Why the Left is so dangerous

POSTED BY: AURaptor
UPDATED: Tuesday, April 8, 2025 14:10
VIEWED: 15618
PAGE 1 of 3

1 2 3 NEXT PAGE LAST PAGE

AURAPTOR

Wednesday, July 11, 2007 10:32 PM

Quote:
Now you've heard today a lot of people say that there are many little things that you all can do today to avert climate change on your own. But I will tell you this, it is more important than buying compact fluorescent light bulbs or than buying a fuel efficient automobile. The most important thing you can do is to get involved in the political process and get rid of all of these rotten politicians that we have in Washington D.C. who are nothing more than corporate toadies for companies like Exxon and Southern Company, these villainous companies that consistently put their private financial interest ahead of American interest and ahead of the interest of all of humanity. This is treason and we need to start treating them now as traitors.

- Robert F Kennedy Jr, at Live Earth.

Yeah, Robert, the real issue here for you is POLITICS, not saving the planet. There's no question as to which side of the political aisel you're trying to recruit. The far, FAR Left.
Yes, PRIVATE companies are doing what they're suppose to do , make money for their shareholders. That's not an evil thing, by any means. But you calling folks 'traitors', now that's something old grand dad Joe would probably love to hear. After all, he was a big supporter of Adolph Hitler. And boy howdy , we know how Hitler treated traitors, don't we ? So, who are you going to line up, Robert, and murder first ? Will it be the board members? Or will it be some the thousands and thousands of share holders across the country, who used their own money to buy stock in these 'villanious' companies, so they'd be able to retire with something more than a promise of government cheese and a shiny bowl for their daily ration of soup.

Hey Robert, F.U.

May the curse of the Kennedy's continue to wreck havoc on you and your loved ones.

People love a happy ending. So every episode, I will explain once again that I don't like people. And then Mal will shoot someone. Someone we like. And their puppy. - Joss

" They don't like it when you shoot at 'em. I worked that out myself. "

SIGNYM

Wednesday, July 11, 2007 10:36 PM

Oh wow. Sounds like the pot calling the kettle black. Right-wingers don't like hearing the word "traitor"... unless they're the ones slinging it.

---------------------------------
Always look upstream.

RUE

Wednesday, July 11, 2007 11:09 PM

Poor Rap. All atwitter about something so trivial.

***************************************************************
"Global warming - it's not just a fact, it's a choice."

FUTUREMRSFILLION

Wednesday, July 11, 2007 11:11 PM

"May the curse of the Kennedy's continue to wreck havoc on you and your loved ones."

although not surprised

---- plus ca change, plus c'est la meme chose

Bestower of Titles, Designer of Tshirts, Maker of Mottos, Keeper of the Pyre, Owner of a too big Turnippy smelling coat with MR scratched in the neck (thanks FollowMal!)

I am on The List. We are The Forsaken and we aim to burn!
"We don't fear the reaper"

FORSAKEN original

FINN MAC CUMHAL

Wednesday, July 11, 2007 11:21 PM

Quote:
Originally posted by AURaptor:
Yeah, Robert, the real issue here for you is POLITICS, not saving the planet. There's no question as to which side of the political aisel you're trying to recruit. The far, FAR Left.
Yes, PRIVATE companies are doing what they're suppose to do , make money for their shareholders. That's not an evil thing, by any means. But you calling folks 'traitors', now that's something old grand dad Joe would probably love to hear. After all, he was a big supporter of Adolph Hitler. And boy howdy , we know how Hitler treated traitors, don't we ? So, who are you going to line up, Robert, and murder first ? Will it be the board members? Or will it be some the thousands and thousands of share holders across the country, who used their own money to buy stock in these 'villanious' companies, so they'd be able to retire with something more than a promise of government cheese and a shiny bowl for their daily ration of soup.

Astounding hypocrisy, isn’t it? Liberals throw a fit when their patriotism is questioned for unfair verbal attacks on US policy and the president over the war in Iraq – activity that lends moral support and encouragement to the enemy, but somehow at least some of them feel that it’s okay to accuse people of treason for evidently the crime of not being socialist or environmentalist, in Kennedy’s assessment.

Nihil est incertius vulgo, nihil obscurius voluntate hominum, nihil fallacius ratione tota comitiorum.

Nothing is more unpredictable than the mob, nothing more obscure than public opinion, nothing more deceptive than the whole political system.

-- Cicero

AURAPTOR

Wednesday, July 11, 2007 11:35 PM

Quote:
Originally posted by FutureMrsFIllion:
"May the curse of the Kennedy's continue to wreck havoc on you and your loved ones."

although not surprised

The sooner the Kennedy's are gone from our political landscape, the better.

How folks can sit by and refer to private companies not towing the extreme far Left's enviro-nazism line being called 'traitors' is even more unsettling.

When the Nazis arrested the Communists,
I said nothing; after all, I was not a Communist.
When they locked up the Social Democrats,
I said nothing; after all, I was not a Social Democrat.
When they arrested the trade unionists,
I said nothing; after all, I was not a trade unionist.
When they arrested me, there was no longer anyone who could protest.

That's the REAL

... we need to start treating them now as traitors - Robert F. Kennedy Jr.

People love a happy ending. So every episode, I will explain once again that I don't like people. And then Mal will shoot someone. Someone we like. And their puppy. - Joss

" They don't like it when you shoot at 'em. I worked that out myself. "

SIGNYM

Wednesday, July 11, 2007 11:35 PM

Astounding hypocrisy, isn’t it? Indeed Liberals throw a fit when their patriotism is questioned for unfair (says who?) verbal attacks on US policy and the president over the war in Iraq – activity that lends moral support and encouragement to the enemy, but somehow at least some of them feel that it’s okay to accuse people of treason for evidently the crime of not being socialist or environmentalist, in Kennedy’s assessment. And so now Auraptor is all atwitter altho I never heard him complaining about the careless use of the word "treason" before. Or you either. Gosh. Will wonders never cease?

Like I said, even-handedness seems a foreign concpet to som...

---------------------------------
Always look upstream.

FUTUREMRSFILLION

Wednesday, July 11, 2007 11:43 PM

Quote:
Originally posted by Finn mac Cumhal:
[ activity that lends moral support and encouragement to the enemy,

Oh Bullshit! The "enemy" needs no encouragement.

edit:to remove Auraptor.

---- plus ca change, plus c'est la meme chose

Bestower of Titles, Designer of Tshirts, Maker of Mottos, Keeper of the Pyre, Owner of a too big Turnippy smelling coat with MR scratched in the neck (thanks FollowMal!)

I am on The List. We are The Forsaken and we aim to burn!
"We don't fear the reaper"

FORSAKEN original

FINN MAC CUMHAL

Wednesday, July 11, 2007 11:53 PM

Quote:
Originally posted by SignyM:
Like I said, even-handedness seems a foreign concpet to som....

Actually I have defended the patriotism of Liberals, even as I recognize that the enemy is comforted by the attitudes of many on the Left in this country. One of the standing problems is the ability to dissent over a war without encouraging the enemy. A lot of the criticism that comes from the Left is not responsible enough to warrant the damage it does in supporting the enemy. Accompanying that is the principally Left-wing attitude that patriotism is some throwback off fascism, so there is actually an argument to be made for the lack of patriotism of some Liberals, if for no other reason then that many Liberals willingly choose not to be patriotic. But there is no such argument that could possibly explain why Kennedy is accusing people of treason for not being environmentalist in his narrow political view of the term. And no argument for why you will not denounce him, so yes for many, fair-minded debate does seem to be a foreign concept.

Nihil est incertius vulgo, nihil obscurius voluntate hominum, nihil fallacius ratione tota comitiorum.

Nothing is more unpredictable than the mob, nothing more obscure than public opinion, nothing more deceptive than the whole political system.

-- Cicero

RUE

Thursday, July 12, 2007 12:01 AM

You see fit to libel anyone who is a liberal. Remember this ?

"The only thing that concerns me about this bet is that with your socialist leanings, you'll never be worth that much to make the pay off! "

Speaking of fair-minded people, you fit the description quite nicely.

***************************************************************
"Global warming - it's not just a fact, it's a choice."

AURAPTOR

Thursday, July 12, 2007 12:02 AM

Quote:
Originally posted by FutureMrsFIllion:
Quote:
Originally posted by Finn mac Cumhal:
Quote:
Originally posted by AURaptor:
activity that lends moral support and encouragement to the enemy,

Oh Bullshit! The "enemy" needs no encouragement.

FutureMrsFillion, you mistakenly gave Finn's quote and attributed it to me. Please be more careful when you cut / paste other's quotes onto your replies.

Thank you.

People love a happy ending. So every episode, I will explain once again that I don't like people. And then Mal will shoot someone. Someone we like. And their puppy. - Joss

" They don't like it when you shoot at 'em. I worked that out myself. "

FREDGIBLET

Thursday, July 12, 2007 12:07 AM

Rap, I'm interested in knowing how this explains why the left is "so dangerous". Turning issues like this into political leverage is an old tradition on both sides of the aisle. The left uses the environment and civil liberties, the right uses moral outrages how is this any worse than anything that's been going on on both sides for decades?

FINN MAC CUMHAL

Thursday, July 12, 2007 12:10 AM

Quote:
Originally posted by rue:
You see fit to libel anyone who is a liberal. Remember this ?

"The only thing that concerns me about this bet is that with your socialist leanings, you'll never be worth that much to make the pay off! "

Speaking of fair-minded people, you fit the description quite nicely.

Wow! That’s so desperate.

Also I wasn’t libeling "anyone who is a liberal," just you and I didn’t use the word “liberal.”

Nihil est incertius vulgo, nihil obscurius voluntate hominum, nihil fallacius ratione tota comitiorum.

Nothing is more unpredictable than the mob, nothing more obscure than public opinion, nothing more deceptive than the whole political system.

-- Cicero

SIGNYM

Thursday, July 12, 2007 12:14 AM

FINN

Quote:
Actually I have defended the patriotism of Liberals, even as I recognize that the enemy is comforted by the attitudes of many on the Left in this country. One of the standing problems is the ability to dissent over a war without encouraging the enemy. A lot of the criticism that comes from the Left is not responsible enough to warrant the damage it does in supporting the enemy. Accompanying that is the principally Left-wing attitude that patriotism is some throwback off fascism, so there is actually an argument to be made for the lack of patriotism of some Liberals, if for no other reason then that many Liberals willingly choose not to be patriotic.

