BS: reasons Liberals fail

Subject: BS: reasons Liberals fail
From: beardedbruce
Date: 04 Oct 05 - 01:56 PM

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2005/10/03/AR2005100301492.html

http://sfgate.com/cgi-bin/article.cgi?f=/c/a/2005/05/22/INGUNCQHKJ1.DTL

http://seattlepi.nwsource.com/jamieson/198304_robert05.html



OK, now I will sit back and wait for all the personnal attacks from those who can't bother to argue facts.

Subject: RE: BS: reasons Liberals fail
From: Peace
Date: 04 Oct 05 - 01:58 PM

Liberals fail for the same reason conservatives fail: they don't study for the exam.

Subject: RE: BS: reasons Liberals fail
From: beardedbruce
Date: 04 Oct 05 - 02:05 PM

true.

Subject: RE: BS: reasons Liberals fail
From: Peace
Date: 04 Oct 05 - 02:06 PM

I agree with the first article; Thompson's is a personal statement and he's welcome to it; Jamieson's statement is a good one. I see little here to argue with let alone attack anyone over. Facts is facts. And opinions is opinions.

Subject: RE: BS: reasons Liberals fail
From: Clinton Hammond
Date: 04 Oct 05 - 02:07 PM

I think the reason anyone or anything fails is the mistaken belief that any ONE 'ism' or 'ology' has all the answers....

Subject: RE: BS: reasons Liberals fail
From: CarolC
Date: 04 Oct 05 - 02:07 PM

Ok, let's argue facts. What does "liberals fail" mean? Do you mean that "liberals" always fail? Conversely, are you suggesting that "liberals" never succeed? Or are you saying that "liberals" sometimes fail, and when they do, this is why? And if you are saying that "liberals" sometimes succeed, what are the reasons they succeed when they do? And if you are saying that "liberals" sometimes fail and sometimes succeed, do you also suggest that people who are not "liberals" also sometimes fail? And if they do, what are the reasons people who are not "liberals" sometimes fail?

Subject: RE: BS: reasons Liberals fail
From: beardedbruce
Date: 04 Oct 05 - 02:11 PM

CarolC,

If I wanted to say "always", I would have done so. I found, in these articles from liberal sources (IMO) valid reasons (IMO) why liberals, on many occasions, have been less successful than they might wish (IMO). I make no comment on others failing- they do- but THESE articles discuss LIBERALS.

Subject: RE: BS: reasons Liberals fail
From: Peace
Date: 04 Oct 05 - 02:12 PM

Beardedbruse: I can't see anyone getting too upset by the articles, tell ya the truth. I think the two-party system in the USA has allowed serious abuses of power--by Bush, by Clinton, by Reagan, et.al. The problem seems no longer to be WHO is in power; the problem seems to be distinguishing the parties from each other. It's like ya can't tell the difference without a script. I can't, anyway.

Please recall that while I really dislike Bush, I really disliked Clinton, too. So, the state of American politics now is bad. It's bad not due to the Bushes and Clintons, but due to the system that consistently forces folks to choose the lesser of evils. Democracy is in decline. The Caligula-state of Rome. Things jus' don't look so good right now.

I wish y'all luck getting trash OUT of Congress and OUT of 1600 Pennsylvania Avenue. The rest of the world has the same hope, IMO.

Subject: RE: BS: reasons Liberals fail
From: Bill D
Date: 04 Oct 05 - 02:13 PM

oh bruce! If you could just have managed to restrain yourself and ask "why some liberals manage to shoot themselves in the foot when given a golden opportunity", you'd have a point....why they'd be acting like some conservatives then!

Subject: RE: BS: reasons Liberals fail
From: Peace
Date: 04 Oct 05 - 02:13 PM

Sorry about misspelling your name, BeardedbruCe.

Subject: RE: BS: reasons Liberals fail
From: CarolC
Date: 04 Oct 05 - 02:20 PM

Thanks for the clarification, beardedbruce.

Subject: RE: BS: reasons Liberals fail
From: Jack the Sailor
Date: 04 Oct 05 - 02:21 PM

I'll stick to facts.

Reasons Richard Cohen failed: Nancy Pelosi is not the judge or a juror in the DeLay trial. She is not subject to the innocent until proven guilty dictum, which only applies to trials. She is allowed to look at DeLay's prior bad acts, more censures than anyone in the history of Congress, and say that he is corrupt.

Reasons Tom Delay failed" Because he is so corrupt and arrogant that he had to get caught some time.

Reason Beardedbruce failed: His premise has been invalidated is at least three different ways on this thread without an attack on him. This because "reasons Liberals fail" is such a pathetically weak and flimisy start to a discussion that it damned near falls down on its own.

Subject: RE: BS: reasons Liberals fail
From: beardedbruce
Date: 04 Oct 05 - 02:23 PM

SOME liberals deserve SOME conservatives.


I was not trying to upset people, just to point out that EVEN some liberals have noticed a less than angelic side to some liberals' actions.

So much for Bobert's Liberal Ubermensch....

Subject: RE: BS: reasons Liberals fail
From: Don Firth
Date: 04 Oct 05 - 02:28 PM

Beardedbruce, you seem to be making the mistake of assuming that the Democratic Party is representative of the liberal position.

Be of good cheer. You have a lot of company. Even members of the Democratic Party suffer from that misconception.

And along with that. most Americans assume that the United States is a democracy. It isn't. It's a plutocratic oligarcy.

Don Firth

Subject: RE: BS: reasons Liberals fail
From: Peace
Date: 04 Oct 05 - 02:28 PM

As it stands now, I have NO use for either of the major parties in the USA. One is dressed up as nice; the other is dressed equally nicely. Bottom line is that they both pimp for big business. That is all I have to say on this thread.

Subject: RE: BS: reasons Liberals fail
From: GUEST,Chief Chaos
Date: 04 Oct 05 - 02:31 PM

Failure can be ascribed to both parties for many different reasons. Unfortunately in a political system which only gives two "real" choices, both of which are deep in the pockets of special interests, and both of which are ideologically at either end of the pendulum, we, the folks in the middle, find ourselves unrepresented by either party.

Subject: RE: BS: reasons Liberals fail
From: Ebbie
Date: 04 Oct 05 - 02:32 PM

(The spineless White House also refused to defend Bennett.) Richard Cohen

1. What was their excuse? Should the thread title perhaps be: Reasons Conservatives Fail?

2. Keith Thompson does not impress me any better than he did the first time I read that screed. Obviously Spiro Agnew was his mentor.

3. Jamieson, imo, misunderstood the reaction to his experiment. I think the people who heard him say that he was a member of "Blacks for Bush" and cut him off were honest.

Subject: RE: BS: reasons Liberals fail
From: Les in Chorlton
Date: 04 Oct 05 - 02:35 PM

We should all be concerned that most people don't want to or cannot join and work within political parties.

Simply voting for people (especially when most people don't) is not democracy. Opinion and policy have to come from the bottom up on some kind of rolling programme. (IMHO)

Subject: RE: BS: reasons Liberals fail
From: WFDU - Ron Olesko
Date: 04 Oct 05 - 02:41 PM

Why do you people fall for this stuff? Why is it so important what the other side thinks, and why is it so important to re-hash the same arguements? Do you honestly think you are going to convert someone to your way of thinking?   Find something useful instead of all this Mudcat whining!   Same cast of characters each time.

Subject: RE: BS: reasons Liberals fail
From: beardedbruce
Date: 04 Oct 05 - 02:45 PM

Jack,

"Reason Beardedbruce failed: His premise has been invalidated is at least three different ways on this thread without an attack on him. This because "reasons Liberals fail" is such a pathetically weak and flimisy start to a discussion that it damned near falls down on its own. "

Your statement has not been substatiated, and is a poorly hidden attack. Would you care to state the three different way, or why the title, which was not the start of the discussion ( the articles were, if you bother to read them) is any weaker than the numerous anti-conservative "statements" I have seen here?


Don,

In this country, the Democratic party claims to represent liberals, as the Republican party claims to represent conservatives. I will agree that both claims may not be valid.


Ebbie,

"The spineless White House ..." Should I refuse to discuss something, just because it has negative comments about "my" ( NOTE QUOTES) side in it?

"I think the people who heard him say that he was a member of "Blacks for Bush" and cut him off were honest. " Honestly what? Bigoted against conservatives? Racial predjudiced in thinking that all blacks HAD to think the same? Please expand on this.

Subject: RE: BS: reasons Liberals fail
From: Ebbie
Date: 04 Oct 05 - 04:06 PM

I'd love to, bb.

Honest- in the sense that they were surprised, shocked, that an obviously bright man had fallen into such an indefensible position. OK? *G*


BB: Should I refuse to discuss something, just because it has negative comments about "my" ( NOTE QUOTES) side in it?

No. You needn't refuse to discuss something. I just think it detracts seriously from your contention. Do you really mean to say: "The reason that Liberals and the White House fail"? If the Democrats/Liberals are out of line for a political position, why are the White House/Republicans not equally out of line?


Incidentally I am not a Democrat. I just mostly vote for their platform and the stances they take.

Subject: RE: BS: reasons Liberals fail
From: Susu's Hubby
Date: 04 Oct 05 - 04:07 PM

I think that the articles are excellent even if they are opinion. But just because they are opinion does not take away from the truths that they are offering opinions on.

Good Post, beardedbruce.



Hubby

Subject: RE: BS: reasons Liberals fail
From: John Hardly
Date: 04 Oct 05 - 04:13 PM

Interesting links. Thanks for posting them.

Subject: RE: BS: reasons Liberals fail
From: Little Hawk
Date: 04 Oct 05 - 04:17 PM

Neither the Democratic Party nor the Republican Party are liberal, in my opinion, nor are they traditionally conservative. I regard the gyrations of the Democrats in government as I would regard the squirming of a diseased slug. I regard the gyrations of the Republicans in government as I would regard the writhing of a rabid lamprey. Neither one of them is what they "claim" to be. Their claims are patently false propaganda, concocted merely to secure votes from naive people.

You want me to pick my favorite from those 2 parasitic beasts and defend it?

No thanks. The Redemocrapublicants are a single two-headed beast posing as separate parties, and they are defrauding and ruining American society while they serve megacorporations. You are wasting your time and energy trying to decide which one of them is the "good guy".

Subject: RE: BS: reasons Liberals fail
From: Ebbie
Date: 04 Oct 05 - 04:22 PM

Ah, but you are not 'Amurrican'.

Subject: RE: BS: reasons Liberals fail
From: Little Hawk
Date: 04 Oct 05 - 04:34 PM

No, Ebbie. (grin) I will resist making any untoward remarks about that. I did live in New York State for 10 years (age 10-20), and I certainly learned a lot from that experience. The town I was in would have voted Republican if they ran Bonzo for President instead of Reagan. Hell, even if they ran Charles Manson for president...as long as he was Republican. What a travesty.

BB, the Iraqis are not defying fascism when they cast their votes...they are unintentionally deifying fascism and rubber-stamping World Corporate Empire. And World Corporate Empire IS fascism, on a bigger scale than was ever managed by Hitler or Mussolini or Joe Stalin (the killer who claimed to be an anti-fascist, but was in my opinion one of the great fascists of all time). Fascism is extreme control of society by the few, for the few, from the top, by propaganda, money, fraud, militarism, and deadly force. It can flourish equally well in the form of socialism or capitalism...or combinations of the two.

The Democratic and Republican parties are (in most individual cases, unwittingly) proponents of fascism...mostly in its capitalist mode. Stalin did it in a socialist mode.

You would ask me to choose between 2 insane monsters? No thanks.

Subject: RE: BS: reasons Liberals fail
From: John Hardly
Date: 04 Oct 05 - 04:38 PM

Whether you are liberal or conservative, you usually only have either of two options to express your political wishes. It's not outlandish to suggest that for the past thirty years in America, conservatives have decided that the Republican party offers to represent more of their wishes, while the liberals have found what they believe to be better representation in the Democratic party.

What is interesting about the first two links is that the writer is making the case that, Democratic party aside, the liberal philosophy itself has drifted.

I read some interesting commentary a few weeks ago that was saying the same sort of thing, but was focusing on the detrimental effect the newly powerful liberal voice was having on the Democratic party.

Essentially, it pointed out that the finacial support for the Democratic party is now in the hands of groups too liberal for mainstream appeal -- and that finacial support forces the Democratic politian into a corner -- he must verbally acknowledge his liberal philosophical underpinnings, or risk the loss of his finacial support -- though in his gut he knows that mainstream America is not in agreement with the extremes from the left.

Interesting preference of term -- "progressive". Progressive seems to be the nomenclature of choice among those who were once "liberal" -- somehow many felt as though it became politically disadvantageous to call oneself "liberal" and so "progressive" served euphamistically.

But "progressive" implies (and it seems to have worked out this way) no actual philosophy other than change - progress - for its own sake.

Conversely, "liberal" is a VERY honorable word. As the one writer tried to point out -- liberals were for freedom -- liberty -- for all -- not the "libertine" it has come to mean to so many.

Not to worry too much though....

....if President Bush can be referred to as a "conservative", the same thing has happened to both sides.

Subject: RE: BS: reasons Liberals fail
From: Don Firth
Date: 04 Oct 05 - 04:41 PM

Decades ago, Harry S. Truman (you may not have liked him or agreed with him, but you were never in doubt as to where he stood) said, "Betweeen a Republican and a Democrat who acts like a Republican, the Republican will win every time." The Dems seem to have forgotten this within recent times and that is the crux of their problem. If they offered a truly liberal alternative, it would be a whole different story.

Don Firth

Subject: RE: BS: reasons Liberals fail
From: GUEST
Date: 04 Oct 05 - 04:56 PM

What the fuck has this thread got to do with any of the political parties around the world that use the name "Liberal". Lower case PLEASE.

Subject: RE: BS: reasons Liberals fail
From: McGrath of Harlow
Date: 04 Oct 05 - 05:29 PM

Thanks bruce for giving those links, rather than posting the articles here - much easier to read like thta.

Americans have lost the ability to disagree civilly - from that third link bruce gave. Some of the posts here would seem to inducate that that is true. But there are enough that aren't like that to suggest that it's a little too all embracing as a generalisation. (Well, at least some of these appear to be from Americans.)

Subject: RE: BS: reasons Liberals fail
From: GUEST
Date: 04 Oct 05 - 05:40 PM

open with: "OK, now I will sit back and wait for all the personnal attacks from those who can't bother to argue facts."

follow closely with: "I was not trying to upset people..."

Oh bullshit. I stopped reading the thread right there.

Subject: RE: BS: reasons Liberals fail
From: artbrooks
Date: 04 Oct 05 - 05:52 PM

Well, I read all three articles. None of them really discussed "liberals" as such, or why they fail. They did discuss the failure of "the left" or of the "progressives" which, as we should all know (ask any "progressive") are very different from liberals. In fact, liberals, by definition (Webster's) are really firmly in the center, since they believe in giving everyone an opportunity to express an opinion and in trying all possible options.

Subject: RE: BS: reasons Liberals fail
From: Little Hawk
Date: 04 Oct 05 - 05:57 PM

This thread has nothing to do with all the parties in the World that are named "the Liberal Party". The Liberal Party in Canada, for example, a party that basically serves its rich friends, is the party that knows SUCCESS, not failure, politically speaking. Though they are rightly detested even by many who grit their teeth and vote for them....they have formed the vast majority of Canada's ruling national governments up to this time. That's because their opponents are at least as bad as they are, most of the time, but haven't got nearly as solid a power base to work from. The Liberal Party in Canada is duplicitous, clever...and only pretends to be liberal...kind of like the Democrats, except you can leave "clever" out of the equation. The Conservative Party in Canada is duplicitous, inflexible, money-driven, and pretends to be conservative, while serving its rich friends.

Ho hum.

If I may quote Dylan: "don't follow leaders"

Got that right.

There is no political party of any size out there right now that is worth casting a vote for. At least, none that I know of. Why? They've all been bought. (and by the same people too...in a general sense...I'm sure there are individual exceptions)

Subject: RE: BS: reasons Liberals fail
From: Bill D
Date: 04 Oct 05 - 06:12 PM

I've said for years that we in the US need a multiplicity of parties as in other countries...such as Israel. Then we could join one that more closely reflects our views and have a rollicking good time making alliances at voting time. It is weird having Tom DeLay and John McCain and Arlen Spector in the same party...just as it is weird having Ted Kennedy and Bill Clinton in the same party. It makes people use the terms 'liberal' and 'conservative' in stupid, awkward ways!

Subject: RE: BS: reasons Liberals fail
From: GUEST
Date: 04 Oct 05 - 07:20 PM

1:56 PM
"OK, now I will sit back and wait for all the personnal attacks from those who can't bother to argue facts."

2:23 PM
"I was not trying to upset people..."

7:14 PM
Baloney!!!!!!!!!!!

Subject: RE: BS: reasons Liberals fail
From: Peace
Date: 04 Oct 05 - 07:35 PM

"even by many who grit their teeth"

Nice play on words there, LH.

Subject: RE: BS: reasons Liberals fail
From: McGrath of Harlow
Date: 04 Oct 05 - 07:43 PM

It makes people use the terms 'liberal' and 'conservative' in stupid, awkward ways!

I can't see why. If anything the reverse - I'd have thought that that very factor would lead Americans to talk about "liberal Democrats" as against "conservative Democrats" and "liberal Republicans" as against "conservative Republicans". Didn't they used to do that a few years ago?

If people "use the terms 'liberal' and 'conservative' in stupid, awkward ways" it's surely either because they are being stupid and awkward, or because they are trying to manipulate language for political reasons.

Subject: RE: BS: reasons Liberals fail
From: Amos
Date: 04 Oct 05 - 07:54 PM

Your observations have nothing to do with anyone who is actually liberal, in the genuine sense of the word. Instead, you, like many others, have stolen the word in order to fabricate a new cuss word from it, following the lead of Ann Coulter and her like. There is nothing liberal about some of the things you document, just as there is nothing genuinely conservative -- in the truer and better sense of the word -- about De Lay and his ubermesnch gang.

I would suggest if you want a discussion about facts that you stop trying to point at senseless generalizations negatively intended, and see if you can come up with some constructive suggestions for remedying our budget deficit and the fact that we are spending billions fielding a death machine that could be better spent on forwarding alternative energy research. Are do you belong to the "we will never run out of oil..." school of thought?


