More BHO administration paranoia...

[YardleyLabs]

Substantially less threatening? Jeff they succeeded in bringing down the Twin Towers, they put a plane into the side of the Pentagon and brave citizens caused the crash of a third airliner that was aimed at either the Capital or the WH. They caused the deaths of thousands of innocent civilians on our OWN SOIL. How the hell can you say it is less threatening??!!

And Vietnam saw 60,000 of our children killed and missing. WWII saw 418,500 US deaths. WWI saw 117,465 US deaths. Without trying to trivialize what happened, the total death toll from 9/11 was less than the normal number of traffic fatalities per month in the US and dramatically less than the number of civilians killed in Iraq during our invasion.

Whose civil liberties? If you are speaking of the terrorists, they got plenty of civil liberties at Gitmo....more than most felons currently in US prisons. And you have not addressed the lack of civil liberties in their viewpoint...you know...the beheadings and hangings...not to mention the autocratic abuses contained in their "Sharia"(not sure of the spelling) law. Talk about civil rights abuses....summary executions of women suspicioned of affairs....public whippings and cannings....these people are animals when it comes to civil liberites yet all you can do is demonize the Bush adminstration? Whose real motivations were not for power for powers sake but for the ability to posture this country to be able to defend itself against another attack.

Without due process, there is no difference between you and a terrorist except the decision of the President. You might want to think about that given your feelings about the current President. Also, it is good to remember that 230 years ago, we were the terrorists. Often, if not usually, terrorists are simply those who do not have access to the tools of war available to their opponents. They must rely on what they have.

You ain't seen nothing, yet. The Obama's of the world seek equality. But their equality is mis-used to pursue "uniform economic and social outcomes". They will seek to enhance their power at the expense of self government and individual liberties. To these folks, liberties are the enemies....they are the enemies of their so-called social/economic utopia. The state is the priority of society, everything must be subordinated to the state.

Obama spoke of a "collective salvation" during his campaign. (Remember the Joe the Plumber conversation). He's all about collectivism not individual rights. His "equality" is all about taking away the individuals rights and through deception and coercion he can subordinate individual freedoms to the Utopia of the State.

There is a term for such subordination of individual freedoms....its called TYRANNY.

C.S. Lewis once said, and it nails the current administration...."Of all tyrannies, a tyranny sincerely exercised for the good of its victims may be the most oppressive. It would be better to live under robber barons(despots) than under omnipotent moral busybodies. The despots cruelty may sometimes sleep, his cupidity(avarice, greed) 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 consciences."

Actually, I see nothing to make me believe this assertion. Personally, I don't expect or desire a society with equal outcomes, although I hope for one with more or less equitable outcomes even though I know this is an impossibility. I believe an income distribution as skewed as our reflects both bad economics and bad politics. I also believe that inherited wealth, if allowed to substantially skew economic opportunities for the non-privileged, is both economically and politically bad.

The notion that any individual lives their life and is rewarded based solely on their own efforts and abilities is a fiction. We all depend on the social and economic infrastructure built through our collective activity for the playing field one which we compete. Take away the roads, the communications infrastructure, the banking and trading systems, etc., and the wealthiest among us will be reduced to subsistence living. Receiving the benefits of that social infrastructure is only one half of the social contract. The other half is paying to support it. Almost by definition, the principal beneficiaries of the social infrastructure are the wealthy. They are the ones who would lose most if that infrastructure ceased to exist and by rights should pay the most to support it.

[Hew]

And Vietnam saw 60,000 of our children killed and missing. WWII saw 418,500 US deaths. WWI saw 117,465 US deaths. Without trying to trivialize what happened, the total death toll from 9/11 was less than the normal number of traffic fatalities per month in the US and dramatically less than the number of civilians killed in Iraq during our invasion. Since you've pulled your Context Prism out of the closet and dusted it off, how 'bout pointing it at other aspects of the Bush/Iraq era that you find so troubling...

In the context of the Civil War, WW1, WW2, Vietnam, etc. the supposed civil liberty violations committed by Bush are downright laughable in comparison to martial law, throwing copperheads in jail, routing veterans protest camps at the end of a bayonet, interning 100,000+ citizens and trying/executing German spies with a few weeks due process.

In the context of previous wars this country has fought, the loss of 4,000 American heros in Iraq is a fraction of the losses we suffered in a single battle in other wars.

In the context of previous wars, what we have spent in Iraq and A-Stan, as a percentage of our GNP, is magnitudes less.

Civilian deaths in 6 years of war in Iraq (even considering that most of those were at the hands of fellow Muslims) are less than one night of bombing in Dresden or one afternoon in Hiroshima.


