The Muhammed Cartoons
Johnny
humor . . . or
common sense. Send them a subscription to National Lampoon
and tapes of
Saturday Night Live until they figure out that it is
traditional for
iconoclastic satire to have no respect for anything and to
take nothing
seriously, including itself.
-Johnny (The more sacred the cow, the bigger the target.)
Red Schism
Why aren't liberals condemning the protests?
Oh, that's right, because they're hypocrites.
Geoffrey F. Green
"Red Schism" <reds...@yahoo.com> wrote:
Gee, you mean the liberals in power? Which folks are those?
Anyhow, what is there to be said beyond, say, what the New York Times
editorial page says here:
<http://www.nytimes.com/2006/02/07/opinion/07tue2.html?_r=1&n=Top%2fOpi
nion%2fEditorials%20and%20Op%2dEd%2fEditorials&oref=slogin> (sorry for
the crappy URL).
Who exactly should be condemning the protests that isn't? I'm liberal,
and I'm happy to so if that'll be satisfactory.
- geoff
fundoc
"Johnny" <apt...@cox.net> wrote in message
news:zwtGf.3546$MJ.2538@fed1read07...
That's easy for you to say. But after seeing these two rejected Weasel album
covers
http://www.theweasels.com/rejecta.html
http://www.theweasels.com/rejectb.html
a group of carmelite nuns came by my house last week and attempted to burn
down the shed.
I was forced to set the dogs on them.
fundoc
> The bottom line is that the protesters have no sense of humor . . .
Indeed. It's hard to believe that people who strap bombs to their
midsections and blow up buses full of children are so lacking in a sense of
whimsy.
Johnny
I think that's what I just did. Duh. Are you so filled with
hate for anything you perceive as liberal that you can't see
beyond the end of your stinking breath? Your sense of humor
as well as your sense of proportion could benefit from some
common sense adjustments.
Jason Bell
Johnny wrote:
Hey, I'm as liberal as they get, and I am spitting
mad at the idea that someone can, as a tenet of
their religion, attempt to impose any sort of
thought / act / speech restriction on me, when
I am not an adherent of that religion.
But, conservatives wouldn't know anything about
that, would they? What, with the ten commandment
statues, the gay marriage bans, and what have you?
Wait, explain to me who the hypocrites are again,
I'm confused.
- Jason Bell
Jason Bell
fundoc wrote:
> "Johnny" <apt...@cox.net> wrote in message
> news:zwtGf.3546$MJ.2538@fed1read07...
>
>
>>The bottom line is that the protesters have no sense of humor . . .
>
>
>
> Indeed. It's hard to believe that people who strap bombs to their
> midsections and blow up buses full of children are so lacking in a sense of
> whimsy.
And assasinating doctors, don't forget how they
assasinate doctors. Oh, wait, that's the
anti-abortionists, my bad.
Birds of a feather, and all that.
- Jason Bell
Steve Cutchen
wrote:
> -Johnny (The more sacred the cow, the bigger the target.)
What does India have to do with this?
Steve Cutchen
<bl...@blah.com> wrote:
> "Johnny" <apt...@cox.net> wrote in message
> news:zwtGf.3546$MJ.2538@fed1read07...
>
> > The bottom line is that the protesters have no sense of humor . . .
>
>
> Indeed. It's hard to believe that people who strap bombs to their
> midsections and blow up buses full of children are so lacking in a sense of
> whimsy.
And murdering doctors, don't forget how they
murder babies. Oh, wait, that's the
fundoc
"Jason Bell" <Jason...@mail.com> wrote in message
news:AZDGf.11434$915....@southeast.rr.com...
> I'm confused.
You're not confused, you're a fucking imbecile. I'd explain the difference,
but it'd only make you stupider.
Donnie Barnes
> And assasinating doctors, don't forget how they
> assasinate doctors. Oh, wait, that's the
> anti-abortionists, my bad.
>
> Birds of a feather, and all that.
Now, I'm no pro-lifer (though I am a republican), but it seems pretty silly
to compare abortion clinic bombings to Muslim terrorist bombings. The main
difference here is volume, with the secondary difference being that I'm not
even sure we've *had* suicide abortion clinic bombings. If we've seen
those, it's still pretty rare.
--Donnie
--
Donnie Barnes http://www.donniebarnes.com 879. V.
fundoc
"Donnie Barnes" <djbSPA...@donniebarnes.com> wrote in message
news:slrndumlg6.39...@localhost.localdomain...
> On Thu, 09 Feb, Jason Bell wrote:
>> And assasinating doctors, don't forget how they
>> assasinate doctors. Oh, wait, that's the
>> anti-abortionists, my bad.
>>
>> Birds of a feather, and all that.
>
> Now, I'm no pro-lifer (though I am a republican), but it seems pretty
> silly
> to compare abortion clinic bombings to Muslim terrorist bombings. The
> main
> difference here is volume, with the secondary difference being that I'm
> not
> even sure we've *had* suicide abortion clinic bombings. If we've seen
> those, it's still pretty rare.
If you're opening one of dumbBell's posts in the hope of finding
intelligence you might as well diaper your baby in canvas and hope it shits
a Modigliani.
Geoffrey F. Green
Donnie Barnes <djbSPA...@donniebarnes.com> wrote:
> I'm not
> even sure we've *had* suicide abortion clinic bombings.
Nah. They usually try to get away from the scene before anything bad
happens.
- geoff
Red Schism
Jason Bell wrote:
> But, conservatives wouldn't know anything about
> that, would they? What, with the ten commandment
> statues, the gay marriage bans, and what have you?
Gay marriage ban? So you would extend that "right" to polygamists and
incestuous couples?
Critical of the Iraq campaign? Where were you when Clinton bombed
Serbia?
Like I said, "hypocrites".
Geoffrey F. Green
"Red Schism" <reds...@yahoo.com> wrote:
> Gay marriage ban? So you would extend that "right" to polygamists and
> incestuous couples?
Yea, and also between humans in animals. More seriously, I generally
think of my gay friends in committed relationships to be the same as
an incestuous couple. Which is why, since gay marriage became legal in
Massachusetts, approximately nothing bad has happened. Well, except
for the apocolypse nearing.
> Critical of the Iraq campaign? Where were you when Clinton bombed
> Serbia?
Hey, I agree. It is definitely hypocritical to be critical of
Clinton's decision to send troops to Serbia yet supportive of the Iraq
war. Like these folks.
http://www.dailykos.com/storyonly/2005/8/17/144732/740
And, on the other side, it is obviously hypocritical to be supportive
of the campaign in Serbia and critical of the invasion of Iraq which
was based on fudged intelligence and which has, to date, cost loads
more money (with more to come), cost the lives of many more American
soldiers, and has accomplished not a whole lot.
> Like I said, "hypocrites".
Who, the Republicans?
Remember when lying about something like oral sex was a big deal and
worthy of impeachment? Those were the days...
Now if you'll excuse me, I need to go back to fulfilling my duty as a
Jewish liberal and destroy some more of America's cultural values.
- geoff
Red Schism
Geoffrey F. Green wrote:
> In article <1139521862.9...@g14g2000cwa.googlegroups.com>,
> "Red Schism" <reds...@yahoo.com> wrote:
>
> > Gay marriage ban? So you would extend that "right" to polygamists and
> > incestuous couples?
>
> Yea, and also between humans in animals. More seriously, I generally
> think of my gay friends in committed relationships to be the same as
> an incestuous couple. Which is why, since gay marriage became legal in
> Massachusetts, approximately nothing bad has happened. Well, except
> for the apocolypse nearing.
Red herring.
> > Critical of the Iraq campaign? Where were you when Clinton bombed
> > Serbia?
>
> Hey, I agree. It is definitely hypocritical to be critical of
> Clinton's decision to send troops to Serbia yet supportive of the Iraq
> war. Like these folks.
> http://www.dailykos.com/storyonly/2005/8/17/144732/740
>
> And, on the other side, it is obviously hypocritical to be supportive
> of the campaign in Serbia and critical of the invasion of Iraq which
> was based on fudged intelligence and which has, to date, cost loads
> more money (with more to come), cost the lives of many more American
> soldiers, and has accomplished not a whole lot.
The intelligence was wrong, no doubt, but they only knew that *after*
the fact. The French, British, Russians, etc., all believe Saddam had
WMDs. Yes, there were dissenters, but that doesn't that Bush lied.
> Remember when lying about something like oral sex was a big deal and
> worthy of impeachment? Those were the days...
He lied under oath. *That* was the issue, not the fact that he cheated
on his wife. BTW, I am not a Clinton-hater.
Zaphod Beeblebrox
I love how that last line is always required when the subject comes up.
--
I'm so hip I have trouble seeing over my pelvis.
I'm so cool you can keep a side of meat in me for months.
Geoffrey F. Green
"Red Schism" <reds...@yahoo.com> wrote:
> Geoffrey F. Green wrote:
> > In article <1139521862.9...@g14g2000cwa.googlegroups.com>,
> > "Red Schism" <reds...@yahoo.com> wrote:
> >
> > > Gay marriage ban? So you would extend that "right" to polygamists and
> > > incestuous couples?
> >
> > Yea, and also between humans in animals. More seriously, I generally
> > think of my gay friends in committed relationships to be the same as
> > an incestuous couple. Which is why, since gay marriage became legal in
> > Massachusetts, approximately nothing bad has happened. Well, except
> > for the apocolypse nearing.
>
> Red herring.
Hmmmm... exactly how is Massachusetts' experience with gay marriage a
red herring?
>
> > > Critical of the Iraq campaign? Where were you when Clinton bombed
> > > Serbia?
> >
> > Hey, I agree. It is definitely hypocritical to be critical of
> > Clinton's decision to send troops to Serbia yet supportive of the Iraq
> > war. Like these folks.
> > http://www.dailykos.com/storyonly/2005/8/17/144732/740
> >
> > And, on the other side, it is obviously hypocritical to be supportive
> > of the campaign in Serbia and critical of the invasion of Iraq which
> > was based on fudged intelligence and which has, to date, cost loads
> > more money (with more to come), cost the lives of many more American
> > soldiers, and has accomplished not a whole lot.
>
> The intelligence was wrong, no doubt, but they only knew that *after*
> the fact. The French, British, Russians, etc., all believe Saddam had
> WMDs. Yes, there were dissenters, but that doesn't that Bush lied.
The intelligence that supported the claim of WMDs was heralded and
given way too much credence. Intelligence that tended to show there
were no WMDs was dismissed.
Perhaps it's inappropriate to use the word lying. But it was
definitely fudged, because the architects of the war wanted war and
looked for evidence to start one.
