well Adam...don't hold back, tell us how you really feel about all of this...

heh

second - you are giving Barbarians a bad name here comparing them to these pigfucking greedhead shitweasals

and so it goes...we can only hope that at least 51% of our Nation wakes the fuck up soon, and begins to show both political gangs that THEY are NOT in charge...but that "We the People" ARE.

"the people should not be in fear of their government, it is the government that should fear the people" - V

is it time to "water the roots" of our Tree of Liberty as Jefferson suggested?

hopefully we don't have to go that far, the System is there to heal the rifts and get back on track... i just don't see anyone on the field who appears capable or willing to take up the Task

Excelsior?

Who told you the barbarians were LEAVING?

Considering that there will be a new barbarian in the Oval Office from either the Tweedledee or Tweedledum(B) party, I see absolutely no indication that the barbarians will be leaving.

I remember the words of Pogo, in the fifties, who said "We have met the enemy and he is US", and I have acted accordingly by leaving the country.

Gonzo Marx:
"pigfucking greedhead shitweasals" ... hey, Gonzo, don't hold back yourself either.

Moonraven:
Where did you move to? I was thinking Toronto. Boring compared to NYC, but at least in Canada, the creationists and other "pigfucking greedhead shitweasals" are a rarer breed than here.

In my CD that I write about just below the article, I take a crack at the king of the "pigfucking greedhead shitweasals," our Barbarian-in-Chief. We must use all media to keep insulting the Barbarians until a majority of Americans join us.

Adam Ash

Adam,

Great and comprehensive article. I couldn't have said it better. You might want to consider making the dozen shitheads a baker's dozen by adding the ever popular mad genius shithead Karl Rove to the list. And to not be totally sexist one might make an ancillary list with Condoleeza Rice at the top of that group. Others come to mind, but you pretty well nailed it.

I was incredulous during Nixon's tenure, befuddled with Reagan - Is this ham actor really our president? - disappointed in Clinton. But Bush takes the prize. I've never felt such visceral hatred for anyone as I do for Bush and the rest. They are a bunch of self-righteous abominations.

You may be correct. It may be difficult to recapture our rights and eradicate all of the abuses of Bush and Company. It's like taxes, once they're there, it's hell taking them back. It may be far too tempting for the next administration to retain all the powers stolen by the Bushies rather than relinquish them.

Good writing Adam!

Baritone

Mexico. Fifteen years ago. Single best life decision I have ever made.

Baritone:
Maybe I was a bit too pessimistic about a Hillary or Obama presidency.

They will be WAY better in international affairs than the bone-headed, blustering, non-diplomatic warmongers we have now.

It's just that when it comes to domestic matters, special corporate interests have bought Congress, no matter what party is in power. The Dems are a little more for-the-people than the GOP, but our real domestic problems never get solved by either party. Both parties bend over for our corporations; both let the lobbyists write our laws; both send our jobs overseas, etc.

But certainly, when it comes to international affairs, Hillary or Barack will be like saints compared to the incompetent a-hole idiot succubi from hell we have now.

You're right: Rove and Rice belong on the list, even if they spoil the aptness of number 12.

Adam Ash

Re: #6
Wait...are Baritone and Adam Ash the same person? I am so confused.

Anyway, good article. Righteous indignation is healthy...not to the point of giving up all hope, however. And we should all call a moratorium on comparing contemporary figures to Hitler. Never a good idea.

Actually, it is absolutely imperative to compare contemporary figures to Hitler.

Otherwise, they believe that you approve of them!

If the boot fits....

"Re: #6
Wait...are Baritone and Adam Ash the same person? I am so confused."

no..I am Spartacus!

but i digress...

Stalin might be the better analogy, nobody has done Pravda better than this Administration since the fall of the Iron Curtain...single Party rule fucks up every system, it appears

especially as long as Party comes before Nation, or especially before "We the People"

Excelsior?

Moonraven:
Mexico is a big place. Did you go urban or rural?

Adam Ash

So once the visigoths are gone, what are we going to do about the vandals and the huns?

Dave

"We must use all media to keep insulting the Barbarians until a majority of Americans join us."

Americans ARE the barbarians.

ALL of 'em.

And always have been.

It's what makes 'em great...

[Personal attack deleted by Comments Editor]

Adam,

I live in a village 10 minutes from a town of 400 thousand and an hour and 40 minutes from Mexico City.

Pretty much covers all the bases.

Dave, you've nailed it.

One way to cut down on hun behavior is to take corporate money out of the political process by having public funding of political campaigns.

It may not cut down on actual visigoths, vandals and huns in Washington, but at least it'll mean they're not totally in the pockets of special interests. They might start believing they represent the people who voted for them. That might make some difference.

Adam Ash

"education, healthcare, energy, the environment, campaign funding and income inequality"

Are those the big issues of our day? I would put one of them (education) in my top six. Actually, I don't know that I'd list six things for the government to be involved in.

I guess there's a place for the government in environmental policy. And energy, to the extent that it's a matter of national security. But they shouldn't be in the health care, campaign finance, or income equality business.

HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA!

We have public funding of political campaigns here in good ole corruption-free Mexico!

We have the longest, most expensive (look it up), most fatuous political campaigns in the world!

Of course narcotraficantes and other important constituents also contribute--there's the mysterious 205 million dollars found in a false closet in a Chinaman's house in March. I believe he was arrested by the DEA two days ago in Maryland....

He said the PAN threatened to kill him if he didn't hide the extra campaign money for them.

Who knows....

And even as I type this, Jorge Hank Rohn is running for governor of Baja California on the platform of buying a vest made out of burro penises--I kid you not!

Right. Go for it, suckers. Throw your tax money down the pockets of hangers on. We have thousands of folks here whose entire income is based on the public monies for political campaigns.

What a riot!

You guys just kill me.

I am going to have to go home and hit the hammock....

"Chinaman's"

Racist.

If they're sophisticated enough to take a bribe the one thing they aren't is barbarians. What we've got are decadent romans and what we NEED are some barbarians.

Lumpy sez - "What we've got are decadent romans and what we NEED are some barbarians."

Quoted for Truth

anybody else need one of these helmets with horns on 'em? i got axes cheap too!

Excelsior?

Baronius:
You say
"I guess there's a place for the government in environmental policy. And energy, to the extent that it's a matter of national security. But they shouldn't be in the health care, campaign finance, or income equality business."

The fact is, the government IS in healthcare (medicare), education, and they make the laws about campaign funding.

Since we can't get them out, the question is: should they be in these things to help the people or the rich?

BTW, what do you think our big problems are?

Adam Ash.

First thought: the rich are people.

What are our big problems? That's a different question than what should government be involved in. The biggest problems in health care and campaign finance are caused by government involvement. Government shouldn't do much more than national defense and the legal system. So I'd say that our biggest problems are national security, excesses in the legal system, education, and the government.

Baronius,

Obviously, I disagree with you about health care. As was discussed in my article about Sicko, if health care is left to the private sector, fewer and fewer people will have any access at all. If we don't bite the national health care bullet, millions of people in this country will continue to be left out of the system. But who gives a shit, right? So long as share holders get their dividend checks, the rest can suck it.

Also, no Adam and Baritone are not the same person. Don't know how that happened above. Only the Blogcritic gremlins know for sure.

Baritone

Baronius:

National security!?

Hey, I don't see any countries wanting to attack us. Maybe some terrorists, but we don't need the Pentagon for that. We need more cops for that, more airline security, more inspections at ports.

This bugaboo about national security is BS. I'd feel much more secure if the Pentagon was 1% of its current size -- then at least we'd be less likely to get into wars, like we've done in Iraq, where we've created way more terrorists than there were before.

Whining on about national security is for pols who want to scare their citizens into letting the pols get up to mischief.

Adam Ash

No need to fix the roof; it's not raining...

