Full Version: Waterboarding . Torcher or Tool ?
Is it better to have one person for thirty seconds think they are going to die and dont ?
Or perhaps have many maimed for life or die ?
I've heard it said a true sign of strength is haveing every reason and right to do something but choosing not too.
But not doing what should be done is a sign of true weakness.
Its a razor thin line so I ask this question .
What would you do if your neighbors lives had already been lost and may still be at risk be those whose past intentions were to harm your neighbor ?
Waterboard or not ?
| QUOTE (1 yankie @ Feb 15 2008, 04:00 AM) |
| Is it better to have one person for thirty seconds think they are going to die and dont ? Or perhaps have many maimed for life or die ? I've heard it said a true sign of strength is haveing every reason and right to do something but choosing not too. But not doing what should be done is a sign of true weakness. Its a razor thin line so I ask this question . What would you do if your neighbors lives had already been lost and may still be at risk be those whose past intentions were to harm your neighbor ? Waterboard or not ? |
Well, somehow or other the USA has survived a couple of ceturies without openly having torture in our tool kit. And the USA has been up against some bad actors before. That's not to say that our government hasn't engaged in a lot of skulduggery before and managed to cover it up.
But still, though. We've always been a standard bearer for the world in upholding international law such as the Geneva Convention. This is the very meaning of being an American for those of us who actually took seriously that stuff we were taught in school about this country being a standard bearer of high standards. And so now we're going to give up on all that because it's just too hard to maintain anymore. We're going to be frightened into throwing all that out now because this new threat is just oh so much more terrrible than anything we've ever seen before?
I say no. Hell, no.
We're talking about core values, here, our foundation. No cruel and unusual punishment. Due process. The rule of law. Checks and balances on official power. These aren't warm and fuzzy niceties concocted by liberals; these are our core values. These are our core values here. We've defended these with our lives. That's how important they are to us. You're ready to see these just casually discarded and you're ok with this?
When we get to where our core values are seen as the province of the far left, maybe that's some indication that we've veered too far over to the ultra far right.
Plus, we all know where this drill is going, riht? The torture obstensibly starts out as a tool to protect us from the bad guys. Inevitably, though, is there any doubt that it will become about protecting the powerful from the powerless?
The Bush administration, for example, already has moved the goal post a long ways in silencing science within government agencies way beyond what was the norm in previous administrations. They wouldn't employ torture, of course, not today. Everyday, though, the goal post moves a bit further. What would have been outrageous ten years ago today is the norm. Eventually, believe me, it is possible for that goal post to get to where you hue to what is the official line on some subject, or you might find yourself on the wrong end of a water board.
In the beginning those who get tortured may by the odd accident include some actual bad guys. Once that becomes the norm, however, do you have any doubt about who will be tortured? Quite likely it could be you or I.
Do you see any irony in that the path we're on here takes us to where the very people and values we are about protecting are in peril from our so called protectors?
So this is how it ends. The core values America has always stood for, they weren't overthrown by jihadists or through revolution. No, they were surrendered casually with a stroke of the pen and then forgot about. Bush signs the veto of the bill to ban waterboarding, mumbles something about it being a needed tool in the fight against terrorism, and then it's move on. What's on TV? What's for dinner?
What is it with our "values" people these days? Who believe in core principles and fundamental values with all they've got with every fiber of their stalwart being right up to but excluding where it involves any inconvenience or cost or much thought to maintain.
What is it with our "values" people these days? Who believe in core principles and fundamental values with all they've got with every fiber of their stalwart being right up to but excluding where it involves any inconvenience or cost or much thought to maintain.
QUOTE (chaster @ Mar 10 2008, 10:37 PM)
So this is how it ends.
I dont know Chas , Values , what are the highest of values ? No doubt what I see as a value would differ from others and the decisions I would make would be just as different from many .
And at a time of war how much should we hold to these values even if we were to find common ground ? No one likes to admit it but there are times when the means do justify the extremes .
I've often thought about one of our past presidents , Good ol Harry Truman . Within several months after Roosevelt's death he was faced with one of the biggest Us or Them questions I would think of the entire war he was commander and chief over . Do I drop the atomic bomb on a civilian population that might bring about a quicker end to the war and killing.
At the time he couldn't be sure dropping these bombs would actually stop the war any more than the fire bombing had failed to do . No at the time he didn't know Chaster , but he only knew if using these bombs could stop the war thousand of American lives would be saved as well as Japanese should this war drag on month after month .
Perhaps what Truman did couldn't be called torcher , but tens of thousands died and would suffer countless years to come . But even so I feel Truman made the right guess and saved more lives then those who would die had he not used these bombs . He made the right value decision he was faced with for both Americans and the Japanese .
To me there is a certain amount of irony that not waterboarding a prisoner is living some sort of higher law or value if the end result could mean the lives of women and children on both sides of this war .
Well it is all about values and where you place them . With waterboarding is the loss of human decency a greater value than the value of innocent lives that might be lost or saved ?
The thought of a person being water boarded is repulsive to me . However when I weigh it out in my mind given the two possibilities of waterboarding or death of innocent civilians or the lives of American soldiers I kinda feel like Truman must of felt . As bad as it is , if waterboarding will bring about a quicker end and save lives I'm willing to make a similar decisions I feel Truman made---- a decision trying to save more lives for us as well them with out knowing the out come .
| QUOTE |
| So this is how it ends. The core values America has always stood for, they weren't overthrown by jihadists or through revolution. No, they were surrendered casually with a stroke of the pen . |
I dont know Chas , Values , what are the highest of values ? No doubt what I see as a value would differ from others and the decisions I would make would be just as different from many .
And at a time of war how much should we hold to these values even if we were to find common ground ? No one likes to admit it but there are times when the means do justify the extremes .
I've often thought about one of our past presidents , Good ol Harry Truman . Within several months after Roosevelt's death he was faced with one of the biggest Us or Them questions I would think of the entire war he was commander and chief over . Do I drop the atomic bomb on a civilian population that might bring about a quicker end to the war and killing.
At the time he couldn't be sure dropping these bombs would actually stop the war any more than the fire bombing had failed to do . No at the time he didn't know Chaster , but he only knew if using these bombs could stop the war thousand of American lives would be saved as well as Japanese should this war drag on month after month .
Perhaps what Truman did couldn't be called torcher , but tens of thousands died and would suffer countless years to come . But even so I feel Truman made the right guess and saved more lives then those who would die had he not used these bombs . He made the right value decision he was faced with for both Americans and the Japanese .
To me there is a certain amount of irony that not waterboarding a prisoner is living some sort of higher law or value if the end result could mean the lives of women and children on both sides of this war .
Well it is all about values and where you place them . With waterboarding is the loss of human decency a greater value than the value of innocent lives that might be lost or saved ?
The thought of a person being water boarded is repulsive to me . However when I weigh it out in my mind given the two possibilities of waterboarding or death of innocent civilians or the lives of American soldiers I kinda feel like Truman must of felt . As bad as it is , if waterboarding will bring about a quicker end and save lives I'm willing to make a similar decisions I feel Truman made---- a decision trying to save more lives for us as well them with out knowing the out come .
