More Verbal Strategery
Mark_R
> > Excuse me, but I'd like to put in my 2 cents...
> >
> > I can understand that many undereducated and unintelligent people may
> > find Bush to be a good, or at least competent President. They don't
> > know any better.
> >
> I am mildly offended by the implication that one must be undereducated
> and/or unintelligent to support Bush. I know many people who are both highly
> educated and highly intelligent who make an informed choice to support him..
I would have to agree with Lynn here. The only people voting for Bush
is either the "undereducated and/or unintelligent" or voting along a
party line (which falls under unintelligent). What good has Bush done?
Ted Zeal
I don't know. Over-throwing the Taliban, taking out Saddam, disrupting
Al-Qaeda, intimidating Libya into abandoning its nuclear aspirations and
just generally standing up to Islamo-fascism the world over seems like a
good start.
Joe
>From: "Ted Zeal" nam...@yahoo.com
>Date: 8/13/2004 1:17 PM Pacific Daylight Time
>Message-id: <Fl9Tc.24279$js3.9...@news4.srv.hcvlny.cv.net>
Lets not forget that he *hasn't* raised minimum wage, which is always good
because raising that leads to recession faster than Clinton can make a cigar
disappear
~~~~~~~
Joe.
I am just a figment of your imagination.
I am disappointed that you didn't do a better job.
Aaron Bergman
>
> Lets not forget that he *hasn't* raised minimum wage, which is always good
> because raising that leads to recession faster than Clinton can make a cigar
> disappear
The idea that raising the minimum wage leads to higher
unemployment has, as I understand it, been rather conclusively
disproven by a number of studies.
Aaron
--
Aaron Bergman
<http://zippy.ph.utexas.edu/~abergman/>
Kurt Montandon
wrote:
>Mark_R wrote:
>>>> Excuse me, but I'd like to put in my 2 cents...
>>>> I can understand that many undereducated and unintelligent people
>>>> may find Bush to be a good, or at least competent President. They
>>>> don't know any better.
>>>>
>>> I am mildly offended by the implication that one must be
>>> undereducated and/or unintelligent to support Bush. I know many
>>> people who are both highly educated and highly intelligent who make
>>> an informed choice to support him..
>>
>> I would have to agree with Lynn here. The only people voting for Bush
>> is either the "undereducated and/or unintelligent" or voting along a
>> party line (which falls under unintelligent). What good has Bush done?
>
>I don't know. Over-throwing the Taliban,
Haven't been paying much attention to Afghanistan lately, have we?
Don't worry, no one else is, either. Including the White House, btw.
>taking out Saddam,
And creating a failed-state in his wake, with the very distinct
possibility of fundamentalist religious rule within a decade. A
regime friendly to the Iranians, no less.
>disrupting Al-Qaeda,
When they aren't busy burning double agents ...
>intimidating Libya into abandoning its nuclear aspirations and
After twelve years of that oh-so-dirty word - "Negotiations," which
involved the dastardly French and the horrible, HORRIBLE U.N.
>just generally standing up to Islamo-fascism the world over
YM "Waging an un-neccessary but photo-op friendly war to satiate
simple minded people such as myself with pictures of bombs dropping."
We don't seem to be standing up to much of anything in, say,
Kazakhstan or Uzbekistan, or Afghanistan outside of Kabul.
--
Kurt Montandon
Ted Zeal
> On Fri, 13 Aug 2004 20:17:41 GMT, "Ted Zeal" <nam...@yahoo.com>
> wrote:
>> Mark_R wrote:
>>>>> Excuse me, but I'd like to put in my 2 cents...
>
>>>>> I can understand that many undereducated and unintelligent people
>>>>> may find Bush to be a good, or at least competent President. They
>>>>> don't know any better.
>>>>>
>>>> I am mildly offended by the implication that one must be
>>>> undereducated and/or unintelligent to support Bush. I know many
>>>> people who are both highly educated and highly intelligent who make
>>>> an informed choice to support him..
>>>
>>> I would have to agree with Lynn here. The only people voting for
>>> Bush is either the "undereducated and/or unintelligent" or voting
>>> along a party line (which falls under unintelligent). What good has
>>> Bush done?
>>
>> I don't know. Over-throwing the Taliban,
>
> Haven't been paying much attention to Afghanistan lately, have we?
>
> Don't worry, no one else is, either. Including the White House, btw.
Yes, I must have missed it when Mullah Omar returned triumphant into Kabul
with Bin Laden in his side-car.
>> taking out Saddam,
>
> And creating a failed-state in his wake, with the very distinct
> possibility of fundamentalist religious rule within a decade. A
> regime friendly to the Iranians, no less.
Iraq was a miserable failure of a state when Hussein was _in_ power. Or
what do you make of a nation in the hands of a brutal dictator who has
effective control over only 1/3 of the country?
>> disrupting Al-Qaeda,
>
> When they aren't busy burning double agents ...
I can only assume you are conceding the point
>> intimidating Libya into abandoning its nuclear aspirations and
>
> After twelve years of that oh-so-dirty word - "Negotiations," which
> involved the dastardly French and the horrible, HORRIBLE U.N.
Which I'm sure were just as effective as their 12 years of "negotiations"
with Saddam. I would be the first to applaud the French and the UN if I
thought they were interested in anything more than maintaining the status
quo and appeasing the Jihadis.
>> just generally standing up to Islamo-fascism the world over
>
> YM "Waging an un-neccessary but photo-op friendly war to satiate
> simple minded people such as myself with pictures of bombs dropping."
The war on terror is un-neccessary (sic)? Do tell. Or, I suppose you are
referring specifically to Iraq. I presume you think he was going to
voluntarily relinquish power into the hands of the Iraqi citizens, perhaps
at the behest of French and UN "negotiations." Or would you prefer that he
were still in power? That his even more brutal sons were next in line of
succession? Perhaps the war was strategically unnecessary. I defy you to
claim that is was morally wrong.
Joe
>Date: 8/13/2004 11:54 PM Pacific Daylight Time
>Message-id: <slrnchrdpe....@cardinal3.Stanford.EDU>
Hmm,
re·ces·sion
Pronunciation: ri-'se-sh&n
Function: noun
Date: circa 1652
1 : the act or action of receding : WITHDRAWAL
2 : a departing procession (as of clergy and choir at the end of a church
service)
3 : a period of reduced economic activity
- re·ces·sion·ary /-sh&-"ner-E/ adjective
Lets set up a scenario here.. Person A and B are working at a job. A has
shown hard work and is making $.30 more than minimum which is what person B is
making.. along comes a $.30 minimum wage increase. B is now on par with A for
nothing more than a regulation, whereas A's hardwork ultimately leads to
nothing.
Now, maybe Company 1 can only afford to have X amount of employees on a budget.
a $.30 increase x 50 employees is roughly $15 an hour extra over budget. In
order to keep from overspending, companies cut back on employees. Employees
become disatisfied because their hard earned raises are now moot because anyone
coming off the street can make the same amount.
Raising minimum wage forces employers to pay everyone a higher amount instead
of being able to reward loyal and capable employees with higher earnings.
Granted, people might feel that without a minimum wage they might get
exploited, but this is a free market.. if a company doesn't want to pay what
you want, move elsewhere.
Now, in places where wages are determined by profits - lets say retail. X
amount of income is put towards paying employees. Minimum wage just went up.
Employers have to compensate by either
A) Cutting back on emplyees, or
B) Raising prices of merchandise.
Now, what good is that gonvernmentally controlled increase in your pay, if
everything that you buy has just gone up to compensate for it?
Usually, the forced cost of living increase far outweighs the benefit of an
increase in minimum wage.
Now, sure there are studies that can prove that Minimum wage increases don't
lead to unemployment - but there are also studies that say the 405 freeway
doesn't suffer from excessive traffic from the hours of 3-7pm also. Statistics
are one of the easiest set of "fact" to manipulate
(Lets ask 1000 people a question.. Hmmmm, only 79 of 1000, 7.9%, answered
favorably. So.... lets say that we got the right answer from 79 out of 100
people asked, 79% - because in essence those 79 could have been in the last
group of 100 asked)
Aaron Davies
This is why it's become impossible to have reasoned discussions about
politics anymore. What the hell happened to discourse? Can't anyone on
your side disagree respectfully? Everyone I know on the right is
perfectly willing to assume that most liberals are honest and
intelligent but misguided, whereas the vast majority of leftists I run
into assume that conservatives are either stupid, evil, or both. It
boggles my mind how hard it is to have a discussion these days without
having it degenerate into a flamewar.
--
Aaron Davies
Opinions expressed are solely those of a random number generator.
"I don't know if it's real or not but it is a myth."
-Jami JoAnne of alt.folklore.urban, showing her grasp on reality.
Aaron Bergman
Snip many usual stories.
> Now, what good is that gonvernmentally controlled increase in your pay, if
> everything that you buy has just gone up to compensate for it?
>
> Usually, the forced cost of living increase far outweighs the benefit of an
> increase in minimum wage.
Cite? I can just as easily state that the demand side stimulus
due to the minimum wage increase things across the board.
I don't have a cite for that, though. I'm just making a provocative
statement. That's why I only made the statement about unemployment which
I got from a discussion on Brad DeLong's site.
> Now, sure there are studies that can prove that Minimum wage increases don't
> lead to unemployment - but there are also studies that say the 405 freeway
>doesn't suffer from excessive traffic from the hours of 3-7pm also. Statistics
> are one of the easiest set of "fact" to manipulate
That's just puerile.
Karl-Johan Noren
> Aaron Bergman aber...@physics.utexas.edu wrote:
>
> >The idea that raising the minimum wage leads to higher
> >unemployment has, as I understand it, been rather conclusively
> >disproven by a number of studies.
[ snip ]
> Lets set up a scenario here.. Person A and B are working at a job.
> A has shown hard work and is making $.30 more than minimum which is
> what person B is making.. along comes a $.30 minimum wage increase.
> B is now on par with A for nothing more than a regulation, whereas
> A's hardwork ultimately leads to nothing.
Except that economics isn't a zero-sum game, it's a fluid
dynamic one.
First, wages aren't normally set towards the government-set
minimum wage. They are set towards the cost of labour for
the given job. (We leave aside factors like capital-high and
capital-low production, where the former leads to higher
wages simply because the profit quota becomes lower.)
Minimum wage thus tend to be paid for unskilled labour, even
in undeveloped economies. In developed economies (since even
"unskilled labour" might imply plenty of skills, there's
simply no formal education, training or certificates for
it), even unskilled labour might very well be paid far over
the minimum wage, based on experience, efficiency et c.
Where the minimum wage tends to be used in developed
economies is places where it is deemed more profitable to
increase production by hiring more people instead of taking
measures to increase productivity, and where management
deems increases in employee productivity being less
important than other ways to increase profit.
Your entire assumption rests on that a large part of the
workforce has a wage of about 110% of the minimum wage. I
doubt there is any economy where that is true.
--
Karl-Johan Norén -- k...@postladan.se <-- New e-mail!
The snuggliest man on the net -- http://hem.passagen.se/kjnoren/
- To believe people are as stupid as one
believes is stupider than one can believe
edl
"Karl-Johan Noren" <k...@postladan.se> wrote in message
news:m21xi8n...@josefin.bahnhofbredband.se...
> First, wages aren't normally set towards the government-set
> minimum wage. They are set towards the cost of labour for
> the given job.
<snip>
> Where the minimum wage tends to be used in developed
> economies is places where it is deemed more profitable to
> increase production by hiring more people instead of taking
> measures to increase productivity, and where management
> deems increases in employee productivity being less
> important than other ways to increase profit.
Which I took to be the point of the guys' post. If you're operating a
business that does in fact scale pay based on the minimum wage and this wage
is increased, and if there is no commensurate increase in raw production to
offset the costs that this across the board wage increase incurs, havoc
ensues. Now whether this havoc takes the form of increased consumer prices,
reduced hiring, or layoffs is entirely situational... but in any case none
of those options seems all that palatable in an economic sense and all of
them appear to fairly neatly mitigate whatever benefit going from 5.75 to
6.15 (or what have you) may create, at least on a large-scale.
E.
Karl-Johan Noren
> "Karl-Johan Noren" <k...@postladan.se> wrote:
>
> > Where the minimum wage tends to be used in developed
> > economies is places where it is deemed more profitable to
> > increase production by hiring more people instead of taking
> > measures to increase productivity, and where management
> > deems increases in employee productivity being less
> > important than other ways to increase profit.
