Jolly, Jbryan, and Larry

Posted by: Tony

Jolly, Jbryan, and Larry - 03/25/03 02:41 AM

For how long do you think they've been a bad mood"
Posted by: Tony

Re: Jolly, Jbryan, and Larry - 03/25/03 02:47 AM

By the way, having differences of oppinions is one thing. Being small minded and nasty is quite another.
Posted by: jeffylube

Re: Jolly, Jbryan, and Larry - 03/25/03 02:57 AM

Bleh?
Posted by: Larry

Re: Jolly, Jbryan, and Larry - 03/25/03 09:53 AM

Don't worry Jeffylube. When a liberal is faced with facts and doesn't know how to respond to them, he will always resort to the "small minded and mean" argument. You will also notice they always mention the "shades of gray/black and white" thing as well, the point being made that they think deeply and completely and are "intellectual", whereas a Conservative only thinks two dimensionally, on the surface, and shoots from the hip. I intend to address this point soon, because both arguments stem from the same fundamental flaw.
Posted by: shantinik

Re: Jolly, Jbryan, and Larry - 03/26/03 02:15 PM

For a long time. Too many poor folk are getting free handouts! :rolleyes:

(By the way, I like them all, and have learned from them all, and at least one is Presidential material. ;\) And they're all invited to Olympia, Washington, provided they bring their pianos. We can set them up to block the Fourth Avenue Bridge. \:\) )
Posted by: apple*

Re: Jolly, Jbryan, and Larry - 03/26/03 06:33 PM

They are all invited to Kansas City as well (of course all our guests will want to mow in the months of May and April and June)
Posted by: TomK

Re: Jolly, Jbryan, and Larry - 03/26/03 06:46 PM

 Quote:
Posted by Tony: For how long do you think they've been a bad mood"[/b]
Tony,
How long have you been a doofus?
Posted by: gryphon

Re: Jolly, Jbryan, and Larry - 03/26/03 06:56 PM

 Quote:
I intend to address this point soon, because both arguments stem from the same fundamental flaw.
'Cause they're stupid?
Posted by: Jolly

Re: Jolly, Jbryan, and Larry - 03/26/03 09:20 PM

Tony, have you quit beating your "significant other", yet?

Ah, the wondermousness of the pre-determined question! :rolleyes:
Posted by: Steve Miller

Re: Jolly, Jbryan, and Larry - 03/27/03 12:32 AM

 Quote:
Originally posted by Larry:
I intend to address this point soon, because both arguments stem from the same fundamental flaw.[/b]
And that flaw is?
Posted by: franzooey

Re: Jolly, Jbryan, and Larry - 03/27/03 02:12 AM

 Quote:
When a liberal is faced with facts and doesn't know how to respond to them, he will always resort to the "small minded and mean" argument
I'll spare you the speech about the "myth" of facts. I'll spare you the speech about how our reliance on facts is residue from The Age of Reason, that period when people actually believed that if one looks objectively enough at the world, "truth" will appear. The sciences are rooted in this myth. So too are mathematics. And both liberals and conservatives like to whip out the ol' "facts" claim to make their arguments seem stronger. Want to rip a liberal's argumnet? Simply accuse her of not knowing her "facts." Want to attack the conservative position? Again, wield that silencing word "facts."

We're a bright enough group here (I think) to realize that human beings make truth. "Truth" or "facts" don't simply exist in the world as givens.

Yes, I'm back.
Posted by: JBryan

Re: Jolly, Jbryan, and Larry - 03/27/03 06:59 AM

What an interesting way of absolving oneself of having to prove anything.
Posted by: TomK

Re: Jolly, Jbryan, and Larry - 03/27/03 07:44 AM

 Quote:
"Truth" or "facts" don't simply exist in the world as givens.
[/b]
Yes they do.
Posted by: DT

Re: Jolly, Jbryan, and Larry - 03/27/03 08:04 AM

 Quote:
Originally posted by franzooey:
We're a bright enough group here (I think) to realize that human beings make truth. "Truth" or "facts" don't simply exist in the world as givens.

Yes, I'm back.[/b]
Apparently back Through The Looking Glass:
"When I use a word...."
Posted by: Jolly

Re: Jolly, Jbryan, and Larry - 03/27/03 10:28 AM

"I feel, therefore it is!" \:D :p \:D :p \:D
Posted by: Larry

Re: Jolly, Jbryan, and Larry - 03/27/03 11:11 AM

Originally posted by Steve Miller:
And that flaw is?[/b]

Ok... I think I've got time to take a stab at this now...

I said that when liberals run out of facts they resort to calling conservatives mean spirited. I said liberals like to think of themselves as intellectually superior to conservatives and argue that they look at the shades of gray while conservatives only see things in black and white. Then I said both of these things stem from the same basic flaw.

This post is not meant as an attack on liberals, though I'm sure many of you will not believe that. It is meant to try and educate some of you, and get you to see a few things. So read it with an open mind, with the understanding that no harm is meant.

The flaw is this: most liberals do not think nearly as deeply as they like to tell themselves. They base their beliefs on *feelings*, then fit the facts to those feelings. We have seen this right here on this board, over and over. The belief that they are examining gray areas is often nothing more than the confusion that results from going with feelings rather than concrete fact. As long as they stay within a group of likeminded people, these "feelings" are stroked and they are happy. They believe the whole world should "feel" the same way about an issue that they do. Anyone - *anyone* who dares challenge these "feelings" will get labeled an extremist conservative, called mean spirited, and accused of only thinking in black and white. The thought never occurs to them that maybe this "extremist conservative" may have looked at the gray areas also, and then done something with the information gleaned from it.

The conservative is like water. Water has a goal. Water is on its way to somewhere. If water runs into an obstacle that stops it from getting there, it will pool up until it can find another way to get where it's going. The instant it finds it, it will go. Water can do something a liberal cannot do.

Water can make a decision.

Conservatives can make a decision too. That's why liberals see us as thinking in only black and white - they are still going with their "feelings" - still searching around in those gray areas, telling themselves that this makes them an "intellectual" - and conservatives, being more grounded in reality, have finished examining the gray areas and made a decision. To liberals, moving out of the gray area is bad. You must continue to examine every angle. All possibilities must stay on equal footing with all other possibilities - to do anything else would not be the "intellectual" thing to do.

This also causes liberals to redefine where the center is. To most liberals, the center is located between left and extreme left. Anyone to the right of left is a fanatic not worth paying attention to. Anyone who actually stops examining the gray areas and makes a decision that doesn't agree with the group "feelings" is mean spirited, extremist, a fanatic, and most likely stupid. Don't believe me? Just read back through the responses I get from liberals.

Liberals stereotype anyone they view as a conservative - and especially so if the person actually embraces the term conservative. Since they have redefined the center and all conservatives are now fanatics, you get all kinds of things attached to you. You, the conservative, now fit a picture. You drive a truck, you live in the South, you don't have an education, you're a "fundamentalist Christian" Bible thumping snake handling speaking in tongues religious fanatic who has a rifle in the back window of your truck, you don't take baths, your favorite pastime is hunting 'possums and going to chicken fights, etc.

There's only one problem with this..... everyone I've ever met who fit that description was a Democrat.

Most of you who call yourself a liberal don't even know what the term "liberal" means. As I explain to you why I am not a liberal, it is my hope that some of you see what being a liberal really means, and you choose to find a new label for your position. At the very least, I hope some of you finally figure out the difference in a new liberal and a Classic liberal.

Here is why I am labeled a Conservative, even though (and I've mentioned this before) I am a Classic Liberal:

1. I believe the strength of our nation lies within the individual. Therefore, I believe each person's dignity, freedom, ability, and responsibility must be honored.
2. I believe in equal rights, equal justice, and equal opportunity for all, regardless of race, creed, age, or disability.
3. I believe in free enterprise. I believe that encouraging individual initiative has brought this nation opportunity, economic growth, and prosperity.
4. I believe the proper role of government is to perform for the people only those critical functions that cannot be performed by individuals of private organizations. Thus I believe that the best government is the one that governs least.
5. I believe the most effective, responsible, and responsive government is government closet to the people.
6. I believe Americans must retain the principles that have made us strong, while developing new and innovative ideas to meet the challenges of changing times.
7. I believe Americans value and should preserve our national strength and pride while working to extend peace, freedom, and human rights throughout the world.

Because liberals have redefined the center, I am a now labeled a Conservative - with all the stereotypical stuff attached to me when they think of me that I've already mentioned. A check of past threads will show that I have even had this said to me. Even though I do believe that people who need help should get it, even though I do value life, even though I do want peace in the world, and even though I do look at all the gray areas..... I am dismissed by the New Left (not real liberals) as a gun toting, possum hunting redneck fanatic who can't think.

The New Left has been assigned the term Liberal by default also. You on the Left use the term, but you don't deserve it. True liberalism does not contain the Marxist and Socialist ideology that has crept into your ranks. This is where I hope some of you who call yourselves liberals will decide to reevaluate the label you are embracing. A true liberal is to the right of the New Left.

Since I now fit into the description of a Conservative, let's look at what being a Conservative means.

Conservatism as a philosophy does not produce a laundry list of policy recommendations, nor does it represent the interests of this or that class or special interest. Nor is conservatism grounded in a reflective reaction to change, nor in a nostalgic attachment to the past. Rather, it begins by rejecting what C. S. Lewis called "chronological bigotry": the foolish notion that contemporary thinkers have a monopoly on the truth, simply because they are alive today and not in an earlier, "less enlightened" era.

However, Conservatives do draw on the accumulated wisdom of the past to form a comprehensive and coherent view of the world, from which we derive certain principles essential to the promotion of the common good. As every philosophy has certain basic propositions upon which everything else is based.

Conservatism envisions a society in which each human being, no matter how humble in origin or apparently ordinary in talents, is treated with sacred respect. We see the drama of each unfolding human life as rich in meaning and significance. Consequently, we treat each person's life as inviolable and are unwilling to sacrifice the few for the good of the many.

Conservatives affirm the existence of natural law, defining and protecting the natural rights of each person. These rights are inalienable and endowed to us by our Creator. They are, therefore, not subject to revision or repeal by any political coalition, no matter how powerful.

True Conservatives are not swayed by transitory intellectual fashions of the "enlightened elite". Confidence in the power and reliability of common sense translates into stable, consistent and effective social policy.

Conservatives look for opportunities to strengthen the good that remains in existing institutions. Like Hippocrates, conservatives remember the wisdom of the principle: first, does no harm. We must always resist the temptation to launch large-scale untested schemes for reform.

The Natural Law (as stated by our Fore Fathers) provides each of us with Archimedes' fixed point, to which we can appeal against the injustice of the powerful. As Conservatives, we therefore, are not easily cowed into submission to any tyranny. Instead, our conservative thoughts and practices provide us a principled limitation of the power and the scope of human government, as embodied in the Bill of Rights.

As a Conservative, I reject the following Leftists philosophies[/b], each of which is part of the intellectual foundations of the Liberal consensus of today's academic, media and political elite:

Atheism and materialism[/b] -- the notion that human life is the accidental and meaningless result of mindless material processes.
Racism and chauvinism[/b] -- that certain races or classes of people are inherently superior in ultimate value.
Collectivism[/b] -- the thesis that individuals are important only as parts of society, that their lives have no significance or meaning beyond that assumed to them by their society.
Secular humanism[/b] -- that we human beings must define the meaning and purpose of our own existence.
Deep ecology[/b] -- the belief that the labor and technical achievements of mankind are inherently evil, and that only the undisturbed wilderness is good.
Animal rights anti-humanism[/b] -- that non-human animals, despite their lack of will or conscience, are on equal moral standing with human beings by virtue of their capacity for pain and pleasure.
Relativism[/b] -- that what is good or right varies fundamentally from time to time or place to place, that there are no universal truths of morality and politics.
Constructivism[/b] -- that what is right and just is nothing more than the product of social forces and historical accidents.
Subjectivism[/b] -- that what is good or right for an individual is determined simply by that individual's feelings or inclinations.
Cultural determinism[/b] -- that human nature is infinitely malleable by culture.
Nominalism[/b] -- that nothing has any definite nature, other than that which we ascribe to it through our invention of words or concepts.
Post-modernism[/b] -- that science is merely the expression of political ideology, and that the difference between good and bad science, or between science and pseudo-science, has no objective validity.
Scientism[/b] -- that there is no knowledge outside science, and that nothing is real that is not scientifically verifiable.
Empiricism[/b] -- that nothing exists beyond what can be verified by our five senses.
Skepticism[/b] -- that we know nothing with certainty.
Utopianism[/b] -- belief in the infinite perfectibility of man.
Positivism[/b] -- the denial of the fundamental reality of evil, attributing all human evil to superficial causes, such as poverty, maladjustment, lack of education, or distorted socioeconomic conditions.
Pessimism or cynicism[/b] -- the view that mankind is so corrupted that there is no hope for relative progress or improvement.
Ethical dualism[/b] -- attributing evil exclusively to some particular group or class (i.e. the Descendents of White Europeans, the Fundamentalist Christians, the bourgeoisie, Jews, the corporate elite, etc. etc.).

Liberalism, on the other hand, leans in the direction of a morally relativistic secular humanism and atheism. Many Liberals today have also embraced the occult, neo paganism, earth worship, and other so called "New Age" beliefs, which, according to my research, constituted the religion of the Nazis.

A fundamental tenet of the New Left Liberal is Charles Darwin's theory of evolution. This unproven theory, wrapped in the sophistries of scientific certainty, claims that man somehow miraculously evolved from primordial ooze and is nothing more than an advanced animal. Liberalism seeks to replace God's immutable law with moral relativism, which is to say that individuals, acting in the place of God, decide what constitutes good and evil. They seek to supplant God's law and its absolute truths, with the politically correct fashions and whims of an allegedly enlightened elite who claim a scientific, superior wisdom. They view the State as an instrument to enforce their self-serving experiments. This is the essence of the sin of the Garden of Eden. The conservative, on the other hand, is more inclined to recognize the sovereignty of God, not some earthly experts. To understand this is to understand why conservatives are not as easily controlled by the machinations of government.

Conservatism supports that most conservative of all documents, the Constitution of the United States of America. The Declaration of Independence states that "We are endowed by our creator with certain inalienable rights; among these are life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness." The Constitution stands as a beacon of human progress, by the true meaning of the term, as it honors the ability of a moral people to exercise self-rule. Great progressive movements such as the labor, civil rights, and women's movements, sprang from the desire to obtain the individual and property rights guaranteed by the Constitution but not fully realized. The authoritarian minded left perverted these conservative movements, to a certain degree, with their cult of victimization and their dialectic of class and race hatred. They turned genuine conservative movements into cannon fodder in their war against American notions of limited government and freedom. Liberalism contends that rights emanate from the State. The benevolent liberal expert, acting they tell us, for the common good, covets the right to decide which rights are granted to his neighbor and to what degree. They hold as a gauzy ultimate goal a centralized New World Order. They believe that this is inevitable, and they speak of a time when there will be world peace, an end of poverty and hunger, de facto equality etc. In their public utterances, the Nazi's also employed this same type of rhetoric. Just turn over your rights and property to us, the Nazi's promised, before they suspended the Constitution and confiscated firearms, and we will usher in a utopian paradise. This was the big lie then, and it remains the big lie today.

Here is what is *wrong* with the New Left (what is called Liberalism):

1. Believes in a government with a large role. This typically includes, but is not bound to, support of: income redistribution, social legislation, and a "big government" role in the economy and fiscal matters.
2. Liberalism takes a very passive side to most moral issues. Certain criminal law, for example anti drug laws, are often questioned and disapproved of by the left. The far left often adheres to what can be termed an "if it feels good, do it" policy.
3. Role of society is thought of as a basis. The "it takes a village" proverb and a society as a whole often take precedent to individual rights.
4. Results should be equal for all. Those who put in more effort should be no more successful than those who don't.

I’ve heard a story repeated by many people who use it to illustrate futility: a man on the shore of a river jumps in and rescues a drowning man, then another, and then another; he is so busy rescuing people that he never goes upstream to see who is throwing them into the river.

Since liberal ideology has taken over America, it’s caused what I call the “capitulation of the poor” – and this capitulation seems to have happened in my lifetime. Not from any one factor, but the issues pile up on top of each other. The welfare state has rigged life so that it pays more to stay poor than to try to succeed in many cases, and the subsequent welfare reform has set it up to where people going along with the system are then reduced to absolute despair as their support is cut off. The gulf is no longer between the rich and poor as much as it is between those who have a chance and those who have no chance. An impossible, almost unapproachable government bureaucracy stacks everything against them in every area of their lives. The decline in education has assured that these poor people don’t understand the true odds against them. This capitulation is not from any one factor, but the crushing weight of them all. Liberal ideology tries to pull people out of the river, but does not stop people from being thrown into the river, as our historical experiment of remaking America into a strongly liberal nation has shown.

I am not mean spirited. I do think. I do look at the gray areas. You liberals do not have a corner on this, even though it is a requirement that you think so. I am an educated man, the same as you. I have feelings, just like you. I care for the poor, and want to help them, just like you. But you cannot stay in the gray areas forever. Instead of hitting me with the "extremist" label, or painting me into a pickup truck with a shotgun in the window, why not open your mind and examine my post. You may find that many of the things the New Left (currently labeled "Liberal") stands for really don't fit with your views. If you do, it is OK to come out of the cult. It is OK to think for yourself.
Posted by: Brad

Re: Jolly, Jbryan, and Larry - 03/27/03 11:21 AM

Great thoughtful post, Larry.

Just be glad you are not in San Francisco (as I am). Such thoughts are not labelled "conservative," but pathological.

I guess I'm a "liberalphobe."
Posted by: gryphon

Re: Jolly, Jbryan, and Larry - 03/27/03 11:26 AM

What he said.
Posted by: Lazy Pianist

Re: Jolly, Jbryan, and Larry - 03/27/03 12:00 PM

Talk about setting up straw men so they can be easily torn apart!

Sheesh!
Posted by: mrenaud

Re: Jolly, Jbryan, and Larry - 03/27/03 12:28 PM

Larry: I don't know about American terminology, but it looks to me that you're describing a common deep-red socialist rather than a liberal. But then again, we probably use different terminology.
Posted by: gryphon

Re: Jolly, Jbryan, and Larry - 03/27/03 01:08 PM

 Quote:
Originally posted by mrenaud:
it looks to me that you're describing a common deep-red socialist rather than a liberal.[/b]
There are those of us who think they are one in the same.
Posted by: benedict

Re: Jolly, Jbryan, and Larry - 03/27/03 01:13 PM

Larry, oh Larry,
Water can do something a liberal cannot do.
Water can make a decision.
[/b]

Your definition of a liberal is very strange.
Bill Clinton decided on two military operations against Serbia's ethnic purification in Bosnia and Kosovo.
If these operations were not decided, what were they.
Franklin D. Roosevelt declared war to Japan after Pearl Harbour and he did not stop before the Axis armies were defeated.
Tony Blair has fought a long and brave battle because he had decided what was a just cause.

Your idea of liberal sounds like a phantasm : every thing you and your dad hate is labeled a liberal. Some use other scapegoats (Freud called them "bad objects") : Jews, commies, capitalists, Americans, red Indians (the ones that are good when they are dead), hairy women, Jerry Lewis's films, MacDonald.

What on earth gave you this incredible phobia of liberals.
I am sure that most of the people on this forum that do not share your ideas are far from left.
I would think the range is from centre to moderate left.

Everybody feels first and thinks afterwards on many important occasions.
Feeling means a lot : it means as much emotion as sensitivity as intuition.
The important thing is to find resonance between feeling and thinking. Both dancing together are a grace.

I have great respect for your sincerity.
Maybe time will help you overcome your phobia.

You are the ultimate Don Quixote : fighting liberal windmills.
What you call liberals are certainly no traitors. If they weren't here, Irak and Iran and Korean would be parking lots by now.
And the best companies in the world would have the best contracts to build the supermarkets that go with every parking lot.

Why do waste our precious time fighting this surrealistic battle : liberals, conservatives ?
Do you have an idea of the drive behind all this.

We believe in what we are, we respect the opposite team. There is no cup or medal to win.

Man is a strange animal.

A little point
the notion that human life is the accidental and meaningless result of mindless material processes[/b]

Anybody having taking part in the creation of one human life or more knows better, don't you think ?
;\) \:\)
:p
Posted by: Jolly

Re: Jolly, Jbryan, and Larry - 03/27/03 02:06 PM

This is why liberals are doomed to intellectual perdition:
 Quote:
Talk about setting up straw men so they can be easily torn apart!

Sheesh!
Talk about a knee-jerk reaction!
Posted by: franzooey

Re: Jolly, Jbryan, and Larry - 03/27/03 03:51 PM

 Quote:
Post-modernism -- that science is merely the expression of political ideology, and that the difference between good and bad science, or between science and pseudo-science, has no objective validity
I know postmodernism, and that ain't postmodernism! Of course, the term postmodern was coined by French theorists (guesses, anyone?), and we all know how popular the French are right now (Freedom Fires, anyone?).
Posted by: Peter_dup2

Re: Jolly, Jbryan, and Larry - 03/27/03 03:57 PM

 Quote:
Originally posted by Larry:
Originally posted by Steve Miller:
And that flaw is?[/b]

Ok... I think I've got time to take a stab at this now...

I said that when liberals run out of facts they resort to calling conservatives mean spirited. I said liberals like to think of themselves as intellectually superior to conservatives and argue that they look at the shades of gray while conservatives only see things in black and white. Then I said both of these things stem from the same basic flaw.

This post is not meant as an attack on liberals, though I'm sure many of you will not believe that. It is meant to try and educate some of you, and get you to see a few things. So read it with an open mind, with the understanding that no harm is meant.

The flaw is this: most liberals do not think nearly as deeply as they like to tell themselves. They base their beliefs on *feelings*, then fit the facts to those feelings. We have seen this right here on this board, over and over. The belief that they are examining gray areas is often nothing more than the confusion that results from going with feelings rather than concrete fact. As long as they stay within a group of likeminded people, these "feelings" are stroked and they are happy. They believe the whole world should "feel" the same way about an issue that they do. Anyone - *anyone* who dares challenge these "feelings" will get labeled an extremist conservative, called mean spirited, and accused of only thinking in black and white. The thought never occurs to them that maybe this "extremist conservative" may have looked at the gray areas also, and then done something with the information gleaned from it.

The conservative is like water. Water has a goal. Water is on its way to somewhere. If water runs into an obstacle that stops it from getting there, it will pool up until it can find another way to get where it's going. The instant it finds it, it will go. Water can do something a liberal cannot do.

Water can make a decision.

Conservatives can make a decision too. That's why liberals see us as thinking in only black and white - they are still going with their "feelings" - still searching around in those gray areas, telling themselves that this makes them an "intellectual" - and conservatives, being more grounded in reality, have finished examining the gray areas and made a decision. To liberals, moving out of the gray area is bad. You must continue to examine every angle. All possibilities must stay on equal footing with all other possibilities - to do anything else would not be the "intellectual" thing to do.

This also causes liberals to redefine where the center is. To most liberals, the center is located between left and extreme left. Anyone to the right of left is a fanatic not worth paying attention to. Anyone who actually stops examining the gray areas and makes a decision that doesn't agree with the group "feelings" is mean spirited, extremist, a fanatic, and most likely stupid. Don't believe me? Just read back through the responses I get from liberals.

Liberals stereotype anyone they view as a conservative - and especially so if the person actually embraces the term conservative. Since they have redefined the center and all conservatives are now fanatics, you get all kinds of things attached to you. You, the conservative, now fit a picture. You drive a truck, you live in the South, you don't have an education, you're a "fundamentalist Christian" Bible thumping snake handling speaking in tongues religious fanatic who has a rifle in the back window of your truck, you don't take baths, your favorite pastime is hunting 'possums and going to chicken fights, etc.

There's only one problem with this..... everyone I've ever met who fit that description was a Democrat.

Most of you who call yourself a liberal don't even know what the term "liberal" means. As I explain to you why I am not a liberal, it is my hope that some of you see what being a liberal really means, and you choose to find a new label for your position. At the very least, I hope some of you finally figure out the difference in a new liberal and a Classic liberal.

Here is why I am labeled a Conservative, even though (and I've mentioned this before) I am a Classic Liberal:

1. I believe the strength of our nation lies within the individual. Therefore, I believe each person's dignity, freedom, ability, and responsibility must be honored.
2. I believe in equal rights, equal justice, and equal opportunity for all, regardless of race, creed, age, or disability.
3. I believe in free enterprise. I believe that encouraging individual initiative has brought this nation opportunity, economic growth, and prosperity.
4. I believe the proper role of government is to perform for the people only those critical functions that cannot be performed by individuals of private organizations. Thus I believe that the best government is the one that governs least.
5. I believe the most effective, responsible, and responsive government is government closet to the people.
6. I believe Americans must retain the principles that have made us strong, while developing new and innovative ideas to meet the challenges of changing times.
7. I believe Americans value and should preserve our national strength and pride while working to extend peace, freedom, and human rights throughout the world.

Because liberals have redefined the center, I am a now labeled a Conservative - with all the stereotypical stuff attached to me when they think of me that I've already mentioned. A check of past threads will show that I have even had this said to me. Even though I do believe that people who need help should get it, even though I do value life, even though I do want peace in the world, and even though I do look at all the gray areas..... I am dismissed by the New Left (not real liberals) as a gun toting, possum hunting redneck fanatic who can't think.

The New Left has been assigned the term Liberal by default also. You on the Left use the term, but you don't deserve it. True liberalism does not contain the Marxist and Socialist ideology that has crept into your ranks. This is where I hope some of you who call yourselves liberals will decide to reevaluate the label you are embracing. A true liberal is to the right of the New Left.

Since I now fit into the description of a Conservative, let's look at what being a Conservative means.

Conservatism as a philosophy does not produce a laundry list of policy recommendations, nor does it represent the interests of this or that class or special interest. Nor is conservatism grounded in a reflective reaction to change, nor in a nostalgic attachment to the past. Rather, it begins by rejecting what C. S. Lewis called "chronological bigotry": the foolish notion that contemporary thinkers have a monopoly on the truth, simply because they are alive today and not in an earlier, "less enlightened" era.

However, Conservatives do draw on the accumulated wisdom of the past to form a comprehensive and coherent view of the world, from which we derive certain principles essential to the promotion of the common good. As every philosophy has certain basic propositions upon which everything else is based.

Conservatism envisions a society in which each human being, no matter how humble in origin or apparently ordinary in talents, is treated with sacred respect. We see the drama of each unfolding human life as rich in meaning and significance. Consequently, we treat each person's life as inviolable and are unwilling to sacrifice the few for the good of the many.

Conservatives affirm the existence of natural law, defining and protecting the natural rights of each person. These rights are inalienable and endowed to us by our Creator. They are, therefore, not subject to revision or repeal by any political coalition, no matter how powerful.

True Conservatives are not swayed by transitory intellectual fashions of the "enlightened elite". Confidence in the power and reliability of common sense translates into stable, consistent and effective social policy.

Conservatives look for opportunities to strengthen the good that remains in existing institutions. Like Hippocrates, conservatives remember the wisdom of the principle: first, does no harm. We must always resist the temptation to launch large-scale untested schemes for reform.

The Natural Law (as stated by our Fore Fathers) provides each of us with Archimedes' fixed point, to which we can appeal against the injustice of the powerful. As Conservatives, we therefore, are not easily cowed into submission to any tyranny. Instead, our conservative thoughts and practices provide us a principled limitation of the power and the scope of human government, as embodied in the Bill of Rights.

As a Conservative, I reject the following Leftists philosophies[/b], each of which is part of the intellectual foundations of the Liberal consensus of today's academic, media and political elite:

Atheism and materialism[/b] -- the notion that human life is the accidental and meaningless result of mindless material processes.
Racism and chauvinism[/b] -- that certain races or classes of people are inherently superior in ultimate value.
Collectivism[/b] -- the thesis that individuals are important only as parts of society, that their lives have no significance or meaning beyond that assumed to them by their society.
Secular humanism[/b] -- that we human beings must define the meaning and purpose of our own existence.
Deep ecology[/b] -- the belief that the labor and technical achievements of mankind are inherently evil, and that only the undisturbed wilderness is good.
Animal rights anti-humanism[/b] -- that non-human animals, despite their lack of will or conscience, are on equal moral standing with human beings by virtue of their capacity for pain and pleasure.
Relativism[/b] -- that what is good or right varies fundamentally from time to time or place to place, that there are no universal truths of morality and politics.
Constructivism[/b] -- that what is right and just is nothing more than the product of social forces and historical accidents.
Subjectivism[/b] -- that what is good or right for an individual is determined simply by that individual's feelings or inclinations.
Cultural determinism[/b] -- that human nature is infinitely malleable by culture.
Nominalism[/b] -- that nothing has any definite nature, other than that which we ascribe to it through our invention of words or concepts.
Post-modernism[/b] -- that science is merely the expression of political ideology, and that the difference between good and bad science, or between science and pseudo-science, has no objective validity.
Scientism[/b] -- that there is no knowledge outside science, and that nothing is real that is not scientifically verifiable.
Empiricism[/b] -- that nothing exists beyond what can be verified by our five senses.
Skepticism[/b] -- that we know nothing with certainty.
Utopianism[/b] -- belief in the infinite perfectibility of man.
Positivism[/b] -- the denial of the fundamental reality of evil, attributing all human evil to superficial causes, such as poverty, maladjustment, lack of education, or distorted socioeconomic conditions.
Pessimism or cynicism[/b] -- the view that mankind is so corrupted that there is no hope for relative progress or improvement.
Ethical dualism[/b] -- attributing evil exclusively to some particular group or class (i.e. the Descendents of White Europeans, the Fundamentalist Christians, the bourgeoisie, Jews, the corporate elite, etc. etc.).

Liberalism, on the other hand, leans in the direction of a morally relativistic secular humanism and atheism. Many Liberals today have also embraced the occult, neo paganism, earth worship, and other so called "New Age" beliefs, which, according to my research, constituted the religion of the Nazis.

A fundamental tenet of the New Left Liberal is Charles Darwin's theory of evolution. This unproven theory, wrapped in the sophistries of scientific certainty, claims that man somehow miraculously evolved from primordial ooze and is nothing more than an advanced animal. Liberalism seeks to replace God's immutable law with moral relativism, which is to say that individuals, acting in the place of God, decide what constitutes good and evil. They seek to supplant God's law and its absolute truths, with the politically correct fashions and whims of an allegedly enlightened elite who claim a scientific, superior wisdom. They view the State as an instrument to enforce their self-serving experiments. This is the essence of the sin of the Garden of Eden. The conservative, on the other hand, is more inclined to recognize the sovereignty of God, not some earthly experts. To understand this is to understand why conservatives are not as easily controlled by the machinations of government.

Conservatism supports that most conservative of all documents, the Constitution of the United States of America. The Declaration of Independence states that "We are endowed by our creator with certain inalienable rights; among these are life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness." The Constitution stands as a beacon of human progress, by the true meaning of the term, as it honors the ability of a moral people to exercise self-rule. Great progressive movements such as the labor, civil rights, and women's movements, sprang from the desire to obtain the individual and property rights guaranteed by the Constitution but not fully realized. The authoritarian minded left perverted these conservative movements, to a certain degree, with their cult of victimization and their dialectic of class and race hatred. They turned genuine conservative movements into cannon fodder in their war against American notions of limited government and freedom. Liberalism contends that rights emanate from the State. The benevolent liberal expert, acting they tell us, for the common good, covets the right to decide which rights are granted to his neighbor and to what degree. They hold as a gauzy ultimate goal a centralized New World Order. They believe that this is inevitable, and they speak of a time when there will be world peace, an end of poverty and hunger, de facto equality etc. In their public utterances, the Nazi's also employed this same type of rhetoric. Just turn over your rights and property to us, the Nazi's promised, before they suspended the Constitution and confiscated firearms, and we will usher in a utopian paradise. This was the big lie then, and it remains the big lie today.

Here is what is *wrong* with the New Left (what is called Liberalism):

1. Believes in a government with a large role. This typically includes, but is not bound to, support of: income redistribution, social legislation, and a "big government" role in the economy and fiscal matters.
2. Liberalism takes a very passive side to most moral issues. Certain criminal law, for example anti drug laws, are often questioned and disapproved of by the left. The far left often adheres to what can be termed an "if it feels good, do it" policy.
3. Role of society is thought of as a basis. The "it takes a village" proverb and a society as a whole often take precedent to individual rights.
4. Results should be equal for all. Those who put in more effort should be no more successful than those who don't.

I’ve heard a story repeated by many people who use it to illustrate futility: a man on the shore of a river jumps in and rescues a drowning man, then another, and then another; he is so busy rescuing people that he never goes upstream to see who is throwing them into the river.

Since liberal ideology has taken over America, it’s caused what I call the “capitulation of the poor” – and this capitulation seems to have happened in my lifetime. Not from any one factor, but the issues pile up on top of each other. The welfare state has rigged life so that it pays more to stay poor than to try to succeed in many cases, and the subsequent welfare reform has set it up to where people going along with the system are then reduced to absolute despair as their support is cut off. The gulf is no longer between the rich and poor as much as it is between those who have a chance and those who have no chance. An impossible, almost unapproachable government bureaucracy stacks everything against them in every area of their lives. The decline in education has assured that these poor people don’t understand the true odds against them. This capitulation is not from any one factor, but the crushing weight of them all. Liberal ideology tries to pull people out of the river, but does not stop people from being thrown into the river, as our historical experiment of remaking America into a strongly liberal nation has shown.

I am not mean spirited. I do think. I do look at the gray areas. You liberals do not have a corner on this, even though it is a requirement that you think so. I am an educated man, the same as you. I have feelings, just like you. I care for the poor, and want to help them, just like you. But you cannot stay in the gray areas forever. Instead of hitting me with the "extremist" label, or painting me into a pickup truck with a shotgun in the window, why not open your mind and examine my post. You may find that many of the things the New Left (currently labeled "Liberal") stands for really don't fit with your views. If you do, it is OK to come out of the cult. It is OK to think for yourself.[/b]
Oh goodness.
Posted by: ksk

Re: Jolly, Jbryan, and Larry - 03/27/03 04:11 PM

 Quote:
Originally posted by Larry:

lots of mumbo-jumbo snipped...

Liberalism, on the other hand, leans in the direction of a morally relativistic secular humanism and atheism. Many Liberals today have also embraced the occult, neo paganism, earth worship, and other so called "New Age" beliefs, which, according to my research, constituted the religion of the Nazis.
[/b]
Ok, I know that it's totally pointless to argue with you Larry, but I can't help wondering from where you get all of this b*llsh*t? So, how many is "many"?

I my book "many liberals" should be at least say 5% of the total group. Do you really have that many nutcases in USA? Or perhaps you mean like 1000 people (ohh,that's many) out of 100 millions...or perhaps you just define every belief left of yours as new age?

 Quote:

More from Larry...

Here is what is *wrong* with the New Left (what is called Liberalism):

1. Believes in a government with a large role. This typically includes, but is not bound to, support of: income redistribution, social legislation, and a "big government" role in the economy and fiscal matters.
2. Liberalism takes a very passive side to most moral issues. Certain criminal law, for example anti drug laws, are often questioned and disapproved of by the left. The far left often adheres to what can be termed an "if it feels good, do it" policy.
3. Role of society is thought of as a basis. The "it takes a village" proverb and a society as a whole often take precedent to individual rights.
4. Results should be equal for all. Those who put in more effort should be no more successful than those who don't. [/b]
Well, no 4 is of course 100% wrong.

No 2 is interesting. Based on the constant frying of criminals in many states in the US and the quite hard punishments in general, one is lead to believe that US would have a low crime rate. Especially compared to sweden where we actually have some treatment of criminals, and very seldom locks away people for more than 10 years. Do you think the crime rates are higher in sweden than in the US larry?
You are speaking an awful lot of moral larry. What about death penalty? High moral standards? For a poor black guy in texas given the death penalty by an all white jury? Oh, thats right, you conservatives don't care what skin colour people have. I wonder if the guy mentioned above agree with that? Do you believe in everything that's written in the old testament (sp?) as well?

Overall, a great post larry!
Posted by: Jolly

Re: Jolly, Jbryan, and Larry - 03/27/03 04:44 PM

Yeah, the good 'ol boys in Texas dimmed the lights again last night, and fried another 'un!

Yeeeeee-haawwwwwww!

Of course, the executee was only funnin' when he was in the process of raping a minor aged female, and she didn't care too much for it. So being the good man he was, he stabbed her multiple times for inhibiting his pleasure, thus ruining her whole day, and snuffing out her life in the process.

I think the Great State of Texas did him a favor for letting him breath as long as they did. I'd have tried him, convicted him, and given him to the girl's family. That, and a case of knives... ;\)
Posted by: Larry

Re: Jolly, Jbryan, and Larry - 03/27/03 04:47 PM

 Quote:
Originally posted by Lazy Pianist:
Talk about setting up straw men so they can be easily torn apart!

Sheesh![/b]
Tear them down then. The reason you see them as strawmen is because you don't even understand what I'm talking about. You will do exactly as I have already stated a liberal will do - you will miss the point, pick up on some flimsly tangent, and take off on a rabbit chase toward something else. You couldn't begin to offer an intelligent debate on these points.

Better yet, why don't you, with insight and thought, describe to us what the real tenets of liberalism are. Use intelligence and insight. Explain what is wrong with Conservatism, and how liberalism offers better solutions. Don't tell me how you feel, and don't tell me about select instances. Show me you have a brain.
Posted by: Peter_dup2

Re: Jolly, Jbryan, and Larry - 03/27/03 04:49 PM

 Quote:
Originally posted by Larry:
 Quote:
Originally posted by Lazy Pianist:
Talk about setting up straw men so they can be easily torn apart!

Sheesh![/b]
Tear them down then. The reason you see them as strawmen is because you don't even understand what I'm talking about.[/b]
I think either people know what you're talking about and don't want to waste time arguing, or they just think you're so dumb that, once again, they don't feel like arguing you. All you do is probably copy and paste stuff from courtv.com.
Posted by: Jolly

Re: Jolly, Jbryan, and Larry - 03/27/03 04:50 PM

 Quote:
That, and a case of knives...
To add to that, one of the most memorable autopsies I ever helped with, was a case of a woman who had been skinned alive.

