Michael Moore bitchslaps CNN

[macul]

What I'm saying is without a government, and, in this specific case, our government, your life and our society would be in a very different shape indeed.

That's kind of making our point for us. The only reason you and paul can view those things rights is because we, as a society, grant them to you. The moment our society breaks down those rights disappear. At that point you are left with your only true rights, which exist without any form of government or societal structure.

[Joe Rice]

That's kind of making our point for us. The only reason you and paul can view those things rights is because we, as a society, grant them to you. The moment our society breaks down those rights disappear. At that point you are left with your only true rights, which exist without any form of government or societal structure.

I really don't understand what you're saying, sorry. I don't care about semantical "rights" discussions. Some may find it interesting or distracting, but it's just fluff to me. My issue is our moral obligation to provide for those that cannot provide for themselves.

[Paul McEnery]

My filthy layabouts are on every corner and in every doorway of my neighborhood. I see them all the time. They are far from the extreme. They are the norm for the welfare state.

That's funny. I thought you lived in America.

[Paul McEnery]

You and paul are missing my point. I'm not saying that life isn't better in a society. I'm not saying we don't benefit from living in a cooperative society. My point is that when you strip all of that away you are left with very few rights. When it comes down to the nitty gritty you've only a few true rights and healthcare and food aren't among them.

And my point would continue to be that when you come down to the nitty gritty, you don't have any rights at all.

The one thing you certainly don't have a right to is life. Everyone dies.

Another thing you certainly don't have is liberty. What on earth does that even mean?

And as for the pursuit of happiness -- the attempt to achieve physical homeostasis is a right now?

All "rights" are the fruit of political argument, negotiation and struggle. That's the reality. And the rest of the developed world has a broader definition of rights than the United States does.

[Paul McEnery]

Awfully generous of the government to provide us with life and society. Yow.

Generous? No.

We get this stuff through hard political struggle, and thanks to hard political struggle, we now get to say who the government is and what it does.

Which was also not a right until the people rose up against the King.

[Paul McEnery]

I see government as being the cherry on top of the sundae that is society. It isn't an independent entity, it develops out of what society thinks it should be. Any safety and structure it provides is only possible because society approves.

It wasn't the government that enabled JK Rowling to get benefits as a single mother but a society that decided providing such benefits is desirable.

Yes and no.

It was the people who decided to elect the Atlee government, but it was the Atlee government that launched the Beeching report and then decided to act on it.

[Paul McEnery]

But it's a massive problem, and about half the money is going to bilkers, so my hypothetical is real. Also, notice how they said the bilkers changed their schemes in response to changes in the system. Child care is now the big scam. If we change the system, it can make it harder on scammers, or they have to find a new racket that may be easier to identify and stop.

Look at it this way... if a business was losing as much product to theft as it did in sales, wouldn't it be time for some massive changes, to make it much more difficult to steal?

As always, you're talking extreme shit so as to derail the conversation.

Since I've been paid by the state of California as a registered child care provider -- which I can't even slightly imagine you have -- I actually know what I'm talking about.

My payment through the state was a massive $5.25 an hour (or thereabouts, no more than $5.45, anyway). Not a living wage for me, obviously. Below the minimum wage.

But enough for me to stretch out my meagre savings to write a novel while I was helping out a single mother with her kid, so she could actually go to work.

[Paul McEnery]

I really don't understand what you're saying, sorry. I don't care about semantical "rights" discussions. Some may find it interesting or distracting, but it's just fluff to me. My issue is our moral obligation to provide for those that cannot provide for themselves.

Absolutely. And the rights we give each other are the only ones we have. And I'm pretty damn sure that food and health are worthwhile rights to give each other.

[Loren]

That's a lot of maybes coming together to form a Voltron-like Straw Man.

I think you may have forgotten what a Straw Man argument is.

[Joe Rice]

I think you may have forgotten what a Straw Man argument is.

I don't think so . . .I might be stretching it though. You're giving a lot of ridiculous hypotheticals in order to make my position seem worse. While maybe not textbook Strawmanning it's pretty close.

[Loren]

Perhaps, then, "rights" are a flowing, nebulous term decided by political struggle while justice, as an abstract, is something that goes beyond that and is in effect eternal.

Yep. Nothing nebulous or changing about the concept of "justice."

[Joe Rice]

Yep. Nothing nebulous or changing about the concept of "justice."

Man's definition? Of course. You'll always have some backwards-leaning, selfish force trying to make sure not everyone gets theirs. God's definition? Pretty set in stone.

[Loren]

I don't think so . . .I might be stretching it though. You're giving a lot of ridiculous hypotheticals in order to make my position seem worse.

Not your position; my post was in response to something specific Paul wrote. He said that Rowling never would have been able to accomplish what she did without government aid. My rebuttal was that that's an awfully firm conclusion to reach from a hypothetical, and to illustrate some of the other possible outcomes that Paul implied were impossible without government assistance.

[Joe Rice]

Not your position; my post was in response to something specific Paul wrote. He said that Rowling never would have been able to accomplish what she did without government aid. My rebuttal was that that's an awfully firm conclusion to reach from a hypothetical, and to illustrate some of the other possible outcomes that Paul implied were impossible without government assistance.

That's still a bunch of "hopeful" conjecture versus the fact that she relied on welfare while writing the first book. I'll take fact.

[Loren]

Man's definition? Of course. You'll always have some backwards-leaning, selfish force trying to make sure not everyone gets theirs. God's definition? Pretty set in stone.

Then why are "rights" flowing and nebulous? Why can't they be defined by God as well? As a Christian myself, I believe that natural rights originate with God.

[Paul McEnery]

Yep. Nothing nebulous or changing about the concept of "justice."

Justice isn't a concept. It's an emotion.

[Joe Rice]

Then why are "rights" flowing and nebulous? Why can't they be defined by God as well? As a Christian myself, I believe that natural rights originate with God.

See, this is the semantics stuff that I don't care about. Call them what you want. The basic point is doing what is right for others.

[Paul McEnery]

Then why are "rights" flowing and nebulous? Why can't they be defined by God as well? As a Christian myself, I believe that natural rights originate with God.

That would be your problem right there, then.

Joe's a practicing Christian, I'm an apostate Christian, and I don't think either of us would make that claim. And moreover, I'd say it's impossible to reasonably make that claim.

Not to mention ethically ill-advised.

[Loren]

That's still a bunch of "hopeful" conjecture versus the fact that she relied on welfare while writing the first book. I'll take fact.

But it's not fact; it's still conjecture to say she never would have followed a similar path without welfare. She also had a child. Should we attribute her success to the existence of her child, and conclude that without her daughter, she never would have written the books? Or that if she hadn't gotten divorced, she never would have written the books?

We simply don't know how her life would have turned out if one aspect of her experience had been different, and it's rather presumptive to conclude that welfare was the block in the Jenga stack of her life that would've made the whole thing collapse if removed.

[Loren]

Justice isn't a concept. It's an emotion.

And there's definitely nothing nebulous or flowing about emotions.

[Joe Rice]

But it's not fact; it's still conjecture to say she never would have followed a similar path without welfare. She also had a child. Should we attribute her success to the existence of her child, and conclude that without her daughter, she never would have written the books? Or that if she hadn't gotten divorced, she never would have written the books?

We simply don't know how her life would have turned out if one aspect of her experience had been different, and it's rather presumptive to conclude that welfare was the block in the Jenga stack of her life that would've made the whole thing collapse if removed.

We know that she lived on welfare, that she relied upon it, while writing the first book.

We also know she apparently has NO problem paying her taxes (perhaps because others' taxes subsidized her life when she needed it) and that she, in fact, goes on to give more than necessary. These needling side-points and detours you try to make do nothing.

[macul]

And my point would continue to be that when you come down to the nitty gritty, you don't have any rights at all.


Wrong. I might have to deal with someone trying to strip those rights from me, such as a tyrannical government, conquering warlord, or just a thug, but that doesn't negate the fact that I have those rights. I just have to fight for them.

[Sabrinaset]

Justice isn't a concept. It's an emotion.


I have got to hear the reason behind this, Paul.

[Paul McEnery]

And there's definitely nothing nebulous or flowing about emotions.

And that's why we have the law instead of justice.

[Paul McEnery]

Wrong. I might have to deal with someone trying to strip those rights from me, such as a tyrannical government, conquering warlord, or just a thug, but that doesn't negate the fact that I have those rights. I just have to fight for them.

You can't really talk about inalienable rights if they can be alienated, can you.

[Paul McEnery]

I have got to hear the reason behind this, Paul.

Well, technically, it's a feeling more than an emotion. But an emotion it is. Primates feel injustice and act upon it. Our sense of fairness can be educated, but it's essentially primal.

[cactusmaac]

Yes and no.

It was the people who decided to elect the Atlee government, but it was the Atlee government that launched the Beeching report and then decided to act on it.

The Beeching Report was done in 1961. The Beveridge Report was done in 1942.

[macul]

You can't really talk about inalienable rights if they can be alienated, can you.

Inalienable isn't a guarantee you won't have to fight for those rights. Inalienable means that no one has any authority to infringe upon those rights.

[TCJohnson]

Well, technically, it's a feeling more than an emotion. But an emotion it is. Primates feel injustice and act upon it. Our sense of fairness can be educated, but it's essentially primal.

Gotta disagree with you about this. The urge to seek revenge has it's roots in emotional response. Justice...Justice is something that needs to be based on logic, tempred by compassion and mercy, and is many times counter intuitive. If it is based on purely emotional responses then it genreally escelates.

[Paul McEnery]

The Beeching Report was done in 1961. The Beveridge Report was done in 1942.

Oh, duh. I am teh dumb several times over.

[Paul McEnery]

Inalienable isn't a guarantee you won't have to fight for those rights. Inalienable means that no one has any authority to infringe upon those rights.

Nope. Inalienable means people couldn't infringe upon those rights if they tried. That's the literal meaning of the word. That's the grossly inflated rhetoric of the 18th Century. When we reach the 19th Century, we get Marx who's seen a lot of inalienable rights alienated in the 1848 massacre of the communards, to name but one. At which point he starts looking at the alienation of "natural rights" rather seriously.

Joe's right. Arguing semantics on this issue is well beside the point. But I understand that the way Americans have been educated on this issue, and given to believe an Enlightenment conception of natural right, is a substantial hurdle.

But again, Joe's right. The way past this hurdle is to look the issue straight in the eye.

We have the chance to treat each other more decently and improve everyone's standard of living. And it will cost us less. Who loses?

[Paul McEnery]

Gotta disagree with you about this. The urge to seek revenge has it's roots in emotional response. Justice...Justice is something that needs to be based on logic, tempred by compassion and mercy, and is many times counter intuitive. If it is based on purely emotional responses then it genreally escelates.

Strangely enough, revenge doesn't come up until we reach humanity. Like I say, justice and fairness are innate primate behaviours. The only reason we care about justice at all is because we're chimps.

[Reverend Smooth]

Justice and altruism are also emotional responses. They've been testing chimps and are seeing the same impulses motivating them, too.

Everything, when it comes down to it, is natural/instinct/whatever. Even logic is knowledge and instinct that's inevitably shaped by the meat through which we process, and we aren't the only beings out there capable of logic, justice, etc.

Good impulses can be base impulses, too. Nature isn't just selfish.

[macul]

Who loses?

The people do. When they start to believe they are entitled to food and healthcare at the expense of others, but then that supply disappears, you are left with people who've no idea how to deal with the situation.

[Joe Rice]

The people do. When they start to believe they are entitled to food and healthcare at the expense of others, but then that supply disappears, you are left with people who've no idea how to deal with the situation.

Has this happened ANYWHERE that already recognizes these moral obligations?

[macul]

Has this happened ANYWHERE that already recognizes these moral obligations?

Don't know. Has it? Not really my point, though. When you make people believe they are entitled to something then you necessarily create dependants. Inevitably at some point those people forget how to deal with problems on their own. Just my observations in life...

[Joe Rice]

Don't know. Has it? Not really my point, though. When you make people believe they are entitled to something then you necessarily create dependants. Inevitably at some point those people forget how to deal with problems on their own. Just my observations in life...

So, you'd rather not give someone something they need just because you think they might rely on it? I'm sorry, that's not enough of a reason for me.

[Dreadstar]

The reason why I rarely if *EVER* address this kind of discussion is the inevitable "You don't *want* to help your fellow man? That's so sad." response.

Believe me, I've gotten this response on this site and on this board in particular. Don't much care for it.

[macul]

So, you'd rather not give someone something they need just because you think they might rely on it? I'm sorry, that's not enough of a reason for me.

No. Never said that at all. You want to claim this is all semantics, but you keep intimating that we need to give regardless of the situation. I don't believe we should do that. That is the dividing line. You are prepared to create dependancies out of people, even if they need not be so. I'm not.

[Joe Rice]

No. Never said that at all. You want to claim this is all semantics, but you keep intimating that we need to give regardless of the situation. I don't believe we should do that. That is the dividing line. You are prepared to create dependancies out of people, even if they need not be so. I'm not.

I've never said any such thing. I said we need to give to those that need. I've admitted that I think if some people are bilking, until we figure out a foolproof system, we need to make sure the people that need are getting. If that means a few bilkers bilk for a while, I think that's preferable than the needy going without. I WANT to get that foolproof system, though.

Anyway, the rest of the developed world hasn't made dependents out through healthcare and such; I have no reason to think we'd be any different.

[Samurai]

So, you'd rather not give someone something they need just because you think they might rely on it? I'm sorry, that's not enough of a reason for me.

Instead, you help them to become self-reliant. "Teach a man to fish" vs "give him a fish each day for the rest of his life."

[Joe Rice]

Instead, you help them to become self-reliant. "Teach a man to fish" vs "give him a fish each day for the rest of his life."

Not "instead." "While."

It works.

[Samurai]

Not "instead." "While."

It works.

It can, and sure we should help for a little while until they are able to learn to do for themselves. But before very long, they need to be cut off so that they put what they learned into practice. If you tell a man "Ok, I taught you how to fish, and you can do so whenever you feel ready, but until and unless you go fishing, we'll keep giving you a fish every day", where's the incentive?

[cactusmaac]

I don't know about that. France, Germany and Sweden among others have crap economies, high youth (especially minority youth) unemployment and brain drain because the population got used to generous state benefits and voted for more and more of those at the expense of economic competitiveness.

[Joe Rice]

It can, and sure we should help for a little while until they are able to learn to do for themselves. But before very long, they need to be cut off so that they put what they learned into practice. If you tell a man "Ok, I taught you how to fish, and you can do so whenever you feel ready, but until and unless you go fishing, we'll keep giving you a fish every day", where's the incentive?

With some exceptions, that isn't how it works. Some people it takes longer to get on their feet. Some people cannot get on their feet. I know families where both parents work their asses off and they still need government assistance. Your theories do not work in the real world.

[Joe Rice]

I don't know about that. France, Germany and Sweden among others have crap economies, high youth (especially minority youth) unemployment and brain drain because the population got used to generous state benefits and voted for more and more of those at the expense of economic competitiveness.

Speculation.

[cactusmaac]

Care to back that up? Sarkozy, Merkel and the new Swedish government all came to power because voters recognised social democracy needed rolling back.

[Joe Rice]

For one thing, the US has the same problems and no socialized medicine. And what "voters realize" isn't necessarily fact.

[Paul McEnery]

No. Never said that at all. You want to claim this is all semantics, but you keep intimating that we need to give regardless of the situation. I don't believe we should do that. That is the dividing line. You are prepared to create dependancies out of people, even if they need not be so. I'm not.

Macul --

I think you should look more carefully at the difference between American and European situations, with Canada as an interesting midpoint.

I've spent time in all three places, and in my experience, the country with the worst case of entitlement and dependency is America. We could spend all day trying to figure out why that is, but my take on it is that America has a blindspot when it comes to mutuality (or socialism).

European states are much more aware of mutual obligation as nations and communities. I find that Americans are more likely to brush that under the carpet because of the focus on individualism.

Now one of the reasons I live here rather than Europe is because the individualism and enterprise culture here appeal to me, so don't think I'm down on that. But at the same time, there's a shadow-side to that American psychology, and it shows up when people are in a bad place.

In a social democracy, you expect healthcare, shelter, food, education, etc. to be part of the social contract. You're all participants in the community at large. You pay in to national insurance so that others can be paid out. But in a liberal democracy, it's different. When you're at the bottom of the heap, it becomes: I'm going to get mine. I pay in to social security so that I can be paid out.

This is, of course, a fundamental misunderstanding. America does, in fact, have a socialized infrastructure -- any infrastructure is socialized by definition. But because we -- yeah, I'll say we here -- are trained to think as atomized individuals rather than organic participants, we mustn't think of this as socialism in practice. And that's why the system is all screwed up.

You're right that we've done badly in the past with socialized programs, both as individuals and as a society. That's because America is as out of balance in its social aspect as Europe is in its individual aspect. Europe is currently going through growing pains in trying to sort that balance out. And so is America.

I tend to think of this as being about masculine and feminine strategies for survival. And it's pretty obvious that we need both.

[Paul McEnery]

I don't know about that. France, Germany and Sweden among others have crap economies, high youth (especially minority youth) unemployment and brain drain because the population got used to generous state benefits and voted for more and more of those at the expense of economic competitiveness.

That's one way to look at it.

Another way to look at it is that neo-liberal policies create short-term competitive advantages at the expense of long-term infrastructural strategic planning. The immediate effect of this is that countries running neo-liberal policies thrive on paper, and have a quick boom in their economies, but that quickly turns to a bust (as we saw with the dot com rubbish).

So when you're looking at the short boom economy, you think: I want some of that. Which is a bit like coming in late in a pyramid scheme: you are the sucker.

[Paul McEnery]

Care to back that up? Sarkozy, Merkel and the new Swedish government all came to power because voters recognised social democracy needed rolling back.

Think about that statement. Think about whether it's actually meaningful. Think about whether it actually means what you want it to mean.

[Paul McEnery]

high youth (especially minority youth) unemployment

Oh, and you think that's the fault of leftist economics?

[Sabrinaset]

Oh, and you think that's the fault of leftist economics?


Has there been anything even vaguely resembling right-wing or centrist governments in those countries for awhile?

[Paul McEnery]

Has there been anything even vaguely resembling right-wing or centrist governments in those countries for awhile?

I think this is the moment someone usually tells you to edjimacate yourself. And then someone else gets snotty about it.

[Samurai]

I think this is the moment someone usually tells you to edjimacate yourself. And then someone else gets snotty about it.

Don't you know, Sabrina, that compared to Paul, they are all right-wing govts in Europe?

[cactusmaac]

That's one way to look at it.

Another way to look at it is that neo-liberal policies create short-term competitive advantages at the expense of long-term infrastructural strategic planning. The immediate effect of this is that countries running neo-liberal policies thrive on paper, and have a quick boom in their economies, but that quickly turns to a bust (as we saw with the dot com rubbish).

So when you're looking at the short boom economy, you think: I want some of that. Which is a bit like coming in late in a pyramid scheme: you are the sucker.

The dot com bust was a result of short-term overenthusiasm re the prospects of ICT companies. There's not much more to it. The US and other neo-liberal economies have tended to perform much better over a broad range of measures compared to social democracies, authoritarian capitalist and crony capitalist countries.

For one thing, the US has the same problems and no socialized medicine. And what "voters realize" isn't necessarily fact.

The US economy smokes most others when it comes to growth, social mobilty, job creation and pay.

[cactusmaac]

Oh, and you think that's the fault of leftist economics?

It's partially the fault of high tax regimes which discourage private investment and particularly the fault of highly regulated labour markets which discourage the hiring of the young and unskilled.

[Paul McEnery]

It's partially the fault of high tax regimes which discourage private investment and particularly the fault of highly regulated labour markets which discourage the hiring of the young and unskilled.

I think you'll find there's another reason ethnic youth in France has difficulty finding employment.

[Paul McEnery]

The dot com bust was a result of short-term overenthusiasm re the prospects of ICT companies. There's not much more to it. The US and other neo-liberal economies have tended to perform much better over a broad range of measures compared to social democracies, authoritarian capitalist and crony capitalist countries.



The US economy smokes most others when it comes to growth, social mobilty, job creation and pay.

Both of these assertions are counter-factual.

[Dreadstar]

The US economy smokes most others when it comes to growth, social mobilty, job creation and pay.

Both of these assertions are counter-factual.

I'd like to see either of you back up those statements and I'm betting you cannot.

[Paul McEnery]

I'd like to see either of you back up those statements and I'm betting you cannot.

How much?

Because I've got money saying both of us can.

Cactus knows his stuff. I just disagree with him about his indicators and the concealed costs.

[Dreadstar]

How much?

Because I've got money saying both of us can.

Cactus knows his stuff. I just disagree with him about his indicators and the concealed costs.

Dude, I'm just tired of the "Is TOO!"-"Is NOT!" school of debate, feel free to prove me wrong.

[Paul McEnery]

Dude, I'm just tired of the "Is TOO!"-"Is NOT!" school of debate, feel free to prove me wrong.

Oh, I knew that. But dude, I'm at work, and I don't have the space to create a 3000 word paper on how following the neo-liberal policies of the IMF hinders the economies of developing nations for the express purpose of placing ownership in the hands of international capital at the expense of local labour and environmental concerns; and that this is demonstrated graphically in the case of the former Soviet Union, which underperformed under IMF restrictions.

