The confirmation of John Roberts as Chief Justice of the United States Supreme Court and the nomination on October 3 of Harriet E. Miers as an Associate Justice are the right-wing’s exclamation points at the end of a line of neoconservative judges who have paraded onto the federal bench during George W. Bush’s presidency. Miers will provide no solace to those… return to article
-
subscribe to print magazine
-
email this article to a friend
-
Reader Comments (73)Page 1 of 1 pages“Judge not that ye be not judged”
———-Mathew 7:1 (I think) ....Gratuitous Rabbit…...
A lot of people are looking at this strange person. Expect this thread to liven up soon. Meanwhile Rabbit was here, saw it and he to hops away for more info about the JUDGE.
She has a Blog they say?
Posted by GhostRabbit on Oct 6, 2005 at 5:32 AM Bush/Rove knew exactly what they were doing in nominating her, and her views are not unknown, as some conservatives and liberals have suggested. They are well known to the fundamentalist christo-fascists who came out early in support. She will be the 5th vote to overturn Roe, as well as another who will see no conflict of interest or need to recuse herself when Bush or some of his cronies, having been tried for some of the many crimes thay have committed, finally take their appeals to the supreme court.
Posted by Kenneth D. Brown on Oct 6, 2005 at 8:07 AM I wrestle with this issue of “judicial legislating.” Here are a few musings.
I wonder, had Brown v. Board of Ed not ended the practice of racially segregating public schools, would democratic processes of legislation have resulted in that change by now? Or would official segregation still exist in 2005?
What do you do if the majority really doesn’t want to protect or offer equal rights to minorities (or to women, the majority that’s been treated like a minority)? Perhaps those who wanted to keep non-whites held down (as well as those who might still want to) could come around in time, but how long does such a thing take? Should it be waited for, out of a respect for the legislative process and a reliance upon the good sense and moral uprightness of the voting public and their representatives?
There are so many other issues that are touched upon by this issue of activist judiciaries. I offer only a couple, you can ponder your own as well.
It’s a conundrum, because the Constitution does assign duties to particular branches. But to what extent do we assume vast wisdom on the part of its writers. And if, using its defined mechanisms for amendment, desireable (some might say essential) social ends simply cannot be reached using their scheme?
What if too few people want to do the right thing by each other, for whatever reason, and the law remains a bludgeon upon significant sectors of the nation, or fails to protect them properly? I’d be curious to read some of y’all’s responses.
Posted by Kuya on Oct 6, 2005 at 8:19 AM The worst thing about her will be if she causes problems with indictments against Bush who she reportedly admires…...........Rabbit feels sick
Posted by GhostRabbit on Oct 6, 2005 at 9:58 AM Rabbit’s experience with Judges suggests they are mostly unnaturally flawed people with an occasional reasonable and thoughful one thrown in. Maybe an average ratio of 2 weirdos / 2 Sickos / 1 Thoughtful and Humane Judge.
Just an observation.
Posted by GhostRabbit on Oct 6, 2005 at 10:03 AM An attorney in a low ranking law firm with no judicial experience is far from what we should expect and tolerate for that matter. Much like Condeleeza Rice, she is unqualified for her position and it has been proven that this lack of leadership and ability can lead to disastrous results.
“Those who deny freedom to others, deserve it not for themselves; and, under a just God, can not long retain it.”
The Collected Works of Abraham Lincoln edited by Roy P. Basler, Volume III, “Letter To Henry L. Pierce and Others” (April 6, 1859), p. 376.
Posted by recountUS on Oct 6, 2005 at 11:15 AM Hi Ho,
What?No experience as a judge?
You spent your legal career representing big corporations?Well,say no more!This administration thinks you’d be perfect to interpret law for our nation!
By the way,what is that smell?
The smell of a right-wing agenda.That’s what.
Come on,buying that kind of influence to ramrod/railroad/ripoff an election doesn’t come cheap,you know.
Posted by wwoods on Oct 6, 2005 at 11:51 AM Trival question: how many Supremes were not judges before being Supremes? The answer may surprise. . .
Posted by wolf on Oct 6, 2005 at 8:51 PM How Many Wolf? If you have the answer Rabbit would like to know actually, also whom of them if possible.
By the Way Rabbit would not automatically consider lack of experience as being a serious disqualifier, ON IT’S OWN, for anything.
Posted by GhostRabbit on Oct 7, 2005 at 12:57 AM Kuya writes :
“What if too few people want to do the right thing by each other, for whatever reason, and the law remains a bludgeon upon significant sectors of the nation, or fails to protect them properly? I’d be curious to read some of y’all’s responses.”Oh Kuya. What if? To borrow a phrase ... ” T’was ever thus and ever will be “.... at least in this world.
Majority opinion or minority opinion does not make either opinion right. But at the same time both use their repsective position to bludgen one another.
But that doesn’t mean we shouldn’t try to achieve common ideals. Or what should be common ideals.
Posted by David in Canada on Oct 7, 2005 at 1:46 AM clap trap indeed.for example, a rock holding fast in an avalanche is ACTIVELY resisting an onslaught. applied to an interpretable, conflicted document such as the constitution, what are the fundamental rocks?
Posted by mikerol on Oct 7, 2005 at 2:38 AM Too Trippy for Rabbit. Rock on though.
WOLF, Rabbit is wanting to know how many Supremes were not Judges before. Rabbit is interested in Judges actually and is not baiting you. Solemn Rabbit promise.
It seemed like a reasonable thing to consider.
Posted by GhostRabbit on Oct 7, 2005 at 4:54 AM I find it interesting that most opposition to her is coming from the right. Read Kristol at The Weekly Standard.
Disappointed, Depressed and Demoralized
http://www.weeklystandard.com/default.asp——————————— ;———————————&# #8212;——————————R 212;——-
Question,I would like to know the difference between a “neoconservative” and an old conservative. The only clear difference I have found is…
‘‘Neoconservatism’’ is a somewhat controversial term referring to the political goals and ideology of the “new conservatives” in the United States. The “newness” refers to the term’s origination as either describing converts new to American conservatism (sometimes coming from a liberal or big-government New Deal background) or to being part of a “new wave” of conservative thought and political organization.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Neoconservatism_(United_States)
By “new wave” I guess they must mean the kind of conservation the goal of which is to export jobs and back pro-lifers.Since I slightly touched on Roe vs Wade — this author correctly in pointed out, “Article VI of the United States Constitution unambiguously provides that “no religious test shall ever be required as a qualification to any office or public trust under the United States.”
Seems like there is a part up front which says something about an “unalienable right to Life”... Conservative, yes, (especially for the kid) but there is nothing neo about that.
Posted by whattheheck on Oct 7, 2005 at 7:29 PM Just labels mostly. Put one on. Peel another off.
Posted by David in Canada on Oct 8, 2005 at 12:08 AM Question,
‘I would like to know the difference between a “neoconservative” and an old conservative. The only clear difference I have found is…’
Old conservatives believe in fiscal restraint, small, unobtrusive government, federalism, and a near isolationist foreign policy.
Neo-cons (more properly termed neo-fascists) have an aggressive imperialist forign policy, believe in big, intrusive government (for ex. the Shiavo case) don’t mind spending the country into enourmous debt, are theocrats, and mix unregulated industry with cronyism and conflicts of interest with the government.
