Oddly, they have this persecution complex because people really do threaten and try to kill them. When NARAL starts bombing churches then the fundies can start complaining.

Dave

I once thought I was wrong and said so, but I was wrong.

"Even though poll, after poll, after poll, after poll say that the majority or near a majority are pro-life, they continue to label anyone pro-life as extreme."

Right. 2/3 of the country wants roe to remain in place. go figure, 66% of the country is a minority. who would have expected it?

"The next time someone talks to you about the "divisiveness" in American politics, point them Left. It wasn't the GOP that brackets out ideas and groups as unacceptable."

Right, unless you are a republican and you bracket out the single largest plurality of americans, 36% who call them democrats, which are unacceptable to republicans. this post is false beyond belief.

You're not helping your cause any with a one-sided post like this. NARAL, which I am philosophically entirely in agreement with, has shown with its new TV ad that it's perfectly capable of shooting itself in the foot.

Contrary to what your post implies, militancy and narrowmindedness exist at both ends of the political spectrum, perhaps even in equal quantities. The difference is a practical one: right-wing extremism, generally speaking, is the more dangerous to civilization.

The ten biggest genocides of the 20th century were committed by Left wing governments...

Do try again.

yes like hitler. Hitler's right wing fascist government will probably now be called "socialist" by this poster, and i will also hear this poster call the democratic republic of North Korea a "democracy".

The ten biggest genocides of the 20th century were committed by Left wing governments

!!! And what other interesting tidbits can you tell us about Alternate Earth?

Well, YES Billy, the writer might well describe Hitler's National Socialists as, uhm... socialists.

However, I tend to think that Mr Bambeneck is far too generous in saying that NARAL is honest. They know better than a lot of this nonsense, but the ends justify their dishonest means.

I didn't say they were honest... I just said they weren't lying.

A delusional person can't lie... doesn't mean they are right though. :)

sloop John B sez...
*A delusional person can't lie*

and he should know, being an expert and all

Excelsior!

The far right is often socialist, even though right-wingers rarely have the honesty to admit this. The main differences lie in who benefits from the socialism, and in how the leaders justify this.

The far left claims to want the people to benefit, but too often a far-left system ends up benefiting only the leadership of the Communist Party. They justify this with nonsense such as "the dictatorship of the proletariat." The far right also claims to want benefits for the people, but ends up concentrating power and profit in the hands of industrialists and corporate leaders. They justify this with nonsense about "survival of the fittest" and "the will to power" and sometimes even claim God wants things arranged the way they have ended up.

In both extreme cases "the people" play the same victim role, but quite different groups end up in the slightly more enviable position of social vampires. That's why the far left and the far right end up trying to kill each other. So Bambenek continues to be completely wrong in lumping both groups together as "leftists."

unless you are a big time revisionist hitler and musollini are corporate right wing fascists, just like bush.

and the dprk is a democracy.
and the prc is a people's republic.

sure it is.

what Victor said so eloquently

/golfclap

Excelsior!

>>Right. 2/3 of the country wants roe to remain in place. go figure, 66% of the country is a minority. who would have expected it?<<

You need to pay attention to the poll questions. By pro-life he means that they don't support partial birth abortions.

Dave

sure dave. another distortion. partial birth abortions dont even exist, they are a right wing fiction. ask any doctor what it is and he will look at you like you are insane.

pro-life means you want to overturn roe, nothing more nothing less.

how can you claim you are "pro life / anti-choice" but roe is ok? makes no sense to me.

>>The ten biggest genocides of the 20th century were committed by Left wing governments...<<

>>yes like hitler. Hitler's right wing fascist government will probably now be called "socialist" by this poster, and i will also hear this poster call the democratic republic of North Korea a "democracy".<<

Well, since Hitler called it 'socialist', we might want to play along. And, in fact, it had many of the characteristics of mid-20th century socialism.

But I'm having a hard time figuring out the top 10 genocides of the 20th century so that I can verify that none of them were from right-wing governments. The problem is that Stalin and Pol Pot, althogh lefties, were not genocidal per se, because they killed everyone regardless of race for political reasons. The only straight genocides of any size I can come up with are Hitler, Rwanda, Saddam Hussein, Darfur and Turkey killing Armenians. That's only 6. Someone help me out with another 4.

Dave

Dave think of the absurdity
of what you just defended.

"By pro-life he means that they don't support partial birth abortions."

So hillary is pro-life? people that believe in the right to choose but dont want 3rd trimester abortions are "pro-life"?

by your definition 90% of the democratic party is "pro-life".

