Piano World Home Page Forums Restricted and Archives The Coffee Room Jolly, Jbryan, and Larry

You seem to have done a pretty fair job of demonstrating this yourself.

The trouble with this is that, for you, there never seems to be a point at which all other options have been tried and found wanting. There never is a point at which talking, stalling and delaying has gone on long enough. In the current situation, when pressed to provide alternatives to war, you have no alternative beyond a continuation of what hasn't worked for twelve years.

War is a horrible thing and something I believe should be a last resort as well but, at some point, you have to come to the realization that all other options have been tried and continuing them is only delaying the inevitable. Delay that can mean worsening that inevitable conflict by a scale of magnitude. To say that you believe war should be the last result (as if we honestly don't) while meaning that it should never be an option is to evade the responsibility of making the truly hard choices.

LP

The term common was not meant in a derogatory manner. It was not my choice of words but to the post I was replying to. Would average or most have been less offensive to you?

You have expressed strong convictions towards war and capitol punishment, I don't necessarily agree with you, but I do agree it would be great if they didn't exist. To eliminate them though is going to take a different approach than what we are presently doing.

I have equally strong feelings concerning abortion. Think of it 5000 every day just in the U.S., doesn't that number even raise the slightest inkling in you? If it doesn't I am wasting my time.

I am not judging or damming the abortionist or the person that gets one, that goes against my grain, and that judging and damming should be left to a higher power. What does bother me is the moral character that is evolving that something like this is occurring and it has become socially acceptable.

I am very involved in the pro-life movement. The big thing with the pro-life movement is to protest at abortion clinics. I expressed my opinions about the war protestors and these opinions apply to the pro-life movement also. I will not allow anyone I am involved with participate in any protest on public property. Public protest for any reason should be abolished. In most cases in a public protest some fanatic gets carried away and someone innocent is harmed or their rights are violated. We do hold public discussion and informational meetings. These meetings are held behind closed doors off of public property, but no one wanting to attend is excluded.

While the casually throwing away of 5000 lives per day is in my opinion abominable, I have deeper concerns. As a Christian I was raised to believe that a man has a soul and upon his death this soul, if he is baptized, goes to heaven. I believe that this soul is present at conception when the life of that person starts. My concern for these souls is far greater than judging the abortionist or the person getting the abortion.

In acts of war or capitol punishment, someone is guilty of an extreme offence; whether the action is justifiable is debatable. In the case of an abortion an innocent is condemned body and soul and it is socially acceptable. Is this rational?

lb

LP

I hope that your gray matter hasn't been polluted with poor wine and bad cheese like some others.

lb

This is simply does not represent what I have said. At one point, someone (Larry I think ) asked me what I thought of the US involvement in Kosovo and I stated I supported our involvement, the way we got involved and the shared responsibility we have there.

It is true that I believe this war to be unjust and immoral. I am certainly not alone in this assessment. I do not think we had tried all that could have been tried before this war began. I still do not. I believe we have been lied to about this war -- its reason and its purpose --and I believe we have been played for fools by the Bush Administration. I do not believe we need to be in this war to ensure the security of the United States. Indeed, I believe this war makes us less secure. I also believe the cost up until this point in terms of our diplomatic relations has been too much. I believe the money that is being and will be spent in long term costs is far to great -- and that we will have acheived very little in terms of US security.

Clearly, others have seen the same information I have seen and read it differently. So be it.

At the same time, I pray that all of you are right -- that the war will be short and there will be little long term effects. That the troops will be home soon and there be as few casualities on either side as possible. That Mr. Bush will come through with his promise to force a solution to the Israeli/Palestinian conflict. That Iraq will be a democracy and will lead the way to other democracies being established in the Middle East. That the peoples of the Middle East will see that what we did was justified and will come to view us at least with respect, if not affection. That Saddam Hussein will be gone and the Iraqi people will live in freedom. That Anti-American terrorism will be dealt a major, if not fatal blow, and will at least be crippled.

But I do not believe most of this will really occur -- because I don't believe any of this is the real reason we have gone in there -- with the exception of the removal of Saddam Hussein.

You and I will disagree about this. I hope you are right.

Actually, it was not the adjective I was wondering about. It was the concept that people -- be they common, average or whatever -- are not capable of rational thought, implying (I believe) what they think and the values they act on in their life are not rationally developed.

I simply reject what seems to me to be a very elitist attitude. Perhaps it is not elitist, but it sure sounds like it.

