I work with people who are quite conservative and people who are quite liberal. It’s a small company and it’s pretty obvious who thinks what. The conservatives avoid politics and remain silent when the subject comes up.

The liberals have said, at times: Bush will use bird flu to declare martial law and take over the country; he’ll let the poor people die; Americans don’t care about helping other countries (this, only a few months after the tsunami) Bush purposely let people die in Hurricane Katrina; Bush is a brilliant mastermind of evil, and as dumb as a dog; started the Iraq war for money, oil, racism, to establish another “colony”; Bush wants to destro the planet; Bush hates Mexicans (!?); conservatives are evil; Bush and the republicans only care about money (this from our accountant who is famously stingy!)… this, I promise you, is only the tip of the iceberg.

I have found that you cannot say even one moderate, mild statement without immediate backlash. And I will fully admit that these are otherwise thoughtful, consciencious, likeable people who I (mostly) love working with. One of them is particularly measured, diplomatic, and very reticent to be critical of others or to be judgmental. I think very highly of him on all non-political fronts… But let someone betray even a hint of–not even conservative!–non-leftist opinion and there is instant, barking invective.

I too would have at one time thought that stories like that of DBrooks were exaggerations or made up. Not anymore.

It will never cease to baffle me and I have friends that I have chosen to distance myself from because they cannot leave politics alone. So sad, because I am more than willing to close the subject.

Anyway, not sure what the point of this was, but to sympathise with others out there with the same experience.

Well, at last agreement. Yes, it has been indeed foolish to send money into the palestinian territories. I’d be the first to say that. I suppose I can’t come up with the bank statements (that’s the whole point of Swiss accounts), but where has all the money gone? You tell me.
Also, that still skewers your original comment- we HAVE sent the money- as you seem to admit now, so you were just doing empty posturing, or you just forgot that Billions have disappeared into the Pali black hole?

Here’s your comment- how’d I get it wrong? Perhaps you didn’t write what you wanted to say, but that’d hardly be my fault. or would it?

“confudeforeigner said…
douglas said…
Conned: “I agree with youabout the way right wing ideas are treated on left wing sites. I think it is something to do with political culture in america. You all seem to want to deal in certainties rather then acknowledge doubt and the possibility of the other guy being right. There is an almost religious fervour to much of the debate.”

…like so much else.”

Ymar, I’ve heard of Warcraft. Does that count?

confudeforeigner said…
http://www.msnbc.msn.com:80/id/12319798/

…like so much else.

What exactly does construction of a giant US embassy in Iraq have to do with the question of your presenting propaganda as fact with the 100,000 thing? I construct a lenghty rebuttal to your propaganda, and that’s all you have in reponse? I don’t think it’s going to be convincing anyone.

Clearly dougy, you are confused. One wasn;t the answer to the other. I don’t expect an apology from you as your ilk doesn;t do apologies.

2:29 AM, May 31, 2006

Why do you come across as such a sooky wuss then Yfronts?

Unconditional support for Israel. How it benefits us.

or…..

Why we shouldn’t expose a vicious rapist in the family.

What is Sharon’s estate worth by the way?

I think we tried that already and it’s now sitting safely in numbered Swiss bank accounts under the name Suha.

Well, I;ve never ever seen a single document that actually supports that, but if it is true, more fool you.

I think we tried that already and it’s now sitting safely in numbered Swiss bank accounts under the name Suha.

Then whats the problem? Why does the nasty man want the big burly war criminals to go overseas to beat up on the brown people? Local brown people getting to uppity for yah? Demanding rights and such like?

Perhaps on Memorial Day we can also remember alternative hopes. Not soft-headedness, but tough-minded measures required to build a different world. What if we invested as much in preventing war as in the fighting of it? (What, say, would the Middle East be if the billions spent in Iraq had funded instead a new Palestinian economy?)

Changes in the way we memorialize the past make possible changes in the way we envision the future. But here, too, it is the sacrifice of soldiers that makes possible such change. Indeed, it begins with them. The fallen heroes remind us with their lives that war must stop.”

Couldn’t agree more.

Sorry … I just can’t let that go. These are the same Marines we have just discovered killed Iraqi civilians in cold blood?

C’mon guys step away, and try and get a tiny bit of perspective.