| QUOTE (1 yankie @ Mar 11 2008, 11:36 PM) |
| I dont know Chas , Values , what are the highest of values ? No doubt what I see as a value would differ from others and the decisions I would make would be just as different from many . And at a time of war how much should we hold to these values even if we were to find common ground ? No one likes to admit it but there are times when the means do justify the extremes . I've often thought about one of our past presidents , Good ol Harry Truman . Within several months after Roosevelt's death he was faced with one of the biggest Us or Them questions I would think of the entire war he was commander and chief over . Do I drop the atomic bomb on a civilian population that might bring about a quicker end to the war and killing. At the time he couldn't be sure dropping these bombs would actually stop the war any more than the fire bombing had failed to do . No at the time he didn't know Chaster , but he only knew if using these bombs could stop the war thousand of American lives would be saved as well as Japanese should this war drag on month after month . Perhaps what Truman did couldn't be called torcher , but tens of thousands died and would suffer countless years to come . But even so I feel Truman made the right guess and saved more lives then those who would die had he not used these bombs . He made the right value decision he was faced with for both Americans and the Japanese . To me there is a certain amount of irony that not waterboarding a prisoner is living some sort of higher law or value if the end result could mean the lives of women and children on both sides of this war . Well it is all about values and where you place them . With waterboarding is the loss of human decency a greater value than the value of innocent lives that might be lost or saved ? The thought of a person being water boarded is repulsive to me . However when I weigh it out in my mind given the two possibilities of waterboarding or death of innocent civilians or the lives of American soldiers I kinda feel like Truman must of felt . As bad as it is , if waterboarding will bring about a quicker end and save lives I'm willing to make a similar decisions I feel Truman made---- a decision trying to save more lives for us as well them with out knowing the out come . |
I waffle on this issue a lot. But a question I have is it even effective? What I hear is torture leads to the torturee desperately wanting to tell you what you want to hear so you will stop torturing him. If at the same time they can mislead you, that is good too, so long as the torture stops. But the bottom line is, they are telling you what you want to hear, not necessarily the truth.
If it was fairly certain that he had information about an imminent attack and if waterboarding would indeed bring out information accurate enough to stop it, then maybe it's justified. But that seems mighty iffy.
Chas is also right in that abuses of power can be implemented a little at a time. If we start to accept that in some cases torture is acceptable, then all they need to do is start sliding the line over a little at a time and you end up with wholesale torture.
Bush has done more than any other president to take on powers that are clearly unconstitutional and anti-constitutional. He is really close to becoming an outright dictator. The idea of the "Unitary Executive" that the Bush administration has floated around is completely anti-constitutional. The Constitution is designed to spread power among many people to keep one person from taking on the powers of a Monarch. Unitary Executive means - well, Monarch. One guy in charge and screw every one else.
He's taken laws that congress has passed and made what's called "Signing Statements". The Signing Statement is he signs a bill, then says he is going to enforce it as if it says something completely different from what it actually says. It's essentially saying you pass whatever bills you want and I'll do whatever I want. How constitutional is that?
These things along with the Extraordinary Renditions, Water boarding, running private armies accountable to no one and so forth are all the trappings of a dictator. This guy is a bad G and it's not a good thing for him to have the power to torture at will.
QUOTE (Cactus Jim @ Mar 13 2008, 10:12 PM)
I waffle on this issue a lot.
Boy I gotta to tell you , this water boarding is a tuff one , just seems anything doing with war is a slippery slope . And yes Chas is right , left alone with out constant proper supervision and review we going to have another deal like we've recently seen in Iraq with the prison guards . Shameful. But still value for value I do belive water boarding could lesson deaths on both sides .
Record for record I think thats simply not correct with either FDR or Lincoln when you compare their war time years , or also pre war time years with FDR.
Two of the best presidents I feel this nation has ever had and if there is a god he must of blessed us with Lincoln and Roosevelt , such great men .
Bush is light years lower than these men in my eyes , and I'm not comparing side by side Bush to these two or trying to suggest three wrongs make a right .
But I think there is a connection with a War president that differs from a peace time president .
Nobody was more of a dictator or even close to both Lincoln and FDR . They make Nixon and Bush seem like down streamers as far as war time dictators . Johnson had his moments as well .
Wars a really bad deal ,and I dont think these men did what they did for some type of power trip . In their minds I kinda think they did what they did how they thought would be best for this nation . The same could be said I think about Patton and Macarthur to some degree. It just seems failures or success of war breeds a arrogance of its own . I'm sure you've read about Country or military leaders , whether winning or losing they're arrogant as hell would have it . Well I think this arrogance is just part of war being hell and I doubt this will ever change . I would rather have a leader arrogant than feeling over whelmed and desperate as they must at times feel .
There's little doubt in my mind A.L. and FDR made the right choice for the right reasons . With Bush? Time will tell I guess, but at worst he made wrong decisions for the right reasons . I think for anyone to second guess his intent would mean to me they understand from a postion of knowledge instead of a guess .
Boy I gotta to tell you , this water boarding is a tuff one , just seems anything doing with war is a slippery slope . And yes Chas is right , left alone with out constant proper supervision and review we going to have another deal like we've recently seen in Iraq with the prison guards . Shameful. But still value for value I do belive water boarding could lesson deaths on both sides .
| QUOTE |
| Bush has done more than any other president to take on powers that are clearly unconstitutional and anti-constitutional. |
Record for record I think thats simply not correct with either FDR or Lincoln when you compare their war time years , or also pre war time years with FDR.
Two of the best presidents I feel this nation has ever had and if there is a god he must of blessed us with Lincoln and Roosevelt , such great men .
Bush is light years lower than these men in my eyes , and I'm not comparing side by side Bush to these two or trying to suggest three wrongs make a right .
But I think there is a connection with a War president that differs from a peace time president .
Nobody was more of a dictator or even close to both Lincoln and FDR . They make Nixon and Bush seem like down streamers as far as war time dictators . Johnson had his moments as well .
Wars a really bad deal ,and I dont think these men did what they did for some type of power trip . In their minds I kinda think they did what they did how they thought would be best for this nation . The same could be said I think about Patton and Macarthur to some degree. It just seems failures or success of war breeds a arrogance of its own . I'm sure you've read about Country or military leaders , whether winning or losing they're arrogant as hell would have it . Well I think this arrogance is just part of war being hell and I doubt this will ever change . I would rather have a leader arrogant than feeling over whelmed and desperate as they must at times feel .
There's little doubt in my mind A.L. and FDR made the right choice for the right reasons . With Bush? Time will tell I guess, but at worst he made wrong decisions for the right reasons . I think for anyone to second guess his intent would mean to me they understand from a postion of knowledge instead of a guess .
| QUOTE (1 yankie @ Mar 14 2008, 07:01 AM) |
| But |
Yeah, but what?
Seems like just yesterday the right wingers of the world were accusing us secularists of "moral relativity" and "there is such a thing as right and wrong, you know."
This was in relation to gay rights and abortion, a couple of things we left wingers had decided to invest in.
Because you right wingers are raving lunatics on those topics. You know that, don't you? You guys are freaking raving lunatics on those topics.
"Thou shalt not kill," you said. "What part of thou shalt not don't you understand?"
"Listen." We said. "Can you guys act like grownups for just long enough to consider a few basic realities of existance within this cosmos? You know, the place we are now? Our one and only home? Earth to planet right wing Christian fundamentalist fanatic."
Now though, it's hey listen. On the one hand this
But
on the ohter hand that when it comes to torture.
Well yeah, torture is bad. It's bad.
On the other hand.
At one time we were facing Asian fascists to the West and European fascists to the East. We managed to win there without all that much torture. What? These particular raving lunatic fanatics of today are just so more threatening than those lunatic fanatics were? I tell you, those lunatic fanatic nut cases were good. They came that close too to bringing on another Dark Age. And yet they came in second best.
A legitimately useful strategic and tactical advantage we had on these fanatics is moral credibility.
| QUOTE (chaster @ Mar 15 2008, 11:04 PM) |
| Yeah, but what? |
Well Chas up until now I thought we were haveing somewhat of a decent conversation on a touchy subject . Yeah , I'm taking your last post as a rant or a yell the way it comes across to me . I thought it was over the top so here's something I'm going to spin just as over the top but completely true .
Our goverment has been water boarding American citizens by thousands each year for about 50 years . Its a really top secret practice that has only been known by those who took about 15 minutes to learn the truth . Fact is our goverment has never denied this water boarding taking place .
This top secret is part of the S.E.R.E. program or under code name SERE which you can Google because I have given you the highest military clearance to do so . Go for it soldier , when you get back lets talk on a serious note about what I've said below .
Water boarding is a tuff deal and for me using a little comparing made me lean the way I have . I find it repulsive as I said , but there is little about war I dont find just as deplorable .
