OT: If You Hate the Patriot Act (and you should)...
steve
constitution".
http://www.pipelinenews.org/index.cfm?page=orderdec1209.htm
http://www.whitehouse.gov/the-press-office/executive-order-amending-executive-order-12425
http://en.wikisource.org/wiki/Executive_Order_12425
I just want to make the leftys in this NG aware of BHOs latest assault on
our civil liberties.
HNY
steve
--
"I've got a bomb in me pants!"
Wallace - A Matter of Loaf and Death
steve
On 2-Jan-2010, "steve" <st...@steve.com> wrote:
> Then this executive order should have you screaming about BHO "shredding
> the
> constitution".
>
> http://www.pipelinenews.org/index.cfm?page=orderdec1209.htm
>
> http://www.whitehouse.gov/the-press-office/executive-order-amending-executive-order-12425
>
> http://en.wikisource.org/wiki/Executive_Order_12425
>
> http://townhall.com/columnists/FloydandMaryBethBrown/2010/01/01/obama_executive_order_alters_your_legal_protections?page=full&comments=true
>
> I just want to make the leftys in this NG aware of BHOs latest assault on
> our civil liberties.
One more excellent link on the issue.
http://threatswatch.org/analysis/2009/12/print/wither_sovereignty/
Sir Blob
On Jan 2, 3:50 pm, "steve" <st...@steve.com> wrote:
> Then this executive order should have you screaming about BHO "shredding the
> constitution".
>
> http://www.pipelinenews.org/index.cfm?page=orderdec1209.htm
>
> http://www.whitehouse.gov/the-press-office/executive-order-amending-e...
>
> http://en.wikisource.org/wiki/Executive_Order_12425
>
> http://townhall.com/columnists/FloydandMaryBethBrown/2010/01/01/obama...
Sir Blob
pfff
Rich
Obama, you leftist simpleton.
G.M. Watson
Ah, there's few things I enjoy more than witty and elegantly-phrased
intellectual repartee.
GMW
Tom
> GMW
That's about the best you will see from Rich.
He's not a deep thinker.
Tom
steve
On 3-Jan-2010, Tom <drs...@aol.com> wrote:
> >
> > > > whats a bho, you fucking creep?
> >
> > > Obama, you leftist simpleton.
> >
> > Ah, there's few things I enjoy more than witty and elegantly-phrased
> > intellectual repartee.
>
> > GMW
>
>
>
> That's about the best you will see from Rich.
>
> He's not a deep thinker.
I think his response was perfectly appropriate given Blobs idiotic comment.
And now I wonder why no one is commenting on BHO granting Interpol power
over american lives. That, and not the trivial comments of a moron, is the
scandal.
william
>
> I think his response was perfectly appropriate given Blobs idiotic comment.
> And now I wonder why no one is commenting on BHO granting Interpol power
> over american lives. That, and not the trivial comments of a moron, is the
> scandal.
>
remember that pinko tree-humping cumbaya-singing radical named Ronnie,
right? I try and stay out of political threads but I'm up a tree about
why the right is calling out Obama on extending a Reagan policy.
William
www.williamahearn.com
steve
On 3-Jan-2010, william <wlah...@gmail.com> wrote:
> Scandal? That agreement has been in effect since the Reagan years. You
> remember that pinko tree-humping cumbaya-singing radical named Ronnie,
> right? I try and stay out of political threads but I'm up a tree about
> why the right is calling out Obama on extending a Reagan policy.
Jesus, william, you've missed the point entirely. Obama has removed the
sensible restrictions that Reagan retained, i.e. the supremecy of US law
enforcement over interpol. Obamas amendment gives interpol power along with
immunity, whereas Reagan only allowed them immunity. The difference is
shocking..or it should be. I suggest you read through the links again and
consider the practical consequences of foreign law enforcement operating in
the US with immunity.
If it helps, imagine a domestic law enforcment organization with the same
power and immunity.
Shocked yet? If not, why not?
william
>
> Jesus, william, you've missed the point entirely. Obama has removed the
> sensible restrictions that Reagan retained, i.e. the supremecy of US law
> enforcement over interpol. Obamas amendment gives interpol power along with
> immunity, whereas Reagan only allowed them immunity. The difference is
> shocking..or it should be. I suggest you read through the links again and
> consider the practical consequences of foreign law enforcement operating in
> the US with immunity.
>
why I have trouble taking it seriously. Can the black helicopters be
far behind? What seems to be happening is that the US can now out-
source sensitive terrorist investigations to Interpol so the media and
congress won't have jurisdiction. Like you really care about the
rights of "those" people. This isn't an Obama "thing" and if the left
and the right would take their heads out of their asses they might get
a clue. Grow up, already.
William
www.williamahearn.com
David Oberman
>And now I wonder why no one is commenting on BHO granting Interpol power
>over american lives. That, and not the trivial comments of a moron, is the
>scandal.
I don't want an international entity governing my personal affairs!
What can I do?
_______
Every revolution evaporates & leaves behind
only the slime of a new bureaucracy.
-- Kafka
Sir Blob
> On 3-Jan-2010, william <wlahe...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> > Scandal? That agreement has been in effect since the Reagan years. You
> > remember that pinko tree-humping cumbaya-singing radical named Ronnie,
> > right? I try and stay out of political threads but I'm up a tree about
> > why the right is calling out Obama on extending a Reagan policy.
>
> Jesus, william, you've missed the point entirely.
no, no no, you piece of loony far right shit. you deserve to be hurled
upon, like trotsky and practically everyone does. the rest actually
argue with you.
WANNA TICKLE MY ERECT NIPPLES?
Howard Brazee
<DavidO...@att.net> wrote:
>I don't want an international entity governing my personal affairs!
>What can I do?
Vote for change? Oh, we already tried that. Didn't work.
--
"In no part of the constitution is more wisdom to be found,
than in the clause which confides the question of war or peace
to the legislature, and not to the executive department."
- James Madison
moviePig
> On Sun, 3 Jan 2010 19:53:08 GMT, "steve" <st...@steve.com> wrote:
> >And now I wonder why no one is commenting on BHO granting Interpol power
> >over american lives. That, and not the trivial comments of a moron, is the
> >scandal.
>
> I don't want an international entity governing my personal affairs!
> What can I do?
Secede...
--
- - - - - - - -
YOUR taste at work...
http://www.moviepig.com
steve
On 3-Jan-2010, william <wlah...@gmail.com> wrote:
> What seems to be happening is that the US can now out-
> source sensitive terrorist investigations to Interpol so the media and
> congress won't have jurisdiction.
And what happens if you're the "terrorist"?
Think about that.
steve
On 3-Jan-2010, David Oberman <DavidO...@att.net> wrote:
> I don't want an international entity governing my personal affairs!
> What can I do?
Write/call your congressmen. This will give you email addresses and phone
numbers for your rep and both senators:
http://www.contactingthecongress.org/
steve
On 3-Jan-2010, moviePig <pwal...@moviepig.com> wrote:
> > I don't want an international entity governing my personal affairs!
> > What can I do?
>
> Secede...
If the country continues down this road (to serfdom), secessionist movements
will gain steam and credibility. The 10th amendment, even if respected by
the USSC, can only accomplish so much because the treasury and fed control
(and debase) the money.
I seriously wonder what woud happen if a state were to secede. Would the
remaining states tolerate military action against the secessionist? Would
other states follow?
moviePig
> On 3-Jan-2010, moviePig <pwall...@moviepig.com> wrote:
>
> > > I don't want an international entity governing my personal affairs!
> > > What can I do?