Re Post #6, "The ten biggest genocides of the 20th century were committed by Left wing governments...":

Piero Scaruffi catalogues "The Worst Genocides of the 20th Century" here . Assuming that Scaruffi's statistics are correct, and that his definition of genocide is acceptable, the top ten genocidal regimes of the 20th Century are:

1. Jozef Stalin (USSR, 1934-39) 13,000,000 (the purges)

2.Adolf Hitler (Germany, 1939-1945) 12,000,000 (concentration camps and civilians WWII)

3.Mao Tze Dong (China, 1966-69) 11,000,000 (cultural revolution)

4.Hideki Tojo (Japan, 1941-44) 5,000,000 (civilians WWII)

5.Pol Pot (Cambodia, 1975-79) 1,700,000

6.Kim Il Sung (North Korea, 1948-94) 1.6 million (purges and concentration camps)

7.Menghitsu (Ethiopia, 1975-78)) 1,500,000

8.Ismail Enver (Turkey, 1915) 1,200,000 Armenians

9.Charles DeGaulle (Algeria, 1954-1962) 1,000,000

10. Yakubu Gowon (Biafra, 1967-1970) 1,000,000

Half of those are mass murders, not genocides. You have to rule out 1, 3, 4, 5 and 6 because they were either not racially motivated or carried out by a member of the race against other members of the same race or nationality.

Dave

>>Dave think of the absurdity
of what you just defended.

"By pro-life he means that they don't support partial birth abortions."

So hillary is pro-life? people that believe in the right to choose but dont want 3rd trimester abortions are "pro-life"?<<

I didn't DEFEND it, Billy. I just pointed out how he can make the claim. If you claim that everyone who opposes at least some form of abortion is pro-life then you get a lot of pro-lifers.

>>by your definition 90% of the democratic party is "pro-life".<<

It's not MY definition.

Dave

i see your list above and it would be hard to classify any of those as right or left since they are one party rule in most cases,

but it is also hard to blame the right for anything because the US is about the only place left on earth where a right wing government still exists as a majority.

"partial birth abortions dont even exist"

Uh-huh. That's why the pro-abortion Left works so hard to defeat laws against this "non-existent" practice, right?

Um, if we take a walk down the genocide, mass murder route let's look at all of history. The majority were slaughtered in the name of a Deity. Take all the human beings that have been tortured, raped, robbed and killed by Christians promoting Christ or Muslims fighting against Christian oppression. Extremism regardless of which side of the aisle it comes from is just plain destructive but necessary.

Abortion is not genocide. In some minds it is murder, in others an unfortunate alternative. It's impossible to come to a complete agreement. There are guidleines in place which are completely reasonable. In the end, however, it is an individual woman's right to make that decision and anyone who imposes or inflicts emotional or physical pain upon a woman making that decision is nothing short of pond scum.

Dave:

Your definition of "genocide" as "racially motivated" slaughter does not conform to common dictionary usage. Go here for several different dictionary definitions. Example: "The systematic and planned extermination of an entire national, racial, political, or ethnic group" is how the American Heritage Dictionary defines the word.

Article II of the UN's "Convention on the Prevention and Punishment of the Crime of Genocide" defines genocide as follows:

"In the present Convention, genocide means any of the following acts committed with intent to destroy, in whole or in part, a national, ethnical, racial or religious group, as such:

( a ) Killing members of the group;

( b ) Causing serious bodily or mental harm to members of the group;

( c ) Deliberately inflicting on the group conditions of life calculated to bring about its physical destruction in whole or in part;

( d ) Imposing measures intended to prevent births within the group;

( e ) Forcibly transferring children of the group to another group."

National, ethnical, and racial conform to your definition, but religious does not. The UN seems to recognize that genocide is not merely "racially motivated."

This pro-choice leftist absolutely considers herself pro-life, meaning anti-death. That is why I refuse to call right-wingers "pro-life" -- they are anti-choice (on a whole range of issues). And Mr. Bambenek, it appears, is as much of a distortion artist as the people behind that unfortunate NARAL campaign.

"( d ) Imposing measures intended to prevent births within the group"

Hmm...does this mean that NARAL is trying to impose "genocide" on a group (Americans)? ;-/

Regarding American public opinion on abortion, go here for 2005 poll results.

According to LA Times polls:

41% favored making abortion illegal with a few exceptions.
24% favored making abortion always legal
19% favored making abortion legal most of the time.
12% favored making abortion totally illegal.

In other words, 53% of Americans favor making abortion illegal with few exceptions, while 43% favor making it legal with few exceptions.

A CBS News Poll asked: ""Which of these comes closest to your view? Abortion should be generally available to those who want it. OR, Abortion should be available, but under stricter limits than it is now. OR, Abortion should not be permitted."

37% favor stricter limits. This is a decrease of one percentage point from a similar poll on 2003-JAN.
35% favor general availability. This is a decrease of 4 percentage points.
25% favor no abortion access. This is a decrease of one percentage point.

