OT: WARMONGER EXPLAINS WAR TO PEACENIK
Von Bailey
Author Unknown
PN: Why did you say we are we invading Iraq?
WM: We are invading Iraq because it is in violation of
security council resolution 1441. A country cannot be
allowed to violate security council resolutions.
PN: But I thought many of our allies, including
Israel, were in violation of more security council
resolutions than Iraq.
WM: It's not just about UN resolutions. The main point
is that Iraq could have weapons of mass destruction,
and the first sign of a smoking gun could well be a
mushroom cloud over NY.
PN: Mushroom cloud? But I thought the weapons
inspectors said Iraq had no nuclear weapons.
WM: Yes, but biological and chemical weapons are the
issue.
PN: But I thought Iraq did not have any long range
missiles for attacking us or our allies with such
weapons.
WM: The risk is not Iraq directly attacking us, but
rather terrorists networks that Iraq could sell the
weapons to.
PN: But couldn't virtually any country sell chemical
or biological materials? We sold quite a bit to Iraq
in the eighties ourselves, didn't we?
WM: That's ancient history. Look, Saddam Hussein is an
evil man that has an undeniable track record of
repressing his own people since the early eighties. He
gasses his enemies. Everyone agrees that he is a
power-hungry lunatic murderer.
PN: We sold chemical and biological materials to a
power-hungry lunatic murderer?
WM: The issue is not what we sold, but rather what
Saddam did. He is the one that launched a pre-emptive
first strike on Kuwait.
PN: A pre-emptive first strike does sound bad. But
didn't our ambassador to Iraq, Gillespie, know about
and green-light the invasion of Kuwait?
WM: Let's deal with the present, shall we? As of
today, Iraq could sell its biological and chemical
weapons to Al Qaida. Osama BinLaden himself released
an audio tape calling on Iraqis to suicide attack
us, proving a partnership between the two.
PN: Osama Bin Laden? Wasn't the point of invading
Afghanistan to kill him?
WM: Actually, it's not 100% certain that it's really
Osama Bin Laden on the tapes. But the lesson from the
tape is the same: there could easily be a partnership
between Al Qaeda and Saddam Hussein unless we act.
PN: Is this the same audio tape where Osama Bin Laden
labels Saddam a secular infidel?
WM: You're missing the point by just focusing on the
tape. Powell presented a strong case against Iraq.
PN: He did?
WM: Yes, he showed satellite pictures of an Al Qaeda
poison factory in Iraq.
PN: But didn't that turn out to be a harmless shack in
the part of Iraq controlled by the Kurdish opposition?
WM: And a British intelligence report...
PN: Didn't that turn out to be copied from an
out-of-date graduate student paper?
WM: And reports of mobile weapons labs...
PN: Weren't those just artistic renderings?
WM: And reports of Iraqis scuttling and hiding
evidence from inspectors...
PN: Wasn't that evidence contradicted by the chief
weapons inspector, Hans Blix?
WM: Yes, but there is plenty of other hard evidence
that cannot be revealed because it would compromise
our security.
PN: So there is no publicly available evidence of
weapons of mass destruction in Iraq?
WM: The inspectors are not detectives, it's not their
JOB to find evidence. You're missing the point.
PN: So what is the point?
WM: The main point is that we are invading Iraq
because resolution 1441 threatened "severe
consequences." If we do not act, the security
council will become an irrelevant debating society.
PN: So the main point is to uphold the rulings of the
security council?
WM: Absolutely. ...unless it rules against us.
PN: And what if it does rule against us?
WM: In that case, we must lead a coalition of the
willing to invade Iraq.
PN: Coalition of the willing? Who's that?
WM: Britain, Turkey, Bulgaria, Spain, and Italy, for
starters.
PN: I thought Turkey refused to help us unless we gave
them tens of billions of dollars
WM: Nevertheless, they may now be willing.
PN: I thought public opinion in all those countries
was against war.
WM: Current public opinion is irrelevant. The majority
expresses its will by electing leaders to make
decisions.
PN: So it's the decisions of leaders elected by the
majority that is important?
WM: Yes.
PN: But George B-
WM: I mean, we must support the decisions of our
leaders, however they were elected, because they are
acting in our best interest. This is about being a
patriot. That's the bottom line.
PN: So if we do not support the decisions of the
president, we are notpatriotic?
WM: I never said that.
PN: So what are you saying? Why are we invading Iraq?
WM: As I said, because there is a chance that they
have weapons of mass destruction that threaten us and
our allies.
PN: But the inspectors have not been able to find any
such weapons.
WM: Iraq is obviously hiding them.
PN: You know this? How?
WM: Because we know they had the weapons ten years
ago, and they are still unaccounted for.
PN: The weapons we sold them, you mean?
WM: Precisely.
PN: But I thought those biological and chemical
weapons would degrade to an unusable state over ten
years.
WM: But there is a chance that some have not degraded.
PN: So as long as there is even a small chance that
such weapons exist, we must invade?
WM: Exactly.
PN: But North Korea actually has large amounts of
usable chemical, biological, AND nuclear weapons, AND
long range missiles that can reach the west coast AND
it has expelled nuclear weapons inspectors,
AND threatened to turn America into a sea of fire.
WM: That's a diplomatic issue.
PN: So why are we invading Iraq instead of using
diplomacy?
WM: Aren't you listening? We are invading Iraq because
we cannot allow the inspections to drag on
indefinitely. Iraq has been delaying, deceiving, and
denying for over ten years, and inspections cost us
tens of millions.
PN: But I thought war would cost us tens of billions.
WM: Yes, but this is not about money. This is about
security.
PN: But wouldn't a pre-emptive war against Iraq ignite
radical Muslim sentiments against us, and decrease our
security?
WM: Possibly, but we must not allow the terrorists to
change the way we live. Once we do that, the
terrorists have already won.
PN: So what is the purpose of the Department of
Homeland Security, color-coded terror alerts, and the
Patriot Act? Don't these change the way we live?
WM: I thought you had questions about Iraq.
PN: I do. Why are we invading Iraq?
WM: For the last time, we are invading Iraq because
the world has called on Saddam Hussein to disarm, and
he has failed to do so. He must now face the
consequences.
PN: So, likewise, if the world called on us to do
something, such as find a peaceful solution, we would
have an obligation to listen?
WM: By "world", I meant the United Nations.
PN: So, we have an obligation to listen to the United
Nations?
WM: By "United Nations" I meant the Security Council.
PN: So, we have an obligation to listen to the
Security Council?
WM: I meant the majority of the Security Council.
PN: So, we have an obligation to listen to the
majority of the Security Council?
WM: Well... there could be an unreasonable veto.
PN: In which case?
WM: In which case, we have an obligation to ignore the
veto.
PN: And if the majority of the Security Council does
not support us at all?
WM: Then we have an obligation to ignore the Security
Council.
PN: That makes no sense:
WM: If you love Iraq so much, you should move there.
Or maybe France, with the all the other cheese-eating
surrender monkeys. It's time to boycott their wine and
cheese, no doubt about that.
PN: I give up.
Ty
news:c1c1301f.03041...@posting.google.com...
> WARMONGER EXPLAINS WAR TO PEACENIK
Game over man.
Let it go.
--Ty
Henry Bramlet
"Von Bailey" <red...@MailAndNews.com> wrote in message
news:c1c1301f.03041...@posting.google.com...
Now this is taking your dellusion to a whole new level. Not content to
create just a strawman argument, you have to fabricate (or find a
fabricated) strawman conversation.
It's as if these people's worldviews are spiraling down to the same
cataclysmic fate as so many of their beloved Sadam statues in Iraq.
Pathetic really.
-HB
Richard H. Araujo
news:c1c1301f.03041...@posting.google.com:
> PN: So it's the decisions of leaders elected by the
> majority that is important?
>
> WM: Yes.
>
> PN: But George B-
>
> WM: I mean, we must support the decisions of our
> leaders, however they were elected,
As if Al Gore had won it would have been more legitamate? Our system
isn't set up so a majority popular vote means victory, period. It isn't
how the system works, and whatever your feeling on the war, which I tend
to agree with, is it possible for lefties to let this bit go finally?
Bush is president in no less a slimy manner than Gore would have been had
he 'won.' I didn't vote for either so I don't care, and isn't it time to
move on?
--
Yrs,
Richard H. Araujo
"Economics deals with real man not ideal beings, omniscient and perfect."
Ludwig von Mises
Daniel Duffy
<snip>
Apparently all those ecstatic Iraqis dancing in the street, shouting "Thank
you President Bush", pulling down statues of Saddam, and throwing flowers at
American soldiers has you terribly upset.
Maybe you should just lie down until you feel better.
Mik
"Ty" <tbe...@SPAMtyler.net> wrote in message
news:v9bsfpr...@corp.supernews.com...
If he gets enough people to listen and believe his drivel, maybe we will
take the war back.
-Mik
Paul Smith
news:3e9609cb$0$59540$a046...@nnrp.fuse.net...
>
> Apparently all those ecstatic Iraqis dancing in the street, shouting
"Thank
> you President Bush", pulling down statues of Saddam, and throwing flowers
at
> American soldiers has you terribly upset.
LOL!
You mean imperialist troops killed any journalist that wouldn't show this
picture, bombing of countless offices and firing at journalists, I've lost
count of how many journalists have died so far due to "accidents".
The few hundred youths who were just "extras" in the imperialist little film
of the Hussein statue being pulled down.
I didn't see any mass celebrations.
The masses of people who had no intention on celebrating were all kept a
couple of hundred metres away, blocked from moving, while imperialist troops
were firing at them.
Damn I guess one of those perky Italian journalists must of escaped from her
fate.
--
Paul Smith,
Yeovil, UK.
http://www.smirnov.demon.co.uk/
http://www.dasmirnov.net/
*Replace nospam with smirnov to reply by e-mail*
Ty
news:b756j8$c6b$1$8300...@news.demon.co.uk...
> I didn't see any mass celebrations.
"There are no Americans in Baghdad. They are not anywhere. This is not an
American dragging me away!"
--Ty
Paul Smith
>
> "There are no Americans in Baghdad. They are not anywhere. This is not an
> American dragging me away!"
I would not call a few hundred people mass demonstrations.
The streets in Baghdad were hardly full considering the population is 6
million were they?
Ty
> "Ty" <tbe...@SPAMtyler.net> wrote in message
> news:v9c8ugg...@corp.supernews.com...
> >
> > "There are no Americans in Baghdad. They are not anywhere. This is not
an
> > American dragging me away!"
>
> I would not call a few hundred people mass demonstrations.
>
> The streets in Baghdad were hardly full considering the population is 6
> million were they?
"They're not even [within] 100 miles [of Baghdad]. They are not in any
place. They hold no place in Iraq. This is an illusion ... they are
trying to sell to the others an illusion."
--Ty
orgone
>Author Unknown
ROTFL!
- work * buy * consume * die -
Richard H. Araujo
@news.demon.co.uk:
> The streets in Baghdad were hardly full considering the population is 6
> million were they?
Don't take this as a statement in support of the war, or one against it
but on this point in particular Baghdad was rather empty to begin with,
wasn't it? It'd be hard to see millions of people celebrating if they all
fled before the bombs started falling.
--
Yrs,
Richard H. Araujo
"So far as I can remember, there is not one word in the Gospels in praise
of intelligence."
Bertrand Russell
Daniel Duffy
> "Ty" <tbe...@SPAMtyler.net> wrote in message
> news:v9c8ugg...@corp.supernews.com...
> >
> > "There are no Americans in Baghdad. They are not anywhere. This is not
an
> > American dragging me away!"
>
> I would not call a few hundred people mass demonstrations.
>
Unless they're *protesting* the war. ;-)
Paul Smith
>
> "They're not even [within] 100 miles [of Baghdad]. They are not in any
> place. They hold no place in Iraq. This is an illusion ... they are
> trying to sell to the others an illusion."
No government would admit to being on their last leg would they? We live in
the real world here.
If it was America being invaded and being slaughtered Bush wouldn't be on TV
admitting he had only 48 hours left!
Besides I fail to see what this has to do with only a few hundred kids
"celebrating" which can be clearly seen in all the pictures. Unless of
course you're clutching straws.
Paul Smith
news:Xns9359F1C50C33...@167.206.3.2...
>
> Don't take this as a statement in support of the war, or one against it
> but on this point in particular Baghdad was rather empty to begin with,
> wasn't it? It'd be hard to see millions of people celebrating if they all
> fled before the bombs started falling.
I believe certain areas had empted but they simply moved to other sections
of the city, rather then leave the city altogether, the impression given was
that people weren't fleeing, they were staying put.
Paul Smith
>
> Unless they're *protesting* the war. ;-)
Well I don't know what you'd consider a mass demonstration, I'd personally
say 100 000 and up to be a mass demonstration. The demonstrations in the UK
numbered 2 million, that is definitely a mass demonstration in my book.
Certainly to say a few hundred people "celebrating" a mass celebration, I
think that is definitely bending the truth.
Ty
> Besides I fail to see what this has to do with only a few hundred kids
> "celebrating" which can be clearly seen in all the pictures. Unless of
> course you're clutching straws.
Uh, you aren't the Iraqi Information Minister, are you? If so, please
contact me as I would love to be your agent. I think we could get you a
recurring role on Saturday Night Live...
--Ty
Ty
Touche!
--Ty
Von Bailey
> red...@MailAndNews.com (Von Bailey) wrote in
> news:c1c1301f.03041...@posting.google.com:
> > PN: So it's the decisions of leaders elected by the
> > majority that is important?
> >
> > WM: Yes.
> >
> > PN: But George B-
> >
> > WM: I mean, we must support the decisions of our
> > leaders, however they were elected,
>
> As if Al Gore had won it would have been more legitamate? Our system
> isn't set up so a majority popular vote means victory, period. It isn't
> how the system works, and whatever your feeling on the war, which I tend
> to agree with, is it possible for lefties to let this bit go finally?
> Bush is president in no less a slimy manner than Gore would have been had
> he 'won.' I didn't vote for either so I don't care, and isn't it time to
> move on?
Why didn't we just 'move on' wrt Saddam? Unless there is some news
today that I am not aware of there is no 'new evidence' that Saddam
has done anything wrt WMDs since the inspectors left in 1998. So why
didn't we just 'move on'?
While I didn't write the piece, I do agree with most of what was in
it. WRT the election of 2000, I didn't vote for either of them and I
while I think we would have hit Afghanistan regardless of who was
president, I don't think we would have invaded Iraq AS we did if there
were a democrat in the White House. Not that I would have preferred
anyone that the democrats put forth, they are just less IMO (sans a
scandal) likely to actually start a war.
My issue with the 2000 election has never been WHO won but HOW it was
done and what it does wrt the viability of the system. Primarily
focused no two major issues.
1) The non-political nature of the Supreme Court is definately in
question now. With the decisions made, the rationalizations put forth
and the unprecidented action of creating a decision that could not be
used as precident for any other case, we now have a decision made for
a single person. That's not the rule of law anymore, that the law of
a single person.
2) The legitimacy of the election and the process is also in question
now. How can you be sure that the system is not being manipulated to
attain a desired end result? The manipulations pointed out by the
Civil Right Commission's investigation showed that the Governor and
the Secretary of State of florida manipulated the voter rosters to
eliminate people who they believed had a lower probability of voting
for them. As a result millions of people now have no confidence in
the system of selecting our leaders.
Whether Al Gore or George Bush as president, the damage that the 2000
election has done to our judicial and electorial system was wrong and
I don't think that people should just "move on". They should be
reminded that something wrong was done so that they can be forwarned
wrt such incidents in the future and create remedies to make sure it
doesn't happen again.
von
Ty
news:c1c1301f.03041...@posting.google.com...
> My issue with the 2000 election has never been WHO won but HOW it was
> done and what it does wrt the viability of the system. Primarily
> focused no two major issues.
Good lord, you people really need to let it go.
> 1) The non-political nature of the Supreme Court is definately in
> question now.
When the court was running amok in the 1960s and 1970s reading all sorts of
new rights into the Constitution, you lefties were quite happy with the
outcome. Yet when you disagree, you soberly worry about the court's
"politization". Such hypocrisy is so amusing to me.
And I wonder why you don't seem to consider the Florida's Supreme Court to
be "politicized" -- perhaps because you agreed with them?
Live by judicial activism, die by judicial activism. The left was hoist on
its own petard and I find it richly amusing.
> 2) The legitimacy of the election and the process is also in question
> now. How can you be sure that the system is not being manipulated to
> attain a desired end result?
The hilarious thing about this is that the alleged manipulation and
ineptitude happened in DEMOCRAT controlled precincts. Priceless!
School's out on this one. It's time to move on.
--Ty
Von Bailey
The difference is that there were millions all over the world
protesting with any 'few hundred' you may be referencing. Where are
the millions around the world celebrating with your few hundred?
von
Von Bailey
or something to the Iraq people still shooting at American soldiers in
Baghdad. They didn't get your last edict.
von
Von Bailey
it wrt the war effectively. Outside of the assumption that you are
right because you are american and have the ability to wage war at
will you have no arguement.
von
Ty
news:c1c1301f.03041...@posting.google.com...
> "Ty" <tbe...@SPAMtyler.net> wrote in message
news:<v9bsfpr...@corp.supernews.com>...
> > "Von Bailey" <red...@MailAndNews.com> wrote in message
> > news:c1c1301f.03041...@posting.google.com...
> > > WARMONGER EXPLAINS WAR TO PEACENIK
> >
> > Game over man.
> >
> > Let it go.
> >
> I wasn't aware that it was up to you. Maybe you should send an email
> or something to the Iraq people still shooting at American soldiers in
> Baghdad. They didn't get your last edict.
Game over man. Let it go.
--Ty
Von Bailey
> <snip>
>
> Apparently all those ecstatic Iraqis dancing in the street, shouting "Thank
> you President Bush", pulling down statues of Saddam, and throwing flowers at
> American soldiers has you terribly upset.
>
statue. If it weren't for the ATV or whatever military vehicle used,
there would have been no historic picture to display a hundred times
an hour and on every major newspaper in the land.
> Maybe you should just lie down until you feel better.
Behind those pictures shown on mass media there are hospitals that
cannot tend to the wounded because they have been looted and cannot
get new supplies. There are people who cannot get clean drinking
water or food. There are mothers crying over the dead mangled bodies
of their children. There are people without limbs where they had them
before.