>
> > Secede...
>
> If the country continues down this road (to serfdom), secessionist movements
> will gain steam and credibility. The 10th amendment, even if respected by
> the USSC, can only accomplish so much because the treasury and fed control
> (and debase) the money.
>
> I seriously wonder what woud happen if a state were to secede. Would the
> remaining states tolerate military action against the secessionist? Would
> other states follow?
Might depend on which state...
Sir Blob
Sir Blob
some slack, please, after a decade of ''apolitical''
''libertarianism'', stewe is finally a political agitator and
proponent of gubbamunt debates.
it's a pleasure to see him in the opposition, thou. they must be doing
something right.
william
>
> And what happens if you're the "terrorist"?
>
> Think about that.
>
and down and making the issue about Obama. That is missing the point.
Obama didn't create the prison in Gitmo. The idea that your loss of
rights is based on personalities misses what is really happening. Do
you think that McCain or Palin wouldn't have signed the amended
extension? Would you then see it as the rightwing standing up to the
terrorists? We're at war. Whether that manifests itself as invading
other countries or rounding up the usual suspects and dropping them in
a deep freeze, it's only a matter of degrees. If your real issue is
that "international" forces now have been granted protection from
oversight in the US, well, welcome to the New World Order. It's a
question of going with the devil you know.
William
www.williamahearn.com
steve
On 4-Jan-2010, william <wlah...@gmail.com> wrote:
> My sarcasm was lost in translation. My point is that you're jumping up
> and down and making the issue about Obama. That is missing the point.
> Obama didn't create the prison in Gitmo. The idea that your loss of
> rights is based on personalities misses what is really happening.
But that isnt the idea. And the issues of gitmo and the US detaining
terrorists (or alleged terorists) is quite different from allowing an
organization that is not subject to US law or US elections the power to act
in the same manner within the US. That's just international tyranny.
> Do
> you think that McCain or Palin wouldn't have signed the amended
> extension?
No. Especially not Palin.
> Would you then see it as the rightwing standing up to the
> terrorists?
Again, no.
> We're at war. Whether that manifests itself as invading
> other countries or rounding up the usual suspects and dropping them in
> a deep freeze, it's only a matter of degrees. If your real issue is
> that "international" forces now have been granted protection from
> oversight in the US, well, welcome to the New World Order.
The point is to reject that "New World Order". Duh.
william
>
> But that isnt the idea. And the issues of gitmo and the US detaining
> terrorists (or alleged terorists) is quite different from allowing an
> organization that is not subject to US law or US elections the power to act
> in the same manner within the US. That's just international tyranny.
"Tyranny"? That's ridiculous hyperbole. As Reagan might say, "There
you go again."
>
> > Do
> > you think that McCain or Palin wouldn't have signed the amended
> > extension?
>
> No. Especially not Palin.
Bullshit.
> >
> > We're at war. Whether that manifests itself as invading
> > other countries or rounding up the usual suspects and dropping them in
> > a deep freeze, it's only a matter of degrees. If your real issue is
> > that "international" forces now have been granted protection from
> > oversight in the US, well, welcome to the New World Order.
>
> The point is to reject that "New World Order". Duh.
You can get clever with "Duh" all you want. However, from what I've
read of your politics -- I mean, you're a guy who would close the
libraries of the US to let market forces fill the void -- you are the
New World Order. What do you think the Bush(s) years were all about?
You do not inspire me with the feeling that you care about anybody's
right with the exception of Imperial America. The idea of amending the
executive order rankles your isolationist steak. The whole Obama and
"tyranny" is smoke. The US acts with impunity in most other countries.
Does "extrodinary rendition" ring a bell? The US has CIA and FBI
offices in most foreign capitals and other large foreign cities. Do
you those local goverments can subpeona or search secret files? Get
real.
William
www.williamahearn.com
Sir Blob
(bingo)
steve
On 4-Jan-2010, william <wlah...@gmail.com> wrote:
> > But that isnt the idea. �And the issues of gitmo and the US detaining
> > terrorists (or alleged terorists) is quite different from allowing an
> > organization that is not subject to US law or US elections the power to
> > act
> > in the same manner within the US. �That's just international tyranny.
>
> "Tyranny"? That's ridiculous hyperbole. As Reagan might say, "There
> you go again."
It is an unrestrained exercize of power, i.e. tyranny.
> > > Do
> > > you think that McCain or Palin wouldn't have signed the amended
> > > extension?
> >
> > No. �Especially not Palin.
>
> Bullshit.
Well...why would you assert that they would dream up the same amendment to
the exec order as BHO? Palin is a Reaganite, and RR was careful to exclude
the provisions that BHO summarily removed. The amendment is contrary to
Palin's stated philosophy and would only offend her supporters (like
me)...so why would she go there? Your assertion is unfounded speculation
and contrary to the evidence.
As for McCain, his innate sense of notional sovereignty would probably not
allow it...but he's harder to predict.
> > The point is to reject that "New World Order". � Duh.
>
> You can get clever with "Duh" all you want. However, from what I've
> read of your politics -- I mean, you're a guy who would close the
> libraries of the US to let market forces fill the void -- you are the
> New World Order.
How do you extrapolate a belief in limited constitutional govt (my
philosophy) into allowing interpol to operate unrestrained in the US? It
doesnt follow, and it isnt my NWO...not by a long shot.
> The idea of amending the
> executive order rankles your isolationist steak. The whole Obama and
> "tyranny" is smoke. The US acts with impunity in most other countries.
> Does "extrodinary rendition" ring a bell? The US has CIA and FBI
> offices in most foreign capitals and other large foreign cities. Do
> you those local goverments can subpeona or search secret files? Get
> real.
Unlike many libertarians, Im not an isolationist. The US has a right to
defend itself against aggressors, as does any legitimate govt (and
legitimacy is a matter of degree). That can (and does) include the use of
force, including efforts to thwart developing terrorist plots against the US
where ever they may exist.
You cant draw a moral equivalence between most of the world and the US
because most of the world's govts are not sufficiently legitimate
(respectful of liberty). That is why we can act internationally with
legitimacy whereas most govts cannot. And those govts that are suficiently
legitimate can count on our cooperation if they are threatened from within
the US, which obviates the need (and, consequently, the legitimacy) for them
to act within our borders on thier own.
David Oberman
>I seriously wonder what woud happen if a state were to secede. Would the
>remaining states tolerate military action against the secessionist? Would
>other states follow?
Probably would depend on the state, in most citizens' view. Nevada,
for example ... nobody else would care whether the military invaded
Nevada.
AZ Nomad
>On Jan 3, 5:03?pm, David Oberman <DavidOber...@att.net> wrote:
>> On Sun, 3 Jan 2010 19:53:08 GMT, "steve" <st...@steve.com> wrote:
>> >And now I wonder why no one is commenting on BHO granting Interpol power
>> >scandal.
>>
>> I don't want an international entity governing my personal affairs!
>> What can I do?
>Secede...
never heard of the civil war?
steve
On 4-Jan-2010, David Oberman <DavidO...@att.net> wrote:
> Probably would depend on the state, in most citizens' view. Nevada,
> for example ... nobody else would care whether the military invaded
> Nevada.
...and the military would be occupied with hookers and gambling, so no
fighting would ensue.
David Oberman
>
>On 4-Jan-2010, David Oberman <DavidO...@att.net> wrote:
>
>> Probably would depend on the state, in most citizens' view. Nevada,
>> for example ... nobody else would care whether the military invaded
>> Nevada.
>
>...and the military would be occupied with hookers and gambling, so no
>fighting would ensue.