The “War on Terror” is a sham. You know what changed after September 11th? The people of the United States, forgot how strong they are. You gave in to fear, when the only thing they should have feared was fear itself. Osama bin Laden wants you to be afraid. So does George Bush.

There are Americans who are not afraid. They accept that they are going to die, at some point. No problem. What they do not accept and will not accept is the notion that they must live as a slave to fear for the purposes of craven, cowardly men who, in their time, pissed the bed rather than fight an actual war, later to become powerful and use that power to line their pockets with your tax dollars.

Here is a young patriot who’s example you should examine, you might grow a little, or a lot. Depends on you.

http://www.peacetakescourage.com/page-home.htm

Yeah, me too!!

Plame and Winston, hehe. I just can’t really find it persuasive that NGos and UN peacekeepers going in and doing the party-rape-get paid for it scam is actually braver and wiser than United States Marines that have only been deployed inside the United States.

Color me prejudiced, but I hate oppressors and thugs putting their bootheels on those weaker than they. I makes me so want to eviscerate them.

That’s convincing. At least this time it’s correctly presented as opinion.

“I’ve also been to a lot of the places that these little keyboard warriors pontificate upon but would be way too terrified to visit. You’re having a larf.”

Categorical statement. No basis in fact to back it up. Even so, having been there, are you all knowing and an expert? Is it possible that someone who’s not been somewhere you have might gone actually have a better read on some things than you do? I’ve been to Turkey, but I wouldn’t present myself as an expert on Turkish opinion about anything in general. That’s what sources are for. Oh, and I think it was you who commented earlier that polls aren’t worth anything if you can’t read the questions- I agree, which is why if you go to any links to polls I give, they’ll have the poll available for you to look at. I wouldn’t have it any other way.

“Nor do you know me but your nutcase supporters are more than comfortable inventing my positions.”

Actually, we quote you. You invent.

“‘Categorical statements’. Raed your neocon buddies for categorical statements. I’ve never read such a bunch of humourless self deluding hateful scared hypocrites in my life.”

Classic. See above. You need go no further than the SAME POST to get a categorical statement from Confude. excellent technique, that name calling. Powerful, convincing, persuasive.

“Simplest thing for you, matey, is to not read it. Ignorance is bliss after all.”

Alas, we are not like you, Confude.

Fortunately, not all on the left are either.

…like so much else.

What exactly does construction of a giant US embassy in Iraq have to do with the question of your presenting propaganda as fact with the 100,000 thing? I construct a lenghty rebuttal to your propaganda, and that’s all you have in reponse? I don’t think it’s going to be convincing anyone.

“As for your Eastern European father in law, that wouldn’t be untrustworthy irrelevant anecdotal evidence would it?”

Indeed it would, but at least I present it as such. Take it as you will.

neoneoconned said…
no douglas i mean all of you. There seems to be a dearth of compromise in us political culture. Left wingers might as well troll on right wing sites because they get dismissed as such anyway - and vica versa

Conned, you’re not really a troll here anymore (except perhaps as regards Ymar). We’ve engaged you, and you’ve been far more engaged in true conversation here than Confude… So I don’t see why you say this.

“You’re kidding right?

If you’re not, you are a victim of your own propaganda. “

This coming from Confude?!

confudeforeigner said…
“Stop Press!!!!

No brave Americans or heroic peace loving Israelis are known to have died in Jogjakarta yesterday, just a bunch of Muslims and Buddhists.

Yet it was all over our news yesterday anyway, even that dispicable Fox news- and on an American holiday no less!

“We await Pat Robertsons pronouncement on what his imaginary friend “God” meant by this message to the heathens.”

Did someone here mention Robertson? Or are you swinging at shadows again?

“In other Asian news….The US has sent a contingent of 40 marines to Dili to safeguard the US Embassy from the violence that is wracking East Timor.”

Should we send more? Do you promise not to call it an Imperial occupation if we do? Hey, wait, isn’t the UN taking care of East Timor? Or was it the peace loving Indonesians?

Probligo: “Why so is sending troops to Timor L’Este “unsurprising”? After all the US wanted nothing to do with the problem in 1996 - for fear of upsetting the Indonesians.”

See, catch-22. Go in and get called Imperialist and insensitive to the Indonesians, stay out and get called uncaring, or worse…

“If some of those who “debate” here were to use the same language and attitude in a face to face discussion I can well imagine their “Conservative” friends abandoning them.”

