Why the Left is so dangerous

POSTED BY: AURaptor
UPDATED: Tuesday, April 8, 2025 14:10
VIEWED: 15651
PAGE 2 of 3

FIRST PAGE PREV PAGE 1 2 3 NEXT PAGE LAST PAGE

FINN MAC CUMHAL

Saturday, July 14, 2007 6:16 PM

Quote:
Originally posted by SignyM:
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?

I’ve already explained that numerous times, I’m not sure what else I can say the will clarify it further.

Quote:
Originally posted by SignyM:
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?

Patriotism is the higher duty.

Quote:
Originally posted by citizen:
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'.

No. Supporting a US withdraw from Iraq might be patriotic. But what makes it patriotic or not patriotic has nothing to do with the particular political opinion, but with the motivations and feelings of the person. I think both of you are trying to read too much into the word patriotic. It is not that complicated. Do you love your country? Do you want your country to succeed? These are separate questions from how, but they are important. You must answer them first and then decide the how.

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 6:52 PM

Quote:
Originally posted by Finn mac Cumhal:
No. Supporting a US withdraw from Iraq might be patriotic. But what makes it patriotic or not patriotic has nothing to do with the particular political opinion, but with the motivations and feelings of the person.

I think that was my point.

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.

SOUPCATCHER

Saturday, July 14, 2007 6:57 PM

Quote:
Originally posted by Finn mac Cumhal:
...
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.
...

What were Helen Keller's politics? What were the politics of the writer of the Pledge of Allegiance? Those are just the first two ardent socialists that came to mind when I read your comment. Socialism in the US was alive and well during the nineteenth and into the early twentieth centuries.

A large number of the people who fought for changes that we take for granted today (women voting, child labor laws, forty hour work week, workplace safety, etc.) considered themselves socialists.

To state that US socialism is a relatively new and untested idea is to deny a portion of our country's history and heritage. It is to purposefully write out the contributions of the American working class. Contributions that were, more often than not, paid for in blood and bodies.

FINN MAC CUMHAL

Saturday, July 14, 2007 7:33 PM

And Martin Luther King was a socialist. I think there are socialists or people with socialist tendencies involved or have been involved in US politics, but there is no major movement, and as far as I know never has been, that directly advocates socialism in the United States. Supporting the pledge of allegiance, suffrage and civil rights is not socialism.

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 8:11 PM

Quote:
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?- SIGNY

Patriotism is the higher duty. -FINN

I guess that means I'm a republican first and a patriot second and supporting a specific government comes last. I was always under the impression that the Founding Fathers placed republicanism first. If they had been patriots first, wouldn't they have continued to support the monarchy, seeing as there was at the time no alternate government that demanded their loyalty?

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

Huh? Where did I do THAT?- SIGNY

I’ve already explained that numerous times, I’m not sure what else I can say the will clarify it further.-FINN

You've used a phrase several times that I've specifically asked about which is 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. Is THAT your clarification? If so, could you use different phraseology or explain what you mean in more detail 'cause I'm not getting it.

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

SOUPCATCHER

Saturday, July 14, 2007 8:21 PM

And the reason you don't know about the various socialist movements in the US during the nineteenth and early twentieth centuries is because they are not included in US history text books. US history text books are notorious for bending over backwards to erase class conflict in our country's history.

It is one thing to make the claim that the contributions of various historical US socialist organizations are unimportant, it is quite another to deny their very existence. The first claim can be debated. The second claim is exclusionary. To deny the existence of historical US socialist organizations is to rely on the successful results of the attempt to remove their discussion from popular discourse. An absence of approved evidence should not be used as evidence of complete absence.

FINN MAC CUMHAL

Saturday, July 14, 2007 8:22 PM

Quote:
Originally posted by SignyM:
I guess that means I'm a republican first and a patriot second and supporting a specific government comes last. I was always under the impression that the Founding Fathers placed republicanism first. If they had been patriots first, wouldn't they have continued to support the monarchy, seeing as there was at the time no alternate government that demanded their loyalty?

If you assume, as evidently you do, that government is all there really is to country, and that patriotism necessary implies government. But government and country are two different things. And patriotism is not love for your government; it is love for your country. And in fact those who supported the Monarchy in Colonial America were not called patriots. They were called Loyalists. It was not their country they loved, but rather they remained “loyal” to a government that was thousands of miles away. So it still seems like you are misunderstanding the definition of 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

SERGEANTX

Saturday, July 14, 2007 8:22 PM

Quote:
Originally posted by SoupCatcher:
Socialism in the US was alive and well during the nineteenth and into the early twentieth centuries.

I remember being quite surprised when I learned the much of southeast Kansas was firmly socialist around the turn of the century (1900). Several counties formed governments that were avowedly socialist. It sometimes seems counter intuitive, but it our nation was definitely more open to new political ideas back then.

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 8:39 PM

Quote:
Originally posted by Finn mac Cumhal:
It was not their country they loved, but rather they remained “loyal” to a government that was thousands of miles away. So it still seems like you are misunderstanding the definition of patriotism.

Well, technically prior to the secession of the colonies, their country was Britain.

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 8:43 PM

Quote:
Originally posted by citizen:
Well, technically prior to the secession of the colonies, their country was Britain.

Actually, I would say that a great many of them had probably never even seen Britain and knew nothing specifically of it. Many did not consider it their country – their government, perhaps, but not their 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

HKCAVALIER

Saturday, July 14, 2007 8:45 PM

Quote:
Why the Left is so dangerous

AURaptor, your thread title itself is fear-mongering Neo-con style bull. And your attack on Kennedy comes down to his use of the word "traitor" when we have been treated to the Neo-cons calling everyone left of the farthest far right "traitors" for the past 6 years..."if you're not with us, you're against us." "opposing the war gives aid and comfort to the enemy" "Michael Moore is a terrorist" etc.

But then, this is an AURaptor post, so calling the left "dangerous" because one man uses utterly unremarkable politically charged rhetoric against Bush & co. is right up there with claiming America is "in danger" of dhimmification because of a single unbelievably lucky terrorist attack.

But then, it is in the nature of the totalitarian mind-set to see the slightest whiff of dissent as a grave danger that must be put down.

And for cryin' out loud, at this crazy moment in our history, the "left" in this country is all but defunct! So defunct, and forgotten, that we got Finn the History Professor saying here that socialism is a new idea in the U.S. LOL! *cough*labor unions*cough*

To paraphrase Santayana, "Those who cannot remember the past are condemned to swollow whatever fable the ruling elite want to shovel."

HKCavalier

Hey, hey, hey, don't be mean. We don't have to be mean, because, remember, no matter where you go, there you are.

SIGNYM

Saturday, July 14, 2007 8:47 PM

Okay Finn, I see where you're coming from, and I made the same error of using country and government interchangeably. But just because the FF called themselves Patriots doesn't necessarily mean that they met YOUR definition of patriotism. This wouldn't be the first or the last time that a group called itself by a nice-sounding name. There were so many different mores, economies, religions, customs, and politics between colonies that it would be hard to say they identified themselves as "Americans"; the only thing they had in common was that they wanted the British out.

In your opinion, what constitutes a "country"?

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

FINN MAC CUMHAL

Saturday, July 14, 2007 8:57 PM

Quote:
Originally posted by SignyM:
In your opinion, what constitutes a "country"?

It’s a land or region that someone feels a personally connection with.

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 9:01 PM

Does that include the people, economy, customs, language, religion, and government? Or is it strictly place-related?

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

FINN MAC CUMHAL

Saturday, July 14, 2007 9:12 PM

Quote:
Originally posted by SignyM:
Does that include the people, economy, customs, language, religion, and government? Or is it strictly place-related?

Well, I think it is place-related, but I think it could have something to do with the culture as well, so language, customs and religion could be factors. Economy and government could both be factors as well, but these are more functional, less aesthetic. People normally become attached to aesthetic properties of their country. For me, economy and government fall more into the “how,” and less the “what.”

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

ANTIMASON

Saturday, July 14, 2007 9:23 PM

Quote:
Originally posted by SoupCatcher:
And the reason you don't know about the various socialist movements in the US during the nineteenth and early twentieth centuries is because they are not included in US history text books. US history text books are notorious for bending over backwards to erase class conflict in our country's history.

no its there, but its delivered more subtly, to avoid the controversy that it truly deserves. take a typical high school history book, and read through the section of colonial America, and the founding of the constitution; and then notice what they leave out (but ill make it easy.. our religious heritage, ie the source of our principles). the whole books like that.. its how socialists have attempted to redefine cultural norms and established values and ethics, while re-writing them to better suit their envisioned secular socialist utopia. it takes time, and a lot of persuasion, to take arms and property and wages away from a free people, in exchange for false promises wrapped in servitude

the argument is really centered around whether socialism is a positive thing, and if its even compatible with our constitutional republic. i would argue that its actually lethal to it.. but then it has never been formally proposed to us as a substitute, so that we can again debate the merits of the two systems(as they did during our founding). we decided long ago that it wasnt.. and i assumed we were all under the impression that we were to defend what we were given by our fore fathers. thats what i object to the most.. the deception and trickery of it all

CITIZEN

Saturday, July 14, 2007 9:35 PM

Quote:
Originally posted by Finn mac Cumhal:
Actually, I would say that a great many of them had probably never even seen Britain and knew nothing specifically of it. Many did not consider it their country – their government, perhaps, but not their country.