All of this in the name of freeing them. You may be grinning and
slapping yourself on the back but somehow I think they would have
preferred ther arms, legs and children back. I'll feel better once
you figure out how to do that for them. Until then I will be
disgusted at the death and destruction caused by an unjustified war.
von
Ty
news:c1c1301f.03041...@posting.google.com...
> 1) The non-political nature of the Supreme Court is definately in
> question now.
For your perusal, I'm listing a number of rights that previous activist
Supreme Courts created. None of these "constitutional rights" are mentioned
in the Constitution. Since you have acquired a sudden aversion to judicial
activism, I assume that you will now support the elimination of these
Constitutional rights...
-Right to exclude confessions obtained in the absence of Miranda warnings
-Right to state funded legal counsel in cases where incarceration may result
-Right to purchase contraceptives
-Right to abortion
-Requirements for "probable cause" before police can question suspects
-Right to attend unsegregated schools and colleges
-Unconstitutionality of enforcing racial covenants in deeds and contracts
-Unconstitutionality of misegeny laws (laws that prohibit interracial
marriages)
-Unconstitutionality of laws requiring sterlization of mentally retarded
In the current term, the activist Supreme Court may well determine that laws
prohibiting homosexual sodomy are unconstitutional. Since the Constitution
contains no express or implied protections for sexual choices, I would
assume that you believe that the Court should allow states to criminalize
whatever sexual behavior they wish, yes?
--Ty
Von Bailey
> "Von Bailey" <red...@MailAndNews.com> wrote in message
> news:c1c1301f.03041...@posting.google.com...
> > WARMONGER EXPLAINS WAR TO PEACENIK
>
> Now this is taking your dellusion to a whole new level. Not content to
> create just a strawman argument, you have to fabricate (or find a
> fabricated) strawman conversation.
>
If it bothered you next time try clicking on the next post and ignore
it. Try killfiling me and you don't have to worry about it at all.
> It's as if these people's worldviews are spiraling down to the same
> cataclysmic fate as so many of their beloved Sadam statues in Iraq.
>
As if tearing down a couple of statues is a meaningful statement. I'm
glad you got excited about it while watching it on television. The US
has the support of looters and thiefs who helped them tear down a
statue. It's amazing the gullibility of the american public. Flash
some video and pictures, put them in whatever context you want and the
American public seems to follow without question.
> Pathetic really.
>
So is this celebration in the absense of capturing anyone of any real
standing of the enemy or finding one bit of evidence wrt the stated
reason for being there, but people seem to get into it anyway.
von
Ty
news:c1c1301f.03041...@posting.google.com...
> So is this celebration in the absense of capturing anyone of any real
> standing of the enemy or finding one bit of evidence wrt the stated
> reason for being there, but people seem to get into it anyway.
To capture most of those folks, you're gonna need a spatula and a plastic
bag. And a shovel.
--Ty
Paul Smith
news:v9dmhta...@corp.supernews.com...
>
> Game over man. Let it go.
Now the struggle becomes far more simple, we will no longer have your
ultra-simplistic comments about the left being in bed with Hussein, now we
have a single target upon which to fight against, neo-colonialism.
For the creation of soviets across Iraq!
For an Iraqi Soviet Federative Socialist Republic!
orgone
>bag. And a shovel.
>
nonsense.
Henry Bramlet
> "Ty" <tbear...@tyler.net> wrote in message
> news:v9dmhta...@corp.supernews.com...
> >
> > Game over man. Let it go.
>
> Now the struggle becomes far more simple, we will no longer have your
> ultra-simplistic comments about the left being in bed with Hussein, now we
> have a single target upon which to fight against, neo-colonialism.
>
> For the creation of soviets across Iraq!
>
> For an Iraqi Soviet Federative Socialist Republic!
>
Paul...I'm glad that you can finally let your true colors show through.
Everyone take notice that Paul *does* support the murder of innocent Iraqis.
After all, he is wishing on them the one form of government that could
outstrip Sadam's in total slaughter and unmittigated ineptitude.
-HB
Paul Smith
>
> Paul...I'm glad that you can finally let your true colors show through.
>
> Everyone take notice that Paul *does* support the murder of innocent
Iraqis.
> After all, he is wishing on them the one form of government that could
> outstrip Sadam's in total slaughter and unmittigated ineptitude.
Do you even know what a soviet is? Do you even know what socialism is?
When you find out, then you can attempt to discuss such matters.
Henry Bramlet
"Von Bailey" <red...@MailAndNews.com> wrote in message
news:c1c1301f.03041...@posting.google.com...
> "Henry Bramlet" <hbramle...@qwest.nospam.net> wrote in message
news:<btmla.18410$ey1.1...@newsread1.prod.itd.earthlink.net>...
> > "Von Bailey" <red...@MailAndNews.com> wrote in message
> > news:c1c1301f.03041...@posting.google.com...
> > > WARMONGER EXPLAINS WAR TO PEACENIK
> >
> > Now this is taking your dellusion to a whole new level. Not content to
> > create just a strawman argument, you have to fabricate (or find a
> > fabricated) strawman conversation.
> >
> Sorry you didn't appreciate it. But then no one told you to read it.
> If it bothered you next time try clicking on the next post and ignore
> it. Try killfiling me and you don't have to worry about it at all.
>
No thank you. I'd rather expose your ridiculous, silly, and stupid
statements for what they are. You are doing more to expose the lunacy of the
anti-war left than any of the people arguing before the conflict.
The reason I said what I said is that your "conversation" was clearly
fictional. It was a cut-rate, anti-war loony's sophist wet-dream, where he
gets to make up the arguments of his adversary and then work himself up into
a euphoria as he tears them down.
Unable to get traction on anti-war arguments with posters on this board- and
mind you, AFTER the war is half over- you started attacking arguments that
have never been made. And further, the arguments made in that drivel show a
lack of understanding of the UN that rivals even YOU.
> > It's as if these people's worldviews are spiraling down to the same
> > cataclysmic fate as so many of their beloved Sadam statues in Iraq.
> >
> As if tearing down a couple of statues is a meaningful statement. I'm
> glad you got excited about it while watching it on television. The US
> has the support of looters and thiefs who helped them tear down a
> statue. It's amazing the gullibility of the american public. Flash
> some video and pictures, put them in whatever context you want and the
> American public seems to follow without question.
>
See the liberation of Paris. This state of disorder is nothing unexpected.
What *is* unexpected is that you would bemoan the destruction of a murderous
regime, just because there is some looting going on in the aftermath. Your
desire for order at any cost is quite revealing...Almost as much so as
Paul's admitted desire to see the Iraqis enslaved under yet another
murderous regime.
> > Pathetic really.
> >
> So is this celebration in the absense of capturing anyone of any real
> standing of the enemy or finding one bit of evidence wrt the stated
> reason for being there, but people seem to get into it anyway.
>
Yes, how dare those people celebrate that they aren't being used as human
shields. How dare they rejoice, knowing that they need not fear a
woodchipper being taken to their children's toes. Shame on them for
celebrating the dusk of an era of acid baths, secret police and terror.
After all, we don't have Sadam's head on a pike.
-HB
Von Bailey
> "Von Bailey" <red...@MailAndNews.com> wrote in message
> news:c1c1301f.03041...@posting.google.com...
>
> > My issue with the 2000 election has never been WHO won but HOW it was
> > done and what it does wrt the viability of the system. Primarily
> > focused no two major issues.
>
> Good lord, you people really need to let it go.
>
I suffer not in the least bringing attention to what I consider to be
a wrong or injustice. To me this is much more important that whether
or not Bill Clinton stained a dress with DNA samples but we spent
millions of dollars and occupied the country's media for years in an
attempt just to prove he lied about it.
We know that manipulation of the voting process was done in Florida
and it's not even worth talking about? Talk about head in the sand,
you must be living like a hard ridden sand worm.
> > 1) The non-political nature of the Supreme Court is definately in
> > question now.
>
> When the court was running amok in the 1960s and 1970s reading all sorts of
> new rights into the Constitution, you lefties were quite happy with the
> outcome. Yet when you disagree, you soberly worry about the court's
> "politization". Such hypocrisy is so amusing to me.
>
So what legal decision of courts of the 60s and 70s cannot be applied
across the board? Took a right wing court to create a whole new
dynamic in American jurisprudence. Laws that apply only to
individuals cases and cannot be used to justify any other legal
decisions.
> And I wonder why you don't seem to consider the Florida's Supreme Court to
> be "politicized" -- perhaps because you agreed with them?
>
You assume that I don't see them as politicized. You are wrong. It
was obviously so. At least in the past, like many supposedly american
values, there was at least the superficial impression that it wasn't.
The difference now is that there is no question about it in any
critically thinking mind.
Now why don't you point out the decisions made by the Florida Supreme
Court that they said only applied to GW and Gore and cannot be used in
the future and I will consider the acts equivalent.
> Live by judicial activism, die by judicial activism. The left was hoist on
> its own petard and I find it richly amusing.
>
...and when they start making laws and getting Supreme Court decisions
that only apply to singular cases then you will hear me criticize them
also.
> > 2) The legitimacy of the election and the process is also in question
> > now. How can you be sure that the system is not being manipulated to
> > attain a desired end result?
>
> The hilarious thing about this is that the alleged manipulation and
> ineptitude happened in DEMOCRAT controlled precincts. Priceless!
>
Which only shows the stupidity of the Democratic party. No problem
there, I happen to agree.
> School's out on this one. It's time to move on.
>
However, the world is not run on your time table so the rest of us
will continue to set our own priorities.
von
Ty
> However, the world is not run on your time table so the rest of us
> will continue to set our own priorities.
Personally, I hope you folks continue to live in the past. The better to
obliterate you at the polls in 2004.
--Ty
Von Bailey
right to criminalize consenting sexual behavior amoung adults.
Regardless, all this assumes that I deny the courts are a political
organization. I don't. It is. Always has been.
von
Richard H. Araujo
> today that I am not aware of there is no 'new evidence' that Saddam
> has done anything wrt WMDs since the inspectors left in 1998. So why
> didn't we just 'move on'?
There was a stash of radioactive material found just south of Baghdad.
It may or may not be weapons grade material or for dirty bombs, it's not
known yet.
> 1) The non-political nature of the Supreme Court is definately in
> question now.
It's been in question for a long time. The odd thing is that it's
politicization is only an issue with liberals when the judges are
activist conservatives rather than activist liberals. This is not a
smear on liberals because most conservatives feel the exact same way when
the ideologies are reversed.
> 2) The legitimacy of the election and the process is also in question
> now.
As far as I'm concerned the intelligence of the morons in Florida who
couldn't figure out a simple ballot is all that's in question. Maybe a
literacy test and a basic IQ test should be required for voting.
> Whether Al Gore or George Bush as president, the damage that the 2000
> election has done to our judicial and electorial system was wrong and
> I don't think that people should just "move on".
I see no damage, or at least none that hasn't been around for a long time
and was just noticed because Democrats felt it screwed them in a big way.
The SC has been activist for a long time. The electoral college system
seems to work just fine though. Maybe some Ginko should be distributed
to the geezers in Florida a few months prior to voting, but beyond that
the 2000 election didn't bring up any astoundingly pressing or unknown
problems with our system of government.
--
Yrs,
Richard H. Araujo
"Economics is a living thing and to live implies both imperfection and
change."
Von Mises, Human Action
Daniel Duffy
<snip>
>
> Certainly to say a few hundred people "celebrating" a mass celebration, I
> think that is definitely bending the truth.
>
Nope, sorry. Never saw more than a few hundred protesters on TV at any one
time. Thus there couldn't possibly be more than a few hundred protesters.
Gosh, the same must be true of the fall of the Berlin Wall. Never saw more
than a few hundred on TV for that event either.
Daniel Duffy
<snip of general idiocy>
>
> All of this in the name of freeing them.
A similar situation occurred in Europe in 1945 only on a much vaster scale -
with greater civilian casualties both in terms of total numbers and
percentage of population. Hence the need for the Marshal Plan. By your
"logic" we shouldn't have freed Europe from Nazi tyranny for fear of harming
innocent civilians.
Is an abysmal lack of historical knowledge a prerequisite for being a Lefty
now days?
Now I've been quoting the Bard in another thread. But for you and people
like you the only appropriate quote comes from Nelson of "The Simpsons":
"Hah-hah!"
Richard H. Araujo
> right to criminalize consenting sexual behavior amoung adults.
I'd say in an overall sense they don't have the right. I see nothing in
the Constitution that denies them the *authority* to do so, if they wish,
so long as they don't violate other clearly held rights. Now it's true
the Ninth and Tenth Ammendments kind of say the Bill of Rights isn't an
exaustive list, by I don't think the most liberal interpretation of those
Ammendments would include, at least at the level of original intentent, a
right to bugger someone.
--
Yrs,
Richard H. Araujo
"Uneven economic and political development is an absolute law of
capitalism.
Nikolai Lenin
Von Bailey
> "Von Bailey" <red...@MailAndNews.com> wrote in message
>
> > >
> > > Now this is taking your dellusion to a whole new level. Not content to
> > > create just a strawman argument, you have to fabricate (or find a
> > > fabricated) strawman conversation.
> > >
> > Sorry you didn't appreciate it. But then no one told you to read it.
> > If it bothered you next time try clicking on the next post and ignore
> > it. Try killfiling me and you don't have to worry about it at all.
> >
>
> No thank you. I'd rather expose your ridiculous, silly, and stupid
> statements for what they are. You are doing more to expose the lunacy of the
> anti-war left than any of the people arguing before the conflict.
>
mine I guess this is simply an opportunity for you to rant. Feel
free.
> The reason I said what I said is that your "conversation" was clearly
> fictional.
And was presented as nothing else. Which begs the question why are
you getting all defensive about it?
> > > It's as if these people's worldviews are spiraling down to the same
> > > cataclysmic fate as so many of their beloved Sadam statues in Iraq.
> > >
> > As if tearing down a couple of statues is a meaningful statement. I'm
> > glad you got excited about it while watching it on television. The US
> > has the support of looters and thiefs who helped them tear down a
> > statue. It's amazing the gullibility of the american public. Flash
> > some video and pictures, put them in whatever context you want and the
> > American public seems to follow without question.
> >
>
> See the liberation of Paris. This state of disorder is nothing unexpected.
> What *is* unexpected is that you would bemoan the destruction of a murderous
> regime, just because there is some looting going on in the aftermath. Your
> desire for order at any cost is quite revealing...Almost as much so as
> Paul's admitted desire to see the Iraqis enslaved under yet another
> murderous regime.
>
Seeing commies and pinkos everywhere? Interesting. Or is it just
those who don't agree with the way you think?
von
Henry Bramlet
> "Henry Bramlet" <hbramle...@qwest.nospam.net> wrote in message
> news:CPCla.19354$ey1.1...@newsread1.prod.itd.earthlink.net...
> >
> > Paul...I'm glad that you can finally let your true colors show through.
> >
> > Everyone take notice that Paul *does* support the murder of innocent
> Iraqis.
> > After all, he is wishing on them the one form of government that could
> > outstrip Sadam's in total slaughter and unmittigated ineptitude.
>
> Do you even know what a soviet is? Do you even know what socialism is?
>
> When you find out, then you can attempt to discuss such matters.
>
I know what EVERY single attempt to "Soviet Utopia" has wrought. The
murderous slaughter of innocents.
Your Uncle Lennin was among those murderers, by the way. Oh sure, his
"Re-education Camps" only killed hundreds of thousands, instead of the
millions snuffed by his protege, Stalin. And you are correct, he didn't
shoot so many people so much as he starved them to death by stealing their
seed-grain in the winter.
And what else has he wrought? Nothing but countless attempts at
"Progressive" soviet reform and deciples who, like you, have deluded
themselves beyond crack-pot elitism- until they cannot hear nor percieve the
wailing anguish of those they trample in their quest for perfection.
As I said, I'm happy that you can show your murderous intent here and now.
That way those concerned about the Iraqi plight can avoid the same fate as
so many other countries that set themselves towards glorious revolution-
only to get tyrants...and secret police...and death camps, and all the other
"quirks" of your silly, antiquated ideology.
(As an aside, I find it hillarious that you can see so many "signs" that
vallidate marxism, but remain blind to the secret police, work camps, and
slaughter that NEVER FAIL to accompany attempts to instantiate his pipe
dreams)
-HB
Ty
> red...@MailAndNews.com (Von Bailey) wrote in
> news:c1c1301f.0304...@posting.google.com:
> > I would rephrase the question to why states believe they have the
> > right to criminalize consenting sexual behavior amoung adults.
>
> I'd say in an overall sense they don't have the right. I see nothing in
> the Constitution that denies them the *authority* to do so, if they wish,
> so long as they don't violate other clearly held rights. Now it's true
> the Ninth and Tenth Ammendments kind of say the Bill of Rights isn't an
> exaustive list, by I don't think the most liberal interpretation of those
> Ammendments would include, at least at the level of original intentent, a
> right to bugger someone.
Folks, the Constitution is the sole legal limit on the power of the states.
So if the Constitution contains no right to have sex in a certain way, a
state may limit or criminalize that behavior.
It is true that Federal Law may have primacy over state laws in certain
areas, but that is only because the Constitution says so.
--Ty
Ty
> I would rephrase the question to why states believe they have the
> right to criminalize consenting sexual behavior amoung adults.
Because it is well-settled in American jurisprudence that the Constitution
is the only limit on the power of the states.
> Regardless, all this assumes that I deny the courts are a political
> organization. I don't. It is. Always has been.
Then why are you bitching now? Is it solely because *you* were on the
receiving end this time?
--Ty
Von Bailey
Yeah, the same one used on Ossama Bin Laden. How did that one work by
the way? Got him under wraps do we?
von
Paul Smith
>
> I know what EVERY single attempt to "Soviet Utopia" has wrought. The
> murderous slaughter of innocents.
The most murderous system in all of human history has been capitalism, oh
wait it's not called capitalism anymore, that's not polite it's the "free
market".
The aim is not to create "Soviet Utopia", whatever that is.
Would you please care to tell me what a soviet and what socialism is please.
As that was the original point. If you cannot you have proven yourself to
be a fool who is ignorant of the facts, and as your last post so brilliantly
demonstrated only capable of spilling out extremely exaggerated bourgeois
propaganda.
Ty
> "Ty" <tbear...@tyler.net> wrote in message
news:<v9dnqg6...@corp.supernews.com>...
> > To capture most of those folks, you're gonna need a spatula and a
plastic
> > bag. And a shovel.
> Yeah, the same one used on Ossama Bin Laden. How did that one work by
> the way? Got him under wraps do we?
