|
Yeah, I know "plonk"
"Capt. JG" wrote in message ... Sort of like Ron Paul. I like the guy, don't get me wrong. But, if we were stupid enough to implement his ideas, there would be a lot of continuing suffering. -- "j" ganz @@ www.sailnow.com And much like heroin junkies, we, as a country, will do anything to keep from jonesing. We get our fix, we think we "got well," but all we did was prolong and compound the addiction. The country has gone so terribly far off track in many areas that there is no conceivable way to "fix the problem" that will not be as painful as drilling a nice healthy tooth with no anesthesia. |
Yeah, I know "plonk"
On Mon, 2 Mar 2009 17:16:50 -0600, "KLC Lewis"
wrote: The country has gone so terribly far off track in many areas that there is no conceivable way to "fix the problem" that will not be as painful as drilling a nice healthy tooth with no anesthesia. I'd rather go cruising on my new multi-hull. |
Yeah, I know "plonk"
"Wayne.B" wrote in message ... On Mon, 2 Mar 2009 17:16:50 -0600, "KLC Lewis" wrote: The country has gone so terribly far off track in many areas that there is no conceivable way to "fix the problem" that will not be as painful as drilling a nice healthy tooth with no anesthesia. I'd rather go cruising on my new multi-hull. I'd settle for going cruising on a nice second-hand barrel. |
Yeah, I know "plonk"
"KLC Lewis" wrote in message
et... "Capt. JG" wrote in message ... Sort of like Ron Paul. I like the guy, don't get me wrong. But, if we were stupid enough to implement his ideas, there would be a lot of continuing suffering. -- "j" ganz @@ www.sailnow.com And much like heroin junkies, we, as a country, will do anything to keep from jonesing. We get our fix, we think we "got well," but all we did was prolong and compound the addiction. The country has gone so terribly far off track in many areas that there is no conceivable way to "fix the problem" that will not be as painful as drilling a nice healthy tooth with no anesthesia. Certainly true. I just don't believe RP's "solution" is much of a solution. -- "j" ganz @@ www.sailnow.com |
Yeah, I know "plonk"
On Mon, 2 Mar 2009 10:46:21 -0800, "Capt. JG"
wrote: "Bruce in Bangkok" wrote in message .. . On Sun, 1 Mar 2009 21:49:23 -0800, "Capt. JG" wrote: "Bruce in Bangkok" wrote in message ... On Sun, 01 Mar 2009 11:18:44 -0500, hpeer wrote: Stephen Trapani wrote: Wayne.B wrote: On Sat, 28 Feb 2009 11:51:36 -0500, Marty wrote: Jon, I think he must be really great, President for only 40 days and already decisions made by 10 years of Republican Congresses and 8 years of Republican Presidency are his fault! Now that's talent! More interesting is how all of these guys got into financial trouble in only 40 days. That's talent also. That said, this really isn't the right place. In order to fervently believe what we want to believe we have to desperately ignore what we have to ignore in order to think that the Congress has been controlled by Republicans for the last four years. Whatever you do, *don't* actually check this easily checked fact anywhere, like, say, he http://uspolitics.about.com/od/usgov...division_2.htm Instead, use blinding strategies like maybe ridicule this **** out of this post so you can continue to blame who you've been blaming, instead of learning anything new. After all, we wouldn't all want to be supporting a large increase in the same thing we've been doing for the last four years, would we? That would be insane! Steph The problem is that Congress has been ruled by POLITICIANS, whatever their ilk. People whose only goal is to get reelected. No fish monger ever cried "Bad fish for sale!" The problem is the people who perfumed over the stink figuring they were going to get a piece of the profit. People vote for who tells them what they want to hear. Forget the 2000 election. Who voted for W in 2004? The People! Idiots. So don't blame Bush now, and don't blame Obama in 2012. They are merely characters in a play - speaking their lines - written by "We The People." Rant off. In fact, while I don't remember exactly what Obama said during the primary and the campaign the overwhelming recollection I have is that he intended to "bring the boys home" right now! Of course, once elected "right now" isn't exactly "this instance" it is "sometime next year", "the year after", "well, maybe in a while". He was reported on the news, over here, as saying that he is going to balance the budget by "cutting government expenditures and taxing rich people" which seems a little misleading coming, as it did, just after the reporting that it was "the biggest bail-out in history". My impression is that Obama, to give him all the credit due was simply the better "politician". and I suppose deserves to be President. On the other hand, I have the sneaking suspicion that it may not make much difference what party is in power as if the boat has a big hole in it all you can do is bail. Cheers, Bruce in Bangkok (bruceinbangkokatgmaildotcom) He said 16 mos. It's now going to be 19, plus longer for core troops. I think he's following the advise he's being given by the generals and following his campaign promise as best he can. I don't think what he's attempting to do is misleading, although it may not be intuitive. The short term needs to be dealt with in the, um, short term. The longer term is next. As I said, I really didn't pay much attention and it was only a impression I was left with. But good on him if he can get out of that mess. Of course, there is another 70,000 tip-toeing off to Afghanistan but apparently we are getting out of Iraq... well, except for some that will be left to ensure peace, aid the locals, or whatever. I do wonder about the Afghan thing though. It is my certain, sure, recollection that a number of people have gone over there to teach 'em "what is what". None successfully, but they went. the Brits even went twice if my memory serves me. There is that quote about "those who refuse to read history are doomed to repeat it". Cheers, Bruce in Bangkok (bruceinbangkokatgmaildotcom) Afganistan is a different war for a different and most would argue for legitimate reason. If we had started and stopped there, we'd be in a lot better place IMHO, but in any case, we have to try. I think the best model is to build up their infrastructure (as the Romans did) and that'll help stablize the country. Except that the Roman's didn't build up the infrastructure for the benefit of the "locals" who couldn't, until very late in the empire period even aspire to become a Citizen of Rome. The idea was to build up the infrastructure for the benefit of ROME. The problem seems to be the apparent "American" belief that everything is fixable. I admit to being a cynic but I do believe that a great percentage of the worlds population are not the warm fuzzy people that the liberals seem to imagine. If it served no other purpose the "Viet Nam War" should have served to teach the U.S. not to involve themselves in places that they don't understand. The famous "domino theory" that was the excuse for the involvement in Viet Nam was a false as the great "WMD" theory. Now, I understand, the U.S. is going to donate millions? billions? to the Palestinians to "help them recover from the war". My impression of Afghanistan is that it is an essentially feudal country with a religion that can easily be interpreted to reinforce that form of government. The people are fiercely independent and are well aware that they have triumphed over every foreigner who has invaded them, and don't think for a moment that because the majority perhaps can't read that they don't know that they beat the British (twice) and the Russians. These stories will be told "around the camp fire" for few more centuries, at least. It appears that the idea is to "help" these people by imposing a foreign concept, a "Democratic Government", an idea that is undoubtedly as strange and abhorrent to the average Afghan as the idea of a hereditary royalty would be to the average American. In addition these outsiders are going to "help us" by slaughtering the Fierce Crusaders who have, with few if any assets, been resisting those ungodly Devils who would destroy our faith. And not only that, but these same Devils are intent on destroying the country's major source of foreign currency, the fountain from which all blessings flow. Yet another morass that the country will march blindly into without the slightest idea of how to get out of. I suggest that a return to the Powell Doctrine would not be a mistake. Articulated by Gen. Powell when he was chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff during the Gulf War, the Powell Doctrine was designed to avoid, as Powell once put it, "halfhearted warfare for half-baked reasons that the American people could not understand or support." The Powell Doctrine held that military force should only be used if there was a clear risk to national security; that the force used should be overwhelming; and that the operation must have strong public support and a clear exit strategy. Note particularly the last five words. Cheers, Bruce in Bangkok (bruceinbangkokatgmaildotcom) |
Yeah, I know "plonk"
"Bruce in Bangkok" wrote in message
... On Mon, 2 Mar 2009 10:46:21 -0800, "Capt. JG" wrote: "Bruce in Bangkok" wrote in message . .. On Sun, 1 Mar 2009 21:49:23 -0800, "Capt. JG" wrote: "Bruce in Bangkok" wrote in message m... On Sun, 01 Mar 2009 11:18:44 -0500, hpeer wrote: Stephen Trapani wrote: Wayne.B wrote: On Sat, 28 Feb 2009 11:51:36 -0500, Marty wrote: Jon, I think he must be really great, President for only 40 days and already decisions made by 10 years of Republican Congresses and 8 years of Republican Presidency are his fault! Now that's talent! More interesting is how all of these guys got into financial trouble in only 40 days. That's talent also. That said, this really isn't the right place. In order to fervently believe what we want to believe we have to desperately ignore what we have to ignore in order to think that the Congress has been controlled by Republicans for the last four years. Whatever you do, *don't* actually check this easily checked fact anywhere, like, say, he http://uspolitics.about.com/od/usgov...division_2.htm Instead, use blinding strategies like maybe ridicule this **** out of this post so you can continue to blame who you've been blaming, instead of learning anything new. After all, we wouldn't all want to be supporting a large increase in the same thing we've been doing for the last four years, would we? That would be insane! Steph The problem is that Congress has been ruled by POLITICIANS, whatever their ilk. People whose only goal is to get reelected. No fish monger ever cried "Bad fish for sale!" The problem is the people who perfumed over the stink figuring they were going to get a piece of the profit. People vote for who tells them what they want to hear. Forget the 2000 election. Who voted for W in 2004? The People! Idiots. So don't blame Bush now, and don't blame Obama in 2012. They are merely characters in a play - speaking their lines - written by "We The People." Rant off. In fact, while I don't remember exactly what Obama said during the primary and the campaign the overwhelming recollection I have is that he intended to "bring the boys home" right now! Of course, once elected "right now" isn't exactly "this instance" it is "sometime next year", "the year after", "well, maybe in a while". He was reported on the news, over here, as saying that he is going to balance the budget by "cutting government expenditures and taxing rich people" which seems a little misleading coming, as it did, just after the reporting that it was "the biggest bail-out in history". My impression is that Obama, to give him all the credit due was simply the better "politician". and I suppose deserves to be President. On the other hand, I have the sneaking suspicion that it may not make much difference what party is in power as if the boat has a big hole in it all you can do is bail. Cheers, Bruce in Bangkok (bruceinbangkokatgmaildotcom) He said 16 mos. It's now going to be 19, plus longer for core troops. I think he's following the advise he's being given by the generals and following his campaign promise as best he can. I don't think what he's attempting to do is misleading, although it may not be intuitive. The short term needs to be dealt with in the, um, short term. The longer term is next. As I said, I really didn't pay much attention and it was only a impression I was left with. But good on him if he can get out of that mess. Of course, there is another 70,000 tip-toeing off to Afghanistan but apparently we are getting out of Iraq... well, except for some that will be left to ensure peace, aid the locals, or whatever. I do wonder about the Afghan thing though. It is my certain, sure, recollection that a number of people have gone over there to teach 'em "what is what". None successfully, but they went. the Brits even went twice if my memory serves me. There is that quote about "those who refuse to read history are doomed to repeat it". Cheers, Bruce in Bangkok (bruceinbangkokatgmaildotcom) Afganistan is a different war for a different and most would argue for legitimate reason. If we had started and stopped there, we'd be in a lot better place IMHO, but in any case, we have to try. I think the best model is to build up their infrastructure (as the Romans did) and that'll help stablize the country. Except that the Roman's didn't build up the infrastructure for the benefit of the "locals" who couldn't, until very late in the empire period even aspire to become a Citizen of Rome. The idea was to build up the infrastructure for the benefit of ROME. The problem seems to be the apparent "American" belief that everything is fixable. I admit to being a cynic but I do believe that a great percentage of the worlds population are not the warm fuzzy people that the liberals seem to imagine. If it served no other purpose the "Viet Nam War" should have served to teach the U.S. not to involve themselves in places that they don't understand. The famous "domino theory" that was the excuse for the involvement in Viet Nam was a false as the great "WMD" theory. Now, I understand, the U.S. is going to donate millions? billions? to the Palestinians to "help them recover from the war". My impression of Afghanistan is that it is an essentially feudal country with a religion that can easily be interpreted to reinforce that form of government. The people are fiercely independent and are well aware that they have triumphed over every foreigner who has invaded them, and don't think for a moment that because the majority perhaps can't read that they don't know that they beat the British (twice) and the Russians. These stories will be told "around the camp fire" for few more centuries, at least. It appears that the idea is to "help" these people by imposing a foreign concept, a "Democratic Government", an idea that is undoubtedly as strange and abhorrent to the average Afghan as the idea of a hereditary royalty would be to the average American. In addition these outsiders are going to "help us" by slaughtering the Fierce Crusaders who have, with few if any assets, been resisting those ungodly Devils who would destroy our faith. And not only that, but these same Devils are intent on destroying the country's major source of foreign currency, the fountain from which all blessings flow. Yet another morass that the country will march blindly into without the slightest idea of how to get out of. I suggest that a return to the Powell Doctrine would not be a mistake. Articulated by Gen. Powell when he was chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff during the Gulf War, the Powell Doctrine was designed to avoid, as Powell once put it, "halfhearted warfare for half-baked reasons that the American people could not understand or support." The Powell Doctrine held that military force should only be used if there was a clear risk to national security; that the force used should be overwhelming; and that the operation must have strong public support and a clear exit strategy. Note particularly the last five words. Cheers, Bruce in Bangkok (bruceinbangkokatgmaildotcom) Umm... it would be for our benefit. Not sure what you mean by fixable. We can't allow bin laden and his group to run free either in Afganistan or Pakistan. Especially in the case of Pakistan, they have nukes. There is certainly a proven risk to our security for those two countries... unlike Iraq which was a war of choice. -- "j" ganz @@ www.sailnow.com |
Yeah, I know "plonk"
It wasn't the Romans, it was Alexander and his successors.
