 sj |
||
|
||
BS: NON-Partisan political comments
|
|
|
Subject: BS: NON-Partisan political comments From: beardedbruce Date: 11 Sep 04 - 07:15 AM I doubt very much if the extremists on BOTH sides can let this thread stay reasonable, but I would like to share some of the observations that I have read here, in a non-partisan way. I think that some of these may be among the great truths of the world Then again, I could be wrong... I have tried to give the person who posted the quote: But I think that the statements will stand regardless. Bobert "There is a real danger when a sigment of society becomes so brainwashed that they cannot tolerate other folks view points and America is rapidly becoming just that... " Little Hawk Here's a common delusion: "My political party is the good one, and can be trusted to save our nation. The other political party is the bad one and will lead us to hell in a handbasket." "Anyone who has confidence in either the Democrats OR the Republicans is probably clueless." kendall "In the end it will make no difference. 90% of us have made up our minds and nothing will change them. " |
|
Subject: RE: BS: NON-Partisan political comments From: Bobert Date: 11 Sep 04 - 08:25 AM Unfortuantely, the system that Repubocrats have devised *insures* partisanship and is highly dependent on partisanship. Partisanship is a multi-billion-dollar business... Divide and conquer... Ya' gotta keep 'um seperated... As long as we have a winner take all system and horrible redisticking we will have partisanship and bullying by the fraternity in power. And when I say power, that's exactly what it is. Brute power. The problem with power is that it in itself is corrupting. If you have it then there's certainly no point in compromising... Without compromise, partisanship can only get worse and worse and government be less about *governing* and more about *ruling*. No one likes to be ruled and thus: bitterness and partisanship... My own opinion is that the current fraternity is the worst I've seen in my life time in taking no-compromise, we-won-so-kiss-our-asses partisanship to the highest levels imaginative which, of course,just brings on deeper partisanship... And the beat goes on... Bobert |
|
Subject: RE: BS: NON-Partisan political comments From: beardedbruce Date: 11 Sep 04 - 10:03 AM Peter K (Fionn) " Can there really be that many unquestioning Americans who absorb all their information through partisan channels and resolutely close their minds to all else? " |
|
Subject: RE: BS: NON-Partisan political comments From: beardedbruce Date: 11 Sep 04 - 10:53 AM and one not originally political, but obvious wisdom... Little Hawk "I think it's a control issue with people. They want to be in control of the agenda in some way. They want their version of reality to rule and be sovereign at all times. That's a control issue." |
|
Subject: RE: BS: NON-Partisan political comments From: Jack the Sailor Date: 11 Sep 04 - 05:49 PM I'm not Partisan at all in US politics. But I think that George Bush/Cheney/Rove are bad for the country and need to be voted out. I'm no fan of Kerry or the Democratic party but they are a lot better than what we have now. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: NON-Partisan political comments From: Jack the Sailor Date: 11 Sep 04 - 05:51 PM Its not Partisan to say that Bush is bad for the country. Not if you sincerely believe it. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: NON-Partisan political comments From: DougR Date: 11 Sep 04 - 06:44 PM Ture, Jack, true. I agree completely. DougR |
|
Subject: RE: BS: NON-Partisan political comments From: The Fooles Troupe Date: 12 Sep 04 - 09:39 AM "Power corrupts: absolute power corrupts absolutely" |
|
Subject: RE: BS: NON-Partisan political comments From: Amos Date: 12 Sep 04 - 09:44 AM The polarization of the country is pretty much attributable to the Great Unifier. A recent column in the NY Times examines the character assassination strategies of the administration against Kerry, and earlier against Dean and McCain, and how far from reality it goes to achieve its ends. Truth goes out the window with these people; Karl Rovew is masterfgul at hiring the right liar at the right time. A |
|
Subject: RE: BS: NON-Partisan political comments From: GUEST Date: 12 Sep 04 - 09:52 AM The country is no more polarized than it was in 2000, but the polarization is being fueled by the Democrats and Republicans. Most others of us (the 35% or so who don't align ourselves with the two parties) could give a shit about their "issues" with one another. It's all a smokescreen for the American oligarchs to screw the people. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: NON-Partisan political comments From: beardedbruce Date: 12 Sep 04 - 09:53 AM and from Foolestroupe... "I have always found that the absolute best in any field are truly wonderful human beings - it's only ever the second raters that need to order everybody around and demonstrate their 'pseudo-greatness' to everybody (including most especially thhemselves!). " Amos: Can we please avoid thread drift? I think there are other threads for your point. I would like to get to the Great Truths, not argue. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: NON-Partisan political comments From: GUEST Date: 12 Sep 04 - 10:51 AM The Democratic partisans just can't give it a rest. They are shrill, hysterical, and alienating everyone in the middle, to the left, and to the right, with their hatred and fear of Bush. There is precious little chance of you being able to get beyond 10 posts in any American political threads between now and November, without them crashing in and screaming in the faces of anyone who won't vote their way. They are the mirror image of the Bushites. If Bush actually does open up a lead over Kerry (he broke away from Arizona as a result of the RNC bounce--that state is now considered to be Bush's), the donkey brayers will only grow more restless, agitated, and ugly. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: NON-Partisan political comments From: Ron Davies Date: 12 Sep 04 - 11:00 AM It ain't over til.... |
|
Subject: RE: BS: NON-Partisan political comments From: Amos Date: 12 Sep 04 - 11:06 AM Bruce: Sorry. You predicted correctly. A |
|
Subject: RE: BS: NON-Partisan political comments From: beardedbruce Date: 12 Sep 04 - 11:19 AM Ron: Thanks for the contribution. Guest, please see my comment to Amos- I really don't want to here about EITHER party, flaws or whatever. The comments I have found speak to a larger issue, and seem to apply to BOTH sides. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: NON-Partisan political comments From: GUEST Date: 12 Sep 04 - 12:26 PM I agree totally bruce. Which is why I pointed out that the Mudcat majority, which is voting for Kerry, won't be able to remain non-partisan. It isn't in their constitutional make-up. So, after repeated attempts at a non-partisan conversation (I started one of these very same threads myself a few days ago) about the American presidential election, I've come to the conclusion that these sorts of threads are just a silly waste of time. People here just aren't capable of having a non-partisan political conversation about American politics, anymore than they are capable of not opening threads with a guest bashing title, and running the thread up over 100 posts in no time flat. Nature of the beast, dude. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: NON-Partisan political comments From: beardedbruce Date: 12 Sep 04 - 12:46 PM Just because we are doomed to fail does not mean we should not try. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: NON-Partisan political comments From: GUEST Date: 12 Sep 04 - 12:50 PM You bet. Nice work, being a martyr. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: NON-Partisan political comments From: beardedbruce Date: 12 Sep 04 - 12:51 PM it's steady work, though... |
|
Subject: RE: BS: NON-Partisan political comments From: Clinton Hammond Date: 12 Sep 04 - 12:52 PM "I sat and watched those guys Debate eachother on TV Politicians wrestlers They're all the same to me Hey, I don't give a damn Which idiot runs the country Cause I'm the last man on Earth And it don't matter to me" -Loudon Wainwright III- "Only an idiot makes up their mind before they hear the issues" "No body is ONE thing only" -Chris Rock- "I would never belong to a club that would have me as a member" Groucho Marx?- |
|
Subject: RE: BS: NON-Partisan political comments From: GUEST Date: 12 Sep 04 - 01:30 PM I am on board with Chris Rock's assessment. Looks to me like both the Bush and Kerry camp has done just that. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: NON-Partisan political comments From: mack/misophist Date: 12 Sep 04 - 02:06 PM Traditional moderate Republicans are entirely acceptable in American political life. It's a pity there aren't more of them. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: NON-Partisan political comments From: beardedbruce Date: 12 Sep 04 - 02:20 PM Traditional moderate Democrats are entirely acceptable in American political life. It's a pity there aren't more of them. Now, can we get back to this thread? |
|
Subject: RE: BS: NON-Partisan political comments From: beardedbruce Date: 12 Sep 04 - 02:23 PM ClintonHammond: Thanks. Good comments. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: NON-Partisan political comments From: Jim Dixon Date: 12 Sep 04 - 02:50 PM Personally, I find cynical statements about politics (e.g. "All politicians are corrupt") to be just as annoying as the worst partisan ones. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: NON-Partisan political comments From: Clinton Hammond Date: 12 Sep 04 - 03:09 PM Sorry Jim... but I belive that politics was only invented to keep idiots busy doing nothing... You are not expected to agree... |
|
Subject: RE: BS: NON-Partisan political comments From: GUEST,Larry K Date: 13 Sep 04 - 09:37 AM Arlo Gutherie say a line which I find very interesting and still remember. In essence he said " it took me a very long time to learn this but at the end of the day, I realized that I had a lot more in common with my political enemies, than I did with the people who were apathetic or uninvolved" I believe that statement to be true and probably very very true of this forum. While many of us in this forum have different opinion, most are well informed and sincere in their beliefs. We probably all want the same end- we just differ on how to get there. (This last line is from a conversation I had with Jesse Winchester at Summerfolk) I believe that most candidates have sold their souls to special interest groups by the time they get to any significant position. It they refuse to sell themselves out, they never get to the significant position. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: NON-Partisan political comments From: freightdawg Date: 13 Sep 04 - 10:29 AM Astute comment Larry. Regarding partisan politics. Partisan politics is not the enemy. Our system is founded on partisan politics. If everyone was in the same party then we would have a communist society, (in the sense of "commune") not a democratic one. There really is a philosphical difference between someone who desires a strong centralized and often intrusive national government, and someone who believes in a smaller, less intrusive central government and stronger state governments. It is incumbent upon those who wish to lead our government to state clearly and forcefully what their beliefs are so that the voting public can make an educated decision when it comes time to vote. The issue, as I see it, is not partisan politics. It is politicians who, as Larry said, are corrupt at the heart and so therefore have to spend all their time attacking their opponent rather than putting forward their vision for whatever office they seek, be it mayor, senator or president. Americans, with all of our divisions and different ways of looking at things, are really quite homogenous in certain respects. We want to be safe, we want our children to learn and to be safe while they are doing it, we want our parents to enjoy the fruits of their hard labor, and we want to have a chance to give something back. There are legitimate differences in opinion about how we get those goals met. Let's have a civilized debate about those differences every 2 or 4 years, and then after the voting is over let's see if we cannot work together to meet those goals. Let us agree to disagree, and be agreeable while we are doing it. Freightdawg |
|
Subject: RE: BS: NON-Partisan political comments From: beardedbruce Date: 15 Sep 04 - 09:17 AM and from Jim Dixon... "People who use such tactics as name-calling obviously would have no chance of ever persuading anyone to change a policy, and therefore have nothing of value to add to this discussion. " |
|
Subject: RE: BS: NON-Partisan political comments From: John Hardly Date: 15 Sep 04 - 09:33 AM "I would rather believe that nobody is right about anything. It makes my political laziness so much easier to accept." |
|
Subject: RE: BS: NON-Partisan political comments From: GUEST Date: 15 Sep 04 - 07:00 PM The saying "Hold your nose & vote the straight Democratic ticket", tho partisan in content, is nonpartisan in spirit. It is said to go back to the campaign of 1896, and has never been out of date since. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: NON-Partisan political comments From: GUEST Date: 15 Sep 04 - 09:07 PM So, across the pond, when is Blair up for re-election? |
|
Subject: RE: BS: NON-Partisan political comments From: Bill D Date: 15 Sep 04 - 09:19 PM "An honest politician is one who, when he is bought, will stay bought." ...attributed to many, but probably by Simon Cameron non-partisan, but irrelevant at the moment. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: NON-Partisan political comments From: Teresa Date: 15 Sep 04 - 09:54 PM Here are a couple of things I find interesting: The Pournelle Political axis "Some years ago I set out to replace the old model with one that made more sense. I studied a number of political philosophies and tried to see what underlying concepts separated them from their political enemies. Eventually I came up with two variables. I didn't then and don't now suggest these two are all there is to political theory. I'm certain there are other important ones. But my two have this property: they map every major political philosophy and movement onto one unique place. The two I chose are "Attitude toward the State," and "Attitude toward planned social progress"." and The Political Compass, which even has an interesting quiz, and parallels Pournelle's thinking. T |
|
Subject: RE: BS: NON-Partisan political comments From: Bobert Date: 15 Sep 04 - 10:14 PM Actually, freight-ster, how about no-party (or conversely lots of parties sharing power), rather than one party? Bobert |
|
Subject: RE: BS: NON-Partisan political comments From: Little Hawk Date: 15 Sep 04 - 10:52 PM Larry K - "I believe that most candidates have sold their souls to special interest groups by the time they get to any significant position. It they refuse to sell themselves out, they never get to the significant position." Asolutely correct, Larry. The party-based system is thus corrupted, the politicians are corrupted, and the public is robbed. We can only end this fiasco by either completely altering the way that political campaigns are financed...or... By abolishing political parties altogether. And that, freightdawg, would not = Communism. Communism is domination of a society by One centralized political party. A political party is a centralized power structure which acts in its own interests (not the public's) and covers its own ass. That does not auger well in the case of one party, like the Communists or the Nazis, and it does not auger well in the case of 2 parties, like the Democrats and Republicans. It does not even auger well in the case of 3, 4, or 5 parties...because parties, like labour unions, or like corporations, are self-serving power structures which seek constantly to enlarge and increase their power. This does not lead in the direction of genuine public service. It leads in the direction of corruption, vicious and ammoral competition (as you see in the dirty election tactics), and oligarchy. I remember when I was in high school in New York State. They took us inexperienced kids and had us select two lots of people to vote for on the student council....president, vice president, secretary, and treasurer of the class. Those two lots of people made signs, campaigned, made largely meaningless speeches, and tried to outdo each other (and make each other look stupid if possible) and we were supposed to choose between them. Well, we young minds were being prepared...hypnotized...to trot out dutifully as soon as we reached legal voting age and do the same stupid thing and vote for Democrats and Republicans. We were being taught that it's "normal" to divide up into competitive teams over everything in life and then fight for a prize...winner takes all. Just like a football game. This is stupid, divisive, and destructive. It's not a good way to organize a society. It leads to people being divided against each other, turned into opponents over a completely unnecessary issue, and made to quarrel and compete with each other instead of working harmoniously toward a common goal. Every election they tear the country apart emotionally and psychologically. Then somebody wins (Rah! Rah!). Then that somebody says it's time to "heal the wounds" and all become united again behind the winner! What idiocy. That is a recipe for shizophrenia or split personality or something...not a way to lead a country into a good future as a unified society. It's ridiculous, and it's totally arbitrary to organize society like it was a football game. I guarantee you that it's not necessary to do that in order to have a free, democratic, and prosperous society. Not even vaguely necessary. It is indeed..."divide and conquer". The public's energy is wasted fighting with each other over ancient loyalties to arbitrary concepts, while the rich few who fund and control ALL the larger political parties win no matter which bunch of faces the public elects. That's an oligarchy. You don't need ANY political parties in order to field a number of good candidates to represent a region or a municipality. No sir. All you need is qualified persons (of no party affiliation whatsoever) to come forward as candidates...and then the public chooses who they think would be best from among those candidates. Just like in a municipal election. You don't need to vote for a president. Just elect local and regional representatives. (Do away with the silly super-personality cult that is a presidential election.) Those representatives form state committees and vote in a national committee from their own ranks. The national committee, representing all states elects officers from its own ranks as the national executives. A campaign is limited to 6 weeks. All candidates receive exactly the same amount of campaign funding from a public fund. (Bingo! Banks and corporations are out of the funding loop.) They campaign by presenting their ideas, not by attacking their opponents' personal reputation. (Leave that to the press...) No legislation passes without a 2/3 vote in favour. Any representative may be recalled by his constituents at regular intervals (once yearly?) if he betrays their trust and they lose confidence in him. In such case, a bi-election must be held to replace him/her. Now you have a system which genuinely represents the people from the grassroots, costs a fraction of what the present system does, and requires no political parties whatsoever. I guarantee you that such a system would produce a far better, more honest, more responsible government than the divisive self-aggrandizing party system we have now...and it would free people from this endless, useless bickering and hating each other over old party loyalties. Political parties are a tool of the centralized elite to maintain the centralized elite. They are no guarantors of democracy, they are the betrayers of democracy. Republican Rome functioned as a democracy without political parties. So did Athens. So did American Indian nations. It is entirely possible to do that. This is why I find it so sad to see all you Americans fighting each other tooth and nail all the time over partisan issues. You've been taken for a ride. (And the same thing happens in Canada, by the way...only with more parties, that's all. But our election campaigns are limited by law to 6 weeks. Thank God!) You've got a government and society which goes functionally insane for more than one out of every four years...all because of this giant football game-like extravaganza that you have arbitrarily created around your two giant political parties. Big, giant mistake! |
|
Subject: RE: BS: NON-Partisan political comments From: freightdawg Date: 15 Sep 04 - 11:41 PM Hmm, LH. I'm not sure if you thought we were at crossed swords here, but I don't think we were (are). I am not all that good with my specifics in technical politics, so I was trying to draw a difference between communism (little "c") with Marxist, Stalinist Communism (big "C"). As I envisioned it, a group of people with no real sharply divided "partisan" politics would be, in effect, a "commune" in which each individual part functioned as an extension of the whole. I could see this working on a small scale, but I am not sure it would be effective on a national or even state size scale. It is just kind of a Utopian dream I have. And I do not mean to imply that healthy partisan debate would of necessity only include 2 parties. I was just pointing out that if there are equal, legitimate, worthwhile but differing solutions to a set of problems, it is only in the community's best interest for there to be a qualified spokesman to best put forth his/her group's voice and have it be ratified/voted down by the larger populace. What you propose would be interesting, but in the U.S.'s constitutional separation of powers (legislative, executive, and judicial) I do not see how it would work. The constitution's framers did not limit our elections to two parties (the Republicans did not even exist back then) but I would venture a guess that they pretty much assumed that two parties would dominate. There are truly very, very few "partisan" issues. Gun control, for instance, tends to be much more of a regional and urban vs. rural issue, as there are both Democrats and Republicans who are staunch gun control advocates and gun rights advocates. Most issues we fight over tend to be that way (with a couple of exceptions.) The problem is, once again, not that there are two (or more) differing views, it is that those who hold those views pigeon-hole the other side and caricature them. They then attack the caricature, which is usually completely false, and so generate far more heat than light. But as long as the nastiest campaigner continues to win things will never change. It is up to the populace to demand better of our leaders. p.s.---I do agree in sum with most of what you have to say. The devil is in the details. Freightdawg |
|
Subject: RE: BS: NON-Partisan political comments From: beardedbruce Date: 16 Sep 04 - 11:02 AM and from Little Hawk: "Look up any politician one could care to mention...and you will find that this simple and elegant analysis applies! :-) People care when those they are vehemently against lie! They are oblivious to the lies told by those they support. In fact, they generally believe the lies told by people they support..." |
|
Subject: RE: BS: NON-Partisan political comments From: Little Hawk Date: 16 Sep 04 - 03:05 PM Sounds reasonable to me, freightdawg. :-) (I got kind of vehement there...because I have come to truly detest the whole idea of political parties.) I think society could very well function as a cooperative commune on a large scale...if people would just try it. A representative assembly such as I am suggesting would give an equal vote to each representative, and the representatives would come from every region of the country. They would each naturally have in mind the concerns of their region...but by working together they would also be well aware of national concerns, and would have to work on balancing the one set of considerations against the other. Quite honestly, I think that even if such representatives were chosen by random lot from a pool of qualifited people in each region...that it would end up way better than our present form of government. Public service would then not be seen as "winning" a competitive election, but rather volunteering one's time and energy in service of one's community (for a reasonable salary, of course). This would be quite an honour. An assembly of such representatives would naturally come forth with many individual opinions and viewpoints...and they would have to discuss and debate the merits of those and propose legislation as they say fit...but the vital thing is: they would not be artificially divided into two warring parties, facing one another across the floor of the assembly with the intention of frustrating and impeding each other's progress, and turfing the other side out of power. This would naturally result in a far more harmonious form of governing, and the recall arrangements would be a strong motivation to sitting members to serve their constituents well. A voting member would not be under party pressure to vote "the party line", but would be free to vote as he/she truly believed was best. This again is absolutely vital for real democracy to be achieved. The biggest mistake of this whole society, as we have it, is the unspoken assumption that the adversarial method is the way to get things done. It's a very poor way to get anything done, war being the ultimate example of that. All adversarial situations are warlike in concept, the only question is: what are the rules as to how far you can go in attacking the other side? It gets out of hand fast, and it encourages cheating, dishonesty, bribery, crime, violence, and whatever else is seen to work (meaning: to provide you with victory). A 2/3 vote for ratification is a far better idea than a bare majority. If 2/3 of any assembly is in favour of something, you can be pretty sure it's not something irresponsible or destructive. That is not so when you only need 51% to push something through. In fact, I'd rather see it a 3/4 vote for ratification, all things considered. 2/3 is the bare minimum to ensure responsibility. And without that...well, you don't get to pass any new legislation. I see no danger in such an idea, but a great opportunity. Remove the party power structures and the rivalries they deliberately spawn and encourage, and you would not find it hard to achieve this degree of cooperation between independently thinking representatives. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: NON-Partisan political comments From: GUEST,Clint Keller Date: 16 Sep 04 - 04:42 PM I believe this is a non-partisan statement; it's something Thucydides wrote a millenium and a half ago, so I presume he was neither Republican or Democrat. He's talking about the Peloponnesian War. …To fit in with the change of events, words, too, had to change their usual meanings. What used to be described as a thoughtless act of aggression was now regarded as the courage one would expect to find in a party member; to think of the future and wait was merely another way of saying one was a coward; any idea of moderation was just an attempt to disguise one's unmanly character; ability to understand a question from all sides meant that one was totally unfitted for action. Fanatical enthusiasm was the mark of a real man, and to plot against an enemy behind his back was perfectly legitimate self-defense. Anyone who held violent opinions could be trusted, and anyone who objected to them became a suspect.… As a result…there was a general deterioration of character throughot the Greek world. The plain way of looking at things, which is so much the mark of a noble nature, was regarded as a ridiculous quality and soon ceased to exist. Society became divided into camps in which no man trusted his fellow. From Sailing the Wine-Dark Sea, by Thomas Cahill. clint |