>
> Which I took to be the point of the guys' post. If you're operating a
> business that does in fact scale pay based on the minimum wage and this wage
> is increased, and if there is no commensurate increase in raw production to
> offset the costs that this across the board wage increase incurs, havoc
> ensues. Now whether this havoc takes the form of increased consumer prices,
> reduced hiring, or layoffs is entirely situational... but in any case none
> of those options seems all that palatable in an economic sense and all of
> them appear to fairly neatly mitigate whatever benefit going from 5.75 to
> 6.15 (or what have you) may create, at least on a large-scale.
You're assuming that the troubles a specific business is
getting due to increased minimum wages will spread to the
entire national economy.
This will only be true if a large fraction of the businesses
only pay the minimum wage (as in the government-mandated one,
not the cost of labour), in which case the national economics
are pretty much in trouble anyway, no matter what you do with
the minimum wages.
Bah. In developed economies with long-time success, the
trend is quite clear. Increased productivity is coupled with
increased wages, more days of vacation, shorter workdays et c
et c. Keeping wages low is simply a way to keep up profits
without doing anything to increase productivity. Such companies
deserve to disappear.
Just for the record. I deem minimum wages as a poor second
to having strong unions capable of negotiating wages with
the companies.
James Bremner
> Mark_R <mris...@yahoo.com> wrote:
>
> > > > Excuse me, but I'd like to put in my 2 cents...
> > > >
> > > > I can understand that many undereducated and unintelligent people may
> > > > find Bush to be a good, or at least competent President. They don't
> > > > know any better.
> > >
> > > I am mildly offended by the implication that one must be undereducated
> > > and/or unintelligent to support Bush. I know many people who are both
> > > highly educated and highly intelligent who make an informed choice to
> > > support him..
> >
> > I would have to agree with Lynn here. The only people voting for Bush is
> > either the "undereducated and/or unintelligent" or voting along a party
> > line (which falls under unintelligent). What good has Bush done?
>
> This is why it's become impossible to have reasoned discussions about
> politics anymore. What the hell happened to discourse? Can't anyone on
> your side disagree respectfully? Everyone I know on the right is
> perfectly willing to assume that most liberals are honest and
> intelligent but misguided, whereas the vast majority of leftists I run
> into assume that conservatives are either stupid, evil, or both. It
> boggles my mind how hard it is to have a discussion these days without
> having it degenerate into a flamewar.
Goddamit Aaron. Have some respect for my irony meter, it is already
close to breaking.
Everyone on my side is perfectly respectful and nice. The other side
is rude and makes nasty generalisations about my side.
Joe
>Date: 8/15/2004 3:46 AM Pacific Daylight Time
>Message-id: <m2wu00l...@josefin.bahnhofbredband.se>
Okay, the point of the comment has drifted. There's no assumption that the
entire national economy is affected. Even if 10-15% of the workforce/job
market is based on minimum wage, thats far from the entire national market.
But consider employers that pay minimum, a place that I have worked fairly
recently... Toys R Us. They start at minimum, and their work hours (payroll)
available for employees are based on income. When income is down, the hours
available is lower. When income is up, more of the employees can have longer
hours. A Direct relation to minimum wage. Now, were min wage to raise,
(A)income would either have to raise accordingly (through price hikes) to allow
the employer to provide the same hours to it's employees, or (B)the company
would further have to reduce employee hours.
Now, the effect of this. Main effect of Option B is the workers suffer by less
hours available, less money earned.
Option A means everyone in the surrounding area that shops at that store
suffers from the minimum wage increase, whether they earn minimum wage or not.
Assuming that a person earns 40k a year, and their annual shopping from this
store just went up from 1k to 1.1k (10%) increase, that is extra money that is
no longer in that persons wallet. Now, assume that any given person shops at
2-5 locations that have thus had to raise prices to cope with the effects of a
minimum wage increase, and the numbers begin to speak for themselves.
So yeah, even if a minimum wage hike only directly affects 1-5% of the
workforce, a much higher number suffer from residual effects.
Another place that nearly everyone in America has heard of and shopped at
McDonalds. They may not pay minimum wage per se (in some areas they may, in
some areas they may pay more, depending on the job market of the area) But a
min wage hike affects them all. Prices at McDonalds are set on a national
average. If some stores have to pay more to their employees they have to
reduce overhead by raising prices (or cutting back on man-hours). Now since
prices are set nationally, this means prices go up everywhere. Even if you are
not directly affected by a min wage hike, you are likely affected when the
price of that Buger rises from $1.99 to $2.29
But anyway
http://www.house.gov/jec/cost-gov/regs/minimum/illusion.htm
http://www.frbsf.org/econrsrch/wklyltr/wklyltr99/el99-06.html
[Exerpted] "In one paper, they succeeded in casting doubt on 200 years of
economic research and theory. Economists took their challenge seriously and
attempted to recreate their results. It could not be done. Economists who
attempted to replicate their work demonstrated conclusively that raising the
minimum wage destroys jobs"
Source - http://www.house.gov/jec/cost-gov/regs/minimum/against/against.htm
http://www.gopwing.com/modules.php?name=News&file=article&sid=295
Anyway, there you go, complete with a few cites. Without minimum wage, people
might be afraid of exploitation, but the simple fact is, that companies will
pay what they have to pay to get employees. And employees are free to move to
wherever more money is being offered. If a company has a job that it is only
willing to offer $4.00 for, well, it has to live with whoever they can find
that is willing to do the job for $4.00 am hour.... typically, the lower pay
will result in lower quality work which overall will end up costing more than
simply offering a competitive and fair amount to get competent workers to begin
with...
edl
> "edl" <game_...@yahoo.com> writes:
> You're assuming that the troubles a specific business is
> getting due to increased minimum wages will spread to the
> entire national economy.
No, not really. I had thought the discussion was whether raising the
minimum wage would directly affect (increase) unemployment. I don't think
the minimum wage would affect the 'entire' economy, at least insofar as
we're talking about all businesses in all fields. I do think that raising
the minimum wage would likely affect employment negatively to the extent
that such minimum wage jobs are out there. I'd guess minimum wage jobs
comprise a small fraction of total jobs, so any impact from that sector
would be minor at best...b ut still.
> Just for the record. I deem minimum wages as a poor second
> to having strong unions capable of negotiating wages with
> the companies.
Unions circumvent the free-market employment process and often
unnesscessarily inflate costs. Nearly every unionized system in America
just happens to be the ones rife with the most waste, misuse, and general
dunderheadedness (Teachers, Autoworkers, Government employees say hey). Now
if Unions were only empowered to deal with strictly wages, I'd be fine with
that. It's when Unions start ramping demands wildly out of control and
stifling the businesses ability to operate that I get annoyed. For
instance, temporary voluntary employee layoffs at the Big Three are
compensated at 95% of their hourly rate. 95% to NOT be at work. That's
just nuts.
E.
Richard Taylor
You know, Ted, I used to agree with you, until the war in Iraq started.
Seeing Saddam Hussain's regime removed from power was a heady drug at first,
wasn't it?
Then the reports started coming in, and I realised, "Hey, these Iraqi
people, the vast majority of whom are basically just ordinary decent
folk like you and me, they have it worse now than under Saddam Hussein!"
It was not the place of the Western world to go storming in without due
consideration of the consequences for a race of people, most of whom are
just trying to live their lives. Imaging if it was your country. You
can't choose who your leader is, any more than they can. He could be a
warmonger, and a religious fundamentalist. Oh, wait...
Aaron Davies
> Then the reports started coming in, and I realised, "Hey, these Iraqi
> people, the vast majority of whom are basically just ordinary decent folk
> like you and me, they have it worse now than under Saddam Hussein!"
Really? Have you asked them? Have you compared pre- and post-Saddam
civilian body counts?
Aaron Davies
> "Karl-Johan Noren" <k...@postladan.se> wrote in message
> news:m2wu00l...@josefin.bahnhofbredband.se...
>
> > Just for the record. I deem minimum wages as a poor second to having
> > strong unions capable of negotiating wages with the companies.
>
> Unions circumvent the free-market employment process and often
> unnesscessarily inflate costs. Nearly every unionized system in America
> just happens to be the ones rife with the most waste, misuse, and general
> dunderheadedness (Teachers, Autoworkers, Government employees say hey).
> Now if Unions were only empowered to deal with strictly wages, I'd be fine
> with that. It's when Unions start ramping demands wildly out of control
> and stifling the businesses ability to operate that I get annoyed. For
> instance, temporary voluntary employee layoffs at the Big Three are
> compensated at 95% of their hourly rate. 95% to NOT be at work. That's
> just nuts.
The problem is not unions per se, it's the NRLB and compulsory
negotiation laws. There would be nothing wrong with unions if they were
simply another option, and employers were free to hire non-union workers
and tell the union to fuck off. This is why I'm in favor of
right-to-work: in the ideal laissez-faire world, an employer should be
free to require his employees to unionize; in this world, the union
power is so ridiculously over-inflated by government fiat that it needs
a counterbalance.
Richard Taylor
> Richard Taylor <ric...@rtaylor93.wanadoo.co.uk> wrote:
>
>
>>Then the reports started coming in, and I realised, "Hey, these Iraqi
>>people, the vast majority of whom are basically just ordinary decent folk
>>like you and me, they have it worse now than under Saddam Hussein!"
>
>
> Really? Have you asked them? Have you compared pre- and post-Saddam
> civilian body counts?
We've all seen the photos in the news. We've all heard about GI Joe
abusing his powers, and abusing the people that he was sent there to
protect. Much of the behaviour of the American forces is entirely
without honour and decency - two qualities of which an armed forces
serviceman should be the very exemplar.
Richard Taylor
I hope that was intended to break the needle on the aforementioned irony
meter, James. If 'twere not intended as irony, then you have done
yourself, and our shared liberal cause, a grave disservice. Surely you
can see that the statement which you just made, in and of itself,
constitutes not just one, but two sweeping generalisations. The truth of
the matter is that statements like that, even when made in jest, are
what fuel the beliefs expressed by Aaron, in regards of those who steer
close to the liberal side of politics.
Incidentally, Aaron, since you seem to have equal disregard for both
those on the left wing, and those on the right wing of the political
spectrum, may I ask where you would place yourself? For my part, I am
happy to publicly espouse the views of the true liberal (as opposed to
the party line of the ostensibly left-wing political parties in my
country) even if that means playing into a certain stereotype. A side
must be chosen, at some stage. There is no advantage in placing one's
"X" between the two boxes after all, is there?
Ted Zeal
> For my part, I am happy to publicly espouse the views of the true liberal
I'm curious as to when 'true liberalism' abandoned its core commitment to
the comsmopolitan ideals of universal liberty and justice in favor of a
policy of undiscriminating tolerance, slavish devotion to the status quo,
and a self-defeating allegiance to a doctrine of moral equivalence.
James Thaxton
"Richard Taylor" <ric...@rtaylor93.wanadoo.co.uk> wrote in message
news:cfp49b$eor$1...@newsg1.svr.pol.co.uk...
I'm not saying that what you've mentioned is right, but it's got nothing on
what went on before. Go look for some testimonials of people who left the
country before the regime ended. Ask anyone on an Iraqi sports team that
competed internationally how things were when Saddam and his sons were
around.
Aaron Davies
Bzzzzzt! Try answering my question, not dodging it. And for bonus
points, explain how exactly what happened at Abu Gahrib(sp?) establishes
moral equivalency between us and Saddam.
Aaron Davies
> Aaron Davies <aa...@avalon.pascal-central.com.invalid> wrote:
>
> > Mark_R <mris...@yahoo.com> wrote:
> >
> > > This is why it's become impossible to have reasoned discussions about
> > > politics anymore. What the hell happened to discourse? Can't anyone on
> > > your side disagree respectfully? Everyone I know on the right is
> > > perfectly willing to assume that most liberals are honest and
> > > intelligent but misguided, whereas the vast majority of leftists I run
> > > into assume that conservatives are either stupid, evil, or both. It
> > > boggles my mind how hard it is to have a discussion these days without
> > > having it degenerate into a flamewar.
> >
> > Goddamit Aaron. Have some respect for my irony meter, it is already
> > close to breaking.
> >
> > Everyone on my side is perfectly respectful and nice. The other side is
> > rude and makes nasty generalisations about my side.
>
> Incidentally, Aaron, since you seem to have equal disregard for both those
> on the left wing, and those on the right wing of the political spectrum,
> may I ask where you would place yourself? For my part, I am happy to
> publicly espouse the views of the true liberal (as opposed to the party
> line of the ostensibly left-wing political parties in my country) even if
> that means playing into a certain stereotype. A side must be chosen, at
> some stage. There is no advantage in placing one's "X" between the two
> boxes after all, is there?
Just out of curiosity, where do you get that I don't like the right? I
don't, particularly, but if you got that out of my post above, I can't
see where.
