I hope he's a better woodworker than he was a president.
"No" <[email protected]> wrote in message news:[email protected]...
> He has done a lot of work with Habitat, you may find something at their
> site.
> <[email protected]> wrote in message
> news:[email protected]...
> >
> > Is there a good website with some of Jimmy carter's woodworking.
> > I would love to see his work up close.
> >
> > Thanks
> > --
> >
> > Greg
> > Cowboy Up has taken on a whole different meaning lately
>
>
On Wed, 28 Dec 2005 10:33:52 -0800, "David Stuve" <[email protected]> wrote:
>Walt, I would challenge you to expand your political horizons. Go down to
>your local library, and do a Lexis Nexis search on Americans torturing
>prisoners, no-bid contracts in Iraq, the forged yellowcake documents,
>interference with CIA intelligence gathering, the outing of Valerie Plame,
>the botched reconstruction of New Orleans, and the recent scandal about
>ordering the NSA to spy on Americans. Cheneys name will be prominently
>featured in *all* of those subjects.
>
You can stop reading from the Democrat talking points now.
+--------------------------------------------------------------------------------+
If you're gonna be dumb, you better be tough
+--------------------------------------------------------------------------------+
[email protected] wrote:
> Note crossposting, followups.
Noted and ignored. This thread started here (and not by me)
and AFAIK stays here.
<SNIP>
> First, you make numerous statments that may be
> politely referred to a urabn legends. But worse, you
> express a desire for barabarity and a disrespect
> for the rule of law, morality, and civilization itself.
Before there is civilization, there must be survival. Making people
extremely uncomfortable (while not actually endangering their lives) is
hardly "barbarity" particularly in light of the actions of their
fellow-travelers.
> Those who advocate barbarism and disdain for the
> the rule of law are our enemies without regard
> to whether the advocate it against the United States
> or in the name of the United States. To defeat our
This is a ridiculous position. "The rule of law"? Whose exactly? The
collectivist UN's whose "law" exists primarily to have the coffers of
the West looted for every tin pot dictator around the world? The Geneva
Accords do not directly apply in all cases here so you can't mean that
"rule of law" (which as I understand it the US has never completely
signed to in any case). The same "rule of law" being observed by our
adversaries? Sharia law? Get real, you cannot manufacture some kind of
legal obligation that has not heretofore existed just because some of
the actions in war are gooey and uncomfortable. Should FDR have been
charged as a war criminal for the fire bombing of Dresden and Tokyo just
because doing so in peacetime would have been illegal? This is *war* not
some civil dispute being litigated by lawyers in thousand dollar suits.
<SNIP>
>>You mean aggressively going after *non-uniformed combatants* for
>>whom the Geneva accords do not apply.
>
>
> Regardless of what he means, you are
> mistaken.
>
> See the sections of the Fourth Protocol of
> 1949 regarding "civilians accused of a beligerant
> act" (e.g. insurgents, guerillas, partisans or
> whatever). The 1978 GC addresses those
> issues further. That the United States has
> refused to recognize those parts of the
> GCs does not mean they do not exist.
But it does mean that we are not *bound* to them. Entering into
international agreements of this sort is *voluntary* and not some sort
of Natural Law to which all mankind must adhere.
I repeat. To the best of my knowledge, under all agreements to which the
US is party, non-uniformed persons engaging in combat are legally
treated as spies and have none of the protections of a POW.
>
>
>>They can be shot on sight as spies
>>if we like.
>
>
> Indeed, you may shoot me in the back if you like.
> However, you would be comitting a crime and so
> would anyone who summarily executes any
> prisoner regardless of the accusation against that
> prisoner.
>
> The UCMJ prohibits murder, and a good faith belief
> that the victim is a spy is not among the enumerated
> defenses. Indeed, this is hardly a new concept:
>
> Section 2 of the Act of Congress of April 10, 1806,
> 2 Stat. 371, derived from the Resolution of the
> Continental Congress of August 21, 1776, imposed
> the death penalty on alien spies "according to the
> law and usage of nations, by sentence of a general
> court martial."
>
> "by sentence of a general court martial." pretty clearly excludes
> impromtu execution.
Oh, you mean individual soldiers ought not to make this decision, and I
agree (except where they are faced with a direct threat and must kill a
spy to defend themselves). The instruction to execute spies should should
come from the chain of command as either a direct order or as an
explicit Rule Of Engagement. But let's rejoin Reality here. I said we
*could* (legally) kill spies at our pleasure not that we ought to. It
was a statement about where the legal boundary lives not what actual
actions should have been taken.
> In earlier articles I was mistaken as to the date. I apologise.
>
>
>>There is both legal grounds and precedent for doing so.
>
>
> There is both legal grounds and precedent for muder
> convictions of persons who do so. Consider the post-WWII
> trials of persons accused of summarily executing partisans.
>
> Summary execution of spies has been a war crime under the
> most common international treaties since at least the early
> 20th century. See the Hague Conventions circa 1903.
You are playing a subtle word game here. First of all, the people in
question are not "partisans". They are primarily 3rd-parties to this
conflict from places other than Iraq who operate specifically as
_insurgent terrorists_ under the cover of civilian clothing making war
against civilians. More importantly, their interest is not primarily in
the conflict at hand. Their interest is to use this conflict in their
larger cause - the decimation of liberal (aka civilized) society.
Secondly, (again to the best of my knowledge) the US has never been a
signatory to anything preventing the execution of spies. If this were
not so, then why did FDR not stand trial as a war criminal for the (now
famous) execution of German spies found in the US docks?
>
>>And the "torture" in this case involves making them uncomfortable and
>>physically intimidating them, not, say, beheading them with a dull
>>knife like their compatriots do.
>
>
> It also involves water torture.
Which is most uncomfortable, I'm sure, but not life threatening.
>
> I recall watching a news conference around December 2001
> in which reporters asked Rumsfeld about accusations that
> Afghanistani civilians had been mistreated by American Forces.
> He scoffed at the notion.
>
> I expect the Secretary of Defense or anyone in the chain
> of command, when asked about such matters, to express
> confidence in the character of the rank and file of the US
> military. I also expect that same person to state plainly
> that all such accusations are taken seriously and investigated.
>
> That sort of statement sends the message that we do the right
> thing and don't let anyone get away with doing any less.
>
> Clearly that is not the message Rumsfeld sent.
Nor do I. When faced with an almost-impossible to identify enemy that
makes war intentionally on innocent non-combatants, that observes *no*
rule of law or internation convention, and that has demonstrated an
addiction to barbarism unseen for many generations in human warfare
(even the Japanse cannibalism of WWII pales by comparison), I think just
about any method of removing these people from the planet is morally
just nor is (almost) any method of interrogation out of bounds. The fact
that it is at complete odds with our notions about civilized behavior is
besides the point. The people in question are not party to the canons of
civil society. They lost those protections when they made war on
innocents, used children as bombs and human shields, and engaged in the
barbaric executions of their captives. You keep wanting to apply a
measure of legal protection to which they are not entitled.
There is plenty of US precedent here, instituted by one of the darlings
of the ideological Left. FDR instituted an unrelenting campaign of fire
against both Dresden and Tokyo (both of which killed far more people
than the A-Bomb drops). He did so knowing full well that, while he was
attacking centers of war machinery and materiale', he would be killing
10s of thousands of civilians in the process. Moreover, he did so
against enemies who, however evil, *were* parties to civilized society.
who *did* wear uniforms, and were signatories to some notions of
international law. If FDRs actions were morally unquestioned (and I
think in retrospect they should have been) then today's actions ought to
be even less so given the susbtantially fouler enemy in our crosshairs.
The only reason to avoid torture and execution of these people (after
suitably stuffing them full of bacon sandwiches and then feeding their
remains to starving hogs so they can spend the afterlife as pig
excrement) is because doing so may be not in our own best interests for
a variety of reasons. I do stipulate that there may be any number of
pragmatic reasons to avoid torture and summary execution. Among them
would be the bad PR it engenders, the ineffectiveness of torture as a
general method of extracting information, the effect is has on our own
troops' morale' and so forth. But there is absolutely no *moral* reason
to avoid doing so.
Your view is analogous to taking aspirin when you discover cancer. I
want the cancer excised with due haste and unrelenting vigor. That's
because I want actual civilized society to survive, not be overrun by
savages while the lawyers argue about the shape of the negotiating
table.
<SNIP>
>
>>Foreign spies are not entitled
>>to the same civil liberties that US citizens and legal residents
>>enjoy.
>
>
> That is true.
>
> But more importantly we, as a civilized
> people impose restrictions on ourselves.
> If we do not, we have no claim on any moral
> authority to try others or even govern ourselves.
Baloney. Certainly we do impose these restrictions on ourselves as a
matter of civil behavior. But we are not making a "moral claim ... on
others". We are attempting to end a threat directed at us and all civil
societies around the world. The Islamic radicals have made it repeatedly
clear that their goal is the destruction of liberal civil society and
they have demonstrated a willingness to act to that end.
>
>
>>In fact, they're not even entitled to the consideration
>>legally required for foreign military combatants.
>
>
> Quite correct. And still beside the point as shown above.
>
>
>>When the
>>Brave Soldiers Of Allah (tm) are willig to wear uniforms and fight
>>other soldiers, not kill innocent civilians, then they'll get treated
>>accordingly when captured. Until then, they are entitled to no
>>consideration whatsoever.
>
>
> Again, beside the point. The issue is not the consideration
> to which they are entitled. The issue is our standard for our
> behaviour. There are lines that, if crossed, constitute criminal
> behaviour regardless of the choice of victim. If we do not
> respect our own laws, we have no business expecting anyone
> else to do so either. If we do not behave in a moral manner,
> we abandon moral authority.
Why do fail to grasp that "our laws" do not apply to people whose
very goal is the elimination of these very laws? When someone is
trying to choke you to death, you don't worry about *their* air
supply.
<SNIP>
>>To misquote a famous person from history, "The Left is an Ass". the
>>no-bid Halliburton contracts were let out under the *Clinton*
>>administration primarily because there are so few companies who
>>can/will do this work at the relatively low net margins to be had.
>
>
> False. The no-bid Halliburton contracts in the instant case,
> (e.g. Iraq) were let out under the Bush Administration. *Previously*
> no-bid Halliburton contracts were let out under the *Clinton* in
> the Balkans.
Noted and I stand corrected. But the point remains - there is ample
precedent for letting such contracts. This is hardly the foul of
the Bush administration claimed by its opponents. As I understand it
(and I no longer have the cite), Halliburton is among the very few
companies even able to be considered for such work because there
is almost no other business entity available willing to work for
the relatively low percentage profit margins (in an extremely
dangerous and uncomfortable environment).
>
>
>> ...
>>
>>>interference with CIA intelligence gathering, the outing of Valerie Plame,
>>
>>There will be due process to find out who did what as regards to the
>>whole Plame matter. Stay tuned - it will have been much ado about nothing.
>
>
> My prediction is that the matter will be dragged
> out in the courts until January 2009 at which time
> President GW Bush will pardon enough people
> to squelch the matter, unless Fitzgerald has the
> guts and determiniation to subpaoena the pardoned
> persons as witnesses, arguing that the Fifth
> Amendment protection does not apply to a person
> shielded from incrimination by a Pardon. He just
> might, but he might get cut off by the next administration
> anyhow.
FWIW, I happen to agree with the Left on this one. *If* the administration
used tactics such as this to squelch dissent it ought to be treated
as a criminal act up to and including impeachment (depending on who knew
and who was involved). See, I *do* believe in the rule of law when
the people involved are part of our social contract, and even moreso
when they are our leaders.
...
>>
>>
>>>ordering the NSA to spy on Americans. Cheneys name will be prominently
>>
>>Again, we need to help you with the concept here. The NSA was not given
>>an unlimited hunting license. They were only given room to do this when
>>the American in question was in contact with a *probable threat*. FWIW,
>>I don't like this either - there should always be judicial oversight
>>when wiretapping in any form occurs - but the way you people drool on
>>about it, you'd think the NSA was watching you get aroused watching Al
>>Franken on TV at night. Your secret is safe. The NSA doesn't care that
>>much about you.
>
>
> Maybe. OTOH, maybe the Administration
> continued to bypass the FISA court after it
> could no longer be justified by an immediate
> danger of a magnitude that exceeded the
> capacity of the FISA courts. Maybe the
> administration actively concealed the fact
> that the FISA court had been bypassed from
> the FISA court itself. Maybe the administration,
> went beyond national security and also spied
> on anti-war activists, reporters, or political
> adversaries.
Again, I actually agree here. I do not like the idea of no judicial
oversight when civil liberties are at risk. I just think we're going to
discover that the sins are nowhere as awful as claimed by the critics of
this government. I too fail to understand the administration's
reluctance to use the after-the-fact FISA approval provisions that
exist. Please understand, I am no fan of this administration on many
matters. I merely defend their military and policy posture on the matter
of international terror because I think anything less is suicidal.
--
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
Tim Daneliuk [email protected]
PGP Key: http://www.tundraware.com/PGP/
David Stuve wrote:
> Why do ex-presidents have to keep their mouths shut? Freedom of speech is
> the absolute cornerstone of our democracy, and should be encouraged. I
> think Bush and Reagan kept their mouths shut becuase in their heart of
> hearts they really didn't give a crap about the rest of us.
Well the fact is that Reagan kept his mouth shut because his people
quit writing scripts for him.
> ... Like him or not, Carter seems to really want to keep trying to make
> the world a better place.
>
In the thirty years befor Camp David Egypt and Israel went to war
four times In the thrity years since, not once. He helped make the
world a better place.
--
FF
Leon wrote:
> <[email protected]> wrote in message
> news:[email protected]...
> > On Thu, 22 Dec 2005 22:29:44 GMT, "WALTER D. CONNER"
> > <[email protected]>
> > wrote:
> >
>
> >
> > Reagan was too busy shitting his diaper and trying to remember his own
> > name.
> > Bush Senior was too busy collecting his millions in payoffs from all the
> > favors
> > he did while in office.
> >
>
> And Clinton waited until he was almost out of office to pardon all of his
> convict friends that helped keep him out of jail.
Geroge H. Bush set the precedent for that.
--
FF
Crossposted to alt.politics
Followups to alt.politics
Mark & Juanita wrote:
> On Thu, 22 Dec 2005 15:35:27 -0800, "David Stuve" <[email protected]> wrote:
>
> ...
> > Freedom of speech is
> >the absolute cornerstone of our democracy, and should be encouraged.
>
> This is more protocol and maintaining a reasonable sense of decorum.
> Those former presidents had their 4 or 8 years to shape the landscape of
> American life. To continue to attempt to influence events beyond
> supporting their party's activities gives the appearance of attempting to
> undermine the sitting president.
IIUC, your reasoning is that anyone, not merely a former president,
who voices any objections to any policies, no matter how heinous,
of the present President is 'undermining' the sitting President.
That is like saying that everyone is free to practice whatever religion
they chose so long as it involves a belief in God and is consistant
with
the doctrines of certain Protestant sects and so long as they don't
mind
their children being led in Protestant prayers and taught Protestant
doctrine in the public schools.
> Most of the former presidents have had the
> dignity and wisdom to realize what that kind of activity during their terms
> would have meant. How do you think that kind of thing looks to the rest of
> the world (something about "a house divided" comes to mind).
It looks to the rest of the world that freedom STILL means something
in the US.
> ...
>
> Going to Havana and praising their health care system while excoriating
> our own country was a real good move in that direction.
>
He's made a few blunders though never anything that could be attributed
to less than noble motives.
>
> A former president(s) criticizing the sitting president in a time of war
> on that war and military action does not help make the world a better
> place.
That is unmitigated crap. Americans who understand that the sitting
President is leading the country to ruin and the war to defeat have a
duty to voice their opposition. The President of the United States of
America is the commander-in-chief of the Armed Forces, NOT the
citizenry.
> In fact, it most likely emboldens those whom we are fighting and in
> so doing, puts our troops at more risk because the enemy will fight harder
> knowing there is a possible source of division that they can exploit.
If I thought that if we all were to march in lockstep behind the
President then our enemies will lay down their arms and quit fighting
I'd be the first in line to kiss his ass.
>
> >Why can't we talk about Carter's love of woodworking on the wreck here
> >without people feeling the need to rip on him as president?
>
> Probably would have been a good thing. Funny thing was, that there was
> really only one comment made in that vein. Now you've managed to turn that
> into an excoriation of not just the sitting president, but all former
> presidents who didn't share your party affiliation or apparent left-wing
> views.
Hmm, reminds me of a converstaion between a pot and a kettle.
>
> > I wish he was
> >president right now instead of the lying loser we currently have.
>
> Why does one fairly mild comment regarding an ex-president have to lead
> to a diatribe and interjection of one's personal politics against the
> sitting president and several former presidents?
I too, wish he were President now. Or at the very least I wish we
had another Christian president.
> You could have taken the
> high road and ignored the comment, keeping this on the topic of woodworking
> but chose instead to interject your own personal, vitriolic politics into
> this thread.
Adding, rather than injecting. He could also have crossposted to a
newsgroup where political discussions are on-topic, and set followups
there as well. That is the way UseNet is supposed to be used.
>
> > Besides -
> >Carter got a bum rap - Nixon and Ford left him with a world angry at the US
> >and an economy addicted to cheap oil..
>
> ...assuming for a moment that your opinions are correct, he successfully
> fixed this, how?
The Camp David Accords were the first, and to date the only major,
progress to peace in the Middle East in two generations.
>
> > And everyone seems to forget that
> >Reagan committed high treason when he negotiated with the Iranians to keep
> >the hostages longer to hurt Carter in the election.
>
> You forgot your tinfoil hat and forgot to mention the Bush SR-71 trip to
> Iran. ;-)
Indeed, the treason came later when arms were sold (giving aid and
comfort)
to an enemy nation.
>
> Do you realize how illogical your statement is? Why in @#$% would the
> Iranians want to have Carter defeated?
Aside from the observation that the Ayatolla wasn't exactly playing
with a full deck he had painted himself into a corner. He had
demanded
that the Shah be exchanged for the hostages. Once the Shah had
moved to Switzwerland, it was beyond the power of the US to return
him, but the Ayatolla could not release the hostages without losing
face.
Claiming responsibility for forcing Carter out of office gave him the
opportunity get out that situation without losing face.
> He was the best friend they had
> compared to what they knew would occur under Reagan. (Yeah, let's support
> he person who is going to more than threaten military action against us and
> send in more than a couple of helicopters. Really brilliant logic there.)
Carter never sold arms to Iran. Reagan did. Of course Reagan also was
happy to arm Iraq. He was Sadam Hussein's best friend too, or rather
Baldridge was.
> Do you want to talk shameful? How about
> 1) Holding a news story until the Saturday before an election, then
> releasing it in order to provide a last-minute shock to the election
> process
Pretty bad.
> 2) Forging documents that supposedly showed that the sitting president had
> received favorable treatment in the National Guard and getting those
> documents promulgated by the main-stream media (anxious for anything it
> could get to damage the president whether true or not)
I suspect the documents were forged by Bush supporters, knowing
that it they were used, they'd be exposed as forgeries and would
by association discredit the story CBS was already going to run
based on interviews. Just my personal conspiracy theory.
How about calling McCain "the Manchurian Candidate" and claiming
he had an illegitmate black child?
How about claiming that Ann RIchards was a Lesbian?
How about submitted forged documents to the IAEA, obstructing the
same weapons inspection program the Bush administration had
demanded only a few months earlier?
How about Bush refusing to testify under oath before his own 9-11
comission? How about Cheney and RIce ALSO refusing to testify
under oath? How about Alberto Gonzales comitting perjury at his
own confirmation hearings for Attorney General?
How about rendition? How about the Bybee memo?
How about if we prosecute the crimes of the present, as a deterrant
to future crime, rather than using past crimes to excuse them?
--
FF
David Stuve wrote:
> I saw Jimmy Carter on the Daily show a week or so ago and was really
> intrigued
> by the enthusiasm in his voice when he talked about woodworking. Apparently
> he's got his own shop and loves to make furniture, and at Camp David he
> would
> sneak out to the carpenter's shed to work off tension. Sounds like he'd be
> a fun
> person to have over for dinner and 'talk shop' with.
>
PBS sometimes runs biographical pieces on the ecent President as
part of their _American Experience_ series.
Either as part of that series or a separate program about Ronald Reagan
showed him working on his ranch. During the time between the
Republican convention of of 1976 and the 1980 Presidential campaign
he spent a lot of time building a _very _ strudy wooden fence around
a paddock and near to it. Evidently it was built using trees felled
from the property.
--
FF
Crossposted to alt.politics.
Follow-ups set to alt.politics
Dave Hinz wrote:
> On Fri, 23 Dec 2005 09:35:19 -0800, David Stuve <[email protected]> wrote:
> > "Mark & Juanita" <[email protected]> wrote in message
> > news:[email protected]...
> >> Probably would have been a good thing. Funny thing was, that there was
> >> really only one comment made in that vein. Now you've managed to turn
> >> that
> >> into an excoriation of not just the sitting president, but all former
> >> presidents who didn't share your party affiliation or apparent left-wing
> >> views.
> >
> > You know, you're right Mark. I should have stuck to woodworking;
>
> And then, you reply with hundreds of lines of propaganda.
>
> > -ignoring warnings about Bin Ladin because Clinton was "obsessed with him"
>
> Your interpretation was flawed.
>
> > -ignoring North Korea because Clinton was so interested in making deals with
> > him
>
> Ditto.
>
> > -using 9/11 to satisfy his personal score with Saddam
>
> Saddam claimed he had WMD.
Like when, 1989?
Got a cite?
> The Democrats in congress agreed that Saddam
> had WMD (yes, I can provide the link to the cites. Again.) AQ didn't
> like us. The stated reason for going to war, which the Democrats agreed
> with (and now pretend they never heard of) was to keep Saddam from
> giving the WMDs that all agreed he had, to AQ.
>
> > -lying and using forged uranium documents to justify the war
>
> Bush is in Britain now?
Not to my knowledge. AFAIK he was also in the US when the
US sent the forged documents to the IAEA. DO you have
a point?
>
> > -outing a CIA agent active in nuclear arms proliferation work
>
> Yawn.
Of course you don't care about violations of black letter law. What
matters
to you is who does it, right?
> ...
>
> The Governor controls the National Guard and you (should) know it. Bush
> sending federal troops into a state without a request from the governer
> would have been a seriouf of constitutional protections.
>
> > -never firing people for screwing up badly - only those who disagree with
> > him
Hell, he gives the screwups medals of freedom and promotes them.
> ...
>
> Yeah, I'm sure this was an accidental rant.
Well, if you don't want to read stuff like this in rec.woodworking,
don't post stuff like this in rec.woodworking.
--
FF
Crossposted to alt.politics.
Follow-ups set to alt.politics
Mark & Juanita wrote:
> On 23 Dec 2005 09:58:05 -0800, [email protected] wrote:
>
> >Crossposted to alt.politics.
> >Follow-ups set to alt.politics
>
> Follow-ups fixed.
No, you didn't fix them. You misdirected this thread again.
> I DON'T WANT TO DISCUSS IN ALT.POLITICS DAMMIT!
What you do or do not want is not relevent. Usenet is divided up
into newsgroups according to topic for very good and obvious
reasons. Just WTF do you think you are to put a higher priority
on some bizarre quirky preference of your own?
> If I
> did, I'd have subscribed there. This thread was started in rec.woodworking
> by somebody ostensibly discussing woodworking.
Which you said was inapproriate, yet somehow, you seem to think it is
not inapproriate for YOU to do so.
>
> >
> >Dave Hinz wrote:
>
> ...
>
> >> Saddam claimed he had WMD.
> >
> >Like when, 1989?
> >
> >Got a cite?
>
> He's provided you dozens of cites. That you choose to ignore the fact
> that both sides of the aisle agreeed that SH had WMD's says more about your
> "open-minded" politics and "careful study and search for the truth" than
> anything else
False. He did not provide me with any cites in which Saddam
Hussein admitted having WMD. Also, AFAIK, Saddam Hussein
has never been on either side of the aisle.
As to "careful study and search for the truth", maybe you should have
at least considered reading the exchange once before responding to it?
> >
> >>
> >> > -outing a CIA agent active in nuclear arms proliferation work
> >>
> >> Yawn.
> >
> >Of course you don't care about violations of black letter law. What
> >matters
> >to you is who does it, right?
> >
>
> You will gain tons more credibility in this regard if you were to
> simultaneously call for an all-out investigation in determining who leaked
> to the press the fact that the NSA was monitoring phone calls from areas in
> foreign countries with Al Quaeda activity to people in the US.
That was never a secret.
> Oh, BTW,
> this was shortly after 9/11 (remember that date? Just in case you, like
> many in the opposition party seem to have forgotten, that is when agents of
> Al Queada hijacked 4 jetliners and destroyed the World Trade Center and
> flew one into the Pentagon. At the time, we were seriously trying to
> determine whether additional attacks were in the offing) *That* is a
> serious breach of national security, was probably classified with handling
> caveats in addition to the highest level of classification and *seriously*
> undermines our effort to defeat the terrorists.
Again, it was NEVER a secret that the NSA intercepts and monitors
telecomunications. The fact that you didn't know that doesn't mean
that everyone else, espeicially al Queda, shared your ignorance.
What was, and still is a secret are the identities of the persons whose
telecomunications were being monitored.
The warrants issued by FISA were, and still are secret. The program
NEVER was secret. Al Queda had no way of knowing whether or not
FISA had issued warants to monitor their communications.
Did you even think for a second before you wrote that, or are you just
regurgitating your talking points for this week?
The only thing that was a secret and no longer is, is the fact that the
Bush
Administration bypassed FISA oversight. NO classified information was
released by that revelation.
> The Plame issue was a non-issue. Plame was *not* working as a covert
> agent when her identity as a CIA employee was discussed. The current NSA
> issue is one of those things that is
>
First and foremost it is a moral issue. Taking political revenge on a
man
by attacking his wife is morally unjustifiable. It certainly is
something no
Christian would ever consider doing.
Secondly, Plame's status as a liason to the FBI on WMD issue was
classified, which qualifies her for protection under the statute.
Third, consider the effect on morale. Not only can our CIA operatives
not
rely on this administration to protect them, they now know that they
may
be attacked at any time as retailation against someone else in their
family.
--
FF
Note crosposting and follow-ups.
Tim Daneliuk wrote:
>
> ...
>
> 4) The hypocracy of writing about our "lost American values" and teaching
> Sunday School,
You're the one doing the whining.
> while he overtly supports a party that sees nothing
> wrong with 3rd-trimester abortion, that thinks that people who work
> hard should pay for the rehabilitation of crackheads and whores,
> and that believes that no religious expression ought ever to be seen
> in anything public whatsoever. I'm suprised any Baptist church
> lets him in the door let alone teach anything.
>
I was aware that the Baptist Church was opposed to abortion.
I was not aware that they were opposed to the rehabilitation of
crackheads and whores.
Learn something new every day.
While we are on that subject, just what is the basis for the objection
of
certain 'evangelicals', to the Big Bang Theory? I always thought it
was
popular in Christian circles, "and God said, 'Let there be light.'" and
Bang! there was a Universe. Certainly the Pastor at the church where
my Astronomy Club used to meet liked it.
Yet recently I've recently read no less than three such persons
expressing
derision toward the theory, the specifics of those criticisms made it
clear
that they did not understand the theory, nor science in general, so one
presumes their opposition to have been religiously inspired.
--
FF
crossposted to alt.politics
followups to: alt.politics
WConner wrote:
> "Bush is a war criminal."
>
> BS
>
> "What can you think of that is better since he became president? "
>
> Have you been blown up by a terrorist lately? Very short memory huh?
>
> ...
One month after taking office, obviously before Clinton's national
security
people were in place the World Trade Center in New York was attacked
by a foreign group with a half-dozen fatalities. There was no other
significant successful attack by a foreign paramilitary group within
the borders of the United for the remainder of the Clinton
Administration.
Nine months after Bush took office, by which time HIS national security
people were in place, the World Trade Center was attacked and 3,000
people killed.
Yes, you have a very short memory indeed.
--
FF
CW wrote:
> Did you notice that there was never a declaration of war? Easier to get away
> with things if you don't have to worry about details like the Geneva
> Convention.
I sugest you DAGS for the text of the 1949 Geneva conventions.
A declaration of war in s not a predicate condition for their
applicability.
I've read the the US has never fully ratified the 1949 conventions.
If you can find out which parts the US has rejected, please let me
know.
--
FF
note crossposting and followups.
Leon wrote:
> "Steve Peterson" <[email protected]> wrote in message
> news:[email protected]...
>
>
> > Both sides had the same "intelligence,"
False. AFAIK, no one otld the Congress that
the yellowcake documents were forgeries, something
that the Bush administration could harldynot have
known. No one told the Congress the truth about the
81mm Medusa missle tubes. No one told the Congress
that the only administration source for information
about the Iraqi bioweapons programs was a man who
had not been to Iraq in 15 years and was described by
German intelligance as a crazy drunk.
> > but only 1 decided to invade
> > another country on the basis of faulty intelligence, having decided first
> > and then flopping all over the place for an excuse. Bush is a war
> > criminal.
>
>
> Wrong, both sides agreed to invade.
False. The Congress did not declare war, which would
have compelled the President to make war. The Congress
authorized the use of military force, which left that use
to the discretion of the President. That authorization was
necessary to force Iraq's compliance with UN 1441. Iraq
then complied with UN 1441, and Bush invaded anyways.
--
FF
Nore crossposting and followups
Mark & Juanita wrote:
> On Sat, 24 Dec 2005 03:56:57 GMT, "Steve Peterson"
> <[email protected]> wrote:
>
> >snip
> >> He's provided you dozens of cites. That you choose to ignore the fact
> >> that both sides of the aisle agreeed that SH had WMD's says more about
> >> your
> >> "open-minded" politics and "careful study and search for the truth" than
> >> anything else
> >
> >Both sides had the same "intelligence," but only 1 decided to invade another
> >country on the basis of faulty intelligence, having decided first and then
> >flopping all over the place for an excuse. Bush is a war criminal.
> >
>
> A couple of corrections: Congress granted the authority to invade (after
> insisting that they needed a second resolution despite the fact that the
> 2001 resolutions gave the president that authority).
False. The 2001 resolution authorized
the use of military force in response to the
attacks of September 11, 2001. It was not a
blanket authorization to make war any time,
any place, for any other reason. It also restricted
the President to necessary and proper actions.
The invasion of Iraq was neither, within the context
of the 2001 resolution.
> The second resolution
> was insisted upon by the opposition because they thought it would help them
> in the 2002 elections.
ISTR The second resoution was acted on
at the request of the President. It was entirely
proper for the President to request it and entirely
proper for the Congress to pass it. The President
should then have supported the UN inpsections
that he had so adamantly inisted upon, instead
of materially obstructing them, and politically
undermining them.
> Thus, both sides agreed upon the action. Only one
> person had the authority to issue the order to invade, so your comment that
> only one "side" decided to invade is nonsensical.
>
It is accurate. The decision to invade was left to
the President. The Congress waived it's authority
to weigh in on that issue when it declared to include
any conditional language within the war powers
resolution.
--
FF
Dave wrote:
> "Russ Stanton" <[email protected]> wrote in message
> news:[email protected]...
> > <[email protected]> wrote in message
> > news:[email protected]...
> >>
> >> Is there a good website with some of Jimmy carter's woodworking.
> >> I would love to see his work up close.
> >>
> >> Thanks
> >> --
> >>
> >> Greg
> >> Cowboy Up has taken on a whole different meaning lately
> >
> > Check Fine Woodworking Issue 174 for an interview type article and issue
> > 167 Reader's Gallery for an eample of his work.
>
> I can't think of a single thing the peanut man did, other than hosting a
> meeting with Sadat and Beagan that Carter did while he was President that
> deserves any praise for him. Big negatives are: giving away the Panama Canal
It is pretty hard to argue that the Panama Canal does not rightfully
belong
to Panama. The treaty transferring control guarantees its availablity
to
US shipping and guarantees that he US will protect it.
> so that China could buy it all up, and the Iran hostage situation where his
> leadership was a disaster.
The seeds of the Iranian hostage situatiowere laid years before
by supporting the overthrow of the previous Iranian government.
It came to fruition under Carter. I certainly do not claim that he
resolved it satisfactorily (actually, he did by losing the next
election)
bu he didn't bring it on.
Remember earlier this year when Bush said about rising
gas prices "We wouldn't be in this mess if we had an energy
policy ten years ago." He was right, but he forgot to mention that
we DID have one twenty five years ago that was abandoned
under Reagan.
> Those who criticize Bush and think they know everything about foreign policy
> I would like for them to answer truthfully the question below:
> I wonder how many of YOU KNOW IT ALLS would have supported Roosevelt and
> Truman during the Second World War. Would you have stood in line to enlist
> in the Army even though we lost over a 150,000 plus GI lives? I doubt if
> any of you Bush bashers would have had the BALLS to do so. You are GUTLESS!
> Remember Hitler didn't attack us and we still went to war with Germany. What
> about the war with the Japanese would you have stood in line to volunteer to
> fight them??
In which branch of the military are you serving?
Bush supporters aren't exactly lining up to join the military either.
In WWII some members of Congress enlisted. FDR's
sons served in the Navy in the PTO. Has anyone in Bush's own
FAMILY enlisted since September 11, 2001?
The fact is that a lot of young men and women enlised in the Fall of
2001. Bush has betrayed their trust by sending them to fight the
wrong war at the srong time in the wrong place. When I say that,
what message am I sending to the troops? I'm, sending them the
message that they deserve better from tehir President and their
country and yet I know that they will do their best notwithstanding.
--
FF
OK, I'm lost...lot's of arguing about people who don't give a crap
about me so I'm finding this debate hard to follow. I just pay the
bills when they come in...
So anyway, does anyone have any sites with pics of Carter's
woodworking?
I'd even be interested in sites with Bush I, Bush II, Reagan, Clinton,
Ford, Nixon, Roosevelt, Truman's woodworking..thanks!.
Mark & Juanita wrote:
> > 3) Under FDR's watch, German infiltrators were *shot* when captured on
> American soil. Not imprisoned, not questioned, not held without
> communication or access to lawyers, but shot after appearing before a
> *military* court.
Actually, no. They were executed (possibly by firing squad, I don't
know)
after FDR died. So it wasn;t completely on his watch, though I don't
suppose the outcome would have been any different if he had
lived longer.
They wre not shot *when captured* but rather, as you later made clear,
after trial and after exhausting their appeals and they were
represented
by counsel at trial (I think) and on appeal (certainly).
> In that case, FDR's government, and the Supreme court
> (that he had previously packed) argued that the military had such power.
> Note that one of those German infiltrators claimed to be a US citizen. The
> case was Ex Parte Quirin, the German saboteurs case. In World War II, eight
> German naval officers, one of whom claimed to be a U.S. citizen, landed
> secretly in the United States and were arrested. After trial by a military
> tribunal, seven were executed. The Supreme Court held that because they
> were members of the enemy armed forces, the military had jurisdiction (as
> it did over members of our own armed forces) to try them. The Court said
> that military jurisdiction was permissible because the defendants were
> "admitted enemy invaders."
If you will read the Constitution you will find that the Congress (not
the
Commander-in-Chief) is granted authority to create courts martials or
tribunals for the purpose of trials such as those referred to above.
HIstorically the Congress did so in the Articles of War, which
delegated
much of the details of those commissions to the Commander-in-Chief.
In ex parte Quirin the USSC held that the Commissions established by
FDR, and the sentences were consistant with the intent of the Congress
as expressed in the Articles of War. The Federal courts also heard
at least one appeal from, (upholding the conviction) thewar crimes
trial
of Japanese General. It is clear that the courts have had jurisdiction
to hear appeals from military trils even of foreign nationals even
overseas.
The Articles of War were repealed in 1949 and replaced with the
UCMJ. The Commander-in-Chief no longer has the same degree of
latitude as previously. Military Commissions are now required to
conform much more closely to the standards of the Federal
Court system.
FDR did not 'pack' the USSC. When the USSC struck down some New Deal
legislation one of the proposals was to expand the membership of the
court
so that FDR _could_ 'pack' the Court by appointing new justices
without
having to wait for the sitting Justices to retire. However, that did
not
happen.
I certainly agree that FDR's treatment of the nisei was aggregious.
--
FF
David Stuve wrote:
> "Mark & Juanita" <[email protected]> wrote in message
> news:[email protected]...
> > ...
> Just a comment or two:
> > 3) Under FDR's watch, German infiltrators were *shot* when captured on
> > American soil.
As noted earlier, this is not true.
> Wasn't shooting spies/saboteurs common practice in WW2 on all sides?
>
Dunno if it was common practice but the
summary execution of spies by American
Armed Forces was prohibitted by an Act of
the Continental Congress in 1775, if not befor,
and to my knowledge has never been legalized.
To be precise, the Act specified that spies
were subject to execution *after trial*. That
stipulation makes it clear that summary
execution was not permissible.
Internationally the execution of spies without
trial has been prohibitted since at least the early
years of the 2oth Century, see the Hague
Conventions.
During war, internatonal 'law' is enforceable only
through the law of reprisals. Crudely stated, a
party may violate the laws of war that the opposing
party has already violated, but only to the same
degree. Thus when the British violated the St
Petersburg protocols by using incindiery ammunition,
but only against aircraft, the Germans chose to do the
same, but also only against aircraft.
Certainly the summary execution by Germans
of partisans (e.g. insurgents or guerillas) in the
Balkans was addressed as a war crime after
the war. Former UN Secretary General Kurt
Waldheim was in the chain of command responsible
for one such crime. His role was only to pass the
order on from one party to another, and did so only
after refusing twice and then being threatened
with court martial for the capital offense of refusing
a direct order. IMHO, an adequate defense.
--
FF
Note crossposting, followups.
For shame, Mr Daneliuk. From our previous
discussions I know you to be an educated
man, one who is capable of further self-education,
and one who has a respect for moral principles.
Further, I suspect you were raised better than
to believe what you wrote. I know I was.
Yet what you wrote below runs counter to those
observations.
First, you make numerous statments that may be
politely referred to a urabn legends. But worse, you
express a desire for barabarity and a disrespect
for the rule of law, morality, and civilization itself.
Those who advocate barbarism and disdain for the
the rule of law are our enemies without regard
to whether the advocate it against the United States
or in the name of the United States. To defeat our
enemies, the enemies of civliization, not only is
it possible, not only is it imperative, but it is
prerequisite that we ourselves first and forever
reject any weakening of the principles for which
we fight.
I presume you to educable on these matters and
will provide below, and in other articles, sufficient
information that you and other readers may ascertain
the truth for themselves and thus be disabused of
your erroneous notions and unconsionable attitudes
should you retain suffient moral fiber to do so.
Tim Daneliuk wrote:
> David Stuve wrote:
>
> > Walt, I would challenge you to expand your political horizons. Go down to
> > your local library, and do a Lexis Nexis search on Americans torturing
> > prisoners,
>
> You mean aggressively going after *non-uniformed combatants* for
> whom the Geneva accords do not apply.
Regardless of what he means, you are
mistaken.
See the sections of the Fourth Protocol of
1949 regarding "civilians accused of a beligerant
act" (e.g. insurgents, guerillas, partisans or
whatever). The 1978 GC addresses those
issues further. That the United States has
refused to recognize those parts of the
GCs does not mean they do not exist.
> They can be shot on sight as spies
> if we like.
Indeed, you may shoot me in the back if you like.
However, you would be comitting a crime and so
would anyone who summarily executes any
prisoner regardless of the accusation against that
prisoner.
The UCMJ prohibits murder, and a good faith belief
that the victim is a spy is not among the enumerated
defenses. Indeed, this is hardly a new concept:
Section 2 of the Act of Congress of April 10, 1806,
2 Stat. 371, derived from the Resolution of the
Continental Congress of August 21, 1776, imposed
the death penalty on alien spies "according to the
law and usage of nations, by sentence of a general
court martial."
"by sentence of a general court martial." pretty clearly excludes
impromtu execution.
In earlier articles I was mistaken as to the date. I apologise.
> There is both legal grounds and precedent for doing so.
There is both legal grounds and precedent for muder
convictions of persons who do so. Consider the post-WWII
trials of persons accused of summarily executing partisans.
Summary execution of spies has been a war crime under the
most common international treaties since at least the early
20th century. See the Hague Conventions circa 1903.
> And the "torture" in this case involves making them uncomfortable and
> physically intimidating them, not, say, beheading them with a dull
> knife like their compatriots do.
It also involves water torture.
I recall watching a news conference around December 2001
in which reporters asked Rumsfeld about accusations that
Afghanistani civilians had been mistreated by American Forces.
He scoffed at the notion.
I expect the Secretary of Defense or anyone in the chain
of command, when asked about such matters, to express
confidence in the character of the rank and file of the US
military. I also expect that same person to state plainly
that all such accusations are taken seriously and investigated.
That sort of statement sends the message that we do the right
thing and don't let anyone get away with doing any less.