A

Subject: RE: BS: reasons Liberals fail
From: M.Ted
Date: 04 Oct 05 - 10:19 PM

Both sides have long since stopped having serious discussions about issues, and simply use the public platforms as an opportunity to make points with their fringe supporters.

Criticizing liberals and lambasting conservatives means nothing. Everything has been reduced to a tug of war, and both sides have the the idea that mobilizing the fringes might be all that it takes to pull thing their way.

Does anyone even know what the important issues are? And, more to the point, does anyone care?

Subject: RE: BS: reasons Liberals fail
From: Little Hawk
Date: 05 Oct 05 - 12:41 AM

Yeah. Oil, profits, the drug trade, more profits, stock market manipulation, more profits, military production, the dollar, fresh water, gold, market share, and more profits. And profits too.

That's if you're working for the Empire.

If you're a Muslim zealot, then religion is quite important too, and not just for propaganda purposes...though it definitely works great for that. Even the Empire uses religion for propaganda. Quite shamelessly, in fact. Some of its henchmen actually believe the religious stuff. Now THAT's scary! (Did you know that God favors the profit-seekers?) (Yeah..right...)

Subject: RE: BS: reasons Liberals fail
From: GUEST,TIA
Date: 05 Oct 05 - 08:17 AM

No no LH, it's "blessed are the cheesemakers..."

Subject: RE: BS: reasons Liberals fail
From: Amos
Date: 05 Oct 05 - 09:08 AM

I submit there are really only a few major issues.

The largest of these is reconfiguring the energy system in use here. The second largest is a long-term assessment and resolution to water issues. The third largest is redesigning the machinery of our social systems to try and resurrect respect and reliance on individual ability while at the same time seeing that help is available to those whose burdens are too great. That means health, employment, tax and related issues.

It always strikes me as odd that the current administration believes in not putting Federal effort behind art, behind science, behind resolving environmental and water issues, and funds no major energy efforts (except with lip service) but somehow it seems perfectly natural to spend a billion a day or so to field the machinery of death. Odd business, not exactly logical, nor (to my mind) very sane.
\
A

Subject: RE: BS: reasons Liberals fail
From: John Hardly
Date: 05 Oct 05 - 10:29 AM

There is no good reason for the federal government to put money behind art (other than as part of public education).

Just try to stop an artist from creating.

Subject: RE: BS: reasons Liberals fail
From: GUEST,Chief Chaos
Date: 05 Oct 05 - 12:17 PM

I don't understand how liberal became a bad word.
It's what the U.S.A. is actually founded on:

1. We liberated ourselves from religeous persecution.
2. We liberated ourselves from a non-representative gov't.
3. We liberated a lot of land (rightly or wrongly from the peoples already there)
4. We finally got around to liberating the slaves.
5. We liberated Texas (might have been a mistake).
6. We liberated Spanish territories in the "new world".
7. We "helped" liberate Europe (WWI)
8. We helped re-liberate Europe (WWII)

I could go on,
In between we attempted to liberate our people from ignorance, fear, poverty, starvation, etc.

Why would we wan't to go back?

And the term conservative only applies to so called "majority" values.
The conservatives don't believe in conservation. They believe in exploitation (should they be called the Exploitatives?)

Subject: RE: BS: reasons Liberals fail
From: GUEST,rarelamb
Date: 05 Oct 05 - 12:24 PM

Liberal as in 18th century usage is not what liberals are today. We call them liberal but they are actually socialists.

Conservatives are 18th century liberals.

Subject: RE: BS: reasons Liberals fail
From: Bill D
Date: 05 Oct 05 - 12:52 PM

"It makes people use the terms 'liberal' and 'conservative' in stupid, awkward ways!"

well...I guess I should have said clearly 'some' people...or 'many' people, and I should have used a different word than 'makes'....typing in a hurry 'makes' someone miss the main point of my post about how having only major two parties tends to identify each with one of only two major philosophies.

Of COURSE some Americans refer to 'liberal Rupublicans' at times...etc...but we have folks who don't like to have to insert the qualifying nomenclature themselves and just plaster simplistic labels on things.

Subject: RE: BS: reasons Liberals fail
From: John Hardly
Date: 05 Oct 05 - 12:59 PM

"4. We finally got around to liberating the slaves."

This is a fairly good example of the kind of "liberal-speak" to which I believe the writers of one of the linked articles referred.

It has become such a mark of the American left to woller in self-loathing -- in America-loathing -- that cannot even acknowledge, without the qualifiers (like "finally"), A goodness about America.

That "finally" happened well within the first hundred years of our existance. And we now have more history after that "finally" then we do before that "finally" -- almost 3/4 of a century more. In fact, 2/3 of our existance as a nation has been slavery free.

That "finally" ended an institution that we did not, as a nation, begin. Furthermore, on the world scene, we were cutting edge in ridding ourselves of that awful pestilence.

I don't find any need, when proudly pointing out that the US liberated slaves, to qualify it with "finally".

The American left does -- and it is not a winsome need.

Subject: RE: BS: reasons Liberals fail
From: Don Firth
Date: 05 Oct 05 - 01:01 PM

Conservatives are far from 18th century liberals, rarelamb. Today's conservatives are basically feudalists. Lord of the manor (read "The Corporation") and the serfs (read "employees"). Conservatives have made no secret that they want to go back to the days before labor unions and government regulation of business (such as anti-trust laws and regulatiory agencies such as the Securities and Exchange Commission--which has recently been asleep at the switch, otherwise Enron and other rip-offs could never have happened). You should have stayed awake in your high school history and civics classes.

It's not for nothing that heads of industry used to be called "Robber Barons," and the current batch of conservatives want to go back to that era. If you doubt this, read some of the writings of Grover Norquist and other conservatives. What their talking about is hardly 18th cenury liberalism. If they get their way, you'll be bowing and tugging your forelock before the office manager soon enough.

Don Firth

Subject: RE: BS: reasons Liberals fail
From: GUEST,Chief Chaos
Date: 05 Oct 05 - 01:15 PM

John - The first colonist came ashore in 1607. Considering that as the starting point it was more than 200 years. (I know we didn't have slaves at the time). I state "finally" because salvery was an issue prior to our separation from England.
(cut and paste warning)
-From the Library of Congress:

The American Anti-Slavery Society was established in 1833, but abolitionist sentiment antedated the republic. For example, the charter of Georgia prohibited slavery, and many of its settlers fought a losing battle against allowing it in the colony, Before independence, Quakers, most black Christians, and other religious groups argued that slavery was incompatible with Christ's teaching. Moreover, a number of revolutionaries saw the glaring contradiction between demanding freedom for themselves while holding slaves.

I understand your post in context. I don't bemoan our actions in history. I only accept that we were responsible for some heinous attrocities.

Subject: RE: BS: reasons Liberals fail
From: John Hardly
Date: 05 Oct 05 - 01:31 PM

We were not the United States Of America until the late 1780's. Until that point, "We" didn't make national choices for ourselves.

When "we" did, we made the anti-slavery choice very early in our existance.

And the irony is that you desire to put an even finer point to the America loathing by defining us early enough to be more "guilty" of slavery, illustrates exactly what I'm talking about.

It has become the liberal habit to define everything in some way as to paint the very worst portrait of our country. That is not winsome -- nor is it accurate.

Subject: RE: BS: reasons Liberals fail
From: Amos
Date: 05 Oct 05 - 01:39 PM

Liberalness, in its essence, is a matter of respecting the freedoms of others; it comes, after all, from the word liber which (contrary to some cherished right-wing fantasies) does not come from the Latin word for a dull tome, but from the Latin word for free.

Of late, freedom has been a much-abused term by the Bush administration; they speak about it frequently while in fact they believe the Federal government ought to make it is business to deny people the right to (for example) marry each other if their preferences don't match the Bushite template of correctitude; nor should they be free to opt out of reproduction once pregant; nor should they be free to speak freely against the current administration at events it holds, except in carefully walled off "free speech zones". These are a few examples. There are others.

Thanks to the current administration, Americans are now free to go hunt other human beings overseas with a license from the government, kill them in gore and possibly even get killed themselves. We are doing this in order to bring freedom to the people of Iraq, a significant per centage of whom are ferociously dedicated to taking that freedom away from the other half, creating an atmosphere in which the citizens of Bagthdad are now free to tread cautiously everywhere they go for fear of being blown up, shot down, arrested by American GIs and held without process or decapitated by fanatics with religious slogans tatooed on their chests. I grant you, Bush did not create the undercurrents of religous zealotry which informs this half of Iraq, but he sure as hell managed it incompetently. As a result, the theatre has become a magnet and proving ground for every adolescent for thousands of miles around with a bent world-view and a back-pack to stuff gelignite into.

This is not a liberal solution. I am quite sure that there are some occasions when treating others with dignity and respect is an unavailable option, as when confronted with unprovoked violence, and forcing the issue is the sole option of last resort... But even liberals know that. And their counterparts wake up relishing the use of that option before breakfast, as though it were an intelligent choice rather than a desperate one.

Liberals are not pinkos, socialist, dweebs, commies, gays, or whiners in their nature, although any of these types may well show up in their ranks, just as conservatives by definition are not greedy money-loving insensitive brutes and reactionaries by their nature.

Liberals are those who prefer to build better solutions than the solution of tooth and claw where possible. They are those who believe in an honest dialogue rather than the mechanism of political manipulation, by and large (I can already think of exceptions, though! :)) They alos, for the most part, believe in open information and the right and duty of the citizen to think for himself rather than goose-step to someone else's drum. At least in my Book of Liberal Tenets that is right near the top. Finally, they believe that improving the processes of society can improve the well-being of that society across the boards. ANyone who has seen good process-improvement in a large company knows this really works; while anyone who has seen it done badly, in large government for example, knows it is too ridiculous to even think about.


A




A

A

Subject: RE: BS: reasons Liberals fail
From: beardedbruce
Date: 05 Oct 05 - 01:48 PM

Amos,

For all your extensive commentary about conservatives here, you do not address the point of the articles I mention in the first post, which imply that, even to other "liberals" the present bunch of people claiming that title are NOT acting as you say they should.

"Liberalness, in its essence, is a matter of respecting the freedoms of others; it comes, after all, from the word liber which (contrary to some cherished right-wing fantasies) does not come from the Latin word for a dull tome, but from the Latin word for free. "


So, can you tell us why the "liberals" being discussed are NOT respecting the freedoms of others, instead of turning this into a diatribe against the present "conservative" administration?

Subject: RE: BS: reasons Liberals fail
From: Amos
Date: 05 Oct 05 - 02:10 PM

Bruce:

I think the dichotomy is just stupid as it is being applied here. You are using the word so loosely that your questions, which are tainted with whinge and an odor of blame, are meaningless. You are trying to project a small number of examples into the character of a whole tribe, and the tribe is misdefined and therefore largely imaginary in the first instance. You're just making a semantic mess and then asking for some sort of insightful opinion into it. Can't be done, pard, sorry. Even if it could, do you really think it is a game worth playing?

There are plenty of nutballs out there on both ends of the spectrum, whatever the real spectrum is, without sounding alarums about fictitious generalities. You keep that up and the boojums will get pissed off and descend on your sorry hide in a black, acid cloud which will ruin your manhood forever and turn you mottled puce.

A

A

Subject: RE: BS: reasons Liberals fail
From: Peace
Date: 05 Oct 05 - 02:12 PM

What is puce? Did I do that once in a toilet bowl?

Subject: RE: BS: reasons Liberals fail
From: GUEST,Chief Chaos
Date: 05 Oct 05 - 02:19 PM

But John, that's not true!

We as a country began in 1607 there was already belief that owning slaves was wrong (by some). Nobody from England (or any of the other nations contributing to our founding)put a gun to anyone's head and said "I give you slavery or I give you death". Just because we didn't formalize our independence until 1776 doesn't mean we as a "people" didn't exist.

Also, I don't care that Washington had slaves (in the sense you mean). I don't care that Jefferson had them either. What mattered in the context of the message is that we were liberal enough to decide that slavery was wrong. And although I don't believe that the U.S. Civil War was the "War to Free The Slaves" as some put it, it was an outcome of that war.

I don't see a "conservative" meaning someone who prefers the way things are or were, of wanting that outcome. To take your statement about our nation beginning in 1776 it would seem that a conservative would look at it and say "Hey, we've always had slaves ever since the founding of our country! It was good enough for my father and my father's father, it's good enough for me! Gimme that old time repression, gimme that old time oppression, gimme that old time repression, it's good enough for me!

And by the way, within your viewpoint we freed the white folks from repression overnight in 1776, It then took nearly a hundred years to free the non-whites.

Your making too much out of the word finally.

Subject: RE: BS: reasons Liberals fail
From: beardedbruce
Date: 05 Oct 05 - 02:22 PM

So, you didn't bother even reading the articles, then?


"You are trying to project a small number of examples into the character of a whole tribe,"

No, as I stated upon questioning by CarolC. YOU have insisted on being the voice of Anti-bush, yet have the nerve to make this statement?

MOST of the "conservatives" here have stated that we do not agree with the Bush administration at all times- but that the choice we were given has forced us into supporting the lesser of two evils. You have put forward the claim that those who disagree with you are "sorry", "nor (to my mind) very sane.", or some other derogotory term- not exactly the "liberal" "those who believe in an honest dialogue rather than the mechanism of political manipulation, by and large "

Subject: RE: BS: reasons Liberals fail
From: pdq
Date: 05 Oct 05 - 03:10 PM

beardebruce...are you sure this thread's title should not be "reason fails Liberals"

Subject: RE: BS: reasons Liberals fail
From: John Hardly
Date: 05 Oct 05 - 03:12 PM

I'm merely pointing out that your use of the word "finally" was a qualifier that indicated a less-than-favorable view of our history.   Had a negative view of the US and our history not been so integral to your point of view, you would merely have stated that "we liberated slaves" -- and that would have been a positive view of our country.

But because the last thing a liberal seems capable of doing (and this is reflected in at least two of the articles to which bb linked, and this thread is about) is to speak positively about our country. Without qualifiers.

And I am echoing the points made by the articles -- that that is not a very successful way to win the hearts and minds of your fellow Americans -- especially when, when it comes right down to it, they don't all accept, in reality, the negative, US-is-always-wrong point of view that the liberal always chooses to present in theory.

It is the nature of "Progressives" -- especially when they see the political advantage of banding together -- to always be pointing out what needs to be changed. Sometimes things need to be changed. No doubt about it. And each progressive special interest group could be expressing it's displeasure with some aspect of the US without denigrating every aspect of the US.

But in reality, since, for political reasons, many (if not most) progressive special interest groups have pooled together for their voting and political power, there is nothing left about America that this collective of progressives can praise. Every single aspect of American life is one progressive special interest group or another progressive special interest group's pet political project. Collectively, for political purposes, there is, therefore, almost NOTHING about America that the political progressives like.

And as one of those articles to which bb linked pointed out -- it has become knee-jerk to stand in solidarity with other progressives -- against any possibility that an opposing side may score a political point -- that liberals will now even choose to stand against their own core beliefs in order to defeat a conservative who might actually be standing for that core belief.

A good example of that political whip-lash was the National Organization of Women's AMAZING rhetorical turn-around between the time of Clarence Thomas' confirmation hearings and the Clinton/Lewinsky scandal.

And then, sadly, the things that "progressives" DO seem to like about America are strangely twisted. For instance, the progressives seem to dearly love the first amendment to our constitution -- the "free speech part (I dearly love it as well). But they proudly tie themselves to such vile, immoral issues and people as the Larry Flynts of the world, as though somehow making the world safe for sado-masochistic pornography is a lofty goal.

Subject: RE: BS: reasons Liberals fail
From: beardedbruce
Date: 05 Oct 05 - 04:03 PM

John,

I have less of a problem with the "progressives" supporting pornography than I do with them stating how sacred the Bill of Rights is, except when they do not like it. Few will support the secound amendment- though a reading of the founding fathers makes it clear that they felt the citizens should have the right to bear arms. I will give them the right to free speech, but expect the rights of the other amendments to be equally respected.

Subject: RE: BS: reasons Liberals fail
From: Amos
Date: 05 Oct 05 - 06:11 PM

Bruce:

You are quite off the mark here, my friend.

1. I did read the articles.

2. My attribution of illogic and dubious sanity was not to a large generality of people but to the specific actions of some.

I have never known a liberal who thought the U.S. was "always wrong" john. However, most of the political traffic you hear from them is in protest of actions they have taken that has been wrong-headed, or arguably so. The liberals I know hold high ideals for this country and get disappointed when people seem a bit dodgy about living up to them, or tinkering with devices beyond their understanding. I would sure rather support the Second Amendment than tolerate the current erosion of some of the others.

A

Subject: RE: BS: reasons Liberals fail
From: McGrath of Harlow
Date: 05 Oct 05 - 06:19 PM

The fact that people feel entitled to use the expression "we" to times before we were born, and, for Americans, in many cases to times before their ancestors even came to America - it is really pretty strange.

When it is applied about ideas and philiosphies, it makes some kind of metaphorical sense - "we" meaning people who think more or less in the same way I do.

But when it is applied to nations, it makes no sense whatsoever that I can see. That applies just as much when it comes to asking for a share of the praise for the good things that were done, or offering to carry a share of the blame for the bad things.

There were a lot of both those kinds of things in all our histories. We can learn lessons from what happened, we can draw warnigs and inspiration from it, and we can try to set right some of the uinjustices that have their origins back there. But we don't have the right to pat our selves on the backs, or shoulder the blame, because it wasn't us who did the things that deserve praise or blame back then.

Subject: RE: BS: reasons Liberals fail
From: Greg F.
Date: 05 Oct 05 - 06:20 PM

Furthermore, on the world scene, we were cutting edge in ridding ourselves of that awful pestilence...we made the anti-slavery choice very early in our existance.

John H,

Just shows your total ignorance of that you're incompletely informed about the history of slavery in America. We talked a good fight, but slaves were still regularly imported into South Carolina, Georgia, and the Gulf Coast right up through the Civil War. The Atlantic slave trade did NOT end in 1809, as was claimed.

