Outraged Americans

“The Economist” has a good article describing how Americans have gone off the deep end. The author makes a good point that both sides feel marginalized. Leftists compain that Republicans control every branch of government. Rightists dislike that the left dominates the movie business and the universities. Everybody is outraged.

Decent debates are hard. We deal in different media, different assumptions and even different facts. I know what you are thinking. Fill in your own party and the opposition where appropriate.

He is right about the _____, but the _____ really are so blind to their own mistakes and downright stupidity. I just don’t understand how they can believe that the economy is ____ etc. etc.

I sometimes wonder myself how people whose opinions I respect in other ways can be so blind about politics. They tell me they wonder the same things about me.

I think we should all hold onto our opinions and fight for them, with the caveat that we are probably wrong in many particulars. We should all try to think of how all this will sound next year or ten years from now and avoid saying or doing anything that will embarrass us later. The passion will pass and we will have to live and work with each other again and again.

Do you still feel those terrible passions of the Tilden/Hayes election? Probably not. That is my point.

P.S. This "Economist" article I think is free. Much of the rest of the site is premium. "The Economist" is the best weekly available in the English language, so you might consider a subscription, But if you can't read the article let me know and I will summarize. Of course, you will miss the cartoon, which is very good.

Posted by Jack at April 2, 2006 11:23 PM
Comments
Comment #137508

Jack:

Good article. Interesting, considering that Bush was supposed to be a uniter. What happened?

Worse, many partisans don’t accept the legitimacy of their opponents.

I think this is much of what happened, JMHO of course. But when Republicans controlled so much, they decided to push thier agenda. They had the power, there was no compromise. And this attitude, and the feeling of powerlessness of the other side, has spread to the populace in general.

Because we are a nation of such varying opinions and values, there needs to be compromise and working together, something we are trying so hard to accomplish in Iraq. Perhaps we could be a better role model?

Posted by: womanmarine at April 2, 2006 11:41 PM
Comment #137509

Jack good topic, good article. I have thought for some years now this kind of name calling and disrespect for the opinions of others was due to talk radio in general and Rush Limbaugh in particular. Shows what I know.

Posted by: j2t2 at April 3, 2006 12:03 AM
Comment #137512

Jack,

All the right has to do is to stop going to the movies.
Hollywood is a capitalistic system like the rest of corporate America.

Vote with your wallet.

Posted by: Rocky at April 3, 2006 12:22 AM
Comment #137513

This is kind of funny when you think about it.

Leftists compain that Republicans control every branch of government. Rightists dislike that the left dominates the movie business and the universities.

Is there even an adequate comparison there?

Posted by: womanmarine at April 3, 2006 12:33 AM
Comment #137516

womanmarine,

I think what Jack is trying to say is he thinks that while the left controls the hearts and minds of America, the right only controls the government.

Posted by: Rocky at April 3, 2006 1:25 AM
Comment #137518

Jack talks as if the entire US population is slaved to Liberal Hollywood. Watched “Passion of the Christ” recently? Hollywood is a business and profit is along liberal ideas. When the day comes that “The Birth of a Nation” becomes popular then Hollywood becomes Conservative.

Posted by: Aldous at April 3, 2006 1:48 AM
Comment #137520

Jack,
Every American under the age of 50 has an unalienable Right to be outraged at the childish behavior of the Democratic and Republican Political Leadership. Additionally, Every American over the Age of 50 that is Logical and Reasonable should be Totally Outraged over how their generation is being a Steward to America’s Founding Principles.

Yes, the whole world believes and thinks that all Americans have it so good, but can any Inividual, Nation, and/or Society of The Law state that “We the People” are really enjoying Freedom? No, My Peers of about 10 years did not start this War on Theology (ie Terror); however, they have proved that they Lack the Imagination to see the Forest for the Tree.

Nevertheless, the Political landscape of America has been changed from the American Citizen asking what is Politically Correct by the Law of the Land in a Loud and Proud Vioce of what can be done by Congress and the White House to build an Unlimited Susutainable Politically Unalienable Correct World. Not the same old BS that the Democrats and Republicans used to draw their lines in the sand, but what is Unalienable Right Regardless for “We the People.”

No, people can use ideas like VOID.org to send a loud and clear message to Washington and the Rapitalists that want to play The Game. Because given the current politically areana, Americans are showing that they will not settle for Anything Less than that which is Found-to-Be Politically Unalienable Correct.

And as I have said before, until the Market and Republican Leadership wake up and realize that it is “We the Consumers” who is the 800 Pound Thug who Rules the World and thus has the unalienable Right to leave A Legacy in America’s and Humanity’s Civilization of Law which can/should/will prove that America’s Founding Fathers really was right about Humans having the ability to Self-Govern. Now, is the Democrats and Republicans ready to debate the issues on the basis ideology or by The Law of Man & Nature?

Given the Collective History of All Americans Living today, my money is that some how some why the Political Power is coming back into the hands of “We the People.” The only real question is what natural course of Human Events must take place so that those holding “The Cash” and those needing “The Cash” can come to terms with making Every Citizen in America and Humanity’s Nations of Law economically viable and financially independent so that Governments can truely shrink in size/cost and Corporations/Shareholders can reap their True reward without consuming.

Posted by: Henry Schlatman at April 3, 2006 1:58 AM
Comment #137525

“The current king of outrage is Bill O’Reilly, the host of a Fox television show who only has to look at the camera to convey a sense that some monstrosity has been committed. But there are plenty of others. Sean Hannity (also at Fox) and Joe Scarborough (at MSNBC) are furious about whatever the Democrats have done that day.”

I think it says something that the writers could so easily produce professional haters like O’Reilly and Hannity for the Right while serving only Lou Dobbs for the Left.

Poor Economist must have scoured the airwaves for days searching for a hatefull Liberal but could only find Dobbs.

Sad.

Posted by: Aldous at April 3, 2006 2:14 AM
Comment #137526

“I think we should all hold onto our opinions and fight for them, with the caveat that we are probably wrong in many particulars. We should all try to think of how all this will sound next year or ten years from now and avoid saying or doing anything that will embarrass us later. The passion will pass and we will have to live and work with each other again and again.”

This is one of the few reasonable statements I’ve read by you. Congratulations!

Posted by: Tim Crow at April 3, 2006 2:20 AM
Comment #137528

It’s funny that the only complaint cited that Republicans have of Democrats is that they are “unAmerican” without mentioning anything more complete.

I have often thought that if a Democrat president came to power who was as radical as Bush, for instance, who wanted to completely get rid of Defenses of any kind, etc. that I would be against them. The only sure fire way we have of judging a president are the results. For a long time I kept thinking Republicans would start decrying Bush just on results. After a point, I would have thought no excuse would suffice. Shows how little I knew.

But Bush’s reign has mostly taught me there is no equivalence between the parties. His neo-conservative, ultra-right wing ideas failed so spectacularly because they were deeply flawed to begin with.

Posted by: Max at April 3, 2006 3:16 AM
Comment #137529

btw the 1915 film the birth of a nation was presidents wilsons (democrat) favorate film . he was quoted to say (it is like writing history with lightning).no doubt about it wilson was a old school southern racist. also the film brought back a resurgence of the dreaded KKK. his cabinet brought back jim crow to wasington dc. btw dc had been intergrated for almost fifty years a abe lincoln republican thing. after the quote he received thousands of letters from the naacp and other civic groups throughout the country then he did the backflip he denied it. but he could not deny what his cabinet did by putting back jim crow to washington dc.also the film critics of the day wrote it as racist and ole dw made the movie called intolerance the next year.more info on wilson and the film birth of a nation is at reason.com/links/links020805.shtml

Posted by: RODNEY BROWN at April 3, 2006 3:16 AM
Comment #137531

RODNEY BROWN:

We all know the Republicans became the Official Racist Party when the Dixie Democrats went to the GOP in the 60’s. Before that time, both parties were roughly the same. After that time, all the bigoted racists became GOPers.

Posted by: Aldous at April 3, 2006 3:44 AM
Comment #137532

We all know the Republicans became the Official Racist Party when the Dixie Democrats went to the GOP in the 60’s. Before that time, both parties were roughly the same. After that time, all the bigoted racists became GOPers.

Posted by: Aldous at April 3, 2006 03:44 AM

Did you have to get a permit to haul that load of shit here?

Posted by: goodkingned at April 3, 2006 3:57 AM
Comment #137533

Professional Haters (Democrat):

>Howard Dean, DNC Chairman/Demagogue (“I hate Republicans”, “Yeeeeaaaahh!!”)

>Al Franken, Character Assasin/Talk Show Host

>Louis Farrakhan, Race Hustler/Space Traveler
(“America must be burned!”)

>Ward Churchill, College Professor/Holocaust Denier(“9-11 victims had it coming”)

>Jesse Jackson, Poverty Pimp/Anti-Semite

>Keith Olbermann, News Analyst/Bill O’Reilly wannabe

>Helen Thomas, …Helen Thomas

>Harry Belefonte, Singer/Socialist

>Ted Kennedy, Senator/Murderer

>John Kerry, Senator/War Criminal(“Our soldiers terrorize women and children in Iraq”)

I’ll be back when I think of more.


Posted by: Duano at April 3, 2006 3:59 AM
Comment #137534

Aldous,

Why is the only Klansman in the Senate a Democrat? (Robert Byrd)

Posted by: Duano at April 3, 2006 4:03 AM
Comment #137535

aldous so the hell with the truth about wilson and the film and the fact he put jim crow back in dc. so i should just shut up and not speak about it.and forget it ever happened. sorry pal i wont and go ahead call the gop anything you want free country.

Posted by: RODNEY BROWN at April 3, 2006 4:11 AM
Comment #137537

“Maybe it was Mr. Falwell’s TV appearance with Mr. Robertson on Sept. 13, 2001, during which the two religious leaders agreed that the terrorist attack two days earlier was divine punishment for American immorality. “God continues to lift the curtain and allow the enemies of America to give us probably what we deserve,” said Mr. Falwell, who also declared, “I really believe that the pagans, and the abortionists, and the feminists, and the gays and the lesbians who are actively trying to make that an alternative lifestyle, the A.C.L.U., People for the American Way — all of them who have tried to secularize America — I point the finger in their face and say, ‘You helped this happen.’ “


“Well, I’ll be damned. At least, that’s what the Rev. Jerry Falwell says. Last month Mr. Falwell issued a statement explaining that, in his view, Jews can’t go to heaven unless they convert to Christianity. And what Mr. Falwell says matters — maybe not in heaven, but here on earth. After all, he’s a kingmaker in today’s Republican Party.”


“Or maybe it was Mr. Falwell’s appearance on “60 Minutes” in October 2002, when he declared, “I think Muhammad was a terrorist.” Muhammad, he said, was “a violent man” — unlike Mr. Falwell, I guess, who said of terrorists that we should “blow them all away in the name of the Lord.”“

Posted by: Aldous at April 3, 2006 4:14 AM
Comment #137538

Aldous,

Jerry Falwell and Pat Robertson? Is that the best you’ve got?

Posted by: Duano at April 3, 2006 4:18 AM
Comment #137541

Is that a challenge? I still have the “Terry Schiavo is alive” speech Frist gave!!!

Posted by: Aldous at April 3, 2006 4:23 AM
Comment #137542

aldous. jerry falwell does not speak to me or for me just like ward churchill does not speak for you i think?

Posted by: RODNEY BROWN at April 3, 2006 4:26 AM
Comment #137543

Duano, half those guys in your list aren’t even Democrats. And you left out Michael Moore — who isn’t a Democrat either.

Good post Jack, and I totally agree. Judging by the tone of your most recent posts compared to those from a couple weeks ago, you’ve done a lot of soul searching on this.

Posted by: American Pundit at April 3, 2006 4:30 AM
Comment #137544

Who the hell is Ward Churchill? Was he ever invited into the White House? Was he ever a guest speaker for the DNC? Did any major Democratic Candidate ever have his picture taken with him? Has Ward Churchill ever donated or organized the donations of MILLIONS into the DNC?

Answer: NO!!!

Posted by: Aldous at April 3, 2006 4:33 AM
Comment #137545

Oh, yeah

>Michael Moore, Film Maker/Competitive Eater

Couldn’t resist. And BTW, Bill O’Reilly isn’t a Republican. I should have put the list as (left) instead of (Dems).

Posted by: Duano at April 3, 2006 4:40 AM
Comment #137549

who the hell was sein fein were they ever invited to the rnc or to the bush white house?

Posted by: RODNEY BROWN at April 3, 2006 5:09 AM
Comment #137550

One has to wonder about Democratic leader Nancy Pelosi when she called the recent McKinney incident a mistake, an unfortunate lack of recognition of a member of Congress.

She asserts no carelessness on McKinney?? Only that the police officer unfortunately did not recognize her??

WOW!! My first thought was, what if someone had disguised themselves as a member of Congress only to gain entry by walking around the metal detectors and blowing up the room full of congressional members?

Would Pelosi still say it was unfortunate of the police officer? NO, she would lambaste Bush for not having a proper security force protecting our lawmakers.

Just goes to show how two-faced this Pelosi is.

I hope the media can stay on top of this story about Democrat McKinney and being above the law.

Posted by: Everett Hatton at April 3, 2006 5:31 AM
Comment #137562

Everett, Good point about Pelosi and McKinney; you were right on with that.

“This is kind of funny when you think about it. Leftists compain that Republicans control every branch of government. Rightists dislike that the left dominates the movie business and the universities.
Is there even an adequate comparison there?

Posted by: womanmarine at April 3, 2006 12:33 AM”


Unfortunately, you’re missing the big picture here. Controlling all branches of gov’t is a testament of “Democracy”; they were brought into power by “we the people”. Hollywood doesn’t get voted in or out (unfortunately); they just force issues and spout off at the mouth whenever they damn, well please. The same is true for universities.


You see, when you’re democratically elected to a certain position, you will be held accountable (at some point) for your actions. Hollywood and the Universities don’t get held accountable and that’s why they hide behind the first amendment every chance they get.

Posted by: rahdigly at April 3, 2006 7:39 AM
Comment #137563

Jack, outrage is too strong a term. Outrage should result in action. Bitching and moaning don’t act, they just complain.

Outrage is what our colonialists felt toward the British. Outrage is what the South felt toward the North in 1860. Outrage is what all Americans felt when the Japanese bombed Pearl Harbor. Outrage is what Americans felt after 9/11.

Outrage, leads to action. What we see today amounts to little more than bitching and moaning. When it becomes outrage, voters will show up and vote incumbents out of office by voting for challengers, any challengers. Outrage acts. Bitching and moaning wile away the hours in a perverted pastime of masquerading as outrage.

Posted by: David R. Remer at April 3, 2006 7:50 AM
Comment #137566
Hollywood and the Universities dont get held accountable and thats why they hide behind the first amendment every chance they get.

Hollywood and the universities are accountable to their customers. The first amendment is scarcely relevant because if they released truly offensive products the public would reject them.

Duano,

Louis Farrakhan is a Democrat? You must be kidding! Wouldn’t it be a little odd for someone who thinks that white people were created by an evil wizard to be a member of a predominantly white political party?

Likewise with Ward Churchill. He sees the (white) US government as genocidal, regardless of which party is in power.

Posted by: Woody Mena at April 3, 2006 8:08 AM
Comment #137567

.. and to anticipate your next comment, I don’t think Farrakhan and Churchill are leftists either. Like the Al Qaeda and the Taliban, they are arch-conservatives who believes that their own cultures are morally superior to white, Judeo-Christian culture.

Posted by: Woody Mena at April 3, 2006 8:13 AM
Comment #137569

I think there is one major factor at play here and the issue is not neccesarily just between the Democrats or Republicans. I think we in this country today are witnessing the aged 60’s generation’s lack of trust in each other and the American people. Both sides (conservative and liberal/progressive) are unwilling to admit a that the mantra they’ve been living with since they were the baby boomers of the 1980’s is absolutely wrong. “You can have it all”. This entire country, has been in hot pursuit of ‘it all’ since the late 1980’s, at a devestating price to our country. Having it all, being right all the time, never compromising, who gets the credit, ‘greed is good’,’destroy your enemies’ mentality has permenated every fiber of our culture. No one bothers to compromise or negotiate with anyone anymore. That would mean surrendering your ideals, believes and desires to the CONTROL of someone else.
This is why Liebermann and McCain are attacked by their own parties for being traitors, soft or weak when they make efforts to compromise or at least hear the opposing side. Americans know, if nothing else, life is compromise. Our ‘leaders’ are caught up in a popularity contest instead of taking care of the business of the country. It’s not about whose right (or left), but who wins. I do believe George Bush did come into office in an attempt to be a uniter…however, how can you unite people who don’t want to work with anyone but themselves?
Bottom line is the republicans have some wonderful ideas as do the democrats, on how to fix a lot of the issues we’re facing. However, the democrats are throwing a tantrum because the republicans won’t let them play with the ball, and republicans don’t know what to do with the ball, they just know Democrats can’t have it…and American is the ball.

Posted by: Avis at April 3, 2006 8:39 AM
Comment #137571

Woody, nice try with the Farrakan/conservatives are white supremists angle. However, it just doesn’t fly. Farrakan is a joke; and so is modern liberalism for that matter. They don’t get it and they can not keep this country safe.

And, hollywood and the universities don’t get held accountable like the politicians do; that’s (another) fact. Everytime they are “called out” they run and hide behind the 1rst amendment. Everytime they have low ratings at the oscars or have hollywood stars protest for “clemency” for a convicted murderer; they always blame conservatives or blame the president, instead of standing up to their claims and beliefs.

Posted by: rahdigly at April 3, 2006 8:53 AM
Comment #137576

Avis, nicely stated. I would like to borrow that last part: “the democrats are throwing a tantrum because the republicans won’t let them play with the ball, and republicans don’t know what to do with the ball, they just know Democrats can’t have it…”

Pretty neatly sums up why America’s problems get worse by the year, and Congress’ solutions create more problems than they solve.

Got an al-Queda problem: invade some other country and triple our enemies.

Got an entitlement problem: bury the nation under mountains of debt, it will go away eventually.

Got a border security problem: Tell your enemies you are surveilling them while leaving the front gate and door wide open. (That’s real smart!)

Their partisanship and lack of vision just keep making existing problems worse, more costly, and unsustainable. Can anyone say Medicare Rx drug plan? Now 300% more costly than originally voted on.

These politicians need to be kicked where it hurts worst, at the polls in November 7’ths elections, and be sure to kick them in the direction of back home, never to return to D.C. to harm our nation again. Vote Out Incumbents for Democracy. That means vote for challengers to the incumbents. Enough incumbents lose, all politicians will get the message, voters RULE, and results that solve problems will get the votes.

Posted by: David R. Remer at April 3, 2006 9:31 AM
Comment #137578

Digly, you miss the point.

Hollywood and universities are subject to market pressures. See, for example, the notorious Hollywood flop “Gigli.” It was, by all accounts, complete and utter shite, so nobody saw it.

Remember the free market? If a product isn’t to your liking, you can choose freely not to see it. Nobody makes you go to the movies, watch TV, or anything else.

Ditto universities. You certainly don’t have to enroll at any particular university, or extend your education past age 16 at all! If you are conservative and wish an ideological education, there are certainly institutions that will happily serve your needs. Ditto on the liberal end. And, at any particular institution, curricula offer more than enough choice to allow those students WHO CHOOSE TO TAKE RESPONSIBILITY FOR THEIR EDUCATIONS ample opportunity to boraden or narrow their intellectual horizons as they see fit.