Clearly that is not the message Rumsfeld sent.
Habbiulah and Dilawar had their
hands chained to the ceiling, hanging them by their dislocated
shoulders with their feet shackled to the foor. Their legs
were pulverized. They were denied food and water. They
died after four days.
Four others arrested in association with them were sent to
Guantanamo Bay and eventually released. No evidence that
any of the six were involved or conspired to commit any hostile
acts has ever surfaced.
In December 2002 the deaths of Habullah and DIlawar were ruled
homide by the Bagram prison coroner. Investigators had to fight
the Pentagon for three more years to bring anyone to trial.
I would suggest the death penalty for any member of the Taliban,
Al Quaida, Feyadeen Saddam, or insurgent who tortured anyone
to death. One US serviceman has plead guilty to assault against
Dilawar, and returned to duty. It is not clear if his light sentence
is contingent upon an agreement to refrain from making statements
against his fellow actors in the crimes.
That is some of what has come to light.
> Foreign spies are not entitled
> to the same civil liberties that US citizens and legal residents
> enjoy.
That is true.
But more importantly we, as a civilized
people impose restrictions on ourselves.
If we do not, we have no claim on any moral
authority to try others or even govern ourselves.
> In fact, they're not even entitled to the consideration
> legally required for foreign military combatants.
Quite correct. And still beside the point as shown above.
> When the
> Brave Soldiers Of Allah (tm) are willig to wear uniforms and fight
> other soldiers, not kill innocent civilians, then they'll get treated
> accordingly when captured. Until then, they are entitled to no
> consideration whatsoever.
Again, beside the point. The issue is not the consideration
to which they are entitled. The issue is our standard for our
behaviour. There are lines that, if crossed, constitute criminal
behaviour regardless of the choice of victim. If we do not
respect our own laws, we have no business expecting anyone
else to do so either. If we do not behave in a moral manner,
we abandon moral authority.
Murder, rape, sodomy, torture, assault, battery, witholding
necessary medical care, nutrition, hydration or shelter,
subjecting people to outrages against dignity, or to cruel
inhuman or degrading treatment is illegal, morally wrong,
and a violation of our treaty obligations without regard to
motive or the choice of victim. Those who deny this, are
our enemies.
>
> > no-bid contracts in Iraq, the forged yellowcake documents,
>
> To misquote a famous person from history, "The Left is an Ass". the
> no-bid Halliburton contracts were let out under the *Clinton*
> administration primarily because there are so few companies who
> can/will do this work at the relatively low net margins to be had.
False. The no-bid Halliburton contracts in the instant case,
(e.g. Iraq) were let out under the Bush Administration. *Previously*
no-bid Halliburton contracts were let out under the *Clinton* in
the Balkans.
> ...
> > interference with CIA intelligence gathering, the outing of Valerie Plame,
>
> There will be due process to find out who did what as regards to the
> whole Plame matter. Stay tuned - it will have been much ado about nothing.
My prediction is that the matter will be dragged
out in the courts until January 2009 at which time
President GW Bush will pardon enough people
to squelch the matter, unless Fitzgerald has the
guts and determiniation to subpaoena the pardoned
persons as witnesses, arguing that the Fifth
Amendment protection does not apply to a person
shielded from incrimination by a Pardon. He just
might, but he might get cut off by the next administration
anyhow.
>
> ...
>
> > ordering the NSA to spy on Americans. Cheneys name will be prominently
>
> Again, we need to help you with the concept here. The NSA was not given
> an unlimited hunting license. They were only given room to do this when
> the American in question was in contact with a *probable threat*. FWIW,
> I don't like this either - there should always be judicial oversight
> when wiretapping in any form occurs - but the way you people drool on
> about it, you'd think the NSA was watching you get aroused watching Al
> Franken on TV at night. Your secret is safe. The NSA doesn't care that
> much about you.
Maybe. OTOH, maybe the Administration
continued to bypass the FISA court after it
could no longer be justified by an immediate
danger of a magnitude that exceeded the
capacity of the FISA courts. Maybe the
administration actively concealed the fact
that the FISA court had been bypassed from
the FISA court itself. Maybe the administration,
went beyond national security and also spied
on anti-war activists, reporters, or political
adversaries.
--
FF
Note crossposting and followups.
WConner wrote:
> "do a Lexis Nexis search on Americans torturing"
>
> These folks consider it torture if you don't say please and thank you.
> Playing loud rap, now that is torture.
How about holding someone's head underwater until they pass out?
How about hanging them by their dislocated shoulders and breaking
their legs?
How about if we enforce our own laws?
> ...
>
> " yellowcake documents"
>
> While these particular documents might not have been good, British
> Intelligence still stands by the attempt to buy the material, conveniently
> didn't mention that, huh? Check the speech, the statement referred to
> British Intelligence .
Non sequitor. The transgression was not the highly publicized
though hardly significant statement in the SOTU message. It
was submitting the forged documents to the IAEA as if they
were genuine. That was a clear, deliberate obstruction of the
inspection program.
As you your use of 'may', I assume that was a manner of speech
and you do not consider the authenticity of the documents to be
in dispute.
--
FF
WConner wrote:
> " I mean the McCain amendment specifically prohibiting torture. Cheney was
> actively lobbying to exempt the CIA "
>
> The big problem here is what is defined as torture which includes "anything
> that makes one uncomfortable". Putting them in confinement would probably
> make them uncomfortable.
Please tell us the names of the people who have proposed that
definition and show us where you found the quote.
Do you suggest that it should be the policy of the United States
to violate the laws prohibitting murder, sodomy, rape, assault,
or battery? Should it be the policy of the United States to
deny medical attention, food, water or shelter to our prisoners?
Should it be the policy of the United States of America to render
prisoners in our custody and under our protection to nations
where they will be tortured?
Should it be the policy of the United States to violate treaties
prohibitting torture, inhman cruel or degradading treatment?
Just how much of our law and civilization, our morals and
our humanity need we violae, abandon or destroy to satisfy
you?
--
FF
Note crossposting and followups.
For now I am willing to attriibute your
misleading insinuations to ignorance,
rather than to malice.
Tim Daneliuk wrote:
> David Stuve wrote:
> ...
> >
> >
> > Actually, no. I mean the McCain amendment specifically prohibiting torture.
> > Cheney was actively lobbying to exempt the CIA from restrictions using the
> > bizarre argument that we are A) strongly against torture, but B) want to be
> > able to threaten to do it. That should make your BS detector go berzerk -
> > what if your local sherrif or department store detective wanted a similar
> > exemption, promising that he would of course never do it..... "We'd never
> > torture a shoplifting suspect, but we need the threat of it to act as a
> > deterrent."
>
>
> If we could agree on the exact behavior that consistutes "torture",
> I'd be all for it. The problem is that the current language precludes
> even making people feel bad. By that definition, making them listen
> to Barbara Streisand recordings qualifies.
That certainly pegs my bullshit detector.
Please refer us to where we can find that 'current languge'.
> ...
> Oh, and as to the "forged yellowcake..." tell that to the soldiers who
> just carted out tons of uranium from Iraq over the past year. That
> particular document may well have been bogus, but the material was
> certainly in country somehow ...
Somehow? Did you only develop an interest in the subject
earlier today?
With French assistance, Iraq had an active
nuclear power reactor program up until about
1980 when Israeli saboteurs destroyed the
unfueled reactor in an attack coordinated with
an aerial bombardment.
As part of that program Iraq had imported several
tonnes of 2.7% enriched Uranium from Italy, (basic
light water reactor fuel) and at least 330 (or was it 530--
when you check up on this. let me know, OK?) tonnes
of yellowcake form Portugal and elsewhere.
>From that time onward those materials were stored
under IAEA supervison at Tuwaitha. At some point
during the middle 1990s or therabout Iraq applied for
and received permisson to use some portion (30 tonnes
perhaps?) of the yellowcake. I do not recall what Iraq
did with it, perhaps it was sold.
The 2003 inspections showed that those materials,
indeed all of the nuclear materials in Iraq, were
accounted for and still stored under IAEA seal.
After the fall of Baghdad the Iraqi guards abandoned
Tuwaitha and the center, by far the largest nuclear site
in Iraq, was left unguarded by the US which declined to
even visit the site for several weeks while attending to
more important matters such as securing the oil ministry
building. That selection of priorities should have been
enough to put to rest any lingering suspicians that the
Bush Administration thought Iraq might have had WMD
materials.
When the US did visit the site it had been looted.
The barrels in which the yellowcake had been stored
had been stolen and the yellowcake dumped out on
the ground. The US called in the IAEA to clean up
the mess. The IAEA did so and reinventoried the materials.
All of the reactor fuels, all of the other materials, and all
but an insignificant amount of Yellowcake was accounted
for in the cleanup.
A year later, the US removed the (highly valuable) reactor fuel.
Shortly afterwards Carl Limbaugher (and others) ran a false
story claiming that those materials (which as we know
had been monitored by the IAEA for the previous quarter
century) had recently been discovered in Iraq.
I am not willing to extend the same charity of thought to
Mr Limbaugher as I am to you. Not only is it very hard to
believe that he was unaware of the well-publicized history
of those materials, but also, though he has been informed
of the truth of the matter and referred to the supporting
IAEA documents, he has not, to my knowledge issued a
retraction and in all probablilty the false story remains online.
There were a lot of good reasons to depose Saddam Hussein.
But no good reason to fabricate outright lies after the fact.
Aside from that, are you sure that yellowcake has been
removed from Iraq by the US. That would be quite a substantial
endeavor indeed.
> >
> >
> > Really? They haven't released any information about who they spied on.
>
> No, but they've told us that the targets were people making international
> phone calls to known/suspected terror operatives. It's a reasonable
> deduction.
If they peed on your head and told you it was raining would
you believe them?
>
> > I've seen an AP story in the last couple of days hinting that the spying was
> > much more widespread than Bush has admitted to. What's even more bizarre is
> > that they can retroactively get warrants within 72 hours of doing
> > wiretapping, but they just didn't bother. That indifference to the law
> > can't be ignored by us if we wish to remain free people.
>
>
> I agree with that completely. Too bad we didn't enforce that (thereby
> setting precedent) with Johnson and Clinton (to name just two) first.
Agreed.
But for crying out loud please read up on the Iraqi nuclear
program befor commenting on it. For almost thirty years
now Iraq has been sitting on a stockpile of yellowcake sufficient
for (depending on efficiency of separation and designed yield)
somewhere around 150 atomic bombs.
That was never secret.
--
FF
Note crossposting and followups
Tim Daneliuk wrote:
> [email protected] wrote:
>
> > Note crossposting, followups.
>
> Noted and ignored. This thread started here (and not by me)
> and AFAIK stays here.
That is not a relevant consideration.
>
> <SNIP>
>
> > First, you make numerous statments that may be
> > politely referred to a urban legends. But worse, you
> > express a desire for barabarity and a disrespect
> > for the rule of law, morality, and civilization itself.
>
> Before there is civilization, there must be survival.
If not a tautology, then something not far removed from it.
What is your point?
> Making people
> extremely uncomfortable (while not actually endangering their lives) is
> hardly "barbarity" particularly in light of the actions of their
> fellow-travelers.
"Making people extremely uncomfortable (while not actually
endangering their lives)" is vague. Please be more
specific.
>
> > Those who advocate barbarism and disdain for the
> > the rule of law are our enemies without regard
> > to whether the advocate it against the United States
> > or in the name of the United States. To defeat our
>
> This is a ridiculous position. "The rule of law"? Whose exactly?
For most of this discussion, the UCMJ would be appropriate.
See Section 802 Article 2 for more specific information.
> ...
>
> <SNIP>
>
> >>You mean aggressively going after *non-uniformed combatants* for
> >>whom the Geneva accords do not apply.
> >
> >
> > Regardless of what he means, you are
> > mistaken.
> >
> > See the sections of the Fourth Protocol of
> > 1949 regarding "civilians accused of a beligerant
> > act" (e.g. insurgents, guerillas, partisans or
> > whatever). The 1978 GC addresses those
> > issues further. That the United States has
> > refused to recognize those parts of the
> > GCs does not mean they do not exist.
>
> But it does mean that we are not *bound* to them.
It does mean that persons who say the Geneva Conventions
do not apply to such persons are either ignorant of the Geneva
Conventions themselves, or dishonest.
> Entering into
> international agreements of this sort is *voluntary* and not some sort
> of Natural Law to which all mankind must adhere.
Saddam Hussein can use the same argument in his defense.
That is the argument William O Douglas advanced.in regard to
the post WWII war crimes trials. The death camps were legal
under German law, so their operators comitted no crimes.
I reject that argument.
>
> I repeat. To the best of my knowledge, under all agreements to which the
> US is party, non-uniformed persons engaging in combat are legally
> treated as spies and have none of the protections of a POW.
My guess is that you have never read any of those agreements to
which you refer.
>
> >
> >
> >>They can be shot on sight as spies
> >>if we like.
> >
> >
> > Indeed, you may shoot me in the back if you like.
> > However, you would be comitting a crime and so
> > would anyone who summarily executes any
> > prisoner regardless of the accusation against that
> > prisoner.
> >
> > The UCMJ prohibits murder, and a good faith belief
> > that the victim is a spy is not among the enumerated
> > defenses. Indeed, this is hardly a new concept:
> >
> > Section 2 of the Act of Congress of April 10, 1806,
> > 2 Stat. 371, derived from the Resolution of the
> > Continental Congress of August 21, 1776, imposed
> > the death penalty on alien spies "according to the
> > law and usage of nations, by sentence of a general
> > court martial."
> >
> > "by sentence of a general court martial." pretty clearly excludes
> > impromtu execution.
>
>
> Oh, you mean individual soldiers ought not to make this decision,
No. I mean that summary execution by the US military,
of persons accused of being spies has been prohibitted since
at least 1806. That was clearly what I said, and you have no
business pretending I said anything else.
> and I
> agree (except where they are faced with a direct threat and must kill a
> spy to defend themselves). The instruction to execute spies should should
> come from the chain of command as either a direct order or as an
> explicit Rule Of Engagement. But let's rejoin Reality here. I said we
> *could* (legally) kill spies at our pleasure not that we ought to. It
> was a statement about where the legal boundary lives not what actual
> actions should have been taken.
It was a statment that was factually incorrect. Your hypothetical
above, IN REALITY, would at the very least be a violation of
Section 813, Article 13 and article 118 of subchapter X
An order to kill a prisoner who has not been sentenced to death
by order of a court martial, coming down through the chain of
command, is an unlawful order. The officer giving that order,
and the soldier executing it, will have comitted murder according
to the definition of murder in the UCMJ.
>
>
> > In earlier articles I was mistaken as to the date. I apologise.
> >
> >
> >>There is both legal grounds and precedent for doing so.
> >
> >
> > There is both legal grounds and precedent for muder
> > convictions of persons who do so. Consider the post-WWII
> > trials of persons accused of summarily executing partisans.
> >
> > Summary execution of spies has been a war crime under the
> > most common international treaties since at least the early
> > 20th century. See the Hague Conventions circa 1903.
>
>
> You are playing a subtle word game here.
No, I am stating plain facts. Summary execution of accused spies
has been illegal in the United States and prohibitted by international
treaties for such a long time that you have no excuse to assert
anything to the contrary.
"Spies may not be executed without trial." What could be
more plain than that?
> First of all, the people in
> question are not "partisans". They are primarily 3rd-parties to this
> conflict from places other than Iraq who operate specifically as
> _insurgent terrorists_ under the cover of civilian clothing making war
> against civilians.
What is your source? In interviews, high ranking officers in
Iraq have said that at least 90% of the enemy KIA and captured
in Iraq are Iraqi nationals.
> More importantly, their interest is not primarily in
> the conflict at hand. Their interest is to use this conflict in their
> larger cause - the decimation of liberal (aka civilized) society.
I do not see how your guess as to the 'interest' of the enemy is
relevant to our responsibilites to obey our own laws. My own
guess is the want the foreign troops to leave Iraq.
> Secondly, (again to the best of my knowledge) the US has never been a
> signatory to anything preventing the execution of spies. If this were
> not so, then why did FD"R not stand trial as a war criminal for the (now
> famous) execution of German spies found in the US docks?
To my knowledge the spies/sabotuers in the US docks were never
caught. The spies/sabotuers who were executed in _Quirin_ were
a different group, they were caught before they had engaged in
any sabotage, and they were
executed AFTER they were convicted at a trial conducted in
accordance with the Articles of War, which was the governing
law for such matters prior to the UCMJ.
The executions in _Quirin_ do not in any way justfy your earlier
claim that spies (IN REALITY, accused spies) could be legally
killed "at our pleasure", no matter how much it would please you
to see it done.
But that would sem to be the primary motive and justification
for your claims. It seems you would take pleasure in seeing
it happen.
>
> >
> >>And the "torture" in this case involves making them uncomfortable and
> >>physically intimidating them, not, say, beheading them with a dull
> >>knife like their compatriots do.
> >
> >
> > It also involves water torture.
>
> Which is most uncomfortable, I'm sure, but not life threatening.
It is also assault and battery and an act
of cruelty, which are violations of the UCMJ.
All torture is at the very least assault and
therefor a violations of the UCMJ. We made
those laws. We should enforce them.
Your arguements attempting to justify torture
are not merely pathetic, illogical and without
factual basis but are also vile despicable and
immoral.
>
> >
> > I recall watching a news conference around December 2001
> > in which reporters asked Rumsfeld about accusations that
> > Afghanistani civilians had been mistreated by American Forces.
> > He scoffed at the notion.
> >
> > I expect the Secretary of Defense or anyone in the chain
> > of command, when asked about such matters, to express
> > confidence in the character of the rank and file of the US
> > military. I also expect that same person to state plainly
> > that all such accusations are taken seriously and investigated.
> >
> > That sort of statement sends the message that we do the right
> > thing and don't let anyone get away with doing any less.
> >
> > Clearly that is not the message Rumsfeld sent.
>
> Nor do I. When faced with an almost-impossible to identify enemy that
> makes war intentionally on innocent non-combatants, that observes *no*
> rule of law or internation convention, and that has demonstrated an
> addiction to barbarism unseen for many generations in human warfare
> (even the Japanse cannibalism of WWII pales by comparison), I think just
> about any method of removing these people from the planet is morally
> just nor is (almost) any method of interrogation out of bounds. The fact
> that it is at complete odds with our notions about civilized behavior is
> besides the point. The people in question are not party to the canons of
> civil society.
Obviously, if we do as you advocate, we will no longer be
party to the cannons of society.
> They lost those protections when they made war on
> innocents, used children as bombs and human shields, and engaged in the
> barbaric executions of their captives. You keep wanting to apply a
> measure of legal protection to which they are not entitled.
False. I made it absolutely clear to you that I am applying our
own laws to ourselves.
>
> There is plenty of US precedent here, instituted by one of the darlings
> of the ideological Left. FDR instituted an unrelenting campaign of fire
> against both Dresden and Tokyo (both of which killed far more people
> than the A-Bomb drops). He did so knowing full well that, while he was
> attacking centers of war machinery and materiale', he would be killing
> 10s of thousands of civilians in the process. Moreover, he did so
> against enemies who, however evil, *were* parties to civilized society.
> who *did* wear uniforms, and were signatories to some notions of
> international law. If FDRs actions were morally unquestioned (and I
> think in retrospect they should have been) then today's actions ought to
> be even less so given the susbtantially fouler enemy in our crosshairs.
Not relevant.
>
> The only reason to avoid torture and execution of these people (after
> suitably stuffing them full of bacon sandwiches and then feeding their
> remains to starving hogs so they can spend the afterlife as pig
> excrement) is because doing so may be not in our own best interests for
> a variety of reasons.
False.
First and formost, it is morally wrong. Secondly, it is a violation
of our own laws. Third, to do so would reduce us to a station
no better than that of our enemies.
> I do stipulate that there may be any number of
> pragmatic reasons to avoid torture and summary execution. Among them
> would be the bad PR it engenders, the ineffectiveness of torture as a
> general method of extracting information, the effect is has on our own
> troops' morale' and so forth. But there is absolutely no *moral* reason
> to avoid doing so.
False. Torture is wrong. That is a basic moral priciple. To argue
that torture is not morally wrong is to reject morality itself.
>
> Your view is analogous to taking aspirin when you discover cancer. I
> want the cancer excised with due haste and unrelenting vigor.
False. My view is that we are civilized, people become our
enemies when they engage in uncivilized behaviour. Persons
who advocate uncivilized behaviour are our enemies in spirit,
traitors in spirit to the principles of civilization itself.
Your argument is that civilization voluntariyl destory itself in
order to survive. Truly bizarre.
> That's
> because I want actual civilized society to survive, not be overrun by
> savages while the lawyers argue about the shape of the negotiating
> table.
Nonsense. When you advocate torture and murder you advocate
the destruction of civilization. You aly yourself in spirit with our
enemies.
>
> <SNIP>
> >
> >>Foreign spies are not entitled
> >>to the same civil liberties that US citizens and legal residents
> >>enjoy.
> >
> >
> > That is true.
> >
> > But more importantly we, as a civilized
> > people impose restrictions on ourselves.
> > If we do not, we have no claim on any moral
> > authority to try others or even govern ourselves.
>
> Baloney. Certainly we do impose these restrictions on ourselves as a
> matter of civil behavior. But we are not making a "moral claim ... on
> others". We are attempting to end a threat directed at us and all civil
> societies around the world.
So you say. Yet absurdly you advocate abandoment of
civilization itself as part that defense.
>. The Islamic radicals have made it repeatedly
> clear that their goal is the destruction of liberal civil society and
> they have demonstrated a willingness to act to that end.
To the contrary, they have never indicated anything of the sort.
They have made it clear that their goal is to etablish theocratic
government whereever Muslims live in large numbers. They
have never indicated that they give rat's ass what goes on in
the rest of the world, so long as we keep buying their oil. We
could achieve peace with the Islamic Fundamentalist by
completely withdrawing, militarily and politically, from the
middle East,Southern Asia, and Africa. They would still be
happy to trade with us. It would be a very practical solution.
Do you suppose that maybe we should not, because
we have a moral obligation to not allow religious zealots
to run amuck murdering innocent people?
>
> >
> >
> >>In fact, they're not even entitled to the consideration
> >>legally required for foreign military combatants.
> >
> >
> > Quite correct. And still beside the point as shown above.
> >
> >
> >>When the
> >>Brave Soldiers Of Allah (tm) are willig to wear uniforms and fight
> >>other soldiers, not kill innocent civilians, then they'll get treated
> >>accordingly when captured. Until then, they are entitled to no
> >>consideration whatsoever.
> >
> >
> > Again, beside the point. The issue is not the consideration
> > to which they are entitled. The issue is our standard for our
> > behaviour. There are lines that, if crossed, constitute criminal
> > behaviour regardless of the choice of victim. If we do not
> > respect our own laws, we have no business expecting anyone
> > else to do so either. If we do not behave in a moral manner,
> > we abandon moral authority.
>
> Why do fail to grasp that "our laws" do not apply to people whose
> very goal is the elimination of these very laws?
Your question is predicated upon a false premise.
You are failing to ackowledge my argument, that our
laws apply to us, despite the fact that I clearly said that
was my point. As you will recall I said:
" The issue is not the consideration
to which they are entitled. The issue is our standard for our
behaviour. There are lines that, if crossed, constitute criminal
behaviour regardless of the choice of victim."
No honest person who is also a competant reader of the English
language would interpret that to imply that "our laws apply to those
whose very goal us the elimination iof those very laws."
However, while we are on that particular strawman of your
own creation I recall that sometime shortly aftet the nuns
had educated us about the evils of communism I remarked
to my mother that someone who didn't believe in democracy
should not be allowed to vote. My mother thought that was
a rather astute statement. That was back when I was maybe
eight years old. I have since changed my mind.
> When someone is
> trying to choke you to death, you don't worry about *their* air
> supply.
When someone is torturing a defenseless prisoner, I don't
worry if the victim is also a criminal of some sort. Maybe
you do. I regard the torturer as a dangerous criminal, a
threat to us all.
>
> ...Please understand, I am no fan of this administration on many
> matters. I merely defend their military and policy posture on the matter
> of international terror because I think anything less is suicidal.
>
I oppose you on moral grounds, and because
your approach is to first destroy from within,
that which makes civilization worth defending
in the first place.
--
FF
Note crossposting and followups
Tim Daneliuk wrote:
> [email protected] wrote:
>
>
> >
> >><SNIP>
> >>
> >>>First, you make numerous statments that may be
> >>>politely referred to a urban legends. But worse, you
> >>>express a desire for barabarity and a disrespect
> >>>for the rule of law, morality, and civilization itself.
> >>
> >>Before there is civilization, there must be survival.
> >
> >
> > If not a tautology, then something not far removed from it.
> > What is your point?
>
>
> My point is that no discussion of civilization is meaningful if we
> as a civilization don't survive long enough to have that discussion.
Islamic jhadis are a minor threat to our civilization compared to your
proposal,
>
> >
> >
> >>Making people
> >>extremely uncomfortable (while not actually endangering their lives) is
> >>hardly "barbarity" particularly in light of the actions of their
> >>fellow-travelers.
> >
> >
> > "Making people extremely uncomfortable (while not actually
> > endangering their lives)" is vague. Please be more
> > specific.
>
> I can't, any more than you can be specific about what "torture"
> actually entails and where it begins and ends. You're having
> a Watson moment wherein when your argument fails you try to retreat
> to pedantic definitional discussions. You think making people
> very uncomfortable is torture, I don't (necessarily). It's that simple.
FIrst you lack the courage to admit that you advocate torture, then
you play word games to try to hide your cowardice.
>
> >
> >>>Those who advocate barbarism and disdain for the
> >>>the rule of law are our enemies without regard
> >>>to whether the advocate it against the United States
> >>>or in the name of the United States. To defeat our
> >>
> >>This is a ridiculous position. "The rule of law"? Whose exactly?
> >
> >
> > For most of this discussion, the UCMJ would be appropriate.
> > See Section 802 Article 2 for more specific information.
>
> So now we run the entire US policy on the basis of a legal code
> intended exclusively for members of the military?
To my knowledge, no we do not. Why do you ask?
> The CIA is
> not bound to the UCMJ last I looked. Neither would any non-
> military operational organization.
You base that on what, exactly?
>
> >
> >
> >> ...
> >>
> >><SNIP>
> >>
> >>>>You mean aggressively going after *non-uniformed combatants* for
> >>>>whom the Geneva accords do not apply.
> >>>
> >>>
> >>>Regardless of what he means, you are
> >>>mistaken.
> >>>
> >>>See the sections of the Fourth Protocol of
> >>>1949 regarding "civilians accused of a beligerant
> >>>act" (e.g. insurgents, guerillas, partisans or
> >>>whatever). The 1978 GC addresses those
> >>>issues further. That the United States has
> >>>refused to recognize those parts of the
> >>>GCs does not mean they do not exist.
> >>
> >>But it does mean that we are not *bound* to them.
> >
> >
> > It does mean that persons who say the Geneva Conventions
> > do not apply to such persons are either ignorant of the Geneva
> > Conventions themselves, or dishonest.
>
> Hmm, or mebbe I just don't want to play your oh-so nuanced rhetorical
> game.
Word games are your specialty.
> The US is only bound to those things which it historically
> signed until/unless it openly recants its agreement. More importantly,
> it is *not* bound to those portions it did not sign and thus those
> unsigned pieces of the Geneva Conventions carry no weight whatsoever
> upon US actions. The fact the Joe's Tin-Pot Dictatorship may have
> signed such a document are irrelvant to US actions.
The US has also ratified the treaty prohibiting torture, cruel, inhuman
or degrading treatment. I expect you haven't read it and also expect
that will not stop you from pretending to be familiar with it.
>
> >
> >>Entering into
> >>international agreements of this sort is *voluntary* and not some sort
> >>of Natural Law to which all mankind must adhere.
> >
> >
> > Saddam Hussein can use the same argument in his defense.
>
> Yes he could, and *legally* he'd be right *under old Iraqi law*.
>
> > That is the argument William O Douglas advanced.in regard to
> > the post WWII war crimes trials. The death camps were legal
> > under German law, so their operators comitted no crimes.
>
> Yes they could and *legally* they were right *under German law*.
>
> > I reject that argument.
>
>
> You shouldn't. You should reject the purely *legal* arguments for action
> in wartime exactly for the reason you noted above - that law is mostly a
> "local" thing, not binding or normative on everyone, everywhere. When
> nations go to war, their internal legal systems are not normative upon
> all parties involved. The very nature of war is to admit that normal
> peaceful discourse is no longer possible and the parties enter into
> "policy by other means" (approximately von Clauswitz).
I will not.
>
> Most everyone pretty much gets this notion which is why there have been
> many attempts to construct normative international law for these
> matters. But in the case before us, the poor downtrodden terrorists
> whose killing/"torture" you object to so much *are not protected by any
> international agreement* (to which the US subscribes.
This you say without having read *any* treaties to which the US
subscribes, right?
Regardless, your statement is false. Your pathetic attempt
to deceive the reader into thinking that I advocated protecting
"poor downtrodden terrorists" is no surprise.
> So, in their
> case, they have neither the weight of internal law on their side *nor*
> the benefit of an enemy that has agreed to the relevant international
> laws. They get this, you don't.
>
You do not seem to understand that one needs to actually
read something in order to know what it says. You tells us
about the Geneva Conventions without reading them, you
tell to whom the UCMJ applies, without reading it, you
tell us about all those other treaties without reading them
or even knowing how many of them exist. Therefor it
is no surprise that almost averything you say is wrong.
Heinlein observed that there are degrees of incompetance
so extreme as to be indistinguishible from malice. You
have crossed that line.
>
> <SNIP>
>
> >>>Indeed, you may shoot me in the back if you like.
> >>>However, you would be comitting a crime and so
> >>>would anyone who summarily executes any
> >>>prisoner regardless of the accusation against that
> >>>prisoner.
> >>>
> >>>The UCMJ prohibits murder, and a good faith belief
> >>>that the victim is a spy is not among the enumerated
> >>>defenses. Indeed, this is hardly a new concept:
> >>>
> >>>Section 2 of the Act of Congress of April 10, 1806,
> >>> 2 Stat. 371, derived from the Resolution of the
> >>> Continental Congress of August 21, 1776, imposed
> >>> the death penalty on alien spies "according to the
> >>> law and usage of nations, by sentence of a general
> >>> court martial."
> >>>
> >>>"by sentence of a general court martial." pretty clearly excludes
> >>>impromtu execution.
> >>
> >>
> >>Oh, you mean individual soldiers ought not to make this decision,
> >
> >
> > No. I mean that summary execution by the US military,
> > of persons accused of being spies has been prohibitted since
> > at least 1806. That was clearly what I said, and you have no
> > business pretending I said anything else.
>
> I will look into this further when I have a moment.
Yet that doesn't stop you from commenting on it now!
> I am reasonably
> sure that *international law* (to which you keep appealing) to which
> the US is a signatory has no such impediment. If the UCMJ does, then
> that just means that non-military persons would have to carry out
> the executions for it to be legal under US law. (Again, I am not actually
> advocating that we do this, merely pointing out that we *can* without legal
> foul.)
And again you are wrong.
>
>
> >
> >
> >>and I
> >>agree (except where they are faced with a direct threat and must kill a
> >>spy to defend themselves). The instruction to execute spies should should
> >>come from the chain of command as either a direct order or as an
> >>explicit Rule Of Engagement. But let's rejoin Reality here. I said we
> >>*could* (legally) kill spies at our pleasure not that we ought to. It
> >>was a statement about where the legal boundary lives not what actual
> >>actions should have been taken.
> >
> >
> > It was a statment that was factually incorrect. Your hypothetical
> > above, IN REALITY, would at the very least be a violation of
> > Section 813, Article 13 and article 118 of subchapter X
> >
> > An order to kill a prisoner who has not been sentenced to death
> > by order of a court martial, coming down through the chain of
> > command, is an unlawful order. The officer giving that order,
> > and the soldier executing it, will have comitted murder according
> > to the definition of murder in the UCMJ.
>
> Fine. Then have the court martial if a military member is to carry
> out the execution. Then it is all nice and legal. Does this change
> anything of substance?
Of course.
>
> <SNIP>
>
> >
> >> First of all, the people in
> >>question are not "partisans". They are primarily 3rd-parties to this
> >>conflict from places other than Iraq who operate specifically as
> >>_insurgent terrorists_ under the cover of civilian clothing making war
> >>against civilians.
> >
> >
> > What is your source? In interviews, high ranking officers in
> > Iraq have said that at least 90% of the enemy KIA and captured
> > in Iraq are Iraqi nationals.
>
> I'm sure that was true during the initial conflict. But I get
> a pretty consistent message across a spectrum of news outlets of
> all biases that the insurgency is driven primarily or at least
> signficiantly by outsiders.
I, on the onther hand, do not. There is a strong suspician that
elements from outside of Iraq provide material support to the
insurgency but I have never heard any competent source
suggest that the insurgents themselves are anything other
than overwhelmingly Iraqi.
>
> >
> >
> >>More importantly, their interest is not primarily in
> >>the conflict at hand. Their interest is to use this conflict in their
> >>larger cause - the decimation of liberal (aka civilized) society.
> >
> >
> > I do not see how your guess as to the 'interest' of the enemy is
> > relevant to our responsibilites to obey our own laws. My own
> > guess is the want the foreign troops to leave Iraq.
>
> My comment has nothing to do with their interests bearing on our laws.
> My comment was in response to your describing them merely as "partisans"
> in this war and thus entitled to more protection by international agreement.
I did not describe them as partisans. But it is no surprise that you
would falsly claim I did.
>
> <SNIP>
> >>>>And the "torture" in this case involves making them uncomfortable and
> >>>>physically intimidating them, not, say, beheading them with a dull
> >>>>knife like their compatriots do.
> >>>
> >>>
> >>>It also involves water torture.
> >>
> >>Which is most uncomfortable, I'm sure, but not life threatening.
> >
> >
> > It is also assault and battery and an act
> > of cruelty, which are violations of the UCMJ.
> > All torture is at the very least assault and
> > therefor a violations of the UCMJ. We made
> > those laws. We should enforce them.
>
> I agree. The military should not be doing this.
> Trained interrogaters from non-military organizations
> like the CIA should do this.
No, they should not. Torture is wrong.
>
> >
> > Your arguements attempting to justify torture
> > are not merely pathetic, illogical and without
> > factual basis but are also vile despicable and
> > immoral.
>
> "Immoral" according to whom and upon what basis?
According to myself and I am joined in that opinon by
all decent civilized people as the terms 'torture' 'decent'
and 'civilized' are generally understood.
> Self defense is always
> moral, we're merely debating the methods of said self-defense.
False. We are discussing moral issues. we most certainly are not
discussing self defense.
> Just
> because it makes you go all gooey inside doesn't make an act right or
> wrong on its face.
>
> >
> <SNIP>
>
> >>Nor do I. When faced with an almost-impossible to identify enemy that
> >>makes war intentionally on innocent non-combatants, that observes *no*
> >>rule of law or internation convention, and that has demonstrated an
> >>addiction to barbarism unseen for many generations in human warfare
> >>(even the Japanse cannibalism of WWII pales by comparison), I think just
> >>about any method of removing these people from the planet is morally
> >>just nor is (almost) any method of interrogation out of bounds. The fact
> >>that it is at complete odds with our notions about civilized behavior is
> >>besides the point. The people in question are not party to the canons of
> >>civil society.
> >
> >
> > Obviously, if we do as you advocate, we will no longer be
> > party to the cannons of society.
>
> Are we just arguing to argue here? If so, I'll be happy to end this. You
> are intentionally muddying the waters here.
No, that is your speciality, along with name calling.
> *We* have certain canons to
> which we adhere and expect other members of civilization to observe. If
> we are faced with an enemy that has demonstrated the means and
> willingness to attack those canons with the intention of undermining
> civilization, we are free to step outside our normal conventions of
> civility in dealing with that threat. This in no way speaks to how
> civilized we otherwise remain within the community of civil people. Are
> we morally obligated to be truthful to a liar, non-violent to an armed
> invader, passive to a rapist, or honest with a thief? I think not.
Non Sequitor. We are morally and legally bound to obey our
own laws, including our treaty obligations. Even if some future
gernment were to change those laws to permit torture or other
atrocities we would be morally oblidged at that point to rebel
and replace that government.
>
>
> Perhaps an analogy will set your mind at ease. You and I enter into a
> contract for me to mow your lawn for an agreed-to price. I do a great
> job, and soon you're telling everyone in the neighborhood what a great
> job I'm doing. Is everyone else in the neighborhood now entitled to my
> lawn services without further compensation? No - the protections of a
> contract only accrue to its parties. Now, suppose there's a guy 15,000
> miles away who hates grass lawns because they are so green and nice and
> he has none available to him locally. Let's say his name is, oh, I dunno
> ... Mohammed - we'll just call him "Mo". Now Mo hates the lawns. So much
> so that he does everything in his power to destroy them. He pours acid
> on them when no one is looking. He sets sets his children on fire and
> has them roll around on the lawns to destroy them. He recruits people
> from thousands of miles away to come help him in his quest to destroy
> lawns everywhere. Do you actually believe that I have a moral
> obligation to treat Mo the same way as I do you? I *know* he wants all
> lawns everywhere destroyed no matter how violent or evil the means
> necessary to accomplish this. Do you seriously believe that I have an
> obligation to not use similar offsetting methods to thwart him in his
> evil quest?
No need for analogies. No one should be tortured. Prisoners
should not be executed without due process. Those are not
negotiable. No decent moral civilized person will dispture those
because. Our government has passed laws to enforce those
principles, and they are also supported international treaties.
>
> If you actually acted in the Real World the way you think, you'd get
> your butt kicked in any bar fight. The first time somebody sucker
> punched you, you'd want to have a long discussion about the means and
> modes of response available to you.
False.
> > ...
> >
> >>They lost those protections when they made war on
> >>innocents, used children as bombs and human shields, and engaged in the
> >>barbaric executions of their captives. You keep wanting to apply a
> >>measure of legal protection to which they are not entitled.
> >
> >
> > False. I made it absolutely clear to you that I am applying our
> > own laws to ourselves.
>
> And I'm telling you that doing so is actually an *immoral* act. When a
> robber steals from you, they are breaking the canons of civilization,
> but they are not directly attacking the very idea of civilization
> itself. (In fact, the robber is counting on civilization to keep going
> despite their crime. A stolen TV has no value in an uncivilized society
> with TV broadcasting or cable.) But when people, particularly people
> outside your social covenants, attack the very covenants themselves,
> self preservation demands that you act by all effective means to end
> their threat. Failing to act to preserve oneself is an immoral act.
You are the one proposing an attack on civilization itself.
> ...
>
> The discussion of just what methods to use in this self-defense is
> certainly a fair one. As I pointed out, there are good arguments
> to be made against, say, torture on wholly pragmatic grounds. But there
> is no *moral* argument against it ... not when the adversary has a
> clear intention of eradicating the very fabric upon which civil society
> rests.
False again. We are not discussing self-defense. We are
discussing moral issues.
>
> >
> >
> >>There is plenty of US precedent here, instituted by one of the darlings
> >>of the ideological Left. FDR instituted an unrelenting campaign of fire
> >>against both Dresden and Tokyo (both of which killed far more people
> >>than the A-Bomb drops). He did so knowing full well that, while he was
> >>attacking centers of war machinery and materiale', he would be killing
> >>10s of thousands of civilians in the process. Moreover, he did so
> >>against enemies who, however evil, *were* parties to civilized society.
> >>who *did* wear uniforms, and were signatories to some notions of
> >>international law. If FDRs actions were morally unquestioned (and I
> >>think in retrospect they should have been) then today's actions ought to
> >>be even less so given the susbtantially fouler enemy in our crosshairs.
> >
> >
> > Not relevant.
>
> Sure it is. It sets *precedent*.
False. Strategic bombing does not set a precedent for
torture or summary execution, the two subjects being
discussed.
> You keep trying to appeal to a
> legal-moral argument against my position. But "legal" in this country is
> built on three things: The founding documents, enacted law, and
> *precedent*, especially as established by the appellate process. If
> you're going to claim a legal foul (as you have done repeatedly in your
> posts) then you have to address the precedents like the one cited above.
> How is it that a previously similar situation did not cause the legal
> foul you now claim exists?
You did not cite a legal precedent showing that torture or summary
execution are allowed under US laws or treaties to which the US is
signatory. *I* have cited lwas and treaties prohibitting both.
> >
> >
> >>The only reason to avoid torture and execution of these people (after
> >>suitably stuffing them full of bacon sandwiches and then feeding their
> >>remains to starving hogs so they can spend the afterlife as pig
> >>excrement) is because doing so may be not in our own best interests for
> >>a variety of reasons.
> >
> >
> > False.
> >
> > First and formost, it is morally wrong.
>
> Sez you. It is not "immoral" just because you say so. I claim
> it is immoral to *not* act in a manner as to maximally secure
> self-defense. You claim it is "morally wrong" but offer no
> demonstration as to why.
Nor need I.
