43 Comments

  1. For the life of me I can’t understand how pro-life social conservatives can overlap at all with anti-life defense hawks. Moreover, where do the pro-death penalty folks fit in? Are agnostics and atheists also excluded? Finally, the arrogance of anyone who would try to define “true conservative” serves no good purpose. This is an over-simplification of life that has little meaning, in my opinion.

  2. Perry, are you actually suggesting that being pro-defense is in some way anti-life? Moreover, the pro-death penalty folks fit in under “social conservatives” as do the anti-death penalty folks. Unlike liberals who must walk in lock-step with party ideology from taxes to glowbull warming, conservatives tend to vary on opinions even within their own conservativism. Atheists and agnostics are a matter of religion not a matter of political persuasion (although from my experience they both are usually not conservatives to begin with). And this is an “oversimplfication” but not of “life” but rather of a political and social view point. It may have little meaning to you however, it had enough meaning for you to comment on it. Would you attempt to diagram liberals in this way? You know, three circles labeled perhaps: “Marxist Liberals”, “Socialist Liberals” and “Social Liberals”? You couldn’t could ya? Cause under liberalism there is no room for divergance. I would attempt to diagram liberals with the following three circles; Race based liberals, Envy based liberals and Sexual Identity based liberals. Where would you fall as these circles intersected?

  3. Funny how Perry can’t understand “how pro-life social conservatives can overlap at all with anti-life defense hawks,” especially when he believes he shouldn’t intrude on a woman’s “choice” to kill her unborn child, but should intrude on a jury’s/judge’s decision to execute a murderer.

  4. Hube, that’s the big lie of abortion. It’s easy to kill a teeny little baby when you dehumanize it by calling it a fetus or “mere tissue”. But to execute Tommy, Sue’s “little boy” for murdering three people? Well, then we have a delema!

    Tell ya what. If abortion is a woman exercising her right to choose, how about when the “tissue” is sucked out of her the law requires when she leaves to go home it be handed to her in a jar? Too brutal for ya? It’s a brutal act and it should be shown to be exactly what it is. If these people cannot confront the results of their actions perhaps they are not acting correctly.

  5. Hoagie wrote:

    Perry, are you actually suggesting that being pro-defense is in some way anti-life?

    Well, he has certainly said that we shouldn’t be in Iraq or Afghanistan; at the very least, he would seem to believe that defending others from tyranny is inconsistent with being pro-life.

  6. Perry asked:

    Are agnostics and atheists also excluded?

    I’d guess that they wind up excluding themselves from the social conservative circle. Nobody is excluded if exclusion is defined as being kicked out; these circles consist of what people include in their political belief structures.

    Finally, the arrogance of anyone who would try to define “true conservative” serves no good purpose. This is an over-simplification of life that has little meaning, in my opinion.

    An over-simplification? It certainly is in that it cannot account for every variation. But generally true? Yeah, I’d say that it is.

    It also tells you that there are people who identify themselves as conservatives who would fit in only one of the three circles, or in the overlap between just two rather than three. Representative Ron Paul (R-TX) and, perhaps to a lesser extent, his son, Senator Rand Paul (R-KY) would fit in the overlap between the fiscal and social conservatives, though only barely into the social conservative circle. Former President George W Bush would fit into the pro-defense circle, with some overlap into the social conservative circle, but far away from the fiscal conservative area.

    In a way, the neo-conservatives fit most neatly into the pro-defense circle, yet provide only lip service to the social and fiscal conservative circles (at best), and seem mostly uninterested in the social conservative positions; much of that stems from the intellectual movement of the first neo-conservatives, who came from a liberal, Democratic Party perspective, and became more conservative primarily in defense and foreign policy matters. The next “generation” of neo-cons didn’t really make that intellectual journey, but were starting out as neo-cons from college.

  7. “Finally, the arrogance of anyone who would try to define “true conservative” serves no good purpose.”

    Why, do you wish to derive some benefit from associating as a conservative, while not being one?

    You have called yourself a liberal, Perry, and have attributed conservative opinions expressed here to genetics. Would you say that your estimation served no good purpose?