"Capt. JG" wrote: Besides encouraging the marrying of foreigners, he mostly just fought a lot, Missing the point twice. 1- by marrying local royalty, he cemented his own claim to local rulership 2- "a lot of fighting" is not really accurate, Alexander did the least amount of fighting commensurate with achieving his goal of subjugating the tribes. And they stayed subjugated because he recruited a large percentage of fighting-age males, reducing the tribes military strength. It also played into a strategy of dividing the tribes rather than uniting them against foreign invasion. A heck of a lot of politicians and generals could learn a lot from Alexander. although he did build some road/shipyard/etc. I believe the Romans actually built the infrastructure. I'm not familiar with Roman-built infrastructure in what is now Afghanistan. In any event, I agree that we have a strategic interest in Afghanistan and Pakistan... in fact thru much of the undeveloped Muslim world. And we should join with our natural allies, Muslim parents who want to see their kids grow up rather than be recruited as suicide bombers. DSK |
Yeah, I know "plonk"
I'd rather go cruising on my new multi-hull.
"KLC Lewis" wrote: I'd settle for going cruising on a nice second-hand barrel. How about cruising -with- a nice barrel? Preferably on a multihull ;) DSK |
Yeah, I know "plonk"
wrote in message ... I'd rather go cruising on my new multi-hull. "KLC Lewis" wrote: I'd settle for going cruising on a nice second-hand barrel. How about cruising -with- a nice barrel? Preferably on a multihull ;) DSK Well, that would depend upon the contents of the barrel. lol |
Yeah, I know "plonk"
wrote in message
... It wasn't the Romans, it was Alexander and his successors. "Capt. JG" wrote: Besides encouraging the marrying of foreigners, he mostly just fought a lot, Missing the point twice. 1- by marrying local royalty, he cemented his own claim to local rulership 2- "a lot of fighting" is not really accurate, Alexander did the least amount of fighting commensurate with achieving his goal of subjugating the tribes. And they stayed subjugated because he recruited a large percentage of fighting-age males, reducing the tribes military strength. It also played into a strategy of dividing the tribes rather than uniting them against foreign invasion. A heck of a lot of politicians and generals could learn a lot from Alexander. although he did build some road/shipyard/etc. I believe the Romans actually built the infrastructure. I'm not familiar with Roman-built infrastructure in what is now Afghanistan. In any event, I agree that we have a strategic interest in Afghanistan and Pakistan... in fact thru much of the undeveloped Muslim world. And we should join with our natural allies, Muslim parents who want to see their kids grow up rather than be recruited as suicide bombers. DSK Right, but he didn't build the roads. :-) I don't believe they did that in Afganistan... something we should do. -- "j" ganz @@ www.sailnow.com |
Yeah, I know "plonk"
On Mon, 2 Mar 2009 17:58:43 -0800, "Capt. JG"
wrote: "Bruce in Bangkok" wrote in message .. . On Mon, 2 Mar 2009 10:46:21 -0800, "Capt. JG" wrote: "Bruce in Bangkok" wrote in message ... On Sun, 1 Mar 2009 21:49:23 -0800, "Capt. JG" wrote: "Bruce in Bangkok" wrote in message om... On Sun, 01 Mar 2009 11:18:44 -0500, hpeer wrote: Stephen Trapani wrote: Wayne.B wrote: On Sat, 28 Feb 2009 11:51:36 -0500, Marty wrote: Jon, I think he must be really great, President for only 40 days and already decisions made by 10 years of Republican Congresses and 8 years of Republican Presidency are his fault! Now that's talent! More interesting is how all of these guys got into financial trouble in only 40 days. That's talent also. That said, this really isn't the right place. In order to fervently believe what we want to believe we have to desperately ignore what we have to ignore in order to think that the Congress has been controlled by Republicans for the last four years. Whatever you do, *don't* actually check this easily checked fact anywhere, like, say, he http://uspolitics.about.com/od/usgov...division_2.htm Instead, use blinding strategies like maybe ridicule this **** out of this post so you can continue to blame who you've been blaming, instead of learning anything new. After all, we wouldn't all want to be supporting a large increase in the same thing we've been doing for the last four years, would we? That would be insane! Steph The problem is that Congress has been ruled by POLITICIANS, whatever their ilk. People whose only goal is to get reelected. No fish monger ever cried "Bad fish for sale!" The problem is the people who perfumed over the stink figuring they were going to get a piece of the profit. People vote for who tells them what they want to hear. Forget the 2000 election. Who voted for W in 2004? The People! Idiots. So don't blame Bush now, and don't blame Obama in 2012. They are merely characters in a play - speaking their lines - written by "We The People." Rant off. In fact, while I don't remember exactly what Obama said during the primary and the campaign the overwhelming recollection I have is that he intended to "bring the boys home" right now! Of course, once elected "right now" isn't exactly "this instance" it is "sometime next year", "the year after", "well, maybe in a while". He was reported on the news, over here, as saying that he is going to balance the budget by "cutting government expenditures and taxing rich people" which seems a little misleading coming, as it did, just after the reporting that it was "the biggest bail-out in history". My impression is that Obama, to give him all the credit due was simply the better "politician". and I suppose deserves to be President. On the other hand, I have the sneaking suspicion that it may not make much difference what party is in power as if the boat has a big hole in it all you can do is bail. Cheers, Bruce in Bangkok (bruceinbangkokatgmaildotcom) He said 16 mos. It's now going to be 19, plus longer for core troops. I think he's following the advise he's being given by the generals and following his campaign promise as best he can. I don't think what he's attempting to do is misleading, although it may not be intuitive. The short term needs to be dealt with in the, um, short term. The longer term is next. As I said, I really didn't pay much attention and it was only a impression I was left with. But good on him if he can get out of that mess. Of course, there is another 70,000 tip-toeing off to Afghanistan but apparently we are getting out of Iraq... well, except for some that will be left to ensure peace, aid the locals, or whatever. I do wonder about the Afghan thing though. It is my certain, sure, recollection that a number of people have gone over there to teach 'em "what is what". None successfully, but they went. the Brits even went twice if my memory serves me. There is that quote about "those who refuse to read history are doomed to repeat it". Cheers, Bruce in Bangkok (bruceinbangkokatgmaildotcom) Afganistan is a different war for a different and most would argue for legitimate reason. If we had started and stopped there, we'd be in a lot better place IMHO, but in any case, we have to try. I think the best model is to build up their infrastructure (as the Romans did) and that'll help stablize the country. Except that the Roman's didn't build up the infrastructure for the benefit of the "locals" who couldn't, until very late in the empire period even aspire to become a Citizen of Rome. The idea was to build up the infrastructure for the benefit of ROME. The problem seems to be the apparent "American" belief that everything is fixable. I admit to being a cynic but I do believe that a great percentage of the worlds population are not the warm fuzzy people that the liberals seem to imagine. If it served no other purpose the "Viet Nam War" should have served to teach the U.S. not to involve themselves in places that they don't understand. The famous "domino theory" that was the excuse for the involvement in Viet Nam was a false as the great "WMD" theory. Now, I understand, the U.S. is going to donate millions? billions? to the Palestinians to "help them recover from the war". My impression of Afghanistan is that it is an essentially feudal country with a religion that can easily be interpreted to reinforce that form of government. The people are fiercely independent and are well aware that they have triumphed over every foreigner who has invaded them, and don't think for a moment that because the majority perhaps can't read that they don't know that they beat the British (twice) and the Russians. These stories will be told "around the camp fire" for few more centuries, at least. It appears that the idea is to "help" these people by imposing a foreign concept, a "Democratic Government", an idea that is undoubtedly as strange and abhorrent to the average Afghan as the idea of a hereditary royalty would be to the average American. In addition these outsiders are going to "help us" by slaughtering the Fierce Crusaders who have, with few if any assets, been resisting those ungodly Devils who would destroy our faith. And not only that, but these same Devils are intent on destroying the country's major source of foreign currency, the fountain from which all blessings flow. Yet another morass that the country will march blindly into without the slightest idea of how to get out of. I suggest that a return to the Powell Doctrine would not be a mistake. Articulated by Gen. Powell when he was chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff during the Gulf War, the Powell Doctrine was designed to avoid, as Powell once put it, "halfhearted warfare for half-baked reasons that the American people could not understand or support." The Powell Doctrine held that military force should only be used if there was a clear risk to national security; that the force used should be overwhelming; and that the operation must have strong public support and a clear exit strategy. Note particularly the last five words. Cheers, Bruce in Bangkok (bruceinbangkokatgmaildotcom) Umm... it would be for our benefit. Not sure what you mean by fixable. We can't allow bin laden and his group to run free either in Afganistan or Pakistan. Especially in the case of Pakistan, they have nukes. There is certainly a proven risk to our security for those two countries... unlike Iraq which was a war of choice. What, in God's world, do you care about what Bin Ladin does in Afghanistan? What you want to do is keep them out of the U.S.'s hair which, I agree may be impossible. The solution, of course, since you can't seem to catch him, is to fall back on what you do well and simply to obliterate any area where you have any evidence that they might be. Of course, this is going to raise a great cry about "non-combatants" and collateral damage which will effectively force the Government out of the eradication project and play right into the hands of the terrorists. Regarding "non-combatants" does anyone know, or remember, what the local Afghan ladies did to captured Russian (or British, in their time) soldiers? Probably rather difficult to consider someone sawing away at your testicles, with a dull knife, to be really a non-combatant - and you probably don't care much anyway. I suggest that the only effective method of dealing with terrorists is to shoot 'em. Cheers, Bruce in Bangkok (bruceinbangkokatgmaildotcom) |
Yeah, I know "plonk"
On Mon, 2 Mar 2009 16:58:43 -0600, "KLC Lewis"
wrote: If the Crushed Lintball can't drive the bus, he doesn't want to be on it at all. Personally, I do not believe for a minute that he is actually a "conservative." I believe he simply found "being a conservative" to be one hell of a cash cow, and started milking for all she was worth. What he actually believes in is the Almighty Dollar. I have listened to RL once, a friend had it on in his car. The only thing I remember the gag ad for the 25 hp document shredder. The one with ' subponea speed ' Able to do a six drawer cabinet in less time than it takes the Feds to get past your secretary. Casady |
Yeah, I know "plonk"
"Richard Casady" wrote in message ... On Mon, 2 Mar 2009 16:58:43 -0600, "KLC Lewis" wrote: If the Crushed Lintball can't drive the bus, he doesn't want to be on it at all. Personally, I do not believe for a minute that he is actually a "conservative." I believe he simply found "being a conservative" to be one hell of a cash cow, and started milking for all she was worth. What he actually believes in is the Almighty Dollar. I have listened to RL once, a friend had it on in his car. The only thing I remember the gag ad for the 25 hp document shredder. The one with ' subponea speed ' Able to do a six drawer cabinet in less time than it takes the Feds to get past your secretary. Casady Ya, he does, at times, seem to have a very good sense of humor. None at all about himself, though. |
Yeah, I know "plonk"
"Bruce in Bangkok" wrote in message