Seems she had neutered this gentleman while he was passed out on the couch one evening. He would not press charges, and upon getting out of the hospital, took the lady, strapped her to a kitchen table, turned up the radio, and poured himself a beer...

Believe me, you don't want to go thataway...

And you think I get in a bad mood?
Posted by: Larry

Re: Jolly, Jbryan, and Larry - 03/27/03 05:09 PM

 Quote:
Originally posted by Peter:

[I think either people know what you're talking about and don't want to waste time arguing, or they just think you're so dumb that, once again, they don't feel like arguing you. All you do is probably copy and paste stuff from courtv.com.[/b]
I am sure that many liberals see what I have said as dumb - although you have chosen to personalize it and call *me* dumb - and that's fine since I have no doubt that you see me that way. But you only prove my point. Liberals cannot think. You only know what you have been trained to know. Giving serious, intelligent thought to my post and trying to rebut it with intelligence is beyond you, so you simply dismiss it. I have proven that I have studied your viewpoints very carefully and thoroughly, and having done so, know why I reject them. You have shown that you simply reject what you don't want to believe.

In short, you are a New Left liberal.
Posted by: TomK

Re: Jolly, Jbryan, and Larry - 03/27/03 05:14 PM

Larry,

No one would ever accuse you of being a "doctor in economy" after reading you post--great job.
Posted by: Larry

Re: Jolly, Jbryan, and Larry - 03/27/03 05:16 PM

 Quote:
Originally posted by ksk:
What about death penalty? High moral standards? For a poor black guy in texas given the death penalty by an all white jury? Oh, thats right, you conservatives don't care what skin colour people have.[/b]
You are again pointing out the difference between me and a liberal. As a liberal, you have brought up the race card. What does race have to do with it? Did the man commit the crime? Do you think that because he has black skin he should get off? How do you know that all 12 of these white jurors weren't liberals who just happened to believe he was guilty?

You are correct. We Conservatives don't care what color one's skin is. Liberalism has made slaves out of black and white alike. It has stunted the education of all people across the board. We think a man who commits rape and is proven guilty should pay the price for it. What color he is has nothing to do with it. I suppose though, since you brought it up, that you are telling me that as a liberal you feel we should check to see what color he is before we determine what we'll do with him, even if found guilty.

And thanks by the way.
Posted by: Larry

Re: Jolly, Jbryan, and Larry - 03/27/03 05:17 PM

 Quote:
Originally posted by TomK:
Larry,

No one would ever accuse you of being a "doctor in economy" after reading you post--great job.[/b]
Thank you Tom.
Posted by: Larry

Re: Jolly, Jbryan, and Larry - 03/27/03 05:24 PM

 Quote:
Originally posted by ksk:

Well, no 4 is of course 100% wrong.

[/b]
In what way? Are you of the opinion that results *shouldn't* be equal for all - that those who put in more effort should be *more* successful? If so, you hold a Conservative viewpoint.

Or is it wrong because you feel that what I said isn't the liberal position? If you're saying it isn't the liberal position, then you need to learn a little more about the philosphy you subscribe to.
Posted by: Larry

Re: Jolly, Jbryan, and Larry - 03/27/03 05:28 PM

 Quote:
Originally posted by ksk:

Do you believe in everything that's written in the old testament (sp?) as well?

Overall, a great post larry![/b]
Do you have any concrete evidence to show why I shouldn't?
Posted by: Jolly

Re: Jolly, Jbryan, and Larry - 03/27/03 05:35 PM

 Quote:
All you do is probably copy and paste stuff from courtv.com.
And you wonder why banshees come wailing to decapitate you? Then you do a "Rodney King", and ask why can't we all just get along?

Doctor of Economy, and attorney, my eye. If that's true, there's hope for the U.S. public school system, yet! :rolleyes:
Posted by: ksk

Re: Jolly, Jbryan, and Larry - 03/27/03 05:37 PM

Larry,

if I understand you correctly you are saying that

1. since race doesn't matter for you and shouldn't matter for other conservatives, it actually doesnt matter?

Or is it,

2. race shouldn't matter but if it does matter it's the liberals fault?

No 1 is like "if I don't look it isn't there", and no 2, well, let's just say that I don't buy it.

So, back to reality! If race matter, no matter who's fault it is, and I'm pretty sure that most intelligent people would admit that racism still unfortunately exists, then the case with the black man and the white jury stinks nevertheless. This was just and example I read in a newspaper a couple of month ago, and I don't know the details, but you seem to find it totally acceptable.

I sure hope that your view on things isn't that common among conservatives in the US...
Posted by: johnmoonlight

Re: Jolly, Jbryan, and Larry - 03/27/03 05:39 PM

Thank-you Larry...great post!!! I usually stay out of conservative vs. liberal arguments.(sends my blood pressure up!)
I'm "dumb" right along with you.
Posted by: TomK

Re: Jolly, Jbryan, and Larry - 03/27/03 05:42 PM

 Quote:
Posted by franzooey: quote:
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Post-modernism -- that science is merely the expression of political ideology, and that the difference between good and bad science, or between science and pseudo-science, has no objective validity
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

I know postmodernism, and that ain't postmodernism! Of course, the term postmodern was coined by French theorists (guesses, anyone?), and we all know how popular the French are right now (Freedom Fires, anyone?).[/b]
Oh, I think Larry does pretty good.

Postmodernism, celebrates the idea of fragmentation, provisionality, and incoherence. The world is meaningless? Let's not pretend that science or art can make meaning then, let's just play with nonsense. He captures the idea of that inter-subjective nicely.
Posted by: ksk

Re: Jolly, Jbryan, and Larry - 03/27/03 05:45 PM

Wow, you're a fast poster larry.

 Quote:
quote:
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Originally posted by ksk:

Well, no 4 is of course 100% wrong.

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

In what way? Are you of the opinion that results *shouldn't* be equal for all - that those who put in more effort should be *more* successful? If so, you hold a Conservative viewpoint.

Or is it wrong because you feel that what I said isn't the liberal position? If you're saying it isn't the liberal position, then you need to learn a little more about the philosphy you subscribe to.

--------------------
Larry
The liberals you describe don't exist, or mayby a handful. I'm saying that isn't the general liberal position, of course effort and hard work should pay of.

But if your earning 10 billion dollars a year, it do think that it's not unreasonable to have a somewhat higher tax rate than someone earning minimum wage. By the way, no need to comment on that last part, I know what you think....
Posted by: ksk

Re: Jolly, Jbryan, and Larry - 03/27/03 05:54 PM

 Quote:
quote:
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Originally posted by ksk:

Do you believe in everything that's written in the old testament (sp?) as well?

Overall, a great post larry!
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Do you have any concrete evidence to show why I shouldn't?
I'm not the religious type, but I find it hard to take someone serious that think the old testament is not only a true story, but a story that tells us how we shall live our lives.

It reminds me of the famous episode in the "white house" TV-show (the one with martin sheen as the president), when he is discussing with a fundamental christian radiohost who has been bashing gays. And being the son of a priest if I recall correctly, he confronts her with a large amount of obscene, crazy or utterly ridicoulus statements from the old book of wisdom....
Posted by: Jolly

Re: Jolly, Jbryan, and Larry - 03/27/03 05:58 PM

The problem with bashing The Old Testament, is that there exists more archeological proof supporting it, than it does refuting it.
Posted by: Jolly

Re: Jolly, Jbryan, and Larry - 03/27/03 06:00 PM

I'd like to explore the racism vs conservatism comments a bit more.

Like Larry, and Dr. King, we ought to be judging men by the content of their character, and not the color of their skin. In other words, by your fruit, ye shall be known.

And if that fruit is murder, why does it matter what color your skin was?
Posted by: ksk

Re: Jolly, Jbryan, and Larry - 03/27/03 06:14 PM

Larry, Jolly,

I don't get it. If I lived by the bible and followed some of the more barbaric advices given in the old testament, I would be arrested, and in the US I could probably be executed as well. You are raging against the fundamental muslims but seem to be fundamental christians yourself. Ok, I admit that there are considerably fewer terrorist among the cristians but the crusades in gods name wasn't exactly a walk in the park.

Oh well, I have been writing to much tonight so I just leave it here. So long.
Posted by: ksk

Re: Jolly, Jbryan, and Larry - 03/27/03 06:16 PM

One last comment Jolly,

of course me, you and everyone should follow mr Kings advice and not look at the color, but sometimes you know, things don't happen just because we want it to be that way. It's called reality...
Posted by: Lazy Pianist

Re: Jolly, Jbryan, and Larry - 03/27/03 06:37 PM

 Quote:
Originally posted by Larry:
 Quote:
Originally posted by Lazy Pianist:
Talk about setting up straw men so they can be easily torn apart!

Sheesh![/b]
Tear them down then.[/b]
I don't waste my time arguing about straw men others construct. Arguing about straw men is a waste of time. There is nothing to be gained.

 Quote:
The reason you see them as strawmen is because you don't even understand what I'm talking about. You will do exactly as I have already stated a liberal will do - you will miss the point, pick up on some flimsly tangent, and take off on a rabbit chase toward something else. You couldn't begin to offer an intelligent debate on these points.[/b]
Why would I do what a liberal does, since I meet few if any of the criteria you have set up to describe a liberal? Thus, I must not be one. But then, I have never defined myself as one anyway.

 Quote:
Better yet, why don't you, with insight and thought, describe to us what the real tenets of liberalism are. Use intelligence and insight. Explain what is wrong with Conservatism, and how liberalism offers better solutions. Don't tell me how you feel, and don't tell me about select instances. Show me you have a brain.[/b]
I don't believe there are any such things as a liberal tenets or conservative tenets that hold any weight or that can be applied to large groups of people.

I particularly do not see them as having any validity when they are defined primarily in the political, as you have done, because in this country these terms have simply been co-opted by those with a political agenda in order to divide the society for the purpose of gaining votes.

Yes, there are those who define their own tenets as either liberal or conservative, but generally there are others who consider themselves in the same group who will disagree on many of the tenets defined by that individual.

There are also those who think they can define other people's tenets, as you did Larry. Seldom do those who are in either camp agree with the tenets someone else applies to them.

I personally find it far more educational and worthwhile to discuss what a specific person believes than to label them and place everyone into some sort of predefined box -- usually predefined by the person doing the labeling.

Feel free, Larry and others, to assume you can define someone's entire belief system as well as their means of developing that system based on what you read on here. I see no benefit in creating an "us" versus "them" mentality or to use such a basis in discussions.

So, I will continue to see people as individuals, capable of defining themselves and capable of expressing themselves. I will also continue to assume that everyone on here if far more multi-faceted as human beings than what can be gleaned in this forum.
Posted by: Nina

Re: Jolly, Jbryan, and Larry - 03/27/03 07:23 PM

benedict--

Nice post. I will refrain from adding my 2c here, because it's simply too frustrating to "discuss" these things over the internet.

Yes, I am prepared to get the lecture from some about how I am not arguing with facts. You miss the point: I'm not arguing with anyone. Just complimenting benedict on a well-written post.

Nina
Posted by: Larry

Re: Jolly, Jbryan, and Larry - 03/27/03 09:34 PM

 Quote:
Originally posted by Lazy Pianist:

I don't waste my time arguing about straw men others construct. Arguing about straw men is a waste of time. There is nothing to be gained.[/b]
Then no one should be wasting their time arguing with you, should they? Many more straw men out of you and we're going to need a hay baler brought in.

But I don't think you're telling the truth here. I've seen you argue your own points, and they are all straw men, so you obviously are willing to to so......

No, I think you simply don't know how to answer.
Posted by: Larry

Re: Jolly, Jbryan, and Larry - 03/27/03 09:53 PM

 Quote:
Originally posted by ksk:

The liberals you describe don't exist, or mayby a handful. I'm saying that isn't the general liberal position, of course effort and hard work should pay of. [/b]
Oh no - they exist in spades. I suggest you take a little time and get a little closer to what the ideology you espouse holds as truth. You may find you aren't as much of a liberal as you think.


But if your earning 10 billion dollars a year, it do think that it's not unreasonable to have a somewhat higher tax rate than someone earning minimum wage. By the way, no need to comment on that last part, I know what you think....[/b][/QUOTE]

There are a couple of things wrong with what you've said. First, anyone earning a high income (let's do away with the 10b figure and substitute 100K for the sake of discussion) *is* paying a higher tax rate than someone earning minimum wage. Second, the guy making minimum wage is not paying any taxes to start with.

Here is a little research job for you. Minimum wage is $5.15 I believe. A workweek for most people is 40 hours. That's 206.00 per week, 10,712.00 per year if they don't take any vacation. Find out how much income tax a married man pays who makes this amount of money per year, and let us know the figure.
Posted by: Jolly

Re: Jolly, Jbryan, and Larry - 03/27/03 09:58 PM

LP non-answered:
 Quote:
quote:
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Originally posted by Lazy Pianist:
Talk about setting up straw men so they can be easily torn apart!

Sheesh!
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Tear them down then.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

I don't waste my time arguing about straw men others construct. Arguing about straw men is a waste of time. There is nothing to be gained.

quote:
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
The reason you see them as strawmen is because you don't even understand what I'm talking about. You will do exactly as I have already stated a liberal will do - you will miss the point, pick up on some flimsly tangent, and take off on a rabbit chase toward something else. You couldn't begin to offer an intelligent debate on these points.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Why would I do what a liberal does, since I meet few if any of the criteria you have set up to describe a liberal? Thus, I must not be one. But then, I have never defined myself as one anyway.

quote:
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Better yet, why don't you, with insight and thought, describe to us what the real tenets of liberalism are. Use intelligence and insight. Explain what is wrong with Conservatism, and how liberalism offers better solutions. Don't tell me how you feel, and don't tell me about select instances. Show me you have a brain.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

I don't believe there are any such things as a liberal tenets or conservative tenets that hold any weight or that can be applied to large groups of people.

I particularly do not see them as having any validity when they are defined primarily in the political, as you have done, because in this country these terms have simply been co-opted by those with a political agenda in order to divide the society for the purpose of gaining votes.

Yes, there are those who define their own tenets as either liberal or conservative, but generally there are others who consider themselves in the same group who will disagree on many of the tenets defined by that individual.

There are also those who think they can define other people's tenets, as you did Larry. Seldom do those who are in either camp agree with the tenets someone else applies to them.

I personally find it far more educational and worthwhile to discuss what a specific person believes than to label them and place everyone into some sort of predefined box -- usually predefined by the person doing the labeling.

Feel free, Larry and others, to assume you can define someone's entire belief system as well as their means of developing that system based on what you read on here. I see no benefit in creating an "us" versus "them" mentality or to use such a basis in discussions.

So, I will continue to see people as individuals, capable of defining themselves and capable of expressing themselves. I will also continue to assume that everyone on here if far more multi-faceted as human beings than what can be gleaned in this forum.

--------------------
We have been Shocked
And it is Awful
Seldom has so much been written, with so little being said. Ya'll wanted a post from Larry, and you received something that should make you think. However, that is apparently something you are unwilling to do. If it does not conform to your liberal view of the world, it is beneath contempt, and certainly not worth the time of the intelligentsia to answer.

We may be shocked, and it may be awful, but it has little to do with the war in Iraq. :p
Posted by: Steve Miller

Re: Jolly, Jbryan, and Larry - 03/27/03 11:04 PM

Nice post, Larry. These are your beliefs, and you state them well.

Do you think it possible for educated, moral individuals to believe in some principles from each side?
Posted by: lb

Re: Jolly, Jbryan, and Larry - 03/28/03 02:31 AM

Steve

“Do you think it possible for educated, moral individuals to believe in some principles from each side?”

Does education give an individual common sense?
I think that it makes them knowledgable in their area of study, but not necessarily capable of making rational decisions in general

What do you consider is a moral individual?
Could an athiest that believes in abortion, legalizing drugs, is avid anti government, and is against punishing criminals, be a moral individual?

I think that most individuals choose, but not necessarily believe in, principals from each side. What makes them comfortable and fits their agenda are the principles they choose. Education and morality has nothing to do with it.

lb
Posted by: David_J

Re: Jolly, Jbryan, and Larry - 03/28/03 03:38 AM

Lets go through one last time on this argument and well... if it doesn't work... it doesn't work...

"This post is not meant as an attack on liberals, though I'm sure many of you will not believe that... I said that when liberals run out of facts they resort to calling conservatives mean spirited..."

Fair enough.

"I said liberals like to think of themselves as intellectually superior to conservatives and argue that they look at the shades of gray while
conservatives only see things in black and white. "

To say liberals (in general) "think of themselves as intellectually superior to conservatives" is looking at things in black and white...

"It is meant to try and educate some of you, and get you to see a few things. So read it with an open mind, with the understanding that no harm is
meant... Then I said both of these things stem from the same basic flaw. The flaw is this: most liberals do not think nearly as deeply as they like to tell themselves."

Now that would be akin to me saying ("I'm not trying to offend any of you") all conservatives are mean sprited...which would be a statement based on personal beliefs/meanings...

"They base their beliefs on *feelings*, then fit the facts to those feelings."

I won't say all conservatives do, but you do.

"We have seen this right here on this board, over and over. The belief that they are examining gray areas is often nothing more than the confusion
that results from going with feelings rather than concrete fact. As long as they stay within a group of likeminded people, these "feelings" are stroked and they are happy. They believe the whole world should "feel" the same way about an issue that they do. "

Gathering all liberals into one category cannot work (It's like saying all conservatives- extremist and moderate, are all equal and alike).
Larry... you would obviously go with your feelings aided by fact. If you went with facts alone without personal bias it would make you a regurtitator- thinking only in black and white, which you do not do.

"Anyone - *anyone* who dares challenge these "feelings" will get labeled an extremist conservative, called mean spirited, and accused of only thinking in black and white."

I will not speak for other liberals, as contrary to your statements, we are not all equal. However, I will say that our opinions greatly differ, and that I

don't believe you think only in black and white just because you state something which I don't agree on(although that statement is very unfair). An

extremist conservative (a word riddled with negative connotations) is really just a firm believer in the values of the present, which may or may not be a bad thing (Although I would disagree with a conservatives' viewpoint generally).

The thought never occurs to them that maybe this "extremist conservative" may have looked at the gray areas also, and then done something with
the information gleaned from it. The "extremist conservative" doesn't really reveal much. Otherwise they'd all be the same. You'll find that a moderate conservative person may have some liberal thoughts (like reducing tree logging) and may have some extremist conservative thoughts (like outlawing all forms of abortion). It's all within the realms of possibility.

"The conservative is like water. Water has a goal. Water is on its way to somewhere. If water runs into an obstacle that stops it from getting there, it will pool up until it can find another way to get where it's going. The instant it finds it, it will go. Water can do something a liberal cannot do.

Water can make a decision."

Some conservatives are decent people, aspirational people who look forward to advance society, whilst remaining within current frameworks. That is honourable. Some conservatives are simply resistant for the reason of being resistant (like liberals being liberals because they want change for the
sake of change or so). Today, in democratic nations like the U.S.A. and Australia, the gap between political left and right is no longer large.

You could loosely define a liberal as someone who believes in the values of advancing society (just like a conservative) but willing to change, to try new things. Both ways have their merits. Change isn't always good. But most liberals will hope it will be for the better.

Conservatives and Liberals are people. There is no significant difference, other than a few opinions which may conflict. But to derive the conclusion
that Liberals are significantly inferior- directionless- from this small difference is rather ignorant (at least in my viewpoint, you may beg to differ...)

The left doesn't make decisions as a whole because everyone is different, and though the conservatives may disagree, their opinions on issues would
certainly have issues. (Larry I know this is a personal feeling, but I'm fairly confident you and say for example Jolly wouldn't have EXACTLY the same
thoughts on every issue).

"Conservatives can make a decision too. That's why liberals see us as thinking in only black and white - they are still going with their "feelings" - still
searching around in those gray areas, telling themselves that this makes them an "intellectual" - and conservatives, being more grounded in reality,
have finished examining the gray areas and made a decision."

Being a liberal doesn't impair you in any way (as you seem to suggest with the Liberal taking forever to decide stereotype). Liberals are dreamers?
Some perhaps, but I think I (and a lot of others) have a fairly firm grip of reality. We'd love to save trees, but we know we can't ban logging because
of adverse affects on economy, social society etc. A conservative viewpoint may be allowing all the trees to be cut for the sake of jobs, and more
money which may be put into research into the environment. I'm sure there's a lot of crossover, but when you get down to it, some liberals may take
the conservative stance on that issue, and vice versa, but it doesn't really matter. As long as people are taking a stand on issues.

"To liberals, moving out of the gray area is bad. You must continue to examine every angle. All possibilities must stay on equal footing with all other
possibilities - to do anything else would not be the "intellectual" thing to do. "

Gross generalisation which is fairly inaccurate. I think my State Labor government has done a lot less talking and a lot more action then my Federal
Liberal (The Conservatives- which really just goes to show the thin line separating conservatives and liberals, when a bunch of conservatives can
proudly call themselves liberals).

"This also causes liberals to redefine where the center is. To most liberals, the center is located between left and extreme left. Anyone to the right
of left is a fanatic not worth paying attention to."

Actually the centre [No, I'm not going to surrender to U.S. spelling \:\) ] is between the left and the right, thus called the centre... Examples of
extremists/fanatics would include Shooters' party (far right) and The Greens (far left)... both have merits although some of their opinions are
fanatical in my viewpoint, but they all deserve to be heard, and not written off categorically. Enter political diversity...

"Anyone who actually stops examining the gray areas and makes a decision that doesn't agree with the group "feelings" is mean spirited, extremist, a
fanatic, and most likely stupid. Don't believe me? Just read back through the responses I get from liberals."

Yay. You base your wonderful political factual research on a piano forum. Isn't that a bit like going with your feeligns (nothing wrong with that, mind
you). You'd like to portray your viewpoint as "getting on with the job" and willing to tackle the hard issues, but isn't that really just a euphamism of
unpopular policy? But anyhow, the black/grey/white analogy is extremely difficult to work with. Rather, I believe everyone is simply trying to work
their way to a solution for whatever issue that is workable for everyone.

"Liberals stereotype anyone they view as a conservative - and especially so if the person actually embraces the term conservative."

I actually feel I could be categorised as Liberal or Conservative... the gap between them is so small it's incredibly difficult to tell the difference.
Larry, I said I might be a conservative. Shoot me.

"Since they have redefined the center and all conservatives are now fanatics, you get all kinds of things attached to you."

Such as? Beeing labelled a firm believer in your views? Willing to stand up for what you think is right?

"You, the conservative, now fit a picture. You drive a truck, you live in the South, you don't have an education, you're a "fundamentalist Christian"
Bible thumping snake handling speaking in tongues religious fanatic who has a rifle in the back window of your truck, you don't take baths, your
favorite pastime is hunting 'possums and going to chicken fights, etc. "

Fact: The North Shore line (Australia's pinnacle of education and wealth) votes conservative federally, and liberal state. Nobody really cares. Nobody
fits into a set stereotype and does as people tell them to do. You just believe in what you find is right. And if my favourite past time is going to
chicken fights, I have every right to that.

"There's only one problem with this..... everyone I've ever met who fit that description was a Democrat."

I don't know about U.S. politics in depth, but well... you haven't met enough Republicans/you've met too many Democrats.

"Most of you who call yourself a liberal don't even know what the term "liberal" means. As I explain to you why I am not a liberal, it is my hope that
some of you see what being a liberal really means, and you choose to find a new label for your position. At the very least, I hope some of you finally
figure out the difference in a new liberal and a Classic liberal."

No, I have a general idea what liberal is (being impossible to "definitively" define). And I don't care if you think I don't.

"Here is why I am labeled a Conservative, even though (and I've mentioned this before) I am a Classic Liberal:
1. I believe the strength of our nation lies within the individual. Therefore, I believe each person's dignity, freedom, ability, and responsibility must be
honored.
2. I believe in equal rights, equal justice, and equal opportunity for all, regardless of race, creed, age, or disability.
3. I believe in free enterprise. I believe that encouraging individual initiative has brought this nation opportunity, economic growth, and prosperity.
4. I believe the proper role of government is to perform for the people only those critical functions that cannot be performed by individuals of private
organizations. Thus I believe that the best government is the one that governs least.
5. I believe the most effective, responsible, and responsive government is government closet to the people.
6. I believe Americans must retain the principles that have made us strong, while developing new and innovative ideas to meet the challenges of
changing times.
7. I believe Americans value and should preserve our national strength and pride while working to extend peace, freedom, and human rights
throughout the world. "

They are all values that Liberals AND Conservatives can share. Just because you've attached yourself to the Republican Party... it doesn't mean
you've lost all your humanity :p Joking...
As I said earlier, all decent people across the political spectrum keep at heart the values they believe in... equal rights, liberalism (in the other sense
of the word, individuality), capitalism/socialism, etc. Larry, I could see you in the street, and I wouldn't know if you were liberal or conservative

(Until viewing your numerous I hate Clinton badges). People just see different ways of strengthening what they believe in...

Example
Equal Rights
Some might view more laws as strengthening order, and the right to be safe and free. Some might view weakening laws as more the essence of
equal rights, with everyone entitled to act upon personal moral beliefs.

"Because liberals have redefined the center, I am a now labeled a Conservative - with all the stereotypical stuff attached to me when they think of
me that I've already mentioned."

What's wrong with conservatism? However, you call yourself a liberal... and you seem to dislike liberalism... please elaborate.

"A check of past threads will show that I have even had this said to me. Even though I do believe that people who need help should get it, even
though I do value life, even though I do want peace in the world, and even though I do look at all the gray areas..... I am dismissed by the New Left
(not real liberals) as a gun toting, possum hunting redneck fanatic who can't think. "
The New Left is just a fancy name for a bunch of people in offices who have nothing better to do than draw crowds to protest on anything and
everything.

"The New Left has been assigned the term Liberal by default also. You on the Left use the term, but you don't deserve it. True liberalism does not
contain the Marxist and Socialist ideology that has crept into your ranks. This is where I hope some of you who call yourselves liberals will decide to
reevaluate the label you are embracing. A true liberal is to the right of the New Left."

It's not for you to decide what a liberal is. I can state my views, and say that I"m a liberal. You could say in general what a Liberalist believes in. But
you can't set the restraints for liberalism. (Although of course you can disagree).

"Since I now fit into the description of a Conservative, let's look at what being a Conservative means.
Conservatism as a philosophy does not produce a laundry list of policy recommendations, nor does it represent the interests of this or that class or
special interest. Nor is conservatism grounded in a reflective reaction to change, nor in a nostalgic attachment to the past. Rather, it begins by
rejecting what C. S. Lewis called "chronological bigotry": the foolish notion that contemporary thinkers have a monopoly on the truth, simply because
they are alive today and not in an earlier, "less enlightened" era.
However, Conservatives do draw on the accumulated wisdom of the past to form a comprehensive and coherent view of the world, from which we
derive certain principles essential to the promotion of the common good. As every philosophy has certain basic propositions upon which everything
else is based."

In other words, drawing on the strenghts of the current situation to build the future. What I said earlier.

"Conservatism envisions a society in which each human being, no matter how humble in origin or apparently ordinary in talents, is treated with sacred
respect. We see the drama of each unfolding human life as rich in meaning and significance. Consequently, we treat each person's life as inviolable
and are unwilling to sacrifice the few for the good of the many. "

So is liberalism.

"Conservatives affirm the existence of natural law, defining and protecting the natural rights of each person. These rights are inalienable and
endowed to us by our Creator. They are, therefore, not subject to revision or repeal by any political coalition, no matter how powerful.
True Conservatives are not swayed by transitory intellectual fashions of the "enlightened elite". Confidence in the power and reliability of common
sense translates into stable, consistent and effective social policy.
Conservatives look for opportunities to strengthen the good that remains in existing institutions. Like Hippocrates, conservatives remember the
wisdom of the principle: first, does no harm."
"We must always resist the temptation to launch large-scale untested schemes for reform. "

Let's not have tax cuts. We've never had them before. \:D

"Atheism and materialism -- the notion that human life is the accidental and meaningless result of mindless material processes. "

I believe in religion, and I label myself liberalist. Crossover... line is very thin indeed.

"'Racism and chauvinism -- that certain races or classes of people are inherently superior in ultimate value.
Collectivism -- the thesis that individuals are important only as parts of society, that their lives have no significance or meaning beyond that
assumed to them by their society.
Secular humanism -- that we human beings must define the meaning and purpose of our own existence.
Deep ecology -- the belief that the labor and technical achievements of mankind are inherently evil, and that only the undisturbed wilderness is
good.
Animal rights anti-humanism -- that non-human animals, despite their lack of will or conscience, are on equal moral standing with human beings by
virtue of their capacity for pain and pleasure.
Relativism -- that what is good or right varies fundamentally from time to time or place to place, that there are no universal truths of morality and
politics.
Constructivism -- that what is right and just is nothing more than the product of social forces and historical accidents.
Subjectivism -- that what is good or right for an individual is determined simply by that individual's feelings or inclinations.
Cultural determinism -- that human nature is infinitely malleable by culture.
Nominalism -- that nothing has any definite nature, other than that which we ascribe to it through our invention of words or concepts.
Post-modernism -- that science is merely the expression of political ideology, and that the difference between good and bad science, or between
science and pseudo-science, has no objective validity.
Scientism -- that there is no knowledge outside science, and that nothing is real that is not scientifically verifiable.
Empiricism -- that nothing exists beyond what can be verified by our five senses.
Skepticism -- that we know nothing with certainty.
Utopianism -- belief in the infinite perfectibility of man.
Positivism -- the denial of the fundamental reality of evil, attributing all human evil to superficial causes, such as poverty, maladjustment, lack of
education, or distorted socioeconomic conditions.
Pessimism or cynicism -- the view that mankind is so corrupted that there is no hope for relative progress or improvement.
Ethical dualism -- attributing evil exclusively to some particular group or class (i.e. the Descendents of White Europeans, the Fundamentalist
Christians, the bourgeoisie, Jews, the corporate elite, etc. etc.)."

You may or you may not believe in that.

"Liberalism, on the other hand, leans in the direction of a morally relativistic secular humanism and atheism. Many Liberals today have also embraced
the occult, neo paganism, earth worship, and other so called "New Age" beliefs, which, according to my research, constituted the religion
of the Nazis."

Get better research.

"A fundamental tenet of the New Left Liberal is Charles Darwin's theory of evolution. This unproven theory, wrapped in the sophistries of scientific
certainty, claims that man somehow miraculously evolved from primordial ooze and is nothing more than an advanced animal. Liberalism seeks to
replace God's immutable law with moral relativism, which is to say that individuals, acting in the place of God, decide what constitutes good and evil.
They seek to supplant God's law and its absolute truths, with the politically correct fashions and whims of an allegedly enlightened elite who claim a
scientific, superior wisdom. They view the State as an instrument to enforce their self-serving experiments. This is the essence of the sin of the
Garden of Eden. The conservative, on the other hand, is more inclined to recognize the sovereignty of God, not some earthly experts. To understand
this is to understand why conservatives are not as easily controlled by the machinations of government. "

You don't have to believe in God if you don't want to. I do, I'm roman catholic. I'd love it if you were too. But I'm not going to impose my religion on
others.

"Conservatism supports that most conservative of all documents, the Constitution of the United States of America. The Declaration of Independence
states that "We are endowed by our creator with certain inalienable rights; among these are life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness." The
Constitution stands as a beacon of human progress, by the true meaning of the term, as it honors the ability of a moral people to exercise self-rule.
Great progressive movements such as the labor, civil rights, and women's movements, sprang from the desire to obtain the individual and property
rights guaranteed by the Constitution but not fully realized. The authoritarian minded left perverted these conservative movements, to a certain
degree, with their cult of victimization and their dialectic of class and race hatred. They turned genuine conservative movements into cannon fodder
in their war against American notions of limited government and freedom. Liberalism contends that rights emanate from the State. The benevolent
liberal expert, acting they tell us, for the common good, covets the right to decide which rights are granted to his neighbor and to what degree.
They hold as a gauzy ultimate goal a centralized New World Order. They believe that this is inevitable, and they speak of a time when there will be
world peace, an end of poverty and hunger, de facto equality etc. In their public utterances, the Nazi's also employed this same type of rhetoric.
Just turn over your rights and property to us, the Nazi's promised, before they suspended the Constitution and confiscated firearms, and we will
usher in a utopian paradise. This was the big lie then, and it remains the big lie today. "

Typical anti everything that I don't agree with rant.

"Here is what is *wrong* with the New Left (what is called Liberalism):
1. Believes in a government with a large role. This typically includes, but is not bound to, support of: income redistribution, social legislation, and a
"big government" role in the economy and fiscal matters.
2. Liberalism takes a very passive side to most moral issues. Certain criminal law, for example anti drug laws, are often questioned and disapproved of
by the left. The far left often adheres to what can be termed an "if it feels good, do it" policy.
3. Role of society is thought of as a basis. The "it takes a village" proverb and a society as a whole often take precedent to individual rights.
4. Results should be equal for all. Those who put in more effort should be no more successful than those who don't. "

1:The fact is that the original values are still cherished, it's just a change in method. If you believe in it, go ahead. If you don't you don't. Income
redistribution is fair IMHO but you might not agree. (Provided not TOO redistributing :p )
2: Go to whitehouse.org and see Dept. Faith. anti masturbation policy \:\) You'll have a nice laugh I hope. I don't believe in punishing little kids. I think
educating them is the way. You may not agree.
3: Liberalism and Conservatism have nothing to do with belief in personal worth and identity. (In the left-right context we are in).
4: No, people work more and get more. But those who do succeed do so with the help of society, and a few donations to the less lucky wouldn't go
astray \:\)

"I’ve heard a story repeated by many people who use it to illustrate futility: a man on the shore of a river jumps in and rescues a drowning man, then
another, and then another; he is so busy rescuing people that he never goes upstream to see who is throwing them into the river. "

That's nice. I heard a story of a man drowning himself throwing himself into a whirpool to save a man. Go figure.

"Since liberal ideology has taken over America, it’s caused what I call the “capitulation of the poor” – and this capitulation seems to have happened
in my lifetime. Not from any one factor, but the issues pile up on top of each other. The welfare state has rigged life so that it pays more to stay
poor than to try to succeed in many cases, and the subsequent welfare reform has set it up to where people going along with the system are then
reduced to absolute despair as their support is cut off. "

I've lived in poverty years before. I agree with you slightly. Welfare means a lot to those who need it- food coupons and government housing to those people
who think they can filch the system. If you live poor, you'll see it pays to work Larry, and living on welfare is not a nice way to live. Welfare needs a slant to education IMHO, but again, only IMHO.

"The gulf is no longer between the rich and poor as much as it is between those who have a chance and those who have no chance. An impossible,
almost unapproachable government bureaucracy stacks everything against them in every area of their lives. The decline in education has assured
that these poor people don’t understand the true odds against them. This capitulation is not from any one factor, but the crushing weight of them
all. Liberal ideology tries to pull people out of the river, but does not stop people from being thrown into the river, as our historical experiment of
remaking America into a strongly liberal nation has shown."

Slash welfare spending and triple education... Pity it's political suicide (funnily enough, I subscribe to that idea). I don't see how liberalism has
anything to do with the decline in education funding. It's just an incredible boost in offence spending (and welfare to those who DON'T need it).

"I am not mean spirited. I do think. I do look at the gray areas. You liberals do not have a corner on this, even though it is a requirement that you
think so. I am an educated man, the same as you. I have feelings, just like you. I care for the poor, and want to help them, just like you. But you
cannot stay in the gray areas forever. Instead of hitting me with the "extremist" label, or painting me into a pickup truck with a shotgun in the
window, why not open your mind and examine my post. You may find that many of the things the New Left (currently labeled "Liberal") stands for
really don't fit with your views. If you do, it is OK to come out of the cult. It is OK to think for yourself."

I know you have feelings. I do agree with you on many things. I also disagree. But I don't think conservatives are aliens, I think new Liberalism has
some virtues, but at the end of the day we are all striving for the same values. I urge you to think about that \:\) Maybe liberalism isn't a disease?

Our viewpoints not be a world apart.

Cheers
Posted by: David_J

Re: Jolly, Jbryan, and Larry - 03/28/03 06:54 AM

arrrgh
copying from notepad has horrible formatting
Sorry!
Posted by: benedict

Re: Jolly, Jbryan, and Larry - 03/28/03 07:05 AM

David J,

You can edit you post by using the icon with a pencil and paper at the top of your post.

But please, make it shorter or splitting in several posts.
It is so difficult to read posts that are as long as "War and peace".

How's life in Australia anyway ?
\:\)
Posted by: ryan

Re: Jolly, Jbryan, and Larry - 03/28/03 01:30 PM

 Quote:
Originally posted by ksk:
Larry, Jolly,

I don't get it. If I lived by the bible and followed some of the more barbaric advices given in the old testament, I would be arrested, and in the US I could probably be executed as well.[/b]
ksk,

I am curioius, which ones are you referring to? The 10 commandments perhaps? ;\) Frankly, I have to wonder if you really know what you are talking about or if you are just spouting off something you heard someone else say.

Ryan
Posted by: Rick

Re: Jolly, Jbryan, and Larry - 03/28/03 01:32 PM

That Swedish dude said:

 Quote:
then the case with the black man and the white jury stinks nevertheless.
Yeah, it would be much better if we got an all-black jury to try this guy, is that what you're saying? How ridiculous and racist that is, to think that people can't make an intelligent decision about a case, no matter what their color. You know what happened in the O.J. Simpson case, don't you? That was a frightening combination of poorly informed/educated jurors and a skummier-than-average defense lawyer playing a ridiculous race card. Surely you don't want to see that travesty of justice occur again.
Posted by: DT

Re: Jolly, Jbryan, and Larry - 03/28/03 02:45 PM

 Quote:
Originally posted by ryan:

I am curioius, which ones are you referring to? The 10 commandments perhaps? ;\) Frankly, I have to wonder if you really know what you are talking about or if you are just spouting off something you heard someone else say.

