Slogan of 2012 President who defeats Obama
Boris Kapusta
"I'm not from Kenya"
etc.
Let's hear yours...
DogDiesel
"Boris Kapusta" <tha...@nothanks.notreal> wrote in message
news:bpa5n6dj950gq9ub8...@4ax.com...
I am Ron Paul. This is Peter Schiff, We predicted the failure of the
economy on national TV and it happened. Almost to the day we said it would.
We are here to cut spending and save America. Put the dollar back on the
gold standard. Close the federal reserve. And slash governments size in
half.
Ed Huntress
"DogDiesel" <nos...@nospam.none> wrote in message
news:ikuj9v$uab$1...@dogdiesel.eternal-september.org...
>
> "Boris Kapusta" <tha...@nothanks.notreal> wrote in message
> news:bpa5n6dj950gq9ub8...@4ax.com...
>> "I've never played golf"
>> "I'm not from Kenya"
>> etc.
>>
>> Let's hear yours...
>>
>
> I am Ron Paul. This is Peter Schiff, We predicted the failure of the
> economy on national TV and it happened. Almost to the day we said it
> would.
Yeah, but he thought it would come from alien invaders destroying our
Vaseline supply.
> We are here to cut spending and save America. Put the dollar back on the
> gold standard. Close the federal reserve. And slash governments size in
> half.
Then we can all wait for the deflation and the collapse of our banks.
Brilliant!
Did you ever read any of Ron Paul's books on Austrian School economics?
HAHAHAHAhahaaa....hoho...<gasp>.
--
Ed Huntress
Ignoramus1280
The only thing that is missing is the failure of the economy!
i
Hawke
I haven't. But guys like Paul confuse me. The guy's a doctor. I know how
difficult it is to become one. I don't think it can be done by someone
stupid. He's also a congressman. I won't say anything about that job and
I.Q. But the point is you know that Ron Paul can't be stupid. Yet when
you hear some of his views it just makes you shake your head in wonder.
Especially things like going back to the gold standard and other
libertarian stuff. To me, it just doesn't compute how a guy can be
clearly a smart man yet turn around and espouse views that you have to
be an idiot to believe. It makes things even harder now. I always
thought an idiot was an idiot. You could count on an idiot for being an
idiot and never acting smart. But now I find examples of real smart
people who turn around and act as stupid as Bozo the Clown. So I guess I
can't even count on smart people being smart anymore. Damn, more shades
of gray to sort though.
Hawke
Wes
>> We are here to cut spending and save America. Put the dollar back on the
>> gold standard. Close the federal reserve. And slash governments size in
>> half.
Due to agressive filtering, I lost the original post. The next President is likely going
to tell us just how screwed we are.
Wes
mr dude@harvarduniversity.edu
"I will restore hope and give you the trillions in change Obama stole
from you."
mr dude
Ed Huntress
"Hawke" <davesm...@digitalpath.net> wrote in message
news:ikumkn$ua6$1...@speranza.aioe.org...
My former buddy (and best man at my wedding) has a PhD in chem. engineering
from Princeton and is the nephew of the 1988 co-winner of the Nobel Prize in
medicine. He built a winery on Cape Cod and won international awards for his
wines. He also wrote books on fiber optics for communications.
Not many years ago he got suckered into the Nigerian money-washing scam and
lost $700,000. Then he pulled an unrelated scam of his own to make his money
back, claiming he'd discovered the gene that allowed him to synthesize
spider silk, and bilked investors for $4 million, got caught, and spent
3-1/2 years in federal prison for fraud. He lost his family and everything
else.
Smart doesn't make you smart, if you know what I mean.
> Especially things like going back to the gold standard and other
> libertarian stuff. To me, it just doesn't compute how a guy can be clearly
> a smart man yet turn around and espouse views that you have to be an idiot
> to believe. It makes things even harder now. I always thought an idiot was
> an idiot. You could count on an idiot for being an idiot and never acting
> smart. But now I find examples of real smart people who turn around and
> act as stupid as Bozo the Clown. So I guess I can't even count on smart
> people being smart anymore. Damn, more shades of gray to sort though.
>
> Hawke
See above.
The folks who become entangled in religion-like philosophical/ideological
movements have a sort of utopia complex. They seem to be missing a gene that
allows normal people to recognize the human behaviors and failings that
subvert utopian ideas and make them unworkable. But sometimes they're very
smart and successful in other areas.
See Paul, Ron, or Greenspan, Alan.
--
Ed Huntress
DogDiesel
"Ignoramus1280" <ignora...@NOSPAM.1280.invalid> wrote in message
news:tP2dnbrVWO5lRO_Q...@giganews.com...
DogDiesel
"mr du...@harvarduniversity.edu" <fost...@gmail.com> wrote in message
news:8bb2b640-ed18-4b30...@w6g2000vbo.googlegroups.com...
mr dude
Well written, To mean two things. I'm stewing on that one. I'm not giving
you the benefit of the doubt.
mr dude@harvarduniversity.edu
"My wife doesn't have a fat ghetto ass and won't tell you what you
should eat."
mr dude
mr dude@harvarduniversity.edu
"Drill baby drill!!!"
mr dude
mr dude@harvarduniversity.edu
"I have actually had a real job that didn't suck at the teat of
academia or government."
mr dude
mr dude@harvarduniversity.edu
"I have a birth certificate and I'll show it to you!"
mr dude
mr dude@harvarduniversity.edu
"I won't call Hillary in tears at three a.m. about the situation in
Libya."
mr dude@harvarduniversity.edu
"I don't know how to do volleyball schedules, but hey, that's all
Obama knew what to do!"
mr dude@harvarduniversity.edu
"My friends weren't convicted terrorists!"
mr dude@harvarduniversity.edu
"I can form a complete sentence without a teleprompter!"
Ed Huntress
"DogDiesel" <nos...@nospam.none> wrote in message
news:ikuj9v$uab$1...@dogdiesel.eternal-september.org...
>
For the record, you might want to revisit the claims made by the "economist"
to whom you've hitched your wagon. This is all from Ron Paul's book,
_Pillars of Prosperity_:
(From his House floor speech in 1984)
"...we can be sure the long term will bring us ever-increasing interest
rates -- higher with each cycle and over 20 percent before this cycle
completes itself in 1986 or 1987."
The interest rate was falling when he wrote that. In 1987 it was 7.75%:
http://research.stlouisfed.org/fred2/data/PRIME.txt
"It's highly unlikely that we'll reach the 1990s without a convulsion of our
economic or political system."
Nope. This was his REAL prediction of when we would have a "failure." At
least, that may have been his first one. <g>
"Price inflation, although difficult to predict on a month-to-month or even
year-to-year basis, will reach unbelievable heights in this decade."
'Didn't happen.
"Wage and price controls will return regardless of whether a Republican or a
Democrat occupies the White House."
'Didn't happen.
"But a penalty will have to be paid. That penalty -- a major banking,
currency, economic, and political crisis -- will hit this nation and the
western world, most likely before the 1990s."
He missed by 20 years. Given the natural business cycle, a monkey could have
made a more accurate prediction. And when it did come, it was the result NOT
of hyperinflation, as Paul predicted, but rather of out-of-control risk that
resulted from banking deregulation -- which Paul welcomed and promoted.
Ron Paul also, on the same page, predicted an actual war among the major
trading nations, to happen in the 1990s. I needn't tell you, it didn't
happen.
Ironically, Ron Paul quotes John Meynard Keynes, and does so approvingly, in
this quotation in his book:
"Practical men who believe themselves to be quite exempt from any
intellectual influence, are usually the slaves of some defunct economist.
Madmen in authority, who hear voices in the air, are distilling their frenzy
from some academic scribbler of a few years back."
How true. And how accurate a description of Ron Paul, the madman who hears
voices in the air from Ludwig von Mises, Friedrich von Hayek, and Murray
Rothbard.
These quotes are from just one chapter in _Pillars..._. It goes on,
endlessly, for over 450 pages of the same nonsense. Another irony is that,
having made those predictions, none of which made any sense at the time and
none of which came true, he seems not the least bit embarrassed by it all.
He's like one of those batshit doomsday predictors who keep pushing up the
End Days by a year or two, each time his predictions come up a cropper.
Allegedly, Dr. Ron Paul was a perfectly good Ob-gyn. He should have stuck
with the thing he knows. As an economist, he's batshit.
--
Ed Huntress
Shall not be infringed
Do you remember when the DNC, every Democrat, and the media wing of
the Democrat Party (ABC, CBS, NBC, CNN, PBS, and NPR) said that Bush 1
had "The Worst Economy Ever?"
They should all stick with what they know; propoganda. Oh, that's
right. They did.
RogerN
>
> To me, it just doesn't compute how a guy can be clearly a smart man yet
> turn around and espouse views that you have to be an idiot to believe.
The above description is what is known as modern liberalism.
RogerN
Shall not be infringed
Rich Grise
"How's that hopey-changey stuff workin' out for ya?" ;-)
Too_Many_Tools
"FOUR MORE YEARS....FOUR MORE YEARS "
Laugh..laugh...laugh..
TMT
RogerN
news:4d72f4fa$0$7591$607e...@cv.net...
>
<snip>
>
> The folks who become entangled in religion-like philosophical/ideological
> movements have a sort of utopia complex. They seem to be missing a gene
> that allows normal people to recognize the human behaviors and failings
>
It seems that most atheists believe it is harmful to have religious beliefs
in an imaginary God. I don't know if they realize it or not but they are in
agreement with the Bible on this, the Bible also teaches against false
religions or belief/worship of false gods. The Bible is also very practical
in determining such things, the false prophets are the ones who's prophecies
don't come true, the true God was the one who answered with fire, etc.
People tend to create imaginary God's in their mind, the God they believe in
is the one the have imagined and is how they think he should be. That is
why many prayers are useless, religious folks pray to what they think God
should be and not to the God described as the true God in the Bible.
Prayers to the false Gods that we make up in our minds don't get answers
from the true and living God. So, when an atheist says people are stupid to
believe in gods that don't exist, they are right, when atheists say God
doesn't exist, they are wrong.
RogerN
Too_Many_Tools
Obama has...you just weren't listening.
TMT
Rich Grise
> "I've never played golf"
> "I'm not from Kenya"
> etc.
>
> Let's hear yours...
"I'll fire the IRS! Just because Amendment 16 grants the Congress the power
to levy a tax on income, doesn't say they're _required_ to!
"For the taxes we'll need to collect in order to dig ourselves out of this
entitlement hole, I propose, instead of a national _income_ tax, a national
_outgo_ tax! Don't try to track down people's income - the fat cats will
evade them every chance they get - tax what they _SPEND_!
"Of course, grocery store food, medical supplies, and pre-owned goods will
be exempt from this tax, but not fast food, restaurant food, hotel/motel
rooms, town cars, mansions, yachts, airplanes, carnival cruises, football
tickets, million-dollar necklaces for the little princess's coming-out
party,...
"And, of course, Wall Street transactions would be subject to the National
Purchase Tax at the same rate as the abovementioned yachts and stuff.
"Vote for me! You'll be glad you did!" (Screw you, Al Franken!)
Cheers!
Rich
Ed Huntress
"RogerN" <re...@midwest.net> wrote in message
news:neadnUYkWu_ave7Q...@earthlink.com...
> "Ed Huntress" <hunt...@optonline.net> wrote in message
> news:4d72f4fa$0$7591$607e...@cv.net...
>>
> <snip>
>>
>> The folks who become entangled in religion-like philosophical/ideological
>> movements have a sort of utopia complex. They seem to be missing a gene
>> that allows normal people to recognize the human behaviors and failings
>> that subvert utopian ideas and make them unworkable. <snip>
>>
>
> It seems that most atheists believe it is harmful to have religious
> beliefs in an imaginary God.
That isn't about religion per se. It's about utopianism, including dogmatic
libertarianism, anarchism, communism, and the like. Utopians pursue their
ideologies with a religious fervor.
> I don't know if they realize it or not but they are in agreement with the
> Bible on this, the Bible also teaches against false religions or
> belief/worship of false gods. The Bible is also very practical in
> determining such things, the false prophets are the ones who's prophecies
> don't come true, the true God was the one who answered with fire, etc.
> People tend to create imaginary God's in their mind, the God they believe
> in is the one the have imagined and is how they think he should be. That
> is why many prayers are useless, religious folks pray to what they think
> God should be and not to the God described as the true God in the Bible.
> Prayers to the false Gods that we make up in our minds don't get answers
> from the true and living God. So, when an atheist says people are stupid
> to believe in gods that don't exist, they are right, when atheists say God
> doesn't exist, they are wrong.
>
> RogerN
Just don't get too dogmatic about all of that. d8-)
--
Ed Huntress
Ed Huntress
"Rich Grise" <ri...@example.net.invalid> wrote in message
news:ikv7l5$8mj$1...@news.eternal-september.org...
There goes the stock market. <g> What will you do to accumulate capital for
small, volatile, entrepreneurial startups? If there's a transaction tax each
time you get in or out, no one in his right mind would ever invest in them.
--
Ed Huntress
Rich Grise
> "I've never played golf"
> "I'm not from Kenya"
> etc.
>
> Let's hear yours...
http://www.ronpaul.com/2009-02-02/what-would-ron-paul-do/
Cheers!
Richard the Dreaded Libertarian
Tom Gardner
"Boris Kapusta" <tha...@nothanks.notreal> wrote in message
news:bpa5n6dj950gq9ub8...@4ax.com...
> "I'm not from Kenya"
> etc.
>
> Let's hear yours...
>
I promise an atomic-powered flying car in every garage!
DogDiesel
"Rich Grise" <ri...@example.net.invalid> wrote in message
He's out next president.
Michael A. Terrell
"Vote for me and I'll send you a free set of wire brushes!!!!!!!!"
;-)
--
You can't fix stupid. You can't even put a Band-Aid™ on it, because it's
Teflon coated.
Stuart Wheaton
> "Ed Huntress"<hunt...@optonline.net> wrote in message
> news:4d72f4fa$0$7591$607e...@cv.net...
>>
> <snip>
>>
>> The folks who become entangled in religion-like philosophical/ideological
>> movements have a sort of utopia complex. They seem to be missing a gene
>> that allows normal people to recognize the human behaviors and failings
>> that subvert utopian ideas and make them unworkable.<snip>
>>
>
> It seems that most atheists believe it is harmful to have religious beliefs
> in an imaginary God. I don't know if they realize it or not but they are in
> agreement with the Bible on this, the Bible also teaches against false
> religions or belief/worship of false gods. The Bible is also very practical
> in determining such things, the false prophets are the ones who's prophecies
> don't come true,
Jesus is recorded as saying in Matthew 16:28: "...there shall be some
standing here, which shall not taste of death, till they see the Son of
Man coming in his kingdom." In Matthew 24:34, Yeshua is recorded as
saying: "...This generation shall not pass, till all these things be
fulfilled." Since the life expectancy in those days was little over 30
years, Jesus appears to have predicted his second coming sometime during
the 1st century CE. It didn't happen.
QED Christianity is not a true religion, Jesus is a false prophet...
Thank you for making this all so clear Roger.
RogerN
news:44f06$4d73ed65$4a532858$10...@FUSE.NET...
But, according to atheists, the New Testament wasn't even written for
hundreds of years after the time it was supposed to have taken place. So,
according to atheists, "this generation" was already passed when Matthew
16:28 was written, so how could it mean the generation that was listening to
Jesus' words when that generation had already passed? Either atheists are
lying or they are lying.
An understanding that fits much better is that Jesus was referring to the
destruction of Jerusalem in 70AD and the coming of the Kingdom was the New
Testament church age, that's the Son of man (Jesus) coming to power as the
head of the church. Some of those standing there and hearing Jesus lived to
see the events described by Jesus and saw the beginnings of Christ's church
coming in power.
Thank you for making the atheists lies so clear Stuart.
Rich Grise
I think everybody's going to have the shit surprised out of them when they
get to the Pearly Gates and find out that Satan has been in charge since we
got thrown out of the Garden of Eden for the "sin" of seeking Truth.
Cheers!
Rich the Philosophizer
--
Don't be afraid to visit http://www.godchannel.com
DogDiesel
>
> "DogDiesel" <nos...@nospam.none> wrote in message
> news:ikuj9v$uab$1...@dogdiesel.eternal-september.org...
>>
>> "Boris Kapusta" <tha...@nothanks.notreal> wrote in message
>> news:bpa5n6dj950gq9ub8...@4ax.com...
>>> "I've never played golf"
>>> "I'm not from Kenya"
>>> etc.
>>>
>>> Let's hear yours...
>>>
>>
>> I am Ron Paul. This is Peter Schiff, We predicted the failure of the
>> economy on national TV and it happened. Almost to the day we said it
>> would. We are here to cut spending and save America. Put the dollar back
>> on the gold standard. Close the federal reserve. And slash governments
>> size in half.
>
Your information is a little dated.
Ed Huntress
"DogDiesel" <nos...@nospam.none> wrote in message
Ron Paul himself is a little dated. Like, he's about 50 years behind the
many economics lessons that have been learned since Milton Friedman told us
all not to worry about big trade deficits.
The fact that he's been proven wrong by actual events so many times has no
apparent influence, either on him or on his idolaters. That's real
commitment to an idea at the expense of experience.
--
Ed Huntress
Ed Huntress
"DogDiesel" <nos...@nospam.none> wrote in message
Oh, by the way: That Ron Paul book I quoted from was published in 2008.
--
Ed Huntress
DogDiesel
the federal reserve and the 16th and 17th amendment. so the government could
spend us into oblivion. Is exactly what caused this carnage.
He aint wrong. you just don't like that he's right.
Ed Huntress
"DogDiesel" <nos...@nospam.none> wrote in message
>
> "Ed Huntress" <hunt...@optonline.net> wrote in message
> news:4d744b94$0$13007$607e...@cv.net...
>>
>> "DogDiesel" <nos...@nospam.none> wrote in message
>> news:il1hb4$ffn$1...@dogdiesel.eternal-september.org...
>>>
>>> "Ed Huntress" <hunt...@optonline.net> wrote in message
>>> news:4d731534$0$7599$607e...@cv.net...