|
Subject: RE: BS: NON-Partisan political comments From: freightdawg Date: 16 Sep 04 - 11:33 PM Little Hawk, It occured to me as I read your last post that we do have something akin to what you are describing in our "separation of powers" society: the jury in the courtroom. A randomly selected group of people are selected (by various means in different parts of the country) and are further winnowed by those who, at least ostensibly, are working for the best interest of all concerned (the judge and opposing legal counsels.) Then this group of people is given the most awesome responsibility ever: the determination of guilt or innocence, the right or wrong, or the best solution to a vexing problem. It is not perfect, mistakes happen. But the theory is certainly there. Exactly as you described for the "political" arena. No one could argue that it would not work, because it works quite well in the arena where we use it now. By gum, methinks you're on to something there...good show :-) Freightdawg |
|
Subject: RE: BS: NON-Partisan political comments From: Little Hawk Date: 17 Sep 04 - 09:55 PM That's right, freightdawg, the jury system is such a setup as I have proposed. Thanks for listening seriously to what may seem at first an unusual idea. A non-partisan town council is also such a setup. You don't divide a town council or a jury up into 2 pre-arranged adversarial groups who are opposed to each other on principle and then expect to get anything useful out of it. Yet that is what is considered "normal" in the sphere of politics, apparently. Clint - Great quotation from Thucydides! He describes beautifully what happens in an extremely competitive and ruthless system based on aggression and competition rather than mutual cooperation. War is the ultimate form of competition. What I see happening in a modern political campaign is a war. A war of words, accusations, slander, innuendo, financial clout, false promises, and manipulative propaganda. This is not the way to achieve a harmonious, united, mature society. Quite the contrary. It is shameful in nature and destructive in effect. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: NON-Partisan political comments From: Big Al Whittle Date: 18 Sep 04 - 01:36 PM question from a dumb outsider what is it separates the shrill nasty current democrats from the nice traditional ones of yore? |
|
Subject: RE: BS: NON-Partisan political comments From: pdq Date: 18 Sep 04 - 03:50 PM James Frederick Dwight ¶ 9/17/2004 02:17:02 PM "I WAS A 3 YEAR-OLD GIRL" My favorite campaign story of the day comes from West Virginia. (Actually, it's my second favorite – the Gallup poll that has Bush up 54-40 is impossible to beat.) Anyway, back to West Virginia. Follow the link. There you'll see a picture of a precious three year old girl, a veritable Cindy-Lou Who, perched on her father's shoulders. But what should be a happy tableaux instead is a sad one. Three year old Sophia Parlock is weeping. Her Bush-Cheney sign has been snatched by over-zealous Kerry-Edwards supporters and torn to shreds. Next to poor Sophia, you can see a gloating young man wearing a t-shirt boasting of his affiliation with some union clutching what appears to be a piece of the formerly proud Bush-Cheney sign. Sophia's father looks distressed and helpless; none of the on-looking Kerry-Edwards supporters seem to be offering any support, moral or otherwise. It doesn't please me to report this, but I once was Sophia Parlock, helplessly bullied by backwards hat wearing Democrat partisan thugs. It was during the Romney-Kennedy campaign of 1994. It was a tight race, and the first candidates' debate was being held at famous Boston landmark Faneuil Hall. Both campaigns urged their supporters to come out in force for their respective champions. For the Romney campaign, that meant the local Republicans would take a night off from dining at their country clubs and hold a campaign sign for a couple of hours. For the Kennedy campaign, bringing out their supporters meant only one thing – mobilize the Unions. While I'm generalizing a bit, the contrast between the campaigns' supporters was stark. Trust me on that. The Romney supporters were by and large political neophytes unaccustomed to the rough and tumble of such events; the Kennedy supporters were old hands at the form of combat that ensued. See, it was like a battle; both sides wanted to get close enough to the spot where the candidates entered so their signs, and thus their enthusiasm, would be seen by the larger TV audience. This being Boston, there was limited space so the desirable real estate went to the most "determined" supporters. Suffice to say, the scrum did not go well for the Romney supporters. The Kennedy supporters were slightly more numerous and a lot more "determined." You could see it on the faces of most of the Romney supporters – political activism was not turning out be their cup of tea. After the disappointing photo-op, it was time to leave. Some went home, some went to bars, my two friends and I made our way through Boston's crooked streets to the debate's after party site for campaign insiders. There it happened – the three of us youthful yuppie types toting our Romney signs came upon a half dozen Kennedy sign toting gentlemen wearing "Tunnel Digger Union" jackets (there was a lot of tunnel digging going on in Boston at the time with the Big Dig and all). The sight of my business attire was enough to enrage these men: "Look at that fuck wearing that fucking 'Anderson Little' suit. I'd like to fuck him up just for the fuck of it." That was their battle cry. Although enraged by the suggestion that I would wear an Anderson Little suit, Anderson Little being a local chain not known for selling suits of the highest quality or even ones made from natural fibers, I knew I would have to control my temper. We were outnumbered, not to mention hopelessly effete. I decided to ignore the insult and move on. But our malefactors had other ideas. They approached us and relieved us of our Romney signs. They were actually quite gentlemanly about the transaction, given the circumstances. I can only wish that I had been sitting on my father's shoulders at the time, safely out of the reach of these Democratic brutes. So, Sophia Parlock, you've joined a proud tradition at a young age. Your dissent has been stifled and your safety menaced by the minions of a struggling Massachusetts politician. I can only wish that I had displayed the same nobility and courage that evening long ago as you did yesterday. Responses? Thoughts? Please email them to me at soxblog@aol.com James Frederick Dwight ¶ 9/17/2004 09:13:31 AM |
|
Subject: RE: BS: NON-Partisan political comments From: Peace Date: 18 Sep 04 - 04:08 PM "All politics is apple sauce." (Will Rogers) |
|
Subject: RE: BS: NON-Partisan political comments From: pdq Date: 18 Sep 04 - 04:16 PM "Pass the cinnamon, please". |
|
Subject: RE: BS: NON-Partisan political comments From: Little Hawk Date: 18 Sep 04 - 04:49 PM Like I said, political parties are a bad idea, pdq. Eliminate them and vote for independent individuals instead...or just choose such individuals by lot from a pool of capable people...and you have eliminated Sophia's problem from ever rearing its ugly head again in that fashion. Bad behaviour is promoted by a partisan system, because it's all about nursing old hatreds and prejudices and winning at any cost. I've seen plently of bad behaviour by both Republicans and Democrats. But then, I don't believe in either one of them. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: NON-Partisan political comments From: GUEST,Clint Keller Date: 18 Sep 04 - 04:50 PM "NON-Partisan political comments." Please clint |
|
Subject: RE: BS: NON-Partisan political comments From: Little Hawk Date: 18 Sep 04 - 11:04 PM To have nonpartisan comments, Clint, simply remove the parties. You can definitely be nonpartisan (in the sense that was intended by this thread) and still have an opinion. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: NON-Partisan political comments From: Bert Date: 18 Sep 04 - 11:19 PM I guess to be non partisan you have to look solely at the issues. What has improved and what has deteriorated in the last four years. Look at the facts and form your own opinions. Here is a list of things to think about. This list is very partisan so if you are on the other side feel free to add your own list of things. Gas prices. Are they higher or lower? Food prices. Are they higher or lower? Employment. How is your job security? Overtime Pay. Will you be losing yours? Infrastructure - e.g. potholes. More or less? Life Savings. Did yours grow or shrink? Debt. Did yours increase or decrease? Bert. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: NON-Partisan political comments From: GUEST,Clint Keller Date: 19 Sep 04 - 12:31 AM Little Hawk: Sorry, I was aiming that at weelittledrummer and especially pdq & his anti-Democrat story. I suppose I could have countered by telling how all the all the obscene sign defacing and vandalism that I've heard about here in Kootenai county has been done to Democrats, but that would make it maybe bipartisan instead of nonpartisan and I'd rather not pursue it; there's no profit in that kind of discussion. ("Oh yeah? How about what your guys did?" Repeat ad lib, ad infinitum.) But an overly-ambitious independent would be likely to have a group of henchmen who would behave unsportingly. It's hard to avoid "parties" of some kind. Although I'm for it. I'm not even real big on birthday parties. clint |
|
Subject: RE: BS: NON-Partisan political comments From: Big Al Whittle Date: 19 Sep 04 - 04:53 PM sorry I wasn't being anti democrat, or anti anything - not intentionally. I was genuinely asking what the guest meant Sept 12th 10.51 no body disagreed with him(her) I was puzzled by what he thought the democrats were doing wrong |
|
Subject: RE: BS: NON-Partisan political comments From: GUEST,Clint Keller Date: 19 Sep 04 - 06:37 PM "sorry I wasn't being anti democrat, or anti anything - not intentionally. I was genuinely asking what the guest meant Sept 12th 10.51 no body disagreed with him(her)" I beg your pardon, in that case. I didn't disagree with him/her/it because I wanted to stay non-partisan. I thought it was a trollish, thread-busting post, and that was its meaning. clint |
|
Subject: RE: BS: NON-Partisan political comments From: GUEST,Martian Gibbon Date: 19 Sep 04 - 06:41 PM Good night pardon I saw that |
|
Subject: RE: BS: NON-Partisan political comments From: beardedbruce Date: 20 Sep 04 - 07:18 PM and from sledge... if we all trawled the net looking for stuff to discredit/smear anyone we would surely find it sooner or later. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: NON-Partisan political comments From: GUEST Date: 23 Sep 04 - 01:09 AM and from Giok... This is what I mean when I say that people vote according to their social status or family background, for a party and not for a candidate. No thought required!! |
|
Subject: RE: BS: NON-Partisan political comments From: beardedbruce Date: 02 Oct 04 - 11:41 PM and from Bobert: "Unless you are capable and willing to look beyond *your* side then you are allready in the loser category in my book. I mean no disrespect here but life isn't about winning law suits but being able to find common ground or selling visions." |
|
Subject: RE: BS: NON-Partisan political comments From: DMcG Date: 03 Oct 04 - 06:57 AM I don't know how many people outside the UK know who Robin Cook MP is, but he was a member of this government before resigning over Iraq and is now just an ordinary MP. I heard a lecture from him in about 1996 on political structures and he was complaining about the UK system in which whoever wins Parliament has in effect absolute control (at least if the margin is significant). His basic point was that we think of strong government as one that can force through decisions simply because of the majority, even though come the next election if the other side wins they can force through completely opposing decisions. The result is that, taking a view over several changes of leadership there has been substantial occillation and very little of anything that you could call settled progress. "And I am sick of that kind of strong government" was one of the lines that stuck in my memory. Real strong government comes when, for whatever reason, all sides sign up, in the main, to a point of view; rather like LH's suggested 2/3 majority. Yes, it would be much more difficult to get anything done, but whatever was done would have a much better chance of surviving long term. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: NON-Partisan political comments From: GUEST,Clint Keller Date: 03 Oct 04 - 06:32 PM glad to see this thread again. I wanted to put in one of my favorite Wm. Blake quotes: ____ I am really sorry to see my Countrymen trouble themselves about Politics. If Men were Wise, the Most arbitrary Princes could not hurt them. If they are not wise, the Freest Government is compelled to be a Tyranny. Princes appear to me to be Fools. Houses of Commons & Houses of Lords appear to me to be fools; they seem to me to be something Else besides Human Life. ____ cliint |
|
Subject: RE: BS: NON-Partisan political comments From: GUEST Date: 08 Oct 04 - 06:15 PM and from Jeri- "When what you believe is determined by which 'side' you're on, truth doesn't stand a chance. " |
|
Subject: RE: BS: NON-Partisan political comments From: beardedbruce Date: 09 Oct 04 - 11:56 PM refresh |
|
Subject: RE: BS: NON-Partisan political comments From: beardedbruce Date: 13 Oct 04 - 12:21 AM and from Jeri Some people always go with authority figures, and some always go against. Both tendencies mean they don't care as much about facts as who's telling them, they're going to be wrong at least as often as right, and in the meantime, will do their level best to spread propaganda. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: NON-Partisan political comments From: beardedbruce Date: 17 Oct 04 - 12:18 PM From Amos: I don't know why you folks (some of you) seem to think it is accurate appropriate or acceptable to sling these damn labels around and pass judgments on huge lots of people in one swoop by classifying them as .... ( party deleted) or whatever. It is unconscionably poor thinking to make gross generalizations like that and pretend that some aspect of the label applies to all members of the class. It is not only bad thinking, it is also unjust to members of the set, and it is also -- because it distorts truth and promotes falsehood -- unethical. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: NON-Partisan political comments From: GUEST Date: 17 Oct 04 - 02:09 PM Jackc the Sailor: September 11: how do you know the Kerry administration would be better than a Bush administration? You'll probably cop out with "well anybody would be better than Bush," but I'd seriously like to know HOW you know Kerry would be better? Do YOU know who would fill key positions in a Kerry cabinet? If so, would you please share that information with us? Thanks. DougR |
|
Subject: RE: BS: NON-Partisan political comments From: DougR Date: 17 Oct 04 - 02:57 PM David Brooks, columnist for the "New York Times" wrote a column about Kerry and Bush that appeared in our newspaper today that is, in my opinion, totally nonpartisan. He extrapolates to the readers his view of the kind of world Kerry envisions and the role the U. S. should play, and the kind of world Bush wants and how the U. S. should help achieve it. He does not urge support for either candidate. This article describes the philosophies of both candidates better than anything I have read. I favor the type world Bush wants. DougR |
|
Subject: RE: BS: NON-Partisan political comments From: Amos Date: 17 Oct 04 - 03:32 PM I think I know the article referred to, this one I think there is an important distinction to be made in his attributions of "vision". I do not for a moment believe that Kerry's vision -- on eof taking our neighbor relations seriously -- is one of preventing the sovereignty of any nation. How could it be? But consulting with the other people in the small crowded room called Earth is only basic decency, something much neglected of late in the halls of power. A |
|
Subject: RE: BS: NON-Partisan political comments From: Greg F. Date: 17 Oct 04 - 06:29 PM I favor the type world Bush wants Regardkless of how he intends to get there? As exemplified by past practise? |
|
Subject: RE: BS: NON-Partisan political comments From: beardedbruce Date: 17 Oct 04 - 06:35 PM DougR, Amos, Greg F Thread drift. There are more than enough threads to argue in- can't you just let this one be? |
|
Subject: RE: BS: NON-Partisan political comments From: beardedbruce Date: 19 Oct 04 - 10:42 PM And from Am0s.... (Although not political, I think this deserves to be preserved) "I think thereis a third class, too -- the ones whose destructiveness toward others is hidden in little needling remarks, the chronic correctors of others, the passive-aggressive under-miners and invalidators, who sweetly suggest you are worth very little, just for your own good, and end up stopping you from breathing, the secret saboteurs and artfully smiling destroyers of spirit. They don't look destructive until you trust or rely on them." |
|
Subject: RE: BS: NON-Partisan political comments From: Amos Date: 19 Oct 04 - 10:49 PM Thanks, BB! Sorry if I seemed argumentative, I thought I was just offering an important distinction. A |
|
Subject: RE: BS: NON-Partisan political comments From: beardedbruce Date: 19 Oct 04 - 10:57 PM Seriously, I did like the comment. As I stated ( somewhere above) I think there are some basic truths that can be gleaned from Mudcat, and I think we should try to collect them. It is a pity that so many people on both sides of every issue can be so blind to the wisdom often presented here. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: NON-Partisan political comments From: DougR Date: 20 Oct 04 - 01:29 AM BB: sorry if I screwd up your thread. Didn't intend to. Sometimes it becomes very difficult not to write what you think at the moment though. On with the NON-Partisan comments! DougR |
|
Subject: RE: BS: NON-Partisan political comments From: beardedbruce Date: 20 Oct 04 - 08:26 PM From Rapaire "If I've learned nothing else over the years, I've learned that nothing is as simple as you'd like it." And "Another thing I've learned is to stop trying to find someone to blame and instead find a solution -- and to learn from the mistake that was made." |
|
Subject: RE: BS: NON-Partisan political comments From: Mrrzy Date: 21 Oct 04 - 11:26 AM Someone asked me who I thought had the better character, Bush or Kerry. I replied that I thought that the character of the individual running for president is, or at least ought to be, irrelevent - when this nation was formed, a lot of safeguards were put into place to ensure that the president could not become like a king, dictator, emperor, or other single leader; therefore, the point is not who is the mouthpiece for the administration, the point is the administration that has the temporary upper hand. I also agree that being doomed to failure is no excuse for not trying. Hey, I live in Virginia! |
|
Subject: RE: BS: NON-Partisan political comments From: Mrrzy Date: 21 Oct 04 - 11:30 AM Question raised in same discussion as above: Do you think that on Tuesday next, we will actually KNOW who is going to be president? |
|
Subject: RE: BS: NON-Partisan political comments From: akenaton Date: 21 Oct 04 - 01:41 PM Yeah.... And nobody mentions the great tread mill,that delivers all we desire......Except ,happiness, fulfillment, peace, love and care for our brothers and sisters, REAL freedom, care for the environment, ect ect.. All this talk of political parties is irrelevant....Teribus once said "Capitalism is an econmic system, not an ideology" But he was wrong! The ideology of capitalism has seeped into the bones of most of us,and it will take many generations and im afraid much bloodshed to change it. Unlike the Communist empire, the leaders of capitalism will fight to the last drop of our blood to retain their power. We will never have a fair ,non partisan world till the disease is removed at the roots....Ake |
|
Subject: RE: BS: NON-Partisan political comments From: Stilly River Sage Date: 21 Oct 04 - 02:38 PM Video of Jon Stwart on CNN Crossfire. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: NON-Partisan political comments From: beardedbruce Date: 21 Oct 04 - 07:39 PM and Rapaire, again... "Who gives a s**t who endorses whom? Vote whoever you think would be best for the US. Vote for Bush, vote for Kerry, vote for Badnarik, vote for Nader -- I don't care. But vote for your choice (hopefully, a well-considered one). " |
|
Subject: RE: BS: NON-Partisan political comments From: beardedbruce Date: 21 Oct 04 - 09:14 PM But I really like... "A utah line- A guy came up to me and put a gun to my head and said who are you going to vote for- Bush or Kerry? I thought about it for a few seconds and said shoot me. " |
|
Subject: RE: BS: NON-Partisan political comments From: Mrrzy Date: 22 Oct 04 - 02:28 PM Yeah - and if you do care, vote for either Bush or Kerry... at least, if you want your vote, whether it's counted or not, to count, as the Boondocks guy put it so well. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: NON-Partisan political comments From: dianavan Date: 22 Oct 04 - 10:16 PM Touble is, politicians think the economy is their responsibility when, in fact, they should be concerned, foremost,with the education, health and welfare of the citizenry. Just read a market analysis that says, regardless of who is the next president, we are headed for an economic downslide that make the depression of the 30's look like a hiccup. d |
|
Subject: RE: BS: NON-Partisan political comments From: GUEST,Old Guy Date: 23 Oct 04 - 03:03 PM I know everybody here thinks I am a rabid right winger. The fact is I am not a republican or a democrat. I am a conservative. I think the two party system we have is reaching a critical mass. It needs to be done away with. Political advertising should be done for free by the press, radio and TV networks as a required public service. Equal but limited time must be given to all candidates, even the weasels who have no chance of winning a position as a dog catcher. All of these media are looking for something to present to the American public so let them present the candidate at their expense. Do not support it with public money because you will have endless Sharptons running. There are probably flaws in this plan but they could be worked out. Now how in holy hell is this going to come about when we have lawyers and politicians making the laws? If it is not done we will have anarchy, riots, revolutions or coups like we see in 3rd world countrys. Should we just turn it over to the UN? The UN is corrupt. Something must be done. Possibly McCain and Lieberman in 08 could start us in the right direction. They are highly regarded by both parties (Rival Gangs). Old Guy |
|
Subject: RE: BS: NON-Partisan political comments From: Chris Green Date: 23 Oct 04 - 03:51 PM Old Guy, for once I am able in part to agree with you! You're right, the political class worldwide is out of touch with the people it purports to represent and tends to represent itself and its own interests - however, this is unfortunately the nature of the political beast. I don't really know enough about the mechanics of the political process in your country to suggest how this could be changed, but something does need to be done. You're right as well that probably are some bugs that need ironing out in the system that you've proposed, but it's nice to see that we do have some common ground after all! |
|
Subject: RE: BS: NON-Partisan political comments From: Old Guy Date: 23 Oct 04 - 11:33 PM Bazoukis: Thank you. Actually I like what I see of the British form of government. They stand up and argue over a set of books while supporters mutter here here. And their court system makes more sense. The lawyers are out of control here in the US. Old Guy |
|
Subject: RE: BS: NON-Partisan political comments From: beardedbruce Date: 12 Nov 04 - 01:01 AM Lifted from the latest DNRC newsletter: Highly intelligent and well-informed people disagree on every political issue. Therefore, intelligence and knowledge are useless for making decisions, because if any of that stuff helped, then all the smart people would have the same opinions. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: NON-Partisan political comments From: beardedbruce Date: 01 Feb 05 - 07:37 PM Not political, but worthy of thought... "My father's definition of religion is: "The Awe in which we hold our ignorance." " Robomatic |
|
Subject: RE: BS: NON-Partisan political comments From: Bunnahabhain Date: 01 Feb 05 - 07:50 PM " It's the lawyers that are the problem. We'll try writing laws that don't need experts to interpret them." How is that for a non-partisan, but unfortunatly incredibly unlikley political statement? Bunnahabhain |
|
Subject: RE: BS: NON-Partisan political comments From: beardedbruce Date: 01 Feb 05 - 08:03 PM No arguement at all! |
|
Subject: RE: BS: NON-Partisan political comments From: beardedbruce Date: 06 Feb 05 - 07:02 PM "It is the mark of intellectual weakness to attack on a personal level that which you cannot refute." Big Mick |
|
Subject: RE: BS: NON-Partisan political comments From: beardedbruce Date: 09 Feb 05 - 06:01 PM Fundamentalists are aggessive, intolerant, and legalistic. They exist in almost every creed. Their aim is to destroy anyone who doesn't agree with them or doesn't exist their imposition of beliefs upon others. I think you could say there are fundamentalist liberals, too; and even fundamentalist atheists. -Joe Offer- |
|
Subject: RE: BS: NON-Partisan political comments From: beardedbruce Date: 10 Feb 05 - 01:14 AM another one I swiped from Joe Offer... ...hysterical tabloid smear journalism is just not credible to reasonable people, and it detracts from the credibility of those who want to acknowledge the faults of the (insert whatever here) and to set up structures that will help prevent these things from happening. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: NON-Partisan political comments From: Donuel Date: 10 Feb 05 - 08:17 AM A two party, two corporation system (via mega mergers) will insure diversity, competition and freedom. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: NON-Partisan political comments From: beardedbruce Date: 06 Mar 05 - 03:46 AM refresh |
|
