Another Fine Mess...

[Ali]

Sept. 12 (Bloomberg (http://www.bloomberg.com/apps/news?pid=10000085&sid=a62HD6JCgbj0&refer=europe#)) -- Rioting by members of Northern Ireland's Protestant community that injured more than 50 police officers and destroyed property and vehicles may continue in the coming weeks, Northern Ireland Secretary Peter Hain said today.

A 700-strong mob attacked police in Belfast with gasoline bombs and gunfire over the past two nights, in the worst violence in the U.K. province in years. The riots were sparked by the rerouting of a Protestant Orange Order parade away from its traditional path through a Roman Catholic nationalist area.

``I'm not sure we've heard the last of this outbreak of loyalist violence and rioting,'' Hain said in an interview on RTE Radio in Dublin after viewing police video footage of the rioting. It was an ``organized attempt by the paramilitaries to exploit the parade and use it to inflict the violence that they did on those areas,'' he said.

More than 2,000 police officers and soldiers were involved in trying to quell the violence. They returned fire with plastic bullets as well as live rounds in an effort to disperse crowds in the city late yesterday, according to a police statement.

There were outbreaks of violence outside Belfast in parts of County Down and County Antrim. In County Down, a bus was hijacked, the passengers robbed, and the vehicle set alight. Gasoline bombs were thrown at officers who responded to the scene, police said.

Other vehicles were hijacked and used as barriers during the rioting. In Newtownabbey in the north of Belfast, a bank, a video store and offices used by the Democratic Unionist Party were among a number of premises destroyed by fire. Shots were also fired at a police station during the rioting.

Northern Ireland police chief Hugh Orde said the violence was ``one of the most dangerous riot situations'' ever experienced by police in the U.K., the Irish Times reported.

Arrests

More than 20 people were arrested late yesterday, including one suspected of attempted murder. Thirteen people have been charged with ``riotous offenses,'' a police spokeswoman said.

``This was a hideous throwback to a dark age in Northern Ireland that everybody thought had been left behind,'' Hain said. The police ``were at times facing murderous assaults,'' he said.

Hain may declare that the Ulster Defence Association and the Ulster Volunteer Force, both loyalist paramilitary organizations, broke their cease-fires during the riots. He will make an announcement on the matter within days, he said.

Northern Ireland's loyalists advocate continued union with Great Britain, while nationalists and republicans favor a united Ireland. The Orange Order organizes parades across the province every summer to mark the victory of Protestant Prince William of Orange over the Catholic King James at the Battle of the Boyne in 1690. Divide and rule. It's the British way.

[sam i am]

Ali - my only concern is that you may paint yourself into a corner of siskoism by just cutting and pasting.

I know you had a comment at the end, but why are you so anti-British and anti-Bush on EVERY SINGLE ISSUE?

[SobaViolence]

fuck.


well, at least it isn't the Catholics anymore. this 'blame it all on the IRA' shit doesn't work when stuff like this happens.

[Ali]

why are you so anti-British and anti-Bush on EVERY SINGLE ISSUE?Because the British are responsible for a LOT of misery in the world and Bush is doing a pretty good job of playing catchup.

IMHO.

I'm allowed to have an opinion and express it, aren't I? You are pro-Bush on every issue, so why can't I be opposite? Do you want me to agree with everything you say? I can do so, but I doubt you'll like it very much.

Let's discuss these issues from our own points of view (without resorting to insults, like last time ;) K?)

I cut and paste articles from main stream publications, always with a reference and usually a comment... to encourage discource. D'accord?

[sam i am]

Because the British are responsible for a LOT of misery in the world and Bush is doing a pretty good job of playing catchup.

IMHO.

I'm allowed to have an opinion and express it, aren't I? You are pro-Bush on every issue, so why can't I be opposite? Do you want me to agree with everything you say? I can do so, but I doubt you'll like it very much.

Let's discuss these issues from our own points of view (without resorting to insults, like last time ;) K?)

I cut and paste articles from main stream publications, always with a reference and usually a comment... to encourage discource. D'accord?

Fair enough. I was truly wondering why you are so anti-British and anti-Bush. You seem, IMHO, to go out of your way to look for links to either of these two boogeymen on every single issue that comes up on these boards. I guess I'd just like to see what else you have. Philosophically or morally, why do you believe what you do? What has caused your mindframe to embrace the heated dislike of all things British or Bush?

[Ali]

why do you believe what you do? What has caused your mindframe to embrace the heated dislike of all things British or Bush?I have see first hand what misery and destruction the British Empire has brought upon the unfortunate people living in the lands it conquored.

Hitler was an admirer of the British Empire and praised the British in Mein Kampf.

The British (specifically the English) are to blame for the problems that India and Pakistan are having, Northern Ireland, of course, the entire Middle East, specifically Israel and all the problems there are largely to do with the activities of the English. Even the Brits admit that they are to blame! (http://www.channel4.com/news/2003/special_reports/iraq_hard_place.html).

I dislike Bush because he is very obviously an Oil man, with Oil cronies, playing dumb to get votes. I don't actually dislike Bush, himself, he might even be a fun guy to party with (especially after a few lines and some Old Turkey). What I do dislike, intensely, is knowing that there are people suffering and dying in Iraq and people being held indefinitely without charge in Gitmo and the only reason for this is because Americans use too much oil.