... On Mon, 2 Mar 2009 17:58:43 -0800, "Capt. JG" wrote: snip to save space Umm... it would be for our benefit. Not sure what you mean by fixable. We can't allow bin laden and his group to run free either in Afganistan or Pakistan. Especially in the case of Pakistan, they have nukes. There is certainly a proven risk to our security for those two countries... unlike Iraq which was a war of choice. What, in God's world, do you care about what Bin Ladin does in Afghanistan? What you want to do is keep them out of the U.S.'s hair which, I agree may be impossible. He planned the 9/11 attacks from there. The borders are porous, so it's easy to import/export the jihadists. And, he needs to pay for what he did. The solution, of course, since you can't seem to catch him, is to fall back on what you do well and simply to obliterate any area where you have any evidence that they might be. ?? Of course, this is going to raise a great cry about "non-combatants" and collateral damage which will effectively force the Government out of the eradication project and play right into the hands of the terrorists. I sure does. You're advocating killing hundreds of thousands of innocent people. Not sure what your advocating, since it makes no sense. Regarding "non-combatants" does anyone know, or remember, what the local Afghan ladies did to captured Russian (or British, in their time) soldiers? Probably rather difficult to consider someone sawing away at your testicles, with a dull knife, to be really a non-combatant - and you probably don't care much anyway. No idea what this has to do with the current situation... I suggest that the only effective method of dealing with terrorists is to shoot 'em. First we have to find them. Bush failed to do this, even though bin laden was in his sights. Perhaps Obama can do better. -- "j" ganz @@ www.sailnow.com |
Yeah, I know "plonk"
"Capt. JG" wrote in message .. . First we have to find them. Bush failed to do this, even though bin laden was in his sights. Perhaps Obama can do better. -- "j" ganz @@ www.sailnow.com Given the Bush family's ties to the bin Laden family, there was never any chance that Osama would be "brought to Justice" by Dubya. This may change now that the Bush family has lost the Big Chair, and it may not. Osama bin Laden may well have died some time ago. |
Yeah, I know "plonk"
On Tue, 3 Mar 2009 10:44:48 -0800, "Capt. JG"
wrote: "Bruce in Bangkok" wrote in message .. . On Mon, 2 Mar 2009 17:58:43 -0800, "Capt. JG" wrote: snip to save space Umm... it would be for our benefit. Not sure what you mean by fixable. We can't allow bin laden and his group to run free either in Afganistan or Pakistan. Especially in the case of Pakistan, they have nukes. There is certainly a proven risk to our security for those two countries... unlike Iraq which was a war of choice. What, in God's world, do you care about what Bin Ladin does in Afghanistan? What you want to do is keep them out of the U.S.'s hair which, I agree may be impossible. He planned the 9/11 attacks from there. The borders are porous, so it's easy to import/export the jihadists. And, he needs to pay for what he did. So? do you propose closing the borders of Afghanistan? Eliminating the largest source of foreign funds - the narcotics business? The solution, of course, since you can't seem to catch him, is to fall back on what you do well and simply to obliterate any area where you have any evidence that they might be. Of course, this is going to raise a great cry about "non-combatants" and collateral damage which will effectively force the Government out of the eradication project and play right into the hands of the terrorists. I sure does. You're advocating killing hundreds of thousands of innocent people. My point is who are innocent? The people who are willing to die flying airplanes into buildings? Or the family and friends that support them? The people that donate money to the cause? the people that "overlook" their fanatically actions? the religious teachers that preach support for them? If the guys that fly airplanes are baddies why not a little emphasis on the Saudis? After all that is where they came from and the people who provide much of the money to support their activities. But, to return to the innocent people, do you really believe that the terrorists aren't supported by the locals? That someone who supports their aims isn't cooking the bread that they eat, selling them their pickup trucks, their shirts and pants? Trucking the arms and supplies through the mountains? Are you really so naive that you believe that you can somehow separate out the relatively few actual shooters from the people that finance and support them? If the women are happy, in fact eager to carve the wounded or captured, into kabobs, and have no doubts about it, they are, how can you argue that they are innocent? The pitiful part is that you don't learn from history. You went into Vietnam for as nebulous a reason as the "Weapons of Mass Destruction", and you attempted to wage war against "combatants", you lost, but you didn't learn. Next you embarked on an exercise in Africa and that didn't turn out well. Then came Iraq I and you did a pretty creditable job, except your objectives were not well thought out so you stopped short of what should have been your objective. Then Iraq II and look at the mess that has been made of that. Now comes Afghanistan and yet again you are undertaking a task that is probably impossible to complete. Or do you really think that the "movement" will die with Ben Ladan? Or will he simply become another martyr to the cause? I applaud your objectives but I really wonder at your ignorance in undertaking a task that England, the greatest empire the world had known, tried twice and failed. the Russians, with their much shorter lines of supply, tried it and failed. Not you are going to try it - halfway round the world with all the logistics problems that entails, in an area where the religion and history teaches the people to resist "invaders" and while your nation is embroiled in the largest economic disaster in the history of the world. The mind boggles. Not sure what your advocating, since it makes no sense. Regarding "non-combatants" does anyone know, or remember, what the local Afghan ladies did to captured Russian (or British, in their time) soldiers? Probably rather difficult to consider someone sawing away at your testicles, with a dull knife, to be really a non-combatant - and you probably don't care much anyway. No idea what this has to do with the current situation... I suggest that the only effective method of dealing with terrorists is to shoot 'em. First we have to find them. Bush failed to do this, even though bin laden was in his sights. Perhaps Obama can do better. How do you plan on "finding him"? you don't even know whether he is in Afghanistan or not. He may even be living in the Bronx. If the US government can't locate all the millions of "illegal immigrants" how can they ever locate one guy in a cave, somewhere? Cheers, Bruce in Bangkok (bruceinbangkokatgmaildotcom) |
Yeah, I know "plonk"
"Bruce in Bangkok" wrote in message
... On Tue, 3 Mar 2009 10:44:48 -0800, "Capt. JG" wrote: "Bruce in Bangkok" wrote in message . .. On Mon, 2 Mar 2009 17:58:43 -0800, "Capt. JG" wrote: snip to save space Umm... it would be for our benefit. Not sure what you mean by fixable. We can't allow bin laden and his group to run free either in Afganistan or Pakistan. Especially in the case of Pakistan, they have nukes. There is certainly a proven risk to our security for those two countries... unlike Iraq which was a war of choice. What, in God's world, do you care about what Bin Ladin does in Afghanistan? What you want to do is keep them out of the U.S.'s hair which, I agree may be impossible. He planned the 9/11 attacks from there. The borders are porous, so it's easy to import/export the jihadists. And, he needs to pay for what he did. So? do you propose closing the borders of Afghanistan? Eliminating the largest source of foreign funds - the narcotics business? Not possible. We can't do that with our borders. I'm proposing that those who planned the attack and who actively supported the attack are eliminated. Instead of following the doctrine of ignoring the narco business in Afganistan, we should be attempting to eliminate it by supporting the local economy for other items. The solution, of course, since you can't seem to catch him, is to fall back on what you do well and simply to obliterate any area where you have any evidence that they might be. Of course, this is going to raise a great cry about "non-combatants" and collateral damage which will effectively force the Government out of the eradication project and play right into the hands of the terrorists. I sure does. You're advocating killing hundreds of thousands of innocent people. My point is who are innocent? The people who are willing to die flying airplanes into buildings? Or the family and friends that support them? The people that donate money to the cause? the people that "overlook" their fanatically actions? the religious teachers that preach support for them? My point is that tolerating bin laden and supporting the radicals are two different things. The kids and a large percentage of the adults are innocent. We need a scalpel not a howitzer. If the guys that fly airplanes are baddies why not a little emphasis on the Saudis? After all that is where they came from and the people who provide much of the money to support their activities. Your point? I suppose you're going to advocate attacking Saudi Arabia? Why not just work on our energy policy and cut down on the oil we import from them. But, to return to the innocent people, do you really believe that the terrorists aren't supported by the locals? That someone who supports their aims isn't cooking the bread that they eat, selling them their pickup trucks, their shirts and pants? Trucking the arms and supplies through the mountains? See previous. Are you really so naive that you believe that you can somehow separate out the relatively few actual shooters from the people that finance and support them? See previous. If the women are happy, in fact eager to carve the wounded or captured, into kabobs, and have no doubts about it, they are, how can you argue that they are innocent? Come on. That's not much of an argument. The pitiful part is that you don't learn from history. You went into Vietnam for as nebulous a reason as the "Weapons of Mass Destruction", and you attempted to wage war against "combatants", you lost, but you didn't learn. Next you embarked on an exercise in Africa and that didn't turn out well. Then came Iraq I and you did a pretty creditable job, except your objectives were not well thought out so you stopped short of what should have been your objective. Then Iraq II and look at the mess that has been made of that. Now comes Afghanistan and yet again you are undertaking a task that is probably impossible to complete. Or do you really think that the "movement" will die with Ben Ladan? Or will he simply become another martyr to the cause? I don't?? Where do you get that? Don't blame me for the previous 8 years. I didn't vote for Bu****. I applaud your objectives but I really wonder at your ignorance in undertaking a task that England, the greatest empire the world had known, tried twice and failed. the Russians, with their much shorter lines of supply, tried it and failed. Not you are going to try it - halfway round the world with all the logistics problems that entails, in an area where the religion and history teaches the people to resist "invaders" and while your nation is embroiled in the largest economic disaster in the history of the world. No you don't. You don't seem genuine in your applause. The alternative is to DO NOTHING.... exactly what Bu**** did (or didn't do). The mind boggles. Yes. Mine does when I contemplate the narrowness of what you've stated. Not sure what your advocating, since it makes no sense. Regarding "non-combatants" does anyone know, or remember, what the local Afghan ladies did to captured Russian (or British, in their time) soldiers? Probably rather difficult to consider someone sawing away at your testicles, with a dull knife, to be really a non-combatant - and you probably don't care much anyway. No idea what this has to do with the current situation... I suggest that the only effective method of dealing with terrorists is to shoot 'em. First we have to find them. Bush failed to do this, even though bin laden was in his sights. Perhaps Obama can do better. How do you plan on "finding him"? you don't even know whether he is in Afghanistan or not. He may even be living in the Bronx. If the US government can't locate all the millions of "illegal immigrants" how can they ever locate one guy in a cave, somewhere? We know exactly where he is, along with the Pakistanis and many western reporters. Feel free to have the last word. I'm done. -- "j" ganz @@ www.sailnow.com |
