BS: Suggestion for DougR's Liberal friends

Subject: BS: Suggestion for DougR's Liberal friends
From: DougR
Date: 02 Aug 05 - 04:47 PM

A column by James Klurfeld, a columnist and editor of "Newsday's" editorial pages was reproduced yesterday in our local newspaper. It is titled, "A boomer's song in a minority key." My first thought after reading it was:this describes to a "T" my liberal friends on the Mudcat. I will provide a link, but, unfortunately due to my computer ignorance, cannot provide a blue clicky. The link is:

http://www.nynewsday.com/news/opinion/columnists/ny-opklu224352544jul22,0,5379852column?coll=ny-opinion-columists

DougR

Subject: RE: BS: Suggestion for DougR's Liberal friends
From: DougR
Date: 02 Aug 05 - 04:48 PM

Oh, and the suggestion: read the article. :>)

DougR

Subject: RE: BS: Suggestion for DougR's Liberal friends
From: Don Firth
Date: 02 Aug 05 - 04:51 PM

CLICKY.

There ya go, Doug. I will now use the link and read the article.

Don Firth

Subject: RE: BS: Suggestion for DougR's Liberal friends
From: Don Firth
Date: 02 Aug 05 - 04:54 PM

Hmm!! Didn't work. Is the URL correct?

Don Firth

Subject: RE: BS: Suggestion for DougR's Liberal friends
From: Donuel
Date: 02 Aug 05 - 05:06 PM

Link

Subject: RE: BS: Suggestion for DougR's Liberal friends
From: Amos
Date: 02 Aug 05 - 05:11 PM

Donuel, I don't think that's what DougR has in mind!! LOL!

Doug, a search on James Klurfeld's name brings up four articles: one on the Cold Spring Cancer research center; two on odds and ends called "Asides";and one entitled "High court just a mirror of the nation's politics". Which of these, if any, are you trying to refer us to?


A

Subject: RE: BS: Suggestion for DougR's Liberal friends
From: Peace
Date: 02 Aug 05 - 05:19 PM

I tried the link and also googled the address. Came up with zip.

Subject: RE: BS: Suggestion for DougR's Liberal friends
From: Ebbie
Date: 02 Aug 05 - 05:37 PM

And I googled "A boomer's song in a minority key." No luck: "No scuch document found"

Told you, Doug- you do NOT understand your liberal friends...

Subject: RE: BS: Suggestion for DougR's Liberal friends
From: Don Firth
Date: 02 Aug 05 - 05:48 PM

Doug, can you give a URL for the local paper the article appeared in? That might work. I gotta go now, but someone here can turn it into a blue clicky. I'll be back.

Don Firth

Subject: RE: BS: Suggestion for DougR's Liberal friends
From: GUEST,Blind DRunk in Blind River
Date: 02 Aug 05 - 06:17 PM

Okay, I, like, tried it and I got a, like, porno site. It's a pretty good one. Thanks, eh? Totally decent, man.

- BDiBR

Subject: RE: BS: Suggestion for DougR's Liberal friends
From: DougR
Date: 02 Aug 05 - 06:42 PM

I got the link from the Assistant Editorial page Editor at the Arizona Republic. I'll check on it. It's possible the headline in the Arizona Republic might have been different from the one in Newsday, but none of those, Amos, sound likely. It appeared in the July 22, 2005 edition of Newsday. Thanks for trying.

I assure you it is not a porno site.

DougR

Subject: RE: BS: Suggestion for DougR's Liberal friends
From: GUEST,Blind DRunk in Blind River
Date: 02 Aug 05 - 06:45 PM

So...are you sayin' I'm stupid or what? Do I look stupid? Maybe I typed something wrong, but I don't think so. I will try again, eh?

- BDiBR

Subject: RE: BS: Suggestion for DougR's Liberal friends
From: Amos
Date: 02 Aug 05 - 06:53 PM

Is this it? Perhaps the Arizona editor decided to change the title:

"Contrary to popular perception, the United States Supreme Court is not above politics. It follows politics. And in the past 36 years the nation has moved to the right. It hasn't been in a straight line, but this nation is significantly more conservative today than it was in 1968. The court's makeup is just following that trend - as it should in a democracy.