Subject: RE: BS: NON-Partisan political comments From: Don(Wyziwyg)T Date: 06 Mar 05 - 06:20 AM I've been moaning about the iniquitous state of government (UK) for many years, and as far as I can see the one thing that never happens is a governmaent that reflects the will of the nation (any nation). Some thoughts on a possible solution:- 1. Proportional representation, based on total number of votes gained, would go some way toward achieving the democracy we all talk about, but don't have. 2. Also, I feel that all candidates should renounce any, and all, political affiliations, except to their constituents, as a pre-condition to being selected. 3. It should be possible for a constituency to call their representative to account for actions taken in their name, and remove/replace him if the answers are not satisfactory. I suggest the above as a general cocept which would, if properly controlled, answer the concerns of most of us. I freely admit I don't have a clue as to how it could be practically achieved, but then Verner von Brauntook a long time to move from the concept of rocketry, to a practical ICBM. But he got there! Don T. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: NON-Partisan political comments From: Bunnahabhain Date: 06 Mar 05 - 07:14 AM Ahhh. one of the old problems.... If you have PR, then the constituency doesn't always get the person, or even the party they mainly voted for. If you don't have PR, the the goverment doesn't reflect the way the country votes well And hybred systems, like the one the Scottish Parliment are not much better. The constituancies the MSPs share are so large so as to be useless. Removing someone if you don't like how they represented you in Parliment is called the next election. Much else is a bit fussy on a local scale. 2. Also, I feel that all candidates should renounce any, and all, political affiliations, except to their constituents, as a pre-condition to being selected. Well, we did have a large number of legislators independent of the party system. The cross-benchers in the House of Lords, and the civil service. So The goverment abolishes half the first, and does its best to corrupt the other Sorry about the thread drift. It may be worth repeating the old one though. "Anybody who seeks a position of power should not be considered for it." Or something like that. I never remember quotes right. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: NON-Partisan political comments From: Don(Wyziwyg)T Date: 06 Mar 05 - 09:27 AM The point of my idea my idea is that the constituency would not be voting for the party, because parties would be precluded by 2. The parliament would consist of one individual MP for each constituency, each of whom would be required to reflect the views of that constituency, and no other. I suddenly realised that, in such a system, proportional representation would be impossible, as it is a party concept, meaningless without parties. I can see that the choice of a cabinet, and prime minister would be difficult, and time consuming, but surely the "Sir Humphreys" could maintain status quo for a week or two. In this situation, a vote of no confidence in an under-performing MP would make it possible to enforce adherence to the "constituency loyalty" principle. Non partisan, apolitical, government! The way forward? Don T. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: NON-Partisan political comments From: beardedbruce Date: 09 Mar 05 - 04:47 PM However, prejudiced contributions without waiting for the result of inquiries are the backbone of all Mudcat political discussions. Wolfgang |
|
Subject: RE: BS: NON-Partisan political comments From: GUEST,Blind DRunk in Blind River Date: 09 Mar 05 - 06:30 PM Okay. I am not sure, like, what the flip you people are goin' on about here but... Waht I want to say is that you can all flippin' vote fer me when I flippin' run fer office on the independent tikcet. And I will. I have decided to take the bull by the flippin' mungoberries and throw my hat in the ring, eh? In the next election. Whenever that is. You will know my hat by the flippin' logo. It says, "I'm with the idiot -->". Either that or I will use the hat that says, "Go Leafs Go!". Whichever. My plattform is simple. I will guarnatee that there will be enuff beer for everyone for the next 10 years even if there is a World shortage, meanin'...eveyone in my consistuency will have all the beer they can flippin' drink even if Quebec ain't got none at all! Let 'em drink water, eh? That'll teach them frogs to put up and shut up. I will also make sure that there is lap dancing in every mucinipalaty totally legal, eh? NO more prudism! That's my plan. I figger to get outta jail pretty soon. Maybe next month, eh? That's if Snake don't try to kill me. If he does, I will have to get tough with him and that could spoil my good behavier record, eh? I hope that does not happen. - BDiBR |
|
Subject: RE: BS: NON-Partisan political comments From: Bobert Date: 09 Mar 05 - 08:12 PM Got my vote.... |
|
Subject: RE: BS: NON-Partisan political comments From: beardedbruce Date: 09 Mar 05 - 09:26 PM BDiBR, "Okay. I am not sure, like, what the flip you people are goin' on about here but..." Your statement is entirely correct- You don't. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: NON-Partisan political comments From: beardedbruce Date: 15 Mar 05 - 10:11 PM Discussions can be had on very contentious issues, but everybody has to be careful, and willing to listen, or they will get nasty and pointless. Bunnahbhain. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: NON-Partisan political comments From: Bobert Date: 15 Mar 05 - 10:24 PM Spoken by a man with no ears.... |
|
Subject: RE: BS: NON-Partisan political comments From: GUEST,Blind DRunk in Blind River Date: 15 Mar 05 - 10:36 PM Bearded Bruce? Have you been told today? No? Well, I will be happy to tell you then. Flip off! You flippin' goof. - BDiBR |
|
Subject: RE: BS: NON-Partisan political comments From: Bunnahabhain Date: 15 Mar 05 - 10:37 PM Is that a general comment, or one about me? I know I know I disagree with some people, but that's me reaching a diffrent conclusion, not not listening, I thought. Bunnhabhain |
|
Subject: RE: BS: NON-Partisan political comments From: Bill D Date: 15 Mar 05 - 10:39 PM honest non-partisan relevant ...pick any two. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: NON-Partisan political comments From: Bunnahabhain Date: 15 Mar 05 - 10:45 PM We the People of the United States, in Order to form a more perfect Union, establish Justice, insure domestic Tranquility, provide for the common defence, promote the general Welfare, and secure the Blessings of Liberty to ourselves and our Posterity, do ordain and establish this Constitution for the United States of America. and ...a new nation: conceived in liberty, and dedicated to the proposition that all men are created equal. honest, relevant and non partisan, IMO. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: NON-Partisan political comments From: Big Al Whittle Date: 16 Mar 05 - 07:22 PM the whole point of politics is to be partisan. you gotta choose. You don't have to like the choice, but they are the guys who bothered to devote their lives to attending political meetings - as a result they got into the position where you have to choose one of them. I often wonder how many people who complain so much about the system actually join a political party and try to change things from within. I suppose if I were a Republican party activist, I'd feel angry that Arnie has got the job he has - rather than somebody who has put the hours in. Still he won for them - so I suppose that proves he has a right to be where he is. I wonder if he will be a President of the whole country. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: NON-Partisan political comments From: beardedbruce Date: 18 Mar 05 - 09:21 PM see the first post here: "but I would like to share some of the observations that I have read here, in a non-partisan way. I think that some of these may be among the great truths of the world Then again, I could be wrong..." |
|
Subject: RE: BS: NON-Partisan political comments From: Frankham Date: 19 Mar 05 - 01:08 PM There are two sides of the issue about open minds. 1. It's good to see the other person's point of view with objectivity. 2. An open mind is an empty one that has no convictions. I believe in the right for people to think for themselves. What happens when you do that is often you are accused of being partisan. I like to stick to issues. Then I like to see different sides of that issue and make up my own mind. When it comes to Democrats and Republicans, I see demogoguery on both sides. I believe that both Parties have sold themselves out to monied corporate sponsorship and interests. I believe that our votes were rigged in the last elections. Both Democrats and Republicans have refused to deal with this issue. In short, our votes don't count any more. Voting is a bi-partisan issue and unless America wakes up and sees the fraud in the election system, we, as a country, will be reduced to at best, a corrupt government and at worst, a fascist dictatorship. Frank |
|
Subject: RE: BS: NON-Partisan political comments From: Frankham Date: 19 Mar 05 - 01:11 PM P.S. Here's a bi-partisan solution. Use the Diebold and E.S.and S. machines as printers and not counters. Use the paper as ballots and have them hand-counted at the local precincts. This will eliminate Technofraud. Frank |
|
Subject: RE: BS: NON-Partisan political comments From: beardedbruce Date: 21 Mar 05 - 06:24 AM refresh |
|
Subject: RE: BS: NON-Partisan political comments From: beardedbruce Date: 29 Mar 05 - 08:09 PM and from Amos... Decency, courtesy, and a respect for the underlying commonalities will always make for a lively and interesting dialogue amongst those of differing ideas. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: NON-Partisan political comments From: beardedbruce Date: 09 Apr 05 - 12:35 AM and from GUEST... I have no problem with people speaking their piece. I am only annoyed when people try to censor others because they don't like the opinion being expressed. A pity that so many people here do not seem to feel this way...... |
|
Subject: RE: BS: NON-Partisan political comments From: GUEST,punkfolkrocker Date: 09 Apr 05 - 12:49 AM you lot can intellectualise and pontificate as much as you like.. but if ever you and your family and friends are at the bottom of the shit heap with no private savings or inherited wealth to help you surface from the mire.. "I doubt very much if the extremists on BOTH sides can let this thread stay reasonable, but I would like to share some of the observations that I have read here, in a non-partisan way. I think that some of these may be among the great truths of the world Then again, I could be wrong..." sorry.. 'non-partisan'..!!!??????? "great truths of the world " ??? ha.. ha.. lend us a tenner [££££] until i can get the wifes wedding ring back out of the pawn shop... |
|
Subject: RE: BS: NON-Partisan political comments From: Bunnahabhain Date: 14 Apr 05 - 08:25 PM I would like to thank each and everyone who contributed. There were some great questions posed. Obviously I don't have the answers, just aspirations. From the Curator, on the thread 'Why should Britan remain in Northern Ireland', which has been good natured, sensible discussion. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: NON-Partisan political comments From: beardedbruce Date: 26 Apr 05 - 03:32 PM A stereotype is just something people make up in their own minds, and they use it to clothe their raging fears and hatreds. Then they go around trying to dress other people up in the false clothing they made for them. (And we probably all do it at times, so it would be best to watch one's own thoughts carefully so as to weed out this nasty tendency, wouldn't it?) from Little Hawk |
|
Subject: RE: BS: NON-Partisan political comments From: beardedbruce Date: 01 May 05 - 06:17 PM and from McGrath of Harlow "Comments are free but facts are sacred." |
|
Subject: RE: BS: NON-Partisan political comments From: beardedbruce Date: 01 May 05 - 06:23 PM and from Jeri... You've got people so crammed into roles and you ASSUME they'll follow your |
|
Subject: RE: BS: NON-Partisan political comments From: beardedbruce Date: 01 May 05 - 06:30 PM You've got people so crammed into roles and you ASSUME they'll follow your sorry about that... |
|
Subject: RE: BS: NON-Partisan political comments From: beardedbruce Date: 01 May 05 - 06:32 PM ok, third try... let me hand edit... You've got people so crammed into roles and you ASSUME they'll follow your little script that it makes you blind and deaf to what they actually DO say. You wind up just looking stupider than your own role calls for when the person doesn't behave in the expected manner. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: NON-Partisan political comments From: Peace Date: 01 May 05 - 06:43 PM What I am against is quotas. I am against hard quotas, quotas they basically delineate based upon whatever. However they delineate, quotas, I think, vulcanize society. So I don't know how that fits into what everybody else is saying, their relative positions, but that's my position. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: NON-Partisan political comments From: beardedbruce Date: 04 May 05 - 07:04 PM and a true gem, from Little Hawk. Simply approach everyone with a generous reserve of goodwill, no matter who they are, even if you don't have a clue what the heck they stand for, and even if they oppose everything you think you stand for...and take some time to give them the benefit of the doubt. You might learn something new. And if they are really trying to upset you...why give them that sort of power by getting upset? What good does it do you? Obviously, what they are up to makes sense to them, otherwise they wouldn't do it, would they? They are you, in another skin, through another set of perceptions. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: NON-Partisan political comments From: beardedbruce Date: 04 May 05 - 10:42 PM and from the Unitarian Jihad... Just because you believe it's true doesn't make it true. Just because your motives are pure doesn't mean you are not doing harm. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: NON-Partisan political comments From: beardedbruce Date: 23 May 05 - 07:15 PM not political, but it could be... from brucie "You are free to think my views are stupid, idiotic, etc. That's cool with me. You are more than entitled to hold the views you have. And argue them, and restate them. That's one of the things I like about the place." |
|
Subject: RE: BS: NON-Partisan political comments From: beardedbruce Date: 27 May 05 - 11:12 PM and from Amos- though I am sure he does not see the humor in it... "It is the wild generalizations of sardonic hate -- which are untruthful, adversarial and essentially without any referent by which they could be called truth -- that annoys me. " |
|
Subject: RE: BS: NON-Partisan political comments From: beardedbruce Date: 04 Jun 05 - 01:04 AM refresh |
|
Subject: RE: BS: NON-Partisan political comments From: beardedbruce Date: 21 Jun 05 - 06:38 PM I seem to be seeing a number of threads here that are being criticized for presenting songs that were sung by Germans in WWII. If we are going to require that only the songs of the winning side in a conflict are studied, perhaps we should remove a number of traditional songs from the DT, as they were sung by the losing side. I do not have to support the sentiments of a song to be able to appreciate that it meant something to those who sang it, and possibly like the tune or structure. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: NON-Partisan political comments From: beardedbruce Date: 24 Jun 05 - 11:33 PM From: GUEST,Sleepless Dad 24 Jun 05 - 11:30 PM "Didn't Thomas Jefferson propose that ? I seem to recall that he thought it was a good idea to find a qualified person for the job of President and make them take the office. He was suspicious of anyone who would actually seek out the position. So am I. We should all be wary of anyone who wants to be the president. " |
|
Subject: RE: BS: NON-Partisan political comments From: beardedbruce Date: 25 Jun 05 - 03:08 AM It seems that those who want power the most are those least suitable to wield it. from LTS |
|
Subject: RE: BS: NON-Partisan political comments From: beardedbruce Date: 26 Jun 05 - 10:11 PM When we take upon ourselves to be as vindictive as our foes, we have lost... From bobert |
|
Subject: RE: BS: NON-Partisan political comments From: beardedbruce Date: 11 Jul 05 - 02:48 PM Except that there aren't just two basic ideas pushing modern politics. Especially when you take into consideration politics in the larger, global sense. The labels are just convenient ways for people to pidgeon-hole each other so they can avoid engaging in any real, meaningful discussion, or to come up with any new solutions to problems. Labels are for lazy thinkers. From CarolC |
|
Subject: RE: BS: NON-Partisan political comments From: beardedbruce Date: 18 Jul 05 - 05:58 PM If there is to be any progress made, we must look VERY honestly at exactly what seems to be happening. BillD |
|
Subject: RE: BS: NON-Partisan political comments From: GUEST Date: 18 Jul 05 - 08:35 PM All politics is apple sauce. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: NON-Partisan political comments From: beardedbruce Date: 20 Jul 05 - 05:25 PM all should be taking this in[regardless of what you want to belive,either way] with a bucket of salt. jpk |
|
Subject: RE: BS: NON-Partisan political comments From: beardedbruce Date: 29 Jul 05 - 06:20 PM refresh |
|
Subject: RE: BS: NON-Partisan political comments From: beardedbruce Date: 03 Aug 05 - 02:41 PM from akenaton Akhenaton....1350 BC. Why seekest thou revenge, O man! With what purpose is it that thou pursuest it, thinkest thou to pain thine adversary by it? Know that thou thyself feelest its greatest torments. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: NON-Partisan political comments From: beardedbruce Date: 10 Aug 05 - 03:28 PM "The truth!?? The truth!?? I can't handle the truth!!!" —Red Green Don Firth |
|
Subject: RE: BS: NON-Partisan political comments From: beardedbruce Date: 11 Aug 05 - 02:59 PM "You seem incapable of accepting that people disagree with you. You think that the reason people don't come over to your point of view is that they have some sort of "mindset" against it--You are wrong in that view. Reasonable and intelligent people can differ on things and usually do--the fact that you don't understand that makes it look like you are not a reasonable or intelligent person-- " from M Ted |
|
Subject: RE: BS: NON-Partisan political comments From: Amos Date: 11 Aug 05 - 09:53 PM Excerpted from Greater Democracy: Citizens are NOT consumers of Democracy. The FCC's last two chairmen have referred to we the people as being mere one dimensional consumers. For a recent example, see David Isenberg's comments on FCC Chairman Martin's new The Four Internet Freedoms. The essential and fundamental objection to the Martin's suggestion that we are not citizens, but only mere consumers, is that it is totally anti-democratic and contrary to the spirit of the America's founding principles. Democracy is a process of continuous creation by citizens practicing self government. It is not a product from a 3rd party to be consumed. Thus, to relegate citizens to the status of simple consumers, is to attack the very foundation of our experiment in democracy. Democracy can only be kept alive if we citizens are engaged daily in its production. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: NON-Partisan political comments From: beardedbruce Date: 12 Aug 05 - 10:04 PM The Basic Rubbish of Stupidity From: freda underhill - PM Date: 12 Aug 05 - 09:47 PM .. Things like * labelling people if they say something that doesn't fit your world view (eg, "left"or "right", "liberal" or "conservative") * assuming people to have a pre packaged view within a particular set of dogma that covers a response to every issue * declaring others are "wrong" and you are "right"; and spending an obsessive amount of time proving your "rightness", |
|
Subject: RE: BS: NON-Partisan political comments From: beardedbruce Date: 15 Aug 05 - 07:33 PM from Amos: "...He has exercised his God-given right to have an opinion and to voice it. In that respect he is no disgrace to anyone. THe merit of his conclusions may be in question, but there is no disgrace in having opinions as such. I feel his reasoning has flaws in it, and he feels the same way about mine, but how can you dare try to embarrass him into not communicating?" |
|
Subject: RE: BS: NON-Partisan political comments From: beardedbruce Date: 24 Aug 05 - 02:54 PM and from KateG "But please, let's not demonize liberals, or conservatives for that matter. ALL solutions have unintended consequences, and one of the most valuable contributions of the "loyal opposition" is to help bring them to light before it is too late." |
|
Subject: RE: BS: NON-Partisan political comments From: beardedbruce Date: 06 Sep 05 - 01:47 PM from Don Firth: "Actually, ignorance is not the problem. We're all ignorant of something. The problem is stupidity. Stupidity is when a person becomes aware that he or she is ignorant of something and refuses to to repair the omission in their knowledge, often because it might conflict with something they want to cling to. Or knowing that they are ignorant, but going ahead and acting anyway. " |
|
Subject: RE: BS: NON-Partisan political comments From: beardedbruce Date: 09 Sep 05 - 07:43 AM "However, when people follow blindly after only half the story, they are little better than the folks they listen to who gave only half the story." from Peace |
|
Subject: RE: BS: NON-Partisan political comments From: beardedbruce Date: 09 Sep 05 - 02:15 PM From LH "To denigrate anyone merely on the basis of them being a "liberal" or a "conservative" is downright stupid. It's a knee-jerk reaction, based on some painful memory one is carrying in one's emotional body, but not on the powers of reason. There are good people and not so good people in either camp...always have been, always will be. There are people who don't necessarily belong exclusively TO either camp. You don't determine people's worth by the color of the uniform they are wearing or by the one-word hate label you made up for them in your mind...you get to know them as individuals, because every individual is unique. Unless, of course, you are a fanatic. Then only the hate label matters, right? This removes the responsibility for actual thought or observation on the part of said fanatic, and also allows him/her to kill others guiltlessly. That's why young soldiers are trained to hate "the enemy" (someone who is probably just like themselves in nearly every way that truly matters). Dictators and rogue presidents do NOT want you to know these things. If you did, you wouldn't be so willing to go out and kill people for them. I am proud and happy to be a Leftist...but...I am not supportive of other Leftists when they choose to routinely demonize everyone who does not share their particular political viewpoint. In so doing, they will make the World worse, not better. There are destructive, vicious forces on both the Left and the Right. Always have been, probably always will be. Stalin was on the left. So too the NKVD. The Chinese bigwigs who slaughtered people at Tiananmen Square were on the left. Pol Pot was on the Left. They all equate to Hitler in my mind...and he was on the Right. Righteousness is not guaranteed by your outer political label! You can belong to any political label whatsoever, and still be a noble person who helps humanity...or a totally destructive individual who does just the opposite. " |
|
Subject: RE: BS: NON-Partisan political comments From: Little Hawk Date: 09 Sep 05 - 02:42 PM Oh. That's why this thread is going again. I wondered... Going through it now, I am stunned by the amount of my life that I have squandered typing posts on this forum! When I finally depart this vale of tears, the Angels will say... "Sad! He coulda done so much. He coulda been a contendah! But no, he spent all his time talking on an Internet forum. Sad!" If I ever break this addiction, people, you will wonder where I went... |
|
Subject: RE: BS: NON-Partisan political comments From: freda underhill Date: 09 Sep 05 - 02:58 PM Hey, Little Hawk, don't beat yourself up. I have a brother who has lived in Bali off and on for a couple of decades. He speaks Balinese and has fitted in with the local people. A couple of decades ago i was talking to him about TV and its insidious effects on my kids. He pointed out that in Bali, people talked about everything at the end of the day, all sorts of things that were going on, including scandals, adultery etc, and all the family, including the young children, sat around and listened. He figured that TV was just another way of getting the same info to the kids! Where is our fireplace to gather round? It is in our home, in our friend's homes, and in our mudcat friends homes. freda |
|
Subject: RE: BS: NON-Partisan political comments From: Little Hawk Date: 09 Sep 05 - 03:01 PM Yes, but having gathered around real fireplaces with friends in the past, I worry about the effects of the virtual one. It's too easy, and it's always there. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: NON-Partisan political comments From: beardedbruce Date: 13 Sep 05 - 01:32 PM Not political, (I think) but near and dear to my heart. Those who know me will understand. old rule: "The ony way to be sure of having enough, is to always have a little bit too much." Thanks, BillD! |
|
Subject: RE: BS: NON-Partisan political comments From: beardedbruce Date: 03 Oct 05 - 02:56 PM and from Peace: "I don't really care what people choose to believe. That has never been an issue with me in real or cyber life. However, it's the suppression of the right to think that grates my petunias. From either 'side' of this issue." |
|
Subject: RE: BS: NON-Partisan political comments From: beardedbruce Date: 05 Oct 05 - 09:17 AM from DougR, "I don't believe that I ever questioned the right of anyone to think differently from the way I do, nor do I think I implied that because they did not agree with my POV the were inferior to me or less intelligent. We just thought differently. " |
|
Subject: RE: BS: NON-Partisan political comments From: beardedbruce Date: 05 Oct 05 - 10:15 AM "And keep your communications aboveboard, complete, and straight with yourself." from Amos! |
|
Subject: RE: BS: NON-Partisan political comments From: beardedbruce Date: 08 Oct 05 - 03:35 AM Jingoistic approaches to smearing the ideas of others is de rigurer for ... those who can't win an argument on its merits. Best to not discuss the facts or issues at all, just smear your opponents. From SRS |
|
Subject: RE: BS: NON-Partisan political comments From: beardedbruce Date: 13 Oct 05 - 01:54 PM from GUEST,DB "Basically, any group which claims to have exclusive access to 'the truth' is potentially dangerous and should be resisted." |
|
Subject: RE: BS: NON-Partisan political comments From: beardedbruce Date: 27 Nov 05 - 06:06 PM "That's why it's so pointless getting angry here - whether they like it or not, the people with whom we are arguing are actually assisting us. Why on earth should we be angry with people who are helping us, even whebn that may not be their intention? Do people doing weight training get angry at the weights they exert themselves to lift? " About the only reason that the arguments here ARE worthwhile- since I have YET to see EITHER side actually discuss the FACTS without getting into ad hominum arguments |
|
Subject: RE: BS: NON-Partisan political comments From: GUEST,ART THIEME Date: 28 Nov 05 - 01:56 PM (I put my name in caps like JOHN HANCOCK signing the Declaration Of Independance!) When people prove to be truly self-serving, as seems to be the political reality quite often, I will side with the more sharing and compassionate side every time. (No party designated!!) ART THIEME |
|
