Blogcritics Comments on Home Grown Terrorism

Comment by Dave Nalle on Home Grown Terrorism

Thu, 17 Jan 2008 00:54:49 EST

I suggest that the only ones who understand your writing sir are those others that due to their blindness wholeheartedly agree with you. I'm pretty sure that the ability to read and comprehend is not actually influenced by ideology. I for the most part do not. I agree that your writing is not complicated. Then why do you have trouble understanding it? You represent yourself as a libertarian leaning republican. From what I have seen you writing suggests that you are a neo-con leaning republican. This might be because you either have no idea what my beliefs are or no idea what the Neocons believe - I'd guess it's a bit of both. Hell, I'm not even sure you really understand libertarianism. Perhaps you could elucidate on what "freedom" and "liberty" mean as actual concepts instead of cliches. I see Mr. Bush doing this on a continual basis. Perhaps you have been taking writing lessons from him! You're not capable of looking up definitions of these words? The denotations of these words are well established and commonly held. The difference is that I can distinguish between real and imagined threats to my freedom. Dave

Comment by Dave Nalle on Home Grown Terrorism

Thu, 17 Jan 2008 00:46:29 EST

Ah good. Once again MCH is taunting the disabled. You're a class act as usual. Dave

Comment by REMF on Home Grown Terrorism

Wed, 16 Jan 2008 21:19:56 EST

"Got to go slave for the military industrial complex now. Ta ta." - Lumpy And typing the word "military" is the closest you'll ever get to the real thing.

Comment by Lumpy on Home Grown Terrorism

Wed, 16 Jan 2008 20:36:28 EST

Sorry. Only one dumb question per student per day. Got to go slave for the military industrial complex now. Ta ta.

Comment by Pablo on Home Grown Terrorism

Wed, 16 Jan 2008 19:09:29 EST

Lumpy, Your forgot liberty bubba.

Comment by Lumpy on Home Grown Terrorism

Wed, 16 Jan 2008 18:43:17 EST

No pablito, it's too stupid a question for me to waste my time on. The answer is obvious and the same for almost everyone. It's a universal constant. But since we seem to be holding Remedial Libertarianism 101 I'll indulge you. Freedom is the fundamental right to engage in those actions which you choose to engage in without the interference of others and without interfering with the freedom of others.

Comment by Pablo on Home Grown Terrorism

Wed, 16 Jan 2008 17:31:13 EST

Lumpy, Thanks for answering MY question with YOUR question and answer. That makes about as much sense as your political philosophy. As to the primary function of government, as I have said before imho the PRIMARY function of a democratically elected form of government is to PROVE in a CLEAR and CONCISE fashion that it derives its power from the voter, ie to show that OUR vote counts. Unfortunately today in the home of the brave and land of the "free" they have failed that function miserably. Oh and Lumpy? Thanks again for telling Me that the question I really wanted to ask. It wasn't. I want to know what YOUR definitions of freedom and liberty are. Not some reference to what governments are supposed to be doing. I want to know what LUMPY's definition of said terms are. Or is that too difficult a question for you?

Comment by Lumpy on Home Grown Terrorism

Wed, 16 Jan 2008 16:52:46 EST

Oh and let me add that freedom can only thrive in an environment of reason. Irrational beliefs like religion or the obsession with conspiracies are assaults on intellectual liberty.

Comment by Lumpy on Home Grown Terrorism

Wed, 16 Jan 2008 16:49:31 EST

Pablito. It's not a definition of freedom or liberty that you're really looking for here but a definition of what we think the proper role of government is. I bet we can all agree on what freedom is. The question is where we place limits on that freedom and what we feel that we need but cannot provide for ourselves. Government's role in a free society is to protect that freedom and protect the people and their rights. That means providing for the common defense and the public welfare as defined in the constitution. Government should basically regulate issues of safety and provide for courts to deal with crimes agauinst people and property and protect the people from internal and external threats. Other than that we ought to enjoy complete freedom.

Comment by Pablo on Home Grown Terrorism

Wed, 16 Jan 2008 16:29:01 EST

Lumpy, How about you? Would you care to elucidate what "freedom and liberty" mean to you? I can't wait for your answer!!

Comment by Pablo on Home Grown Terrorism

Wed, 16 Jan 2008 16:27:24 EST

Lumpy, Sure I do. Your a neo-con. Smile :)

Comment by Lumpy on Home Grown Terrorism

Wed, 16 Jan 2008 15:34:26 EST

I don't have any problem understanding him but I can see why Pablito does given [Edited] that he doesn't even know what a neocon is.

Comment by REMF on Home Grown Terrorism

Wed, 16 Jan 2008 15:26:07 EST

Pablo and Baritone; I hear ya.