BRITAIN may have been on the "cutting edge"- certainly not the U.S.

Try again- pick up Mannix, Daniel P.:Black Cargoes Viking 1962 or any of a host of more recent works.

NB: a comprehensive explanation and understanding of history isn't ipso facto a "negative view".

Subject: RE: BS: reasons Liberals fail
From: John Hardly
Date: 05 Oct 05 - 06:22 PM

"The liberals I know hold high ideals for this country"

And what I find to be true of them is that these "ideals" are what they wish the country was or could be -- not what it is.

Again, idn't that the nature of being "progressive"? Progressing toward an ideal and away from the present state? By very nature they are not satisfied. And that inherent disatisfaction, when it doesn't come across as whiney criticism, comes across as discontent with the country.

Controlling sadomasochistic pornography is not, nor has it ever been a "camel's nose under the tent" that threatened free speech. I think people are quite capable of upholding the right for one while denying the right for the other.

Subject: RE: BS: reasons Liberals fail
From: John Hardly
Date: 05 Oct 05 - 06:25 PM

Holy shit, Greg. I in no way made a claim, overtly or by inference, that American slavery ended before the Civil War.

Subject: RE: BS: reasons Liberals fail
From: Peace
Date: 05 Oct 05 - 06:59 PM

"In 1793 Britain went to war against the French following the French Revolution and the cause of the slave-traders appeared to be a patriotic cause: the trade was seen as the "nursery of seamen." Abolition of the trade was postponed although Wilberforce regularly continued to propose legislation for abolition. His moral case was very strong and the evils of the trade were generally admitted. In 1807 the slave trade in the British colonies was abolished and it became illegal to carry slaves in British ships. This was only the beginning: the ultimate aim was the abolition of slavery itself."

from here.

Subject: RE: BS: reasons Liberals fail
From: Donuel
Date: 05 Oct 05 - 07:14 PM

Why liberals fail is a question in the same class as...

Why can't Republicans stop beating thier wives??????


BUT lets assume both questions are valid.

Liberals fail because they are not free. Conservatives succeed because they are totally liberated from the truth. Nothing is more liberating than to be completely free of the confines of truth.


Republicans can't stop beating thier wives because they have to prove they are the boss just like the (heavily edited in the 7th century) bible says.

Subject: RE: BS: reasons Liberals fail
From: McGrath of Harlow
Date: 05 Oct 05 - 07:34 PM

People fail because, being human beings, they are fallible. Liberals, conservatives, socialists, anarchists...

Subject: RE: BS: reasons Liberals fail
From: Donuel
Date: 05 Oct 05 - 08:06 PM

Liberals, conservatives, socialists, anarchists, antichrists, extraterrestrials...

Subject: RE: BS: reasons Liberals fail
From: pdq
Date: 05 Oct 05 - 08:13 PM

The first, last and largest player in the modern slave trade was Portugal. Over 40% of Africans were moved by Portugese, mostly to Brazil.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Trans-Atlantic imports by region
1450-1900
Region                              Number of slaves      accounted for %
Brazil                                          4,000,000          35.4
Spanish Empire                           2,500,000                  22.1
British West Indies                           2,000,000                  17.7
French West Indies                     1,600,000                  14.1
British North America
   (and United States)                       500,000                    4.4
Dutch West Indies                              500,000                    4.4
Danish West Indies                        28,000                    0.2
Europe (and Islands)                       200,000                    1.8
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Total:                                     11,328,000                 100.0%

Here is the article:

          Trans-Atlantic Slave Trade

Subject: RE: BS: reasons Liberals fail
From: Don Firth
Date: 05 Oct 05 - 08:20 PM

Okay, let's put it right where it is.

Just for the record, I've read all three of the articles that Bruce linked to and I can't say that I'm impressed. The one from the Seattle paper is nearly a year old and has turned out to be wrong on several points. Also, the word "liberal" is being thrown around loosely by these writers and by lots of people posting here who have no real clue as to what the actual liberal political philosophy is. Equating the Democratic Party with the liberal or progressive position shows just how far off they are.

This thread was started with the idea of once again beating the Rush Limbaugh, Ann Coulter, Bill O'Reilly humdrum about what treasonous dolts and blithering idiots "liberals" are. Straw man fallacy once again! Construct a foolish looking effigy, endow it with all kinds of idiotic characteristics, call it a "liberal," and then knock it apart.

Sorry, no sale!

Don Firth

Subject: RE: BS: reasons Liberals fail
From: Greg F.
Date: 06 Oct 05 - 09:45 AM

PDQ-

And your point is? the U.S was somehow "better" than Portugal?

{ps: the Trans-Atlantic Trade figures you reference- even if accurate- do not take into account the large number of Blacks re-exported from the Carribean and South Anmerica into the U.S. There was a vast demand for "seasoned" slaves in addition to those direct from Africa.}

Subject: RE: BS: reasons Liberals fail
From: beardedbruce
Date: 06 Oct 05 - 10:24 AM

Don,

"nearly a year old and has turned out to be wrong on several points."

Care to let us know what these points are? Or do we just take your word?

The articles in question do not talk about "what treasonous dolts and blithering idiots "liberals" are." The POINT is that the people in political power in this country, who represent themselves as "liberals" ( as opposed to "conservatives"), have demonstrated that they do NOT follow the claimed "liberal" philosophy, any more than the present administration follows the traditional "conservative" values. I have heard THAT brought up in many threads- is there some problem with pointing out some of the flaws of those claiming to act for the self-proclaimed "superior" philosophy?



Construct a foolish looking effigy, endow it with all kinds of idiotic characteristics, call it a "conservative," and then knock it apart.


THAT has never drawn any complaint from you...

Subject: RE: BS: reasons Liberals fail
From: GUEST,Chief Chaos
Date: 06 Oct 05 - 10:54 AM

The preamble says it all to me.

That one little line - "in order to form a more perfect union"

Not "a perfect union".

To me 89 years or 261 years is still a long time. I haven't yet reached half of the first.

But the examples I gave were all positive. Just because I used "finally" on one I have a negative viewpoint. There are a lot of things that we did wrong. I don't dwell on them wringing my hands and apologizing. I make sure I don't repeat them again. But since you brought it up...it seems to me that there are at least some on the conservative side who believe we can do no wrong. I think that we must tread carefully. This doesn't mean cringe in a corner but it does mean to consider our actions and their outcomes. I don't think that's happening.

Subject: RE: BS: reasons Liberals fail
From: Amos
Date: 06 Oct 05 - 11:55 AM

11,328,000 estimated human beings turned into chattel and possessions of other humans! Jaysus Christ. That is a chilling figure.

This does not include more modern equivalents being run under the radar for the most part, such as sexual-slave trafficking, child-sweatshop and prostitution rings, and the underground traffick in illegal immigrants and refugees who end up in the equivalent of forced labour or sweatshop situations. I have no idea what the extent of these practices is, but more to the point, they bring home, along with the above figures, how callous and insane some segments of our species is as regards other humans.

And we think we wage-slaves have it bad. At least we can walk away.


A

Subject: RE: BS: reasons Liberals fail
From: beardedbruce
Date: 06 Oct 05 - 12:00 PM

thread.cfm?threadid=79004&messages=32

Subject: RE: BS: reasons Liberals fail
From: Ebbie
Date: 06 Oct 05 - 12:27 PM

McGrath, talking about what 'we' did - when our nation wasn't formed yet or before we were born to me in actuality refers to what "we humans' have done or considered OK to do. In that light we can indeed look askance at our history.


Objecting to 'finally' is combing the fine print indeed, John. 'Finally' to me has the right connotation.

I remember how appalled I was when the then-mayor of Los Angeles said in high dudgeon: 'Why, we started to prosecute race crimes in our community ten years ago!'

To me, the assumption that 'finally' getting around to combatting an injustice somehow makes OK what happened in the past is no cause for congratulation. A little humility wouldn't come amiss.

During the civil rights movement one of my brothers told me that he agrees with the aims of black people, but he said: 'They are moving too fast. We should do it little by little.'

I said, You mean, if the Amish were being discriminated against and beaten and not welcomed as an entity and the country finally realized that it was wrong, that you think they should remedy the injustices little by little??

My brother, incidentally, is very conservative. A nice guy but, you know, very conservative.

Subject: RE: BS: reasons Liberals fail
From: GUEST,Art Thieme
Date: 06 Oct 05 - 12:30 PM

Lately, liberals fail because they aren't in a position to succeed. Even though their positions might be correct, they don't have the votes, and in this system that is what they need to push their agenda. It's that simple. Given that elections have been stolen in recent times is a major cause for concern.

When Roosevelt won 4 elections in a row, the liberals did not "fail" !

One must be in power to wield power---with "good" or "bad" results---depending on ones point of view.

Art Thieme

Subject: RE: BS: reasons Liberals fail
From: John Hardly
Date: 06 Oct 05 - 12:41 PM

"'Finally' to me has the right connotation."

EXACTLY!!!

That's exactly what I'm saying. To the liberal, anything that might in some way be construed as a positive thing about America must be mentioned in a qualified manner. So, we didn't end slavery. We FINALLY ended slavery. If we had only been a good nation. If we had only been as good as... If we were only.....

Subject: RE: BS: reasons Liberals fail
From: Bill D
Date: 06 Oct 05 - 01:05 PM

why slavery? and why did/does it persist in places?

it's easy...being evil, uncaring, narrow-minded and greedy 'can' seem to have short-term benefits to those who have only self-interest in mind and are basically ignorant about consequences. In that way it's no different than robbery or writing bad checks...but it is more difficult to maintain as an institution, as it requires most of those in power to share those sad characteristics.

   Economic interests, combined with prejudice and sheer ignorance of what 'human' means allowed people to look the other way for many years.

Subject: RE: BS: reasons Liberals fail
From: Little Hawk
Date: 06 Oct 05 - 01:33 PM

John, the British Empire ended slavery in 1833, quite some time before the USA did.

Yet, I would not hold the British up necessarily as paragons of human progress in a blanket sense (though they have made significant contributions)...nor would I regard them as above criticism...nor would I regard a Briton who criticized his society for its errors, past or present, as being somehow disloyal to Britain. Quite the contrary. But you seem to feel that "liberals" (as you interpret the word) are somehow disloyal to the USA.

It's all a matter of perception, isn't it? Which USA are they being disloyal to? Which vision OF the USA? Yours or theirs?

You cannot claim that the USA was historically at the "cutting edge" in ending slavery. It was not. The USA was a latecomer when it came to ending slavery. The USA also seems to have more troublesome issues between blacks and whites than most other developed societies, right to this day. (You certainly make more noise about it, that's for sure.) In what other country would a travesty like the O.J.Simpson trail occur? In what other country were race riots seen to equal those in Detroit, Watts, and Los Angeles? In what other country were people like Martin Luther King and Malcolm X raised up to lead mass movements of blacks fighting for equality and assassinated?

The USA has a tremendously traumatic history as a result of its historical adventure with the institution of slavery, and the damage from that is still experienced today by millions of people, both black and white. The fear and hatred are still there today.

I don't call that "cutting edge", unless you mean the edge of the knife that cuts the throat...

Subject: RE: BS: reasons Liberals fail
From: John Hardly
Date: 06 Oct 05 - 02:30 PM

no, not disloyal. Dissatisfied. Inherently, institutionally, integrally dissatisfied.

They cannot bring themselves to praise, in an unqualified manner, anything about America.

THAT is part of what the linked article writers finally found untenable about their association with liberals -- the writers could not in good logic or conscience believe in the inherent inferiority, the inherent failure, the inherent evil that the liberals believe America to be.

Subject: RE: BS: reasons Liberals fail
From: Little Hawk
Date: 06 Oct 05 - 02:53 PM

But, John, everyone is dissatisfied about society. ;-) It's just about what aspect they are dissatisfied that is the question. Ask 'em. You will find that they are VERY dissatisfied about this and that. Ann Coulter is. Jesse Jackson is. Bush is. Cheney is. I am. Joe blow is. Your beef is just that "liberals" are dissatisfied about different stuff than you are! (heh!)

And everyone praises what they like about society...but...you are far MORE likely to hear them when they are dissatisfied with something. (listen to the news)

That's the nature of people. They bitch and complain, because it's more exciting, and they think that "the squeaky wheel gets the grease". And it does too...sometimes.

Subject: RE: BS: reasons Liberals fail
From: Jack the Sailor
Date: 06 Oct 05 - 04:14 PM

How can anyone in their right mind take "The US ended Slavery" as a positive statement; qualified or not? Gee whiz John, its a cause for relief, not celebration.

Subject: RE: BS: reasons Liberals fail
From: Don Firth
Date: 06 Oct 05 - 04:22 PM

". . . the inherent evil that the liberals believe America to be."

Untrue. This is another of the canards promulgated about liberals by conservatives. Merely because many liberals find cause for criticism, this does not mean they believe America to be "inherently evil." This is the kind of mind-set that says "If you criticize anything about American, you are a traitor."

If you doubt this, see anything by Ann Coulter.

Don Firth

Subject: RE: BS: reasons Liberals fail
From: Little Hawk
Date: 06 Oct 05 - 04:26 PM

Ah, yes, but it implies that the USA thought of ending slavery first, doesn't it? Remember what a shock America got in the late 50's when Sputnik went up and Americans were forced to admit, for once, in no uncertain terms, that SOMEBODY ELSE had done something FIRST!!! (AAAARGH!)

It was almost hara-kiri time in fortress America.

Well, too bad. The British ended slavery first. And they didn't have to fight a five year war and destroy half the country doing it to accomplish that, either. They just discussed it and took a vote in parliament, and it was done.

Runaway slaves used to come to Canada for sanctuary, remember? Just like runaway progressives do now...

Sitting Bull's Lakota Sioux came to Canada for sanctuary too, after Little Big Horn. It seems to be a trend. (they had to eventually return, because there wasn't enough game left to keep them alive on the Canadian prairies).

Subject: RE: BS: reasons Liberals fail
From: GUEST,Peter Woodruff
Date: 06 Oct 05 - 05:57 PM

They all fail, but the pendulum swings.

Peter

Subject: RE: BS: reasons Liberals fail
From: McGrath of Harlow
Date: 06 Oct 05 - 07:52 PM

"praise in an unqualified manner"??? How can it ever be right to praise any human institution "in an unqualified manner"? That kind of praise should be left to fanatics. It's the way they talked during the Chinese Cultural Revolution.

And the core of truth in the conservatve position - and there's a core of truth in just about every political position - is surely the recognition of the fact that all human institutions are fallible and always will be.

Subject: RE: BS: reasons Liberals fail
From: John Hardly
Date: 06 Oct 05 - 09:46 PM

"This is another of the canards promulgated about liberals by conservatives."

No, it's merely an observation that I've made from those I know and, at least in part, from my participation here (where it's observable in the extreme).

It wasn't "a canard" passed on to me at "conservative school". I'm pretty comfortable that my observation is shared by many.

Sorry, I don't read Coulter. There are a few right-wingers who actualy don't. Sorry you haven't met 'em.

Subject: RE: BS: reasons Liberals fail
From: Ron Davies
Date: 07 Oct 05 - 01:01 AM

"the inherent evil liberals believe America to be". Sorry John, Don is right. If you observe that, you just aren't very observant.

Liberals complete the quote, which most people don't. "My country, right or wrong" Then comes " When wrong, to be put right".

It does not mean liberals give up on the US. Quite the contrary.

Admittedly there are some posters here who subscribe too much for my taste to the "We're powerless pawns in the hands of.... (not an angry God this time, but) an unholy alliance of all-powerful multinationals and the military-industrial complex."

But most liberals seem to not be anywhere near that pessimistic.

Subject: RE: BS: reasons Liberals fail
From: Little Hawk
Date: 07 Oct 05 - 09:47 AM

Whatever we think about it, we all die eventually, and the World manages to go on, doesn't it? There will come a day when these liberal-conservative debates of our time seem silly in retrospect, and there will come a day when they are not even remembered.

Subject: RE: BS: reasons Liberals fail
From: beardedbruce
Date: 07 Oct 05 - 09:49 AM

LH,

True.


Does this apply to Shatner?

Subject: RE: BS: reasons Liberals fail
From: Greg F.
Date: 07 Oct 05 - 09:52 AM

I'm pretty comfortable that my observation is shared by many.

For "comfortabe", read "complacent" and/or"self-satisfied".

But that still don't make it so, and it don't make the many correct (I almost said "right").

Subject: RE: BS: reasons Liberals fail
From: John Hardly
Date: 07 Oct 05 - 10:13 AM

No Greg, not complacent.

The quote of mine which you chose to take out of its context was specifically aimed at the implication in Don's condescending notion that a conservative is incapable of coming to a conclusion -- make an observation -- without the prompting of the likes of a Coulter.

I'm merely stating that I don't need to be told by anyone that liberals seem to have this negative view of America. It is easily observable. The fact that many have observed this phenomenon about liberal negativity does not mean that we are all being mislead by some "right wing" leader. No, it merely indicates that many are capable of observing the obvious.

Subject: RE: BS: reasons Liberals fail
From: GUEST,rarelamb
Date: 07 Oct 05 - 11:42 AM

I know I can't come to a conclusion. I just think to myself "What Would Brian Boitano Do?"

And then it's all marshmellows and hot cocoa.

Subject: RE: BS: reasons Liberals fail
From: GUEST,rarelamb
Date: 07 Oct 05 - 11:43 AM

Here is a classic:
from http://home.usadatanet.net/~paruby/06_boitano.htm

What would Brian Boitano do
If he was here right now,
He'd make a plan
And he'd follow through,
That's what Brian Boitano'd do.         
Kyle         
When Brian Boitano was in the olympics,
Skating for the gold,
He did two sow cows and a triple lutz,
While wearing a blind fold.
Cartman         
When Brian Boitano was in the alps,
Fighting grizzly bears,
He used his magical fire breath,
And saved the maidens fair.
The boys         
So what would Brian Boitano do
If he were here today,
I'm sure he'd kick an ass or two,
That's what Brian Boitano'd do.
Cartman         
I want this V-chip out of me,
It has stunted my vo-ca-bu-lar-y.
Kyle         
And I just want my Mom
To stop fighting everyone
Stan         
For Wendy I'll be an activist, too,
Cuz that's what Brian Boitano would do.
The boys         
And what would Brian Boitano do,
He'd call all the kids in town,
And tell them to unite for truth
That's what Brian Boitano would do.