Without due process, there is no difference between you and a terrorist except the decision of the President. Ah, but the President is duly elected, subject to impeachment and operating within the confines of the checks and balances provided by the Constitution. Moreover, he presides over a country that is the most benevolent , fair and biggest force of good that the world has ever seen. I think that gives us/him just a tad more moral authority than say, Osama bin Laden, Saddam Hussein, etc. You might want to think about that given your feelings about the current President. Also, it is good to remember that 230 years ago, we were the terrorists. Often, if not usually, terrorists are simply those who do not have access to the tools of war available to their opponents. They must rely on what they have.


Actually, I see nothing to make me believe this assertion. Personally, I don't expect or desire a society with equal outcomes, although I hope for one with more or less equitable outcomes even though I know this is an impossibility. I believe an income distribution as skewed as our reflects both bad economics and bad politics. I also believe that inherited wealth, if allowed to substantially skew economic opportunities for the non-privileged, is both economically and politically bad. Are you claiming that wealth is finite, and that one's accumulation of wealth quite naturally comes at the expense of another?

________________________

[Pete]

Quote:
Originally Posted by TXduckdog
Substantially less threatening? Jeff they succeeded in bringing down the Twin Towers, they put a plane into the side of the Pentagon and brave citizens caused the crash of a third airliner that was aimed at either the Capital or the WH. They caused the deaths of thousands of innocent civilians on our OWN SOIL. How the hell can you say it is less threatening??!!

And Vietnam saw 60,000 of our children killed and missing. WWII saw 418,500 US deaths. WWI saw 117,465 US deaths. Without trying to trivialize what happened, the total death toll from 9/11 was less than the normal number of traffic fatalities per month in the US and dramatically less than the number of civilians killed in Iraq during our invasion

Now I know we need to get Libs out of the white house and into the looney bin.

Lets all wait till there are more than a half million dead before we get concerned. And until then lets protect the civil liberties of those who are trying to kill us.

believe an income distribution as skewed as our reflects both bad economics and bad politics. I also believe that inherited wealth, if allowed to substantially skew economic opportunities for the non-privileged, is both economically and politically bad

Jeff it is evidence that your up bringing oversea's infects your judgement.
If families were allowed to keep all that their fathers "fruit of their labors",,, you would see a much wealthier america.

The government steals it and blows it on garbage ,,,worse than a kid in a candy shop.

One of the reasons for poverty is the theft of a families wealth.
We are not talking about mega wealthy here ,,,,I am specifically talking lower middle class.
The f n government even taxes you for dieing,,, what a crock of you know what.



Pete

[road kill]

And Vietnam saw 60,000 of our children killed and missing. WWII saw 418,500 US deaths. WWI saw 117,465 US deaths. Without trying to trivialize what happened, the total death toll from 9/11 was less than the normal number of traffic fatalities per month in the US and dramatically less than the number of civilians killed in Iraq during our invasion.


Without due process, there is no difference between you and a terrorist except the decision of the President. You might want to think about that given your feelings about the current President. Also, it is good to remember that 230 years ago, we were the terrorists. Often, if not usually, terrorists are simply those who do not have access to the tools of war available to their opponents. They must rely on what they have.


Actually, I see nothing to make me believe this assertion. Personally, I don't expect or desire a society with equal outcomes, although I hope for one with more or less equitable outcomes even though I know this is an impossibility. I believe an income distribution as skewed as our reflects both bad economics and bad politics. I also believe that inherited wealth, if allowed to substantially skew economic opportunities for the non-privileged, is both economically and politically bad.

The notion that any individual lives their life and is rewarded based solely on their own efforts and abilities is a fiction. We all depend on the social and economic infrastructure built through our collective activity for the playing field one which we compete. Take away the roads, the communications infrastructure, the banking and trading systems, etc., and the wealthiest among us will be reduced to subsistence living. Receiving the benefits of that social infrastructure is only one half of the social contract. The other half is paying to support it. Almost by definition, the principal beneficiaries of the social infrastructure are the wealthy. They are the ones who would lose most if that infrastructure ceased to exist and by rights should pay the most to support it.

This post defines precisely who you are and what the secular progressives stand for.

BTW---It is not America!!

[Socks]

And Vietnam saw 60,000 of our children killed and missing. WWII saw 418,500 US deaths. WWI saw 117,465 US deaths. Without trying to trivialize what happened, the total death toll from 9/11 was less than the normal number of traffic fatalities per month in the US and dramatically less than the number of civilians killed in Iraq during our invasion.

I usually try to stay out of political forums and I should have known better, but...