Yeah, I know "plonk"
On Mon, 2 Mar 2009 10:47:50 -0800, "Capt. JG"
wrote: "slide" wrote in message ... Bruce in Bangkok wrote: On Sun, 1 Mar 2009 21:49:23 -0800, "Capt. JG" wrote: As I said, I really didn't pay much attention and it was only a impression I was left with. But good on him if he can get out of that mess. Of course, there is another 70,000 tip-toeing off to Afghanistan but apparently we are getting out of Iraq... well, except for some that will be left to ensure peace, aid the locals, or whatever. I do wonder about the Afghan thing though. It is my certain, sure, recollection that a number of people have gone over there to teach 'em "what is what". None successfully, but they went. the Brits even went twice if my memory serves me. There is that quote about "those who refuse to read history are doomed to repeat it". First, Obama is just another dishonest misdirecting politician in the mold of Clinton. His claim that he'll get US 'combat troops' out of Iraq by X date only means he'll switch their title from combat troops to something else - probably 'peace keepers'. So we'll remain in the morass indefinitely but change the names we're in the morass under. Afghanistan is scary and dangerous. I am plugged into an Afghan local community which has close ties to the home nation and whose members travel there regularly. The place is a mess - kept afloat by the heroin trade, being fought over by the Russians, Pakistanis, al Qeada, and Taliban as well as the US and the US backed government in Kabul. It makes Iraq look like a well organized peaceful kingdom. We cannot fix these places. We can only ruin our economy further while leaving our dead and wounded soldiers on the field of battle. Obama is just Bush sporting even less fiscal responsibility. He's disgusting. Sounds like you're pretty bitter about your buddies losing the election. You should probably get over it. Obama has been in for a month. Bush was on vacation for the first eight months. I've said a number of times that I haven't lived in the US for years and have little interest in the US political system; except to wonder at the things that are done. It is a bit difficult to understand why they try to turf one guy out of office for getting a blow job and don't even seem to notice when another guy "legalizes" such things as torture and searches without a warrant - things that you are preaching to the world are "human rights". Cheers, Bruce (bruceinbangkokatgmaildotcom) |
Yeah, I know "plonk"
It is a bit difficult to understand why they try to turf one guy out
of office for getting a blow job and don't even seem to notice when another guy "legalizes" such things as torture and searches without a warrant - things that you are preaching to the world are "human rights". It's not hard to understand when you remember that the both of those things, the impeachment and the trashing of the constitution, were being done by the same party. As for no one noticing, the Republicans have built a huge propaganda machine called conservative Talk Radio. It's running as background noise 24 hours a day out there in the hinterlands filling the pickup trucks, hardware stores, and autobody shops with a constant and subliminal stream of lies and propaganda. You wouldn't recognize the country if you came back. This poison, which is the only source of "news" that a huge proportion of the country (aka "The Republican Base), pays any attention to, is like the public loudspeakers in North Korea. This demographic was sufficient for decades to keep tipping a nearly evenly divided country to the right. When things got sufficiently trashed by the looting, two things happened. The comfortable and complacent on the left woke up and a significant proportion of the talk radio listeners realized they were being lied to. |
Yeah, I know "plonk"
On Thu, 05 Mar 2009 16:08:59 +0700, Bruce In Bangkok wrote:
It is a bit difficult to understand why they try to turf one guy out of office for getting a blow job and don't even seem to notice when another guy "legalizes" such things as torture and searches without a warrant - things that you are preaching to the world are "human rights". But we did notice, and where it counts, the ballot box. |
Yeah, I know "plonk"
Aragorn wrote:
It is a bit difficult to understand why they try to turf one guy out of office for getting a blow job and don't even seem to notice when another guy "legalizes" such things as torture and searches without a warrant - things that you are preaching to the world are "human rights". It's not hard to understand when you remember that the both of those things, the impeachment and the trashing of the constitution, were being done by the same party. As for no one noticing, the Republicans have built a huge propaganda machine called conservative Talk Radio. It's running as background noise 24 hours a day out there in the hinterlands filling the pickup trucks, hardware stores, and autobody shops with a constant and subliminal stream of lies and propaganda. You wouldn't recognize the country if you came back. This poison, which is the only source of "news" that a huge proportion of the country (aka "The Republican Base), pays any attention to, is like the public loudspeakers in North Korea. This demographic was sufficient for decades to keep tipping a nearly evenly divided country to the right. When things got sufficiently trashed by the looting, two things happened. The comfortable and complacent on the left woke up and a significant proportion of the talk radio listeners realized they were being lied to. Yuh know, even Wilbur is more interesting then this political crap, run by both sides for personal benefit. G |
Yeah, I know "plonk"
"Bruce In Bangkok" wrote in message
... On Mon, 2 Mar 2009 10:47:50 -0800, "Capt. JG" wrote: "slide" wrote in message ... Bruce in Bangkok wrote: On Sun, 1 Mar 2009 21:49:23 -0800, "Capt. JG" wrote: As I said, I really didn't pay much attention and it was only a impression I was left with. But good on him if he can get out of that mess. Of course, there is another 70,000 tip-toeing off to Afghanistan but apparently we are getting out of Iraq... well, except for some that will be left to ensure peace, aid the locals, or whatever. I do wonder about the Afghan thing though. It is my certain, sure, recollection that a number of people have gone over there to teach 'em "what is what". None successfully, but they went. the Brits even went twice if my memory serves me. There is that quote about "those who refuse to read history are doomed to repeat it". First, Obama is just another dishonest misdirecting politician in the mold of Clinton. His claim that he'll get US 'combat troops' out of Iraq by X date only means he'll switch their title from combat troops to something else - probably 'peace keepers'. So we'll remain in the morass indefinitely but change the names we're in the morass under. Afghanistan is scary and dangerous. I am plugged into an Afghan local community which has close ties to the home nation and whose members travel there regularly. The place is a mess - kept afloat by the heroin trade, being fought over by the Russians, Pakistanis, al Qeada, and Taliban as well as the US and the US backed government in Kabul. It makes Iraq look like a well organized peaceful kingdom. We cannot fix these places. We can only ruin our economy further while leaving our dead and wounded soldiers on the field of battle. Obama is just Bush sporting even less fiscal responsibility. He's disgusting. Sounds like you're pretty bitter about your buddies losing the election. You should probably get over it. Obama has been in for a month. Bush was on vacation for the first eight months. I've said a number of times that I haven't lived in the US for years and have little interest in the US political system; except to wonder at the things that are done. It is a bit difficult to understand why they try to turf one guy out of office for getting a blow job and don't even seem to notice when another guy "legalizes" such things as torture and searches without a warrant - things that you are preaching to the world are "human rights". Cheers, Bruce (bruceinbangkokatgmaildotcom) Maybe you should take an interest. No longer a US citizen? Well, ok then. -- "j" ganz @@ www.sailnow.com |
Yeah, I know "plonk"
Aragorn wrote:
It is a bit difficult to understand why they try to turf one guy out of office for getting a blow job and don't even seem to notice when another guy "legalizes" such things as torture and searches without a warrant - things that you are preaching to the world are "human rights". All societies, including ours, consider it reasonable that some level of criminal or enemy should lose many of their rights by virtue of protecting society. When you find yourself defending the very lowest scum of the earth, you should at least question the moral strength of what you are arguing, shouldn't you? It's not hard to understand when you remember that the both of those things, the impeachment and the trashing of the constitution, were being done by the same party. As for no one noticing, the Republicans have built a huge propaganda machine called conservative Talk Radio. It's running as background noise 24 hours a day out there in the hinterlands filling the pickup trucks, hardware stores, and autobody shops with a constant and subliminal stream of lies and propaganda. You wouldn't recognize the country if you came back. This poison, which is the only source of "news" that a huge proportion of the country (aka "The Republican Base), pays any attention to, is like the public loudspeakers in North Korea. Yeah, finally (during the Clinton era), instead of overwhelming numbers on the side of liberally biased media, the right got their little corner of the media pie and are doing well at carrying an audience. They are still in the minority though. It does seem that people tend to restrict themselves exclusively to the biased news that they favor, like you say, but you are totally wrong about conservative media being anyone's only choice for news. Not even close. My lefty friends pretty much never watch or listen to conservative media. Oh how they love MSNBC and Rachel Maddow, who is really about as biased as it gets. If people want to truly understand what is best, they need to understand the best arguments on both sides. This demographic was sufficient for decades to keep tipping a nearly evenly divided country to the right. When things got sufficiently trashed by the looting, two things happened. The comfortable and complacent on the left woke up and a significant proportion of the talk radio listeners realized they were being lied to. I'm so glad Obama and the congress won. In fact, I voted for Obama. I wanted all the kook lefties to see all the mistakes Obama was going to make and all the "corruption" that would still exist. This stuff is inherent in the system and had little to do with Bush. Did you see yesterday where the Obama administration reached a deal with the Justice department so the Bush AG firing scandal didn't go to trial? They didn't want to take the chance that the executive branch would lose any power that the Bush admin. had gained. The kooky left has been jumping on Bush for stuff that has been going on for 200 years. Now the chickens will come home to roost. Stephen |
Yeah, I know "plonk"
Aragorn wrote:
It is a bit difficult to understand why they try to turf one guy out of office for getting a blow job and don't even seem to notice when another guy "legalizes" such things as torture and searches without a warrant - things that you are preaching to the world are "human rights". All societies, including ours, consider it reasonable that some level of criminal or enemy should lose many of their rights by virtue of protecting society. When you find yourself defending the very lowest scum of the earth, you should at least question the moral strength of what you are arguing, shouldn't you? It's not hard to understand when you remember that the both of those things, the impeachment and the trashing of the constitution, were being done by the same party. As for no one noticing, the Republicans have built a huge propaganda machine called conservative Talk Radio. It's running as background noise 24 hours a day out there in the hinterlands filling the pickup trucks, hardware stores, and autobody shops with a constant and subliminal stream of lies and propaganda. You wouldn't recognize the country if you came back. This poison, which is the only source of "news" that a huge proportion of the country (aka "The Republican Base), pays any attention to, is like the public loudspeakers in North Korea. Yeah, finally (during the Clinton era), instead of overwhelming numbers on the side of liberally biased media, the right got their little corner of the media pie and are doing well at carrying an audience. They are still in the minority though. It does seem that people tend to restrict themselves exclusively to the biased news that they favor, like you say, but you are totally wrong about conservative media being anyone's only choice for news. Not even close. My lefty friends pretty much never watch or listen to conservative media. Oh how they love MSNBC and Rachel Maddow, who is really about as biased as it gets. If people want to truly understand what is best, they need to understand the best arguments on both sides. This demographic was sufficient for decades to keep tipping a nearly evenly divided country to the right. When things got sufficiently trashed by the looting, two things happened. The comfortable and complacent on the left woke up and a significant proportion of the talk radio listeners realized they were being lied to. I'm so glad Obama and the congress won. In fact, I voted for Obama. I wanted all the kook lefties to see all the mistakes Obama was going to make and all the "corruption" that would still exist. This stuff is inherent in the system and had little to do with Bush. Did you see yesterday where the Obama administration reached a deal with the Justice department so the Bush AG firing scandal didn't go to trial? They didn't want to take the chance that the executive branch would lose any power that the Bush admin. had gained. The kooky left has been jumping on Bush for stuff that has been going on for 200 years. Now the chickens will come home to roost. Stephen |