> > Remember when lying about something like oral sex was a big deal and
> > worthy of impeachment? Those were the days...
>
> He lied under oath. *That* was the issue, not the fact that he cheated
> on his wife. BTW, I am not a Clinton-hater.
Sure. But lying in a civil deposition about a matter ancillary to the
case would never ever ever result in a criminal prosecution for
perjury.
- geoff
Donnie Barnes
> Perhaps it's inappropriate to use the word lying. But it was
> definitely fudged, because the architects of the war wanted war and
> looked for evidence to start one.
And the motive for that was?
Howard Lander
> On Thu, 09 Feb, Geoffrey F. Green wrote:
>
>>Perhaps it's inappropriate to use the word lying. But it was
>>definitely fudged, because the architects of the war wanted war and
>>looked for evidence to start one.
>
>
> And the motive for that was?
The neo-con dream of bringing a shining democratic Iraq to the middle
east. That was their motive and war with Iraq was inevitable as soon as
Bush V Gore was decided. Of course, it will be left to the historians
to make the judgement, but that is my personal opinion, and I believe
there is already substantial evidence to support it. I don't think this
is the right forum for this discussion, so this is all I want to say
about it. But you asked ...
Oh, wait one more thought: A good friend of mine offered the following
opinion after the O.J acquital "The police were so sure O.J. was guilty
that they framed him to be sure he was convicted". I think that's what
really happened in the lead-up to the war. The Bush administration was
so sure the weapons were there, they didn't mind misrepresenting what
was really known and they didn't bother to examine the data on which
their assumptions were built. "So what", they must have thought, "once
we get in there and find the weapons. no one will ever question anything
we said". Oops ...
Howard
>
>
> --Donnie
>
Geoffrey F. Green
Donnie Barnes <djbSPA...@donniebarnes.com> wrote:
> On Thu, 09 Feb, Geoffrey F. Green wrote:
> > Perhaps it's inappropriate to use the word lying. But it was
> > definitely fudged, because the architects of the war wanted war and
> > looked for evidence to start one.
>
> And the motive for that was?
Well, I'm sure there was some honest belief that Iraq was a huge
threat to the US, and that once the neocons got into positions of
power they cherrypicked the intelligence to support their view. But
more importantly I think that for years the neocons had wanted to
"finish the job" in Iraq because they really and genuinely thought
that after the fall of Saddam a democratic Iraq would flourish like an
oasis in the middle of a desert, and that this new Iraq would be a
beacon of democracy and progressivism in the Arab world. They felt so
strongly about the righteousness of their cause that they ignored
contrary evidence of Saddam's dangerousness and disregarded all who
thought that the rebuilding of Iraq would be fraught with peril. THus
they hijacked fear of the fundamentalist Islamic terrorism that had
reached American shores and convinced the American people to attack
the one country that was not such a hotbed of fundamentalist action.
That's just my take.
- geoff
Red Schism
Zaphod Beeblebrox wrote:
> > He lied under oath. *That* was the issue, not the fact that he cheated
> > on his wife. BTW, I am not a Clinton-hater.
> >
>
> I love how that last line is always required when the subject comes up.
It's not required. I honestly think Clinton did a lot of things that
conservatives should be praising him for, insteading of trashing him.
Red Schism
Geoffrey F. Green wrote:
> > And the motive for that was?
>
> Well, I'm sure there was some honest belief that Iraq was a huge
> threat to the US, and that once the neocons got into positions of
> power they cherrypicked the intelligence to support their view. But
> more importantly I think that for years the neocons had wanted to
> "finish the job" in Iraq because they really and genuinely thought
> that after the fall of Saddam a democratic Iraq would flourish like an
> oasis in the middle of a desert, and that this new Iraq would be a
> beacon of democracy and progressivism in the Arab world. They felt so
> strongly about the righteousness of their cause that they ignored
> contrary evidence of Saddam's dangerousness and disregarded all who
> thought that the rebuilding of Iraq would be fraught with peril. THus
> they hijacked fear of the fundamentalist Islamic terrorism that had
> reached American shores and convinced the American people to attack
> the one country that was not such a hotbed of fundamentalist action.
>
> That's just my take.
>
> - geoff
I actually agree with a lot of what you wrote here. I do think that
the Bush Administration sincerely believed that Saddam had WMDs, but
made a decision on that too fast. I do think the ultimate goal for
them was to spread democracy in the Middle East- which will be a good
thing, if it works. Don't forget the Syria pulled out of Lebanon and
Libya gave up WMDs because of the Iraq war.
Donnie Barnes
> Well, I'm sure there was some honest belief that Iraq was a huge
> threat to the US, and that once the neocons got into positions of
> power they cherrypicked the intelligence to support their view. But
> more importantly I think that for years the neocons had wanted to
> "finish the job" in Iraq because they really and genuinely thought
> that after the fall of Saddam a democratic Iraq would flourish like an
> oasis in the middle of a desert, and that this new Iraq would be a
> beacon of democracy and progressivism in the Arab world. They felt so
> strongly about the righteousness of their cause that they ignored
> contrary evidence of Saddam's dangerousness and disregarded all who
> thought that the rebuilding of Iraq would be fraught with peril. THus
> they hijacked fear of the fundamentalist Islamic terrorism that had
> reached American shores and convinced the American people to attack
> the one country that was not such a hotbed of fundamentalist action.
>
> That's just my take.
Every time someone posts something like that I just can't help but think
"damn, I ain't seen a politician yet that was smart enough to put all that
together." But maybe that's just me.
Geoffrey F. Green
Donnie Barnes <djbSPA...@donniebarnes.com> wrote:
What do you mean?
- geoff
Red Schism
Geoffrey F. Green wrote:
> In article <1139527426....@g44g2000cwa.googlegroups.com>,
> "Red Schism" <reds...@yahoo.com> wrote:
>
> > Geoffrey F. Green wrote:
> > > In article <1139521862.9...@g14g2000cwa.googlegroups.com>,
> > > "Red Schism" <reds...@yahoo.com> wrote:
> > >
> > > > Gay marriage ban? So you would extend that "right" to polygamists and
> > > > incestuous couples?
> > >
> > > Yea, and also between humans in animals. More seriously, I generally
> > > think of my gay friends in committed relationships to be the same as
> > > an incestuous couple. Which is why, since gay marriage became legal in
> > > Massachusetts, approximately nothing bad has happened. Well, except
> > > for the apocolypse nearing.
> >
> > Red herring.
>
> Hmmmm... exactly how is Massachusetts' experience with gay marriage a
> red herring?
It's a red herring because I asked why you wouldn't give polygamists
and incestuous couples the right to marry but you think gays should be
able to get married. You answered by saying that nothing bad happened
with gay marriage was legalized in Mass. That's a red herring. You
didn't address my point.
Jason Bell
Red Schism wrote:
What on earth does this have to do with the
topic at hand, which is the imposition of
religion on people who are not its adherents?
How convenient that you would try to move the
discussion from the topic at hand to another,
completely unrelated topic. Clinton? I'm just
shocked that a conservative would be desperate
to turn any criticism into something about
Clinton.
Let's stick with impositions by government
based upon religion.
Teh Gheys. Yes, restrictions on gay marriage
is a religious-based act restriction against
a group that is found to be morally reprehensible
by an interpretation of a religious book. It gets
a double-dip by simultaneously challenging the
religious rules of who can and cannot be married.
The religious-based act restriction is also true
of sodomy laws.
Also, those who seek to protect the right to
discriminate on the basis of homosexuality appeal
to religion, insisting that homosexuality is a
sin, and therefore homosexuals are not worthy of
civil rights as a group, being merely a collection
of sinning individuals.
Under God. Yes, if you are to pledge allegiance
to this great country, you must acknowledge that
it exists under god. Thanks, Ike.
Abortion and birth control. Restrictions and
bans on these measures (particularly birth control)
are dominated by religious imposition. From
every sperm is sacred Catholicism to abstinence
only morality to humanity at conception from a
religious book.
Science as taught. Creationism taught to young
science students as scientific theory instead
of religious origin myth, and the accompanying
attempts to marginalize evolutionary theory,
the Big Bang, and the age of the planet and
the universe is simply disgusting. Guess what
all that is based on? Nope, not Clinton,
guess again.
Science and medicine as practiced. Stem cell
research bans, euthanasia laws. Suicide is
a sin, regardless of how much pain you are in
or the fatal certainty of your illness. And
speaking of fatal illnesses, you had better
destroy those fertilized eggs that the
test-tube couple doesn't need anymore instead
of using the stem cells to research cures
and treatments. God knows why.
- Jason Bell
Geoffrey F. Green
"Red Schism" <reds...@yahoo.com> wrote:
Ahhhh. My response then is that I believe there are profound
differences among those three categories. I don't consider it
hypocritical to be in favor of one and not the other two.
- geoff
Jason Bell
Donnie Barnes wrote:
> On Thu, 09 Feb, Jason Bell wrote:
>
>>And assasinating doctors, don't forget how they
>>assasinate doctors. Oh, wait, that's the
>>anti-abortionists, my bad.
>>
>>Birds of a feather, and all that.
>
>
> Now, I'm no pro-lifer (though I am a republican), but it seems pretty silly
> to compare abortion clinic bombings to Muslim terrorist bombings. The main
> difference here is volume, with the secondary difference being that I'm not
> even sure we've *had* suicide abortion clinic bombings. If we've seen
> those, it's still pretty rare.
Homicide bombings, we've been told to call them
homicide bombings. But ok, if you want to
draw a heavy line distinction between groups
of people who don't mind killing civilians to
further their political / religious objectives,
then that's your call.
Personally, I am inclined to put Eric Rudolph
squarely in the same box as any other religious
fanatic who attempts to kill civilians with
explosives. It beggars belief that you would
not see the similarity.
But hey, that's just free candy on top of my
original point, which was murder justified by
religious belief.
If you want to draw a heavy line distinction
between Christian fundamentalists who murder
abortion doctors and Muslim fundamentalists
who murder the objects of their religious
hate, then that's your call. Most
responsible people know well enough to call
both groups terrorists.
And if volume is your heavy line evidence
of difference, then I sincerely hope that
I am not the first to assure you that the
vast majority of muslims do not kill civilians,
just as the vast majority of christians do
not.
And finally, if the simultaneous act of
suicide and murder is your heavy line
distinction, then you are both missing
the original point and making a distinction
in terms of tactic instead of on result.
I'm not sure how I can take that seriously.
- Jason Bell
Jason Bell
Steve Cutchen wrote:
They murder babies? Holy cow, perhaps they
should be prosecuted and imprisoned!
We'd better prosecute anyone who would allow
for their baby to be murdered as well, too.