Then they must have all been blind from birth, since prior to the war of Independence, the colonies were part of the British Empire, and therefore part of Britain. So all they had to do to see Britain was look at what they were standing on.

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 9:43 PM

Quote:
Originally posted by citizen:
Then they must have all been blind from birth, since prior to the war of Independence, the colonies were part of the British Empire, and therefore part of Britain. So all they had to do to see Britain was look at what they were standing on.

So says the conqueror.

And I suspect that if Britain had put more interest into the America’s, treated them more like a part of Britain and less like some colony to serve Britain, there might not have been as much animosity towards the British Crown.

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

FLETCH2

Saturday, July 14, 2007 9:44 PM

I don't know that there is any problem with the definition of patriotism. I think in the end this debate is skating around the real issue -- what is the role of a loyal opposition in a time of national crisis? In those situations are politics as usual suspended? Is the party in opposition supposed to audit the government during these times or act as cheerleaders?

During peacetime we would never discuss what patriotism means because love of country is self evident. However in peacetime the nation and it's government are more distinct from one another.

I think most people accept that the government should act in the national interest, after all it's elected by the people of it's nation and should owe no loyalty to anyone else. However in times of crisis it becomes essential that people accept the government as working in their interest and look to government for guidance and security. During those times the distinction between government and nation start to blur and that leaves the opposing party with a problem. Any criticism of the government could be seen as criticism of the nation and this has to be avoided. However, if there was ever a time for an opposition to keep an eye on the conduct of government a crisis is the one, not so much because government cant be trusted as that you simply can't afford mistakes and misplays. The more people that look at a problem, the more alternative views are considered, the fewer mistakes get made.

So the opposition is in a pickle. Ideally they should be able to seperate the government from the state and treat them both differently, in practice public feeling makes that hard.

SOUPCATCHER

Saturday, July 14, 2007 9:54 PM

Antimason, if you want to talk about US rebranding take a look at the Cold War. A lot of what is currently taught in US history courses is based on an editing of our history to accentuate the differences between the US and the USSR. In many ways, what we redefined ourselves as, as a country, was anti-Soviet. The USSR was godless, therefore it was necessary that the US become more godfearing. The USSR was seen as socialist, therefore it was necessary that the US remove all references to socialist movements from our history. The USSR needed to exert control over new territory or else it would wither, therefore it was necessary to minimize our own country's tendency to expand the territory over which we exerted influence.

Those of us who grew up in the Cold War were educated to believe in a vision of the US that left out a whole hell of a lot. The real story is much richer and more heroic. The real story is much more about We the People than about the privileged few. The real story is less about the great men of history and more about how citizens of the world can come together in one place and recreate themselves and build something different. The real story acknowledges mistakes and teaches us what to look out for and where we went wrong. The real story treats us like adults with the agency to change. The real story requires us to question the present and look for possible improvements. The real story, in short, is anathema to the status quo and those who benefit the most from the status quo. The real story, then, must not be told.

There's a reason why we only focus on the name Thomas Paine and not on what he actually wrote.

FLETCH2

Saturday, July 14, 2007 9:56 PM

Quote:
Originally posted by Finn mac Cumhal:
Quote:
Originally posted by citizen:
Then they must have all been blind from birth, since prior to the war of Independence, the colonies were part of the British Empire, and therefore part of Britain. So all they had to do to see Britain was look at what they were standing on.
So says the conqueror.

And I suspect that if Britain had put more interest into the America’s, treated them more like a part of Britain and less like some colony to serve Britain, there might not have been as much animosity towards the British Crown.

Actually, that was pretty much the way that that government treated folks at home as well. There were certain privillages built into the British system that favoured specific classes of people over others. The new up and comers, the merchant classes, the new industrialists folks that made their own fortunes rather than inheriting it fared badly on both sides of the Atlantic, it's just that the ones on the American side had the geographical ability to do something about it. If you look at British history you'll find a lot of the people in the same social class as the founders actually supported the American Revolution and in many respects you got the Republic we should have had after our Civil War. You were lucky, Washington was a better man than Cromwell.

LEADB

Saturday, July 14, 2007 9:57 PM

'Why the Left is so dangerous'

Hmmm, how about 'Why Robert F Kennedy, Jr is so dangerous'?

If we must divide down the middle, I'm clearly left of center; but I must concede this fellow has lost a few wheels.

In any case, the Far Right is, and continues to be, as, or more, dangerous than the Far Left. The Patriot act and other 'goodies' are clearly a legacy of the Right.

So, how about we toss the extremists of both parties out on their butts, fix the damage; and find a way to preserve our rights while protecting the country.

CITIZEN

Saturday, July 14, 2007 10:22 PM

Quote:
Originally posted by Finn mac Cumhal:
So says the conqueror.

I don't remember conquering anyone, maybe you're confusing me with someone?

Quote:
And I suspect that if Britain had put more interest into the America’s, treated them more like a part of Britain and less like some colony to serve Britain, there might not have been as much animosity towards the British Crown.

Actually the American Colonists had it a lot better off than most people back on the home islands. Add to that, that most of the taxes the colonists were objecting to were being levied to defend the colonies, and colonists, from the French, and you may start to see why the British found the colonists demands so unreasonable.

But far be it from me to point out that there are two sides to every story, I'm sure it all comes down to the evil Brits trampling all over the pure of heart Yankee, who did everything in their power to come to an understanding.

We all likes a bit of PropegandaIsAll

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.

FREDGIBLET

Saturday, July 14, 2007 10:43 PM

Quote:
Originally posted by citizen:
Add to that, that most of the taxes the colonists were objecting to were being levied to defend the colonies, and colonists, from the French, and you may start to see why the British found the colonists demands so unreasonable.

Kind of ironic then that the French ended up being our allies against the British.

CITIZEN

Saturday, July 14, 2007 10:59 PM

Quote:
Originally posted by fredgiblet:
Kind of ironic then that the French ended up being our allies against the British.

And that there were more French in the last land battle of the war than Colonists, and that the first major victory, was secured by the French fleet.

But it's even more Ironic given the pivotal role the French played in the War of Independence (along side the Dutch and Spanish), that Americans seem to think so poorly of the French these days.

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

Saturday, July 14, 2007 11:46 PM

Quote:
Originally posted by citizen:
Quote:
Originally posted by fredgiblet:
Kind of ironic then that the French ended up being our allies against the British.
And that there were more French in the last land battle of the war than Colonists, and that the first major victory, was secured by the French fleet.

But it's even more Ironic given the pivotal role the French played in the War of Independence (along side the Dutch and Spanish), that Americans seem to think so poorly of the French these days.

Oh it's even more ironic if you also figure in French Canada. The British fight a war with the French to defend the American colonies. The cost of this is passed to the Colonies as taxes which they don't like. Meanwhile the results of that war is a French defeat at the hands of Wolfe and Quebec becomes a british possesion. With French Canada no longer a threat the colonists get ... well somewhat rebelious of those taxes. The French looking for payback for the fall of Quebec back the Americans. France at that time is a monarchy so in effect the French Aristocracy back the Colonists.

When the colonies win their ideas of Republican government become the new radical idea in Europe, and take off in France leading to a revolution in which the same Aristocracy that backed the colonists lose their heads (literally.)

A lot of the nobles that make it out go to Quebec, under British protection.

I think the French suffered what Dr Paul would term foreign policy blowback.

CITIZEN

Saturday, July 14, 2007 11:54 PM

Its almost Poetic isn't it?

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

Sunday, July 15, 2007 12:19 AM

Quote:
Originally posted by citizen:
Its almost Poetic isn't it?

Yes, it has a certain ironic symetry.

AURAPTOR

Sunday, July 15, 2007 1:28 AM

Quote:
Originally posted by leadb:
'Why the Left is so dangerous'

Hmmm, how about 'Why Robert F Kennedy, Jr is so dangerous'?

If we must divide down the middle, I'm clearly left of center; but I must concede this fellow has lost a few wheels.

In any case, the Far Right is, and continues to be, as, or more, dangerous than the Far Left. The Patriot act and other 'goodies' are clearly a legacy of the Right.

So, how about we toss the extremists of both parties out on their butts, fix the damage; and find a way to preserve our rights while protecting the country.

RFK Jr calls for the 'treating' of legitimate businesses as if they had committed treason. And the Patriot Act ? I fail to see the danger here. When I was younger, and heard arguments about how the Gov't had the 'right' to search property for illegal drugs, like one's car, even with out probable cause, I was indifferent. " If you've got nothing to hide, why are you afraid of what they might find. And if you're afraid, then maybe you're hiding something...." Of course, I later grew up and took courses in Constitutional law, and it dawned on me that we, as individuals have rights, and it's the Gov'ts job to PROTECT those rights, not trample on them.

So, to be honest, I'm at a cross roads. On the surface, I see nothing wrong w/ the Patriot Act. All the fears which folks claim 'COULD' happen, aren't. I don't see any rash of people's rights being violated, either by legitimate or false reasons. When the issue of terrorism is brought up, I recall the old line, " If you've got nothing to hide, why worry ? ", which of course brings me to a pause. ISthe 'war on terror' nothing more than a reved up version of the failed and pointless 'war on drugs' ? Then I think of 9/11. I watch a documentary or what ever, and remember what it was like on that day. Sure, there's the possibility that the P.A. could be used and abused.....but as of yet, I'm not convinced it has.

Eyes wide open.

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. "

LEADB

Sunday, July 15, 2007 3:09 AM

"Sure, there's the possibility that the P.A. could be used and abused.....but as of yet, I'm not convinced it has.