>
> > Secondly, it is a violation
> > of our own laws.
>
> Some of the time and in some circumstances. But there are certainly
> precedents where is was not such a violation,
If it is certain, then you will bne able to cite a case in which
torture was held to be legal or another in which summary
execution was held to be legal depending on the antecedent
for 'it'.
But of course, you cannot.
> and most of the law
> you keep wanting to appeal to applies only to military personnel.
> It is not baldly and unquestionably a "violation of our own laws."
Now, I wil admit that I have not read through the statutes of every
state and the DIstrict of Columbia but I am pretty sure that
Torture and summary exection are against the law in all of
those jurisdictions. Which means that torture and summary
execution are illegal everywhere that US law applies, right?
>
>
> > Third, to do so would reduce us to a station
> > no better than that of our enemies.
>
> Ah, the famous McCain argument. This is a foolish argument easily
> refuted a number of ways. McCain probably knows this being a smart guy,
> but it works really well when teeing up that Presidential bid (see, I
> pick on Republicans too).
>
> First, it is demonstrably possible to torture and kill an enemy of
> Liberty without in any other way or in any other mode compromise Liberty
> for anyone else.
I disagree.
> My enemy wants to destroy Liberty for everyone. I resort
> to his methods to stop him, thereby depriving only him of his Liberty,
> but no one else. I am certainly better than my enemy in this situation.
I disagree.
>
> But, let's just pretend this argument is true. So what? So I'm just as
> bad as my enemy. In another thread you argued vehemently for the idea of
> evolution and natural selection as being the sole basis for explaining
> life as we know it.
False. Google is your friend.
> If that is true, ...
>
> >
> >
> >>I do stipulate that there may be any number of
> >>pragmatic reasons to avoid torture and summary execution. Among them
> >>would be the bad PR it engenders, the ineffectiveness of torture as a
> >>general method of extracting information, the effect is has on our own
> >>troops' morale' and so forth. But there is absolutely no *moral* reason
> >>to avoid doing so.
> >
> >
> > False. Torture is wrong. That is a basic moral priciple. To argue
> > that torture is not morally wrong is to reject morality itself.
>
> Ibid, see above. Your claim of morality has no basis.
No claim of morality has any objective basis. Morality is
fundamentally metaphysical.
> >
> >
> >>Your view is analogous to taking aspirin when you discover cancer. I
> >>want the cancer excised with due haste and unrelenting vigor.
> >
> >
> > False. My view is that we are civilized, people become our
> > enemies when they engage in uncivilized behaviour. Persons
> > who advocate uncivilized behaviour are our enemies in spirit,
> > traitors in spirit to the principles of civilization itself.
> >
> > Your argument is that civilization voluntariyl destory itself in
> > order to survive. Truly bizarre.
>
> No, what is bizzare is that you cling to the abstract notions of
> civilization, even if it means you'll lose it completely to a third
> party taking it apart.
You are the party suggesting that it be torn apart. The jihadis
simply want religious segregation.
>
> <SNIP>
>
> >
> >><SNIP>
> >>
> >>>>Foreign spies are not entitled
> >>>>to the same civil liberties that US citizens and legal residents
> >>>>enjoy.
> >>>
> >>>
> >>>That is true.
> >>>
> >>>But more importantly we, as a civilized
> >>>people impose restrictions on ourselves.
> >>>If we do not, we have no claim on any moral
> >>>authority to try others or even govern ourselves.
> >>
> >>Baloney. Certainly we do impose these restrictions on ourselves as a
> >>matter of civil behavior. But we are not making a "moral claim ... on
> >>others". We are attempting to end a threat directed at us and all civil
> >>societies around the world.
> >
> >
> > So you say. Yet absurdly you advocate abandoment of
> > civilization itself as part that defense.
>
> Briefly, in selected cases, under the supervision of courts, only
> as a last resort, and only when directed at people for whom there
> is overwhelming evidence to indicate they bring significant
> threat or have knowledge than can materially reduce risk to us.
No US court has Constitutional authority to order summary
execution or torture. I do not think the Constitution shjould
be amended to change that.
>
> >
> >
> >>. The Islamic radicals have made it repeatedly
> >>clear that their goal is the destruction of liberal civil society and
> >>they have demonstrated a willingness to act to that end.
> >
> >
> > To the contrary, they have never indicated anything of the sort.
>
> You don't read much then. They have made this *abundantly* clear
> in their many utterances on the matter. Start with memri.org
> for translations of major speeches and follow your nose after that.
> It shouldn't take you too long to come understand that their position
> is the one I stated above.
>
> > They have made it clear that their goal is to etablish theocratic
> > government whereever Muslims live in large numbers. They
> > have never indicated that they give rat's ass what goes on in
> > the rest of the world, so long as we keep buying their oil. We
>
> This is the consistent position of the Western Left and it is
> utterly false.
>
> > could achieve peace with the Islamic Fundamentalist by
> > completely withdrawing, militarily and politically, from the
> > middle East,Southern Asia, and Africa. They would still be
> > happy to trade with us. It would be a very practical solution.
> > Do you suppose that maybe we should not, because
> > we have a moral obligation to not allow religious zealots
> > to run amuck murdering innocent people?
>
> If this fairy tale of an analysis were true, I'd be happy to stay out of
> their way. We have no moral obligation to act on behalf of other
> civilizations except in the matter of self-interest/preservation. But
> its not.
...
> Militant Islam has sprung up all over the place - in many cases
> where the US/West has little or no significant involvement (Malaysia,
> Indonesia) or even where the US has been openly supportive (the Afghan
> Mujahadeen).
That is consitant with what I wrote.
>
> You remind me of the Western Lefties who sat around in the 1930s
> pooh-poohing the warnings about the ascent of Communism. "Communism
> isn't all that bad", "Oh, its just a local problem.", "Don't be
> paranoid, they're not *really* trying to take over the world", and the
> like spewed from the Left for a decade. 20 years later we had the Cold
> War. 40 years later the expansion into Africa through their Cuban
> proxys, 50 years later the Soviets where trying to overtake Afghanistan.
> Throughout a good part of this, the ideological Western Left kept
> insisting the Communism really wasn't all *that* bad and we needed to
> better understand and/or accommodate it. In the mean time, hundreds of
> millions of people lived in utter and abject misery under the Red Boot,
> in large part because the Western Left elites didn't think that
> Communism was global problem. Even now, it's hard to get the real
> sinners like Chomsky to admit they were dead wrong.
>
You remind me that it was not that long ago that lynchings,
supported by people like you, were a common practice in
some parts of the US.
> Radical Islam is an expression of rage wrapped in the trappings of
> religion. It represents a threat to all civlization all over the planet
> and must be suppressed as rapidly and completely as possible or it will
> be "the guy on the bar floor rising up to whack you on the head as you
> turn to leave." Evil never gets better on its own. It requires interdiction -
> sometimes violent, pleasant, and even uncivilized interdiction - to be
> quelled. We fail to do so at our own peril.
Radical religion is pretty much all of that. Radical Islam happens
to be the probelm at the moment.
>
>
> <SNIP>
>
> >>...Please understand, I am no fan of this administration on many
> >>matters. I merely defend their military and policy posture on the matter
> >>of international terror because I think anything less is suicidal.
> >>
> >
> >
> > I oppose you on moral grounds, and because
> > your approach is to first destroy from within,
> > that which makes civilization worth defending
> > in the first place.
> >
>
> You oppose me on "moral grounds" that you've invented out of thin air,
> for which there appears to be no basis, and for which the only claim
> is your argument of morality. I, on the other hand, argue on the grounds
> that self-defense is inherently moral, that there is global threat to
> civilization, and failing to act to suppress that threat by all necessary
> means is itself an immoral act.
You are not arguing for self defense. You are arguing for
murder an torture and call it self defense. That is just
what the jihadis are doing, they claim they are defending
Islam from us.
>
>
> P.S. Almost by definition, *any* war is "uncivilized". If you *really*
> want to argue that "behaving in an uncivilized manner undermines
> civilization itself" then consistency demands that you take the pacifist
> view that *all* war is immoral. So, you can either be inconsistent
> and argue that war itself is sometimes OK but not other, naughtier
> kinds of "uncivilized" acts. Or, you can argue that all war is
> uncivilized and thus wrong. The obvious problem with pacifism is
> that it allows many great evils to continue unabated. Imagine a
> world with the Nazis, Soviets, and their ilk still around with
> significant power. That's what pacifism would lead to...
I argue that we should adhere to those laws we have made for
ourselves and those treaties to which we subscribe.
What you fail to understand is that this is not a struggle
between Radicla Islam and Western civilisation. It is
a struggle between good and evil. I want to be on the
side of good, and I want good to win. You seem to
think that it would be easier to win by being evil, therefor
you advocate joining evil. If you find the rule of law to
be so inconvenient, maybe you should move somewhere
else.
--
FF
David Stuve wrote:
> I saw Jimmy Carter on the Daily show a week or so ago and was really
> intrigued
> at Camp David he would
> sneak out to the carpenter's shed to work off tension. Sounds like he'd be
> a fun
> person to have over for dinner and 'talk shop' with.
>
> Dave
>
I wonder, when Jimmy smiles out in the shop, how much sawdust would you
think he can trap wit 'dem big ol' teeth?
Tom in KY, with a pretty dang big smile myself :-D
Fredfighter
You wanted to know in what branch I served-- I served 22 years in the Air
Force as a boom operator on KC 97's and KC 135's refueling bombers and
fighter planes going to North Vietnam.
What branch did you serve in??
I love the US of A and I will stand behind it no matter what. If needed I
would gladly go back in. How about you, would you enlist if needed?? They
say I'm too old now-- That makes me madd. There is no reason I can't at
least work in supply or drive a truck. I know I'm too old to keep up with
the Grunts, but not too old to do other things. How about you?
Check things out and find out the truth to see how many of the businesses
are owned by China in the Canal Zone.
You hate Bush so much, you'll have a chance in 08 and in the next
congressional race to get Democrats in. I'd be willing to bet you that you
would lose the bet. So my advice to you is to get over it, and if you are
that disenchanted with everything in the US move to France or Canada.
Yes I know I top posted-- so what. I wanted to make sure Fred fighter sees
this.
"Steve Peterson" <[email protected]> wrote in message
news:[email protected]...
>
>> Those who criticize Bush and think they know everything about foreign
>> policy
>> I would like for them to answer truthfully the question below:
>> I wonder how many of YOU KNOW IT ALLS would have supported Roosevelt and
>> Truman during the Second World War. Would you have stood in line to
>> enlist
>> in the Army even though we lost over a 150,000 plus GI lives? I doubt if
>> any of you Bush bashers would have had the BALLS to do so. You are
>> GUTLESS!
>> Remember Hitler didn't attack us and we still went to war with Germany.
>> What about the war with the Japanese would you have stood in line to
>> volunteer to fight them??
>>
> Does name calling and aggresive CAPITALIZATION make you feel better?
>
> Hitler (Germany) declared war on us after Pearl Harbor. I was born in
> 1944, so what I did in WWII is kind of irrelevant. Since then, I worked
> for Westinghouse (a big defense contractor) and for a Navy contractor at
> the Naval Research Lab and the Naval Surface Warfare Center. Anything
> else I can do for you?
>
> Steve
>
> Bush is still a terrible president. How much are you going to pay in
> taxes to pay for the W Memorial National Debt? It used to be the RWR
> Memorial National Debt, but the Shrub has blown Ronnie away.
>
"Joe Barta" <[email protected]> wrote in message
news:[email protected]...
> I'm actually thinking more on the level of "the common man"... average
> people that normally might not be that interested in politics or
> current events, and wouldn't be considered ideologically extreme.
> Among many otherwise regular people, there is the belief that GW (and
> those around him) are both profoundly evil and/or profoundly stupid,
> and that GW is personally the root cause of just about any happening
> they believe to be "bad". For those "regular people", I don't think
Interesting question - to tie it back to Jimmy Carter, I'm not sure either
really deserves their infamy.
I think the reaction to GW comes from the fact that he's the "Face man." As
such he gets to bask in the limelight of the astoungly effective Republican
PR machine. (Gets guaranteed standing ovations, mostly speaks only to
carefully picked audiences, almost never answers questions that aren't
vetted first, etc.) On the down side, that role makes him the lightning rod
for criticism every time someone in his administration does something wrong.
The lightning rod effect is probably magnified due to the efforts to make
him seem so heroic. Go around telling people how good or perfect you are
and you'll experience a similar increase in criticism.
The average person on the street probably doesn't follow politics much, but
in their eyes politicians over time tend to suffer from the death of a
thousand cuts as scandals and negatives start to stick. The key to
long-term success is to keep the positives outweighing the negatives. GW's
positives are pretty weak right now. Current opinion polls show a majority
of Americans don't approve of his handling of foreign or domestic issues.
And as for negatives, unless a person gets their news exclusively from a
Rupurt Murdoch owned outlet (FAUX news anyone?) there have been plenty of
negatives reported in the last five years:
There's loyalty oaths that had to be signed to see him during 2004,
responding slowly and poorly to the Katrina disaster, torturing POWs, secret
CIA prisons overseas, a screwed up invasion of Iraq, failure to bring Bin
Laden to justice, mass firings of people who disagree with GW, huge
deficits, jobs and capital going overseas in record amounts, and corruption
in congress. And now the NSA is spying on American citizens.
Bush isn't directly responsible for many of those things, but as 'CEO' and
face man he sets the tone for the administration, and the buck does stop at
his desk.
Dave
[email protected] wrote:
>
>><SNIP>
>>
>>>First, you make numerous statments that may be
>>>politely referred to a urban legends. But worse, you
>>>express a desire for barabarity and a disrespect
>>>for the rule of law, morality, and civilization itself.
>>
>>Before there is civilization, there must be survival.
>
>
> If not a tautology, then something not far removed from it.
> What is your point?
My point is that no discussion of civilization is meaningful if we
as a civilization don't survive long enough to have that discussion.
>
>
>>Making people
>>extremely uncomfortable (while not actually endangering their lives) is
>>hardly "barbarity" particularly in light of the actions of their
>>fellow-travelers.
>
>
> "Making people extremely uncomfortable (while not actually
> endangering their lives)" is vague. Please be more
> specific.
I can't, any more than you can be specific about what "torture"
actually entails and where it begins and ends. You're having
a Watson moment wherein when your argument fails you try to retreat
to pedantic definitional discussions. You think making people
very uncomfortable is torture, I don't (necessarily). It's that simple.
>
>
>>>Those who advocate barbarism and disdain for the
>>>the rule of law are our enemies without regard
>>>to whether the advocate it against the United States
>>>or in the name of the United States. To defeat our
>>
>>This is a ridiculous position. "The rule of law"? Whose exactly?
>
>
> For most of this discussion, the UCMJ would be appropriate.
> See Section 802 Article 2 for more specific information.
So now we run the entire US policy on the basis of a legal code
intended exclusively for members of the military? The CIA is
not bound to the UCMJ last I looked. Neither would any non-
military operational organization.
>
>
>> ...
>>
>><SNIP>
>>
>>>>You mean aggressively going after *non-uniformed combatants* for
>>>>whom the Geneva accords do not apply.
>>>
>>>
>>>Regardless of what he means, you are
>>>mistaken.
>>>
>>>See the sections of the Fourth Protocol of
>>>1949 regarding "civilians accused of a beligerant
>>>act" (e.g. insurgents, guerillas, partisans or
>>>whatever). The 1978 GC addresses those
>>>issues further. That the United States has
>>>refused to recognize those parts of the
>>>GCs does not mean they do not exist.
>>
>>But it does mean that we are not *bound* to them.
>
>
> It does mean that persons who say the Geneva Conventions
> do not apply to such persons are either ignorant of the Geneva
> Conventions themselves, or dishonest.
Hmm, or mebbe I just don't want to play your oh-so nuanced rhetorical
game. The US is only bound to those things which it historically
signed until/unless it openly recants its agreement. More importantly,
it is *not* bound to those portions it did not sign and thus those
unsigned pieces of the Geneva Conventions carry no weight whatsoever
upon US actions. The fact the Joe's Tin-Pot Dictatorship may have
signed such a document are irrelvant to US actions.
>
>>Entering into
>>international agreements of this sort is *voluntary* and not some sort
>>of Natural Law to which all mankind must adhere.
>
>
> Saddam Hussein can use the same argument in his defense.
Yes he could, and *legally* he'd be right *under old Iraqi law*.
> That is the argument William O Douglas advanced.in regard to
> the post WWII war crimes trials. The death camps were legal
> under German law, so their operators comitted no crimes.
Yes they could and *legally* they were right *under German law*.
> I reject that argument.
You shouldn't. You should reject the purely *legal* arguments for action
in wartime exactly for the reason you noted above - that law is mostly a
"local" thing, not binding or normative on everyone, everywhere. When
nations go to war, their internal legal systems are not normative upon
all parties involved. The very nature of war is to admit that normal
peaceful discourse is no longer possible and the parties enter into
"policy by other means" (approximately von Clauswitz).
Most everyone pretty much gets this notion which is why there have been
many attempts to construct normative international law for these
matters. But in the case before us, the poor downtrodden terrorists
whose killing/"torture" you object to so much *are not protected by any
international agreement* (to which the US subscribes. So, in their
case, they have neither the weight of internal law on their side *nor*
the benefit of an enemy that has agreed to the relevant international
laws. They get this, you don't.
<SNIP>
>>>Indeed, you may shoot me in the back if you like.
>>>However, you would be comitting a crime and so
>>>would anyone who summarily executes any
>>>prisoner regardless of the accusation against that
>>>prisoner.
>>>
>>>The UCMJ prohibits murder, and a good faith belief
>>>that the victim is a spy is not among the enumerated
>>>defenses. Indeed, this is hardly a new concept:
>>>
>>>Section 2 of the Act of Congress of April 10, 1806,
>>> 2 Stat. 371, derived from the Resolution of the
>>> Continental Congress of August 21, 1776, imposed
>>> the death penalty on alien spies "according to the
>>> law and usage of nations, by sentence of a general
>>> court martial."
>>>
>>>"by sentence of a general court martial." pretty clearly excludes
>>>impromtu execution.
>>
>>
>>Oh, you mean individual soldiers ought not to make this decision,
>
>
> No. I mean that summary execution by the US military,
> of persons accused of being spies has been prohibitted since
> at least 1806. That was clearly what I said, and you have no
> business pretending I said anything else.
I will look into this further when I have a moment. I am reasonably
sure that *international law* (to which you keep appealing) to which
the US is a signatory has no such impediment. If the UCMJ does, then
that just means that non-military persons would have to carry out
the executions for it to be legal under US law. (Again, I am not actually
advocating that we do this, merely pointing out that we *can* without legal
foul.)
>
>
>>and I
>>agree (except where they are faced with a direct threat and must kill a
>>spy to defend themselves). The instruction to execute spies should should
>>come from the chain of command as either a direct order or as an
>>explicit Rule Of Engagement. But let's rejoin Reality here. I said we
>>*could* (legally) kill spies at our pleasure not that we ought to. It
>>was a statement about where the legal boundary lives not what actual
>>actions should have been taken.
>
>
> It was a statment that was factually incorrect. Your hypothetical
> above, IN REALITY, would at the very least be a violation of
> Section 813, Article 13 and article 118 of subchapter X
>
> An order to kill a prisoner who has not been sentenced to death
> by order of a court martial, coming down through the chain of
> command, is an unlawful order. The officer giving that order,
> and the soldier executing it, will have comitted murder according
> to the definition of murder in the UCMJ.
Fine. Then have the court martial if a military member is to carry
out the execution. Then it is all nice and legal. Does this change
anything of substance?
<SNIP>
>
>> First of all, the people in
>>question are not "partisans". They are primarily 3rd-parties to this
>>conflict from places other than Iraq who operate specifically as
>>_insurgent terrorists_ under the cover of civilian clothing making war
>>against civilians.
>
>
> What is your source? In interviews, high ranking officers in
> Iraq have said that at least 90% of the enemy KIA and captured
> in Iraq are Iraqi nationals.
I'm sure that was true during the initial conflict. But I get
a pretty consistent message across a spectrum of news outlets of
all biases that the insurgency is driven primarily or at least
signficiantly by outsiders.
>
>
>>More importantly, their interest is not primarily in
>>the conflict at hand. Their interest is to use this conflict in their
>>larger cause - the decimation of liberal (aka civilized) society.
>
>
> I do not see how your guess as to the 'interest' of the enemy is
> relevant to our responsibilites to obey our own laws. My own
> guess is the want the foreign troops to leave Iraq.
My comment has nothing to do with their interests bearing on our laws.
My comment was in response to your describing them merely as "partisans"
in this war and thus entitled to more protection by international agreement.
<SNIP>
>>>>And the "torture" in this case involves making them uncomfortable and
>>>>physically intimidating them, not, say, beheading them with a dull
>>>>knife like their compatriots do.
>>>
>>>
>>>It also involves water torture.
>>
>>Which is most uncomfortable, I'm sure, but not life threatening.
>
>
> It is also assault and battery and an act
> of cruelty, which are violations of the UCMJ.
> All torture is at the very least assault and
> therefor a violations of the UCMJ. We made
> those laws. We should enforce them.
I agree. The military should not be doing this.
Trained interrogaters from non-military organizations
like the CIA should do this.
>
> Your arguements attempting to justify torture
> are not merely pathetic, illogical and without
> factual basis but are also vile despicable and
> immoral.
"Immoral" according to whom and upon what basis? Self defense is always
moral, we're merely debating the methods of said self-defense. Just
because it makes you go all gooey inside doesn't make an act right or
wrong on its face.
>
<SNIP>
>>Nor do I. When faced with an almost-impossible to identify enemy that
>>makes war intentionally on innocent non-combatants, that observes *no*
>>rule of law or internation convention, and that has demonstrated an
>>addiction to barbarism unseen for many generations in human warfare
>>(even the Japanse cannibalism of WWII pales by comparison), I think just
>>about any method of removing these people from the planet is morally
>>just nor is (almost) any method of interrogation out of bounds. The fact
>>that it is at complete odds with our notions about civilized behavior is
>>besides the point. The people in question are not party to the canons of
>>civil society.
>
>
> Obviously, if we do as you advocate, we will no longer be
> party to the cannons of society.
Are we just arguing to argue here? If so, I'll be happy to end this. You
are intentionally muddying the waters here. *We* have certain canons to
which we adhere and expect other members of civilization to observe. If
we are faced with an enemy that has demonstrated the means and
willingness to attack those canons with the intention of undermining
civilization, we are free to step outside our normal conventions of
civility in dealing with that threat. This in no way speaks to how
civilized we otherwise remain within the community of civil people. Are
we morally obligated to be truthful to a liar, non-violent to an armed
invader, passive to a rapist, or honest with a thief? I think not.
Perhaps an analogy will set your mind at ease. You and I enter into a
contract for me to mow your lawn for an agreed-to price. I do a great
job, and soon you're telling everyone in the neighborhood what a great
job I'm doing. Is everyone else in the neighborhood now entitled to my
lawn services without further compensation? No - the protections of a
contract only accrue to its parties. Now, suppose there's a guy 15,000
miles away who hates grass lawns because they are so green and nice and
he has none available to him locally. Let's say his name is, oh, I dunno
... Mohammed - we'll just call him "Mo". Now Mo hates the lawns. So much
so that he does everything in his power to destroy them. He pours acid
on them when no one is looking. He sets sets his children on fire and
has them roll around on the lawns to destroy them. He recruits people
from thousands of miles away to come help him in his quest to destroy
lawns everywhere. Do you actually believe that I have a moral
obligation to treat Mo the same way as I do you? I *know* he wants all
lawns everywhere destroyed no matter how violent or evil the means
necessary to accomplish this. Do you seriously believe that I have an
obligation to not use similar offsetting methods to thwart him in his
evil quest?
If you actually acted in the Real World the way you think, you'd get
your butt kicked in any bar fight. The first time somebody sucker
punched you, you'd want to have a long discussion about the means and
modes of response available to you. The only response in a bar fight to
hit back harder and more often until such time as your attacker loses
complete interest in any further fighting. This includes hitting them
while they are down until they can no longer get up. Why? Because the
hard learned lesson of people who have been in bar fights is that if you
*don't* do this, the guy you didn't tap out will come back and hit you
on the head with a beer bottle when you turn to walk away. This is not a
question of civility, but one of self-preservation.
>
>
>>They lost those protections when they made war on
>>innocents, used children as bombs and human shields, and engaged in the
>>barbaric executions of their captives. You keep wanting to apply a
>>measure of legal protection to which they are not entitled.
>
>
> False. I made it absolutely clear to you that I am applying our
> own laws to ourselves.
And I'm telling you that doing so is actually an *immoral* act. When a
robber steals from you, they are breaking the canons of civilization,
but they are not directly attacking the very idea of civilization
itself. (In fact, the robber is counting on civilization to keep going
despite their crime. A stolen TV has no value in an uncivilized society
with TV broadcasting or cable.) But when people, particularly people
outside your social covenants, attack the very covenants themselves,
self preservation demands that you act by all effective means to end
their threat. Failing to act to preserve oneself is an immoral act.
The discussion of just what methods to use in this self-defense is
certainly a fair one. As I pointed out, there are good arguments
to be made against, say, torture on wholly pragmatic grounds. But there
is no *moral* argument against it ... not when the adversary has a
clear intention of eradicating the very fabric upon which civil society
rests.
>
>
>>There is plenty of US precedent here, instituted by one of the darlings
>>of the ideological Left. FDR instituted an unrelenting campaign of fire
>>against both Dresden and Tokyo (both of which killed far more people
>>than the A-Bomb drops). He did so knowing full well that, while he was
>>attacking centers of war machinery and materiale', he would be killing
>>10s of thousands of civilians in the process. Moreover, he did so
>>against enemies who, however evil, *were* parties to civilized society.
>>who *did* wear uniforms, and were signatories to some notions of
>>international law. If FDRs actions were morally unquestioned (and I
>>think in retrospect they should have been) then today's actions ought to
>>be even less so given the susbtantially fouler enemy in our crosshairs.
>
>
> Not relevant.
Sure it is. It sets *precedent*. You keep trying to appeal to a
legal-moral argument against my position. But "legal" in this country is
built on three things: The founding documents, enacted law, and
*precedent*, especially as established by the appellate process. If
you're going to claim a legal foul (as you have done repeatedly in your
posts) then you have to address the precedents like the one cited above.
How is it that a previously similar situation did not cause the legal
foul you now claim exists?
>
>
>>The only reason to avoid torture and execution of these people (after
>>suitably stuffing them full of bacon sandwiches and then feeding their
>>remains to starving hogs so they can spend the afterlife as pig
>>excrement) is because doing so may be not in our own best interests for
>>a variety of reasons.
>
>
> False.
>
> First and formost, it is morally wrong.
Sez you. It is not "immoral" just because you say so. I claim
it is immoral to *not* act in a manner as to maximally secure
self-defense. You claim it is "morally wrong" but offer no
demonstration as to why.
> Secondly, it is a violation
> of our own laws.
Some of the time and in some circumstances. But there are certainly
precedents where is was not such a violation, and most of the law
you keep wanting to appeal to applies only to military personnel.
It is not baldly and unquestionably a "violation of our own laws."
> Third, to do so would reduce us to a station
> no better than that of our enemies.
Ah, the famous McCain argument. This is a foolish argument easily
refuted a number of ways. McCain probably knows this being a smart guy,
but it works really well when teeing up that Presidential bid (see, I
pick on Republicans too).
First, it is demonstrably possible to torture and kill an enemy of
Liberty without in any other way or in any other mode compromise Liberty
for anyone else. My enemy wants to destroy Liberty for everyone. I resort
to his methods to stop him, thereby depriving only him of his Liberty,
but no one else. I am certainly better than my enemy in this situation.
But, let's just pretend this argument is true. So what? So I'm just as
bad as my enemy. In another thread you argued vehemently for the idea of
evolution and natural selection as being the sole basis for explaining
life as we know it. If that is true, then there is simply no other basis
for morality than self-preservation. You cannot appeal to any higher
morality than mechanism, and mechanism requires self-protection. I will
happily be "no better than our enemies" because our enemies want to
destroy the fabric of Liberty. I will happily behave just as badly
*toward them* in my mechanistic need for self defense. I'm OK with that.
(N.B. For another time/place/newsgroup: No one who subscribes to any
form of pure mechanism to explain life - i.e. Anyone who denies a larger
non-mechanical meaning to life - has any basis whatsoever for abstract
morality. Mechanism only permits mechanistic morality for utility
purposes. Anything more is an inconsistent philosophical appendage.)
>
>
>>I do stipulate that there may be any number of
>>pragmatic reasons to avoid torture and summary execution. Among them
>>would be the bad PR it engenders, the ineffectiveness of torture as a
>>general method of extracting information, the effect is has on our own
>>troops' morale' and so forth. But there is absolutely no *moral* reason
>>to avoid doing so.
>
>
> False. Torture is wrong. That is a basic moral priciple. To argue
> that torture is not morally wrong is to reject morality itself.
Ibid, see above. Your claim of morality has no basis.
>
>
>>Your view is analogous to taking aspirin when you discover cancer. I
>>want the cancer excised with due haste and unrelenting vigor.
>
>
> False. My view is that we are civilized, people become our
> enemies when they engage in uncivilized behaviour. Persons
> who advocate uncivilized behaviour are our enemies in spirit,
> traitors in spirit to the principles of civilization itself.
>
> Your argument is that civilization voluntariyl destory itself in
> order to survive. Truly bizarre.
No, what is bizzare is that you cling to the abstract notions of
civilization, even if it means you'll lose it completely to a third
party taking it apart.
<SNIP>
>
>><SNIP>
>>
>>>>Foreign spies are not entitled
>>>>to the same civil liberties that US citizens and legal residents
>>>>enjoy.
>>>
>>>
>>>That is true.
>>>
>>>But more importantly we, as a civilized
>>>people impose restrictions on ourselves.
>>>If we do not, we have no claim on any moral
>>>authority to try others or even govern ourselves.
>>
>>Baloney. Certainly we do impose these restrictions on ourselves as a
>>matter of civil behavior. But we are not making a "moral claim ... on
>>others". We are attempting to end a threat directed at us and all civil
>>societies around the world.
>
>
> So you say. Yet absurdly you advocate abandoment of
> civilization itself as part that defense.
Briefly, in selected cases, under the supervision of courts, only
as a last resort, and only when directed at people for whom there
is overwhelming evidence to indicate they bring significant
threat or have knowledge than can materially reduce risk to us.
>
>
>>. The Islamic radicals have made it repeatedly
>>clear that their goal is the destruction of liberal civil society and
>>they have demonstrated a willingness to act to that end.
>
>
> To the contrary, they have never indicated anything of the sort.
You don't read much then. They have made this *abundantly* clear
in their many utterances on the matter. Start with memri.org
for translations of major speeches and follow your nose after that.
It shouldn't take you too long to come understand that their position
is the one I stated above.
> They have made it clear that their goal is to etablish theocratic
> government whereever Muslims live in large numbers. They
> have never indicated that they give rat's ass what goes on in
> the rest of the world, so long as we keep buying their oil. We
This is the consistent position of the Western Left and it is
utterly false.
> could achieve peace with the Islamic Fundamentalist by
> completely withdrawing, militarily and politically, from the
> middle East,Southern Asia, and Africa. They would still be
> happy to trade with us. It would be a very practical solution.
> Do you suppose that maybe we should not, because
> we have a moral obligation to not allow religious zealots
> to run amuck murdering innocent people?
If this fairy tale of an analysis were true, I'd be happy to stay out of
their way. We have no moral obligation to act on behalf of other
civilizations except in the matter of self-interest/preservation. But
its not. Militant Islam has sprung up all over the place - in many cases
where the US/West has little or no significant involvement (Malaysia,
Indonesia) or even where the US has been openly supportive (the Afghan
Mujahadeen).
You remind me of the Western Lefties who sat around in the 1930s
pooh-poohing the warnings about the ascent of Communism. "Communism
isn't all that bad", "Oh, its just a local problem.", "Don't be
paranoid, they're not *really* trying to take over the world", and the
like spewed from the Left for a decade. 20 years later we had the Cold
War. 40 years later the expansion into Africa through their Cuban
proxys, 50 years later the Soviets where trying to overtake Afghanistan.
Throughout a good part of this, the ideological Western Left kept
insisting the Communism really wasn't all *that* bad and we needed to
better understand and/or accommodate it. In the mean time, hundreds of
millions of people lived in utter and abject misery under the Red Boot,
in large part because the Western Left elites didn't think that
Communism was global problem. Even now, it's hard to get the real
sinners like Chomsky to admit they were dead wrong.
Radical Islam is an expression of rage wrapped in the trappings of
religion. It represents a threat to all civlization all over the planet
and must be suppressed as rapidly and completely as possible or it will
be "the guy on the bar floor rising up to whack you on the head as you
turn to leave." Evil never gets better on its own. It requires interdiction -
sometimes violent, pleasant, and even uncivilized interdiction - to be
quelled. We fail to do so at our own peril.
<SNIP>
>>...Please understand, I am no fan of this administration on many
>>matters. I merely defend their military and policy posture on the matter
>>of international terror because I think anything less is suicidal.
>>
>
>
> I oppose you on moral grounds, and because
> your approach is to first destroy from within,
> that which makes civilization worth defending
> in the first place.
>
You oppose me on "moral grounds" that you've invented out of thin air,
for which there appears to be no basis, and for which the only claim
is your argument of morality. I, on the other hand, argue on the grounds
that self-defense is inherently moral, that there is global threat to
civilization, and failing to act to suppress that threat by all necessary
means is itself an immoral act.
P.S. Almost by definition, *any* war is "uncivilized". If you *really*
want to argue that "behaving in an uncivilized manner undermines
civilization itself" then consistency demands that you take the pacifist
view that *all* war is immoral. So, you can either be inconsistent
and argue that war itself is sometimes OK but not other, naughtier
kinds of "uncivilized" acts. Or, you can argue that all war is
uncivilized and thus wrong. The obvious problem with pacifism is
that it allows many great evils to continue unabated. Imagine a
world with the Nazis, Soviets, and their ilk still around with
significant power. That's what pacifism would lead to...
--
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
Tim Daneliuk [email protected]
PGP Key: http://www.tundraware.com/PGP/
David Stuve wrote:
> "Tim Daneliuk" <[email protected]> wrote in message
> news:[email protected]...
>
>>David Stuve wrote:
>>
>>
>>>your local library, and do a Lexis Nexis search on Americans torturing
>>>prisoners,
>>
>>You mean aggressively going after *non-uniformed combatants* for
>>whom the Geneva accords do not apply. They can be shot on sight as spies
>>if we like. There is both legal grounds and precedent for doing so.
>
>
> Actually, no. I mean the McCain amendment specifically prohibiting torture.
> Cheney was actively lobbying to exempt the CIA from restrictions using the
> bizarre argument that we are A) strongly against torture, but B) want to be
> able to threaten to do it. That should make your BS detector go berzerk -
> what if your local sherrif or department store detective wanted a similar
> exemption, promising that he would of course never do it..... "We'd never
> torture a shoplifting suspect, but we need the threat of it to act as a
> deterrent."
If we could agree on the exact behavior that consistutes "torture",
I'd be all for it. The problem is that the current language precludes
even making people feel bad. By that definition, making them listen
to Barbara Streisand recordings qualifies.
>
>
>>>no-bid contracts in Iraq, the forged yellowcake documents,
>>
>>To misquote a famous person from history, "The Left is an Ass". the
>>no-bid Halliburton contracts were let out under the *Clinton*
>>administration primarily because there are so few companies who
>>can/will do this work at the relatively low net margins to be had.
>
>
> If the no-bid contracts were let out under Clinton as you say, why was
> Cheney personally involved in handing them out after the Iraq invasion?
I have no idea and I'd like to know: a) If this is true, and b) Why
it is so, if it is so.
Oh, and as to the "forged yellowcake..." tell that to the soldiers who
just carted out tons of uranium from Iraq over the past year. That
particular document may well have been bogus, but the material was
certainly in country somehow ...
>
>>>interference with CIA intelligence gathering, the outing of Valerie
>>>Plame,
>>
>>There will be due process to find out who did what as regards to the
>>whole Plame matter. Stay tuned - it will have been much ado about
>>nothing.
>
>
> Cheney was obsessed with Joe Wilson, and he and "Scooter" followed his every
> move. I find this very paranoia unsettling behavoir, especially when
> combined with his fondness of torture...
This is supported by what? A New York Times editorial? Al Franken
drooling all over himself? National Whiner Public Radio commentary?
I'm not saying you're wrong, only that I've seen no credible proof of
such accusations.
>
>
>>>the botched reconstruction of New Orleans, and the recent scandal about
>>
>>Go find a history book with small words and simple concepts.
>
>
> The handling of New Orleans was disturbingly similar to how Cheney handled
> Iraq. Cheney came in to run things, and lots of out-of-state contractors
> got all of the work, local companies got nothing, and lots of money changed
> hands and people are still in desparate straits down there.
It is NOT the federal government's job (no Constitutional authority) to:
1) Be first responder in a natural disaster
2) Override the instructions of the local major/governor
3) Rebuild cities at the taxpayers expense.
First you bitched that the Cheney "botched" the reconstruction of NO.
Now you don't like the *way* he handed out money. Don't you get it?
The problem is his (and the Feds) being involved *at all*
>
>
>>>ordering the NSA to spy on Americans. Cheneys name will be prominently
>>
>>Again, we need to help you with the concept here. The NSA was not given
>>an unlimited hunting license. They were only given room to do this when
>
>
> Really? They haven't released any information about who they spied on.
No, but they've told us that the targets were people making international
phone calls to known/suspected terror operatives. It's a reasonable
deduction.
> I've seen an AP story in the last couple of days hinting that the spying was
> much more widespread than Bush has admitted to. What's even more bizarre is
> that they can retroactively get warrants within 72 hours of doing
> wiretapping, but they just didn't bother. That indifference to the law
> can't be ignored by us if we wish to remain free people.
I agree with that completely. Too bad we didn't enforce that (thereby
setting precedent) with Johnson and Clinton (to name just two) first.
>
>
>>>featured in *all* of those subjects.
>>>
>>>I guess you could argue that Cheney is innocent, but that would be more
>>>than he does. Usually when asked about any of these issues they're
>>>"classified or no comment."
>>
>>Grow up. Cheney is neither guilty nor innocent. He is a cog in a big
>>machine. A big machine made bigger for 70 years by the Chimps on the Left
>>and now getting even bigger because of the Chimps on the Right. Blaming
>>Cheney
>>misses the point and diverts the blame from the real culprit: The
>>American
>>People
>
>
> Interesting comment - I agree that the American people have much to wake up
> to, but that doesn't absolve Cheney of anything. He's simply guilty of
> being weak and giveng into the pressure of finding the quick and easy (and
> usually illegal) fix. I'm looking forward to him being replaced by someone
> who's actually willing to do the 'hard work' to try and do the right thing.
Cheney's not the problem. You can replace him in a minute and nothing
changes. So long as the Sheeple act as they do, government is:
1) Going to have way too much power
2) Be so large as to be incompetent most of the time
3) Be slow to fix real problems
4) Be bogged down in stupid minutae not in its actual charter
The way to fix this is to slim the Federal government back to its
Constitutionally mandated charter: Run the courts, defend the borders,
regulate *inter* state commerce (only), and, of course, run the Post Office.
--
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
Tim Daneliuk [email protected]
PGP Key: http://www.tundraware.com/PGP/
On Fri, 23 Dec 2005 09:35:19 -0800, David Stuve <[email protected]> wrote:
> "Mark & Juanita" <[email protected]> wrote in message
> news:[email protected]...
>> Probably would have been a good thing. Funny thing was, that there was
>> really only one comment made in that vein. Now you've managed to turn
>> that
>> into an excoriation of not just the sitting president, but all former
>> presidents who didn't share your party affiliation or apparent left-wing
>> views.
>
> You know, you're right Mark. I should have stuck to woodworking;
And then, you reply with hundreds of lines of propaganda.
> -ignoring warnings about Bin Ladin because Clinton was "obsessed with him"
Your interpretation was flawed.
> -ignoring North Korea because Clinton was so interested in making deals with
> him
Ditto.
> -using 9/11 to satisfy his personal score with Saddam
Saddam claimed he had WMD. The Democrats in congress agreed that Saddam
had WMD (yes, I can provide the link to the cites. Again.) AQ didn't
like us. The stated reason for going to war, which the Democrats agreed
with (and now pretend they never heard of) was to keep Saddam from
giving the WMDs that all agreed he had, to AQ.
> -lying and using forged uranium documents to justify the war
Bush is in Britain now?
> -outing a CIA agent active in nuclear arms proliferation work
Yawn.
> -doing nothing after 9/11 to stop the greatest layoff of American workers
> we've ever seen
What the HELL was Bush supposed to do about that? You give the guy
credit for more power than he has.
