time you are old enough, you will have had enough indoctrination so you wont be able to make up your own mind.
jdocs kid “ But daddy…(insert any obvious contradiction from the Bible)”
jdoc “Thats enough of that, go to bed now do 10 Hail Marys and drink the blood of christ.”” You are correct, it was a very immature comment, and I apologize. But clearly I was right. Your comments are actually very offensive to me and my family, and of course my religion. Very poor debate skills, and it also clearly shows that your ignorance has gotten the best of your conscience.
thebob: “You said you are tolerant of all religions, but you have no tolerence of people with no religion. You label them closed minded.” Wrong again. I labeled YOU close minded. I am tolerant of atheists as well. You claimed to be an expert on, among other books, the Bible, but clearly you aren’t. I suggested you reread the Bible, but your comments suggested that you had no need to. That’s closed minded.
“Theists are all the same to me, they all believe in an imaginary diety.” We believe that our diety is real. Who’s the intolerant one?
“Go and reread your “benefit of the doubt”.” Ok. Any questions?
“I’m very openminded”. You certainly have not proven that thus far.
“but I dont believe things for no reason, and I cannot accept the authority of an old book.” In short, you have no idea what faith means, nor are you willing to consider a faith driven life as acceptable or reasonable. Closed minded and ignorant (I think there’s a pattern developing here.)
Since you have become downright offensive with your comments, I’ve lost the interest in debating with you. Clearly you are hopeless to this point in even considering the other side of things, so I’m wasting my time. I will pray for you though.
thebob: I’ve read your comments via email- it hasn’t shown up here yet.
“Lets look at what you called me in the first sentence of your last post. If that is my mental level, you don’t seem to be able to, point out flaws in my logic, so where does that leave you? You even attempted to claim authority to say it. Even though no one can check if you have a child or not. Anyone can reread this thread,
You even pulled me up about my spelling!
You have constantly in this thread, claimed authority instead of using logic and cold hard facts. First you are a doctor, then your field, even the hospital is named for a homeopath all the way to justifying a slur, because you have a child. If I am immature, I leave it for others to judge.”
So lets see here. I’ve given you a loose explanation of ESC uses in modern medicine, tried to explain that it’s not all it’s cracked up to be, and tried to define the relative ‘potency’ of stem cells, and the best you can come up with is “If you look back to where this started, I think you will agree that a quick “Yes, ES cells are Pluripotent” would have done.” Of course ESC’s are pluripotent- anyone can look that up on Wikipedia and see. You lack the understanding of the subject- the use of ESC in modern medicine, and you lack the knowledge to understand how the ‘potencies’ can change. The problem is, you refuse to admit that- that’s called arrogance, hence the statement by me, “your arrogance precedes you”.
Anyone can search the internet for ‘useful’ or ‘true’ medical concepts, treatments, etc. But if it were that easy to learn medicine, everyone would do it.
I then make a statement (opinion) which claims that stem cells may not be the wave of the future. You attack that as well, with no apparent basis of understanding. Again, ignorance.
“I have been very vocal in my disagreement of your beliefs, the way you have argued, and the spurious links you gave to try and support some of your arguments, but attacking your person?”. I think the above comment will take care of that one. I gave you a link to the accredited site of Chiropractic medicine (yes, you need a license to practice Chiropractic medicine in the US), and to a CAM website. I gave you detailed info on CAM and their uses in GYN. Yet to you, they’re spurious.
“Lets look at what you called me in the first sentence of your last post. If that is my mental level, you don’t seem to be able to, point out flaws in my logic, so where does that leave you? You even attempted to claim authority to say it. Even though no one can check if you have a child or not. Anyone can reread this thread,”. Again I apologize for that comment. Your logic IS flawed, simply based on your ignorance and arrogance- I’ve proven that over and over.
My info: http://homepage.mac.com/jdougherty/johnswork/Resume26.html
My family: http://web.mac.com/jdougherty/Emma/Welcome.html
Sorry for the confusion.
jdoc wrote
” will pray for you though.”
If you want to waste time on me I’d prefer if you donate that time to a needy cause.
jdoc wrote
“Interestingly enough, morning lecture today was about Alternative Medicine (God must be watching!).
I’ll give you some info, and if you’re interested, you can look things up at your leisure.
Speaker: Jackie Gutmann, MD, from Northern Fertility and Reproductive Associates, Phila, Pa. Yale grad.
Title: “Complementary and Alternative Medicine in GYN- a Look at the Evidence”
Stats: Since 1998, there has been a 47% increase in Americans seeking alternative therapies
-accounted for 629 million office visits since 2005
-most common alternative remedy in US- traditional Chinese medicine, of which acupuncture is the most common (www.nccaom.com)
-Homeopathy- 204 remediesf for infertility, 166 for miscarriage, many of which are not used any longer.
-former “alternative remedies”: digoxin, Taxol, botox, ephedra (respiratory use), penicillin, vitamin B6 (used for hyperemesis in pregnancy), ginger, vitamin C, Ginseng, Echinacea, Omega-3 FA, fish oil, black cohash, hyperbaric O2 chambers, TENS units, dietary remedies, osteopathic medicine, many others.
The people who kept an open mind about alternative remedies gave us some of the most widely used and effective therapies today. Most current alternative remedies have not been studied by my colleagues, but acceptance of alternative remedies in this country is still in its infancy. I would expect much more to come in the future, as long as we keep an open mind!”
This is a Mac advocacy forum and you are saying because it’s very popular it works better than real medicine? Go and buy Vista, it must be better, more people use it. (Now that was rude)
I will sell you a bottle of distilled water, it must be the most powerful medicine in the world, because there is absolutely no active ingredient in it at all. Want to buy some leeches?
You realize this is illegal in some countries that actually have functional health systems. In others it must be labeled “No proven medical benefit”.
Billions of dollars are spent each year to develop, proven, tested and safe, medicines, vaccines and techniques. More money is spent on education and the construction of hospitals with all of their intricate infrastructure. People who are in dire need have access to technologies, that their grandparents couldn’t have dreamed of.
Some diseases have been totally eradicated from this planet, and the agonizing suffering that others produce, has been reduced or abolished.
Life spans have soared in almost every country in the world. Infant mortality and mothers survival rates have increased, along with the hygiene and car. Procedures are less invasive, and accident and casualty prognosis have benefitted.
But there are charlatans, using belief based, non scientific, or mystical “snake oil”, syphoning off customers desperate for relief.
Often, conditions are left longer before seeking, competent medical advice, leading to physical and financial deficit. People are offered potions, readings, to have there chackeras aligned, needles stuck in them, or any one of a multitude of “ritual customs” that have ‘not’ been proven to work.
Often the “evidence” for these is bald belief, the writings in an old book, or some other nonsensical theory.
The “former “alternative remedies”” list is very misleading, these so called alternative medicines encompass just about every single element, compound, animal or plant part including their shelter and excrement.
It is no wonder that some of these items contained something of medical value, but the incidence is no higher than chance would dictate.
These dubious compounds, are often peddled to the gullible or less educated, and endorsed by celebrities and the gliterati. Faddy, boutique cures and age old useless remedies, are sold alongside proven scientific medicines.
Plying these wares, knowing little more than anecdotes, or suppositions about them strikes me as one of the most deeply immoral endeavors.
An atheist, has a special perspective on this immorality, because it preys on blind belief, and submission to an unreviewed authority that is at the core of theist education and society.
That this is suggested to couples attempting to reproduce is especially aborant, contemplating the very act that allowed life on this planet, to evolve to sentience, they are deceived by the very conditioning that an atheist is free of.
I need no God to hold in wonder, reality and the truth are wonderful beyond my wildest dreams.
Primum non nocere
UrbanBard wrote
“hebob said:
“”UrbanBard wrote
““You agreed that reason should be hypothesis driven, but now you suggest there is a place for faith based reasoning? ”
I am merely remarking that if you tried to examine the things that you accept on faith, you would be paralyzed. You wouldn’t get anything done. ….”
Yes, very good example. B.F.Skinner conducted a bird feeding experiment. When birds were fed randomly, if a bird had looked over it’s shoulder just before the food came, it would increase the frequency that it looked over it’s shoulder, with the expectation that it would be fed. ”
But, what if those expatations worked well for thousands of years? So, that they were part of our survival pattern? Would you change your ways until you had proof that something else worked better? ‘Don’t fix what ain’t broke.’
Obviously they are part of our instinct, but is not a productive instinct. These behavior ours can have no use to the success of a species, spirituality and religion are the embodiment of these instincts. They are parasitic, in the case of the bird, they prevent him from receiving as much food, but the behavior is enforced because the bird believes in it.
Of course now we have identified that we have a propensity for this kind of behavior, it should be modified.
UrbanBard
“Skinner called this “superstitious behavior”. ”
You do know that Skinner was a Socialist, don’t you? So he cannot be objective in this.”
Now what are you talking about?
This is a rigorous, peer reviewed scientific study, conducted by one of the most revered behavioral scientists the planet has seen, his attention to methodology and laboratory procedure is well documented and his experiments have been independently duplicated on several occasions and locations.
You suggest his objectivity is questionable because of his politics?
How did he do it? Did he use Socialist birds? He somehow falsified his findings forward across time and space?
You can replicate this yourself. That is the power of the scientific method, it is reproducible and independently verifiable. It is the system that has given us every, tangible advance we have ever made.
Lets get all those commie science books in a heap and burn them, we can only have good clean (insert favorite bias) here.
(Stomp, stomp, stomp the sound of jackboots recede into the distance)
UrbanBard
““It shows that people are often deceived by what they deem to be evidence. It is manifested as manic compulsive behavior in humans.”
We aren’t talking about things that give bad results. Manic compulsive behavior gives bad results.”
Your example…
“UrbanBard
I am merely remarking that if you tried to examine the things that you accept on faith, you would be paralyzed. You wouldn’t get anything done. ….””
wasn’t intended to convey a bad result, but it did. I was giving you scientific evidence to prove that you ‘must’ examine things, it is the faith that paralyzes you, not rigorous examination.
But you want to discredit this phenomena because of the politics of the scientist.
“UrbanBard wrote
“Government is not the solution: it is the problem” Could you falsify that position?
Easily. If it was said in reference to anarchy.”
The statement was about a temporary condition in America where the Leftists had lead to governmental excess and usurpation of the people’s rights. The Socialists in the Democratic Party had erected organizations, expectations and governmental entities that the bulk of Americans no longer believed it. There was a Cognitive Dissonance between current practices and the Founder’s proclamations, practices and organizations.
You clearly know nothing about politics.”
I think you are misquoting
Ronald Reagan
January 20, 1981
In his inaugural address
“In this present crisis, government is not the solution to our problem; government is the problem.”
“theBob said:
“”UrbanBard wrote
““You agreed that reason should be hypothesis driven, but now you suggest there is a place for faith based reasoning? ”
I am merely remarking that if you tried to examine the things that you accept on faith, you would be paralyzed. You wouldn’t get anything done. ….”