Anywho, I'm an Objectivist (a follower of Ayn Rand). This puts me in
agreement with libertarians on many (but not all) political issues
(though in sharp philosophical disagreement, which is why I don't call
myself a libertarian, let alone a Libertarian). Incidentally, I would
agree with most libertarians that the one-dimensional "political
spectrum" is insufficient to describe the true range of opinion. Are you
familiar with the World's Smallest Political Quiz? It doesn't cover
philosophy, and thus can't distinguish between libertarians and others
who agree with them on policy issues, but is nonetheless a useful tool.
James Bremner
In that last sentence I was actually paraphrasing what Aaron said, n
ot expressing an opinion of my own
Richard Taylor
> Richard Taylor <ric...@rtaylor93.wanadoo.co.uk> wrote:
>
>
>>Aaron Davies wrote:
>>
>>>Richard Taylor <ric...@rtaylor93.wanadoo.co.uk> wrote:
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>>Then the reports started coming in, and I realised, "Hey, these Iraqi
>>>>people, the vast majority of whom are basically just ordinary decent folk
>>>>like you and me, they have it worse now than under Saddam Hussein!"
>>>
>>>
>>>Really? Have you asked them? Have you compared pre- and post-Saddam
>>>civilian body counts?
>>
>>We've all seen the photos in the news. We've all heard about GI Joe
>>abusing his powers, and abusing the people that he was sent there to
>>protect. Much of the behaviour of the American forces is entirely
>>without honour and decency - two qualities of which an armed forces
>>serviceman should be the very exemplar.
>
>
> Bzzzzzt! Try answering my question, not dodging it. And for bonus
> points, explain how exactly what happened at Abu Gahrib(sp?) establishes
> moral equivalency between us and Saddam.
I did intend to answer your question. I apologise. For the record, no I
have not compared body counts. You are correct. Does that change the
fact that the occupying force (call it what it is!) is now committing
atrocities all of their own. I think that with the breakdown in
infrastructure and with the lack of any sense of national identity
engendered by the lack of a native government, they do have it worse,
albeit a different kind of 'worse' than that which you are thinking of.
As for establishing moral equivalency between the leaders of your
country and Saddam Hussein, perhaps the fact that you both seem to think
that they can just do what you please, with or without the consent of
the rest of the world does that rather nicely. The government of my
country of course are no better. I will freely admit that.
Richard Taylor
I beg your pardon, sir. Some of what I wrote was in respons to the post
by James Bremner, it was at least partially, a misconception on my part.
> Anywho, I'm an Objectivist (a follower of Ayn Rand). This puts me in
> agreement with libertarians on many (but not all) political issues
> (though in sharp philosophical disagreement, which is why I don't call
> myself a libertarian, let alone a Libertarian). Incidentally, I would
> agree with most libertarians that the one-dimensional "political
> spectrum" is insufficient to describe the true range of opinion. Are you
> familiar with the World's Smallest Political Quiz? It doesn't cover
> philosophy, and thus can't distinguish between libertarians and others
> who agree with them on policy issues, but is nonetheless a useful tool.
I would be interested to hear more, especially about the philosophical
disagreement of which you speak.
Richard Taylor
Looking back at the thread that should have been obvious to me. I
believe that I have misread the last few posts. I do see now what it was
that you were saying.
Michelle J. Haines
ric...@rtaylor93.wanadoo.co.uk says...
>
> I did intend to answer your question. I apologise. For the record, no I
> have not compared body counts. You are correct. Does that change the
> fact that the occupying force (call it what it is!) is now committing
> atrocities all of their own. I think that with the breakdown in
> infrastructure and with the lack of any sense of national identity
> engendered by the lack of a native government, they do have it worse,
> albeit a different kind of 'worse' than that which you are thinking of.
The difference being that in our government, the perpetrators of
torture and abuses are being prosecuted. Under Saddam, they would
undoubtedly have been encouraged and promoted.
No doubt the Iraq Olympic athletes appreciate the opportunity to
compete in Athens without the threat of the Olympic training center
torture devices in the basement, or the threat of being turned into
fish food in a plastics shredder.
Michelle
Flutist
--
Drift on a river, That flows through my arms
Drift as I'm singing to you
I see you smiling, So peaceful and calm
And holding you, I'm smiling, too
Here in my arms, Safe from all harm
Holding you, I'm smiling, too
-- For Xander [9/22/98 - 2/23/99]
Aaron Davies
> Aaron Davies wrote:
>
> > Anywho, I'm an Objectivist (a follower of Ayn Rand). This puts me in
> > agreement with libertarians on many (but not all) political issues
> > (though in sharp philosophical disagreement, which is why I don't call
> > myself a libertarian, let alone a Libertarian). Incidentally, I would
> > agree with most libertarians that the one-dimensional "political
> > spectrum" is insufficient to describe the true range of opinion. Are you
> > familiar with the World's Smallest Political Quiz? It doesn't cover
> > philosophy, and thus can't distinguish between libertarians and others
> > who agree with them on policy issues, but is nonetheless a useful tool.
>
> I would be interested to hear more, especially about the philosophical
> disagreement of which you speak.
Before I get too far into this, have you read any Ayn Rand? I'd just
like to establish a base from which to work.
Lara
> Bzzzzzt! Try answering my question, not dodging it. And for bonus
> points, explain how exactly what happened at Abu Gahrib(sp?) establishes
> moral equivalency between us and Saddam.
Under Saddam's rule, people were disappeared off the streets for no
reason, sent to Abu Ghraib, where they were tortured, raped, and
killed. Under the American occupation, people were disappeared off the
streets for no reason, sent to Abu Ghraib, where they were tortured,
raped, and killed, but Americans feel really bad about it now.
--
Lara Beaton
Sagittarius: (Nov. 22優ec. 21)
You'll learn an important lesson about violence this
week耀pecifically, what can happen when you're not very good at it.
Mike Kozlowski
Lara <bouncy...@gmail.com> wrote:
>Under Saddam's rule, people were disappeared off the streets for no
>reason, sent to Abu Ghraib, where they were tortured, raped, and
>killed. Under the American occupation, people were disappeared off the
>streets for no reason, sent to Abu Ghraib, where they were tortured,
>raped, and killed, but Americans feel really bad about it now.
At least those Americans who don't think it was really no worse than
your typical fraternity prank.
Also, you forgot the part where we're leaving the Iraqis a stable,
peaceful democracy, which makes some minor quibbling about torture 'n'
such really pretty irrelevant.
--
Mike Kozlowski
http://www.klio.org/mlk/
Mike Kozlowski
Michelle J. Haines <mha...@io.nanc.com> wrote:
>The difference being that in our government, the perpetrators of
>torture and abuses are being prosecuted.
Just a few bad apples, really. You'd certainly never see the
U.S. government setting up detention centers that they claim are
exempt from both U.S. and international law, or writing legal memos
explaining how to get away with torture, or giving orders to torture
prisoners. Nossirree, it's just those half a dozen or so bad apples.
Lynn
> those on the left wing, and those on the right wing of the political
> spectrum, may I ask where you would place yourself? For my part, I am
> happy to publicly espouse the views of the true liberal (as opposed to
> the party line of the ostensibly left-wing political parties in my
> country) even if that means playing into a certain stereotype. A side
> must be chosen, at some stage. There is no advantage in placing one's
> "X" between the two boxes after all, is there?
The Libertarian Party by far most closely aligns with my political
philosophies. I do not consider myself a liberal or a conservative. I
agree with the legalization of drugs such as marijuana (very liberal).
I agree with adopting/maintaining an absolute minimal federal
government (very conservative – or at least used to be).
It is true that most who argue against the conservative viewpoint are
liberals, and most who argue against the liberal viewpoint are
conservatives. However, I hope people would avoid making this
assumption as a matter of course.
-Lynn
Jamie Bowden
> Richard Taylor <ric...@rtaylor93.wanadoo.co.uk> wrote:
> > I would be interested to hear more, especially about the philosophical
> > disagreement of which you speak.
> Before I get too far into this, have you read any Ayn Rand? I'd just
> like to establish a base from which to work.
Don't bother. The writing is awful, and Rand is an extremist flake with
an axe to grind. What good points she does make get lost along the way.
Jamie Bowden
--
"It was half way to Rivendell when the drugs began to take hold"
Hunter S Tolkien "Fear and Loathing in Barad Dur"
Iain Bowen <ala...@alaric.org.uk>
Roy G. Ovrebo
[snip]
> Also, you forgot the part where we're leaving the Iraqis a stable,
> peaceful democracy, which makes some minor quibbling about torture 'n'
> such really pretty irrelevant.
You should have told them where you left it.
"[...]in the bottom of a locked filing cabinet stuck in a disused
lavatory with a sign on the door saying _Beware of the Leopard_."
--
Roy
James Bremner
> Mark_R <mris...@yahoo.com> wrote:
>
> > > > Excuse me, but I'd like to put in my 2 cents...
> > > >
> > > > I can understand that many undereducated and unintelligent people may
> > > > find Bush to be a good, or at least competent President. They don't
> > > > know any better.
> > >
> > > I am mildly offended by the implication that one must be undereducated
> > > and/or unintelligent to support Bush. I know many people who are both
> > > highly educated and highly intelligent who make an informed choice to
> > > support him..
> >
> > I would have to agree with Lynn here. The only people voting for Bush is
> > either the "undereducated and/or unintelligent" or voting along a party
> > line (which falls under unintelligent). What good has Bush done?
>
> This is why it's become impossible to have reasoned discussions about
> politics anymore. What the hell happened to discourse? Can't anyone on
> your side disagree respectfully? Everyone I know on the right is
> perfectly willing to assume that most liberals are honest and
> intelligent but misguided, whereas the vast majority of leftists I run
> into assume that conservatives are either stupid, evil, or both. It
> boggles my mind how hard it is to have a discussion these days without
> having it degenerate into a flamewar.
That explains why nobody on the right EVER calls people who disagree
with them "terrorist supporters", "Saddam lovers", "traitors",
"feminazis", "baby-killers" or anything...
James Bremner
> Mark_R <mris...@yahoo.com> wrote:
>
> > > > Excuse me, but I'd like to put in my 2 cents...
> > > >
> > > > I can understand that many undereducated and unintelligent people may
> > > > find Bush to be a good, or at least competent President. They don't
> > > > know any better.
> > >
> > > I am mildly offended by the implication that one must be undereducated
> > > and/or unintelligent to support Bush. I know many people who are both
> > > highly educated and highly intelligent who make an informed choice to
> > > support him..
> >
> > I would have to agree with Lynn here. The only people voting for Bush is
> > either the "undereducated and/or unintelligent" or voting along a party
> > line (which falls under unintelligent). What good has Bush done?
>
> This is why it's become impossible to have reasoned discussions about
> politics anymore. What the hell happened to discourse? Can't anyone on
> your side disagree respectfully? Everyone I know on the right is
> perfectly willing to assume that most liberals are honest and
> intelligent but misguided, whereas the vast majority of leftists I run
> into assume that conservatives are either stupid, evil, or both. It
> boggles my mind how hard it is to have a discussion these days without
> having it degenerate into a flamewar.
Of course, nobody on the right would EVER call their political
opponents "traitors", "terrorist supporters", "Saddam lovers",
"anti-American", "America-haters", "communists", "feminazis" or
anything like that, would they?
<Homer Simpson> Now THAT'S sarcasm </HS>
Richard Taylor
> Richard Taylor <ric...@rtaylor93.wanadoo.co.uk> wrote:
>
>
>>Aaron Davies wrote:
>>
>>
>>>Anywho, I'm an Objectivist (a follower of Ayn Rand). This puts me in
>>>agreement with libertarians on many (but not all) political issues
>>>(though in sharp philosophical disagreement, which is why I don't call
>>>myself a libertarian, let alone a Libertarian). Incidentally, I would
>>>agree with most libertarians that the one-dimensional "political
>>>spectrum" is insufficient to describe the true range of opinion. Are you
>>>familiar with the World's Smallest Political Quiz? It doesn't cover
>>>philosophy, and thus can't distinguish between libertarians and others
>>>who agree with them on policy issues, but is nonetheless a useful tool.
>>
>>I would be interested to hear more, especially about the philosophical
>>disagreement of which you speak.
>
>
> Before I get too far into this, have you read any Ayn Rand? I'd just
> like to establish a base from which to work.
I am forced to admit that outside of a passing reference in 'The
Simpsons', I have never even heard of Ayn Rand. I am, however, always
interetsted to hear a view which differs from my own. Provided, of
course, that the expression of said view does not take the form of an
attack on the views that I hold. Which, as you have said, is precisely
what is wrong with many political debates that do take place.