All in good time. By your irrational definitions, I suppose that on February
1, 1945, the Allies were losing the war because Hitler was still alive.
Game over man.
--Ty
Paul Smith
>
> Nope, sorry. Never saw more than a few hundred protesters on TV at any
one
> time. Thus there couldn't possibly be more than a few hundred protesters.
> Gosh, the same must be true of the fall of the Berlin Wall. Never saw
more
> than a few hundred on TV for that event either.
Well somebody wasn't paying attention!
http://www.stopwar.org.uk/photos/iraq22marpano.jpg (this one the largest
ever in war time in the UK).
http://www.stopwar.org.uk/photos/iraqfebdemo03.jpg
http://news.bbc.co.uk/nol/shared/spl/hi/pop_ups/03/world_more_global_protest
_images/img/2.jpg
http://news.bbc.co.uk/nol/shared/spl/hi/pop_ups/03/world_world_peace_protest
s/img/6.jpg
http://news.bbc.co.uk/nol/shared/spl/hi/pop_ups/03/world_world_peace_protest
s/img/10.jpg
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/world/europe/2765673.stm
I'd say that is more then a few hundred wouldn't you?
Where have all the top down shots been in Baghdad that showed thousands of
people? Hmmm the only top down images showed a few people floating around,
or a few hundred people looting hospitals.
Welcome to the real world!
Daniel Duffy
<snip>
Oh were these the protests organized by ANSWER. Perhaps you've heard of the
them, the anti-Semitic front organization for the Stalinist workers party.
They sound like a fun bunch, I wonder if they're available for kids
parties....
BTW, in time you're sure to see similar pictures of celebrating Iraqis.
PS, What is it about happiness and freedom that upsets you so?
Paul Smith
> Oh were these the protests organized by ANSWER. Perhaps you've heard of
the
> them, the anti-Semitic front organization for the Stalinist workers party.
> They sound like a fun bunch, I wonder if they're available for kids
> parties....
Can't comment on ones outside the UK because I don't have the info handy,
the UK ones are by the Stop the War Coalition, primarily a
bourgeois-pacifist-reaction popular front.
> PS, What is it about happiness and freedom that upsets you so?
Freedom?
Freedom for the bourgeoisie to exploit.
Freedom for the bourgeoisie to destroy.
Freedom for the bourgeoisie to control all speech.
Etc etc etc etc, could go on for hours.
I have a few issues with those freedoms, because they infringe on the
"freedoms" of the vast majority of the people on the planet.
When the bourgeoisie talk of freedom, they mean freedom for them to exploit
us, when the bourgeoisie talk of democracy they mean democracy for them to
fool us.
Junkyard Willie
"Von Bailey" <red...@MailAndNews.com> wrote in message
> "Mik" <mli...@email.com> wrote in message
news:<4132de4d5f7f7bae...@news.teranews.com>...
> > "Ty" <tbe...@SPAMtyler.net> wrote in message
> > news:v9bsfpr...@corp.supernews.com...
> > > "Von Bailey" <red...@MailAndNews.com> wrote in message
> > > > WARMONGER EXPLAINS WAR TO PEACENIK
> > >
> > >
> > > Let it go.
> >
> > take the war back.
> >
> I didn't write it and it's interesting that you cannot dispute any of
> it wrt the war effectively. Outside of the assumption that you are
> right because you are american and have the ability to wage war at
> will you have no arguement.
That's pretty much what being right has meant over the course of human
history (Romans, Normans, British, Spanish, Mongol, etc)
Daniel Duffy
>
> Freedom for the bourgeoisie to exploit.
> Freedom for the bourgeoisie to destroy.
> Freedom for the bourgeoisie to control all speech.
>
Darn those bourgeoisie, why should they have all the fun!
> Etc etc etc etc, could go on for hours.
>
Of that I have no doubt. One of these days I'm going to finally meet a
rabid fanatic who isn't a crashing boor.
> I have a few issues with those freedoms, because they infringe on the
> "freedoms" of the vast majority of the people on the planet.
>
Well as the saying goes, "Democracy is the worst form of government, except
for all the others". Unless you have something better to offer. As the
Beatles once sang, "We'd all love to see the plan."
> When the bourgeoisie talk of freedom, they mean freedom for them to
exploit
> us, when the bourgeoisie talk of democracy they mean democracy for them to
> fool us.
>
How do you mange to be for the people and have such contempt for their
intelligence at the same time?
Von Bailey
<thed...@fuse.net> wrote:
>
><snip of general idiocy>
>>
>> All of this in the name of freeing them.
>
>A similar situation occurred in Europe in 1945 only on a much vaster scale -
>with greater civilian casualties both in terms of total numbers and
>percentage of population. Hence the need for the Marshal Plan. By your
>"logic" we shouldn't have freed Europe from Nazi tyranny for fear of harming
>innocent civilians.
>
Difference is that they actually asked for us to come and we weren't
setting up new forms of governments in the 'liberated' countries. No
to mention that they were fighting right along side of us. They were
involved in their war before we even got there.
>Is an abysmal lack of historical knowledge a prerequisite for being a Lefty
>now days?
>
No. Simply not the narrow view of it that you display.
>Now I've been quoting the Bard in another thread. But for you and people
>like you the only appropriate quote comes from Nelson of "The Simpsons":
>
>"Hah-hah!"
>
Wow. That's about as relevant as 'game over'.
von
http://home.attbi.com/~redbai/
The one's that will never be freed
by Operation Iraqi Freedom
http://www.cnn.com/SPECIALS/2003/iraq/forces/casualties/index.html
Von Bailey
Interesting that you assume that because they won the war they were
right as opposed to simply a stronger bully. If you are right you
don't have to shove your opinion down people's throats. Most see the
'correctness' of your position.
Von Bailey
>"Von Bailey" <red...@MailAndNews.com> wrote in message
>
>> I would rephrase the question to why states believe they have the
>> right to criminalize consenting sexual behavior amoung adults.
>
>Because it is well-settled in American jurisprudence that the Constitution
>is the only limit on the power of the states.
>
This may be beyond your ability to understand, but just because the
Constitution doesn't explicitly forbid it doesn't mean that a state
can/should/has the right to do it.
>> Regardless, all this assumes that I deny the courts are a political
>> organization. I don't. It is. Always has been.
>
>Then why are you bitching now? Is it solely because *you* were on the
>receiving end this time?
>
No. I am not the only one at the 'receiving end'. Making decisions
that affect only one person is something that affects (and is
inherently unfair) all except that one person. They have now set a
precedent for doing so. Something that only Kings and Emperors had in
the past. If you see no problem with that, fine. I do.
Now would you please explain the apparent hypocracy you are displaying
by criticizing them for making those political decisions in the past
but have no issue with the one in relation to the 2000 Presidential
election?
Von Bailey
<rar...@optonlinee.net> wrote:
>red...@MailAndNews.com (Von Bailey) wrote in
>news:c1c1301f.03041...@posting.google.com:
>> Why didn't we just 'move on' wrt Saddam? Unless there is some news
>> today that I am not aware of there is no 'new evidence' that Saddam
>> has done anything wrt WMDs since the inspectors left in 1998. So why
>> didn't we just 'move on'?
>
>There was a stash of radioactive material found just south of Baghdad.
>It may or may not be weapons grade material or for dirty bombs, it's not
>known yet.
>
Dirty bombs are not WMDs.
>> 1) The non-political nature of the Supreme Court is definately in
>> question now.
>
>It's been in question for a long time. The odd thing is that it's
>politicization is only an issue with liberals when the judges are
>activist conservatives rather than activist liberals. This is not a
>smear on liberals because most conservatives feel the exact same way when
>the ideologies are reversed.
>
True, but in the past, the 'political decisions' could be used across
the board. For instance, if Affirmative Action policies were
constitutional (i.e. using race as a factor in determining acceptance
in public institutions) then it doesn't matter what race is being
harmed. Anyone can use the arguement. So if a black person can use
it to get into a predominantly white college then a white person can
use it to get into a predominantly black college. The same arguement
would work for either.
However, this political decision can only be used in this particular
case. No one can use the arguements used by the Bush Administration
to win an arguement in the SC. It cannot be used as precedent for any
other case.
This is a step above what was done in the past. It creates laws for
individual people. Kings and Emperors have only held such powers in
the past.
>> 2) The legitimacy of the election and the process is also in question
>> now.
>
>As far as I'm concerned the intelligence of the morons in Florida who
>couldn't figure out a simple ballot is all that's in question. Maybe a
>literacy test and a basic IQ test should be required for voting.
>
It was not simply a matter of poorly formatted ballots. People were
purposely taken off the voter roles and denied the ability to vote
through intimidation and the manipulation of computer data. These
were purposeful acts which were simply not follow up on.
>> Whether Al Gore or George Bush as president, the damage that the 2000
>> election has done to our judicial and electorial system was wrong and
>> I don't think that people should just "move on".
>
>I see no damage, or at least none that hasn't been around for a long time
>and was just noticed because Democrats felt it screwed them in a big way.
>The SC has been activist for a long time. The electoral college system
>seems to work just fine though. Maybe some Ginko should be distributed
>to the geezers in Florida a few months prior to voting, but beyond that
>the 2000 election didn't bring up any astoundingly pressing or unknown
>problems with our system of government.
You should read the Civil Rights Commissions report on the subject.
If it were simply a case of ballot formats I would have no issue at
all, but it was much much more.
Ty
news:ah8g9v8odp3c14da4...@4ax.com...
> On Fri, 11 Apr 2003 16:44:15 -0500, "Ty" <tbe...@SPAMtyler.net> wrote:
> Now would you please explain the apparent hypocracy you are displaying
> by criticizing them for making those political decisions in the past
> but have no issue with the one in relation to the 2000 Presidential
> election?
Please keep up. I have not criticized those decisions (at least not all of
them). I was merely pointing out your hypocrisy in bitching about Supreme
Court activism.
--Ty
Von Bailey
Except you haven't done so. Listing a bunch of decisions and assuming
you know what I feel about them is not the same as pointing out
hypocracy. But you don't appear to need evidence to prove anything so
that probably doesn't bother you.
bobbyhaqq
> > WARMONGER EXPLAINS WAR TO PEACENIK
>
> Game over man.
>
Since the games been over a couple American soldier have died and
dozens have been injured, the hospitals of Iraq are destroyed, the
nation has collapsed in to chaos and the US did nothing, civil war is
breaking out, a major pro-western Shia leader who had meeting with
Tony Blair was killed in public, priceless treasures of the Bahgdad
museum have been looted.
According to the Geneva Convention failure of an occupying force to
secure the protect hospitals is a war crime. In this case the US has
no excuse accpt that Rumsfield decided he wanted to send less troops.
And oh yah, the WMD. Remember your assert that Saddam had them and
was about to hand them over to terrorist groups like Bin Ladens for
use against America. Well maybe he handed them all over already, or
maybe Bush, Rumsfield and Powell lied.
I find it a bit odd after the destruction of the Museum that you are
going to still defend this. Most people who appreciate Dune have an
understanding of the pricelessness of articacts fromt that time.
Saddam had secured these treasures for years, despite his crimes.
Under American rule the treasures were gone in three days.
Richard H. Araujo
Which is why I said may or may not be. If it's weapons grade material
for a nuclear weapon I'd guess that constitutes a shred of evidence is
all I'm saying.
> However, this political decision can only be used in this particular
> case. No one can use the arguements used by the Bush Administration
> to win an arguement in the SC. It cannot be used as precedent for any
> other case.
Why so? And why is this a requirement. The SC doesn't make universal
law, they rule in cases, and the results may or may not be applicable to
the law at large because they or mat not be relevant.
> It was not simply a matter of poorly formatted ballots. People were
> purposely taken off the voter roles and denied the ability to vote
> through intimidation and the manipulation of computer data. These
> were purposeful acts which were simply not follow up on.
Never saw evidence of that happening. As for the ballots they were
previewed in newspapers before they were implimented. If they were so
hard to figure out that would affect conservative votes as well as the
liberal vote in roughly the same percentages anyway, unless you want to
argue that liberals have of inherently lower levels of intelligence and
so would bear the brunt of this effect.
--
Yrs,
Richard H. Araujo
"Self-interest doesn't strip people of their concern for others, but it
does confine that concern to appropriate realms."
Donald J. Boudreaux
Daniel Duffy
>
> Difference is that they actually asked for us to come
The people of Iraq (remember them?) wanted us to come as much as the people
of western Europe, the Philippines, etc. The Iraqi expatriate community is
no different than the governments in exile or the Free French. The fact
that the Iraqis are dancing in the streets just like they did in Paris in
1944 shows that we are just as welcome now as we were 59 years ago.
Why are you so upset that the Iraqi people are happy and free? What kind of
sicko are you?
and we weren't
> setting up new forms of governments in the 'liberated' countries.
Both Germany. Japan and Italy received brand spanking new forms of
governments courtesy of Uncle Sam. We imposed our social values on them,
and I'm pretty sure they are better off because of it.
No
> to mention that they were fighting right along side of us.
The Germans, Italians and Japanese were fighting against us as I recall. As
for the Free French, they were matched by the Vichy French forces who
resisted our invasion of North Africa.
You really should brush up on your history.
<snip>
Junkyard Willie
"Von Bailey" <Red...@mailandnews.com> wrote in message
news:u88g9vcdohgv19ut1...@4ax.com...
Since the winners write the history books- might generally means right.
Mik
"Von Bailey" <red...@MailAndNews.com> wrote in message
news:c1c1301f.03041...@posting.google.com...
> it wrt the war effectively. Outside of the assumption that you are
> right because you are american and have the ability to wage war at
> will you have no arguement.
What should I dispute your posts with? You don't seem to want evidence and
you also seem to rest on the assumption that you are right.
Why the animosity for the US?
-Mik
feyd
> Why the animosity for the US?
>
> -Mik
>
>
and why the animosity for the french just because they don't think like
president bush.
and where are mass destruction weapons of saddam, if bush think of gaz
sarrin why did he sold it to saddam in 1981.
Henry Bramlet
> "Henry Bramlet" <hbramle...@qwest.nospam.net> wrote in message
> news:9CGla.19680$ey1.1...@newsread1.prod.itd.earthlink.net...
> >
> > I know what EVERY single attempt to "Soviet Utopia" has wrought. The
> > murderous slaughter of innocents.
>
> The most murderous system in all of human history has been capitalism, oh
> wait it's not called capitalism anymore, that's not polite it's the "free
> market".
>
Sorry,
I will not allow you to change the subject. The fact is that every attempt
at communism- including the Soviet Union- has resulted in the *direct*
murder of millions. Whether you care to attribute indirect deaths to
capitalism or not, I don't care. The fact is that you wish to impose a
governing system- unique in its ability to strip the common man of his basic
liberties.
> The aim is not to create "Soviet Utopia", whatever that is.
>
> Would you please care to tell me what a soviet and what socialism is
please.
Soviet: Council/Group of members who organize and direct the allocation of
capital and forms of production for a given area. One is but part of a
pyramid structure of Soviets that generally start at the township level,
that are subordinate to a heirarchical chain of soviets that proceed up to
the Supreme soviet.
Soviets are characterized by their unique failure at producing anything near
the needs of the individual people. Their practical history is one of
shortage, corruption and innevitable decline in the face of more mixed
economies. To anyone with a sane understanding of history, it is clear that-
from the first attempt at mobilizing Soviets to their destruction at the
hands of their victims- they end up with millions starving, and other
millions being killed.
The simple reason is that the "Bottom Up" plan of the Soviet actually works
the opposite way. Rather than the people voting for production, leaders of
the Soviets trade production in return for votes- all while keeping the bulk
of production for themselves. This generally ends up destroying the value of
the currency- because money cannot buy anything- and creating a vast black
market. Innevitably, disenchanted by the dismal return on their hard work,
the workers slow down their production, or try selling some of their
production on the black market, where it gets fair value. Thus, the Soviet
leaders- their lifestyles in jeapordy- create secret police, work camps, and
other statist means of terror
The resulting corruptive cycle leads to the misery of the many, and
happiness of a few. Leaders fortify their power by blocking their rivals
from attaining power in the Soviets. Meanwhile, anyone attempting to counter
this corruptive trend lacks the capital to fund the effort. If they attempt
to shout their displeasure at the top of their lungs- to win votes away from
the leaders, they are shot. The resulting structure is one of a Tyrant at
the top, with layer after layer of chronies managing smaller
power-structures bellow them. Since each Soviet member takes his own piece
of the pie, and allocates it to non-workers, you have the masses producing-
with very little social mobility- and the rich elite enforcing the
stranglehold up until the weight of their corruption causes the entire
top-heavy system to collapse.
Socialism: Any economy where the people allocate capital and (generally) the
resulting production. Purely socialist economies have a track reccord of
corruption and innefficiency- including shortages and devaluation of
currency.
> As that was the original point. If you cannot you have proven yourself to
> be a fool who is ignorant of the facts, and as your last post so
brilliantly
> demonstrated only capable of spilling out extremely exaggerated bourgeois
> propaganda.
>
Clearly I am not. I understand the system quite well, and at least *I* have
applied some critical thinking to figure out why the system is flawed.
Unlike you, who probably still spreads that damn chair analogy that has been
shown to be an attrocious abortion of ecconomic thought.
-HB
Von Bailey
> > case. No one can use the arguements used by the Bush Administration
> > to win an arguement in the SC. It cannot be used as precedent for any
> > other case.
>
> Why so?
Because the Supreme Court said so in their decision. Read it.
> And why is this a requirement.
All former decisions served as precedent in how laws should be
intepreted. This one decision is the exception.
> The SC doesn't make universal
> law, they rule in cases, and the results may or may not be applicable to
> the law at large because they or mat not be relevant.
>
But when a decision is based on US law and decisions by the SC have
been made regarding the carrying out of that US law those decisions
can be and are used as guidelines in enforcing the US law. The SC in
this case said that cannot be the case.
http://writ.news.findlaw.com/dorf/20010627.html
The Limited Doctrinal Effect of Bush v. Gore
Nor is Bush v. Gore likely to prove especially important in terms of
the doctrine it created. Quite the contrary, the anonymously authored
majority opinion went out of its way to limit its application to
precisely the issue before the Court that day.
To be sure, no court can completely control the use to which its
precedents are later put, and lawsuits have already been brought on
the strength of Bush v. Gore. But if those suits are to succeed, they
must ultimately receive the blessing of the U.S. Supreme Court.