It's bizarre: a year ago, this article would've brought down the wrath of the rightwing fanatics at Blogcritics on my head like a ton of bricks.

You know who you are.

But today you rightwing nutters are strangely silent. Could it be you've finally come round? Could it be that you've regained your senses? Could it be that you've been born again as good Americans? Or are you simply too busy licking your wounds?

Adam Ash

Adam, you now exist in the context of Realist. And compared to him your marginally insane rantings seem so tame that they're hardly even worth bothering with.

Plus a lot of our 'rightwing fanatics' have been harassed into relative silence by the constant abuse of extreme leftists. BC hasn't become an echo chamber yet, but the left has little patience for dissenting opinion.

Dave

Dave, a common scenario involving pots and kettles springs to mind.

Switch 'right' for 'left' in your second paragraph and the accusation is just as valid.

Dave Nalle:

Gotcha! You're so easy.

Adam Ash

P.S. Poor "rightwing fanatics ... harassed into relative silence by the constant abuse of extreme leftists." So now you call them wuzzes, Dave?

"Plus a lot of our 'rightwing fanatics' have been harassed into relative silence by the constant abuse of extreme leftists."
- Dave Nalle

Oh really? So it doesn't have anything to do with the cluster-fuck in Iraq, eh Popu...er, I mean, Nalle?

Good article Adam.

I was startled to see Dave use the word "insane" (again) which is a legal term for someone who has been adjudged so in a court of law. Have you, or Realist, actually been judged "insane" by a court? Or is Dave just over the top (again) in his hyperbole?

Where to escape to? Well, Mexico has always been a favorite for US dropouts, Costa Rica used to be good but has abandoned some of their good programs like the Pensionado and the $50k business deal (they were just too successful), Panama was very good, but now they may be revising their Pensionado program, etc.

Europe has always had some good deals, Spain being a good one. Yugoslavia is inviting. For the bold and brash, Russia is still pretty exciting. England is too expensive and even the Brits are heading for more agreeable climes. France and Italy are beautiful, have good food, and pretty good climates. Just stay away from national capitols like Paris and Rome, live in the countryside or a provincial capitol, like Toulouse, Albi, etc.

Usually I figure that the US system is robust enough to recover from aberrations like the neo-mess, but this time it's different because it seems to be what the populace wants, so it runs too deep to disappear soon, and I probably won't be here to see it. Good luck to you who have to stick it out.

My wife and I have given some consideration to moving to Germany. My son has lived there for 4 or 5 years and loves it, although he does miss home at times. Of course, he speaks the language fluently. We struggle with "guten morgen" and "danke shoen." But I guess we could pick up what we'd need over time.

But I'd really miss some American things which are generally difficult to get in Germany. What would those things be, you might ask? Well.

Tap water at restaurants.
Ice in drinks.
Clothes dryers.
Stores open 24/7.
Air conditioning.
American style toilets.

When we were in Vienna and later in various parts of Germany, they looked at you oddly if you requested a glass of tap water. Many places had no ice for drinks available at all.

I could probably get along fine without a clothes dryer, but few places have them owing to the cost of energy. My wife would more likely find that a bother.

I could also probably adjust to the lack of 24/7 shopping, but it certainly is convenient to go to, well, a convenience store at midnight to get a gallon of milk or a can of coffee. Or to be able to go to a drug store and get something for a cough or a case of the shits.

Obviously, all of the above are, on balance rather piddling trifles.

Living without AC would for me be really a chore. Where my son has been living has been extremely hot most of the summer. His apartment is on the top floor of his building with poor air circulation. He can't even find a fan, for whatever reason.

Then there is the toilet problem. You world travelers probably know of what I speak. In Austria and Germany, at any rate, most of their toilets are designed with what is euphemistically referred to as "the shelf" which is high and dry. One does not truly appreciate the job that having water in the bowl does for one's olfactory senses.

I know. I have bared my soul and revealed that I am a truly shallow, spoiled American. What can I say? These are things to which most Americans are accustomed

After several days in Germany a couple of years ago I found myself dreaming of sitting on a wasteful American toilet, sipping a glass of ice water from the tap (yeah, I know, it's a fairly disgusting dream) in an air conditioned apartment while my clothes are spinning dry down the hall in the laundry room, contemplating a midnight run to Krogers for a pint of Ben and Jerry's Chunkey Monkey.

Now THAT'S America!

Baritone

P.S. Poor "rightwing fanatics ... harassed into relative silence by the constant abuse of extreme leftists." So now you call them wuzzes, Dave?

Actually, the sad part is that the real fanatics like Realist on the left or Bambenek on the right DON'T get silenced. They're self-contained and they rant on and on. It's the moderate, insightful and broad-minded ones who get silenced. It's the Silas Kains who get driven away, because there's only so many times they can stand to be called a Neocon or a Nazi by people who don't want to hear even the most reasoned and middle of the road idea if it's outside of their chosen echo chamber.

Dave

I hereby invite Silas Kains to post on this thread. Please, dude, we won't call you a Nazi, but if you display neo-con tendencies, we might call you that.

If you get "driven away" because someone calls you a "Neocon," I suggest you develop a thicker skin than Dave Nalle suggests you have.

I'm from the center left, but Dave habitually & mistakenly calls me an extreme leftist.

Not that Dave's name-calling will ever drive me away. We people on the left are not the wuzzes that Dave Nalle takes a "moderate, insightful and broad-minded" person like you for.

Adam Ash

Excellent article, terrific rant, Adam. Couldn't have vented better myself. You're sickeningly correct: most of the people who bother to vote are just too goddamned dumb to live, let alone vote, & both parties are sinks of corruption, infested by parasites & created & maintained by the plutocracy. As for B's contention that the rich are people, too - no, they aren't. They themselves don't see themselves as being "of the people", but above the people. Remember Leona Helmsley? Well, her attitude is typical & 'normal' for those in the superrich ruling classes. Another more recent example: Paris Hilton, decrying the "fairness" of having to actually serve prison time. So, no: don't equate the rich with actual people. They aren't, & they would be insulted that you have.

I fear what we need is an old-fashioned, bloody revolution, a la 1785 France, or 1917 Russia, where the rich aristos literally lose their heads; unfortunately the concomitant carnage of truly innocent people isn't worth even getting rid of the plutoparasites.

I don't know what the solution is. To say 'vote them out' is a joke. They control our choices. They control the idiot, easily manipulated MSM. They control the voting machines. They control the candidates. And once elected, those elected refuse to honor the promises they made of cleaning house. Pelosi is a prime example of that. And we the people are stuck with no real viable way of punishing liars, thieves, & the corrupt except by voting them out ... maybe...& replacing them with some maggot just as bad.

I hope Cindy Sheehan DOES run against Pelosi. And I hope she wins. And I hope she keeps her word, or at least tries.

Meanwhile I hope Ebola Zaire strikes the entire US congress, K St., Pentagon, & everybody connected with BushCo, starting at the top.

on a side note...Silas a "neocon" or "nazi" ?

lmgdao!!

yeah , right

i'll personally slap the snot out of anyone who would even imply such

to be fair, you have just as many folks put off by many of the rabid "right" spewing their moonbat liberal AM talk radio bullshit as you might have ...MORE so than any *moderate* scared off by being called a "rightie"

so please do remember it works both ways, an NO ONE is qualified to be casting that first stone, eh?

Excelsior?

Adam: "Not that Dave's name-calling will ever drive me away."

The new technique seems to be encouraging Red Herrings, such as lengthy diversions about golf scores or vacations in Portugal.

The new technique seems to be encouraging Red Herrings, such as lengthy diversions about golf scores or vacations in Portugal.

Neither of which was started by Dave. I started the Portugal one AND the golf score one, though not the suggestion of golf scores; that was the Doc.

Too bad you don't like it, bliffle, but I don't really give shit what you do or don't like...

It's the moderate, insightful and broad-minded ones who get silenced.