Ryan[/b]
I'd guess he's referring to something like Deut 21:18-21. Picking and choosing verses like those, however, makes the point that the quoter doesn't understand what s/he is quoting. That was the law of the land at that time. Now our law is primarily there to maintain the social order. That was not the primary purpose of Mosaic law but was a secondary purpose.
Posted by: Lazy Pianist

Re: Jolly, Jbryan, and Larry - 03/28/03 10:21 PM

 Quote:
Originally posted by lb:
Steve

Could an athiest that believes in abortion, legalizing drugs, is avid anti government, and is against punishing criminals, be a moral individual?
[/b]
Yes.
Posted by: Derick

Re: Jolly, Jbryan, and Larry - 03/28/03 10:43 PM

DT and Ryan,

Surely you know the Dear Dr. Laura letter, don't you? If not, I've posted it below.

The fact is that *some* of the laws of the land from way back when have carried over into the world as we know it today. And *several* religious groups justify their beliefs based on "the bible". KSK is correct, he would be arrested if he followed the rules as written in the bible.

Yet why is it that only *some* of the "hand picked" rules and regulations can be written off by the religious right as "the law of the land at the time" while other, "hand picked" rules are as valid today as they were 3000 years ago?

I'm not siding with anyone, just pointing a few things out.

Derick

Dear Dr. Laura,
Thank you for doing so much to educate people regarding God's Law. I have learned a great deal from your show, and I try to share that knowledge with as many people as I can. When someone tries to defend the homosexual lifestyle, for example, I simply remind him that Leviticus 18:22 clearly states it to be an abomination. End of debate.

I do need some advice from you, however, regarding some of the specific biblical laws and how to best follow them. In particular:

When I burn a bull on the altar as a sacrifice, I know it creates a pleasing odour for the Lord (Lev. 1:9). The problem is my neighbours. They claim the odour is not pleasing to them. Should I smite them?

I would like to sell my daughter into slavery, as sanctioned in Exodus 21:7. In this day and age, what do you think would be a fair price for her?

I know that I am allowed no contact with a woman while she is in her period of menstrual uncleanliness (Lev. 15:19-24). The problem is, how do I tell? I have tried asking, but most women take offense.

Lev. 25:44 states that I may indeed possess slaves, both male and female, provided they are purchased from neighbouring nations. A friend of mine claims that this applies to Mexicans, but not Canadians. Can you clarify? Why can't I own Canadians?

I have a neighbour who insists on working on the Sabbath. Exodus 35:2 clearly states he should be put to death. Am I morally obligated to kill him myself?

A friend of mine feels that even though eating shellfish is an Abomination (Lev. 11:10), it is a lesser abomination than homosexuality. I don't agree. Can you settle this?

Lev. 21:20 states that I may not approach the altar of God if I have a defect in my sight. I have to admit that I wear reading glasses. Does my vision have to be 20/20, or is there some flexibility here?

Most of my male friends get their hair trimmed, including the hair around their temples, even though this is expressly forbidden by Lev.19:27. How should they die?

I know from Lev. 11:6-8 that touching the skin of a dead pig makes me unclean, but may I still play football if I wear gloves?

My uncle has a farm. He violates Lev. 19:19 by planting two different crops in the same field, as does his wife by wearing garments made of two different kinds of thread (cotton/polyester blend). He also tends to curse and blaspheme a lot. Is it really necessary that we go to all the trouble of getting the whole town together to stone them? (Lev. 24:10-16) Couldn't we just burn them to death at a private family affair like we do with people who sleep with their in-laws? (Lev. 20:14).
I know you have studied these things extensively, so I am confident you can help.

Thank you again for reminding us that God's word is eternal and unchanging.

Your devoted disciple and adoring fan.
Posted by: gryphon

Re: Jolly, Jbryan, and Larry - 03/28/03 11:25 PM

This is what happens when people talk about things they know nothing about. I don't fault you---after all, that's never stopped me before. \:D Still, yes, we've all seen the Dr. Laura letter before. The problem is the writer doesn't understand the Bible. And although I probably agree with most, or at least a lot, of the things Laura says, she ignores the New Testament as well. You are picking and choosing parts of the Bible.
Posted by: ryan

Re: Jolly, Jbryan, and Larry - 03/28/03 11:50 PM

Derick, DT beat me to the punch, but you proved my point. Do you really think that people today should carry out state punishments? Do you honestly believe that people did back then? Not only would someone who did these things (i.e. kill their neighbor for "not respecting the sabbath) go to jail today, they would have probably been executed for it back then under the "though shalt not murder" statute. I am certainly not a Bible scholar, but this seems pretty straightforward to me.

As for the other things, I have to say that it always confounds me that people think they should put themselves under a law or cultural rule that was applicable to a different nation in a different place in a completely different time. I'm not ancient Hebrew living under judges, are you?

I don't see how the fact that our laws contain some smilarity to Old Testement law has any bearing on this discussion. I bet ours isn't the only one that bears certain similarities. The New Testement does a pretty good job of explaining why the strict law of the Old Testement didn't work and why a higher law of love superceeded it. It says to live in peace and follow the laws of whatever land you live in. Also prety straightforward to me.

I also don't see how what various groups believe or don't believe has any bearing on this discussion. There have been some very unchristian things done in the name of Christianity. But how many people honestly believe that these things were done for purely religious reasons? The Crusades? Purely an attempt to recapture the Eastern part of the Roman Empire and the wealth and power that went along with it. Religion was just a way to make it more acceptable, i.e. "we will win because we have God behind us", etc. I think they might have partially believed their own words. The religious wars in England? Purely a power struggle to determine who would rule the country: king, commoner, Rome, distant relation, etc. There is usually a deeper reason for people doing things that have religious trappings put on them.

There is no way I can do this topic justice on a forum, in just a few minutes, late on Friday after a long week. But hopefully you can get the gist and go from there. It really isn't that difficult, but you have to put off your preconcieved ideas about "church" and look at the Old Testement from a historical perspective.

Ryan
Posted by: Bernard

Re: Jolly, Jbryan, and Larry - 03/29/03 12:33 AM

Gryphon writes:
 Quote:
This is what happens when people talk about things they know nothing about. I don't fault you---after all, that's never stopped me before. Still, yes, we've all seen the Dr. Laura letter before. The problem is the writer doesn't understand the Bible. And although I probably agree with most, or at least a lot, of the things Laura says, she ignores the New Testament as well. You are picking and choosing parts of the Bible.
Educate us, please. I mean that; I come from a religious upbringing yet that letter makes perfect sense to me vis-a-vis the judgementalism coming from the fundamentalist right. Show us the error of our ways. How is it the writer of that letter doesn't understand the Bible? Tell us. And please tell us which parts of the bible we are leaving out.

Isn't it a fact that when fundamentalists persecute homosexuals, they are "picking" and "choosing" from the bible?
Posted by: gryphon

Re: Jolly, Jbryan, and Larry - 03/29/03 12:39 AM

 Quote:
And please tell us which parts of the bible we are leaving out.
The New Testament. We do not live under "the law" of the Old Testament. Well, the Jews try to.
Posted by: Bernard

Re: Jolly, Jbryan, and Larry - 03/29/03 12:45 AM

Sorry gryphon, I was editing my post as you were answering it! The wonders of modern technology.

So, therefore, we should do as Christ would have done and we should be tolerant, forgiving, and loving.

What is the adgenda of many on the fundamentalist right? Two things come to mind immediately: persecution of homosexuals and the death penalty.
Posted by: Peter_dup2

Re: Jolly, Jbryan, and Larry - 03/29/03 01:08 AM

 Quote:
Originally posted by Larry:
 Quote:
Originally posted by TomK:
Larry,

No one would ever accuse you of being a "doctor in economy" after reading you post--great job.[/b]
Thank you Tom.[/b]
If this relationship gets too intimate I think you two should go somewhere else... this is a family forum.
Posted by: benedict

Re: Jolly, Jbryan, and Larry - 03/29/03 04:57 AM

ksk,
I don't get it. If I lived by the bible and followed some of the more barbaric advices given in the old testament, I would be arrested, and in the US I could probably be executed as well. You are raging against the fundamental muslims but seem to be fundamental christians yourself. Ok, I admit that there are considerably fewer terrorist among the cristians but the crusades in gods name wasn't exactly a walk in the park. [/b]

I propose you start a thread on all these barbaric advices.
If it is written and out in the open, Jolly and Larry will have to really explain why everything in the Bible is necessarily true and good.

Some people do not seem to understand that one has to decide for one self and not just take one's heritage (whatever love one may feel from the ones who handed that heritage over) without choosing what one wants to live with.

So, I propose we go to our Bibles and just quote whatever it is that makes Saddam look like a very calm and respectful guy.

\:\)
Posted by: benedict

Re: Jolly, Jbryan, and Larry - 03/29/03 05:10 AM

Nina
Nice post. I will refrain from adding my 2c here, because it's simply too frustrating to "discuss" these things over the internet.[/b]

Thank you Nina.

I find it very heavy too.

Maybe exchanging is absolutely useless.

Those who have an opinion/attitude/political-religious genetic code cannot change anything at all and will feel threatened by different ideas like they were bullets.

I think I am slowly going toward political/religious relativism.

It is such a useless battle to try and turn a cowboy into an indian or the other way around.

As far as universal peace and friendship is concerned, I think this Coffee Room gives us a lesson. It will never happen.

There always have been and always will be Jollies and Larries and TomKs.
And there always have been Lazy pianists and ksks.

The only thing that is new and shining around is you Nina and me Benedict.

Ah Ah ! \:\)
Posted by: .rvaga*

Re: Jolly, Jbryan, and Larry - 03/29/03 05:23 AM

Larry,

Outstanding post, just read it tonight. Obviously you have thought long and hard over these differences to substantiate your perspective. I am one that for the most part very much agrees with your analysis.

Has anyone here changed their liberal/conservative stance over the years (decades)? Or, is the die cast at a young age, and if so, how?

hmmmm. My parents were conservative, and I guess I am too in many (but not all) of my perspectives. But, my sister is a liberal, and has a de facto union card (masters in psychology). We see eye-to-eye on. . . nothing.

Posted by: David_J

Re: Jolly, Jbryan, and Larry - 03/29/03 05:45 AM

Benedict:
Life in Australia is the same: nothing happening.
Howard claims terrorist threat is dangerous. Shocked and awed.

My long post summed up:

:Many things which people say are leftist views or rights views or not so, and are irrelevant:
e.g. Dictatorship vs freedom has nothing to do with whether you're left or right.

:People left or right have the same principles, just different ways of achieveing them.

:Basing intellectualism on left/right is incorrect

:So many different types of left/right, and individuality: 2 far rights can be completely and utterly different.

:Viewpoints are a blend of both left and right.

:Impossible to define Liberal and Conservative completely.

Therefore: All left right blab on this board is moot because principles do not need to be discussed because pretty much all people share the same.

Rather real solutions to further these principles are the only thing worth discussing.

(very summarised)
Posted by: David_J

Re: Jolly, Jbryan, and Larry - 03/29/03 06:02 AM

There are a couple of things wrong with what you've said. First, anyone earning a high income (let's do away with the 10b figure and substitute 100K for the sake of discussion) *is* paying a higher tax rate than someone earning minimum wage.
[/b]
The issue wasn't whether or not they do, the issue is whether or not it is fair.

You have to admit Larry, someone earning something really high (eg. 200k +) should pay a higher rate than someone earning 60k with a family (kids)with a mortgage to pay off.

Things like higher tax rates and family assistance are fair. If you're going to chop, chop from the dole bludgers. Give 'em food coupons \:\)
Posted by: Jolly

Re: Jolly, Jbryan, and Larry - 03/29/03 10:05 AM

DavidJ opined:
 Quote:
You have to admit Larry, someone earning something really high (eg. 200k +) should pay a higher rate than someone earning 60k with a family (kids)with a mortgage to pay off.
You really don't have clue, do you?

I would be tickled to death to see a "flat tax", or perhaps a national sales tax, in lieu of the American "progressive" tax system.

By having an ever upward spiral of tax percentages, as income grows, you are accomplishing two things:

1. You are penalizing anybody who seeks to climb the economic ladder. The more I make, the more in percentage terms you want to take a way from me.

2. You are discouraging growth. People will spend the extra money. Most folks with higher incomes, have higher bills. It seems to be an axiom that one does not live over one's means, but one lives up to every penny of them.

An example: Back during the Carter administration, someone in the peanut gallery had the bright idea to increase the luxury tax on yachts. The rich had plenty money, they were going to buy yachts anyway, and they could well afford it.

What actually happened? Well, the American yacht industry was almost destroyed. Thousands of Joe Average workers were without jobs building boats. Banks got caught with all the bad loans, which in turn helped to dry up available capital. Oh, and the rich? They bought their yachts in other countries, they bought used, or they bought nothing at all.

Repeat after me:[/b] Punitive tax systems do not work, and are good for no one!
Posted by: Mike Morone

Re: Jolly, Jbryan, and Larry - 03/29/03 10:33 AM

 Quote:
Originally posted by David_J:

[/b]
You have to admit Larry, someone earning something really high (eg. 200k +) should pay a higher rate than someone earning 60k...[/b]
Wrong, David. I trust you're far enough along in your education to realize that at identical tax rates the person earning $200K will pay more than 3 times the taxes as someone earning $60K. Not good enough for you?

Even more fair than a flat-rate tax would be the simple requirement that every family pay, say, precisely $25,000 per year, regardless of income. Those who couldn't afford it would be required to take out a government loan, with payment due upon receipt of inheritance from the filthy rich uncle who lucked out in life.
Posted by: Lazy Pianist

Re: Jolly, Jbryan, and Larry - 03/29/03 10:56 AM

 Quote:
Originally posted by Jolly:
By having an ever upward spiral of tax percentages, as income grows, you are accomplishing two things:

1. You are penalizing anybody who seeks to climb the economic ladder. The more I make, the more in percentage terms you want to take a way from me.

2. You are discouraging growth. People will spend the extra money. Most folks with higher incomes, have higher bills. It seems to be an axiom that one does not live over one's means, but one lives up to every penny of them.

[/b]
Recent American experience does not seem to bear this out.

If people felt penalized, they would not continue to climb the economic ladder. But Americans do continue to climb it -- working hard. starting businesses, seeking promotions. If the tax system we have penalized people so badly, this would not be occuring.

George Bush (the first) was attacked for raising taxes and a couple of years later, Clinton did the same thing and was equally attacked. This led to the longest period of economic growth in American history. Clearly, economic growth was not stopped by the tax increase.

(BTW, I agree with Jolly that our tax system needs to be scrapped, but not because of its economic effects -- it seems to work just fine economically -- but because of the way it is administered and enforced attacks our political values and rights).
Posted by: Gardener

Re: Jolly, Jbryan, and Larry - 03/29/03 11:00 AM

 Quote:
Originally posted by David_J:
someone earning something really high (eg. 200k +) should pay a higher rate than someone earning 60k with a family (kids)with a mortgage to pay off.

Things like higher tax rates and family assistance are fair.[/b]
Hard work, persistence and drive to acheive should have its reward. This is a principle every parent tries to impart on their child through their developing years. Successful completion of an objective is the highest motivator for our efforts, second only to actions spent to fulfill responcibility. One of the rewards of this hard work, spelling success, is income compensation.

What you propose in the above statement is an abomination of the very foundation of the fundemental principles of a human drive. Your statement suggests PUNISHMENT of hard work, persistence and drive. Punishment is what is employed to decrease the frequency of a given behavior. My opinion is those who share your sentiment have based their opinion purely out of envy and/or likely incompetence with personal goals.

Flat tax is currently the leading solution to equitible sharing of a Nations burdens and places no postiion of our governments involving themselves in either rewarding or punishing our choices, thereby having no agenda in social engeneering....... as it should be.
Posted by: Derick

Re: Jolly, Jbryan, and Larry - 03/29/03 02:15 PM

Ryan & DT,

Your comments, along with Bernards, sum up my problem with the religious right. Dr. Laura, Pat Robertson, Jerry Falwell, etc... do, of course, preach the New Testament, but they also often call-up, hand-picked, bits and pieces, of the Old Testament to back up their philosophy.

They can't have it both ways. If the religious right wants to use hand-picked phrases from the
old testament, it's certainly fair game for anyone else to point out the absurdity of it via other, hand-picked, old testament phrases and toss it back in their faces. (i.e. Dear Dr. Laura letter)

Laura, Patrick and Jerry pay lip-service to the will of Jesus by seemingly preaching love, tolerance and forgiveness. But the second they feel the need to preach hate and intolerance, they whip the old testament out of their back pocket, faster than I can spit, and recite it chapter and verse.

They are hypocrites. And it irks me to no end to watch tele-evangelist ask for "love donations" to support their "good" works with an
art-carved, gold-leaf, Boesie Imperial in the background.

Derick
Posted by: Derick

Re: Jolly, Jbryan, and Larry - 03/29/03 02:35 PM

Gardener,

I agree with part of what you said:

 Quote:
Hard work, persistence and drive to acheive should have its reward. This is a principle every parent tries to impart on their child through their developing years. Successful completion of an objective is the highest motivator for our efforts, second only to actions spent to fulfill responcibility. One of the rewards of this hard work, spelling success, is income compensation.[/b]
But I am in complete agreement with David_J and disagree with your statement:

 Quote:
What you propose in the above statement is an abomination of the very foundation of the fundemental principles of a human drive. Your statement suggests PUNISHMENT of hard work, persistence and drive. Punishment is what is employed to decrease the frequency of a given behavior. My opinion is those who share your sentiment have based their opinion purely out of envy and/or likely incompetence with personal goals. [/b]
Let's change the numbers, albiet a bit extreme, and use the flat-tax structure you propose of 10%. Family A makes $10,000/year, family B makes $100,000/year. With a 10% flat-tax, family A would be left with $9000 and family B with $90,000. Isn't $1000 worth a hell of a lot more to the first family, than $10,000 is to the second?

Another fact you are overlooking is that hardwork does not necessarily guarantee a comfortable income. Some of the poorest people I know work the hardest. Some of the most wealthy also work just as hard. But by and large, there are more wealthy people who take it a hell of a lot easier than poor people. The wealthy have gobs of vacation time, and fly all over the world enjoying it. The poor waitress, attending night school,with 3 kids whose husband just left her is lucky to get two weeks off and won't have the time, or the money, to do anything. Is that because she is lazy and isn't working hard? Or is it because she got a bad break in life?

On the other-hand, when the President calls for tax-cuts it is absolutely absurd for anyone to think that those who pay more in taxes should get less back. Such ideas DO punish the wealthy, but a graduated tax structure is not a punishment.

I should also point out that the wealthy often have many more tax write-offs than do the poor. Mortgage interest on a house, for example. The bigger the mortgage, the bigger the write-off. Yes there is a graduated tax structure in place, but it really isn't as lop-sided as one might believe.

Derick
Posted by: JBryan

Re: Jolly, Jbryan, and Larry - 03/29/03 03:21 PM

 Quote:
George Bush (the first) was attacked for raising taxes and a couple of years later, Clinton did the same thing and was equally attacked. This led to the longest period of economic growth in American history. Clearly, economic growth was not stopped by the tax increase.
Anyone who honestly believes that tax increases create economic growth has no understanding of economics. The Bush tax increase was followed by a recession that was only beginning to end when Clinton took office. His tax increase was followed by two years of stagnant or lethargic growth and it wasn't until the Republicans took control of Congress, reformed welfare, cut spending and cut the capital gains rate (among other things) that the economy began to take off. However, I have repeated this over and over and so have many others and still the revisionists repeat this nponsense as though it was established fact.
Posted by: Lazy Pianist

Re: Jolly, Jbryan, and Larry - 03/29/03 03:33 PM

 Quote:
Originally posted by JBryan:
Anyone who honestly believes that tax increases create economic growth has no understanding of economics. The Bush tax increase was followed by a recession that was only beginning to end when Clinton took office. His tax increase was followed by two years of stagnant or lethargic growth and it wasn't until the Republicans took control of Congress, reformed welfare, cut spending and cut the capital gains rate (among other things) that the economy began to take off. However, I have repeated this over and over and so have many others and still the revisionists repeat this nponsense as though it was established fact.[/b]
There is a big difference between saying that a tax increase causes economic growth and saying it does not hinder it.

What actually happened in the 1990's was that the economy began to take off as the Federal deficit was reduced and became very strong once it was eliminated. This freed up capital for the private sector to use and the paying off of the debt freed up even more.

Yes, the boom ended and the economy adjusted, as it always does. But the real catalyst for the economic strength in the 1990's was the infusion of capital into the private market because it was not being used by the Federal government.

Of course, now because of tax cuts it appears we will have a $400B deficit this year. Additional tax cuts and this war will add to that. It will be interesting to see how long it now takes the economy to return to the state it was in the 1990's with the Federal government again using the capital markets as a check guarantee card.
Posted by: JBryan

Re: Jolly, Jbryan, and Larry - 03/29/03 03:50 PM

Pardon my misunderstanding but this:

 Quote:
George Bush (the first) was attacked for raising taxes and a couple of years later, Clinton did the same thing and was equally attacked. This led to the longest period of economic growth in American history.
is difficult to construe as anything other than a statement that tax increases caused economic growth.

I would not quarrel much with the rest of what you said except to say that deficits by themselves do not hinder economic growth. Another important part of the picture is total government spending as a percentage of GDP. You can have zero deficits and still have a stagnant economy since, as you said, the government is draining away too much of the available capital. If we are now running high deficits then maybe we need to hold down domestic spending which has been ballooning in recent years (no kudos to the Republican Congress on that I might add).
Posted by: Steve Miller

Re: Jolly, Jbryan, and Larry - 03/30/03 12:23 AM

 Quote:
Originally posted by lb:
I think that most individuals choose, but not necessarily believe in, principals from each side. What makes them comfortable and fits their agenda are the principles they choose. Education and morality has nothing to do with it.[/b]
I have been mulling this one over for days.

Are you proposing that the common man makes political decisions solely on the basis of personal gain without regard for consequence to others? Without regard for the lessons of the past? It seems a harsh indictment, if this is indeed your position.

Or rather is it your position that the educational system has deteriorated such that the common man is no longer capable of rational thought? That the religious institutions of our day no longer present their parishioners with guidance adequate to make moral decisions? Or sufficient reason to make decisions on that basis?

Or have I misread the entire thing?
Posted by: David Burton

Re: Jolly, Jbryan, and Larry - 03/30/03 01:13 AM

 Quote:
Originally posted by TomK:
 Quote:
"Truth" or "facts" don't simply exist in the world as givens.
[/b]
Yes they do.[/b]
The essential difference.

FACT: The US was attacked on Sept 11, 2001 by a concerted terrorist effort that required years to plan and execute, was determined to kill people and bring down our society and way of life.

FACT: This terrorist menace was financed and aided by a number of national governments including that of Saddam Hussein.

http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,82542,00.html

FACT: We do not live in a world where everyone can just get along because we have different opinions of what is right and wrong.

[Before the white man arrived on the American Great Plains, the Cheyenne and Arapaho people fought wars against the Ute and their relatives over the issue of eating dogs. The Cheyenne and Arapaho considered this practice worth killing for.]

FACT: Wars are staged and fought to prove that the loser’s view of the world was mistaken.

FACT: Wars will no longer be necessary when all regard certain opinions as foolish, stupid or dangerous.
Posted by: David_J

Re: Jolly, Jbryan, and Larry - 03/30/03 03:57 AM

That's the problem with some of you. You disagree with a point and make it clear you can't accept any chance you'd be wrong.

I would be tickled to death to see a "flat tax", or perhaps a national sales tax, in lieu of the American "progressive" tax system.[/b]

You're point?

Repeat after me: Punitive tax systems do not work, and are good for no one! [/b]

We'll have a look at that.

1. You are penalizing anybody who seeks to climb the economic ladder. The more I make, the more in percentage terms you want to take a way from me.[/b]

Oh come on! My example was 200k...
Once you get to that level of pay you're not going to go up in little increments... chances are you're some managing director who gets 20% pay rises or so. You'll still work hard. (See enterprise environment)

I'm not suggesting that the difference between a 61-80k and 81k-100k bracket should be overwhelming.

When you get to 200k, losing a few of those extra dollars aren't going to hurt you as much as if you were lower down the scale.

You are discouraging growth. People will spend the extra money. Most folks with higher incomes, have higher bills. It seems to be an axiom that one does not live over one's means, but one lives up to every penny of them. [/b]

You'll probably not believe me since I can't remember which issue of BRW this came out of. But anyhow:

-Countries with a higher % of wealth in middle class have better growth (in OECD).
-Consumer confidence falls less during economic downturn in countries with less concentrated wealth (the rich are not going to be as liberal with their money but everyone has to buy food).

Wrong, David. I trust you're far enough along in your education to realize that at identical tax rates the person earning $200K will pay more than 3 times the taxes as someone earning $60K. Not good enough for you?[/b]

Firstly: If you assume everyone you don't agree with has a grade 3 education the U.S.A. is some uneducated place. (Unless interest rates are learnt in university? :p )

Anyhow: Let's suppose we set the rate at a flat 40%.

Person A drops to 120k
Person B drops to 36k

You might argue, well person a is paying 56k more tax!!!!

But wouldn't you agree that the difference between 10k and 15k is much larger than 20k and 30k in real living terms? The difference between 40k and 30k is much larger than 80k and 60k?

Sure it's 4 times the difference of money, but hey... any difference (practically) between 500 million and 1 trillion?

Now you'll argue that person A worked harder to get more money, went to some private school and never used the public health system. But I'll counter that with:
-Everybody should be entitled to the same set of basic living conditions (more income required to meet that when running a family with children)
-Person A does not work harder just because he earns more (I used to do odd jobs in IT for around $30 an hour, a lot more than some cleaner working his bum off and getting $10- I believe I did a lot less work).
-Person A would've been able to earn that because of the taxes paid by previous generations to pay for his education, safety in the country, etc.
(Would he have the same chances if his parents didn't have to pay tax, but lived in Bangladesh? Only if he was at the pinnacle).

I do believe that Person A should pay a higher rate (reasonably, otherwise that becomes communism).

Hard work, persistence and drive to acheive should have its reward.[/b]

Absolutely, but see above.

Anyone who honestly believes that tax increases create economic growth has no understanding of economics.[/b]

Yup. Don't take me wrong, this is correct. But tax cuts to the middle class are going to be better (socially, and economically) than tax cuts to the top.

If you want some sort of idea what tax system I'd think is appropriate (this isn't thought out [prolly cause a budget collapse! :p ], but just to show I'm no communist)
Tiered System
0-20k no tax
20-50k 30%
51-150k 40%
150+ 50%

E.g. Earn 60k, 10k is taxed at 40%, 30k taxed at 30%, 20k not taxed.

Of course, the very rich all have their ways of scamming things. \:\/ (Research done in BRW showed the average CEO payed a lower tax rate than the average person earning 100k Damn their competent accoutants! )

And if you're interested, here are Australia's tax scales (1998, with the new tax system. I haven't checked if they've changed, and these are purely from my memory so don't kill me if I'm wrong)
0-6k no tax
6-20k 17%
20-50k 30%
50-60k 40%
60k+ 47%
But then our welfare system is shocking. If you're a lazy bum with half a brain you can rort the system and become a dole bludger, getting about as much as minimum award wage. Enter food coupons \:D
Posted by: benedict

Re: Jolly, Jbryan, and Larry - 03/30/03 07:03 AM

Steve Miller
That the religious institutions of our day no longer present their parishioners with guidance adequate to make moral decisions? Or sufficient reason to make decisions on that basis?[/b]

From what I have read most religious institutions in the world (including the USA, including GWB's own church) are strongly opposed to this war and 75% of the US citizens support it.
Posted by: JBryan

Re: Jolly, Jbryan, and Larry - 03/30/03 07:16 AM

 Quote:
Originally posted by David_J:

If you want some sort of idea what tax system I'd think is appropriate (this isn't thought out [prolly cause a budget collapse! :p ], but just to show I'm no communist)
Tiered System
0-20k no tax
20-50k 30%
51-150k 40%
150+ 50%

E.g. Earn 60k, 10k is taxed at 40%, 30k taxed at 30%, 20k not taxed.
[/b]
Whew! Am I ever glad that this guy does not set our tax rates!
Posted by: Jolly

Re: Jolly, Jbryan, and Larry - 03/30/03 10:14 AM

An open note to Peter,

Dear sir,

Would you please explain to me, and many of the other non-economic professionals, your take on progressive tax structures, and their economic effects upon the taxpayers of a country that uses such a system, such as the U.S.?
Posted by: benedict

Re: Jolly, Jbryan, and Larry - 03/30/03 10:23 AM

The 8 years of prosperity under Bill Clinton's presidency had nothing to do with taxes IMO, but with a general confident approach to life.

How long is it going to take you to understand this ?

The essence of capitalism is confidence, not self-rightneousness and anger.

Confidence is a spiritual/managerial quality.

Bringing democracy to the Middle East though is a very confident project.

There is so much self-rightneousness and anger though.

Well, the main thing is to succeed and learn to love and respect thy neighbour.

I'm joking.

First, let's sent Saddam to The Hague.

So much for the parking lot theory addicts.
\:D

I would suggest putting him in the same cell as Milosevic.

Larry, wouldn't that be very close to your torture pole ?
\:D

I bet both of them would suffer more.

Two stalinian dictators playing Mine is bigger than yours for decades.

I can't wait.

Go troops Rahhhhhhh! Rahhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhh!
Posted by: Gardener

Re: Jolly, Jbryan, and Larry - 03/30/03 10:55 AM

 Quote:
Originally posted by Derick:
Let's change the numbers, albiet a bit extreme, and use the flat-tax structure you propose of 10%. Family A makes $10,000/year, family B makes $100,000/year. With a 10% flat-tax, family A would be left with $9000 and family B with $90,000. Isn't $1000 worth a hell of a lot more to the first family, than $10,000 is to the second?

[/b]
Taking your examples into consideration a few things strike me. Family B pays 10 TIMES[/b] the tax of family A. This is on a flat tax scale. What you propose is an even greater difference. Also, family A's income is an amount of one income @ minimum wage w/o overtime, or apparently ambition. This individual lacks the additional aspect of 'drive' that I spoke of. Laziness should not be rewarded as is currently the tax system (ex. earned income credit--where more tax then was paid in is given to low income bracket such as you describe with family A. That is a REWARD!! Rewards are MOTIVATORS of behavior.) I feel concerned for family A but I do not feel bad for them as they are not exercising good judgement or basic human survival skills.

When we allow our government to get involved in sliding tax scales we are in essence giving them the power to motivate our earning/spending habits, thereby 'govern' by social engineering. It is not expected that they should be concerned in playing out scenarios of different outcomes for family A or family B. They can't govern effeciently if they are exercising obiously opinionated formulas of family living (that will change person to person when public office positions change) when deciding something as important as tax contribution. Flat tax takes out governmental opinion and bias/influence.

 Quote:
originally posted by David_J:
And if you're interested, here are Australia's tax scales (1998, with the new tax system. I haven't checked if they've changed, and these are purely from my memory so don't kill me if I'm wrong)
0-6k no tax
6-20k 17%
20-50k 30%
50-60k 40%
60k+ 47%
[/b]
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!
Posted by: lb

Re: Jolly, Jbryan, and Larry - 03/30/03 11:57 AM

Steve

You keep implying that education will allow a man to make moral decisions. Education only makes a person more knowledgeable in their area of study, it has nothing to do with moral decisions, and it definitely does not give them common sense.

Education broadens a person's knowledge of earthly things. Morality separates man from animals.

My position? Let's combine your two scenarios.

The common man, because of a deteriorating social system makes decisions, both political and moral, solely on the basis of personal physical comfort without regard for consequences to others. The social system not the education system has deteriorated such that the common man is no longer capable of rational thought. The religious institutions today for the most part no longer present their parishioners with guidance adequate to make moral decisions.

The bible (moral law) and civil law are two separate entities. Civil law governs you body and your actions; moral law governs your soul and you thoughts.

The bible recognizes and acknowledges civil law and authorities. In some cases moral law and civil law are compatible and in some they are in conflict. The bible though expects man to obey all civil laws even if the civil laws are in conflict with moral law. The trend I see is that the conflicts between civil law and moral law are becoming more numerous, and most religious institutions are bowing to the comfort demands of their parishioners and relaxing their positions on conflicting laws in favor of the civil law. The bible hasn't changed its position though.

The bible recognizes and acknowledges the need for civil authorities to make laws to maintain civil authority and to punish criminals for violating these laws even to the point of capitol punishment. It does not authorize or condone abortion in any form. A lot of religious institutions are relaxing their stand on this matter. What once was a moral law and a civil law that were compatible is now a law in conflict. Common man for his comfort and convenience has embraced this civil law so strong that we now are aborting over 5000 innocent babies every day.

The common man is not capable of having rational thoughts. The, in your words educated, people that are protesting capitol punishment which is acknowledged by the bible are the same ones that are proponents of abortion, which is prohibited by the bible. Are these rational thinking moral people?

This same thing can be applied to drugs, homosexuality, material possessions, idolitry, etc.

Because something is legal by civil law does not mean it is by moral law. Civil law may save your body, but moral law can save your soul.

lb
Posted by: Lazy Pianist

Re: Jolly, Jbryan, and Larry - 03/30/03 12:07 PM

 Quote:
Originally posted by lb:
The common man is not capable of having rational thoughts. The, in your words educated, people that are protesting capitol punishment which is acknowledged by the bible are the same ones that are proponents of abortion, which is prohibited by the bible. Are these rational thinking moral people?
[/b]
Why do you argue that the common man is not capable of rational thought? I assume you feel you are capable of it. Do you feel that you are intellectually superior to the common man? Or are you arguing that those who do not agree with your view of morality can only come to another view because their thinking processes are impaired?

To me, those who are opposed to abortion but so defiantly in favor of the death penalty and war are just as incongruent in their thinking as the examples you give above. But I would not say these people are incapable of rational thought or have impaired thinking processes. I may disagree with them, but they, themselves, are capable of justifying what seems to me to be contradictions in thinking. Thus I accept their views, while disagreeing with them, as valid for them.
Posted by: benedict

Re: Jolly, Jbryan, and Larry - 03/30/03 12:19 PM

I cannot believe what I just read (posted by lb).


I did not know that you still had that kind of integrist in the western world.

And George Bush is one of them ?

I am an atheist or rather an agnostic.

I have been in spiritual path for 35 years and I do think the Human Rights are the only moral law mankind needs.

But if you do not believe in the Bible, you do not have moral sense ?

What an insult to the intelligence and sensitivity of man !

What a lack of confidence in one's own ability to think and judge what one thinks/feels is right or wrong !

There is deep worry to have is this kind of fanatics has the right to buy guns and start wars.

You mean one just started a war ?

I didn't know.

Come on man, where have you been ?

You won't believe it : I have spend all the time I did not work on the most amusing and friendly of forums.

\:D

Sorry lb, but I really think you should have brain surgery before it's too late.
I hate to see such selfrighteous unintelligent insulting opinions in a place where people are trying to improve their judgement and understanding.

You think I am pretty intolerant myself ?

That's right. When I stifle, I have to kick in all directions. It is such a horrible feeling.
Those same people who wanted Christ dead and asked the Americans (sorry, the Romans) to do the job shared your certainties and moral selfrighteousness.
Your words are a crucifixion of the mind and spirit of man.
Amen.
\:D
Posted by: benedict

Re: Jolly, Jbryan, and Larry - 03/30/03 12:28 PM

Lazy pianist,
? Or are you arguing that those who do not agree with your view of morality can only come to another view because their thinking processes are impaired?[/b]

What are you on, LP ?
Can I have some ?
lb does not have a view : his is a parrot in disguise.

If you go to church, you do not need a thinking process. It's all in the book.

Who said so ?

lb said so.
He as been saying it since thousands of years.

You mean it started before our Lord Jesus Akhbar died for us and rose the third day ?

Way before that.
Before man used his reason, he used tradition as a crutch.

I see.

LP : stop being a traitor ,rejoin the team of those who are searching, let go of the team of those who have found.
Do not be the other side of lb, LP.
\:D

lb : it is not personal. But religion is doing enough harm now. Just keep it for what it is : the enrichment of the human spirit or/and soul.
Moral is for men to create and take good care of. That's what democracy is about.
Moral is a process : a very difficult and painful one.
But how would you know ?
Sorry, lb, I did it again.

Jodi, I want to start this brain tai chi chuan on April 7th. Please ask your instructor.
;\) :rolleyes:
Posted by: Lazy Pianist

Re: Jolly, Jbryan, and Larry - 03/30/03 12:57 PM

 Quote:
Originally posted by benedict:
What are you on, LP ?
Can I have some ?
lb does not have a view : his is a parrot in disguise.

If you go to church, you do not need a thinking process. It's all in the book.

Who said so ?

lb said so.[/b]
Benedict

I do not have any trouble with those who go to Church. I do not even have trouble with those, like lb, who build their entire morality based on a strict interpretation of the Scriptures they adhere to.

The problem I have is that so many seem to become intolerant of iothger viewpoints and feel morally superior to those who do not believe as they do.

I keep trying to understand why they do this; what makes them decide their morality is somehow superior to that of others. And I keep trying to understand why so many feel they are not only capable of judging others but seem to feel it is mandatory they do.

I would really like to hear from lb to see if he does believe what it sounds like he says he believes. If he does, I will not be able to agree with him, but at least I will have a better understanding of where he is coming from and who he is as a human being.

To me, understanding others is a good thing.
Posted by: benedict

Re: Jolly, Jbryan, and Larry - 03/30/03 01:03 PM

To me, understanding others is a good thing.[/b]

I can't believe what I am reading.

Why don't you do something really useful, like asking insistantly that all the troops go home now before it is too late and SHAME is on you for eternity.

While you work on understanding others, we feel hopeful that indeed a person is not necessarily doomed to repeat the same thing over and over.