Remember, the free market is your friend, and the free market allows you, heaven forbid, to choose NOT to consume.

Posted by: Arr-squared at April 3, 2006 9:37 AM
Comment #137582
Farrakan is a joke; and so is modern liberalism for that matter. They don’t get it and they can not keep this country safe.

First of all, we’re not asking Farrakhan to keep this country safe…we’re not asking him to do anything…he just keeps popping up like the proverbial bad penney.

But I’ve repeatedly heard that liberals can’t keep this country safe…hogwash…9/11 occurred on Bush’s watch…he was warned.

Why is it that the very party who ignored terrorist warnings feels the “other” party can’t keep the U.S. safe? I’m tired of hearting that liberals (Democrats, left) can’t keep the U.S. secure…well, Republicans haven’t done well, either (although they’ve seemed to ignore changing those colored alerts…guess it’s not close enough to election time to scare the populace yet).

What actual fact(s) demonstrate that the liberals (Dems, left) are not adequate in the security area???

Posted by: Lynne at April 3, 2006 9:45 AM
Comment #137586

Incoming!!!

Lynne, the Bush-fans have that myth down pat. No doubt you’ll hear that everything from 9/11 to the insurgency in Iraq is Clinton’s fault.

Posted by: American Pundit at April 3, 2006 9:58 AM
Comment #137587

“I’m tired of hearting that liberals (Democrats, left) can’t keep the U.S. secure…well, Republicans haven’t done well, either”


Not doing “well” and “underminning” this countries’ ability to fight a war and see to it that the country is safe are two (entirely) different things. Until the Dems can prove that they can do better, than the Repubs, not to mention anything at all, they will always be labeled (rightfully so) as soft on National Security. Period.

Posted by: rahdigly at April 3, 2006 10:00 AM
Comment #137590

Rahdigly-
We don’t hold people accountable for their opinions in that way. The accountability is one that falls to all who communicate: somebody takes what you say to mean something, and if they don’t like it, one has to fear that it reflects poorly on you.

Every now and then somebody complains about the sex and violence and other objectionable things in the media. Then they complain about the universities, and how liberal they’re getting. Many of these same people, though, turn around and sing hosannas to the Free Market.

This is the point in an anime where the characters mouth drops open, and the eyes go blank. Those culture warriors hardly realize it, but the free market means choice, just as Democracy means choice. If they want more conservative education, perhaps they should dump the pretentious hatred of academics, or else seek out the freely available conservative institutions, which no law has denied them. If they want more conservative filmmaking and television, they should either change the channel, or drop their loathing of artistic fields, and grow a nice crop of their own Spielbergs and Coppolas.

This is a nation of persuasion, where people are free to use honeyed words as they are to exhaust themselves trying to browbeat their fellow citizens into their orthodoxy of culture.

A culture like this is always going to be difficult, and culture warriors will always find something to tear their hair out about. With religion, morality, and opinions about matters left up to people they have no control over, it’s spectacularly easy for folks to predict doom and forecast the end of the country.

The truth is, America’s more robust than that. Part of what makes it robust is the diversity of opinion and choice. The market reflects this as the moon reflects the sunlight. Without the ability to decide one’s opinion and morality for oneself, things like the market and academic melieu of our time would be fairly useless. It is only in the freedom that our society enjoys that we see this benefit in these systems. Without it, we would not have so many different options available as to how we choose to live our lives, run our businesses, etc.

As system like ours, if it runs properly, is bound to have its share of ongoing outrage and indignation, some of it just personal egotism, some of it important, substantial dissent against a true evil going on. It’s both useless and dangerous to try and supress this, to make it go away. In fact, that just tends to aggravate things. When a real problem is at the center of such outrage, the more one tries to shut others up, the more the fury builds.

The best way to rid oneself of such outrage is to either show its invalidity in a difficult-to-refute way, or acknowledge its validity and do something about it. The wisdom of either approach depends on ones clarity about the situation. If the Republicans want to dampen the anger in this country, they have three options, generally speaking: 1)They can succeed despite the doomsaying; 2)They can explain and lay out the situation to where people can see how the Republicans couldn’t really help the situation; and 3) They could admit things got screwed up and start taking care of them and working with the rest of the country. This last option might be easier than they think, since they vastly overestimate the distance between their interests and those of the left and center.

Posted by: Stephen Daugherty at April 3, 2006 10:29 AM
Comment #137594

Avis,

“I think we in this country today are witnessing the aged 60’s generation’s lack of trust in each other and the American people.”

As a member of that “aged” ’60s generation that folks like you disparage, I have to say that you couldn’t be more wrong.
The expression was “don’t trust anyone over 30”, and as we grew up we realized that everyone becomes 30 eventually.
We were, and still are a generation that sought to unite the people on this planet in the cause of peace.
Don’t make the mistake of thinking I am a pacifist. I do belive in defending myself.

I also belive that trust, like respect, is something that you earn, and I still haven’t seen anything of my government that earns either.

Posted by: Rocky at April 3, 2006 10:44 AM
Comment #137598

Stephen you had me strung along with you every word of the way until the last 2 sentences:

They could admit things got screwed up and start taking care of them and working with the rest of the country. This last option might be easier than they think, since they vastly overestimate the distance between their interests and those of the left and center.

They do not vastly overestimate the distance between themselves and the left. That distance is majority power in government, and the chasm is hard to overestimate. Anyone who thinks the differeneces are about anything other than majority power in government will continue to be sorely disppointed that our government is so inept and inefficient.

Let me give you an example. Congress has a bill which has full bi-partisan support in committee. When it comes out to the floor, the most miniscule of differences become filibuster threatening differences, not because of the content of the bill, but, for who gets credit for the final package on passage, their amended version our ours.

It is all about power and perception of power, and while D’s and R’s waste years fighting over these political differences even when there are no policy differences, our nation’s debts, border insecurity, educational decline, and holes in our safety nets continue to worsen.

Posted by: David R. Remer at April 3, 2006 10:56 AM
Comment #137608

Stephen, ahh, what would this blog be without a long, epic retort from you? I agree with your take on democracy and choice. And, I certainly agree with the fact that America is diverse and robust.


“If they want more conservative education, perhaps they should dump the pretentious hatred of academics, or else seek out the freely available conservative institutions, which no law has denied them.”


How could you possibly spin this in favor of the libs?! It’s not the conservatives fault that the schools have been “invaded” by the liberals. And, the conservatives are going elsewhere to get their education and some are even staying and fighting these systems. And, they’re doing that b/c that’s part of the “Choice” and “freedoms” they have in this country; just as the libs have the freedom to dominate the schools, judges and (of course) the media. Mark these words, they will pay (dearly) for that; in the long run, though.

Posted by: rahdigly at April 3, 2006 11:32 AM
Comment #137611

George Washington warned about the dangers of the party system. One of his fears was that the factions would subjugate what was in the best interest of the country to what was in their own best interest. (Sound familiar?)

“A fire not to be quenched, it demands a uniform vigilance to prevent its bursting into a flame, lest, instead of warming, it should consume,” Washington said of the party system in his farewell address.

History may yet prove him right.

Posted by: slowthinker at April 3, 2006 11:50 AM
Comment #137617

Rahdigly, schools invaded by the liberals? Get an education on the history of our education, man. American schools have been liberal for centuries. They don’t call it a Liberal Arts degree for nothing. If there is an invasion, it is the conservatives invading the schools. Georgia has a bill to include the Christian Bible as a text book. Now that’s what I call an invasion.

Posted by: David R. Remer at April 3, 2006 12:06 PM
Comment #137619

Aldous
You can add Al Franken and Jeanine Garafalo and add to list from there. Those two in no way are Rep-right-conservative or anything close to that.

Posted by: tomh at April 3, 2006 12:14 PM
Comment #137620

the perfect wedge issue for the republicans in 2008 is hillery clinton.if you doubt me check out the dems. blog cites today.

Posted by: john counts at April 3, 2006 12:16 PM
Comment #137621

Max
If the president is ultra-right wing as you say. then those that you favor must me ultra-left wing. I think that is fair statement.

Posted by: tomh at April 3, 2006 12:17 PM
Comment #137626

Woody Mena
Please define your use of the word conservative. It does not fit the way you used it.

Posted by: tomh at April 3, 2006 12:26 PM
Comment #137628

Living abroad for anumber of years lends your perspective a second look that many of us simply never get. This becomes apparent when you look at American politics through the lens of a foreign nation’s media and you realise that the differences that tear us apart are in effect, inconsequential.

Gay marriage for instance, it is comical to many in the rest of the world to know that many voted for Bush on this issue alone. The candidates did not disagree on important issues such as whether to pull out of Iraq. Their policy disagreements were one of quantity, such as tax cuts. Bush wanted tax cuts for everyone. Kerry wanted tax cuts for middle and lower-income folks while increasing taxes for the wealthiest among us. Churches went out of their way to get the vote out against against Kerry over his support for abortion!

The problem with us in America lies in our ability to discad perfectly good ideas simply because they come from across the aisle. Unchecked, This self-righteous rage that we feel will only increase and it will divide us in a way that is not good for America.

Try to reply to this ad without invoking rage as your logic. It might be the beggining of a good thing.

Posted by: Roman at April 3, 2006 12:31 PM
Comment #137631

lynne
Cong. McKinney

Posted by: tomh at April 3, 2006 12:34 PM
Comment #137637

Voters should be outraged.
Slumbering voters should be much more outraged than they are.

If none of this makes them mad, then nothing will.

Unfortunately, the pain and misery has to reach very high levels before voters start paying attention. Then, it is too late. Voters have themselves to thank for it, because they keep ignoring government, which keeps allowing it to grow more and more corrupt.

It’s just a matter of time.
Pain drives change.
When the pain grows bad enough, voters will do something about it.
Too bad, they always have to learn the hard way.

Posted by: d.a.n at April 3, 2006 12:53 PM
Comment #137639

Roman,

“Living abroad for anumber of years lends your perspective a second look that many of us simply never get.”

What most Americans that haven’t traveled abroad don’t seem to realize is that folks in other countries are just the same as we are. They have the same wants and needs as we do.

The parochial attitude that is American, sees America as perfect, and all others as, while maybe not bad, certainly not so perfect.
Governments asside, my experience has been that all people are pretty much the same everywhere.

If you talk to just plain folks in foriegn contries, they see America, the idea, because they can’t see America, the reality. They don’t understand that Americans are just like they are.
They don’t understand that Americans have to strugle to make ends meet, just like they do, and the streets here, aren’t paved with gold.

Posted by: Rocky at April 3, 2006 1:07 PM
Comment #137640

“Get an education on the history of our education, man. American schools have been liberal for centuries. They don’t call it a Liberal Arts degree for nothing. If there is an invasion, it is the conservatives invading the schools.”


That’s absurd! First off, what’s your source to back that up on the GA bill? B/c I live in that state and I know the state legislatures were looking into that bill; not definite yet, though. And, what’s wrong with another point of view, anyway?

Also, Georgia is the first state to pass the toughest laws for illegal immigrants; that’s a big thing considering the wussies in D.C. won’t do anything about enforcing our laws. So back up off the “G” to the “A”. :o)

Posted by: rahdigly at April 3, 2006 1:09 PM
Comment #137641

Jack, good points.

I’ve been very concerned about the path both our political parties have taken. There was a very interesting article in The Atlantic last month (http://www.theatlantic.com/doc/prem/200603/sharon), unfortunately it’s a subscription piece. While it is clear that the classical use of our political party system has become detrimental to our nation, the thesis of the article is a bold and innovative politician can simply declare himself free of the constraints of establishment politicians - witness Ariel Sharon, who was a pioneer in Palestinian repression and establishment of Israeali communities on the West Bank. When he believed it no longer advantageous for his country, he simply declared the policy at an end. When Likud was no longer hospitable, he established a new party. It appears our country needs that kind of thinking and leadership if we are ever to mature on the international stage. Dave

Posted by: Dave at April 3, 2006 1:15 PM
Comment #137643

David R. Remer-
Politics, given free rein can create apparent differences where in reality only miniscule disagreements exist. I’m fully aware, and often much frustrated with the former, but have much faith in the latter as well.

I hate to say this, but I think you’ve fallen into the trap of partisanship as well. Your only difference is that rather than picking either D or R, you pick both. I’d say the distance between us and you is no different between that which separates D and R.

I think we can do better than that. And we should. The problem isn’t having the wrong party in power. That’s incidental to the issue. If the Democrats gain power like I hope, yet don’t get around to dealing with the problems at hand, I will call that little improvement, and will in fact consider it a blunder on my party’s part.

The competition of ideas that our nation’s greatness is founded upon guarantees that some relationships will turn to rivalry and even outright hatred. Like anything, though, these rivalries can become overvalued, the struggle against one perceived evil or another oversold.

Rahdigly
This blog would certainly be much shorter without my contribution.

Define Liberal. Perhaps for those on the Far Right, most everybody is Liberal. In that case, it would be difficult for the media and academia to not be liberal in their eyes. A dwarf thinks everybody tall, a giant believes everybody else is short. In their context, are they not correct? Given the radical bent of the Republican party, maybe the media and the academic fields ARE more liberal- only from their relative perspective.

Or perhaps these things come of natural inhibitions among conservatives towards certain careers. A higher concentration of liberals, in this case, is nobody else’s fault than they’re own. You can’t blame the other team for fielding more batters, when fewer of your people are willing to step up to the plate.

We also must consider how liberal these people truly are. Again the relative political distance is important. Someone from the Republican leadership may call liberal what many people call consensus, even among those who vote Republican. Democrats and liberals can freely entertain different combinations of positions, though certain configurations are naturally discouraged.

Point is, this notion of dominance speaks more to the prejudices of the critics of the media and the academic sector than it does to any conspiratorial invasion.

Posted by: Stephen Daugherty at April 3, 2006 1:19 PM
Comment #137646

Rocky

Many people in other countries base their opinion of America, and Americans, on what they see on their movie screens or what they hear on their CD players.

That’s scary!

Posted by: slowthinker at April 3, 2006 1:46 PM
Comment #137649

Stephen, I define liberals as the political viewpoint that is based on “good intentions”, rather than what’s good for the country; “emotionalism” instead of “rationalism”. Now, of course, some Republicans and even some conservatives fall under that category at times (particularly w/ the illegal aliens situation); however, when I’m referring to liberals, that’s exactly whom I’m referring to.

To me, modern liberalism is anti-military, anti-police, anti-family, anti-religion, etc. Basically they are on the wrong side on (just about) every issue. Howard Dean, John Kerry, Ted Kennedy, Dick Durbin, Hillary, Gore, Pelosi, just to name a few. They are (mostly) on the wrong of important issues this country faces. So, now you know what I mean by liberal.

By the way, I am by no means a far right (or ultra) conservative; there are some issues I’m conservative about, some I’m liberal and some libertarian. It’s just that modern liberalism (as a whole) is weak and ineffective and will never (ever) keep this country safe.

Posted by: rahdigly at April 3, 2006 2:11 PM
Comment #137655

Does anyone notice how defensive these blogs become after a while? Everyone is on their high horse declaring what they believe (which is fine) but at the top of their voices, people start explaining and asserting themselves like a bad dissertation. Again this is all fine, it IS a blog, but this, is my point entirely. Why are these blogs so popular now? Apparently people don’t feel they’re being heard and/or understood. I mean really, why get defensive if you know you’re among friends…or are you? Yes, I’m blaming the aged 60’s generation, because this entire situation is what they believed back then. The ‘personal is political’ now, and it no longer matters how you treat each other, it’s all about you, it’s about what you believe, what party you belong to, are you on the correct side of the argument, and are you a vegetarian or a bible-thumper. Hence our politicians. How many times has Rush Limbaugh gone off about liberals and the assumptions about them? OR the mainstream media, being ‘wary’ of the religious right? When everything is political, this, in turn, allows for assumptions and stereotyping of each other, which of course leads to fear and complete misunderstandings. Like conservatives are racists (which I find hysterical because I’m a black performing arts teacher…a liberals dream, but I can’t take the liberal/progressive ideology anymore). And liberals are soft, (which I also find hysterical because I have seen some of the most hateful, caluculated, arrogant behaviour from the left for a long time). Blanket knee jerk statements made from years of assumptions and NO actual investigation other than to prove your own point, but not to get to the actual truth.
But be that as it may, the fact that both parties hate and distrust each other so much means we as a country are not going to come together and resolve anything because neither side has any trust or respect for the other. Which again, I find ironic since the progressive are the ones who forced everyone to be “tolerant” back in the 90’s. And honestly, I’m not really for buttering up to the liberals but American sees through the crap, and it’s not about the details of gay, or immigration, or Dubai, or even the war in Iraq. We need as a people to pull back and really see, who is saying what, where are we really going and what are the real threats. We can’t do that if we’re constantly “swatting bees”. (Even if they don’t sting you this time, they might, and that buzzing noise is too annoying to get anything done!) We’ve become like children arguing just to hear our own voices….it’s a tantrum! If we want to be taken seriously on the global stage we need to come together as a country or we’ve had it. And no one wants to rule ruins….

Posted by: Avis at April 3, 2006 3:38 PM
Comment #137656

rahdigly, apparently you also need to brush up on your what is going on in your own state.

Though students in many states enroll in classes related to the Bible, Georgia would become the first to require its Department of Education to put in place a curriculum to teach the history and literature of the Bible. Schools would use the book itself as the classroom textbook. Specifically the bill would establish electives on both the New and Old Testaments.

It has overwhelmingly passed both chambers, but needs a final vote on a minor House change. The vote is expected as early as Monday. If it passes, the state’s Department of Education has a year to establish Bible elective courses in the curriculum.

Christian Science Monitor

Posted by: David R. Remer at April 3, 2006 3:43 PM
Comment #137657
If the president is ultra-right wing as you say. then those that you favor must me ultra-left wing. I think that is fair statement.

I can’t remember when a Democrat wanted to rewrite the constitution, give money to certain religions, or claimed they were above the law, so I don’t think it’s the same. Those proposals are radical no matter what side of the fence they are coming from.

Posted by: Max at April 3, 2006 3:49 PM
Comment #137679

teddy kennendy. a bridge over trobeled water. bill clinton .i never had sexual relations . al gore in a buddihist temple. bill clinton wait till my term is over .

Posted by: FA STEPHENS at April 3, 2006 6:00 PM
Comment #137687

Max
D’s and R’s both try to rewrite the Constitution. They try in the Congress and are less successful than doing it in the courts; having the courts legislate; totally out of bounds, unconstitutional, un-American, and harmful to the Republic.

Posted by: tomh at April 3, 2006 6:55 PM
Comment #137689

Rahdigly-
I’ll put this bluntly: your idea of modern liberalism is a travesty of the real thing. It’s the convenient set of secret beliefs that your people talk about Democrats having, so you don’t have to speak about the views we actually promote and advocate as a party.

It’s difficult to reach consensus with those who don’t trust your word at face value, and those who treat any compromise with you as the first step on the slippery slope to Hell.

But you know what, because of your inability to compromise, your party’s mistrust of those who don’t hold the party orthodoxy above all rival views, your party is slowly losing the power it once had over the American people. People are beginning to realize that Democrats are no less passionate, and perhaps a great deal more flexible in their ideology and practice, than the Republicans are.