The Reagan administration secretly supported the Apartheid government in South Africa in the 80's, while the rest of the world boycotted and villified us. Israel also helped. The Bush Administration is behaving in the same manner at the Nationalists behaved at that time. Nelson Mandela was labelled a terrorist and the ANC was declared a terrorist group before a single bomb went off. After that, there were lots of bombs. The harder the Afrikaners hit the ANC, the harder it hit back - resorting to dealing with the Russians in order to get arms to fight the US-Armed Afrikaners. I recall Conservative Americans coming to speak to us at our school, telling us that "we" (whites) had "friends" in the US, who were doing everything they could to stop the communist-sponsored blacks from taking over.

The British were to blame for Apartheid, too. The Afrikaners were the first to settle and farm the country. They suffered incomprehensible hardships at the hands of the climate, unfriendly natives and, eventually, the British, who wanted the gold which had been discovered near Johannesburg. Afrikaners were driven from their farms, which were burned to the ground. Women and children were herded into Concentration Camps (another idea admired by Hitler) and were starved to death or given porridge with ground glass mixed into it). When they finally got their independence, they were so determined never to lose their land again, that they created Apartheid.

So, sam, I have very personal reasons for disliking the British and US conservatives.

[yeahwho]

Ali - my only concern is that you may paint yourself into a corner of siskoism by just cutting and pasting.

I know you had a comment at the end, but why are you so anti-British and anti-Bush on EVERY SINGLE ISSUE?

What sort of goofball is a Bush supporter? Really? Is supporting Bush going to help him magically become the sort of man this country needs to be respected on the planet earth? Explain that to me, tell Forrest why I shoud go out of my way and say great things about Bush? I just can't see the wisdom in supporting this guy. He's going down in an ugly way.

I'm been reading newspapers everyday now for years, even those who did support Bush are coming around to the fact that he doesn't have the diplomatic, economic, military, leadership or even the speaking skills to actually do the job he was appointed to.

We're in a horrible mess. Have you actually checked out the death tolls in Iraq? Have you witnessed the Homeland Security FEMA in NOLA? Notice anything different about our National Deficit this past 5 years? His top advisor is a traitor. The vice president used to run an infrastructure rebuilding company. Condoleeza Rice is an ex-Exxon executive. This current group believes in an American Dream for a very few, short-sighted, wealthy elitist group.

Ali is normal. He is in the majority of people wondering WTF is going to happen next.

[Ali]

Ali is normal. He is in the majority of people wondering WTF is going to happen next.Worrying about what damn fool thing those cowboys are going to try next, actually.

[sam i am]

I have see first hand what misery and destruction the British Empire has brought upon the unfortunate people living in the lands it conquored.

In your opinion, is there some balance brought by what the British brought with them (i.e., system of government, technology, education, etc.) to countries like India, Pakistan, South Africa, etc.?

Hitler was an admirer of the British Empire and praised the British in Mein Kampf.

True. But Hitler was a madman. If we quoted everyone evil who praised slavery or apartheid or mass murder AND like a certain country or group of people, does that intrinsically link that evil person to that country or group of people? Robert Byrd was a former KKK member and is now a ranking Democrat in the US Senate....does this make his support among blacks now bad??

The British (specifically the English) are to blame for the problems that India and Pakistan are having, Northern Ireland, of course, the entire Middle East, specifically Israel and all the problems there are largely to do with the activities of the English. Even the Brits admit that they are to blame! (http://www.channel4.com/news/2003/special_reports/iraq_hard_place.html).

OK. You use some rather broad generalizations here. The English are to blame for the problems that India and Pakistan are currently having? Explain. I know there are ethnic, religious, and cultural differences and that both countries have a militarized border and have mutual nuclear capabilities, but how is this currently the Englishs' fault?

Northern Ireland is another sticky wicket. You have generations of hate and contempt between the Catholics and the Protestants, dating back to the origins of the split of the Catholic Church in the 1500's. Couldn't you just as easily blame Martin Luther or Henry VIII as the current crop of Irish and British leaders?

As for the Middle East and Israel, you are standing on pretty steady ground for the current problems in the greater area of Palestine. The Balfour Declaration caused innumerable complications that may have worked themselves out without it. However, there is a strong argument to be made that Jews are deserving of a homeland, especially after the horrors of the Holocaust, let alone the historic claims that are Biblical in nature (although few would argue that some precursors to the Palestinians lived in the "Holy Land" prior to the Jews feeling they were called there by God in Biblical times, but that is a an argument for another thread, ok? ;) ) As for the remainder of the Middle East, the only other major ongoing issue is the makeup of Iraq. The British, with the French, mind you, did cobble together three disparate groups to form that country (Kurds, Shiites, and Sunnis), but the country MOSTLY worked until Sadaam came along and terrorized the two majority groups. We can debate that paritcular case on another thread as well, if you like.

