Attention Tax Wonk and Sidd.....
 

I am fine with this. They have exposed themselves as being without the ability to converse without falling back on personal insult and invective. A sad commentary but not really that different from what their leaders exhibit for the, eg. Dean, the Clintons, Kerry, Biden, Harry Ried.

I suppose once the Senate Minority publicly calls the President a "loser" as a summary comment on the President's being, the rank and file lemmings of the leftwing feel emboldened to adopt such empty rhetoric as the substance of their discourse. A sad commentary on the state of political relations in our country. but no less sad than a minority political group that fails to grasp the core mission of the War on Terror and the resultant freedom that we have spread to millions of people and distinuguish that from the costs of several thousand dead.

If nothing else I am thankful that I am in the majority and am safe and secure in the knowledge that the adults in charge will keep our nation safe while continuing to do what is necessary and right around the world to further that safety and the ideals of freedom. And being tolerant, unbiased and not a hater I will refrain from attacking those too stupid or too ignorant to appareciate the ideals of freedom and human rights here and abroad.

God Bless America and W!

The are endowed by their creator with certain inalieable rights......
 

There isn't a lot of difference a government killing its own people and people getting killed in a war.You can call it collateral damage if you want, but it still boils down to killing innocents.

Sometimes that killing is acceptable. It was acceptable in WWII because of the fact that Hitler was practicing genocide. Of course, we didn't get into WWII because Hitler was practicing genocide. We, meaning the upper levels of military and civilian government knew it was going on, but they didn't think it was worth getting involved in. We got into WWII because of Pearl Harbor, and the fact that Germany declared war on us after we declared war on Japan.

I also don't think it was a bad thing that Saddam was deposed. Had Bush I done it in 92 when we were driving him out of Kuwait, I would have wholeheartedly supported that. But he didn't.

Bush II also didn't depose Saddam because he was killing off thousands of his own citizens and trying to exterminate the Kurds. In fact, we've stood by for decades as Iran, Iraq, and Turkey have all tried to eradicate the Kurds.

W went into Iraq because he was getting his ass kicked by the press for failing to get Bin Laden. He needed a diversion. That's why we went into Iraq. And killing people because you need to boost your poll ratings isn't true or just or right. It's cynical, dishonest, and borders on the criminal. I say borders because I'm not aware of an existing statute that would expressly fit this situation.

As I said yesterday, right war, wrong time, wrong reasons, too great a cost.

Not fair
 

What you don't seem to grasp is that IT ISN'T OUR RIGHT. We don't get to say who is and who isn't being sufficiently democratic. Just as we don't get to play God.

Given that we don't have the right to enforce our ideals on anyone else any time we want to, acting as if we do makes us just a group of murderous thugs. Vigilantism is illegal and immoral. Why do you have the audacity to suggest that it's okay, BUT JUST FOR US, to do it on a global scale?

Attention Tax Wonk and Sidd.....
 

Your posts get attention first, and largely, alone. I am ignoring any of Penske's posts that don't actually lend themselves to actual discussion and the sharing of ideas. While I find that I seldom agree with you, I will give you credit for at least engaging in dialogue, instead of the equivalent of a moneky throwing feces at the zoo.

Differing Concepts of Justice and Freedom
 

You obviously don't understand the phrase Politics of Personal Destruction. It's sad that you and others have resorted to a scorched earth campaign of either invective and/or profanity in a vain attempt to discredit those who have exposed the vacuity of the moral relativists of the left and who would tolerate the murder and oppression of millions in the name of that relativism. No matter how much you want to wish right and wrong away into the grey zone, they do exist and the UMC inside you tells you so. Give in to the light Wonk. For the future of America and freedom.

Attention Tax Wonk and Sidd.....
 

Nice. No matter what you post, there has to be a profane personally directed invective. Talk about a puerile approach. Not to mention that I think that is a stolen Howard Dean line. You should at least give him credit for such high wit.

Differing Concepts of Justice and Freedom
 

With crutches, or without?

Differing Concepts of Justice and Freedom
 

Depends on whether he ascended from purgatory yet.

The are endowed by their creator with certain inalieable rights......
 