Subject: RE: BS: NON-Partisan political comments From: GUEST,IVOR Date: 28 Nov 05 - 07:03 PM I've just been thru this thread. Non-Partisan political comment might be a contradiction in terms. Aritotle (I think) said "Man(meaning 'people',people)Man is a political animal". I think that's probably because we cannot, a priori, tell the whole truth, we have to select, because of our limitations, and we're going to select according to one bias or another. "Facts" is another hot potato - see E.H.Carr's "What is History"; essentially 'facts' don't just lie there - we select them. My choice of route thru is to become more aware, and to nurture increasing awareness in others. We're also lumbered with a vast knowledge deficit. People owe a lot of their opinions to the varying depths of their ignorance. I include myself in that. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: NON-Partisan political comments From: beardedbruce Date: 17 Jan 06 - 01:48 PM ejsant I have found on my nearly fifty year walk, mostly by my own actions, that the arguing of ones position by employing the technique of abuse and denigration of one's adversary may indeed produce the desired results but it rarely, if ever, produces acceptance of the alternate view. This often times, if not all times, results in animosities being harbored and if we are ever really to live in peace and harmony with one another it is our responsibility to avoid actions that create or sustain animosities between ourselves." |
|
Subject: RE: BS: NON-Partisan political comments From: Arne Date: 18 Jan 06 - 12:36 PM BeardedBruce: I have found on my nearly fifty year walk, mostly by my own actions, that the arguing of ones position by employing the technique of abuse and denigration of one's adversary may indeed produce the desired results but it rarely, if ever, produces acceptance of the alternate view. "You can lead a horse to water, but you can't make him drink." At some point, Bruce, you have to accept the fact that the folks you're talking to may be Limbaughesque DittoBots, and are impervious to either reason or facts. Normal discourse then becomes an exercise in micturation, and it's not going to hurt your case too much by engaging in "abuse and denigration". Find me someone willing to acknowledge the fact that Dubya's a serial liar (a demonstrable fact), and there may be hope for a real discussion. As long as they refuse to admit even elemental facts as a basis for discussion, and I don't think that one may hope for more than playground "discussion". Cheers, |
|
Subject: RE: BS: NON-Partisan political comments From: Once Famous Date: 18 Jan 06 - 12:44 PM Arne the FBI is interested in you. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: NON-Partisan political comments From: Arne Date: 18 Jan 06 - 01:50 PM Martin: the FBI is interested in you. Oh, really? Why, that makes us even. I'm interested in the FBI too. But thanks for the info. Cheers, |
|
Subject: RE: BS: NON-Partisan political comments From: beardedbruce Date: 18 Jan 06 - 02:25 PM sorry if I did not make it clear that was a quote from ejsant "As long as they refuse to admit even elemental facts as a basis for discussion" Agreed, which is why I can't have conversations with you, or SRS, or Bobert.... You ( all) refuse to discuss FACTS. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: NON-Partisan political comments From: Arne Date: 18 Jan 06 - 02:48 PM Bearded Bruce: Agreed, which is why I can't have conversations with you, or SRS, or Bobert.... You ( all) refuse to discuss FACTS. Sorry if I seem reluctant to discuss "facts" you seem to think are self-evident. Feel free to trot them out, and maybe we can have a discussion. In the meanwhile, care to either agree with or refute: That Dubya out-and-out lied when he said: "He [Saddam] wouldn't let them [the weapons inspectors] in" and that is why Dubya decided to invade. That Dubya out-and-out lied when he said repeatedly that wiretaps need a warrant and/or judicial approval and that we weren't wiretapping without a warrant (that is, he kept saying this until his secret wiretaps became public knowledge). You may argue about the impetus behind these statements, or their "justification" under the circumstances, but isn't it a little disingenuous to refuse to admit that Dubya's been lying to us???? Once we extablish that predicate, maybe we can discuss other statements of the maladministration in the proper context.... Cheers, |
|
Subject: RE: BS: NON-Partisan political comments From: beardedbruce Date: 18 Jan 06 - 02:53 PM Arne, "Feel free to trot them out, and maybe we can have a discussion." Except that I have brought out those facts, many times, and you insist on attacking me rather than discussing them. I await YOUR refutation of the multiple facts I have presented, then we can discuss you opinions about Bush. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: NON-Partisan political comments From: GUEST,Geoduck Date: 18 Jan 06 - 04:00 PM To be, or not to be: that is the question: Whether 'tis nobler in the mind to suffer The slings and arrows of outrageous fortune, Or to take arms against a sea of troubles, And by opposing end them? To die: to sleep; No more; and by a sleep to say we end The heart-ache and the thousand natural shocks That flesh is heir to, 'tis a consummation Devoutly to be wish'd. To die, to sleep; To sleep: perchance to dream: ay, there's the rub; For in that sleep of death what dreams may come When we have shuffled off this mortal coil, Must give us pause: there's the respect That makes calamity of so long life; For who would bear the whips and scorns of time, The oppressor's wrong, the proud man's contumely, The pangs of despised love, the law's delay, The insolence of office and the spurns That patient merit of the unworthy takes, When he himself might his quietus make With a bare bodkin? who would fardels bear, To grunt and sweat under a weary life, But that the dread of something after death, The undiscover'd country from whose bourn No traveller returns, puzzles the will And makes us rather bear those ills we have Than fly to others that we know not of? Thus conscience does make cowards of us all; And thus the native hue of resolution Is sicklied o'er with the pale cast of thought, And enterprises of great pitch and moment With this regard their currents turn awry, And lose the name of action.-- Soft you now! The fair Ophelia! Nymph, in thy orisons Be all my sins remember'd. Hamlet |
|
Subject: RE: BS: NON-Partisan political comments From: Arne Date: 18 Jan 06 - 05:48 PM BeardedBruce: Except that I have brought out those facts, many times, and you insist on attacking me rather than discussing them. I suspect you're mistaking a disagreement with what you're claiming for an attack on you. But do feel free to point to (or link to) what you think I so rudely ignored.... But before we begin, is Dubya one of the most blatant liars we have seen in high public place? C'mon, let's start with some honesty here. Otherwise, we can hardly start talking about your pet talking points, eh? Cheers, |
|
Subject: RE: BS: NON-Partisan political comments From: beardedbruce Date: 19 Jan 06 - 10:06 AM "You will never win a battle unless you can understand how the other side is thinking. It doesn't mean you have to agree with them, but you do need to understand what motivates them." Ron Olesko |
|
Subject: RE: BS: NON-Partisan political comments From: autolycus Date: 19 Jan 06 - 10:39 AM Beardedbruce, youve shown in your last thread a prime difficulty in having a non-partisan discussion. Is that possible when there exists such a thing as "the other side"? As far as I can see those two thoughts ("non-partisan" and "the other side" (I wrote that aiming for crystal clarity)) are irreconcilable (at least until both sides have been to the guru I referred to 28 Nov. last) |
|
Subject: RE: BS: NON-Partisan political comments From: beardedbruce Date: 19 Jan 06 - 10:53 AM Arne, YOU:"That Dubya out-and-out lied when he said: "He [Saddam] wouldn't let them [the weapons inspectors] in" and that is why Dubya decided to invade." David S. Broder " The first -- and to my mind weakest -- instance is the claim that Bush took the nation to war on the basis of false intelligence about Iraq's weapons of mass destruction. But there is no clear evidence as yet that Bush willfully concocted or knowingly distorted the intelligence he received about Saddam Hussein's military programs. Interpretations of that intelligence varied within the government, but the Clinton administration, of which Gore was an important part, came to the same conclusions that Bush did -- and so did other governments in the Western alliance." We have gone around about the weapons inspectors- And the UN report says that Saddam was in "substantial non-compliance" at the time of the deadline. IF Saddam decided to let inspectors in AFTER Bush had mobilized troops on his borders, that hardly supports YOUR contention of why Bush invaded. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: NON-Partisan political comments From: Arne Date: 19 Jan 06 - 05:28 PM BeardedBruce: "You will never win a battle unless you can understand how the other side is thinking. It doesn't mean you have to agree with them, but you do need to understand what motivates them." OK. So, pray tell: What motivates you to turn such a blind eye to the incompetence, mendaciousness, and outright criminality of the maladministration and the Republican party then? If you think I'm misstating the case, I'd bring to your attention: 1). Dubya's comments that no one in the maladministration (Libby and Rove included) were involved in the Plame outing (and his comments that anyone who did such would be fired). 2). Dubya's repeated contention that war in Iraq was the "last" option, and that he hadn't decide to go in there, when there's repeated accounts from multiple sources that Iraq had been in the works almost from the inception of Dubya's maladministration. 3). Dubya's repeated assertions that warrants were needed for wiretaps and that he wasn't doing any warrantless snoops. 4). The maladministration's claims that Dubya didn't know Abramoff (despite Abramaoff's 200 or so visits to the White House, his logged meetings with Dubya, and his being a member of the Dubya transition team. Hey, for that matter, remember Dubya's "Kenny who?" for his old pal (and biggest contributor) "Kenny Boy" Lay. 5). Then there's DeLay, Ney, Ralph Reed, Michael Brown, John Bolton, etc. The list goes on and on, Bruce. So, dear Brucie, what is the "motivation" for your continuing to defend such a fetid heap of miasma? What's in it for you??? Do tell us.... Cheers, |
|
Subject: RE: BS: NON-Partisan political comments From: Arne Date: 19 Jan 06 - 05:57 PM BeardedBruce: Arne, [Arne]:"That Dubya out-and-out lied when he said: "He [Saddam] wouldn't let them [the weapons inspectors] in" and that is why Dubya decided to invade." Yep. Not only is that not the truth, but it's not even close. I've tried to look at how it could be charitably interpretetd as a twisting of the truth, a somewhat dishonest and misleading slant on the truth, or a reasonable mistake. No matter how I look at it, t's none of those things, Bruce, and it's time you displayed some honesty and fessed up to it. Or you can explain why Saddam letting the inspectors in (an obvious and established fact) is "Saddam not letting them in". David S. Broder " The first -- and to my mind weakest -- instance is the claim that Bush took the nation to war on the basis of false intelligence about Iraq's weapons of mass destruction. But there is no clear evidence as yet that Bush willfully concocted or knowingly distorted the intelligence he received about Saddam Hussein's military programs. Interpretations of that intelligence varied within the government, but the Clinton administration, of which Gore was an important part, came to the same conclusions that Bush did -- and so did other governments in the Western alliance." Hogwash, and more importantly, irrelevant to my quote. We have gone around about the weapons inspectors- And the UN report says that Saddam was in "substantial non-compliance" at the time of the deadline. Oh, nonsense. And as I said, disagreeing with your misinterpretation and selective cut'n'paste of the facts hardly constitutes personal attack on you. What "deadline"? What "report"? What does that have to do with the state on the ground in March of 2003? And more importantly, isn't it up to the United Nations to decide what action to take in the face of any "substantial non-compliance"? IF Saddam decided to let inspectors in AFTER Bush had mobilized troops on his borders, that hardly supports YOUR contention of why Bush invaded. Huh???? You sound very confused here (or confusing). Once again, I'll see if I can divine your "point" from this sentence, but don't fault me if I'm guessing wrong in the face of your incomprehensibility. Are you saying that the invasion was one and the same as massing troops on the border? Why do you suggest that I am thinking that the timing of Saddam's letting the inspectors in is supportive of my (alleged; to be honest I don't think I've actually stated a theory as to why Dubya invaded) theory as to why Dubya invaded? I'll agree with you that this timing does no such thing. What does seem to put to the lie one "theory" as to why Dubya invaded is the fact that Saddam did let the inspectors in albeit after Dubya had started mobilizing troops. Great. The fust0shaking worked. Saddam gave in. Now does that mean that Dubya's got to get 2200+ U.S. soldiers killed when the "mission is already accomplished". That last bit is the silly ... and the horrific ... part of Dubya's little speech. The plain facts (that Saddam did let the inspectors in) make that war unnecessary!!! So, the facts as we know them make those deaths in vain ... if we're to believe that Dubya was honest when he made that statement. No wonder you cling to it so grimly ... the alternative would make Lady Macbeth's insomnia seem like a walk in the park compared to you and your cheerleading. Cheers, |
|
Subject: RE: BS: NON-Partisan political comments From: beardedbruce Date: 20 Jan 06 - 01:31 PM Arne, "OK. So, pray tell: What motivates you to turn such a blind eye to the incompetence, mendaciousness, and outright criminality of the maladministration and the Republican party then? If you think I'm misstating the case, I'd bring to your attention:" Not a blind eye- it is just that they are better than the alternative offered by the Democrats, IMO. "1). Dubya's comments that no one in the maladministration (Libby and Rove included) were involved in the Plame outing (and his comments that anyone who did such would be fired)." As I stated, IF there are people found to have committed illegal acts, they should be prosecuted. Period. Regardless of party. "2). Dubya's repeated contention that war in Iraq was the "last" option, and that he hadn't decide to go in there, when there's repeated accounts from multiple sources that Iraq had been in the works almost from the inception of Dubya's maladministration." This was discussed- PLANS are always being made for POSSIBLE actions, just in case. I have seen NO EVIDENCE that any decision, other than to have Saddam comply with his obligations, was made PRIOR to the DEADLINE date specified in UNR 1441. "3). Dubya's repeated assertions that warrants were needed for wiretaps and that he wasn't doing any warrantless snoops." Repeated? I have not seen them- can you provide a link? I will wait for facts before deciding the point. "4). The maladministration's claims that Dubya didn't know Abramoff (despite Abramaoff's 200 or so visits to the White House, his logged meetings with Dubya, and his being a member of the Dubya transition team. Hey, for that matter, remember Dubya's "Kenny who?" for his old pal (and biggest contributor) "Kenny Boy" Lay." Again, send me links. "[Arne]:"That Dubya out-and-out lied when he said: "He [Saddam] wouldn't let them [the weapons inspectors] in" and that is why Dubya decided to invade." Yep. Not only is that not the truth, but it's not even close. I've tried to look at how it could be charitably interpretetd as a twisting of the truth, a somewhat dishonest and misleading slant on the truth, or a reasonable mistake. No matter how I look at it, t's none of those things, Bruce, and it's time you displayed some honesty and fessed up to it. Or you can explain why Saddam letting the inspectors in (an obvious and established fact) is "Saddam not letting them in"." So, after the deadline, he let the inspectors have the access they wanted- AFTER THE DEADLINE HAD PASSED. From his past history, he always gave in just enough to get away with NOT complying with the UN resolutions- Can you provide ANY evidence that he was providing ANY of the information specifically pointed out in the UN report required by 1441, that stated he was in substatantial non-compliance? The ONLY thing I had heard was that, IF he did provide that information, the inspectors would have been able to do their job- NOT THAT HE WAS COOPERATING. "We have gone around about the weapons inspectors- And the UN report says that Saddam was in "substantial non-compliance" at the time of the deadline. Oh, nonsense. And as I said, disagreeing with your misinterpretation and selective cut'n'paste of the facts hardly constitutes personal attack on you. What "deadline"? What "report"? Have you bothered to read the UN REPORT required by 1441? It appears you have major problems in comprehension of the English language. Do you understand "FINAL" at all? "hat does that have to do with the state on the ground in March of 2003? And more importantly, isn't it up to the United Nations to decide what action to take in the face of any "substantial non-compliance"?" State on the ground in MARCH- Saddam had failed to comply with his last and final chance, and the UN had stated that. He had the choice to open his borders, and did not- His RESISTANCE to the US invasion was sufficient reason, from the ceasefire terms of the Kuwait war, to invade. "David S. Broder " The first -- and to my mind weakest -- instance is the claim that Bush took the nation to war on the basis of false intelligence about Iraq's weapons of mass destruction. But there is no clear evidence as yet that Bush willfully concocted or knowingly distorted the intelligence he received about Saddam Hussein's military programs. Interpretations of that intelligence varied within the government, but the Clinton administration, of which Gore was an important part, came to the same conclusions that Bush did -- and so did other governments in the Western alliance." You state this is hogwash, but provide no justification of your opinion. You may think it whatever you like- but if you want others to agree with you, you might want to at least outline the facts you believe support your view. This is your usual method of argument- I still await all the FACTS that would show me why you have your opinions. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: NON-Partisan political comments From: Arne Date: 20 Jan 06 - 04:45 PM BeardedBruce: Not a blind eye- it is just that they are better than the alternative offered by the Democrats, IMO. Ahhhh, "moral relativism" at its finest. The tu quoque defence is in full flourish amongst the Republican sycophants, IC. Guess that's what you're reduced to when your leareds are caught with their pants down. But what, pray tell, is "worse" with the Democrats, eh? For what prize, did you sell your soul for a sou, dear Bruce? Let us know; we're interested? Abortion? What motivates you to turn a blind eye to the needless deaths of thousands of our young ones? As I stated, IF there are people found to have committed illegal acts, they should be prosecuted. Period. Regardless of party. Do you think that it was legal to disclose Plame's connection with the CIA (something that it is now obvious that both Rove and Libby did)? Even fi you're going to get 'technical' on this, do you think that this outing for political purpose was the hallmark of good government? Regardless, you miss the point: Dubya said that anyone involved in this would be out of a job (and he also said, probably dishonestly, that Libby and Rove weren't involved). He lied. Rove is still special assistant to Dubya. And Libby's only out because he got indicted. Hardly the hallmark of an responsible and honest administration. This was discussed- PLANS are always being made for POSSIBLE actions, just in case. I have seen NO EVIDENCE that any decision, other than to have Saddam comply with his obligations, was made PRIOR to the DEADLINE date specified in UNR 1441. You still believe that horsepucky, when so many people have said that the maladministration was gung-ho from the get-go??? Just as a ferinstance, I'd point to the fact that Dubya went ahead and invaded after he'd gotten Saddam to let the inspectors in (and despite the fact that the U.N. Security council was heavily in favour of letting the inspectors do their job). There's Duya's "F*** Saddam, we're taking him out" comment, and his appalliong "Feels good!" (while pumping his fist in the air) on starting the hostilities. That doesn't register with you, Bruce??? And what's with this horsepuckey about "the DEADLINE date specified in UNR 1441"? Please explain. "3). Dubya's repeated assertions that warrants were needed for wiretaps and that he wasn't doing any warrantless snoops." Repeated? I have not seen them- can you provide a link? I will wait for facts before deciding the point. Here's one (found in 2 minutes with Google). I've heard audio clips of a couple on the radio but can't give you links right now. Is one enough, or will you demand "repeated"? (One quote is enough to establish the proposition that he in fact did make such an assertion). Here's the official maladministration site's words: Secondly, there are such things as roving wiretaps. Now, by the way, any time you hear the United States government talking about wiretap, it requires -- a wiretap requires a court order. Nothing has changed, by the way. When we're talking about chasing down terrorists, we're talking about getting a court order before we do so. "4). The maladministration's claims that Dubya didn't know Abramoff (despite Abramaoff's 200 or so visits to the White House, his logged meetings with Dubya, and his being a member of the Dubya transition team. Hey, for that matter, remember Dubya's "Kenny who?" for his old pal (and biggest contributor) "Kenny Boy" Lay." Again, send me links. *sheesh* Pick up a newspaper, will ya? Or for that matter, Google is your friend.... [Arne]: Yep. Not only is that not the truth, but it's not even close. I've tried to look at how it could be charitably interpretetd as a twisting of the truth, a somewhat dishonest and misleading slant on the truth, or a reasonable mistake. No matter how I look at it, t's none of those things, Bruce, and it's time you displayed some honesty and fessed up to it. Or you can explain why Saddam letting the inspectors in (an obvious and established fact) is "Saddam not letting them in". So, after the deadline, he let the inspectors have the access they wanted- AFTER THE DEADLINE HAD PASSED. WTF is this "AFTER THE DEADLINE HAD PASSED"???? But I'd note this is nonresponsive to my point. Still don't know what hallucinatory "deadline" you're trying to foist off here, but Dubya didn't say "... before the deadline had passed", did he??? Yes or no, Bruce. So, after the deadline, he let the inspectors have the access they wanted- AFTER THE DEADLINE HAD PASSED. From his past history, he always gave in just enough to get away with NOT complying with the UN resolutions- Can you provide ANY evidence that he was providing ANY of the information specifically pointed out in the UN report required by 1441, that stated he was in substatantial non-compliance? The ONLY thing I had heard was that, IF he did provide that information, the inspectors would have been able to do their job- NOT THAT HE WAS COOPERATING. Saddam let the inspectors in. He gave them the report they wanted. The inspectors were doing their job, and protested against the Dubya sword wagging and asked ... almost begged ... to be left in there to fininsh the job. They were 100% right, BTW. You seem to have some completely incomprehensible notion that Dubya just had to invade (something that not even the UNSCR in the ititial 1441 resolution had even specified) if there was any disputed or technical "non-compliance" at some date that it seem just you made up, and further, that it is good policy to invade and to get many thousands killed despite whatever happened afterhad to invade at the same time that he was still claiming that no such decision had been made, which would make him a liar (and prove my other point). Here's UNSCR 1441:
Iraq did #3. The U.S. thought it inaccurate and/or incomplete, but it turns out to have been far more accurate than the U.S. claims. The Iraqis did #5. #4 says that the U.N. will be responsible for assessing and taking further action, not Dubya and his bunch of gunslingers. Do you understand "FINAL" at all? Do you unnderstand "stoopidity", "intransigence", and "imperviousness to new facts and developments" at all? Do you still think that 2000 soldiers' (and many more civilians') lives are a perfectly reasonable prive to pay for some bureaucratic and/or technical failure to dot the "i"s and cross the "t"s (disputed failure at that)? I asked you this a long time ago, and I don't think I ever got a response. How many soldiers' lives are worth a snub to Dubya's ego and pride, Bruce? Or hoy many are worth his political esteem and electoral advantage (if you happen to be a bit cynical about Dubya's strategery)? Because an invasion when Iraq was co-operating in every meaningful way and when it was becoming more and more apparent every day that Iraq had not WoMD becomes sheer stoopidity if not outright madness.... State on the ground in MARCH- Saddam had failed to comply with his last and final chance,... Oh, garbage. His RESISTANCE to the US invasion was sufficient reason, from the ceasefire terms of the Kuwait war, to invade. Goebbels stands in awe. You state this is hogwash, but provide no justification of your opinion. You may think it whatever you like- but if you want others to agree with you, you might want to at least outline the facts you believe support your view. Fact: Eight of thirteen members of the U.N. Security Council refused to back the U.S. invasion. Many governments (and far more people) were dead-set against any invasion. Clinton never trotted out some manufactured baloney including fake anthrax vials for the U.N. Security Council. Many outside of government and even a numebr of governments expressed scepticism at the "Dogdy dossier", and the Pile'O'Crap that Powell gave at the U.N. Broder's got his own row to hoe; he was one of the ones that got conned by the maladministration. Prime example of Broder's hogwash: "The first -- and to my mind weakest -- instance is the claim that Bush took the nation to war on the basis of false intelligence about Iraq's weapons of mass destruction." The intelligence was false. This is pretty much undisputed fact. And unless you're willing to admit that Dubya's a malevolent liar and schemer, pulling the wool over the eyes of the 'Merkun public whe he really wanted to go to war for other reasons (yaknow, like the reasons spelled out the the Project for a New American Century report that was the darling child of allthe neocons infesting his maladministration), then Dubya took the nation to war on the basis of false intelligence. Simple as that, Bruce. Broder claims there's no "clear evidence" that Dubya wilfully distorted the intelligence", but that's nonsense (or wilfull blindness on Broder's part). There's been more than one person reporting that the evidence was distorted, "worst-cased", stovepiped, ignored, and otherwise so horribly mangled (and in many cases reportedly under direction or under pressure from Cheney's office) that what came out was that black was conclusively determined to be white. You can't argue with what we know now, Bruce. There's no possible way to get things so totally wrong with an objective eye. Now don't go accusing me of ignoring your "points". I didn't before, and I'm not doing it now. I just disagree with what you say. But now I want an answer: Did Dubya lie when he said "He [Saddam] wouldn't let them [the inspectors] in"? Simple yes or no, Bruce. Let's se how honest you are. Cheers, |