I don't think liberals choose not to be "patriotic", they just define patriotism differently.

For me, patriotism means watching our government to make sure it is REALLY representing the people, and doing so effectively. What does patriotism mean to you?

---------------------------------
Always look upstream.

SIGNYM

Thursday, July 12, 2007 12:43 AM

Uh... this wasn't a trick question.

---------------------------------
Always look upstream.

RUE

Thursday, July 12, 2007 12:56 AM

"Also I wasn’t libeling "anyone who is a liberal"
You have before. Can't deny what's true. Do you want me to get the quotes to make you look like a lying sack of crap ? You know I don't say these things unless I can back 'em up.

"and I didn’t use the word “liberal.”"
I was being euphemistic. No, you used "socialist", red-baiting like another fine American, Joe McCarthy.

***************************************************************
"Global warming - it's not just a fact, it's a choice."

RUE

Thursday, July 12, 2007 12:58 AM

SignyM,

He likes flame wars 'cause he really can't discuss the issues.

***************************************************************
"Global warming - it's not just a fact, it's a choice."

JONGSSTRAW

Thursday, July 12, 2007 1:04 AM

I have found Mr. Kennedy to be a total jackass and hypocritically obtuse opportunist ever since Sean Hannity & even Mr. Alan Colmes completely de-bunked and tore him a new one when he appeared on their show about 18 months ago. After the total and humiliating destruction of all of Kennedy's hypocritical bullshit I actually had the audacity to think that this asshole would never have the balls to go out in public again...shows how dumb I am I guess..I forgot the name was Kennedy...an absolutely despicable family with rotted roots at the core; generation after generation of irresponsible, hypocritical, slob, whore-mongering self-serving cocksuckers, drunks, drug addicts and lying thieves.

Sure Mr.Kennedy..pleeze tell all us ignoent rednex how we's fuggin up the Earth, while you and yo' enteraugery fly yo's jets all overs da woild, and runs up enegee billz in da gazoulions....jus' fer starta's that is.

FINN MAC CUMHAL

Thursday, July 12, 2007 1:05 AM

Quote:
Originally posted by SignyM:
For me, patriotism means watching our government to make sure it is REALLY representing the people, and doing so effectively. What does patriotism mean to you?

Well this seem like a red herring to avoid responding to Kennedy’s fruitcakey comments, but I didn’t really expect an answer anyway.

Your description of patriotism is a convenient excuse to be critical of a government run by an administration you don’t agree with, more then it is a love for your country, I suspect. A lot of people use patriotism as an excuse to attack the government. There isn’t anything wrong with being vigilant to preserve a liberal government (in fact I would say that it is incumbent upon us to be a free people), but that’s not necessarily patriotism. It’s probably better described as republicanism. You could argue that one could be a republican because they are patriotic, but I don’t think you can define patriotism as republicanism.

Patriotism is love for one’s country. It has nothing specifically to do with the government. You can love your country even if you live out in the woods away from any government involvement, or even if your government is an oppressive regime. Patriotism is the glue that holds us together as a nation. Laws and political boundaries aren’t enough. We must be American to be a country, and in order for us to be American we must want to be American. We must love our country. We must have a desire for our country to be successful, a single unifying idea that leads us forward as a people. We are an extremely diverse people and we are very proud of our individuality, and these things can be strength, but they are also a recipe for conflict and disagreement. Patriotism is an ideal that gives us a sense of unity, a sense of nationality, something that we can agree on, even if we agree on nothing else.

Nihil est incertius vulgo, nihil obscurius voluntate hominum, nihil fallacius ratione tota comitiorum.

Nothing is more unpredictable than the mob, nothing more obscure than public opinion, nothing more deceptive than the whole political system.

-- Cicero

RUE

Thursday, July 12, 2007 1:14 AM

OK ---- QUICK !! Tell me which Kennedy it is without looking it up ! Is he elected to any public position ?? ? Tick tick tick tick tick ... the longer it goes, the more I'm thinkin' you've got to google real bad.

Quote:
Originally posted by Jongsstraw:
I have found Mr. Kennedy to be a total jackass

***************************************************************
"Global warming - it's not just a fact, it's a choice."

JONGSSTRAW

Thursday, July 12, 2007 1:31 AM

I forgot un-deservedly and absurdly haughty condescending douchebags in my previous post.

FREMDFIRMA

Thursday, July 12, 2007 1:54 AM

Well, way I see it goin, eventually it's gonna come to shootin between the wacko socialista hard left and the jackboot fascist hard right, and they'll mostly wipe each other out, at least one hopes.

Then us reasonable folk can move in and mop up what's left of the "winner" of said phyrric "victory" and the world will be a better place by just that much.

Bloody waste of good ammo tho, remember to load the cheap stuff first!

-Frem

It cannot be said enough, those who do not learn from history, are doomed to endlessly repeat it

JONGSSTRAW

Thursday, July 12, 2007 2:01 AM

Can't argue with that...I'd put my money on the whacko left prevailing, especially those G-8 anarchists... Man those people are either totally insane or totally fearless or both. What do they do the other 364.25 days of the year in between G-8 Summits?

RUE

Thursday, July 12, 2007 2:08 AM

"The most important thing you can do is to get involved in the political process and get rid of all of these rotten politicians that we have in Washington D.C. ..."

Now this is just plain wrong, because as we all know, polticians are all moral, upright, honest people.

"... who are nothing more than corporate toadies for companies like Exxon and Southern Company ..."

Despite the fact that "Whitman left the Administration because (Cheney) pressured her to accept pro-industry coal power plant rules which threatened ghoulish levels of air pollution" this could not possibly be true !

"... these villainous companies that consistently put their private financial interest ahead of American interest"

Gasoline price gouging be damned ! That doesn't count !

"... and ahead of the interest of all of humanity."

Yeah ! No problem with burning it up as fast as we can !

"This is treason and we need to start treating them now as traitors."

After all, price fixing, writing public legislation, war profiteering - that's just good old American business !

***************************************************************
"Global warming - it's not just a fact, it's a choice."

JONGSSTRAW

Thursday, July 12, 2007 2:26 AM

We hear that it's quite crowded now at Walden Pond, and there are ongoing reports of a worsening shortage of tree sap, edible roots, berries, and tree bark for food, shelter, and moccasin repair. To make matters worse, the Kennedy Estate is using it's considerable political influence to annex for their Nuevo Camelot compound huge chunks of the idyllic paradise under an eminant domain challenge in a case brought before Massachusetts District Court Judge Clyde Fitzgerald Kennedy. Some of the "Ponders", as they affectionately refer to themselves, have actually stated that they are reluctantly considering leaving Walden, and trying it one more time in America....giving 'ole Uncle Sam another chance so to speak. We certainly wish them all the best.

AURAPTOR

Thursday, July 12, 2007 3:00 AM

Quote:
fredgiblet wrote:
Wednesday, July 11, 2007 14:07
Rap, I'm interested in knowing how this explains why the left is "so dangerous". Turning issues like this into political leverage is an old tradition on both sides of the aisle. The left uses the environment and civil liberties, the right uses moral outrages how is this any worse than anything that's been going on on both sides for decades?

There's a reason I posted Mr Kennedy's comments, and highlighted specific parts. Kennedy goes well beyond simple politicing, and makes the remarkably reckless charge that legal, tax paying companies doing exactly what they're suppose to do in a free society, turn a profit, are some how 'traitors'. So now capitalism is a high crime ? Or could it be dissenting from the view of man made global warming ? In an landscape were free speech is being threatened ( Fairness Doctrine ) or that ideas are being viewed by some as being criminal( Hate crimes, or comparing denial of global warming to that of Holocaust denial ), it's damn concerning. No where on the Right has there been anywhere near the talk of outlawing such talk and punishment dealt out for expressing one's view.

Furthermore, Kennedy goes on to state that they should be "treated like traitors" . To the best of my knowledge, a sentence of death is only once brought up in the Constitution, and that's for the high crime of treason. * You may check me on that, I'm not sure *. But the question is,what else can it mean when you're told to treat a person like a traitor ?

People love a happy ending. So every episode, I will explain once again that I don't like people. And then Mal will shoot someone. Someone we like. And their puppy. - Joss

" They don't like it when you shoot at 'em. I worked that out myself. "

AURAPTOR

Thursday, July 12, 2007 3:10 AM

rue wrote:

Quote:
"... these villainous companies that consistently put their private financial interest ahead of American interest"

Gasoline price gouging be damned ! That doesn't count !

rue - Time and time again, the Congress has investigated the Oil companies, and not once has there been any indication of wide spread price fixing. The best they've come up with are individual incidents. So, since there HAS been no price fixing,I'm inclined to agree.....it doesn't count.

Quote:
"... and ahead of the interest of all of humanity."

Yeah ! No problem with burning it up as fast as we can !

Gee, who do the Oil companies do all that research, exploration, drilling, transporting, refining, shipping and selling to? Oh yeah..PEOPLE! If company A doesn't meet the demand, then company B will. Or company C....

Quote:
"This is treason and we need to start treating them now as traitors."

After all, price fixing, writing public legislation, war profiteering - that's just good old American business !

Except there's no price fixing, equal writing of public legislation by the Sierra Club and little if ANY war profiteering....... you have no case!

People love a happy ending. So every episode, I will explain once again that I don't like people. And then Mal will shoot someone. Someone we like. And their puppy. - Joss

" They don't like it when you shoot at 'em. I worked that out myself. "

RUE

Thursday, July 12, 2007 3:23 AM

I bet you believed the tobacco exces when they said it wasn't addictive.

Anyway, I have things to do. I'd stay and chat but ... maybe someone else will have the patience.

***************************************************************
"Global warming - it's not just a fact, it's a choice."

SIGNYM

Thursday, July 12, 2007 3:28 AM

Quote:
Well this seem like a red herring to avoid responding to Kennedy’s fruitcakey comments but I didn’t really expect an answer anyway.

If you had restricted your response to Kennedy, I would have also. But you're the one who expanded the topic and attacked liberals rather generally not just Kennedy, and I'm responding to your post.

Quote:
Your description of patriotism is a convenient excuse to be critical of a government run by an administration you don’t agree with, more then it is a love for your country, I suspect. A lot of people use patriotism as an excuse to attack the government. There isn’t anything wrong with being vigilant to preserve a liberal government (in fact I would say that it is incumbent upon us to be a free people), but that’s not necessarily patriotism. It’s probably better described as republicanism. You could argue that one could be a republican because they are patriotic, but I don’t think you can define patriotism as republicanism.