But it doesn’t work like that, does it? We don’t go around sticking our politics into people’s faces in person (yes, here it is different, as one would expect). We actually make an effort to engage on thier ideological turf- for instance I present Confude not with articles from The Wall Street Journal, but with UN reports to contradict him, because HE sees them as relatively reliable and impartial- not because I do. See my point here. I don’t enter conversations by proclaiming the incorrectness of everyone else, as some have done on their entrance into this forum… I listen first.

“we should have the truth filters on full blast… with the confirmation bias turned as low as possible.”

Amen, brother- thus my post earlier about confude and the 100,000…

“are nothing les than trumpeting falsehoods. That is the case here. US foreign aid is woefully inadequate and way out of proportion with military spending.

I don’t wish to be snide but the comment invited a response. Propaganda is the enemy of justice etc”

This again from Confude?! Why are you the arbiter of what the proportion of our military spending to foreign aid should be? Learn a little about what aid is really about, and American private charity here.

“That “greatest country in the world” stuff is cringeworthy and counterproductive in my view.”

With your worldview, of course it is. Which IS the greatest contry in the world (someone’s gotta be)? If it IS the US, it’s simply a statement of fact, and I don’t think anyone here would say it as braggadocio, but rather as a taking up of the reponsibility that goes with it, and an appreciation for it. Sorry if it rubs you the wrong way…

confudeforeigner said…
“Albaquirky,
go here

http://www.newscientist.com/article.ns?id=dn6596″

A news website reporting the same report you mentioned in the first place isn’t a response. It’s just a different web address.

“Further, I get my information from a much broader range of sources than most of the posters on here.”

And you would know that how? You’ve certainly presented nothing to indicate you have a broad range of sources, at least judging by your links (or lack thereof).

“What you say is ‘debunked’ is hardly that,…”

Wow, I’m devastated. What a powerful debunking of my debunkment! Not even one link to anything other than a regurgitation of the wire story of the original propaganda. Mere declarations of ‘truth’.

“…and you’ve forgotten Afghanistan too. Civilian deaths due to the security situation are the responsibilty of the occupying power. Make no mistake.”

Right. When some terrorist blows up men women and children in a market, it’s the fault of the occupation. If someone is kidnapped and beheaded, it’s the occupations fault. Never mind the fellow holding the knife dripping in blood… Excellent logic. You demonstrate my points far better than I ever could illustrate them.

What really troubles me about the likes of Confude are that he ends up making it too tempting for me to dismiss him offhand, because he’s demonstrated such inaccuracy and closed-mindedness. I go to a little effort to actually dig up facts (not just ‘reports’), and get sources like UN reports, that I feel will be seen as beating him on his own turf, rather than regurgitating some talking point from my side… but he has no respect for that effort, and will not return that effort. Shame.

Since you don’t know us, I’m pretty sure there is absolutely no way you could support that statement. And yet you state it as fact. You just know it. Kind of like you knew everything about tsunami aid. (Oh wait, you didn’t.)

I’m pretty sure I do read a broader range of sources than the bulk of posters on here. I’ve also been to a lot of the places that these little keyboard warriors pontificate upon but would be way too terrified to visit. You’re having a larf.

Nor do you know me but your nutcase supporters are more than comfortable inventing my positions.

I think I made my point on tsunami aid.

‘Categorical statements’. Raed your neocon buddies for categorical statements. I’ve never read such a bunch of humourless self deluding hateful scared hypocrites in my life.

Simplest thing for you, matey, is to not read it. Ignorance is bliss after all.

Logic is too… inflexible in a way. Still useful, but I think consolidation makes more sense.

There has been plenty of back and forth arguments with Confud, Sally, Conned, etc and etc. While some things are clarified, other questions are not and more questions crop up. Some questions not only don’t get answered, they can’t answered. Like what if Conned is totally wrong about 90% of his beliefs concerning Iran, Iraq, Afghanistan, and Bush? How do you expect Conned to answer this, even I can’t answer this because I am not Conned.

I do, or did, a lot of internet debating. And there is a point, and I’ve already seen it here, where you just know that your opponent is simply avoiding you on some matters. It is like negotiation and realizing someone is hiding something. Unlike in real life, you have no body language, voice tones, and eye dilation to figure out what is what. You just have words and your own thinking.