Or by your implication, perhaps we should
encourage the murder of the parents as well?
Oh, wait, you said baby but meant fetus, didn't
you? You got me there, how clever of you
to equate two things that perhaps you
believe to be the same, but most people and
the law do not believe to be the same.
Oh, you did that to make the murder of a
doctor acting within the law seem more
justifyable, didn't you?
How do you feel about murder for the sake
of clothing and fashion? PETA thinks it
is horrifying and criminal, should they
be entitled to murder you for wearing
birds or a feather?
- Jason Bell
Red Schism
Geoffrey F. Green wrote:
> > It's a red herring because I asked why you wouldn't give polygamists
> > and incestuous couples the right to marry but you think gays should be
> > able to get married. You answered by saying that nothing bad happened
> > with gay marriage was legalized in Mass. That's a red herring. You
> > didn't address my point.
>
> Ahhhh. My response then is that I believe there are profound
> differences among those three categories. I don't consider it
> hypocritical to be in favor of one and not the other two.
and those 'profound' differences are what?
Donnie Barnes
Politicians are dumb *and* they don't have such "high" motivations as
caring if they spread democracy to foreign nations or not. They care about
getting re-elected, and I don't know of a single US organization that's
putting pressure on our government to spread democracy. We got
organizations that lobby for about everything under the sun *except* that.
Donnie Barnes
Seriously, why do you have to be such a jerk in what was a civil debate? I
really just don't get it. I guess this is an emotional topic for you, but
please try to calm down a bit.
You can boil it down all you want, but the "problems" of Muslim suicide
terrorists and Christian fundamentalist terrorists are just not very
analogous. Sure, they're both just as wrong, but the two are happening on
very different scales here. I see the abortion folks as a bit more on the
"radical" side and the suicide bombers in the middle east as becoming
pretty much the normal and only way they are fighting back. *shrug*
Geoffrey F. Green
Donnie Barnes <djbSPA...@donniebarnes.com> wrote:
> On Fri, 10 Feb, Geoffrey F. Green wrote:
> > What do you mean?
>
> Politicians are dumb *and* they don't have such "high" motivations as
> caring if they spread democracy to foreign nations or not. They care about
> getting re-elected, and I don't know of a single US organization that's
> putting pressure on our government to spread democracy. We got
> organizations that lobby for about everything under the sun *except* that.
The only elected official who was important to the plot is Cheney.
Bush was convinced it was a good idea, and everyone else who
contributed to the effort was involved in unelected positions
government or in other ways though their own private efforts. See, for
example, Paul Wolfowitz. I'm not saying this was a big conspiracy with
meetings and whatnot, but these were like-minded folks who thought
invading Iraq (for whatever reason) would be a slam dunk, and 9/11
gave them the opportunity to get it done.
- geoff
Donnie Barnes
> The only elected official who was important to the plot is Cheney.
> Bush was convinced it was a good idea, and everyone else who
> contributed to the effort was involved in unelected positions
> government or in other ways though their own private efforts. See, for
> example, Paul Wolfowitz. I'm not saying this was a big conspiracy with
> meetings and whatnot, but these were like-minded folks who thought
> invading Iraq (for whatever reason) would be a slam dunk, and 9/11
> gave them the opportunity to get it done.
Yeah, I'm not sure those people are smart enough, either.
That said, in my opinion the big mistake was not that they based the reason
for war on WMDs. There were *lots* of good reasons for the war (not many
of which on their own were good enough, but once you have enough of
them...) but they made the poor decision of using WMDs as the way to *sell*
the war to the American people. Oops. I still can't help but wonder if
there weren't WMDs that he was able to get rid of, though. If there
wasn't, why was he so damned resistant to the searches?
navin
Careful now, talking about art is going to get you tagged as a "liberal."
navin
I think a better analogy would be Christian fundamentalists from 500
years ago versus Muslim terrorists today. Except you can do a lot more
damage with weapons today than 500 years ago.
Red Schism
Donnie Barnes wrote:
> You can boil it down all you want, but the "problems" of Muslim suicide
> terrorists and Christian fundamentalist terrorists are just not very
> analogous. Sure, they're both just as wrong, but the two are happening on
> very different scales here. I see the abortion folks as a bit more on the
> "radical" side and the suicide bombers in the middle east as becoming
> pretty much the normal and only way they are fighting back. *shrug*
>
>
> --Donnie
How is it that people who want to prevent the murder of an innocent
unborn baby is "radical"? By the way, most want to limit abortions, so
it's not a "radical" position at all. Most people don't want Roe vs.
Wade overturned because they mistakenly think it would make *all*
abortions illegal, when, in fact, overturning Roe v Wade wouldn't make
abortion illegal at all.
There is like 1 'Christian' "terrorist" for every 1,000 Muslim
terrorists. While I think Israel should definitely leave the occupied
territory, Israel is a democracy, and the Muslims want to spread
theocracy- that is a *huge* difference in the two.
Jason Bell
This brings me to one of the most terrifying ideas that I have heard in
a long time, it goes basically like this, apologies to the author, who I
have forgotten:
"The more I think about it, the more terrifying the parallels become
between our age--when the first literate generation of urban Arabs have
direct unmediated access to their Holy Book--and western Europe's
sixteenth century--when printing gave the urban literate their first
direct unmediated access to their Holy Book.
Only they had pikes, armor, horses, and gunpowder. While we have nuclear
weapons."
- Jason Bell
Jason Bell
Donnie Barnes wrote:
I also do not get, though I am completely
unsurprised, that you continue to take
any criticism of your position, particularly
spirited criticism, as a personal attack.
I say that you are wrong, and you hear me
say that you are bad. There is no cure for
it I fear, because I just have to tell you
that you are wrong again, and around we go.
The only advice I can give you, until you
realize the truth of the above two statements,
is simply to read the original post again.
If you still think I am a jerk for believing
that you are wrong and supporting that belief,
well then there is no help for it, and people
who disagree with you are just jerks.
> You can boil it down all you want, but the "problems" of Muslim suicide
> terrorists and Christian fundamentalist terrorists are just not very
> analogous. Sure, they're both just as wrong, but the two are happening on
> very different scales here. I see the abortion folks as a bit more on the
> "radical" side and the suicide bombers in the middle east as becoming
> pretty much the normal and only way they are fighting back. *shrug*
First off, if you do not find anything analogous
between Eric Rudolph's campaign of terror and
a suicide bomber choosing targets based upon
his religion, I suppose we will just have to
disagree.
Also, I think you might be attributing as
muslim extremism too much of what should
more properly be seen as guerillas fighting
in a conflict which they could not hope to
compete on a conventional level.
The United States throughout the Cold War
believed that it could not fight a conventional
war against the superior troop strength of
the USSR, and therefore would not guarantee
that the USA would never be the first to use
nuclear weapons in a conflict.
But back to the issue at hand.
Different scales here? Here we have had muslim
fundamentalist terrorists attack Pentagon and
World Trade (three times, twice in one day).
We have had domestic terrorists (some distincly
christian, some merely attached to violent
christian movements) attack Oklahoma City,
the 1996 Olympics, a very large number of
doctors, and a somewhat lesser number of
clinics, and quite a bit of hate crime
violence against teh gheys. I still don't
know how to classify the antrax mailings,
but I'm confident it was not muslim
fanaticism.
Christian terrorism wins on pure numbers,
muslim terrorism on one-day total. The
Buddhists, well, not so much aside from
the self-immolation. The aetheists and
agnostics take it all personally, and I
can't remember a judaism terrorist
event in America, though there have been
several in Israel, and a great many more
there at the time of its founding.
If I have misinterpreted your use of "here"
and you meant overall instead of on these
shores, well then I find the comparison
problemmatic, as I do not think the
fundamentalist muslim effect can be properly
teased out from the nationalist, anti-imperialist,
state-sponsored, or gueriallas at war effects
that go into many overseas acts of violence
against American interests.
- Jason Bell
Sam Peckinpah
"navin" <us...@example.net> wrote in message
news:0bVGf.11526$915....@southeast.rr.com...
Comm. F. Mohr: Are you men associated with the American army?
Dutch: No. No, we're not associated with anybody. We share very few
sympathies.
Edward M. Kennedy
>> I'm confused.
>
> You're not confused, you're a fucking imbecile. I'd explain the difference, but it'd only make you stupider.
You're still an asshole, asshole.
--Tedward
Mr. Poologic.com
Johnny wrote:
> The bottom line is that the protesters have no sense of
> common sense. Send them a subscription to National Lampoon
> and tapes of
> Saturday Night Live until they figure out that it is
> traditional for
> iconoclastic satire to have no respect for anything and to
> take nothing
> seriously, including itself.
>
> -Johnny (The more sacred the cow, the bigger the target.)
That's not the bottom line.
When it comes to the control of speech in the commercial media, the
bottom line IS the bottom line, the sacred cow is the cash cow.
Speech is free in the West in the sense that there are no legal
sanctions. But there are huge economic sanctions on all media that is
funded by advertising.
Shirley Temple
"Edward M. Kennedy" <nos...@baconburger.com> wrote in message
news:dsiijh$k02$1...@gargoyle.oit.duke.edu...
That is a very mean and hurtful thing to say.
Despie the fact that I'm a twist man, I'm going to extend an olive branch.
Donnie Barnes
> Donnie Barnes wrote:
>> On Fri, 10 Feb, Jason Bell wrote:
>>>It beggars belief that you would not see the similarity.
My opinions are "beyond belief."
>>>Most responsible people know well enough to call
>>>both groups terrorists.
Apparently I'm not "responsible people."
>>>I'm not sure how I can take that seriously.
You can't take my opinions "seriously."
>> Seriously, why do you have to be such a jerk in what was a civil debate? I
>> really just don't get it. I guess this is an emotional topic for you, but
>> please try to calm down a bit.
>
> I also do not get, though I am completely
> unsurprised, that you continue to take
> any criticism of your position, particularly
> spirited criticism, as a personal attack.
Because you end nearly every point with some phrase like the above.
> I say that you are wrong, and you hear me
> say that you are bad.
Wrong I can deal with. Being "unbelievable", "irresponsible", and "not
serious" are more than just "wrong."
> There is no cure for
> it I fear, because I just have to tell you
> that you are wrong again, and around we go.
Hey, fine, I got it. We disagree.
> The only advice I can give you, until you
> realize the truth of the above two statements,
> is simply to read the original post again.
> If you still think I am a jerk for believing
> that you are wrong and supporting that belief,
> well then there is no help for it, and people
> who disagree with you are just jerks.
It's the manner in which you disagree that I have a problem with.
Edward M. Kennedy
>>>> I'm confused.