Jeff I think apples need to be compared to apples here. If I'm not mistaken there were more people killed on 9/11 than at Pearl Harbor and we went to war with Japan over Pearl Harbor. So what do we do when attacked? Do we just sit back and do nothing? Appeasment won't work with these people and it didn't work with Hitler. I've heard a similar/same argument before about how many people we've lost in Iraq,/Afganistans(sp?) is more than the we lost in the attacks. So using this logic we just right these people off and say too bad you went to work that day? I say no and I say we use two sayings from WWII that come to mind and I'm paraphrasing; "All evil needs to suceed, is for good men to do nothing." and "Sometimes good men have to do bad things."

Jeff I think you were making some good points earlier, but as far as Bush or Obama at the end of the day left or right I don't think they really have our interests in mind. There are some of us who don't think anyone/office, or government entity should accumulate more power under the guise of knowing what's best for "us" the citizens. I think what Bush did in the begining after 9/11 was in unchartered water, but something had to be done. Can we change some of those policies now? I would think so, but it seems some on the left are using the chance to make more knowlegeable decisions as a way to push their agendas. Example, it seems now we're spending more time on possibly prosecuting past officials instead of going after the terrorists. Maybe this is just perception, but sometimes perceptions are closer to the truth. Becuase of perceptions and the perception that the government is working less and less for the common citizen, I don't want the government getting more power or limiting citizen rights. I hope people never have to ask "What rights do we have?" instead of "What rights don't we have?"

[YardleyLabs]

This post defines precisely who you are and what the secular progressives stand for.

BTW---It is not America!!

You may not agree with it, but I fail to see how your beliefs define what is American. Members of my family have fought in every major war we have fought as a country from the Revolutionary War through Vietnam. I was born in this country, live in this country, and have paid cumulative income taxes at the 7-figure level. The first estate tax in this country was adopted in 1787 to help fund the creation of a national navy. The structure for estate taxes was refined during the Civil War and Reconstruction. Estate taxes became a permanent part of our tax structure in 1916. How un-American is that?

With respect to the distribution of income, it is more skewed today than at any time since the 1920's. Franco talks about the glories of the 1950's and 1960's. That was the period when we had the lowest discrepancies between the incomes of the wealthy and the incomes of the middle class. In fact, at that time we were actively urging South American countries to reform their economies to reduce the concentration of wealth because it would lead to political instability. How un-American were we then? Today, we have a concentration of wealth that is worse than that of the South American dictatorships of the 1950's and 1960's. That, in my mind, is somewhat un-American and will undermine our long term stability as a nation.

[TXduckdog]

And Vietnam saw 60,000 of our children killed and missing. WWII saw 418,500 US deaths. WWI saw 117,465 US deaths. Without trying to trivialize what happened, the total death toll from 9/11 was less than the normal number of traffic fatalities per month in the US and dramatically less than the number of civilians killed in Iraq during our invasion.

But Jeff you have trivialized it because you refuse to see the importance of being attacked in our own country and the deaths of innocent civilians. You simply throw up statistics of combat casualties in declared wars. How dare you compare the 9/11 casualties to auto accident victims.
Without due process, there is no difference between you and a terrorist except the decision of the President. You might want to think about that given your feelings about the current President. Also, it is good to remember that 230 years ago, we were the terrorists. Often, if not usually, terrorists are simply those who do not have access to the tools of war available to their opponents. They must rely on what they have.

Again Jeff, you're conviently avoiding the question....you lambast the US for their supposed lack of human rights...yet you say nothing about the incredibly shocking treatment of the barbaric terrorists on their own people and have yet to own up with what they have publicly done to the captives they took. For you not to even admit that what they did to Perlman is the height of hypocrisy.

Actually, I see nothing to make me believe this assertion. Personally, I don't expect or desire a society with equal outcomes, although I hope for one with more or less equitable outcomes even though I know this is an impossibility. I believe an income distribution as skewed as our reflects both bad economics and bad politics. I also believe that inherited wealth, if allowed to substantially skew economic opportunities for the non-privileged, is both economically and politically bad.

Ah, a believer in re-distribution of wealth are you? Pure socialist, aren't you? There is re-distribution of wealth in this country Jeff....it's called taxes.

The notion that any individual lives their life and is rewarded based solely on their own efforts and abilities is a fiction. We all depend on the social and economic infrastructure built through our collective activity for the playing field one which we compete. Take away the roads, the communications infrastructure, the banking and trading systems, etc., and the wealthiest among us will be reduced to subsistence living. Receiving the benefits of that social infrastructure is only one half of the social contract. The other half is paying to support it. Almost by definition, the principal beneficiaries of the social infrastructure are the wealthy. They are the ones who would lose most if that infrastructure ceased to exist and by rights should pay the most to support it.