> -losing America's most important port city to hurricane Katrina -
Yeah, because he controls the weather now (rolls eyes)
> and then
> lying and saying he was never asked for help
The Governor controls the National Guard and you (should) know it. Bush
sending federal troops into a state without a request from the governer
would have been a serious abuse of constitutional protections.
> -never firing people for screwing up badly - only those who disagree with
> him
Yawn.
> -*and this just in, he's had the NSA spying on Americans* with no Judicial
> oversight
We'll see.
> Oops, as Reagan famously quipped: there I go again. Off to the woodshop to
> atone for my rant... I'm making sliding drawers for my kitchen cabinets.
> Fun stuff.
Yeah, I'm sure this was an accidental rant.
Mark & Juanita wrote:
> My last response on this to you Fred. I'm tired of your @#$%'ing with
> the follow-ups. I'm not playing that game.
>
> On Sat, 24 Dec 2005 13:47:31 -0700, Mark & Juanita <[email protected]>
> wrote:
>
> >On 24 Dec 2005 11:37:07 -0800, [email protected] wrote:
> >
> >>Note crossposting and followups
> >>
> >>Mark & Juanita wrote:
> >>> On Sat, 24 Dec 2005 06:28:22 GMT, "CW" <[email protected]> wrote:
> >>>
> >>> >Did you notice that there was never a declaration of war? Easier to get away
> >>> >with things if you don't have to worry about details like the Geneva
> >>> >Convention.
> >>>
> >>> Given that the Geneva convention applies to uniformed combatants,
> >>
> >>False.
> >>
> >>You should read them before commenting on them.
> >>
> >>The US has not ratified all of the Geneva conventions which does tend
> >>to complicate the issue as to exactlywhat our obligations are. But a
> >>refusal to regognize some of the convention, or parts of them does NOT
> >>justify saying that the Conventions themselves do not have those
> >>provisions.
> >
>
> Fine Fred, yes the Geneva Convention addresses spies and saboteurs, not
> allowing torture, but fully allowing execution of said spies and
> saboteurs, they just have to be granted a trial prior to execution. They
> are NOT treated as prisoners of war in the same manner as uniformed
> regulars.
Good. I'm glad you took the time to read them.
Now, the nest time one of your idols prattles on about how the GCs
don't
protect someone, what are you gonig to think about him?
>
>
> >>
> >>The US _has_ ratified the Convention prohibiting torture inhuman
> >>treatment
> >>and cruel aand degrading punishment which applies to everyone without
> >>exception, even our own citizens.
> >>
> >
> Therein lies the problem, we are now extending that "cruel and degrading"
> treatment clause to include "making the terrorists uncomfortable".
>
No.
OTOH, water torture is tortue, no matter what you call it.
How were Habibullah and Dilawar killed?
Why?
>
> Bottom line, with thinking like this, we are doomed as a country.
>
If by thinking like this you mean abandoning morality and rejecting
the rule of law, which you seem to advocate or at least excuse,
yes.
--
FF
My last response on this to you Fred. I'm tired of your @#$%'ing with
the follow-ups. I'm not playing that game.
On Sat, 24 Dec 2005 13:47:31 -0700, Mark & Juanita <[email protected]>
wrote:
>On 24 Dec 2005 11:37:07 -0800, [email protected] wrote:
>
>>Note crossposting and followups
>>
>>Mark & Juanita wrote:
>>> On Sat, 24 Dec 2005 06:28:22 GMT, "CW" <[email protected]> wrote:
>>>
>>> >Did you notice that there was never a declaration of war? Easier to get away
>>> >with things if you don't have to worry about details like the Geneva
>>> >Convention.
>>>
>>> Given that the Geneva convention applies to uniformed combatants,
>>
>>False.
>>
>>You should read them before commenting on them.
>>
>>The US has not ratified all of the Geneva conventions which does tend
>>to complicate the issue as to exactlywhat our obligations are. But a
>>refusal to regognize some of the convention, or parts of them does NOT
>>justify saying that the Conventions themselves do not have those
>>provisions.
>
Fine Fred, yes the Geneva Convention addresses spies and saboteurs, not
allowing torture, but fully allowing execution of said spies and
saboteurs, they just have to be granted a trial prior to execution. They
are NOT treated as prisoners of war in the same manner as uniformed
regulars.
>>
>>The US _has_ ratified the Convention prohibiting torture inhuman
>>treatment
>>and cruel aand degrading punishment which applies to everyone without
>>exception, even our own citizens.
>>
>
Therein lies the problem, we are now extending that "cruel and degrading"
treatment clause to include "making the terrorists uncomfortable".
"Please Mr. Terrorist, we know you are planning an attack, we found parts
of the explosives, the rest are gone. Where are they? Please tell us. Oh,
you're thirsty -- here's a glass of water, is it too warm in here? Please,
tell us where that car bomb is, please. Are you hungry? Is that chair
comfortable enough. Where is that car bomb?"
Bottom line, with thinking like this, we are doomed as a country.
+--------------------------------------------------------------------------------+
If you're gonna be dumb, you better be tough
+--------------------------------------------------------------------------------+
He has done a lot of work with Habitat, you may find something at their
site.
<[email protected]> wrote in message
news:[email protected]...
>
> Is there a good website with some of Jimmy carter's woodworking.
> I would love to see his work up close.
>
> Thanks
> --
>
> Greg
> Cowboy Up has taken on a whole different meaning lately
http://www.polisci.ucla.edu/faculty/groseclose/Media.Bias.8.htm
"Charles Self" <[email protected]> wrote in message
news:[email protected]...
> "David Stuve" <[email protected]> wrote in message
> news:[email protected]...
> >
> > "Mark & Juanita" <[email protected]> wrote in message
> > news:[email protected]...
> >> On Fri, 23 Dec 2005 21:50:14 -0800, "David Stuve"
<[email protected]>
> >> wrote:
> >
> >> Let me guess, you don't actually *read* or *watch* Fox News, do
you?
> >> If
> >> you did, you would realize that they have the same biased sources
as all
> >> of
> >> the other news outlets. The majority of their stories come from
the AP
> >> (hardly a bastion of conservative apologists) and are published
verbatim
> >> from the AP. The only thing that makes them "conservative" is that
fact
> >> that they have more than one or two token conservative commentators
on
> >> staff and their commentators try to restore some balance to the
slant
> >> that
> >> AP, Reuters, and the NYT put on all of their "news" reports.
> >
> > Actually Mark, I used to watch Fox News overseas. It's a completely
> > different show, and is actually pretty good. Coming back to the US
I was
> > amazed to see the US version is like a weird parody of a news show.
> > Everything is an swoosh-swoosh-swoosh NEWS ALERT! DANGER! PAY
ATTENTION
> > NOW! They claim that they are 'fair and balanced (tm)', but my
> > experiences say otherwise. Flipping through the channels during
2004 it
> > seemed like every day they had a TERROR ALERT! when none of the
other
> > channels did. Their trumped up "War On Christmas" is almost surreal,
and
> > seems to be aimed purely at getting people angry. And their hosts
make me
> > nervous - Bill O'Reilly seems to get most of his popularity by
raging at
> > and intimidating people who don't agree with him, and Hannity isn't
much
> > more open minded. As a regular guest, Anne Coulter's weird jokes (at
least
> > I think they're jokes) creep me out about killing people who don't
agree
> > with her. The other news channels report bad things happening in
Iraq and
> > Fox prefers to report how happy people are there. There's this
bizarre
> > circus atmosphere to Fox News that makes my head hurt. Yet, they're
#1 I
> > believe. Personally I think it's a deer in the headlights
phenomenon. Get
> > people's hearts pounding in anger, fear, or self-righteousness, and
> > they'll keep watching.
> >
> > After reading the London Times and the Guardian for a few years, I
realize
> > that all US media is biased. It pretty much has to be, since
Americans
> > report the news. The Brits will report things like "US Troops
invade
> > Fallujah, 2000 killed and tens of thousands driven from their
homes."
> > It's just a cold, naked fact. The US services will report the same
story
> > as "US Forces Liberate Fallujah, Rumsfeld optimistic for continued
> > success." There's a lot of spin in that headline.
> >
> > Well, have a Merry Christmas and I hope you all get your news from
more
> > than just one source.
> >
>
> Last night, Forest Gump's 'Nam scenes showed up on my SIL's TV set as
we
> came in. Weird movie for Christmas Eve, but...who knows with
teenagers.
> Anyway, I thought during that part of the show that if today's
reporters
> were allowed to show the action in Iraq as the 'Nam reporters showed
the
> action back then, we'd already be out of Iraq.
>
> But, hey, the media is biased. We can't ALLOW them to show real action
that
> results in real deaths and maiming because then...oh, right. Because
then
> parents and brothers and sisters and wives and children might insist
on
> better reasons for the bloodshed.
>
> Merry Christmas all.
>
> And for the nitwit who thinks I wouldn't have supported Roosevelt's
actions
> in WWII, learn something about people, life and the English language.
>
> Mark--show some cites for some of your claims, and while you're doing
that,
> understand that being great and being perfect are two very, very
different
> things.
>
>
----== Posted via Newsfeeds.Com - Unlimited-Unrestricted-Secure Usenet News==----
http://www.newsfeeds.com The #1 Newsgroup Service in the World! 120,000+ Newsgroups
----= East and West-Coast Server Farms - Total Privacy via Encryption =----
On 26 Dec 2005 18:15:05 EST, Tim Daneliuk <[email protected]>
wrote:
>You're also not giving Coulter her due when she's right. She's said
>for a very long time that McCarthy - however big a jerk he was -
>was correct about the degree of Communist infiltration of the US
>generally, and the government particularly. She has been vindicated
>in this claim. For all the gory details see:
>
Did you go to college?
If you did, does the concept of Academic Freedom have any resonance?
If every teacher at the college level is to be judged by what meetings
they attended, and I mean, attended, which is different than the
degree of participation breathlessly proclaimed by your reference,
then the whole concept goes to hell.
And it is a fine concept.
When I was at school I had a course in Marxism.
Does that make me a Marxist?
If I had chosen to work for the government and Fox News dug up the
fact that I had taken a course on Marxism, and referred to it as:
"Mr. Watson was heavily involved in Marxist thought as a young man.",
Without explaining further, without misstating the fact but ignoring
the context of the facts - would you be OK with that?
Oppenheimer was an academic, who went to work for the government, as
so many do. When Joe decided to go after he and others,Joe acted very
much like Fox News.
That is why I call Fox News -
The New McCarthyism.
Tom Watson - WoodDorker
tjwatson1ATcomcastDOTnet (email)
http://home.comcast.net/~tjwatson1/ (website)
On Fri, 30 Dec 2005 22:58:08 -0800, David <[email protected]> wrote:
>Tim Daneliuk wrote:
>
>> In the absence of anything resembling a coherent argument it's
>> offically Big Fun to for the ad hominem ramble. Your foolishness
>> is manifest for all to see. (Oh, and cussin' is the choice of
>> first resort for 12 year olds ...)
>
>Not one to get in on political OT posts, or much else OT, except for a
>few select ones, I BROWSED his post and was dismayed to see the choice
>of words he found either amusing or necessary, from HIS point of view.
>I don't share his point of view, nor his choice of words...
>
>In short, I concur with your assessment of a post from he who once was a
>notable and sometimes witty poster to the Wreck. Could it be we have
>been duped by an impostor? I doubt it, due to the writing style. What
>a shame (that he wrote as he did).
>
>Dave
Oh Lordy! A counterpoint from Bay Area Dave.
You are in great company, Daneliuck.
Further Away Than Yesterday
http://home.comcast.net/~tjwatson1/
Tom Watson wrote:
> On 26 Dec 2005 18:15:05 EST, Tim Daneliuk <[email protected]>
> wrote:
>
>
>
>>You're also not giving Coulter her due when she's right. She's said
>>for a very long time that McCarthy - however big a jerk he was -
>>was correct about the degree of Communist infiltration of the US
>>generally, and the government particularly. She has been vindicated
>>in this claim. For all the gory details see:
>>
>
>
>
> Did you go to college?
Yes. And Graduate School. And I taught Grad School as well.
> If you did, does the concept of Academic Freedom have any resonance?
It does. It is also a distant memory, killed off primarily by the
drooling chimps on the political Left in this case. See this for many
pungent examples:
http://www.thefire.org/
Moreover, there have always been reasonable limits to academic freedom.
I taught in a private Catholic university. I am not Catholic. I was not
"free" to denigrate Catholicism, promote Protestantism, or otherwise
thwart the stated religious position of the school. Similarly, the
physics professors were not "free" to teach that the sun revolved around
a flat earth.
These days "adademic freedom" mostly gets trotted out by the Left when
they want public monies to continue running their collectivist madrassas
in the public university system. The organization referenced above is
one of the few left actually interested in true academic discourse.
>
> If every teacher at the college level is to be judged by what meetings
> they attended, and I mean, attended, which is different than the
> degree of participation breathlessly proclaimed by your reference,
> then the whole concept goes to hell.
There is a profound difference between a bunch of ignorant Smelly
Hippies going to a Berkeley lecture on the joys of Marxism and active
Communist infiltration of the US government from FDR forward. Mitrokhin
details this and many other Communist activities like KGB funding of the
'anti war' movement in the 1960s in exquisite detail.
Did HUAC and McCarthy go too far? Of course. Congress Critters almost
always do. But their deeply held suspicions about the malodorous
presence of Communism in US government was well founded. And *that* is
what Coulter has been almost alone in defending.
>
> And it is a fine concept.
>
> When I was at school I had a course in Marxism.
>
> Does that make me a Marxist?
Depends whether or not you bought the nonsense Marx peddled.
>
> If I had chosen to work for the government and Fox News dug up the
> fact that I had taken a course on Marxism, and referred to it as:
>
> "Mr. Watson was heavily involved in Marxist thought as a young man.",
>
> Without explaining further, without misstating the fact but ignoring
> the context of the facts - would you be OK with that?
Do you have no stones of your own? Are you incapable of speaking in your
own defense? Are you so tender and delicate that the first sign of
accusation would have you running to hide? Given your many blustering
posts here, I rather doubt anyone could accuse you of much of anything
without some sharp retort on your part.
>
> Oppenheimer was an academic, who went to work for the government, as
> so many do. When Joe decided to go after he and others,Joe acted very
> much like Fox News.
Excuse me Sparky, but the fear that Oppenheimer might be an active
Communist again turns out to have great basis in reality. Go read
"Bombshell" by Albright et al for (again) an detailed analysis of the
considerable presence of Communist agents among the US atomic community
throughout the end of WWII and thereafter. There was an active Communist
presence at all levels of the atomic research world that ultimately led
to the bomb being given to the Soviets. And these were not of the the "I
attended a meeting and listened to Marxist drivel" variety. These were
confirmed ideological Communists working for a foreign power while a
part of a key US defense system.
But for the Professionally Enlightened Thinkers like you, it's just too
mean to go after people suspected of such things. If, say, we today
discovered the chief scientist of Los Alamos (the place where they do nuke
weapons simulation) was a radical Islamist, you'd no doubt be outraged
if the US government actually did something about it. Never let sanity
get in the way of Political Correctness.
Again, HUAC and McCarthy behaved badly ... and the rest of the Congress
went along with it, at least for a while. But that doesn't change the
fundamentally correct basis upon which they were proceeding. There *was*
Communist intelligence presence in virtually every strata of US
government, public institutions, and popular culture. It represented an
active an ongoing attempt by the Soviets to overthrow the US. The Soviet
intention of world domination never wavered except at the very end. It
merely changed tactics over time.
The problem with most people who grew up in North America and/or only in
the last 30 years is that you don't grasp how profoundly evil Communism
actually is. You're deeply concerned about "Free Speech" and "Academic
Freedom" without grasping that neither exist at all in a
Communist/Collectivism system. You don't begin to grasp the horrors
foisted upon 10s of millions of people by the Communists in the first
half of the 20th Century alone. Stalin killed between 20 and 30 million
of my countrymen in *less than 3 years* (thus making Hitler look like a
mere piker) and that was before WWII even got started. Having a high
degree of suspicion and fear of Communism was utterly justified in the
1940s-1980s. The behavior of the Soviets, Chinese, Mongolians, Cubans,
Angolans, etc. fully justified the West treating Communism as the cancer
that it was. Only in the halls of the Western academy, filled with
drooling Lefties, could Communism ever have been given a serious voice.
>
> That is why I call Fox News -
>
>
> The New McCarthyism.
You live in a world of illusion. Fox _news_ is not bent particularly
more to the Right than ABC/NBC/CBS news is bent to the Left. What makes
Fox different is that their _editorial_ bias is to the Right. So what?
For years the major networks and CNN have flogged a bias to the Left in
their editorial mumblings (listen to Lew Dobbs groan on with collectivist
fervor about the evils of offshoring, for instance). I say good for the
Right for finally fighting back. While I almost always disagree with
both the Left and Right on policy matters, in the absence of Fox there
would be NO balance - the whole mainstream news machine would be where
it was 20 years ago - completely tilted Left. Fox itself is not
"fair and balanced" editorially, but they bring balance to a previously
very tilted playing field.
But the real story here is None Of The Above. For the first time since
the Left collectivized the West in the 1940s and forward, people who hate
collectivism are fighting back. The Left is now faced with real critique
by Conservatives, Libertarians, and all manner of people who actually
value freedom. What we're finding, of course, is that the Left is
ideologically, spiritually, and intellectually a vacuum. It is a bag
of lousy ideas glued together with condescension and contempt for
"the people". Moreover, we now can examine the results of the 20th
Century lab experiment in collectivism and see the incredible damange
and suffering wrought at the hands of a system that Western Lefties
defended regularly.
And that's why there is so much screaming about Fox. It is one of many
places that expose the Left for the fraud that it is. Make no mistake
about it, the Right has plenty of really bad ideas. But the Right hasn't
been running things for 70 years. For most of the past century it has
been the Left that controlled culture, politics, policy, art,
literature, and the academy as a whole. It is high time the Left got
hoisted on its own petard...
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
Tim Daneliuk [email protected]
PGP Key: http://www.tundraware.com/PGP/
On Mon, 26 Dec 2005 15:25:24 -0700, Mark & Juanita
<[email protected]> wrote:
> Then I'm sure you feel the same way about political "commentators" like
>Michael Moore and Al Franken?
They are not Political Commentators.
"Political Commentator" is a term that the media uses to describe a
half way house between Editorial Staff and Some Asshole Off The
Street.
Michael Moore and Al Franken, in this instance, would fall into the
latter category.
So would you - or I.
Unless someone pays them.
In this case, someone does.
I personally believe that this brings them under the umbrella of
Editorial Staff. But - WTF do I know.
BTW - Fox News is a fucking joke.
("Remember The Maine")
Tom Watson - WoodDorker
tjwatson1ATcomcastDOTnet (email)
http://home.comcast.net/~tjwatson1/ (website)
"Mark & Juanita" <[email protected]> wrote in message
news:[email protected]...
> On Fri, 23 Dec 2005 21:50:14 -0800, "David Stuve" <[email protected]>
> wrote:
> Let me guess, you don't actually *read* or *watch* Fox News, do you? If
> you did, you would realize that they have the same biased sources as all
> of
> the other news outlets. The majority of their stories come from the AP
> (hardly a bastion of conservative apologists) and are published verbatim
> from the AP. The only thing that makes them "conservative" is that fact
> that they have more than one or two token conservative commentators on
> staff and their commentators try to restore some balance to the slant that
> AP, Reuters, and the NYT put on all of their "news" reports.
Actually Mark, I used to watch Fox News overseas. It's a completely
different show, and is actually pretty good. Coming back to the US I was
amazed to see the US version is like a weird parody of a news show.
Everything is an swoosh-swoosh-swoosh NEWS ALERT! DANGER! PAY ATTENTION
NOW! They claim that they are 'fair and balanced (tm)', but my experiences
say otherwise. Flipping through the channels during 2004 it seemed like
every day they had a TERROR ALERT! when none of the other channels did.
Their trumped up "War On Christmas" is almost surreal, and seems to be aimed
purely at getting people angry. And their hosts make me nervous - Bill
O'Reilly seems to get most of his popularity by raging at and intimidating
people who don't agree with him, and Hannity isn't much more open minded.
As a regular guest, Anne Coulter's weird jokes (at least I think they're
jokes) creep me out about killing people who don't agree with her. The
other news channels report bad things happening in Iraq and Fox prefers to
report how happy people are there. There's this bizarre circus atmosphere
to Fox News that makes my head hurt. Yet, they're #1 I believe. Personally
I think it's a deer in the headlights phenomenon. Get people's hearts
pounding in anger, fear, or self-righteousness, and they'll keep watching.
After reading the London Times and the Guardian for a few years, I realize
that all US media is biased. It pretty much has to be, since Americans
report the news. The Brits will report things like "US Troops invade
Fallujah, 2000 killed and tens of thousands driven from their homes." It's
just a cold, naked fact. The US services will report the same story as "US
Forces Liberate Fallujah, Rumsfeld optimistic for continued success."
There's a lot of spin in that headline.
Well, have a Merry Christmas and I hope you all get your news from more than
just one source.
Dave
"Steve W." <[email protected]> wrote in message
news:[email protected]...
> http://www.polisci.ucla.edu/faculty/groseclose/Media.Bias.8.htm
>
>
Thanks Steve, that was an interesting read. I think the study is flawed -
their metrics are just way too simple. I'm no expert, but I've seen bias
show up in editorial decisions of what to cover, and then the opinion
pieces - neither of which is covered by the study.
examples:
I could run stories all day long challenging the administration, bring
guests on who call the administration a bunch of cruel jerks that would make
Scrooge look like Mother Theresa, and cite a few studies by the Rand
corporation in a story about national defense and be branded on the right
politically?
Or run terror alerts all day, wave the flag and try to make GW look heroic
no matter what, cynically urgent stories about "Christmas Under Attack", a
few hours of Hannity and O'Reilly complaining that our social safety net is
wasteful and for sissies, and that John Kerry looks French and you don't
trust him. Put up one chart by the Brookings Institute on the economy and
you're politically on the Left?
Or better yet, run whatever you want but don't cite anybody, just lace your
coverage with "some say" or "there are those who say" and then enter your
pro- or ant- bias there. Your citation ratio is 0 - does that mean you're
politically neutral?
Or what if your politician for comparison is a rabid idealogue who rages all
day on the senate or house floor using emotion and innuendo to make ugly
slurs against the Left or Right and never uses citations to back up their
crazy arguments. Are they centrist?
Wow, the more I write the less I like their metrics. I'd be very interested
to see who's funding this study. It smells like one of those "here's the
conclusion we want, make something fit" studies used all too often in
politics these days.
Dave
On Fri, 23 Dec 2005 21:50:14 -0800, "David Stuve" <[email protected]> wrote:
... snip
>The average person on the street probably doesn't follow politics much, but
>in their eyes politicians over time tend to suffer from the death of a
>thousand cuts as scandals and negatives start to stick. The key to
>long-term success is to keep the positives outweighing the negatives. GW's
>positives are pretty weak right now. Current opinion polls show a majority
>of Americans don't approve of his handling of foreign or domestic issues.
>And as for negatives, unless a person gets their news exclusively from a
>Rupurt Murdoch owned outlet (FAUX news anyone?) there have been plenty of
>negatives reported in the last five years:
Let me guess, you don't actually *read* or *watch* Fox News, do you? If
you did, you would realize that they have the same biased sources as all of
the other news outlets. The majority of their stories come from the AP
(hardly a bastion of conservative apologists) and are published verbatim
from the AP. The only thing that makes them "conservative" is that fact
that they have more than one or two token conservative commentators on
staff and their commentators try to restore some balance to the slant that
AP, Reuters, and the NYT put on all of their "news" reports.
... snip
+--------------------------------------------------------------------------------+
If you're gonna be dumb, you better be tough
+--------------------------------------------------------------------------------+
Guess who wrote:
> On Mon, 26 Dec 2005 08:49:53 GMT, "Charles Self"
> <[email protected]> wrote:
>
> >Between the three of you, come up with a sensible way
> >of ruling the world.
>
> Simple: Make me king. The first thing I'd do is stop the OT crap that
> ruins otherwise sensible newsgroups, and then move on to stop other
> kinds of abuse.
Like the OT crap you just posted?
On Mon, 26 Dec 2005 08:49:53 GMT, "Charles Self"
<[email protected]> wrote:
>Between the three of you, come up with a sensible way
>of ruling the world.
Simple: Make me king. The first thing I'd do is stop the OT crap that
ruins otherwise sensible newsgroups, and then move on to stop other
kinds of abuse.
I AGREE
"Guess who" <[email protected]> wrote in message
news:[email protected]...
> On Mon, 26 Dec 2005 08:49:53 GMT, "Charles Self"
> <[email protected]> wrote:
>
>>Between the three of you, come up with a sensible way
>>of ruling the world.
>
> Simple: Make me king. The first thing I'd do is stop the OT crap that
> ruins otherwise sensible newsgroups, and then move on to stop other
> kinds of abuse.
>
"David Stuve" <[email protected]> wrote in message
news:[email protected]...
>
> "Mark & Juanita" <[email protected]> wrote in message
> news:[email protected]...
>> On Fri, 23 Dec 2005 21:50:14 -0800, "David Stuve" <[email protected]>
>> wrote:
>
>> Let me guess, you don't actually *read* or *watch* Fox News, do you?
>> If
>> you did, you would realize that they have the same biased sources as all
>> of
>> the other news outlets. The majority of their stories come from the AP
>> (hardly a bastion of conservative apologists) and are published verbatim
>> from the AP. The only thing that makes them "conservative" is that fact
>> that they have more than one or two token conservative commentators on
>> staff and their commentators try to restore some balance to the slant
>> that
>> AP, Reuters, and the NYT put on all of their "news" reports.
>
> Actually Mark, I used to watch Fox News overseas. It's a completely
> different show, and is actually pretty good. Coming back to the US I was
> amazed to see the US version is like a weird parody of a news show.
> Everything is an swoosh-swoosh-swoosh NEWS ALERT! DANGER! PAY ATTENTION
> NOW! They claim that they are 'fair and balanced (tm)', but my
> experiences say otherwise. Flipping through the channels during 2004 it
> seemed like every day they had a TERROR ALERT! when none of the other
> channels did. Their trumped up "War On Christmas" is almost surreal, and
> seems to be aimed purely at getting people angry. And their hosts make me
> nervous - Bill O'Reilly seems to get most of his popularity by raging at
> and intimidating people who don't agree with him, and Hannity isn't much
> more open minded. As a regular guest, Anne Coulter's weird jokes (at least
> I think they're jokes) creep me out about killing people who don't agree
> with her. The other news channels report bad things happening in Iraq and
> Fox prefers to report how happy people are there. There's this bizarre
> circus atmosphere to Fox News that makes my head hurt. Yet, they're #1 I
> believe. Personally I think it's a deer in the headlights phenomenon. Get
> people's hearts pounding in anger, fear, or self-righteousness, and
> they'll keep watching.
>
> After reading the London Times and the Guardian for a few years, I realize
> that all US media is biased. It pretty much has to be, since Americans
> report the news. The Brits will report things like "US Troops invade
> Fallujah, 2000 killed and tens of thousands driven from their homes."
> It's just a cold, naked fact. The US services will report the same story
> as "US Forces Liberate Fallujah, Rumsfeld optimistic for continued
> success." There's a lot of spin in that headline.
>
> Well, have a Merry Christmas and I hope you all get your news from more
> than just one source.
>
Last night, Forest Gump's 'Nam scenes showed up on my SIL's TV set as we
came in. Weird movie for Christmas Eve, but...who knows with teenagers.
Anyway, I thought during that part of the show that if today's reporters
were allowed to show the action in Iraq as the 'Nam reporters showed the
action back then, we'd already be out of Iraq.
But, hey, the media is biased. We can't ALLOW them to show real action that
results in real deaths and maiming because then...oh, right. Because then
parents and brothers and sisters and wives and children might insist on
better reasons for the bloodshed.
Merry Christmas all.
And for the nitwit who thinks I wouldn't have supported Roosevelt's actions
in WWII, learn something about people, life and the English language.
Mark--show some cites for some of your claims, and while you're doing that,
understand that being great and being perfect are two very, very different
things.
On Mon, 26 Dec 2005 21:12:26 GMT, "Charles Self"
<[email protected]> wrote:
>
>"Tim Daneliuk" <[email protected]> wrote in message
>news:[email protected]...
>>
>> Hee, hee - I was just teasin' Charlie - I often don't agree with her
>> either. I do not, however, think she is "vile". You may not like her
>> ideas, but at least she hasn't, say, gotten drunk, dunked her car into
>> a river, killed her fellow passenger, and then lied about it all. *That*
>> is vile.
>
>One action, or series of actions, by one person, something over 30 years
>ago, and that seems to be all many people can think of. Coulter IS vile. She
>would murder if she thought she could get away with, and she incites others
>to do so.
>
Then I'm sure you feel the same way about political "commentators" like
Michael Moore and Al Franken?
>>
>> Ann is also right about some things now and then. But mostly, she is
>> entertaining. I love to watch the Rightwingers wince and the Lefties
>> shriek when she says something especially provocative. It's mighty
>> entertaining to see someone treat politics for the complete sham that
>> it is.
>
>Political commentators need to be entertaining, but when their entertainment
>is primarily shock value from moronic and dangerous attitudes, then they are
>vile.
... snip
+--------------------------------------------------------------------------------+
If you're gonna be dumb, you better be tough
+--------------------------------------------------------------------------------+
"Mark & Juanita" <[email protected]> wrote in message
news:[email protected]...
> On Mon, 26 Dec 2005 21:12:26 GMT, "Charles Self"
> <[email protected]> wrote:
>
>>
>>"Tim Daneliuk" <[email protected]> wrote in message
>>news:[email protected]...
>>>
>>> Hee, hee - I was just teasin' Charlie - I often don't agree with her
>>> either. I do not, however, think she is "vile". You may not like her
>>> ideas, but at least she hasn't, say, gotten drunk, dunked her car into
>>> a river, killed her fellow passenger, and then lied about it all.
>>> *That*
>>> is vile.
>>
>>One action, or series of actions, by one person, something over 30 years
>>ago, and that seems to be all many people can think of. Coulter IS vile.
>>She
>>would murder if she thought she could get away with, and she incites
>>others
>>to do so.
>>
>
> Then I'm sure you feel the same way about political "commentators" like
> Michael Moore and Al Franken?
>
>
>
>>>
>>> Ann is also right about some things now and then. But mostly, she is
>>> entertaining. I love to watch the Rightwingers wince and the Lefties
>>> shriek when she says something especially provocative. It's mighty
>>> entertaining to see someone treat politics for the complete sham that
>>> it is.
>>
>>Political commentators need to be entertaining, but when their
>>entertainment
>>is primarily shock value from moronic and dangerous attitudes, then they
>>are
>>vile.
> ... snip
Actually, I don't much like them, but I don't recall them delighting in the
concept of nuking another country, so, no, they're not vile, at least not in
the same sense as Ms Coulter.
"Steve W." <[email protected]> wrote in message
news:[email protected]...
> http://www.polisci.ucla.edu/faculty/groseclose/Media.Bias.8.htm
Interesting. According to their rankings, Fox News with Brit Hume is closer
to center than any of the major networks' nightly newscasts. And the CBS
Evening News gets the same score as the New York Times. In commening on
whether or not there exists a liberal bias in major media outlets, the study
says: "Our results show a strong liberal bias. All of the news outlets
except Fox News' Special Report and the Washington Times received a score to
the left of the average member of Congress. And a few outlets, including
the New York Times and CBS Evening News, were closer to the average Democrat
in Congress than the center."
todd
Mark & Juanita wrote:
>
> ...
>
> Moore pales in comparison with Al Franken in the vileness department;
> Franken makes Coulter look like a nun. At a black tie dinner in
> Washington, Franken went up to Karl Rove and said, "I'm Al Franken, I hate
> you and you hate me". Rove told him, "I haven't met you. You seem like a
> nice fellow, sorry to disappoint you, but I don't hate you" (Newsweek,
> March 29, 2004). One of his comments directed toward John McCain, "Anybody
> could get captured. Essentially he sat out the war". In the April 26,
> 1976 Harvard Crimson, while Franken was writing for SNL, "I just don't like
> Homosexuals. If you ask me, they're all homosexuals in the Pudding
> [reference to Hasty Pudding Club which he was not asked to join while he
> was at Harvard]. Hey, I was glad when that Pudding homosexual got killed in
> Philedelphia" Seems like that is the very definition of vile. There are
> numerous other examples, most of which are much more than some statements
> made by a political commentator that border more on hyperbole than outright
> personal attacks.
I don't doubt Al Franken has gone overboard
in off-the-cuff remarks, but those seem pretty
mild compared to some of Pat Robertson's
_prepared_ statements.
There there is the 'Faith Healing' con the 700
Club used for years (and for all I know, still
does) to raise mony.
No political, social, or religious ideology has a
monopoly on evil.
--
FF
On 27 Dec 2005 13:25:03 EST, Tim Daneliuk <[email protected]>
wrote:
>Fox itself is not
>"fair and balanced" editorially,
Thank you.
Tom Watson - WoodDorker
tjwatson1ATcomcastDOTnet (email)
http://home.comcast.net/~tjwatson1/ (website)
John Emmons wrote:
> What a load of crap...luckily for the rest of the world, you're a former
> teacher...talk about indoctrination.
What a thoughtful and well measured response. One can only assume
you did not grasp all the big words.
> John E.
>
> "Tim Daneliuk" <[email protected]> wrote in message
> news:[email protected]...
>
>>Tom Watson wrote:
>>
>>
>>>On 27 Dec 2005 13:25:03 EST, Tim Daneliuk <[email protected]>
>>>wrote:
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>>Excuse me Sparky,
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>You know what, dickhead, you don't get to call me "Sparky".
>>>
>>>You get to call me, Mr. Watson."
>>
>>So long as you wallow in the gutter of our language and use
>>a vulgar form to address me, you're lucky I don't call you
>>worse ... Sparky.
>>
>>
>>>
>>>The country that I grew up in exists in such a way as to allow
>>>assholes like you into the country.
>>
>>No, not even close. The country you grew up in exists to defend liberty
>>for its citizens and legal residents. Whether or not people like me get
>>in or not is an ancillary issue not germane to the purpose of the
>>country.
>>
>>
>>>I'm basically OK with that, but in your case, I might have wanted a
>>>closer look.
>>
>>By your writings here you demonstrate an utter lack of facility,
>>intellect, judgement, or character to make such an inspection on
>>my or any other would-be emmigre's behalf. The bored civil servant
>>that processed my paperwork was, no doubt, many leagues better suited
>>to the task (and made the right decision).
>>
>>
>>>Why don't you try and relax and see something other than what you
>>>brought along with you.
>>
>>I am very relaxed. Watching the Lunatic Left (ah, but I repeat myself)
>>squeal and soil themselves when confronted by reason, history, experience,
>>judgement, and character always brings joy to my soul. It's sort of
>>like converting the Heathen with no hope of ever actually being
>>successful ... the reward is in the doing, not the results.
>>
>>
>>>What you brought along with you was not healthy.
>>
>>Yes, all that baggage of thoughtful contemplation, reason,
>>hard work, honesty, historical perspective, ambition, integrity,
>>compassion, kindness, and goodwill do get in the way of your
>>elitist dogma. Thankfully, they are fine skills to have when
>>making one's way in the Real World.
>>
>>
>>>
>>>That does not mean that what you found is totally healthy.
>>
>>No, Sparky, it doesn't. There will always be selfish, arrogant,
>>and willful fools whose ego needs supercede even a passing familiarity
>>with the demands of Reality. The fools who insist that I owe some part
>>of my life to everyone else around me and they're just the ones who
>>decide who gets and how much. The fools who cower in the face of inferior
>>threat because the thought of blood - any blood, even honorable blood -
>>makes their craven souls scream and quiver. The fools who've run the West
>>for nigh on 70 years and now blame everthing on their replacements -
>
> barely
>
>>in place for two decades. The fools who would extend the benefits of
>>our social contract to anyone and everyone, including armed foreign
>>invaders.
>>
>>You see, Sparky, your problem isn't that you're wrong. You're wrong
>
> because
>
>>of your problem. You're ego writes checks that Reality cannot cash, and
>
> when
>
>>your ego-induced checks bounce, you have to find someone to blame - the
>>Conservatives, immigrants warning you of your folly, the "warmongers",
>>Big Business, the wealthy, and a host of lesser accused are all targeted
>>because there is simply no chance that your foolish vision of the world
>>is what causes your pain. While you're busy trying to defend an
>
> inherently
>
>>corrupt and degenerate collectivist worldview (no matter what you actually
>>call it), the rest of the world wants to eat our lunch economically,
>>culturally, and militarily. I'd rather they didn't, so I'll keep true
>>to what I know works: Personal integrity, unflinching defense of personal
>>liberty, and the refutation of fools who compromise either.
>>
>>--
>>--------------------------------------------------------------------------
>
> --
>
>>Tim Daneliuk [email protected]
>>PGP Key: http://www.tundraware.com/PGP/
>
>
>
--
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
Tim Daneliuk [email protected]
PGP Key: http://www.tundraware.com/PGP/
What a load of crap...luckily for the rest of the world, you're a former
teacher...talk about indoctrination.
John E.
"Tim Daneliuk" <[email protected]> wrote in message
news:[email protected]...
> Tom Watson wrote:
>
> > On 27 Dec 2005 13:25:03 EST, Tim Daneliuk <[email protected]>
> > wrote:
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >>Excuse me Sparky,
> >
> >
> >
> > You know what, dickhead, you don't get to call me "Sparky".
> >
> > You get to call me, Mr. Watson."
>
> So long as you wallow in the gutter of our language and use
> a vulgar form to address me, you're lucky I don't call you
> worse ... Sparky.
>
> >
> >
> > The country that I grew up in exists in such a way as to allow
> > assholes like you into the country.
>
> No, not even close. The country you grew up in exists to defend liberty
> for its citizens and legal residents. Whether or not people like me get
> in or not is an ancillary issue not germane to the purpose of the
> country.
>
> >
> > I'm basically OK with that, but in your case, I might have wanted a
> > closer look.
>
> By your writings here you demonstrate an utter lack of facility,
> intellect, judgement, or character to make such an inspection on
> my or any other would-be emmigre's behalf. The bored civil servant
> that processed my paperwork was, no doubt, many leagues better suited
> to the task (and made the right decision).
>
> >
> > Why don't you try and relax and see something other than what you
> > brought along with you.
>
> I am very relaxed. Watching the Lunatic Left (ah, but I repeat myself)
> squeal and soil themselves when confronted by reason, history, experience,
> judgement, and character always brings joy to my soul. It's sort of
> like converting the Heathen with no hope of ever actually being
> successful ... the reward is in the doing, not the results.
>
> >
> > What you brought along with you was not healthy.
>
> Yes, all that baggage of thoughtful contemplation, reason,
> hard work, honesty, historical perspective, ambition, integrity,
> compassion, kindness, and goodwill do get in the way of your
> elitist dogma. Thankfully, they are fine skills to have when
> making one's way in the Real World.
>
> >
> >
> > That does not mean that what you found is totally healthy.
>
> No, Sparky, it doesn't. There will always be selfish, arrogant,
> and willful fools whose ego needs supercede even a passing familiarity
> with the demands of Reality. The fools who insist that I owe some part
> of my life to everyone else around me and they're just the ones who
> decide who gets and how much. The fools who cower in the face of inferior
> threat because the thought of blood - any blood, even honorable blood -
> makes their craven souls scream and quiver. The fools who've run the West
> for nigh on 70 years and now blame everthing on their replacements -
barely
> in place for two decades. The fools who would extend the benefits of
> our social contract to anyone and everyone, including armed foreign
> invaders.
>
> You see, Sparky, your problem isn't that you're wrong. You're wrong
because
> of your problem. You're ego writes checks that Reality cannot cash, and
when
> your ego-induced checks bounce, you have to find someone to blame - the
> Conservatives, immigrants warning you of your folly, the "warmongers",
> Big Business, the wealthy, and a host of lesser accused are all targeted
> because there is simply no chance that your foolish vision of the world
> is what causes your pain. While you're busy trying to defend an
inherently
> corrupt and degenerate collectivist worldview (no matter what you actually
> call it), the rest of the world wants to eat our lunch economically,
> culturally, and militarily. I'd rather they didn't, so I'll keep true
> to what I know works: Personal integrity, unflinching defense of personal
> liberty, and the refutation of fools who compromise either.
>
> --
> --------------------------------------------------------------------------
--
> Tim Daneliuk [email protected]
> PGP Key: http://www.tundraware.com/PGP/
On Tue, 27 Dec 2005 09:04:25 GMT, "Charles Self"
<[email protected]> wrote:
>"Mark & Juanita" <[email protected]> wrote in message
>news:[email protected]...
>> On Mon, 26 Dec 2005 21:12:26 GMT, "Charles Self"
>> <[email protected]> wrote:
>>
>>>
>>>"Tim Daneliuk" <[email protected]> wrote in message
>>>news:[email protected]...