>>>
>>> You're not confused, you're a fucking imbecile. I'd explain the difference, but it'd only make you stupider.
>>
>> You're still an asshole, asshole.
>
> That is a very mean and hurtful thing to say.
Surely you jest.
> Despie the fact that I'm a twist man, I'm going to extend an olive branch.
>
> http://www.theweasels.com/foster_goodwill.jpg
TMML. Thank you.
--Tedward
Edward M. Kennedy
>>>>It beggars belief that you would not see the similarity.
>
> My opinions are "beyond belief."
What...? Did you turn into the Supreme Court?
>>>>Most responsible people know well enough to call
>>>>both groups terrorists.
>
> Apparently I'm not "responsible people."
If you were responsible, you'd know that. And then you'd
implode into a illogical non-existence.
>>>>I'm not sure how I can take that seriously.
>
> You can't take my opinions "seriously."
That's because there has been absolutely ZERO mention
of the Constitution. Zilch. Nada. None. I really
don't why you need to dis the Bill of Rights, but hey,
it's the Bill of Rights that lets you do that.
Starting to see a pattern here? Hmmm?
>>> Seriously, why do you have to be such a jerk in what was a civil debate? I
>>> really just don't get it. I guess this is an emotional topic for you, but
>>> please try to calm down a bit.
>>
>> I also do not get, though I am completely
>> unsurprised, that you continue to take
>> any criticism of your position, particularly
>> spirited criticism, as a personal attack.
>
> Because you end nearly every point with some phrase like the above.
I think this is the part where you two should have hot
make-up sex.
>> I say that you are wrong, and you hear me
>> say that you are bad.
>
> Wrong I can deal with. Being "unbelievable", "irresponsible", and "not
> serious" are more than just "wrong."
Or maybe do it here. I'm not an expert, make your own
decision dammit.
>> There is no cure for
>> it I fear, because I just have to tell you
>> that you are wrong again, and around we go.
>
> Hey, fine, I got it. We disagree.
I'm in perfect agreement with your disagreement. Honest!
>> The only advice I can give you, until you
>> realize the truth of the above two statements,
>> is simply to read the original post again.
>> If you still think I am a jerk for believing
>> that you are wrong and supporting that belief,
>> well then there is no help for it, and people
>> who disagree with you are just jerks.
>
> It's the manner in which you disagree that I have a problem with.
Oh come on. It's perfectly obvious you are prejudiced
against Jasons.
--Tedward
More sex, less war
Milt Epstein
I don't think the problem is that politicians can't come up with
things like that themselves. I'd say that lots of people, including
politicians, can figure it out. But the problem is not in figuring it
out, but being able to state it in such a way that the other side
can't start ad hominem'ing you right out of office. All they need to
do (in fact, all they did) is to raise the level of fear and make
anyone who disagrees with them seem "unpatriotic" and "giving comfort
to the enemy" and "you're either with us or against us", and millions
of gullible Americans will fall in right behind them.
--
Milt Epstein
meps...@uiuc.edu
Jason Bell
Donnie Barnes wrote:
> On Fri, 10 Feb, Jason Bell wrote:
>
>>Donnie Barnes wrote:
>>
>>>On Fri, 10 Feb, Jason Bell wrote:
>>>
>>>>It beggars belief that you would not see the similarity.
>
> My opinions are "beyond belief."
You had to allow that there was some similarity,
claiming that the differences were those of
scale and frequency. You took offense that you had
to admit something? That seems "pretty silly."
>>>>Most responsible people know well enough to call
>>>>both groups terrorists.
>
> Apparently I'm not "responsible people."
If you do not allow that assassins who murder
doctors in order to terrify other doctors from
practicing abortion are terrorists, then I
would argue that you are being unreasonable.
You declined the chance to address that
issue, apparently defending yourself by being
offended.
>>>>I'm not sure how I can take that seriously.
>
> You can't take my opinions "seriously."
If you choose to defend your opinions by
complaining that they are being challenged,
then fine, I have to conclude that your opinions
are "pretty silly." That doesn't make me a jerk,
that just makes you unconvincing. I suppose I
should have done that to your original
response, but I felt that to do so would
have been "prety silly."
>>>Seriously, why do you have to be such a jerk in what was a civil debate? I
>>>really just don't get it. I guess this is an emotional topic for you, but
>>>please try to calm down a bit.
>>
>>I also do not get, though I am completely
>>unsurprised, that you continue to take
>>any criticism of your position, particularly
>>spirited criticism, as a personal attack.
>
>
> Because you end nearly every point with some phrase like the above.
So, are you too much of a shrinking violet
to challenge such phrases with your own opinion?
To explain why things that I think are obviously
similar are not?
To argue why it is reasonable not to call certain
terrorists by name?
Why I should take something seriously when you
have provided no argument, just an unsupported
statement?
>>I say that you are wrong, and you hear me
>>say that you are bad.
>
> Wrong I can deal with. Being "unbelievable", "irresponsible", and "not
> serious" are more than just "wrong."
Oh, I see. Nothing wrong with you starting in
by calling my opinion "silly," but I'm the
jerk when I defend my ideas from your insult.
Got it.
>>There is no cure for
>>it I fear, because I just have to tell you
>>that you are wrong again, and around we go.
>
>
> Hey, fine, I got it. We disagree.
>
>
>>The only advice I can give you, until you
>>realize the truth of the above two statements,
>>is simply to read the original post again.
>>If you still think I am a jerk for believing
>>that you are wrong and supporting that belief,
>>well then there is no help for it, and people
>>who disagree with you are just jerks.
>
>
> It's the manner in which you disagree that I have a problem with.
So, you'd be perfectly fine with me just calling
your opinions "silly" from now on? Or is
that a kind of manners that's ok for you but
makes me a jerk?
Just in case, I'll just finish by saying that
crying jerk when someone responds to a post
such as the one you made "seems pretty silly."
- Jason Bell
Milt Epstein
>On Fri, 10 Feb, Geoffrey F. Green wrote:
>> What do you mean?
>
>Politicians are dumb *and* they don't have such "high" motivations as
>caring if they spread democracy to foreign nations or not. They care
>about getting re-elected, and I don't know of a single US
>organization that's putting pressure on our government to spread
>democracy. We got organizations that lobby for about everything
>under the sun *except* that.
I think this is inaccurate, and too benign and naive a take on it.
For example, I wouldn't say their main interest was to "spread
democracy". Rather, it's to prevent the spread of
ideologies/movements/governments that they perceive as hostile towards
the US (e.g., Communism).
Also, while I agree with most of Geoff's summary description of how
things went, I'd change it in terms of how much the neocons genuinely
cared about a democratic Iraq and felt that it would be "a beacon of
democracy and progressivism". Instead, I'd say they just thought it
would be better for the US (e.g., one fewer anti-US government, the US
would have more control of the oil supply, the US would be able to
establish a military presence in a "friendlier" Iraq, say, to use as a
jumping off point).
--
Milt Epstein
meps...@uiuc.edu
Perusion Hostmaster
> Also, while I agree with most of Geoff's summary description of how
> things went, I'd change it in terms of how much the neocons genuinely
> cared about a democratic Iraq and felt that it would be "a beacon of
> democracy and progressivism". Instead, I'd say they just thought it
> would be better for the US (e.g., one fewer anti-US government, the US
> would have more control of the oil supply, the US would be able to
> establish a military presence in a "friendlier" Iraq, say, to use as a
> jumping off point).
Self-interest always trumps altruism, no matter what people claim
is their motive.
A lot of the goals I believe are unspoken, because they are things
of which you don't speak unless you want to be accused of being
colonialistic (sic). The Republicans have learned at least
that much -- avoid the PC backlash when possible.
The goal is to try and get that region in something besides a
downward economic spiral.
Read the 2002 U.N. report on the state of the Arab world -- written
by Arabs, mind you -- and extrapolate it's conclusions to 2017.
It ain't pretty.
--
I am convinced that life is 10% what happens to me and 90%
how I react to it. And so it is for you... we are in charge
of our attitudes. -- Charles Swindoll
Donnie Barnes
> Donnie Barnes wrote:
>> On Fri, 10 Feb, Jason Bell wrote:
>>>Donnie Barnes wrote:
>>>>On Fri, 10 Feb, Jason Bell wrote:
>>>>>It beggars belief that you would not see the similarity.
>>
>> My opinions are "beyond belief."
>
> You had to allow that there was some similarity,
> claiming that the differences were those of
> scale and frequency. You took offense that you had
> to admit something? That seems "pretty silly."
I *did* allow there was some similarity, but overall I believe that
replying that the handful of dead abortion doctors is ananlogous to
thousands dead from suicide bombers "seems pretty silly", yeah. One
specific comparison you made "seems pretty silly."
Abortion and "Christian fundamentalist" stuff was all that was in my head
at the time as far as the debate was concerned when we started, and I
wasn't then lumping the Oklahoma City thing in there. *shrug*
>>>>>Most responsible people know well enough to call
>>>>>both groups terrorists.
>>
>> Apparently I'm not "responsible people."
>
> If you do not allow that assassins who murder
> doctors in order to terrify other doctors from
> practicing abortion are terrorists, then I
> would argue that you are being unreasonable.
> You declined the chance to address that
> issue, apparently defending yourself by being
> offended.
I already allowed that both were terrorists. Way back, IIRC.
>>>>>I'm not sure how I can take that seriously.
>>
>> You can't take my opinions "seriously."
>
> If you choose to defend your opinions by
> complaining that they are being challenged,
> then fine, I have to conclude that your opinions
> are "pretty silly." That doesn't make me a jerk,
> that just makes you unconvincing. I suppose I
> should have done that to your original
> response, but I felt that to do so would
> have been "prety silly."
Alone, that comment is probably okay. But it's your pattern of debate that
bugs me, I guess.
I should probably just stop responding to you and you the same to me.
Every time this happens I end up reading and re-reading this crap and it
always seems to boil down to you and I work each other up so incredibly
easy with pedantic details of what probably aren't THAT differing of
opinions. Sure, there are some differences, but I'm doubting they are as
big as they get blown into.
>> Because you end nearly every point with some phrase like the above.
>
> So, are you too much of a shrinking violet
> to challenge such phrases with your own opinion?
> To explain why things that I think are obviously
> similar are not?
> To argue why it is reasonable not to call certain
> terrorists by name?
> Why I should take something seriously when you
> have provided no argument, just an unsupported
> statement?
Funny, but your side seems pretty similar to me.
> Oh, I see. Nothing wrong with you starting in
> by calling my opinion "silly," but I'm the
> jerk when I defend my ideas from your insult.
>
> Got it.