Frankly, this is a painful reality for me to accept. I came of age in the 1960s, a card-carrying member of the Baby Boom generation (OK, just barely, born May 15, 1945), and having lived my life in the Northeast, I assumed that my moderate to liberal tendencies reflected the majority view in the country. The opposition to the Vietnam War, the civil rights marches, the socially liberal (as in sex, drugs and rock and roll) slant of my crowd surely represented the overwhelming view of my compatriots.

Wrong.

As it turns out, I am a representative of a minority group - a fairly large minority, but still a minority. Most of my presidential candidates have lost, and the issues that matter most to me and like-minded friends aren't necessarily reflected by opinion polls. We thought the antiwar movement was a great thing and that the march for equality for black Americans, including affirmative action, was a noble cause. I still believe we were right on our principles then and are right now, but a good portion of our generation didn't agree.

Indeed, we Northeast, elitist baby boomers should have realized we didn't have the votes back in 1972 when Richard Nixon crushed George McGovern. We were counting on the 18- to 21-year-olds, who were voting for the first time, to make a huge difference. Not only did that not happen, but the 18- to 21-year-olds voted in about the same ratios for Nixon as their elders.

This all sets the context for Roberts' nomination and almost certain approval for the Supreme Court. For all his brilliance and apparent decency, he wouldn't be my choice for a vacancy on the court. But my candidates lost the last two contests for the White House, and the party I most often favor controls neither house of Congress.

Does this mean catastrophe for the nation, such as, for instance, the end of a woman's right to choose an abortion? Not necessarily. Roberts doesn't strike me as a judge who wants to upset the social order and radicalize the court. And he seems the type of justice who, like Sandra Day O'Connor, has a healthy respect for precedent. And besides, the Supreme Court is about a lot more than just the issue of abortion. Or at least it should be. Many legal experts, people who know a lot more about the law than I do, and even folks who agree with the outcome, have said Roe v. Wade was a flawed decision.

At least two of my Democrat friends have expressed the belief that nothing could change the conservative drift of our politics more than if the Supreme Court reversed Roe. It's the radical departure that's needed to energize a new Democratic majority in the nation.

President George W. Bush will almost certainly have the opportunity to set the court on a conservative course for the next two decades with Roberts and other appointments. The time for Democrats to do something about this was last November. Now it's too late. Minority rights are an important part of our system. But when you've lost seven of 10 elections in 36 years, it's time to start figuring out how to become a majority again."

Subject: RE: BS: Suggestion for DougR's Liberal friends
From: Ebbie
Date: 02 Aug 05 - 07:06 PM

That has got to be it. And I see Doug's point- he is saying, as he has many times before, that most of the nation is conservative and that we should recognize that fact and live with it. Right, Doug?

Which opinion would be fine with me, Doug, if you faced a further fact: The Bush Administration is not Conservative. They are conserving NOTHING.

Subject: RE: BS: Suggestion for DougR's Liberal friends
From: Amos
Date: 02 Aug 05 - 07:09 PM

I do not -- cannot -- believe that the majority of the nation is psychotic in the particular ways that George Bush is. I do believe that easily 51% of them are readily intimidated or cowed into going along because they either don't think through the consequences of their choices, or they are just bat-blind baffled by bullshit and find it too painful to stand up against it.

A

Subject: RE: BS: Suggestion for DougR's Liberal friends
From: Little Hawk
Date: 02 Aug 05 - 07:15 PM

LOL! The whole World can plainly see that the majority of Americans are "conservative"...if conservative means: insular, largely unaware of reality, and living in a continual state of paranoid fantasy, fueled by a system that raises them from the cradle on a diet of delusions and self-serving propaganda....

I mean, hell, they're only GOT 2 real political parties, and there's so little genuine difference between the two that anyone could be forgiven for mistaking them for the very same thing! It must make it very hard to decide who the hell to vote for at election time. ;-)

Subject: RE: BS: Suggestion for DougR's Liberal friends
From: Little Hawk
Date: 02 Aug 05 - 07:18 PM

Bush and Rove may imagine that they are conservative...