Dave, I swear sometimes you're as paranoid as moonraven.

If these contributors are as moderate, insightful and broad-minded as all that, surely they wouldn't let themselves be driven away by a few insults?

Yes they would, Dr. D. Because they LISTEN and take what others say seriously. The ideologues don't listen to other people. They know they are absolutely right and so nothing from outside of their sphere of awareness means anything to them. Look at Moonraven. She's a perfect example. Even the peoplel who agree with her politically hate her, but she pays no attention at all. It's the open minded people who actually care about the ideas of others who are traumatized and beaten down and driven away by harassment.

Dave

but we keep coming back just to spite the rabid partisans

your mileage may vary

Excelsior?

I hereby invite Silas Kains to post on this thread. Please, dude, we won't call you a Nazi, but if you display neo-con tendencies, we might call you that.

Neocon IS the new nazi. The technique is to call anyone who thinks the war in Iraq might lead to a positive outcome a Neocon and dismiss anything they say on that basis. Those of us who totally disagree with the Neocons find that pretty offensive.

I'm from the center left, but Dave habitually & mistakenly calls me an extreme leftist.

You can say you're from mars, but that doesn't make it true. Your behavior is a better indicator of what you believe, and your idea of moderate is a moderate's idea of extreme.

Not that Dave's name-calling will ever drive me away. We people on the left are not the wuzzes that Dave Nalle takes a "moderate, insightful and broad-minded" person like you for.

It's wussies, not 'wuzzes'. And you more extreme types aren't wussies, because you're too self-righteous to ever engage in self-doubt or introspection.

Dave

gotta call bullshit here on one thing...for all that some may protest the neocons and their Agenda...if you have spent time and effort DEFENDING or acting the Apologist for them, you might as well grab the PNAC award and write for the Weekly Standard with Krauthammer and Krystol, et al

objects in mirror are closer than they appear

Excelsior?

Dave, there are still plenty of moderate and open-minded people on here who give as good as they get and haven't been silenced or chased away. For example:

STM*
gonzo
Baritone
yourself (well, some of the time...)
Clavos
me
bliffle
Zedd (again, some of the time!)

I know there are others I'm missing. Apologies where due for omission.

I'm also aware that few of those I've mentioned post articles regularly. But isn't it a good thing for a writer to be strongly opinionated? It certainly makes the ensuing debate more lively!


* Come to think of it, haven't seen Stan on here for a few days. Maybe we did scare him off... Or has he already set out on that Portuguese jaunt of his?

Cough, cough...

ya gotta turn yer head to the right, Christopher...

now, time for the rubber glove...bend over and sing "Moon River"

Excelsior?

Dave:
You say:
"It's the open minded people who actually care about the ideas of others who are traumatized and beaten down and driven away by harassment."

Dave, really, come on. "Traumatized"!? Give me a break, guy. Your self-pity is unbecoming. Cut it out.

As for me being extreme: most of the country agrees with me about Iraq. Are you calling the majority of Americans who want us out of Iraq extreme?

Another more telling point is about your extremity of bad manners. I have given you FREQUENT props when I think you are right, as I've done on this very thread when I told you that you were right about the visigoths and huns. You have only ONCE in more than two years given me any props.

I wish you displayed more simple good manners in this regard. I believe many people who post on BC threads would agree with me about this personal point of your quick leaps to rudeness.

It's OK to bash each other about ideas, but when it comes to the simple matter of simply being nice, and giving props where due, and appearing to appreciate the vigor of debate, your unmannerliness strikes me as a human failing on your part.

I hate to bring it up, but the evidence forces me to point it out to you.

Nonetheless, I appreciate your usually excellent logic, your sterling defense of your POV, and the vigorous and well-reasoned way you state your beliefs -- and I welcome and enjoy your comments. There, I've gone and gotten polite again.

I wish for the sake of BC, that we could hear the same tone from you. Once in a while, at least.

BTW, check out my CD. You may appreciate its sense of humor. Perhaps it'll even soften your heart.

Adam Ash

[sigh] Yes, all right, Chris. We can't be having an extremist comments editor, after all. I hereby count you one of the moderate, reasonable ones.

Unless someone says the word 'soccer', of course. That seems to make you see the red mist...

Dr D...if I'm not spewing specifically against BushCo, I'm against BOTH parties...where does that leave me in your estimation? Surely not w/Moonie?

"It's the open minded people who actually care about the ideas of others who are traumatized and beaten down and driven away by harassment."

Dave, really, come on. "Traumatized"!? Give me a break, guy. Your self-pity is unbecoming.

Do I look like I'm traumatized? I've got more than enough ego to insulate me. But I do have some concern for the casual participant who gets slammed by the preconceptions of the particularly strident and dogmatic ideologues.

As for me being extreme: most Americans agree with me that we should get out of Iraq. Are you calling most Americans extreme?

Of course not, but most Americans oppose the war in Iraq for pragmatic reasons, not for ideological reasons. You and many like you oppose the war because you either oppose war in general, or more likely, oppose the idea of the US engaging in a war to spread our values. Most Americans don't even think about that stuff. They just oppose the war because they perceive that we're losing. When we seemed to be winning they were all for it.

But here's a more telling point. When it comes to good manners and politeness, you go extreme in the other direction. I have given you FREQUENT props when I think you are right, as I did on this every thread when I said you were right about the Visigoths and huns. You have only ONCE in two years given me props.

Adam, that's because only once in two years have I thought you were right. I write on a much broader spectrum of topics, so there are more opportunities for me to surprise you with something you agree with. You write on the same limited set of topics over and over again, and say much the same thing. You don't create the opportunity for me to say anything positive.

To be fair, I don't always read the other sections. You may have stuff in them which I'd agree with enthusiastically. I just see what you post in politics.

I think many on BC would agree with me on this simple matter of politeness. I hate to bring it up, but the evidence forces me to point it out to you.

Adam, it's not my job to go out of my way to find reasons to praise you. Write something in Politics which is laudable and not just another boring attack on the right, Republicans or Bush. Write an article that expresses a positive idea for the nation without bashing anyone. Then I'll give you all the 'props' you deserve. But when have you ever written anything like that?

It's all great fun to bash each other's ideas, but the occasional nod of gentility would be appreciated.

Unmerited gentility would be insincere. At best I'd be pandering. At worse I'd be collaborating. In either case I'd be a hypocrite.

But to be fair I'll go through your writer page and see if I missed anything positive.

Nonetheless, I appreciate the logic of your arguments and the well-reasoned way in which you state your POV. I welcome and enjoy your comments. There, I've gone and gotten polite again.

Very nice. And I appreciate your passion, misdirected though it may be.

I wish we could get that tone from you. Sometimes, at least.

"we" do. It's just that you seem not to.

BTW, take a listen to my CD on
cdbaby.com/cd/dingbots

I'll give it a try. Assume that I'm being polite if I say nothing at all about it. If I like it I'll be more outspoken.

You may appreciate its sense of humor. It may even soften your heart.

So long as it doesn't soften my head.

dave

oh, and for the record, I liked this article quite a bit more than most of what you've written. Except for the fact that the premise is completely backwards - I'm with those who think we have civilized corruption and need some barbarians - the use of the barbarian metaphor is good.

Dave

Baritone:

Can't get along without an energy-guzzling clothes dryer and energy-guzzling AC, huh?

You are a perfect caricature of the reason I stopped hiring "native English speakers" as teachers here in Mexico.

Bitch, bitch, bitch--the place is full of Mexicans and there are too few WalMarts.

Nancy,

You should be so blessed as to be in my company--but no chance for round-heeled commentators with me.

Being beautiful as well as intelligent, I don't have to suck up to any fatuous redneck to feel "approved of".

Try plastic surgery--it costs more in money but at least you aren't selling your soul for a pat on the virtual ass from Dave Nalle.

