Just remember, the nanny-staters always scoff at the "slippery slope" argument. But once they get started, they never turn back:
Chicago aldermen have cracked down on foie gras, public smoking, noisy street musicians and drivers yakking on cell phones.
Now they want to microchip Fido.
A City Council ordinance likely to face a Wednesday vote would require dog owners to have a microchip implanted in the scruff of a pet's neck for identification purposes.
The best line:
They also have threatened to use their legislative might to improve living standards for elephants and require taxi drivers to wear crisp white shirts and matching pants and socks.
The microchip ordinance is in keeping with that activist spirit.
Will it ever end?
As if the crime, congestion and other issues facing Chicago isn't enough for the City Council to work on.
Let alone the corruption.
The Chicago City Council surely has more to work on, but "chipping" dogs is a good idea. My dog is "chipped", and if he gets lost, and turned into a vet or a humane society, he is in a database which will cause them to contact me, so I can get my dog back.
I know, I know, personal choice, but it's a good idea nonetheless.
I know it's a good idea. But is it the government's role to force people to adopt that good idea?
didn't Champaign institute some sort of vet tax not long ago?
It was a tax on cats, I believe, to pay for a new pound.
"I know it's a good idea. But is it the government's role to force people to adopt that good idea?"
No.
Some ideas, yes, this idea, no.
But therein lies the slippery slope which the nanny-staters constantly assure us doesn't exist.
Good idea #1 passes into law.
Good idea #2 passes into law.
...
Supporters of Good Idea #417 use Good Ideas Numbers 1 through 416 to justify the onerous imposition of Good Idea #417.
And then we've got government-mandated safety standards for how long we're allowed to stand outside in the sun.
Because, you know, it's a good idea.
The Cat tax was implemented by the Champaign County Board about 4 years ago - $10 per cat, every year (thank you County Board Democrats).
Of course we can't have prisoners at the jail being charged for phone calls, but Grandma has to pay up for Kitty . . .
"The Cat tax was implemented by the Champaign County Board about 4 years ago - $10 per cat, every year (thank you County Board Democrats)."
And the unintended consequence - some cat owners decide not to go to the vet for annual shots to avoid the $10 tax.
Here's something to think about... what about people with allergies? You know, like people with peanut allergies. Many, if not all, airlines no longer give those yummy snacks because there might be a kid on the plane who will inhale some of the peanut dust. I think this is a fruitful area for lawsuits and nanny-state laws.
The possibilities are endless:
Flowers
Animals
Cleaning supplies
Xerox machines
Perfume
All of these things can cause serious problems for some people, and we certainly can't force them to live as "second-class citizens".
You know what they don't ban more money for themselves, it as if every legislative body acts the same city,state and nation. Throw 'em all out. Voting for an incumbent for any position is dumb.
I think that this is what anon was referring to.
http://www.co.champaign.il.us/ac/animcont.pdf
see article 2 section 27 (sorry, I am not sure how to make this a link)
RSW- there is another section on penalties for not registering your pet.
Would someone really stop getting $75 worth of shots every year for their cat because the registration would make it $85 total? What is another $10 when you are already spending $75? I see where you were going with this and how it might be a law that is not enforceable, but I am not following your logic. Especially when not getting these shots puts the health of all inhabitants of a house at risk, not just the cats.
Adam--don't give the politicians any ideas. First, it's warning labels, then it's banning stuff. Can't wait to see what the next thing is for our own city council.
Isn't this just like those damn DUI laws. Back in the 60's the breath level cut-off was 0.15%, then it became 0.10%, and in the late 1990's it became 0.08%.
That's what I call a slipperly slope. Every year the legislature tinkers with the DUI laws, always making them more harsh. If slipperly slopes are bad, then how do conservatives feel about the constant ratcheting up of prison sentences and new crimes?
So DUI laws = mandatory microchipping of pets?
Wow.
Interesting. I thought conservatives didn't believe in slippery slopes when it came to personal freedom. Oh, wait. That's for freedom of speech and other civil liberties.
Michael: That's freedom of their speech and freedon of their cibil liberties only. Doesn't apply to us in the 'lower' classes.
"The Cat tax was implemented by the Champaign County Board about 4 years ago - $10 per cat, every year (thank you County Board Democrats)."
I believe Deb Fienen voted for the cat tax. Is she a county board Democrat?
sorry my last post had the wrong link to my blog. this one has the right one
That's why I bitch so much about restrictions on political speech.
No, Gordy, DUI laws = slippery slopes that are oh so very bad and must be avoided.
Gordy Hulten Says:
July 25th, 2006 at 3:10 pm
So DUI laws = mandatory microchipping of pets?
Wow.
You're great at making my point for me.
Your point: DUI laws are good, so ignore the slippery slope argument.
My point: Nannystaters will point to the good ideas already enacted as justification for stupid laws now proposed, and dismiss slippery slope arguments by saying, "Look! DUI laws have saved lives! You're a helpless status quo defender standing in the way of progress!"
That doesn't mean that I think DUI laws are bad. That means that I think that DUI laws are a bad precedent to use when proposing legislation that mandates microchipping pets.
Gordy, what you are saying about "slippery slopes" is true. But only so far as to show why it's bad logic to justify additional intrusions based on past intrusions.
I don't see any support for your idea that it makes it reasonable to create this crazy "nanny stater" designation and use it to slur anyone who disagrees with you.
The people should be able to analyze the relative merits of each side of the issue without you going all "nanny" on everyone and using your rhetoric to push them around.
Incidentally, for anyone actually interested in these issues, you might find this interesting...
In Japan, alcohol consumption before 20 is illegal, but completely unenforced. In fact, you can easily buy beer and other alcohol on the street corner from vending machines. There are occasional mishaps with University related under-aged drinking (sound familiar ;)), but certainly not as widespread as in the U.S.
I guess that would be a less "nanny state" way of doing things.
On the flipside, the legal limit is 0. You cannot drive after having any alcohol whatsoever. There are frequent road blocks where they breathalyze EVERY SINGLE DRIVER.
There's not really any problems with this. It's not inconvenient--there are special taxi services with two drivers who will take you home and drive your car home as well. People take the train places, and will carpool while switching off as designated driver. If worse comes to worse, people just stay at each other's apartments rather than driving drunk.
Anyway, the point is, that it's relative. Obviously some things--like having the government spy on your phone calls--are pretty extreme violations of civil liberties. But on issues like alcoholic consumption and driving, it differs from society to society. So it's better for the citizens of the society to just hash out (no pun intended) what works best for it.
I don't know about this issue, but the microchipping idea probably isn't that bad. I mean, people already have to get licences for their pets stating that they've had their shots or whatever. And they already have to get metal tags that the pets are supposed to wear, right? So if the microchip thing is easier and more effective than the tags, it might be a fine idea. I mean, it's really about using a bit metal collar tag, or a small implantable one, yes? Which tagging procedure is best?
It seems that Chicago does have some financial justification here, since when the city finds a tagless domestic animal, it must must be housed and treated until it's picked up, or destroyed (a task no one's eager to do).
In any case, if this sort of measure seems a bit too creepy and big brother-ish, just wait and see what the private sector has in store for you.
You people are utter hypocrites. You get bent out of shape if the government says you can't blow smoke in crowded restaurant or force feed a bird to make foie gras because you supposedly believe in small government. So where's the outrage at government telling us who we can and can't marry? How come you don't mind the government snooping in your phone and internet records? And why do you support government endorsements of Christianity?
If you really believed in small government, you'd want the government to stay out of all this stuff. The answer, of course, is you only believe in small government when you feel like it.
And Justin lands a hard right to the jaw of Hapless Status Quo Defenders everywhere ...
But run4cvrlib denies he was touched, and blames the puncher, then vvl insults the puncher, denies he insulted him, and complains the puncher threw an unfair liberal punch, so it doesn't count
>So where's the outrage at government telling us who we can and can't marry?
You willing to allow one man to marry multiple women? A person to marry a dog? Many women to mary many men? Are you willing to deal with all the social ramification of those? The unknowns? The legal uncertainties? I am.