Um, did you toss out one undefined term to define another? I'm not sure I know what "republicanism" means.

Quote:
Patriotism is love for one’s country. It has nothing specifically to do with the government. You can love your country even if you live out in the woods away from any government involvement, or even if your government is an oppressive regime.

What form would "patriotisms take if the government WAS an oppressive regime? What would patriotism in action look like to you?

Quote:
Patriotism is the glue that holds us together as a nation. .. We must be American to be a country, and in order for us to be American we must want to be American.

Okay, waht is being "American"?

Quote:
We must love our country. We must have a desire for our country to be successful, a single unifying idea that leads us forward as a people. We are an extremely diverse people and we are very proud of our individuality, and these things can be strength, but they are also a recipe for conflict and disagreement. Patriotism is an ideal that gives us a sense of unity, a sense of nationality, something that we can agree on, even if we agree on nothing else.

But I want my country to be successful too. We may have different ideas of success.

---------------------------------
Always look upstream.

AURAPTOR

Thursday, July 12, 2007 5:25 AM

Quote:
Originally posted by rue:
I bet you believed the tobacco exces when they said it wasn't addictive.

Anyway, I have things to do. I'd stay and chat but ... maybe someone else will have the patience.

Don't try to side step the issue by bringing up tobacco. Totally irrelevant. You can't respond because you can't find where 'Big Oil' has been caught fixing gas prices. So instead of admitting you're flat wrong, you run away while throwing up a smoke screen ( pun intended )

People love a happy ending. So every episode, I will explain once again that I don't like people. And then Mal will shoot someone. Someone we like. And their puppy. - Joss

" They don't like it when you shoot at 'em. I worked that out myself. "

FREMDFIRMA

Thursday, July 12, 2007 6:32 AM

Jongstraw, to clarify a point a bit..

While they have worked together in the past and present on common issues, Anarchists and Socialists don't like each other very much.

Socialistas want the state to be their nanny and run their whole existance for them, often at the expense of wealth, freedom, and privacy.

As you can imagine, that doesn't go over too well with Anarchists as a general rule, it's mostly that they don't have a "side" or any stake in the status quo and thus ally with whomever happens to best serve their own purposes at the time.

-F

SIGNYM

Thursday, July 12, 2007 10:50 AM

Quote:
Except there's no price fixing, equal writing of public legislation by the Sierra Club and little if ANY war profiteering....... you have no case

Auraptor, you must have your tinfoil hat on backwards or something because I think the current government has somehow gotten control of your mind! Not sure if there is price "fixing" but there is certainly price gouging going on. For example, while the price of gasoline goes up and down with the spot price of oil, American refining companies are unaffected by the spot price because they're all on long-term contracts. I could point to the energy companies like Enron, which specifically plotted to create an artificial shortage of electricity, and insurance companies of all sorts (not just health but also auto, homeowners etc.) which have been found guilty of various fraudulent practices. AFA The Sierra Club and other environmental groups having equal access to Congress ... you have GOT to be kidding!! The only environmental laws that Congress makes are in response to massive public pressure. We certainly don't see the environmental lobby being given the pen and ink that the wealthier interests are given. And finally, war profiteering. You don't see any? Whooooaaa dude! That's good shit you've been smokin'!
The American Conservative said

Quote:
Halliburton, Vice President Dick Cheney’s former company, has a no-bid monopoly contract with the Army Corps of Engineers that is now estimated to be worth $10 billion. In June 2005, Pentagon contracting officer Bunny Greenhouse told a congressional committee that the agreement was the “most blatant and improper contracting abuse” that she had ever witnessed, a frank assessment that subsequently earned her a demotion.

... KBR or Kellogg, Brown and Root, the Halliburton subsidiary that has been the focus of congressional, Department of Defense, and General Accountability Office investigations. Defense Contract Audit Agency auditors have questioned Halliburton’s charges on a $1.6 billion fuel contract, claiming that the overcharges on the contract exceed $200 million. In one instance, the company charged the Army more than $27 million to transport $82,000 worth of fuel from Kuwait to Iraq. Halliburton has also been accused of billing the Army for 42,000 daily meals for soldiers, though it was only actually serving 14,000. In another operation, KBR purchased fleets of Mercedes trucks at $85,000 each to re-supply U.S. troops. The trucks carried no spare parts or even extra tires for the grueling high-speed run across the Kuwaiti and Iraqi deserts. When the trucks broke down on the highway, they were abandoned and destroyed rather than repaired.

Responding to complaints, Halliburton refused to permit independent auditing and inspected itself using so-called “Tiger Teams.” One such team stayed at the five-star Kuwait Kempinski Hotel while it was doing its audit, running up a bill of more than $1 million that was passed on to U.S. taxpayers.

Another U.S. firm well connected to the Bush White House, Custer Battles, has provided security services to the coalition, receiving $11 million in Iraqi funds including $4 million in cash in a sole-source contract to supply security at Baghdad International Airport. The company had never provided airport security before receiving the contract. It also received a $21 million no-bid contract to provide security for the exchange of Iraqi currency. It has been alleged that much of the currency “replaced” by Custer Battles has never been accounted for. The company also allegedly took over abandoned Iraqi-owned forklifts at the airport, repainted them, and then leased them back to the airport authority through a company set up in the Cayman Islands. Custer Battles reportedly set up a number of shell companies in offshore tax havens in Lebanon, Cyprus, and the Cayman Islands to handle the cash flow.

Two former company managers turned whistleblowers have charged that the company defrauded the U.S. government of at least $50 million.

... A

RUE

Thursday, July 12, 2007 3:37 PM

Rap,

No. I didn't respond b/c it was 20:30, I was STILL at work and needed to grocery shop on the way home before the store closed in half an an hour. I WOULD have stayed to chat and put the groceries off for another day if I thought it was worth it. But my experience is that 1) you never provide any references for your side 2) you can't explain your ideas in detail and 3) it doesn't matter how many refrences there are for the counter-argument you don't acknowledge them. In other words, discussing issues with you when I have other more pressing things to do is a waste of my time, and my time tends to be short. So maybe other people have more patience. Good luck with that. I've noticed not too many people engage with you.

Quote:
Originally posted by AURaptor:
Quote:
Originally posted by rue:
I bet you believed the tobacco exces when they said it wasn't addictive.

Anyway, I have things to do. I'd stay and chat but ... maybe someone else will have the patience.

Don't try to side step the issue by bringing up tobacco. Totally irrelevant. You can't respond because you can't find where 'Big Oil' has been caught fixing gas prices. So instead of admitting you're flat wrong, you run away while throwing up a smoke screen ( pun intended )

People love a happy ending. So every episode, I will explain once again that I don't like people. And then Mal will shoot someone. Someone we like. And their puppy. - Joss

" They don't like it when you shoot at 'em. I worked that out myself. "

***************************************************************
"Global warming - it's not just a fact, it's a choice."

SIGNYM

Thursday, July 12, 2007 3:43 PM

FINN: I have been accused of being an "attention whore" because I ask questions. Not sure how one relates to the other, but to preempt that accusation, let me tell you how feel about patriotism, in context. To reiterate:

Well this seem like a red herring to avoid responding to Kennedy’s fruitcakey comments but I didn’t really expect an answer anyway.-FINN

If you had restricted your response to Kennedy, I would have also. But you're the one who expanded the topic and attacked liberals rather generally not just Kennedy, and I'm responding to your post- SIGNY.

ETA Are companies "treasonous"? I think the definition of treason should be limited to war profiteers who reduces the effectiveness of our troops and in that backhanded way materially aid "the enemy".

Your description of patriotism is a convenient excuse to be critical of a government run by an administration you don’t agree with, more then it is a love for your country, I suspect. A lot of people use patriotism as an excuse to attack the government. There isn’t anything wrong with being vigilant to preserve a liberal government (in fact I would say that it is incumbent upon us to be a free people), but that’s not necessarily patriotism. It’s probably better described as republicanism. You could argue that one could be a republican because they are patriotic, but I don’t think you can define patriotism as republicanism.- FINN

Um, did you toss out one undefined term to define another? I'm not sure I know what "republicanism" means.- SIGNY

ETA It sounds to me like YOUR definition of patriotism is a convenient way to forestall criticism of specific administrations. ANY administration is subject to criticism, and the more they fuck up, the more criticism they should get.

Patriotism is love for one’s country. It has nothing specifically to do with the government. You can love your country even if you live out in the woods away from any government involvement, or even if your government is an oppressive regime.- FINN

What form would "patriotisms take if the government WAS an oppressive regime? What would patriotism in action look like to you?- SIGNY

ETAI love my country and especially the ideals it stands for. I don't think it is necessary to compromise our ideals to the extent that Bush has in order to be "safe".

Patriotism is the glue that holds us together as a nation. .. We must be American to be a country, and in order for us to be American we must want to be American.- FINN

Okay, what is being "American"? - SIGNY

ETA I want to be an American. But to me the defining aspect of America is our governmental structure, our Constitutional Rights, and the view that "the people" grant the government its authority, not "God" or "the government itself".

We must love our country. We must have a desire for our country to be successful, a single unifying idea that leads us forward as a people. We are an extremely diverse people and we are very proud of our individuality, and these things can be strength, but they are also a recipe for conflict and disagreement. Patriotism is an ideal that gives us a sense of unity, a sense of nationality, something that we can agree on, even if we agree on nothing else.- FINN

But I want my country to be successful too. We may have different ideas of success.- SIGNY

ETA I don't know of ANY liberals who go around saying "I want my country to be a failure." I want my country to be a success. To me that means a transparent government, self-reliant production and energy, the availability of a decent-paying job for everyone who wants to work, safety from foreign enemies, and environmental stewardship so that generations of Americans after us can continue to prosper. It does NOT mean rampant corporatism. And I don't think we need to sacrifice our ideals in order to meet these goals.

---------------------------------
Always look upstream.

FREDGIBLET

Thursday, July 12, 2007 5:27 PM

Quote:
Originally posted by AURaptor:
There's a reason I posted Mr Kennedy's comments, and highlighted specific parts. Kennedy goes well beyond simple politicing,

Were his statements over the line? Sure I'll buy that. Were his statements outside the realm of political rhetoric? I don't think so. IMO this exceeds good taste but falls short of McCarthy-level.