You know what, I apologize for that. Poor choice of words. Seemed pretty
normal and non-threatening to me. Apparently you took it differently than
I intended it. Perhaps your response was caused by that, or perhaps your
response was never intended as anything more than "spirited." Whatever.
In any event, I don't really care any more. I'm on vacation, dammit.
>> It's the manner in which you disagree that I have a problem with.
>
> So, you'd be perfectly fine with me just calling
> your opinions "silly" from now on? Or is
> that a kind of manners that's ok for you but
> makes me a jerk?
>
> Just in case, I'll just finish by saying that
> crying jerk when someone responds to a post
> such as the one you made "seems pretty silly."
Thanks. I'm not even gonna challenge the above. I'm on vacation.
They're both terrorists and they both suck. IMHO, they suck in different
ways and to different degrees. Apparently you think of them in exactly the
same terms. Great. Whoopie. I'm gonna go eat some good food now and hope
we get some fresh powder tonight for good skiing in the morning. I hope
you have the luxury of at least enjoying a good meal and good weekend
yourself.
Edward M. Kennedy
>> > What do you mean?
>>
>> Politicians are dumb *and* they don't have such "high" motivations as
>> caring if they spread democracy to foreign nations or not. They care about
>> getting re-elected, and I don't know of a single US organization that's
>> putting pressure on our government to spread democracy. We got
>> organizations that lobby for about everything under the sun *except* that.
>
> The only elected official who was important to the plot is Cheney.
One could even argue he was appointed and not elected.
--Tedward
Edward M. Kennedy
>> And assasinating doctors, don't forget how they
>> assasinate doctors. Oh, wait, that's the
>> anti-abortionists, my bad.
>>
>> Birds of a feather, and all that.
>
> Now, I'm no pro-lifer (though I am a republican), but it seems pretty silly
> to compare abortion clinic bombings to Muslim terrorist bombings. The main
> difference here is volume, with the secondary difference being that I'm not
> even sure we've *had* suicide abortion clinic bombings. If we've seen
> those, it's still pretty rare.
The huge difference is that abortion clinic bombers are
at least going after people who they believe are murderers
or complicit with them. The Al Qaedas and Hezbollahs are
going after innocent bystanders. Granted, dead is dead,
but the abortion clinic bombers at least have a theoretical
leg to stand on.
As to suicide bombers who attack US troops, I don't view
that as any different than throwing bombs that do *not*
have bodies attached to them. War is hell and all that.
The Geneva convention doesn't address the issue anyway.
A really sticky situation was the use of terrorism by the
Algerian indepenence movement. Life isn't black and white,
or even shades of grey. It's purple, green, red and yellow,
but mostly it is stripes of chartreuse and maroon. We went
after civilians during WWII too.
--Tedward
Sorry About Dresden is a local band
Donnie Barnes
> As to suicide bombers who attack US troops, I don't view
> that as any different than throwing bombs that do *not*
> have bodies attached to them. War is hell and all that.
> The Geneva convention doesn't address the issue anyway.
The annoying difference is when you are a soldier and a *child* is walking
toward you that may or may not have a bomb attached. :(
Bret Somers
Don't mention it.
>
> --Tedward
>
>
>
Milt Epstein
>On Fri, 10 Feb, Jason Bell wrote:
[ ... ]
>
>Seriously, why do you have to be such a jerk in what was a civil debate?
[ ... ]
You're just noticing this *now* about Jason's posting style?
>You can boil it down all you want, but the "problems" of Muslim
>suicide terrorists and Christian fundamentalist terrorists are just
>not very analogous. Sure, they're both just as wrong, but the two
>are happening on very different scales here. I see the abortion
>folks as a bit more on the "radical" side and the suicide bombers in
>the middle east as becoming pretty much the normal and only way they
>are fighting back. *shrug*
You keep mentioning the "scale". If that's the only difference (even
if it's a large difference), then they aren't that different. (Jason
and others have mentioned some of the ways that they are similar.)
Another thing to consider is that these respective protests/actions
are done in the context of their societies, and the protesters'
positions in those societies. So of course there are going to be some
differences.
--
Milt Epstein
meps...@uiuc.edu
Milt Epstein
>Johnny wrote:
>> The bottom line is that the protesters have no sense of humor
>> . . . or common sense. Send them a subscription to National
>> Lampoon and tapes of Saturday Night Live until they figure out that
>> it is traditional for iconoclastic satire to have no respect for
>> anything and to take nothing seriously, including itself.
>
>That's not the bottom line.
>
>When it comes to the control of speech in the commercial media, the
>bottom line IS the bottom line, the sacred cow is the cash cow.
>
>Speech is free in the West in the sense that there are no legal
>sanctions. But there are huge economic sanctions on all media that
>is funded by advertising.
First off, I think it goes beyond economic sanctions in the West/the
US. For example, the Bush administration has created an environment
where anyone who speaks out against their "war on terror" can suffer
other consequences (e.g., political).
Besides that, if anyone thinks there aren't plenty of Christians in
the US who would react (and have reacted) to satire they think is
sacrilegious and/or portraying their religion in a negative light,
they're full of it.
--
Milt Epstein
meps...@uiuc.edu
Milt Epstein
>On 2006-02-10, Milt Epstein <meps...@uiuc.edu> wrote:
>> Also, while I agree with most of Geoff's summary description of how
>> things went, I'd change it in terms of how much the neocons genuinely
>> cared about a democratic Iraq and felt that it would be "a beacon of
>> democracy and progressivism". Instead, I'd say they just thought it
>> would be better for the US (e.g., one fewer anti-US government, the US
>> would have more control of the oil supply, the US would be able to
>> establish a military presence in a "friendlier" Iraq, say, to use as a
>> jumping off point).
BTW, I meant to add to this that the neocons also believe the US has
the power and is justified in making it so.
>Self-interest always trumps altruism, no matter what people claim is
>their motive.
Thank you Ms. Rand.
>A lot of the goals I believe are unspoken, because they are things of
>which you don't speak unless you want to be accused of being
>colonialistic (sic). The Republicans have learned at least that much
>-- avoid the PC backlash when possible.
Oh BS that it would just be PC backlash. If their real reasons were
made explicit, a lot more people (even the gullible Americans) would
have real objections to their policies/actions. *That* is why they
make such a strong effort to hide it. We've already seen that some of
their actions have become known and even some Republicans have spoken
out against them.
>The goal is to try and get that region in something besides a
>downward economic spiral.
[ ... ]
Wait a sec -- you just said that altruism doesn't exist. And in this
case, I agree with you -- Bush/the neocons have little if any
altruistic motives in mind. Their goals have a lot more to do with
the advantages they see for themselves and the US.
--
Milt Epstein
meps...@uiuc.edu
Perusion Hostmaster
> Perusion Hostmaster <na...@nanae.perusion.com> writes:
>
>>On 2006-02-10, Milt Epstein <meps...@uiuc.edu> wrote:
>>> Also, while I agree with most of Geoff's summary description of how
>>> things went, I'd change it in terms of how much the neocons genuinely
>>> cared about a democratic Iraq and felt that it would be "a beacon of
>>> democracy and progressivism". Instead, I'd say they just thought it
>>> would be better for the US (e.g., one fewer anti-US government, the US
>>> would have more control of the oil supply, the US would be able to
>>> establish a military presence in a "friendlier" Iraq, say, to use as a
>>> jumping off point).
>
> BTW, I meant to add to this that the neocons also believe the US has
> the power and is justified in making it so.
>
>>Self-interest always trumps altruism, no matter what people claim is
>>their motive.
>
> Thank you Ms. Rand.
And it still amazes me how many pompous asses think that they are
doing what they do only for others.
>
>>A lot of the goals I believe are unspoken, because they are things of
>>which you don't speak unless you want to be accused of being
>>colonialistic (sic). The Republicans have learned at least that much
>>-- avoid the PC backlash when possible.
>
> Oh BS that it would just be PC backlash. If their real reasons were
> made explicit, a lot more people (even the gullible Americans) would
> have real objections to their policies/actions. *That* is why they
> make such a strong effort to hide it. We've already seen that some of
> their actions have become known and even some Republicans have spoken
> out against them.
Spin it how you may, there are plenty of things which are not spoken,
by Democrats too. That is why so much you hear is a bunch of say-nothing
bullshit. Witness the mealy-mouthed crap you hear about the subject line.
>
>
>>The goal is to try and get that region in something besides a
>>downward economic spiral.
> [ ... ]
>
> Wait a sec -- you just said that altruism doesn't exist. And in this
> case, I agree with you -- Bush/the neocons have little if any
> altruistic motives in mind. Their goals have a lot more to do with
> the advantages they see for themselves and the US.
>
Did I say any different? It benefits no one -- including the U.S. -- to
have the Mideast be mired in a spiral of growing populations, shrinking
per-capita GDP, and no education. That is what is happening there -- and
that is the real reason for the "anger over cartoons". They have plenty of
reasons to be angry, that is for sure, and that is just an excuse.
Emigration has been one of the safety valves which have kept things on a
simmer, but now Arabs are finding it harder to emigrate. (Fancy
that.)
The whole region is going nowhere fast, and what is happening is just
the beginning. I think even if Iraq starts booming, it is just too
little too late.
--
Experience is what allows you to recognize a mistake the second
time you make it. -- unknown
Perusion Hostmaster
>
>>Johnny wrote:
>>> The bottom line is that the protesters have no sense of humor
>>> . . . or common sense. Send them a subscription to National
>>> Lampoon and tapes of Saturday Night Live until they figure out that
>>> it is traditional for iconoclastic satire to have no respect for
>>> anything and to take nothing seriously, including itself.
>>
>>That's not the bottom line.
>>
>>When it comes to the control of speech in the commercial media, the
>>bottom line IS the bottom line, the sacred cow is the cash cow.
>>
>>Speech is free in the West in the sense that there are no legal
>>sanctions. But there are huge economic sanctions on all media that
>>is funded by advertising.
>
> First off, I think it goes beyond economic sanctions in the West/the
> US. For example, the Bush administration has created an environment
> where anyone who speaks out against their "war on terror" can suffer
> other consequences (e.g., political).
Don't be ridiculous -- there are legions of people speaking out.
>
> Besides that, if anyone thinks there aren't plenty of Christians in
> the US who would react (and have reacted) to satire they think is
> sacrilegious and/or portraying their religion in a negative light,
> they're full of it.
Burning embassies? Front-page news for weeks? Or anything close? I
don't think so.
The time for the moderate Muslims to stand and be counted has come and
gone a long time ago. "I share your rage, but don't torch that embassy"
doesn't cut it.
--
There's nothing sweeter than life nor more precious than time.