And I could go on about the false indicators of the US economy which is pretty much in the toilet and in serious danger of recession once the housing market collapses completely.

And then Cactus could talk about growth and money markets and what have you, and that would be true too.

And the reality would be, as it always is, that economies have to balance between social responsibility and energetic enterprise, and that issues of ownership between capital, labour and the community are always contested as economic issues just as much as they are as political issues.

And people in the London School of Economics and people in the board room of GM will have a much greater clarity about the bottom line and what's really going that I do right this moment, but screw them, they don't read comics.

[cactusmaac]

I'd like to see either of you back up those statements and I'm betting you cannot.

I've attached charts comparing American GDP growth, GNP per capita and youth employment, compared to other OECD nations.

http://www.mediafire.com/?dmwxvrwadle

http://www.mediafire.com/?3x4zwr0nhmx

http://www.mediafire.com/?18jdnkij1yf

I'll have to go through my laptop files for the other data.

[cactusmaac]

I think you'll find there's another reason ethnic youth in France has difficulty finding employment.

Oh yeah, racism is alive and well but that's not the primary reason behind their unemployment. That being said it seems the group who gets screwed the worst by France's labour system is the over-50s.

http://www.cepr.org/pubs/eep/articles/frenchco.htm



The analysis also reveals that one group of French workers suffers much more than its US counterpart: the ‘old’ workers (those over 50 years old), whose hiring rates for the least educated among them are up to 30 times lower than the in US. Although this group is less visible because their numbers are lower, they are the people most badly hurt by the system.

[Tages]

Thanks. And it's not politics that gets me angry, it's the nasty, insulting language by certain people around here. I ignore it most of the time, and choose to respond in a civil manner because, as numerous PMs to me have related, it shows the other person to be the jerk who can't respond intelligently to your arguments and facts, and is left no recourse but to call names like a Kindergartener. Every once in a great while, though, everyone looses it a little bit because they've been pushed too far once too often, and Tages post just went too far.

Utter cock.

Look, as has been pointed out to you time and again, the John Hopkins study published by the Lancet is as accurate a survey as we are likely to get. Whenever you bleat about its findings you are shown that your bleatings are false, yet you repeat yourself.

It has nothing to do with opinions. Either you're lying, delusional, not intelligent enough to understand the people you're talking to, or some combination of the three. Instead of questioning your honesty, would you rather I question your sanity, or your intelligence? Would that be less insulting?

I did not go too far. If anything I have been far too restrained. Paul and Jeffrey have been much more insulting than I have. And why is that?

ut sometimes I just blow my top, same as everyone does, and Tages pushed my buttons one too many times, so I responded to him just as he spoke to me.

Did I tell you to go fuck yourself? No? Because your words, and I quote, were "Fuck you, Tages (http://forums.comicbookresources.com/showthread.php?p=5205894#post5205894)."

You did not speak to me the way I spoke to you.

As for "what are you supposed to say"? How about "I can see your point of view and reasons for objecting to these studies, but we simply have a different point of view, and have reached different conclusions. I happen to believe the study to be accurate, you disagree, and each of us is sincere in our positions." Or, if you want to shorten it, try "To each his own" or "YMMV".

As if all opinions and conclusions should be respected.

Another poster on CBR claims that Stalin was a great leader and the millions of deaths attributed to his government are an invention by the Western media, that it's a good thing Anna Politkovskaya was murdered because she tried to help the subhuman Chechens, and that immigrants attempting to illegally cross borders should be shot on sight.

Should his opinions be respected? Or should he be called a lying, fascist asshole?

Let me make one thing perfectly clear: your opinions on Iraq do not deserve respect.

You have shown, time and again, a complete unwillingness to admit that the war was built on lies and incompetence, that there were no WMDs, that there were no link between Saddam and international terrorist organizations, that companies with close ties to the U.S. government are making off with billions in American taxpayers' dollars with no accountability, and that right now American soldiers are dying on orders from men who are willing to put them at risk for the pernicious objectives of money and empire.

But most disgusting of all is that the actions of the U.S. and UK governments have inflicted the equivalent of two hundred and twenty 9-11s on Iraq's population as of about ten months ago.

And that, by some accounts, is a conservative estimate.

The lies you've been telling are the same lies that led us to invade a country that posed no threat to us. Now, the world is watching in horror as that nation, the birthplace of civilization itself, rips itself apart.

Why the FUCK should I respect that?

[Paul McEnery]

I've attached charts comparing American GDP growth, GNP per capita and youth employment, compared to other OECD nations.
.

Which of course is where I'd nitpick on the basis of inequitable wealth distribution, the realities of the economy outside of the money markets, issues of real standard of living, and the nature of that employment. Not to mention the personal and federal debt crisis, and that's going to be one ugly wolf when it comes to the door.

Not that I want to derail this thread any more with extraneous stuff.

[Paul McEnery]

Oh yeah, racism is alive and well but that's not the primary reason behind their unemployment. That being said it seems the group who gets screwed the worst by France's labour system is the over-50s.

http://www.cepr.org/pubs/eep/articles/frenchco.htm

Oof. That's bad. Although I understand there's issues with that starting up in America too.

I need to retrain, and soon.

[Reverend Smooth]

I couldn't find the one I read about, uh, two years ago? But.

Here's (http://www.americanprogress.org/issues/2006/04/b1579981.html) an article about the myth of superior US social mobility.



*
Children from low-income families have only a 1 percent chance of reaching the top 5 percent of the income distribution, versus children of the rich who have about a 22 percent chance.
*
Children born to the middle quintile of parental family income ($42,000 to $54,300) had about the same chance of ending up in a lower quintile than their parents (39.5 percent) as they did of moving to a higher quintile (36.5 percent). Their chances of attaining the top five percentiles of the income distribution were just 1.8 percent.
*
Education, race, health and state of residence are four key channels by which economic status is transmitted from parent to child.
*
African American children who are born in the bottom quartile are nearly twice as likely to remain there as adults than are white children whose parents had identical incomes, and are four times less likely to attain the top quartile.
*
The difference in mobility for blacks and whites persists even after controlling for a host of parental background factors, children’s education and health, as well as whether the household was female-headed or receiving public assistance.
*
After controlling for a host of parental background variables, upward mobility varied by region of origin, and is highest (in percentage terms) for those who grew up in the South Atlantic and East South Central regions, and lowest for those raised in the West South Central and Mountain regions.
*
By international standards, the United States has an unusually low level of intergenerational mobility: our parents’ income is highly predictive of our incomes as adults. Intergenerational mobility in the United States is lower than in France, Germany, Sweden, Canada, Finland, Norway and Denmark. Among high-income countries for which comparable estimates are available, only the United Kingdom had a lower rate of mobility than the United States.

Key findings relating to short-run, year-to-year income movements include the following:

*
The overall volatility of household income increased significantly between 1990-91 and 1997-98 and again in 2003-04.
*
Since 1990-91, there has been an increase in the share of households who experienced significant downward short-term mobility. The share that saw their incomes decline by $20,000 or more (in real terms) rose from 13.0 percent in 1990-91 to 14.8 percent in 1997-98 to 16.6 percent in 2003-04.
*
The middle class is experiencing more insecurity of income, while the top decile is experiencing less. From 1997-98 to 2003-04, the increase in downward short-term mobility was driven by the experiences of middle-class households (those earning between $34,510 and $89,300 in 2004 dollars). Households in the top quintile saw no increase in downward short-term mobility, and households in the top decile ($122,880 and up) saw a reduction in the frequency of large negative income shocks.
*
For the middle class, an increase in income volatility has led to an increase in the frequency of large negative income shocks, which may be expected to translate to an increase in financial distress.
*
The median household was no more upwardly mobile in 2003-04, a year when GDP grew strongly, than it was it was during the recession of 1990-91.
*
Upward short-term mobility for those in the bottom quintile has improved since 1990-91, with no significant offsetting increase in downward short-term mobility.
*
Households whose adult members all worked more than 40 hours per week for two years in a row were more upwardly mobile in 1990-91 and 1997-98 than households who worked fewer hours. Yet this was not true in 2003-04, suggesting that people who work long hours on a consistent basis no longer appear to be able to generate much upward mobility for their families.

Study would be here (http://www.americanprogress.org/issues/2006/04/Hertz_MobilityAnalysis.pdf).

This (http://www.futureofchildren.org/usr_doc/02_5563_beller-hout.pdf) is another one.

U.S. Social Mobility Rates in International Comparison

Direct comparisons of intergenerational social mobility in different countries are difficult to make, because both data availability and research methodologies differ from country to country. Until recently it has been hard to compare occupational mobility in the United States with that in other countries because of differences in occupational coding, but new research using comparable coding shows that the United States is at the median in terms of opportunity: lower than the most open nations, such as Sweden, Canada, and Norway; but higher than the more rigid nations, such as West Germany, Ireland, or Portugal.

Other research suggests that Italy, France, and Great Britain are among the other societies that now display the lowest comparative mobility rates.

Recent research attributes these international differences in occupational mobility to two dimensions of educational inequality—the share of adults who attend college and equality of educational opportunity (the strength of the effect of family background on educational attainment).

Opportunity is much greater among college-educated adults of different class backgrounds than it is among adults with less education. The United States has one of the highest levels of college attendance, but also a relatively low level of equality in overall educational opportunity.

Although the United States occupies a middle ground in international comparisons of occupational mobility, its ranking in terms of income mobility is lower. Both the United States and Great Britain have significantly less economic mobility than Canada, Finland, Sweden, Norway, and possibly Germany; and the United States may be a less economically mobile society than Great Britain.

Much of the higher intergenerational elasticity in the United States is due to greater income immobility at the top and bottom of the earnings distribution; the mobility of middle earners looks more similar to that in the other countries.

Two explanations for these international differences in income mobility appear particularly compelling. First, it seems plausible that high income inequality at a given time could cause a high intergenerational persistence of economic status. The United States and Great Britain have high income inequality coupled with low income mobility, whereas Scandinavian countries display the opposite pattern. Canada, however, casts doubt on this explanation, because it has relatively high income inequality coupled with high income mobility.


Second, given the limited ability of low income parents to invest in their children’s education, it is possible that progressive public policies toward education financing could explain why some countries have higher rates of economic mobility. Research shows that differences in education financing alone do not explain mobility differences between countries, but education financing is an important part of the explanation, together with other factors that differ between countries, such as the earnings return to education (how much another year of education increases one’s earnings) and the heritability (either genetic or environmental) of income-predictive traits.

Higher economic returns to education and lower levels of public financing of education decrease intergenerational mobility because when income depends on education, children from low-income families need to go to college to be upwardly mobile. But with less public financing of education, fewer low income children can go to college. Both factors also increase income inequality at a given time, because lower public financing of education lowers equality of educational opportunity, while higher returns to education increase the earnings gap between more and less educated people. These patterns may explain why most countries either have low income inequality and high income mobility or high income inequality and low income mobility. The economic returns to education are higher in the United States than they are in other countries, which may explain the stronger intergenerational income persistence. The role of heritability also implies that differing degrees of assortative marriage in a country—differing rates of couples from similar economic backgrounds marrying—will affect intergenerational mobility. Marital sorting increases intergenerational inequality.

[Reverend Smooth]

Here (http://www.economicmobility.org/assets/pdfs/EMP%20American%20Dream%20Report.pdf) is another one.

Notable quotes:

Data on relative mobility suggest that people in the United States have experienced less relative mobility than is commonly believed. Most studies find that, in America, about half of the advantages of having a parent with a high income are passed on to the next generation.

This means that one of the biggest predictors of an American child’s future economic success — the identity and characteristics of his or her parents — is predetermined and outside that child’s control. To be sure, the apple can fall far from the tree and often does in individual cases, but relative to other factors, the tree dominates the picture.

These findings are more striking when put in comparative context. There is little available evidence that the United States has more relative mobility than other advanced nations. If anything, the data seem to suggest the opposite. Using the relationship between parents’ and children’s incomes as an indicator of relative mobility, data show that a number of countries, including Denmark, Norway, Finland, Canada, Sweden, Germany, and France have more relative mobility than does the United States (see Figure 3).

Compared to the same peer group, Germany is 1.5 times more mobile than the United States, Canada nearly 2.5 times more mobile, and Denmark 3 times more mobile. Only the United Kingdom has relative mobility levels on par with those of the United States.

To be sure, analyzing the relationship between parents’ and children’s incomes is but one way of defining relative mobility from one generation to the next. The full story may be more complicated, and the Economic Mobility Project intends to further investigate relative mobility using additional measurement and analysis.

Using new analysis of U.S. Census Bureau data, the Economic Mobility Project has found that absolute mobility is declining for a significant group of Americans.

We look at four generations of men born during different periods between 1925 and 1974, and focus on their individual incomes when they were in their thirties — thereby holding constant the point in their careers when measuring their economic status. Research also suggests that income in one’s thirties is a reasonably good indicator of what one’s lifetime income will be.

Male Income Trends:
Beginning with a comparison of men ages 30-­39 in 1994 with their fathers’ generation, men ages 30-­39 in 1964, we see a small, but fairly insignificant, amount of intergenerational progress (see first two bars of Figure 4). Adjusting for inflation, median income in­creased by less than $2,000 between 1964 and 1994, from about $31,000 to under $33,000 — a 5 percent increase (0.2 percent per year) during this thirty ­year period.

The story changes for a younger cohort. Those in their thirties in 2004 had a median income of about $35,000 a year. Men in their fathers’ cohort, those who are now in their sixties, had a median income of about $40,000 when they were the same age in 1974 (see last two bars of Fig­ure 4). Indeed, there has been no progress at all for the youngest generation. As a group, they have on average 12 percent less income than their fathers’ generation at the same age.

This suggests the up-escalator that has historically ensured that each generation would do better than the last may not be working very well.


Not only did I go to the trouble of finding studies and articles for people, I dragged actual quotes out of the pdf-as-html and formatted them so they'd work in a post here. Now there's really no excuse.

[macul]

.com went BOOM because lots of stupid people created lots of stupid websites and lots of stupid people invested in those stupid websites. The End.

[Samurai]

Utter cock.

Look, as has been pointed out to you time and again, the John Hopkins study published by the Lancet is as accurate a survey as we are likely to get. Whenever you bleat about its findings you are shown that your bleatings are false, yet you repeat yourself.

It has nothing to do with opinions. Either you're lying, delusional, not intelligent enough to understand the people you're talking to, or some combination of the three. Instead of questioning your honesty, would you rather I question your sanity, or your intelligence? Would that be less insulting?

I did not go too far. If anything I have been far too restrained. Paul and Jeffrey have been much more insulting than I have. And why is that?



Did I tell you to go fuck yourself? No? Because your words, and I quote, were "Fuck you, Tages (http://forums.comicbookresources.com/showthread.php?p=5205894#post5205894)."

You did not speak to me the way I spoke to you.



As if all opinions and conclusions should be respected.

Another poster on CBR claims that Stalin was a great leader and the millions of deaths attributed to his government are an invention by the Western media, that it's a good thing Anna Politkovskaya was murdered because she tried to help the subhuman Chechens, and that immigrants attempting to illegally cross borders should be shot on sight.

Should his opinions be respected? Or should he be called a lying, fascist asshole? You were, in effect, calling me a "f-ing liar". It was the straw that broke the camels back after the heaping of abuse from the likes of Paul and others. As I admitted before, I went too far, it's not how I usually behave.

Yes, his opinions should be discussed, and he should not simply be called names, which won't do a lick of good for the conversation.

Let me make one thing perfectly clear: your opinions on Iraq do not deserve respect.

You have shown, time and again, a complete unwillingness to admit that the war was built on lies and incompetence, that there were no WMDs, that there were no link between Saddam and international terrorist organizations, that companies with close ties to the U.S. government are making off with billions in American taxpayers' dollars with no accountability, and that right now American soldiers are dying on orders from men who are willing to put them at risk for the pernicious objectives of money and empire.

But most disgusting of all is that the actions of the U.S. and UK governments have inflicted the equivalent of two hundred and twenty 9-11s on Iraq's population as of about ten months ago.

And that, by some accounts, is a conservative estimate.

The lies you've been telling are the same lies that led us to invade a country that posed no threat to us. Now, the world is watching in horror as that nation, the birthplace of civilization itself, rips itself apart.

Why the FUCK should I respect that?

The war was not built on lies... at most, it was wrong information.

Yes, there certainly has been more than enough incompetence in the leadership and tactics over there, It's something I've complained about for quite a while.

There were WMDs, for which Saddam offered no evidence of their destruction, the usual stalling and hiding from UN inspectors (which only returned to Iraq because of American power massing in Kuwait), and he had a history of using WMDs.

Saddam had numerous links with international terrorist organizations, including funding suicide bombers, training facilities, meetings, and harboring terrorists.

Companies are making billions, and it should be closely watched to reduce fraud and waste as much as possible. There is some accountability, but there could be more.

"Money and empire" are not the goals at all. That's just partisan slander. The troops know why they're there, their morale is high for the most part, and they are helping millions of people who have never known freedom and democracy to have a chance to obtain it and set an example for the whole region.

The terrorists are responsible for the car bombs and killing civilians, not the troops. And there haven't been nearly that many killed.

[Reverend Smooth]

There were no WMDs. Stop lying.

[JeffreyWKramer]

You were, in effect, calling me a "f-ing liar".
And appropriately so.
The war was not built on lies... at most, it was wrong information.
Cheney and others in the Administration keep hypothesizing and pontificating about nonexistent connections between Saddam and Al Qaeda. That shit is all lies, and only the most obvious ones.

There were WMDs, for which Saddam offered no evidence of their destruction, the usual stalling and hiding from UN inspectors (which only returned to Iraq because of American power massing in Kuwait), and he had a history of using WMDs.
There were WMDs a decade or so earlier. All the shit about a significant nuclear program, trying to get uranium, all that... with the information the Administration had, it was clear that was all bullshit, but that's not what they told the public and the world. That's more lying.

Saddam had numerous links with international terrorist organizations, including funding suicide bombers, training facilities, meetings, and harboring terrorists.

You could say the same about the CIA. In fact, the links betweent he US and terrorist organizations are actually much stronger, given US funding and support for Islamist groups against the Soviets in Afghanistan, that anti-Castro nut that was involved in bombing an airliner, etc.

There is no credible evidence whatsoever of meaningful links between Saddam and Al Qaeda. Once again, this was the unanimous conclusion of the 9/11 Commission and is the continued conclusion of every expert with even a smidgeon of credibility.

[JeffreyWKramer]

There were no WMDs. Stop lying.

You might as well suggest he stop breathing.

[DungeonmasterJim]

There was an episode of Frontline that followed the case for making war on Iraq. Both President Bush and Colin Powell had misgivings about the information they were given by then head of CIA who was essentially a 'Yes' man at the time. I've forgotten his name but the guy's words to Bush were that it was a 'slam dunk' that Saddam had weapons of mass destructions. The information given to Bush and later Powell (who presented it to the United Nations) was all the tubing and parts stuff to make weapons of mass destruction.

I've always felt Chaney was the big pusher to invade Iraq. I think it was the same Frontline show that showed that Chaney removed a lot of power from the CIA and made the NSA that answered directly to Chaney at the Pentagon. It went on to say that before the war Chaney had visited the CIA more times than any other vice-president in the history of teh United States. Pretty much, no VP would visit and Chaney showed up sometime like 10 times before the war.

It doesn't help the perception of things that Condi and Chaney worked for companies - Halliburton - now making big bucks off the Iraq war.

DM Jim

[Reverend Smooth]

Cheney's the one continuing to make connections between Iraq and Al Quaeda, too, even though goernment-sponsored reports themselves say there were none.

[MacQuarrie]

If Iraq had WMDs at some point, it's because the US sold them to them. Hussein was "our guy" throughout the Iran situation of the late '70s-early '80s. It was only after Khomeini died and Iran stopped being an immediate threat that Hussein became bothersome.

My view on the invasion is that we propped him up and made him a danger, so it was our responsibility to clean up the mess. As always, we suck at cleaning up our messes effectively.

[Samurai]

Cheney's the one continuing to make connections between Iraq and Al Quaeda, too, even though goernment-sponsored reports themselves say there were none.

You need to be more careful in your statements, like Jeff. They didn't say "there were none." In fact, they said there were several meetings and offers of mutual aid. But they concluded it didn't amount to a meaningful relationship, particularly in planning 9/11.

[Samurai]

If Iraq had WMDs at some point, it's because the US sold them to them. Hussein was "our guy" throughout the Iran situation of the late '70s-early '80s. It was only after Khomeini died and Iran stopped being an immediate threat that Hussein became bothersome.

My view on the invasion is that we propped him up and made him a danger, so it was our responsibility to clean up the mess. As always, we suck at cleaning up our messes effectively.

Once again, we never sold Saddam WMDs. A few American companies sent some dual use technology, like computers and vaccines, that he converted to weapons. And yeah, it was stupid to do that, and partly our responsibility to clean up the mess over there.

[Larime]

You need to be more careful in your statements...

...

....

.....

AHAHAHAHAHAHA!!!!!!!!!!!!!11shiftone

To quote Sandman, "Humanity, I love you."