When Brian Boitano travelled through time
To the year 3010,
He fought the evil robot king
And saved the human race again
Cartman         
And when Brian Boitano built the pyramids,
He beat up Kublia Khan
The boys         
Cuz Brian Boitano doesn't take shit from an-y-body

So lets all get together,
And unite to stop our Mom's
And we'll save Terrance and Phillip too,
Cuz that's what Brian Boitano do.

And we'll save Terrance and Phillip too,
Cuz that's what Brian Boitano dooooooo,
That's what Brian Boitano do.

Subject: RE: BS: reasons Liberals fail
From: GUEST,Chief Chaos
Date: 07 Oct 05 - 11:57 AM

John,

I used the qualifier "finally" on one subject.
Does this brand me as a liberal?
Can I not assume that should the Supreme Court overturn Roe Vs. Wade that someone from the conservative side would say we "finally" made abortion illegal?

Subject: RE: BS: reasons Liberals fail
From: Don Firth
Date: 07 Oct 05 - 04:39 PM

If people of the liberal or progressive persuasion find things about this country to criticize, it does not prove, or even support, the contention that "liberals hate America" or that liberals believe that "America is inherently evil."

Liberals tend to be highly critical because there is much about this country to criticize. There is also much to criticize about every other country on earth. But I live here. I'm an American citizen and a registered voter, and I'm active politically. There is hardly any point in my being critical of something done by French or Greek or Chinese politicians (even though I often am) because, other than voicing an opinion, I can't really do anything about it. And the response I would undoubtedly get from a Frenchman or a Greek or a Chinese would probably be something like "Clean up you own house before you criticize mine." And rightly so. Therefore, I focus my efforts on something I can actually be active in, and perhaps even help to affect a change.

I find it interesting that conservatives can and do criticize Bill and Hillary Clinton or Jimmy Carter or John F. Kennedy or Lyndon Johnson or Harry S. Truman—or, God knows, FDR (maintaining that he was the "Devil Incarnate")—without being accused of hating America or claiming that America is inherently evil. Yet if a liberal criticizes a Republican elected official, or the actions of such an official, suddenly he or she is "unpatriotic" or "not a good American" or "hates America." Can somebody tell me why that is?

If I hated America, I would move somewhere else. But because I am a patriotic American, I chose to stay here and attempt to correct what I believe is wrong with this country. I firmly believe that if we wish to influence the behavior of other countries, if we don't exhibit the desired behavior ourselves, then we are justifiably open to an accusation of hypocrisy. Example: for decades, the United States has interfered in the internal affairs of several Central American countries. We are hardly in a position to criticize Syria or Iran for interfering in the internal affairs of other Middle Eastern countries.

Usually you hear only the first part of the statement, "My country, right or wrong." But the full statement is "My country, right or wrong. When it is right, to keep it right; when it is wrong, to set it right."

Those are words for a truly patriotic American to live by.

Don Firth

P. S. And by the way, John, I take exception to your, once again, putting words in my mouth (or my keyboard). ". . . the implication in Don's condescending notion that a conservative is incapable of coming to a conclusion -- make an observation -- without the prompting of the likes of a Coulter."

You say that I "imply" that I have the "notion." WOW! That really nails me to the wall!

Let me put it this way:   Ann Coulter calls liberals "traitors." Bill O'Reilly calls liberals "traitors." Rush Limbaugh calls liberals "traitors." Other Right-wing commentators and politicians call liberals "traitors." Many conservatives believe that liberals are "traitors" largely because they probably got the idea from the likes of Coulter, O'Reilly, and Limbaugh. But nowhere did I say that "a conservative is incapable [emphasis mine] of coming to a conclusion" or making an observation without the prompting of such demagogues. I don't think real conservatives like the late Barry Goldwater or the highly intelligent William F. Buckley put much store by the opinions of the likes of Coulter and O'Reilly. But SOME—not ALL—people do accept their ravings without question.

And how is this a "condescending" notion?

Subject: RE: BS: reasons Liberals fail
From: Greg F.
Date: 07 Oct 05 - 04:41 PM

liberals seem to have this negative view of America.

Ah, yes- the hoary 'nattering nabobs of negativism', John. It was bullshit when the sainted Spiro mouthed it 40 years ago, and it's still bullshit today. It doesn't improve over time.

Subject: RE: BS: reasons Liberals fail
From: McGrath of Harlow
Date: 07 Oct 05 - 04:58 PM

1776, and a Declaration of Independence that talked about how "all men are created equal,...they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights,... among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness - and another 80 years before chattel slavery for millions of Americans was abolished.

"Finally" seems a very appropriate term to use in those circumstances. Finally, and an initial step in the direction of a very long jourrney indeed in the direction of making those words reality.

Subject: RE: BS: reasons Liberals fail
From: Don Firth
Date: 07 Oct 05 - 05:22 PM

Exactly so, MeGrath.

I'm sure that many Americans who criticized the institution of slavery were called "unpatriotic," and often "un-Christian." (!) It's not uncommon to endow those with whom one disagrees with horns and a tail.

Trying to correct an injustice is a long, hard, and often dangerous road.

Don Firth

Subject: RE: BS: reasons Liberals fail
From: Susu's Hubby
Date: 07 Oct 05 - 06:57 PM

I think a major reason that liberals fail is that they SAY they are fighting for the little man but the little man never seems to get the "breaks" that they are promised from democrats that are in office.

Case in point


Where are all the democrats calling for a cut in gasoline taxes? These regressive taxes hurt the poor more than the rich. But yet the demoocrats are out there railing against a bill that would ok the construction of more refineries to provide more gas to the American citizens.

More gas = larger supplies. Larger supplies = lower prices.

If they are going to scream and shout to help the little guy but yet say nothing about the regressive taxes that are hurting the small guys then that shows where their priorities are afterall. If they are not willing to allow more refineries so that our gasoline supplies will go up to meet the demand therefore causing lower prices then what's the solution?

Alternate forms of energy you say?

That's fine. I'm all for alternate forms of energy. But nobody will buy them unless they are the same price or cheaper than what we have now. It seems as if the democrats and their bedfellows, the treehuggers, think that keeping the costs unnecessarily inflated by not wanting additional refining capacity will somehow spur the imaginations to have someone successfully develop a cheaper form of energy. You, my friends, are sadly mistaken. It's only spurring ideas of how to make it grow and become cheaper.

As a matter of fact, the higher the fuel prices get, the harder people work to think up new ways to lessen them. Then who do the heroes turn out to be? The people that stand in the way of cheaper fuel prices (democrats, treehuggers) or the people who strive to allow companies more access in order to keep the cost affordable to the general public?

As we all know, there are a lot more poor and middle class families than there are rich.

One day, we will get to the point to where alternate forms of energy will be available for cheaper than what's out there now. I'm looking forward to that very day. But to force it on people is not the way to go. That just causes deep, deep resentment towards those who made the cost of living so high to begin with.

If the democrats want to "help" those that they say need help then let them cut the gasoline tax and repeal the laws that say we have to have over 40 "blended" fuel recipes. Let them not stand in the way of allowing construction of additional refineries. Let them not stand in the way of additional drilling for oil. Therefore it will truly help the poor and middle class.

Then provide tax incentives to companies who can R&D alternate forms of energy. That way, the democrats and treehuggers get their way and the poor and middle class can have the financial breaks that they have long been promised.

This way...no one fails and everybody profits.

But that's just my opinion and I'm probably right.....




Hubby

Subject: RE: BS: reasons Liberals fail
From: McGrath of Harlow
Date: 07 Oct 05 - 07:05 PM

You might have thought that, after New Orleans, even those who pride themselves onn being illiberal might have started to have a few more doubts about the wisdom of burning oil like there was no tomorrow, and stoking up the global warming that is a prime suspect for the hurricane season getting more destructive.

Most of those people sitting on roof tops or floating in the flood waters looked like "little guys" to me.

Subject: RE: BS: reasons Liberals fail
From: Ron Davies
Date: 07 Oct 05 - 11:22 PM

True, Hubby, you're right---as a negative indicator.

Subject: RE: BS: reasons Liberals fail
From: Little Hawk
Date: 08 Oct 05 - 12:05 AM

No political party nowadays fights for the "little man". They just might pretend to now and then. So, if Susu's Hubby is saying that the Democrats don't fight for the little man, he is right, but that would mean that the Democrats are liberal.

The fact is, as a party, they are NOT liberal. They represent the corporate mainstream of America. They are far from liberal. They just try to sound liberal at times in order to get votes. There IS no significant liberal party in the USA.

And there hasn't been in a long time, either.

Subject: RE: BS: reasons Liberals fail
From: beardedbruce
Date: 08 Oct 05 - 03:45 AM

LH,

And why is that? Perhaps because there are not enough people who see any advantage to the country in being liberal....Point of discussion?

Subject: RE: BS: reasons Liberals fail
From: Greg F.
Date: 08 Oct 05 - 10:36 AM

Well, not quite, Bubby-

The root problem is not the current BuShite whipping-boy of gasoline taxes, but of limited petroleum supply, massive over-consumption in the U.S., repeatedly scrapped automobile efficiency standards, limited refining capacity (limited by the oil companies themselves ) and oil company windfall profits & etc.

I think you'd find (should you bother to look, of course) that those you denigrate as "liberals" have been fighting to correct these problems since the gas crisis of the '70s.

And have been opposed all along by persons such as yourself.

Subject: RE: BS: reasons Liberals fail
From: Susu's Hubby
Date: 08 Oct 05 - 12:08 PM

"The root problem is not the current BuShite whipping-boy of gasoline taxes, but of limited petroleum supply, massive over-consumption in the U.S., repeatedly scrapped automobile efficiency standards, limited refining capacity (limited by the oil companies themselves ) and oil company windfall profits & etc."


Correct me if I'm wrong but didn't I include some of these reasons in my arguments.


Read it again Greg F...and this time pay attention.


Hubby

Subject: RE: BS: reasons Liberals fail
From: pdq
Date: 08 Oct 05 - 12:50 PM

Little Hawk,

The state of Oregon had an initiative reach the ballot that would have converted their health care system to socialized medicine. This was within the last two years, I believe. The vote count was 80% against, 20% in favor. Poll results show that these numbers are typical in the United States as a whole.

Problems arise when people refuse to accept the will of the people and continue to trash institutions that work. Seems to me that Socialists demand we replace a system that is flawed with one which doesn't work at all.

Subject: RE: BS: reasons Liberals fail
From: Peace
Date: 08 Oct 05 - 08:21 PM

"More gas = larger supplies. Larger supplies = lower prices."

We have been hearing THIS line for decades, and prices keep gettin' higher. Monopolies can and do charge what they want to charge.

Subject: RE: BS: reasons Liberals fail
From: Ebbie
Date: 08 Oct 05 - 09:33 PM

I remember the days not so long ago when big corporations were prosecuted on the basis of being a monopoly and were required to break up. I also remember the days not so long ago when car manufacturers were required to engineer their cars to get better gas mileage. Whuh happened?

(And you-know-who-you-are, don't bother giving me the line about how much less safe lighter cars are- if we are motivated to, we will go on to the next step in avoidance tecnnology.)

Subject: RE: BS: reasons Liberals fail
From: GUEST,Arne Langsetmo
Date: 08 Oct 05 - 09:39 PM

Liberals complete the quote, which most people don't. "My country, right or wrong" Then comes " When wrong, to be put right".

Here's my favourite rejoinder (but I can't claim authorship; it was some other "liberal" who came up with it....):


Many a time have I heard quoted to me Stephen Decatur's famous words:

    "Our Country! In her intercourse with foreign nations may she
    always be right; but our country, right or wrong."

I tend to favor the lesser known quote that one person, who would serve
as one of our U.S. Presidents, gave in response when he had heard of
the one that Decatur gave:

    "I can never join with my voice in the toast which I see in the
    papers attributed to one of our gallant heroes. I cannot ask of
    heaven success, even for my country, in a cause where she should be
    in the wrong. Fiat Justitia, pereat coelum [let justice be done
    though heaven should fall]. My toast would be, may our country
    always be successful, but whether successful or otherwise, always
    right."

                        -- John Quincy Adams, Letter to John
                           Adams, August 1, 1816.

Subject: RE: BS: reasons Liberals fail
From: GUEST,Bobert
Date: 08 Oct 05 - 10:03 PM

Hey, Hubby, you keep lumpin' progressives in with the democratic partry and I'z gonna personally deliver a lump to yer that you'll remember... The democratic party is a joke...

Not as bad as their rival fraternity, the rebubs, but very close...

But in some respects even worse becuase, yeah, they play that 'workin' man" song so often that it is sickenin'....

But, bottomline, the crook in charge right now, are about as bad as it can get... They have no energy policy other than invadin' countries that have oil... That is not an energy policy... That is imperialism...

When Congrss tried to get Cheney to release the records on the meet5ings that led up to this failed so-called "eneregy policy" the W@hite House used "executive priveldge" to prevent the American people from knowin' who the parties were that went into writing this so=called "Energy Policy" that has been a miserable failure....

I'm not sayin' that the Dems would have done any better... Heck, with thietr therck record they might have done worse... All I am sayin', is that the Bush administration has failed badly here..

Might of fact, from my view point the Bush administration has failed badly on just about any front one can put under a microscope...

And this ain't got onwe thing to do with the dems... He has done it all by himself and deserves the credit...

Bobert

Subject: RE: BS: reasons Liberals fail
From: Ron Davies
Date: 09 Oct 05 - 12:19 AM

It has a fascinating history.

Original: Decatur, in a toast at an April 1816 banquet, to celebrate victory over the Barbary pirates:

"Our country! In her intercourse with foreign nations, may she always be in the right; but our country right or wrong".

Then the J.Q. Adams quote just cited.


Then 1871: Carl Schurz, German-born US general and US senator: "Our country, right or wrong. When right, to be kept right; when wrong, to be put right."


My favorite of all of these is by a wide margin G.K. Chesterton (British author) who said that "My country, right or wrong" is like saying "My mother, drunk or sober".


Obviously the Adams, Schurz and Chesterton quotes express the liberal view. If Bushites disagree with this view, let's hear them say it.

Subject: RE: BS: reasons Liberals fail
From: Ron Davies
Date: 09 Oct 05 - 09:08 AM

Hubby--

Is the oil supply finite or is it not?

Then we'll go on to the next question.

Subject: RE: BS: reasons Liberals fail
From: Greg F.
Date: 09 Oct 05 - 10:07 AM

Correct me if I'm wrong but didn't I include some of these reasons in my arguments.

Well, OK, Bubby: You're wrong, and no, you didn't. Not a one.

Perhaps you should read what you wrote again?

Subject: RE: BS: reasons Liberals fail
From: beardedbruce
Date: 09 Oct 05 - 12:18 PM

McGrath,

"stoking up the global warming that is a prime suspect for the hurricane season getting more destructive."


No evidence of this has been brought forward.

I "suspect" that global warming is the reason for Bobert's increased threats against those he disagrees with- But provide no evidence, just my opinion. So, am I right?

Subject: RE: BS: reasons Liberals fail
From: McGrath of Harlow
Date: 09 Oct 05 - 05:52 PM

The same way for so many years there was "no evidence" that smoking tobacco caused cancer. In fact there was planty of evidence, it just wasn't compelling evidence, at least not to those who had good rerasion not be see it as compelling.

I don't think "innocent until proved guilty" is the right way to deal with these kind of issues. That's a relevant principle when it comes to   criminal charges, but not when it comes to avoiding danger. You don't drive along a raod at high speed in a fog just because you can't see anything ahead that you might hit, you slow down just in case.

Subject: RE: BS: reasons Liberals fail
From: beardedbruce
Date: 09 Oct 05 - 05:59 PM

"I don't think "innocent until proved guilty" is the right way to deal with these kind of issues"


Strange, when it comes to WMD you were willing to give a lot of leeway to Saddam. Perhaps you did not consider a person like him, known to have used WMD before, working on getting WMDs and NOT meeting the UN resolutions to be safe?


"In fact there was planty of evidence, it just wasn't compelling evidence, at least not to those who had good rerasion not be see it as compelling."

Subject: RE: BS: reasons Liberals fail
From: McGrath of Harlow
Date: 09 Oct 05 - 06:20 PM

And it was phony evidence wasn't it? Which did not convince the people whose job it was to carry out the inspections, so they had to be brushed aside, lest the case for WMDs collapsed like a house of cards.

It seems to me that when it comes to doing something which we know will mean thousands of people being killed, a higher degree of evidence is needed than when it comes to stopping doing things which we have reason to believe may be killing thousands of people.

Subject: RE: BS: reasons Liberals fail
From: beardedbruce
Date: 09 Oct 05 - 06:34 PM

"It seems to me that when it comes to doing something which we know will mean thousands of people being killed, a higher degree of evidence is needed than when it comes to stopping doing things which we have reason to believe may be killing thousands of people. "

So. potential deaths in slowing global warming would be ignored, as would potential lives lost in NOT doing anything to make Saddam comply with the UN resolutions?

The DANGER of Saddam with WMD was far greater than the DANGER of global warming- potentially millions of lives, certainly ( already ) hundreds of thousands. The "evidence" that global warming has a significant impact on hurricane strength is considered phony by those who should know- see my quotes on the topic in various threads. You are argueing that we should take action on evidence that the best authorities agree is not definitive- YET deny that the US should take action as per UN resolution where the evidence was a lot less clearly fals?

Subject: RE: BS: reasons Liberals fail
From: Don Firth
Date: 09 Oct 05 - 06:51 PM

Bruce, Bruce Bruce. . . .

We don't know all the dangers of global warming, but there are some pretty reasonable scenarios that look pretty damned grim.

And there is a difference here. On the one hand, it is hardly just to say, "There's a chance this guy is guilty, so just in case, let's execute him!" On the other hand, it just isn't smart to say "There is a good chance that this gun is not loaded, so I'll go ahead and point it at my temple and pull the trigger anyway."   

Especially if the latter act could wind up killing everybody.