Eyes wide open."

And I cannot provide clear proof it has; but I believe the language is problematic and should be tuned back so it cannot be. In any case, yes, keep "Eyes wide open" please.

FREMDFIRMA

Sunday, July 15, 2007 3:26 AM

Quote:
And I cannot provide clear proof it has.

*Raises hand*

I can.

Can, have, and did.
See Thread: More Lies and Alibis.

The FBI flatly lied, repeatedly, as an excuse to steal personal info for unapproved data-mining programs unrelated to national security.

Abuses of this nature are like roaches, for every one you see, there's many more you don't cause they just hide it behind various levels of classification - and we find out 10-29 years later.

Such powers are ALWAYS abused, it's just human nature, is what it is.

-F

LEADB

Sunday, July 15, 2007 1:11 PM

Frem,
Thanks for posting that.

Quote:
Originally posted by AURaptor:
Quote:
Originally posted by leadb:
... The Patriot act and other 'goodies' are clearly a legacy of the Right.

So, how about we toss the extremists of both parties out on their butts, fix the damage; and find a way to preserve our rights while protecting the country.

RFK Jr calls for the 'treating' of legitimate businesses as if they had committed treason. And the Patriot Act ? I fail to see the danger here. When I was younger, and heard arguments about how the Gov't had the 'right' to search property for illegal drugs, like one's car, even with out probable cause, I was indifferent. " If you've got nothing to hide, why are you afraid of what they might find. And if you're afraid, then maybe you're hiding something...." Of course, I later grew up and took courses in Constitutional law, and it dawned on me that we, as individuals have rights, and it's the Gov'ts job to PROTECT those rights, not trample on them.

So, to be honest, I'm at a cross roads. On the surface, I see nothing wrong w/ the Patriot Act. All the fears which folks claim 'COULD' happen, aren't. I don't see any rash of people's rights being violated, either by legitimate or false reasons. When the issue of terrorism is brought up, I recall the old line, " If you've got nothing to hide, why worry ? ", which of course brings me to a pause. ISthe 'war on terror' nothing more than a reved up version of the failed and pointless 'war on drugs' ? Then I think of 9/11. I watch a documentary or what ever, and remember what it was like on that day. Sure, there's the possibility that the P.A. could be used and abused.....but as of yet, I'm not convinced it has.

Eyes wide open.

An additional reference from Frem's...
http://www.eff.org/news/archives/2007_07.php#005351

I take EFF pretty seriously, and as a consequence support it regularly. Based on the information they present, I'm confident we have some abuse going on here.

I'll say it again, I believe the PA needs to either be reworked or tossed; and I lean toward tossed.

Edit: ---added:
You point out that RFK Jr. is 'calling for'; ok, I've already indicated he's lost a few wheels. What more you do you want? And so far it's 'just talk'. If the left actually starts to act on it, actually gets laws passed or prosecutions, heck even investigations, started I'll be behind you yelling for it to stop. So far it is just talk. So let's make fun of RJK Jr. while not necessarily tarring the whole 'left' with the same brush.

SIGNYM

Sunday, July 15, 2007 6:04 PM

Quote:
I think in the end this debate is skating around the real issue -- what is the role of a loyal opposition in a time of national crisis?

In some people's minds there is no such thing as a loyal opposition. You're either loyal or opposed. I have no idea how that mind-set came to be, but I find that mind-set more dangerous than any specific goal or idea.

---------------------------------
Republicanisall

FLETCH2

Sunday, July 15, 2007 6:29 PM

Quote:
Originally posted by SignyM:
Quote:
I think in the end this debate is skating around the real issue -- what is the role of a loyal opposition in a time of national crisis?
In some people's minds there is no such thing as a loyal opposition. You're either loyal or opposed. I have no idea how that mind-set came to be, but I find that mind-set more dangerous than any specific goal or idea.

---------------------------------
Republicanisall

Loyal to the country or the crown (depending on where you are.) The statement recognises intrinsically that the government is not the country and that opposing the government is not opposing the nation or an act of treason.

CHRISISALL

Sunday, July 15, 2007 7:36 PM

Quote:
Originally posted by AURaptor:

Eyes wide open.

....and looking at your own little corner.
It's a nice place, isn't it?
So comfy and safe.

You crack me up, AU.

Chrisisall, constantly scanning with eyes wide open, looking for that which he might be (and at times is) missing.....

CHRISISALL

Sunday, July 15, 2007 8:25 PM

Quote:
Originally posted by Finn mac Cumhal:
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 validify their political positions.

Finn, this is the only 'dumb' thing I think you've ever posted (as opposed to AU, where it's like, wow, another dumb post*sigh*

).

When something bad happens in Iraq, most of us are going "See? I told you this would happen, can we get out now before it gets worse??"
No cheering or high-fives. Sorrow mostly.
Of course there's always gonna be the ocassional smirking git that's into it for self-gratification, just as there will be on the uber-patriotic side if there's a win, but that's not most folk. We love our country we support our troops, and we recognize a mistake when we see it. That's all.
Pardon me if I say that IMO the sentance I quoted of yours smells of hogwash.

...what exactly IS hogwash, btw? Like, soap...but full of dirt or something...?

Digressing Chrisisall

SERGEANTX

Sunday, July 15, 2007 8:29 PM

Quote:
Originally posted by AURaptor:
...If you've got nothing to hide, why worry ? ", which of course brings me to a pause. ISthe 'war on terror' nothing more than a reved up version of the failed and pointless 'war on drugs' ? Then I think of 9/11. I watch a documentary or what ever, and remember what it was like on that day.

I think this is the key point that makes me so much more pessimistic about the future of freedom. If our convictions are so fragile, if all it takes is a surprise attack from an enemy to nullify our determination to remain free, then we've already lost. Seriously, even if we manage to turn things around, all it will take is another attack to re-light the fear and panic that drives us to discard our principles. That fragility of spirit is what I call the opposite of patriotism.

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

FLETCH2

Sunday, July 15, 2007 8:35 PM

I think Finn is actually talking about consequences of actions.

Invading Iraq had consequences, many of which were not foreseen before we started. Likewise pulling out will also have consequences both politically at home and internationally, some of which we don't foresee. I think some people look at the war and the idea of pulling out from only a domestic political context while others look at the bigger picture. I think Finn is saying that pulling out for purely domestic political reasons and failing to consider the wider consequences has as much chance of "blowback" as the invasion did.

Don't really know how you deal with the issue but this is a standard "doomed if you do, doomed if you don't" scenario.

FLETCH2

Sunday, July 15, 2007 8:42 PM

Quote:
Originally posted by SergeantX:
I think this is the key point that makes me so much more pessimistic about the future of freedom. If our convictions are so fragile, if all it takes is a surprise attack from an enemy to nullify our determination to remain free, then we've already lost. Seriously, even if we manage to turn things around, all it will take is another attack to re-light the fear and panic that drives us to discard our principles. That fragility of spirit is what I call the opposite of patriotism.

SergeantX

That won't happen though, the fear will be less next time, the reaction less pronounced. If one massive attack is all it takes to panic a populous Britain would have fallen after the first night of the Blitz. The American public were too comfortable, too secure, their ability to deal with an uncertain world had been weakened though none use. It's like a patient with an immune system that has been compromised, first germ that attacks can almost prove fatal to that society. However, if it survives, it gets stronger for next time.

People already question some of the missuses of Patriot and that would continue even if there was another attack.

CHRISISALL

Sunday, July 15, 2007 8:51 PM

Quote:
Originally posted by Fletch2:
I think Finn is saying that pulling out for purely domestic political reasons and failing to consider the wider consequences has as much chance of "blowback" as the invasion did.

That's a valid point...but blowback will happen regardless, should we not save as many of our troop as we can NOW, if only to be at a better strength to deal with it later?

It would be so cool to wake up tomorrow and find out that the war was over, and a stable Iraqi government and army were in place....the government is on vacation for August, btw- don't seem as they really want to deal with any of it.
Douchebags.
I have no real hope...

The last angry Chrisisall

SERGEANTX

Sunday, July 15, 2007 8:52 PM

Quote:
Originally posted by Fletch2:
That won't happen though, the fear will be less next time, the reaction less pronounced...
People already question some of the missuses of Patriot and that would continue even if there was another attack.

I hope you're right, but I'm not convinced you are. If we don't have the will to fight back against ill-conceived notions like Homeland Security and the phony War on Terror now, how do you see that improving with another attack? The sad fact is, our leadership (and most of the voters who are supporting them) is too stupid to realize we're being played, that we're following the script dreamt up by the terrorists in the first place. The Democrats have no more clue on this than the Republicans.

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

FLETCH2

Sunday, July 15, 2007 9:10 PM

Quote:
Originally posted by SergeantX:
Quote:
Originally posted by Fletch2:
That won't happen though, the fear will be less next time, the reaction less pronounced...
People already question some of the missuses of Patriot and that would continue even if there was another attack.

I hope you're right, but I'm not convinced you are. If we don't have the will to fight back against ill-conceived notions like Homeland Security and the phony War on Terror now, how do you see that improving with another attack? The sad fact is, our leadership (and most of the voters who are supporting them) is too stupid to realize we're being played, that we're following the script dreamt up by the terrorists in the first place. The Democrats have no more clue on this than the Republicans.

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

Well, you elected them. Sorry to be blunt but the voting record is public and the kind of represenative that can be paniced into voting for this stuff (or worse goes along with it for fear of being seen as "soft") needs replacing.