  8. Don’t take the diagram too seriously, it’s only a crude approximation useful for providing a framework for discussion. Remember, a map is not the terrain.

  9. Having glanced at the article, it seems that while asking broad questions regarding the place of libertarians and libertarian leaning people in the Republican Party, the author has drawn some specific distinctions regarding what she is actually mooting.

    And in the end she answers her own narrowed question thus:

    “The answer to the question about whether Libertarians should be at CPAC..is well, yes, they should be there. And so should GOProud. They have every right to try and convince people of their ideas. The Conservative world is not the Borg. It is not some monolithic hive-mind like the Left enjoys. There are debates and the circles expand and constrict. “

    The question concerning libertarianism is interesting because in reviewing it, she implies the distinction – of which all here are all aware – between (an almost grudging) libertarianism accepted in principle as a practical neutral ground political principle which draws a line in the sand between civil society on the one hand and the agencies of the polity on the other, and libertarianism as a more encompassing “faith”.

    Modern Liberalism of course, as a subspecies of leftism, denies the validity of any such civil society/ polity distinction; and where two distinct realms i.e., the voluntarily associative and the political, do indeed co-exist, they seek to reduce the influence and sustainability of the former so as to prevent any mitigation of the effects and commands of the latter.

    Now for what it is worth, I think it’s probable that strong fiscal conservativism would in fact produce not only libertarian effects, but also – eventually – some of the broader social effects that social conservatives desire; once, that is, government “incentivising” of what they view as deliberately dissolute behavior was reduced, and more of their income became discretionary and could be redirected to the support and enhancement of their own interest groups and social allies – rather than being bled off by the government to underwrite eventual attacks against them.

    Fiscal conservativism per se then, can be viewed as implying a kind of social conservativism by default; in that it would let the marketplace of nature and voluntary human association test the value of various individual’s hedonic or insistently stupid life choices; which the social conservative would seek to correct or mitigate ahead of time, through the instrumentality of law.

    Now of course some proscriptive law would be necessary anyway as we all know. Drunks for example don’t usually go off alone into the woods to immediately drink themselves to death, but first spend a certain amount of time among others crashing automobiles, provoking fights, and generally annoying anyone they come into contact with.

    Naive libertarianism taken as a faith, seems to imagine that when all things are made permissible or rendered cheap, then the ready availabilty of these things will reduce observed negative “social effects” which are presumed to be the result of conflicts spawned by the expense and frustration of some urge. In this assumption, their premise is somewhat like that of liberalism or Freudianism.

    However it is very doubtful that anything like, for example, the ready availability cheap drugs would somehow ensure that scumbags won’t be hanging around outside of grade schools trying to solicit children anyway. In extreme libertarian cases, they also seem to mimic the values nihilism of the left, by simply shrugging at the results of such possibilities.

  10. ropelight says:
    5 February 2011 at 14:18

    Don’t take the diagram too seriously, it’s only a crude approximation useful for providing a framework for discussion. Remember, a map is not the terrain.”

    You are right.

  11. “Donald Douglas says:
    5 February 2011 at 14:06

    I wonder if anyone’s a completely pure conservative, according to that diagram.”

    Yeah. Nobody’s probably pure, in the sense of consistent, anything according to any practical scheme we could construct. Not to be flip, but “Problem of Universals”.

    You get a working definition, that reflects selected, but real attributes, basically. Which means that cherries are actually cherries in reality and not just anything covered by a term we could equally well apply to red pebbles, but that Bing and Montmorency, though differing noticeably, qualify.

  12. Hoagie, as expected, you decide over what the medical establishment decided, as to what a baby is. Bull shit logic.

    I heard of a study, in which during the starvation upon the Dutch, in the WWII era, the pregnant women who endured the crisis, during the last two trimesters of their pregnancy, (when docs will then refer to the, then baby, as a baby), the response of the baby is to grow up with a body that stores fat to the point of it being detrimental as adults suffer from high blood pressure, and things related to obesity.