What gets me is when people say that our prisons are overcrowded.
Anyone who has ever driven I-80 across northern Nevada knows that
there is PLENTY of room for building more prisons.
The whole state ought to just be our Prison State.
william
>
> > "Tyranny"? That's ridiculous hyperbole. As Reagan might say, "There
> > you go again."
>
> It is an unrestrained exercize of power, i.e. tyranny.
Silly, silly hyperbole.
>
> > > No. Especially not Palin.
>
> > Bullshit.
>
> Well...why would you assert that they would dream up the same amendment to
> the exec order as BHO? Palin is a Reaganite, and RR was careful to exclude
> the provisions that BHO summarily removed. The amendment is contrary to
> Palin's stated philosophy and would only offend her supporters (like
> me)...so why would she go there? Your assertion is unfounded speculation
> and contrary to the evidence.
What makes you think he dreamed it up? Reagan lived in a different era
so that argument is out the window. Palin is also a politician and
what you assert is unfounded speculation as well.
>
>
> How do you extrapolate a belief in limited constitutional govt (my
> philosophy) into allowing interpol to operate unrestrained in the US? It
> doesnt follow, and it isnt my NWO...not by a long shot.
Your assesment of both is the same distance from Earth. That's how I
confused them. And it allows you to avoid the issue.
>
> > The idea of amending the
> > executive order rankles your isolationist steak. The whole Obama and
> > "tyranny" is smoke. The US acts with impunity in most other countries.
> > Does "extrodinary rendition" ring a bell? The US has CIA and FBI
> > offices in most foreign capitals and other large foreign cities. Do
> > you those local goverments can subpeona or search secret files? Get
> > real.
>
> Unlike many libertarians, Im not an isolationist. The US has a right to
> defend itself against aggressors, as does any legitimate govt (and
> legitimacy is a matter of degree). That can (and does) include the use of
> force, including efforts to thwart developing terrorist plots against the US
> where ever they may exist.
That doesn't follow at all. You're again avoiding the issue.
>
> You cant draw a moral equivalence between most of the world and the US
> because most of the world's govts are not sufficiently legitimate
> (respectful of liberty). That is why we can act internationally with
> legitimacy whereas most govts cannot. And those govts that are suficiently
> legitimate can count on our cooperation if they are threatened from within
> the US, which obviates the need (and, consequently, the legitimacy) for them
> to act within our borders on thier own.
Now that sums you up and shows you more Kissinger than patriot. The
above was the same logic used to overthrow legitimately elected
governments such as Mossadegh and Allende. As far as I'm concerned,
the above is the justification for a fascistic view toward the rest of
the world. "Moral" indeed. Now there's a yardstick that measures the
distance from the lesser human's nose to the end of a gun barrel. What
you believe -- and disquised as libertarianism -- is the germ of
Empire. To separate the US from the rest of the world on "moral"
grounds for righteous behavior is too sick for me to indulge. Say what
you will, but in all honesty, I can't even take you seriously.
William
www.williamahearn.com
steve
On 4-Jan-2010, David Oberman <DavidO...@att.net> wrote:
> The whole state ought to just be our Prison State.
I suggest we wall off DC while congress is in session.
moviePig
> On Sun, 3 Jan 2010 20:55:40 -0800 (PST), moviePig <pwall...@moviepig.com> wrote:
> >On Jan 3, 5:03?pm, David Oberman <DavidOber...@att.net> wrote:
> >> On Sun, 3 Jan 2010 19:53:08 GMT, "steve" <st...@steve.com> wrote:
> >> >And now I wonder why no one is commenting on BHO granting Interpol power
> >> >over american lives. ?That, and not the trivial comments of a moron, is the
> >> >scandal.
>
> >> I don't want an international entity governing my personal affairs!
> >> What can I do?
> >Secede...
>
> never heard of the civil war?
That was a national secession. David's would be international...
steve
On 4-Jan-2010, william <wlah...@gmail.com> wrote:
> > It is an unrestrained exercize of power, i.e. tyranny.
>
> Silly, silly hyperbole.
OK, then...what is the restraint?
> > Well...why would you assert that they would dream up the same amendment
> > to
> > the exec order as BHO? �Palin is a Reaganite, and RR was careful to
> > exclude
> > the provisions that BHO summarily removed. �The amendment is contrary to
> > Palin's stated philosophy and would only offend her supporters (like
> > me)...so why would she go there? �Your assertion is unfounded
> > speculation
> > and contrary to the evidence.
>
> What makes you think he dreamed it up?
Because he opened the issue and amended the exec order. It isnt as if the
amendment was passed to him by congress or urged by the public. It's in his
hands entirely. And he did it in such a way that media coverage would be
minimal, which suggests something less than noble in his motiovations.
> Reagan lived in a different era
> so that argument is out the window. Palin is also a politician and
> what you assert is unfounded speculation as well.
Speculation (which you opened), but not unfounded. It is founded in her
stated philosophy (at least).
> > How do you extrapolate a belief in limited constitutional govt (my
> > philosophy) into allowing interpol to operate unrestrained in the US?
> > �It
> > doesnt follow, and it isnt my NWO...not by a long shot.
>
> Your assesment of both is the same distance from Earth. That's how I
> confused them.
Uh, yea...very logical. I oppose govt spending on libraries, so I must be
in favor of allowing an international police force to operate with secrecy
and immunity in the US. How did I miss that connection?
> And it allows you to avoid the issue.
Huh?
> > Unlike many libertarians, Im not an isolationist. �The US has a right to
> > defend itself against aggressors, as does any legitimate govt (and
> > legitimacy is a matter of degree). �That can (and does) include the use
> > of
> > force, including efforts to thwart developing terrorist plots against
> > the US
> > where ever they may exist.
>
> That doesn't follow at all. You're again avoiding the issue.
It does follow... and what issue am I avoiding? We dont speak the same
language, obviously.
> > You cant draw a moral equivalence between most of the world and the US
> > because most of the world's govts are not sufficiently legitimate
> > (respectful of liberty). �That is why we can act internationally with
> > legitimacy whereas most govts cannot. �And those govts that are
> > suficiently
> > legitimate can count on our cooperation if they are threatened from
> > within
> > the US, which obviates the need (and, consequently, the legitimacy) for
> > them
> > to act within our borders on thier own.
>
> Now that sums you up and shows you more Kissinger than patriot. The
> above was the same logic used to overthrow legitimately elected
> governments such as Mossadegh and Allende. As far as I'm concerned,
> the above is the justification for a fascistic view toward the rest of
> the world.
Self protection is not fascism. If someone issues a threat against you or
your family, and you have him arrested, you are not acting as a fascist.
> "Moral" indeed. Now there's a yardstick that measures the
> distance from the lesser human's nose to the end of a gun barrel. What
> you believe -- and disquised as libertarianism -- is the germ of
> Empire.
Building an Empire requires overthrowing a people and occupying thier
country. That is very different from eliminating those who plot acts of
terrorism against our country. I dont know how you can equate the two. If
we were building an empire, we would have taken control of the oil in Iraq
and subjugated the people. You may have noticed that we didnt.
> Say what
> you will, but in all honesty, I can't even take you seriously.
Have you ever taken me seriously? I dont see evidence that you've
understood (or tried to understand) my philosophy, positions, and arguments.
Libraries imply interpol, for example. Bizarre. Licentious
misinterpretation.
william
>
> Because he opened the issue and amended the exec order. It isnt as if the
> amendment was passed to him by congress or urged by the public. It's in his
> hands entirely. And he did it in such a way that media coverage would be
> minimal, which suggests something less than noble in his motiovations.