All that being said, I agree that the British share a portion (what % is up for debate) for the state of much of the British Empire, but there abound multiple examples of good stewardship that led to success as well : Canada, the US, the Caribbean nations, Egypt, Hong Kong, etc., etc. Blame cannot be completely absolved through the application of the moral salves of some successes, however, so I can certainly understand a certain degree of outrage on your part at the checkered past of the English. Fair enough?

I dislike Bush because he is very obviously an Oil man, with Oil cronies, playing dumb to get votes. I don't actually dislike Bush, himself, he might even be a fun guy to party with (especially after a few lines and some Old Turkey). What I do dislike, intensely, is knowing that there are people suffering and dying in Iraq and people being held indefinitely without charge in Gitmo and the only reason for this is because Americans use too much oil.

OK. Glad to hear you don't dislike him personally. You don't truly know the man one on one, so at least your rhetoric is not demonic of the man's personal integrity. Your outrage, again, may be partially misplaced, however. There truly exists much blame to go around here. If one of your major concerns is the suffering and dying of Iraqis, where were you when Sadaam and his sons were killing off tens of thousands during his regime? Where was your outrage then? What about the outrage at the deaths of innocent whites and blacks during apartheid and the struggle to overcome it? Is your outrage for death and suffering in general or solely limited to what you perceive to be the current outrage? What about the 100's of thousand of Hutus and Tutsis killed in Africa? What about the death and suffering in Africa and Bangladesh and under countless regimes where the leaders and their militaries are inflicting mayhem every single day? Why not bring some of that to light and fight against that?

The Reagan administration secretly supported the Apartheid government in South Africa in the 80's, while the rest of the world boycotted and villified us. Israel also helped. The Bush Administration is behaving in the same manner at the Nationalists behaved at that time. Nelson Mandela was labelled a terrorist and the ANC was declared a terrorist group before a single bomb went off. After that, there were lots of bombs. The harder the Afrikaners hit the ANC, the harder it hit back - resorting to dealing with the Russians in order to get arms to fight the US-Armed Afrikaners. I recall Conservative Americans coming to speak to us at our school, telling us that "we" (whites) had "friends" in the US, who were doing everything they could to stop the communist-sponsored blacks from taking over.

Your assertions here are pretty strong. Not much to disagree with. I am not as familiar as I would like to be of the "Reagan administration secretly supporting the Apartheid government in South Africa in the 80's," but I would certainly read up on it if you gave me something to research.

BTW, weren't Afrikaaners, if I remember my history correctly, originally Dutchmen and women coming to colonize South Africa?

The British were to blame for Apartheid, too. The Afrikaners were the first to settle and farm the country. They suffered incomprehensible hardships at the hands of the climate, unfriendly natives and, eventually, the British, who wanted the gold which had been discovered near Johannesburg. Afrikaners were driven from their farms, which were burned to the ground. Women and children were herded into Concentration Camps (another idea admired by Hitler) and were starved to death or given porridge with ground glass mixed into it). When they finally got their independence, they were so determined never to lose their land again, that they created Apartheid.

So.....the Afrikaaners created apartheid in reaction to the oppression they suffered under the British? Hmmm.....a pretty tenuous logical link at the minimum, but you quite obviously believe it strongly. It seems to me that this would be analogous to blaming the British for Hitler because he admired them so.

So, sam, I have very personal reasons for disliking the British and US conservatives.

I appreciate your personal feelings. I really do. I don't even disagree with most of what you have stated here. However, it would seem to me that there are other causes that may give you more satisfaction than the hate you foster towards the British and US conservatives. Why not look for some more positive outlets for your obvious energy rather than channeling it all into dislike? Just an idea....

Finally, I did want to take the opportunity to thank you for our renewed dialogue. I appreciate the chance to amend my behavior and my thin-skinedness (is that a word?) so that we can discourse.

Peace out, ali. :D

[sam i am]

What sort of goofball is a Bush supporter? Really?

I guess I'm the goofball in question. I guess the 80% of Republicans that support Bush are also goofballs. It's kind of like being the nerds in Revenge of the Nerds. All those jocks and so-called smart people hated the nerds, but eventually they got their revenge and emerged the heroes.

That's how many of us felt during the past 40 years of Democrat rule of the US : like outsiders looking in, stopped from prevailing with our ideas and values.

Finally, in 1994, we had the opportunity to come in from the outside and we liked being in power. We figured out how to win elections, package our ideas and values so they garnered votes, and implemented them. Having control of Congress, the White House, and, soon, the Judiciary, is just the turn of the tide in history's march in the US. The next 30 years are ours to makeover the US in Conservative values and ideals.

Sorry we're just a bunch of goofballs. It must really rankle all those who oppose Bush and us Conservatives that you keep losing to a bunch of goofballs.

[Ace42X]

Notice Ali doesn't mention Algeria.

[yeahwho]

That's how many of us felt during the past 40 years of Democrat rule of the US : like outsiders looking in, stopped from prevailing with our ideas and values.

you've got me tearing up over here, I didn't realize you were filthy rich, sam i am.

[Ace42X]

The next 30 years are ours to makeover the US in Conservative values and ideals.

I hope so, just so you can see how terribly terribly wrong they are. Because no amout of arguing is going to convince you guys. Some people just have to be left to make their own mistakes...