[Reverend Smooth]

You need to be more careful in your statements, like Jeff. They didn't say "there were none." In fact, they said there were several meetings and offers of mutual aid. But they concluded it didn't amount to a meaningful relationship, particularly in planning 9/11.Those meetings were later discredited.

Still lying.

[Samurai]

Those meetings were later discredited.

Still lying.

One meeting in Germany was, not the others. Again, look up what 9/11 Commission members said. "Yes, there were several meetings, we just didn't feel they amounted to a cooperative relationship."

And that's just for Saddam and Al Queda. He DID have cooperative relationships with other terrorist groups like Hamas and Hezbullah.

[Larime]

One meeting in Germany was, not the others. Again, look up what 9/11 Commission members said. "Yes, there were several meetings, we just didn't feel they amounted to a cooperative relationship."

And that's just for Saddam and Al Queda. He DID have cooperative relationships with other terrorist groups like Hamas and Hezbullah.

Hamas and Hezbullah, yes.

Which had NOTHING to do with 9/11.

Saddam and Osama HATED each other. Osama was pissed Saudi Arabia let US kick his ass instead of him.

[Samurai]

Hamas and Hezbullah, yes.

Which had NOTHING to do with 9/11.

Saddam and Osama HATED each other. Osama was pissed Saudi Arabia let US kick his ass instead of him.

So, do you not consider them to be terrorist groups? Or was I correct when I said he had ties to terrorist groups, just not much of one with Al Queda specifically?

[Reverend Smooth]

And that's just for Saddam and Al Queda. Iraq had nothing to do with 9/11. Just like there were no WMDs.

Next?

[Samurai]

Iraq had nothing to do with 9/11. Just like there were no WMDs.

Next?

I never said Iraq had anything to do with planning or executing 9/11. Point out where you think I did. And, again, at one time there were WMDs, and there was no real evidence he'd gotten rid of them. Saddam kept playing games, and it was the wrong choice.

[JeffreyWKramer]

One meeting in Germany was, not the others. Again, look up what 9/11 Commission members said. "Yes, there were several meetings, we just didn't feel they amounted to a cooperative relationship."

And that's just for Saddam and Al Queda. He DID have cooperative relationships with other terrorist groups like Hamas and Hezbullah.

Which amount to about the same degree of cooperative relationships the US has had with similar, or equally awful, organizations over the years.

Yes, Saddam was a douchebag. No doubt. He was absolutely no threat to the US, and would and could not have been such a threat any time in the foreseeable future. The US has made things worse - for the region and for the US itself - by doing what it's done in the US. It was one big, fucking mistake entered into for bad and largely dishonest reasons.

[Mike Smash!]

Utter cock.

Look, as has been pointed out to you time and again, the John Hopkins study published by the Lancet is as accurate a survey as we are likely to get. Whenever you bleat about its findings you are shown that your bleatings are false, yet you repeat yourself.

It has nothing to do with opinions. Either you're lying, delusional, not intelligent enough to understand the people you're talking to, or some combination of the three. Instead of questioning your honesty, would you rather I question your sanity, or your intelligence? Would that be less insulting?

I did not go too far. If anything I have been far too restrained. Paul and Jeffrey have been much more insulting than I have. And why is that?



Did I tell you to go fuck yourself? No? Because your words, and I quote, were "Fuck you, Tages (http://forums.comicbookresources.com/showthread.php?p=5205894#post5205894)."

You did not speak to me the way I spoke to you.



As if all opinions and conclusions should be respected.

Another poster on CBR claims that Stalin was a great leader and the millions of deaths attributed to his government are an invention by the Western media, that it's a good thing Anna Politkovskaya was murdered because she tried to help the subhuman Chechens, and that immigrants attempting to illegally cross borders should be shot on sight.

Should his opinions be respected? Or should he be called a lying, fascist asshole?

Let me make one thing perfectly clear: your opinions on Iraq do not deserve respect.

You have shown, time and again, a complete unwillingness to admit that the war was built on lies and incompetence, that there were no WMDs, that there were no link between Saddam and international terrorist organizations, that companies with close ties to the U.S. government are making off with billions in American taxpayers' dollars with no accountability, and that right now American soldiers are dying on orders from men who are willing to put them at risk for the pernicious objectives of money and empire.

But most disgusting of all is that the actions of the U.S. and UK governments have inflicted the equivalent of two hundred and twenty 9-11s on Iraq's population as of about ten months ago.

And that, by some accounts, is a conservative estimate.

The lies you've been telling are the same lies that led us to invade a country that posed no threat to us. Now, the world is watching in horror as that nation, the birthplace of civilization itself, rips itself apart.

Why the FUCK should I respect that?Wow....

Marry me?

[Larime]

So, do you not consider them to be terrorist groups?

Where did I say that? You sure do have some reading comprehension issues.

Or was I correct when I said he had ties to terrorist groups, just not much of one with Al Queda specifically?

He did. So we should have attached Saudi Arabia and Syria. Not Iraq. Kill the bad guys, not the bad guys' neighbors.

[Samurai]

Where did I say that? You sure do have some reading comprehension issues.

Tages did. I was responding to him before you jumped in. He said Saddam had no relationship with international terrorists groups, at all. See above.


He did. So we should have attached Saudi Arabia and Syria. Not Iraq. Kill the bad guys, not the bad guys' neighbors.

Saddam WAS a bad guy, in a neighborhood full of bad guys. And at the time, before Ahmadinajad, I'd say he was one of the worst.

[Sabrinaset]

Just like there were no WMDs.

Not true...



MULTIPLE WMDS FOUND IN IRAQ

Bahgdad - Multiple caches of WMD's have been found all over the deserts of Iraq, announced Coalition General Melton Whackett in a statement released to the press today.

"It's terrible. We found warehouses full to the brim of WMD's that Saddam was planning on unleashing onto an unsuspecting public all over the world. This insidious plan was foiled only because of the Iraqi War, otherwise, we might have all been the victim of mind-altering devices far worse than nerve gas or more poisonous than anthrax."

General Whackett then revealed to the press hundreds of thousands of comics, all drawn by Rob Liefield and written by Chuck Austen. "We think that Saddam was planning on airlifting these comic books worldwide, rotting the minds of people everywhere in an attempt at psychological warfare unprecedented in modern history."

In addition, plans for future comic books were revealed, although General Whacket reassured the press coprps that these had never gone beyond the initial planning stages. "Apparently Saddam had also planned another comic book involving the Amazons of Wonder Woman attacking the United States. We found the plotline for these comics particularly horrifying, so much so that even the Black Ops people reading the outlines ended up needing counseling. Who knows what the damage to international morale could have been if these had been released to an unsuspecting public!"

Representatives for Marvel and DC were unavailable for comment.

[Reverend Smooth]

T_____________T We're doomed!

[MacQuarrie]

I really don't understand what you're saying, sorry. I don't care about semantical "rights" discussions. Some may find it interesting or distracting, but it's just fluff to me. My issue is our moral obligation to provide for those that cannot provide for themselves.
What about those that refuse to provide for themselves? What about the "service resistant" feral people who prefer to be homeless and hungry because it facilitates keeping their addictions fed?

What about the inherent elitism invoked when one declares that others cannot provide for themselves? And what about the oppression that follows?

"Those poor unwashed masses can't provide for themselves, so we, their betters, have a moral obligation to take care of them. They can't be trusted to save, spend, or invest their money wisely (which is to say, the way we think they ought to), so we will take it from them, by force if necessary, and dole it back out to them in the form of programs and subsidies. Because we are the Anointed, and we know best how other people ought to live, so we have the moral obligation to cram that knowledge down their ungrateful, stupid throats, because they are lowly proletariats and can't take care of themselves. They're like children, really. Children who need our wisdom and guidance and a firm hand to lead them. It's for their own good."

"Of all tyrannies, a tyranny exercised for the good of its victims may be the most oppressive. It may be better to live under robber barons than under omnipotent moral busybodies. The robber baron's cruelty may sometimes sleep, his cupidity may at some point be satiated; but those who torment us for our own good will torment us without end, for they do so with the approval of their own conscience."

[Reverend Smooth]

Saddam WAS a bad guy,Could your rhetoric be any more infantile?

[JeffreyWKramer]

Could your rhetoric be any more infantile?

Hey, he's got a point. The fact that he was a bad guy justifies all the lives lost, all the money spent, etc.

Sounds to me like we should send declare war against the Attorney General next.

[Adam C]

Once again, we never sold Saddam WMDs.

You're right.

The U.S. gave him the extensive financial aid necessary to buy those weapons.

[Larime]

Tages did. I was responding to him before you jumped in. He said Saddam had no relationship with international terrorists groups, at all. See above.



Saddam WAS a bad guy, in a neighborhood full of bad guys. And at the time, before Ahmadinajad, I'd say he was one of the worst.

So... I'm Tages? I still don't get your accusatory tone directed at me on that.

And Saddam was FAR from the worst. He was a secularist, for starters.

Saudi Arabia and Syria have LONG been more dangerous, because of who they fund and support. You want to crush Islamic fascism, as you call it? Crush Saudi Arabia's Wahabist theocracy.

[JeffreyWKramer]

Saudi Arabia and Syria have LONG been more dangerous, because of who they fund and support. You want to crush Islamic fascism, as you call it? Crush Saudi Arabia's Wahabist theocracy.

Ah, but those guys are okay, because they're *our* fascists. Sort of how Saddam was our buddy back in the days when he was at war with Iran, and how Osama and his pals were our buddies back when they were fighting the Soviets.

That mentality has served the US so, so well over the years.

And of course Samurai is ignoring the fact that his "well, it was still okay to invade, because even if he had shit-all to do with Al Qaeda, Saddam still funded terrorists" would suggest that by that logic, we should just as well have invaded Syria, Saudia Arabia and most of the other nations in that neighborhood.

[JeffreyWKramer]

So... I'm Tages? I still don't get your accusatory tone directed at me on that.

It's Samurai. In his paranoia and his dichotomous thinking, anyone that doesn't agree with him must be identical to anyone else that disagrees with him, and they're probably all part of some big leftist conspiracy.

Which is why he continually groups me and Paul together, though Paul and I disagree about all sorts of things all the time, and why he lumps everyone that disagrees with him, regardless of political bent, as "liberals", as if that label fit anarchist Tages or libertarian me. Or, for that matter, as if "conservative" really fit the sort of expansive-government-power + fiscal-irresponsibility mindset of the folk he supports.

[Sabrinaset]

And Saddam was FAR from the worst. He was a secularist, for starters.

Saudi Arabia and Syria have LONG been more dangerous, because of who they fund and support. You want to crush Islamic fascism, as you call it? Crush Saudi Arabia's Wahabist theocracy.

Wasn't Saddam cutting the (surviving) families of Homicide Bombers checks for $20K or something? And that's besides the Rape Rooms ... I'm unsure how any of them are worse than the other. I'm thinking the only reason Saddam wasn't quite as dangerous was because either he or his staff were more incompetant than the others. Maybe.

A pox on ALL their houses.

[JeffreyWKramer]

Wasn't Saddam cutting the (surviving) families of Homicide Bombers checks for $20K or something?

Yup. He wasn't alone in that, though, and he probably wasn't even the biggest contributor. When you consider the training and the arms provided by Iran and Syria, his contribution looks real small-time.

None of which makes it right, of course, but as a justification for the costs in lives and money that have been expended in getting rid of Saddam, it's just plain retarded.

As to the rape rooms, Syria and former US friends like the El Salvadoran douchebags Reagan and his cronies supported have done the same things on an even more wide-scale basis.

[MacQuarrie]

Once again, we never sold Saddam WMDs. A few American companies sent some dual use technology, like computers and vaccines, that he converted to weapons. And yeah, it was stupid to do that, and partly our responsibility to clean up the mess over there.

Stupid, as in we never even considered that these things had dual purposes, and we innocently provided these things in an attempt to be nice, and it backfired on us? Or do you mean stupid, as in we knew perfectly well what uses this stuff could be put to, but we pretended it was all for the cause of goodness so that we would have plausible deniability when they made weapons, fully believing those weapons would be pointed at our mutual enemy?

If the former, I have a bridge I think you may want to buy.

[Joe Rice]

What about those that refuse to provide for themselves? What about the "service resistant" feral people who prefer to be homeless and hungry because it facilitates keeping their addictions fed?

What about the inherent elitism invoked when one declares that others cannot provide for themselves? And what about the oppression that follows?

"Those poor unwashed masses can't provide for themselves, so we, their betters, have a moral obligation to take care of them. They can't be trusted to save, spend, or invest their money wisely (which is to say, the way we think they ought to), so we will take it from them, by force if necessary, and dole it back out to them in the form of programs and subsidies. Because we are the Anointed, and we know best how other people ought to live, so we have the moral obligation to cram that knowledge down their ungrateful, stupid throats, because they are lowly proletariats and can't take care of themselves. They're like children, really. Children who need our wisdom and guidance and a firm hand to lead them. It's for their own good."

Do you think I find myself above those without material goods? That is false. I find myself to be below anyone. But I know that it is my duty to give to those that have less than I for whatever reason. I don't much worry about these extreme "filthy layabouts" because I know they're no worse than me. I'm not telling anyone how to invest their money. I'm saying those that cannot pay for food by themselves are the moral obligation for those of us that can pay to help. That's a nice try as an excuse, I guess, but I dare you to tell my friends on welfare that I'm an opressor. Much more so than those that will not give of themselves.

[Tages]

So, do you not consider them to be terrorist groups? Or was I correct when I said he had ties to terrorist groups, just not much of one with Al Queda specifically?

Are Hamas and Hizbullah international terror groups? Seems to me like they're both single-issue militant groups that have directed the entirety of their energies towards only one country, and have zero ability to strike outside their regional bases of operations, much less carry out a successful attack on the U.S.

But you seem to have missed the word "international" since it suits your purposes to ignore it.

[JeffreyWKramer]

Are Hamas and Hizbullah international terror groups? Seems to me like they're both single-issue militant groups that have directed the entirety of their energies towards only one country, and have zero ability to strike outside their regional bases of operations, much less carry out a successful attack on the U.S.

But you seem to have missed the word "international" since it suits your purposes to ignore it.

Yeah, I'm about as worried about a Hamas attack on the US as I am worried about an attack by Brainiac. But some people can't let reality get in the way of their fearmongering.

[Reverend Smooth]

What about the inherent elitism invoked when one declares that others cannot provide for themselves? And what about the oppression that follows?Are you calling God elitist and that his stances are oppressive to the poor? Because he tells those who are well-off to clothe, feed, and house their hungry, homeless, and naked brothers.

I'd like to know how you square your own statement with scripturally-backed orders from god when I know you consider yourself christian. Your own god tells you that others can't provide for themselves and how you are supposed to respond.

The wealthy, according to god, oppress the poor with their indifference, not their compassion.

[Samurai]

Could your rhetoric be any more infantile?

I was quoting Larime, talk to him about that.

[Samurai]

So... I'm Tages? I still don't get your accusatory tone directed at me on that.

And Saddam was FAR from the worst. He was a secularist, for starters.

Saudi Arabia and Syria have LONG been more dangerous, because of who they fund and support. You want to crush Islamic fascism, as you call it? Crush Saudi Arabia's Wahabist theocracy.

I responded to Tages question, you jumped into it.

And secularism is not an indicator of better or worse (unless you are a religiophobe?) Saddam murdered over 300,000 of his own people and filled mass graves, prisons, and rape rooms. That's 10x the number killed in the Bosnia/Serbia ethnic cleansing that we jumped in to stop (without UN approval, I might add). He was a monster, and I say good riddance.

Yes, the Wahabists in Saudi Arabia are a big problem, but the govt is working with us to try and reign them in. Also, Mecca is in Saudi Arabia... with the constant complaining about "helping terrorist recruitment", you don't think a Western occupied Mecca fire them up?

[Joe Rice]

Wow, yeah, I think I'm done here. I'm just going to do what I can for the people for whom I can do something. Enjoy your fruitless debate.

[Samurai]

Are Hamas and Hizbullah international terror groups? Seems to me like they're both single-issue militant groups that have directed the entirety of their energies towards only one country, and have zero ability to strike outside their regional bases of operations, much less carry out a successful attack on the U.S.

But you seem to have missed the word "international" since it suits your purposes to ignore it.

Yes, they are international.

http://www.adl.org/Terror/hezbollah_print.asp

Hezbollah's International Reach

Posted December 7, 2004

Hezbollah, Arabic for "party of God," is a pro-Iranian, Shi'ite, south Lebanon-based terrorist organization. Headed by Sheikh Hassan Nasrallah, Hezbollah was originally formed in 1982 to drive the Israeli military out of South Lebanon. Although it continues to claim that it is a legitimate resistance organization, Hezbollah's leaders routinely speak of Israel's "illegal existence," "the end and elimination of Israel from the region" and "death to America," Hezbollah views the creation of an Islamic state in Lebanon and the destruction of Israel as steps in the pan-Islamic struggle.

Over the decades, Hezbollah has grown into a sophisticated political and military network that engages in terrorist-related activity all over the world, perpetrates and plots attacks against Americans, westerners and Jews both inside and outside Lebanon, and cooperates with other international terrorist organizations.

Hezbollah is funded, armed and trained by Iran and given safe haven, logistical support and operational freedom by Syria. Its international network, according to terrorism analysts, is believed to include at least 15,000 operatives in cells in the U.S., Canada, Argentina, Paraguay, Brazil, Belgium, Britain, France, Germany, Spain, Switzerland, Indonesia, Malaysia, and throughout Africa.

Western intelligence sources estimate Hezbollah's operational budget to be approximately $200-$500 million annually, including $100 million annually from Iran. Other sources of funding include Syria, charitable organizations, individual donations, legitimate business, and illegitimate businesses such as illegal arms trading, cigarette smuggling, currency counterfeiting, credit card fraud, theft, operating illegal telephone exchanges, and drug trafficking.

Hezbollah's growing international terrorist activity has raised concerns that the terrorist group may be emerging as a more serious threat than previously considered. Its global terrorist reach has serious policy implications for countries, regional groupings and international organizations that continue to insist that Hezbollah is a legitimate political organization in Lebanon that does not warrant designation as a terrorist group.

Hezbollah in the United States

According to U.S. intelligence officials, Hezbollah maintains agents and sleeper cells in the U.S. ready to attempt terrorist attacks should this become an objective of the group. The organization is considered to have an operational capacity in the U.S. similar to that of AI Qaeda. Detroit has been cited as the main center of Hezbollah's fundraising activity in the U.S.

The extent of Hezbollah activity in the U.S. was first exposed when two Charlotte, North Carolina, brothers, Mohamad and Chawki Hammoud, were convicted in June 2002 of providing material support to Hezbollah through a cigarette smuggling ring that knowingly directed money to the terrorist organization.

The terror cell reported directly back to a senior Hezbollah military commander in Lebanon and was part of a larger North American network responsible for raising funds and procuring dual-use technologies for Hezbollah. Items were purchased in both the U.S. and Canada and included goggles, global positioning systems, stun guns, naval equipment, nitrogen cutters and laser range finders.

"Hezbollah demonstrated twice in Argentina that it has global reach and can turn so-called support cells into action cells to carry out its trademark catastrophic bombings," said Tom Diaz, co-author of the forthcoming Lightning Out of Lebanon: Hezbollah Terrorists on American Soil. "It is absolutely clear that Hezbollah has similar cells in the United States right now. It is fully capable of making those cells operational if and when Hezbollah's or Iran's leaders decide to flip the switch."

The U.S. designated Hezbollah as a foreign terrorist organization in 1997 and listed it as a Specially Designated Global Terrorist (SDGT) in 2001. Three members of Hezbollah - Imad Mughniyeh, Hasan Izz-al-Din, and Ali Atwa - are on the FBI's "Most Wanted Terrorists" list for their role in the 1985 hijacking of TWA Flight 847 during which a U.S. Navy diver was brutally murdered.

Hezbollah in Europe

Hezbollah is known to maintain terror cells and a terror infrastructure throughout Europe. In particular, the organization uses Europe as an operational launching pad for Hezbollah operatives to enter Israel in order to conduct attacks, assist other operatives already there, or conduct surveillance and collect intelligence on Israeli targets. Operationally, traveling from Europe provides Hezbollah operatives with "cover" and a European logistical support cell provides operatives with information and resources for travel, including fraudulent travel documents.

In 2002, for example, Israeli forces in Hebron apprehended Fawzi Ayoub, a Canadian citizen of Lebanese descent who traveled from Lebanon to Europe on his Canadian passport. In Europe he is believed to have met with a Hezbollah operative who supplied him with a fake American passport for his entry into Israel. He stayed in Jerusalem and reportedly attempted to approach arms brokers. The exact purpose of Ayoub's mission remains unclear.

A year earlier, Israeli authorities arrested Hezbollah operative Jihad (Gerard) Shuman, a Lebanese citizen with British nationality. Shuman flew from Lebanon to Britain on his Lebanese passport. After a briefing with a Hezbollah operative in Britain, he flew from Britain to Israel on his British passport and stayed in Jerusalem where he was later arrested. A search of his possessions, according to Israeli authorities, revealed a yarmulka, a timer, tourist maps of the Jerusalem area, a large sum of money, a video camera, disposable cameras and several cellular phones.