Yeah, I know "plonk"
"Stephen Trapani" wrote in message
... Aragorn wrote: It is a bit difficult to understand why they try to turf one guy out of office for getting a blow job and don't even seem to notice when another guy "legalizes" such things as torture and searches without a warrant - things that you are preaching to the world are "human rights". All societies, including ours, consider it reasonable that some level of criminal or enemy should lose many of their rights by virtue of protecting society. When you find yourself defending the very lowest scum of the earth, you should at least question the moral strength of what you are arguing, shouldn't you? It's not hard to understand when you remember that the both of those things, the impeachment and the trashing of the constitution, were being done by the same party. As for no one noticing, the Republicans have built a huge propaganda machine called conservative Talk Radio. It's running as background noise 24 hours a day out there in the hinterlands filling the pickup trucks, hardware stores, and autobody shops with a constant and subliminal stream of lies and propaganda. You wouldn't recognize the country if you came back. This poison, which is the only source of "news" that a huge proportion of the country (aka "The Republican Base), pays any attention to, is like the public loudspeakers in North Korea. Yeah, finally (during the Clinton era), instead of overwhelming numbers on the side of liberally biased media, the right got their little corner of the media pie and are doing well at carrying an audience. They are still in the minority though. It does seem that people tend to restrict themselves exclusively to the biased news that they favor, like you say, but you are totally wrong about conservative media being anyone's only choice for news. Not even close. My lefty friends pretty much never watch or listen to conservative media. Oh how they love MSNBC and Rachel Maddow, who is really about as biased as it gets. If the media is liberally biased, by which I think you mean left-biased, then how can they have "their little corner" that is "still in the minority"? Either the media is left-biased or it isn't. Do you consider Rush's millions of ditto head dunder heads a "little corner" of the media audience? If people want to truly understand what is best, they need to understand the best arguments on both sides. No. They need to understand the arguments. Sometimes, there's only one side. This was what was wrong with the fairness doctrine, among other things. This demographic was sufficient for decades to keep tipping a nearly evenly divided country to the right. When things got sufficiently trashed by the looting, two things happened. The comfortable and complacent on the left woke up and a significant proportion of the talk radio listeners realized they were being lied to. By whom? Rush, Hannity, O'Really, etc. Remember... Air America isn't doing all that great, even now. I'm so glad Obama and the congress won. In fact, I voted for Obama. I wanted all the kook lefties to see all the mistakes Obama was going to make and all the "corruption" that would still exist. This stuff is inherent in the system and had little to do with Bush. Did you see yesterday where the Obama administration reached a deal with the Justice department so the Bush AG firing scandal didn't go to trial? They didn't want to take the chance that the executive branch would lose any power that the Bush admin. had gained. As though anyone can be perfect and not make mistakes... ? He a practical guy, and the voters overwhelmingly support him. 80 say believe he inherited the mess and are willing to give him a year to get things in the right direction. The kooky left has been jumping on Bush for stuff that has been going on for 200 years. Now the chickens will come home to roost. ?? Huh? Bush has been around for 200 years? I thought that "demographic was sufficient for decades to keep tipping a nearly evenly divided country to the right." So, if that's the case, it must be Clinton's fault. -- "j" ganz @@ www.sailnow.com |
Yeah, I know "plonk"
On Thu, 5 Mar 2009 05:50:03 -0500, "Aragorn"
wrote: It is a bit difficult to understand why they try to turf one guy out of office for getting a blow job and don't even seem to notice when another guy "legalizes" such things as torture and searches without a warrant - things that you are preaching to the world are "human rights". It's not hard to understand when you remember that the both of those things, the impeachment and the trashing of the constitution, were being done by the same party. As for no one noticing, the Republicans have built a huge propaganda machine called conservative Talk Radio. It's running as background noise 24 hours a day out there in the hinterlands filling the pickup trucks, hardware stores, and autobody shops with a constant and subliminal stream of lies and propaganda. You wouldn't recognize the country if you came back. This poison, which is the only source of "news" that a huge proportion of the country (aka "The Republican Base), pays any attention to, is like the public loudspeakers in North Korea. This demographic was sufficient for decades to keep tipping a nearly evenly divided country to the right. When things got sufficiently trashed by the looting, two things happened. The comfortable and complacent on the left woke up and a significant proportion of the talk radio listeners realized they were being lied to. My problem is that I don't live in the U.S. and everything I see is from the "news" - and the inverted commas are deliberate. We hear nothing about the Republican's radio system, for instance. At the moment Obama is the hero, according to the news here and the Swiss bank accounts seem to be covered widely - 47,000 accounts out of how many tax payers in the United States? Knowing no details myself it looks like a great deal of effort for what may turn out to be little return. Cheers, Bruce (bruceinbangkokatgmaildotcom) |
Yeah, I know "plonk"
On Thu, 5 Mar 2009 10:12:51 -0800, "Capt. JG"
wrote: "Bruce In Bangkok" wrote in message .. . On Mon, 2 Mar 2009 10:47:50 -0800, "Capt. JG" wrote: "slide" wrote in message ... Bruce in Bangkok wrote: On Sun, 1 Mar 2009 21:49:23 -0800, "Capt. JG" wrote: As I said, I really didn't pay much attention and it was only a impression I was left with. But good on him if he can get out of that mess. Of course, there is another 70,000 tip-toeing off to Afghanistan but apparently we are getting out of Iraq... well, except for some that will be left to ensure peace, aid the locals, or whatever. I do wonder about the Afghan thing though. It is my certain, sure, recollection that a number of people have gone over there to teach 'em "what is what". None successfully, but they went. the Brits even went twice if my memory serves me. There is that quote about "those who refuse to read history are doomed to repeat it". First, Obama is just another dishonest misdirecting politician in the mold of Clinton. His claim that he'll get US 'combat troops' out of Iraq by X date only means he'll switch their title from combat troops to something else - probably 'peace keepers'. So we'll remain in the morass indefinitely but change the names we're in the morass under. Afghanistan is scary and dangerous. I am plugged into an Afghan local community which has close ties to the home nation and whose members travel there regularly. The place is a mess - kept afloat by the heroin trade, being fought over by the Russians, Pakistanis, al Qeada, and Taliban as well as the US and the US backed government in Kabul. It makes Iraq look like a well organized peaceful kingdom. We cannot fix these places. We can only ruin our economy further while leaving our dead and wounded soldiers on the field of battle. Obama is just Bush sporting even less fiscal responsibility. He's disgusting. Sounds like you're pretty bitter about your buddies losing the election. You should probably get over it. Obama has been in for a month. Bush was on vacation for the first eight months. I've said a number of times that I haven't lived in the US for years and have little interest in the US political system; except to wonder at the things that are done. It is a bit difficult to understand why they try to turf one guy out of office for getting a blow job and don't even seem to notice when another guy "legalizes" such things as torture and searches without a warrant - things that you are preaching to the world are "human rights". Cheers, Bruce (bruceinbangkokatgmaildotcom) Maybe you should take an interest. No longer a US citizen? Well, ok then. Why should I take an interest in a place where I no longer reside? Other then a sort of idle interest, mostly excited by what appears to be the rather violent disagreements between adherents of the two political parties - at least verbally. Cheers, Bruce (bruceinbangkokatgmaildotcom) |
Yeah, I know "plonk"
"Bruce In Bangkok" wrote in message
... On Thu, 5 Mar 2009 10:12:51 -0800, "Capt. JG" wrote: "Bruce In Bangkok" wrote in message . .. On Mon, 2 Mar 2009 10:47:50 -0800, "Capt. JG" wrote: "slide" wrote in message ... Bruce in Bangkok wrote: On Sun, 1 Mar 2009 21:49:23 -0800, "Capt. JG" wrote: As I said, I really didn't pay much attention and it was only a impression I was left with. But good on him if he can get out of that mess. Of course, there is another 70,000 tip-toeing off to Afghanistan but apparently we are getting out of Iraq... well, except for some that will be left to ensure peace, aid the locals, or whatever. I do wonder about the Afghan thing though. It is my certain, sure, recollection that a number of people have gone over there to teach 'em "what is what". None successfully, but they went. the Brits even went twice if my memory serves me. There is that quote about "those who refuse to read history are doomed to repeat it". First, Obama is just another dishonest misdirecting politician in the mold of Clinton. His claim that he'll get US 'combat troops' out of Iraq by X date only means he'll switch their title from combat troops to something else - probably 'peace keepers'. So we'll remain in the morass indefinitely but change the names we're in the morass under. Afghanistan is scary and dangerous. I am plugged into an Afghan local community which has close ties to the home nation and whose members travel there regularly. The place is a mess - kept afloat by the heroin trade, being fought over by the Russians, Pakistanis, al Qeada, and Taliban as well as the US and the US backed government in Kabul. It makes Iraq look like a well organized peaceful kingdom. We cannot fix these places. We can only ruin our economy further while leaving our dead and wounded soldiers on the field of battle. Obama is just Bush sporting even less fiscal responsibility. He's disgusting. Sounds like you're pretty bitter about your buddies losing the election. You should probably get over it. Obama has been in for a month. Bush was on vacation for the first eight months. I've said a number of times that I haven't lived in the US for years and have little interest in the US political system; except to wonder at the things that are done. It is a bit difficult to understand why they try to turf one guy out of office for getting a blow job and don't even seem to notice when another guy "legalizes" such things as torture and searches without a warrant - things that you are preaching to the world are "human rights". Cheers, Bruce (bruceinbangkokatgmaildotcom) Maybe you should take an interest. No longer a US citizen? Well, ok then. Why should I take an interest in a place where I no longer reside? Other then a sort of idle interest, mostly excited by what appears to be the rather violent disagreements between adherents of the two political parties - at least verbally. Cheers, Bruce (bruceinbangkokatgmaildotcom) No idea.... usually citizens of a country care about that country no matter where they live. If you've got a nice life in Bangkok, that's great. No relatives or friends in the US? -- "j" ganz @@ www.sailnow.com |