Americans are at the point now where both parties seem insufficient for the job. That said, the parties that can prove most useful, most passionate, and most clearheaded about things in the next few years, may be able to determine the destiny of the nation for the next few decades. The Republicans can do this, but they have to realize that the path to good policy does not begin with a checklist of ideological talking points, and that their excessive closeness to corporate America is compromising their ability to act as true conservatives do. They will also have to learn the charms of moderation. No narrow segment of America can long keep the other Americans under their thumbs without inspiring resentment and rebellion.

Posted by: Stephen Daugherty at April 3, 2006 7:02 PM
Comment #137693

Stephen Daugherty said: “I hate to say this, but I think you’ve fallen into the trap of partisanship as well. Your only difference is that rather than picking either D or R, you pick both.”

Clever, but not even remotely true, Stephen. You know my stand, and it has nothing to do with the ideology of Republicans and Democrats. It has everything to do with results by our partisan political process and governance. I will champion any party or all parties who solve America’s problems instead of compounding them. That is my position and it has nothing to do my being partisan. I, and many more like me, are non-partisan and vote for results and progress, and against ineffective politicians and parties and a lack of progress.

You are a Democrat, and no matter how bad things get, you will likely want to remain a Democrat. You have faith in your party, that makes you partisan. For those of us who have lost faith in the results and progress of governance by Democrats and Republicans, we are, if any are, non-partisan, wishing only for governance that improves our nation and our children’s prospects over our own. So far, neither Republocrat Party has a very good track record in that regard over the last decade or so.

I will vote for any party in coming elections and any candidate which is not incumbent. That is about as non-partisan as a voter can get, when that is the only avenue left to bring government back to being responsible to the nation and her people and their children’s futures.

Posted by: David R. Remer at April 3, 2006 7:29 PM
Comment #137714

How many liberals out there agree with rah’s definition of liberal? It’s no wonder you find it easy to rag on us, you don’t even know who we are.

Do you have to vote for every pork barrel military project to be pro-military?

Is supporting execution for abortion doctors your definition for pro-family?

There are too many social liberals among the clergy to say that liberals are anti-religion.

Howard Dean, John Kerry, Ted Kennedy, Dick Durbin, Hillary Clinton, Al Gore, Nancy Pelosi are or have been well supported by their constituents. So by definition of support, they are not on the wrong side. They are all doing something right. Obviously I can say the same thing for those on the right. IMO let the truth be known, and let the voters decide for themselves.

Posted by: Loren at April 3, 2006 9:30 PM
Comment #137727

“I’ll put this bluntly: your idea of modern liberalism is a travesty of the real thing. It’s the convenient set of secret beliefs that your people talk about Democrats having, so you don’t have to speak about the views we actually promote and advocate as a party.”


Sorry you disagree with how I view liberalism; however, I’ve seen no evidence of where modern liberalism is the opposite of what I’ve said. And, “your people”?! Excuse me. That looks as though you’re going into labeling me b/c you don’t agree with my point of view. I’ve always found your blogs to be that of rational, so I’m a little shocked right now.


“But you know what, because of your inability to compromise, your party’s mistrust of those who don’t hold the party orthodoxy above all rival views, your party is slowly losing the power it once had over the American people.”


You should re-read my previous post b/c you clearly missed the part where I said that there were things I’m conservative about, some things I’m liberal about and some things I’m libertarian about. Instead of inquiring about which particular issue I was liberal/conservative/libertarian about, you went and labeled me in the right-wing category. What happened to inquiries and good-old debates?! Instead you got “emotional” and threw labels at me.


“People are beginning to realize that Democrats are no less passionate, and perhaps a great deal more flexible in their ideology and practice, than the Republicans are.”


I disagree there. I believe that people are starting to see that Republicans can spend just as much (if not more) than the democrats; however, with the dems having no ideas or solutions leaving the repubs as the only ones that will keep us safe, that’s leaving little room to elect democrats to do a better job. Think about, even though they both spend outrageously, the repubs are tougher on National Security (which they clearly are), so why would we elect a democrat? It just doesn’t make sense…

Posted by: rahdigly at April 3, 2006 10:20 PM
Comment #137731
rahdigly, apparently you also need to brush up on your what is going on in your own state.

That’s not surprising. I spent a lot of time in Georgia and they only know what they hear on Rush and FOX. Don’t worry, though. I a lot of Californians and New Yorkers are moving to Georgia. Next thing you know, those “carpetbaggers” are gonna turn Ga into a model Blue state. :)

Posted by: American Pundit at April 3, 2006 10:26 PM
Comment #137734
however, with the dems having no ideas or solutions leaving the repubs as the only ones that will keep us safe,

BS, rah. The blue side of this site is full of Democratic ideas and solutions that are far more effective than whatever it is the Republicans think they’re doing. In fact, you guys had to stael our ideas for energy independence and dealing with Iran and North Korea. If you guys had listened to us about Iraq, we’d be a whole lot better off and more secure there, too.

Posted by: American Pundit at April 3, 2006 10:31 PM
Comment #137736

Oh yeah, don’t forget that the Homeland Security Department and intelligence reforms were Democratic ideas, too. And the 9/11 commission as well. BTW, when are you guys going to fully implement the 9/11 commission recommendations and secure America? It’s been years now. Tick. Tick. Tick.

Posted by: American Pundit at April 3, 2006 10:33 PM
Comment #137741

“don’t forget that the Homeland Security Department and intelligence reforms were Democratic ideas, too.”

Oh yeah, and how did that “Homeland Security” do with Hurricane Katrina?! How much did it help?!


“I spent a lot of time in Georgia…I a lot of Californians and New Yorkers are moving to Georgia. Next thing you know, those “carpetbaggers” are gonna turn Ga into a model Blue state. :)”


You must not of spent alot of time here in Ga, b/c carpetbaggers don’t come down here and change the south; it’s the other way around. Look at Florida. All those New York carpetbaggers and it’s a red state. And, I know from experience b/c I am a carpetbagger and I like this state and the rednecks in the state legislature; they’re tough on crime, lax on guns, tough on immigration and show a spine when it comes to complex issues.


Posted by: rahdigly at April 3, 2006 10:45 PM
Comment #137809

>>Oh yeah, and how did that “Homeland Security” do with Hurricane Katrina?! How much did it help?!

rah,

Homeland Security…good idea.

Cheney/Bush in charge of it…bad idea.

Posted by: Marysdude at April 4, 2006 2:26 AM
Comment #137854

Okay, marysdude, American Pundit and any other liberal here…what exactly do you want? How do you see this country if you and your ilk were in charge? How would you fix everything you say is wrong? What exactly is your solution to Iraq, leave and then what? To Homeland Security, kick out the conservatives, and appoint who to do what? What should have been done with Katrina relief, if that’s all George Bush’s fault then who can come in and make it better? Specifically who in the Democratic party, or not even in the party, just who do you believe has an idea that I’ve not heard of, who would do everything that you want done, the way you want it done? This is the outrage of the American people. Seriously, if you’re going to complain about those doing the job, or trying to do the job under constant attacks and obstructions by your side, then offer something better. Not theories or attacks on conservative ideology, I want names, policies and track records.

Posted by: Avis at April 4, 2006 9:48 AM
Comment #137879


Rahdigly:

Until the Dems can prove that they can do better, than the Repubs, not to mention anything at all, they will always be labeled (rightfully so) as soft on National Security. Period.

I asked WHY the Dems are seen as “soft” on national security…you merely restated the original comment…

Posted by: Lynne at April 4, 2006 11:01 AM
Comment #137881

Rahdigly:

“People are beginning to realize that Democrats are no less passionate, and perhaps a great deal more flexible in their ideology and practice, than the Republicans are.”


I disagree there. I believe that people are starting to see that Republicans can spend just as much (if not more) than the democrats; however, with the dems having no ideas or solutions leaving the repubs as the only ones that will keep us safe, that’s leaving little room to elect democrats to do a better job. Think about, even though they both spend outrageously, the repubs are tougher on National Security (which they clearly are)

1) Why would Democrats bring up anything in the current Congressional atmosphere…Hastert won’t bring anything to the floor that doesn’t have a majority of Republicans to pass it…he isn’t even counting any Democratic votes, disenfranchising a good part of the country whose elected representatives are Democrat.

2) You again restated that the Dems are “soft” on security (and even said “which they clearly are”), yet you give zero facts to back your statement up….how are the Dems “soft on security” and how are the Repubs “hard” on security???

I’ve asked twice now…how about a real answer??

Posted by: Lynne at April 4, 2006 11:07 AM
Comment #137903

Bravo Avis! But I’m sure everyone out there is too busy listening to themselves to hear anyone else. They also like to lump everyone into two groups, forgetting that people are more complex than that and have overlapping ideologies. I doubt that they (or me for that matter) can be fit into one confining mold. I’ve never heard so much blatter to no purpose before. Sounds like politicians but without the worry about a backlash of opinion. Politicians are what we the people make them. They must say nothing of substance unless they provoke us. I don’t blame them, how could they ever be elected if they told us the truth about their real ideas and feelings. Being candid hurts.

Posted by: Barbara at April 4, 2006 12:06 PM
Comment #137905

Sorry: ” blather “

Posted by: Barbara at April 4, 2006 12:10 PM
Comment #137943

Lynne, besides having no ideas and solutions, the democrats always seem to be on the wrong side of the issues, particularly when it comes to National Security.

For one, I see them “criminalizing” this war on terror, rather than as a “Military” issue. There’s just too much “sympathizing” and making sure the terrorists receive “due process”, instead of doing what it takes to get rid of them. And, the enemy, in this case, would be the terrorists (the fascist pigs that cut people’s heads off while hiding behind their religion); not GWB and the conservatives!!! Most of the dems don’t know the difference; at least none that I’ve seen. That (alone) makes them dangerous and ineffective with National Security.


Another example would be accusing our soldiers of war crimes and carelessness of duty. And, I’m not talking about Abu Gharib, b/c those idiots are paying for what they did, so don’t even go there.


They also took the wrong side of the NSA program. The majority of Americans understood and were for that program, yet the dems tried to politicize the issue; using the MSM to spin the story that it was spying on Americans, all to no avail though.

These are just few examples of why most see that the dems can’t be trusted with National Security.

Posted by: rahdigly at April 4, 2006 1:36 PM
Comment #137950

rahdigly
The dems are not soft on security. Reid, Schumer, Kennedy, Pelosi, Waxman, Feingold, Leahey, McKinney ad nauseum are all for their own security. And they mean business providing for their own security. Like McKinney defending herself from Capitol security personnel doing the job they are paid to do. Now the the cat is out of the bag maybe there will be a clone of McKinney try to get in. How do we handle that? Oh, well rationale is not the forte of the Dems.

Posted by: tomh at April 4, 2006 2:09 PM
Comment #137952

rahdigly,

“There’s just too much “sympathizing” and making sure the terrorists receive “due process”, instead of doing what it takes to get rid of them.”

Do you understand that “due process” is one of the concepts that this country was founded upon?
That “due process” is part of the bedrock that makes “us” different from “them”?

Any tin horn dictator can just disappear a terrorist, or dissident. It takes the better country, that takes the higher path, to show the rest of the world that “due process”, is part and parcel of being, and remaining, the good guys.

“They also took the wrong side of the NSA program. The majority of Americans understood and were for that program, yet the dems tried to politicize the issue; using the MSM to spin the story that it was spying on Americans, all to no avail though.”

The “Dems”?

From where I sit this appeared to be a non-partisan issue, that had very little to do with “National Security”, and had everything to do with the “POSSIBILITY” of spying on all Americans.

You need to stop lumping all Democrats with the Liberal left and you and your buddies out there on the far right fringe need to start listening with better ears, and start realizing that your opinions aren’t fact.
There are a lot of ideas being floated out there on how to better prepare this country for the future. Some of these ideas are good, some are not so good, but I am certain that all of the good ideas aren’t coming from the right.

Posted by: Rocky at April 4, 2006 2:09 PM
Comment #137962


“Do you understand that “due process” is one of the concepts that this country was founded upon?
That “due process” is part of the bedrock that makes “us” different from “them”?


Yes, I do. However, that doesn’t mean I’m for the “terrorists” receiveing any of them. In fact, you just proved the point that “criminalizing” is the way to go b/c even the terrorists have rights. Wrong. And the American people are not buying it either.


“Any tin horn dictator can just disappear a terrorist, or dissident. It takes the better country, that takes the higher path, to show the rest of the world that “due process”, is part and parcel of being, and remaining, the good guys.”


How did FDR and Truman handle the National Security issue?! That’s right, today’s dems are way off on this issue. Way off!!


“You need to stop lumping all Democrats with the Liberal left and you and your buddies out there on the far right fringe need to start listening with better ears, and start realizing that your opinions aren’t fact.”


Just calling it how I see it. And, when I say dems and libs, I’m referring to the majority. I’ve explained this in an earlier post (April 3, 2006 02:11 PM), as well as my political viewpoint.

Posted by: rahdigly at April 4, 2006 2:37 PM
Comment #137971

rahdigly,

“Yes, I do. However, that doesn’t mean I’m for the “terrorists” receiveing any of them. In fact, you just proved the point that “criminalizing” is the way to go b/c even the terrorists have rights. Wrong. And the American people are not buying it either.”

Dispite you and the far right’s attempt to de-humanize the “terrorists”, they are still human beings, and ALL human beings have rights. That is one of the ideals that this country was founded upon, and if you don’t belive that, you need to go back and re-read the Declaration of Independence.

“How did FDR and Truman handle the National Security issue?! That’s right, today’s dems are way off on this issue. Way off!!”


And again you continue to stuff everybody that may be to the left of what you belive into one tiny pigeon hole.
Even those at Nuremberg were given a trial.
The people that were caught compromising National Security were still given “due process” under the law.

“Just calling it how I see it. And, when I say dems and libs, I’m referring to the majority. I’ve explained this in an earlier post (April 3, 2006 02:11 PM), as well as my political viewpoint.”

Just because we are entitled to our opinions still doesn’t make it “fact”.

“To me, modern liberalism is anti-military, anti-police, anti-family, anti-religion, etc. Basically they are on the wrong side on (just about) every issue. Howard Dean, John Kerry, Ted Kennedy, Dick Durbin, Hillary, Gore, Pelosi, just to name a few. They are (mostly) on the wrong of important issues this country faces. So, now you know what I mean by liberal.”

And in MY opinion this is a load of crap!

Just because the folks you mention are Democrats, and have been elected doesn’t mean that they speak for all Democrats, just as Bush and Cheney don’t speak for all Republicans.
Most Americans be they Democrat or Republican, are in the middle, and you don’t seem to be able to get your head around that fact when you bring out your broad brush to paint everybody on the left.

Posted by: Rocky at April 4, 2006 3:16 PM
Comment #137979

“Dispite you and the far right’s attempt to de-humanize the “terrorists”, they are still human beings, and ALL human beings have rights.”


That’s exactly what I’m talking about; you want to treat everyone like humans, regardless of the fact that they don’t even come close to treating people like human beings. And so, that kind of ideology will only grant rights and liberties from our constitution to terrorists; the same terrorists that want to destroy our constitution and way of life. This isn’t how wars are won. This isn’t how terrorists change their ways or are defeated. America can see which ideology constantly repeats your viewpoint (terrorists are people too) and that is why the libs and dems are lumped together as they are. America will win this global war on terror and it will be inspite of some people (I’ll let you fill in the blanks there).


Remember, the apologists, for the terrorists, and the emotionally charged “feel gooders” that want to paint all those who disagree as “warmongers”, are constantly telling us who they really are and what they are all about. And, that is why they will never (ever) be trusted with National Security.

Posted by: rahdigly at April 4, 2006 3:35 PM
Comment #137988

rahdigly,

I know this is a waste of time but I will try this once more.

“That’s exactly what I’m talking about; you want to treat everyone like humans, regardless of the fact that they don’t even come close to treating people like human beings. And so, that kind of ideology will only grant rights and liberties from our constitution to terrorists; the same terrorists that want to destroy our constitution and way of life.”

You still don’t get it. This “IS” what separates us from them.

We, who are trying to spread Democracy throughout the world still need to prove that we are supposed to be the good guys, and because we are supposed to be the good guys, we treat ALL people the same regardless of ideology, even if they are criminals.

We want to treat those at Gitmo as enemy combatants simply because they don’t wear the uniform of a specific army.
Can anybody out there show me a picture of an Taliban army uniform?
The Taliban were running Afghanistan, weren’t they?

“Remember, the apologists, for the terrorists, and the emotionally charged “feel gooders” that want to paint all those who disagree as “warmongers”, are constantly telling us who they really are and what they are all about.”

And so what you’re saying is that the “majority” of those that aren’t Republicans are “apologists” and emotionally charged “feel gooders”?

Posted by: Rocky at April 4, 2006 4:06 PM
Comment #137992

It’s cool that some of you keep trying to educate G Rah. Here, come over to my house, I’ve got a brick wall you can bang your head against. I lived in GA for a while myself. Tell me Rah, if you’re a carperbagger, do you still call others who move in from the North “Yankees”?

Posted by: ray at April 4, 2006 4:23 PM
Comment #137993

ray,

“It’s cool that some of you keep trying to educate G Rah. Here, come over to my house, I’ve got a brick wall you can bang your head against.”

Yeah, but ray it feels sooo good when I stop.

Posted by: Rocky at April 4, 2006 4:30 PM
Comment #138005

I’m the one who gets it; along with our military and the majority of Americans. This whole “we don’t want to be just like them” notion is complete and utter nonsense. Look at what FDR and Truman did in WWII: treatment of prisoners; interning Japanese Americans; how “extreme” the fighting was in the war, and we were nothing (NOTHING!) like the enemy. What we “were” was vitorious and the enemy was defeated. Maybe the “treat the terrorists fairly” crowd could wrap themselves around that little history (and reality) lesson for a change; though I don’t expect they will. Yet, all that does is prove the original point which is that the dems are not to be trusted with National Security. There are far (far) more dems than repubs that fit this mold of “don’t be like them”, so that’s why the dems get the label.


Terrorist are the enemy, not the U.S. gov’t or the Bush administration! It’s just absurd how people don’t get that fact. Allowing the enemy to use our laws and way of life to destroy those same laws and way of life is just asinine. It’s not a winner in the electorate; however, I don’t mind people telling us who they really are, so they can keep it up as far as I’m concerned.

And, Ray, I never call anyone from the north a yankee; it’s me that “still” gets called that. It’s all good though, it’s all in good taste.

Posted by: rahdigly at April 4, 2006 5:27 PM
Comment #138009
Terrorist are the enemy, not the U.S. gov’t or the Bush administration! It’s just absurd how people don’t get that fact.

Actually, the absurdity is the straw man you’ve created in your own mind in believing people who support the Constitution and its protection consider the government a bigger enemy than terrorists.

Then again, it’s easier to argue against the the puppets in your mind than to argue against the real situation.

It’s cool that some of you keep trying to educate G Rah. Here, come over to my house, I’ve got a brick wall you can bang your head against.

Uh oh. Someone pointed out that Rahdigly was wrong and used his name in doing so. Anything said from now on will be dismissed as an “ad hominem” attack.

Don’t say I didn’t warn you.