Posted by Salient on Oct 8, 2005 at 2:03 AM Mother, father, brother and sister as well as friend and enemy are also, “just labels” David.
Whattheheck Rabbit has a definition of neo-cons which he feels does the trick.
THOSE ADHERANTS OF THE POLICY OF PNAC.
“The Project for the New American Century” — The Fourth Reich.
You should have a close look at PNAC and here are a few references, deliberately intended to give a wide variation of sources. Do at least have a look at the ICH ref though.
By the way, Rabbit has had Republicans tell Rabbit that PNAC is a conspiracy theory….HA ha ha…...Read about it and take note that PNAC proposes many things which we claim are being done, only to be told they would never do such terrible things. Read how Neo-cons proposed to do exactly what they are doing now, in Bush senior’s time.
http://www.pnac.info/
http://www.informationclearinghouse.info/article1665.htm
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Project_for_the_New_American_Century
Posted by GhostRabbit on Oct 8, 2005 at 2:16 AM I might also add that while true conservatives are strong advocates of federalism, neo-cons (neo-fascists) are much more unitarian, for ex “the No child left behind act” etc. and all of this consolodation of government under what amounts to an executive w/ extra-constitutional powers.
” Whattheheck Rabbit has a definition of neo-cons which he feels does the trick.
THOSE ADHERANTS OF THE POLICY OF PNAC. “
That covers the foreign policy part of it.
Posted by Salient on Oct 8, 2005 at 2:25 AM “That covers the foreign policy part of it”
Speaking as a “Foreigner” what else is there?
Actually isn’t there something about Americans in there somewhere? ...........................^^......................
Posted by GhostRabbit on Oct 8, 2005 at 2:44 AM Sorry, “just labels” was cynical David there. I understand wanting to define oneself. Or others. Just borrowing the “semantics” arguement from Jay maybe. Aaarrrgghh. Just kidding, Jay.
Posted by David in Canada on Oct 8, 2005 at 3:05 AM ” Speaking as a “Foreigner” what else is there?”
I covered that in my first post:
Neo-cons (more properly termed neo-fascists) have an aggressive imperialist forign policy, believe in big, intrusive government (for ex. the Shiavo case) don’t mind spending the country into enourmous debt, are theocrats, and mix unregulated industry with cronyism and conflicts of interest with the government.
” Actually isn’t there something about Americans in there somewhere?”
Sorry I don’t understand you?
Posted by Salient on Oct 8, 2005 at 3:05 AM Sorry Salient Rabbit was only being flip by referring to the fact that the name includes American so there aught to be something inthere about Americans. Not very clear, I grant you.
The comment about foreigners is inferring that to “Other” than US citizens the US foreign policy is what defines the USA we know. What else is there? The point of view is the only point really, not meant to be serious stuff.
Rabbit never disagreed with your contention at all though, noticed we cross posted as it happened.
Does theocracy really come into it? of necessity anyway?
Isn’t that just a carry over from the conservative roots being used to lead the God Squad like a pied piper tune?
Posted by GhostRabbit on Oct 8, 2005 at 4:35 AM “Does theocracy really come into it? of necessity anyway?
Isn’t that just a carry over from the conservative roots being used to lead the God Squad like a pied piper tune?”
No! The difference is today, many “neo-cons” want to merge their religious beliefs with the government.
Authentic conservatives (for example Berry Goldwater) favored religion and tradition as well, but didn’t necessarily want to encode their religious beliefs into law.Berry Goldwater:
‘Our problem is with these neoconservatives, the radical right, the religious extremists whose interpretation is very narrow, and who want to destroy everybody who doesn’t agree with them. I see them as betrayers of the fundamental principles of conservatism. A lot of so-called conservatives today don’t know what the word means.’
The theocracy problem is explained very well here:
www.theocracywatch.org
Posted by Salient on Oct 8, 2005 at 8:38 PM Salient
Rabbit will look at the link, shortly. Still questioning this though. Do you really think these people are religious? OK the followers of Neo-conservatism may as well be, but what about the Neo-con leaders?
Rabbit almost wrote it doesn’t matter anyway, but thought better of it. In fact this may be important. Am asking because I don’t really have any way of knowing at this distance, but the impression is of phonies.
Posted by GhostRabbit on Oct 9, 2005 at 1:22 AM Try these videos as well:
http://www.theocracywatch.org/audio-video.htm
The neo-con movement breaks down into 3 groups:
1. The Imperialists – (for ex PNAC) whose main goal is conquest
2. The oligarchs/plutocrats – such as the super-rich and corporations, whose main concern is money.
3. The theocrats - Whose goal is to convert the US into a Protestant-Christian theocracy, with themselves in the cat-bird seat.
Money/power is at the root of each of these sub-groups.
“Do you really think these people are religious?”
Yes, but they are also hypocritical demagogues, as are most religious leaders. Their followers are in large part dupes.
Posted by Salient on Oct 9, 2005 at 1:56 AM ” “Do you really think these people are religious?”
Yes, but they are also hypocritical demagogues, as are most religious leaders. Their followers are in large part dupes. “
Indeed. Here is what Jesus had to say on the matter :
” You brood of vipers! How can you speak good things, when you are evil? For out of the abundance of the heart the mouth speaks.” Matthew 12:34
Posted by David in Canada on Oct 9, 2005 at 2:19 AM Bush isn’t a practsing Christian. Rabbit has heard he has never been seen in church. That is of itself no proof either way, but I believe in America it is much more common for folks to attend church, and if Bush was what he said surely he’d be doing a bit of rubbing shoulders with the Flock? Even if just the well fleeced flock.
OK, have seen the Theocracy watch article and it is more or less how rabbit saw them anyway. Just had not really extended that to mean they were privately practising Christians. That does not actually mean a person who actually comprehends the real message of Christ, an Gnostic himself and who lives it. Most Christians would not be followers of Christ in anything but name. I say that without any reservation or doubts. There are plenty who do, but they are not necessarily to be found in churches.
But we are for the sake of the argument here referring to “Card Carrying” Christians are we not?
Rabbit shall look at the other sources you give and until he has done so will not comment. Will be caught up within the day or so.
Posted by GhostRabbit on Oct 9, 2005 at 8:10 AM Sorry to clarify a couple of points upon re-reading my post.
Rabbit has only heard as said that Shrub no goes to church. There may be challenges oferred with which Rabbit will not argue, for he is no expert on such things.
Rabbit also meant that Christ was an Gnostic.
He was not a Christian as some looney once tried to tell Rabbit. Christ was a Christian, that is what they say. Or else, he is God.Rabbit is not inviting any CCCs (Card carrying christians) to explain the mysteries here thankyou, he has had four years of seminary which never helped make it much clearer, it is unlikely anyone will succeed will Elder Brunsted failed.
Posted by GhostRabbit on Oct 9, 2005 at 8:18 AM Rabbit suggests the MONK, looks to anything relating to the “Great Whore of Babylon”
Read all about the GWOB, as she shall henceforth be known. Approprite really, sounds about right too.
The GWOB begins a GWOT .....................
What can we do with this, MONK from the Land of the Maple Leaf?
More good anagrams please, let us weave a tapestry together. A truly Monkish enterprise feels I.
Shall see if I can find a GREAT sermon from a fine Christian minister from the USA who expounds upon the GWOB, with gusto…............^^...................
Posted by GhostRabbit on Oct 9, 2005 at 8:29 AM Try the following in a search engine and let Rabbit know if it doesn’t get the article.