My view as an outsider is that after the attack congress were happy to rubber stamp anything rather than be painted as unpatriotic/soft on terror. The ones that took the unpopular choice and voted against it are the kinds of men the constitution envisaged running the country.

SERGEANTX

Sunday, July 15, 2007 9:21 PM

Quote:
Originally posted by Fletch2:
Well, you elected them...
The ones that took the unpopular choice and voted against it are the kinds of men the constitution envisaged running the country.

Indeed. The constitution also envisaged a population that demanded those kinds of leaders. We clearly no longer have that going for us.

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

FLETCH2

Sunday, July 15, 2007 9:43 PM

Quote:
Originally posted by chrisisall:
Quote:
Originally posted by Fletch2:
I think Finn is saying that pulling out for purely domestic political reasons and failing to consider the wider consequences has as much chance of "blowback" as the invasion did.

That's a valid point...but blowback will happen regardless, should we not save as many of our troop as we can NOW, if only to be at a better strength to deal with it later?

I think that's a valid argument. This is really a question of second guessing the future. There are any number of consequences to staying in and to pulling out a lot of which can not genuinely be foreseen.

A pullout could lead to a terrorist attack that kills many thousand at which point the talking heads will claim a pullout was a mistake, or it might save 1000's of GI lives over the next 5 years in which case it would be considered a good call.

The tough choices are not the ones where one is obviously right and one obviously wrong, it's when you have to deal with degrees of right and wrongness.

FINN MAC CUMHAL

Monday, July 16, 2007 12:01 AM

Quote:
Originally posted by chrisisall:
Finn, this is the only 'dumb' thing I think you've ever posted (as opposed to AU, where it's like, wow, another dumb post*sigh*).

Wow! I’ve only said one dumb thing since I’ve been on this board? Not even I believe that.

Quote:
Originally posted by chrisisall:
That's a valid point...but blowback will happen regardless, should we not save as many of our troop as we can NOW, if only to be at a better strength to deal with it later?

I think we should save as of our troops as we can because they are a valuable resource and human beings. From a military standpoint it is almost always easier to deal with these problems the first time. The truth is that we are probably wining in Iraq, just as we were winning in Vietnam. If we lose Iraq, it probably won’t be because of the military, just as it wasn’t the military that lost Vietnam. Accepting defeat because we aren’t breezing through the victory is a pretty stupid thing to do, but we’ve done it before. There are several sides to this that need to be considered, I’m not saying I have the answer, but I don’t always feel like the loyal opposition is really operating with a complete picture or with real American national interests at heart.

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

ANTIMASON

Monday, July 16, 2007 12:08 AM

Quote:
Originally posted by citizen:

Actually the American Colonists had it a lot better off than most people back on the home islands. Add to that, that most of the taxes the colonists were objecting to were being levied to defend the colonies, and colonists, from the French, and you may start to see why the British found the colonists demands so unreasonable.

if i may use this to prove my point above, there has been a deliberate movement to dumb down AMericans, through our (state)education system, to alter our historic perspective. in this case, taxes were relatively low at the time, like 1 or 2%(ive heard) of our gross product, compared to something like 50%(or more)today. the part about 'taxation without representation' has become meaningless in hindsight, since we still are not getting our 'representation'. if we're honost withourselves.. we dont get anything resembling accurate accounting of government spending anymore. to so obviously the true causes of the revolution are far more complex, and IMO conspiratorial, to openly admit to the public

in fact the Boston tea party was an orchestration by the Freemasons, by there own admission. in retrospect, the succession of events following this, the quartering of British soldiers and trade embargoes, really precipitated the revolution. thats why i maintain that secret societies, like the Freemasons, are far more influential then even history suggests.

Quote:
But far be it from me to point out that there are two sides to every story, I'm sure it all comes down to the evil Brits trampling all over the pure of heart Yankee, who did everything in their power to come to an understanding.

the true cause is actually more relevant today, because it was the Bank of England, wanting to force the colonies to borrow money from them, at interest, as a central bank. the colonies were flourishing primarily because they circulated their own 'script', which was debt free, backed in gold and silver. this is one reason why Jefferson and others have been so outspoken about central banks, like the Federal Reserve, and the damage and oppression they cause

Jefferson gets quoted alot.. but Franklin himself has said

Quote:
"the colonies would gladly have borne the little tax on tea and others matters had it not been that England took away from the colonies their money, which created unemployment and dissatisfaction."

CHRISISALL

Monday, July 16, 2007 12:28 AM

Quote:
Originally posted by Finn mac Cumhal:
Wow! I’ve only said one dumb thing since I’ve been on this board? Not even I believe that.
The truth is that we are probably wining in Iraq, just as we were winning in Vietnam. If we lose Iraq, it probably won’t be because of the military, just as it wasn’t the military that lost Vietnam. Accepting defeat because we aren’t breezing through the victory is a pretty stupid thing to do, but we’ve done it before.

I believe that we can 'win' in Iraq, but I don't believe it will be worth the thousands upon thousands lost (our guys and girls) or the decades it will take to do it.
See? I disagree sometimes, but you have a viewpoint that is always worth considering, at least IMO.
1 dumb thing. That's all I can count.

Love-y my country Chrisisall

ANTIMASON

Monday, July 16, 2007 12:49 AM

Quote:
Originally posted by Fletch2:

France at that time is a monarchy so in effect the French Aristocracy back the Colonists.

When the colonies win their ideas of Republican government become the new radical idea in Europe, and take off in France leading to a revolution in which the same Aristocracy that backed the colonists lose their heads (literally.)

well.. no, to be fair their was quite a bit of difference between our revolution and the French. we retained our British cultural and religious heritages, but we disconnected our ties to the crown and its system of government. the French revolution was instigated and staged by the illuminati, who used contrived events to overthrow existing orthodoxies, the catholic church and the French monarchy. the French were doing quite well under the King, had one of the wealthiest and growing middle classes; so it didnt occur out of necessity. it was an attempt by the elite to reinstitute socialism.. since even the King had done away with forced labor laws and such

Quote:
Originally posted by Citizen-
But it's even more Ironic given the pivotal role the French played in the War of Independence (along side the Dutch and Spanish), that Americans seem to think so poorly of the French these days.

its more an ideological opposition to their secular, socialist leanings.. but i dont hold it against them, or you in the UK, or many AMericans.. we're all being decieved equally

FINN MAC CUMHAL

Monday, July 16, 2007 1:00 AM

Quote:
Originally posted by chrisisall:
1 dumb thing. That's all I can count.

I’m sure that if I looked hard enough I could find a few more. I also don’t think some people give Auraptor enough credit either.

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

Monday, July 16, 2007 3:09 AM

Quote:
Originally posted by Finn mac Cumhal:
The truth is that we are probably wining in Iraq, just as we were winning in Vietnam. If we lose Iraq, it probably won’t be because of the military, just as it wasn’t the military that lost Vietnam. Accepting defeat because we aren’t breezing through the victory is a pretty stupid thing to do, but we’ve done it before.

OK, this is at least dumb thing #2.

Seriously though, the parallels with Vietnam are, in fact, much more pertinent than most people seem to be willing to talk about. We didn't lose in Vietnam because we 'wimped out'. We lost because it was a foolish war to begin with. There was no victory there worth the effort so we left. We're in exactly the same situation now.

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

Monday, July 16, 2007 3:12 AM

FINN MAC CUMHAL

Monday, July 16, 2007 3:39 AM

Quote:
Originally posted by SergeantX:
Seriously though, the parallels with Vietnam are, in fact, much more pertinent than most people seem to be willing to talk about. We didn't lose in Vietnam because we gave up. We 'lost' because it was a foolish war to begin with. There was no victory there worth the effort so we left. We're in exactly the same situation now.

Yeah, those were the excuses, and of course everyone knows the Tet Offensive was a tragic American defeat.

The truth is, as much as it will be completely dismissed, many of those who want to leave Iraq, aren’t interested in the consequences, because 1) they have grown complacent and feel safe from unintended consequences and 2) they don’t care what happens in Iraq. So the Vietnam comparison actually becomes encouraging then, because after the US withdrew from Vietnam there was a sense of relief that the war was over, and I suppose it was for Americans, but the horrors continued for a very long time in Vietnam and surrounding states. And actually, as a direct result of US abandoning SE Asia, matters there worsened a lot. I’m not sure that we can just pack up and leave this time without some serious consequences. We tried that in Afghanistan ten years ago – that certainly fixed all the problems there. I feel that it is just as important that we not be responsible for helping to create another Khmer Rouge or Taliban. It’s bad enough that in tens years well just have to go back in, but frankly, I find a certain amount of disgust when I think of Americans retreating to their wealthy and safe nation believing the war is “over” because they gave up when they couldn’t win fast enough to suit the media.

And that’s my rant for this evening.

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

Monday, July 16, 2007 4:48 AM

Quote:
Originally posted by Finn mac Cumhal:
I find a certain amount of disgust when I think of Americans retreating to their wealthy and safe nation believing the war is “over” because they gave up when they couldn’t win fast enough to suit the media.

...and that's the way this game is played. When you can't sell it as a war that will defeat the terrorists, you fall back on the humanitarian plea. Which is it? Neither. The Iraq war is, and always was, an opening move on the part of the neo-cons. Their grand strategy imagines that rebuilding Iraq as a bastion for freedom and democracy will spread to other nations in the region and bring in a new age of 'Pax Americana'.

How much we you willing to sacrifice for their imperial fantasies?