They are anything but. They are totally radical. They are the kind of people who eventually end up on trial for massive fraud and crimes against humanity.

Subject: RE: BS: Suggestion for DougR's Liberal friends
From: Ebbie
Date: 02 Aug 05 - 07:20 PM

LIttle Hawk, them's fightin' words. Just how many "real" political parties does Canada have? And just how much good has a choice of various and varied splinter groups done you? peeple is peeple.

Subject: RE: BS: Suggestion for DougR's Liberal friends
From: Peace
Date: 02 Aug 05 - 07:30 PM

Links to Klurfeld's editorials for the past few months.

Subject: RE: BS: Suggestion for DougR's Liberal friends
From: Little Hawk
Date: 02 Aug 05 - 07:33 PM

Heh! Well, Canadian politics is actually quite amusing. Funnier than USA politics, mostly because USA politics is downright frightening.

We have, let's see...4 real parties in Canada. At the moment. It works this way:

1. The Liberal Party - Canada's most successful party since Confederation, the Liberals have more often been elected than any other. They pretend to be for everyone. They are actually for the rich (big corporations). The best way to describe the Liberal Party is that it resembles a marshmallow, because it is capable of shaping itself to fit ANY aperture! It is also totally without scruples, but can be depended upon not to do anything that is too drastic.

2. The Conservative Party - Recently re-formed from a split into 2 parties, the Conservatives are struggling to regain their former position as the 2nd most successful party in Canada. They pretend to be for everyone, but everyone KNOWS they are actually for the rich (big corporations). It's so friggin' obvious that they only make feeble attempts to conceal it.

3. The NDP (New Democratic Party) - Canada's 3rd most successful party, which pretends to be socialist and progressive, and for everyone. When in power, they find they must either play ball with the rich (big business) or shortly be OUT of power. This makes it very tough for them to be real, but they have a lot of fun pointing out corruption on the part of the bigger parties.

4. The Bloc Quebecois - This is a French party that represents the interests of Quebec and ONLY Quebec. This makes them effective in Quebec and useless everywhere else.

It's bizarre. It's weird. It's hilarous. But....

It's a whole lot better than the blasted Redemocrapublicants!!!!!!!!!! (the bifurcated but truly only One... American party)

Subject: RE: BS: Suggestion for DougR's Liberal friends
From: kendall
Date: 02 Aug 05 - 07:37 PM

Since when does a conservative spend more money (that we don't have) than all previous presidents combined?

Subject: RE: BS: Suggestion for DougR's Liberal friends
From: DougR
Date: 02 Aug 05 - 07:39 PM

Yes, Amos, that's the article. Thanks for posting it.

And yes, Ebbie, you are right. That's what I have been pointing out for years. No one is bound to agree with me of course, but when I read the article, I thought the writer nailed it.

Whether or not GWB is conservative or not depends, I guess, on ones point of view. I doubt that any president, conservative or liberal, will be able to get their programs through the congress without bending on some things. Bush has a pretty good record of getting legislation passed though. After 2006, I think he will do even better because I believe more Republicans will be elected to the House and Senate and more Democrats retired. :>)

DougR

Subject: RE: BS: Suggestion for DougR's Liberal friends
From: DougR
Date: 02 Aug 05 - 07:44 PM

Kendall: when they have a war on their hands.

DougR

Subject: RE: BS: Suggestion for DougR's Liberal friends
From: Ebbie
Date: 02 Aug 05 - 08:30 PM

Doesn't sound all that amusing to me, Little Hawk. I like politics as such, but I wonder if there has ever been a group of politicians who were selfless and concerned for the welfare of the country they ran.

DougR, that flip response to Kendall's question begs another question. Since when - and until now, the answer is NEVER- does this country go to war while cutting taxes for the richest of the country? Remember 'guns and butter'? Didn't work then, won't work now. Just when and by whom does this country expect to pay the bills we are racking up?

One of the developments of the 2004 elections that flabbergasted me was the notion that the country couldn't turn a president out of office while there was a war going on - but that war was started by that president on a purely elective basis. He gets rewarded with another term for having gone to war??

