Conservatives & Liberals - What's the difference? [Archive] - Page 4

Skinview

05-15-2008, 06:10 PM

Dang old left-wing cranks over there at Meet The Press. Interviewing that dang old former left-wing crank National Intelligence Director about Bush politicizing the run up to the invasion and occupation of Iraq!

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=gCJz1_kzOiM

Skinview, you're in check in one move--your next move, regardless, puts you in checkmate...I'm waiting. Expectantly.You blundered, and I'm taking your Queen and putting you in check. Did you even listen to the video??? It says nothing that supports your position. Michael McConnell stated that HE believed that Saddam had WMDs, in part because even Saddam's Generals believed they had WMDs. McConnell refused, when Russert asked, to say that the Bush administration "hyped the intelligence". McConnell's whole point was that the Bush administration BELIEVED Saddam had WMD's, and this lead them to implement unsound intelligence practices that unintentionally affirmed their belief. You are picking three words from what Stephen Hayes (who wasn't on the show) wrote in his book, that describes his opinion of what he thought McConnell believed, which was quoted by Russert in a four minute conversation about something else, which you misunderstood, and you are now misquoting the quote from that Hayes guy, who wasn't even there to explain what he thought McConnell thought. Its a classic case of someone wispering something into someones ear, who wispers it into someone elses ear, and so on for x number of people, until "Teresa loves her puppy" turns into "Lisa wants to marry a yuppy." This had absolutely nothing to do with political advantage, it was about how Bush's beliefs influenced the intelligence analysis.

C'mon dude, you've taken an untenable position. The invasion and occupation of Iraq was all about politics and oil---that's all.Now you have gone from it being all about one reason to two reasons. Keep going, you are making a little progress. Add several more and drop the politics, and you might reach the real world.

This administration measures everything it does against political metrics.Nearly all, if not all, politicians weigh the political impact of everything the say and vote on. Thats their world.

Don't try to defend the indefensible, learn from it and move on. You've been lied to and had your core beliefs betrayed by this administration--you ought not be trying to defend them.Bush sucks, but I'll defend him against false charges.

nacktman

05-15-2008, 07:55 PM

Another difference:

conservatives are clueless as to when they have been defeated.

Boreas

05-15-2008, 09:35 PM

McConnell's whole point was that the Bush administration BELIEVED Saddam had WMD's, and this lead them to implement unsound intelligence practices that unintentionally affirmed their belief.

it was about how Bush's beliefs influenced the intelligence analysis

That is scary. Look where it got us. Hopefully someone will be able to untangle the mess he has gotten the US into.

usmc1

05-16-2008, 05:03 AM

You blundered, and I'm taking your Queen and putting you in check. Did you even listen to the video??? It says nothing that supports your position. Michael McConnell stated that HE believed that Saddam had WMDs, in part because even Saddam's Generals believed they had WMDs. McConnell refused, when Russert asked, to say that the Bush administration "hyped the intelligence". McConnell's whole point was that the Bush administration BELIEVED Saddam had WMD's, and this lead them to implement unsound intelligence practices that unintentionally affirmed their belief. You are picking three words from what Stephen Hayes (who wasn't on the show) wrote in his book, that describes his opinion of what he thought McConnell believed, which was quoted by Russert in a four minute conversation about something else, which you misunderstood, and you are now misquoting the quote from that Hayes guy, who wasn't even there to explain what he thought McConnell thought. Its a classic case of someone wispering something into someones ear, who wispers it into someone elses ear, and so on for x number of people, until "Teresa loves her puppy" turns into "Lisa wants to marry a yuppy." This had absolutely nothing to do with political advantage, it was about how Bush's beliefs influenced the intelligence analysis.

No, nothing like that at all.

First, you alleged that reports of Bush politicizing the Invasion and Occupation of Iraq came from some "left-wing crank" site. In response, I posted a link to a Meet the Press interview wherein Bush's former National Security Director said that, among other things, he was disturbed by the fact that a separate intelligence unit was set up in the Pentagon for the purpose of reinterpret intelligence to fit the administrations point of view: National Intel Director: Bush Admin Politicized Iraq Intel

I have misquoted nothing, I posted a link with the above headline. Fair-minded people can view the interview and come to their own conclusions. But, I will say this...McConnell did not deny any portion of the interview quotes attributed to him and merely enlarged on them in Washingtonese.

Secondly, you deny that Bush polticized Iraq and then write, "Nearly all, if not all, politicians weigh the political impact of everything the say and vote on. Thats their world."

You can't have it both ways, and in fact undermine your whole assertion by writing such.

Now you have gone from it being all about one reason to two reasons. Keep going, you are making a little progress. Add several more and drop the politics, and you might reach the real world.

Huh? You say everything is about political impact and then you say drop the politics. Makes no sense.

Bush sucks, but I'll defend him against false charges.

I'm certain he would appreciate your misguided efforts to defend him. He night even give you a nickname....Oh sweet Jesus, I'm acting with such self-restraint here by not offering it!

But, since your "move" involved an illegal use of a knight...they're not the ones that move on the diagonal...you're still in check.

Qikdraw

05-16-2008, 09:28 AM

McConnell refused, when Russert asked, to say that the Bush administration "hyped the intelligence". McConnell's whole point was that the Bush administration BELIEVED Saddam had WMD's, and this lead them to implement unsound intelligence practices that unintentionally affirmed their belief.

I think he has the timeline a little mixed up. They created an 'intelligence' outfit called Office of Special Plans, that took CIA info, found the worst case scenario, and used that to tell the world what Saddam had. The CIA at the time objected to the use of that info. The Bush admin used people like 'curveball', and Chalabi, that the CIA deemed unreliable for their information. From day one it was a setup.

You cannot forget that in 1998 Project for a New American Century, of which members of that organisation are, or were, in the Bush administration, these guys sent a letter to Clinton urging him to attack Iraq. They also wrote a paper called 'Rebuilding America's Defences' (wrote in 2000) in which they called for 'another Pearl Harbor' to be able to impliment their New World Order. The Bush administration followed that document to the letter, even exact percentages of GDP to put into the military.

Sorry but this administration KNEW what they were doing, and it was a deliberate misinformation campaign. They even did it to members of their own party, so they 'believed'.

Qikdraw

usmc1

05-17-2008, 12:27 PM

What in the name of hell is wrong with these people? Are they so full of hubris that they think they can utter any stupid, offensive remark and no one cares? I've watched fifth graders conduct themselves with greater sensitivity and maturity than do these yowling morons from the right.

This man is supposedly a minister. But he was running for President, and is a politician---and that now makes him THE poster boy for separation of church and state.

http://www.breitbart.tv/html/97143.html

Skinview

05-19-2008, 10:47 AM

First, you alleged that reports of Bush politicizing the Invasion and Occupation of Iraq came from some "left-wing crank" site. In response, I posted a link to a Meet the Press interview wherein Bush's former National Security Director said that, among other things, he was disturbed by the fact that a separate intelligence unit was set up in the Pentagon for the purpose of reinterpret intelligence to fit the administrations point of view: National Intel Director: Bush Admin Politicized Iraq IntelNo, he did not say that the "purpose" of the intelligence unit was to "reinterpret intelligence to fit the administrations point of view". And the "National Intel Director" did not say the "Bush admin politicized Iraq intelligence". That was a misleading title taken from something that someone else (Hayes) wrote. (See the Hayes quote farther below.)

I have misquoted nothing, I posted a link with the above headline.Here is what you wrote:
Interviewing that dang old former left-wing crank National Intelligence Director about Bush politicizing the run up to the invasion and occupation of Iraq!...
The invasion and occupation of Iraq was all about politics...
Here is what Hayes wrote:
“[Michael McConnell] had been unimpressed with many aspects of the Bush administration and its conduct of the war on terror, particularly what he felt was a politicized use of intelligence in the lead-up to the Iraq War.” - Stephen Hayes, in Cheney, pages 517-519

It seems that Hayes is writing (considering the content of the program and the quote from McConnell) that Bush used the intelligence to build support for the war. I would expect that. Any president would be stupid if he didn't do that. He says nothing about Bush using the intelligence for the purpose gaining political support for himself.
But more to my point, at no point in the program does McConnell even address the content of that statement by Hayes. That Hayes statement is not a McConnell quote, and its unsupported by anything else in the program, either quoted from the Hayes book, or by anything McConnell said.

Fair-minded people can view the interview and come to their own conclusions. But, I will say this...McConnell did not deny any portion of the interview quotes attributed to him and merely enlarged on them in Washingtonese.Below is the complete quote from the book on the program, of everything that McConnell said:

“...they had first and foremost very strong political convictions. My sense of it is their political faith and convictions influenced how they took information and interpreted [it], how they picked up and interpreted outside events.” - Michael McConnell, as quoted in Cheny

Secondly, you deny that Bush polticized Iraq and then write, "Nearly all, if not all, politicians weigh the political impact of everything the say and vote on. Thats their world."

You can't have it both ways, and in fact undermine your whole assertion by writing such.Is English a second language for you?

Huh? You say everything is about political impact and then you say drop the politics. Makes no sense.No, I didn't say everything is about political impact. I said the political impact of everything politicians do is weighed. Roosevelt had to consider whether the public would be behind him if he called for a declaration of war in 1941. That does not at all imply that we entered WWII for political reasons. Any president has to consider the political ramifications of their policies, and once having chosen to take a course of action, then he has to build support for that to implement it. It doesn't mean they take the course of action for personal political gain.

usmc1

05-19-2008, 01:12 PM

Skinview, you seem to like this line by line parsing and equivocating over semantics, and the meaning of words. When an interviewee, does not deny a quote attributed to them, it means they accept the quote as being factual.

The point I offered, was substantiated by fact, other posters took it as such and expanded on it, so I really feel that I have nothing left to prove to you. No level of proof would be satisfactory, no source would be pure enough, and no quote would be in the precise words that you would accept. No set of testimony, however damning and circumstantial and requiring inferential thinking, would suffice.

You wish to believe that Bush did not politicize the invasion and occupation of Iraq for political gain, that is your right. If you look around, you'll find that somewhere between 25 - 30 percent of America shares that way of thinking.

You wish to defend this monster? Go right ahead!

I appreciate your interest in my language skills. But, no, English is my primary language, pig latin would have been my second, others followed that!

Skinview

05-19-2008, 09:12 PM

Skinview, you seem to like this line by line parsing and equivocating over semantics, and the meaning of words. When an interviewee, does not deny a quote attributed to them, it means they accept the quote as being factual.

National Intel Director: Bush Admin Politicized Iraq IntelThis is

NOT

a quote attributed to the the interviewee, Michael McConnell.

usmc1

05-20-2008, 04:29 AM

This is

NOT

a quote attributed to the the interviewee, Michael McConnell.

You need to listen more closely to the interview. What is being quoted at the very beginning of the interview is an excerpt from Hayse's book which is attributed to the words and expressed views of McConnell that Bush politicized the run-up to the Iraq invasion and occupation. McConnell does not deny that excerpt and goes on to enlarge upon it.

I don't think you're ever going to find a "smoking gun" where there is the sort of direct quote from the players that would be along the lines of, "yes, we did this for political reasons". But, I am saying there is enough direct and circumstantial evidence to convice most people that the Bush administration was opportunistic with 9/11, and, used the invasion of Iraq, for political aims. It is a ghastly notion, but one that I sincerely think history will support.

Here's another little piece of emerging truth:

http://www.smirkingchimp.com/thread/14731

Skinview

05-20-2008, 10:01 AM

You need to listen more closely to the interview.I carefully listened to that interview a half dozen times, searching for anything that had something to do with the clip title or what you are claiming. It all comes from four words Hayes wrote that got twisted.

What is being quoted at the very beginning of the interview is an excerpt from Hayse's book which is attributed to the words and expressed views of McConnell that Bush politicized the run-up to the Iraq invasion and occupation.No, Hayes did not write that. He wrote, in just four words, that there was a "politicized use of intelligence". This is entirely consistant with the idea that intelligence was being used to build support for the war. We all know that happened. McConnell would have no reason to comment on it, and nothing in the conversation had anything to do with partisan politics. There is absolutely nothing in that clip to support your position.

McConnell does not deny that excerpt and goes on to enlarge upon it.No, he completely ignored the "politicized use of intelligence" line.

I don't think you're ever going to find a "smoking gun" where there is the sort of direct quote from the players that would be along the lines of, "yes, we did this for political reasons".I'm not looking for a "smoking gun", you are, and you haven't found it.

But, I am saying there is enough direct and circumstantial evidence to convice most people that the Bush administration was opportunistic with 9/11, and, used the invasion of Iraq, for political aims.You have not presented ANY evidence for this assertion. There is no reason for anyone to believe it. It seems there is someone who desperately wants to believe it.

usmc1

05-20-2008, 12:29 PM

I carefully listened to that interview a half dozen times, searching for anything that had something to do with the clip title or what you are claiming. It all comes from four words Hayes wrote that got twisted.

No, Hayes did not write that. He wrote, in just four words, that there was a "politicized use of intelligence". This is entirely consistant with the idea that intelligence was being used to build support for the war. We all know that happened. McConnell would have no reason to comment on it, and nothing in the conversation had anything to do with partisan politics. There is absolutely nothing in that clip to support your position.

No, he completely ignored the "politicized use of intelligence" line.

I'm not looking for a "smoking gun", you are, and you haven't found it.

You have not presented ANY evidence for this assertion. There is no reason for anyone to believe it. It seems there is someone who desperately wants to believe it.

Here is text form are the critical words of the interview with Tim Russert in which McConnell tacitly confirms and expands on his views that the Bush administration politicized the Iraq invasion.<?xml:namespace prefix = o ns = "urn:schemas-microsoft-com:office:office" /><o:p></o:p>
The bold italics in the text are mine to draw your attention to the pertinent words:<o:p></o:p>
<o:p> </o:p>
MR. RUSSERT: Stephen Hayes has written his book on Vice President<o:p></o:p>
Cheney, and as I was reading it, I found an interview with you about your views of the administration and some of their methods of gathering<o:p></o:p>
intelligence, and I want to share that with you and have a chance to talk about it.<o:p></o:p>
<o:p> </o:p>
It says here, "In November of 2006, Michael McConnell, who had been<o:p></o:p>
working on intelligence issues in the private sector since resigning from the NSA in '96 was asked to consider joining the Bush administration as the nation's top intelligence official. McConnell was honored to be asked but had serious reservations. He had been unimpressed with many aspects of the Bush administration and its conduct of the war on terror, particularly what he felt was a politicized use of intelligence and lead-up to the war.<o:p></o:p>
<o:p> </o:p>
All of these current players, Secretary Rumsfeld, Vice President<o:p></o:p>
Cheney, and the president,' McConnell said in an interview in late November '06, 'must come through from me as a citizen. I am no longer on active duty, so I can say these things. They had, first and foremost, very strong political convictions. My sense of it is their political faith and convictions influence how they took information and interpreted it, how they picked up and interpreted outside events. As a former intel pro, when you don't like the answer, and you set up your own thing, you tend to get the answer you want. You hire people that think like you do or want to satisfy the boss. I've read much more about the current set of players, and they did set up a whole new interpretation because they didn't like the answers. They<o:p></o:p>
got results that, in my view, now have been disastrous.'"<o:p></o:p>
That's pretty harsh.<o:p></o:p>
<o:p> </o:p>
MR. McCONNELL: We're all influenced by what we see and hear and<o:p></o:p>
read. I am a concerned citizen. I read those things and read those<o:p></o:p>
accounts. What I was taking greatest exception to was to have a secondary unit established in the Pentagon to reinterpret information.<o:p></o:p>
The problem I have with that is the way you do intelligence is all<o:p></o:p>
sources considered. You have to factor one issue against another and balance...<o:p></o:p>
<o:p> </o:p>
At no point does he deny or refute or repudiate the statement attributed to him that the administration “politicized use of intelligence and lead-up to the war.” And, in fact, takes this interview to expand on clarify why he felt the administration politicized the process.<o:p></o:p>

Skinview

05-20-2008, 05:26 PM

Here is text form are the critical words of the interview with Tim Russert in which McConnell tacitly confirms and expands on his views that the Bush administration politicized the Iraq invasion.

The bold italics in the text are mine to draw your attention to the pertinent words:
MR. RUSSERT: Stephen Hayes has written his book on Vice President
Cheney, and as I was reading it, I found an interview with you about your views of the administration and some of their methods of gathering intelligence, and I want to share that with you and have a chance to talk about it.
It says here, "In November of 2006, Michael McConnell, who had been
working on intelligence issues in the private sector since resigning from the NSA in '96 was asked to consider joining the Bush administration as the nation's top intelligence official. McConnell was honored to be asked but had serious reservations. He had been unimpressed with many aspects of the Bush administration and its conduct of the war on terror, particularly what he felt was a politicized use of intelligence and lead-up to the war.
All of these current players, Secretary Rumsfeld, Vice President Cheney, and the president,' McConnell said in an interview in late November '06, 'must come through from me as a citizen. I am no longer on active duty, so I can say these things. They had, first and foremost, very strong political convictions. My sense of it is their political faith and convictions influence how they took information and interpreted it, how they picked up and interpreted outside events. As a former intel pro, when you don't like the answer, and you set up your own thing, you tend to get the answer you want. You hire people that think like you do or want to satisfy the boss. I've read much more about the current set of players, and they did set up a whole new interpretation because they didn't like the answers. They got results that, in my view, now have been disastrous.'"
That's pretty harsh.

MR. McCONNELL: We're all influenced by what we see and hear and read. I am a concerned citizen. I read those things and read those accounts. What I was taking greatest exception to was to have a secondary unit established in the Pentagon to reinterpret information. The problem I have with that is the way you do intelligence is all
sources considered. You have to factor one issue against another and balance...

At no point does he deny or refute or repudiate the statement attributed to him that the administration “politicized use of intelligence and lead-up to the war.”
You highlighted the same words (but misquoted) that I have already quoted to you!!!! (post #762)
And again, I don't know how many times I have to write this before it sinks in: McConnell didn't say that, Hayes wrote that McConnell thought that. There is no "statement" attributed McConnell regarding "politicized use of intelligence". We have no quote or discussion from McConnell on that. Its not there. And even if he did say it, (we can't tell from this clip) there is nothing nefarious about using intelligence to build support for the war.
Furthermore, your quote is wrong. Hayes didn't write "politicized use of intelligence and lead up to the war", he wrote "politicized use of intelligence in the lead up to the war."
I don't know how many other misquotes are in there that I haven't caught. I see a few minor ones.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=gCJz1_kzOiM

And, in fact, takes this interview to expand on clarify why he felt the administration politicized the process.No, he didn't. There is no talk of politics, politicization, or anything like that. Its about screwing up intelligence interpretation.

usmc1

05-21-2008, 04:33 AM

You highlighted the same words (but misquoted) that I have already quoted to you!!!! (post #762)
And again, I don't know how many times I have to write this before it sinks in: McConnell didn't say that, Hayes wrote that McConnell thought that. There is no "statement" attributed McConnell regarding "politicized use of intelligence". We have no quote or discussion from McConnell on that. Its not there. And even if he did say it, (we can't tell from this clip) there is nothing nefarious about using intelligence to build support for the war.
Furthermore, your quote is wrong. Hayes didn't write "politicized use of intelligence and lead up to the war", he wrote "politicized use of intelligence in the lead up to the war."
I don't know how many other misquotes are in there that I haven't caught. I see a few minor ones.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=gCJz1_kzOiM
No, he didn't. There is no talk of politics, politicization, or anything like that. Its about screwing up intelligence interpretation.

If someone reads to you words written and published about your thoughts or words which have been attributed to you and you do not deny or refute those words it means you accept them as quoted to you. McConnell did not deny those thoughts or words in the quote. He, in fact, used this interview to offer the specifics which caused him to have the very thoughts iterated in Hayse's book and which Russert quoted to him..

As to the "and" and "in the" issue, no big deal, it probably was just a typo which did not change the context or meaning of the sentence. Since the politicization happened "in the" run up, it means the run up was politicized, so the conjunction "and" would be a correct usage.

I don't know what other "minor misquotes" you found, since the body of the text was copied from the PDF transcript of the entire interview and which is readily accessible online.

I do wish you'd stick to the subject and not make insulting and slurring side-comments about my familiarity with English or things sinking in.

Skinview

05-22-2008, 10:08 PM

If someone reads to you words written and published about your thoughts or words which have been attributed to you and you do not deny or refute those words it means you accept them as quoted to you.Not necessarily. McConnell could decline to comment for several reasons, or others that I couldn't guess. He may not be sure what Hayes is refering to. He may think it trivial and not worth national broadcast time to refute. If Russert told me on the air that my shoe lace was untied, I might think he's nuts, but it wouldn't be worth our time to point out that I'm wearing velcro sneakers. Or maybe its largely true, but off the mark in some way, and not worth splitting hairs over. I think the reason he didn't comment on it was because Russert quoted from a couple of different passages, and McConnell wanted to speak to the latter passage that was an actual quote. Something had to get left on the wayside. We really know next to nothing about what McConnell thought about the "politicized use of intelligence" passage that Hayes wrote.

McConnell did not deny those thoughts or words in the quote. He, in fact, used this interview to offer the specifics which caused him to have the very thoughts iterated in Hayse's book and which Russert quoted to him..McConnell expanded on the later passage that was an actual McConnell quote, that was only about how intelligence was unintentionally misinterpreted due to their expectations.

As to the "and" and "in the" issue, no big deal, it probably was just a typo which did not change the context or meaning of the sentence. Since the politicization happened "in the" run up, it means the run up was politicized, so the conjunction "and" would be a correct usage."and" would give us two things to misconstrue and go nuts over....

I don't know what other "minor misquotes" you found, since the body of the text was copied from the PDF transcript of the entire interview and which is readily accessible online.McConnell's first response was a one word "Indeed.", which was omitted.

I do wish you'd stick to the subject and not make insulting and slurring side-comments about my familiarity with English or things sinking in.You have repeatedly claimed that "politicized use of intelligence" was a "quote" or "statement" of McConnell's, and I point out that it isn't, and you write it again, and I correct it again, and then you write it again, and I correct it again, and on and on. It gets frustrating. And sometimes you write things that bring to mind a letter written by Ben Franklin, about John Adams, that went something like:
"Mr. Adams is an honest man, and often a wise man, but sometimes he is completely out of his mind."

Qikdraw

05-23-2008, 10:17 AM

You two need to get a room. The sexual tension is pretty hot between you. We can all tell.

Qikdraw

usmc1

05-23-2008, 10:47 AM

You two need to get a room. The sexual tension is pretty hot between you. We can all tell.

Qikdraw

Sometimes people project onto others what it that they want for themselves. But, sorry, I'm spoken for.

As to the point of contention. Anyone who believes that Bush did not cherry-pick intelligence in the lead up to the invasion and occupation of Iraq and did not use that invasion for poltical purposes and who actually argues on behalf of Bush in those regards is beyond my abilities to persuade otherwise. As I noted earlier, there is no level of proof which would acceptable to such a person...I wished I'd left it at that, because nothing has really changed since that post, except that I'm now being told, "I'm completely out of my mind."

I'm content with the realization that documentation and history is already building that case, and regard my mind as being intact and properly functioning.

usmc1

05-28-2008, 04:50 AM

Drip!, Drip!, Drip!, Drip!, Drip!

Ex-Bush spokesman: President used 'propaganda' to push war

WASHINGTON (CNN) -- The spokesman who defended President Bush's policies through Hurricane Katrina and the early years of the Iraq war is now blasting his former employers, saying the Bush administration became mired in propaganda and political spin and at times played loose with the truth.

In excerpts from a 341-page book to be released Monday, Scott McClellan writes on Iraq that Bush "and his advisers confused the propaganda campaign with the high level of candor and honesty so fundamentally needed to build and then sustain public support during a time of war."
"n this regard, he was terribly ill-served by his top advisers, especially those involved directly in national security," McClellan wrote.

McClellan also sharply criticizes the administration on its handling of Hurricane Katrina and its aftermath.

"One of the worst disasters in our nation's history became one of the biggest disasters in Bush (http://topics.cnn.com/topics/george_w_bush)'s presidency," he wrote. "Katrina (http://topics.cnn.com/topics/hurricane_katrina) and the botched federal response to it would largely come to define Bush's second term."
Bush spokeswoman Dana Perino said the White House would not comment Tuesday because they haven't seen the book.

Frances Townsend, former Homeland Security adviser to Bush, said advisers to the president should speak up when they have policy concerns.
"Scott never did that on any of these issues as best I can remember or as best as I know from any of my White House colleagues," said Townsend, now a CNN contributor. "For him to do this now strikes me as self-serving, disingenuous and unprofessional."

Fox News contributor and former White House adviser Karl Rove (http://topics.cnn.com/topics/karl_rove) said on that network Tuesday that the excerpts from the book he's read sound more like they were written by a "left-wing blogger" than his former colleague.

In a brief phone conversation with CNN Tuesday evening, McClellan (http://topics.cnn.com/topics/scott_mcclellan) made clear that he stands behind the accuracy of his book. McClellan said he cannot give on-the-record quotes yet because of an agreement with his publisher. http://i.l.cnn.net/cnn/.element/img/2.0/mosaic/tabs/video.gifWatch further details emerge from McClellan's book » (http://cnn.site.printthis.clickability.com/pt/cpt?action=cpt&title=Ex-Bush+spokesman%3A+President+used+%27propaganda%27+ to+push+war+-+CNN.com&expire=-1&urlID=28781097&fb=Y&url=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.cnn.com%2F2008%2FPOLITICS%2F0 5%2F27%2Fmcclellan.book%2Findex.html&partnerID=211911#cnnSTCVideo)

Early in the book, which CNN obtained late Tuesday, McClellan wrote that he believes he told untruths on Bush's behalf in the case of CIA agent Valerie Plame, whose identity was leaked to the media.

Rove and fellow White House advisers Elliot Abrams and I. Lewis "Scooter" Libby were accused of leaking the name of Plame -- whose husband, former U.S. ambassador Joseph Wilson, had gone public with charges the Bush administration had "twisted" facts to justify the war in Iraq.

Libby was convicted last year of lying to a grand jury and federal agents investigating the leak. Bush commuted his 30-month prison term, calling it excessive. At the time, McClellan called the three "good individuals" and said he spoke to them before telling reporters they were not involved.
"I had allowed myself to be deceived into unknowingly passing along a falsehood," he wrote. "It would ultimately prove fatal to my ability to serve the president effectively."

McClellan wrote he didn't realize what he said was untrue until reporters began digging up details of the case almost two years later.

A former spokesman for Bush when he was governor of Texas, McClellan was named White House press secretary in 2003, replacing Ari Fleischer. McClellan had previously been a deputy press secretary and was the traveling spokesman for the Bush campaign during the 2000 election.
He announced he was resigning in April 2006 at a news conference with Bush.

"One of these days, he and I are going to be rocking in chairs in Texas talking about the good old days of his time as the press secretary," Bush said at that conference. "And I can assure you, I will feel the same way then that I feel now, that I can say to [I]Scott, job well done."

usmc1

06-02-2008, 11:51 AM

Read his Hitleresque last days in the bunker rant as reported by General Sanchez..."Ve vill vipe dem out! Ve vill find dem and kill dem!"

All that's missing is that funny little dance and Sieg Heil salute!

My goodness, what have we become? A grotesque parody of all that we fear.

The Washington Post points out that in the hubbub of the McClellan book, another scathing memoir has come out exposing the truth behind Iraq.
Getting lost in the media furor over McClellan's memoir is the new autobiography of retired Lt. Gen. Ricardo S. Sanchez, the onetime commander of U.S. troops in Iraq, who is scathing in his assessment that the Bush administration "led America into a strategic blunder of historic proportions."

Among the anecdotes in "Wiser in Battle: A Soldier's Story" is an arresting portrait of Bush after four contractors were killed in Fallujah in 2004, triggering a fierce U.S. response that was reportedly egged on by the president.

During a videoconference with his national security team and generals, Sanchez writes, Bush launched into what he described as a "confused" pep talk:

"Kick ***!" he quotes the president as saying. "If somebody tries to stop the march to democracy, we will seek them out and kill them! We must be tougher than hell! This Vietnam stuff, this is not even close. It is a mind-set. We can't send that message. It's an excuse to prepare us for withdrawal."

"There is a series of moments and this is one of them. Our will is being tested, but we are resolute. We have a better way. Stay strong! Stay the course! Kill them! Be confident! Prevail! We are going to wipe them out! We are not blinking!"

A White House spokesman had no comment.

usmc1

06-05-2008, 09:41 AM

Bush sucks, but I'll defend him against false charges.

Seth Colter Wallsffice:

The Huffington Post<?XML:NAMESPACE PREFIX = O /><O:p></O:p>

Senate Report: Bush Used Iraq Intel He Knew Was False (http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2008/06/05/divided-senate-committee_n_105374.html)<O:p></O:p>

More than five years after the initial invasion Iraq, the Senate Intelligence Committee has finally gone on the record: the Bush administration misused, and in some cases disregarded, intelligence which led the nation into war. The two final sections of a long-delayed and much anticipated "Phase II" report (http://intelligence.senate.gov/pubcurrent.html) on the Bush administration's use of prewar intelligence, released on Thursday morning, accuse senior White House officials of repeatedly misrepresenting the threat posed by <?xml:namespace prefix = st1 ns = "urn:schemas-microsoft-comhttp://www.clothesfreeforum.com/ /><st1:country-region w:st=<ST1:place w:st=" /><st1:country-region w:st="on"><ST1:place w:st="on">Iraq</ST1:place></st1:country-region>.

In addition, the report on <st1:country-region w:st="on"><ST1:place w:st="on">Iraq</ST1:place></st1:country-region> war intelligence harshly criticizes a Pentagon office for executing "inappropriate, sensitive intelligence activities" without the proper knowledge of the State Department and other agencies.

In addition to judgments that could prove troublesome for the White House and make waves in the presidential race, the report also contains some stinging minority reports from Republican committee members who allege that Democrats turned the intelligence review process into a "partisan exercise."