|
Subject: RE: BS: NON-Partisan political comments From: freda underhill Date: 21 Jan 06 - 10:29 AM Myself when young did eagerly frequent Doctor and Saint, and heard great Argument About it and about: but evermore Came out by the same Door as in I went. (from Edward FitzGerald's Translation of the Rubaiyat of Omar Khayyam, a 10th century skeptic). |
|
Subject: RE: BS: NON-Partisan political comments From: beardedbruce Date: 15 Feb 06 - 09:47 AM CapriUni - PM Date: 04 Feb 06 - 02:49 PM From Garrison Kiellor, many, many many years ago (if I recall correctly): Everyone has a sense of humor. It's just that not everyone has your sense of humor. (or something to that effect) |
|
Subject: RE: BS: NON-Partisan political comments From: Arne Date: 15 Feb 06 - 10:05 AM BeardedBruce: Still non-responsive, IC. Imagine my surprise. You even had a month to come up with something actually on-point.... Cheers, |
|
Subject: RE: BS: NON-Partisan political comments From: beardedbruce Date: 15 Feb 06 - 10:19 AM Arne, Most of your points I had addressed in the past- YOUR inability to comprehend the written word is not my problem. This is not the thgread for the discussion: There are others that are appropriate. "Now don't go accusing me of ignoring your "points". I didn't before, and I'm not doing it now. I just disagree with what you say. But now I want an answer:" And when I ask a direct question , when have you responded? I do agree that we disagree, though... |
|
Subject: RE: BS: NON-Partisan political comments From: Arne Date: 16 Feb 06 - 09:39 PM BeardedBruce: Arne, Most of your points I had addressed in the past- ... Ummm, the question, Bruce, the question. Did Dubya lie? Yes or no..... Shouldn't be hard to figure out, eh? All you have to do is do some research, and find out if "[Saddam] wouldn't let them [the inspectors] in." You have a job to do there, Bruce, because you're going to have to figure out how Hans Blix was reporting from Upper Phlogistan when everyone thought he was reporting from Baghdad and reporting that the U.S. intelligence was (in the words of one of his inspection team) "garbage, garbage, and more garbage" ... before Dubya's "one last chance" and his alleged last minute reluctant decision to invade. You're going to have to explain how the inspectors had took a wrong turn and found a load of chicken-s*** in the vast reaches of Syria while checking out a place that Dubya's maladministration had said that Saddam was hiding SCUDs.... I suppose it is true that Dubya might have been justified in invading if indeed these serial miscues and foulups of the insepectors had failed to uncover the massive quantities of WoMD that were really in Iraq because they had so stoopidly and mistakenly been inspecting the wrong country. If so, my estimation of Dubya will rise quite a bit. So hop to it, my man.... Say, Bruce: Here's an interesting link for ya. You know, sometimes knowing there's a problem is the first step to finding a cure. Cheers, |
|
Subject: RE: BS: NON-Partisan political comments From: autolycus Date: 17 Feb 06 - 05:20 AM Bearded Bruce You ask Arne where is the answer from him to a direct question of yours. I have the same request. It is a knotty problem - how is it possible to have a "non-partisan" discussion" when we refer to "the other side", as in "unless you know how the other side is thinking"? A non-partisan discussion can only be entered, presumably, by those not on either side. Those on either side are, by definition, partisan. That leads to a fundamental question, or rather the plural, to fundamental questions.. If someone on one side of an argument listens to the other side, 1. Does the outcome that having heard the other side they still don't agree prove that they have not heard? 2. Or having heard and still not agreeing does NOT prove that they have not heard the views of the other side? 3. In either case, how can it be part of a non-partisan discussion? (Cor, like being back at uni. doing me philosophy. Auto. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: NON-Partisan political comments From: beardedbruce Date: 17 Feb 06 - 06:34 AM Auto, I did say "This is not the thread for the discussion: There are others that are appropriate." ( I did correct a typo...) Arne, Ok, since you have a problem in comprehension. Bush told what he thought was the truth at the time he said it- As MOST of the world believed. "All you have to do is do some research, and find out if "[Saddam] wouldn't let them [the inspectors] in." " I did- and Saddam DID NOT until well after the deadline YOU reprinted from UNR1441 Try reading what you post. Did you ever read the Blix Report? It seems obvious you did not, since you keep saying that he lied to the UN in it. Just because YOU keep repeating lies does not make them true, regardless of your viewpoint- TRY to have some basis for your statements- like quotes, or UN reports, or reality. Cheers back at you. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: NON-Partisan political comments From: Arne Date: 17 Feb 06 - 08:58 PM BeardedBruce: Bush told what he thought was the truth at the time he said it- As MOST of the world believed. Umm, the quote in question was spoken in July of 2003 (much to the consternation of such as Kofi Annan, standing by his side). He repeated this same assertion (with slightly different words, IIRC) on one other occasion after that. So, did Dubya really think in July, 2003 that Saddam hadn't let the inspectors in??? Perhaps it's possible, but in that case, I'd think about invoking the 25th Amendment..... No, Blix didn't lie to the U.N. But he did say that he hadn't found a darn ting (and he said that he'd been checking the sites that U.S. "intelligence" had pinpointed ... in Iraq, nor Upper Phlogistan). I did- and Saddam DID NOT until well after the deadline YOU reprinted from UNR1441.... Huh? What deadline? Nonetheless, Dubya didn't say "he wouldn't let them in until after this deadline I pulled out of my arse...." We're back to this thing where you seem to think that arbitrary "deadlines" and arbitrary marks of co-operation are far more important that whether the job was getting done ... so much so that it didn't even matter whether there were WoMD there, what really mattered is that Saddam supposedly spit in Dubya's eye (at least at first), and thus we needed to invade a sovereign (albeit dictatorial) country, bollix it up royally, and get 2200 U.S. servicemen killed in the process. I think not, but that's an entirely different proposition from the question of whether Dubya was telling an outright lie in that quote I put forth..... Just because YOU keep repeating lies does not make them true,... Ummm, what lies, Bruce? Just because you keep avoiding the point doesn't make it go away, Bruce. Cheers, |
|
Subject: RE: BS: NON-Partisan political comments From: Teribus Date: 18 Feb 06 - 04:54 AM BeardedBruce is correct this is not the thread to be discussing the subjects raised by Arne. He is also right in that he has previously answered Arne's points in other relevant threads. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: NON-Partisan political comments From: Ron Davies Date: 18 Feb 06 - 08:28 AM However, BB has recently said "Just because you keep repeating lies.." This is a non-partisan political comment? At least the person who started the thread should try to keep on-topic. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: NON-Partisan political comments From: autolycus Date: 18 Feb 06 - 05:04 PM BB, forgive me, I didn't grasp your last comment to me, so I'm just requesting clarification. (Incidentally, I read elsewhere you're leaving mudcat. I hope it's not true tho' naturally I'd respect your choice. You have so much of interest to say.) It's just that you said this is not the thread for my question. Please redirect me to the right place, tho' if you could say why this is the wrong one, I'll be in your debt. Best wishes Auto(Ivor) |
|
Subject: RE: BS: NON-Partisan political comments From: beardedbruce Date: 20 Feb 06 - 06:21 AM Auto, This thread has drifted from my original intent ( see the starting post. I admit I am guilty of responding to the blatent lies presented as facts without any justification. There are a number of threads here that ARE appropriate for the discussion about Iraq, where I have addressed the topic at some length. Too bad Arne has a problem with comprehension of English. And no, I have never hinted that I was leaving this forum. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: NON-Partisan political comments From: Arne Date: 20 Feb 06 - 09:08 PM BeardedBruce: This thread has drifted from my original intent ( see the starting post. I admit I am guilty of responding to the blatent lies presented as facts without any justification. So if I were you, I wouldn't get too snitty when people respond to your recent posts. Too bad Arne has a problem with comprehension of English. At the risk of further thread creep, may I ask where I'm supposedly having difficulty? ;-) Cheers, |
|
Subject: RE: BS: NON-Partisan political comments From: beardedbruce Date: 15 Mar 06 - 01:35 PM The Shambles - PM Date: 15 Mar 06 - 01:12 PM If we don't believe in freedom of expression for people we despise, we don't believe in it at all. Noam Chomsky |
|
Subject: RE: BS: NON-Partisan political comments From: Arne Date: 15 Mar 06 - 02:14 PM Bearded Bruce: Oh, I don't mind your exercise of your freedom of expression. I just wish you'd actually address the points people make in response ... and perhaps, sometimes, occasionally, make some sense. Cheers, |
|
Subject: RE: BS: NON-Partisan political comments From: beardedbruce Date: 16 Mar 06 - 06:57 AM kendall - PM Date: 01 Mar 06 - 09:31 AM Believe it or not, "The truly wise man is never sure of anything." |
|
Subject: RE: BS: NON-Partisan political comments From: beardedbruce Date: 16 Mar 06 - 07:02 AM Arne, "I just wish you'd actually address the points people make in response ... and perhaps, sometimes, occasionally, make some sense." I state that the UN report required by 1441 stated that Saddam was in substantial non-compliance, and give a clicky to it so that all can read it and see. YOU state that Saddam was doing what the UN wanted, and give NO reference other than your own imagination. I was being generous and attributing it to lack of comprehension rather than a deliberate use of restating a false statement until people start to believe it. Now, can we take this discussion to another thread? |
|
Subject: RE: BS: NON-Partisan political comments From: beardedbruce Date: 24 Mar 06 - 06:34 AM Little Hawk - PM Date: 23 Mar 06 - 05:21 PM "The thing about the left is that it has, in recent years, developed an orthodoxy that is every bit as repressive as the orthodoxy in the right." Absolutely. In fact, that has always been the case, not just recently. Left and Right are equally given to hypocrisy, self-serving hyperbole, and unthinking prejudice. This makes it easy for them both to find a lot to accuse the other of, and a lot to bitch about generally. This is a statement I can agree with, whole-heartedly. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: NON-Partisan political comments From: beardedbruce Date: 24 Mar 06 - 06:49 AM sorry about that- ALL of the last post save the last line were from LH, and should have been in quotes. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: NON-Partisan political comments From: beardedbruce Date: 24 Mar 06 - 08:05 AM "jacqui.c - PM Date: 24 Mar 06 - 07:59 AM I have a theory that the divides in humanity come down to the basic insecurity of a lot of people. This makes them need to belong to a group and, when they come across others who are not part of that group, they have to push their ideology forward, sometimes extremely aggressively, in order to bouy up their own ego." |
|
Subject: RE: BS: NON-Partisan political comments From: beardedbruce Date: 24 Mar 06 - 08:48 AM " Keith A of Hertford - PM Date: 24 Mar 06 - 07:14 AM ... Any large group of people has it's wackos. If I found a wacko atheist I would not cite him as evidence that atheists are wrong." |
|
Subject: RE: BS: NON-Partisan political comments From: beardedbruce Date: 28 Mar 06 - 07:56 AM "kendall - PM Date: 28 Mar 06 - 07:53 AM Everyone is entitled to his/her opinion. None are carved in stone" |
|
Subject: RE: BS: NON-Partisan political comments From: Arne Date: 28 Mar 06 - 09:52 PM BeardedBruce: I state that the UN report required by 1441 stated that Saddam was in substantial non-compliance, and give a clicky to it so that all can read it and see. Ummm, nope. Amongst other things, it was the Security Council's job to decide if there was "substantial non-compliance". YOU state that Saddam was doing what the UN wanted, and give NO reference other than your own imagination. We're seeing more and more every day about both how Saddam was trying to find some way to convince the U.S. that he was complying (he even started destroying the disputed but arguably legal SRMs). Now we have the N.Y. Times report that Dubya and Blair were bound and determined to go to war despite the fact there were no WoMD being found and thinking maybe they wouldn't be found (even to the point of ginning up a 'Gulf of Tonkin provocation' by getting a U-2, repainted in U.N. colours, fired on [and maybe a pilot killed, but what the hey?]). And Colin Powell saying that a war wasn't justified without a second U.N. resolution and that this wasn't justified without some WoMD or something (see here). And you still continue to suck Dubya's hind teat and carry his water for him. Bet that makes you feel ... proud. I'd shower, if I were you. Cheers, |
|
Subject: RE: BS: NON-Partisan political comments From: beardedbruce Date: 29 Mar 06 - 08:28 AM http://www.un.org/News/Press/docs/2002/SC7564.doc.htm http://www.state.gov/p/nea/rls/15016.htm http://www.iraqwatch.org/un/unscresolutions/PVRs-debates/un-scdebate-021903.htm "December 19: the Security Council hears an initial, closed-doors assessment of the Iraqi dossier from Drs. Blix and ElBaradei. Both officials tell reporters that the declaration appears deficient in important respects. Blix states: "There were a lot of open questions at the end of 1998...and these have not been answered by evidence in the new declaration. ... An opportunity was missed in the declaration to give a lot of evidence..." For example: "Iraq declared earlier that they had produced about 8,500 litres of anthrax, and there was not sufficient evidence to demonstrate that it was limited to 8,500, so we must ask ourselves, was there more?"" http://www.acronym.org.uk/textonly/dd/dd69/69nr01.htm http://www.iraqwatch.org/un/unscresolutions/PVRs-debates/un-scmeeting-031203.htm http://www.reliefweb.int/rw/rwb.nsf/AllDocsByUNID/97e9b9191b64dab449256ce800055700 "11. [The Security Council] directs the executive chairman of Unmovic and the director-general of the IAEA to report immediately to the council any interference by Iraq with inspection activities, as well as any failure by Iraq to comply with its disarmament obligations, including its obligations regarding inspections under this resolution. " http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/americas/2412837.stm http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/middle_east/2759653.stm http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/news/836223/posts YOU state that Saddam was doing what the UN wanted, and give NO reference other than your own imagination. Care to read about what you have made so many declarations without support? |
|
Subject: RE: BS: NON-Partisan political comments From: Arne Date: 29 Mar 06 - 09:57 PM BeardedBruce: [Bruce]: I state that the UN report required by 1441 stated that Saddam was in substantial non-compliance, and give a clicky to it so that all can read it and see. [Arne]: Ummm, nope. Amongst other things, it was the Security Council's job to decide if there was "substantial non-compliance". Ummm, you can take the maladministration's word for it, Brucie. Here: But Bush already realized the sources were not panning out. According to a Times review of the entire Jan. 31 memo, written by Blair's foreign policy adviser, David Manning, it showed that ''the president and the prime minister acknowledged that no unconventional weapons had been found inside Iraq."The maladministration thought they needed to provoke a breach. Not too encouraging for the home team, Brucie, when even Dubya's on the other side, eh? Cheers, |
|
Subject: RE: BS: NON-Partisan political comments From: Arne Date: 29 Mar 06 - 10:56 PM BeardedBruce: [BeardedBruce claimed: "I state that the UN report required by 1441 stated that Saddam was in substantial non-compliance, and give a clicky to it so that all can read it and see."] First link: Date Nov. 8, 2002 Second link: Date Nov. 8, 2002 (and a repeat of the first one) Third link: Date Feb. 19, 2003. The debate, which heard from more than 60 speakers, in two days, was called for by the Non-Aligned Movement and held in the wake of last Friday's briefing by the Executive Chairman of the United Nations Monitoring, Verification and Inspection Commission (UNMOVIC), Hans Blix, and the Director-General of the International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA), Mohamed ElBaradei. They reported that Iraq's cooperation on procedural matters had recently improved and they had not found any weapons of mass destruction. They pointed out, however, that many banned weapons remained unaccounted for, requiring Iraq's 'immediate, unconditional and active' cooperation.I'd note that three of the listed speakers mentioned "material breach", but only one of them (Macedonia) was claiming a clear "material breach" existed. And not a single instance of "substantial non-compliance". Nothing a little searching couldn't resolve, or at least help significantly, as Blix told them. And with "improv[ing] ... cooperation", hard to keep maintaining there's some "material breach" justifying 2300 U.S. soldiers (and many more Iraqis) dead ... but I know you don't give a damn about them or their families, Brucie.... Again, note the date. And note that points brought up in debate by member countries are hardly the "sense of the U.N.", much less U.N. resolutions. Then you quote: "December 19: the Security Council hears an initial, closed-doors assessment of the Iraqi dossier from Drs. Blix and ElBaradei. Both officials tell reporters that the declaration appears deficient in important respects...." Ummm, hate to say it, Brucie, but the declarations of Iraq turned out to be far less "deficient" than the declarations of the U.S. before the U.N. Might have looked like "breach" to some folks, but that doesn't make it an actual breach, does it? Are you willing to at least grant that point? Fourth link: Through Feb. 1, 2003 (actually, has stuff to about Feb. 5, 2003, when Powell gave his ginned up "dog'n'pony" show to the U.N.). Fifth link: Date Mar. 12, 2003. Debate on what to do. Well, let me tell you, Brucie, the U.S. pushed for armed invasion, but the U.N. was a hell of a lot smarter than Dubya, and resisted. In the end, while Dubya had promised to force a vote on a new resolution that would presumably have found Iraq in non-compliance and authorised Dubya's blood-letting, Dubya had to renege on his promise when it was obvious that he wouldn't even get more than 5 of the Security Council members to go along with him (despite arm-twisting and bribes). So don't pretend that the U.N. authorised anything like what Dubya did, no matter what was said by the various parties in debate. Like this: "The African position, he continued, did not endorse war at the present stage. The international community, through the inspectors, must subject the sincerity of Iraq's promise of full cooperation and compliance with relevant resolutions to some rigorous test. Any war against Iraq would have to be sanctioned by a resolution from the Council." More from the debate: "Iraq's continued full cooperation with inspectors must be the basis for the peaceful settlement of the crisis and the subsequent lifting of sanctions." and: CHUCHAI KASEMSARN (Thailand) welcomed Iraq's further cooperation with the United Nations Monitoring, Verification and Inspection Commission (UNMOVIC) and the International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA), enabling them to make progress in their inspections. Even less in that debate about "material breach". And once again, not a single instance of "substantial non-compliance". But once again, two points, Brucie: It's the U.N. Security Council (and not individual member states) that gets to decide if there's a "material breach" of UNSCR 1441. And even if they decide that (which they didn't do), it is they who get to decide what to do about it. Not Dubya. Dubya can't claim any U.N. backing for his sanguinary little war, because they refused to back it. Period. Not to mention that Dubya's little war is arguably contrary to the U.N. Charter. Seventh link: Date Nov. 8, 2002. And a repeat of previous links. Eighth link: Date Feb. 11, 2003 "But he took a more positive line than in his report two weeks ago, saying Baghdad had made progress in a number of areas." And then there's this: "Mr Blix cast doubt on American intelligence material presented to the Security Council last week by US Secretary of State Colin Powell. He said he had no evidence that Iraq had had advance warning of inspections - as has been claimed by the United States - and questioned satellite images said to show suspicious movement at an Iraqi weapons site. Big, fat, red flag there. Ninth link: Freeperville. 'Nuff said. Endless repetition of the same ol' crap is not any kind of proof, Brucie. Where'd the U.N. find that Saddam was in "substantial non-compliance" or "material breach"? Still waiting ...... and waiting ....... and waiting ............... Cheers, |
|
Subject: RE: BS: NON-Partisan political comments From: beardedbruce Date: 30 Mar 06 - 08:40 AM ''the president and the prime minister acknowledged that no unconventional weapons had been found inside Iraq." Never said they were, JUST THAT THE UN DECLARED SADDAM WAS IN NON-COMPLIANCE with 1441, his LAST AND FINAL chance. Read what has been said, not wwhat you want to see. "IF Iraq chose to cooperate fully, as required. It was a challenge to the Council and an affront to the international community that Iraq was withholding full cooperation. " "Similarly, the representative of Canada said that more time for inspections could be useful, but only IF Iraq decided to cooperate fully and transparently, starting now. While that cooperation was beginning, it was being offered grudgingly and only after intense pressure and the deliberate build-up of MILITARY FORCES in the region. " As for "but I know you don't give a damn about them or their families, Brucie...." The blood is on the hands of those, like yyou, who DID NOT DEMAND THAT SADDAM COMPLY, but instead did all they could to lead him to believe that he could get away with continued violation, as he had for 14 years. LOOK at who was making money off the violations of sanctions, and who voted against holding Saddam to the terms of 1441. ""But he took a more positive line than in his report two weeks ago, " WELL AFTER THE DEADLINE FOR COOPERATION IN 1441- see note above about Saddam only cooperating AFTER the military buildup. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: NON-Partisan political comments From: beardedbruce Date: 30 Mar 06 - 08:42 AM "First link: Date Nov. 8, 2002 Second link: Date Nov. 8, 2002 (and a repeat of the first one)" If you show no comprehension of what 1441 says, it is reasonable to present it to you before discussing the failure of Saddam to comply with it. "Holding Iraq in "material breach" of its obligations under previous resolutions, the Security Council this morning decided to afford it a "final opportunity to comply" with its disarmament obligations, while setting up an enhanced inspection regime for full and verified completion of the disarmament process established by resolution 687 (1991). By the unanimous adoption of resolution 1441 (2002), the Council instructed the resumed inspections to begin within 45 days, and also decided it would convene immediately upon the receipt of any reports from inspection authorities that Iraq was interfering with their activities. It recalled, in that context, that the Council had repeatedly warned Iraq that it would face "serious consequences" as a result of continued violations. Under the new inspection regime established by the resolution, the United Nations Monitoring, Verification and Inspection Commission (UNMOVIC) and the International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA) would have "immediate, unimpeded, unconditional and unrestricted access" to any sites and buildings in Iraq, including presidential sites. They would also have the right to remove or destroy any weapons, or related items, they found. The Council demanded that Iraq confirm, within seven days, its intention to comply fully with the resolution. It further decided that, within 30 days, Iraq, in order to begin to comply with its obligations, should provide to UNMOVIC, the IAEA and the Council a complete declaration of all aspects of its programmes to develop chemical, biological and nuclear weapons, including chemical, biological and nuclear programmes it claims are for purposes not related to weapons production or material. Any false statement or omission in the declaration will be considered a further material breach of Iraq's obligations, and will be reported to the Council for assessment." |
|
Subject: RE: BS: NON-Partisan political comments From: beardedbruce Date: 30 Mar 06 - 09:03 AM "Endless repetition of the same ol' crap is not any kind of proof" THIS I can agree with- so when will you show me where Saddam COMPLIED with 1441???????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????? |
|
Subject: RE: BS: NON-Partisan political comments From: beardedbruce Date: 30 Mar 06 - 09:32 AM From Little Hawk "there is no rule anyone can make up that won't provide an occasional exception somewhere. That's why we have to use our own minds to decide, in the final analysis, regardless of what we think the "rules" are. " |
|
Subject: RE: BS: NON-Partisan political comments From: Little Hawk Date: 30 Mar 06 - 10:16 AM Slick lawyers can always find some legal excuse with which to justify a war, but try justifying it to the millions of people who are in the line of fire. This Iraq War was unnecessary, unprovoked, unjustified, and it was launched upon incorrect assumptions, largely false conclusions, and largely false propaganda...for reasons that were never publicly admitted by the US administration. The Security Council is treated (and quoted) as if it were God by America when it agrees with what America wants...and treated with complete contempt and dismissal when it does not. America has no respect for the U.N. (or anyone else), it just uses the U.N. as a covenient political tool whenever it's able to. In the end America does exactly what America wants to do, regardless of what the Security Council might have to say about it. America, like Saddam's Iraq, is an outlaw nation. But it's a really, really BIG outlaw nation. Saddam's Iraq was a small one. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: NON-Partisan political comments From: beardedbruce Date: 30 Mar 06 - 10:22 AM Much like Canada, shipping asbestos out to kill asians. "This Iraq War was unnecessary, unprovoked, unjustified," This is a JUDGEMENT that some of us do not agree with. And how many demonstrations demanding that Saddam comply with the UN did YOU see? |
|