>>>>
>>>> Hee, hee - I was just teasin' Charlie - I often don't agree with her
>>>> either. I do not, however, think she is "vile". You may not like her
>>>> ideas, but at least she hasn't, say, gotten drunk, dunked her car into
>>>> a river, killed her fellow passenger, and then lied about it all.
>>>> *That*
>>>> is vile.
>>>
>>>One action, or series of actions, by one person, something over 30 years
>>>ago, and that seems to be all many people can think of. Coulter IS vile.
>>>She
>>>would murder if she thought she could get away with, and she incites
>>>others
>>>to do so.
>>>
>>
>> Then I'm sure you feel the same way about political "commentators" like
>> Michael Moore and Al Franken?
>>
>>
.. snip
>Actually, I don't much like them, but I don't recall them delighting in the
>concept of nuking another country, so, no, they're not vile, at least not in
>the same sense as Ms Coulter.
>
Perhaps you haven't been paying attention to them. Ann Coulter is mild
compared the vehemence they exhibit. [But then, they exhibit their vitriol
from a political viewpoint more to your liking]
Michael Moore calls conservatives paranoid, yet travels the country with
a raft of bodyguards who, at book signings would order people to "take
their hands out of their pockets" (Geoff Olson, "Common Ground" December
2003). When asked by Bill Maher how he got ordinary Americans to say
incredibly stupid things, Moore replied it was easy, he just turns on the
camera and doesn't interrupt them. A person who publishes a book called
"Stupid White Men" and then subtitled it in Germany to "Stupid White Men,
Settling the Score with Bush" seems meet the definition for 'vile'. He has
made statements in Germany criticising Americans' intelligence and asking,
"should such an ignorant people lead the world?"
Moore pales in comparison with Al Franken in the vileness department;
Franken makes Coulter look like a nun. At a black tie dinner in
Washington, Franken went up to Karl Rove and said, "I'm Al Franken, I hate
you and you hate me". Rove told him, "I haven't met you. You seem like a
nice fellow, sorry to disappoint you, but I don't hate you" (Newsweek,
March 29, 2004). One of his comments directed toward John McCain, "Anybody
could get captured. Essentially he sat out the war". In the April 26,
1976 Harvard Crimson, while Franken was writing for SNL, "I just don't like
Homosexuals. If you ask me, they're all homosexuals in the Pudding
[reference to Hasty Pudding Club which he was not asked to join while he
was at Harvard]. Hey, I was glad when that Pudding homosexual got killed in
Philedelphia" Seems like that is the very definition of vile. There are
numerous other examples, most of which are much more than some statements
made by a political commentator that border more on hyperbole than outright
personal attacks.
+--------------------------------------------------------------------------------+
If you're gonna be dumb, you better be tough
+--------------------------------------------------------------------------------+
On 27 Dec 2005 13:25:03 EST, Tim Daneliuk <[email protected]>
wrote:
>
>Excuse me Sparky,
You know what, dickhead, you don't get to call me "Sparky".
You get to call me, Mr. Watson."
The country that I grew up in exists in such a way as to allow
assholes like you into the country.
I'm basically OK with that, but in your case, I might have wanted a
closer look.
Why don't you try and relax and see something other than what you
brought along with you.
What you brought along with you was not healthy.
That does not mean that what you found is totally healthy.
Tom Watson - WoodDorker
tjwatson1ATcomcastDOTnet (email)
http://home.comcast.net/~tjwatson1/ (website)
Tom Watson wrote:
> On 27 Dec 2005 13:25:03 EST, Tim Daneliuk <[email protected]>
> wrote:
>
>
>
>
>>Excuse me Sparky,
>
>
>
> You know what, dickhead, you don't get to call me "Sparky".
>
> You get to call me, Mr. Watson."
So long as you wallow in the gutter of our language and use
a vulgar form to address me, you're lucky I don't call you
worse ... Sparky.
>
>
> The country that I grew up in exists in such a way as to allow
> assholes like you into the country.
No, not even close. The country you grew up in exists to defend liberty
for its citizens and legal residents. Whether or not people like me get
in or not is an ancillary issue not germane to the purpose of the
country.
>
> I'm basically OK with that, but in your case, I might have wanted a
> closer look.
By your writings here you demonstrate an utter lack of facility,
intellect, judgement, or character to make such an inspection on
my or any other would-be emmigre's behalf. The bored civil servant
that processed my paperwork was, no doubt, many leagues better suited
to the task (and made the right decision).
>
> Why don't you try and relax and see something other than what you
> brought along with you.
I am very relaxed. Watching the Lunatic Left (ah, but I repeat myself)
squeal and soil themselves when confronted by reason, history, experience,
judgement, and character always brings joy to my soul. It's sort of
like converting the Heathen with no hope of ever actually being
successful ... the reward is in the doing, not the results.
>
> What you brought along with you was not healthy.
Yes, all that baggage of thoughtful contemplation, reason,
hard work, honesty, historical perspective, ambition, integrity,
compassion, kindness, and goodwill do get in the way of your
elitist dogma. Thankfully, they are fine skills to have when
making one's way in the Real World.
>
>
> That does not mean that what you found is totally healthy.
No, Sparky, it doesn't. There will always be selfish, arrogant,
and willful fools whose ego needs supercede even a passing familiarity
with the demands of Reality. The fools who insist that I owe some part
of my life to everyone else around me and they're just the ones who
decide who gets and how much. The fools who cower in the face of inferior
threat because the thought of blood - any blood, even honorable blood -
makes their craven souls scream and quiver. The fools who've run the West
for nigh on 70 years and now blame everthing on their replacements - barely
in place for two decades. The fools who would extend the benefits of
our social contract to anyone and everyone, including armed foreign
invaders.
You see, Sparky, your problem isn't that you're wrong. You're wrong because
of your problem. You're ego writes checks that Reality cannot cash, and when
your ego-induced checks bounce, you have to find someone to blame - the
Conservatives, immigrants warning you of your folly, the "warmongers",
Big Business, the wealthy, and a host of lesser accused are all targeted
because there is simply no chance that your foolish vision of the world
is what causes your pain. While you're busy trying to defend an inherently
corrupt and degenerate collectivist worldview (no matter what you actually
call it), the rest of the world wants to eat our lunch economically,
culturally, and militarily. I'd rather they didn't, so I'll keep true
to what I know works: Personal integrity, unflinching defense of personal
liberty, and the refutation of fools who compromise either.
--
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
Tim Daneliuk [email protected]
PGP Key: http://www.tundraware.com/PGP/
Why do ex-presidents have to keep their mouths shut? Freedom of speech is
the absolute cornerstone of our democracy, and should be encouraged. I
think Bush and Reagan kept their mouths shut becuase in their heart of
hearts they really didn't give a crap about the rest of us. When Mad King
George gets impeached or manages to somehow cling to office through the rest
of his term, he's going to go back to fishing and golf, and will never look
back. Like him or not, Carter seems to really want to keep trying to make
the world a better place.
Why can't we talk about Carter's love of woodworking on the wreck here
without people feeling the need to rip on him as president? I wish he was
president right now instead of the lying loser we currently have. Besides -
Carter got a bum rap - Nixon and Ford left him with a world angry at the US
and an economy addicted to cheap oil.. And everyone seems to forget that
Reagan committed high treason when he negotiated with the Iranians to keep
the hostages longer to hurt Carter in the election. And as a final insult,
conservative columnist George Will delivered a stolen copy of Carter's
debate briefing notebook to Reagan, making sure that Reagan had memorized
catchy combacks to Carter's debate points - making it look like Reagan
actually understood the issues. A shameful time in our country's great
history.
Dave
"WALTER D. CONNER" <[email protected]> wrote in message
news:sNFqf.45229$eI5.5360@trnddc05...
> "Apparently he's got his own shop and loves to make furniture,"
>
> "I hope he's a better woodworker than he was a president."
>
> He was given a complete wood shop when he left office. He quietly made
> nice green wood rocking chairs at his home in Plains Georgia for a little
> while then he decided to interject himself into world affairs where he has
> been about as correct as he was in his Presidential days.Too bad all past
> Presidents can't keep their mouths shut as Pres. Reagan and First Pres.
> Bush did for instance.
>
> Walt Conner
>
On Sun, 25 Dec 2005 11:35:30 GMT, "Charles Self"
<[email protected]> wrote:
>"CW" <[email protected]> wrote in message
>news:[email protected]...
>> Probably a pretty good reason that you have never heard it before.
>> "Joseph Connors" <[email protected]> wrote in message
>> news:NCsrf.2827$%[email protected]...
>>> Thats very interesting. I never heard of this before. What is the source
>>> on this? Thanks!
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> Mark & Juanita wrote:
>>>
>>> > 2) Under FDR's watch, German submariners were tortured *to death*.
>>> > Just
>> to
>>> > see if they had any interesting information.
>
>Huh? And what is that reason, after more than 60 years have elapsed?
>
>Like Mr. Connors, I'd like to see a cite.
>
My source for this was an AP or Reuters story I read earlier in 2005,
sometime late spring or early summer (or thereabouts). There were two
stories that were published at roughly the same time. One was discussing
the addition of a German U-boat to (I believe) the Smithsonian archives and
one of the crewmen from that boat visiting the archive; the second story
discussed the incident I cited and indicated that a memorial plaque had
been erected for those fallen German crewmen. One of the relatives of one
of the U-boat victims expressed appreciation that this brought closure to
not knowing what had become of her relative. The story further indicated
that most interest was placed on German communication operators from the
U-boats because it was thought that they might have knowledge that could be
used.
Now, contrary to what those who disagree with my views may think, I was
not jumping up and down with glee when I read that story saying, "See! FDR
was worse than what the left is accusing the present administration of
doing!" Rather, I was extremely disappointed and saddened. I didn't want
my country to *ever* have engaged in activities that would be the
equivalent of what the Stalinists and Nazis were doing at the time, nor
what the Red Chinese and North Vietnamese and others would do in the
future. This was extremely disheartening. The story alluded to a very
methodical, pre-meditated plan regarding this incident -- this was not a
story any American should have viewed with anything other than revulsion.
However, I have spent a significant amount of time today trying to find
that story or a retraction. I can find neither; therefore, I must assume
that the original story I read was later retracted and no such incident
occured. Obviously, I cannot prove a negative, but I am going to assume
that this was an erroneous story about a non-existant incident. I will
gladly say that I was wrong about this incident -- as I indicated above,
the story brought no joy to my heart.
There is sufficient other information regarding FDR (of the other
elements on my list that you did not include in your quote, only one is
subject to speculation, that being FDR's probable negative effect on the
length and depth of the depression -- the other items have all been widely
and thorougly documented) to make my point. I find it a tremendous relief
that I *can't* find the substantiating story to go with the German U-Boat
crewmen item and will happily retract that from my list comments.
+--------------------------------------------------------------------------------+
If you're gonna be dumb, you better be tough
+--------------------------------------------------------------------------------+
"CW" <[email protected]> wrote in message
news:[email protected]...
> Probably a pretty good reason that you have never heard it before.
> "Joseph Connors" <[email protected]> wrote in message
> news:NCsrf.2827$%[email protected]...
>> Thats very interesting. I never heard of this before. What is the source
>> on this? Thanks!
>>
>>
>>
>> Mark & Juanita wrote:
>>
>> > 2) Under FDR's watch, German submariners were tortured *to death*.
>> > Just
> to
>> > see if they had any interesting information.
Huh? And what is that reason, after more than 60 years have elapsed?
Like Mr. Connors, I'd like to see a cite.
On Sat, 24 Dec 2005 03:52:11 GMT, "Steve Peterson"
<[email protected]> wrote:
>Dave, take off the blinders. Someone on TV said ( I don't think I remember
>who, but I think it's true) Bush is on track to be our worst president ever.
Oh, somebody on TV said it, thus it must be true. Dang (slaps forehead,
if I'd have only known, after all someone on TV said ....) Someone on TV
also said that a National Guard commander typed a memo in the 1970's
detailing how Bush was given special treatment -- that turned out to be
forged documents. The person who most strongly pushed that story on TV
never really did admit that a forgery had occurred (what was the phrase,
"the documents were fake, but factually correct"?) When looking at
statements, there are 1) facts, 2) opinions, 3) feelings, and 4) beliefs.
What you saw on TV was someone stating an opinion based upon their opinions
formed from their beliefs. Did they cite any facts that backed up their
statement?
>What can you think of that is better since he became president?
Let's see, the economy is recovering quite nicely from the Clinton
recession. The stock market has recovered from both the 2000 "correction"
and the severe drop that occured after 9/11. The unemployment rate has
achieved what is considered virtual full employment (around 5%). The
housing market has been humming along and doing very well. The deficit has
decreased during the past year. Afghanistan is no longer controlled by a
bunch of wild-eyed islamofascists who harbor terrorists and terrorist
training camps and is well on the way to a democratic society. Iraq just
held not one, not two, but three elections in which the people were able to
freely choose those they want to lead them and a constitution. This after
decades during which anything even resembling dissent got one's tongue cut
out or worse.
The only good news for the Dems is the fact that the housing market took
a large drop this past month. Anybody want to take any bets how much play
that is going to get over the next month? That will get huge play time to
illustrate how we live in a soup-line America in which everyone is just one
paycheck away from living under an underpass somewhere. The sad thing is
that the opposition party has set themselves up such that for them to do
well, the rest of America must suffer some setback or major tragedy.
Are things perfect? No, but to paint Bush as the worst president ever is
the ultimate in hyperbole.
> And don't
>blame circumstances for his problems, or you have to defend Jimmy Carter.
>
>Steve
>
>"Dave Hinz" <[email protected]> wrote in message
>news:[email protected]...
>> On Fri, 23 Dec 2005 09:35:19 -0800, David Stuve <[email protected]> wrote:
>>> "Mark & Juanita" <[email protected]> wrote in message
>>> news:[email protected]...
>>>> Probably would have been a good thing. Funny thing was, that there was
>>>> really only one comment made in that vein. Now you've managed to turn
>>>> that
>>>> into an excoriation of not just the sitting president, but all former
>>>> presidents who didn't share your party affiliation or apparent left-wing
>>>> views.
>>>
>>> You know, you're right Mark. I should have stuck to woodworking;
>>
>> And then, you reply with hundreds of lines of propaganda.
>>
>>> -ignoring warnings about Bin Ladin because Clinton was "obsessed with
>>> him"
>>
>> Your interpretation was flawed.
>>
>>> -ignoring North Korea because Clinton was so interested in making deals
>>> with
>>> him
>>
>> Ditto.
>>
>>> -using 9/11 to satisfy his personal score with Saddam
>>
>> Saddam claimed he had WMD. The Democrats in congress agreed that Saddam
>> had WMD (yes, I can provide the link to the cites. Again.) AQ didn't
>> like us. The stated reason for going to war, which the Democrats agreed
>> with (and now pretend they never heard of) was to keep Saddam from
>> giving the WMDs that all agreed he had, to AQ.
>>
>>> -lying and using forged uranium documents to justify the war
>>
>> Bush is in Britain now?
>>
>>> -outing a CIA agent active in nuclear arms proliferation work
>>
>> Yawn.
>>
>>> -doing nothing after 9/11 to stop the greatest layoff of American workers
>>> we've ever seen
>>
>> What the HELL was Bush supposed to do about that? You give the guy
>> credit for more power than he has.
>>
>>> -losing America's most important port city to hurricane Katrina -
>>
>> Yeah, because he controls the weather now (rolls eyes)
>>
>>> and then
>>> lying and saying he was never asked for help
>>
>> The Governor controls the National Guard and you (should) know it. Bush
>> sending federal troops into a state without a request from the governer
>> would have been a serious abuse of constitutional protections.
>>
>>> -never firing people for screwing up badly - only those who disagree with
>>> him
>>
>> Yawn.
>>
>>> -*and this just in, he's had the NSA spying on Americans* with no
>>> Judicial
>>> oversight
>>
>> We'll see.
>>
>>> Oops, as Reagan famously quipped: there I go again. Off to the woodshop
>>> to
>>> atone for my rant... I'm making sliding drawers for my kitchen cabinets.
>>> Fun stuff.
>>
>> Yeah, I'm sure this was an accidental rant.
>>
>
+--------------------------------------------------------------------------------+
If you're gonna be dumb, you better be tough
+--------------------------------------------------------------------------------+
Scott Lurndal wrote:
>>>>
>>>>>Walt, I would challenge you to expand your political horizons. Go down to
>>>>>your local library, and do a Lexis Nexis search on Americans torturing
>>>>>prisoners,
>>>>
>>>>You mean aggressively going after *non-uniformed combatants* for
>>>>whom the Geneva accords do not apply. They can be shot on sight as spies
>>>
>>>
>>>Torture is torture. Full Stop. Are the Geneva accords the only
>>>document that describes how one human should treat another?
>>
>>They are more-or-less the only ones we're obligated to follow
>>as a matter of international law.
>
>
> How about as a matter of some abstract morality? So torture of
> any non-american is ok?
Of course not. But people who visit violence *by intention* upon
innocent non-combatants, and do so while hiding in civilian clothing
are simply not entitled to any consideration. They are a cancer
upon civilization. War itself is bad enough and ought always to
be avoided whenever possible, but intentional war upon innocents
is horrific beyond comprehension. It's perpetrators have *no* rights.
>
>
>>>Even our most revered documents say that all _men_ are created
>>>equal, not all _americans_ are created equal.
>>
>>Sorry Sparky, if you do not adhere to our social compacts you're not
>
>
> My name is not Sparky. And I think you've misread the declaration
> of independence if you believe that the the In/Unalienable Rights
> are reserved to those who ascribe to the rest of the document.
>
> "Life, Liberty and the pursuit of happiness"
You need to read more than the first paragraph of the DOI. Try the
larger body of Enlightenment political philosophy, the Constitution and
the surrounding debate like the Federalist papers. The quote you cite
above does indeed speak to all mankind. But the subsequent social
contract explicated eventually in the Constitution only grants
protections to *participants in the contract*. If I enter into an
agreement to mow your lawn for a stipulated price, are all your
neighbors (nonparticipants in that contract) entitled to free lawn care?
If individuals want the benefit of US (or any other) law, they must
agree to participate in that system. Foreign invaders do not do
so, thus they are not entitled to any such protections. i.e., They're
not paying for "lawn service".
>
>
>>entitled to their benefit. If the Brave Soldiers Of Allah (tm) (aka
>>Cowards Killing Children Intentionally) would like to make themselves
>>subservient to the social contract enumerated in our founding documents
>>then, by all means they should be protected by these same precepts.
>
>
> Of course, during the time period of the documents, it's signers
> were also considered to be terrorists and criminals by the British.
They were considered criminals - traitors actually - not "terrorist".
The term "terrorist" has a specific meaning - one who consciously
and purposely targets non-combatants to keep them in a state of
fear ("terror") is the approximate definition.
>
>
>>Until then, anyone who purposefully makes war on children and other
>>innocents should be removed from the face of the planet with extreme
>>prejudice. If you don't excise cancer early, you die from it.
>
>
> Gee. Didn't GWB "make war on children and other innocents" in Iraq?
> Certainly wasn't just soldiers that died.
You need to read whole sentences. Note the modifier "purposefully" in my
original comment. Yet, civilians die in wartime. But the issue is
whether they were intentionally targeted (by, say, Al Queda, Hamas,
Islamic Jihad ... you know, The Brave Soldiers Of Allah (tm)) or whether
such death was incidental and unintentional (the whole rest of the
civilized world).
Your commentary is repugnant and assinine in light of the fact that a
whole lot of American kids are dead today because we are so desparately
trying to *avoid* civilian death. If the US, UK, et al weren't morally
leagues above the swine they are fighting, we'd just level the area and
make the problem moot. So before you vomit more half-baked ideas,
consider that a lot of brave kids died exactly in the pursuit of making
war as surgical as possible and thereby minimizing civilian casualties.
>
> Your facile analogy re cancer is clearly meaningless, as terrorism
> isn't cancer and has absolutely nothing in common with cancer from
> cause to cure.
It is a metaphor (you can look up what that means when you have time).
Terror, like cancer, is self-replicating, and if not eliminated in its
early and developmental stages will lead to the death of the host
system.
>
>
>>>
>>>>if we like. There is both legal grounds and precedent for doing so.
>>>>And the "torture" in this case involves making them uncomfortable and
>>>>physically intimidating them, not, say, beheading them with a dull
>>>>knife like their compatriots do. Foreign spies are not entitled
>>>>to the same civil liberties that US citizens and legal residents
>>>
>>>
>>>Who defines whether or not someone is a Spy, or a "unlawful combatant"?
>>
>>International Law - you know, that body of blather the Left
>>trots out regularly as being superior to US law.
>
>
> So what part of International Law allowed for the invasion of
> a soveriegn country?
Have a seat and I'll help you with elementary recent history.
International Law as explicated by *many repeated* resolutions
in the United Nations long before W came into power is what
gave this whole business legitimacy. He merely finally acted upon
what all the UN gasbags had been talking about for years.
Even *then* he gave Sadaam alternatives until the 11th hour.
>
>
>>>How can you trust the person making that designation if the
>>>designation appears to be by fiat?
>>>
>>
>>A person engaging in combat, not wearing a uniform is a spy.
>
>
> A spy? Really? Actually, I think the term is "unlawfull combatant".
> A spy is something completely different from a legal perspective.
But it's not different from the perspective of this conversation:
What, if any, rights does such a non-uniformed person have in a
combat setting.
>
>
>>The same person targeting non-combatants intentionally is a terrorist.
>
>
> Or a freedom fighter, depending on point of view. (the french
> resistance blowing up railroad trains in France during WWII comes to mind).
And just what was on those railroad trains? Civilians or German
war materiale'?
>
>>This is not definition by fiat but by observation. Unless, of course,
>
>
> Who made the observation, did they really see what they thought
> they saw, and can you trust them?
>
>
>>you buy the deconstructionist literary nonsese of the past 50 years in
>>which case words mean nothing (and you can't argue with me any more).
>
>
> c'est what? (bad pun).
>
>
>
>>>We have a court system. Use it. And forget the national security
>>
>>No, our court system if for *our* citizens and residents, not for
>>foreign invaders.
>
>
> If an illegal alien commits a crime in the United States, they
> go to court, are convicted, serve their time, then are deported.
> What matters the scale of the crime?
Because there is a difference between an illegal (civil or criminal)
act by an individual and an armed attack upon a nation.
>
> Ok. 3000 people lost their lives 9/11. 35,000 people will lose
> their lives due to the Flu this winter. 50,000 will die
> on the roadways just this year. Don't you think that the
> 9/11 incident has been blown all out of proportion?
So in your book we have to hit some much larger number before
we get serious about this threat? Get real. We got lucky on
9/11 - the number could easily have been 10x what it was. We could
have seen the seat of Federal government and/or our core military
leadership wiped out. These people are playing for keeps. Why is
it so hard for the American Left to pull its' head out of its' respective
butt and realize we have to be even more serious in our respone (and
we have been, thanks to W).
>
> 9/11 cannot happen again the same way. And it is not because
> of the creation of the Homeland Security department, or the
> TSA (both of which will most likely be seen to be mistakes in
> the future), but rather fortifying cockpit doors.
>
> If the money that has been spent to avenge those 3000 had instead
> been spent on law enforcement, medical research and smarter
> roadways, we'd save many more American lives than the TSA
> will ever save.
You need to grow up and read a small amount of history. Small
threats become big threats. Screaming for more medical research
when very well funded and highly determined murders have made it
clear they are coming for us is rearranging the deck chairs on
the Titanic.
>
>
>>>nonsense about someone's day in court. It is a convenient
>>>excuse, but how can you trust the government to make that designation
>>>without showing any evidence? All one needs to do to see
>>>this type of questionable accusation at work is to look at the Padilla case.
>>
>>I don't particularly trust the government. But they have an obligation
>>to thwart foreign invasion *by all necessary means*. One more time,
>>invaders are not citizens or even legal residents - they are not protected
>>by our laws, period.
>
>
> How is an illegal from central america any different from an illegal
> from the middle east when they commit murder in the United States, for
> whatever purported reason?
> Nobody is invading the United States. OBL has never stated his
> intent to invade the US. Kill people yes, but many criminals
> have stated a desire to kill people. Many more have followed
> through. Those that have been caught, have been punished.
>
> You've created a strawman.
And you are seriously kidding yourself. The Islamic threat has
been brewing for decades (for lots of reasons) and it is coming
to fruition now. The US has *already been invaded* you just keep
ignoring the smouldering piles of debris and the bags of body parts.
Just how bad would it have to be for you to actually take this threat
seriously? 100,000? 1 Million?
>
>>>>>no-bid contracts in Iraq, the forged yellowcake documents,
>>>>
>>>>To misquote a famous person from history, "The Left is an Ass". the
>>>
>>>
>>>You're a fine one to be calling names of anyone. The Right is an
>>>Ass, the Left is an Ass, it's the moderates in the middle
>>>that will save this country from both the left and the right.
>>
>>No - the moderates will twiddle their thumbs and continue the long
>>tradition of mooching that the Left and Right instatiated long ago.
>
>
> This is your "Republican Mantra" talking. Moderates have been
> responsible for the bulk of the progress in the United States
> for the last 200 years.
First of all, I am not a Republican (not even close). Second of
all, Moderates have done nothing more than keep the government
ticking along in neutral and preserving the status quo. "Progress"
(in medicine, science, engineering, etc.) has mostly come from at
the hand of the Big Eeeeeevvvvilll Corporations and the donations
of Evvvviiiill Rich People.
>
>
>>You do not "moderate" when someone is attacking you. You fight back
>>until they are dead and no longer a threat. No less a complete
>>socialist idiot than FDR understood this. Sadly, today's Left
>
>
> "socialist idiot"? Reverting to Namecalling is a typical when
> you can't argue facct.
FDR was a fool. His collectivist policies extended the duration
and depth of the depression and forever socialized the only nation
in history that had ever seriously preserved individual liberty
above government power. He initiated the beginning of the end
for personal liberty. When you see the Patriot Act being renewed
in a few months, thank FDR - he's the one that taught the American
public that you give up *everything* for the "good of the people"
and they learned that lesson far too well.
>
>>is utterly without a clue on the matter.
>
>
> And neither does the Right, sadly, as evinced by your pen.
I am not remotely a rightwinger. I mostly pick on the Left because
they are currently most dangerous force in a country at war, but I have
plenty of critique for the bloated Right as well.
>
>
>>
>>>However, it is the right that is fucking the country up right now.
>>
>>
>>Today's Right *inherited* a mess caused by lots of different things.
>
>
> This is the interpretation of the Right. It can hardly be unbiased, nicht wahr?
> The Left believes the current mess was created by the Right.
>
>
>>They are being forced to respond in the face of the negligence of
>>Clinton, the failed endgame of Bush 41, the moronic foreign policy
>>of Carter, etc. Don't blame todays administration for the mess
>>because they didn't remotely create it. In fact, one of the few
>
>
> Please. The first president in American history to invade and
> occupy a sovereign foreign country that wasn't at war with
> the United States didn't create this mess?
Hmmm ... didn't FDR invade Germany. Last I looked they never directly
attacked the US previous to our declaration of war. You really must
get beyond your public school (aka madrassas) understanding of history
and read something else.
>
>
>>good things this administration has done is to respond vigrously
>>and without apology to the invasion currently underway around the
>>world. Had Carter, Bush 41, or Clinton done this a long time ago,
>>the problem would be more-or-less moot now.
>
>
> The problem is moot anyway. It's simply been overblown by the
> Republicans using it for political gain.
>
> Where is OBL and when will he be brought to justice for the
> crime of conspiracy to commit murder?
>
OBL is not first a criminal. He is (or was) the commander of an invading army.
Killing him would be morally just, and perhaps even satisfying, but
killing his army is more important. When we're done with that, then
we go about killing off other threats in the region until no significant
threat is left.
--
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
Tim Daneliuk [email protected]
PGP Key: http://www.tundraware.com/PGP/
" I mean the McCain amendment specifically prohibiting torture. Cheney was
actively lobbying to exempt the CIA "
The big problem here is what is defined as torture which includes "anything
that makes one uncomfortable". Putting them in confinement would probably
make them uncomfortable.
"Cheney was obsessed with Joe Wilson, and he and "Scooter" followed his
every
move. "
Wow! You actually followed them around and know all this for a fact! Then
you knew all about this Valerie Plame business then? And didn't leak her
name? MORE BS.
Walt Conner
I saw Jimmy Carter on the Daily show a week or so ago and was really
intrigued
by the enthusiasm in his voice when he talked about woodworking. Apparently
he's got his own shop and loves to make furniture, and at Camp David he
would
sneak out to the carpenter's shed to work off tension. Sounds like he'd be
a fun
person to have over for dinner and 'talk shop' with.
Dave
These are the articles I've found via Google:
http://www.palomar.edu/woodworking/newhtml/filbeck_meets_carter.html
http://www.motherearthnews.com/library/1987_November_December/The_Restoration_of_Jimmy_Carter
<[email protected]> wrote in message
news:[email protected]...
>
> Is there a good website with some of Jimmy carter's woodworking.
> I would love to see his work up close.
>
> Thanks
> --
>
> Greg
> Cowboy Up has taken on a whole different meaning lately
"Steve Peterson" <[email protected]> wrote in message
news:[email protected]...
> Both sides had the same "intelligence," but only 1 decided to invade
> another country on the basis of faulty intelligence, having decided first
> and then flopping all over the place for an excuse. Bush is a war
> criminal.
Wrong, both sides agreed to invade. It was only later that the left flip
flopped with tails between their legs claiming bad intelligence. It was
expected of them to go the other way. Totally predictable.
It is the same old same old. One side is against the other side regardless
of what is right.
You do have a point.
"Frank Stutzman" <[email protected]> wrote in message
news:[email protected]...
> CW <[email protected]> wrote:
> > I hope he's a better woodworker than he was a president.
>
> I remember thinking at the time he was a pretty lame president. However,
> considering our past several presidents, I'm starting to think he was
> pretty good.
>
> --
> Frank Stutzman
>
Well, it's been fun bandying words with you all, and hope we could all still
have a friendly chat over a cold one if we ever met. I confess I still
don't understand the new conservatism. Maybe the conservatives that raised
me were just different. They valued personal responsibility, always take
the high road - the end never justified the means, stayed out of debt, and
above all, didn't trust the government regardless of who is in the office -
keep them on a short leash and throw them out the second they looked like
they were abusing their office.
Happy and safe 2006,
Dave
Hi Dave,
I guess I am a Bush basher these days. Yes he is our commander in-chief,
but he's also our employee, and he's crossed the line as far as I'm
concerned, and I just don't believe him any more.
Some of us anti-war types are patriotic too - I've tried to "support the
troops" in Iraq - I marched to protest the invasion. When that didn't work,
I donated money to the USO and adopted a soldier to send care packages to.
And I still bundle up magazines to send to them to remind them of life here.
I urged my senators to vote for any equipment the troops needed, and to put
pressure on Bush to fire that hand-waving loser Rumsfeld who said 'la la la
there is noinsurgency' and stalled any attempts to up-armor, supply more
troops, etc. And I voted for Kerry in '04 because I suspected Kerry would
send more material and men over to finish the mission quicker. (Bush seems
to be afraid to admit that they misjudged the occupation and need more
support. Which is more important, losing face, or the lives of our
soldiers?)
And next week I'm going to write and ask that Chalibi be investigated and
imprisoned if possible. He's the one who lied to us and said Saddam was
urgently dangerous yet weak enough to invade, and any invasion would be a
quick, cheap affair, dancing in the streets, etc. Bush's greatest sin is
that he was gullible enough to believe it and spread the story as the truth.
Again, I think Bush will avoid losing face and just let Chalibi get away
scott free.
I've never served in the military, but if FDR phoned me through a time warp
and told me to hurry back to 1942 for a mission I'd do it in a second. He
was one of the greatest men who has ever lived, and I'd serve and die for
him without question.
Now if GW called me and asked me to serve, I'd probably be very
suspicious.... and do the same thing that he and Cheney did when asked to
serve. Suddenly have other priorities.
Merry Christmas to all, and a safe 2006!
Dave
"Dave" <[email protected]> wrote in message
news:pgerf.645179$x96.133963@attbi_s72...
>
> "Russ Stanton" <[email protected]> wrote in message
> news:[email protected]...
>> <[email protected]> wrote in message
>> news:[email protected]...
>>>
>>> Is there a good website with some of Jimmy carter's woodworking.
>>> I would love to see his work up close.
>>>
>>> Thanks
>>> --
>>>
>>> Greg
>>> Cowboy Up has taken on a whole different meaning lately
>>
>> Check Fine Woodworking Issue 174 for an interview type article and issue
>> 167 Reader's Gallery for an eample of his work.
>
> I can't think of a single thing the peanut man did, other than hosting a
> meeting with Sadat and Beagan that Carter did while he was President that
> deserves any praise for him. Big negatives are: giving away the Panama
> Canal so that China could buy it all up, and the Iran hostage situation
> where his leadership was a disaster.
> Those who criticize Bush and think they know everything about foreign
> policy I would like for them to answer truthfully the question below:
> I wonder how many of YOU KNOW IT ALLS would have supported Roosevelt and
> Truman during the Second World War. Would you have stood in line to enlist
> in the Army even though we lost over a 150,000 plus GI lives? I doubt if
> any of you Bush bashers would have had the BALLS to do so. You are
> GUTLESS!
> Remember Hitler didn't attack us and we still went to war with Germany.
> What about the war with the Japanese would you have stood in line to
> volunteer to fight them??
>
>
On 01 Jan 2006 05:04:59 EST, Tim Daneliuk <[email protected]> wrote:
>[email protected] wrote:
... snip
>> Third, to do so would reduce us to a station
>> no better than that of our enemies.
>
>Ah, the famous McCain argument. This is a foolish argument easily
>refuted a number of ways. McCain probably knows this being a smart guy,
>but it works really well when teeing up that Presidential bid (see, I
>pick on Republicans too).
>
Gotta disagree with you there Tim. McCain is as good and solid a
Republican as Ted Kennedy is a good and devout Catholic. ;-)
+--------------------------------------------------------------------------------+
If you're gonna be dumb, you better be tough
+--------------------------------------------------------------------------------+
Dave, take off the blinders. Someone on TV said ( I don't think I remember
who, but I think it's true) Bush is on track to be our worst president ever.
What can you think of that is better since he became president? And don't
blame circumstances for his problems, or you have to defend Jimmy Carter.
Steve
"Dave Hinz" <[email protected]> wrote in message
news:[email protected]...
> On Fri, 23 Dec 2005 09:35:19 -0800, David Stuve <[email protected]> wrote:
>> "Mark & Juanita" <[email protected]> wrote in message
>> news:[email protected]...
>>> Probably would have been a good thing. Funny thing was, that there was
>>> really only one comment made in that vein. Now you've managed to turn
>>> that
>>> into an excoriation of not just the sitting president, but all former
>>> presidents who didn't share your party affiliation or apparent left-wing
>>> views.
>>
>> You know, you're right Mark. I should have stuck to woodworking;
>
> And then, you reply with hundreds of lines of propaganda.
>
>> -ignoring warnings about Bin Ladin because Clinton was "obsessed with
>> him"
>
> Your interpretation was flawed.
>
>> -ignoring North Korea because Clinton was so interested in making deals
>> with
>> him
>
> Ditto.
>
>> -using 9/11 to satisfy his personal score with Saddam
>
> Saddam claimed he had WMD. The Democrats in congress agreed that Saddam
> had WMD (yes, I can provide the link to the cites. Again.) AQ didn't
> like us. The stated reason for going to war, which the Democrats agreed
> with (and now pretend they never heard of) was to keep Saddam from
> giving the WMDs that all agreed he had, to AQ.
>
>> -lying and using forged uranium documents to justify the war
>
> Bush is in Britain now?
>
>> -outing a CIA agent active in nuclear arms proliferation work
>
> Yawn.
>
>> -doing nothing after 9/11 to stop the greatest layoff of American workers
>> we've ever seen
>
> What the HELL was Bush supposed to do about that? You give the guy
> credit for more power than he has.
>
>> -losing America's most important port city to hurricane Katrina -
>
> Yeah, because he controls the weather now (rolls eyes)
>
>> and then
>> lying and saying he was never asked for help
>
> The Governor controls the National Guard and you (should) know it. Bush
> sending federal troops into a state without a request from the governer
> would have been a serious abuse of constitutional protections.
>
>> -never firing people for screwing up badly - only those who disagree with
>> him
>
> Yawn.
>
>> -*and this just in, he's had the NSA spying on Americans* with no
>> Judicial
>> oversight
>
> We'll see.
>
>> Oops, as Reagan famously quipped: there I go again. Off to the woodshop
>> to
>> atone for my rant... I'm making sliding drawers for my kitchen cabinets.
>> Fun stuff.
>
> Yeah, I'm sure this was an accidental rant.
>
Probably a pretty good reason that you have never heard it before.
"Joseph Connors" <[email protected]> wrote in message
news:NCsrf.2827$%[email protected]...
> Thats very interesting. I never heard of this before. What is the source
> on this? Thanks!
>
>
>
> Mark & Juanita wrote:
>
> > 2) Under FDR's watch, German submariners were tortured *to death*. Just
to
> > see if they had any interesting information.
>
> --
> Joseph Connors
> The New Golden Rule:
> Those with the gold, make the rules!
Germany declared war on us. Since you can't even get that simple fact
straight, I don't think I'll bother demolishing the rest of your yellow
striped chicken hawk squawking. Someone like you who is so eager and
willing to betray everything good about this country mealy to satisfy
their own personal cowardice is not worthy of the effort.
In article <pgerf.645179$x96.133963@attbi_s72>, [email protected] says...
>
> "Russ Stanton" <[email protected]> wrote in message
> news:[email protected]...
> > <[email protected]> wrote in message
> > news:[email protected]...
> >>
> >> Is there a good website with some of Jimmy carter's woodworking.
> >> I would love to see his work up close.
> >>
> >> Thanks
> >> --
> >>
> >> Greg
> >> Cowboy Up has taken on a whole different meaning lately
> >
> > Check Fine Woodworking Issue 174 for an interview type article and issue
> > 167 Reader's Gallery for an eample of his work.
>
> I can't think of a single thing the peanut man did, other than hosting a
> meeting with Sadat and Beagan that Carter did while he was President that
> deserves any praise for him. Big negatives are: giving away the Panama Canal
> so that China could buy it all up, and the Iran hostage situation where his
> leadership was a disaster.
> Those who criticize Bush and think they know everything about foreign policy
> I would like for them to answer truthfully the question below:
> I wonder how many of YOU KNOW IT ALLS would have supported Roosevelt and
> Truman during the Second World War. Would you have stood in line to enlist
> in the Army even though we lost over a 150,000 plus GI lives? I doubt if
> any of you Bush bashers would have had the BALLS to do so. You are GUTLESS!
> Remember Hitler didn't attack us and we still went to war with Germany. What
> about the war with the Japanese would you have stood in line to volunteer to
> fight them??
>
>
>
Thats very interesting. I never heard of this before. What is the source
on this? Thanks!
Mark & Juanita wrote:
> 2) Under FDR's watch, German submariners were tortured *to death*. Just to
> see if they had any interesting information.
--
Joseph Connors
The New Golden Rule:
Those with the gold, make the rules!
"Mark & Juanita" <[email protected]> wrote in message
news:[email protected]...
> Probably would have been a good thing. Funny thing was, that there was
> really only one comment made in that vein. Now you've managed to turn
> that
> into an excoriation of not just the sitting president, but all former
> presidents who didn't share your party affiliation or apparent left-wing
> views.
You know, you're right Mark. I should have stuck to woodworking; I should
never type angry. Politically, I'm a moderate born of Republican parents.
In fact, I still get signed pictures and love letters from Bush & Cheney
hoping I'll become a big donor. The politics of this country have turned so
far right that I guess I do look like a leftie.
I see red when people blindly spout the party line - Clinton and Carter are
to blame for everything, and the Republicans are the party of "Middle
American Values (tm)". I can't even listen to the AM dial on the radio any
more due to right-wing talk shows frothing about those evil liberals, how
good outsourcing is for the economy, and how GW is the second coming.
Like many presidents before him, GW, or as I like to call him "Mad King
George" has much to be ashamed of, but his are of an almost incredible
magnitude - and all of which should make Conservatives angry:
-ignoring warnings about Bin Ladin because Clinton was "obsessed with him"
-ignoring North Korea because Clinton was so interested in making deals with
him
-using 9/11 to satisfy his personal score with Saddam
(-Iran was headed in a moderate direction until we invaded Iraq, the
population panicked and elected a crazy man who will cause us grief in the
future)
-lying and using forged uranium documents to justify the war
-torturing prisoners of war
-maintaining a network of secret prisons around the world to hide the
torture
-running up massive deficits that we'll be paying for decades
-outing a CIA agent active in nuclear arms proliferation work
-doing nothing after 9/11 to stop the greatest layoff of American workers
we've ever seen
-losing America's most important port city to hurricane Katrina - and then
lying and saying he was never asked for help
-never firing people for screwing up badly - only those who disagree with
him
-*and this just in, he's had the NSA spying on Americans* with no Judicial
oversight
Did we win the cold war? Or did we just absorb the bad behavior of the
Stalinists?