Posted by: LawnBoy at April 4, 2006 5:42 PM
Comment #138018

Radhigly:

Thanks for your opinions…now how about some facts…

Posted by: Lynne at April 4, 2006 6:26 PM
Comment #138019

Jack:

Wow…you’re just a master at this…if it isn’t “hysterical” it’s “outrageous”…how about a few more facts and little less hyperbole in the headlines…

Posted by: Lynne at April 4, 2006 6:27 PM
Comment #138033

rahdigly,

“I’m the one who gets it; along with our military and the majority of Americans. This whole “we don’t want to be just like them” notion is complete and utter nonsense.
Look at what FDR and Truman did in WWII: treatment of prisoners; interning Japanese Americans; how “extreme” the fighting was in the war, and we were nothing (NOTHING!) like the enemy.”

I hate to be the one to burst your bubble, but our way of life has already been changed.

What FDR and Truman did with the internment of Japanese/Americans was dispicable, and it in no way shortened the war nor did it enhance our national security.
It was wrong and there is no excuse for it.
FDR and Truman ruled over a time of great fear in America.

What we are doing with the internees at gitmo and other places is just as dispicable.
It is wrong and there is no excuse for it, it in no way shortens the war, nor does it enhance our national security.
You just don’t hold human beings without any redress indefinitely.
And now, just as in the time of WW2, the far right has attempted to scare the American public into a state of fear.

The only thing you’re right about is that the enemy isn’t us, but that said, you still have to treat people like humans if you don’t want to lower yourself to what the enemy is.

Posted by: Rocky at April 4, 2006 7:36 PM
Comment #138036

Just a thought to add. How outraged would we be if things like this started appearing in our major newspapers? http://www.gulf-times.com/site/topics/index.asp?cu_no=2&lng=1&template_id=47&temp_type=42

Maybe it’s all sentimental drivel, but it seems to me that we have a great many things in this country, and many of the best are intagible and fragile. It really is worth fighting for some of our ideals both at home and abroad, so the real question is just what those ideals are. I’m not sure if we even have a coherent idea at the moment, but all of us should step back from the heat of the argument once in a while and take time to think: are we seeking to define our ideals? Are they good ones? Consistent? Or are we only trying to sate our egoes and feed our anger?

Posted by: Amani at April 4, 2006 7:59 PM
Comment #138052

Hello folks just so you are aware may 1 is set for national hispanic walk out.Thought when they do we should help them leave the democratic republic of america then file there papers and go to the end of the line.If you are as an example(promoting not going to school but marching in protest adults fine school kids not good)

Posted by: allen stephens at April 4, 2006 8:37 PM
Comment #138055

We as a nation facing a nasty election coming up and people are gona vote there own mind and what they feel is right and wrong not left and right we are living in a world ruled by guns and politions meanwhile nada gets done because no one group can decide anything with out the tv news!He stole the election cause mr kerry said so and therfore no one is goin to do thing but complain about it there not goin to solve a thing just complain that hes doin every thing wrong so they go steal his idea and try to spin them as there own still nothing acomplished shame shame

Posted by: allen stephens at April 4, 2006 8:51 PM
Comment #138059

allen stephens,

“We as a nation facing a nasty election coming up and people are gona vote there own mind and what they feel is right and wrong not left and right we are living in a world ruled by guns and politions meanwhile nada gets done because no one group can decide anything with out the tv news!”

Actually it isn’t the news but the advertising departments of the TV stations, and Madison Avenue, that will decide the next election.

Prepare yourself for the onslaught of the nobody’s better than me campaign.

Posted by: Rocky at April 4, 2006 9:39 PM
Comment #138062

Rock,

Wars are extreme and they are no place for moderates. That’s why FDR, Truman, Lincoln, Teddy, etc. were all great Presidents in war time. The did what they had to do to win and they didn’t listen to “spineless” pi$$ants talk about becoming like the enemy. WWII didn’t make us like the Nazis or the imperialist Japs; it made us winners and the Japs and Nazis Losers! That’s how you win in wars.


Now, the “be humane to terrorists” crowd out there can try to spin it whatever way they want; however, to the majority of Americans, we know that placating to the terrorists is like trying to train a snake. And, I’m talking viper snakes here. We know what’s going on and I thank all that think otherwise for letting us know where you stand.


Now, you had a great idea earlier. Why don’t you take some of the “ad hominem” attacking bloggers and try that “brick wall” thing together.

Posted by: rahdigly at April 4, 2006 10:19 PM
Comment #138064

THANX ROCKEY YOUR RIGHT ABOUT THE TV ADDS.And your right indeed in a dance hall it takes 2 to tango.and the frinzy thats coming we as in the people will suffer.Because nothing will still get done!(AL THE BORE GORE)is worried that the republicans are the cause of globale warming!Christ we are in a war wecant control our own border problems.And that nut case mckinney from georgia it a racial thing look at that hair do that by itself would scare even the strongest cop! we as a countrie need to be very alert very because binladins watching and listening so is iran to see if they can spot a spinless whimp to jump allover.And mcain oh plz no Fred thompson from tenn would be a good name to toss in the ring hes an actor senator now actor again?One point both parties need a big change

Posted by: allen stephens at April 4, 2006 10:32 PM
Comment #138065

rahdigly,

“Wars are extreme and they are no place for moderates. That’s why FDR, Truman, Lincoln, Teddy, etc. were all great Presidents in war time. The did what they had to do to win and they didn’t listen to “spineless” pi$$ants talk about becoming like the enemy. WWII didn’t make us like the Nazis or the imperialist Japs; it made us winners and the Japs and Nazis Losers! That’s how you win in wars.”

I am truely sorry I wasted all this time trying to make sure that you might have a glimmer of humanity.

I now admit it was all a mistake.

Posted by: Rocky at April 4, 2006 10:38 PM
Comment #138069

Oh, and btw, this doesn’t mean that I concede the point.
What it means is that I have actually found somthing more painfull than a poke in the eye.

Have a life.

Posted by: Rocky at April 4, 2006 11:04 PM
Comment #138070

We as americans do truly need to take a look at this mess we are in.While both partys live on the thrill of the gotcha game.Ole binladin and even older fidel and that other idiot from vinizoooala are laughing ther buts off.Why kill us we are doin a fine job of that ourselves!Just how fare up there butts are both partys goin to stick there heads!we are in a war thats already started .and every political party want to tell us how to fight retired generals need to stay that way and if they were so good and so smart why are they not still out there.We cannot control our borders and now they are saying lets stage a wet back walk out and cause more focus on our ileagel needs keep our kids from school and forget that we have laws and an army in harms way not cool at all.the man in charge is gona be there till 08 so now 06 is just a pralude to terror to come and i will happen again while finger pointing were all dead.Tradjic and truly preventable the sad thing is our border problems do not really have a fair fix but both partys must fix it and then stick to it.And whats wrong with a young student carrying our nations flag while others carey theirs what we can burn ours because of free speach we can carie it also as free speach and as of the last i looked california texas colorado new mexico are american states payed for in blood from all ethnic groups.AND condem our own milatary they cant come into schools they fought to protect yet the taliban can go to yale.

Posted by: allen stephens at April 4, 2006 11:07 PM
Comment #138072

president eisenhower was a six star general before he was president he made the peace in korea and did not involve us in vietnam and a quote of his (not one soldier lost there lives under my watch of eight years, in a war!) he was really proud of that fact! and so was I.

Posted by: RODNEY BROWN at April 4, 2006 11:14 PM
Comment #138082

Sorry, Radighly…

You’re still spouting opinions, not facts…

Posted by: Lynne at April 4, 2006 11:52 PM
Comment #138083

rahdigly,

One last thing before I go.

I say life has been changed forever here and not for the good. We all will have to put up with those that fear their shadows and the al qaeda boogieman.
I have had the distinct pleasure of being on a concert tour these last couple of weeks and in the last two weeks alone have had the privilege of being searched at the airports of Las Vegas, Salt Lake City, and Denver, all for the crime of having a single destination ticket.
I will be in Dallas and Houston this weekend, how many bets are there I will have this privilege again?

Please, somebody ask me if I actually feel safer.

Posted by: Rocky at April 4, 2006 11:53 PM
Comment #138090

Mr. Humane,

You may want to try to convince the terrorists to have humanity rather then harping on us “Inhumane” Americans. But that won’t happen now will it?! It’s the same old copout sh*t; blame the US and not the real people responsible. With that kind of logic, in WWII, we all would be speaking German and high saluting. Nice. People bess wake up and smell the Jihad. It’s b/c of this “inhumane” treatment to inhumane pigs that they’re not making us like them.


So, “life changed forever”, huh? Tell me, did it change b/c we started acting like them or has terrorism been going on for decades b/c the terrorists were acting like themselves? It’s b/c nobody did a thing about it that they “attacked” us; not the other way around. Guess some people forget 9/11; well I don’t. And many Americans and our military surely don’t, either. It’s real and there are no bogey men that are to blame. But, if some feel better blaming America, Bush or both, just to sound “humane”, well then go right ahead. We all have eyes and know exactly what we’re reading. I say “Keep telling us what you really believe and we’ll take it from there”.

The comments about humanity only proved the point that Dems/libs/and weak repubs are not to be trusted with national security. Someone (actually) tried to argue that I was wrong with my assertion that dems/libs concentrated more on “criminalizing” than using “military” force in this war on terror. That I was incorrect when saying the libs/dems are concerned more about what the US did wrong rather then what the terrorist do wrong. Less than a day later, I get arguements about how terrorist should get fair treatment b/c we are a nation of laws; we shouldn’t be like them; and we are sooooo “inhumane”. My goodness, when am I ever going to learn?!! Ha! Ha! Some people make it that easy. Too easy!

Posted by: rahdigly at April 5, 2006 12:45 AM
Comment #138092

rahdigly,

“With that kind of logic, in WWII, we all would be speaking German and high saluting.”

What a load of manure!
Learn your history pal. Hitler couldn’t even take England, how do you suppose the Germans could have possibly ever taken America?

It’s reactionaries that give America a bad name throughout the world.

Posted by: Rocky at April 5, 2006 12:52 AM
Comment #138101

rahdigly,

Mr Humane, kinda catchy, I like it. I remember when you thought I was a clown. I guess I have come up in the world after all.

“You may want to try to convince the terrorists to have humanity rather then harping on us “Inhumane” Americans. But that won’t happen now will it?! It’s the same old copout sh*t; blame the US and not the real people responsible.”

No where, not once, have I used America and Inhumane in the same sentence. I have used dispicable, and a few other choice words, but never inhumane.

You’re never going to understand this, so I am not going to waste a lot of time trying to explain it.
Your concept of what America is, and mine are diametrically opposed.

You see an America with an overwhelming military that every other country should fear.

I see an America that is a shining beacon of light, and is an example of what every country should aspire to.

You see, that was pretty simple.

By the way, here is the definition of diametrically opposed from the Mirriam-Webster on-line dictionary;

2 : completely opposed : being at opposite extremes.

Thank you and good night.

Posted by: Rocky at April 5, 2006 1:38 AM
Comment #138169

“You’re never going to understand this, so I am not going to waste a lot of time trying to explain it.
Your concept of what America is, and mine are diametrically opposed.”


That’s the problem, right there. You see this as trying to change ones opinion to think like you with this blog. That’s not how debate works. It’s (perfectly) ok to have “diametrically” oppossing viewpoints; that’s what debates and this blog are all about. You’re supposed to argue your point, yet it’s not a definite that you’ll change anyones opinion. As I’ve been saying, debates are good b/c you can find out exactly who people really are. History and even hindsight can dictate (“the smell test”) how situations would be if you took each persons argument and played it out in that moment in time; to see if it would work or not.


For example, how do you think your “humane” argument would work in 1942? Hmm! What would the world be like if the US used the “enemy has rights, too” approach in WWII?! Try and think about that w/out throwing your hands up and holding your breathe.


“Learn your history pal. Hitler couldn’t even take England, how do you suppose the Germans could have possibly ever taken America?”


The allied powers were getting are a$$e$ kicked during that war. The Japs were tearing up the South Pacific well into 1942; ever here of the Baatan Death March?! Pretty gruesome stuff. Hell, “your boys” the French were carrying around three flags with them at all times. The British flag, Nazis flag and the WHITE flag. Stupid frogs!

http://www.bbc.co.uk/history/war/wwtwo/


“It’s reactionaries that give America a bad name throughout the world.”


Uh, no. It’s the reactionaries and the extremist that win wars; the apologists and passivists are the ones that get killed and (more importantly) get other people killed. Check out the isolationists in the mid to late 1930’s. If it weren’t for that movement, millions of Jews could have been saved.

Posted by: rahdigly at April 5, 2006 11:35 AM
Comment #138173
What would the world be like if the US used the “enemy has rights, too” approach in WWII?

Not markedly different. We treated German and Japanese prisoners of war humanely, with a few rare exceptions.

The problems is that we treated some of our citizens as though they had no rights, for reasons that have never been shown to have advanced our security or our war effort one bit.

So, go ahead with your fear-mongering that we have to be barbarians to beat the barbarians. Don’t let logic affect your argument. That seems to be what you think a debate means.

The allied powers were getting are a$$e$ kicked during that war.
Yes, we were at one point. But we won without turning into our enemy, for the most part. And the mistakes we made didn’t help our eventual victory.
Check out the isolationists in the mid to late 1930’s. If it weren’t for that movement, millions of Jews could have been saved.

Huh? Talk about historical revisionism. Wow.

Posted by: LawnBoy at April 5, 2006 12:19 PM
Comment #138183

rahdigly,

If you noticed, Hitler gave up on Britan before America evan got into the war, which is why statements like,

“With that kind of logic, in WWII, we all would be speaking German and high saluting.”

seem just ignorant.

There are always reasons that wars start.
Hitler wanted revenge for the way Germany was treated after WW1, Japan wanted resources to fuel it’s growing economy. Neither had aspirations to invade America.
Admiral Yamamoto knew that once America geared up Japan was going to get it’s ass kicked.

“The Japs were tearing up the South Pacific well into 1942; ever here of the Baatan Death March?!”

Yeah, I have. Japan tore up the pacific because they had a modern navy. America had a fleet that was built to fight in WW1, and was hampered by treaties that were designed against the U.S. because England was afraid that they would have to fight a war against America for sea superiority.

All this is well and good, and has nothing at all to do with the “war” we are fighting now.
After Sept. 11th Bush had carte blanche to fight the war on terrorism. The whole world (including some of our most dubious allies), was behind us. We did a great job in Afghanistan.

The strategy in Iraq was lame. We blew by the Iraqi army and in the process left our ass hanging out to be attacked from the rear. Which, BTW, is one of the reasons that this is still a problem. We left ammo dumps that we knew were there unsecured. We didn’t have the “hearts and minds” of the Iraqui people.
Dispite the protests on our initial invasion of Iraq, Bush said that he knew what he was doing, and nothing could be further from the truth.

In other words, we didn’t do what we did in WW2.
Any comparisons to that war are moot.

Now, had we followed the example of WW2 and actually kicked ass, everything would be totally different.

People like you want to “blame the pacifists” for the all the problems. Nothing could be further from the truth.
People like me want blame the gross mis-management of this “war on terror” on those that made the stupid mistakes, that alienated virtually all of the previously mentioned allies, and are the cause of the polorization of America.

Posted by: Rocky at April 5, 2006 12:50 PM
Comment #138209

Rocky,
“Now, had we followed the example of WW2 and actually kicked ass, everything would be totally different.”


No. If we had followed the example of WWII, according to you, we would be “inhumane” and “acting just like the enemy”. That’s what your argument has been; whether it’s intentional or not. That was my point to you; the previous wars couldn’t be fought like the way your talking about. And, the previous wars, especially WWII, weren’t fought like the way you’re talking; in fact, they were worse.


“People like you want to “blame the pacifists” for the all the problems. Nothing could be further from the truth.”


No. I just believe they’re wrong and they aren’t helping our country win this war on terror.


Lawnboy,
“Not markedly different. We treated German and Japanese prisoners of war humanely, with a few rare exceptions.”


Well, talk to your buddy Rocky “humane”; he would certainly disagree with the “few rare exceptions” comment.


“Yes, we were at one point. But we won without turning into our enemy, for the most part.”


Oh really?! So the incindiary bombings and the atom bombs weren’t “turning into the enemy”?! Again, not according to your pal Rocky. You two should discuss that issue, b/c it sounds as though your viewpoints are “diametrically” opposing.

Posted by: rahdigly at April 5, 2006 2:35 PM
Comment #138212

>>Why don’t you take some of the “ad hominem” attacking bloggers and try that “brick wall” thing together.

Posted by: rahdigly at April 4, 2006 10:19 PM

rah,

And, speaking of ‘ad hominem’…

Posted by: Marysdude at April 5, 2006 2:37 PM
Comment #138214

Now, now Mary, that’s not ad hominem. I responded with a sound arguement and then I finished with that line; it was innocent and the “blogosphere” knows it. :O)


Here’s the entire quote:

“Wars are extreme and they are no place for moderates. That’s why FDR, Truman, Lincoln, Teddy, etc. were all great Presidents in war time. The did what they had to do to win and they didn’t listen to “spineless” pi$$ants talk about becoming like the enemy. WWII didn’t make us like the Nazis or the imperialist Japs; it made us winners and the Japs and Nazis Losers! That’s how you win in wars.


Now, the “be humane to terrorists” crowd out there can try to spin it whatever way they want; however, to the majority of Americans, we know that placating to the terrorists is like trying to train a snake. And, I’m talking viper snakes here. We know what’s going on and I thank all that think otherwise for letting us know where you stand.


Now, you had a great idea earlier. Why don’t you take some of the “ad hominem” attacking bloggers and try that “brick wall” thing together.”

Posted by: rahdigly at April 5, 2006 2:45 PM
Comment #138216
“Not markedly different. We treated German and Japanese prisoners of war humanely, with a few rare exceptions.
Well, talk to your buddy Rocky “humane”; he would certainly disagree with the “few rare exceptions” comment.

Unless I missed it, Rocky’s complaints regarding WWII and our behavior have been limited to our internment of American citizens of Japanese descent, not what I was explicitly talking about.

Yes, we were at one point. But we won without turning into our enemy, for the most part.

Oh really?! So the incindiary bombings and the atom bombs weren’t “turning into the enemy”?! Again, not according to your pal Rocky. You two should discuss that issue, b/c it sounds as though your viewpoints are “diametrically” opposing.

No, we’re talking about different things, and you’re either being intentionally misleading in your responses or are just that easily confused.

Yes, we carpet-bombed and dropped atomic bombs. Both are still controversial, but both can be justified as products of the times (imprecise bombs and a calculation that it’s better to destroy two cities than the entire island).

However, we still treated the German and Japanese POWs much better than they treated our POWs (or the Soviets treated their POWs, for that matter). We didn’t duplicate the Holocaust. We didn’t engage in anything like the Rape of Nanking.

We won the war for civilization without resorting to the tactics our opponents used.

Posted by: LawnBoy at April 5, 2006 3:14 PM
Comment #138241

Perhaps we should have just went ahead and invaded the Japanese homeland instead of using the atomic bomb.

Planners of the invasion estimated the American military would have suffered more than 1 million casualties. Untold millions of Japanese would have died defending their homeland because they would never have surrendered.

How many people died in Hiroshima and Nagasaki? Estimates range from 100,000 to 220,000.

Of course, I guess the invasion option would have solved the overcrowding problems in modern-day Japan. And we wouldn’t have to worry about Social Security going broke when all those baby boomers retire because most of them wouldn’t have been born.

Posted by: slowthinker at April 5, 2006 7:17 PM
Comment #138242

Lawnboy,
“No, we’re talking about different things, and you’re either being intentionally misleading in your responses or are just that easily confused.”