Germany has been identified as Hezbollah's main fund raising center in Europe. Most of the funds come from charitable organizations and are officially earmarked for Hezbollah's social welfare work. In 2002, Germany closed down two charitable organizations raising money for Hezbollah: the al-Shahid Social Relief Institution, which was the German branch of a Lebanese charitable organization, and the al-Aqsa Fund, a Hamas front that also raised funds for Hezbollah.

The European Union has refrained from including Hezbollah on its list of designated foreign terrorist organizations; however, in early November 2004 Dutch Foreign Minister Ben Bot called for Hezbollah to be added to the list. The EU does list senior Hezbollah terrorist Imad Mughniyah, but it does not list Hezbollah itself. Additionally, in September 2004, the EU's Representative in Lebanon, Patrick Renauld, met with Hezbollah head Hassan Nasrallah in Beirut regarding Euro-Med cooperation.

A resolution is currently making its way through the U.S. House of Representatives calling on the EU to include Hezbollah on its terrorist list.

Hezbollah in Canada

Hezbollah is believed to have an active presence in Canada. According to Canadian intelligence, Hezbollah raises money, recruits terrorists, purchases military supplies, and forges travel documents in Canada. Money is raised through credit card scams and counterfeit rings. In two cases, alleged Hezbollah agents wanted for terrorist activities overseas were found hiding in Canada. Hezbollah theft rings have stolen luxury cars in Canada and sent them to Lebanon for use by senior Hezbollah officials.

The North Carolina Hezbollah terror cell was part of a larger Hezbollah network that raised funds and procured dual-use technologies for Hezbollah. The Canadian part of the network was allegedly run by Mohammed Hassan Dbouk and his brother-in-law Ali Adham Amhaz, who allegedly received money from Hezbollah officials in Lebanon and engaged in credit card and banking scams in Canada in order to finance the purchase in Canada and the U.S. of military items which were then smuggled into Lebanon.

Amhaz was indicted in North Carolina in March 2001 on charges of providing material support to Hezbollah. In October 2001, Canadian authorities arrested him based on an American arrest warrant calling for his extradition. Amhaz was freed in December 2001 after the U.S. dropped the arrest warrant; the U.S. indictment against him still stands. Dbouk fled to Lebanon.

The Canadian government first argued that a distinction could be made between Hezbollah's military and political/humanitarian wings. It therefore listed Hezbollah's military wing as a banned terrorist organization but refused to include its political arm. After domestic and international pressure, Canada finally banned the entire Hezbollah organization in December 2002.

[Samurai]

Continued:

Hezbollah in South America

Hezbollah is widely considered to have an established presence in the lawless, corrupt, drug-ridden triple border region of Brazil, Argentina and Paraguay. Hezbollah uses the area as a key locale for raising and laundering money, drug trafficking, weapons and people smuggling and document and currency fraud. It has been alleged that Hezbollah, Hamas and AI Qaeda also maintain terrorist training camps in the triborder region but the evidence to date is inconclusive.

Fundraising for Hezbollah is done through legitimate businesses, charities and shake-downs. U.S. officials believe that at least $1 00 million is funneled through the tri-border region each year, with Hezbollah receiving a large share of the funds.

The recent trial in Argentina for the 1994 bombing of the AMIA Jewish community building in Buenos Aires revealed an extensive Hezbollah operational presence in South America. Law enforcement officials are active in combating Hezbollah's increased activity in free trade zones in South America, hiding behind the cover of import-export companies.

Paraguayan authorities have identified Assad Ahmad Barakat as Hezbollah's leading operative and chief financier in the region. Barakat allegedly ran an extensive counterfeiting and money laundering operation in the area and sent $50 million to Hezbollah from 1995 until his arrest by Brazilian police in 2002. He was extradited to Paraguay where he is currently serving a prison term for tax evasion. In June 2004, the U.S. designated Barakat and two of his businesses, Casa Apollo and Barakat Import Export Ltd., as SDGTs.

Other major arrests in the tri-border region include the 2000 arrest of Ali Khalil Mehri, a Lebanese businessman who allegedly funneled millions of dollars to Hezbollah made from selling pirated software, and the 2001 arrest of Barakat's personal secretary, Sobhi Mahmoud Fayad, who allegedly coordinated Hezbollah's fund raising operations in the region with Barakat. Mehri was released on bail and fled to Syria, and Fayad is currently serving a prison sentence in Paraguay for tax evasion.

The Bush Administration allocated $1 million in counterterrorism assistance to the tri-border area to help eliminate the flow of terrorist money. The assistance is aimed at training financial investigators, improving intelligence sharing, enacting antiterrorism legislation and tightening border controls in the region. The U.S. also maintains a "Three Plus One" Counterterrorism Dialogue with Argentina, Brazil and Paraguay.

Hezbollah in Israel, the West Bank and Gaza Strip

Hezbollah has developed a well-entrenched presence in the West Bank and Gaza. It is believed that Iran and Hezbollah officials in Lebanon began to recruit Palestinians in the West Bank and Gaza and Israeli Arabs following Israel's withdrawal from southern Lebanon in May 2000 with the goal of developing Hezbollah-supported Palestinian terror cells in Israel and the territories.

Iran and Hezbollah are accomplishing these goals by sending money, weapons, weapons technology and expertise to the area and by providing Palestinian terrorists with access to Hezbollah terrorist training camps in Iran and southern Lebanon.

Over the past several years, Hezbollah has reportedly provided Palestinian terrorist groups with $750,000 to $1.5 million annually. Money is funneled to Palestinians through moneychangers, bank transfers and couriers coming in from abroad. Hezbollah funds Hamas, Islamic Jihad and Fatah's AI Aqsa Martyrs Brigades and it is believed that Hezbollah is involved in up to 80 percent of terrorist attacks emanating from the West Bank. According to Israeli security authorities, since 2003, six Hezbollah cells have been uncovered among Israeli Arabs.

In 2003, Israeli forces arrested Ghulam Mahmud Qawqa, a Palestinian member of Fatah's al-Aqsa Martyrs Brigades and a Hezbollah operative. He reportedly had been planning attacks on Israeli targets in Europe on behalf of Hezbollah.

Regarding its weapons smuggling efforts, Hezbollah was heavily involved in the failed January 2002 effort to smuggle 50 tons of weapons to Palestinian terrorists aboard the Karine-A weapons ship, intercepted by Israeli authorities.

The operation was reportedly overseen by senior Hezbollah operative Hajj Bassem. Following the Karine-A affair, Hezbollah head Nasrallah was quoted as saying, "transferring weapons to the Palestinians is one of [Hezbollah's] greatest and most important obligations." In October 2004, an Israeli court sentenced three terrorists involved in the affair to lengthy prison terms.

Al-Manar Television

Hezbollah maintains its own television station, al-Manar ("the beacon"), which broadcasts Hezbollah's messages of hate and violence worldwide. Hezbollah owns and operates the station, staffing it with members of Hezbollah and directing its programming and communications. Founded in 1991 and funded by Iran, Shi'ite communities abroad, and, reportedly, Muslim communities in Europe, the United States and Canada, the station is now a major satellite network transmitting in Europe, North and South America, Asia and Africa. It broadcasts 24 hours a day, seven days a week.

AI-Manar is more than Hezbollah's mouthpiece; it is its tool for incitement to terror against Americans and Israelis. It broadcasts images of Iraqi devastation attributed to the U.S.-led action with voiceovers calling for "death to America," glorifies suicide bombings and calls for the recruitment of Palestinian "martyrs" to kill Jews.

AI-Manar appears to be the source of the conspiracy theory that claimed that 4,000 Israelis were absent from their jobs at the World Trade Center on September 11, thereby implying that Israel was in some way behind the attack. The story was posted on its Web site on September 17, 2001 and picked up by extremists around the world.

AI-Manar's messages of hate and violence are also often accompanied by anti-Semitic themes, such as the medieval blood libel. AIManar is also a conduit to channel money to Hezbollah - openly and actively soliciting funds on the air and on its Web site.

AI-Manar uses American and European communications infrastructures; several western satellite companies distribute al-Manar, including the U.S.-based IntelSat, which distributes al-Manar to North America, and France-based Eutelsat, which distributes al-Manar to Europe and North Africa. Furthermore, Lebanese subsidiaries of major European corporations advertise on the satellite station.

Several American companies, including Pepsi, Coke, Proctor and Gamble and Western Union have recently ceased their al-Manar advertising following negative media coverage.


Major Hezbollah Acts of Terrorism and Violence

* Bombing of Khobar Towers in Saudi Arabia killing 19 U.S. servicemen (1996)

* Bombing of Jewish Community Center in Buenos Aires killing 96 (1994)

* Bombing of Israeli Embassy in Buenos Aires killing 29 (1992)

* Abduction, torture and death of CIA Station Chief in Lebanon (1985)

* Hijacking of TWA Flight 847 killing one U.S. Navy diver (1985)

* Bombing outside U.S. Embassy annex in Beirut killing 24 (1984)

* Car bombing of U.S. Marine Barracks in Beirut killing 241 U.S. servicemen (1983)

* Car bombing of U.S. Embassy in Beirut killing 63 people, including 17 Americans (1983)

* Car bombing of French military barracks in Beirut killing 58 French paratroopers (1983)

Hamas is a bit more concentrated in the middle east, but they still get a great deal of their funding from other countries.

[Kyuubi]

http://images.comicbookresources.com/cons/cci2007/photos/pinguino/part3/IMG_5180.jpg


WHORES!

[Tages]

Oh, for Pete's sake. This is just too easy to rip apart.

First off, listing these two items...

* Car bombing of U.S. Marine Barracks in Beirut killing 241 U.S. servicemen (1983)

* Car bombing of French military barracks in Beirut killing 58 French paratroopers (1983)

...as separate incidences is so dishonest I want to vomit. No one refers to 9-11 as three separate attacks. It was the same attack.

Secondly, responsibility for the barracks bombings has never been definitively established. Hizbullah was officially founded in 1985, two years after the bombings. Hizbullah has never claimed responsibility for the bombings, though another Shia militia in Lebanon, the Free Islamic Revolutionary Movement, not only claimed responsibility but identified the two suicide bombers who carried out the attacks (http://news.billinge.com/onthisday/hi/dates/stories/october/23/newsid_2489000/2489117.stm).

The NSA intercepted a message from Iranian intelligence to the Iran ambassador in Damascus to contact Husayn Masawi about carrying out proxy operations against the U.S., and Musawi years later would be one of the founders of Hizbullah (which would then fight a ferocious battle in the streets of Beirut with Islamic Amal, another group Musawi helped found). That's the only proven connection.

Of course, this only matters in a tertiary way, because the attack was carried out in the group's back yard, and does not prove international reach.

* Bombing of Khobar Towers in Saudi Arabia killing 19 U.S. servicemen (1996)

Zero evidence connecting the Lebanese Hizbullah with Khobar Towers. Several members of Hizbullah al-Hijaz, or Saudi Hizbullah, are wanted for the bombing, but there is no connection between the two groups besides both receiving past support from the Iranian Ministry of Information and Security.

Furhtermore, there is some doubt even that Hizbullah al-Hijaz was responsible for the attacks; it's possible that this was an al-Qaeda operation (http://www.upi.com/Security_Terrorism/Briefing/2007/06/06/perry_us_eyed_iran_attack_after_bombing/7045/).

* Bombing of Jewish Community Center in Buenos Aires killing 96 (1994)

The Argentinian government has accused Hizbullah of this attack but guilt has never definitively been established (Hizbullah denies it). Furthermore, earlier this year (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/1994_AMIA_bombing#Investigations_under_Nestor_Kirc hner.27s_government)...

On March 6, 2007, former Congressman Mario Cafiero and former government official Luis D'Elia provided evidence at a press conference that Abolghasem Mesbahi, along with two other Iranians that gave alleged evidence implicating Iran in the bombing, were members of the People's Mujahedin of Iran (MEK,) which is designated as a terrorist organization by the US. They also said that there were arrest warrants issued by Interpol for the other two Iranians, Hadi Roshanravani and Hamid Reza Eshagi.[21]

Mujahedin-e-Khalq is a secular, socialist terrorist group (and strange quasi-matriarchal cult) that is against the Iranian government, and certain officials in this Administration (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Richard_Perle) have supported them (http://antiwar.com/lobe/?articleid=6011).

Not a Hizbullah attack.

* Abduction, torture and death of CIA Station Chief in Lebanon (1985)

This actually was a Hizbullah action, but occurred within Hizbullah's back yard. No indication of international reach.

* Hijacking of TWA Flight 847 killing one U.S. Navy diver (1985)


The hijackers have been alleged to have been members of Hizbullah, or a group with ties to Hizbullah. Allegations they remain; there is no proof.

* Bombing outside U.S. Embassy annex in Beirut killing 24 (1984)


A group calling itself Islamic Jihad claimed responsibility for the bombing. Hizbullah has possibly used this name to refer to itself over the years but so have many other groups.

Still, Hizbullah's back yard. No indication of international reach.

* Car bombing of U.S. Embassy in Beirut killing 63 people, including 17 Americans (1983)

Responsibility never established. Hizbullah's back yard.

So, basically, you have a few attacks Hizbullah may or may not have been a part of that occurred well within its local power base, one confirmed kidnapping and murder, and two events Hizbullah almost definitely didn't do, the Buenos Aires and Khobar Towers attacks.

Weak.

Hizbullah is a southern Lebanese Shia militia and political party. Hamas is confined to the Gaza Strip and whatever underground remnants still exist in the Fatah-controlled West Bank. They are both very much grounded in their regional centers of power and have zero proven ability (or desire) to strike outside of them.

Also note that Hamas, while it has committed horrible atrocities and killed hundreds of Israeli civilians, poses no strategic threat to Israel at all and has never confronted the IDF directly, which would be suicidal. Hizbullah has beaten the IDF before, but only in a defensive guerilla war where they sustained heavy casualties, and only on their home turf. They've never been able to actually invade Israel, which as with the Hamas example would be equally suicidal.

These are not international terrorist organizations, and these are not organizations that pose any threat at all to the U.S.

Also, Saddam giving money to the families of suicide bombers? Pure PR move.

[beetlebum]

Nevermind, that was pretty embarrassin'. :o

[Samurai]

Oh, for Pete's sake. This is just too easy to rip apart.

First off, listing these two items...



...as separate incidences is so dishonest I want to vomit. No one refers to 9-11 as three separate attacks. It was the same attack.

Secondly, responsibility for the barracks bombings has never been definitively established. Hizbullah was officially founded in 1985, two years after the bombings. Hizbullah has never claimed responsibility for the bombings, though another Shia militia in Lebanon, the Free Islamic Revolutionary Movement, not only claimed responsibility but identified the two suicide bombers who carried out the attacks (http://news.billinge.com/onthisday/hi/dates/stories/october/23/newsid_2489000/2489117.stm).

The NSA intercepted a message from Iranian intelligence to the Iran ambassador in Damascus to contact Husayn Masawi about carrying out proxy operations against the U.S., and Musawi years later would be one of the founders of Hizbullah (which would then fight a ferocious battle in the streets of Beirut with Islamic Amal, another group Musawi helped found). That's the only proven connection.

Of course, this only matters in a tertiary way, because the attack was carried out in the group's back yard, and does not prove international reach.



Zero evidence connecting the Lebanese Hizbullah with Khobar Towers. Several members of Hizbullah al-Hijaz, or Saudi Hizbullah, are wanted for the bombing, but there is no connection between the two groups besides both receiving past support from the Iranian Ministry of Information and Security.

Furhtermore, there is some doubt even that Hizbullah al-Hijaz was responsible for the attacks; it's possible that this was an al-Qaeda operation (http://www.upi.com/Security_Terrorism/Briefing/2007/06/06/perry_us_eyed_iran_attack_after_bombing/7045/).



The Argentinian government has accused Hizbullah of this attack but guilt has never definitively been established (Hizbullah denies it). Furthermore, earlier this year (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/1994_AMIA_bombing#Investigations_under_Nestor_Kirc hner.27s_government)...



Mujahedin-e-Khalq is a secular, socialist terrorist group (and strange quasi-matriarchal cult) that is against the Iranian government, and certain officials in this Administration (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Richard_Perle) have supported them (http://antiwar.com/lobe/?articleid=6011).

Not a Hizbullah attack.



This actually was a Hizbullah action, but occurred within Hizbullah's back yard. No indication of international reach.



The hijackers have been alleged to have been members of Hizbullah, or a group with ties to Hizbullah. Allegations they remain; there is no proof.



A group calling itself Islamic Jihad claimed responsibility for the bombing. Hizbullah has possibly used this name to refer to itself over the years but so have many other groups.

Still, Hizbullah's back yard. No indication of international reach.



Responsibility never established. Hizbullah's back yard.

So, basically, you have a few attacks Hizbullah may or may not have been a part of that occurred well within its local power base, one confirmed kidnapping and murder, and two events Hizbullah almost definitely didn't do, the Buenos Aires and Khobar Towers attacks.

Weak.

Hizbullah is a southern Lebanese Shia militia and political party. Hamas is confined to the Gaza Strip and whatever underground remnants still exist in the Fatah-controlled West Bank. They are both very much grounded in their regional centers of power and have zero proven ability (or desire) to strike outside of them.

Also note that Hamas, while it has committed horrible atrocities and killed hundreds of Israeli civilians, poses no strategic threat to Israel at all and has never confronted the IDF directly, which would be suicidal. Hizbullah has beaten the IDF before, but only in a defensive guerilla war where they sustained heavy casualties, and only on their home turf. They've never been able to actually invade Israel, which as with the Hamas example would be equally suicidal.

These are not international terrorist organizations, and these are not organizations that pose any threat at all to the U.S.

Also, Saddam giving money to the families of suicide bombers? Pure PR move.
I love how in 1 line a couple Argentinian politicians make some allegations and you conclude definitively "Not a Hizbullah attack." Then just 2 lines later, allegations against Hizbullah are worthless, and "Allegations they remain; there is no proof." Don't you get whiplash doing that?

And you completely ignored the whole rest of the article, which pointed out the 15,000 operatives in cells around the world. If they only operate in Lebanon, what are those people doing overseas instead of in Lebanon? Maybe they were just printing up the "We are all Hezbullah" signs so protesters would have something to carry...

Finally, your definition of a "threat" is vastly different from mine. You seem to believe that if all they do is kidnap people, fire rockets, organize suicide bombings, destabilize the economy with fake money, etc, that they are nt a "real" threat to the nation. Tell me, if a gang was occasionally killing, kidnapping, and terrorizing your family, and they say that someday they'd like to kill all of you, but so far haven't done it, perhaps because they are waiting for reinforcements (which are pouring in, by the way), would you consider them a threat to your family? What if you have a very large extended family, and it's unlikely they could ever kill them all, would that then be ok?

[JeffreyWKramer]

And you completely ignored the whole rest of the article, which pointed out the 15,000 operatives in cells around the world. If they only operate in Lebanon, what are those people doing overseas instead of in Lebanon? Maybe they were just printing up the "We are all Hezbullah" signs so protesters would have something to carry...

They're mostly raising money, arranging for arms shipments back home, etc. Not good things, of course, but not really any threat to the US. They're concerned with their own back yard. Really, trying to present these other groups as somehow similar to Al Qaeda in terms of threats to the rest of the world is sort of like trying to claim that gingivitis is as great a health threat as is heart disease.

The rest of your post is too idiotic to warrant any response whatsoever.

[MacQuarrie]

Do you think I find myself above those without material goods? That is false. I find myself to be below anyone. But I know that it is my duty to give to those that have less than I for whatever reason. I don't much worry about these extreme "filthy layabouts" because I know they're no worse than me. I'm not telling anyone how to invest their money. I'm saying those that cannot pay for food by themselves are the moral obligation for those of us that can pay to help. That's a nice try as an excuse, I guess, but I dare you to tell my friends on welfare that I'm an opressor. Much more so than those that will not give of themselves.

You missed the point.

The point is that well-meaning people such as yourself will, if not careful, provide tyrants with all the excuse they need. Satan comes disguised as an angel of light.

You yourself may not be that, but your argument is the one that the self-appointed ruling class will use.

[MacQuarrie]

Are you calling God elitist and that his stances are oppressive to the poor? Because he tells those who are well-off to clothe, feed, and house their hungry, homeless, and naked brothers.

I'd like to know how you square your own statement with scripturally-backed orders from god when I know you consider yourself christian. Your own god tells you that others can't provide for themselves and how you are supposed to respond.

The wealthy, according to god, oppress the poor with their indifference, not their compassion.

I said it before. God's instructions are specific. He does not tell the poor that they are God, he does not tell them that they must demand their rights and force the wealthy to provide for them. On the contrary, he tells them to be meek and humble, gentle as doves, and to trust that he will provide for them.

It's right that those who have should provide for those who do not. But "right" is not the same as "a right."

Again, if the poor have a right to be provided for, then so do the lazy. Rights are no respecter of persons. The person who will not work has the same rights as the person who cannot, or it's not a right.

Hence, it's not a right.

[Samurai]

They're mostly raising money, arranging for arms shipments back home, etc. Not good things, of course, but not really any threat to the US. They're concerned with their own back yard. Really, trying to present these other groups as somehow similar to Al Qaeda in terms of threats to the rest of the world is sort of like trying to claim that gingivitis is as great a health threat as is heart disease.