So it is much harder to get into someone’s head psychologically. And it takes longer for two people to figure out what is going on with the other. But after we do, I think everyone has a responsibility to shift their tactics and do something more constructive. I didn’t say they should stop talking and arguing, but that they should change the way they argue.

I’m not talking specifically about Alex, or anyone else.

But in general terms, the beginning, middle, and end of a debate or argument is pretty consistent all in all.

Further, I get my information from a much broader range of sources than most of the posters on here.

Actually, you make a whole lot more categorical statements than most of the posters on here!

Since you don’t know us, I’m pretty sure there is absolutely no way you could support that statement. And yet you state it as fact. You just know it. Kind of like you knew everything about tsunami aid. (Oh wait, you didn’t.)

When you make broad unsupportable (and arrogant) statements like the above, you really undermine my trust in everything else you say. Why should I ever believe you?

I wouldn’t make that inference myself, Sally, as I tend to think it goes beyond the available justifications.

BMC has made some progress towards enlightenment, defined as not hating America. But still, as we can still, there is still some progress to be made. I don’t want to single BMC out and get on his case, but it is important to note that while BMC likes and is inspired by America, BMC rationalizes his current dislike and disbelief of American policies as a disconnect between we who are Americans and the idealized America BMC believes in.

So what does this mean? It means, that BMC has found a way to compartamentalize his mind. Which is actually an improvement, though much, other the usual kind of stuff we hear about America. BMC has compartamentlized his mind into liking America, and disliking current American policy through the justification the current Americans are stealing the glory and honor of their own ancestors.

That could certainly happen, we see it all the time by the judges when they say that people taking people’s property through confiscating is just the rule of law rather than the rule of judges. The pro-abortion movement used the argument of “choice” and stole the success of America’s forefathers to implement abortion on demand.

This doesn’t really mean however, that people like sam houston are not true Americans. It just means BMC believes this is the case, and that this justifies his disbelief of American policy. Becaus after all, if the supporters of American foreign policy were true Americans and were faithful to the ideals and principles of the Founding Fathers in securing liberty… then where BMC would be in disagreeing with American policy? He would have to start offloading his respect for the American Constitution then, because he has indeed put the US Constitution upon a pedestal. And the best way to actually ignore something is to put it on a pedestal and worship it, put it into the divine, where it does not affect the real world and the nutty gritty details.

I tend to tsee this as the reason that while BMC admires the US Constitution, he his valued and proported solutions for world government veers totally from the US model.

Hypocrisy and Hyperbole that is.

Heehee. You couldn’t make this stuff up.

That’s one point at least (and probably at most) on which we agree. That the indecent left in all its odorous variety — neurotic, depraved, seditious, and straight out loony — should find itself challenged in this way even when thinking it was safe among its own vile kind is a good indication that it’s in some serious trouble. Courage, after all, like rationality, is not one of their strong points.

As for this particular “world citizen” himself, it might help to remember that he’s a confessed American wannabe, and a rather dewy-eyed proponent of that tired old lefty panacea, world government. That is, on top of suffering from a bad case of nation-envy, he’s also likely young, obviously naive, and easily impressed. His attempts at insult are as weak as his unformed “intellect”.

Reality needs to intrude here. Thank God for the Americans who are standing for true American values, and not allowing people like Sam the peace of their reality free Bubbles. More of the same I hope.”

I’ll thank you for letting me speak for myself rather than have you put words into my mouth that completely misreprsent what I said.

I welcome a civil debate of the issues. I refuse to participate, however, in childish name-calling, rants laced with obscenities, or “serious” discussion of conspiracy theories that make a sane person blush in embarrassment to hear them said out loud.

Reality is the world in which I live. Reality is not the world in which some of the robotic Bush-haters and America-haters live.

If you are going to paraphrase the thoughts of myself and others, try to come a little closer to the truth of their original words.

if you think that Syria is sympathetic to Saddam loyalists, then you need to read more. You really do.

It is interesting that most of the criticism of Syria in the past has been for their brutal suppression of islamic militancy. Now we’re told that it is a) supporting said miltants and b) they’re nasty people who don’t love Israel. I don’t think I’d be too sympathetic to a country that is occupying my best and most valuable land either. Huh.