Please go on understanding.
Once you have understood, please explain it to us.

I like joking with you because you are so peaceful.
I hope you do not feel hurt by my heavy bombing.
\:\)
Posted by: Lazy Pianist

Re: Jolly, Jbryan, and Larry - 03/30/03 01:13 PM

 Quote:
Originally posted by benedict:

I hope you do not feel hurt by my heavy bombing.
[/b]
Not at all. Indeed, I don't even mind those who call me a communist, a traitor or whatever else I have been called in the past few weeks.

What frustrates me most are those whose minds are closed. To me, this is a tragedy because the human mind and human heart have such a large capacity for greatness when they are open.
Posted by: benedict

Re: Jolly, Jbryan, and Larry - 03/30/03 01:42 PM

To me, this is a tragedy because the human mind and human heart have such a large capacity for greatness when they are open.[/b]

When do you start opening your mind and heart ?
We are all waiting.
\:D

If you succeed, we'll give it a try.

Beware of germs when there open though. Life can be a messy process.
\:\)
Posted by: lb

Re: Jolly, Jbryan, and Larry - 03/30/03 02:07 PM

benedict

You have exceeded my expectations of you!!!

Did I touch a nerve?

lb
Posted by: lb

Re: Jolly, Jbryan, and Larry - 03/30/03 02:52 PM

LP

Is there no earthly reason at all that no matter how heinous that you could justify any war or capitol punishment?

lb
Posted by: Lazy Pianist

Re: Jolly, Jbryan, and Larry - 03/30/03 04:04 PM

 Quote:
Originally posted by lb:
LP

Is there no earthly reason at all that no matter how heinous that you could justify any war or capitol punishment?

lb[/b]
lb

A couple of weeks ago I was asked to explain what it would take for me to justify a war -- and I did so. Feel free to check the archives.

I was told that my criteria would make almost all wars impossible. This is true. War should always be the VERY last resort, used only when nothing else can work. Mankind is better than a bunch of savages who have to solve problems through violence, death and destruction. I want war to be the VERY last solution, used ONLY after any and all other alternatives have been tried and found not working.

As far as the death penalty is concerned.. no, I cannot justify it. The death penalty has, it seems to me, three primary purposes.

1) To keep society safe from those who would harm others.

One need not kill a person to achieve this.

2) To punish a person severely for the crime they have done.

Again, one need not kill them to punish them severely. Indeed, there are those on this Board, Jolly being one I believe, who argue the death penalty is more humane than life in prison.

3) To seek revenge for the victims and/or society. While I understand the victims wanting revenge, I reject it as a motive worthy of a civilized society.

Now that I have answered your questions, lb, let's go back to mine based on your response to Steve Miller:

 Quote:
Originally posted by lb:


The common man is not capable of having rational thoughts. The, in your words educated, people that are protesting capitol punishment which is acknowledged by the bible are the same ones that are proponents of abortion, which is prohibited by the bible. Are these rational thinking moral people?[/b]
Why do you argue that the common man is not capable of rational thought? I assume you feel you are capable of it. Do you feel that you are intellectually superior to the common man? Or are you arguing that those who do not agree with your view of morality can only come to another view because their thinking processes are impaired?
Posted by: JBryan

Re: Jolly, Jbryan, and Larry - 03/30/03 04:43 PM

 Quote:
The problem I have is that so many seem to become intolerant of iothger viewpoints and feel morally superior to those who do not believe as they do.
You seem to have done a pretty fair job of demonstrating this yourself.
Posted by: JBryan

Re: Jolly, Jbryan, and Larry - 03/30/03 04:59 PM

 Quote:
A couple of weeks ago I was asked to explain what it would take for me to justify a war -- and I did so. Feel free to check the archives.

I was told that my criteria would make almost all wars impossible. This is true. War should always be the VERY last resort, used only when nothing else can work. Mankind is better than a bunch of savages who have to solve problems through violence, death and destruction. I want war to be the VERY last solution, used ONLY after any and all other alternatives have been tried and found not working.
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.
Posted by: lb

Re: Jolly, Jbryan, and Larry - 03/30/03 05:35 PM

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
Posted by: lb

Re: Jolly, Jbryan, and Larry - 03/30/03 05:39 PM

LP

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

lb
Posted by: Lazy Pianist

Re: Jolly, Jbryan, and Larry - 03/30/03 06:36 PM

 Quote:
Originally posted by JBryan:
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.
[/b]
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.
Posted by: Lazy Pianist

Re: Jolly, Jbryan, and Larry - 03/30/03 06:56 PM

 Quote:
Originally posted by lb:
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?[/b]
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.

 Quote:

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?
[/b]
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.
Posted by: JBryan

Re: Jolly, Jbryan, and Larry - 03/30/03 07:17 PM

 Quote:
Originally posted by Lazy Pianist:
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. [/b]
I remember when Larry asked you this in "The Bush Doctrine Applied" thread and this is how you responded:

 Quote:


quote:

Originally posted by Larry:
Lazy Pianist, what is your opinion of the war in Kosovo?

The war in Kosovo was an immoral act of barbarism -- even though the warring parties justified their waging war because they saw their enemy as being a direct threat to them.

I was proud of the US's involvement with other countries in forcing a diplomatically brokered agreement to end that war, and I am pleased that US troops, through NATO, became part of the peace keeping force there after the war had ended. I am also pleased that the US has supported the International Court which is trying the war criminals and is working closely with that court to convict them.
Excuse me if I don't interpret this as unambiguous support for military action in Kosovo.

 Quote:
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.[/b]
I have to wonder if your abiding mistrust of GWB is not clouding your judgment somewhat here.

 Quote:
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.[/b]
So do I.
Posted by: Lazy Pianist

Re: Jolly, Jbryan, and Larry - 03/30/03 07:28 PM

 Quote:
Originally posted by JBryan:
I remember when Larry asked you this in "The Bush Doctrine Applied" thread and this is how you responded:

quote:

Originally posted by Larry:
Lazy Pianist, what is your opinion of the war in Kosovo?

The war in Kosovo was an immoral act of barbarism -- even though the warring parties justified their waging war because they saw their enemy as being a direct threat to them.

I was proud of the US's involvement with other countries in forcing a diplomatically brokered agreement to end that war, and I am pleased that US troops, through NATO, became part of the peace keeping force there after the war had ended. I am also pleased that the US has supported the International Court which is trying the war criminals and is working closely with that court to convict them.
Excuse me if I don't interpret this as unambiguous support for military action in Kosovo.[/b][/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.
Posted by: JBryan

Re: Jolly, Jbryan, and Larry - 03/30/03 07:32 PM

Like in Kosovo.
Posted by: Lazy Pianist

Re: Jolly, Jbryan, and Larry - 03/30/03 11:28 PM

 Quote:
Originally posted by JBryan:
Like in Kosovo.[/b]
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.
Posted by: Tony

Re: Jolly, Jbryan, and Larry - 03/31/03 01:33 AM

Doing the work of three men?
Posted by: benedict

Re: Jolly, Jbryan, and Larry - 03/31/03 04:09 AM

lb
Is this rational?[/b]

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.
\:D
Posted by: David_J

Re: Jolly, Jbryan, and Larry - 03/31/03 04:24 AM

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![/b]

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...
Posted by: JBryan

Re: Jolly, Jbryan, and Larry - 03/31/03 06:30 AM

 Quote:
Originally posted by Lazy Pianist:
 Quote:
Originally posted by JBryan:
Like in Kosovo.[/b]
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.[/b]
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.
Posted by: JBryan

Re: Jolly, Jbryan, and Larry - 03/31/03 08:08 AM

 Quote:
Originally posted by David_J:
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![/b]

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...[/b]
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.
Posted by: Lazy Pianist

Re: Jolly, Jbryan, and Larry - 03/31/03 09:32 AM

 Quote:
Originally posted by JBryan:
That is, of course, unless your only aim is to punish those who produce wealth.[/b]
Why would anyone punish the employees who produce the wealth?
Posted by: apple*

Re: Jolly, Jbryan, and Larry - 03/31/03 09:48 AM

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?
Posted by: Lazy Pianist

Re: Jolly, Jbryan, and Larry - 03/31/03 10:28 AM

 Quote:
Originally posted by apple:
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?[/b]
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.
Posted by: Lazy Pianist

Re: Jolly, Jbryan, and Larry - 03/31/03 10:44 AM

 Quote:
Originally posted by JBryan:
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.[/b]
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.
Posted by: benedict

Re: Jolly, Jbryan, and Larry - 03/31/03 10:59 AM

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.[/b]

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.

Posted by: apple*

Re: Jolly, Jbryan, and Larry - 03/31/03 11:01 AM

 Quote:
Originally posted by Lazy Pianist:
[QBDiplomacy 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.

[/QB]
Except for his ties to Al Quaida .... DAH!
Posted by: JBryan

Re: Jolly, Jbryan, and Larry - 03/31/03 11:16 AM

LP,

I have a lot more interest in this issue than simply "winning an argument". I will simply let what you have posted stand and may all who come here to look marvel at the sheer folly of what you have outlined. I really don't need to comment on it at all.
Posted by: Lazy Pianist

Re: Jolly, Jbryan, and Larry - 03/31/03 11:44 AM

 Quote:
Originally posted by benedict:

1° You could not ask the US Army to put pressure on the Iraki regime for months and months[/b]
Had Mr. Bush handled this better, it would not be just the US military putting pressure on him. I have no trouble with the US forcing this as an issue the world had to deal with. We could have done that, handled it better, and the pressure would have been coming from more than the US.

As for whether or not the military could have kept up the pressure for a long time? NATO forces were on a war footing for close to 50 years to hold the Soviets in check. The US has held CUBA in check since 1959. The US, South Korea and others have held North Korea in check since 1953.

Yes, we can hold a regime in check for a long time.

 Quote:
2° The 1441 asked that Saddam shows how he had destroyed WMD, not play hide and seek[/b]
To me, the goal, the only goal, is to maintain and ensure the security of the United States and its allies. I don't really care what Resolution 1441 said. All I care about is the security of the US and its allies. While the inspectors were in there, we were secure from any mischief by Mr. Hussein.

Now, if you want deal with 1441 -- then let the UN decide how to deal with it; it was a UN Resolution, not a US Resolution. The UN did not choose to enforce its resolution through a US led war. The US has no legitimate right to enforce UN resolutions on its own.

 Quote:
3° The Iraki summer was approaching. Maybe you should go and help your Iraki friends[/b]
And as long as Hussein was held in check, who cares what the season is? We could have held him in check in Spring, Summer, Fall and Winter -- and many cycles of them. To ensure the security of the US and its allies, all we needed to do was hold him in check.

The Iraqi summers are no worse than the winters in the far North of Europe, where we had troops stationed and on a war footing against the Soviets for decades.

 Quote:
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.[/b]
I have no desire to have the US with the help of the UK, unilaterally clean up every despotic, evil regime in the world. The only reason the US and UK militaries have problems right now is because their leaders have chosen to place them in a position to have these problems.

Hussein is an evil man. There are many evil men running countries in this world. I have no desire to start a series of wars of liberation against all of them. And, to be honest, I do not believe that the war we are now fighting if primarily a war of liberation. I don't truly believe that Mr. Bush, Mr. Cheney, Mr Rumsfeld or any of the others are doing this primarily because of the poor, suffering Iraqi's.

 Quote:
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[/b]
Yes, Saddam will be gone. And then we will have to live with the consequences of how we have done it. I expect those consequences will haunt us for decades.
Posted by: Lazy Pianist

Re: Jolly, Jbryan, and Larry - 03/31/03 11:50 AM

 Quote:
Originally posted by apple:
Except for his ties to Al Quaida .... DAH![/b]
There is no evidence that Hussein and Al Quaeda have been working in tangent. Indeed, most evidence shows that Al Quaeda finds Hussein to be despicable because he is a secular ruler of Moselm people, not a religious Moslem ruler.

Before the start of this war, there was little support for Hussein himself in the Arab world. Few Arabs or Moslems would have fought for him. But now, with this war, there is a lot of support for Hussein --because we have made him a symbol for them of standing up to the United States who, in many cases rightfully and in many cases wrongfully, the Arab world sees as opposing their own aspirations.

No, Apple, there is no proven link between Hussein and Al Quaeda. Mr. Bush tried and failed to make this link. There is suspicion, at least in the US. But no link has been shown and the materials that the US used with the UN to try to prove that link were shown to be falsifications.
Posted by: DT

Re: Jolly, Jbryan, and Larry - 03/31/03 11:53 AM

 Quote:
Originally posted by Lazy Pianist:

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.[/b]
Perhaps, this would be a good place for our lawyer medical economist to jump in and explain wealth creation?

Until he does, LP, here's a perspective question: When you listen to a concert, is the primary creator of the music the composer, the director, or the 3rd trombonist? Granted all are necessary but which is most essential for the creation of that music?
Posted by: Jolly

Re: Jolly, Jbryan, and Larry - 03/31/03 11:55 AM

LP,

I would take you much more seriously, if you could take off your "Bush Blinders".

When people preface everything with "If it wasn't for ____(insert President's name), it shows that the hate of the person, or of his administration overrides any rational thought.

To agree with O'Reilly, there exists a "fringe" on either side of American politics, perhaps as much as 10% at the end of the spectrums, that cannot be reasoned with, no matter how strong the argument, or how worthy the cause.
Posted by: Lazy Pianist

Re: Jolly, Jbryan, and Larry - 03/31/03 12:02 PM

 Quote:
Originally posted by DT:

Until he does, LP, here's a perspective question: When you listen to a concert, is the primary creator of the music the composer, the director, or the 3rd trombonist? Granted all are necessary but which is most essential for the creation of that music?[/b]
All of them.

Simply writing a piece and then allowing it to sit on a shelf does not create great music.

Having no music to direct and no musicians to direct in playing it, does not create great music.

Playing third trombone when their is no score and no director to bring in the other musicians does not create great music.

Unless all three are fully involved, there is no great music.

And so it is in the creation of wealth. To argue that the workers create wealth on their own is foilly. To argue that the capital markets or investors create wealth on their own is folly. To argue that the top management creates wealth on its own is folly.

The most successful companies? Try something like Southwest Airlines where the entire company -- owners, employees and all in between, recognize they have a vested interest in the success of the company -- the company succeeds and has created wealth because of the unified goals of everyone involved.
Posted by: benedict

Re: Jolly, Jbryan, and Larry - 03/31/03 12:49 PM

LP Yes, Saddam will be gone. And then we will have to live with the consequences of how we have done it. I expect those consequences will haunt us for decades.[/b]

Back to the old SHAME ON US spiel.

You might be disappointed : USa does not seem to be haunted by slavery, by Indian genocide, by two atom bombs on civilian populations and by its support of every dictator alive during decades.

Why should they be sorry when Saddam is dead (if he is not dead already) and the Middle East has been given a chance to democracy and development ?

You seem to make one step forward to be positive and productive and two steps behind to just be negative, counterproductive and slightly traitor.

Soon, I'll skip posts with your name.

Consider this as an ultimatum not been completely endorsed by UN (whose record sheet as having solved any important and difficult situation is immensely small if not nonexistent.. I suggest that you join the Committee of Human rights headed by Lybia. You'll feel quite in good company.).

I donte like Bush (as my friend Chico Marx would have said). I donte like him. But once a war is started against a dictator, you wait till it is won and you just check that the good guys stay good guys.
You do not try to make Saddam an unjustly attacked respectable victim.

No sir. Not now, not ever.

Not in my book.

a French cowboy.
\:D :rolleyes:
Posted by: DT

Re: Jolly, Jbryan, and Larry - 03/31/03 12:59 PM

LP, the question was which is most[/b] essential? That piece of music can be played by a different orchestra or with a different director but it originated with the composer. He, in the classical grammatical sense (icgs), created it while they manufacture it. Someone (or ones) created a product or business and the wealth it brings, the others are the nuts and bolts that keep it running with each being compensated for his (icgs) part in the process.

But this is all semantics, blather, whistling in the wind, etc. I yield the remainder of my time on the subject, Mr. Speaker.
Posted by: Lazy Pianist

Re: Jolly, Jbryan, and Larry - 03/31/03 02:22 PM

 Quote:
Originally posted by Jolly:
LP,

I would take you much more seriously, if you could take off your "Bush Blinders".

When people preface everything with "If it wasn't for ____(insert President's name), it shows that the hate of the person, or of his administration overrides any rational thought.

To agree with O'Reilly, there exists a "fringe" on either side of American politics, perhaps as much as 10% at the end of the spectrums, that cannot be reasoned with, no matter how strong the argument, or how worthy the cause.[/b]
Jolly

I disagree with you. I think it is perfectly possible for someone to have serious and extensive policy disgareements with a president without hating him. For this type of person, when discussing the President's policies of course he is going to criticize the President by name.

It should not be surprising to you or anyone that I think Mr. Bush and his administration are wrong, seriously wrong, about this war. If this is the case, why would you not expect me to make that clear?

Now, I realize that during Mr. Clinton's Administration, many of those who were most vocal in their criticism found a need to make him sound as if he were the devil incarnate, to make him out to be primarily an evil man. We have all gotten used to that sort of attacks.

But because Mr. Clinton's opponents did that and got us all used to the idea that policy disagreements should be expressed through hateful speech, this does not mean that we all base our disagreements on hate.

I don't hate Mr. Bush. But I do think he has and is doing great damage to this country.
Posted by: lb

Re: Jolly, Jbryan, and Larry - 03/31/03 02:23 PM

Benny Benny Benney

I must have really touched a nerve, or are the cookie crumbs still chafing you.

Alas benny, your own words lend such credence to my statement "A common man is not capable of rational thinking".

lb
Posted by: Lazy Pianist

Re: Jolly, Jbryan, and Larry - 03/31/03 02:27 PM

 Quote:
Originally posted by benedict:
You do not try to make Saddam an unjustly attacked respectable victim.

No sir. Not now, not ever.

Not in my book.
[/b]
Benedict,

You are making the mistake of seeing opposition to this war as support for Saddam Hussein. It is not. It is opposition to war being the best way to deal with him.

Settle down. I do not see Hussein as a victim. You and I probably have the same view of him. We simply disagree about how to deal with him.
Posted by: Jolly

Re: Jolly, Jbryan, and Larry - 03/31/03 02:33 PM

LP wrote:
 Quote:
But because Mr. Clinton's opponents did that and got us all used to the idea that policy disagreements should be expressed through hateful speech, this does not mean that we all base our disagreements on hate.
I've been around the block enough to know that people have criticized the President, any President, long before Billy Jeff was a gleam in his Daddy's eye. I refer you to much of the criticism leveled at Jefferson, Lincoln, Taft, FDR, etc.

I believe the main point still holds true. When all one sees is a forest, it becomes hard to discern individual trees.

Even the good ones.
Posted by: KlavierBauer

Re: Jolly, Jbryan, and Larry - 03/31/03 05:48 PM

Wow, I think I know now why I don't wander in here much. I had no idea this much cyber-testosterone was being flung around like monkey-doo.

On one side people are calling for a halt to war. Not because they cherish life, or firmly believe that all violence is bad, but because they follow a partisan line that tells them to contrast everything George W. says.

On the other side someone's calling notice to the extra curricular beliefs of said left wingers. Stating their involvement in the occult, neo-paganism, search for the arc of the covenant (with Indy of course). "Curse these people for not believing in God!" ... wait... did I hear someone mention the "frying" of another human being? Wonderful demonstration to the non-believing left your firm beliefs in Christ's love and forgiveness.

As you can see I'm not going to take side on this, because all I've seen stated so far is emotion. This emotion is running through all the threads. A lot of it is illogical, and unhealthy. Not unhealthy as a belief, but unhealthy as a discussion. Nobody is going to change anybody's mind, or make a "valid" point when people are this hot. It simply becomes an exposition of Cyber-Courage.

Anyway, I'm enjoying reading it, and learning a lot I never knew about the people posting it. By all means don't take this the wong way... keep it up \:\)

KlavierBauer
Posted by: gryphon

Re: Jolly, Jbryan, and Larry - 03/31/03 06:04 PM

 Quote:
Originally posted by KlavierBauer:
the extra curricular beliefs of said left wingers. Stating their involvement in the occult, neo-paganism...[/b]
And your point is...? \:D
Posted by: jodi

Re: Jolly, Jbryan, and Larry - 03/31/03 07:59 PM

 Quote:
Originally posted by KlavierBauer:
Wow, I think I know now why I don't wander in here much. I had no idea this much cyber-testosterone was being flung... KlavierBauer[/b]
Actually, I think Lazy Pianist is doing a most excellent job of stating his opinion against such a respectable opposition. I like the way s/he thinks. I wish I could express myself as well. \:\) Jodi
Posted by: Gardener

Re: Jolly, Jbryan, and Larry - 03/31/03 09:35 PM

David_J-

I glossed over your tier rate chart too quickly and misspoke, but I reiterate your tax scale is in fact proving my point.

Reward is a motivator and punishment is the deterent. When tax contribution is on a sliding scale increasing percentage as salary rises IS a PUNISHMENT. Higher salaries and raises in most senarios accompanies increased job responcibilites, expertise, education etc. Sliding scales insure less buck for your bang each rung you climb as the resulting take home pay does not increase exponentially. How can this be viewed as anything other then a PUNISHMENT. This becomes the deterent. However, rewards abound for the unmotivated, drive-lacking individual to never look beyond today, or this months rent deposit, stagnating the workforce.

I do not believe a government should be involved in any practice of psychological game play. No motivators, no rewards, no deterents, no punishment. Flat tax takes governmental influences out of the work force and gives motive back to the worker! I want no 'write offs' from my government which suggest how I should spend/invest my money. I don't want to pay more tax simply because I found a way to make my hard work increase my earning power. Why is my work ethic even catagorized by a government. That has nothing to do with what a government is set up to accomplish. When did citizens of any nation turn to their governing bodies and ask them to oversee so many aspects of our society?
Posted by: TomK

Re: Jolly, Jbryan, and Larry - 03/31/03 09:41 PM

Well written post, Gardener.
Posted by: KlavierBauer

Re: Jolly, Jbryan, and Larry - 04/01/03 03:11 AM

Jodl, I agree with you completely.

I've been having issues with both sides of the conflict. A problem (which I mentioned) was the lack of logical arguments on the side of anti-war. I myself am not for this war (or any war). But not being for it, and supporting the enemy are two very different things as lazy mentioned.

I've been hearing for some time now "well, so you didn't get your way, but the war's going on now, so at least you have to support the troops..."

Ok, what exactly does that mean? I support them in the sense that I pray daily for their safe return. I understand that we're in it now, and in that sense I support it's rapid succession. But if I have issues with the principle of war, then certainly those hold true throughout the conflict. If our Army was drafted into place, I could feel sorry for the people ripped out of their homes and sent off to a far away country to die. But that isn't the case here.

We are 100% volntary enrollment, and as such every person fighting there is doing so by choice. AS I SAID (before people start yelling) I am sorry that things have come to what they have, and am sorry for every soldier having to do what they're doing. But let's not forget that they have chosen to be there. Let us also not forget that this is not an act of defense. We have declared war on Iraq. Every day we seem to try to change that wording to mean "War on Saddam" ... but that isn't the case. We are strategically taking over a country. We are the agressors. And while I understand that this is what has to be done at this point, I certainly am not happy about it.

I can't help but think that there are people who don't realize the severity of this situation for all involved. That means both sides of the conflict. The propoganda filled soldiers who want us dead even though they hate Hussein, the women and children killed in a van today, the american soldiers away from home, scared for their lives. Lives are being lost on both sides of this, and it saddens me deeply. The Romans proved long ago what happens when you spread your way of life to the rest of the world. Granted, it almost worked.

But almost only counts in horseshoes

Anyway, that's kind of a lengthy response that's probably off topic. I apologize for those I've undoubtedly offended. Please understand that I am patriotic. I love my country, the freedoms it offers, and greatly appreciate the people defending it. We are fighting a war that needs to be fought at this point. I only argue that if we had dealt with things in other ways over the last 2 decades, perhaps we wouldn't be having to fight this war right now.
Thank you for allowing me to exercise my right to free assembly to assemble these thoughts.
I fel like most people I know don't understand my stance, as I'm never allowed to finish explaining it. But I trust the lot of you to a degree which is now allowing me to stick my head out a bit. Perhaps a bit further than ever before.

I hope it wasn't a mistake...

KlavierBauer
Posted by: David_J

Re: Jolly, Jbryan, and Larry - 04/01/03 03:31 AM

JBryan, sorry I didn't realise the U.S.A. had a whole barrage of extra taxes :p

Gardener, the rates I showed were actually much lower than Australia's: as such welfare and offence spending would have to be slashed.

How would YOU pay for universal health care, free education- heavily subsidised university, defence, welfare etc (all of which would help the highly paid person reach their position in society)?

The flat tax is REGRESSIVE. You're not punishing the rich by taxing them a higher percentage of earnings: they will still want more money. But for the poor, all you are doing is filching them, (every dollar means a lot more to them), and it's likely you'll increase their dependence on welfare and government housing. So what's the gain from that?

Would you go for a flat tax (regressive) simply to appease the rich? Would you cut welfare and deprive some sections in society from basic human standards? What would you do?
Posted by: benedict

Re: Jolly, Jbryan, and Larry - 04/01/03 06:47 AM

KlavierBauer

I hope it wasn't a mistake...[/b]

I like very much the way you expressed yourself.

Anyway, who can be 100% sure that she/he is right ?

I am not in favor of war. Wars should be banned as death penalty should be.

But there still is the problem of security and human rights : if we follow your and LP's arguments, there should be no police.
If a person beats his wife or children, we should respect the privacy of his home.
If he tortures his children, then let's pray and hope he will see the light.

What about the beaten and tortured people ?

There is a strong problem of semantics.
Let us forget about war and discuss about what should be done :
1° to deprive Saddam of his WMD. Because everybody knows he has them. One of his sons in law is called Chemical Ali. And thousands of Iraki citizens have experienced them and are dead now.
2° Do we let the Iraki people suffer if we can stop that horror. Eveybody knows that as soon as Saddam and his tugs are out of power, the population will express their relief. Wouldn't you feel relieved ?
3° What do we do to stop the Arab world playing the vicious game of uniting in their hate for Israel, the Jews and the US and the developed countries in general.
They have to learn that democracy is an option, science is an option, industry is an option, freedom for women is an option. They have to learn that religion is great if it fits the principles of Human Rights (one of them being the freedom to believe what you choose to believe).

4° I understand that things would have been easier if Saddam had attacked one of his neighbours. He has been a fool several times, but he looks like a placid old man, a bit like good old Joe Stalin.
The USA have been victims of a serious crime against manking. We all know that the root of this crime is the hatred that seems to unite the Moslem world. It is absolutely essential to stop that game. If it can be done peacefully, then great. We all are waiting for your practical ideas.If it has to be done by the use of force (not war : force), then great.
Aren't you happy Milosevic is not practicing his favourite sport : ethnic purification ?
Don't you feel proud that, despite the tensions, Afganisthan is not ruled by the Talibans ?

It does not matter that you do not agree with this war.
People whose job it is to make decisions when a terror attack occurs as to what strategy they choose have decided. Their plan is not stupid and they must be given a chance.

If they have been dishonest and/or if they prove the fears of the whole world that the USA are an imperialistic country disguised as a peace loving exporter of democracy, then the hatred will be there forever and the USA will take place with nazi germany and Stalin's soviet union or Mao's china.

But we are not there yet.
In a few weeks, this operation should be a success.
Then, we shall see if the USA were there for the oil or for the democracy/security.
Then we shall see whether the USA are ready to get committed to a solution where the palestinian people have a land and Israel the right to exist in peace without being the scapegoat of 1 billion or more moslims.

If this happens, you are entitled to admit you did not trust the force of courage and committment.

If it doesn't, I will burn my new cowboy hat.

\:\)
Posted by: JBryan

Re: Jolly, Jbryan, and Larry - 04/01/03 07:01 AM

and I will eat mine.

KlavierBauer, very thoughtful post.
Posted by: KlavierBauer

Re: Jolly, Jbryan, and Larry - 04/02/03 01:59 AM

Benedict:

For the most part I agree with your post.

I haven't forgotten about the tortured people, or the human rights atrocities. In fact, these are the very things that sadden my heart as we go to war.

I'm a big fan of consistency though. I have no problem with this war on terror, if it is genuine. This means that other countries like Zimbabwe (in worse shape than Iraq right now) deserve to be regulated as well. There is a whole country starving, with people losing everything, being tortured, killed, etc. every day.

I hope that we find a way as humans to affect each other's hearts, rather than each other's actions. It seems that when we slap each other on the back of the hand, we just tend to get a little hotter under the color. Don't get me wrong, every hand needs a slap every once in awhile. My point is, I'm not excited, or happy about it. And it saddens me that there are people who are.

KlavierBauer
Posted by: benedict

Re: Jolly, Jbryan, and Larry - 04/02/03 06:24 AM

KlavierBauer,
I'm a big fan of consistency though. I have no problem with this war on terror, if it is genuine. This means that other countries like Zimbabwe (in worse shape than Iraq right now) deserve to be regulated as well. There is a whole country starving, with people losing everything, being tortured, killed, etc. every day. [/b]

It is up to the US citizens to decide if they want to confront their government with their resolve to impose democracy and human rights as a world norm and enforce it.

Then, the whole world will know if they were sincere or just greedy for oil and domination and just doing a police action in case Saddam was a threat to the Empire State Building and the White House.

I am amazed at the amount of hatred both from the British-US world and against the USA.

There is an enormous bug which might will have to be dealt with.

Hate won't do the trick. Nor accepting the Saddams of this world to torture and (mass)murder as a way to enjoy power.
The irony of it is that millions of people do not like the way the USA seem to be power-hungry.

Because, they are powerhungry, are they not ?

Posted by: gryphon

Re: Jolly, Jbryan, and Larry - 04/02/03 10:56 AM

 Quote:
Originally posted by benedict:
Because, they [USA] are powerhungry, are they not ?[/b]
No.
Posted by: benedict

Re: Jolly, Jbryan, and Larry - 04/02/03 11:52 AM

Yes.
Posted by: gryphon

Re: Jolly, Jbryan, and Larry - 04/02/03 12:01 PM

Benedict, what do you, personally, think? Why do you think the US is in Iraq right now?
Posted by: KlavierBauer

Re: Jolly, Jbryan, and Larry - 04/02/03 12:12 PM

Benedict:

When you say the U.S., you are referring to everyone within it's borders.

While I said earlier that I am opposed to war, I will also support my country. I might not support what it's doing, but I support what it stands for.

Making a blanket statement like "the U.S. is power hungry" includes me ... and last I looked, I'm not power hungry.

I understand what you're saying. The U.S. Government does manytimes assume that they're #1, and that their way of life is #1. But don't make statements that include the whole country.
Like any other country, we're made up of lots of different ideas. We thankfull have the freedom to express it.

KlavierBauer
Posted by: benedict

Re: Jolly, Jbryan, and Larry - 04/02/03 01:25 PM

I apologize for a gross generalization.

What I mean is... Well, I don't know what I mean.

If one cannot utter gross generalization and feel good, life becomes hell.

When I started having beers in this Coffee Room, a lot, and I mean a lot of people explained clearly that :

1° France was a country of cowards
2° France had lost every war since two thousand years
3° The US Army had liberated France over and over again
4° The USA were always right because they are the country that is right by its very essence. (probably the last western country that is blessed by God since Germany decided to drop the subject altogether)
5° The French are cowards because they do not allow free sale of firearms
6° The French are cowards because they make wine
7° The French women are hairy and stink

So, I may have concluded a bit hastily that the USA are power hungry.

There are other elements as well.

Bush's administration makes it clear that no other country will ever be allowed to approach the level of military power that they have.
No country. Never.

Bush's administration makes it clear that they do not need any countries opinion to do what they decide to do. And since they pray every morning together, they know what they have to do.

The USA will take control of Irak and do exactly what they want to do, how they want to do, when they want to do it. With the oil (this government does know a lot about oil). With the government of Irak they will choose to implement.

No, all well considered, the US government and a lot of the people who explained to me what a piece of ... France I am are not power hungry.

One not power hungry person even explained that the Jewish Torah was there to show how everything prepared the coming of Jesus.

Power hungry ?

No. Definitely not.

Why do billions (yes, billions) of people think the opposite ?

I suppose they have seen to many US movies. \:D \:D

Do not mistake me : if I am here in this forum, it is because I love the USA that are not power hungry.
All my life I have read and studied authors like Carl Rogers, Maslow,Peter Senge and many others of humanistic psychology and management.

When I was a student, every morning I shaved while listening to Kennedies speeches.

"Do not ask what your country can do for you but what you can do for your country".

"We must help people help themselves".

So KlavierBauer, when I say the USA are power hungry, it certainly does not mean you and a lot of US citizens.

It means people like Jodi who kick sandbags and howl fiercely. These people are powerhungry. \:D
Posted by: .rvaga*

Re: Jolly, Jbryan, and Larry - 04/02/03 02:15 PM

 Quote:
Benedict:
All my life I have read and studied authors like Carl Rogers, Maslow,Peter Senge and many others of humanistic psychology and management.
[/b]
Benedict,

I'm curious about your statement above, your interest in social manipulation via psychology (or is your interest more in productivity i.e., Taylor, Hawthorne Electric experiment, OK I'll include Maslow, etc.).
Was such reading part of school curriculum, or was this study simply an interest of yours?

Posted by: gryphon

Re: Jolly, Jbryan, and Larry - 04/02/03 02:45 PM

 Quote:
Originally posted by benedict:
If one cannot utter gross generalization and feel good, life becomes hell.
I personally don't have a problem with generalizations. There is a reason they exist. When we speak using them we realize this and no one assumes every single person falls into this category. My particular problem with what you said was not the generalization, but that I believe you are wrong in thinking the USA is power hungry. Unless I misunderstand your definition.

For my part, I will address your points from my point of view and what I think I have stated here in the Kaffee Zimmer. I think France is acting like cowards now, both because of their failing to stand behind their own UN votes and because of their inability to distinguish and act on right v. wrong. I've never mentioned the free sale of firearms in France but I believe that makes you foolish, not cowardly. You prefer the rule of brute force over the right and ability of self-defense. I must assume the part about making wine and women you are just joking about.
 Quote:
Bush's administration makes it clear that they do not need any countries opinion to do what they decide to do.
Also include prior administrations and I pray to God all future administrations as well. I believe the US should do what we think is right without regard to other countries, period. Does that make us a bad neighbor? I hope not. As long as we as a nation keep our moral compass we shouldn't be making bad decisions.
 Quote:
The USA will take control of Irak and do exactly what they want to do
I can't comment upon this too much other than to say you are probably pretty correct. Again, this doesn't have to automatically be a bad thing. Do you have a problem with France's attempting to sabotage the American-led campaign to rescue Iraq, or Chirac's insistance that, after the United States apologizes to the world community and the U.N. Security Council, France be a part of the rebuilding developments in Iraq? How about France selling spare parts to Iraq for their Mirage F-1 fighter jets and Gazelle attack helicopters in defiance of the UN? It seems France does what it wants to as well.

And re the oil, you have never stated whether you think the US is in Iraq to steal their oil or not, despite my asking you several times.
 Quote:
Why do billions (yes, billions) of people think the opposite ?
Jealousy, envy, religious hatred, moral guilt (guilt brings with it anger). My personal belief is it all comes down to religion as a root cause, but that is a long discussion.

You ask why I and others like me are angry about France. Pfc. Jessica Lynch was rescued last night. She had two broken legs, a broken arm, and who knows what else. In one place where she was held Marines found a bed, a large battery, and a bloody US woman's service uniform. The room was used as a torture chamber.

In addition to this, since the war has started Iraq has used their own people as human shields in countless instances, engaged in acts of genocide against Shi'a Muslims in the south of Iraq, forced Iraqi civilians to take up arms at gunpoint, executed Iraqi civilians on the spot for any suspicion of disloyalty or even indifference, cut off food and water to Shi'a Muslim urban populations, used hospitals as military staging areas, fighting positions and arms storage depots, took Iraqi family members, including children, hostage, executed allied POWs in cold blood, while abusing others, prevented the International Red Cross or Red Crescent from visiting allied soldiers taken as POWs, fought in civilian clothes, in violation of the Geneva Convention and the Laws of War, employed false surrenders to lure allied troops into ambushes, in violation of the same, committed multiple acts of terrorism against Iraqi civilians and coalition forces, forced unwilling soldiers to attack allied forces by executing some and driving the others forward at machine-gun point - far from patriotic resistance, this is the mass murder of Iraqis by Iraqis, attempted to create an ecological and economic catastrophe in Iraq's Shi'a and Kurdish regions by rigging oil fields for demolition, attempted to prevent relief supplies from reaching Iraqi civilians, and welcomed and harbored terrorists from abroad.

And in the face of all of this, France still wants Saddam Hussein to win. I am disgusted.

If you want to bash the US, believe me we have many, many things to criticize and I will lead the charge:

Although we are an educated people, American's spelling and grammar skills are appalling.

Precious few Americans can speak, write, or understand another language.

We produce "art" that glorifies murder, drugs, and the dehumanization of women.

Country music. \:D There are a lot of reasons to criticize the US, but acting in what we believe to be our self-defense is not one of them. Make no mistake, 9/11 changed a lot of things for the US. I would expect France or Switzerland or any country to do no less in their self-defense interests.

I hope I have stated my case clearly, if not succinctly, and even-temperedly. Regards...
Posted by: jodi

Re: Jolly, Jbryan, and Larry - 04/02/03 03:29 PM

Great discussion. All of you! I am truly impressed. THIS is how it should be. \:\) Jodi
Posted by: gryphon

Re: Jolly, Jbryan, and Larry - 04/02/03 03:37 PM

 Quote:
Originally posted by jodi:
Great discussion. All of you! I am truly impressed. THIS is how it should be. \:\) Jodi[/b]
Yes, but this requires so much work. It is just easier to call Lazy Pianist a Communist and be done with it. \:D
Posted by: KlavierBauer

Re: Jolly, Jbryan, and Larry - 04/02/03 07:23 PM

I think both points are being displayed well. But it is for the most part useless if nobody has a mind open to change. What I mean is, we all form nice articulate arguments, then display them here. We edit, spell check (at least those that aren't too lazy), and make sure everything we want to say is coming across just perfectly.