[sam i am]

you've got me tearing up over here, I didn't realize you were filthy rich, sam i am.

I'm not. :(

[D_Raay]

I'm not. :(
So what is it then exactly? Are you that concerned over abortion or gay rights to ignore an obviously poor leader? Or is it the whole property rights/values/ownership thing? Which of course leads into your foolish notion of only allowing property owners to vote? A reasonable person without any pre-conceived notions would find the ideals of your party right now hardly efficacious at best.

[sam i am]

So what is it then exactly? Are you that concerned over abortion or gay rights to ignore an obviously poor leader? Or is it the whole property rights/values/ownership thing? Which of course leads into your foolish notion of only allowing property owners to vote? A reasonable person without any pre-conceived notions would find the ideals of your party right now hardly efficacious at best.

Sorry to burst your bubble on my "wealth."

Exactly, it is a mindset that believes in optimism. It is a mindset that continues to see a better day ahead, rather than carping on the horrors of the present. It is a mindset that sees what the US has been through over the past 4 years, especially (9/11, multiple natural disasters, etc.) and still sees the spirit of ingenuity, strength, and courage evidenced on a daily basis. No matter how poorly the media or others portray the United States as, I have hope and faith and opportunity before me (as do countless millions others) instead of despair and anguish and suffering. Not that despair and anguish and suffering are to be ignored, but rather that they should be taken on head-on, with vigor and strength and courage.

Ok. Now, you are going to be probably psychoanalyze what I just said and state, as you have in the past, that my heads are in the clouds and that I see everything through rose-colored glasses, etc. Well, the truth of the matter is that my personal life is difficult enough without having to look for more difficulties and heartache and suffering in the US and the world. I'd RATHER (or, alternatively, if you like, I CHOOSE) to be optimistic and hopeful and look for accomplishments and achievements that the US is engineering. It doesn't make my worldview any less or more contextual or real than your worldview of pessimism and "realism," just different.

My only pre-conceived notion is optimism, to answer your last question. My worldview is firmly conservative, thus leding to my support of those who mostly espouse the same views. My pragmatism leads me to support of the current administration because, IMHO, it is infinitely better than the alternative (i.e, Kerry, Clinton, Dean, et al). My pragmatism leads me to support for the Iraq and Afghanistan missions as a means to an end (or Machiavellianism, if you prefer).

[sam i am]

I hope so, just so you can see how terribly terribly wrong they are. Because no amout of arguing is going to convince you guys. Some people just have to be left to make their own mistakes...

True story. We leave you Socialists to yours and we'll see, as history progresses, who is right and who is wrong. You firmly and categorically believe you are right and I just as firmly and categorically believe I am right.

This does not preclude either one of us, I hope, from the ability to rationalize and embody changes of circumstances or views over the long-term. But, short-term, neither one of us is going to change our points of view. So, we can still debate and argue and conjecture and proclaim, but our separate entrenchments in our ways of viewing the world are not apt to be changed or even significantly altered by what we are saying to each other over a message board. ;)

[Ace42X]

True story. We leave you Socialists to yours and we'll see, as history progresses, who is right and who is wrong. You firmly and categorically believe you are right and I just as firmly and categorically believe I am right.

The liberals will do fine until the environment is too hostile to sustain life thanks to the pollution and environmental damaged caused by the conservatives.

That or the conservatives invade.

[sam i am]

The liberals will do fine until the environment is too hostile to sustain life thanks to the pollution and environmental damaged caused by the conservatives.

That or the conservatives invade.

Yeah. Yeddy Roosevelt was such a polluter and environmental damager.

Us Conservatives would sure prefer to live with dirty air and water and land. We LOVE having our children play in pollution and filth. Sure. Sell that one.

[D_Raay]

Yeah. Yeddy Roosevelt was such a polluter and environmental damager.

Us Conservatives would sure prefer to live with dirty air and water and land. We LOVE having our children play in pollution and filth. Sure. Sell that one.
Their environmental record speaks for itself despite your assertion.

[sam i am]

Notice Ali doesn't mention Algeria.

I wonder why not? Also, how about Vietnam (Dien Bien Phu, anyone?)?

[D_Raay]

Sorry to burst your bubble on my "wealth."

Exactly, it is a mindset that believes in optimism. It is a mindset that continues to see a better day ahead, rather than carping on the horrors of the present. It is a mindset that sees what the US has been through over the past 4 years, especially (9/11, multiple natural disasters, etc.) and still sees the spirit of ingenuity, strength, and courage evidenced on a daily basis. No matter how poorly the media or others portray the United States as, I have hope and faith and opportunity before me (as do countless millions others) instead of despair and anguish and suffering. Not that despair and anguish and suffering are to be ignored, but rather that they should be taken on head-on, with vigor and strength and courage.

Ok. Now, you are going to be probably psychoanalyze what I just said and state, as you have in the past, that my heads are in the clouds and that I see everything through rose-colored glasses, etc. Well, the truth of the matter is that my personal life is difficult enough without having to look for more difficulties and heartache and suffering in the US and the world. I'd RATHER (or, alternatively, if you like, I CHOOSE) to be optimistic and hopeful and look for accomplishments and achievements that the US is engineering. It doesn't make my worldview any less or more contextual or real than your worldview of pessimism and "realism," just different.