Subject: RE: BS: Suggestion for DougR's Liberal friends
From: Little Hawk
Date: 02 Aug 05 - 08:38 PM

To answer your wondering, Ebbie...there are plenty of politicians who are relatively selfless (as much so as most people), and do have the genuine interests of the country and people on their minds...but....

The nature of the political and financial system almost ensures that their idealism will be largely blocked, frustrated, and diverted, and that they will be severely compromised in the process.

That happens because everything is determined, in the end, by money, and money has no conscience...nor any credo but this: to have MORE.

A system run by money considerations is one that serves artificial needs, not human needs. It's a form of insanity. You see the results all around you every day of your life.

This was even true in the Communist societies most of the time, despite their pretensions of equality. They too had their privileged and powerful elite.

People can do better than that, because we ARE better than that.

Subject: RE: BS: Suggestion for DougR's Liberal friends
From: Amos
Date: 02 Aug 05 - 09:01 PM

At least some of us.

A

Subject: RE: BS: Suggestion for DougR's Liberal friends
From: John Hardly
Date: 02 Aug 05 - 10:02 PM

I've got enough agreement in me to go around. I seem to be in an agreeable mood.

I agree that the country is more conservative in many ways -- certainly more conservative than most who post here. For instance, as I've tried to point out before, though the country is nowhere near pro-life, it is certainly more pro-life than it is indescriminately pro-abortion. In other words, though the country wants abortion, it, in majority, thinks that most abortions are immoral or wrong. It doesn't look at the 40,000,000 abortions that have been performed in the last few decades and assume the sad but necessary conclusion that they represent 40,000,000 cases of rape, or 40,000,000 cases of incest. No, I think the majority look at the 40,000,000 abortions and assume most of them are for convenience (vaguely defined) -- and they find that to be "extreme". It also finds the left's hardline position on abortion as the "radical" viewpoint -- at least as radical as any extreme on the right might exhibit.

But I whole-heartedly agree that Bush is not a conservative, even if I dislike the old "dictionary definition" type of arguing about "conservative" and "Liberal" -- language moves on and we all know what, in American politics, is meant by conservative and liberal, and, no, they don't have to do with "conserving" and "liberating", or any other derivitive of the Latin or Greek origins or the words.

Bush is not a conservative because he doesn't show any signs of believing in the functionality of conservative ideology (for instance he spends for political expediency, not economically sound or necessary reasons). Plus, conservative thinking has always been loathe to go to war for ANY reason. Though I don't believe any of the kooky conspiracy theory thinking on Bush's motivation for war, I do think that, as a gamble for fighting what truly is the 21st century's biggest international threat -- terrorism -- it was a gamble based on flawed thinking and miscalculation. If no other miscalculation than just how powerful the anti-war sentiment here in the USA would be or become.

If I were president (God save us all) I would never get us into a war without a significant, politically insurmountable majority of Americans behind the effort. I would do that because 1. it is clear that in military actions of the past 40 years, we have been mostly defeated and/or deflated from within, and 2. It is HIGHLY likely that whatever war I started would have to be finished by a subsequent president and if he does not share the same popular mandate to forge on in the war, it isn't just us that loses -- it will be the side we are on internationally that will lose.

Subject: RE: BS: Suggestion for DougR's Liberal friends
From: DougR
Date: 02 Aug 05 - 10:18 PM

John Hardly: I assume you are aware that the Congress approved GWB going to war, right?

Amos: It has always puzzled me why some liberals, and you appear to be one, take the position that anyone who takes a political position that is not your own is described as deranged, idiotic, and so on. I don't recall those who profess to be conservative ever accusing their liberal brethern of possessing the same traits. Cannot you accept the fact that people who do not agree with you, are not psychotic, insane, idiotic, or unbalanced because they do not agree with your thinking?

DougR

Subject: RE: BS: Suggestion for DougR's Liberal friends
From: GUEST,TIA
Date: 02 Aug 05 - 10:38 PM

Congress gave him the authority to go to war as a LAST RESORT. And do you not remember the incredible pressure that was brought to bear on any who opposed the war? You know - those unpatriotic traitor peaceniks? It's a little like the bully on the playground telling teacher..."but the skinny kid GAVE me his lunch money". Well, yeah the skinny kid did, but is that the whole story?