Yeah, I know "plonk"
On Thu, 05 Mar 2009 11:44:07 -0800, Stephen Trapani
wrote: Aragorn wrote: It is a bit difficult to understand why they try to turf one guy out of office for getting a blow job and don't even seem to notice when another guy "legalizes" such things as torture and searches without a warrant - things that you are preaching to the world are "human rights". All societies, including ours, consider it reasonable that some level of criminal or enemy should lose many of their rights by virtue of protecting society. When you find yourself defending the very lowest scum of the earth, you should at least question the moral strength of what you are arguing, shouldn't you? I'm not defending anyone. I'm simply stating that people (perhaps men mostly) find the rather violent reaction to one man doing something that comes rather naturally and a different man doing something that caused (and don't think it didn't) considerable loss of face for the nation. How can a country that advocates justice and the rule of law to foreign countries turn around and carryout the excesses that happened? It isn't that you tortured the people, it is that you preach justice and rule of law to all the developing countries. Do as I say, not as I do. It's not hard to understand when you remember that the both of those things, the impeachment and the trashing of the constitution, were being done by the same party. As for no one noticing, the Republicans have built a huge propaganda machine called conservative Talk Radio. It's running as background noise 24 hours a day out there in the hinterlands filling the pickup trucks, hardware stores, and autobody shops with a constant and subliminal stream of lies and propaganda. You wouldn't recognize the country if you came back. This poison, which is the only source of "news" that a huge proportion of the country (aka "The Republican Base), pays any attention to, is like the public loudspeakers in North Korea. Yeah, finally (during the Clinton era), instead of overwhelming numbers on the side of 'iberally biased media, the right got their little corner of the media pie and are doing well at carrying an audience. They are still in the minority though. It does seem that people tend to restrict themselves exclusively to the biased news that they favor, like you say, but you are totally wrong about conservative media being anyone's only choice for news. Not even close. My lefty friends pretty much never watch or listen to conservative media. Oh how they love MSNBC and Rachel Maddow, who is really about as biased as it gets. If people want to truly understand what is best, they need to understand the best arguments on both sides. This demographic was sufficient for decades to keep tipping a nearly evenly divided country to the right. When things got sufficiently trashed by the looting, two things happened. The comfortable and complacent on the left woke up and a significant proportion of the talk radio listeners realized they were being lied to. I'm so glad Obama and the congress won. In fact, I voted for Obama. I wanted all the kook lefties to see all the mistakes Obama was going to make and all the "corruption" that would still exist. This stuff is inherent in the system and had little to do with Bush. Did you see yesterday where the Obama administration reached a deal with the Justice department so the Bush AG firing scandal didn't go to trial? They didn't want to take the chance that the executive branch would lose any power that the Bush admin. had gained. The kooky left has been jumping on Bush for stuff that has been going on for 200 years. Now the chickens will come home to roost. Stephen I had an interesting conversation with a Vietnamese lawyer back during the war days. I asked him who he voted for and he replied, "what is the difference?" I asked what he meant and he said, "They are all crooks, else why would they be in politics?" As years go by it seems that he have have been correct. Cheers, Bruce (bruceinbangkokatgmaildotcom) |
Yeah, I know "plonk"
"Bruce In Bangkok" wrote in message
... On Thu, 05 Mar 2009 11:44:07 -0800, Stephen Trapani wrote: Aragorn wrote: It is a bit difficult to understand why they try to turf one guy out of office for getting a blow job and don't even seem to notice when another guy "legalizes" such things as torture and searches without a warrant - things that you are preaching to the world are "human rights". All societies, including ours, consider it reasonable that some level of criminal or enemy should lose many of their rights by virtue of protecting society. When you find yourself defending the very lowest scum of the earth, you should at least question the moral strength of what you are arguing, shouldn't you? I'm not defending anyone. I'm simply stating that people (perhaps men mostly) find the rather violent reaction to one man doing something that comes rather naturally and a different man doing something that caused (and don't think it didn't) considerable loss of face for the nation. How can a country that advocates justice and the rule of law to foreign countries turn around and carryout the excesses that happened? It isn't that you tortured the people, it is that you preach justice and rule of law to all the developing countries. Do as I say, not as I do. It's not hard to understand when you remember that the both of those things, the impeachment and the trashing of the constitution, were being done by the same party. As for no one noticing, the Republicans have built a huge propaganda machine called conservative Talk Radio. It's running as background noise 24 hours a day out there in the hinterlands filling the pickup trucks, hardware stores, and autobody shops with a constant and subliminal stream of lies and propaganda. You wouldn't recognize the country if you came back. This poison, which is the only source of "news" that a huge proportion of the country (aka "The Republican Base), pays any attention to, is like the public loudspeakers in North Korea. Yeah, finally (during the Clinton era), instead of overwhelming numbers on the side of 'iberally biased media, the right got their little corner of the media pie and are doing well at carrying an audience. They are still in the minority though. It does seem that people tend to restrict themselves exclusively to the biased news that they favor, like you say, but you are totally wrong about conservative media being anyone's only choice for news. Not even close. My lefty friends pretty much never watch or listen to conservative media. Oh how they love MSNBC and Rachel Maddow, who is really about as biased as it gets. If people want to truly understand what is best, they need to understand the best arguments on both sides. This demographic was sufficient for decades to keep tipping a nearly evenly divided country to the right. When things got sufficiently trashed by the looting, two things happened. The comfortable and complacent on the left woke up and a significant proportion of the talk radio listeners realized they were being lied to. I'm so glad Obama and the congress won. In fact, I voted for Obama. I wanted all the kook lefties to see all the mistakes Obama was going to make and all the "corruption" that would still exist. This stuff is inherent in the system and had little to do with Bush. Did you see yesterday where the Obama administration reached a deal with the Justice department so the Bush AG firing scandal didn't go to trial? They didn't want to take the chance that the executive branch would lose any power that the Bush admin. had gained. The kooky left has been jumping on Bush for stuff that has been going on for 200 years. Now the chickens will come home to roost. Stephen I had an interesting conversation with a Vietnamese lawyer back during the war days. I asked him who he voted for and he replied, "what is the difference?" I asked what he meant and he said, "They are all crooks, else why would they be in politics?" As years go by it seems that he have have been correct. Cheers, Bruce (bruceinbangkokatgmaildotcom) I think that's a popular notion, but it's not really accurate. It's like people claim that those Congress are lacking in ethics. The real issue is that ethics are in shades of grey. It's not a black/white issue. Sure, there are crooked politicians, just like there are crooked, unethical docs, lawyers, priests, etc. -- "j" ganz @@ www.sailnow.com |
Yeah, I know "plonk"
On Thu, 5 Mar 2009 17:30:36 -0800, "Capt. JG"
wrote: "Bruce In Bangkok" wrote in message .. . On Thu, 5 Mar 2009 10:12:51 -0800, "Capt. JG" wrote: "Bruce In Bangkok" wrote in message ... On Mon, 2 Mar 2009 10:47:50 -0800, "Capt. JG" wrote: "slide" wrote in message ... Bruce in Bangkok wrote: On Sun, 1 Mar 2009 21:49:23 -0800, "Capt. JG" wrote: As I said, I really didn't pay much attention and it was only a impression I was left with. But good on him if he can get out of that mess. Of course, there is another 70,000 tip-toeing off to Afghanistan but apparently we are getting out of Iraq... well, except for some that will be left to ensure peace, aid the locals, or whatever. I do wonder about the Afghan thing though. It is my certain, sure, recollection that a number of people have gone over there to teach 'em "what is what". None successfully, but they went. the Brits even went twice if my memory serves me. There is that quote about "those who refuse to read history are doomed to repeat it". First, Obama is just another dishonest misdirecting politician in the mold of Clinton. His claim that he'll get US 'combat troops' out of Iraq by X date only means he'll switch their title from combat troops to something else - probably 'peace keepers'. So we'll remain in the morass indefinitely but change the names we're in the morass under. Afghanistan is scary and dangerous. I am plugged into an Afghan local community which has close ties to the home nation and whose members travel there regularly. The place is a mess - kept afloat by the heroin trade, being fought over by the Russians, Pakistanis, al Qeada, and Taliban as well as the US and the US backed government in Kabul. It makes Iraq look like a well organized peaceful kingdom. We cannot fix these places. We can only ruin our economy further while leaving our dead and wounded soldiers on the field of battle. Obama is just Bush sporting even less fiscal responsibility. He's disgusting. Sounds like you're pretty bitter about your buddies losing the election. You should probably get over it. Obama has been in for a month. Bush was on vacation for the first eight months. I've said a number of times that I haven't lived in the US for years and have little interest in the US political system; except to wonder at the things that are done. It is a bit difficult to understand why they try to turf one guy out of office for getting a blow job and don't even seem to notice when another guy "legalizes" such things as torture and searches without a warrant - things that you are preaching to the world are "human rights". Cheers, Bruce (bruceinbangkokatgmaildotcom) Maybe you should take an interest. No longer a US citizen? Well, ok then. Why should I take an interest in a place where I no longer reside? Other then a sort of idle interest, mostly excited by what appears to be the rather violent disagreements between adherents of the two political parties - at least verbally. Cheers, Bruce (bruceinbangkokatgmaildotcom) No idea.... usually citizens of a country care about that country no matter where they live. If you've got a nice life in Bangkok, that's great. No relatives or friends in the US? Probably some sort of cousins or perhaps second cousins. Kids or grand kids of my mother's sisters but if there are any left I haven't seen them in 50 years, or more, and probably wouldn't even remember their names. I suppose I do care about the old country but it certainly seems like a strange place to me now. The quote I saw somewhere that the AVERAGE American owes $10,000 on his credit card, for instance. I don't know whether it is true but I read it on Usenet :-) But when I lived there nobody that I knew owed $10,000 except on a house. Certainly not on a credit card. Cheers, Bruce (bruceinbangkokatgmaildotcom) |
Yeah, I know "plonk"
On Thu, 5 Mar 2009 19:37:47 -0800, "Capt. JG"