Wrong! That’s not what the argument was about; you’re comparing apples to oranges. He was arguing about the inhumanity of our tactics in the war on terror (2001-present) and how we shouldn’t be like the enemy. My point, that I made (like) yesterday, was that with that kind of thinking, we wouldn’t have been able to fight in WWII. Mainly b/c the incendiary bombing and the Atomic bombs would (today) be considered inhumane.

“Yes, we carpet-bombed and dropped atomic bombs. Both are still controversial, but both can be justified as products of the times (imprecise bombs and a calculation that it’s better to destroy two cities than the entire island).”

Bull crap! Besides the Atom bomb and the incendiary bombing, Allied forces blew up churches, terrorized the enemies and did what they had to in order for the enemy to submit. That’s a fact! In today’s war on terror, we have to fight this war with our hands tied behind our backs: Following the Geneva Conventions to an enemy that didn’t even sign on to it, giving prisoners (more than) adeqate privileges, not blowing up Mosques (even though that’s where most of the weapons cache’s are found), and (of course) our (so called) Americans (ab)using our 1rst amendment rights which ends up supporting the enemy; whether they mean to or not.


In WWII, that crap would never fly; mainly b/c we would have lost.

“We won the war for civilization without resorting to the tactics our opponents used.”


That is just flat out wrong, you need to check some sources before you try and state that claim. Once you do, you should have no problem retracting that statement. Remember, the argument was about how humane we are in fighting wars; and believe you me, there’s nothing humane about the battles of war, except for the overall victory.

Posted by: rahdigly at April 5, 2006 7:21 PM
Comment #138250

rahdigly,

“Wrong! That’s not what the argument was about; you’re comparing apples to oranges. He was arguing about the inhumanity of our tactics in the war on terror (2001-present) and how we shouldn’t be like the enemy. My point, that I made (like) yesterday, was that with that kind of thinking, we wouldn’t have been able to fight in WWII. Mainly b/c the incendiary bombing and the Atomic bombs would (today) be considered inhumane.”

Please, follow this link and save us all a lot of trouble.

http://www.roadtoreading.org/

Now, I have re-read every single post that I have made on this thread and have come to the conclusion that you can’t possibly be understanding what I have written.

So far I have talked about due process. I have talked about the internment of the Japanese being dispicable. I have said that even those that were caught compromising National Security during WW2 recieved due process, that those at Nuremberg received due process, I remarked that those at Gitmo were not receiving due process. I also remarked on who I blame for the problems with the war on terror, and discussed the lame strategy that was used in Iraq.

I even use the word inhumane a total of once, and that was to point out to you that I hadn’t used it up to that point.

My mistake in the debate was to assume that if I gave logical replies to your points, there would be logical replies to my points. Up to now there haven’t been any.

So please feel free to trash me all you like. You don’t understand my opinion, fine, but don’t put your words in my mouth.

We’re done.

Posted by: Rocky at April 5, 2006 7:45 PM
Comment #138252

Hey everybody, I’ve got the brick wall all polished up and ready. It can take up to three heads at a time, no waiting. I still do admire people who give it a go, though. You make sense and that’s what’s throwing the R man off.

Posted by: ray at April 5, 2006 7:56 PM
Comment #138254

ray,

You don’t want to be accused of being ad hominem, do you?

Posted by: Rocky at April 5, 2006 7:59 PM
Comment #138261

I’m confused. Japan had no aspirations of invading America? Anybody remember a little place called Pearl Harbor? If I remember correctly, Hawaii was a U.S. territory at the time of the Japanese attack.

And if the Japanese had won the battle of Midway, if they had destroyed the only three U.S. aircraft carriers left in the Pacific,
there would have been nothing but open water between them and the American mainland.

Thank God we had fearless and daring men like Frank Fletcher and Raymond Spruance commanding those carrier task forces.

As for America entering the war on Germany, if we had not, Hitler would have been free to use his fearsome submarine force to starve England into submission.

If America had not entered the war, Germany may very well have completed their plans to build an atomic bomb, which German scientists were working on.

Instead of Hiroshima and Nagasaki, history may have recorded the destruction of London, New York and Washington, D.C.

Posted by: slowthinker at April 5, 2006 8:20 PM
Comment #138263

slowthinker,

“I’m confused. Japan had no aspirations of invading America? Anybody remember a little place called Pearl Harbor? If I remember correctly, Hawaii was a U.S. territory at the time of the Japanese attack.”

The attack on Pearl Harbor was a feint in the hope that it would discourage America from joining into the war in the Pacific.

The quote was;

“I fear all we have done is awakened a sleeping giant and filled him with a terrible resolve.
-Admiral Yamamoto, after the attack on Pearl Harbor”

Posted by: Rocky at April 5, 2006 8:25 PM
Comment #138264

Also,

“As for America entering the war on Germany, if we had not, Hitler would have been free to use his fearsome submarine force to starve England into submission.”

We were already supplying England before America entered the war through the Lend/Lease program.

From;

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lend-Lease

“Lend-Lease was a program of the United States Federal government during World War II which enabled the United States to provide the Allied nations with war material while the US was still officially a neutral country. The Lend-Lease program began in March 1941, nine months before the US entered the war in December of 1941. Lend-Lease came on the heels of Cash and Carry, following correspondence between Churchill and FDR on the economic status of England and their inability to pay for and transport materials as they once did. It ended soon after V-J Day, on September 2, 1945. This program was the first large step away from American isolationism and towards international involvement since the end of WWI.”


Posted by: Rocky at April 5, 2006 8:34 PM
Comment #138265

Rocky is right about that. They never figured they could invade the U.S. The Germans, on the other hand would have imposed a settlement on us that we would not have liked.

Lawnboy

My father and uncles were at Normandy, Anzio and the Battle of the Bulge. Like John Kerry, they admitted doing things we would not call fair. My father told me that you just could not let any enemy stay alive behind you. So he didn’t.

The Gitmo guys, without uniforms or a clear command structure, would have been shot on general principles as spies.

You also will recall that churches and monastaries were destroyed when they were in the way.

Nobody in the history of the world has fought a war as “humanely” as we are doing in Iraq. We risk our soldier’s lives to protect civilians and go out of our way to protect religious places.

Posted by: Jack at April 5, 2006 8:37 PM
Comment #138266

Jack,

“The Gitmo guys, without uniforms or a clear command structure, would have been shot on general principles as spies.”

Earlier in this thread I asked for anyone to supply me with a picture of a Taliban uniform, they were, after all the “rulers” of Afghanistan at the time, and as this seems to be the biggest problem in the “enemy combatant” arena.
By your logic anyone that wasn’t in a coalition uniform could have been taken in as our enemy, including the guys fighting for us.

Posted by: Rocky at April 5, 2006 8:44 PM
Comment #138267

Jack,

“Nobody in the history of the world has fought a war as “humanely” as we are doing in Iraq. We risk our soldier’s lives to protect civilians and go out of our way to protect religious places.”

My points were never about treating people “humanely”. My points were about treating people as human beings, and that human beings have rights.
If we are to stick to what we belive is written in the Declaration of Independence.

Posted by: Rocky at April 5, 2006 8:51 PM
Comment #138271

A feint?

All six of Japan’s first-line aircraft carriers -the Akagi, Kaga, Soryu, Hiryu, Shokaku and Zuikaku - were used in the attack on Pearl Harbor. They carried a total of more than 420 aircraft. Military historians acknowledge that this constituted, by far, the most powerful carrier task force ever assembled.

The purpose of the attack was to destroy the U.S. Pacific fleet, buying time for the Japanese to consolidate their position in the Pacific. And if our carriers had been at Pearl Harbor, they would have succeeded.

Granted, there’s no way of knowing whether or not the Japanese would then have attacked the mainland.

Fortunately, we didn’t have to find out.

Yes, I’m very much aware of the lend-lease program. That was FDR’s way of getting around Congress and helping supply England with much needed ships and supplies without a declaration of war.

But had we not declared war on Germany, Hitler’s submarine force would have roamed the north Atlantic with impunity, making resupply of England nearly impossible.


Posted by: slowthinker at April 5, 2006 9:13 PM
Comment #138272

Dude, you have to be kidding me. You make accusations, claims, and dodge questions all day long and your the one that’s finished?! Please.


Your the one that brought up the “humanity” and “not being like them” crap, not me. And, I don’t care if you said it one time, you still said it. And, that’s what prompted me to point out that your approach would never worked in any of the past wars; especially in WWII. We wouldn’t of won that war with your way and that’s a fact.


And, I don’t care how much you try and spin it; WWII was no cake walk even in the slighest bit. The allies were getting their butts handed to them. Also, I noticed you didn’t respond to my comment on your boys the French and the three flags they were carrying. Look it up. They were worthless. It took everything the Allies had to defeat the enemy; including inhumane tactics that our enemy would do. That’s a damn fact!! Do you even know how many people died in WWII alone? Over least 55 million. 55 “freakin” million, pal. Oh the humanity.

http://www.faqfarm.com/Q/How_many_people_died_in_World_War_2

“Globally a total of over 60 million people died in WWII and of those 60 million, more were civilian than soldiers.”


More civilians than soldiers? How would that play out on the news nowadays? How “humane” is that?! Give me a break. Re-read the history books, because you are way off! Terrorists are not acting like humans; therefore, they get no freaking rights. None. That’s how you win wars. Just look it up, Rock. You’ll see history proves that. You just have to stop denying it.


Posted by: rahdigly at April 5, 2006 9:14 PM
Comment #138274

Also

Yamamoto’s comment was not a result of the attack itself, but the fact that it came 30 minutes before Japan’s declaration of war on the U.S. was delivered to Secretary of State Hull.

He was referring to the affect that “sneak attack” would have on America.

Posted by: slowthinker at April 5, 2006 9:22 PM
Comment #138275
Granted, there’s no way of knowing whether or not the Japanese would then have attacked the mainland.

What we know is that attacking the U.S. mainland was not in their plans. They attacked Pearl Harbor to prevent the U.S. from disrupting their supply of oil.

While attacking Pearl Hearbor is something that could have been an opening to an invasion, the evidence is that it was for something else.

Posted by: LawnBoy at April 5, 2006 9:26 PM
Comment #138278
More civilians than soldiers? How would that play out on the news nowadays? How “humane” is that?! Give me a break. Re-read the history books, because you are way off! Terrorists are not acting like humans; therefore, they get no freaking rights. None. That’s how you win wars. Just look it up, Rock. You’ll see history proves that. You just have to stop denying it.

No one thought the war was humane then, either. When millions of civilians were killed by Soviet, Nazi, Japanese, and other forces, it wasn’t justified or considered humane then, and it wouldn’t be considered humane now.

I’m constantly amazed by the way your mind works. Yes, many civilians died in the War. Does that mean that the majority of them were killed by the U.S.? Nope. Does that mean that we won the war by killing civilians? Nope. Does that mean that you’ve demonstrated anything at all? Nope.

That many people died unnecessarily 60 years ago doesn’t mean that it’s good for the U.S. to ignore human rights now. There’s no connection.

I don’t think that American soldiers never made a mistake in WWII. I know, Jack, that we didn’t treat every single POW perfectly on the battlefield. However, that doesn’t mean that we were as bad as our enemies (or allies - the Soviets were awful to their POWs). And it certainly doesn’t give any justification to holding POWs without any due process or legal status 2 years and 2 continents away from the war they were fighting.

Terrorists are not acting like humans; therefore, they get no freaking rights.

Fortunately, that position has absolutely no status in international or American law. The real danger is that someone could say that you’re not acting human and give a justification for killing you. And by your “logic”, they’d have a point.

You believe that their lack of concern for human rights means they have no rights. Since you yourself have no concern for their human rights, you have no human rights, either.

Congrats. You’ve just given people moral justification to kill you.

Posted by: LawnBoy at April 5, 2006 9:37 PM
Comment #138279

slowthinker,

“The purpose of the attack was to destroy the U.S. Pacific fleet, buying time for the Japanese to consolidate their position in the Pacific. And if our carriers had been at Pearl Harbor, they would have succeeded.”

Yeah, you’re right the purpose was to destroy the Pacific fleet.
But your hypotheses on the rest was wrong. Japan didn’t want to take on the US. They knew that the Pacific fleet wasn’t the only “fleet” we had. They also knew what we were capable of from our performance in WW1.
Japan wanted resourses they didn’t have, like oil, and iron ore and the like. These resources were found in the Phillipines and throughout SE Asia.

Posted by: Rocky at April 5, 2006 9:40 PM
Comment #138280

“Hey everybody, I’ve got the brick wall all polished up and ready. It can take up to three heads at a time, no waiting. I still do admire people who give it a go, though. You make sense and that’s what’s throwing the R man off.

Posted by: ray at April 5, 2006 07:56 PM “

Say what!! Ha! Ha! Ha! The people that are “giving it a go” are “throwing me off”?!! Me?!

Man, one might confuse you with using that “wall”, you keep talking about, on yourself before you speak. Ha! Ha! Thanks for the laugh, though. Later!

Oh yeah, and Rocky,
“So please feel free to trash me all you like. You don’t understand my opinion, fine, but don’t put your words in my mouth. We’re done.”


Trash talking is other people’s, on this blog, style (including Mr. “Humane” himself), certainly not mine. I just won’t allow someone else to attempt to convince me of their viewpoints by throwing temper tantrums, misunderstanding history and dodging facts. So chew on that!

Posted by: rahdigly at April 5, 2006 9:43 PM
Comment #138282

On a side note, the Japanese got much closer to the mainland than hawaii.

http://www.worldwar2database.com/html/aleutians.htm

Posted by: Amani at April 5, 2006 9:58 PM
Comment #138283
I just won’t allow someone else to attempt to convince me of their viewpoints by throwing temper tantrums, misunderstanding history and dodging facts. So chew on that!

Right. You reserve those tactics for yourself.

Posted by: LawnBoy at April 5, 2006 10:08 PM
Comment #138285
On a side note, the Japanese got much closer to the mainland than hawaii.

Well, not that much closer. Attu is about 1500 miles from Anchorage. Yes, Japan occupied some American territory. Yes, the Alaska Highway was built out of the fear that Japan would invade more. But no, there was never a credible threat that Japan would invade the U.S. mainland.

Posted by: LawnBoy at April 5, 2006 10:11 PM
Comment #138287

Lawnboy,

“Right. You reserve those tactics for yourself.”

It wasn’t my intention to start a flame war. If he wants to be insulting, let him, I’m a big boy I can take it.

Posted by: Rocky at April 5, 2006 10:17 PM
Comment #138291

dec 11 1941 germany and italy declared war on the good old USOFA . hitler made an announcment saying he had tried to avoid conflict with the us but under the tripartict agreement signed on sep 27 1940 germany was obliged to join with italy to defend its ally japan (( hitler said after victory has been achieved germany italy and japan will continue in closest co-operation to establish a new and just order)) hitler also said he accused roosevelt of waging a campaign against germany since 1937 and blamed roosevelt of planning to invade germany in 1943!. when we forced japan in the 1800s to open its ports and country, right or wrong! . dont think they did not forgot that.

Posted by: RODNEY BROWN at April 5, 2006 10:28 PM
Comment #138293

Jack,
War once was fought by troops standing directly across from each others with Civilians setting on hill tops watching the battle. Today, a bomb dropped from 20,000 feet hits a target and blasts the building apart without seperating the Civilians and Troops. So how can one say that the War being conducted against Terrorism is accomplishing this goal when everyday we hear more and more civilians losing their life than our Troops?

Posted by: Henry Schlatman at April 5, 2006 10:36 PM
Comment #138295

Ahh, living amongst “ad hominenist” and “humanist”; the good life!


So, you just can’t take the heat?! Instead of stepping up and proving your arguments, you cower away from them by teaming up and (basically) dodging the facts.

Chew on that “history boys”…

:O)

Posted by: rahdigly at April 5, 2006 10:37 PM
Comment #138296

rahdigly,

I just won’t allow someone else to attempt to convince me of their viewpoints by throwing temper tantrums, misunderstanding history and dodging facts.

To give you the opportunity to demonstrate how you are being victimized depited being a straight-shooter, reasoned historical thinker, and stickler for facts, I invite you to revisit one of your claims: that the Holocaust is the fault of American peaceniks.

To quote directly, you said

the apologists and passivists are the ones that get killed and (more importantly) get other people killed. Check out the isolationists in the mid to late 1930’s. If it weren’t for that movement, millions of Jews could have been saved.

How do you connect the passivists, apologists, and isolationists to each other? How do you connect their actions to the deaths of millions of Jews? If those groups hadn’t existed, by exactly what mechanism would the Holocaust have been avoided? On basis to you build your confidence in the outcome of this thought experiment? How does the fact that the Jews were primarily killed in the region of the Eastern Front affect your analysis? How would reactionaries and extremests have solved the problem?

In other words, do you have any idea what you’re talking about?

Posted by: LawnBoy at April 5, 2006 10:39 PM
Comment #138298

Correction:

depited and On basis to should have been despite and On what basis do

Posted by: LawnBoy at April 5, 2006 10:42 PM
Comment #138301

Oh, lawnboy, welcome back. The point of that quote was that, during the mid to late 1930’s, while millions of Jews were being cooked, the isolationist, passivist and apologists were going the diplomatic route and (even) tried to “side with the Nazis”, so “they wouldn’t have to fight them later”. If we would have went to war with Germany earlier, we could have saved many of those Jews. However, as my dad always says “could of, would of, should of”.

It’s still a fact that millions could’ve been saved; even though it’s hindsight.


Now, to answer your question: “How would reactionaries and extremests have solved the problem?”, newsflash, the extremists did solve the problem in WWII, they (FDR, Truman, Churchill, Patton, Eisenhower) rid the world of evil (Nazis, Imperialists Japs, Fascists Italians) and they won it for us. You should show some gratitudes, brutter.


Posted by: rahdigly at April 5, 2006 11:06 PM
Comment #138304
Oh, lawnboy, welcome back.

Dude, you gotta get away from the computer. It had been a total of 26 minutes since I had posted when you asked if I couldn’t take the heat, and I was in the middle of another message.

during the mid to late 1930’s, while millions of Jews were being cooked

Wrong. The “Final Solution” to exterminate Jews wasn’t agreed upon until the Wansee Conference in 1942. Auschwitz wasn’t founded until 1940, and even then it wasn’t specifically a death camp until Spring 1942.

And the use of the word “cooked” is too grotesque to discuss.

If we would have went to war with Germany earlier, we could have saved many of those Jews.

That’s a supposition on a thin thread. We did not have the military built up to challenge Germany before the war. And it’s not like FDR, etc, were chomping at the bit to go to war, restrained only by those darn peaceniks; no one wanted the war. The question was how to deal with a strong new force in Europe that no one knew would turn out to be so evil.

It’s still a fact that millions could’ve been saved; even though it’s hindsight.
No, it’s not a fact. There are potential ways that we might have saved more Jewish lives, but you seem not to be aware of them or their limits. Instead, you base your claim on the fact-free notion that the Holocaust was in full force before the war, and you have shown that you are obviously and blatantly talking out of your ass.

(Note: I’m not saying that the Nazis didn’t kill, oppress, or torture Jews before the War actually started. I’m simply demonstrating that you make spcific claims that have no basis in facts, logic, or history.)

newsflash, the extremists did solve the problem in WWII

What amazing spin. Since something good happened (we won the war) and you like extremists, the good work must have been done by extremists. QED

You are the only person I’ve ever seen refer to FDR, Truman and Churchill as reactionary extremists, and it just shows how little facts matter in your worldview.