Unfounded speculation as you would say. You don't know how it came to
him.
> >
> Speculation (which you opened), but not unfounded. It is founded in her
> stated philosophy (at least).
Was it in the statement "I can see Russia from my roof" or "I love to
shoot wolves from a helicopter"?
> >
> Uh, yea...very logical. I oppose govt spending on libraries, so I must be
> in favor of allowing an international police force to operate with secrecy
> and immunity in the US. How did I miss that connection?
But you do support both of those things. You said so yourself. And to
me both indicate that you're far from having a political belief that
has any "real" in it.
> >
> Self protection is not fascism. If someone issues a threat against you or
> your family, and you have him arrested, you are not acting as a fascist.
>
But you are basing those actions on perceived "moral" issues.
>
> Building an Empire requires overthrowing a people and occupying thier
> country. That is very different from eliminating those who plot acts of
> terrorism against our country. I dont know how you can equate the two. If
> we were building an empire, we would have taken control of the oil in Iraq
> and subjugated the people. You may have noticed that we didnt.
And you may have noticed that the 19th century view of empire has
passed and the 21st century view has to do with having the influence
through "other means" achieve the same ends. Then again, since your
whole philosophy seems trapped in the 19th century, I can see how it
might have escaped your piercing eye.
>
> > Say what
> > you will, but in all honesty, I can't even take you seriously.
>
> Have you ever taken me seriously? I dont see evidence that you've
> understood (or tried to understand) my philosophy, positions, and arguments.
> Libraries imply interpol, for example. Bizarre. Licentious
> misinterpretation.
What the library issue (and frankly, I'm embarrassed for you that you
skewed a philosophy that badly to suggest that NetFlix should replace
the libraries) and the Interpol issue show is a complete lack of
knowledge of the modern world. To suggest that Interpol has the same
right in the US as the FBI has in France or Italy or any number of
other places is tyranny (what a 19th century word) is just silly. We
can have tyranny but they can't because we're more moral isn't much of
an argument. You can quote Jackie Childs all you want, but it ain't me
babe that's bizarre. You're Billy Pilgrim, unstuck in time using the
language of patriots to cover your xenophobic "morality." However
articulate you might sound, underneath your "philosophy" sounds pretty
much like backwoods preachers going off on the revenooers.
William
www.williamahearn.com
steve
On 4-Jan-2010, william <wlah...@gmail.com> wrote:
> > Because he opened the issue and amended the exec order. �It isnt as if
> > the
> > amendment was passed to him by congress or urged by the public. �It's in
> > his
> > hands entirely. �And he did it in such a way that media coverage would
> > be
> > minimal, which suggests something less than noble in his motiovations.
>
> Unfounded speculation as you would say. You don't know how it came to
> him.
Well I do know it is his responsibility and not one thrust upon him. That
is the nature of an executive order.
> > Speculation (which you opened), but not unfounded. �It is founded in her
> > stated philosophy (at least).
>
> Was it in the statement "I can see Russia from my roof" or "I love to
> shoot wolves from a helicopter"?
LOL! In any case, it was you who started this pointless round of
speculation, so Im happy to end it. What is NOT speculation is that I would
be opposed to this exec order no matter who it came from, just as I was/am
opposed to the patriot act. Isnt that the issue?
> > Uh, yea...very logical. �I oppose govt spending on libraries, so I must
> > be
> > in favor of allowing an international police force to operate with
> > secrecy
> > and immunity in the US. �How did I miss that connection?
>
> But you do support both of those things. You said so yourself. And to
> me both indicate that you're far from having a political belief that
> has any "real" in it.
Hmmm...so when I say Im opposed to something, you conclude that I am for it.
Does it matter what I say?
> > Self protection is not fascism. �If someone issues a threat against you
> > or
> > your family, and you have him arrested, you are not acting as a fascist.
> >
> But you are basing those actions on perceived "moral" issues.
Exactly. What's the problem?
> > Building an Empire requires overthrowing a people and occupying thier
> > country. �That is very different from eliminating those who plot acts of
> > terrorism against our country. �I dont know how you can equate the two.
> > �If
> > we were building an empire, we would have taken control of the oil in
> > Iraq
> > and subjugated the people. �You may have noticed that we didnt.
>
> And you may have noticed that the 19th century view of empire has
> passed and the 21st century view has to do with having the influence
> through "other means" achieve the same ends. Then again, since your
> whole philosophy seems trapped in the 19th century, I can see how it
> might have escaped your piercing eye.
Much of what has come to be accepted as truth and wisdom in the 20th (and
now 21st) century is just plain wrong. So I'm happy not to join in the
nonsense.
> What the library issue (and frankly, I'm embarrassed for you that you
> skewed a philosophy that badly to suggest that NetFlix should replace
> the libraries) and the Interpol issue show is a complete lack of
> knowledge of the modern world.
You persist in these vague objections. They have no substance and cannot be
addressed.
> To suggest that Interpol has the same
> right in the US as the FBI has in France or Italy or any number of
> other places is tyranny (what a 19th century word) is just silly. We
> can have tyranny but they can't because we're more moral isn't much of
> an argument.
Self protection is our right, and it is practiced with the limitations of
our political system and our defensible moral outlook. We cannot say the
same of most other countries and therefor cannot allow them the leeway that
we ourselves practice in those countries where the domestic govt is either
hostile to us or incompetent to route out the offenders. That is the
practical reality of effective self defense.
> You can quote Jackie Childs all you want,
Who?
> You're Billy Pilgrim, unstuck in time using the
> language of patriots to cover your xenophobic "morality." However
> articulate you might sound, underneath your "philosophy" sounds pretty
> much like backwoods preachers going off on the revenooers.
Again, vague characterizations of me. Not an argument.
And whats wrong with "going off on the revenooers"?
Francis A. Miniter
> Then this executive order should have you screaming about BHO "shredding the
> constitution".
>
> http://www.pipelinenews.org/index.cfm?page=orderdec1209.htm
>
> http://www.whitehouse.gov/the-press-office/executive-order-amending-executive-order-12425
>
> http://en.wikisource.org/wiki/Executive_Order_12425
>
> http://townhall.com/columnists/FloydandMaryBethBrown/2010/01/01/obama_executive_order_alters_your_legal_protections?page=full&comments=true
>
> I just want to make the leftys in this NG aware of BHOs latest assault on
> our civil liberties.
>
> HNY
> steve
I have read your right-wing interpretations of this order
and the connection with signing up for the ICC seems far
fetched. INTERPOL now has the same privileges as about 60
other international organizations. This is no big deal.
The right has to really stretch these days to make news.
And no, it has nothing to do with the ICC. Anyone who knows
anything about international law, and clearly the pundits of
the Right do not, knows that you cannot sneak into a
convention or treaty.
--
Francis A. Miniter
Oscuramente
libros, laminas, llaves
siguen mi suerte.
Jorge Luis Borges, La Cifra Haiku, 6
Invid Fan
wrote:
> Self protection is our right, and it is practiced with the limitations of
> our political system and our defensible moral outlook. We cannot say the
> same of most other countries and therefor cannot allow them the leeway that
> we ourselves practice in those countries where the domestic govt is either
> hostile to us or incompetent to route out the offenders. That is the
> practical reality of effective self defense.
>
So nations that feel the US isn't morally superior should use that same
logic on us, right? And we can't object because we agree with the
reasoning used anymore then you probably think other nations should
object to what the US does.
--
Chris Mack "If we show any weakness, the monsters will get cocky!"