Or are you one of those people that supports discrimination and exclusion and only wants certain people, like two men or a man and a woman to be allowed to marry?
>And why do you support government endorsements of Christianity?
Nice strawman.
Justin,
I don't think the government should be involved in marriage.
I don't think the government should actively listen into phone calls or monitor internet activities of American citizens without a warrant.
And I don't think the government should establish any religion, but neither do I think the government should actively prevent religion.
Anything else?
And Wenalway continues to try to make his square peg analysis fit into every single round hole issue.
My religion, calls for me smoking marijuana. So should the US government prevent me from the sacrament of marijuana?
And if you want to know which religion, it is Rasta, through the prophet Marcus Garvey, to Jah, whom you may call Selassie I.
I was listening to an interview on WLS in Chicago. It was with Aaron Russo discussing his new documentary - AMERICA, FROM FREEDOM TO FACISM. He was sounding a little paranoid about the over control of the Federal goverment. During one of the commercial breaks, the local news report was about all of the recent Chicago City Council ordinances. It certainly made me take his premise more seriously.
taxi drivers are pigs. i'm all for "technology forcing" in this context. i think they should also be forced to bathe and have a driver's license.
have you ever RIDDEN in a Chicago taxi? they seem to feel that traffic laws and common decency have no relevance.
Are we talking about square pegs like a failing health care system that will go bankrupt in 15 to 20 years?
Are we talking about people exhaling toxins onto other people?
Are we talking about a dancing Indian mascot that's not even called a mascot?
Just wondering which square peg we're talking about.
I don't think the government should be involved in marriage.
I don't think the government should actively listen into phone calls or monitor internet activities of American citizens without a warrant.
And I don't think the government should establish any religion, but neither do I think the government should actively prevent religion.
Anything else?
Yeah. How 'bout you actually start arguing what you believe instead of letting your party and the folks 'round here exploit these issues for cheap political points?
You have a habit of declaring you're against stuff when it comes up but, for some reason, you don't challenge your fellow conservatives when they get all fascist on this stuff.
Honestly, I don't believe you.
And the Hapless Status Quo Defenders take another hard jab ...
Another slippery slope, but conservatives don't fear this going too far:
Washington D.C. (AHN) - The U.S. Senate is expected to approve a legislation Tuesday that will prohibit anyone other than a parent or guardian of a minor from taking that minor across state lines in order to obtain an abortion. The House passed the bill by 270-157, last year.
You see, for conservative, if they don't like the legislation it is a "slippery slope" but if they do like it, they are willing to enact it, support it and brag about it on their campaign materials. One man's slippery slope is another man's step in the right direction. The corrective actions of a free electorate keep slopes from getting too slippery.
Look at how liberal the US Supreme Court got in the 1960's. With every decision increasing the rights of citizens/suspects, folks complained about a slippery slope. Now the slope is still slippery, its just that we are sliding in the other direction.
Don't fear slippery slopes. Its an urban legend. Argue the proposals on their own merits, not where you fears imagine they may go in the future.
Gordy,
I expected an answer.
Some good arguments here. I've been pointing out on various threads just how bad for your trans fats are for you and how government should at the very least require strict labeling on fast foods (food manufacturers are already required to label trans fat content) and that government should possibly restrict use of trans fats, like they are doing in Europe and Canada. This based on Harvard School of Public Health's finding that trans fats are responsible for 30,000 to 100,000 premature deaths annually.
And all I get is slippery slope responses.
Would this same argument apply when Kent cigarettes was using an asbestos filter on its cigarettes in the 1950s? Slippery slope, government can do no good! Let the market decide.
"Yeah. How 'bout you actually start arguing what you believe instead of letting your party and the folks 'round here exploit these issues for cheap political points?
You have a habit of declaring you're against stuff when it comes up but, for some reason, you don't challenge your fellow conservatives when they get all fascist on this stuff.
Honestly, I don't believe you. "
Frankly, you're being awfully rude. How about every time you state your position on something, I simply tell you that it's worthless because "I don't believe you."
This is going to be long, but let me explain my positions in more detail.
My top issue for the Federal government is national security, first and foremost, way ahead of anything else. I want a Federal government that is committed to killing as many terrorists as possible as aggressively as possible while spreading free trade and democracy to the citizens of those countries ruled by terrorist-supporting dictators. I will put up with a lot of extraneous crap to support a government that agrees with me on this position.
On this issue, it is impossible to even consider the Democrats as a serious alternative. They have no plan, no concept of our long-term security needs, and no interest in putting America's interests before those of the rest of the world. (Yes, that's what I said.)
My secondary issue for the Federal government is tax reductions and spending reductions, especially entitlement reform. The Federal government is becoming a giant, insidious, wish-granting, dependency-creating pig that is fostering corruption and encouraging everyone (rich, poor, businesses, labor) to look to the Feds for a handout rather than find a solution themselves. That's one of the reasons I like Rep. Tim Johnson so much - I don't want a Congressman who sponsors a lot of bills and introduces a ton of new spending, because we already have too much of that already. There is a saying that America is much better off when Congress isn't in session. Again, on these issues, it is impossible to even consider the Democrats as a serious alternative. They mouth platitudes about cutting spending, but their first actions will be to "roll back" the Bush tax cuts (i.e. increase taxes and spending.) The will "earmark the [crap] out it." They will offer more entitlements, more activist government, and more of this notion that the government is there to make your pain and worry go away.
Therefore, even if I disagree with the Federal Republicans about the gay marriage amendment, why should I speak out about it? Doing so would only help a Democratic Party that I find anathema, and wouldn't do anything to help achieve my top policy goals (fighting terrorism and cutting taxes/spending).
On the issue of, as you call it, "wiretapping." I'm OK with the Feds data-mining phone call records, even of Americans, even without a warrant, as long as the legislature hasn't specifically prohibited it. They're not listening in, they're data-mining. If they weren't doing this, I'd question their common-sense.
In addition, I'm OK with the Feds listening in on phone conversations to international suspects of terrorism. It's something we've done historically during wartime, and if we weren't doing it, I'd question their common sense and commitment to killing terrorists. Similarly, I'm OK with monitoring international internet traffic.
I know that you framed the question as if the Feds were listening in on every phone call between two Americans., without a warrant. I know you framed the question as if the Feds were reading every email between two Americans, without a warrant. I don't think these activities are as extensive as you make them out to be, and I'd appreciate you providiing some evidence that the Feds are acting as you say they are.
That said, pinky-wink, how loudly do you scream when the Illinois Dems steal money from the pension funds of government employees. Where are your complaints when your Democrat Governor sells access to special interests and campaign contributors? How about financing public education through a ponzi scheme of gaming interests and the lottery sale?
Are you opposed to these things? I must have missed your 1500-diatribe against them that you paid to have printed in the News-Gazette. And since you haven't complained as loudly as I think you should, you must actually support those things.
Gordy,
Should Rastas be allowed to smoke cannabis as part of their religious ceremonies or not?
It's not killing chickens (santarias may do so) or something involving human sacrifice, you know.
Feds out of religion, or not? This is a slippery slope argument, sir, and you brought it up.
"Some good arguments here. I've been pointing out on various threads just how bad for your trans fats are for you and how government should at the very least require strict labeling on fast foods (food manufacturers are already required to label trans fat content) and that government should possibly restrict use of trans fats, like they are doing in Europe and Canada. This based on Harvard School of Public Health's finding that trans fats are responsible for 30,000 to 100,000 premature deaths annually.
And all I get is slippery slope responses.
Would this same argument apply when Kent cigarettes was using an asbestos filter on its cigarettes in the 1950s? Slippery slope, government can do no good! Let the market decide."
Anon, thanks for making my point for me, too.
"Should Rastas be allowed to smoke cannabis as part of their religious ceremonies or not? It's not killing chickens (santarias may do so) or something involving human sacrifice, you know. Feds out of religion, or not? This is a slippery slope argument, sir, and you brought it up."
Sorry, I was ignoring your question because I was/am convinced you're just trying to be silly.