Which is why the liberals march in lockstep when this administration wants to sacrifice civil liberties in the war on terror. You really nailed that one. Liberals are all about subordinating individual rights to the common good.

The are endowed by their creator with certain inalieable rights......
 

D'oh!

The are endowed by their creator with certain inalieable rights......
 

The War on Terror is upholding all of the individuals most important rights, to life and liberty. Don't confuse the adjustments of our laws guaranteeing those rights with anything less.


Exactly. My property rights are unfairly subordinated on a daily basis to the unjust confiscation by the demos tax man, supposedly for the common good, but for the most part I fail to see it.

Not fair
 

Ty might say that you shouldn't try to haphazardly change a culture, since government doesn't do that well. You might call this the "conservative" position.

The are endowed by their creator with certain inalieable rights......
 

Then why the liberals continue to manifest the hollow ideology of moral relativism (your blanket apology notwithstanding)????

Not fair
 

But the point that you are missing is that all peoples, even the Arabs et al, desire freedom and the ability to exercise their God given natural rights. In the Iraqis and other Arabs' case, certain oppressors are denying them that freedom. We are delivering it unto them. there is no cultural imposition, it is application and defense of the UMC.

Not fair
 

Ps: What would Ty@51 say?

Differing Concepts of Justice and Freedom
 

OK - but you are giving me way too much credit. But that is probably because you don't know me very well. Ask Sidd. He will straighten you out.

Is this a bad thing?

Differing Concepts of Justice and Freedom
 

Not really (although I don't know why he used an antiquated and politically not-so-correct term to call you black, are you black? If so, I still don't know why it is relevant), unless you call Kleagle Byrd your leader, then I suppose it would be.

Webster's says:


cimarron wild, unruly, from cima the summit of a mountain; hence, negro cimarron a runaway negro that lives in the mountains.] In the West Indies and Guiana, a fugitive slave, or a free negro, living in the mountains.

The are endowed by their creator with certain inalieable rights......
 

"We had to destroy the village in order to save it."

The are endowed by their creator with certain inalieable rights......
 

We had to remove the oppression over the village in order to set its people free.

Not fair
 

OK. And yet, the whole experiment of changing their culture doesn't seem to be working out so well. It turns out, e.g., that Sunnis are more interested in Sunni power than in western-style democracy. Who could have known?

Not fair
 

They are now free to come to that decision, of course, what they are learning is that with freedom comes responsibility. In time, with our assistance they will come to exercise that responsibility in a moral way.

Not fair
 

If Hank is still up, maybe we'll find out.

The are endowed by their creator with certain inalieable rights......
 

So there is no difference between the US sending soliders into WWII where some of them forseably died, and the government intentionally infecting black men with syphillis (which they knew would could them - the Tuskegee experiement) for a study.

Pretty much the same thing?

I agree. I think getting rid of Stalin would have justified killing millions of innocent Russians, just like getting rid of Hitler justified the killing of millions of Germans.

I think FDR wanted to get us in even before he knew about the Genocide. I think FDR thought Kryselnacht and the invasion of Poland was enough to justify going to war agaisnt Germany. Unfortubately the rest of the US was not as enlightened.

I think he didn't because he was too caught up into UN mandates. He also assumed that the insurgency would take Saddam out.

I think that was part of it.


That is what happens when you have moral relativists sitting around saying that we can not be the policemen of the world, we can't shove western values down other peoples throats, and if innocent people died when we were trying to stop the genocide that would be just as bad as the genocide.


I disagree with this assumption altough I do agree that killing people to boost your polls is a truly despicable act. I don't think Bush did that, but he did he would be a truly awful person.

That is fair.

Not fair
 

And if things go wrong, it was because they didn't act responsibly, not because the whole notion was fucked-up to start with, like some of us said.

Differing Concepts of Justice and Freedom
 

You still don't handle all of this well, do you?

Differing Concepts of Justice and Freedom
 

Either (a) you haven't looked, or (b) you rely on the NYT and its ilk for your information. There were many sources of reliable opinion-samplings both before and after our invasion that directly support the thesis that the majority - the vast majority - welcomed us, wanted us, and, in fact, still want us. If there's a difference of opinion right now, it centers on, when should we leave - and none of the favorite answers include "soon."