Arguably, then, the most important effect of Bush v. Gore is neither
its immediate result nor its doctrinal impact but, rather, the
disillusionment it occasioned among the population. There was and
remains a widely-held view that the Justices decided the case
according to their political, rather than their legal, preferences.
_________________________
> > It was not simply a matter of poorly formatted ballots. People were
> > purposely taken off the voter roles and denied the ability to vote
> > through intimidation and the manipulation of computer data. These
> > were purposeful acts which were simply not follow up on.
>
> Never saw evidence of that happening.
Read the report.
http://www.usccr.gov/
From the Executive Summary
...
During the three days of hearings, numerous witnesses delivered
heartrending accounts of the frustrations they experienced at the
polls. Potential voters confronted inexperienced poll workers,
antiquated machinery, inaccessible polling locations, and other
barriers to being able to exercise their right to vote. The
Commission's findings make one thing clear: widespread voter
disenfranchisement溶ot the dead-heat contest謡as the extraordinary
feature in the Florida election.
...
The state's highest officials responsible for ensuring efficiency,
uniformity, and fairness in the election failed to fulfill their
responsibilities and were subsequently unwilling to take
responsibility.
...
Disenfranchised Voters
The disenfranchisement of Florida's voters fell most harshly on the
shoulders of black voters. The magnitude of the impact can be seen
from any of several perspectives:
Statewide, based upon county-level statistical estimates, black voters
were nearly 10 times more likely than nonblack voters to have their
ballots rejected.
Estimates indicate that approximately 14.4 percent of Florida's black
voters cast ballots that were rejected. This compares with
approximately 1.6 percent of nonblack Florida voters who did not have
their presidential votes counted.
Statistical analysis shows that the disparity in ballot spoilage
rates擁.e., ballots cast but not counted傭etween black and nonblack
voters is not the result of education or literacy differences. This
conclusion is supported by Governor Jeb Bush's Select Task Force on
Election Procedures, Standards and Technology, which found that error
rates stemming from uneducated, uninformed, or disinterested voters
account for less than 1 percent of the problems.
Approximately 11 percent of Florida voters were African American;
however, African Americans cast about 54 percent of the 180,000
spoiled ballots in Florida during the November 2000 election based on
estimates derived from county-level data. These statewide estimates
were corroborated by the results in several counties based on actual
precinct data.
Poor counties, particularly those with large minority populations,
were more likely to possess voting systems with higher spoilage rates
than the more affluent counties with significant white populations.
There is a high correlation between counties and precincts with a high
percentage of African American voters and the percentage of spoiled
ballots. For example:
Nine of the 10 counties with the highest percentage of African
American voters had spoilage rates above the Florida average.
Of the 10 counties with the highest percentage of white voters, only
two counties had spoilage rates above the state average.
Gadsden County, with the highest rate of spoiled ballots, also had the
highest percentage of African American voters.
Where precinct data were available, the data show that 83 of the 100
precincts with the highest numbers of spoiled ballots are
black-majority precincts.
The magnitude of the disenfranchisement, including the disparity
between black and nonblack voters, is supported by the testimony of
witnesses at the Commission's hearings. These witnesses include local
election officials, poll workers, ordinary voters, and activists.
Purging Former Felons from the Voter Rolls
...
Florida's overzealous efforts to purge voters from the rolls,
conducted under the guise of an anti-fraud campaign, resulted in the
inexcusable and patently unjust removal of disproportionate numbers of
African American voters from Florida's voter registration rolls for
the November 2000 election.
...
Florida easily could have, and should have, done much more to protect
the voting rights of African Americans and other Floridians. What
should have been done include the following:
-The governor, the secretary of state, or the director of the Division
of Elections should have provided clear instructions to their
subordinates on list maintenance strategies that would protect
eligible voters from being erroneously purged from the voter
registration rolls. Two key failings accounted for a large portion of
the purge-related disenfranchisement:
1) The Division of Elections failed to recommend the same cautionary
steps before the November 2000 presidential election that were taken
before the 1998 election. At that time, supervisors of elections were
asked to verify the exclusion lists with the greatest of care. They
were asked to provide opportunities for persons to vote by affidavit
ballot in those instances in which the voter made a credible challenge
to his or her removal from the voter registration rolls.
2) Inadequate supervision of Division of Elections staff allowed
irresponsible decisions to be made, including an official of the
Division of Elections encouraging an error-laden strategy that
resulted in the removal of a disproportionate number of eligible
African American voters from the rolls.
-State officials should have provided adequate training to supervisors
of elections in purge verification procedures.
The purposeful use of erroneous listings to promote the state's
purging priorities and the permanent disenfranchisement of discharged
felons raise important questions of fundamental fairness.
Accessibility
Henry Bramlet
"Von Bailey" <red...@MailAndNews.com> wrote in message
news:c1c1301f.03041...@posting.google.com...
> > "Von Bailey" <red...@MailAndNews.com> wrote in message
> >
> > > >
to
> > > > create just a strawman argument, you have to fabricate (or find a
> > > > fabricated) strawman conversation.
> > > >
> > > Sorry you didn't appreciate it. But then no one told you to read it.
> > > If it bothered you next time try clicking on the next post and ignore
> > > it. Try killfiling me and you don't have to worry about it at all.
> > >
> >
> > No thank you. I'd rather expose your ridiculous, silly, and stupid
> > statements for what they are. You are doing more to expose the lunacy of
the
> > anti-war left than any of the people arguing before the conflict.
> >
> In your opinion. But given that I give that as much merit as you give
> mine I guess this is simply an opportunity for you to rant. Feel
> free.
>
> > The reason I said what I said is that your "conversation" was clearly
> > fictional.
>
> And was presented as nothing else.
Says you. I saw no such disclaimer or notation indicating the origin of this
explanation. Not that it was an effective representation of the Pro-Regime
Change side, but given your renowned ability to misunderstand reality, I
couldn't really give you the benefit of the doubt and assume that you knew
it was fiction.
> Which begs the question why are
> you getting all defensive about it?
>
I have begged no such question, as no such question has been asked. Please
show me where *I* was defensive. You are the one whining that somebody would
dare comment on a public post and point out that you are almost pathological
in your obsession with creating strawman arguments. You are the one who is
now trying to defend the post, and accusing me of some sort of obfuscation.
So, let's just cut to the chase. I won't Killfile you. I won't ignore you.
If you continue to post ridiculous assertions in a public forum, I will
continue to question them. If you continue to create strawman arguments, I
will continue to point them out to you.
> > > > It's as if these people's worldviews are spiraling down to the same
> > > > cataclysmic fate as so many of their beloved Saddam statues in Iraq.
> > > >
> > > As if tearing down a couple of statues is a meaningful statement. I'm
> > > glad you got excited about it while watching it on television. The US
> > > has the support of looters and thiefs who helped them tear down a
> > > statue. It's amazing the gullibility of the american public. Flash
> > > some video and pictures, put them in whatever context you want and the
> > > American public seems to follow without question.
> > >
> >
> > See the liberation of Paris. This state of disorder is nothing
unexpected.
> > What *is* unexpected is that you would bemoan the destruction of a
murderous
> > regime, just because there is some looting going on in the aftermath.
Your
> > desire for order at any cost is quite revealing...Almost as much so as
> > Paul's admitted desire to see the Iraqis enslaved under yet another
> > murderous regime.
> >
> Seeing commies and pinkos everywhere? Interesting. Or is it just
> those who don't agree with the way you think?
>
I recommend that you re-read Paul's posts. He has specifically stated that
he wishes the people of Iraq to be enslaved in a communist dictatorship. I
am not "seeing commies and pinkos everywhere". I am calling a spade a spade.
Likewise, I believe that your true colors are revealed by your consistent
unwillingness to apply critical thinking to the current state of the Iraqi
citizen, and the prospective state of the citizen in one or two years time.
By all historical precedent, the Iraqis are in a much better state of
liberty and freedom today than they were 5 months ago. The pendulum has
swung from totalitarian to anarchy on its brief oscillation towards peace.
When compared to the liberation of Paris (I really encourage you to look
this up and read for yourself) the civil disorder in Baghdad has the menace
of a calm summer breeze.
You continue to ignore (or at least discount) the obvious benefits of the
regime change and minimize the celebrating Iraqis- all the while playing up
the bumps along the road and even continuing to harp on the illegitimacy of
the presidency...This is very revealing.
Mik
"Von Bailey" <red...@MailAndNews.com> wrote in message
news:c1c1301f.03041...@posting.google.com...
> > > purposely taken off the voter roles and denied the ability to vote
> > > through intimidation and the manipulation of computer data. These
> > > were purposeful acts which were simply not follow up on.
> >
> > Never saw evidence of that happening.
>
> Read the report.
> http://www.usccr.gov/
>
> From the Executive Summary
>
> ...
> During the three days of hearings, numerous witnesses delivered
> heartrending accounts of the frustrations they experienced at the
> polls. Potential voters confronted inexperienced poll workers,
> antiquated machinery, inaccessible polling locations, and other
> barriers to being able to exercise their right to vote. The
> Commission's findings make one thing clear: widespread voter
> feature in the Florida election.
> ...
> The state's highest officials responsible for ensuring efficiency,
> uniformity, and fairness in the election failed to fulfill their
> responsibilities and were subsequently unwilling to take
> responsibility.
> ...
> Disenfranchised Voters
>
> The disenfranchisement of Florida's voters fell most harshly on the
> shoulders of black voters. The magnitude of the impact can be seen
> from any of several perspectives:
>
> Statewide, based upon county-level statistical estimates, black voters
> were nearly 10 times more likely than nonblack voters to have their
> ballots rejected.
There are other factors that probably cause this alleged correlation. The
alleged rejection of ballots probably had nothing to do with race as all
ballots that I'm familiar with do not have race encoded on the ballot.
There are other more likely causes of these alleged statistics that have
nothing to with race.
-Mik
Richard H. Araujo
news:b5ffc399d8c6ac5f...@news.teranews.com:
> The alleged rejection of ballots probably had nothing to do with race
> as all ballots that I'm familiar with do not have race encoded on the
> ballot. There are other more likely causes of these alleged statistics
> that have nothing to with race.
Nor is there any mention is what he quoted of documented attempts to stop
some people from voting, merely the usual government incompetence. The
people at my polls were idiots too, and I live in suburban white-
breadville.
--
Yrs,
Richard H. Araujo
"The ideal Government of all reflective men, from Aristotle onward, is
one which lets the individual alone—one which barely escapes being no
government at all. This ideal, I believe, will be realized in the world
twenty or thirty centuries after I have passed from these scenes and
taken up my public duties in Hell."
H. L. Mencken
Von Bailey
> <snip>
> >
> > Difference is that they actually asked for us to come
>
> The people of Iraq (remember them?) wanted us to come as much as the people
> of western Europe, the Philippines, etc. The Iraqi expatriate community is
> no different than the governments in exile or the Free French. The fact
> that the Iraqis are dancing in the streets just like they did in Paris in
> 1944 shows that we are just as welcome now as we were 59 years ago.
>
that might be believable.
http://www.yellowtimes.org/article.php?sid=1235&mode=thread&order=0
Anti-Americanism Surges In Iraq
"They only protect areas that interest them, like the oil fields," one
armed Iraqi told Al Jazeera. "They don't care about anything else --
this is the freedom they have brought us."
"Yes, we hate Saddam," said another interviewed Iraqi. "Yes, we want
freedom, but what are the Americans doing -- they won't let us take
back the city and bring order and they won't stop the stealing and
killing. Is this what they mean by freedom? Well, they can have it
back."
U.S. viewers may be surprised by such an outburst of anger, pointing
to footage of Iraqis dancing in the streets. However, it is worth
mentioning that an overwhelming ratio of these broadcast images were
filmed in the Kurdish towns of Arbil, Sulimaniyah, Dhouk, and Kirkuk.
The Kurds have long resented Saddam's regime and his oppression of
their nationalistic aspirations.
The images from the rest of Iraq are ones of carnage and plunder.
Al Jazeera broadcast images of Iraqis arming themselves to prevent
looting from Baghdad's commercial districts.
"We just stopped that truck over there stealing automotive equipment,"
said a burly Iraqi armed with an AK-47. Al Jazeera filmed the man
firing at the truck, forcing it to come to a halt.
"This is the wealth of the people and should not be squandered. If the
U.S. won't lift a finger to do anything, then we, the Iraqi people
will take matters into our own hands."
_________________________________
Welcome until the realization of what American troops occupying a city
they can't police means. Then they, like many others realized they
were living in anarchy and who was at fault.
> Why are you so upset that the Iraqi people are happy and free? What kind of
> sicko are you?
>
Your question assumes a premise that isn't true. I am not upset that
the Iraqi people are happy and free. Given that the rest of your rant
is not relevant.
> and we weren't
> > setting up new forms of governments in the 'liberated' countries.
>
> Both Germany. Japan and Italy received brand spanking new forms of
> governments courtesy of Uncle Sam. We imposed our social values on them,
> and I'm pretty sure they are better off because of it.
>
Neither of which we 'liberated'. Japan attacked us and Germany (which
was a democracy, Hitler was elected) and Italy declared war. Beating
someone who attacked you is not liberation, it's acting in defense.
Iraq didn't attack the United States, it was the other way around, or
didn't you noticed that?
von
Von Bailey
of the rational originally given for going into Iraq to be true. If
you are please provide it.
> Why the animosity for the US?
>
You misread my motivation. My animosity is towards unprovoked,
unjustified wars regardless of who starts them. I just make efforts
not to be hypocritical so it's difficult to excuse them just because
my nation is the perpetrator.
von
Mik
"Von Bailey" <red...@MailAndNews.com> wrote in message
> "Daniel Duffy" <thed...@fuse.net> wrote in message
news:<3e986b9a$0$89181$a046...@nnrp.fuse.net>...
> > <snip>
> > >
> > > Difference is that they actually asked for us to come
> >
> > The people of Iraq (remember them?) wanted us to come as much as the
people
> > of western Europe, the Philippines, etc. The Iraqi expatriate community
is
> > no different than the governments in exile or the Free French. The fact
> > that the Iraqis are dancing in the streets just like they did in Paris
in
> > 1944 shows that we are just as welcome now as we were 59 years ago.
> >
> Welcome? I guess if you just read the Americanized version of the war
> that might be believable.
Just because you find on the internet doesn't mean it is true. You are
really digging to try and find support for your "assumptions". You should
quote the National Enquirer or Weekly World News next. I'm with Ty, "Game
over".
-Mik
Paul Smith
>
> "Paul Smith" <Pa...@nospam.demon.co.uk> wrote in message
> news:b77d7s$brn$1$8300...@news.demon.co.uk...
>
> capital and forms of production for a given area. One is but part of a
> pyramid structure of Soviets that generally start at the township level,
> that are subordinate to a heirarchical chain of soviets that proceed up to
> the Supreme soviet.
<snip>
> Socialism: Any economy where the people allocate capital and (generally)
the
> resulting production. Purely socialist economies have a track reccord of
> corruption and innefficiency- including shortages and devaluation of
> currency.
There have never been any "socialist economies". In the USSR did the people
control the economy? No. I would not class the Paris Commune as surviving
long enough to develop it's own economy, being drowned in blood usually
isn't a good thing.
Neither the RSFSR (Russian Soviet Federative Socialist Republic) or the USSR
were socialist. Firstly socialism cannot be contained within one country,
this is obvious as monopolies do not exist solely within the boundaries of
the nation-state.
What did Lenin say about this: "it is the absolute truth that without a
German revolution we are doomed" and for the thousandth time he repeated
this by saying in 1921 that "before the revolution and also after it, we
thought that the revolution either immediately or at least very soon will
come also in other countries, in the more highly developed countries,
otherwise we will perish." The authentic architects of the Russian
Revolution never forgot for a moment that left to its own forces, no matter
how heroic, it would degenerate and crumble.
"Regarded from the world-historical point of view, there would doubtlessly
be no hope of the ultimate victory of our revolution if it were to remain
alone, if there were no revolutionary movements in other countries. When the
Bolshevik Party tackled the job alone, it did so in the firm conviction that
the revolution was maturing in all countries and that in the end - but not
at the very beginning - no matter what difficulties we experienced, no
matter what defeats were in store for us, the world socialist revolution
would come - because it is coming; would mature - because it is maturing and
will reach full maturity. I repeat, our salvation from all these
difficulties is an all-European revolution." (LCW, Vol. 27, p. 95.)
"We are far from having completed even the transitional period from
capitalism to socialism. We have never cherished the hope that we could
finish it without the aid of the international proletariat. We never had any
illusions on that score The final victory of socialism in a single country
is of course impossible. Our contingent of workers and peasants which is
upholding Soviet power is one of the contingents of the great world army,
which at present has been split by the world war, but which is striving for
unity We can now see clearly how far the development of the Revolution will
go. The Russian began it - the German, the Frenchman and the Englishman will
finish it, and socialism will be victorious." (LCW, Vol. 26, pp. 465-72.)
Why? Russia of 1917 was a backwards feudalistic semi-colonial 3rd world
nation, along the lines of present day India, only with an even smaller
working class.
The soviets (which had existed in Russia since 1905, and had clearly
demonstrated they were far more democratic then any other council, including
representative [bourgeois]democracies, obviously, similar bodies also
existed in Britain, The Commune, Hungary and anywhere else where the workers
challenged for power).
The soviets failed because Russia was crippled with being invaded by 19
foreign armies (from Britain, France, America, Poland and many others),
aswell as a civil war. Thousands of the best communists were all
slaughtered (the mass executions of captured Red Army soldiers started long
before the so called "Red Terror"), the imperialists burned everything they
could get their hands on. The famines everyone likes mentioning actually
originated in areas controlled by the imperialists.
Blame the traitor Stalin for the final finishing blow to the soviets (I
consider a body to be something when it does what it is suppose to do, not
because it has the name of something it is supposed to do). The soviets
ensured society was controlled from top to bottom, by the bottom. Obviously
if they do not perform this function they are not soviets.
To all the hypocritical attacks against the Bolsheviks for the so called Red
Terror (which came after Lenin had been shot twice!) there is a very simple
answer. Even the most democratic capitalist government on earth will never
tolerate the existence of armed groups which attempt to overthrow the
existing order by violent means. Such groups are immediately outlawed, and
the leaders put in jail, or executed. This is regarded as perfectly lawful
and acceptable. Yet the same standards are not applied to the embattled
Bolshevik government, fighting for survival and attacked by enemies on all
sides. The hypocrisy is even more nauseating if we bear in mind the fact
that precisely these "democratic" Western governments organised the most
military offensives against the Bolsheviks at this time.