Aaron Sanders
*snip*
> >>
> >> I don't know. Over-throwing the Taliban,
> >
> > Haven't been paying much attention to Afghanistan lately, have we?
> >
> > Don't worry, no one else is, either. Including the White House, btw.
>
> Yes, I must have missed it when Mullah Omar returned triumphant into Kabul
> with Bin Laden in his side-car.
>
Wow. No wonder you crazies think Bush is more capable of handling the
war on terror than Kerry! Do you really think terrorists, *especially*
Bin Laden, are that *obvious*? Again, Ted, I think W is calling you.
Why don't you go on over and see what he wants this time?
> >> taking out Saddam,
> >
> > And creating a failed-state in his wake, with the very distinct
> > possibility of fundamentalist religious rule within a decade. A
> > regime friendly to the Iranians, no less.
>
> Iraq was a miserable failure of a state when Hussein was _in_ power. Or
> what do you make of a nation in the hands of a brutal dictator who has
> effective control over only 1/3 of the country?
>
I'll give you this. I didn't expect better from Iraq at this point.
However, we weren't done in Afghanistan, and there were far more
pressing matters than Iraq to deal with (and of course, there still
are, since that is *all* we have dealt with). Bush wanted Iraq from
before he got into office. I know it. You know it. America knows it.
We all need to agree that is a fucking problem, because he didn't give
a shit what the most important issues were. He only cared about Iraq.
> >> disrupting Al-Qaeda,
> >
> > When they aren't busy burning double agents ...
>
> I can only assume you are conceding the point
>
You certainly are good at making an ass out of you....
*snip*
>
> The war on terror is un-neccessary (sic)? Do tell. Or, I suppose you are
> referring specifically to Iraq. I presume you think he was going to
> voluntarily relinquish power into the hands of the Iraqi citizens, perhaps
> at the behest of French and UN "negotiations." Or would you prefer that he
> were still in power? That his even more brutal sons were next in line of
> succession? Perhaps the war was strategically unnecessary. I defy you to
> claim that is was morally wrong.
Again, you fail to realize that we were lied to about Iraq, and
shifting justification from one target to another doesn't work after
the fact. I even agree with some of the non-lie based justifications,
but they aren't enough, when you consider the other issues we could
have been dealing with. But this is his United States of Whatever,
after all, right?
And what's with W's refusal to admit error and *a-p-o-l-o-g-i-z-e*
anyway? Why does he just say shit like "That's not the America I
know," and point the finger at junior personnel who are obviously
acting out the concern for Iraq they see in their superiors? Fucking
apologize, dipshit. Next, repeat after me: "I was wrong when I said
that...." There are too many ways to end that sentence, so I'll leave
it general like that. Don't blame the CIA for intel that you forced
into the mold of "I need reasons to invade Iraq." You tried to pin
9/11 on Iraq with all your might, when it first happenned, no matter
what any of your advisors tried to tell you (not just Dick Clarke, but
Rumsfeld and Powell, too!). Thanks for making the world a more
dangerous place for Americans.
He is an embarrassment to our country, every time he opens his mouth,
and I'm sick and tired of it.
Now, one of you idiots on here that's been saying that W can handle
the war on terror better than Kerry: justify that statement. I dare
you.
-Aaron
Ted Zeal
> "Ted Zeal" <nam...@yahoo.com> wrote in message
> news:<8FqTc.33992$js3.12...@news4.srv.hcvlny.cv.net>... *snip*
>>>>
>>>> I don't know. Over-throwing the Taliban,
>>>
>>> Haven't been paying much attention to Afghanistan lately, have we?
>>>
>>> Don't worry, no one else is, either. Including the White House,
>>> btw.
>>
>> Yes, I must have missed it when Mullah Omar returned triumphant into
>> Kabul with Bin Laden in his side-car.
>>
>
> Wow. No wonder you crazies think Bush is more capable of handling the
> war on terror than Kerry! Do you really think terrorists, *especially*
> Bin Laden, are that *obvious*? Again, Ted, I think W is calling you.
> Why don't you go on over and see what he wants this time?
I claimed the Taliban had been overthrown. I'm accussed of not paying
attention. I confess that I must have missed the Taliban's return to power
with a flippant remark about Mullah Omar's preferred mode of transportation
and his government's ties to Al-Qaeda. Explain to me again how this is a
claim about the inner workings of terrorist organizations. I grant that
Karzai's government has limited power outside of Kabul. The original poster
appears to conclude from this that the Taliban is in control everywhere
else. I find this ironic coming from someone who claims to be paying
attention.
> I'll give you this. I didn't expect better from Iraq at this point.
> However, we weren't done in Afghanistan, and there were far more
> pressing matters than Iraq to deal with
Yes, we are all aware of your feelings about gay marriage.
> Again, you fail to realize that we were lied to about Iraq
I do not doubt that the standards of evidence were relaxed in this case,
which is regrettable. But this is largely due to the fact that _everyone_
was already convinced that he had and was pursuing WMDs. The issue was not
if he had them, but whether this justified going in. You're going to need
more than this to make an accusation of intent to deceive stick
> You tried to pin
> 9/11 on Iraq with all your might, when it first happenned, no matter
> what any of your advisors tried to tell you (not just Dick Clarke, but
> Rumsfeld and Powell, too!).
Yes, because, of course, Saddam wouldn't be one to hold a vendetta against
the Bush family or jump at the chance to discharge it if it meant getting
into bed with the jihadis. Saddam had open ties with terrorist
organizations, harbored Abu Abbas, and allowed terrorist training camps to
flourish on Iraqi soil. Forgive me if I find this no more or less plausible
than the claim that the Saudis control Bush's foreign policy or that Iraq
and Afghanistan were all about oil.
> Now, one of you idiots on here that's been saying that W can handle
> the war on terror better than Kerry: justify that statement. I dare
> you.
Hell, I'm not even sure if Kerry wouldn't have caved to the democratic
base's clamoring to treat 9/11 as a police matter.
Grant Anderson
> I do not doubt that the standards of evidence were relaxed in this case,
> which is regrettable. But this is largely due to the fact that _everyone_
> was already convinced that he had and was pursuing WMDs. The issue was not
> if he had them, but whether this justified going in.
By what definition of everyone? The UN weapons inspectors weren't. Nor
were a fair few countries around the world.
A lot of people thought the USA was just using WMDs as an excuse to go in.
Cheers,
Grant
Billy Todd
<gpsan...@hotmail.com> wrote:
>Ted Zeal wrote:
>
>> I do not doubt that the standards of evidence were relaxed in this case,
>> which is regrettable. But this is largely due to the fact that _everyone_
>> was already convinced that he had and was pursuing WMDs. The issue was not
>> if he had them, but whether this justified going in.
>
>By what definition of everyone? The UN weapons inspectors weren't. Nor
>were a fair few countries around the world.
Feel free to read 1441.
--
Billy Todd WT...@Spambegone.please.comporium.net
"If there's anything Usenet has a rampant trade surplus on, it's shit."
John S. Novak, III
Aaron Sanders
*snip*
> >>
> >
> > Wow. No wonder you crazies think Bush is more capable of handling the
> > war on terror than Kerry! Do you really think terrorists, *especially*
> > Bin Laden, are that *obvious*? Again, Ted, I think W is calling you.
> > Why don't you go on over and see what he wants this time?
>
> I claimed the Taliban had been overthrown. I'm accussed of not paying
> attention. I confess that I must have missed the Taliban's return to power
> with a flippant remark about Mullah Omar's preferred mode of transportation
> and his government's ties to Al-Qaeda. Explain to me again how this is a
> claim about the inner workings of terrorist organizations. I grant that
> Karzai's government has limited power outside of Kabul. The original poster
> appears to conclude from this that the Taliban is in control everywhere
> else. I find this ironic coming from someone who claims to be paying
> attention.
>
Most of the Taliban and nearly all of Al-Qaeda were allowed to escape
over the mountains in Afghanistan, because Bushy wouldn't commit
enough forces to the task. He must have been too busy planning for
Iraq. *That* is what you missed.
> > I'll give you this. I didn't expect better from Iraq at this point.
> > However, we weren't done in Afghanistan, and there were far more
> > pressing matters than Iraq to deal with
>
> Yes, we are all aware of your feelings about gay marriage.
>
Typical of a Bushite, you only focus on the problems within the
borders of this country. Nice. Interesting how you mock me for this,
when Bush *has* been focusing too much on this issue. Were you too
stupid to see how your comment could backfire? (it's rhetorical...no
need to answer)
> > Again, you fail to realize that we were lied to about Iraq
>
> I do not doubt that the standards of evidence were relaxed in this case,
> which is regrettable. But this is largely due to the fact that _everyone_
> was already convinced that he had and was pursuing WMDs.
Wrong. Cite.
> The issue was not
> if he had them, but whether this justified going in. You're going to need
> more than this to make an accusation of intent to deceive stick
>
I'd need a miracle to make such an accusation stick with you. It'd
take an act of w's over-worshipped and over-emphasized Gawd.
> > You tried to pin
> > 9/11 on Iraq with all your might, when it first happenned, no matter
> > what any of your advisors tried to tell you (not just Dick Clarke, but
> > Rumsfeld and Powell, too!).
>
> Yes, because, of course, Saddam wouldn't be one to hold a vendetta against
> the Bush family or jump at the chance to discharge it if it meant getting
> into bed with the jihadis.
They stand for an extreme version of Islam. Saddam probably hasn't
been to Mosque in years. We all know he wasn't very religious, so no,
Ted, *they* wouldn't want to get in bed with *him*.
> Saddam had open ties with terrorist
> organizations,
No. Cite.
> harbored Abu Abbas, and allowed terrorist training camps to
> flourish on Iraqi soil.
Soil? Or in the middle of the desert? So we can use the vast desert as
an excuse that there could still be WMD's hiding out there, but he
can't use it as an excuse that terrorists were hiding in his
*deserts*?! Ridiculous!
> Forgive me if I find this no more or less plausible
> than the claim that the Saudis control Bush's foreign policy or that Iraq
> and Afghanistan were all about oil.
>
Stick to "Saddam is a baaad, baaad man." We can all agree on that one,
at least. It's just not enough, given all the badder men out there
right now.
> > Now, one of you idiots on here that's been saying that W can handle
> > the war on terror better than Kerry: justify that statement. I dare
> > you.
>
> Hell, I'm not even sure if Kerry wouldn't have caved to the democratic
> base's clamoring to treat 9/11 as a police matter.
Hell, I'm not even sure if George Bush wouldn't have used 9/11 as a
way to gain public sentiment so he could invade Iraq. Oh, wait. He
did.
Give me something substantial that proves that w is better against
terrorism than Kerry would be, or concede the point, Ted.
-Aaron
Todd C.
> I don't know. Over-throwing the Taliban, taking out Saddam, disrupting
> Al-Qaeda, intimidating Libya into abandoning its nuclear aspirations and
> just generally standing up to Islamo-fascism the world over seems like a
> good start.
...Making Iran into a nuclear power....
Todd
Michael Hoye
And I don't see the word "Korea" in there at all.
--
Mike Hoye
Ted Zeal
> "Ted Zeal" <nam...@yahoo.com> wrote in message
> news:<sprUc.20971$vc4.5...@news4.srv.hcvlny.cv.net>... *snip*
>>>>
>>>
>>> Wow. No wonder you crazies think Bush is more capable of handling
>>> the war on terror than Kerry! Do you really think terrorists,
>>> *especially* Bin Laden, are that *obvious*? Again, Ted, I think W
>>> is calling you. Why don't you go on over and see what he wants this
>>> time?
>>
>> I claimed the Taliban had been overthrown. I'm accussed of not
>> paying attention. I confess that I must have missed the Taliban's
>> return to power with a flippant remark about Mullah Omar's preferred
>> mode of transportation and his government's ties to Al-Qaeda.
>> Explain to me again how this is a claim about the inner workings of
>> terrorist organizations. I grant that Karzai's government has
>> limited power outside of Kabul. The original poster appears to
>> conclude from this that the Taliban is in control everywhere else.
>> I find this ironic coming from someone who claims to be paying
>> attention.
>>
>
> Most of the Taliban and nearly all of Al-Qaeda were allowed to escape
> over the mountains in Afghanistan, because Bushy wouldn't commit
> enough forces to the task. He must have been too busy planning for
> Iraq. *That* is what you missed.
Is the Taliban in power or not? I find it absurd that you insist on arguing
the point.
>>> I'll give you this. I didn't expect better from Iraq at this point.
>>> However, we weren't done in Afghanistan, and there were far more
>>> pressing matters than Iraq to deal with
>>
>> Yes, we are all aware of your feelings about gay marriage.