Religions are not allowed to break criminal laws. If you disagree with the criminal law, change it to accomodate your religious ceremony. Do you think Satanists should be allowed to sacrifice humans as a part of their religious cermonies?
Outlawing murder or smoking marijuana isn't a restriction on religion, because it doesn't target the activity in its religious context, but rather in all contexts.
Gordy,
If a 20 year old drives to church on Sunday, takes Communion, has but a sip of sacramental wine, and then drives home, that person is guilty of "zero tolerance" drunk driving. It does not matter if that person gets caught, that person is guilty of the offense.
Isn't that the same? The "zero tolerance" DUI laws ban ALL consumption of ALL alcohol by those under 21 yoa.
You can say, the person need not drive, but many churches are rural, many 20 year olds have small children who cannot walk far, etc. To deny one taking the sacrament of Holy Communion, or to make the person wait until the next day to leave the church is, to put it mildly, governmental interference with religious practices.
Please differentiate.
Oh come on.
Try drinking grape juice for communion.
Again, the zero tolerance DUI laws aren't targeted at the religious practice, but rather at the behavior regardless of whether it involves a religious ceremony or not.
Since you're being completely silly, I can be, too: Do you think Satanists should be allowed to sacrifice humans as a part of their religious cermonies? Or is the government prohibition on murder a restriction of that important religious sacrament?
I am not being "completely silly", thank you very much.
Mainstream Chirstian religions use wine, not grape juice.(Some use grape juice, but not all.) The law ("zero tolerance") does not differentiate if the wine was at home with parents' permission, at a rave party, or as a sacrament.
So too, the law does not differentiate between smoking cannabis in church as part of a sacrament, at home, or at a party.
I do not know Satanism. I do not think they sacrifice people. I speak to a recognized religion, known colloquially as "Rastafarianism", which has its basis in Judeo-Christian orthodoxy.
"I am not being “completely silly”ÂÂ, thank you very much."
Your examples are completely silly.
You say the are silly. Why are they silly?
is that just an ignorantium ad hominem, or do you have some basis for calling it silly?
Yes, I have a basis, as I've already explained multiple times: the laws aren't targeted at the religious practice, but rather at the behavior regardless of whether it involves a religious ceremony or not. Therefore, they are not restrictions on religion.
Go ahead and come up with another silly example.
I read a couple of interesting quotes by Gandi yesterday. The first was "those who say that religion has nothing to do with politics do not know what religion means". The second quote was "there is no other God than Truth".
With regard to the arguements about Rastafarianism etc, one has to look at the core values that are expressed by each situation. Certainly, Rastafarianism has some beautiful humanitarian perspectives.
Someone told me recently that the original laws to outlaw cannabis were part of some kind of economic struggle regarding hemp production. I didn't listen closely, so don't know too much about it.
One could argue that pot is harmless, but didn't the Turks really get into it as part of some activities of violence?
On another note, why are so many of the posters unable to differentiate between between the right to smoke in "all" environments from the right to smoke in "any" environments. I have not yet seen a single credible arguement as to why smoking should not be allowed in "some" restaurants and "some" bars which cater exclusively to the clientel that is seeking that kind of environment.
The law says no one under 21 yoa may consume alcoholic beverages. A Christian practice is that one takes Holy Communion by sipping wine (The blood of my blood.)
Another Christian practice, (Rasta is Christian, you know) says that Holy Communion involves the consumption of cannabis.
To restrict one from taking wine, albeit a status offense based on age, is the same as to restrict one from taking cannabis, when each is taken as a part of religious ceremony.
The law is targeted at the practice, not the consequence.
Under 21's may not drink wine "for fun", and Rastas may not smoke cannabis "for fun". They are both against the law. But the religious practice, consuming one substance, each of which is an "intoxicant", or the other, is the same. It IS the religious practice that is prohibited.
This thread is a "slippery slope" thread, I do not try to justify the worship of God in any one way or another. It just seems to me that the slippery slope argument is, in this case, 'what is sauce for the goose is sauce for the gander".
And please refrain from calling me names, even by reference. It does not advance discourse.
If you stop posting silly examples, I'll stop calling the examples you post silly. They are not advancing the discussion.
Thank you, sir.
This conversation has been enlightening.
Your apparent utter refusal to consider and discuss, rather, your continued insults calling me (by way of calling my arguments) "silly", speaks, I am sad to discover, volumes. Recalcitrance is not a good methodology to advance ideas.
Good day, sir.
Have a good day.
Mr. Bluebird on my shoulder...
That said, pinky-wink, how loudly do you scream when the Illinois Dems steal money from the pension funds of government employees. Where are your complaints when your Democrat Governor sells access to special interests and campaign contributors? How about financing public education through a ponzi scheme of gaming interests and the lottery sale?
Are you opposed to these things? I must have missed your 1500-diatribe against them that you paid to have printed in the News-Gazette. And since you haven't complained as loudly as I think you should, you must actually support those things.
Gordy - I e-mailed on this but I'll clarify a bit here.
Personally, I'm a cynic. I've said it a million times, but I'll say it again: they are all crooks. Even Edgar was dirty. Reagan? Please. FDR? Come on. Lincoln? Never met a supporter he couldn't find a government contract.
The democrats in Springfield are corrupt. No doubt about it. As corrupt as Ryan? Maybe.
But Blago covers my kid's insurance needs for $40 a month. Blago has resisted property tax reform, but has increased education spending. Blago has taken steps to protect the Illinois environment. Blago has fought licensed Pharmacists who believe they can pick and choose which prescriptions to fill.
In short, I find a lot to like in Rod. Sure he's a slimebag. Of course he's corrupt. What else is new?
He just saved us $4000 a year on health insurance. What has your President done for me lately, besides killing a distant relative in his war?
"He just saved us $4000 a year on health insurance. What has your President done for me lately, besides killing a distant relative in his war?"
Since Blago gets credit for spending other people's money on your health insurance, why won't you give Bush any credit for lowering your tax rates in the first place?
(On a slightly unrelated note, where are you taking your kid locally that accepts AllKids?)
My top issue for the Federal government is national security, first and foremost, way ahead of anything else. I want a Federal government that is committed to killing as many terrorists as possible as aggressively as possible while spreading free trade and democracy.
Wow. How terminally simple-minded. I like how you express not the slightest interest in actually stopping or reducing terrorism, but instead voice a desire to revel in the killing of "terrorists" (whatever those might be), irrespective of the effectiveness of this dubious tactic on actually stopping terrorism.
I'd prefer a government that's effective at stopping terrorism to one that just kills a lot of people to satisfy the thoughless bloodlust of those for whom the mere killing of enemies (real or imagined) serves as a kind of murderous psychotherapy.
I remain convinced that the only way to stop or reduce terrorism is by eliminating state sponsors of it; specifically, by removing the dictators who support terrorists by installing republics/democracies in their stead, and by promoting free trade. This will take decades and immense political will. I don't know if we have it in us to see this fight through.
I also remain convinced that those who are willing to unprovokedly kill thousands of innocent civilians cannot be brought around by diplomacy or accomdation, which are the methods we've been unsuccessfully trying for decades, while they continued to kill more of our civilians. This goes against every relativist and muliticulturalist fiber of our modern society, but I believe that those who are willing to do anything to kill noncombatants are evil incarnate, without a viewpoint worth recognizing or accomodating.
What, exactly, are your suggestions to end terrorism long-term?
How about a lock in at the youth center?
It worked for the rival gangs in South Park...
I remain convinced that the only way to stop or reduce terrorism is by eliminating state sponsors of it
Well ok, though a couple posts ago you said that it was "killing terrorists" that was key which, obviously, is very different from this claim about state sponsors. I wish you'd make your arguments more precisely.
What's your basis for the claim that those who kill innocent civilans can't be negotiated with? Your attempt to construe your enemies as some sort of evil robots or "evil incarnate" is provincial and counterproductive. In fact, your view is itself evil, in my opinion.
One must be extemely reluctant to deny the humanity of other human persons, or to dismiss them as evil and therefore ok to kill (honestly, it freaks me out that I even have to make this point). Disturbingly, you seem to have little idea what sort of greviences anyone might reasonably hold against the United States. You may have had such little exposure to history and to viewpoints from countries outside the US that for you a reasonable complaint against the US is for you literally unimanginable.