You should show some gratitudes, brutter.

I am grateful for the efforts and sacrifices of FDR, Truman, Churchill, Patton, Eisenhower, and thousands of other Allies, and I’m also grateful for the even more significant sacrifices (though much unnecessary) on the Soviet side. That doesn’t mean that those people are your ideological kin.

Posted by: LawnBoy at April 5, 2006 11:26 PM
Comment #138309

Clarification: by saying that Soviet sacrifices were more significant, I’m talking about strict numbers (over 20 times our combat deaths and over 1000 times our civilian deaths). I’m not saying anything about the worth of individual soldiers or saying that Soviets are more significant than Americans in any way.

Posted by: LawnBoy at April 5, 2006 11:39 PM
Comment #138314

“The question was how to deal with a strong new force in Europe that no one knew would turn out to be so evil.”


Wrong, adhom. Churchill knew how bad the enemy could be; so did FDR. They fought like hell to get into it with the Germans (especially FDR) but many didn’t feel that was the right thing to do at the time. And, those people were wrong. Reagan saw the threat of the Soviets and the need to fight the cold war with the building up of arms; people didn’t feel that was the right thing to do either. Yet look who prevailed and which people were wrong (again). If one stops denying history, or stops trying to recreate it, then one would see that.

“You are the only person I’ve ever seen refer to FDR, Truman and Churchill as reactionary extremists, and it just shows how little facts matter in your worldview.”


In today’s terms, WWII was “extreme”; especially, the leaders. All you have to do is picture Bush blowing up mosques, interning muslim Americans dropping a nuke anywhere in the middle east, and killing civilians to get to the enemy. Now, if you (or someone else) says “he’s doing that now”, you’ll be busted, b/c that’s what was done in WWII. There’s no hiding (or distorting) that fact, wars are won by extremism and not by moderates; it’s just a fact.


Now, I’m done with this issue; you “lost boys” have clearly demonstrated that you have nothing to add and can only “nip at the heels”. Nighty, night.

Posted by: rahdigly at April 5, 2006 11:48 PM
Comment #138319

>>Now, I’m done with this issue; you “lost boys” have clearly demonstrated that you have nothing to add and can only “nip at the heels”. Nighty, night.

Posted by: rahdigly at April 5, 2006 11:48 PM

Quitting the field when the heat is on…takes lessons from daddy DeLay…

Posted by: Marysdude at April 5, 2006 11:56 PM
Comment #138333

Hello folks ive got a question?We have troops in kosavo that have been there for 10 years sent by prez clinton!Yet weve been in iraq actualy 3 years and how many years in nam more than 2 that i can atest to.when we pulled out of nam because of the same b.s.over 1 million south veitnames were slaghtered remember the killing fields.Also weve got marches and protest right here our kids cant say or do anything patriotic they cant wave an american flag but they can burn it by law.and all these protester claim its there right to come in to our country and wave another countries flag.So its ok to come here with out papers cross our borders bring dope and human trficing and spit in the faces of folks trying to help and do right at a time when we are at war with a group of people with no morals just like pol pot in nam.irans rattling there sabor waitin there time to kill even more americans i watched an idoit from wisconsin get on tv and said 22 towns passed a referindom to pull our troops out now and of course the coward kerry hanoi janes buddy had to throw his 1/2 cent in my question is why not bring our guys over in kosovo home.oh and the getelman said we flatend most towns over in iraq well we flatened berlin to we absolutly flatend japan.now we can rationalize all day but if we do pull out of iraq it will colapse and another million dead cause irans watin for us to do just that. id say weve got a problem and its not the preident.My dad was in korea i was in nam and my daughter has done 2 tours in iraq and 3 years in germany in ww2 we inturned the japanes people yetthey were americans and they saved a whole lot of texans in germany we move the indians to reservations yet there code talkers helped fight the japanese!i love my nations flag the one on my daughters shoulder. and the tag that says us army.the feeling of a loved one in danger is unreal but you realize just how much you love them and pray for them to come home not to be spat on and be harrased by cowerds!

Posted by: allen stephens at April 6, 2006 12:35 AM
Comment #138359
They fought like hell to get into it with the Germans

Try to slow Hitler down? Yes. Try to start a war before September 1939? Not hardly. I’d love to see a citation that supports this claim.

Now, I’m done with this issue; you “lost boys” have clearly demonstrated that you have nothing to add and can only “nip at the heels”.

I pointed out that you cannot distinguish between a fact and a hypothesis (worse, a hypothesis based on something that is strictly not true). If that’s what you consider “nipping at the heels,” then I can’t halp you; if you don’t even know what a fact is…

Posted by: LawnBoy at April 6, 2006 8:33 AM
Comment #138453

I noticed you (yet again) dodged the point that FDR, Churchill and WWII (for that matter) was extreme; by today’s standards, anyway.


Now, I certainly can (and do) distinguish between fact and hypothesis. This is just (yet) another attempt to discredit my points b/c it’s different (thank goodness) from yours. And, no, I don’t discredit myself, b/c I know some smartalick is going to chime in with that response; I’m just beating them to it. When are you guys going to learn that all you’re doing is discrediting yourselves with every “ad hominem” attack, temper tantrum, snide remark, and dodging the argument? Oh well, all that does is put a bullseye on you guys.

So, keep up the tactics, b/c I’m not going anywhere and you’re going to have to deal with it.

“You shall know the facts and the facts will tick you off”.

Posted by: rahdigly at April 6, 2006 2:21 PM
Comment #138479
I noticed you (yet again) dodged the point that FDR, Churchill and WWII (for that matter) was extreme; by today’s standards, anyway.

No, I didn’t dodge it. I explicitly disagreed with it earlier and your re-assertion gave me no reason to address it further.

This is just (yet) another attempt to discredit my points b/c it’s different (thank goodness) from yours.

No, not at all. You made a claim which you expressed as a fact. When I asked you to support it, you explained it with something that it empirically untrue. I’m saying you’re wrong not because I don’t like what you say; you’re just wrong. This is not a matter of opinion. This is a matter of evidence, fact, and logic. No one’s buying your victim routine here.

Here’s how it works when you make a claim (paraphrased) that “millions of Jews would not have been killed in the 1930s if the passavists, isolationists, and apologists hadn’t restrained the reactionary extremists like FDR, etc.,” and you are challenged to defend your assertion that this is a fact. These are some of the things that you need to establish to support that claim:

  • Millions of Jews were killed in the 1930s - this is not true as a point of fact, as I showed. We could stop right here.
  • FDR is an extremist reactionary - you have reasserted it, but there is no evidence for this claim. You seem to assume that a President who leads the country during a war is, by definition, a reactionary extremist, but this is not true. Either way, you haven’t established it. FDR is considered a liberal, not a reactionary.
  • Passavists, isolationists, and apologists worked together somehow - you haven’t supported this.
  • FDR et al supported going to war against Germany in the 1930s - you haven’t supported this.
  • If not for those groups, FDR would have taken the U.S. to war against Germany - you haven’t supported this.
  • If we had gone to war, we would have been immediately effective - this is not true because of the condition of the American military in the 1930s. It took use several years to ramp up to effective war footing after the war started, and then the motivation for war was greater than it would have been for an elective war.
  • Going to war early would have saved Jewish lives - perhaps it would have, but not the millions of Jews that you mistakenly think we being killed at that time. It’s possible that starting a war on the Western Front in the 1930s would have stopped Hitler from taking Poland and parts of the Soviet Union, the source of the majority of the Jews that were murdered, but there’s no way to be sure of it. Anyway, that’s not what you proposed. You just said that it would have happened without saying how (as I asked).

You see, you made a hypothesis based on a counterfactual statement (“what-iffing history”), premised on something that just isn’t true (Jews were being mass murdered, “cooked” in your grotesque parlance, in the 1930s). Establishing the correctness of a counterfactual is very difficult. Establishing the correctness of a counterfactual that is based on an explicitly invalid premise is impossible.

So, all you have is a failed hypothesis. Even if you established everything you would have to establish (FDR supporting war, etc), you are still making suppositions and conjecture. By definition, the result of conjecture is not a fact, merely a hypothesis.

The best you’d be able to say honestly is that “I think there’s a strong reason to believe that lives might have been saved if not for the actions of the passivists, etc.” That’s the closest you would be able to come to saying that your assertion is a fact. But you can’t even say that because your premise is invalid and your subclaims unsupported.

Your big problem here is that you seem to think a hypothesis is a fact if you agree with it and you want it to be a fact. That’s just not the way logic works.

“ad hominem” attack, temper tantrum, snide remark, and dodging the argument?

None of these are the reason that I’m saying you’re wrong. You are wrong because you think that wishing something to be true makes it true. And that’s just wrong. You are also wrong because you have your empirical facts wrong.

Look back at the questions I asked as part of this on April 5, 2006 10:39 PM. You ignored most of them and responded by calling me names and re-asserting your claim without supporting it. And yet you want people to think that you’re the logical force here backed by facts?

So, keep up the tactics, b/c I’m not going anywhere and you’re going to have to deal with it.
The tactics I’m using here are logic, evidence, and deductive reasoning. I’d highly recommend them.
“You shall know the facts and the facts will tick you off”.

There are many facts that tick me off. However, you seem to think that the converse is true; that something’s a fact if you like it and it ticks of LawnBoy and Rocky. That’s just not how logic works.

It’s still a fact that millions could’ve been saved; even though it’s hindsight.

Actually, by definition, it’s not a fact because it is hindsight.

I really suggest you take a course in logic at a local community college. You’re really that far from making sense.

Posted by: LawnBoy at April 6, 2006 3:36 PM
Comment #138506
We have troops in kosavo that have been there for 10 years sent by prez clinton! Posted by: allen stephens at April 6, 2006 12:35 AM
Are you refering to our participation in the NATO peace force? How many W/KIA have we had since the actual “Mission Accomplished” there? How many IED’s were there in Kosovo last week or executed and tortured bodies found? You might want to check this site out too. Posted by: Dave at April 6, 2006 4:58 PM
Comment #138555

“You seem to assume that a President who leads the country during a war is, by definition, a reactionary extremist, but this is not true. Either way, you haven’t established it. FDR is considered a liberal, not a reactionary”


No. No. No. You have misrepresented this bigtime. You’re (somehow) equating “reactionary extremists” with conservatives; or anybody other than liberals. My goodness, it’s easy to see why you (continue) to misrepresent and get off track. This is not about partisanship in any way. I don’t care that Lincoln (civil) was a Republican, Wilson (WWI) was a Liberal, FDR was a Liberal (WWII), or Churchill was a conservative (WWII). It just doesn’t matter. The fact is they were “extreme” in their wars and they were all successful, war-time Presidents.


The (original) point was that, in today’s world, all those wars I just mentioned, would be considered extreme. (Today’s) news would have covered the WWII era as an atrocity and they would’ve showed all the civilians being killed, the pictures of the incendiary bombs in the South Pacific, and depicted our troops doing worse damage and atrocities than the enemy. That’s just obvious!


This is (exactly) how the war is being covered today; so, with that said, FDR/Churchill were very extreme. And, as I’ve said before, every war is extreme, and you have to do what it takes to defeat the enemy. Mr. “humane” didn’t feel that’s how Americans should conduct themselves, even in wartime, and that is why I brought up WWII. WWII, we certainly conducted ourselves in an inhumane way (again, according to today’s standards), yet it was to rid an enemy that conducted themselves much, much worse. It was needed.


“The tactics I’m using here are logic, evidence, and deductive reasoning. I’d highly recommend them.”


Then recommend them on yourself, b/c you’re certainly not doing it. If you were, then we would have finished this blog a long time ago. Long time ago.

Posted by: rahdigly at April 6, 2006 7:35 PM
Comment #138556

Lawnboy and Rocky, again, you two guys know the truth and the truth really messes up the dig man. For that matter, if I’m not mistaken and I could be, ad homenim as r dig is using it is wrong. We don’t say he’s wrong just because it’t vitriol spewed out of his little nighty night fingers, it’s wrong as you two are always pointing out because it’s wrong. Not ad hom. Period.

Posted by: ray at April 6, 2006 7:49 PM
Comment #138559

Thanks Ray

Posted by: Rocky at April 6, 2006 8:01 PM
Comment #138570

“And, hollywood and the universities don’t get held accountable like the politicians do; that’s (another) fact. Everytime they are “called out” they run and hide behind the 1rst amendment. Everytime they have low ratings at the oscars or have hollywood stars protest for “clemency” for a convicted murderer; they always blame conservatives or blame the president, instead of standing up to their claims and beliefs.”

So tell me, when was the last time Hollywood could control what our government does, make a decision to go to war or not, or pass a law? When was the last time a university illegally wiretapped americans?

Also, you can choose what movie to watch and if/where to go to college. You can’t choose to follow the government or not (at least without risking prison time).
Finally, hollywood obviously doesn’t have a big influence. If it did, the majority of our country would be liberal, and it isn’t.

Besides, if you really think hollywood and universities are evil and liberal, you have the freedom to do what good fundamentalist parents do. Homeschool your kid or send them to a christian academy. Teach them that Darwin was a satanist and evolution and science are sure signs of the devil. And be sure to use your TV’s v-chip and forbid any non-christian movies in your house, lest your kid be exposed to any “liberal atheist” ideas, the sure sign of a godless and heathen mind!

Posted by: mark at April 6, 2006 9:10 PM
Comment #138575

I will address a factual discrepancy in your last reply. Outside that, I consider my previous challenges to you still to be valid and in effect.

You’re (somehow) equating “reactionary extremists” with conservatives

Let’s look at the definition of those two words according to dictionary.com:

reactionary: Characterized by reaction, especially opposition to progress or liberalism; extremely conservative.
extremist: One who advocates or resorts to measures beyond the norm, especially in politics.

My characterization of reactionary extremists as incompatible with liberalism is directly consistent with the common definition of the word reactionary.

My goodness, it’s easy to see why you (continue) to misrepresent and get off track.
If, by misrepresent, you mean use the common definition of a word instead of the misunderstanding or redefinition that exists only in your head, then I’m guilty as charged. Otherwise, it’s a pathetic attempt to salvage yourself from a losing argument through diversion.
It just doesn’t matter. The fact is they were “extreme” in their wars and they were all successful, war-time Presidents.
So, you are redefining the word “extremist” to mean successful in war. Otherwise, FDR et al. do not fit the definition of the word as anyone else in the world knows them.

So, for the moment, let’s say that I give you space to redefine those two words so that they make sense within the context of your statements. Even with that, you still have addressed only one of the seven subclaims that I pointed out. You seem not to realize that the proof of your claim requires all of the parts of your claim to be true, not just the one your are arguing through redefinition of terms. Further, you still haven’t addressed the problem that you cannot distinguish between a fact (Knowledge or information based on real occurrences) and a hypothetical conjecture, which is by definition not based on a real occurence.

WWII, we certainly conducted ourselves in an inhumane way (again, according to today’s standards), yet it was to rid an enemy that conducted themselves much, much worse. It was needed.
That inhumane acts occured during a successful campaign does not logically prove that the inhumane acts were necessary for the success. Correlation does not imply causation. This is another simple concept that you would learn if you took a course on logic.
“The tactics I’m using here are logic, evidence, and deductive reasoning. I’d highly recommend them.”
Then recommend them on yourself, b/c you’re certainly not doing it. If you were, then we would have finished this blog a long time ago. Long time ago.

You have a point. Or at least you would have a point if any of those words meant “turn off my brain and unquestioningly accept whatever nonsense rahdigly is spewing today”. Fortunately or not, those words mean what they do, not what you want them to believe, so I will not start accepting your claims in preference to facts or logic any time soon.

Posted by: LawnBoy at April 6, 2006 9:41 PM
Comment #138582
Granted, thereⳠno way of knowing whether or not the Japanese would then have attacked the mainland.
What we know is that attacking the U.S. mainland was not in their plans. They attacked Pearl Harbor to prevent the U.S. from disrupting their supply of oil.

As I posted just the other day in a Gun Thread: the Japanese High Command had every intention of a Ground Invasion of the Western United States. However, the German Wehrmacht provided the Japanese with a study the Wehrmacht had done in the late 1930’s, which concluded that any Invader trying to occupy the United States would find themselves mired in an endless Partisan Sniping War, since every farmboy, businessman, salesman, counter-clerk and gas station attendant was Armed with *something*. It is one of the reasons (although not the main one) why I am a staunch defender of the Second Amendment, and indeed, of the entire Bill Of Rights.

Posted by: Betty Burke at April 6, 2006 10:06 PM
Comment #138588

Betty,

Can you provide a source for that information? It’s interesting if true.

Posted by: LawnBoy at April 6, 2006 10:16 PM
Comment #138590

“My characterization of reactionary extremists as incompatible with liberalism is directly consistent with the common definition of the word reactionary.”

http://www.m-w.com/dictionary/extremist

“advocacy of extreme political measures : RADICALISM”


Where on earth do you guys get conservatism or right-wing?!!! That’s tells us all we need to know about who we’re dealing with. I said that those leaders, and the war itself, was extreme.


Once again, and we can do this for however long you need (which is probably a long time), in today’s world, WWII would be considered extreme…That’s means radical. There’s no way that what was done from 1941-1945 could ever (EVER!) be done now. Never! Now, throw your “logic” and “reason” behind that. You may want to stop looking up definitions and start looking up WWII sources instead. We’re fighting this war on terror with our “hands tied behind on backs”, relatively speaking, compared to WWII. And, in today’s war on terror, there are people (right here on this blog) that are accusing the US (mainly the Bush Admin) of being “inhumane” and “being just like the enemy”. Those are not my words; I’m just reacting to them. Now, go ahead and, either defend those claims, renounce them, or just drop it completely. The balls in your court, pal.

“Besides, if you really think hollywood and universities are evil and liberal, you have the freedom to do what good fundamentalist parents do.”

The only source I need to give you to back that up is what I just saw on the last 15 minutes of Hannity and Colmes. Ward Churchill is my freaking source. That’s all you will ever need to see to just how ridiculous and disgusting our universities can be with “radicals” like that. That’s all you need!!


As far as hollywood and entertainers, just look at who represented Cynthia McKinney the other day at her press conference; Danny Glover and Harry Belafonte. That woman is a complete and utter joke (she sure doesn’t represent our entire state of GA), Glover’s is a liberal loon and Belafonte is a Stalinist. They debunk themselves and they certainly prove my point; the same point you’re trying to discredit. Nuff said.

Posted by: rahdigly at April 6, 2006 10:24 PM
Comment #138596
Where on earth do you guys get conservatism or right-wing?!!!

It’s right there in the text you quoted: “My characterization of reactionary extremists as incompatible with liberalism is directly consistent with the common definition of the word reactionary.”

You used “reactionaries” on April 5, 2006 11:35 AM to describe the people who fought the war and accepted it in the many times I restated your position. The meaning of that word is “extremely conservative”.

Go ahead and pretend that I’m equating extremism and conservatism. I didn’t say it, but I’m sure that won’t stop you.

Once again, and we can do this for however long you need (which is probably a long time)

I’m just waiting for you to own up to your own words. I’ve laid out the terms. Defend your claim that your failed hypothesis is a fact or renounce it or drop it.

The balls in your court, pal.

No, you have to prove how passivists caused the deaths of millions of people who weren’t killed until years later. You have yet to do anything to support the other 6 subclaims besides the one you focus on through redefinition of words.