When people say American defence what they are really saying is Americas ability to kill more of the other guy . Super Power means America has the ability to kill more than any other nation on earth .
We have the best trained , equipped military using cutting edge technology with one sole purpose at the end of the day , to kill more than be killed . Do you find this repulsive ? Well welcome to our world wide culture . Look at how far we have come . As bad as this sounds its necessary , yup the extremes have a way of justifying the means I feel when talking about war and protecting ourselves .
Its been suggested upwards of forty thousand American Special Forces for nearly fifty years have been water boarded as part of a training in hopes of being able to save more American lives. As far as I know this water boarding practice continues to this very day .
Well Chas , when I compared in my mind what I feel the big picture is concerning water boarding it came down to one little simple fact . The American Special Service troops knew they were not going to die .
Then I asked myself , do I really care what a person thinks if it was their intention to kill other Americans and perhaps my neighbors ? Hell no .
To me anything to do with war is repulsive , but the reality is with war the means at times do justify the extremes .
John Adams once said , he studied war so his Children could study engineering and architecture , and so his Grandchildren could study music and poetry .
Its a nice dream and so is dreaming about heaven , but it aint going to get you there , I think Adams understood this , sometimes I wonder if anyone else really knew this better than him , I certainly dont . If anything to me Adams just said a polite way of saying ,with war at times the means justify the extremes .
| QUOTE (1 yankie @ Mar 16 2008, 10:24 AM) |
| Well Chas |
Chas, This poem is kinda along the same line as the post Yesterday .
Some times I think if its just going to keep getting worse and were only going to get better at killing, Well then , lets just have at it and stop putting it off and get this stuff behinds us . Sometimes I'm not so sure this wouldn't be the best option in the end. Kinda like docking a dogs tail to the length you want it all at once instead of joint by joint .
With war I haven't convinced myself of this , but thousands of years of bad history and not one step further away from the problem does cross my mind .
John Adams dream
Grind faster cogs of time
past this stale era
the slain called mine
and let fresh schoolboys
silence cries for war
by pursuing
a new form of valor,
chiseling poems,
not epitaphs,
in hearts and cornerstones.
I kinda think Adams Studied war not to win but to stop . I think he must have understood winning wars will never stop them . Well thats what I get from his little saying , kinda makes sense , something like the beginning of time sense if you care to consider history at all .
| QUOTE (1 yankie @ Mar 14 2008, 12:01 AM) |
| Boy I gotta to tell you , this water boarding is a tuff one , just seems anything doing with war is a slippery slope . And yes Chas is right , left alone with out constant proper supervision and review we going to have another deal like we've recently seen in Iraq with the prison guards . Shameful. But still value for value I do belive water boarding could lesson deaths on both sides . Record for record I think thats simply not correct with either FDR or Lincoln when you compare their war time years , or also pre war time years with FDR. Two of the best presidents I feel this nation has ever had and if there is a god he must of blessed us with Lincoln and Roosevelt , such great men . Bush is light years lower than these men in my eyes , and I'm not comparing side by side Bush to these two or trying to suggest three wrongs make a right . But I think there is a connection with a War president that differs from a peace time president . Nobody was more of a dictator or even close to both Lincoln and FDR . They make Nixon and Bush seem like down streamers as far as war time dictators . Johnson had his moments as well . Wars a really bad deal ,and I dont think these men did what they did for some type of power trip . In their minds I kinda think they did what they did how they thought would be best for this nation . The same could be said I think about Patton and Macarthur to some degree. It just seems failures or success of war breeds a arrogance of its own . I'm sure you've read about Country or military leaders , whether winning or losing they're arrogant as hell would have it . Well I think this arrogance is just part of war being hell and I doubt this will ever change . I would rather have a leader arrogant than feeling over whelmed and desperate as they must at times feel . There's little doubt in my mind A.L. and FDR made the right choice for the right reasons . With Bush? Time will tell I guess, but at worst he made wrong decisions for the right reasons . I think for anyone to second guess his intent would mean to me they understand from a postion of knowledge instead of a guess . |
I think Bush is pushing us further down the road to dictatorship than any other President, but I have to admit it is certainly possible I'm wrong, given the exesses of Nixon, Johnson, Roosevelt, etc. It may be irrelevant which one is worse. All are leading us down the primrose path.
I've been reading a book called "Nemisis" by Chalmers Johnson. His premise is that democracy is incompatible with militarism. He says previous Empires have started out democratic, then were turned to dictatorship when they got into endless wars that led them to fielding a large professional military backed up by strong special interests who support them. Case in point was Rome, which had constitutional checks and balances that way outdid ours. They were strongly democratic for the first 400 years or so, but when their expanding empire led them into so much warfare that they had to professionalize their military, in the end the military took over and they went to dictatorship.
Chalmers calls the CIA one of the greatest threats to our freedom. These guys are taking actions against foreign governments in some cases without even telling the president. Their budget has never been open, even to congress which is supposed to control all spending. Every President since it was formed has used the CIA as a personal secret army, in some cases against U.S. citizens for political reasons. It is a very dangerous agency for a democracy and it is utterly out of control.
My father has told me about back in the 30's. Few of us younger people are aware of it but back then people were quite anti-military. Even in the depression when a job with regular meals would have been many a man's dream, servicemen were looked down on. They were considered losers who couldn't do anything else. Every war we'd fought up to then had been fought by a small core of regular soldiers augmented by temporary citizen soldiers called up for the emergency. Once the war was over we quickly demoblized.
We started to do that after WWII to. Dad and others have told me of seeing LST's loaded up with ammo and military equipment, taken out to sea and dumped in the ocean. But, shortly it became obvious that we had another threat in the form of the Soviet Union. We remobilized and we've been on a more or less military footing ever since. People grow up expecting to go to the miltary as the past 2 or 3 or 4 generations have and don't even realize this is out of step with what they country used to stand for.
| QUOTE (Cactus Jim @ Mar 18 2008, 01:42 PM) |
| All are leading us down the primrose path. |
Howdy do Cactus , Man , This line I just quoted , Gosh , thats kinda extreme I would think . Anyway--------
I'll agree Brush isn't any sort of brain trust , but I guess I dont see where you're coming from as far as a dictator .
It cant be the war , Bush didn't need to wait for both house's to pass a resolution befor going into Iraq , but he did . Heck even then top brass democrats voted for this war , Two Democratic presidential candidates , Edwards and Clinton . So did Kerry who would have been president today had he not lost . Bush went into war for the same reason B. Clinton had been saying for years if you read the the Iraq war resolution . Yup , Bill would have signed this war resolution as well I just bet you .
Bush should have listen to McCain from the beginning and many other Democrats concerning troop numbers and we would be further along than we are today since the serge took place .
Even supporting this war financially has been a group effort from both Dems and Reps , Nope he wasn't a dictator there .
Tax cuts ? Gosh if tax cuts make a person a dictator well then maybe a dictator aint all that bad .
Immigration ? He sides with the Democrats with this amnesty talk more than most Reps I would have to say , and his own party let him know all about it .
Home land security ? This has to be what your thinking about . Bush has made a mess of things concerning wire taps , what he did wrong was not that he couldn't place wire taps , but he decided to forgo the warrant process .
But even then not all of the phone companies went along with him and he didn't force the issue . Personally , not that I like it but for most of my life big brother has know everything I have been up to anyway , how much I make , what I own , and if they cared to look they could find out I hunt& fish on my spare time .
There is one other thing you might be considering , the US Attorneys Bush let go .
True to form he handled this wrong as well , not that he couldn't have done it but how he went about it . They are political appointees , always have been . Clinton replaced about 93 of these guys the first couple of years in office . If we get a Dem as president more than likly He/she will accept the registration as is the custom when a party change takes place , not all of them necessarily , who ever the new administration decides to keep they will .
Bush mishandled the war , went against the majority of his party regarding immigration , Arrogantly went around procedures with wire tapping , mishandled the letting go of these APPOINTED US attorneys .