Oops, as Reagan famously quipped: there I go again. Off to the woodshop to
atone for my rant... I'm making sliding drawers for my kitchen cabinets.
Fun stuff.
Dave
On 24 Dec 2005 11:37:07 -0800, [email protected] wrote:
>> Given that the Geneva convention applies to uniformed combatants,
>
>False.
>
>You should read them before commenting on them.
>
Be serious.
You expect a Rush Limbaugh parrot to read something.
This clueless idiot just regurgitates what he hears on right wingnut radio.
>The US has not ratified all of the Geneva conventions which does tend
>to complicate the issue as to exactlywhat our obligations are. But a
>refusal to regognize some of the convention, or parts of them does NOT
>justify saying that the Conventions themselves do not have those
>provisions.
>
>The US _has_ ratified the Convention prohibiting torture inhuman
>treatment
>and cruel aand degrading punishment which applies to everyone without
>exception, even our own citizens.
There are just a few little differences between WWII and the Depression, and
the current mideast war. Just for starters, we were attacked in 1941 by
enemies with armies and fleets. The country actually mobilized and
committed effort and resources to the war effort and won in just a few
years. The terrism war which started for us on 9/11 has already gone on
longer than our participation in WWII. And in fact, it had already been
going on for years. As for the Depression, I guess you would have preferred
to have Herbert Hoover continue as president? He was clueless and inept.
FDR was elected in the depth of Hoover's mess and in fact did get it cleared
up. Go to the FDR Memorial in DC.
Steve
"Mark & Juanita" <[email protected]> wrote in message
news:[email protected]...
> On Sat, 24 Dec 2005 19:54:21 -0800, "David Stuve" <[email protected]>
> wrote:
>
> ... snip
>>
>>I've never served in the military, but if FDR phoned me through a time
>>warp
>>and told me to hurry back to 1942 for a mission I'd do it in a second. He
>>was one of the greatest men who has ever lived, and I'd serve and die for
>>him without question.
>>
>
> That's quite an interesting statement. You believe Bush is evil
> incarnate but FDR was a great man. Just to remind you :
> 1) FDR ordered the internment of 10's of thousands of *American Citizens*
> of Japanese descent. Without trial. Without due process. Without
> reparations. Without protest from the media.
> 2) Under FDR's watch, German submariners were tortured *to death*. Just
> to
> see if they had any interesting information.
> 3) Under FDR's watch, German infiltrators were *shot* when captured on
> American soil. Not imprisoned, not questioned, not held without
> communication or access to lawyers, but shot after appearing before a
> *military* court. In that case, FDR's government, and the Supreme court
> (that he had previously packed) argued that the military had such power.
> Note that one of those German infiltrators claimed to be a US citizen.
> The
> case was Ex Parte Quirin, the German saboteurs case. In World War II,
> eight
> German naval officers, one of whom claimed to be a U.S. citizen, landed
> secretly in the United States and were arrested. After trial by a military
> tribunal, seven were executed. The Supreme Court held that because they
> were members of the enemy armed forces, the military had jurisdiction (as
> it did over members of our own armed forces) to try them. The Court said
> that military jurisdiction was permissible because the defendants were
> "admitted enemy invaders."
> 4) FDR oversaw wage and price controls
> 5) FDR oversaw rationing and restrictions on what Americans could buy.
> Now,
> this was in a time of war, but just imagine if Bush were to have tried the
> same thing.
> 6) A number of historians are beginning to postulate that the policies
> implemented by FDR during the depression actually served to deepen and
> prolong the depression rather than alleviate it. One example, the 90%
> income tax on those who were succeeding stifled any recovery as those who
> "prospered" were penalized to the point of not finding being able to grow
> new businesses.
> 7) FDR deliberately mislead the news media (and members of the news media
> deliberately and willingly did not report) information regarding his
> health
> and physical condition.
>
> Had Bush done any or all of the above, this would have caused the press
> and the left to raise howls of indignation and cries for impeachment.
> Yet,
> to the left, FDR is a hero and a great man. Truly amazing.
>
>
>
>
> +--------------------------------------------------------------------------------+
>
> If you're gonna be dumb, you better be tough
>
> +--------------------------------------------------------------------------------+
> Those who criticize Bush and think they know everything about foreign
> policy
> I would like for them to answer truthfully the question below:
> I wonder how many of YOU KNOW IT ALLS would have supported Roosevelt and
> Truman during the Second World War. Would you have stood in line to enlist
> in the Army even though we lost over a 150,000 plus GI lives? I doubt if
> any of you Bush bashers would have had the BALLS to do so. You are
> GUTLESS!
> Remember Hitler didn't attack us and we still went to war with Germany.
> What about the war with the Japanese would you have stood in line to
> volunteer to fight them??
>
Does name calling and aggresive CAPITALIZATION make you feel better?
Hitler (Germany) declared war on us after Pearl Harbor. I was born in 1944,
so what I did in WWII is kind of irrelevant. Since then, I worked for
Westinghouse (a big defense contractor) and for a Navy contractor at the
Naval Research Lab and the Naval Surface Warfare Center. Anything else I
can do for you?
Steve
Bush is still a terrible president. How much are you going to pay in taxes
to pay for the W Memorial National Debt? It used to be the RWR Memorial
National Debt, but the Shrub has blown Ronnie away.
Tim Daneliuk <[email protected]> writes:
>Scott Lurndal wrote:
>
>You need to read more than the first paragraph of the DOI.
>You need to read whole sentences.
>
>Your commentary is repugnant and assinine in light of the fact that a
>whole lot of American kids are dead today because we are so desparately
>trying to *avoid* civilian death.
>Have a seat and I'll help you with elementary recent history.
>
>You need to grow up and read a small amount of history.
I've enough of your insults. FWIW, I have a minor in history.
You clearly don't listen to people who disagree with your
opinions (and they are opinions, not :truth:, any more than
my opinions are :truth:).
Have a nice life.
>
>And you are seriously kidding yourself.
You know, for as long as I can remember, people have lamented over
"ruined" newsgroups. Well boys and girls, newsgroups don't get ruined.
At any given point in time in every group there is a certain amount of
off-topic posting, more off-topic replying, sniping, bitching,
flaming, whining, ranting and the occasional complaint that yet
another newgroup has gone to shit.
Rest assured that this, like most other popular groups, will continue
to function just fine and at least one third of the discussion will be
useful and on-topic. As for the other two thirds, if you don't like
it, ignore it and quitcher cryin.
Joe Barta
wrote:
> On Sat, 24 Dec 2005 01:07:10 GMT, Joe Barta <[email protected]>
> wrote:
>
>>> Castro is a much better human being than GWBush.
>>
>>It still amazes me the hatred and negative emotion that GWBush
>>brings out in some people. An intelligent and rational discussion
>>of the reasons would be facinating.
>
> Count the dead in Iraq.
>
Exactly why I mentioned "intelligent and rational". One can get this
sort of blather anywhere.
Tim Daneliuk wrote:
>> It still amazes me the hatred and negative emotion that GWBush
>> brings out in some people. An intelligent and rational discussion
>> of the reasons would be facinating.
>>
> Not possible. The idelogical Left is far worse than the
> ideological Right (which is pretty bad) in abandoning reason and
> honor in the neverending quest for power... i.e., There is
> neither reason nor intelligence being brought to bear from the
> Left (though both certainly appear on an individual level) when it
> comes to political matters. They just want to win at any cost.
I'm actually thinking more on the level of "the common man"... average
people that normally might not be that interested in politics or
current events, and wouldn't be considered ideologically extreme.
Among many otherwise regular people, there is the belief that GW (and
those around him) are both profoundly evil and/or profoundly stupid,
and that GW is personally the root cause of just about any happening
they believe to be "bad". For those "regular people", I don't think
it's about a quest for power. Actually I'd think a bit of "mob
mentality" might have something to do with it.
Steve Peterson wrote:
> Someone on TV said ( I don't think I
> remember who, but I think it's true) Bush is on track to be our
> worst president ever.
Someone on TV says a lot of things. A lot of those someones are not
really worth paying attention to. Surely you know that, so why repeat
such a lame statement?
Tim Daneliuk wrote:
> Are we morally obligated to
> be truthful to a liar, non-violent to an armed invader, passive to
> a rapist, or honest with a thief? I think not.
I'm reminded of a quote from the movie Judgement at Nuremberg...
something about standing for something even when standing for it is
the most difficult. I'm also reminded of what I read of Ghandi... he
would certainly be truthful to a liar, non-violent to an armed
invader, passive to a rapist, or honest with a thief. Seems to me he
accomplished and inspired an awful lot.
Now, I'm certainly no match for your knowledge and intelligence, so
I'll not challenge you there. And believe it or not, I'm no
jellyheaded idealist. I just wanted to say that I believe there is
much value in standing for something.... having goodly standards... no
matter what the people around you are doing. At least I think we ought
to try.
Joe Barta
That pretty good reason, I'd suppose, is that there is no documentation. It
is just one of those rumers that surface after a president is long gone and
can't defend himself.
"Charles Self" <[email protected]> wrote in message
news:[email protected]...
> "CW" <[email protected]> wrote in message
> news:[email protected]...
> > Probably a pretty good reason that you have never heard it before.
> > "Joseph Connors" <[email protected]> wrote in message
> > news:NCsrf.2827$%[email protected]...
> >> Thats very interesting. I never heard of this before. What is the
source
> >> on this? Thanks!
> >>
> >>
> >>
> >> Mark & Juanita wrote:
> >>
> >> > 2) Under FDR's watch, German submariners were tortured *to death*.
> >> > Just
> > to
> >> > see if they had any interesting information.
>
> Huh? And what is that reason, after more than 60 years have elapsed?
>
> Like Mr. Connors, I'd like to see a cite.
>
>
"CW" <[email protected]> wrote in message
news:[email protected]...
> You do have a point.
>
> "Frank Stutzman" <[email protected]> wrote in message
> news:[email protected]...
>> CW <[email protected]> wrote:
>> > I hope he's a better woodworker than he was a president.
>>
>> I remember thinking at the time he was a pretty lame president. However,
>> considering our past several presidents, I'm starting to think he was
>> pretty good.
>>
>> --
>> Frank Stutzman
>>
>
Apparently the group isn't aware of what President and Mrs. Carter have
accomplished since their White House days. If you are interested, check out
www.cartercenter.org.
Did you notice that there was never a declaration of war? Easier to get away
with things if you don't have to worry about details like the Geneva
Convention.
"Joe Barta" <[email protected]> wrote in message
news:[email protected]...
> Steve Peterson wrote:
>
> > Bush is a war criminal.
>
> Lots of people are war criminals depending on who you ask and who
> wins the war. War criminal is pretty subjective and has been batted
> around at so many people it really doesn't have much meaning anymore.
Joe Barta wrote:
> Tim Daneliuk wrote:
>
>
>>Are we morally obligated to
>>be truthful to a liar, non-violent to an armed invader, passive to
>>a rapist, or honest with a thief? I think not.
>
>
> I'm reminded of a quote from the movie Judgement at Nuremberg...
> something about standing for something even when standing for it is
> the most difficult. I'm also reminded of what I read of Ghandi... he
> would certainly be truthful to a liar, non-violent to an armed
> invader, passive to a rapist, or honest with a thief. Seems to me he
> accomplished and inspired an awful lot.
>
> Now, I'm certainly no match for your knowledge and intelligence, so
> I'll not challenge you there. And believe it or not, I'm no
> jellyheaded idealist. I just wanted to say that I believe there is
> much value in standing for something.... having goodly standards... no
> matter what the people around you are doing. At least I think we ought
> to try.
>
> Joe Barta
Joe -
Generally I agree with this. But morality is not a suicide pact. If
someone is pointing a gun at your child's head and telling the truth
kills them but lying saves their life, would you still tell the truth as
a matter of principle? I wouldn't.
The problem is that most of us learned basic moral precepts in Sunday
School or the logical equivalent. In these settings, children are given
very simple, black and white moral dilemas from which to learn civilized
behavior. But the the real world of adulthood is more complicated. Very
often, we adults are not faced with good and bad choices, but a choice
between bad and worse. This inability to see shades of morality is the
hallmark of all true ideologues - both the political Right and Left have
a hard time seeing that sometimes there are no good choices at all. In
this most recent debate about the war in Iraq, the Left especially has
been foaming at the mouth as if there there was some good choice the
West could have taken and did not. It's not that simple, and in matters
of geopolitics is usually never is.
What *is* entirely simple and clear, is that we have a moral right to
self-defense. Iraq, Iran, Syria, and Saudi Arabia have been a breeding
ground for anti-civilization zealots who use terror as a method to
attack the liberal West. Something had to be done about it, sooner or
later, and it had to start someplace. If if had been my call, I would
not have chosen Iraq first, but it was certainly on the hit parade of
threats to civilization - It had already invaded its neighbor, used WMDs
on its own citizens, had the infrastructure in place for a viable
nuclear program, and so forth. You do not confront such threat with
Ghandi-like behavior. You confront it with a Great Big Hammer, and
that's what Bush did, and I applaud him for it.
Judging from the news today, it is apparently Iran's turn next, this
time with the help of NATO. Hopefully, the malodorous scumbags that run
Iran have learned a lesson from Iraq, but I tend to doubt it. I would
love to see further war in the region avoided, but again, I don't think
this will happen. Bush is right: To erradicate the threat of terror (a
*way* of making war) you have to attack its supporters, financiers, and
the infrastructure that enables terror. This means Iran next, and
probably Syria soon after. At that point the Saudis better have gotten
the message or they will end up being the mopup operation on the Arab
penninsula.
None of these are "good" choices. They are simply *better* choices than
doing nothing. History repeatedly teaches us that you cannot ignore or
negotiate with evil. You have to stop it in its tracks. Pacifism, good
will, nice ideas, and listening to Enya CDs won't do the trick, no
matter how sincere we may all be about it.
Bush is a flawed President - they all are because they're human. But
he's got this issue right. Hopefully, the people and the Congress will
continue to have the patience to finish what was started here. If so,
the world will be a markedly better place. It took 70 years of hard
work, blood, and treasure for the West to neutralize the evils of
Communism. One would hope we have at least a third that much patience to
neutralize the threat of terror. If not, God help us, for we shall
surely get what we deserve. Note well that some of the greatest
civilizations known in human history (Rome leaps to mind) were overrun
and conquered by unsophisticated tribal savages, exactly because those
civilization ceased doing what was needful to protect themselves. I do
not want the liberal West to be another such statistic...
--
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
Tim Daneliuk [email protected]
PGP Key: http://www.tundraware.com/PGP/
snip
> He's provided you dozens of cites. That you choose to ignore the fact
> that both sides of the aisle agreeed that SH had WMD's says more about
> your
> "open-minded" politics and "careful study and search for the truth" than
> anything else
Both sides had the same "intelligence," but only 1 decided to invade another
country on the basis of faulty intelligence, having decided first and then
flopping all over the place for an excuse. Bush is a war criminal.
Steve
"David Stuve" <[email protected]> wrote in message
news:[email protected]...
> Why do ex-presidents have to keep their mouths shut? Freedom of speech is
> the absolute cornerstone of our democracy, and should be encouraged. I
> think Bush and Reagan kept their mouths shut becuase in their heart of
> hearts they really didn't give a crap about the rest of us. When Mad King
> George gets impeached or manages to somehow cling to office through the
> rest of his term, he's going to go back to fishing and golf, and will
> never look back. Like him or not, Carter seems to really want to keep
> trying to make the world a better place.
Do you think 2 presidents in a row would be impeached? LOL
CW <[email protected]> wrote:
> I hope he's a better woodworker than he was a president.
I remember thinking at the time he was a pretty lame president. However,
considering our past several presidents, I'm starting to think he was
pretty good.
--
Frank Stutzman
On 23 Dec 2005 19:32:25 EST, Tim Daneliuk <[email protected]> wrote:
>His regular support and even praise for dictators and despots like
> Castro because they tow the Leftie line of jamming the government
> into every facet of an individual's life. He seems incapable
> of grasping that "healthcare for all" in Cuba really means
> "equally LOUSY healthcare for all in Cuba".
Yeah sure, look at America's Haiti if you want to see what American style 'free
enterprise' does to a nation.
Castro is a much better human being than GWBush.
Charles Self wrote:
> "Greg G." <[email protected]> wrote in message
> news:[email protected]...
>
>>todd said:
>>
>>
>>>Interesting. According to their rankings, Fox News with Brit Hume is
>>>closer
>>>to center than any of the major networks' nightly newscasts. And the CBS
>>>Evening News gets the same score as the New York Times. In commening on
>>>whether or not there exists a liberal bias in major media outlets, the
>>>study
>>>says: "Our results show a strong liberal bias. All of the news outlets
>>>except Fox News' Special Report and the Washington Times received a score
>>>to
>>>the left of the average member of Congress. And a few outlets, including
>>>the New York Times and CBS Evening News, were closer to the average
>>>Democrat
>>>in Congress than the center."
>>
>>But do take note that they excluded all "Editorial" type reporting.
>>Like Maureen Dowd and Bill O-Reilly.
>>I'd like to see a comparison of THOSE two. Well... maybe not.
>>
>
> Probably not. I'd like to see Annie Coullter compared to...something human?
> That is one vile woman.
All those big words she uses are confusing?
--
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
Tim Daneliuk [email protected]
PGP Key: http://www.tundraware.com/PGP/
Note followups.
Tim Daneliuk wrote:
>
> ...
>
> Very lawyerly of you. When the facts don't support your case,
> attack the veracity of the witness. It's always rewarding to see
> someone like you sputtering with personal attack - it means you
> have no meaningful counterpoint.
To be polite, shall I call you _Mr_ Dickhead?
Google is your friend and mine. As usual, you were
the first to resort to namecalling. Whining when someone
ups the ante by calling you a slightly worse name than
you called him is no substittue for conducting yourself
in a diginifed manner in the first place.
--
FF
Mark & Juanita wrote:
>
> ...
>
> It is the left that views that as a utopian society --
> the society the USSR, the PRC, the Cubans, and others have attempted to
> implement.
> ...
I'm surprised because up until now I had
thought you would have considered
pretty much all Greens, Democrats, and
more than a few Republicans to be 'left'. But
now you make it clear that pretty much none
of those folks are, in your opinion, left.
Indeed only a minority of card carrying
American Socialists would consider the USSR,
PRC or Castro to be any kind of role model
so it would seem that when you refer to
the left, you mean only an insignificant
number of people.
Thanks for clearing that up.
I'll try to remember that.
Have a happy New Year.
--
FF
[email protected] wrote:
> On Thu, 29 Dec 2005 18:40:06 GMT, "John Emmons" <[email protected]>
> wrote:
>
>
>>What a load of crap...luckily for the rest of the world, you're a former
>>teacher...talk about indoctrination.
>>
>>John E.
>>
>
> John what you have to understand about Tim Daneliuk is that he is a sadist who
> is also a coward.
> His type are usually attracted to the cruelty of the far right.
> They can then get others to inflict the pain they are too cowardly to attempt
> themselves.
> And they are attracted to Bush like flies, he is one of their own kind.
>
Very lawyerly of you. When the facts don't support your case,
attack the veracity of the witness. It's always rewarding to see
someone like you sputtering with personal attack - it means you
have no meaningful counterpoint. This is inevitably where the Left
ends up. And ... for the 100th time I am not of the Right, the
Far Right, a neocon, or any of those other simple words you divide
the world into. I think for myself. The Right is utterly wrong about
many things. The Left, however, has been running things a lot longer
and has more to answer for. When freedom in the West is dead, remember
this and similar threads. You and your ilk helped kill Lady Liberty
and you'll be getting just what you deserve.
--
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
Tim Daneliuk [email protected]
PGP Key: http://www.tundraware.com/PGP/
wrote:
> John what you have to understand about Tim Daneliuk is that he is
> a sadist who is also a coward.
> His type are usually attracted to the cruelty of the far right.
> They can then get others to inflict the pain they are too cowardly
> to attempt themselves.
> And they are attracted to Bush like flies, he is one of their own
> kind.
The nonsense that spews from some pieholes out there never ceases to
amaze me. Daneliuk is a sound guy from what I can tell. By your post
above you seem little more than a fool.
Joe Barta
On Fri, 30 Dec 2005 19:54:30 -0500, Tom Watson <[email protected]>
wrote:
>On Wed, 28 Dec 2005 19:48:55 -0700, Mark & Juanita
><[email protected]> wrote:
>
>>
>> From what I've seen, Mr. Daneliuk is trying to prevent our country from
>>becoming that which he left. He's lived that "utopian" society that the
>>left always raves about. Seems like that experience is worth listening to.
>
>
>You know, I don't know a damned thing
... snip (yes, that's sort of a joke)
>
>To extract the concept of a "Utopian Society" from the writings of Mr.
>D. is more than I can bear. (yes, that is a joke).
>
You didn't read what I posted very closely. The point is that he has had
direct experience (as he later posted through his parents helping other
escape the iron curtain) with the kind of society that the left thinks
hasn't worked yet just because it hasn't been tried correctly. That
viewpoint is rampant in our society with the various class warfare politics
espoused by the left (usually from those who could lead by example and sell
all they have and give to the poor, but would rather take from the rest of
us for that purpose), as well as a decidedly "hate America first" rhetoric.
That political viewpoint espouses implementation of an egalitarian society
with guaranteed equality of results (usually for all but themselves, who
will be the leaders of that society and therefore justly entitled to the
associated material benefits befitting of such caring, gracious leaders)
for all of society. It is the left that views that as a utopian society --
the society the USSR, the PRC, the Cubans, and others have attempted to
implement. Each of those countries have had to put up walls to keep their
people in, not to keep others out. Speaks volumes for the results that
come from attempting to implement such societies. On the other hand, this
evil country, responsible for all of the world's ills(according to the
left) has to put up walls and fences to keep the people wanting to come in
to a manageable level.
You know Tom, you are a very talented writer as I and others have
attested to based upon various contributions you have made here. I'm sure
you are a darned fine woodworker and are well experienced in that area.
Your politics on the other hand, are a different matter. To post your
viewpoints is one thing, all of us who have participated in this and other
threads have shared our own views. The problem is that you are now
elevating your voice above a crescendo and attempting to replace with
volume what you are not contributing in substance. ... and that's too bad.
+--------------------------------------------------------------------------------+
If you're gonna be dumb, you better be tough
+--------------------------------------------------------------------------------+
On Thu, 29 Dec 2005 18:40:06 GMT, "John Emmons" <[email protected]>
wrote:
>What a load of crap...luckily for the rest of the world, you're a former
>teacher...talk about indoctrination.
>
>John E.
>
John what you have to understand about Tim Daneliuk is that he is a sadist who
is also a coward.
His type are usually attracted to the cruelty of the far right.
They can then get others to inflict the pain they are too cowardly to attempt
themselves.
And they are attracted to Bush like flies, he is one of their own kind.
todd said:
>Interesting. According to their rankings, Fox News with Brit Hume is closer
>to center than any of the major networks' nightly newscasts. And the CBS
>Evening News gets the same score as the New York Times. In commening on
>whether or not there exists a liberal bias in major media outlets, the study
>says: "Our results show a strong liberal bias. All of the news outlets
>except Fox News' Special Report and the Washington Times received a score to
>the left of the average member of Congress. And a few outlets, including
>the New York Times and CBS Evening News, were closer to the average Democrat
>in Congress than the center."
But do take note that they excluded all "Editorial" type reporting.
Like Maureen Dowd and Bill O-Reilly.
I'd like to see a comparison of THOSE two. Well... maybe not.
Greg G.
On Wed, 28 Dec 2005 20:06:30 -0500, Tom Watson <[email protected]> wrote:
>On 27 Dec 2005 13:25:03 EST, Tim Daneliuk <[email protected]>
>wrote:
>
>
>
>>
>>Excuse me Sparky,
>
>
>You know what, dickhead, you don't get to call me "Sparky".
>
>You get to call me, Mr. Watson."
>
>
>The country that I grew up in exists in such a way as to allow
>assholes like you into the country.
>
>I'm basically OK with that, but in your case, I might have wanted a
>closer look.
>
>Why don't you try and relax and see something other than what you
>brought along with you.
>
From what I've seen, Mr. Daneliuk is trying to prevent our country from
becoming that which he left. He's lived that "utopian" society that the
left always raves about. Seems like that experience is worth listening to.
>What you brought along with you was not healthy.
>
What he left was not healthy.
>
>That does not mean that what you found is totally healthy.
+--------------------------------------------------------------------------------+
If you're gonna be dumb, you better be tough
+--------------------------------------------------------------------------------+
Mark & Juanita wrote:
> On Wed, 28 Dec 2005 20:06:30 -0500, Tom Watson <[email protected]> wrote:
>
>
>>On 27 Dec 2005 13:25:03 EST, Tim Daneliuk <[email protected]>
>>wrote:
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>>Excuse me Sparky,
>>
>>
>>You know what, dickhead, you don't get to call me "Sparky".
>>
>>You get to call me, Mr. Watson."
>>
>>
>>The country that I grew up in exists in such a way as to allow
>>assholes like you into the country.
>>
>>I'm basically OK with that, but in your case, I might have wanted a
>>closer look.
>>
>>Why don't you try and relax and see something other than what you
>>brought along with you.
>>
>
>
> From what I've seen, Mr. Daneliuk is trying to prevent our country from
> becoming that which he left. He's lived that "utopian" society that the
> left always raves about. Seems like that experience is worth listening to.
>
Actually not quite right. I am a couple generations removed from the
people who emmigrated from the collectivist insanity. However, I have
experience (by direct observation in my immediate family) with the
repatriation of Eastern Europeans to the West as they escaped the
iron curtain. My parents made a career of helping people get out from
under Communist oppression and finding them new lives in Western Europe
and Canada. Every Western Liberal should spend a day with someone who
actually lived the horror of collectivism to understand why "What's
Good For Society" is a code word for oppression, starvation, and murder.
Absent that, if anyone reading this wants a close up look inside the
guts of a collectivized system, read Rand's "We The Living". I read it
once, I don't think I can do so again. It rang too true (even thought
formally it is fiction) to what I know to be the case from having heard
hundreds of stories like it.
Whether it is called "collectivism", "socialism", "Communism", "progressive
politics", or just plain Western "liberalism" the disease of putting the group
before the individual *always* ultimately devolves into murder and
mayhem. The dual tragedy of the West is that it has Liberals who buy
into this garbage anyway and so-called Conservatives who are collectivist
in most other regards. Freedom is a tenuous, precious, and rare thing.
Only we Westerners manage to treat it with such contempt...
--
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
Tim Daneliuk [email protected]
PGP Key: http://www.tundraware.com/PGP/
Let's get back to talking Woodworking and stop this crap. Go to another
newsgroup if you want to talk politics.
"Tim Daneliuk" <[email protected]> wrote in message
news:[email protected]...
> Charles Self wrote:
> <SNIP>
>
>>>>Probably not. I'd like to see Annie Coullter compared to...something
>>>>human? That is one vile woman.
>>>
>>>All those big words she uses are confusing?
>>>
>>
>>
>> Sure are, Timmy boy. Her statements like, "It might be fun to nuke Iran"
>> contain a major number of big words.
>
> It's not a practical option. Any nuclear detonation in the Middle East
> will cause radioactive particles to encircle the globle courtesy of
> the jet stream. A far better option is to send Iran our "best and
> brightest" like Babs Streisand, Sean Penn, Alec Baldwin, George Clooney,
> Tim Robbins, etc. With their deep understanding of geopolitcs
> and their "help", we'd have Iran begging for mercy (the extraction
> of those aforementioned bozos) and willing to do our ever bidding.
>
>>
>> Any person in the public eye who makes that kind of statement
>> consistently is just going for shock value. She should get together with
>> your buddy, Howard Stern, maybe? Between the three of you, come up with a
>> sensible way of ruling the world.
>
>
> Hee, hee - I was just teasin' Charlie - I often don't agree with her
> either. I do not, however, think she is "vile". You may not like her
> ideas, but at least she hasn't, say, gotten drunk, dunked her car into
> a river, killed her fellow passenger, and then lied about it all. *That*
> is vile.
>
> Ann is also right about some things now and then. But mostly, she is
> entertaining. I love to watch the Rightwingers wince and the Lefties
> shriek when she says something especially provocative. It's mighty
> entertaining to see someone treat politics for the complete sham that
> it is.
>
> BTW, I cannot abide Howard Stern. He is provocative without a shred
> of entertainment value nor any demonstration of IQ above shoe size.
> I'm quite happy for him to be on sat radio so I can never again
> accidentally come across his puerile droolings on radio or TV...
> --
> ----------------------------------------------------------------------------
> Tim Daneliuk [email protected]
> PGP Key: http://www.tundraware.com/PGP/
"Tim Daneliuk" <[email protected]> wrote in message
news:[email protected]...
> Charles Self wrote:
>
>> "Greg G." <[email protected]> wrote in message
>> news:[email protected]...
>>
>>>todd said:
>>>
>>>
>>>>Interesting. According to their rankings, Fox News with Brit Hume is
>>>>closer
>>>>to center than any of the major networks' nightly newscasts. And the
>>>>CBS
>>>>Evening News gets the same score as the New York Times. In commening on
>>>>whether or not there exists a liberal bias in major media outlets, the
>>>>study
>>>>says: "Our results show a strong liberal bias. All of the news outlets
>>>>except Fox News' Special Report and the Washington Times received a
>>>>score to
>>>>the left of the average member of Congress. And a few outlets,
>>>>including
>>>>the New York Times and CBS Evening News, were closer to the average
>>>>Democrat
>>>>in Congress than the center."
>>>
>>>But do take note that they excluded all "Editorial" type reporting.
>>>Like Maureen Dowd and Bill O-Reilly.
>>>I'd like to see a comparison of THOSE two. Well... maybe not.
>>>
>>
>> Probably not. I'd like to see Annie Coullter compared to...something
>> human? That is one vile woman.
>
> All those big words she uses are confusing?
>
Sure are, Timmy boy. Her statements like, "It might be fun to nuke Iran"
contain a major number of big words.
Any person in the public eye who makes that kind of statement consistently
is just going for shock value. She should get together with your buddy,
Howard Stern, maybe? Between the three of you, come up with a sensible way
of ruling the world.
On Fri, 30 Dec 2005 21:04:13 -0700, Mark & Juanita
<[email protected]> wrote:
> You know Tom, you are a very talented writer as I and others have
>attested to based upon various contributions you have made here.
Thank you, although I am not sure that I have earned your kudos.
> I'm sure
>you are a darned fine woodworker and are well experienced in that area.
I don't know about that but I have put up a website that shows my poor
offerings. Which is more than most here have done.
>Your politics on the other hand, are a different matter.
Ah, now we come to what we've all come to the Wreck to talk about.
> To post your
>viewpoints is one thing,
Well, it is at least one thing - I have been thinking that is at least
several things.
> all of us who have participated in this and other
>threads have shared our own views.
Your concept of sharing seems to intersect with mine of overbearing.
> The problem is that you are now
>elevating your voice above a crescendo
What measure or device do I have that would elevate my voice in any
way?
>and attempting to replace with
>volume what you are not contributing in substance. ... and that's too bad.
It would be too bad if it were true. The fact is that my voice is no
louder than any other.
If you can not present your argument with as great a force as I,
perhaps it is a fault of the argument and not that of the voice behind
it.
You know, M+J, I have no particular problem with you.
I do have a problem with terminology, which you and others use.
You speak of the Left and the Right.
You speak of Conservatives and Liberals.
I don't think that you have a fucking clue of what you are talking
about. Neither you, nor your obvious compatriots.
I don't think that you can define "Left" or "Right" and I don't think
that you can define "Liberal" or "Conservative".
But, guys like you throw the terms around as though they are commonly
understood.
They are not.
When I was at school, and doing what my major called me to do, we
always asked first: "Give a definition of terms".
You are certainly not the biggest Bozo about this; Bush would rank
first, simply from pride of place.
But, chuckleheads abound and you are one of them.
Don't repeat your current post to me as proof of you purity in this -
there are other posts behind it.
You, and others of your ilk talk of "Liberals" and "Conservatives" and
"Left" and "Right" as though these simple words had power beyond their
entomology.
The fact is, they do.
When you, and others of your persuasion, use these terms as loosely as
you do, you water down the common language and render the terms more
useless than they already are.
That is a difficult task but you persecute it admirably.
When you wish to speak about a particular point of political interest,
please seek to limit yourself to a direct method of accusation and
rebuttal, rather than using the sorry and misunderstood terminology of
dubious parentage and more dubious definition.
It will help the argument in the end.
>
>
>+--------------------------------------------------------------------------------+
>
> If you're gonna be dumb, you better be tough
>
>+--------------------------------------------------------------------------------+
Further Away Than Yesterday
http://home.comcast.net/~tjwatson1/
Tom Watson wrote:
<SNIP>
> You know, M+J, I have no particular problem with you.
>
> I do have a problem with terminology, which you and others use.
>
> You speak of the Left and the Right.
>
> You speak of Conservatives and Liberals.
>
> I don't think that you have a fucking clue of what you are talking
> about. Neither you, nor your obvious compatriots.
>
> I don't think that you can define "Left" or "Right" and I don't think
> that you can define "Liberal" or "Conservative".
>
> But, guys like you throw the terms around as though they are commonly
> understood.
>
> They are not.
The last gasp of a lost argument is the redefinition of language.
"Liberal", "Conservative", "Left", and "Right" are not necessarily
*precise*, but they do convey a generally understood meaning about
a political orientation. Hiding behind "the words are meaningless
and thus the debate pointless" is a tactic of evasion not discussion.
These are also not the *only* words that can be brought to
bear to refine or clarify specifically what ideas are being
debated.
It is fairly clear that Chappaquiddick Ted, Michael Moore, and
Hillary Clinton are "Left" (so much so, she is busy trying to
reinvent herself as a middle-of-the-road "moderate" so as to become
electable). Similarly, Hannity, Limbaugh, and Helms are "Right" in
their political orientation. The use of such language is not
inherently perjorative - it is a verbal/written shortcut, no more.
I stipulate that it is possible to use any of these terms in an
accusatory voice - I do it regularly when referring to the various
"Left" ideas I despise. But that only works because the terms
*do* have meaning. If they did not, there would be no countering
debate. And that's the point, isn't it - we are debating the
*ideas* commonly found in these worldviews.
You can bob and weave all you like, but you've taken positions and
expressed ideas in this thread that are generally understood to
be "Left". That doesn't speak to *everything* you think, just
the items you commented upon. And that's precisely what I responded
to, what M&J chimed in on, and so forth. Trying to duck and
dismiss it all as meaningless language is a fine rhetorical trick
but fundamentally dishonest intellectually. Unless, of course,
you are philosophically a member of one of the 20th Century
knowledge denial schools like Postmoderism or Deconstructionism.
But in those schools, words have more-or-less *no* objective
meaning, ever, and *any* discussion is pointless.
I am regularly accused of being "Rightwing" or the equivalent, which
I most assuredly am not. I happen to agree with today's "Right"
about mostly only one thing: The importance of responding with
maximum prejudice to the threat of radical terror. In so doing
I am at odds with most of my fellow Libertarians and stangely,
even in great agreement with a few of the most notable members of
the "Left" (Christopher Hitchens, Ed Kotch). But when I stand
so-accused, I don't go running for the "words have no meaning"
argument as an evasive tactic, I respond to the substance of the
debate.
Even if people are not purely "Right", "Left", "Libertarian",
"Moderate", and so on, many *ideas* can be so categorized. Language
has meaning and ought to be respected as such.
--
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
Tim Daneliuk [email protected]
PGP Key: http://www.tundraware.com/PGP/
"Tim Daneliuk" <[email protected]> wrote in message
news:[email protected]...
>
> Hee, hee - I was just teasin' Charlie - I often don't agree with her
> either. I do not, however, think she is "vile". You may not like her
> ideas, but at least she hasn't, say, gotten drunk, dunked her car into
> a river, killed her fellow passenger, and then lied about it all. *That*
> is vile.
One action, or series of actions, by one person, something over 30 years
ago, and that seems to be all many people can think of. Coulter IS vile. She
would murder if she thought she could get away with, and she incites others
to do so.
>
> Ann is also right about some things now and then. But mostly, she is
> entertaining. I love to watch the Rightwingers wince and the Lefties
> shriek when she says something especially provocative. It's mighty
> entertaining to see someone treat politics for the complete sham that
> it is.
Political commentators need to be entertaining, but when their entertainment
is primarily shock value from moronic and dangerous attitudes, then they are
vile.
>
> BTW, I cannot abide Howard Stern. He is provocative without a shred
> of entertainment value nor any demonstration of IQ above shoe size.
> I'm quite happy for him to be on sat radio so I can never again
> accidentally come across his puerile droolings on radio or TV...
Can you believe he got half a billion bucks? For what? I really don't need
anyone to teach me how to cuss, and that seems to be all he does. He's not
even talented at it.
By the way, you're wrong about his IQ, unless he wears a terribly small
shoe. He has the IQ of a Pet Rock or a Pet Rock buyer.
Tom Watson wrote:
> On 31 Dec 2005 00:34:59 EST, Tim Daneliuk <[email protected]>
> wrote:
>
>
>
>>The last gasp of a lost argument is the redefinition of language.
>
>
> Is that a quote from your betters, or the usual shabby trumpet of bad
> thinking?
>
>
>
>>"Liberal", "Conservative", "Left", and "Right" are not necessarily
>>*precise*, but they do convey a generally understood meaning about
>>a political orientation.
>
>
> The concept of "Generally Understood" is lost on me. I need you to do
> your own homework on definition.
>
>
>> Hiding behind "the words are meaningless
>>and thus the debate pointless"
>
>
> This quote is from where?
>
>
>>is a tactic of evasion not discussion.
>>These are also not the *only* words that can be brought to
>>bear to refine or clarify specifically what ideas are being
>>debated.
>
>
> That is one hellofa sentence, that, once analyzed, don't mean shit.
>
>
>
>>It is fairly clear that Chappaquiddick Ted, Michael Moore, and
>>Hillary Clinton are "Left" (so much so, she is busy trying to
>>reinvent herself as a middle-of-the-road "moderate" so as to become
>>electable). Similarly, Hannity, Limbaugh, and Helms are "Right" in
>>their political orientation.
>
>
> It is interesting to me that you managed to use the term "right" in
> this sentence. At least, I think that this is a sentence.
>
>
>>The use of such language is not
>>inherently perjorative - it is a verbal/written shortcut, no more.
>
>
> Are we down to talking about "Code"?
>
>
>>I stipulate that it is possible to use any of these terms in an
>>accusatory voice -
>
>
> No shit? I am surprised that the concept of voice is available to
> you.
>
>
>>I do it regularly when referring to the various
>>"Left" ideas I despise.
>
>
> Oh, but those of us in opposition to your views so much like to be
> categorized.
>
>
>>But that only works because the terms
>>*do* have meaning.
>
>
> You are now in deep shit, Bubba.
>
>
>> If they did not, there would be no countering
>>debate.
>
>
> Have you read Aristotle on Elencthic?
>
>
>>And that's the point, isn't it -
>
>
> No. I thought that the point was getting to the truth.
>
>
>>we are debating the
>>*ideas* commonly found in these worldviews.
>
>
> What you describe as "Ideas" are merely words without adequate
> definition.
>
>
>
>>You can bob and weave all you like,
>
>
> Yes. And I think that I have done both rather well.
>
>
>>but you've taken positions and
>>expressed ideas in this thread that are generally understood to
>>be "Left".
>
>
> "Generally Understood" - what a wonderful definition.
>
>
>> That doesn't speak to *everything* you think, just
>>the items you commented upon.
>
>
> No shit?
>
>
>>And that's precisely what I responded
>>to, what M&J chimed in on, and so forth.
>
>
> And so forth...hee, hee...
>
>
>>Trying to duck and
>>dismiss it all as meaningless language is a fine rhetorical trick
>>but fundamentally dishonest intellectually.
>
>
> Your language is good but your thinking is without merit.
>
>
>>Unless, of course,
>>you are philosophically a member of one of the 20th Century
>>knowledge denial schools like Postmoderism or Deconstructionism.
>
>
> I think that it is nice that you introduce two new terms that you do
> not understand to defend yourself against four other terms that you do
> not understand.
>
>
>
>>But in those schools, words have more-or-less *no* objective
>>meaning, ever, and *any* discussion is pointless.
>
>
> You should study this. You might be amazed.
>
>
>>I am regularly accused of being "Rightwing" or the equivalent,
>
>
> I am shocked!
>
>
>>which
>>I most assuredly am not.
>
>
> I am shocked again!
>
>
>>I happen to agree with today's "Right"
>
>
> Apparently, my shock knows no bounds.
>
>
>
>>about mostly only one thing: The importance of responding with
>>maximum prejudice to the threat of radical terror.
>
>
> Nice phrase.