Nancy, I'll grant that you are 'fair and balanced' in your evisceration of both parties, but that hardly makes you a moderate. Your passionate opinions on several topics - notably El Arbusto and illegal immigration - are well known.

However, I disagree with Dave that BC Politics has been hijacked by extremists: I can only think of three or four fairly regular contributors and/or commenters whom I would term such (Selwyn Duke, Richard Brodie, Mike Green and moonraven). Others, like yourself, Arch Conservative and sometimes zingzing, let their passions run high on occasion but could hardly be called raving.

Nothing wrong with strong, opinionated views, as long as you can back them up with coherent argument and fact. :-)

I didn't mean to suggest that the extremists have taken over, just that they have a negative influence.

dave

Oh, and any of us can become part of that problem when we resort to jingoistic rhetoric instead of reasoned responses, and even some of us who are otherwise rational do that on occasion.

dave

Gee Dave:
You've taken my breath away.
You CAN be nice. In fact, you have quite a number of nice bones in you.
Thank you, dude. There may be more appreciation of each other, and each other's POV, than we dare to openly confess.

That said, you say: "You and many like you oppose the war because you ... oppose the idea of the US engaging in a war to spread our values."

Absolutely. You're right. If you have to spread your values by attacking someone who is no threat to you, maybe there is something very wrong with your values.

"Engaging in a war to spread our values ..." Don't you see the utterly bizarre Orwellian contradiction there? You're saying, "hey, man, I'm going to hurt you bad to spread my values."

Dave, you never cease to amaze me -- such a strange blend of reason and total unreason you are.

Adam Ash.

"now, time for the rubber glove...bend over and sing "Moon River""

fletch!

dave: "Do I look like I'm traumatized?"

frankly, you look like a male version of what's her face from "v for vendetta."

sorry, you just opened yourself up for that one.

Negative influence on WHAT, precisely?

And if you tell me the quality of debate on this site I will personally hire someone to slap some sense into you.

You simply want to EXCLUDE opposing views by insulting their makers--by calling them INSANE, extremist, and a host of other negative epithets.

The Totalitarian Texan trips up, again....

"Others, like yourself, Arch Conservative and sometimes zingzing, let their passions run high on occasion but could hardly be called raving."

hmmph. i like passion. there's nothing i'm more passionate about. sometimes i rave about it.

Doc,

I wouldn't put zingzing in the extremist column.

He (she?) IS passionate, and mostly opposes those of us who are right :>), but comes a lot closer to moderate than extremist.

Dave:
You take my breath away. You CAN be nice. In fact, there are many nice bones in you. Thank you, dude. I suspect there is a greater appreciation for each other and each other's POV than we'd dare to openly confess.

That said, you say:
"You and many like you oppose the war because you ... oppose the idea of the US engaging in a war to spread our values."

Exactly. You're right. When you have to attack someone who's no threat to you to spread your values, there may be something seriously wrong with your values.

"Engaging in a war to spread our values ..." Don't you see the Orwellian contradiction here? You're in effect saying, "Hey, man, I'm going to hurt you bad, even cause the death of your women and children, to spread my values."

Dave, you never cease to amaze me - such a strange blend of reason and unreason you are.

Adam Ash

moonraven, stop with the masturbation references. grow up.

clavos... you wonder if i'm female? see moonie? no one cares about gender! clavos and i have been talking, agreeing, disagreeing for probably over a year now and HE DOESN'T KNOW IF I HAVE A DICK OR NOT. he's never asked, he doesn't really care.

and clavos, i don't oppose those that are right (because you're very often not), but i do oppose those who are on the right (but only when they are wrong).

Clav,

...Which is exactly what I said...??

You, of course, mean 'right' as in 'political orientation' - not as in 'correct'.

Like the word 'strike' as in 'to hit someone/thing' vs. as in 'to withhold labor'. Same word, totally different meaning...

zing, Doc,

You guys DID see my little emoticon, correct?

Zing,

[Edited]

As to YOUR references to your masturbation habits on the Marriage thread--way too much information!

yeah, i saw it. but emoticons don't excuse your grevious error! :P

i hate emoticons. ^_^

"As to YOUR references to your masturbation habits on the Marriage thread--way too much information!"

they weren't references. they were directly discussing something that each and every one of us do, even if we are married or in a relationship.

but i was more discussing your masturbation habits.

on the toilet? feh. that's nasty, woman.

That was a veritable buffet of topics!

I wouldn't call Obama and Clinton "Barbarian Lite," Iraq has some miles left and those two are already talking about going into Africa to stop genocide. I think to stop genocide we should start a vigorous letter writing campaign. Here is a template we can use:

"Dear Khartoum Government and non-Arab rebels,

What the heck is going on over there? Are the Janjaweed on ganja weed? Are your government brass on grass? Why are your tribes giving off bad vibes? Look, we are all adults here. We demand that you stop all the senseless violence forthwith or else we will shower you with aid packages, deploy weapons of mass guilt, send UN troops to drive around in trucks to look menacing, and bring your postal service to a screeching halt with tons of letters like this. If you do not comply, we will be forced to do the unthinkable: form a committee. We will schedule more meetings than god has ever seen and we won't shut up until you agree with our demands and be peaceful, damn it! Seriously, shape up, you're embarassing Ethiopia.

Sincerely,

The Global Rational Task Force"

There, that'll do 'er.

I saw the emoticon too.

I saw it as an invitation to "please begin taking the piss now". :-D

P.S. I am in contact with Special Agents Mulder and Scully in an attempt to address the deadly invasion threat posed to our planet by those damn dirty Emoticons.

Look, it's always easier to spot the nuts on the opposing side, and the bad influence they have. I don't know how many people are driven off by antagonism from either extreme. There are a couple of people around here who could be extreme in the middle. I think that, on average, the most disruptive people are on the left, but there are very few of them.

Adam's articles are really out there, but he's decent in his replies. I like that. I still think he's wrong on nearly everything. My philosophy is taken from Clint in Heartbreak Ridge: you can beat me, you can kill me, just don't bore me.

This board has been odd recently. There's a good number of former regulars (including me) who took some time off, and are now posting more frequently. For better and for worse. I think everyone's adjusting to a different dynamic.

Please be advised that I have never posted anything regarding my masturbation habits on this site--or on any other.

Humphrey:

LOL! Well done!

no now Clavos..as much as it was slightly humorous, it's also bullshit stereotyping and exaggeration

a more clever example of, but still bullshit AM shout show tactics...let's not address anything real, but instead make some shit up and generally tar the opposition with it

THAT exact kind of tactic is what turns off folks to political discourse....which is EXACTLY what those how do it desire...fire up the base and turn the moderates off completely, while the opposition is too fucking polite to stand up or kick such idiots in the balls

fuck that, and fuck those who condone it with a rusty chainsaw

Excelsior?

Way too serious, gonzo.

It's just funny, of which we get far too little on these threads.

Just like some of your YouTube links are funny, but pointed.

you call, Clavos...but i've stated my position and Reasoning

yeah, feeling a bit serious at the moment, been standing up in pain since 8pm last night, no hope for change until sometime 2morrow

fucks with my normally sunny disposition some, and erodes what patience i possess for the bullshit

and while i may occasionally hit the Funny, it's the Points held within that are the thing...shall i go all out sarcasm/bullshit to take broad brush potshots at those i feel are incorrect as a group rather than delineating specifics about singular Issues and Individuals?

i am more than capable of it, but i consider such tactics unEthical

and i am breaking our that rusty chainsaw

Excelsior?

I believe I have a copyright on those chainsaws from my post on Charlton Heston on the Sicko thread.

Point taken, gonz.

But, exaggeration and broad strokes are the essence of political satire, no?

It's a POV thing - all depends on whose ox is gettin' gored.

the movie Heathers, more than 10 years old - "fuck me gently with a chainsaw"...the rusty was done months later and is common parlance in certain parts of the Net

what fluttering carrion eaters believe is of no importance and bear little resemblance to objective reality

Excelsior?