Like I said , Bush aint no brain trust , but dictator ? I dont know where your coming from . If your going to give Bush a bad rap , Dictator aint it .
Lincoln ? He completely did away with the right to a trial and could place you in jail any ol time he wanted to and keep you there for as long as he wanted with out one single bit of evidence . He neutered our entire Justice system , butchered the constitution like has never been done befor . Yup thats to start with .
FDR , gees you could right a book , some have . Japanese Interment camps , backdoor pre-war national policies with England by not using any sort of congressional input or vote , yup the list could go on .
What Bush did with wire taping was more stupid than called for I would think , but in comparison with these guys he aint in the same ball park what they did .
I think Bush dosnt understand , these times and people are not the same as they were back then with Lincoln or even 60 some years ago with FDR or nobody would have made a big deal of warrants & wiring tapping during time of war .-- But heck we're better Americans these days , just ask us .
We keep getting better all the time and so do our dictators ,--- well maybe that is .LOL
| QUOTE (1 yankie @ Mar 18 2008, 04:14 PM) |
| Howdy do Cactus , Man , This line I just quoted , Gosh , thats kinda extreme I would think . Anyway-------- I'll agree Brush isn't any sort of brain trust , but I guess I dont see where you're coming from as far as a dictator . It cant be the war , Bush didn't need to wait for both house's to pass a resolution befor going into Iraq , but he did . Heck even then top brass democrats voted for this war , Two Democratic presidential candidates , Edwards and Clinton . So did Kerry who would have been president today had he not lost . Bush went into war for the same reason B. Clinton had been saying for years if you read the the Iraq war resolution . Yup , Bill would have signed this war resolution as well I just bet you . Bush should have listen to McCain from the beginning and many other Democrats concerning troop numbers and we would be further along than we are today since the serge took place . Even supporting this war financially has been a group effort from both Dems and Reps , Nope he wasn't a dictator there . Tax cuts ? Gosh if tax cuts make a person a dictator well then maybe a dictator aint all that bad . Immigration ? He sides with the Democrats with this amnesty talk more than most Reps I would have to say , and his own party let him know all about it . Home land security ? This has to be what your thinking about . Bush has made a mess of things concerning wire taps , what he did wrong was not that he couldn't place wire taps , but he decided to forgo the warrant process . But even then not all of the phone companies went along with him and he didn't force the issue . Personally , not that I like it but for most of my life big brother has know everything I have been up to anyway , how much I make , what I own , and if they cared to look they could find out I hunt& fish on my spare time . There is one other thing you might be considering , the US Attorneys Bush let go . True to form he handled this wrong as well , not that he couldn't have done it but how he went about it . They are political appointees , always have been . Clinton replaced about 93 of these guys the first couple of years in office . If we get a Dem as president more than likly He/she will accept the registration as is the custom when a party change takes place , not all of them necessarily , who ever the new administration decides to keep they will . Bush mishandled the war , went against the majority of his party regarding immigration , Arrogantly went around procedures with wire tapping , mishandled the letting go of these APPOINTED US attorneys . Like I said , Bush aint no brain trust , but dictator ? I dont know where your coming from . If your going to give Bush a bad rap , Dictator aint it . Lincoln ? He completely did away with the right to a trial and could place you in jail any ol time he wanted to and keep you there for as long as he wanted with out one single bit of evidence . He neutered our entire Justice system , butchered the constitution like has never been done befor . Yup thats to start with . FDR , gees you could right a book , some have . Japanese Interment camps , backdoor pre-war national policies with England by not using any sort of congressional input or vote , yup the list could go on . What Bush did with wire taping was more stupid than called for I would think , but in comparison with these guys he aint in the same ball park what they did . I think Bush dosnt understand , these times and people are not the same as they were back then with Lincoln or even 60 some years ago with FDR or nobody would have made a big deal of warrants & wiring tapping during time of war .-- But heck we're better Americans these days , just ask us . We keep getting better all the time and so do our dictators ,--- well maybe that is .LOL |
Well, I said what I think. I'm not going to quibble about it for the next year so I'm done here.
| QUOTE (Cactus Jim @ Mar 19 2008, 08:44 PM) |
| Well, I said what I think. I'm not going to quibble about it for the next year so I'm done here. |
That was a one sided cheap shot , sure was . Don't worry about the next year .
Our conservatives tend to like crisp thinking. There’s right and there’s wrong; there’s black and there’s white; there’s good and there’s evil. Except, apparently, when it comes to torture. Torture is the one gray area that our conservatives allow these days. They see us lefties as wishy washy, forever on the one hand this and on the other hand that and being ruled by emotions instead of facts. There’s a lot to say for solid facts and crisp logic when it comes to solving problems, but it’s also important to recognize their limits. For an example of the limits of crisp logic, just consider a digital computer. It works great for highly structured problems, but in situations that get a bit muddy, it still takes a human.
The Iraq war is another example of a muddy reality not entirely well suited to highly structured crisp logic. It’s a whole lot of on the one hand this and on the other hand that. On the one hand defending freedom at home and abroad is a high value that we invest in for good reasons. Our investments in freedom around the world in the past have had mixed results, but overall, it has been a good investment we can be proud of. On the other hand, freedom also means the freedom for people to use freedom badly. We might have to face up to that what some people want out of freedom is completely different from what we want out of freedom. What we generally want out of freedom is a peaceful law abiding society where people are enabled to their full potentials to thrive and create and explore and enjoy the wonders of the cosmos. What most Iraqis want out of freedom, though, might not have anything to do with that concept of freedom. From what I’ve seen of their behaviors there, I sure get a possibly false impression that all they want out of life is the freedom to go on with their tribal warfare that they know and love. We’re going to take that freedom away from them?
On the other hand, when people are engaging in wild lawless murderous behaviors, it’s not something we can ignore. The planet is getting too interconnected for that to be allowed. We’re on a small row boat in space here. The passengers need to behave within limits. Unruly passengers can capsize the entire boat.
Unruly passengers in Iraq can’t be ignored.
On the other hand, far and away the most unruly passengers on the planet these days are us. These passengers right here at home seem hell bent on sinking the whole row boat.
The Iraq war is another example of a muddy reality not entirely well suited to highly structured crisp logic. It’s a whole lot of on the one hand this and on the other hand that. On the one hand defending freedom at home and abroad is a high value that we invest in for good reasons. Our investments in freedom around the world in the past have had mixed results, but overall, it has been a good investment we can be proud of. On the other hand, freedom also means the freedom for people to use freedom badly. We might have to face up to that what some people want out of freedom is completely different from what we want out of freedom. What we generally want out of freedom is a peaceful law abiding society where people are enabled to their full potentials to thrive and create and explore and enjoy the wonders of the cosmos. What most Iraqis want out of freedom, though, might not have anything to do with that concept of freedom. From what I’ve seen of their behaviors there, I sure get a possibly false impression that all they want out of life is the freedom to go on with their tribal warfare that they know and love. We’re going to take that freedom away from them?
On the other hand, when people are engaging in wild lawless murderous behaviors, it’s not something we can ignore. The planet is getting too interconnected for that to be allowed. We’re on a small row boat in space here. The passengers need to behave within limits. Unruly passengers can capsize the entire boat.
Unruly passengers in Iraq can’t be ignored.
On the other hand, far and away the most unruly passengers on the planet these days are us. These passengers right here at home seem hell bent on sinking the whole row boat.
Ok, so it might well be that Bush II’s crime was along the lines of Richard Nixon’s: he got caught at it. Then again, Nixon really was a special case for the setting up of a secret police for the express purpose of dirty tricks on political rivals. The guy really was a raving paranoid lunatic beyond the usual standard for American politics. He really did take that to a whole new low for America, even if it weren’t all that much lower than where say LBJ took it. I hope. Just as I hope Bush II has been a special case for using the CIA to circumvent the Geneva Convention.