-- Barney
Jason Bell
Donnie Barnes wrote:
> On Fri, 10 Feb, Jason Bell wrote:
>>>>>>It beggars belief that you would not see the similarity.
>>>
>>>My opinions are "beyond belief."
>>
>>You had to allow that there was some similarity,
>>claiming that the differences were those of
>>scale and frequency. You took offense that you had
>>to admit something? That seems "pretty silly."
>
>
> I *did* allow there was some similarity, but overall I believe that
> replying that the handful of dead abortion doctors is ananlogous to
> thousands dead from suicide bombers "seems pretty silly", yeah. One
> specific comparison you made "seems pretty silly."
>
> Abortion and "Christian fundamentalist" stuff was all that was in my head
> at the time as far as the debate was concerned when we started, and I
> wasn't then lumping the Oklahoma City thing in there. *shrug*
When we started?
The first time you came into this sub-thread was
to call my analogy silly, based on two differences,
of frequency and the lack of suicide.
One more chance at this analogy
Protesters of blasphemy : suicide bombers
::
Anti-abortionists : doctor murderers
I didn't paint the first half of the analogy, I
just extended it into someone else's sacred cow.
>>>>>>Most responsible people know well enough to call
>>>>>>both groups terrorists.
>>>
>>>Apparently I'm not "responsible people."
>>
>>If you do not allow that assassins who murder
>>doctors in order to terrify other doctors from
>>practicing abortion are terrorists, then I
>>would argue that you are being unreasonable.
>>You declined the chance to address that
>>issue, apparently defending yourself by being
>>offended.
>
> I already allowed that both were terrorists. Way back, IIRC.
How way back do you think you came into this
sub-thread, or responded to anything I wrote
on this entire thread?
>>>>>>I'm not sure how I can take that seriously.
>>>
>>>You can't take my opinions "seriously."
>>
>>If you choose to defend your opinions by
>>complaining that they are being challenged,
>>then fine, I have to conclude that your opinions
>>are "pretty silly." That doesn't make me a jerk,
>>that just makes you unconvincing. I suppose I
>>should have done that to your original
>>response, but I felt that to do so would
>>have been "prety silly."
>
>
> Alone, that comment is probably okay. But it's your pattern of debate that
> bugs me, I guess.
That seems reasonable. My goal in argument with
rational people has never been to convince
by force of nicety. It often consists of forcing
one who disagrees into a corner where they have
to do something extremely unpleasant, which is
admit that they are wrong. Or more to the point,
to find a corner where we must agree, and see
how far logic can force agreement outwards.
> I should probably just stop responding to you and you the same to me.
> Every time this happens I end up reading and re-reading this crap and it
> always seems to boil down to you and I work each other up so incredibly
> easy with pedantic details of what probably aren't THAT differing of
> opinions. Sure, there are some differences, but I'm doubting they are as
> big as they get blown into.
This is again reasonable, as above. Though it is
unlikely that I will stop responding to posts with
which I disagree. Well, unless you join the small
group of racists and bigots who have taken residence
on this group. That's one way to keep me from
responding.
But that sort of thing really doesn't seem like
your bag.
>>>Because you end nearly every point with some phrase like the above.
>>
>>So, are you too much of a shrinking violet
>>to challenge such phrases with your own opinion?
>>To explain why things that I think are obviously
>>similar are not?
>>To argue why it is reasonable not to call certain
>>terrorists by name?
>>Why I should take something seriously when you
>>have provided no argument, just an unsupported
>>statement?
>
>
> Funny, but your side seems pretty similar to me.
Well, my response was to force you to explicitly
attest to fundamental difference in things that I
provided argument of similarity, or argue how it
was reasonable to say that heavy-line distinctions
should be drawn. You focused on the tone.
>>Oh, I see. Nothing wrong with you starting in
>>by calling my opinion "silly," but I'm the
>>jerk when I defend my ideas from your insult.
>>
>>Got it.
>
>
> You know what, I apologize for that. Poor choice of words. Seemed pretty
> normal and non-threatening to me.
I was not threatened, And my response was normal
and non-threatening debate thereafter to me. I
am just as surprised at your being offended at
"most reasonable know well enough to call..." as
I would be had I said "wouldn't you have admit
that it is reasonable to call..."
> Apparently you took it differently than I intended it.
I didn't, I just went back and applied what
I thought was your unreasonable standard in
the hope that you would have to allow that
my response does not make me a jerk.
> Perhaps your response was caused by that, or perhaps your
> response was never intended as anything more than "spirited." Whatever.
> In any event, I don't really care any more. I'm on vacation, dammit.
Lucky you. And in midwinter no less.
>>>It's the manner in which you disagree that I have a problem with.
>>
>>So, you'd be perfectly fine with me just calling
>>your opinions "silly" from now on? Or is
>>that a kind of manners that's ok for you but
>>makes me a jerk?
>>
>>Just in case, I'll just finish by saying that
>>crying jerk when someone responds to a post
>>such as the one you made "seems pretty silly."
>
>
> Thanks. I'm not even gonna challenge the above. I'm on vacation.
>
> They're both terrorists and they both suck. IMHO, they suck in different
> ways and to different degrees. Apparently you think of them in exactly the
> same terms. Great. Whoopie.
I think the analogy holds, making an analogy
does not require me to believe that baby
dogs are exactly like kittens, or that a
victim of a lightning strike is exactly
like a lottery winner.
> I'm gonna go eat some good food now and hope
> we get some fresh powder tonight for good skiing in the morning. I hope
> you have the luxury of at least enjoying a good meal and good weekend
> yourself.
Nah, car trouble keeping me in this weekend,
though I cook well enough to ensure the meal
portion of the well-wish.
- Jason Bell
Perusion Hostmaster
And a very weak extension at that. Only way off in size, scale, and
target. Otherwise right on.
--
Just because something is obviously happening doesn't mean something
obvious is happening. --Larry Wall
Mrs. O'Leary
"Jason Bell" <Jason...@mail.com> wrote in message
news:L5zHf.11753$915....@southeast.rr.com...
> One more chance at this analogy
> Protesters of blasphemy : suicide bombers
> ::
> Anti-abortionists : doctor murderers
>
> I didn't paint the first half of the analogy, I
> just extended it into someone else's sacred cow.
Oooo, analogies are fun. As are sacred cows. Can I play?
Let's see: Jason Bell calls the islamofasict cartoon brigade "protesters of
blasphemy." That's rather an innocuous characterization.
Let's see what these people that Jason Bell finds innocuous think.
Iranian President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad: "We ask the West to remove what they
created sixty years ago [Israel] and if they do not listen to our
recommendations, then the Palestinian nation and other nations will
eventually do this for them . . . Do the removal of Israel before it is too
late and save yourself from the fury . . . How comes that insulting the
prophet of Muslims worldwide is justified within the framework of press
freedom, but investigating about the fairy tale Holocaust is not . . . The
real Holocaust is what is happening in Palestine where the Zionists avail
themselves of the fairy tale of Holocaust as blackmail and justification for
killing children and women and making innocent people homeless."
Hmmm, the protestors of blasphemy seem to believe the holocaust didn't
happen, but that it should have, and will again unless their demands are
met.
And Jason Bell finds this innocuous. So I guess by any fair analogy Jason
Bell is a holocaust denier and an anti semite and a Nazi sympathizer who
favors the extermination of the Jewish people.
Gosh, and all this time I thought he was just another pompous fuckhead duke
fan.
Mooo.
Donnie Barnes
--Donnie
Jason Bell
Mrs. O'Leary wrote:
> "Jason Bell" <Jason...@mail.com> wrote in message
> news:L5zHf.11753$915....@southeast.rr.com...
>
>
>>One more chance at this analogy
>>Protesters of blasphemy : suicide bombers
>>::
>>Anti-abortionists : doctor murderers
>>
>>I didn't paint the first half of the analogy, I
>>just extended it into someone else's sacred cow.
>
>
> Oooo, analogies are fun. As are sacred cows. Can I play?
> Let's see: Jason Bell calls the islamofasict cartoon brigade "protesters of
> blasphemy." That's rather an innocuous characterization.
>
> Let's see what these people that Jason Bell finds innocuous think.
[snip a bunch of poo]
No, I know very well what the Middle East as a group
of states thought of the Palestinians before they
were a useful club with which to beat Israel.
I understand perfectly the dishonesty that is inherent
in Middle Eastern states calling for the independence
of Palestine, and I know full well that an alternate
universe that never contained an Israel would have
Palestenians in a similar situation as the Kurds, a
hapless, stateless minority within the countries of
Syria, Jordan, and Egypt.
But by all means, spew on with your bile and hate and
profanity. Just pile it on top of your false
characterization of my beliefs, and your unsupported
extension of my opinions about a large group of
people to those of a single person (should I
apply all of George Bush's opinions onto you,
or perhaps Bill Clinton's?).
To illustrate this baseless extension, how
would the vast majority of anti-abortionists
feel about being called gay-hating murderous
Olympics-bombers?
As for the rest, I can think of no basis whatsoever
why I could be considered a racist, a nazi-sympathizer,
an anti-semite, or any of the rest based upon
my use of an analogy. If it were true, I suppose I
would also be guilty of hoping that people get
struck by lightning just as much as I would hope
that they win the lottery, or require me to have
equal affection for cats as dogs.
In short, you are a fool.
And a horrifyingly hateful fool if you really believe
that every person who protested the Muhummad cartoons
is a "holocaust denier and an anti semite and a Nazi
sympathizer who favors the extermination of the Jewish
people."
Smarter idiots please, if I keep having to respond
to people this stupid, I'm liable to seem pompous.
- Jason Bell
Mrs. O'Leary
"Jason Bell" <Jason...@mail.com> wrote in message
<self-serving sanctimony hosed>
> But by all means, spew on with your bile and hate and
> profanity. Just pile it on top of your false
> characterization of my beliefs, and your unsupported
> extension of my opinions about a large group of
> people to those of a single person
You're the one who drew this analogy, dumbBell:
"Anti-abortionists : doctor murderers"
That was you, right?
You're also the one who calls people "bigot" and "racist" because they don't
like Duke. So quit being so delicate.
>(should I
> apply all of George Bush's opinions onto you,
> or perhaps Bill Clinton's?).
>
> To illustrate this baseless extension, how
> would the vast majority of anti-abortionists
> feel about being called gay-hating murderous
> Olympics-bombers?
Um, mullethead, that's what you just called them, see?
"Anti-abortionists : doctor murderers."
Hy. Po. Fucking. Crite.
> As for the rest, I can think of no basis whatsoever
> why I could be considered a racist, a nazi-sympathizer,
> an anti-semite, or any of the rest based upon
> my use of an analogy.