But what is the point if nobody really wants to change themselves, only others?

Benedict, I certainly see your point, and understand your anger about people making blanket statements against the French. Please know though, that I don't make such statements, because I've been there. Growing up in a German family was neat for me, but for my father, it was an invitation for name calling, and getting rocks/bricks thrown at him. People in general are not very understanding of each other. Nor do they want to be.

I have my own views on what's going on in the world, but I'm not really willing to spill all of them out in a place where people aren't sitting and discussing face to face, rather they're waiting for their chance to speak. It makes it very hard to have any sort of healthy communication.

I'm sure that as people, most of us have the same wants, and desires for our lives. I'm sure most of us want happiness for others, and self, and prosperity for the whole lot. The problem is that with an issue such as this, there is so much to it that it can't be discussed so simply. This is not just some random amalgamation of thoughts and ideas. This is a war. This is a demonstration of one of the few times when things get so bad, that the decision is made to use evil against evil.
While I may not agree with it, please understand what has happened to this nation in the last 2 years. The people who thought "we're invincible!" were shown on 9/11 that we aren't. Yes there is a lot of violence in our streets, but for the most part, suburbanites (place of dwelling, and the vehicle) don't see gun fire every day. When people were finally hit in their own back yard, the perceived sense of protection was washed away. And the reality hit that we are as vulnerable as anyone else. Please understand that this evokes different reactions in different people. For a lot of people, there needs to be something definitive. Something that equals the end to such a threat.
Of course the threat won't be removed after this is over. But people here will have a perception of goodness again.

You are against this, because you are against the politics behind it. I am against this, because I cherish human life.

There are people who support this, yet also cherish human life. They feel that this is necessary, and justifiable. There are others still that support this, simply because they support the politics behind it.

The people, who are following something with their soul, are probably better able to reach compromise on such issues, because they are for the most part more willing to hear what the other side has to say. Whereas people subscribing to one belief or another based on it's supporters will most likely just fall into the crowd screaming and chanting.

I don't know what all of this means... and looking back I really haven't said anything myself. It's just too much darned typing to delete it all though, so I'll go ahead and post it.

Geez... I apologize again, I think I have something to say, and end up having absolutely nothing of value to say.

KlavierBauer
Posted by: gryphon

Re: Jolly, Jbryan, and Larry - 04/02/03 08:06 PM

 Quote:
Originally posted by KlavierBauer:
understand your anger about people making blanket statements against the French.
By benedict's own admission, 1/3 of France's population want Iraq to win, 1/3 won't openly state they do but according to him we can surmize that, and half of the rest think the US needs to learn a lesson. From where I sit 5/6 of a population is reason enough to generalize. In addition, if the populace didn't agree with their government the world would hear about it. After all, it isn't Iraq where they are afraid to speak up.
 Quote:
I'm sure that as people, most of us have the same wants, and desires for our lives.
Well you know, that seems logical and reasonable, doesn't it? However, in truth I don't think it is. Oh sure, I want shelter and to be able to feed my children, as does everyone. However it is more than that, much more. If it weren't, we wouldn't have the wars we do. We wouldn't even have the class envy in the US that we do! I don't care if my neighbor makes 2x or 20x the money I do, but you know there are people who do! There are people who will do anything for their beliefs. These are the ones we have to worry about. And let me refer again to my previous post. Reread the two paragraphs beginning with the one about Pfc. Jessica Lynch going through the one about the Iraqis taking families hostage and harboring terrorists. Now reconcile your "we all want the same thing" statement with the fact that people in France prefer the murderous brutality in Iraq continue and care not about Iraq's support of terrorism.
 Quote:
the decision is made to use evil against evil.
That's a pretty loaded value judgement. Guns are neither good nor evil, they are inanimate objects, tools. People are evil. How do you stop evil? Is it evil to oppose evil? Or rather is it honorable?
 Quote:
Of course the threat won't be removed after this is over.
But you aren't suggesting that we do nothing, are you?
 Quote:
I am against this, because I cherish human life.
So if I can show you that more people will be killed if we do not oust Saddam's regime than if we do, will you be for the war?
 Quote:
I apologize again, I think I have something to say, and end up having absolutely nothing of value to say.
Not true. No need to apologize and your thoughts are valuable. In fact, they are most valuable to you, and you will probably find out that thinking things through enough to write them down helps you form your own opinions better. And maybe you just might point out something that one of us hasn't thought about and change our minds.
Posted by: KlavierBauer

Re: Jolly, Jbryan, and Larry - 04/02/03 11:56 PM

Guns aren't evil, I own several of them. But I shoot them at targets. I can't think of a situation where I would shoot a person, accept in defense of another possibly.
In my post, I stated (I thought) several times that I understood what was going on. I understand that we are liberating someone, or at are trying to. But that doesn't really change what's going on. Don't get me wrong, I'm not on the corner protesting, or practicing civil disobedience, simply because I understand what's going on. But this doesn't mean that I need to stand behind it. I just want to make sure (for myself) that everyone understands what's going on.

you said:
 Quote:
So if I can show you that more people will be killed if we do not oust Saddam's regime than if we do, will you be for the war?
Of course not. A statement like that indicates that you either don't take my first statement seriously, or didn't understand it. You can't weigh lives against lives in sheer numbers.

I also feel horrible that the POWs are having to go through what they're going through. I certainly wish they weren't there, and weren't having to deal with this. And I 100% value that they are doing this in their minds for liberation, and defense. It's the motives of their bosses that I question, not theirs. Don't forget though, that these people are invaders. We have never faced anything like that here, and shouldn't pretend to know how we would feel, or what we would do. As much as these people may or may not hate Hussein, they are certainly scared to death of us, and for good reason.

I don't know, like I said in my original post, I'm on the fence about the whole thing. I see the validity in some of the arguments, I just don't know that I agree with all of it yet. There is fortunately a difference between the two.

I won't however subscribe to an idea because of my political leanings. This is much bigger than that. Politics are temporary, as are our beliefs in them. People's souls are at stake here. Plain and simple. Lives are lost, and if you believe there is anything more to our bodies than a chance allocation of molecules, then you have to see the incredible weight of this situation.

I pray that it is over quickly, and justly. And I pray that we can give the Iraqis what we think they need, a new country. I also hope that they are now strong enough to run it, and not let another dictator take it over.

KlavierBauer
Posted by: apple*

Re: Jolly, Jbryan, and Larry - 04/03/03 12:29 AM

Klavier - your writing was wonderful
Posted by: David Burton

Re: Jolly, Jbryan, and Larry - 04/03/03 01:02 AM

Larry's post. I'm in solid agreement with about 90% of it. I'm sorry Larry but I am still quite skeptical about everything. For example I'm going to be in substantial agreement with ksk about the Bible, despite its claims, its contents are checkered. Maybe if I were less blind I'd be less skeptical. I too would consider myself a "classic liberal" rather than a conservative; I prefer a parliamentary democracy to a monarchy with a peerage. I prefer free enterprise to mercantile licenses. Neither do I prefer a state church, though I am a Roman Catholic. A Catholic never has to defend the Bible on fundamental grounds as does a Protestant fundamentalist. The Bible is a book written collected edited translated and promulgated by men. While it may contain "the word of the Lord" it cannot by any stretch of logic be considered The Authoritative Word of God. That my friend must remain a matter of faith. On other points we are in full agreement.

So far it's Larry, Brad, gryphon and me.

 Quote:
Originally posted by Lazy Pianist:
Talk about setting up straw men so they can be easily torn apart!
Sheesh![/b]
Larry actually took you seriously. That was a mistake. You were only doing what liberals always do, JEER! Peter's reaction was to jeer too. As Larry correctly pointed out, all liberal jeers are not about ideas since they usually can't or won't argue effectively against them since in most cases there are no sensible arguments, they are PERSONAL. A conservative has hurt a liberal's feelings by pointing out the error of their ideas. The only sure response is to strike back with a smile. They try not to let anyone, including themselves, in on their real intent which is to KILL off all logical argument.

Again, those who identify themselves as liberals these days are almost always addicted to another feature of their characters which Larry left out; they JEER their opponents and believe jeering is not the same as being mean spirited when it is at least the same thing. Those who jeer others they regard as old fashioned, outmoded, uninformed or just plain wrong when faced down on their jeering quickly become angry and suggest that they didn't mean it. They were smiling or laughing when they said it, how can you take them seriously. They didn't mean it. Only conservatives can be intentionally mean.

Hey liberal: didn't mean it how? Did you think that your jeering would convince me that your viewpoint is correct? The American form of jeering resembles a high school rivalry between the in group and the hopeless dweebs, whereas the older European form is covered over with a more tired, languid sentimentality, as if to suggest a higher level of acquaintance with the subject than their opponents have, a greater sophistication. It is more supercilious. The more education one can acquire, the more one's jeering takes on this pseudo-elevated character.

"How well God must like you--you don't hang out at Sin Saloon, you don't slink along Dead-End Road, you don't go to SMART-MOUTH COLLEGE."

Psalm 1:1 THE MESSAGE version

Yeah there are as I said before TOO MANY smart-mouth colleges. I should know. I went to one. It took me many years to unlearn what I picked up there. Except for my degree, which allowed me to apply for work in a big US corporation, my smart-mouth college education profited me nothing.

I wanted to let Brad know that I was born raised and educated in the San Francisco Bay Area. I used to be a leftist too. I did plenty of jeering myself. I knew it worked when I got whole crowds of people who heard me jeer to laugh the poor conservative sap to scorn. I'm deeply ashamed of myself now and realize what an insufferable and worthless smug little ass I then was. It was just lucky that experience and a little more rigorous study of economics and finance opened my eyes and I began to recognize that I as long as I retained my liberal ideas I was in league with Fascists and that's what most ultra-liberals really are. They may not know it but what they really believe has more in common with Benito Mussolini than ... John Kennedy, perhaps the last real American liberal. I left residing in California 20 years ago and have no intention of ever living there again (the rest of my family has left too), not at least until real liberals are restored to power. When that day happens, if ever, they will have quite a mess to clean up. I predicted that it would get bad there. I understand how Brad feels. Step out of line there and you might be jailed. It's really turned Fascist there. Remember folks, a liberal is someone who lets you do whatever you want as long as you get their permission first. Put another way, since there is no fundamental logic to determining right from wrong, Larry's water analogy which I liked quite a lot, the only decision that is honored is the one arrived at by arbitrary rules of permissibility, put another way political might makes right. This is not civilization but a new barbarism; leftist liberalism = fascism.

 Quote:
Originally posted by mrenaud:
Larry: I don't know about American terminology, but it looks to me that you're describing a common deep-red socialist rather than a liberal. But then again, we probably use different terminology.[/b]
I second gryphon, to me they are one and the same. I'll even add that the real dyed in the wool red liberal socialist really wants the US and all nations to give up their sovereignty to the UN which they would hope to control. One reason they are so furious with President Bush is that he has single handedly set their program back perhaps indefinitely.

 Quote:
Originally posted by benedict:
Everybody feels first and thinks afterwards on many important occasions. Feeling means a lot : it means as much emotion as sensitivity as intuition. The important thing is to find resonance between feeling and thinking. Both dancing together are a grace.[/b]
I'd even say that everyone feels first then thinks about it, if they need to. Not all life's concerns require much thinking at all. But this does not change the fundamental distinction Larry is making. And I doubt that Larry's "feelings," reactions to what are commonly called liberal ideas are based on paranoia as much as on repugnance. Liberal ideologues don't scare me, they make me sick and occasionally pretty angry. Remember folks, I once was a liberal and I know what they really want and how they think. They see themselves as revolutionaries destined to change the world to their own liking despite their notable disregard for learning why the world as it is constructed really works. They claim to care for people, especially the poor, but they'd rather tear up someone's life with big government regulations and leave them helpless than give them a personal helping hand. It is only the liberal (fascist) mind that considers itself above the level of "the masses." To the true conservative there are no masses only individuals.

To ksk: my grandfather was from Sweden and my mother was raised there and he felt about Sweden about how I feel about California. Using your black man in Texas analogy, I have heard it said (by a friend who works in a Swedish consulate here) that a German accused of a crime in Sweden, let's say murder, wouldn't stand a chance there before an all Swedish jury whether he was innocent or not. Low crime rate there? How about the high suicide rate? Blame it on the weather? Or is it true that the Swedish system really saps people of their initiative therefore giving them little to hope for; a perfect life as long as you agree to someone else's rules, otherwise a prison of artificial fairness. The problem with Sweden is that you really can't live your own life how you want there. There is no individualism, only sameness. A utopian dream or nightmare. A real liberal would want as few rules as possible, again today's liberals are merely another order of fascists.

 Quote:
Originally posted by Lazy Pianist:
I don't believe there are any such things as a liberal tenets or conservative tenets that hold any weight or that can be applied to large groups of people. I particularly do not see them as having any validity when they are defined primarily in the political, as you have done, because in this country these terms have simply been co-opted by those with a political agenda in order to divide the society for the purpose of gaining votes.
Of course liberal and conservative tenets exists and can be used to characterize large groups of people. You just described one way, voting, in which these are applied to large numbers of people all the time. There are also polls, Nielson ratings, various public interest surveys attempting to determine the feasibility of various policy objectives or the popularity of various products. You cannot have it both ways, although that's also a liberal trait. Liberals support affirmative action, public education, abortion on demand, gun control, rent control, confiscatory taxation, especially for anyone they consider to be rich, which is anyone who makes more than $100K a year, the UN, the Kyoto treaty, anything that would diminish or destroy parental authority, pop psychology, homosexuality or even bisexuality as a responsible option, when will they champion the rights of pederasts? I've described the two kinds of societies the liberals and conservatives would each tend to create. I'd rather live in the Old West than in Orwell's 1984. But I'm not an elitist type who dreams of a powerful position in a militarist totalitarian slave society above the masses, as perhaps does Peter Arnet.

 Quote:
Originally posted by Lazy Pianist:
I personally find it far more educational and worthwhile to discuss what a specific person believes than to label them and place everyone into some sort of predefined box -- usually predefined by the person doing the labeling.
Are you really serious or disingenuous? Few liberals take much of anything a conservative says seriously. As soon as they do they realize that something is wrong with their own thinking and they change their mind. It falls hard on people to recognize that they have been brainwashed by the liberal new-speak of public education and the pundits of the liberal end of the Democrat party. I've been there. You too can change.

 Quote:
Originally posted by Lazy Pianist:
Feel free, Larry and others, to assume you can define someone's entire belief system as well as their means of developing that system based on what you read on here. I see no benefit in creating an "us" versus "them" mentality or to use such a basis in discussions.
Very well then, I am postulating the following; that there are for every person certain consciously held and subliminal tenets which influence their thinking and more importantly their reactions to social and political situations in their lives, discussions with others, etc. As a corollary, I'm suggesting that for purposes of statistical description (polling, etc.) these individuals can be collected into what Theodore Lowi called "interest groups," and I'm further suggesting that these interest groups vie with each other in society in order to gain for themselves and their group what they assume to be social gains, "public goods," etc. Ideology, any ideology by definition, consists in defining a struggle between an "us" and a "them" and happens to be a powerful means of getting individuals to relinquish their interests for those of the group to which they belong. This is all fairly politically neutral basic sociology.

 Quote:
Originally posted by Lazy Pianist:
So, I will continue to see people as individuals, capable of defining themselves and capable of expressing themselves. I will also continue to assume that everyone on here if far more multi-faceted as human beings than what can be gleaned in this forum.
Indeed we are. But we are discussing distinctive tenets, things which people believe and cleave to as if they were basic truths. Larry listed what he believed were conservative tenets which persons who consider themselves conservative would subscribe to. Larry also made a second list of what he called Leftist philosophies which he personally rejected. This list carries with it the conservative alternatives:

Atheism and materialism or a belief in God and an extra-materialist explanation or spiritual basis to nature and life.

Racism and chauvinism or a belief that each individual's cultural group deserves respect and understanding, but that this doesn't mean that either all cultural groups and races should be scrambled together to obliterate distinctions nor that there can be any real protection against the natural extinction of primitive and non competitive cultures. Please note I did NOT say nor do I suggest that ANY races are in any sense non competitive.

Collectivism vs. individual liberty. That one's simple.

Secular humanism vs. either traditional religion or mysticism.

Deep ecology (is this a pseudo-religion?) vs. a scientific study of geologic history both here on earth and on our nearest neighbors.

Animal rights anti-humanism (this is so clearly foolish but...) vs. rational human progress and survival.

Relativism vs. rigorous moral ethics; laws. What has always been right will always be right, what has always been wrong will always be wrong.

Constructivism vs. Just throw it out. Historical analysis may produce any number of weird theories that pretend to be smart but say nothing. Real Carroll Quigley.

Subjectivism vs. How about Taoism, try to determine how nature informs each individual person of a plan by which they can live the best possible life.

Cultural determinism vs. a scientific inquiry into the laws of human nature, see rigorous moral ethics; laws above.

Nominalism, the ultimate cop out, vs. a set of aesthetic and moral criteria by which some form of meaningful absolute distinctions, however boring they turn out to be, may be determined.

Post-modernism vs. just living in the present. This term could only have been coined by an "intellectual" with his or her thumb up his half moon.

Scientism vs. practical knowledge, plain old dumb horse sense.

Empiricism vs. real investigation of paranormal reality, near death experiences, the power of prayer, etc.

Skepticism vs. Faith. As indicated elsewhere, I try to balance these off in my own life. There is nothing more beautiful than faith except maybe true love, but there is nothing as educational as doubt. Trouble is, many who call themselves skeptics aren't really skeptics, they just prefer a materialistic explanation to saying, "I don't know."

Utopianism vs. each person learning to live in and work with the world the way it is.

Positivism (another type of idealism, all idealism leads to evil) vs. a realistic appraisal of human nature acknowledging both good and bad.

Pessimism or cynicism vs. compassion for other people as individuals in their life situations and helping them where they are to help themselves.

Ethical dualism (never heard it called this before) vs. accepting each person as an individual capable of good or evil.

the occult, neo paganism, earth worship, and other so called "New Age" beliefs vs. the higher ethical religions. A digression here. I happen to be a student of ancient civilizations and as part of such of these occult, etc. belief systems. I recognize that many of them contain the echoes of ancient civilizations, but compared with the ethical religions both east and west which followed, they represent mere superstitions on one hand or dangerous mind control systems on the other. Few who follow these have any idea of the dreadful conditions in which people lived in these ancient civilizations both here in the Americas and in the Old World. We do not want to go back there. That is not a solution to our problems today.

Darwinism vs. I DON'T KNOW. I know of nothing so hotly defended by people who should know better than the theory of evolution. It has certainly done no service to science. In fact it has limited scientific outlook and should be discarded as unworkable. Read Richard Milton.

I separate myself from Larry only when he brings God into it. Without a separation between the mechanisms of government (the state) and the revelations of this or that ethical religion (church), there can be no freedom as we know it and I'm sure that all "old fashioned liberals" would agree.

Fundamentalists of all ilk's are dangerous. A fanatic is someone who can't change his/her mind and wont change the conversation. Without real discourse on the issues that can float naturally between state and church in a third place called society, that society cannot be free and individual initiative would be almost non-existent. Without that, you can't have any meaningful progress as innovation and invention requires it. Read Wilhelm Reich's Listen Little Man.

Enough, thank you all.
Posted by: Lazy Pianist

Re: Jolly, Jbryan, and Larry - 04/03/03 01:41 AM

 Quote:
Originally posted by David Burton:
Larry actually took you seriously. That was a mistake. You were only doing what liberals always do, JEER! Peter's reaction was to jeer too. As Larry correctly pointed out, all liberal jeers are not about ideas since they usually can't or won't argue effectively against them since in most cases there are no sensible arguments, they are PERSONAL. A conservative has hurt a liberal's feelings by pointing out the error of their ideas. The only sure response is to strike back with a smile. They try not to let anyone, including themselves, in on their real intent which is to KILL off all logical argument.

Again, those who identify themselves as liberals these days are almost always addicted to another feature of their characters which Larry left out; they JEER their opponents and believe jeering is not the same as being mean spirited when it is at least the same thing. Those who jeer others they regard as old fashioned, outmoded, uninformed or just plain wrong when faced down on their jeering quickly become angry and suggest that they didn't mean it. They were smiling or laughing when they said it, how can you take them seriously. They didn't mean it. Only conservatives can be intentionally mean. [/b]
I think I know what you are saying.

What I don't understand, though, is how you explain Rush Limbaugh -- if it is the "liberals" who jeer and the conservatives who do not.

If we want to hear jeering come from the more conservative side, perhaps someone should simply start a thread praising Hilary Clinton -- and see who jeers at that point.

As far as the rest of your post, David, I have the same criticism of yours as I did of Larry's. You have set up straw men and then have attacked them -- thinking you have proven some sort of point.

Both Larry and you have chosen to define the terms on your own grounds -- and define them in ways which can only lead to the conclusion you want to reach. You give these terms your own definitions -- and use very specific and carefully chosen words to nuance these definitions, making them appear to be reasonable, but in truth allowng you to dismiss outright anyone who would think what you have defined their thoughts are.

This is one of the means by which someone sets up a straw man. The person you condemn does not reflect who he really is, rather you have predefined him, then attacked him -- and basically leave it for him to defend himself as not being what you claim he is.

Both you and Larry choose to give a long list of attributes which you feel separate liberals from conservatives -- and then attack specific people as "liberals" clearly giving the impression that if the person is a liberal (as you define him) then he must agree with all of these positions who you have defined as what a liberal believes in.

This is another typical way of setting up a straw man. You explain what a type of person believes, then label someone as that type of person because he may accept one or two of those beliefs as if the person believes all them when in actuality is likely does not.

I will disagree with you as I did with Larry. I do not believe it is possible for either of you -- or anyone else -- to develop a list of tenets which defines every person who self-describes himself as a liberal. Nor do I think it is possible to give a list of tenets that describes every person who self describes himself as a conservative.

Since I suspect that most people share some of what you consider to be liberal views and some of what you consider conservative views -- most would not fall into either of the categories as either your or Larry deifne them.

I certainly don't, as I said in my response to Larry -- but you choose to call me a liberal, which allows you to dismiss my ideas because based on your own argument, the moment you have labeled me a liberal, you think you know ALL of my beliefs because you have predefined what they are -- even though on most of these issues you and Larry have defined as liberal you have never read my views.

Both of you are very quick to call someone a "liberal" leaving the impression that by applying that adjective to the person, you have now fully defined his entire belief system, his entire value system, how he makes decisions, what he thinks of any and all political and social policies, and a whole host of other aspects of him and his views.

In short -- yes, you both set up a straw man, one you can easily destroy because you have chosen the definitions and the words of what that straw man is. And once you label someone the same as you label the straw man, you can then dismiss him on that basis.

It is a great debating technique -- but not one that provides for any in depth or decent exchange of ideas -- because you and Larry have already prejudged what you think the other persons ideas are on every issue imaginable.

Of course, I expect what you and Larry will respond with is a challenge to me to prove I am NOT what you claim I and others are. This, to me, is a total waste of time. I would prefer to express myself as who I am rather than prove to you or anyone else who I am not.
Posted by: David Burton

Re: Jolly, Jbryan, and Larry - 04/03/03 02:08 AM

 Quote:
Originally posted by Bernard:
What is the agenda of many on the fundamentalist right? Two things come to mind immediately: persecution of homosexuals and the death penalty.[/b]
Thank-you Bernard.

These points are so important to me that I wanted to make sure that I was not misunderstood about them.

Homosexuality:

A religion may determine how it intends to govern itself as applied to the practice of homosexuality (church governance) however the state which must count among its citizens those who choose to practice homosexuality must protect their right to life liberty and the pursuit of happiness.

Where to draw the line? Simple. Civil law recognizes that children; minors, have a certain legal status which is intended to protect them from sexual predation of any kind. Pederasts are excluded from consideration. Homosexuals are not pederasts.

The Death Penalty:

The death penalty exists to satisfy society's requirement for justice in certain heinous capital cases, chiefly murder. The argument that the death penalty is not a deterrent to murder is an irrelevant concern. The rationale for the death penalty rests squarely and solely on paying the price for one's crime.

Concerning so many people put to death in Texas: Texas is a relatively wild place, as is New York. California is less wild than it used to be. Usually a state decides to adopt a more serious punishment when the society there believes that "enough is enough" and wants to make sure that those who decide to kill people will have to pay with their own lives. But Texas is a wild place, just ask any Texan.

Has it been misused or over-used? Of course. If it has been misused just once should it be ended? Whose fault is that? Some heinous crime takes place, the police goof up the investigation, the prosecution is inept, the judge is inept, the defendant is a member of a minority race considered persecuted, but the defendant is also a celebrity, the whole thing is televised, the defense is able to make the case, and nobody quite knows how, that the defendant cannot be convicted WITHOUT ABSOLUTE CERTAINTY; there must have been another explanation. That explanation is never developed. No further investigation has ever been attempted. Why? Because the first defendant has already been tried and can't be tried again for the same crime. So the crime went unpunished because there aren't any more defendants? The public gets more than irritated by this. It implies that some people can get away with murder. Note that there was no death penalty in play for this crime at the time, even though whoever did it made quite a bloody mess. Whoever did the crime deserved to pay for it, or else life is just as cheap or as expensive as a set of the best lawyers money can buy.

Think about it.
Posted by: David Burton

Re: Jolly, Jbryan, and Larry - 04/03/03 02:26 AM

 Quote:
Originally posted by JBryan:
 Quote:
George Bush (the first) was attacked for raising taxes and a couple of years later, Clinton did the same thing and was equally attacked. This led to the longest period of economic growth in American history. Clearly, economic growth was not stopped by the tax increase.
Anyone who honestly believes that tax increases create economic growth has no understanding of economics. The Bush tax increase was followed by a recession that was only beginning to end when Clinton took office. His tax increase was followed by two years of stagnant or lethargic growth and it wasn't until the Republicans took control of Congress, reformed welfare, cut spending and cut the capital gains rate (among other things) that the economy began to take off. However, I have repeated this over and over and so have many others and still the revisionists repeat this nonsense as though it was established fact.[/b]
I agree with Jbryan's analysis. It is of paramount importance that George Bush (the second) gets another tax cut in, and the best one would be a cut in capital gains rather than income. Remember folks it is far easier to get a job from a rich man than a poor man.
Posted by: David Burton

Re: Jolly, Jbryan, and Larry - 04/03/03 02:36 AM

 Quote:
Originally posted by benedict:
I would suggest putting him (Saddam) in the same cell as Milosevic.
I bet both of them would suffer more.
Two Stalinian dictators playing Mine is bigger than yours for decades.
I can't wait.[/b]
Excellent!

What a wonderful theme for a theatre of the absurd play!

Now where's the French playwright who would take this on?
Posted by: David Burton

Re: Jolly, Jbryan, and Larry - 04/03/03 04:16 AM

 Quote:
Originally posted by benedict:
I cannot believe what I just read (posted by lb).
I did not know that you still had that kind of integrist in the western world.
And George Bush is one of them ?
They are entitled to their opinions as are the materialists and logical positivists, but your outrage is not why I'm responding to your post.

 Quote:
Originally posted by benedict:
I am an atheist or rather an agnostic.
I have been in spiritual path for 35 years and I do think the Human Rights are the only moral law mankind needs.
Maybe, as I said, I am a student of ancient civilizations: I am more interested in our origins and in ancient history than in moral law, which if one thinks about it seriously, must be arrived at through logic and experience as well as divine revelations which appear in many more places than the Bible, and that too can be proved.

 Quote:
Originally posted by benedict:
But if you do not believe in the Bible, you do not have moral sense ?
What an insult to the intelligence and sensitivity of man !
What a lack of confidence in one's own ability to think and judge what one thinks / feels is right or wrong !
There is deep worry to have is this kind of fanatics has the right to buy guns and start wars.
You mean one just started a war ?
I didn't know.
Come on man, where have you been ?
You won't believe it : I have spend all the time I did not work on the most amusing and friendly of forums. \:D
Wait, I have not gotten there yet, but I shall. Is it any more fantastic to believe that in the scheme of things a man could conceive himself to be another Stalin, could brutalize and brainwash his own subjects into believing such impossible things about distant foes, could transgress the ultimate moral laws, such as to bring upon himself and his realm the irresistible retribution of GOD through this self same foe?

 Quote:
Originally posted by benedict:
Sorry lb, but I really think you should have brain surgery before it's too late.
I hate to see such selfrighteous unintelligent insulting opinions in a place where people are trying to improve their judgement and understanding.
I'm not surprised that such sentiments as lb's scare you. They scare me a little too though I'm more used to them and can counter them, and do, frequently enough. But belief is like a vice, and people will believe what they will believe.

There is a branch of fundamentalist Christianity that attempts to fix the time of the return of Christ (supposedly nobody is to know the exact date) and even tries to predict what he will do when he gets back here while a third and fourth sects battle each other over whether there will be a "rapture of the Church," the former group believing that true believers will be removed from the earth "in the twinkling of an eye" (the left behind series), while the other believes that we will have to survive a horrific tribulation period that shall see most people die, while those who are left alive will envy the dead. These people believe they must survive to greet the returning Christ as a faithful remnant. I have encountered members of the former group among Protestants only while there are members of the latter among both Catholics and Protestants.

I am aware that there is a very strong eschatological element within Islam too but I haven't studied it. Nor do I know much about the end times teachings in Hindu or Buddhist circles though I have heard they exist. I am more than concerned that these may be manipulated for political ends.

I am personally not particularly interested in all this stuff, just mentioning it because it is current among human beings on the earth at this time and it probably has some influence on human events.

But I do believe there is a higher dimension to it all, even if I can't figure out exactly what it is, who could? and it may not have anything to do with a particular religious path, matter of fact I'm pretty certain that it does not. the cycles of deep moral depravity followed by divine retribution or put another way nature countering itself, redressing its imbalances, seems to be beyond human confirmation. A Saddam would sooner or later bring about an anti-Saddam for his crimes were that great. The nemesis of Saddam may face an unpleasant reaction, perhaps from another direction; SARS. It is a divine drama yet to be played out? Perhaps. "It is the business of the future to be dangerous" Alfred North Whitehead (one of my favorites) or perhaps "may you live in interesting times" Ancient Chinese proverb, not considered a blessing.

Here it comes;

 Quote:
Originally posted by benedict:
You think I am pretty intolerant myself ?
That's right. WHEN I STIFLE, I HAVE TO KICK IN ALL DIRECTIONS. IT IS SUCH A HORRIBLE FEELING. Those same people who wanted Christ dead and asked the Americans (sorry, the Romans) to do the job shared your certainties and moral selfrighteousness. Your words are a crucifixion of the mind and spirit of man.
Amen. \:D
Emphasis mine! I have been there too many times, feels like I have high blood pressure, maybe I do. I take Ginko Biloba, garlic, lecithin, flax seed oil and am considering addition of COQ10. My heart and circulatory system are in good condition. I have had kidney stones, which landed me in hospital twice in 2001 for removal of one, passed the other. Very painful by the way, about as bad as it gets. Gone to doctors and had none since, been on a high calcium diet, seems counter intuitive, but knock on wood nothing since.

As for the moral selfrighteousness of some people, have you ever backed up and thought that people who did this were in a kind of imprisonment whereby they became divine pawns in a DIVINE game the likes of which you and I would be mere onlookers? They don't know they are enslaved or maybe they want to be.

I say DIVINE for lack of a better word for matters which are beyond common human understanding, but of which you clearly make reference; "Those same people who wanted Christ dead and asked the Americans (sorry, the Romans) to do the job shared your certainties and moral selfrighteousness. Your words are a crucifixion of the mind and spirit of man."

I played with a fable of Christ but it got too complex and I didn't think it made for very good reading. All I know is that there is a certain stiffness that can become physical when I feel too certain about anything and in order to avoid crucifixion of my mind and spirit I must blow it all away for a while.

I wonder if this is a common experience?
Posted by: benedict

Re: Jolly, Jbryan, and Larry - 04/03/03 04:36 AM

KlavierBauer
You are against this, because you are against the politics behind it. I am against this, because I cherish human life.[/b]

Does that mean you think I don't ?

I like you post very much.

Not being sure of the value of one's ideas, opinions, belief is IMHO the only sign of sanity that would give hope for a positive outcome.

The rest is going round and round in circles.
Posted by: benedict

Re: Jolly, Jbryan, and Larry - 04/03/03 04:50 AM

David Burton, I am more interested in our origins and in ancient history than in moral law, which if one thinks about it seriously, must be arrived at through logic and experience as well as divine revelations which appear in many more places than the Bible, and that too can be proved.[/b]

I study history more and more to try and understand how things came to be what they are in this young millenium.

Please show your proofs of divine revelations.

Do not forget though that hypnotism, trance and a few substances can give an individual or a group the absolute certainty of what they are experiencing.

There are thousands of such cases which are well documented by social scientists, ethnologists and even theologians.

In the Iranian revolution of 1979, all the people in Teheran saw Khomeiny's face in the sky. It certainly was a divine revelation ! \:D

Every day, the police and courts see how difficult to take what "witness" have seen and heard at face's value.

So, please, give us some evidence.

But no evidence like 9/11 was a conspiracy by the government or the genocide in the concentrations camps was a Jewish forgery.

I do not want to hurt your feelings and beliefs though.

I have no beef with beliefs. As long as they do not aim at a promotion as "truths".
Then, this unjustified promotion makes them reach their Peter's level of incompetence.

I don't mean Steinway, of course.
\:D
Posted by: benedict

Re: Jolly, Jbryan, and Larry - 04/03/03 04:52 AM

Rvaga,

I'm curious about your statement above, your interest in social manipulation via psychology (or is your interest more in productivity i.e., Taylor, Hawthorne Electric experiment, OK I'll include Maslow, etc.).[/b]

Could you explain what you mean by
"social manipulation via psychology" ?
Posted by: JBryan

Re: Jolly, Jbryan, and Larry - 04/03/03 08:12 AM

Re: "straw men",

Methinks LP doth protest too much.
Posted by: Lazy Pianist

Re: Jolly, Jbryan, and Larry - 04/03/03 10:26 AM

 Quote:
Originally posted by David Burton:


A religion may determine how it intends to govern itself as applied to the practice of homosexuality (church governance) however the state which must count among its citizens those who choose to practice homosexuality must protect their right to life liberty and the pursuit of happiness.
[/b]
Based on this, then, is it safe to assume, Mr. Burton, that you support civil marriage for homosexuals?
Posted by: Jolly

Re: Jolly, Jbryan, and Larry - 04/03/03 10:54 AM

We've been there, done that, and all have T-shirts.

Homosexuality can be a rancorous discussion, and I'd just as soon not go there. If ya'll want to discuss it, let me tactfully suggest starting a thread of its' own.
Posted by: Lazy Pianist

Re: Jolly, Jbryan, and Larry - 04/03/03 11:11 AM

 Quote:
Originally posted by Jolly:
Homosexuality can be a rancorous discussion....[/b]
Only among those who choose to impose their moral condemnations on others and want the government to act on their behalf. For those who do not, it is not a rancorous discussion.
Posted by: Jolly

Re: Jolly, Jbryan, and Larry - 04/03/03 11:26 AM

People have complained about the tone of the board. Sometimes I understand their viewpoint.

Then again, there are some people you just cannot be nice to.
Posted by: gryphon

Re: Jolly, Jbryan, and Larry - 04/03/03 11:31 AM

 Quote:
Originally posted by KlavierBauer:
Guns aren't evil, I own several of them. But I shoot them at targets. I can't think of a situation where I would shoot a person, accept in defense of another possibly.
But you don't see that as what the US is doing in Iraq right now I take it. If you think we've gone there to take over their oil fields and plunder their resources or something then I am not surprised at your reactions toward the war.
 Quote:
In my post, I stated (I thought) several times that I understood what was going on. I understand that we are liberating someone, or at are trying to.
No, that is NOT our primary reason for being there. If it was we would've done this prior to 9/11. I simply do not see why this is so hard to understand.
 Quote:
gryphon: So if I can show you that more people will be killed if we do not oust Saddam's regime than if we do, will you be for the war?

Of course not. A statement like that indicates that you either don't take my first statement seriously, or didn't understand it.
On the contrary, I take your statement seriously and at face value. You are against the taking of all human life. I merely proposed a scenario: if someone were to say to you that if you do nothing, 1,000 people will die. If on the other hand you choose action #1, 100 people will die. What would you choose? You cannot say you will choose neither because that in itself is a choice, and 1,000 people will die. Ugly situation to be in? You bet. But life is not television that you can just turn off and walk away from. Every choice and action has consequences.
 Quote:
As much as these people may or may not hate Hussein, they are certainly scared to death of us
Again, I differ with your statement. For proof I offer this: if you watch news coverage from any channel (even just news pool TV cameras mounted on rooftops in Baghdad) or even Al Jezeera you will see Iraqis driving around town and going about their business. They haven't fled Baghdad. It is as if they know we're not indiscriminantly bombing, isn't it? They see the very precise strikes against military targets. If you see the masses of people clustered around our troops giving out water and food because Saddam has used clean water and food as weapons against his own people you will see they don't seem to be afraid of us. If you see civilians lined up on the streets watching us as we roll towards Baghdad, many giving us the V and thubs-up it doesn't appear that they are afraid of us. (The thumbs-up amuses me because I understand that in Iraq that is asign of disrespect). But in any event they aren't afraid. If anything, they are cautious and wary because they may yet not be convinced that we won't pull out and leave them to Saddam's retribution and revenge, and that I can understand.
 Quote:
People's souls are at stake here. Plain and simple. Lives are lost, and if you believe there is anything more to our bodies than a chance allocation of molecules, then you have to see the incredible weight of this situation.
A truer statement has not been spoken. I agree 100%. Again, I believe this war is about the elimination of terrorists and those who support terrorism first and foremost. You do not. I don't know what will get either of us to change our minds except possibly some big event that flies in the face of our beliefs.
Posted by: benedict

Re: Jolly, Jbryan, and Larry - 04/03/03 11:35 AM

SECURITY vs COMPASSION.