Yes, very good example. B.F. Skinner conducted a bird feeding experiment. When birds were fed randomly, if a bird had looked over it’s shoulder just before the food came, it would increase the frequency that it looked over it’s shoulder, with the expectation that it would be fed. ”
But, what if those expectations worked well for thousands of years? So, that they were part of our survival pattern? Would you change your ways until you had proof that something else worked better? ‘Don’t fix what ain’t broke.’
Obviously they are part of our instinct, but is not a productive instinct. ”
Can you not read the English language? I said they were productive– they gave good results. Their absence gave bad results.
Do Human Beings have instincts. Yes, but very few. The most prominent is to slavishly follow what your chosen group believes in rather than thinking for yourself.
“These behavior ours can have no use to the success of a species, spirituality and religion are the embodiment of these instincts.”
Yes, those behaviors can have a use. Most times, there is no reason to change a historical pattern if it is giving us good results.
Innovation is a good thing, but innovations are experiments that often fail. We just remember the successes. We rely on a framework that gives us most of our success while we tinker around the edges.
“They are parasitic, in the case of the bird, they prevent him from receiving as much food, but the behavior is enforced because the bird believes in it.”
Have you heard of Pavlov? New habit patterns can changed when conditions require it. Humans can be just as slavish or conditioned as animals. It takes effort to defy group pressure and think for yourself. You must have a society that rewards individual thinking. Western culture is one of the very few that does.
“Of course now we have identified that we have a propensity for this kind of behavior, it should be modified.”
Overturning tradition nilly-willy has gotten over 100 million people killed in the twentieth Century. They were trying to create “the New Socialist Man” in the Soviet Union. Or the “Nazi Superman” in Germany. Radical changes in society, economic and political systems are deadly.
“UrbanBard
“Skinner called this “superstitious behavior”. ”
You do know that Skinner was a Socialist, don’t you? So he cannot be objective in this.”
Now what are you talking about?”
Can a person’s politics lead to bad or incorrect science? Yes. Take Margaret Mead, for instance, she was studying the natives of Tahiti. She was part of the “free love” socialist movement in the early Twentieth Century that wanted to attack Western martial patterns. She wanted to believe that primitive tribes practiced Free Love.
The teenaged girls she was studying lied to her. They told her what she wanted to hear: that there was free sexual expression when the tribe’s sexual patterns were rather repressive and ritualistic. Later, anthropologists verified that she was wrong. But, the fact that her science was totally wrong didn’t keep her from being honored by Socialists.
I was remarking that Skinner could have gotten the birds behavior correct, but he chose a name to describe it that was prejudicial. Socialists often do that. It is propagandistic.
Take the phrase “anti-social behavior.” What is it? It is a made up name for standoffish, harmful, sinful or criminal actions. The Socialists who coined it had two objectives in choosing the phrase: to project that we are part of a group, not individuals and to strew confusion in the English language.
They were in favor of Socialism, so they could say that anyone who was an Anti-Socialist (that is, one who opposed their political agenda) was also Anti-Social (one who favored harmful or criminal actions.) It wasn’t so, but it had good propaganda value.
“This is a rigorous, peer reviewed scientific study, conducted by one of the most revered behavioral scientists the planet has seen, his attention to methodology and laboratory procedure is well documented and his experiments have been independently duplicated on several occasions and locations. You suggest his objectivity is questionable because of his politics?
”
Obviously, you have never read any of his later works where he lays his Socialism bear. “Beyond Freedom and Dignity” is one of his books; what is that?
He wanted to project the deterministic idea that mankind is nothing but an animal who’s actions are controlled by unconscious impulses. That we have no intellect. Perhaps, he and his fellow Socialists did not. But, he could not speak for all of humanity and he tried.
“How did he do it? Did he use Socialist birds? ”
No, he used his findings to project his political opinions. He projected the behavior of animals falsely onto humans. We do have an Animal nature, but we are not wholly governed by it.
“It is the system that has given us every, tangible advance we have ever made.”
I like science, but I don’t give it that much credit. There are intelligent people finding new things all the time. They don’t use the scientific method to do it.
“Lets get all those commie science books in a heap and burn them, we can only have good clean (insert favorite bias) here.”
No, I’m not interested in Communist and Fascist book burnings or the suppression of inquiry, nor in Liberal Political Correctness that refuses to accept good research when it denies a Liberal dogma.
An example is that we know that the Northern European Jew has an IQ about 10 points higher than average and the African Black is about 10 points lower than average. This has been substantiated by almost a hundred years of research.
The Left tried to blame nutrition or a bigoted society without success. IQ points have risen for American Blacks during the twentieth Century, but so have the IQ’s of the whites. The IQ gap remains. But, the Left can pretend that it doesn’t exist.
Professor Watson, of the DNA team of Crick and Watson, recently got caught in a controversy by the Left because he brought up this research.
“(Stomp, stomp, stomp the sound of jackboots recede into the distance)”
The only Group Think here is from the Left. I am an individualist. I almost never go along with the crowd. I think for myself. That is why I am so good at refuting your arguments; I think about things.
the Bob said:
““UrbanBard wrote
“Government is not the solution: it is the problem” Could you falsify that position?
Easily. If it was said in reference to anarchy.”
The statement was about a temporary condition in America where the Leftists had lead to governmental excess and usurpation of the people’s rights. The Socialists in the Democratic Party had erected organizations, expectations and governmental entities that the bulk of Americans no longer believed it. There was a Cognitive Dissonance between current practices and the Founder’s proclamations, practices and organizations.
You clearly know nothing about politics.”
I think you are misquoting
Ronald Reagan
January 20, 1981
In his inaugural address
“In this present crisis, government is not the solution to our problem; government is the problem.”
I was paraphrasing, not quoting. How is my comment any different from Reagan’s? I even got right that it was a temporary condition in my later discussion.
Thank you, for proving my point.
thebob: “This is a Mac advocacy forum and you are saying because it’s very popular it works better than real medicine?”
where did I say that it works better? It’s an alternative to ‘traditional medicine’- some people actually want a choice….
“In others it must be labeled “No proven medical benefit”.” Pray tell- which in that list that I provided has no proven medical benefit? Penicillin?
“Some diseases have been totally eradicated from this planet”. Like what? (please say small pox).
“Billions of dollars are spent each year to develop, proven, tested and safe, medicines, vaccines and techniques. More money is spent on education and the construction of hospitals with all of their intricate infrastructure. People who are in dire need have access to technologies, that their grandparents couldn’t have dreamed of.”
And tons of money is lost every year withdrawing “proven therapies” off of the market (have you seen the current recommendations for cold remedies and children? Have you read the WHI study? Have you heard of Ortho-Evra? the list goes on…).
“Often, conditions are left longer before seeking, competent medical advice, leading to physical and financial deficit. People are offered potions, readings, to have there chackeras aligned, needles stuck in them, or any one of a multitude of “ritual customs” that have ‘not’ been proven to work” You have absolutely no proof of this other than what your friends may have told you (anecdotal) or what your ignorance has taught you.
“The “former “alternative remedies”” list is very misleading, these so called alternative medicines encompass just about every single element, compound, animal or plant part including their shelter and excrement.” How exactly is it misleading? You’ve actually mentioned ‘osteopathy’ as an accepted ‘remedy’ in one of your prior posts.
“but the incidence is no higher than chance would dictate.” You’ve obviously not read any studies on the above listed. So much for your evidence-based life.
“An atheist, has a special perspective on this immorality, because it preys on blind belief, and submission to an unreviewed authority that is at the core of theist education and society.” Clearly atheists are above everyone else, because they ‘prey’ on those that are clueless. Do they eat thier young? So in order to understand the true meaning of life and the universe, I must become an atheist?
“That this is suggested to couples attempting to reproduce is especially aborant, contemplating the very act that allowed life on this planet, to evolve to sentience, they are deceived by the very conditioning that an atheist is free of.” Maybe you should read a bit more about it before spewing off an utterly arrogant and malinformed statement.
So basically your entire post was more of the same- except that you selfishly placed yourself above the majority of the world, continuously misinterpreted or misunderstood the FACTS presented to you, and arrogantly think that you know what you are talking about. And once again, you fail to review what’s presented to you before releasing the mission statement for atheists all over the world. Talk about a cult…
“jdoc wrote
” will pray for you though.”
If you want to waste time on me I’d prefer if you donate that time to a needy cause.”
It is a needy cause.
“Some diseases have been totally eradicated from this planet”. Like what? (please say small pox).
http://www.who.int/infectious-disease-report/pages/ch6text.html#Anchor1
http://www.hhs.gov/asl/testify/t980520a.html
http://www.cdc.gov/mmwR/preview/mmwrhtml/su48a7.htm
http://www.cartercenter.org/health/itfde/index.html
https://www.nlm.nih.gov/exhibition/visualculture/eradication.html
“Perhaps, I did, I don’t know; If so, I’m sorry.”
I appreciate the sentiment here, thank you.
“Your attitude was always presumptuous.”
I really don’t think this is the case, certainly not always.
I really don’t think I was wrong many times, but I am sure there are cases, was there something specific you had in mind?
I will acknowledge that I do now recall that the US did have a better legal case for ending the cease fire than my previous comments suggested. This was a pre-existing condition from the early 90’s as you said. But I did find quotes fron Annan and Blitz saying that they thought it was illegal. I am not sure that I agree with them.
“What is an insult is highly subjective. I asked for Roz to stop the insults, because he was calling me a neocon and I am not one. He turned me down. That was before I started calling him an idiot and an ignoramus.”
For the record: ignoramus posting #46, neo-con posting #72. And I did not really call you one, I said you were parroting their thinking.
I am happy to set it aside though.
“You are imagining falsely that there were Iraqi forces that we could work with.”
Sorry can you explain on what basis you say that that is false? These are not my imaginations, as I have said before, these were the claims of those directly involved with rebuilding Iraq as shown in the documentary No End in Sight.
Here is a quote from a interview of someone shown in that film:
“(Ret.) Army Col. Paul Hughes is a senior program officer at the U.S. Institute of Peace. While on active duty, he was responsible for U.S. efforts to reorganize the Iraqi Army and is one of the subjects of the documentary, No End in Sight. Before serving in Iraq, he was a senior military fellow at the National Defense University’s Institute for National Strategic Studies. He holds two Master of Military Arts & Sciences degrees and was a visiting professor at the Elliot School of International Affairs…..
“Hughes: Well, certainly that’s what you get from the documentary. I can only speak to the one that revolved around the disbanding of the Iraqi military. In our time in Washington, D.C. with Jay Garner before we departed for the theater, we had talked about what we would do with the Iraqi military. We understood that they were large. We understood that these men knew how to use weapons. We understood that there were a lot of weapons and ammo dumps across the country.
So the intent for us was to get in there, make contact with the Ministry of Defense and then organized a process where we could pay these men twenty dollars each. That was the equivalent of about six months of pay so that they could take care of their families and hopefully stay off the streets long enough for us to sort out what the military was going to be doing.
We had two processes that we were putting into play. One was to reform these units as work battalions to help clean up rubble and things of that nature. The second one was to establish what we called DDR, which is Disarmament, Demobilization and Reintegration. It’s a process by which you take former combatants and reintegrate them into society so that they become productive members of the economy.
This all had been briefed to the president. The president approved it before we left Washington. But then when we got out there and when Bremer showed up, suddenly there was this snap decision made by these four men in the Pentagon, as the movie portrays, and you know the history. The Iraqi Army was disbanded.