My only pre-conceived notion is optimism, to answer your last question. My worldview is firmly conservative, thus leding to my support of those who mostly espouse the same views. My pragmatism leads me to support of the current administration because, IMHO, it is infinitely better than the alternative (i.e, Kerry, Clinton, Dean, et al). My pragmatism leads me to support for the Iraq and Afghanistan missions as a means to an end (or Machiavellianism, if you prefer).

So in your own personal view, liberals are not qualified to lead?

Liberals cannot be optimistic? You'd find many more optimistic liberals had the Supreme court not handed 2000 to Bush.

Again I ask, how can you blindly follow such incompetent leadership? If you were truly pragmatic, as Q is, you would see the flaws in this administration and choose not to support them.

As far as your answer of where we would be if Kerry or Dean or others were in office; This irritates me. I hear this day in and day out from you conservatives and the fact of the matter is you can ONLY speak hypothetically, whereas the left can certainly speak from direct current experience. You can only say that the Democrats would have been ineffective, but the truth is you don't rightly know.

[ericg]

Sabotage is about you. You should know.

Dr. Seuss would turn over in his grave, and Sean Penn would put you in one.

The country is in some type of cluster fuck 13 step program and you, like many, can't/ won't get passed numero uno.

You abuse the definition of what a conservative is by brandishing a prescribed, incongruent template.

Your blind, gross arrogance says, "Conserve the current, overt corruption, it's dissolution, the degeneration, and a macro disorder of things.." Like sometime early on in life, Jenny Jones became your surrogate mother, dropped you on your head, and now you deny the gravity of it ALL.

You haven't had the proper wherewithal, and are not prepared to deal with the very crux of the problem..

That's what happens when you have corruption.. dissolution... degeneration.... and a disorder to the very values of a country. But it's no excuse. It's not like you have to have a profound sense of nuance regarding the state of things..!

Your first reaction will be to try and paint over the wall, but just keep re-reading what's on the lines. I won't ask you to descry what's between them yet. The only person you're holding back with that filibuster shit here is you. It's pathetic. It's so sad. In spite of you, good luck anyway.

Openly admitting that you subscribe to Machiavellianism..
When you lose principle, your stock becomes worthless. Stop trying to pawn it off here.

[sam i am]

Their environmental record speaks for itself despite your assertion.

Please. What environmental record? Teddy Roosevelt implementing a National Parks Service? Nixon's implementation of the EPA?

Republicans who remember their history know that the party's past leaders fought for conservation because conservatives believe in saving for the future and taking pride in America's natural beauty. True conservatives have taken to heart Theodore Roosevelt's insight that conservation, as he put it, "is a great moral issue, for it involves the patriotic duty of ensuring the safety and continuance of the nation."

Still not convinced? Take a brief walk through America's conservation history and notice the Republicans. Theodore Roosevelt wasn't an anomaly, although he set a conservation gold standard by protecting 130 million acres of national forests, establishing 18 national monuments, and inaugurating a system of national wildlife refuges that today covers nearly 100 million acres.

Abraham Lincoln signed legislation to protect Yosemite Valley as a public park, setting an important precedent. Herbert Hoover established numerous national monuments, one of which later became Death Valley National Park. As governor, Ronald Reagan fought off proposed dams on the Eel River and the middle fork of the Feather River. As president, Reagan signed the California Wilderness Act of 1984, one of 43 wilderness bills protecting 10 million acres that he signed during his presidency.

Richard Nixon signed into law the Clean Air Act, the National Environmental Policy Act, and the Endangered Species Act. Nixon also founded the EPA.

Ok, D_Raay : so there's the environmental record of the Republicans. History speaks for itself.

[Ace42X]

Us Conservatives would sure prefer to live with dirty air and water and land. We LOVE having our children play in pollution and filth. Sure. Sell that one.

That's where all your policies end up. Yes it seems incredulous that anyone could plump for it, but you suckers eat it up with a straw.

[sam i am]

So in your own personal view, liberals are not qualified to lead? I never said that. Some liberals are qualified to lead. BUT, this is not their time.


Liberals cannot be optimistic? You'd find many more optimistic liberals had the Supreme court not handed 2000 to Bush.

Probably correct. Unfortunately, this is not the case. I refer again to pragmatism. Most Republicans heartily disliked Clinton and his policies. Pragmatism and optimism led to his successor's loss in 2000. We can endlessly debate that outcome, but realism and pragmatism argue for the fact that it is done and over with.

Again I ask, how can you blindly follow such incompetent leadership? If you were truly pragmatic, as Q is, you would see the flaws in this administration and choose not to support them.

I do not "blindly follow such incompetent leadership." Your quote is begging the question. I do not find the current leadership to be incompetent, merely radically different than what you would want or envision on your side of the aisle. And Q is not always pragmatic, either. None of us are. We all have beliefs and worldviews and prejudices and advertising, etc., that shape and mold each of our respective opinions and ideas and values and morals. I have never stated that the current administration doesn't have warts and flaws. All people and collections of people do. I just choose to look at the bigger picture rather than focusing on the minutiae. I see the broader picture, overall, heading the direction I would like. Incrementalism is what got the Demos and liberals to where the US was in 1994 - incrementalism on our side of the aisle will get us to where we want the US to be in another 30 years. Strap in for the ride...it's going to be a long one.