>
>
>>In so doing
>>I am at odds with most of my fellow Libertarians
>
>
> Good Lord, are you so lucky as to live in a Country as would allow
> Libertarians?
>
>
>>and stangely,
>>even in great agreement with a few of the most notable members of
>>the "Left" (Christopher Hitchens, Ed Kotch).
>
>
> Christopher is grateful for your acknowledgement - Ed, however, is
> pissed that you misspelled his name.
>
>
>>But when I stand
>>so-accused,
>
>
> You were accused. I thought that I just called you an asshole.
>
>
>>I don't go running for the "words have no meaning"
>>argument as an evasive tactic,
>
>
> I am happy to see that I used a quotable argument.
>
>
>
>>I respond to the substance of the
>>debate.
>
>
> You need to be careful with words like "substance'. They can be
> difficult for a non-native speaker to understand.
>
>
>>Even if people are not purely "Right", "Left", "Libertarian",
>>"Moderate", and so on, many *ideas* can be so categorized.
>
>
> Yes. Categorization without referent to definition is the problem. I
> salute you for pegging the core of the problem.
>
>
>> Language
>>has meaning and ought to be respected as such.
>
>
> You are entirely correct and ultimately make my argument for me.
>
> Language does, or should, have meaning.
>
> It is only in those cases where sloppy intellects get hold of a word
> or phrase and twist it to their own usage that the language bogs down
> and has a problem.
>
> The language is adequate to the task of definition if it is not
> perverted.
>
> People like you pervert language and definition to their own use.
>
> It is intellectually dishonest.
>
> And, it is simply dishonest.
>
In the absence of anything resembling a coherent argument it's
offically Big Fun to for the ad hominem ramble. Your foolishness
is manifest for all to see. (Oh, and cussin' is the choice of
first resort for 12 year olds ...)
--
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
Tim Daneliuk [email protected]
PGP Key: http://www.tundraware.com/PGP/
On 31 Dec 2005 00:34:59 EST, Tim Daneliuk <[email protected]>
wrote:
>
>The last gasp of a lost argument is the redefinition of language.
Is that a quote from your betters, or the usual shabby trumpet of bad
thinking?
>"Liberal", "Conservative", "Left", and "Right" are not necessarily
>*precise*, but they do convey a generally understood meaning about
>a political orientation.
The concept of "Generally Understood" is lost on me. I need you to do
your own homework on definition.
> Hiding behind "the words are meaningless
>and thus the debate pointless"
This quote is from where?
> is a tactic of evasion not discussion.
>These are also not the *only* words that can be brought to
>bear to refine or clarify specifically what ideas are being
>debated.
That is one hellofa sentence, that, once analyzed, don't mean shit.
>
>It is fairly clear that Chappaquiddick Ted, Michael Moore, and
>Hillary Clinton are "Left" (so much so, she is busy trying to
>reinvent herself as a middle-of-the-road "moderate" so as to become
>electable). Similarly, Hannity, Limbaugh, and Helms are "Right" in
>their political orientation.
It is interesting to me that you managed to use the term "right" in
this sentence. At least, I think that this is a sentence.
> The use of such language is not
>inherently perjorative - it is a verbal/written shortcut, no more.
Are we down to talking about "Code"?
>
>I stipulate that it is possible to use any of these terms in an
>accusatory voice -
No shit? I am surprised that the concept of voice is available to
you.
> I do it regularly when referring to the various
>"Left" ideas I despise.
Oh, but those of us in opposition to your views so much like to be
categorized.
> But that only works because the terms
>*do* have meaning.
You are now in deep shit, Bubba.
> If they did not, there would be no countering
>debate.
Have you read Aristotle on Elencthic?
> And that's the point, isn't it -
No. I thought that the point was getting to the truth.
> we are debating the
>*ideas* commonly found in these worldviews.
What you describe as "Ideas" are merely words without adequate
definition.
>
>You can bob and weave all you like,
Yes. And I think that I have done both rather well.
> but you've taken positions and
>expressed ideas in this thread that are generally understood to
>be "Left".
"Generally Understood" - what a wonderful definition.
> That doesn't speak to *everything* you think, just
>the items you commented upon.
No shit?
> And that's precisely what I responded
>to, what M&J chimed in on, and so forth.
And so forth...hee, hee...
>Trying to duck and
>dismiss it all as meaningless language is a fine rhetorical trick
>but fundamentally dishonest intellectually.
Your language is good but your thinking is without merit.
> Unless, of course,
>you are philosophically a member of one of the 20th Century
>knowledge denial schools like Postmoderism or Deconstructionism.
I think that it is nice that you introduce two new terms that you do
not understand to defend yourself against four other terms that you do
not understand.
>But in those schools, words have more-or-less *no* objective
>meaning, ever, and *any* discussion is pointless.
You should study this. You might be amazed.
>
>I am regularly accused of being "Rightwing" or the equivalent,
I am shocked!
>which
>I most assuredly am not.
I am shocked again!
>I happen to agree with today's "Right"
Apparently, my shock knows no bounds.
>about mostly only one thing: The importance of responding with
>maximum prejudice to the threat of radical terror.
Nice phrase.
> In so doing
>I am at odds with most of my fellow Libertarians
Good Lord, are you so lucky as to live in a Country as would allow
Libertarians?
>and stangely,
>even in great agreement with a few of the most notable members of
>the "Left" (Christopher Hitchens, Ed Kotch).
Christopher is grateful for your acknowledgement - Ed, however, is
pissed that you misspelled his name.
> But when I stand
>so-accused,
You were accused. I thought that I just called you an asshole.
>I don't go running for the "words have no meaning"
>argument as an evasive tactic,
I am happy to see that I used a quotable argument.
> I respond to the substance of the
>debate.
You need to be careful with words like "substance'. They can be
difficult for a non-native speaker to understand.
>
>Even if people are not purely "Right", "Left", "Libertarian",
>"Moderate", and so on, many *ideas* can be so categorized.
Yes. Categorization without referent to definition is the problem. I
salute you for pegging the core of the problem.
> Language
>has meaning and ought to be respected as such.
You are entirely correct and ultimately make my argument for me.
Language does, or should, have meaning.
It is only in those cases where sloppy intellects get hold of a word
or phrase and twist it to their own usage that the language bogs down
and has a problem.
The language is adequate to the task of definition if it is not
perverted.
People like you pervert language and definition to their own use.
It is intellectually dishonest.
And, it is simply dishonest.
Further Away Than Yesterday
http://home.comcast.net/~tjwatson1/
David wrote:
> Tim Daneliuk wrote:
>
>> In the absence of anything resembling a coherent argument it's
>> offically Big Fun to for the ad hominem ramble. Your foolishness
>> is manifest for all to see. (Oh, and cussin' is the choice of
>> first resort for 12 year olds ...)
>
>
> Not one to get in on political OT posts, or much else OT, except for a
> few select ones, I BROWSED his post and was dismayed to see the choice
> of words he found either amusing or necessary, from HIS point of view. I
> don't share his point of view, nor his choice of words...
>
> In short, I concur with your assessment of a post from he who once was a
> notable and sometimes witty poster to the Wreck. Could it be we have
> been duped by an impostor? I doubt it, due to the writing style. What
> a shame (that he wrote as he did).
>
> Dave
Well, I guess everyone has their Highs and Lows. I just can't tell
which this is for "Tom". No worries, I care about ideas not
personalities ...
--
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
Tim Daneliuk [email protected]
PGP Key: http://www.tundraware.com/PGP/
Tim Daneliuk wrote:
> In the absence of anything resembling a coherent argument it's
> offically Big Fun to for the ad hominem ramble. Your foolishness
> is manifest for all to see. (Oh, and cussin' is the choice of
> first resort for 12 year olds ...)
Not one to get in on political OT posts, or much else OT, except for a
few select ones, I BROWSED his post and was dismayed to see the choice
of words he found either amusing or necessary, from HIS point of view.
I don't share his point of view, nor his choice of words...
In short, I concur with your assessment of a post from he who once was a
notable and sometimes witty poster to the Wreck. Could it be we have
been duped by an impostor? I doubt it, due to the writing style. What
a shame (that he wrote as he did).
Dave
Tom Watson wrote:
> On 31 Dec 2005 00:34:59 EST, Tim Daneliuk <[email protected]>
> wrote:
>
>
>
>>The last gasp of a lost argument is the redefinition of language.
>
>
> Is that a quote from your betters, or the usual shabby trumpet of bad
> thinking?
Most of what I know I learned from "my betters". I happily admit this.
>>"Liberal", "Conservative", "Left", and "Right" are not necessarily
>>*precise*, but they do convey a generally understood meaning about
>>a political orientation.
>
>
> The concept of "Generally Understood" is lost on me. I need you to do
> your own homework on definition.
Wow, however do you have a conversation with anyone? The notion of
common meaning of words is not available to you?
>
>
>> Hiding behind "the words are meaningless
>>and thus the debate pointless"
>
>
> This quote is from where?
>
>
>>is a tactic of evasion not discussion.
>>These are also not the *only* words that can be brought to
>>bear to refine or clarify specifically what ideas are being
>>debated.
>
>
> That is one hellofa sentence, that, once analyzed, don't mean shit.
Another brilliant refutation.
>
>>It is fairly clear that Chappaquiddick Ted, Michael Moore, and
>>Hillary Clinton are "Left" (so much so, she is busy trying to
>>reinvent herself as a middle-of-the-road "moderate" so as to become
>>electable). Similarly, Hannity, Limbaugh, and Helms are "Right" in
>>their political orientation.
>
>
> It is interesting to me that you managed to use the term "right" in
> this sentence. At least, I think that this is a sentence.
<Turns on the tap dancing music>
>
>
>>The use of such language is not
>>inherently perjorative - it is a verbal/written shortcut, no more.
>
>
> Are we down to talking about "Code"?
No, we're talking about semantics and semotics. Two well established
branches of thinking that help describe how we communicate.
>>I stipulate that it is possible to use any of these terms in an
>>accusatory voice -
>
>
> No shit? I am surprised that the concept of voice is available to
> you.
<Yawn and SNIP>
--
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
Tim Daneliuk [email protected]
PGP Key: http://www.tundraware.com/PGP/
Dave wrote:
> Let's get back to talking Woodworking and stop this crap. Go to another
> newsgroup if you want to talk politics.
1) This group has wandered Off Topic for many years.
2) You are not the group's Den Mother so quit handing out advice.
Do you moderate conversations with your friends when you're all
sitting around the coffee shop?
3) Learn to use filters.
4) Whoever started this thread did so *on* topic and then the
thread drifted *off* topic. When this happend, the subject should
have been changed to note this fact and it was not. This was
a Bad Thing. I have now fixed it in this subthread.
5) Relax and have a lovely week...
--
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
Tim Daneliuk [email protected]
PGP Key: http://www.tundraware.com/PGP/
Charles Self wrote:
<SNIP>
>>>Probably not. I'd like to see Annie Coullter compared to...something
>>>human? That is one vile woman.
>>
>>All those big words she uses are confusing?
>>
>
>
> Sure are, Timmy boy. Her statements like, "It might be fun to nuke Iran"
> contain a major number of big words.
It's not a practical option. Any nuclear detonation in the Middle East
will cause radioactive particles to encircle the globle courtesy of
the jet stream. A far better option is to send Iran our "best and
brightest" like Babs Streisand, Sean Penn, Alec Baldwin, George Clooney,
Tim Robbins, etc. With their deep understanding of geopolitcs
and their "help", we'd have Iran begging for mercy (the extraction
of those aforementioned bozos) and willing to do our ever bidding.
>
> Any person in the public eye who makes that kind of statement consistently
> is just going for shock value. She should get together with your buddy,
> Howard Stern, maybe? Between the three of you, come up with a sensible way
> of ruling the world.
Hee, hee - I was just teasin' Charlie - I often don't agree with her
either. I do not, however, think she is "vile". You may not like her
ideas, but at least she hasn't, say, gotten drunk, dunked her car into
a river, killed her fellow passenger, and then lied about it all. *That*
is vile.
Ann is also right about some things now and then. But mostly, she is
entertaining. I love to watch the Rightwingers wince and the Lefties
shriek when she says something especially provocative. It's mighty
entertaining to see someone treat politics for the complete sham that
it is.
BTW, I cannot abide Howard Stern. He is provocative without a shred
of entertainment value nor any demonstration of IQ above shoe size.
I'm quite happy for him to be on sat radio so I can never again
accidentally come across his puerile droolings on radio or TV...
--
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
Tim Daneliuk [email protected]
PGP Key: http://www.tundraware.com/PGP/
My apologies for allowing SpielChuck to turn "Etymology" into
"Entomology"
It may have been appropriate but it is still incorrect.
On Fri, 30 Dec 2005 23:44:28 -0500, Tom Watson <[email protected]>
wrote:
>On Fri, 30 Dec 2005 21:04:13 -0700, Mark & Juanita
><[email protected]> wrote:
>
>
>> You know Tom, you are a very talented writer as I and others have
>>attested to based upon various contributions you have made here.
>
>Thank you, although I am not sure that I have earned your kudos.
>
>> I'm sure
>>you are a darned fine woodworker and are well experienced in that area.
>
>I don't know about that but I have put up a website that shows my poor
>offerings. Which is more than most here have done.
>
>>Your politics on the other hand, are a different matter.
>
>Ah, now we come to what we've all come to the Wreck to talk about.
>
>> To post your
>>viewpoints is one thing,
>
>Well, it is at least one thing - I have been thinking that is at least
>several things.
>
>> all of us who have participated in this and other
>>threads have shared our own views.
>
>Your concept of sharing seems to intersect with mine of overbearing.
>
>> The problem is that you are now
>>elevating your voice above a crescendo
>
>What measure or device do I have that would elevate my voice in any
>way?
>
>>and attempting to replace with
>>volume what you are not contributing in substance. ... and that's too bad.
>
>It would be too bad if it were true. The fact is that my voice is no
>louder than any other.
>
>If you can not present your argument with as great a force as I,
>perhaps it is a fault of the argument and not that of the voice behind
>it.
>
>You know, M+J, I have no particular problem with you.
>
>I do have a problem with terminology, which you and others use.
>
>You speak of the Left and the Right.
>
>You speak of Conservatives and Liberals.
>
>I don't think that you have a fucking clue of what you are talking
>about. Neither you, nor your obvious compatriots.
>
>I don't think that you can define "Left" or "Right" and I don't think
>that you can define "Liberal" or "Conservative".
>
>But, guys like you throw the terms around as though they are commonly
>understood.
>
>They are not.
>
>When I was at school, and doing what my major called me to do, we
>always asked first: "Give a definition of terms".
>
>You are certainly not the biggest Bozo about this; Bush would rank
>first, simply from pride of place.
>
>But, chuckleheads abound and you are one of them.
>
>Don't repeat your current post to me as proof of you purity in this -
>there are other posts behind it.
>
>You, and others of your ilk talk of "Liberals" and "Conservatives" and
>"Left" and "Right" as though these simple words had power beyond their
>entomology.
>
>The fact is, they do.
>
>When you, and others of your persuasion, use these terms as loosely as
>you do, you water down the common language and render the terms more
>useless than they already are.
>
>That is a difficult task but you persecute it admirably.
>
>When you wish to speak about a particular point of political interest,
>please seek to limit yourself to a direct method of accusation and
>rebuttal, rather than using the sorry and misunderstood terminology of
>dubious parentage and more dubious definition.
>
>It will help the argument in the end.
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>>
>>
>>+--------------------------------------------------------------------------------+
>>
>> If you're gonna be dumb, you better be tough
>>
>>+--------------------------------------------------------------------------------+
>
>Further Away Than Yesterday
>http://home.comcast.net/~tjwatson1/
Further Away Than Yesterday
http://home.comcast.net/~tjwatson1/
On 31 Dec 2005 12:14:16 -0800, [email protected] wrote:
>
>Mark & Juanita wrote:
>>
>> ...
>>
>> It is the left that views that as a utopian society --
>> the society the USSR, the PRC, the Cubans, and others have attempted to
>> implement.
>> ...
>
>I'm surprised because up until now I had
>thought you would have considered
>pretty much all Greens, Democrats, and
>more than a few Republicans to be 'left'. But
>now you make it clear that pretty much none
>of those folks are, in your opinion, left.
>
... and of course a bit of hyperbole is beyond you.
>Indeed only a minority of card carrying
>American Socialists would consider the USSR,
>PRC or Castro to be any kind of role model
>so it would seem that when you refer to
>the left, you mean only an insignificant
>number of people.
As long as you include in that list academics like Noam Chomsky, elitists
like Jane Fonda, and numerous college professors.
>
>Thanks for clearing that up.
>I'll try to remember that.
>
>Have a happy New Year.
You do the same.
+--------------------------------------------------------------------------------+
If you're gonna be dumb, you better be tough
+--------------------------------------------------------------------------------+
"Greg G." <[email protected]> wrote in message
news:[email protected]...
> todd said:
>
>>Interesting. According to their rankings, Fox News with Brit Hume is
>>closer
>>to center than any of the major networks' nightly newscasts. And the CBS
>>Evening News gets the same score as the New York Times. In commening on
>>whether or not there exists a liberal bias in major media outlets, the
>>study
>>says: "Our results show a strong liberal bias. All of the news outlets
>>except Fox News' Special Report and the Washington Times received a score
>>to
>>the left of the average member of Congress. And a few outlets, including
>>the New York Times and CBS Evening News, were closer to the average
>>Democrat
>>in Congress than the center."
>
> But do take note that they excluded all "Editorial" type reporting.
> Like Maureen Dowd and Bill O-Reilly.
> I'd like to see a comparison of THOSE two. Well... maybe not.
>
Probably not. I'd like to see Annie Coullter compared to...something human?
That is one vile woman.
On Wed, 28 Dec 2005 19:48:55 -0700, Mark & Juanita
<[email protected]> wrote:
>
> From what I've seen, Mr. Daneliuk is trying to prevent our country from
>becoming that which he left. He's lived that "utopian" society that the
>left always raves about. Seems like that experience is worth listening to.
You know, I don't know a damned thing about your background.
I don't know if you studied smart or studied dumb.
I don't know what you have read during the course of your life.
I don't know if you subscribe to Time, or National Geographic, or
Scientific American, or the Congressional Report.
Let's say, just for the moment, that you have never read anything more
burdensome that the funny papers.
Even then.
Even then.
To extract the concept of a "Utopian Society" from the writings of Mr.
D. is more than I can bear. (yes, that is a joke).
And, if you think that his experience is worth listening to, you could
Google up the sum of his experience and be well satisfied.
Further Away Than Yesterday
http://home.comcast.net/~tjwatson1/
Charles Self wrote:
> "Tim Daneliuk" <[email protected]> wrote in message
> news:[email protected]...
>
>>Hee, hee - I was just teasin' Charlie - I often don't agree with her
>>either. I do not, however, think she is "vile". You may not like her
>>ideas, but at least she hasn't, say, gotten drunk, dunked her car into
>>a river, killed her fellow passenger, and then lied about it all. *That*
>>is vile.
>
>
> One action, or series of actions, by one person, something over 30 years
> ago, and that seems to be all many people can think of. Coulter IS vile. She
> would murder if she thought she could get away with, and she incites others
> to do so.
However good or bad Coulter's ideas are (and she's expressed both kinds)
there are just *ideas*. What happened "over 30 years ago" *killed*
another person. There's a huge difference, morally and qualitatively,
between good/bad ideation and manslaughter.
You're also not giving Coulter her due when she's right. She's said
for a very long time that McCarthy - however big a jerk he was -
was correct about the degree of Communist infiltration of the US
generally, and the government particularly. She has been vindicated
in this claim. For all the gory details see:
"The Sword and the Shield: The Mitrokhin Archive
and the Secret History of the KGB"
http://tinyurl.com/dg22s
This is a primary source from a former KGB senior officer who
defected in the 1980s and confirms widespread Communist
infiltration throughout the West at almost frightening levels.
McCarthy got painted with a brush that started long before he
was ever in office by HUAC - The *House* UnAmerican Activities
Committee - McCarthy was a *senator*. He was a depicable paranoid
drunk, but he was right about some things, and Coulter has been
almost alone in giving him his due.
>
>>Ann is also right about some things now and then. But mostly, she is
>>entertaining. I love to watch the Rightwingers wince and the Lefties
>>shriek when she says something especially provocative. It's mighty
>>entertaining to see someone treat politics for the complete sham that
>>it is.
Sure she's hyperbolic but so is pretty much every commentator on all
sides in popular culture. Any civilization that has the short attention
span to actually require shows like "Deal Or No Deal" and "Fear Factor"
isn't going to listen to thoughtful political commentary. It has to
be dished out like Reality TV. Coulter can be outrageous sometimes
but she is consistently funny. The rest of gasbags in that space
(O'Reilley, Hannity, Franken, the New York Times entire editorial staff ...)
are neither interesting NOR funny. Give her some credit...
>
> Political commentators need to be entertaining, but when their entertainment
> is primarily shock value from moronic and dangerous attitudes, then they are
> vile.
>
>>BTW, I cannot abide Howard Stern. He is provocative without a shred
>>of entertainment value nor any demonstration of IQ above shoe size.
>>I'm quite happy for him to be on sat radio so I can never again
>>accidentally come across his puerile droolings on radio or TV...
>
>
> Can you believe he got half a billion bucks? For what? I really don't need
> anyone to teach me how to cuss, and that seems to be all he does. He's not
> even talented at it.
>
> By the way, you're wrong about his IQ, unless he wears a terribly small
> shoe. He has the IQ of a Pet Rock or a Pet Rock buyer.
>
>
In retrospect, I think he's a genius for getting that much money on
so little actual ability. It is his audience that has the IQ of
shoeleather...
--
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
Tim Daneliuk [email protected]
PGP Key: http://www.tundraware.com/PGP/
>In the absence of anything resembling a coherent argument it's
>offically Big Fun to for the ad hominem ramble. Your foolishness
>is manifest for all to see. (Oh, and cussin' is the choice of
>first resort for 12 year olds ...)
You think that this is Ad Hominem?
An Ad Hominem argument is an attack on the perceived value of the
interlocutor.
Don't overestimate yourself.
Further Away Than Yesterday
http://home.comcast.net/~tjwatson1/
On Fri, 23 Dec 2005 19:05:09 GMT, Joe Barta <[email protected]> wrote:
Also, don't reply to the OTers. Doing so gives them validity. Don't
reply and they will go away eventually. I put them in a "killfile".
Stinky
>You know, for as long as I can remember, people have lamented over
>"ruined" newsgroups. Well boys and girls, newsgroups don't get ruined.
>At any given point in time in every group there is a certain amount of
>off-topic posting, more off-topic replying, sniping, bitching,
>flaming, whining, ranting and the occasional complaint that yet
>another newgroup has gone to shit.
>
>Rest assured that this, like most other popular groups, will continue
>to function just fine and at least one third of the discussion will be
>useful and on-topic. As for the other two thirds, if you don't like
>it, ignore it and quitcher cryin.
>
>Joe Barta
On Thu, 22 Dec 2005 15:35:27 -0800, "David Stuve" <[email protected]> wrote:
>Why do ex-presidents have to keep their mouths shut?
Same reason retired CEO's of corporations keep their opinions to
themselves. They are no longer running things and because of their
previous position of authority, some within the various agencies who report
to the sitting president may tend to act more in line with the prior
leader's wishes than the current leader's wishes.
> Freedom of speech is
>the absolute cornerstone of our democracy, and should be encouraged.
This is more protocol and maintaining a reasonable sense of decorum.
Those former presidents had their 4 or 8 years to shape the landscape of
American life. To continue to attempt to influence events beyond
supporting their party's activities gives the appearance of attempting to
undermine the sitting president. Most of the former presidents have had the
dignity and wisdom to realize what that kind of activity during their terms
would have meant. How do you think that kind of thing looks to the rest of
the world (something about "a house divided" comes to mind).
> I
>think Bush and Reagan kept their mouths shut becuase in their heart of
>hearts they really didn't give a crap about the rest of us.
... and Truman, and Ike, and LBJ, and all of their predecessors who
survived their terms. Yep, none of them cared about the rest of their
constituents.
> When Mad King
>George gets impeached or manages to somehow cling to office through the rest
>of his term, he's going to go back to fishing and golf, and will never look
>back. Like him or not, Carter seems to really want to keep trying to make
>the world a better place.
>
Going to Havana and praising their health care system while excoriating
our own country was a real good move in that direction. He'd have been
better though of if he had stuck to habitat for humanity and woodworking.
Now he just appears to be a bitter old defeated politician trying to claim
another few minutes in the spotlight.
A former president(s) criticizing the sitting president in a time of war
on that war and military action does not help make the world a better
place. In fact, it most likely emboldens those whom we are fighting and in
so doing, puts our troops at more risk because the enemy will fight harder
knowing there is a possible source of division that they can exploit.
>Why can't we talk about Carter's love of woodworking on the wreck here
>without people feeling the need to rip on him as president?
Probably would have been a good thing. Funny thing was, that there was
really only one comment made in that vein. Now you've managed to turn that
into an excoriation of not just the sitting president, but all former
presidents who didn't share your party affiliation or apparent left-wing
views.
> I wish he was
>president right now instead of the lying loser we currently have.
Why does one fairly mild comment regarding an ex-president have to lead
to a diatribe and interjection of one's personal politics against the
sitting president and several former presidents? You could have taken the
high road and ignored the comment, keeping this on the topic of woodworking
but chose instead to interject your own personal, vitriolic politics into
this thread.
> Besides -
>Carter got a bum rap - Nixon and Ford left him with a world angry at the US
>and an economy addicted to cheap oil..
...assuming for a moment that your opinions are correct, he successfully
fixed this, how?
> And everyone seems to forget that
>Reagan committed high treason when he negotiated with the Iranians to keep
>the hostages longer to hurt Carter in the election.
You forgot your tinfoil hat and forgot to mention the Bush SR-71 trip to
Iran. ;-)
Do you realize how illogical your statement is? Why in @#$% would the
Iranians want to have Carter defeated? He was the best friend they had
compared to what they knew would occur under Reagan. (Yeah, let's support
he person who is going to more than threaten military action against us and
send in more than a couple of helicopters. Really brilliant logic there.)
> And as a final insult,
>conservative columnist George Will delivered a stolen copy of Carter's
>debate briefing notebook to Reagan, making sure that Reagan had memorized
>catchy combacks to Carter's debate points - making it look like Reagan
>actually understood the issues. A shameful time in our country's great
>history.
>
So one comment regarding the ex-president becomes a political diatribe of
paranoid conspiracy theories. Certainly the other side never did anything
similar. Let's see, a couple of grandparents going Christmas shopping in
Florida turn on the cell phone receiver in their Cadillac (don't all
Caddies come with that option) and just happen to hear Newt Gingrich
discussing political strategy and then turn on the tape recorder (that
apparently comes with the Cadillac cell phone receiver). Seems there was a
similar instance in the prior debates that went the other direction.
Doesn't make it right, just makes sure that people realize that the other
side is not pristine in this issue.
Do you want to talk shameful? How about
1) Holding a news story until the Saturday before an election, then
releasing it in order to provide a last-minute shock to the election
process
2) Forging documents that supposedly showed that the sitting president had
received favorable treatment in the National Guard and getting those
documents promulgated by the main-stream media (anxious for anything it
could get to damage the president whether true or not)
3) Knowing that your candidate in New Jersey (under indictment for bribery)
was going to lose the election, having him drop out after the deadline for
withdrawing, then getting the state supreme court to allow breaking the
state law that indicated "no changes to ballots could be within 90 days
before an election"
Something about "people who live in glass houses" comes to mind here.
There was never any doubt that Reagan understood the issues, he had been
active since the mid-60's in identifying the direction he thought the
country should be headed and and what the US needed to do to unleash the
creativity and abilities of its citizens. Do you really think the
Republicans needed Jimmy's notebook to know what his positions were? [Well,
then again, maybe they needed the notebooks to know what positions he was
going to express, not necessarily what position he held]
+--------------------------------------------------------------------------------+
If you're gonna be dumb, you better be tough
+--------------------------------------------------------------------------------+
On 23 Dec 2005 09:58:05 -0800, [email protected] wrote:
>Crossposted to alt.politics.
>Follow-ups set to alt.politics
Follow-ups fixed. I DON'T WANT TO DISCUSS IN ALT.POLITICS DAMMIT! If I
did, I'd have subscribed there. This thread was started in rec.woodworking
by somebody ostensibly discussing woodworking.
>
>Dave Hinz wrote:
>> On Fri, 23 Dec 2005 09:35:19 -0800, David Stuve <[email protected]> wrote:
>> > "Mark & Juanita" <[email protected]> wrote in message
>> > news:[email protected]...
>> >> Probably would have been a good thing. Funny thing was, that there was
>> >> really only one comment made in that vein. Now you've managed to turn
>> >> that
>> >> into an excoriation of not just the sitting president, but all former
>> >> presidents who didn't share your party affiliation or apparent left-wing
>> >> views.
>> >
>> > You know, you're right Mark. I should have stuck to woodworking;
>>
>> And then, you reply with hundreds of lines of propaganda.
>>
>> > -ignoring warnings about Bin Ladin because Clinton was "obsessed with him"
>>
>> Your interpretation was flawed.
>>
>> > -ignoring North Korea because Clinton was so interested in making deals with
>> > him
>>
>> Ditto.
>>
>> > -using 9/11 to satisfy his personal score with Saddam
>>
>> Saddam claimed he had WMD.
>
>Like when, 1989?
>
>Got a cite?
He's provided you dozens of cites. That you choose to ignore the fact
that both sides of the aisle agreeed that SH had WMD's says more about your
"open-minded" politics and "careful study and search for the truth" than
anything else
>
>> The Democrats in congress agreed that Saddam
>> had WMD (yes, I can provide the link to the cites. Again.) AQ didn't
>> like us. The stated reason for going to war, which the Democrats agreed
>> with (and now pretend they never heard of) was to keep Saddam from
>> giving the WMDs that all agreed he had, to AQ.
>>
>> > -lying and using forged uranium documents to justify the war
>>
>> Bush is in Britain now?
>
>Not to my knowledge. AFAIK he was also in the US when the
>US sent the forged documents to the IAEA. DO you have
>a point?
>
>>
>> > -outing a CIA agent active in nuclear arms proliferation work
>>
>> Yawn.
>
>Of course you don't care about violations of black letter law. What
>matters
>to you is who does it, right?
>
You will gain tons more credibility in this regard if you were to
simultaneously call for an all-out investigation in determining who leaked
to the press the fact that the NSA was monitoring phone calls from areas in
foreign countries with Al Quaeda activity to people in the US. Oh, BTW,
this was shortly after 9/11 (remember that date? Just in case you, like
many in the opposition party seem to have forgotten, that is when agents of
Al Queada hijacked 4 jetliners and destroyed the World Trade Center and
flew one into the Pentagon. At the time, we were seriously trying to
determine whether additional attacks were in the offing) *That* is a
serious breach of national security, was probably classified with handling
caveats in addition to the highest level of classification and *seriously*
undermines our effort to defeat the terrorists.
The Plame issue was a non-issue. Plame was *not* working as a covert
agent when her identity as a CIA employee was discussed. The current NSA
issue is one of those things that is
... snip
+--------------------------------------------------------------------------------+
If you're gonna be dumb, you better be tough
+--------------------------------------------------------------------------------+
In article <11krf.646077$x96.70300@attbi_s72>, "Dave" <[email protected]>
wrote:
> Fredfighter
> You wanted to know in what branch I served-- I served 22 years in the Air
> Force as a boom operator on KC 97's and KC 135's refueling bombers and
> fighter planes going to North Vietnam.
> What branch did you serve in??
> I love the US of A and I will stand behind it no matter what. If needed I
> would gladly go back in. How about you, would you enlist if needed?? They
> say I'm too old now-- That makes me madd. There is no reason I can't at
> least work in supply or drive a truck. I know I'm too old to keep up with
> the Grunts, but not too old to do other things. How about you?
> Check things out and find out the truth to see how many of the businesses
> are owned by China in the Canal Zone.
> You hate Bush so much, you'll have a chance in 08 and in the next
> congressional race to get Democrats in. I'd be willing to bet you that you
> would lose the bet. So my advice to you is to get over it, and if you are
> that disenchanted with everything in the US move to France or Canada.
>
> Yes I know I top posted-- so what. I wanted to make sure Fred fighter sees
> this.
Dave,
Do you know Frank Church by chance? He's one of the folks from over in
the fly fishing newsgroup who was a 97 and then 135 boomer. I was just
one of those guys sucking up underneath on the drogue in an EA-6B
Allen
On 23 Dec 2005 17:42:08 GMT, Dave Hinz <[email protected]> wrote:
>On Fri, 23 Dec 2005 09:35:19 -0800, David Stuve <[email protected]> wrote:
>> "Mark & Juanita" <[email protected]> wrote in message
>> news:[email protected]...
>>> Probably would have been a good thing. Funny thing was, that there was
>>> really only one comment made in that vein. Now you've managed to turn
>>> that
>>> into an excoriation of not just the sitting president, but all former
>>> presidents who didn't share your party affiliation or apparent left-wing
>>> views.
>>
>> You know, you're right Mark. I should have stuck to woodworking;
>
>And then, you reply with hundreds of lines of propaganda.
>
>> -ignoring warnings about Bin Ladin because Clinton was "obsessed with him"
>
>Your interpretation was flawed.
>
>> -ignoring North Korea because Clinton was so interested in making deals with
>> him
>
>Ditto.
>
>> -using 9/11 to satisfy his personal score with Saddam
>
>Saddam claimed he had WMD. The Democrats in congress agreed that Saddam
>had WMD (yes, I can provide the link to the cites. Again.) AQ didn't
>like us. The stated reason for going to war, which the Democrats agreed
>with (and now pretend they never heard of) was to keep Saddam from
>giving the WMDs that all agreed he had, to AQ.
>
>> -lying and using forged uranium documents to justify the war
>
>Bush is in Britain now?
>
>> -outing a CIA agent active in nuclear arms proliferation work
>
>Yawn.
>
>> -doing nothing after 9/11 to stop the greatest layoff of American workers
>> we've ever seen
>
>What the HELL was Bush supposed to do about that? You give the guy
>credit for more power than he has.
>
>> -losing America's most important port city to hurricane Katrina -
>
>Yeah, because he controls the weather now (rolls eyes)
>
>> and then
>> lying and saying he was never asked for help
>
>The Governor controls the National Guard and you (should) know it. Bush
>sending federal troops into a state without a request from the governer
>would have been a serious abuse of constitutional protections.
>
>> -never firing people for screwing up badly - only those who disagree with
>> him
>
>Yawn.
>
>> -*and this just in, he's had the NSA spying on Americans* with no Judicial
>> oversight
>
>We'll see.
>
>> Oops, as Reagan famously quipped: there I go again. Off to the woodshop to
>> atone for my rant... I'm making sliding drawers for my kitchen cabinets.
>> Fun stuff.
>
>Yeah, I'm sure this was an accidental rant.
On Sat, 24 Dec 2005 03:56:57 GMT, "Steve Peterson"
<[email protected]> wrote:
>snip
>> He's provided you dozens of cites. That you choose to ignore the fact
>> that both sides of the aisle agreeed that SH had WMD's says more about
>> your
>> "open-minded" politics and "careful study and search for the truth" than
>> anything else
>
>Both sides had the same "intelligence," but only 1 decided to invade another
>country on the basis of faulty intelligence, having decided first and then
>flopping all over the place for an excuse. Bush is a war criminal.
>
A couple of corrections: Congress granted the authority to invade (after
insisting that they needed a second resolution despite the fact that the
2001 resolutions gave the president that authority). The second resolution
was insisted upon by the opposition because they thought it would help them
in the 2002 elections. Thus, both sides agreed upon the action. Only one
person had the authority to issue the order to invade, so your comment that
only one "side" decided to invade is nonsensical.
>Steve
>
+--------------------------------------------------------------------------------+
If you're gonna be dumb, you better be tough
+--------------------------------------------------------------------------------+
Joe Barta wrote:
>>Castro is a much better human being than GWBush.
>
>
> It still amazes me the hatred and negative emotion that GWBush brings
> out in some people. An intelligent and rational discussion of the
> reasons would be facinating.
>
Not possible. The idelogical Left is far worse than the ideological
Right (which is pretty bad) in abandoning reason and honor in the
neverending quest for power... i.e., There is neither reason nor
intelligence being brought to bear from the Left (though both
certainly appear on an individual level) when it comes to political
matters. They just want to win at any cost.
--
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
Tim Daneliuk [email protected]
PGP Key: http://www.tundraware.com/PGP/
On Mon, 26 Dec 2005 00:21:35 GMT, "Charles Self"
<[email protected]> wrote:
>Probably not. I'd like to see Annie Coullter compared to...something human?
>That is one vile woman.
>
I suppose you are a fan of Catie Kouric?
One man's vile is another man's icon.
cd
===========================================================================
Chris
"Chris Dubea" <[email protected]> wrote in message
news:[email protected]...
> On Mon, 26 Dec 2005 00:21:35 GMT, "Charles Self"
> <[email protected]> wrote:
>
>>Probably not. I'd like to see Annie Coullter compared to...something
>>human?
>>That is one vile woman.
>>
>
> I suppose you are a fan of Catie Kouric?
>
> One man's vile is another man's icon.
>
Actually, I don't watch much TV news, but I've never heard of Ms Kouric
saying it might be "fun" to nuke a country.
Coulter is a spasmodic nitwit who thinks she's brighter than other people,
who apparently delights in shock value instead of information value. If you
find that an attractive feature in commentators, I feel sorry for you.
"Scott Lurndal" <[email protected]> wrote in message
news:[email protected]...
> Tim Daneliuk <[email protected]> writes:
>
>>no-bid Halliburton contracts were let out under the *Clinton*
>>administration primarily because there are so few companies who
>>can/will do this work at the relatively low net margins to be had.
>
> Funny, how could rebuilding contracts in Iraq be let during
> the Clinton administration?
Oh, come ON, Scott. You know it's ALL Clinton's fault.
On Sat, 24 Dec 2005 01:07:10 GMT, Joe Barta <[email protected]> wrote:
>> Castro is a much better human being than GWBush.
>
>It still amazes me the hatred and negative emotion that GWBush brings
>out in some people. An intelligent and rational discussion of the
>reasons would be facinating.
Count the dead in Iraq.
On Sat, 24 Dec 2005 19:54:21 -0800, "David Stuve" <[email protected]> wrote:
... snip
>
>I've never served in the military, but if FDR phoned me through a time warp
>and told me to hurry back to 1942 for a mission I'd do it in a second. He
>was one of the greatest men who has ever lived, and I'd serve and die for
>him without question.
>
That's quite an interesting statement. You believe Bush is evil
incarnate but FDR was a great man. Just to remind you :
1) FDR ordered the internment of 10's of thousands of *American Citizens*
of Japanese descent. Without trial. Without due process. Without
reparations. Without protest from the media.
2) Under FDR's watch, German submariners were tortured *to death*. Just to
see if they had any interesting information.
3) Under FDR's watch, German infiltrators were *shot* when captured on
American soil. Not imprisoned, not questioned, not held without
communication or access to lawyers, but shot after appearing before a
*military* court. In that case, FDR's government, and the Supreme court
(that he had previously packed) argued that the military had such power.
Note that one of those German infiltrators claimed to be a US citizen. The
case was Ex Parte Quirin, the German saboteurs case. In World War II, eight
German naval officers, one of whom claimed to be a U.S. citizen, landed
secretly in the United States and were arrested. After trial by a military
tribunal, seven were executed. The Supreme Court held that because they
were members of the enemy armed forces, the military had jurisdiction (as
it did over members of our own armed forces) to try them. The Court said
that military jurisdiction was permissible because the defendants were
"admitted enemy invaders."
4) FDR oversaw wage and price controls
5) FDR oversaw rationing and restrictions on what Americans could buy. Now,
this was in a time of war, but just imagine if Bush were to have tried the
same thing.
6) A number of historians are beginning to postulate that the policies
implemented by FDR during the depression actually served to deepen and
prolong the depression rather than alleviate it. One example, the 90%
income tax on those who were succeeding stifled any recovery as those who
"prospered" were penalized to the point of not finding being able to grow
new businesses.
7) FDR deliberately mislead the news media (and members of the news media
deliberately and willingly did not report) information regarding his health
and physical condition.
Had Bush done any or all of the above, this would have caused the press
and the left to raise howls of indignation and cries for impeachment. Yet,
to the left, FDR is a hero and a great man. Truly amazing.
+--------------------------------------------------------------------------------+
If you're gonna be dumb, you better be tough
+--------------------------------------------------------------------------------+
Maybe some people rip him for the same reason you rip Bush. Some people
can never leave politics out of anything.
David Stuve wrote:
>
> Why can't we talk about Carter's love of woodworking on the wreck here
> without people feeling the need to rip on him as president? I wish he was
> president right now instead of the lying loser we currently have.