>>>>
>>>> "DogDiesel" <nos...@nospam.none> wrote in message
>>>> news:ikuj9v$uab$1...@dogdiesel.eternal-september.org...
>>>>>
>>>>> "Boris Kapusta" <tha...@nothanks.notreal> wrote in message
>>>>> news:bpa5n6dj950gq9ub8...@4ax.com...
>>>>>> "I've never played golf"
>>>>>> "I'm not from Kenya"
>>>>>> etc.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Let's hear yours...
>>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> I am Ron Paul. This is Peter Schiff, We predicted the failure of the
>>>>> economy on national TV and it happened. Almost to the day we said it
>>>>> would. We are here to cut spending and save America. Put the dollar
>>>>> back on the gold standard. Close the federal reserve. And slash
>>>>> governments size in half.
>>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> Your information is a little dated.
>>
>> Oh, by the way: That Ron Paul book I quoted from was published in 2008.
>>
>> --
>> Ed Huntress
>>
> Whine all you want .
Actually, I wasn't whining. (At the moment, I am wining, however -- on a
modest California Chardonnay). Dr. Ron Paul is a very smart, likeable
Ob-Gyn. I don't doubt that he really knows his way around a vagina.
>Wrecking the dollar, stealing everyone's gold, creating the federal reserve
>and the 16th and 17th amendment. so the government could spend us into
>oblivion. Is exactly what caused this carnage.
>
> He aint wrong. you just don't like that he's right.
Actually, as I pointed out from his own claims and predictions, he's been
wrong almost every time. You have made no attempt to defend him on facts;
you've only told us that you've bought into his b.s.
Anyone who writes a book in 2008, quoting his own erroneous predictions made
in 1984, without apology or explanation, has a strong wacky streak. There
was a book written many years ago that attempted to explain people like him,
and like his idolaters, titled _The True Believer_ (Eric Hoffer). It
explains a lot, but modern psychology probably is far more advanced in its
understanding of people who ignore the facts to protect their beliefs.
I'm going to guess that you find his words soothing, that they pluck your
strings of wishful thinking and how the world ought to work. But it doesn't
work that way. His failed predictions ought to give you a hint about that
fact, but it appears you're immune to evidence. No problem, a lot of people
have the same affliction.
Those of us who tend to be evidence-based and oriented toward checking facts
have learned to live with you folks for quite a while. I hold no animosity
toward you or them. I'm just glad that, like matter and anti-matter, you and
your opposite-number ideologues self-destruct in the real world, leaving the
policy-making to those of us who hie close to the center.
--
Ed Huntress
Chris.B
politics!" ;-)
"I played the same, tired, old, worn out, dog eared, church goin',
knuckle draggin', gun totin', warmongerin', queer bashin', flag
wavin', anti-abortion, tax cuttin', welfare slashin', killer hangin',
climate denyin', union bashin' card and they just lapped it up!" :-)
Adolf Hitler Jnr III. :-)
Hawke
More like religious folks, really.
Hawke
Hawke
The first thing you need to know is that it was not atheists who said
when the New Testament was written. Biblical scholars including ones
from the Catholic Church have known that the New Testament was written
in Greek by people who lived 100 or 125 years after the death of Jesus.
You can look this up easily. So why is it that someone as religious as
you doesn't even know the facts about your own religion? You're ignorant
about Christianity and you're acting like you know what you're talking
about. You always look stupid when you do that. Unless you're lying.
>
> An understanding that fits much better is that Jesus was referring to the
> destruction of Jerusalem in 70AD and the coming of the Kingdom was the New
> Testament church age, that's the Son of man (Jesus) coming to power as the
> head of the church. Some of those standing there and hearing Jesus lived to
> see the events described by Jesus and saw the beginnings of Christ's church
> coming in power.
The wonderful thing about religion is that no matter how irrational it
sounds, or how lacking in proof of anything it claims there is, you
religious folks always find a way to justify your beliefs. Did you see
Bill O'Reilly when he was defending God? He was asking where do the
tides come from as if that explained god. Someone wrote him and said the
tides came from the moon, to which O'Reilly said, how'd that get there?
As if that explained the existence of god. If you want to believe you
can always find some reason to. It doesn't have to make sense. Clearly
your type wants real bad for there to be a god. So you found one.
Hawke
Stuart Wheaton
I find your attempt at logic truly baffling, who cares what atheists
say, if the New testament was an accurate reflection of the words of
Christ, then he was not telling a true prophesy. If the Bible is not an
accurate account of the words and deeds of Christ, then the bible is
full of flaws and not to be trusted. So, by your own claim that the
true faiths have true prophesies, it is proven that Christianity is not
true.
Or you are a complete fool when it comes to religion...
Which the Pew Survey of Religion pretty much proved about American
Christians.
RogerN
They only know the dates of the earliest copies that exist, not the dates of
the originals. Athiests have many claims about this but they are
inconsistent, holding to both early and late dates according to what they
want to believe. The part about "this generation shall not pass" fits best
if they believe it was written early, Jesus' prediction of the destruction
of the temple fits best for a later date.
>>
>> An understanding that fits much better is that Jesus was referring to the
>> destruction of Jerusalem in 70AD and the coming of the Kingdom was the
>> New
>> Testament church age, that's the Son of man (Jesus) coming to power as
>> the
>> head of the church. Some of those standing there and hearing Jesus lived
>> to
>> see the events described by Jesus and saw the beginnings of Christ's
>> church
>> coming in power.
>
> The wonderful thing about religion is that no matter how irrational it
> sounds, or how lacking in proof of anything it claims there is, you
> religious folks always find a way to justify your beliefs. Did you see
> Bill O'Reilly when he was defending God? He was asking where do the tides
> come from as if that explained god. Someone wrote him and said the tides
> came from the moon, to which O'Reilly said, how'd that get there? As if
> that explained the existence of god. If you want to believe you can always
> find some reason to. It doesn't have to make sense. Clearly your type
> wants real bad for there to be a god. So you found one.
>
> Hawke
It's irrational to believe the claims atheists make about the Bible. They
contradict themselves constantly because of their faith.
RogerN
RogerN
The Bible test of a Prophet is that their Prophecies come true. So what
about Prophecies that are to be fulfilled in the distant future? They are
often fulfilled in the lifetime of the original hearers, but future
fulfillment is also expected. Jesus' audience saw his prophecies come true
in 70AD including the "Abomination that causes desolation". Your claim that
Jesus prophecy was a claim that he would return in the lifetimes of the
original hearers is simply your misunderstanding. Learn the OT prophecies,
they will help you understand the NT prophecies. You can go to
http://www.ttb.org and download audio MP3's of Matthew Ch16 and 24, or you
can continue to not understand.
RogerN
Hawke
Roger, atheists don't have to make claims about the Bible. All they have
to do is point out the vast number of inconsistencies and errors found
in it. Anyone who has actually read the Bible closely will tell you
this. Thomas Jefferson did it. So have many other people who are not
atheists. The fact is there are so many things in the Bible that are in
conflict or disagreement it's hard to make any sense of it. That's why
you have to have biblical scholars tell you what it all supposedly means.
You have chosen to believe that the Bible isn't a man made creation but
is what god said and man wrote down. That's the same thing all Muslims
have done. Same with the Jews. You chose to believe a spirit being of
some kind, you call god, gave man the information that is in some book.
In none of those religions is there a shred of proof this is true so it
has to be taken as a matter of faith. You made your choice. Other
people, myself included, simply don't choose to believe this. We want
proof it's true before we believe it. To us this makes a lot more sense
than the other way around.
Hawke
Dan
>> On 3/5/2011 4:29 PM, Ed Huntress wrote:
>>> news:ikuj9v$uab$1...@dogdiesel.eternal-september.org...
>>>>
>>>> "Boris Kapusta"<tha...@nothanks.notreal> wrote in message
>>>> news:bpa5n6dj950gq9ub8...@4ax.com...
>>>>> "I've never played golf"
>>>>> "I'm not from Kenya"
>>>>> etc.
>>>>>
>>>>> Let's hear yours...
>>>>>
>>>>
>>>> I am Ron Paul. This is Peter Schiff, We predicted the failure of the
>>>> economy on national TV and it happened. Almost to the day we said it
>>>> would.
>>>
>>> Vaseline supply.
>>>
>>>> We are here to cut spending and save America. Put the dollar back on the
>>>> gold standard. Close the federal reserve. And slash governments size in
>>>> half.
>>>
>>> Brilliant!
>>>
>>> Did you ever read any of Ron Paul's books on Austrian School economics?
>>> HAHAHAHAhahaaa....hoho...<gasp>.
>>>
>>
>>
>> I haven't. But guys like Paul confuse me. The guy's a doctor. I know how
>> difficult it is to become one. I don't think it can be done by someone
>> stupid. He's also a congressman. I won't say anything about that job and
>> I.Q. But the point is you know that Ron Paul can't be stupid. Yet when you
>> hear some of his views it just makes you shake your head in wonder.
>
> My former buddy (and best man at my wedding) has a PhD in chem. engineering
> from Princeton and is the nephew of the 1988 co-winner of the Nobel Prize in
> medicine. He built a winery on Cape Cod and won international awards for his
> wines. He also wrote books on fiber optics for communications.
>
> Not many years ago he got suckered into the Nigerian money-washing scam and
> lost $700,000. Then he pulled an unrelated scam of his own to make his money
> back, claiming he'd discovered the gene that allowed him to synthesize
> spider silk, and bilked investors for $4 million, got caught, and spent
> 3-1/2 years in federal prison for fraud. He lost his family and everything
> else.
>
> Smart doesn't make you smart, if you know what I mean.
>
>> Especially things like going back to the gold standard and other
>> libertarian stuff. To me, it just doesn't compute how a guy can be clearly
>> a smart man yet turn around and espouse views that you have to be an idiot
>> an idiot. You could count on an idiot for being an idiot and never acting
>> smart. But now I find examples of real smart people who turn around and
>> act as stupid as Bozo the Clown. So I guess I can't even count on smart
>> people being smart anymore. Damn, more shades of gray to sort though.
>>
>> Hawke
>
> See above.
>
> The folks who become entangled in religion-like philosophical/ideological
> movements have a sort of utopia complex. They seem to be missing a gene that
> allows normal people to recognize the human behaviors and failings that
> smart and successful in other areas.
>
> See Paul, Ron, or Greenspan, Alan.
>
Most of us go through a libertarian phase when we hit adolescence - it
is the natural consequence of trying to escape the authoritarian nature
o the common family (no matter how benign it may in actuality be). Most
of us outgrow this phase of our lives as we discover that not everyone
is responsible and that distributed processing only works if the
processors can be trusted to approximate a reasonable decision.
Whether the current old libertarians never broke away from their family
ties, or some other reason exists for their holding on to adolescence is
the cause, most libertarians would be mostly harmless except that they
are so easily duped by empty words of utopia by unscrupulous
mostly-Republican politicians into cutting their own (and by extension,
our) throats for a silly ideal that the politician has no thought of
fulfilling...
The only thing that makes government regulation a choice is the small
chance that the politicians and bureaucrats can be held accountable. I
can guarantee that there is no way to hold industrialists and
pseudoCapitalists accountable if someone is not watching over their
shoulders.
Dan
Dan
> On Mar 6, 12:01 am, "Ed Huntress"<huntre...@optonline.net> wrote:
>> "DogDiesel"<nos...@nospam.none> wrote in message
>>
>> news:ikuj9v$uab$1...@dogdiesel.eternal-september.org...
>>
>>
>>
>>> "Boris Kapusta"<tha...@nothanks.notreal> wrote in message
>>> news:bpa5n6dj950gq9ub8...@4ax.com...
>>>> "I've never played golf"
>>>> "I'm not from Kenya"
>>>> etc.
>>
>>>> Let's hear yours...
>>
>>> I am Ron Paul. This is Peter Schiff, We predicted the failure of the
>>> economy on national TV and it happened. Almost to the day we said it
>>> on the gold standard. Close the federal reserve. And slash governments
>>> size in half.
>>
>> to whom you've hitched your wagon. This is all from Ron Paul's book,
>> _Pillars of Prosperity_:
>>
>> (From his House floor speech in 1984)
>>
>> "...we can be sure the long term will bring us ever-increasing interest
>> rates -- higher with each cycle and over 20 percent before this cycle
>> completes itself in 1986 or 1987."
>>
>> The interest rate was falling when he wrote that. In 1987 it was 7.75%:
>>
>> http://research.stlouisfed.org/fred2/data/PRIME.txt
>>
>> "It's highly unlikely that we'll reach the 1990s without a convulsion of our
>> economic or political system."
>>
>> Nope. This was his REAL prediction of when we would have a "failure." At
>> least, that may have been his first one.<g>
>>
>> "Price inflation, although difficult to predict on a month-to-month or even
>> year-to-year basis, will reach unbelievable heights in this decade."
>>
>> 'Didn't happen.
>>
>> "Wage and price controls will return regardless of whether a Republican or a
>> Democrat occupies the White House."
>>
>> 'Didn't happen.
>>
>> "But a penalty will have to be paid. That penalty -- a major banking,
>> currency, economic, and political crisis -- will hit this nation and the
>> western world, most likely before the 1990s."
>>
>> He missed by 20 years. Given the natural business cycle, a monkey could have
>> made a more accurate prediction. And when it did come, it was the result NOT
>> of hyperinflation, as Paul predicted, but rather of out-of-control risk that
>> resulted from banking deregulation -- which Paul welcomed and promoted.
>>
>> Ron Paul also, on the same page, predicted an actual war among the major
>> trading nations, to happen in the 1990s. I needn't tell you, it didn't
>> happen.
>>
>> Ironically, Ron Paul quotes John Meynard Keynes, and does so approvingly, in
>> this quotation in his book:
>>
>> "Practical men who believe themselves to be quite exempt from any
>> intellectual influence, are usually the slaves of some defunct economist.
>> Madmen in authority, who hear voices in the air, are distilling their frenzy
>> from some academic scribbler of a few years back."
>>
>> How true. And how accurate a description of Ron Paul, the madman who hears
>> voices in the air from Ludwig von Mises, Friedrich von Hayek, and Murray
>> Rothbard.
>>
>> These quotes are from just one chapter in _Pillars..._. It goes on,
>> endlessly, for over 450 pages of the same nonsense. Another irony is that,
>> having made those predictions, none of which made any sense at the time and
>> none of which came true, he seems not the least bit embarrassed by it all.
>> He's like one of those batshit doomsday predictors who keep pushing up the
>> End Days by a year or two, each time his predictions come up a cropper.
>>
>> Allegedly, Dr. Ron Paul was a perfectly good Ob-gyn. He should have stuck
>> with the thing he knows. As an economist, he's batshit.
>>
>> --
>> Ed Huntress
>
> Do you remember when the DNC, every Democrat, and the media wing of
> the Democrat Party (ABC, CBS, NBC, CNN, PBS, and NPR) said that Bush 1
> had "The Worst Economy Ever?"
No. Now go and prove it.
I do remember Clinton claiming the economy was bad and a Republican
couldn't fix it. Pretty prophetic words.
But then, I don't remember any of those TLAs being the media wing of the
Democratic Party. Your credibility is none too good...
Dan
Dan
> "Hawke"<davesm...@digitalpath.net> wrote in message
> news:ikumkn$ua6$1...@speranza.aioe.org...
>> On 3/5/2011 4:29 PM, Ed Huntress wrote:
>>
>> To me, it just doesn't compute how a guy can be clearly a smart man yet
>> turn around and espouse views that you have to be an idiot to believe.
>
>
> RogerN
>
>
We'll wait.
Dan
Ed Huntress
"Dan" <dnad...@hotmail.com> wrote in message
news:Fnwep.123015$QD2.1...@newsfe10.iad...
'Very common. Me, too.
> Most of us outgrow this phase of our lives as we discover that not
> everyone is responsible and that distributed processing only works if the
> processors can be trusted to approximate a reasonable decision.
Right. And then the next step is accepting how people really are.
>
> Whether the current old libertarians never broke away from their family
> ties, or some other reason exists for their holding on to adolescence is
> the cause, most libertarians would be mostly harmless except that they are
> so easily duped by empty words of utopia by unscrupulous mostly-Republican
> politicians into cutting their own (and by extension, our) throats for a
> silly ideal that the politician has no thought of fulfilling...
Well, I still think it's like the driving forces that lead most people to
religion. Not having answers, and absolutes, is very stressful.
Libertarianism, in its distilled form, is built from a collection of
absolutes. There are a lot of adults who feel that need, too.
>
> The only thing that makes government regulation a choice is the small
> chance that the politicians and bureaucrats can be held accountable. I
> can guarantee that there is no way to hold industrialists and
> pseudoCapitalists accountable if someone is not watching over their
> shoulders.
I agree. Again, we have to deal with human behavior as it really is. Put a
money-oriented person, an acquisitive type with great ambition in that
direction, into a situation where the spoils are just waiting for them --
like many Wall Street banksters -- and where everyone else is doing it or
looking the other way, and the temptation is too great for them to resist.
--
Ed Huntress
>
> Dan
John R. Carroll
It isn't a temptation to be resisted, Ed.
Our business Schools teach it as an opportinity or goal to be realized and
that failing to do so is tantamount to failure.
--
John R. Carroll
Curly Surmudgeon
> On 3/5/2011 9:11 PM, Shall not be infringed wrote:
>>
> ... Your credibility is none too good...
You're talking to the cockroach...
--
Regards, Curly
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Irony defined: http://www.fox.com/lietome/
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Curly Surmudgeon
Really? Your circle of libertarians must be unique.
> The only thing that makes government regulation a choice is the small
> chance that the politicians and bureaucrats can be held accountable. I
> can guarantee that there is no way to hold industrialists and
> pseudoCapitalists accountable if someone is not watching over their
> shoulders.
China has a great solution. Not long ago some 50-60 doctors and nurses
were put to death for selling outdated meds. Unless existing laws are
enforced then new ones are unlikely to do any better.
For example the U.S. Attorney General is the chief law enforcement
officer of the United States of America. It is his job to not only
enforce the law but to prosecute treason, bribery and "other high crimes
and misdemeanors".