A CNN/USA Today/Gallup Poll asked, "Do you think abortions should be legal under any circumstances, legal only under certain circumstances, or illegal in all circumstances?"

55% responded sometimes legal. This is an increase of 1 percentage point from a similar poll in 1975
23% always legal; this is an increase of 2 percentage points.
20% always illegal; this is reduction of 2 percentage points.
2% uncertain.

The problem with this last poll is that it doesn't adequately distinguish between those who want abortion to be legal in most but not all circumstances from those who want it to be legal in few if any circumstances.

As I have read the polls over the years, my impression has been that most Americans want abortion to be available, but not for just any and every reason. Had legislatures rather than the Roe Court decided this issue, my guess is that the states' abortion laws would more accurate reflect American public opinion.

The majority opinion does not necessarily make it the rule of law. I'm sick and tired of people touting opinion polls as Gospel. That's bunk. You don't have to like abortion, Lord knows I don't. However, that doesn't make it right for me to tell a woman what she can or cannot do with her body. The so-called majority of Americans elected George W. Bush, that doesn't make the decision a wise choice. In 1800, the majority of Americans allowed to vote were opposed to sufferage and the freedom of salves. Times changed. Life is a lot different today than it was in the days of Abraham, Moses, Christ and Martin Luther. That which was applicable to life then does not necessarily make it applicable today. The restrictions on abortion are in place, why can't we just leave it at that and find a way to serve the women who make these decisions with some compassion? Or isn't that the damned Christian thing to do?

salves = slaves. Sorry, I get postal.

John Bambenek, your posts are almost unreadable. They're consistently nothing but rabid, bitter (almost hateful) right-wing invective with no nuance, gray area, or shading what so ever. Is it easier for you to live life having knee-jerk reactions to everything and as a political caricature? Who are what are you so angry at?

That is all.

no worries Silas, you get as postal as ya want

Bog and JuJu knows you deserve to light off on quite a lot of this

Excelsior!

If/When Roe is overturned, there will be little change in the country. A small number of states will outlaw abortion entirely. And the female residents of these states who want an abortion anyways will just have to drive to another state. That's about the only difference.

A small number of states will outlaw abortion entirely.

Why doesn't that small number just unite and cede from the Union? Those states are parasites on the rest of the civilized states and would do well to be nothing more than giant landfills. Then they can have their Christian Republic and get foreign aid from Washington.

i disagree RJ...

as long as it remains a Rights issue, it's all or nothing

like the "Jim Crowe" laws

follow the causal chain to the end, you will see what i mean

Excelsior!

Here we go again... a bunch of males (probably well-off, caucasian ones) foaming at the mouth about abortion. I say, Shut Up! We can't get pregnant, we can't give birth, so we men should not even be entitled to an opinion!! Why don't we put some energy into reducing male-on-female violence, which is an epidemic in our nation? Why don't we put this energy into feeding the hungry children who are already here? Hey, why don't we pay women a fair wage to be good mothers? It is so damn easy to be comfortably self-rightous about abortion; it is really hard to support women having power and freedom and dignity. Show me the cancelled checks from feeding neglected children - then I will listen to your opinions.

Actually no, RJ. State supreme courts and lower courts will use the ruling to strike down state abortion laws left and right. And when challenged, the Supreme Court ruling will be the ultimate standard against abortion.

Additionally, the Supreme Court ruling will also be modeled by conservative legislators who will pass sweeping bans on abortion in many states in order to better "comply" with the Court.

That's why the Supreme Court is so powerful and why its proclamations on major issues like this one have the effect of becoming universally legislated public policy.

That is all.

Er, if the USSC overturns Roe v. Wade, that doesn't neccesarily mean that the USSC will rule that abortion is bad and evil and should be banned forever. It just means that they will have decided that the original ruling was a steaming pile of crap, and that ACTUAL VOTERS should decide the issue.

So, the decision would go to the states. And only a few states (like Idaho or Utah) would outlaw it entirely. And the residents of those states can, you know, drive a few extra miles to kill their baby.

IOW, not much will have changed...

"John Bambenek, your posts are almost unreadable. They're consistently nothing but rabid, bitter (almost hateful) right-wing invective with no nuance, gray area, or shading what so ever."

Bob, you must be new here.

Abortion is such a non-issue. Even if it's outlawed, it's not going to stop. How's the war on drugs going? Why don't we first worry about the terrorists who are trying to abort those of us outside the womb?

GPW, I suppose the UN can define genocide any way they like. However, the key thing in even their definition is an identifiable group. I don't think that being under the control of the same murderous government can be considered the sole defining factor for a group for the purposes of identifying genocide. That would make the US practice of executing murderers genocide. That seems a bit extreme.

Dave

Dave Nalle, I so much want to take you seriously because you are such an earnest, impassioned fellow, but you say such silly things sometimes. That's probably why I thought you were a welder or electrician when I first read your political ruminations.