Don Firth

Subject: RE: BS: reasons Liberals fail
From: beardedbruce
Date: 09 Oct 05 - 07:32 PM

"We don't know all the dangers of global warming, but there are some pretty reasonable scenarios that look pretty damned grim. "

Grimmer than a half-dozen bio or chemical weapons in US or European cities?

And it was hardly "On the one hand, it is hardly just to say, "There's a chance this guy is guilty, so just in case, let's execute him!" " - In case you forgot, we said "STOP OR I'LL SHOOT " for 14 YEARS before we went in.

My complaint is that , for all the complaints about global warming, the "believers " have done nothing but insist that we need to stop it. End of story.

How about looking at what GW will do to the earth, when we cannot stop it ( since IMO it is caused by natural variations in climate and solar activity)? Is there NO interest in preparing for what will change? It seems like the only thing is to change our use of fuels- yet that will not change the climactic trends. So, what do we DO with the coastal areas, and the change in agricultural products? NOONE commenting on GW is looking at what we should be doing NOW to adjust TO global warming.

Subject: RE: BS: reasons Liberals fail
From: Don Firth
Date: 09 Oct 05 - 08:04 PM

Yes, Bruce, a lot grimmer. Even if a terrorist attack using a nuclear, chemical, or biological weapon killed several million people, as grim as that is, it's not quite as grim as a runaway greenhouse effect that could turn Earth into a twin of Venus. And don't try to say "that's just science fiction," because there is a fair number of respected scientists (planetologists and meteorologists in particular) who say that it's a distinct possibility if we keep doing what we're doing. And as far as "believers" not doing anything about it, who do you think it is who keeps saying that we need to stop pouring hydrocarbons into the atmosphere and put some real effort into developing non-polluting energy sources (of which there are many)?

Yes, there are natural variations in the Earth's climate, but when you add human activity generated greenhouse gases on top of that natural cycle (and this has never happened before) the total effect could wind up being lethal on a planetary scale. Lots of folks just don't seem to be able to get their minds around this possibiity.

(Do I smell something burning?)

Don Firth

Subject: RE: BS: reasons Liberals fail
From: pdq
Date: 09 Oct 05 - 08:56 PM

Quick, Don. It's never too late to repent.

Subject: RE: BS: reasons Liberals fail
From: McGrath of Harlow
Date: 09 Oct 05 - 09:14 PM

Grimmer than a half-dozen bio or chemical weapons in US or European cities?

Yes.

Subject: RE: BS: reasons Liberals fail
From: Don Firth
Date: 09 Oct 05 - 10:10 PM

Repent, pdq? For what?

I've owned three cars in my life. A Toyota Corona, which I drove for fourteen years before trading it in, a Honda Civic, which I had for thirteen years, and currently a Toyota Corolla. All three cars have four cylinder engines. Excellent mileage. Most of the time, the car sits in the garage. If I drove a Hummer or some other SUV or general all around gas-guzzler, then there would be cause to repent. Or if we drove when we didn't need to. If this city had a decent public transportation system, we'd use that.

Someone made a cogent comment once. He or she said, "We won't have non-polluting solar power 'til someone figures out how to run a sunbeam through a meter." Make a non-polluting energy source available and we'll use that.

Don Firth

Subject: RE: BS: reasons Liberals fail
From: pdq
Date: 09 Oct 05 - 10:21 PM

"(Do I smell something burning?)

Don Firth"


"Quick, Don. It's never too late to repent."



Sorry, Don. I though you might have singed tail feathers.

Subject: RE: BS: reasons Liberals fail
From: Amos
Date: 09 Oct 05 - 11:42 PM

Comparing the two is like comparing women with bicycles. There is a l;ink but it is too farfetched, logically for most people to even think about the connection. It is this: a woman without a man is like a fish without a bicycle.

That's about as reasonable as your comparison of WMS and Iraq to global warming and its effect on climate is.

A

Subject: RE: BS: reasons Liberals fail
From: beardedbruce
Date: 10 Oct 05 - 11:36 AM

"And as far as "believers" not doing anything about it, who do you think it is who keeps saying that we need to stop pouring hydrocarbons into the atmosphere and put some real effort into developing non-polluting energy sources (of which there are many)? "



So, what are they proposing to DEAL with GW? ALL they say is that we can change it, when there is a lot more evidence that we cannot. WHAT ARE THEY DOING TO ADJUST OUR CIVILISATION TO THE REALITY OF GLOBAL WARMING, besides just saying we should stop burning hydrocarbons?

IT DOES NOT MATTER how much we cut back on hydrocarbons if the root cause of GW is SOLAR variation.

Amos,

I am sorry if my logic is so far above your understanding. The point was that it seems ok to act on inadaquate information in the case of GW, but not in the case of WMDs. In BOTH cases, a great many lives are in danger. You seem to think it ok to risk millions, just to make a political point.

Subject: RE: BS: reasons Liberals fail
From: Don Firth
Date: 10 Oct 05 - 01:34 PM

Bruce, go back to my post of 09 Oct 05 - 08:04 PM and reread it, especially the second paragraph. I disagree about there not being anything we can do about GW, and I have a lot of scientific company. If something is already teetering on the edge of a cliff, if you come along and give it a slight nudge. . . .

By the way, pdq, what I smell burning are your tail feathers too. And everybody else's. A runaway greenhouse effect is an equal opportunity cataclysm.

Don Firth

Subject: RE: BS: reasons Liberals fail
From: McGrath of Harlow
Date: 10 Oct 05 - 01:49 PM

Holding back from a preemptive invasion of another country on the basis of inadequate evidence is not "making a political point".

Subject: RE: BS: reasons Liberals fail
From: GUEST,rarelamb
Date: 10 Oct 05 - 01:49 PM

I don't think there is a consensus that there is man made global warming. I think there is a consensus that there is global warming.

It is true that there is a higher correlation between sun spot activity and temperature than there is between co2 emmissions and temperature. There is also the issue of the timing of temperature increases being more frontloaded in the 20 th century.

I also think that you need to consider other options instead of limiting co2 emissions. Things such as growing trees and perhaps substantially more important growing plankton may be very cost effective ways of controlling carbon.

Subject: RE: BS: reasons Liberals fail
From: Amos
Date: 10 Oct 05 - 02:07 PM

Amos,

I am sorry if my logic is so far above your understanding. The point was that it seems ok to act on inadaquate information in the case of GW, but not in the case of WMDs. In BOTH cases, a great many lives are in danger. You seem to think it ok to risk millions, just to make a political point.

This seems wrong to me on both points. The information is more than adequate in the case of our gradually warming environment, but is often rejected by those who do not wish to believe hard science; in the case of Iraq the information was fictitious and the facts were rejected by those who had a jones for manslaughter that they could not satisfy otherwise.

As for your logic being beyond my understanding, I don't think that is likely, given that we are both (presumably) intelligent humans.

Sunspots? Do you have any hard evidence that there is statistical correlation AND causal connection between GW and sunspot activity?
Without a hard-nosed analysis supporting such a claim I would venture it is typical shell-game pseudo-science from a list of party talking points.

A

Subject: RE: BS: reasons Liberals fail
From: Don Firth
Date: 10 Oct 05 - 02:28 PM

True, rarelamb, there is not a consensus (def: unanimity) among people in general because they either don't understand (haven't the scientific background), can't grasp the enormity of the possible consequences, or have a short-sighted vested interest in maintaining the bottom line. There is consensus, however, among independent scientists—scientists who generally work for educational or strictly research organizations rather than corporations or political organizations. David Suzuki presented a whole series of television programs outline and detailing the evidence for the environmental damage, most of it avoidable, that is man-caused. His evidence is pretty overwhelming—not to mention downright ominous.

And regarding your comments about other options, I agree. But I would say in addition to, not instead of. This means that we've go to stop hewing down forests and paving over green spaces (they take up CO2 and expel oxygen) and quit dumping toxic waste into the oceans, which is the major cause of plankton dying off. Years ago, oceanographer and explorer Jacques Cousteau said that the toxic waste we are dumping into the oceans is killing off the plankton, from which comes about 70% of the earth's oxygen and which also forms the base for the oceans' food chain.

(Do I hear someone gasping for breath?)

By the way, the sunspot cycle is consistent, and it peaks every eleven years. In a sense, the sun is a variable star. However, this very regular sunspot cycle, although it can interfere with radio reception, has no correlation with variations in the earth's weather. That's a fact about which there is no dispute among reputable scientists.

Don Firth

Subject: RE: BS: reasons Liberals fail
From: beardedbruce
Date: 10 Oct 05 - 02:29 PM

"I disagree about there not being anything we can do about GW"

But you still do not make any effort to LOOK at what GW will do, and reduce the disruption.

I do not say there is no GW, but see little EVIDENCE that there is
"any hard evidence that there is statistical correlation AND causal connection between" GW and man-made emmissions. Have you ever looked at volcanic activity? What is the tonnage of man-made emmissions, and what is the "natural" amount? Do you consider methane from cattle? Why not demand a no-beef diet?

Amos,
"The information is more than adequate in the case of our gradually warming environment, but is often rejected by those who do not wish to believe hard science;"

Evidence of what? Global warming? THAT is not in dispute- It is the amount of change to GW that can be affected by man-kind that is under discussion.

You have STILL missed my point about finding a solution for the IMPACT of global warming, instead of figuring that all will be well once we reduce emmisions. THAT is what I do not see any evidence for, yet hear as a mantra of many people here.

Subject: RE: BS: reasons Liberals fail
From: GUEST,rarelamb
Date: 10 Oct 05 - 02:30 PM

But that is the point isn't it? If there is an alternative explanation with equally (or in this case greater) observational and logically consistent arguement then it casts a shadow on the the original hypothesis.

In this case, we can measure some increase in temperature. Is this due to x, y, z reason? Where x is man made co2 release, y is sunspot activity and z is some unknown. You claim it is x. But y has a greater correlation. And it could still be z or any combination.

What is not clear is that x is causing anymore than the other reasons and appears to have less.

Subject: RE: BS: reasons Liberals fail
From: beardedbruce
Date: 10 Oct 05 - 02:42 PM

Don,
STraw man argument-"However, this very regular sunspot cycle, although it can interfere with radio reception, has no correlation with variations in the earth's weather. That's a fact about which there is no dispute among reputable scientists. "

It is NOT the 11 year cycle that is being looked at as the source of climactic shift. There are a number of solar cycles.


Do you ever read any history? Look at Greenland over the last 1200 years: Specifically, the viking settlements from about 800 on. They DIED OFF due to the small ice age we are just coming out of. Couuldn't grow the crops thay had grown before, or feed the animals.
The WARMING we see happening now will bring us back to the state of global climate that existed about 1200 years ago.

Subject: RE: BS: reasons Liberals fail
From: Ebbie
Date: 10 Oct 05 - 02:57 PM

Oh, and fans, rarelamb. Lots of fans.

Subject: RE: BS: reasons Liberals fail
From: Don Firth
Date: 10 Oct 05 - 03:37 PM

What wiped out the Vikings on Greenland was that they tried to maintain their traditional crops from back home in a new environment and over the long haul, it wasn't working very well. They failed to adapt. They made the mistake of regarding the indigenous people (Inuit) with comtempt (not an unknown phenomenon) rather than taking note of how they managed (quite well, thank you) to survive and emulating them.

What straw man argument? Rarelamb was attempting to ascribe climate change on earth to sunspot activity. I was merely informing him of the actual facts about sunspot activity. The eleven year sunspot cycle has long since been established as having no effect on the earth's weather. That's rarelamb's red herring, not my straw man.

Don Firth

Subject: RE: BS: reasons Liberals fail
From: Ron Davies
Date: 10 Oct 05 - 03:39 PM

It's fairly obvious that Bush apologists are absolute masters at avoiding anything which might possibly result in any adjustment of their, at bottom, selfish life styles.    Any excuse will do. Congratulations.

By all means let's study this problem to death. And after all the studies are done, all of us are dead, and it turns out that global warming due to human action, --(which is actually just likely now, not a certainty)--, really is occurring, we won't be around--so no sweat off our backs.

Subject: RE: BS: reasons Liberals fail
From: beardedbruce
Date: 10 Oct 05 - 03:56 PM

Don,

"over the long haul, it wasn't working very well"

It worked fine until the climate shift.


It's fairly obvious that anti-Bush apologists are absolute masters at avoiding anything which might possibly result in any adjustment of their, at bottom, selfish life styles.    Any excuse will do. Congratulations.


Perhaps you might want to discuss the ISSUE, rather than attack the people who dare disagree with you.

Subject: RE: BS: reasons Liberals fail
From: Don Firth
Date: 10 Oct 05 - 05:04 PM

I am addressing the issue here, Bruce. You seem to be the one avoiding it. As far as insults are concerned, you know nothing of my life-style, selfish or otherwise.

Correction. I just did a little research. I said that it has been established that sunspot activity has no effect on the earth's climate, and I find I cannot totally support that.

Whether there is any correlation between sunspot activity and variations in the earth's climate has yet to be determined. The matter has been studied by astronomers and climatologists ever since the sciences developed far enough to allow for such studies. It has been determined that the earth receives slightly more ultraviolet light during periods of sunspot activity, and, of course, the Northern Lights are far more spectacular, but there is insufficient evidence (despite substantial study) to draw any conclusions about what affect sunspot activity may or may not have on the earth's weather.

So it is not yet established either way. But what is evident is that if there is any effect, it has been around for billions of years, and is consistent, periodic (eleven year cycle), and minuscule.

It is true that volcanic activity can sometimes have a fairly striking effect on the weather. For example, the massive eruption of Tambora in Indonesia in 1815 caused the "year without a summer" (1816). Daily minimum temperatures were abnormally low in the northern hemisphere from late spring to early autumn. Famine was widespread because of crop failures. A year or two later, things were back to normal.

A bizarre side-effect of this eruption was that a group of English expatriate poets and writers found their anticipated pleasant summer sojourn in Switzerland spoiled by the inclement weather. So to avoid the dismal drizzle, they amused themselves indoors by writing ghost stories. This group consisted of Lord Byron, Percy Shelley, his eighteen year old wife, Mary, and a couple of others. Mary wrote a story about a scientist who constructed a man out of spare parts harvested from corpses and brought it to life with "galvanism" (she'd heard about Luigi Calvani's experiments making dead frogs' legs twitch with electric shocks). Shelley encouraged her to turn the story into a novel, which she did. Sometimes called "the first genuine science fiction novel," this, of course, was Mary Wollstonecraft Shelley's Frankenstein : A Modern Prometheus.

But apart from such massive eruptions where the effect is obvious—and generally short-lived—there is vulcanism going on in various parts of the planet all the time. This is, and has always been, an integral part of the whole system.

It is really amazing to watch the twisting and writhing in a desperate effort to avoid acknowledging the obvious. I'm sure this phenomenon will continue until it begins to affect some folks directly. Or their wallets.

Don Firth

Subject: RE: BS: reasons Liberals fail
From: Little Hawk
Date: 10 Oct 05 - 05:05 PM

pdq - Hi! I've been away. In regards to your comments on the Oregon vote...

I don't regard "liberal" as being equivalent to "socialist". There are and always have been some extremely conservative socialists in this world, and I don't find them too appealing at all.

What I mean is this: A true conservative (as I think of the word) is someone who tends to strongly support established authority systems. Therefore, in a predominantly socialist system, a true conservative is VERY socialist (and will consider none other THAN a socialist approach to just about anything). A liberal in a socialist system is someone who is open to mixing other options WITH socialism.

In a predominantly capitalist system, the reverse is true, and a true conservative abhors socialism on principle (or at least thinks he does...despite the fact that his society already contains much socialism anyway, and cannot help but do so). (and that deserves a wry grin...)

The psychology of conservatism is...support the established authority system to the hilt. Repeat the past. An Aztec conservative supported the idea of human sacrifice and eating people's hearts (after all, it had been working great for years, hadn't it?). A Spanish conquistador conservative supported burning heathens at the stake and melting all their gold art down into bullion, while justifying it all with the Bible. A German conservative in 1943 supported Hitler and the Nazi Party. A Chinese conservative in the Cultural Revolution supported the Communist Party. A Roman conservative supported expanding the Empire...and so it goes...

It's so predictable...and it has NOTHING to do intrinsically with being or not being a socialist. (except in the USA, apparently)

The latter is true because Americans have been told fear-mongering incredible and untrue BS about socialism ever since they were crawling out of the cradle, and most people tend to believe what they have been told all their lives.

It has nothing to do with conservatism or liberalism.

Your present leaders (in the USA) are not conservatives, they are extreme corporate/capitalist radicals pretending to be conservatives. Your public is naive and ignorant enough to fall for that pretense.

The Democrats may or may not pretend to be liberals at any give time, but they are not liberals. They are also corporate/capitalist servants in nature, and they are serving much the same conservative interests as the Republicans do, while pretending to be different. (they adopt a superficially different style...that's a marketing ploy...sometimes it works, sometimes it doesn't).

That's why USA elections are largely meaningless, in my opinion, and will continue to be so, in all probability.

But that's okay. ;-) Our elections (in Canada) are largely meaningless too, and so are the U.K.'s elections. It's fairly much the norm these days. This is what happens when political parties are run by big business interests and bankers.

Subject: RE: BS: reasons Liberals fail
From: Don Firth
Date: 10 Oct 05 - 05:32 PM

Bruce, while it is true that variations in the climate did play a part in the failure of the Norse settlement in Greenland, it was far from the major factor. Among other ill-advised approaches to the difficulties they encountered in this land they were trying to "tame," they were using farming methods that the meager soil could not maintain. And after a bit, they found themselves cut off from the trade with the rest of Europe that they had relied on, largely because they had very little to trade. And they alienated the Inuit who, had they been a bit more diplomatic, might have been persuaded to help them, at least show them how to survive there. The Inuit found no particular difficulty living in this environment, even when the climate did vary.

The simple fact was that the Norse failed because they tried to adapt Greenland's harsh environment to themselves rather than adapting themselves to their new environment. Climate change (which the Inuit "weathered" with no problem) merely drove the last nail into the coffin of the Norse settlement.

Educate yourself:   Clicky.

Don Firth

Subject: RE: BS: reasons Liberals fail
From: pdq
Date: 10 Oct 05 - 05:47 PM

Thanks, Little Hawk. Both you and Don Firth write much better than I do but I still reserve the right to ply my points.