As far as your answer of where we would be if Kerry or Dean or others were in office; This irritates me. I hear this day in and day out from you conservatives and the fact of the matter is you can ONLY speak hypothetically, whereas the left can certainly speak from direct current experience. You can only say that the Democrats would have been ineffective, but the truth is you don't rightly know.

You are absolutely correct. I can envision and hypothesize about what would have or could have or will happen IF the current crop of Demo leaders had been or will be in power. It's much easier, I agree with you, to rail against the known rather than the unknown. You are factually correct that the left can certainly speak from direct current experience, just as the Right could speak from direct experience during the long 40 years the left was in charge of the country. But the times, they have a-changed, as the poet once wrote. The Right is in charge of the country and, demographicallly, will remain in power for the next 30 or so years. Historically, this has proven out. The Right has the power and the mandate to reenvision the state of the US and will do so.

Finally, I cannot "only say that the Deomcrats would have been ineffective." I can say, from my worldview, that they would have been worse and caused more problems than not for those who follow my worldview. The truly scary proposition for those who believe as you do, D_Raay, is that not enough people believe the same way you do to make it matter anymore. The Right is going to be in charge and all you can do is make your best effort to the "loyal opposition." That's what we on the Right did for the past 40 years - it's your turn now.

[sam i am]

That's where all your policies end up. Yes it seems incredulous that anyone could plump for it, but you suckers eat it up with a straw.

See my missive above. Your theory is a straw-man. Again, just because you say something is, does not make it so.

[D_Raay]

I never said that. Some liberals are qualified to lead. BUT, this is not their time.




Probably correct. Unfortunately, this is not the case. I refer again to pragmatism. Most Republicans heartily disliked Clinton and his policies. Pragmatism and optimism led to his successor's loss in 2000. We can endlessly debate that outcome, but realism and pragmatism argue for the fact that it is done and over with.



I do not "blindly follow such incompetent leadership." Your quote is begging the question. I do not find the current leadership to be incompetent, merely radically different than what you would want or envision on your side of the aisle. And Q is not always pragmatic, either. None of us are. We all have beliefs and worldviews and prejudices and advertising, etc., that shape and mold each of our respective opinions and ideas and values and morals. I have never stated that the current administration doesn't have warts and flaws. All people and collections of people do. I just choose to look at the bigger picture rather than focusing on the minutiae. I see the broader picture, overall, heading the direction I would like. Incrementalism is what got the Demos and liberals to where the US was in 1994 - incrementalism on our side of the aisle will get us to where we want the US to be in another 30 years. Strap in for the ride...it's going to be a long one.



You are absolutely correct. I can envision and hypothesize about what would have or could have or will happen IF the current crop of Demo leaders had been or will be in power. It's much easier, I agree with you, to rail against the known rather than the unknown. You are factually correct that the left can certainly speak from direct current experience, just as the Right could speak from direct experience during the long 40 years the left was in charge of the country. But the times, they have a-changed, as the poet once wrote. The Right is in charge of the country and, demographicallly, will remain in power for the next 30 or so years. Historically, this has proven out. The Right has the power and the mandate to reenvision the state of the US and will do so.

Finally, I cannot "only say that the Deomcrats would have been ineffective." I can say, from my worldview, that they would have been worse and caused more problems than not for those who follow my worldview. The truly scary proposition for those who believe as you do, D_Raay, is that not enough people believe the same way you do to make it matter anymore. The Right is going to be in charge and all you can do is make your best effort to the "loyal opposition." That's what we on the Right did for the past 40 years - it's your turn now.

Yeah, you keep telling me that... I am not buying it. Your ilk has only money, not morality.

[sam i am]

Sabotage is about you. You should know.

Dr. Seuss would turn over in his grave, and Sean Penn would put you in one.

The country is in some type of cluster fuck 13 step program and you, like many, can't/ won't get passed numero uno.

You abuse the definition of what a conservative is by brandishing a prescribed, incongruent template.

Your blind, gross arrogance says, "Conserve the current, overt corruption, it's dissolution, the degeneration, and a macro disorder of things.." Like sometime early on in life, Jenny Jones became your surrogate mother, dropped you on your head, and now you deny the gravity of it ALL.

You haven't had the proper wherewithal, and are not prepared to deal with the very crux of the problem..

That's what happens when you have corruption.. dissolution... degeneration.... and a disorder to the very values of a country. But it's no excuse. It's not like you have to have a profound sense of nuance regarding the state of things..!

Your first reaction will be to try and paint over the wall, but just keep re-reading what's on the lines. I won't ask you to descry what's between them yet. The only person you're holding back with that filibuster shit here is you. It's pathetic. It's so sad. In spite of you, good luck anyway.

Openly admitting that you subscribe to Machiavellianism..
When you lose principle, your stock becomes worthless. Stop trying to pawn it off here.