Yes, well, as I mentioned, you are pretty fucking stupid, so I probably
should have explained it slowly. If you're having trouble following along,
use your finger. Viz:
You characterized the islamofascist cartoon brigade as "defenders of
blasphemy." Whereas many islamofascists are antisemitic mass murderers or
are at the very least sympathetic to anti-Semitic mass murderers. Oh sure,
not all of them; but certainly many of the protesters are motivated by the
same hatreds that lead to discothèques exploding in Indonesia and 747s
flying into buildings in NY city. Which is why they dance around in the
street every time a busload of jewish babies is blown to bits. Notice: the
Iranian response to Danish cartoons mocking a Saudi is -- to hold a
holocaust cartoon contest. Why not a Hamlet cartoon contest? Or at least a
Rosencrantz & Guildenstern contest? Because arabs hate Jews. No news there.
Now, a vaguely proper analogy to islamofascist religious fanatics who get
upset by cartoon prophets would be Christians who get upset when crucifixes
are immersed in urine. Those Christians, you'll notice, don't riot and kill
people and threaten to eradicate the Jewish people: they write letters to
their congress people. Certainly they never blew up Robert Mapplethorpe.
(Nor did they have to, since God punished him by giving him AIDS.)
But drawing a vaguely proper analogy wouldn't have fit into your
hatemongering anti-Xtian agenda, so you drew an improper analogy, calling
anyone who in good conscious opposed abortion a "doctor murderer."
For the record, there have been 3 US abortion doctors killed since 1986;
whereas the islamofascists -- your "protectors of blasphemy" -- having been
trying to eradicate Israel since 1948 and have been blowing up Jews and
gentiles alike pretty regularly since the 70s.
So what I did, to point out how fuckbrained you are, was to "extend your
analogy onto a sacred cow," for data sets where Jason Bell = sacred cow.
See, you characterize islamofascists as benign, whereas islamofascists are
anti-Semitic; therefore you are anti-Semitic and want to murder Jews.
You think that's a specious argument? So do I. I think it's just as specious
as this one:
Three lunatics killed three abortionists, therefore all who oppose abortion
are doctor murderers.
That's your argument, which you challenged someone to refute.
Which I just did.
See how I did it, incidentally? I seem to have forced you into a corner
where you'll have to do something extremely unpleasant, which is admit that
you're wrong. See, that's what I do, I don't try to win arguments by
convincing people by force of nicety; no, my way is to first humiliate them
by writing their tiny little balls off and then I call them names like
cunter or fuckskull . Which is what I've done here. Because either your
abortion doctor analogy was specious or you're an anti-Semite. So choose
your poison, cunter, or in you case, your Zyklon B.
> If it were true, I suppose I
> would also be guilty of hoping that people get
> struck by lightning just as much as I would hope
> that they win the lottery, or require me to have
> equal affection for cats as dogs.
>
> In short, you are a fool.
Um, shitbrain, you just made the argument that you can't be antisemitic
because you're a cat person. So I'd be careful bandying the word "fool"
about willy nilly.
> And a horrifyingly hateful fool if you really believe
> that every person who protested the Muhummad cartoons
> is a "holocaust denier and an anti semite and a Nazi
> sympathizer who favors the extermination of the Jewish
> people."
You're the one who called the Pope a doctor murderer, idiot. You're the guy
who calls posters racist and bigot because they idly wonder why Duke has so
many white players. Goose, gander, whine.
> Smarter idiots please, if I keep having to respond
> to people this stupid, I'm liable to seem pompous.
Yeah, you're liable to seem pompous. Also, the ocean is likely to seem wet.
Fuckhead.
Geoffrey F. Green
"Mrs. O'Leary" <ka...@chicago.org> wrote:
> Yeah, you're liable to seem pompous. Also, the ocean is likely to seem wet.
> Fuckhead.
At least he's gutsy enough to use his real name. Why don't you? What
are you afraid of?
- geoff
Heywood Jablowme
"Geoffrey F. Green" <geoff-...@stuebegreen.com> wrote in message
news:geoff-usenet2-287...@comcast.dca.giganews.com...
Dear mullethead:
Nothing about usenet involves "guts" or fear or otherwise implicates bravery
or cowardice. Nothing. Nada. Nil. Zilch. Zero. Usenet is what normal people
do when they're too chafed to jerk off again. Obviously, aging blue-faced
hero-worshipping ex-engineering frat geeks aren't normal, but I'm sure you
get my drift. If you're patting yourself on the back for posting your name
on the interweb, you're a fucking lunkhead. If you think you deserve a medal
for doing so, you're even more of a fucking lunkhead than you've previously
been given credit for.
Regards,
Heywood
Geoffrey F. Green
"Heywood Jablowme" <Hey...@Medalofhonor.org> wrote:
Ahh, how far we've come from the days of Publius.
- geoff
Edward M. Kennedy
>> As to suicide bombers who attack US troops, I don't view
>> that as any different than throwing bombs that do *not*
>> have bodies attached to them. War is hell and all that.
>> The Geneva convention doesn't address the issue anyway.
>
> The annoying difference is when you are a soldier and a *child* is walking
> toward you that may or may not have a bomb attached. :(
And the British were pissed when colonial soldiers hid
behind trees. Longstreet figured out the now classical
3-to-1 advantage required for assaults (on otherwise
equal terms). Lee didn't listen, and Pickett paid the
price.
--Tedward
Edward M. Kennedy
> That seems reasonable. My goal in argument with
> rational people has never been to convince
> by force of nicety. It often consists of forcing
> one who disagrees into a corner where they have
> to do something extremely unpleasant, which is
> admit that they are wrong.
This almost never happens. I am speaking mostly to the
lurkers.
--Tedward
Johnny
>
>
> Longstreet figured out the now classical
> 3-to-1 advantage required for assaults (on otherwise
> equal terms). Lee didn't listen, and Pickett paid the
> price.
>
> --Tedward
>
>
>
That is an over simplified observation, it's not nearly the
whole story, and in many respects is not a fair and accurate
criticism of Lee or a compliment to Longstreet. Lee did
listen, and he understood Old Pete's strategy all too well,
having used it with success strategically at Gaine's Mill
and Second Manassas, and tactically at Chancellorsville, But
all things considered, Lee decided that his Old Warhorse's
suggested maneuver was impractical under the prevailing
conditions, and he decided that he was forced to fight where
he was.
As for the price Pickett's division and every unit in the
Civil War paid, the Civil War with its exorbitant casualty
rates is an example of military tactics failing to keep up
with advances in military technology. Napoleonic tactics
based on smooth bore, muzzle loading arms firing round,
loose fitting projectiles with an effective range of about
50 yards in infantry muskets, and not very accurate even at
that range, which allowed, in the case of infantry muskets
and in some cases artillery, an assaulting force to suffer
just one volley before closing with the enemy, were fatally
out of place in the face of rifled, and, in more and more
cases as the war went on, breech loading and repeating arms,
firing tight fitting, shaped Minie projectiles, with greatly
increased accuracy, range, and killing power. Similarly,
artillery was similarly greatly improved. 5-1 odds in favor
of the assaulting force is a more accurate assessment of
what was needed, on paper, for success in Civil War battles;
although, due to many other factors, frontal assaults by
inferior forces were sometimes successful, as on the final
day of Chancellorsville both at Chancellorsville and Salem
Church. But assaults by overwhelming force failed the Union
at Sharpsburg, Fredricksburg, The Wilderness, Spotsylvania,
and Cold Harbor.
BTW, Lee's greatest victory, Chancellorsville, is often
attributed to Jackson's famous flank attack, but the truth
is that was just one element of a series of assaults during
that campaign in which Lee brilliantly used the strategy of
the central position to attack and push back Hooker's main
force around Chancellorsville while holding off the Union
First Corps at Fredericksburg then defeating it at Salem
Church with another flank attack conducted by Jubal Early's
division. Lee's dispositions and movements during the
Chancellorsville Campaign (as well as others) demonstrated
that he was a tactical as well as a strategic master of war.
As for Gettysburg, It may appear that Lee was foolish to
continue the battle at all when the end of the first day
found his army in a very awkward position both strategically
and tactically. But in large measure he had no choice and
he had several reasons to think he could win.
Strategically, when Lee turned East and crossed South
Mountain in an attempt to concentrate East of the mountains
after learning that Meade was moving North faster than
expected, his line of operations became perpendicular to a
single line of communications and separated from it by a
mountain range and poor roads clogged with troops and trains
moving up and ambulances and loot moving back. Meade was
operating on a line parallel to three lines of communication
unobstructed by any natural obstacles. Lee's army was
spread out along the Cumberland Valley from Chambersburg to
the outskirts of Harrisonburg and Southeast beyond York. By
the end of the first day Meade was concentrating more men
more rapidly at Gettysburg than Lee, and would continue to
do so throughout the second day. Lee had heard nothing of
his main cavalry force under Stuart for several days. Meade
had abundant cavalry well in hand which had already done
fine work delaying Heth West of Gettysburg until Reynolds
could bring up the First Corps, locating Lee's scattered
corps, and turning Stuart North rather than allowing him to
join Lee at Gettysburg by way of Hanover.
Much criticism has been leveled at Stuart for his delay in
rejoining Lee until late on the second day, but his
tardiness was in fact forced on him by Meade's cavalry and
Hooker's rapid move into Maryland in response to Lee's
invasion before being replaced by Meade. Stuart was forced
to fight several sharp engagements with Federal cavalry to
defend the Blue Ridge passes and Lee's rear and right flank
as the Army of Northern Virginia crossed the Potomac and
moved into Maryland and Pennsylvania. By the time the
Federal Cavalry withdrew into Maryland to join Meade, the
Union army was between Stuart and Lee, and Stuart was forced
to go around Meade to the East or trail along in Lee's rear;
the latter was not only unacceptable for cavalry but would
have kept Stuart out of the battle for several days while he
caught up anyway. Despite delays along the road around
Meade, Stuart was in position to join Lee earlier, but a
determined Federal cavalry force kept him from doing so by
denying him the road from Hanover to Gettysburg and making
him continue North to try to join Ewell, who by Stuart's
latest information was at Carlisle. Moreover, Lee had
cavalry besides Stuart's. Stuart had left two brigades of
his division (Under Beverly Robertson and "Grumble" Jones)
with Lee, and Lee also had two additional independent
cavalry brigades under Jenkins and Imboden, the latter a
fine cavalry commander, with him. They were not as reliable
as Stuart's veterans under Wade Hampton, Fitz Lee, and
"Rooney" Lee, but Robert E. Lee could have made better use
of them in Stuart's absence.