'Invid Fan' - 'Yokai Monsters Along With Ghosts'
steve
On 4-Jan-2010, Invid Fan <in...@loclanet.com> wrote:
> > Self protection is our right, and it is practiced with the limitations
> > of
> > our political system and our defensible moral outlook. We cannot say
> > the
> > same of most other countries and therefor cannot allow them the leeway
> > that
> > we ourselves practice in those countries where the domestic govt is
> > either
> > hostile to us or incompetent to route out the offenders. That is the
> > practical reality of effective self defense.
> >
> So nations that feel the US isn't morally superior should use that same
> logic on us, right? And we can't object because we agree with the
> reasoning used anymore then you probably think other nations should
> object to what the US does.
Not quite. I dont care if they object, any more than I care if a thief
objects when they catch him and lock him up. All claims are not equally
valid, and it isnt the mere claim that compells the conclusion. We
should/must assert ourselves with confidence in our moral judgement, and
reject similar claims when we find them lacking. Justice is not possible
without the exercise of judgement and the drawing of relevant distinctions.
In short, there are moral absolutes.
moviePig
> On 4-Jan-2010, Invid Fan <in...@loclanet.com> wrote:
>
> > > Self protection is our right, and it is practiced with the limitations
> > > of
> > > our political system and our defensible moral outlook. We cannot say
> > > the
> > > same of most other countries and therefor cannot allow them the leeway
> > > that
> > > we ourselves practice in those countries where the domestic govt is
> > > either
> > > hostile to us or incompetent to route out the offenders. That is the
> > > practical reality of effective self defense.
>
> > So nations that feel the US isn't morally superior should use that same
> > logic on us, right? And we can't object because we agree with the
> > reasoning used anymore then you probably think other nations should
> > object to what the US does.
>
> Not quite. I dont care if they object, any more than I care if a thief
> objects when they catch him and lock him up. All claims are not equally
> should/must assert ourselves with confidence in our moral judgement, and
> reject similar claims when we find them lacking. Justice is not possible
> without the exercise of judgement and the drawing of relevant distinctions.
> In short, there are moral absolutes.
Morals that are absolutely relative, anyway...
steve
On 4-Jan-2010, moviePig <pwal...@moviepig.com> wrote:
> > Not quite. �I dont care if they object, any more than I care if a thief
> > objects when they catch him and lock him up. �All claims are not equally
> > valid, and it isnt the mere claim that compels the conclusion. �We
> > should/must assert ourselves with confidence in our moral judgement, and
> > reject similar claims when we find them lacking. �Justice is not
> > possible
> > without the exercise of judgement and the drawing of relevant
> > distinctions.
> > In short, there are moral absolutes.
>
> Morals that are absolutely relative, anyway...
Helpful as usual, Pigman.
--
"It is error alone which needs the support of government. Truth can stand by
itself."
Thomas Jefferson
william
> > But you are basing those actions on perceived "moral" issues.
>
> Exactly. What's the problem?
>
Several things. First, as much as we like to believe otherwise,
"moral" isn't a stagnant concept. Second, it's a religious rather than
legal concept centered on "right" or "correct" behavior. You may think
that having the libraries close as the result of suspending coercive
taxation is moral but you'll never convince me it's "right." At best,
"moral" is ambiguous and while that squishiness covers all manner of
sins, a foreign policy it does not make. One would have to be
completely deluded to think modern politics can be conducted on a
"moral" basis. Whose morality would we use? Steve's Super Whoopass
Morality now available in cans? You will undoubtably suggest that I'm
not making an argument here. The fact is, "moral" foreign policy is a
oxymoron because all morality is local.
William
www.williamahearn.com
steve
On 4-Jan-2010, william <wlah...@gmail.com> wrote:
> Several things. First, as much as we like to believe otherwise,
> "moral" isn't a stagnant concept. Second, it's a religious rather than
> legal concept centered on "right" or "correct" behavior. You may think
> that having the libraries close as the result of suspending coercive
> taxation is moral but you'll never convince me it's "right." At best,
> "moral" is ambiguous and while that squishiness covers all manner of
> sins, a foreign policy it does not make. One would have to be
> completely deluded to think modern politics can be conducted on a
> "moral" basis. Whose morality would we use? Steve's Super Whoopass
> Morality now available in cans? You will undoubtably suggest that I'm
> not making an argument here. The fact is, "moral" foreign policy is a
> oxymoron because all morality is local.
A lot of territory to cover, here, and Im about to shut down my computer for
the day. For the moment, suffice it to say that I believe that there is
only one morality that is internally consistent and positive for man
(positive meaning, at a minimum, conducive to survival). And it is not
based on religion (Im an atheist, anyway). And, of course, I do believe
morality is a static concept.
Further, if you believe morality and/or truth is relative, then I'll ask by
what standard can you compell any behavior (e.g. proscribe such things as
rape and murder)? After all, if the rapist/muderer doesnt find his behavior
immoral, and there is no moral absolute, then how can you have the moral
power to impose your judgement upon him?
If I have time, I'll lay my moral argyument out for you tomorrow.
steve
moviePig
> On 4-Jan-2010, moviePig <pwall...@moviepig.com> wrote:
>
> > > Not quite. I dont care if they object, any more than I care if a thief
> > > objects when they catch him and lock him up. All claims are not equally
> > > valid, and it isnt the mere claim that compels the conclusion. We
> > > should/must assert ourselves with confidence in our moral judgement, and
> > > reject similar claims when we find them lacking. Justice is not
> > > possible
> > > without the exercise of judgement and the drawing of relevant
> > > distinctions.
> > > In short, there are moral absolutes.
>
> > Morals that are absolutely relative, anyway...
>
> Helpful as usual, Pigman.
You floated a succinct, axiomatic declaration ...and I knew you'd
appreciate an almost equally succinct contradicting quip. (Also,
don't be hasty... its "helpful" aspects might be timed-release...)
william
>
> Further, if you believe morality and/or truth is relative, then I'll ask by
> what standard can you compell any behavior (e.g. proscribe such things as
> rape and murder)? After all, if the rapist/muderer doesnt find his behavior
> immoral, and there is no moral absolute, then how can you have the moral
> power to impose your judgement upon him?
>
behavior. What occurs isn't in the mind of the rapist. It happens on
the body of the victim. Who cares why he did it? Are you so lost in
your philosophy that you think a destructive act can be mitigated by
some thought? You can think slavery is acceptable all day long. The
minute you come my way with a chain I'm gonna knock your ass down.
We're talking about destructive or fatal overt and physical acts and
you're up in the clouds mumbling about relatavistic truths. This stuff
isn't hard when you use ridiculous examples to bolster your argument.
William
www.williamahearn.com
Sir Blob
unproductive crap. i looked back and, my, no wonder he bemuses me as
the proust of the abramovich mao-reagan soviet
''Im actually a pretty smart guy, Tony. Surprised you havent caught
on to
that, yet. Havent you ever asked yourself "Self, oh tortured
miserable
self, ...just why is it that steve, with no formal film classes and no
borderline worthless liberal arts education, likes the cool movies?"
Or how
about "Why is steve so politically astute and so uncompromisingly
libertarian while my politics are just a jumble of nonsense?" or even
"Why
oh why cant I, Tony Spadaro, be as cool as lower case steve?"
Of course, I could be a poser...but then I wouldn't trash so many of
the
supposed great films. Nope. Should be obvious to anyone who's paying
attention that I think for myself.
And while Ive got your attention, Tony, name one film cooler than "The
Testament of Dr Mabuse".