The rest of your post is too idiotic to warrant any response whatsoever.

Point out where I ever said they are similar to Al Queda... The point is that they are an international terrorist group, that's it. Any claim to the contrary is false.

[Paul McEnery]

You missed the point.

The point is that well-meaning people such as yourself will, if not careful, provide tyrants with all the excuse they need. Satan comes disguised as an angel of light.

You yourself may not be that, but your argument is the one that the self-appointed ruling class will use.

Can you honestly say that Europe and Canada, with fully-functioning national health care systems, which supply people with the support they need to get on with their lives, are closer at this point than the US?

It is extremely insulting to Joe -- and everyone else who wants universal health care -- to say we are well-meaning dupes of tyranny. The reality, Jim, is that we've got all the facts on our side, and all the evidence.

Whereas you have nothing but a well-meaning fear of a non-existent boogie man.

[JeffreyWKramer]

Point out where I ever said they are similar to Al Queda... The point is that they are an international terrorist group, that's it. Any claim to the contrary is false.

Sure, they're international the way the IRA was/is international. They conduct business in some other countries, but their real focus is very directed and very specific, and has little or nothing to do with the US.

And since they pose no real threat to the US, Saddam's support of them is completely irrelevant as far as any possible justification for our going into Iraq in the first place.

[MacQuarrie]

Can you honestly say that Europe and Canada, with fully-functioning national health care systems, which supply people with the support they need to get on with their lives, are closer at this point than the US?
Frankly, yes. America remains The Land of Opportunity, the place people go if they want to succeed in a big way. Womb-to-tomb government oversight of every aspect of one's life inhibits that.

But people tend not to notice that once they've acclimated themselves to look to the government to solve all their problems and meet all their needs rather than doing it themselves. At which point they aren't people anymore, they're livestock. Farm animals get fed; people feed themselves.

It is extremely insulting to Joe -- and everyone else who wants universal health care -- to say we are well-meaning dupes of tyranny. The reality, Jim, is that we've got all the facts on our side, and all the evidence.

Whereas you have nothing but a well-meaning fear of a non-existent boogie man.

Non-existent my ass. The US was founded on throwing off the yoke of that boogie man. The Magna Carta was a blow to the face of the same boogie man. That boogie man has always been here and he always will be, any time anybody thinks they ought to have the power to manage other people's lives. The fact that the people in question eagerly surrender that power does not negate the evil in the slightest.

[Joe Rice]

Frankly, yes. America remains The Land of Opportunity, the place people go if they want to succeed in a big way. Womb-to-tomb government oversight of every aspect of one's life inhibits that.

But people tend not to notice that once they've acclimated themselves to look to the government to solve all their problems and meet all their needs rather than doing it themselves. At which point they aren't people anymore, they're livestock. Farm animals get fed; people feed themselves.



Non-existent my ass. The US was founded on throwing off the yoke of that boogie man. The Magna Carta was a blow to the face of the same boogie man. That boogie man has always been here and he always will be, any time anybody thinks they ought to have the power to manage other people's lives. The fact that the people in question eagerly surrender that power does not negate the evil in the slightest.

And making sure some people can't get healthcare, that's a blow to this tyranny? Whatever.

[Samurai]

And making sure some people can't get healthcare, that's a blow to this tyranny? Whatever.

And you think socialized medicine will mean everyone gets anything and everything they want or need? Govt can't and won't do that. Not only will there be limits on procedures due to cost and necessity, there will also be inefficiency, as seen in the VA hospitals. If govt can't even care for our veterans, what makes you think they can give the rest of us much better service? "Because some other countries do it?" They have massive problems with their systems too, and besides, isn't "It's works here, so it will definitely work over there too" an argument often rebuked as patronizing and simplistic on the left? Or do you feel that govt systems and programs are always 100% transportable to other countries, even similarly advanced countries?

[Paul McEnery]

Frankly, yes. America remains The Land of Opportunity, the place people go if they want to succeed in a big way. Womb-to-tomb government oversight of every aspect of one's life inhibits that.

But people tend not to notice that once they've acclimated themselves to look to the government to solve all their problems and meet all their needs rather than doing it themselves. At which point they aren't people anymore, they're livestock. Farm animals get fed; people feed themselves.



Non-existent my ass. The US was founded on throwing off the yoke of that boogie man. The Magna Carta was a blow to the face of the same boogie man. That boogie man has always been here and he always will be, any time anybody thinks they ought to have the power to manage other people's lives. The fact that the people in question eagerly surrender that power does not negate the evil in the slightest.

I'm really struggling with this, Jim. I don't think you understand how incredibly insulting what you're saying is, and how utterly astray from the facts.

"The government" didn't and doesn't hand out health, education and so on. The people fought long and hard to take those rights. At least, they did in Europe and Canada. The people have fought long and hard to get them in other countries, as well.

That's in no way a surrender of power. That's claiming power. That's taking charge of your own lives, as a community. That's giving yourselves an education, health care, and everything else you need to make a go of your lives.

That didn't come from the largesse of the state. That came from forming a political party and winning elections and taking control of the state through democratic elections.

The simple fact that such a political movement in the United States was smashed, and that the US has sponsored coups all over the world to destroy such movements, says something about where tyranny lies. And it's by God not in Europe or Canada.

[Sabrinaset]

Whereas you have nothing but a well-meaning fear of a non-existent boogie man.

The US was founded on throwing off the yoke of that boogie man ... That boogie man has always been here and he always will be.

http://i30.photobucket.com/albums/c312/wohrob/boogeyman.jpg

[Paul McEnery]

Or do you feel that govt systems and programs are always 100% transportable to other countries, even similarly advanced countries?

The irony is killing me.

[Paul McEnery]

Tell me, if a gang was occasionally killing, kidnapping, and terrorizing your family, and they say that someday they'd like to kill all of you, but so far haven't done it, perhaps because they are waiting for reinforcements (which are pouring in, by the way), would you consider them a threat to your family?

And more irony.

[Samurai]

The irony is killing me.
I'm pointing out HIS irony... and yours. Your arguments here are the exact opposite of your arguments on other issues. Yet you only see the irony in others' statements?

[Samurai]

I'm really struggling with this, Jim. I don't think you understand how incredibly insulting what you're saying is, and how utterly astray from the facts.

"The government" didn't and doesn't hand out health, education and so on. The people fought long and hard to take those rights. At least, they did in Europe and Canada. The people have fought long and hard to get them in other countries, as well.

That's in no way a surrender of power. That's claiming power. That's taking charge of your own lives, as a community. That's giving yourselves an education, health care, and everything else you need to make a go of your lives.

That didn't come from the largesse of the state. That came from forming a political party and winning elections and taking control of the state through democratic elections.

The simple fact that such a political movement in the United States was smashed, and that the US has sponsored coups all over the world to destroy such movements, says something about where tyranny lies. And it's by God not in Europe or Canada.

"Take those rights"? From whom? Rich people? The govt? Forcing others to pay for your needs and desires = freedom? Taking care of yourself rather than being taken care of by a nanny state = tyranny? Where do you get this stuff?

[Tages]

I'd be interested to hear what supporters of UHC think about how such a system would be able to self-correct the normal pitfalls of monopoly, i.e. how would you suggest keeping the system from offering health care at the highest possible cost (since there are no competitors).

[Samurai]

I'd be interested to hear what supporters of UHC think about how such a system would be able to self-correct the normal pitfalls of monopoly, i.e. how would you suggest keeping the system from offering health care at the highest possible cost (since there are no competitors).

I believe the theory is that the govt would institute centralized price controls, which are a staple of a socialized govt-run economy.

[Samurai]

A recent article:

http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/life_and_style/health/features/article2186859.ece

[Reverend Smooth]

I said it before. God's instructions are specific. He does not tell the poor that they are God, he does not tell them that they must demand their rights and force the wealthy to provide for them.That's not what I asked. But in the interest of remaining friends, I'm bowing out of the topic for a while.

[Paul McEnery]

I'd be interested to hear what supporters of UHC think about how such a system would be able to self-correct the normal pitfalls of monopoly, i.e. how would you suggest keeping the system from offering health care at the highest possible cost (since there are no competitors).

I'd like to counter that thought by asking where you'd go to get the cheaper drugs: America or Canada?

[Tages]

I'd like to counter that thought by asking where you'd go to get the cheaper drugs: America or Canada?

Canada. For the same reasons that you go to Mexico to get cheaper steel.

The problem being that it's damn near impossible to determine the most efficient price for something when there are no competitors, and when people can get something that is subsidized to be free they have no more reason to ration it, which leads to the danger of shortages.

How long do the waits in Canada and Europe for medical procedures like CAT scans stack up to the length of time for the same things in the U.S.?

[Paul McEnery]

Canada. For the same reasons that you go to Mexico to get cheaper steel.

The problem being that it's damn near impossible to determine the most efficient price for something when there are no competitors, and when people can get something that is subsidized to be free they have no more reason to ration it, which leads to the danger of shortages.

How long do the waits in Canada and Europe for medical procedures like CAT scans stack up to the length of time for the same things in the U.S.?

I don't have the stats handy, but the figures that have been coming out lately seem to support that that's equal. Which puts the US behind, since many people can't even get procedures like that.

But there's two additional things to consider.

The first is that UHC doesn't preclude competition. Nothing's stopping people getting additional insurance or going private.

The second is: when do you get a better deal? As an individual, or as part of collective bargaining?

Since this is something insurance companies already do with hospitals, why should we not do so with insurance companies?

BTW, fun fact!:

I saw this on QI last night. The first guy to take out a life insurance policy was back in the mid 19th Century, apparently. Policy was for roughly 384 pounds to be paid out in the event of his death within the year. 49 weeks later, he copped it. And the insurers got together and redefined "a year" as 12 four-weeks.

[Loren]

BTW, fun fact!:

I saw this on QI last night. The first guy to take out a life insurance policy was back in the mid 19th Century, apparently. Policy was for roughly 384 pounds to be paid out in the event of his death within the year. 49 weeks later, he copped it. And the insurers got together and redefined "a year" as 12 four-weeks.

Cute anecdote, but I find it questionable, since there were companies selling life insurance policies in the U.S. back in the 18th century.

[DungeonmasterJim]

I'd like to counter that thought by asking where you'd go to get the cheaper drugs: America or Canada?


America, thru Wal-Mart of course, which further means that the drugs came from China. That, of course, will kill us all consider the recent quality of Chinese goods.

DM Jim

[Adam C]

A recent article:

http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/life_and_style/health/features/article2186859.ece

Wait, you're arguing for private healthcare by highlighting an article that touts Italy's public healthcare system over Britian's public healthcare system? :confused:

[Paul McEnery]

Cute anecdote, but I find it questionable, since there were companies selling life insurance policies in the U.S. back in the 18th century.

I'm not claiming to have remembered this well. :D

[Samurai]

I don't have the stats handy, but the figures that have been coming out lately seem to support that that's equal. Which puts the US behind, since many people can't even get procedures like that.

But there's two additional things to consider.

The first is that UHC doesn't preclude competition. Nothing's stopping people getting additional insurance or going private.

The second is: when do you get a better deal? As an individual, or as part of collective bargaining?

Since this is something insurance companies already do with hospitals, why should we not do so with insurance companies?

BTW, fun fact!:

I saw this on QI last night. The first guy to take out a life insurance policy was back in the mid 19th Century, apparently. Policy was for roughly 384 pounds to be paid out in the event of his death within the year. 49 weeks later, he copped it. And the insurers got together and redefined "a year" as 12 four-weeks.
I'd like to see those figures, because everything I've seen says the waits are much longer and in some cases are increasing because of underfunded and understaffed hospitals. Here are the average wait time in weeks for British Columbia:

http://canadaonline.about.com/gi/dynamic/offsite.htm?zi=1/XJ/Ya&sdn=canadaonline&cdn=newsissues&tm=2&f=20&tt=14&bt=1&bts=1&zu=http%3A//www.healthservices.gov.bc.ca/waitlist/


Here are some stats on breast cancer surgery:

http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/sites/entrez?cmd=Retrieve&db=PubMed&list_uids=11338798&dopt=AbstractPlus

Here is a hospital that compares it's average wait times to those of the rest of Ontario:

http://www.tbrhsc.com/patient_information/media_releases/TBRHSC_performing_well_regarding_cancer_wait_times .asp

This study shows that the average wait time for hip and knee replacement, and finds that patients consistently reported far longer waits than the hospital claimed.

http://intqhc.oxfordjournals.org/cgi/content/full/17/2/133
http://intqhc.oxfordjournals.org/cgi/content-nw/full/17/2/133/T2

Wait times in Manitoba:

http://www.gov.mb.ca/health/waitlist/

[Reverend Smooth]

Better to wait a couple months than to not get that surgery at all. I don't see what the problem is.

(I'll keep posting, I guess, just not discuss UHC with Mac.)

[MacQuarrie]

And making sure some people can't get healthcare, that's a blow to this tyranny? Whatever.

No.

Try to follow, and I'll try to use small words.

Making sure we do not fall into the trap of labeling a commodity as a right, that's a blow to this tyranny.

Because, once more for the slow learners, rights are by definition universal.

(Oops, sorry, big words. I'll try again.)

Rights are the same for everybody. Rights are the same for rich people as for poor, and the same for lazy people as for hard-working ones. If you call health care or food a right, you have set up a system in which anyone who does not feel like earning their way does not have to, because they have a right to the things that other people have to work for.

And of course once these rights are established, they will be expanded. Every time some politician wants to get re-elected, some new addition to these rights will be discovered and campaigned for, for the simple reason that people will vote for the guy who promises to give them stuff that somebody else has to pay for.

Once more, as I have said many many times in this thread, I am all in favor of finding ways to provide for people who need it, and I am in favor of whatever healthcare reforms will result in the best care for anybody. I am adamantly opposed to calling these things rights, because they are not. Just as the right to own a car does not mean the government is obliged to provide one, the right to healthcare means you have a right to buy it if you want it.

Unless we want to repeat the fall of the Roman empire through ever more mandated bread and circuses.

[Tommy]

At which point they aren't people anymore, they're livestock. Farm animals get fed; people feed themselves.

Interesting, but entirely flawed analogy. Farm animals get fed; wild animals feed themselves.

[MacQuarrie]

I'm really struggling with this, Jim. I don't think you understand how incredibly insulting what you're saying is, and how utterly astray from the facts.

"The government" didn't and doesn't hand out health, education and so on. The people fought long and hard to take those rights. At least, they did in Europe and Canada. The people have fought long and hard to get them in other countries, as well.

That's in no way a surrender of power. That's claiming power. That's taking charge of your own lives, as a community. That's giving yourselves an education, health care, and everything else you need to make a go of your lives.

That didn't come from the largesse of the state. That came from forming a political party and winning elections and taking control of the state through democratic elections.

The simple fact that such a political movement in the United States was smashed, and that the US has sponsored coups all over the world to destroy such movements, says something about where tyranny lies. And it's by God not in Europe or Canada.

"The government" does not exist, unless it's already gone too far, which I think it has.

How many times in this thread have people stated flat-out that healthcare should be free, that the state should provide this that or the other, that the government is supposed to do such and thus? The government is We the People, and every dime they have to spend comes from We the People, either with or without our consent. There is no such thing as free, the state can't provide anything.

You want to know what's insulting?
Unelected, unaccountable bureaucrats have absolute control over masses of people by virtue of having complete control of their food and healthcare, and the people so enslaved are more offended by being told the truth of their condition than by the condition itself.

"There are no people more hopelessly enslaved than those who falsely believe they are free." As long as they can be convinced that their chains are jewelry, they won't revolt.

[MacQuarrie]

I'd like to counter that thought by asking where you'd go to get the cheaper drugs: America or Canada?
Given that the US customers bear 100% of the costs of research, development, advertising, marketing, testing, and getting the drugs approved by the FDA, and Canadian customers get to pay only or the cost to manufacture the amount they purchase, the question is moot.

[MacQuarrie]

The first is that UHC doesn't preclude competition. Nothing's stopping people getting additional insurance or going private.
Not always.

The Clinton health plan (the one secretly worked out by Hillary and the pharmaceutical companies in violation of the Brown Act) specifically and explicitly stated in several places that any attempt to go outside the system and pay out of pocket for any treatment or service would mean jail time for both the doctor and the patient. In fact, the proposal used the words "jail" and "fine" more times than the Clinton crime bill.

[MacQuarrie]

Interesting, but entirely flawed analogy. Farm animals get fed; wild animals feed themselves.

Exactly.
Which would you prefer to be?

[MacQuarrie]

That's not what I asked. But in the interest of remaining friends, I'm bowing out of the topic for a while.

I'm sorry, I'll try again.

Are you calling God elitist and that his stances are oppressive to the poor? Because he tells those who are well-off to clothe, feed, and house their hungry, homeless, and naked brothers.

I'd like to know how you square your own statement with scripturally-backed orders from god when I know you consider yourself christian. Your own god tells you that others can't provide for themselves and how you are supposed to respond.

The wealthy, according to god, oppress the poor with their indifference, not their compassion.

The way I square my statement with God's orders is that God gives a lot of instructions and they can't be taken a la carte.

For example, in Leviticus 19:9-10, God says:

9 " 'When you reap the harvest of your land, do not reap to the very edges of your field or gather the gleanings of your harvest. 10 Do not go over your vineyard a second time or pick up the grapes that have fallen. Leave them for the poor and the alien. I am the LORD your God.
He does not say the people should go back over the fields a second time and bring the second harvest to the poor. He says to leave it for the poor, but the poor have to go and collect it themselves; they have to make an effort. This allows them the dignity of working for their own provision rather than sitting and waiting for a handout. You'll see more of this idea in the book of Ruth.

In modern terms, it is up to those of us who can to leave opportunities for people to take action on their own to make their way, whether this means creating educational opportunities (my church has offered volunteer English classes for immigrants to assist them in gaining better employment) or creating food banks to collect groceries that would otherwise be thrown away and providing it to people in need, or any number of other solutions. A government check should be the last resort, not the first.

[Reverend Smooth]

It IS the last resort.

'And the alien' is just as funny, considering how many devout conservatives want the 'aliens' out.

[Tommy]

Exactly.
Which would you prefer to be?

Well on one side you have regular feeding and at least used to have nice living conditions (until farming became big business). On the other side you have (if a carnivore) about one out of ten chance of catching food for every attempt. Spending your whole life avoiding larger predators. Hopefully one out of every brood of your young survives. And under constant threat from the environment.

I'd take the farm.

[MacQuarrie]

Well on one side you have regular feeding and at least used to have nice living conditions (until farming became big business). On the other side you have (if a carnivore) about one out of ten chance of catching food for every attempt. Spending your whole life avoiding larger predators. Hopefully one out of every brood of your young survives. And under constant threat from the environment.

I'd take the farm.

There's a reason many animals breed so poorly in captivity.

It's called "freedom."

[Tommy]

There's a reason many animals breed so poorly in captivity.

It's called "freedom."

:rolleyes:

It is only specific animals that breed poorly in captivity. Otherwise we wouldn’t have everything from Dogs to Goldfish. And most of those animals have equal problems breeding in the wild. It has nothing to do with "freedom" it has everything to do with environmental factors. Elephants require a certain amount of space to live in. Pandas aren't even breeding well in the wild.

[MacQuarrie]

Well on one side you have regular feeding and at least used to have nice living conditions (until farming became big business). On the other side you have (if a carnivore) about one out of ten chance of catching food for every attempt. Spending your whole life avoiding larger predators. Hopefully one out of every brood of your young survives. And under constant threat from the environment.

I'd take the farm.

In other words, the confinement, lifetime of exploitation, and certainty of the slaughterhouse is a fair trade for three square meals a day.

[MacQuarrie]

It IS the last resort.
Not always. I am related to generations of welfare deadbeats. When my late father's girlfriend discovered that he was sleeping with her 13-year-old daughter, she said, quote, "if you two are going to carry on like that, you should get married so we can get more food stamps."

As soon as she turned 15, they did exactly that, moving to New Hampshire where she could legally marry at that age and then returning to California where the benefits were better. My half-sister works two jobs to stay off welfare and is openly mocked by her relatives for it. In some parts of LA county, this attitude is the norm.

'And the alien' is just as funny, considering how many devout conservatives want the 'aliens' out.

That's a whole other can o' worms, and one you'll get no argument form me on. I believe the US is supposed to be a nation of immigrants, and we should stop worrying aobut securing our borders until we've done something about fixing our screwed up immigration system. People will sneak in if the system says they can't come in legally. It should not take a decade or more to move here legally.

[Reverend Smooth]

Not always. I am related to generations of welfare deadbeats. When my late father's girlfriend discovered that he was sleeping with her 13-year-old daughter, she said, quote, "if you two are going to carry on like that, you should get married so we can get more food stamps."

As soon as she turned 15, they did exactly that, moving to New Hampshire where she could legally marry at that age and then returning to California where the benefits were better. My half-sister works two jobs to stay off welfare and is openly mocked by her relatives for it. In some parts of LA county, this attitude is the norm.So build more accountability in instead of leaving people out in the cold?