Not a question of resemblance, it IS reality.

Poor, deluded teen video-watcher. Your brain is fried.

dod yas hear something?...sounded like a flying mammal hitting the bell in the olde church tower!

Excelsior?

Pardon me for interrupting the personal digressions, decipherable only among the illuminati, but to return for a moment to the subject, I am writing a history of the past 7 years called "The Worst And The Dullest".

And???

You've taken my breath away.

Good lord, don't start singing...

You CAN be nice. In fact, you have quite a number of nice bones in you.

I'll say one last nice thing. Your article on Mel Gibson is intelligent and interesting. The problem is that it's the only one of all your articles which is anything but Bush-bashing.

Thank you, dude. There may be more appreciation of each other, and each other's POV, than we dare to openly confess.

I understand your POV, I just think it's pointless and counterproductive.

That said, you say: "You and many like you oppose the war because you ... oppose the idea of the US engaging in a war to spread our values."

Absolutely. You're right. If you have to spread your values by attacking someone who is no threat to you, maybe there is something very wrong with your values.

So when you see the thug beating on an old lady you cross the street because the thug isn't beating on you?

Do you see the failure of your liberalism here? I've got my liberalism and I'm not going to share?

"Engaging in a war to spread our values ..." Don't you see the utterly bizarre Orwellian contradiction there? You're saying, "hey, man, I'm going to hurt you bad to spread my values."

Do you really, truly think that the intent of the Iraq war was EVER to harm the people of Iraq?

Dave, you never cease to amaze me -- such a strange blend of reason and total unreason you are.

It's all reason, it's just that it's not based on your premises.

Dave

@ #85

waitaminnit..i gotta call bullshit here on a few counts


the Analogy of the little olde lady is fatuous and incomplete...

it should go, see the old lady, run over there with your gang, destroy her apartment building, fuck up the sewage system/plumbing and rip out the electrical system so it only works a few hours a day...destroy apartments in the building, killing some residents here and there...rather than turning the bully over to the cops, you let the old lady lynch him...

that's simplistic , but gives an Idea, and much more accurate than the previous example

but let's flip the script here on the one who thinks that "spreading liberalism" is a good thing done pre-emptively

how about India and China, seeing that W is a crazed dictator, bullying the old Lady Liberty, decides to invade to spread their Concept of Liberalism in a pre-emptive invasion

destroy our infrastructure, kill folks... Yankees/Red Sox rivalry?..kill em all!
North South rivalry?
East Coast versus West Coast rappers?

kill em...anybody ya ain't sure of, toss em into prison for some waterboarding, too bad most of the Interrogators don't speak the language...

on and on...don't think most folks would go for it if it happened to U.S., so why is it good doing it to others who didn't Ask for the help?

"Do you really, truly think that the intent of the Iraq war was EVER to harm the people of Iraq?"

no clear Idea of the intent, but we sure as fuck can count the bodies..ours and theirs

any that still try and defend this bullshit invasion after all the facts that have come out in the years since it began are either delusional, or deliberately spinning, imo

Excelsior?

Gonzo,

the invasion of Irag is a very intelligent calculation that had to happen in order to preserve the very future of evolutionary civilizational progress.

People can live anyway they want, and we'll find out how the people of Iraq want to do it.

Elements within their primitive society should not be allowed to enforce their enslavement on the rest of us.

That's all it is. Sorry if you can't see it.

If they don't subscribe to the philosophy of 'live and let live', then yes, "kill em".

Why not you go over and offer yourself up. If you think that our "way of life" is inferior?

The Western culture that most of us think of as the pinnacle of advanced civilization is under assault.

I know, let's all wear burka's and grovel 5 times a day, toward some precise longitudinal coordinates.

No matter how brazenly stupid the spiritial sentiments, they're not valid if not directional.

it should go, see the old lady, run over there with your gang, destroy her apartment building, fuck up the sewage system/plumbing and rip out the electrical system so it only works a few hours a day...destroy apartments in the building, killing some residents here and there...rather than turning the bully over to the cops, you let the old lady lynch him...

I'm afraid I have to call bullshit on your claim of bullshit. Your more lengthy analogy might work from 20/20 hindsight, but it's not nearly as accurate as mine in describing the apparent situation as we saw it in advance, which was quite simple.

26 million people whose representatives told us they wanted to be free of a murderous dictator. An opportunity to free them at relatively little cost to ourselves with the assurance there were secularists just waiting to pick up and turn it all into a nice democracy (remember Chalaby?).

At that point it seemed like a win/win situation and it was analagous to helping out the little old lady.

but let's flip the script here on the one who thinks that "spreading liberalism" is a good thing done pre-emptively

Who would that be? Bill Clinton? Someone at the CFR?

(silly hypotheticals ignored)

on and on...don't think most folks would go for it if it happened to U.S., so why is it good doing it to others who didn't Ask for the help?

Ah, but they DID ask for our help. Various expats not only asked for our help, but assured us everything would be cool once we deposed Saddam.

any that still try and defend this bullshit invasion after all the facts that have come out in the years since it began are either delusional, or deliberately spinning, imo

There's an enormous difference between admitting the apparent viability of the original premise and accepting the positive intent of the invasion, and endorsing the mess it turned into.

Dave

Dan,

Maybe you should see a doctor.

"the invasion of Irag is a very intelligent calculation that had to happen in order to preserve the very future of evolutionary civilizational progress."

Who, pray tell, made that 'intelligent calculation'?

I'm afraid I DO remember Chalaby, Dave:

"people whose representatives told us they wanted to be free of a murderous dictator. An opportunity to free them at relatively little cost to ourselves with the assurance there were secularists just waiting to pick up and turn it all into a nice democracy (remember Chalaby?).
"

I'm sure their families have mixed feelings about you trivializing the deaths of 3600 US soldiers as "little cost to ourselves". Little cost to those patriots who are standing on the sidelines, I suppose.

"26 million people whose representatives told us they wanted to be free of a murderous dictator. An opportunity to free them at relatively little cost to ourselves with the assurance there were secularists just waiting to pick up and turn it all into a nice democracy (remember Chalaby?)."

so, you mean believe "Curveball" and a hand full of others who had something to gain, then when you cherry pick and go by what they say..it's all ok?

so, if we have a few folks from the Sons of the Confederacy leave the country and go ask China to straighten the mess out here in the States, that's ok with you?

sorry, pure bullshit once again..but nice to see you never retreat from your role as Apologist

and Dan - umm..did my time in the military, so that point is moot...and please tell me, how many Iraqis attacked the US?

if you truly believe that any outside culture has the Ability to "force" U.S. into ANYTHING, then you need to seek psychiatric help for severe psychotic delusions

Excelsior?

Gonzo:
You warm my heart. I don't have to say anything -- just watch open-mouthed as you mow down the Barbarians and their apologists.

BTW, you all, the analogy os the bully who hurts the guy he says he's helping, and Dave's flipping of that analogy to the bully hurting the old lady and do you stand back or intervene? -- those are two great analogies that really help one think clearly about Iraq. Sometimes we at BNC come up with intelligent sparks to shed light amid all the mudslinnging.

Baronius:
You say --
"Adam's articles are really out there, but he's decent in his replies. I like that. I still think he's wrong on nearly everything. My philosophy is taken from Clint in Heartbreak Ridge: you can beat me, you can kill me, just don't bore me."

Man, you don't know how much I appreciate that. Thank you, dude.

Adam Ash.

Dan,

Men do not wear burkhas in Iraq--nor, for that matter, do women.

Some men wear thobes and some women wear abayas.

And YOU, clearly, have never been to the the Middle East--nor anyplace else beyond the local mall.

Western civilzation, indeed! The cradle of civilization (period) was destroyed by the barbarians of the US and UK military.