    I would like to mention that the minds are developing at that stage, at the one third point of the pregnancy. Sorry, but you are wrong. The “baby” you defend has no mind, short of that of amoebae, where real children that play and go to school, and hug their grandmas and grandpas, and moms and dads are the real undeniable children you don’t mind blowing up.

    However, in modern wars 90% of deaths are civilians. I know that they aren’t intentionally killed by most soldiers, but it is a consequence of a war, that none of you mind, so the hypocrisy of your “pro-life” stance is disgusting, when you support those policies of which GWB supports like using land mines, in which children playing in a field end up getting blown up. You don’t fucking care, your shivering lil’ asses are okay with it, because of your allegiance to the myths of the WOT.

  13. Blu wrote:

    I would like to mention that the minds are developing at that stage, at the one third point of the pregnancy. Sorry, but you are wrong. The “baby” you defend has no mind, short of that of amoebae, where real children that play and go to school, and hug their grandmas and grandpas, and moms and dads are the real undeniable children you don’t mind blowing up.

    However, in modern wars 90% of deaths are civilians. I know that they aren’t intentionally killed by most soldiers, but it is a consequence of a war, that none of you mind, so the hypocrisy of your “pro-life” stance is disgusting, when you support those policies of which GWB supports like using land mines, in which children playing in a field end up getting blown up. You don’t fucking care, your shivering lil’ asses are okay with it, because of your allegiance to the myths of the WOT.

    Uh huh. You are just horribly upset that several hundred thousand innocent civilians have been killed in the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan, but the fact that about 50 million have been killed in our abortuaries, well, that doesn’t upset our friends on the left in the least.

    Oh, but wait! They aren’t really babies at all, they aren’t really living human beings, aren’t really “persons.” Well, we did have a Constitutional provision that might serve as a reminder of y’all’s definitions:

    Representatives and direct Taxes shall be apportioned among the several States which may be included within this Union, according to their respective Numbers, which shall be determined by adding to the whole Number of free Persons, including those bound to Service for a Term of Years, and excluding Indians not taxed, three fifths of all other Persons.

  14. By the way, how do people who support sending American soldiers out to die in useless wars get to call themselves “defense hawks”?

    Wouldn’t “war-mongerers”, “imperialists” or “troop-killers” be a better label? Shouldn’t the word “defense” be used for people who support, you know, defending America?

  15. The Phoenician asked:

    Wouldn’t “war-mongerers”, “imperialists” or “troop-killers” be a better label? Shouldn’t the word “defense” be used for people who support, you know, defending America?

    We have learned the concept of forward defense, Phoe: it is better to engage the enemy in his homeland rather than in our own, because the carnage of war damages his homeland, and not our own.

  16. Our government uses our soldiers as offense mechanism, sadly.

    Dana, if you consider under three months a baby, then you should mourn for the many many times more that Nature herself eliminates from growing in the uterus, because of some untenable condition that might make it unfeasible, so if a woman who carries that pregnancy feels that at the stage which it be a viable one to survive well or not, both she and the potential baby’s best regard must be in sync or it is unfair to both. It is her decision to have or eliminate the fetus, which really isn’t with a brain enough to be a viable human being, as of yet, so her decision must be for both. It’s not for you to decide either. To prevent a baby from forming, only to be given an insufficient environment, or to be given away at the moment of birth would be another pain you won’t ever have to face, so who the hell are you to assume it is what you claim, with science over-riding your definition.

    If a Conservative fits into the category of fascist which “has a disdain for intellectuals and the arts” well, you are one, and frankly this pompous moral superiority bull shit is without any legs, because you don’t give a damn about how the mother of the potential baby ‘s life, or the potential baby’s life after the birth.

    And yes, real babies of which have no question as to where they are in development. You don’t mind them getting killed.