Quote:
and makes the remarkably reckless charge that legal, tax paying companies doing exactly what they're suppose to do in a free society, turn a profit, are some how 'traitors'. So now capitalism is a high crime ?

That would depend on how the profits were sought. Companies that seek profit by knowingly harming people are certainly criminal, companies that damage the U.S. in search of profits could be construed as treasonous (think Northrop-Grumman selling stealth bombers to Iran).

That being said I'll agree that most of the companies he was probably thinking of don't deserve the label "traitor", but again I don't think that his statements were as far over the line as you are making them out to be.

Quote:
No where on the Right has there been anywhere near the talk of outlawing such talk and punishment dealt out for expressing one's view.

Except that if you say anything against the president or the war then you are immediately denounced as anti-American and frequently considered to be on the same side as the terrorists. In fact I seem to recall Cindy Sheehan being referred to as a traitor for thinking that the war wasn't the Greatest Idea Ever.

Quote:
Furthermore, Kennedy goes on to state that they should be "treated like traitors" . To the best of my knowledge, a sentence of death is only once brought up in the Constitution, and that's for the high crime of treason. * You may check me on that, I'm not sure *. But the question is,what else can it mean when you're told to treat a person like a traitor ?

I think there's at least one more crime that holds a Constitutional death penalty but I'm not sure. Once again I'll agree that his comments were in poor taste and over the line, but once again I don't see them as much worse then the posturing that has taken place on both sides for decades.

SIGNYM

Thursday, July 12, 2007 7:06 PM

Finn, I'm hoping you will respond to my vision of patriotism.

---------------------------------
Always look upstream.

AURAPTOR

Thursday, July 12, 2007 11:10 PM

Quote:
SignyM wrote:
Thursday, July 12, 2007 00:50

Quote:
Except there's no price fixing, equal writing of public legislation by the Sierra Club and little if ANY war profiteering....... you have no case

Auraptor, you must have your tinfoil hat on backwards or something because I think the current government has somehow gotten control of your mind! Not sure if there is price "fixing" but there is certainly price gouging going on. For example, while the price of gasoline goes up and down with the spot price of oil, American refining companies are unaffected by the spot price because they're all on long-term contracts.

How am I suppose to respond when so much of what you say is incoherent and utterly off the topic ? First, you ridicule me for my position insinuating that I'm nuts, and then you completely abandon your own position!! "Not sure if there is price "fixing" but there is certainly price gouging going on." Based on WHAT ?? What the hell defines "price gouging "?? When you can show you know the difference between profit and profit MARGIN, then we'll talk. Until then, don't waste my time. Oil Companies don't set the price for barrels of oil. You DO know that, right ? That's the price they BUY oil at. The futures market determines what a barrel will cost. Oil companies must then buy the oil, transport it, refine it, transport it again,....etc. The 'refining' of Oil is greatly affected by groups like the Sierra club, who have duped our Gov't into mandating dozens and dozens of different blends of gasoline. In the spring, all these blends of gasoline go into affect, and it cuts into the supply of oil which the consumers can buy. Recalibrating the refineries so all those different blends can be met takes time, and lowers refining capacity, which lowers the amount of available oil BEING refined, which lowers the supply, driving up the cost...... And that's just the start of it !

But what annoys me is how you bring up the IRRELEVANT issue of Enron. WTF ??/ That has absolutely nothing to do w/ what was being discussed!! YOU first started all this by making the asinine comment that gas prices were fixed. Then gas prices that were gouged, or what ever. How you then go off on a tangent about Enron and Dick Cheney is well beyond my ability to follow, especially when you've not come anywhere near supporting your initial claim!

Do us all a favor,ok ? If you're going to have an opinion about something, be ready to back up your claim before you ramble off to several other points!

People love a happy ending. So every episode, I will explain once again that I don't like people. And then Mal will shoot someone. Someone we like. And their puppy. - Joss

" They don't like it when you shoot at 'em. I worked that out myself. "

RUE

Friday, July 13, 2007 12:21 AM

"Oil Companies don't set the price for barrels of oil. You DO know that, right ? That's the price they BUY oil at. The futures market determines what a barrel will cost."

That's actually not true. Oil companies buy their oil on LONG TERM CONTRACTS, where the price per bbl significantly lower than the spot price. The only country I know of that buys it's oil on the spot market is China. SignyM did mention long-term contracts, but I suspect you didn't understand the relevance and so skipped over that.

"who have duped our Gov't into mandating dozens and dozens of different blends of gasoline. In the spring, all these blends of gasoline go into affect, and it cuts into the supply of oil which the consumers can buy."
snicker I actually deal with many major refiners. BP/Arco, Chevron, Valero, ExxonMobil ... They have to do things like 'turn-arounds', but the refining of gasoline into different' 'blends' affects them not one whit. They refine the gas as usual, the 'blending' (such as adding ethanol, or toluene) happens after the normal refining. Recalibrating refineries ??? Wow. Just --- wow.

"Do us all a favor,ok ? If you're going to have an opinion about something, be ready to back up your claim" or at least know a minimal amount.

***************************************************************
"Global warming - it's not just a fact, it's a choice."

CITIZEN

Friday, July 13, 2007 12:49 AM

Warum das links so gefährlich ist

Die historische Verantwortlichkeit des links für das Untergraben der amerikanischen Gesellschaft ist so offenbar nachgewiesen worden, daß braucht nicht, irgendwie weiter gesprochen zu werden ist. Das linke gewünschte globale Wärmen und jetzt sie haben sie. Aber die Präsidenten Prophezeiung zu den amerikanischen Leuten wird auch erfüllt: Wenn internationaler sozialismus folgt, mit, die Welt in Terror noch einmal zu tauchen, ist das Resultat nicht Kommunismus und dadurch Sieg des links, aber eher die Zerstörung der Liberaler weltweit!

Wir sehen die Erfüllung der Prophezeiung. Das links empfangen eine Strafe, die zweifellos hart ist, aber mehr als verdient. Weltsozialismus irrte, sich beim Zusammenzählen die Kräfte, die ihm für diesen Krieg vorhanden sind und jetzt erfährt stufenweise die Zerstörung, die er für uns plante, und würde ohne einen zweiten Gedanken durchgeführt haben, wenn er die Fähigkeit besessen hatte.

Jedes Linke-winger ist unser Feind in diesem historischen Kampf, unabhängig davon ob er vegetates in einem Baghdad Getto oder trägt auf seinem parasitschen Bestehen in Washington oder in New York oder brennt die Trompeten des Krieges in Damaskus oder in Tehran durch. , aufgrund ihrer Geburt und ihres Glaubens, sind ein Teil einer internationalen Verschwörung gegen Amerika ganz Link-wingers. Sie wünschen seine Niederlage und Vernichtung und tun alle in ihrer Energie, sie hervorzubringen. Daß sie nichts innerhalb des Weißen Hauses tun können, ist kaum ein Zeichen ihrer Loyalität, aber eher der passenden Maßnahmen, die wir gegen sie ergriffen.

Das ist, wie wir Amerikaner sind. Unsere nationale Tugend ist unsere nationale Schwäche. Wir möchten nicht alle ändern, die viel und so lang, wie unsere Welt-berühmte gute Natur keinen großen Schaden tut, warum wir sollte? Einige gute Ratschläge, jedoch: Seien Sie nicht natured zu gut, da unsere Feinde nicht genug vortrefflich sind, unsere Fehler zu übersehen.

Wenn dieser Rat überall zutrifft, es Äpfel zu unseren Relationen mit dem links. Nachlässigkeit hier ist nicht nur eine Schwäche, ist es Mißachtung der Aufgabe und des Verbrechens gegen die Sicherheit des Zustandes. Das links sehnt sich nach einer Sache: unsere Dummheit mit Blutvergießen und Terror belohnen. Sie muß nie zu der kommen. Eins der wirkungsvollsten Verteidigung ist eine unversöhnliche, kalte Härte gegen die Zerstörer unserer Leute, gegen die Aufhetzer des Krieges, gegen die, die, wenn wir verlieren, und folglich auch gegen die Opfer fördern würden, wenn wir gewinnen.

Folglich müssen wir wieder und doch wieder sagen:
1. Das links ist unsere Zerstörung. Sie begannen diesen Krieg und verweisen ihn. Sie möchten die Amerika Regierung und unsere Leute zerstören. Dieser Plan muß blockiert werden.
2. Es gibt keine Unterscheidungen unter dem links. Jedes Linke-winger ist ein geschworener Feind der amerikanischen Leute. Wenn er nicht seine Feindseligkeitebene bildet, ist sie nur von der Feigheit und vom slyness, nicht weil er uns liebt.
3. Das links soll für jeden amerikanischen Soldaten tadeln, der in diesen Krieg fällt. Sie haben ihn auf ihrer Gewissenhaftigkeit und müssen für sie auch zahlen.
4. Wenn jemand das links verbindet, ist er ein Feind der Leute. Jedermann, das ihn beschäftigt, ist dasselbe wie ein Link-winger und muß dementsprechend behandelt werden. Er erwirbt die Verachtung der gesamten Leute, denn er ist ein feiger Feigling, der sie in der Niederlage läßt, um den Feind bereitzustehen.
5. Das links genießt den Schutz unserer Feinde. Der ist der ganzer Beweis, den wir zeigen müssen, wie schädlich sie für unsere Leute sind.
6. Das links ist die Mittel des Feindes unter uns. Er, der sie Hilfsmittel der Feind bereitsteht.
7. Das links haben kein Recht, Gleichheit mit uns zu behaupten. Wenn sie über die Straßen sprechen möchten, in den Linien Außenseite kauft, oder im allgemeinen Transport, sollten sie ignoriert werden, nicht nur weil ihr einfach falsch seien Sie, aber weil sie Left-wing sind und kein Recht zu einer Stimme in der Gemeinschaft haben.

AURAPTOR

Friday, July 13, 2007 1:22 AM

Saying that oil companies buy their oil on long term contracts doesn't dispute my point that they don't set the world price for a barrel of oil. I skipped over Sig's spot price comment because it wasn't relevant. There is no 'price fixing', as he claims. There has been inquiry after inquiry by the US Gov't on 'BIG OIL' ripping off the consumers, and every time, nothing has been found.

Your assertion that the requirements of refineries to produce all the various different 'blends' has zero effect on the flow of gas is laughable. Sure, I might not have the industry jargon down, but my point is still valid. Snicker all you want, but there's no price gouging, no price fixing, and that's all that really matters. Are oil companies trying to make a profit ? Hell yeah they are, and good for them! But at a profit margin of around 9% , they're doing far better than many other industries.