That's a whole other can o' worms, and one you'll get no argument form me on. I believe the US is supposed to be a nation of immigrants, and we should stop worrying aobut securing our borders until we've done something about fixing our screwed up immigration system. People will sneak in if the system says they can't come in legally. It should not take a decade or more to move here legally.Ok, then. :3

[Lester C.]

Regarding health care in America the government takes care of children and the elderly. Adults are pretty much left on their own. I'm not sure if that's right or wrong but that's how it is and people need to plan their lives accordingly.

[Tommy]

In other words, the confinement,
Or protection from predators and shelter that can with stand the elements.
lifetime of exploitation,
Work.
and certainty of the slaughterhouse
That depends entirely upon what animal and what farmer. And death is a certainly, but you will most likely live longer and more likely to get your genes more successfully into the next generation if you are on a farm than if you are in the wild.
is a fair trade for three square meals a day.

Pretty much.

[Reverend Smooth]

Regarding health care in America the government takes care of children and the elderly. Adults are pretty much left on their own. I'm not sure if that's right or wrong but that's how it is and people need to plan their lives accordingly.Many kids and elderly are left out, too, moreso the former.

[MacQuarrie]

So build more accountability in instead of leaving people out in the cold?
Exactly. But if you call it a right, you can't build any accountability into the system at all. If food and health care are rights, then anyone who wants to live on the public's money has a right to do so. If there's accountability and eligibility, then they aren't rights. Just as the right to a free press extends to George Rockwell and David Duke, the right to food would extend to my worthless relatives.

[MacQuarrie]

Or protection from predators and shelter that can with stand the elements.

Work.

That depends entirely upon what animal and what farmer. And death is a certainly, but you will most likely live longer and more likely to get your genes more successfully into the next generation if you are on a farm than if you are in the wild.


Pretty much.

"Those who would trade essential liberty for temporary security are deserving of neither." -- Benjamin Franklin.

Do me a favor: never ever vote.

[Reverend Smooth]

If food and health care are rights, then anyone who wants to live on the public's money has a right to do so.I think that we're going to keep disagreeing on that fundamental point, unfortunately.

[Corrina]

Now, see, Paul, you have a political view that I have some differences with, but I could have a really cool stimulating discussion with about it.

The basic idea is that the less the government does, the better it is for everyone, yes? Or am I being too simplistic about your views?

Right now, the political parties both claim to have a political theory behind them but they really don't. The Republicans should share somewhat of your view, which would push them to cut taxes and farm out as many services as possible to communities. But the ones currently in charge have imposed a lot of order on communities (No Child Left Behind) and they've gotten much more involved in looking at individual's private lives--wiretapping, worries about if gays can marry, etc. Goldwater was your basic conservative linchpoint--and he was consistent.

The Democrats want government to do good for people but....well, they mean good for what they deem important, not always for everyone overall. Both parties are interested in getting the government to do what they want and use its power, they're just fighting over where to put the money.

Nobody's really out there, fighting the Goldwater-style fight. Republicans say spend loads on money on war to combat terror. Democrats say save the money and the lives and instead treat it like taking down a crime empire.

I'm pretty much in the middle. My criteria for what the government and, thus, the people, should pay for is something that will be of overall benefit to the group, in the long run. Frex: Schools educate. Better citizens. A good, well-trained military. Protection is good.

And health care? To be purely mercenary, you could make the argument that people spending so much on health care hurts the economy by taking spending money away from durable goods.

But I'm pretty much of the opinion that providing health care at a reasonable cost will benefit society overall by making it more stable and by not frittering away resources like people who, if saved, might turn out to be the next person to, say, develop an alternative energy source.

I'm not sure what system will work. But I think the one we have doesn't work.

[Paul McEnery]

In other words, the confinement, lifetime of exploitation, and certainty of the slaughterhouse is a fair trade for three square meals a day.

That's what we're getting in the American system as it stands.

Only without the three square.

[Paul McEnery]

Exactly. But if you call it a right, you can't build any accountability into the system at all. If food and health care are rights, then anyone who wants to live on the public's money has a right to do so. If there's accountability and eligibility, then they aren't rights. Just as the right to a free press extends to George Rockwell and David Duke, the right to food would extend to my worthless relatives.

Okay, I see a bit more where you're coming from now. Although I think feeding your worthless relatives is a price worth paying, just like I think David Duke's free speech is a price worth paying.

Which is not to say accountability shouldn't be built in, although I wouldn't call it accountability. I think most people, given the chance, would rather live a meaningful life.

[MacQuarrie]

Okay, I see a bit more where you're coming from now. Although I think feeding your worthless relatives is a price worth paying, just like I think David Duke's free speech is a price worth paying.

Which is not to say accountability shouldn't be built in, although I wouldn't call it accountability. I think most people, given the chance, would rather live a meaningful life.

Exhibit A to the contrary is Tommy, who wants to be kept in a pen as long as he's safe and well-fed.

[MacQuarrie]

That's what we're getting in the American system as it stands.

Only without the three square.
True enough, sadly. Those who know how to game the system do okay, but the people who honestly need help and try to get it honestly usually get screwed, while the appointed bean-counters and button-sorters do whatever will ensure the continued existence of their jobs and the elected "leaders" bribe the people with their own money in order to keep getting re-elected.

That sound about accurate to you?

[Reverend Smooth]

At this point, I'd like to be safe and well-fed. I'm pretty hungry tonight and I'm tired of worrying.

I don't even care if that lowers me in other peoples' eyes. I'm too worn out to give a damn about dignity.

Lead me to the slaughter, please. I'll be dead soon enough anyway.

[MacQuarrie]

I think that we're going to keep disagreeing on that fundamental point, unfortunately.
Probably. I'm an absolutist when it comes to rights.

If you can come up with a description of a right or set of rights that would provide people like you and Larime with the means to meet your needs, while at the same time guaranteeing that deadbeats starve, I might be inclined to agree with you. But if it's a right like "food" then I can't, because an absolute right to food means that dirtbags have a right to demand that I hand my paycheck over to them.

[Reverend Smooth]

If you can come up with a description of a right or set of rights that would provide people like you and Larime with the means to meet your needs, while at the same time guaranteeing that deadbeats starve, I might be inclined to agree with you.I'd be ok with that.

The problem, I guess, is that not defining it as a right is often used as, 'if it's not a right, you don't count'. Which is the state it is now.

There's always assholes who want to twist something into so absolutist a view that it abuses people. And those assholes frequently do take power.

But I think that, if one must choose between two evils, I'd rather choose, say, Canada's than, say, the US'.

Hell, I don't even want to be cared for. What I want is to not be sick.

[Paul McEnery]

I'm pretty much in the middle. My criteria for what the government and, thus, the people, should pay for is something that will be of overall benefit to the group, in the long run. Frex: Schools educate. Better citizens. A good, well-trained military. Protection is good.

And health care? To be purely mercenary, you could make the argument that people spending so much on health care hurts the economy by taking spending money away from durable goods.

But I'm pretty much of the opinion that providing health care at a reasonable cost will benefit society overall by making it more stable and by not frittering away resources like people who, if saved, might turn out to be the next person to, say, develop an alternative energy source.


Correct. I think.

A society as complex as ours needs a socialized infrastructure in order to work at all. And actually, that's what it's got. But it's got a half-assed one that's kludged together worse than a Gates product, mostly because people are afraid to use the word "socialized" (as if it meant anything less than "civilized").

But of course the scale of America causes problems with this. So there would need to be decentralization and democratic control and all sorts of other things built in if we ramped up the socialized infrastructure as much as I judge we need to.

[Tommy]

"Those who would trade essential liberty for temporary security are deserving of neither." -- Benjamin Franklin.

Do me a favor: never ever vote.

:rolleyes:

Once again you miss the entire point. Why do turtles lay between 80 to 180 eggs at a time? It is because they are lucky if a handful of those eggs survive to hatch. Animals and plants do what they need to in order to survive. And domestication is one of the best routs to both survival and expansion. Wheat went from a wild plant in the fertile crescent to growing on six continents. Had it not offered humanity something worth eating, it would never have succeeded so brilliantly. And that is not temporary security. That is over 5,000 years of security. 6,500 years ago wild horses became domesticated horses. Two species of wild horses managed to survive into historical times, one went extinct, and one is extremely rare. In the face of extinction very little can be considered essential liberty.

[MacQuarrie]

I'd be ok with that.

The problem, I guess, is that not defining it as a right is often used as, 'if it's not a right, you don't count'. Which is the state it is now.

There's always assholes who want to twist something into so absolutist a view that it abuses people. And those assholes frequently do take power.

But I think that, if one must choose between two evils, I'd rather choose, say, Canada's than, say, the US'.

Hell, I don't even want to be cared for. What I want is to not be sick.

I'd rather not choose between two evils, actually. There's always a third way.

Approach it from the direction of our responsibility to care for the less fortunate, the fact that we have a social contract. Instead of calling it a right, simply say it's right. We need to engage the hearts and minds of people and enlist them in the cause, rather than trying to drag them grudgingly along.

How to do that, I'm not sure. All I know is, the guy who said "you can't legislate morality" meant that you can't pass a law that will turn people into decent, moral people. You can't pass a law that will make people compassionate or generous. You can only convince them one at a time to become those things.

[MacQuarrie]

:rolleyes:

Once again you miss the entire point. Why do turtles lay between 80 to 180 eggs at a time? It is because they are lucky if a handful of those eggs survive to hatch. Animals and plants do what they need to in order to survive. And domestication is one of the best routs to both survival and expansion. Wheat went from a wild plant in the fertile crescent to growing on six continents. Had it not offered humanity something worth eating, it would never have succeeded so brilliantly. And that is not temporary security. That is over 5,000 years of security. 6,500 years ago wild horses became domesticated horses. Two species of wild horses managed to survive into historical times, one went extinct, and one is extremely rare. In the face of extinction very little can be considered essential liberty.
If we lose our liberty, and more importantly our desire for liberty, we lose our humanity. I have no desire to be a domesticated animal, thanks.

[Tommy]

If we lose our liberty, and more importantly our desire for liberty, we lose our humanity. I have no desire to be a domesticated animal, thanks.

Extinction means loosing our humanity much more quickly much more certainly than any loss of liberty.

[Reverend Smooth]

How to do that, I'm not sure. All I know is, the guy who said "you can't legislate morality" meant that you can't pass a law that will turn people into decent, moral people.The problem I'm having is that I'm ill-disposed to feel sympathetic for people who would rather make excuses and watch their brothers starve than for that starving brother.

I know you put your money and effort where your mouth is. Most people don't. And saying, 'It's right,' just results in, 'I don't care'.

And unfortunately, a lot of anti-welfare folks say right up front, 'I don't care.' Or, 'poor people are lazy'. And so on. Or they make excuses and then try to use some survival of the fittest nonsense, etc, instead of saying bluntly, 'I don't care', which imo is even worse.

Most people on welfare are on it legitimately. Removing welfare and hoping people step up will not result in people stepping up. Making some other social contract, maybe. I do agree that this one is completely broken. Heck, Larime IS getting social security and that's still not enough to get by.

I'm not going to get into yet another personal sob story, but suffice to say that, due to the horrible conditions our current poverty is placing upon us, I honestly do not believe that my family will ultimately be successful in getting out of poverty and achieving our goal of self-sufficiency. I'm pretty positive we'll just be some other statistic.

[Loren]

]In my opinion the only rights we have are those that can exist in a natural state without depending upon another person to provide.

In this case, I have no rights at all.

The right of free speech? Free exercise of religion? Free press? The right to be free from unreasonable search and seizure? The right against self-incrimination? The mere right to be free? The Bill of Rights is chock-full of rights that don't depend on other people to provide.

To be fair, the Bill of Rights does have a few rights that do depend on the active participation of others. The right to a jury trial. The right to a grand jury indictment. The right to subpoena witnesses. The right to counsel. But these are all criminal procedure rights with the same end: to protect the individual when faced with prosecution (and potentially deprivation of liberty and/or property) by the state. These rights (and I should note that criminal procedure rights are not natural rights) serve as a check on the state, to limit its potential for oppression much like our other rights are limitations on what the state can do.

[MacQuarrie]

Extinction means loosing our humanity much more quickly much more certainly than any loss of liberty.

We are certainly not on the brink of extinction, and surrendering our freedoms would certainly not delay it if we were.

[Samurai]

I'd be ok with that.

The problem, I guess, is that not defining it as a right is often used as, 'if it's not a right, you don't count'. Which is the state it is now.

There's always assholes who want to twist something into so absolutist a view that it abuses people. And those assholes frequently do take power.

But I think that, if one must choose between two evils, I'd rather choose, say, Canada's than, say, the US'.

Hell, I don't even want to be cared for. What I want is to not be sick.

You know, there's a pretty open border to Canada, if you believe it's so much better there... That's one of the nice things about having a variety of countries and systems. If you don't like one of them, you can move to another. You don't need to demand that the local one change to suit you when right next door is your ideal system already in place.

The fact that you haven't done that yet suggests you really like some things about America more than Canada, and I'd be curious to hear what they are.

Note: I'm not saying "love it or leave it", it's just the constant "we need to be more like Canada!" when Canada is right next door seems rather strange, so I'd like to see you say what you like more about America for a change.

[Reverend Smooth]

The fact that you haven't done that yet suggests you really like some things about America more than Canada, and I'd be curious to hear what they are.My husband and wife are one. The weather is another.

But, affording their visas and citizenship applications aside, the reason we haven't all moved to canada is that there is no affordable way to move me to canada.

I was reasonably healthy when I moved to the US. I could travel. Unfortunately, when my endocrine system crashed, travel by conventional means became impossible.

Since I can't be around chemicals, I can't be put on a bus or on a plane. I can't go through bus terminals or plane terminals. If I tried, I would die (and I almost have many times). It's the same reason I couldn't go to comicon, or to restaurants, the grocery store, the mall, movies, public places, etc.

I know I've mentioned that I've been a shut-in for about seven years, so I dunno why you're asking me this.

We don't have a working car; my wife's got broken into and is old anyway, and we can't afford all the paperwork and repairs. (So we're selling it, and hopefully to pay for dental surgery for her.)

So, I can't travel.

But it should be noted that I would not benefit from a reformed US healthcare system, since I am a resident, nor would my husband. My wife wouldn't either (she has health insurance through her job), unless dental would be covered, since she needs about 20 grand in dental work done. (Edit: Probably wouldn't. She could use an aide, as her endocrine issues are starting to affect her more and more.)

And yeah, you did give me a 'love it or leave it' argument, even if you're trying to weasel out of it now. But, unless you can find a way to buy me a 150k RV with ac and backup ac, there's simply no way that I can travel back to canada to get access to medical care there.

Not that it would probably help me there, either, because my adrenal glands are so damaged and my organs so fragile that hormone therapy could just as easily kill me, not to mention chelation therapy to try to get the heavy metal poisoning fixed, which could damage my already damaged organs.

Might make bills a little smaller, but it's actually cheaper for me to stay put.

There's such a thing as advocating for the rights of other people without gaining benefit for yourself, you know. I believe strongly in universal healthcare because there are many people who would benefit, even if I wouldn't.

Maybe it would've benefitted me when I was getting sick. I think that hormone supplementation with a qualified endocrinologist could have stopped the progression, since early addison's can be treated.

But now? Probably not. There is no medical reason why I'm alive, other than stubbornness, strict isolation, and large applications of antihistamines, because I am allergic to my own body, the food I eat, the air I breathe, and anything that touches me.

That enough for you?

[Francis]

The right of free speech?

Is met in a state of anarchy by the right to beat you up for saying things I don't like.

Free exercise of religion?

Has regularly needed enforcement rather than just being a "right".

Free press?

Again, freedom to smash the press.

The right to be free from unreasonable search and seizure?

Again depends on the oversight mechanisms and a police force to prevent private individuals searching and siezing things they like the look of.

The mere right to be free?

Define that one please?

The Bill of Rights is chock-full of rights that don't depend on other people to provide.

But almost every one of those rights does depend on others to protect. The state isn't as much of a threat to rights as the petty tyrant with a gang.

And for MacQuarry, one of the differences between (honest and thoughtful) liberals and (honest and thoughtful) conservatives is that liberals tend to be as concerned with negative freedoms as positive freedoms. The right to freedom of assembly means jack shit to someone who can't get to the assembly point because all the roads have been privatised and they are effectively besieged. The right to free expression means very little to someone dodging stray bullets in a warzone. The right to not be taxed means nothing to someone dying of cholera due to inadequate water and sewerage systems.

[LtMarvel]

And you think socialized medicine will mean everyone gets anything and everything they want or need? Govt can't and won't do that. Not only will there be limits on procedures due to cost and necessity, there will also be inefficiency, as seen in the VA hospitals. If govt can't even care for our veterans, what makes you think they can give the rest of us much better service? "Because some other countries do it?" They have massive problems with their systems too, and besides, isn't "It's works here, so it will definitely work over there too" an argument often rebuked as patronizing and simplistic on the left? Or do you feel that govt systems and programs are always 100% transportable to other countries, even similarly advanced countries?
We shouldn't and don't expect anything to be the cure all for everything.

We do expect that Universal Heath Care to be a vast improvement over what we have now.

[LtMarvel]

"Those who would trade essential liberty for temporary security are deserving of neither." -- Benjamin Franklin.

Do me a favor: never ever vote.
And here's today winner of worst post on CBR...

[Tommy]

We are certainly not on the brink of extinction, and surrendering our freedoms would certainly not delay it if we were.

For all of humanity... well it depends upon how cockroach like you think us to be. Between temperatures rising and biodiversity crumbling conditions are starting to look similar to what led up to the Permian-Triassic extinction event.

For a segment of humanity then this is about extinction. The inability to afford proper medical care makes it rather difficult to survive. You just have to run on the hope that you have fit genes and no accidents happen. Something rather hindered since nutrition education is sorely lacking in our society, coupled with the expense of "eating healthy" compared to eating crap.

[Reverend Smooth]

Edit: It's now twelve hours later and still no answer from Samurai. Do you get kicks from requiring others to explain their helplessness without even dignifying them with an answer, Sam?

And I know you've been around, because you've been posting in other threads.

[Reverend Smooth]

Actually, moe than twelve-- it was 13. Now, it's 15 hours later, and Sam is posting in the other political threads, but is mysteriously absent here.

I guess he wasn't that curious, huh. Or is it just that terminal illness is not worth a reply?

[Sabrinaset]

For all of humanity... well it depends upon how cockroach like you think us to be.

Sometimes I help Daddy out at the Jr. High he teaches at, and I see what the 7th/8th graders are like. Just based on those kids, I'm guessing we really aren't too far away from cockroaches ATM. I brought a can of Raid with me last time, but he told me not to use it on them.

[Samurai]

Actually, moe than twelve-- it was 13. Now, it's 15 hours later, and Sam is posting in the other political threads, but is mysteriously absent here.

I guess he wasn't that curious, huh. Or is it just that terminal illness is not worth a reply?

I've been at work. I was able to peek for a few minutes after lunch, but that's it.

What do you want to hear? I think it's sad that you are trapped in a country you hate (except for the weather and your family, but since your family would go with you to Canada, I guess you really only like America's weather.) You can rent an RV, or maybe put out the word to owners that you need a lift to Canada, but if you are too sick to move, then the point is moot anyway. I don't know how long you were here before you got too sick to move, but I know at 1 point my parents decided to move to New Zealand. They sold their house, car, furniture, etc and went there. After 3 weeks they hated it so much they returned to the US. With no house, we had to live in an apartment for years, until they could find one they could afford. How long did it take you to decide Canada was superior to the US in every way but the weather?

[Reverend Smooth]

I've been at work. I was able to peek for a few minutes after lunch, but that's it.You lie like you breathe, evidently.

but if you are too sick to move, then the point is moot anyway.Reread my post, re: moving and rv stuff. Sloooowly.

Re: moving: I moved to the US about 13 years ago because I was offered a job and friends wanted to shack up with me.

Since then, I moved around, ended up with Larime, and then got very sick. Though I did have some mild, chronic health problems for my whole life, it wasn't enough to require medical intervention. But after we got married, and within the span of a few months, my endocrine system crashed completely and I went from feeling crappy but being ambulatory, to becoming confined to a wheelchair, and then terminally ill.

You say, 'rent an rv, do this, to that'. Dude, my fridge just died today. We had to hit up relatives to help deliver a used one from the salvation army because we can't afford the $25 delivery fee. How can I rent an RV? I told you that chemicals can kill me. How am I supposed to rent a contaminated machine for six months to let it air out? How am I supposed to hit up people for theirs when they and their rv would be contaminated, nevermind that I have also a husband, a wife, a service dog, and cats to move? Oh, and gasoline, food, extra meds, etc? Also, three wheelchairs?

If you are healthy, you can toss your shit into a duffel bag and greyhound to wherever you need to go. I know, I road-tripped accross the US for years.

When you're terminal and have really specific and difficult health needs, and you are very poor, you can't just afford to do the same. The fact that you read my post, know I'm dirt-poor, and yet STILL offered nonsensical solutions means that you never really bothered to pay attention to what I said.

Talk about rude. I realise that in samurailand everything has an easy answer, but that's not how reality works, man.

Edit: And honestly? Don't compare me to your parents. Just because THEY were too stupid to think their move through doesn't mean that I don't calculate my future prospects carefully. I've been on my own since sixteen-- I've always had to plan my future out as carefully as I could just to make sure I survived. And the fact that you have to try to find reasons why my situation is MY fault means that you're a dick.