However, when the GOP controlled the intelligence committee and steered its "Phase I" reporting on the use of Iraq war intelligence, critics complained that tough questions about the Bush administration's actions had been kicked down the road, and thus required a second round of fact finding -- dubbed "Phase II." The committee's delay in producing that full report to the public was seen by Democrats as evidence of a stonewalling campaign executed by President Bush's Republican Senate allies.

Former Committee Chairman Sen. Pat Roberts (R-KS) often vacillated over whether or not the report was worth completing, first promising (http://www.washingtonpost.com/ac2/wp-dyn/A38650-2004Jul9?language=printer) in 2004 that the work would be finished, and then calling it a "monumental waste of time (http://intelligence.senate.gov/050331.htm)" later in 2005. When Democrats gained control of the Senate after the 2006 midterm elections, they gained a majority of seats on the committee and set the course for the production of the final reports. Whether by partisan design or simple chance, however, the committee managed to save some of the best questions for last.<O:p></O:p>
The "Phase II" report states -- in terms clearer than any previous government publication -- that there was no operational relationship between Al Qaeda and Saddam Hussein, that Bush officials were not truthful about the difficulties the United States would face in post-war Iraq and that their public statements did not reflect intelligence they had at the time, and, specifically, that the intelligence community would not confirm any meeting between Iraqi officials and Mohamed Atta -- a claim that was nevertheless publicly repeated.

"Before taking the country to war, this Administration owed it to the American people to give them a 100 percent accurate picture of the threat we faced. Unfortunately, our Committee has concluded that the Administration made significant claims that were not supported by the intelligence," Rockefeller said in a statement provided to The Huffington Post.

"In making the case for war, the Administration repeatedly presented intelligence as fact when in reality it was unsubstantiated, contradicted, or even non-existent. As a result, the American people were led to believe that the threat from <st1:country-region w:st="on"><ST1:place w:st="on">Iraq</ST1:place></st1:country-region> was much greater than actually existed. ... There is no question we all relied on flawed intelligence. But, there is a fundamental difference between relying on incorrect intelligence and deliberately painting a picture to the American people that you know is not fully accurate."

In a minority report authored by Sens. Orrin Hatch, Christopher Bond and Richard Burr, the Republicans accuse committee Democrats of committing a key error of governmental logic. "Intelligence informs policy. It does not dictate policy," they wrote. "Intelligence professionals are responsible for their failures in intelligence collection, analysis, counter-intelligence and covert action. Policymakers must also bear the burden of their mistakes, an entirely different order of mistakes. It is a pity this report fails to illuminate this distinction."

The key findings released by Rockefeller and his divided committee brings the five-part "Phase II" of the committee's report on prewar intelligence to completion. The investigation's first phase was released on July 2004, and two less controversial parts of "Phase II" were declassified in September 2006.

The potential election year impact of these latest findings is uncertain. On the stump, Sen. John McCain has explained his support of the "surge" strategy in <st1:country-region w:st="on">Iraq</st1:country-region> by saying the country has become the "central front" in the war on terror -- a framing that attempts to shoot past the question of <st1:country-region w:st="on"><ST1:place w:st="on">Iraq</ST1:place></st1:country-region>'s status in the terror hierarchy during the 2003 campaign waged in Congress to authorize military action.

Still, the breadth of the Committee's citations of examples in which the Bush administration's comments were not supported by intelligence could reignite public dissatisfaction over the war. According to a release from Rockefeller's office that was provided to The Huffington Post, these examples include:<O:p></O:p>
-- Statements and implications by the President and Secretary of State suggesting that <st1:country-region w:st="on">Iraq</st1:country-region> and al-Qa'ida had a partnership, or that <st1:country-region w:st="on"><ST1:place w:st="on">Iraq</ST1:place></st1:country-region> had provided al-Qa'ida with weapons training, were not substantiated by the intelligence. <O:p></O:p>
-- Statements by the President and the Vice President indicating that Saddam Hussein was prepared to give weapons of mass destruction to terrorist groups for attacks against the <st1:country-region w:st="on"><ST1:place w:st="on">United States</ST1:place></st1:country-region> were contradicted by available intelligence information.<O:p></O:p>
-- Statements by President Bush and Vice President Cheney regarding the postwar situation in Iraq, in terms of the political, security, and economic, did not reflect the concerns and uncertainties expressed in the intelligence products.<O:p></O:p>
-- Statements by the President and Vice President prior to the October 2002 National Intelligence Estimate regarding Iraq's chemical weapons production capability and activities did not reflect the intelligence community's uncertainties as to whether such production was ongoing.<O:p></O:p>
-- The Secretary of Defense's statement that the Iraqi government operated underground WMD facilities that were not vulnerable to conventional airstrikes because they were underground and deeply buried was not substantiated by available intelligence information.<O:p></O:p>
-- The Intelligence Community did not confirm that Muhammad Atta met an Iraqi intelligence officer in <st1:City w:st="on"><ST1:place w:st="on">Prague</ST1:place></st1:City> in 2001 as the Vice President repeatedly claimed.

"It has been four years since the Committee began the second phase of its review," Sen. Dianne Feinstein wrote in her note attached to the report. "The results are now in. Even though the intelligence before the war supported inaccurate statements, this Administration distorted the intelligence in order to build its case to go to war. The Executive Branch released only those findings that supported the argument, did not relay uncertainties, and at times made statements beyond what the intelligence supported."<O:p></O:p>

And...Mate!

Skinview

06-09-2008, 07:42 AM

Boreas

06-09-2008, 08:29 AM

There is nothing surprising here. Bush was trying to sell the war, so they trotted out everything they could to make the case. We all know the intel turned out to be wrong. Nothing in this article speaks to why Bush wanted to go to war.

I don't suppose we will ever know for sure will we. There have been several good theories, but they are just that, theories.

I wonder what history will tell us.

Qikdraw

06-09-2008, 11:08 AM

I don't suppose we will ever know for sure will we. There have been several good theories, but they are just that, theories.

I wonder what history will tell us.

Actually if you read 'Rebuilding America's Defences (http://www.informationclearinghouse.info/article3249.htm)' you'll find the reason for the war.

That article published by Project for a New American Century, which is full of Bush administration officials, was written in 2000. After Bush got into office the plans laid out in that article were followed to the letter, even to the amount of military spending. One of the more alarming points made in the article is the comment that what they (PNAC) propose would take many years, unless another Pearl Harbor happened. Read into that what you will.

This is also telling...

Dick Cheney wants the Iraqi government installed by the U.S. occupation to sign a "security pact" with Washington by the end of July. (The pact, including a status-of-forces agreement, would be signed by the U.S. president but not constitute a treaty requiring Congressional approval.) U.S. Ambassador Ryan Crocker has been feverishly struggling to meet the deadline and to commit the next administration to the agreement's terms. But that may be a tall order. Prime Minister Nour al-Maliki says negotiations are only in a beginning stage; public opinion is opposed to the pact based on leaked information about its content; and a majority of members of the Iraqi parliament have endorsed a letter to the U.S. government demanding U.S. withdrawal as the condition for "any commercial, agricultural, investment or political agreement with the United States."

Few Americans are familiar with the proposed treaty. If they were, they might be shocked at its provisions, ashamed about its naked sadism. It:

* grants the U.S. long-term rights to maintain over 50 military bases in their California-sized country
* allows the U.S. to strike any other country from within Iraqi territory without the permission of the Iraqi government
* allows the U.S. to conduct military activities in Iraq without consulting with the local government
* allows U.S. forces to arrest any Iraqi without consulting with Iraqi authorities
extends to U.S. troops and contracters immunity from Iraqi law
* gives U.S. forces control of Iraqi airspace below 29,000ft.
* places the Iraqi Defense, Interior and National Security ministries under American supervision for ten years
* gives the U.S. responsibility for Iraqi armament contracts for ten years

Link to full article here (http://smirkingchimp.com/thread/15115).

All in all, if Bush and PNAC have their way, we'll never get out of Iraq. John McCain should be asked about this and if he agrees with it. It should be front page campaign issue, but 99% of Americans don't even know about it. Some media we have eh?

Qikdraw

usmc1

06-09-2008, 12:11 PM

There is nothing surprising here. Bush was trying to sell the war, so they trotted out everything they could to make the case. We all know the intel turned out to be wrong. Nothing in this article speaks to why Bush wanted to go to war.

One does not always have to have the precise words to determine the purposes behind human behavior. If one commits an action it is always safe to assume there was a purpose to that action.

Bush took us to war. We all now should know (some of us knew at the time) that Bush lied to us about the reasons for the invasion of a sovereign nation which had absolutely no capacity to cause us any harm, and which presented and offered no threat, and directed a massive propaganda effort to gain and maintain support for the invasion and ongoing occupation.

He waved off and ignored all intelligence and advice contrary to his New American Century goals. He built an ad hoc boiler room intelligence service to give him justification for the invasion of Iraq which could be sold to the gullible and 9/11 tragedy scarred America public.

That is known fact, and at least three highly placed former members of the administration have come forth and spoken and written very clearly on those issues. Bush lied. For that alone he should be impeached.

His purpose? As a kid did you ever play RISK? Take a look at the globe! Take a look at Iran, Afghanistan and Iran. Now, take a look at the People's Republic of China and India. Now take a look at the Stans, and look northeast toward Russia.

Now consider this...how much of the world's oil is the region of Iraq/Iran? Who really wants/needs that oil....say China, say Russia, say India, say USA. Who is building a huge embassy in occupied Iraq? Who is building at least three massive military installations--including at least one really big airbase in Iraq? Could all that effort be to secure that oil for the USA?

Russia? Don't they have oil of their own, well yeah, kinda sorta, but they also are major importers and have their interests in building pipelines across the Stans. Look at where the USA has inserted its self in relation to the Stans, Russia and China and you'll see some clues as to the purpose of Bush's lies and international criminalism.

Bush expected a walk-through. That didn't happen, and if you for moment believe that Russia and the People's Republic of China are not engaged in strategic responses to this adventure of Bush's, you know little of history, human behavior and current events.

Why do you think so many of the Democrats are behaving in such a mealy-mouthed way? They could shut the whole thing down tomorrow, but they won't! Instead they posture to the American electorate, which is fed up with lies and the occupation, while allowing Bush to take the heat for buidling a permanent presence in the middle-east. They know the truth of what I just wrote.

Now, you will not find the smoking gun, or the memo, or anything as conclusive as that, but, I can state with as much assurance as I did when this foul adventure began, that what I have listed above is the purpose of why Bush lied to gain support for the invasion and occupation of Iraq.

He also saw a valuable domestic flip-side to that action. He thought that war-patriotism would enable him to pursue his domestic agenda of handing social security and medicare over to wall street and the insurance companies. In that he failed, because of the grass-roots activism of Older Americans and the strength and courage of Democrats such as Kennedy and Rangle.

History is already beginning to confirm the lies. It will confirm the rest.

Purpose? It wasn't for the flag, puppies, apple pie, or quiet strolls hand-in-hand down elm street into a golden sunset on a waning summer evening.

Oil and world power! As old Ross Perot usta say, "It's just that simple!"

Boreas

06-09-2008, 12:22 PM

Hi Qikdraw, Naomi Klein outlines similar reasons for going to Iraq in her book "Shock Doctrine". You may find that book interesting. It is also quite depressing on a certain level!

Qikdraw

06-09-2008, 01:45 PM

Hi Qikdraw, Naomi Klein outlines similar reasons for going to Iraq in her book "Shock Doctrine". You may find that book interesting. It is also quite depressing on a certain level!

Whats the true test of someones intelligence? How much they agree with you. lol (sorry, coudln't resist)

Most things that this admin, when you really look at them, are quite depressing. :D

I found some nice links as well...

Iraq's Grand Ayatollah warns from uprising against US security pact (http://www.monstersandcritics.com/news/middleeast/news/article_1409953.php/Iraqs_Grand_Ayatollah_warns_from_uprising_against_ US_security_pact)
Iraq says it wants to restrict movement of U.S. troops (http://news.yahoo.com/s/nm/20080606/ts_nm/iraq_usa_military_dc)
Iraq will not be used against Iran, PM vows (http://afp.google.com/article/ALeqM5iRQVZiXFr6POdUrVlcgDNyEhUB5w)

But if you read the original link I gave, the US is holding 50 BILLION of Iraq money. It looks like they are using that to blackmail them to cooperating. WIll it work? We'll see. But if it does look for civil war in Iraq, worse than we have now. And more attacks on US forces as well.

Just think if some country was doing that to us? We'd be taking up any weapon we can and taking pot shots at the troops.

I've also been hearing rumours that if Obama gets in office in November, Bush is going to attack Iran before he leaves office. Will that happen? I don't know, but I won't put anything past this admin. If past history is any judge, we are seeing a repeat of the runup to war with Iraq, only Iran is the target this time.

Qikdraw

Qikdraw

06-09-2008, 02:27 PM

More links...

Iran shadow over US-Iraq security pact (http://www.atimes.com/atimes/Middle_East/JF10Ak04.html)
Pentagon blocked Cheney's attack on Iran (http://www.atimes.com/atimes/Middle_East/JF10Ak01.html)
Hawks still circling on Iran (http://www.atimes.com/atimes/Middle_East/JF10Ak02.html)

Yeah, scary stuff.

*edit* More links...

US issues threat to Iraq's $50bn foreign reserves in military deal (http://www.independent.co.uk/news/world/middle-east/us-issues-threat-to-iraqs-50bn-foreign-reserves-in-military-deal-841407.html?)
NBC’s Engel: Permanent Bases Would Technically Be Iraqi With U.S. ‘Tenants’ As ‘A Face Saving Device’ (http://thinkprogress.org/2008/06/07/engel-permanent-bases/)

Qikdraw

hm0504

06-09-2008, 02:31 PM

Boreas

06-09-2008, 03:29 PM

Sanslines

06-09-2008, 05:02 PM

I am thinking "?" :)

I am too busy WORKING and trying to keep up with the ever increasing cost of EVERYTHING..............

Qikdraw

06-09-2008, 05:16 PM

I am too busy WORKING and trying to keep up with the ever increasing cost of EVERYTHING..............

And we all know who's fault that is...

Bill Clinton's

:rolleyes:

Qikdraw

usmc1

06-10-2008, 04:57 AM

I've been gone awhile (work, business travel, family illness, etc.) and have yet to catch up on the discussions. Have we concluded yet whether Pres. G. W. Bush is

a) a great President or

b) the greatest President

?

Albinus

http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/25067467/
McClellan to testify in CIA leak case

Former White House aide will appear before a House committee next week

&

The Crime of the Century<o:p></o:p>
  <o:p></o:p>
by Alicia Morgan (http://www.smirkingchimp.com/user/alicia_morgan) | June 9, 2008 - 1:21pm

I drank up Vincent Bugliosi's new book, [I]The Prosecution of George W. Bush for Murder (http://www.prosecutionofbush.com/) like a thirsty person in the desert. Or, perhaps, like a drunken frat boy at a kegger.

I have admired Mr. Bugliosi ever since Helter Skelter. He pulls no punches and has a passion for truth and justice. I believe him when he says that if it were a Democratic president who had perpetrated these crimes, he would be writing the exact same book.

But the most important thing that I took away from this book was the reminder that the invasion of Iraq facilitated by lies is the most egregious crime that this pack of criminals has perpetrated upon the world, and not merely one of the many failures of the Bush Administration. In its magnitude it must not be compared to anything else, but stand alone in its atrocity, horror and shame. We can't lump it in with the other misdeeds such as wiretapping, tax cuts for the rich while stealing from the poor, protecting corporations while it attacks individuals, decimating a formerly robust middle class, gutting or usurping government agencies and laws that are supposed to be safeguarding the American people and putting the foxes in charge of the henhouse; although all of these are related and all of these are heinous in themselves, they pale beside the indisputable fact that our beloved country was lied into a war of choice. Not our choice, mind you; the choice of Bush and his 'advisors' the PNAC neo-conservative crowd, and the defense corporations and 'support' corporations who profit massively from it.
<o:p></o:p>
I still can't believe that we aren't screaming about this each and every day. It's like saying Hitler murdered six million Jews, and also had bad breath. No crime can be more vile than sending a nation to attack another nation without need; to kill hundreds and thousands of innocent people! The media will breathlessly report on the mysterious disappearance of one blonde white woman, and the nation roars its outrage as one. Yet let people act the same way over the Iraq 'war' and they are derided as left-wing lunatics who should just shut up and go along with the program. I still can't believe that the response from much of America, when confronted with the fact that we were lied into a bloody, greedy occupation, is, like that of our self-selected vice president (who really puts the 'vice' into vice president), "So?"
<o:p></o:p>
Everything this pack of psychopaths, murderers and thieves has touched since 2000 has been destroyed or perverted, to be sure. But, as far as I'm concerned, this groteque and monstrous 'war' is the Crime of the Century, and if we don't get it now, the world will hold us accountable later. Bugliosi points out that, unlike any other real 'war president' (Bush's own proud appellation), he is consistently cheerful, upbeat and - well, happy while hundreds of thousands who have died by his signature rot in their graves, and the millions of survivors and their family members who did not physically die on the battlefield have the hopes of a happy life destroyed forever.
<o:p></o:p>
Bill Clinton was mocked for 'feeling our pain', and he certainly had his shortcomings, but I'd rather have someone 'feeling our pain' than feeling no pain. The grinning, slap-happy frat boy just goes on his merry way, leaving death, despair, devastation and destitution in his wake and thinking no more of it than he worries about the fate of the empty beer bottles that get thrown out (aren't they called 'dead soldiers'?) after a three-day fraternity bacchanal. But it is the American people that will have to suffer the hangover, the shame and disgrace of the morning after.<o:p></o:p>

Sanslines

06-10-2008, 10:55 AM

And we all know who's fault that is...

Bill Clinton's

:rolleyes:

Qikdraw

Actually I find that most who are so busy working don't have time to sit around and blame others for the current situation. Assigning fault won't put food on the table or heat in the house this Winter - it is a luxury of time that most of us can not afford. The situation is what the situation is and the only solution is to find a way to cope as best as we all can. I can say one thing though...and that is that neither George Bush or Nancy Pelosi will come and deliver heating oil to any of us this Winter.

Mr. Natura

06-10-2008, 12:54 PM

Qikdraw

06-10-2008, 01:16 PM

I am a Libertarian. Although there are a few things that I disagree with on the Libertarian platform I agree with most of it.

IMHO Reps and Dems are two sides of the same coin. They both have their strings pulled by different puppet masters. :disappointed: What we need very badly in this country are statesmen that have read the Constitution, know what it says/means, and obide by it. To get to that point we would need Americans that have read the Constitution, know what it says/means, and most importantly will hold .gov's feet to the fire to make sure they stay within their Constitutional powers. The Government is not there to hold your hand from craddle to grave. Freedom is waking up in the morning, knowing you may die today and it's not the Governments fault. Remmeber your rights end where someone elses begins!!!!!!!!!

Mr. N

I think the Libertarians have a good chance to pull in a lot more votes this year. Bob Barr is a good choice to make a run for president. There are a lot of Republicans who really don't like McCain and refuse to vote for a Democratic candidate. Barr is a good second option for them, quiting the Republican party a few years ago over the handling of the Iraq war gives him a lot of standing with the Libertarians I think.

I like what Libertarians think about the Iraq war and about rights and the Constitution, I just can't follow the whole free market thing. The theory is nice, but in practice greedy corporations ruin it. Enron and the mortgage crisis are two very good examples. I'd like to believe it would work, but past history shows it won't.

Qikdraw

hm0504

06-10-2008, 02:47 PM

"BBC uncovers lost Iraq billions":

http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/middle_east/7444083.stm

usmc1

06-11-2008, 04:43 AM

"BBC uncovers lost Iraq billions":

http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/middle_east/7444083.stm

At least some journalists are doing their jobs---let's see if any of that makes nightly news in the states.

Skinview

06-11-2008, 07:31 AM

I think the Libertarians have a good chance to pull in a lot more votes this year. Bob Barr is a good choice to make a run for president. There are a lot of Republicans who really don't like McCain and refuse to vote for a Democratic candidate. Barr is a good second option for them, quiting the Republican party a few years ago over the handling of the Iraq war gives him a lot of standing with the Libertarians I think.

A vote for Bob Barr is a vote for Barak Obama. Libertarians need to decide if they want to make a difference or suck on their thumbs and whine about the candidates not being perfect.

I like what Libertarians think about the Iraq war and about rights and the Constitution, I just can't follow the whole free market thing. The theory is nice, but in practice greedy corporations ruin it. Enron and the mortgage crisis are two very good examples. I'd like to believe it would work, but past history shows it won't.

Yeah, the Soviet Union showed what a great job the government does running an economy.

Enron and reckless lenders are getting culled out of the market. Watching them go down in flames will teach the rest not to be foolish. Its a part of the process, and its the way it should be.

Mr. Natura

06-11-2008, 08:57 AM

I like what Libertarians think about the Iraq war and about rights and the Constitution, I just can't follow the whole free market thing. The theory is nice, but in practice greedy corporations ruin it. Enron and the mortgage crisis are two very good examples. I'd like to believe it would work, but past history shows it won't.

Qikdraw

IMHO you are trying to compare apples to oranges. What we have in the U.S.A. is not a free market. What we have is alot of multi-national corps. buying politicans so that they will pass Unconsitutional laws to benifit those corps. Laws like the one that says that drug producers cannot be sued if their immunizations make people sick or injure people. This is just the federal government protecting corperations, we have never given the government the power to so. Yes WE GIVE the government the power to do things not the other way around. But as Americans we have failed to make sure that the government has stayed within it's restrictions.

Mr. N

Mr. Natura

06-11-2008, 09:03 AM

A vote for Bob Barr is a vote for Barak Obama. Libertarians need to decide if they want to make a difference or suck on their thumbs and whine about the candidates not being perfect.

A vote for Obama or McCain makes no difference, two sides of the same coin.

I know I'm not perfect and don't expect anyone else to be, but I do expect the POTUS to follow the Consitution, McCain will not even come close to doing this. :disappointed:

Mr. N

Qikdraw

06-12-2008, 10:58 AM

IMHO you are trying to compare apples to oranges. What we have in the U.S.A. is not a free market. What we have is alot of multi-national corps. buying politicans so that they will pass Unconsitutional laws to benifit those corps. Laws like the one that says that drug producers cannot be sued if their immunizations make people sick or injure people. This is just the federal government protecting corperations, we have never given the government the power to so. Yes WE GIVE the government the power to do things not the other way around. But as Americans we have failed to make sure that the government has stayed within it's restrictions.

What we have in the US is corporate welfare. Big corporation get hand outs by the government, while startups are allowed to go under because big business is more important.

I agree that the US government should be 'for the people, by the people, and of the people' and not 'for the corporations, by the corporations, and of the corporations', as it is now.

Qikdraw

Qikdraw

06-12-2008, 11:00 AM

So now the US is trying to attack Iran, through Iraq, rather than through the US Congress.

In Debate Over Permanent Bases In Iraq, U.S. Seeks Authorization For War In Iran (http://thinkprogress.org/2008/06/11/iran-war-iraq-sofa/)

The reason the White House is so hell-bent on signing a long-term agreement may have less to do with Iraq and more to do with Iran. According to press reports of the ongoing negotiations, the Bush administration is seeking the “power to determine if a hostile act from another country is aggression against Iraq.” Ali al Adeeb, a leading member of Prime Minister Nouri al-Maliki’s Dawa party, confirmed:

The Americans insist so far that is they who define what is an aggression on Iraq and what is democracy inside Iraq…if we come under aggression we should define it and ask for help.

The administration’s request would seemingly allow the U.S. to brand Iran as an enemy of Iraq and attack Iran in the name of defending Iraq pursuant to a legal obligation under the status of forces agreement.

Other details from press accounts confirm that the Bush administration has one eye on Iran in the course of its negotiations with Iraqis. The Washington Post explains that the administration is seeking “the prerogative for U.S. forces to conduct operations without approval from the Iraqi government.” Moreover, the U.S. wants control over Iraq’s airpsace:

The American negotiators also called for continued control over Iraqi airspace and the right to refuel planes in the air, according to [Sami al-Askari, a leading Shiite politician], positions he said added to concerns that the United States was preparing to use Iraq as a base to attack Iran.

Since the administration is unlikely to get an Iran war authorized through Congress, it’s instead trying to sneak it through the Iraqi parliament.

Qikdraw

Skinview

06-13-2008, 05:58 AM

A vote for Obama or McCain makes no difference, two sides of the same coin.

I know I'm not perfect and don't expect anyone else to be, but I do expect the POTUS to follow the Consitution, McCain will not even come close to doing this. :disappointed:

Mr. N

McCain and Obama are not the same by a long shot. Obama is the most liberal member of the Senate, McCain is conservative. If you look at their voting record, McCain and Obama vote different ways about 40% of the time. Take the right to bear arms for instance. We are about to get a split Supreme Court decision that recognizes an individual right to keep and bear arms. That split is going to be on party lines of the appointing presidents. It wouldn't have happened if Kerry or Gore was elected President. Does Bush suck? Of course he does, but you could kiss the right to bear arms goodby if the Democrats had won. Obama wants to ban all handguns, all semiautomatic firearms, and any concealed carry of arms. McCain does not, and he will apoint Supreme Court justices who will protect that right. There are countless other issues in which the court splits 5-4 along party lines. Anyone who thinks the Democrats and Republicans are the same isn't paying attention.
Of course there are issues on which both will vote in an anti liberty way, but that is because that is where the US electorate is. There are some things we are just going to lose on for the near future, until we convince people that liberty is better. Its foolish to let the liberty we can get slip through our fingers because we can't get it all right now. Bob Barr is not going to win. I would love it if he did, but he isn't. Its easier to take over one of the major parties than win the general election. If you can't win in the primaries, you pick the better of what you have to choose from, and don't let the best become the enemy of better.

Mr. Natura

06-14-2008, 07:39 AM

McCain and Obama are not the same by a long shot. Obama is the most liberal member of the Senate, McCain is conservative. If you look at their voting record, McCain and Obama vote different ways about 40% of the time. Take the right to bear arms for instance.

Ok they vote different ways 40% of the time that means they vote the same way 60% of the time. :rolleyes:

Yes lets take the RIGHT to bear arms, your buddy and defender of freedom co-wrote this little jem.

Gun-Show Bill Is Not What They Say
Alan Korwin, Author Gun Laws of America
Re: S. 890, The McCain-Lieberman Bill: "Gun Show Loophole Closing and Gun Law Enforcement Act of 2001."
Mass media publicity on the newly proposed gun-show bill is grossly inaccurate.
The bill has almost nothing to do with what you've probably heard so far. The so-called "gun-show loophole" headlines are a minor detail and basically obscure what the bill really does.
I've just finished studying the eight pages of legalese. Here is it what it calls for:
1. Unprecedented federal control over gun shows nationwide -- perfectly legal gun shows become strictly outlawed without prior federal approval, licensing and registration of each show;
2. Centralized federal licensing and registration of every gun-show promoter in the nation;
3. Centralized federal registration of every vendor -- including non-gun vendors -- at any gun show in the country. In order for me to sell my BOOKS at a gun show I'll have to pre-register and prove who I am, or face arrest; a private individual looking to sell a single gun would be treated as a vendor under this law and must be registered even if the gun isn't sold;
4. Centralized federal registration of EVERY PERSON who attends a gun show in America, whether or not they make purchases of anything at all -- you won't be allowed in without registering;
5. Centralized collection of "any other information" on gun-show attendees, as determined solely by the Secretary of the Treasury;
6. Imprisonment for attending a gun show and failing to give up any information required by regulations of the Secretary of the Treasury;
7. Imprisonment of any gun-show promoter who fails to register a single vendor;
8. Imprisonment of gun-show promoters who cannot prove they notified every person attending a gun show of the new rules, and obtained from attendees any information the Secretary of the Treasury mandates by regulation;
9. Centralized collection of "any other information" the Secretary of the Treasury decides, by regulation, is necessary on vendors, attendees, and the gun show itself;
10. Submission by gun-show promoters of vendor registration logs a) 30 days before any gun show, and b) additional submission of updated vendor registration logs 72 hours before any gun show, and c) additional submission of vendor registration logs within five days of the close of any gun show, under penalty of arrest and imprisonment for non-compliance;
11. Identification of vendors only by use of federally approved photo ID that may include use of a social security number, electronically encoded data, or "biometric identifiers" such as fingerprint, voice print, retina scan, iris scan, or similar (as defined under 18 USC 1028(d)(2));
12. Creation of a new license (in addition to a gun-show-promoter license), similar to FFLs, for individuals who want access to the NICS national background check system for facilitating gun-show sales for private citizens;
13. Regulations to be issued by the Secretary of the Treasury on the procedures, data collections, methods and implementation of the entire process to federally control gun shows, in addition to the requirements made by the proposed statute; such regulations will not be known, drafted or even suggested, until after the McCain-Lieberman law is enacted;
14. The proposed bill also puts pressure on state governments to make at least 95% of their law enforcement records for the past 30 years openly available to the federal government; and
makes unlimited funds available for the states to comply with these federal goals;
requires annual federal review of states' compliance;
increases penalties (up to ten years imprisonment) for record-keeping violations;
grants states permission to make even more restrictive requirements without being out of compliance with these new federal laws (and by implication, puts states that resist these rules in federal trouble);
provides hundreds of millions of taxpayer dollars for more law enforcement under numerous programs including project Exile and others;
hires 200 more Federal BATF Agents;
provides $10 million to the National Institute for Justice to give out for research on "technologies that limit the use of a gun to the owner"; and
provides for annual reports (in great detail) by the Attorney General to Congress on whether the Brady law is working;
15. Enlargement of the federal bureaucracy and appropriation from taxpayers of "such funds as are necessary" to license, register and monitor an estimated ten million non-criminals who attend the thousands of gun shows held annually in America; and
16. Oh yes, I almost forgot about the so-called "loophole" part the media is so excited about -- the McCain-Lieberman bill will make an honest private citizen a criminal for transferring a gun to another honest private citizen, without first registering the transfer with, and getting permission from, the federal government (represented by the FBI at its data complex in Clarksburg, West Virginia).
Transfer or possession of a firearm to or by a criminal (a "federally prohibited possessor") is completely unaffected by the McCain-Lieberman "loophole" bill, so I guess it's accurate to characterize it as a loophole bill.
To sum up: Perfectly legal gun sales -- with no victims or criminal activity of any kind -- are outlawed at gun shows by the McCain-Lieberman bill, unless the sale is pre-registered with the federal government; real crimes are totally unaffected; and your friends in the federal government take over full control of gun shows -- which have been previously free of government infringement for more than 200 years.
Please write your local news outlet and politely request a correction.
Permission to circulate or use any or all of this report is granted, provided my credit and contact information is included.
Alan Korwin, Author Gun Laws of America
alan@gunlaws.com
http://www.gunlaws.com "We publish the gun laws."