Comment by Pablo on Home Grown Terrorism

Wed, 16 Jan 2008 14:59:42 EST

Dave you said: "As for the clarity of my writing, some people seem to be able to understand it." I suggest that the only ones who understand your writing sir are those others that due to their blindness wholeheartedly agree with you. I for the most part do not. I agree that your writing is not complicated. You represent yourself as a libertarian leaning republican. From what I have seen you writing suggests that you are a neo-con leaning republican. Perhaps you could elucidate on what "freedom" and "liberty" mean as actual concepts instead of cliches. I see Mr. Bush doing this on a continual basis. Perhaps you have been taking writing lessons from him!

Comment by Pablo on Home Grown Terrorism

Wed, 16 Jan 2008 14:51:28 EST

Baritone: I could not agree more with your above characterization of Dave's prose in post 186.

Comment by Dave Nalle on Home Grown Terrorism

Wed, 16 Jan 2008 03:26:56 EST

B-T, would I write something that I didn't think was correct? That seems inherently futile. As for the clarity of my writing, some people seem to be able to understand it. Those who don't seem to characteristically be ideologically predisposed not to understand. And Pablo, if you didn't understand my previous comment, read it again, because it's not complicated at all. Pretty damned straightforward, really. Maybe the difference between idealism and pragmatism bewilders you, but that's not my problem. Dave

Comment by Baritone on Home Grown Terrorism

Wed, 16 Jan 2008 01:16:14 EST

Dave is in fact utterly convinced of the rightness of pretty much everything he writes. Humility doesn't seem to be one of his strong suits. And he's never said anything that anyone else claims that he has. He is constantly misquoted and/or misinterpreted. Perhaps he should work on his writing skills for the sake of clarity. B-tone

Comment by Pablo on Home Grown Terrorism

Tue, 15 Jan 2008 01:19:14 EST

Dave, That sounds to me like a whole bunch of gobblygook, using a bunch of nice words. And who are YOU to say if said nation benefits? What is the qualifying criteria? What do you say to the families of the death squad victims? I reject your answer out of hand sir. I have yet to see you one time even hint at a retraction, it must be nice knowing that you are always right. Pun intended. Pablo

Comment by Dave Nalle on Home Grown Terrorism

Tue, 15 Jan 2008 01:12:09 EST

RE: Your #170: How does that change my take on it? Is the answer supposed to be No? If you like. But the point is that I asked questions rather than making statements to make it clear that I was trying to ascertain Pablo's viewpoint relative to a hypothetical position, rather than stating my own beliefs. Regardless of that, you have elsewhere stated that you support our incursions into other countries as being justified claiming the countries involved are all the better for it. Again, the end justifying the means. You again misread me. I have not said that the incursions were justified, just that they were ultimately beneficial to the nations in question and to the interests of the US. That doesn't mean that they are justifiable on a purely objective standard, just that they are a net positive rather than a net negative for the nations involved. As a matter of principle foreign intervention is never really justified unless there is a direct and immediate threat to the US and its citizens. But sometimes as a nation we do things which are not morally justifiable because they appear to be beneficial and are expedient. We shouldn't act on that basis, but when we do it is important that we at least do as little harm and gain as much benefit as possible. Dave

Comment by Dr Dreadful on Home Grown Terrorism

Tue, 15 Jan 2008 00:45:33 EST

Here in the US I have actually seen a T-shirt for sale (must be extremely uncomfortable to wear) featuring a 3-D ATM complete with a dollar bill sticking out of it, with the legend, "Bank of Dad". I can order one up for you if you like, Stan... ;-)

Comment by Baritone on Home Grown Terrorism

Mon, 14 Jan 2008 23:31:16 EST

Dave, RE: Your #170: How does that change my take on it? Is the answer supposed to be No? Regardless of that, you have elsewhere stated that you support our incursions into other countries as being justified claiming the countries involved are all the better for it. Again, the end justifying the means. B-tone

Comment by Pablo on Home Grown Terrorism

Mon, 14 Jan 2008 20:44:09 EST

STM, Hehehe, I hear that man, again sorry for the typos of your name, it was inadvertent.

Comment by STM on Home Grown Terrorism

Mon, 14 Jan 2008 20:42:34 EST

Sometimes I do feel like an ATM - especially when my wife and kids are hitting me up for hard-earned every five minutes. The Bank of STM. Me, I can just kick along on 10 bucks a day.

Comment by Pablo on Home Grown Terrorism

Mon, 14 Jan 2008 18:36:05 EST

sorry for the typo fellas

Comment by Christopher Rose on Home Grown Terrorism

Mon, 14 Jan 2008 18:34:32 EST

I trust you have grasped the mild error of your ways, Pablo, and will step up accordingly, ie NOT as the perennially grumpy lumpy did in his surly second sentence above...