It is in achives anyway and can be e-mailed.
AMERICA: THE END TIME BABYLON?
By CHARLES PERKINS, PastorCLAIREMONT BIBLE BAPTIST CHURCH
3410 MT. ACADIA BLVD. SAN DIEGO, CALIFORNIA 92111
Posted by GhostRabbit on Oct 9, 2005 at 8:37 AM So I guess judges effectively making law as opposed to just interpreting what the legislature and executive pass as law is cool, yes?
Good, I’m glad that’s settled.
(?)
Oh well…
As for the God/Jesus reference, worshipping that which brought you about is wise, but there aint no end times unless humans poison themselves into oblivion, and even then it won’t be true extinction for long eons, just millennia of savagery if we squander this period of relative knowledge and technological capability.
Tangentially responding back to the article, Ms. Miers nom bringing ire from the hard right is illuminating. Clique Bush don’t much know how to govern, it’s being said (in rightish accents as well as leftish). Even dyed-in-the-wool conservatives are scratching their heads or pounding the table. The Bush team got the powah, but insofar as using it, well…
Posted by Kuya on Oct 9, 2005 at 2:25 PM Goldwater…
‘Our problem is with these neoconservatives, the radical right, the religious extremists whose interpretation is very narrow, and who want to destroy everybody who doesn’t agree with them. I see them as betrayers of the fundamental principles of conservatism. A lot of so-called conservatives today don’t know what the word means.’YES! A Choice Not an Echo.
He got my vote and about three more I can name. He said what he thought, and didn’t stand a chance of advancing from the state-level government.
Posted by whattheheck on Oct 9, 2005 at 4:47 PM Bush is either pandering to the theocratic right, or he is one of them. I suspect it is about equal parts of both. Either way, it’s quite dangerous to our republic and world peace.
“…there aint no end times unless humans poison themselves into oblivion, and even then it won’t be true extinction for long eons, just millennia of savagery if we squander this period of relative knowledge and technological capability. “
Yes, and if it happens, theism will largely be responsible for it.
BTW, if you want a good example of judicial activism, look no further than the 2000 elections.
Posted by Salient on Oct 9, 2005 at 9:46 PM Salient says,
“Old conservatives believe in fiscal restraint, small, unobtrusive government, federalism, and a near isolationist foreign policy.”Thanks.
I have always identified a big national government as a liberal trait — The War on Poverty, taxes supported welfare, The New Deal, etc. My belief is problems should be dealt with as close to home as possible. More effective and more efficient that way IMO.
I don’t see Bush as a true conservative, nor is his father.
Granted, there are things which need a larger scope — FDA, SEC, EPA, OSHA and a bunch of others, but…
I’m for fiscal restraint and government as small as possible. Isolationism is no longer a possibility and hasn’t been for decades.
Posted by whattheheck on Oct 9, 2005 at 10:32 PM ‘Salient says,
“Old conservatives believe in fiscal restraint, small, unobtrusive government, federalism, and a near isolationist foreign policy.”
These things above are actually classical liberalism. The difference between them and what came to be known as conservatism is that the conservatives favored tradition, whereas liberals like Jefferson et al believed in social progress for ex the abolition of slavery.“I have always identified a big national government as a liberal trait — The War on Poverty, taxes supported welfare, The New Deal, etc.”
That would be the “new left” (some of whose policies went too far in an effort to alleviate some severe social problems, but not all of it was bad.) not classic liberalism. As you can see today’s “neo-cons” are the ones advocating big intrusive government today.
“My belief is problems should be dealt with as close to home as possible. More effective and more efficient that way IMO.”Doesn’t always work. Blacks were held down for years in the Southern states before the fed finally started intervening to help end it.
“Isolationism is no longer a possibility and hasn’t been for decades.”
It would be better than the arrogant, self-serving, meddling foreign policy that has made much of the world resent the US.
Posted by Salient on Oct 9, 2005 at 11:48 PM A good link back to the topic of Harriet Myers.
http://www.opednews.com/articles/opedne_douglas__051006_the_truth__the__less. .htm
WTH something you said bears repeating for Rabbit.
“My belief is problems should be dealt with as close to home as possible. More effective and more efficient that way IMO”
.....Absolutely….Now is maybe the time to reveal the Rabbit’s political persuasion…............Anarcho-Socialisism.
This is to me an extension of the natural order of human society. It has always been the most successful in giving long term security for any race. Consider the Australian Aborigine’s. ......................They had a sustainable lifestyle which remained stable for at least 40,000 years. That my black and white friends is a very substantial achievement. Think about it. There is every reason to believe that The Australian Aborigines lived a sustainable lifestyle, with a relatively peaceful history, for 40,000 years.
Many amateur white “anthropologists” may scoff and claim they were also living a primitive lifestyle and god knows what other ideas people may have. The lifestyle was primitive but not more so than many other races. The point was it worked and Rabbit could make a strong case for the fact it was the relationship they had/have to all life around them which was what did it.
Anyway the point is that the same “Social” organisation could be transplanted into our technologocal age, where people should at least be more sophisticated. Rabbit raises the Aborigines only as an example of a long term successful example of Anarcho-Socialism.
Posted by GhostRabbit on Oct 10, 2005 at 1:04 AM It must be noted at this juncture however that Rabbit is not an Anarcho-socialist as much as Anarcho-socialism best describes Rabbit’s idea of perfect government. This is why I could also add that some form of republican “Umbrella Government” would still be a good idea. It would allow us to maintain our cultural characteristics, while allowing some of the wider issues of governance to be shared by all concerned.
WTH it seems to Rabbit that you are shackling your ideas to an outdated mode of thinking. The assumption that Liberals stand for anything for example. The assumption that people can be divided into one or another camp, Conservative or Liberal.
Luminous Beauty posted an awesome piece by F.A. Hynek in the GOD SQUAD thread and Rabbit suggests it be read. It is quite the most perfect analysis of “OUR” form of politics I have ever read. I came away inspired about politics as a process again….............To this jaded old bunny that is saying something….........The guy is apparently well respected by conservatives.
Now just to point out some things. Our governments are very different yet they are not. As far as Hynek’s writing they are all very similar, read him and see why.
In Oz we have our defacto 2-party system in the form of Liberal - Labour.
Labour is ‘In Theory’ a socialist expression.
Liberal on the other hand are our conservatives.
As far as co-operation between our governments go you can see the connection. Trust Rabbit if Labour was in government you would have heard a lot more whinging about Iraq etc and we might not even be there anymore, if ever.
Then there is the British system. Same thing, just different labels. Hynek talks about three political persuasions. Liberal - Conservative - Socialist. The thing is in our homogenised societies there is little enough to really distinguish the groups from one another. For this reason the strength of feeling about the political choices we have is simply not justified. there really isn’t that much difference. Rabbit gets quite disdainful of all the ridicaulous rantings of Conservatives and many Liberals who carry on as if it is the one or the other party which is at fault. They are both at fault and neither have got much more to offer than the other when it comes to governance.
It is beyond this simple Rabbit to understand why there is not yet a third alternaive, which in itself really will end up being the only alternative.
Posted by GhostRabbit on Oct 10, 2005 at 1:05 AM A couple of brief thoughts.
If the US economy goes where it looks like it is headed, a form of Isolationism may be your only chance of survival.