>>
>
> Typical of a Bushite, you only focus on the problems within the
> borders of this country. Nice. Interesting how you mock me for this,
> when Bush *has* been focusing too much on this issue. Were you too
> stupid to see how your comment could backfire? (it's rhetorical...no
> need to answer)
My comment backfired how, exactly? Oh, right. I support Bush on Iraq so
obviously I support his far-right domestic agenda. I believe I made myself
clear on that elsewhere. And, no, I'm not under the illusion that you make
a point of reading all my posts. I find your and Bush's view on gay
marriage to be abhorrent. I think Christianity is second only to Islam as
the greatest single threat to the future of mankind. Followed in a close
third by the anachronistic doctrine of national sovereignty. I support the
creation of strong international economic, legal, political AND military
institutions that are not beholden to the whims of national or corporate
interests. I think the developed world is seriously morally remiss for
ignoring the crisis in Sudan and the spread of AIDs throughout the
developing world. The irony of my supporting Bush does not elude me. But I
don't see Kerry agreeing with me on anything, and Bush at least is
absolutely right on Islam.
>>> Again, you fail to realize that we were lied to about Iraq
>>
>> I do not doubt that the standards of evidence were relaxed in this
>> case, which is regrettable. But this is largely due to the fact
>> that _everyone_ was already convinced that he had and was pursuing
>> WMDs.
>
> Wrong. Cite.
Hell, even the Egyptians and Jordanians were convinced he had them. I'm not
talking about your run of the mill "Bush's forgein policy is controlled by
Haliburton" crowd. I'm talking about world intelligence agencies.
>>> You tried to pin
>>> 9/11 on Iraq with all your might, when it first happenned, no matter
>>> what any of your advisors tried to tell you (not just Dick Clarke,
>>> but Rumsfeld and Powell, too!).
>>
>> Yes, because, of course, Saddam wouldn't be one to hold a vendetta
>> against the Bush family or jump at the chance to discharge it if it
>> meant getting into bed with the jihadis.
>
> They stand for an extreme version of Islam. Saddam probably hasn't
> been to Mosque in years. We all know he wasn't very religious, so no,
> Ted, *they* wouldn't want to get in bed with *him*.
And I'm the one accused of failing to understand the terrorist mindset.
Hell, they were in bed with _us_ against the Soviets. Wake-up. I suppose
they'd turn down overtures from Kim Jong-il on general principle, too.
>> Saddam had open ties with terrorist
>> organizations,
>
> No. Cite.
Saddam's support for Hamas is a matter of public record. Take this link
with a grain of salt if you must:
http://www.nationalreview.com/murdock/murdock200310210934.asp
>> harbored Abu Abbas, and allowed terrorist training camps to
>> flourish on Iraqi soil.
>
> Soil? Or in the middle of the desert? So we can use the vast desert as
> an excuse that there could still be WMD's hiding out there, but he
> can't use it as an excuse that terrorists were hiding in his
> *deserts*?! Ridiculous!
He can appeal to whatever strained analogy he wants. Just don't ask me to
buy it.
>> Forgive me if I find this no more or less plausible
>> than the claim that the Saudis control Bush's foreign policy or that
>> Iraq and Afghanistan were all about oil.
>>
>
> Stick to "Saddam is a baaad, baaad man." We can all agree on that one,
> at least. It's just not enough, given all the badder men out there
> right now.
A perfect example of the sort of simplistic thinking Bush is accused of
perpetuating. Replete with the same gross grammatical barbarisms. Keep up
the good work.
>>> Now, one of you idiots on here that's been saying that W can handle
>>> the war on terror better than Kerry: justify that statement. I dare
>>> you.
>>
>> Hell, I'm not even sure if Kerry wouldn't have caved to the
>> democratic base's clamoring to treat 9/11 as a police matter.
>
> Hell, I'm not even sure if George Bush wouldn't have used 9/11 as a
> way to gain public sentiment so he could invade Iraq. Oh, wait. He
> did.
Rightfully so, too. This war isn't going to end until the geo-political
face of the Middle East is made over. Bush had three options: Maintain the
UN sanctions, which were doing nothing but harming innocent Iraqis. Drop
the sanctions altogether and let Saddam run amock again. Or take him out.
Convince me that he made the wrong choice.
> Give me something substantial that proves that w is better against
> terrorism than Kerry would be, or concede the point, Ted.
Yes, let's look at Kerry's record on fighting terror. Oh, wait. He has
none. If you want to take the gamble on Kerry, be my guest. If you think
he has the moral courage of someone like Blair to stand up against religious
fundamentalism not just at home, but more importantly abroad, I suspect you
are seriously deluded. It's easy to oppose teaching creationism in schools
and prayer in the classroom. Try to make a case against the state of Islam
in the world today and you are immediately branded an intolerant, racist,
imperialist crusader. Forgive me if I think Bush is better equipped to bear
that mantle. But if you must have something substantive, here goes: Bush
went into Iraq. It had to happen some time or another. If you fail to see
the strategic importance of a free and democratic Iraq in the war on terror,
I can only say that I am relieved that you will never be making foreign
policy decisions.
Ted Zeal
Perhaps because there hasn't been a "Korea" since 1945.
Bjørn Øivind Bjørnsen
Well, if someone were communistic, that should be enough to be able to
call them a communist shouldn't it?
Bjørn Øivind - anarchistic WOT addict :)
Loki
He ignored the U.N. inspectors, he ignored our own intelligence
reports.
cite?
http://www.inthesetimes.com/site/main/print/they_knew_0802/
with sources, quotes and facts. how many reasons has Bush given for
invading Iraq?
Chris Hammock
> Yes, let's look at Kerry's record on fighting terror. Oh, wait. He has
> none. If you want to take the gamble on Kerry, be my guest. If you think
Y'know, lots of people voted for Bush in 2000, even though he had no
record on fighting terror. Look how well *that* turned out.
> he has the moral courage of someone like Blair to stand up against religious
> fundamentalism not just at home, but more importantly abroad, I suspect you
> are seriously deluded. It's easy to oppose teaching creationism in schools
> and prayer in the classroom. Try to make a case against the state of Islam
> in the world today and you are immediately branded an intolerant, racist,
> imperialist crusader. Forgive me if I think Bush is better equipped to bear
> that mantle. [snip]
Here, you are right. I think we can all agree that Bush is better equipped
to bear the mantle of intolerant, racist, imperialist crusader than Kerry
is. And if that is somehow a good thing... sure, vote for him.
--
Chris Hammock zal...@nocturne.org
Ted Zeal
> Ted Zeal <nam...@yahoo.com> wrote:
>
>> Yes, let's look at Kerry's record on fighting terror. Oh, wait. He
>> has none. If you want to take the gamble on Kerry, be my guest. If
>> you think
>
> Y'know, lots of people voted for Bush in 2000, even though he had no
> record on fighting terror. Look how well *that* turned out.
>
Sure. Which makes Aaron's demand for specifics on how Bush is better than
Kerry on terror rather specious. Kerry might surprise me. So far, he's
been impossible to even pin down.
>> he has the moral courage of someone like Blair to stand up against
>> religious fundamentalism not just at home, but more importantly
>> abroad, I suspect you are seriously deluded. It's easy to oppose
>> teaching creationism in schools and prayer in the classroom. Try to
>> make a case against the state of Islam in the world today and you
>> are immediately branded an intolerant, racist, imperialist crusader.
>> Forgive me if I think Bush is better equipped to bear that mantle.
>> [snip]
>
> Here, you are right. I think we can all agree that Bush is better
> equipped to bear the mantle of intolerant, racist, imperialist
> crusader than Kerry is. And if that is somehow a good thing... sure,
> vote for him.
The problem is that this is inevitable for anyone who wants to wage an
effective war on terror.
Michael Hoye
Ted Zeal <nam...@yahoo.com> wrote:
>Michael Hoye wrote:
>>
>> And I don't see the word "Korea" in there at all.
>
>Perhaps because there hasn't been a "Korea" since 1945.
And yet the word "Korea" has seen a lot of use in the news lately.
Huh, must be a typo.
--
Mike Hoye
Mike Kozlowski
Ted Zeal <nam...@yahoo.com> wrote:
>> Again, you fail to realize that we were lied to about Iraq
>
>I do not doubt that the standards of evidence were relaxed in this case,
>which is regrettable.
Fucking awesome.
Ted Zeal
> In article <sprUc.20971$vc4.5...@news4.srv.hcvlny.cv.net>,
> Ted Zeal <nam...@yahoo.com> wrote:
>
>>> Again, you fail to realize that we were lied to about Iraq
>>
>> I do not doubt that the standards of evidence were relaxed in this
>> case, which is regrettable.
>
> Fucking awesome.
C'mon, it's not as though we framed the man. Saddam had to go. We had
evidence that met a reasonable standard and acted on it. We had legal
grounds to go in without proof of WMDs. We could have planted them when
they failed to turn up. I think at best Aaron can get a charge of gross
incompetence to stick. This is actually much more damning in my eyes than
lying. I believe from your comments on Michael Moore that you'd probably
agree with that.
Ted Zeal
Perhaps you should be a little more discriminating in your choice of news
outlets.
Richard Taylor
terror" justifies what is arguably the most powerful nation in the world
having an 'intolerant, racist, imperialist crusader' as a head of state.
Does this mean that you admit that the foregoing adjectives can be
applied to President Bush? Further, does it then mean that if so, you
honestly and truly see nothing wrong with this? I am genuinely
fascinated by your position.
Richard Taylor
This is not the point, and you know it only too well. I judge from the
tone of your post that you are being defensive and that you have been
well and truly set on your back foot. You may not change tack in
midstream like this without weakening your case. Allow me to paraphrase...
Bush Supporters: "Saddam has WMDs! We must institute a regime change!"
*WAR TAKES PLACE*
UN Weapons Inspectors: "There is little or no evidence to support the
claim that Iraq was close to developing WMDs."
Bush Supporter: "Well... That's OK, 'cause he's a genocidal lunatic
anyway. We were justified."
To put it in plain terms, if you enter into a war on a given pretext,
and garner the support of allies and of your own people based upon that
pretext, it is NOT OK TO CHANGE THAT PRETEXT ex post-facto.
There may (MAY!) have been a valid case to support the Iraq campaign.
What is under debate in this instance is that the case that was
presented to the American people and to the rest of the world was NOT
valid. That makes Bush either incompetant, as you suggest, or a liar.
Much more likely, he didn't give a damn either way. He needed a war to
boost his flagging popularity, and come Hell or high water, he would
have one.
Richard Taylor
No, there have been two of them. What's your point?
Ted Zeal
Learn to read for content. I get the feeling from your posts that English
is not your first language. If this is the case, I apologize for being
harsh. But no where in either of my posts on the matter did I say that Bush
_is_ an intolerant, racist, imperialist crusader. My point is that this
will be the inevitable accusation levelled against anyone who takes the
threat of Islamo-fascism seriously.
Ted Zeal
Purely in the interest of accuracy. I'm sure the residents of Seoul would
be surprised to learn that Bush's foreign policy has turned them into a
nuclear power.
Ted Zeal
WMDs have never been the entire case for invading Iraq. I fail to
understand why this is so hard for some people to grasp.
Richard Taylor
Hey, don't blame me for your sloppy use of language. I admit that in the
case of an earlier post I was clearly mistaken, but in the case of your
post which I quoted above, it can clearly be interpreted to read that
you see these qualities as being essential to fight the 'war on
terrorism. I come from the land which gave birth to the language you
speak, Sir.
I can see what you were trying to mean, but it's not quite what you
said. Oh, and please continue to be harsh. It won't bother me too much.
Not from one who can use the phrase 'Islamo-fascism' with an apparently
straight face. Do you even know what fascism is?
Richard Taylor
Oh, give it up. The were presented as being so in the prelude to the war
in Iraq, and all the revisionist propaganda in the world isn't going to
pull the wool over MY eyes.
Richard Taylor
Is this enormous fun for you? You surely must know what Mike is
referring to. In order for you to be this sarcastic, it would first be
required that you understand Mike's basic point. There are two countries
in the world which have the word "Korea" as part of their name. Surely
therefore, when the unadorned word "Korea" is used, it may refer to
either of them, without having to refer to both? In a strictly
colloquial context, of course.
Just so that (in light of your remarks about my command of the English
language) all parties know what is under discussion here, South Korea do
not appear to be a nuclear power. North Korea, on the other hand, have
been reported in the news, recently, to have an active nuclear weapons
development program. Do you have any further issues with this point?