You might be surprised, lb, but while I am pro choice I agree with you about abortion. I simply do not see it as something the government should be regulating because there are, legitimately, different views of whether or not the child has a soul upon conception. I liked Bill Clinton's statement in his campaign in 1992 -- abortion should remain legal, safe and rare.

The concept of man having a soul -- which I agree with you we have -- is a matter of faith, not knowledge. The point at which God creates and melds the soul with the body is a further axiom of faith, not knowledge. Indeed, until the 1920's even the Catholic Church taught the soul was infused in the body at the end of the first trimester. To me, then, those who do not have the same beliefs as your faith brings you to, or who consider themselves under attack by the fetus (child if you will), can be considered quite rational in deciding on an abortion.

Would I support every abortion? No. Most I would not. Am I concerned about the souls of those being aborted, assuming they have souls? No, I trust in the compassionate love of God to deal with this.

You and I will likely not agree on the validity of abortion at times. But I would strongly disagree with you that most women who have abortions are acting irrationally.

I remember when Larry asked you this in "The Bush Doctrine Applied" thread and this is how you responded:

Excuse me if I don't interpret this as unambiguous support for military action in Kosovo.

I have to wonder if your abiding mistrust of GWB is not clouding your judgment somewhat here.

So do I.

Excuse me if I don't interpret this as unambiguous support for military action in Kosovo.[/QUOTE]

I don't see why not?

The war that the ethnic groups were waging on each other was an act of barbarism -- and the barbarism was not limited to the ethnic cleansing that was going on. You would disagree with me on this?

I also don't see how what I said of my support of the United States and NATO countries who entered in to put an end to that war could be construed as anything but support.

As to my distrust of Mr. Bush coloring my view of the war -- well, of course it does. Mr. Bush and his Administration are the ones who have wanted, pushed for and finally decided to start this war. The fact I deeply distrust this Administration is gong to have an impact on my view of the justification for this war.

But leaving that aside, assuming I thought Mr. Bush was a saint -- I still would find this war to be unjust and immoral. I believe a preemptive war when there is no immediate and direct threat to the country carrying it out is, by my definition, immoral.

Like in Kosovo.

Are you implying that our limited involvement in Kosovo is even close to being the same as the full scale invasion and occupation of Iraq?

Remember, part of the just war theory is that the action needs to be proportional to the threat. In Kosovo it was. Here it is far from proportional to the threat.

A limited military action done in concert with our main military alliance partners is VERY different from what Mr. Bush and his cohorts have done here.

Doing the work of three men?

lb
Is this rational?

No. What you write is not rational.
Psychologist call it "rationalization" : it is a defence mechanism that will make you talk in a pseudo rational to prevent you from feeling pain from repressed material.

You seem to be a victim of a huge SuperEgo (introjection of parental obligations and interdictions): you just repeat like a parrot what you have been taught over years to believe.

Or maybe you were "born again" and underlying pain is overwhelming and forces you to inflict your extravagant religious creeds to the face of everybody.

You write you are prolife : how would you know, if you do not use your own judgement and just repeat what you were told.

I am not nice and courteous ?
Well, I promise you I do make great efforts. But probably we will reach an understanding before Decembre 31,2003.

Gardener and JByran
I'll deal with this last piece of idiocy

This backs up what I'm talking about. Lower tax brackets actually have more take home pay then some in the higher tax bracket. In your scenario I wouldn't WANT a raise! So I'd better start slacking off on the job!

lol lol lol lol lol lol lol
*ahem*

That's why it's called a Tiered rate!
If you remember what the folks in grade 3 used to teach:
Tiered means multi layered!!!

Which means!
If I earn 50k I'll pay no tax for my first 20k, and 30% for the next 30k!!!!

If I earn 51k I'll pay no tax for my first 20k, 30% for the next 30k, and 40% for the extra 1k!!!!

Oh jolly good show. It's not rocket science.
If you can tell me how earning less is beneficial please do... I can't wait to graduate and tell my boss... oh don't worry 'bout renumeration... or bonuses... I'd rather do without them... they'll tax me over 100% for them...

We still have not heard anything like a rational alternative to war in this case from you beyond vague references to "...all things that could have been tried before this war" and, once again, things that have yielded nada for tweleve years. Only carping.

Surely you are not suggesting that some "limited military action" is called for here. I would be interested to hear what "limited military action" would relieve a brutal thug like Saddam Hussein of his terror toys.