It’s a funny old world ain’t it.

http://www.newscientist.com/article.ns?id=dn6596

Further, I get my information from a much broader range of sources than most of the posters on here. What you say is ‘debunked’ is hardly that, and you’ve forgotten Afghanistan too. Civilian deaths due to the security situation are the responsibilty of the occupying power. Make no mistake.

Your claims regarding the numbers killed under Saddam are disingenuous at best.

I have presented critcisms of US policies because it is US policies that are under the spotlight here. Surprise. Nobody is saying that the US is responsible for the world’s ills, just that you aren’t always the good guy. As has been pointed out, there are no altruistic nations. That should be the starting point for an adult discussion and we can ignore the whining antileft antiliberal antieveryonewhodoesn’t likeBush brigade comments from the kiddy posters, hopefully.

As a citizen of a small nation state, the US is beginning to look like more of the same. Jesus guy, have sense of history.

You are the people, in this generation, on trial here. The honourable history of the US does not redeem you, it CONDEMS YOU.

Like a grave robber, you steal the uniforms of dead American soldiers, men who fought bravely and with honour in justified conflicts. Slipping into the rotting tunics, you try to pass yourself off as something you are definitively not.

No is fooled. You are spectacle, a ghastly global danse macabre. Go home.

I must confess a sense of satisfaction that this is happening.

Sam wants to go to parties and not be bothered with all that upsetting war stuff, or worse, hang out with people who slap each other on the back and comment on how well it’s going “over there”.

Reality needs to intrude here. Thank God for the Americans who are standing for true American values, and not allowing people like Sam the peace of their reality free Bubbles. More of the same I hope.

Sally, this was a great post.

“So, such a media would present falsehood as fact and ignore context. Those without other sources of information would naturally be as anti-American as Confudeforeigner. Over time, of course, some would begin to see through some of the falsehoods and slant, but they would still be left with a false impression, due to the lack of positive information.”

Sure, but as Sally argued above, rationality isn’t exactly the Left’s strong point. Confudeforeigner complains about American’s boasting about being the greatest country. But if you think about the past century which has brought unprecedented totalitarionism regimes that have slaughtered tens of millions of innocents: Japan, Germany, China, the Soviet Union, Cambodia, Rwanda, the Balkans, Iraq, and now Darfur, the “boast” says a lot less about the U.S. than it does about the other nations of the world.

While numbers are not the full story they give proportion and scale of the potential damage inflicted by hugely dysfunctional nation states.

Confude, just for the record the full name is Democratic Republic of Timor-Leste.

It is probably fair to say most people overseas form their opinions of the United States based upon what they read in their news sources. Questions then arise as to how foreign media present their news reports (or non-reports) on the United States. It is fair to say that the slant from at least the “big guys” is most often anti-American.

People then form their opinions based upon the world as they see it. A major portion of what they see comes from sources which present anti-American images in their `news’ reports. I doubt that this is a controlled conspiracy as such: it is much more likely to be a matter of those in the media business lacking diversity in world views (dancing in the ring) and being resistant to reevaluating and changing those views (the mind is a difficult thing to change).

Neo-neocon has addressed the resultant situation several times. HTTP://NEO-NEOCON.BLOGSPOT.COM/2005/07/IMAGOLOGY-VS-REALITY.HTML>This post citing the novelist Milan Kundera presents the case quite well, and is well worth rereading. In short, manipulation of images is used to create a perception (Madison Avenue spends big bucks on the premise that this works), push-polls confirm and increase that perception, and, lo,

Imagine for a moment that the media consisted almost entirely of people whose worldview is the same as that of Confude as reported by Douglas, not to mention Confudeforeigner elsewhere. Note that exagerated and false anti-American claims are presented as fact.

For example, the falsehood concerning 100,000 civilians “you/we’ve” killed in Iraq. When debunked to a much lower figure for total civilian deaths, the number is slowly raised. Note also how every death is attributed to the U.S. A terrorist setting off a bomb in the marketplace, an auto accident in which U.S. personnel are involved, a Baathist attack on a hospital—all are treated as civilians the U.S. has killed. (Comments on maturity being the ability to make appropriate distinctions deferred.) Nor is there any explanation of context. The alternative of Sadaam remaining in power is not mentioned. Given the civilian deaths attributed to the Baathis regime (death by government) in its 24 years of oppression amount to an average 50,00 - 75,000 per year, suddenly the numbers over the past three years seem much less anti-American.