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

FINN MAC CUMHAL

Monday, July 16, 2007 5:27 AM

Quote:
Originally posted by SergeantX:
...and that's the way this game is played. When you can't sell it as a war that will defeat the terrorists, you fall back on the humanitarian plea. Which is it? Neither. The Iraq war is, and always was, an opening move on the part of the neo-cons. Their grand strategy imagines that rebuilding Iraq as a bastion for freedom and democracy will spread to other nations in the region and bring in a new age of 'Pax Americana'.

How much we you willing to sacrifice for their imperial fantasies?

Ah, the delusional fantasy of the evil American Empire. Any consequence is worth it as long as you can defeat the evil American Empire. Signym wanted an example, here’s one. When you find your argument compromised by the complexities of reality, you re-invent it as righteous opposition to some fantastic Imperialistic America seeking world domination. Except that this is purely in your head, and it doesn’t really solve the underlying problems. In the real world America is not seeking world domination but abandoning Vietnam and Afghanistan did, as a matter of fact, have very serious and quite real unintended consequences, some of which Americans were not spared from. And it’s likely that abandoning Iraq could have similar serious consequences. So this is a perfect example of the problem that I have with some of the dissenting arguments – to often reality is supplanted by this comic book crap about Darth Bush and his band of demonic Neo-con.

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

Monday, July 16, 2007 5:49 AM

Iraqi Prime Minister: U.S. troops can leave any time they want

BAGHDAD -- Prime Minister Nouri al-Maliki shrugged off U.S. doubts of his government's military and political progress on Saturday, saying Iraqi forces are capable and American troops can leave "any time they want."

Yeah, I can tell how much progress we're making.

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

FINN MAC CUMHAL

Monday, July 16, 2007 6:10 AM

Quote:
Originally posted by SignyM:
Iraqi Prime Minister: U.S. troops can leave any time they want

BAGHDAD -- Prime Minister Nouri al-Maliki shrugged off U.S. doubts of his government's military and political progress on Saturday, saying Iraqi forces are capable and American troops can leave "any time they want."

I’m not sure where you got this, but what I think he said was that he believed Iraqi forces could take control by the end of the year.

I think we’ve made a lot of progress. Anbar is under control and the Iraqi government is asserting more control over militias. There’s still a lot of work to do and I’m not completely confident that the Iraqi forces can maintain this success without joint US operational support. But I’ve been thinking (or perhaps hoping), lately, if it wouldn’t be a good idea to start considering a drawdown in the near future or maybe a drawback from joint operations, until we see what the Iraqi government can do. Either way, I'm encouraged by recent developments and I hope they are signs that Iraq can be expedited.

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

FLETCH2

Monday, July 16, 2007 6:32 AM

One of the problem I see in a pull out is that Iraq will become the theatre for a proxy war between Iran and Saudi Arabia and possibly a shooting war between Turkey and Kurdistan. These kind of calculations aren't even mentioned in the US press right now and certainly dont form part of the political debate.

I'm not sure that's a good enough reason NOT to pull out, just worries me that it's not being considered.

http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/middle_east/6284718.stm

FREMDFIRMA

Monday, July 16, 2007 7:27 AM

Bullshit Finn.

The PNAC/Neocon/Clean Break agenda is completely documented and admitted in painstaking detail, and like anything else that gets in the way of your idiotic fantasies and faerytales, you like to just play "let's pretend" and say it doesn't exist.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Project_for_the_New_American_Century

I see no point in discussing things with folks who deny really obvious realities because they're inconvenient, the rest of y'all can all you want, but I ain't wastin my time.

Oh, and Fletch ?
I've repeatedly stated that there's gonna be a bloodbath when we pull out, and that some of the blame for it does belong to us, yes.

Thing is, no matter when we pull out, it's still gonna happen, so might as well get it over with - either our friendly puppet-gov will slaughter mercilessly all opposition a'la Saddam, or get reamed and run down like The Shah, either way it means ANOTHER thirty years of hate, fear and terrorism, whether it happens now, a year from now, or ten years from now.

The reasons for that are fairly plain, since we are not, and never have been, interested in actual diplomacy with the people "in the way" of our favorite congressional campaign spot.

It's not being considered by the press because US and allied propaganda has been so completely successful in dehumanising and demonising them that they're just more dead arabs no one gives a shit about no more.

I may be crass, but at least i'm willin to look at the stark realities here - all we need to really do, it let go of the fucking banana, pull our hand out of the jar, and GO HOME.

Let it be someone else's problem, cause it ain't mine and never was.

-Frem

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

FLETCH2

Monday, July 16, 2007 12:45 PM

Frem,
think you may have missed a small distinction here. I'm not talking about the discussed "bad situation" if we win or lose there will be terrorist "blowback" risks for a while.

No what I'm talking about is the risk of a wider regional conflict that escalates until friend and foe alike get involved. Saudia Arabia is looking into developing domestic nuclear power, which seems a bit fishy when you realise they sit on most of the carbon based fuel in the world. They don't really need nuclear power in much the same way that short term the Iranians dont. Of cause the Saudi's are our buddies so we'll let them have it unless Israel can really twist arms in Washington. There is a potential of a nuclearised mid east in our lifetime.

FREMDFIRMA

Monday, July 16, 2007 1:17 PM

Said conflict was gonna happen anyway, Fletch.

The very instant we upset the balance of power by kickin Saddam in the can over Kuwait, it was all but inevitable - we may see a wider ranging conflict, sure, but folks underestimate just how territorial the culture is, just look at the history of the region... they pursue you to the borders of their land, spit in your direction, and then go home cussing you.

I don't have any easy answers beyond it not being our damn problem if we don't want it to be, but it's obvious our presence there is stirring the kettle, as is our unconditional support of the town bully and his cronies.

As for nukes, that's inevitable as well, while it may not have been their intention, the morons we have in charge have sent a clear message on that front, either get some nukes or have your own internal policies dictated to you by the US and her allies, which means *everybody* wants one now, just to be on the safe side.

There's no real avoiding the consequences of our own stupidity in this, unfortunately, but it's like sawing down the legs of a wobbly table, it's bad enough as it is, but if we KEEP pickin at it, we might soon enough be staring down the barrel of a disaster.

The thing that's giving me the twitchies right now is that enraged Pakistanis pissed about their gov supporting us, might topple it - and the Paki's DO have nukes, as I recall.

I'd really like to be off this rock before the nutters on it boil it like a three minute egg, thanks.

-F

FINN MAC CUMHAL

Monday, July 16, 2007 1:19 PM

Quote:
Originally posted by Fletch2:
One of the problem I see in a pull out is that Iraq will become the theatre for a proxy war between Iran and Saudi Arabia and possibly a shooting war between Turkey and Kurdistan. These kind of calculations aren't even mentioned in the US press right now and certainly dont form part of the political debate.

I'm not sure that's a good enough reason NOT to pull out, just worries me that it's not being considered.

There’s no doubt that this is a big problem and will continue to be, as it has been and continues to be in Korea.

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

Monday, July 16, 2007 2:59 PM

Quote:
One of the problem I see in a pull out is that Iraq will become the theatre for a proxy war between Iran and Saudi Arabia and possibly a shooting war between Turkey and Kurdistan. These kind of calculations aren't even mentioned in the US press right now and certainly dont form part of the political debate.

Which is why you make Saudi Arabia the guardian angel of central Iraq, Iran the guardian angel of southern Iraq, and anyone who cares to stick their foot into this pile of crap- maybe China and/or Russia since they have oil interests in the area- guardian angels of Kurdistan. That is, if Bush believed in diplomacy. Which he doesn't because he keeps trying to hammer out a military solution for a political problem.

Finn: What the Prime Minister said was "diplomacy-speak" for YANKEES GO HOME. The article appeared very briefly on CNN but was removed. YOU can still find it at the original AP source.

http://apnews.myway.com/article/20070714/D8QCI4501.html

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

SERGEANTX

Monday, July 16, 2007 3:12 PM

Quote:
Originally posted by Fremdfirma:
Bullshit Finn.

The PNAC/Neocon/Clean Break agenda is completely documented and admitted in painstaking detail, and like anything else that gets in the way of your idiotic fantasies and faerytales, you like to just play "let's pretend" and say it doesn't exist.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Project_for_the_New_American_Century

I see no point in discussing things with folks who deny really obvious realities because they're inconvenient...

That's pretty much the size of it. I don't even bother posting the links anymore because they won't read them. Karl Rove says it isn't real and that's enough for them. The standing orders seem to be to play the PNAC off as a wild-eyed conspiracy theory and avoid any discussion on the topic - despite the fact that it was the single consistent rationale for invading IRAQ since before 911. Ostrichism prevails.

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

FLETCH2

Monday, July 16, 2007 3:24 PM

Quote:
Originally posted by SignyM:
Quote:
One of the problem I see in a pull out is that Iraq will become the theatre for a proxy war between Iran and Saudi Arabia and possibly a shooting war between Turkey and Kurdistan. These kind of calculations aren't even mentioned in the US press right now and certainly dont form part of the political debate.
Which is why you make Saudi Arabia the guardian angel of central Iraq, Iran the guardian angel of southern Iraq, and anyone who cares to stick their foot into this pile of crap- maybe China and/or Russia since they have oil interests in the area- guardian angels of Kurdistan.....

Here's the problem with that. Southern Iraq would be an Iranian satellite that has a border with Iran and with Saudi. In effect it will become something like Lebanon, a buffer state/military proxy of Iran through which Tehran can launch attacks on Saudi. Now that might not actually happen, but the Saudi's may fear it. We can expect a lot of Sunni based violence in the south if that looks to be happening.