It is my opinion, based on what I understand of the state of the world,
that this is largely in response to the aggressive posture which has
been assumed by the United States in recent times. I believe that this
is the point that Mike was making. However, I can only speak for myself.
Do you find this post also to be lacking in command of English? Do I
still need to improve my reading skills? Could it be that I have raised
myself to the standard required for debate with Ted Zeal? I await your
response with no small amount of interest.
Ted Zeal
Obviously not. How could I possibly use the term 'fascist' to describe a
religious-cum-political movement whose stated goal is the establishment by
force of a universal Islamic state governed in strict accordance with the
barbaric dictates of fundamentalist sharia? What do you propose I call it?
Ted Zeal
You appear to be doing a fine job of that yourself.
Ted Zeal
I never criticized your ability to write. Some of you locutions strike me
as unnatural, but everthing you have written has been perfectly clear in
intent. I was commenting on your ability to read, as evidenced by your
blatant misinterpretation of my point.
Richard Taylor
A Fundamentalist Theocracy.
Richard Taylor
I regret having to resort to ad hominem attacks, but it remains unclear
that you have a point, at least with regards to the question of Korea.
It must also be noted that it is your ability to read for content which
now comes in to question, since you will notice that my biting sarcasm
of the previous post was addressed to your estimation of my reading
skills, not my writing skills. I can't help but notice that you have
entirely avoided disputing the points about Korea and Iran which have
been raised in the thread. I refrain from drawing any conclusions as to
the reasons for this.
Ted Zeal
What am I supposed to make of your distinguishing between the "command of
English" exhibited by your post and your "reading skills?" Perhaps I'm
wrong about your writing ability after all.
I can't help but notice
> that you have entirely avoided disputing the points about Korea and
> Iran which have been raised in the thread. I refrain from drawing any
> conclusions as to the reasons for this.
What would you like me to say? Iran and North Korea are problems. The
original posters implied that these problems should be credited to Bush's
foreign policy. This is so ridiculous as to be worthy only of contempt, not
comment. In point of fact, I think both of these problems can and should be
handled diplomatically. And I think Bush is foolish for refusing to engage
in direct talks with Tehran and Pyongyang. In all, however, I think he was
absolutely write to address what was in many respects the weakest link in
the "axis of evil" first.
Joe
>From: "Ted Zeal" nam...@yahoo.com
>Date: 8/18/2004 4:37 PM Pacific Daylight Time
>Message-id: <FKRUc.25795$vc4.10...@news4.srv.hcvlny.cv.net>
Well considering that Kerry voted in favor of war on Iraq, I find it a little
underhanded to step back and fling the war on Iraq in Bush's face. Then again,
Kerry is flinging the Yucca Mountain Nuclear waste storage (in Nevada) at
Bush as well, and . . well, he voted in favor of that as well. Funny how
trying to win votes makes a man Oppose something that he had been in favor of
beforehand.
~~~~~~~
Joe.
I am just a figment of your imagination.
I am disappointed that you didn't do a better job.
Jasper Janssen
>Obviously not. How could I possibly use the term 'fascist' to describe a
>religious-cum-political movement whose stated goal is the establishment by
>force of a universal Islamic state governed in strict accordance with the
>barbaric dictates of fundamentalist sharia? What do you propose I call it?
The fact that you appear to be aware that there is religion involved ought
to preclude your claiming of fascism. Fascism is a non-religious form of
tyranny.
Jasper
Jasper Janssen
>Michael Hoye wrote:
>> In article <9c1a4f5e.04081...@posting.google.com>,
>> Todd C. <todd.c...@rci.rogers.com> wrote:
>>> "Ted Zeal" <nam...@yahoo.com> wrote in message news:<Fl9Tc.24279
>>>
>>>> I don't know. Over-throwing the Taliban, taking out Saddam,
>>>> disrupting Al-Qaeda, intimidating Libya into abandoning its nuclear
>>>> world over seems like a good start.
>>>
>>> ...Making Iran into a nuclear power....
>>
>> And I don't see the word "Korea" in there at all.
>
>Perhaps because there hasn't been a "Korea" since 1945.
Please tell me in excruciating detail how you feel that matters one whit,
given that Mr Hoye's point is fairly clear, namely that *neither* of the
Koreas was mentioned?
Jasper
Aaron Sanders
> Mike Kozlowski wrote:
> > In article <sprUc.20971$vc4.5...@news4.srv.hcvlny.cv.net>,
> > Ted Zeal <nam...@yahoo.com> wrote:
> >
> >>> Again, you fail to realize that we were lied to about Iraq
> >>
> >> I do not doubt that the standards of evidence were relaxed in this
> >> case, which is regrettable.
> >
> > Fucking awesome.
>
> C'mon, it's not as though we framed the man. Saddam had to go. We had
> evidence that met a reasonable standard and acted on it. We had legal
> grounds to go in without proof of WMDs. We could have planted them when
> they failed to turn up. I think at best Aaron can get a charge of gross
> incompetence to stick.
What am I, a fucking lawyer? I don't have to get any charge to
stick...Bush does that well enough himself.
-Aaron
Aaron Sanders
>
>
> Well considering that Kerry voted in favor of war on Iraq, I find it a little
> underhanded to step back and fling the war on Iraq in Bush's face. Then again,
> Kerry is flinging the Yucca Mountain Nuclear waste storage (in Nevada) at
> Bush as well, and . . well, he voted in favor of that as well. Funny how
> trying to win votes makes a man Oppose something that he had been in favor of
> beforehand.
>
> ~~~~~~~
> Joe.
> I am just a figment of your imagination.
> I am disappointed that you didn't do a better job.
Joe, don't even bother...you're outclassed here. I can't believe
you're throwing leftover campaign mud like that into this discussion.
Don't you know that Bush went to Congress with the intel that *he*
wanted to, and said "We really need to invade Iraq, and we need you
guys to help by supporting this vote." Don't you realize that? You
can't look at how someone votes, when there are so many more factors
riding on every vote than the one "main" goal. Hell, there was
probably a raise for Congressmen riding on the War in Iraq vote. As
for the other, well, I can't profess to have even heard about that
one, so Kerry must not be flinging it all that hard in Bush's face
after all.
Do some research before you quote a commercial at us, please.
-Aaron
Aaron Sanders
*snip*
>
> What would you like me to say? Iran and North Korea are problems. The
> original posters implied that these problems should be credited to Bush's
> foreign policy. This is so ridiculous as to be worthy only of contempt, not
> comment. In point of fact, I think both of these problems can and should be
> handled diplomatically. And I think Bush is foolish for refusing to engage
> in direct talks with Tehran and Pyongyang. In all, however, I think he was
> absolutely write to address what was in many respects the weakest link in
Ted, I get the feeling from your posts that English is not your first
language. If this is the case, I apologize for being harsh.
Otherwise, do try to think before you post. It might help:
> the "axis of evil" first.
And allow *North* (to help you figure out what we're talking about)
Korea to become a full-fledged nuclear power in the meantime?! Sorry,
but I must disagree. Immensely.
-Aaron
Ted Zeal
> "Ted Zeal" <nam...@yahoo.com> wrote in message
> news:<M9UUc.26029$vc4.10...@news4.srv.hcvlny.cv.net>... *snip*
>>
>> What would you like me to say? Iran and North Korea are problems.
>> The original posters implied that these problems should be credited
>> to Bush's foreign policy. This is so ridiculous as to be worthy
>> only of contempt, not comment. In point of fact, I think both of
>> these problems can and should be handled diplomatically. And I
>> think Bush is foolish for refusing to engage in direct talks with
>> Tehran and Pyongyang. In all, however, I think he was absolutely
>> write to address what was in many respects the weakest link in
> ^^^^^
>
> Ted, I get the feeling from your posts that English is not your first
> language. If this is the case, I apologize for being harsh.
That is uncharacteristically decent of you
> Otherwise, do try to think before you post. It might help:
>
>> the "axis of evil" first.
>
> And allow *North* (to help you figure out what we're talking about)
> Korea to become a full-fledged nuclear power in the meantime?! Sorry,
> but I must disagree. Immensely.
Are you suggesting that military intervention in North Korea was an option?
Ted Zeal
Hence, the qualification.
Richard Taylor
'fascism', and still have a phrase that makes any sense. Is it possible
for me to say 'Watery fire' and still be intelligable? I don't believe so.
In the same way, the concepts of Islamic Fundamentalism, and Fascism are
diametrically opposed. One is a Theocracy, while the other is, according
to my dictionary, "An extreme form of nationalism, which plays upon
fears of communism, while rejecting individual freedoms, democracy and
human rights."
There are clearly similarities between them, but definitions are
important, when dealing with a world where we declare war on people for
having the wrong type of government.
Richard Taylor
> "Ted Zeal" <nam...@yahoo.com> wrote in message news:<M9UUc.26029$vc4.10...@news4.srv.hcvlny.cv.net>...
> *snip*
>
>>What would you like me to say? Iran and North Korea are problems. The
>>original posters implied that these problems should be credited to Bush's
>>foreign policy. This is so ridiculous as to be worthy only of contempt, not
>>comment. In point of fact, I think both of these problems can and should be
>>handled diplomatically. And I think Bush is foolish for refusing to engage
>>in direct talks with Tehran and Pyongyang. In all, however, I think he was
>>absolutely write to address what was in many respects the weakest link in
>
> ^^^^^
>
> Ted, I get the feeling from your posts that English is not your first
> language. If this is the case, I apologize for being harsh.
> Otherwise, do try to think before you post. It might help:
>
My heart is warmed by the sight of Ted being hoist by his own petard.
While it's true that I was on one occasions guilty of reading too little
and then posting too much, my use of language is one thing which I
generally prefer not to see insulted.
Whether or not this post was consciously written in response to Ted's
earlier comments about my own writing/reading skills, I must thank you,
Aaron, for your words.
Michael Hoye
Ted Zeal <nam...@yahoo.com> wrote:
>Richard Taylor wrote:
>> Ted Zeal wrote:
>>> Michael Hoye wrote:
>>>>
>>>> And I don't see the word "Korea" in there at all.
>>>
>>> Perhaps because there hasn't been a "Korea" since 1945.
>>>
>> No, there have been two of them. What's your point?
>
>Purely in the interest of accuracy.
And of ducking the point, obviously.
--
Mike Hoye
Todd C.
<snip lots of stuff>
...............................I can't help but notice that you have
> entirely avoided disputing the points about Korea and Iran which have
> been raised in the thread. I refrain from drawing any conclusions as to
> the reasons for this.
He must be a politician.
Todd
Aaron Sanders
*snip*
> > Most of the Taliban and nearly all of Al-Qaeda were allowed to escape
> > over the mountains in Afghanistan, because Bushy wouldn't commit
> > enough forces to the task. He must have been too busy planning for
> > Iraq. *That* is what you missed.
>
> Is the Taliban in power or not? I find it absurd that you insist on arguing
> the point.
>
This is *exactly* why intelligent people don't think Bush can handle
terrorism. Are the Shiites "in power" in Iran? No, they have an
elected, secular official. However, who *has* the power in Iran?
That's right, Islam. I would suggest (as others have) that obviously
such concepts as "hidden power" (or whatever you want to call it) are
too complex for you and Bush to understand, but I can't call them
"complex" without embarrassing myself.
>
> >>> I'll give you this. I didn't expect better from Iraq at this point.
> >>> However, we weren't done in Afghanistan, and there were far more
> >>> pressing matters than Iraq to deal with
> >>
> >> Yes, we are all aware of your feelings about gay marriage.
> >>
> >
> > Typical of a Bushite, you only focus on the problems within the
> > borders of this country. Nice. Interesting how you mock me for this,
> > when Bush *has* been focusing too much on this issue. Were you too
> > stupid to see how your comment could backfire? (it's rhetorical...no
> > need to answer)
>
> My comment backfired how, exactly? Oh, right. I support Bush on Iraq so
> obviously I support his far-right domestic agenda.
No. It backfired because you took a stab at me when I mentioned
"pressing matters" elsewhere, when the very stab you took cuts Bush
himself. Do you not even know what constitutes "backfiring?"
> I believe I made myself
> clear on that elsewhere. And, no, I'm not under the illusion that you make
> a point of reading all my posts.
Oh, I read them. They're quite entertaining (especially these)
> I find your and Bush's view on gay
> marriage to be abhorrent.
Good. I'm troubled by it as well. I'm working on it. Hopefully I'll be
straightened out by the time my sisters have their first daughter, in
January.
> I think Christianity is second only to Islam as
> the greatest single threat to the future of mankind.
Even the harshest of opponents can agree on some things, it would
seem.
*snip*
> The irony of my supporting Bush does not elude me. But I
> don't see Kerry agreeing with me on anything,
Hello? Gay marriage? If any candidate "agrees" with you on that, it's
Kerry. Take off the blinders much?