But it is even more important to step out of the numbers game. The main difference is that, under Sadaam’s Baathist regime, it was the government which was doing the murdering. Under the U.S. occupation and now the Iraqi government, it is the government which is working to protect its citizens. The government has changed from being the enemy to being a protector.

So, such a media would present falsehood as fact and ignore context. Those without other sources of information would naturally be as anti-American as Confudeforeigner. Over time, of course, some would begin to see through some of the falsehoods and slant, but they would still be left with a false impression, due to the lack of positive information.

In any event, thank you, Neo-neocon, for your post. May you have a blessed Memorial Day.

“pretty much every poll”: that’s quite specific, eh? Still can’t swallow that billion in India.

“palpable and overt”: that measurable, eh? Gee, that’s good enough for me.

I didn’t follow the change of subject to Islamic militias. Have trouble staying on topic?

“doozies” about Baathists in Syria. The majority of people leaving Iraq in the last few years have been from the capital and the area west of it - heavily Baathist areas. Many have gone to Syria, a sympathetic regime. So, yeah, I think it’s a fair conclusion that many of the unsatisfied Iraqis now in Syria had close ties to the previous goverment.

Pat Robertson is a non-factor in American politics. The only time you hear about him is when he says something foolish that the opposition wants to use to create the impression that many Republicans are bigoted zealots. I can’t fault you for coming to that conclusion - it is believed by many Americans as well. But it simply doesn’t have evidence behind it.

It will enhance your understanding the news coming out of America if you bear in mind that the newspeople are generally of the opposition party. They are not necessarily dishonest or unwilling to criticise their own, but that leaning does color their understanding of events. It’s rather like listening to only one version of what happened in a divorce.

I don’t doubt that economic and partisan issues were a factor in Howard’s election. Nonetheless, he was elected, despite his support for the war. People may be opposed to the war, but apparently only a much smaller number are greatly opposed to it. That’s hardly surprising. Most people see complicated foreign policy actions in terms of tradeoffs, gains, and losses. It is that misapprehension that causes the Democrats here to be continually amazed at election results. They think all disagreement with the Republicans must be as implacable and extreme as theirs is. That’s why they keep citing popularity polls as deeply meaningful.

Numerous conservative writers predicted that people would be tired of war in Iraq after three years, and would perceive it as going badly regardless of evidence. Several suggested that most of the allies could manage five years, but too many would be worn down by the constant negative play in the media and by the opposition parties. That’s about what’s happened, isn’t it?

Catch 22 as they say. And Catch 22s are always simple, they just aren’t very easy to get out of.

You must have missed that documentary a while back, The Boys from Brazil.

The “world” eh? That is a tad simplistic. Individuals across the “world” are horrified and deeply frustrated by these issues. You are a terribly man for generalising, that entire post is simply a list of unsubstantiated generalisations, a kind of neural core dump. Ymarsakar unplugged or perhaps unhinged:-)

The root of problem is the lack of structures to channel the moral outrage into productive paths.

In democracies, if we are sufficiently outraged, annoyed or disappointed we elect someone else. Our desires are channeled through our representatives and the stuff we want to get done, gets done.

In terms of global governance though, we’ve had the same crap system since 1945, and no mechanisim to get rid of it. Hence paralysis.

The “world” lacking functioning governance doesn’t translate to “oh, lets have a benign military dictatorship shall we? Won’t that be nice?”

Take the Hitler is Bush scenario, the autocracy, and the term limits. First, the historical lesson. Hitler came to power because Hindenberg, the President, gave Hitler the position of Chancellor to avoid political meltdown of the system. The Chancellor in return, used brown shirts to intimidate the Parliament to vote him emergency powers among other things. (Why does this sound like Palatine and George Lucas?)

So how would this apply to Bush? The best thing a self-autocratic Bush would have done after 9/11 was to force Congress to declare war on all terroists. Since there will always be some terroists around, Bush could maintain a state of war, which legally reactivates all those concentration camp plans Roosevelt cooked up in the last war, almost indefinitely. Bush wouldn’t need the Patriot Act because a Congressional Declaration of War, fully and legally termed thus (not serious consequences, not funding a war waged by Presidential authorization or anything that actually occured) would give them 500 times the power the Patriot Act does. As we all know and suspect, Britain and the Netherland’s laws on detainment and arrest are many orders greater than the US laws. You see it in the Natalie Holloway case. People can get arrested, just cause the police wants to question you. You can be kept in jail without being charged for months and months, so long as some “corrupt judge” decides the police has a need. Now the new laws in Britain and the Netherlands expand even this amount of ridiculous police powers. And people have the audacity to try and complain about the United States Patriot Act? What ignorance.