Central Iraq would be hard for the Saudi's to defend especially if the Shia decide on ethnic clensing. It's easier for Saudi to attack the "aggressors" (read Iran/southern Iraq than to actually defend Sunni interests directly on the ground.

It's not a good situation.

SIGNYM

Monday, July 16, 2007 3:26 PM

Quote:
Ah, the delusional fantasy of the evil American Empire. Any consequence is worth it as long as you can defeat the evil American Empire. Signym wanted an example, here’s one. When you find your argument compromised by the complexities of reality, you re-invent it as righteous opposition to some fantastic Imperialistic America seeking world domination.

Finn, you have this concept that anywhere we are and anything we do is right and justified. But personally, I see NO reason for the USA to have over 800 military installations around the world. And ... speaking of Patriots... I can't imagine the Founding Fathers would be any too happy about it either. Do you?

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

FLETCH2

Monday, July 16, 2007 3:56 PM

Quote:
Originally posted by SignyM:
Quote:
Ah, the delusional fantasy of the evil American Empire. Any consequence is worth it as long as you can defeat the evil American Empire. Signym wanted an example, here’s one. When you find your argument compromised by the complexities of reality, you re-invent it as righteous opposition to some fantastic Imperialistic America seeking world domination.
Finn, you have this concept that anywhere we are and anything we do is right and justified. But personally, I see NO reason for the USA to have over 800 military installations around the world. And ... speaking of Patriots... I can't imagine the Founding Fathers would be any too happy about it either. Do you?

You mean the guy's whose first foreign war was sending troops to fight Muslims and secure US commercial interests?

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/First_Barbary_War

SIGNYM

Monday, July 16, 2007 3:57 PM

Quote:
Here's the problem with that. Southern Iraq would be an Iranian satellite that has a border with Iran and with Saudi. In effect it will become something like Lebanon, a buffer state/military proxy of Iran through which Tehran can launch attacks on Saudi. Now that might not actually happen, but the Saudi's may fear it. We can expect a lot of Sunni based violence in the south if that looks to be happening.

Central Iraq would be hard for the Saudi's to defend especially if the Shia decide on ethnic clensing. It's easier for Saudi to attack the "aggressors" (read Iran/southern Iraq than to actually defend Sunni interests directly on the ground.

There would be ethnic cleansing on both sides. The problem with central iraq right now is that the USA has been consistently turning a blind eye towards the Shia paramilitary while attacking the Sunni insurgents. Consequently, the Shias have been aggressively displacing the Sunnis from Baghdad. But if the Sunnis were to be given a free hand in the internal security of "their" territory they would be a powerful force in the region. The only issue with this idea (aside from the internal bloodshed which is going to come when we officially put the Shiites in power anyway) is that the Saudis and the Iraq Sunnis don't get much out of this economically. The Saudi oilfields are played out, central Iraq has none, and the current and future oil production goes to Iran/southern Iraq and Kurdistan to the north. The Saudis and Sunni Iraqis need to get some economy out of it.

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

SIGNYM

Monday, July 16, 2007 4:07 PM

Quote:
You mean the guy's whose first foreign war was sending troops to fight Muslims and secure US commercial interests?

We fought a war after being repeatedly attacked on the open seas and having war declared on us. More importantly. we did not establish a military installation there nor did we run their government afterwards. That's the difference between and empire and a war.

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

FLETCH2

Monday, July 16, 2007 4:09 PM

Quote:
Originally posted by SignyM:
There would be ethnic cleansing on both sides. The problem with central iraq right now is that the USA has been consistently turning a blind eye towards the Shia paramilitary while attacking the Sunni insurgents. Consequently, the Shias have been aggressively displacing the Sunnis from Baghdad. But if the Sunnis were to be given a free hand in the internal security of "their" territory they would be a powerful force in the region. The only issue with this idea (aside from the internal bloodshed which is going to come when we officially put the Shiites in power anyway) is that the Saudis and the Iraq Sunnis don't get much out of this economically. The Saudi oilfields are played out, central Iraq has none, and the current and future oil production goes to Iran/southern Iraq and Kurdistan to the north. The Saudis and Sunni Iraqis need to get some economy out of it.

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

Not entirely sure that's an accurate assessment. The current Bagdad crackdown is actually against the Shite militias especially the Mehdi army. Ironically the US Military is the best defence the Sunni populous has right now, even though it's Sunni militants that are attacking the US.

CHRISISALL

Monday, July 16, 2007 4:12 PM

Quote:
Originally posted by Fletch2:
Saudia Arabia is looking into developing domestic nuclear power, which seems a bit fishy when you realise they sit on most of the carbon based fuel in the world.

Not at all fishy, Fletch! They're doing something we're not very good at here in the states- looking toward the future. The oil has peaked, and will be dwindling shortly, like in OUR lifetimes. They simply don't want to be oil-dependent, like their dumb customers. Oh, and bonus: the makings for nukes.

It's really that simple Chrisisall

FLETCH2

Monday, July 16, 2007 4:16 PM

Quote:
Originally posted by SignyM:
Quote:
You mean the guy's whose first foreign war was sending troops to fight Muslims and secure US commercial interests?
We fought a war after being repeatedly attacked on the open seas and having war declared on us. More importantly. we did not establish a military installation there nor did we run their government afterwards. That's the difference between and empire and a war.

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

They attacked you and declared war only after you stopped paying tribute. Had you caved and paid up you could have avoided the war all together. Or you could have stayed at home and not gone near them. At the end of the day they threatened US commercial interests and you spanked them for it.

CHRISISALL

Monday, July 16, 2007 4:24 PM

Quote:
Originally posted by Finn mac Cumhal:
Ah, the delusional fantasy of the evil American Empire.

Well, if you take it to it's extreme conclusion, kinda.
In reality, I suspect that the PNAC means well, much like the government in Judge Dredd; a secure world is desirable, and setting up as many friendly governments as possible would certainly help achieve that goal. It's a cold, calculated and worthy plan, in the eyes of patriotic moneyed-types that want a stable world economy and relative civil order.
And comparing Bush to Vader? More hogwash (garbage fed to hogs; I looked it up

). Vader was extremely smart.
No, what they want is real, and makes all kind of sense from a not-quite-fascist POV. Very Alliance-like, actually.

This is no fantasy Chrisisall

SIGNYM

Monday, July 16, 2007 4:27 PM

But we did not maintain a military installation there afterwards. The guy in charge beforehand was still in charge afterwards.

Quote:
Generally, they may define an empire as a state that extends dominion over and populations distinct culturally and ethnically from the culture/ethnicity at the center of power. Other definitions may emphasize economic or political factors. The term generally implies military hegemonic power.

You can make a case that the FF defended our commercial interests. But you cannot make a case that they were intent on creating an "empire" - except for westward expansion which they not only took as granted, but anticipated it as the foundation for a rough form of economic equality which would save the new nation from the kind of rot that they perceived in Europe.

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

SIGNYM

Monday, July 16, 2007 4:41 PM

Quote:
Not entirely sure that's an accurate assessment. The current Bagdad crackdown is actually against the Shite militias especially the Mehdi army. Ironically the US Military is the best defence the Sunni populous has right now, even though it's Sunni militants that are attacking the US.

Not sure that's entirely correct. Last I checked into the situation (which was about three months ago) the USA-led attacks were against the Sunnis in Baghdad. There was much talk about USA troops being able to go into Sadr City, but little action. That may have changed recently, but Shhites have already made considerable inroads displacing Sunnis from their homes and neighborhoods and the Iraq government is doing nothing to reverse that

Quote:
BAGHDAD, Iraq (AP) -- Teenage gunmen from the Mahdi Army militia patrol the streets. Shops abandoned by Sunni Muslims are reopening under Shiite Muslim operators. Slurs scrawled on Sunni homes are being scrubbed off, and Shiite families moving in.

Quote:
Shiites Remake Baghdad in Their Image By SABRINA TAVERNISE
BAGHDAD, Dec. 22 — As the United States debates what to do in Iraq, this country’s Shiite majority has been moving toward its own solution: making the capital its own. Large portions of Baghdad have become Shiite in recent months, as militias press their fight against Sunni militants deeper into the heart of the capital, displacing thousands of Sunni residents. At least 10 neighborhoods that a year ago were mixed Sunni and Shiite are now almost entirely Shiite, according to residents, American and Iraqi military commanders and local officials.

Quote:
Sectarian hatred in Sunni areas of Baghdad has shredded whatever remained of community life and created cycle of violence that pits Sunni against Sunni as well as Sunni against Shiite; Sunni areas are marked by ruined buildings, damaged mosques, streets pitted by mortar shells, uncollected trash and little electricity; Shiite neighborhoods present sharp contrast: markets are in full swing, community projects are under way, and civilian arms of Shiite militias step in to help when government cannot provide services

America has defanged the Sunnis to the point where they are no longer able to protect themselves. In the end I thin our government will opt for the easy solution of a Shiite tyranny.

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

FLETCH2

Monday, July 16, 2007 4:57 PM

Quote:
Originally posted by SignyM:
You can make a case that the FF defended our commercial interests. But you cannot make a case that they were intent on creating an "empire".

The Algerians proved untrustworthy, and broke the peace prompting a second war. After the second War was over the Royal Navy kept them suppressed until Napoleon instituted "regime change." It could be argued that the US never had a reason to have to maintain a permainent presence in the area because of that. You do have to wonder what would have happened if there had been a third or a fourth war. At what point would a permainent US presence (with a base to supply it) been nescessary?