The Oregon vote stands as a 'one issue' ballot measure: "Do you want socialized medicine or do you not". The voters said "not". They said so by a huge 5 to 1 margin. Why can't the Socialists just move on (or butt-out) and let the people have their wishes respected?

Again, it was not a referendum on 'liberalism' or 'conservatism' or any other '-ism'. It was "do you want socialized medicine in the State of Oregon". Even if you contend that voting is not accurate, the margin was ovewhelming.

Also, I consider the tug-of-war going on right now in the US , Canada, and other Western countries as "Left-Right" not'Liberal' v conservative".

If the US has 17% of the population 'exposed' as far as health coverage, address the problem there. Do not f**k things up for the othe 83% who are doing just fine under our present system.

Subject: RE: BS: reasons Liberals fail
From: Don Firth
Date: 10 Oct 05 - 05:56 PM

Bruce, pdq, rarelamb, et al, this is worth looking at.

Why societies fail.

This country is not immune. No society is immune.

Don Firth

Subject: RE: BS: reasons Liberals fail
From: Little Hawk
Date: 10 Oct 05 - 06:09 PM

I'm not at all surprised they voted that way, pdq. They are not familiar with socialized medicine, so they did what most people do, and they voted to maintain the status quo. In Canada, where people are familiar with socialized medicine, you would find the vast majority in favour of it, and very strongly too...so they regularly vote FOR it, thus maintaining the status quo. (Amusing, ain't it?)

To be conservative is merely to have a strong resistance to change. That being the case, most populations are quite conservative most of the time, except when they become absolutely desperate. That can happen under extreme conditions, such as a financial collapse or the loss of a war. Then people become willing to consider unusual alternatives and changes in the status quo.

Knowing this, most mainstream political parties try and convince people that they will, for the most part, defend and maintain the familiar status quo of the society. Thus mainstream political parties are by their very nature, conservative...or at least, they pretend to be.

I regard the current Republican administration as anything but conservative, since it has done and continues to do quite unusual things. That's not conservative. It's radical.

I submit that a socialized health care system such as we have in Canada would not "f**k things up for the 83%" that you refer to. Canadian doctors make very good money, I can assure you, and people are doing just fine here with socialized medicine. Your Oregon people are just afraid of what they don't know, and would rather stick with what they do know. ;-) And in that respect, they sound just like Canadians...or most other people.

In Cuba, they have totally socialized medicine...100% free. That's even better than Canada. I haven't heard any Cubans object to it. They like it (although they may not like various other things that are going on in that society). They're used to it...and they like it. Same deal. They're so much like your Oregon folks that I bet if they didn't both know they were "different" from each other they would hardly even notice!

Ha! I laugh at how governments divide people from one another over pointless issues. But it's sad, really.

Subject: RE: BS: reasons Liberals fail
From: Greg F.
Date: 10 Oct 05 - 06:15 PM

If the US has 17% of the population 'exposed' as far as health coverage, address the problem there. Do not f**k things up for the othe 83% who are doing just fine under our present system.

And there you have it, Folks completely unsolicited; the BuShite Mantra: "I'm OK, Jack!"

PS: please, not the tired and meaningless scare tactic phrase "socialized medicine" dreamed up by the AMA propaganda office in the 1950's.

And PDQ: just wait until 1. you turn 65 and try to deal with BuShite gutted Medicare and/or 2. your current health care corporation quadruples your costs and/or 3. your employer drops your health care benefit entirely or prices it out of your reach. You'll be singin' out of the other side of your mouth, mate.

Subject: RE: BS: reasons Liberals fail
From: pdq
Date: 10 Oct 05 - 07:10 PM

Little Hawk,

Again, I suggested that "If the US has 17% of the population 'exposed' as far as health coverage, address the problem there...". Note: US and not Canada or Cuba. Each country is different.

In Cuba (as with any Socialist country) there is no 'upward mobility' possible except through organized crime or through the government. Almost the same thing. Cuban athletes defect, get huge contracts and buy their own health insurance here in the US.

Did you folks in Canada actually vote for the type of government you have or did some politicians get in power and give "what you really need" without asking? Any people who allow their government to ban firewood as a source of heat in the winter while complaining about the depletion of fossil fuels need to be tested for schizophrenia, me thinks.

Subject: RE: BS: reasons Liberals fail
From: McGrath of Harlow
Date: 10 Oct 05 - 08:03 PM

So they had a vote in Oregon. How does that have any particular relevance to anywhere other than Oregon?

I'd guarantee that if you had a vote anywhere where there is "socialized medicine" you'd never get a vote to give it up. People in the UK might disagree about the actual best mechanism for running it, and have ideas which they think would improve it, but when it comes to the principle that there must always be univeral access to health care free at the point of demand, that's virtually unanimously agreed.

..............................
"...figuring that all will be well once we reduce emmisions. THAT is what I do not see any evidence for, yet hear as a mantra of many people here."

I don't think I've ever heard anyone saying that, here or elsewhere. Emissions are one source of our problems, but by no means the only one. Saying all would be well if we cut them down would be a bit like saying that if we cut out smoking all our health problems would be solved. That'd be nonsense. But it still makes a lot of sense to cut out smoking.

Subject: RE: BS: reasons Liberals fail
From: Little Hawk
Date: 10 Oct 05 - 08:38 PM

Nobody anywhere precisely "votes for the government they have", pdq, except in some central committee immediately after a revolution (as happened in 1776 in the case of the USA). The people in general didn't vote for that, a small group of radical thinkers and intelligentsia voted for it. They proceeded to fight a war for it, and won that war. After that, the people voted...not exactly for the precise details of how to form the government, but more for the privilege of deciding which members of the intelligentsia would now represent them in the new presidency and congress.

Governments form sort of organically, by a great many processes, very few of which people actually vote for. (People vote for who represents them IN the government.) There are financial factors, trade factors, cultural factors, military factors, and so on. It's very complex. Most it isn't so much a question of the ordinary people voting, but rather of committees of politicians discussing and proposing legislation, and bargaining with each other and with various powerful groups in society. That's how it works.

In the case of our public health care system, I believe it was created shortly after World War II, in response to a society that was becoming more affluent, much larger, and more urban. There was a lot of extra money around, and the government decided that it was now feasible to finance public health care (which it was). What they did has been similarly done in many European countries, and is considered normal there. Those are democratic countries, just as much as the USA is.

Here is a Google link to a wealth of information concerning the Canadian Health Care system:

Canada's Health Care

Interestingly enough, it was the CCF Party in Saskatchewan (one of our western provinces) that started the ball rolling in 1946. That was (and is) a socialist party (renamed since then), and it had been elected by popular vote in Saskatchewan, so evidently it WAS responding to the will of the people in a general sense.

I feel I should explain that "socialism" is not a dirty word in Canada (except to the maybe 20% of the population that would vote Republican if we had the Republican Party here...). Anyway, the CCF started it off, and then the much bigger Liberal Party (which is vaguely like your Democrats, sort of, but not really) picked up the ball and decided it was a timely idea for the whole country.

It remains the single most unassailable instituion in this country. No party promises to eliminate public health care in Canada without cutting its own throat at the polls. And, yes, we are a democracy. Very much so.

The reason Oregonians don't like the idea is simply that they aren't used to it. For the same reason, they don't like wearing kilts or doing the Japanese tea ceremony or being on nude beaches. I doubt that any of these things will change. If I were a socialist, I would not waste my time trying to introduce public health care in Oregon. ;-) What's the use? You can't persuade a cow to dance the polka, even if the cow has the basic physical ability to. The cow doesn't want to. It's suspicious of the whole concept. If cows, however, had the great good fortune to be born in a society where polka-dancing is normal for cows, then they'd just love the idea! ;-)

Subject: RE: BS: reasons Liberals fail
From: beardedbruce
Date: 11 Oct 05 - 09:57 AM

Don,

A good article, but it still leaves unanswered

"finding a solution for the IMPACT of global warming, instead of figuring that all will be well once we reduce emmisions. THAT is what I do not see any evidence for, yet hear as a mantra of many people here. "

You keep sidestepping the issue. No matter what the Vikings had done, they would have had to adjust their lifestyle to the NEW conditions, which they did not. Even if they had not kept raising cattle.

How does reducing the CO2 emmisions help us to survive global warming?

NOTHING else seems to be put on the table here.

Subject: RE: BS: reasons Liberals fail
From: Ebbie
Date: 11 Oct 05 - 10:47 AM

Well, bb, when a river is flooding and the depth in the house has reached 3 feet, it might behoove humans to turn off the faucets.

Subject: RE: BS: reasons Liberals fail
From: beardedbruce
Date: 11 Oct 05 - 10:54 AM

My point is that, when the ship is sinking, look for a liferaft, NOT an open faucet.


If you turn off the faucet, the river will stop rising? You DO have extraordinary powers!

Subject: RE: BS: reasons Liberals fail
From: Amos
Date: 11 Oct 05 - 11:11 AM

The issue, I would think, is to see if root causes can be addressed, BB. Surely, if carbon emissions are stimulating the vicious circle of warming, then backing off on carbon emissions is a praiseworthy concept.

Addressing the problem by trying to live with the symptoms is not wise, if the deteriorating condition underlying those symptoms continues unremedied, eh?

If you have hard data that the cycle of global warming, which is unprecedented over hundreds of thousands of years based on the permafrost record, is attributable to sunspots, I would like to see it.

If reducing CO2 emissions will have no effect on global warming, then you must have some deeper wisdom about the causes of it. There's a lot of hard analytical science that implies emissions from human activity, (including methane from our cattle industry BTW)are a major contributing factor. If you think these conclusions are wrong, I'd like to see the math you are basing your conclusion on.

As for coping with consequences, and adjusting our lifestyle to new conditions, a lot of advances are being made in labs and research departments; among them are better insulating materials, cheaper photovoltaics, and better ways to store and distribute and acquire hydrogen. I notice, however, that New Orleans is (under Bush's cheerful rhetoric) being slated for replacement pretty much in the same place and the same way.

That's where Bush's last six (or 60) billion dollars should have gone instead of to the support of bloody invasions of foreign lands.

There are some interesting long-term consequences that are NOT being addressed, however, among them that the great breadbaskets of the temperate zone will follow the example of the Sahara Forest. (:>) )

A

Subject: RE: BS: reasons Liberals fail
From: beardedbruce
Date: 11 Oct 05 - 11:27 AM

Amos,

"Surely, if carbon emissions are stimulating the vicious circle of warming, then backing off on carbon emissions is a praiseworthy concept."

BUT not to the extent of ignoring what could be done to help adjust to the changing conditions. AFTER you have the lifeboat, then you can afford to run around looking for open faucets.

"If you have hard data that the cycle of global warming, which is unprecedented over hundreds of thousands of years based on the permafrost record, is attributable to sunspots, I would like to see it."

I stated SOLAR variation, NOT sunspots. The sun is known to be slightly variable: This is one of the root causes of ices ages in the past.


"There are some interesting long-term consequences that are NOT being addressed, however, among them that the great breadbaskets of the temperate zone will follow the example of the Sahara Forest. (:>) )"

WHich NO reduction of CO2 is going to help. I have been observing volcanic plumes from space- are you aware of the TONNAGE of gasses and particulates a major erruption can put in the air? I do not say we should ignore our CO2 emmissions, but to focus on them to the cost of IGNORING all else is more foolish than to ignore them but deal with the effects.

And the Sahara (grasslands) was defoliated by the over-grazing of goats.

Subject: RE: BS: reasons Liberals fail
From: beardedbruce
Date: 11 Oct 05 - 11:52 AM

"If reducing CO2 emissions will have no effect on global warming, then you must have some deeper wisdom about the causes of it. There's a lot of hard analytical science that implies emissions from human activity, (including methane from our cattle industry BTW)are a major contributing factor."


Slight flaw in your logic:

"If reducing CO2 emissions will have no effect on global warming, then you must have some deeper wisdom about the causes of it."

I never have stated NO effect, just that GW will occur whether we reduce CO2 emissions or not.



"There's a lot of hard analytical science that implies emissions from human activity, (including methane from our cattle industry BTW)are a major contributing factor."

True, although there is a difference between " a major factor" and "The major factor". I note you had to include methane, which is greater than CO2 in effect- YET there is no call to ban cows...

IF we eliminate cattle and stop all CO2 emissions, we still cannot change the amount of radiation the sun produces ( well, subject to debate, but I would not want us to try). By pinning ALL the blame upon CO2, the very real effects of GW will be ignored, GW will still occur, and far more people will die.

Subject: RE: BS: reasons Liberals fail
From: Ebbie
Date: 11 Oct 05 - 11:57 AM

I suspect that in "overgrazing by goats" you are being facetious, bb. Just in case you are not:

"One of the most striking climate changes of the past 11,000 years caused the abrupt desertification of the Saharan and Arabia regions midway through that period. The resulting loss of the Sahara to agricultural pursuits may be an important reason that civilizations were founded along the valleys of the Nile, the Tigris, and the Euphrates.

German scientists, employing a new climate system model, have concluded that this desertification was initiated by subtle changes in the Earth's orbit and strongly amplified by resulting atmospheric and vegetation feedbacks in the subtropics."

BIG Goats with BIG Mouths

Subject: RE: BS: reasons Liberals fail
From: GUEST,rarelamb
Date: 11 Oct 05 - 12:06 PM

I think BB is trying to say that you haven't proved that decreasing man made co2 will stop global warming.

I don't believe it either.

Nor do I believe that you have proved that warming has been the result of man released co2.

Nor do I believe that you have proved that the best solution to your hypothesized 'man released co2 problem' is the reduction of co2.

Subject: RE: BS: reasons Liberals fail
From: Amos
Date: 11 Oct 05 - 12:10 PM

Source:   British Antarctic Survey

Date:   2005-04-25
    Print this page

   Email to friend


Carbon Dioxide Role In Past Climate Revealed
Researchers at the British Antarctic Survey (BAS) and the University of California, Santa Cruz have discovered that Earth's last great global warming period, 3 million years ago, may have been caused by levels of CO2 in the atmosphere similar to today's.

Related News Stories
CO2 Fertilization May Be Slowing Global Warming (June 18, 2004) -- A Boston College scientist has published new research introducing the concept of a CO2 fertilization factor for soil carbon, a way to measure an ecosystem's ability to store carbon in ... > full story

Deep Sea Algae Connect Ancient Climate, Carbon Dioxide And Vegetation (June 27, 2005) -- Mark Pagani in the Department of Geology and Geophysics at Yale and his colleagues mapped the first detailed history of atmospheric carbon dioxide between 45 - 25 million years ago based on stable ... > full story

Oldest Antarctic Ice Core Reveals Climate History (June 11, 2004) -- Secrets of the Earth's past climate locked in a three-kilometre long Antarctic ice core are revealed this week in the journal Nature. The core from Dome C, high on East Antarctica's plateau, ... > full story

Low Carbon Dioxide Levels In Atmosphere During Glacial Periods May Be Caused By Antarctic Sea Ice (March 10, 2000) -- A new study indicates that variations in Antarctic sea ice may have played a significant role in lowering atmospheric carbon dioxide (CO2) concentrations during the last ice age.

Reporting this week in a leading Earth Science journal, Geochemistry Geophysics Geosystems, the scientists describe how they tested two widely held ideas that attempted to explain the balmy conditions on Earth at that time. Their findings clearly demonstrate that studying past climates can help us to understand the likely impact of greenhouse gas emissions and global warming.

BAS Principal Investigator Dr Alan Haywood said, 'There are two schools of thought about past warm intervals. Many scientists suggest that they were caused by ocean currents (like the Gulf Stream) moving greater amounts of warm water from the tropics to the polar regions. Others speculate that increased levels of CO2 in the atmosphere initiated warming all over the planet. We used the latest supercomputing technology combined with chemical analysis of seabed sediments to make a sophisticated reconstruction of past sea temperatures. If the warming was caused by ocean currents, we would expect to see cooling at the tropics and warming at the poles. Conversely, if CO2 was the cause then we would expect both the tropics and the poles to warm. The sea temperature pattern we found points the finger squarely at CO2 rather than the ocean currents. This is a real breakthrough for those of us investigating past climate -- we've made a major contribution to a long standing argument and our findings are critical to understanding how climate may respond to emissions of greenhouse gases in the future'.

Subject: RE: BS: reasons Liberals fail
From: Amos
Date: 11 Oct 05 - 12:14 PM

Cosmic Rays Are Not The Cause Of Climate Change, Scientists Say
WASHINGTON - Eleven Earth and space scientists say that a recent paper attributing most climate change on Earth to cosmic rays is incorrect and based on questionable methodology. Writing in the January 27 issue of Eos, published by the American Geophysical Union, Stefan Rahmstorf of the Potsdam Institute for Climate Impact Research and colleagues in Canada, France, Germany, Switzerland, and the United States challenge the cosmic ray hypothesis.

Related News Stories
Possible Origin Of Cosmic Rays Revealed With Gamma Rays (November 5, 2004) -- An international team of astronomers has produced the first ever image of an astronomical object using high energy gamma rays, helping to solve a 100 year old mystery - an origin of cosmic rays. ... > full story

Cosmic Ray History Encoded In Abundances Of Light Elements (June 1, 1999) -- By taking a closer look at two of the lightest elements in the universe, a University of Illinois scientist is helping to solve a mystery that lies at the intersection of cosmology, cosmic rays and ... > full story

Cosmic Rays Linked To Global Warming (July 31, 2002) -- Researchers studying global warming have often been confounded by the differences between observed increases in surface-level temperatures and unchanging low-atmosphere temperatures. Because of this ... > full story

NYU Physicist Proposes New Theory For Origin And Make-Up Of Extremely High-Energy Cosmic Rays (October 22, 1998) -- NYU physicist Glennys Farrar has proposed an answer to one of the vexing questions of physics and astronomy: What is the origin of extremely high-energy cosmic rays and where do they get their ... > full story

> more related stories


--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Related section: Space & Time






In July 2003, astrophysicist Nir Shaviv and geologist Jan Veizer wrote in GSA Today that they had established a correlation between cosmic rays and temperature evolution over hundreds of millions of years. They also claimed that current global warming is not primarily caused by human emissions of carbon dioxide. Their findings have been widely reported in international news media.