Tavis: And the result of that that you obviously are chagrined by, for lack of a better word, is what essentially?
Hughes: Well, five days after the decision was announced, we took our first attack on the highway between what most people call the Green Zone and Baghdad International Airport. Two soldiers were killed and two Humvees were destroyed. It was the night before Jay Garner was to depart Iraq forever. This came about, without a doubt, as a result of the disbanding of the Iraqi military.”
“Are you saying that you didn’t hear the Democrats saying in the 2006 election that they wanted an immediate withdrawal of American Forces or that Harry Reid said that the war in Iraq was lost?”
You missed my point. I was questioning what to me is an unreasonable link you made when you said it was these statements that led to the refugee situation as opposed to what I would think the much more likely cause, the cause that I have seen by refugees interviewed from many many sources that conditions on the ground were unsafe, they received threats and/or feared for their lives and left. I was asking you to substantiate that leap, that refugees fled as a result of the comment of any democrat or war critic.
UrbanBard:
You keep asking me my perspective. Here it is:
In the past:
I would have stabilized Afghanistan more and focused on OBL more before taking on Iraq.
I supported confronting Saddam, based on cease fire violations, not the war on terror and some idea of preemption. I fully recognize that military force was needed for that, I just think we should have done in on a pace that would have allowed more troops and better international cooperation. I didn’t see the rush, and still don’t, I think the cost in the end is much higher this way.
I did not anticipate the problems with occupation, but I think the people in charge should have. Again we should have used the Iraqi military to help.
In terms of what to do now:
I don’t think we should pull out of Iraq immediately. I just think thats a recipe for failed state.
I supported the surge, because I thought something needed to be done to beef up our troops there.
I don’t see Iran and Syria as much as an immediate threat .
It is very problematic that Iran would get nukes, that should be avoided, but attacking Iran especially now, does not see the way to do it at this point to me.
Maybe, I confused you with someone else. I don’t know. I’m sorry if I did. I don’t like being nasty, but I will do it if I feel pushed or get tired.
I like discussing current events and enjoy a discussion with a knowledgeable opponent.
There may be many things on which we can agree. But, if all we ever do is hurl accusations at each other, then no real conversation takes place.
“I really don’t think I was wrong many times, but I am sure there are cases, was there something specific you had in mind?
I will acknowledge that I do now recall that the US did have a better legal case for ending the cease fire than my previous comments suggested. This was a pre-existing condition from the early 90’s as you said. But I did find quotes from Annan and Blitz saying that they thought it was illegal. I am not sure that I agree with them.”
I’m sure that Annon and Blix did say it was illegal, but are they the arbiters here?
The US is a sovereign nation. It needs no one’s permission to go to war if it’s leadership considers it in our national interest.
In no way are we subordinate to the UN. There are political groups at the UN and the EU that want to make us subordinate and to start taxing America.
Neither the Clinton nor the Bush administration went along with that. That was why the Bush administration did not ratify the International Criminal Court Treaty. That treaty would have ended the US Constitution being the supreme law of the land. The Supreme Court would be forced to bow to Brussels. John Kerry seemed to favor that.
Once the UN had resolved to go to war in Resolution 678, then it unleashed its member states to do that. Resolution 687 made a temporary halt to the war, but the war was not over until almost a year after Saddam’s regime fell.
All of Saddam’s abuses in the 12 years after the Gulf war hardened the hearts of many people, me included. I saw no evidence that Saddam would ever keep his treaties. Once you determine that, there is no point to diplomacy. It’s put up or shut up time. If the only way to make Saddam keep his promises is war, then sobeit.
Answer me this. What evidence in Saddam’s regime did you see that was hopeful?
“For the record: ignoramus posting #46, neo-con posting #72. And I did not really call you one, I said you were parroting their thinking.
I am happy to set it aside though.”
Thank you for being gracious.
“The most notable dissension about Iraq was between the Defense and State Departments. The Defense department disagreed with keeping Saddam’s army intact.”
This is not at all my understanding of what took place, in fact its the opposite. Military people wanted the Iraqi army recalled, civilian policy makers at the Pentagon decided otherwise:
“Mr. Bremer’s decision to disband the army caused an early clash with General Garner, the man he replaced in May.
”It was our view that we needed to pay the army and get them back to work as quickly as we could,” said Jared Bates, a retired three-star Army general who was General Garner’s operations deputy. ”You didn’t want them on the other side of the fight.”
But General Bates said the view of some ***civilian policy makers at the Pentagon*** was, ”Why in the world would we pay an army we just spent blood and treasure to defeat?”
Walter B. Slocombe, the civilian in charge of rebuilding Iraqi security institutions, defended Mr. Bremer’s decision on grounds of principle and practicality. He said planting democratic roots in Iraq required disbanding an institution that was hated by the population as an instrument of Mr. Hussein’s control.”
http://query.nytimes.com/gst/fullpage.html?res=9501EEDE1030F931A35752C1A9659C8B63&sec=&spon=&pagewanted=2
Watching No End in Sight, you get the impression that even Bush was surprised to see the Iraqi army disbanded, it simply was not the plan.
I really would encourage everyone to see “No End in Sight” it is not a leftist movie, it does not advocate withdrawl, its not anti war. It looks at post invasion management of the occupation, made up principally of interviews of those who ran things in Bagdad.
“My position is that we stood the risk of a stalemate if we waited too long.”
Ok, but lets be clear that these are political calculations, not necessarily a basis rooted in an immediate terrorist or other threat. I will grant you that the momentum of the drive to push for the unseat Saddam might have been lost, but if we had a very good outcome in Afghanistan, there might have been a potential for a larger involvement of other parties.
My view is that part of the motivation to move when we did was that we would have a bigger share of the benefits of the new Iraq. I am not saying stealing the oil. I’m mean in terms of influence. A broader coalition force would have necessarily meant less US control. influence on the new state. And if you have a new theory of a transformed military which is capable and nimble, just demonstrated in Afghanistan, which so they thought could do the job without help from others, why bother sharing whatever benefit the US might get from reformulating Iraq? This I suspect was the thinking in the leadership, I call them neo-cons, but I don’t mean that necessarily in a derogatory way in this area, but Rumsfeld, Wolf, Cheney et al. So they going with a coalition of the US and UK plus a lot of weaker secondary actors, gave the semblance of an international coalition without losing US control of the outcome.
““I did not anticipate the problems with occupation, ”
I did. but then I read history. Wars always have insurrections after them.”"
I meant our bad management. I knew that we would be generally unwelcome and had a short window of opportunity there. My sense, and it still persists to this day is that given the circumstances of the occupation and the legacy of the conditions pre-war the Iraqi’s have been comparably patient, forgiving and cooperative with what has happened. It took a long time for the insurgency to take form and there have been moderating forces that have provided some ballast to extremists.
Roz said”
““The most notable dissension about Iraq was between the Defense and State Departments. The Defense department disagreed with keeping Saddam’s army intact.”
This is not at all my understanding of what took place, in fact its the opposite. Military people wanted the Iraqi army recalled, civilian policy makers at the Pentagon decided otherwise:
“Mr. Bremer’s decision to disband the army caused an early clash with General Garner, the man he replaced in May.”
You are assuming that Garner was the DoD man because he was an ex-general. Garner had been assigned to plan the aftermath for the State department. Bremer was State Department, too, but there can be disagreements inside the State department on how best to handle this. I’m sure that Rumsfeld wanted the Iraqi Army disbanded. but, there was disagreement about this all over.
“Watching No End in Sight, you get the impression that even Bush was surprised to see the Iraqi army disbanded, it simply was not the plan.”
The Iraqi Army had fallen apart. the Conscripts when home. The officers could not be trusted to be neutrals. It lloks like a pipe dream to me.
“I really would encourage everyone to see “No End in Sight” it is not a leftist movie, it does not advocate withdrawal, its not anti war. It looks at post invasion management of the occupation, made up principally of interviews of those who ran things in Baghdad.”
The best propaganda looks very real. It just doesn’t allow the opposition a chance to speak. What was Rumsfeld or General Pace’s rebuttal? Was there a rebuttal? It doesn’t seem likely.
“You are assuming that Garner was the DoD man because he was an ex-general. Garner had been assigned to plan the aftermath for the State department.”
No, that was not my assumption at all. There were other military people in favor of it.
“I am not saying stealing the oil. I’m mean in terms of influence. ”
Nothing in itself, just at what cost? $600B and counting, we are not done yet.
“Let the historians figure this out. No one on the Left is going to believe that insurrections are always hard and surprising. Our Media consistently painted a false picture.”
Yes, I will be up to historians. But I don’t see why you keeping pinning this on the left? Can you name anyone or quote anyone on the left who thought occupation would be easy? Again, it was Wolfowitz who propagated that, not the left. The idea on the left was that we were stirring up a bees nest.
“Al Qaeda flooded into the country to try to make us fail there”
There certainly was an extra-Iraqi factor and Al Qauda in Iraq too, but you keep referencing these large number of Al Qaeda entering and being killed, for example:
“Also, we have been fighting al Qaeda in Iraq. We have killed or captured 80 thousand of them in Iraq from all over the world.”
From where are you getting these numbers? Can you document them?
“““I am not saying stealing the oil. I’m mean in terms of influence. ”
Nothing in itself, just at what cost? $600B and counting, we are not done yet.”
I think the cost is lower than that. Your figures probably include foreign aid to the Iraqis– rebuilding their infrastructure etc.”"
My point is that we went the small force route, the country was torn to shreds, so then we pay for its rebuilding. In the end it would have potentially been better just to have the large force that would have secured the country in the first place and then we don’t have the infrastructure bill to pay.
“How expensive is it to lose a war, Roz? Remember, we are not fighting in Iraq to safeguard today, but to solve the problems twenty years down the road.”
I don’t see why you think it is the duty of the American people to spend hundreds of billions of dollars in Iraq if not for the destruction that was caused there under our occupation. If not for our role there, we certainly would not be spending money on schools there. We could make it a paradise in that one country, what good would that do to our overall global security in 20 years?
Now if we took that 300 billion and spent it to on technology to severe our dependence on fossil fuel that would dramatically improve our strategic position.
“The Democrats are not farsighted people; instant gratification is what they want. There is none to be had.”
I can’t understand why you make gross generalizations with no substantiation, it only undermines your credibility.
The conservatives got us into a war with out consideration or planning for the next year of action. Troops without needed armour, not enough of them in to run effectively operate. I don’t think Republicans have any authority to point a finger at Democrats as failing to plan effectively.
“I read it in the official reports from the military in Iraq. But, that was ten months ago, so it is old data.”
So you can’t substantiate it? Seems hard to accept then.
“Were there many ex-generals who disagreed with the administration’s plans after the war? Yes. ”
Wait you said that military said that using the Iraqi army was not favorable. Please substantiate that claim.
“I suspect that the Democrats are desperate. It is usually not good politics to be Antiwar. It can too easily backfire on you. The Democratic Party had to demonize the war by mostly telling lies. The lies will be exposed. They always are.”
The issue is really that the public is solidly against the war.