OK, now name one Ive probably heard of and maybe even seen. ''
post number 6 is absolutely hilarious, trying to one-up so called
spadaro, and then ranting with the most amusing stuff about poseurs
and liberal arts education.
lower case blob
'politically astute and uncompromisingly liberatarian'
Uncle Arnold
> On Sun, 03 Jan 2010 14:03:33 -0800, David Oberman
> <DavidO...@att.net> wrote:
>
>> I don't want an international entity governing my personal affairs!
>> What can I do?
>
>
You idiots didn't 'vote for change'. You voted for *re-branding*. As you
always fucking do.
A.
David Oberman
<sirb...@hotmail.com> wrote:
>i love the way the new ones always fall for stewe's trolls and
>unproductive crap. i looked back and, my, no wonder he bemuses me as
>the proust of the abramovich mao-reagan soviet
>
>http://groups.google.es/group/rec.arts.movies.past-films/browse_frm/thread/f066cf929261dde5/5a0c27544c41f39b?hl=es&q=who+is+monsieurblob#5a0c27544c41f39b
That's a fantastic thread. Boy, we sure knew how to have fun in this
group all those years ago.
A lot of guys were just making fun of steve for being an opinionated
individualist. That's not fair to him. People gang up on him for all
sorts of reasons, from his non-liberal arts schooling to his English
to his coolness & earthiness. It all puts me in mind of John Simon's
estimation of Pauline Kael:
"The key to Miss Kael's critical persona seems to be this: she is an
intelligent, gifted lowbrow, who does not really fit in anywhere along
the cultural scale. She despises the middlebrows, does not feel
comfortable with the highbrows (not sharing their background, tastes,
& erudition), & is clearly too good for the lowbrows. This throws her
back on her own resources, her own alleged superiority to all
categories ..."
But I hope steve has had some reconsideration about Claude-Achille
Debussy! I realize that not everyone can be everyone's cup of brew,
but surely he can find something by Debussy to enjoy!
David Oberman
wrote:
>>> I don't want an international entity governing my personal affairs!
>>> What can I do?
>>
>> Vote for change? Oh, we already tried that. Didn't work.
>>
>You idiots didn't 'vote for change'. You voted for *re-branding*. As you
>always fucking do.
Don't blame me -- I didn't vote at all!
Sir Blob
> On Mon, 4 Jan 2010 19:51:30 -0800 (PST), Sir Blob
>
> >i love the way the new ones always fall for stewe's trolls and
> >unproductive crap. i looked back and, my, no wonder he bemuses me as
> >the proust of the abramovich mao-reagan soviet
>
>
> That's a fantastic thread. Boy, we sure knew how to have fun in this
> group all those years ago.
>
> A lot of guys were just making fun of steve for being an opinionated
> individualist. That's not fair to him. People gang up on him for all
> sorts of reasons, from his non-liberal arts schooling to his English
> to his coolness & earthiness. It all puts me in mind of John Simon's
> estimation of Pauline Kael:
>
> "The key to Miss Kael's critical persona seems to be this: she is an
> intelligent, gifted lowbrow, who does not really fit in anywhere along
> the cultural scale. She despises the middlebrows, does not feel
> comfortable with the highbrows (not sharing their background, tastes,
> & erudition), & is clearly too good for the lowbrows. This throws her
> back on her own resources, her own alleged superiority to all
> categories ..."
>
> But I hope steve has had some reconsideration about Claude-Achille
> Debussy! I realize that not everyone can be everyone's cup of brew,
> but surely he can find something by Debussy to enjoy!
>
> _______
>
> Every revolution evaporates & leaves behind
> only the slime of a new bureaucracy.
>
> -- Kafka
i know u've taken a liking for the michael medvedesque idiot self
labelling smart guy but as spadaro saith, it takes 4 lower case
steve's to make 1 gaza, 4 times 15, see?
David Oberman
<sirb...@hotmail.com> wrote:
>i know u've taken a liking for the michael medvedesque idiot self
>labelling smart guy but as spadaro saith, it takes 4 lower case
>steve's to make 1 gaza, 4 times 15, see?
I know, I know.
Say, did you ever read Adorno's book on Beethoven?
Sir Blob
> On Mon, 4 Jan 2010 22:21:27 -0800 (PST), Sir Blob
>
> >i know u've taken a liking for the michael medvedesque idiot self
> >labelling smart guy but as spadaro saith, it takes 4 lower case
> >steve's to make 1 gaza, 4 times 15, see?
>
> I know, I know.
> Say, did you ever read Adorno's book on Beethoven?
no.
i just spent the last half hour looking for a link from early
noughties of a guy asking me who i was and why i was defending him and
me asking who the hell he was and quoting marx, allen and such. i had
the link an hour ago. damn.
steve
On 4-Jan-2010, Sir Blob <sirb...@hotmail.com> wrote:
> i love the way the new ones always fall for stewe's trolls and
> unproductive crap. i looked back and, my, no wonder he bemuses me as
> the proust of the abramovich mao-reagan soviet
>
> http://groups.google.es/group/rec.arts.movies.past-films/browse_frm/thread/f066cf929261dde5/5a0c27544c41f39b?hl=es&q=who+is+monsieurblob#5a0c27544c41f39b
Is this thread supposed to make me look bad, Blob-meister? I think it makes
me out to be a pretty cool guy. To wit (from post 42):
******************************************************************************************
Dude, how about (for a quick and definitive example) the very opening of
"Rite". The distant bassoon playing the simplest of motifs; outlining one
minor chord and descending on the first three notes of a minor scale. It is
simplicity, it's organic, it is centered, earthy, and it cries out to my
primal self. That piece of music probes the depths of my soul in much the
same way that Coltrane does in "Transition".
> soulfulness requires a sense of serenity, a certain emotional roundness
> at the center, a deep slumbering core.
What? That's soulful to you? Definitional, I guess. Since we might agree
that "soul" is a figurative term (i.e. man has no actual soul) referring to
mans essence... unless you adhere to some religious interpretation... then
soulful is that which invokes our essence... our primal nature. There is no
serenity in that. More like a pot ready to boil. Mans soul is a dark place
full of violence and danger and Stravinsky takes you on a guided tour. As
Ive suggested to you before, Tony, chew on a little raw meat once in a
while. Man is not made in Gods image.
******************************************************************************************
Yea...that steve is one cool dude!
steve
You've missed the point, willilam (and I dont see any chance that it's
sarcasm, this time). Im challenging the notion of moral relativism by
asking you about something that is universally (almost) considered immoral.
The point is that you cant claim morality is relative while also imposing
moral judgements. You cant kustify locking up the rapist/murderer for his
moral transgressions because relativism is everyones escape hatch. If there
is no universal morality, you cant claim that rape and murder are immoral.
OTOH, I have stated clearly that I believe morality is absolute, and I can
justify locking the bastards away. I hope that's clear.
As for my moral treatise, I think I'll take a cue from Blob and scare up the
discussion I had with Pig-man where I lay it all out...if google groups
search is working (it's given me trouble from time to time).
steve
william
>
> OTOH, I have stated clearly that I believe morality is absolute, and I can
> justify locking the bastards away. I hope that's clear.
>
And if you want to think you have the absolute answer, go for it. But
spare me. I never claimed anything about "morality." I don't accept
morality. My example isn't based on morality. That's where you miss
the point. You believe that you create the context and everyone must
respond as such. What you're playing is a game, a dishonest game.
Answer? You don't even know the question. You can have the last word.
I'm done with this.