No dialogue, no hope.
Posted by: gryphon

Re: Jolly, Jbryan, and Larry - 04/03/03 01:11 PM

 Quote:
Originally posted by benedict:
No dialogue, no hope.[/b]
Ah, my friend...but what do we do when dialogue fails?
Posted by: benedict

Re: Jolly, Jbryan, and Larry - 04/03/03 01:27 PM

What do we do ?

First we take Baghdad.
Then we free the Iraki people.
Then we make it clear that promoting hatred for America will have consequences.
Then we put an end to that unending conflict in Palestinia/Israel.

Then, then, we take some vacation and concentrate on music.
\:\)
Posted by: DT

Re: Jolly, Jbryan, and Larry - 04/03/03 02:42 PM

 Quote:
Originally posted by Lazy Pianist:
 Quote:
Originally posted by Jolly:
Homosexuality can be a rancorous discussion....[/b]
Only among those who choose to impose their moral condemnations on others and want the government to act on their behalf. For those who do not, it is not a rancorous discussion.[/b]
Or, perhaps, Only among those who choose to impose their lack of morals on others and want the government to act on tehir behalf.

Two viewpoints on the same matter with about the same amount of contempt for the other view. That's what makes the discussion rancorous.

btw I don't have dog in this fight. I'm merely pointing out that there can be a diversity of viewpoints rather than making a short-sighted divisive comment....for a change. ;\)
Posted by: David Burton

Re: Jolly, Jbryan, and Larry - 04/03/03 03:54 PM

A few points:

 Quote:
Originally posted by Lazy Pianist:
What I don't understand, though, is how you explain Rush Limbaugh -- if it is the "liberals" who jeer and the conservatives who do not.
Rush Limbaugh became the leader of the pack when he stood up and said, I will not take the jeers of the liberal establishment without retaliating. And many others followed suit. We who had been made to feel that our loyalty to our homes, families, God and country were all suspect and worthy of jeering stood up and began to throw mud back ourselves. And most liberal spokesmen are easy targets. What began as an insurrection against social engineering and all the rest of their new-speak has become an open battle for the future of intellectual life in this country and throughout the world. Communism, scoialism, Gramschianism, etc. are all discredited, whereas rugged individualism, taking initiative, freedom to be, do, think and act within limited easily understood rules of conduct are all ideas that are in the ascendancy and have been since the early 80's.

To answer you, conservatives are jeering and MORE back at liberals. We aren't taking it anymore. We want our country, our homes and our lives back, and we want our philosophy and view of the world to triumph over the traditional liberal model.

Concerning "straw men." If you deny that Larry's list of Leftist philosophies are not believed by anybody then yes we are both setting up straw men and this discussion is more than pointless. Unfortunately it is possible to find whole bookshelves in Borders, Barnes & Noble and just about every university bookstore full of many books on these philosophies. I trust these were written and published by somebody. There are countless professors "teaching" this stuff too. These are not straw men, or women. They make a living pushing these ideas, infecting the brains of the young with their useless poison. Remember I was poisoned too. I went to BERKELEY for God's sake! OK? Don't tell me that conservatives like Larry and I are setting up mere straw men. These are real people who spout these ideas. We are not against the people per se, after all anyone can be deluded. It is the IDEAS that we despise.

 Quote:
Originally posted by Lazy Pianist:
 Quote:
Originally posted by David Burton:


A religion may determine how it intends to govern itself as applied to the practice of homosexuality (church governance) however the state which must count among its citizens those who choose to practice homosexuality must protect their right to life liberty and the pursuit of happiness.
[/b]
Based on this, then, is it safe to assume, Mr. Burton, that you support civil marriage for homosexuals?[/b]
I'm going with Jolly on this. If there is anyone who wants to discuss this issue, let's do another thread about it. I have reasonable and compassionate ideas that should satisfy everybody.

Benedict asked me to prove divine revelations. I said, as quoted by benedict: "I am more interested in our origins and in ancient history than in moral law, which if one thinks about it seriously, must be arrived at through logic and experience, as well as divine revelations which appear in many more places than the Bible, and that too can be proved."

Within the present materialist only basis of science, it is impossible to prove that anything anyone comes up with is the result of divine revelation. What I meant to say was that, " divine revelations, or what are claimed to be same, appear in many more places than the Bible, and that too can be proved." And this is easy. Most Christians don't know that the Koran is claimed to be delivered to Mohammed (PBUH), who was supposedly an illiterate, by the Archangel Gabriel. The "creation hymn" that makes up the first part of the book of Genesis is lifted, almost verbatim, from the Enuma Elish of the Sumerians. In fact our version has been abridged. In the original which is far older than our Bible it says, "In the beginning, the GODS created the heavens and the earth."

This has been a very interesting discussion. Thanks to all who have contributed. But I think it's time to move on.
Posted by: Larry

Re: Jolly, Jbryan, and Larry - 04/03/03 04:06 PM

 Quote:
What do we do ?

First we take Baghdad.
Then we free the Iraki people.
Then we make it clear that promoting hatred for America will have consequences.
Then we put an end to that unending conflict in Palestinia/Israel.

Then, then, we take some vacation and concentrate on music.
[/b]

Then Benedict, we have a nice visit over wine and cheese in a little outside cafe in Paris, and after we have done our part to bring our people together, I will go off and shave a few women......

Trust me.... I'll do my part to improve US/French relations...... \:D ;\) :p
Posted by: Larry

Re: Jolly, Jbryan, and Larry - 04/03/03 04:20 PM

David,

Lazy Pianist keeps referring to what I say as "straw men" because he isn't smart enough to debate the points. In fact, he doesn't even understand the meaning of most of them. His interest is not in finding truth, it is in pushing his agenda - a blame America Leftist viewpoint that is riddled with failed ideas and dogma. In my opinion, he has proven himself to be a traitor, anti-american, and not worth the time it takes to rebut. He is, in the purest sense of the word, a fanatic extremist.
Posted by: bcarey

Re: Jolly, Jbryan, and Larry - 04/03/03 04:24 PM

I really haven't participated a lot, but read with keen interest the posts in this thread. At least in the last several pages, I have found some very good writing, some very good discussion, civility, and excellent insight into everyone's read on what's happening in our world today.

This thread just might be an example of how people on this forum who at times have diametrically opposing viewpoints can moderate this forum themselves.

Maybe we have all learned a thing or two? ;\)
Posted by: Lazy Pianist

Re: Jolly, Jbryan, and Larry - 04/03/03 04:26 PM

 Quote:
Originally posted by David Burton:

To answer you, conservatives are jeering and MORE back at liberals. We aren't taking it anymore. We want our country, our homes and our lives back, and we want our philosophy and view of the world to triumph over the traditional liberal model.[/b]
So then your statement that liberals jeer while conservatives think real thoughts really was not accurate. In reality, today liberals and conservatives are jeering.

It's just that conservatives jeer because of their higher values whereas liberals jeer because they are too confused to do anything else.

Thanks for clearing that up.

 Quote:

Concerning "straw men." If you deny that Larry's list of Leftist philosophies are not believed by anybody then yes we are both setting up straw men and this discussion is more than pointless. Unfortunately it is possible to find whole bookshelves in Borders, Barnes & Noble and just about every university bookstore full of many books on these philosophies. I trust these were written and published by somebody[/b]
I never said that no one believes them. I said that to define those as liberal ideas -- easily dismissed because of the way you phrase them -- and then call somene a liberal, I can only assume you are saying that person holds all or most of those views.

I guess I am confused. You seem to be saying that when you, Larry and others address someone whose views you do not completely know as a "liberal", using a perjorative tone, since you really don't know all of that persons views, you are simply referring to those who write these books at Barnes and Noble?

Or are you in fact trying to link that person with these unnamed authors you, the ones you yourselves have defined as unacceptable because of the way you have explained what they think and believe -- trying to define the person you are talking to in a way that makes it very easy for you to dismiss what he says? In short, having set up a predefined straw man based on ideas you don't like from authors of books and claiming that person is such a man?

I would appreciate it if you would explain this to me. Just what are you attempting to do when you call someone a liberal?

And explain to me why it is important to you to label people? I understand why it is done in partisan politics; it provides a short hand way of obfuscating someone's views for the purpose of getting someone to vote against them (or for them).

But I am at a loss as to why you all feel it necessary to do so in a forum like this. Why do you and Larry (and others) feel it is necessary to label people in a forum such as this? What does labeling people accomplish here -- unless it is also a short hand way of dismissing people's ideas?
Posted by: Lazy Pianist

Re: Jolly, Jbryan, and Larry - 04/03/03 04:29 PM

 Quote:
Originally posted by Larry:
David,

Lazy Pianist keeps referring to what I say as "straw men" because he isn't smart enough to debate the points. In fact, he doesn't even understand the meaning of most of them. His interest is not in finding truth, it is in pushing his agenda - a blame America Leftist viewpoint that is riddled with failed ideas and dogma. In my opinion, he has proven himself to be a traitor, anti-american, and not worth the time it takes to rebut. He is, in the purest sense of the word, a fanatic extremist.[/b]
ROTFL!!!!!!!!!!!!

You know, Larry, you often say that people can't tell when you are joking. But I really do like your sense of humor. This is really funny!
Posted by: Larry

Re: Jolly, Jbryan, and Larry - 04/03/03 06:47 PM

Glad you got a kick out of it.... :rolleyes:

I hear that Saddam is doing a standup routine at the Comedy Club - want me to call and make you a reservation?
Posted by: Bernard

Re: Jolly, Jbryan, and Larry - 04/03/03 08:33 PM

Hi, David. Long time no see, probably because I don't get to the piano forum much any more.

 Quote:
To answer you, conservatives are jeering and MORE back at liberals. We aren't taking it anymore. We want our country, our homes and our lives back, and we want our philosophy and view of the world to triumph over the traditional liberal model.
I want to know if what follows is the sort of thing you are talking about, or are the people who pushed for this extemists on the conservative side? Is this mainstream conservatism? Is it something I should be worried about? Because frankly, it scares me and makes me think there isn't very much that separates people who think like this from the radical fundamentalists we see in parts of the middle east.

I would put the link to the article here, but the NYTimes requires people to be registered, so I'll post the relevancies. (The whole article is here if you are registered and want to see it, it is short: http://www.nytimes.com/aponline/national/AP-Living-Together.html )

To summarize:

Bismarck, N.D.--The state Senate has voted to keep a 113-year old law that makes it a crime for unmarried couples to live together.

A proposal to repeal the law was defeated 26-21. The offense carries a max of 30 days in jail and a $1000 fine.

"It stands as a reminder that there is a right, and there is wrong," said Sen. Jahn Andrist, a Republican, "Just because something can't be enforced, I don't think it necessarily means that we should feel compelled to take a position to take it off the books."

The law refers only to one person living with another of the opposite sex.
Posted by: TomK

Re: Jolly, Jbryan, and Larry - 04/03/03 08:43 PM

 Quote:
Posted by David B: Rush Limbaugh became the leader of the pack when he stood up and said, I will not take the jeers of the liberal establishment without retaliating.[/b]
It really all began with William F. Buckley. He was the true genius that started it all.

He was the seminal political (and to and extent: sociological, intellectual and religious,) influence in my life.
Posted by: apple*

Re: Jolly, Jbryan, and Larry - 04/03/03 08:58 PM

 Quote:
Originally posted by Lazy Pianist:
[QB]
And explain to me why it is important to you to label people? I understand why it is done in partisan politics; it provides a short hand way of obfuscating someone's views for the purpose of getting someone to vote against them (or for them).

But I am at a loss as to why you all feel it necessary to do so in a forum like this. Why do you and Larry (and others) feel it is necessary to label people in a forum such as this? QB]
A long time ago when unions first formed, there was a need to protect worker's rights. Now 1/2 of America (just a guess) is an involuntary subscriber to political ideology. If you go to the AFL-CIO website, it describes the political agenda to which its members adhere; members who pay a voting bloc to insure continued employment. Reporters, actors, steel workers,educators, carpenters, hotel workers and others are members of the huge list of occupations which have their political views dictated. This voting bloc which is aligned with government workers, special interest groups, minorities, news producing organizations is self perpetuating. Tax dollars raised by these groups are used to insure their survival.

On the AFL-CIO website there is a whole drop down menu entitled "Bush Watch". A huge group of people are spoon fed this political gimme pap and think in a certain mindset, and one of the current mindsets is anti-war anti-Bush, pacifist.

When there is something as earth shattering as a war defined by partisan politics, I think it's important (at least to me) to understand WHY people hold certain views especially in discussion.
Posted by: gryphon

Re: Jolly, Jbryan, and Larry - 04/03/03 09:17 PM

 Quote:
Originally posted by KlavierBauer:
Guns aren't evil, I own several of them.
As do I. In fact I would very much enjoy a separate thread about them. We could post pictures, what we practice, etc. I have thought about starting such a thread, but alas, I fear it wouldn't do well here in the Kaffeezimmer. Still, perhaps I can be persuaded. By the way, the raison d'etre for this post is to follow up on points you did not address. Perhaps you overlooked them, perhaps you didn't want to. In the latter event, I won't keep bringing them up after this.

In re the blanket statements about the French. Many, in fact apparently the majority of French wish the US to do poorly, even lose the war to a regime that tortures children to force their parents to cooperate with them, has engaged in genocide, and has committed acts of terrorism as well as invited and harbored terrorists. In addition, there is no French public outrage against Chirac for going against this action. They would rather see America "learn a lesson" than rid the world of an evil regime that witnesses can't adequately find the words to describe. So please tell me what is disingenuous about making "blanket" statements about the French? It seems to me I am actually portraying them pretty damn accurately. You've also failed to address my point that I think your assertion that we all have the same wants and desires for our lives is wrong, but we'll skip over that.

You made the assertion that we were using evil against evil. I asked you three simple questions: How do you stop evil? Is it evil to oppose evil? Or rather is it honorable? You failed to address the entire topic that you initially raised. I also asked if you suggested that we do nothing. Again, you had no response.
 Quote:
It's the motives of their bosses that I question
So if you do not believe that terrorism is the reason, then what do YOU think IS the reason? This is a question I have asked repeatedly from several on this forum, and no one, not a single person has answered it, although they all firmly believe that our stated purpose is a lie.
Posted by: gryphon

Re: Jolly, Jbryan, and Larry - 04/03/03 09:33 PM

 Quote:
Originally posted by TomK:
It really all began with William F. Buckley.[/b]
From 2 days ago.
Posted by: JBryan

Re: Jolly, Jbryan, and Larry - 04/03/03 09:41 PM

 Quote:
Originally posted by TomK:
 Quote:
Posted by David B: Rush Limbaugh became the leader of the pack when he stood up and said, I will not take the jeers of the liberal establishment without retaliating.[/b]
It really all began with William F. Buckley. He was the true genius that started it all.

He was the seminal political (and to and extent: sociological, intellectual and religious,) influence in my life.[/b]
Same here and WFB could hardly be accused of simply "jeering" although he can be quite penetrating.

"I would rather be governed by the first one hundred names in the Boston phone book than the entire faculty of Harvard". William F. Buckley
Posted by: gryphon

Re: Jolly, Jbryan, and Larry - 04/03/03 09:44 PM

 Quote:
Originally posted by apple:
...an involuntary subscriber to political ideology. If you go to the AFL-CIO website, it describes the political agenda to which its members adhere; members who pay a voting bloc to insure continued employment...I think it's important to understand WHY people hold certain views especially in discussion.[/b]
Good point, Apple. I employ the construction trades for a Fortune 100 company (electricians, millwrights, pipefitters, etc.) and I have become friends with them over long and repeated projects. I typically hear things like they are against many or even most of the viewpoints the Democrats espouse (gun control being among one of the hot topics in Michigan) but they don't want to vote against their union. Many people don't realize that for these people, they "really" work for their unions, not for the contractor who comes and goes from job to job. And actually your union membership pecentage in the US is high, but your point is very valid and accurate.
Posted by: Bernard

Re: Jolly, Jbryan, and Larry - 04/03/03 10:11 PM

I belonged to a union many years ago and would much prefer (as things stand now) to bargain for myself, thank you very much. I always did much better on my own than as part of a group!

It's very sad but true that many people allow others to do their thinking for them. The union example you gave is one case, another is the hordes taking directions from Pat Robertson and Jerry Falwell, etc.
Posted by: PianoPop

Re: Jolly, Jbryan, and Larry - 04/03/03 10:36 PM

The union example you gave is one case, another is the hordes taking directions from the radical left.
Posted by: Jolly

Re: Jolly, Jbryan, and Larry - 04/03/03 10:37 PM

 Quote:
Originally posted by Bernard:
The union example you gave is one case, another is the hordes taking directions from Pat Robertson and Jerry Falwell, etc.[/b]
Big difference here. Whether you are a local journeyman, or a "traveler" booming, the union hall controls who gets to "drop their brass" on any given job.

And if you don't think there are economic ways(and other less subtle persuasions) to make union members vote the way you want them to, I've got this ocean front property in Arizona I'll sell for a song, and let you hum the tune yourself.

Neither Falwell, nor Robertson, can wield anything approaching that type of power.
Posted by: .rvaga*

Re: Jolly, Jbryan, and Larry - 04/04/03 01:05 AM

I was a union "officer" for the American Federation of Teachers, a member of the collective bargaining unit as well for our university.

I was constantly going to seminars, union procedure classes, conferences, etc.

My summation:

I have never been surrounded by such a huge group of politically correct sheep, following along blindly, avoiding discussions on any subject other than promoting the union for continual growth and political influence (we of course had paid lobbyists at the state level, as well as in Washington).

I held out for 3 years, definitely becoming known as a black sheep, and finally stepped down (and out).

Unions are a wonderful concept. But in education (can't speak for other areas of labor), they became left-wing political organizations far removed from the original intent.

The same social engineers that have become the leadership of the education unions over the past 20 years are also the exact same people involved in government committees designing the "new" curriculum movements in public school education (began with Bush Sr., or back to LBJ, depending on how you look at it).

Oh well, already going way off-topic. . .
Posted by: KlavierBauer

Re: Jolly, Jbryan, and Larry - 04/04/03 01:53 AM

Gryphon, sorry, I've been busy. also, sometimes I don't respond to every point, as I just begin typing, then end when I feel I've wasted enough of everyone's time. \:\)

 Quote:
So please tell me what is disingenuous about making "blanket" statements about the French? It seems to me I am actually portraying them pretty damn accurately.
Well, as I'm sure you know from the Piano Forum, I keep many international relations. People that I know in both France and Germany have their own unique opinions on this situation, as do we. Just as you can't say that every American hates every Iraqi, so can you not say that France does or does not believe one thing or another. I understand that maybe I'm getting too technical. But maybe it's better to say "most French" or... "from what I've been told, most french believe..."

 Quote:
You've also failed to address my point that I think your assertion that we all have the same wants and desires for our lives is wrong, but we'll skip over that
you mentioned earlier that you thought this was wrong and I saw no need to respond. It's a silly point to discuss, and there's no need to turn it into a fight.

 Quote:
I asked you three simple questions: How do you stop evil? Is it evil to oppose evil? Or rather is it honorable? You failed to address the entire topic that you initially raised. I also asked if you suggested that we do nothing. Again, you had no response.
I don't claim to know how to stop evil. But I personally don't believe that war is the best way to do it. It might be necessary now that we are neck deep in it. But I don't think it's the best way to resolve the conflict. And no, I don't know what the best way is... I'm just an un-intelligent piano tuner.
No it is certainly not evil to oppose evil. Clearly you want me to say something that will give you a spring board to dive off on. Obviously as a rational person who is opposing evil, I won't think that the opposition of evil is inherently evil... (duh)

Is it honorable? Certainly, if done in an honorable fashion.
No I am not suggesting that we do nothing. I have already suggested that we are facing the inevitable consequences to choices we have made over the last couple decades. I have already said that had we handled things differently in the past, and with different motives, then possibly this could've all been avoided.

 Quote:
So if you do not believe that terrorism is the reason, then what do YOU think IS the reason? This is a question I have asked repeatedly from several on this forum, and no one, not a single person has answered it, although they all firmly believe that our stated purpose is a lie.
I think Terrorism is part of the reason. It's hard to think that terrorism is the only reason, when there are much more severe cases of terrorism taking place in other parts of the world, and by nations who represent a threat to us here in the U.S. Certainly Saddam doesn't have the capability to do anything to us from Iraq, and we already know there's virtually nothing we can do against terrorist attacks. So there has to be another reason. In fact, there are most likely a host of other reasons that lead to the decision to take this route.

 Quote:
quote:
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Originally posted by KlavierBauer:
Guns aren't evil, I own several of them. But I shoot them at targets. I can't think of a situation where I would shoot a person, accept in defense of another possibly.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

But you don't see that as what the US is doing in Iraq right now I take it. If you think we've gone there to take over their oil fields and plunder their resources or something then I am not surprised at your reactions toward the war.
My next sentence I believe stated that I understood the defense part of it. I apologize if I didn't state that clearly, but that was the inspiration for the statement.

 Quote:
No, that is NOT our primary reason for being there. If it was we would've done this prior to 9/11. I simply do not see why this is so hard to understand
If our primary reason is not freedom and liberation, than our military is lying to us. If that's the case, why would I trust everything they say? Operation Iraqi Freedom implies that this conflict is born of a want to free the Iraqis. What then is our primary reason?

 Quote:
On the contrary, I take your statement seriously and at face value. You are against the taking of all human life. I merely proposed a scenario: if someone were to say to you that if you do nothing, 1,000 people will die. If on the other hand you choose action #1, 100 people will die. What would you choose? You cannot say you will choose neither because that in itself is a choice, and 1,000 people will die. Ugly situation to be in? You bet. But life is not television that you can just turn off and walk away from. Every choice and action has consequences.
I agree... I guess that part of my point would be that there is always another option. I'm not saying that this is always the case, but certainly you can always try to not choose the option in which people lose their lives.

 Quote:
Again, I differ with your statement. For proof I offer this: if you watch news coverage from any channel (even just news pool TV cameras mounted on rooftops in Baghdad) or even Al Jezeera you will see Iraqis driving around town and going about their business. They haven't fled Baghdad.
Of course they haven't fled! They watched the TV last night and saw citizens being mowed down by gunfire fleeing Bashrah. Besides that, there's an invading army on three sides of their city.. what do you mean they're not fleeing. First off, I'm sure there's a lot going on there that we don't know about, even with the stunning reportage of such men of integrity as Geraldo Riverra and others. I don't personally know what the Iraqis in Baghdad are being told. I doin't know what lines they've been fed... I don't even know at this point what lines I'VE been fed. But it should be pretty obvious that they're scared... we're invading their country. This is a completely different culture from ours, one based in fundamental Islam. A structure of law which follows strict rules, and a clear line of command. How can we come in as agressors, and expect them to believe that after we win their country fair and square, we're just going to turn around and hand it over to them?

You and I might know that we have absolutely nothing to gain by the occupation of Iraq, and are clearly going to set them up with a wonderful government, but how can we expect them to believe that from the nation occupying them? (ok, some of the last sentence was a bit sarcastic.. I apologize).

 Quote:
A truer statement has not been spoken. I agree 100%. Again, I believe this war is about the elimination of terrorists and those who support terrorism first and foremost. You do not. I don't know what will get either of us to change our minds except possibly some big event that flies in the face of our beliefs.
I agree with you as well. And I want to be clear, that I am not clearly against this, and haven't said that I don't believe that this fight is against terrorism. Rather I am questioning it. I think of it as my responsibility to question things before I buy them. I'm a Christian, but not because I grew up as one, rather because I questioned my faith, and have had real life experience which have made things clear for me. This is much the same. I'm simply waiting for things to become clear, and frankly, many of the things you have said are helping in that process. Fundamentally, I believe with a lot of what you are saying. I apologize again for the long post though... had a lot to respond to. \:\)

KlavierBauer
Posted by: benedict

Re: Jolly, Jbryan, and Larry - 04/04/03 05:47 AM

KlavierBauer,
I understand that maybe I'm getting too technical. But maybe it's better to say "most French" or... "from what I've been told, most french believe..."[/b]

An excellent suggestion. It could be used to for the citizens of the USA or any country.

And with the opinion polls that are made everywhere, we could even be more accurate :

"35% of the French think that...."
"76 of the USA (funny there is not a word that designates the citizens of the USA. They prefer to call themselves Americans, like they own the continent. No US bashing intended \:\) )
"54 of the Iraki people..." Well we'll have to wait a bit for that kind of statistics.
Posted by: gryphon

Re: Jolly, Jbryan, and Larry - 04/04/03 10:21 AM

 Quote:
Originally posted by benedict:
They prefer to call themselves Americans, like they own the continent. [/b]
No, you are correct, or at least semi-correct. Although American is a valid definition of a US citizen, it also has other definitions and you have to be aware of your audience. Whenever I travel to Canada and the Canadian border guards ask me my citizenship, I *always* say "U.S." because sometimes they get pesky about using the term "American" and I don't need to sit in the shack for an hour while they tear apart my car. \:D
Posted by: JBryan

Re: Jolly, Jbryan, and Larry - 04/04/03 10:29 AM

"American" is somewhat imprecise if not egocentric but, as you have said, it is much less cumbersome than "United Statesian" (Etats Unisian?). The real tragedy is that the truly native Americans (or, at least, the ones who got here first) came to be identified with a country on an entirely different continent.
Posted by: benedict

Re: Jolly, Jbryan, and Larry - 04/04/03 10:30 AM

Although American is a valid definition of a US citizen,[/b]

You have to explain us why.

Something that is generally practiced does not IMO make it valid.

The definition by the Catholic Church of the Jews as "Murderers of Jesus" is not a valid definition either.

Words have a meaning and as far as I last checked, America is the sum of many countries.

This definition is abusive and sooner or later, it will have to be changed to something more specific, less arrogant and less insulting for your neighbours.
Posted by: benedict

Re: Jolly, Jbryan, and Larry - 04/04/03 10:37 AM

JBrryan,

Since Christopher Columbus thought he had reached India, I propose you call yourselve Indians.
Posted by: JBryan

Re: Jolly, Jbryan, and Larry - 04/04/03 10:40 AM

We prefer to be cowboys. \:D
Posted by: JBryan

Re: Jolly, Jbryan, and Larry - 04/04/03 10:47 AM

Seriously, you raise a valid issue and one with which I am keenly familiar having once worked for a Canadian company. Through that experience I developed a sort of reflexive aversion to referring to myself as an American as if, somehow, they were not.
Posted by: benedict

Re: Jolly, Jbryan, and Larry - 04/04/03 10:48 AM

So you are the United States Cowboys
Posted by: JBryan

Re: Jolly, Jbryan, and Larry - 04/04/03 10:50 AM

There are others who might chafe at that designation but I am okay with it.
Posted by: gryphon

Re: Jolly, Jbryan, and Larry - 04/04/03 10:51 AM

 Quote:
Originally posted by KlavierBauer:
No it is certainly not evil to oppose evil. Clearly you want me to say something that will give you a spring board to dive off on.
No, really I wasn't looking for an opening to jump down your throat, but you said we are using evil to stop evil, and I thought that was a pretty loaded statement (I don't agree defense of self or others is evil, even when you use force) and so asked what were *we* doing that is "evil" and how do you stop evil?
 Quote:
If our primary reason is not freedom and liberation, than our military is lying to us.
I believe our *primary* reason is the spread and use of terrorism. First, Bush said so. Second, you didn't see us plan to go there before 9/11, did you? Or anywhere else as benedict has pointed out.
 Quote:
Operation Iraqi Freedom implies that this conflict is born of a want to free the Iraqis. What then is our primary reason?
Stated above. Yes, the Iraqi people will be freed from Saddam. And that is a good thing. But you know what? I really don't know what the country will look like two years from now, and I am not naive enough to believe it will be perfect. I can see all the Muslim-ruled countries today and they are not places *I* want to live.

All I can say is the primary reason we're in Iraq right now is terrorism. We didn't go to Rwanda when hundreds of thousands were slaughtered. Other examples can be cited.

I can talk about music and piano and wine with benedict or anyone else, but truthfully when I think about the millions in France who openly state they want Saddam to win---Saddam, a man who tortures and murders children---just because they don't like the US and think we need to be "taught a lesson" I get very, very irate. It disgusts me so much that I keep pursuing it here, and perhaps I shouldn't.

I think I'd rather promote the "pay it forward" thread. Maybe when this is over my blood-pressure will come down. Regards...
Posted by: Matt G.

Re: Jolly, Jbryan, and Larry - 04/04/03 10:52 AM

Benedict,

Are you familiar with the fact that our neighbor to the south is officially "Los Estados Unidos Mexicanos" (The United Mexican States)? By your reasoning, we should not refer to its inhabitants as Mexicans. They should also be United Statesians, should they not? During the heyday of the USSR, its inhabitants were refered to as "Soviets", simply because of the unwieldiness of using a much longer "Union of Soviet Socialist Republicsite", and the fact that "Soviet" was the most salient of the words.

The point here is that the "United States" part of the name is descriptive, not nominative. Perhaps it is unfortunate that our forebears did not choose a more distinctive name. (I believe "Columbia" was kicked about a bit.) But we are not free to alter history, and "American" as an adjective is the de facto choice because of its salience.

The use of the term in no way is meant to imply that inhabitants of the USA deign themselves the masters of the American continents. No egotism is implied in our use of the term "American".
Posted by: gryphon

Re: Jolly, Jbryan, and Larry - 04/04/03 11:02 AM

 Quote:
Originally posted by benedict:
Although American is a valid definition of a US citizen,[/b]

You have to explain us why.
Why? I don't know why---it just is. I didn't make it up. Here, type the word "American" at dictionary.com and the first definition is:

1. Of or relating to the United States of America or its people, language, or culture.

Look it up in one of your French dictionaries. What is the first definition there? I suppose, as JBryan said, it's easier than saying United Statesian.
 Quote:
Something that is generally practiced does not IMO make it valid.
Ah, "IMO." I agree. IMO our language is being lost by stupid US citizens who can't speak it, but unfortunately the rules of spelling and grammar are changing to make things that were formerly "wrong" now acceptable. This really makes me mad, but what can I do?
Posted by: benedict

Re: Jolly, Jbryan, and Larry - 04/04/03 11:02 AM

No egotism at all, except that a few millions of your neighbours resent the abusiveness and arrogance.

I did not know Mexico was a continent.

United States Cowboys is really good.

Do not bother, one day, this issue will become important and will have to be settled in a peaceful and effective way. That is what globalization is for as well.

France will have to reconsider its national hymn :
"Qu'un sang impur abreuve nos sillons"
is not necessarily the definition of my countrie's essence.

I admit my raising unpleasant subjects can be irritating.

But I have had so many arguments about America and Americans, I feel I have to find a new name that is politically correct.

I like the idea of politically correct.
I feel every time we are respectful of other people's sensitivity, the One who bless America and who is so Akhbar smiles with relief and admiration.

\:D
Posted by: Matt G.

Re: Jolly, Jbryan, and Larry - 04/04/03 11:11 AM

 Quote:
Originally posted by benedict:
But I have had so many arguments about America and Americans, I feel I have to find a new name that is politically correct.[/b]
You are free to use whatever you wish. But until such time as the area now known as "The United States of America" is renamed, this quest is quixotic. Perhaps it would may you more comfortable to refer to us by our state names. You may call me an Illinoisian, JBryan an Oklahoman, Gryphon a Michigander (there are alternates), KB a Coloradan, etc. Perhaps we can get the UN to make a resolution to force the USA to change its name! \:D
Posted by: benedict

Re: Jolly, Jbryan, and Larry - 04/04/03 11:18 AM

OK, I am surrounded by Indians.

So, I'll let you call yourselves as you like and I'll call you as I like.

Have we got a deal there ?

Gryphon,
Cool down. You are going to explode yourself a coronary.

Things are moving quite positively in Irak. Relax and enjoy.

We do tend to project (psychologically, if not militarily) ourselves massively in this political situation.

We should keep our mental and emotional strength for things that are useful for our lives or for our countries but not just fight like mice that are trapped in a cage.
Posted by: KlavierBauer

Re: Jolly, Jbryan, and Larry - 04/04/03 11:39 AM

Gryphon:
In response to your response: I do buy for the most part that we are in this for terrorism right now. I think we have pretty much found a nice middle ground, and I think that we agree fundamentally on a lot of things here. I still have questions about our motives, but that's not going to change. I think we both agree that it should be done quickly, with minimal casualties.

I completely agree with you however, on your stance regarding the English language, and people getting all upset over the term American. The term European is used quite regularly, and they don't seem to mind it. It simply designates people as living on the continent of Europe.

What makes a Native American Native anyway? Life didn't start here, so at some point someone came in here who wasn't born here. How far do you have to go back to be considered native? 50 years? 100 years? 300 years?
A good friend of mine is from Zimbabwe, she is white ... how many people in this country argue with her when she calls herself an African? Her family colonized there over 300 years ago. As far back as she can trace her family, she is African.

Gryphon, I too am tired of lazy English speakers making up new terms, and rules instead of learning correct usage of the language. I would like to formally apologize for any time that I become one of the lazies in either my spelling, or in my grammar.
Thankfully I haven't seen atrocities such as "irregardless" on this board. Or the blatant misuse of the word "literally".

Anyway, I'd like to thank you for the discussion we've had, as it has opened my mind to a few things. I like to consider myself a fairly open minded person. I know that would make me sound like a liberal, but actually I'm mostly to the right on political issues. It's amazing to me that the left which claims to be so open minded, seems to be stuck in their ways to more of a degree than the right. Just an observation. Thanks again, and I think there are some that could learn that intelligent discussions can take place.

Now let's talk about guns! \:\)

KlavierBauer
Posted by: TomK

Re: Jolly, Jbryan, and Larry - 04/04/03 05:04 PM

 Quote:
Ah, "IMO." I agree. IMO our language is being lost by stupid US citizens who can't speak it, but unfortunately the rules of spelling and grammar are changing to make things that were formerly "wrong" now acceptable. This really makes me mad, but what can I do?[/b]
I disagree. The English language is evolving. True our schools, especially those run by the government, are doing a poor job, but all in all I think the American (English) language is holding up just fine. New words are being added, new insights are explained in understandable terms and science and the arts are finding no trouble in articulating their positions.

-------------As opposed to the French language. (And this is not a slur.) The French language is facing a certain death. Its growth has been stopped by laws that make it almost impossible to introduce new words and ideas into official usage and Americanisms are rampant. In fact there are so many Amercanisms in the French language, I think all of benedict's posts are written with a French vocabulary that has so many English words--we Americans can understand it quite well. (OK, a little slur.)

I'm pretty happy with the way things are going.
Posted by: David Burton

Re: Jolly, Jbryan, and Larry - 04/04/03 07:44 PM

Posted by: Steve Miller

Re: Jolly, Jbryan, and Larry - 04/05/03 01:42 AM

 Quote:
Originally posted by David Burton:

It doesn't matter if 99% of the people living in an area belong to the same church. They do not have a right to impose their rule on the 1% that doesn't agree with their rule. That's American democracy, an unbiased civil law that must stand above any attempt at moral law, etc. Not because a moral law has no basis nit because in this country one has no right to force it on anyone else.

That's a difficult concept for some.
[/b]

Well, yes. Yes it is.

It is also a distinctly "un-Conservative" (dare I say Liberal?) point of view. Weigh abortion rights, school prayer and gay marriage against that standard and you will see what I mean.

That standard is one of the dreaded "shades of gray". It rises above someone's black and white view of right vs. wrong - rising instead to a consideration of personal freedom above all.

I was pleased to hear you say it.
Posted by: gryphon

Re: Jolly, Jbryan, and Larry - 04/05/03 01:50 AM

 Quote:
a consideration of personal freedom above all.
Libertarian, eh?
Posted by: benedict

Re: Jolly, Jbryan, and Larry - 04/05/03 02:09 AM

TomK , I think all of benedict's posts are written with a French vocabulary that has so many English words[/b]

LOL
\:\)
Posted by: benedict

Re: Jolly, Jbryan, and Larry - 04/05/03 02:11 AM

David Burton,

Now I am a conservative and am at least as smart as I was when I was a leftist.[/b]

Can you show evidence ?

Or provide a witness ?

Bring an expert ?

\:D
Posted by: benedict

Re: Jolly, Jbryan, and Larry - 04/05/03 02:17 AM

David Burton
Darwinism, oh yeah at one time I was a true believer[/b]

Be a true believer ?

I know of a theory of evolution which is an important part of biology (or nature science).

There is nothing to believe in science.

There are models with a certain numbers of elements of demonstration.

Believers should stay out of science.

And "Darwinism" is as strange an idea as "Einsteinism" or "Planckism".

Sorry to pound on you like a hawk, David.
I must learn to refutate with grace.

I wonder if asking Larry and Gryphon to be my gurus on graceful refutation would be a good idea.

What do you think ? \:\)
Posted by: BrulBruce

Re: Jolly, Jbryan, and Larry - 04/05/03 08:42 AM

Larry,

I found that new place of yours...I tried to register. It took my name, but I can't figure out how to log in. It never asked me for a p/w, so I don't have any to offer it.

Help!
Posted by: Lazy Pianist

Re: Jolly, Jbryan, and Larry - 04/05/03 10:19 AM

Posted by: Jolly

Re: Jolly, Jbryan, and Larry - 04/05/03 04:37 PM

Benedict opined:
 Quote:
Believers should stay out of science.
Then we wouldn't have much science, would we? \:\)
Posted by: Jolly

Re: Jolly, Jbryan, and Larry - 04/05/03 04:41 PM

And to LP,

The reason you are "labeled" a liberal or a leftist is the utter absence in any of your opinions so far, that which places you on the right, or in the middle of the American political spectrum. Your views are quite consistent.