You lot utterly crush the revolution, then you have the stomach to claim the
left over mess is socialism! Ha!
Paul Smith
>
> Just because you find on the internet doesn't mean it is true. You are
> really digging to try and find support for your "assumptions". You should
> quote the National Enquirer or Weekly World News next. I'm with Ty, "Game
> over".
The anti-US forces demonstrations outside the Palestine Hotel (yes that's in
Baghdad btw) have happened and are happening. There are a lot more people
demonstrating then celebrating.
Face it, you've all been lied too, again.
Mik
> "Mik" <mli...@email.com> wrote in message
> news:378777247f6b5dba...@news.teranews.com...
> >
> > Just because you find on the internet doesn't mean it is true. You are
> > really digging to try and find support for your "assumptions". You
should
> > quote the National Enquirer or Weekly World News next. I'm with Ty,
"Game
> > over".
>
> The anti-US forces demonstrations outside the Palestine Hotel (yes that's
in
> Baghdad btw) have happened and are happening. There are a lot more people
> demonstrating then celebrating.
>
Please verify your source, National Enquirer or Weekly World News?
> Face it, you've all been lied too, again.
The liberal press slanting to the right? HA!
-Mik
Gaius Helen Mohiam
15.04.2003 [19:55]
MOSUL, Iraq (AFP) - At least 10 people were shot dead and scores wounded
in the northern Iraqi town of Mosul, a hospital doctor said, with
witnesses claiming US troops had opened fire on a crowd after it turned
against an American-installed local governor.
Those charges were denied by a US military spokesman here, who said
troops had come under fire from at least two gunmen and fired back,
without aiming at the crowd.
Dr. Ayad al-Ramadhani said at the city hospital that "there are perhaps
100 wounded and 10 to 12 dead" following the shooting near the local
government offices in a central square.
Three witnesses questioned by AFP and casualties who spoke to hospital
staff said US troops had fired on the crowd, which was becoming
increasingly hostile towards Governor Mashaan al-Juburi as he was making
a pro-US speech.
An AFP journalist saw a wrecked car in the square and ambulances
ferrying wounded people to hospital, while a US aircraft flew over the
northern city at low altitude.
At US Central Command's war headquarters in Qatar, Brigadier General
Vincent Brooks told a press briefing he had seen no military reports of
the incident and could not confirm it.
But the military spokesman in Mosul later said "there were protesters
outside, 100 to 150. There was fire. We returned fire."
He said the fire came from a roof opposite the building, about 75 metres
(yards) away.
"We didn't fire at the crowd, but at the top of the building," the
spokesman added. "There were at least two gunmen. I don't know if they
were killed. The firing was not intensive but sporadic, and lasted up to
two minutes.
A man who said he was a witness told a different story.
"We were at the market place near the government building, where Juburi
was making a speech," said Marwan Mohammed, 50. "He said everything
would be restored, water, electricity, and that democracy was the
Americans.
"As for the Americans, they were going through the crowd with their
flag. They placed themselves between the civilians and the building.
"The people moved toward the government building, the children threw
stones, the Americans started firing. Then they prevented the people
from recovering the bodies," he told AFP.
At the hospital, where angry relatives of the dead and wounded voiced
hatred of Americans and Westerners, a doctor gave a similar account from
patients.
"Juburi said the people must cooperate with the United States. The crowd
called him a liar, and tempers rose as he continued to talk. They threw
objects at him, overturned his car which exploded," said Dr. Said Altah.
"The wounded said Juburi asked the Americans to fire," he said.
Ayad Hassun, 37, another witness, said the trouble broke out after the
crowd interrupted Juburi's speech with cries of, "There is no God but
God and Mohammed is his prophet."
"You are with Saddam's Fedayeen," retorted Juburi, to which the crowd
chanted that "the only democracy is to make the Americans leave."
He explained that 20 US soldiers escorted Juburi, an opposition leader
installed as Mosul governor, back into the building as the situation ran
out of control with the crowd's protests growing louder.
"They (the soldiers) climbed on top of the building and first fired at a
building near the crowd, with the glass falling on the civilians. People
started to throw stones, then the Americans fired at them," Hassun said.
"Dozens of people fell," said the witness, whose own shirt was
blood-stained.
According to a third witness, Abdulrahman Ali, a 49-year-old labourer,
the American soldiers opened fire when they saw the crowd running at the
government building.
A few hours after the incident, the building was guarded by US troops as
an angry crowd was kept 100 metres (yards) away.
In an interview Monday, Juburi said a deal with local Arab tribal chiefs
saw most of Saddam Hussein (news - web sites)'s forces peacefully put
down their arms and disband in Mosul, which fell to US control last Friday.
Juburi, head of the Damascus-based Patriotic Iraqi Party, said he had
regularly addressed Mosul's residents over radio and television before
entering the mostly Arab city with Kurdish forces.
"Every day, I said I would threaten no one's security, whether they were
a member of the Baath Party, intelligence, police or supporters of
Saddam. Mosul residents trust my family," he said.
Source : Agence France Presse
Ty
news:3E9C4041...@BG.org...
<snip>
Hear that chomp-chomp-chomp sound? It's the jaws of yet another ankle-biter
snapping closed repeatedly.
--Ty
Henry Bramlet
> "Henry Bramlet" <hbramle...@qwest.nospam.net> wrote in message
> news:C6Dma.24651$4P1.2...@newsread2.prod.itd.earthlink.net...
> >
> > "Paul Smith" <Pa...@nospam.demon.co.uk> wrote in message
> > news:b77d7s$brn$1$8300...@news.demon.co.uk...
> >
> > Soviet: Council/Group of members who organize and direct the allocation
of
> > capital and forms of production for a given area. One is but part of a
> > pyramid structure of Soviets that generally start at the township level,
> > that are subordinate to a heirarchical chain of soviets that proceed up
to
> > the Supreme soviet.
>
> <snip>
>
> > Socialism: Any economy where the people allocate capital and (generally)
> the
> > resulting production. Purely socialist economies have a track reccord of
> > corruption and innefficiency- including shortages and devaluation of
> > currency.
>
> There have never been any "socialist economies". In the USSR did the
people
> control the economy? No. I would not class the Paris Commune as
surviving
> long enough to develop it's own economy, being drowned in blood usually
> isn't a good thing.
Amend my statement to read "Mostly Socialized" economies.
<snip communist apologia>
>
> Why? Russia of 1917 was a backwards feudalistic semi-colonial 3rd world
> nation, along the lines of present day India, only with an even smaller
> working class.
>
One where a huge percentage of the people would be starved by the Holy
Maniac, Uncle Lenin. He killed them. He starved them to death.
> The soviets (which had existed in Russia since 1905, and had clearly
> demonstrated they were far more democratic then any other council,
including
> representative [bourgeois]democracies, obviously, similar bodies also
> existed in Britain, The Commune, Hungary and anywhere else where the
workers
> challenged for power).
>
This was not "Clearly Demonstrated". After all, your mad Uncle had to sieze
power via Coup, in case you didn't notice. It seems like Democracy wasn't so
helpful for your glorious revolution there...
> The soviets failed because Russia was crippled with being invaded by 19
> foreign armies (from Britain, France, America, Poland and many others),
> aswell as a civil war. Thousands of the best communists were all
> slaughtered (the mass executions of captured Red Army soldiers started
long
> before the so called "Red Terror"), the imperialists burned everything
they
> could get their hands on. The famines everyone likes mentioning actually
> originated in areas controlled by the imperialists.
>
Perhaps you forgot the part where Lenin stole the seed grain of farmers. And
the part where local farmers were deprived of their own equipment so that
those currying favor with the leadership could support THEIR fields. As he
said of the 1891 famine (which he oposed relieving, in order to incite
rebellion):
"Psychologically, this talk of feeding the starving is nothing but an
expression of the saccharine-sweet sentimentality so characteristic of our
intelligentsia."
> Blame the traitor Stalin for the final finishing blow to the soviets (I
> consider a body to be something when it does what it is suppose to do, not
> because it has the name of something it is supposed to do). The soviets
> ensured society was controlled from top to bottom, by the bottom.
Obviously
> if they do not perform this function they are not soviets.
>
The body is FAILED. FLAWED. It lacks even the basic ability to regulate
internal corruption, thus enabling Tyranny. It doesn't do what its supposed
to do because it CAN'T do what it's supposed to do. Soviets encourage the
elected leadership to control production to their own benefit, rather than
execute the voters' will. The system concentrates capital and production
into a massively inept and inefficient structure.
> To all the hypocritical attacks against the Bolsheviks for the so called
Red
> Terror (which came after Lenin had been shot twice!) there is a very
simple
> answer. Even the most democratic capitalist government on earth will never
> tolerate the existence of armed groups which attempt to overthrow the
> existing order by violent means. Such groups are immediately outlawed, and
> the leaders put in jail, or executed. This is regarded as perfectly lawful
> and acceptable. Yet the same standards are not applied to the embattled
> Bolshevik government, fighting for survival and attacked by enemies on all
> sides. The hypocrisy is even more nauseating if we bear in mind the fact
> that precisely these "democratic" Western governments organized the most
> military offensives against the Bolsheviks at this time.
>
How laughable. Perhaps you forgot about this thing called "Due Process" and
its siblings, "Checks and Balances". Lenin *stole* from the people without
due process. He labeled entire townships as seditionists and sentenced
entire populations to work camps without Due Process. One of his first acts
after the October Revolution was to seize all private printing presses
(without due process) and put them under his control (without any check
against his power). He immediately declared other Socialists (who supported
a Socialist Republic but did not support him) "enemies of the people". They
were subjected to arrest and confinement- without search warrants, habeas
corpus or other due process. Individuals exercising their right to strike
were arrested and forced into compulsory labor- without due process.
As Lenin said:
"The scientific concept of dictatorship means nothing else but this: power
without limit, resting directly upon force, restrained by no laws,
absolutely unrestricted by rules."
It is easy to see what a sociopathic idiot Lenin was. Since the legislative
body had political rivals within it, Lenin began writing laws himself via
Revolutionary Decree through the Sovnarkom. Next he began declaring his
rivals "Enemies of the People", thus securing Judicial authority. Finally,
he created the Cheka as an "investigative" body which could help manage the
registration of key workers. Within 2 months, the Cheka was given the power
to arrest, try and execute individuals- all according to policies set by
Lenin himself. By 1922 they had murdered somewhere near 250,000.
And so, your precious Lenin *created* the destructive forces of Russia. He
did what every elitist, Marxist moron does: He assumes that the Ideology
will save everyone at any cost. Since those people will question the misery
and pain wrought by said ideology (the stealing of private property, the
murder of innocents, the onset of famine), it is only natural for the Moron
to secure legislative, executive and judicial authority within his own power
structure. Of course, once the Moron (and his disciples) answer to no one,
the real woodchipping begins.
Lenin didn't need umpteen invading nations to sour his recipe- it was poison
by the very virtue of its conception. He had ensured absolute Tyranny within
5 months of the coup, and 60 Million individuals would die because of it.
-HB
Von Bailey
article. You simply associate it with publications with a certain
history without proving the association or discrediting any of the
information reported. Something akin to creating a negative by
assumed associations and usually a tactic used by those without a
viable arguement.
This seems to be the case with you here so I guess you are correct,
game over.
America loses as it has no real defense for it's actions except the
ability to kill off anyone who disagrees. Some freedom we're bringing
to the world.
von
Von Bailey
> > >
> > > > > > WARMONGER EXPLAINS WAR TO PEACENIK
> > > > >
> > > > > Now this is taking your dellusion to a whole new level. Not content
> to
> > > > > create just a strawman argument, you have to fabricate (or find a
> > > > > fabricated) strawman conversation.
> > > > >
> > > > Sorry you didn't appreciate it. But then no one told you to read it.
> > > > If it bothered you next time try clicking on the next post and ignore
> > > > it. Try killfiling me and you don't have to worry about it at all.
> > > >
> > >
> > > No thank you. I'd rather expose your ridiculous, silly, and stupid
> > > statements for what they are. You are doing more to expose the lunacy of
> the
> > > anti-war left than any of the people arguing before the conflict.
> > >
> > In your opinion. But given that I give that as much merit as you give
> > mine I guess this is simply an opportunity for you to rant. Feel
> > free.
> >
> > > The reason I said what I said is that your "conversation" was clearly
> > > fictional.
> >
> > And was presented as nothing else.
>
> Says you. I saw no such disclaimer or notation indicating the origin of this
> explanation. Not that it was an effective representation of the Pro-Regime
> Change side, but given your renowned ability to misunderstand reality, I
> couldn't really give you the benefit of the doubt and assume that you knew
> it was fiction.
>
obviously did think it was fiction (to anyone except you) this would
be another occasion where you were wrong.
> > Which begs the question why are
> > you getting all defensive about it?
> >
>
> I have begged no such question, as no such question has been asked. Please
> show me where *I* was defensive.
So your three paragraphs explaining why the 'fictional' conversation
was making inaccurate statements was simply and explanation of the
fictional conversation. Fine. We won't bother with the fact that you
attributed the statements to me personally.
> You are the one whining that somebody would
> dare comment on a public post and point out that you are almost pathological
> in your obsession with creating strawman arguments. You are the one who is
> now trying to defend the post, and accusing me of some sort of obfuscation.
>
I am defending nothing. I mearly pointed out that it was a fictional
conversation that I found humorous. Somehow it became a cause for you
to deny the arguements in the 'fictional' conversation.
> So, let's just cut to the chase. I won't Killfile you. I won't ignore you.
Am I supposed to be concerned about this? Please do as you please, it
will affect what I do not in the least.
> If you continue to post ridiculous assertions in a public forum, I will
> continue to question them. If you continue to create strawman arguments, I
> will continue to point them out to you.
>
So now the 'fictional conversation' was an 'assertion in a public
forum'. So if I post other obviously fictional dialogs you will
accuse me of making assertions and blather on about how I am creating
strawman arguments? That could actually be fun. I shall consider it.
> > > > > It's as if these people's worldviews are spiraling down to the same
> > > > > cataclysmic fate as so many of their beloved Saddam statues in Iraq.
> > > > >
> > > > As if tearing down a couple of statues is a meaningful statement. I'm
> > > > glad you got excited about it while watching it on television. The US
> > > > has the support of looters and thiefs who helped them tear down a
> > > > statue. It's amazing the gullibility of the american public. Flash
> > > > some video and pictures, put them in whatever context you want and the
> > > > American public seems to follow without question.
> > > >
> > >
> > > See the liberation of Paris. This state of disorder is nothing
> unexpected.
> > > What *is* unexpected is that you would bemoan the destruction of a
> murderous
> > > regime, just because there is some looting going on in the aftermath.
> Your
> > > desire for order at any cost is quite revealing...Almost as much so as
> > > Paul's admitted desire to see the Iraqis enslaved under yet another
> > > murderous regime.
> > >
> > Seeing commies and pinkos everywhere? Interesting. Or is it just
> > those who don't agree with the way you think?
> >
>
> I recommend that you re-read Paul's posts. He has specifically stated that
> he wishes the people of Iraq to be enslaved in a communist dictatorship. I
> am not "seeing commies and pinkos everywhere". I am calling a spade a spade.
>
He said nothing of the kind. Why don't you post where he said that
the Iraqi people should be "enslaved in a communist dictatorship"?
> Likewise, I believe that your true colors are revealed by your consistent
> unwillingness to apply critical thinking to the current state of the Iraqi
> citizen, and the prospective state of the citizen in one or two years time.
LOL, my true colors?!? What color would that be?
> By all historical precedent, the Iraqis are in a much better state of
> liberty and freedom today than they were 5 months ago. The pendulum has
> swung from totalitarian to anarchy on its brief oscillation towards peace.
Now we are back into fiction, right?
> When compared to the liberation of Paris (I really encourage you to look
> this up and read for yourself) the civil disorder in Baghdad has the menace
> of a calm summer breeze.
>
The liberation of Paris was from an occupying force, not by a ruler
that we objected to. The difference seems to escape you. If we had
told France that now that they had been liberated we were going to set
up their government for them using Americans as the heads of their
respective ministries and we were going to use take control of their
natural resources until we decided they could use them correctly it
would have been a different scenario.
The two don't compare and you are simply grasping at straws to make
some kind of positive comparison. America is more like Germany
'liberating' France from their faulty leadership. The French didn't
appreciate that at all.
> You continue to ignore (or at least discount) the obvious benefits of the
> regime change and minimize the celebrating Iraqis- all the while playing up
> the bumps along the road and even continuing to harp on the illegitimacy of
> the presidency...This is very revealing.
...to someone prone to making ridiculous assumptions from limited
data. And given that you do that well there is no doubt that it is
revealing to you about you. Unfortunately it does very little to
inform you about others.
von
Mik
"Von Bailey" <red...@MailAndNews.com> wrote in message
> Interesting. What seems to be missing is anything that disputes the
> article. You simply associate it with publications with a certain
> history without proving the association or discrediting any of the
> information reported. Something akin to creating a negative by
> assumed associations and usually a tactic used by those without a
> viable arguement.
>
> This seems to be the case with you here so I guess you are correct,
> game over.
>
> America loses as it has no real defense for it's actions except the
> ability to kill off anyone who disagrees. Some freedom we're bringing
> to the world.
I have refuted other articles that you have posted with NO comment from you.
I merely choose to draw scrutiny to the rest of your fringe drivel that you
have posted. You have NO substance with which you post, but you demand a
higher standard to refute it. Ask an expert and research your own crap
before you post. We won, game over.
-Mik
Henry Bramlet
"Von Bailey" <red...@MailAndNews.com> wrote in message
> "Henry Bramlet" <hbramle...@qwest.nospam.net> wrote in message
news:<evEma.24718$4P1.2...@newsread2.prod.itd.earthlink.net>...
clearly
> > > > fictional.
> > >
> > > And was presented as nothing else.
> >
> > Says you. I saw no such disclaimer or notation indicating the origin of
this
> > explanation. Not that it was an effective representation of the
Pro-Regime
> > Change side, but given your renowned ability to misunderstand reality, I
> > couldn't really give you the benefit of the doubt and assume that you
knew
> > it was fiction.
> >
> So you thought *I* thought it was not fiction? Well, given that I
> obviously did think it was fiction (to anyone except you) this would
> be another occasion where you were wrong.
>
As I said, I cannot take that for granted. Perhaps you could be more
explicit in the future?