And, I don't think John Hardly's point hinges a whit on whether (or how or why) congress "approved".

Subject: RE: BS: Suggestion for DougR's Liberal friends
From: Peace
Date: 02 Aug 05 - 10:43 PM

IMO, Congress had nothing to do with it. Such is the state of democracy in the USA.

Subject: RE: BS: Suggestion for DougR's Liberal friends
From: Greg F.
Date: 02 Aug 05 - 10:43 PM

um, and because Bogus Bush and his toadies lied to Congress to convince it to give him that authority.

Whoops! there's them pesky facts again......

Subject: RE: BS: Suggestion for DougR's Liberal friends
From: Bobert
Date: 02 Aug 05 - 11:15 PM

Ahhhhh, first of all, I read the article/column and discovered one big ol' lapse of mmemory that the writer made that amde me think, "Hmmmmm, Bobert, this may have been written not by a liberal but a Bushite????"

That staement was in refernce to Bush "winning" in 2000... He didn't and it's only Bushites who actually think he did... Liberal's KNOW DIFFERENTLY!!!!!!

And now fast forward to 2004 and Ohio and Diebold and, and, and....

Probably didn't win that one either...

Just thought I'd point that out since "liberals" don't conceed the last two elections, especially given the mountain of evidence that Gore was beaten' out by illegal dumping of black voters in Florida and a Supreme Court that stepped in to stop the recount....

Bush stole the 2000 election!!!!

Not that I like Al Bore any more, but Bush and his thugs flat out stole 2000....

A real "Liberal" would have pointed that out!!!!

Bobert

Subject: RE: BS: Suggestion for DougR's Liberal friends
From: Amos
Date: 03 Aug 05 - 12:04 AM

I don't recall those who profess to be conservative ever accusing their liberal brethern of possessing the same traits. Cannot you accept the fact that people who do not agree with you, are not psychotic, insane, idiotic, or unbalanced because they do not agree with your thinking?


Dougie:

I think you are exercising selective recall on the first point. Perhaps you have bever read those like Ann Coulter and Rush Limbaiugh who turned the word "liberal" from meaning "believing in reciprocal freedom" to "pinko wussy loser commie faggot...." or the like?

Second of all I know I have often referred to Mister Bush as psycho, but I have no problem with people disagreeing with me if they are willing to satte clearly and factually what they see. I have had hundreds of conversations with people of good will in these threads where we ended up agreeing to disagree.

Bush, individually and institutionally, has messed up the things I love most about this country, has perpetrated violence on others without regret, cannot conceive of doing wrong, is proud of his illiteracy, believes he is empowered by God to rule, and has undermined the economic strength and good repute of the nation. I think those things alone would qualify him as a deluded, destructive person who pretends his destructiveness is actually good. That's why I refer to him as a psycho -- because of the covert destruction he has wrought.

A

Subject: RE: BS: Suggestion for DougR's Liberal friends
From: Little Hawk
Date: 03 Aug 05 - 10:19 AM

Well, yes, but he wears nice suits...except for that funny lump on the back. And I think that he would be a great owner for a baseball team.

Subject: RE: BS: Suggestion for DougR's Liberal friends
From: John Hardly
Date: 03 Aug 05 - 10:38 AM

I don't think congress agreed to give Bush the authority for war because Bush lied to them -- the WMD was not a lie. There is a huge and meaningful distinction between perpetuating a lie, and trusting bad intelligence that MOST of the free world acknowledged. The cliche' that it was a lie is just not facing the fact.

Furthermore, the left's participation in giving Bush the authority for war says WAY more about the left's politician's weakness of principle and desire for political power than it does about what Bush may or may not have told them about WMD.

In fact, it was not Bush who told them about WMDs -- it was shared intelligence.

The left was too afraid that most of America still felt threatened by terrorism and didn't want to appear to be on the wrong side of that -- even though in their hearts they didn't feel the same threat was a reality. But rather than lead in the issue, they caved to popular pressure and voted Bush the authority -- thus passing the buck. If the war effort proved successful (though they doubted it, and in fact, intended to work against that possibility), they could point to their having (wisely) given the president the authority. If the war effort proved a failure, they knew all along that they would be vocally opposing the war all along, despite their one vote to authorize war. They knew that "their people" would hear their anti-war rhetoric louder than they would remember their one insipid, half-hearted vote.