That’s all you need!!
Yes. All you need to draw reasoned conclusions is to watch 15 minutes of TV. Who needs logic, reason, evidence, and studies when you have instant anecdotes?
Belafonte is a Stalinist
Don’t you dare use the word Stalinist unless you know what it means. And I know you don’t. Posted by: LawnBoy at April 6, 2006 10:51 PM
Comment #138598

I used extreme. You were the one that went with reactionary extremist. I used extreme to describe the tactics in war and I will always stand by that. And, you can go back and paste all my threads; you will certainly see that I (clearly) used extremism. You know what that word means:

http://www.m-w.com/dictionary/extremist

“advocacy of extreme political measures : RADICALISM”


Now pony up and respond to the argument that you continue to dodge:

“in today’s world, WWII would be considered extreme…That means radical. There’s no way that what was done from 1941-1945 could ever (EVER!) be done now. Never! Now, throw your “logic” and “reason” behind that…We’re fighting this war on terror with our “hands tied behind on backs”, relatively speaking, compared to WWII. And, in today’s war on terror, there are people (right here on this blog) that are accusing the US (mainly the Bush Admin) of being “inhumane” and “being just like the enemy”. Those are not my words; I’m just reacting to them.”


Where do you stand, critical thinking man?!

Posted by: rahdigly at April 6, 2006 11:06 PM
Comment #138605
I used extreme. You were the one that went with reactionary extremist.

Let’s quote.

Uh, no. It’s the reactionaries and the extremist that win wars; the apologists and passivists are the ones that get killed and (more importantly) get other people killed. Check out the isolationists in the mid to late 1930’s. If it weren’t for that movement, millions of Jews could have been saved.
Posted by: rahdigly at April 5, 2006 11:35 AM

They’re your words. However, as I said, I’ll drop the “reactionary extremist” subclaim so you can move on to the other parts of your claim.

I’m waiting.

Now pony up and respond to the argument that you continue to dodge
There’s nothing for me to respond to in any way that I haven’t already responded to many times.

It’s your turn.

Posted by: LawnBoy at April 6, 2006 11:15 PM
Comment #138607
Now pony up and respond to the argument that you continue to dodge

Just to humor you so you can move on to either defending or renouncing your “fact”, I’ll restate what I said earlier in response to this basic point:

That inhumane acts occured during a successful campaign does not logically prove that the inhumane acts were necessary for the success. Correlation does not imply causation.

Posted by: LawnBoy at April 6, 2006 11:18 PM
Comment #138618

So you won’t answer it. I’m not surprised. Let me clue you in on some copy and pasting that you excluded; which, by the way, precedes the April 5, 11:35am quote.


“This whole “we don’t want to be just like them” notion is complete and utter nonsense. Look at what FDR and Truman did in WWII: treatment of prisoners; interning Japanese Americans; how “extreme” the fighting was in the war, and we were nothing (NOTHING!) like the enemy.

Posted by: rahdigly at April 4, 2006 05:27 PM”

You can retort with these critical thinking lines “logically prove” and “Correlation does not imply causation.” BS all you want; you’re still not answering it.


Now, here’s yet another chance:

“in today’s world, WWII would be considered extreme…That means radical. There’s no way that what was done from 1941-1945 could ever (EVER!) be done now. Never! Now, throw your “logic” and “reason” behind that…We’re fighting this war on terror with our “hands tied behind on backs”, relatively speaking, compared to WWII. And, in today’s war on terror, there are people (right here on this blog) that are accusing the US (mainly the Bush Admin) of being “inhumane” and “being just like the enemy”. Those are not my words; I’m just reacting to them.”


???

Posted by: rahdigly at April 6, 2006 11:48 PM
Comment #138637

Folks,
Sorry to take up precious bandwidth, but I just can’t take this anymore.

rahdigly,

I refuse to allow you to take my words and twist them to fit your agenda. You may enjoy Hannity’s style of debate, but he is a hack and everything he does is for ratings.
While these are not my complete posts (that would take way too much space), the quotes that I have pasted here are complete, and in context. You may go to the complete posts at the times mentioned if you wish to dispute this.

“Do you understand that “due process” is one of the concepts that this country was founded upon?
That “due process” is part of the bedrock that makes “us” different from “them”?

Any tin horn dictator can just disappear a terrorist, or dissident. It takes the better country, that takes the higher path, to show the rest of the world that “due process”, is part and parcel of being, and remaining, the good guys.
Posted by: Rocky at April 4, 2006 02:09 PM”

“We, who are trying to spread Democracy throughout the world still need to prove that we are supposed to be the good guys, and because we are supposed to be the good guys, we treat ALL people the same regardless of ideology, even if they are criminals.

We want to treat those at Gitmo as enemy combatants simply because they don’t wear the uniform of a specific army.
Can anybody out there show me a picture of an Taliban army uniform?
The Taliban were running Afghanistan, weren’t they?
Posted by: Rocky at April 4, 2006 04:06 PM”

“What FDR and Truman did with the internment of Japanese/Americans was dispicable, and it in no way shortened the war nor did it enhance our national security.
It was wrong and there is no excuse for it.
FDR and Truman ruled over a time of great fear in America.

What we are doing with the internees at gitmo and other places is just as dispicable.
It is wrong and there is no excuse for it, it in no way shortens the war, nor does it enhance our national security.
You just don’t hold human beings without any redress indefinitely.
And now, just as in the time of WW2, the far right has attempted to scare the American public into a state of fear.
Posted by: Rocky at April 4, 2006 07:36 PM”

These are my EXACT words DUDE.
Please point out to me where I said that we were treating people inhumanely.

You need to base your opinion on facts, not your facts on your opinion.

Time to put up, or shut up.

Posted by: Rocky at April 7, 2006 1:08 AM
Comment #138643

Rocky,
“Please point out to me where I said that we were treating people inhumanely. You need to base your opinion on facts, not your facts on your opinion. Time to put up, or shut up.”


Well, well, well. Look who “couldn’t take it anymore”, our pal who’s saving us all from the “bandwidth” wasting. So, glad you could make it.


Now, it’s time for the rahdigster to, how did you say, “Put up or shut up”. And pay attention b/c, I (too) don’t want to take up bandwidth.

Here’s (THE FACT) where you said that we were treating people inhumanely:


“Dispite you and the far right’s attempt to de-humanize the “terrorists”, they are still human beings, and ALL human beings have rights. That is one of the ideals that this country was founded upon, and if you don’t belive that, you need to go back and re-read the Declaration of Independence.”

Posted by: Rocky at April 4, 2006 03:16 PM


Now, to take a page out of (your pal) Lawnboy’s playbook:

http://www.m-w.com/dictionary/dehumanize
“to deprive of human qualities, personality, or spirit”

http://www.m-w.com/dictionary/inhumane
“not humane : INHUMAN “


Ohhh, Rock, you should of stayed out of it and let your “pawns” take the heat the way they were doing it. Yet, you just had to come back to the game and now you got caught with your own words. And, just re-read your (4/7 1:08am) post, along with this one, before you try and deny it; which I’m sure is going to be your first instinct.

Ha! Ha! Ha!

Check mate!!!!

Posted by: rahdigly at April 7, 2006 1:51 AM
Comment #138645

rahdigly,

http://www.merriamwebster.com/dictionary/Humane

“humane
One entry found for humane.
Main Entry: hu·mane
Pronunciation: hyü-‘mAn, yü-
Function: adjective
Etymology: Middle English humain
1 : marked by compassion, sympathy, or consideration for humans or animals
2 : characterized by or tending to broad humanistic culture : HUMANISTIC
- hu·mane·ly adverb
- hu·mane·ness /-‘mAn-n&s/ noun”

Just for fun, I didn’t say treat these people with compassion, sympathy or consideration.
You have been attempting to de-humanize the terrorists, to make them less than human, or in your words “facist sand pigs”.
I said, treat them like human beings.
I didn’t say let them out of jail, or send them to the Waldorf, or send them to Disneyland.
I didn’t even ask you to respect them.
I said treat them like human beings.

“We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness.”

Yuo will notice that nowhere in the Declaration “except in time of war” or “except if they are terrorists”.
It says that ALL MEN ARE CREATED EQUAL AND THEY ARE ENDOWED BY THEIR WITH CERTAIN UNALLIENABLE RIGHTS.

This ain’t a competition bub, this is about truth and you have lied continuously about what I said.
However you want to twist it, YOU LIED.

Oh, and BTW, you still haven’t shown me where I said we were treating people inhumanely. I never said it.

Posted by: Rocky at April 7, 2006 2:13 AM
Comment #138648

“Yuo will notice that nowhere in the Declaration “except in time of war” or “except if they are terrorists”.”

That should read,

You will notice that nowhere in the Declaration does it say, “except in time of war” or “except if they are terrorists”.

Posted by: Rocky at April 7, 2006 2:36 AM
Comment #138652

rahdigly,

Since you so kindly supplied the quote I am sure that you actually read it.
Please don’t tell me to point it out to you.

“Dispite you and the far right’s attempt to de-humanize the “terrorists”, they are still human beings, and ALL human beings have rights. That is one of the ideals that this country was founded upon, and if you don’t belive that, you need to go back and re-read the Declaration of Independence.”

Where exactly did I say that America was treating these guys inhumanely?

If you still don’t get it, just re-read the first sentence.

Do the words “you and the far right’s ATTEMPT to de-humanize” ring a bell?
How could you possibly construe that to mean that I think America is treating these people inhumanely?

You are sooo intent in your effort to play gotcha that you don’t even bother to stop and think about what you are reading.

Ta Ta.

Posted by: Rocky at April 7, 2006 3:14 AM
Comment #138666
So you won’t answer it. I’m not surprised.

I answered your question directly and accurately. You ridicule my answer because it’s based on logic.

It doesn’t matter how many times you repeat your same rambling, incoherent paragraph, I’ve already answered it as best as possible. Just because you don’t like or can’t understand my response doesn’t mean it’s an invalid response.

In contrast, I have definitively proven that you were wrong in a point of fact, but you refuse to admit it. I have shown that you don’t know what words mean when you use them (reactionary, ad hominem, etc.). I have shown that you don’t understand that the definition of fact is not “whatever rahdigly wants to believe.” I have shown that there’s a difference between a fact and conjecture, and that you don’t understand that. I have laid out simple, defined steps and claims for you to address, but you refuse to address them because you know you can’t win.

I was hoping to get you to admit that you were wrong on something. It’s so obvious to everyone else (that has any background in logic or history) that you frequently are in error. I was hoping that I could get you to acknowledge that you don’t know everything you think you do. Unfortunately, something (arrogance? pride? incompetence? mischief?) prevents you from using logic, from understanding direct responses, and from acknowledging when you are wrong on proven points of facts.

I’m probably done here. Maybe you’ll say something interesting so I’ll have a reason to return, but I anticipate that you’ll just continue your typical practice: make a big stink about a tiny point I’ve made and ignore the huge issue that you are, as I said before, talking out of your ass.

Posted by: LawnBoy at April 7, 2006 8:28 AM
Comment #138679

Lawn, Rocky,

I had this style debate with Rahdigly some months back. I’ve tried Socratic, Cartesian, Rusellian, and simple headbashing approaches with the right wing posters and always arrived at the same point we have here. Basically, their definitions of truth and reality are somewhere near the assteroid belt, their deductions are poorly premised and unsound, and they think we’re the stupid ones.

As you can see, somewhere along the way I started to sound like the least common denominator. Thank you for reminding me how substantive debate can sound.

PS: My favorite quote

You can retort with these critical thinking lines “logically prove” and “Correlation does not imply causation.” BS all you want; you’re still not answering it.

Posted by: Dave at April 7, 2006 9:40 AM
Comment #138694

Dave,

I wouldn’t say that all right-wing posters are guilty of the invalid tactics that rahdigly uses. Jack, for example, can be a very good debater.

The sad thing is that this is not the first time I’ve had this sort of “debate” with rahdigly. I don’t know why I thought I’d have more success this time at getting past the “words and concepts mean whatever I want them to mean and everyone but me is wrong” mentality.

Oh well.

Thanks.

Posted by: LawnBoy at April 7, 2006 10:05 AM
Comment #138710

Lawn,

I will repost that “the many right wing posters” would be more accurate. Jack is another story.

Posted by: Dave at April 7, 2006 11:05 AM
Comment #138715

Lawnboy,

Sorry if you took some of rahdigly’s bile on my account.
I honestly had no idea what he was blathering on about until I re-read the quote he was refering to.
It was easy for me to see where he made his mistake.
I guess reading isn’t really understanding, but in his case, it happens a lot.

Posted by: Rocky at April 7, 2006 11:27 AM
Comment #138724

Rocky,

Don’t worry about it. I don’t blame you that he attacked me with misinterpretations of your words. It goes back to April 5, 2006 02:35 PM, when he invented the words in your mouth that we treated POWs poorly, even though (I believe) you hadn’t addressed POWs at all.

Oh well.

We all warned each other not to bother. I did, you did, Dave did, and ray did. And yet we wasted our time.

What’s the phrase about singing to a pig?

Posted by: LawnBoy at April 7, 2006 11:45 AM
Comment #138726

It wastes your time and annoys the pig.

Posted by: Rocky at April 7, 2006 11:52 AM
Comment #138737

Lawnboy,

Actually my initial posts with him were about due process. I belive that, in today’s world perception is everything, and right now we need all the friends we can get.

I don’t want America to be a world dominating country, that all others fear, because of it’s military might. That road leads to chaos, and further terrorism.
I prefer to change the hearts and minds of the world and spread Democracy through ideas, not bullets.
Be assured I am for a strong “defensive” military that is ready when needed to defend America and it’s allies, but these recent expeditions do nothing to raise American stature in the eyes of the world.

BTW, I had lunch with Jack around Christmas, and found over the course of a two hour conversation that we actually agreed more often than we disagreed.
That said I have had the occasion to scratch my head over some of his subjects lately.
No offence Jack.

Posted by: Rocky at April 7, 2006 12:14 PM
Comment #138743
I had lunch with Jack around Christmas

Just out of curiosity, how did that come about?

I’ve at times wondered what would happen if there were a a WatchBlog BBQ and we all got together. Would we separate into our three camps? Would someone punch Eric?

Posted by: LawnBoy at April 7, 2006 12:22 PM
Comment #138754

Lawnboy,

He was in Phoenix visiting family and had the good grace to e-mail me and invite me to lunch.
Like I said, we had a really good time.
Back a while ago our e-mail address were included in our posts, then I guess there were some virus, or harassment issues and they discontinued the pratice.
As far as Eric is concerned, though his posts seem far fetched at times, I think that he just enjoys tweeking people.
Occasionally he does make a point or two.

Posted by: Rocky at April 7, 2006 12:37 PM
Comment #138766

Well I am off to Texas today, I will be involved with two concerts, one in Dallas on Saturday, and in Houston on Sunday.
The show is called Jamarama and it is a concert for children.
If you’re old enough to walk, you’re old enough to rock.

Posted by: Rocky at April 7, 2006 12:56 PM
Comment #138780

One last thing before I go.

America can solve the problems of the world, but we need to work together with all the other countries to solve them.
rahdigly, please notice I said countries not terrorists.
America does have most of the solutions for what ails, but we need to lose the attitude, and work together.

Posted by: Rocky at April 7, 2006 1:20 PM
Comment #138788

Rocky,

I have to admit, I’m kinda feeling sorry for you a little bit; even though you have an entourage with big barks and little bite “nipping at my heels”. I mean I catch you (red handed) with your own words and you try to give some back-door excuse that de-humanize and inhumane aren’t related and not what you were talking about. That’s bull. You know exactly what you said and it was in the context of what we were talking about. It’s time to show what kind of man your are and own up to your comments. First, let me “debunk” your charge that I lied:

http://dictionary.laborlawtalk.com/dehumanise
” dehumanise - deprive of human qualities
Antonyms: humanize, humanise - make more humane”

http://dictionary.laborlawtalk.com/humane
” humane - marked or motivated by concern with the alleviation of suffering
Antonyms: inhumane - lacking and reflecting lack of pity or compassion “


So, as you can see, at best, you’re playing degrees of separation, here; 3 more degrees and we’d have Kevin bacon. Ha! ha!

Now, do yourself a favor, step up and admit you’re wrong and then move on; we can get into it with some other discussions.


Posted by: rahdigly at April 7, 2006 1:40 PM
Comment #138807

rahdigly,

Please do us both a favor and read my post from 3:14am today.

If you read this and still maintain you’re position there is no hope for you.

I know what I wrote, and it isn’t open to your interpretation.
Please take it at face value and don’t read anything into it, the meaning is exactly as I wrote it.

Posted by: Rocky at April 7, 2006 2:13 PM
Comment #138809

I am waiting for the Yeah, buts to start.

Posted by: Rocky at April 7, 2006 2:19 PM
Comment #138813

A mind is like a parachute, it always works better when it is open.

Posted by: Rocky at April 7, 2006 2:26 PM
Comment #138819

Well I am online at the airport and have a plane to catch.
I may be back on later this evening.

Ya’ll have a good day.

Posted by: Rocky at April 7, 2006 2:38 PM
Comment #138827

Rocky, come on, dude! I know you’re a (fairly) smart guy; at this point, it’s just a matter of humbling yourself and admit that you’re wrong. I read and re-read your posts and you’re still not owning up to it.

I (originally) was talking about liberalism and how they look to “criminalize” in the war on terror, rather than using “military”; like military tribunals instead of civilian courts. That’s when you came in and talked about:

“Dispite you and the far right’s attempt to de-humanize the “terrorists”, they are still human beings, and ALL human beings have rights. That is one of the ideals that this country was founded upon, and if you don’t belive that, you need to go back and re-read the Declaration of Independence.”


To which I came back with “we shouldn’t allow our liberties and laws to terrorists that want to destroy our liberties and laws”. I also brought up the WWII example and how, in todays era, those tactics wouldn’t fly, AT ALL! And, even though the WWII leaders certainly de-humanized people, it never made us like the enemy; not one bit.


Then you and the “gang” chimed in with charges of “illogical fallacies”, “oh that’s rahdigly, he never listens or gives facts”, “Use this brick wall to talk with rahdigly”, “I’m wasting my time talking to rahdigly, but here it goes” and “Rah’s wrong and won’t admit it”.


What you failed to grasp here is that you (YOU!) proved my point to a tee. I talked about using military, rather than “criminalizing” to handle this war and you talked about “terrorists are humans too; we don’t need to de-humanize them” and you even recited our Declaration of Independence. So, wow, there it is. You proved my point. You don’t need to go overboard and take us down this road of “inhumane” and “de-humanize”; you proved my point. Period.


Later!

Posted by: rahdigly at April 7, 2006 2:53 PM
Comment #138838

rah,

Now it’s all clear. When Rocky talks about things like following the Constitution and the founding principles of the nation, you see this as a bad thing!

Well, consider yourself to have proved the point that we care about the principles of the nation even if you don’t. Hell, you even consider Rocky’s use of the Declaration of Independence as a mistake, as though the founding principles of the country are something to be ashamed of.

So, if all this effort was to prove that you think differently than we do, consider your point proven. If it was to prove that your outlook is correct, valid, or proven by anything you’ve said here, then you’ll have to start over.

I noticed that you’ve stopped defending you claim that peaceniks are to blame for the Holocaust (or whatever you think you think). I accept that as admission that you’re wrong.

Thanks.