However, despite your claim that your enemies are a form of solid evil, and the difficulty you have imagining or considering complaints about American policy over the years, the distinction between terrorist and non-terrorist is less clear than you imagine, and (moreover) many terrorists and the people who support them can be reasoned with successfully.
Not all of them. Some of them you will in fact have to kill. But it's crucial to keep such killing to a minimum, since the sort of foreign policy the Bush admin is conducting in the Middle East is like conducting a 9-11 every month or so in Iraq---a country that had done nothing, or hardly anything, to harm the U.S. And we're convincing much of the world that *we're* "evil incarnate" as you put it. And when the world is full of people viewing one-another as evil incarnate, you've got a really dangerous situation (ok, unless your a fundamentalist Christian or Muslim, in which case it's all a glorius jihad or one step closer to the rapture).
Instead of pursuing a strategy in which we can isolate and destroy terrorism, we've made much of the world *sympathetic* to these terrorists. After-all, we've killed a lot more innocent civilians than they have. The Taliban are coming back in Afghanistan---where we never bothered to really defeat them, or to even capture Osama. That's a disaster. I supported the Afghanistan invasion, and watched in horror as the Bush admin quickly left the country to fall apart and began attacking a country for all the wrong reasons, that has become an enormous disaster.
Really, there's not much the Bush admin can do now. We need new leadership to approach this problem multi-laterally, and systematically address the causes of terrorism, and prevent terrorist violence from occuring.
Chris Matthews, who I generally despise, does a fine job explainig the problems with the Bush admin.'s policy, in this clip from the Don Imus show. Around 3:10 or so into this clip, Matthews offers a clearer explanation of how tragically this adminstration has missed diplomatic oppritunities, than I'm able to do in the time I have now. I do suggest you take a listen.
"In fact, your view is itself evil, in my opinion."
I've been insulted an awful lot on here, but this is the first time someone called me evil while justifying terrorism as the means used by someone with a "reasonable complaint against the US."
I think that's reason enough for me to avoid you in future discussions.
"After-all, we've killed a lot more innocent civilians than they have."
Enough said.
On a slightly unrelated note, where are you taking your kid locally that accepts AllKids?
Hopefully nowhere. Who wants to visit a doctor? Yucky.
BUT ... if the need arose we would use our physician over at Carle. The trick with AllKids is you have to have an established file. We got our little one checked and re-checked after the birth (at home) and paid with the old insurance. Now that she is established in the system we switch to AllKids, pay $40 a month, and go back to never seeing the doctor.
We like it dat way. :)
Ah, so providers won't accept new patients with AllKids, but existing ones are OK to switch to AllKids. Hopefully the state will start paying its bills so you don't get the rug yanked out from under you.
I've been insulted an awful lot on here, but this is the first time someone called me evil . . .
Please. A better reason to avoid futher discussion would be the maifest weakness of your arguments. As here for example you assert that you can't distinguish between a claim that a view you present is evil, and a claim that you youself are evil.
Your view, as far as I can see, tends towards the dehumanization of those assocaited with terrorism, and so fits a definiton of evil that assocaites the term with the dehuminization of human beings---or, the failure to regard them as "ends in them selves." It's in this sense, I would argue, an evil view.
So I here make a judgement of your view (as I said), and and not of you personally. I extent to you as to others the assumption that you're a fine person in your day-to-day life. I'm able to make this charitable assumption despite your absurd claim that that I was "justifying terrorism," which I'll assume was another honest mistake.
If you can't cope with criticism of your views (or bother stating them with some care) perhaps you should refrain from posting comments in public forums like this one.
“After-all, we've killed a lot more innocent civilians than they have.”ÂÂ
Enough said.
Yeah, right. Enough said. See also.
You're saying "enough said" because the number of persons killed by terrorists is much smaller than the number of civilians killed to date by state-sponsored military and anti-terrorist actions, and you're reluctant to really try and defend a prevailing but incorrect position on this issue. Americans have themselves been responsible for hundreds of thousands of civilian casualties since the turn of the last century, including at least 50,000 civilian deaths in the recent Iraq conflict alone.
"Enough said" is an intellectually undemanding way to avoid making any substantative reply to my comments or criticisms. I may also be an admission that you can't.
You really do think the terrorists are morally superior to America, don't you?
Or at least morally superior to me, because I'm unwilling to accomodate, rationalize or tolerate their desire to target and deliberately murder civilians to make a political point.
And you think this is worth discussing? We have such fundamentally different frames of reference, discussion is impossible.
Because, of course, you're just so much more sophisticated and intelligent than I am. I'm just a simple guy who thinks that targeting civilians as a matter of policy is evil.
No.
"the number of persons killed by terrorists is much smaller than the number of civilians killed to date by state-sponsored military and anti-terrorist actions, and you're reluctant to really try and defend a prevailing but incorrect position on this issue. Americans have themselves been responsible for hundreds of thousands of civilian casualties since the turn of the last century, including at least 50,000 civilian deaths in the recent Iraq conflict alone."
Let me rephrase my question as a statement: You really do think the terrorists are morally superior to America.
Ok, let me say more (I wrote this before your last reply). I don't support what terrorists do (though that's a slippery term, isn't it? We remember in the 80's how one man's "freedom fighter" is another man's "terrorist.") In fact, I loathe it. The thought of pipe-bombing a bus full of civilians strikes me as unspeakably horrendous.
I don't excuse terrorism. At the same time, just becuase violence is done with a tank or a missile shell, isn't necessarily less bad, though sometimes it might seem so, becuase it is less threatening to *us*. I mean, I don't worry about Israel shelling my house, or a death squad in Kzakstan killing my family. Or American troops killing my family members becuase they had the wrong friends, or panicked and sped up at a check point. So these offenses might not seem so threatening to you or I.
Yet such violence "from above" is as bad as the kind "from below," and more widespread. My goal is to reduce all such violence, from both directions rather than to focus exclusively on one kind, or to imagine that "collateral damage" is ok, since the civilian deaths weren't the primary mission.
I'm not apologizing for terrorism or etc. But if you so thoroughly dehumanize your enemies that you can't understand their motivations or negotiate with them, you leave youself with no alternative but to enage in endless human butchery. Which is imho not a desirable option. Surely we can agree on this as one example of a common shared frame of reference.
Pinky-Wink, You mean you pay a $40 premuim up front and then you pay the rest in higher taxes. Nothings free
The only people with the power to stop the violence are the terrorists.
If they stop the violence, we'll stop the violence.
But if we stop the violence first, they won't stop the violence. We've tried before. Israel has tried for decades, even giving them land which they later used to launch attacks on civilians. They'll keep killing civilians until we kill them, or until there is no place left for them to hide.
Understand their motivations? They want to kill civilians. Why? Because the civilians aren't enough like them. How do you propose to reason with that?
What are you going to offer them to get them to stop killing American and Israeli civilians?
What would have been good enough to get a monster like Abu Abbas or Osama bin Laden or Zarqawi to stop killing civilians?
How do you propose to get them to stop killing civilians when they've been doing it for decades, regardless of whether we fought back or not?
Is there anything or anyone that you find too evil to accomodate?
I used to be a hard R. Never pulled a D ballo tin my life. Then I started reading this blog.
Gordy, Shelden, run4cvrlib, veritas, have all convinced me. If they represent the local Republican Party, I'll never vote for a Republican again.
They are, in a word, crazy. Hard, hard, right, hard, hard hearted, nauseatingly entrenched in foolish, polarizing, pedantic, knuckleheaded, neocon, crazy, irrational, conservatim forits own sake,not reasoned, just plain as evil as way out there liberals like Boxer, Kennedy, Durbin, Frerichs, Betz, and worse.
At least some people think. Not these morons.
"At least some people think. Not these morons."
Thanks.
It's your blog, just like the daily kos, only "righteous"
Sure thing, just like Kos. Minus the 1,000,000 daily hits, the swearing, the diaries and the purging of ideological impurity.