I most definitely believe that the left wants Bush to lose the war. Now that we have taken that gamble (of war), I hope we can figure out a way for more to win through it, even though I wish we had never gone into it in the first place. I don't want us to lose as the left does.

Subject: RE: BS: Suggestion for DougR's Liberal friends
From: Little Hawk
Date: 03 Aug 05 - 10:50 AM

I don't consider this (The War on Terrorism) to be a war that is winnable. So whether anyone loses it or not is a moot point, don't you think?

The War Against Drugs was another example of the same kind of thing...but with less fireworks.

What I would like to see Bush lose is this: his war specifically on Iraq. Why would I like to see him lose it? Because I ALWAYS want unprovoked aggression to lose, regardless of WHO launches it, and upon whom.

When I say I want him to lose his war on Iraq, I mean only this: I want, someday, for American and British troops to get out of Iraq, go home where they belong, and leave Iraq alone to sort out its own future destiny under its own auspices, as any nation has the right to, and control its own oil without foreign interference.

The British also occupied Iraq after the 1st World War, and they eventually left...at the cost of many lives.

What is occuring in Iraq now is not a war against terrorism, it is thinly disguised colonialism for the purpose of controlling oil.

Yes, I definitely want Bush to lose his colonial war of aggression on Iraq. That does not mean I want anyone to attack the USA or Britain or to bomb civilians or anything like that. I just want the USA and Britain to stop attacking Iraq and various other small countries and leave them alone. Period.

Subject: RE: BS: Suggestion for DougR's Liberal friends
From: John Hardly
Date: 03 Aug 05 - 11:15 AM

Your opinion(s), with which I disagree.

Subject: RE: BS: Suggestion for DougR's Liberal friends
From: Little Hawk
Date: 03 Aug 05 - 11:17 AM

Okay, then. ;-)

Subject: RE: BS: Suggestion for DougR's Liberal friends
From: Amos
Date: 03 Aug 05 - 11:32 AM

I can't speak for the left, whoever that is, but ever since our troops crossed into Iraq I have said essentially that if we're going to be in this battle we had better be in to win.

However that was the battle against Hussein's troops, not the current scene of putting out fires every day and losing men -- fourteen in the last 24 hours, plus one excellent journalist assasinated -- in guerilla actions.

The big question is, how do you manage a situation like this, where the locals who might want to build a workable civilization are constantly being harassed by Islamofacists on one side, and militant rednecks on the other. We used to have a solution in this country called separation of church and state, but it's being badly undermined by our own moralist-fascists. Anyway, my basic feeling is that this should never have been a military operation in the first place. Changing ideas with bullets and pain is a really second-rate way to do it. Flatly, it does not work. At best you acheive a suppressed resentment, and the idea you have suceeded in suppressing will surface again later.

I know there are a lot of people in Iraq who are working to change things in other ways -- reconstruction, social engineering, education and public relations -- and it is those influences, ultimately, that will make a difference there.

My prayers are with the women of Iraq. I actually think in the long run they are the only hope the nation has, directly or indirectly.

A

Subject: RE: BS: Suggestion for DougR's Liberal friends
From: Don Firth
Date: 03 Aug 05 - 12:17 PM

At 03 Aug 05 - 12:04 AM and 03 Aug 05 - 11:32 AM.

What Amos said.

Don Firth

Subject: RE: BS: Suggestion for DougR's Liberal friends
From: Amos
Date: 03 Aug 05 - 12:21 PM

Yeah, and what Don Firth said, too! :D

Amos

Subject: RE: BS: Suggestion for DougR's Liberal friends
From: Peace
Date: 03 Aug 05 - 12:31 PM

The war on terrorism IS win-able, but not using armies. It will require assassination units whose job is to search and destroy terrorist leadership and terrorist infrastructure. It is stupid to send fifteen elephants onto a football field with the intent to trample a mouse to death. Before the antiwar faction--of which I'm a part--castigates me for this line of reasoning, ponder whether it's better selectively to kill the INDIVIDUALS who are 'running' the terrorists or the brainwashed who are supporting them. The planning has been FUBAR and so the war has been a mess. IMO.