The form of “local governance’ represented in the racist south example was not a product of anarcho socialism by the way, it was an offshoot of the top down way of running things. This leaves the responsibility in this case at a local level but made the oversight a federal responsibility.
In fact Rabbit is of the opinion that Anarcho-socialism with or without that Title BTW, is a form of governance best suited to fairly evolved and sophisicated people like we have in “OUR” countries.
Posted by GhostRabbit on Oct 10, 2005 at 1:10 AM Rabbit and Salient
You both make good points.
Rabbit saying that ” in our homogenised societies there is little enough to really distinguish the groups from one another ”Very true. Most of the distinctions are superficial. The labels just words to identify with, accurately or completely or not.
Salient’s definitions of liberal and conservative and variations on the terms are useful to show some examples of some identifying the distinctions.
Salient, you also said regarding theoretical US foreign policy that ” It would be better than the arrogant, self-serving, meddling foreign policy that has made much of the world resent the US “.
Very excellent distinction. But that foreign policy has been constant, mostly. The foreign policy differences between liberals and conservatives, democrats and republicans, and all the variations are similar in many ways. Sometimes it seems like a good cop, bad cop routine run amok. Both bad, one more so.
Salient, you respond to Kuya’s concerns of ” oblivion ” or ” savagery ” .. by saying ” theism will largely be responsible for it. “
My personal theism will not be responsible for it. Or at least as much as I can personally do to see that it is not responsible.
Some evil men may say they represent my theism (and other isms too), but if they use it to oppress others or even kill us all, then they are liars in word and deed.
Posted by David in Canada on Oct 10, 2005 at 4:52 AM Here are a couple changes to clarify a muddy paragraph ...
Very excellent distinction. But that foreign policy has been constant, mostly. There are few real differences between the foreign policy of liberals and conservatives, democrats and republicans, and all the variations. Their respective foreign policies are similar in many ways. Sometimes it seems like a good cop, bad cop routine run amok. Both bad, one more so. Even alternating roles.
Posted by David in Canada on Oct 10, 2005 at 6:49 AM Kuya asked,
“What if too few people want to do the right thing by each other, for whatever reason, and the law remains a bludgeon upon significant sectors of the nation, or fails to protect them properly?”This is, I believe, the role of the Supreme Court. The key phrase in your question is “the right thing”. Using the Constitution as a basis they must wrestle with this question.
This is where “judgment” is called into play. As far as humanly possible they need to objectively decide on the individual rights involved.
“...all men are created equal,” Could just as well read “each person” — to take this literally as pertaining only to men can be assumed is not what the framers intended. (Yeah, I know,slaves were not covered in spite of the opinions of many that slavery should be abolished at the time. Expediency (getting agreement to separate from England in this case) rules in politics all too often.)
Notice that in those cases which you listed the issue is specific before it becomes general — Brown vs…, Roe vs…, etc. The “sectors” come into the decision as individuals. No person shall be discriminated according to race, gender, religion, etc.
While the Congress paints with a broad brush, the Court is a defender of individual rights.
Unfortunately, they have not always remained as objective as they should. There have been and will be failings due to their humanity.
Posted by whattheheck on Oct 10, 2005 at 1:23 PM “Consider the Australian Aborigine’s. ......................They had a sustainable lifestyle which remained stable for at least 40,000 years. That my black and white friends is a very substantial achievement. Think about it. There is every reason to believe that The Australian Aborigines lived a sustainable lifestyle, with a relatively peaceful history, for 40,000 years.”
If you want to preserve the status quo — a perfect plan.
However, without reward for personal achievement (some form of capitalism) we would not have electric lights, polio vacine, heating/cooling systems.
The problem is not the payment — it is the greed.
There is always a trade off with every advancement of society. Read…The Glorious Entertainment, by Jacques Barzun.
Posted by whattheheck on Oct 10, 2005 at 1:39 PM Salient says,
“Old conservatives believe in fiscal restraint, small, unobtrusive government, federalism, and a near isolationist foreign policy.These things above are actually classical liberalism. The difference between them and what came to be known as conservatism is that the conservatives favored tradition, whereas liberals like Jefferson et al believed in social progress for ex the abolition of slavery.
“I have always identified a big national government as a liberal trait — The War on Poverty, taxes supported welfare, The New Deal, etc.”
That would be the “new left” (some of whose policies went too far in an effort to alleviate some severe social problems, but not all of it was bad.) not classic liberalism. As you can see today’s “neo-cons” are the ones advocating big intrusive government today.”
———————————& —-
My comments on the above…For some time I have be uncomfortable with either of these labels. “Conservatives” have been spending at least as freely as “Liberals”. The “Liberals” are anything but liberating to individuals. They prefer impersonal, broad-based rescue (For my own good whether I want it or not.) — gun control, bike helmets, warning labels, seat belts, unopenable packaging, “safe” playground equipment (goodbye to high slides, teeter-totters and swings you can stand on) — all things which IMO require sound individual judgment and responsibility.
I believe in the right of the individual to make stupid mistakes. Hey, life is a risk from day one and even before. If there is anything to evolution in time kids will be born in bubble wrap with a lifetime guaranty.
“Doesn’t always work. Blacks were held down for years in the Southern states before the fed finally started intervening to help end it.” True. As I said humans, including court justices, are not infallible.
“Isolationism is no longer a possibility and hasn’t been for decades.”
It would be better than the arrogant, self-serving, meddling foreign policy that has made much of the world resent the US.Well, I didn’t hear much complaining from Europe when Bosnia was the problem. Also, they were willing to have us stand up against the Soviets for half a century. We have taken a lot of criticism (I feel justifiably) for very little “meddling” in Africa. Isn’t everyone expecting U.S. aid when disaster strikes?
There is NO WAY to avoid critics. Or as my friend often jokes, “Nobody does everything right sometimes.”
Posted by whattheheck on Oct 10, 2005 at 3:28 PM There is an interesting article regarding Miers today on :
http://www.opinionjournal.com/diary/?id=110007384
JOHN FUND ON THE TRAIL
Miers Remorse
Conservatives are right to be skeptical.The Left doesn’t want her because they have no trust in Bush. I don’t want her because I have little trust in Bush’s judgment.
From this article it looks like her best attribute is that she is a Yes(wo)man.
I expect she will withdraw.
Posted by whattheheck on Oct 10, 2005 at 3:35 PM WTH, in all fairness your answer to Rabbit’s postings above are a bit glib. The Aborigines were as said used as an example of Political Stability. The fact that they lived a primitiv lifestyle and did indeed maintain a status quo, is not the point.
As Rabbit said, we are more sophisticated today, and the transplantation of an Anacho-Socialist system would give much more freedom and versatility to people. This need not stifle development, in fact it owuld I believe act as an enormous incentive to development of good ideas.
You are doing nothing more with your political talk, than proposing more of what you already have. Maybe you would have a few superficial changes made, but nothing which will give you a largely different result than what you now have.
If you actually believe, as does Scorpy, that the USA is in great shape, no serious problems and nothing wrong which an election will not fix, then WTH, you are not going to get much joy around here. Rabbit will add that the situation in ll we are discussing here is no different in Oz to the USA, except we are certain to stay afloat, despite the crash we are fast approaching. Go only knows what you guys are going to have left once the storm passes. Rabbit fears your country is being set up for destruction.