Not fair
 

It's not just a political label, you know. It means that people are free and empowered to have a say in the running of their own lives - that people can affect the course of their own existence, that people aren't just slaves to some powerful thug. I guess our basic disagreement, then, starts right here - it's not only our right, it's our duty.

Not fair
 

Then shouldn't we be raising taxes to pay for our invasions of China, Iran, Zimbabwe, Cuba and Burma (inter alia)?

Not fair
 

It may not be a great thing but it is justified. It sucks to have to kill innocent people but some times it is the right thing to do. Bombing aushwitz would have killed innocent people but it would have been the right thing to do. It woudl have been better if we could have done it without klling innocent people but sometimes you don't have that optoin.

Why not? If we don't who will? Wasn't it OK for us to assume that Hitler was not being sufficiently democratics. Stalin, Pol Pot etc. We have to make those moral choices. It is imperative because if we don't we just encourage evil.

I don't know what this means but if it means we don't get to kill people that is wrong. Like I said, sometimes it is a moral imperative to kill people. Especially if killing people will save innocent lives. More Especially if killing guilty people will save innocent lives. Sometimes it is wrong not to kill people.

No sometimes it makes us enforcers of justice. We should missed a big chance in Rwanda. You think it was a good thinkg we stayed out of there and did not "impose our ideals on those people".

It may be illegal but it is not always immoral.



I have no problem with other people doing it. I wish more countrys would. When vietnam invaded cambodia to stop Pol Pot I was all for it. When Israel bombed Saddams power plants I thought that was a great thing. I wish some other western country had intervened in Rwanda. If France and England had invaded Iraq on their own to get rid of Saddam I would have been cheering them the whole way. If Thailand invaded Burma right now to get rid of the Burmese government I would support them 100%. Problem is that most of the time the US seems to be the only country with the moral center and cajones to do this stuff.

The are endowed by their creator with certain inalieable rights......
 

There was a meeting of all of the librarians who ended up having to fork over information due to the operation of the dread "library clause" in the Patriot Act.

No one showed up.

Could be they were worried that the room was going to be taken by all of the judges who had signed the dread Patriot Act warrants that differed from the warrants available prior to the Act.

But that was silly, 'cuz no one showed up for that meeting, either.

There was some guy named Padilla in the room, but he sort of glowed in the dark and kept muttering Insha Allah this and Great Satan that, so even the waiters stayed out. Bad party.

Not fair
 

The people at Treblinka were happy for a less- than-perfect result. So, apparently, were many Iraqis.

Differing Concepts of Justice and Freedom
 

the liberals are decompensating before our eyes. Like screaming Howard Dean.

http://media.washingtonpost.com/wp-d...0929-2004Oct17

Not fair
 

Considering some of the people you have voted for, I might consider calling you are conservative reactionary (in certain circumstances).

Not fair
 

Arguably, yes.

But is your point, do all, or do none?

Not fair
 

2.

The are endowed by their creator with certain inalieable rights......
 

And this whole ruckus about torture is completely overblown. If anyone was being tortured, they'd have a book deal and a regular slot on Air America.

Not fair
 

It's uncanny, the way that you intuited that when I was referring to "changing a culture," I really meant "stopping a Treblinka." Wow.

The are endowed by their creator with certain inalieable rights......
 

I was thinking you meant Franken, but then realized that he's the one doing the torturing, so that can't be what you meant.

Not fair
 

Why is that off-base? In both instances, the "culture" consists of one group with absolute power causing pain, death, and inconvenience to another, powerless, group. In each instance, we delivered that second group from a bad, bad time into a much better one. I think you know of what I speak, but you're still falling into sarcasm to substitute for logical argument.

Not fair
 

I think all of those would be misguided adventures. But I do find it striking that most conservatives are willing to offer democratic principles as a post hoc justification for what has already been done and yet have nothing to say about all of the ways that George Bush has fallen short in the continuing struggle for freedome around the world. It's like they don't really give a shit about democracy, really.