Subject: RE: BS: Suggestion for DougR's Liberal friends
From: Ebbie
Date: 03 Aug 05 - 12:41 PM

Problem is that each individual terrorist has a family and friends and represents the mindset of many others. Kill one and a dozen spring up to take his place. imo

Better to address the underlying reasons and not further exacerabate them. That includes getting the hell out of their country and leaving them alone to decide what kind of future they want.

If a country then goes into a civil war or pursues genocide, THEN is when the international community has to intervene. Emphasis on 'community'.

Subject: RE: BS: Suggestion for DougR's Liberal friends
From: PoppaGator
Date: 03 Aug 05 - 02:04 PM

I agree with Peace that covert, well-targeted asassination is the way to go in the way on terror. People who don't really understand pacifism might find this point of view hard to understand, but in the absense of a perfect world in which nobody "needs killin'," it makes a whole lot more sense to me for the most truly dangerous individuals to be identified and weeded out, than for masses of one country's draftees and recruits to wreak destruction upon hugfe numbers of another country's draftees, recruits, and civilians.

I recall when there was a lot of hubbub about reported CIA efforts to assassinate Castro and/or other revolutionary leaders. I never understood why such projects were so horrifyingly distasteful to folks who seemed to have no qualms at all about dropping bombs on masses of non-combatant human souls, with little or no immediate effect upon "enemy" leadership.

Subject: RE: BS: Suggestion for DougR's Liberal friends
From: Little Hawk
Date: 03 Aug 05 - 03:27 PM

The best way to kill specific terrorists, as individuals, is what has been recommended above. Covert operations. But....it is not the way to end terrorism!

The way to end terrorism is to end the tremendous inequalities and injustices from which terrorism has sprung. That would mean...ummm...regarding the lives and independence of ordinary people as being more important than the profits of huge financial cartels!

Hmmm. Don't hold your breath waiting for it to happen.

Castro could have waited for it to happen in Cuba. Instead, he led a revolution against it and won. For that, he has been hated ever since by those who lost their big profits in the process.

Subject: RE: BS: Suggestion for DougR's Liberal friends
From: Peace
Date: 03 Aug 05 - 03:49 PM

I agree with Ebbie and LH. It would be great if we could address the underlying causes that lead people to terrorist activity, and by doing so make terrorism disappear. It will however always leave the Tim McVeighs and Osama bin Ladens who have motives no one can determine. Ideally, Ebbie and LH are correct. Pragmatically, I think PG and I are correct. An instance where people disagree and can both have valid views, IMO.

BUT, what we can all agree on is that sending armies to do things that should be being done economically or politically is not too bright.

Subject: RE: BS: Suggestion for DougR's Liberal friends
From: DougR
Date: 04 Aug 05 - 01:07 AM

Why, Peace, didn't you know? It's our fault that terrorists exist. Western countries are progressive wealthy nations and the terrorists don't like that. We are reponsible for their misery and they want to kill us because of it. Simple really. All we have to do is embrace radical Islam and the terrorists will probably be happy as larks. They might even stop trying to kill us!

DougR

Subject: RE: BS: Suggestion for DougR's Liberal friends
From: Ebbie
Date: 04 Aug 05 - 01:31 AM

What about the fact that bin Laden is a millionaire? And that Saudi Arabia and some other middle eastern countries are very wealthy. Back to the drawing board, DougR.

Subject: RE: BS: Suggestion for DougR's Liberal friends
From: Little Hawk
Date: 04 Aug 05 - 08:33 AM

No, Doug, it's NOT your fault, and it's not OUR fault. It is the fault of an overall ruling system that is devoted to money, not LIFE!

You and I are among those suffering under that very $ySStem, and we suffer under it mutually, along with those people in the poor countries.

Because of it, we are turned against each other when we could have been the best of friends. I've been to poor countries. I have encountered many wonderful people there, just as I have encountered many wonderful people in rich countries. Most people are wonderful. We are all brothers and sisters, meant to live in peace, and we could do so with ease...were it not for the fact that a number of enormous companies and financial organizations are devoted to the bottom line in the same way that Tony Soprano is devoted to stealing, terrorizing, and killing people who get in his way.