The Geneva Convention has very specific guidelines, in fact hundreds of pages, on what constitutes genocide. Death Row inmates are not an ethnic, cultural, or religious group and would not be considered genocide under UN charter.

There has never been much confusion about what the UN considers genocide under its definitions. The problem in places like Bosnia, Rwanda, and now Darfur in Sudan have been that governments have been weak-willed and slow to admit the reality of what's been taking place in order to avoid the political, financial, military and diplomatic commitments that recognizing an ongoing genocide would entail. We always recognize them as genocides after the fact or when it's already too late to stop most of the murders. And it's a tragedy too. All of you should rent Hotel Rwanda and then read and think very hard about our complicity in what's going on now in Darfur before you resort back to your pre-defined ideology and knee-jerk reactions like "international bodies bad, USA good, American self-interest only."

The American death penalty is a bad thing, don't get me wrong, but never has it been challenged under international law as genocide.

That is all.

You're a very unsubtle fellow, aren't you, Babs. If I post something even remotely clever or sarcastic you completely miss the point. I suppose that's because you're a welder or an electrician (that comment will probably go over your head too).

In this case you make my exact point for me, which is that the deaths under Stalin, Mao and Pol Pot cannot be considered genocide because the only identifying characteristic of the victims was their politics, not their race, national origin or religion.

Dave

re comment #36: Of all the comments I have read tonight posted on different topics you, KURT, completely blew me away. To find a man with your intuition, your ability to target on the source of a great deal of the problem concerning abortions and women, it is a rare and amazing moment. Thank you!

What many on the left do not understand is the right-wingers do not all oppose abortion completely, but we do oppose the late-term abortion in which the fetus is a tiny being, only days or a week away from being able to survive outside the womb.

Regarding comments posted about right-wingers not wanting 'choice', not true, what about adoption? There are hundreds of couples in the world wanting to adopt children. Instead of killing the baby possibly created during a drunken one-night stand with a stranger, provide that being with life, and unite it with a couple who will want to raise it. Granted this may be uncomfortable to the hosting adult who will bring the baby into the world, but the baby did not ask you to lie on you back, spread your legs and make it possible to be concieved either.

Dave, you really don't want to start arguments with me, because the last couple you've tried have ended pretty badly for you. Remember your ridiculous definition of neo-cons? Or your post about unions?

Yeah, I'm the blue-collar guy who hangs out in saloon halls with blue-collar rednecks all day. You got me, buddy. Are we really playing the "I know you are, but what am I" game now?

Don't even hide your ignorance by saying you were making a sarcastic point. You were trying to imply something derisive about international organizations by mocking the UN's standards of genocide without any knowledge of how those work.

Oy, Dave, you're ponderous. Political murder -- and I know Communism is your big thing since you're stuck in some sort of retarded 1950s Manichean fight that's long been over against the Reds -- is not the same thing as genocide. What's your point? That it should be? There's no point there, just some silly quibble, like it always is with you. Genocide is a specific term in international politics that refers to the annihilation of religious, ethnic or cultural groups. Are you really so silly that you're going to minimize the evil of that event so you can compare it to some other injustices?

Political murder in authoritarian nation-states is a horrible thing. Stalin, Mao and Pol Pot were all brutal dictators who killed millions of innocent people. So that means that we shouldn't support the UN when they're right in declaring genocides we choose to ignore today? If you're such a brave moralist who is willing to fight the battles over the injustices of history, why do you sit silent now, tough guy?

Do you think we should intervene in Darfur? Or is that not as interesting as some ridiculous East-West ideological debate between good and evil that was decided long, long ago?

One of the problems with our knowledge about the authoritarian regimes you discuss is we didn't know the extent to which ethnic persecution did occur in Russia and China, for example. Ethnic minorities who were executed or had their cultures and religions destroyed suffered greatly under Stalin and Mao. The Western media didn't report on the persecution of racial and ethnic minorities in either nation because we just didn't care amidst the big superpower arms race and ideological battle. We tended to view the Soviet empire and China as monolithic masses of enemy people rather than recognizing any ethnic or cultural diversity that was sacrificed for imperial aims. A young Dave Nalle probably didn't know or care either way back then. Had there been sufficient reporting and monitoring of genocide (as there is now with UN peacekeepers and observers throughout areas of ethnic conflict), the UN almost certainly would have declared the potential for genocide with ethnic minorities in areas like Inner Mongolia or Tibet. Would you have supported that or would you have been too busy foaming at the mouth about how the UN caters too much to the Reds?

I have a really hard time taking anything you say seriously. You're not capable of satire, so please don't cloak your ill-informed political views in some sort of cheap defense like that. Your morality is almost as cheap as your writing on politics.