> > > Which begs the question why are
> > > you getting all defensive about it?
> > >
> >
> > I have begged no such question, as no such question has been asked.
Please
> > show me where *I* was defensive.
>
> So your three paragraphs explaining why the 'fictional' conversation
> was making inaccurate statements was simply and explanation of the
> fictional conversation. Fine. We won't bother with the fact that you
> attributed the statements to me personally.
>
Of course I attributed them to you personally. You posted a twit of a
message, and I am pointing out how much of a twit that makes you look.
> > You are the one whining that somebody would
> > dare comment on a public post and point out that you are almost
pathological
> > in your obsession with creating strawman arguments. You are the one who
is
> > now trying to defend the post, and accusing me of some sort of
obfuscation.
> >
> I am defending nothing. I mearly pointed out that it was a fictional
> conversation that I found humorous. Somehow it became a cause for you
> to deny the arguements in the 'fictional' conversation.
>
Erm...no you did not. You did not say "This is a fictional conversation I
find humorous". You posted a fictional conversation without comment. I took
that as endorsement of the viewpoints contained therein and commented on the
obvious lack of judgment- and your obsession with engaging strawman
arguments. I did not deny any of the comments in the conversation, because
they are not arguments that I, or other pro-disarmament people, have made.
So please quit trying to attribute actions to myself that I clearly have not
taken.
> > So, let's just cut to the chase. I won't Killfile you. I won't ignore
you.
>
> Am I supposed to be concerned about this? Please do as you please, it
> will affect what I do not in the least.
>
My god man! Then why would you make this request of me:
> > > > > If it bothered you next time try clicking on the next post and
ignore
> > > > > it. Try killfiling me and you don't have to worry about it at
all.
You are the same person, aren't you? You are almost schizophrenic in your
arguments. I was replying to your statement. If it doesn't concern you, then
why do you suggest it?
> > If you continue to post ridiculous assertions in a public forum, I will
> > continue to question them. If you continue to create strawman arguments,
I
> > will continue to point them out to you.
> >
> So now the 'fictional conversation' was an 'assertion in a public
> forum'.
No, your rediculous statements elsewhere are assertions. Why don't you stop
trying to analyze the diction of my prose and just respond to the damn
argument? Put away the scare quotes, and just calm down. How hard can it be?
You posted a stupid post. I commented on it, and related (accurately, BTW)
that it takes your strawman arguments to a whole new height. Rather than
defend that position, you said "Why don't you just killfile me". I explained
that I won't do that, because it is better to expose your ludicrous
statements for what they are.
If it concerns you *so* little, why are you going to hit the Reply button
again?
> So if I post other obviously fictional dialogs you will
> accuse me of making assertions and blather on about how I am creating
> strawman arguments? That could actually be fun. I shall consider it.
>
Now I understand why so many lurkers have emailed to tell me that discussion
with you is fruitless. The standard script of a discussion with you goes as
follows:
Von Baily:
I think that blah is wrong because blah blah blah.
Other:
You are incorrect because of A
Von Baily:
So you are saying B? How stupid.
Other:
No. I said A. You are wrong because of A.
Von Baily:
Why are you getting so deffensive? If you don't
like
what I say, don't comment on it.
Other:
I am not being defensive. I am pointing out that
you are wrong.
Von Baily:
You are the one who is arguing B. I don't care
if you disagree.
Other:
I am not arguing B. I am stating A.
Von Baily:
Man, are you defensive.
Do you really think this makes you look clever? Because as far as I can
tell, it merely indicates that you A) Have no long term memory, or B) use
the tactics of a spineless coward who cannot even stand behind his previous
statements.
> > > Seeing commies and pinkos everywhere? Interesting. Or is it just
> > > those who don't agree with the way you think?
> > >
> >
> > I recommend that you re-read Paul's posts. He has specifically stated
that
> > he wishes the people of Iraq to be enslaved in a communist dictatorship.
I
> > am not "seeing commies and pinkos everywhere". I am calling a spade a
spade.
> >
>
> He said nothing of the kind. Why don't you post where he said that
> the Iraqi people should be "enslaved in a communist dictatorship"?
>
His statement was:
"For the creation of soviets across Iraq!
For an Iraqi Soviet Federative Socialist Republic!"
Since every instantiation of a soviet socialist republic resulted in a
communist dictatorship, which enslaved its people, I think that my comment
is well within limit. And that's the last fact checking I'll do for you. I'm
sick of you denying the statements of others and forgetting your own
arguments, and requiring your opponent to do the lookup work for you.
So can I expect you to appologize for accusing me of slander?
> > Likewise, I believe that your true colors are revealed by your
consistent
> > unwillingness to apply critical thinking to the current state of the
Iraqi
> > citizen, and the prospective state of the citizen in one or two years
time.
>
> LOL, my true colors?!? What color would that be?
>
Perhaps you haven't heard the term "Expression"...or "Colloquialism". Look
it up. Twist your own words around.
<snip>
> > When compared to the liberation of Paris (I really encourage you to look
> > this up and read for yourself) the civil disorder in Baghdad has the
menace
> > of a calm summer breeze.
> >
> The liberation of Paris was from an occupying force, not by a ruler
> that we objected to. The difference seems to escape you. If we had
> told France that now that they had been liberated we were going to set
> up their government for them using Americans as the heads of their
> respective ministries and we were going to use take control of their
> natural resources until we decided they could use them correctly it
> would have been a different scenario.
>
> The two don't compare and you are simply grasping at straws to make
> some kind of positive comparison. America is more like Germany
> 'liberating' France from their faulty leadership. The French didn't
> appreciate that at all.
>
Please stay on topic. We are talking about the Civil Disorder in Paris
versus the Civil Disorder in Baghdad.
The two periods of civil disorder are similar. In Paris there were lynchings
and lootings for several days- even weeks in parts of the city- as the
population turned on representatives of the occupying force, as well as the
Vichy government. (Which, BTW, was *not* an occupying force, but in fact was
a French-run government that "we objected to"). In addition, many of the
unsavory Parisians took the oportunity to loot stores and banks of their
money.
Regardless of which governments were in place, the removal of both Saddam's
regime and the Vichy government both resulted in power vacuums and civil
disorder. One can look at the case of Paris, and see that the period passed.
And when viewing Baghdad in such a context, we see that the looting will end
(it has already decreased substantially). Thus, this catastrophe of epic
proportions is but another hiccup in the scheme of things. The people will
be vastly better off than they were under Saddam. Or are you going to insist
otherwise?
> > You continue to ignore (or at least discount) the obvious benefits of
the
> > regime change and minimize the celebrating Iraqis- all the while playing
up
> > the bumps along the road and even continuing to harp on the illegitimacy
of
> > the presidency...This is very revealing.
>
> ...to someone prone to making ridiculous assumptions from limited
> data. And given that you do that well there is no doubt that it is
> revealing to you about you. Unfortunately it does very little to
> inform you about others.
>
I've had plenty of data from you, Von. You continue to discount the benefits
of regime change, and minimize the celebrating Iraqis while dwelling on
expected bumps along the road. This reveals much about you.
-HB
Von Bailey
>
>"Von Bailey" <red...@MailAndNews.com> wrote in message
>news:c1c1301f.03041...@posting.google.com...
>> Interesting. What seems to be missing is anything that disputes the
>> article. You simply associate it with publications with a certain
>> history without proving the association or discrediting any of the
>> information reported. Something akin to creating a negative by
>> assumed associations and usually a tactic used by those without a
>> viable arguement.
>>
>> This seems to be the case with you here so I guess you are correct,
>> game over.
>>
>> America loses as it has no real defense for it's actions except the
>> ability to kill off anyone who disagrees. Some freedom we're bringing
>> to the world.
>
>I have refuted other articles that you have posted with NO comment from you.
While you may have made assertions without backing them up I would
hardly call that 'refuting other articles', but opinions differ.
>I merely choose to draw scrutiny to the rest of your fringe drivel that you
>have posted. You have NO substance with which you post, but you demand a
>higher standard to refute it.
Mind posting an example of this behavior?
> Ask an expert and research your own crap
>before you post. We won, game over.
>
How many did your side kill and how many points did you get?
Mik
"Von Bailey" <Red...@mailandnews.com> wrote in message
news:7jhp9voiugv4vbdri...@4ax.com...
> >I have refuted other articles that you have posted with NO comment from
you.
>
> While you may have made assertions without backing them up I would
> hardly call that 'refuting other articles', but opinions differ.
Twisting again.
> >I merely choose to draw scrutiny to the rest of your fringe drivel that
you
> >have posted. You have NO substance with which you post, but you demand a
> >higher standard to refute it.
>
> Mind posting an example of this behavior?
Do a search.
>
> > Ask an expert and research your own crap
> >before you post. We won, game over.
> >
> How many did your side kill and how many points did you get?
Twisting again.
-Mik
Mik
> news:b5ffc399d8c6ac5f...@news.teranews.com:
> > There are other factors that probably cause this alleged correlation.
> > The alleged rejection of ballots probably had nothing to do with race
> > as all ballots that I'm familiar with do not have race encoded on the
> > ballot. There are other more likely causes of these alleged statistics
> > that have nothing to with race.
>
> Nor is there any mention is what he quoted of documented attempts to stop
> some people from voting, merely the usual government incompetence. The
> people at my polls were idiots too, and I live in suburban white-
> breadville.
The United States Commission on Civil Rights, charged with the statutory duty to investigate voting rights violations in a fair and objective manner, has produced a report that fails to serve the public interest. Voting Irregularities Occurring in Florida During the 2000 Presidential Election is prejudicial, divisive, and injurious to the cause of true democracy and justice in our society. It discredits the Commission itself and substantially diminishes its credibility as the nation’s protector of our civil rights.
The Commission’s report has little basis in fact. Its conclusions are based on a deeply flawed statistical analysis coupled with anecdotal evidence of limited value, unverified by a proper factual investigation. This shaky foundation is used to justify charges of the most serious nature—questioning the legitimacy of the American electoral process and the validity of the most recent presidential election. The report’s central finding—that there was “widespread disenfranchisement and denial of voting rights” in Florida’s 2000 presidential election—does not withstand even a cursory legal or scholarly scrutiny. Leveling such a serious charge without clear justification is an unwarranted assault upon the public’s confidence in American democracy.
The statistical analysis in the report is superficial and incomplete. A more sophisticated regression analysis by Dr. John Lott, an economist at Yale Law School, challenges its main findings. Dr. Lott was unable to find a consistent, statistical significant relationship between the share of voters who were African Americans and the ballot spoilage rate.
Furthermore, Dr. Lott conducted additional analysis beyond the report’s parameters, looking at previous elections, demographic changes, and rates of ballot spoilage. His analysis found little relationship between racial population change and ballot spoilage, and the one correlation that is found runs counter to the majority report’s argument: An increase in the black share of the voting population is linked to a slight decrease in spoilage rates, although the difference is not statistically significant.
-Mik
di9
"Von Bailey" <red...@MailAndNews.com> wrote in message
news:c1c1301f.03041...@posting.google.com...
well written! pretty much sums it all up.
you are probably familiar with the "get your war on"
series of comic strips.. also extremely humourous and
to the point. have a look at them if u haven't theres
23 pages of them !
http://www.mnftiu.cc/mnftiu.cc/war23.html
-di9
Mik
> Von Baily:
> I think that blah is wrong because blah blah blah.
>
> Other:
> You are incorrect because of A
>
> Von Baily:
> So you are saying B? How stupid.
>
> Other:
> No. I said A. You are wrong because of A.
>
> Von Baily:
> Why are you getting so deffensive? If you
don't
> like
> what I say, don't comment on it.
>
> Other:
> I am not being defensive. I am pointing out
that
> you are wrong.
>
> Von Baily:
> You are the one who is arguing B. I don't care
> if you disagree.
>
> Other:
> I am not arguing B. I am stating A.
>
> Von Baily:
> Man, are you defensive.
LOL! So true!
-Mik
Von Bailey
> "Von Bailey" <red...@MailAndNews.com> wrote in message
> news:c1c1301f.0304...@posting.google.com...
> > "Henry Bramlet" <hbramle...@qwest.nospam.net> wrote in message
> news:<evEma.24718$4P1.2...@newsread2.prod.itd.earthlink.net>...
>
>
> > > > > The reason I said what I said is that your "conversation" was
> > > >> clearly fictional.
> > > >
> > > > And was presented as nothing else.
> > >
> > > Says you. I saw no such disclaimer or notation indicating the origin of this
> > > explanation. Not that it was an effective representation of the Pro-Regime
> > > Change side, but given your renowned ability to misunderstand reality, I
> > > couldn't really give you the benefit of the doubt and assume that you
> > > knew it was fiction.
> > >
> > So you thought *I* thought it was not fiction? Well, given that I
> > obviously did think it was fiction (to anyone except you) this would
> > be another occasion where you were wrong.
>
> As I said, I cannot take that for granted. Perhaps you could be more
> explicit in the future?
>
everyone else that read it and it is somehow something that I didn't
do correctly. To quote you.."This reveals much about you."
> > > > Which begs the question why are
> > > > you getting all defensive about it?
> > > >
> > >
> > > I have begged no such question, as no such question has been asked.
> > > Please show me where *I* was defensive.
> >
> > So your three paragraphs explaining why the 'fictional' conversation
> > was making inaccurate statements was simply and explanation of the
> > fictional conversation. Fine. We won't bother with the fact that you
> > attributed the statements to me personally.
>
> Of course I attributed them to you personally. You posted a twit of a
> message, and I am pointing out how much of a twit that makes you look.
>
So the words 'Author Unknown' under the title was a clue to everyone
but you. Again, "This reveals much about you."
>
> > > If you continue to post ridiculous assertions in a public forum, I will
> > > continue to question them. If you continue to create strawman arguments,
> > > I will continue to point them out to you.
> > >
> > So now the 'fictional conversation' was an 'assertion in a public
> > forum'.
>
> No, your rediculous statements elsewhere are assertions. Why don't you stop
> trying to analyze the diction of my prose and just respond to the damn
> argument? Put away the scare quotes, and just calm down. How hard can it be?
>
Because you have said nothing except repeat already discredited
information to back up all the justifications put forth by the
Administration and the 'Dancing in the streets' seems to have been
short-lived and become moot.
> You posted a stupid post. I commented on it, and related (accurately, BTW)
> that it takes your strawman arguments to a whole new height. Rather than
> defend that position, you said "Why don't you just killfile me". I explained
> that I won't do that, because it is better to expose your ludicrous
> statements for what they are.
>
Why should I have defended a fictional conversation?
>
> > So if I post other obviously fictional dialogs you will
> > accuse me of making assertions and blather on about how I am creating
> > strawman arguments? That could actually be fun. I shall consider it.
> >
>
> Now I understand why so many lurkers have emailed to tell me that discussion
> with you is fruitless. The standard script of a discussion with you goes as
> follows:
>
<snipping fictional conversation>
>
If I really did as you claim you would be using my actual words
instead of making up some fictional conversations to ridicule me with.
>
> > > > Seeing commies and pinkos everywhere? Interesting. Or is it just
> > > > those who don't agree with the way you think?
> > > >
> > >
> > > I recommend that you re-read Paul's posts. He has specifically stated that
> > > he wishes the people of Iraq to be enslaved in a communist dictatorship.
> > > I am not "seeing commies and pinkos everywhere". I am calling a spade a
> > > spade.
> > >
> >
> > He said nothing of the kind. Why don't you post where he said that
> > the Iraqi people should be "enslaved in a communist dictatorship"?
>
> His statement was:
>
> "For the creation of soviets across Iraq!
>
> For an Iraqi Soviet Federative Socialist Republic!"
>
> Since every instantiation of a soviet socialist republic resulted in a
> communist dictatorship, which enslaved its people, I think that my comment
> is well within limit.
IYO. However, it also demonstrates your propensity to 'enlarge' on
what people say to accomodate your assumptions. At no point did Paul
mention enslaving anyone in a communist ditatorship which you just
demonstrated. What we do find is that you did find it acceptable to
put all kinds of negative connotation which he obviously never meant
to spin his words into a negative you are comfortable with.
Note: I didn't have to create a fictional conversation to make my
point.
> And that's the last fact checking I'll do for you. I'm
> sick of you denying the statements of others and forgetting your own
> arguments, and requiring your opponent to do the lookup work for you.
>
You haven't 'looked up' anything. You took Paul's and my words out of
context to make a point we never made and then demand that we answer
in the context of your assumptions.
Demonstrated by the fact that Paul NEVER said anything about soviet
slavery but you 'inserted' the phrase into his statements to put it in
a different context and then wanted me to accept that he meant 'soviet
slavery' instead of the detailed analysis of what he actually meant
posted elsewhere.
It is also demonstrated by the fact that this whole dialog is based on
the premise that you believed that I believed (without a shred of
evidence and despite the fact that the title included the pharse
'author unknown') the original post was not fictional. Thus taking it
out of the context of a fictional conversation (which seemed apparent
to everyone but you) and putting it into a context in which you could
attack me for making the arguments of the fictional charector.
> So can I expect you to appologize for accusing me of slander?
>
Show it was done or is just your accusation enough?
>
> <snip>
> > > When compared to the liberation of Paris (I really encourage you to look
> > > this up and read for yourself) the civil disorder in Baghdad has the
> > > menace of a calm summer breeze.
> > >
> > The liberation of Paris was from an occupying force, not by a ruler
> > that we objected to. The difference seems to escape you. If we had
> > told France that now that they had been liberated we were going to set
> > up their government for them using Americans as the heads of their
> > respective ministries and we were going to use take control of their
> > natural resources until we decided they could use them correctly it
> > would have been a different scenario.
> >
> > The two don't compare and you are simply grasping at straws to make
> > some kind of positive comparison. America is more like Germany
> > 'liberating' France from their faulty leadership. The French didn't
> > appreciate that at all.
> >
>
> Please stay on topic. We are talking about the Civil Disorder in Paris
> versus the Civil Disorder in Baghdad.
>
<deleting non relevant comparisons>
All that demonstrates is that there was historical precedent that they
could have used in properly preparing for this 'liberation' effort.
Given that *you* apparently know what happened in Paris and can make
such comparisons, why couldn't the well infomed people planning this
war have anticipated the looting and chaos occuring in Baghdad and
prepared for it with enough troops to guard whatever they 'liberated'?
They planned very well to make sure we had the oil fields secure.
There were many reports on how well that was planned and carried out.
