The extreme left still hasn't condemned Stalin (or Castro, or Mao, or Ho Chi Minh), but that's
hardly the issue here. You are pointing to a local police force's actions, which you absurdly
describe as torture, and trying to pin it on Bush.
And you ask whether I believe that this `would have happened under Clinton too'? How idiotic. This
is the same Seattle mayor, the same police chief, the same police officers who you made the same absurd
accusations about after the WTO meeting in the same city was `protested' by the looting of Foot Locker
and Starbucks. During Clinton's presidency.
It would be absurd to blame Clinton for that, and it is absurd to blame Bush for this (never mind Ann Coulter
or Lucianne Goldberg, you silly little twerp), but because you've decided that your goal is to find something
to smear Bush for, that's the absurd conclusion you leap to.
If that's all you've got on Bush, it sure looks to me like he's doing pretty good...
An amusing characterization, but nothing which resembles anything I've said.
You seem to think that what you're pointing at is some sort of grand critique
of the current Administration. This is, of course, absurd, as all you've done
is point to what may have been an overreaction by local police officers in a
city not even run by politicians of the same party as the administration, and
who had every reason to be jumpy, for the reasons I've discussed.
Given such a grand leap of illogic, it's impossible to conclude anything
but that you're desperate for some opening to attack the current administration
(and a few columnists who you have even less grounds to leap upon), and have
settled on this absurdity for lack of any better grounds.
Nope, you just haven't made any credible case against anyone but a few local cops, who aren't
even Republicans (and even that case you've hardly demonstrated, choosing instead to load with
words like `torture' which clearly don't apply), but since you set out to find a way to smear
the current Administration, well, goldurnit, that's whose fault it must be, eh?
Only in the hands of someone who had already decided what they wanted to conclude
could a local police force reacting (possibly overreacting, you certainly haven't
shown this) to protesters who last time they were in town trashed most of the
downtown area while throwing bottles and molotovs at police, be turned into a
hit parade of sorry cliches.
Those who you've decided to attack are `promoting violence and murder' (you haven't
presented any example of either being promoted by those you're attacking, just
by a local police force), are `fascists' (I doubt you'd know a fascist if one walked
up and bit you on the ass, like most on the left `fascist' to you means `one I don't like'),
and if someone (heavens!) has a minor tiff with a local police officer, they've been
`tortured' (your words are an insult to those in places like Cuba or Iran, who know what
they word `torture' actuallt means)
And of course, all of this is just a preparation for you to vent some spleen at people
who have nothing to do with what you've discussed. You really had to stretch to
bring Ann Coulter or Lucianne Goldberg into this discussion, for example, but hey, you
were determined to, and you managed.
That rather depends. If you look at most photographs taken in that setting, what
you see is an unidentifiable hunk of metal in the corner of the shot. The exception
to this is, of course, when the photographer thinks he's very clever, as in the
NY Times' coverage of Ed Meese's initiative against kiddie-porn, when the NY Times'
photo was centered and focused on the breast of the statue, with Mr. Meese below
and a little out-of-focus.
In either case, there's plenty of room for discussion of whether the backdrop was
a good idea. The claim that the order to place it there came from Ashcroft, or had
to do with the nudity of the statue comes from one Washington Post reporter,
who later admitted he had no source for the claim.
Too bad what actually happened (press secretary felt a neutral-color backdrop would make better pictures
than a clutter of statues and pillars) doesn't make as good a joke, but hey, life is like that sometimes.
Re:Researching more efficient ways to kill people.
on
Electric Armor
·
· Score: 2, Insightful
With due respect, the more sophisticated our methods of killing people
get, the less people are killed in the wars we fight. It's exactly
those `more efficient means' that your nuts are in a bunch over that helped
us kill so few civilians in Afghanistan (less than about 1500 by most reliable
measures, see the section on civilian casualties at the end of this articla for details).
The U.S. government has bombed 14 countries, directly killing about 3,000,000 people in the last 33 years.