Other than that, just like Kos.
I mean it. I walked precincts, paid money, helped. The party has been taken over by way out conservatives.
Hold your base, lose elections. Don't consider that the R party is supposed toba big tent, the party of reason,of compassion, of Lincoln, T Roosevelt, Ike, Reagan.
Go down in flames. Marginalizing fools.
Minus the 1,000,000 hits.
You mean, "Small time".
"I mean it. I walked precincts, paid money, helped. The party has been taken over by way out conservatives.
Hold your base, lose elections. Don't consider that the R party is supposed toba big tent, the party of reason,of compassion, of Lincoln, T Roosevelt, Ike, Reagan.
Go down in flames. Marginalizing fools. "
Exactly what have I taken over? I'm not even an elected precinct committeeman. I hold no office, carry no influence, make policy for nothing.
How am I marginalizing anyone? Who have I driven out of the party? When have I decreed that my particular views must be the views of the Party, or everyone else can get out? I'm an anti-death-penalty Republican. Do you see me trying to enforce that view as Party doctrine?
"You mean, “Small time”ÂÂ."
Yep. And yet someone just accused me of having "taken over" the party. Hilarious.
Gordy Hulten Says:
July 26th, 2006 at 4:34 pm
"What, exactly, are your suggestions to end terrorism long-term? "
GH- Did Interloper or anonymous even attempt to answer this question, or did they just use their amazing intellect to tell everyone how you are wrong and how our country (and leader) is wrong?
I would love to hear other ideas of how to end terrorism long term, and just ignoring it does not count. Neither does saying that we are the real terrorists.
"GH- Did Interloper or anonymous even attempt to answer this question, or did they just use their amazing intellect to tell everyone how you are wrong and how our country (and leader) is wrong?"
No answers, suggestions or ideas were forthcoming. Just insults.
Pinky-Wink--what do you think the governor is using to take care of you with the Allkids program? Money that has been diverted, or stolen, depending on your point of view, from pensions and other programs that the government was obligated to fund before he even came up with a new program like Allkids. If you're the recipient of the governor's largesse, then I have no doubt that you find a lot to like about him. Those of us, however, who aren't on the receiving end of all of these goodies, or don't live in Chicago where a good deal of State money is going,aren't finding much to like, much less support.
GH, you are really tearing down the level of discourse on the site. It's not just you by any means, but you are an admin and the main contributor, so please hold yourself to a higher level--at least to the level that some of the rest of us hold ourselves to.
Your terrorism policy is unsupported by data. Hardline anti-terrorism tactics inevitably lead to two things--a decline in citizen freedom and a rise in terrorist activity.
Under Bush's reign we've seen both.
"Understanding the first thing about terrorists so you can reduce terrorist activity effectively" and "letting the terrorists win" are not the same thing, and are often complete opposites.
To simply dismiss any effort at understanding the very human motivations of the brutal killers because they are brutal killers is lazy and cowardly. (I'm not calling you lazy or a coward, that's just the logical appraisal of those actions.) It ultimately aids them in their cause.
To place security, when the comparative threat to security is minimal, at the top of the priority list is a serious misunderstanding of what our country is supposed to be about.
If we do not place those civil liberties at the top of the list, we are no better than any other country.
Before anyone accuses me of minimizing 9/11, I am well aware of the magnitude of the attack and its impact on real people.
Funny that the people I know who were directly affected, for the most part, support the idea that demonizing the terrorists will not help the situation.
Do you really love posturing and threatening more than what is best for the country?
"Do you really love posturing and threatening more than what is best for the country?"
And I'm the one who is lowering the level of discourse? Why don't you just ask me if I've stopped beating my wife?
"And I'm the one who is lowering the level of discourse?"
That would be, "silly".
Tsk tsk, Gordy.
This is what I mean Gordy--I completely supported what I had to say and you respond by using a passe, over-used response that DOESN'T EVEN APPLY...
I didn't ask you "How long have you hated America?" I asked you why you don't seem to be really interested in the results of the so-called anti-terrorist policies of the past, only that you like the philosophy.
That's a perfectly fair question, and much more analogous to me seeing you beat your wife in public and then asking you how long you have beaten your wife.
(I'm just replying to your statement--I would bet anything that you do not beat your wife.)
How do you want me to respond when you used 200 words to ask me why I refuse to do what's best for the country, and then accuse me of lowering discourse.
In this thread alone, I've been told I'm a liar, that I'm evil, and now that I am advocating policies that I know to be harmful to the country. And that, on top of it, that I'm lowering the level of discourse because I haven't responded meekly enough to those insults.
Thanks, but no thanks. I'm better off ignoring the insults, avoiding the frustration, and moving on.
When IlliniPundit started in January 05, it was run by another person. That person was an advocate sometimes, but certainly allowed discourse, and sometimes even was willing to not only accept the other sides's argument, but moderate his position, or even occasionally change his mind.
Gordy Hulten then took over. The IlliniPundit blog started out in the same way, but quickly devolved into partisanship, and has become as one-sided as the Urbana Champaign Independent Media Center blog, or even, on a national basis, the Daily Kos.
This blog went from a place of thoughtful discussion to a place where cons and neocons use it to either just expound on their ideas, or, more sinisterly, bait liberals and moderates, and then pounce on them with insults, dissembling, and outright prevarication.
it is a shame. There seems to be no local blog where people can come and discuss matters rationally, and through thoughful analysis, maybe even change their minds.
Sadly, this blog is much the worse for the change it has undergone.
"Gordy Hulten then took over. The IlliniPundit blog started out in the same way, but quickly devolved into partisanship, and has become as one-sided as the Urbana Champaign Independent Media Center blog, or even, on a national basis, the Daily Kos."
Interesting. One, I didn't "take over" anything. I'm not in charge of anything beyond my own threads. Two, please give me some examples of some discourse that I've disallowed. In this very thread, I've been called a liar, evil, and working to harm America - yet those comments remain.
"This blog went from a place of thoughtful discussion to a place where cons and neocons use it to either just expound on their ideas, or, more sinisterly, bait liberals and moderates, and then pounce on them with insults, dissembling, and outright prevarication."
As I said above, in this very thread I've been insulted worse than anything I've experienced on here, and now you're blaming me for it. Interesting.
"it is a shame. There seems to be no local blog where people can come and discuss matters rationally, and through thoughful analysis, maybe even change their minds.
Sadly, this blog is much the worse for the change it has undergone."
You're welcome to start your own blog. I'd like to link to it, read it and comment there, if you'd allow me. And if it grows enough, maybe you can put this one out of business.
Thanks, and have a nice day.
I've been called a racist and some other names on different threads, but I haven't given up on commenting or reading others on the blog. While I wish that people wouldn't call each other names, I guess that's just part of the First Amendment that we keep hearing so much about.
... especially when anonymous names are used. Much of this name calling wouldn't happen in person and maybe even on-line if real names were used. Many people don't have the guts to say to someone's face what they'd say online.
It comes down to balance. If you feel there is balance in your life, you are not likely to go off trying to cause drastic changes. If your work is not -too- hard and your play is not -too- indulgent, then you can probably live a fairly enjoyable life.
Unfortunately, some people don't have that sense of balance one way or another.
Thousands of years ago, a group of people were enslaved and taken from where they lived to a far away place. When they liberated themselves, they had no where to go but back from whence they came. Unfortunately, in their absence(hundreds of years?) other people moved into that area. Since there was not enough resources for everyone to survive, fighting broke out. Those in a position to lead realized they would need as many poeple as they could get in order to win the fight. In order to motivate people to the cause, both sides integrated the cause for the fight into religion or culture.
Once ingrained in the culture, religious or otherwise, the ideas of comrade and enemy are very hard to eliminate. The human nature to rationalize violent behavior with the notion of good vs evil comes from a need to survive in a very harsh environment. The human psyche will not abandon the assistance from such philosophy easily. Survival is too difficult otherwise.
This phenomenon occurs all forms of conflict, from world-wide wars to the arguments on this blog. Humans find the "eye for an eye" philosophy easy to implement because the short term gains in victory satisfy the immediate survival needs and longer term needs are difficult to define with such clarity.