According to Rahmstorf, Shaviv and Veizer's analyses--and especially their conclusions--are scientifically ill-founded. The data on cosmic rays and temperature so far in the past are extremely uncertain, he says. Further, their reconstruction of ancient cosmic rays is based on only 50 meteorites, and most other experts interpret their significance in a very different way, he says. He adds that two curves presented in the article show an apparent statistical correlation only because the authors adjusted the data, in one case by 40 million years. In short, say the authors of the Eos article, Shaviv and Veizer have not shown that there is any correlation between cosmic rays and climate.

As for the influence of carbon dioxide in climate change, many climatologists were surprised by Shaviv and Veizer's claim that their results disproved that current global warming was caused by human emissions, Rahmstorf says. Even if their analysis were methodologically correct, their work applied to time scales of several million years.

The current climate warming has, however, occurred during just a hundred years, for which completely different mechanisms are relevant, he says. For example, over millions of years, the shifting of continents influences climate, while over hundreds of thousands of years, small changes in Earth's orbit can initiate or terminate ice ages. But for time periods of years, decades, or centuries, these processes are irrelevant. Volcanic eruptions, changes in solar activity, and the concentration of greenhouse gases, as well as internal oscillations of the climate system, are crucial on this scale.

The 11 authors of the Eos article affirm that the strong increase of carbon dioxide and some other greenhouse gases in the atmosphere due to manmade emissions is most probably the main cause of the global warming of the last few decades. The most important physical processes are well understood, they say, and model calculations as well as data analyses both come to the conclusion that the human contribution to the global warming of the 20th century was dominant.

American Geophysical Union
NEWS

Original article

Subject: RE: BS: reasons Liberals fail
From: Amos
Date: 11 Oct 05 - 12:20 PM

From UCSD's Scripps Institute

February 17, 2005

Scripps Researchers Find Clear Evidence Of
Human-Produced Warming In World's Oceans
Climate warming likely to impact water resources in regions around the globe

By Mario Aguilera

Scientists at Scripps Institution of Oceanography at the University of California, San Diego, and their colleagues have produced the first clear evidence of human-produced warming in the world's oceans, a finding they say removes much of the uncertainty associated with debates about global warming.


Tim Barnett
In a new study conducted with colleagues at Lawrence Livermore National Laboratory's Program for Climate Model Diagnosis and Intercomparison (PCMDI), Tim Barnett and David Pierce of Scripps Institution used a combination of computer models and real-world "observed" data to capture signals of the penetration of greenhouse gas-influenced warming in the oceans. The authors make the case that their results clearly indicate that the warming is produced anthropogenically, or by human activities.

"This is perhaps the most compelling evidence yet that global warming is happening right now and it shows that we can successfully simulate its past and likely future evolution," said Tim Barnett, a research marine physicist in the Climate Research Division at Scripps. Barnett says he was "stunned" by the results because the computer models reproduced the penetration of the warming signal in all the oceans. "The statistical significance of these results is far too strong to be merely dismissed and should wipe out much of the uncertainty about the reality of global warming."

At a news briefing and symposium presentation during the 2005 American Association for the Advancement of Science annual meeting in Washington, D.C., Barnett will discuss the details of the study and explain why the results hold implications for millions of people in the near future.

According to Barnett, the climate mechanisms behind the ocean study will produce broad-scale changes across the atmosphere and land. In the decades immediately ahead, the changes will be felt in regional water supplies, including areas impacted by accelerated glacier melting in the South American Andes and in western China, putting millions of people at risk without adequate summertime water. (...)

Subject: RE: BS: reasons Liberals fail
From: Ebbie
Date: 11 Oct 05 - 02:12 PM

But, Amos! Couldn't you come up with some real science? lol

People who claim something has not been proven to their satisfaction lack imagination and insight.

Subject: RE: BS: reasons Liberals fail
From: beardedbruce
Date: 11 Oct 05 - 02:21 PM

Cosmic rays? Another straw man...


"But for time periods of years, decades, or centuries, these processes are irrelevant. Volcanic eruptions, changes in solar activity, and the concentration of greenhouse gases, as well as internal oscillations of the climate system, are crucial on this scale. "

Exactly.

Subject: RE: BS: reasons Liberals fail
From: GUEST,rarelamb
Date: 11 Oct 05 - 02:24 PM

http://www.thenewamerican.com/tna/2004/06-14-2004/science.htm

" A consensus comprised of nearly all scientists agrees that humans are causing a global warming crisis. Not only is there no such "consensus," but, if anything, the situation is opposite from what the global warming alarmists claim. When one of the authors of this essay (Dr. Arthur Robinson) briefly circulated a petition opposing the Kyoto treaty among American scientists, he received, by first class mail, about 17,000 signatures. The petition stated:

    We urge the United States government to reject the global warming agreement that was written in Kyoto, Japan in December, 1997, and any other similar proposals. The proposed limits on greenhouse gases would harm the environment, hinder the advance of science and technology, and damage the health and welfare of mankind.

    There is no convincing scientific evidence that human release of carbon dioxide, methane, or other greenhouse gases is causing or will, in the foreseeable future, cause catastrophic heating of the Earth's atmosphere and disruption of the Earth's climate. Moreover, there is substantial scientific evidence that increases in atmospheric carbon dioxide produce many beneficial effects upon the natural plant and animal environments of the Earth.

With more resources for printing and mailing, probably 50,000 signatures could have been obtained from American scientists. The signatories included Dr. Frederick Seitz (past president of the National Academy of Sciences), who wrote a cover letter for the petition, and a long list of America's most accomplished scientists. (For a complete list of the signatories, two-thirds of whom hold advanced degrees, go to www.oism.org/pproject.)"

"The solar energy reaching the Earth from the sun has absolutely nothing to do with the Earth's temperature! Of course, the global warming alarmists would not say anything so transparently silly. What they do instead is simply pretend the sun does not exist — at least so far as the Earth's temperature is concerned.

But there really is a relationship between the solar activity of the sun and the Earth's temperature, and historical measurements bear this out. Figure 3 shows that, from 1750 to the present, the Earth's temperature oscillations have closely tracked the changes in the intensity of the sun. In short, the data makes quite clear that the ordinary warming and cooling cycle of the sun is the primary controller of global temperatures and that this cycle is currently in an upward trend."

http://www.cnsnews.com/ViewCommentary.asp?Try=No&Page=\Commentary\archive\200412\COM20041202d.html

"What it doesn't tell you is that roughly 500 scientists from around the world signed the Heidleburg Appeal in 1992, just prior to the Earth Summit in Rio de Janeiro, expressing their doubts and begging the delegates not to bind the world to any dire treaties based on global warming.

Today, that figure has grown to more than 4,000 scientists. Americans aren't being told that a 1997 Gallop Poll of prominent North American climatologists showed that 83 percent of them disagreed with the man-made global warming theory.

And the deceit knows no bounds. The United Nations released a report at the end of 1996 saying global warming was a fact, yet before releasing the report, two key paragraphs were deleted from the final draft. Those two paragraphs, written by the scientists who did the actual scientific analysis, said:

1. "[N]one of the studies cited above has shown clear evidence that we can attribute the observed climate changes to increases in greenhouse gases."

2. "[N]o study to date has positively attributed all or part of the climate change to ... man-made causes."



http://www.spacedaily.com/news/climate-03s.html

"The conclusion of the two scientists is, therefore, that celestial processes seem to be the dominant influence on climate change, and that increased carbon dioxide release, while certainly not beneficial, is only secondary to those forces which are beyond our control."


http://www.abd.org.uk/pr/198.htm
"# Professor Mike Lockwood of the Rutherford Appleton Laboratory studied solar radiation intensity at the Earth's upper atmosphere over a period of tens of years and found that at least half of the observed temperature change this century (total 0.6 degree Celsius) is due to changes in the output of the Sun.

# The scientific journal 'Nature' published the findings of a team of researchers which studied ice core samples to gain a picture of climate change over a period of 400,000 years. This team found that naturally occurring greenhouse gases contribute about 3 degrees Celsius to the glacial-interglacial temperature variation of 6 degrees Celsius."

http://www.clearlight.com/~mhieb/WVFossils/greenhouse_data.html

"Human activites contribute slightly to greenhouse gas concentrations through farming, manufacturing, power generation, and transportation. However, these emissions are so dwarfed in comparison to emissions from natural sources we can do nothing about, that even the most costly efforts to limit human emissions would have a very small-- perhaps undetectable-- effect on global climate."

"    Total atmospheric carbon dioxide (CO2) -- both man-made and natural-- is only about 3.62% of the overall greenhouse effect-- a big difference from the 72.37% figure in Table 2, which ignored water!

    Water vapor, the most significant greenhouse gas, comes from natural sources and is responsible for roughly 95% of the greenhouse effect (4). Among climatologists, this is common knowledge, but among special interests, certain governmental groups, and news reporters this fact is under-emphasized or just ignored altogether.

    Conceding that it might be "a little misleading" to leave water vapor out, they nonetheless defend the practice by stating that it is "customary" to do so!

"

"Putting it all together:
total human greenhouse gas contributions
add up to about 0.28% of the greenhouse effect."

http://mitosyfraudes.8k.com/INGLES/Warm.html

"Qpinions critical of the IPCC reports have been expressed by many prominent, competent scien-tists. For example, Or. Frederick Seitz, a past president of the U.S. National Acaderny of Scien-ces and the American Physical Society, President Emeritus of Rockefeller University, former Chairman of the Defense Science Board, and former Science Adviser to NATO, stated: "I have never witnessed a more disturbing corruption of the peer-review process than the events that led to this IPCC report." 10 Dr. Keith Shine, one of the leading authors of the IPCC reports, described the editing process of the IPCC reports as follows:

    "We produce a draft, and then the policymakers go through it line by line and change the way it's presented .... They don't change the data, but the way it's presented. It is peculiar that they have the final say in what goes into a scientists' report." 11

About half of the scientists who took part in preparing the IPCC report of 1996 do not agree with its conclusions' – hardly a consensus. Even the leading establishment science journals, Science and Nature, have exposed the IPCC's lack of consensus and its wrong methodology. Nature devoted two editorials to the subject,13, 14 and an editorial in Science stated that: "If one examines some of the scientific articles on the subject [climate warming modeling], one finds virtually unanimous agreement that the models are deficient."15 The incompati-bility of IPCC procedures with the usual standards of scientific research led Science to write that "IPCC's reputation for procedural correctness and consensus-building around scien-tific accuracy will be permanently compromised.""

"Recently, it was found that there is an inverse relationship between atmospheric CO2 concen-tration and stomatal frequency in tree leaves, and that this phenomenon provides an accurate method for detecting and quantifying century-scale CO2 fluctuations. Birch leaves recovered from Holocene-era lake deposits in Denmark by a team of Dutch scientists, for example, demon-strate that 9,600 years before the present (YBP), the atmospheric concentration of CO2 was 348 ppmv – the same as the CO2 concentration in 1987. From 9,600 YBP until about 9,400 YBP, the CO2 levels remained between 333 and 347 ppmv. So, in contrast to the much touted ice core estimates, the stomatal frequency signal shows that early Holocene CO2 concentrations were similar to those at the end of 20th century.

The authors of the Dutch study stated: "Our results contradict the concept of relatively stabilized Holocene CO, concentrations of 270 to 280 ppmv until the industrial revo!ution."35 The tree leaf studies corroborate the criticism of ice core studies and destroy the very foundation of the global warming hypothesis. "

"For the past 100 million years, the average surface temperature of the Earth and the atmosphe-ric CO2 level have been decreasing systematically.37 About 50 million years ago, the CO2 con-centration (2,000 ppmv) was almost six-fold higher than now, but air temperature was higher by only 1.5°C. In the Ordovician, when the CO2 content in air was 16 times higher than it is now, the air temperature in the tropics was not increased, and in the high latitudes, there was the glaciation of Gondwanaland.36

The reason for the lack of relationship between the temperature changes and CO2 concentra-tion in past epochs is that it is not CO2, but water, H2O, that is the main greenhouse gas."



I think this is enough but if required I will post more links.

In regards to Amos' three posts, the first was a claim based on a model that was developed. During the same time period one could find at 2 std that the hemlines on womens dresses and whether the nfc or afc wins is a good predictor of where the stock market will go.

The second says : "small changes in Earth's orbit can initiate or terminate ice ages. But for time periods of years, decades, or centuries, these processes are irrelevant. Volcanic eruptions, changes in solar activity, and the concentration of greenhouse gases, as well as internal oscillations of the climate system, are crucial on this scale."

Which is exactly my point. You can not prove that man is the cause of warming in the past 100 years.

And in regards to the first post, the amount co2 and temperature is not clear cut. There have been times where there has been cooling while there were high amounts of co2.

I reiterate, It is has not been proven that warming is the result of man released co2.

Subject: RE: BS: reasons Liberals fail
From: GUEST
Date: 11 Oct 05 - 02:28 PM

http://www.aeiveos.com/~bradbury/Papers/GWiaRH.html

"It seems clear to the author, that if humanity wants really to do something about the potential for global warming that may be associated with the accumulated levels of greenhouse gases in the atmosphere that there is little that can be done on land at this time. Changing our forestry or farming practices or reducing our production of the greenhouse gases are not going to significantly reduce the problem we have already created. The path of greatest promise seems to lie first in providing essential nutrients to the carbon fixing phytoplankton in the oceans and then subsequently to engineer one or more species that allow more efficient use of the energy reaching the oceans and in turn make the fixed carbon available as biomass that can be utilized by humans as sources of energy, or more importantly given our growing population, food. "

I reiterate, it has not been proven that reducing man released co2 is the most economic way of reducing the alleged man made global warming 'problem'.

Subject: RE: BS: reasons Liberals fail
From: GUEST,rarelamb
Date: 11 Oct 05 - 02:28 PM

As if you couldnt guess, that last one was me.

Subject: RE: BS: reasons Liberals fail
From: CarolC
Date: 11 Oct 05 - 02:57 PM

We don't need to prove that global warming is caused by human activity to know that we need to stop using sources of energy that pollute. Pollution (independent of any issues about global warming) is killing a LOT of people, as well as crucial ecosystems, some of which we need in order to help offset the effects of global warming (ie: trees and plankton), and that is reason enough to find cleaner ways of producing energy. If that helps reduce global warming (or at least the rate of increase in global warming), that will be icing on the cake.

Personally, I think it's counterproductive to focus so much on global warming when there are so many other, equally important reasons to reduce and/or eliminate pollution caused by the activities of humans.

Subject: RE: BS: reasons Liberals fail
From: beardedbruce
Date: 11 Oct 05 - 03:04 PM

CarolC,

The problem is that CO2 is not normally considered a "pollutant"- that and water vapor are SUPPOSED to be in the air.

Subject: RE: BS: reasons Liberals fail
From: CarolC
Date: 11 Oct 05 - 03:19 PM

That doesn't change what I said about pollutants, beardedbruce. The CO2 that is a byproduct of energy production is almost always accompanied by other pollutants that are extremely bad for us and for the ecosystems we depend on. We need to eliminate our dependence on those forms of energy production. If doing so also reduces CO2 emissions, so much the better.

Subject: RE: BS: reasons Liberals fail
From: beardedbruce
Date: 11 Oct 05 - 03:25 PM

ALL energy production will produce pollution, if only thermal. The best way to reduce pollution is to reduce population- BUT I think we all agree that is not likely to happen in any way that we ( collectively and individually) are willing to accept.

Subject: RE: BS: reasons Liberals fail
From: CarolC
Date: 11 Oct 05 - 03:32 PM

Thermal pollution is probably one we will have to find a way to live with. I don't think that thermal pollution (non-CO2 related thermal pollution) is the biggest threat our fragile ecosystems face right now. Chemical pollution is killing off a lot of lynchpin species that the whole web of life on earth depends for survival.

Subject: RE: BS: reasons Liberals fail
From: Don Firth
Date: 11 Oct 05 - 03:34 PM

It's pretty obvious that if you line up thousands of reputable scientists from all over the world and they say one thing, and then George W. Bush's barber disagrees, there are folks here who would choose to believe the barber.

I don't think I care to waste my time arguing this matter anymore.

Don Firth

Subject: RE: BS: reasons Liberals fail
From: McGrath of Harlow
Date: 11 Oct 05 - 08:09 PM

And smoking is good for you.

Subject: RE: BS: reasons Liberals fail
From: Bobert
Date: 11 Oct 05 - 08:35 PM

Well, well, well...

Ain't this somethin'??? The usual cast of suspects want "proof"... Haha... Like that's gonna happen??? No, proof positive or negative won't happen... It is an impossible thing to ask for... No, make that *utterly* impossible...

Same trick was played on Sadaam proir to the invasion. "Prove" yopu don't have WMD's?!?!?!?!?...

Yeah, I am gettin' a little tired of these folks, who are fir burning up as much as they possibly burn up while here on the planet, askin' for folks to prove stuff that can't be proven...

How many countries signed onto Kyoto??? A hundred oe so??? I guess these folks are all just wide-eyed liberals??? Hmmmmmmm???

Well, maybe they are but I'll just weigh in with my opinion on global warmin': There's a lot of scientists not on the payrolls of the Bush adminsitartion or Republican arganization who have some serious concerns that burnin' up everything in sight is contributin' to the global warmin'...

And, BTW, when did some folks think it was their responsibilty to burn up as much as they can during their assignment on Earth???

This ain't a liberal or conservative question. Just a question...

Bobert

Subject: RE: BS: reasons Liberals fail
From: CarolC
Date: 11 Oct 05 - 11:18 PM

Actually, Bobert, I think your stance (and your line of questioning as well) is very conservative. You seek to conserve resources and the environment. On environmental issues, you are a conservative.

Subject: RE: BS: reasons Liberals fail
From: Ron Davies
Date: 11 Oct 05 - 11:35 PM

Rare Lamb--


Dr. Robinson's petition appears to be at the time the Kyoto agreement was released, that is, 1997.

Since then, conviction that humans are causing global warming has dramatically risen in the scientific community. Sure there is no unanimity--but it's unlikely you could find 17,000 scientists to sign Dr. Robinson's petition now.

Amos' link, on the other hand, is from 2005.