  17. If the above diagram is to be taken seriously then even Ronald Reagan wasn’t a “true conservative”.

    -He “cut and run” from Lebanon
    -He raised taxes
    -He increased spending
    -He granted amnesty to millions of illegals
    -He bailed out several businesses including Continental Illinois
    -He raised tariffs on dozens of imported goods

  18. Blu wrote:

    Dana, if you consider under three months a baby, then you should mourn for the many many times more that Nature herself eliminates from growing in the uterus, because of some untenable condition that might make it unfeasible, so if a woman who carries that pregnancy feels that at the stage which it be a viable one to survive well or not, both she and the potential baby’s best regard must be in sync or it is unfair to both. It is her decision to have or eliminate the fetus, which really isn’t with a brain enough to be a viable human being, as of yet, so her decision must be for both. It’s not for you to decide either. To prevent a baby from forming, only to be given an insufficient environment, or to be given away at the moment of birth would be another pain you won’t ever have to face, so who the hell are you to assume it is what you claim, with science over-riding your definition.

    It would take only the change of 170 years and a few words to make that whole paragraph sound like a perfectly reasonable defense by slaveowners of their right to dispose of slaves they found to be disruptive or unproductive.

  19. Oh, and what justifies your perspective of the victims of our illegal, dishonest war of aggression’s dead, thousands of innocent people’s deaths that are of no concern to you, unlike a fetus, they have working minds, that feel pain and know what it means when they have lost loved ones, unlike a fetus.

  20. If the above diagram is to be taken seriously then even Ronald Reagan wasn’t a “true conservative”.

    -He “cut and run” from Lebanon
    -He raised taxes
    -He increased spending
    -He granted amnesty to millions of illegals
    -He bailed out several businesses including Continental Illinois
    -He raised tariffs on dozens of imported goods

    Mike g, why do you strip all historical context from your BS? That’s a rhetorical question because people with historical knowledge know why. Because your BS does not withstand any scrutiny whatsoever.

    “-He raised taxes”
    “-He increased spending”
    What’s the historical context to that? What’s the Constitutional context to that? Which part of which branch is responsible for originating revenue bills? (Oh, that’s right. Certain US Congresscritters don’t even know what the three branches of government are.) Prior to 1994, when was the last time Republicans were in the majority in the House of Representatives (where all revenue bills must originate)? Reagan had no choice but to negotiate with Democrats (who always declared his budgets “dead on arrival”). And the Democrats agreed to “three dollars of spending cuts for every dollar of tax increases”. The Democrats lied. There were no spending cuts. (And Democrats are once again pushing the “three dollars of spending cuts for every dollar of tax increase” lie, as if nobody ever heard that lie before.) Reagan could have done what many Presidents before him did, and impound some of the spending. But, oh yeah, the Democrat Congress made that illegal after Nixon used that method to cut down on improper spending.

    “-He granted amnesty to millions of illegals”
    Once again, Reagan had to deal with a Democrat-controlled House of Representatives. He couldn’t go it alone because, despite your protestations otherwise, Reagan wasn’t King and couldn’t act unilaterally. This amnesty was a “this time only” thing to appease Democrats and actually get around to enforcing Federal immigration laws. Of course, Democrats lied about that, too.

    Of course, you’ll retort with your usual ad hominem elitist BS regarding education level or employment status. You’ve done that in the past; you’ll do it again. Because you cannot handle histo-facts getting in the way of your leftist claptrap.

  21. We have learned the concept of forward defense, Phoe: it is better to engage the enemy in his homeland rather than in our own, because the carnage of war damages his homeland, and not our own.

    Riiiiight – and the Iraqis were your “enemy” because…? they were going to strap waterwings to themselves and invade by swimming to California?

    Explain to us how this person was your enemy, Dana? What precisely had she done to hurt the United States?

    Does that idea apply to others? Do “conservative” Iranians, North Koreans or Chinese have the right to declare you enemies and engage in forward defense by attempting to wipe out your cities?

  22. and the Iraqis were your “enemy” because…?

    strawman, red herring

    The Iraqis never were our enemy and still aren’t. Hussein, on the other hand, was throwing around all sorts of money “to the families of suicide bombers” who went out and killed Jews and Americans. Hussein was also genocidal within his own kingdom. His sons were rapists, torturers, murderous thugs.

    But you’ve never really shown any interest in the truth, NZT. I doubt you ever will.