You chose to look at text from the constitution period that stress isolationism and a minimalist defence and assign this as the Founders position. However if you look at what they did rather than what they wrote you will see that they were willing to use force to secure US commercial interests. That nescessity didn't extend that to a foreign presence could be more one of good fortune than ideology.

FLETCH2

Monday, July 16, 2007 5:05 PM

Quote:
Originally posted by SignyM:
Not sure that's entirely correct. Last I checked into the situation (which was about three months ago) the USA-led attacks were against the Sunnis in Baghdad. There was much talk about USA troops being able to go into Sadr City, but little action. That may have changed recently, but Shhites have already made considerable inroads displacing Sunnis from their homes and neighborhoods and the Iraq government is doing nothing to reverse that .

Wild idea here but you know, you could just check the news today rather than backing up your old news with old quotes. The "surge" is essentially about dealing with the Shites. I noticed this because I think it's a dumb move.

SIGNYM

Monday, July 16, 2007 5:28 PM

There is at times a discrepancy between what the FF said and what they did. Sometimes that's due to the varied backgrounds and interests of the many framers of the Constitution, which was a compromise cobbled together under the banner of getting rid of the British. One of the biggest compromises- over slavery- fell apart about a hundred years later.

Indeed the FF had commercial interests in the new nation as well as political ones. There is one story (never looked it up) that Washington, as surveyor, had huge potential ownership in the Ohio Valley that were held in check by the British not wanting to displace the natives. There is another story- which I have also not looked up that the phrase "pursuit of happiness" (which never made much sense to me) was a compromise between "ownership of property" and nothing. Jefferson supposedly fought tooth and nail against "ownership of property".

AFA the surge is concerned... I do not see 20,000 troops being able to bring the Iraqi Shiites to heel, nor do I see them reversing the long-term process of dispossessing the Sunnis. The articles are from May 2007, Dec 2006, and July 2007 in that order. They still hold true.

ETA: Here is "the pursuit of happiness" discussion http://wrenncom.com/CommentaryArchives/2001/20y01m07d04-01.asp

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

FLETCH2

Monday, July 16, 2007 5:32 PM

As an addendum. All empires are essentially economic in nature. You create one to gain resources for your people and in the case of the European nations, markets for their industrial goods. In the case of the European powers it was hard to expand territory within Europe because they faced powers as advanced as they were, in addition Europe was relatively poor in raw resources. It was the commercial need for resources that led to foreign conquests and the need for extra teritorial bases.

I would argue that America has always been an empire, just one that was able to expand freely in it's own continent. You could argue that every state capital outside of the 13 originals is in fact a military outpost of Washington used to secure territory annexed from the natives. Just because you didnt have many bases outside the continent didn't stop you from being an empire, you just had to work less hard than the Europeans.

Had the 13 colonies not been able to expand westward, had the natives been more advanced or had that territory already been claimed by another European power then chances are that places like Liberia would have been full fledged colonies once the 13 states started running short of resources.

SIGNYM

Monday, July 16, 2007 5:43 PM

Agreed. Unfortunately westward expansion and dispossession of the natives eventually led to such ugly concepts as "manifest destiny" and the view that all of the Spanish Americas and the Phillipines were "ours". But in the days of the FF that was a nascent concept which took over a century to develop. I wonder what they would have adopted if they could have seen the future?

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

CITIZEN

Monday, July 16, 2007 5:48 PM

Quote:
Originally posted by SignyM:
Quote:
You mean the guy's whose first foreign war was sending troops to fight Muslims and secure US commercial interests?
We fought a war after being repeatedly attacked on the open seas and having war declared on us. More importantly. we did not establish a military installation there nor did we run their government afterwards. That's the difference between and empire and a war.

There's examples of wars of expansion in early US history. The war of 1812, for instance, if it had been won by America, Canada would have been subjegated into the US, just as California, Nevada, Utah, Colorado, Arizona, New Mexico, and Wyoming were captured from Mexico in the war of 1846 to 1848.

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

Monday, July 16, 2007 6:08 PM

Quote:
Originally posted by SignyM:
Agreed. Unfortunately westward expansion and dispossession of the natives eventually led to such ugly concepts as "manifest destiny" and the view that all of the Spanish Americas and the Phillipines were "ours". But in the days of the FF that was a nascent concept which took over a century to develop. I wonder what they would have adopted if they could have seen the future?

.

I don't think it would have troubled them as much as you think it should. America was British colonial project, the people went there for economic reasons and personal gain. To a man the Founders were land/business owners of a certain political class within the Empire of the day, folks that had made themselves rich via industry or colonial expansion. These were the men, the new commercial interests, that won and built the British Empire. That a group of them fell out with London and went there own way didn't change who they were.

While the papers of the day stress isolationism and a principly defensive military (itself a compromise between those that wanted a military and those that didnt) the constitution doesnt actually forbid expansion either at home or abroad. In the 1780's America didn't have the means for much force projection and so the question was moot anyway.

SIGNYM

Monday, July 16, 2007 6:08 PM

So what you're saying is that the early American government was aggressively expansionist from the start no matter what they said about foreign entanglements, and that our current empire is simply the natural outgrowth of those policies. You may be right, but I was going to beat Finn over the head with statues of our wise FF. You've taken those outta my hands!

So now all I can say is that we compromised our ideals very early on, and look where it's gotten us: Stuck in every corner of the globe.

Fletch, I disagree with you about one thing: empires are not "just" economic. The motivation to empire may be economic, but the means is military. That's what distinguishes an empire from trade relations.

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

FLETCH2

Monday, July 16, 2007 6:24 PM

Quote:
Originally posted by SignyM:

Fletch, I disagree with you about one thing: empires are not "just" economic. The motivation to empire may be economic, but the means is military. That's what distinguishes an empire from trade relations.

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

If diplomacy is war by other means an Empire is trade relations where you insist on favorable terms. I suspect you have a basic disconnect between what you think a government does in the economic sphere and what it ACTUALLY does.

Remember governments raise their income by taxing some part of the economy, that economy exists due to commerce. The people that vote for that government have economic expectations too and securing those economic objectives becomes a government problem. Remember last year, back before the war became REALLY unpopular? Back then Bush's approval ratings were in the toilet because of high gas prices. Thousands dead, more dying every day is ok... $3+ a gallon for gas and you're in trouble. What does that tell you? It tells me that the economic needs of the country rapidly become political concerns and then national ones. Economic security and general security are not that far distanced. The use of military assets to secure economic security not unthinkable.

Anyway, almost any problem you care to think of has a "military solution" it's just not usually the smartest way to do certain things, yet it stays in the toolkit. However trade is one of those things that responds well to military persuasion. Look at Perry's trip to Japan for example...

Quote:

Commodore Matthew Perry

The first visit, 1852 to 1853

Commodore Perry's fleet for his second visit to Japan in 1854.In 1852, Perry embarked from Norfolk, Virginia, for Japan, in command of a squadron that would negotiate a Japanese trade treaty. Aboard a black-hulled steam frigate, he ported Mississippi, Plymouth, Saratoga, and Susquehanna at Uraga Harbor near Edo (present-day Tokyo) on July 8, 1853, and he was met by representatives of the Tokugawa Shogunate. They told him to proceed to Nagasaki, where the sakoku laws allowed limited trade by the Dutch. Perry refused to leave, and he demanded permission to present a letter from President Millard Fillmore, threatening force if he was denied. Japan had shunned modern technology for centuries, and the Japanese military wouldn't be able to resist Perry's ships; these "Black Ships" would later become a symbol of threatening Western technology and colonialism in Japan.

The Japanese government had to accept Perry's coming ashore to avoid a naval bombardment. Perry proceeded ashore at Kurihama (near present-day Yokosuka) on July 14, presented the letter to the delegates present, and left for the Chinese coast, promising to return later for a reply.

The second visit, 1854
Perry returned in February of 1854 with twice as many ships, finding that the delegates had prepared a treaty embodying virtually all the demands in Fillmore's letter. Perry signed the Convention of Kanagawa on March 31, 1854, and departed, mistakenly believing that the agreement had been made with imperial representatives.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Japanese-American_relations#Commodore_Mat
thew_Perry

No bases or colonies needed, not a shot fired. What we call "gunboat diplomacy."

FREMDFIRMA

Monday, July 16, 2007 9:10 PM

Siggy, things went wrong almost from the start, just as Pat Henry stated would happen.

Unsound money, Usury, and financial flakery on top of taxes that made folk wonder why we ever fought the british in the first place.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Shays'_Rebellion

And then the first variant of the Patriot Act, which the Federalists had been trying like hell to install from the very inception of this government.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Alien_and_Sedition_Acts

You're always gonna have those grabbing for the reins of empire Siggy, and from the Alien and Sedition Acts, through both Red Scares, down to the Patriot Act, Federalists have always been attempting to scare the populace into accepting more and more invasive government.

Some folks might even argue ("We have been told of phantoms.") that the Constitution itself was just such a measure in and of itself.

Some folk even did.
http://www.constitution.org/afp/borden00.htm

So, while acknowledging their wisdom and respecting their opinions, it's silly to venerate people who had their own flaws and agendas.

Not everyone is right all the time.

-Frem

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

VETERAN

Wednesday, July 18, 2007 12:54 AM

Finn,

You picked a good one, I do side with Kelo. Was Alito on the court for that decision?