William
www.williamahearn.com
steve
On 4-Jan-2010, David Oberman <DavidO...@att.net> wrote:
> But I hope steve has had some reconsideration about Claude-Achille
> Debussy! I realize that not everyone can be everyone's cup of brew,
> but surely he can find something by Debussy to enjoy!
Actually, Dober, I like Debussy. I just dont put him in the same category
as the great Stravinski (a small category...maybe just the one guy). That
probably got lost in the discussion. I played several Debussy piano pieces
in high school (well known stuff...one relied heavily on three against two
as it delicately outlined a major 7 or major 9 chord in a sharp key...any
chance you know the peice Im talking about. "Arabesque" or something. Im
sure I still have the music in a box in the cellar.). But I find that stuff
too ethereal to get excited about.
steve
On 5-Jan-2010, william <wlah...@gmail.com> wrote:
> No, it isn't. And that's fine. I think you're lost in your own fog.
> And if you want to think you have the absolute answer, go for it. But
> spare me. I never claimed anything about "morality." I don't accept
> morality. My example isn't based on morality. That's where you miss
> the point. You believe that you create the context and everyone must
> respond as such. What you're playing is a game, a dishonest game.
> Answer? You don't even know the question. You can have the last word.
> I'm done with this.
OK. Here's my last word.
I dont get you, william. If there is no morality, then it's all just
pleasure and pain; just different factions imposing thier will by force.
You cant get around that simply by saying that it isnt about morality. This
is a problem of the left; that they deliver moral judgements while
denouncing morality as a concept. The obvious contradiction somewhow evades
them. Im not playing a dishonest game. It's the moral relativists who are
fundamentally dishonest. To be sure, morality isnt a game of any sort.
Nothing could be more serious, in fact.
steve
moviePig
> On 5-Jan-2010, william <wlahe...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> > No, it isn't. And that's fine. I think you're lost in your own fog.
> > And if you want to think you have the absolute answer, go for it. But
> > spare me. I never claimed anything about "morality." I don't accept
> > morality. My example isn't based on morality. That's where you miss
> > the point. You believe that you create the context and everyone must
> > respond as such. What you're playing is a game, a dishonest game.
> > Answer? You don't even know the question. You can have the last word.
> > I'm done with this.
>
> OK. Here's my last word.
>
> I dont get you, william. If there is no morality, then it's all just
> pleasure and pain; just different factions imposing thier will by force.
> You cant get around that simply by saying that it isnt about morality. This
> is a problem of the left; that they deliver moral judgements while
> denouncing morality as a concept. The obvious contradiction somewhow evades
> them. Im not playing a dishonest game. It's the moral relativists who are
> fundamentally dishonest. To be sure, morality isnt a game of any sort.
> Nothing could be more serious, in fact.
One more 'last word', a digressive one, just to satisfy my curiosity:
since I presume that 'moral authority' comes from somewhere, I wonder
where you, an atheist, think that might be...
steve
On 5-Jan-2010, moviePig <pwal...@moviepig.com> wrote:
> One more 'last word', a digressive one, just to satisfy my curiosity:
> since I presume that 'moral authority' comes from somewhere, I wonder
> where you, an atheist, think that might be...
A combination of reason and compassion. Morality should serve man (by
definition, one might say), and it must be logically consistent.
You and I have been over this ground in excruciating detail, PM. In fact I
was going to google one of our discussions for william to avoid a lot of
typing. It was the discussion where you eventually asked me to define
morality itself (rather than expound on my own specific morality). Recall
that thread?
moviePig
> On 5-Jan-2010, moviePig <pwall...@moviepig.com> wrote:
>
> > One more 'last word', a digressive one, just to satisfy my curiosity:
> > since I presume that 'moral authority' comes from somewhere, I wonder
> > where you, an atheist, think that might be...
>
> A combination of reason and compassion. Morality should serve man (by
> definition, one might say), and it must be logically consistent.
>
> You and I have been over this ground in excruciating detail, PM. In fact I
> was going to google one of our discussions for william to avoid a lot of
> typing. It was the discussion where you eventually asked me to define
> morality itself (rather than expound on my own specific morality). Recall
> that thread?
Not well enough, probably. But maybe that's good...
You seem to be saying here that Morality arises from Man, as though
that were somehow different from 'men'... or, effectively, from
'god'...
steve
On 5-Jan-2010, moviePig <pwal...@moviepig.com> wrote:
> You seem to be saying here that Morality arises from Man
Of course.
> as though
> that were somehow different from 'men'... or, effectively, from
> 'god'...
What?
moviePig
> On 5-Jan-2010, moviePig <pwall...@moviepig.com> wrote:
>
> > You seem to be saying here that Morality arises from Man
>
> Of course.
>
> > as though
> > that were somehow different from 'men'... or, effectively, from
> > 'god'...
>
> What?
Morality that comes from men, notoriously fickle and inconstant, is
necessarily mutable and relative. Morality that comes from Man, as an
ineluctable blueprint within his species, must have divine origin
beyond Darwin's primordial ooze...
steve
On 5-Jan-2010, moviePig <pwal...@moviepig.com> wrote:
> Morality that comes from men, notoriously fickle and inconstant, is
> necessarily mutable and relative. Morality that comes from Man, as an
> ineluctable blueprint within his species, must have divine origin
> beyond Darwin's primordial ooze...
I dont think there need be any divine origin. Man has a nature, and
morality should serve that nature. That's all I mean.
Gotta get some work done, today, PM.
steve
steve
interesting article (also addresses williams comments about my 19th century
attitudes).
"But certainly, for the 20th century, it is hard to escape the conclusion
that intellectuals have on net balance made the world a worse and more
dangerous place. "
David Oberman
>Actually, Dober, I like Debussy. I just dont put him in the same category
>as the great Stravinski (a small category...maybe just the one guy). That
>probably got lost in the discussion. I played several Debussy piano pieces
>in high school (well known stuff...one relied heavily on three against two
>as it delicately outlined a major 7 or major 9 chord in a sharp key...any
>chance you know the peice Im talking about. "Arabesque" or something. Im
>sure I still have the music in a box in the cellar.).
The 1st Arabesque (from a set). Hey, if you can play that on piano,
you must be pretty good! That's advanced beginner level (or beginning
intermediate level). I want to hear you play it! Can I?
>But I find that stuff
>too ethereal to get excited about.
That's very early Debussy, written in the late 1880s. Resting
Debussy's monumental reputation on the Arabesques would be like
resting Beethoven's reputation on the Bonn string trios or the Salieri
piano variations.
Explore mature Debussy!
steve
On 5-Jan-2010, David Oberman <DavidO...@att.net> wrote:
> >Actually, Dober, I like Debussy. I just dont put him in the same
> >category
> >as the great Stravinski (a small category...maybe just the one guy).
> >That
> >probably got lost in the discussion. I played several Debussy piano
> >pieces
> >in high school (well known stuff...one relied heavily on three against
> >two
> >as it delicately outlined a major 7 or major 9 chord in a sharp key...any
> >chance you know the peice Im talking about. "Arabesque" or something.
> >Im
> >sure I still have the music in a box in the cellar.).
>
> The 1st Arabesque (from a set). Hey, if you can play that on piano,
> you must be pretty good! That's advanced beginner level (or beginning
> intermediate level). I want to hear you play it! Can I?
I wasnt bad at one time, but havent played piano in 30 years.
> >But I find that stuff
> >too ethereal to get excited about.
>
> That's very early Debussy, written in the late 1880s. Resting
> Debussy's monumental reputation on the Arabesques would be like
> resting Beethoven's reputation on the Bonn string trios or the Salieri
> piano variations.