For someone who calls himself Samurai, you're pretty damn dishonorable.

[Larime]

I've been at work. I was able to peek for a few minutes after lunch, but that's it.

You were able to research polls and post at length about them in another thread. Something which was completely unprovoked by others, but something you wanted to do. Yet a thread where you asked questions and stirred up shit, you ignored. But you do this a lot. You ask questions, get answers, and instead of admitting you were wrong or countering with your own answers, you just leave it until someone calls you out. At which point you say, "What is there to say?"

You do this over and over again.

What do you want to hear?

See?

I think it's sad that you are trapped in a country you hate (except for the weather and your family, but since your family would go with you to Canada, I guess you really only like America's weather.)

Where did she say she hates it? I know us liberals all hate America in your mind, but seriously - sometimes you can complain and want change because you LOVE it and hate seeing it fucked up.

You can rent an RV, or maybe put out the word to owners that you need a lift to Canada, but if you are too sick to move, then the point is moot anyway.

Renting is out of the question for TONS of reasons, which she explained.

I don't know how long you were here before you got too sick to move, but I know at 1 point my parents decided to move to New Zealand. They sold their house, car, furniture, etc and went there. After 3 weeks they hated it so much they returned to the US. With no house, we had to live in an apartment for years, until they could find one they could afford. How long did it take you to decide Canada was superior to the US in every way but the weather?

Ah.

Here we go. I knew it was coming.

The infamous "Samurai cannot imagine anything outside his narrow worldview and experiences, so he'll just apply them to you and ask when you stopped beating your wife" moment.

Your parents were idiots. No planning, no contingencies, no plan B (do they work in the Whitehouse or Pentagon?). Poor and disabled people don't have that luxury. I love how you imply Rev simply didn't plan, or didn't get out fast enough, so it's all her fault. Classy, and classic Samurai. Everyone simply MUST fit in with how you see the world.

[Samurai]

You lie like you breathe, evidently.

Reread my post, re: moving and rv stuff. Sloooowly.

Re: moving: I moved to the US about 13 years ago because I was offered a job and friends wanted to shack up with me.

Since then, I moved around, ended up with Larime, and then got very sick. Though I did have some mild, chronic health problems for my whole life, it wasn't enough to require medical intervention. But after we got married, and within the span of a few months, my endocrine system crashed completely and I went from feeling crappy but being ambulatory, to becoming confined to a wheelchair, and then terminally ill.

You say, 'rent an rv, do this, to that'. Dude, my fridge just died today. We had to hit up relatives to help deliver a used one from the salvation army because we can't afford the $25 delivery fee. How can I rent an RV? I told you that chemicals can kill me. How am I supposed to rent a contaminated machine for six months to let it air out? How am I supposed to hit up people for theirs when they and their rv would be contaminated, nevermind that I have also a husband, a wife, a service dog, and cats to move? Oh, and gasoline, food, extra meds, etc? Also, three wheelchairs?

If you are healthy, you can toss your shit into a duffel bag and greyhound to wherever you need to go. I know, I road-tripped accross the US for years.

When you're terminal and have really specific and difficult health needs, and you are very poor, you can't just afford to do the same. The fact that you read my post, know I'm dirt-poor, and yet STILL offered nonsensical solutions means that you never really bothered to pay attention to what I said.

Talk about rude. I realise that in samurailand everything has an easy answer, but that's not how reality works, man.

Edit: And honestly? Don't compare me to your parents. Just because THEY were too stupid to think their move through doesn't mean that I don't calculate my future prospects carefully. I've been on my own since sixteen-- I've always had to plan my future out as carefully as I could just to make sure I survived. And the fact that you have to try to find reasons why my situation is MY fault means that you're a dick.

For someone who calls himself Samurai, you're pretty damn dishonorable.
You were able to research polls and post at length about them in another thread. Something which was completely unprovoked by others, but something you wanted to do. Yet a thread where you asked questions and stirred up shit, you ignored. But you do this a lot. You ask questions, get answers, and instead of admitting you were wrong or countering with your own answers, you just leave it until someone calls you out. At which point you say, "What is there to say?"

You do this over and over again.



See?



Where did she say she hates it? I know us liberals all hate America in your mind, but seriously - sometimes you can complain and want change because you LOVE it and hate seeing it fucked up.



Renting is out of the question for TONS of reasons, which she explained.



Ah.

Here we go. I knew it was coming.

The infamous "Samurai cannot imagine anything outside his narrow worldview and experiences, so he'll just apply them to you and ask when you stopped beating your wife" moment.

Your parents were idiots. No planning, no contingencies, no plan B (do they work in the Whitehouse or Pentagon?). Poor and disabled people don't have that luxury. I love how you imply Rev simply didn't plan, or didn't get out fast enough, so it's all her fault. Classy, and classic Samurai. Everyone simply MUST fit in with how you see the world.
You wanted a response, I gave one that offered a few options while at the same time admitting that, if you're just too sick, then there's nothing that can be done. You say that's the case, ok fine. So what else am I supposed to say? I asked how long she was here before getting too sick to move, and apparently the answer is 6 years. You couldn't tell that you liked Canada better in nearly every way after 6 years? That's why I related that my parents figured it out in 3 weeks and moved back. But you both instead take the opportunity to bash my parents, call them stupid, etc.

You know, I'm getting really tired of the "Oh, we're so poor and miserable that we have a license to say any crap we want" routine. I don't know your situation in every way, but why does it give you a right to act the way you do to everyone else? She posted about how much better Canada is in every way than the US (except for her family and the weather), and asked, dared, and scolded me into answering that. Again, what did you want me to say? "OOooh, you poor thing, you're so right, America sucks, and it's totally worse than Canada!" Well, I don't believe that. It's ironic that you keep calling me a liar and then you want me to lie to you... It's also ironic that you go out of your way to twist and misrepresent everything I say into the most negative light possible, and then say I'm the dishonest and dishonorable one.

Yeah, maybe no one ever told you, but just trashing someones' parents like that isn't proper. You attack me, that's one thing. I can take it. But how would you like it if I went off on your parents, giving them all kinds of crap out of the blue? Oh, but I forgot, you're poor and miserable, so you can say such things and people are supposed to laugh and say "Well, from anyone else I wouldn't take that, but given your situation, I'll let it go..."

No. You've got a tough life, but in areas like online conversations and civility, where your disability doesn't enter into it, I'll treat you like anyone else. That's the right thing to do, and while you may not admit it to me, I think that's what you'd want.

Everyone has problems in their life, some bigger than others. But if everyone decides their problems give them license to treat everyone else like shit, this world will be a much worse place.

[Reverend Smooth]

Spoken like a true pussy, Samurai. A cowardly, dishonest, whiny, pussy.

[Samurai]

Spoken like a true pussy, Samurai. A cowardly, dishonest, whiny, pussy.

I already asked it twice, now a third time. Just what is it you want to hear? Someone who simply agrees with each and everything you say? Then talk to your dog or the mirror. But coming to an online forum means you're going to hear things you might disagree with (SHOCK!) And people might also disagree with you (HORROR!) All you've got in response to that was a few more insults? After begging me for a response? No appreciation, I tell'ya...

[Paul McEnery]

But how would you like it if I went off on your parents,.

Christ in a cadillac.

Some people can give it out all day long, but they cry like an itty bitty baby when it comes back home.

[Samurai]

Christ in a cadillac.

Some people can give it out all day long, but they cry like an itty bitty baby when it comes back home.

Show me where I've attacked anyone's parents?

And I don't give out a tenth of the shit I get from you and others like you, as you well know.

[Reverend Smooth]

All you've got in response to that was a few more insults? After begging me for a response? I'm not insulting you because you disagree with me. I'm insulting you because you are a chickenshit liar who will go so far as to use people's illness as a way to try to make them look bad in order to deflect criticism from his own dishonesty.

That's not even the stupidity that people have given you a pass on. No, you are genuinely nasty enough to actually pull that crap.

Wow. Just wow.

[Reverend Smooth]

Christ in a cadillac.

Some people can give it out all day long, but they cry like an itty bitty baby when it comes back home.
He's welcome to bash them all they like. Folks who slam their kids into walls, kick them in the spine (part of why I'm in a wheelchair), threaten them with butcher knives, steal their spouse's paychecks, and leave their kids out on the street don't deserve much consideration. XD;

He probably can't say worse about them than the actual things they've done. Hell, mom's told me that she wished she'd had an abortion in my case, so she's beaten him to the punch. ^^

[Samurai]

I'm not insulting you because you disagree with me. I'm insulting you because you are a chickenshit liar who will go so far as to use people's illness as a way to try to make them look bad in order to deflect criticism from his own dishonesty.

That's not even the stupidity that people have given you a pass on. No, you are genuinely nasty enough to actually pull that crap.

Wow. Just wow.

On the contrary, I said I won't treat you any differently because of your illness. Typical, you trying to twist my words into something you made up...

[Samurai]

He's welcome to bash them all they like. Folks who slam their kids into walls, kick them in the spine (part of why I'm in a wheelchair), threaten them with butcher knives, steal their spouse's paychecks, and leave their kids out on the street don't deserve much consideration. XD;

He probably can't say worse about them than the actual things they've done.

Well, some of us actually love our parents. My mother passed away not too long ago, and I take care of my dad 6 nights a week. That's another reason I don't always have a lot of time to answer all the posts.

[Paul McEnery]

Show me where I've attacked anyone's parents?

And I don't give out a tenth of the shit I get from you and others like you, as you well know.

Absolutely right.

None of those Arabs or Muslims or Democrats or anyone else except for him were born of parents or had children, because they're all subhuman bastards who deserve what they get.

[Reverend Smooth]

That's 1 reason I don't always have a lot of time to answer all the posts.And now you're using THEM as an excuse not to answer. Oh my god, you are pathetic. My condolences to your father for having such an opportunistic son.

[Samurai]

Absolutely right.

None of those Arabs or Muslims or Democrats or anyone else except for him were born of parents or had children, because they're all subhuman bastards who deserve what they get.

I said, show me where I've ever attacked anyone's parents. Or are you now comparing a direct statement to another poster saying "Your parents are stupid" with "Islamists are evil" because some Islamists are someones parents somewhere?

[Samurai]

And now you're using THEM as an excuse not to answer. Oh my god, you are pathetic. My condolences to your father for having such an opportunistic son.

The point is, between work, family obligations, my artwork, etc, I don't have time to answer a lot of your more inane and rhetorical posts that don't really call for an answer.

[Reverend Smooth]

The point is, between work, family obligations, my artwork, etc, I don't have time to answer a lot of your more inane
'Dear Samurai's Dad,

Your son is using you as an excuse for his bad manners. I hope you taught him that, when you ASK someone a question, and they ANSWER your question, you acknowledge their answer instead of going elsewhere and talking at length to others and then using YOU as an excuse as to why they never came back and did the courteous thing.

Because otherwise, he's a really shitty son, and I feel sorry that you wasted all those years of work on such a piece of shit.

Sincerely, the Rev.'

It's really funny that you characterise my very detailed answer to your question as 'inane', Samurai, because you have to lie about even that. You lying piece of shit. XD

[Larime]

You wanted a response, I gave one that offered a few options while at the same time admitting that, if you're just too sick, then there's nothing that can be done. You say that's the case, ok fine. So what else am I supposed to say?

You're still missing the point: she, nor I, hate America. We don't. You COULD have addressed that, instead of offering options you admitted can't be done and trying to lay blame on her for not leaving.

I asked how long she was here before getting too sick to move, and apparently the answer is 6 years. You couldn't tell that you liked Canada better in nearly every way after 6 years? That's why I related that my parents figured it out in 3 weeks and moved back. But you both instead take the opportunity to bash my parents, call them stupid, etc.

It's NOT a matter of liking Canada or hating America. Get that into your head. She wasn't even SICK until 7 years ago. And US healthcare - nor Canadian - can really HELP her. She and I advocate NHS because we feel it's the right thing to do. We would NOT BENEFIT FROM IT. It's NOT ABOUT US.

You know, I'm getting really tired of the "Oh, we're so poor and miserable that we have a license to say any crap we want" routine. I don't know your situation in every way, but why does it give you a right to act the way you do to everyone else?

... Dude. Now you're just pulling shit out of your ass. YOU asked her why she doesn't leave. She answered. What. The. Fuck?

She posted about how much better Canada is in every way than the US (except for her family and the weather), and asked, dared, and scolded me into answering that. Again, what did you want me to say? "OOooh, you poor thing, you're so right, America sucks, and it's totally worse than Canada!" Well, I don't believe that. It's ironic that you keep calling me a liar and then you want me to lie to you... It's also ironic that you go out of your way to twist and misrepresent everything I say into the most negative light possible, and then say I'm the dishonest and dishonorable one.

You know, there's really no point with you. It's all binary, and life doesn't work in black and white. The fact that you think WE think America sucks and we want you to admit it shows you have not been reading at all.

Yeah, maybe no one ever told you, but just trashing someones' parents like that isn't proper. You attack me, that's one thing. I can take it. But how would you like it if I went off on your parents, giving them all kinds of crap out of the blue? Oh, but I forgot, you're poor and miserable, so you can say such things and people are supposed to laugh and say "Well, from anyone else I wouldn't take that, but given your situation, I'll let it go..."

My parents have done stupid shit, too. Everyone has. But seriously, if pointing out that selling everything and moving literally across the Earth to a place you haven't experienced enough to know you're going to like living there first is stupid makes me an asshole, then I'll gladly wear the badge.

No. You've got a tough life, but in areas like online conversations and civility, where your disability doesn't enter into it, I'll treat you like anyone else. That's the right thing to do, and while you may not admit it to me, I think that's what you'd want.

Everyone has problems in their life, some bigger than others. But if everyone decides their problems give them license to treat everyone else like shit, this world will be a much worse place.

I've NEVER asked for anything less or more, and FUCK you for accusing me of hiding behind my disability. I have done no such thing.

[Larime]

Well, some of us actually love our parents.

WOW your sanctimony is thick.

I love my parents, too, but if they moved me across the world and realized they made a mistake by not planning ahead or looking into their new home, first, I'd call them idiots, too.

[macul]

Christ in a cadillac.

Some people can give it out all day long, but they cry like an itty bitty baby when it comes back home.

Bullshit, paul. It's one thing to have a go at someone on the board; someone who can answer back. It is another to insult someone's family. You know this. Don't be dishonest just because it is samurai. You wouldn't like anyone here trashing your parents or your girlfriend just to get a rise out of you.

[Reverend Smooth]

Bullshit, paul. It's one thing to have a go at someone on the board; someone who can answer back. It is another to insult someone's family. You know this. Don't be dishonest just because it is samurai. You wouldn't like anyone here trashing your parents or your girlfriend just to get a rise out of you.He tried to compare my situation to a foolish decision that his parents took. It was a stupid move on their part. In fact, the reason that he made the comparison in the first place indeed seemed to be a comparison of bad decisions.

Putting on this mock outrage is bullshit. Samurai himself implied exactly what I said, and now he -- and you -- are encouraging him to put on this wounded victim nonsense.

And 'just to get a rise?' Thanks for being just as much of a shitty exaggerator as he is.

Edit: And considering that he's not above using his sick dad as an excuse to YET AGAIN get out of answering a question in response to a question HE POSED, he can cry me a river-- and so can you. People who care about their ill relatives don't use them as excuses. He first tried using work, then he tried using his dad. Poor widdle baby, he's so busy that he has time to research and answer several other people elsewhere (and not just during his lunch break). Now it's a big crisis about his parents being put on the cross. :rolleyes: Pathetic opportunists, both of you.

[Sabrinaset]

Mr. McEnery visiting his family:

http://www.mst3ktemple.com/images/star_trek_05.jpg

Paul is the red brain on the right.

[Reverend Smooth]

Braiiiiiiiiins.

[macul]

Putting on this mock outrage is bullshit. Samurai himself implied exactly what I said, and now he -- and you -- are encouraging him to put on this wounded victim nonsense.

And 'just to get a rise?' Thanks for being just as much of a shitty exaggerator as he is.

Give it a rest, rev. You, larime and samurai are all playing the part of "wounded victim." You most of all.

[Reverend Smooth]

Give it a rest, rev. You, larime and samurai are all playing the part of "wounded victim." You most of all.I don't take the advice of dishonest people, and your condescension is worth exactly nothing. So kindly sod off. :)

[macul]

Pathetic opportunists, both of you.

Do you realize how much irony is contained within that one sentence of yours? I call bullshit on paul excusing calling someone's parents idiots and that makes me a "pathetic opportunist?" You might be the most abrasive person I've ever ran across.

[macul]

I don't take the advice of dishonest people, and your condescension is worth exactly nothing. So kindly sod off. :)

Dishonest? How, exactly, am I dishonest? Not agreeing with paul's assertation that calling someone's parents "idiots" is ok doesn't make me dishonest.

[Reverend Smooth]

I call bullshit on paul excusing calling someone's parents idiots Yo. He started trying to say how my situation was similar to his parents, in which they -- stupidly -- sold everything they owned and moved elsewhere, on a whim, and found out they hated it.

That. Was. Stupid.

And your concern trolling and attempts to spin it as some unusual case of meanness is full of shit.

This pseudo-moralistic outrage is really sad. And if you think that calling me 'abrasive' is going to cow me into shutting up, you're mistaken.

[Reverend Smooth]

Dishonest? How, exactly, am I dishonest? Not agreeing with paul's assertation that calling someone's parents "idiots" is ok doesn't make me dishonest.Your attempts to claim some ostensible moral high ground are dishonest. You have no problem lying and spinning events here, and you have no problem standing up for liars; you stand by when he lies and insults people and uses his own parents as an excuse.

And then you show supposed 'concern' for Samurai's parents? Please.

'You're calling me a liar for disagreeing'.

Yeah, trot out the usual pussy line. You bitch about me acting like a victim? Please, have some nails for your own cross, you can climb up right beside Samurai and have a big old emofest.

[macul]

Actually, just forget it, rev. You are just an angry person. You are probably the most angry, spiteful and mean-spirited person I've ever ran across. I've tried to give you a break considering your unfortunate situation, but I can't do it any longer. Have fun believing everyone who doesn't agree with you is dishonest, hates the sick and poor, and whatever other illusions you can conjure.

[Reverend Smooth]

I've tried to give you a break considering your unfortunate situation, but I can't do it any longer. Yes, you've just been overflowing with compassion. Could you possibly lay it on any thicker? XD

Have fun believing everyone who doesn't agree with you is dishonest, hates the sick and poor, and whatever other illusions you can conjure.I don't, as anyone who trawls through my post history can find out.

But it seems to please you to spin it that way. ^^

...And you trying to use my illness for your own benefit here is disgusting.

[Sabrinaset]

There's just no way to stop a Flame War on this thread, is there? I'm either gunna call up the CDC and have this thread quarantined as a medical threat to comic book geeks, or retcon-punch all of you into Pokemon.

But if this thread makes it to page 80, the Lebian Alliance WILL descend upon it. Cue "Ride of the Valkyries" and get the lingerie ready!

[Reverend Smooth]

There's just no way to stop a Flame War on this thread, is there? I'm either gunna call up the CDC and have this thread quarantined as a medical threat to comic book geeks, or retcon-punch all of you into Pokemon.
Will all the flames fit into such tiny balls? o:

[Loren]

In other words, the confinement, lifetime of exploitation, and certainty of the slaughterhouse is a fair trade for three square meals a day.

From the July 29 edition of News of the Weird (http://newsoftheweird.com/archive/index.html):

Violent demonstrations in northwestern India in May left at least 18 dead, as members of the lower Gujjar caste demanded that the government put them into an even lower class, at the bottom of the social ladder (so that they would be eligible for more government benefits). The Gujjars say that being one of the government's "Other Backwards Classes" is unsatisfactory and that they deserve worse. [MSNBC-AP, 5-31-07]

[Paul McEnery]

Dishonest? How, exactly, am I dishonest? Not agreeing with paul's assertation that calling someone's parents "idiots" is ok doesn't make me dishonest.

Well, aside from the fact that selling everything to move to New Zealand and then sticking it out for three weeks is pretty idiotic, that wasn't my point.

My point was that Samurai dishes it out to people constantly, and feels no need to apologize for smearing a friend of mine as anti-semite. That's fair game, I guess.

But to say that an idiotic thing that his own family did is idiotic, that's TERRIBLE!

[macul]

Well, aside from the fact that selling everything to move to New Zealand and then sticking it out for three weeks is pretty idiotic, that wasn't my point.

My point was that Samurai dishes it out to people constantly, and feels no need to apologize for smearing a friend of mine as anti-semite. That's fair game, I guess.

But to say that an idiotic thing that his own family did is idiotic, that's TERRIBLE!

I'll use your tactic of debate: You are just wrong and that's all there is to it. I suspect you know this as well, but since it is samurai who is in your sights, you are willing to say and do whatever to get over on him.

I can't fathom how you find it acceptable to have a go at someone's family. "He did it first!" isn't the best defense. But, whatever. You are paul. You are always right. You've said so yourself. Principles be damned. Whatever it takes to "win" the debate.

[Samurai]

Well, aside from the fact that selling everything to move to New Zealand and then sticking it out for three weeks is pretty idiotic, that wasn't my point.