[Edited]

I'm sure their families have mixed feelings about you trivializing the deaths of 3600 US soldiers as "little cost to ourselves". Little cost to those patriots who are standing on the sidelines, I suppose.

Bliffle, spare me your antagonistic bullshit [Edited] misreading of what I wrote. [Edited] I wasn't talking about what actually happened, but about the expectations we had going into the war, and you're not so stupid that you didn't know that.

Dave

Before anyone pees his pants--I am not cloning myself on this site--simply used a sobriquet I use on something else.

[Edited]

Nalle,

This is not the time to natter on about military expectations before the invasion of Iraq.

You are NOT in the inner circle of the Pentagon, but in a trailer in Texas, so knock off trying to pretend that you knew--or currently know--anything about pre-invasion expectations.

The horses have been out of the barn for more than 4 years--stop trying to lock it.

MR, when did I talk about military expectations? [Edited] I was referring to public expectations which I'm far more qualified to comment on than someone in Mexico is.

And please stop posting your comments over and over again. They're hardly worth posting once.

Dave

"So when you see the thug beating on an old lady you cross the street because the thug isn't beating on you?"
- Dave Nalle

Of course. And then you get someone else to attack the thug for you.
- MCH

Very good point, MCH. In the analogy you call the police. In the larger parallel you call the US military. Of course that's what you do, because they have the training and they work for you as a taxpayer. Very good job pointing that out.

Dave

not only call in the military, but hire just as many "thugs for money" (read: KBR and more)

not only do they turn the thug over to the old lady and her relatives for lynching...but then after trashing the apartment building...the thugs for hire are going to move in permanently!!! (those pesky bases that were contracted out)

on and on

would have been one thing to capture Saddam and haul his ass before the World Court (which i had thought should have been done in Gulf War 1), but the entirety of just how fucked up everything was coming from this Administration can be summed up by Rumsfeld standing there with a screen behind him showing the looting saying "freedom is messy"

at that moment, US troops were guarding the Oil Ministry building while a few blocks away the Museum was being looted of some of the oldest artifacts in the world (merely one example)

so let's see we have
1- proven wrong assertions for why the US went in
2 - uncontrolled looting and rioting after toppling Saddam's government/army
3- 4 years later and still conditions in Baghdad are worse than when the invasion began

there's more, but those who understand don't need them listed, and those who still support this fiasco can't be swayed no matter what facts are presented them

Excelsior?

IMO, poetic justice would be kidnapping Rummy, Cheney, Wolfie, & the others, & turning them loose in the street of Baghdad. Wonder how long they'd last?

Nalle can go with them on that direct charter flight ripped off from the CIA.

He won't last long either.

And Nalle, YOU are no more qualified to post an OPINION than anyone else here. And certainly not more qualified than a well-read, well-traveled and highly aware person such as myself.

By your own deluded logic, you have posted several times that you are more qualified to post an OPINION about LATIN AMERICA than I am--despite your belief that Venezuela is part of Central America.

Sorry, pal, you can't have it both ways.

In your case, maybe not even ONE way.

There are a lot of wars where America was not involved in the basic precept of the struggle, does that make them illegetimate?

Re #97;
"...Of course that's what you do, because they have the training and they work for you as a taxpayer..."
- Dave Nalle

Plus it's much safer that way, too.
- MCH

Thanks to the US government, the concept of safety has become obsolete.

Along with habeas corpus, right to free speech, right to privacy and the Geneva Conventions--AND HONOR.

If I could go back to an earlier topic, what's with this hatred of the rich? Rich people aren't better than other people, but they're not necessarily worse. Self-made wealthy people are better at something than most of the rest of us.

Generally, wealthy people deserve their money. If they committed a crime to get their wealth, they should be prosecuted for it, not for being rich. There's no reason to think a CEO doesn't deserve his salary. I shouldn't have any say in how much someone pays someone else.

Ash says that income inequality is one of the great problems facing our country. Why? If someone has more money than me, it doesn't affect me - except to the extent that he crowds out the total amount of currency in the world. As an example, let's say the British royal family has 1/1000th of a percent of total British cash. That's a vast fortune, but it only affects the average bloke's money by 1/1000th of a percent. I suffer no loss of wealth when a CEO gets paid, any more than when a diamond is dug up in South Africa.

Doc:

I am not sure what moderate means in this context. If it means balanced or not leaning in one direction or another, I would edit your list and take out most of you, including yourself (sorry budd). Clavos will echo the standard Republican jargon unless the topic is Mexicans, you are always faithful to the liberal cause and so is Baritone. Dave is just well dillusional most of the time but certainly tied to a set ideology.

How do you define moderate and why is it a good thing?


Adam:

Great article but the language made me cringe. ftsk man!!! :o)

Baronius,

The Gini Coefficient--which is the measure of inequality in the distribution of riches--of the US is starting to look very much like that of Mexico.

Here in Mexico the government tells us that we will have no growth in the economy because it's tied to that of the US.

Are you prepared to tell me that it's the other way around, and that the economy of the US is tied to that of Mexico--which is in turn causing the Gini Coefficient of the US to rise?

The two parts of the world which have the most iunequal distribution of welth are 1. Latin America and 2. Africa.

With your thinking, those are desirable situations and the US should try to be just like them.

I DO care what CEOs get paid--as they are pñaid WAY too much and the folks lower down the pecking order get paid much less in real money than they did 30 years ago, 20 years ago--and even 10 years ago so that the guys at the top can receive those obscene salaries.

When wealth is not increasing--and it is not--it means that when someone gets a big slice of the pie the other folks get smaller slices.

THat may be fine with you, but I think it's unjust.

"Moderate" is one of theose misunderstaood words, like "impartial".

I was reading an essay last night by the Italian writer and philosopher, Umberto Eco, in which he gave a good description of what it means to be impartial.

He says--and I agree--that it implies thoroughly examining both sides of an issue--and THEN making a decision about which is more persuasive.

That's also what's called making an INFORMED decision.

What passes for moderation on this forum--and very little DOES--is simply not having much of an idea about the issue, and NOT trying to act as if one is informed when one is NOT.

Right--a page right out of Latin America, MCH.

zedd: "I am not sure what moderate means in this context. If it means balanced or not leaning in one direction or another, I would edit your list and take out most of you..."

i think he means that most of us aren't extremists for whatever side we take. i'm certainly more liberal than conservative, but i wouldn't call myself "far" or "extreme" left. others might, and one would probably never call themselves "far" or "extreme" anyway.

moderate does not mean standing squarely in the middle. you can choose a side, and be a moderate within that spectrum.

if i were an extremist, i'd be a communist or something. of course, i do favor things like welfare and public health and education. but i don't want to see nationalization of industry.

so i'm a moderate liberal. but how do you define liberal? bah... it goes on and on...

Is there a virtue in being moderate--that is the REAL question.

The answer is: NO.

If there were fewer moderates in the US, you folks would have clapped Bush and his Gang of petrocriminals in jail years ago.

The proof of the pudding is in the eating--not in thinking about having a bite, sometime.

zingzing IS an extremist--in that he has extremely poor impulse control.

In the case of politics that poor impulse control causes him to shoot himself in the foot more often than not.

In this case, extremist does not imply a political spot on the left to right continuum.

A question for the weekend before I leave for The Hammock:

Lee Harvey Oswald: Extremist, Moderate, or Just the Patsy he said he was?

"zingzing IS an extremist--in that he has extremely poor impulse control."

no! (well, when responding to you, i suppose you are right. i shouldn't talk to you at all. there really isn't any point, except that i think it's fun. go get your burger.)

"In the case of politics that poor impulse control causes him to shoot himself in the foot more often than not."

only when you disagree with me. or at those times when i am a white male american.

"In this case, extremist does not imply a political spot on the left to right continuum."

of course not. you'd have to say which side if you wanted to imply that.

WHAT A FANTASTIC PIECE. That's all.

Thanks.