wrote: "Bruce In Bangkok" wrote in message .. . On Thu, 05 Mar 2009 11:44:07 -0800, Stephen Trapani wrote: Aragorn wrote: It is a bit difficult to understand why they try to turf one guy out of office for getting a blow job and don't even seem to notice when another guy "legalizes" such things as torture and searches without a warrant - things that you are preaching to the world are "human rights". All societies, including ours, consider it reasonable that some level of criminal or enemy should lose many of their rights by virtue of protecting society. When you find yourself defending the very lowest scum of the earth, you should at least question the moral strength of what you are arguing, shouldn't you? I'm not defending anyone. I'm simply stating that people (perhaps men mostly) find the rather violent reaction to one man doing something that comes rather naturally and a different man doing something that caused (and don't think it didn't) considerable loss of face for the nation. How can a country that advocates justice and the rule of law to foreign countries turn around and carryout the excesses that happened? It isn't that you tortured the people, it is that you preach justice and rule of law to all the developing countries. Do as I say, not as I do. It's not hard to understand when you remember that the both of those things, the impeachment and the trashing of the constitution, were being done by the same party. As for no one noticing, the Republicans have built a huge propaganda machine called conservative Talk Radio. It's running as background noise 24 hours a day out there in the hinterlands filling the pickup trucks, hardware stores, and autobody shops with a constant and subliminal stream of lies and propaganda. You wouldn't recognize the country if you came back. This poison, which is the only source of "news" that a huge proportion of the country (aka "The Republican Base), pays any attention to, is like the public loudspeakers in North Korea. Yeah, finally (during the Clinton era), instead of overwhelming numbers on the side of 'iberally biased media, the right got their little corner of the media pie and are doing well at carrying an audience. They are still in the minority though. It does seem that people tend to restrict themselves exclusively to the biased news that they favor, like you say, but you are totally wrong about conservative media being anyone's only choice for news. Not even close. My lefty friends pretty much never watch or listen to conservative media. Oh how they love MSNBC and Rachel Maddow, who is really about as biased as it gets. If people want to truly understand what is best, they need to understand the best arguments on both sides. This demographic was sufficient for decades to keep tipping a nearly evenly divided country to the right. When things got sufficiently trashed by the looting, two things happened. The comfortable and complacent on the left woke up and a significant proportion of the talk radio listeners realized they were being lied to. I'm so glad Obama and the congress won. In fact, I voted for Obama. I wanted all the kook lefties to see all the mistakes Obama was going to make and all the "corruption" that would still exist. This stuff is inherent in the system and had little to do with Bush. Did you see yesterday where the Obama administration reached a deal with the Justice department so the Bush AG firing scandal didn't go to trial? They didn't want to take the chance that the executive branch would lose any power that the Bush admin. had gained. The kooky left has been jumping on Bush for stuff that has been going on for 200 years. Now the chickens will come home to roost. Stephen I had an interesting conversation with a Vietnamese lawyer back during the war days. I asked him who he voted for and he replied, "what is the difference?" I asked what he meant and he said, "They are all crooks, else why would they be in politics?" As years go by it seems that he have have been correct. Cheers, Bruce (bruceinbangkokatgmaildotcom) I think that's a popular notion, but it's not really accurate. It's like people claim that those Congress are lacking in ethics. The real issue is that ethics are in shades of grey. It's not a black/white issue. Sure, there are crooked politicians, just like there are crooked, unethical docs, lawyers, priests, etc. I was being cynical. But, I suspect that just as an engineer wants to design the best bridge or the banker wants to make the most money that a politician wants to be reelected most of all. Which can slant an individual's point of view somewhat. And I would guess that politicians are extremely sensitive to what the 'folks at home' think of what he is doing and from my experiences the solid, middle of the road, people don't write letters, it is the fringe people that are the frantic letter writers so I can see how they can get wrong ideas. And, of course any politician who isn't doing what I think is right must be taking bribes form somebody to vote the way he does...... :-) Cheers, Bruce (bruceinbangkokatgmaildotcom) |
Yeah, I know "plonk"
On Fri, 06 Mar 2009 19:15:08 +0700, Bruce In Bangkok
wrote: I suspect that just as an engineer wants to design the best bridge Normally they design the minimum, that is cheapest, that will do the job. This does not mean no safety margin. There is, however, no point to making the deck far stronger than the piers. As for the best, nobody wants to pay for it. They want good enough, and as cheap as possible. Casady |
Yeah, I know "plonk"
Bruce In Bangkok wrote:
On Thu, 05 Mar 2009 11:44:07 -0800, Stephen Trapani wrote: Aragorn wrote: It is a bit difficult to understand why they try to turf one guy out of office for getting a blow job and don't even seem to notice when another guy "legalizes" such things as torture and searches without a warrant - things that you are preaching to the world are "human rights". All societies, including ours, consider it reasonable that some level of criminal or enemy should lose many of their rights by virtue of protecting society. When you find yourself defending the very lowest scum of the earth, you should at least question the moral strength of what you are arguing, shouldn't you? I'm not defending anyone. I'm simply stating that people (perhaps men mostly) find the rather violent reaction to one man doing something that comes rather naturally and a different man doing something that caused (and don't think it didn't) considerable loss of face for the nation. How can a country that advocates justice and the rule of law to foreign countries turn around and carryout the excesses that happened? It isn't that you tortured the people, it is that you preach justice and rule of law to all the developing countries. Do as I say, not as I do. Again, there is a level of immorality that justifies treating people badly. Recently the badness of human took a big step downward with the advent of extremists who actually target and are able to murder large groups of innocent people. This new level of badness requires a modification of the normal response. In other words, if you strongly suspect someone of being about to kill a large group of innocent people, there is justification in torturing him or of course even killing him if it helps you stop it from happening. Now having said that, lets contrast the US response, compared to those we are fighting. The entire country was and still is up in arms for years in questioning the morality of dunking vicious criminals in water and scaring them. We may have done it, but we are concerned about doing it and spend much time trying to figure out if it is over the line so we can stop. Meanwhile, as a recruiting tool, the enemy makes videotapes of themselves cutting off innocent kidnap victims heads in order to attract more people to their cause. No remorse of any sort, only further celebration and congratulations have ever been evident. See the massive difference? So we haven't really sunk anywhere at all, morally. Meanwhile, if we've got a line on someone who we've discovered is about to murder another few thousand people, what actions are justified to get him to reveal information that can stop it? Harsh language only? Stephen |
Yeah, I know "plonk"
"Stephen Trapani" wrote in message ... Bruce In Bangkok wrote: On Thu, 05 Mar 2009 11:44:07 -0800, Stephen Trapani wrote: Aragorn wrote: It is a bit difficult to understand why they try to turf one guy out of office for getting a blow job and don't even seem to notice when another guy "legalizes" such things as torture and searches without a warrant - things that you are preaching to the world are "human rights". All societies, including ours, consider it reasonable that some level of criminal or enemy should lose many of their rights by virtue of protecting society. When you find yourself defending the very lowest scum of the earth, you should at least question the moral strength of what you are arguing, shouldn't you? I'm not defending anyone. I'm simply stating that people (perhaps men mostly) find the rather violent reaction to one man doing something that comes rather naturally and a different man doing something that caused (and don't think it didn't) considerable loss of face for the nation. How can a country that advocates justice and the rule of law to foreign countries turn around and carryout the excesses that happened? It isn't that you tortured the people, it is that you preach justice and rule of law to all the developing countries. Do as I say, not as I do. Again, there is a level of immorality that justifies treating people badly. Recently the badness of human took a big step downward with the advent of extremists who actually target and are able to murder large groups of innocent people. This new level of badness requires a modification of the normal response. In other words, if you strongly suspect someone of being about to kill a large group of innocent people, there is justification in torturing him or of course even killing him if it helps you stop it from happening. Now having said that, lets contrast the US response, compared to those we are fighting. The entire country was and still is up in arms for years in questioning the morality of dunking vicious criminals in water and scaring them. We may have done it, but we are concerned about doing it and spend much time trying to figure out if it is over the line so we can stop. Meanwhile, as a recruiting tool, the enemy makes videotapes of themselves cutting off innocent kidnap victims heads in order to attract more people to their cause. No remorse of any sort, only further celebration and congratulations have ever been evident. See the massive difference? So we haven't really sunk anywhere at all, morally. Meanwhile, if we've got a line on someone who we've discovered is about to murder another few thousand people, what actions are justified to get him to reveal information that can stop it? Harsh language only? Stephen Our retaliation is always justified, theirs is never justified. Interesting rulebook. |
Yeah, I know "plonk"
Capt. JG wrote:
"Stephen Trapani" wrote in message ... Aragorn wrote: It is a bit difficult to understand why they try to turf one guy out of office for getting a blow job and don't even seem to notice when another guy "legalizes" such things as torture and searches without a warrant - things that you are preaching to the world are "human rights". All societies, including ours, consider it reasonable that some level of criminal or enemy should lose many of their rights by virtue of protecting society. When you find yourself defending the very lowest scum of the earth, you should at least question the moral strength of what you are arguing, shouldn't you? It's not hard to understand when you remember that the both of those things, the impeachment and the trashing of the constitution, were being done by the same party. As for no one noticing, the Republicans have built a huge propaganda machine called conservative Talk Radio. It's running as background noise 24 hours a day out there in the hinterlands filling the pickup trucks, hardware stores, and autobody shops with a constant and subliminal stream of lies and propaganda. You wouldn't recognize the country if you came back. This poison, which is the only source of "news" that a huge proportion of the country (aka "The Republican Base), pays any attention to, is like the public loudspeakers in North Korea. Yeah, finally (during the Clinton era), instead of overwhelming numbers on the side of liberally biased media, the right got their little corner of the media pie and are doing well at carrying an audience. They are still in the minority though. It does seem that people tend to restrict themselves exclusively to the biased news that they favor, like you say, but you are totally wrong about conservative media being anyone's only choice for news. Not even close. My lefty friends pretty much never watch or listen to conservative media. Oh how they love MSNBC and Rachel Maddow, who is really about as biased as it gets. If the media is liberally biased, by which I think you mean left-biased, then how can they have "their little corner" that is "still in the minority"? Either the media is left-biased or it isn't. Do you consider Rush's millions of ditto head dunder heads a "little corner" of the media audience? Well, on one side we've got AP, Reuters, ABC, NBC, CBS, CNN, Time magazine, Newsweek, and a healthy smattering of radio affiliates. On the other side we've got Fox and Limbaugh. I'm sure I left off a few lessers on both sides. It's not even close. If people want to truly understand what is best, they need to understand the best arguments on both sides. No. They need to understand the arguments. Sometimes, there's only one side. This was what was wrong with the fairness doctrine, among other things. If there is a conflict of opinion about what is right and wrong then there are two conflicting arguments. Bias is essentially ignoring one side. The only path to truth is understanding both arguments so you can pick the better one. This doesn't require the Fairness Doctrine. [...] The kooky left has been jumping on Bush for stuff that has been going on for 200 years. Now the chickens will come home to roost. ?? Huh? Bush has been around for 200 years? I thought that "demographic was sufficient for decades to keep tipping a nearly evenly divided country to the right." So, if that's the case, it must be Clinton's fault. The things Bush did, like trying to increase the Presidents power, have been going on for 200 years. In the example I gave, Obama is currently trying to maintain Bush's gain whereby Presidential aids are considered to be above criminal prosecution. The kooks were jumping all over Bush as if these actions made him impeachable or evil. Apparently they haven't noticed that Obama is picking up where Bush left off. This is the normal balance of power struggle that occurs in our government. Stephen |