However there didn't seem to be a single second spent on how to secure
the hospitals and national treasures of the country.
All this despite the example of Paris.
>
> > > You continue to ignore (or at least discount) the obvious benefits of
> the
> > > regime change and minimize the celebrating Iraqis- all the while playing
> up
> > > the bumps along the road and even continuing to harp on the illegitimacy
> of
> > > the presidency...This is very revealing.
> >
> > ...to someone prone to making ridiculous assumptions from limited
> > data. And given that you do that well there is no doubt that it is
> > revealing to you about you. Unfortunately it does very little to
> > inform you about others.
> >
>
> I've had plenty of data from you, Von. You continue to discount the benefits
> of regime change, and minimize the celebrating Iraqis while dwelling on
> expected bumps along the road. This reveals much about you.
>
If they were expected why weren't they better planned for?
von
Von Bailey
Talk about a circle jerk. These two are actually clapping themselves
on the back for something that didn't happen and there is no real
evidence of (else it would have been supplied as an example instead of
a 'fictional' conversation) so they manufactured some.
Why does it remind me of 'drawings of Mobile Chemical Labs' as
evidence of Mobile Chemical Labs instead of pictures of the real
thing?
BTW, who's Von Baily, another imaginary charector?
Von BailEy
Mik
"Von Bailey" <red...@MailAndNews.com> wrote in message
Ahhh, demanding evidence yet provide none yourself. "they manufactured
some"? I have to give Henry credit for this one. I merely added "LOL! So
true!" I believe it is accurate and found it so amusing that I *had* to
quote it again.
>
> Why does it remind me of 'drawings of Mobile Chemical Labs' as
> evidence of Mobile Chemical Labs instead of pictures of the real
> thing?
>
> BTW, who's Von Baily, another imaginary charector?
>
> Von BailEy
Von Baily is referring to Von Bailey....it was a TYPO just like your
misspelling of character.
-Mik
Paul Smith
>
> This was not "Clearly Demonstrated". After all, your mad Uncle had to
sieze
> power via Coup, in case you didn't notice. It seems like Democracy wasn't
so
> helpful for your glorious revolution there...
The Bolshevik Party had majorities in all the major soviets. The Bolshevik
policy was to overthrow the bourgeois government of Kerensky, the people
wanted it to happen. So it did.
No bourgeois democracy would allow the capitalist class to be overthrown.
Look at the blood bath in Chile when a socialist government was elected, the
CIA put your buddies Pinochet in power slaughtering 5 million people.
You should take note that in this coup not one shot was fired. That speaks
about how much the people were willing to defend Kerensky, nobody would
fight for him.
> The body is FAILED. FLAWED. It lacks even the basic ability to regulate
> internal corruption,
Clearly you have no idea about how a soviet works.
Any elected functionary can be recalled at anytime, by the electorate, and
permanently suspended. The masses more then have the power to ensure their
views are upheld once the people get elected. Something your beloved
bourgeois-democracies are unable of doing!
<snip>
Once again Mr bourgeoisie considers Bolshevism and Stalinism to be one of
the same. Lacking complete understanding.
May be you should turn your brain on and understand the polices of Stalin
are reverse to the polices of Lenin. All the 'millions' (the number seems
to go up every year, it's gotten to utterly stupid figures now, some
estimates claiming almost half of the population were murdered LOL!) Stalin
had killed were communists or are you too stupid to see this?
You're obviously not familiar with Trotskyism are you?
Von Bailey
I have to provide evidence of what particularly? You keep saying this
but have yet to provide one instance where I didn't back up an
assertion I made with sites from news articles or when another poster
is in question, their own words. I don't have to 'create'
conversations to prove my points.
> "they manufactured
> some"? I have to give Henry credit for this one. I merely added "LOL! So
> true!" I believe it is accurate and found it so amusing that I *had* to
> quote it again.
>
Given the inability to find the any evidence using my own words he
makes up his ownn copying George W Bush tactics you are so proud of.
There is no wonder you approve.
von
Paul Smith
> Given the inability to find the any evidence using my own words he
> makes up his ownn copying George W Bush tactics you are so proud of.
> There is no wonder you approve.
We are well aware of the mental abilities of a certain Bush, just copying
him would be a bad idea guys. :-)
The bottom line those who accept the line of the ruling class are going to
get a very nasty shock one day, when you suddenly understand you have been
totally lied to (which you have) or not been shown certain things that
contradict whatever your ruling classes wants you to believe (which happens
all the time).
The US imperialists are positioning themselves for a show down with the
European imperialists, that's what this whole Iraqi war business is about
(and what the whole war on terror is used as an excuse for), it's just the
fundamental economic issues manifesting themselves.
Analyse people, analyse!
Paul Smith
> "For the creation of soviets across Iraq!
>
> For an Iraqi Soviet Federative Socialist Republic!"
Iraq = obvious.
Federative = obvious meaning, a federal republic would be more suited to
bridge the 3 main ethnic regions of Iraq. After all, the Iraqi borders were
artifically created by the imperialists.
Republic = obvious.
Soviet = Meaning "council" in Russian, soviets were elected local,
municipal, and regional councils in Russia and later the Soviet Union.
Before the October Revolution of 1917, an estimated 900 soviets were in
existence.
Soviets were representatives of workers, peasants and soldiers in a given
locale (rural soviets were a mix of peasants and soldiers, while urban
soviets were a mix of workers and soldiers). The Soviets were bodies whose
members were volunteers; people who were involved did so to strengthen their
class position in Russian politics. Soviets gained political power after the
Bolshevik revolution, acting as the local executive bodies of government.
Delegates were elected from Soviets to the All-Russian Congress of Soviets,
where the foundation of the Soviet government was intended to rest.
Gradually, however, soviets began to lose their power because of the
extremely harsh conditions brought on by the Civil War , and by the late
1920s became top-down extensions of the "Communist" party [therefore being
soviets only in name, not in action].
"The cell of the Soviet government is the urban and rural soviet, or
council. These urban and rural soviets are grouped first in a volost
congress, then in district congresses, then in the regional congresses, and
lastly in the pan-Russian Congress of Soviets, made up of urban soviets'
delegates (one for every 25,000 inhabitants) and of provincial congress
delegates (one for every 125,000 inhabitants). The pan-Russian congress
meets twice a year. It appoints an Centeral Executive Committee which is the
supreme authority in the intervals between congresses. From within itself,
the Centeral Executive Committee names the people's commissars who, in turn,
make up the Council of People's Commissars."
Jose Mariategui
History of the World Crises: Institutions of the Russian government
Further Reading: Soviets in Action by John Reed
(http://www.marxists.org/archive/reed/works/1918/soviets.htm).
Socialist / socialism = "The organisation of society in such a manner that
any individual, man or woman, finds at birth equal means for the development
of their respective faculties and the utilisation of their labour. The
organisation of society in such a manner that the exploitation by one person
of the labour of his neighbour would be impossible, and where everyone will
be allowed to enjoy the social wealth only to the extent of their
contribution to the production of that wealth."
August Bebel
Die Frau und der Sozialismus
"Now and then the workers are victorious, but only for a time. The real
fruit of their battles lie not in the immediate result, but in the ever
expanding union of the workers. This union is helped on by the improved
means of communication that are created by Modern Industry, and that place
the workers of different localities in contact with one another. It was just
this contact that was needed to centralize the numerous local struggles, all
of the same character, into one national struggle between classes.
[...]
"The essential conditions for the existence and for the sway of the
bourgeois class is the formation and augmentation of capital; the condition
for capital is wage labor. Wage labor rests exclusively on competition
between the laborers. The advance of industry, whose involuntary promoter is
the bourgeoisie, replaces the isolation of the laborers, due to competition,
by the revolutionary combination, due to association. The development of
Modern Industry, therefore, cuts from under its feet the very foundation on
which the bourgeoisie produces and appropriates products. What the
bourgeoisie therefore produces, above all, are its own grave-diggers.
[...]
"And the abolition of this state of things is called by the bourgeois,
abolition of individuality and freedom! And rightly so. The abolition of
bourgeois individuality, bourgeois independence, and bourgeois freedom is
undoubtedly aimed at.
("These measures will, of course, be different in different countries.
Nevertheless, in most advanced countries, the following will be generally
applicable.")
1. Abolition of property in land and application of all rents of land to
public purposes.
2. A heavy progressive or graduated income tax.
3. Abolition of all rights of inheritance.
4. Confiscation of the property of all emigrants and rebels.
5. Centralization of credit in the banks of the state, by means of a
national bank with state capital and an exclusive monopoly.
6. Centralization of the means of communication and transport in the hands
of the state.
7. Extension of factories and instruments of production owned by the state;
the bringing into cultivation of waste lands, and the improvement of the
soil generally in accordance with a common plan.
8. Equal obligation of all to work. Establishment of industrial armies,
especially for agriculture.
9. Combination of agriculture with manufacturing industries; gradual
abolition of all the distinction between town and country by a more equable
distribution of the populace over the country.
10. Free education for all children in public schools. Abolition of
children's factory labor in its present form. Combination of education with
industrial production, etc."
Karl Marx and Fredrick Engels
The Communist Manifesto
Chapter 1 and Chapter 2
"The question then arises: What transformation will the state undergo in
communist society? In other words, what social functions will remain in
existence there that are analogous to present state functions?"
"Between capitalist and communist society there lies the period of the
revolutionary transformation of the one into the other. Corresponding to
this is also a political transition period in which the state can be nothing
but the revolutionary dictatorship of the proletariat."
Karl Marx
Critique of the Gotah Programme
Part IV: On Democracy
"The dictatorship of a single class is necessary not only for every class
society in general, not only for the proletariat which has overthrown the
bourgeoisie, but also for the entire historical period which separates
capitalism from "classless society", from communism. Bourgeois states are
most varied in form, but their essence is the same: all these states,
whatever their form, in the final analysis are inevitably the dictatorship
of the bourgeoisie. The transition from capitalism to communism is certainly
bound to yield a tremendous abundance and variety of political forms, but
the essence will inevitably be the same: the dictatorship of the
proletariat."
Vladimir Lenin
The State and Revolution
Chpt 2.
"What we have to deal with here is a communist society, not as it has
developed on its own foundations, but, on the contrary, just as it emerges
from capitalist society; which is thus in every respect, economically,
morally, and intellectually, still stamped with the birthmarks of the old
society from whose womb it emerges.
"Accordingly, the individual producer receives back from society - after the
deductions have been made - exactly what he gives to it..."
"But one man is superior to another physically, or mentally, and supplies
more labor in the same time, or can labor for a longer time; and labor, to
serve as a measure, must be defined by its duration or intensity, otherwise
it ceases to be a standard of measurement...
"Right, by its very nature, can consist only in the application of an equal
standard; but unequal individuals (and they would not be different
individuals if they were not unequal) are measurable only by an equal
standard insofar as they are brought under an equal point of view, are taken
from one definite side only - for instance... one worker is married, another
is not; one has more children than another, and so on and so forth. Thus,
with an equal performance of labor, and hence an equal in the social
consumption fund, one will in fact receive more than another, one will be
richer than another, and so on. To avoid all these defects, right, instead
of being equal, would have to be unequal."
Karl Marx
Critique of the Gotha Programme
Part 1
"The first phase of communism, therefore, cannot yet provide justice and
equality; differences, and unjust differences in wealth will still persist,
but the exploitation of man by man will have become impossible because it
will be impossible to seize the means of production - the factories,
machines, land, etc. - and make them private property.... Marx shows the
course of development of communist society....which [firstly] consists in
the distribution of consumer goods "according to the amount of labor
performed" (and not [yet] according to needs)."
"But the scientific distinction between socialism and communism is clear.
What is usually called socialism was termed by marx the "first", or lower,
phase of communist society. Insofar as the means of production becomes
common property, the word "communism" is also applicable here, providing we
do not forget that this is not complete communism."
Vladimir Lenin
The State and Revolution
Chpt. 5: The first phase of Communist Society
I'll just add a little peice on "the dictatorship of the proletarait" to
enforce it's meaning as I'm sure many of you will completely miss the whole
point of it.
Dictatorship of the Proletariat
"Freedom consists in converting the state from an organ superimposed upon
society into one completely subordinate to it; and today, too, the forms of
state are more free or less free to the extent that they restrict the
"freedom of the state".
Between capitalist and communist society there lies the period of the
revolutionary transformation of the one into the other. Corresponding to
this is also a political transition period in which the state can be nothing
but the revolutionary dictatorship of the proletariat."
Marx/Engels
Critique of the Gotha Programme
Part IV
"This dictatorship consists in the manner of applying democracy, not in its
elimination, but in energetic, resolute attacks upon the well-entrenched
rights and economic relationships of bourgeois society, without which a
socialist transformation cannot be accomplished. This dictatorship must be
the work of the class and not of a little leading minority in the name of
the class - that is, it must proceed step by step out of the active
participation of the masses; it must be under their direct influence,
subjected to the control of complete public activity; it must arise out of
the growing political training of the mass of the people."
Rosa Luxemburg
The Russian Revolution
Democracy and Dictatorship
"What, then, is the relation of this dictatorship to democracy?
We have seen that the Communist Manifesto simply places side by side the two
concepts: "to raise the proletariat to the position of the ruling class" and
"to win the battle of democracy". On the basis of all that has been said
above, it is possible to determine more precisely how democracy changes in
the transition from capitalism to communism.
The dictatorship of the proletariat, i.e., the organization of the vanguard
of the oppressed as the ruling class for the purpose of suppressing the
oppressors, cannot result merely in an expansion of democracy.
Simultaneously with an immense expansion of democracy, which for the first
time becomes democracy for the poor, democracy for the people, and not
democracy for the money-bags, the dictatorship of the proletariat imposes a
series of restrictions on the freedom of the oppressors, the exploiters, the
capitalists. We must suppress them in order to free humanity from wage
slavery, their resistance must be crushed by force; it is clear that there
is no freedom and no democracy where there is suppression and where there is
violence."
V.I. Lenin
The State and Revolution
Chpt. 5: The Economic Basis of the Withering Away of the State
"The real tasks of the workers' state do not consist in policing public
opinion, but in freeing it from the yoke of capital. This can only be done
by placing the means of production - which includes the production of
information - in the hands of society in its entirety. Once this essential
step towards socialism has been taken, all currents of opinion which have
not taken arms against the dictatorship of the proletariat must be able to
express themselves freely. It is the duty of the workers' state to put in
their hands, to all according to their numeric importance, the technical
means necessary for this, printing presses, paper, means of transportation."
Leon Trotsky
Freedom of the Press and Working Class
Largely quoted from http://www.marxists.org/
I hope that finalises any "issues" you had with my meanings.
Von Bailey
> > >you have posted. You have NO substance with which you post, but you
> > >demand a higher standard to refute it.
> >
> > Mind posting an example of this behavior?
>
> Do a search.
>
IOW, you made an accusation that you cannot back up.
von
Henry Bramlet
> > news:c1c1301f.0304...@posting.google.com...
of this
> > > > explanation. Not that it was an effective representation of the
Pro-Regime
> > > > Change side, but given your renowned ability to misunderstand
reality, I
> > > > couldn't really give you the benefit of the doubt and assume that
you
> > > > knew it was fiction.
> > > >
> > > So you thought *I* thought it was not fiction? Well, given that I
> > > obviously did think it was fiction (to anyone except you) this would
> > > be another occasion where you were wrong.
> >
> > As I said, I cannot take that for granted. Perhaps you could be more
> > explicit in the future?
> >
> Interesting. You misunderstood something that appeared obvious to
> everyone else that read it and it is somehow something that I didn't
> do correctly. To quote you.."This reveals much about you."
>
You see, this is what I mean by a strawman argument, Von.
Please reread my statement, and stop trying to put words in my mouth:
"As I said, I cannot take that for granted."
In other words, though I believe it likely that you understood the arguments
to be fictional strawmen, I can not assume for you in the absence of
explicit evidence. Especially given the overwhelming evidence (including the
above) that you repeatedly fail (refuse?) to understand what people say.
This makes arguments against you tiring, but sadistically enjoyable. A
six-pack rests on whether or not you can be educated, so I'm hoping you
don't disappoint.
Let's look at a hyperbolic example to better see what I mean...(I'll provide
real examples bellow):
Person A Says:
I feel that this war is justified because it will deter terrorism.
Person B Says:
So you just want to bomb babies to stop terrorism? How barbaric!
Notice the substitution of "war" for "bomb babies" and "deter" for "stop"
and how it completely changes the argument's meaning. On the other hand,
Person A Says:
I feel that this war is justified because it will deter terrorism
Person B Says:
No it won't. Historically, wars like this increase terrorist activity. I
refer you to the Viking conquest of Shangri-La...
In the former example, Person B doesn't respond to the argument, but instead
restates a different argument and attacks that. Now, you may or may not be
conscious of your tendency to engage strawman arguments. However, if you go
back through previous posts, you'll be astounded by the sheer number of
times that your responses begin with a restatement of your adversary's
argument- using phrases like "so in other words..." or "You're saying
that..."
As a non-scientific exercise, I searched for the phrase "in other words"
with both your, and Ty's name. I found it interesting. Although you both
have the same number of messages, (around 140), when Ty invokes the phrase,
it is to paraphrase something he has already said. ("I don't like A, because
of B,C, and D. IOW, I think it stinks"). When invoked by you, it is to
restate what another person has said.
Bellow I've assembled some quick hits. As I said, this is but a
non-scientific exercise. Most of your strawmen aren't so obvious and would
require reading through each article. But I still think it amazing how you
start *so many* responses by restating other peoples' arguments.
----------
>
> Your shrill, angry tone is evidence of your anger, I think.
>
So in other words you cannot find anything that actually says that I
was angry or even concerned that Saddam was removed.
----------
> No two folks have the same track record, except perhaps for kids in
> school, looking for their first summer job.
>
In other words, you cannot come up with the scenario of finding the
"best" in a field of qualified people that doesn't resort to personal
biases.
-----------
> Nah; you've got plane jockies, at-a-distance financiers of individual
> operations, maybe. The providers to those guys are asian, middle
> eastern, black african, hispanic/black mestizo.
>
In other words, you cannot prove it but you are perfectly willing to
assume whatever you wish and spout it as fact.
-----------
> There is no evidence of something that
> didn't happen, only of what did. Can you prove your hypothesis? If you
are
> dealing with facts you can, if not you can't.
>
In other words, another trip into the irrelevant. Your example
implies that logic wrt to one thing must be logic wrt a totally
different set of circumstances. This is not true especially in the
realm of human endeavor based on emotional responses.