Yea it just gives me a warm and fuzzy feeling about how he will protect our RIGHTS. Voting for the lesser of 2 evils still leaves you with evil. No matter which of the two you chose you will get less freedom and more government control of your life.

usmc1

06-14-2008, 09:29 AM

OMIG, I'm seriously rolling on the floor, tears flowing, and snot dripping, belly aching, and hiccuping, laughing at this exchange between Skin and Natura to determine which is furthest to the right.

EricNY

06-14-2008, 09:34 AM

Qikdraw

06-14-2008, 11:54 AM

OMIG, I'm seriously rolling on the floor, tears flowing, and snot dripping, belly aching, and hiccuping, laughing at this exchange between Skin and Natura to determine which is furthest to the right.

Well Mr. Natura is Libertarian, and so I wouldn't consider him to be 'right', as I usually associate that with Republicans. He also, from the little I've read of him so far, seems to actually vote Libertarian. Skinview has said he's Libertarian, but from his statements seems to vote Repubican.

So there is no doubt some things they will disagree on, just like not all Democrats will vote the same way as the Green party.

Qikdraw

Mr. Natura

06-14-2008, 12:24 PM

OMIG, I'm seriously rolling on the floor, tears flowing, and snot dripping, belly aching, and hiccuping, laughing at this exchange between Skin and Natura to determine which is furthest to the right.

:laugh: I have never stated that I am to the right of anything. I have stated that I am a Libertarain. I beleive in a strict interpetaion of the Consitution, personal freedom, and limited government. Just like the great men that founded this country. If that puts me to the right of anything/anyone then I stand guilty as charged. :peace:

Mr. Natura

06-14-2008, 12:29 PM

Well Mr. Natura is Libertarian, and so I wouldn't consider him to be 'right', as I usually associate that with Republicans. He also, from the little I've read of him so far, seems to actually vote Libertarian.

Qikdraw

The only time I have voted for anybody that was not a Libertarian is during the last primary I voted for Ron Paul. If the Repub's would pull their heads out of their butts and nominate him I would vote for him again.

Mr. Natura

06-14-2008, 12:33 PM

Laugh all you want, but to make it public is sort of degrading them due to "where they stand"

No worries on my part. :cool:

Mr. N

usmc1

06-14-2008, 02:10 PM

:laugh: I have never stated that I am to the right of anything. I have stated that I am a Libertarain. I beleive in a strict interpetaion of the Consitution, personal freedom, and limited government. Just like the great men that founded this country. If that puts me to the right of anything/anyone then I stand guilty as charged. :peace:

It just struck me as hilarious that you were asserting, lecturing, etc, Skinview on Mccain's stance on gun rights when he is probably the greatest NRA, gun-rights proponent of 2nd amendment rights in the forum...you know, preaching to the choir, struck me as funny.

Mr. Natura

06-14-2008, 09:07 PM

It just struck me as hilarious that you were asserting, lecturing, etc, Skinview on Mccain's stance on gun rights when he is probably the greatest NRA, gun-rights proponent of 2nd amendment rights in the forum...you know, preaching to the choir, struck me as funny.

Like I said no worries on my part.

Just don't get me started on the NRA. :rolleyes:

Mr. N
Former USN Hospital Corpsman
2nd and 3rd Mar Div :cool:

Skinview

06-16-2008, 09:53 AM

Ok they vote different ways 40% of the time that means they vote the same way 60% of the time. :rolleyes:If you consider how much legislation is uncontroversial or trivial "National Broccoli Day" type stuff, 40% is a huge difference.

Yes lets take the RIGHT to bear arms, your buddy and defender of freedom co-wrote this little jem.

Alan Korwin, Author Gun Laws of America
Re: S. 890, The McCain-Lieberman Bill: "Gun Show Loophole Closing and Gun Law Enforcement Act of 2001." ....

Yea it just gives me a warm and fuzzy feeling about how he will protect our RIGHTS. Voting for the lesser of 2 evils still leaves you with evil. No matter which of the two you chose you will get less freedom and more government control of your life.Its a bad bill to be sure, but look at the contrast between Obama and McCain:

Obama voted to allow lawsuits against gun manufactuers for other people's gun crimes,
McCain voted to prohibit that.

Obama wants to ban all handguns,
McCain does not.

Obama wants to ban all semiautomatic firearms,
McCain voted against banning semiautos that look like military firearms.

Obama cosponsored a bill to limit gun purchases to 1 per month. He wants to abolish "right-to-carry" nationwide. He would shut down nearly every gun store in the country if he could.

McCain voted against the Brady Bill. He voted to ban gun registration in Washington DC. He has voted for loosening license & background checks at gun shows.

Most importantly, US Supreme Court judges Roberts and Alito are very likely about to rule that we have an individual right to bear arms. McCain voted to confirm them, Obama voted against them.

There is a HUGE difference between these two men. Just because McCain is not everything we want does not make him "evil". No candidate is ever going to be everything we want. But if we don't vote for the better of the two, we will get the worst. I wish Bob Barr was the Republican presidential nominee, but he isn't. We are either going to have a President Obama or a President McCain. No matter what you dislike about those two, no matter how bad they both are, we are going to have more freedom under one than the other. It makes a difference. I want all the freedom I can get, and I'm going to do what will actually get me the most.

Naturist Mark

06-16-2008, 04:34 PM

Obama cosponsored a bill to limit gun purchases to 1 per month.

Gasp! .... that's .... that's ..... that's only TWELVE GUNS A YEAR!

Boreas

06-16-2008, 04:49 PM

Gasp! .... that's .... that's ..... that's only TWELVE GUNS A YEAR!

shocked YIKES

Frankly, Americans' fascination/obsession with firearms just baffles this Canadian kid.

Canadians get sunburned when we exercise our right to bare our arms!

LamontCranston

06-16-2008, 07:36 PM

Gasp! .... that's .... that's ..... that's only TWELVE GUNS A YEAR! Actually Mark, a proposal like that -- if ever passed into law -- will be challenged and likely struck down by the Supreme Court. Senator Obama, if a student of the US Constitution and schooled in the three branch government structure, should know that. This sort of proposal indicates an ignorance of the way law is made at the US Capital. Or worse, he believes we voters don't know the difference.

Any lawmaker serious about gun control should propose and sell an amendment. Anything short of that is just hot air shopping for votes.

Perhaps he's not qualified for the job and should first gain experience.

Naturist Mark

06-16-2008, 09:42 PM

Actually Mark, a proposal like that -- if ever passed into law -- will be challenged and likely struck down by the Supreme Court. Senator Obama, if a student of the US Constitution and schooled in the three branch government structure, should know that. This sort of proposal indicates an ignorance of the way law is made at the US Capital. Or worse, he believes we voters don't know the difference.

Any lawmaker serious about gun control should propose and sell an amendment. Anything short of that is just hot air shopping for votes.

Perhaps he's not qualified for the job and should first gain experience.

Oh come on, this is hardly the first time we've discussed the 2nd Amendment on these boards. Obama's understanding of the constitutionality of firearms regulations are right in line with every standing court decision and Supreme Court ruling - despite the NRA's creative re-enactment of reality. Even the recent Heller v. DC case doesn't invalidate regulation, only (if upheld) an outright ban. No need to re-hash the arguments, just use the Search function and go back and read them again. (This link (http://tinyurl.com/5veywp) will give you a start.)

Oh, and don't assume that because I take the historical and legal view of the 2nd Amendment based on fact and legal precedent that I am an anti-gun activist or advocate of disarming law abiding citizens. Go back and read. Don't assume.

-Mark

Mr. Natura

06-17-2008, 10:29 AM

Gasp! .... that's .... that's ..... that's only TWELVE GUNS A YEAR!

Not that this would affect me because I cannot afford to buy a gun every month. But why should a person be limited to just one per mounth. Lots of people like to collect things, should everyone be limited to just buying one of what they like per month??? Should you be limited to sell only one T-shirt per month because some would take offense to your T-shirts???

Mr. N

Mr. Natura

06-17-2008, 10:34 AM

Oh come on, this is hardly the first time we've discussed the 2nd Amendment on these boards. Obama's understanding of the constitutionality of firearms regulations are right in line with every standing court decision and Supreme Court ruling

-Mark

If you would take the time to read the Federalist papers you would learn what the founding fathers really wanted the 2nd Amendment to mean.

Mr. N

nimrod

06-17-2008, 12:02 PM

I thought bears only had legs. Well I guess that when they are on their hind legs their front legs are arm like.

Baron Lake

06-17-2008, 12:24 PM

The right to bare arms (or any other "parts" should be considered a fundamental Human Right.

b.l.

BTW. what does the Constitution say about ammunition? If that gets outlawed.....

Skinview

06-17-2008, 12:31 PM

Obama's understanding of the constitutionality of firearms regulations are right in line with every standing court decision and Supreme Court ruling - despite the NRA's creative re-enactment of reality.Not so. The Federal Appeals courts are split. Some have ruled the right to bear arms is a collective right, two have ruled that it is an individual right. The Supreme Court has never made a clear statement on the issue, and never took it up head on until Heller.

Even the recent Heller v. DC case doesn't invalidate regulation, only (if upheld) an outright ban.The Heller ruling has not been made yet. No one has any idea how far it will go. The lower Federal Appeals court handed down a very broad individual rights ruling in the Heller case (under a different name).

Oh, and don't assume that because I take the historical and legal view of the 2nd Amendment based on fact and legal precedent...In your dreams. The collective right interpretation is a 20th century invention.

Skinview

06-17-2008, 12:52 PM

Gasp! .... that's .... that's ..... that's only TWELVE GUNS A YEAR!Maybe there should be a law that limits the NY Times to twelve issues a year.

After all, press freedom is a collective right. The Federal government is only prevented from restricting State government printings....

Skinview

06-17-2008, 12:57 PM

BTW. what does the Constitution say about ammunition? If that gets outlawed.....
Ammunition can be banned, just like ink can. The state can have a printing press, but ink can be banned.

usmc1

06-17-2008, 02:29 PM

All day, all weekend, but no one knew. No one was offended enough to report it. Difference? Here's one glaring example.

Texas GOP Disavows Knowledge Of Racist Anti-Obama Button

By Greg Sargent and Eric Kleefeld (http://tpmelectioncentral.talkingpointsmemo.com/profile/Greg%20Sargent%20and%20Eric%20Kleefeld) - June 17, 2008, 3:39PM
We just got off the phone with a Texas Republican Party official, who tells us that the party had absolutely no knowledge whatsoever about this tasteful button (http://trailblazersblog.dallasnews.com/archives/2008/06/stick-a-pin-in-it.html) that was for sale at this past weekend's state GOP convention:
http://www.talkingpointsmemo.com/images/wh-obama.jpg
The button, which was flagged by AmericaBlog (http://www.americablog.com/2008/06/gop-state-convention-in-texas-if-obama.html), was sold at a booth run by RepublicanMarket.com (http://www.republicanmarket.com/store/home), a business that sells a lot of red-meat buttons, bumper stickers and other paraphernalia for GOP voters.

So did party officials know about this button being sold all weekend at their convention? In an interview with Election Central, Texas GOP political director Hans Klingler answered with an emphatic No. "We had hundreds of vendors at the convention," Klingler said. "I don't know what the merchandise is, we don't check the merchandise."

Klingler added that the party would have done something if it had been brought to their attention at the time. "We wouldn't have let him sell it."
Hmmm. This button seems like the sort of thing that would have been hard to miss, doesn't it?

Naturist Mark

06-17-2008, 04:18 PM

If you would take the time to read the Federalist papers you would learn what the founding fathers really wanted the 2nd Amendment to mean.

Mr. N

No need to re-hash the arguments, just use the Search function and go back and read them again. (This link (http://tinyurl.com/5veywp) will give you a start.)

-Mark

Naturist Mark

06-17-2008, 04:19 PM

In your dreams. The collective right interpretation is a 20th century invention.

No need to re-hash the arguments, just use the Search function and go back and read them again. (This link (http://tinyurl.com/5veywp) will give you a start.)

-Mark

Skinview

06-17-2008, 05:49 PM

No need to re-hash the arguments, just use the Search function and go back and read them again. (This link (http://tinyurl.com/5veywp) will give you a start.)

-Mark

No need, I have my own copy. Alexander Hamilton discusses it in Federalist 28, and James Madison in Federalist 46.

Naturist Mark

06-17-2008, 06:46 PM

No need, I have my own copy. Alexander Hamilton discusses it in Federalist 28.

You might re-read it then. Publius supports the other side of the argument you are making.

-Mark

Skinview

06-17-2008, 08:50 PM

You might re-read it then. Publius supports the other side of the argument you are making.

-Mark

BS. I'm one step from having it memorized. Hamilton lays out how, if either the state or the Federal government becomes tyrannical, the militia will side with the other and defeat whatever army the government has. If either the state or Federal government had the authority to disarm the People, they couldn't overthrow the government very well, hence the Second Amendment. As Madison wrote in Federalist 46:

"citizens... [have] the advantage of being armed, which Americans possess over the people of almost every other nation... Notwithstanding the military establishments in the several kingdoms of Europe, which are carried as far as the public resources will bear, the governments are afraid to trust the people with arms."

This is in the context of a beutiful essay on overthrowing tyrannical governments, which echos what Hamilton wrote in Federalist 28. Its about the people using their arms to defeat their own government, not their government having any authority to disarm them. Obviously the people are to have military weapons. The Second Amendment is not about hunting, as Obama claims.

And of course the larger context for this is the American Revolution, which started on April 19, 1775, when an armed population rose up and kicked the snot out of the British Army, which was attempting to disarm them.

It was a great concern when the Federal Constitution was ratified, that there should be a Bill of Rights that protected a right of the people to bear arms, so that they might resist tyranny. A delegate to the Pennsylvania convention to ratify the Constitution, John Smilie, wrote:

"Congress may give us a select militia which will, in fact, be a standing army--or Congress, afraid of a general militia, may say there will be no militia at all.
When a select militia is formed; the people in general may be disarmed."

So Madison wrote the Second Amendment:

"A well regulated Militia, being necessary to a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed."

Boreas

06-17-2008, 08:54 PM

This is in the context of a beutiful essay on overthrowing tyrannical governments, which echos what Hamilton wrote in Federalist 28. Its about the people using arms to defeat their government, not their government having any authority to disarm them. And obviously the people are to have military weapons, and this has nothing to do with hunting, as Obama claims.

So, what are the odds that could happen now?

Why has the Bush government not been overthrown by the militia?

Seems to me times have changed since this was written. I think the sentiments are good. Tyrannical governments do need to be removed. I am not convinced that using weapons is the best method nowadays.

Skinview

06-17-2008, 09:57 PM

Frankly, Americans' fascination/obsession with firearms just baffles this Canadian kid.

We had to overthrow our government with our personal arms that we owned in order to protect our rights and get the much better government we have now. America was born in a hail of lead from our own muskets, and we have long memories. Besides, they go boom and make tin cans fly. ;)

Skinview

06-17-2008, 10:21 PM

So, what are the odds that could happen now?Who knows? Hitler was elected, and that is within living memory. I expect that in normal times, the chances that would need to be done are very low. But from time to time, there is a calamity, and suddenly nothing is as you always knew it. Natural disasters, plague, war, economic upheaval. Three planes crash into as many buildings, and suddenly we have a President who thinks he can throw American citizens in prison indefinatly, without charge or trail. What happens when gas is $40 a gallon? Or as much for a loaf of bread? What happens when a zealot from Ragheadistan sets off a stolen Russian nuclear weapon in Washington DC? Speaking of Russia, they still have megatons pointed at us, and not so long ago a drunken Russian President was firing artillery into his Parliment building in some political scuffle. Oh yeah, and then there was the day that the Soviet missile early warning system got set off by something (a Norwegian weather rocket?) and a Russian COLONEL decided not to launch a thermonuclear counterstrike against us.

Why has the Bush government not been overthrown by the militia?Because they elected him, and he gave us Alito and Roberts, and we is happy. :)

Seems to me times have changed since this was written. I think the sentiments are good. Tyrannical governments do need to be removed. I am not convinced that using weapons is the best method nowadays.Nowdays? Just some days ago the Kingdom of Nepal became the Republic of Nepal, thanks in no small part to an armed insurgency. As for us, yes things have changed. And things will continue to change - but in what way, no one can predict.

usmc1

06-18-2008, 04:56 AM

So, what are the odds that could happen now?

Not likely, we've been dumbed down and silenced. And some have grown fat and developed short-memories, it will have to get worse than it is now. Perhaps a McCain presidency would move it up on the Calendar.

Why has the Bush government not been overthrown by the militia?

Uncharacteristically smart, he got them out of the country into Iraq. Rather like sending the Legions into Gaul, huh Caesar?

Seems to me times have changed since this was written. I think the sentiments are good. Tyrannical governments do need to be removed. I am not convinced that using weapons is the best method nowadays.


I'm going to have to check with Skinview to see who he outsourced that piece below to...it is spot on! LOL

But, I will add this.

Times may have changed, but, the issues remain, only the names, places and personalities differ. Those things, those issues, those magnificent notions argued and debated in the Federalist Papers and expressed in our historic founding documents had their roots in the philosophies of pagan civilizations, most notably Greece.

They endured for centuries, even millennia, through plague, famine, invasions of barbaric hordes, the dark ages, the inquisition, and came to to take root and grow in parts of Europe and North America.

Those beliefs have transcended time and are as relevant today as they were back then. The forces who would deny those beliefs and withhold their benefits from the common man, however, are stronger than they have ever been and have at their hands more tools of oppression than at almost anytime in history.

I used to think that if it came down to it, that it would be impossible to stand against the military might of our government with rifles, hand grenades and explosives. Iraq is proving me wrong!

I think the real issue facing the United States is whether enough, or not enough of us, will recognize tyranny for what it is and be able to effectively identify its source and rise against it. Dumbed down and silenced, full-bellied and short-memoried people do not engage in revolution.

And, I'm not certain that $7.00 a gallon gas, streets clogged with homeless pan handlers, rampant drug and alcohol addiction, disappearing middle-class, shortening live-spans, increased infant mortality, growing unemployment, decaying infrastructure, inflationary food-prices, dwindling quality of life, and failure of universal public education and fading opportunities for higher education, and a dismally tragic and failed military adventure aimed at empire building will be enough.

We've become so dumbed-down, full-bellied, and short-memoried that most of us do not even know what's happening to us, or where this slat-sided truck is taking us, or what is that awful stench awaiting us at our final destination.

But, those inspiring words in those documents are as pertinent as they have ever been. They have inspired humans through the ages, and it is my firmest and most fervent belief that they will once again.

But, on the other hand, we may just be Vikings in Valhalla and are going to ultimately lose to the forces of darkness. There is only the joy of battle!

Naturist Mark

06-18-2008, 06:10 AM

BS. I'm one step from having it memorized. Hamilton lays out how, if either the state or the Federal government becomes tyrannical, the militia will side with the other and defeat whatever army the government has. If either the state or Federal government had the authority to disarm the People, they couldn't overthrow the government very well, hence the Second Amendment. As Madison wrote in Federalist 46:

"citizens... [have] the advantage of being armed, which Americans possess over the people of almost every other nation... Notwithstanding the military establishments in the several kingdoms of Europe, which are carried as far as the public resources will bear, the governments are afraid to trust the people with arms."

Right - the MILITIA will side with the party opposing tyranny. The right of the people as the militia is intrinsic.

By definition the militia is a regulated body. Nothing Publius writes contradicts that, indeed it depends on it.

-Mark

Naturist Mark

06-18-2008, 06:15 AM

Quote:
Why has the Bush government not been overthrown by the militia?
The 2nd Amendment, which for clarity should have been titled "The right of states to form citizen militias" was effectively nullified by the Civil War.

-Mark

Mrs. Natura

06-18-2008, 07:00 AM

LOL I REALLY like you, but wanted to say something....
This goes out to you ( <--regarding your gun comment )

Frankly, Americans' fascination/obsession with firearms just baffles this Canadian kid.

& anyone else who wants to read it/cares... Here's a different opinion/my thoughts below.

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

Many people want THE GOVERNMENT TO BE RESPONSIBLE FOR THEM. I personally WANT TO BE RESPONSIBLE FOR MYSELF, AS I KNOW THAT I CAN DO A MUCH BETTER JOB! Most people say "just look at Katrina" - but there are many other fine examples.

I'd also like to say that after surviving a horrific catastrophic event called Hurricane Andrew (back in 92) I had one of those POWERFUL REALIZATION MOMENTS, after seeing how people change under these circumstances... Do you know that many ordinary everyday people who normally smile at you will change and think about THEIR SURVIVAL! Yes, they do as I saw it for myself when I saw law abiding citizens have the realization that there were no phones, no electricity, so that you couldn't call the police as THEY WEREN'T COMING AT ALL~ which ='d for them, I CAN DO WHATEVER I WANT, VIOLATE WHOMEVER I WANT, STEAL FROM WHOMEVER I WANT, VICTIMIZE WHOMEVER and so on.... There were 10 and 12 year old children with machine guns riding bikes down the street shootin' up the area, and breaking/stealing/looting from others homes, stores and etc.... I saw it myself with my very own eyes/experienced it for months, and told myself that I HAVE TO BE PREPARED SO THAT I CAN KEEP MYSELF/MY FAMILY SAFE FROM WHATEVER MAY HAPPEN IN THE FUTURE!?

Now there are many gun haters out there who blame guns for everything. I don't blame guns at all, I blame the idiots who abuse them.... THERE LIES THE PROBLEM! Guns don't grow legs, get up and start shooting people, THEY ARE NOT THE PROBLEM! Now do I think that GUNS SHOULD BE RESTRICTED/OUR FREEDOMS TAKEN AWAY BECAUSE WE HAVE SOME IDIOTS IN THIS WORLD???? NOPE, sure don't... I shouldn't have to lose my FREEDOMS because of a few morons out there in this world! Most folk don't realize that asking government to care for them, means that you are saying you don't want to be responsible for yourself... it's kinda like giving up your freedom to choose, because you are telling them to choose for you. Most of the time, your freedoms are slowly taken away bit by bit.... No thanks, I don't like that at all and want to take responsibility for myself. Like I said, I know that I can do a much better job at it anyway! :)

I don't LOVE guns or collect them, but think that I or anyone else should have as many as we want. Not only for security purposes , collection purposes, or whatever.... just like others collect other items, gun shouldn't be different as far as I am concerned.

Just as I always like to say: "FREEDOM IS FOR EVERYONE, EVEN THOSE WHOM YOU MAY DISAGREE WITH!"

~Just my 2 cents! :)

P.S.- I know that the future of the world looks to be very unstable... I know I'd rather be safe than sorry.

P.P.S- Whilst living in London back in the early 90's my significant other at the time & myself were mugged by 2 turkish people at an ATM. Now my significant other was a very aggressive man, and took off after them almost killing one who was sooooo much bigger than him. He was a shorty just over 5 ft tall, and dragged this over 6 ft tall turkish criminal straight into the police dept. beaten and bloodied. While everything was going on/paperwork was being filled out, I had some good conversations with the police and they said that they wished more folk would take responsibility for themselves/their community/their neighbors... and that the whole gun thing was a shame in their country 'cause they had all sorts of Jamaican gangs and etc who were running about violating people & THEY HAD GUNS!?!?!

NO MATTER WHAT THE CRIMINALS WILL ALWAYS HAVE GUNS, EVEN IF ONE DOESN'T LIKE GUNS I THINK IT'S BETTER TO BE ON AN EVEN PLAYING FIELD WHEN IT COMES TO MY PERSONAL SAFETY & THE SAFETY OF MY FAMILY/LOVED ONES & FRIENDS!

I don't know about the rest of the Americans out there, BUT THAT'S HOW I WOULD EXPLAIN IT FOR MYSELF...

Boreas

06-18-2008, 07:04 AM

We had to overthrow our government with our personal arms that we owned in order to protect our rights and get the much better government we have now. America was born in a hail of lead from our own muskets, and we have long memories. Besides, they go boom and make tin cans fly. ;)

I know all that. Still seems silly.

But then our hero has traditionally been the Mountie and many of our ancestors fought for the Crown in your Revolution. (including mine). We are so much more polite and law abiding this side of the border. ;)

Your hero was the cowboy who thinks for himself.......

Boreas

06-18-2008, 07:09 AM

The 2nd Amendment, which for clarity should have been titled "The right of states to form citizen militias" was effectively nullified by the Civil War.

-Mark

Hmmmmmmm.....and that happened a year or two. ;)

MoonShadow

06-18-2008, 07:17 AM

Yes, Boreas, it baffles me also.

I am not going to buy guns to "protect" myself. I'll take my risks and I am not somebody who wusses out in front of adversary; but you can bet I will use whatever I have to protect myself but not with the use of guns. When people have to live feeling ownership of a gun is their protection, then we have one sad state of affairs as a society.

In times of major catastrophes, people will resort to surviving but what happen with Katrina, or Andrew would have happen period. You have criminal elements everywhere and a weaken set of circumstances sets them off easily.

Yes, some people want the government to be responsible for them and guess what, our government is us. Our government IS responsible for us - for the people, by the people, of the people.

Yes, we lose a lot of freedoms but as more and more people populate this precious planet we live on, the more laws there will be and the more "freedoms" will be lost. Too many people will always equate to the lost of a lot of freedoms.

Boreas

06-18-2008, 07:33 AM

Thanks for your replies. Who knew a little question would spur some good responses!

For the record, I do believe that we need to hold our government accountable, and that we have been dumbed down. It does concern me that any dissent these days gets called "UnAmerican" down there, or brings in police to "prevent riots" (Seattle battle, Montebello, Quebec (http://www.ctv.ca/servlet/ArticleNews/story/CTVNews/20070819/montebello_protest_070819/20070819?hub=CTVNewsAt11)) Our government in Canada is becoming more known for secrecy. Our Parliamentary system is supposed to be a little more open than that. (well not much really) It concerns me when governments take such steps to be able to push through unpopular policies.

I also agree with you Mrs. Natura. We do need to be responsible for ourselves. I would add that we need to help our neighbours too, especially in the situations your described. Where the government can come in, is as an "umbrella organization" (for lack of a better word) to coordinate certain services, such as health care (note I did NOT say run healthcare) or military. There have been some who had proposed that the US government deliberately botched Katrina in order to make a case for privatization of certain services.

Katrina brought out a lot of issues, such as disparities between citizens. Who were most affected by Katrina? Wasn't the rich white folk from what I could see. Why were so many people in such a position? I think there is a systemic component to that.

As for the guns and militia issue, I think that they MAY have a place. I am not afraid of guns, nor am I opposed to them. I was in the Canadian Army Reserve and have fired rifles and other firearms/weapons. I grew up with a firearm in the house. I do think though that there is an excessive fascination for them. The media/NRA or whatever plays on people's fears when they say you need a personal firearm to protect yourself. Actually I think the reverse is true. Firearms create the need to for firearms. If you go through life believing the world is hostile you will feel the need for a gun of some sort. It has been my experience that most people do not walk in the world of guns and such, at least up here. We have as much chance (at least in Canada with fewer personal firearms) of being involved in a gun crime as we are of being struck by lightning. I personally do not believe that is enough for me to carry a gun. I also do not want to live in a world that is so threatening that I need a gun.

MoonShadow I noticed you posted while I was writing this. Well said!

Mrs. Natura

06-18-2008, 07:35 AM

Ya know, I hate that we as people have to divide ourselves and bicker amongst eachother about who's better, smarter/right and so on...

WHY CAN'T WE ALL JUST ACKNOWLEDGE THAT WE ARE ALL PEOPLE & DEFEND THE FREEDOMS THAT WE HAVE BEFORE THEY ARE ALL GONE! EVERYONE'S FREEDOMS, not just one side/perspective only...

For example, I am not gay or lesbian but am beyond happy that GAYS ARE GETTING MARRIED IN CALIFORNIA! For those who are against gays/lesbians, you aren't forced into being one, just go on and live life fairly respecting others/their differences instead of trying to censor/control them. Have you ever thought about it this way... what if it were the other way around? Would you like it if they made it so heterosexual marriage was illeagal!?!?! I think not.... so let's be nicer to one another a preserve ALL OF OUR FREEDOMSRIGHTS! :)

Most of the time, I try very hard to be positive, but this world is truly in so much trouble as far as I am concerned!?!?!?! :(

Ok, ok I acknowledge that those who want to, have the right to bicker & make an a*s of themselves if they so wish! lol More power to ya, and have fun if that's what rings your bell?!!!! ha,ha,ha I can respect that!!! ;)

Mrs. Natura

06-18-2008, 07:50 AM

I also do not want to live in a world that is so threatening that I need a gun.

From my personal experiences, I do believe that to be the case... it's already too far gone & you can't change it. Like I said before, THE CRIMINALS WILL ALWAYS HAVE GUNS!

My family & I also use guns for hunting/ pleasure, and they also have another purpose. We live on a farm and raise our own meat, so we use them to humanely dispatch our livestock. Most people don't relate as they are so detached from reality when it comes to 'where their food comes from/the process of feeding the world/bringing food to the table.' Most just go to the market and buy packaged meats/paying someone else to do the dirty work for them and villianize people who do for themselves... those who are self-reliant. All I can say is, if others don't want them (guns)then they shouldn't... that's their right/choice, & I have mine too!