Yeah, I know "plonk"
On Fri, 06 Mar 2009 07:32:06 -0800, Stephen Trapani
wrote: Again, there is a level of immorality that justifies treating people badly. Recently the badness of human took a big step downward with the advent of extremists who actually target and are able to murder large groups of innocent people. This new level of badness requires a modification of the normal response. In other words, if you strongly suspect someone of being about to kill a large group of innocent people, there is justification in torturing him or of course even killing him if it helps you stop it from happening. That's a big load of hogswaller used to justify sadistic tendencies. Antithetical to concepts of law we cherish, most importantly "innocent until proven guilty." It is absolutely amazing to me that Americans - who grew up with a menu of films and print where sadistic Nazi's, Japs and mobsters tortured innocent people and are reviled for it - fall for this 24 Hours and Dirty Harry TV crap to make decisions. "Strongly suspect." What the **** does that mean? Is that less or more suspicion than there was about the weapons of mass destruction in Iraq? So who decides who gets tortured? You? I'm going to let you decide who to torture based on your "morality?" You, a torturer? Why would anybody trust the moral judgement of a torturer? **** you pal. You are too stupid to even understand what I just said, or you wouldn't have even made those lame-ass comments. I've got no problem with GI's shooting and killing just about anything in sight on the battlefield. Even when their hands are up. It's the warrior's call. Spare the girls and babies. But even less of a problem for a bullet to the head of a torturer. That's the guy who might "strongly suspect" and torture my son when his only crime was to get the girl the torturer wanted. We call this end result "the slippery slope of taking a stroll outside the rule of law." Ever hear the term "banality of evil?" You exemplify it. You are one banal dude. Did I mention you're stupid? Of all the ****-ups of the Bush administration, getting saps to believe that torture is acceptable conduct is the worst by far. --Vic |
Yeah, I know "plonk"
KLC Lewis wrote:
"Stephen Trapani" wrote in message ... Bruce In Bangkok wrote: On Thu, 05 Mar 2009 11:44:07 -0800, Stephen Trapani wrote: Aragorn wrote: It is a bit difficult to understand why they try to turf one guy out of office for getting a blow job and don't even seem to notice when another guy "legalizes" such things as torture and searches without a warrant - things that you are preaching to the world are "human rights". All societies, including ours, consider it reasonable that some level of criminal or enemy should lose many of their rights by virtue of protecting society. When you find yourself defending the very lowest scum of the earth, you should at least question the moral strength of what you are arguing, shouldn't you? I'm not defending anyone. I'm simply stating that people (perhaps men mostly) find the rather violent reaction to one man doing something that comes rather naturally and a different man doing something that caused (and don't think it didn't) considerable loss of face for the nation. How can a country that advocates justice and the rule of law to foreign countries turn around and carryout the excesses that happened? It isn't that you tortured the people, it is that you preach justice and rule of law to all the developing countries. Do as I say, not as I do. Again, there is a level of immorality that justifies treating people badly. Recently the badness of human took a big step downward with the advent of extremists who actually target and are able to murder large groups of innocent people. This new level of badness requires a modification of the normal response. In other words, if you strongly suspect someone of being about to kill a large group of innocent people, there is justification in torturing him or of course even killing him if it helps you stop it from happening. Now having said that, lets contrast the US response, compared to those we are fighting. The entire country was and still is up in arms for years in questioning the morality of dunking vicious criminals in water and scaring them. We may have done it, but we are concerned about doing it and spend much time trying to figure out if it is over the line so we can stop. Meanwhile, as a recruiting tool, the enemy makes videotapes of themselves cutting off innocent kidnap victims heads in order to attract more people to their cause. No remorse of any sort, only further celebration and congratulations have ever been evident. See the massive difference? So we haven't really sunk anywhere at all, morally. Meanwhile, if we've got a line on someone who we've discovered is about to murder another few thousand people, what actions are justified to get him to reveal information that can stop it? Harsh language only? Stephen Our retaliation is always justified, theirs is never justified. Interesting rulebook. No, a retaliation is merited based upon the objective basis of the offense and objective moral imperative to do something. I have stated these above. If we are targeting their innocent civilians, trying to kill as many as possible, based upon our religion, they are justified to use violence to stop us. Stephen |
Yeah, I know "plonk"
"Stephen Trapani" wrote in message ... No, a retaliation is merited based upon the objective basis of the offense and objective moral imperative to do something. I have stated these above. If we are targeting their innocent civilians, trying to kill as many as possible, based upon our religion, they are justified to use violence to stop us. Stephen We are killing people, even today, with robots and "smart bombs." From hundreds, or even thousands, of miles away, these devices are pointed at their targets and told to go explode. As these devices are incapable of determining for themselves whether or not they are targeting innocent people, they just do as they are told and kill everyone within the immediate blast zone. Now, you tell me: Are we "targeting their innocent civilians"? We have the audacity to call people who are defending themselves from an invading army "terrorists," while our weapons are launched at them from a safe distance. We shudder at the thought of civilians who strap explosives to themselves and give their lives to take out the enemy, calling them "cowards," while we kill them from another continent at no danger to ourselves. And any innocents we happen to kill are "regretable accidents," or "collateral damage." Excuse me while become I sick to my stomach. |
Yeah, I know "plonk"
"Stephen Trapani" wrote in message
... Capt. JG wrote: "Stephen Trapani" wrote in message ... Aragorn wrote: It is a bit difficult to understand why they try to turf one guy out of office for getting a blow job and don't even seem to notice when another guy "legalizes" such things as torture and searches without a warrant - things that you are preaching to the world are "human rights". All societies, including ours, consider it reasonable that some level of criminal or enemy should lose many of their rights by virtue of protecting society. When you find yourself defending the very lowest scum of the earth, you should at least question the moral strength of what you are arguing, shouldn't you? It's not hard to understand when you remember that the both of those things, the impeachment and the trashing of the constitution, were being done by the same party. As for no one noticing, the Republicans have built a huge propaganda machine called conservative Talk Radio. It's running as background noise 24 hours a day out there in the hinterlands filling the pickup trucks, hardware stores, and autobody shops with a constant and subliminal stream of lies and propaganda. You wouldn't recognize the country if you came back. This poison, which is the only source of "news" that a huge proportion of the country (aka "The Republican Base), pays any attention to, is like the public loudspeakers in North Korea. Yeah, finally (during the Clinton era), instead of overwhelming numbers on the side of liberally biased media, the right got their little corner of the media pie and are doing well at carrying an audience. They are still in the minority though. It does seem that people tend to restrict themselves exclusively to the biased news that they favor, like you say, but you are totally wrong about conservative media being anyone's only choice for news. Not even close. My lefty friends pretty much never watch or listen to conservative media. Oh how they love MSNBC and Rachel Maddow, who is really about as biased as it gets. If the media is liberally biased, by which I think you mean left-biased, then how can they have "their little corner" that is "still in the minority"? Either the media is left-biased or it isn't. Do you consider Rush's millions of ditto head dunder heads a "little corner" of the media audience? Well, on one side we've got AP, Reuters, ABC, NBC, CBS, CNN, Time magazine, Newsweek, and a healthy smattering of radio affiliates. On the other side we've got Fox and Limbaugh. I'm sure I left off a few lessers on both sides. It's not even close. Come on! You said the media is left-biased and then you said they have their little corner. Claiming all the major news outlets are left-biased is pretty hard to justify, given that they're all controlled by major corps., which are not exactly pro left. If people want to truly understand what is best, they need to understand the best arguments on both sides. No. They need to understand the arguments. Sometimes, there's only one side. This was what was wrong with the fairness doctrine, among other things. If there is a conflict of opinion about what is right and wrong then there are two conflicting arguments. Bias is essentially ignoring one side. The only path to truth is understanding both arguments so you can pick the better one. This doesn't require the Fairness Doctrine. No. Sorry. If you have someone who believes in rape vs. respecting women, you can't claim that there are two conflicting arguments. [...] The kooky left has been jumping on Bush for stuff that has been going on for 200 years. Now the chickens will come home to roost. ?? Huh? Bush has been around for 200 years? I thought that "demographic was sufficient for decades to keep tipping a nearly evenly divided country to the right." So, if that's the case, it must be Clinton's fault. The things Bush did, like trying to increase the Presidents power, have been going on for 200 years. In the example I gave, Obama is currently trying to maintain Bush's gain whereby Presidential aids are considered to be above criminal prosecution. The kooks were jumping all over Bush as if these actions made him impeachable or evil. Apparently they haven't noticed that Obama is picking up where Bush left off. This is the normal balance of power struggle that occurs in our government. Like the Yoo memos basically establishing the legal justification for a dictatorship. Well, ok. -- "j" ganz @@ www.sailnow.com |
| All times are GMT +1. The time now is 08:41 PM. |
Powered by vBulletin® Copyright ©2000 - 2024, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.
Copyright ©2004 - 2014 BoatBanter.com