You are right about Bush being stupid, he is obviously being steered. It is equally obvious that he is being steered in directions which are doomed from the outset. It was never possible to achieve stability by bringing war to a stable country. After the Russians sank their ship of state against the Afghani rocks you’d think that US leadership might have been a bit wary of doing the same thing.
Don’t talk about hindsight please, there were many people like Rabbit and far more qualified who pointed out that you would end up exactly where you are now. Stuck and bleeding the nation dry.
Posted by GhostRabbit on Oct 11, 2005 at 12:18 AM Bosnia needs to be seen in light of all it’s history and not merely the two line sanitized version which we were/are fed by the MSM.
Don’t raise it as an example of the USA or anybody doing anything right, if you know what is good for you. It doesn’t stand up. Rabbit not only will post much from the net to illustrate, he lived in Northern Europe at the time and counts Bosnians as well as Massedonians among his friends, then as now.
Rabbit was VERY close to what was going on, it sucked, all round.
It is not a simple story but nor is it an example of anything you can use for the benefit of your argument.
Posted by GhostRabbit on Oct 11, 2005 at 6:09 AM The soviet example is very shortsighted too I’m afraid. There was never any feeling that there was a soviet threat anywhere but in America. That was a wholly american invention, with of course thye usual suspects playing along. This is not to say there was not an imminent threat of War between the “Two Superpowers” but only an American could see that as you being the white hats and the Russkis being the black hats. The problem was never merely the USSR, but the pre-prepared conflict between the USSR and the USA.
The posturing and carryings on which brought the world to the brink of war several times were of no consequence in the wider scheme of things. Communism did not ever set out to take over the world. Like any power in a hostile world it sought security for itself. It failed from the outset to produce a competitive system, serving merely to concentrate its resources on coompeting with US military might. Which made for a backward nation with a massive military force.
All history now, and not because the USA “stood its ground”, but in spite of the USA unless you wish to belatedly claim some responsibility for Osama Bin Laden who effectively bled the USSR to collapse through Afghanistan.
The same is being done to the USA, but it could not be done without the input from your government.
Posted by GhostRabbit on Oct 11, 2005 at 8:07 AM Rabbit,
Now you say,“Rabbit fears your country is being set up for destruction.”
Oh? Did you forget your comment about the suicide bombers?
You said,“They do not threaten you or anybody who does not threaten them.”
So then you believe, I assume, that all 200 of my friend’s insurance company employees who were killed on 9/11 somehow were a threat to the suicide bombers? Were they about to cancel their insurance policies or just raise rates?
Oh, I guess I forgot that the WTC collapse was due to U.S. planted explosive devises somehow secretly installed prior to the planes crashing. There were no actual Muslims involved and it is part of a massive local fascist plot. Our Krystalnacht, so to speak.
You say,“There was never any feeling that there was a soviet threat anywhere but in America.”
Isn’t it curious how so many people risked their lives to flee the Soviet held European territory 1945 until the fall of the Soviet Union?
The Hungarian uprising in 1956 which I learned about in great detail from a young woman who came here — all imaginary?
You say, “Communism did not ever set out to take over the world. Like any power in a hostile world it sought security for itself.”
They were justified in holding all of Eastern Europe captive in order to control a “Safe Zone” between their borders and the phony threat of the U.S.?
Please — don’t bother sending lengthy comments from internet sites. Just realize we will never come to an agreement on this issue — and that there is no reason we need to.
Should the U.S. now capture Mexico and Canada to accomplish a similar buffer between us and the imaginary threat of terrorism?
You aren’t really in Australia are you? You are on some other planet.
Posted by whattheheck on Oct 11, 2005 at 3:20 PM whattheheck,
Some might call your friends 200 employees deaths “collateral damage”.
The Pentagon uses “collateral damage” to describe similar deaths in Iraq. Sometimes they will say “unfortunate collateral damage” if the outrage requires it.
My word for it is “murder”.
Posted by David in Canada on Oct 11, 2005 at 5:52 PM David,
“Collateral damage” has occurred in all wars throughout history and would not quite fit your description. There is a difference (granted, not to the victims) between targeted casualties and innocent bystanders.
If a policeman fires at a bank robber and hits a civilian directly or through a ricochet, that is collateral damage.
If someone fires arbitrarily into a crowd that is NOT collateral damage.
Our troops are actually facing further danger to themselves by using restraint to avoid as much “collateral damage” as possible. Terrorists by definition seek to kill as many civilians as possible to create the terror effect.
Posted by whattheheck on Oct 11, 2005 at 9:28 PM No WTH Rabbit does not actually believe there were any suicide bombers on 911, or if they were they were certainly known about and overseen by the US government.
WTH the simple yhing to remeber is that almost everything you believe has very little basis in FACT. The view you have of 911, Iraq, Afghanistan, in fact the whole world has very little relationship to reality.
You do not actually have any reason to believe Muslim Suicide bombers were responsible, or solely responsible for 911. You may start spluttering about FACTS and proof, but the FACT is that you have nothing but highly quetionable statements from government agencies. The Government Conspiracy Theory has never stood any examination and this fact is currently beingPROVEN on the God Squad thread.
Stop getting hysterical WTH, Rabbit has not said there were no Muslim bombers involved, you really do have a very simplistic and childish view of the world.
One does not have to propose an alternative theory as it happens, in order to discredit an existing theory.
The officail theory does not pass muster and never has. Too bad fgor you if you have no idea of all the reasons why. You really should stop making bombastic statements and assumptions. There was explosives in the WTCs and that is not something which can be suceesfully denied. Rabbit has the advantage of being experienced with explosives and knows enough about demolitions to be absolutely sure of this. Don’t make a fool of yourself and go see the God Squad thread. The alternative theories of what happened are just that, theories They are based on Facts which are known. The official theory flies in the face of Facts which are known. That is a pretty simple thing really.
The complexity for you is simply that, to look honestly at the FACTS, is to realise that you have been grossly misled, and nearly everything else you are left believing in collapses in sympathy.
Rabbit does not envy you this situation, but is patiently determined to bring WTH to the realisation. WTH Rabbit like you once believed the official story. As long as it took to start looking at the details, then thye curtain fell with a thump. Since we began where you are, we will not be returning to your state of delsusion. Thus the only way forward is for you to see the lies.
You will have no problem if you bother to read all the sources and posts of Rabbit’s on the God Squad thread. YOU WILL KNOW THE TRUTH, IF YOU READ what has been posted, and check the sources.
Posted by GhostRabbit on Oct 12, 2005 at 12:27 AM To continue to argue against something of which you are obviously unaware, is the height of stupidity. You’ve failed to comprhehend why so many doubt the official story.
Half of the population of NEW YORK think the government was involved. Does that sound like a silly conspiracy theory WTH?
Your silliness about Russia and Europe is just that. Mickey Mouse versions of history which seems to think every event in history happens in a vacuum. You are constantly parrroting the narrow viewpoint of one party to history, the USA. You are failing to consider important historical background.
A few examples. Largely Zionist interests manipulated events to bring Hitler to power. The people who were involved in manipulating events like Hitlers rise and the following war, include the BUSH family. GWB’s grandfather was a Nazi supporter.
There is so much about history which WTH does not know that it is frustrating that you bring so many other issues into the discuusion as you do. You keep using selectively interpreted history, the childrens version, to illustrate the rightness of your rhetoric.