Do you have any credible backing for this number? Do you have any comparable number of how many lives
we've saved in our wars? For example, Ho Chi Minh's thufs killed more Vietnamese in the first three
years of `peace' after the Vietnam war than had died in the entire previous twenty-five years of war.
At least that many lives would have been saved had we stuck it out and won the war.
And as for `non-violent' solutions, may I ask you to explain what solution you think would resolve our current
situation, where a multi-national group armed and sheltered by hostile national powers is working to gain access
to weapons of mass destruction to use against us?
I don't see the line between `money' and `politics' as being nearly as clear as you see it.
In particular, a candidate's own money is dwarfed by the money which is constributed to his
campaign -- and this itself is a form of democracy in action. If a candidate has a lot of
money to spend, it is a sign that people believe in what he has to say enough to give him
money.
Besides, the only real effect of limiting the money the candidates themselves can
spend on a campaign is to multiply the power of the (generally biased) media in determining
the effects of the election -- the less you hear the candidate speak for himself, the more
Dan's and Tom's and Peter's opinions of the candidate contribute to what you know about them.
In a country where the media bias pretty heavily to the Democratic party, this makes campaign
finance `reform' nothing but a free ride for the left...
I have to disagree with this. Your `right' to hear each candidate, like most of your rights, is dependent on your interest in going out and listening to them. It is certainly not of a level that would justify limiting a candidates right to free speech in order to make sure that you don't `hear him more than other candidates'.
Once you start down that road, where do you end? If a candidate speaks more eloquently than another, are we to somehow compensate for this, to make sure that you don't `unfairly' consider his side more than his opponent's? I don't buy it.
And if personal wealth makes such a big difference, why wasn't H. Ross Perot the president for the last eight years?
So far, so good. But we've developed a tendency to think of dissent as being
good in and of itself, which is nonsense, and only serves to make complaints
against actual injustices (which are actually pretty damn rare in this country,
after all) not be taken seriously.
Nor do you need per se to `know the motives' of those in government. It is
sufficient to look at their actions (or to actually, oh, I don't know, say,
read the court opinion in this case) to dismiss a lot of the knee-jerk anti-
government reaction to this story as absurd.
Complaining about the government, per se, is a right, but not a `duty' -- it's completely morally neutral.
What makes the complaint right or wrong is whether what is being complained about is, in fact, unjust. If it
is, complaining about it is the right thing to do. If it is not, then crying wolf serves only to diminish your
own credibility and to hurt the credible of valid complaints when they are needed.
This is why the knee-jerk anti-government rhetoric so often seen here does much more harm than good.
Perhaps you could provide a single reference to these `government documents' which you allege
say 11,000 were killed? Perhaps you can back up your claim that the slums of Panama city were a
primary target?
No, I don't suppose you can, because you're just blowing hot air. Good day to you.
As I said, your position is so incoherent that only a self-styled intellectual
could cling to it. You admit that they broke the law, and knew they were doing
so, but think that's okay because sometimes laws change? Really?
So if someone breaks into your house tonight, will you let them go, because,
after all, `laws change all the time'? Come on...
Just who do you allege is `promot[ing] violence and murder against political opponents' anyway?
So far all you've shown us is a local police department which may have overreacted when faced with
protesters who when they were last in town looted and smashed most of the downtown area of their
city.
If the protesters were peaceful, sure, this was an overreaction. If they weren't, it may or
may not have been. In either case, no reasonable observer would react in anything like the
paroxysms of hyperbole which you are exhibiting here.
There are plenty of people in this world who are actually being tortured,
for whom the word needs no quotation marks. And the best you can come
with is to blame Bush for the actions of a local, Democratic-party police
force which has already faced violence at the hands of these protesters
a few years back?
Yes, just as I know enough about the situation to know that anyone who walked
into my house is wrong.
Let's get this straight: these people broke the law, in a way which has potential
ramifications for national security, they bragged about doing so, and you're surprised
that they got raided?