“The Democratic Party had to demonize the war by mostly telling lies. The lies will be exposed.”
And what are these lies again?
“The Press blows up unfortunate incidents as though they were official government policy, such as Abu Ghraib.”
This is not a lie of the left, it is a fact that rule governing prisoner treatment were relaxed, controls were removed that allowed events like Abu Ghraib to happen:
“How did the “permissive environment” that encouraged rampant criminality
and cruelty arise at Abu Ghraib? According to the JAG senior officers who
spoke with Horton, Pentagon civilian officials removed safeguards that were
designed to prevent such abuses. At a detention facility like Abu Ghraib,
those safeguards would include the routine observation of interrogations
from behind a two-way mirror by a JAG officer, who would be empowered to
stop any misconduct.
The JAG officers told Horton that those protective policies were
discontinued in Iraq and Afghanistan. They said that interrogations were
routinely conducted without JAG oversight — and, worse, that private
contractors were being allowed unprecedented participation in the
interrogation process. Moreover, the contractors who participated in the
interrogation of Iraqi prisoners were operating in a legal twilight zone,
says Horton.”
http://osdir.com/ml/culture.people.interesting-people/2004-05/msg00042.html
“They trumped up a false case of the While house intentionally exposing a covert CIA agent.”
Obstruction of justice was proven in court.
“They mischaracterized the meaning of statements in Bush’s 2002 State of the Union address to deny that there was cause for escalating the war against Iraq. ”
What are you talking about here?
And again you said:
“The Democratic Party had to demonize the war by mostly telling lies. The lies will be exposed.”
I still don’t see what lies of the Democrats you are talking about?
Roz said:
““The Press blows up unfortunate incidents as though they were official government policy, such as Abu Ghraib.”
This is not a lie of the left, it is a fact that rule governing prisoner treatment were relaxed, controls were removed that allowed events like Abu Ghraib to happen:”
As I said this was not an official act of the US Military. It was a lapse of official policy– a crime. The enlisted people did criminal acts against the detainees for which they were punished.
What you don’t seem to understand is this kind of silly stuff goes on periodically in most prisons. This is kindergarden stuff: no one got mutilated or killed, just embarrassed.
You don’t want it to go on, but bored soldiers on night shift get up to crazy things. When it happens: you punish the people who did it.
What the Press tried to do was to hang this around the upper military’s neck. This was not so. This is a case of you on the Left expecting perfection from young and inexperienced soldiers. And trying to hang their crimes around Rumsfeld’s neck.
“They trumped up a false case of the While house intentionally exposing a covert CIA agent.”
Obstruction of justice was proven in court.”
But, nothing was ever proven that the original case was true. Armatige let the cat out of the bag to the press about Valerie Plame. He told Novak, not anyone in the White House. And Armitage was anti-Iraqi war person working in the State department. The Left’s projection of the White House’s grand conspiracy against Plame was nothing but vapor.
What the Grand Jury got Scooter Libby on was that his recollections of conversations with a reporter were different from the reporter’s notes. The Grand Jury chose to believe the reporter and that it wasn’t merely a faulty memory.
Fitzgerald could not claim that the White House intentionally “outed” Valerie Plame. Why? Because there was no relevant law that covered her. She had been “outed” six years before in the Aldrige Ames case.
““They mischaracterized the meaning of statements in Bush’s 2002 State of the Union address to deny that there was cause for escalating the war against Iraq. ”
What are you talking about here?”
I’m talking about the 16 words that Bush used to indicate that Saddam was looking for uranium ore in Africa. The Press mangled those words to mean that Saddam Hussein was looking for Yellow Cake Uranium ore in Niger when what Bush meant was in the Congo. It was the impetus which what sent Joe Wilson, Valerie Plame’s husband, to Niger.
Wilson reported to his Bosses in the CIA verbally that he did find evidence that Saddam’s officials were investigating a purchase. But eight months later, Wilson lied in an interview in the Nation magazine and in the New York Times Article that he found no such evidence. The Senate Select Intelligence Committee called Wilson a liar.
““The Democratic Party had to demonize the war by mostly telling lies. The lies will be exposed.”
I still don’t see what lies of the Democrats you are talking about?”
It is likely that you will ever see the lies as bigoted as you are.
As I said, You see the lies as standard Democratic Party practices and positions. The point is that time will prove them to be lies. Most of them have already been discarded by the voters as rubbish.
Meanwhile, the Democratic Party has moved on to new and better lies. In June, Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid said that the war in Iraq was lost. General Patraeus testified in Congressional hearings in September that it was not. Thay there was cause for cautious optomism.
I wonder if people on the Left know how to determine if something is a lie. It helps to keep you Politically Correct if if you know no history, economics or politics except your own. Also, if you keep up a steady stream of hate against your opponents. If you are in attack mode, you never really hear any replies. Your mind isn’t open enough to consider any alternative. If you took a logic class, you flunked it.
“But, nothing was ever proven that the original case was true.”
I’m not an expert on the case and don’t really think its worth much attention, but lying to FBI investigators is a crime and according to Fitzgerald this obstructed the investigation. Martha Steward went to jail for the same thing.
Personally I think Cheney should have been on trial here. Was this proof of a great conspiracy? No, not really. It had a lot more merit and was done with a lot more discretion than everything the Republicans threw at Clinton while he was in office.
“As I said this was not an official act of the US Military. It was a lapse of official policy– a crime. The enlisted people did criminal acts against the detainees for which they were punished.”
Yes of course it was a crime, but do you recognize that controls were loosened for dealing with prisoners and interrogations? That when you loosen controls you create a opening for such activities?
“What you don’t seem to understand is this kind of silly stuff goes on periodically in most prisons. This is kindergarden stuff: no one got mutilated or killed, just embarrassed.”
I really don’t think the military saw it this way. They were trying to win hearts and minds, this worked against that. SO, as you say, knowing that there is a potential for this sort of thing to happen in prisons like this, these installations were supposed to have JAG and MP oversight to prevent abuse. You want a system were such crimes and abuses are prevented, so that situations like this are stopped if not before they happen, then immediately. Also, guards should get training on proper conduct, these got none.
“Meanwhile, the Democratic Party has moved on to new and better lies. In June, Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid said that the war in Iraq was lost.”
Is that really the best you have after all that? That was not a lie, it was his opinion, he is entitled to it and to express it.
“I wonder if people on the Left know how to determine if something is a lie. It helps to keep you Politically Correct if if you know no history, economics or politics except your own. Also, if you keep up a steady stream of hate against your opponents. If you are in attack mode, you never really hear any replies. Your mind isn’t open enough to consider any alternative. If you took a logic class, you flunked it.”
Of course all of this could also apply to the right, in fact I think it applies much better to the right given characters like Rush. all the other talk radio people and FOX “News”. – that is why I am trying to get you to substantiate your claims.
bruce campbell…
Man i just love your blog, keep the cool posts comin…..
Yes I can confirm that if Gore was in office everything would be great now.
Roz said:
“Yes I can confirm that if Gore was in office everything would be great now.”
Based on what? Your personal opinion? What substantiates that? How do you know that you aren’t delusive?
You seem to have more faith than I do. I am a doubting Thomas; I have been all my life.
gore is fluent in english.
he can read a newspaper.
he does not give unsolicited neck massages to foreign heads of state.
its a start.
[...] week’s What You Expected, What You Got. Next week’s What You Expected, What You Got: Apple and Microsoft in Consumer Electronics. [...]
Really Daniel, deleting my last two entries is censorship; it is a typical leftist ploy. It is one that denies reality.
This is the SECOND time that I have posted this reply. This is neither an honest or honorable way to deal with an opponent. I know that I am a gadfly. I won’t agree with you, nor will I go away. You cannot answer my criticisms, so you do the leftist thing: you delete my entries. This happens all the time to Conservative posts at MoveOn.org and MediaMatters. The problem with censoring your opponent’s position is that you can pretend that there is no rebuttal: that is delusive. You can get divorces from reality that way. It looks as though you have gone a long way down that path.
By doing so, you get to pretend that I gave up the cause, thus giving Roz and you, if you are not Roz in disguise, the last word. It is rather petty of you to do this. If Roz or you had run out of anything constructive to say, then that’s on your head.
My last post was an article detailing how even Osama bin Laden is bemoaning how that al Qaeda has lost in Iraq. But, that wasn’t directly responsive to this thread.
Let me instead reconstruct my second to last post because it was answer to Roz.
Roz said:
“gore is fluent in english.”
It’s just that Gore is ignorant of Texican, poor boy.
Gore is an Eastern Establishment snob. He isn’t the sort of man that the average person would want to share a drink with or sit across from in a poker game. Or vote for either.
And Gore needs to pull that stick out of his ass.
“he can read a newspaper.”
Oh, I’m sure that anyone who graduated from the Harvard MBA program can read a newspaper. Harvard’s educational standards haven’t fallen that low, yet.
I must admit that I have trouble reading the New York Times and and the Washington Post. It’s not for lack of intelligence, I have an 145 IQ and a Baccalaureate in Electrical Engineering. Nor is it the big words; I know plenty of big words. It’s the hidden meanings and false connotations combined with leftist illogic. It is a malignant fantasy which corresponds to nothing real.
“he does not give unsolicited neck massages to foreign heads of state.”
Tell me again how this has ever caused a war?
its a start.
Didn’t anyone ever tell you that whenever you start in on ad Hominem attacks, you lose the argument?
Besides, the American voter is more apt to like a “down home” man who fractures the English language than some snob with his nose in the air.
I do not know Al Gore and he is probably a fine man.
But he does not represent America. The fact that he was chosen by the Democratic party to represent them in 2000 is confirmation that the Democrats do not represent America either.
The demographics of the country are slowly moving toward the right. The 2000 election required a massive voter turn out by the Democrats, but the extra people voting were in the wrong states.
The 2004 election was an heroic effort by the Democrats, but the Republicans turned out even more voters. The 2006 election was a normal sixth year reversal of a two term presidency.
Typically, that means that the majority party will reclaim the Congress in 2008. Iraq will be off the table then; just as it is out of the newspapers now. That is because there is too little bad news. We seem to be winning there.
Al Gore represents a small but influential elite who hold onto power in America, not because of any native wit, skill or ability, but by their membership in the “old Boy” network. That network is dying, because the Democratic party is in decline.
Even the big cities in the Blue States are in decline. The population increases and the economic opportunity is in the Red States. The Democratic Party is behind the eight ball.
Ps. I have copied this post. Delete it again and I’ll just repost it. Shall we go into a song and dance about how you never deleted it? Sobeit.
I’m not Daniel and you are not a gadfly.
“Gore is an Eastern Establishment snob. He isn’t the sort of man that the average person would want to share a drink with or sit across from in a poker game. Or vote for either.”
You can’t share a drink with Bush, he is an alcoholic. We all know that Bush went to Andover and Yale. That’s not Eastern Establishment? He is the son of a Republican President. If that is not establishment, what is?
““he does not give unsolicited neck massages to foreign heads of state.”
Tell me again how this has ever caused a war?”
It was an embarrassment to the whole country, really all people in the free world.
“I do not know Al Gore and he is probably a fine man. But he does not represent America. The fact that he was chosen by the Democratic party to represent them in 2000 is confirmation that the Democrats do not represent America either.”