  23. I would like you to please tell me how Hitler’s war of aggression against Europe was less justified than our act of aggression against the middle east. You will find that your ability to reason is gone. Our value system that we so declared the good all of humanity should follow, or so we thought, is now a little more than a regime with infinite power and the military to attempt it, if the whim should strike. Oh, I guess if Hitler’s record of innocent deaths exceeds ours, it must be okay? Torture chambers, some worse than others, and others are in remote countries like Egypt that does it for us. We are a tyrannical government. Making up reasons to invade a country is nothing short of barbaric. Remember, they f-ing lied to start the wars.

  24. JH sezs:

    Mike g, why do you strip all historical context from your BS? That’s a rhetorical question because people with historical knowledge know why. Because your BS does not withstand any scrutiny whatsoever …

    Of course, you’ll retort with your usual ad hominem elitist BS regarding education level or employment status. You’ve done that in the past; you’ll do it again. Because you cannot handle histo-facts getting in the way of your leftist claptrap.

    Actual history sez:

    The scheduled increases in accelerated depreciation deductions were repealed, a 10 percent withholding on dividends and interest paid to individuals was instituted, and the Federal Unemployment Tax Act wage base and tax rate were increased. Excise taxes on cigarettes were temporarily doubled, and excise taxes on telephone service temporarily tripled, in TEFRA.[3]

    President of the United States Ronald Reagan agreed to the tax hikes on the promise from Congress of a $3 reduction in spending for every $1 increase in taxes. Some conservatives, led by then-Congressman Jack Kemp, claim that the promised spending reductions never occurred[4] . One week after TEFRA was signed, H.R. 6863 – the Supplemental Appropriations Act of 1982 which Ronald Reagan claimed would “bust the budget” [5] was passed by both houses of Congress over his veto[6]. Four years later, then-budget director David Stockman, however, stated that Congress substantially upheld its end of the bargain, and cites the Administration’s failure to identify management savings and its resistance to defense spending cuts as the key impediments to greater outlay savings.[4]

    The original TEFRA bill as passed by the House lowered taxes[7]. The Republican-controlled Senate replaced the text of the original House bill with a number of tax increases, and the bill became law after President Ronald Reagan signed it. A lawsuit was filed by Garrison R. Armstrong claiming that TEFRA violated Article One of the United States Constitution which requires all revenue bills to originate in the House. The United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit ruled against Armstrong, saying

    We therefore conclude that the Senate did not exceed its authority under the origination clause when it proposed the extensive amendments that ultimately became TEFRA.

    JH sez:

    Once again, Reagan had to deal with a Democrat-controlled House of Representatives. He couldn’t go it alone because, despite your protestations otherwise, Reagan wasn’t King and couldn’t act unilaterally.


    History sez
    :

    Romano L. Mazzoli was a Democratic representative from Kentucky and Alan K. Simpson was a Republican senator from Wyoming who chaired their respective immigration subcommittees in Congress. Their effort was assisted by the recommendations of the bipartisan Commission on Immigration Reform, chaired by Rev. Theodore Hesburgh, then President of the University of Notre Dame.

    You believe in a mythological version of “conservatives” as told by the drunks and drug-addicts that currently comprise the right-wing media star system. I’m not interested in statements of benign intent, image management and your tribal affiliations, John. I’m concerned with the actual legislative record.

    So why do conservatives like Reagan so much considering he was a tax raising, tariff hiking, cut-and-runner who liked to bail out banks and motorcycle companies?

  25. The Iraqis never were our enemy and still aren’t

    Then why the fuck did you murderous bastards kill so many of them?

  26. Blu asked:

    I would like you to please tell me how Hitler’s war of aggression against Europe was less justified than our act of aggression against the middle east.

    Adolf Hitler was trying to create a greater Germany, with lebensraum in the east; he was seeking an empire. What we have done in the Middle East is to liberate people from tyranny, and try to create reasonably democratic states. It has always been our intention to leave those nations to rule themselves once democracies were established.

    Of course, you already knew that, didn’t you? But because all you see is War! and Boooosh! you have put every other consideration aside.

    The United States has a history of having nations under our control, and then leaving them to be free and independent when we could: Panama, Cuba, the Philippines, Japan and part of Germany all fall under that history. Today, Puerto Rico still has the choice of status: fully independent, remaining a commonwealth, or perhaps even statehood, and we will allow the Puerto Ricans the chance to determine that outcome themselves.