Boreas

06-18-2008, 08:13 AM

Hi MrsN. I live in a part of Canada that loves its guns, and in fact, where guns are very practical. Many are like you and raise their own meat. There are many hunters around here. Plus there are many rural property owners and hikers who like to have a gun in case of a nuisance bear. I have also worked for 20+ years with addictions and mental health. I have met a wide variety of people, including some "graduates" of Kinsgston Penitentiary, our prison for our worst criminals. Plus, this town has a pretty significant cocaine/crack problem. I am not naive. I just refuse to see the world as a threat. I do know there are many threats out there though.

I am inclined to think that if I feel the world has become altogether too threatening, I will build a cabin in the woods and become a hermit. :)

There are certainly places in Canada where I would not want to walk alone at night.....or perhaps during the day. There are however, still many safe places around. I have even had that experience in Detroit.

Oh, and I am with you. I am glad that California has allowed same sex marriages!

usmc1

06-18-2008, 08:41 AM

I've stated my position on the owning of weapons and firearms several times in this forum, so no need to rehash. I think people should have access to whatever weaponry they need to protect themselves, or to hunt, or to "make tin cans bounce around".

If Katrina and Rita proved nothing to many of those of us in the area of the Gulf, it did certainly bring home the fact that in times of emergency social order breaks down and some people, for whatever reason, take advantage of that. When law enforcement is not capable of providing protection, I and my weapons can. Jack with me or mine under those particular circumstances, and I'll shut you down. And be danged quick about it.

I don't hunt anymore. Grew up around it and doing it. But, once you've hunted the "most dangerous game" and been hunted back, hunting loses its charm. You want to hunt, knock yourself out...as long as you're a true sportsman. Real hunters know what else is out there, different topic for a different day.

But, there are are a lot of fallacious bumper-stickerly mindless arguments made for unrestricted access to weapons.

I support regulations, meaningful training, real breakground checks, licensing and psychological testing at the same level as most modern police departments require.

I also support severe and stringent sentencing of sellers and purchasers of weapons who do not adhere to those things mentioned above.

The reality is that we need to able to protect ourselves. The other realities are that firearms are lethal weapons, some are designed to kill a lot of people in a fairly wide area in a rapid amount of time. That is an awesome responsibility and should require licensing, background checks, and testing before being undertaken.

The little-boy men who prevaricate and rationalize their fascination with guns for some sort of philosophical reason do not interest me.

Guns = protection. Guns = lethality that ought not be put in the hands of someone merely because they have the price. Freedom carries a burden of responsibility, it is those who wish to eschew responsibility that I have trouble with.

MoonShadow

06-18-2008, 09:08 AM

QUOTE I just refuse to see the world as a threat QUOTE

I totally agree, Boreas. Yes, there are a lot of threats out and about in our world but overall, the world is a pretty safe place and it will continue to be for the most part as this is what most people want.

There are a lot of areas where I live you would not want to be in or even to drive through so your best offense is to not go through such areas or have any reason to be in such areas.

Ms Natura, I am one of those who enjoy the wonderful convenience of shopping at the supermarkets we have in our lives today. To grow my own meat, kill it, process it is not anything I would want to do and if I did, I would become vegetarian. LOL For you and others who enjoy this lifestyle, hats off; and I don't think many would villainize you because you choose to live this way. It is a choice you are happy with which may puzzle many who don't comprehend such a lifestyle. But for me ..... Hail, hail the supermarkets of today!

Sanslines

06-18-2008, 01:55 PM

Yes, we lose a lot of freedoms but as more and more people populate this precious planet we live on, the more laws there will be and the more "freedoms" will be lost. Too many people will always equate to the lost of a lot of freedoms.

Very true Moonshadow.

Increased human population = Increased loss of personal freedom

Due to the fact that people are living in closer proximity to each other and tend to aggrivate each other - sometimes over minor things and sometimes over major things.

Sanslines

06-18-2008, 01:56 PM

QUOTE Hail, hail the supermarkets of today!

Hail hail the beautiful and fresh veggies that I am growing in the garden now! Supermarket veggies just cannot compete with garden fresh and with what supermarkets charge for veggies, garden fresh prices can not be beaten!

Boreas

06-18-2008, 04:14 PM

Hail hail the beautiful and fresh veggies that I am growing in the garden now! Supermarket veggies just cannot compete with garden fresh and with what supermarkets charge for veggies, garden fresh prices can not be beaten!

Amen. Now if I would get around to learning how to grow veggies. Seems easy enough. :p

We can get wonderful organic fruits and veggies from our local health food store. I have also discovered a meat store that sells locally grown, naturally raised (sometimes organic) meats. Yum.

Sanslines

06-19-2008, 02:29 AM

Amen. Now if I would get around to learning how to grow veggies. Seems easy enough. :p

We can get wonderful organic fruits and veggies from our local health food store. I have also discovered a meat store that sells locally grown, naturally raised (sometimes organic) meats. Yum.

There are MANY organic local farmers in this area who bring so much produce to the local markets. People this year are very aware and motivated to buy locallly produced food products. A bit of a controversy is going around now concerning 'organic' food. There is a very broad definition of organic that includes foods that many do not consider to be real organic food.

A bit of a sad story is that the last remaining local strawberry farmer will call it quits after this year's season. There are only about 2 1/2 to 3 weeks to pick the fresh strawberrys and there just isnt enough money in it anymore for the growers to break even. The cost of fertilizer has skyrocketed, along with property taxes and other costs, and the farmers are being forced to sell off their farms to land developers.

Skinview

06-20-2008, 07:25 AM

Right - the MILITIA will side with the party opposing tyranny. The right of the people as the militia is intrinsic.The Second Amendment doesen't say "right of the people as the militia", and it doesn't say "right of the militia", it says "right of the people".

By definition the militia is a regulated body. Nothing Publius writes contradicts that, indeed it depends on it.
Nooo. Rather than explain it to you myself, let me quote the US Supreme Court:

"The signification attributed to the term Militia appears from the debates in the Convention, the history and legislation of the Colonies and States, and the writings of approved commentators. These show plainly enough that the Militia comprised all males physically capable of acting in concert for the common defense.
United States v Miller (1939)

"It is undoubtedly true that all citizens capable of bearing arms constitute the reserved military force or reserve militia of the United States as well as the States, and... the States cannot... prohibit the people from keeping and bearing arms"
Presser v Illinois (1886)

Current Federal law reflects this:

"the militia shall consist of every able-bodied male citizen of the respective States, Territories, and the District of Columbia, and every able-bodied male of foreign birth who has declared his intention to become a citizen, who is more than eighteen and less than forty-five years of age, and shall be divided into two classes - the organized militia, to be known as the National Guard of the State, Territory, or District of Columbia, or by such other designations as may be given to them by the laws of the respective States or Territories, and the remainder to be known as the Reserve Militia."
Section 1, Chapter 196, Fifty-seventh Congress (1/21/1903)

Skinview

06-20-2008, 07:33 AM

The 2nd Amendment, which for clarity should have been titled "The right of states to form citizen militias"

It clearly doesn't say that.

Naturist Mark

06-20-2008, 07:13 PM

The Second Amendment doesen't say "right of the people as the militia" ...
... reserve militia
...Reserve Militia
...

So you are arguing that the 'reserve militia', meaning the unorganized mass of potential militia members not yet part of a well organized militia counts as part of the 'well regulated militia'.

And you accuse me of spinning?

Nice try.

History and precedent deny your claim.

But I certainly do agree that that may soon change with the Heller case, the Nazgul cohort in the present Supreme Court is willing to alter history, reason, and of course the Constitution itself to fit their whim. They have already gone a long way towards authorizing the annulment of most of the bill of rights, and I have no doubt they are willing to impose the NRA rewriting of history on the 2nd amendment.

-Mark

Fitz1980

06-21-2008, 05:21 AM

Bill Maher made a good point about people who think that they need guns in order to resist the government should it ever come down to that. That was one thing when they had muskets and so did you. Today they have stealth bombers and nuclear weapons.

Using that logic should the right to keep and bare arms extend to RPGs, grenades, cruse missiles, depleted uranium tank shells?

BTW I'm not anti-gun either. I own a .357 magnum that used to belong to my Dad. It's fun to shoot at the range and I like knowing it's there, but I also know plenty of irresponsible people who it frightens me to know that it's legal for them to own a gun.

usmc1

06-21-2008, 09:32 AM

Bill Maher made a good point about people who think that they need guns in order to resist the government should it ever come down to that. That was one thing when they had muskets and so did you. Today they have stealth bombers and nuclear weapons.

Using that logic should the right to keep and bare arms extend to RPGs, grenades, cruse missiles, depleted uranium tank shells?

Why the hell not. We've seen to it that Iraqis have that privilege. Seems to me we deserve as much.

Qikdraw

06-21-2008, 10:54 AM

Hail hail the beautiful and fresh veggies that I am growing in the garden now! Supermarket veggies just cannot compete with garden fresh and with what supermarkets charge for veggies, garden fresh prices can not be beaten!

You'd love the garden my mother-in-law has made in our back yard. There are 4 grape vines, an almond tree, peach, apple, pear, peach and fig trees, she also plants tomatos, basil, mint, oregano, zuccinni, and a few other things I forget atm.

Qikdraw

Sanslines

06-21-2008, 11:21 AM

You'd love the garden my mother-in-law has made in our back yard. There are 4 grape vines, an almond tree, peach, apple, pear, peach and fig trees, she also plants tomatos, basil, mint, oregano, zuccinni, and a few other things I forget atm.

Qikdraw

We have some grape vines and get a bounty of grapes in September. One of my projects will be to find the best way to trim the grape vines. We also have apple and pear trees and this year looks good for apples. With the price of corn sky high this year, we have plenty of corn planted but have to wait til late August this year. The saying around here for corn is 'knee high by the fourth of July' but the corn is only 1/2 knee high so far.

Skinview

06-22-2008, 06:44 PM

So you are arguing that the 'reserve militia', meaning the unorganized mass of potential militia members not yet part of a well organized militia counts as part of the 'well regulated militia'.No. You wrote:

By definition the militia is a regulated body. Nothing Publius writes contradicts that, indeed it depends on it.Clearly, all or a part of the militia can be organized and "well regulated". But the militia as a whole is not at all necessarily a "well regulated militia", and it certainly is not now. The militia is not, as you wrote, by definition "a regulated body." "Potential militia members" are boys under 16. Any man that can pick up and shoot a gun and is not in the Army/Navy/Air Force IS a member of the milita, whether he is a memeber of an organized body or not, so sayeth the Supreme Court, and centuries of common usage. Alexander Hamilton, aka Publius, wrote in Federalst 29:
"The project of disciplining all the militia of the United States is as futile as it would be injurious if it were capable of being carried into execution. ...To oblige the great body of the yeomanry and the other classes of the citizens to be under arms for the purpose of going through military exercizes... to the charactor of a well regulated militia, would be a real grievance to the people..."
Then he went on:
"Little more can be reasonably be aimed at with respect to the people at large than to have them properly armed and equipped; and in order to see that this be not neglected, it will be necessary to assemble them once or twice in the course of a year."
And then he wrote how a select milita would be a security against the US Army.

From 1792 until 1903, it was Federal law that virtually ALL men own a military firearm and bayonet.

History and precedent deny your claim. Not. It was obviously the intent of the founders that all men, not just members of a select militia, be armed with military weapons. A "well regulated militia" is a subset of the "militia", which was "the people at large" who are capable of bearing arms. The right to bear arms belongs to "the people", and the founders wanted to be damn sure the government didn't disarm them, because their government was a potential enemy.

Skinview

06-22-2008, 07:09 PM

Bill Maher made a good point about people who think that they need guns in order to resist the government should it ever come down to that. That was one thing when they had muskets and so did you. Today they have stealth bombers and nuclear weapons.So the President is going to have a stealth bomber drop a nuclear weapon on Washington DC when the people there march on the White House? I see a problem...

Using that logic should the right to keep and bare arms extend to RPGs, grenades, cruse missiles, depleted uranium tank shells?Thats the idea.
"Section. 8. The Congress shall have Power To...
grant Letters of Marque and Reprisal, and rules concerning Captures on Land and Water"
-US Constitution, Article. I.
That is the right for private warships to take enemy shipping. RPG? Hell, I have a right to a battleship.

BTW I'm not anti-gun either. I own a .357 magnum that used to belong to my Dad. It's fun to shoot at the range and I like knowing it's there, but I also know plenty of irresponsible people who it frightens me to know that it's legal for them to own a gun.Its legal for them to own cars too. Often people do get killed with them, but mostly we all drive between the lines and keep the shiny side up. If drivers kill someone, they get thrown in jail. The big theme is that we are adults. As adults, we have great responsibility that goes hand in hand with liberty. You can't seperate one from the other. We have a right to our liberty, and we must not be treated as children.

usmc1

06-23-2008, 04:20 AM

Armed resistance as a viable option against our government. Up until Iraq, I would have not thought so. Then watching what the insurgency has done with AK47s, RPGs, and improvised explosives I wonder.

Naturist Mark

06-23-2008, 05:38 AM

A "well regulated militia" is a subset of the "militia", which was "the people at large" who are capable of bearing arms.

So, to repeat, your contention is that the 'well regulated militia' specified in the 2nd Amendment is the 'unregulated militia'.

Gee, something about that sentence looks a bit ... off.

-Mark

Skinview

06-23-2008, 06:21 AM

So, to repeat, your contention is that the 'well regulated militia' specified in the 2nd Amendment is the 'unregulated militia'.

No, that is not my contention.

Your contention is that the Second Amendment says:

"A well regulated people, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the Militia to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed."

I contend that it says:

"A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed."

I have several copies of it, and thats what they all say. You have mixed the words up.

Naturist Mark

06-23-2008, 04:24 PM

No, that is not my contention.

Your contention is that the Second Amendment says:

"A well regulated people, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the Militia to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed."

I contend that it says:

"A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed."

I have several copies of it, and thats what they all say. You have mixed the words up.

Now you are getting into the very old argument about which is the subordinate clause in the sentence. Thus far the courts have answered that in one way and the NRA in the other, although Heller may change that.

-Mark

Skinview

06-23-2008, 08:21 PM

Now you are getting into the very old argument about which is the subordinate clause in the sentence. Thus far the courts have answered that in one way and the NRA in the other, although Heller may change that.

No, the courts are split, as I wrote before. Kentucky and Vermont have ruled that their right to bear arms is an individual right, and the Federal 5th Circuit court in US v Emmerson in 2001, and the Federal DC Circuit court in Parker v DC in 2007, both ruled that the Second Amendment refers to an individual right to bear arms. And of course, most Americans know that we have an individual right to bear arms, and most US Senators have urged the Supreme Court to acknowledge that we have an individual right. So no, its not just the NRA by a long shot.

But in any case, it says "right of the people". There isn't any wiggle room there. Authoritarians just try to bury it with sophistry.

missouriboy

06-26-2008, 08:22 AM

But in any case, it says "right of the people". There isn't any wiggle room there. Authoritarians just try to bury it with sophistry.Yes. And I would further add, as I've done before, this analysis of the context of timing, as evidenced by the past, present, or future tense of the actual Englislh words used in the amendment, to wit: ...the right of the people to keep and bear Arms (which obviously already exists, now and in the past), shall (in the future, from this point forward) not be infringed (by the government that is just now being formed by this document).

Our constitution does not grant Rights to the People.
Instead, it grants Powers to the Government.

And it was the People doing the granting, not the Government. Analyze the wording of the Preamble...

Naturist Mark

06-26-2008, 04:21 PM

usmc1

06-27-2008, 04:41 AM

Well the Supremes have ruled ...

And rather than ruling in one of the two ways expected, created a third way out of whole cloth.

For the very first time in American history the court has ruled that there is an individual right to bear arms independent of the militia. But in an almost incomprehensible twist they maintain that that individual right is still subordinate to the militia - and thus to regulation by the States - except when it comes to an outright ban or a requirement for trigger locks.

Note that it was the so called 'strict constructionists' who created a new right out of whole cloth that is not based on history or precedent.

The result, although very messy and representing judicial activism of the worst sort, achieves a pretty good result. It puts full legal authority behind sensible gun control regulations, while it also preserves the freedom of law abiding citizens to own firearms under sensible rules.

The nebulous nature of the individual right being subordinate to the State's militia power to regulate, up to an unknown arbitrary point, is going to result in a messy flood of further litigation. Thus we keep our lawyers fed.

-Mark

A couple of things tied together seems to have narrowed the scope of the ruling. The phrase "protection in the home" coupled with the exclusion of trigger lock requirements drives home the notion that the "right" is limited to home-protection and hunting, which implies that states can regulate, control and restrict the conditions wherein weapons are displayed, used, carried or otherwise owned outside the home.

It also opens the door very widely for states to define what constitutes a hunting piece and a firearm for "home-protection" and place limitations, regulations and controls on their use.

For example, would a state declare the AK-47 as neither a hunting piece or a valid weapon for "home-protection" and outlaw and criminalize their ownership?

You're right, the danged old lawyers are chortling right now.

Qikdraw

06-27-2008, 09:40 AM

usmc1

06-27-2008, 11:31 AM

Wait... Someone was trying to ban trigger locks?

Are people insane? Yeah lets let a 4 year old shoot a friend or himself cause the gun isnt properly safe.

I'm sorry but people not wanting trigger locks should not be allowed to reproduce.

Qikdraw

I did not phrase that well at all. First cuppa Joe mental twitch deficiency kicked in. I've rephrased it to, exclusion of requirements for trigger guards.

But, in effect it doe ban "imposed' trigger guard laws leaving that as a voluntary act.

No you can't stop their breeding anymore than you can keep them from taking their brains out and rolling them in the dirt.

Qikdraw

06-27-2008, 12:18 PM

I did not phrase that well at all. First cuppa Joe mental twitch deficiency kicked in. I've rephrased it to, exclusion of requirements for trigger guards.

But, in effect it doe ban "imposed' trigger guard laws leaving that as a voluntary act.

So there were people out to get rid of trigger guards. Its times like this that completely baffles me about Americans. I now its not all of you, but I don't think I'll ever understand Americans... or women.

No you can't stop their breeding anymore than you can keep them from taking their brains out and rolling them in the dirt.

There oughta be a law.

Qikdraw

usmc1

06-27-2008, 04:03 PM

So there were people out to get rid of trigger guards. Its times like this that completely baffles me about Americans. I now its not all of you, but I don't think I'll ever understand Americans... or women.

There oughta be a law.

Qikdraw

There was! Bush ignored it and this batch of wing-nut supremes over-turned it.

hm0504

06-29-2008, 10:36 AM

Good heavens! As if it is not bad enough that Obama is an anti-Bible [1], Muslim jihadist [2],un-American alien [3] -- the shocking, sordid truth now comes to light that he also has close Canadian relatives whom he visits regularly!!!

http://www.torontosun.com/Lifestyle/Columnists/MeedWard_Marianne/2008/06/22/5953036-sun.html

I mean how many strikes will it take to get this guy out?

[1] http://elections.foxnews.com/2008/06/24/3428/

[2] http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=TpdlfzEN_J0

[3] http://annapoliscapitalpunishment.blogspot.com/2008/06/obama-born-in-kenya-maybe-ahhhnold.html

Boreas

06-29-2008, 05:03 PM

usmc1

07-23-2008, 01:54 PM

Names and places deleted to protect the guilty!

Dear Fellow Democrats,
We will begin neighborhood voter registration work on Saturday July 26. We will have coffee and donuts at 9AM at our meeting place, the XXXXXXXX Church of Christ at XXXXXXX. The XXXXXXX Co. Democratic Party Executive Secretary, XXXXXX XXXXX will give brief instructions and training and we will form teams, then go to our assigned streets and roads to knock on doors. The teams will return to the church about 12PM for a bag lunch furnished by the Democratic Party and for fellowship. We will return to our street assignments to knock on more doors and return to the church at 4PM to make our reports and turn in our forms.
We need volunteers that day to help with the food. There will be something to do for those who may not wish to knock on doors.
Those who are responsible to make the calls on the call list should do so ASAP.
Thanks for your dedication to the democratic process of voting and making our voices heard.
Please call me if you have questions: XXX xxx xxxx.
Sincerely,
XXXX xxxxxx--
Real patriots defend the Constitution, not the corporation.

usmc1

07-28-2008, 09:38 AM

don't go to fundmentalist churches and kill people because they're conservative. We don't bomb clinics that refuse to provide abortion services. We don't hide and murder, by sniping, physicians who decline abortion services.

We don't blow up federal buildings and babies in day care in support of our beliefs. We don't blow up and burn down churches engaged in a struggle for civil rights. We don't murder college kids working on voters rights and bury their bodies in a cow-tank levee. We don't lynch, intimidate, and bully others out of their right to vote.

We don't support torture, and wars of invasion and occupation on behalf of oil companies, and the suspension of civil liberties and basic human rights in a Munchausen war against a noun.

And, once again, in case you missed it, we sure as hell do not invade the churches of those we disagree with and murder people.

"A gunman who shot and killed two people during a children's musical at a Tennessee church targeted the church because of its liberal views, according to Knoxville's police chief. The suspect has been charged with first-degree murder."

And as a matter of record, it was mostly the conservatives on this forum who engaged in the near orgasmic spasms of lamentations, and hand-wringing, and crocodile tears when the college kids were killed at VT.

Where're the sobbing banalities now?

Boreas

07-28-2008, 10:12 AM

Pete Knight

07-28-2008, 10:31 AM

I loved the tee shirt a girl was seen wearing at a peace protest just as the Iraq 'softening up' bombing campaign started, and after Dubya''s claim to be bringing peace to the Middle East, it read;

Bombing for peace is like f##king for virginity.

An absolute classic I thought.

Pete Knight

MoonShadow

07-28-2008, 11:00 AM

It always amazes me that people who believe in right to life for fetuses, are so quick to advocate capital punishment, or to bomb or kill those who are performing abortions. Seems contradictory to me somehow. :confused:

It is contradictory and hypocritical. They are not right-to-life or pro-life individuals. They are anti-abortion and anti-life when they support capital punishment or silently support bombing of clinics that perform abortions.

tinhfwv

07-28-2008, 01:11 PM

Good points usmc.

It always amazes me that people who believe in right to life for fetuses, are so quick to advocate capital punishment, or to bomb or kill those who are performing abortions. Seems contradictory to me somehow. :confused:

In the case of abortion, an innocent life is being taken. In the case of capital punishment, the life being taken has been found, through due process, to be guilty of a capital crime.

tinhfwv

07-28-2008, 01:16 PM

I loved the tee shirt a girl was seen wearing at a peace protest...

Bombing for peace is like f##king for virginity.

An absolute classic I thought.

Pete Knight

I know that saying was around as far back as the Vietnam War. I'm not sure if it was used during World War II. But if it was, it would have raised the question "Well how do we stop Hitler?"

usmc1

07-28-2008, 02:02 PM

Published on The Smirking Chimp (http://www.smirkingchimp.com (http://www.smirkingchimp.com/))
Monster: Who Really Killed the Knoxville Unitarians?
By RJ Eskow
Created Jul 28 2008 - 3:04pm

I'd say that Unitarians were God's thoughtful people, but they make no particular claims about God. In some parts of the country that takes real courage.

My first wife and I joined a Unitarian church in suburban DC and raised our kids there. She and I were from different religious backgrounds - in a way, I was from different religious backgrounds, raised in Judaism but with Catholic and Southern Baptist relatives. We both practiced Buddhist meditation (and found others there that did the same.)

Unitarians tend to be intellectual, verbal, literate, thoughtful, and from a variety of backgrounds. Some are atheist, some are agnostic, others believe in God in a variety of Eastern and Western forms. Some would describe themselves as "ethically Christian," although others would not - and it is not an exclusively Christian group. The running joke among Unitarians was that the name "Jesus" is only heard when someone falls down the stairs, and that the only sacrament is the black coffee brewed after services.

The Unitarian Universalist (or UU) denomination is the product of a merger between Unitarianism and Universalism, two centuries-old Christian denominations. Unitarianism was founded on the belief that the Trinity was illogical and that there could only be one divinity. Universalists believed that God was too merciful to condemn anyone to an eternity in hell, and that even the most evil person would get out of there eventually (after fifty thousand years or so). Eventually they merged and abandoned all dogma. (You can read the Knoxville church's website (http://www.tvuuc.org/believe.html) [1] for a summary of beliefs.)

When my work sent me to Hungary, I arrived in the only nation on earth that ever had a Unitarian state (during the reign of King John Sigismund, who decreed religious tolerance in 1568). Ralph Waldo Emerson is the closest thing to a saint that UU's have. An ordained minister in the church, his Harvard Divinity School address was revolutionary in its day.
Emerson rejected all claims of the supernatural in the Bible. He said that miracles were "monster," in the original meaning of that word as "against nature." In a characteristically striking turn of phrase, he said they were "not one with the blowing clover and the falling rain." Emerson was telling us that the beauty of the manifest world should be enough.
Is it worth killing a person for believing that?

My current (and future) wife and I were married by the Rev. Forrest Church (http://www.forrestchurch.com/) [2] at All Souls Unitarian in Manhattan. (Dr. Church is now teaching us how to face death (http://www.forrestchurch.com/writings/sermons/GA-2008-Love-and-Death.pdf) [3].) When at several points in my career jobs came up in the Deep South, I always checked to see if there was a Unitarian Church nearby. One of those job possibilities, which I chose not to pursue, was in Knoxville.

Jim Adkisson of Powell, Tennessee was the man with his finger on the trigger. He had mental health problems, and a hard and bitter life. He apparently left a letter explaining that he hated the church for its liberal beliefs and opinions. And the church had a sign outside indicating it welcomed gays and lesbians.

Who really killed those Unitarians? Was it the preachers who spread hatred and intolerance? The politicians who court and flatter them instead of condemning their hate speech? The media machine that attacks liberals, calls them "traitors" and suggests you speak to them "with a baseball bat"? The economic system that batters people like Jim Adkinson until they snap, then tells them their real enemies are gays and liberals and secular humanists?

If you ask me, it was all of the above.

You killed them, Pat Robertson. You killed them, Pastor Hagee. You killed them, Ann Coulter. You killed them, Dick Morris and Sean Hannity and the rest of you at Fox News.

The shooting began while the children of the church were putting on a musical based on "Annie." One broad-shouldered church member blocked the bullets from hitting other people, and died. You don't need to believe in dogma to be a hero. Remember that song from "Annie"? It probably got on your nerves like it got on mine. "The sun'll come out tomorrow."

The sun coming out. That's natural. It's one with the blowing clover and the falling rain. But a man driven insane, then programmed by society to kill people just because they're loving and tolerant?

That's monster.

popper

07-29-2008, 03:11 AM

usmc1

07-29-2008, 04:49 AM

While this clip has been around for quite some time, it reflects ones intentions. "Out of the abundance of the heart the mouth will speak". Or is it politics as usual.

www.bercasio.com/movies/dems-wmd-before-iraq.wmv (http://www.bercasio.com/movies/dems-wmd-before-iraq.wmv)

Did you pay attention to what Biden said? It was right on target, and actually undermines the thesis of this patched together effort at out of context proof-texting.

And, I guess you've forgotten the election results of 2006, in which this sort of tripe was rejected and the Democrats gained control of Congress.

Boreas

07-29-2008, 06:33 AM

In the case of abortion, an innocent life is being taken. In the case of capital punishment, the life being taken has been found, through due process, to be guilty of a capital crime.

Capital punishment is still a murder. No more right than any other murder. All human life is valuable. Not all those murdered through capital punishment are guilty. Also capital punishment does nothing to deter criminals.....except perhaps those who have been murdered, but then they would have likely spent most of their days in prison anyway.

usmc1

07-29-2008, 08:53 AM

Conservatives are culpable, accountable and responsible for the things done in their name, and for the results of the policies and programs instituted by the people they support and elect to office, and for the violence perpetrated by those inflamed to action by the right-wing screech monkeys and radical preachers of despair and hatred.

A Murderer's Bookshelf: Hannity, O'Reilly, and Savage On Killer's Reading List
By RJ Eskow
Created Jul 29 2008 - 10:01am

This morning I wrote (in "Monster (http://nightlight.typepad.com/nightlight/2008/07/monster-who-rea.html%20) [1]") that Sean Hannity et al. might bear some share of moral responsibility for the killings in Knoxville. Sadly for everyone concerned, that may be true.

This evening we learn from the Knoxville News (http://www.knoxnews.com/news/2008/jul/28/church-shooting-police-find-manifesto-suspects-car/) [2] that officers entering the home of murder Jim Adkisson "found Liberalism is a Mental Health Disorder by radio talk show host Michael Savage, Let Freedom Ring by talk show host Sean Hannity, and The O'Reilly Factor, by television talk show host Bill O'Reilly."

The presence of somebody's books in a mentally disturbed person's home does not make them accessories to a killing. But right-wing rhetoric toward liberals and humanists like those who attended the Tennessee Valley Unitarian Universalist Church has been exceptionally violent for years. Liberal groups are often called "Nazi" or "Nazi-like" by O'Reilly (he even said that about our own Arianna Huffington). Savage says he'd "hang every lawyer" who tried to establish constitutional rights for Guantanamo prisoners, describes Obama as an "Afro-Leninist," and said the folks at Media Matters were "brownshirts." He describes Rep. Wexler as a "Nazi" and calls Nancy Pelosi a "Mussolini."

As for Hannity, he said that "there are things in life worth fighting and dying for and one of 'em is making sure Nancy Pelosi doesn't become the speaker (of the House)." Think about it: "worth fighting and dying for."

And that's just a sampler.

Ann Coulter says liberals should be beaten with baseball bats and tried for treason (she's not clear about the order in which these events are to take place.) Dick Morris says they're "traitors" who should be decapitated.
I had a friend at Clear Channel (yes, I have a broad group of friends) who described some of these people as "entertainers." Don't you get it, guys? You use inflammatory images that equates your fellow Americans with violent enemies of the nation. Then you act surprised when a mentally ill person believes you and kills. You use the language of war and then say you're not to blame when somebody enlists in your imaginary struggle.