He, and they, won the popular vote and would have won the electoral vote if not for cheating in FL.
Come on Daniel, stop deleting my posts. It’s too childish.
Roz said:
“I’m not Daniel”
I stand corrected. It was a idle speculation, anyway.
“and you are not a gadfly.”
You never come within spitting distance of a dictionary, so how would you know?
““Gore is an Eastern Establishment snob. He isn’t the sort of man that the average person would want to share a drink with or sit across from in a poker game. Or vote for either.”
You can’t share a drink with Bush, he is an alcoholic.”
It take it that you are applying the “Once an alcoholic; always an alcoholic” meme?
There is just no redemption for you Leftists, is there. Bush has to be a slave to his cravings, right?
Get real. Grow up. We are all sinners. We all have something that we are tempted to do; but as adults we learn to control their urges. Your sin is to make hasty judgments. And to slavishly follow the New York Times.
Do you have any proof that Bush drinks alcohol now? No. Will Bush be so impolite to refuse to serve you a drink while he drinks tea? No.
What’s your point anyway? Other than that you can be asinine?
“We all know that Bush went to Andover and Yale. That’s not Eastern Establishment? He is the son of a Republican President. If that is not establishment, what is?”
Home is where the heart is. Bush had a chance to adopt that Eastern Liberal crap and refused. Instead, he went home and laughed about how screwed up your values are.
That is why you hate him; he could have been you and he rejected that. Eastern Liberal Establishment is a code word for loser. Who wants to be one of those?
“““he does not give unsolicited neck massages to foreign heads of state.”
Tell me again how this has ever caused a war?”
It was an embarrassment to the whole country, really all people in the free world.”
Boy, you must embarrass easily. I’m never going to take you out for a toot. You are such a snob; no wonder you like Gore.
I sure that rubbing someone’s neck is more embarrassing, these days, than slitting his throat. You seem to have a great deal of sympathy for the throat slitters.
““I do not know Al Gore and he is probably a fine man. But he does not represent America. The fact that he was chosen by the Democratic party to represent them in 2000 is confirmation that the Democrats do not represent America either.”
He, and they, won the popular vote”
And the popular vote is worth squat. It doesn’t matter how popular Gore was to the homeless in New York City. What mattered was in Florida where you lost. There were five separate independent re-count long after this was over and in every one– Bush won.
“and would have won the electoral vote if not for cheating in FL.”
I am proud to say that our US Supreme Court judges out ranked your Democrats on the Florida Supreme court. The Florida Supreme court had no jurisdiction. It was trying to throw the race toward the Democrats. There was a 7-2 decision in the US Supreme Court saying this. There was a 5-4 decision that there was insufficient time to hold another state wide recount. As later independent recounts showed, Gore would have lost, anyway. Get real.
Daniel, if you delete this; I’ll simply re-enter it. Next, you will start denying me the ability to log in. I’ve gone through this on other leftist websites. You Leftists have have no respect for free speech.
Of course the Florida had jurisdiction.
“s later independent recounts showed, Gore would have lost, anyway. Get real.”
Actually under a statewide recount Gore would have won.
Why don’t you get real.
“There is just no redemption for you Leftists, is there. Bush has to be a slave to his cravings, right?
Get real. Grow up. We are all sinners. We all have something that we are tempted to do; but as adults we learn to control their urges. Your sin is to make hasty judgments. And to slavishly follow the New York Times.
Do you have any proof that Bush drinks alcohol now? No. Will Bush be so impolite to refuse to serve you a drink while he drinks tea? No.”
Actually Bush has said in response to the notion that he was “someone people would want to have a beer with” that he does not drink, so he couldn’t, chuckle chuckle.
But agree with you, he probably is drinking and doing drugs and that explains why he would do something as stupid as giving a neck rub to the chancellor of Germany and all his other erratic, idiotic behavior. How many times have we seen him unable to use the English language? Falls off a Segway. Some incident with a pretzel. Can’t find a door to leave a room. You don’t want to see it but he is pathetic.
It might not have been fraud but clearly there were a lot of people who intended to vote for Gore whose vote was not properly counted.
Articles that I have read say that under a statewide recount, which was not requested but could have been, Al Gore would have won:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Florida_recount
Quible on the details if you like, but I was responding to this statement:
“But he does not represent America. The fact that he was chosen by the Democratic party to represent them in 2000 is confirmation that the Democrats do not represent America either.”
He lost on a technicality, to me it was a sham, but its simply not the case that he did not represent America in the way you say.
Stop the grandstanding and the puffing statements about the Democrats. We are not socialists or marxist or even anti-capitalist. Clinton signed NAFTA and created market-based systems for the environment. Eliminated the deficit and reduced the debt. He is conservative compared to Bush. Democrats are not perfect but they are also not insane. To me the Republicans seem insane because they don’t follow their principles, fiscal responsibility just one example, and they are leashed to the religious right without whom they have no one to mobilize. They get into office and do the work of large corporations with no thought of the public interest. They have built up a hysteria about the war on terror when what we need is sober, intelligent, pragmatic action and diplomacy. Fear mongering, name calling and the violation of human rights. These are exactly the wrong approaches for our times. I can accept that people are conservative, that I can respect. But honestly, I can’t understand why a conservative would be a Republican. Why would you ally yourself with people who destroy the values you subscribe to? Are you so blind not to see the ways they betray you?
And you are not a gadfly because you are defending those in power, even their incompetence, their idiocy, you are an apologist for them – a gadfly is a critic of those in power who forces people to see the truth even if its uncomfortable. You just parrot the falsehoods of our mendacious current administration.
I am replying to the previous above answer for the third time since Daniel has chosen to censor my last two replies. All in an attempt to give Roz the last word. Pretty childish, hun?
Roz said:
“Of course the Florida had jurisdiction.”
The Chief Judge of the Florida Supreme Court said that they did not. The US Supreme Court in a 7 to 2 decision said that they did not have the right to demand recounts in selected counties. It was a 5 to 4 decision that insufficient time was available for a state wide recount.
What was at issue was that a contestant may challenge the counties in which he loses. Al Gore was challenging the counties that he won, hoping to garner more votes in a recount. That is called “fishing for votes” and it is illegal by Florida law.
““s later independent recounts showed, Gore would have lost, anyway. Get real.”
Actually under a statewide recount Gore would have won.”
There was one recount where it was quite close, but the ballets had been handled so often by this time that it was anyone’s guess if the count was accurate. Anyway, previous independent recounts dispute that contention.
As I said in a later post, we are never going to agree on this, so why argue? You won’t agree with my evidence. And I won’t agree with your outlandish statements for which you have no proof. We belong to different churches on this.
“Why don’t you get real.”
I am real — all the time. That is what you hate so much about me.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_ViQMkqnToA
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Tc2bFI-zBkQ
http://blog.washingtonpost.com/virginiapolitics/2007/11/virginia_postelection_roundup.html
What does the above post have to do with this thread, Roz?
Congratulations, BTW. But don’t let you victory go to your head.
This thread was very simple. Daniel posted some photos that lead to a propagandistic punch line of “everything wrong with the world is George Bush’s fault.”
I disputed that contention.
Can there be cases where the Democrats will win elections? Sure, the country is about 50-50 now. And any election depends on what candidates are running. So what? The trends are bad for the Democrats. But, there can be reversals.
As a Conservative, I am leery of the Republicans, too. I’m stuck with them though, because the Democrats make no sense.
Congratulations, Daniel. By removing all my post you have turn this thread into gibberish. First, you are a propagandist, then a censurer. What’s next for you to descend to?
Hi Daniel,
I’ve been looking at your photographs and what they can tell us about you and your values.
First, we have a hamburger designed to look good, versus a hamburger that most of us prefer eating. The latter looked like a special order built to fit a single person’s tastes.
Next, we have imaginary space battles versus the problems of dealing with alien life and politics.
Then, we have the beauty and elegance of Apple designed systems versus the ugliness of any system that Microsoft touches.
Lastly, we have Al Gore’s empty phony life versus wrestling with the ugly reality of global terrorism.
What can we learn from these choices?
First, that you are in reaction against reality. Next, that you value beauty over popularity. Then, that you look only at issues superficially, rather than deeply.
Is that symptomatic of a Leftist?
“The trends are bad for the Democrats.”
Show something current that says this.
I’d point you to Walter Russell Mead’s “Special Providence– American Foreign Policy and How It Changed the World.”
But, I don’t believe that you can read.
What Mead writes about is how there has been a realignment, since the end of the Cold War and 9/11, of the four political groups who affect foreign policy.
http://www.amazon.com/Special-Providence-American-Foreign-Changed/dp/0415935369/ref=sr_1_2/104-7650719-1463141?ie=UTF8&s=books&qid=1194648645&sr=1-2
Naturally, You have never heard of Mead and will discount him, as a conservative, without a hearing. Therefore, I can give you nothing that you would agree with, because neither Mead nor I am a leftist. And you listen to only Leftist viewpoints.
—————
Neither of us knows what the 2008 election will bring. I believe that the War in Iraq will be unmentioned because it will be won.
The American public may want to continue political gridlock while the Democrats control Congress. That would mean that a Republican would return to the Presidency.
But, the country is still too evenly divided for me to have any confidence. I do not handicap elections a year away from going to the polls. Too many things can happen in a year to shift events. Al Qaeda could attack us again. That could favor either party depending on how it happens.
The point about the long term trends was that back in the sixties and seventies the Democrats had lock on both houses of Congress– they were the majority party. Ever since 1976, the Democrats have declined in influence so that they finally lost Majority Party status in 1994.
It is still in dispute whether the Republicans have picked that status up. We will know when the Republicans gain enough seats in the House to weather the normal reversal in the sixth year of a two term presidency. Except for the Iraqi war, the republican might have achieved that in 2006, but who knows?
I asked you to back up your statement that “The trends are bad for the Democrats.” But you don’t provide any evidence. This has happened a few times here. You just come back with personal attacks. Really, you don’t evidence for the things you say.
Show we recent information that says the Democrats are in decline and the Republicans are gaining support. These are your statements.
The problem is that you are such an unreasonable person that no evidence would be acceptable to you. These are highly complex matters that you have never investigated and, confident in your bigotry, never will. The nature of American public opinion is changing. Meanwhile, you have hunkered down in your spider hole.
Partly, the changes in public opinion are from the breakup of the Soviet Union. And too, it is that we have discovered new enemies– in the Mid East and Europe. Different coalitions of opinion leaders have formed in America that are leaving the Democratic Party out in the cold. This isolation is self chosen, because you are in denial that even a problem exists. There is, to you, no Global War on Terrorism.
There is no evidence strong enough for those who will not see. That is why you are delusive.
You asked that question, not to gain knowledge, but as a trap to deny that knowledge exists.
Time will tell, Roz. We are winning the war in Iraq. How will you adjust to that? Will you lie to yourself that is was inevitable so that you can deny victory to President Bush?
That is what people like you did with President Reagan and the break up of the Soviet Union. Living in a malignant fantasy means that events always catch you by surprise. You then cover your embarrassment by telling yourself lies.
But you don’t present any evidence of the claims you are making.