The rhetoric does not stand up to the light of day, which is why you seek historical examples to try and show some relevance. As said if you had a better grasp of those historical events in their context, you would realise that they don’t help your cause. Many of your examples are known by people who do understand the whole history, to be as often examples of US abuses.
USSR was no more inclined to hold other nations hostage that the USA. The difference is academeic. The USA calls it liberating their neighbors, so did the USSR as it happens.
Of course you were the good guys and they were the bad. Sure WTH.
It has obviously never occurred to WTYH that the world is not really divided up into good guys and bad guys. There are some bad guys, but mostly it is all about perspective. Americans have none.
As for collateral damage WTH. I don’t agree with David, whoever caused those planes and bombs to detroy the WTCs was intending to kill innocent people. No argument from Rabbit there.
The USA has so far achieved COLLATERAL DAMAGE to innocent civilians in IRAQ, of upwards of 150,000. They claim a couple thousand enemy combatants killed so far. The US military has fired almost 1,000,000 rounds for every dead enemy combatant. They are your own figures.
You are a very foolish fellow if you think that sounds like restraint.
Maybe you think that those IRAQIs were all Muslim Extremists? Maybe they were somehow to blame for your two hundred dead friends?
You are dishonouring your friends by defending those who were responsible for their murder. You have had all the information necessary offerred to you to remove all doubt and yet you refuse to look at it. Because you are wrong and in your heart you probably know it. If you really had any conviction in your beliefs you would examine all the stuff we’ve posted about 911, and see how your ideas stand up.
Posted by GhostRabbit on Oct 12, 2005 at 12:29 AM If you ever do get the courage to look at things you will not be able to maintain your views, that is a certainty.
How is it that we can fearlessly examine anything posted by the deluded ones, yet you cannot bear to even read our sources?
Obvious really. You are rtight about firing arbitrarily into crowds, why do your soldiers keep doing it then WTH?
The main damage your troops are facing is DU poisoning from their use of enormous quantities of Nuclear Waste to poison the country of IRAQ. Their own lives will be miserable and short thanks to the treason of the Pentagon, which cares nothing for it’s own soldiers.
WTH you can maintain your views as long as you wish. Notice though that they never stand against the logic and knowledge of anybody on this site, and this is not because some write it better, it is because it is easy to prove the truth, but impossible to prove a lie.
You may have brains enough to be able to do much with the truth once you find it. If you don’t have brains enough to question your leaky boat, then let’s hope you can swim.
Posted by GhostRabbit on Oct 12, 2005 at 12:30 AM “Please — don’t bother sending lengthy comments from internet sites. Just realize we will never come to an agreement on this issue — and that there is no reason we need to”
WTH this is saying basically that you have no intention of changing your mind. That is the problem, yours. Rabbit has every intention of changing his mind, about anything, if FACTS can be established which give a reason to.
This is why for example Rabbit has changed his mind on a few matters since posting on the net. The first pre-requisite for advancement in knowledge is an open mind. It is OK to have opinions, beliefs. It is the height of ignorance to hold fast to an idea once it is proven to be false. It is cowardly and base to refuse to put any opinion to the test when the chance is given.
As for posting “lengthy comments” from internet sites, if they are relevant, Rabbit will indeed post them, even if you are afraid to look over the rim of your foxhole, others may not be. You can just ignore them, you usually do anyway…............... Pity you.
Posted by GhostRabbit on Oct 12, 2005 at 12:39 AM A lot of people like you once refused to change their minds about the earth being flat. Eventually though you people change or die out and truth just ignores you.
Posted by GhostRabbit on Oct 12, 2005 at 12:46 AM whattheheck,
(here is a repost, with clarifications in brackets)
Some (NOT ME but others, maybe your perceived enemies of freedom) might (could,do) call your friends 200 (innocent) employees deaths “collateral damage” (admittedly ill-defined, but the playing with words and defintions was part of my point).
The Pentagon (not me, the Pentagon and others too) uses “collateral damage” to describe similar deaths (of innocents) in Iraq. Sometimes they will say “unfortunate collateral damage” if the outrage (over especially large numbers of innocents) requires it.
My word (interpretation of the defintion) for it is “murder”.
(“there is no such thing as an accidental bomb” - Joan Baez.)
(Sorry if the irony got lost, my written satire obviously needs work)
Posted by David in Canada on Oct 12, 2005 at 3:09 AM Read this for a “Glossary of Warmongering”
http://www.counterpunch.org/rooij03132003.html
Posted by David in Canada on Oct 12, 2005 at 3:21 AM But I see that we have digressed from the topic.
Posted by David in Canada on Oct 12, 2005 at 5:10 AM Q: What’s the difference between an American and an American bomb?
A: The bomb can find Iraq on a map
Posted by GhostRabbit on Oct 12, 2005 at 6:30 AM Miers
“You will have no problem if you bother to read all the sources and posts of Rabbit’s on the God Squad thread. YOU WILL KNOW THE TRUTH, IF YOU READ what has been posted, and check the sources.”
I checked out a few of those you listed a “proof” and “factual”.
The first took me to a New York Times look alike article which when I went to the NYT achives gave me an obituary page.
The other articles give quotes and theories from people neither you nor I have anyway of knowing even exist much less whether they are qualified to speak on the issue.
Most of the writing on this site, whatever the topic, is definitely slanted against the US. People will generally gravitate to those sites which support their own views and make them comfortable with their “wisdom”.
“Your silliness about Russia and Europe is just that. Mickey Mouse versions of history which seems to think every event in history happens in a vacuum. You are constantly parrroting the narrow viewpoint of one party to history, the USA. You are failing to consider important historical background.”
“...silliness about Russia and Europe…” Have you never talked to people from behind the Iron Curtain? This is the strangest comment you have made so far.
Posted by whattheheck on Oct 12, 2005 at 1:55 PM Rabbit,
As long as you’re rewriting history to suit your pet theories, guess I’ll jump in also.
Where to begin? OK, there was no attack at Pearl Harbor back in 1941. What I remember was only a bad dream — thereby no A-bombs were dropped on Hiroshima and Nagasaki. Scratch that topic.
The Holocaust was a pipedream (as a Northwestern University prof contends) and the moonlanding was actually fimed in Arizona. There go two more.
Much to the sorrow of the usual suspects mentality on this site, neither Bush ever gained public office. Geo. H.W. Bush because without his service in WW2 (no Japanese attack — right?) he had no war record to get him “jump” started. No Daddy in the Whitehouse = no Dubya.
As for the Gulf coast problems:
Let’s just assume Jefferson did not make a Louisiana Purchase… instead he leased it from the French. So what the hell took them so long to come to the rescue.
Hey, this is fun! But there is nothing left to debate, so I think I’ll work on revising my birth by a few decades and go check out some shibby bootie.
Bye
P.S. Jetzt Irak, Morgans die Welt!
Amerika uber alles!
Posted by whattheheck on Oct 12, 2005 at 4:31 PM “But I see that we have digressed from the topic.”
Posted by David in Canada on October 12, 2005 at 12:10 AMYou’re right. It’s starting to look bleak. And it’s *only* b/c the right is opposing it.
Posted by Salient on Oct 12, 2005 at 8:48 PM WTH it is a very telling point that you can write off so many references so glibly.
You have selected some very odd choices out of the links given and have obviously not considered all the sources and WHY they were given.