Or, if you’re right and this really is just business as usual, well it shouldn’t be. Let’s haul the goal post back to within this side of decency. You “values” people.
Or, if you’re right and this really is just business as usual, well it shouldn’t be. Let’s haul the goal post back to within this side of decency. You “values” people.
| QUOTE (chaster @ Mar 31 2008, 01:03 PM) |
| Ok, so it might well be that Bush II’s crime was along the lines of Richard Nixon’s: he got caught at it. Then again, Nixon really was a special case for the setting up of a secret police for the express purpose of dirty tricks on political rivals. The guy really was a raving paranoid lunatic beyond the usual standard for American politics. He really did take that to a whole new low for America, even if it weren’t all that much lower than where say LBJ took it. I hope. Just as I hope Bush II has been a special case for using the CIA to circumvent the Geneva Convention. |
Nixon was before reality TV or he might have never even made the evening news.
Chasmo.. it just occurred to me that you've never done any public service. If you had ever been in the Military you would be to the right of Cactus, I have no doubt of it. Now, I'm not saying you aren't patriotic.. don't make the mistake of thinking that, but you never got a conservative reality check.
Before you go senile though, you should try to get your mind around the idea that free enterprise and capitalism was a rational movement toward being personally responsible for your own life, and not just a blame everyone else for your pain proposition. That is a more recent liberal phenomenon.
What do you need to create a welfare state? Have you though of that? Offer something for free, anything.... soup, beer, sex, education... try it. You'll have takers lined up around the block.
Socialism just takes if from free and easy to an entitlement.
| QUOTE (sayitaintso @ Mar 31 2008, 02:53 PM) |
| Nixon was before reality TV or he might have never even made the evening news. Chasmo.. it just occurred to me that you've never done any public service. If you had ever been in the Military you would be to the right of Cactus, I have no doubt of it. Now, I'm not saying you aren't patriotic.. don't make the mistake of thinking that, but you never got a conservative reality check. Before you go senile though, you should try to get your mind around the idea that free enterprise and capitalism was a rational movement toward being personally responsible for your own life, and not just a blame everyone else for your pain proposition. That is a more recent liberal phenomenon. What do you need to create a welfare state? Have you though of that? Offer something for free, anything.... soup, beer, sex, education... try it. You'll have takers lined up around the block. Socialism just takes if from free and easy to an entitlement. |
My experience in the service is there were guys who covered the entire spectrum of political outlook and the service didn't really change them much. What it changed for me is I found that there were people who were exactly opposite to me in almost every way, yet we could get along. I had never dreamed that I'd become close friends with a guy who had been in a Peurto Rican gang in New York City. At one point in Basic Training I was in a group that included 3 genuine crackers from rural Georgia who would fight you if you said the South had lost the civil war. They were, shall we say, conservative. They were also idiots. It was also my first experience being thrown in with Blacks. Also it was the first time I met guys who genuinely felt that a working guy didn't have a chance without a labor union. Most of the guys learned to just put the politics on the back burner and concentrate on getting the job done. The biggest lesson I learned was that people of all kinds of views and backgrounds were really pretty much alike when it came to knuckling down and gettin it done.
You've thrown this out several times, Say, that you feel only conservatives have a grasp of reality. That liberals live in some fantasy land. I was in pretty much the same place as you at one time. I grew up in S. Utah and was arch conservative hard core republican. I've walked a long road to get to where I am at today. I'm a lot more liberal today and generally vote Democrat. I haven't lost my grasp on reality. I've just been around more. I've seen where the uni-dimensional world view I grew up with doesn't work all the time for every person in every situation.
I don't know if you're old enough to remember Martin Luther King and the civil rights movement. Were you around in 1968? What a year! In 67 and 68 well over a hundred USA cities had major league riots. American cities looked like burning war zones. In Detroit the President finally felt compelled to send in the 82nd Airborne with APC's and 50 Cals. In Viet Nam you had the Tet Offensive and the siege of Khe San both going on at the same time. Students were burning college campuses. The Democrat Convention looked it wasn't much different from Khe San. Martin L. King was murdered. Robert Kennedy was murdered. This was a country in deep deep do do in 1968.
Looking back on that year later I came to an epiphany. That was, we were saved by Martin Luther King. See, "Conservatives" in American had refused to extend the rights of citizenship to blacks. Blacks were fed up and were not going to take it any more. There were a lot of them who took up arms. They wanted to shoot and burn and that did happen. But King advocated peaceful resistance, just as Gandhi had done in India. Most blacks followed King's lead and we had a mostly peaceful change. If there'd have not been those voices for black moderation then a lot more would have burned and we'd have had a full scale civil war. So I say, Martin Luther King saved America.
I'd also say that the Civil Rights laws had to be passed in the mid 60's. There was no choice. As I said, blacks had had enough. This was seen as a "Liberal issue" and if the "Liberals" hadn't have prevailed then it would have been shot out in the street.
I was in the Air Force in 1968. I was working with Black Guys who lived off base in a city that had a riot. See, that's what you need, Say. You need to be in a position where you are working right alongside people who are completely different from you so you can learn that they aren't stupid, nor are they unrealistic. They just see the world from the other side of the fence. I was this stupid kid from Utah who was so braindead Conservative I tried to explain to my black buddies why the Civil Rights laws were wrong. That was a learning experience. Let's just say I didn't persuade them.
Why was Civil Rights a "Liberal" issue. If by "Conservative" one means minimal interference by government in our lives, then how could "Conservatives" justify Jim Crow laws? They were governmentally enforced restrictions on every aspect of freedom.
These distinctions get pretty ambiguous at times. Take another example, Say. Outside Utah, which is an exception because it's Mormon and Mormons are - OK, I won't say it. Anyway, outside Utah a "Liberal" of the ACLU stripe would say that Polygamy is a matter of personal choice and the government ought not to interfere with personal choice, which is why the "Liberal" ACLU is on your side. "Conservatives" are generally of a judgemental fundamentalist religious stripe who, outside of Utah, feel polygamy is an abomination and the practitioners should be sent to prison alongside the gays who are also abominations. So, how about you, Say? Are you Liberal or are you Conservative?
| QUOTE (Cactus Jim @ Apr 3 2008, 03:49 AM) |
| Looking back on that year later I came to an epiphany. That was, we were saved by Martin Luther King. See, "Conservatives" in American had refused to extend the rights of citizenship to blacks. Blacks were fed up and were not going to take it any more. There were a lot of them who took up arms. They wanted to shoot and burn and that did happen. But King advocated peaceful resistance, just as Gandhi had done in India. Most blacks followed King's lead and we had a mostly peaceful change. If there'd have not been those voices for black moderation then a lot more would have burned and we'd have had a full scale civil war. So I say, Martin Luther King saved America. |
Zackly.
I have done plenty of public service, Say. And a lot of it wasn’t even court ordered.
I have to admit the G W Bush isn’t the first U.S. head of state to taint our reputation around the world with torture. Back in the Vietnam War there was this program I think was called the “Phoenix” program that was underwritten by our CIA that was basically a torture program for gaining intelligence from the VC. There again, the actual torture was outsourced, but the U.S. was the author of it. And that’s how we won the war. Oh wait, we lost that one, didn’t we?
I guess you could say as you seem to, Say, that hey Democrats and Republicans alike have always done this sort of thing, and it’s just part of the way all nations have conducted business since the invention of the nation.
If that’s the case, then let’s just openly face up to that Christ was all wet about things. All that stuff about loving thine enemy and stuff is just so much hoo ha.
What is Christianity after all? Why, it’s nothing but socialism.
Hawk and spit. Socialism.
I have to admit the G W Bush isn’t the first U.S. head of state to taint our reputation around the world with torture. Back in the Vietnam War there was this program I think was called the “Phoenix” program that was underwritten by our CIA that was basically a torture program for gaining intelligence from the VC. There again, the actual torture was outsourced, but the U.S. was the author of it. And that’s how we won the war. Oh wait, we lost that one, didn’t we?