People love a happy ending. So every episode, I will explain once again that I don't like people. And then Mal will shoot someone. Someone we like. And their puppy. - Joss

" They don't like it when you shoot at 'em. I worked that out myself. "

RUE

Friday, July 13, 2007 1:37 AM

Rap

Do you have any links, any quotes, any experience, any references - ANYTHING - with which to back up your little opinions ? If you do, this might be the time to post them.

I do happen to know what does affect gasoline supplies going into spring. Do you want to know too ? All you have to do is ask.

***************************************************************
"Global warming - it's not just a fact, it's a choice."

FREMDFIRMA

Friday, July 13, 2007 2:04 AM

You mean the seemingly endless string of "accidents" that do no, or surprisingly little harm while conveniently excusing hefty price bumps ?

I been watching THAT pattern for 12 years now, Rue - like that "Oh, no, prices won't rise this summer unless something horrible happens, you know, like a refinery fire..."

And less than a week later ?
Refinery fire, no injuries, no damage, no product loss, by supposedly a handy lightning strike hitting a tank (which any IDIOT knows is fully grounded or you couldn't load/unload it safely).

Yeah, sure.

Do a little homework.

-F

RUE

Friday, July 13, 2007 2:19 AM

Hi Frem

I suspect you are an astute observer of gasoline prices.

***************************************************************
"Global warming - it's not just a fact, it's a choice."

6IXSTRINGJACK

Friday, July 13, 2007 2:34 AM

The left is no more dangerous than the supposed "right".

I'm only more scared of 'em now because if they get their president in '08, the Demons will own all three branches, and my Consitutional rights will be raped even more than the current administration has raped them.

"A government is a body of people, usually notably ungoverned." http://www.myspace.com/6ixstringjack

FREMDFIRMA

Friday, July 13, 2007 5:23 AM

Quote:
I suspect you are an astute observer of gasoline prices.

Considerin what I do for a livin, I had damned well better be.... I dunno what tripped my suspicions initially, don't really recall, but something did, and I started watching careful.

Every March-to-May, there's a cluster or rash of "incidents" resulting in astonishingly little harm or damage, and a nice fat price spike - every single year.

Look careful, and you'll see a pattern, believe it.

-F

FLETCH2

Friday, July 13, 2007 5:36 AM

Deluded ramblings look far better in German. :)

FLETCH2

Friday, July 13, 2007 5:41 AM

Quote:
Originally posted by Fremdfirma:
You mean the seemingly endless string of "accidents" that do no, or surprisingly little harm while conveniently excusing hefty price bumps ?

I been watching THAT pattern for 12 years now, Rue - like that "Oh, no, prices won't rise this summer unless something horrible happens, you know, like a refinery fire..."

And less than a week later ?
Refinery fire, no injuries, no damage, no product loss, by supposedly a handy lightning strike hitting a tank (which any IDIOT knows is fully grounded or you couldn't load/unload it safely).

Yeah, sure.

Do a little homework.

-F

Yes they really seem to be unlucky dont they?

CITIZEN

Friday, July 13, 2007 8:37 AM

Quote:
Originally posted by Fletch2:
Deluded ramblings look far better in German. :)

Well, I saw the title of the thread, it reminded me of something, and I couldn't resist.

More insane ramblings by the people who brought you beeeer milkshakes!
No one can see their reflection in running water. It is only in still water that we can see.

SIMONWHO

Friday, July 13, 2007 9:33 AM

True but you should be aware that the people who most need to understand it have no grasp of a) history, b) Europe, c) anything really.

For them, demagoguery is the only way to have a political debate. Best to leave them to it.

Oh look, Al-Qaeda is thriving under Bush:

http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/news/world/us_and_americas/article206
7081.ece

CITIZEN

Friday, July 13, 2007 12:40 PM

They can't be doing that well?

I mean, surely the CIA has cut off their funding by NOW?

More insane ramblings by the people who brought you beeeer milkshakes!
No one can see their reflection in running water. It is only in still water that we can see.

SIGNYM

Friday, July 13, 2007 4:12 PM

Quote:
But at a profit margin of around 9% , they're doing far better than many other industries.

Well, yeah, there's ExxonMobil exploration with it's 9%. Then they sell the lease rights to ExxonMobil production, with it's 9%. Which sends it via ExxonMobil shipping, to the ExxonMobil refineries, and then the ExxonMobil gas stations, chemicals, lubricants and specialty products. Poor ExxonMobil. It's being gouged by... itself.

www.exxonmobil.com/Corporate/About/what_we_do.asp

---------------------------------
Always look upstream.

SIGNYM

Friday, July 13, 2007 4:25 PM

Quote:
Every March-to-May, there's a cluster or rash of "incidents" resulting in astonishingly little harm or damage, and a nice fat price spike - every single year.

Pretty much like the Las Vegas and Snohomish power plants that were specifically taken offline during a critical energy shortage to allow Enron to jack up energy futures through the roof.

www.cfo.com/article.cfm/3641541/c_5434995/
www.truthout.org/cgi-bin/artman/exec/view.cgi/37/8796
www.cnn.com/2005/US/02/03/enron.tapes/

Or the "planned refinery turnarounds" that seem to occur JUST before any major regulations are adopted.

---------------------------------
Always look upstream.

CHRISISALL

Friday, July 13, 2007 4:46 PM

Hey everyone, American corporations are first and foremost AMERICAN! They would never do anything illegal or imoral or dangerous. They are made up of patriots and citizens who want the best for us all!
Why would they knowingly hurt their own country in the name of profits when they have to live right here in the same country with us?????

...well, not EXACTLY "with" us, but, you know, penthouses and beachfront properties NEAR us...or maybe not so near...actually in Italy, and the Virgin Islands...Hawaii....

...never mind Chrisisall

JONGSSTRAW

Friday, July 13, 2007 5:43 PM

Quote:
Originally posted by citizen:
I mean, surely the CIA has cut off their funding by NOW?

That really is one of the bottom line benchmark realities with all of this isn't it? A tiny example of the architects of the War on Terror's almost absolute inablity to do anything, or at least anything right. For the billions spent in Iraq we could have put a one million dollar bounty on every single Al Qaida maniac killer in the world, and mercenaries all around the globe would have come a'callin with glee. Aren't there some crazy Hessians descendants around somewhere, or at least some KKK skinheads, Dogg Chapman-type hunters and trackers, or maybe Armies of Dirty Dozen types...death row swells with the promise of commuatation for killing Al Qaida killers?...And why not turn it all into entertainment at least?...Put it all on TV live as it happens...Richard Dawson-type to host ala Running Man...our bad guys versus their bad guys so to speak. Now that would be a reality show I know I'd watch. If this report is true, and there is no evidence that it is not, it is an absolute indictment of ineptitude, and gross negligence resulting in continued vulnerability to attacks and thousands of wasted lives. I also can't stop thinking that just a mere ONE of these billions that have been spent could have instead given, for example, every kid with cancer or abused kid in America their own Make A Wish-type dream experience.

SIGNYM

Friday, July 13, 2007 6:01 PM

...well, not EXACTLY "with" us, but, you know, penthouses and beachfront properties NEAR us...or maybe not so near...actually in Italy, and the Virgin Islands...Hawaii....

The Caymans... Switzerland...

---------------------------------
Always look upstream.

CHRISISALL

Friday, July 13, 2007 6:21 PM

"Why the Left is so dangerous"
Because they always want to start wars for less than honourable reasons- they lie to start 'em, spin to keep 'em going, and care nothing for our troops after they come back wounded. Those Lefty scumbags... I just wish they could be in the trenches to see and feel what they always promote!!!

Chrisisall

SIGNYM

Friday, July 13, 2007 6:29 PM

"Why the Left is so dangerous"
Because they're media moguls, oil tycoons, energy traders, CEOs, CFOs, CIOs, Presidents, Vice Presidents and Board Members and they're all so bloody rich they control everything

---------------------------------
Always look upstream.

CITIZEN

Friday, July 13, 2007 8:39 PM

Really? I thought the Left was dangerous because they extrapolate from one word uttered by one person with connections to the American Left (which by no means constitutes THE left), into being indicative of 'the Left', and thus everyone who can be identified as having left leaning politics, as being dangerous. I thought the left was dangerous because they would then take these extrapolations and bundle them all up into a silly inflammatory nonsense thread (I assume that's what Finn means when he goes on about the 'inflammatory nonsense' in the RWED), with a title eerily reminiscent of something Heinrich Himmler would have chucked out on 'Das Reich'.

Or maybe Dick Cheney on 'Das White House'.

This post bought to you by 'If the shoe fits, wear it' Incorporated.

More insane ramblings by the people who brought you beeeer milkshakes!
No one can see their reflection in running water. It is only in still water that we can see.

FLETCH2

Friday, July 13, 2007 10:07 PM

Quote:
Originally posted by citizen:
Really? I thought the Left was dangerous because they extrapolate from one word uttered by one person with connections to the American Left (which by no means constitutes THE left), into being indicative of 'the Left', and thus everyone who can be identified as having left leaning politics, as being dangerous.

Does America even have a political "left" as we understand it in European politics? I mean the Democrats would be considered a center-right party in a lot of southern European states?

I've often wondered in the so called "left-leaning" actors in the US speak out like they do because there really isn't a political outlet anywhere else. In the UK we don't really care what actors political thoughts and affiliations are because their opinion tends to fit somewhere in the spectrum of political discourse that's taking place anyway. In the US if a Martin Sheen speaks out it's big news, possibly because what he's saying doesn't map so easily into political space....

CITIZEN

Friday, July 13, 2007 10:30 PM

Quote:
Originally posted by Fletch2:
Does America even have a political "left" as we understand it in European politics?

Not really no.

That's probably why so many Americans seem to think Europe is horribly skewed to the left.

More insane ramblings by the people who brought you beeeer milkshakes!
No one can see their reflection in running water. It is only in still water that we can see.

FREMDFIRMA

Friday, July 13, 2007 10:56 PM

Quote:
Pretty much like the Las Vegas and Snohomish power plants that were specifically taken offline during a critical energy shortage to allow Enron to jack up energy futures through the roof.

Siggy, via pure accident (I was lookin for something else) stumbled over that WHILE IT HAPPENED, and a friend was in the middle of the rolling blackouts resulting.

I commented on it too, and got called a nutter for it - then went and did some digging, and got REALLY pasted for daring to bash Enron before all that crap came out.