I really had a hard time following your discourse. I never admitted to Machiavellianism - I was simply pre-empting what I would most likely be accused of. I am not an ends justify the means kind of person by any stretch of the imagination. Optimists are not Machiavellians.

I am truly hurt by your missive stating that I am pathetic and sad. I am in tears.... *sniff*

Too bad you cannot accept reality and work within the framework of the system to implement what you find important and worthy. It must be nice to sit on high and hurl destructive rhetoric at all around you instead of taking some time to come up with rational, cogent arguments and find the ways and means to implement your agenda. Good luck with that.

[sam i am]

Yeah, you keep telling me that... I am not buying it. Your ilk has only money, not morality.

Again, I don't have money. I do have morality. We are not so far apart as you would like to think, D_Raay.

[ericg]

"... You're wild man, wild. That's insane. Your stupid. You should sleep late man it's just much easier on your constitution..."

"... Maybe I'm missin' the reason that you're smilin' or wildin' so listen..."
You're saying that you're mentally defficient and need some attention?!? Wargames over. Now you gotta let the cards fall. The facts prove that Bush was raised from a stacked deck, and the whole world was dealt. A bottom line for the idiots out there is if it was anyone's responsibility to prove anything, it was Bush. He's proven that he's grossly incompetent in all aspects, a liar, a murderer, a traitor etc... How can you not get it. Fool you once... fuck, nothing's been so played out. He's overtly shown how utterly corrupt, dumbed down, and incredible people like you are in this nation. It's a crime of mass proportions. A crime against humanity makes for foolish humans.

You're as big a rub as 'An Unfinished Life' ya Machiavellian fuck.

[D_Raay]

I really had a hard time following your discourse. I never admitted to Machiavellianism - I was simply pre-empting what I would most likely be accused of. I am not an ends justify the means kind of person by any stretch of the imagination. Optimists are not Machiavellians.

I am truly hurt by your missive stating that I am pathetic and sad. I am in tears.... *sniff*

Too bad you cannot accept reality and work within the framework of the system to implement what you find important and worthy. It must be nice to sit on high and hurl destructive rhetoric at all around you instead of taking some time to come up with rational, cogent arguments and find the ways and means to implement your agenda. Good luck with that.
What are you talking about?

I am no foe of you personally sam, just the people you wish to defend.

The problem as I see it right now is the disconnect from the Democrat party and it's base i.e. most of the top democrats will not even be in Washington this weekend. The party should have come together over these last 5 years and it hasn't. I am as frustrated by the democrats as I am with the Republicans.

My destructive rhetoric, as you call it, is exactly what is needed right now, otherwise this is all just a rigged game with the outcome already sewn up.
Hell if the so called liberals in the Democratic party won't do it then someone ought to.

[Ace42X]

Your theory is a straw-man. Again, just because you say something is, does not make it so.

How is that a straw-man? Perhaps you should look into what the term actually means, as you are apparently confusing "arguing via assertion" with the straw-man.

If anything, you arguing modern conservative policy based on the policies of long dead historical figures is closer to a "straw-man" argument that my off the cuff remarks.

And I did not return to this forum in order to enter into link-wars. Sorry to people hoping to see more of my trade-mark "point by point, quote by quote, link by link" refutations, but I have neither the time or the inclination. My best hits are still searchable here for those who want that.

As providing piles of irrefutable evidence invariably had little or no effect on debates, I do not feel inclined to waste my time when no-one else had the courtesy to either: return the favour; or b. accept that facts might not bear up their uninformed and speculative opinion.

If you want evidence that modern Republican / Conservative policy is detrimental to the environment: Read the news. Use google, stick your head out the window, whatever. Or maybe ask nicely here, and someone not as jaded and apathetic about you guys destroying your country as myself will post evidence.

[DroppinScience]

Sam.I.Am,

The current breed of Republicans don't resemble Teddy Roosevelt or even Nixon when it comes to environmental policies.

Neo-conservatives plain suck. :mad:

[sam i am]

Yeah, you keep telling me that... I am not buying it. Your ilk has only money, not morality.

That's Ok, D_Raay. I'm not selling it to you. I'm only explaining myself as you asked.

There are plenty of other buyers out there.

[sam i am]

What are you talking about?

I am no foe of you personally sam, just the people you wish to defend.

The problem as I see it right now is the disconnect from the Democrat party and it's base i.e. most of the top democrats will not even be in Washington this weekend. The party should have come together over these last 5 years and it hasn't. I am as frustrated by the democrats as I am with the Republicans.

My destructive rhetoric, as you call it, is exactly what is needed right now, otherwise this is all just a rigged game with the outcome already sewn up.
Hell if the so called liberals in the Democratic party won't do it then someone ought to.

My answer above was to ericq, D_Raay. Not you. Sorry for the mix-up. I would NEVER accuse you of destructive rhetoric. Again, if you misinterpreted my post above as directed at you, I promise you it was not.

[ericg]

You couldn't Xplain Yourself if I gave you coordinates at this point.

The 'mixup' that you're so sorry about is your perpetration of a Beastie fan.
"... And with those lies you're tellin'..."

You should check the facts and figure out where the constellations point before the beat goes drop.

"... Get wise to the demise..."