The main things being refferred to are facts, they are listed in the articles given, and plenty of sourcing for each fact is included within the articles. Youy are just being willfully ignorant in your LACK of consideration of them. The FACTS from which the OPINIONS or THEORIES of others are formed, things you have not even tried to deal with are the only reasons the sources are given.
List an ACTUAL FACT which is of consequence and question it directly, or tell us how your theory accounts for that FACT.
The cowardice you are shouwing is as I said pathetic. Do you impress yourself by ignoring the serious issues while nitpicking generally.
You don’t even know the difference between a speculative article and a factual report. You cannot yet actually list a single FACT, with supporting evidence to challenge even the threories you presume Rabbit has. Actually as said, Rabbit KNOWS that explosives brought down the WTCs. Because Rabbit IS experienced in these things. It is so easy to see that many many people know it eually as well, without the need for experience.
Since WTH has not got the guts to seriously put his “standard package” of ideas to any real test, Rabbit wonders why the fellow even bothers hanging around making a fool of himself?.
How much time has WTH spent in Europe? ASIA? the Middle EAST?
WTH is an American, which in itself means it is highly unlikely he knows anything about the rest of the world than what he sees on television. It shows in all the simple little fairy tales about the world he believes.
You are making a goose out of yourself, WTH, which is sad, rabbit thought you once showed you could think. You can’t think. Can you only use the internet to post comments or something? Don’t you know how to use the internet as an information gathering tool?
Obviously not. Rabbit has not been expounding pet theories you fool the things alluded to are HISTORY. Just not censored by the US government, the history whichj is taught elsewhere in the world and which is verifiable on the internet.
Sorry WTH but you are exceedingly stupid. What actual detail of the history Rabbit has corrected you on would you like to question? We shall examine the truth together. Of course you will not want to do this, because your ideas will be directly challenged again. Put them back in the box, with all the packaging, you don’t want those ideas to get any damage, don’t want to scratch them.
WTH you have already claimed you are a dullard, when you made it clear your ideas are set in concrete. You are therefore no more than sport for informed people. Dance like a monkey for us if you must, but we didn’t ask you to. We offerred you an equal debate. One in which you will be taken seriously and given the chance to back your OPINIONS. Instead you just do the usual repeating of muddled history, cartoon style. Atack one out of twenty sources and ignore the rest. Sticking to generalisations when the issues are specific.
You get quite hysterical in your last post, once again subscribing ridiculous ideas to Rabbit, and attacking the new straw man you build pretending it is a Rabbit. Rabbit just sits here, haing expressed almost no opinions yet, and watches the funny WTH doing this strange thing, again.
Posted by GhostRabbit on Oct 13, 2005 at 12:33 AM The Pearl Harbour Attack is history WTH and nobody Rabbit knows is saying it wasn’t. But it has history leading up to it and following it as well. You only deal with it as an isolated act in history. You fail to consider the rest of the story which shows that the attack was wanted and invited by the US admin, and when the attacking force was detected on the way, this was kept secret from the forces at Pearl Harbour. Go read about it one day.
As for the Atom Bombs, it is long since public knowledge that they were dropped by CHOICE and to threaten the Russians, not as you pretend yet, out of necessity. Dummy.
The holocaust seems pretty real to Rabbit WTH, but so does the 66 million mostly christians murdered in Russia because of Jewish manipulations. By the way many of thos assigned to concentration camps by Germany were done so as a consequence of more backroom dealing ZIONISTS, who wanted the impetus behind certain groups of Jews to flee to the new state of Israel. There is so much which you obviously know nothing about. You call them Rabbit’s pet theories. Sunshine they are recorded and witnessed history. Just question anything Rabbit actually says and it will be sourced.. You have brought far too many other issues into the discussion that there is any point in sourcing all issues without need.
What are you talking about weird theories about Moon landings for?
Oh I get it. You are one of those weirdos who thinks there is some sort of creature out in the world called a conspiracy theorist and that they all believe the same things.
Nup, sorry foolish one. So far you have failed to list even one thing Rabbit or indeed most sensible people believe in. Only people like you are predictable WTH. People like Rabbit are not so locked in to any idea that they cannot consider others’. People like Rabbit will agree on many things but since we actually form our own opinions, and don’t even feel obligated to have an opinion, if there is insufficient info to know for sure. We can theorise and speculate without committing ourselves to any theory. It all sounds quite odd to you, these are concepts which would make no sense to you. That is too bad, because you could have learnt a great deal from people on this site. Rabbit must humbly point out that he has probably forgotten more than WTH will ever know. Rabbit’s experience alone gives him more knowledge that WTH has gleaned from all ways in his deluded existence.
When you are sittinmg among the ruins of your world, WTH, remember that Rabbit TOLD YOU SO.
Posted by GhostRabbit on Oct 13, 2005 at 12:34 AM Ascribing ridiculous ideas, not subscribing oops .....................
Posted by GhostRabbit on Oct 13, 2005 at 12:39 AM .. digressing some more ..
whattheheck,
Here is some clarification of collateral damage:
Collateral damage refers to unintended damage amidst intended damage.
Any analysis of the concept quickly becomes complex. Traditionally, collateral damage is a result of weapon system malfunction, human error, desperation in the fog of war or because it was intended. In more recent warfare, it occurs when an adversary’s strategy includes concealment among the civilian population. Any formal definition of collateral damage must be largely based on perception, condition and tolerance.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Collateral_damage
Posted by David in Canada on Oct 13, 2005 at 3:41 AM Monk, that was almost Rabbit’s toe then.
WTH is going to come back and say that those 150,000 Iraqi’s wre just shot because the insurgents hide in the built up areas.
This is traditionally how resistance forces do fight of course. The reason is pretty easy to understand. The resistance is comprised of the population. If the people don’t want the resistance to hide among them, they won’t be able to. So those 150,000 may well all have been enemies after all, WTH. At elast they were potential enemies. Best thing to do then is kill them before they turn into enemies. yes that’s a plan I guess. The odds on the bullets used per death look a lot better that way as well.
Posted by GhostRabbit on Oct 13, 2005 at 7:10 AM Last night, about 9:00 pm, I heard a loud crash. At first I thought it was Rabbit’s blood pressure hitting critical mass, but as it turned out a car hit the light pole on the corner
Posted by whattheheck on Oct 13, 2005 at 2:07 PM David,
Intermingling fighters with the locals is what makes guerrilla warfare so difficult and why I liken it to the policeman/criminal in an urban setting. Whatever you do or the “bad guy” does, there is substantial risk to civilians. We should have remembered the lessons of Vietnam and avoided the kind of mess we are now embroiled in.In my opinion, what makes the current conflict much worse is the propensity for the radical Muslims to want to kill as many civilians as possible to make the US look all the worse. The sooner we can turn control over to the Iraqis the better. But… They must be able to provide some level of protection for their own population or it will be a bloodbath. This I truly believe based on what happened when the Kurds thought we were going in back in 1991.
For a first hand account read: MARTYR’S DAY, by the late Michael Kelly of the New York Times.
Posted by whattheheck on Oct 13, 2005 at 3:14 PM Salient,
“You’re right. It’s starting to look bleak. And it’s *only* b/c the right is opposing it.”Did you mean opposing a discussion of the topic or opposing Harriet Miers?
Is this a Brer Rabbit, “Please don’t throw me into the briar patch.” ploy to get liberal support in response?