That is all.

The Geneva Convention was also fairly new during the era you speak of and the infrastructure of observers, monitors, and peacekeepers had yet to be created.

The United States, incidentally and ironically, often opposed international review of things like genocide in that era because it preferred to have the maximum latitude possible for its military operations in the 3rd world. From the 50s through the 80s, the United States consistently repudiated and weakened the UN's ability and resources to investigate ethnic cleansing. Perhaps we would have known more than we did in our fuzzy picture of what was happening in Southeast Asia or in the provinces of China or among ethnic minorities in Russia if we hadn't been so dead-set against allowing international bodies to help us investigate the evils of Communist regimes in favor of military unilateralism and superpower rivalry.

Dave: I realize you won't have an argument here, so I suggest you save face like on the last couple of topics and just sit quiet. Or you can offer your typical infuriated, personal attack on me without having anything to say about the UN and genocide and retreat into your bunker, comfortable with all the fear and ignorance in your reptilian brain.

That is all.

Babs, I never HAD an argument here. You're arguing with yourself. I'm not even sure we disagree at all. You seem to think that it's necessary to throw insults at me when all I did was make a simple statement which as far as I can tell you don't disagree with, despite apparently misunderstanding it in the first place. I just don't see what you're getting at. You seem to think you know me and what I believe, but your statements suggest you don't even understand what I've said on this thread, much less anything else I believe.

>>Don't even hide your ignorance by saying you were making a sarcastic point. You were trying to imply something derisive about international organizations by mocking the UN's standards of genocide without any knowledge of how those work.<<

No, I wasn't. I made a simple statement that I didn't consider certain mass murderers to be inherently genocidal. GPW brought up the UN code on genocide. I pointed out - with a slight sarcastic edge - that their definition did not differ significantly from mine. I was slightly sarcastic not because I disagreed with the UN definition, but because I disagreed with GPW's need to argue with my point and the relevance of the UN definition which didn't actually contradict my point.

>>Oy, Dave, you're ponderous. Political murder -- and I know Communism is your big thing since you're stuck in some sort of retarded 1950s Manichean fight that's long been over against the Reds<<

Where do you get that idea? The next time I meet an actual communist will be the first time. There are a lot of people who call themselves communists, but when it comes down to it they're statists of one kind of another.

>>(Political Murder) -- is not the same thing as genocide. What's your point?<<

That's my point, that's all there is. I was trying to put together a list of the top 10 genocides as mentioned by the original poster and thought it was inappropriate to include those who only killed for political reasons. That's all there was.

>> That it should be? There's no point there, just some silly quibble, like it always is with you. <<

I know, I was just musing on who the top genocides were. It wasn't a big deal, really - just an interesting direction to take the discussion, because I couldn't think of a full 10 that were real genocides. I was also to some degree hoping to draw out the pro-lifers into saying that the US and China are in the top 10 for genocide because of all the abortions, but they seem to have disappeared from the discussion. If they'd taken the bait then the discussion would have gotten interesting.

>>Genocide is a specific term in international politics that refers to the annihilation of religious, ethnic or cultural groups. Are you really so silly that you're going to minimize the evil of that event so you can compare it to some other injustices?<<

No. When did I ever try to do this?

>>Political murder in authoritarian nation-states is a horrible thing. Stalin, Mao and Pol Pot were all brutal dictators who killed millions of innocent people. So that means that we shouldn't support the UN when they're right in declaring genocides we choose to ignore today? If you're such a brave moralist who is willing to fight the battles over the injustices of history, why do you sit silent now, tough guy? <<

What on earth are you talking about? When did I ever say that we shouldn't support the UN in declaring something to be genocide? I'm against genocide, you're against genocide. Who the hell isn't against it?

>>Do you think we should intervene in Darfur?<<

It's an entirely different topic, but yes, I think that if we stabilize the situation in Iraq our troops should hop over to Darfur. I think the Europeans ought to be taking care of the problem as requested by the UN, but since they aren't living up to their responsibilities we might have to intervene.

>>Or is that not as interesting as some ridiculous East-West ideological debate between good and evil that was decided long, long ago?<<

Not sure what debate you're referring to here. Not one I was involved in, that's for sure.

>>One of the problems with our knowledge about the authoritarian regimes you discuss is we didn't know the extent to which ethnic persecution did occur in Russia and China, for example. Ethnic minorities who were executed or had their cultures and religions destroyed suffered greatly under Stalin and Mao. The Western media didn't report on the persecution of racial and ethnic minorities in either nation because we just didn't care amidst the big superpower arms race and ideological battle. We tended to view the Soviet empire and China as monolithic masses of enemy people rather than recognizing any ethnic or cultural diversity that was sacrificed for imperial aims.<<

This is a very good point. I really didn't set out to discuss actual genocide here, but in a discussion of genocide we certainly have to consider that it's not always black and white as far as why people were killed. No question there's large scale ethnic persecution in China and many other countries even today. The Kashmiris would argue that they are pretty seriously persecuted in india. So would ethnic minorities in scores of other countries.