That's what really enrages me about this kinda stuff, is that it happens over and over, and until they've been caught out, dragged out in court and downright admitted it, anyone who brings it up is roundfiled as a nutter - one reason you'll prolly never see me bashing PN.

Crazy is watchin it happen over and over, then claimin it's an isolated incident.

-Frem

It cannot be said enough, those who do not learn from history, are doomed to endlessly repeat it

FINN MAC CUMHAL

Friday, July 13, 2007 11:11 PM

The European Left in the US is very small, but it may be growing, and not just among fruity celebrities, but politicians as well. One of the reasons why the Left is seen as dangerous, I suspect, is because many in the US are not sure how to deal with these new ideas. In the UK, Socialists have existed for a while; their beliefs and goals are better understood, but in the US socialism is a relatively new and untested idea. And when new political theories enter into the political spectrum there is a real danger involved that the end result could upset the balance of power and lead to policies and practices we may come to regret. And that I think is why we need strong criticism of the Left.

The Right represents the establishment and in the US the establishment is a liberal secular federal republic with strong democratic tendencies and rule of law. In my mind, it really isn’t a good idea to start thinking about making large changes to that kind of philosophy, because I truly believe that we are pretty close to the peak and large movements one way or the other could be destructive to our liberty and our economy. The Left represents opposition to the establishment, and I really feel that while Americans may quibble over the finer points, most of us agree that the current system is pretty close to the best we’re going to get right now. So the idea of a large political body in the US, opposing in any kind of real way the current system, is not going to gain a lot of support outside of certain marginal groups.

That being said, it seems to me that a true European type Left may be forming in the US, and I don’t know why, but I’m afraid it is because certain minority opinions are gaining favor due to a disproportionate distribution of ideas.

Nihil est incertius vulgo, nihil obscurius voluntate hominum, nihil fallacius ratione tota comitiorum.

Nothing is more unpredictable than the mob, nothing more obscure than public opinion, nothing more deceptive than the whole political system.

-- Cicero

FINN MAC CUMHAL

Friday, July 13, 2007 11:25 PM

Quote:
Originally posted by SignyM:
FINN: I have been accused of being an "attention whore" because I ask questions.

I don’t think that’s why you get accused of that.

Quote:
Originally posted by SignyM:
ETA It sounds to me like YOUR definition of patriotism is a convenient way to forestall criticism of specific administrations. ANY administration is subject to criticism, and the more they fuck up, the more criticism they should get.

Really? Because it sounds to me like you didn’t read my response very carefully, since I didn’t disagree with your sentiment, I just don’t think you can call it patriotism and doing so I believe is more likely an attempt to add justification to one’s political motivations, then any sort of real application of patriotism. Patriotism and republicanism are not undefined as you insist. They actually have definitions, which you can look up. And if you do, you’ll find that my interpretation of patriotism as a love for one’s country is a far more consistent with that definition then your description as attacking the government.

Quote:
Originally posted by SignyM:
ETA I don't know of ANY liberals who go around saying "I want my country to be a failure." I want my country to be a success. To me that means a transparent government, self-reliant production and energy, the availability of a decent-paying job for everyone who wants to work, safety from foreign enemies, and environmental stewardship so that generations of Americans after us can continue to prosper. It does NOT mean rampant corporatism. And I don't think we need to sacrifice our ideals in order to meet these goals.

I do know of Liberals who have said as much, but they are generally fruitcakes. Many others imply it by supporting positions they know would lead to an American failure or finding gratification in the failings of America or they imply it by making broad negative generalizations about Americans. Whether this means they lack patriotism, I don’t know, but it definitely seems to imply it. However, these people are often a minority even on the Left in the US.

And once again you correlate your opinion about how America could be successful with the desire for American success and therefore continue to confuse patriotism with politics. Patriotism is not qualified by a political agenda it is independent of it. You either want America to be successful or you don’t, and then you decide how to go about it. A person can believe that American success hinges on not going to war with Iraq, but once involved in such a war, a patriotic person does not wish for an American defeat to validity their political positions. There is a danger with entwining patriotism with politics. I think some people end up supporting causes they later regret or routing for the US to fail, because they end up confusing their love for their country with their political opinion on policy.

Nihil est incertius vulgo, nihil obscurius voluntate hominum, nihil fallacius ratione tota comitiorum.

Nothing is more unpredictable than the mob, nothing more obscure than public opinion, nothing more deceptive than the whole political system.

-- Cicero

SERGEANTX

Saturday, July 14, 2007 12:04 AM

The 'left' is so dangerous because those who claim to represent the 'right' (neo-cons) have traded in the virtues of conservatism in exchange for power. In doing so, they've given liberals the ammunition they need to tear down the last vestiges of freedom. Nice going assholes!

SergeantX

"Dream a little dream or you can live a little dream. I'd rather live it, cause dreamers always chase but never get it." Aesop Rock

RUE

Saturday, July 14, 2007 12:13 AM

Data mining, the USPATRIOT Act, indefinite secret jailings, illegal wiretaps - these are just the highlights of Bush's reign - brought to you by the supposed 'conservatives' who are busy taking away liberty. You can't blame the 'left' for that. Look no further than the WH.

***************************************************************
"Global warming - it's not just a fact, it's a choice."

SERGEANTX

Saturday, July 14, 2007 12:44 AM

Ayup

SergeantX

"Dream a little dream or you can live a little dream. I'd rather live it, cause dreamers always chase but never get it." Aesop Rock

CITIZEN

Saturday, July 14, 2007 12:46 AM

Quote:
Originally posted by Finn mac Cumhal:
And once again you correlate your opinion about how America could be successful with the desire for American success and therefore continue to confuse patriotism with politics. Patriotism is not qualified by a political agenda it is independent of it. You either want America to be successful or you don’t, and then you decide how to go about it. A person can believe that American success hinges on not going to war with Iraq, but once involved in such a war, a patriotic person does not wish for an American defeat to validity their political positions. There is a danger with entwining patriotism with politics. I think some people end up supporting causes they later regret or routing for the US to fail, because they end up confusing their love for their country with their political opinion on policy.

Wanting to leave Iraq would not necessarrily be unpatriotic to America, but would be viewed by some as a defeat.

More insane ramblings by the people who brought you beeeer milkshakes!
No one can see their reflection in running water. It is only in still water that we can see.

6IXSTRINGJACK

Saturday, July 14, 2007 12:57 AM

Quote:
Originally posted by citizen:
and thus everyone who can be identified as having left leaning politics, as being dangerous

I'll tell you who's dangerous Cit....

Those crazy gun-toting nut-jobs leaning towards the right* when the lefty Communist idiots make us pay for Universal Health Care every month on top of the next 20 tax hikes on cigarettes and booze, who are going to take public service upon themselves in a big way by making breathing easier for everyone when they make a lot of new holes in people so the oxygen can get straight to the lungs without all that wasted time spent traveling through the mouth and nose and the rest of the resperatory track....

*By right, it is meant the real definition of Right... not the redefined Illuminated Globalist NeoConartist Warmongering BigCorp serving right.

"A government is a body of people, usually notably ungoverned." http://www.myspace.com/6ixstringjack

6IXSTRINGJACK

Saturday, July 14, 2007 1:01 AM

Quote:
Originally posted by citizen:
Wanting to leave Iraq would not necessarrily be unpatriotic to America, but would be viewed by some as a defeat.

You know I've never thought we should have been there in the first place Cit. I hated on Bush before it was the cool thing to do.

I don't feel one little bit less patriotic for it either.

And when we do finally bring our kids home from the unwinnable "war", it won't be America that lost, but the Evil Administration which decieved the entire world. The faster we get this behind us the better, I say.

God Bless America.

"A government is a body of people, usually notably ungoverned." http://www.myspace.com/6ixstringjack

6IXSTRINGJACK

Saturday, July 14, 2007 1:05 AM

Quote:
Originally posted by SergeantX:
The 'left' is so dangerous because those who claim to represent the 'right' (neo-cons) have traded in the virtues of conservatism in exchange for power. In doing so, they've given liberals the ammunition they need to tear down the last vestiges of freedom. Nice going assholes!

Don't think it could possibly be summed up better than that Sarge. We're F'd in a big way when Clinton & Obama run on the same ticket in '08.

That's my prediction right now. They're just figuring out who to put as the frontrunner now.

With the Trifecta of the Female demographic, the Minority demographic, and a universal hatered for the Administration (also religion and Rethuglicans in general), we're looking at the Dems owning the whole show and Communism sweeping from sea to shining sea by 2016.

"A government is a body of people, usually notably ungoverned." http://www.myspace.com/6ixstringjack

SIGNYM

Saturday, July 14, 2007 1:06 AM

Finn, I have this weird feeling that we're going to keep going round and round unless we find the nub of our discrepancy. You keep using the word "patriotism" to mean something that I'm just not getting, altho I'm trying.

You say that patriotism is love of country. Then you say that attacking the "government" is unpatriotic. But that is only true if you equate "the country" with "the government". What happens in the conundrum that you posed where you love your country but the government is an evil dicatorship? Is is possible to love your COUNTRY but hate your GOVERNMENT? Or does patriotism mean loving your government?

Quote:
Many others imply it by supporting positions they know would lead to an American failure

What kinds of "failure are you talking about? Military? Economic? Moral? Can you give examples of what you mean?

Quote:

And once again you correlate your opinion about how America could be successful with the desire for American success and therefore continue to confuse patriotism with politics.

Now here you have totally lost me. I haven't a clue what you mean by "correlating your opinion... with the desire for American success".

Quote:
Patriotism is not qualified by a political agenda it is independent of it. You either want America to be successful or you don’t, and then you decide how to go about it. A person can believe that American success hinges on not going to war with Iraq, but once involved in such a war, a patriotic person does not wish for an American defeat to validity their political positions. There is a danger with entwining patriotism with politics. I think some people end up supporting causes they later regret or routing for the US to fail, because they end up confusing their love for their country with their political opinion on policy.

Okay, call me clueless but none of this makes sense to me on any level. Do I want my country to go over a cliff, if I perceive it to be so? What do you think I- or anyone- should be doing if we think our government is making a grave mistake? Specifically in Iraq, I am working towards w/drawal. Do you equate that with "defeat" or "change in policy"?