I guess you could say as you seem to, Say, that hey Democrats and Republicans alike have always done this sort of thing, and it’s just part of the way all nations have conducted business since the invention of the nation.
If that’s the case, then let’s just openly face up to that Christ was all wet about things. All that stuff about loving thine enemy and stuff is just so much hoo ha.
What is Christianity after all? Why, it’s nothing but socialism.
Hawk and spit. Socialism.
QUOTE (chaster @ Apr 3 2008, 10:05 AM)
I have done plenty of public service, Say. And a lot of it wasn’t even court ordered.
I have to admit the G W Bush isn’t the first U.S. head of state to taint our reputation around the world with torture. Back in the Vietnam War there was this program I think was called the “Phoenix” program that was underwritten by our CIA that was basically a torture program for gaining intelligence from the VC. There again, the actual torture was outsourced, but the U.S. was the author of it. And that’s how we won the war. Oh wait, we lost that one, didn’t we?
I guess you could say as you seem to, Say, that hey Democrats and Republicans alike have always done this sort of thing, and it’s just part of the way all nations have conducted business since the invention of the nation.
I didn't mean to make that sound too negative or condescending. I was only trying to figure how you got bent to the left so far I'm afraid you might snap off.
The thing about torture is that, if I understand it correctly, it has to be authorized on a case by case, extreme only as needed basis by the Commander in Chief. So it is constitutional.. (on a living document stretch perhaps) on that basis.
Now that would make GW Bush a worse guy maybe, and not better, if he goes there wholesale, and out sources this executive privilege decision to CIA operatives, which could well be the case currently, but it doesn't turn the USA conservatives into a demented torturing insensitive bunch of global separatists barbarians if they get concerned about public security and support some extreme measures occasionally. They need to be pretty sure they have the right "detainee" though, and it should be done only rarely and in the aforementioned extreme method.. by a single one time special authorization by the President personally and that only when it presented a clear and present danger beyond any reasonable doubt. It should be tantamount to pushing the red button... in my opinion. Not a decision that would made lightly... or politically motivated.
There may be some truth to that. Maybe it's more of a benevolent dictatorship even. But I strenuously object to the commie pinko socialists taking license from that to turn their religion of secularism into tyranny and trying to make us think it all the same difference.
I have to admit the G W Bush isn’t the first U.S. head of state to taint our reputation around the world with torture. Back in the Vietnam War there was this program I think was called the “Phoenix” program that was underwritten by our CIA that was basically a torture program for gaining intelligence from the VC. There again, the actual torture was outsourced, but the U.S. was the author of it. And that’s how we won the war. Oh wait, we lost that one, didn’t we?
I guess you could say as you seem to, Say, that hey Democrats and Republicans alike have always done this sort of thing, and it’s just part of the way all nations have conducted business since the invention of the nation.
I didn't mean to make that sound too negative or condescending. I was only trying to figure how you got bent to the left so far I'm afraid you might snap off.
The thing about torture is that, if I understand it correctly, it has to be authorized on a case by case, extreme only as needed basis by the Commander in Chief. So it is constitutional.. (on a living document stretch perhaps) on that basis.
Now that would make GW Bush a worse guy maybe, and not better, if he goes there wholesale, and out sources this executive privilege decision to CIA operatives, which could well be the case currently, but it doesn't turn the USA conservatives into a demented torturing insensitive bunch of global separatists barbarians if they get concerned about public security and support some extreme measures occasionally. They need to be pretty sure they have the right "detainee" though, and it should be done only rarely and in the aforementioned extreme method.. by a single one time special authorization by the President personally and that only when it presented a clear and present danger beyond any reasonable doubt. It should be tantamount to pushing the red button... in my opinion. Not a decision that would made lightly... or politically motivated.
| QUOTE |
What is Christianity after all? Why, it’s nothing but socialism. |
There may be some truth to that. Maybe it's more of a benevolent dictatorship even. But I strenuously object to the commie pinko socialists taking license from that to turn their religion of secularism into tyranny and trying to make us think it all the same difference.
| QUOTE (sayitaintso @ Apr 3 2008, 06:01 PM) |
| They need to be pretty sure they have the right "detainee" though, |
There's the rub. Getting the right guy to torture. If it were about torturing the guys what done 9-11, thad be one thing. What inevitably happens, though, is the case I heard on NPR awhile back. Some poor fool, a citizen of Canada, had the poor judgement of having the same name of a guy who might have known something about somebody who knew something about some terrorist activities. Our CIA "renditioned" him over to Saudi Arabia where he was held in solitary confinement for several months, subjected him to regular beatings, and then he got sodimized by some guys who sodemize for a living. There's an item for a resume, professional sodemizer.
By the way, now and then somebody attempts to shame me by pointing out to me that I never did a tour of duty in the armed services. My Dad has assured me, however, that that is precisely why he did do a tour in the armed services, so his kids wouldn't have to. I find that a satisfactory justification of why I never served in the armed services.
| QUOTE (chaster @ Apr 3 2008, 01:34 PM) |
| By the way, now and then somebody attempts to shame me by pointing out to me that I never did a tour of duty in the armed services. My Dad has assured me, however, that that is precisely why he did do a tour in the armed services, so his kids wouldn't have to. I find that a satisfactory justification of why I never served in the armed services. |
Nothing wrong with that logic, it makes sense to me too, but it works only as long is you don't turn out to be an America hating liberal because you never learned to appreciate the price paid for you to have your first amendment rights. Lack of appreciation for that is what turns people against the very freedom your dad served to defend and protect.
Jane Fonda, for example, needs to go spend some time as a detainee, and live on bread and water in a third world gulag, and have the soles of her feet whacked a few times. Then she can come back and make political statements about stupid wars we shouldn't be involved in. And maybe even run for the Senate.
| QUOTE (sayitaintso @ Apr 3 2008, 05:31 PM) |
| Nothing wrong with that logic, it makes sense to me too, but it works only as long is you don't turn out to be an America hating liberal because you never learned to appreciate the price paid for you to have your first amendment rights. Lack of appreciation for that is what turns people against the very freedom your dad served to defend and protect. Jane Fonda, for example, needs to go spend some time as a detainee, and live on bread and water in a third world gulag, and have the soles of her feet whacked a few times. Then she can come back and make political statements about stupid wars we shouldn't be involved in. And maybe even run for the Senate. |
I'd a thought you're more independent than to just regurgitate brain dead ditto head pablum here, Say. This idea that anyone who opposes Bush's stupid war hates America only makes sense to people who are - oh, let's leave that unfinished. Let's just say that it's part of the very effective Republican smear campaign the resonates so well with people who let RushBo do their thinking for them. Folks who think for themselves see it as the bullshit it is.
Here's the way it is. What makes America great is Freedom. A very basic element of freedom is the right do dissent - vocally. The "My way or the highway" mentality of the Bushites is utterly un-american. If we're going to have a country where the "leader" dictates what's acceptable thought, then we might as well put Warren Jeffs in charge. I bet you'd enjoy that, eh Say?
I have a friend who is a nice guy and very intelligent, except he's a Christian. We got nto a politcal slugfest once and he got all worked up and told me "This is a Christian nation and if you don't like it you should leave". Oh yea, very Americana there Christian buddy. Really, isn't that your basic Warren 101?
Bottom line is, in this country we can dissent, and even say hateful things about our leaders, and not hate America. The "American hating Liberal" is just another stupid straw man that malevolent right wing manipulators use to keep their minions aligned.
| QUOTE (sayitaintso @ Apr 4 2008, 12:31 AM) |
| Jane Fonda, for example, needs to go spend some time as a detainee, and live on bread and water in a third world gulag, and have the soles of her feet whacked a few times. Then she can come back and make political statements about stupid wars we shouldn't be involved in. And maybe even run for the Senate. |
Well Say. "needs to go spend some time as a detainee, and live on bread and water in a third world gulag, and have the soles of her feet whacked a few times" - isn't that what the argument here is about? Whether America ought to stand for something a bit more - what? - moral? decent? Law abiding? than that?