>>A young Dave Nalle probably didn't know or care either way back then.<<

Back when? How the hell old do you think I am? I do barely remember some of the excesses of the cultural revolution from my teens, but nothing on Stalin. When I lived in Russia the ethnic persecution was pretty much under control.

>> Had there been sufficient reporting and monitoring of genocide (as there is now with UN peacekeepers and observers throughout areas of ethnic conflict), the UN almost certainly would have declared the potential for genocide with ethnic minorities in areas like Inner Mongolia or Tibet. Would you have supported that or would you have been too busy foaming at the mouth about how the UN caters too much to the Reds?<<

This is nonsensical. If the UN condemned ethnic persecution inside China then siding with the UN would BE siding against the reds. And even as a kid I certainly understood that people should not be persecuted because of race or color or creed. Dr. King told me so and he was one of my childhood idols.

>>I have a really hard time taking anything you say seriously. You're not capable of satire, so please don't cloak your ill-informed political views in some sort of cheap defense like that. Your morality is almost as cheap as your writing on politics.<<

I get the impression you have never read or understood a single thing I've written. It's like your arguing with an imaginary person who you've stuck my name on.

Here's a quick quiz - what are my positions on:

Abortion
GITMO Detainees
Homosexual Marriage
War on Drugs
Patriot Act
School Prayer
Terri Schiavo
Neocon Policies
Immigration
Flag Burning

These are all things I've written about extensively and based on what you've written about me I bet you have no idea where I stand on most of these issues. You clearly have no idea where I stand on genocide and our foreign policy regarding it.

>>The Geneva Convention was also fairly new during the era you speak of and the infrastructure of observers, monitors, and peacekeepers had yet to be created.<<

That era being the entire 20th century, as per the original statement I was responding to.

>>The United States, incidentally and ironically, often opposed international review of things like genocide in that era because it preferred to have the maximum latitude possible for its military operations in the 3rd world. From the 50s through the 80s, the United States consistently repudiated and weakened the UN's ability and resources to investigate ethnic cleansing. Perhaps we would have known more than we did in our fuzzy picture of what was happening in Southeast Asia or in the provinces of China or among ethnic minorities in Russia if we hadn't been so dead-set against allowing international bodies to help us investigate the evils of Communist regimes in favor of military unilateralism and superpower rivalry.<<

I would argue that the issue of genocide and ethnic cleansing during the 60s and 70s, which is really the era you're talking about, was very much secondary to other foreign policy concerns, and what we really didn't want was the UN interfering with our agenda and the people we chose to back to advance it. No question we were in league with some shady characters throughout that period, and so we turned a blind eye to a lot of things which objectively we should not have, and both Demcorat and Republican administrations are equally to blame.

>>Dave: I realize you won't have an argument here, so I suggest you save face like on the last couple of topics and just sit quiet. <<

The only argument I have is with your assertion that we HAVE an argument in the first place.

>>Or you can offer your typical infuriated, personal attack on me without having anything to say about the UN and genocide and retreat into your bunker, comfortable with all the fear and ignorance in your reptilian brain.<<

I'd say you've got the personal attack mojo going pretty strong yourself. If the me you're attacking bore any resemblance to my actual self I might be offended, but since you're attacking the strawman Dave Nalle of your imagination I just find it kind of weird.

Dave

It's kinda cool to see you guys compete for sheer volume of words in your battles, Dave and Bob, but I do wish you'd pick your battlefields more carefully and draw the comment traffic to posts by authors who contribute the quality of writing to deserve the higher rank on the front page you're wasting here.

This may be the most number of words wasted on a non-discussion ever. But where better to throw all those pointless words down a hole than this post?

Dave

Re comment #39;
"Bob, you must be new here."
- RogerMDillion

Actually Rog, Bob A Booey has been commenting on BC for at least 18 months.

And yourself?

Evasive. But I'm glad to hear we mostly agree, I guess. This probably was a stupid discussion, but largely because adding the Red Communists to the list of genocides is a stupid idea. Apparently, you're not too keen on defending it anyways.

And I don't care about your positions on those other issues.

I guess I find your style of political argument even more annoying than the substance of it. The two or three debates we've had haven't shown me that you know much about these issues. But maybe, just maybe you might know something about one of the others. If I come across what you've written on them, I'll evaluate your views with an open mind.

MCH: to be fair, I was gone for like a year. I did post last summer, though.

That is all.

>>Evasive.<<

Hardly.