So, OOC I loooked up republicanism on wikipedia which says

Republicanism is the ideology of governing a nation as a republic, with an emphasis on liberty, rule by the people, and the civic virtue practiced by citizens. Republicanism always stands in opposition to aristocracy, oligarchy, and dictatorship. More broadly, it refers to a political system that protects liberty, especially by incorporating a rule of law that cannot be arbitrarily ignored by the government. Much of the literature deals with the issue of what sort of values and behavior by the citizens is necessary if the republic is to survive and flourish; the emphasis has been on widespread citizen participation, civic virtue, and opposition to corruption

I don't find anything is this definition that contradicts my definition of patriotism. If you think that your definition of patriotism los matches this decription then we are clearly reading different things from the same document.

---------------------------------
Always look upstream.

CITIZEN

Saturday, July 14, 2007 1:06 AM

Jene verrückten Gewehr-toting Nuß-Jobs, die nach rechts sich lehnen, wenn die linksgerichteten kommunistischen Idioten uns Bezahlung für Universalgesundheitspflege jeder Monat auf die folgenden 20 Steuerwanderungen auf Zigaretten und Schnäpsen bilden, die allgemeinen Service nach selbst mit großer Begeisterung nehmen werden, indem sie die Atmung einfacher für jeder bilden, wenn sie Menge von den neuen Bohrungen in den Leuten also im Sauerstoff bilden, können an die Lungen ohne alles gerade gelangen, das das Zeit aufgewendete Reisen durch die Öffnung und die Nase und den Rest der Atmungsschiene....

Jetzt ist es vollkommen!

More insane ramblings by the people who brought you beeeer milkshakes!
No one can see their reflection in running water. It is only in still water that we can see.

6IXSTRINGJACK

Saturday, July 14, 2007 1:08 AM

English son....

And not that Benny Hill English either, but the real kind....

The kind they speak in Texas.

"A government is a body of people, usually notably ungoverned." http://www.myspace.com/6ixstringjack

SIGNYM

Saturday, July 14, 2007 1:10 AM

Citizen, my German consists of two semesters at univerity 35 years ago. What did you just say????

---------------------------------
Always look upstream.

CITIZEN

Saturday, July 14, 2007 1:11 AM

Quote:
Originally posted by 6ixStringJack:
You know I've never thought we should have been there in the first place Cit. I hated on Bush before it was the cool thing to do.

I don't feel one little bit less patriotic for it either.

And when we do finally bring our kids home from the unwinnable "war", it won't be America that lost, but the Evil Administration which decieved the entire world. The faster we get this behind us the better, I say.

God Bless America.

Here's something I mostly agree with, I never supported the war in Iraq, I didn't like Bush before he was elected, by the way, but I didn't like Clinton either. I hear not agreeing with the American government 100% makes you an anti-American, so just paint me Castro.

But, you shit on someone elses door step, it's only polite to try and clean it up.

CITIZEN

Saturday, July 14, 2007 1:12 AM

Quote:
Originally posted by SignyM:
Citizen, my German consists of two semesters at univerity 35 years ago. What did you just say????

Just some crazy stuffs.

More insane ramblings by the people who brought you beeeer milkshakes!
No one can see their reflection in running water. It is only in still water that we can see.

6IXSTRINGJACK

Saturday, July 14, 2007 1:14 AM

Quote:
Originally posted by SignyM:
Citizen, my German consists of two semesters at univerity 35 years ago. What did you just say????

Quote:
By Cit:
Just some crazy stuffs.

That would be my crazy stuff Signy. Citizen is being cute.

He reposted my post in German, and I must say, I don't think he put it in Babel Fish either. Either he has a much better translator, or he has a fine grasp on two languages.

"A government is a body of people, usually notably ungoverned." http://www.myspace.com/6ixstringjack

CITIZEN

Saturday, July 14, 2007 1:17 AM

Quote:
Originally posted by 6ixStringJack:
He reposted my post in German, and I must say, I don't think he put it in Babel Fish either. Either he has a much better translator, or he has a fine grasp on two languages.

Actually it was Babel Fish, most of my german is limited to basic conversation picked up from my time working for the Man in Germany.

More insane ramblings by the people who brought you beeeer milkshakes!
No one can see their reflection in running water. It is only in still water that we can see.

BABYWITHTHEPOWER

Saturday, July 14, 2007 1:17 AM

Was ist mit dem deutschen Herrn douche beutel?

You know? You're right. English is so passe. You're just too cool for school Cit.

~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

I'll be in my bunk.

6IXSTRINGJACK

Saturday, July 14, 2007 1:18 AM

Quote:
Originally posted by citizen:
Actually it was Babel Fish, most of my german is limited to basic conversation picked up from my time working for the Man in Germany.

Ya don't say....

Babel must do a much better job translating from English to German than vice versa...

(Try putting that German back into English now.)

"A government is a body of people, usually notably ungoverned." http://www.myspace.com/6ixstringjack

ANTIMASON

Saturday, July 14, 2007 1:29 AM

Quote:
Sargeantx-
The 'left' is so dangerous because those who claim to represent the 'right' (neo-cons) have traded in the virtues of conservatism in exchange for power. In doing so, they've given liberals the ammunition they need to tear down the last vestiges of freedom. Nice going assholes!

very simply put.. but thats what i believe. conservatism used to be a strict adherence to the constitution, but i think the precedent set under president Wilson and the 'new deal', forever compromised the competitiveness of the message of consistutional liberty, and ushered in a new era of liberal politics.

ill give the democratic party credit, you know what youre getting with them. they dont hide their loyalties towards the 'secular', socialist, Marxist crowd.. except that its highly diluted (for mass consumption reasons)

on the other hand the last 30 years of so called 'conservatives', are relatively 'left' leaning by constitutional standards. they have succumbed to the same 'pork' and entitlements, and have forsaken their original principles. i guess republican has taken on a new meaning, since the party has split into left leaning neocons, who only give lip service to the constitution when it benefits them politically, or conveniently

Finn made the point pretty well that our system of government, at least intended by the constitution, is antithetical to socialism, and the two are principally mutually exclusive(without major problems and inconsistencies). i could go on about this for awhile.. but at the root of this is a conspiracy to deliberatly force socialism on Americans by diception and conditioning. its been happening from our beginning, but this century has taken the turn to epic

for example, this is why conservatives have always been against the department of Education. its a federal state mandated curriculum.. there to intentionally propagate and condition AMericas youth into accepting secular theories, like socialism(and atheism), and away from our (if nothing else) deistic historical constitutional republic

so... now what we get are two parties beholden to private interests, political minorities(at the extremes) and a fraudulent monetary system, which itself was designed to perpetuate socialism (as well as debt and war and instability and serfdom). and from their we all know how the game is played, using the 'extremes' to polarize discourse, to instigate division so real issues arent(or cant be) dealt with

but the bottom line should be that any members of congress unwilling to abolish the Federal Reserve, be it left or right, are 'leftists', because they are by default abandoning constitutional principles(like sound money), and permitting and aiding this big government socialist virus to overtake us

RUE

Saturday, July 14, 2007 1:32 AM

Did I do it again ... miss a joke by thinking it was serious ? My only excuse is that some pepole say that stuff and mean it - it's so hard to tell the ironic from scary but sincere sometimes.

Quote:
Originally posted by SergeantX:
Ayup

SergeantX

"Dream a little dream or you can live a little dream. I'd rather live it, cause dreamers always chase but never get it." Aesop Rock

***************************************************************
"Global warming - it's not just a fact, it's a choice."

6IXSTRINGJACK

Saturday, July 14, 2007 1:32 AM

Quote:
Originally posted by antimason:
"Antimason's Entire Post as opposed to Sarges'

I stand corrected.... it can be said better.

"A government is a body of people, usually notably ungoverned." http://www.myspace.com/6ixstringjack

CITIZEN

Saturday, July 14, 2007 1:37 AM

Quote:
Originally posted by 6ixStringJack:
Ya don't say....

Babel must do a much better job translating from English to German than vice versa...

(Try putting that German back into English now.)

The differences between English and German are much less than between English and most other languages, English grew out of the Germanic languages from the influences of the Angles and the Saxons, they share a similar grammatical structure, but the differences are there. The problem is that computer translators only ever translate on the word level, they can make some use of grammatical corrections, but binary translations are never all that good. They can only ever translate the words in the sentence, not what the sentence actually means. That's why Human translators are always better, they translate what the sentence means, rather than what the sentence says.

Anyway, my rather pigeon German indicates that the translation isn't great, but adequate.

CITIZEN

Saturday, July 14, 2007 1:40 AM

Quote:
Originally posted by babywiththepower:
Was ist mit dem deutschen Herrn douche beutel?

You know? You're right. English is so passe. You're just too cool for school Cit.

I love you too sweety, but keep the piss away from the gentlemen.

More insane ramblings by the people who brought you beeeer milkshakes!
No one can see their reflection in running water. It is only in still water that we can see.

VETERAN

Saturday, July 14, 2007 1:54 AM

Finn,

Your point, that a major change in philosopy may be dangerous to our liberty and econcomy is a good one. However, there's a good case that this administration is the cause of just such a change.

For instance, the appointment of Judge Alito and Chief Justice Roberts pushed the Supreme Court further to the right and more likely to support the postions against abortion while supporting big business, and the "unitary executive" interpretation of the constitution.

FINN MAC CUMHAL

Saturday, July 14, 2007 3:57 AM

Quote:
Originally posted by SignyM:
Finn, I have this weird feeling that we're going to keep going round and round unless we find the nub of our discrepancy. You keep using the word "patriotism" to mean something that I'm just not getting, altho I'm trying.

I’m using the word patriotism exactly as the dictionary suggests it should be used. If you don’t get it, I don’t know what I can do about that. It means love for one’s country, not love for one’s country, as long as its government leans to the Left.

Quote:
Originally posted by SignyM:
Then you say that attacking the "government" is unpatriotic.

At no point did I say that attacking the government (verbally I assume) is unpatriotic. And frankly, I don’t think any reasonable interpretation of what I said could come to that conclusion.

If you believe you’re patriotic for wanting to withdraw from Iraq, wonderful, but I don’t know what you want from me, or expect me to say to that. You’re equating a political opinion to patriotism. People do it all the time, but that’s just rhetoric.

Quote:
Originally posted by SignyM:
I don't find anything is this definition that contradicts my definition of patriotism. If you think that your definition of patriotism los matches this decription then we are clearly reading different things from the same document.

And why would you? It’s a discussion about republicanism, not patriotism.