Capiche? I am not blaming ordinary Americans like you for this situation. They are among the unwitting victims OF this situation, as are ordinary Iraqis and ordinary Afghans and ordinary Canadians.

You are totally missing the point, Doug.

And I mean that.

- George

Subject: RE: BS: Suggestion for DougR's Liberal friends
From: Little Hawk
Date: 04 Aug 05 - 08:41 AM

Oh, and Doug...get up. The sun is shining. You will feel great if you get up now. (or are you way out west somewhere? If so, get another hour of sleep)

Subject: RE: BS: Suggestion for DougR's Liberal friends
From: Bobert
Date: 04 Aug 05 - 09:20 AM

Well, looking back at the run-up to war I remember quite vividly a number of credible folks who were openly questioning the WMD argument, Scott Ritter being the one who most readily comes to mind. Ritter should have known a little about this seein' as he was a former inspector himself... But Scott Ritter was blackballed by the media... One in particular was Judy Miller, who is now in jail for not revealing her sources... I'm glad she's in jail and I wouldn't mind seein' a few more media-ites jailed fir their role in tag teaming ther American people with Bush's PR department...

Then there was this issue of a phony college kids term paper that trumped Joe Wilson's assessment of the charge that Saddam was trying to buy uranium from Niger... Like what was that all about???

Maybe lie isn't "technically" what the Bushites did (and continue to do) since they seem to find someone that *they* determine credible to tell them stuff and then the Buishites go out an parrot these things irregardless of the truth value.

I am also reminded of the Saudi Proposal (Mitchell Porposal) which was on the table before the invasion. And I remmember just how the Bushites dismissed it aas if it was child's play.... Had they gone in that direction, it is my opinion and the opinion of most folks that Dougie would call "liberal", that the world would be a lot better off today...

But there would have been one distince loser here and that would have been the Bushites... Without *their* war (not mine, that's fir sure...) they could see that their guy would have a difficult time being re-elected and that would not bode well for the thievin' that they and their big donors had begun... The saddest thing about the Bush erra is that what we have seen is a massive burden put on the average American working man and woman and a redistribution of income to those who were rich prior to 2000...

But I will give the Bushitres credit for throwing up so many smoke screens, sideshows and distrations that by the time the average Americabworker figures it out, he or she will be so far in debt that the current Social Security argument will seem a joke since most folks who are 30's and 40's will never get to retire... Nice slight of the hand, I must say...

And lastly, I'll just reiterate waht I have said going back a long time: When the US and UK leave Iraq, it will fall into civil war. Won't matter when or how many marines or Iraqis have died. Won't matter when the US and UK leave. This war is allready lost...

Bobert

Subject: RE: BS: Suggestion for DougR's Liberal friends
From: John Hardly
Date: 04 Aug 05 - 09:20 AM

I think Doug's tongue was in his cheek.

It's kind of amusing when the content of one person's sarcasm meets another's patronizing expectations.

Subject: RE: BS: Suggestion for DougR's Liberal friends
From: Bobert
Date: 04 Aug 05 - 10:24 AM

Oh, we all know that, John... Dougie ain't got no mean bones in his body... A few confuzerated and mischievious bones, however, is a different story...

Bobert;)

Subject: RE: BS: Suggestion for DougR's Liberal friends
From: Little Hawk
Date: 04 Aug 05 - 12:00 PM

It was and it wasn't, John. It was the general direction of Doug's sarcasm that I felt needed a response. I am well aware that he was speaking tongue in cheek. Doug is not a stupid person, and neither am I. ;-)

Subject: RE: BS: Suggestion for DougR's Liberal friends
From: Ebbie
Date: 04 Aug 05 - 01:47 PM

Gracious, John Hardly. Do we have to spell out someone's attempt at sarcasm and/or levity? Of course, we knew what Doug was doing. I chose to address his sentiments (and make no mistake about it, them is his sentiments) at face value, rather than acknowledging his hyperbole.

'Tain't like you to go for the obvious, JH.