My point was that Samurai dishes it out to people constantly, and feels no need to apologize for smearing a friend of mine as anti-semite. That's fair game, I guess.

But to say that an idiotic thing that his own family did is idiotic, that's TERRIBLE!

Well, if you weren't friends with anti-semites, then you wouldn't have to defend their loathsome actions, would you?

Oh, but I guess pointing out the bigoted things your friends do is so TERRIBLE!

[Samurai]

Your attempts to claim some ostensible moral high ground are dishonest. You have no problem lying and spinning events here, and you have no problem standing up for liars; you stand by when he lies and insults people and uses his own parents as an excuse.

And then you show supposed 'concern' for Samurai's parents? Please.

'You're calling me a liar for disagreeing'.

Yeah, trot out the usual pussy line. You bitch about me acting like a victim? Please, have some nails for your own cross, you can climb up right beside Samurai and have a big old emofest.

To quote Ryan Reynolds from "Waiting":

"So... ANGRY...!" ;)

[Larime]

Well, if you weren't friends with anti-semites, then you wouldn't have to defend their loathsome actions, would you?

Oh, but I guess pointing out the bigoted things your friends do is so TERRIBLE!

Wonkette is not anti-semetic, as has been proven and attested to, even by Jewish people on this forum.

Your lack of reading comprehension, willful ignorance and cognitive dissonance is easily the most impressive I've ever seen. You can't address points, you can't address arguments. All you do is take what is said and run it through some NewsCorp Bizarro filter and spit out a talking point.

I want to make a documentary about you.

[Samurai]

Wonkette is not anti-semetic, as has been proven and attested to, even by Jewish people on this forum.

Your lack of reading comprehension, willful ignorance and cognitive dissonance is easily the most impressive I've ever seen. You can't address points, you can't address arguments. All you do is take what is said and run it through some NewsCorp Bizarro filter and spit out a talking point.

I want to make a documentary about you.

Yeah, with hilarious parody posts about "Jew-liani of Jew York City" and "Jenna Bush drinks Jew Baby Blood", I can imagine how ANYONE could ever think it's anti-semitic... Heck, even the KKK isn't that bold and nasty anymore.

[Samurai]

Mr. McEnery visiting his family:

http://www.mst3ktemple.com/images/star_trek_05.jpg

Paul is the red brain on the right.

It looks inflamed... not a good sign, that color...

[Larime]

Yeah, with hilarious parody posts about "Jew-liani of Jew York City" and "Jenna Bush drinks Jew Baby Blood", I can imagine how ANYONE could ever think it's anti-semitic... Heck, even the KKK isn't that bold and nasty anymore.

You know better, but you keep trying so hard. It's kinda cute.

[Joe Rice]

No.

Try to follow, and I'll try to use small words.

Making sure we do not fall into the trap of labeling a commodity as a right, that's a blow to this tyranny.

Because, once more for the slow learners, rights are by definition universal.

(Oops, sorry, big words. I'll try again.)

Rights are the same for everybody. Rights are the same for rich people as for poor, and the same for lazy people as for hard-working ones. If you call health care or food a right, you have set up a system in which anyone who does not feel like earning their way does not have to, because they have a right to the things that other people have to work for.

And of course once these rights are established, they will be expanded. Every time some politician wants to get re-elected, some new addition to these rights will be discovered and campaigned for, for the simple reason that people will vote for the guy who promises to give them stuff that somebody else has to pay for.

Once more, as I have said many many times in this thread, I am all in favor of finding ways to provide for people who need it, and I am in favor of whatever healthcare reforms will result in the best care for anybody. I am adamantly opposed to calling these things rights, because they are not. Just as the right to own a car does not mean the government is obliged to provide one, the right to healthcare means you have a right to buy it if you want it.

Unless we want to repeat the fall of the Roman empire through ever more mandated bread and circuses.

I'm not talking about rights. I'm talking about what's right. I don't care if it's a "right" for people to have healthcare, I only care that those that need it get it. But it seems you're more interested in insulting people, misrepresenting them, and arguing past them. This is what I get for trying to talk calmly to the angry little man. Goodbye, Jim.

[Samurai]

I'm not talking about rights. I'm talking about what's right. I don't care if it's a "right" for people to have healthcare, I only care that those that need it get it. But it seems you're more interested in insulting people, misrepresenting them, and arguing past them. This is what I get for trying to talk calmly to the angry little man. Goodbye, Jim.

Everyone agrees that if people need it, they get help. The question is HOW those needs are met. It can make all the difference in the world. Does govt take over all health care in this country? Do they agree to just pay a portion of the cost for those below the poverty level? Do they create private health savings accounts or create another Ponzi scheme like Welfare? Those decisions affect everybody, not just the poor that need health care now. That's why calling it a fundamental human right for everyone can have vast consequences and may not be the best way to handle the problem.

[Matt Algren]

No.

Try to follow, and I'll try to use small words.

[etc.]
What a dick.

I agree with much of your political stance on the issue, Jim, but you're just such a dick. I don't know what happened, but I suppose that's beside the point.

Pity. You used to be a decent person, too.

[BlairH]

Because otherwise, he's a really shitty son, and I feel sorry that you wasted all those years of work on such a piece of shit.
That's fucking wrong right there. I don't care who you are, or what planet you're from, the above quote is perhaps the best (worst?) example of sheer wrongness In this Universe, and perhaps every Megaverse in the Multiverse.

Wow! Just wow! Whatever respect I once had for you has just been flushed right down the toilet. Nobody is as abrasive as you Reverend. You've set out to manufacture the most hateful, ignorant and spiteful insult ever, and in this respect I think you have succeeded. I can say that much. I mean I used to complain that Alix kept calling Samurai "Sam-I-Lie", but this is just...wow! It's a totally different ball-game and I'm sad to see that the level of discourse has fallen to a whole new low.

[Larime]

That's fucking wrong right there. I don't care who you are, or what planet you're from, the above quote is perhaps the best (worst?) example of sheer wrongness In this Universe, and perhaps every Megaverse in the Multiverse.

Wow! Just wow! Whatever respect I once had for you has just been flushed right down the toilet. Nobody is as abrasive as you Reverend. You've set out to manufacture the most hateful, ignorant and spiteful insult ever, and in this respect I think you have succeeded. I can say that much. I mean I used to complain that Alix kept calling Samurai "Sam-I-Lie", but this is just...wow! It's a totally different ball-game and I'm sad to see that the level of discourse has fallen to a whole new low.

But calling a lengthy explanation of our situation - an explanation he asked for - inane, accusing me of hiding behind my disability, accusing Rev of being too stupid to move back to Canada when she could and therefore blaming her for her current situation, and then using his own disabled father as an excuse, himself...

Well, that's all peachy.

Your selective outrage is pretty telling.

Sam calls people anti-semites, bigots, traitors and terrorist appeasers without batting an eye.

[Reverend Smooth]

If he thought I was insulting Sam's father with that one, he's delusional.

And overwrought. XD The outrage is so selective that it's laughable.

Edit: And honestly? I'm ok with you thinking badly of me, BH. Because the people that you seem to support, like Samurai, are such disgusting individuals that I do not want to be in that company. If you think I'm a horrible person, that tells me I'm not anything like you and he, and that's all right by me.

[BlairH]

If he thought I was insulting Sam's father with that one, he's delusional.


You have made your "target" quite clear with this one:

he's a really shitty son, and I feel sorry that you wasted all those years of work on such a piece of shit.

You know what? Fuck it. I need a vacation from this place. If this is the level of dialogue being fostered these days, count me right out. It's not worth arguing with you, as neither I nor you have anything to gain from such antics. The ignore list is an option, but I think it's a tad silly to be honest. I think it's just in my interests to leave for a while. I'll probably return after Christmas.

[Larime]

You have made your "target" quite clear with this one:



You know what? Fuck it. I need a vacation from this place.

We had a friend that was our live-in aid and care provider. Every time my cousin asked him to go hang out, he said he couldn't - that I needed him at home and wouldn't let him go.

I never even knew he was being asked to go anywhere, and gladly would have encouraged him to.

Now my cousin and aunt no longer speak to me because they think I'm some possessive control freak that kept him on a leash.

So yeah, we have no tolerance for people using disabled relatives as excuses as to why they can't do something. Samurai posts here all the time. He blew us off after asking us a bunch of questions. We called him on it, and he first blamed his work, then said taking care of his Dad was why he never responded. It's bullshit, because he was replying up a storm on other forums.

So just like my old friend, instead of simply admitting he wasn't interested and was actively ignoring us, he blamed it on taking care of his Dad.

That shit offends me.

[Reverend Smooth]

You have made your "target" quite clear with this one:
He was a shitty son for using his disabled dad as his excuse. And it WAS an excuse, because he first tried the work excuse, and that got debunked, and then he tried the dad thing while castigating Larime and I for hiding behind our disabilities!

I had a roomie who did the exact same thing. He was a shitty friend for using Larime as an excuse 'oh, Larime needs me' every time he was asked to do something he didn't want to do.

You don't use your friends or family that way and you do NOT use your sick family or friends that way. (They usually feel guilty enough as it is!)

I meant every word I said and I will not take that back. Anyone who tells me to my face that I hate my adopted country, that I was responsible for my own sickness and dire financial straits, and that I hide behind my disability can damn well take THAT criticism. And the fact that you have NO problem with the shit he said but, oho, mine's so terrible means you're pretty fucking hypocritical.

So take your outrage and shove it, you hypocrite.

[cactusmaac]

I couldn't find the one I read about, uh, two years ago? But.

Here's (http://www.americanprogress.org/issues/2006/04/b1579981.html) an article about the myth of superior US social mobility.


Study would be here (http://www.americanprogress.org/issues/2006/04/Hertz_MobilityAnalysis.pdf).

This (http://www.futureofchildren.org/usr_doc/02_5563_beller-hout.pdf) is another one.

Yeah, seems like social mobility is great if you have a good college education, decent if you finish high school but quite crap if you're unskilled and poor and don't get any kind of qualifications.

America and Britain are both trending in the same direction, both countries developing a sizable underclass left to fester away while they import skilled talent from around the world.

Stupid, as in we never even considered that these things had dual purposes, and we innocently provided these things in an attempt to be nice, and it backfired on us? Or do you mean stupid, as in we knew perfectly well what uses this stuff could be put to, but we pretended it was all for the cause of goodness so that we would have plausible deniability when they made weapons, fully believing those weapons would be pointed at our mutual enemy?

If the former, I have a bridge I think you may want to buy.

Iraq got the majority of its' chemical weapons gear from German firms, France provided a lot of help on the nuclear side.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Iraq_and_weapons_of_mass_destruction#Program_devel opment_1960s_-_1980s

[Reverend Smooth]

Yeah, seems like social mobility is great if you have a good college education, decent if you finish high school but quite crap if you're unskilled and poor and don't get any kind of qualifications.

America and Britain are both trending in the same direction, both countries developing a sizable underclass left to fester away while they import skilled talent from around the world.I think one might see interesting results if one took all that iraq war money and instead paid for the higher education of every american who can't afford it.

I dunno if it's feasible, but it would be amazing to see.

Edit: ...Though even then, things are tight for educated americans. How many lost their jobs in the tech sector? D:

[Samurai]

He was a shitty son for using his disabled dad as his excuse. And it WAS an excuse, because he first tried the work excuse, and that got debunked, and then he tried the dad thing while castigating Larime and I for hiding behind our disabilities!

I had a roomie who did the exact same thing. He was a shitty friend for using Larime as an excuse 'oh, Larime needs me' every time he was asked to do something he didn't want to do.

You don't use your friends or family that way and you do NOT use your sick family or friends that way. (They usually feel guilty enough as it is!)

I meant every word I said and I will not take that back. Anyone who tells me to my face that I hate my adopted country, that I was responsible for my own sickness and dire financial straits, and that I hide behind my disability can damn well take THAT criticism. And the fact that you have NO problem with the shit he said but, oho, mine's so terrible means you're pretty fucking hypocritical.

So take your outrage and shove it, you hypocrite.

You didn't "debunk" shit. I was at work all day, I had a few minutes during lunch to look in and answer the other thread, I didn't even look at this one until I got home. I never said my dad was the reason I didn't answer you, I said:

Well, some of us actually love our parents. My mother passed away not too long ago, and I take care of my dad 6 nights a week. That's another reason I don't always have a lot of time to answer all the posts.

It was a general response to your "Wah, you seldom answer back in a timely fashion when we insult you, waahhh!" Fact is, last night was my 1 night a week I don't go over to my dad's. And he's not a complete invalid or "an excuse", I go because I love him and want to spend time with him. I know that's something you wouldn't understand, though.

No, the reason I don't always answer you is because you are a bitter, angry person lashing out at the cruel, unfair world, and really, what can one say to that? If those are your feelings, who am I to say they aren't? And if anyone says anything to the contrary, you lay into them, looking for a fight or at least some way to get out your rage and spite. Nobody likes that, even if it does make you feel better for a little while.

[Larime]

You didn't "debunk" shit. I was at work all day, I had a few minutes during lunch to look in and answer the other thread, I didn't even look at this one until I got home. I never said my dad was the reason I didn't answer you, I said:

Well, some of us actually love our parents. My mother passed away not too long ago, and I take care of my dad 6 nights a week. That's another reason I don't always have a lot of time to answer all the posts.

You do this all the time, on every thread, and we are not the only ones to call you on it. You simply ignore any post that refutes you or proves you wrong. Numerous people have called you out over this, and every single time your answer is that you're too busy, even when it's pointed out you answered a post before it and a post after it. You flat out avoid posts on a regular basis, and this is one of many reasons you get accused of lying.

This time, no, you didn't blame caring for your father directly, but you sure put it out there as a blanket cover for future use.

And your first line, about some of us loving our parents? A BLATANT dig at Rev, who does not get along with her own.

It was a general response to your "Wah, you seldom answer back in a timely fashion when we insult you, waahhh!" Fact is, last night was my 1 night a week I don't go over to my dad's. And he's not a complete invalid or "an excuse", I go because I love him and want to spend time with him. I know that's something you wouldn't understand, though.

And here we go again. So, yeah, it's her fault her father abused her, that her brother copied him, and her mother, unable to handle the guilt of watching it, kicked HER out. This goes WAY beyond calling someone a shitty son - you're blaming sexual, emotional and physical abuse on her and condescending to her for not loving her family. That's fucking sick. SERIOUSLY fucking sick, rubbing it in that unlike her, YOU have loving family.

No, the reason I don't always answer you is because you are a bitter, angry person lashing out at the cruel, unfair world, and really, what can one say to that? If those are your feelings, who am I to say they aren't? And if anyone says anything to the contrary, you lay into them, looking for a fight or at least some way to get out your rage and spite. Nobody likes that, even if it does make you feel better for a little while.

Except that's NOT what she - or I - have said. We fight for change in America not because we hate it. Get that into your head. We fight to make it BETTER. There are TONS of people here she disagrees with, politely, on a regular basis, so that's an outright lie. MacQ, Sabrinaset, CactusMac, OzBat, to name a few, and a bunch over on the Community forums. You get venom because you show contempt for the truth and decency with your lies, distortions and sick fucking mindgames.

You seriously need help.

[MacQuarrie]

What a dick.

I agree with much of your political stance on the issue, Jim, but you're just such a dick. I don't know what happened, but I suppose that's beside the point.

Pity. You used to be a decent person, too.

I apologize for offending you.

Joe, I apologize to you. I'm sorry I let my frustration get the better of me. I feel like I've said the same thing fifteen different ways, and I'm not being heard and/or understood.

Sorry for taking it out on you.

[Samurai]

You do this all the time, on every thread, and we are not the only ones to call you on it. You simply ignore any post that refutes you or proves you wrong. Numerous people have called you out over this, and every single time your answer is that you're too busy, even when it's pointed out you answered a post before it and a post after it. You flat out avoid posts on a regular basis, and this is one of many reasons you get accused of lying.

This time, no, you didn't blame caring for your father directly, but you sure put it out there as a blanket cover for future use.

And your first line, about some of us loving our parents? A BLATANT dig at Rev, who does not get along with her own.



And here we go again. So, yeah, it's her fault her father abused her, that her brother copied him, and her mother, unable to handle the guilt of watching it, kicked HER out. This goes WAY beyond calling someone a shitty son - you're blaming sexual, emotional and physical abuse on her and condescending to her for not loving her family. That's fucking sick. SERIOUSLY fucking sick, rubbing it in that unlike her, YOU have loving family.



Except that's NOT what she - or I - have said. We fight for change in America not because we hate it. Get that into your head. We fight to make it BETTER. There are TONS of people here she disagrees with, politely, on a regular basis, so that's an outright lie. MacQ, Sabrinaset, CactusMac, OzBat, to name a few, and a bunch over on the Community forums. You get venom because you show contempt for the truth and decency with your lies, distortions and sick fucking mindgames.

You seriously need help.

Yeah, sometimes I answer posts around it because, having limited time, I can answer 1 or 2 things, but not the 3rd or 4th. Also, like I keep saying, sometimes what you guys say doesn't need or deserve a response. Maybe I just don't have anything to say back to your nastiness sometimes, you ever think of that?

Nowhere did I BLAME her for anything, so that right there is a lie. I've never been skydiving, so I don't know what that's like. It one were to point that out to me, it's not laying blame. And both of you took cheap shots at my parents, then Rev said

He's welcome to bash them all they like. Folks who slam their kids into walls, kick them in the spine (part of why I'm in a wheelchair), threaten them with butcher knives, steal their spouse's paychecks, and leave their kids out on the street don't deserve much consideration. XD;

He probably can't say worse about them than the actual things they've done. Hell, mom's told me that she wished she'd had an abortion in my case, so she's beaten him to the punch. ^^
So, from insulting my parents directly and saying "He's welcome to say anything he wants" to "That's fucking sick" in the space of a page, when all I said was I happen to like spending time with my dad? Wow, and Paul claimed I was the one who could dish it out but not take it...

[MacQuarrie]

Yeah, seems like social mobility is great if you have a good college education, decent if you finish high school but quite crap if you're unskilled and poor and don't get any kind of qualifications.

America and Britain are both trending in the same direction, both countries developing a sizable underclass left to fester away while they import skilled talent from around the world.



Iraq got the majority of its' chemical weapons gear from German firms, France provided a lot of help on the nuclear side.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Iraq_and_weapons_of_mass_destruction#Program_devel opment_1960s_-_1980s

True, but that wasn't my point. Did we innocently sell them stuff that they turned to nefarious purposes, or did we sell it to them knowing htey would do so? Is it naivety or plausible deniability?

[Reverend Smooth]

I know that's something you wouldn't understand, though.Well, you know. It's ok to tell someone -- twice -- that it's their fault that they don't love their psychotically and relentlessly abusive family.

Love should be unconditional, and stuff.

Okay, then.

I love you, mommy. I especially love it when you spit on me and threaten me with large knives and kick me so hard you damage my spine.

I love you, Daddy, when I'm not sure when it's safe to fall asleep.

I love you, sister, for stealing my stuff and telling my mom to kick me out when I was sixteen and just out of major surgery.

I love you, brother, for assaulting me, and then lying to the cops so that I got taken away and thrown out onto the street.

I love you so much. I can't wait for the family reunion. You know, the one where my sister's zonked out on drugs and sits next to her abusive boyfriend, my father's calling my mom a bitch and trying to get her to fuck him while his long-suffering gf sits next to him, and my brother's popping his antipsychotics like a good little boy whilst berating every single one of us for being losers.

Gosh! Miss you soooooooooo much! <3

I just can't wait for the inappropriate touches, kisses, and punches in the mouth. Maybe I'll even be wet this time! <3

[Larime]

Yeah, sometimes I answer posts around it because, having limited time, I can answer 1 or 2 things, but not the 3rd or 4th. Also, like I keep saying, sometimes what you guys say doesn't need or deserve a response. Maybe I just don't have anything to say back to your nastiness sometimes, you ever think of that?

Not just us. Damn. Read the words. MANY people have called you on this.

Nowhere did I BLAME her for anything, so that right there is a lie. I've never been skydiving, so I don't know what that's like. It one were to point that out to me, it's not laying blame.

You and I BOTH know you were taking a cheap shot at her. Deny it all you want, but you've said it twice, now. And she has loved MY parents, so yes, she CAN understand. You know exactly what you were doing with that line. You were rubbing it in.


And both of you took cheap shots at my parents, then Rev said

So, from insulting my parents directly and saying "He's welcome to say anything he wants" to "That's fucking sick" in the space of a page, when all I said was I happen to like spending time with my dad? Wow, and Paul claimed I was the one who could dish it out but not take it...

See, you admit there was a dig there. Keep talking out of both sides of your ass. It amuses me.

[Samurai]

True, but that wasn't my point. Did we innocently sell them stuff that they turned to nefarious purposes, or did we sell it to them knowing htey would do so? Is it naivety or plausible deniability?

I don't think that's ever been definitively answered. The companies claim naivety, but of course they would even if they did know. Either way, it was an incredibly stupid thing to do. But still, other countries helped them far, far more than the US did. The US stuff accounted for a tiny, tiny fraction of Saddam's military, about 1% as I recall. French, Russian, German, and Chinese aid was all much greater, especially Russia's.