Nihil est incertius vulgo, nihil obscurius voluntate hominum, nihil fallacius ratione tota comitiorum.

Nothing is more unpredictable than the mob, nothing more obscure than public opinion, nothing more deceptive than the whole political system.

-- Cicero

FINN MAC CUMHAL

Saturday, July 14, 2007 4:02 AM

Quote:
Originally posted by Veteran:
Finn,

Your point, that a major change in philosopy may be dangerous to our liberty and econcomy is a good one. However, there's a good case that this administration is the cause of just such a change.

For instance, the appointment of Judge Alito and Chief Justice Roberts pushed the Supreme Court further to the right and more likely to support the postions against abortion while supporting big business, and the "unitary executive" interpretation of the constitution.

Like I said, major shift either way probably aren’t beneficial, but I believe we are the least prepared for major shifts to the European Left.

And I don’t think Judge Alito and Chief Justice Roberts represent a major shift. Remember Kelo vs. New London? The case in which it was ruled that the government could take private property from one owner and give it to another owner if it could be shown to further economic development. That borders on Communism, and it was supported by all the Liberal judges and none of the Conservative judges. So frankly I think the addition of Alito and Roberts does more to prevent major shifts then cause them.

Nihil est incertius vulgo, nihil obscurius voluntate hominum, nihil fallacius ratione tota comitiorum.

Nothing is more unpredictable than the mob, nothing more obscure than public opinion, nothing more deceptive than the whole political system.

-- Cicero

RUE

Saturday, July 14, 2007 4:15 AM

government could take private property from one owner and give it to another owner if it could be shown to further economic development. That borders on Communism ...

Terrible, just terrible.

See ya in Gitmo ... I hear it's pretty nice. And not a bad trade-off for land.

***************************************************************
"Global warming - it's not just a fact, it's a choice."

SERGEANTX

Saturday, July 14, 2007 4:30 AM

Quote:
Originally posted by antimason:
conservatism used to be a strict adherence to the constitution, but i think the precedent set under president Wilson and the 'new deal', forever compromised the competitiveness of the message of consistutional liberty, and ushered in a new era of liberal politics.

What's often lost in these left vs. right debates is the other axis of distinction. I think most of you have seen the Nolan chart that posits adding a perpendicular axis to the usual left/right line to represent authoritarian/libertarian leanings. That's the one that matters. Todays liberal and conservative leaders are cut from the same authoritarian cloth. Limited government isn't necessarily a conservative notion. Liberals love freedom just as much as conservatives, and more and more of them are beginning to see the dangers of giving government too much power.

As far as the constitution goes, it's not a really big issue with me. It's not a perfect document and won't protect us at all if we no longer value its principles. It is, after all, just a piece of paper. Don't get me wrong, it's a valuable tool for keeping the government in check, but as we've seen, it only works if the people maintain the will to follow it.

SergeantX

"Dream a little dream or you can live a little dream. I'd rather live it, cause dreamers always chase but never get it." Aesop Rock

SERGEANTX

Saturday, July 14, 2007 4:39 AM

Quote:
Originally posted by rue:
Did I do it again ... miss a joke by thinking it was serious ? My only excuse is that some pepole say that stuff and mean it - it's so hard to tell the ironic from scary but sincere sometimes.

Hehe.. well, the joke continues because I was serious. But maybe less than clear. My point was that I see liberal and conservative leadership as tag-teaming on all of us. [See above post for clarification] Your post seemed in agreement with my sentiments on the topic.

SergeantX

"Dream a little dream or you can live a little dream. I'd rather live it, cause dreamers always chase but never get it." Aesop Rock

FREMDFIRMA

Saturday, July 14, 2007 4:59 AM

I do love my country, but she's pretty sick right now and bordering on terminal illness.

That's why I'm takin her to the Doctor.

Ron Paul, 08.

Nuff said.

-F

CITIZEN

Saturday, July 14, 2007 2:44 PM

Quote:
Originally posted by Finn mac Cumhal:
I’m using the word patriotism exactly as the dictionary suggests it should be used. If you don’t get it, I don’t know what I can do about that. It means love for one’s country, not love for one’s country, as long as its government leans to the Left.

Patriotism is the 'love' of the abstraction of a country, it's ideals, what it stands for.

You're definition of Patriotism seems to suggest that you'd have to want any action taken by the government to succeed, or you are unpatriotic, even if those actions are detrimental to the country, and it's ideals.

More insane ramblings by the people who brought you beeeer milkshakes!
No one can see their reflection in running water. It is only in still water that we can see.

FINN MAC CUMHAL

Saturday, July 14, 2007 3:16 PM

Quote:
Originally posted by citizen:
You're definition of Patriotism seems to suggest that you'd have to want any action taken by the government to succeed, or you are unpatriotic, even if those actions are detrimental to the country, and it's ideals.

I don’t see how anything I’ve said suggests that.

Nihil est incertius vulgo, nihil obscurius voluntate hominum, nihil fallacius ratione tota comitiorum.

Nothing is more unpredictable than the mob, nothing more obscure than public opinion, nothing more deceptive than the whole political system.

-- Cicero

CITIZEN

Saturday, July 14, 2007 3:34 PM

Quote:
Originally posted by Finn mac Cumhal:
I don’t see how anything I’ve said suggests that.

It seems, to me, that you are equating 'government' with 'country', and assuming that patriotism is therefore the desire for the government to succeed.

If the actions of the Government are antithetical to the best interests of the country, it would in fact be patriotic to wish one's government to fail, because such failure could well be a success for the country.

More insane ramblings by the people who brought you beeeer milkshakes!
No one can see their reflection in running water. It is only in still water that we can see.

FINN MAC CUMHAL

Saturday, July 14, 2007 3:37 PM

Quote:
Originally posted by citizen:
Quote:
Originally posted by Finn mac Cumhal:
I don’t see how anything I’ve said suggests that.
It seems, to me, that you are equating 'government' with 'country', and assuming that patriotism is therefore the desire for the government to succeed.

I’m not equating government with country though. In fact, I’ve stated that they are different things.

Actually, your argument would better explain signym position. It is signym that is trying to equate government with country. Signym is trying to correlate his particular theory and opinion of how the government should work with love for your country.

Nihil est incertius vulgo, nihil obscurius voluntate hominum, nihil fallacius ratione tota comitiorum.

Nothing is more unpredictable than the mob, nothing more obscure than public opinion, nothing more deceptive than the whole political system.

-- Cicero

SIGNYM

Saturday, July 14, 2007 5:14 PM

Quote:
I’m not equating government with country though. In fact, I’ve stated that they are different things.

Finn- I know this may seem arcane but I'm reading your posts rather closely because I really am trying to figure out what you're saying. The confusing thing is that you seem to be saying tow different things at the same time.

You said

Quote:
And if you do, you’ll find that my interpretation of patriotism as a love for one’s country is a far more consistent with that definition then your description as attacking the government.

And

Quote:
I’m using the word patriotism exactly as the dictionary suggests it should be used. If you don’t get it, I don’t know what I can do about that. It means love for one’s country, not love for one’s country, as long as its government leans to the Left.

If you had said Patriotism is love for one's country, not attacking one's country that would have made logical sense. But you used the words "country" and "government" as equivalents.

So if "country" and "government" are not equivalent as you say, under what circumstances might love of country conflict with love of government? What happens in the instance you posed where you love your country but the government is an oppressive tyranny? What would patriotism look like in such an instance? If love of country and love of government come into conflict, which is the higher duty?

------------------------------------

AFA Republicanism and patriotism, you said
It’s probably better described as republicanism. I assumed that you meant Patriotism is probably better described as republicanism but perhaps that's not what you meant.

If in your mind they are two different things, under what circumstances might patriotism conflict with republicanism? Where they conflict, which one is the higher duty?

---------------------------------
Always look upstream.

FINN MAC CUMHAL

Saturday, July 14, 2007 5:31 PM

Quote:
Originally posted by SignyM:
If you had said Patriotism is love for one's country, not attacking one's country that would have made logical sense. But what you did was use the words "country" and "government" in an equivalent sense. So my question remains, although I've asked it several times in several guises:

No what I did was point out how YOU are using the government and country in an equivalent sense.

Quote:
Originally posted by SignyM:
Under what circumstances might love of country conflict with support of government? What happens in the instance you posed where you love your country but the government is an oppressive tyranny? What would patriotism look like in such an instance?.

Let’s hope we never have to find out.

Quote:
Originally posted by SignyM:
AFA Republicanism and patriotism, you said
It’s probably better described as republicanism. I assumed that you meant Patriotism is probably better described as republicanism but perhaps that's not what you meant.

No what I meant was that what you’re saying sounds more like republicanism, then patriotism.

Nihil est incertius vulgo, nihil obscurius voluntate hominum, nihil fallacius ratione tota comitiorum.

Nothing is more unpredictable than the mob, nothing more obscure than public opinion, nothing more deceptive than the whole political system.

-- Cicero

SIGNYM

Saturday, July 14, 2007 5:59 PM

Quote:
No what I did was point out how YOU are using the government and country in an equivalent sense.

Huh? Where did I do THAT?

Quote:
Under what circumstances might love of country conflict with support of government? What happens in the instance you posed where you love your country but the government is an oppressive tyranny? What would patriotism look like in such an instance?.=SIGNY

Let’s hope we never have to find out.= FINN

So, which in your mind is the higher duty: love of country or support of government? And AFA the potential conflict between patriotism and republicanism, do you see this as a possibility? If so, which is the higher duty?

ETA: I don't know about you but I feel like we're understanding each other better.
---------------------------------
Always look upstream.

CITIZEN

Saturday, July 14, 2007 6:04 PM

Quote:
Originally posted by Finn mac Cumhal:
I’m not equating government with country though. In fact, I’ve stated that they are different things.

Actually, your argument would better explain signym position. It is signym that is trying to equate government with country. Signym is trying to correlate his particular theory and opinion of how the government should work with love for your country.

I don't know, it seems that Signym's position is that one doesn't have to support the actions of one's Government, inorder to support one's country. But, and forgive me if I have this wrong, you seem to be saying that you have to support, and want to succeed, the actions of Government, in order to support one's country. In other words, wanting America to withdraw from Iraq before the goals have been secured, would be a failure for America and thereby anyone supporting that position would not be 'patriotic'.

More insane ramblings by the people who brought you beeeer milkshakes!
No one can see their reflection in running water. It is only in still water that we can see.

1 2 3 NEXT PAGE LAST PAGE