*snip lack of citing in favor of more general statements*
> >>> You tried to pin
> >>> 9/11 on Iraq with all your might, when it first happenned, no matter
> >>> what any of your advisors tried to tell you (not just Dick Clarke,
> >>> but Rumsfeld and Powell, too!).
> >>
> >> Yes, because, of course, Saddam wouldn't be one to hold a vendetta
> >> against the Bush family or jump at the chance to discharge it if it
> >> meant getting into bed with the jihadis.
> >
> > They stand for an extreme version of Islam. Saddam probably hasn't
> > been to Mosque in years. We all know he wasn't very religious, so no,
> > Ted, *they* wouldn't want to get in bed with *him*.
>
> And I'm the one accused of failing to understand the terrorist mindset.
> Hell, they were in bed with _us_ against the Soviets.
Wrong. We were in bed with *them*. And, they had no power, then. They
don't need to associate with heathens any more, and I still maintain
that they wouldn't associate with them.
*snip*
> > Soil? Or in the middle of the desert? So we can use the vast desert as
> > an excuse that there could still be WMD's hiding out there, but he
> > can't use it as an excuse that terrorists were hiding in his
> > *deserts*?! Ridiculous!
>
> He can appeal to whatever strained analogy he wants. Just don't ask me to
> buy it.
>
Exactly. I think you missed the point, again.
> >> Forgive me if I find this no more or less plausible
> >> than the claim that the Saudis control Bush's foreign policy or that
> >> Iraq and Afghanistan were all about oil.
> >>
> >
> > Stick to "Saddam is a baaad, baaad man." We can all agree on that one,
> > at least. It's just not enough, given all the badder men out there
> > right now.
>
> A perfect example of the sort of simplistic thinking Bush is accused of
> perpetuating. Replete with the same gross grammatical barbarisms. Keep up
> the good work.
>
I can give you some less often used ones, if you want. "Rarely is the
question asked: Is our children learning?"
> >>> Now, one of you idiots on here that's been saying that W can handle
> >>> the war on terror better than Kerry: justify that statement. I dare
> >>> you.
> >>
> >> Hell, I'm not even sure if Kerry wouldn't have caved to the
> >> democratic base's clamoring to treat 9/11 as a police matter.
> >
> > Hell, I'm not even sure if George Bush wouldn't have used 9/11 as a
> > way to gain public sentiment so he could invade Iraq. Oh, wait. He
> > did.
>
> Rightfully so, too.
Ok. We're done, you nut job.
*snip*
> Forgive me if I think Bush is better equipped to bear
> that mantle.
No, I think I won't, actually.
> But if you must have something substantive, here goes: Bush
> went into Iraq.
Which one? The second Bush, who had to go back in to finish what his
daddy screwed up, I assume?
> It had to happen some time or another.
Or twice. And when we fail from poor planning and no support because
the rest of the world thinks we're jackasses, and Iran takes over
Iraq, we'll have to go in again, for Bush honor. It's a good thing
Bush only has daughters. Hopefully none of *them* want to run for
president.
-Aaron
Todd C.
<snip>
> What would you like me to say? Iran and North Korea are problems. The
> original posters implied that these problems should be credited to Bush's
> foreign policy. This is so ridiculous as to be worthy only of contempt, not
> comment. In point of fact, I think both of these problems can and should be
> handled diplomatically. And I think Bush is foolish for refusing to engage
> in direct talks with Tehran and Pyongyang. In all, however, I think he was
> absolutely write to address what was in many respects the weakest link in
> the "axis of evil" first.
If you think that putting over 100,000 battle-hardened troops within
striking distance of Iran didn't reinforce the "Great Satan" attitude
of that country's clerical hierarchy, you are deluding yourself. The
invasion of Iraq threw the Iranian nuclear program into overdrive. It
is safe (or, rather, unsafe) to assume that they could nuke Iraq in a
short period of time if they need to. Pakistan isn't that far away
after all.
Bush has undermined what once was a growing democratic movement in
Iran and has bolstered the Muslim clerics who just have to point
west to Iraq whenever their policies are questioned.
With regard to the _Axis of Evil_ (no not Cheney, Rumsfeld and
Ashcroft), the sign he gives to the rest of the world is "if you
are weak and we don't like you, we will invade; if you have nukes
we'll back ourselves out the door...slowly." Unless you think
the removal of troops from the Korean peninsula means something
else?
Bush's foriegn policy in one line: "Walk loudly and carry a
small stick."
Todd
Richard Taylor
There are times that I think that this group is almost up to the
standand of a truly vicious and in-depth political debate. Then
there are times that I think that a really truly vicious and in-depth
political debate is almost up to the standards of this group.
Ted Zeal
I find debates of this kind to be extremely wearying. Is Islamic
fundamentalism a right-wing totalitarian political movement or is it not?
Do we appeal to dictionary entry 1 or 3? Quibbling over semantics is the
final refuge of the truly incompetent. If you wish to persist, check out
this link:
http://obsidianwings.blogs.com/obsidian_wings/2004/01/could_someone_d.html
If you think there's a morally significant difference between Islamic
fundamentalism and fascism, on the other hand, I'd be glad to hear it.
Ted Zeal
> "Ted Zeal" <nam...@yahoo.com> wrote in message
> news:<x3NUc.24507$vc4.9...@news4.srv.hcvlny.cv.net>... *snip*
>
>>> Most of the Taliban and nearly all of Al-Qaeda were allowed to
>>> escape over the mountains in Afghanistan, because Bushy wouldn't
>>> commit enough forces to the task. He must have been too busy
>>> planning for Iraq. *That* is what you missed.
>>
>> Is the Taliban in power or not? I find it absurd that you insist on
>> arguing the point.
>>
>
> This is *exactly* why intelligent people don't think Bush can handle
> terrorism. Are the Shiites "in power" in Iran? No, they have an
> elected, secular official. However, who *has* the power in Iran?
> That's right, Islam. I would suggest (as others have) that obviously
> such concepts as "hidden power" (or whatever you want to call it) are
> too complex for you and Bush to understand, but I can't call them
> "complex" without embarrassing myself.
Top-notch analogy, there. Are you seriously suggesting that the Taliban are
pulling the strings in Afghanistan?
>>
>>>>> I'll give you this. I didn't expect better from Iraq at this
>>>>> point. However, we weren't done in Afghanistan, and there were
>>>>> far more pressing matters than Iraq to deal with
>>>>
>>>> Yes, we are all aware of your feelings about gay marriage.
>>>>
>>>
>>> Typical of a Bushite, you only focus on the problems within the
>>> borders of this country. Nice. Interesting how you mock me for this,
>>> when Bush *has* been focusing too much on this issue. Were you too
>>> stupid to see how your comment could backfire? (it's rhetorical...no
>>> need to answer)
>>
>> My comment backfired how, exactly? Oh, right. I support Bush on
>> Iraq so obviously I support his far-right domestic agenda.
>
> No. It backfired because you took a stab at me when I mentioned
> "pressing matters" elsewhere, when the very stab you took cuts Bush
> himself. Do you not even know what constitutes "backfiring?"
You claim that Iraq is preventing Bush from focusing on more pressing
issues. You acknowledge that he's been spending too much time on an issue
which is clearly dear to your heart. Which is it, Aaron? Is Iraq getting
in the way or not?
> *snip*
>> The irony of my supporting Bush does not elude me. But I
>> don't see Kerry agreeing with me on anything,
>
> Hello? Gay marriage? If any candidate "agrees" with you on that, it's
> Kerry. Take off the blinders much?
I have priorities. There is no way in hell Bush is going to push through
his agenda. It's merely election year posturing. Or am I being too
'complex' for you?
>>>>> You tried to pin
>>>>> 9/11 on Iraq with all your might, when it first happenned, no
>>>>> matter what any of your advisors tried to tell you (not just Dick
>>>>> Clarke, but Rumsfeld and Powell, too!).
>>>>
>>>> Yes, because, of course, Saddam wouldn't be one to hold a vendetta
>>>> against the Bush family or jump at the chance to discharge it if it
>>>> meant getting into bed with the jihadis.
>>>
>>> They stand for an extreme version of Islam. Saddam probably hasn't
>>> been to Mosque in years. We all know he wasn't very religious, so
>>> no, Ted, *they* wouldn't want to get in bed with *him*.
>>
>> And I'm the one accused of failing to understand the terrorist
>> mindset. Hell, they were in bed with _us_ against the Soviets.
>
> Wrong. We were in bed with *them*.
You are aware of how absolutely ridiculous the distinction you are making
here is, right?
>And, they had no power, then. They
> don't need to associate with heathens any more, and I still maintain
> that they wouldn't associate with them.
And certainly they'd never compromise their fundamentalist beliefs by
running drugs or anything.
> *snip*
>
>>> Soil? Or in the middle of the desert? So we can use the vast desert
>>> as an excuse that there could still be WMD's hiding out there, but
>>> he can't use it as an excuse that terrorists were hiding in his
>>> *deserts*?! Ridiculous!
>>
>> He can appeal to whatever strained analogy he wants. Just don't ask
>> me to buy it.
>>
>
> Exactly. I think you missed the point, again.
Hardly. If Saddam wants to claim ignorance about terrorist training camps
operating openly on Iraqi soil and argue that it's no less plausible than
the US claim that their may be weapons dumps hidden in the desert that we
don't know about, so be it. Obviously, some of us would be willing to bite.
>>>>> Now, one of you idiots on here that's been saying that W can
>>>>> handle the war on terror better than Kerry: justify that
>>>>> statement. I dare you.
>>>>
>>>> Hell, I'm not even sure if Kerry wouldn't have caved to the
>>>> democratic base's clamoring to treat 9/11 as a police matter.
>>>
>>> Hell, I'm not even sure if George Bush wouldn't have used 9/11 as a
>>> way to gain public sentiment so he could invade Iraq. Oh, wait. He
>>> did.
>>
>> Rightfully so, too.
>
> Ok. We're done, you nut job.
>
> *snip*
>
>> Forgive me if I think Bush is better equipped to bear
>> that mantle.
>
> No, I think I won't, actually.
>
>> But if you must have something substantive, here goes: Bush
>> went into Iraq.
>
> Which one? The second Bush, who had to go back in to finish what his
> daddy screwed up, I assume?
Precisely. It's been to your credit that you haven't made the ridiculous
argument that Iraq II is morally suspect given our previous support of
Saddam's regime. Don't blow it now. Bush I's foreign policy failures are
irrelevant here.
John Rowat
> If you think that putting over 100,000 battle-hardened troops within
> striking distance of Iran didn't reinforce the "Great Satan" attitude
> of that country's clerical hierarchy, you are deluding yourself. The
> invasion of Iraq threw the Iranian nuclear program into overdrive.
And as of this morning, Iran has threatened a nuclear first strike against
the USA and Israel if they believe either of those countries are
threatening their nuclear weapons program.
> Bush has undermined what once was a growing democratic movement in
> Iran and has bolstered the Muslim clerics who just have to point
> west to Iraq whenever their policies are questioned.
Yup.
-John
--
Had we lived, I should have had a tale to tell of the hardihood,
endurance, and courage of my companions which would have stirred the
heart of every Englishman.
-Robert Falcon Scott, March 29, 1912
Richard Taylor
The difference, which has already been repeatedly stated, is that
Islamic Fundamentalism is based upon the distorted interpretation
of a set of religious beliefs. Fascism, as best illustrated by Nazi
Germany, was a non-religious form of totalitarian regime. At the
true beginning of fascism, in Italy, it is true that there were
links between the state and the church, but it was always an uneasy
relationship, and the fascist state did not hold as one of it's
duties, the advancement of the faith. Even if you argue that Saddam
Hussein had only ever paid lip service to the Islamic faith, it
seems to me to be a crucial difference. It is not merely word-play
to say that there is a difference between a theocratic state, and
a 'merely' fascist state.
For an exploration of what fascism truly is, and why the former Iraqi
regime's close ties to the Islamic faith separate it from fascism,
here is my cite. Slightly more of an authority than yours, I suspect.
http://www.webster-dictionary.org/definition/fascism
The difference is psychological, and exists within the minds of the
people who live under the rule of such a regime. In a fascist state
there is always the possibility of change from within, since a nation
may rise up against a regime it despises. Under a Theocratic regime
a man will likely feel a far greater personal investment in the state.
After all, to doubt the state is at the risk of his soul. That is one
crucial difference. I must honestly say that I lack the knowledge to
dispute this point in much more depth, however.