Walt, I would challenge you to expand your political horizons. Go down to
your local library, and do a Lexis Nexis search on Americans torturing
prisoners, no-bid contracts in Iraq, the forged yellowcake documents,
interference with CIA intelligence gathering, the outing of Valerie Plame,
the botched reconstruction of New Orleans, and the recent scandal about
ordering the NSA to spy on Americans. Cheneys name will be prominently
featured in *all* of those subjects.
I guess you could argue that Cheney is innocent, but that would be more
than he does. Usually when asked about any of these issues they're
"classified or no comment."
Dave
"WConner" <[email protected]> wrote in message
news:Ldcsf.4152$eU6.3723@trnddc05...
> "Cheney is definitely evil - be it torturing prisoners, spying on
> Americans, falsified intelligence, outed CIA agents, war profiteering by
> contractors - those trails all lead back to
> Cheney."
>
> More BS from a blathering idiot.
>
> Walt Conner
>
I agree. I disagreed with Reagan on a lot of things, but that is a very
cruel remark.
WConner wrote:
> "Reagan was too busy shitting his diaper and trying to remember his own
> name"
>
> It takes a really sick person to say such a thing.
>
> Walt Conner
>
>
--
Joseph Connors
The New Golden Rule:
Those with the gold, make the rules!
"CW" <[email protected]> wrote
> I hope he's a better woodworker than he was a president.
No doubt he is a better human than a top posting troll.
David Stuve wrote:
> Walt, I would challenge you to expand your political horizons. Go down to
> your local library, and do a Lexis Nexis search on Americans torturing
> prisoners,
You mean aggressively going after *non-uniformed combatants* for
whom the Geneva accords do not apply. They can be shot on sight as spies
if we like. There is both legal grounds and precedent for doing so.
And the "torture" in this case involves making them uncomfortable and
physically intimidating them, not, say, beheading them with a dull
knife like their compatriots do. Foreign spies are not entitled
to the same civil liberties that US citizens and legal residents
enjoy. In fact, they're not even entitled to the consideration
legally required for foreign military combatants. When the
Brave Soldiers Of Allah (tm) are willing to wear uniforms and fight
other soldiers, not kill innocent civilians, then they'll get treated
accordingly when captured. Until then, they are entitled to no
consideration whatsoever.
> no-bid contracts in Iraq, the forged yellowcake documents,
To misquote a famous person from history, "The Left is an Ass". the
no-bid Halliburton contracts were let out under the *Clinton*
administration primarily because there are so few companies who
can/will do this work at the relatively low net margins to be had.
> interference with CIA intelligence gathering, the outing of Valerie Plame,
There will be due process to find out who did what as regards to the
whole Plame matter. Stay tuned - it will have been much ado about nothing.
> the botched reconstruction of New Orleans, and the recent scandal about
Go find a history book with small words and simple concepts. You will
discover that the last two major cities to be destroyed by disaster
(Chicago in 1871 and San Francisco in the early 1900s) were rebuilt with
*private* money. It is not now, nor has it even been the charter of
the Federal government to rebuild cities. Only in the Looney Left does
this qualify as an indictement against the current administration.
> ordering the NSA to spy on Americans. Cheneys name will be prominently
Again, we need to help you with the concept here. The NSA was not given
an unlimited hunting license. They were only given room to do this when
the American in question was in contact with a *probable threat*. FWIW,
I don't like this either - there should always be judicial oversight
when wiretapping in any form occurs - but the way you people drool on
about it, you'd think the NSA was watching you get aroused watching Al
Franken on TV at night. Your secret is safe. The NSA doesn't care that
much about you.
> featured in *all* of those subjects.
>
> I guess you could argue that Cheney is innocent, but that would be more
> than he does. Usually when asked about any of these issues they're
> "classified or no comment."
Grow up. Cheney is neither guilty nor innocent. He is a cog in a big
machine. A big machine made bigger for 70 years by the Chimps on the Left
and now getting even bigger because of the Chimps on the Right. Blaming Cheney
misses the point and diverts the blame from the real culprit: The American
People, who for years have begged for something-for-nothing, who want
some illusion of security no matter how much freedom is compromised, and
who think they can pluck the Golden Goose (the wealthy) with impunity.
So long as we are a nation of moochers and whiners, it will make little
difference whether the regnant politics are Right or Left...
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
Tim Daneliuk [email protected]
PGP Key: http://www.tundraware.com/PGP/
Tim Daneliuk <[email protected]> writes:
>David Stuve wrote:
>
>> Walt, I would challenge you to expand your political horizons. Go down to
>> your local library, and do a Lexis Nexis search on Americans torturing
>> prisoners,
>
>You mean aggressively going after *non-uniformed combatants* for
>whom the Geneva accords do not apply. They can be shot on sight as spies
Torture is torture. Full Stop. Are the Geneva accords the only
document that describes how one human should treat another?
Even our most revered documents say that all _men_ are created
equal, not all _americans_ are created equal.
>if we like. There is both legal grounds and precedent for doing so.
>And the "torture" in this case involves making them uncomfortable and
>physically intimidating them, not, say, beheading them with a dull
>knife like their compatriots do. Foreign spies are not entitled
>to the same civil liberties that US citizens and legal residents
Who defines whether or not someone is a Spy, or a "unlawful combatant"?
How can you trust the person making that designation if the
designation appears to be by fiat?
>enjoy. In fact, they're not even entitled to the consideration
>legally required for foreign military combatants. When the
>Brave Soldiers Of Allah (tm) are willing to wear uniforms and fight
>other soldiers, not kill innocent civilians, then they'll get treated
>accordingly when captured. Until then, they are entitled to no
>consideration whatsoever.
Assuming, of course, that they are really a "brave soldier of allah"
and not just someone who looks like one.
We have a court system. Use it. And forget the national security
nonsense about someone's day in court. It is a convenient
excuse, but how can you trust the government to make that designation
without showing any evidence? All one needs to do to see
this type of questionable accusation at work is to look at the Padilla case.
>
>> no-bid contracts in Iraq, the forged yellowcake documents,
>
>To misquote a famous person from history, "The Left is an Ass". the
You're a fine one to be calling names of anyone. The Right is an
Ass, the Left is an Ass, it's the moderates in the middle
that will save this country from both the left and the right.
However, it is the right that is fucking the country up right now.
>no-bid Halliburton contracts were let out under the *Clinton*
>administration primarily because there are so few companies who
>can/will do this work at the relatively low net margins to be had.
Funny, how could rebuilding contracts in Iraq be let during
the Clinton administration?
Scott Lurndal wrote:
> Tim Daneliuk <[email protected]> writes:
>
>>David Stuve wrote:
>>
>>
>>>Walt, I would challenge you to expand your political horizons. Go down to
>>>your local library, and do a Lexis Nexis search on Americans torturing
>>>prisoners,
>>
>>You mean aggressively going after *non-uniformed combatants* for
>>whom the Geneva accords do not apply. They can be shot on sight as spies
>
>
> Torture is torture. Full Stop. Are the Geneva accords the only
> document that describes how one human should treat another?
They are more-or-less the only ones we're obligated to follow
as a matter of international law.
> Even our most revered documents say that all _men_ are created
> equal, not all _americans_ are created equal.
Sorry Sparky, if you do not adhere to our social compacts you're not
entitled to their benefit. If the Brave Soldiers Of Allah (tm) (aka
Cowards Killing Children Intentionally) would like to make themselves
subservient to the social contract enumerated in our founding documents
then, by all means they should be protected by these same precepts.
Until then, anyone who purposefully makes war on children and other
innocents should be removed from the face of the planet with extreme
prejudice. If you don't excise cancer early, you die from it.
>
>
>>if we like. There is both legal grounds and precedent for doing so.
>>And the "torture" in this case involves making them uncomfortable and
>>physically intimidating them, not, say, beheading them with a dull
>>knife like their compatriots do. Foreign spies are not entitled
>>to the same civil liberties that US citizens and legal residents
>
>
> Who defines whether or not someone is a Spy, or a "unlawful combatant"?
International Law - you know, that body of blather the Left
trots out regularly as being superior to US law.
>
> How can you trust the person making that designation if the
> designation appears to be by fiat?
>
A person engaging in combat, not wearing a uniform is a spy.
The same person targeting non-combatants intentionally is a terrorist.
This is not definition by fiat but by observation. Unless, of course,
you buy the deconstructionist literary nonsese of the past 50 years in
which case words mean nothing (and you can't argue with me any more).
>
>>enjoy. In fact, they're not even entitled to the consideration
>>legally required for foreign military combatants. When the
>>Brave Soldiers Of Allah (tm) are willing to wear uniforms and fight
>>other soldiers, not kill innocent civilians, then they'll get treated
>>accordingly when captured. Until then, they are entitled to no
>>consideration whatsoever.
>
>
> Assuming, of course, that they are really a "brave soldier of allah"
> and not just someone who looks like one.
A fair point and one that ought to seriously occupy our thinking in
the matter.
>
> We have a court system. Use it. And forget the national security
No, our court system if for *our* citizens and residents, not for
foreign invaders.
> nonsense about someone's day in court. It is a convenient
> excuse, but how can you trust the government to make that designation
> without showing any evidence? All one needs to do to see
> this type of questionable accusation at work is to look at the Padilla case.
I don't particularly trust the government. But they have an obligation
to thwart foreign invasion *by all necessary means*. One more time,
invaders are not citizens or even legal residents - they are not protected
by our laws, period.
>
>>>no-bid contracts in Iraq, the forged yellowcake documents,
>>
>>To misquote a famous person from history, "The Left is an Ass". the
>
>
> You're a fine one to be calling names of anyone. The Right is an
> Ass, the Left is an Ass, it's the moderates in the middle
> that will save this country from both the left and the right.
No - the moderates will twiddle their thumbs and continue the long
tradition of mooching that the Left and Right instatiated long ago.
You do not "moderate" when someone is attacking you. You fight back
until they are dead and no longer a threat. No less a complete
socialist idiot than FDR understood this. Sadly, today's Left
is utterly without a clue on the matter.
>
> However, it is the right that is fucking the country up right now.
Today's Right *inherited* a mess caused by lots of different things.
They are being forced to respond in the face of the negligence of
Clinton, the failed endgame of Bush 41, the moronic foreign policy
of Carter, etc. Don't blame todays administration for the mess
because they didn't remotely create it. In fact, one of the few
good things this administration has done is to respond vigrously
and without apology to the invasion currently underway around the
world. Had Carter, Bush 41, or Clinton done this a long time ago,
the problem would be more-or-less moot now.
>
>>no-bid Halliburton contracts were let out under the *Clinton*
>>administration primarily because there are so few companies who
>>can/will do this work at the relatively low net margins to be had.
>
>
> Funny, how could rebuilding contracts in Iraq be let during
> the Clinton administration?
Because these kinds of contracts tend to be let long before any
particular conflict. Halliburton is one of only a very few companies
in the business of supporting military establishments. They've had
a contract in place for years to do so - years before this President.
--
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
Tim Daneliuk [email protected]
PGP Key: http://www.tundraware.com/PGP/
On Sun, 25 Dec 2005 09:39:56 GMT, "CW" <[email protected]> wrote:
>Probably a pretty good reason that you have never heard it before.
My source for this was an AP or Reuters story I read earlier in 2005,
sometime late spring or early summer (or thereabouts). There were two
stories that were published at roughly the same time. One was discussing
the addition of a German U-boat to (I believe) the Smithsonian archives and
one of the crewmen from that boat visiting the archive; the second story
discussed the incident I cited and indicated that a memorial plaque had
been erected for those fallen German crewmen. One of the relatives of one
of the U-boat victims expressed appreciation that this brought closure to
not knowing what had become of her relative. The story further indicated
that most interest was placed on German communication operators from the
U-boats because it was thought that they might have knowledge that could be
used.
Now, contrary to what those who disagree with my views may think, I was
not jumping up and down with glee when I read that story saying, "See! FDR
was worse than what the left is accusing the present administration of
doing!" Rather, I was extremely disappointed and saddened. I didn't want
my country to *ever* have engaged in activities that would be the
equivalent of what the Stalinists and Nazis were doing at the time, nor
what the Red Chinese and North Vietnamese and others would do in the
future. This was extremely disheartening. The story alluded to a very
methodical, pre-meditated plan regarding this incident -- this was not a
story any American should have viewed with anything other than revulsion.
However, I have spent a significant amount of time today trying to find
that story or a retraction. I can find neither; therefore, I must assume
that the original story I read was later retracted and no such incident
occured. Obviously, I cannot prove a negative, but I am going to assume
that this was an erroneous story about a non-existant incident. I will
gladly say that I was wrong about this incident -- as I indicated above,
the story brought no joy to my heart.
There is sufficient other information regarding FDR (of the other
elements on my list that you did not include in your quote, only one is
subject to speculation, that being FDR's probable negative effect on the
length and depth of the depression -- the other items have all been widely
and thorougly documented) to make my point. I find it a tremendous relief
that I *can't* find the substantiating story to go with the German U-Boat
crewmen item and will happily retract that from my list comments.
>"Joseph Connors" <[email protected]> wrote in message
>news:NCsrf.2827$%[email protected]...
>> Thats very interesting. I never heard of this before. What is the source
>> on this? Thanks!
>>
>>
>>
>> Mark & Juanita wrote:
>>
>> > 2) Under FDR's watch, German submariners were tortured *to death*. Just
>to
>> > see if they had any interesting information.
>>
>> --
>> Joseph Connors
>> The New Golden Rule:
>> Those with the gold, make the rules!
>
+--------------------------------------------------------------------------------+
If you're gonna be dumb, you better be tough
+--------------------------------------------------------------------------------+
TinWoodsmn wrote:
>>
> Apparently the group isn't aware of what President and Mrs. Carter have
> accomplished since their White House days. If you are interested, check out
> www.cartercenter.org.
>
>
And apparently you think that lots of fine charity work makes up for:
1) Presiding over simultaneous economic stagnation and skyhigh
inflation that just crippled the country. Granted, this was by no
means all his fault (Nixon helped with his idiodic wage and price
fixing), but Carter did literally nothing to stop the bleeding.
He could give away every hour of the rest of his life and every
dime he ever made and still never come close to making restitution
for the economic harm he enabled.
2) His regular support and even praise for dictators and despots like
Castro because they tow the Leftie line of jamming the government
into every facet of an individual's life. He seems incapable
of grasping that "healthcare for all" in Cuba really means
"equally LOUSY healthcare for all in Cuba". If he is going to
call out those of us adamantly opposed to government involvement
in private matters (like healthcare), the least he could do is
quit visiting Walter Reed and go to Havana when he's sick.
3) His undermining of a sitting president during wartime. It's his
privilege to say what he wishes, but doing this is just low class.
If he objects to current US policy, he should be using his stature
to *quietly* influence the halls of power because as a former President
he has uncommon access to the halls of power.
4) The hypocracy of writing about our "lost American values" and teaching
Sunday School, while he overtly supports a party that sees nothing
wrong with 3rd-trimester abortion, that thinks that people who work
hard should pay for the rehabilitation of crackheads and whores,
and that believes that no religious expression ought ever to be seen
in anything public whatsoever. I'm suprised any Baptist church
lets him in the door let alone teach anything.
For the record, I no Republican/Rightwinger - they have many sins to
atone for as well. I also am quite sure Carter is a well-intentioned
fellow, a fine husband and father, and a paragon of personal virtue. (In
fact, he and Joe Lieberman are just about the *only* high profile
Lefties that fit that description.) He was just a really lousy President
and his finger wagging about the rest of us and our morals is ludicrous.
When he stops supporting the flatout murder of 6-9 month old humans and
calls the Democratic party out for being the den of vipers it is, then
I'll start taking him more seriously.
'Sorry, but charity does not compensate for incompetence and self-appointed
moral guardianship of all the Rest Of Us...
--
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
Tim Daneliuk [email protected]
PGP Key: http://www.tundraware.com/PGP/
"do a Lexis Nexis search on Americans torturing"
These folks consider it torture if you don't say please and thank you.
Playing loud rap, now that is torture.
Why don't you harp on people cutting off heads on live TV or something that
is really noteworthy? I get damned tired of you folks always talking about
how bad the USA is, I guess you know the way to your utopia?
" yellowcake documents"
While these particular documents might not have been good, British
Intelligence still stands by the attempt to buy the material, conveniently
didn't mention that, huh? Check the speech, the statement referred to
British Intelligence .
" the botched reconstruction of New Orleans, "
New Orleans Reconstruction? Hell, that hasn't even got started yet, If you
are talking about the rescue, that is what Governors, Mayors, Nation Guard
under Governors is for, US is backup. They let hundreds of school busses
sit and get submerged all the while crying, "Send us Busses".
" the recent scandal about ordering the NSA to spy on Americans"
Well aren't we really informed, that hasn't even been investigated yet and
at least a couple of former Democratic high officials said that has been
going on since Jimmy Carter, missed that also huh? An investigation will
determine if anything wrong was done. It really is a scandal, trying to save
the necks of the likes who say such things.
" the outing of Valerie Plame"
Incredible, the Courts haven't even ruled on this yet and it appears the
consensus is that she was already "Out", the charges haven't even mentioned
that to this point. All the hullabaloo from the Lefties about that minor
thing and the leaking of the most highly classified document in the US
Government is OK, no investigation, no condemnation, nothing, because it
suits the Lefties.
More BS, you will have a good supply for spring gardening.
Walt Conner
"Tim Daneliuk" <[email protected]> wrote in message
news:[email protected]...
> David Stuve wrote:
>
>> your local library, and do a Lexis Nexis search on Americans torturing
>> prisoners,
>
> You mean aggressively going after *non-uniformed combatants* for
> whom the Geneva accords do not apply. They can be shot on sight as spies
> if we like. There is both legal grounds and precedent for doing so.
Actually, no. I mean the McCain amendment specifically prohibiting torture.
Cheney was actively lobbying to exempt the CIA from restrictions using the
bizarre argument that we are A) strongly against torture, but B) want to be
able to threaten to do it. That should make your BS detector go berzerk -
what if your local sherrif or department store detective wanted a similar
exemption, promising that he would of course never do it..... "We'd never
torture a shoplifting suspect, but we need the threat of it to act as a
deterrent."
>> no-bid contracts in Iraq, the forged yellowcake documents,
>
> To misquote a famous person from history, "The Left is an Ass". the
> no-bid Halliburton contracts were let out under the *Clinton*
> administration primarily because there are so few companies who
> can/will do this work at the relatively low net margins to be had.
If the no-bid contracts were let out under Clinton as you say, why was
Cheney personally involved in handing them out after the Iraq invasion?
>> interference with CIA intelligence gathering, the outing of Valerie
>> Plame,
>
> There will be due process to find out who did what as regards to the
> whole Plame matter. Stay tuned - it will have been much ado about
> nothing.
Cheney was obsessed with Joe Wilson, and he and "Scooter" followed his every
move. I find this very paranoia unsettling behavoir, especially when
combined with his fondness of torture...
>
>> the botched reconstruction of New Orleans, and the recent scandal about
>
> Go find a history book with small words and simple concepts.
The handling of New Orleans was disturbingly similar to how Cheney handled
Iraq. Cheney came in to run things, and lots of out-of-state contractors
got all of the work, local companies got nothing, and lots of money changed
hands and people are still in desparate straits down there.
>
>> ordering the NSA to spy on Americans. Cheneys name will be prominently
>
> Again, we need to help you with the concept here. The NSA was not given
> an unlimited hunting license. They were only given room to do this when
Really? They haven't released any information about who they spied on.
I've seen an AP story in the last couple of days hinting that the spying was
much more widespread than Bush has admitted to. What's even more bizarre is
that they can retroactively get warrants within 72 hours of doing
wiretapping, but they just didn't bother. That indifference to the law
can't be ignored by us if we wish to remain free people.
>> featured in *all* of those subjects.
>>
>> I guess you could argue that Cheney is innocent, but that would be more
>> than he does. Usually when asked about any of these issues they're
>> "classified or no comment."
>
> Grow up. Cheney is neither guilty nor innocent. He is a cog in a big
> machine. A big machine made bigger for 70 years by the Chimps on the Left
> and now getting even bigger because of the Chimps on the Right. Blaming
> Cheney
> misses the point and diverts the blame from the real culprit: The
> American
> People
Interesting comment - I agree that the American people have much to wake up
to, but that doesn't absolve Cheney of anything. He's simply guilty of
being weak and giveng into the pressure of finding the quick and easy (and
usually illegal) fix. I'm looking forward to him being replaced by someone
who's actually willing to do the 'hard work' to try and do the right thing.
Dave
"Russ Stanton" <[email protected]> wrote in message
news:[email protected]...
> <[email protected]> wrote in message
> news:[email protected]...
>>
>> Is there a good website with some of Jimmy carter's woodworking.
>> I would love to see his work up close.
>>
>> Thanks
>> --
>>
>> Greg
>> Cowboy Up has taken on a whole different meaning lately
>
> Check Fine Woodworking Issue 174 for an interview type article and issue
> 167 Reader's Gallery for an eample of his work.
I can't think of a single thing the peanut man did, other than hosting a
meeting with Sadat and Beagan that Carter did while he was President that
deserves any praise for him. Big negatives are: giving away the Panama Canal
so that China could buy it all up, and the Iran hostage situation where his
leadership was a disaster.
Those who criticize Bush and think they know everything about foreign policy
I would like for them to answer truthfully the question below:
I wonder how many of YOU KNOW IT ALLS would have supported Roosevelt and
Truman during the Second World War. Would you have stood in line to enlist
in the Army even though we lost over a 150,000 plus GI lives? I doubt if
any of you Bush bashers would have had the BALLS to do so. You are GUTLESS!
Remember Hitler didn't attack us and we still went to war with Germany. What
about the war with the Japanese would you have stood in line to volunteer to
fight them??
<[email protected]> wrote in message
news:[email protected]...
>
> Is there a good website with some of Jimmy carter's woodworking.
> I would love to see his work up close.
>
> Thanks
> --
>
> Greg
> Cowboy Up has taken on a whole different meaning lately
Check Fine Woodworking Issue 174 for an interview type article and issue 167
Reader's Gallery for an eample of his work.
On Thu, 22 Dec 2005 22:29:44 GMT, "WALTER D. CONNER" <[email protected]>
wrote:
>"Apparently he's got his own shop and loves to make furniture,"
>
>"I hope he's a better woodworker than he was a president."
>
>He was given a complete wood shop when he left office. He quietly made nice
>green wood rocking chairs at his home in Plains Georgia for a little while
>then he decided to interject himself into world affairs where he has been
>about as correct as he was in his Presidential days.Too bad all past
>Presidents can't keep their mouths shut as Pres. Reagan
Reagan was too busy shitting his diaper and trying to remember his own name.
Bush Senior was too busy collecting his millions in payoffs from all the favors
he did while in office.
Tim Daneliuk wrote:
Errata:
> itself. (In fact, the robber is counting on civilization to keep going
> despite their crime. A stolen TV has no value in an uncivilized society
> with TV broadcasting or cable.)
^^^^^
without
> turn to leave." Evil never gets better on its own. It requires
> interdiction -
> sometimes violent, pleasant, and even uncivilized interdiction - to be
^^^^^^^^
unpleasant
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
Tim Daneliuk [email protected]
PGP Key: http://www.tundraware.com/PGP/
"Apparently he's got his own shop and loves to make furniture,"
"I hope he's a better woodworker than he was a president."
He was given a complete wood shop when he left office. He quietly made nice
green wood rocking chairs at his home in Plains Georgia for a little while
then he decided to interject himself into world affairs where he has been
about as correct as he was in his Presidential days.Too bad all past
Presidents can't keep their mouths shut as Pres. Reagan and First Pres. Bush
did for instance.
Walt Conner
Note crossposting and followups
Mark & Juanita wrote:
> On Sat, 24 Dec 2005 06:28:22 GMT, "CW" <[email protected]> wrote:
>
> >Did you notice that there was never a declaration of war? Easier to get away
> >with things if you don't have to worry about details like the Geneva
> >Convention.
>
> Given that the Geneva convention applies to uniformed combatants,
False.
You should read them before commenting on them.
The US has not ratified all of the Geneva conventions which does tend
to complicate the issue as to exactlywhat our obligations are. But a
refusal to regognize some of the convention, or parts of them does NOT
justify saying that the Conventions themselves do not have those
provisions.
The US _has_ ratified the Convention prohibiting torture inhuman
treatment
and cruel aand degrading punishment which applies to everyone without
exception, even our own citizens.
> the
> insurgents and terrorists that we are fighting (Geneva Convention does not
> extend protection to "irregulars" and "spies") do not fall under protection
> of the Geneva convention.
Again False. Protections for spies,sabotuers and civilians accused of
a beligerant act (e.g. guerillas or partisans not in uniform) not only
are found
in the 1949 Geneva Conventions but also in other international treaties
at least as far back as the early 20th century. Check out the Hague
Conventions.In the US protections for spies date back to a time befor
there even was a United States, by an act of the Continental Congress
in 1775.
Check it out for yourself and then let Rush Limbaugh and Pat Robertson
know for me, OK?
>
> That we are attempting to extend those
> protections to such irregulars says more about us. [as does the Al Quaeda
> bill of rights that Democrat John McCain got squirrelled into the latest
> defense appropriations bill].
>
The prohibition against torture in that bill was certainly not needed.
What was needed was enforcement of existing laws.
The UCMJ prohibits assault, battery, and acts of cruelty making it
impossible to torture a prisoner without violating the UCMJ. No
officer, not even the Commander-in-Chief, has the authority to
order a violation of the UCMJ.
--
FF
On Sat, 24 Dec 2005 06:28:22 GMT, "CW" <[email protected]> wrote:
>Did you notice that there was never a declaration of war? Easier to get away
>with things if you don't have to worry about details like the Geneva
>Convention.
Given that the Geneva convention applies to uniformed combatants, the
insurgents and terrorists that we are fighting (Geneva Convention does not
extend protection to "irregulars" and "spies") do not fall under protection
of the Geneva convention. That we are attempting to extend those
protections to such irregulars says more about us. [as does the Al Quaeda
bill of rights that Democrat John McCain got squirrelled into the latest
defense appropriations bill].
>
>"Joe Barta" <[email protected]> wrote in message
>news:[email protected]...
>> Steve Peterson wrote:
>>
>> > Bush is a war criminal.
>>
>> Lots of people are war criminals depending on who you ask and who
>> wins the war. War criminal is pretty subjective and has been batted
>> around at so many people it really doesn't have much meaning anymore.
>
+--------------------------------------------------------------------------------+
If you're gonna be dumb, you better be tough
+--------------------------------------------------------------------------------+
On Thu, 22 Dec 2005 20:38:20 GMT, "CW" <[email protected]> wrote:
>I hope he's a better woodworker than he was a president.
<Snip>
Jimmy Carter, IMHO, was too Good a Man for the office he held.
Lenny
"Mark & Juanita" <[email protected]> wrote in message
news:[email protected]...
> On Sat, 24 Dec 2005 19:54:21 -0800, "David Stuve" <[email protected]>
> wrote:
> That's quite an interesting statement. You believe Bush is evil
> incarnate but FDR was a great man. Just to remind you :
I don't think Bush is evil. In my eyes Cheney is definitely evil - be it
torturing prisoners, spying on Americans, falsified intelligence, outed CIA
agents, war profiteering by contractors - those trails all lead back to
Cheney. I'd call DeLay evil too - he's hell bent on selling the US to the
highest corporate bidders and viciously destroying the careers of those who
question him, yet he sings louder than anyone else does in his church on
Sundays. Like I said earlier, Bush is the face man for the administration.
I do think he's doing a lousy job though - nobody ever seems be held
accountable for screwing up under his watch.
Interesting coments about FDR. I'm no apologist for him, but read his
writings or listen to his speeches - I find him really spine-tinglingly
inspiring. If he's responsible for terrible things under his watch, then I
hope he's held accountable for them. The difference between him and GW for
me is that we are doing terrible things *now*, and can do something about it
rather than pretend it isn't happening.
Just a comment or two:
> 3) Under FDR's watch, German infiltrators were *shot* when captured on
> American soil.
Wasn't shooting spies/saboteurs common practice in WW2 on all sides?
> 4) FDR oversaw wage and price controls
This is a good thing during times of war. War profiteering is treasonous
behavior, and this is the best way to avoid it. I'm still amazed that none
of the contractors over in Iraq have been tried for war pofiteering. How
many billions are "missing"?
> 5) FDR oversaw rationing and restrictions on what Americans could buy.
> Now,
> this was in a time of war, but just imagine if Bush were to have tried the
> same thing.
If we're ever in another all-out war like WW2 I'd expect Bush to do the same
thing. Our war in Afghanistan was a couple of weeks, and so was the one in
Iraq. Ever since then it's been a police action, not a war by any classical
sense. The so-called "War on Terror" is really more like a war on organized
crime - gathering lots of intelligence, and making arrests.
> 6) A number of historians are beginning to postulate that the policies
> implemented by FDR during the depression actually served to deepen and
> prolong the depression rather than alleviate it. One example, the 90%
> income tax on those who were succeeding stifled any recovery as those who
> "prospered" were penalized to the point of not finding being able to grow
> new businesses.
Interesting. That 90% figure is often bandied about, but you have to have a
sense of perspective. That amount only applied to the super rich. I don't
think it would matter a whit to the US economy if Bill Gates had to pay 90%
income tax. The idea that a progressive income tax is a bad thing depends
on trickle-down economics, something that has never been observed to work in
the real world. Take our recent tax cuts. The idea was that by cutting
taxes we'd all have extra spending money, and the US economy would boom as
that money sloshed around. Remember the projections of 250k new jobs a
month? It never happened - wealthy people just pocketed the money, or
invested it in China. The only thing that saved our economy was lowering
interest rates to 0% and creating a housing boom. I remember reading last
year that refinancing and construction accounted for 50% of all job growth
in the last 5 years.
> 7) FDR deliberately mislead the news media (and members of the news media
> deliberately and willingly did not report) information regarding his
> health
> and physical condition.
It's well-known that the press had gave presidents "gentleman's discretion"
It's said that all but a couple (two?) of the presidents up to JFK had
mistresses, the press knew, yet said nothing. It's too bad they did that
because Americans have this bizarre moral expectation of our leaders that
they never have and never will live up to. When will grow up and realize
that we will never geat moral leadership from our politicians or
entertainers? FDR was never photographed in crutches as a sign of respect
and discretion that was a bit more positive for the nation's psyche.
Dave
On Sun, 25 Dec 2005 00:19:54 -0800, Joseph Connors <[email protected]>
wrote:
>Thats very interesting. I never heard of this before. What is the source
>on this? Thanks!
>
My source for this was an AP or Reuters story I read earlier in 2005,
sometime late spring or early summer (or thereabouts). There were two
stories that were published at roughly the same time. One was discussing
the addition of a German U-boat to (I believe) the Smithsonian archives and
one of the crewmen from that boat visiting the archive; the second story
discussed the incident I cited and indicated that a memorial plaque had
been erected for those fallen German crewmen. One of the relatives of one
of the U-boat victims expressed appreciation that this brought closure to
not knowing what had become of her relative. The story further indicated
that most interest was placed on German communication operators from the
U-boats because it was thought that they might have knowledge that could be
used.
Now, contrary to what those who disagree with my views may think, I was
not jumping up and down with glee when I read that story saying, "See! FDR
was worse than what the left is accusing the present administration of
doing!" Rather, I was extremely disappointed and saddened. I didn't want
my country to *ever* have engaged in activities that would be the
equivalent of what the Stalinists and Nazis were doing at the time, nor
what the Red Chinese and North Vietnamese and others would do in the
future. This was extremely disheartening. The story alluded to a very
methodical, pre-meditated plan regarding this incident -- this was not a
story any American should have viewed with anything other than revulsion.
However, I have spent a significant amount of time today trying to find
that story or a retraction. I can find neither; therefore, I must assume
that the original story I read was later retracted and no such incident
occured. Obviously, I cannot prove a negative, but I am going to assume
that this was an erroneous story about a non-existant incident. I will
gladly say that I was wrong about this incident -- as I indicated above,
the story brought no joy to my heart.
There is sufficient other information regarding FDR (of the other
elements on my list that you did not include in your quote, only one is
subject to speculation, that being FDR's probable negative effect on the
length and depth of the depression -- the other items have all been widely
and thorougly documented) to make my point. I find it a tremendous relief
that I *can't* find the substantiating story to go with the German U-Boat
crewmen item and will happily retract that from my list comments.
>
>
>Mark & Juanita wrote:
>
>> 2) Under FDR's watch, German submariners were tortured *to death*. Just to
>> see if they had any interesting information.
+--------------------------------------------------------------------------------+
If you're gonna be dumb, you better be tough
+--------------------------------------------------------------------------------+
David Stuve wrote:
> I saw Jimmy Carter on the Daily show a week or so ago and was really
> intrigued
> by the enthusiasm in his voice when he talked about woodworking. Apparently
> he's got his own shop and loves to make furniture, and at Camp David he
> would
> sneak out to the carpenter's shed to work off tension. Sounds like he'd be
> a fun
> person to have over for dinner and 'talk shop' with.
>
> Dave
>
> These are the articles I've found via Google:
>
> http://www.palomar.edu/woodworking/newhtml/filbeck_meets_carter.html
>
> http://www.motherearthnews.com/library/1987_November_December/The_Restoration_of_Jimmy_Carter
>
>
I was a volunteer at the Habitat for Humanity Blitz Build in Watts, LA
about 10 years ago. All of the volunteers (over 1000 of us) met at the
USC campus for the big Rah-Rah speeches to kick the week off. Jimmy, of
course, was the keynote. When he was done, he came and sat in the crowd
with the rest of us - right next to me (along with his SS guys). We
exchanged greetings and shook hands.
I wasn't able to get near him the rest of the week, but he and his wife
were out swinging hammers with everyone else.
I was surprised at how short he really is. Otherwise, he seemed like a
pretty "regular" guy.
Tim Daneliuk <[email protected]> writes:
>Scott Lurndal wrote:
>> Tim Daneliuk <[email protected]> writes:
>>
>>>David Stuve wrote:
>>>
>>>
>>>>Walt, I would challenge you to expand your political horizons. Go down to
>>>>your local library, and do a Lexis Nexis search on Americans torturing
>>>>prisoners,
>>>
>>>You mean aggressively going after *non-uniformed combatants* for
>>>whom the Geneva accords do not apply. They can be shot on sight as spies
>>
>>
>> Torture is torture. Full Stop. Are the Geneva accords the only
>> document that describes how one human should treat another?
>
>They are more-or-less the only ones we're obligated to follow
>as a matter of international law.
How about as a matter of some abstract morality? So torture of
any non-american is ok?
>
>> Even our most revered documents say that all _men_ are created
>> equal, not all _americans_ are created equal.
>
>Sorry Sparky, if you do not adhere to our social compacts you're not
My name is not Sparky. And I think you've misread the declaration
of independence if you believe that the the In/Unalienable Rights
are reserved to those who ascribe to the rest of the document.
"Life, Liberty and the pursuit of happiness"
>entitled to their benefit. If the Brave Soldiers Of Allah (tm) (aka
>Cowards Killing Children Intentionally) would like to make themselves
>subservient to the social contract enumerated in our founding documents
>then, by all means they should be protected by these same precepts.
Of course, during the time period of the documents, it's signers
were also considered to be terrorists and criminals by the British.
>Until then, anyone who purposefully makes war on children and other
>innocents should be removed from the face of the planet with extreme
>prejudice. If you don't excise cancer early, you die from it.
Gee. Didn't GWB "make war on children and other innocents" in Iraq?
Certainly wasn't just soldiers that died.
Your facile analogy re cancer is clearly meaningless, as terrorism
isn't cancer and has absolutely nothing in common with cancer from
cause to cure.
>
>>
>>
>>>if we like. There is both legal grounds and precedent for doing so.
>>>And the "torture" in this case involves making them uncomfortable and
>>>physically intimidating them, not, say, beheading them with a dull
>>>knife like their compatriots do. Foreign spies are not entitled
>>>to the same civil liberties that US citizens and legal residents
>>
>>
>> Who defines whether or not someone is a Spy, or a "unlawful combatant"?
>
>International Law - you know, that body of blather the Left
>trots out regularly as being superior to US law.
So what part of International Law allowed for the invasion of
a soveriegn country?
>
>>
>> How can you trust the person making that designation if the
>> designation appears to be by fiat?
>>
>
>A person engaging in combat, not wearing a uniform is a spy.
A spy? Really? Actually, I think the term is "unlawfull combatant".
A spy is something completely different from a legal perspective.
>The same person targeting non-combatants intentionally is a terrorist.
Or a freedom fighter, depending on point of view. (the french
resistance blowing up railroad trains in France during WWII comes to mind).
>This is not definition by fiat but by observation. Unless, of course,
Who made the observation, did they really see what they thought
they saw, and can you trust them?
>you buy the deconstructionist literary nonsese of the past 50 years in
>which case words mean nothing (and you can't argue with me any more).
c'est what? (bad pun).
>>
>> We have a court system. Use it. And forget the national security
>
>No, our court system if for *our* citizens and residents, not for
>foreign invaders.
If an illegal alien commits a crime in the United States, they
go to court, are convicted, serve their time, then are deported.
What matters the scale of the crime?
Ok. 3000 people lost their lives 9/11. 35,000 people will lose
their lives due to the Flu this winter. 50,000 will die
on the roadways just this year. Don't you think that the
9/11 incident has been blown all out of proportion?
9/11 cannot happen again the same way. And it is not because
of the creation of the Homeland Security department, or the
TSA (both of which will most likely be seen to be mistakes in
the future), but rather fortifying cockpit doors.
If the money that has been spent to avenge those 3000 had instead
been spent on law enforcement, medical research and smarter
roadways, we'd save many more American lives than the TSA
will ever save.
>
>> nonsense about someone's day in court. It is a convenient
>> excuse, but how can you trust the government to make that designation
>> without showing any evidence? All one needs to do to see
>> this type of questionable accusation at work is to look at the Padilla case.
>
>I don't particularly trust the government. But they have an obligation
>to thwart foreign invasion *by all necessary means*. One more time,
>invaders are not citizens or even legal residents - they are not protected
>by our laws, period.
How is an illegal from central america any different from an illegal
from the middle east when they commit murder in the United States, for
whatever purported reason?
Nobody is invading the United States. OBL has never stated his
intent to invade the US. Kill people yes, but many criminals
have stated a desire to kill people. Many more have followed
through. Those that have been caught, have been punished.
You've created a strawman.
>
>>
>>>>no-bid contracts in Iraq, the forged yellowcake documents,
>>>
>>>To misquote a famous person from history, "The Left is an Ass". the
>>
>>
>> You're a fine one to be calling names of anyone. The Right is an
>> Ass, the Left is an Ass, it's the moderates in the middle
>> that will save this country from both the left and the right.
>
>No - the moderates will twiddle their thumbs and continue the long
>tradition of mooching that the Left and Right instatiated long ago.
This is your "Republican Mantra" talking. Moderates have been
responsible for the bulk of the progress in the United States
for the last 200 years.
>You do not "moderate" when someone is attacking you. You fight back
>until they are dead and no longer a threat. No less a complete
>socialist idiot than FDR understood this. Sadly, today's Left
"socialist idiot"? Reverting to Namecalling is a typical when
you can't argue facct.
>is utterly without a clue on the matter.
And neither does the Right, sadly, as evinced by your pen.
>
>
>>
>> However, it is the right that is fucking the country up right now.
>
>
>Today's Right *inherited* a mess caused by lots of different things.
This is the interpretation of the Right. It can hardly be unbiased, nicht wahr?
The Left believes the current mess was created by the Right.
>They are being forced to respond in the face of the negligence of
>Clinton, the failed endgame of Bush 41, the moronic foreign policy
>of Carter, etc. Don't blame todays administration for the mess
>because they didn't remotely create it. In fact, one of the few
Please. The first president in American history to invade and
occupy a sovereign foreign country that wasn't at war with
the United States didn't create this mess?
>good things this administration has done is to respond vigrously
>and without apology to the invasion currently underway around the
>world. Had Carter, Bush 41, or Clinton done this a long time ago,
>the problem would be more-or-less moot now.
The problem is moot anyway. It's simply been overblown by the
Republicans using it for political gain.
Where is OBL and when will he be brought to justice for the
crime of conspiracy to commit murder?
scott
<[email protected]> wrote in message
news:[email protected]...
> On Thu, 22 Dec 2005 22:29:44 GMT, "WALTER D. CONNER"
> <[email protected]>
> wrote:
>
>
> Reagan was too busy shitting his diaper and trying to remember his own
> name.
> Bush Senior was too busy collecting his millions in payoffs from all the
> favors
> he did while in office.
>
And Clinton waited until he was almost out of office to pardon all of his
convict friends that helped keep him out of jail.
> So anyway, does anyone have any sites with pics of Carter's
> woodworking?
Doesn't appear so though one person did give you a mag. that he said had
some work. You might try searching for this mag. on Internet. I think that
Wood Mag. had an article many years ago, perhaps back in the 80s, might try
a search there also. Did you look at the Carter Library site?
Walt Conner