>> But I'm glad to hear we mostly agree, I guess. This probably was a stupid discussion, but largely because adding the Red Communists to the list of genocides is a stupid idea. <<

Which you did, not me. Read back through the thread. I eliminated them from the list of genocides.

>>Apparently, you're not too keen on defending it anyways.<<

Especially since I never said it.

>>And I don't care about your positions on those other issues. <<

Or on this issue either, apparently, since you've demonstrated that you have no idea what it is.

>>I guess I find your style of political argument even more annoying than the substance of it. The two or three debates we've had haven't shown me that you know much about these issues.<<

I know what I know. What I don't know I make an effort to learn.

>> But maybe, just maybe you might know something about one of the others. If I come across what you've written on them, I'll evaluate your views with an open mind.<<

Seems improbable based on our past discussions, but I'm willing to take your word for it.

Dave

BAB;
True, you were absent for awhile, although I do recall you weighing in on MD's banishment, which took place around late November, if memory serves.

MCH, I was teasing Bob about his reaction to John when he wrote:

"John Bambenek, your posts are almost unreadable. They're consistently nothing but rabid, bitter (almost hateful) right-wing invective with no nuance, gray area, or shading what so ever."

Because anyone who has been here for any length of time already knows this about John. Obviously, the humor was missed.

To John's credit, his posts aren't riddled with as many spelling, grammar and punctuation errors as they used to be.

RMD;
I suspected as much. Sorry about the snarky comment.

No worries, MCH. You probably needed a rest from hunting chickenhawks.

Apology in advance:

I'm with V.Plenty here: Bambineck's apparently bottomless pit of jingoistic "essays" posted to BC like a flood of digital diarrhea should be left untouched and unread.

...except when I get the impulse to arrive with a few verbal cream pies.

Thanks for your cooperation,
The Management

=========

PS: DaveNulle, Bob A. Booey handed you yer ass. Thanks for the memories!

I don't think you know what jingoistic means.

Shark, while it's true that readers can get turned off when one's ideology becomes a stream of posts in hopes of making the leaderboard for a week, do you think this problem is limited to just one blogger?

*Remind me to get in a debate with you in the future. I'm curious to see what my smarmy misspelled nickname is.

Ah, Shark. Thanks for the clarification. It was my ass he was trying to find. Makes some sense since he sure couldn't find my argument.

Dave

Re comment #55;

LOL! It's a tough job, RMD, but somebody's got to do it.

Sussman: "Remind me to get in a debate with you in the future."

Sorry, I don't do "debates."

Yeah, he only does "trolls".

i don't think you know what troll means.

once again, another post by John Bambenek invites comraderie and intelligent discourse.

John Bambenek - the Uniter.™

I'm sorry, I didn't realize that being a Uniter was responding to flames say, yeah... I am jingoistic... and Shark has been right all these years about the correct spelling of my name...

that isn't what a uniter is. and I was being sarcastic, you are far from a uniter. You work hard to divide and I wasn't referring to any comments but to your unoriginal posts.

Dave:

I'm not sure why you want to excuse the Communists from genocide. At first, you tried to restrict the definition to "racially motivated" acts (Post #20). Then, based on my citation of dictionary definitions and UN code, you conceded that it included identifiable groups (Post #40)--your earlier posts did not state that, by the way. But then, bizarrely in my opinion, you exempt mass poliitical murder from genocide. If Stalin murders several hundred thousand "kulaks" because they opposed his utopian vision of society, why is that not genocide? They were, after all, an identifiable group. Perhaps, if we changed the terms of the debate from Top Ten 20th Century Genocides to Top Ten Murderous Governments in the 20th Century, that would smooth out our disagreement.

I think we need a new label. Prolife is not accurate.

I propose "pro-birth except when".

So many seem to have exceptions.

Except when:

- incest is involved

- Rape

- Life or health of the Mother is threatened

- You're probirth and your 14 yr old daughter is pregnant and what would your friends think?

- You or your wife is pregnant and you're probirth and while you are probirth this unplanned pregnancy just doesn't fit into your plans.

The point, if you haven't got it by now, is that we can take political positions that may suit our hypothetical morals, but until you are in the REAL LIFE position you REALLY DON'T know what you'd do.

Now the oposite may be true i.e. someone who's pro choice and gets pregnant in a less than desirable situation may find that they, while if such a situation were posed to them hypothetically they may state that they would likely seek an abortion, may instead CHOOSE to have the child.

Now I say this knowing full well that many have been through this and have indeed followed their morals where ever they may take them, but it can happen again, under different circumstances, and one may behave differently.

When the nuances of real life are factored in, reasonable people recognize that abortion is an incredibly private and difficult issue and believe that people should make up their own minds for themselves and their families. Do these reasonable people also believe in reasonable restrictions? Yes, but not prohibition.

Polling seldom takes these nuances into consideration.