Their next step will be outrage - outrage! - at the idea that they may be morally accountable for this action, the possible fruit of their rhetoric.
We all need to be thoughtful about the impact of our words. But the Right has made it their business to promote a particularly virulent brand of hatred.

Would Jim Adkisson have killed without all that prompting from the vituperative chorus of the right? We'll never know. But it's looking less likely with every passing hour that he would ever have entered a church filled with children and started shooting.

If they found something I wrote in a killer's home, I'd stop what I was doing and begin some serious self-reflection. I'd write about it, consider my errors, and try to make amends. Wouldn't you? Not that censorship isn't the answer. Not every reprehensible act can be legislated away. Sometimes the most effective way to change people is to hold them accountable. That includes not only Fox News, in this case, but also CNN - who recently gave the anchor chair to hate-speaker Glenn Beck.

Guys, it's not "entertainment" any more - if it ever was. We need to hold those in the boardroom accountable, too. They make their money and serve their political agenda by telling hundreds of millions of people that liberal Americans are treacherous and mentally ill enemies of the state.

And they use the public airwaves to do it.

If these right-wing pundits are as devout as they say they are they'll stop, think, and ask forgiveness. That goes for their corporate paymasters, too. I hope they do for their own sakes, though I don't expect it.

As for the rest of us, it's time to look at new strategies for containing the spread of hate speech in our media. The old ways aren't working.

popper

07-29-2008, 09:11 AM

Capital punishment is still a murder. No more right than any other murder. All human life is valuable. Not all those murdered through capital punishment are guilty. Also capital punishment does nothing to deter criminals.....except perhaps those who have been murdered, but then they would have likely spent most of their days in prison anyway.

Many citizens have falsely been imprisoned with a great number receiving the death penalty. Thank goodness advancements in DNA continue to exonerate innocent individuals.

The Holy Bible clearly list conditions for "capital punishment" along with a variety of tort laws. While I'm in favor of the death penalty for certain crimes, every means available should be use in the case to prove ones innocences or guilt.

Some years ago, a young man in our area was arrested and convicted for rape. DNA was in its infancy stages at the time, yet he continually requested a DNA test, to no avail. That the prosecutor denied this request left many to believe there was a rush to judgment. Four years and many appeals later, he was found not guilty.

tinhfwv

07-29-2008, 10:38 AM

Capital punishment is still a murder. No more right than any other murder. All human life is valuable.

My response was only to answer your implied question regarding how one can be against abortion and for capital punishment at the same time. Likewise, if one truly believes that all human life is valuable, then how can one be against capital punishment and not abortion? Answer: pretend the unborn are not human. (This is what people have historically done when there's a group whose existence is inconvenient to them.)

MoonShadow

07-29-2008, 11:48 AM

Whoa-eeee - That ole abortion thingy is rearing its head! We know that leads no-where but will surely rile a lot of people.

I agree if you are pro-life you would not be for either abortions or capital punishment. Life is life regarding whether in the uterus or behind bars. If you can be for one and not the other then you cannot say you are pro-life. Yes, Boreas, if one defines abortion as murder then executing a life is also murder. It doesn't work one way and not the other.

Abortions, tinhfwv, are not just for convenience. Oops, sorry, it's that "ole abortion thingy".

tinhfwv

07-29-2008, 12:15 PM

Abortions, tinhfwv, are not just for convenience.

I agree. The point I was making is that throughout history humans have done terrible things to each other while rationalizing, even excusing, their actions by characterizing their victims as some how less than human (e.g. as with slavery, The Holocaust, the treatment of the American Indian). This dehumanizing technique is used in the abortion argument when proponents refer to the unborn as "tissue" or as "just a fetus" (i.e. not really a person). As a species, we still have some very bad habits to break.

Boreas

07-29-2008, 06:56 PM

usmc1

07-30-2008, 04:52 AM

For the record, I do agree that abortion is wrong. I do not believe it is a choice that should be exercised easily. I also know that a woman who is in the position to consider abortion has a very difficult decision to make, and I would not presume to tell her what to do. I will encourage her to consider all options, and then it is up to her.

I suppose the same could be said for capital punishment. It is though, a simplistic answer to a complex issue.

You know Boreas, I'm not certain either is all that complex.

The death penalty serves no purpose other than institutionalized revenge which sometimes is exacted on the wrong person. I am befuddled by people calling themselves conservative who support it. On one hand they decry governmental power in people's lives and on the other they gleefully hand over to government the ultimate power: that of life its self!

Abortion is abortion, that's all. It's not about right to life, or right to choose, it is about abortion. Calling zygotes the "unborn" and giving them equal rights as the living is absurd and obfuscates the issues. Labeling the process as about the right of women to choose also obfuscates the issue. Women, once pregnant have lost the right to "choose", nature had made the choice for them. Their right to choose was whether or not to engage in sex which could result in their pregnancy.

But, a fetus or zygote is not a baby to be taken to one's bosom or dandled on one's knee. They are a mass of dividing cells, with the potential for becoming human. They are no more "unborn babies", than the living can be characterized as the "not yet dead". Both characterizations are insanely ridiculous.

In a free, secular society the decision of whether to end a pregnancy through abortion should be left to the woman and her physician without intimidation, terror and bullying from religious or ideological whack-jobs. Even in the direst of circumstances (rape, incest, etc.), that decision should be made only after the woman has had an opportunity to gain information and learn all of her options. And those options should be available to her, regardless her station in life.

It is a monumental decision, full of implications for all of society, and as such should not be entered into as easily as one gets a pedicure. Getting or not getting a pedicure is a matter of choice. Ending a pregnancy through abortion is a very important decision.

The real issue is why we in this 21st century still have a society in which young and older women are denied sex education, access to contraception, and the ability, knowledge and psychological strength to make choices about sex? The corollary is why are women still the target of rape, incest, and seduction?

Children begin feeling sexual at an early age and ought to have meaningful education about one of the most important functions in their lives from that early age..both boys and girls. Part of that information should include the moral, ethical and religious arguments against abortion, presented in a non-emotional, factual, "here's what some people believe", sort of way. At some point the decision to have sex should be mutual, shared, and with the knowledge of how to prevent unwanted pregnancy.

Nothing complicated about any of that. Convincing the unwashed, the ignorant, and the bible thumpers?...ahhh, that might be complicated!

Boreas

07-30-2008, 07:33 AM

The death penalty serves no purpose other than institutionalized revenge which sometimes is exacted on the wrong person. I am befuddled by people calling themselves conservative who support it. On one hand they decry governmental power in people's lives and on the other they gleefully hand over to government the ultimate power: that of life its self!

Well said usmc1! :applause:

I agree about the abortion. Where it is difficult is that a woman who has an unexpected, and perhaps unwanted pregnancy has three primary, and very difficult choices: continue the pregnancy and parent the child, continue the pregnancy and place the child for adoption, end the pregnancy. Each of these three choices is huge for her usually.

Of course, a better way is to have more options for women so that they are not in that position. The reality is though, that people are people, and unplanned pregnancies happen. Canadian girls do get some sex education in school, and generally have access to birth control.

Sanslines

07-30-2008, 09:07 AM

Of course, a better way is to have more options for women so that they are not in that position. The reality is though, that people are people, and unplanned pregnancies happen. Canadian girls do get some sex education in school, and generally have access to birth control.

Please elaborate upon 'more options' ie what other options are available for women?

We have plenty of education for both boys and girls in schools here. Yet, in spite of all of this education, boys refuse to wear condoms, etc. Given the attitude that boys who 'get some' are 'real casanovas' and girls 'who sleep around' are 'real sluts, is it any wonder with such hypocritical sexist nonsense (that still exists to a very large measure) that the world is as screwed up as it is?

How many more people do we need on this planet? Why can't we face the reality that exponential population growth will doom this planet to extinction and change our ways before it is too late?

Skinview

07-30-2008, 09:17 PM

We don't blow up federal buildings and babies in day care in support of our beliefs.
Truman bombed Hiroshima and Nagasaki.

We don't blow up and burn down churches engaged in a struggle for civil rights. We don't murder college kids working on voters rights and bury their bodies in a cow-tank levee. We don't lynch, intimidate, and bully others out of their right to vote.
How Stalinesque.

We don't support torture, and wars of invasion and occupation..., and the suspension of civil liberties and basic human rights in a Munchausen war against a noun.
Stalin, Khrushchev, Brezhnev, Castro...

And, once again, in case you missed it, we sure as hell do not invade the churches of those we disagree with and murder people.
Waco.

Naturist Mark

07-30-2008, 09:57 PM

Many citizens have falsely been imprisoned with a great number receiving the death penalty. Thank goodness advancements in DNA continue to exonerate innocent individuals.

The circumstances of the majority of capital cases are not such that a DNA test would be sufficient to exonerate a convict. Since 1970 there have been 129 death row inmates exonerated, but only 16 were due to DNA evidence. Still the wrongful conviction rate in the small number of cases where it is sufficient suggests that the overall rate is unacceptably high.1 (http://www.deathpenaltyinfo.org/article.php?scid=6&did=110)

Empirical studies show a wrongful conviction rate in capital crimes to be somewhere between 3.3 and 5 percent - or somewhere between 1 in 20 and 1 in 30 convicts on death row are innocent 2 (http://papers.ssrn.com/sol3/papers.cfm?abstract_id=931454), that means there are at least 110 innocent people on death row in America today.

If a foreign power or terrorist organization threatened the execution of 110 of our innocent countrymen, we would declare war.

-Mark

nuovonudo

07-30-2008, 10:42 PM

. . . [T]he wrongful conviction rate in the small number of cases where it [dna evidence] is sufficient suggests that the overall rate is unacceptably high.1 (http://www.deathpenaltyinfo.org/article.php?scid=6&did=110)

Empirical studies show a wrongful conviction rate in capital crimes to be somewhere between 3.3 and 5 percent - or somewhere between 1 in 20 and 1 in 30 convicts on death row are innocent 2 (http://papers.ssrn.com/sol3/papers.cfm?abstract_id=931454), that means there are at least 110 innocent people on death row in America today.

If a foreign power or terrorist organization threatened the execution of 110 of our innocent countrymen, we would declare war.

mark, i concur 100 percent.

even one wrongful execution is one too many.

besides that, i've always struggled with the concept that somehow the state has a right to do what it forbids an individual citizen to do, namely kill another human being.

while some may argue that the two acts (death penalty vs. murder) are not at all morally equivalent, my point is that in both cases the sacredness of the life involved IS identical. no one's life is "more" sacred than another, IF one believes that all human life is sacred---as i do, and as the church teaches.

while catholic teaching in this area has always allowed room for capital punishment (but only as a last resort when it is the only way to protect society from a perpetrator's future killing),
pope john paul ii argued that, because of technological advances, basically no killer need be put to death; we have less extreme ways to keep society safe from them.

as i'm sure you're aware, this matter of dna testing of death row inmates is a hot topic right now where i live; barring an unlikely intervention by the u.s. supreme court (or a miracle of God) tommy arthur will get the needle in about 18 hours at holman prison down in atmore.

a final thought: i can't provide a citation for this, but i recall a public figure in alabama a few years back saying that if the state ommuted every death row inmate's sentence to life without parole, the money saved (yes, saved) would be enough to fund alabama's education budget for an entire year.

Sanslines

07-31-2008, 03:53 AM

If a foreign power or terrorist organization threatened the execution of 110 of our innocent countrymen, we would declare war.

-Mark

Very true, and if 110 of our innocent countrymen are murdered by their fellow countrymen, there is not even a protest about it. Another way to look at it is this. If terrorists kill 3,000 of our countrymen, then we declare war(s) (as we did). If (domestic) terrorists (ie our fellow countrymen) commit 30,000 homocides year after year, we remain silent. Amazing, isn't it.

usmc1

07-31-2008, 04:20 AM

Wrongo-Bongo

Truman bombed Hiroshima and Nagasaki.

As the closing acts of WWII against a country which waged a sneak attack upon our Navy and Army in Hawaii. No comparison at all to the bombings of abortion clinics by home-grown, conservative, religious whack-jobs. Or the Oklahoma City bombing! None, zero, zilch, and in the interest of bilingualism, NADA!

How Stalinesque. No, how Price, Rainey, Killen, Burnett, KKK (esque).

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mississippi_civil_rights_worker_murders
 <o>:p></o>:p>
http://news.bbc.co.uk/onthisday/hi/dates/stories/august/4/newsid_2962000/2962638.stm
 <o>:p></o>:p>
http://www.infoplease.com/spot/bhmjustice4.html
 <o>:p></o>:p>
Cecil Price, Lawrence Rainey, Edgar Killen, E. G. Barnett

Stalin, Khrushchev, Brezhnev, Castro... No, Bush, Cheney & Rumsfeld, who, by the way, have a great deal in common with your list--none of whom were liberals.

Waco. Waco was a lot of things, but it sure wasn't liberals invading a peaceful church and gunning down people watching a children's play simply because they were liberal!

Frankly, there are no connections at all between what I wrote and what you put up in reply...really a bit strange actually...no connection at all.

Or, as I wrote earlier:

I now must regard myself as an “enemy combatant” in the culture wars waged by the screech monkeys of the radical right and their foot-soldiers: violently disturbed good old boys. As a liberal, and a nominal Unitarian, I find myself a potential target for the deeply-disturbed, anger and violence based conservatives who regard liberals, populists, and progressives as less than human perpetrators of dark deeds who are to be stalked and slain.

What does it take to make a person, already with rats and maggots warring for control of his brain, take a weapon into a church and gun down innocents in a rampage of hate and murder, simply because the church is liberal and supports such things as gay-marriage? What, indeed?

I have long maintained that conservatives are culpable, accountable and responsible for the things done in the name of conservatism. When one supports a politician one takes on some ownership of the policies and programs of that politician. One does not get to wash one’s hands of those when they go bad. Conservatives are accountable for the nearly 35,000 casualties resulting from the invasion and occupation of Iraq. Conservatives are accountable for the collapse of the Mississippi River Bridge in Minnesota, which sent so many innocents to untimely death because the money for proper inspection and repair had been shut off by...yeah; you got it, conservative politicians pandering to their supporters.

And conservatives everywhere are accountable for those church killings in Tennessee. Oh sure, there are conservatives that were stunned and saddened by the crime. They will join hands and pray, swaying back-and-forth in candle-light vigils for the innocent dead. They will attribute it all to one violently disturbed individual, and then continue to watch and listen to the vile and hateful ranting and tirades against liberals by Dobbs, Hannity, O’Reilly, Limbaugh, and Coulter. They will continue circulating their vicious and ugly e-mail missives promoting hate and fear and blaming liberals as the cause of all that trouble them.

No one can say with any certainty where is the tipping point that causes a man to take a gun into a church and kill people because the church is liberal. But, it takes no imagination at all to find the hate-speech from the right as a major contributing factor. There are consequences to words. And, in this case, those consequences were tragic and all persons calling themselves conservative, who have not repudiated the calls for violence and hate-filled speech of the Coulters, Hannitys, Limbaughs, and O’Reillys of the world, share responsibility for those deaths.

It is time, as the biblical expression goes, for conservatives to look to themselves. Liberals do not invade churches and kill people, liberals do not poison the airwaves calling for conservatives to be beaten with baseball bats or decapitated, liberals do not blow up clinics which refuse to perform abortions, liberals do not lie hidden in darkness waiting to assassinate, by sniping, doctors who refuse to perform abortions, liberals do not blow up federal buildings with day-care centers filled with playing toddlers and sleeping infants, liberals do not call for the round-up and deportation of immigrant workers and the tearing apart of families, or for the deportation of those worker's children legally born in the United States. Liberals do not intimidate, threaten, bully, or wrongfully remove from the voting rolls, others to insure the "victory" of their ideology. Liberals do not engage in gay-bashing, race-baiting, or other hate-crimes. These things are not patriotic or American--they are monstrous opposites!

Liberals do none of those things. People calling themselves conservative do! They do those things and much, much worse. And they do so proudly, with disgusting bravado and sickening self-righteousness.

Enough is enough. It is way past the hour for decent people who regard themselves as conservative to repudiate and stand up against the hate mongers. Too long have good people stood silent as sociopaths, pundits, radical fringe-religion preachers and other criminally insane egoists spout and spew vomitous hate toward their fellow Americans. From such do murderers draw inspiration and affirmation.

This is a moment of accountability for conservatives in America. My bet is they will fail the test, and that I, and other progressives, will remain at-risk, enemy combatants in the culture wars.

nuovonudo

07-31-2008, 05:01 AM

just saw the front page of the "birmingham news"; the alabama state supreme court, by a 5-4 vote, granted tommy arthur an indefinite stay of execution.

score one for our side!

gotta go, am at work. regards,
--n

Boreas

07-31-2008, 06:19 AM

Wow nuovonudo and usmc1. Thanks. What a great antidote to the horrible news stories I heard first thing this morning. (Two particularly violent incidents happened in Canada in the past 24 hours)

usmc1, perhaps you need to publish that essay on the kind of conservatism that is hateful.

Naturist Mark

07-31-2008, 07:17 AM

No one can say with any certainty where is the tipping point that causes a man to take a gun into a church and kill people because the church is liberal. But, it takes no imagination at all to find the hate-speech from the right as a major contributing factor. There are consequences to words. And, in this case, those consequences were tragic and all persons calling themselves conservative, who have not repudiated the calls for violence and hate-filled speech of the Coulters, Hannitys, Limbaughs, and O’Reillys of the world, share responsibility for those deaths.

Funny you should mention that. Guess what they found inside (http://www.knoxnews.com/news/2008/jul/28/church-shooting-police-find-manifesto-suspects-car/) Adkisson's house? "officers found "Liberalism is a Mental Health Disorder" by radio talk show host Michael Savage, "Let Freedom Ring" by talk show host Sean Hannity, and "The O'Reilly Factor," by television talk show host Bill O'Reilly."

-Mark

Naturist Mark

07-31-2008, 10:02 AM

The Rev Candace Chellew-Hodge wrote, "In light of the shootings at the Unitarian church I have written an article called "An Open Letter to Sean Hannity." (http://www.mychurch.org/blog/230382/An-Open-Letter-to-Sean-Hannity-re-Jim-Adkisson) I know Sean Hannity. I worked with him in Atlanta back in the 90s right as he hit the big time, so I addressed a letter to him."

“If the Left succeeds in gaining and retaining more power, the well-being of future generations will be at greater peril. I fear (our children) will inherit a nation that is less free and less secure than the nation we inherited from the last generation. It is therefore our job to stop them. Not just debate them, but defeat them.” — Sean Hannity

Dear Sean:

I found these words on page 11 of your book Let Freedom Ring. This book, and similar ones from your conservative colleagues Bill O’Reilly and Michael Savage, was found in the home of a man who read those words, internalized those words, and then loaded his shotgun. He took 76 rounds of ammunition with him to a place of worship—a place where he knew he could do his job to stop and defeat some liberals. At the Unitarian Church in Knoxville, Tennessee, Jim Adkisson, a fan of yours, killed two people, wounded five others, and left an entire congregation and country shaken by his actions. Actions prompted, as he testified in his own written notes, by the ideas contained in your words.

I don’t know if you remember me, Sean, but I worked with you in Atlanta in the early 1990s, right as you got your big break with FOX News. I was an anchor and reporter (under the air name Candace Petersen) at WGST, your last low level stop before hitting the big time. I remember your last night on the air before you left for the big leagues. I approached you in your office, a cramped back room that I’m sure resembles a hovel compared to your FOX digs. I asked if you, during your last show, would tone down your rhetoric against gays and lesbians—stop demonizing our community for just one night. You refused. You explained to me, as if I were a child, that to do so would be to let your audience down. They expected you to go on the air and rant about how liberals, minorities, women and especially gays and lesbians were ruining our country. You simply had to oblige.

Even though you explained it simply, I still didn’t understand. Your Girl Friday—your most trusted assistant on your show was a young lesbian. She admired you, for some strange reason, and you two were close friends, lunching together, spending time together outside of work. You didn’t seem to have a problem with this particular lesbian. She wasn’t the one you kept blaming on the air for the downfall of democracy. No, you had two different lives then—one on the air, where you performed your outraged conservative act and one in real life, where you enjoyed your lesbian friend and seemed like a decent, sane fellow.

I don’t know if you’ve bought into your own shtick or not these days. If you truly believe half of what I could manage to read in your book (thank God the quote I found was in the early pages), I feel sorry for you. I don’t know how a person who obviously has no problem with homosexuality in their friends (or used to have no problem, anyway), can rant about how disgusting homosexuality is on pages 156 to 157. (Many thanks to your editors for the index.) I would call you a hypocrite, but if you’ve become a true believer, I guess the label no longer applies.

I hope you are not too far gone, your conscience too eaten away with greed, to understand the violent and vile object lesson that Mr. Adkisson has provided for us in Tennessee, because it’s a lesson you need to learn: Our words matter. Our words have power.

If you tell a child long enough that they are stupid and will never amount to anything, it won’t be long before they’ll believe that and live up to those words. If you tell the whole population of a country that their woes can be blamed on something called “liberals” who hold different ideas than you do, it won’t be long before those “liberals” will become the scapegoat for all social ills. Those words matter—they have power. Adkisson was a true believer.

Your book is rife with paragraphs bashing “the Left”—an enigmatic group of “liberals” painted so broadly that your label for them must be capitalized. These are the people to blame if anything goes wrong in the world. Terrorism? “The Left” didn’t hunt down the terrorists before they struck. War? “The Left” didn’t do enough to protect us from our enemies and have opposed our military readiness. Job losses? “The Left” taxed the corporations so much they moved overseas.

In your world, and the world you convinced Adkisson of, “the Left” is the bogeyman under the bed. But your book never mentions how the last eight years of Republican leadership has already left our children a nation that is less free, less secure, and as a special bonus, deeply in debt. Republicans are responsible for bankrupting our country, chipping away at our civil rights, sending our monetary and human treasure to waste away and die in the desert, leaving us paranoid and afraid of anyone who may look different, undermining social safety nets like unemployment and food stamps (which Adkisson had recently just lost), and generally making us a more selfish and divided nation. You have done this with your words, Sean—words of division, words of hate, words of war, and words of greed.

The sad irony here, Sean, is that if Mr. Adkisson had gone to that Unitarian church and told them he was out of a job and his food stamps had just ended, they would have helped him. They would have fed them from their food pantry and used their network of friends to help find him a job. Not because they’re liberal socialists, but because they understand that it’s not “us” against “them.” Instead, what made this country great is that we pull together in times of crisis—we bear one another’s burdens and put aside our differences in order to be of service to one another. They would have reached out to Mr. Adkisson without asking him if he was Democrat or a Republican or a liberal or a conservative. Labels don’t matter when someone is in need—or they shouldn’t.

But, Mr. Adkisson did not know that about the Unitarian church. You didn’t tell him liberals could help him. You only told him they’re to blame for his misfortune. His mind had already been poisoned by the words of hatred and division from you book. He saw the Unitarians down the road, not as fellow human beings who would generously help him in his time of need, but as enemies—the very reason his world had gone to hell. His job, since he had no other because of a bad economy created by Republican policies, was “to stop them. Not to debate them, but defeat them.” And so he loaded a gun.

Sean, you occupy a position of power. All words have power, but some words are more powerful than others simply because they are amplified from a larger stage. With power comes responsibility. If there is any of that old Sean left—the one before the big office, the popular TV and radio show and best selling books—I appeal to that man. Understand the power of your words. I know that words of division are profit-making words for you. We human beings apparently love to see a good fight, or feel our views justified by a good argument. But I hope this incident will give you pause and help you begin to choose your words more wisely. I hope, in choosing future words, you’ll consider not what’s best for the Hannity bank account, but what’s best for humanity.

I long for the day when profitable words are words that uplift, encourage, and inspire people. The strength of this nation has always been our unity in diversity and our unity in the face of adversity. By using your words to create a world of “us” and “them” you only perpetuate violence and discord in our society. I am asking you, Sean, to examine yourself and your words. You don’t have to agree with liberals and their views, but you can oppose liberal ideas without painting those who hold those beliefs as enemies who need to be stopped or defeated. If conservative ideas are truly superior, then a compelling case can be made for them without resorting to the politics of personal destruction.

Sean, your words have the power to heal and the power to destroy. The choice is yours.

Sincerely,

Candace Chellew-Hodge

usmc1

07-31-2008, 12:04 PM

Mark, props!

Thanks.

KNude

07-31-2008, 12:21 PM

Wow! How do we get this out to the public? Where can it be heard and read that is easily found and people will be exposed to it?

Qikdraw

07-31-2008, 12:54 PM

a final thought: i can't provide a citation for this, but i recall a public figure in alabama a few years back saying that if the state ommuted every death row inmate's sentence to life without parole, the money saved (yes, saved) would be enough to fund alabama's education budget for an entire year.

Jus think how much money would be saved if we didn't throw people in jail for having a joint? How many non-violent 'criminals' do we have in the system? (aside from white collar crimes)

Barney Frank has a new house bill (http://www.cnn.com/2008/POLITICS/07/31/frank.bill.ireport/index.html?section=cnn_latest) about allowing people to carry less than 100 grams of pot without arrest. I fully agree with this. Using pot should not be illegal, alchohol is far more lethal than pot is. More crimes are committed by drunk people than people on pot. You can't even OD on pot, you can on alchohol.

Isn't our prison system the fastest growing US industry? (I herd that somewhere, although I cannot remember where) We are also the nation with the most people in jail. This is insane.

Qikdraw

nuovonudo

07-31-2008, 01:57 PM

Jus think how much money would be saved if we didn't throw people in jail for having a joint? How many non-violent 'criminals' do we have in the system? (aside from white collar crimes) . . .. Isn't our prison system the fastest growing US industry? (I herd that somewhere, although I cannot remember where) We are also the nation with the most people in jail. This is insane.

qikdraw, i don't have the stats in front of me, but i'm pretty sure your statements about the prison population are right on. i work in prison ministry here and the overcrowding has become a serious problem, in part because of a poorly-written "three-strikes-you're-out" law. under this law, a guy who goes to prison twice could end up getting life without parole for something relatively minor, like . . . possessing a joint.

some of the pols in alabama finally got wise and now steps are being taken to review some of those 3-strikes cases and parole some of those guys.

incidentally, in our ministry we never use the word "prisoner," at least not around inmates. instead we always refer to them as "residents' -- we figure that they get reminded enough that they are behind bars.

Qikdraw

07-31-2008, 03:01 PM

yikes, now i'm agreeing with qikdraw!

LOL

I think hell just got a few degrees cooler eh? hehe

Actually I think a statement you made to Boreas is true for all of us, that we are a lot closer in our beliefs than we normally think. I fully beleive that. I've had knock down drag out discussions with hard core republicans, and while we may disagree one some things, we agree on a lot of others. One thing to remember when arguing with those of opposing political beliefs is that both sides really do care about the US, we just have different ideas about how the US should be. Which is why I get really offended when its insinuated that I support terrorists, or that I am 'America bashing', or that I want our soldiers to die, just because I do not agree with a particular point.

Also just because we disagree on one thing doesn't mean we cannot be civil with one another in other things. I am sure that if you put all the current, and banned, members that argued politics heavily together for a weekend you'd find there would be plenty to agree on, even after some pretty heavy debates. Which is also why I dislike the demonising of opposing sides.

qikdraw, i don't have the stats in front of me, but i'm pretty sure your statements about the prison population are right on. i work in prison ministry here and the overcrowding has become a serious problem, in part because of a poorly-written "three-strikes-you're-out" law. under this law, a guy who goes to prison twice could end up getting life without parole for something relatively minor, like . . . possessing a joint.

Yah, the three strikes rule is idioitic in the extreme. The guy could have been caught with a joint 3 times, and now he'll go to jail for life? Just dumb.

some of the pols in alabama finally got wise and now steps are being taken to review some of those 3-strikes cases and parole some of those guys.

Thats good to hear, they should do that across the board.

incidentally, in our ministry we never use the word "prisoner," at least not around inmates. instead we always refer to them as "residents' -- we figure that they get reminded enough that they are behind bars.

Yeah, I can see that is a good idea. :)

Qikdraw

Boreas

07-31-2008, 06:25 PM

Mark, thanks for that wonderful letter. I'd love to see a response to that.

I am also amazed that nuovonudo and Qikdraw are agreeing. Did the universe shift while I was at work? :surprised: Seriously, I think it is great, and I agree with how that discussion is going. I have serious problems with simplistic rules like the three strikes and your out rules. The crazy thing is, that Canada often adopts stupid rules like that, even after they have been shown to be stupid in the US. Now, how dumb is that! :rolleyes: Anyway, I am glad they are looking at that rule in Alabama.

nuovonudo, I did not know you were involved in prison ministry. What a great thing. I have met many people who have been in Canada's prison system, including from our worst prison, and it has really made me more against things like the death penalty. I have seen the humanity in all these people, even though it is harder to see in some people.

Skinview

07-31-2008, 10:07 PM

Truman bombed Hiroshima and Nagasaki.As the closing acts of WWII against a country which waged a sneak attack upon our Navy and Army in Hawaii. No comparison at all to the bombings of abortion clinics by home-grown, conservative, religious whack-jobs. Or the Oklahoma City bombing! None, zero, zilch, and in the interest of bilingualism, NADA!
The abortion clinic bombers and abortion doctor killers think they are defending the innocent, and killing murderers. In Japan, and Oklahoma City, innocent women and children were killed to defend that which was valued by the killers. A couple of differences: McVay didn't know there was a daycare center in the Federal building, whereas Truman knew who was going to be bombed; and Truman killed innocents on a vastly greater scale. Other bombers of US Federal buildings: the radical left Weather Underground in the 1960's. The left wing Black Panthers killed a fair number of policemen as well, and the Symbionese Liberation Army committed bank robberies, kidnapping and assasination.

Among radical leftist organizations, the Panthers' reputation for violence was likely rivaled only by the Weathermen. Hugh Pearson stated, "the Left appeared to view the Panthers as gladiators, cheering them on as they got themselves killed"[43].