Subject: RE: BS: NON-Partisan political comments From: Little Hawk Date: 30 Mar 06 - 11:24 AM It was a crisis about nothing. He had no weapons of mass destruction. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: NON-Partisan political comments From: beardedbruce Date: 30 Mar 06 - 11:36 AM But did not prove it, nor comply with the inspection requirements until military force was brought into play. AS FAR AS the UN, the US, the EU, and anyone wlse you ask was concerned, he was still working on them, whether he had them in place or not. Would you say that we should not have gone into Germany in WWII because Hitler had NOT conquered the world, as he stated was his intention? Or admit that sometimes force is needed to prevent a greater problem? It was a judgement call as to whether Iraq qualified: BUT there were points on both sides, and the dismissal of the reasons TO attack seems unwarrented by what was know ( or thought) at the time. READ the reports that were being used: IF they were false, Saddam had a large hand in trying to make the world think that he was more dangerous than he was. If someone tells a policeman "I have a gun", the policeman can shoot (when needed) without being accused of attacking an unarmed man- even if the person was lying. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: NON-Partisan political comments From: Little Hawk Date: 30 Mar 06 - 11:38 AM The reason there weren't significant mass demonstrations against Saddam over here, BB, was that Saddam was no real danger to anyone over here, and he had no jurisdiction here against which to demonstrate or which could presumably be influenced by such a demonstration, so what would be the point? ;-) People demonstrate against something that matters, not something that doesn't. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: NON-Partisan political comments From: Little Hawk Date: 30 Mar 06 - 11:45 AM I think you just can't admit to the possibility that the US administration knew very well all along that Saddam was no threat, but simply pretended he was, because they had other reasons for wanting to invade Iraq. I remember when the Iraqis dismantled those not very formidable short range missiles they had...and were bitter about it. What a joke. It was pathetic. They could have done anything, complied with anything, and they would still have been invaded. The decision had already been made way in advance by Washington and the UK, the rest was just phony PR to make it look good to the public. Hitler was a real threat. Saddam was not. He couldn't even defeat Iran in the 80's, and he got a lot of outside help in the form of high tech weapons to do that. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: NON-Partisan political comments From: beardedbruce Date: 30 Mar 06 - 11:47 AM So, if you see a policeman catching a criminal violating the law, you would tell the POLICEMAN to stop what he was doing because someone might get hurt, and the criminal would not listen to you? |
|
Subject: RE: BS: NON-Partisan political comments From: Little Hawk Date: 30 Mar 06 - 11:49 AM I do not regard that as an even remotely valid analogy. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: NON-Partisan political comments From: GUEST,TIA Date: 30 Mar 06 - 11:52 AM Silly analogy. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: NON-Partisan political comments From: beardedbruce Date: 30 Mar 06 - 11:56 AM crossposted... So, what do you think would have happened if Saddam had opened his borders, NOT tried to use military force against the coallition, and declared Iraq to be an open country- and allowed meaningfull inspections? We will never know, since he CHOOSE TO NOT COMPLY with UN1441. With WMD such as biological agents, ANYONE is a real threat. When someone is making threats, has shown in the past to be willing to carry out those threats, and appears to have all the materials to carry out those threats, would YOU consider that he should just be ignored until he carries those threats out? You need to come live in a target zone for a while... |
|
Subject: RE: BS: NON-Partisan political comments From: beardedbruce Date: 30 Mar 06 - 11:57 AM I do not regard the idea of NOT enforcing the terms of the 1991 cease-fire as being even remotely reasonable. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: NON-Partisan political comments From: Arne Date: 31 Mar 06 - 01:18 AM BeardedBruce: [Arne, quoting from Bruce's proffered link]: "the president and the prime minister acknowledged that no unconventional weapons had been found inside Iraq." Never said they were, JUST THAT THE UN DECLARED SADDAM WAS IN NON-COMPLIANCE with 1441, his LAST AND FINAL chance. Ummmm, Brucie: I'm quoting from the link you provided as evidence that "THE UN DECLARED SADDAM WAS IN NON-COMPLIANCE with 1441, his LAST AND FINAL chance" (or alternatively that "the UN report required by 1441 stated that Saddam was in substantial non-compliance, and [Bruce gave] a clicky to it so that all can read it and see."), and I did this to show that these links are far from frinedly to your point of view, and in fact can be taken as evidence against the assertion you claim they support. In fact, I did that repeatedly, just so the cognitively challenged such as (mainly) you might start to catch on. And I pointed out that some of the links you gave didn't use "material breach" much at all, and only once as an assertion, and that they mentioned "substantial non-compliance" not at all). But the cure is yours, Brucie: You can go into those links and show where they say "THE UN DECLARED SADDAM WAS IN NON-COMPLIANCE with 1441, his LAST AND FINAL chance". Read what has been said, not wwhat you want to see. Ummm, that's what I was doing. And I just quoted it right back at you. Maybe you ought to read (and post excerpts from, if you find any helpful) the links you're providing. "IF Iraq chose to cooperate fully, as required. It was a challenge to the Council and an affront to the international community that Iraq was withholding full cooperation. " Ummm, that "IF" there is Blix's assessment at that time as to whether "the period of disarmament through inspections could be 'short'". So what's the opposite of "short", Brucie? [from Brucie's third link]: "Similarly, the representative of Canada said that more time for inspections could be useful, but only IF Iraq decided to cooperate fully and transparently, starting now. While that cooperation was beginning, it was being offered grudgingly and only after intense pressure and the deliberate build-up of MILITARY FORCES in the region." Oh, you snipped the rest of this paragraph, Brucie: "To make clear to Iraq what was expected, the Council must lay out a list of key remaining disarmament tasks and establish an early deadline for compliance. That would allow the international community to judge whether Iraq was cooperating on substance, and not just on process." IOW, the Canadians, favourable to the idea that Saddam's co-operation was somewhat lacking, also were of the opinion that clear and definitive milestones should be laid out to measure whether co-operation was in fact coming and if progress was being made. Hardly sounds like they thought a "last and final chance" had been used up. Yes, Brucie, a threat of military force seems to have done the trick. But the way this kind of s*** works is: You say, "Gimme my rent, or I'll blow your kneecaps off", while cocking your .45 auto. Then the person gives you the rent money and you leave; you're happy and he's happy (he's alive), and eveyone else on the street is prompt on their rent as well. Works wonders even if the ethics may be a little shady. But it doesn't work if he gives you the money, and you tell him it was in the wrong colour of envelope, or he didn't turn all the bills the same way, or he didn't kiss your rosy while handing it over, and then you pop him one anyways. See, then, he's an angry cripple, you're a bullying a$$hole, and the neighbours don't see any purpose in paying up on time because you're gonna pop them no matter what they do. Matter if fact, they may even think about getting guns themselves.... So why'd you snip the Indonesian's comments, Brucie? Because they said that "the objectives of resolution 1441 could still be met"? Doesn't exactly fit your storyline here, so no wonder you ignore it. But the Indonesians' view of the Iraq situation is just as germane to the (supposed) "U.N. position" as is the view of Canada, Norway, or the U.S. They're all members of that body. Your mission, should you choose to accept it, Mr. "Bruce" Phelps, is to find where the U.N. decides as a democratic deliberative body, that "SADDAM WAS IN NON-COMPLIANCE with 1441, his LAST AND FINAL chance". Views of individual members count only as their own. As for "but I know you don't give a damn about them or their families, Brucie...." The blood is on the hands of those, like yyou, who DID NOT DEMAND THAT SADDAM COMPLY, but instead did all they could to lead him to believe that he could get away with continued violation, as he had for 14 years. LOOK at who was making money off the violations of sanctions, and who voted against holding Saddam to the terms of 1441. Ummm, who didn't demand that Saddam comply? The Europeans were all over it, begging Saddam to do everything, anything, even kissing Dubya's a$$ if asked, so war could be avoided. And Saddam did do a hell of a lot (for a sovereign nation) to "comply" as best he could. In fact, his compliance with the required documentation was about as good as he could do, and the accuracy of this document, dissed and dismissed by Dubya and company, was far better than the U.S. presentation to the U.N.. You do agree with that, don't you? So instead of talking about whether Dubya thought that Saddam was complying (when Dubya was a doofus, ignoramus, and first-class jerk), why not talk about whether he actually was complying? Your real problem with the "tu quoque" you're asserting above is that the facts prove that the sanctions did work, and that Saddam was complying with the restrictions on WoMD. Even before the threat of military force! But just one curious question, Brucie: Who did (in your hallucinatory imagination) "vote against holding Saddam to the terms of 1441"? Just curious, you know.... Second thought, another curious question: Who's making money off the occupation? Hmmmm? ""But he toowk a more positive line than in his report two weeks ago, " WELL AFTER THE DEADLINE FOR COOPERATION IN 1441- see note above about Saddam only cooperating AFTER the military buildup. What "deadline"? He met the deadline for the documentation. And he was letting the inspectors do their jobs. What makes you think that a "military buildup" done by the U.S. unilaterally is some kind of U.N. "deadline"? If you think your links prove that the U.N. declared he missed a deadline, feel free to quote the specific language from your links that state this, so we can all stand back in amazement. [Arne]: "First link: Date Nov. 8, 2002" [Arne]: "Second link: Date Nov. 8, 2002 (and a repeat of the first one)" If you show no comprehension of what 1441 says, it is reasonable to present it to you before discussing the failure of Saddam to comply with it. I'm not interested in UNSCR 1441 declaring Saddam in violation of previous resolutions. I'm interested in the U.N. declaring that he was in "material breach" or "substantial non-compliance" with UNSCR 1441 (something that was pointed out to him would be met with "serious consequences"). And to my mind, the gravamen of UNSCR 1441 was that Saddam disarm any WoMD (and do so to the satisfaction of the U.N.) But that he was doing (and would have completed had Junior not started crossing his legs and squirming too much). If just the fact of non-compliance with U.N. resolutions (historical or otherwise) is enough justification for any other county to unilaterally invade, then you'd agree that any Arab state (or even Upper Phlogistan, if they feel like it) should be able to invade (or attempt to invade) Israel for its longterm disregard for the requirements of far more U.N. resolutions than Iraq. Right??? "Holding Iraq in "material breach" of its obligations under previous resolutions, the Security Council this morning decided to afford it a "final opportunity to comply" with its disarmament obligations, while setting up an enhanced inspection regime for full and verified completion of the disarmament process established by resolution 687 (1991).... See above comment. ... By the unanimous adoption of resolution 1441 (2002), the Council instructed the resumed inspections to begin within 45 days, and also decided it would convene immediately upon the receipt of any reports from inspection authorities that Iraq was interfering with their activities. It recalled, in that context, that the Council had repeatedly warned Iraq that it would face "serious consequences" as a result of continued violations.... The inspections began. And Saddam gave over the documents required. In fact, UNSCR 1441 also required that any member states having information pertinent to the matter turn that information over to the inspectors. But the U.S. balked on that, refusing to give the inspectors the specifics of this information until much later (and only under duress) ... and when the U.N. inspectors finally got the information, they did try to check it out, and termed it "garbage, garbage, and more garbage". So if we're talking contempt of the U.N, shouldn't we invade ourselves? ... Under the new inspection regime established by the resolution, the United Nations Monitoring, Verification and Inspection Commission (UNMOVIC) and the International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA) would have "immediate, unimpeded, unconditional and unrestricted access" to any sites and buildings in Iraq, including presidential sites. They would also have the right to remove or destroy any weapons, or related items, they found.... And they got it. They checked under the palaces for the "bio-labs" the U.S. said were there (and followed many other wild-goose chases after U.S. "intelligence"). And came up with zip. ... The Council demanded that Iraq confirm, within seven days, its intention to comply fully with the resolution. It further decided that, within 30 days, Iraq, in order to begin to comply with its obligations, should provide to UNMOVIC, the IAEA and the Council a complete declaration of all aspects of its programmes to develop chemical, biological and nuclear weapons, including chemical, biological and nuclear programmes it claims are for purposes not related to weapons production or material. Any false statement or omission in the declaration will be considered a further material breach of Iraq's obligations, and will be reported to the Council for assessment." Yep. Did that. As I said, a much more accurate (and timely) report than the U.S. gave. [Arne]: "Endless repetition of the same ol' crap is not any kind of proof" THIS I can agree with- so when will you show me where Saddam COMPLIED with 1441?????? Ummm, it's your assertion (that the U.N. said that Saddam didn't comply). Don't try to shift the burder of production to me. But as I've noted (and as your lying eyes told you, with TV of Blix on the ground, the documentary evidence of the Iraqi weapons report, the video clips of the al Samouds being destroyed, etc.), Saddam did comply. But did not prove it, nor comply with the inspection requirements until military force was brought into play.... Funny. I thought that the U.S. insisted the U.N. inspectors get out of Baghdad before the U.S. invasion, not that they insisted that the U.N. inspectors be let in after the invasion. Guess we live on different worlds, Brucie. Perhaps universes. AS FAR AS the UN, the US, the EU, and anyone wlse you ask was concerned, he was still working on them, whether he had them in place or not. Nope. Many thought he may have them (some thought wrongly that he did), but when the evidence on the ground showed that there was little if anything there, and that the U.S. "intelligence" and their repeated assertions before the U.N. and elsewhere was "garbage, garbage, and more garbage", many had a more sceptical and jaundiced view towards pulling the trigger. Which is why Dubya would have failed to get the U.N. to go along and agree with Dubya that Saddam had blown hos chance and needed to be invaded (despite Dubya's promise to force such a vote, a promise he later reneged on). Would you say that we should not have gone into Germany in WWII because Hitler had NOT conquered the world, as he stated was his intention? Or admit that sometimes force is needed to prevent a greater problem? Totally stoopid attempt at an analogy. But right off the pages of the RNC "spin points" (and the propaganda campaigns of the likes of Rummy and Condi). It was a judgement call as to whether Iraq qualified: BUT there were points on both sides, and the dismissal of the reasons TO attack seems unwarrented by what was know ( or thought) at the time. To morons, if I may say so. But (not surprisingly) a large percentage of people around the entire world are not morons. Sorry to hear about your handicap, Brucie. But: "WE TOLD YOU SO!!!!" READ the reports that were being used: IF they were false, Saddam had a large hand in trying to make the world think that he was more dangerous than he was. A different point (and another RNC "talking point"). One I'll disagree with. I think I hear it mostly from people trying to justify why they were so freakin' wrong. The main "evidence" (if you can call it that) for the many horrible WoMDs that Saddam supposedly had came from maladministration hawks with their own agenda (and secret purposes; Google "PNAC" [and add in "Netanyahu" and "Bamford" for some really fun stuff]) ... and from Chalabi's INC thugs (that even Clinton's CIA thought were useless). Unless you can show that Saddam was in cahoots with Libby, Cheney, Wolfowitz, and Chalabi's INC, you're full'o'it. If someone tells a policeman "I have a gun", the policeman can shoot (when needed) without being accused of attacking an unarmed man- even if the person was lying. Saddam did nothing of the sort. You're just being dishonest here. A little confession is good for the soul, Brucie. With WMD such as biological agents, ANYONE is a real threat. Oh. Like the U.S., you mean???? When someone is making threats, has shown in the past to be willing to carry out those threats, and appears to have all the materials to carry out those threats, would YOU consider that he should just be ignored until he carries those threats out? You need to come live in a target zone for a while... Hmmmmmm. *searching fuzzy folds of long-term memory* Ummmmmm. Yeaaaahhh. That's right, Brucie! There is one country that has positively demonstrated the will to use nuclear weapons (the really big threat that such as Cheney, Dubya, and Rice kept harping on), that is known to possess such, and in fact has even talked recently about maybe using them under the right circumstances. Now who could that be? On the tip of my tongue.... I do not regard the idea of NOT enforcing the terms of the 1991 cease-fire as being even remotely reasonable. I don't regard you as "being even remotely reasonable". Guess we're even. Say, why did Dubya think he'd have to produce a "provocation" (that U-2 scheme you've studiously ignored) in order to be able to go to war? Doesn't say much for your case for war when even your hero thought he had to "game" the system.... I'll be looking for those quotes from U.S. resolutions declaring Saddam in "substantial non-compliance" with UNSCR 1441. But I promise you I won't hold my breath. Cheers, |
|
Subject: RE: BS: NON-Partisan political comments From: beardedbruce Date: 05 Apr 06 - 06:18 AM back to thread topic- (I think the last post exceeded the allowed size) From Little Hawk "Science and advanced religion are natural allies. They ask the same great questions: What is life? Where did it come from? Where did we come from? What is our nature and the nature of other things around us? Why do things function as they do? How can we improve what we see around us? How can we achieve greater things? How can we be happy? " |
|
Subject: RE: BS: NON-Partisan political comments From: Arne Date: 05 Apr 06 - 11:24 AM IOW, Bruce has no response, and is going to ignore me. Imagine that. Cheers, |
|
Subject: RE: BS: NON-Partisan political comments From: beardedbruce Date: 05 Apr 06 - 11:27 AM Arnie, See the thread I will start. Cheers |
|
Subject: RE: BS: NON-Partisan political comments From: beardedbruce Date: 06 Apr 06 - 06:26 AM Sorry, Arnie- I did start the thread, but it has been removed... You have been given my response, yet keep insisting on the lie that Saddam HAD complied with UNR1441- If the UN is not a valid source for you, I guess there can be no discussion. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: NON-Partisan political comments From: Arne Date: 06 Apr 06 - 08:05 AM BeardedBruce: You have been given my response, yet keep insisting on the lie that Saddam HAD complied with UNR1441-... Oh, nonsense. I keep seeing you say that Saddam didn't comply with UNSCR 1441, but you have yet to post any link or reference to where the UN says such. Then your further task -- should you decide to accept, Mr. Phelps -- is to show where the UN then deemed it justified, based on the level of such alleged non-compliance, to initiate an armed invasion, much less authorised anyone to do such. While you're at it, why don't you post the pictures of all the "Blue Helmets" going in to Iraq, in March 2003, OK? ... If the UN is not a valid source for you, I guess there can be no discussion. If pig had wings, we'd all need cast-iron umbrellas.... Do feel free to show where the UN said such a thing (a suggestion I believe I made before, but which for some reason you ignored). OBTW, I responded to your (not the UN's) repeated assertions above at quite some length and in detail. I guess I'm just not seeing why you think that simply reasserting your conclusion for the Nth time without any supporting references or backup constitutes some kind of "argument" ... unless you're of the Monty Python school of argument.... Perhaps you'd like to take the time to respond to what I said, eh? Cheers, |
|
Subject: RE: BS: NON-Partisan political comments From: beardedbruce Date: 06 Apr 06 - 08:36 AM from one of the clickies I posted earlier: "UNITED NATIONS March 12, 2003 In a two-day debate, that began yesterday and concluded this afternoon, the Security Council heard from 51 Member States and two regional organizations on the crisis surrounding Iraq's disarmament. The request to hear non-Council members in open debate was made by the 116-member Non-Aligned Movement, as closed consultations continued on the draft resolution co-sponsored by the United Kingdom, United States, and Spain that would set a clear deadline for Iraq to comply with its obligations or face military action. Today, several speakers, among them the representatives of Japan, Latvia, Georgia and the Dominican Republic, voiced support for the draft resolution. Japan's representative said that even though some progress had been observed recently, Iraqi cooperation was still insufficient and limited. The proposed draft resolution was truly a 'final effort' to place the consolidated pressure of the international community on Iraq, and to lead it to disarm voluntarily. If it was not adopted and the international community was divided, not only would that benefit Iraq, but it would also raise grave doubts about the authority and effectiveness of the United Nations. " NOTE that this is AFTER the date by which Iraq was required to comply. "The Council demanded that Iraq confirm, within seven days, its intention to comply fully with the resolution. It further decided that, within 30 days, Iraq, in order to begin to comply with its obligations, should provide to UNMOVIC, the IAEA and the Council a complete declaration of all aspects of its programmes to develop chemical, biological and nuclear weapons, including chemical, biological and nuclear programmes it claims are for purposes not related to weapons production or material. Any false statement or omission in the declaration will be considered a further material breach of Iraq's obligations, and will be reported to the Council for assessment." |
|
Subject: RE: BS: NON-Partisan political comments From: beardedbruce Date: 06 Apr 06 - 08:46 AM from UNR 1441 "Holding Iraq in "material breach" of its obligations under previous resolutions, the Security Council this morning decided to afford it a "final opportunity to comply" with its disarmament obligations, while setting up an enhanced inspection regime for full and verified completion of the disarmament process established by resolution 687 (1991)." Is there some problem with the word FINAL, that you do not understand what it means? |
|
Subject: RE: BS: NON-Partisan political comments From: Arne Date: 06 Apr 06 - 01:21 PM BeardedBruce: from one of the clickies I posted earlier: "UNITED NATIONS March 12, 2003 In a two-day debate, that began yesterday and concluded this afternoon, the Security Council heard from 51 Member States and two regional organizations on the crisis surrounding Iraq's disarmament. The request to hear non-Council members in open debate was made by the 116-member Non-Aligned Movement, as closed consultations continued on the draft resolution co-sponsored by the United Kingdom, United States, and Spain that would set a clear deadline for Iraq to comply with its obligations or face military action. Today, several speakers, among them the representatives of Japan, Latvia, Georgia and the Dominican Republic, voiced support for the draft resolution. Japan's representative said that even though some progress had been observed recently, Iraqi cooperation was still insufficient and limited. The proposed draft resolution was truly a 'final effort' to place the consolidated pressure of the international community on Iraq, and to lead it to disarm voluntarily. If it was not adopted and the international community was divided, not only would that benefit Iraq, but it would also raise grave doubts about the authority and effectiveness of the United Nations. " Yeah, what happened to the draft resolution, Brucie? Dubya promised he'd force an "up or down" vote on it regardless, and call the alleged bluff of those that might vote against it or veto it, but when it became apparent that, despite bribery and arm-twisting by the U.S., it was not even going to get a majority vote (that would require a veto if someone actually had that intention), Dubya reneged on his promise and shelved the resolution. So where's that leave you, Brucie? They didn't pass this resolution, much as the U.S. wanted it. But the wants of the maladministration don't count as to what the U.N. decides. NOTE that this is AFTER the date by which Iraq was required to comply. "The Council demanded that Iraq confirm, within seven days, its intention to comply fully with the resolution. It further decided that, within 30 days, Iraq, in order to begin to comply with its obligations, should provide to UNMOVIC, the IAEA and the Council a complete declaration of all aspects of its programmes to develop chemical, biological and nuclear weapons, including chemical, biological and nuclear programmes it claims are for purposes not related to weapons production or material. Any false statement or omission in the declaration will be considered a further material breach of Iraq's obligations, and will be reported to the Council for assessment." Bruce, Bruce, Bruce. Don't be so dense. Did you read what I wrote above? This is from the UNSCR 1441, and Iraq complied with both these demands. In fact, as I've pointed out multiple times, Iraq's declaration was far more accurate ... and more timely ... than the U.S. information provided the weapons inspectors and their little dog'n'pony show for the U.N. from UNR 1441 "Holding Iraq in "material breach" of its obligations under previous resolutions, the Security Council this morning decided to afford it a "final opportunity to comply" with its disarmament obligations, while setting up an enhanced inspection regime for full and verified completion of the disarmament process established by resolution 687 (1991)." Is there some problem with the word FINAL, that you do not understand what it means? Nope. Iraq did take this "final" chance and comply. Not that it mattered. Every day brings new evidence that Dubya was determined to invade no matter what. "F*** Saddam, we're taking him out." Ring a bell there, Brucie? You're also ignoring my comment about Dubya trying to provoke a casus belli with the U-2 shenanigans ... so clearly Dubya wasn't all that confident about his "authorisation". Why bother with the hijinks if the UN Security Council was behind him all the way? To appease the RW foamers here in the States that don't believe in UN authority? *sheesh* Give it a rest, Brucie. You've shot your wad and you sunk below the waves long ago. Cheers, |