#104 -- July 27, 2007 @ 16:39PM -- Baronius

"...
I shouldn't have any say in how much someone pays someone else."

Sure you do, if you're a shareholder. Shouldn't you be able to vote the salary of the officers?

But right now you cannot, if it is not on the BOD agenda. And modern practice is for BODs to suppress shareholder initiated agenda items.

So now we have a situation where the officers of the company control the BOD and are free to set their own policies, especially their own benefits, which they spend most of their time dealing with.

This contributes to positive feedback in the economic system, which is the bane of capitalistic systems since it causes instability and huge swings in economic health between boom and bust. Positive feedback reinforces any swing.

Now that may be good enough for smalltime operators who know no better, but it's starting to cause problems with managers of large employee pension funds, like CALPERS, who are NOT ignorant, and are in fact sophisticated investors and, unlike the average bimbo BC habitue, can see when the company (and their investment) is being looted by the BOD in conspiracy with the officers.

Thus, these sophisticated investors (who REALLY have taken Econ 101, which dreamy BCers only imagine exists, and they've taken 102, 103, 201...etc., as well, and actually understand differential equations, marginal utility, etc.) are dissatisfied with being relegated to the role of onlooker, so they are attempting to force agenda items onto the agendas of the BODs and sent to shareholders to approve.

There are battles ensuing on this important topic in government regulatory agencies, congress, and the civil courts.

Keep your eyes and ears open.

Lee Harvey Oswald: Extremist, Moderate, or Just the Patsy he said he was?

...Or did he do it for a bet?

Bliffle - Exactly. If I own stock, I'm the one paying the CEO. It's my right to determine his paycheck.

Biffle #87 "Dan,

Maybe you should see a doctor."

I do, regularly. He says I'm fit as a fiddle.

"Who, pray tell, made that 'intelligent calculation'?"

The Bush administration. Then it was approved by both houses of congress.

Gonzo #89 " and Dan - umm..did my time in the military, so that point is moot...and please tell me, how many Iraqis attacked the US?"

That's honorable Gonzo. If I had made the point that you should do time in the US military, I guess it would then be moot. I didn't.

Also didn't suggest that Iraqis attacked the US. Unless you count the numerous anti-aircraft targeting incidents carried out in violation of the cease fire agreement from the first gulf war.

But I didn't make that point either. Got any other arguments against points I didn't make?

"if you truly believe that any outside culture has the Ability to "force" U.S. into ANYTHING, then you need to seek psychiatric help for severe psychotic delusions"

I'd stack my marbles against yours any day.

In a sense, no outside culture has ever "forced" the US to fight any battle or war in history.

I'm not forced to eat when I'm hungry either. But it makes sense to do it from time to time for self-preservation.

martharay #91: "Dan,

Men do not wear burkhas in Iraq--nor, for that matter, do women."

Iraqi woman in burka

"And YOU, clearly, have never been to the the Middle East"

That's by choice. I'd rather the middle east didn't come here as well. But many of them seem to prefer our society to the ones they've fled.

"Western civilzation, indeed! The cradle of civilization (period) was destroyed by the barbarians of the US and UK military."

Last I heard it was still there. Floundering in corruption, tribalism, and barbarism.

They might've been the cradle of civilization, but the West is, as I said, the "pinnacle of societal evolution".

oh Dan..i want some of whatever you are on that helps make you so delusional...let's have a look at the Origin..i think much of the problem is in miscommunication, willing to give the benefit of the Doubt...

"Elements within their primitive society should not be allowed to enforce their enslavement on the rest of us."

your statement to me...this implies that somehow some Iraqi fringe threatens "the rest of us" with being able to somehow "enforce their enslavement"

how, exactly did you mean that?...it reads like you think that somehow some Iraqi's can enslave the US...to which i say bullshit....care to clarify?

"If they don't subscribe to the philosophy of 'live and let live', then yes, "kill em"."

so you espouse the theory that you should kill anybody that doesn't like you...even if they live in another country, far away and pose NO danger to you?....care to clarify?

"Why not you go over and offer yourself up. If you think that our "way of life" is inferior?"

the "offer yourself up" bit had appeared to be a challenge to join the military...which i had said i had done...could just be confusion there...

but please do cite where i have EVER fucking said ANYTHING about "inferior"...this is a symptom of your delusional projecting rather than reading and comprehending....as i said, seek help

"The Western culture that most of us think of as the pinnacle of advanced civilization is under assault."

now here we may have some agreement, and some disagreement...i think the most heinous assault on Western civilization is being carried out by W's administration and it's foreign policies...
1 - suspension of habeus corpus (Jose Padilla)
2 - warrantless wiretapping (over 200 cases of purely domestic done with no warrants as reported by the FBI)
3 - the insane agenda of a "unitary executive" (signing statements onward, executive privilege, holding the Administration above the law with no Constitutional checks and balances)

from what i infer, you appear to think that some criminals are a threat to the entirety of Civilization....i don't give them credit for anywhere near that much Power, ideologically nor physically

now, as for the Iraqis and the anti-aircraft bit..i agree, that was rude of them to shoot at planes flying over their country...it was indeed part of the cease fire treaty, and they should have been held accountable for it indeed...no argument there....

however, a pre-emptive invasion, poorly planned that years later has the country in civil war and MUCH worse off in every metric than they were before the invasion shows poor thinking, piss poor planning and even worse management

so, those who have accomplished that disaster don't get ANY benefit of the doubt when it comes
to assertions they make, based solely on their track record of staggering incompetence and waste of Blood and Treasure

as for the "pinnacle of civilization" claim...a case can indeed be made, however there are plenty of other civilizations who have just as solid a claim, it all depends on what you want form your civilization, doesn't it?

big difference between New York, Beijing, Tokyo, New Delhi, Amsterdam and Athens...plenty more, each their own civilization..and each with it's strengths and weaknesses

pure fucking Hubris to claim best or "finest"

Excelsior?

"how, exactly did you mean that?...it reads like you think that somehow some Iraqi's can enslave the US...to which i say bullshit....care to clarify?"

Sure, the oft stated goal of Islamic jihaddists is to kill western "infidel's", destroy our way of life, and run things their way. I don't think they're kidding. At least they don't ever seem to smile when they say it. Come to think of it, they don't ever seem to smile at anything.

Didn't say they wanted to enslave just the US. I said us. By us I include all freedom loving democracies. Even the Iraqi's. It's a global thing.

"so you espouse the theory that you should kill anybody that doesn't like you...even if they live in another country, far away and pose NO danger to you?....care to clarify?"

Sure, the live and let live philosophy is actually the opposite of "kill anybody that doesn't like you". If jihaddists adhered to the "let live" part, there would be no need to kill them.

"but please do cite where i have EVER fucking said ANYTHING about "inferior"...this is a symptom of your delusional projecting rather than reading and comprehending....as i said, seek help"

Well, I don't think you have. I only posed the logical assertion that follows from what I percieve as you wanting to give up on Iraq.

That's where the focus of the global war of domination is. If one wants to give it up, then you hand the jihaddists a victory. If you want to hand them a victory, it could be because you are on their side.

Of course you might think that they pose no threat, or that they'll decide to call it off, but then that would be delusional.

I don't care to argue the points against Bush's managing things. I disagree heartily, but could probably concede a few points. Small potatoes (potatos?) though from my point of view.

"it all depends on what you want form your civilization, doesn't it?"