The current United States Attorney General, Eric Holder, voiced his
willingness to prosecute the previous administration but hasn't.
Obviously the current President is preventing application of the law.
Obama also intervened with the Spanish courts to prevent Bush from being
prosecuted for Crimes Against Humanity.
If the highest offices in our country are allowed an exemption from
obeying the laws that we peons suffer beneath then neither equality nor
justice exist in America.
This is the end of the America we knew and loved. Kiss it, and your ass,
goodbye. Get out while you can.
Ed Huntress
"Curly Surmudgeon" <CurlySu...@live.com> wrote in message
news:ilek2v$ltl$9...@news.eternal-september.org...
After the leaders of the Whiskey Rebellion were convicted of treason and
sentenced to hang, George Washington pardoned them. Discretion for the sake
of the country has been a part of our justice system since day one.
Although I believe that members of the previous administration were guilty
of serious crimes, it wouldn't have done the country any good to have a
divisive trial, whether or not it led to conviction. The purpose of the
justice system is to serve the country's sense of justice. When half the
country thinks that the trial is political, our sense of justice isn't
served, whether there are convictions or not.
Obama made the right decision.
--
Ed Huntress
Curly Surmudgeon
A statement which enforces my assertion elsewhere, that you are willing
to sacrifice the rule of law making justice arbitrary and therefore
meaningless.
If America is the land of equality as declared in the 14th Amendment then
you are supporting treason.
Ed Huntress
I am in favor of justice. I am in favor of jury nullification. Laws are a
Procrustian bed, and sometimes need better judgment, in particular
circumstances, to set them aside. Cops on the beat do that every day, when
they decide whether to arrest an individual for something that, by the
letter of the law, is likely a violation -- but for which prosecution would
serve neither the interest of the society's safety, nor our general sense of
justice. So far, that principle has served the country well.
>
> If America is the land of equality as declared in the 14th Amendment then
> you are supporting treason.
Fortunately for me, the country is not run by Sharia law nor libertarian
extremists. d8-)
--
Ed Huntress
Boris Kapusta
<CurlySu...@live.com> wrote:
>On Fri, 11 Mar 2011 13:26:29 -0800, Dan <dnad...@hotmail.com> wrote:
>> On 3/5/2011 9:11 PM, Shall not be infringed wrote:
>>>
><snip>
>> ... Your credibility is none too good...
>
>You're talking to the cockroach...
Pleased to meet you cockroach, now go back to Mexico.
RogerN
No Problem, let me know if you would like to see more.
You may be a Liberal If.....
You are against the War on Terror, but are only too happy to make millions
of dollars by making movies about it.
You preach about the evils of Capitalism from the comfort of your Beverly
Hills estate
You cry about "profiterring corporations", but still demand your weekly
paycheck.
You think "rich people" are evil, but are willing to over-look the fact that
Ted Kennedy, Bill Clinton, George Soros, Michael Moore, and Al Franken are
"rich", as well.
You scream and shout when innocent civilians are accidentally caught in the
cross-fire, but remain silent when terrorists kill them on purpose
You think OJ Simpson is really looking for the "real killers"
You think claim a higher moral ground in opposing the death penalty, but
celebrate killing of innocent un-born babies
You think America deserved 9/11
You think the troops are "war criminals", but a thug who killed somebody in
cold blood is just a "victim of society"
You think you can give a dollar to somebody, without first having to take it
from somebody elsed
You want to ban and outlaw legal gun ownership, yet the same time, you want
to be allowed to have armed guards at your beck-and-call
You think Ted Kennedy knows how to manage your money, better than you do.
You think Saddam, Kim Jong Il, and Castro were fairly elected, but President
Bush was not
You fail to see the connection between Lenin and Lennon
You think "tolerance" is reserved for those who share your opinions, views,
and ideals
You think the name of God/Jesus should be banned and censored, except when
spoken in profanity
You think it was wrong for Bush to use images of 9/11 in political ads, but
saw nothing wrong with Kerry using flag-draped caskets in his ads.
You refuse to allow a child to carry a Bible to school, but demand that
schools make special provisions to accommodate a non-Christian's religious
beliefs.
You whine about religious leaders involvment in politics, but only when the
Reverend's name is Robertson...not Jackson or Sharpton
You support radical Judges who interpret what they "think" the Constitution
means, instead of what it actually says.
You think the meaning and definition of the Constitution should change,
based on your own feelings or opinions.
You constantly cry about defense spending, but scream when bases in your
areas are closed.
You think Greenpeace and the Earth Liberation Front burning down SUV
dealerships or torching chemical plants "help" the enviroment.
You support low-income housing, until they start to build in your
neighborhood.
You think the term "illegal alien" is a bad word
You think Michael Moore's films are "historically accurate"
You believe the AIDS virus is spread by a lack of federal funding
You believe that there was no art before Federal funding
You think the only thing wrong with the forged Rather Memo, was people
refused to believe it.
You think girls should be allowed to go to an all-boy school, but not the
other way around
You support welfare for illegal immigrants who don't pay taxes, anyway
You think Fox News distorts the truth, but Dan Rather reports "honest
journalism".
You complain that we never give peace a chance
When asked about your favorite Marx Brother, the first one to come to mind
is Karl.
You think NPR is the only really fair and balanced news source
You think race riots are acceptable
You think racial hatred is wrong, but "class hatred" is acceptable
You think that every misbehaving child has ADD and needs to be doped-up on
Ritalin.
You think lawsuits that deny any personal responsibility on the part of the
plantiff is justified.
You think the best way to deal with terrorist regimes is to please and
appease them.
You are opposed to a military presence in Europe, unless it's to bail out
France
You would rather defend Marx, Lenin, Stalin, Saddam and Castro before you
defend the US
You think violent gun-crime would automatically disappear if honest citizens
could not bear arms.
You constantly equate Conservatives to the likes of Hilter as your only
defense
You believe 1 + 1 = 2, or 3, or 4...or whatever it takes to protect the
child's self-esteem
You think that porn should be federally protected per Freedom of Speech, but
public profession of Faith should be outlawed.
You applaud Jimmy Carter for talking about Human Rights, but screamed and
shouted when President Bush actually did something about it.
You think we should have given Saddam 12 more years, and then 12 more on top
of that, if he didn't comply by then
You think the UN should be the final authority, even in the U.S.
You think if a person makes more than $50,000/year, then he/she is cheating
people and ripping them off.
You think being able to play the President on a popular TV drama
automatically equates to "political wisdom" in real life.
You scream and shout about Christians ramming their beliefs upon you, but
you say nothing when Athiests do the same
You think it was "un-ethical" for Bush to accept campaign donations from the
NRA, but not when Clinton accepted campaign donations on behaf of the
Communist Chinese government.
You think if somebody disagrees w/what is being said, they are challenging
or denying your rights to Free Speech
You think that poverty is caused by the wealthy
You think the ACLU really gives a damn about individual rights
You think the Dixie Chicks and Tim Robbins should say what they want, but
O'reilly, Hannity, and Limbaugh should be censored
You protested American intervention in the Middle-East, because we did not
have UN approval, but supported American intervention in Haiti, Somalia, and
Bosnia, even though we did not have UN approval.
You screamed and shouted when Ah-Nold allegedly groped women, but cheered
when Bill Clinton did the same.
You are against sexual harrasment except when committed by a Kennedy or a
Clinton
You object to little old ladies wearing fur, but not bikers wearing leather
You believe President Bush is too dumb to be President and Arnold
Schwarzenegger is too dumb to be Governor of California, but the Dixie
Chicks, Martin Sheen, Alec Baldwin, Barbra Streisand, Eddie Vedder and
Jeanine Garofalo are qualified to discourse at length on foreign policy
You think Saddam had WMDs when Clinton was in office, but all of the sudden,
didn't have them when Bush was in office.
You think the Middle East crisis can only be solved once Israel is wiped off
the map.
You believe the Bible is racist, sexist, and homophobic, but think the Koran
should be required reading
You consider the Catholic bishops noble and idealistic when they oppose
capital punishment and welfare cuts but dangerous fanatics when trying to
promote pro-life
You think a lawyer taking 33% from a settlement for his services is fair,
but the Government taking 33% of your paycheck for taxes is "too low"
You find Christianity and anything relating to it potentially harmful to you
and your children, but you're completely open-minded to Witchcraft,
occult-ism, mysticism, ect
You think having an open-mind means being "pro-Gay", "pro-Abortion",
"anti-Christian", "anti-Business", and "anti-Conservative"
You think only white people can be racist
You think that tax cuts hurt poor people and are uncompassionate but taking
30% from their paychecks is compassionate
You believe that posting the "Ten Commandments" in schools will hurt the
children, but promoting homosexuality and paganism "helps" the children
You think the answer to ANY crime no matter how henious or serious, is
counseling.
You only watch "All in The Family", because Meathead made so much sense
You think Rush Limbaugh and Michael Reagan are mean spirited racists and
promote hate crime but Maxine Waters, John Conyers and Louis Farakahn aren't
and don't
You think that Doctors should be made into government bureaucrats, but that
lawyers should not
You think O.J. is actually innocent, but that Bernard Goetz is not
You would have supported the war in Iraq, if Clinton or Gore was President
You are against censorship unless it's censoring race, Christianity,
Conservatism, Western culture, Rush Limbaugh, or Ann Coulter
You make snide remarks about guys who look at women, but champion Clinton's
right to do whatever he wants with his interns
You think that the four cops who beat Rodney King should have been thrown in
jail forever, but the four thugs who beat Reginald Denny should get just a
slap on the wrist
You get mad when rape victims' sexual history is plastered all over the news
media, but demand Paula Jones' sexual history "must be made public"
You hear a news report of a man beat nearly to death because he is a
minority or gay and you rally about punishing the bigot who committed the
terrible act BUT, if you hear a news report of a man beat nearly to death
for his money, and you start talking about the poor disadvantaged person who
is forced to commit such acts to survive
You think that pouring blood on a $1,500 fur coat is a sure-fire way to get
your message across, but if anyone protests outside an abortion clinic,
they're the extremists!
You think that the only way the tragedy at Columbine could have been avoided
was to outlaw legal, private gun ownership
You think hunters don't care about the environment, but wacky Seattle folks
who have never stepped foot outside of their local Starbucks, do
You think it takes a village, instead of parents, to raise a child
You think tolerance of your opinions and acceptance of your opinions go
hand-in-hand
You believe that doctors are over-paid, but ambulance-chasing lawyers are
not
You think that Celebrities and other media icons have the right to Free
Speech and those who agree with them have the right to Freedom of Speech,
but those who dare to disagree with them do not.
You slam Ah-Nold for his father having alleged ties to the Nazi when you
have a known and un-apologetic Klansman and public anti-Semite in your own
company (Sen. Byrd)
You think Ah-Nold should not be in politics because he's "just a celebrity",
but you would have endorsed Martin Sheen, Sean Penn and company based on
that sole criteria
You scream and shout over alleged "violence" in Mel Gibson's "The Passion",
yet you ran to see "Kill Bill", "Freddy VS. Jason" , "The Texas Chainsaw
Massacre" and play "Unreal" and "Duke Nuke'em", "Grand Theft Auto", ect. and
said nothing about the violence portrayed in those.
You think Hollywood can say or do no wrong and should be treated as such
You think a child who is quietly and privately saying Grace before a meal at
school, constitute the said child ramming his/her beliefs upon others
You turn a blind eye to the suicide bombings at the hands of radical
fanatics, but condemn Israel and the Western World for wanting to keep their
people safe from Terrorism
You think if Sean Penn or Martin Sheen said so, it should be revered as holy
scripture.
You cheered and applauded when Clinton stated he "smoked pot but never
inhaled" and at the same time, screamed and shouted when Rush Limbaugh
admitted to being addicted to LEGALLY OBTAINED MEDICATION
You think Freedom of Speech is reserved for those who think as you do, but
not for anybody else
You ban the Bible in schools because of Church/State, then welcome Islamic
and New-Age, and other religion teachings in the same school
You think every problem can be solved by simply throwing money at it
You think more taxes are an economic cure-all
When a violent crime is committed with a gun, you think it's the gun itself,
and not the offender, who is responsible
You blame the NRA, and not the criminals, for violent crime with guns
You think Freedom of Speech and agreeing with what is being said go
hand-in-hand
You think everything wrong in the world is automatically Bush's fault and
everything right in the world is automatically because of Clinton
You feel people should "share the wealth" (as long as your money is not the
one being "shared")
You think that being a Hollywood icon automatically means you are more "in
tune" to world events than the leaders of the country
You complain about the SUVs and other less-economical cars, yet you parade
around in a 5-mile-per-gallon limo
You think that you can understand politics from Hollywood and activist
celebrities without doing any research yourself
You ban Tom Sawyer from schools for being "racist" but you approve of My Two
Moms as wholesome and acceptable.
You think every solution to every problem can be solved with bigger
Government
You think people should be rewarded for laziness, but hard-working people
should be taxed dry
You frown upon self-thought and independent thought.
You think convicted criminals and democratic politicians who screw up are
worth understanding and forgiving but conservative politicians and religious
people who speak their opinion should be banned from public service.
You think that tolerance equals acceptance and anyone who doesn't accept a
liberal cause is a racist or bigot.
You throw down the "race card" as your only argument.
You think terrorists and arsonists who burn down private property and harass
businesses are noble but the troops who liberated Iraqis are war criminals.
You think that violent protests and domestic terrorism are how you affect
change in our country instead of voting.
You believe people are owed restitution for injuries inflicted on their
long-dead ancestors.
You find charisma to be an appropriate replacement for honesty.
You find flashy rhetoric to be a suitable substitute for sincerity.
You don't believe willful omissions of facts should be considered lying.
You have a problem with the mention of God in the Pledge of Allegiance, but
have no qualms about it being printed on your wonderful money.
You simultaneously piss on our country and its system while reaping its
rewards.
You refuse to acknowledge any contributions to society that were not made by
minorities.
You continue to trash America, claiming how horrible and evil it is, yet you
refuse to leave
You think Yassar Arrafat was deserving of the Nobel Peace Prize
You think guns in the hands of law-abiding citizens are more of a threat
than nuclear weapons in the hands of a hate filled dictator.
You believe that people should not have to be expected to take
responsibility for their actions
Mothers who are drug addicts should be allowed to have children and to raise
them while they're addicted.
Capitalism oppresses people and Socialism liberates people.
You think the Government should provide "entitlement" programs, rather than
expect us to earn what we have
You refuse to lift a finger to save an unborn baby but at the same time,
rush to the aid and defense of violent serial-felons on death row
You think teachers should not use the class-room to promote politics, unless
the teacher is promoting anti-Conservative agendas, then it becomes a matter
of "Free Speech".
You try to make excuses on behalf of terrorism
You believe in choice except when it comes to retirement, schools, health
care, and religious speech
You think Clinton was an "honest and virtuous man"
You believe that unwed teenage mothers should get a paycheck from the
Government
You ignore more than 50 years of medical warnings about tobacco use, but
when you get cancer, the tobacco company is to blame.
You think society "owes you a living"
You somehow believe that George Bush is more dangerous than Bin Laden,
Saddam, Hitler, ect.
You believe conservatives telling the truth belong in jail, but a liar and
sex offender belongs in the White House.
You believe that the same teacher who can't teach 4th graders how to read is
somehow qualified to teach those same kids about sex.
You believe that heterosexuality is a learned behavior, but homosexuality is
normal and natural..
You somehow think that a President who lied under oath, compromised with
fanatical dictators, and gave military technology to hostile regimes is
somehow better for America than the present Administration.
You believe that 9/11 was an "Israeli conspiracy" and could never have been
carried out by Bin Laden or his cronies
You want to legalize drugs but outlaw tobacco.
You want what you feel "you deserve", instead of what you earn
You think it's OK to be dis-honest, if personal gain is at stake
You can exaggerate the facts and make up fiction to prove your point
You spew out your rhetoric, but have nothing to back it up.
You think that "truth" is irrelevant.
You think the Corporations are evil, but Communism and dictatorships are
"noble"
You think the UN is an efficient governmental body
You like to say that you fight discrimination, then you turn around and give
"perks" simply based on race.
You think the Kennedy Family was a "respectable family" but call George Bush
a "Hitler"
You think traits like honesty and character are "out-dated"
You think that the minority should have the right to force their will upon
the majority
You think 1 white and 20 blacks is "diversity"
You somehow think taking guns away from honest citizens will reduce crime by
violent offenders
You somehow think Saddam and Bin Laden are better for the world than
President Bush
You believe people should do what you say, but not what you do
You preach "peace" and "love" and "non-violence" and "anti-gun laws" but
appear in movies that glorify guns, explosives and twisting people's heads
of with martial arts to win over the bad guys.
You deride Bush for landing on a plane to boost moral and show his gratitude
to the troops but you praise Clinton for using the military as a social
program to force gays into the ranks and lowering moral.
You think the "all Men are created equal" comments in the Declaration Of
Independence means that they are actually equal in ability (as opposed to
being given equal opportunity) and no one should make a choice about them
based on their actual abilities to perform.
You think a person's sexual preference, or race, and not their ability to
perform, should be the deciding factor in who-gets-what job.
You think demanding respect is more important that actually doing something
to earn it
You think the "right of the people to peaceably assemble, and to petition
the Government for a redress of grievances" means breaking into military
installations during wartime, stopping commerce, and breaking nudity laws
are what the founding fathers meant.
You think Conservatives should be held to a different, and higher standard
than you are willing to meet, yourself
You claim you are "offended" by Christianity, yet you still partake in the
Christmas festivities and demand a paid holiday.
You think SUVs are supportive of terrorists, but houses with 10 car garages
are A-OK
You think "choice" applies only to abortion
You scream about our dependence on foreign oil, but refuse to allow us to
tap into our own reserves
You think the word "unilateral" is defined as "without France, Germany, and
Russia"...