Again, on what basis do you say: “The trends are bad for the Democrats.”
Show where I am unreasonable or in any way bigoted?
I am not living in any malignant fantasy. What are you talking about? You are the one a in fantasy, you keep saying things about me that have no basis at all.
I asked that question because I think you are wrong and that if you look at the data you will be forced to accept the fact that you are deluding yourself.
Oh please, stop with the nonsense. I have not demanded any “level of proof” -just more than your opinion to be equated as fact. If thats an impossible standard for you clearly you have no basis for the things you say.
Let’s end this, Roz. Does Lieberman’s opinion means nothing to you? He has been in politics much longer than you or I.
I’ve given you plenty of reasons for why the Democrats are declining in influence. You will not even address them.
Instead, you want some expert to pass on this. They have, but I have better things to do than dig them up for you. Especially since, you will merely discount them as being biased. Neither evidence, nor logic will satisfy you. Nor will the opinions of Democratic politicians. Why then should the position of some Political Scientist satisfy you? Your mind is closed on the subject. You merely want deflect this onto your opponent.
The point is that you cannot look back at the history to verify the facts because you are too caught up in Political Correctness. This is getting tedious. And I have given up on your closed mindedness.
You have no interest about truth; you are looking for self justification. You are looking for some petty technicality to allow you win.
“We have always had enemies from within, too, so you are no exception.”
How dare you call me an enemy of my country?! Utterly basisless and we have already seen time and time again how you say things you can’t support. You have no credibility. In America we all the right to question our government. Its no wonder Republicans are so incompetent if questioning the performance of the government is seen as disloyal. Its our duty to question and criticize the actions and motives of those in power. If you don’t like that, go live in Russia.
“You can point out that President Bush’s popularity figures are low, but Congress’ is even lower.”
The Democrats are showing restraint. They know the war is not popular but are not willing to lead the country to defeat. They have the power to stop funding it but are not using it. So the things you are saying about them are wrong.
The problem is that the Bush administration lied to the public about the basis for the war and then went on to run it in an extremely shoddy manner, I have already pointed out the ways. So the war in Iraq is now extremely unpopular and the American people want out. Unfortunately, there is no easy way out given the circumstances. So the Democrats are in the position of representing the people who oppose the war, yet trying to help steer it to some sort of completion without destabilizing the Middle East. If Bush had not so badly run the war, or entered it in the way he did, we would not be in this situation.
“Does Lieberman’s opinion means nothing to you?”
I respect Lieberman but he does not speak for me. I want to see the US vigorously defended, but I also place value on our credibility. Apparently, Lieberman does not have a problem with being lied to by the Administration – I do. So when our Secretary of State makes a presentation to the UN that is totally false, on intelligence that is known to be unreliable and unconfirmed, I find it unacceptable. When our President makes a statement during the State of the Union address that must be retracted because our own intelligence knew it was false, I lose trust in him. When I see the president mismanage the war to the extent that it appears to me to be utterly incompetent and totally wrong headed, I find it intolerable. I don’t have confidence in what our President says or for his administration to do anything well and I want his power limited and I would like to see him and Cheney leave office as soon as possible. I think they have betrayed the trust of the nation and grossly mismanaged their offices. That has nothing to do with any generational or partisan stance on Foreign Policy. It has everything to do with them being honest and doing a competent job.
The democrats are only desperate to get rid of Bush and the insane Republicans, the whole country is desperate for that.
“I was using the quote to point out how the American public does not trust the Democrats to protect them.”
Rubbish. Now that the American people have seen how ready the Republicans are to screw things up the Democrats are the only choice.
“A country where the business markets are regulated via competition or in the courts for crimes actually committed rather than preemptively through regulation? I think not. What is wrong with me saying that you are an enemy of that?”
Pathetic. This was not the context in which you were speaking earlier. Another one of the unending dishonesties from you. You have no integrity.
If you are going to call me an enemy of the country, back it up or shut up.
“The problem is not with criticism; it is disloyal opposition in the midst of war. It is giving aid and comfort to the enemy. It is no accident that Osama bin Laden parrots Democratic Party talking points. He knows that you want him to win.”
Bin Laden loves Bush because he had played right into his hand by energizing his efforts to recruit followers.
No democrats are aiding or abetting Bin Laden. We are the ones who want to focus on catching him. You are the one who said it did not matter.
“This is the cheapest, most efficiently run major war in human history. You are too bigoted to note that. The military historians are not.”
Of course its not. Gulf War 1 cost $67B, most of which was repaid by the neighboring states. Don’t forget this intervention in Iraq was totally elective. Other wars were not.
“Apparently, you have no problem with the Mainstream Media lying to you.”
You keep talking about these “lies”. You never substantiate.
“If you are talking about the 16 words in the 2002 State of the Union address, those are demonstrably true.”
Wrong it was 2003 and the White House retracted it because at the time it was said our own intelligence knew that it was false.
“All wars in a Democracy are unpopular. ”
Not true. Once committed to WW2 it had popular support. Same for the Gulf War and the War in Afghanistan. Even the war in Iraq has public support before the lies were revealed and the extend to which it was mismanaged was shown.
“All wars are mismanaged, because the enemy can change the administration’s plans.”
Again, enemies can change tactics, that is not the same as our side not running its own governing operations well. That is not the same as our side not having sufficient force to occupy or to follow its own plan to occupy the country.
““So when our Secretary of State makes a presentation to the UN that is totally false, on intelligence that is known to be unreliable and unconfirmed, I find it unacceptable. ”
That is anti-war propaganda disputed by the evidence. ”
Get real. Powell admits he was duped and regrets it. The source for the mobile chemical weapons trucks was a con artist who fabricated the whole thing. German intelligence said that it was not confirmed. The US has no basis for staking its credibility on such unreliable information and then worse launching a war for it.
“This is the cheapest, most efficiently run major war in human history. You are too bigoted to note that. The military historians are not.”
Roz said:
“The democrats are only desperate to get rid of Bush and the insane Republicans, the whole country is desperate for that.”
Not so. You misinterpret how narrow victory was in 2006.
The Democrats won the House by 85,961 votes out of over 80 million cast and the Senate by a mere 3,562 out of over 62 million cast.
The 2008 election is a whole new ball game. And it is too soon to know anything yet.
Roz said:
““I was using the quote to point out how the American public does not trust the Democrats to protect them.”
Rubbish. Now that the American people have seen how ready the Republicans are to screw things up the Democrats are the only choice.”
It’s too soon to say anything. I don’t try to handicap the races this early. Too many things can happen in a year.
“Are you a political enemy of the Bush administration? Yes. Does that make you a political enemy of the United States? Yes. Why? Because people want to destroy America, or kill Americans, and you are tacitly on their side.”
Note that your argument here is exactly the logic that fascists use to justify attacks on the opposition.
Its also wrong. Stop trying to smear me. Your case must be weak otherwise you wouid not need to contunually lodge these personal attacks. In a free society, people have a opposing views – get used to that. I have never said anything against the US or in support of terrorists. Show me how I have tacitly supported them?
This sort of response why I say that the NeoCons, which I don’t mean a slur, its a conservative group, often say they want to spread democracy, but they don’t want to live under it. They don’t want to be subject to the scrutiny and accountability that it entails. And they breed hatred towards people who oppose them.
“You don’t want us to win the war.”
I never said anything of the sort – what is this based on other than your fantasy?
“You tout every Anti-American line there is. Why should I not then judge you by your talk?”
Show me one thing I have written that is anti-american?
This is quite easy to resolve, Roz. Make a position statement of your beliefs instead of hiding behind accusations. Expose your values, rather than make me guess at them.
What are your positions on the war on terror? Do you believe that the terrorist threat is overblown? Do you contend that all America need do is vacate the MidEast to placated our enemies? Do you idolize the European Union and wish America to follow its lead? Do you want America to give up its sovereignty to the United Nations? Are you in favor of one world government?
You have no excuse that you are misunderstood, and thus slandered, when you won’t reveal yourself.
This is not about having opposing views. It’s about being intellectually honest. That means that you don’t try to duck the issues. You don’t try to change the subject when you are losing an argument. And when you have lost; you admit it.
Roz said:
This sort of response why I say that the NeoCons, which I don’t mean a slur, its a conservative group, often say they want to spread democracy, but they don’t want to live under it. ”
No, we just want you to be honest.
“They don’t want to be subject to the scrutiny and accountability that it entails.”
Scrutiny is fine; it’s the disinformation that is the problem
” And they breed hatred towards people who oppose them.”
Oh now. You hate us for what we are, not what we do.
“Because people want to destroy America, or kill Americans, and you are tacitly on their side.”
Note that your argument here is exactly the logic that fascists use to justify attacks on the opposition.”
Do you in the Democratic Party give aid and comfort to the enemy? Yes. Does that bother you? It doesn’t seem so.
Would you hesitate to reveal state secrets that would result in Americans getting killed or our security being threatened, if it also damaged the Republican Party? If you wouldn’t hesitate, then you are an enemy of America. You would be a conspirator before the fact.
“”Get real. Powell admits he was duped and regrets it.”
May I have a source please?”
If you really need one:
http://www.abc.net.au/news/newsitems/200509/s1456650.htm
Gotta love this quote – well if you are not blind to the truth:
“”What we didn’t do in the immediate aftermath of the war was to impose our will on the whole country, with enough troops of our own, with enough troops from coalition forces, or, by (quickly) recreating the Iraqi (armed) forces,” he said.
“It may not have turned out to be such a mess if we had done some things differently.”"
Huh sound familiar? Kinda the point I have been making over and over again.
Oh wait Powell must have “false expectations based on bogus information” or no how did we forget, you must assume he is anti american for saying this stuff or that he wants to lose the war.
Or Powell can say it and its ok, just from me its somehow anti-american?
Who is the bigot here? Its you buddy. You are the one with the closed mind who dances around the issues. You are the one acting like a Microsoft PR person trying to patch over incompetence with lies. Face it, everything you accuse me of really applies to you much more than it ever did to me.
Ros said”
““You don’t want us to win the war.”
I never said anything of the sort – what is this based on other than your fantasy?”
It is your actions which speak louder than your words. If you only attack without giving any balance, then you reveal your biases.
““You tout every Anti-American line there is. Why should I not then judge you by your talk?”
Show me one thing I have written that is anti-american?”
Roz, You intentionally do not reveal yourself. So, I must judge you by the groups that you take your talking points from. If you have any disagreement with the Anti- American sources that you cite, then I never see them because you don’t tell them.
Your silence does not protect you. It leads others to judge you more harshly than otherwise through “guilt by association.”
“You have no excuse that you are misunderstood, and thus slandered, when you won’t reveal yourself?”
Oh its my fault that you slander me? Is that how it works? Until people take your loyalty quiz they are un-american? I already spelled out my positions above. I actually don’t think they matter. What matters is opposing all of your BS, which has been my focus.
“What are your positions on the war on terror?”
I don’t believe in a “War on Terror”. I believe that we must go after Al Queda. Destroy it. We should clean up our act in the Middle East, that would have meant confronting Saddamn at some point under the terms and timing that we selected. We should also end our dependence on Oil. The more we can do that, the better off we will be.