Yes. Being a civilization where hordes of folks are constantly trying to get in makes the case as well.

it appears the basic bone of contention is the view that somehow Iraq is a kind of "focal point" for all this

i disagree

the border area of Afghanistan/Pakistan where al Qaeda core resides, bin Laden and Mullah Omar are an exponentially greater real threat in all considerations that anything in Iraq

a true red herring indeed is the fiasco going on in Iraq...NO Iraqi attacked the U.S. or anywhere else since Saddam was kicked out of Kuwait ( we talked about the shooting at planes earlier, also the bombings that the U.S. did to Iraqi facilities during that time needs to be mentioned)

the only thin tie you can possibly put between Iraq and terrorism would have been Saddam's giving $25k to the families of bombers AFTER they had died...there's your "small potatoes"

Iraq is a distraction and a drain of resources that should be used against the REAL threat of criminal activity and terrorism....al Qaeda, and though they now have a "franchise" in Iraq (established long after the Invasion and not directly tied to bin Laden et al)the core, main training and planning facilities, leadership and financials as well as the spiritual and symbolic Leadership reside (Mullah Omar, the spiritual leader, more dangerous than bin Laden due to possession of the "Cloak of Mohammed", the Muslim equivalent to the "Spear of Longinus")

so, i do think many of your base assumptions are incorrect for a variety of reasons...you have completely fucked up any kind of assessment of my own thoughts as has been clearly shown

anything else?

for your perusal on the topic.... the Article covers some briefly, but the following comments add to the conversation

Excelsior?

my bad, i forgot to add a point that is crucial...

you also appear to be setting forward the idea that our entire civilization is in some kind of danger of being conquered by the bullshit jihadist criminals

i think you give them far too much credit...as i had stated earlier, MUCH worse of us all is if we are willing to give up the basic Freedoms we possess, or allow our Rights to be infringed all in the name of some completely false assurance of "security"

"They that can give up essential liberty to purchase a little temporary safety, deserve neither liberty nor safety."

i'll gladly give my all, in both Blood and Treasure to preserve our Constitution and our Rights and our Nation...but NOTHING in Iraq threatens that at all, in my opinion...and many of the efforts of this misguided Administration and it's lackeys have done far more harm than could ever be possibly caused by that country's full concerted efforts

the REAL fight is on that border of Pakistan and Afghanistan

Excelsior?

Gonzo, I think that here in our splending isolation in America we don't really grasp how much of a real cultural and numerical threat the muslim world is as far as taking over from the west.

We may have the money, but they have the will and the numbers, and if you live in Europe I'm willing to bet you have a hard time pretending that the muslims aren't out there waiting on the doorstep to come and assume ownership of the house we call civilization.

You can't deny that they have the desire to rule the world. You're scoffing at the idea that they have the means to do it. But there's more than one way to conquer the world than force of arms. Infiltration, economic influence, spreading chaos to do economic and political harm to your enemies, all of these things can be stepping stones to building an empire. Weaken the enemy enough and you don't have to be all that strong to take over when they collapse.

Dave

actually..i'm scoffing at the idea that the small fraction of extremists amongst the larger population are capable of doing more than blowing a few things up here and there

it's like trying to say that Catholics are trying to take over the world because some IRA folks blow shit up

i say that some are definitely fucked up folks, and need to be dealt with, but the entire "take over the world" bullshit is scare tactics from those who want the "glory days" of the Cold War back for their own purposes, and this is the convenient Foe/flavor of the month

i've read the PNAC agenda, remember? how they said "what we need is another Pearl Harbor"...so they could embark on their imperial agenda...i linked to it many times over the last few years for anyone to read

if the time has come where a few thousand criminals scattered around the world can be considered such a Threat then some serious examination of our Leadership is required

so yeah

i scoff at the idea that more than a few thousand crooks are trying to "rule the world"

i scoff at the idea that said crooks have the capability (look how well they have done with the countries that have controlled..Afghanistan was such a menace, wasn't it?)

i scoff at allowing "terror" to terrorize ANY free people

you can't enslave a free person, you can only kill them...

"the only thing we have to fear, is fear itself" - FDR

stand the fuck up and don't be a bitch, this does NOT mean invading other people's houses and fucking shit up randomly...if one stoops to the level of the Foe, then one is NO better than what is being fought

if one allows a punk to "terrorize", then one becomes a bitch...fuck that

the problem here is billions wasted barking up the wrong fucking tree, the crooks we should be going after ARE NOT IN FUCKING IRAQ...never have been

they are on the border of Afghanistan and Pakistan, headed by bin Laden....still, and Mullah Omar with the "Cloak of Mohammed"...until and unless that simple fact is recognized and dealt with, all else is a sheer fucking waste of our time, blood and treasure

so many have denied these simple facts and defended bullshit mistakes and distractions...to continue to do so when all the hard data and information clearly shows differently is dangerously delusional, or deliberately deceitful

Excelsior?

actually..i'm scoffing at the idea that the small fraction of extremists amongst the larger population are capable of doing more than blowing a few things up here and there

It's not about blowing this up. That's just a means to an end. And the radicalized population we're talking about isn't as small as you think. It's probably in the neighborhood of 50 million people or so. Likely a lot more. And the leaders are not what we perceive of radical, and they have lots of others likek them who aren't blowing things up or shouting allahuakbar, but still believe in the same long-term political goals.

it's like trying to say that Catholics are trying to take over the world because some IRA folks blow shit up

Except that most Catholics didn't share the basic beliefs of the IRA while deploring their methods.

i say that some are definitely fucked up folks, and need to be dealt with, but the entire "take over the world" bullshit is scare tactics from those who want the "glory days" of the Cold War back for their own purposes, and this is the convenient Foe/flavor of the month

Then you are just sticking your head in the sand. This is nothing like the cold war. It's not a matter of two world powers jockeying to divide up an empire. It's about an absolute destiny decreed for the people of Islam by god himself, a belief shared by the radical and the moderate alike.

i've read the PNAC agenda, remember? how they said "what we need is another Pearl Harbor"...so they could embark on their imperial agenda...i linked to it many times over the last few years for anyone to read

PNAC is so beyond irrelevant that I can't even imagine what point there would be in discussing them. They're the little boy who picked up a rock to build his play fort and found a nest of fireants underneath it who killed him and stripped the meat from his bones. At that point what he was going to do with the rock doesn't really matter much anymore.

if the time has come where a few thousand criminals scattered around the world can be considered such a Threat then some serious examination of our Leadership is required

So long as you continue to cling to the fantasy that we're talking about a few thousand criminals you're never going to be able to come to terms with the reality here. You need to start from a basic grounding in reality before you can move on, and you're clearly not starting from that point.

I can't even respond to your self-satisfied listing of what you scoff at and your little aphorisms. You really have no idea.

stand the fuck up and don't be a bitch, this does NOT mean invading other people's houses and fucking shit up randomly...if one stoops to the level of the Foe, then one is NO better than what is being fought

I ageee. Invading Iraq was the wrong strategy to pursue. It was a policy born in ignorance and arrogance. The one good part is that it did help us focus and see the bigger picture.

if one allows a punk to "terrorize", then one becomes a bitch...fuck that

Again, the terrorism isn't the threat. It's just a means to an end.

the problem here is billions wasted barking up the wrong fucking tree, the crooks we should be going after ARE NOT IN FUCKING IRAQ...never have been

It's no longer about 'crooks' and it is no longer about going after one man. You're intent on fighting a war that's already over by rules which are no longer even meaningful.

Let me see if I can give you an analogy to start from. Imagine you are a British politician in 1880 looking at the disunited microstates of Germany - with no central government and no international empire. Would you laugh them off as irrelevant or would you be able to see WWII coming 50 years down the road?

Dave

Dan and Dave have to go to extraordinary lengths of paranoid fantasy to support their mad argument that the Iraq Invasion is justified. IMO.

Just thought I'd point out that the first no bid contract in the middle east for Haliburton was actually on Clinton's watch Adam.

Were you aware of that?

It's all Clintons fault.

There IS no terrorism if we just ignore it.

Instead of retaliating when they blow up a building or trains, we should just clean up the mess and go on with our lives.

In a few years, they'll see we're not terrorized, and they'll quit, frustrated.

I dunno Clav. All sounds good in theory, and I agree with the bit about getting on with our lives, but sadly, many of these guys are from the middle east and in some of the more extreme cultural environments the