You call Conservative millionaires "greedy", while calling Liberal
millionaires "hard working", "creative", or "clever"
One day you label President Bush as just a "stupid hick from the sticks" and
the next day call him an "evil genius"
You believe that condoms and clean needles should be handed out at school,
but Bibles must not be allowed
You believe that standardized tests are racist, but racial quotas and
set-asides aren't
You believe that taxes are too low, but ATM fees are too high
You refuse to wave or salute the American flag, because America has so many
things wrong with it
You think since Clinton only "smoked and didn't inhale" pot, it's OK
You preach against racial/sexual bias, but turn around and endorse
Affirmative Action
When you boycott a Conservative person and/or company you call it "Freedom
of Choice"....but when Conservatives boycott, you call it "McCarthyism".
You think Church/State means that religion should be banned from all aspects
of public and private life
You begin every sentence with "I (or we) demand".....
You have ever used the expressions "that poor guy," or "he couldn't help it"
to describe a convicted murderer
You have an "I'm the victim" mentality and every day, milk it dry
You think Barbara Steisand really cares about the Iraqi children
You think Iraq was just a "War for Oil"
You think Bin Laden is not really all that bad, and is just "mis-understood"
You think evangelical is a dirty word
You think the New York Times is a "beacon of truth", but Fox News is just a
book of lies
You think Maureen Dowd should get the Nobel Prize for Journalism
You complain that Fox News has a "slight Conservative edge", but say nothing
about the far-to-the-Left Liberal bias of CNN, New York Times, BBC, ect
You think Sen. Joseph McCarthy was "evil" but the American Commies he tried
to expose within the State Dept were "heroic"
You think Jimmy Carter handled Iran just fine and dandy.
You refer to President Bush a "Hitler" as your defense to any criticism on
your stance/position
You think if a Conservative is under investigation, it should not matter
whether or not the allegations are true/false, but should be totally based
around the seriousness of the said allegations.
You think Jayson Blair is an honest and legitimate journalist
You think that rights of gays, lesbians, drag queens (or kings) should be
forcibly recognized, but rights of Christians/Jews should be denied
You believe that we can "spend our way" out of the deficit
No trees should be cut down, even if they're dead
.The government should tax every last bit of your paycheck.
You think that Saddam, Stalin, and Hitler were "noble" and in the same
breath, you call President Bush "evil".
You think morals and integrity are not relevant and should not stand in the
way of personal gain
You keep calling it "Clinton's Army" and "Bush's economy"
You poke fun at the "cookie cutter houses" in the suburbs, yet live in the
city, in a giant brick building called an "apartment", no different from any
other in the city.
You would rather have a President who spend his Administration caving in to
terrorist demands in a frenzy to please and appease them, rather than a
President who is fighting them to make the world a safer place for all..
And Finally......................................................
You think Ralph Nader cares about consumers, Unions care about their
members, the ACLU cares about civil liberties, the National Education
Association cares about education, People for the American Way care about
the American way, and Bill Clinton cares about anything other than Bill
Clinton
RogerN
OK, here's some more
you just might be a liberal if...
* You blame the oil companies for high gas prices, but believe in doing
everything humanly possible to keep them from drilling for more oil.
* You'd have no problem with a Democratic President talking with Mahmoud
Ahmadinejad or Kim Jung-Il without conditions, but would be very upset if he
started seriously negotiating with Republicans over national security or
energy issues.
* You don't see a conflict between "supporting the troops" and trying to
insure that they lose the war that they're fighting.
* You think the solution to an underperforming economy is higher taxes, more
regulations, and publicly attacking businesses, but don't understand how
that relates to the phrase, "The beatings will continue until morale
improves."
* You're surprised that people don't think you're patriotic just because you
were photographed not holding your hand over your heart during the national
anthem and made a big deal out of refusing to wear a flag pin.
* You tell everyone who'll listen that Bush is "worse than Hitler" and that
Republicans are fascists, but you never stop to consider that if that were
true, you'd be dead or in a gulag already.
* You think Christmas songs at school plays shouldn't be allowed because
they might offend people who don't believe, but don't understand what the
problem is supposed to be with government funded "art" that defiles
Christianity.
* Your idea of "reparations for slavery" is white people who have never
owned slaves giving money to black people who were never slaves, more than a
hundred years after slavery ended.
* You "assure us that deterrence will work, but when the time comes to
deter, (you're) against it." -- Ann Coulter
* You think celebrities are just exercising their right to free speech when
they criticize conservatives, but believe that the celebs are having their
First Amendment rights abridged if anyone criticizes them for their
comments.
* You called George Bush, "George Herbert Walker Bush," and George Allen,
"George Felix Allen," but think someone referring to Barack Obama as "Barack
Hussein Obama" is a racist.
* You think we should give condoms to thirteen year-olds because "they're
going to do it anyway," but feel that we can get rid of every gun held by
criminals in the U.S. simply by making them illegal.
* You think Anita Hill was telling the truth about Clarence Thomas, but
Gennifer Flowers, Paula Jones, Linda Tripp, Dolly Kyle Browning, Sally
Perdue, Kathleen Willey, and Juanita Broaddrick -- among many others -- are
all lying about the Clintons.
* You "are willing to do whatever it takes to defend the American public
from terrorists...as long as the French and Germans say it's OK."
* You continually claim that we don't do enough for the poor, but you want
to add 12-20 million more of them to the ranks by giving illegal aliens
American citizenship.
* You blame "society" for creating the conditions that turn people into
criminals, but you don't think that gives "society" even more of a moral
obligation to lock those criminals away so that they won't hurt innocent
people.
* There's a conflict between America and any other country, over just about
any topic, and you're more likely to side with the other nation than your
own.
* You believe that fanatical Muslims who want to fly planes into our
skyscrapers aren't a serious threat to the U.S., but Christians are.
* You think we can improve our health care system by putting the same
government that brought us FEMA, ICE, Airport Security, and the IRS in
charge of it.
* You believe that conservative criticism of Barack Obama's abilities is
primarily driven by racism, but actual race-based criticism leveled at
Clarence Thomas, Michelle Malkin, and Condi Rice by liberals obviously has
nothing to do with race.
* You live in a great and free nation like America and can use phrases like
"audacity of hope" or "speaking the truth to power" without the slightest
hint of irony.
* You say, "Why do they hate us?" when America is attacked and "we're just
furthering the cycle of violence" when we retaliate.
* You generally mean "threatening to the interests of the Democratic Party"
or "Jesse Jackson or Al Sharpton needs some more money" when you use the
word "racist."
* Your first thought after hearing that someone who publicly criticized
murderers actually murdered someone himself is, "What a hypocrite!"
* You tell anyone who'll listen that our elections are fraudulent and then
you fight tooth and nail to prevent states from requiring a photo ID to
vote.
RogerN
But Wait, there's more!:
You might be a liberal if .
You think that if someone is getting richer, someone, somewhere, must be
getting poorer.
You think that protestors outside nuclear power plants are dedicated
activists, but protestors outside abortion clinics are dangerous zealots
interfering with a legal activity.
You believe that more federal regulations will make your life better.
You believe that even though the top 20 percent of taxpayers pay 80 percent
of income taxes, that the rich are not paying their "fair share."
You think that Rush Limbaugh's listeners are mindless "dittoheads," but you
have never doubted anything that you heard from Michael Moore.
You believe in global warming today just as firmly as you believed in global
cooling back in the 1970s.
You believe that the network news is a better indicator of what "real" news
is than talk radio, Internet news sites, and blogs.
You believe that there was never, ever a problem with biased news coverage
until Fox News went on the air.
You believe that Mikhail Gorbachev deserves more credit for losing the Cold
War than Ronald Reagan deserves for winning it.
Your parents gave you an acre of preserved rain forest for your first
birthday.
You cannot name a single NASCAR driver.
You mentally subtract 100 points from someone's IQ if the person speaks with
a Southern accent.
You think that Dan Rather got a raw deal.
You panic if you discover that you're out of chick peas.
You think that the phrase "separation of church and state" is in the
Constitution.
You pride yourself on your global awareness, global sensitivity and global
outlook, but can't name your state legislator or school board
representative.
You are dedicated to helping the poor, the downtrodden and the less
fortunate, but you have never given blood.
You have not seen "The Passion of the Christ," and you don't know anyone who
has seen it.
You believe that a woman should make it on her own, without depending on her
husband (except for Hillary Clinton).
You believe that professional, working women should never be judged on their
appearance (except for Katherine Harris).
You believe that rich people should not be allowed to contribute so much
money to candidates for office (except for George Soros).
You believe that government should make a special effort to hire members of
traditionally oppressed groups, such as African-Americans (except for
Clarence Thomas, Colin Powell and Condoleezza Rice).
You feel a deep sense of common cause with oppressed groups, such as
Hispanic immigrants (except for Cuban Americans fleeing Castro).
You believe that a mother's wishes for her child, especially a mother's
last, dying wish for her child, should outweigh the wishes of a father who
had long before deserted his family (unless the child is named Elian
Gonzalez).
You think people in south Florida, who can't figure out how to work a
butterfly ballot, ought to have the final say in choosing the president of
the United States.
You have no problem with Hollywood movie starts flying around in private
jets to give speeches on the evils of SUVs.
You think that raising taxes will reduce the budget deficit.
You deplore prejudice and bigotry in all its forms, but think that everyone
in the "red states" is an idiot.
You are more concerned, more often, with the rights of convicted felons than
you are with the rights of small business owners.
You uphold a woman's right to choose, unless a woman chooses adoption,
chooses to be a stay-at-home mom, chooses to homeschool, or chooses to start
a business.
You are more concerned with Vice President Cheney's links to Halliburton
than with Saddam Hussein's links to international terrorism.
You have used the phrase, "in Europe, the government pays for health care
and vacation," without irony.
You are worried about how the French view Americans.
You believe that nativity scenes should be banned from public view, but that
anyone objecting to pornography "only has to look the other way."
And finally, you are almost certainly a liberal if you refuse to admit that
you're a liberal, and accuse anyone of calling you a liberal of McCarthyism.
RogerN
--
The science to which I pinned my faith is bankrupt. Its counsels, which
should have established the millennium, have led directly to the suicide of
Europe. I believed them once. In their name I helped to destroy the faith of
millions of worshipers in the temples of a thousand creeds, and now they
look at me and witness the great tragedy of an atheist who has lost his
faith.
George Bernard Shaw
"Dan" <dnad...@hotmail.com> wrote in message
news:Qswep.60204$195....@newsfe05.iad...
Wait no more, here's some more!:
Signs You Might Be a Liberal
1. You think Ted Koppel's Hair is real!
2. You like to give to charities - with other people's money.
3. You think free love is sheik and still wonder why your third marriage
just went down the toilet.
4. Whenever an intern disappears in Washington, you say it's all about sex.
5. Your father wore flowers and your mother wore army boots in the sixties.
6. You think Al Gore won the election in 2000.
7. You fondly recall Stalin as "Uncle Joe".
8. You think the second amendment is the right to keep and bear a white
flag.
9. Whenever you hear Rush Limbaugh's name mentioned you foam at the mouth
and your knee jerks.
10. When hooligans throw rocks at police, you call it civil disobedience,
when Republicans protest a fixed election you call it a riot.
11. If you nod your head and genuflect when Ted Kennedy speaks (or belches)
then you might be a liberal.
12. If you went to prep school, got your bachelor's, master's, doctorate;
you teach in a university, and still imagine that you know all about the
real world, then you might be a liberal.
13. If you think evangelical is a dirty word you might be a liberal.
14. If you make sure to invite a lone conservative to your chic (not sheik)
party because you want to show people how open-minded you are then you might
be a liberal.
15. If you think alcoholics are disabled and deserve Social Security (or
should be elected to be the senior senator from Massachusetts) then you
might be a liberal.
16. If you eat granola bars for breakfast, salad greens for lunch, quiche
for supper and then wake up hungry in the middle of the night and eat a
whole quart of ice cream...and still think you are eating healthy, then you
might be a liberal.
17. If you think rats, mice and houseflies are people, too, then you might
be a liberal.
18. If you buried your dead goldfish in the compost bin because you thought
it would be good for the environment then you might be a liberal.
19. If you think the government can solve your personal problems then you
might be a liberal.
20. And our favorite: You might be a liberal if your FIVE-YEAR-OLD tells YOU
what to do!
21. "You might be a liberal if you give money to the homeless man on the
corner of the freeway, but you turn up your nose every time you see a boy
scout."
RogerN
How many examples are you waiting on?
You might be a liberal if
a.. You're sure the Constitution explicitly guarantees the right to
abortion and gay marriage, but not the right to own a handgun.
b.. You think Dan Quayle is the dumbest Vice-President we ever had because
he believed a flash card that misspelled "potato," but think Obama is a
genius despite the fact he believes we have more than 57
states.
c.. You'd be more upset about your favorite candidate being endorsed by
the NRA than the Communist Party.
d.. You think the same criminals who use guns in the commission of a crime
will just hand them over to comply with the law if guns are made illegal.
e.. You know that 86% of all income taxes are paid by the top 25% of
income earners and you still feel that the rich "aren't paying their fair
share of the taxes."
f.. You put a higher priority on oil pipelines possibly inconveniencing a
few caribou than you do on lowering the price of gas for everyone in the
country by drilling ANWR.
g.. You're worried that Osama Bin Laden might not get a fair trial if we
capture him, but want George Bush thrown in prison for being too zealous in
protecting us from Al-Qaeda.
h.. You get infuriated when you hear about the CEO of a Fortune 500
company making tens of millions of dollars, but don't see a problem with an
actor, basketball player, or trial lawyer making the same amount.
i.. You're constantly seeing subtle, coded racism in campaign ads, but see
nothing racist about blacks being promoted over more qualified white
applicants because of Affirmative Action.
j.. You think it's obscene that oil companies are allowed to make 8.3
cents per gallon in profit with gas prices this high, but would never
suggest cutting the 13 cents per gallon they pay on taxes to reduce the
price of gas.
k.. You think George Bush is a chickenhawk because he wanted to fight in
Iraq and Afghanistan despite the fact that he only served in the National
Guard, but you don't think the same about Barack Obama,
who has never served in the military and probably couldn't find either
country on a map without help.
l.. You think protesting outside of abortion clinics is extremism and
should be illegal, but carrying around giant puppet heads while wearing a
t-shirt that compares Bush to Hitler is just exercising your First Amendment
rights.
m.. You think the case for global warming is proven without a shadow of a
doubt, but that we need another century or two worth of evidence to figure
out if capitalism and free markets work better than socialism.
n.. You believe the best way to fix the government screwing something up
in the market is with...drumroll, please...more government intervention.
o.. You think the first thing we should have done when Russia invaded
Georgia was to take the matter to the United Nations, where Russia sits on
the UN Security Council.
p.. You spend your days criticizing the use of private jets, SUVS, and
luxurious houses that consume enormous amounts of resources and then ride in
an SUV to the airport, get on your private plane, and fly home to your
luxurious house.
q.. You have more nice things to say about countries like Cuba and France
than you do about your own country.
r.. You think the war in Iraq is unwinnable, but victory in the war on
poverty is going to happen any day now if we can just get the Democrats back
in charge.
s.. You won't even support English as our national language, but can't
seem to understand why people worry about tens of millions of illegal aliens
changing our culture.
t.. You think censorship is absolutely wrong; except when it's applied to
conservatives on college campuses or on talk radio via the fairness
doctrine.
u.. You get more upset about an American soldier accidentally killing a
civilian than you do about a terrorist deliberately blowing up a school bus
full of kids.
v.. You think Fox News is hopelessly biased to the right, but MSNBC, CNN,
NBC, ABC, and CBS call it right down the middle.
w.. You think the real hero of the Cold War was Mikhail Gorbachev.
x.. You couldn't care less about what Americans in states like Kansas or
Virginia think of you, but you would be greatly upset if a Frenchman gave
you a dirty look because you're an American.
y.. You think kids in public schools should have to watch Earth in the
Balance and read Heather Has Two Mommies, but no piece of literature with
the word "Jesus" on it should be allowed within a hundred yards of a school.
RogerN
I have trouble cobbling _ONLY_ a couple dozen examples.