|
Subject: RE: BS: NON-Partisan political comments From: beardedbruce Date: 06 Apr 06 - 01:31 PM " Iraq complied with both these demands. In fact, as I've pointed out multiple times, Iraq's declaration was far more accurate ... and more timely ... " Nope "Why bother with the hijinks if the UN Security Council was behind him all the way?" You have stated this: I never said the UN was behind him all the way. I said that they declared Saddam in non-compliance with 1441. "Iraq did take this "final" chance and comply" Nope, again. Try showing me a statement where the UN declares that Saddam HAD complied. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: NON-Partisan political comments From: Arne Date: 06 Apr 06 - 07:45 PM BeardedBruce: [Arne]: "Iraq complied with both these demands. In fact, as I've pointed out multiple times, Iraq's declaration was far more accurate ... and more timely ..." Nope Iraq announced their intention to comply before the deadline. See this: Although Iraq was given until November 15 to accept the resolution, they agreed on November 13. Weapons inspectors, absent from Iraq since December 1998, returned later that month, led by Hans Blix of UNMOVIC and Mohamed ElBaradei of the IAEA.As for the timely delivery of the declaration, put this in your pipe and smoke it. Better than that crack you're seemingly toking. Once again, turned over before the deadline (by a day). See also this and this. Now that you're shown to be a liar and/or an ignoramus, what have you to say, Brucie? For the Iraqi timeliness and accuracy, we have the above links. What about the U.S.?: The accuracy of the U.S. "intelligence"? ROFLMAO!!!!! That's a pretty sick joke by now (although Dubya seems to have thought it was a riot at the Gridiron Club). But here's what was said about it even before Dubya invaded: So frustrated have the inspectors become that one source has referred to the U.S. intelligence they've been getting as "garbage after garbage after garbage." In fact, Phillips says the source used another cruder word.The timeliness? Despite the UNSCR 1441 resolution provision requiring that any nation with relevant information turn such over to the UN inspectors, the U.S. stonewalled them as long as possible and only reluctantly turned over the "garbage after garbage after garbage". See here and here. Your goose is cooked, Brucie. In fact, toast. Charred to a crisp. [Arne]: "Why bother with the hijinks if the UN Security Council was behind him all the way?" You have stated this: I never said the UN was behind him all the way. I said that they declared Saddam in non-compliance with 1441. You've stated the latter (repeatedly). I've said that repeated assertion is hardly evidence, much less proof. The former is just my pithy way of characterising your claim that the U.N. found Saddam in contempt of UNSCR 1441 and thus had authorised "serious consequences" (i.e., militgary action) begin. [Arne]: "Iraq did take this "final" chance and comply" Nope, again. *sheesh* See above. Try showing me a statement where the UN declares that Saddam HAD complied. Shifting the burden of proof, eh? No, I made no such assertion. It is your assertion that "they declared Saddam in non-compliance with 1441" that needs to be backed up with some kind of evidence. The "evidence" you have produced has been countered and completely rebutted by me (yet you ignore what I said and continue yapping your RNC "talking points" over and over like the good sock puppet you are). And I say that for the googlth time. Maybe one of these days you will start to understand plain English and figure out what it means. Cheers, |
|
Subject: RE: BS: NON-Partisan political comments From: beardedbruce Date: 08 Apr 06 - 09:27 AM and from TIA, "Political party loyalty is far more important that principles these days." |
|
Subject: RE: BS: NON-Partisan political comments From: Arne Date: 09 Apr 06 - 12:37 PM BeardedBruce: "Political party loyalty is far more important that principles these days." Think that refers to the Republicans. You've been working overtime (see above), but there has to be a point where you start to say "It's just not worth the enduring harm to my own integrity to spew the same old 'talking point' propaganda and lies...", eh? Did we reach that point, I hope? Cheers, |
|
Subject: RE: BS: NON-Partisan political comments From: beardedbruce Date: 09 Apr 06 - 12:57 PM Arne, I was trying to get back to the intent of THIS thread- and I think that the quote applies EQUALLY to both political parties. If you cannot see that, you are blinder than I had thought. It does not matter how many times I point out that THE UN DECLARED, in the final report required by UNR1441, that Saddam HAD NOT COMPLIED. You will keep saying that , "IF" we just gave him enough time, he would have complied. BUT the resolution HAD a time limit for the report- and THAT report said that he had NOT complied. Any statement you make otherwise is "propaganda and lies". IF I believed that you had any interest in the truth, the discussion might be worthwhile- As it is, you have never given me any of the "STATEMENTS" that support what you say happened- just comments that it looks like, someday, maybe, he might have given the UN some of what it required. It is clear you can't read the text of UNR1441, nor the report that it mandated. Now, if you want to keep at spewing the same old 'talking points' PLEASE OPEN ANOTHER THREAD. I tried to, but was informed it might be insulting to you, so it was removed. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: NON-Partisan political comments From: beardedbruce Date: 10 Apr 06 - 02:03 PM and from Little Hawk: "People with opinions are blockheads. They search out whatever shreds of information they can find to support their opinion. They discount or ignore what does not support it. They are almost impermeable to anything that doesn't support it. They have no patience for another point of view. They are NOT truly objective." |
|
Subject: RE: BS: NON-Partisan political comments From: Arne Date: 10 Apr 06 - 05:05 PM BeardedBruce: It does not matter how many times I point out that THE UN DECLARED, in the final report required by UNR1441, that Saddam HAD NOT COMPLIED. You misspelled "allege". ;-) You're right, it doesn't matter. Your assertions aren't worth a bucket of warm spit. What does matter is whether the UN "declared Saddam in non-compliance with 1441", and that they didn't do (much less authorise military invasion as the "serious consequences" that should ensue if Saddam was in fact declared to be in material non-compliance with UNSCR 1441 [which he wasn't]). Slender reed to hang 2300+ dead U.S. soldiers, maybe a trillion is U.S. money, and an Iraq in total shambles and a far greater threat to U.S. security and interests than it was, on. You have no shame, Brucie, defending the indefencible here. If there is a god, your soul will burn in hell. You will keep saying that , "IF" we just gave him enough time, he would have complied. He was complying. No one (at least no sapient person) thought the inspections and verification could be done instantaneously. Even those that were taken in by the U.S. "garbage, garbage, and more ga...." -- ummm, sorry, they were calling it "intelligence -- and as you point out, that included quite a number of folks in Europe and elsewhere before the inspections began, decided after the inspections were turning up zilch that the most prudent course was to let them have more time to complete the process and then assess what the next course of action should be. This included El Baradei and Blix, of course, who, while initially given some resistance from Saddam, thought (correctly) that they could finish the job withough getting hundreds of thousands (including mostly civilians) killed. IF I believed that you had any interest in the truth, the discussion might be worthwhile- If you ever meet up with truth in your peregrinations, Brucie, you should try to strike up an acquaintance. I've provided links in my last long post proving you to be a liar or a moron. As it is, you have never given me any of the "STATEMENTS" that support what you say happened-.... I just gave you a passel of links, dear Brucie. You totally ignored them. ... just comments that it looks like, someday, maybe, he might have given the UN some of what it required. Ummm, what was "required", Brucie? In the grand scheme of things, not a damn thing! Saddam didn't have any WoMD. How's Saddam supposed to comply in 'turning over any WoMD' and "disclosing his secret weapons programs' when he doesn't have any. They gave a report (as required) that was pretty much accurate ... but the U.S. tossed it of as garbage (while the U.S. "intelligence" was the real "garbage") and wouldn't accept that answer. The U.S., on manufactured and shoddy evidence, presented a picture in front of the U.N. about all kinds of nefarious programs, none of which existed. That would be perjury in a court of law, Brucie. The U.N., rightly so, remained sceptical of the U.S. crapola and took a "wait and see" attitude. It is my opinion that the U.S., rather than letting themselves be shown to be fools or worse, quickly decided to attack knowing that it was all based on a lie. Only problem with this strategy was that they needed to find at least enough old WoMD still around to make for a superficially plausible case for starting hostilities ... and/or they needed to "free" Iraq so that people would forget about the WoMD rationale and say "well, it turned out for the best anyway, so let's just ignore the false pretenses. But neither of these things came to pass, and Dubya managed to make a complete SNAFU of it just like he's done with everything else in his miserable life. He deserves to be tried and convicted of crimes against humanity. It is clear you can't read the text of UNR1441, nor the report that it mandated. Nonsense. I can read both. But Blix doesn't get to call in the Air Force. As I pointed out above, it is the prerogative of the U.N., in deliberation and decision by its member states, to decide what should happen if UNSCR 1441 was not being heeded (and based on how and how substantially it wasn't being heeded). Blix's reports of some non-compliance, resistance, or non-co-operation in some areas has to be taken as a whole, particularly when Blix's latest reports were indicating substantial improvement in compliance, and when Blix himself pleaded for more time to finish the job. If you think, like Dubya, that any hint of non-compliance (and failure to kiss Dubya's a$$ as well) is sufficient reason to go to war, then you, like Dubya, think that war is the first option and not the last despite Dubya once again recently spewing the outright lie than war ... and the deaths of thousands of U.S. soldiers ... is the last alternative. Just a FYI, Brucie: The American public ain't buying it any more, and there will be hell to pay for the maladministration here. Say, you never answered my question: Seeeing as Israel is in non-compliance with many U.N. resolutions, is it perfectly OK for anyone to attack them any time they want? Now, if you want to keep at spewing the same old 'talking points' PLEASE OPEN ANOTHER THREAD. I tried to, but was informed it might be insulting to you, so it was removed. My, my, my, Brucie. Got caught wid' yer pants down, eh? LOL. Cheers, |
|
Subject: RE: BS: NON-Partisan political comments From: beardedbruce Date: 27 Apr 06 - 01:43 PM Subject: RE: BS: Who are the Mudcat Iconoclasts? From: The Shambles - PM Date: 27 Apr 06 - 12:15 PM It is better for a party to be in opposition and explaining how they would make things better - than it is for them to be in power and having to find excuses for why things are not. Prentice Worthrope-Manly |
|
Subject: RE: BS: NON-Partisan political comments From: GUEST Date: 27 Apr 06 - 02:05 PM Yaaaaaaaaaaaaawn, zzzzzzzzzzzzzzz. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: NON-Partisan political comments From: beardedbruce Date: 12 May 06 - 07:58 AM Subject: RE: BS: End War on Terror criteria From: Foolestroupe - PM Date: 11 May 06 - 10:45 PM Little Hawk If you sit on the fence, both sides throw rocks at you. Subject: RE: BS: End War on Terror criteria From: Little Hawk - PM Date: 11 May 06 - 11:54 PM Yes, they do...because most people would rather just automatically jump onto their familiar favorite side than think. It's too much work thinking. It's too much work seeing yourself in the other person, and admitting that he too may have a point that's worth considering. And that is precisely what poisons partisan politics in every election and turns the debate into nothing more than a useless battle of competing egos. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: NON-Partisan political comments From: beardedbruce Date: 12 May 06 - 07:59 AM Subject: RE: BS: End War on Terror criteria From: Little Hawk - PM Date: 12 May 06 - 12:25 AM ..... The objective of a discussion shouldn't necessarily be to "win" or "lose", it should be to explore the subject thoroughly, discover some new things, and arrive at a deeper understanding. Any clearly conducted discussion or debate between people who are willing to honestly listen to one another ought usually to lead to greater mutual respect, and to discovery of common ground...but it doesn't if one or both are simply set on "winning". |
|
Subject: RE: BS: NON-Partisan political comments From: beardedbruce Date: 12 May 06 - 01:49 PM Subject: RE: BS: End War on Terror criteria From: Foolestroupe - PM Date: 12 May 06 - 07:44 AM Yeah, debating taught me that. "Your emotions may have been what betrayed you when it came to arguing on the side you naturally favored." Nope - you just get lazy tracing out the logic to defend what you 'know' when you are bigoted... ;-) -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Post - Top - Forum Home - Printer Friendly - Translate -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Subject: RE: BS: End War on Terror criteria From: Little Hawk - PM Date: 12 May 06 - 01:42 PM Yeah, that makes sense. I'm going to look up "bigot" and find out exactly what it means, according to the dictionary. Hang on... Ah... "someone obstinately and intolerantly devoted to his own beliefs, creed or party" "someone who is narrow-minded or prejudiced". Well, all I can say about that is that 99.999 % of all human beings who have ever lived were and are bigots. Including me and everyone else who has ever posted to a political thread on this forum. Teribus was right in his post awhile back then...I am a bigot, so is he, and so are the rest of us! ;-) But I'll tell you what "bigot" means in normal usage as most people use it. It means only this: "someone who is obstinately and intolerantly devoted to beliefs that differ from MINE! (because MINE are the only valid beliefs)" This is why I can laugh at myself as well as others. I know I'm prejudiced, just like other people are. I wish more people had enough self-awareness to do that. It would make human relations a lot more reasonable around here. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: NON-Partisan political comments From: beardedbruce Date: 15 May 06 - 10:36 AM From LH as something on Mudcat they find deeply objectionable in the same way. Wow! That surprised me. That, I was not expecting at all. My goodness! All I can do is shrug wearily and say..."C'est la vie!" No matter what anyone's personal style is, some people will hate it, some will love it, and others will be largely indifferent toward it or only slightly affected by it. That's the way it goes when you throw together many different personalities and they have to deal with one another in one venue or circumstance. No matter how hard I...or anyone...has ever tried, they could not please everybody. I am certainly glad not to be a politician, and not to be famous either. It would be like being in hell, trying to meet all those expectations other people have of you. The best anyone can hope for in this life is to be left alone by other people, in my opinion, and not to be judged by them. Who has ever been so lucky as that? |
|
Subject: RE: BS: NON-Partisan political comments From: beardedbruce Date: 15 Jun 06 - 01:58 PM From LH "Party politics divides people against each other in a very bad way. That's one reason why I really DON'T like political parties. And that goes for ALL of them. " |
|
Subject: RE: BS: NON-Partisan political comments From: GUEST Date: 03 Oct 06 - 01:53 AM From: Little Hawk Date: 01 Oct 06 - 06:44 PM People like it when you say stuff they agree with, and they praise you for it. They dislike it when you don't say stuff they agree with, and they question your thinking, your intelligence, and your character. There's really not much more to it than that. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: NON-Partisan political comments From: beardedbruce Date: 08 Dec 06 - 01:34 PM Subject: RE: BS: David Lynch and 9-11 From: Bill D - PM Date: 08 Dec 06 - 12:25 PM People's minds can be set to sort data to please themselves, independent of reality. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: NON-Partisan political comments From: GUEST,beardedbruce Date: 30 Dec 06 - 08:38 AM Bot politicl, but too good to let it go... From: kendall Date: 30 Dec 06 - 08:33 AM One should be always drunk. That is all: the whole question. In order not to feel the horrible burden of Time, which is breaking your shoulders and bearing you to earth, you must be drunk without cease. But, drunk on what? On wine, poetry, or whiskey, as you choose. But get drunk. And if sometimes, on the steps of a palace, on the green grass of a moat, in the dull solitude of your chamber, you awake with your intoxication already lessened or gone, ask of the wind, the wave, the star, the clock, of everything that flies, sobs, rolls, sings, talks, what is the hour? and the wind, the wave, the star, the bird, the clock will answer, "It is the hour to get drunk!" Not to be the martyred slave of time, get drunk; get drunk unceasingly. Wine, poetry, or virtue, as you choose. (Baudilaire) |
|
Subject: RE: BS: NON-Partisan political comments From: GUEST Date: 25 Feb 07 - 09:36 AM From Bobert: "It all depends on the wording, meathodology and the motives of the pollster/s... I don't trust any poll that is released by a party that has soemthing to gain from the results of the poll... This, of course, includes all politicans and political parties and many so-called objective organizations which have their own axes to grind... " |
|
Subject: RE: BS: NON-Partisan political comments From: beardedbruce Date: 21 Mar 07 - 01:27 PM maybe not overtly political, but sensible: Thank you, lox. 8-{E "Subject: RE: BS: sissy crap... From: GUEST,lox - PM Date: 21 Mar 07 - 01:15 PM I agree with just about nothing Tarheel says when he posts on matters political, But I have no doubt in my mind whatsoever that he is a genuine person who believes that his approach to life and his understanding of the world is the best way forward for humans and in the best interests of humanity. He posts with self assurance, tenacity and belief. He believes passionately in his point of view and states it, not to offend, but because he thinks he has something to say that matters and is relevant. I respect him for these things and would rather see his perspecetive as a welcome challenge, to sharpen my wits and test my understanding, than slag him off because he posts something that he finds funny. So you don't find it funny. Big Mick I respect you too. But I think you are wrong on this one. I think you are guilty of a different type of Machismo in this instance. The criticism you make of Tarheel is mere recognition of his special brand of weakness and frailty. The way you slag it off, and the language you use are very much about "talking tough" "little boy" etc Perhaps we're all scared little boys (and girls) sometimes and it's nothing to be ashamed of - you make it sound like a reason to despise him -> cos you're tougher than that? So what if he got it from someone else? None of us are truly original. So what if he finds it funny? I think some of it is. " |
|
Subject: RE: BS: NON-Partisan political comments From: beardedbruce Date: 29 Mar 07 - 10:02 AM A search for truth has nothing to do with political leanings. from Wolfgang |
|
Subject: RE: BS: NON-Partisan political comments From: beardedbruce Date: 26 Apr 07 - 10:57 AM Subject: RE: BS: Free speech- IF they agree with you From: McGrath of Harlow - PM Date: 25 Apr 07 - 06:18 PM It's not a bad idea to make some effort to get at the actual facts in an incident before passing judgement on the basis of a snippet in the press. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: NON-Partisan political comments From: beardedbruce Date: 22 May 07 - 01:38 PM "DonMeixner - PM Date: 22 May 07 - 01:34 PM It is fine with me if ... wants to have an opinion and state it. I have a personal philosophy of "Speak your Mind." This means words I get to hear words I want as well as words I don't. You just can't develop an intelligent opinion until you hear what the other guy has to say." |
|
Subject: RE: BS: NON-Partisan political comments From: Dickey Date: 22 May 07 - 02:13 PM "we-won-so-kiss-our-asses" I think it is a more like we-think-you-cheated-so-we-will-kick-your-asses. Like those old confederates that said "the south shall rise again" People need to realize that nobody is right all the time and nobody is wrong all the time. They need to search for when someone is right and when they are wrong rather than label someone good or bad. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: NON-Partisan political comments From: Stringsinger Date: 23 May 07 - 10:25 AM BB since you changed the subject, the traditional moderate Democrat is a myth. There are Right-leaning Dems and Left-leaning ones. The idea of "centrist" is a ruse used by those who claim impartiality. When you scratch that surface, the impartiality is gone. Christopher Hitchens has a definition of the term "bullshitter". This is someone who attempts to manipulate and control others by their ideology without giving credence to another point of view. I think that in many instances there are no non-partisan comments that are political. Politics is the art of persuasion and often bypasses critical thinking in its application. Frank |
|
Subject: RE: BS: NON-Partisan political comments From: beardedbruce Date: 23 May 07 - 10:44 AM ??????????????????? Please let me know what that last came from. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: NON-Partisan political comments From: beardedbruce Date: 24 May 07 - 03:14 PM From: Wesley S - PM Date: 24 May 07 - 02:10 PM Anyone who has an opinion - and shares it on the www - is bound to be able to find someone who will disagree with that opinion. Overall most of us think the Mudcat is worth it. But if you were hoping to find a place where everyone agreed with you all the time - then the Mudcat isn't it. And just because someone doesn't agree with you doesn't make them an "arsehole". |
|
Subject: RE: BS: NON-Partisan political comments From: beardedbruce Date: 31 May 07 - 09:24 PM Sorry for the editing, but names are not needed... Lonesome EJ - PM Date: 31 May 07 - 09:13 PM ... Now if you want to argue about something I actually said instead of setting up a strawman of what you think I believe, I'll deal with you the same way, and we can have an honest disagreement. Or you can stand on your soapbox and fume. If it's the soapbox, just leave me out of it, please. I often disagree with ... and with ..., but I respect them, and you don't find me putting words in their mouths to try to slant the argument. That's what separates this forum from many of the slam-arenas on the net. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: NON-Partisan political comments From: beardedbruce Date: 15 Jun 07 - 03:47 PM From an article on the fighting in Gaza: ""Today everybody is with Hamas because Hamas won the battle. If Fatah had won the battle they'd be with Fatah. We are a hungry people, we are with whoever gives us a bag of flour and a food coupon," said Yousef, 30. "Me, I'm with God and a bag of flour."" |
|
Subject: RE: BS: NON-Partisan political comments From: beardedbruce Date: 24 Jun 07 - 07:25 AM Subject: RE: BS: Michael Moore - 9/11 could be inside job From: McGrath of Harlow - PM Date: 23 Jun 07 - 04:59 PM For once I find myself agreeing with bearded bruce in that last post of his. Discussions, however heated, should always involve responding to what people have actually said, and what is actually implied by that, not setting up Aunt Sallies we can easily knock down. Our aim shouldn't be to "win an argument", but to explore and understand differences, and sometimes discover unexpected points where we actually agree. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: NON-Partisan political comments From: Bill D Date: 24 Jun 07 - 12:23 PM well, that is indeed a fine sentiment, Bruce. Does this mean we'll not be getting any more posts beginning with: "...so you're saying that..."? If it is your intention to hold to the claim of "...and you don't find me putting words in their mouths to try to slant the argument.", you will need to be VERY careful. I totally agree that exploring & understanding should be the main goal, even as we seek to be sure OUR opinion is well represented....but humans being what they are, good intentions will slip.... |
|
Subject: RE: BS: NON-Partisan political comments From: beardedbruce Date: 25 Jul 07 - 09:17 AM "From: John 'Giok' MacKenzie - PM Date: 25 Jul 07 - 04:44 AM The one thing that people with sincerely held beliefs can't stand, is other people with sincerely held beliefs. Well ones that contradict theirs anyway. Accept other people's views, and get on with life, you will never get everybody to agree with you, live with it! G. " |
|
Subject: RE: BS: NON-Partisan political comments From: beardedbruce Date: 20 Dec 07 - 02:41 PM Not intended as political, but too true to let it fade away... THANK YOU, Joe! From: Joe Offer - PM Date: 20 Dec 07 - 02:34 PM ..... But as for rash generalizations - They Drive Me Bonkers!!! (and there are many such generalizations in this thread) I think Mudcat needs a new slogan: Think Grey. Too many people see things only in black-and-white. In my experience, very few things in life are all right or all wrong. Most things, experiences, people, and groups have both good and bad aspects. 'nuff said. -Joe Offer- |
|
Subject: RE: BS: NON-Partisan political comments From: Sorcha Date: 20 Dec 07 - 03:28 PM Non Partisan political comment: Bah Humbug. A plague on both their houses. Get thee behind me! Well, I guess that was 3 comments,huh? |
|