About 2K years ago, a guy came along and started telling everyone that if they were willing to accept a little adversity in their day to day dealings with people, they'd be much better off in the long run. The only catch was they had to be willing to withstand some pain before things got better. This boils down to the turn the other cheek philosophy that many religions profess, yet leaders fail to follow.
While suffering loss, one can exhibit strength of character. If one survives trials over a period of time, others recognize that strength and celebrate it.
Looking to short term solutions in conflicts of great magnitude provides a false sense of security, but long term solutions must be balanced with the sacrifices necessary to achieve those long term goals.
So the questions are:
Gordy, are you willing to turn the other cheek and accept some sacrifices?
Interloper, how much must someone like Gordy sacrifice before they give up such strategy as futile?
"Gordy, are you willing to turn the other cheek and accept some sacrifices?"
Haven't I already? I've taken the insults, and rather than respond, I've just walked away. To some, that means that I'm disallowing discourse.
Gordy,
I think they mean that if you walk away, they can no longer have a discourse with you. By doing this, you are exhibiting a reluctance to change your mind, which is what we're all trying to do here... So rather than admit that their argument may not have merit from your point of view, they accuse you of disrupting the process.
But I'm sure you'll continue to comment, because we both know that if we can see beyond the insults and try to understand another's point of view, we are enlightened. And whether or not we agree, in the future, we make better decisions.
If my advice is worth anything, don't walk away as it were, simply state your case in terms of imperical data and logic. Appealing to emotion, as many do here, really gets us no where because there is far less common ground.
I hope to discuss things with you more.
Gordy, I think someone else pointed out above that there's a deep difference between evaluating an argument and personally attacking someone.
I frankly find it maddening that you, in all of your (completely non-sarcastic) intelligence choose to not make this distinction.
When I say that you are choosing a path that is to the detriment of the country and promotes terrorism, I say that without connotative motive. That's what I believe from the research I've done.
If you get mad and walk away, then there is no hope for discourse. You are basically saying that you are right and will not read evidence to the contrary or do research to support your point.
How is that anything other than a lack of interest in pursuing truth or well-being of the country?
When you, or RSWB courteously point out something I ought to consider, I do so. Sometimes it's something that I've seen before and basically doesn't advance my understanding of the issues, other times it does.
Why do I not deserve the same courteousy. As you must have figured out by now, I'm not anonymous, I'm not partisan, and I'm not interested in personally attacking anyone.
To be honest, I don't care about the other people who do personally attack you. I've called them out multiple times on this very blog and I think they are doing nothing but damaging the discourse.
But OF COURSE I demand more of you. You are not just some anonymous troll--the likes of which are on every webboard in the world--and you can be a very reasonable person.
To write me off and name-call because they do the same is like stealing my wallet because someone stole yours.
\"When you, or RSWB courteously point out something I ought to consider, I do so. Sometimes it's something that I've seen before and basically doesn't advance my understanding of the issues, other times it does.\\\"
I look forward to the first time, in this thread, after 98 other comments, that someone courteously points out something I ought to consider.
Remember, this topic veered towards Iraq as I tried to defend myself from Pinky-wink calling me a liar. I think I\'ve been incredibly accomdating of discourse, especially in this thread, and now the latest insult thrown my way is that I actually want to just walk away from the people who are insulting me!?!
Honestly, I don\'t even know why I bother checking this thread anymore.
On the issue of "slippery slopes", I'm a firm believer that gov't should not interfere with people's lives unless the people need something they cannot provide for themselves as individuals.
So where does that leave me on marriage?
Marriage was created in order to promote a successful society. To define this, man looked to nature and saw that in most cases other similar animals chose to group together as one male and one female to raise young. As man saw these species were successful, he adopted the same strategy.
However, alot has changed since then and we now have time to contemplate, even explore other possibilities. Earlier someone asked if polygamy, or marriages amongst different species should be allowed. In my opinion, if the parties concerned can express their willingness to live together in order to promote a successful society, they should be allowed to do so. If the parties involved are capable of producing offspring, then they should be committed to raising that offspring so as to contribute to society, not cause disruption.
Perhaps rather than rethinking the idea of marriage, we should rethink the idea of divorce. Making divorce easy has changed the way we think about marriage. With the obvious exception of when violence damages the relationship, perhaps we should outlaw divorce, and create a way for people to marry as many others as they like. Surely the knowledge of being legally and financially tied to a spouse would make polygamy and other unusual marriages rare. And hopefully, make people less likely to say "I do" when they shouldn't.
Microchipping Fido:
When politicians or others in authority want to micromanage things in this way, what you have to do is ask, does this really impact on my life as I want to pursue it? In this case, there might be 1% of the law abiding consituency that has a negative impact from this. I have a hard time thinking of what it might be, but prudence dictates I leave room for the possiblity. Otherwise, let it slide.
Cat tax:
I don't really like cats, I wouldn't kill one, but I probably wouldn't go out of my way to help one either.
Another $10 here or there, doesn't impact me much and hopefully my earnings can keep pace with these things so I won't have to give up my kid's cats. But I find it amusing when political leader implement a tax with no end in sight. This sounds like one of those. According to this blog, the tax was enacted to build a new pound. Has it been built? are all the construction bills paid? If so, then it sounds like this tax should go away, but it hasn't. The only other reason would be ongoing costs of running the pound. Is this the case? If so, nevermind...
Driving after Communion:
DUI laws were enacted to discourage people from "Driving Under the Influence" of alcohol and other chemicals. I don't know about you, but the wine I get from Communion has much greater effect on my soul than my reflexes. If the laws were written as zero-tolerance, then they need to be revamped and give courts then discretion to decide the severity of infraction.
Practice of Religion:
Government should not associate itself with a theoretical "higher power" of any form. This gives government too much power in the minds of those too weak to stand up for themselves. Any religion that encourages its followers to damage their mind or body, or those of others, should be changed or abandoned. If these two ideas were accepted by everyone, there would be no conflict between gov't and religion.
Solution to Terrorism:
Get every single person concerned into the same general area where they can effectively communicate. I'd suggest a football stadium. Set up a mechanism where each person can express their views, through ballot or open mic. Set up some guidelines about courtesy and rules of order. Provide food and shelter as needed. Then let them discuss the problems till they are resolved. Any who wish to leave prematurely are free to do so, but they forfeit their right to participate in the process as future amendments are made to any agreements that result. This would test the commitment of those individuals to their cause and provide a way of identifying those who would ignore those agreements and cause disruption in the future. Those who engage in future disruptions would be subject to punishments agreed upon during the original negotiations.
Fighting begets fighting, negoation begets resolution.
My line of inquiry brought into question several concepts.
1. Is "zero-tolerence" an acceptablepolicy, when a 20 yoa married person with child runs the risk of arrest for driving after taking Communion wine at Church?
2. Is a non-mainstream, but yet Judeo Christian based church, "Rastafarian", wrong for allowing a diferent sacrament, cannabis? Why? Is it the Rasta, orthe cannabis? D\
3. Is cannabis in and of itself evil? As an intoxicant, how does it differ from wine, also an intoxicant, especially when taken as a Sacrament?
The response? I was (or more properly, my statements were) called "silly".
No discourse. No rational dialogue, just "silly", with Satanism brought in forno pupose other than to exxagerate the "silly" point.
That is far from discourse, far from dialogue, far from rational intellectual discussion.
So sad.
"That is far from discourse, far from dialogue, far from rational intellectual discussion."
Sure, but that's also far from disallowing discourse. I choose not to discuss it with you, because I felt you were being needlessly silly - going to extreme rhetorical examples - rather than discuss my original argument.
Yet I still allowed your comments to remain in case anyone else wanted to discuss it with you.
Did your refusal to address any of my points or questions count as disallowing discourse?
thank you , thank you, thank you for not deleting my comments!
My first 2 posts:
My religion, calls for me smoking marijuana. So should the US government prevent me from the sacrament of marijuana?