This has been stated not just by myself, but by many other in the
thread. Ergo, you HAVE heard my argument. Semantics is a term which
is often used to indicate that one believes that a person is indulging
in sophistry to mask the absence of a true point. In my experience,
another tactic employed by those who wish to disguise the fact that
they feel themselves loosing an argument is to brandish emotive
buzz-words. "Islamo-Fascism" is one such. It is a word-construct fit
only for use by the worst kind of gutter journalist, who requires
a headline to inflame the uneducated masses.
As to your cite, I don't find it in any way worthy of my consideration,
and amusingly enough, I don't even find it to be entirely in support
of your own point. The author of the piece is in no way certain what
she thinks, it seems to me, and the comments posted by others seem
to refute your point rather than support it. Perhaps you should learn
to read for content, Ted? I get the feeling from your posts that English
may not be your first language. If this is the case, I apologize if I
seem harsh. If not, try to think before you post. It might help.
Ted Zeal
Now you are just blathering.
At the
> true beginning of fascism, in Italy, it is true that there were
> links between the state and the church, but it was always an uneasy
> relationship, and the fascist state did not hold as one of it's
> duties, the advancement of the faith. Even if you argue that Saddam
> Hussein had only ever paid lip service to the Islamic faith, it
> seems to me to be a crucial difference. It is not merely word-play
> to say that there is a difference between a theocratic state, and
> a 'merely' fascist state.
Again, what is the morally significant difference? The belief that the
right-wing ideology is ordained by God? I must admit, then, that fascism is
hardly a strong enough term of contempt.
> For an exploration of what fascism truly is, and why the former Iraqi
> regime's close ties to the Islamic faith separate it from fascism,
And just where, exactly, have I characterized Saddam as an Islamo-fascist?
He was a fascist plain an simple.
> here is my cite. Slightly more of an authority than yours, I suspect.
>
> http://www.webster-dictionary.org/definition/fascism
My link was not meant to be authoritative or even to make my point. It was
meant to indulge your desire to continue this pointless debate.
> This has been stated not just by myself, but by many other in the
> thread. Ergo, you HAVE heard my argument. Semantics is a term which
> is often used to indicate that one believes that a person is indulging
> in sophistry to mask the absence of a true point. In my experience,
> another tactic employed by those who wish to disguise the fact that
> they feel themselves loosing an argument is to brandish emotive
> buzz-words. "Islamo-Fascism" is one such. It is a word-construct fit
> only for use by the worst kind of gutter journalist, who requires
> a headline to inflame the uneducated masses.
And yet you fail once again to explain why wrapping a fascist political
agenda in the cloak of religious fundamentalism makes anything more than a
superficial difference. Explain to me again how they are mutually
exclusive? Oh wait, you've already acknowledge that even historically they
are not. Thanks for playing.
Richard Taylor
First of all, I do not think that there is a *morally significant*
difference between Islamic Fundamentalism and Fascism. That point
I gladly concede. I am merely attempting to illustrate to you that
there is a difference. Your failiure to recognise this difference,
however, is indicative of a selective blindness on your part, which
stems from your overly emotional viewpoint on the middle-east question.
if you would merely take a step back to consider the larger world,
you might see that there are repercussions to the actions taken in
Iraq which will adversely affect your nation. My dogged persistance
in driving home this point is merely in the hope that you will, at
least for once, concede that you are not always right just by virtue
of saying so.
There are many similiarities between Fascism and Islamic Fundamentalism.
There are also many similarities between water and white spirits. You
may well realise the importance of seemingly small differences if you
attempt to drink the latter of the two colourless liquids.
Finally, and I sincerely hope that this at least penetrates your
conciousness, it is worth considering the following; If you consider
"The belief that the right-wing ideology is ordained by God" to be
deserving of contempt, then I suggest you reflect upon what this
should be saying to you about President George W. Bush. If ever
there was a man who was a Christian Fundamentalist, and as such, so
entrenched in his belief that whatever he chooses to set as policy
is endorsed by the Almighty himself, then Bush is that man.
He has clearly stated as much in his own speeches, in his own
inimitable way, and I will be happy to track down a cite or 15 for
you if you choose to dispute this point, as you have every single
other point that has been made in the debate. Unless of course you
believe that this is somehow OK and different because that is the
*Christian* God?
Joe
>Date: 8/19/2004 5:03 AM Pacific Daylight Time
>Message-id: <42fd1f6a.04081...@posting.google.com>
[Snip]
>Then again,
>> Kerry is flinging the Yucca Mountain Nuclear waste storage (in Nevada) at
>> Bush as well, and . . well, he voted in favor of that as well. Funny how
>> trying to win votes makes a man Oppose something that he had been in favor
>of
>> beforehand.
As
>for the other, well, I can't profess to have even heard about that
>one, so Kerry must not be flinging it all that hard in Bush's face
>after all.
Actually, that is a major factor still going on here in Nevada. Due to massive
job opportunities should it be approved (I work in transportation, and there
are already contracts on hold to move personnel back and forth to the facility
that are on hold waiting for approval) I have been following this issue
Kerry was here last week (so it's not that left over) and one of his big
arguments to try to gain favor was his "opposition" of a toxic waste dump in
Nevada - Failing to mention that before it became campaign fodder, he was fully
in support of it. Since Bush is still in favor of it, naturally Kerry has to
oppose it now.
Personally, the stuff has to go somewhere, and if the safety measures can be
put in place that are up to whatever standards are required, then One place or
another doesn't make much difference. Financially, of course approval would
help me (and most of the transportation industry) out so I hope that the
details are worked out and safety standards set in place.
As for being outclassed, I wasn't under the impression that opinions weren't
worth more or less depending on class. I didn't set out to state facts and
back up a case, I simply stated what I felt. At least Bush is backing up what
he believes in. Whether invading Iraq was right or wrong, whether we were lied
to or not, it's done. Sure, we can determine how the book plays out from here
by who we vote for.. But, as for research, I don't recall Bush ever opposing
something that he now says he is in favor of, or vise versa. As for Kerry, any
research you can dig up will show just that. But then again, thats just
personal recollection. I can watch the news and see all of the Kerry research
that I care for.
>
>Do some research before you quote a commercial at us, please.
>
>-Aaron
~~~~~~~
Ted Zeal
> Ted Zeal wrote:
>> Richard Taylor wrote:
>>
>>> Ted Zeal wrote:
>>>
>>>
>>>> Richard Taylor wrote:
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>> Ted Zeal wrote:
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>> Jasper Janssen wrote:
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>>> On Thu, 19 Aug 2004 01:17:05 GMT, "Ted Zeal" <nam...@yahoo.com>
>>>>>>> wrote:
If I thought there were no difference between the jihadists and the
brownshirts, do you think I'd bother to qualify the former as
ISLAMO-fascists? Do you deny that they are both right-wing totalitarian
ideologies? Do you think it matters much that one is a nationalist movement
and the other a religious one? Do you think the hyphen fails to remove
whatever ambiguity remains on this score? I'm serious. You seem to think
there is a lot riding on this.
if you would merely take a step back to consider the larger
> world, you might see that there are repercussions to the actions
> taken in Iraq which will adversely affect your nation. My dogged
> persistance in driving home this point is merely in the hope that you
> will, at least for once, concede that you are not always right just
> by virtue of saying so.
And this has exactly what to do with the issue of whether Islamic
fundamentalists are fascists?
> There are many similiarities between Fascism and Islamic
> Fundamentalism. There are also many similarities between water and
> white spirits. You may well realise the importance of seemingly small
> differences if you attempt to drink the latter of the two colourless
> liquids.
So I guess you object to the term fire-water, too, huh?
> Finally, and I sincerely hope that this at least penetrates your
> conciousness, it is worth considering the following; If you consider
> "The belief that the right-wing ideology is ordained by God" to be
> deserving of contempt, then I suggest you reflect upon what this
> should be saying to you about President George W. Bush. If ever
> there was a man who was a Christian Fundamentalist, and as such, so
> entrenched in his belief that whatever he chooses to set as policy
> is endorsed by the Almighty himself, then Bush is that man.
You will get no argument from me here.
Aaron Sanders
My pleasure. Rest assured, it was *directly* in response to his
earlier comments. I don't think he even got the point.
-Aaron
Aaron Sanders
*snip*
>
> I find debates of this kind to be extremely wearying. Is Islamic
> fundamentalism a right-wing totalitarian political movement or is it not?
> Do we appeal to dictionary entry 1 or 3? Quibbling over semantics is the
> final refuge of the truly incompetent.
*snort* I find this extremely amusing, Mr. "There is no country called 'Korea.'"
Just. Give. Up.
*snip*
-Aaron
Aaron Sanders
*snip*
>
> Top-notch analogy, there. Are you seriously suggesting that the Taliban are
> pulling the strings in Afghanistan?
>
I am open to the possibility that it is the case, given the failures
of our military action in Afghanistan. I see that you are not.
*snip*
> >
> > No. It backfired because you took a stab at me when I mentioned
> > "pressing matters" elsewhere, when the very stab you took cuts Bush
> > himself. Do you not even know what constitutes "backfiring?"
>
> You claim that Iraq is preventing Bush from focusing on more pressing
> issues. You acknowledge that he's been spending too much time on an issue
> which is clearly dear to your heart. Which is it, Aaron? Is Iraq getting
> in the way or not?
>
I thought previously that you were flinging the gay marriage in my
face, realizing full well that was not something to which I was
referring when I said "pressing matters." Clearly, you did not realize
what I meant, so I will clarify.
When I said "pressing matters," I was referring to the many problems
of what we liberals like to refer to as the "rest of the world," to
which Bushites say "Bring 'em on!" Many of those issues have been
stated in this thread, so I will avoid rehashing them for you, though
I think you may need it.
Gay marriage only came up because you mentioned it. Rest assured, it
is far from what I would call a "pressing matter," relative to other
issues Bush *should* have focused on.
*snip*
> >>
> >> And I'm the one accused of failing to understand the terrorist
> >> mindset. Hell, they were in bed with _us_ against the Soviets.
> >
> > Wrong. We were in bed with *them*.
>
> You are aware of how absolutely ridiculous the distinction you are making
> here is, right?
>
There is no Korea.
> > Exactly. I think you missed the point, again.
>
> Hardly. If Saddam wants to claim ignorance about terrorist training camps
> operating openly on Iraqi soil and argue that it's no less plausible than
> the US claim that their may be weapons dumps hidden in the desert that we
> don't know about, so be it. Obviously, some of us would be willing to bite.
>
I didn't imply I was willing to bite on either statement. I was
offering you a chance to see things from another perspective.
*snip*
> >
> >> But if you must have something substantive, here goes: Bush
> >> went into Iraq.
> >
> > Which one? The second Bush, who had to go back in to finish what his
> > daddy screwed up, I assume?
>
> Precisely. It's been to your credit that you haven't made the ridiculous
> argument that Iraq II is morally suspect given our previous support of
> Saddam's regime. Don't blow it now. Bush I's foreign policy failures are
> irrelevant here.
No. I was referring to how we could have ended all of this in the
first Gulf War. I understand why we supported Iraq before. IMHO, it
was Reagan, not Bush, who was more responsible for that given that he
was the president back then. Blaming VPs' for presidents' actions is
reserved for idiotic presidents like Dubya. That is too far into
history for me to want to enter a debate about it now, at any rate.
-Aaron
Richard Taylor
of language, Ted seems reluctant to indulge in what he refers to as
'semantics' over the true nature of the regime in Iraq. It must be fun
to be able to argue both sides of the same point, without feeling even
the slightest twinge of discomfort.
Ted Zeal
Yes, you are quite a subtle wit.
>> -Aaron
> And yet, despite being all too willing to criticise others for their
> use of language, Ted seems reluctant to indulge in what he refers to
> as 'semantics' over the true nature of the regime in Iraq. It must be
> fun to be able to argue both sides of the same point, without feeling
> even the slightest twinge of discomfort.
Now Richard. I thought we were through this already. I was not criticizing
your use of language, but your ability to understand it. That you continue
to insist that our little discussion concerning the appropriateness of the
term 'Islamo-Fascism' has anything to do with the 'true nature of the regime
in Iraq' only serves to make my point quite nicely.
Michael Hoye
>> Ted Zeal <nam...@yahoo.com> wrote:
>>
>>>> Again, you fail to realize that we were lied to about Iraq
>>>
>>> I do not doubt that the standards of evidence were relaxed in this
>>> case, which is regrettable.
>>
>> Fucking awesome.
>
>C'mon, it's not as though we framed the man. Saddam had to go. We had
>evidence that met a reasonable standard and acted on it.
That's not the case.
>We could have planted them when
>they failed to turn up.
That's an outstanding defense.
--
Mike Hoye