I think I can assume that you were referring to me when you mentioned this "JByran" person. Anyway, what you are describing is, indeed, not rocket science and is precisely how our current tax rates work. That is why they are called "marginal" rates. I was not the one suggesting that I would make less when I get a raise. I am suggesting that your rates are too high. 40 and 50% marginal rates are, in my view, confiscatory. Especially when you factor in the 15.3% FICA that comes right off the top. There is no rational reason that the government should lay claim to that much of someone's earnings. That is, of course, unless your only aim is to punish those who produce wealth.

Why would anyone punish the employees who produce the wealth?

Lazy - you asked "Why punish the employees that produce the wealth? It's not that simple. The employees produce only a fraction of the wealth. If our company pays someone 1862.19 we must deposit 3168.29 into our payroll account Where does the extra 1306.00 go? Do you know what employers pay over and above the amount that the employee gets to take home added to the deductions for Federal and State Withholding, FICA Medicare and Medicare matching, FUTA and SUI? Any idea? Do you know how much Workman' Comp costs per employee? or liability insurance? Have you ever hired anyone or complied with state and federal regulating agencies or paid the money to do so?

Actually, yes I have and yes I do hire people and comply with state and federal regulatory agencies.

If the workers are only creating a small percentage of the wealth, then you really need to get rid of them. But you won't. Why? Because without them, no money flows and the business is gone.

Unless you are self employed or not working at all, whatever you do is getting done by the workers. Whatever money your company is bringing in, is coming in because of employees. Even if you consider money flowing into a company because of the capital markets, both the debt and equity markets will fund you only to the extent that the employees are creating adequate wealth for the company to either repay its debt or to make it a sound investment.

The wealth of any company comes only because of its employees. The Board of Directors can have as many meetings as it wants, but if the employees are not producing, the company fails.

Actually, JBryan, you have heard many ideas from me on this whole thing. You, however, are more interested in winning the argument than in listening.

Perhaps had Mr. Bush started his Administration -- way back when he first thumbed his nose at the world over Kyoto -- with what he said in his campaign, that America will be respected if it wields its power and influence with humility, we would have found that we would not be in a full scale war right now -- acting alone and without support of our primary allies, with massive demonstrations against us throughout the world and governments who want to support us walking tight ropes between their desire to be with us and placating their citizens.

Perhaps, had Mr. Bush listened to the French, the Germans, the Russians, the Chinese and most of the nations at the United Nations and enhanced the inspection process, we would finished destroying the missles that are now being fired into Kuwait. Perhaps had he continued to push for stronger and more aggressive inspections, we would be now be setting the stage for the rest of the world putting so much pressure on Hussein and providing enough incentive to the Iraqi's that they, themselves, would be closer to toppling that regime -- perhaps even with just a few well placed bullets.

But we will never know. What we will know, though, is the cost of war, the cost of occupation, the cost of thumbing our noses at the other powers in the world, the cost of further inflaming hatred of the United States as our forces become sitting targets in the middle of the most volatile region in the world -- further destabilized by our actions.

Diplomacy was working. Hussein was in a box. He was not in a position to threaten us or anyone else. The inspectors could have continued for a long time -- years in fact -- and all that time, Hussein would have remained in the box, a threat to no one.

And we would not have lost what we have lost at the UN, in our international relations, the soldiers who will not come home, the good will that had been ours after 9/11, the respect of the world. We would have lost none of that -- and now we have lost all of it.

Yep, JBryan, there were many other options than war. Not as efficient, I suppose. But certainly as effective and far less costly.

LP
Perhaps, had Mr. Bush listened to the French, the Germans, the Russians, the Chinese and most of the nations at the United Nations and enhanced the inspection process, we would finished destroying the missles that are now being fired into Kuwait. Perhaps had he continued to push for stronger and more aggressive inspections, we would be now be setting the stage for the rest of the world putting so much pressure on Hussein and providing enough incentive to the Iraqi's that they, themselves, would be closer to toppling that regime -- perhaps even with just a few well placed bullets.

1° You could not ask the US Army to put pressure on the Iraki regime for months and months
2° The 1441 asked that Saddam shows how he had destroyed WMD, not play hide and seek
3° The Iraki summer was approaching. Maybe you should go and help your Iraki friends
4° The US Army and the British Army have great problems. Saddam and his friends have killed hundreds of thousands of Kurds, Shiits, sons in-law and you can say **** like that.
5° Stop being a traitor and a fool and don't try and make us look somewhere else : Saddam will go and you'll apologize for being a traitor AND a fool
6° I started respecting you. Here we go : you start again and try take us all for suckers.
Why don't you go NOW and ask if it is too late for the human shields program.
7° Stop being a traitor and a fool. Stop taking us for suckers.