Which part of `it's illegal to crack into other people's systems' is grey to you? Which
part of `cracking the army's systems could have an effect on their ability to do their
job, whether that's your intention or not' is grey to you?
The `torture' of protesters? You're a funny little man, AC.
C'mon. We've all seen the violence these protesters wrought in Seattle,
here in New York, in Washington, and elsewhere. But this time the police
just attacked them at random? Really? And if we take your word that this
is what the (local, Democratic) city government did, what does this have
to do with Bush?
And yes, there are limits on rights. Your right to extend your fist
ends at the end of my nose, and your right to `protest' ends when your
`protest' consists of looting Starbucks and Nike.
Do you have any backing for this FUD? Do you have any reason to believe that any judge in the nation (remember, declaring someone an enemy combatant is subject to judicial review) would consider the situation you describe as meeting the test of the suspect being in violation of the law of war that is required for such a declaration?
Which is well and good, but by 1983, IBM was already considered to have lost enough
of their monopoly that the anti-trust case against them was being dropped.
Slashdot Mirror
And you ask whether I believe that this `would have happened under Clinton too'? How idiotic. This is the same Seattle mayor, the same police chief, the same police officers who you made the same absurd accusations about after the WTO meeting in the same city was `protested' by the looting of Foot Locker and Starbucks. During Clinton's presidency.
It would be absurd to blame Clinton for that, and it is absurd to blame Bush for this (never mind Ann Coulter or Lucianne Goldberg, you silly little twerp), but because you've decided that your goal is to find something to smear Bush for, that's the absurd conclusion you leap to.
If that's all you've got on Bush, it sure looks to me like he's doing pretty good...
You, on the other hand, are, as I said, pathetic.
You seem to think that what you're pointing at is some sort of grand critique of the current Administration. This is, of course, absurd, as all you've done is point to what may have been an overreaction by local police officers in a city not even run by politicians of the same party as the administration, and who had every reason to be jumpy, for the reasons I've discussed.
Given such a grand leap of illogic, it's impossible to conclude anything but that you're desperate for some opening to attack the current administration (and a few columnists who you have even less grounds to leap upon), and have settled on this absurdity for lack of any better grounds.
Which, as I said, is pathetic.
As I said, pathetic.
Only in the hands of someone who had already decided what they wanted to conclude could a local police force reacting (possibly overreacting, you certainly haven't shown this) to protesters who last time they were in town trashed most of the downtown area while throwing bottles and molotovs at police, be turned into a hit parade of sorry cliches.
Those who you've decided to attack are `promoting violence and murder' (you haven't presented any example of either being promoted by those you're attacking, just by a local police force), are `fascists' (I doubt you'd know a fascist if one walked up and bit you on the ass, like most on the left `fascist' to you means `one I don't like'), and if someone (heavens!) has a minor tiff with a local police officer, they've been `tortured' (your words are an insult to those in places like Cuba or Iran, who know what they word `torture' actuallt means)
And of course, all of this is just a preparation for you to vent some spleen at people who have nothing to do with what you've discussed. You really had to stretch to bring Ann Coulter or Lucianne Goldberg into this discussion, for example, but hey, you were determined to, and you managed.
As I said, pathetic.
In either case, there's plenty of room for discussion of whether the backdrop was a good idea. The claim that the order to place it there came from Ashcroft, or had to do with the nudity of the statue comes from one Washington Post reporter, who later admitted he had no source for the claim.
OK, so quick pop quiz: which of the two (Marshall and Jackson) is still cited in court cases?
Too bad what actually happened (press secretary felt a neutral-color backdrop would make better pictures than a clutter of statues and pillars) doesn't make as good a joke, but hey, life is like that sometimes.
The U.S. government has bombed 14 countries, directly killing about 3,000,000 people in the last 33 years.