This goes back to the whole “War for Oil, Imperial domination, and capitalistic exploitation” thing the Left has in their heads. If they actually spent as much time thinking about how to implement the so called plans of their enemies, they would realize how stupid their solutions and descriptions are. But they don’t, they don’t give an iota of consideration to how a person can achieve dictatorship powers, make war for profit (UN Oil for Profit, and Sex for Peacekeepers), or any Imperial expansionist policy. This leads them to describing Bush as an auto-crat because they either don’t know what a real autocrat is, or they just don’t bother thinking about how a real auto-crat would gain power. Hitler, as they say, is seen through hindsight. Anyone now, can say “Oh, of couse Hitler was bad and we should have stopped them”. But those back in the day, were the same people crying out for peace and “negotiation” with Iran now. The human race hasn’t learned a lot of lessons that can’t be taught genetically.

I said the words revolution and patriotism because it applies this way. Patriots have to find a way to overthrow tyrants and dictators, but without destroying their civilization in the process and killing the people they want to liberate. So the American Revolution is a successful move by patriots to take back their rights and their country, from someone who does not deserve to rule them (GB). If patriotism is the successful campaign to get rid of tyrants and dictators masquerading as “rightful rulers”, then revolutions tend to be the failures among the road paved with good intentions.

Meaning, the Left loves to do revolutions that fail and I think they fail primarily because the Left is part of those revolutions. A group of fighters is only as good as the people in them, after all. When you have such a high quality of enlightened, heroic, and honest individuals such as the Founding Fathers, regardless of their faws, it really ups the chances for success.

Going back to Bush. Americans would overthrow an unjust government because unlike every other Western world, the US has the 2nd Ammendment. The United States is not the greatest country in the history of the world because we have the best humans in humanity, although that does contribute, but because we are able to extract the greatness from humans from depressing the savage animalistic urges of humanity. The 2nd Ammendment is a way to do both. Much as the military does. The 2nd Ammendment allows people to make choices and decisions not out of fear, but out of considered thought. Humans are not enlightened, if we know we are incapable of defending ourselves we get the Fight or Flight response. This causes rioting, mobs, and all kinds of devastation. While the “wise world” believes that the US obsession with guns causes more murders and crime, Americans believe that the 2nd Ammendment makes humans more rational and less prone to mob violence and instinctual fear.

In the end, this is only one of the reasons why Americans are less prone to tyranny than the rest of the world.

If you really considered Bush’s position and had to plan out how to take dictatorship powers, how would you go about it? Declaring war on all terroists, prolonging it indefinitely is a good idea. So is cementing the loyalty of the army and air force, through bribes, loans, financial restitutions, and increases in pay. Forcing other nations to pay tribute or be devastated by bombs, is also a good way to get the money to pay for the military. Then there is the fact that the current crop of police won’t kill civilians on command, so what you do is what Hitler did, first remove the weapons from the civilians so they don’t fight back then get a bunch of young men without wives or close family connections and get them training as a “new branch of the police”. This will give you the black shirts required to crush and intimidate all opposition. You can’t be a tyrant without a group of armed thugs loyal only to you, and not the US Constitution cause you’re going to be destroying the US Constitution on the way to power.

On a last note, Tsunami Reliefs. The US military provided lift capacity through our carriers and helicopters, which no other nation had available. Let me explain what this means. It means basically the same as if the US had given cancer victims a cure for cancer, when no other nation had that cure. Would it be fair then to say that the US was stingy because we only gave them one item, the cure, while everyone else gave them billions of money and years of their NGO time and care? No, it would not be. Because a rare commodity is priceless beyond its quantity. Thus with the US aid.

No other nation could buy transports and transport them within a week to the Tsunami victims. The victims couldn’t wait. But they had to, if the US had not had the lift capacity to bring in the supplies. It don’t matter how much money people give out, if it doesn’t reach the people that needs them. UN NGOs and other NGOs just spend their time partying in UN paid for hotels, they don’t have a military-industrial complex to shift large supplies across the world.