One last thought. Lets see a show of hands of those who are pro-life (birth) who, if abortion were prohibited, are willing to pay for a below poverty level single mother to bear and raise her unwanted child.

I'm betting that would dwindle the herd considerably.

Maybe I shouldn't be so confident. Many may simply be for taking away the child.

>>I'm not sure why you want to excuse the Communists from genocide. At first, you tried to restrict the definition to "racially motivated" acts (Post #20). Then, based on my citation of dictionary definitions and UN code, you conceded that it included identifiable groups (Post #40)--your earlier posts did not state that, by the way. But then, bizarrely in my opinion, you exempt mass poliitical murder from genocide. If Stalin murders several hundred thousand "kulaks" because they opposed his utopian vision of society, why is that not genocide? They were, after all, an identifiable group. Perhaps, if we changed the terms of the debate from Top Ten 20th Century Genocides to Top Ten Murderous Governments in the 20th Century, that would smooth out our disagreement.<<

I don't particularly want to excuse anyone from genocide, but it does seem as if there's a difference between what Stalin and Pol Pot did and what Hitler did, because their motivation was primarily political rather than hatred of groups just because of who they were. But then it's a gray area even so, because Stalin clearly had it in for the jews for little reason other than that they were jews.

But if we call them murderous regimes then I'm all for it and we can pop the Japanese up into the top 10 too.

Dave

We celebrate war victories and remember fallen soilders on veterans day. Our culture is filled with tributes to war "heroes" in the form of paintings, statues, movies, documentaries and song. But when a woman has an abortion some of those same people who think war is honorable ( it is not), vilify the women who have had abortions even comparing them to nazis.

Time for those who are pro-save mans zygote to abandon your fight to take the control of womens bodies out of their very own hands.

It is offensive. So very thoroughly offensive. It is disrespectful.

Get off of my womb. Stay off of my womb and stop talking about my body.

Quix writes,

"Time for those who are pro-save mans zygote to abandon your fight to take the control of women's bodies out of their very own hands."
'''''
"Get off of my womb. Stay off of my womb and stop talking about my body."

When it comes to the issue of abortion, I tend to back off and not make waves; I do not have a womb. IMHO, if there is any topic that women should deal with, it is abortion.

So, Quix, I recommend you to the words of Jewels, posted at #43. Given that she may no longer be monitoring these discusssions - her post was in August of last year - I'll quote what I think are the relevant portions.

"What many on the left do not understand is the right-wingers do not all oppose abortion completely, but we do oppose the late-term abortion in which the fetus is a tiny being, only days or a week away from being able to survive outside the womb.

Regarding comments posted about right-wingers not wanting 'choice', not true, what about adoption? There are hundreds of couples in the world wanting to adopt children. Instead of killing the baby possibly created during a drunken one-night stand with a stranger, provide that being with life, and unite it with a couple who will want to raise it. Granted this may be uncomfortable to the hosting adult who will bring the baby into the world, but the baby did not ask you to lie on you back, spread your legs and make it possible to be concieved either."

"What many on the left do not understand is the right-wingers do not all oppose abortion..."

I do not make generalizationsbecause I am not myopic. I am very aware of the fact that not all right wingers are anti abortion and I have never stated that ither in writing or in print because I know it would be a false statement. By the same token there are those on the left who do not support abortion.

I didn't say that so I don't know why you are replying to me as though I have.

"There are hundreds of couples in the world wanting to adopt children."

Well there are plenty of babies in the world waiting to be adopted so have at it. Is it a women's obligation to priovide a fresh baby from her womb for every person who wants one?

"Instead of killing the baby possibly created during a drunken one-night stand with a stranger..."

See that? Now that right there is an example of single sightedness and assumptiom - you have suggested that I did what it is in fact that you have done. All aborted babies are the fruit of drunken one night stands? Is the world ever going to tire of thinking of and judging women in one of two ways; whore or virtuous mother?

So no abortions are done to save a womans life, or because she was raped, or because the fetus was horifficly deformed or she could not afford the baby. That aside, I don't think a woman needs to justify what she does with her boody.

"...provide that being with life, and unite it with a couple who will want to raise it."

A travel agent for uniting lives. If pharmacist can refuse to fil birth control can't I refuse to bring someone a little bundle of joy?

"Granted this may be uncomfortable to the hosting adult..."

This wombs for hire. Come on in folks, host your next baby here, after all I don't own the thing, no siree. Hosting adult my ass.

"...but the baby did not ask you to lie on you back, spread your legs and make it possible to be concieved either."

So now the fetus is self righteous...

To finish off -

"...but the baby did not ask you to lie on you back, spread your legs and make it possible to be concieved either."

The man didn't need to get hormonal and jump on a woman either. It's amazing how people tend to foget it takes two.