From the fall of 1967 through the end of 1969, nine police officers were killed and 56 were wounded in confrontations with the Panthers. The confrontations were believed to have resulted in ten Panther deaths and an unknown number of injuries. In 1969 alone, 348 Panthers were arrested for a variety of crimes.
-Wikipedia

No, Bush, Cheney & Rumsfeld, who, by the way, have a great deal in common with your list--none of whom were liberals.What seperates liberals from libertarians is what liberals have in common with communists. We have seen the slaughter and oppression that has happened when the left has absolute power.

It is time, as the biblical expression goes, for conservatives to look to themselves. Liberals do not invade churches and kill people... Waco was a lot of things, but it sure wasn't liberals invading a peaceful church and gunning down people watching a children's play simply because they were liberal!
It was Federal government agents, acting under a liberal President, invading a peaceful church filled with women and children, gunning down people in order to enforce laws, that violate the Bill of Rights, that were written and enacted by liberals.

Frankly, there are no connections at all between what I wrote and what you put up in reply...really a bit strange actually...no connection at all.
You have very big blinders on.

I now must regard myself as an “enemy combatant” in the culture wars waged by the screech monkeys of the radical right and their foot-soldiers: violently disturbed good old boys. As a liberal, and a nominal Unitarian, I find myself a potential target for the deeply-disturbed, anger and violence based conservatives who regard liberals, populists, and progressives as less than human perpetrators
You are so blinded by your own hate, you can't even see from one sentence to the next that you have become what you rail against. You write of people on the right as "screech monkeys", and then you complain about conservatives who regard "progressives as less than human"!! The hypocracy is breathtaking.

I have long maintained that conservatives are culpable, accountable and responsible for the things done in the name of conservatism. When one supports a politician one takes on some ownership of the policies and programs of that politician. One does not get to wash one’s hands of those when they go bad.
So does this make you responsible for the crimes of people on the left in the name of "liberalism" or "social justice" or "gun control"?

And conservatives everywhere are accountable for those church killings in Tennessee.
As you are accountable for all the dead at Waco.

Liberals do not intimidate, threaten, bully, or wrongfully remove from the voting rolls, others to insure the "victory" of their ideology.
Kennedy, (not really very liberal) probably got in by vote fraud in Chicago.

Enough is enough. It is way past the hour for decent people who regard themselves as conservative to repudiate and stand up against the hate mongers. Too long have good people stood silent as sociopaths, pundits, radical fringe-religion preachers and other criminally insane egoists spout and spew vomitous hate toward their fellow Americans.
I see a lot of hate here...

Radicals on the left and right have bombed, destroyed, shot, maimed, and killed for their causes. By singling out just one side and claiming they are the sole source of this evil mayhem, you are doing the same thing that you accuse the right of. You attach the most vile labels to those whom you disagree with, and expose your own hatred on a regular basis.

Skinview

07-31-2008, 10:53 PM

The circumstances of the majority of capital cases are not such that a DNA test would be sufficient to exonerate a convict. Since 1970 there have been 129 death row inmates exonerated, but only 16 were due to DNA evidence. Still the wrongful conviction rate in the small number of cases where it is sufficient suggests that the overall rate is unacceptably high.1 (http://www.deathpenaltyinfo.org/article.php?scid=6&did=110)

Empirical studies show a wrongful conviction rate in capital crimes to be somewhere between 3.3 and 5 percent - or somewhere between 1 in 20 and 1 in 30 convicts on death row are innocent 2 (http://papers.ssrn.com/sol3/papers.cfm?abstract_id=931454), that means there are at least 110 innocent people on death row in America today.

I think that there are a great many convicts who richly deserve to die, and we have every right to execute them, but not at the cost one innocent life. Mark, your post is exactly why I am opposed to the death penalty. The public should learn that even the best court system in the world is going to be dull, ham fisted and blundering a lot of the time.

nuovonudo

08-01-2008, 03:04 AM

I am also amazed that nuovonudo and Qikdraw are agreeing. Did the universe shift while I was at work? :surprised: Seriously, I think it is great, and I agree with how that discussion is going. I have serious problems with simplistic rules like the three strikes and your out rules. The crazy thing is, that Canada often adopts stupid rules like that, even after they have been shown to be stupid in the US. Now, how dumb is that! :rolleyes: Anyway, I am glad they are looking at that rule in Alabama.

nuovonudo, I did not know you were involved in prison ministry. What a great thing. I have met many people who have been in Canada's prison system, including from our worst prison, and it has really made me more against things like the death penalty. I have seen the humanity in all these people, even though it is harder to see in some people.

see, we conservative right-wing reactionary flapdoodle talkers aren't so bad after all!

but seriously, as to n_mark and q-draw and myself agreeing, keep in mind that we have expressed agreement only in a narrow, specific area, AND (more important) that the reasons each of us have for that common opinion may not be the same.

a similar type of thing happens in constitutional jurisprudence, where the justices on the court reach the same decision (or their decisions have the same legal effect) without arriving at the decision for the same reasons. lawyers have an elegant term for this, but i can't remember what it is.

personally, i'm just releved that tommy arthur didn't get the needle last night. to me the death penalty is just no longer necessary or effective. a sentence of life without possiblilty parole accomplishes everything that the death penalty does, with the exception of the retribution aspect of punishment. on balance, why take another life? what with war, murders, starvation, and elective abortion, there's too much death out there already, in my view. (oh, i forgot sickness, disease, and accidents.) my God is the God of life--not death.

p.s. boreas, i did order that book. it would be great if it arrives before i head to florida for my vacation. i'll p.m. you when i've had a chance to read it.

usmc1

08-01-2008, 05:13 AM

The abortion clinic bombers and abortion doctor killers think they are defending the innocent, and killing murderers. In Japan, and Oklahoma City, innocent women and children were killed to defend that which was valued by the killers. A couple of differences: McVay didn't know there was a daycare center in the Federal building, whereas Truman knew who was going to be bombed; and Truman killed innocents on a vastly greater scale. Other bombers of US Federal buildings: the radical left Weather Underground in the 1960's. The left wing Black Panthers killed a fair number of policemen as well, and the Symbionese Liberation Army committed bank robberies, kidnapping and assasination.

Defending McVeigh and pontificating on his state of mind? Yikes, I've seen it all now. Defending abortion clinic bombers and assassination of doctors as being done by people who think they're doing the right thing. Well maybe, I haven't sen it all, but this about as much as I would care to see. Utterly incredible. Defending murderers, and assassins, and bombers because they thought they were doing right. Cripes!

You seem to wrongfully regard liberalism as a monolith and equate it with communism. But, that aside, liberals, of the time of the violence of the 60s, did speak out against the violence by student groups, ad hoc radical organizations such as SLA, and government slaughter of students in Ohio.

The difference is that liberals do speak out against such, while conservatives have been silent on the calls by the screech-monkeys to decapitate, or beat with baseball bats the liberals who are destroying America.

What seperates liberals from libertarians is what liberals have in common with communists. We have seen the slaughter and oppression that has happened when the left has absolute power.Help me out here, what is that liberals have in common with communism?

It was Federal government agents, acting under a liberal President, invading a peaceful church filled with women and children, gunning down people in order to enforce laws, that violate the Bill of Rights, that were written and enacted by liberals. "peaceful churches" do not acquire an arsenal of firearms and ammunition and engage in the serial seduction, molestation and rape of young girls. Waco was a lot of things as I have said, but it has no comparison at all to the Unitarian Church killings, which by the way, you have yet to deplore!

You have very big blinders on.

You are so blinded by your own hate, you can't even see from one sentence to the next that you have become what you rail against. You write of people on the right as "screech monkeys", and then you complain about conservatives who regard "progressives as less than human"!! The hypocracy is breathtaking.

So does this make you responsible for the crimes of people on the left in the name of "liberalism" or "social justice" or "gun control"?

As you are accountable for all the dead at Waco.Please to what crimes in the name of liberalism, social justice, or gun control do you refer? Tell me, please, when and where, in the name of "liberalism" has any such thing happened?

Am I accountable for the dead at Waco? No, not in the way you imply. Not in the way people such as you share accountability for the deaths in Tennessee. Your defense of and attempts to explain away and shift the focus from the act and circumstances of the perpetrator seal the deal. It is exactly this mindset and attitude at which I directed my essay. Your lack of outrage helps perpetuate and gives affirmation to the sick notion that somehow "liberals" are the cause of all of society's ills and are evil people, deserving of decapitation and being beaten with a baseball bat.

The fact is, that I have, in this forum, and elsewhere spoken out against the government's actions at Waco and Ruby Ridge---that is the essential difference between us and part of the point of my essay. You have yet to acknowledge the hatred and filth being spouted by the right, and its contribution to the murders at that little church.

Your response provides affirmation of the violence against people such as me. And, it always comes down to this, when liberals shove back, conservatives bleat the loudest about being "bullied" while assuming the mantle of victimization.

Kennedy, (not really very liberal) probably got in by vote fraud in Chicago. Then why mention it?

I see a lot of hate here...

Radicals on the left and right have bombed, destroyed, shot, maimed, and killed for their causes. By singling out just one side and claiming they are the sole source of this evil mayhem, you are doing the same thing that you accuse the right of. You attach the most vile labels to those whom you disagree with, and expose your own hatred on a regular basis.Really? Well when one of my readers goes out and slaughters some innocents after reading one of my posts here, or any of my other writings, then I will do the soul search thingee.

But, you personally have utterly no platform of outrage from which to speak about negative characterization. Again, it always comes down to the same damned thing, people like you shout, bluster and carry on, saying things such as "you've got rocks in your head", "you need psychiatric help", but when the retort comes you become the poor abused victim.

Whatever I have said that crossed the line in the mind of moderator has resulted in some sort of action or response. I've not witnessed similar response towards you for your many transgressions, in this area, toward me and others. So, you have no basis for complaint in this area. None!

But, back to the main point. Your citation of acts of war, of the excesses of communist regimes, violence by radical splinter groups, or the government acting wrongfully do not detract from or mitigate my point that conservatives have ownership of the violent acts committed in their names by marginal or disturbed individuals who are fed daily vitriol, diatribe and rant against "liberals" as the causation of all that is wrong. Nor does it refute my secondary point that it is not liberals, but, conservatives who commit these deeds, and that as long as conservatives remain silent, they are giving tacit support. From such, they assume culpability!

Naturist Mark

08-01-2008, 05:52 AM

Kennedy, (not really very liberal) probably got in by vote fraud in Chicago.

Just as an historical note - not true.

It would be surprising if there were not some election fraud in Chicago during the heyday of Richard Daley's Cook County Machine, but it did not decide the election.

Nixon DID contest (http://www.salon.com/politics/feature/2000/11/10/nixon/) the 1960 election. Although he quickly conceded, he and his campaign contested the results in several states until well past mid December. Their results were to award even more electoral votes to Kennedy.

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">It is true that Nixon did quickly concede the election to Kennedy. And while he was careful not to put a public imprimatur on the concerted Republican effort to challenge the election results, he privately not only authorized it, but actively encouraged it.

A conservative journalist and close Nixon friend, Earl Mazo, of the New York Herald Tribune, launched a press frenzy over possible voter fraud. (He was later Nixon's official biographer.) And not only did Republican senators like Thruston Morton ask for recounts in 11 states just three days after the election, but Nixon aides Bob Finch and Len Hall personally did field checks of votes in almost a dozen states.

The Republicans obtained recounts, involved U.S. Attorneys and the FBI, and even impaneled grand juries in their quest to get a different election result. A slew of lawsuits were filed by Republicans, and unsuccessful appeals to state election commissions routinely followed. However, all their efforts failed to uncover any significant wrongdoing.

In Illinois, for instance, the final recount showed that Nixon's votes had been undercounted by 943 -- yet, in 40 percent of the rechecked precincts, it turned out that Nixon's vote had been overcounted. (Contrast this with Gore, whose vote total steadily climbed during the Florida recount.) Unhappy with those results, Republicans went to federal court, where their case was dismissed. They then appealed to the State Board of Elections, which also rejected their claims. It was not until Dec. 19 -- over a month after the election -- that the national Republican Party backed off its Illinois claims.

Similar results, and extended fights, took place in Texas and New Jersey among other states. In Hawaii, Republican efforts had the unintended result of reversing the state's electoral votes from Nixon to Kennedy </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

-Mark

Fitz1980

08-01-2008, 06:49 AM

What seperates liberals from libertarians is what liberals have in common with communists. We have seen the slaughter and oppression that has happened when the left has absolute power.

No what separates liberals from libertarians is common sense. Yea let's privatize the police and deregulate utilities. Big business always has everyones best interest at heart so why burden them with regulations.

Quote:
It was Federal government agents, acting under a liberal President, invading a peaceful church filled with women and children, gunning down people in order to enforce laws, that violate the Bill of Rights, that were written and enacted by liberals.

Exactly how does a cult who is stockpiling illegal weapons and lead by a wack job who has sex with underage girls qualify as a "peaceful church?"

Boreas

08-01-2008, 07:36 AM

What seperates liberals from libertarians is what liberals have in common with communists. We have seen the slaughter and oppression that has happened when the left has absolute power.

Huh??? :confused:

What you seem to be describing is nothing like "liberalism" or whatever. (I have difficulty with the label "liberal" since it is being overused and misused these days) What you seem to be describing is an oppressive regime, and that has nothing to do with right or left. It has more to do with authoritarianism, autocracy and extreme ideologies.

Actually what separates people is absolute power. That has nothing to do with right or left, liberal or conservative, libertarian or whatever..........

Skinview

08-03-2008, 07:27 PM

Defending McVeigh
Nope, I don't recall that.

and pontificating on his state of mind?
I'm just repeating what I have read in the news.

Yikes, I've seen it all now. Defending abortion clinic bombers and assassination of doctors as being done by people who think they're doing the right thing. Well maybe, I haven't sen it all, but this about as much as I would care to see. Utterly incredible. Defending murderers, and assassins, and bombers because they thought they were doing right. Cripes!Since I am pro choice, my alledged "defense" of those people is entirely in your imagination.

You seem to wrongfully regard liberalism as a monolith and equate it with communism.No, but liberals and communists have much in common. Thats why they call them both "left". You have heard of the "left"?

Help me out here, what is that liberals have in common with communism?Neither value property rights or economic liberty. For instance, you once called for the nationalisation of the oil companies. This is a more extreem position than most liberals take, but its left wing. Liberals and communists are happy to use the state to confiscate the wealth of the rich. Liberals and communists desire to expand the role of the state.

"peaceful churches" do not acquire an arsenal of firearms and ammunitionWhy not?

and engage in the serial seduction, molestation and rape of young girls.An allegation that may or may not be true. Koresh is not here to defend himself. But in any case, the allegation was not made until after Koresh had died, and was not at all a reason why the BATF attacked the Branch Dividian Church.

Please to what crimes in the name of liberalism, social justice, or gun control do you refer? Tell me, please, when and where, in the name of "liberalism" has any such thing happened?Every communist revolution was done in the name of "social justice". The attack on the Branch Dividian Church was an attempt to violate the US Constitution, and I consider it a crime. Shooting Randy Weaver's wife was a crime. The shooter, FBI sniper Lon Horiuchi, was indicted by the State of Idaho for manslaughter, but the Feds blocked the prosecution.

Am I accountable for the dead at Waco? I expect that you voted for Clinton and a slew of other Democrats.

Your defense of and attempts to explain away and shift the focus from the act...In your imagination.

Your lack of outrage helps perpetuate and gives affirmation to the sick notion that somehow "liberals" are the cause of all of society's ills and are evil people, deserving of decapitation and being beaten with a baseball bat.You don't know how I feel about it, or even if I have any knowledge of it. I have not heard what you speak of.

You have yet to acknowledge the hatred and filth being spouted by the right, and its contribution to the murders at that little church.No one I listen to has said such a thing. I can't acknoledge it. I have been in the woods of Maine this past week, and I don't know much at all about the shooting. And if I had, I don't have time to condemn every wack job I hear about.

Your response provides affirmation of the violence against people such as me.No, it doesn't. My respone provides affirmation of your hypocracy.

Then why mention it?JF Kennedy is a Democrat and a liberal icon.

Nor does it refute my secondary point that it is not liberals, but, conservatives who commit these deeds...So, what, the Weather Underground was a cabal of conservative dittoheads now? You outdo yourself...

Skinview

08-03-2008, 07:45 PM

No what separates liberals from libertarians is common sense. Yea let's privatize the policeThats more of an anarchist position, not libertarian.

and deregulate utilities.Hayek, a libertarian icon, wrote that it makes sense to regulate natural monopolies like utilities, and keep them privately owned, rather than absorb them into the state.

Big business always has everyones best interest at heart so why burden them with regulations.Libertarians are for environmental regulations, but are against going nuts with regulations. Regulations such as those that require small buisnesses with no disabled employees to put in expensive wheelchair ramps and wheelchair accessable elevators, and drive them out of buisness.

Exactly how does a cult who is stockpiling illegal weapons and lead by a wack job who has sex with underage girls qualify as a "peaceful church?"Aside from the post mortum allegations about the girls, until they were attacked by the BATF, no one in that church ever harmed anyone, and they were not accused of harming anyone. The number of weapons you own is not the measure of how peaceful you are.

Skinview

08-03-2008, 07:53 PM

Huh??? :confused:

What you seem to be describing is nothing like "liberalism" or whatever. (I have difficulty with the label "liberal" since it is being overused and misused these days) What you seem to be describing is an oppressive regime, and that has nothing to do with right or left. It has more to do with authoritarianism, autocracy and extreme ideologies.

Actually what separates people is absolute power. That has nothing to do with right or left, liberal or conservative, libertarian or whatever..........

Unless you are a libertarian, one's position on the political field is defined by what sort of authoritarian proclivities one has. Communists are conventionally regarded as "left". So are liberals.

Boreas

08-03-2008, 08:06 PM

Unless you are a libertarian, one's position on the political field is defined by what sort of authoritarian proclivities one has. Communists are conventionally regarded as "left". So are liberals.

So, libertarians are the only ones with sense. Is that what you are saying?

Frankly, that is not the left I aspire to, and it is fear mongering in my view.

The term "liberal" has been so bastardized down there in the US. It is part of a system of thinking that just promotes paranoia and division.

I just heard of a friend's visit to the US. It was shocking to hear of the abject poverty and absolute greed/wealth. And to think that people do not want universal healthcare or other programs because they are afraid of communism. I think people have been brainwashed by the corporations and those who support them.

Skinview

08-03-2008, 10:59 PM

So, libertarians are the only ones with sense. Is that what you are saying?Not at all. I will say that libertarianism would allow a better society, but its mostly an issue of values. Party D wants the government to outlaw x, party R wants to outlaw y, and libertarians object to outlawing either. Some people value freedom, others want the power to outlaw that which they don't like.

The term "liberal" has been so bastardized down there in the US. It is part of a system of thinking that just promotes paranoia and division.It wasn't bastardized by conservatives, it was bastardized by people who wanted to wear the label, but lost sight of what it used to mean.

I think people have been brainwashed by the corporations and those who support them.The corporations don't really say much down here. Most of the discourse is from pundits, politicians, editors, and talk radio/tv. And us. Freedom is a major religion in this country, and we are, as a people, very sensitive to infringements of it. Its how we came to be, and we know it.

usmc1

08-04-2008, 04:39 AM

No, but liberals and communists have much in common. Thats why they call them both "left". You have heard of the "left"?

Neither value property rights or economic liberty. For instance, you once called for the nationalisation of the oil companies. This is a more extreem position than most liberals take, but its left wing. Liberals and communists are happy to use the state to confiscate the wealth of the rich. Liberals and communists desire to expand the role of the state.

Nope not so. Most liberals want to use the state and taxes to improve the lives of all, not just the wealthy few. Most progressives want to use the state to regulate those instruments of oppression which result in the social inequities causing so many of our problems.

One hand you write,

JF Kennedy is a Democrat and a liberal icon.
On the other you write,

Kennedy, (not really very liberal) probably got in by vote fraud in Chicago.

At least your fogginess and inconsistencies are consistent.

:noevil: So, what, the Weather Underground was a cabal of conservative dittoheads now? You outdo yourself...

Huh, I didn't write that. What's your point? The Weather Underground was a radical fringe group engaging in violence and hardly liberal. And to the point of what I wrote earlier, no liberals or progressive were supportive, or silent on their crimes in the way conservatives are about the crimes of anti-abortion killers and bombers, and the calls for hate and violence coming from the Savages, Hannitys, Coulters, O'Reilly and Limbaughs, et ux, to which the right are so devoted.

By not speaking out, and in some cases, such as yours, rationalizing and defending, there is created a climate of affirmation and support for the violence committed against liberals.

You've attempted to mitigate that by citing the extremes of some communist regimes, as though American liberals were part of, or shared the repressive violence of those regimes. This is precisely what the hate-mongers on the air-waves hope for, and you've apparently bought into it--the vilification of decent fellow Americans as something vile and dangerous, to be beaten with baseball bats or decapitated!

You don't realize it, but you're part of that!

Skinview

08-04-2008, 05:47 AM

Neither value property rights or economic liberty. For instance, you once called for the nationalisation of the oil companies. This is a more extreem position than most liberals take, but its left wing. Liberals and communists are happy to use the state to confiscate the wealth of the rich. Liberals and communists desire to expand the role of the state.
Nope not so.So, am I to suppose that you think everyone should pay the same amount of tax, regardless of how much income they make?

let's nationalize the oil companies and put those outrageous profits into the health, education and welfare of the people.
http://www.clothesfreeforum.com/showpost.php?p=186614&postcount=24

Most progressives want to use the state to regulate those instruments of oppression...And what would be "an instrument of oppression"?

One hand you write,
On the other you write,
At least your fogginess and inconsistencies are consistent.Its not my fogginess. Liberals love JFK, and they don't see how unliberal he was.

Huh, I didn't write that. What's your point? You continue to insist:
it is not liberals, but, conservatives who commit these deeds...After I cited several left wing groups that blew up buildings and killed people.

The Weather Underground was a radical fringe group engaging in violence and hardly liberal.The Weather Underground was notoriously left wing. Now if you want to define anyone who is is some sense not entirely in agreement with you as "hardly liberal", then we can do the same for the wack jobs on the right who kill people, and say that they are "hardly conservative". But neither makes much sense. The Weather Underground hated economic liberty, like other liberals on the left, and they bombed to overthrow those liberties.

"You've attempted to mitigate that by citing the extremes of some" right wing nuts, "as though American" conservatives "were part of, or shared the repressive violence of those" nuts.

Naturist Mark

08-04-2008, 06:02 AM

The Weather Underground was notoriously left wing. Now if you want to define anyone who is is some sense not entirely in agreement with you as "hardly liberal", then we can do the same for the wack jobs on the right who kill people, and say that they are "hardly conservative". But neither makes much sense. The Weather Underground hated economic liberty, like other liberals on the left, and they bombed to overthrow those liberties.

The Weathermen were explicitly Marxist, which is well outside of the spectrum of American liberalism. They were mainly opposed to American Imperialism, but as Marxist were pretty much OK with authoritarianism. On the left-right axis that puts them "North" if you get my drift.

-Mark

Skinview

08-04-2008, 06:44 AM

The Weathermen were explicitly Marxist, which is well outside of the spectrum of American liberalism. They were mainly opposed to American Imperialism, but as Marxist were pretty much OK with authoritarianism. On the left-right axis that puts them "North" if you get my drift.

-Mark

They are not outside the spectrum, they are just on the far end of it. I would not be suprised if the Weathermen were more authoritarian than liberals, but I expect, as Americans, that they would say that they value the same civil liberties that liberals do.

MoonShadow

08-04-2008, 07:04 AM

I think some are so confusing liberalism with radicalism and militantism. The Weathermen were Marxist, yes, which makes them by belief and behavior both radicals and militants. Nothing liberal about them at all!

Boreas

08-04-2008, 08:21 AM

Skinview, when you make comments such as you are, I feel like you are telling me what my views will lead to. As if you are telling me what I believe. What you are posting is completely outside my view of "left" and "liberal".

More and more I see that this is a difficult conversation between Canadians and Americans sometimes. I live in a country where so called "liberal" views have made it what it is. We have universal healthcare and other things your country seems to fear. Before you criticize our healthcare, remember we spend less per capital on it than you do with your private healthcare. All Canadians have access to healthcare. Your US spin would tell you we do not have good care. That is wrong.

My issue with certain "neo-conservative" views is that politicians operating under this philosophy seem intent on getting rich on the backs of weaker members of society. Yes, I am oversimplifying. I don't think a big essay is necessary here, nor do I wish to create one.

People in the US have been programed to fight for freedom, and not to be under the government's thumb. People in Canada have been programed to have some reliance on the government. Your traditional hero is the cowboy, ours is the Mountie.

With that in mind, I am absolutely baffled at certain extreme right-wing views that we see today. To me they seem mean spirited and greedy. I am aware of some of the flaky liberals you folks need to endure down there. Those people are not representative of real folks who are working for human rights and such.

Qikdraw

08-04-2008, 11:37 AM

I just heard of a friend's visit to the US. It was shocking to hear of the abject poverty and absolute greed/wealth. And to think that people do not want universal healthcare or other programs because they are afraid of communism. I think people have been brainwashed by the corporations and those who support them.

They are brainwashed, but there is a rising consensus within the medical community that a universal healthcare system would be better. A new study (http://www.forbes.com/forbeslife/health/feeds/hscout/2008/03/31/hscout613954.html) shows that a majority of doctors want it to happen. The amount of doctors wanting this is increasing quick too.

The corporations don't really say much down here. Most of the discourse is from pundits, politicians, editors, and talk radio/tv. And us.

The corporations say it through donations to politicians, which ends up being the same thing. They feed it to talking heads and radio idiots who step in line to parrot their masters.

The US healthcare system has far too much waste in it, wait times and in general its just bad. Its not the doctors or nurses fault either, they have to work within a system that just doesn't care about helping people.

Qikdraw

hm0504

08-04-2008, 01:39 PM

From the New York Daily News...

"Alaska Sen. Ted Stevens might want to bring "Party Favors" to jail with him, should he end up doing time on charges of hiding $250,000 in gifts from an oil company.

Top Republican fund-raiser Nicole Sexton wrote the thinly veiled novel after becoming disgusted with the greed she witnessed and jumping ship to Bono's liberal One Campaign.

The thirtysomething blond was finance director for the National Republican Senatorial Committee from 2002 to 2005, raising nearly $100 million in one year alone. She helped the campaigns of Sens. Bill Frist, Elizabeth Dole and George Allen, among others — but Sexton's not revealing the identities of her characters except her own: Temple Sachet. But readers in D.C. are already buzzing about which senator demanded sex just to agree to travel to a New York fund-raiser.

Sexton has said she felt "dirty," ultimately, involved in a process where politicians become more interested in the big bucks than the issues, and where the fund-raising director gets 10%-15%, easily making over $1 million from one campaign..."

Read the rest here:

http://www.nydailynews.com/gossip/2008/08/04/2008-08-04_nicole_sextons_airing_gop_secrets.html?ref=nl&nltr_ct=1&nltr_id=Rush%20&%20Molloy:%20Airing%20%27dirty%27%20GOP%20secrets

Naturist Mark

08-04-2008, 06:50 PM

They are not outside the spectrum, they are just on the far end of it. I would not be suprised if the Weathermen were more authoritarian than liberals, but I expect, as Americans, that they would say that they value the same civil liberties that liberals do.

You are thinking too one dimensionally. You need to add a Y axis.

The chart below is a Political Compass, charting the Weathermen along with a number of political and historical figures for comparison. (I combined a number of sample charts.) The Parties shown are Canadian, US Parties are far too amorphous to graph as points, but you can get a sense of them by looking at the politicians shown.

I am not fully enamored of this model, I find it is skewed to the right, and skips over some of the more subtle distinctions of political philosophy, but it is useful for visualizing some generalities.

I added the blue band to the chart, it represents what you might consider the 'sane' boundaries of political variety. The philosophies and individuals that lie outside of that fairly narrow band tend to be monsters. With apologies to Ron Paul.

-Mark

Skinview

08-05-2008, 09:15 PM

You are thinking too one dimensionally. You need to add a Y axis.I presented a two dimensional political chart long ago. Left/liberal has a corner on it.

I am not fully enamored of this model, I find it is skewed to the right, and skips over some of the more subtle distinctions of political philosophy, but it is useful for visualizing some generalities.It would be instructive to know what is being measured on the axies. The 2D chart that I am familiar with has the axies intersecting on a corner, not the center.

I added the blue band to the chart, it represents what you might consider the 'sane' boundaries of political variety. The philosophies and individuals that lie outside of that fairly narrow band tend to be monsters. With apologies to Ron Paul.

-Mark
You should apologise to Ron Paul. He is a libertarian, and he isn't even in the libertarian half of the chart. Something is very goofy here.

Skinview

08-05-2008, 09:26 PM

The corporations say it through donations to politicians, which ends up being the same thing.McCain-Feingold was supposed to end that. I don't know if they have found a way around it yet, but I have not heard of one.

They feed it to talking heads and radio idiots who step in line to parrot their masters.My favorite libertarian/conservative talk radio host actually addressed this a few weeks back. He said that a) no politician or corporation has ever contacted him to say anything, and b) he has no reason to give a damn what they think, and c) he is there for the fun of expressing his own opinions, and to make $$$ by having an interesting show.

Skinview

08-05-2008, 09:32 PM

Before you criticize our healthcare, remember we spend less per capital on it than you do with your private healthcare.
I'll bet Rwanda does to.

Skinview, when you make comments such as you are, I feel like you are telling me what my views will lead to. As if you are telling me what I believe. What you are posting is completely outside my view of "left" and "liberal".I'm not saying anything about what your views will lead to. I'm not even refering to your views. I'm just saying that here in the States, "liberal" is on the political left. Canadian politics is not on my radar screen, and I couldn't comment on that intelligently.