However, I would refer to the recent decision where the court supported a school Principal's decision to suspend a boy because she disagreed with a sign reading "Bong hits 4 Jesus" displayed by the boy (who was off school grounds at the time).

LEADB

Wednesday, July 18, 2007 5:37 PM

Bong hits 4 jesus... http://www.cnn.com/2007/LAW/06/25/free.speech/index.html
Ok, interesting, it was argued it was a field trip; and thus it was considered something the school could suppress.

====
Please vote for Firefly hourly: http://richlabonte.net/tvvote/index.html

Consider $5/year to support FFF: http://s1.amazon.com/exec/varzea/pay/T39WWCGS4JYCV4

ANTIMASON

Thursday, July 19, 2007 12:33 AM

Quote:
Originally posted by SignyM:

Agreed. Unfortunately westward expansion and dispossession of the natives eventually led to such ugly concepts as "manifest destiny" and the view that all of the Spanish Americas and the Phillipines were "ours".

but it DID become ours.. so maybe it was.

Quote:
Secret Mysteries of America's Beginnings

Have you ever wondered why President Bush ordered American forces to invade Iraq and Afghanistan? In his Second Inaugural Address on January 20, 2005, President Bush said that he invaded these two countries because he was attempting to complete an Ancient Plan based on an "Ancient Hope", a Plan called the "New Order of the Ages". How old is this Plan? How far back in history does this Plan go? You will be shocked to discover the answer.

Secret Mysteries of America's Beginnings unfolds the fascinating history behind the founding of America, and exposes the esoteric underbelly of its design. Why is Washington D.C. build on the 77th Meridian? Are the Revolutionary War cities really built in perfect alignment with Stonehenge? If America was founded as a Christian nation, why are many of its symbols based on Pagan traditions? There is no doubt that much of America's national heritage was Christian, but just as a coin has two sides, our national heritage has a second side – one based squarely on occult secret societies and their values.

To find the answer to these questions, we follow the journey of secret societies from England to the New World and learn of their ancient hope: to rebuild the lost empire of Atlantis.

In the 16th century, Sir Francis Bacon was at the helm of the secret societies in England. When Bacon penned his classic work, 'The New Atlantis' he believed that America and Atlantis were one and the same. He outlined his vision for the perfect society, and some suggest the program he set forth has been the driving force behind the course of modern history. While he did not originate the concept, it was Bacon who articulated an ancient plan to be carried out by all the secret orders.

As Chief of the Rosicrucians and the first Grand Master of modern Freemasonry, Bacon sent his followers to the new world. A 1910 Newfoundland stamp with his image upon it reads, 'Lord Bacon: the Guiding Spirit in [the] Colonization Scheme.' Because of his influence, Francis Bacon is considered by some to be 'the real and true founder of America.' For centuries, controversy has surrounded this figure who is said to be the illegitimate son of Queen Elizabeth I, and secret author of the Shakespeare plays; the man whom Thomas Jefferson considered one of the three most influential men in history.

Is it possible that Bacon’s vision guides America today?

-watch video here http://www.informationliberation.com/?id=12389 -

(if the video doesnt work, heres a trailer
)

FINN MAC CUMHAL

Friday, July 20, 2007 3:41 AM

Quote:
Originally posted by Veteran:
Finn,

You picked a good one, I do side with Kelo. Was Alito on the court for that decision?

However, I would refer to the recent decision where the court supported a school Principal's decision to suspend a boy because she disagreed with a sign reading "Bong hits 4 Jesus" displayed by the boy (who was off school grounds at the time).

I get the impression that this doesn’t mean the same thing to me as it does to you. The very fact that this ridiculous case went to the Supreme Court sort of argues my point, in my opinion. We should expect that children will respect their teachers when they tell them not to hold up signs that say “Bong hits 4 Jesus” or dress in Pasta Pirate outfits, but now children can take their disruptive behavior all the way to the Supreme Court, evidently. I see this as a phenomenal waste of time and money of the Supreme Court and all the Appellate Courts.

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

Friday, July 20, 2007 3:19 PM

"We should expect that children will respect their teachers when they tell them not to hold up signs that say “Bong hits 4 Jesus” or dress in Pasta Pirate outfits"

Out on the street ? Away from school ? On their own time ? Little martinete that you are, I guess you don't understand the concept of freedom of expression.

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

CITIZEN

Friday, July 20, 2007 7:36 PM

Quote:
Originally posted by Finn mac Cumhal:
I get the impression that this doesn’t mean the same thing to me as it does to you. The very fact that this ridiculous case went to the Supreme Court sort of argues my point, in my opinion. We should expect that children will respect their teachers when they tell them not to hold up signs that say “Bong hits 4 Jesus” or dress in Pasta Pirate outfits, but now children can take their disruptive behavior all the way to the Supreme Court, evidently. I see this as a phenomenal waste of time and money of the Supreme Court and all the Appellate Courts.

Or wear jewlery that is against school regulations. Unfortunatly some believe there should be one set of rules for one group, and another set for another group.

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 20, 2007 8:01 PM

Quote:
I see this as a phenomenal waste of time and money of the Supreme Court and all the Appellate Courts.

Yeah, why did the Principal have to be such an effing stiff-necked busybody anyway? Wasting the Court's time like that. For shame!

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

FINN MAC CUMHAL

Friday, July 20, 2007 11:57 PM

Quote:
Originally posted by rue:
Out on the street ? Away from school ? On their own time ? Little martinete that you are, I guess you don't understand the concept of freedom of expression.

Being the little Marxist that you are, I guess you don’t care if children actually learn while in school or under school supervision. I suppose you would prefer them to make signs about bongs and dress in pasta outfits, god knows those valuable skills will serve them in later life. But a teen expressing a conviction for responsibility – that is totally uncalled for while in school.

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 21, 2007 1:03 AM

Now where did I say kids should be allowed to do anything they want no matter how disruptive ?

I didn't. You see, I actually have an idea in my head about the function of schools, and not a knee-jerk salute to authoritarianism like you do.

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

FINN MAC CUMHAL

Saturday, July 21, 2007 1:09 AM

Quote:
Originally posted by rue:
Now where did I say kids should be allowed to do anything they want no matter how disruptive ?

I didn't. You see, I actually have an idea in my head about the function of schools, and not a knee-jerk salute to authoritarianism like you do.

You obviously don't know what I'm talking about, despite shooting your mouth off, so I really have no reason to believe that you have clue what you're talking about.

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 21, 2007 1:21 AM

This is the Wiki version of the event

Quote:
On January 24, 2002, students and staff were permitted to leave classes at Juneau-Douglas High School to attend a school-sanctioned and school-supervised event, to watch the Olympic torch pass by.Frederick, who was late for school that day joined some friends on the sidewalk across from the high school, off of school grounds. Frederick and his friends waited for the television cameras so they could unfurl a banner reading "BONG HiTS 4 JESUS". Frederick was quoted as saying he'd first seen the phrase on a snowboard sticker. When they displayed the banner, then-principal Deborah Morse ran across the street and seized it.

It seems to me that

Frederick was not on school grounds
He was "at" a school-sanctioned event, but
He was not under school supevision because he had not reported to school that morning

If they wanted to punish Frderick for something it seems truancy would be the best case. The principal was tweaked not because Frderick was late for school with apparently no good reason (prolly painting that sign last-minute) but because the nature of the sign. If he had held up a sign saying "We luv the Olympics" his truancy would have been forgiven.

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

FINN MAC CUMHAL

Saturday, July 21, 2007 1:31 AM

Quote:
Originally posted by SignyM:
This is the Wiki version of the event
Quote:
On January 24, 2002, students and staff were permitted to leave classes at Juneau-Douglas High School to attend a school-sanctioned and school-supervised event, to watch the Olympic torch pass by.Frederick, who was late for school that day joined some friends on the sidewalk across from the high school, off of school grounds. Frederick and his friends waited for the television cameras so they could unfurl a banner reading "BONG HiTS 4 JESUS". Frederick was quoted as saying he'd first seen the phrase on a snowboard sticker. When they displayed the banner, then-principal Deborah Morse ran across the street and seized it.

It seems to me that

Frederick was not on school grounds
He was "at" a school-sanctioned event, but
He was not under school supevision because he had not reported to school that morning.

According to this passage, it was a “school-sanctioned and school-supervised event.” That the kid may have been trying to play hooky doesn’t make play well for his defense and doesn’t change that the principal was ultimately responsible for the event and had every right to seize the sign, which was inappropriate.

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 21, 2007 1:38 AM

But how was anything he did disruptive to learning ? That's the ultimate function of a school isn't it - to teach students ?

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

FINN MAC CUMHAL

Saturday, July 21, 2007 1:45 AM

Quote:
Originally posted by rue:
But how was anything he did disruptive to learning ? That's the ultimate function of a school isn't it - to teach students ?

Well to begin with, it’s suggestive of illegal activity. A part from that, the principal was in charge and the principal obviously felt that it was disruptive to the school event. School is still run by the adults, right?

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 21, 2007 1:49 AM

So you are arguing authority, and not any actual impairment of learning.

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

FINN MAC CUMHAL

Saturday, July 21, 2007 1:53 AM

Quote:
Originally posted by rue:
So you are arguing authority, and not any actual impairment of learning.

The two are not mutually exclusive. In fact, if you don’t have any authority, you won’t have any learning.

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

FIRST PAGE PREV PAGE 1 2 3 NEXT PAGE LAST PAGE