Posted by: LawnBoy at April 7, 2006 3:27 PM
Comment #138874

“Now it’s all clear. When Rocky talks about things like following the Constitution and the founding principles of the nation, you see this as a bad thing! Well, consider yourself to have proved the point that we care about the principles of the nation even if you don’t. Hell, you even consider Rocky’s use of the Declaration of Independence as a mistake, as though the founding principles of the country are something to be ashamed of.”


Pay attention, adhom. I’m talking about the terrorist. I don’t believe the terrorist should (ever) have rights like the rest of us; I do believe “the rest of us” should have those rights and follow the constitution; the same one that the founding fathers and everybody in our military since then have fought to the death to establish and protect. Terrorists should never get the same rights and liberties as our fellow citizens. That’s my point and has been my point from the start. The terrorists are using the emotionalism from people in this country, that want to give them rights, to their advantage.


The terrorists are the ones that de-humanize anybody that’s not like them; including fellow muslims that don’t believe in their radical ways. They are nothing but a bunch of disgusting and repugnant scumbags that don’t deserve anything from us with the exception of being wiped off this planet. There’s no middle ground with them and (I believe) they have to be taken out.


Now, if you disagree with that point of view, fine. However, I’ve stated my stance and Rocky has stated his. We are (still) both Americans; just with different viewpoints. That’s how debates are supposed to be, just tell us what you believe and we’ll make up our minds from there.


Rocky and I have stated ours. What about you? What’s your take on how to deal with the terrorists? Do you believe in “criminalizing” them? Or do you believe in dealing with them “militarily”? Step up to the plate.

Posted by: rahdigly at April 7, 2006 6:16 PM
Comment #138881
Pay attention, adhom.

You know my handle. Use it or abbreviate it or don’t use it at all, I don’t care. I do care when you make up names for me based on your own ignorance. Please stop.

I don’t believe the terrorist should (ever) have rights like the rest of us

I know. That’s consistent with what I said about your beliefs. Is there a problem?

Terrorists should never get the same rights and liberties as our fellow citizens.

That’s your opinion. It’s not the law or the Constitution or according to the country’s founding principles. We know you believe this. You know we don’t. What’s the hang up?

Step up to the plate.

Why repeat my opinion again? To give you another chance to waste everyone’s time by telling me that I’m wrong no matter how well proven my beliefs and for you to abuse me for disagreeing with you?

Not gonna happen.

Posted by: LawnBoy at April 7, 2006 6:44 PM
Comment #138885


‘I don’t believe the terrorist should (ever) have rights like the rest of us’

“I know. That’s consistent with what I said about your beliefs. Is there a problem?”


So, are you saying I shouldn’t have rights and that I should be treated like the terrorists b/c I have a different viewpoint than yours (and theirs)?


“We know you believe this. You know we don’t. What’s the hang up?”


No, “we” don’t. I haven’t heard your point of view on this, that’s why I said to step up and explain. Now, if you did, I’m asking you to repeat (again) b/c we’ve gotten side tracked with all this “splitting hairs” stuff. Rocky and I repeated our points, what’s your point of view?

“Why repeat my opinion again?”

Because we’ve repeated ours and we’ve gotten side tracked.

Posted by: rahdigly at April 7, 2006 7:04 PM
Comment #138895

rahdigly,

I’m off the plane now so I guess I need to catch up.

So, like Hannity, when someone makes a valid point you change the subject.

Again I ask the question;

“Dispite you and the far right’s attempt to de-humanize the “terrorists”, they are still human beings, and ALL human beings have rights. That is one of the ideals that this country was founded upon, and if you don’t belive that, you need to go back and re-read the Declaration of Independence.”

Where in that statement do I say that America is treating terrorists inhumanely?

The answer is easy, I don’t.
So how does that make me wrong?

Back to the dodge;

The United States is trying to spread Democracy around the world. Part of what we belive is the basis for our Democracy is the Declaration of Independence and the Bill of Rights.
The Declaration of Independence and the Bill of Rights lay out the groundwork for the laws in our country. Part of that basis for our laws is due process.
We currently hold prisoners at Gitmo, and other places. They are being held because they weren’t wearing a recognizible uniform, therefore we think that they might be terrorists.
And we intend to hold these guys indefinitely.
You don’t want to give these prisoners the basic American right of due process.
I know you don’t care what the rest of the world thinks, that’s obvious.
My belief is that if Democracy and the laws, and precepts we belive in are good enough for the rest of the world we should be treating these prisoners as if they were criminals, which BTW, to hear you talk of them, they are. What is good enough for all is good enough for one.

Posted by: Rocky at April 7, 2006 7:34 PM
Comment #138906
So, are you saying I shouldn’t have rights and that I should be treated like the terrorists b/c I have a different viewpoint than yours (and theirs)?

No, that’s not at all what I’m saying. I was saying that “I don’t believe the terrorist should (ever) have rights like the rest of us” is consistent with my summary of your beliefs that you complained about.

Because we’ve repeated ours and we’ve gotten side tracked.

Ok.

Torture bad. America good (but fallible). Bush breaks laws. Human rights absolute.

Posted by: LawnBoy at April 7, 2006 7:56 PM
Comment #138907

Rock, dude, I will not “split hairs” with you over this “inhumane” and “de-humanize” jargon anymore; just re-read my (4/7 1:40pm) post to see what I’ve said about that. If you still have issue with that, then we’re just going to have to move on; b/c I’ve said all that I can on that.


Now, if you have moved on, then we can debate these points about how we feel on the terrorists and our laws. So, everything from this point on will be about just that.


“Part of what we belive is the basis for our Democracy is the Declaration of Independence and the Bill of Rights.”

I concur. I believe in the “our” part of our democracy, and that is where I separate the terrorists from us. They are not part of “our” laws and liberties. That’s why I don’t believe they should be treated like us b/c they are not like us. They don’t believe in our rights and liberties and they are (extremely) de-humanizing in the way they express it. They blow up women, children, Jews, Christians, and fellow muslims b/c they (the above mentioned) don’t think or act the way the terrorists do.


“My belief is that if Democracy and the laws, and precepts we belive in are good enough for the rest of the world we should be treating these prisoners as if they were criminals, which BTW, to hear you talk of them, they are. What is good enough for all is good enough for one.”


I disagree. I don’t view them as criminals, I view them as terrorists; therefore, I believe they ought to be tried in military tribunals or killed on the battlefield.

Posted by: rahdigly at April 7, 2006 7:58 PM
Comment #138930

rahdigly,

“I disagree. I don’t view them as criminals, I view them as terrorists; therefore, I believe they ought to be tried in military tribunals or killed on the battlefield.”

I don’t have a problem with the “killed on the battlefield part, but once they have been taken into custody, I have a real problem with holding them “indefinitly”. That is where the treat them like human beings comes in. Holding people in this manner is medieval, and unacceptable.
This has nothing to do with how they are treated while they are in custody, if they are captured, turn them over to the authorities in the country they were captured in or give them due process according to our laws.
Hell, even the Americans held in German POW camps knew someday that the war would end and they stood a good chance of going home. The war on terror will go on for decades, and these guys know that.
Prosecute them or cut them loose.

Posted by: Rocky at April 7, 2006 9:17 PM
Comment #138931

rahdigly,

On splitting hairs;

BTW, your whole argument about humane or inhumane is based on your misunderstanding of what I said.
You formed your opinion about what I wrote without even understanting what it was I wrote. I don’t need to re-read your opinion because it is based on a false precept.
You didn’t get it, and it seems your not going to get it.
I’m over it.

Posted by: Rocky at April 7, 2006 9:24 PM
Comment #138933

Rocky,

This thread highlights one of Bushies fatal mistakes. By refusing to declare the captured terrorists as POWs, in order to enable the excuse to torture them, we are in this mess. You can’t prosecute them, they didn’t break any laws, they were fighting a war. If they broke the rules of law, that would be different. If they were the guys who did 9/11 that would be different. If he called them POW’s, we could hold them until the end of the war and noone would have complained. It’s just that we couldn’t have tortured them for as long as we have.

Posted by: Dave at April 7, 2006 9:30 PM
Comment #138934

Sorry: “rules of war”

Posted by: Dave at April 7, 2006 9:31 PM
Comment #138937

Dave,

I understand the point about prosecution.

I don’t want my country to fall into the same trap of other “empires” that have fallen.

If the world is afraid of us, short term we may be safe, but long term someone is going to try to knock us off. They may not succede the first time or even the fifth, but sooner or later they, or someone like them will succede. That is why, IMHO, the carrot needs to be much bigger than the stick.
The rest of the world should want to be on our side, not out of fear, but because it is the side that is right.

Posted by: Rocky at April 7, 2006 9:53 PM
Comment #139079

“I have a real problem with holding them “indefinitly”. That is where the treat them like human beings comes in. Holding people in this manner is medieval, and unacceptable.
This has nothing to do with how they are treated while they are in custody, if they are captured, turn them over to the authorities in the country they were captured in or give them due process according to our laws.”

That’s the difference between “criminalizing” and going the way of the “military” to fight this war. The “criminalizing” way will tie up our courts with war criminals and they will be granted rights that they are not entitled to. The “military” way, those war criminals will be tried with military tribunals; prisoners don’t know how long they’ll be held b/c they don’t know how long the war will go on; it’s all about attrition.


And, with the “military” way, our military is tough and smart enough to handle these scumbags, all while not becoming like them. It’s a win, win.


“I don’t want my country to fall into the same trap of other “empires” that have fallen.”


We won’t. We even won’t fall into the same trap of the WWII era either. But, then you know my take on that by now, already.


“Hell, even the Americans held in German POW camps knew someday that the war would end and they stood a good chance of going home.”


So do these prisoners, except their home is w/ allah and the 72 virgins…Sick folks you’re trying to give rights to, here.

Posted by: rahdigly at April 8, 2006 12:44 PM
Comment #139100
Sick folks you’re trying to give rights to, here.

This gets to the heart of the problem. We think that human rights are inherent in the individual. You think that human rights are things that the government gives at its own discretion.

It’s a dangerous standard you favor; once they’ve denied someone else’s rights, what’s to stop them from denying mine or yours?

Posted by: LawnBoy at April 8, 2006 2:36 PM
Comment #139107

“It’s a dangerous standard you favor; once they’ve denied someone else’s rights, what’s to stop them from denying mine or yours?”


“We the people” are what’s to stop “them” (gov’t), that’s who. I’m in firm favor of individual rights and human rights, the terrorists are not; the only rights they should receive is from our military. Terrorists in no way should receive our rights. Period!


That’s how this entire argument started; I said that the dems/libs (not all) in this country are not being trusted, by “we the people”, with National Security, b/c of reasons like that. The voters in this country do not believe that our rights and liberties should be granted to terrorists that are trying to destroy our rights and liberties. And, as long as a particular party (dems) and movement (libs) continue to argue in favor of terrorists having rights, they will not be trusted with National Security.

“You think that human rights are things that the government gives at its own discretion.”


No I don’t. I think that our rights and liberties were granted to us by our founding fathers that fought and died to establish it. Our gov’t is (democratically) elected to “represent” us and (also) ensure that they “protect” us via those laws.

Posted by: rahdigly at April 8, 2006 2:56 PM
Comment #139114
And, as long as a particular party (dems) and movement (libs) continue to argue in favor of terrorists having rights, they will not be trusted with National Security.

And, as long as a particular party (reps) and movement (cons) continue to argue in favor of being able to deny human rights from people they don’t like, they will not be trusted with Civil Liberties.

Posted by: LawnBoy at April 8, 2006 3:16 PM
Comment #139120

Newsflash! They already are trusted; that’s why they’re in control of the House, Senate and the Presidency.


“to argue in favor of being able to deny human rights from people they don’t like”

Uhh, people that “don’t like” us? (Again) Newsflash!! They actually “hate” us; that’s why they waged war. And, as long as they wage war on us and continue their hatred, they will be denied rights and life for that matter. Period!

Posted by: rahdigly at April 8, 2006 3:35 PM
Comment #139126
Newsflash! They already are trusted; that’s why they’re in control of the House, Senate and the Presidency.

Yet another logically invalid statement from rahdigly.

People vote on more than one issue. They can be distrusted on Civil Liberties and still win enough votes because of other issues.

Further, you point out the silliness in your own argument. You don’t trust the Democrats because they care about human rights. Somehow, you extend that into the passive “will not be trusted,” as though your beliefs were universal. They aren’t.

Uhh, people that “don’t like” us?
You flipped it around. I said that the right wing doesn’t like the terrorists, not the other way around. Please sign up for a reading comprehension class when you sign up for the logic class I suggested.
Period!

Oh no, not this crap again.

Posted by: LawnBoy at April 8, 2006 3:53 PM
Comment #139134

“I said that the right wing doesn’t like the terrorists”


Ok, fair enough. And I’m saying, the terrorists hate us. The terrorists are the ones that hate and they don’t care about human rights or any other kind of rights; except, of course, to use our rights and liberties, granted to them (undemocratically mind you) by some in this country, to destroy us.

“People vote on more than one issue. They can be distrusted on Civil Liberties and still win enough votes because of other issues.”

Ok, here’s my source to counter that statement. The 2002 and 2004 election. They both were about National Security and the American voters decided; both elections had the “Patriot Act” at the forefront and we saw the results. So don’t even try to downplay it with this “voting on many issues” line, b/c that’s already a given. You just can’t accept it; that’s your problem, not our country’s (thank goodness).

Posted by: rahdigly at April 8, 2006 4:12 PM
Comment #139199

what is truly funny is that some of the people admonishing rahdigly for confusing his opinion for facts are themselve guilty of acting as if their opinions are also facts.

The only thing apparent here is people exposing us to their opinions and beliefs. I get amused when I watch people trying to show that they are superior to others because their opinins are so much more valid, (in their minds).

Posted by: BooRadly at April 8, 2006 7:32 PM
Comment #139200

rahdigly et al,

If we know someone is a terrorist, they do not have rights. Like criminals, they have forfeited them by explicity and voluntarily attacking ours, and we can treat them according to whatever standards we see fit. These standards may be different from other cases such as captured soldiers fighting in state sponsored combat. Here we have made an agreement (treaty) that for various reasons captured soldiers are a special case and we will treat them according to certain rules. We have made no agreements to treat terrorists as a special case, nor should we (Again, they have attacked us out of their own violition, with motives of hatred, and should be treated as such). BUT- keep in mind that “terrorist” is a different thing than “detainee”. Not everyone we capture is a terrorist. Some of them are undoubtedly innocent people that were in the wrong place at the wrong time, and pronouncing them guilty with as little evidence as the fact of their capture, hurting them, and keeping them hidden forever in limbo without a chance to defend themselves is wrong. Remember that when you talk about appeals, torture, and legality.

Posted by: Amani at April 8, 2006 7:35 PM
Comment #139203

The one thing I have observed over the years I have been able to vote, that is consistent throughout all of the campaigns I have seen, is…

The sky is always falling, the country is going to hell, etc etc etc when the OTHER Party is in power.

The Democrats were in power so long that they began to think it was a birthright, and when the republicans got their shot, everything they do, the Democrats are out there clucking ‘the sky is falling the sky is falling’….

And the republicans did it too when the Democrats were in power.

No one is happy with the other party in power, yet the country survives and thrives contrary to what the chicken littles bleat….

Someone posted that the country is robust. That is true.. and this unending struggle for control is good for the country.

If the Republicans retain power, the country will go on being a strong good country. The same is true if the Democrats win. The problem as I see it is the Mainstream Media. Not that it is Liberal, (it is) but that it thrives and must have bad news to report. It can never tell us how we are getting along or what good is being done, or what our common goals are. It can only thrive on conflict and disaster. (Forgive the generalization, they do report on some feelgood stories, but on the whole they sell advertising on bad news).

Posted by: BooRadly at April 8, 2006 7:43 PM
Comment #139204

That Bush and Clinton before him, is ruining the country is all just so much political partisanship to be truly amazing to observe.

Posted by: BooRadly at April 8, 2006 7:46 PM
Comment #139215
Ok, here’s my source to counter that statement. The 2002 and 2004 election.

Let’s think about this. You said I would be wrong to say that people don’t vote solely on the topic of Civil Liberties by stating that the 2002 and 2004 elections were about National Security.

Do you see the problem?

Posted by: LawnBoy at April 8, 2006 8:28 PM
Comment #139221

I’ll rephrase to use a less convoluted phrase.

I said people don’t vote solely on the topic of Civil Liberties (explaining why it’s possible that the populace would vote for a party despite not trusting them on that issue).
You said I was wrong.
Your proof that I was wrong about people not voting solely on Civil Liberties is that, in 2002 and 2004, people voted on National Security.

Posted by: LawnBoy at April 8, 2006 9:00 PM
Comment #139437
Betty,

Can you provide a source for that information? It’s interesting if true.

Lawnboy:

(Sorry it’s taken so long to answer; I don’t usually search on my own name in these threads, but I’ve visited so many of them recently that I had to just now, and I just stumbled across your inquiry.)

Well, I learned it in college, so that won’t help you. I just did several cursory Searches on Google Advanced Search (an excellent tool, by the way: be sure to set your Preferences first), using the following search string: [“japanese” “german” “guns” “invasion of the united states” OR “invade the united states”]. I was only able to narrow things down to 621 results, and I just haven’t the time to wade through them all. Suggested next moves: try replacing “united states” in the above search with “u.s.”; try replacing “guns” with “second amendment” and/or “2nd amendment”; do a cartesian replacement using *ALL* of the above; punt.

The professor who mentioned this in passing in his World History course was quite good: he clearly loved his subject and did much reading and research on it in his off time. I am quite certain that the information is valid, even if you cannot find it through Google. (You do know that not All Information is avaliable through the `net, do you not?) Another good source to check might be the National Archives; try searching captured military documents from post-war Japan. Or, you could just take Professor Schwab’s word for it. :o)

Posted by: Betty Burke at April 9, 2006 8:02 PM
Comment #139453

Thanks, Betty.

I looked a bit following the patterns you suggested. I found a couple references to the same story (RealFighting.com and Reference.com), but nothing concrete.

In fact, the Reference.com article describes the story as “rumor(s) of uncertain authenticity.”

It sounds like a very good story, but it seems very likely to be apocryphal. Of course, as you said, just because I can’t find it on Google doesn’t mean it didn’t happen.

Posted by: LawnBoy at April 9, 2006 9:41 PM
Comment #140124

Well, you have to realise that people with my professor’s credentials do quite a lot of research with Primary Source materials: in the National Archives, say, which contain quite a few documents from both WWII and just-post WWII. Documents either captured from German and Japanese files by the occupying allied forces, or generated as the result of interviews with German and Japanese offials and officers. Did you know that Japan had a thriving Nuclear Weapons programme of its own, and even successfully detonated their own tewst explosion on the Korean Peninsula six days before the U.S. attack on Hiroshima? This was the subject of a recent documentary on the History Channel (I believe); the documents detailing the Japanese bomb project were “lost in plain view” for nearly fifty years (although many of one source’s Students heard about some of them, and viewed them, every semester). I am a pretty sharp cookie, LawnBoy (if I say so myself), and I don’t believe everything I’m told, nor from every source - but I believe this one, and Occam’s Razor backs me up. :o)

Posted by: Betty Burke at April 12, 2006 4:26 AM
Comment #140202
Occam’s Razor backs me up.

How do you figure? And how would that same interpretation of Occam’s Razor lead me to the same conclusion?

Posted by: LawnBoy at April 12, 2006 1:37 PM
Post a comment