---------
> The primary effects of marijuana are behavioral, because the drug
> affects the central nervous system (CNS). Popular use of
> marijuana has arisen from its effects of euphoria, sense of
> relaxation, increased visual, auditory, and taste perceptions
> that may occur with low to moderate doses of the drug.
In other words, it enhances the senses and relaxes the user with
moderate use.
> > > > > Which begs the question why are
> > > > > you getting all defensive about it?
> > > > >
> > > >
> > > > I have begged no such question, as no such question has been asked.
> > > > Please show me where *I* was defensive.
> > >
> > > So your three paragraphs explaining why the 'fictional' conversation
> > > was making inaccurate statements was simply and explanation of the
> > > fictional conversation. Fine. We won't bother with the fact that you
> > > attributed the statements to me personally.
> >
> > Of course I attributed them to you personally. You posted a twit of a
> > message, and I am pointing out how much of a twit that makes you look.
> >
> So the words 'Author Unknown' under the title was a clue to everyone
> but you. Again, "This reveals much about you."
>
Clue about what? Please reread the statement. You posted a twit of a
message, filled with strawman arguments (which you endorse) so I am pointing
out how much of a twit it makes you look. You are the one who is insisting
that I somehow misunderstood the message. I have said no such thing. I
understood quite well the significance of the document. The conversation
attempts to make "peaceniks" look clever for defeating the arguments of a
"warmonger". The problem with this is that the arguments are fictitious. Not
just the situation, but the arguments themselves. They are not the arguments
of most Pro-Liberation people (at the least, not people on this group).
Now, absent your declared intent, I could only guess at why you endorsed the
conversation by posting it. Some ideas:
1. You think it neat when people change and mis-state arguments in order to
make them defenseless.
2. You did not recognize the mis-statements as strawmen, and thought the
piece somehow illuminated the weakness of the Pro-Liberation stances.
3. You don't understand how a news-reader works and posted it mistakenly.
I get the feeling that it is actually number 2. I base this on your response
to the article in soc.culture.african.american, where you say:
"That was great. It defines the logic of those in favor of this war
very well."
In fact, as I said before, it does *not* define the logic of those in favor
of the war. The arguments are fictitious. They have not been made by any of
us. A simple example:
"WM: We are invading Iraq because it is in violation of
security council resolution 1441. A country cannot be
allowed to violate security council resolutions.
PN: But I thought many of our allies, including
Israel, were in violation of more security council
resolutions than Iraq."
This is a perfect example of fictitious arguments. Israel is not in
violation of more security council resolutions than Iraq, as numerous people
on the Pro-Liberation side have pointed out. While the true argument would
refute such ridiculous statements, the "conversation" moves on to other
lies.
> >
> > > > If you continue to post ridiculous assertions in a public forum, I
will
> > > > continue to question them. If you continue to create strawman
arguments,
> > > > I will continue to point them out to you.
> > > >
> > > So now the 'fictional conversation' was an 'assertion in a public
> > > forum'.
> >
> > No, your rediculous statements elsewhere are assertions. Why don't you
stop
> > trying to analyze the diction of my prose and just respond to the damn
> > argument? Put away the scare quotes, and just calm down. How hard can it
be?
> >
> Because you have said nothing except repeat already discredited
> information
(again you paraphrase my arguments and restate them as "discredited
information")
> to back up all the justifications put forth by the
> Administration and the 'Dancing in the streets' seems to have been
> short-lived and become moot.
>
This does not answer the question. Rather than post contradictory facts, you
twist the words to mean something that cannot stand on its own, but does not
resemble the original argument. Why do you do this? Is it pleasure, or
cowardice?
> > You posted a stupid post. I commented on it, and related (accurately,
BTW)
> > that it takes your strawman arguments to a whole new height. Rather than
> > defend that position, you said "Why don't you just killfile me". I
explained
> > that I won't do that, because it is better to expose your ludicrous
> > statements for what they are.
> >
>
> Why should I have defended a fictional conversation?
>
I don't know. Why did you post it? Why do you feel that completely
fictitious arguments "define the logic of those in favor of the war"? For
some reason, instead of taking a position to defend these thoughts, you
would rather put words in my mouth.
> >
> > > So if I post other obviously fictional dialogs you will
> > > accuse me of making assertions and blather on about how I am creating
> > > strawman arguments? That could actually be fun. I shall consider it.
> > >
> >
> > Now I understand why so many lurkers have emailed to tell me that
discussion
> > with you is fruitless. The standard script of a discussion with you goes
as
> > follows:
> >
> <snipping fictional conversation>
> >
>
> If I really did as you claim you would be using my actual words
> instead of making up some fictional conversations to ridicule me with.
>
"Almost as much so as Paul's admitted desire to see the Iraqis enslaved
under yet another murderous regime."
"Seeing commies and pinkos everywhere?"
Notice how I stated specifically that one person has admitted to wanting
Iraqis to live under a communist dictatorship. But you restate my position
to be "seeing commies and pinkos everywhere". You implied that I am accusing
everyone of being a communist, when I have said nothing of the sort.
Further, your inflammatory choice of words "commie" and "pinko" have never
been used by myself. Finally, the implication is that I am some how seeing
communists where they do not exist. This is absurd. Paul is an admitted
communist.
> > His statement was:
> >
> > "For the creation of soviets across Iraq!
> >
> > For an Iraqi Soviet Federative Socialist Republic!"
> >
> > Since every instantiation of a soviet socialist republic resulted in a
> > communist dictatorship, which enslaved its people, I think that my
comment
> > is well within limit.
>
> IYO. However, it also demonstrates your propensity to 'enlarge' on
> what people say to accomodate your assumptions. At no point did Paul
> mention enslaving anyone in a communist ditatorship which you just
> demonstrated. What we do find is that you did find it acceptable to
> put all kinds of negative connotation which he obviously never meant
> to spin his words into a negative you are comfortable with.
>
I "enlarged" upon nothing. I accused him of endorsing the creation of a
regime that enslaves its people. This is what soviet republics do. This is
not opinion, it is fact. Every Soviet regime assumes- by Ideological
dictate- that the individual is subordinate to the demands of the state-
without liberty or personal protection. They are in every literal (not
figurative) sense slaves to a dictatorial regime. By most estimates,
Communist dictatorships have killed more people in "peace" than the wars of
last century combined- chief among them, the USSR.
I am not applying negative connotation, or enlarging upon anything. When a
soviet republic is created, its people are enslaved within a communist
dictatorship. Likewise, if someone were to endorse pointing a loaded gun at
your head and pulling the trigger, it would not be an "enlargement" to say
that person endorses the killing of Von Bailey.
> Demonstrated by the fact that Paul NEVER said anything about soviet
> slavery but you 'inserted' the phrase into his statements to put it in
> a different context and then wanted me to accept that he meant 'soviet
> slavery' instead of the detailed analysis of what he actually meant
> posted elsewhere.
>
I inserted nothing. Are you going to deny that every Soviet Republic enslave
its people within a communist dictatorship? That it treats private property
as that of the state, decides their vocation and work hours, deprives them
of freedom of speech, and subordinates their desires to the Future of the
State?
If you would like to deny that, then I urge you to read the quotes from
Lenin, where he specifically asserted that this is what the soviet state
*must* do.
> It is also demonstrated by the fact that this whole dialog is based on
> the premise that you believed that I believed (without a shred of
> evidence and despite the fact that the title included the pharse
> 'author unknown') the original post was not fictional. Thus taking it
> out of the context of a fictional conversation (which seemed apparent
> to everyone but you) and putting it into a context in which you could
> attack me for making the arguments of the fictional charector.
>
No. please stop mis-stating my arguments. I have pointed out an obsession
with strawman arguments. You enjoy mis-stating the arguments of others (or
endorsing mis-statements) in order to make your arguments seem more
convincing.
As I originally said:
> > Not content to
> > create just a strawman argument, you have to fabricate (or find a
> > fabricated) strawman conversation.
This says nothing of whether or not you think that the conversation is
genuine. It does, however, critique your obsession with mis-stating your
adversaries' cases in order to make them easier.
Then I said:
"The reason I said what I said is that your "conversation" was clearly
fictional. It was a cut-rate, anti-war loony's sophist wet-dream, where he
gets to make up the arguments of his adversary and then work himself up into
a euphoria as he tears them down."
Notice the part that says, "where he gets to make up the arguments of his
adversary..." My gripe has little to do with the conversation itself. I am
criticizing the fictional arguments, and the fact that you feel that they
"define the logic" of the pro-liberation side.
Do you really believe that these are the arguments of the other side?
<snip>
> All that demonstrates is that there was historical precedent that they
> could have used in properly preparing for this 'liberation' effort.
> Given that *you* apparently know what happened in Paris and can make
> such comparisons, why couldn't the well infomed people planning this
> war have anticipated the looting and chaos occuring in Baghdad and
> prepared for it with enough troops to guard whatever they 'liberated'?
> They planned very well to make sure we had the oil fields secure.
> There were many reports on how well that was planned and carried out.
> However there didn't seem to be a single second spent on how to secure
> the hospitals and national treasures of the country.
>
> All this despite the example of Paris.
>
That's the silliest thing I've ever heard.
If I engage in a war, people will die. I can try to mitigate that, but it
cannot be prevented. But you do not declare the war a failure just because
someone died. If you have an airline industry, you are going to have
aircraft crashes. If you are going to have automobiles, you are going to
have car-related deaths. All of these deleterious effects are expected and,
to most extents, inevitable. Yet we still have wars, airplanes and cars
because the beneficial effects are more numerous than the risk of unintended
deaths. Likewise, when you invade a city, you are going to have looting.
Policing a city requires- among other things- an active population that can
alert the police of problems, a line of communication between those people
and the police force, active patrols through the entire area, establishment
of that police force as an authority, familiar lay of the land, control of
the routes between jails, staging areas, and scenes of the crime, and enough
rapid-response teams to assist patrols that get in over their head. Further,
to affect an arrest, your "police force" needs to either have seen the crime
taking place, or have some investigative capacity to determine whether the
person holding property stole it, or is trying to flee the scene of
fighting. None of this can exist in a city that is in the midst of a battle.
Looting most often occurs in areas where the occupying force has vacated (in
order to fortify other positions), but the invading force has not yet
arrived. The power vacuum is inevitable. It cannot be helped, or prevented.
You can't just identify some area two miles past the enemy's defense
perimeter as "safe" and establish a police force. It is impossible. People
much smarter than you or I have been trying to prevent just such a thing for
the past 150 years, to no avail.
So, despite your desire to declare the comparison to Paris as irrelevant, it
is in fact an effective review of what happens during wars. A power vacuum
briefly ensues, where the people go nuts and steal things. But, just as
inevitable as looting is, it will also inevitably stop as order is restored.
> > I've had plenty of data from you, Von. You continue to discount the
benefits
> > of regime change, and minimize the celebrating Iraqis while dwelling on
> > expected bumps along the road. This reveals much about you.
> >
> If they were expected why weren't they better planned for?
>
Given that looting is not preventable, what threshold of looting would be
acceptable to you- considering the obvious benefits of a regime that is
liberated from Saddam's clutches? Certainly a football team can win even
though they failed to shut out the other team. In many historical
city-conquests, twice as many troops took months to restore order.
Hell, the Greek government has been in power for years, and they still can't
prevent the rioting and looting there. :)
-HB
Ty
> > > "Von Bailey" <red...@MailAndNews.com> wrote in message
> This makes arguments against you tiring, but sadistically enjoyable. A
> six-pack rests on whether or not you can be educated, so I'm hoping you
> don't disappoint.
Henry -- I'd like some of that action, if you have any beer left to wager.
:-)
Remember this, my friend -- sometimes what appears to be someone's learning
curve is actually the curvature of the Earth.
> Hell, the Greek government has been in power for years, and they still
can't
> prevent the rioting and looting there. :)
<chuckle>
--Ty
Mik
"Von Bailey" <red...@MailAndNews.com> wrote in message
news:c1c1301f.03041...@posting.google.com...
No, I just choose not to do it as you will twist it into something else.
Read what people post and don't twist it using semantics and "strawman
arguments".
-Mik
Mik
"Von Bailey" <red...@MailAndNews.com> wrote in message
> I have to provide evidence of what particularly? You keep saying this
> but have yet to provide one instance where I didn't back up an
> assertion I made with sites from news articles or when another poster
> is in question, their own words. I don't have to 'create'
> conversations to prove my points.
You are very good at modifying and twisting what people post. Additionally,
your sites and news articles are often unreliable.
-Mik
Henry Bramlet
> "Henry Bramlet" <hbramle...@qwest.nospam.net> wrote in message
> news:hU1na.26559$4P1.2...@newsread2.prod.itd.earthlink.net...
>
> > "For the creation of soviets across Iraq!
> >
> > For an Iraqi Soviet Federative Socialist Republic!"
> Bolshevik revolution, acting as the local executive bodies of government.
> Delegates were elected from Soviets to the All-Russian Congress of
Soviets,
> where the foundation of the Soviet government was intended to rest.
> Gradually, however, soviets began to lose their power because of the
> extremely harsh conditions brought on by the Civil War , and by the late
> 1920s became top-down extensions of the "Communist" party [therefore being
> soviets only in name, not in action].
>
I'm sorry, but that is incorrect. Soviets were given only the power allowed
by Lenin. Unfortunately, it was the chronies' willingness to hand executive,
judicial and legislative powers over to a sociopath (Lenin) that caused them
to lose power. Perhaps you don't remember that Lenin organized a Coup.
Perhaps you don't remember that *he* ordered the deaths of those in the
soviets that- while representing the will of the people- did not agree with
him. With the MRC and then the Cheka, it was Lenin who called the shots. The
Soviets only "ruled" when they executed Lenin's dictates. Any attempt at any
sort of self-determination was erradicated.
And by the way, that is the natural result when you institute ONE power
structure for the allocation of production. That ONE power structure then
attracts corruptive elements (like the morally corrupt Lenin) and creates a
tyranny. There is no competition to keep it from being so corrupt, and so it
continues to fester. This is why every attempt at the creation of a
Soviet-style hierarchy has resulted in a communist dictatorship that
subordinates the will of the people for the virtue of the Plan (and
happiness of the ruling class).
> 1. Abolition of property in land and application of all rents of land to
> public purposes.
>
The State owns all property and products. Just as a Master owned all
property and production of his slaves.
>
> 6. Centralization of the means of communication and transport in the hands
> of the state.
>
You cannot talk to anyone or travel anywhere without the blessings of the
State- the same restriction a master imposes upon his slaves.
> 7. Extension of factories and instruments of production owned by the
state;
> the bringing into cultivation of waste lands, and the improvement of the
> soil generally in accordance with a common plan.
>
Just as the plantation-owners required their slaves to "reclaim" the land
and plant cotton. Just as Roman masters required the slaves to "reclaim" the
Gallic forests and plant vines.
> 8. Equal obligation of all to work. Establishment of industrial armies,
> especially for agriculture.
>
Masters also forced their slaves to work- whether the slaves wanted to or
not. They were organized into troops, managed by taskmasters, and deprived
of the choice to change vocations.
> 9. Combination of agriculture with manufacturing industries; gradual
> abolition of all the distinction between town and country by a more
equable
> distribution of the populace over the country.
>
The master forces his slaves to move with him, trades him to others who want
to use the production elsewhere. Just as the State would force the
relocation of all people, whether they want to move or not.
> Karl Marx and Fredrick Engels
> The Communist Manifesto
> Chapter 1 and Chapter 2
>
> "The question then arises: What transformation will the state undergo in
> communist society? In other words, what social functions will remain in
> existence there that are analogous to present state functions?"
>
> "Between capitalist and communist society there lies the period of the
> revolutionary transformation of the one into the other. Corresponding to
> this is also a political transition period in which the state can be
nothing
> but the revolutionary dictatorship of the proletariat."
>
Unfortunately, Marx and his ilk failed to appreciate the fact that, once the
Dictatorship was created, it would never leave. You, on the other hand, have
historical precedent to show you the truth.
>
> "What we have to deal with here is a communist society, not as it has
> developed on its own foundations, but, on the contrary, just as it emerges
> from capitalist society; which is thus in every respect, economically,
> morally, and intellectually, still stamped with the birthmarks of the old
> society from whose womb it emerges.
>
> "Accordingly, the individual producer receives back from society - after
the
> deductions have been made - exactly what he gives to it..."
>
> "But one man is superior to another physically, or mentally, and supplies
> more labor in the same time, or can labor for a longer time; and labor, to
> serve as a measure, must be defined by its duration or intensity,
otherwise
> it ceases to be a standard of measurement...
>
Too bad this is not what happened. Lenin, sociopath that he was, did not
understand corruption. Nor did he understand that he himself was enabling
that corruption by co-opting the government to his own murderous plans.
>
> "The real tasks of the workers' state do not consist in policing public
> opinion, but in freeing it from the yoke of capital. This can only be done
> by placing the means of production - which includes the production of
> information - in the hands of society in its entirety. Once this essential
> step towards socialism has been taken, all currents of opinion which have
> not taken arms against the dictatorship of the proletariat must be able to
> express themselves freely. It is the duty of the workers' state to put in
> their hands, to all according to their numeric importance, the technical
> means necessary for this, printing presses, paper, means of
transportation."
>
> Leon Trotsky
> Freedom of the Press and Working Class
>
> I hope that finalises any "issues" you had with my meanings.
>
I had no issues. I understand the communist doctrine well. As the quote from
Trotsky above shows, the belief among such lunatics is that, in order to
achieve communism, a Dictatorship (managed by the "oppressed") needs to be
created that erases all power in the bourgeoisie. Sure, once the links
between bourgeoisie and power have been destroyed, the press will become
free, the people allowed to talk without fear of midnight executions, and
the secret police disbanded. The dictatorship will transition into glorious
paradise.
In the meanwhile, every life of the time is subordinate to the needs of the
future communist ideal. Thus, you have no rights because one cannot balance
the rights of one man- or one million men- against the infinite progression
of children who will grow up in paradise. You have no freedom of speech, no
choice in where you live or work, or what life you will lead.
As I said before: The people are enslaved under a communist dictatorship.
That the enslavement is "justified" by some pipe dream that- after half a
dozen attempts- has failed to materialize each and every time seems pretty
damning of the theory to me. But your mileage may vary. At the least, I
think my paraphrase remains accurate- whether the Revolution is eventually
victorious or (most likely) not.
-HB