As an old conservative, I am opposed to her as a Supreme Court Justice based only on what has been in the news. I’ll watch the hearings to see if there is more on the plus side, but with a whole host of qualified and experienced judges to choose from this looks like a poor first pick.
Posted by whattheheck on Oct 13, 2005 at 3:25 PM Funny that WTH is now using the tactic of falsely claiming Rabbit is anything but calm. Rabbit’s blood pressure and health are in top shape and as an ARIES and professional pyrotechnician, it might be deduced that Rabbit is a very calm and relaxed soul. The funny thing about this is a couple of shills who seem to work together have been trying that one on lately too, You are not are you WTH? No Rabbit expects you just noticed them trying it and neglected to notice how Rabbit responded. Now you know. By the way Rabbit lives in Southern Hemisphere. He would have to be a very BIG Rabbit for you to hear his blood pressure popping anyway.
WTH the resistance is intermingling with the population as do all resistances because they are PART of the population. YOU are the BAD GUYS here, YOU are the invaders.
The population of IRAQ does not blame the resistance for being in their cities, they blame YOU. YOU are the invaders, that is what the majority are saying, and very clearly. As always all you know about the IRAQIs is what your American MSM tells you about them. You are a fool. If you want to know what the IRAQIs think why don’t you listen to them?
They do not talk to the world only through American interpreters you clown. READ Al-Jazeera. Read IRAQ NEWS. There are dozens of middle eastern MSM news outlets and there are many IRAQIs who blog as well. You are living in your comfortable fairy tale, but it won’t be long before you are going to have to face some unpleasant truths.
You have failed to notice how many Iraqi civilians are being killed not by Iraqis, except the Puppet Troops, but by the US troops.
The Journalists, a record number of whom have been killed, are being killed exclusively by the US troops, or had that fact excaped your notice too? Many of the supposed suicide bombs and car bombs have been attributed to undercover and sometimes blatant US and British actions. Most of the IRAQIs being killed by Iraqis are those lining up to join the police and puppet forces. This is a legitimate tactic in warfare, it is no less than any resistance would do. The main reson that Iraqis are joing the police or military is because there are no jobs and they are starving you fool. READ ABOUT IT FROM THEM.
Many of these Iraqi do not intend to fight against there own people either and that has been proven. What do you think the meaning of only 1- Iraqi Battalion battle ready is?
You are such a hypocrite a blind hubris filled arrogant fool. You are proposing that it’s OK for YOUR troops to enter a sovereign Nation on it’s own say so and occupy that nation by force. All the while using banned weapons of mass destruction and breaking every convention on human rights ever written. You claim that this is entirely right and makes you the good guys, whilst you denounce those who actually live in that countery as terrorists and criminals. You have publicly declared they have no rights, will be tortured or killed out of hand and yet you claim they are beyond the pale when they fight back in whatever way they can.
HOW LOW CAN JOE GO?
Posted by GhostRabbit on Oct 14, 2005 at 12:49 AM Whatthehecks Idea of a fair fight.
Ten of his mates armed to the teeth against One enemy who must be unarmed, naked and preferably with his hands tied as well.
Oh and of course standing out in the open in the middle of the desert, so he is easy to see and kill without killing too many civilians. The civilians need to be around to enjoy the millions of years worth of radiation and the birth defects it is already causing.
Rabbit is calm WTH, but he could very calmy garrot somebody with the above attitudes too.
Stop jabbering about Kurds. Rabbit has many Kurdish friends, they are his main connection to the Middle EAST. The USA has repeatedly let them down and as a result left them sitting ducks for more abuse from assholes like Hussein and the TURKS. The Kurds, just like the Iraqi Shia will make the most of what they can get out of the USA, but they loathe you and cannot wait to see the back of you.
Posted by GhostRabbit on Oct 14, 2005 at 1:05 AM lready quoted and posted on another thread, so just a link. Get some REAL history into you WTH.
http://www.lewrockwell.com/rogers/rogers178.html
Posted by GhostRabbit on Oct 14, 2005 at 3:12 AM One more before Rabbit goes to bed. For all those who will see the sun who has recently left this side of the world. It was looking good when Rabbit last saw it guys, it should be along any moment now.
This was too cool to not post.
It’s only 6:17 a.m. Central time, and President Bush is already facing his second question of the day about Karl Rove’s legal troubles.
“Does it worry you,” NBC’s Matt Lauer is asking him at a construction-site interview in Louisiana, that prosecutors “seem to have such an interest in Mr. Rove?”
Bush blinks twice. He touches his tongue to his lips. He blinks twice more. He starts to answer, but he stops himself.
“I’m not going to talk about the case,” Bush finally says after a three-second pause that, in television time, feels like a commercial break.
Only the president’s closest friends and family know (if anybody does) what he’s really thinking these days, during Katrina woes, Iraq violence, conservative anger over Harriet Miers, and legal trouble for Bush’s top political aide and two congressional GOP leaders. Bush has not been viewed up close; as he took his eighth post-Katrina trip to the Gulf Coast yesterday, the press corps has accompanied him only once, because the White House says logistics won’t permit it. Even the interview on the “Today” show was labeled “closed press.”
But this much could be seen watching the tape of NBC’s broadcast during Bush’s 14-minute pre-sunrise interview, in which he stood unprotected by the usual lectern. The president was a blur of blinks, taps, jiggles, pivots and shifts. Bush has always been an active man, but standing with Lauer and the serene, steady first lady, he had the body language of a man wishing urgently to be elsewhere.
The fidgeting clearly corresponded to the questioning. When Lauer asked if Bush, after a slow response to Katrina, was “trying to get a second chance to make a good first impression,” Bush blinked 24 times in his answer. When asked why Gulf Coast residents would have to pay back funds but Iraqis would not, Bush blinked 23 times and hitched his trousers up by the belt.
When the questioning turned to Miers, Bush blinked 37 times in a single answer—along with a lick of the lips, three weight shifts and some serious foot jiggling. Laura Bush, by contrast, delivered only three blinks and stood still through her entire answer about encouraging volunteerism.”
http://prisonplanet.com/articles/october2005/131005Bush_blinked.htm
For those who fear Jones. The original source, via Jones.
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2005/10/11/AR20051011015 577_pf.html
Posted by GhostRabbit on Oct 14, 2005 at 11:53 AM Page 1 of 1 pages -
register a new account »Posting Security
Also by Stephen J. Fortunato Jr.
- Supreme Court OKs Racial Profiling
- Supreme Court Inc.
The Roberts Court unravels a generation of progress - And Now The Justice Department Eight
- Judging Harriet Miers
Democrats must rise up and challenge conservative claptrap about "activist judges" - Bad on the Basics
John Roberts' affability masks a callous indifference to some of our most fundamental rights - Origin of the Specious
Popular Discussions
- The 9/11 Faith Movement
Many Americans believe 9/11 was a conspiracy by the U.S. government
1979 posts since Jul 11 06 - What’s the 411 on 9/11?
891 posts since Dec 21 05 - Democrats: It’s the War
659 posts since Nov 1 05 - Was the Presidential Election Stolen?
462 posts since Jun 19 06 - A Fundamental History Lesson
The rise of National Socialism proved politics and religion don't mix
427 posts since Oct 10 05
© 2005 In These Times | Reprint Policy | Privacy Policy | Powered by Expression Engine | RSS Feeds