And spell my name right...

[ericg]

The real problem is the overwhelming lack of integral initiative by those with the wherewithal and 'proficiency'...

Get paid millions upon millions for another act.. Hollywood Progressives and a vast number of others have had the responsibility to make a real stand by really organizing and really investing in real initiatives by every means necessary to make all the difference...

Where the hell is it??!

P.L.A.N.'s half ass mission of pipelining all the orgs in affinity is stretched incredibly thin while everyone and their mother attends some pathetic rally or sits in a lame committee somewhere.

That's criminal incompetence for you.


The Nation Magazine
Who's Really Screwing Up America?

"Much of the political literature industry at this point is a racket, with so-called "opinion leaders" relying on the ignorance and vulnerability of the general public to sell worthless tracts as truth. Within the artifical political spectrum existing in the form of "right" and "left", in fact, most for-sale publications, in my opinion, fall in to the category of cheap exploitation for profit.

On the "right", we have "Bernie Goldberg"; on the "left", we have "Eric Alterman". On the "right", we have "Ann Coulter"; on the "left, we have "Al Franken".

Figures such as these are responsible in part for helping to reduce the American civic culture into a drunken football match."

Posted by ZERO 09/19/2005 @ 3:14pm |

"How about an article from The Nation on the WorldCom/Tyco convictions? We live in a country in which the poor walk the streets of the big cities while these slimebag crook executives throw 2 million dollar birthday parties for there hussy wives paid for with money stolen from the oh-so-precious shareholders.

We can't have a health care system, an energy economy that looks forward to the future, an education system, a transportation system, national research initiatives, or foreign relations when it's all predicated on enhancing the wealth of the already absurdly, grotesquely wealthy and overtly criminal plutocracy. And these rich slimebags pay us back by ripping and sinking the corporate entities that provide the major form of stability or upward mobility through regular work for much of the American population.

Enough of food fights over trash pundits. We just a saw a "controversial" judicial nomination process in which the future chief justice of the SCOTUS was not asked a single question about his views concerning the relationship between law and corporate power. And the publications we rely on for stimulating debate about crucial issues like relationship between law and corporate power are instead stirring up more talk wars between trash pundit personalities."

Posted by ZERO 09/19/2005 @ 3:33pm

AAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAHHHHHHHHHHHHHH HHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHH

What's your function?
A wonderful human being and all their potential died just now for your incomprehensible bullshit.. And for other's lack of properly directed energy constituting a catastrophic remission of duty...

[sam i am]

You couldn't Xplain Yourself if I gave you coordinates at this point.

The 'mixup' that you're so sorry about is your perpetration of a Beastie fan.
"... And with those lies you're tellin'..."

You should check the facts and figure out where the constellations point before the beat goes drop.

"... Get wise to the demise..."

And spell my name right...

You can say many things, but a Beastie fan I am :

sam I am
down with the program
green eggs and ham
yosemite sam

come Halloween I come strapped...

And you won't see me on the advertising...

Ericg - your posts are completely incomprehensible to me. Your personal attacks are slanderous and unscrupulous. You are a waste of space and my time. See ya!

[ericg]

Anyway, everybody divert their 'attention' once again to the brainwash machine.
All the media mind controls in place on both sides to assure a contrived context and impaired reaction?
Everybody tied into a 'sterilized' pattern of thinking and focused on absolutely nothing but Rita's political spin off that will clear everything up.
Should we get out our flags again and donate to Red Cross? How 'bout Halliburton? The oil companies? Directly to Bush's ranch? How much?


Weather control capability?
Ah, my brain, it can't comfortably give recognition or process elementary truths.. nevermind considering that. My mind has gone too far into remission and make believe, so let's all just forget. Deny and talk shit at all costs. Nobody has or will do shit about it now with every state's incompetence and corruption dug in so deep.

Go watch Billy Bush now.

[D_Raay]

You can say many things, but a Beastie fan I am :

sam I am
down with the program
green eggs and ham
yosemite sam

come Halloween I come strapped...

And you won't see me on the advertising...

Ericg - your posts are completely incomprehensible to me. Your personal attacks are slanderous and unscrupulous. You are a waste of space and my time. See ya!
I rather enjoy his posts. His ideology and message are spot on for me, and he has own unique stye of posting. Sorry for the mix up.

What do you think of Christopher Hitchens sam? Just curious.

[Ali]

Finally, I did want to take the opportunity to thank you for our renewed dialogue. I appreciate the chance to amend my behavior and my thin-skinedness (is that a word?) so that we can discourse.

Peace out, ali. :DMe 2
(y)

[Ali]

Notice Ali doesn't mention Algeria.Off your Ignore List, am I?
;)

The French have learned from their mistakes. They know what happens when you fuck with Arabic people... the Brits and Americans are finding out.

[sam i am]

I rather enjoy his posts. His ideology and message are spot on for me, and he has own unique stye of posting. Sorry for the mix up.

What do you think of Christopher Hitchens sam? Just curious.

Not familiar with Christopher Hitchens. Who is he and what does he say?

Also, can you truly follow Ericg? I couldn't, no matter how hard I tried. Plus, he devolves into personal affronts far too easily.