July 25th, 2006 at 8:38 pm
"And if you want to know which religion, it is Rasta, through the prophet Marcus Garvey, to Jah, whom you may call Selassie I."
Your response on 7/26 at 9:24 am
"Sorry, I was ignoring your question because I was/am convinced you're just trying to be silly."
So there you have it.
And everybody who wanted to discuss your scenarios was free to do so. Just because you had no takers doesn't mean I was stifling your debate.
No, you weren't. However, I directed my question to you, and your first response was an insult. You seemed to invite debate, by your comment on 7/25 at 8:15 pm "And I don't think the government should establish any religion, but neither do I think the government should actively prevent religion. Anything else?"
It was a debating point that the government stifles a practice of religion that may have parallels in other religions, that being the illegal consumption of a substance, it being illegal for an under 21 yoa to consume wine at all, even in a sacrament, and it being illegal for the consumption of cannabis at all, even in a sacrament, and that both religions being Judeo-Christian, Old Testament and New Testament based religions.
You stifled debate, debate you invited, apparently, debate between you and me, by leveling an insult.
You could have said, "I do not choose to debate that".
Instead, you called it "silly".
I do not promote nor condone the use if cannabis, I merely wanted to discuss your blanket statement about government interference with religious practices. I had hoped you might re-examine that statement, and perhaps temper it. Alas, once said, it is cast, never to be moderated, yet avoided by an immediate insult about the premise ("silly").
That stifles debate, and is, I am sorry to say, and with apologies, rude, sir.
I did not, in any context, say or imply any perjorative term about you, your position, or your framing of the predicate. I, sir did not insult. You, sir, did.
Then to you I apologize.
I thought I had stated my position clearly that outlawing a practice broadly without targeting the religious ceremony was not an unreasonable restriction on religion, but perhaps you missed it.
Thank you.
It was your initial reaction, sir, which I fear set a tone that was not conducive to discussion. I understand your position, I would hope that you would consider that sometimes positions may be taken that perhaps could be re-examined, moderated, or perhaps even changed. I personally believe that both the zero tolerencelaw which prohibits the religious taking of wine by under 21 yoas, and the sacramental taking of cannabis by Rastas, and for that matter, the taking of peyote as a sacrament by certain NAs is governmental intrusion on religious practices that should not occur.
Naturally, I do not want people driving under the influence of wine, cannabis, or peyote, but in recognized religious practices, those sacraments should be allowed.
So, I guess we agree about governmental interfence in religious practices, you apparently drawing the line at "drugs", and I drawing the line at sacrament, seeing little, if any difference, in controlled consumption of "intoxicants" (whether or not the practitoner actually becomes "intoxicated") as a sacramental practice.
I shall drop this now, unless you care to continue, but we now seem to "agreeably agree to disagree", which is the essence of debate.
Please realize that not all those who may disagree with you, or question you, are attacking you. Often, I would hope, it is a person who seeks to gain education, and at at the same to educate.
Good evening, sir.
\"Please realize that not all those who may disagree with you, or question you, are attacking you.\"
Please also understand that calling me a liar, evil, or wanting to avoid doing what\'s best for the country are attacking me. (Not that you did these things, but others in this thread have.)
Good lord. Please spare us the sobbing self-pity.
Nobody called you evil. I went out of my way to make it clear that I wasn't calling you evil.
You're the only one who believes this pitiful story of martyrdom, and your repeated misrepresentations about the wrongs you've recieved only makes you look worse. Honestly, I'd suggest you quit now, while you're behind.
Yeah, sure, whatever you say. I'm really not interested.
Yes, you are totally right. It was evil and immoral and bad for the country for me to evaluate your position at all.
You position should be left untouched on the ultimate pedestal of truth regardless whether you provide any evidence to support it. It doesn't matter if history, psychology, and economics all say that trying the kill every last terrorist is impossible and actually self-defeating, it still is a doctrine endorsed by you, and so any attempt to question it is a nasty, direct attack on Gordy, and should be responded to with mockery and disgust.
You were not the one to introduce a lack of civility to the discussion, but you have been the one to choose to treat others, who have treated you with nothing but respect with dismissive, arrogance.
This has been incredible. After watching Gordy for months let insults thrown at him roll off without a comment, and encourage others to do the same he says 'silly' and now he's being pillioried. Wow. Some have particularly thin skins.
veritas, please read it more carefully.
Gordy was insulted by some, and reacted. He then insulted me (or my argument), most likely as a frustrated reaction to all the other insults being heaped upon him.
He has apologized for the "silly" comment, and the apology has been accepted, and "olive branches" have been exchanged.
I now see you in effect saying I "pilloried" Gordy for remarking "silly". That is not the case.
Please get your facts straight. No one needs people stirring up things that have been amicably resolved.
Thank you.
xian,
I can't believe you think, in this thread, that I've been treated respectfully.
Wow. I really should just walk away. I'll let you all have last word, so feel free to drop another round of insults on me.
Have a nice day.
Oh yeah?
You should read more carefully and the placement of my post in context. After Gordy apologized to you he was still being attacked for being allegedly being insulting and yet his comment was only to you. He did not call anyone else a name. I also took the big picture view which you failed to notice that Gordy has taken a number of personal insults over the months when people have been unable to come up with rational arguments to challenge his opinions and he has resisted responding tit for tat.
veritas,
had you referenced "evil", or "liar" or "wanting to avoid doing what's best for the country" you would be correct.
You referenced "silly". That was specifically between Mr. Hulten and me.
Others may have "pilloried" Mr. Hulten, but I did not.
Mr. Hulten recognizes this, but you apparently do not.
Sir, you have mischaracterized, to my detriment. That is why I responded to your comment "he says 'silly' and now he's being pillioried. Wow. Some have particularly thin skins."
I do not have thin skin, nor will I allow an unsubstantiated attack of my comments to go unnoticed.
Perhaps xian or Interloper deserve your castigation. That is between you and them.
I do not deserve such comments.
Please do not mischaracterize my comments and discussion with Mr. Hulten.
Thank you.
Nevermind.
WOW
Gordy, you just responded to a post which said that you were NOT the person to introduce a lack of civility to the discussion by saying that I thought that you have been treated respectfully by everyone.
What I said is that you have chosen to mistreat others because you were mistreated by some. Such logic would allow anyone to justify pretty much any transgression.
Some folks have "piled insults on you". Now you are using that as an excuse to avoid respectful, thoughtful points.
Attacking your arguments, was not, and will never be "piling insults on".
If you want to take you ball and go home once you cannot respond thoughtfully, that's your free choice. But it doesn't make you some kind of hero.
Xian, when you come up with some "respectful, thoughtful points." maybe they will be responded too.
You liberals have still not told us how you would get us out of Iraq. So don't talk about taking our ball and going home.
Save your breath run.
Yes Run - save your breath.
Democrats didn't get us into Iraq but now we must have a solution to this disaster to be taken seriously in discussions about the GWOT. Here's a solution: hold the people who lied and manipulated evidence accountable for their actions. Impeach George W. Bush, Inc. for war crimes. Give the prisoners in Gitmo and all of the other secret prisons lawyers, and fair trials. In other words, start acting like the U.S. of A. instead of some version of Stalin Lite.
Redouble the efforts in Afghanistan. Locate, imprison and execute Osama Bin Laden. Slowly but consistently draw down our troops in Iraq and redeploy them to Itaewon (look it up), the Pakistani border, and the ports of the United States.
In other words, take the GWOT seriously, and try to win.
It would also be nce to stop pissing off the rest of the Arab world. Could we have a year when Arab opinion of the US doesn't decline? Or is the idea to make all of the moderate Arabs hate us so we can ... uh ... kill them all?
Look, no one is saying surrender, and no one is on the side of the terrorists. But some of us have real problems with policies of neglect: Iraq, Afghanistan, North Korea, Iran. We also have trouble believing that Karen Hughes is the best Bush can do when it comes to changing Arab opinion of the US.
We can defeat terror (or whatever you're calling it this week), but it takes a focused effort on real enemies, and an authentic, genuine attempt to win the hearts and minds of the Arab world.