You Might Be a Liberal If . . .
a.. IQ tests should be used to stop the death penalty, but not to
determine admission to AP classes.
b.. The Ten Commandments in schools will hurt the children, but "Heather
Has Two Mommies" won't.
c.. African-American, Queer and Women's Studies prepare young people for
good careers, but a biology major is an outdated relic of white, misogynist
domination.
d.. College students must protest the President (before Obama was
elected), but never challenge anything the professor says.
e.. Math tests are racist, but there is nothing racist about blacks being
admitted over more qualified white applicants.
f.. Spending 4 years - make that 5 years - repeating your professor's
liberal slogans is a solid education, but demanding that colleges present
all view-points and actually teach the subject is "anti-intellectualism."
g.. McCarthyism was wrong, but black-listing "right-wingers" from ever
teaching in college is just plain old common sense. A right-winger is anyone
who doesn't toe the line on all issues.
h.. Education is about "feeling," not knowing. Logic is the product of
white male supremacy in our culture.
i.. After spending 5 years in college, you still don't know when the Civil
War took place and you are absolutely certain it had nothing to do with
freeing black slaves.
j.. Meat is bad for you. So is milk. But marijuana gets you ready for your
finals.
k.. AIDS is caused by poverty. So is crime. And membership in the
Republican party.
l.. You march to raise awareness about breast cancer, but believe it's
caused by sexism and infant mortality is caused by racism.
m.. You want to outlaw cigarettes and legalize marijuana.
n.. Global Cooling for 10 years proves that there is global warming.
o.. You fly on private jets, but feel free to tell others to use only one
square of toilet paper to save the environment.
p.. You think that using less toilet paper will be good for the air.
q.. The best way to care about a disease is to wear a ribbon. You must
also prevent pharmaceutical companies from making a profit.
r.. People should be allowed to euthanize themselves, but not to eat in
McDonald's.
s.. Career welfare recipients are fat because they can't afford food.
t.. You preach to everyone that diversity is our greatest strength, but
you paid half a million dollars more for a house in an all-white suburb than
you could've for the same house in a black neighborhood.
u.. You see racist code-words in all media except in hip-hop singles such
as "Kill The White People".
v.. You wonder out loud, "Why can't we all just get along?"
w.. You oppose all racial prejudice, but think all whites are racist,
consciously or not.
x.. IQ tests are completely invalid and there are no differences between
people, except when an anonymous blogger posts that all the Red States have
a borderline retarded IQ and all the Blue states are made up exclusively of
intellectually gifted people. Then you feel the need to send the blog post
to everyone you know as conclusive proof that voting for Democrats makes you
smart.
y.. You greet a black person with, "Yo Bro!"
z.. Indians created the United States and Europe became great as a result
of Islamic influences. On second thought, Europe isn't great.
aa.. You can't believe you were so racist as to say that there's something
great about Europe except their Social Democrat parties.
ab.. Black dominance in basketball is progress, but white dominance in
swimming is an outrage.
ac.. Illegal Mexicans are real Americans. Descendants of our Founding
Fathers aren't.
ad.. Racial profiling is wrong, but all serial killers are white and all
Mexicans are hard-working family men.
ae.. US wants to build a wall on the Mexican and not Canadian border
because of racism, not because 20 million Mexicans and almost no Canadians
cross into the U.S. illegally.
af.. There is no correlation between Islamic immigration to Europe and
increased anti-Semitic attacks against European Jews.
ag.. Prostitution empowers women, but having a man open the door for you
is degrading.
ah.. You get out of bed, look at your naked body and at your wife's, and
then think: "gender is a social construct that has no basis in science".
ai.. On second thought, you got married in Vermont and your wife's name is
Thomas.
aj.. Your dog is smaller than your cat.
ak.. You bought your son a doll and your daughter a toy truck just to
prove that gender is a social construct.
al.. You then gave your son a "time-out" for pretending that the doll is
an enemy soldier. Such violence will not be accepted.
am.. When your 2-year-old daughter turned the truck into a "tea party"
table, your immediate thought was, "I got to her too late and she was
already brainwashed by society to think she's a little woman".
an.. Men are bigger, stronger and faster than women because our society is
sexist.
ao.. On second thought, it's sexist to say that men are bigger, stronger
and faster.
ap.. Western women suffer at the hands of men, but Islamic women are
greatly respected.
aq.. The only time you've ever used the word "choice" was in reference to
abortion. School choice or the choice to shop at Wal-Mart should be
prevented at all costs.
ar.. If you are a man, your hair is longer than your girlfriend's.
as.. Women should stop listening to their husbands and start listening to
you.
at.. There's never a reason to hit a woman, unless she's Ann Coulter or
another conservative, in which case, she had it coming for having a mind of
her own and disagreeing with you.
au.. People are born with a sexual orientation, but gender is a social
construct and nobody is really born with male or female qualities.
av.. You agree with your cross-dressing friend that "our society" is just
"too focused" on genitals in determining a person's sex instead of
determining gender by looking at the person's clothes. Just because she has
a penis instead of a vagina, chest hair instead of breasts and a prostate
instead of ovaries, doesn't mean she's any less of a woman.
aw.. Men who are aroused by breasts are abnormal freaks, but homosexuality
is biologically normal.
ax.. Men stand in front of toilets only to promote male supremacy and
should be forced by the government to sit.
ay.. Great spirituality is found in Voodoo, but nothing in the Bible.
az.. Gay students should be allowed to publicly kiss in class, but
Christians shouldn't be allowed to quietly pray during a break.
ba.. The Christmas tree should be banned from public view, but that anyone
objecting to pornography "only has to look the other way."
bb.. When a Western woman travels to the Middle East, she should respect
their traditions and cover up. When Moslems illegally infiltrate Europe,
they have the right to expect the Westerners to adjust to them. If the
Europeans don't, Moslems have every right to riot.
bc.. Christianity is a threat. Islam is a religion of peace.
bd.. The Constitution allows desecration of the flag, but makes it
strictly illegal to desecrate the Koran.
be.. You found where the right to an abortion is written in the
Constitution, but cannot find where the Constitution provides for a right to
bear arms.
bf.. None of the Constitutional Rights you believe in are actually written
in the U.S. Constitution.
bg.. Constitutional rights that are actually written in the Constitution
are outdated and should be ignored.
bh.. The First Amendment's Freedom of Speech must take a back seat to
sensitivity.
bi.. You think that the Declaration of Independence is a legally-binding
document, but the Constitution should be read any which way you want.
bj.. On second thought, the only thing binding about the Declaration of
Independence is the sentence "all men are created equal". You aren't sure
what else the declaration says, but you are sure that whitey had no right to
declare independence on Indians' land.
bk.. Child molesters can live anywhere and maintain their privacy, but
Wal-Mart should be limited to far-away places where children can't be
exposed to it.
bl.. Teenagers can't control their sexual urges no matter what we do, but
child molesters and rapists can after counseling.
bm.. Counseling is the proper punishment for all crimes except sexual
harassment and racism.
bn.. McDonald's should be sued for selling dangerous products, but drug
dealers should be released from prisons.
bo.. Mumia is a great American, but the Founding Fathers were brutal
racists and we should ignore everything they said.
bp.. A five-year-old boy who pulls a girl's hair should be punished, but
gangbangers who are caught with guns should be let go because they didn't do
anything.
bq.. Affirmative action is the way to solve racial problems in America.
br.. Quietly reading "The Bell Curve" on the bus is harassment, but keying
someone's car for disagreeing with you is activism.
bs.. When rape and murder statistics go up, you blame poverty.
bt.. Society should take responsibility for crime, but the criminals need
more understanding.
bu.. We have too many police. If the cops backed off, the ghetto would be
pristine.
bv.. America and Israel are the only problems in the Middle East.
bw.. Four year old babies should be frisked at the airport because
focusing on nervous young Arabs would be discriminatory.
bx.. Hezbollah is a legitimate political party, but Republicans are just a
bunch of racist haters who should never be exposed to kids or college
students.
by.. It is wrong to kill terror leaders without a trial, but blowing up
buses and airplanes is legitimate resistance.
bz.. Your peace rally consists of supporters of Hamas, Hezbollah and
Saddam Hussein.
ca.. You say, "Why do they hate us?" when America is attacked and "we're
just furthering the cycle of violence" when we retaliate.
cb.. You aren't unpatriotic, but you just can't remember the last time you
sided with the United States . on anything. against any country.
cc.. If you support the United States, you are blind idiot who wraps
himself in patriotism. If you support Israel, you fell for Zionist
propaganda. If you side with Islamists, you truly understand international
politics and your views are intricate and nuanced.
cd.. We had no business going to Afghanistan, but bombing Serbia in the
1990s on behalf of Islamic terrorist Kosovo Liberation Army was vital to our
national interest.
ce.. Truth matters less than feelings.
cf.. You think Hamas and Robert Mugabe were fairly and democratically
elected, but President Bush was not.
cg.. You tell anyone who'll listen that our elections are fraudulent and
then you fight tooth and nail to prevent states from requiring a photo ID to
vote.
ch.. You are more proud of Obama's race than of John McCain's refusal to
leave his buddies behind in Vietnamese prison.
ci.. Dan Quayle is the dumbest Vice-President ever because he believed a
flash card that misspelled "potato," but Obama is a genius despite the fact
that he believes that we have more than 57 states.
cj.. You laugh at Dan Quayle, but you still can't figure out the
difference between "your" and "you're".
ck.. Governor Sarah Palin is unqualified, but Daughter Caroline Kennedy
and Wife Hillary Clinton were great candidates for the U.S. Senate.
cl.. You are more concerned about a politician being endorsed by the NRA
than al-Qaida and the Socialist Workers Party.
cm.. All recounts must continue until the Democrat takes the lead, and not
a second longer.
cn.. You announce that you will move to Canada every time a Republican
wins an election.
co.. None of your friends ever voted for a Republican.
cp.. People who don't chat, "Bush Lied, People Died" are all stupid.
cq.. Barbra Streisand knows more about politics than Newt Gingrich.
cr.. 95% of blacks voting for a black guy is normal, but 55% of whites
voting for the white candidate is a sign of how flawed our racist voting
system is.
cs.. You call yourself 'progressive' but oppose all progress because
somebody might get fired and replaced by a cheap and more efficient computer
program.
ct.. Capitalism is the cause of poverty.
cu.. People aren't successful, they are privileged.
cv.. People don't earn. They deserve.
cw.. The Christian Right shouldn't impose their morality on you, but you
want to impose big government on everyone else because otherwise they won't
do the right thing.
cx.. You think that consenting adults can engage freely in every activity
except capitalism.
cy.. You think the case for global warming is proven without a shadow of a
doubt, but that we need another century or two worth of evidence to figure
out if capitalism and free markets work better than socialism.
cz.. It's obscene that oil companies are allowed to make 8.3 cents per
gallon in profit with gas prices this high, but it's ok for the government
to make several times more than that in taxes.
da.. McDonald's gives people an option to supersize their meal because it
is purposely trying to kill black people by giving them heart disease,
cancer, diabetes and stroke.
db.. You are steeped in compassion, but never gave money to charity or
donated blood.
dc.. Your favorite sport is soccer. You pronounce it "foot-bowl". You can't
name a single player or when was the last World Cup. You never actually
watched a soccer match, but saying "footbowl" seems like a good answer to
give when you are drinking your caramel latte with scones.
dd.. Your other interests are Ballet, Opera and Gangsta Rap.
de.. You favor games where you don't keep score, run or in any way risk
bruising yourself.
df.. You really wish to go to India to study spiritualism there, but you
wouldn't be caught dead in a church.
dg.. Your car has 8 bumper stickers calling Republicans morons and saying
that Bush is a murderer, but that "McCain/Palin" bumper stick you just saw
is really offensive so you just had to scratch that car with your key.
dh.. You wear a Yasser Arafat head scarf, but laugh at those who wear
formal ties.
di.. Playing competitive sports could do permanent harm to teenagers, but
smoking weed daily and occasionally trying hard drugs is just something all
college students do.
dj.. Fox News is biased, but Al Jazeerah isn't. In fact, Fox News invented
media bias.
dk.. Rush Limbaugh and Michael Reagan are mean-spirited racists and
promote hate crime, but Maxine Waters, John Conyers and Louis Farrakhan aren't
and don't.
dl.. Rush Limbaugh's listeners are mindless "dittoheads," but you have
never doubted anything that you heard from Michael Moore.
dm.. Assaulting the President by throwing shoes at him is free speech, but
political cartoons about Muhammad aren't.
dn.. Freedom of speech means the right to scream when a conservative tries
to speak in order to prevent anyone from hearing his views.
do.. Freedom of speech applies to terrorists, not conservative radio talk
show hosts.
dp.. Everyone who disagrees with you must be reported for racism to your
employer, university dean and the police.
dq.. After making the report, you are shocked that racism is not a crime
and that the offender won't won't be locked up.
RogerN
Here's some more, sorry you had to wait so long!
You Know You're a Liberal ....
a.. If you think Rob Reiner had to stretch to play the liberal in "All in
the Family"
b.. If you think the answer to ANY crime, infraction, or injustice is
counseling.
c.. If you've spent no less than 30 years in the walls of academia and
don't see how today could be too much different from the '60s.
d.. If you think the criminal has more rights than the police who arrest
this criminal, unless the crime is sexual harassment, or racism.
e.. If you use the term 'open-minded' and don't care that it can't be
defined in absolute terms.
f.. If you think only white people can be racist.
g.. If Clarence Thomas made you sick, Bob Packwood made you protest, but
Bill Clinton is a victim of partisan politics.
h.. If you think that teenager's sexual behavior is uncontrollable, but
hardened violent criminals should be released on parole after serving a cut
sentence in a "correctional institution".
i.. If you think Maxine Waters and Sheila Jackson Lee are articulate
geniuses but Justice Clarence Thomas, Dr. Alan Keyes and Dr. Walter Williams
are dolts.
j.. If you think Rush Limbaugh and Michael Reagan are mean spirited
racists and promote hate crime but Maxine Waters, John Conyers and Louis
Farakahn aren't and don't.
k.. If you think that the Constitution is a living document and should be
changed but the writings of Karl Marx are "written in stone".
l.. If you think burning the United States flag should be Constitutionally
protected but burning a cross should be outlawed.
m.. If you think that tax cuts hurt poor people and are uncompassionate
but taking 30% from their paychecks is compassionate
n.. If your idea of hell is having to mind your own business and not
meddle in other people's lives.
o.. If you believe that posting the "Ten Commandments" in schools will
hurt the children, but putting "Heather Has Two Mommies" or "Ask Alice" (on
the internet) won't.
p.. If you think that the American Dream could have only been accomplished
in the '60s.
q.. if you think that conservatives have no sense of humor then shudder at
the idea of a Clinton joke.
r.. If you actually do believe that Clinton doesn't know the definition of
the words "alone", "is", or "correct".
s.. If you believe that Columbus is a mean-spirit bringer of genocide, and
never should have explored to the new world, which meant that no one would
have religious or taxation freedom whatsoever.
t.. If you think that the only way the tragedy in Littleton, CO could have
been avoided was to restrict the access of the guns, two of which were
bought on the black market.
u.. If you actually think the multicultural movement of the '90s works
better than organized religion.
v.. If you don't want the Christian Right imposing their morality on you,
but you want to impose big government on everyone else because they won't do
the right thing.
w.. You're a liberal if you can't see the irony in your own beliefs.
x.. If you believe Peter Jennings is a very educated and intelligent man.
y.. If you can actually believe everyone around Bill Clinton is lying, but
Bill Clinton himself is telling the truth.
z.. If you point to God's forgiveness of King David in reference to Bill
Clinton but "forget" to read the rest of the scripture about the ruin that
he inflicted on his family, his kingdom and himself.
aa.. If you think that the only acceptable hate crime is Christian
bashing.
ab.. If you want to make the rich "pay their fair share" but leave Ted
(more people have been killed in my car than in an American nuclear power
plant) Kennedy and Dick Gebhardt out of the definition of the rich.
ac.. If your idea of compassion is giving a homeless person a shopping
cart but expecting them to accept the responsibilities of life is mean
spirited, racist, bigoted, etc. ad nauseum.
ad.. If you think Princess Diana was compassionate for hugging poor
children and children with AIDS (while "forgetting" about her getting in her
limo and driving away) but Mother Teresa makes you uncomfortable.
ae.. If you think that "dumbing down" America's school kids is
compassionate but holding them to high educational standards is "mean
spirited", racist, bigoted, etc. ad nauseum.
af.. If you think that Teddy Kennedy, Jesse Jackson and the KKK don't have
anything in common (at least the KKK is honest about their goals).
ag.. If you think that people need to be punished for good choices and
rewarded for bad ones.
ah.. You're a liberal if you think what Hitler did to the Jews is horrible
but the "Christian Right" is dangerous and needs to be done away with.
ai.. If you don't see the parallel between yourself, Adolph Hitler, Josef
Stalin and Chairman Mao.
aj.. If you believe that the "700 Club" are a group of fakes or actors but
the people on "The Jerry Springer" show are real people.
ak.. If you actually refer to the Reagan and Bush Presidencies as one
Presidency.
al.. If you think that affirmative action is the only way to solve racial
problems in America.
am.. If you think the best way to care about a disease is to wear a
ribbon.
an.. If you think that pouring blood on a $1,500 fur coat is a sure-fire
way to get your message across, but if anyone protests outside an abortion
clinic, they're extremists!
ao.. If Sean Hannity makes no sense and Alan Colmes makes perfect sense.
ap.. If you voted for Mondale in 1984 thinking that raising your taxes was
a good idea.
aq.. If you refer to listening to Jesse Jackson or Sam Donaldson as "equal
time".
ar.. If you make snide remarks to guys for looking at women but champion
Clinton's right to do whatever he wants with his interns.
as.. If you think the impeachment vote was 'just about sex'.
at.. If you think all the attacks against Republicans are justified, but
got outraged about the Willie Horton incident.
au.. If you actually think Clinton 'only inhaled'.
av.. If the last 'good old president' you remember was Carter.
aw.. If you condemn Dan Quayle for misspelling potato and then ignore the
witticisms of Al Gore (who are these people?)
ax.. If you think Alec Baldwin was justified in his protest on the Jay
Leno show.
ay.. If you actually think there IS a way that the Republicans can poison
the water supply to certain people, and destroy the ozone layer.
az.. If you believe any of the conspiracies such as that the AIDS virus
was started by the government or that certain products cause sterility in
black males, but think "The X-files" is too far fetched.
ba.. If you think that Watergate and Iran-Contra was a travesty of
justice, but anything against Clinton is partisan!
bb.. If you believe VH-1 when they tell you that warning labels were put
on by "Conservatives led by Tipper Gore".
bc.. If you believe Clinton's 'change of heart' after the sudden switch in
the 1994 election.
bd.. If you use the words "right wing extremist" at least four times in
any given day.
be.. If you think that bombing on Iraq couldn't have possibly had anything
to do with the impeachment vote... then why did they stop as soon as the
vote was done?
bf.. If you think that the four cops who beat Rodney King should have been
thrown in jail forever, but the four thugs who beat Reginald Denny should
have fair justice.
bg.. You complain that your community has too many white people and the
Catholic church you go to doesn't have enough ethnicity, but you're the
first one with a for sale sign in your yard when blacks start moving in.
bh.. You called Vietnam Veterans "baby killers" but think that allowing a
woman to suck her baby into a sink is a constitutionally protected right.
bi.. You think that Joe Camel and big tobacco are out to kill your babies,
but allowing a babies brain to be sucked out of its skull when it's 1/3 of
the way out of the birth canal is paramount to a free society.
bj.. You scream if a CEO sleeps with an employee but think that Clinton
receiveing oral sex from an Intern is just fine.
bk.. You believe that Clinton was forced to lie under oath by the "Vast
Right Wing Conspiracy"
bl.. You think that Ken Starr is the devil's helper for calling Monica's
mother to testify but believe that Ollie North's wife and minister being
called before the grand Jury was fair.
bm.. You believe Clinton's numbers about the number of jobs created and
don't credit it to the businesses given opportunities in the 1980s.
bn.. You know no recorded economic history (e.g. the massive stagflation
and recession) before the Reagan Era.
bo.. You think sexual harassment is rampant, date rape pervasive, domestic
violence common and Paula Jones is lying.
bp.. You get mad when rape victims' sexual history is plastered all over
the news media, but think Paula Jones' sexual history "must be made public."