“Do you believe that the terrorist threat is overblown?”
Yes, I think it is hyped up. Is there a threat from terrorists? Yes. Is it overblown to make people afraid so that they will support all kinds of crazy stuff? Yes, it is.
“Do you contend that all America need do is vacate the MidEast to placated our enemies?”
No. What makes you think that I would?
“Do you idolize the European Union and wish America to follow its lead?”
No – where do you get this stuff?
“Do you want America to give up its sovereignty to the United Nations?”
No, I’d like to give you up to the United Nations.
“Are you in favor of one world government?”
No – are you? What makes you think that I would be, the Bible? Where do you find this survey – Nutcase Monthly?
“Roz, You intentionally do not reveal yourself. So, I must judge you by the groups that you take your talking points from. If you have any disagreement with the Anti- American sources that you cite, then I never see them because you don’t tell them.”
What anti-american sources are you talking about? Did a little voice in your head tell you this stuff?
“It is your actions which speak louder than your words. If you only attack without giving any balance, then you reveal your biases.”
You spew off so much rubbish, what else can I do than attack it? Tolerating it is not an option.
“Your silence does not protect you. It leads others to judge you more harshly than otherwise through “guilt by association.””
I’ve hardly been silent on anything.
“This is not about having opposing views. It’s about being intellectually honest. That means that you don’t try to duck the issues. You don’t try to change the subject when you are losing an argument. And when you have lost; you admit it.”
Again this applies more to you than to me – take your own advice.
“I suggest you read the article again. Powell was saying that the information was false in hindsight, not that it was bogus. Powell says that Tenet believed in what he was saying. There was no intention to mislead, so there were no lies. That this was a mistake or it was the results of enemy action.”
I suggest you reread it. Powell said that he thought Tenet believed it. But he did not say it was a mistake or anything about enemy action. That was not in the article.
“Some members of the US intelligence community “knew at that time that some of these sources were not good, and shouldn’t be relied upon, and they didn’t speak up,” Mr Powell said.
“These are not senior people, but these are people who were aware that some of these resources should not be considered reliable,” he said.”
So my point that they knew it was unreliable and presented as if it was stands. It was false in hindsight to Powell, but it was known to be from unreliable sources at the time it was presented by the people who provided the information. Powell presented the information in the UN saying it was from “solid sources” with Tenet behind him.
I don’t personally think Powell is in a position to know what Tenet individually knew or believed. But the fact is that the intelligence was from unreliable sources, members of the government, knew it was unreliable and it was presented as if it was solid when it wasn’t. Powell later says he regretted presenting it. What more do you want?
“What really interesting is how much you picked up the biases of the article. The Bush administration never said that there was connection between Saddam and 9/11. So, why was this contention in the article, at all?”
How do you know what I picked up from the story, do you think you can read my mind?
And of course the Bush administration suggested on many occasions that there was a connection between Al Quada and Saddam. Cheney on many occasions said there were “links”. He just never said what the links were. In any case there was a the time confusion among some in the public that Saddam was part of 9/11 when he wasn’t. So it was a reasonable question to ask at the time, “Did you know of links between Iraq and 9/11?”
“I think you are deceptive, because you will not reveal yourself. If you are misunderstood, it’s your own damned fault.”
I might also be talking to a moron. Thats another explanation when a person is misunderstood.
“What I don’t like is you being dishonest in claiming to be American when your actions say otherwise.”
What actions? You mean words right? Critical words to be exact? That makes me un-american?
Oh please.
First, treat other people with respect. You don’t need to be insulting simple because people disagree with you or question you.
Second, you are as much, no sorry, much more of a propagandist as anyone, so where do you get off lecturing about distorting things to suit your case?
I don’t know why Daniel was removing your postings, maybe because they were annoying, unnecesarily insulting and misguided. Its Daniel’s site, so not sure what you are complaining about. If you don’t like this forum go somewhere else to express yourself.
I for one find much of what you write to be totally dishonest and based on rubbish, so I make a point of pointing out the problems where ever I can and where I have interest.
Like for example, you were the first to mention Iraq. So you are wrong again about your generalizations. Nothing new there.
To me the crux of the discussion here boils down to the question did the US need to invade Iraq when it did or was it something we elected to do.
Was there an a legal case to take action in Iraq?
Yes, one could make that case.
Was it urgent to the extent that it had to happen before the summer of 2003?
No, there is, in my opinion, little basis to say that. That to me is way the scrutiny of the reasons to go to war, and the problems with the case made is valid. What was the rush?
Personally, I think the UN was weakened by the US action in Iraq so I really don’t get the point you are trying to make.
If the US had time to confront Iraq it would not have needed to redirect troops from capturing Osama. It could have marshalled more forces for occupation, solidified plans and collected much stronger international support. I think that would have made a big difference and the hostilities there would have been reduced a long time ago.
But I think, at the end of the day, the proponents for the war saw an interest in moving when they did that had nothing to do with protecting the honor of the UN as you say. Most of them hate the UN and wanted to by-pass it entirely. I don’t think it was about protecting the US or anyone else from an immediate threat or a weapons program.
My view is that those advocating immediacy thought that if the US and the UK with its weaker partners invaded when they did, it would work out fine and the US would gain a larger influence on the New Iraq. I think, their thinking was, look, if we don’t need them, why bother. They just underestimated the manpower needed to do the job well. it may in fact not be the disaster that some say it is in the end but it was messier, more expensive and drawn out than it needed to be.
I hope, given that we are there, that we can find a successful conclusion.
“Telling the truth is not necessarily insulting.”
Ridiculous. You really think telling to Daniel or me that “you have not an original thought in your head” is not an insult or that that represents telling the truth? Go to hell.
“Do you like winning arguments by dishonest means?”
I had nothing to do with the removal of your posts. I don’t think the last poster was in any case the winner. I think you lost because the points you were making were so weak. You had resort to personal attacks rather than making a cogent argument and many things you say have been shown to be wrong. Like you said that not using the Iraqi army had a military basis and that military people were against it. Really, many in the military recognized the usefulness of the a reconstituted Iraqi military to help stabilize the country. Still you won’t recognize that this was a mistake when many other do. You are not willing to admit that it might have had a positive impact on the trajectory of the war if these units were available to the coalition.
You keep branding the me as un-american with no basis. Many of the points that I was making were made by others, former generals, Colin Powell. We finally learned that your insults were for the things I had not said, not anything I said. My argument that this misjudgment was based on your fantasy was proven in that.
“You are not persuasive because you have bought into the lies and the deceptions of the Mainstream Media.”
You keep raising these so called lies, but I was not using anything that you showed to be a lie.
‘Reagan winning the Cold War is a good case of that.”
I give Reagan credit for positions he took many unpopular at the time, but the Cold War was won by the American people thru effort over several decades with leadership from both parties.
“Admit it. You would not favor an invasion at any time. So, you would put it off forever. You just don’t want to solve problems.”
Wrong, I would have supported it with better justification. Hey, Democrats supported the authorization of force even with the deceitful case that was made, so why not on a less deceitful basis.
“A year of foot dragging through the UN is not a rush. Our Army was ready in November. It would have caught Saddam by surprise.”
How do you figure “a year” of foot dragging? And our army was not ready for occupation even when we went in so not sure why you’d it was better for us strategically to go in earlier than when we did.
“The Northwest Territories of Pakistan are not under the control of the Pakistani government. The only way we could have done what you wanted was to invade that territory and that would destroyed our friendly relations with the Pakistani government. What you ask for is impractible and foolish.”
It would have been absolutely justified and warranted and it was exactly what was needed to be done. It would have been much more practical and sensible than invading Iraq when we did.
“That is delusive. There was no international support possible. We had asked everyone.”
We will never know, but my perception at the time was that we were rushing them and there was no way they could agree given the weak justification we made. We made a lot of noise about WMD that could not be substantiated and they knew was false. The very presentation we made was from German intelligence sources that they told us were not necessarily reliable and that the information could not be confirmed. We turned around and presented it to the Security Council as our best most solid evidence.
“Tell that to Colin Powell and Blair. They were the two who forced Bush to go through the UN.”
My point was that those who argued for invasion did not give a hoot about the UN. So your argument that the war was fought for the dignity of the UN does not hold water. Powell was not a proponent of the war. Blair was on our side but took our lead. I was talking about Cheney, Pearle, Wolfowitz and Rumsfeld. None of those players would have invaded a country for the honor of the UN.
‘It has been a long term position of Conservatives that the UN is no aid to freedom in the world and they want to end the UN. But despite that, we went through the UN, so the Conservatives lost. Can you explain that?”
Yes. Most people do not have the hostility to the UN that conservatives harbor. (Most people don’t understand why the conservatives are so angry about a lot of stuff.) So when the President is talking about invading a country, they think: Have you talked to anyone else about this? Have you tried other means to resolve it? The American public, Congress and people like Powell and Blair knew that, in any case and especially without a tangible immediate cause, invading a country was not so simple or easy and it needed international scrutiny, approval and deliberation to make any sense.
The use of the word need means, by definition, that there is no alternative. So if you don’t use the mechanisms available to you, you can’t really make the necessity case at all.
“No, Saddam was no immediate threat.”
But part the argument of making a pre-emtive strike is that there is an immediate threat. If you don’t have an immediate threat then you lack one of the primary justifications for taking action.
Potentially the US could have made a justification on another means similar to the one you are making that if no action was taken then UN policies and the terms of the cease-fire treaties had no weight. But that argument would have taken time to develop. Without the story about WMD and the false urgency created under that, there was not basis to attack when we did.
“You give all the reasons to protect Saddam. Face it. You are on Saddam’s side.”
Not at all. I am only on the US’s side. My arguments are not to protect him but to protect the US from taking rash unjustified actions.
“And we became good friends with Germany after Hitler was deposed. Is there something wrong with that?
Are you silly enough to think that this was the reason we went to war with Germany in WWII? LOL”
There is nothing wrong with the good relations we have with Germany now, I never said there was. And where do you get the impression that I said that it was a basis for our participation in WW2? You may have misunderstood my point.
I was saying that the proponents of the war in Iraq saw that continuing presence in Europe, Japan, Korea and elsewhere as a welcome beneficial, in terms of the reach of US influence, side effect of those conflicts that might have been replicated in Iraq. Given the track record its not silly to suggest that was a factor in their thinking. I think its silly that you would not admit it.
“I don’t remember anyone saying that it would be easy. President Bush never said that it would be. I remember him saying it would be long and hard. That it would take decades.”
Then you are not aware of Wolfowitz’s testimony to Congress which I already presented above. He dismissed the need for more forces and completely misjudged the scope of the cost of the conflict.
Bush was talking about the War on Terror, something with very weak definition. In terms of Iraq many times the public has been told that we are on the verge of wrapping the loose ends up. The President appeared on a ship with the message, “Mission Accomplished” now years ago.
“I just hope that the Democrats will not sabotage Iraq like they did Vietnam by denying military aid after we leave.”
You only hear people on the far right saying these things, I don’t think it has any historical basis.
“People on the left are unused to having their motivations questions and they need it. They have gotten accustomed to being attack dogs with never a thought that other people can reply in kind.”