Do you have any credible backing for this number? Do you have any comparable number of how many lives we've saved in our wars? For example, Ho Chi Minh's thufs killed more Vietnamese in the first three years of `peace' after the Vietnam war than had died in the entire previous twenty-five years of war. At least that many lives would have been saved had we stuck it out and won the war.
And as for `non-violent' solutions, may I ask you to explain what solution you think would resolve our current situation, where a multi-national group armed and sheltered by hostile national powers is working to gain access to weapons of mass destruction to use against us?
In particular, a candidate's own money is dwarfed by the money which is constributed to his campaign -- and this itself is a form of democracy in action. If a candidate has a lot of money to spend, it is a sign that people believe in what he has to say enough to give him money.
Besides, the only real effect of limiting the money the candidates themselves can spend on a campaign is to multiply the power of the (generally biased) media in determining the effects of the election -- the less you hear the candidate speak for himself, the more Dan's and Tom's and Peter's opinions of the candidate contribute to what you know about them.
In a country where the media bias pretty heavily to the Democratic party, this makes campaign finance `reform' nothing but a free ride for the left...
Once you start down that road, where do you end? If a candidate speaks more eloquently than another, are we to somehow compensate for this, to make sure that you don't `unfairly' consider his side more than his opponent's? I don't buy it.
And if personal wealth makes such a big difference, why wasn't H. Ross Perot the president for the last eight years?
Nor do you need per se to `know the motives' of those in government. It is sufficient to look at their actions (or to actually, oh, I don't know, say, read the court opinion in this case) to dismiss a lot of the knee-jerk anti- government reaction to this story as absurd.
On the other hand, I'm a Republican, so YMMV. :-)
What makes the complaint right or wrong is whether what is being complained about is, in fact, unjust. If it is, complaining about it is the right thing to do. If it is not, then crying wolf serves only to diminish your own credibility and to hurt the credible of valid complaints when they are needed.
This is why the knee-jerk anti-government rhetoric so often seen here does much more harm than good.
No, I don't suppose you can, because you're just blowing hot air. Good day to you.
So if someone breaks into your house tonight, will you let them go, because, after all, `laws change all the time'? Come on...
So far all you've shown us is a local police department which may have overreacted when faced with protesters who when they were last in town looted and smashed most of the downtown area of their city.
If the protesters were peaceful, sure, this was an overreaction. If they weren't, it may or may not have been. In either case, no reasonable observer would react in anything like the paroxysms of hyperbole which you are exhibiting here.
Pathetic.
Let's get this straight: these people broke the law, in a way which has potential ramifications for national security, they bragged about doing so, and you're surprised that they got raided?
Which part of `it's illegal to crack into other people's systems' is grey to you? Which part of `cracking the army's systems could have an effect on their ability to do their job, whether that's your intention or not' is grey to you?
What AC said. The idea that this is some sort of `grey area' is, to paraphrase George Orwell, so dumb only an intellectual could believe it.
C'mon. We've all seen the violence these protesters wrought in Seattle, here in New York, in Washington, and elsewhere. But this time the police just attacked them at random? Really? And if we take your word that this is what the (local, Democratic) city government did, what does this have to do with Bush?
And yes, there are limits on rights. Your right to extend your fist ends at the end of my nose, and your right to `protest' ends when your `protest' consists of looting Starbucks and Nike.
Name one freedom which you think you've lost under this administration.
Otherwise, you're just blowing hot air.
The administration which brought you Waco, the Ruby Ridge cover-up, and Elian Gonzalez would have been so much better.
Or not. The government has used secret courts to review wiretap requests based on classified evidence for decades. Why does it only bother you now?
Do you have any backing for this FUD? Do you have any reason to believe that any judge in the nation (remember, declaring someone an enemy combatant is subject to judicial review) would consider the situation you describe as meeting the test of the suspect being in violation of the law of war that is required for such a declaration?
Isn't the problem with Enron and Worldcom that certain executives didn't understand the concept of negative numbers?
Which is well and good, but by 1983, IBM was already considered to have lost enough of their monopoly that the anti-trust case against them was being dropped.