If it walks like a duck, quacks like a duck, and looks like a duck, most of the time it is...a duck.
Posted by: Lazy Pianist

Re: Jolly, Jbryan, and Larry - 04/05/03 06:19 PM

 Quote:
Originally posted by Jolly:
And to LP,

The reason you are "labeled" a liberal or a leftist is the utter absence in any of your opinions so far, that which places you on the right, or in the middle of the American political spectrum. Your views are quite consistent.

If it walks like a duck, quacks like a duck, and looks like a duck, most of the time it is...a duck.[/b]
Jolly,

I understand why the views I have expressed on the very few subjects I have talked about are considered liberal, although there are some very well known conservatives, Pat Buchanan among them, who would agree with me. Of course, I consider my views on the war as more patriotic than I consider them liberal or conservative.

What I am wondering, though, is why it seems so important to some people to apply that or any label to anyone else since by doing so they are making an assumption they know my views on a multitude of subjects when I have never given them.

I suspect most people are like me -- having a mix of views, some of which might be considered liberal and some conservative. But by labeling people and making assumptions based on their views on only a few subjects, minds too often get closed to any real exchange of ideas.
Posted by: Larry

Re: Jolly, Jbryan, and Larry - 04/05/03 07:17 PM

Pat Buchanan is an idiot. He is not a Conservative - he is whatever he needs to be that day to get what he needs. He is purely interested in himself and his own ego.

Claiming that your past statements against the war, what you've said about our troops, and the support you have shown for Saddam is being patriotic is, if it weren't so absolutely pathetic, the funniest thing I've heard in ages.
Posted by: benedict

Re: Jolly, Jbryan, and Larry - 04/06/03 04:29 AM

Larry,
I agree with you completely.

Being agains a war is OK. I think all kinds of people from left to right, from conservative to liberal are against this war for their own reasons. In a democracy, it is rare that everybody agrees on anything.

But asking to stop a war when it is started is a different thing.

If the USA and the Brits had attacked Poland or Argentina, then, the opposition would have been legitimate.
But for God's sake,(here I am talking to LP and getting angry), your country has been attacked by an incredibly violent terrorist action.

The whole of the Arab world is competing at American and Jew bashing.

That guy (your friend Saddam, I know he is not your friend but I am angry and justly so) has killed thousands of people with chemicals weapons. He gives masses of money to the families of suicide bombers in Israel. He has violated the ceasefire treaty of 1991.
He is a butcher.
The whole of the MiddleEast needs a statement.

Sometimes, kind words work. Sometimes, zero tolerance works. You have to be more flexible.

A guy who is always on the yin side is not yin.
Because yin is a dynamic concept. It implies an interplay with yang. Both are opposed and will never see the face of the other completely. But both dance together in the field of the other's absence.
Anger sometimes makes me lyrical. \:\)

You see, that is what the clapping of one hand.

Yin is one hand. Yang is one hand.

And the clapping is what will never be heard and yet is the music of the Universe.

What is he on, that weird Freedom guy ?

The radio is playing Mozart's 20rd piano concerto.
That must be what creates the field.

LP, stop being always predictable. It is exhausting.

As a traitor, in the countries you defend so persistently, you would have been tortured. You would have denounced your friends (starting with Larry and Jolly) and be either freezing your a.s.s in Siberia or rotting in a hole in the ground with 100 of your friends.

What has it got to do with the clapping of one hand ?

You tell me.
\:D :rolleyes:
Posted by: benedict

Re: Jolly, Jbryan, and Larry - 04/06/03 04:35 AM

Jolly,JBryan and Larry,

Congratulations. You are so popular (200 posts +).
I suggest you find an agent and start your show on FoxTV or CNN.

A film in Hollywood too might be a good idea.

Your memoires : how did you get to be what you are ?

How can we become you : are there special universities for that ?

You are such an inspiration for this country which has been too long deprived of a backbone.

Jolly, JBryan and Larry, you are the Light of the Universe.

I suggest they change the name of three airports in Irak.

Jolly International Airport.
JBryan International Airport
Larry International Airport and razor blade's wholesale shop.

What a team ! A country that has the three of you has nothing to fear.

\:D \:D
Posted by: piqué

Re: Jolly, Jbryan, and Larry - 04/07/03 12:49 PM

benedict,
you are hilarious. but do not be so hard on lazy pianist. i like him. i'm glad he is saying the things he has to say. i know lots and lots of people who think as he does, and their voices are needed, too. he is not a traitor.
Posted by: benedict

Re: Jolly, Jbryan, and Larry - 04/07/03 01:04 PM

Pique,

I like him too.

He makes me think of a character in Dostoievski.

But I can't help pulling is leg.

I am sure that is so resilient that the more I push him, the more he is himself.

I know there are many people like him.

I have a daughter who takes part in every peace demonstration in Italy.

I only call him a traitor when he wants Saddam to stay and butcher his people and shows millions of USA haters that there is no consequence.

Peace is what happens when Saddam is out of power.

I feel very intolerant at the idea that millions of people demonstrated for peace against a war with Hitler's Germany.

I know intolerance is the expression of doubt.

Nothing will ever stop Lazy Pianist : he is the modern Antigone !

(sorry LP \:D )
Posted by: piqué

Re: Jolly, Jbryan, and Larry - 04/07/03 02:41 PM

well, i liked antigone, too.

i think you maybe wrong about nothing stopping lazy pianist. he could easily decide that he is getting nowhere and that this forum is a waste of his time.

i have not seen anyone defend saddam hussein, not anywhere.

unfortunately, there is more going on with this war than simply stopping saddam from committing atrocities. lp has articulated that better than i ever could.

that is not to say that it isn't important, or even essential and moral to stop atrocities. but to view what is happening to the u.s. as if that was the only issue is terribly naive, i'm afraid.
Posted by: benedict

Re: Jolly, Jbryan, and Larry - 04/07/03 03:16 PM

I feel that if we started speaking about politics, our warm feelings might take a chill.

I am very tense as long as Saddam is not out and Irak is settled down.

And then I will be very tense as long as the Israelis and the Palestinians have not with the help of the USA and the (reluctant) acceptation of the Arab and Moslim world some hope and respect.

This fatwah on Israel (the Salman Rushdie of nations) has to stop.

Then, I will take a vacation.

I owe my life to the D-Day. I will never forget it. As long as the USA fight against dictators, I will be at their side.

It is when they fight for dictators like they did in the days of the Ugly American (Chile, Argentina, Brazil...) that I am worried.

I wish LP had said one single thing that went in the direction of liberating Irak here and now.

Peace is when Saddam is gone. Peace can never be when he stays.

How can somebody who says such sensitive things about opera talk such things.

Wozzek was a soldier.
Sarastro was a soldier.(he was a king).
Don Giovanni and the Commander were soldiers.

Soldiers are sometimes needed, like policeman, to bring or restore peace.

It is a question of tide. The tide is now going one direction.
And then it will go in the opposite direction.
Posted by: Lazy Pianist

Re: Jolly, Jbryan, and Larry - 04/07/03 09:32 PM

 Quote:
Originally posted by benedict:

I wish LP had said one single thing that went in the direction of liberating Irak here and now.

[/b]
Perhaps I would, Benedict, but I don't believe the Bush Administration's intent is to "liberate" Iraq. I believe their intent is toe invade it and occupy it. And I believe we intend to be there for a good long time -- both as an occupying force and then through proxy governments.

The general who is going to be placed in charge as "adminstrator, as soon as the war is over is highly controversial in the Middle East -- Army Lt Gen Jay Garner. About a year ago, he gave a major speech in which he sided and praised Ariel Sharon''s handling of the Palestinian revolt. He has given more of these since. This is the man we are going to put in charge of a Moslem country to organize it for a coming Iraqi government? This is hardly the sign of a benevolent liberator wanting to be sensitive to the country it liberated.

And, the Iraqi exile we are setting up to transfer power to? A nice man name Ahmen Chalabi. We airlifted him and 700 exiles into Southern Iraq yesterday so he will be ready when the shooting war ends -- before the guerilla war begins. He has not been in Iraq since 1958, when he was 13, except for a brief period in the late 1980's when he tried to raise forces against Saddam and was run out by the Shiites -- not Saddam. He was convicted of bank fraud and embezzlement in Jordan, in absentia because he fled to and was protected by the US. Several Arab governments in the region have said he is not now and will not be welcome in their countries. He is, however, good friends with Dick Cheney and Don Rumsfeld.

Is this really the type of man we are going to have run Iraq -- or even take a significant position? If we are going to return Iraq to the Iraqi's, would it not be better to have a local person -- one who has been living there -- and one who is not ostracized from much of the Middle East to do so?

These are the two men who we intend to place in charge. The choice of both of them show either abysmal insenstivity to the local Iraqi's who we are supposedly liberating so they can run things as they want -- or they show that we have a different agenda, one which is not as benign as the liberation of an oppressed people.

No, Benedict, you are not going to hear me support this war as a way of liberating Iraq. I do not believe that was ever the primary purpose of it, I do not think it is now and I do not think it is the intent of the Bush Administration to ever really liberate Iraq and allow it to develop a government that it wants. Iraq will always have a government we want and that supports the US. That is not liberation. That is conquest.
Posted by: gryphon

Re: Jolly, Jbryan, and Larry - 04/07/03 09:41 PM

Lazy

I have noticed that you have not indicated where you live. Now you have made many references to "we" when speaking about the United States. Would you care to let us know approximately where you live?
Posted by: JBryan

Re: Jolly, Jbryan, and Larry - 04/07/03 09:43 PM

The carping begins before the war is even over.

 Quote:
I do not think it is now and I do not think it is the intent of the Bush Administration to ever really liberate Iraq and allow it to develop a government that it wants.
Nor, do I believe, will you ever. No matter how much evidence there is to counter your preconceptions. Your mind is made up even before we really know what the Administration's plans are, idle slanders and speculations about certain personalities notwithstanding. Such is your hatred for the Bush Administration that any thing they do will be wrong in your eyes. That is why your misgivings carry so little weight with me and others.
Posted by: Larry

Re: Jolly, Jbryan, and Larry - 04/07/03 09:46 PM

Amen!
Posted by: piqué

Re: Jolly, Jbryan, and Larry - 04/07/03 11:37 PM

 Quote:
Originally posted by benedict:
I feel that if we started speaking about politics, our warm feelings might take a chill.
[/b]

oh, well, benedict. so much for you "needing" me in the coffee room! \:\(

 Quote:
I am very tense as long as Saddam is not out and Irak is settled down.

And then I will be very tense as long as the Israelis and the Palestinians have not with the help of the USA and the (reluctant) acceptation of the Arab and Moslim world some hope and respect.

This fatwah on Israel (the Salman Rushdie of nations) has to stop.
[/b]

i understand. if i believed that this was the only purpose of this war, i would be less tense. i don't like it that the leaders of this country have decided to go it alone and not work with the other great nations of our planet to come to a solution everyone agrees is necessary. i don't like what this has cost our nation in the world's esteem. we may feel like we are an island in the world community but we are not. the world really should have no place for cowboys any more.

i don't trust this administration. i wonder why those self-described conservatives here who endorse the taking up of arms against the government to protect the rights of citizens, those here who proclaim to so distrust government, aren't restively discussing taking up arms against this administration, and are so ready to trust it.

i agree it is very important to protect human rights and i agree that the u.s. should not have turned away from europe when hitler was committing atrocities. i agree that the u.s. should help prevent further atrocities in iraq.

i also think that if there is a real need for intervention, that the UN would also come to see the need, and that there is no need for the u.s. to go it alone. it isn't necessarily that the war is wrong. i don't know if it is or is not. it is the way in which this administration has gone about it that makes me very uncomfortable.

now most of the american people will rally behind the war and the president. that is to be expected, and perhaps the only reasonable thing one can do, now that the war has begun. that doesn't mean that it was the right thing to start it now, or to circumvent the process of bringing everyone in the world community on board.

this war is going to be very expensive, and the u.n. won't be sharing in the costs is my understanding. i think we really must ask what the big rush was, that the processes that were in place couldn't have continued.

the u.s. economy is being driven into the ground. most of the states this year are struggling desperately to balance their budgets. human services and education are being cut dramatically. all is being sacrificed to this administration's hawkish agenda.

how much peace and good will might $80 billion buy if it was spent on aid and education instead of bombs?

i don't think the choices this administration has made are making us more secure. and it remains to be seen if they really do bring freedom to the iraqis.

just to make it very clear: i am possession of no facts. i only know what i read, which is biased, and often ill-disguised opinions of others, no matter which end of the political spectrum it comes from. i have no idea what the right thing is to do in this situation. i am not out marching in war protests, though many of my friends are, because i don't pretend to know if this is a just and necessary war or not. but what i do know and do see makes me very apprehensive for the future of my country.

i hope this administration has made the right decision to bring on this war. if not, then i think it is time for either a revolution of the kind thomas jefferson called for every 25 years, or a constitutional convention to prevent this sort of concentration of power in the administrative branch of government from ever happening again.

 Quote:
How can somebody who says such sensitive things about opera talk such things.
[/b]

questioning my government's decisions is not even remotely the same thing as saying it would be good for saddam to remain in power. i think what you don't see from your side of the atlantic is the domestic consequences here in the U.S. the precedents that are being set. the rights and freedoms that are being eroded right here on our own soil. that is what worries me. we may need to take up arms and overthrow a tyrant right here on our own soil.

by the way, i fail larry's litmus test as a liberal. there wasn't anything on that list i agree with. so i would appreciate it if all here cease and desist from trying to categorize my politics, and instead try to think about ideas independent of the politics.

benedict, if you truly subscribe to the ideals you and i discussed in the pianists corner, then you won't throw away my friendship just because we do not agree about politics. i happen to live in real cowboy country, and around here you have to know how to agree to disagree or you wouldn't be able to have a community.
Posted by: JBryan

Re: Jolly, Jbryan, and Larry - 04/08/03 12:27 AM

Pique,

I am actually stunned by your presumption that the present Administration is up to no good. I believe I have a healthy amount of skepticism about whatever my government is up to but I require some evidence that there is something foul afoot before I am ready to, as you say, take up arms against my government. I didn't see it with Clinton and I don't see it now. Just a lot of idle supposition. Your animus towards Bush is evident in your language which is loaded with such terms as "going it alone" (obviously we are not. France and Germany are really "going it alone"). I have no particular love or hate for the man.

As soon as I see some evidence that there is skulduggery at work I will be the first to sound the alarm but, so far, I have not seen any reason to suppose that motives are not anything other than the obvious and often explicitly stated ones. Please do not patronize me with "you are being naive" or "you have not done my research" nonsense. I am quite capable of critical reasoning and am actually quite well informed. Provide evidence to support your deeply held suspicions.
Posted by: jodi

Re: Jolly, Jbryan, and Larry - 04/08/03 12:37 AM

This discussion is good. Please keep it coming.

Jodi
Posted by: Lazy Pianist

Re: Jolly, Jbryan, and Larry - 04/08/03 12:47 AM

 Quote:
Originally posted by JBryan:
Nor, do I believe, will you ever. No matter how much evidence there is to counter your preconceptions. Your mind is made up even before we really know what the Administration's plans are, idle slanders and speculations about certain personalities notwithstanding. Such is your hatred for the Bush Administration that any thing they do will be wrong in your eyes. That is why your misgivings carry so little weight with me and others.[/b]
In 1976, Jimmy Carter, Governor of Georgia, was elected President of the United States. One or two nights before his inauguration (I forget which) there was the traditional entertainment extravaganza to celebrate our democracy and to honor the new President.

One of those who appeared was John Wayne. John Wayne had actively and aggressively campaigned against Mr. Carter. At this extravaganza, John Wayne gave a speech. He spoke of the greatness of the United States. He spoke of our values as Americans. He spoke of our freedom. And he spoke of his ideological differences with Mr. Carter. There were few things that John Wayne and Jimmy Carter agreed on.

Towards the end of his speech, he looked directly at Mr. Carter in the Presidential Box. And he congratulated him. He also warned him that he would face opposition from prople like him -- but that opposition would come from a deep love for America, for a deep belief in American values and from an honest and sincere disagreement over the best way for America as a country to move forward.

To paraphrase from memory, he said to Mr. Carter... Mr. President, we are the opposition, but we are the loyal opposition. As we argue and disagree in the next four years, remember more that we act out of honest disagreements with you, based on loyalty to America -- the same loyalty you have.

Gryphon asked what part of this country I am from. It does not matter. I am an American and have been all my life. I love my country and I love what it stands for. To assume that my loyalty and love for my country would be based on the region of the country I live in is to not understand what America should mean to all of us.

JBryan, I do not believe that you would take a position on something as grave as this coutnry going to war simply because of your political affiliation or whether or not you liked the President and his advisors. I assume that on something of this magnitude that you support the war because of your love for America -- and would support it no matter who was President.

It is unwarranted and highly offensive that you or anyone would assume that those of us who oppose this war do so because of some personal dislike for the President of the United States. Rather, like John Wayne, we love our country and are loyal to it. We oppose the policies of this President because we feel these policies harm and damage our country.

I do not believe I best love my country by supporting a President who I feel is leading it down a road which I believe it should not go down. Indeed, I would be a very poor American -- indeed, unAmerican -- if I were to support something as tremendously important as my country going to war simply because it was popular to support it or would make others think ill of me if I did not.

I am motivated in my opposition to this war because of my love for my country, because I believe my country is better than the way it is now behaving and because I believe, as I have said many times, that it is being severely damaged by the way we led up to the war, the execution of the war and what will come after the war.

I do not assume you or any of those who support this war are so petty as to support it simply because you like Mr. Bush. Do not assume my position on this war is based on something so petty as whether I like or dislike, love or hate, George Bush.
Posted by: piqué

Re: Jolly, Jbryan, and Larry - 04/08/03 01:02 AM

jbryan wrote:
"Please do not patronize me with "you are being naive" or "you have not done my research" nonsense. I am quite capable of critical reasoning and am actually quite well informed. Provide evidence to support your deeply held suspicions."

i would not dream of making such a statement to you, jbryan. you are probably better informed than i am, and i have nothing but admiration for your capacity for critical reasoning. i am not pretending, as i said, to know something or to have evidence. in fact, i am deeply ambivalent, in case that wasn't clear. if i had evidence, my suspicions would not be suspicions, but facts.

at this point, i am just hoping for the best possible outcome, hoping my fears are groundless, and grieving every day when i read the paper about all the people who are dying over there, iraqi, american, and british. one of my editors died over there the other day. it is heartbreaking.

doesn't it make sense to ask if all this death and destruction and violence is really necessary? doesn't it make sense to question what you are told? how often are we really told the truth? not very often, in my unfortunate experience.

while all kinds of arguments and statements in the press and online might make sense to me, i don't take anything as gospel. i believe what i have verified myself.

i'm not satisfied with any of the answers i have read so far, and so far, i am not feeling moved to investigate more deeply. it is truly too painful for me.
Posted by: jodi

Re: Jolly, Jbryan, and Larry - 04/08/03 01:02 AM

Lazy Pianist:

Thank you. You too, Pique.
Posted by: Larry

Re: Jolly, Jbryan, and Larry - 04/08/03 01:10 AM

 Quote:
Originally posted by pique:

doesn't it make sense to ask if all this death and destruction and violence is really necessary? [/b]
Ask her:

Posted by: piqué

Re: Jolly, Jbryan, and Larry - 04/08/03 01:14 AM

jodi,
i think you have been on the cheerleading squad long enough. time for you to join into the game yourself, don't you think? i don't think any of the wildlife here will bite, although some do seem to have rabies....

\:D \:D

thanks for your input, larry. i feel so reassured to see what a fine job our government p.r. machine is performing in cranking out feel- good pictures to illustrate our wonderful foreign policy.

Posted by: jodi

Re: Jolly, Jbryan, and Larry - 04/08/03 01:18 AM

Not so sure, Pique. I am sometimes on the fence about all this. And you all say it so much better. I do like to read about it though, and getting as many opinions as possible, from such sharp people as yourselves (ALL of you) has been very helpful. So, I guess I should've thanked everybody. \:\) (how's that for wimping out) Jodi
Posted by: Larry

Re: Jolly, Jbryan, and Larry - 04/08/03 01:43 AM

 Quote:
Originally posted by Larry:

thanks for your input, larry. i feel so reassured to see what a fine job our government p.r. machine is performing in cranking out feel- good pictures to illustrate our wonderful foreign policy.

[/b]
Why the use of the mad icon, Pique? Are you mad because a little Iraqi girl is safe now, or are you mad because you had to resort to minimizing her to nothing more than a "feel good" picture for the evil American propaganda machine? Or are you angry because it shows that your view is wrong, and our foreign policy is actually working?

I assure you that this picture did not come from any government source. That's the difference in us Pique. You look at the picture and see a failed US foreign policy and US propaganda, and I look at the picture and see a little girl who is happy that we saved her, and is thankful. I see the reason we went, you see a threat to your New World Order with the UN at the head of it.

Whatever it is about her picture that makes you mad, at least there probably won\'t be any more of this going on in Iraq now, thanks to our "failed foreign policy".

Or, click on this link, Pique. When it opens, click on the nagivation link "Iraqi children". This little girl and boy probably wish they could ride on a tank and wave a flag, and participate in the propaganda machine too.
Posted by: piqué

Re: Jolly, Jbryan, and Larry - 04/08/03 01:45 AM

 Quote:
Originally posted by Larry:
Why the use of the mad icon, Pique? Are you mad because a little Iraqi girl is safe now, or are you mad because you had to resort to minimizing her to nothing more than a "feel good" picture for the evil American propaganda machine? Or are you angry because it shows that your view is wrong, and our foreign policy is actually working?
[/b]

none of the above. the mad icon is because you accept that photograph as evidence of something, and base your suppositions upon it. to me it is evidence of nothing.

 Quote:
You look at the picture and see a failed US foreign policy and US propaganda, and I look at the picture and see a little girl who is happy that we saved her, and is thankful. I see the reason we went, you see a threat to your New World Order with the UN at the head of it.[/b]
nope. wrong again. i look at you posting that picture and see that some people are very easily led to believe what they want to believe. on what basis do you believe that those pictures tell you anything, larry? who is that little girl? do you even know where she comes from or for what reason she is holding the flag? how can you so easily make the leap to believing that this picture tells us anything about the success of our efforts in afghanistan? it tells us zero.

that means it doesn't say anything about whether our foreign policy failed or was successful. it doesn't say anything about a New World Order, pro or con.

i have no opinion on whether that effort failed or was successful, nor do i have a new world order in mind with the UN at the head of it.

but what i do see is a man who eagerly jumps to conclusions where there are none in evidence, and who judges others' positions without any evidence to support that judgment.
Posted by: Larry

Re: Jolly, Jbryan, and Larry - 04/08/03 02:01 AM

 Quote:
Originally posted by pique:

i look at you posting that picture and see that some people are very easily led to believe what they want to believe.
[/b]

Interesting. You see a picture of a little Iraqi girl waving an American flag and smiling, and you think it means nothing, yet you believe and defend every word that comes out of Michael Moore's mouth.

You're making this too easy, Pique.

on what basis do you believe that those pictures tell you anything, larry? [/b]

On the basis that there isn't much of a modeling agency in Iraq right now, you know? I think it is pretty obvious to anyone with an open mind that this little girl is happy, and at the very least she is comfortable with the Americans around her - I wonder how comfortable she would act around the Iraqi soldiers who last saw the two kids in the second link I left for you?

who is that little girl? do you even know where she comes from or for what reason she is holding the flag? how can you so easily make the leap to believing that this picture tells us anything about the success of our efforts in afghanistan? it tells us zero.
[/b]

How pathetic, Pique.
Posted by: jazzyd

Re: Jolly, Jbryan, and Larry - 04/08/03 04:29 AM

 Quote:
Originally posted by Larry:
Originally posted by pique:
on what basis do you believe that those pictures tell you anything, larry? [/b]

On the basis that there isn't much of a modeling agency in Iraq right now, you know? I think it is pretty obvious to anyone with an open mind that this little girl is happy, and at the very least she is comfortable with the Americans around her - I wonder how comfortable she would act around the Iraqi soldiers who last saw the two kids in the second link I left for you?
I'm not keen to wade in here, but I must admit to being a little confused. To me this girl looks as if she might be Iraqi, American, French, British, or any other nationality for that matter...?

Anyhow, those were interesting links Larry (don't think you needed the picture).

David
Posted by: ksk

Re: Jolly, Jbryan, and Larry - 04/08/03 05:33 AM

Whan such an intelligent person like larry claims that the picture shows the success of this war, I guess that must be the case...or could it be that the "propaganda machine" is working.
Posted by: Mike Morone

Re: Jolly, Jbryan, and Larry - 04/08/03 06:53 AM

 Quote:
Originally posted by pique in another thread:
... we live in a culture of fear in the U.S. we have horror stories crammed down our throats by the news and our politicians, and we are controlled by fear. [/b]
This person is not rational.

Mike
Posted by: JBryan

Re: Jolly, Jbryan, and Larry - 04/08/03 08:25 AM

Lazy Pianist,

That was a nice John Wayne story but there is no need to parade your love of country before us. I did not bring that up. Whether love of country or hatred of Bush lies at the root of your constant misrepresentations of fact and shallowly based conclusions matters very little. One has to wonder, however, what could motivate a person to be so obviously unwilling to recognize even one good thing resulting from the current policy.

Surely our security is greatly enhanced by the removal of the Taliban and destruction of the Al Qaeda training camps but, in your eyes, the situation amounts to almost daily guerilla warfare. This paints a picture of a beleaguered US Military standing off a populist guerilla movement rather than, what is really the case, an ongoing operation to root out the remnants of the Taliban and Al Qaeda. The situation for the Afghan people is not, yet, where we would like it to be but at least they are no longer being oppressed by the Taliban. That more still needs to be done is not in question by me or anyone else here.

Surely the Iraqi people are better off without Saddam Hussein but, again in your eyes, they are resisiting an invasion by a lawless country. The Iraqi Army are stripping off their uniforms, laying down their weapons and melting into the population to carry on a guerilla war. The Iraqi people are restrained in their enthusiasm, not by Ba'athist thugs, but by their loathing for us.

Your unwillingness to acknowledge even the smallest good that may be being done and your need to find the tiniest fly in the ointment and magnify it into a dragon does not seem rational and, indeed, one has to wonder if an irrational hatred of Bush could be your guiding principle. Even though I think the Bush policy is on the right track I still harbor some doubts and can recognize the possibility of unforeseen consequences. If, at the end of it all, I see evil men sitting atop heaps of Iraqi wealth rubbing their hands together I will surely be prepared to say something is terribly wrong. Yet, it would be difficult to make the case that the Iraqi people are worse off.

However, if you say you are acting out of love for country I will take you at your word. It does not make your actions any more rational.
Posted by: gryphon

Re: Jolly, Jbryan, and Larry - 04/08/03 08:57 AM

 Quote:
Lazy wrote:
Gryphon asked what part of this country I am from. It does not matter...To assume that my loyalty and love for my country would be based on the region of the country I live in...
I never mentioned anything about your "love for country being based on the region of the county you live in." I never even inferred it. I asked because I doubt you are an American and live here. This is only my feeling and is actually not based upon your ideas stated on Pianoworld Forum. I think you might be assuming an identity here that is not entirely factual. Of course I have no way of proving that and if you say you are from NY or Georgia or whatever then you have answered my question. I am not an admin and I can't check your IP address.

Another possibility is that you were born and raised in another country, somewher around the Middle East for example, before emigrating here. Just a hunch.
Posted by: Hank Drake

Re: Jolly, Jbryan, and Larry - 04/08/03 09:44 AM

 Quote:
Originally posted by Larry:
Pat Buchanan is an idiot. He is not a Conservative - he is whatever he needs to be that day to get what he needs. He is purely interested in himself and his own ego.

[/b]
Well said, Larry. I've haven't posted to this thread, but I wanted to jump in for a moment to express my opinion on one of the most vile creatures in American politics today--Pat Buchanan.

Reading his writings, I get the impression that Mr. Buchanan secretly wishes that Germany had won[/b] World War II. He's promoted primarily by racism--his remarks that Hitler was never a threat to the US are motivated by Anti-Semitism. Buchanan's courting of the union vote in the Reform Party primaries was motivated primarily by hatred of Mexicans. His speech at the 1992 Republican Convention (where he declared "cultural war") was probably a significant factor in the Republicans losing the election that year. His recent book about the "death of the West" reads like Mein Kampf lite. He was opposed to finishing the job and removing Saddam Hussein from power in the 1991 Gulf War because he felt it would create a "power vacuum" in the MidEast which Iran would fill (which was ridiculous, since Iran's military was in worse shape than Iraq's). Any opposition he may have to the current conflict in Iraq is probably motivated by a revulsion of the idea of liberating those "ragheads."

LP, when you're citing Buchanan as support for your arguments, you're suspect.
Posted by: jodi

Re: Jolly, Jbryan, and Larry - 04/08/03 11:29 AM

 Quote:
Originally posted by gryphon:
I never mentioned anything about your "love for country being based on the region of the county you live in." I never even inferred it. [/b]
Actually, that's exactly what my take was on your questioning LP's origin. I also assumed that you were inferring that he was NOT an American. I know quite a few very good, ethical, moral and patriotic people who are AMERICANS who think along the same lines as LP. Jodi
Posted by: piqué

Re: Jolly, Jbryan, and Larry - 04/08/03 11:31 AM

thank you, jodi. keep it coming!! \:\)
Posted by: Lazy Pianist

Re: Jolly, Jbryan, and Larry - 04/08/03 11:52 AM

 Quote:
Originally posted by JBryan:
Even though I think the Bush policy is on the right track I still harbor some doubts and can recognize the possibility of unforeseen consequences. If, at the end of it all, I see evil men sitting atop heaps of Iraqi wealth rubbing their hands together I will surely be prepared to say something is terribly wrong. [/b]
I suspect, JBryan, this is part of the basic disagreement you and I have. You start with a basic trust in politicians, and assume they are being honest about what they say. I start with a basic distrust of them and assume they have an agenda they are not being upfront about. You are prepared to let the drama play out and then judge it only after nothing can be done. I prefer to see what is happening along the way and try to stop the damage from being done in the first place.
Posted by: JBryan

Re: Jolly, Jbryan, and Larry - 04/08/03 11:55 AM

I suspect, Lazy Pianist, you have totally mischaracterized my position on politicians. However, I do need to see at least a shred of evidence before I assume that there is treachery at work.
Posted by: Lazy Pianist

Re: Jolly, Jbryan, and Larry - 04/08/03 11:56 AM

 Quote:
Originally posted by Hank Drake:

LP, when you're citing Buchanan as support for your arguments, you're suspect.[/b]
Hank, I never once used Pat Buchanan to support my views. I had been attacked as being some sort of left wing fanatic for my views. All I pointed out was that my views could not be construed that way because there are many "non-left wing fanatics" who feel as I do -- and used Pat Buchanan as an example.

No one I know of would think of Mr. Buchanan as a left wing fanatic -- although he did get all those votes in liberal Dade County FL, so maybe I am mistaken. \:\)
Posted by: jodi

Re: Jolly, Jbryan, and Larry - 04/08/03 12:09 PM

 Quote:
Originally posted by Lazy Pianist:
No one I know of would think of Mr. Buchanan as a left wing fanatic -- although he did get all those votes in liberal Dade County FL, so maybe I am mistaken. \:\) [/b]
:D \:D \:D
Posted by: piqué

Re: Jolly, Jbryan, and Larry - 04/08/03 12:14 PM

jbryan,
i'm with lp on this. i find my government suspect until proven otherwise. doesn't that make me a conservative? \:D

seriously, i can't think of any good reason to trust politicians. i thought most of us had given that up after watergate. money and power corrupts, and those politicians i know who have considered running for national office tell me it is impossible to do so without becoming a whore to special interests. i believe what they tell me. too much evidence supports it.

when we have campaign finance reform, i'll consider trusting politicians again.
Posted by: apple*

Re: Jolly, Jbryan, and Larry - 04/08/03 12:15 PM

Just an aside: What Larry said about Pat Buchanan was his 2000th post!
Posted by: gryphon

Re: Jolly, Jbryan, and Larry - 04/08/03 12:23 PM

 Quote:
Originally posted by jodi:
Actually, that's exactly what my take was on your questioning LP's origin.[/b]
If anyone thought that was what I meant, let me state plainly and clearly that that was NOT what I meant, nor is it why I asked. Yes, I also know ethical, moral people who are against us going into Iraq. And I think in my followup post I state clearly that I have my suspicions NOT based upon views stated by Lazy. So I will simply wait and see what LP responds.
Posted by: DT

Re: Jolly, Jbryan, and Larry - 04/08/03 12:30 PM

 Quote:
Originally posted by pique:
jbryan,
i'm with lp on this. i find my government suspect until proven otherwise. doesn't that make me a conservative? \:D

seriously, i can't think of any good reason to trust politicians. i thought most of us had given that up after watergate. money and power corrupts, and those politicians i know who have considered running for national office tell me it is impossible to do so without becoming a whore to special interests. i believe what they tell me. too much evidence supports it.

when we have campaign finance reform, i'll consider trusting politicians again.[/b]
Yet some seem to have a much greater distrust of the current government than they did of the one headed by the proven liar who proceeded GWB.

I agree with Mark Twain about Congress and the current judicial situation in the Senate where procedural rules override Constitutional authority bears out his opinion.
Posted by: Lazy Pianist

Re: Jolly, Jbryan, and Larry - 04/08/03 12:41 PM

 Quote:
Originally posted by gryphon:
 Quote:
Originally posted by jodi:
Actually, that's exactly what my take was on your questioning LP's origin.[/b]
If anyone thought that was what I meant, let me state plainly and clearly that that was NOT what I meant, nor is it why I asked. Yes, I also know ethical, moral people who are against us going into Iraq. And I think in my followup post I state clearly that I have my suspicions NOT based upon views stated by Lazy. So I will simply wait and see what LP responds.[/b]
In your follow up post, Gryphon, you basically imply (forgive me if I am wrong)that if I were not from the United States, then my views might be suspect. I am not sure why anyone would assume that someone who is not American might not have moral misgivings about what the US is doing and the impact it is having on the security of the world, the unity of the world and the safety of the world.

I find it interesting how many people are willing to give credence to politicians but deny credence to citizens. I also find it interesting how many people on this Board seem to feel my views are somehow dangerous to the United States.

On another thread, the one on Bowling for Columbine, Jolly detailed the number of firearms he has and said he hoped that the government feared him -- I assume because he wants them to think twice about taking away his rights.

It is my hope that the Bush Administration truly fear the ideas of those of us who are against this war so that they do not think they can start another one in some other part of the world -- thinking the American people will rally behind their President and their troops just because we are at war. I hope the Bush Administratin fears that the American people might start thinking twice about going to war any time and any place they want to.

As Mr. Rumsfeld and others in the Administration begin to beat the drums of war against Syria and Iran, as they have, beginning to set the stage for further US invasions, I hope they fear that we who find such actions as immoral and against America's interests will sway public opinion in America against them.
Posted by: Lazy Pianist

Re: Jolly, Jbryan, and Larry - 04/08/03 12:44 PM

 Quote:
Originally posted by JBryan:
I suspect, Lazy Pianist, you have totally mischaracterized my position on politicians. However, I do need to see at least a shred of evidence before I assume that there is treachery at work.[/b]
And based on the proven lies my government has told me over the entire course of my life, I want politicians and my government representatives to validate their actions for me before I assume treachery is not at work.
Posted by: piqué

Re: Jolly, Jbryan, and Larry - 04/08/03 12:53 PM

 Quote:
Originally posted by DT:
[QB]Yet some seem to have a much greater distrust of the current government than they did of the one headed by the proven liar who proceeded GWB.

QB]
that particular liar was beholden to the same special interests every denizen of the white house has been beholden to since reagan's election in 1980. he wouldn't be holding the office otherwise. that's how we got NAFTA.
Posted by: JBryan

Re: Jolly, Jbryan, and Larry - 04/08/03 12:54 PM

 Quote:
And based on the proven lies my government has told me over the entire course of my life, I want politicians and my government representatives to validate their actions for me before I assume treachery is not at work.
How do they do that? To be skeptical of politicians is one thing and understandable but to automatically assume evil intent is nonsense. How can you support any policy proposal by any politician. To have to prove that there is not some ulterior motive in every case is impossible and an invitation to paralysis. You are trying to prove a negative.
Posted by: Jolly

Re: Jolly, Jbryan, and Larry - 04/08/03 01:02 PM

LP stated:
 Quote:
It is my hope that the Bush Administration truly fear the ideas of those of us who are against this war so that they do not think they can start another one in some other part of the world -- thinking the American people will rally behind their President and their troops just because we are at war.
All 20% of you? ;\)
Posted by: Jolly

Re: Jolly, Jbryan, and Larry - 04/08/03 01:07 PM

Never cared for Jesse Jackson's politics, but you have to love the way he can turn a phrase.

One of my favorites: "The paralysis of analysis".

You can analyze anything to death. You can question motives until you are blue in the face.

But you've got to trust, at least grudgingly, that the other fellow is at least going to try to do what he says he will do.