bq.. You hate Hillary jokes.
br.. You hate Monica jokes.
bs.. You pale at the execution of child killers, but defend the killing of
unborn children as an expression of choice.
bt.. You fully support women who have "exercised their right to choose"
when they abort in the 3rd trimester, but think Amy Grossberg should get the
death penalty before the trial even goes to court.
bu.. You think trees have feelings, animals can conceptualize and the
fetus is a blob of protoplasm.
bv.. You wear a red ribbon to show your support for a cure for AIDS but
oppose all animal experimentation needed to find that cure
bw.. If you hear a news report of a man beat nearly to death because he is
a minority or gay and you rally about punishing the bigot who committed the
terrible act BUT, if you hear a news report of a man beat nearly to death
for his money, and you start talking about the poor disadvantaged person who
is forced to commit such acts to survive.
bx.. You are convinced that Frank Capra films and Norman Rockwell
paintings are lies and distortions but "Platoon," "Dances with Wolves" and
"Thelma and Louise" are realistic.
by.. You thought Walt Disney was saccharine sweet and terminally
cutesy-pie - until it made Pocahontas.
bz.. You think a moment of silent prayer at the beginning of the school
day constitutes government indoctrination and an intrusion on parental
authority, while sex education, condom distribution and multiculturalism are
values-neutral.
ca.. You agonize over threats to the natural environment (acid rain, toxic
waste) but are oblivious to threats to the social environment (pornography,
promiscuity, and family dissolution).
cb.. You are appalled at all the money being spent investigating the
alleged illegal activities of Bill Clinton, but insist that investigating 75
charges (74 which were dismissed as unfounded) charges against Newt Ginrich
was "the only just thing to do."
cc.. You want to outlaw cigarrettes and legalize marijuana
cd.. You want to legalize cocaine and outlaw handguns. You think cops are
pigs and criminals are products of their environment.
ce.. You believe the National Rifle Association helps criminals while the
American Civil Liberties Union protects the innocent.
cf.. You think Rush Limbaugh is responsible for the Oklahoma City bombing
but are outraged by suggestions that Ted Kaczynski (the suspected Unabomber)
and Al Gore have anything in common.
cg.. You just know that everything Rush Limbaugh says is a lie but you
have never listened to him.
ch.. Jesse Jackson makes sense to you. Barbra Streisand makes even more
sense.
ci.. You think Herblock cartoons are funny and Janet Reno is totally hot.
cj.. You believe corporate profits are obscene but government spending is
too low and the American people are undertaxed.
ck.. You see cartoons condemning religions and making fun of Christianity
as funny and an expression of free speech, but think the cartoon B.C. should
be banned.
cl.. You think deficits are caused by tax loopholes.
cm.. You think AIDS is spread by insufficient funding.
cn.. You consider the Catholic bishops noble and idealistic when they
oppose capital punishment and welfare cuts but dangerous fanatics trying to
legislate their theology when they defend the right to life.
co.. You are convinced that proponents of welfare reform hate the poor and
opponents of affirmative action hate minorities, but AIDS activists who bash
the Pope and People for the American Way types who go psycho over Protestant
"fundamentalists" are guardians of democracy.
cp.. You attribute every minority problem to entrenched, institutional
racism and the legacies of slavery and segregation.
cq.. You think the black middle class is a myth created by Newt Gingrich.
cr.. You view race riots as justifiable expressions of rage over injustice
and fail to see the similarities between a black mob burning a Korean store
and a white mob in the Jim Crow era lynching a black man.
cs.. You don't understand all of the whining about affirmative action and
are more than willing to sacrifice someone else's employment or education
opportunity to assuage your guilt.
ct.. You marched against American involvement in Vietnam, thought the Gulf
war was unnecessary but believe 25,000 U.S. troops in Bosnia are vital to
our national interests.
cu.. You see no correlation between welfare and the rise of illegitimacy,
judicial leniency and surging crime rates, or addiction and an entertainment
industry that glorifies drug abuse. But you believe Richard Nixon is
responsible for everything horrible that's happened in the past
quarter-century.
cv.. You think those child-abusing, religious fanatics at Waco had it
coming but the illegal immigrants roughed up by California deputies - after
leading them on a high-speed chase - are the victims of the decade.
cw.. You continually say that conservatives have no sense of humor, but
after reading this page, think that I am cold and mean-spirited.
cx.. Lastly, you're a liberal if - you don't get the point of my web page!
Rich Grise
> How many examples are you waiting on?
> You might be a liberal if
> a.. You're sure the Constitution explicitly guarantees the right to
> abortion and gay marriage, but not the right to own a handgun.
Here's the right to abortion:
Amendment IV
The right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and
effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures, shall not be violated,
and no Warrants shall issue, but upon probable cause, supported by Oath or
affirmation, and particularly describing the place to be searched, and the
persons or things to be seized."
"Secure in their persons." That pretty much guarantees the right to
ownership of your own body and what's inside it.
Or are you one of the slavers who believes that fetuses have rights
and women don't, that women are beasts of burden who are required to
produce more little Xtian soldiers who can be sent off to faraway
lands and be aborted in the 79th trimester?
Thanks,
Rich
John R. Carroll
That and get him another beer.......
--
John R. Carroll
Jeff R.
"RogerN" <re...@midwest.net> wrote in message
news:dKmdnZHTaYw_5ObQ...@earthlink.com...
<snip rant>
Hey Roger!
Now that you have set the standard for Straw Man arguments, I assume you
won't take offence when others accuse you and your religious nutcase
colleagues of a whole raft of weird and unhealthy cult rites.
You know...
like:
* cannibalism,
* human sacrifice,
* murder of disobedient children...
etc. etc. etc.
All jokes aside, Roger, your Googled lists would be more impressive if any
one of the points were able to sustain a few second's argument.
I'm afraid you show your hand when you post such nonsense, and it's not a
very pretty sight.
--
Jeff R.
People should be free to practise their religions;
but only between consenting adults,
and in private.
John R. Carroll
> "RogerN" <re...@midwest.net> wrote in message
> news:dKmdnZHTaYw_5ObQ...@earthlink.com...
>
> <snip rant>
>
> Hey Roger!
> Now that you have set the standard for Straw Man arguments, I assume
> you won't take offence when others accuse you and your religious
> nutcase colleagues of a whole raft of weird and unhealthy cult rites.
>
> You know...
>
> like:
>
> * cannibalism,
> * human sacrifice,
> * murder of disobedient children...
>
> etc. etc. etc.
>
> All jokes aside, Roger, your Googled lists would be more impressive
> if any one of the points were able to sustain a few second's argument.
>
> I'm afraid you show your hand when you post such nonsense, and it's
> not a very pretty sight.
LOL
Here is the "You Must Be Roger" List.
Saddam was a good guy when Reagan armed him, a bad guy when Bush's daddy
made war on him, a good guy when Cheney did business with him and a bad guy
when Bush needed a "we can't find Bin Laden" diversion.
Trade with Cuba is wrong because the country is communist, but trade with
China and Vietnam is vital to a spirit of international harmony.
A woman can't be trusted with decisions about her own body, but
multinational corporations can make decisions affecting all mankind without
regulation.
Jesus loves you, and shares your hatred of homosexuals and Hillary
Clinton.
The best way to improve military morale is to praise the troops in
speeches while slashing veterans' benefits and combat pay.
If condoms are kept out of schools, adolescents won't have sex.
Providing health care to all Iraqis is sound policy; providing health
care to all Americans is socialism.
HMOs and insurance companies have the best interests of the public at
heart.
Global warming and tobacco's link to cancer are junk science, but
creationism should be taught in schools.
A president lying about an extramarital affair is an impeachable offense.
A president lying to enlist support for a war in which thousands die is
solid defense policy.
Government should limit itself to the powers named in the Constitution,
which include banning gay marriages and censoring the Internet.
The public has a right to know about Hillary's cattle trades, but George
Bush's cocaine conviction is none of our business.
Being a drug addict is a moral failing and a crime, unless you're a
conservative radio host. Then it's an illness, and you need our prayers for
your recovery.
You support states' rights, which means Attorney General Gonzalez can
tell states what local voter initiatives they have the right to adopt.
What Bill Clinton did in the 1960s is of vital national interest, but
what Bush did in the '80s is irrelevant.
--
John R. Carroll
Hawke
I heard them say the same thing when Ford pardoned Nixon. Then they said
things to the effect that we can't go through anything so difficult and
divisive as charging and trying our former president for a crime. It'll
tear the country apart, etc., etc.
I call bullshit. If you can prosecute the highest officials in
government when they commit obvious crimes then what right do you have
to convict anyone? Every time they trot out the, "we're a nation of
laws" slogan, it means we're prosecuting to the full extent. Yet they
never use that when it's the people at the top committing the crime. If
your judicial system is legitimate it treats everyone the same no matter
what their class. The sad thing is it doesn't take long to see that in
America we don't treat everyone the same.
There was plenty of evidence of crime in the Bush administration that
the new administration could have chosen to prosecute. Not to do so was
a political decision. I wonder if it was a democratic administration
that had lied us into war and had committed serious felonies in the
process whether a republican administration following it would have been
so reluctant to pursue criminal cases. I kind of doubt it. Seeing how
the republicans were not to be deterred by anything when it came to
impeaching Clinton; and after seeing how Wisconsin governor Scott Walker
was so intent on eliminating union rights, I doubt they would be so
reluctant to prosecute as the Obama administration has been. In the end
if you never go after the leaders when they commit crimes then you
country is no better than a banana republic.
Hawke
Ed Huntress
All you would have accomplished is to split the country down the middle --
not crack it, like it is now, but drive a wedge into it until it split.
Satisfying your sense of justice isn't worth it. Similarly, Daniel Ellsberg,
unequivocally and admittedly, committed high treason by releasing the
Pentagon Papers. But in his trial it came out that the government had so
abused the rules of justice that the judge dismissed the case. Lots of
people were angry, and the judge could easily have continued the trial on
the basis of Ellsberg's admission alone, simply disallowing all other
government evidence. It was still a slam-dunk case of treason and a capital
offense.
But in the interest of a broader sense of justice, the case was dismissed. I
believe it was appropriate to do so. No matter how that trial turned out,
half of the country would feel it was a travesty of justice. If there had
been convictions, the split would have been vicious.
No matter how angry you are about what they did (and I'm angry about it,
too), the larger issue is whether the public would feel that justice had
been done. A trial, especially with a conviction, would have hardened the
division between those who felt it was, and those who felt it was a
political show trial straight out of a Third World dictatorship. In the
interest of the country's sense that our system is just, we were better off
dismissing it and getting on with the business of governing and living.
--
Ed Huntress
Hawke
> All you would have accomplished is to split the country down the middle --
> not crack it, like it is now, but drive a wedge into it until it split.
>
> Satisfying your sense of justice isn't worth it. Similarly, Daniel Ellsberg,
> unequivocally and admittedly, committed high treason by releasing the
> Pentagon Papers. But in his trial it came out that the government had so
> abused the rules of justice that the judge dismissed the case. Lots of
> people were angry, and the judge could easily have continued the trial on
> the basis of Ellsberg's admission alone, simply disallowing all other
> government evidence. It was still a slam-dunk case of treason and a capital
> offense.
>
> But in the interest of a broader sense of justice, the case was dismissed. I
> believe it was appropriate to do so. No matter how that trial turned out,
> half of the country would feel it was a travesty of justice. If there had
> been convictions, the split would have been vicious.
>
> No matter how angry you are about what they did (and I'm angry about it,
> too), the larger issue is whether the public would feel that justice had
> been done. A trial, especially with a conviction, would have hardened the
> division between those who felt it was, and those who felt it was a
> political show trial straight out of a Third World dictatorship. In the
> interest of the country's sense that our system is just, we were better off
> dismissing it and getting on with the business of governing and living.
>
So what you are saying is that if it's hard it should not be done? Or if
the ramifications of a verdict may be painful we should let those we
know are guilty of serious crimes go unpunished? The basis of a just
legal system is to give the accused a fair trial and let the chips fall
where they may regardless of what the pubic thinks. If you have to take
the fallout of the verdict or negative public opinion into account then
nothing right would ever get done. Schools wouldn't have been
desegregated. The south wouldn't like that. Blacks wouldn't have the
right to vote. Racists wouldn't be happy with that either.
Nixon broke the law and should have had his day in court. By avoiding
what was hard justice was denied. I don't go along with that way of
doing business. Yes, you have to have some judgment and discretion when
it comes to who and what to prosecute. But when it's clear as a bell
that those in charge are guilty of gross wrong doing how can you let
them go free and still say justice actually means something? I say give
them their day in court and see what happens. We can handle it. We're
Americans. Didn't you know we're exceptional!
Hawke
Ed Huntress
No. Let me put a sharper point on it: You and people like you would be happy
and satisfied that justice was done. An equal number would believe that you
exploited a political advantage, having won a recent election, to wreak
political vengeance and to humiliate their side, and everyone on it.
They would have dismissed the trial as a kangaroo court with a politically
predetermined conclusion. They would not believe it was just. And any chance
that civility would improve between the two political sides in America,
allowing us to get back to the business of compromise and mutual respect in
Congress and elsewhere, would be blown out the window for a generation to
come.
Your happiness and satisfaction is not worth it. If you harbor the illusion
that such a trial would prove that the system is just, think again. To half
of the country, you would have proven simply that your half is corrupt to
the core, unworthy of trust in any circumstance, moral cretins, and to be
fought in every way possible. It would be evidence that you'll abuse power,
even judicial power, to get what you want -- because they don't believe that
the things done were actual crimes. To them, they were official decisions
made for a just reason under trying circumstances.
You're angry that there were no trials. The other half would have been FAR
angrier if there had been trials that led to convictions. That's the
political equation. That's the tough thing to swallow -- that our justice
system isn't always just, and that the best we can do sometimes is to use it
in a way that keeps the country from blowing apart.
> Or if the ramifications of a verdict may be painful we should let those we
> know are guilty of serious crimes go unpunished?
Sometimes. For example, a man in a state with no CCW, or a "may issue" state
in which he can't get a permit, carries a gun anyway. He is attacked and
beaten, and then knifed. Before the second knife blow, he pulls his gun and
shoots his attacker. The man with the gun lives. The attacker does not.
In NYC, that will get the man with the gun a minimum of one year in prison
for carrying the gun. One year is automatic; there are no mitigating
circumstances allowed.
That's the law. Is it justice? There are people who will say that it is. I
think it is not.
> The basis of a just legal system is to give the accused a fair trial and
> let the chips fall where they may regardless of what the pubic thinks. If
> you have to take the fallout of the verdict or negative public opinion
> into account then nothing right would ever get done.
Here you've got the tail wagging the dog. The basic principle is that a
justice system must serve the needs of the people being governed. A
derivative principle is that it must, therefore, serve their need for
satisfaction that justice is served. A derivative of *that* is that justice
must be blind. The rest is mostly abstract theory, topped with a merangue of
delusion about justice in the abstract, rehabilitation, setting examples,
etc.
In the political case we're discussing, half of the country would be
convinced that the government officials on trial are there because they're
of the wrong political persuastion. You won't convince them otherwise.
For it to accomplish its purpose, the system must convince people that their
concept of justice is being served and that it's fair. Politically charged
trials are often not perceived as fair.
> Schools wouldn't have been desegregated. The south wouldn't like that.
> Blacks wouldn't have the right to vote. Racists wouldn't be happy with
> that either.
Oh, baloney.
>
> Nixon broke the law and should have had his day in court. By avoiding what
> was hard justice was denied. I don't go along with that way of doing
> business. Yes, you have to have some judgment and discretion when it comes
> to who and what to prosecute. But when it's clear as a bell that those in
> charge are guilty of gross wrong doing how can you let them go free and
> still say justice actually means something?
To whom? Those who wanted to prosecute him, or those to whom prosecution
would have been proof that it's all political? You can't escape the
political element in a trial of political officials. The justice system is
immediately suspect when a political figure favored by one group is being
prosecuted by the other. If the polity is large -- like the whole country --
and the split is roughly even, you've got big trouble.
> I say give them their day in court and see what happens. We can handle it.
> We're Americans. Didn't you know we're exceptional!
What you're advocating would be perceived as a political show trial by half
the country, and a circus by most of the country. Is our justice system up
to pulling it off and producing a result that will satisfy a consensus sense
of justice? No, it's not. Our justice system is very good, but it's not that
good.
--
Ed Huntress
RogerN
news:ilgqbe$mq6$5...@news.eternal-september.org...
> RogerN wrote:
>
>> How many examples are you waiting on?
>> You might be a liberal if
>> a.. You're sure the Constitution explicitly guarantees the right to
>> abortion and gay marriage, but not the right to own a handgun.
>
> Here's the right to abortion:
> Amendment IV
>
> The right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and
> effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures, shall not be
> violated,
> and no Warrants shall issue, but upon probable cause, supported by Oath or
> affirmation, and particularly describing the place to be searched, and the
> persons or things to be seized."
>
> "Secure in their persons." That pretty much guarantees the right to
> ownership of your own body and what's inside it.
You really like spin, if washing machines could spin like you we wouldn't
need dryers. The above is about search and seizures, so a woman has the
right to not have her body searched and the baby siezed. If it meant what
you spin it to mean then any woman would have the right to kill any man as
long as it was during intercourse.
> Or are you one of the slavers who believes that fetuses have rights
> and women don't, that women are beasts of burden who are required to
> produce more little Xtian soldiers who can be sent off to faraway
> lands and be aborted in the 79th trimester?
>
> Thanks,
> Rich
>
Women have rights above and beyond what men have in the matter. I'm not
100% against abortion but I think it's absolutely stupid to be against the
death penalty because the person might be innocent but be for the death
penalty for unborn babies that are certainly innocent.