As a reactionary in good standing, it's appropriate that your "evidence" is so sadly dated. I've noticed this with others of your cut-and-paste jobs.

I repeat--Bush apologists are proven masters at excuses for inaction. Inaction is virtually always their favorite response unless a problem can be addressed by military aggression or tax cuts.

Subject: RE: BS: reasons Liberals fail
From: dianavan
Date: 12 Oct 05 - 01:06 AM

Don Firth - Thanks for the link about why societies fail.

I really liked this part:

"...in societies where the elites do not suffer from the consequences of their decisions, but can insulate themselves, the elite are more likely to pursue their short-term interests, even though that may be bad for the long-term interests of the society, including the children of the elite themselves."

That says it all.

Subject: RE: BS: reasons Liberals fail
From: GUEST,rarelamb
Date: 12 Oct 05 - 02:55 PM

I didn't think this site would ever get back up again :)

Disprove this and I think it will go a long way to proving man related global warming.

"Putting it all together:
total human greenhouse gas contributions
add up to about 0.28% of the greenhouse effect."

Subject: RE: BS: reasons Liberals fail
From: beardedbruce
Date: 12 Oct 05 - 03:05 PM

rarelamb,

"but the other 99.72% is natural, good, and has no effect on anything..."

There still seems to be an unwillingness to address what we should do to reduce the IMPACT of glabal warming- just discussion of how if we stop using energy all will be well.

Subject: RE: BS: reasons Liberals fail
From: Little Hawk
Date: 12 Oct 05 - 03:18 PM

Shit. No one has mentioned hamsters in the last 34 posts. Just going on and on about global warming. You know what this is? It's denial! That's right. Major denial. Do you know where your kids are? NO? I thought not.

Another key reason why liberals AND conservatives fail. Too little attention given to the crucial hamster factor.

Subject: RE: BS: reasons Liberals fail
From: Don Firth
Date: 12 Oct 05 - 03:33 PM

Thanks, dianavan, for actually reading that and commenting on it.   

I really wonder how many people here have read it, especially those of the radical "conservative" bent. That one piece alone outlines the problem in terms so clear that even the most devout Bush worshipper should be able to grasp the nature of the problem and be moved to rise above partisan politics and become concerned for the fate of the whole human race and the future of the planet.

But they will undoubtedly just write it off, slapping some simple-minded bumper-sticker epithet on it, like "junk science," even though it is not a matter of scientific speculation, it is recorded history—things that have actually happened. The examples given of societies that have collapsed and the reasons they collapsed are crystal clear to anyone who cares to look. But there are those who don't want to know. It might cause them to begin to have doubts about their little demigod in the White House and his supporters, and the nature of our whole "screw everybody, just get the money" society.

I sometimes despair of my species. I can imagine a time thousands or hundreds of thousands of years in the future—or perhaps only a few hundred years in the future—when a starship from some nearby system drops into parking orbit around the earth and the alien explorers find that, despite a poisonous atmosphere similar to that of the second planet in this system, this planet was home to a large population of an indigenous technological species, now extinct. Exploration and analysis leads them to conclude that, although this species was intelligent enough to develop a fairly sophisticated technology, it was not sufficiently intelligent to be far-sighted enough to predict the results of its unbridled exploitation of the planet's resources, its careless use of its technology, and the inevitable and easily foreseeable poisoning of the planet. As they enter our species into their log and break orbit to continue their explorations, they will shake their heads (or the alien equivalent) think of us as we now think of the foolishly short-sighted Easter Islanders.

Don Firth

P. S. I know, Doug. "The sky is falling!" Well, if someone doesn't start using a couple of brain cells pretty damned soon, you'd better put on your hard-hat!

Subject: RE: BS: reasons Liberals fail
From: GUEST,rarelamb
Date: 12 Oct 05 - 03:42 PM

LOL, I may disagree with you guys but I love your writing. It's a lot better than mine!

I was just a little confused though? Were the aliens, hamsters?

Subject: RE: BS: reasons Liberals fail
From: CarolC
Date: 12 Oct 05 - 03:49 PM

There's nothing conservative about profligate wastefulness. That's the opposite of conservative.

Subject: RE: BS: reasons Liberals fail
From: GUEST,Shakespeare
Date: 12 Oct 05 - 03:53 PM

One of the requirements for good writing is to be able to organize one's thoughts in a logical manner.

That could explain a lot.

Billy the Shake

Subject: RE: BS: reasons Liberals fail
From: McGrath of Harlow
Date: 12 Oct 05 - 07:55 PM

just discussion of how if we stop using energy all will be well.

Who actually said that? Anybody?

When you're trapped in a hole you stop digging it deeper. That won't get you out of the hole, but it's a start.

Subject: RE: BS: reasons Liberals fail
From: Bobert
Date: 12 Oct 05 - 08:17 PM

Just one other thing here that I don't think that anyone has brought up... I read a nice piece in the Washington Post a few months ago about evangical preahers being concerned about the environment and how they were finding themselves inctreasingly at odds with Bush's policies on energy and the environment???

Anyone remember reading the same piece... ight have been 6 months ago but partially explains why Bush is havin' less and less success in holdin' his base...

Ahhhh, and as fir LH's pinnin' for someone to say somehtin', anything, about the hamster varaible in this entire mess, I'd just like to weigh in here with the followin': screw the little buggers...

Well, that oughta take care of the hamsters...

...fir now...

Bobert

Subject: RE: BS: reasons Liberals fail
From: Ron Davies
Date: 12 Oct 05 - 10:03 PM

Rare Lamb et al.--


As I said, it's neither 100% sure that global warming due to human activity is occurring, nor 100% sure that it is not.

If we are wrong, you will be "forced" to drive vehicles with "unnecessarily" high gas mileage.

If you are wrong, the consequences are much more severe--though they probably won't arrive til after we are dead--so perhaps that doesn't bother you.

However, it's no secret what the prudent and hence "conservative" choice would be in this cost-benefit analysis--and it's not the Bush-apologist chosen course of inaction, here seen in the familiar cloak of studying the problem until the above-cited 100% requirement is met.

Subject: RE: BS: reasons Liberals fail
From: Don Firth
Date: 13 Oct 05 - 04:31 PM

By the way, suspecting that there has been a little bit of thread-creep here, I just took another look at the title of this thread: "reasons Liberals fail."

The thread title itself commits a logical fallacy known as "begging the question."

Now just what exactly is "begging the question?"

First of all, let me clear up a common misconception. There has been a general misuse of this expression within recent years. Recently, to beg the question has been used to mean "to raise the question", or to indicate that "the question really ought to be asked". For example, "This year's budget deficit is half a trillion dollars. This begs the question:   how are we ever going to balance the budget?" This usage is often sharply criticized by formal logicians, but has nonetheless come into fairly widespread use, not meaning what it was originally intended to mean. To be more precise, it should be "invites the question" or "raises the question".

Okay. The formal usage—in logic—the term "begging the question" refers to a type of fallacy occurring in deductive reasoning in which the proposition to be proved is already assumed, implicitly or explicitly, to be true, in one of the premises. For example, consider the following argument: "Politicians cannot be trusted. Only an untrustworthy person would run for office; the fact that politicians are untrustworthy is proof of this. Therefore politicians cannot be trusted." Such an argument is fallacious, because it relies upon its own proposition (in this case, "politicians are untrustworthy") in order to support its central premise. Essentially, the argument assumes that its central point is already proven, and uses this in support of itself.

Begging the question is also known as petitio principii, and is related to the fallacy known as circular argument, circulus in probando, vicious circle or circular reasoning. As a concept in logic, it was first identified by Aristotle around 350 BCE, in his book, Prior Analytics.

[Just as a point of interest, perhaps:   on a couple of occasions when I have pointed out boo-boos in reasoning and cited the formal logic principles involved, a few folks, both in open forum and in PMs, have objected strenuously to my doing this, and further, have accused me of being pompous and pretentious. My pointing out of the "straw man" rhetorical technique (so patently transparent that it doesn't actually rate the status of a formal fallacy)—which consists, in part, of misquoting someone and then attacking them on the basis of what the attacker says they said rather than what they actually did say—has really upset a couple of people, who, oddly enough, use this technique frequently. Now, I deny pretentious, but I willingly and freely admit to being pompous. I often am. But why anyone who is truly interested in rational discourse should object to someone citing the principles of rigorous logic from time to time for the purpose of keeping things honest causes me to wonder about just how sincere their interest in rational discourse is. To those persons, all I can do is smile sweetly and say, "Kindly observe my elevated middle finger." I shall continue unabated.]

Now, to my main point:

Who sez Liberals have failed?

"Failed" to win an election? Okay. No big deal. The Conservatives have lost a few, too. The pendulum swings. That's the nature of politics. But failed to the extent of folding its arms across its chest and putting a lily in its hand? I don't think so.

The game ain't over, folks. Remember, we have mid-term elections coming up in about a year, and in a couple more years, there is another national election (2008). Since I am fairly active politically, I often receive telephone calls and e-mails from various progressive organizations. There is a lot of energy out there, and the Bush administration has supplied more than enough material for one helluva campaign. And as far as progressive alternatives are concerned, the liberals have got their socks pulled up and are about ready to go.

Our "conservative" confreres had best hunker down, 'cause it's about to hit the fan. This is gonna be fun!!

Don Firth

Subject: RE: BS: reasons Liberals fail
From: Don Firth
Date: 13 Oct 05 - 04:42 PM

'Scuse me, folks, don't let me misguide you on this. The mid-term election is just about upon us. I was thinking of them taking office in 2006, but that's early in the year.

Read your voters' pamphlet.

Don Firth

Subject: RE: BS: reasons Liberals fail
From: Little Hawk
Date: 13 Oct 05 - 05:29 PM

Well written, Don. Yes, one wonders what will happen to the planet...and just how far it will go as the human race inanely pursues a totally arbitrary and meaningless artificial shit-useless thing they invented a long time ago that is called "money". Pathetic, that's what it is. People are now helpless slaves of an invented tool, a mere substanceless idea, that THEY once created out of thin air! Un-fucking believable.

We are money slaves. Wage slaves. All of us. And for what? For NOTHING, that's what. Money is not what life's supposed to be about.

Try and tell that to the deluded idiots in suits who fancy themselves as the leaders of this society.

As the old Indian saying goes, "When the last river is too polluted to drink, when the last tree has been cut down, when the last fertile soil is gone, when the last breathable air has been ruined, when the last edible fish has died...will you then eat your money?"

People who are in denial about this situation and believe in "business as usual" may be lucky enough (and selfish enough) to get old and die before the wolf is at their particular door...or they may not be that lucky. Their successors will not thank them for their comfortable denial in the face of the ruination of the natural world.

And all for money. How utterly wretched and futile.

Bobert, the hamsters do not appreciate your sentiments. They will get you. I'm not sure just what they plan to do, but, hey, old buddy...watch your back! ;-) The darkness has eyes. Little beady eyes. They're coming for you, Bobert!

Subject: RE: BS: reasons Liberals fail
From: McGrath of Harlow
Date: 13 Oct 05 - 08:43 PM

What I'd hoped might come out in this thread would have been a discussion about whether there are particular factors about "liberals" which effect the way they fail, when they fail, which are different from the ones that effect "conservatives" when they fail. Because everybody "fails" from time to time, that goes without saying.

For example, if you are committed to looking at both sides of every question, that might be a disadvantage in some circumstances, compared to someone who has a purely one-sided view of everything. And, set against that, at times it might be quite helpful, if it helped you anticipate what your opponents were going to do.

Though if being committed to looking at both sides of every question is a bedrock liberal principle - and I think it is - it strikes me that an awful lot of people who get termed "liberal" are not. (In the same way that an awful lot of "conservatives" are nothing of the kind, because they have no regard for the bedrock conservative principle that unnecessary change is to be resisted.)

Subject: RE: BS: reasons Liberals fail
From: Little Hawk
Date: 13 Oct 05 - 09:02 PM

Since most people are liberal about some things and conservative about others, how in the world would we go about deciding in any final sense who is a "liberal" and who is a "conservative"?

Rather, let us determine whether a person is acting or thinking liberally or conservatively in regards to a particular circumstance. That might get us somewhere.

Calling someone a liberal or a conservative gets us nowhere useful whatsoever, in my opinion. It just encourages the maintenance of an established prejudice of some kind. (Of course, we've all done that from time to time, but then...we're all prejudiced. So there you are.)

Subject: RE: BS: reasons Liberals fail
From: CarolC
Date: 13 Oct 05 - 09:50 PM

Both ends of the political spectrum have failed. They have failed to serve humankind and have, instead, enslaved it in the trap of divide and conquer, which is exactly what they were designed to do.

Both ends of the political spectrum fail because their sole purpose is to perpetuate their own existance, and they do this at the expense of all of us. We need to grow beyond this mindset of "governance as a team sport", and work together to solve the very real problems that face all of us. Otherwise we all fail.

Subject: RE: BS: reasons Liberals fail
From: Bobert
Date: 13 Oct 05 - 09:56 PM

Well, McG... The answer to yer question is simple... The so-called conservatives (who ain't...) appeal to folks who think it's their God given right to do whaht ver they want to do (i.e. burn up as much oil as the want to make them happy), to part as late as they6 want and to have the "freedom" to do what ver the Hell thay wanta do...

The "liberals" have a much tougher sell. They talk about conservin' (????) and payin' yer bills...

The terms have been switched 'round and the ol' conservatives are now called "liberals" and the ol' liberal are no the "conservatives"...

Now fir the ol' liberals to win elections it is up to them to do a major "re-framin'" job of the terminology....

That takes money and money ain't never been one of the 'ol liberal's strong suites...

So the liberals have their work cut out fir them...

Bobert

p.s. Yo, LH, some of my best friends are hamsters....

Subject: RE: BS: reasons Liberals fail
From: Amos
Date: 13 Oct 05 - 10:31 PM

October 13, 2005

From http://www.physorg.com/news7231.html
      
New evidence from climate records of the past provides some of the strongest indications yet of a direct link between tropical warmth and higher greenhouse gas levels, say scientists at the University of California, Santa Barbara. The present steady rise in tropical temperatures due to global warming will have a major impact on global climate and could intensify destructive hurricanes like Katrina and Rita.

U.S. climatologists at Columbia University in New York say international climate data indicate 2005 may become the hottest year on record.
Chandra Observatory reveals new star generation

The new evidence linking past tropical ocean temperatures to levels of atmospheric greenhouse gases is published in this week's Science Express, the on-line publication of the journal Science. The authors are Martin Medina-Elizalde, graduate student in the Department of Earth Science and the Interdepartmental Program in Marine Science at UC Santa Barbara, and David Lea, professor in UCSB's Department of Earth Science and the Marine Science Institute.

The link between increased atmospheric greenhouse gas and global temperatures underlies the theory of global warming, explained the authors. This link can be established by computer climate models or modern observations. Another way to study the link is through paleoclimate observations where past climate is reconstructed through natural archives. This latest study is based on such paleoclimate observations; the scientists analyzed the chemical composition of fossil plankton shells from a deep sea core in the equatorial Pacific.

"The relationship between tropical climate and greenhouse gases is particularly critical because tropical regions receive the highest proportion of solar output and act as a heat engine for the rest of the earth," said Lea.

Modern observations of tropical sea surface temperature indicate a rise of one to two degrees Fahrenheit over the last 50 years, a trend consistent with rising carbon dioxide in the atmosphere due to fossil fuel combustion, according to the authors. The paleoclimate evidence from this new study supports the attribution of the tropical temperature trend to the ever-increasing greenhouse gas burden in the atmosphere.

The research described in this week's article demonstrates that over the last 1.3 million years, sea surface temperatures in the heart of the western tropical Pacific were controlled by the waxing and waning of the atmospheric greenhouse effect. The largest climate mode shift over this time interval, occurring ~950,000 years before the present (the mid-Pleistocene transition), has previously been attributed to changes in the pattern and frequency of ice sheets.

The new research suggests instead that this shift is due to a change in the oscillation frequency of atmospheric carbon dioxide abundances, a hypothesis that can be directly tested by deep drilling on the Antarctic Ice Cap. If proved correct, this theory would suggest that relatively small, naturally occurring fluctuations in greenhouse gases are the master variable that has driven global climate change on time scales of ten thousand to one million years.

Subject: RE: BS: reasons Liberals fail
From: Little Hawk
Date: 14 Oct 05 - 07:59 AM

Brilliant post, Carol. You are so right. It's all about divide and conquer, and people mostly fall for it. It's as transparent, contrived, and useless as the eternal rivalries created in the field of competitive sports...for what purpose? To sell tickets and keep people distracted over nothing.

I don't buy hockey (or football) tickets, and I don't believe in any of the existing political parties either. Why contribute to an exercise in futility? Why pay a thief more money so he can continue robbing me?

Subject: RE: BS: reasons Liberals fail
From: GUEST,rarelamb
Date: 14 Oct 05 - 03:41 PM

Divide and conquer my petunias :) Special interests are ....us. People do believe in specific things for specific reasons.

We want the liar and cheater, the one that makes us smile, the one who tells us it's not our fault when it is and that they will 'make it happen'. We want the guy/gal in the middle and that's what we like. But they are also 'beholden' to special interests. And they shoudl be for the special interests are....us.

Subject: RE: BS: reasons Liberals fail
From: Little Hawk
Date: 14 Oct 05 - 10:52 PM

Well, as long as you believe that one side is "the good guys" and the other is "the bad guys", then they will have you right where they want you, rarelamb.

Life just ain't that simple, but they need you to think it is to play "divide and conquer" effectively.

I mean, why else would kids don a uniform or strap on a suicide bomb and go out and try to kill completer strangers who never did anything to them?

They have to believe those strangers are evil, don't they? Otherwise they wouldn't do it.

That's how divide and conquer works. You convince the young and naive that someone else is "evil" and must be stopped. They go out and kill for you. Then the young and naive from those people who got hurt come back and they do it right back to your people. And it goes on and on and on...

The innocent die.

Whaddya think? I don't call it "special interests", I call it insanity.

A sane "special interest" is one that benefits all parties mutually...not one at the expense of the other.

Subject: RE: BS: reasons Liberals fail
From: Little Hawk
Date: 14 Oct 05 - 10:59 PM

200!

What the hell. Someone had to do it.