Thing is, with the guys we've got running the show these days, that Jane Fonda needs to go spend some time as a detainee, and live on bread and water in a third world gulag, and have the soles of her feet whacked a few times - that could happen. That has benn happening, Say. Not to Jane Fonda, but to others.
Yeah, Jane Fonda. She just doesn't appreciate the sacrifices made by our brave soldiers that enabled America to be the wonderful place America is. So your thinking is we need to trash those high ideals that made America so special in the first place? To teach Jane Fonda a lesson? What the hell did those soldiers make their sacrifices for then?
Another point. There's more than one kind of service to country. Struggling in behalf of ideals, insisting upon America living up to its ideals, that can be a valuable service too, a valuable service that people have given their lives for too. Let's honor those othere veterans too, like those veterans who took those freedom rides on buses through the South in the 1960s who got their heads beat in by America loving patriot good ole boys.
| QUOTE (Cactus Jim @ Apr 4 2008, 09:07 AM) |
| I'd a thought you're more independent than to just regurgitate brain dead ditto head pablum here, Say. This idea that anyone who opposes Bush's stupid war hates America only makes sense to people who are - oh, let's leave that unfinished. Let's just say that it's part of the very effective Republican smear campaign the resonates so well with people who let RushBo do their thinking for them. Folks who think for themselves see it as the bullshit it is. |
You didn't hear me say any of that. I oppose Bush's stupid war.
I know rhetoric when I hear it too, as most of what your post was this rant. What I've always objected about your style of it, is that you post abject opinion as though it was a scientific fact... just as you have done here ... again.
It has to be so, now that you have said it.
"Could it be the hit bird flutters or the wicked flee when no man persueth."
Lets flip that around though, just for a fresh perspective. Anyone who hates America opposes Bush's stupid war. So.. it might not be true the other way around, like you said, but you need to be a little careful how you "use" that; how you regurgitate your own pablum.
We ain't enemies, you and me, nor Chaster, and I wasn't accusing anyone of being unpatriotic.. well except Jane Fonda... and are you defending what she did here.. under this "American freedom" clause. well even she didn't get punished, if that's any consolation. And I'm not even saying she should have. Just that she should try to see herself without all the perks, before she joins the commies and starts peddeling her American guilt trip and socialism ignorantly.
War is not just a "republican" thing either. So this ditto head crap works both ways too.
| QUOTE (chaster @ Apr 4 2008, 10:07 AM) |
| Thing is, with the guys we've got running the show these days, that Jane Fonda needs to go spend some time as a detainee, and live on bread and water in a third world gulag, and have the soles of her feet whacked a few times - that could happen. That has benn happening, Say. Not to Jane Fonda, but to others. Yeah, Jane Fonda. She just doesn't appreciate the sacrifices made by our brave soldiers that enabled America to be the wonderful place America is. So your thinking is we need to trash those high ideals that made America so special in the first place? To teach Jane Fonda a lesson? What the hell did those soldiers make their sacrifices for then? |
Not here, over there where her all her friends are. You know, all those people who don't share these values or have a country that is based on the kind of freedom she was using.. and abusing. She can go dance and sing with Kim Jong Ill.
I agree we need to make sure that stuff doesn't happen here.
| QUOTE (sayitaintso @ Apr 4 2008, 05:42 PM) |
| Not here, over there where her all her friends are. You know, all those people who don't share these values or have a country that is based on the kind of freedom she was using.. and abusing. She can go dance and sing with Kim Jong Ill. I agree we need to make sure that stuff doesn't happen here. |
Oh I see. We just need to outsource the torture so that others will do the actual dirty work. That way, we get the intelligence we need to continue the war on terror, which we are winning - yes we are - we are winning this war - there is light at the end of the tunnel I assure you - while we maintain our reputation as a country of high ideals. Brilliant. Brilliant concept.
NOT.
On the other hand, Say, I partly agree with you what you said earlier about our losing sight of the sacrifices our forebears have made for us. I'm old enough to where I can see that people are forgetting the hard lessons learned from the school of hard knocks. The irony is that the sacrifices our forebears went through so that we wouldn’t have to experience the misery they experienced worked. It worked too well. Those darned parents of ours went and spoiled us rotten. It’s all their fault that life has been too easy for us and that we've gone soft and we’ve forgotten those lessons of the past and it’s starting to look as though maybe we’ll have to take those hard courses again. And it’s all our parents fault. Because of their hard work and sacrifices, it’s looking as if we’re going to have to repeat those lessons from the university of hard knocks that our forebears specifically worked so hard so that we wouldn’t have to take those courses.
The human condition seems to be that humans are just hard wired for misery. Good times give rise to decadence and moral decay such that we set ourselves up for more misery again later on. We learn from the hard times, but it’s only temporary. Next thing you know, we’re right back to the same flawed behaviors that created the hard times before.
Don't worry, Say. The prospects are looking good that the sacrifices of our brave lads in uniform won't be forgotten but rather will be relived again. And again. And again. And again. And again.
Oh how you right-wingers just love the sight of a soldier in uniform. How that sight thrills you and fills you with deep pride for America and everything America stands for. Take a loser kid off the street you wouldn’t give a nickel to educate who is just another disposable throw-away human being to you but get him dressed up in a uniform, it’s a whole new ball game for you. Suddenly, this kid is our brave lad in uniform now. Hip hurrah! you shout as you wave your American flag as he walks by.
Me, though, if my son and his son and his son and so on down the line for the next 800 generations never had to wear a uniform, that’d be just fine by me.
I mean war and other kinds of misery do make for good literature and stuff. I’ll grant you that. WWII has paid for itself in entertainment value, which my son and I do enjoy. I feel a bit guilty about it, but the ten year old boy in me and my ten year old boy continue to be just thrilled with just about anything from WWII. Those Nazis. Can’t get enough of those Nazis. What great entertainment value they have provided us. I have to hand it to those Nazis.
Still, aren’t there other interesting things we could be doing? There’s a whole cosmos out there just waiting to be explored.
| QUOTE (sayitaintso @ Apr 4 2008, 10:08 AM) |
| You didn't hear me say any of that. I oppose Bush's stupid war. I know rhetoric when I hear it too, as most of what your post was this rant. What I've always objected about your style of it, is that you post abject opinion as though it was a scientific fact... just as you have done here ... again. It has to be so, now that you have said it. "Could it be the hit bird flutters or the wicked flee when no man persueth." Lets flip that around though, just for a fresh perspective. Anyone who hates America opposes Bush's stupid war. So.. it might not be true the other way around, like you said, but you need to be a little careful how you "use" that; how you regurgitate your own pablum. We ain't enemies, you and me, nor Chaster, and I wasn't accusing anyone of being unpatriotic.. well except Jane Fonda... and are you defending what she did here.. under this "American freedom" clause. well even she didn't get punished, if that's any consolation. And I'm not even saying she should have. Just that she should try to see herself without all the perks, before she joins the commies and starts peddeling her American guilt trip and socialism ignorantly. War is not just a "republican" thing either. So this ditto head crap works both ways too. |
You won't find me defending Jane Fonda. And seein's as how I joined the service when Lyndon Johnson was Pres and my Dad had to actually go in combat (unlike me) under Roosevelt, I don't think it's only Republicans nor Conservatives who get us in wars.
I don't mean to rant at you, Say. I think really we aren't that far apart. But when I see things like "Liberals hate America" or Conservatives think clearly but all liberals everywhere are mushy headed, that pushes a button with me. It calls to me to respond, even though at times I've swore this stuff off.