RogerN
RogerN
> RogerN wrote:
>> "Stuart Wheaton" <sdwh...@fuse.net> wrote in message
>>> On 3/6/2011 12:48 AM, RogerN wrote:
>>>> "Ed Huntress"<hunt...@optonline.net> wrote in message
>>>> <snip>
>>>>> The folks who become entangled in religion-like
>>>>> philosophical/ideological
>>>>> movements have a sort of utopia complex. They seem to be missing a
>>>>> gene
>>>>> that allows normal people to recognize the human behaviors and
>>>>> failings
>>>>
>>>> It seems that most atheists believe it is harmful to have religious
>>>> beliefs
>>>> in an imaginary God. I don't know if they realize it or not but they
>>>> are in
>>>> agreement with the Bible on this, the Bible also teaches against false
>>>> religions or belief/worship of false gods. The Bible is also very
>>>> practical
>>>> in determining such things, the false prophets are the ones who's
>>>> prophecies
>>>> don't come true,
>>>
>>> Jesus is recorded as saying in Matthew 16:28: "...there shall be some
>>> standing here, which shall not taste of death, till they see the Son of
>>> Man coming in his kingdom." In Matthew 24:34, Yeshua is recorded as
>>> saying: "...This generation shall not pass, till all these things be
>>> fulfilled." Since the life expectancy in those days was little over 30
>>> years, Jesus appears to have predicted his second coming sometime during
>>> the 1st century CE. It didn't happen.
>>>
>>> QED Christianity is not a true religion, Jesus is a false prophet...
>>>
>>> Thank you for making this all so clear Roger.
>>
>> But, according to atheists, the New Testament wasn't even written for
>> hundreds of years after the time it was supposed to have taken place.
>> So,
>> according to atheists, "this generation" was already passed when Matthew
>> 16:28 was written, so how could it mean the generation that was listening
>> to
>> Jesus' words when that generation had already passed? Either atheists
>> are
>> lying or they are lying.
>>
>> An understanding that fits much better is that Jesus was referring to the
>> destruction of Jerusalem in 70AD and the coming of the Kingdom was the
>> New
>> Testament church age, that's the Son of man (Jesus) coming to power as
>> the
>> head of the church. Some of those standing there and hearing Jesus lived
>> to see the events described by Jesus and saw the beginnings of Christ's
>> church coming in power.
>>
>> Thank you for making the atheists lies so clear Stuart.
>
> I think everybody's going to have the shit surprised out of them when they
> get to the Pearly Gates and find out that Satan has been in charge since
> we
> got thrown out of the Garden of Eden for the "sin" of seeking Truth.
>
> Cheers!
> Rich the Philosophizer
> --
> Don't be afraid to visit http://www.godchannel.com
Spin on sin? Was the sin seeking truth? Nope. God gave them many freedoms
and few restrictions, they choose to disobey instead of being happy with the
many things that were permitted, much like people today. What appealed to
Adam and Eve was the knowledge of good and evil, I would interpret it that
this knowing good and evil would be Adam and Eve seeking to be qualified to
judge others. This is consistent throughout the old and new testament about
God being the only one qualified to be the judge, knowing the truth to our
thoughts and intentions. I would conclude that the sin was not seeking
truth but disobeying God and seeking to qualify themselves to judge.
How about Rich the spinner? :-)
RogerN
Curly Surmudgeon
Therefore public perception trumps law and justice?
Bullshit.
Ed Huntress
Public perception IS law and justice. That's where law and justice come from
in a democratic society. We don't get it from Socrates, God, or the king.
>
> Bullshit.
Libretardian. d8-)
--
Ed Huntress
Curly Surmudgeon
No wonder your argument is so perverse.
> That's where law and justice come
> from in a democratic society. We don't get it from Socrates, God, or the
> king.
>
>
>> Bullshit.
>
> Libretardian. d8-)
--
Ed Huntress
So where do law and our justice system come from, oh libertarian sage? Did
someone bring them down from a mountaintop? Was the Constitution ratified by
space aliens?
Sometimes your weird philosophy runs into a brick wall. This is one of those
times.
--
Ed Huntress
Curly Surmudgeon
<hunt...@optonline.net> wrote:
You are attempting to misdirect the thread. Again.
"Law" exists. I am demanding that our government obey and enforce the
law. You are arguing that public opinion trumps the law.
That argument leads to the bad kind of anarchy.
Curly Surmudgeon
<hunt...@optonline.net> wrote:
You are attempting to misdirect the thread. Again.
"Law" exists. I am demanding that our government obey and enforce the
law equally. You are arguing that perception and anticipated public
opinion trumps the law. That your predictive capability is more
important than the law of the land.
That's absolute bullshit.
You do not get to ignore the law just because you don't like it. If you
don't like a law then change it but to create a system whereby some
people are prosecuted and others get a "Get Out Of Jail Free" card
because of their caste is unamerican.
Your argument leads to the bad kind of anarchy.
Curly Surmudgeon
<hunt...@optonline.net> wrote:
You are attempting to misdirect the thread. Again.
"Law" exists. I am demanding that our government obey and enforce the
law. You are arguing that public opinion trumps the law.
That argument leads to the bad kind of anarchy.
Ed Huntress
I'm arguing that public opinion CREATES the law. Which, obviously, is true.
The law is intended to SERVE public opinion about what is just. When a
particular application of the law contradicts our PUBLIC sense of justice,
we might have to ignore or put aside application of that particular law in
that particular situation. As I said before, cops do it every day. So do
prosecutors. Judges, like the one who dismissed Daniel Ellsberg's trial for
treason, also do it all the time. If they didn't, the system would be
unworkable and we would all be up in arms because of all of the "injustice"
going around. As there is, there is a moderate amount of it going around,
but we live with it.
>
> That argument leads to the bad kind of anarchy.
There's a good kind?
That aside, I don't see much evidence of anarchy. Most of the anarchists and
libertarians among us complain that the problem is just the opposite.
--
Ed Huntress
Boris Kapusta
<CurlySu...@live.com> wrote:
>"Law" exists. I am demanding that our government obey and enforce the
>law. You are arguing that public opinion trumps the law.
Fuck you and your Argentine law. Take it up with that whore you
elected.
Boris Kapusta
As opposed to that "good" kind of anarchy Argentinians "perfer".
http://replay.waybackmachine.org/20041205150438/http://curlysurmudgeon.com/
Boris Kapusta
<CurlySu...@live.com> wrote:
Still flying your Dresden flag Curls?
http://replay.waybackmachine.org/20031212004121/http://www.curlysurmudgeon.com/blog/
Jeff R.
>
> You really like spin, if washing machines could spin like you we wouldn't
> need dryers. The above is about search and seizures, so a woman has the
> right to not have her body searched and the baby siezed. If it meant what
> you spin it to mean then any woman would have the right to kill any man as
> long as it was during intercourse.
>
Are you serious?
...or are you just being silly to make some sort of point?
Last time I checked, the whole man is not encased in the woman during such
an act. Just one bit. Usually. Unless I'm doing something wrong.
>
> Women have rights above and beyond what men have in the matter. I'm not
> 100% against abortion but I think it's absolutely stupid to be against the
> death penalty because the person might be innocent but be for the death
> penalty for unborn babies that are certainly innocent.
How can you even *make* that comparison?
How much do you remember of your life before birth - specifically of the
first three months?
Details please.
Let us not forget, Roger, that by *far* (some some orders of magnitude) your
very own god is the greatest abortionist ever to have existed.
In my (very) immediate family:
Abortions caused by "god".... at least five (and possibly many more we
didn't even notice.)
Abortions procured by humans (us)..... zero.
...but of course god isn't bound by the moral code he insists *we*
follow....
Free to murder millions of unborn babies every year...
--
Jeff R.
Next time, folks, try to make up a better god, will'ya?
This one's a pretty poor example.
>
> RogerN
>
>
Jeff R.
> Spin on sin? Was the sin seeking truth? Nope. God gave them many
> freedoms and few restrictions, they choose to disobey instead of being
> happy with the many things that were permitted, much like people today.
> What appealed to Adam and Eve was the knowledge of good and evil, I would
> interpret it that
"I would interpet it..."
Well, of course Roger, that's what you have to do.
You have to interpret it in a way that makes sense.
To you.
'Cause it sure doesn't make sense the way it's written.
Do what every other christian does.
Make up a version of the faith that suits you and your prejudices.
Tweak it until you're comfortable with it.
Mess around with the bits that don't quite fit.
Change it as your mind and personality mature.
Ignore what the old-time fundy christians did and said - plainly they
interpreted the bible incorrectly.
Be confident that your own version is correct, appropriate, and will still
get you saved, come Armageddon.
Hell - that's what all christians have been doing for 2000+ years.
Why change now?
(It's a bit rich, however, to *still* call your cult "christianity". Yours
is rightly "RogerNity" - since you make it up yourself.)
Y'know Roger, if what I just said is wrong, why are there so many different
brands of christianity?
All of whom disagree with all the others on major points of theology.
Shouldn't there just be *_Christianity_* ...and no room for wiggling?
>
> How about Rich the spinner? :-)
How about Roger the bible interpreter? :-)
>
> RogerN
>
--
Jeff R.
Remind me again:
What did Jesus say about gays?
Curly Surmudgeon
<hunt...@optonline.net> wrote:
You are inserting a non sequitor to derail the thread.
> The law is intended to SERVE public opinion about what is just. When a
> particular application of the law contradicts our PUBLIC sense of
> justice, we might have to ignore or put aside application of that
> particular law in that particular situation. As I said before, cops do
> it every day. So do prosecutors. Judges, like the one who dismissed
> Daniel Ellsberg's trial for treason, also do it all the time. If they
> didn't, the system would be unworkable and we would all be up in arms
> because of all of the "injustice" going around. As there is, there is a
> moderate amount of it going around, but we live with it.
"Law" exists. You are arguing that prosecuting existing law should be
subject to public opinion. That is absolute bullshit.
>> That argument leads to the bad kind of anarchy.
>
> There's a good kind?
I do not believe that you are that stupid.
> That aside, I don't see much evidence of anarchy. Most of the anarchists
> and libertarians among us complain that the problem is just the
> opposite.
Another distraction.
You do not get to disregard the law of the land, the Constitution, or
*any* legislation, just because *you* think public opinion differs or
some people might disagree.
That is the the worst, and most indefensible, argument I've seen you make.
Ed Huntress
Curly, you seem to be able to take a few slings and arrows without taking it
personally, so let me start out with the bottom line: Your understanding of
this issue is simplistic and inadequate to the task. Your ideas fly straight
in the face of American history and jurisprudence. That is to say, you have
a typically simplistic view of the American judicial system, and how it
evolved.
In the US, uniquely (I think) in the world, prosecutors have virtually total
discretion about when to prosecute. In most countries, prosecutors have the
authority to not prosecute a case when they believe it is not likely they
will win. In the US -- and this is the key point -- prosecutors have
DISCRETION not to prosecute when they believe that doing so IS NOT IN THE
INTEREST OF SOCIETY. It is their decision to make. It is, for all intents,
unreviewable. Prosecutors are enormously powerful in our system.
Burn that point into your memory. It is essential to understanding our
unique jurisprudence. Here's a succinct explanation of how it works:
http://law.jrank.org/pages/1870/Prosecution-Prosecutorial-Discretion.html
The fairness of our system is widely, although not universally, admired. It
has served us well for over 200 years. If you don't like it, you're free to
promote something else and to try to get it past the electorate. Good luck
on that, because, at some level, most people recognize that there are
reasons not to prosecute, on the order of the ones I've mentioned in this
thread. And they're suspicious of changing it.
--
Ed Huntress
Curly Surmudgeon
<hunt...@optonline.net> wrote:
Another ad homenim/distraction disguised as a rebuttal.
> In the US, uniquely (I think) in the world, prosecutors have virtually
> total discretion about when to prosecute.
Theoretically. How would you describe Eric Holder's comments that he was
willing and ready to prosecute the Bush Administration for Crimes Against
Humanity then refused to follow through?
> In most countries, prosecutors
> have the authority to not prosecute a case when they believe it is not
> likely they will win.
Another irrelevancy.
> In the US -- and this is the key point --
> prosecutors have DISCRETION not to prosecute when they believe that
> doing so IS NOT IN THE INTEREST OF SOCIETY.
I believe that to be bullshit and contrary to the rule of law. Special
privileges cannot be allowed to thwart the rule of law. Only a jury is
legally authorized to make that determination. Your end-run on law
doesn't pass the sniff test.
> It is their decision to
> make. It is, for all intents, unreviewable. Prosecutors are enormously
> powerful in our system.
Based upon an unproven, and illegal, theory.
> Burn that point into your memory. It is essential to understanding our
> unique jurisprudence. Here's a succinct explanation of how it works:
>
> http://law.jrank.org/pages/1870/Prosecution-Prosecutorial-
Discretion.html
That's an opinion, not a law. One that flys in the face of reality.
> The fairness of our system is widely, although not universally, admired.
You haven't traveled much recently, have you?
> It has served us well for over 200 years.
"It" based upon opinion.
> If you don't like it, you're
> free to promote something else and to try to get it past the electorate.
> Good luck on that, because, at some level, most people recognize that
> there are reasons not to prosecute, on the order of the ones I've
> mentioned in this thread. And they're suspicious of changing it.
Now you sound like the rednecks from 1970, "America, love it or leave
it." You do not have the legal ability, let alone the ethical pedestal,
to determine what laws/perps get to avoid prosecution.
Allowing criminals to escape prosecution is against all that is
American. If *you* don't like that then leave...
Ed Huntress
Do yourself a favor and improve your understanding of "ad hominem." If I say
your argument about proper prosecutorial behavior betrays an inadequate
understanding of American jurisprudence, that is NOT ad homimem. If, on the
other hand, I say that your misuse of ad hominem makes you sound as
ill-educated as Gunner, THAT would be ad hominem. d8-)
>
>> In the US, uniquely (I think) in the world, prosecutors have virtually
>> total discretion about when to prosecute.
>
> Theoretically. How would you describe Eric Holder's comments that he was
> willing and ready to prosecute the Bush Administration for Crimes Against
> Humanity then refused to follow through?
Like he changed his mind. That's prosecutorial discretion. You may not like
it, but it's up to him.
>
>> In most countries, prosecutors
>> have the authority to not prosecute a case when they believe it is not
>> likely they will win.
>
> Another irrelevancy.
A point for the sake of perspective, clarifying how American jurisprudence
is unique in the world.
>
>> In the US -- and this is the key point --
>> prosecutors have DISCRETION not to prosecute when they believe that
>> doing so IS NOT IN THE INTEREST OF SOCIETY.
>
> I believe that to be bullshit and contrary to the rule of law.
Too bad. Practicing law in the United States, then, is not for you. Try
France.
> Special
> privileges cannot be allowed to thwart the rule of law. Only a jury is
> legally authorized to make that determination. Your end-run on law
> doesn't pass the sniff test.
Except that it's true. You're off in a land of your own imagination. Look it
up.
>
>> It is their decision to
>> make. It is, for all intents, unreviewable. Prosecutors are enormously
>> powerful in our system.
>
> Based upon an unproven, and illegal, theory.
Based on American jurisprudence. Did you read the article I pointed you to?
That's the way it is in the US.
>
>> Burn that point into your memory. It is essential to understanding our
>> unique jurisprudence. Here's a succinct explanation of how it works:
>>
>> http://law.jrank.org/pages/1870/Prosecution-Prosecutorial-
> Discretion.html
>
> That's an opinion, not a law. One that flys in the face of reality.
Reality? I can probably find examples in today's paper that demonstrate that
it's reality. That's the way it works.
What you're describing is the way that John Ashcroft wanted it to work, and,
temporarily, enforced. He unleashed a firestorm. If you have access to
professional journals, see this:
"Ethical Necessity: The Ashcroft Memorandum's Curtailment of the
Prosecutor's Duty to 'Seek Justice'." Cornell Law Review, Vol. 90, p. 237,
2004.
You can join the debate on legal formalism and "the noble lie." You'll find
a friend in Justice Thomas. But the reality is that wide ranging
prosecutorial discretion is practiced universally in American jurisprudence,
and it has a sound basis in our approach to law. It suits our principle that
serving our common sense of justice is the proper objective of our system.
Neither you nor I are qualified to debate it in terms of its legal
foundations. But you can look it up and see that it is the way things are.
>
>> The fairness of our system is widely, although not universally, admired.
>
> You haven't traveled much recently, have you?
Now, THAT's ad hominem. See the difference?
>
>> It has served us well for over 200 years.
>
> "It" based upon opinion.
"It" based on the way it really is.
>
>> If you don't like it, you're
>> free to promote something else and to try to get it past the electorate.
>> Good luck on that, because, at some level, most people recognize that
>> there are reasons not to prosecute, on the order of the ones I've
>> mentioned in this thread. And they're suspicious of changing it.
>
> Now you sound like the rednecks from 1970, "America, love it or leave
> it." You do not have the legal ability, let alone the ethical pedestal,
> to determine what laws/perps get to avoid prosecution.
I'm not a prosecutor. Neither are you. The discretion issue is about their
behavior, not ours.
>
> Allowing criminals to escape prosecution is against all that is
> American. If *you* don't like that then leave...
>
Correction -- it's all that is libretardian wack-a-doodle utopianism. I know
how it actually works. You do, too. Read a newspaper.
--
Ed Huntress
Curly Surmudgeon
<hunt...@optonline.net> wrote:
It's an ad homenim when used to depreciate another by misdirecting a
conversation which you are losing.
>>> In the US, uniquely (I think) in the world, prosecutors have virtually
>>> total discretion about when to prosecute.
>>
>> Theoretically. How would you describe Eric Holder's comments that he
>> was willing and ready to prosecute the Bush Administration for Crimes
>> Against Humanity then refused to follow through?
>
> Like he changed his mind. That's prosecutorial discretion. You may not
> like it, but it's up to him.
Hardly. Obama stopped his plans just as Obama intervened with the
Spanish to prevent their courts from prosecuting Bush.
This graphically demonstrates the inherent failure of your program. When
politics, or public opinion, are allowed to thwart the rule of law then
no one respects the law.
Rightfully.
>>> In most countries, prosecutors
>>> have the authority to not prosecute a case when they believe it is not
>>> likely they will win.
>>
>> Another irrelevancy.
>
> A point for the sake of perspective, clarifying how American
> jurisprudence is unique in the world.
Another distraction.