Wow, Jeff. Try explaining that bit about solely on their own efforts and abilities....to the folks in this country that have scrapped and saved and created successful businesses that employ other folks, AND PAID THE FUCKING TAXES THAT BUILT YOUR PRECIOUS INFRASTRUCTURE. THE GOVERNMENT DIDN'T CREATE MONEY TO BUILD ANYTHING. THEY PAID FOR THE INFRASTRUCTURE OFF THE BACKS OF THE WORKING CLASS OF THIS COUNTRY, YOU NITWIT. AND WE'RE STILL PAYING FOR IT, YOU MORON. And don't forget, the wealthy in this country pay more in tax dollars than a lot of people make in their lives. They do pay more and the most to support it. It's simple mathmatics. As for not having the infrastructure and being reduced to subsistance living....WRONG AGAIN....the genius that they possess to create wealth would be directed at building infrastructure.....oh wait...it already has....the government uses private contractors for every stinking bit of infrastructure developement. Name me one government run construction company that built the interstate highway system, the electric power grid, the Internet, etc, etc, etc.

Geez, Jeff....you've been drinking the kool-aid of the left for so long, you aren't hardly rational anymore. You've totally bought into the crazy left wing lunacy of today's academia....who hate America and the liberties we possess. You and the left can't stand the thought of liberty because it means you and the left can't control it....you can't create your socialist utopia where everybody pays the same without taking liberty away.

[road kill]

You may not agree with it, but I fail to see how your beliefs define what is American. Members of my family have fought in every major war we have fought as a country from the Revolutionary War through Vietnam. I was born in this country, live in this country, and have paid cumulative income taxes at the 7-figure level. The first estate tax in this country was adopted in 1787 to help fund the creation of a national navy. The structure for estate taxes was refined during the Civil War and Reconstruction. Estate taxes became a permanent part of our tax structure in 1916. How un-American is that?

With respect to the distribution of income, it is more skewed today than at any time since the 1920's. Franco talks about the glories of the 1950's and 1960's. That was the period when we had the lowest discrepancies between the incomes of the wealthy and the incomes of the middle class. In fact, at that time we were actively urging South American countries to reform their economies to reduce the concentration of wealth because it would lead to political instability. How un-American were we then? Today, we have a concentration of wealth that is worse than that of the South American dictatorships of the 1950's and 1960's. That, in my mind, is somewhat un-American and will undermine our long term stability as a nation.

I appreciate what the members of your family did for America.

I do NOT appreciate what people like you are doing TO America.

I do not define Liberty, Justice and Freedom.
And YOU do NOT get to take them away.

Enough!!

[YardleyLabs]

I usually try to stay out of political forums and I should have known better, but...

Jeff I think apples need to be compared to apples here. If I'm not mistaken there were more people killed on 9/11 than at Pearl Harbor and we went to war with Japan over Pearl Harbor. So what do we do when attacked? Do we just sit back and do nothing? Appeasment won't work with these people and it didn't work with Hitler. I've heard a similar/same argument before about how many people we've lost in Iraq,/Afganistans(sp?) is more than the we lost in the attacks. So using this logic we just right these people off and say too bad you went to work that day? I say no and I say we use two sayings from WWII that come to mind and I'm paraphrasing; "All evil needs to suceed, is for good men to do nothing." and "Sometimes good men have to do bad things."

Jeff I think you were making some good points earlier, but as far as Bush or Obama at the end of the day left or right I don't think they really have our interests in mind. There are some of us who don't think anyone/office, or government entity should accumulate more power under the guise of knowing what's best for "us" the citizens. I think what Bush did in the begining after 9/11 was in unchartered water, but something had to be done. Can we change some of those policies now? I would think so, but it seems some on the left are using the chance to make more knowlegeable decisions as a way to push their agendas. Example, it seems now we're spending more time on possibly prosecuting past officials instead of going after the terrorists. Maybe this is just perception, but sometimes perceptions are closer to the truth. Becuase of perceptions and the perception that the government is working less and less for the common citizen, I don't want the government getting more power or limiting citizen rights. I hope people never have to ask "What rights do we have?" instead of "What rights don't we have?"

We went to war with Afghanistan and al Quaeda in retaliation for the 9/11 attacks. Those were the right wars to launch. I only wish they had been pursued to their conclusion eight years ago so we would not be having to start over now. The issue was to what extent did the attack on 9/11 represent an existential threat to our survival justifying an extraorindary rewriting of our civil liberties. In my mind, the threat was not existential and did not warrant such actions by the administration. What was warranted was finishing the job in Afghanistan and that is the one thing that was botched as the administration pursued other agendas.

[K G]

What was warranted was finishing the job in Afghanistan and that is the one thing that was botched as the administration pursued other agendas.

So explain to me WHY this administration thinks it can "win" in Afghanistan???

Oxymoronic regards,

kg