Subject: RE: BS: NON-Partisan political comments From: Stringsinger Date: 20 Dec 07 - 04:07 PM There is a notion that there is a "centrist" position in a political spectrum. I consider that a myth. Because of upbringing, environmental attitudes, philosophy of the importance of being a nurturer or an authoritarian (see George Lakoff on this), people develop ideas about governing very early. The problem is how to address the partisanship that grows out of radically different world views. A sense of justice sometimes leads to a kind of self-righteous anger which obscures the need for resolving differences in a peaceful and logical manner. Sometimes though, accomodation is not a good thing. Compromise weakens certain positions that are taken that may be unpopular but nonetheless good for society. Women's rights, for example. Abolition. The repeal of child labor laws. The idea is that it's "good to get along and not go along." I think the thread here is problematic in that partisanship is built in to the political system. There is a position or a neutralizing or weakening of that position. Accomodation as for example in the aforementioned social movements is often harmful and regressive to those movements. The solution to polarized views is not anger or "my way or the highway". The solution is understanding the rationale behind a point of view that you don't agree with. This in no way makes it necessary for you to agree with it but what it does is shed light on why people think and behave certain ways. An exchange of honest ideas becomes apparent when the adversarial role of anger is lessened but adversarial debate is at the heart of the American experience. That's why we have lawyers and habeas corpus. Also, the solution is dealing with the issues rather than the personalities. I think it's possible to extricate the anger and "line in the sand" approach and focus on the real issues. When this is done, I think we see more agreement on many so-called "polarizing" issues. For example, "life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness". We can mostly agree on this goal without agreeing on how to get there. We need also to see past the labels. Labeling presents a way of distorting issues by making certain assumptions as to how a person believes. For example, communism. I think it becomes important to ask "what kind of communism are we talking about here?" Even fascism has different patterns ie: Mussolini style as opposed to Hitler's Nazism. We need to define our terms more precisely so that we can agree on what we are discussing. Name-calling is a power move to avoid the issue. So I think partisanship is inevitable if you arrived at a passionate view of what you think of as being just and fair. There are those who refuse to take a stand on anything and this is probably a kind of weak-kneed accomodation or a position that hasn't yet been thought out. Partisanship is not the problem. The problem is how we learn to deal with it. Anger and inflexibility doesn't serve. A willingness to see the other person's point-of-view and respect for that person even if you don't agree is a key. There is a problem in dealing with these issues and that is one of "sociopathy". There are criminals in the world. For them, it's about power and not discovering truth. Here, society plays a role by identifying them, isolating them and shining a light on this behavior. I think that many nations of the world saw that with Hitler and Stalin and responded constructively. Frank Hamilton |
|
Subject: RE: BS: NON-Partisan political comments From: beardedbruce Date: 20 Dec 07 - 05:14 PM " The solution is understanding the rationale behind a point of view that you don't agree with. This in no way makes it necessary for you to agree with it but what it does is shed light on why people think and behave certain ways." Hear, Hear!!!!! |
|
Subject: RE: BS: NON-Partisan political comments From: dick greenhaus Date: 20 Dec 07 - 08:29 PM While recognizing that the world isn't really black and white, how does one vote gray? |
|
Subject: RE: BS: NON-Partisan political comments From: Stringsinger Date: 21 Dec 07 - 06:30 PM Most people vote gray, Dick. They may not agree with all that the candidate purports. Voting has become an excercise in relativity. Who is the least harmful? The perpetual disease of "lesser of two evils" reigns over the voting process. The solution to this is Instant Runoff Voting because this is about the closest we are going to get to a democratic election. Two choices are given, the person you really want and then the runner-up. Chances are that the one who receives the most votes will be elected, not like now, where the leading candidates can steal elections. Frank Hamilton |
|
Subject: RE: BS: NON-Partisan political comments From: autolycus Date: 28 Dec 07 - 12:37 PM How do you know when you have understood the rationale of another position. I've met people who think the fact that you continue to argue with them demonstrates you haven't understood. iow, to understand means to agree. Ivor |
|
Subject: RE: BS: NON-Partisan political comments From: katlaughing Date: 28 Dec 07 - 02:00 PM Thought this might be an appropriate place to share the following: THE false can never grow into truth by growing in power. -- Rabindranath Tagore, "Stray Birds" |
|
Subject: RE: BS: NON-Partisan political comments From: autolycus Date: 29 Dec 07 - 05:10 AM This is particularly difficult when arguing with those for whom arguing with their views means you're attacking them. And if they had to agree, they'd crumble as a person. Or something. Ivor |
|
Subject: RE: BS: NON-Partisan political comments From: Stringsinger Date: 29 Dec 07 - 05:51 PM I try to maintain a dialogue by sticking to the facts of the disputed issue as closely as I can. It is possible for facts to be analyzed, disputed or agreed upon without ego problems entering in and destroying the dialogue. What I try to do in introducing an idea that may not be accepted is to say "In my personal experience I have found.......". This may not always work if I am going to be attacked for my position regardless. I think there has to be an element of trust between the people who are engaging in this kind of dialogue. I try to find some area of agreement without having to agree on everything. I can agree that someone's personal experience might be different from my own. I can also keep a questioning mind about an issue that I might feel sure about. There is always a possibility that I could be wrong about something. I try to look for answers rather than try to win an argument. It's pointless to try to win because this is not convincing. I think it's possible to get along without having to go along. Frank Hamilton |
|
Subject: RE: BS: NON-Partisan political comments From: beardedbruce Date: 20 Mar 08 - 07:13 AM This is a quote I cannot resist having preserved: "Nothing intrinsically impossible about that either - it just doesn't seem to square with the evidence. " |
|
Subject: RE: BS: NON-Partisan political comments From: beardedbruce Date: 21 Mar 08 - 11:18 AM "Cowardice asks the question: 'Is it safe?' Expediency asks the question: 'is it politic?' Vanity asks the question: 'Is it popular?' But conscience asks the question: 'Is it right'," saying, "there comes a time when one must take a position that is neither safe, nor politic, nor popular, but one must take it because one's conscience tells one what is right." |
|
Subject: RE: BS: NON-Partisan political comments From: beardedbruce Date: 25 Mar 08 - 08:41 AM Eisenhower: "Too far to the left, and too far to the right of the middle of the road are the gutters." |
|
Subject: RE: BS: NON-Partisan political comments From: beardedbruce Date: 12 Jun 08 - 06:53 AM from Ebbie: "The arrogance of people who know they are right has always been scary. And dangerous. " Too true, on BOTH ( all?) sides of the issues. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: NON-Partisan political comments From: beardedbruce Date: 08 Aug 08 - 05:04 PM Adopted from a post by GUEST,Volgadon I don't disagree with _______'s cause, it's their methods and fanatic bigotry I have a problem with. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: NON-Partisan political comments From: beardedbruce Date: 28 Aug 08 - 01:29 PM got to preserve this one, for future reference: From: Amos - PM Date: 28 Aug 08 - 11:11 AM The kind of carping and snidity that some folks have to resort too would be funny, if it weren't sduch a sorry reflection on their condition. A |
|
Subject: RE: BS: NON-Partisan political comments From: Amos Date: 28 Aug 08 - 02:07 PM "History was made last night when the Democratic Party nominated Illinois Sen. Barack Obama as its candidate for president of the United States. He's the first African-American presidential nominee of a major party. Both newly-tapped vice presidential candidate Joe Biden, the senior senator from Delaware, and former President Bill Clinton took to the Pepsi Center stage to rally behind Obama and encourage other Democrats to do the same. But perhaps the more emotional high point came earlier yesterday as Sen. Senator Hillary Clinton set aside months of political rivalry, and motioned to have Obama declared the Democratic nominee by acclamation." NPR |
|
Subject: RE: BS: NON-Partisan political comments From: GUEST,Sawzaw Date: 28 Aug 08 - 02:32 PM I think it is the two party system that polarizes people. Like the Crips and the Bloods, Sunni and Shia. Catholics and Protestants, All ways at war. Why should anyone have to belong to a party? Mainly because of the money. You can't get the money it takes to get elected unless you have party backing. Let's get rid of the money. Let's get rid of the parties. It is just like the race factor. Why do we have to say Black man or White man? all that does is poke a stick in someones eye. And the media is whipping it up all they can to make more money off of the conflict. People write books to capitalize on the conflict. This is not to say the world can or should be a perfect place but we would be better off if we used the energy expended in arguing on other things to improve the world. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: NON-Partisan political comments From: GUEST,beardedbruce Date: 01 Sep 08 - 11:49 AM Since the clone did not see the above message claiming the guest post, let me try again: "From: Amos Date: 01 Sep 08 - 11:03 AM Humans have a deep need to make others wrong in order to feel right about themselves. .... Those who are the most afraid of their own "wrongness" will be the most assertive about finding those faults in others they most detest in themselves. A " Bruce, I don't actually read these threads and there's a good chance any of us might miss subsequent ownership claims. Please just re-post your comments and we'll delete the previous no-name messages. Thank you. -Moderator |
|
Subject: RE: BS: NON-Partisan political comments From: GUEST,beardedbruce Date: 23 Oct 08 - 10:22 PM Knowing it was said in a highly partisan manner, but seeing the application, I wish to preseve the following by Amos for future use: "WHat on earth are you referring to? Don't you ever get tired of making unfounded, unreferenced statements? DO you really expect others to accept your armwaving as facts? " |
|
Subject: RE: BS: NON-Partisan political comments From: Amos Date: 23 Oct 08 - 11:12 PM I suggest that you follow the intent of my post and include its context, there, Bruce. It was intended for the context into which it was placed. A |
|
Subject: RE: BS: NON-Partisan political comments From: Stringsinger Date: 24 Oct 08 - 05:37 PM Politics by nature is partisan. A non-partisan comment is not a comment about politics. A person who is not involved in politics is probably in no position to comment about it because they probably don't know much about it. A cross platform response could be made that: 1. Politics is bought, these days. More public financing and media time would help both parties. 2. Having a workable economy would help both parties, the working and the investor class. 3. A concentration on issues rather than ad hominem personal attacks would be more useful for society. 4. Reactivating civics classes in the school system would enable citizens to be better informed. 5. American citizens should be required to read the US Constitution. 6. De-emphasizing personalities in favor of those who have the real requirements for political office would solve a lot of disputes and bring forth political executive talent. Frank Hamilton (and I approve this message) |
|
Subject: RE: BS: NON-Partisan political comments From: GUEST,beardedbruce Date: 24 Oct 08 - 06:17 PM All true, Stringsinger... |
|
Subject: RE: BS: NON-Partisan political comments From: beardedbruce Date: 30 Oct 08 - 06:44 PM From: Amos - PM Date: 30 Oct 08 - 01:02 AM Waving you arms and declaring things true in loud, condemnatory tones does not make it true. ..... From: Amos - PM Date: 30 Oct 08 - 01:18 AM Ya know what? Your wild-eyed, foaming generalizations are really, really, really boring. Your negativity is so ineffectual it isn't even dampening, and your "facts" are so full of holes you shouldn't be caught wearing them outdoors. Get a life, or get a brain, or both. Do I hear a pot calling out????? |
|
Subject: RE: BS: NON-Partisan political comments From: Little Hawk Date: 30 Oct 08 - 07:23 PM LOL! Well, my feeling is that with all the arm waving Amos has been doing lately, he might become the first human being to attain flight without the aid of a machine or vehicle of some kind. Funny, though, how we perceive others, isn't it? When we do it, it's carefully reasoned commentary. When they do it, it's hysterical "arm waving". My take on this? You're both wrong. (grin) |
|
Subject: RE: BS: NON-Partisan political comments From: GUEST,beardedbruce Date: 04 Nov 08 - 05:10 PM More from Amos: "I am not going to be lured into your posturing rhetoric, while you pretend you have not seen the evidence, because it would not much matter to you WHAT evidence appeared; your mind is made up in a frozen rut of militant justification, which no reason can thaw." |
|
Subject: RE: BS: NON-Partisan political comments From: beardedbruce Date: 26 Mar 10 - 09:07 PM "They do work toward reaching compromise and achieving the unity that you describe, but compromise does not equate to capitulation of the ideals for which they are fighting." WFDU - Ron Olesko - I don't think he meant this to apply to ALL SIDES, but it does... |
|
Subject: RE: BS: NON-Partisan political comments From: beardedbruce Date: 01 Jun 10 - 02:07 PM From: Don(Wyziwyg)T - PM Date: 31 May 10 - 11:13 AM Then come back and tell me that I get the respect for my views which they demand from me , and I'll spit in your eye and call you a bloody liar. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: NON-Partisan political comments From: McGrath of Harlow Date: 01 Jun 10 - 03:23 PM How come it took you two years to craft a post with three words of your own and a quote, bruce? I note, going back to your original post in the thread, you were on about being non-partisan... I once met someone who claimed that vodka was a non-alcoholic drink. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: NON-Partisan political comments From: beardedbruce Date: 01 Jun 10 - 04:28 PM " I would like to share some of the observations that I have read here, in a non-partisan way. " I fail to see how my post was partisan- the statement I quoted has no party affiliation, nor is it only true for one side. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: NON-Partisan political comments From: McGrath of Harlow Date: 01 Jun 10 - 05:32 PM Vodka... |
|
Subject: RE: BS: NON-Partisan political comments From: Stringsinger Date: 02 Jun 10 - 09:50 AM The federal government has a duty to protect us from Libertarians. They claim to be non-partisan but are anything but. There are no non-partisan political comments to be made. The Founding Fathers of the US were not non-partisan in their defense of the Constitution. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: NON-Partisan political comments From: Don(Wyziwyg)T Date: 03 Jun 10 - 07:40 AM ""From: Don(Wyziwyg)T - PM Date: 31 May 10 - 11:13 AM Then come back and tell me that I get the respect for my views which they demand from me , and I'll spit in your eye and call you a bloody liar."" Just goes to show the lengths some people will go to, in trying to support the insupportable. I am sure that BB knows that the above quote fom me was extracted, and taken out of context, from an argument with British members about British politics. But hell Bruce, why let the truth get in the way of winning the argument eh? Don T. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: NON-Partisan political comments From: beardedbruce Date: 03 Jun 10 - 12:37 PM Don T, THIS thread was started to have a place for significant statements that I thought demonstrated Truth or Validity. The quote o your I posted seemed to be one that applies TO ALL SIDES. If you think otherwise, feel free- I have no control over YOUR thoughts. Do you REALLY think that you should GET respect that YOU deny to those you disagree with??? |
|
Subject: RE: BS: NON-Partisan political comments From: Don(Wyziwyg)T Date: 03 Jun 10 - 03:38 PM ""Do you REALLY think that you should GET respect that YOU deny to those you disagree with???"" My political comment is, for the most part, aimed at the ineptitudes and stupidities of politicians. While I often attack political opinions which I consider naive or dishonest, I do not make personal attacks upon others here who disagree with my stance, unless I suffer personal attacks from them. Having identified myself as a British Tory voter, such attacks are now a daily occurrence from a small group of people who lack the good manners to allow others the freedom to speak without being slandered or ridiculed. Thus far, I am managing not to respond in kind, having been brought up and educated (at Grammar school) to behave in a gentlemanly fashion. Would that some of our University and Law school graduates had the same upbringing. Don T. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: NON-Partisan political comments From: GUEST,beardedbruce Date: 04 Jun 10 - 03:25 PM "My political comment is, for the most part, aimed at the ineptitudes and stupidities of politicians." Which is a reason that I have noted it as a piece of wisdom seen here that I wished to record in this thread. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: NON-Partisan political comments From: beardedbruce Date: 16 Dec 16 - 09:26 AM Not strictly politican, but a bit of Trurth. From: Steve Shaw - PM Date: 16 Dec 16 - 09:00 AM You can meet the challenge of getting accurate news by adopting several strategies. First, approach information in an objective, non-partisan, open-minded way. Otherwise you will get only the news that you want to hear. Second, avoid tendentious-minded sources. Websites run by lobbies and pressure groups, or which you know to be excessively right- or left-wing, or by one political strand out of many, can be relied on to provide very lopsided news. Third, learn how to spot tabloidism. There was a headline in the Mail a couple of days ago that referred to "arch-remoaner Ben Bradshaw." That guarantees two things: a biased report coming up, and a report that mixes news with comment. If you see that it should disqualify that paper permanently in your mind as a reliable source. Fourth, newspapers and telly news bulletins have a limited amount of space/time. Someone has to decide what's in or out, how much should be given to each item and in what order they are presented. The only round this is to look at as many different sources as possible of the kinds that have jumped through the hoops described in points one to three. In other words, use your brain. Accept nothing without evidence and/or corroboration. Healthy scepticism is a wonderful thing. And don't automatically diss a source that you disagree with. It's quite likely that it's you who's wrong. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: NON-Partisan political comments From: Greg F. Date: 08 Feb 18 - 10:32 AM ...avoid tendentious-minded sources. Websites run by lobbies and pressure groups... Well, that pretty much leaves out Faux News, Breitbart, the "Freedom Caucus"[sic] and all the rest of the tRump supporting and enabling media. It also leaves out Bruce. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: NON-Partisan political comments From: beardedbruce Date: 15 May 18 - 12:17 PM refresh PFR, I understand your pm comments, and agree with many- But JC has DEMANDED that the rest of us come up with solutions. He has none, except to always say that the Israelis should let themselves be killed. Not a viable solution, IMHO. Feel free to start a thread- no qualifications are needed. " [not your wildly exaggerated comical misinterpretation of what that word means..] " Not sure what you mean here- "a humanist musician, artist, or writer enduring life under the current right wing Israeli regime... " implies that you consider those listed as being somehow persecuted by the right. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: NON-Partisan political comments From: Steve Shaw Date: 15 May 18 - 12:33 PM This is an illegitimate use of this thread. However, nice to be reminded that I came out with a bit of truth. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: NON-Partisan political comments From: punkfolkrocker Date: 15 May 18 - 12:39 PM not neccessarily 'persecuted' - how would I know that without commiting to research I simply have no time for... But a lifetime's experience informs my reasonable judgement that at least more than a few may be 'persevering' and 'enduring'... I personally know that much just from entering culturally active adulthood under thatcher's regime in the 1980s... Obviously, I or close friends, and contemporaries weren't made to 'disappear'.. But that was happening in other right wing nation's that thatcher's govt were very good friends with... |
|
Subject: RE: BS: NON-Partisan political comments From: punkfolkrocker Date: 15 May 18 - 12:44 PM Steve - Bruce has resurrected this thread to continue an open discussion with me, for as long as it's viable.. I think that's fair enough.. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: NON-Partisan political comments From: Steve Shaw Date: 15 May 18 - 12:45 PM I know you do. However, the legitimate thing is to open a new thread. Note that Jim has just done that. There are right ways and wrong ways... |
|
Subject: RE: BS: NON-Partisan political comments From: beardedbruce Date: 15 May 18 - 12:50 PM And last time, I opened a new thread and was told there were threads open that I should have used. MY INTENT in CREATING this thread was to discuss Truth- And I consider that the conversation might well do that. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: NON-Partisan political comments From: Steve Shaw Date: 15 May 18 - 03:55 PM Well I suppose it might just rear up one day and bite you on the bum. Until then, no chance. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: NON-Partisan political comments From: beardedbruce Date: 15 May 18 - 03:56 PM Yeah, too many far Left folks here to find much Truth. But one can hope. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: NON-Partisan political comments From: Stilly River Sage Date: 15 May 18 - 04:05 PM Then don't write nonsense like what you just posted. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: NON-Partisan political comments From: beardedbruce Date: 15 May 18 - 04:09 PM It has been members of the Left here that have posted out and out lies to injure my reputation, threaten my employment, and destroy my career. Deal with it. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: NON-Partisan political comments From: Steve Shaw Date: 15 May 18 - 05:29 PM "It has been members of the Left here that have posted out and out lies to injure my reputation, threaten my employment, and destroy my career." You don't have to be neurotic to think that everyone's out to get you, but it helps... :-) |
|
Subject: RE: BS: NON-Partisan political comments From: Amergin Date: 15 May 18 - 05:35 PM Ah, the Bruce is crying again. Typical. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: NON-Partisan political comments From: punkfolkrocker Date: 15 May 18 - 05:41 PM Is the USA idea of 'far left' something like UK tory wets and liberals...???? |
|
Subject: RE: BS: NON-Partisan political comments From: Stilly River Sage Date: 15 May 18 - 09:38 PM Left = Rational. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: NON-Partisan political comments From: David Carter (UK) Date: 16 May 18 - 03:57 AM You have a career?? |
|
Subject: RE: BS: NON-Partisan political comments From: Backwoodsman Date: 16 May 18 - 04:20 AM I think he meant 'carer', David. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: NON-Partisan political comments From: Dave the Gnome Date: 16 May 18 - 04:37 AM May I just point out that getting personal gets threads closed. Just saying like... |
|
Subject: RE: BS: NON-Partisan political comments From: Backwoodsman Date: 16 May 18 - 04:43 AM As do discussions about threads themselves, Dave! In this case, that wouldn't be a bad thing, IMHO. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: NON-Partisan political comments From: David Carter (UK) Date: 16 May 18 - 04:50 AM I am genuinely bemused. What possible career could someone have that could be threatened by posts on Mudcat? |
|
Subject: RE: BS: NON-Partisan political comments From: punkfolkrocker Date: 16 May 18 - 08:54 AM "to injure my reputation, threaten my employment, and destroy my career. " mudcat won't be much worry to me then... I've never really enjoyed any of those things...!!! ...punkfolkrocking with electric guitars and disreputable people since 1973... |
|
Subject: RE: BS: NON-Partisan political comments From: Donuel Date: 18 May 18 - 02:19 PM "It has been members of the Left here that have posted out and out lies to injure my reputation, threaten my employment, and destroy my career." Now thats Deja poo of the actions of an autocrap, not progressives. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: NON-Partisan political comments From: Dave the Gnome Date: 19 May 18 - 02:12 AM I presume deja poo is when you think you have heard that crap before? If so, I like it! I am going to steal that one:-)I And, yes, if anyone thinks that their "reputation, employment and career" can be damaged by anything said on Mudcat they really ought to take a reality check. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: NON-Partisan political comments From: Steve Shaw Date: 19 May 18 - 05:52 AM Deja fu: the uncomfortable feeling that you've had the shit kicked out of you this way before... |
|
Subject: RE: BS: NON-Partisan political comments From: gillymor Date: 19 May 18 - 07:03 AM Vuja de- That strange feeling that none of this has happened before. (George Carlin) |
|
Subject: RE: BS: NON-Partisan political comments From: Donuel Date: 21 May 18 - 05:18 PM My opponent's Venn Diagram is a circle. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: NON-Partisan political comments From: Dave the Gnome Date: 22 May 18 - 06:55 AM Kung Shai. The martial art of positioning furniture so your enemies fall over it. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: NON-Partisan political comments From: Donuel Date: 23 May 18 - 08:21 AM The inane remarks and claims that assail us daily from my opponent are not the things we will remember or talk about 5, 10, 20 or 100 years from now. We are actually in the dawning of the age of controlling our DNA, our evolution and Destiney. We are at the cusp of discovering the relationship of our fluid spacetime and navigate the actual ocean of space where islands of new world matter rises. We may choose our God but the truth staring us in the face is inviolate and beyond any choice to believe or not. Together we will decide our directions, our inventions and our dimensions for the freedoms of Life itself. Donuel Webster |