>>> In the US -- and this is the key point -- prosecutors have DISCRETION
>>> not to prosecute when they believe that doing so IS NOT IN THE
>>> INTEREST OF SOCIETY.
>>
>> I believe that to be bullshit and contrary to the rule of law.
>
> Too bad. Practicing law in the United States, then, is not for you. Try
> France.
You practice law? With the corrupted value system you campaign for I
sincerely hope not!
>> Special
>> privileges cannot be allowed to thwart the rule of law. Only a jury is
>> legally authorized to make that determination. Your end-run on law
>> doesn't pass the sniff test.
>
> Except that it's true. You're off in a land of your own imagination.
> Look it up.
No doubt corruption exists. Corruption is impossible to contain
completely however we must work to halt as much as possible. That is why
I'm adamantly against your campaign to undermine the rule of law.
>>> It is their decision to
>>> make. It is, for all intents, unreviewable. Prosecutors are enormously
>>> powerful in our system.
>>
>> Based upon an unproven, and illegal, theory.
>
> Based on American jurisprudence. Did you read the article I pointed you
> to? That's the way it is in the US.
>
>>> Burn that point into your memory. It is essential to understanding our
>>> unique jurisprudence. Here's a succinct explanation of how it works:
>>>
>>> http://law.jrank.org/pages/1870/Prosecution-Prosecutorial-
>> Discretion.html
>>
>> That's an opinion, not a law. One that flys in the face of reality.
>
> Reality? I can probably find examples in today's paper that demonstrate
> that it's reality. That's the way it works.
Did you read any cites? Any law references? Your link is an opinion,
nothing more. A worthless opinion posted only because it supports your
twisted version of law and justice.
Not the law in the Constitution or legislation.
> What you're describing is the way that John Ashcroft wanted it to work,
> and, temporarily, enforced. He unleashed a firestorm. If you have access
> to professional journals, see this:
>
> "Ethical Necessity: The Ashcroft Memorandum's Curtailment of the
> Prosecutor's Duty to 'Seek Justice'." Cornell Law Review, Vol. 90, p.
> 237, 2004.
Bullshit. Do not misrepresent a demand for lawful behavior to that of
curtailing justice. I didn't expect you to stoop to Republican tricks
just because you're losing an argument.
> You can join the debate on legal formalism and "the noble lie." You'll
> find a friend in Justice Thomas. But the reality is that wide ranging
> prosecutorial discretion is practiced universally in American
> jurisprudence, and it has a sound basis in our approach to law. It suits
> our principle that serving our common sense of justice is the proper
> objective of our system.
>
> Neither you nor I are qualified to debate it in terms of its legal
> foundations. But you can look it up and see that it is the way things
> are.
Another misdirection.
>>> The fairness of our system is widely, although not universally,
>>> admired.
>>
>> You haven't traveled much recently, have you?
>
> Now, THAT's ad hominem. See the difference?
You're wrong again. It's a question. It might also be hiding an ad
homenim however you cannot prove that.
>>> It has served us well for over 200 years.
>>
>> "It" based upon opinion.
>
> "It" based on the way it really is.
Nope, based upon your perverted opinion of law and justice.
>>> If you don't like it, you're
>>> free to promote something else and to try to get it past the
>>> electorate. Good luck on that, because, at some level, most people
>>> recognize that there are reasons not to prosecute, on the order of the
>>> ones I've mentioned in this thread. And they're suspicious of changing
>>> it.
>>
>> Now you sound like the rednecks from 1970, "America, love it or leave
>> it." You do not have the legal ability, let alone the ethical
>> pedestal, to determine what laws/perps get to avoid prosecution.
>
> I'm not a prosecutor. Neither are you. The discretion issue is about
> their behavior, not ours.
Nope, prosecutors must follow the law. Just like you, I and Bush. If
any of us step out of line society must be assured that we will receive
the proper legal defense, trial and/or punishment.
Your prediction of what some people might opine after a trial is
insufficient to trump law.
>> Allowing criminals to escape prosecution is against all that is
>> American. If *you* don't like that then leave...
>>
>>
> Correction -- it's all that is libretardian wack-a-doodle utopianism. I
> know how it actually works. You do, too. Read a newspaper.
I'm sorry you picked this argument. I had a higher opinion of you than
to support the undermining of American Jurisprudence and justice.
Ed Huntress
Nope. First off, you've already lost this argument. <g> You're saying that
prosecutorial discretion is just a theory, when, as I have demonstrated with
examples of my own and the article I pointed to, it's a reality of our
judicial system. It's a fact, easily documented. You don't like it, but it's
the way our judicial system works.
Our real disagreement is whether it's a good idea, not whether it's a fact.
I think. Unless you think it isn't a fact, in which case I can provide many
examples. But your reaction of "bullshit" can be interpreted different ways.
What is the "bullshit"? That it happens, and is a widely accepted element of
American jurisprudence, or that it is a good idea? If it's the latter, we'll
just have to disagree.
Second, you still don't get the idea behind "ad hominem." It's shorthand for
"argumentum ad hominem." In other words, an argument that attempts to
counter your argument with another -- but one in which my counterargument is
based on an irrelevancy about you. An example is "Obama is an
anti-colonialist because his father was a Kenyan." My paragraph above is a
comment upon your lack of understanding of American jurisprudence. You may
take it as a personal affront, but it is NOT a counterargument. It is a
description of my reaction to the quality of your argument. My
counterargument is the facts I have presented -- that experts on American
jurisprudence agree with what I said, and then I provided a couple of
examples that demonstrate it.
Your use of "ad hominem" is a frail attempt to counter a perceived slight by
directing opprobrium on me. I think your reaction is a little delicate,
considering your frequently dismissive attitude (which, admittedly, I will
join at the slightest provocation -- which you have provided). But the key
thing here is that you're using a Latin name for a formal concept in logic
incorrectly. It's become very common on the Internet and is used incorrectly
more often than not. You'll see the accusation of ad hominem used here all
the time, and the accusation is almost never used correctly.
>
>>>> In the US, uniquely (I think) in the world, prosecutors have virtually
>>>> total discretion about when to prosecute.
>>>
>>> Theoretically. How would you describe Eric Holder's comments that he
>>> was willing and ready to prosecute the Bush Administration for Crimes
>>> Against Humanity then refused to follow through?
>>
>> Like he changed his mind. That's prosecutorial discretion. You may not
>> like it, but it's up to him.
>
> Hardly. Obama stopped his plans just as Obama intervened with the
> Spanish to prevent their courts from prosecuting Bush.
I don't know what happened with Holder, but something, or someone, convinced
him not to prosecute. That's life. And that's prosecutorial discretion.
>
> This graphically demonstrates the inherent failure of your program. When
> politics, or public opinion, are allowed to thwart the rule of law then
> no one respects the law.
>
> Rightfully.
Do you respect the law? I respect the law. That's a start. And your idea
that no one will respect the law needs more than a hypothesis.
>
>>>> In most countries, prosecutors
>>>> have the authority to not prosecute a case when they believe it is not
>>>> likely they will win.
>>>
>>> Another irrelevancy.
>>
>> A point for the sake of perspective, clarifying how American
>> jurisprudence is unique in the world.
>
> Another distraction.
If that's a distraction, then what is it you want to talk about? I thought
we were talking about judicial discretion as an element of American
jurisprudence.
>
>>>> In the US -- and this is the key point -- prosecutors have DISCRETION
>>>> not to prosecute when they believe that doing so IS NOT IN THE
>>>> INTEREST OF SOCIETY.
>>>
>>> I believe that to be bullshit and contrary to the rule of law.
>>
>> Too bad. Practicing law in the United States, then, is not for you. Try
>> France.
>
> You practice law? With the corrupted value system you campaign for I
> sincerely hope not!
I study the law -- particularly Constitutional law -- as a hobby. I don't
have a fraction of the knowledge needed to practice it. But I can read, and
I know the arguments about formalism versus discretion, and pretty much who
is on each side. The judicial formalists are about as numerous, as a
percentage, as the people who vote for Libertarian presidential candidates.
>
>>> Special
>>> privileges cannot be allowed to thwart the rule of law. Only a jury is
>>> legally authorized to make that determination. Your end-run on law
>>> doesn't pass the sniff test.
>>
>> Except that it's true. You're off in a land of your own imagination.
>> Look it up.
>
> No doubt corruption exists. Corruption is impossible to contain
> completely however we must work to halt as much as possible. That is why
> I'm adamantly against your campaign to undermine the rule of law.
Corruption of what? You think this is so simple. The "rule of law" is
complicated. There are at least three definitions of it. And it almost
always applies to equality of treatment WHEN ONE IS PROSECUTED. You're
apparently assuming that it applies both to prosecution and to the decision
not to prosecute. You could open a very large argument about this, but let
me try to cut to the chase: The judiciary in the United States does not
dictate to the Executive which cases it must prosecute. Again, you'd be more
comfortable on this point in France.
Here's a very brief summary of one of the operant cases, Newman v. United
States. In less than 100 words, you'll see how it works in American
jurisprudence:
>
>>>> It is their decision to
>>>> make. It is, for all intents, unreviewable. Prosecutors are enormously
>>>> powerful in our system.
>>>
>>> Based upon an unproven, and illegal, theory.
>>
>> Based on American jurisprudence. Did you read the article I pointed you
>> to? That's the way it is in the US.
>>
>>>> Burn that point into your memory. It is essential to understanding our
>>>> unique jurisprudence. Here's a succinct explanation of how it works:
>>>>
>>>> http://law.jrank.org/pages/1870/Prosecution-Prosecutorial-
>>> Discretion.html
>>>
>>> That's an opinion, not a law. One that flys in the face of reality.
>>
>> Reality? I can probably find examples in today's paper that demonstrate
>> that it's reality. That's the way it works.
>
> Did you read any cites? Any law references?
> Your link is an opinion,
> nothing more. A worthless opinion posted only because it supports your
> twisted version of law and justice.
>
> Not the law in the Constitution or legislation.
See the Newman case, above.
>
>> What you're describing is the way that John Ashcroft wanted it to work,
>> and, temporarily, enforced. He unleashed a firestorm. If you have access
>> to professional journals, see this:
>>
>> "Ethical Necessity: The Ashcroft Memorandum's Curtailment of the
>> Prosecutor's Duty to 'Seek Justice'." Cornell Law Review, Vol. 90, p.
>> 237, 2004.
>
> Bullshit. Do not misrepresent a demand for lawful behavior to that of
> curtailing justice. I didn't expect you to stoop to Republican tricks
> just because you're losing an argument.
Ashcroft's dictate would have curtailed justice, in the opinion of every
federal prosecutor who was enraged by it -- which is most of them. The next
AG immediately reversed it.
>
>> You can join the debate on legal formalism and "the noble lie." You'll
>> find a friend in Justice Thomas. But the reality is that wide ranging
>> prosecutorial discretion is practiced universally in American
>> jurisprudence, and it has a sound basis in our approach to law. It suits
>> our principle that serving our common sense of justice is the proper
>> objective of our system.
>>
>> Neither you nor I are qualified to debate it in terms of its legal
>> foundations. But you can look it up and see that it is the way things
>> are.
>
> Another misdirection.
From what?
>
>>>> The fairness of our system is widely, although not universally,
>>>> admired.
>>>
>>> You haven't traveled much recently, have you?
>>
>> Now, THAT's ad hominem. See the difference?
>
> You're wrong again. It's a question. It might also be hiding an ad
> homenim however you cannot prove that.
It's a "declarative question" -- a declarative statement that begs for
justification. It's a rhetorical device intended to soften or obscure the
declarative statement.
As for it being an ad hominem, perhaps not. If you intend to suggest that I
don't know if our judicial system is widely admired because you think I
haven't travelled much, then it is.
>
>>>> It has served us well for over 200 years.
>>>
>>> "It" based upon opinion.
>>
>> "It" based on the way it really is.
>
> Nope, based upon your perverted opinion of law and justice.
Nope, based on the way our judicial system actually operates.
>
>>>> If you don't like it, you're
>>>> free to promote something else and to try to get it past the
>>>> electorate. Good luck on that, because, at some level, most people
>>>> recognize that there are reasons not to prosecute, on the order of the
>>>> ones I've mentioned in this thread. And they're suspicious of changing
>>>> it.
>>>
>>> Now you sound like the rednecks from 1970, "America, love it or leave
>>> it." You do not have the legal ability, let alone the ethical
>>> pedestal, to determine what laws/perps get to avoid prosecution.
>>
>> I'm not a prosecutor. Neither are you. The discretion issue is about
>> their behavior, not ours.
>
> Nope, prosecutors must follow the law.
Look, Curly, I've already showed you that their judgment about "following
the law" and yours do not agree. The principle of prosecutorial discretion
is supported at all levels of our judicial system. (See the Newman case,
above. Read the whole case if you don't like the summary. It's easy to
find.) "Following the law," in the American system of jurisprudence, means
that you can't prosecute someone outside of the laws. It doesn't mean you
HAVE TO prosecute them.
I've supplied plenty of evidence that this is true. If you don't get it, or
don't want to get it, then so be it.
> Just like you, I and Bush. If
> any of us step out of line society must be assured that we will receive
> the proper legal defense, trial and/or punishment.
>
> Your prediction of what some people might opine after a trial is
> insufficient to trump law.
>
>>> Allowing criminals to escape prosecution is against all that is
>>> American. If *you* don't like that then leave...
>>>
>>>
>> Correction -- it's all that is libretardian wack-a-doodle utopianism. I
>> know how it actually works. You do, too. Read a newspaper.
>
> I'm sorry you picked this argument. I had a higher opinion of you than
> to support the undermining of American Jurisprudence and justice.
You don't know what American jurisprudence is, as I've sufficiently
documented. In regard to our legal system, it's clear that you live in your
own imagination.
--
Ed Huntress
Curly Surmudgeon
<hunt...@optonline.net> wrote:
Nope, you're trying to misdirect the debate. Again.
I've said repeatedly, you do not get to exempt some crooks based upon
your prediction of public opinion should they be tried.
Do not twist my words. I've clearly stated this position a myriad of
times. You've gone off on tangents repeatedly to evade the clarity of
those words.
Bush does not get a "Get Out Of Jail Free" card simply because the
Republicans will have a tantrum.
<snip irrelevancy>
Joseph Gwinn
"Ed Huntress" <hunt...@optonline.net> wrote:
Well, it sure sounds ad hominem to me, specifically the circumstantial
kind, in this case asserting that an opponent is wrong because he lacks
adequate understanding. <http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ad_hominem>
It's also circular, because what one side claims is lack of education
may in fact be disagreement on a fundamental point.
<http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Circular_logic>
More generally, it's safest to avoid all personal comments in arguments
about the facts of an issue.
By the way, I do agree with your basic point about prosecutorial
discretion.
Joe Gwinn
Ed Huntress
"Joseph Gwinn" <joeg...@comcast.net> wrote in message
news:joegwinn-6B152E...@news.giganews.com...
It's a degenerative use, Joe. If you follow the Wikipedia references, you'll
see this comment in their first source, the _American Heritage Dictionary_:
They say "The expression now also has a looser use in referring to any
personal attack, whether or not it is part of an argument." That's not
logic. That's a co-option of the term by sloppy writers. And, as one who
used _AHD_ as a style source through my many years as an editor, a "loose
use" is a case of AHD juggling its traditional prescriptive function while
tipping its hat to journalistic uses -- a balance that it often doesn't
strike very well.
And the Wikipedia entry flatly contradicts its own references in that
regard. They include, in their very first sentence, a definition of ad
hominem in which they say "...but it is not always fallacious; in some
instances, questions of personal conduct, character, motives, etc., are
legitimate and relevant to the issue..." Then they use a series of
references throughout the article that say (correctly) that a key to ad
hominem is that the argument is NOT relevant to the issue. This is another
example, most likely, of a Wikipedia article producing hash by having too
many fingers in the pot.
One of their references goes into fine detail about the proper use of the
term, and, if the Wikipedia contributors had heeded it, they wouldn't have
gotten themselves into that contradiction, and they would have been able to
distinguish the use of the term in logic from the sloppier, often illogical
uses:
http://plover.net/~bonds/adhominem.html
That's a good one; the writer has really studied what he's talking about.
There is a way to judge whether any term from deductive logic is being used
correctly: Plug it into syllogistic form, and see how it stacks up. If you
have to reach for some unwritten "implication" to shoehorn it into a
syllogism, the term probably is being used inappropriately. You're probably
dealing with an aside, or a correlative conclusion, or, as the Wikipedia
article points out, "Gratuitous verbal abuse or "name-calling" [which]
itself is not an ad hominem or a logical fallacy." Then it's a question of
how delicate one's sensibilities are. d8-)
>
> It's also circular, because what one side claims is lack of education
> may in fact be disagreement on a fundamental point.
> <http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Circular_logic>
It's not circular. My comments about Curly's understanding of the issue is a
CONCLUSION, not a PREMISE. I just put the conclusion on the front of the
passage.
If I said "because," or "therefore," or if it was unequivocally a premise in
the deduction, then you could be right (but even then, not necessarily).
But, again, it is not a premise. I don't use it as a part of the argument.
It's just a comment and a conclusion. My [counter]argument was the part
based on facts about how prosecutorial discretion is exercised in actual
practice. And that isn't a matter of opinion. It's a matter of counting. It
didn't even involve the question of whether it was a good thing or not.
>
>
> More generally, it's safest to avoid all personal comments in arguments
> about the facts of an issue.
Tell that to Curly. His very first comment to me in this thread was that I
was "supporting treason." d8-) After that, the gloves are off.
Ed Huntress
*I* don't get to do it. *You* don't get to do it. But prosecutors get to do
it.
>
> Do not twist my words. I've clearly stated this position a myriad of
> times. You've gone off on tangents repeatedly to evade the clarity of
> those words.
>
You're not as clear about it as you think, Curly.
> Bush does not get a "Get Out Of Jail Free" card simply because the
> Republicans will have a tantrum.
Not to try to read Holder's mind, but I can see where he might decide that
the conflict it would cause throughout the country is likely to exceed the
satisfaction felt by HALF of the country that justice would be done by
prosecuting him. 'Sounds reasonable.
--
Ed Huntress