Thats really a false generalization. You say a lot of things where the opposite is true – and you never prove your point. If you watch any media its the people on the right who have all the hostility. Is there anyone on the left as nasty and repugnant as Ann Coulter? Is she bringing the country together?
Most people I know are angry and fed up with Bush, they feel betrayed by all the things he has done. But no one I know or talk to are angry at people who are more conservative than them the way that people on the right talk with so much scorn to people on the left. Its really horrible to see the way that people attack fellow Americans. Look, we disagree with you, but read over this thing, you lept right out with a lot of hostility, insults, labeling that was totally false.
I am not at all Anti-America, yet you still persist to tag me with that, its actually quite disturbing to think that a fellow American would resort to that in 2007.
I don’t think it “works”. I would have been much happier to simply have a reasonable discussion on all of this stuff that would have been a 100X more persuasive that hearing constant insults. Most people do not agree with you, that does not make the imbeciles. They just don’t see it your way, that is not a reason to be angry with them or call them names, or to tell them that they are anti-american. Setting a nasty tone and telling people they are disloyal is just not the way to go about bringing people to your side.
Really, as Americans, we should be working together. In a way to me you seem like the anti-American, because you really seem to hate people who are to the left of you, thats nearly everyone in America. I don’t hate conservatives, I just disagree with them, but I reject the lies that many are willingly perpetuating.
“I would have been upset at Daniel if he was helping me by unfair means.”
Really, you are so uncivil to people here, I kinda think you get what you deserve. I did not see it as him helping me in particular. Most sites would not allow the sort of insults and hostility that you present. I think you’d have less trouble it you just presented yourself in a more collegial manner.
“That didn’t work so I started being as nasty and presumptive as you are.”
This is how you like to see it, but again its just you resorting events to make you feel better.
“I did. It didn’t work. I had to slap you around to get you to be respectful.”
Again bullshit, I have been nice, you keep calling me unamerican or an imbecile, its totally uncalled for and wrong.
“The issues that I highlighted are: the justice of Saddam’s case in invading Kuwait, The UN’s justice in forcing him out and then imposing a conditional cease fire, The US’s justice in carrying through with the UN’s war after Saddam broke the condition in resolution 687, the powerlessness of the UN because it will not take steps to force compliance, the right of the US to have a viewpoint which opposes the opinions of UN and EU official”
No dispute with any of these.
“the right of the Republican Party to cary on a war and the paranoia of the left in confronting Republicans”
Its not paranoia to raise objections or ask that our explanation of what we are doing be based on facts.
“But you are not interested in the issues, are you?”
Of course I am, I just realized that I have been spending my time on someone who has been acting in quite nasty way, I just disagree with you on most of your points. I did not want it to be a total waste of time.
I don’t think the media or the left is lying to us the way the Administration did. Do they get stuff wrong? Of course. I no longer give that same benefit of the doubt to the Bush administration, the trust has been broken too much.
Like I said, was there legal standing to take action in Iraq, yes. Was it necessary and justified for the Coalition to do what it did when it did. No, I just am not convinced of that. I was not at the time and I am not now.
My thinking has always been that maybe we are doing the right thing in Iraq by getting rid of Hussein but it was not correctly justified and we were lied to too much to be acceptable. That is the issue for me, I think the lies are corrosive and if not for them, we might have been better prepared to handle occupation.
Wow. Why are all of Urban’s posts deleted?
I’d appreciate it if Daniel’d shut down comments for this post, as Bard ceased to be amusing several weeks ago, and has swiftly descended into being downright annoying.
If I wanted to read this kind of paranoid conspiratorial right-wing crap, I’d turn to pretty much any station on the AM dial.
If Daniel had been an honest person, then he would asked Roz and me to take this argument elsewhere. Instead, he deleted my posts to make it appear that Roz was winning the discussion.
Your opinion is worthless, Encolpius, because you have made no arguments. We merely disagree.
You are a propagandist, too. You don’t want me to have my say because less committed Leftists, than yourself, might agree with my arguments. I am not paranoid because I fear no one. Nor do I conspire with anyone. I merely disagree with the talking points of the Mainstream Media.
If you don’t like free speech, then don’t listen. What makes you a propagandist is that you want to prevent other people from listening.
I don’t care if you have your say, Bard, but Daniel is in no way required to provide you with a forum to spew your crap. That’s not censoring your right to “free speech” … it’s telling an unwelcome guest to get the hell off of his property.
That is right, Daniel is not required to provide me with anything. But, there is civilized behavior. Daniel is pretending to have an open forum here. I have broken no rules. I have been honest. You just don’t like my opinions. Tough.
It would be quite permissible for Daniel to ask me to go away. He has not. Perhaps, Daniel should have asked that of both Roz and me. But, he did not.
He wanted to foist a lie upon his readers; that I had given up when I had not. He had already lied earlier to suggest that I constantly pestered him. Two or three emails is not pestering.
The things that Roz thought were insults were just the truth in some sense. Roz displayed great ignorance and had a delusive world view — Talk about your paranoid fantasies.
A person cannot ignore the consequences of their actions. If he acts to sabotage the Republicans and this also harms our war efforts and helps the enemy, why should he not put be placed on the enemy’s side?
That is the difference between a loyal and a disloyal opposition. A loyal opposition will not harm America just to get at the Republicans.
——————-
I have nothing against Daniel. I have stated that he make sense when talking about technical subjects. His politics just make no sense.
There are legitimate arguments against the Iraqi war, but you Leftists never bring them up. I tried to get a discussion going on them, but Roz wasn’t taking.
The reason that I suspected Daniel might be Roz, in disguise, is that I can’t see Daniel keeping out of the fray. But doing so openly would place his reputation in jeopardy, as if censoring my posts did not.
—————
Why are you involving yourself in this, Encolpius? Why should you interfere when Daniel does not? Why is this any of your business?
I think you just like the attention.
No, I just respond when attacked unfairly.
I had a simple response to the pictures that Daniel posted: that they reminded me of ’60’s Anti-war propaganda.
I thought them quite delusive. They implied that the world would be perfect if only Al Gore had no been elected President in 2000.
It was you Democrats who wanted to refight those old, dead issues. I merely replied. I tried to replace nonsense with reason. You weren’t having any of it.
You on the Left have an inability to reason. You cannot take evidence, combine it with logic, to construct a case. The next step is totally beyond you of testing that case against history to see if it is valid. You are not trained to do that, but worse, your sources of information in the Mainstream Media constantly lie to you. This makes you unhinged from reality.
It makes you unable to answer questions that conservatives ask of you. Questions such as ,”Where did the WMD go which the UN inspectors found in 1995?” Instead, you make the pretense that the WMD never existed. But you won’t answer the question of, “Then you are saying the UN Inspectors lied in 1995?”
Or If I make the case that the purpose of the Iraqi war was to salvage the credibility of the UN, “How do you respond?” Silence.
I am in a quandary myself over the war, I believe that the war is necessary and that it divides America’s enemies. But, I don’t want to save the UN. I want the UN to die as the worthless abuser of human freedom that it is.
There are many things that we could talk about, but I am not politically correct. Not even in a Conservative sense. I think for myself. That means that I disagree with people on the Right.
There are issues where I oppose President Bush.
I have not sold my soul to the National Review the way you have sold yours to the Mainstream Media. Or whoever does your thinking for you.
A monor correction:
I thought them quite delusive. They implied that the world would be perfect if only Al Gore had been elected President in 2000.
“If he acts to sabotage the Republicans”
What are you talking about? What actions have I taken?
Don’t call someone disloyal and anti-american over and over again with no reason or basis and expect them not to take it personally.
“Do you on the left want to win this war? I don’t think so.”
I have no idea why you say that. Everything I have been arguing for would have helped our efforts there. Democrats have not cut funding of the troops, even Republicans now realize that pressure needed to be placed on the Administration to get the job done. It was the election of 2006 that forced Bush to can Rumsfeld and the change course and do the surge. Left to their own devices the Administration just was not taking the steps needed to get the job done. I am glad violence is going down now. Really, I think there is a chance we may need to keep forces in place longer than the spring but unfortunately because the Administration waited so long to take action, even if we wanted to maintain the surge we don’t now have the troops available to extend their stays. Blame whoever you like for that but your a fool to think that is the Democrats fault, its just simply not the case.
“Are many of the actions of the people on the Left disloyal and unAmerican? Absolutely. Why? Because they play into the hands of the terrorists.”
What actions of the left are you talking about? Criticism of the war?? Sorry but in a free society you have you live with that. People exercising their rights to speak out are not enemies of the state. Many of the actions of Bush do the same. Why don’t you stop vilifying people who just disagree with you.
“The problem here is that you can dish out the insults but you are not mature enough to take them.”
I have not dished out any insults, though they are certainly deserved.
“There are legitimate arguments against the Iraqi war. You Leftist never bring them up, so I did. The arguments that you Leftists tout are childish, boring and impractical.”
I am not a leftist. I am moderate. I have brought up many criticisms of the conduct of the war, but you wrongly dismiss them because of the source. When Powell says the same exact thing its reasonable. So why continue arguing with you.
“If you act like someone who is disloyal and anti-America, then someone needs to call you on it.”
Again, for I don’t know how many times, nothing I have said or done has been in the slightest way Anti-American. I am not the NYT by the way. I really have no concept why you keep suggesting this. This is from your fantasy, not reality. I am not socialist or really at all leftist. I just want the truth from government.
“Jamie Gorlick created the “Wall” that kept the CIA and the FBI from talking to each other about intelligence cases. The Church Commission and FISA was an “easy on terrorists” campaign that contributed to 9/11.”
If the Bush administration did not like it they could have changed the policy. If they had convened a group to try to fight Al Queda before 9/11 as they should have they might have recognized the problem and taken steps the get the departments talking – but they didn’t.
Are you forgetting the real abuses of power that happened under Nixon that warranted the creation of the FISA court?
Personally I think that creating a bogus impeachment of Clinton was quite a distraction for the President. Maybe he would have been better in a position to fight Al Queda if not for the constant baseless investigations and prosecutions all at the hands of partisan Republicans.
“Because you want to cut efforts, not increase them.”
I never argued for any cut. I have been saying all along that we needed more forces there.
“If you are paranoid about the government then you shackle the government’s hands when they try to protect this country.”
We need to be a country of laws and that includes our defense of the country. So yes the Administration should be compelled to use FISA and if they find cases where they find the rules are insufficient to collect the intelligence they need they should as soon as reasonably possible seek the proper authority from Congress, not simply ignore the laws and restrictions on them.
“Rumsfeld was one of the longest serving Secretary of Defense we have ever had. The average term is two years. It is delusive to think that the 2006 election caused his retirement.”
Well he did resign the next day. Good riddance to him. Length of term is meaningless if the President is weak on asking for accountability. Gates is much better from top to bottom. He has credibility.
The New York Times is not the same as the Democrats or people who are critical of our handling of the war.
“Colin Powell did not say he was duped.”
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=2ZTLmOoPzjs
Oh here is another gem for you:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=hOzEz9eGJM0&feature=related
I have already addressed those questions. What sort of fantasy do you live in? Of course the invasion of Kuwait was not justified and Iraq’s removal from Kuwait was justified.