Really with the perspective of years of living among diverse people, I get along fine with liberals, conservatives, Dems and Republicans. When I hear some Union guy Democrat raving on about "Braindead Republicans", I pretty much just blow it off. Same when I hear "America hating Liberals". It's all just mush.
| QUOTE (chaster @ Apr 4 2008, 11:05 AM) |
| Oh I see. We just need to outsource the torture so that others will do the actual dirty work. That way, we get the intelligence we need to continue the war on terror, which we are winning - yes we are - we are winning this war - there is light at the end of the tunnel I assure you - while we maintain our reputation as a country of high ideals. Brilliant. Brilliant concept. NOT. On the other hand, Say, I partly agree with you what you said earlier about our losing sight of the sacrifices our forebears have made for us. I'm old enough to where I can see that people are forgetting the hard lessons learned from the school of hard knocks. The irony is that the sacrifices our forebears went through so that we wouldn’t have to experience the misery they experienced worked. It worked too well. Those darned parents of ours went and spoiled us rotten. It’s all their fault that life has been too easy for us and that we've gone soft and we’ve forgotten those lessons of the past and it’s starting to look as though maybe we’ll have to take those hard courses again. And it’s all our parents fault. Because of their hard work and sacrifices, it’s looking as if we’re going to have to repeat those lessons from the university of hard knocks that our forebears specifically worked so hard so that we wouldn’t have to take those courses. The human condition seems to be that humans are just hard wired for misery. Good times give rise to decadence and moral decay such that we set ourselves up for more misery again later on. We learn from the hard times, but it’s only temporary. Next thing you know, we’re right back to the same flawed behaviors that created the hard times before. Don't worry, Say. The prospects are looking good that the sacrifices of our brave lads in uniform won't be forgotten but rather will be relived again. And again. And again. And again. And again. Oh how you right-wingers just love the sight of a soldier in uniform. How that sight thrills you and fills you with deep pride for America and everything America stands for. Take a loser kid off the street you wouldn’t give a nickel to educate who is just another disposable throw-away human being to you but get him dressed up in a uniform, it’s a whole new ball game for you. Suddenly, this kid is our brave lad in uniform now. Hip hurrah! you shout as you wave your American flag as he walks by. Me, though, if my son and his son and his son and so on down the line for the next 800 generations never had to wear a uniform, that’d be just fine by me. I mean war and other kinds of misery do make for good literature and stuff. I’ll grant you that. WWII has paid for itself in entertainment value, which my son and I do enjoy. I feel a bit guilty about it, but the ten year old boy in me and my ten year old boy continue to be just thrilled with just about anything from WWII. Those Nazis. Can’t get enough of those Nazis. What great entertainment value they have provided us. I have to hand it to those Nazis. Still, aren’t there other interesting things we could be doing? There’s a whole cosmos out there just waiting to be explored. |
See here, now you've gone and jumped the shark again, and extrapolated a whole bunch of polemic stuff and bloviated about it as though I had anything to do with your mental meanderings.
Then you go dissing on the uniform, mainly becuase you never wore one, is what I get outta that.. or you'd never go there, I promise. And then you make a bunch allegations about what fills and thrills... well speak for yourself. Not for me.
You sound like a useful idiot, one of those who while you rant and rave about not being excited about the industrial military complex, go right on over the top and down the other side into exactly what it takes to make it work for them. Socialism.
And all I wanted to outsource is Jane Fonda.. and her ilk of patronizing airheads. It's one thing to go on a mission for peace and quite another to sell your soul and your own people out to despots and tyrants who do NOT share your patriotic warm and fuzzies about freedom of speech, or freedom of anything else. Just make her keep her nose where she chose to shmooze it, at least long enough to really get a smell for it.
But don't worry, America's day of reckoning is coming. Just don't expect to be treated any better personally because you voted one way or the other.
| QUOTE (sayitaintso @ Apr 4 2008, 10:08 AM) |
| I know rhetoric when I hear it too, as most of what your post was this rant. What I've always objected about your style of it, is that you post abject opinion as though it was a scientific fact... just as you have done here ... again. |
I'm just trying to educate you, Say.
| QUOTE (sayitaintso @ Apr 4 2008, 09:16 PM) |
| See here, now you've gone and jumped the shark again, and extrapolated a whole bunch of polemic stuff and bloviated about it as though I had anything to do with your mental meanderings. Then you go dissing on the uniform, mainly becuase you never wore one, is what I get outta that.. or you'd never go there, I promise. And then you make a bunch allegations about what fills and thrills... well speak for yourself. Not for me. You sound like a useful idiot, one of those who while you rant and rave about not being excited about the industrial military complex, go right on over the top and down the other side into exactly what it takes to make it work for them. Socialism. And all I wanted to outsource is Jane Fonda.. and her ilk of patronizing airheads. It's one thing to go on a mission for peace and quite another to sell your soul and your own people out to despots and tyrants who do NOT share your patriotic warm and fuzzies about freedom of speech, or freedom of anything else. Just make her keep her nose where she chose to shmooze it, at least long enough to really get a smell for it. But don't worry, America's day of reckoning is coming. Just don't expect to be treated any better personally because you voted one way or the other. |
Reminder to myself:
Don't argue in order to destroy somebody. If you want to destroy somebody, just kill him, but don't argue with him. If you're going to argue with somebody, do it with the idea of getting somewhere better than you're at now.
Ok. Now I'm back and a little bit less pissed off at Say for calling me an idiot and a socialist and a disser of soldiers, which by the way, Say is completely wrong on at least two of those.
Yes, we lefties at one time were flirting with the idea of socialism being a natural successor to capitalism back when it sure looked as if capitalism was about to implode and later after it sure did look as if capitalism had indeed imploded.
Speaking for myself, though, I'm over that. I'm thinking it's either that capitalism will mature to where it is sustainable or it's game over for the experiment in civilization. That isn't a socialistic point of view, Say. That is not having one's bum up one's headism. Or, versa visa.
And when did I ever diss any soldier? When, Say?
You're charging me with dissing two of my brothers, my father, several cousins and uncles and nephews, Say? Thems fightin' words which I suggest you recount lest we will have no more to say to one another.
I should know better by now than to take it personally whenever I hear once that I’m an idiot, a socialist, and an unpatriotic disrespector of our brave soldiers. It has nothing whatever to do with me. It’s just a favorite method of our “take responsibility for yourself” people once again sloughing off their responsibilities. Translation of it: Conscience overload. Too uncomforatble. Mind is switched into off position.
It’d be wrong to say that our right wingers are idiots. Well, it’d be wrong to use any kind of “label think” on people. So I’ll only make this generalization: when our minds and our hearts are engaged in dealing with difficult problems, there’s at least some possibility that we’re not being total brain dead idiots.
One thing you said, Say, I'm in complete agreement with, if things hit the fan like it's looking like it might, won't make any difference what sort of a winger we were. We're all in this together. We hang together or we hang separately.
Yes, we lefties at one time were flirting with the idea of socialism being a natural successor to capitalism back when it sure looked as if capitalism was about to implode and later after it sure did look as if capitalism had indeed imploded.
Speaking for myself, though, I'm over that. I'm thinking it's either that capitalism will mature to where it is sustainable or it's game over for the experiment in civilization. That isn't a socialistic point of view, Say. That is not having one's bum up one's headism. Or, versa visa.
And when did I ever diss any soldier? When, Say?
You're charging me with dissing two of my brothers, my father, several cousins and uncles and nephews, Say? Thems fightin' words which I suggest you recount lest we will have no more to say to one another.
I should know better by now than to take it personally whenever I hear once that I’m an idiot, a socialist, and an unpatriotic disrespector of our brave soldiers. It has nothing whatever to do with me. It’s just a favorite method of our “take responsibility for yourself” people once again sloughing off their responsibilities. Translation of it: Conscience overload. Too uncomforatble. Mind is switched into off position.
It’d be wrong to say that our right wingers are idiots. Well, it’d be wrong to use any kind of “label think” on people. So I’ll only make this generalization: when our minds and our hearts are engaged in dealing with difficult problems, there’s at least some possibility that we’re not being total brain dead idiots.
One thing you said, Say, I'm in complete agreement with, if things hit the fan like it's looking like it might, won't make any difference what sort of a winger we were. We're all in this together. We hang together or we hang separately.