Because the world is jealous and envious of the United States military, and they turn this emotion into contempt and disdain for the “US wasting money on the military”, the world will allow victims to die sight unseen just so to spite America. Sounds to me like Afghanistan, Darfur, and Iraq redux.

My GOD! Could they do that??

Heil Hillary … it’s got a ring:-) Or Heil Gore??

It has nothing to do with proving the US is the best country in the world. It’s more about proving that the US isn’t the worst country in the world, as many, many people believe. Far from it. The US gets the blame for nearly everything that goes wrong, and almost no credit for things that go right. Your comment struck me as snarky because it seemed to imply that the US would ignore the recent earthquake, just like it ignores every humanitarian crisis. But this is, dare I say it, patently false.

And, frankly, how many purely altruistic countries are out there? Why did Australia give so much? Might Australia’s generousity have at least something to do with the fact the devastation happened in its own backyard, among its major trading partners? Not to put down Australia in the least, I’m just saying that, in a case like this, you often see a mixture of altruism and self-interest. The US had a lot less at stake in this one, and still it gave — money and, most importantly, direct helicopter and logistical aid in the first crucial weeks. Money has a habit of being filtered through bureaucratic relief organizations until cents on the dollar actually reach their intended recipient, but the effect of an airlift is felt immediately.

Oh, I wouldn’t worry about that. The Illuminati, taking directions from the Mother Ship (hiding behind that comet whatsitsname) will surely have found a way to change the Constitution before the 2 terms are up, don’t you think? Or install another Hitler clone? (Imagine Hillary with a mustache — hmm? Hmm?)

So, Bush isn’t just a President with whom they disagree; he’s Hitler, he’s Stalin. Once that equation is accepted, anyone who supports his policies is a Nazi or a Stalinist: the enemy.

This is of course absolutely true, and if there were not so many disturbing signs that Bush is a power hungry autocrat, it might be unfair.

However the US has rarely seen a president pull so much power to himself, for so little genuine justification.

Hitler and Stalin did not leap full blown onto the world stage, dripping venom from their fangs. In both cases it took 20 years of political manouvering before they had amassed the kind of power that allowed them to do the dreadful things they did. It is in this sense that Bush is a nascent Hitler, and proto Stalin.

The only silver lining is the 2 term limit. Good thinking there, and it can’t come soon enough for me:-)

I think from the Anchoress, I now have the habit of complaining about obscenity, which I call “potty mouth”.

I think if we laugh at those, especially but not exclusively Leftists, who argue using potty mouth language, we can maybe move to
significant discussion.

I don’t think it possible to argue significantly with those who are potty mouth passionates.

Sally was mostly correct: the anti-capitalists hate America leading the globalization process using capitalism — the peaceful economic system. Voluntary agreement by the decicion making buyer. For good, or vulgar consumerist, or their own non-elite reason.

OK there are a few things about that table that don’t ring true.

The first one is that the Australian government has pledged AU$5 billion over 5 years for Indonesia alone. It will arrive too (which isn’t always the case). A lot of that is going to Bandah Aceh, which is a hot bed of Islamic extremism but was one of the worst hit areas. That is about the only thing I will ever applaud John Howard for, ever.

The second one is that I can’t find anywhere else that says that the US govt is giving more than US$350 m in aid. Tied aid isn’t aid at all. The US generally gives figures which include said tied aid and roughly 70% can be termed as such.

Public pledges and actual funds realized are very often quite different.

Look, as I said I’m not belittling or demeaning the US effort but I hate that chauvanistic bent from some over there. That “greatest country in the world” stuff is cringeworthy and counterproductive in my view.

“Pretty much any poll since Iraq that has asked who people think is the most dangerous to global security have named your little Texan buffoon as number 1.”

I object to the constant slanderous remarks. If you cant respect our President at least try to show some respect to people on this board by curbing the juvenile and hate filled remarks.

Harry,

you’re welcome to say anything you like about John Howard.

Anything else I can help you with?

1. Personally I stay away from Pat Robertson so I can’t say how much power he has over GWB, but the analogy to Al Sharpton does strike me as accurate.

2. The US was indeed the largest single donor in the tsunami relief effort. Take a look at this table. You’ll see that the US gav