>
> Explore mature Debussy!
Well, that wasnt the only Deb Ive heard, but Im open to suggestion.
Whaddayagot?
David Oberman
>I wasnt bad at one time, but havent played piano in 30 years.
I want to hear it! Please, no excuses.
>Well, that wasnt the only Deb Ive heard, but Im open to suggestion.
>Whaddayagot?
I can't really suggest anything because I have no strong idea about
your tastes. Who are you, steve, & what makes you tick?
steve
On 5-Jan-2010, David Oberman <DavidO...@att.net> wrote:
> >I wasnt bad at one time, but havent played piano in 30 years.
>
> I want to hear it! Please, no excuses.
Excuses? No piano, no recording device, and no chops left. Other than
that...
I could send you an mp3 or two of me playing solo guitar (nervous and
stumbling, but my own arrangements). If you insist...
> >Well, that wasnt the only Deb Ive heard, but Im open to suggestion.
> >Whaddayagot?
>
> I can't really suggest anything because I have no strong idea about
> your tastes. Who are you, steve, & what makes you tick?
What? "Coolest guy in the NG" doesnt cover it? What else can I tell you?
moviePig
A piano prelude, 'The Engulfed Cathedral'. (Although Debussy placed
the title at the *end* of each prelude to avoid the mindset of
"programme music", this is maybe the most graphic impressionist piece
I know of -- depicting a legendary cathedral that annually rises
briefly from, and returns to, its watery grave.)
For virtuoso piano, 'L'isle Joyeuse'.
An orchestral suite, 'La Mer'.
(Debussy did good water.)
steve
On 5-Jan-2010, moviePig <pwal...@moviepig.com> wrote:
> A piano prelude, 'The Engulfed Cathedral'. (Although Debussy placed
> the title at the *end* of each prelude to avoid the mindset of
> "programme music", this is maybe the most graphic impressionist piece
> I know of -- depicting a legendary cathedral that annually rises
> briefly from, and returns to, its watery grave.)
>
> For virtuoso piano, 'L'isle Joyeuse'.
>
> An orchestral suite, 'La Mer'.
Hi PM:
Thanks. I listened to Cathedral and La Mer (on you-tube..so the sound
quality..isnt). The first was a nice contemplative piece of music, and with
better sound quality and a pensive mood, I might actually love it. La Mer
had me heading for the exit after 3 minutes (of a 7 minute clip...could that
be the whole piece?). Absolutely couldnt stand it. So my opinion of Claude
hasnt changed, basically. I appreciate but dont revere him.
steve
moviePig
> On 5-Jan-2010, moviePig <pwall...@moviepig.com> wrote:
>
> > A piano prelude, 'The Engulfed Cathedral'. (Although Debussy placed
> > the title at the *end* of each prelude to avoid the mindset of
> > "programme music", this is maybe the most graphic impressionist piece
> > I know of -- depicting a legendary cathedral that annually rises
> > briefly from, and returns to, its watery grave.)
>
> > For virtuoso piano, 'L'isle Joyeuse'.
>
> > An orchestral suite, 'La Mer'.
>
> Hi PM:
>
> Thanks. I listened to Cathedral and La Mer (on you-tube..so the sound
> quality..isnt). The first was a nice contemplative piece of music, and with
> better sound quality and a pensive mood, I might actually love it. La Mer
> had me heading for the exit after 3 minutes (of a 7 minute clip...could that
> be the whole piece?). Absolutely couldnt stand it. So my opinion of Claude
> hasnt changed, basically. I appreciate but dont revere him.
(Speaking of which, his 'Reverie' is also quite nice and playable
piano.)
Here's 'La Mer' on YouTube:
And here, from Wiki, are the titles of the three movements:
( http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/La_Mer_(Debussy) )
1. "From dawn to noon on the sea" or "From dawn to midday on the
sea"
2. "Play of the waves" or "Play the waves"
3. "Dialogue of the wind and the sea" or "Dialogue between wind and
waves"
It's probably non-purist to heed their imagery... but with them, fwiw,
I can reliably lose myself every time in Debussy's evocative rhythms
and tonalities here. (Lost at sea, as it were.) And, it did take me
a while -- long ago -- to become attached to this work, having become
accustomed to his more plainly lyrical staples.
Meanwhile, here's Horowitz playing 'L'isle Joyeuse'. Iirc, it's
"inspired" by a painting by Watteau called 'Voyage pour Cythere',
which depicts a bunch of giddy travelers sailing to an ocean paradise
of some sort. This short piece has one of the most satisfying
"payoffs" (harmonically, rhythmically) that I'm able to appreciate.
It blows me away whenever I hear it (...like just now).
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=XeBZT5_iEeA
Sir Blob
> On 5-Jan-2010, moviePig <pwall...@moviepig.com> wrote:
>
> > Morality that comes from men, notoriously fickle and inconstant, is
> > necessarily mutable and relative. Morality that comes from Man, as an
> > ineluctable blueprint within his species, must have divine origin
> > beyond Darwin's primordial ooze...
>
> I dont think there need be any divine origin. Man has a nature, and
> morality should serve that nature. That's all I mean.
>
in other words, stewe was speaking out of his arse again. his absolute
is the lalala dictionary in his upper cockhole and the disgusting
pretentiousness of his prose. yet again he rides into ontological
garbage to justify his funny fascinating fascism.
i mean, really, the thread starts with his ridiculous double standards
and ends in this? man, that thread from five years ago shows what a
proponent of statism and government he is; he's the same utter idiot
half a decade later!
Sir Blob
prefer to label you a retarded solipsist
On 5 ene, 17:34, "steve" <st...@steve.com> wrote:
> Before I get serious about work, PM, just thought Id tease you with this
> interesting article (also addresses williams comments about my 19th century
> attitudes).
>
> "But certainly, for the 20th century, it is hard to escape the conclusion
> that intellectuals have on net balance made the world a worse and more
> dangerous place. "
>
> http://townhall.com/columnists/ThomasSowell/2010/01/05/intellectuals_...
Jim Beaver
"steve" <st...@steve.com> wrote in message
news:t2J%m.7234$Sh7....@newsfe25.iad...
> Then this executive order should have you screaming about BHO "shredding
> the
> constitution".
"Shredding the constitution?" You've got to be kidding me.
Did you read anything besides right-wing freakout articles? Try
http://www.nytimes.com/2009/12/31/world/31interpol.html
Jim Beaver
steve
On 16-Feb-2010, "Jim Beaver" <jumb...@prodigy.spam> wrote:
> > Then this executive order should have you screaming about BHO "shredding
> > the
> > constitution".
>
> "Shredding the constitution?" You've got to be kidding me.
>
> Did you read anything besides right-wing freakout articles? Try
> http://www.nytimes.com/2009/12/31/world/31interpol.html
>
> Jim Beaver
Hi Jim:
In fact I read from the NY Times almost every day (I get thier headline
email in my inbox every morning), and I saw the article when it was current.
This is the defense/justification that both the left and right always use
for expansions of govt power; that it will not be abused and those who sound
the alarm are just hysterical. Im not persuaded, especially given BHOs (and
leftys in general) willingness to subject america to the wants and desires
of the rest of the world. That interpol may have responded to FOIA requests
in the past is no defense for immunity, as they may choose to ignore such
requests when it suits them. The US simply does not need to grant interpol
such immunities for them to perform any legitimate function, and so no such
immunities should be granted. The potential for abuse is there, and that is
the overriding issue.
steve
--
"It is no excuse for presumptuous ignorance, that it is directed by insolent
passion."
Edmund Burke.