Boreas

08-05-2008, 09:59 PM

"liberal" is on the political left. Canadian politics is not on my radar screen, and I couldn't comment on that intelligently.

It is not about Canadian politics.

It is about linking "left" views and communism, as if they are the same thing:

No, but liberals and communists have much in common. Thats why they call them both "left". You have heard of the "left"?

Liberals and communists are happy to use the state to confiscate the wealth of the rich. Liberals and communists desire to expand the role of the state.

Every communist revolution was done in the name of "social justice".

Unless you are a libertarian, one's position on the political field is defined by what sort of authoritarian proclivities one has. Communists are conventionally regarded as "left". So are liberals.

It would rather be like me saying that libertarians and anarchists are the same thing. Or at least not enough different from each other to really matter.

Linking "liberal" and "communism" is paranoia.

Naturist Mark

08-06-2008, 05:55 AM

You should apologise to Ron Paul. He is a libertarian, and he isn't even in the libertarian half of the chart. Something is very goofy here.

He is a 'libertarian' with a very conservative authoritarian streak, such as on women's right to choice.

Boreas

08-06-2008, 07:07 AM

He is a 'libertarian' with a very conservative authoritarian streak, such as on women's right to choice.

You mean the "right" can be authoritarian? :rolleyes: I thought, to read Skinview's posts, that it was only the left. (aka communist) :sneaky:

usmc1

08-06-2008, 07:48 AM

Originally Posted by Skinview http://www.clothesfreeforum.com/images/buttons/viewpost.gif (http://www.clothesfreeforum.com/showthread.php?p=204631#post204631)

Something is very goofy here.

Yep! There's your first step to recovery!

Skinview

08-06-2008, 08:23 AM

It is not about Canadian politics.

It is about linking "left" views and communism, as if they are the same thing:
I'm not saying that they are the same, I'm saying that they have some values in common, which I listed. I could make a list of differences too.

It would rather be like me saying that libertarians and anarchists are the same thing. Or at least not enough different from each other to really matter.Libertarians and anarchists ARE very similar! Not the same, but definately near each other politically. Its a good analogy: liberals are to communism as libertarians are to anarchism.

Linking "liberal" and "communism" is paranoia.
Its not paranoia, its not a slam, its an uncontroversial political reality. Left is left and right is right. You could say that I and Pinochet are on the "right." Its true. He is a long way from where I am, but we are both on the "right". Pinochet was a dictator that crushed personal liberties, but he did protect economic liberties. That makes us both politically on the "right".

Skinview

08-06-2008, 09:02 AM

You mean the "right" can be authoritarian?
Absolutely, yes.

Skinview

08-06-2008, 09:06 AM

You mean the "right" can be authoritarian?
Absolutely, yes.
.................................................. .......anarchist
left-liberal....................i...................... libertarian
......usmc1......Boreas....i...................... Skinview
.................................i
.................................i
.....Land of the left.......i.........Land of the right
.................................i
.................................i
.................................i
Stalin.........................i.................. ........Pinochet
authoritarian................i.................... ..right-conservative

The line I drew divides left and right. The more you want the government to provide goods and services, and redistribute wealth, the more left you are. A diagonal line between "left" and "right" would divide authoritarianism from libertarianism/anarchism. You can be right or left authoritarian.

Skinview

08-06-2008, 09:17 AM

He is a 'libertarian' with a very conservative authoritarian streak, such as on women's right to choice.

Abortion is an issue that is off the table as far as defining someone on the authoritarian/libertarian spectrum. The issue hinges on whether you consider the fetus to be a person or not. If it is, then its libertarian to protect its right to life. So that issue doesn't tell us anything about how libertarian Paul is.

Can you think of any other issue that Paul is not libertarian?
I asked this question last June when we went around on this, and you never responded.
http://www.clothesfreeforum.com/showpost.php?p=199378&postcount=63

MoonShadow

08-06-2008, 09:26 AM

I'm just saying that here in the States, "liberal" is on the political left.

And that is using "liberal" incorrectly too!

In fact the whole bucket of words to LABEL a politician (or individual for that matter) are not being used correctly.

Qikdraw

08-06-2008, 09:57 AM

McCain-Feingold was supposed to end that. I don't know if they have found a way around it yet, but I have not heard of one.

Yeah except how much water does it hold when one of the authors of teh bill doesn't support it anymore? (by that I mean McCain)

My favorite libertarian/conservative talk radio host actually addressed this a few weeks back. He said that a) no politician or corporation has ever contacted him to say anything, and b) he has no reason to give a damn what they think, and c) he is there for the fun of expressing his own opinions, and to make $$$ by having an interesting show.

Well according to Scott McLellan the white house sent out talking points to those friendly with them. Oddly enough I'll believe Scott on this one. Basically because the RNC also sent out talking points to people going on tv.

I'll bet Rwanda does to.

LOL So you are now comparing Canadian/American healthcare to Rwanda? There is so much wrong with this I'm not even going to bother with it.

Skinview

08-06-2008, 10:08 AM

LOL So you are now comparing Canadian/American healthcare to Rwanda? There is so much wrong with this I'm not even going to bother with it.

Boreas was bragging that Canadian healthcare was great, and wrote that they spent less money on health care. Spending less on health care may suggest efficiency, or it may not, but for sure it says nothing about the quality of the health care. And in typical liberal thinking, money = results.

Boreas

08-06-2008, 10:19 AM

The line I drew divides left and right. The more you want the government to provide goods and services, and redistribute wealth, the more left you are. A diagonal line between "left" and "right" would divide authoritarianism from libertarianism/anarchism. You can be right or left authoritarian.

That is not exactly correct. I fall to the left and that does not mean I want the government to provide goods and services or redistribute wealth. I do believe it can be an umbrella of sorts. The Canadian system traditionally had a system transfer payments which funded programs. The federal government would transfer tax money to the provinces who would use that money to provide healthcare. Each health authority will have a board of directors and is not directly under the thumb of the government. In the past anyway, there was room to respond to community needs. So, when I was an employee of a hospital, I was not a government employee. Yes, my employer was funded partly by the government. It was entirely different form a government facility.

My issue with comparing "liberal" with "communism" is that is an American talking point to keep citizens afraid of anything that could be provided by the government. Doing things like providing universal healthcare or creating a social safety net are very far from total government control as in a communist system. It is ironic that this is an American mantra actually, especially with the current administration. You are in a country that values freedoms, yet in some ways have more restrictions than we do in a "socialist" country. We have same sex marriage and we do not get so freaked out about nudity. Also, just try to speak out against the Iraq war or similar things, and you get accused of being "unAmerican". Talk about control!

And that is using "liberal" incorrectly too!

In fact the whole bucket of words to LABEL a politician (or individual for that matter) are not being used correctly

Amen. In fact, the traditional use of the term "liberal" is more like what Ebeneezer Scrooge was.

LOL So you are now comparing Canadian/American healthcare to Rwanda? There is so much wrong with this I'm not even going to bother with it.

Thank you.

Boreas

08-06-2008, 10:25 AM

Boreas was bragging that Canadian healthcare was great, and wrote that they spent less money on health care. Spending less on health care may suggest efficiency, or it may not, but for sure it says nothing about the quality of the health care. And in typical liberal thinking, money = results.

I was doing no such thing. I was saying that we have a perfectly fine healthcare system at a lower cost than your so called private system. All our citizens are covered. We do not have a huge amount of our citizens who are not able to get or afford healthcare. That is shameful in such a powerful country as yours.

We have to spend money wisely. I have seen right-wing cuts to programs in the name of fiscal responsibility. Such cuts have merely ended up costing more money. One such example relates to subsidized housing. When rent to income housing is provided then people can afford a place to live, and therefore can work and be productive members of society. I fact, this is a way to provide support that costs less than other programs and allows people to work. The current trend is to put some rent to income units in with market value units. Anyway, the "wise" government of the day and its "Common Sense Revolution" axed new housing projects. We saw more people homeless on the streets and more people were couch surfing. That resulted in bigger and more expensive problems.

So called "conservative" policies, or more accurately, neo-conservative/neo-liberal, end up causing more problems that cost more. There is a way to provide a social safety net that allows people to be more productive and become less reliant on the system. There is no need to throw the baby out with the bathwater.

Naturist Mark

08-06-2008, 04:28 PM

Abortion is an issue that is off the table as far as defining someone on the authoritarian/libertarian spectrum. The issue hinges on whether you consider the fetus to be a person or not. If it is, then its libertarian to protect its right to life. So that issue doesn't tell us anything about how libertarian Paul is.

Can you think of any other issue that Paul is not libertarian?
I asked this question last June when we went around on this, and you never responded.
http://www.clothesfreeforum.com/showpost.php?p=199378&postcount=63

Here's an article tailor made for your inquiry: Authoritarian or Libertarian? Ron Paul on Church/State Separation, Secularism (http://atheism.about.com/b/2007/08/06/authoritarian-or-libertarian-ron-paul-on-churchstate-separation-secularism.htm)

-Mark

Skinview

08-07-2008, 08:56 PM

Here's an article tailor made for your inquiry: Authoritarian or Libertarian? Ron Paul on Church/State Separation, Secularism (http://atheism.about.com/b/2007/08/06/authoritarian-or-libertarian-ron-paul-on-churchstate-separation-secularism.htm)

-Mark

This guy is an atheist, and his main beef is that Paul is a christian. Paul is for prayer in school and leaving "under god" in pledge of allegience. I disagree with Paul on those issues, but they hardly justify calling Paul an authoritarian. The rest of the article was a lot of non sequiturs, straw men and knocks on religion. Paul is so far from being authoritarian that to suggest that he is indicates a gross unfamiliarity with Paul or libertarianism.

Skinview

08-07-2008, 09:14 PM

That is not exactly correct. I fall to the left and that does not mean I want the government to provide goods and services or redistribute wealth.
So what makes you think you are on the left?

I do believe it can be an umbrella of sorts. The Canadian system traditionally had a system transfer payments which funded programs. The federal government would transfer tax money to the provinces who would use that money to provide healthcare. Each health authority will have a board of directors and is not directly under the thumb of the government. In the past anyway, there was room to respond to community needs. So, when I was an employee of a hospital, I was not a government employee. Yes, my employer was funded partly by the government. It was entirely different form a government facility.This sounds a lot like our post office, or Amtrack. I don't have a problem with state governments paying for health insurance for poor people, but I do have a problem with a system where the government chooses which health care provider gets money, and how much.

My issue with comparing "liberal" with "communism" is that is an American talking point to keep citizens afraid of anything that could be provided by the government. Doing things like providing universal healthcare or creating a social safety net are very far from total government control as in a communist system. It is ironic that this is an American mantra actually, especially with the current administration.I have not heard anyone make a link between new government programs and communism or socialism in a long, long time.

You are in a country that values freedoms, yet in some ways have more restrictions than we do in a "socialist" country. We have same sex marriage and we do not get so freaked out about nudity.Guilty. American conservative culture sucks. But at least there is a cultural diversity that didn't exist fifty years ago. We are slowly moving to a more relaxed society.

Also, just try to speak out against the Iraq war or similar things, and you get accused of being "unAmerican". Talk about control!I have not heard that one either, although I myself did slam someone here for calling the Iraqi government "illegitimate".

Skinview

08-07-2008, 09:29 PM

I was doing no such thing. I was saying that we have a perfectly fine healthcare system at a lower cost than your so called private system. All our citizens are covered. We do not have a huge amount of our citizens who are not able to get or afford healthcare. That is shameful in such a powerful country as yours.The difference between "great" and "fine" isn't very much. The number of US citizens who can't get health insurance isn't all that big. The number of people who don't have health insurance is often quoted. Lots of young people figure they don't need it, or the chances that they will need it are small. This might not be a good choice, but they made it. In any case, if you go into a hospital with a broken leg, you are going to get treated whether you have health insurance or money or not. Of course you might be in debt forever...

I have seen right-wing cuts to programs in the name of fiscal responsibility. Such cuts have merely ended up costing more money. One such example relates to subsidized housing. When rent to income housing is provided then people can afford a place to live, and therefore can work and be productive members of society. I fact, this is a way to provide support that costs less than other programs and allows people to work. The current trend is to put some rent to income units in with market value units. Anyway, the "wise" government of the day and its "Common Sense Revolution" axed new housing projects. We saw more people homeless on the streets and more people were couch surfing. That resulted in bigger and more expensive problems.The government shouldn't be building houses for anyone besides soldiers. Give poor people money to buy homes, but the government shouldn't be providing goods or services, or deciding where people are going to live.

I fall to the left and that does not mean I want the government to provide goods and servicesDoes this mean you were glad the conservatives axed new housing projects?

Naturist Mark

08-08-2008, 05:54 AM

This guy is an atheist, and his main beef is that Paul is a christian. Paul is for prayer in school and leaving "under god" in pledge of allegience. I disagree with Paul on those issues, but they hardly justify calling Paul an authoritarian. The rest of the article was a lot of non sequiturs, straw men and knocks on religion. Paul is so far from being authoritarian that to suggest that he is indicates a gross unfamiliarity with Paul or libertarianism.

So what if he is an atheist.

The so callled 'non sequitors' are examples of Ron Paul's theocratic positions. Plenty of Christians believe in maintaining a barrier between Church and State for the benefit of both the Church and the State. Ron Paul is not one of them.

-Mark

Boreas

08-08-2008, 08:20 AM

The government shouldn't be building houses for anyone besides soldiers. Give poor people money to buy homes, but the government shouldn't be providing goods or services, or deciding where people are going to live.

This is a good idea, in theory. In practice it is not always so great. Also, the programs that were axed, were not actually governments building houses and deciding where people live. We have seen the horror stories of that type of thing in most cities. Chicago has "slums" of highrises, Toronto has similar. Clearly, stacking people with multiple problems on top of each other can be a recipe for disaster.

Governments here have been subsidizing and somehow getting landlords to create rent to income housing. I am not sure how this is done exactly right now. I don't think landlords are actually mandated, but they may be somehow. Anyway, it is far better to create housing units throughout the city where people do want to live. Governments can facilitate programs such as Habitat for Humanity, perhaps by donating land. If you gave a poor person money to buy a house in a city like Vancouver, it would be like spitting into the wind. Housing is very expensive there, even at the lower ends. So, if you are going to provide money, you also have to help facilitate/provide suitable housing that is affordable. Affordable housing is a huge help to get people on thier feet.

Our country has been working on a national child care program for years. As you can imagine, it has not be without its problems. The last government created a program that seemed to be good. It provided funds for parents so they could chose where to place their children. They also provided grants and such to help create more childcare spaces. The current government axed this, and now parents get a small amount each month so they can chose how they want to care for their children. It sounds lovely. The problem is, that there are no childcare spaces in most places, especially in towns like this, where there are many young families. Also, the amount given is useless if you really need the money to fund childcare. There are child tax credits and such too, it isn't effective either.

Often the government creates the environment for the rich to get richer, at the expense of middle class and poor. Now, I do not mind people getting rich. It is when done in such a way as to keep others down.

Boreas

08-08-2008, 08:24 AM

The difference between "great" and "fine" isn't very much. The number of US citizens who can't get health insurance isn't all that big. The number of people who don't have health insurance is often quoted. Lots of young people figure they don't need it, or the chances that they will need it are small. This might not be a good choice, but they made it. In any case, if you go into a hospital with a broken leg, you are going to get treated whether you have health insurance or money or not. Of course you might be in debt forever...

I believe I said a "perfectly fine" healthcare system. Frankly, I believe we have an excellent system. It of course has its weak spots, and points to criticize. Doesn't any system? Bottom line is you will not go into debt when you access it. You also do not have to pay huge health insurance premiums in order to be able to get suitable care. As I understand it, many poeple do not have insurance because they cannot afford the premiums, or they are denied. I know people personally who fit into this category. One woman is a single mother, she is a professional and one of her children has health issues. If she CAN get insurance, it is expensive.

Skinview

08-09-2008, 06:32 PM

This is a good idea, in theory. In practice it is not always so great. Also, the programs that were axed, were not actually governments building houses and deciding where people live. We have seen the horror stories of that type of thing in most cities. Chicago has "slums" of highrises, Toronto has similar. Clearly, stacking people with multiple problems on top of each other can be a recipe for disaster.A disaster created by the government.

So, if you are going to provide money, you also have to help facilitate/provide suitable housing that is affordable. Affordable housing is a huge help to get people on thier feet.This sounds a lot like the above disaster. If there is money to be made, the market will provide. Its not wise to have the government "provide" suitable housing. Give people the money they need, and they wil make a better decision on how it will be most efficiently spent providing for their unique, individual needs. Things get #^%&*@ up when a politician or a beaurocrat makes decisions for other people.

Skinview

08-09-2008, 06:44 PM

So what if he is an atheist.
Its an atheist website. This guy's concerns have little to do with libertarian/authoritarian issues. He has given no hint that he has any clue what issues are central to libertarians, and he certainly didn't bring them up in the article. You can't evaluate where someone lands on the political field without talking about wealth redistribution, the role of government, the war on drugs, gun control, or free speach. We saw none of that.

The so callled 'non sequitors' are examples of Ron Paul's theocratic positions. Plenty of Christians believe in maintaining a barrier between Church and State for the benefit of both the Church and the State. Ron Paul is not one of them.

-Mark

I don't think any of Paul's positions are "theocratic". I expect Paul would like to separate school and state, which would resolve the whole issue. THAT is a more important libertarian issue, which did not come up.

But I'll give one example of Austin Cline's non sequitors:

Here Ron Paul's hostility to secular liberty is made unambiguous: he envisages and prefers a society where the government is weak but churches are strong. Has there ever been such a society that wasn't filled with intolerance, repression, and violence? If churches had more authority over the lives of citizens, there would be less liberty for women, less liberty for racial minorities, less liberty for gays, and of course less liberty for atheists.
For starters, Paul doesn't want a weak government, he wants a small, limited government. Cline provides no quote of Paul saying that he wants "strong" churches, or that, if he did, he would want their strength to be political strength. Cline goes from that unsupported allegation to the idea that atheists would have less liberty if Paul had his way. Unless Paul is going to abandon all that libertarians stand for, a government Paul would like is never going to do any such thing. Cline starts with a quote of Paul saying that religious people have more faith in their God than the state, and from there concludes that Paul wants the government to oppress women, gays and atheists. I have little confidence in the state, but it does not follow that I want to replace it with an authoritarian institution, devoted to my religious beleifs, that oppresses those who don't share them. The leap is simply wild. Cline isn't exposing Paul, he is spinning a paranoid fantasy.

Boreas

08-09-2008, 07:06 PM

If there is money to be made, the market will provide. Its not wise to have the government "provide" suitable housing. Give people the money they need, and they wil make a better decision on how it will be most efficiently spent providing for their unique, individual needs. Things get #^%&*@ up when a politician or a beaurocrat makes decisions for other people.

Yeah right. The market will provide. If your name is Bush. Or you have skills. If you happen to be someone who does not have the education, for whatever reason, including piss poor education in your area (including Charter Schools provided by "The Market"), then how does the market provide? Did it provide for the folks in the ninth ward of New Orleans?

Give the people the money they need? Who gives the money? The government? Doesn't that just conflict with your argument? So, if you give people $500 per month, or some such stupid amount, typical of social assistance, then where do you buy a house in a city like Vancouver? Or do you give them enough to buy and entry level house which probably costs $500,000 at least?

Give the money they need to make a decision. Like I said above. A good idea in theory. How do you make it actually a good idea in practice and not just an ideology?

Skinview, you have some good ideas. Just spouting off the mantra give them enough money and let the market decide is not one of those without further explanation.

Sanslines

08-09-2008, 07:28 PM

A disaster created by the government.

This sounds a lot like the above disaster. If there is money to be made, the market will provide. Its not wise to have the government "provide" suitable housing. Give people the money they need, and they wil make a better decision on how it will be most efficiently spent providing for their unique, individual needs. Things get #^%&*@ up when a politician or a beaurocrat makes decisions for other people.

Giving money directly to people assumes that people will use it for the intended purpose. Experience has proven that people will not always do this and so the government has built in numerous safeguards to ensure that monies are used for their sole intended purpose. Case in point : LIHEAP. LIHEAP is a low income heating assistance program. Money is never sent to the individual who has applied for LIHEAP help but is sent to a designated provider of heating fuel where an account is set up. This ensures that government provided heating monies are used solely for that purpose.

I have know cases where students were directly given money for education. Instead of spending the money on it's intended purpose, the students spent it on going to Florida for Spring Break. Now, in most cases, government sends the money directly to the school where an account is set up to ensure that the money is spent on it's intended purpose.

In case after case, appropriate safeguards are necessary to ensure that monies are spent for their intended purpose. If someone does not like this, then they need not apply.

Qikdraw

08-09-2008, 07:31 PM

A good idea in theory. How do you make it actually a good idea in practice and not just an ideology?

Libertarianism, like communism, is nice in theory, but in reality it just does not work. There are too many examples of the 'market policing itself' and things end up worse than ever. Worldcom and Enron are two quick examples.

Not only that but people who are for letting the 'market decide' are also usually for tax breaks for corporations, which completely baffles me.

Letting corporations run rampant would just bring back the 'company towns', when the company you worked for not only ran the mine, they ran the grocery store, they ran the barbers, they ran everything, and made it so that you had just enough so you went into debt, owing the company, so you had to work off your debt. If you think that is out of touch with today, just look at how Walmart operates. They are even telling their people how to vote.

The other thing I find funny/sad is that republicans are always complaining about how government is run bad, yet their policies, and the people they choose to run agencies, are the very reason why its run bad. But then they use that and scream 'look how wasteful government is'.

Skinview

08-09-2008, 08:10 PM

Giving money directly to people assumes that people will use it for the intended purpose. Experience has proven that people will not always do this and so the government has built in numerous safeguards to ensure that monies are used for their sole intended purpose. Case in point : LIHEAP. LIHEAP is a low income heating assistance program. Money is never sent to the individual who has applied for LIHEAP help but is sent to a designated provider
"designated" by whom? That makes all the difference. I have no problem with vouchers.

of heating fuel where an account is set up. This ensures that government provided heating monies are used solely for that purpose.If I buy heating fuel without the government, and if the government then pays for my heat and therefore frees up the money that I spent on heat so I can buy alcohol, the government is still buying me booze.

I have know cases where students were directly given money for education. Instead of spending the money on it's intended purpose, the students spent it on going to Florida for Spring Break. Now, in most cases, government sends the money directly to the school where an account is set up to ensure that the money is spent on it's intended purpose.I got student loans and grants, and I spent the money on all kinds of things. I did have to show that I compleated a certain number of credit hours if I wanted more. I know of no change since then, or that there is anything wrong with students spending money on spring break if they are going to school. If they don't need government money, it makes no difference if went straight to the school or not.

Boreas

08-09-2008, 08:12 PM

I agree Qikdraw, those who say let the market decide have no problem manipulate the market at the top. Go figure. It is also easier to blame the little guy for not succeeding than it is to blame the structural forces that help keep people "in their places".

Sanslines, that can also be a concern. Sad, but true sometimes.

Boreas

08-09-2008, 08:14 PM

"designated" by whom? That makes all the difference. I have no problem with vouchers.

Vouchers are still ways to tell people how to spend their money. How is this different from things like subsidized housing?

Skinview

08-09-2008, 08:18 PM

Libertarianism, like communism, is nice in theory, but in reality it just does not work. There are too many examples of the 'market policing itself' and things end up worse than ever. Worldcom and Enron are two quick examples.They are out of buisness. The market shut them down.

Not only that but people who are for letting the 'market decide' are also usually for tax breaks for corporations, which completely baffles me.No, I'm against tax breaks for corporations. I'm for eliminating taxation of corporations.

Letting corporations run rampant would just bring back the 'company towns',So who is going to work there? The rising value of labor ended company towns.

The other thing I find funny/sad is that republicans are always complaining about how government is run bad, yet their policies, and the people they choose to run agencies, are the very reason why its run bad. But then they use that and scream 'look how wasteful government is'.Republicans will tell you that government is inherently wasteful, and its not going to change no matter who is in charge. Thats why government should be as small as possible.

Skinview

08-09-2008, 08:51 PM

Yeah right. The market will provide. If your name is Bush. Or you have skills. I wrote "If there is money the market will provide." So you are agreeing with me.

If you happen to be someone who does not have the education, for whatever reason, including piss poor education in your area (including Charter Schools provided by "The Market"), then how does the market provide?Charter schools are not free market. They are some kind of half measure bastardized government school. And they were created after we saw the piss poor education students were getting in government schools. Try talking about the "piss poor education" people get in private schools like Harvard, and see how seriously you are taken.

Did it provide for the folks in the ninth ward of New Orleans?Three questions:
Did they have money?
How good a job did the government do?
Who built the dikes around coastal land below sea level and said "Here is a great place to live?"
I knew this was going to happen before Katrina, experts predicted this was going to happen before Katrina, and fools built houses there anyway. I can give a long list of other idiot places to live, where people have decided to gamble their homes and lives. I have sympathy for their children.

Give the people the money they need? Who gives the money? The government? Doesn't that just conflict with your argument?Private charities do a better job.

So, if you give people $500 per month, or some such stupid amount, typical of social assistance, then where do you buy a house in a city like Vancouver?Buy a house in Vancouver??? Hell, your generous.

Or do you give them enough to buy and entry level house which probably costs $500,000 at least?I'll give them enough money to pay their rent until they get a job. Buy a house??!!! I don't have a house. Please send money. PM me, and I'll give you an address to send the check.

Give the money they need to make a decision. Like I said above. A good idea in theory. How do you make it actually a good idea in practice and not just an ideology?The poor get money now, except it should be done by the states and not the Federal government. They can get welfare for a while, and then they are on their own. They get jobs fast. A better system would be a negative income tax. It would be a whole lot cheaper, even if half the people getting the money were cheaters.

Skinview

08-09-2008, 09:01 PM

Vouchers are still ways to tell people how to spend their money. How is this different from things like subsidized housing?Subsidized how? With a, say, school voucher, the bearer gets to decide where the money will be spent, like the PRIVATE school of their choice. The government offers the voucher, and the student/parent accepts it if they want it. If they don't want to go to school, why would we be giving them school money in the first place?

Qikdraw

08-09-2008, 10:36 PM

They are out of buisness. The market shut them down.

The market shut them down AFTER they did massive damage. ANd Worldcom has just changed owners a few times, they are not gone.

No, I'm against tax breaks for corporations. I'm for eliminating taxation of corporations.

Y'know that when the US was the largest creditor nation in the world was when the corporations paid the most taxes, The US's ecomony was by far the best in teh world. Now that has changed and the US is the largest debtor nation in the world.

So who is going to work there? The rising value of labor ended company towns.

Uhhhh yeah, and jobs are paying less these days, while inflation and cost of living have gone up. It ends up being the same thing. Its not like there is a flurry of jobs available, they've all gone overseas.

Republicans will tell you that government is inherently wasteful, and its not going to change no matter who is in charge. Thats why government should be as small as possible.

Thats is simply not true. Its one of those republican talking points they try and ram down people's throats. Its simply not true.

Fitz1980

08-09-2008, 10:59 PM

They are out of buisness. The market shut them down.

Yea and Enron created the California energy crisis before that happened.

usmc1

08-10-2008, 04:53 AM

What conservatives fail to grasp, or accept, is the factthat we all warm our hands at fires others have built and drink from wells dug by those who came before us. What liberals understand, and that conservatives don't, or refuse to accept, is that we all have a moral obligation to keep those fires burning and the wells flowing.

That is the essential differences between conservatives and liberals in the United States.

Sanslines

08-10-2008, 05:35 AM

"designated" by whom? That makes all the difference. I have no problem with vouchers.

The problem with using vouchers is that generally the entire value of the voucher is spent. Concerning heating fuel, someone may have money on account left over after their tank is filled. Granted that this is rather unlikely because the amount of heating assistance is small. In the Northeast, I think that the typical grant may pay for enough heating oil for two or three days. That leaves the rest of the Winter to be paid for by the consumer.

If I buy heating fuel without the government, and if the government then pays for my heat and therefore frees up the money that I spent on heat so I can buy alcohol, the government is still buying me booze.

True, and this is one reason why the heating grants tend to be very small. Too many people abuse the system and those few who are in real need suffer due to the actions of the majority.

I got student loans and grants, and I spent the money on all kinds of things. I did have to show that I completed a certain number of credit hours if I wanted more. I know of no change since then, or that there is anything wrong with students spending money on spring break if they are going to school. If they don't need government money, it makes no difference if went straight to the school or not.

I think you are again using the argument that even if the government sends money directly to the school, this frees up the student's personal money to spend it on other things such as pizza and beer, Spring Break, etc. Loans are very different from grants and I don't think that most people will object to a student spending loan money on whatever they wish for the student will eventually pay back the loan. (Yes there was a huge issue about students who would graduate, make tons of money, but default upon their loans and stick the taxpayer with the bill).

As for grants you might be referring to Pell Grants and have attended an institution that would offer the option of sending you a check and allowing you to spend it as you wish including vacations and pizza and beer.

"Federal Pell Grants are direct grants awarded through participating institutions to students with financial need who have not received their first bachelor's degree or who are enrolled in certain postbaccalaureate programs that lead to teacher certification or licensure. Participating institutions either credit the Federal Pell Grant funds to the student's school account, pay the student directly (usually by check) or combine these methods. Students must be paid at least once per term (semester, trimester, or quarter); schools that do not use formally defined terms must pay the student at least twice per academic year."

Sanslines

08-10-2008, 05:43 AM

Republicans will tell you that government is inherently wasteful, and its not going to change no matter who is in charge. Thats why government should be as small as possible.

It is obvious that due to it's enormous size, government is inefficent, wasteful, and unable to be all things to all people. Unfortunately, many people will not admit to the enormous wastefulness of government and try to sweep all problems under the rug and paint government as a panacea. This is naive at best. Many people believe that government should focus on a few things such as environmental issues and creating an environment where people can provide for themselves and then get out of the way and give people the freedom to succeed or fail based upon their own merits. One of the major problems with a socialist system is that it destroys people's initiative and desire to work hard to get ahead for the fruits of their labor are confiscated from them. A socialist system also assumes that people are too stupid to provide for themselves and sees itself as a savior of all when in fact it enslaves people to its myriad of programs. Most people are not 'victims of life' and do not need government to excessively meddle in their lives.