Tactically, when Neither Hill's Third Corps nor Ewell's
Second had enough fresh troops to continue the first day's
combat and push Meade off Cemetery Hill, Lee found himself
operating along a long exterior line on a front that was
open ground for 3/4 of it's length. Meade had a superior
force in possession of short interior lines fortified on the
best defensive position on the field and anchored by high
hills on both flanks. There has been criticism, aimed
mainly at Ewell, for failing to try to take the heights
Southeast of town, but all four of Lee's divisions on the
field had suffered heavily in the day's fighting, and there
were no fresh troops readily available. Meade had fresh
troops on that hill, thanks to the prudence of Howard, who
left one of his divisions to fortify Cemetery Hill when he
sent the other two divisions of his Eleventh Corps to meet
Ewell North of the town in support of the First Corps which
was fighting Hill to the East of town. And Meade's fresh
Second, Fifth, and Twelfth Corps were approaching rapidly,
while the two absent divisions of Hill and Ewell (Anderson's
and Johnson's respectively) and none of Longstreet's First
Corps would be up until the next day, and Longstreet would
only have two of his three divisions on the field then and
those not in position to attack until late on the second day.
When A.P. Hill and his division commander Harry Heth
precipitously brought on a battle on the first day without
cavalry for adequate reconnaissance, after Lee had warned
that he did not want to bring on a general engagement until
the army was concentrated, and after one of Heth's brigade
commanders, General Pettigrew, had warned that the troops he
saw moving into Gettysburg during his aborted attempt to
reach the town were regular cavalry of the Army of the
Potomac and not a bunch of militia with shotguns, Lee was
forced to concentrate on the field of battle, a difficult
and dangerous operation. Both Hill and Heth have been
criticized for recklessness in advancing on Gettysburg, but
such audacious aggressiveness was a feature of the Army of
Northern Virginia practiced with great past success and
encouraged by one of the most audacious military commanders
in history, Robert E. Lee. And the fact remains that Hill
and Ewell won the first day's meeting engagement, which not
only encouraged Lee to continue the battle, but led him to
think, in view of past victories against superior odds, that
he could win it. Unfortunately for Lee he was not up
against a weak-willed McClellan, a blundering Pope, an
incompetent Burnside, or a confused nerve-losing Hooker.
Meade and his corps commanders and senior staff officers,
particularly his Chief Engineer and Chief of Artillery, were
made of different stuff and were solid if not spectacular
commanders.
Longstreet's recommendation that Lee maneuver to get between
Meade and Washington was standard military strategy on
paper, but impractical in the army's present situation.
Given both the strategic and tactical weaknesses of his
position, Lee found it unwise to attempt to maneuver, either
by trying to go around Meade to the South and East over
unconcealed routes in the absence of cavalry or by
attempting to disengage from the closely locked position of
the two armies by retreating West to good defensive
positions at the foot of the mountains. This was fortified
by Lee's appreciation of morale after the success of the
first day, about which, when Longstreet first suggested
maneuvering, Lee replied, "I cannot ask these men to retreat
after what they have accomplished today."
Also, Lee had a good "Lee" reason for continuing the battle
into a third day: He had come North not merely as a
commissary raid, but to win a major battle on Northern soil.
The enemy army was now in front of him; he had gained
initial, if limited, success on the first day; and, despite
faulty intelligence as to Meade's dispositions on the
Southern end of his position and the tardiness of
Longstreet's attack on the second day, the assaults on that
flank had gained important artillery positions on the high
ground along the Emmitsburg Road and had come very close to
caving in Meades entire southern flank at Little Round Top
and along the low ridge South of Cemetery Hill. Ewell, also
had had some minor success and a near major success in
attacks on the Northern flank at Culp's Hill and in front of
the town against Cemetery Hill. Having tried both flanks
and found them strong, Lee, mistakenly as it turned out, had
reason to feel that Meade's center must be weak; and with
Pickett's arrival on the third day, he had fresh troops to
lead the assault in addition to at least two divisions of
A.P. Hill's corps which had seen little or no action the day
before. Richard Anderson, part of whose division had
actually reached the main Union position on the low ridge
South of Cemetery Hill the day before, thought the assault
on the center could succeed.
Much has been made of Stuart's absence, Hill's recklessness,
Ewell's indecision, and Longstreet's stubbornness, as the
reasons for Lee's defeat; but Lee himself actually put the
denial to such future criticism. As the remnants of
Pickett's and Anderson's men straggled back from the
disaster, groups of them gathered around their revered,
almost deified General to apologize for letting him down and
implored him to let them try again, Lee said, simply,
concisely, and accurately, "No, no, it is all my fault. I
thought my men were invincible." Not an unfair assessment
of the prowess of that incomparable infantry which had
enjoyed a nearly uninterrupted string of success against
superior numbers in five major campaigns since Lee had taken
command.
-Johnny. (The study of the Civil War is my hobby, the study
of the Army of Northern Virginia is my passion.)
Donnie Barnes
> Edward M. Kennedy wrote:
>> Longstreet figured out the now classical
>> 3-to-1 advantage required for assaults (on otherwise
>> equal terms). Lee didn't listen, and Pickett paid the
>> price.
>>
>> --Tedward
>
> That is an over simplified observation,
[ snip ]
Damn, Ted. If I even *thought* you were trolling with the above, you'd
have to get some sort of award. I mean, I've not seen anyone bite like
that in a loooooooooooooong time. ;-)
Johnny, I'm really just poking at you. I read as much of your post as my
attention-deficit-disorder would allow (and then some) and found it quite
interesting (though you also get an award for some very long sentences).
Edward M. Kennedy
>>> Longstreet figured out the now classical
>>> 3-to-1 advantage required for assaults (on otherwise
>>> equal terms). Lee didn't listen, and Pickett paid the
>>> price.
>>>
>>> --Tedward
>>
>> That is an over simplified observation,
>
> [ snip ]
>
> Damn, Ted. If I even *thought* you were trolling with the above, you'd
> have to get some sort of award. I mean, I've not seen anyone bite like
> that in a loooooooooooooong time. ;-)
Gettysburg was possibly the most important troll in US history.
--Tedward
Jason Bell
Mrs. O'Leary wrote:
> "Jason Bell" <Jason...@mail.com> wrote in message
>
> <self-serving sanctimony hosed>
>
>>But by all means, spew on with your bile and hate and
>>profanity. Just pile it on top of your false
>>characterization of my beliefs, and your unsupported
>>extension of my opinions about a large group of
>>people to those of a single person
>
>
> You're the one who drew this analogy, dumbBell:
>
> "Anti-abortionists : doctor murderers"
>
> That was you, right?
Wow. I mean WOW. You are actually so stupid
as to not know what an analogy is. You are
intellectually incapable of having this
discussion on any rational level, you don't
even have the basic mental tools to do so.
I was too kind before. MUCH smarter
idiots, please.
> You're also the one who calls people "bigot" and "racist" because they don't
> like Duke. So quit being so delicate.
No, I called people racist who
ascribe certain characteristics to people
based upon their race, then demean or
diminish those people on the basis of
whether they perceive those characteristics
to be present.
And I called people bigoted who
insult and demean others on the basis
of perceived inclusion in a class or
group.
But, hey, how could I expect you to
understand basic concepts, words,
or their definitions? You've shown
no evidence of such ability.
>>(should I
>>apply all of George Bush's opinions onto you,
>>or perhaps Bill Clinton's?).
>>
>>To illustrate this baseless extension, how
>>would the vast majority of anti-abortionists
>>feel about being called gay-hating murderous
>>Olympics-bombers?
>
>
> Um, mullethead, that's what you just called them, see?
>
> "Anti-abortionists : doctor murderers."
>
> Hy. Po. F*cking. Crite.
You simply have no idea what you are talking
about. You don't know the definition of
analogy, and you aren't even quoting the full
analogy in this case. You are out of your
depth, you simpleton.
>>As for the rest, I can think of no basis whatsoever
>>why I could be considered a racist, a nazi-sympathizer,
>>an anti-semite, or any of the rest based upon
>>my use of an analogy.
>
>
> Yes, well, as I mentioned, you are pretty f*cking stupid, so I probably
> should have explained it slowly. If you're having trouble following along,
> use your finger. Viz:
>
> You characterized the islamofascist cartoon brigade as "defenders of
> blasphemy."
Sigh. Still stupid. Extra credit for inventing
quotes which I never wrote. Part and parcel of
illiteracy, I suppose.
[snip rambling idiocy whereby the author baselessly
ascribes to an entire group characteristics that he
perceives in individuals of that group, conflating
an Iranian paper to the entire country, conflating
the cartoon protesters with those who celebrate murder,
wow, its just all so ignorant, hateful, just amazing]
> But drawing a vaguely proper analogy wouldn't have fit into your
> hatemongering anti-Xtian agenda, so you drew an improper analogy, calling
> anyone who in good conscious opposed abortion a "doctor murderer."
Please do get back to me if you ever learn what
an analogy is, you ignorant fool.
I'll give you one last example:
Magic Johnson : African American
::
Larry Bird : ______________
Now, your first job is to complete the analogy.
I suppose your second job is to spew out a
new screed whereby I must believe that every
African American is Magic Johnson.
Wow, but you are stupid, and on second thought,
don't ever get back to me, you are a waste of
time.
- Jason Bell
Jason Bell
Edward M. Kennedy wrote:
True enough, though I never put forth the idea
that I was ever successful in my goal.
- Jason Bell
Donnie Barnes
> True enough, though I never put forth the idea
> that I was ever successful in my goal.
Don't worry...I don't think anyone here thought you were.
;-)
Harry
holding up his hand saying - "No more muslims - we have run out of
virgins."
Mrs O'Leary
Edward M. Kennedy
>>>That seems reasonable. My goal in argument with
>>>rational people has never been to convince
>>>by force of nicety. It often consists of forcing
>>>one who disagrees into a corner where they have
>>>to do something extremely unpleasant, which is
>>>admit that they are wrong.
>>
>>
>> This almost never happens. I am speaking mostly to the
>> lurkers.
>
> True enough, though I never put forth the idea
> that I was ever successful in my goal.
I've seen it twice. One guy conceded FEMA was likely
counterproductive for hurricane and flood damage, and
another (IIRC) was some rsfcker changing his position
on the first amendment (in favor of individual).
Other than the only stuff people admit is clear facts,
such as the score of a game or where it was played.
Fortunately I don't make those kinds of mistakes.
--Tedward
Jason Bell
Sorry, clown shoe. I'm not going to click
any tinyurl link that you provide, as per
a discussion that was had on this forum
regarding underlying security issues.
- Jason Bell