In the meantime we have the Israelis bombing apartment buildings, Hezbollah's power increasing, and Iraq falling apart. Yet you all, from the comforts of your keypads, fall all over each other to defend policies the even a blind man can see are failing.
In other words: what is your solution for getting us out of Iraq, Run? More of the same?
After thinking about it, my previous suggestion for getting everyone together to discuss the issues needs to be changed. I've see commentary and news stories suggesting that Iran is directing Hezbollah to attack Israel in order to distract attention from a UN vote about Iran's nuclear capacity.
So perhaps the solution is to discuss with Iran, Syria(?) and other hardline Islamist theocracies whether or not Israel's existence is truly unacceptable. If not, then negotiate a plan that results in a long lasting peace by cutting off arms, supplies and money to terrorist groups. If Israel's existence is truly unacceptable, then discuss with them a way to allow all the people who live in the area now to vote in a government that represents the majority of people who live in that area. The results might be quite surprising.
This is a more top-down approach vs the strategy I suggested earlier but alas, I'm sure everyone sees equal difficulty in either idea.
So, what else could work?
"So perhaps the solution is to discuss with Iran, Syria(?) and other hardline Islamist theocracies whether or not Israel's existence is truly unacceptable. If not, then negotiate a plan that results in a long lasting peace by cutting off arms, supplies and money to terrorist groups. If Israel's existence is truly unacceptable, then discuss with them a way to allow all the people who live in the area now to vote in a government that represents the majority of people who live in that area. The results might be quite surprising."
They don't let their own people vote.
What makes you think they'll allow others to vote on whether or not Israel has a right to exist?
What happens if the election result is that Israel doesn't have a right to exist?
Why should Israel's right to exist be subject to a plebicite? Why not ask Israeli citizens if they think Iran or Syria or Lebanon have a right to exist?
xian, when you come up with some “respectful, thoughtful points.” maybe they will be responded too.
You liberals have still not told us how you would get us out of Iraq. So don't talk about taking our ball and going home.
_______________
Hmmm...Is this short attention span theatre? I didn't think the thread was about pulling out of Iraq. I've never even advocated pulling out of Iraq.
To use a Gordy gem, I might as well ask you why you haven't come up with a plan to stop beating your wife.
Why do you feel the need to attack me irrationally? Were you bullied as a child or something?
Just read this actual thread, I contributed a long post actually dealing with the issue being discussed and adding insight given the Japanese approach to this issue. It was completely ignored. Instead the responsible moderator decided to pick a fight with some trolls, who are probably neither liberal, nor conservative; just needy for attention.
It's too bad being right about something and "winning the argument" are more important priorities than growth and learning. Is that really the path to the brightest future for our society?
Xian, I think you either can't read or have a short.
Xian, when you come up with some “respectful, thoughtful points.” maybe they will be responded too.
You liberals have still not told us how you would get us out of Iraq. So don't talk about taking our ball and going home.
Read it again I didn't write you wanted out of Iraq. I wrote liberals wanted out of Iraq and I wrote it because you said Gordy didn't respond to thoughtful points you had made. I was making the point liberals have not responded to many questions about how they would get out of Iraq. Even though they complain constantly that we should get out or that Bush lied to get us there but don't give us their plan to get out.
Pinky, Sorry you really need help with your plan. You want to redouble you effort to find Osama which would take more troops at the same time you want to draw down the troops this of course makes no sense. Let's say that ok draw down the troops in Iraq right now some say we don't have enough there now but your going to just have a lottery or something to decide which part of the country loses it military security.
The prisoners are not gang bangers doing 1 to 5 they are POW's, they don't get normal lawyers. The Stalin Light comment makes you sound like Durbin millions of people died in the gulags we have not murdered people in gitmo.
“Win the hearts and minds of people” that every day swear to kill us and teach their kids from the time they can crawl to hate American. Yeah that will happen.
My plan for Iraq is to let Bush complete his plan maybe you should le him.
Cute. What's Bush's plan again?
Also - "drawing down" troops in Iraq does not mean sending them home to work for $6.00 an hour at Wal-Mart. They could be moved (reassigned?) to Afghanistan or other places where the folks actually planned the 9/11 attacks.
But Run you never fail to amaze - defense of the indefensible, with racism as a cherry on top. "Gangbangers" - what is this, 1987? And Arabs "swear to kill us and teach their kids from the time they can crawl to hate American." Wow. Maybe you need to meet an Arab sometime (and I don't mean Steve Martin).
You're doing a wonderful job making your side look like a bunch of jackasses. Thanks! I couldn't have done it better myself. :)
Ahab, You have lost it.
When did 'gangbangers' go out of style? People still use it along with 'gangsta' and 'thug'. Please.
Ahab,
Run is not a racist, but stating a fact of ME schooling. You owe him/her an apology. Ever see what the textbooks in the ME contain regarding Israel and the West (mainly the US)? It would really wake you up and help you understand why generation after generation of Arab youth are raised with a intense dislike of Israel and the West. The State Department has been trying to convince ME governments to change those books for years. Btw, what does meeting an Arab have anything to do with your point? Absolutely nothing. It isn't the individual Arab that is the problem and certainly not one here. It is the multitudes that have been raised in the ME to believe Israel and the West (mainly the US) are bad not only in the home, but also in school. Why do you think most of them believe Israel was responsible for 9/11? Hmmmm.
I am confused. What is the Bush plan again? I think we have been in Iraq longer than when we were in WWII, and it doesn't seem we are winning. Otherwise, why do we need to send more troops to Iraq?
How is it we could win a World War on 2 fronts, and can't even pacify a small country which is slightly larger than twice the size of Idaho?
What's the plan again?
VVL, Thanks for the back-up your right I didn't inject race into the discussion. Ahab did maybe he does not realize there are white gangs. You are right about the ME's education even the MSM had stories talking about how the schools taught that we were all infidels. That's alright Anon has went on to some other comment. Seems he has never been in the military. I was stationed in a German military barracks from WWII until 1980. There are still bases from WWII all over the world how long ago was that war again?
Kick terrorist but and train Iraq's Army until they are ready to defend themselves and their FREE country. Go ahead Ahab or Anon change the subject again, disappear or make another groundless attack that's what you do. I sure would not expect you to address the subject.
I didn't ask what was the goal, I asked what is the plan.
The administrations plan has been dicussed frequently here. What has been lacking is the D plan other than pull out now or very, very soon. Or better yet in the words of John Kerry, "This would not have happened if I were President".
You say the plan has been discussed, but there is no plan, only goals. The goals remain the same, but the implementation, the PLANS, change.
What are the PLANS?
See there you go again mis-direction. It's not my side that has been asked to provide a plan it's yours. Bush has a plan the Generals on the ground follow it every day. You back seat drivers need to have a plan or quit complaining about Bush.
I knew you would dodge question.
Bush has a plan. Ok. What is the plan?
I don't have a plan. I can't explain a plan I don't have.
Bush has a plan. So what is it?
I knew you would dodge the question.
Run,
The libs won't answer the question because the only plan they have is attacking what the current plan is. anonymous' only goal here is for you to rehash months of discussion and then sacrastically attack you that those plans are not working. This is a Catch-22. No matter how you decide you play into his hands and the dicussion goes nowhere.
I just want to know what the plan is.
Can't anyone tell me, if a few words, what the plan is?
"Can't anyone tell me, if a few words, what the plan is?"
Oh, I forswore I was participating in this particular thread, but here goes:
The plan is to secure Iraq as a stable market-based democracy/republic, eliminating them as a state sponsor of terror and establishing them as a model for the citizens in the rest of the dictatorships in the Middle East. Not as an American puppet state, not as a lockstep ally with America, but a government that is accountable to its own people and a responsible citizen of its region and the world.
Tactically, to get there - use American/Coaltion troops to combat Iranian/Syrian/Baathist terrorists, train Iraqi troops, police and other security forces, and construct and assist with constructing vital infrastructure to enable market-based reforms to take place.
It will not be easy, but significant progress has been and is being made. The most crucial question is if Americans have the willpower to see this task through. If not, then Iraq will most likely fall into