Boreas

08-10-2008, 07:46 AM

Subsidized how? With a, say, school voucher, the bearer gets to decide where the money will be spent, like the PRIVATE school of their choice. The government offers the voucher, and the student/parent accepts it if they want it. If they don't want to go to school, why would we be giving them school money in the first place?

Pie in the sky. You mentioned Harvard in your last post. So, if someone in the ninth ward got a voucher, would they now be able to chose to send their child to Harvard?

As for the buying the house comments above, I agree, buying a house is unrealistic sometimes. You commented (implied) about Vancouver being unrealistic. So, if someone lives in Vancouver, they would not qualify to get a voucher to live somewhere in their home city? Rents are sky high there. Would someone from Vanvouver have to be relocated to somewhere less expensive, like Moose Jaw? Tuktayuktuk?

So the market will provide to those who are deserving? That is how I was agreeing with you. The market only provides for those with certain skills, and sometimes these skills are not all honest or straight. GWB did not make his own money. He earned most of it. He started much closer to the finish line than those aforementioned folks in the ninth ward. What about them? Do they not deserve to live better than they do?

You also commented about charities providing the money and services for people in need. How? This is another bit of rhetoric usually. Charities around here are struggling. If churches and faith groups are part of this category, most churches I know would have difficulty taking on such a big task. They do what they can and are part of that system. They cannot take it over. The only ones who might be able to do this are those mega churches you have in the US. I do not want them to be ruling the charity world.

Boreas

08-10-2008, 07:47 AM

usmc1

08-10-2008, 07:54 AM

It is obvious that due to it's enormous size, government is inefficent, wasteful, and unable to be all things to all people. Unfortunately, many people will not admit to the enormous wastefulness of government and try to sweep all problems under the rug and paint government as a panacea. This is naive at best. Many people believe that government should focus on a few things such as environmental issues and creating an environment where people can provide for themselves and then get out of the way and give people the freedom to succeed or fail based upon their own merits. One of the major problems with a socialist system is that it destroys people's initiative and desire to work hard to get ahead for the fruits of their labor are confiscated from them. A socialist system also assumes that people are too stupid to provide for themselves and sees itself as a savior of all when in fact it enslaves people to its myriad of programs. Most people are not 'victims of life' and do not need government to excessively meddle in their lives.

Rambling and vague generalities, unfounded suppositions, vilification, and straw men do not effectively make a case for anything.

Medicare is a huge federal government program which is run with great success, serving millions of Americans with greater cost-efficiency than does the programs run by HMO czars and insurance company oligarchs.

Likewise, Social Security, a federally run program which will celebrate its birthday this coming Thursday, and, which has provided timely support for millions of retired, elderly, widowed, disabled, and orphaned Americans for decades without a hitch.

Likewise the Veteran's Administration, which despite some noteworthy and headline making exceptions, very effectively provides many great services and support to millions of former American GIs and their families.

None of the recipients of any of these federal program are "enslaved", nor are their expectations "naive", nor are they "victims of life". Nor are they "socialists"! Nor are the services provided by these federal programs wasteful.

Don't like federal government "meddling"? Stay off the interstate system, keep your money in an uninsured bank, or engage in trading child porn on the internet. After all, the federal government meddles in all these things.

Boreas

08-10-2008, 07:55 AM

True, and this is one reason why the heating grants tend to be very small. Too many people abuse the system and those few who are in real need suffer due to the actions of the majority.

And sometimes people "abuse" the system because the "help" they receive is so small, they have resorted to cheating-type tactics to survive. Often people are given token amounts in order to make the giver feel like they have done something wonderful, when in fact, it is insulting and worse than not getting help. Canada has a child care grant (never can remember the name) which falls into this category. Parents get $100 per month to provide their choice of childcare for their children. Unfortunately, there is little childcare available and when it is, this $100 covers about two days of it.

A socialist system also assumes that people are too stupid to provide for themselves and sees itself as a savior of all when in fact it enslaves people to its myriad of programs. Most people are not 'victims of life' and do not need government to excessively meddle in their lives

I ascribe to what you might call socialist values. I do not believe people are too stupid to provide for themselves. That would be insulting. I believe that people sometimes do not have the necessary skills to provide for themselves, for a variety of reasons. When they are helped to acquire those tools, they can then provide for themselves.

Sanslines

08-10-2008, 08:47 AM

And sometimes people "abuse" the system because the "help" they receive is so small, they have resorted to cheating-type tactics to survive. Often people are given token amounts in order to make the giver feel like they have done something wonderful, when in fact, it is insulting and worse than not getting help. Canada has a child care grant (never can remember the name) which falls into this category. Parents get $100 per month to provide their choice of childcare for their children. Unfortunately, there is little childcare available and when it is, this $100 covers about two days of it.

I ascribe to what you might call socialist values. I do not believe people are too stupid to provide for themselves. That would be insulting. I believe that people sometimes do not have the necessary skills to provide for themselves, for a variety of reasons. When they are helped to acquire those tools, they can then provide for themselves.

To statement one above........exactly! Let's take a specific example of an elderly couple who live near me. The government takes an additional $1000 in taxes from them leaving them with insufficient income to pay for heating. Because these elderly grew up in a very different time where people were taught to provide for themselves and not rely upon the government except for a basic such as social security, they hold out until the last minute and reluctanly apply for heating assistance. They are eligible for $100. If that $100 is stretched, it may provide heat for up to one week in January. So yes, the amounts are insufficient. However, this does not stop the politicians from singing their praises of how wonderful they are for providing help to people and also giving themselves big raises for their efforts. A much better solution would be to let the elderly keep their $1000 and provide an affordable source of energy for everyone. Then again the politicians could not enslave people with their programs and justify their big fat raises.

BTW, I told these elderly couple to forget this heating program and I will help them with firewood this Winter. They won't be able to keep their $1000 because that will again be confiscated by the government but they sure don't have to go begging for crumbs from the government and can remain self sufficient.

To statement two above, continuing to force programs on people and control people's behavior through tax policies does indeed imply that too many people are too stupid, greedy, lazy, etc to handle their own affairs. Yes it is very insulting to those who are forced onto programs when they can better provide for themselves. How many people are actually honestly in real need? No one will deny help to those who really need it. That is not the issue at all. The issue is about those who believe that we are a nation filled with citizens who are 'victims of life' and all need help. The issue is about government control of far too many people. Government has the power to encourage or discourage people from doing anything and that includes work. You can not blame people for wanting to get onto programs such as medicaid and avoid work that would make them ineligible for such programs. The alternatives to such programs are minimum wage no benefit jobs and who would chose that over government programs.

I agree that people might not have the skills or opportunities to provide for themselves. This is what government should be focusing upon. Helping people to help themselves instead of abusing poor people with programs that actually enslave them. You must realize that there are many people who would like to get off programs and provide for themselves. However, they generally can not. How would you like to be receiving mdeicaid which pays for your medical expenses but prefer to work instead? If you start working you lose your medicaid benefits and if your new low wage job does not provide any benefits then what do you do in case you become ill again? You just can not go and instantly become re eligible for medicaid. This is exactly where government programs fail. They do not always provide for a transition from programs to independence. The government would rather enslave people to their programs so the politicians can scream how successful their programs are and continue to justify raises for themselves.

One thing that I must make clear........This is not an all or nothing situation. Life is not black and white, with either all programs or no programs worthwhile or not. There are many, many different shades of grey. Some programs are successful and some are necessary. The only question is just how many programs do we actually need and who will pay for them. People in general love to receive benefits when someone else pays for them. Once people are required to pay something for their programs, they might not be so inclined to use or support such programs.

People who are inclinded to expand or create new programs never talk about the expense of such programs, who will pay for such programs, or the fantastic waste in so many programs. To do so will weaken their arguments to justify such programs. However, the informed person is not fooled by such deceptions and knows better then to be sold a bill of goods.

usmc1

08-10-2008, 10:06 AM

To statement one above........exactly! Let's take a specific example of an elderly couple who live near me. The government takes an additional $1000 in taxes from them leaving them with insufficient income to pay for heating. Because these elderly grew up in a very different time where people were taught to provide for themselves and not rely upon the government except for a basic such as social security, they hold out until the last minute and reluctanly apply for heating assistance. They are eligible for $100. If that $100 is stretched, it may provide heat for up to one week in January. So yes, the amounts are insufficient. However, this does not stop the politicians from singing their praises of how wonderful they are for providing help to people and also giving themselves big raises for their efforts. A much better solution would be to let the elderly keep their $1000 and provide an affordable source of energy for everyone. Then again the politicians could not enslave people with their programs and justify their big fat raises..

No, the solution is not subsidies for heating or moratoriums on shut-offs. That is ban-aids for cancer, as are well meaning individual acts of neighborly charity. Nice stuff, but nowhere near solving the problem. The answer is to regulate those power companies who are high-rating the rate-payers.

Since Reagan's deregulation, citizens in states such as Massachusetts and Texas, and many others, which deregulated, are paying 50% higher electric bills. In Texas, the two powerhouse power companies are TXU and Reliant, they are ranked 10th and 11th in the nation in number of consumers served, but are 4th and 5th in the nation in dollars paid by their customers.

No, it is not a fuel cost pass-along causing it. Deregulated states are paying significantly higher electric bills than those which are still regulated or retain caps.

Even the neo-con think tank, the Lexington Institute, is writing in its Issue Briefs, that re-regulation is coming.

But, as long as the conservative politicians are doing the bidding of their masters, it will be a tough battle.

Boreas

08-10-2008, 10:40 AM

I actually agree with most of what you are saying Sanslines. I also recognize that there are some significant differences between how social assistance programs are delivered in the US vs Canada. We have certainly had those that have enslaved people. We have also managed to have some that empower people.

I do some work on a local reserve near here. It is a community with many social problems, including substance abuse and family violence. There are many people in this community who are quick to put their hands out for whatever they can get. There are also some of the hardest workers you'll ever meet. Also, some of the most generous people you will ever meet. Using black and white thinking, and generalizations would be very wrong with this crowd. It would also serve no useful purpose in helping them to heal.

When I talk about the structural forces that keep people down, or that have created the dependency, I am not saying they should be considered victims. It is important to recognize historical forces that have helped to create these problems. In Canada, First Nations people were not allowed to vote until the 60's and were not allowed to own land or I think businesses. Now, how is anyone supposed to thrive in the market economy with those restrictions???? I imagine similar forces were in effect in the US. This community has also been forced to accept dramatic lifestyle changes in the past fifty or seventy years. I spoke with a 70 year old elder, and when she was a child, her people wandered this area to hunt and be self sufficient. Of course times were tough. They did have more freedom. Somewhere along the line, I think in the 50's, they were put on a reserve. Then in the seventies, the reserve was split into a few parts and people were moved. This community was moved next to a river in a valley. Then with the oil and gas, they were having the effects of sour gas, which is a poison, and so they were moved to higher ground, to their present community. So, someone my age (51) will have moved three times, against their will, in their lifetime. They have gone from having vast acres of land, to being put onto a small spot. Oh, and white people were given their land for free so they could homestead. With this history, is it any wonder this community has problems?

Having said that, it would serve no purpose to consider these people victims. They have some good leaders who are trying to figure out how to bring health to the community. There are also people form the outside, like me, who also bring tools for healing. Much of this is facilitated with government funding.

I feel like I am starting to ramble. You commented about the cost of programs. Frankly, a proper program will be an investment. It will seem like an expense at first. People will and do whine about it. In the long run, if people are stronger and healed, then the benefits will be more obvious. Some of these programs may include fairly intense addictions programs, both community based, and residential. They may include fairly intense education programs. These seem like expensive programs at the beginning, and they can have pay offs later, when people have become healthier and stronger.

Skinview

08-10-2008, 08:27 PM

Pie in the sky. You mentioned Harvard in your last post. So, if someone in the ninth ward got a voucher, would they now be able to chose to send their child to Harvard?That would depend on what kind of program you want to create. Harvard is a University. I would limit vouchers to grades 1 - 12. But yeah, you could in principal give a voucher big enough to send someone to Harvard, and if Havard thought that they were good enough, they could go to Harvard. But I'm not for that, and high school shouldn't cost nearly so much.

As for the buying the house comments above, I agree, buying a house is unrealistic sometimes. You commented (implied) about Vancouver being unrealistic. So, if someone lives in Vancouver, they would not qualify to get a voucher to live somewhere in their home city?They can live whereever they want. That's the whole point. No beaurocrat decides where anyone lives. The bearer of the voucher can take it whereever he wants. I would set the value of the voucher to the average cost of rent nationwide. If someone wants to pay the difference, they can live in a nice place in Vancouver. If they want to live somewhere the cost of rent is below average, they can move there and pocket the difference. Its up to them to choose, based on their own values and desires and means and market forces. There is always a trade off, and they will be making the choice. Maximum freedom with better outcomes.

Rents are sky high there. Would someone from Vanvouver have to be relocated to somewhere less expensive, like Moose Jaw? Tuktayuktuk?Someone may need to relocate to a place of their choice that they can afford. No one is going to decide for them that they "have to be relocated".

So the market will provide to those who are deserving? That is how I was agreeing with you.The market provides for those who have money. Its not up to anyone to dispense goods and services, payed for with other people's money, to those who someone decides "deserves" them.

The market only provides for those with certain skills, and sometimes these skills are not all honest or straight. GWB did not make his own money. He earned most of it. He started much closer to the finish line than those aforementioned folks in the ninth ward. What about them? Do they not deserve to live better than they do?I deserve to live better than I do. That doesn't mean that someone owes me anything. I don't know what you mean by the difference between money you "make" and money you "earn". The market doesn't care what goods or services you traded for your money, or whether it was a gift, or whatever. If you've got money, someone will want to trade you something you want for it.

You also commented about charities providing the money and services for people in need. How? This is another bit of rhetoric usually. Charities around here are struggling. If churches and faith groups are part of this category, most churches I know would have difficulty taking on such a big task. They do what they can and are part of that system. They cannot take it over. The only ones who might be able to do this are those mega churches you have in the US. I do not want them to be ruling the charity world.
There are charities of all kinds. Bill Gates just gave billions to charity, which one I forget. If people didn't have so much money taxed away, they would have more money to give to charity, or create jobs so many people didn't need charity. If people didn't expect that the government was going to take care of everything, they would feel a greater need to give to charity. I myself am a more moderate libertarian, and I think its not a bad idea for the state governments to provide a minimal safety net so no one starves, freezes, or goes without a basic education or health care. Charity can do that too, and I'm not sure if maybe they could do a better job, but that is the limit to where I'm willing to forcibly take someone's money to give to someone else. I'll steal someones' money to keep someone else alive. The reason I would let the government pay for my list of needs is because I know that there are poor people that are out of sight, or live in communities where there is so much poverty that no one there has much to donate to those around them. But its not up to the government to make everyone's life easy or remove risk.

Skinview

08-10-2008, 08:40 PM

Social Security, a federally run program which will celebrate its birthday this coming Thursday, and, which has provided timely support for millions of retired, elderly, widowed, disabled, and orphaned Americans for decades without a hitch.

...Nor are the services provided by these federal programs wasteful.How is my paying taxes so Ross Perot can get a social security check not wasteful????!!!!

Don't like federal government "meddling"? Stay off the interstate system, keep your money in an uninsured bank, or engage in trading child porn on the internet. After all, the federal government meddles in all these things.Talk about straw men! No one here is an anarchist. Government has is certain uses. No one here wants to abolish government. The Department of Education, yes. The FBI, no.

Boreas

08-10-2008, 08:45 PM

Skinview, your last post responding to my comments is so far off my radar that I cannot reply with any kind of respect right now. Perhaps after I have thought about it, I can reply better.

My one comment is in response to this:
The market provides for those who have money

That is my point exactly. If you do not come into this world with money, then you are screwed, according to your philosophy. The folks in the ninth ward are doomed.

Skinview

08-10-2008, 08:46 PM

The problem with using vouchers is that generally the entire value of the voucher is spent.Thats a problem?

Skinview

08-10-2008, 08:55 PM

That is my point exactly. If you do not come into this world with money, then you are screwed, according to your philosophy.
No, I don't know where you get that idea. I came into this world with my own talents and I earn a living and the government isn't giving me any cash. I pay it money. People come to this country with nothing and get rich. I'm sure you know otherwise, but you sound like the only way people get money is if someone gives it to them.

The folks in the ninth ward are doomed.I think most of them got a free trip elsewhere. They can get jobs where they are now. They are not doomed.

Boreas

08-10-2008, 08:58 PM

No, I don't know where you get that idea. I came into this world with my own talents and I earn a living and the government isn't giving me any cash. I pay it money. People come to this country with nothing and get rich.

I think most of them got a free trip elsewhere. They can get jobs where they are now. They are not doomed.

I got that idea when you said that the market provides for those who have money. I was replying to your post.

Skinview

08-10-2008, 09:10 PM

No, the solution is not subsidies for heating or moratoriums on shut-offs. That is ban-aids for cancer, as are well meaning individual acts of neighborly charity. Nice stuff, but nowhere near solving the problem. The answer is to regulate those power companies who are high-rating the rate-payers.Most power companies are regulated now.

Since Reagan's deregulation,Reagan? Whats he got to do with state utility companies?

citizens in states such as MassachusettsThe Democrats control Massachusetts. Those damn Democrats!!

and Texas, and many others, which deregulated, are paying 50% higher electric bills. In Texas, the two powerhouse power companies are TXU and Reliant, they are ranked 10th and 11th in the nation in number of consumers served, but are 4th and 5th in the nation in dollars paid by their customers.

No, it is not a fuel cost pass-along causing it. Deregulated states are paying significantly higher electric bills than those which are still regulated or retain caps.I don't know the specifics of this. Is there some kind of competition going on, or are the utilities monopolies? Some sort of mix? Often they are monopolies, which is why they are rightly regulated. The devil is in the details.

Skinview

08-10-2008, 09:16 PM

I got that idea when you said that the market provides for those who have money. I was replying to your post.And my point was that it is better for the government to give poor people money, instead of the goods and services they need. The market will give them what they need in a more efficient and idividualized way.

Qikdraw

08-10-2008, 09:20 PM

How is my paying taxes so Ross Perot can get a social security check not wasteful????!!!!

There has been talk of means testing SS, of which I am of two minds of. If you pay into it you should be able to reap the benifits of it, however it is quite obvious people like Ross Perot and John McCain simply do not need it.

Skinview

08-10-2008, 09:42 PM

The market shut them down AFTER they did massive damage.Crime happens. Thats why we have courts. Commit fraud, and you go to jail.

Y'know that when the US was the largest creditor nation in the world was when the corporations paid the most taxes, The US's ecomony was by far the best in teh world. Now that has changed and the US is the largest debtor nation in the world.Correlation is not the same thing as causation. Howdy Doody was on TV. It got cancelled, and look what happened...

Uhhhh yeah, and jobs are paying less these days, while inflation and cost of living have gone up.People are VASTLY wealthier today than they were in the 19th century, or any time except the recent past.

Its not like there is a flurry of jobs available, they've all gone overseas.Everyone I know has a job here. What country are you working in? Come to think of it, I see lots of people here from other countries who came here and got jobs.

Skinview

08-10-2008, 09:48 PM

There has been talk of means testing SS, of which I am of two minds of. If you pay into it you should be able to reap the benifits of it, however it is quite obvious people like Ross Perot and John McCain simply do not need it.I pay into welfare. Can I have my welfare check now?

Naturist Mark

08-10-2008, 11:01 PM

I pay into welfare. Can I have my welfare check now?

If welfare was an insurance program, sure, you could have a check if you qualified.

Social Security is not a welfare program. It is not Charity. It is not a pension.

It is an insurance program. Its actual name is the Old-Age, Survivors, and Disability Insurance program (OASDI).

And its benefits are already partially means tested currently with respect to 'double dipping' and taxation of benefits.

-Mark

Qikdraw

08-11-2008, 12:09 AM

Crime happens. Thats why we have courts. Commit fraud, and you go to jail.

The moon is not made of green cheese.

Correlation is not the same thing as causation. Howdy Doody was on TV. It got cancelled, and look what happened...

I like ham, I didn't always like ham, but I do now.

People are VASTLY wealthier today than they were in the 19th century, or any time except the recent past.

Never shoot a finish nail into your hand, it hurts.

Everyone I know has a job here. What country are you working in? Come to think of it, I see lots of people here from other countries who came here and got jobs.

The world IS round, regardless of what some people say.

Now you may be asking yourself... what do my answers have to do with your quotes... Well about as much as your answers do to mine.

'There are none so blind as those who will not see.'

usmc1

08-11-2008, 04:44 AM

Most power companies are regulated now.

Reagan? Whats he got to do with state utility companies?

The Democrats control Massachusetts. Those damn Democrats!!
I don't know the specifics of this. Is there some kind of competition going on, or are the utilities monopolies? Some sort of mix? Often they are monopolies, which is why they are rightly regulated. The devil is in the details.

The drive for deregulation began under Reagan.

No, you seem not to know the "specifics" of a number of things, we agree on that. Here for your edification:

Forty-four percent of Americans still live in the 14 states which are still deregulated. Ten states, of the original 24, have chosen to re-regulate to cost-based, rather than market-based, rate structures, or have imposed rate caps or rate restrictions. The fourteen states where consumers are being gouged and scourged by high rates are; California, Connecticut, Delaware, Illinois, Massachusetts, Maryland, Maine, Michigan, Montana, New York, New Hampshire, New Jersey, Rhode Island, Texas and the District of Columbia.

The original post was in regard to NY, one of the deregulated states. The single anecdotal story about the elderly couple is being repeated all over that state, and then some!

Another way to look at it is that the average rate of annual growth of the retail price of electricity in the 36 regulated states since 2002 has been +2.3%, but for the deregulated states it has been more than twice that, +5.5%.

Electric power is a basic necessity of modern-day life, and as such ought not be rationed or turned into a profit-center. Those states which regulate and base their retail rates on production cost rather than market-based costs provide energy to their citizens more cheaply than do the deregulated states.

Deregulation has failed. One reason for that is that back in 2005 Bush canceled a 70-year-old regulation preventing banks and investment firms from buying electric companies.

<?xml:namespace prefix = v /><v:shape id=_x0000_i1025 style="WIDTH: 431.25pt; HEIGHT: 270pt" type="#_x0000_t75"><v:imagedata src="file:///C:/DOCUME~1/Shane/LOCALS~1/Temp/msoclip1/01/clip_image001.wmz" o:title=""></v:imagedata></v:shape>

Skinview

08-11-2008, 11:57 AM

Social Security is not a welfare program. It is not Charity. It is not a pension.

It is an insurance program. Its actual name is the Old-Age, Survivors, and Disability Insurance program (OASDI).
Its welfare for old people, regardless of what it is called.

usmc1

08-11-2008, 12:26 PM

Its welfare for old people, regardless of what it is called.

No, it is a safety net for retirees, widows, disabled persons, and orphans. Your dogmatic and uniformed insistance on calling it otherwise does not change that, nor does it reflect well on you personally.

One can begin to collect their Social Security as young as 62, which is hardly "old" by any standard.

But, I am heartened by the notion that you might decline acceptance of your share. One small step towards the solution, making it available for generations to come!

MoonShadow

08-11-2008, 01:39 PM

LOL - don't think I have ever heard social security being called such.

Thankfully, it is there for people sofar and will be for future generations if Congress keeps their hands out of the till. But ----atlas ---- we know how Congress behaves and they are representative of us? NOT!

NudeAl

08-11-2008, 02:27 PM

[QUOTE=usmc1;205127]The drive for deregulation began under Reagan.

The original post was in regard to NY, one of the deregulated states. The single anecdotal story about the elderly couple is being repeated all over that state, and then some!

Another way to look at it is that the average rate of annual growth of the retail price of electricity in the 36 regulated states since 2002 has been +2.3%, but for the deregulated states it has been more than twice that, +5.5%.

Electric power is a basic necessity of modern-day life, and as such ought not be rationed or turned into a profit-center. Those states which regulate and base their retail rates on production cost rather than market-based costs provide energy to their citizens more cheaply than do the deregulated states.

Deregulation has failed. One reason for that is that back in 2005 Bush canceled a 70-year-old regulation preventing banks and investment firms from buying electric companies.

Here in WA state a few years back the old Washington water and power was sold to a private company in Texas. Last year they requested a 50% raise in electric rates this year they wanted to do it again, I hope the legislature says no. We have tons of hydro power here and some nuke the company really only has to cover maintenance and improving the system which has been established. Oh did I mention they were posting record profits? If I don't use my AC my electric bill is around $50 a month. I can live with that but I see no reason to expect anything but more and more rate increases. If I can swing it I would love to get my own solar system and tell them to stuff it. Stop corporate greed regulate the hell out of our public services.

Skinview

08-11-2008, 03:19 PM

No, it is a safety net for retirees, widows, disabled persons, and orphans. Your dogmatic and uniformed insistance on calling it otherwise does not change that, nor does it reflect well on you personally.Right. Welfare is a "saftey net". Social Security is the same as welfare. Only rich people get it too.

One can begin to collect their Social Security as young as 62, which is hardly "old" by any standard.When Social Security was created, only, if I remember the figure right, one percent of the population lived long enough to collect. It was a really small percentage.

Sanslines

08-11-2008, 03:29 PM

Its welfare for old people, regardless of what it is called.

By far most people who receive social security have paid for their share over their working lifetimes. Social security is not welfare or a handout. It is not free. "Old People" are certainly entitled to that which they paid for throughout their working lives.

Skinview

08-11-2008, 03:53 PM

By far most people who receive social security have paid for their share over their working lifetimes. Social security is not welfare or a handout. It is not free. "Old People" are certainly entitled to that which they paid for throughout their working lives.
I paid for welfare throughout my life. Where is my check?????

Boreas

08-11-2008, 04:11 PM

I paid for welfare throughout my life. Where is my check?????

I thought you didn't believe in that stuff? If you do, are you old enough.

Someone tell him where to apply! :surprised:

Naturist Mark

08-11-2008, 05:00 PM

I paid for welfare throughout my life. Where is my check?????

I sincerely hope you never qualify for it, but welfare will be there if such misfortune should befall you. And it might. One of the largest growing sectors of public assistance are seniors who have to live in nursing homes, even the cheapest of which are so expensive that most seniors quickly run through their life savings (and tragically reduce any surviving spouse to sudden poverty), and then have their bills taken over by the county or state. (This is why many seniors facing residence in a nursing home will dispurse their belongings to their heirs before entering such a facility, otherwise it will all be lost with nothing left for family.)

Social Security will be there for you no matter what your circumstances, so long as you draw breath. And should you fail to continue to draw a breath, it will be there for your widow and minor children. And should you suffer severe disability, it will be there for you. It isn't about to fail, Social Security is on a more sound financial basis than any other government, or private, program in the USA. The entire economy, government, and social structure will fail before Social Security does.

-Mark

Sanslines

08-11-2008, 06:29 PM

......The entire economy, government, and social structure will fail before Social Security does.

-Mark

I suppose that it depends upon what a person means by 'fail'. Social Security may not completely fail in the sense that all benefits will be discontinued, but what will most probably occur is a decrease in benefits or another round of increasing the eligible ages for receiving benefits. So, we may not see complete failure, but we might see partial failure.

Qikdraw

08-11-2008, 07:50 PM

Naturist Mark

08-11-2008, 08:08 PM

I suppose that it depends upon what a person means by 'fail'. Social Security may not completely fail in the sense that all benefits will be discontinued, but what will most probably occur is a decrease in benefits or another round of increasing the eligible ages for receiving benefits. So, we may not see complete failure, but we might see partial failure.

According to the best analysis available, from the CBO, if nothing is done to increase Social Security receipts by the time the trust fund is depleted around 2042, benefits will continue to be funded at a level between 72 and 75 percent of current levels.

By comparison, the very first thing Bush's "proposal" did was reduce benefits to 75% immediately - not 34 years from now, then give Wall Street 'managers' billions of dollars in fees - to manage the 'private' accounts that take the place of the cut benefits - and pay about 2 trillion dollars out of the general treasury as a 'transition cost'. Of course it would take considerably less than the addition of that 2 trillion dollars to keep SS funded at full levels for nearly a century.

Or we can just eliminate the cap on Social Security taxes, and have everyone pay their 12.6% (usually paid half and half by worker and employer) on their full incomes, instead of just on the first $90k, and then SS can continue forever, or as far as we can project, at full or even slightly increased benefit levels.

-Mark

usmc1

08-12-2008, 05:07 AM

I sincerely hope you never qualify for it, but welfare will be there if such misfortune should befall you. And it might. One of the largest growing sectors of public assistance are seniors who have to live in nursing homes, even the cheapest of which are so expensive that most seniors quickly run through their life savings (and tragically reduce any surviving spouse to sudden poverty), and then have their bills taken over by the county or state. (This is why many seniors facing residence in a nursing home will dispurse their belongings to their heirs before entering such a facility, otherwise it will all be lost with nothing left for family.)
...-Mark

Partly correct, but now, one of the largest providers of assisted living is evicting seniors who have "spent out", despite assurances to the contrary during the initial contract phase. These seniors were told that once their savings were depleted that the facility would accept Medicaid payment. Now this company, with others soon to follow, is reneging on that agreement.

Most of these seniors are frail but not bedridden. They need looking after but not constant attendance. They have their own small apartments and so forth. Their physical and mental capacities may be diminished and they may not be able to cook or do heavy laundries, but are able to look after themselves to a great extent.

Now, with a lifetime of saving, and doing things the "right way", they are being evicted. Many are confused and frightened and are asking what they did "wrong" to be tossed out.

The conservatives and Republicans would have us believe that we're on our own, and that it is not the government's role to provide support to working families and seniors and their families.

The 2008 Democratic National Platform addresses this and several other senior's related issues on page 45. Democrats do not believe that we are on our own!