  27. The Phoenician wrote:

    The Iraqis never were our enemy and still aren’t

    Then why the fuck did you murderous bastards kill so many of them?

    The same reason that most Germans weren’t our enemies, yet we bombed them to oblivion: their government was repugnant and had to be destroyed.

    Almost all of the fighting is done in Iraq, a (somewhat) democratic government has been established, and the Prime Minister, Nuri al-Maliki, will not seek a third term, clearing the way for others. What President Bush set out to accomplish is being accomplished.

    You, of course, would have preferred that Saddam Hussein and the Ba’ath Party remain in power. Oh, you’ll say that that was never your wish, that what you’d really liked to have seen was a peaceful move to freedom and democracy, but that was never an option. In a choice between the only two realistic possibilities, the United States liberating Iraq militarily, or Saddam Hussein remaining in power, you’ve always preferred the latter.

  28. Obama’s (and Pho’s) plan seems to be working out well. My wife informed me that they no longer accept U.S. dollars in South Korea. She now must convert her cash to use it. She will be in Hong Kong today, yet another conversion. She took about ten thousand in USD with her however she does have access to our account in Korea should she need more (which I’m sure she will). One of our partners, Eun Oak Han, spoke with me on her phone yesterday and asked: “How much longer will we have a child in the White House?”. I laughed but had no answer.

    When she returns to Korea from China on Tuesday she will meet with the Commerce Sec. of Korea. She and our partners will talk to him about easing the import blocks we encounter when bringing in food (cheese, meat and olive oil) from Italy. Currently we have to deliver said items to Japan and then, after inspection, they can be brought to the port of Pusan. Very costly. She told me that being in Seoul is now like being in New York City. Very busy, very crowded and not as “neat” as it used to be. She says “too many cars”. She and her brothers and sisters will visit their family burial mounds sometime this week and have what we would call a pic-nic and drink rice wine and remember their ancestors. Sounds crazy to me but to each his own.

  29. Dana, if liberating mean old dictatorship countries is our American job, then, why is it we just love those like Mubarak who does our torturing for us? You aren’t looking honestly at the whole picture, and you are ignoring what many American and other historical icons warned of, that war is a racket, and it’s not about bringing sweetness and light of America to other countries, it’s about OWNING them.

  30. The same reason that most Germans weren’t our enemies, yet we bombed them to oblivion: their government was repugnant and had to be destroyed.

    The Germans were your enemies – they declared war on you.

    Why the fuck did you murederous bastards kill Iraqis?

  31. What we have done in the Middle East is to liberate people from tyranny, and try to create reasonably democratic states. It has always been our intention to leave those nations to rule themselves once democracies were established.

    Bullshit.

    And you know it’s bullshit, Dana.

  32. “Perry, are you actually suggesting that being pro-defense is in some way anti-life? “

    No John, I am not suggesting that. I don’t consider our attack of Iraq to be defensive, because it was clearly offensive, therefore “anti-life”! I hope this clears it up for ya!

  33. “Obama’s (and Pho’s) plan seems to be working out well.”

    Sure, John, Obama’s fault. You completely dismiss the Bush Great Recession, which put Obama in the position where he had to continue TARP to save the global financial systems, and stimulus to get the economy growing again and create more jobs. How convenient of you to overlook that!

    And by the way, a weaker dollar helps our economy by reducing the cost of exports to importing nations. And let the South Koreans not forget where they would be today were it not for the sacrifices that Americans made in fighting their civil war on their side. I note that the South Koreans do not believe in free trade with the tariffs they impose. That said, I do admire the South Koreans for their economic achievements. I had many South Korean students, in the ’90′s, and found most to be very serious about their education.

  34. “Shorter Hoagie: Babble babble babble and that’s why liberals suck.”

    Right, PiaToR, John makes a lot of assumptions that lead to stereotypes, when John should know that he is dealing with individuals and their specific issues which can then be debated.