Otherwise, life would be miserable, would it not? \:\(
Posted by: Lazy Pianist

Re: Jolly, Jbryan, and Larry - 04/08/03 01:07 PM

 Quote:
Originally posted by JBryan:
[QUOTE] How do they do that? To be skeptical of politicians is one thing and understandable but to automatically assume evil intent is nonsense. How can you support any policy proposal by any politician. To have to prove that there is not some ulterior motive in every case is impossible and an invitation to paralysis. You are trying to prove a negative.[/b]
I did not ask for proof. I asked for validation. And in my opinion, Mr. Bush has not validated that the war in Iraq will make the United States or the world more secure, that it will have any real effect on international terrorism or that it is even linked to international terrorism.
Posted by: JBryan

Re: Jolly, Jbryan, and Larry - 04/08/03 01:18 PM

 Quote:
Originally posted by Lazy Pianist:
[QUOTE]I did not ask for proof. I asked for validation. And in my opinion, Mr. Bush has not validated that the war in Iraq will make the United States or the world more secure, that it will have any real effect on international terrorism or that it is even linked to international terrorism.[/b]
This is nothing more than another way of saying that you do not trust President Bush when he says this war is about national security. It seems clear enough to me that we are safer without Saddam Hussein in power but, in your mind, there has to be some nefarious motive at work. What would he have to do to convince you that a megalomaniacal madman in possession of weapons of mass destruction is a better reason for a war than lining the pockets of Haliburton, Brown and Root, or Boots and Coots. I am truly puzzled by this thinking.
Posted by: gryphon

Re: Jolly, Jbryan, and Larry - 04/08/03 01:23 PM

Well, it seems Lazy refuses to state his/her status as a native born American or emigre or even if he/she really lives in the U.S. That is certainly Lazy's prerogative. I will further explain my thoughts and why I was asking.
 Quote:
In your follow up post, Gryphon, you basically imply (forgive me if I am wrong)that if I were not from the United States, then my views might be suspect.
Well, if you were Muslim that might color your views of the situation, for example. I've noticed a pattern in your writing that leads me to believe you are not native born and raised, that perhaps you've immigrated here from abroad. Or perhaps you've even converted to Islam. I am not asserting you are Muslim, but only that is a possibility. Of course, if you aren't actually an American but are "pretending" to be one here, well then obviously that makes all of your statements suspect because you would be posting here under a false pretense. That's all.
Posted by: Jolly

Re: Jolly, Jbryan, and Larry - 04/08/03 01:25 PM

To put it more succinctly, it means LP trusts Sadaam Hussein, or any other tin pot dictator more than the duly elected President of the U.S.

How can one argue with such logic?

Outside of the insane asylum, that is?
Posted by: DT

Re: Jolly, Jbryan, and Larry - 04/08/03 01:42 PM

 Quote:
Originally posted by pique:
that particular liar was beholden to the same special interests every denizen of the white house has been beholden to since reagan's election in 1980. he wouldn't be holding the office otherwise. that's how we got NAFTA.[/b]
Reagan and Clinton owed their elections to the same people I didn't know that that Ross Perot was the major reason Reagan got elected. ;\)

Really, I'm ignorant of this. You're talking about whom?
Posted by: gryphon

Re: Jolly, Jbryan, and Larry - 04/08/03 01:46 PM

I don't know if this belongs in this thread or not, but it appears that globalists have plans for reigning in the United States after the war with Iraq. Their weapon: a worldwide tax to punish wealthy (i.e., successful) countries and correct an “unequal distribution of the natural richness.”

In an article in the Paris newspaper Le Monde, Olivier Giscard d'Estaing, president of the Committee of Action for a World Parliament and French section of the European League of Economic Cooperation, calls for an international tax system based on a nation's gross national product.

The article is titled “After the War.” One can read into that a not-so-subtle implication that the president of the United States has dared to defy his betters in France and Germany and led his country into a war just because his countrymen were threatened with weapons of mass destruction. Time to use the tax hammer to take those Americans down a few notches.

Nice. :rolleyes:
Posted by: Lazy Pianist

Re: Jolly, Jbryan, and Larry - 04/08/03 02:35 PM

 Quote:
Originally posted by gryphon:
Well, it seems Lazy refuses to state his/her status as a native born American or emigre or even if he/she really lives in the U.S. That is certainly Lazy's prerogative.[/b]
Geez, Gryphon. I would think that my having stated " I am an American and have been all my life.[/b]" would have cleared that up.

 Quote:
I will further explain my thoughts and why I was asking. Well, if you were Muslim that might color your views of the situation, for example. I've noticed a pattern in your writing that leads me to believe you are not native born and raised, that perhaps you've immigrated here from abroad. Or perhaps you've even converted to Islam. I am not asserting you are Muslim, but only that is a possibility. Of course, if you aren't actually an American but are "pretending" to be one here, well then obviously that makes all of your statements suspect because you would be posting here under a false pretense. That's all.[/b]
Assuming I were Muslim, why would that make any difference about my ability to make moral judgements about this war? The French are not predominantly Moslem, nor are the Germans, nor the Russians, nor the Chinese. Indeed, most of the major demonstrations against the war have been held in non-Moslem coutries, particularly in the US and Europe.

Your implication, Gryphon, is that a Moslem cannot make an objective analysis of the war because of his religion. If you believe this, one then has to ask if an American can make an objective analysis of this war because of his allegiance to the United States.
Posted by: Lazy Pianist

Re: Jolly, Jbryan, and Larry - 04/08/03 02:49 PM

 Quote:
Originally posted by Jolly:
To put it more succinctly, it means LP trusts Sadaam Hussein, or any other tin pot dictator more than the duly elected President of the U.S.

How can one argue with such logic?

Outside of the insane asylum, that is?[/b]
Tell me, Jolly...Just when did I say I trust Saddam Hussein?

I find it so very interesting that one's allegiance to one's country can be questioned if one does not support the policies of a President.

Who and when did anyone define an "good" American as one who blindly listens to and supports ANY politician, no matter what position he/she was elected to? To me, a good American is one who approaches ALL politicians with skepticism. And yet, for so many of you, questioning Mr. Bush's motives seems to imply that those of us in opposition to the war are somehow un-American -- or a Jolly puts it, we believe Saddam Hussein but not George Bush.

Why is this? Why do you expect blind loyalty? Just because he has led us into a war? If this is what is expected of the American people, than any President would simply keep us in a perpetual state of war so that those who oppose him can be condemned as un-American.

Tell me, Jolly, did you ever criticize, disagree with or even condemn the policies of Bill Clinton when he was in office? I assume you gave full support to his health care plan early in his adminstration, because to be skeptical about a politician is, according to you, wrong if he is duly elected.

Did you ever raise questions about the timing of his response to the bombing of the embassies in Africa? Ever question his involvement in Kosovo -- and the timing of that?

If you did, based on your logic, one has to wonder whether you are really a true American -- after all, Bill Clinton was duly elected President.

Dissent is not un-American, Jolly. Many people would like it to be. Many people act as if it is. But it is not.

The question of support for this war is not black and white -- it is not a matter of one either supports George Bush or one supports Saddam Hussein. You are too smart to even begin to believe it. Why post it here?
Posted by: gryphon

Re: Jolly, Jbryan, and Larry - 04/08/03 03:29 PM

 Quote:
Originally posted by Lazy Pianist:
Assuming I were Muslim, why would that make any difference about my ability to make moral judgements about this war?
Quite possibly, absolutely.
 Quote:
The French are not predominantly Moslem, nor are the Germans, nor the Russians, nor the Chinese.
They don't like us. They aren't pro-Hussein, but they are anti-US.
 Quote:
Your implication, Gryphon, is that a Moslem cannot make an objective analysis of the war because of his religion.
That could very well be true. But there are other reasons. A good friend of mine was born and raised in Lebanon. He and his family hid in the basement of a bombed-out building for a couple of days until they could escape to the West during one time of war. He grew up with war his entire youth, and to this day it colors his views of guns and "violence." So yes, ones analysis can be colored by lots of things. I wonder if your is.
Posted by: Jolly

Re: Jolly, Jbryan, and Larry - 04/08/03 03:49 PM

LP opined:
 Quote:
Tell me, Jolly, did you ever criticize, disagree with or even condemn the policies of Bill Clinton when he was in office?
Yep.

But not everything.

And therein lies the difference.

Dissent is certainly an American right. You have that freedom of speech.

But my agenda antennae go off whenever I hear someone, or read someone's work, who never can see the good, but alway harps upon the bad.

And you sir, or madam, have a severe case of Rectimitus Opthalmyalgia, at least when it pertains to Mr. Bush, or the current administration.

You know, the medical condition where one's optic nerve, and anal sphincter become intwined, giving one an eternally %^&%%$ look on life? :rolleyes: :rolleyes: :rolleyes:

TTFN. :p
Posted by: Dwain Lee

Re: Jolly, Jbryan, and Larry - 04/08/03 04:10 PM

Good Lord, don't all you folks have jobs, and lives? \:D :p :rolleyes:
Posted by: piqué

Re: Jolly, Jbryan, and Larry - 04/08/03 04:16 PM

agreed. the intelligence quotient of this discussion is heading rapidly downhill. :rolleyes:
Posted by: Lazy Pianist

Re: Jolly, Jbryan, and Larry - 04/08/03 04:18 PM

 Quote:
Originally posted by gryphon:
 Quote:
Originally posted by Lazy Pianist:
Assuming I were Muslim, why would that make any difference about my ability to make moral judgements about this war?
Quite possibly, absolutely.[/b]
So, explain to me why being a Moslem makes a difference in one's ability to make a moral judgment? Are they better able to make moral judgements? Less able? Just why is their ability to make a moral judgement any different than your ability to make a moral judgement?

 Quote:

 Quote:
The French are not predominantly Moslem, nor are the Germans, nor the Russians, nor the Chinese.
They don't like us. They aren't pro-Hussein, but they are anti-US.[/b]
You don't think the French and Germans like Americans? You would go so far as to say you consider the French and Germans anti-American? Even after how closely as we have all worked together on so many things in this world?

Why would you say this? From everything I have heard, they may disagree with us about this war, but they do not dislike us nor are they anti-American.

I really would like to hear your reasoning on why you think two of our closest allies are anti-American.

 Quote:

[QUOTE]That could very well be true. But there are other reasons. A good friend of mine was born and raised in Lebanon. He and his family hid in the basement of a bombed-out building for a couple of days until they could escape to the West during one time of war. He grew up with war his entire youth, and to this day it colors his views of guns and "violence." So yes, ones analysis can be colored by lots of things. I wonder if your is.[/b]
I don't think my question dealt with whether or not an analysis is colored by one's experience. It dealt with whether or not you felt a Moslem could make an "objective" analysis.

Quite clearly everyone's analysis is "colored" by their experiences, their ideology and a variety of other things.

But you did not answer the question as to whether or not you thought a Moslem could make an abbjective analysis of this war. And you totally ignored the question of whether or not an American could make an objective analysis of this war.
Posted by: Lazy Pianist

Re: Jolly, Jbryan, and Larry - 04/08/03 04:23 PM

 Quote:
Originally posted by pique:
agreed. the intelligence quotient of this discussion is heading rapidly downhill. :rolleyes: [/b]
I agree Pique, the intelligence quotient is going down.

But we may finally be getting to the crux of the matter here -- the gut reaction from some of those who are pro-war. They are getting real close to exhibiting their true colors -- and it has little to do with the war itself and a lot to do with their attitude towards people who think differently than they do.
Posted by: ksk

Re: Jolly, Jbryan, and Larry - 04/08/03 06:59 PM

 Quote:
quote:
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Originally posted by pique:
agreed. the intelligence quotient of this discussion is heading rapidly downhill.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

I agree Pique, the intelligence quotient is going down.
I Agree LP and pigue, but keep up the good work you two \:\)

Geeez, all who aren't supporting the war a 100% are either muslems or anti-americans, or perhaps jealous... :rolleyes:
Posted by: Larry

Re: Jolly, Jbryan, and Larry - 04/08/03 07:39 PM

 Quote:
Originally posted by Lazy Pianist:
 Quote:
Originally posted by pique:
agreed. the intelligence quotient of this discussion is heading rapidly downhill. :rolleyes: [/b]
I agree Pique, the intelligence quotient is going down.

But we may finally be getting to the crux of the matter here -- the gut reaction from some of those who are pro-war. They are getting real close to exhibiting their true colors -- and it has little to do with the war itself and a lot to do with their attitude towards people who think differently than they do.[/b]
Hardly. I think those of us who support the war do so for quite clear headed reasons. Those of you who don't have yet to come up with a reason that makes sense, other than you feel that war kills people. Of course war kills people. But war frees people who are slaves also. You seem to be of the opinion that if you asked Saddam nicely enough, he would have turned over his weapons. 12 years didn't do it, they've lost the war and they still won't give in, and you three yellow dog liberals are busy high-fiving each other at what a "good job" you're doing as you smugly try to paint those of us who support war as somehow less educated or less able to reason than you.

Horse crap.

Your politics are bankrupt. Your answers to some pretty direct questions here from several very intelligent people have either gone unanswered, or have evoked a spew of smoke and mirrors and subject changing. LP, you have tried to maneuver around your past comments to make it look like you are merely questioning the policies of the administration, and the war. Only a fool would fall for that little wad.

Why can I say your politics are bankrupt and sleep knowing I have said the truth? Read this:

Jailed Iraqi children run free as marines roll into Baghdad suburbs

Over 150 children were just released from a prison that Saddam and his vile thugs had held them in for 5 years. Small little children!![/b] Why were they in prison? For refusing to join the Youth Ba'ath Party - Saddam's party. Have you bothered to read just what those who *did* join the party have had to do the past two weeks? They have been put out there with guns and ordered to attack the British and American soldiers, and if they don't, their parents will be killed in front of them.

That's reality, folks. You can continue on with your little leftist love fest all you want, but the facts remain that if it weren't for people who think like me and many others on this board, these children would have most likely died there. 150 little children. I don't care what you, Saddam, France, Germany, or anyone else in the world thinks of me - this is an evil group that has been running rampant over the lives of these people, and their intention was to spread their control onto others. If we had not listened to the whining, touchy feely socialist left wingers the first time we went in the problem would have been solved much quicker and easier. As it is, they have had 12 years to get stronger. We could have waited another 12 years I guess, but by then there might not have been any way to stop them from these atrocities.

I go to bed every night feeling quite good about the people who are running things now, and what they have the courage to do. I am proud to see American soldiers brave enough to risk their lives to save these children, and the rest of the Iraqi people. While you sit around complaining as usual, trying to find fault, people with common sense and courage are saving people's lives today. And others with common sense and courage are standing up and cheering them on. Then, there's you three.
Posted by: Jolly

Re: Jolly, Jbryan, and Larry - 04/08/03 09:20 PM

LP disgorged:
 Quote:
I agree Pique, the intelligence quotient is going down.
Does this mean you'll endeavor to raise our collective IQ, and no longer post? ;\)
Posted by: gryphon

Re: Jolly, Jbryan, and Larry - 04/08/03 09:35 PM

 Quote:
Originally posted by Lazy Pianist:
So, explain to me why being a Moslem makes a difference in one's ability to make a moral judgment?
I said it could. As evidence may I offer Akhbar, the Muslims entering the country to support Saddam by killing Americans and British soldiers, the Muslims clerics of the US who refused to condemn the terrorism of 9/11...shall I go on?
 Quote:
Just why is their ability to make a moral judgement any different than your ability to make a moral judgement?
I would say we have a different definition of right and wrong.
 Quote:
You don't think the French and Germans like Americans?
I think they are envious of our power and position and would like nothing better than to see us get our nose bloodied. France and Russia have sold goods to Iraq recently in violation of the UN embargos, and have money at stake in Iraq. And where is Chirac right now?
 Quote:
I don't think my question dealt with whether or not an analysis is colored by one's experience.
No, *my* question did. I wondered if perhaps you might be something other than a typical soccer-mom or dad born and bred in Madison.

So you were born and bred in America, have lived here all your life, and are not a Muslim. You say that, I accept it. That's good enough for me.
Posted by: Dwain Lee

Re: Jolly, Jbryan, and Larry - 04/08/03 09:57 PM

For the record, I want to set a couple of points straight. pique and LP are just as guilty of my actual assertion as anyone else, and can't hide behind my comment in any kind of moral superiority. Also, I was not impugning the intelligence of the conversation or its participants, as my words were reinterpreted to have meant. Rather, I was only commenting on the ungodly amount of time all of you - have been spending in this rapid-fire death spiral of a debate.

I guess it's become my mantra as of late, but again: slow down, folks. There's a whole world out there. Take the time to not neglect your life, your family, your job, your other obligations and other diversions, just so you can be sure to fire a volley back at Larry, or at LP, within five minutes of his response to you. Get your nose out of the computer once in a while, and into some flower that happens to be blooming near you. Donate some time to a local homeless shelter or food pantry. Cut the grass, do the grocery shopping, or watch the kids, for some family you know who has a spouse serving the war. My goodness, any of these things, and a thousand more, will do far more good than just sitting in front of your computers, constantly arguing and re-arguing the same blessed points.

From previous experience, you all know that none of you enjoy a good heated debate any more than I. But even I don't see the sense in the constant tunnel vision of nine pages of "Did To!" "Did Not!" debate. The conversation has been relatively civil, to everyone's credit - but hasn't really turned over any new ground, has it?

Go play with your kids. Call your parents. Do something - anything - else. Then come back, and argue some more, if you'd like. \:\)
Posted by: gryphon

Re: Jolly, Jbryan, and Larry - 04/08/03 10:24 PM

LP:
 Quote:
From everything I have heard, they may disagree with us about this war, but they do not dislike us nor are they anti-American.
From Alain Madelin, French politician for 34 years, including service in three French administrations with President Jacques Chirac.

Chirac's decision to stay out of the struggle against Saddam Hussein was in part a pandering to the "anti-American tendencies" of political leftists in France, whom Madelin termed "orphans of Marxism."
Posted by: Jolly

Re: Jolly, Jbryan, and Larry - 04/08/03 10:30 PM

As I think back over the 200-some odd posts in this discussion, the question comes to mind:

Whatever happened to Tony, who started this thread with his drive-by shooting?

Traumatized, and still in therapy? \:D
Posted by: jodi

Re: Jolly, Jbryan, and Larry - 04/08/03 10:36 PM

And, is this thread coming close to being the longest one yet? I do think it has been one of the most interesting. \:\) Jodi
Posted by: jodi

Re: Jolly, Jbryan, and Larry - 04/08/03 10:38 PM

 Quote:
Originally posted by Jolly:

Whatever happened to Tony, who started this thread with his drive-by shooting?

Traumatized, and still in therapy? \:D [/b]
Nope, he's just fired off another round.

\:\) Jodi
Posted by: Larry

Re: Jolly, Jbryan, and Larry - 04/08/03 10:38 PM

6:00am Awoke, had coffee.
9:00am Finally able to function. Posted to group, took shower.
10:30 Drove to the antiques store.
11:00 Worked jigsaw puzzle.
12:00 Ate lunch in the cafe. A lovely salad, then a bowl of chile with sausages in it.
1:00 Worked jigsaw puzzle, chatted with friends.
4:00 Drove into the next town over to meet with lady who is retiring from the video business. Negotiating to buy all her display shelving. Traded her a 3 year old 48" Belarus upright for 12K worth of display shelving.... (hey....*she* made the offer, not me!)
5:00 Went to video store. Posted something to group. Collected money from yesterday.
6:00 Drove back to antique store. Collected money from today.
7:00 Back home. Watched news, checked emails, read webnews.
8:00 posted some more.
10:30 Saw your post. Wrote this.

;\)
Posted by: Larry

Re: Jolly, Jbryan, and Larry - 04/08/03 10:41 PM

 Quote:
Originally posted by jodi:
 Quote:
Originally posted by Jolly:

Whatever happened to Tony, who started this thread with his drive-by shooting?

Traumatized, and still in therapy? \:D [/b]
Nope, he's just fired off another round.

\:\) Jodi[/b]
It should be noted that Tony is from Houston.....
Posted by: Dwain Lee

Re: Jolly, Jbryan, and Larry - 04/08/03 10:43 PM

OK, smarty pants! :p
Posted by: gryphon

Re: Jolly, Jbryan, and Larry - 04/09/03 12:23 AM

 Quote:
Originally posted by Dwain Lee:
Get your nose...into some flower that happens to be blooming near you.
It snowed here 4" yesterday!
 Quote:
Donate some time to a local homeless shelter or food pantry.
My wife and I are responsible for serving food at the rescue mission every month. Been doing it for 3 years. Was there last Sunday.
 Quote:
Cut the grass
See previous snow comment.
 Quote:
Go play with your kids
Wish I could, but he's walking around Baghdad with an M16 right now.
 Quote:
Call your parents.
Going out of town to see them this weekend.

Anything else, dad? \:D
Posted by: piqué

Re: Jolly, Jbryan, and Larry - 04/09/03 12:32 AM

i spent almost the entire day out in the back yard with my dogs. it was a gloriously beautiful spring day, with the wild tulips and the crocuses blooming. talked with two of my best friends on the phone. i read several chapters from two books and worked for a few hours on an essay i've been wanting to get down to work on for ages. brushed the dogs. had supper and went to a lecture at the university with my husband. hung around afterwards and talked with some of the other people who attended. am about to put in my two hours of piano practice.

i'm only on here while checking email, as i get up and do on occasion throughout the day, as that is how i stay in touch with work contacts.

but i do understand how its possible to get the impression that some people here never part their noses from the computer screen. \:D
Posted by: Larry

Re: Jolly, Jbryan, and Larry - 04/09/03 12:35 AM

Isn't freedom a wonderful thing, Pique?

Aren't you glad that men like Gryphon's son have the courage and foresight to be willing to defend it for us?

I sure am. Thanks, Gryphon, for your contribution. And send a salute to your son for me.

Hooah!
Posted by: gryphon

Re: Jolly, Jbryan, and Larry - 04/09/03 12:42 AM

Thanks Larry. Here's a picture of him just prior to deployment. The hot woman is my wife, Chris! \:D Son's name is Josh.

Posted by: Lazy Pianist

Re: Jolly, Jbryan, and Larry - 04/09/03 12:49 AM

Gryphon

We may disagree about the mission your son is on, but you and your wife are rightfully proud.

I pray that this war ends as quickly as possible and that God will protect your son and bring him home safely to both of you.
Posted by: David Burton

Re: Jolly, Jbryan, and Larry - 04/09/03 12:52 AM

Really incredible!

Have read everything since my last post, interesting, amusing, provocative, occasionally funny, often very serious. Perhaps one of the best discussions ever. It is not to come to agreement or change minds necessarily, it is to let off steam, to get exorcized of our interior thoughts and feelings about these times we are living in. Am posting this away from home. I’ll be back next week for, oh I’m sure that most of you cringe, a much longer response to some points made.

I especially want to thank pique for commenting, hang in there, we aren’t so far apart on a few things.

To the Top!

PS: I’m planning a trip to the Jura region of France for bicycling and hiking during the day, dining and dancing at night, about two weeks, later this year.
Sorry I’m not giving up my love for France or the French that easily.
Posted by: piqué

Re: Jolly, Jbryan, and Larry - 04/09/03 01:02 AM

 Quote:
Originally posted by Larry:
Isn't freedom a wonderful thing, Pique?

Aren't you glad that men like Gryphon's son have the courage and foresight to be willing to defend it for us?

I sure am. Thanks, Gryphon, for your contribution. And send a salute to your son for me.

Hooah![/b]
you know larry, you are an unabashed romantic about this whole thing. as you know, we don't see it the same way. to me, this is not about freedom or defending it. i sincerely wish that gryphon's son will stay safe and out of harm's way and be returned to his family unharmed. i wish him and his family the best.
Posted by: DT

Re: Jolly, Jbryan, and Larry - 04/09/03 08:30 AM

I believe that, for the Iraqi people, this is[/b] about freedom.

btw my nephew on the Constellation says that they'll be heading back to the states soon and that the ship will be decommissioned.
Posted by: bcarey

Re: Jolly, Jbryan, and Larry - 04/09/03 08:59 AM

LP,

 Quote:
to me, this is not about freedom or defending it.
To me, it has everything to do with freedom and defending it. That is the very essence of what this war is all about.
Posted by: Jolly

Re: Jolly, Jbryan, and Larry - 04/09/03 10:59 AM

The pictures on TV this morning showing the people of Baghdad tearing down a statue of Sadaam with sledgehammers and ropes say it all. \:\)
Posted by: Larry

Re: Jolly, Jbryan, and Larry - 04/09/03 11:05 AM

Yes - it is about freedom. And with all the love and concern I can muster, the fact that you don't see it as being about freedom, Pique, is one big reason why I keep telling you the politics of the Left are bankrupt. All over the Arab world today, they are getting to watch as Iraqi people throw flowers at the feet ot the American and British soldiers, and listen as they praise the men and women who have set them free. As one old Iraqi man was quoted as saying, "We are Americans! We love you America! Thank you for saving us!"
Posted by: Dwain Lee

Re: Jolly, Jbryan, and Larry - 04/09/03 12:26 PM

gryphon, thank your son for me!
Posted by: Dwain Lee

Re: Jolly, Jbryan, and Larry - 04/09/03 12:30 PM

BTW, did anyone see the man crying, shouting, "Thank, you, thank you Mr. Bush!" and the sign carried by an Iraqi that said, "Go Home Human Shields"?
Posted by: .rvaga*

Re: Jolly, Jbryan, and Larry - 04/09/03 01:04 PM

 Quote:
Dwain:
BTW, did anyone see the man crying, shouting, "Thank, you, thank you Mr. Bush!" and the sign carried by an Iraqi that said, "Go Home Human Shields"?[/b]
Yes, I saw one large banner that read:
"Go Home Human Shields - You Are U.S. Wankers"

What's a "wanker" ??
Posted by: Dwain Lee

Re: Jolly, Jbryan, and Larry - 04/09/03 01:23 PM

If no one has emailed you to explain the term yet, I just sent you an explanation.
Posted by: LauraJ

Re: Jolly, Jbryan, and Larry - 04/09/03 01:23 PM

Interesting that I'm reading a civil war novel where they repeatedly make the point that the US Union soldiers are fighting a war for the freedom of others as opposed to fighting for land, something never before seen. It seems to be an important American trait.

". . .Yes - it is about freedom."
Posted by: piqué

Re: Jolly, Jbryan, and Larry - 04/09/03 01:41 PM

i haven't seen any of the images you all are describing because i don't watch television. just the local paper and the news on the internet. i will check it out and report back my impressions.

i would be absolutely thrilled if it turned out this war was for a good cause!
Posted by: bcarey

Re: Jolly, Jbryan, and Larry - 04/09/03 01:59 PM

Larry,

 Quote:
Quoting Larry in response to Pique. Yes - it is about freedom. And with all the love and concern I can muster, the fact that you don't see it as being about freedom, Pique, is one big reason why I keep telling you the politics of the Left are bankrupt.
Considering that I am a Democrat, who voted for Al Gore, and in light of my support for the war in Iraq, would you call me one of those "bankrupt" Lefties? ;\)
Posted by: .rvaga*

Re: Jolly, Jbryan, and Larry - 04/09/03 02:27 PM

Dwain,

Received your email with the definition.

I can see why this word did not show up in my dictionary. . .

So, it's "Willy Wonka" and not. . . ?

\:D
Posted by: Larry

Re: Jolly, Jbryan, and Larry - 04/09/03 05:17 PM

 Quote:
Originally posted by bcarey:
Larry,

 Quote:
Quoting Larry in response to Pique. Yes - it is about freedom. And with all the love and concern I can muster, the fact that you don't see it as being about freedom, Pique, is one big reason why I keep telling you the politics of the Left are bankrupt.
Considering that I am a Democrat, who voted for Al Gore, and in light of my support for the war in Iraq, would you call me one of those "bankrupt" Lefties? ;\) [/b]
No. I'd call you a Democrat - but one with some hope...... ;\)
Posted by: TomK

Re: Jolly, Jbryan, and Larry - 04/09/03 05:25 PM

 Quote:
Posted by pique: i haven't seen any of the images you all are describing because i don't watch television. just the---[/b]
---Ba'ath Times, Le Monde and the Daily Worker are all I read.
Posted by: gryphon

Re: Jolly, Jbryan, and Larry - 04/10/03 09:07 AM

I don't think any of them has written this story yet...
 Quote:
U.S. Marines have located an underground nuclear complex near Baghdad that apparently went unnoticed by U.N. weapons inspectors.

Hidden beneath the Iraqi Atomic Energy Commission's Al-Tuwaitha facility, 18 miles south of the capital, is a vast array of warehouses and bombproof offices that could contain the "smoking gun" sought by intelligence agencies, reported the Pittsburgh Tribune-Review.

"I've never seen anything like it, ever," said Marine Capt. John Seegar. "How did the world miss all of this? Why couldn't they see what was happening here?"

Marine nuclear and intelligence experts say that at least 14 buildings at Al-Tuwaitha indicate high levels of radiation and some show lethal amounts of nuclear residue, according to the Pittsburgh daily. The site was examined numerous times by U.N. weapons inspectors, who found no evidence of weapons of mass destruction.

"They went through that site multiple times, but did they go underground? I never heard anything about that," said physicist David Albright, a former International Atomic Energy Agency inspector in Iraq from 1992 to 1997.

In a 1999 report, Albright said, "Iraq developed procedures to limit access to these buildings by IAEA inspectors who had a right to inspect the fuel fabrication facility."

"On days when the inspectors were scheduled to visit, only the fuel fabrication rooms were open to them," he said in the report, written with Khidhir Hamza, an Iraqi nuclear engineer who defected in 1994. "Usually, employees were told to take to their rooms so that the inspectors did not see an unusually large number of people."

Chief Warrant Officer Darrin Flick, the battalion's nuclear, biological and chemical warfare specialist, said radiation levels were particularly high at a place near the complex where local residents say the "missile water" is stored in mammoth caverns.

"It's amazing," Flick said. "I went to the off-site storage buildings, and the rad detector went off the charts. Then I opened the steel door, and there were all these drums, many, many drums, of highly radioactive material."

Iraq began to develop its nuclear program at Al-Tuwaitha in the 1970s, according to the Institute for Science and International Security. Israel destroyed a French-built reactor there in 1981 and a reactor built by the Russians was destroyed during the 1991 Gulf War.

Hamza testified before Congress last August that if left unchecked, Iraq could have had nuclear weapons by 2005.

Noting that the ground in the area is muddy and composed of clay, Hamza was surprised to learn of the Marines' discovery, the Tribune-Review said. He wondered if the Iraqis went to the colossal expense of pumping enough water to build the subterranean complex because no reasonable inspector would think anything might be built underground there.

"Nobody would expect it," Hamza said. "Nobody would think twice about going back there."

Michael Levi of the Federation of American Scientists said the Iraqis continued rebuilding the Al-Tuwaitha facility after weapons inspections ended in 1998.

"I do not believe the latest round of inspections included anything underground, so anything you find underground would be very suspicious," said Levi. "It sounds absolutely amazing."

The Pittsburgh paper said nuclear scientists, engineers and technicians, housed in a plush neighborhood near the campus, have fled, along with Baathist party loyalists.

"It's going to take some very smart people a very long time to sift through everything here," said Flick. "All this machinery. All this technology. They could do a lot of very bad things with all of this."

Marine Capt. Seegar said his unit will continue to hold the nuclear site until international authorities can take over. Last night, they monitored gun and artillery battles by U.S. Marines against Iraqi Republican Guards and Fedayeen terrorists.

The offices underground are replete with videos and pictures that indicate the complex was built largely over the last four years, the Tribune-Review said.
Original Pittsburgh Tribune-Review article this was written from:

http://www.pittsburghlive.com/x/tribune-review/specialreports/iraq/s_128200.html
Posted by: JohnC

Re: Jolly, Jbryan, and Larry - 04/10/03 09:50 AM

gryphon,

That story deserves it's own thread. You should post it where more will see it.

Those who still don't think we should be there need the enlightenment. ;\)
Posted by: gryphon

Re: Jolly, Jbryan, and Larry - 04/10/03 10:29 AM

I thought about it, but too many new posts pushes the threads down towards the bottom where no one reads any more. This seems to be a good, active thread still. I dunno...now I'm so confused. This is a grey area. What do I do?! What do I do?! Ack!!! \:D
Posted by: apple*

Re: Jolly, Jbryan, and Larry - 04/10/03 11:15 AM

That can't possibly be true Gryphon, you know this whole Bagdad liberation is a figment of the right. Haven't you been listening to the Saddam's press release guy?
Posted by: gryphon

Re: Jolly, Jbryan, and Larry - 04/10/03 11:17 AM

My bad.
Posted by: Dwain Lee

Re: Jolly, Jbryan, and Larry - 04/10/03 01:09 PM

What's all this talk I hear about IKEA inspectors? I mean, are these really the people we want trying to find weapons in Iraq? I think our soldiers and scientists are better people to find those sorts of things, aren't they? I'm sure they know all about how smooth those nice laminated tables should be, and whether those cute little cam-lock fasteners are tight enough, or if the meatballs in the cafeteria are fresh. But just what good would they be, wandering around in Baghdad looking for nerve gas and such?

And besides, why are we so worried about these Weapons of Math Destruction anyway? This whole idea is silly. You can't destroy math. My goodness, just because somebody drops a bomb on a set of flash cards, two plus two is still going to equal four!

What? It's not? It's... Oh.

Never mind.
Posted by: gryphon

Re: Jolly, Jbryan, and Larry - 04/10/03 01:41 PM

FoxNews verification follow-up:

http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,83821,00.html

 Quote:
BAGHDAD, Iraq — U.S. officials are investigating a massive underground nuclear facility that was discovered below the Al Tuwaitha complex of the Iraqi Atomic Energy Commission in a suburban town south of Baghdad.
Posted by: JBryan

Re: Jolly, Jbryan, and Larry - 04/10/03 01:47 PM

I keep looking for this story in Al jazeera and it just isn't there.

We can be fairly certain that these high levels of radiation are not due to pesticides. :p
Posted by: Dwain Lee

Re: Jolly, Jbryan, and Larry - 04/10/03 02:09 PM

No, no, any fool can see it's just an innocent smoke detector factory!
Posted by: gryphon

Re: Jolly, Jbryan, and Larry - 04/10/03 02:17 PM

It took me a while to get the IKEA/IAEA connection and the Roseanne Rosannadanna reference. Sometimes I'm just slow. \:D
Posted by: Lazy Pianist

Re: Jolly, Jbryan, and Larry - 04/10/03 02:56 PM

Dwain

LOL!!!

That was excellent!
Posted by: Derick

Re: Jolly, Jbryan, and Larry - 04/10/03 03:24 PM

I have great admiration for pique but I simply cannot help myself...

If, and I do mean if, that story is true, I'm highly disappointed in Saddam. I never believe anything written on the internet.

Sorry, I just had to say it.

Derick
Posted by: Derick

Re: Jolly, Jbryan, and Larry - 04/10/03 03:28 PM

 Quote:
Originally posted by gryphon:
It took me a while to get the IKEA/IAEA connection and the Roseanne Rosannadanna reference. Sometimes I'm just slow. \:D [/b]
Gryph, I think that was Gilda's Emily Lotilla character Dwain cleverly imitated.

Hey Dwain, could you do a Roseanne Roseannadanna skit? And maybe work in her uncle, Carlos Santana Roseanne Roseannadanna?

Derick
Posted by: DT

Re: Jolly, Jbryan, and Larry - 04/10/03 03:50 PM

 Quote:
Originally posted by Derick:
I have great admiration for pique but I simply cannot help myself...

If, and I do me if, that story is true, I'm highly disappointed in Saddam. I never believe anything written on the internet.

Sorry, I just had to say it.

Derick[/b]
I apologize for laughing when I read the above. It was inconsiderate of me completely showing my lack of couth.
Posted by: gryphon

Re: Jolly, Jbryan, and Larry - 04/10/03 04:13 PM

 Quote:
Originally posted by Derick:
Gryph, I think that was Gilda's Emily Lotilla character Dwain cleverly imitated. [/b]
I do believe you're right. It's been so long...gad we're getting old.
Posted by: jgoo

Re: Jolly, Jbryan, and Larry - 04/10/03 04:16 PM

This is the thread that never ends, yes it goes on and on my friend, some people, started posting it not knowing what it was, now they'll continue posting it forever just because this is the thread that never ends... \:D \:D \:D
Posted by: franzooey

Re: Jolly, Jbryan, and Larry - 04/10/03 06:15 PM

I just wanted to create post #331 \:\)
Posted by: jgoo

Re: Jolly, Jbryan, and Larry - 04/10/03 06:48 PM

 Quote:
Originally posted by franzooey:
I just wanted to create post #331 \:\) [/b]
Thats okay! I just posted mine because I wanted to be a part of the never-ending thread too!
Posted by: CrashTest

Re: Jolly, Jbryan, and Larry - 04/10/03 10:59 PM

For those of us who don't have time to read this, can anyone summarize what this thread is about?!

(Mild sarcasm, with a dint of genuine curiosity) \:D ;\)
Posted by: jgoo

Re: Jolly, Jbryan, and Larry - 04/10/03 11:33 PM

 Quote:
Originally posted by CrashTest:
For those of us who don't have time to read this, can anyone summarize what this thread is about?![/b]
I am curious to know to, but too lazy to read through 300+ posts!!! But I should get caught up now I guess since I will now be stuck here forever. And you should know that you will too! Why??? Because:

 Quote:
Originally posted by jgoo:
This is the thread that never ends, yes it goes on and on my friend, some people, started posting it not knowing what it was, now they'll continue posting it forever just because this is the thread that never ends... \:D \:D \:D [/b]
Posted by: Lazy Pianist

Re: Jolly, Jbryan, and Larry - 04/11/03 12:18 AM

 Quote:
Originally posted by CrashTest:
For those of us who don't have time to read this, can anyone summarize what this thread is about?! [/b]
Easy to summarize.

This thread pits those of us who ARE right against those who THINK they are right but really aren't.

This thread got long only because those of us who ARE right wanted to be kind and let those who THINK they are right but really aren't a chance to express themselves.

\:D
Posted by: Larry

Re: Jolly, Jbryan, and Larry - 04/11/03 01:00 AM

Right:[/b]
1. Correct
2. Fix, as in right the ship
3. Right makes might
4. Yes
5. Without error ("your answer is right")
6. Sound ("that is the right decision")
7. Sane ("He's not right" indicates mental dysfunction)
8. Proper ("That is right")
9. Fix ("let's make things right")
10.Conservative[/b]

Left:[/b]
1. Gone ("he left")
2. Not all there ("is that all that's left?")
3. Missing ("there's nothing left")
4. Lacking ("that's all that's left")
5. Not smart ("His senses have left him")
6. Leaving ("He left")
7. Not included ("We left him")
8. Incorrect (opposite of right)
9. Indicating disloyalty ("He left me for another")
10. Liberal[/b]

:p
Posted by: apple*

Re: Jolly, Jbryan, and Larry - 04/11/03 09:15 AM

Some people don't know that we are talking about a Watershed Moment[/b] in world history. They think its a debate in which they are not allowed to switch sides.