  35. No, Dana, pepperring populations with bombs, bullets, and land mines, and torture, and illegal invasion based on lies is never going to convince anyone with a scintilla of intellect that our “democracy” gracing their country is nothing short of an act of brutal Empire, with multi-national companies all holding hands with the government, and in many cases ARE/WERE our government, while deals are being cut with a desperate population of whom had previously endured sanctions against them which left thousands and thousands of children dying, from prohibiting chlorine to purify their water systems, and drugs which cure such ailments. You all Righties get to jump up and down and blame it on Clinton. But, along came Bush, who, after his family and friends deals with Hussein, with that special purchase of the mustard gas that he made use of, well this Bush guy, he and his Carlyle Group buddies with Pentagon good ol’ boys, keeping the cash in their court, with theatrics C.I.Whatever playing rebel rouses. You all just keep dancing for them while people keep dying for acquisition.

    Fascism, it’s real, it’s ours now. Are you pleased?

    Oh, by the way, the ones that made money on the sale of gas to Hussein, are many of whom that make our policies in place today.

    NO, I do not believe they were attempting to bring a democracy. The difference between emperor tactics of old, from the empirical tactics of present, is that the Emps are better liars, and they are rich enough to own networks. When all their friends that keep the money ball bouncing back, forth, and around, and count on keeping people flag waving, and football watching, and American Idol watching, self doubting (unless FOX tells us so), that abandon their own objectivity, in favor of willfully blind idealism. And innocent people are being destroyed in Hitler’s acquisition, and the same results, with the dead without guilt, most of them. And I know how you all hate professional journals, each time I bring one, but you must respect that professional statisticians agenda should supersede a political agenda’s which brings you your “news” now.

    We exceeded Hitler in our capacity to be destructive also, because we now use depleted uranium that deforms babies for the next billion or so years, along with cancer in unseen levels, and oh, by the way, our soldiers get exposed to the dust there as well, you know. Some women of soldiers have been shown with the baby’s deformed hand. Not uncommon, and the government lies about it.

    No, you enable abuse of our soldiers’ lives, if not take their lives, or their body parts, or sanity, with your idealism, overlooking the fact that those sending them there with ample knowledge of the falsehood of their proclamations, WMDoodoo. And the Downing Street Memo document of the conversations between Bush and Blair, the specific statement that was on record as saying “we must fix the facts to get the people to go along with this.” Many other reasons, but I’ll stop the list of “whys” we know he lied to start the war.

    I wonder why the Bin Laden family was flow out of the country (the ones that had apparently washed their hands of Osama)when the flights all over the country were on stand down. None others allowed, just the bin Laden boys get a “presidentially okayed” excursion out.

    Sometimes the hardest things to see are right in front of you. We got a gangster government/defense industry, which Eisenhower warned of. A guy named Smedley Butler said so too, in a long running, revered book, named book, “War is a Racket”.

    JAMES MADISON: “If tyranny and oppression come to this land, it will be in the guise of fighting a foreign enemy.”

  36. I would like to say to Perry and Pho that yeah, it was a snide comment but it was not my point. I was trying to point out that for the first time in my life South Korean businesses will not accept US dollars. Don’t either of you find that a bit odd? I do especially considering that parts of the US trade in Berksires and vast amounts of our country (including inner city areas) accept pesos.

    The rest was just trying to impart some of her experiences over there. Sorry if I blah, blah, blah’d you. She also noted there are far fewer military on the streets. They used to have soldiers all over the place. Back in January of 1991 I was coming out of a hotel at which I had dinner wwith my wife and four or so other Koreans and several soldiers came up and began shouting to them they had 45 minutes to go home. Seems I could stay out all night as an American but since the US just invaded Iraq THEY were subject to a curfew. Go figure.

  37. I was trying to point out that for the first time in my life South Korean businesses will not accept US dollars.

    How widespread is that, John? I recall when I was in the service in Japan in the late fifties, that as strong as the dollar was then, there were still some businesses which would not accept dollars. At the time I concluded that this had to do with national pride.

    Regarding your blah, blah, blah, I actually enjoy hearing of your experiences, so I did not mean to speak against that.

Comments are closed.